Mar. 31 - Terri Schiavo Dies at the age of 41

Posted by: Debbye at 11:04 AM | Comments (20) | Add Comment
Post contains 17 words, total size 1 kb.

Mar. 31 - From the NY Times, States are taking a new look at end-of-life legislation (alternate and longer-life link from the UPI-Washington Times article on the same subject here if you don't want to register with the NYT.)

Some legislative proposals are drawn straight from the battle between Terri Schiavo's parents and her husband. Among them is the Alabama Starvation and Dehydration Prevention Act, which would forbid the removal of a feeding tube without express written instructions from the patient. And a legislator in Michigan is writing a bill that would bar adulterers from making decisions for an incapacitated spouse.

In other cases, state lawmakers want to make living wills more widely available or simply to clarify the laws that govern the fate of someone in Ms. Schiavo's position. She left no written instructions.

New end-of-life legislation has been introduced in at least 10 states. ..

[...]

In Michigan, Representative Joel Sheltrown, the author of a proposal to strip people who are having extramarital affairs of their right to make decisions for an incapacitated spouse, is a Democrat, meaning he may have an uphill battle in the Republican-dominated Legislature.

But Mr. Sheltrown was not the only one to entertain such a notion. Last week Ken Connor, a legal adviser to Governor Bush on the Schiavo case, said Florida should have such a law. Opponents of Ms. Schiavo's husband, Michael Schiavo, say he should not be allowed to make medical decisions for his wife because he is living with another woman.

Other bills seek to draw a line between a feeding tube and other life-sustaining measures. In Louisiana and Alabama, Republicans have introduced bills that would assume, in the absence of a written directive, that a patient wanted food and water. In Louisiana, the bill would require that a feeding tube remain in place until any litigation over its removal was resolved. In Alabama, Representative Dick Brewbaker, the bill's Republican sponsor, said he would probably make the law apply only in the event of a family dispute.

Posted by: Debbye at 09:21 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 353 words, total size 2 kb.

Mar. 31 - While Americans struggle with hearts and minds over the many issues that have been brought to the fore during her parents' fight to save their daughter, Terri Schiavo, the Dutch are now contemplating what should be done when doctors decide it's best to kill infants, the mentally handicapped or the demented. From AP:

THE DUTCH government, first to legalize euthanasia for terminally ill people, will tackle an even thornier ethical dilemma: What to do when doctors say it's best to end the lives of infants, the mentally handicapped or the demented. The Royal Dutch Medical Association says guidelines and a panel of experts should be created to vet such cases. Doctors acting with the families' permission would not be punished for administering lethal sedatives to "people with no free will" in cases that pass review.

Under current law, euthanasia is restricted to terminal patients suffering unbearable pain with no hope of improvement and who, when they are still of sound mind, request to die.

Posted by: Debbye at 08:46 AM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 222 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Damn Dutch. Just as bad as the Belgians.

Posted by: Blackglasses at March 31, 2005 10:42 AM (t+KkC)

2 The Dutch initially countered the resultant publicity by falsely stating that it is only done with the family's permission. But Dutch officials later admitted that, in fact, a doctor can overrule a family's decision when the family does not reach the right conclusion due to emotional involvement. It appears that the Dutch have learned little from their shameful collaboration with the Nazis.

Posted by: mikem at March 31, 2005 07:09 PM (EzNXf)

3 There's no one else on this website but me and this tool, right?

Posted by: Blackglasses at March 31, 2005 08:32 PM (t+KkC)

4 "in fact, a doctor can overrule a family's decision when the family does not reach the right conclusion due to emotional involvement" Translation: If they disagree with what Doctor Mengele wants to do. IOW, a family has no say - they are asked then ignored.

Posted by: Jay at April 01, 2005 04:24 AM (PuNh2)

5 Maybe the problem lies in the unquestioning faith we are expected to invest in experts and spec*ialists, or perhaps it's that they have have come to believe in their own infallibility. Or the issue may be even more fundamental: we are living too long, health care is too expensive, and when the state assumes the financial burden they try to find ways to cut corners, as it were.

Posted by: Debbye at April 01, 2005 08:15 AM (I0F6J)

6 With this kind of thinking,I'm not sure if my Dad and most of his peer group actually cleaned out all the baddies some 60 odd years ago.Sounds like some remnant of them stayed around to fester.

Posted by: big al at April 01, 2005 10:49 AM (SO/54)

7 I don't think going after individuals would have done any long term good, there's just a lot of things weird about the way europeans think. Maybe there's something in the water.

Posted by: Jay at April 01, 2005 02:58 PM (PuNh2)

8 Or the issue may be even more fundamental: we are living too long, health care is too expensive, and when the state assumes the financial burden they try to find ways to cut corners, as it were. I think that's closest to the truth. I mean, why even begin to ask if the retarded should be euthanised (such a harmless, pretty word) if they are not seen, first, as a burden? Does someone with Downs Syndrome feel pain? Are they in agony? Of course not. The only way this debate even BEGINS is if the society considers them to be worthless and, thus, disposable. "Euthanasia: Putting them out our misery since 2005" --new European Medical Association slogan

Posted by: Tuning Spork at April 01, 2005 10:58 PM (ZTSbg)

9 I absolutely support a right to die. I think it is just cruel to expect someone to live with untreatable pain or what they reasonably think is an undignified existence if they can clearly state their wish to die. It is the basic individual right. But when the state, or the state's experts start deciding for me or for Tuning Spork's Down Child example or (cringe) for his parents then it scares the hell out of me. I was stunned when I read what the Dutch were up to. I can only hope that this was something under the Dutch population's radar and not something that has been debated and accepted. From what I understand of the deception involved it appears that this is not a popular or well known policy. "Euthanasia: Putting them out our misery..." Sounds right on the money.

Posted by: mikem at April 02, 2005 12:30 AM (EzNXf)

10 Of course, that should read "Putting them out OF our misery". But that was understood, I think. I hate when leave words out.

Posted by: Tuning Spork at April 02, 2005 02:02 PM (xbU4Y)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Mar. 30 - Not entirely a surprise: Ann Coulter causes stir at KU although the headline is misleading - usually, it's the hecklers who are said to cause the stir.

Or maybe they didn't approve of her solution:

"Could 10 of the largest College Republicans start walking up and down the aisles and start removing anyone shouting?" Coulter asked.

Posted by: Debbye at 03:17 PM | Comments (23) | Add Comment
Post contains 69 words, total size 1 kb.

Mar. 30 - An former Edmonton man, Kassem Daher, was named as a money-raiser for al Qaeda and is believed to have operated movie theatres towards that end.

Daher hasn't resided in Edmonton since 1998.

In 2000, he was arrested in Lebanon after a shootout between police and alleged terrorists. After his arrest, Daher's relatives denied he was ever involved in terrorism and urged the Canadian government to intervene on his behalf. He was never formally charged with a crime in Lebanon or Canada and has been free on bail for the past year, Barbara Campion, a spokeswoman for CSIS (Canadian Security Intelligence Service) told CanWest News Service on Tuesday.

[...]

Earlier this week, the U.S. Attorney's Office in Miami released a 14-page affidavit sworn out by FBI agent John T. Kavanaugh detailing what he described as the "Jayyousi-Daher-Hassoun North American Support Network" for Islamic terror.

"The investigation of Jayyousi, Daher (and) Hassoun began in late 1993 and revealed that they had formed a network across North America to fundraise for and recruit mujahedeen to train and fight in various jihad areas including but not limited to Bosnia, Kosovo, Chechnya, and Somalia," the affidavit states.

"During the times relevant to this investigation, Daher resided in Leduc, Canada."

FBI surveillance teams recorded numerous conversations between the three men and others involved in the network, including onetime leader Mohamed Zaky, who died in 1995 fighting in Chechnya.

"Daher and Jayyousi also discussed setting up a for-profit business in order to fund jihad," the affidavit states. "Daher then mentioned his organization, the Canadian Islamic Association, which he described as a 'cover, I mean it's very good.' "

I ran a google to find the Canadian Islamic Association and found that it is a registered organization, has a business license in Leduc (among other places,) and was cited in an item at the Canadian Newspaper Association web site: Muslim chastizes Canadian media for erroneous coverage of Islam and terrorism.

(Link via Neale News.)

Posted by: Debbye at 02:33 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 423 words, total size 3 kb.

Mar. 30 - Five upstanding, hardworking Members of Parliament plan to spend $200,000 visiting brothels in Europe and the USA.

Don't worry, it's legit. Really. The MPs are members of a federal committee that is reviewing prostitution laws (some people, including sex workers, believe the trade should be legal and taxed.)

An MPP (member of provincial parliament) made the federal MPs a counter offer: MPP Peter Kormos (NDP) [said] "We're talking about five federal members on a junket touring European whorehouses at a cost of $40,000 each," Kormos said yesterday. "I can take anyone of them down to Bridge St. in Niagara Falls and get them laid for less than $50."

Give up the glories of "Britain, the Netherlands, Sweden and Nevada" for a weekend trip to Niagara Falls? Save the taxpayers the unnecessary expense of travel abroad when the "research" could be done in our own backyard?

Calgary Sun columnist Rick Bell does a nice bit of commentary on this in Merry mission. As he says, "For once, call it what it is. The $200,000 sin city soiree, the vice-is-nice world tour, one jolly junket."

He also has some questions about other aspects of the spending:

The cash to cruise goes to five MPs and three staff for transportation, hotel, food and ... I hate this word ... miscellaneous. In this case, miscellaneous means money for interpreters, gifts and fees. Gifts and fees? Are there going to be receipts?

Apr. 12 - The trip may be off.

Posted by: Debbye at 12:41 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 293 words, total size 2 kb.

Mar. 30 - Tuning Spork made a wonderfully terse comment on an earlier post that summed up the base line in the Terri Schiavo case: At some point we gotta, finally, ask ourselves if the value of life is worth the value of a Life.

Tuning Spork rips apart Neal Boortz's weird column on why Terri Schiavo should be allowed to die. (Did I say weird? It was beyond weird, and read more as though Boortz drew the short straw when they were divvying up debate positions in journalism class.)

Tuning Spork answers Boortz as perhaps only a sometimes-agnostic sometimes-atheist can do in by looking at science, not metaphysics, and uses logic rather than New Age out-of-body experiences.

He also uses some more excellently blunt language:

What we are forgetting about here is that God instructs us on how to live. This is IT, folks. This is the Test. This is the time. This is who we are. Right frickin' NOW!

The ongoing debate really isn't about religion, scriptural verses, or anything other than Who.We.Are, and if we have retained sufficient humility to know that we don't know the answers to everything, and therefore, as there is doubt, chose to do no harm.

It wasn't that long ago that liberals were arguing cases for the mentally and physically handicapped and urging that every effort should be made to try to teach and provide therapy that would allow them to experience the fullest lives of which they were capable despite their disabilities.

Or maybe I am one of the few who remembers the advocacy for newborns who were diagnosed with Down's Syndrome and had been allowed to die by withholding nourishment.

Posted by: Debbye at 06:27 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 290 words, total size 2 kb.

1 When the law doesn't foresee a situation happening, the best you can do is to modify the law for the next time. By the law as it stands, the feeding tube was specifically considered "life support". Also by the law, the only option was to remove life support, even though it meant a prolonged period before the body ceased to function. Terri Schiavo is the proverbial 'wrong place at the wrong time' victim. Hopefully, there will be debate and wisdom applied to adjust the applicable laws to keep this whole circus from happening again.

Posted by: Ted at March 30, 2005 12:42 PM (blNMI)

2 There you go again, being all reasonable and rational! Seriously, when you're right, you're right Ted, yet there's a stubborness in me that keeps hoping she can be saved. There has to be a first, right? As you predict, the laws in many states will be re-examined and probably changed. We learn more by our errors than our successes.

Posted by: Debbye at March 30, 2005 12:59 PM (a3FvC)

3 I agree with Ted 100%, too. I was saving that for my requiem post. I'm actually very relieved that Jeb Bush didn't break the law to save Terri. "Wrong place at the wrong time". Precisely. All I know, for sure, of what I'll write after Terri dies is the first line: "I love America." Reminds me of The Godfather.

Posted by: Tuning Spork at March 30, 2005 09:08 PM (GIVbO)

4 Some state legislatures are already looking at legislation in response to the case: Schiavo has states studying rights bills edited to add NY Times link on the same story here. That's our system: discuss, debate, write letters and/or blogs, push for change, and keep on keeping the pressure on until changes (or, more often, compromises) are made. That's why I too love America, warts and all. We ain't pretty but we hang in and get it done.

Posted by: Debbye at March 31, 2005 08:54 AM (CyDjY)

5 Blogs are a joke. You know it. Bunch of self-important & underemployed egotists. Once this fad dies out (and it is a fad- you know as well as i do that Americans have super short attention spans) I can't wait for all the soul-searching essays on "HOW BLOGS FAILED US"

Posted by: Blackglasses at March 31, 2005 10:47 AM (t+KkC)

6 Blackglasses: Could you provide some back up for your assertions instead of sounding like Major Hofsteder from Hogan's Heros.

Posted by: Richard Cook at March 31, 2005 11:37 AM (Km34P)

7 Richard, don't feed the troll.

Posted by: Ted at April 01, 2005 12:24 PM (blNMI)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Mar. 30 - The second part of the Volcker Interim Report (on the U.N. Oil-for-Food scandal) is available in .pdf here.

Note: I was unable to view ithe document until I updated my version of Adobe Acrobat. If you're having problems, try googling "Adobe Acrobat + [insert your OS]" to find a link that will upgrade properly.

Link via Roger L. Simon, who comments on the report here and on some pre-report information here and here (although I doubt I need tell anyone who has followed this scandal to read Roger!)

14:25 - The Montreal Gazette thinks that the Volcker Interim Report did not clear Kofi Annan of wrongdoing but left it up to the public to connect the dots themselves. Oh, those shredded documents ...

Posted by: Debbye at 05:54 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 136 words, total size 1 kb.

Mar. 29 - Mohamed Harkat, an Ottawa resident, faces deportation to Algeria after a federal judge ruled that he was a terrorist on March 22 and poses a threat to national security:

Judge Eleanor Dawson ruled that two federal cabinet ministers made a reasonable decision in December 2002 when they concluded that Mr. Harkat was a member of al-Qaeda, the world's foremost terrorist organization.

And she flatly dismissed Mr. Harkat's sworn testimony, during which he denied any connection to terrorism or the al-Qaeda network, as the work of a liar.

There is credible, reliable information from a number of independent sources, including the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), that contradicts Mr. Harkat's evidence, the judge said.

"On the basis of the confidential information," she said, "it is clear and beyond doubt that Mr. Harkat lied under oath to the court in several important respects."

... she did not rely on the evidence of Mr. Zubayda, who was thought by Mr. Harkat's defence team to be a linchpin in the government's case.

Judge Dawson said she could not rely upon Mr. Zubayda's evidence because she was not told exactly what he said or the circumstances under which he identified Mr. Harkat.

Mr. Zubayda had been the only informant identified by the court as giving credible evidence against Mr. Harkat.

As a result, the defence team spent considerable time trying to establish that Mr. Zubayda had been tortured into giving that evidence.

Mr. Copeland said the experience highlights the "impossibility" of defending someone against a security certificate: "In these cases, you have no idea of the case you have to meet, and you have no idea of how to meet it.

"It is a process that is unfair and violates fundamental justice. But the courts don't seem to agree with me on that issue."

Indeed, Judge Dawson defended the process in her decision, arguing that it is constitutionally sound and offers fundamental justice to foreign citizens accused of terrorism.

The judge concluded there were reasonable grounds to find Mr. Harkat is a member of al-Qaeda who has repeatedly lied to Canadian officials about his terrorist links.

Mr. Harkat came to Canada in 1995 after five years in Pakistan, during which time he said he worked as a warehouse manager for the Muslim World League.

But Judge Dawson said there's reasonable grounds to believe Mr. Harkat travelled to Afghanistan during the early 1990s and developed an association with Mr. Zubayda, who ran two al-Qaeda training camps.

The judge found that Mr. Harkat was also unbelievable when he described his relationship with Ahmed Said Khadr, a known associate of Osama bin Laden's who was once the ranking al-Qaeda member in Canada. (Mr. Khadr was killed in the fall of 2003 during a gun battle with Pakistani forces after fleeing Afghanistan.)

Mr. Harkat admitted on the witness stand that he met Mr. Khadr in Ottawa and travelled with him to Toronto by car. Mr. Harkat claims he met Mr. Khadr through his roommate, Mohamed El Barseigy, and that he did not converse at length with him during a five-hour ride to Toronto.

Judge Dawson concluded that testimony was "inherently implausible and incredible."

[...]

Judge Dawson's decision on the reasonableness of the security certificate cannot be appealed to a higher court.

Posted by: Debbye at 03:51 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 583 words, total size 4 kb.

Mar. 29 - One of my favourite tools in our arsenal is a Predator armed with a Hellfire missile. It has the elegance of hitting them when they least expect it, and the tactical advantage of making them feel (rightly) vulnerable - by the time you see it, it's too late.

I am pleased that there are plans to increase the fleet which Murdoc has covered here and he also provides the link to a video of a Predator firing a hellfire missile.

Posted by: Debbye at 03:36 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 91 words, total size 1 kb.

Mar. 29 - I probably should have commented on the the meeting between PM Paul Martin, Pres. Bush and Pres. Fox but I was too irritated that the press up here kept calling them The Three Amigos (doesn't anyone up here speak enough Spanish to know that amigos means friends?) (and yes, I saw the stupid movie) and it wasn't as though it was more than a meeting for public consumption, the "We are family" kind of public appearance in which the press up here imagines Important Stuff is going on and the rest of us are wondering if Presidents Fox and Bush managed to reach some understanding about the growing numbers of illegal immigrants undocumented workers that are coming into the U.S. from Mexico.

But there was some interesting commentary too. Greg Weston in Smiling Texans, glum Canucks notes too that nothing really happened at the meeting between Bush and Martin.

I agree with that assessment, unless "more of the same" counts. Measures for Establishing North American Security since Sept. 11 have been announced after every meeting between Canada and the USA and will likely continue to be announced after every future meeting. The press keeps reporting on that as though it's really news, so either they are dumb enough to actually believe it this time or they haven't noticed yet that the it's the same, tired press release. (I guess that also translates to being dumb. Whatever.)

Back to the meeting. There are actually real outstanding issues between Canada and the USA involving (what else?) trade. For those keeping score:
Soft wood lumber - no resolution.
The cow thing - no resolution.
Lunch - BBQ or Thai?

Douglas Fisher thinks Canada should be more curious about George but I suspect his advice is falling on deaf ears (if that's what you call people who have their fingers stuck firmly in their ears.)

Bob MacDonald's column notes that Martin actually stepped foot on the ranch, something Chretien never accomplished, and received a gift from the President - a pair of cowboy boots. (Make your own joke. I'm not touching it - besides, my heart is set on a pair like Condi's. Mmm.)

Posted by: Debbye at 03:05 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 379 words, total size 3 kb.

Mar. 29 - Cliff Cornell is an army deserter who is now a peace volunteer and one of 8 deserters all of whom want to stay in Canada.

From Mar. 25, Jeremy Hinzman will appeal the refugee board decision which denied him asylum status (Dodger insists: I'll stay) yet as the headline indicates, there is a persistent attempt to evoke the Vietnam era by terming him a dodger - he is not a draft dodger but a deserter, having voluntarily joined the US Army and even served in Afghanistan.

Supporters of Hinzman claim the decision was pro-war advancing the notion again that it was "illegal" and "Bush's war," despite the fact that it was approved by Congress.

Bill O'Reilly had it wrong, by the way, when he talked about the case. The decision by the appeal board had little to do with concerns over U.S.-Canada relations and more to do with the large number of claimants seeking asylum that arrive in Canada each year and a population that has grown increasingly suspicious of the process due to a large number of bogus claimants. Hinzman's assertion that he would be harshly punished pales in comparison to the real dangers people face were they to be returned to their native lands and indicated his real contempt for genuine asylum seekers who don't face jail but face torture and death.

Refugee claimants are already viewed with cynicism. Hinzman may well have hoped to capitalize on anti-American sentiment but had the refugee board granted his request it would have set a precedent for granting asylum on political bases rather than humanitarian and would have further undercut the credibility of the board.

Posted by: Debbye at 02:23 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 285 words, total size 2 kb.

Mar. 29 - I'm referring to the King of Snark, Paul, who has some new posts up. My favourite (because I love it when Paul gets nasty satirical) is This Week in Revisionist History in which Paul notes a number of measures that seem to defraud history, much as air-brushing the cigarette from Satre's lips has done. For example, he wonders about the sudden urge to remove a statue of Franco in Spain:

Don't get me wrong, I can understand when statues are toppled by people during revolutions, and I'm all for that, but when the people can't be bothered to go out and destroy the bloody thing themselves, I find these arbitrary governmental decisions peculiar, especially when, like in this case, it's so long after the man's death, and calling the statue a "symbol of division" seems like a rather flimsy excuse (not to mention that, considering Zapatero's core beliefs, it seems like nothing but a settling of scores with someone who can't fight back; if Franco was alive, I suppose that Zapatero would have gone with his usual drop pants, pass the KY solution).

Posted by: Debbye at 02:14 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 206 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Ahhh, cheers for the link, luv.

Posted by: Paul Jané at March 29, 2005 05:45 PM (FOtPl)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Mar. 29 - Education just isn't what it used to be: Death Penalty Tossed Over Jury's Bible Study:

DENVER — The Colorado Supreme Court on Monday threw out the death penalty in a rape-and-murder case because jurors had studied Bible verses such as "eye for eye, tooth for tooth" during deliberations.

On a 3-2 vote, justices ordered Robert Harlan to serve life in prison without parole for kidnapping 25-year-old cocktail waitress Rhonda Maloney in 1994, raping her at gunpoint for two hours and then fatally shooting her.

The jurors in Harlan's 1995 trial sentenced him to die, but defense lawyers discovered five of them had looked up Bible verses, copied them down and talked about them while deliberating a sentence behind closed doors.

The Supreme Court said "at least one juror in this case could have been influenced by these authoritative passages to vote for the death penalty when he or she may otherwise have voted for a life sentence." [Irritating (search) notations deleted]

But the real curiosity was in the findings of the appeal. The judge should have known that the legal concept of equal punishment for equal transgression was actually codified by a Babylonian king in 2500 B.C. in what has come to be known as the The Code of Hammurabi which systematically organized earlier laws into one code:

The code then regulates in clear and definite strokes the organization of society. The judge who blunders in a law case is to be expelled from his judgeship forever, and heavily fined. The witness who testifies falsely is to be slain. Indeed, all the heavier crimes are made punishable with death. Even if a man builds a house badly, and it falls and kills the owner, the builder is to be slain. If the owner's son was killed, then the builder's son is slain. We can see where the Hebrews learned their law of "an eye for an eye." These grim retaliatory punishments take no note of excuses or explanations, ..

Oh well, at least weird stuff is finally coming out of Colorado again (All the, um, semi-oddball states have to do their part, you know.)

(No offense intended to residents of Colorado. I'm a native of California, so I get that you may be tired of everyone thinking you're all crazy.)

(Really, I more than get it. I endured years of strange looks when I told people I was from California. They either thought I was either crazy to leave or as nutty as a fruitcake just because I was born there. You just gotta know when you can't win.)

Mar. 30 - 02:20 Many thanks to commenter TimR for providing a link to the NY Times article on the Co. Supreme Court ruling which has much more context than the Fox report.

Mr. Harlan is one deranged man. His victim escaped and waved down a passing vehicle, Harlan caught up with them, shot the motorist leaving her paralyzed and then shot and killed his first victim. He did not kill on impulse but exhibited a cold determination to kill.

The defense lawyers brought up the Bible (it's inferred that this happened during statements before the jury retired to consider the sentence) and urged the jurors to consult Biblical wisdom, including the mercy God showed to Abraham (referring to Isaac, I assume.)

Legal experts said that Colorado was unusual in its language requiring jurors in capital felony cases to explicitly consult a moral compass. Most states that have restored the death penalty weave in a discussion of moral factors, lawyers said, along with the burden that jurors must decide whether aggravating factors outweigh mitigating factors in voting on execution.

The Bible, the court said, constituted an improper outside influence and a reliance on what the court called a "higher authority.

Personal moral compasses and reliance on "higher authorities" have long trumped the law of the state and many brave souls, such as the early Christian martyrs, Henry David Thoreau, John Brown, Susan B. Anthony, those who sheltered Anne Frank and defied Nazi law, Mahatma Ghandi, Dr. King, and thousands of freedom marchers have disobeyed the law and inspired millions more and, by their appeal to the moral compasses of others, profoundly changed the world for the better.

Moral compasses have long trumped the law because when it does not do so we silently allow gays, Jews, gypsies and other "undesirables" to be transported to gas chambers, we do not challenge laws that legislate second class citizenship within our nations, and we stand idly by while genocide is committed in places like Iraq, Rwanda and Sudan.

Free people have moral compasses. Sheep do not.

Colorado Conservative Darren has some reflections on the decision and more information about the Colorado ruling.

Posted by: Debbye at 12:53 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 966 words, total size 6 kb.

Mar. 28 - Hello everyone! We spent a fairly intensive family-filled weekend. Mark's brother came down from Sault Ste. Marie to attend a bridge tournament here and we managed to catch up on family news and solve most of the world's problems (funny how much of that goes on in living rooms!)

I always have mixed feelings on holidays. There's the ubiquitous nostalgia for the days when we'd hide the eggs anticipating the fun as the kids would uncover them in the most unlikely places (although the dog beat them all on that score!) but those memories contrast sharply with the living reality of seeing competent, adult children who managed to turn out alright despite our fumbling, learn-it-as-you-go approach to child-raising. Raising children is a humbling experience, and even though one does everything one can to protect them from every conceivable danger and to teach them right from wrong, there is simply no certainty and far too often unpredictable luck saves, teaches, and/or hurts them.

The news over the weekend seemed dominated with issues of life and death, and in two of the instances the parents have been at the forefront. It was sobering, to say the least.

Terri Schiavo and the determination of her parents to save her continued to figure prominently in the news, and I think one aspect of her case that younger reporters don't understand is the horror of losing a child. I keep hearing interviews with people referring to making similar decisions on behalf of their parents or with others who believe the case has become personal because we might each be a Terri, but but that completely misses the point.

What would we do were one of our children in Terri's state? One thing I never envisioned would be that I might have to talk to my kids about what they would want us to do should they be in such a condition and it's not a conversation I am looking forward to. (We chose to avoid it at Eastertime. It seemed wrong to have such a conversation while we were celebrating the triumph of life over death.)

We know that we will eventually have to say goodbye to our parents or that we could be struck down and left half-way between life and death, but what parent really expects to bury their child? There's a good reason we have the phrase "a parent's worst nightmare" and it's because such thoughts rarely intrude in our waking moments (in large part because we hastily push them aside - who could abide such thoughts without going mad?) The struggle around Terri Schiavo has a specific personal content for those of us with adult children and raises questions that are not easily answered.

When do we really give up guardianship over our children? Does marriage supercede parental care? I've tried to avoid attacking Michael Schiavo because I can't see into his heart and it is quite possible that he believes he is following Terri's wishes, but I don't understand why he has failed to authorize medical procedures that have been developed over the past fifteen years or aggressive therapy techniques that could have improved her condition. Most parents would pursue any and all courses that might restore, even partially, their child.

It is so easy to assume that we would not want to live in such and such a condition, but humans have a stubborn tendency to fight to live despite terrible pain and our instinct for surivival is not a thing stemming from our heads but from our hearts, and that instinct for survival includes the lengths to which we will go to save our children.

The Constitutional issues this case has stirred are not easily resolved, but there seems a clear antagonism between the executive and legislative branches - federal and state - and the judiciary which exceeds the definitions of federal and state jurisdictions. I tend to refrain from hoping that Gov. Jeb Bush will violate the law, which he would be doing should he defy the courts, but that's reflective mostly of a reluctance to see a publicly elected official put himself above the legally installed judiciary and the implications of such an act.

Yet the governor of a state can legally intervene to stop a legally ordered execution of a prisoner on death row. It doesn't make sense to allow the power to grant life in that instance but not in Terri's.

The intransigence of the courts may be the ultimate root story here. The federal court chose a narrow interpretation of "Terri's Law" which went contrary to the intent of the legislation, and that may well cause more people to question if the judiciary is tipping the balance implicit in the Constitutional separation of powers rather than maintaining it. This case may well begin a series of legislative initiatives to restrain courts which have tended increasingly to make laws rather than interpret them. It will certainly lend flavour in confirmation hearings for judicial appointments where the philosophies of strict interpretation of the Constitution and laws is counterposed to those who believe the Constitution is a "living document."

Far less easily addressed are the questions which must be raised on behalf of those parents who were forced to endure the worst of a parent's worst nightmare during Easter week. There is simply no comment that I, or anyone, can make that could adequately address the hell they went through and the grief of the outcomes much less reflect on what those young girls suffered, so there's been mostly focus on the more clinical analysis of how laws and the courts serve to protect our children from predators.

Most people understand that we must protect those who cannot defend themselves, and the growing anger at the failure of the legal system to keep faith with those who believe in that principle are combining to challenge what is seen as a "soft" approach to pedophiles and other sex offenders who, in accordance with one of our most basic principles, are released after serving their time without being branded or otherwise marked to warn of the danger they may represent because they served their time and have been released with the injunction not to break the law again.

Two, basic legal precepts are in stark contrast, and there needs to be some way found to reconcile them. We believe that those who serve their time should be regarded as rehabilitated and given a chance to begin new lives, and we believe that our children must be protected from predators who defy rehabilitation.

The other big story this weekend, the failing health of John Paul II, represents a different kind of contrast to the first two stories. This man, who led the Catholic Church during a tumultous period which saw the fall of the Berlin Wall, the struggle against Islamofascism and the child abuse scandals, might be said to have fulfilled his destiny. He will leave this world with a legacy that historians will eventually define, but I suspect that one part of that legacy must be the extent to which it inspired and provoked people much as the struggle for Terri Schiavo has.

It is appropriate, although harsh, that the Easter weekend was the backdrop for vast issues concerning the meaning of life, crime and punishment, and death with dignity. We rarely resolve such issues until major controversies force us to confront the fact that they are indeed issues in need of resolution, and the matter of whether those issues are to be resolved with or despite the courts is not the least of the matter.

Mar. 29 - 11:36: Bill of Strong World provided a link in an earlier comment to an essay by Alan Keyes, Why Jeb Bush has the power to act now, which goes into more detail (and better) than I did on the options available to the executive and legislative branches when the judiciary exceeds its authority.

Darned good article. I don't agree with Mr. Keyes's call to action only because I don't think the American people are yet persuaded that the judiciary needs to be restrained and they would view vigorous executive action to defy a court ruling with alarm (yet another downside of the failure to teach the Constitution and civics in schools is the total ignorance of Americans about the workings of their own branches of government, but that's a rant for another time.)

What I do see is that relatively mild surprise has been generated by some of the recent, more questionable rulings which has yet to cascade into the kind of public outrage the legislative and executive branches feel they must have before they actually confront the judiciary. (Or I could be wrong, and Jeb Bush will ignore the court ruling, take guardianship of Terri Schiavo, and appoint an independent advocate on her behalf.) I think it more likely that we may see a series of legislative initiatives that will indirectly confront the courts and gain public support by putting a spotlight on questionable rulings.

I'm sure I'm not the only person who noted that the Supreme Court ducked the Pledge of Allegiance issue on a loophole!

12:01 - Hmm, FoxNews is reporting that Rev. Jesse Jackson is visiting Terri Schiavo's hospice, praying with Schlinder supporters, and strongly criticizing the court rulings ordering Terri's death. He's isn't always an accurate weather vane, but his position will put the liberal media in a bit of a quandary as he is generally regarded as a leader of the national African-American community.

Posted by: Debbye at 07:44 PM | Comments (30) | Add Comment
Post contains 1608 words, total size 10 kb.

Mar. 24 - I wish I could be surprised at this: Ottawa Islamic school suspends teachers over student's hate-filled tale.

(Link via Neale News.)

Posted by: Debbye at 02:40 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 40 words, total size 1 kb.

Mar. 24 - The Supreme Court has declined to hear the Schiavo case, and Florida Gov. Bush filed a motion to take custody of her which has been denied (14:08.)

Someone (sorry, I don't remember who) speculated that the Schiavo case was another Gary Condit non-scandal which consumed the media waves despite the lack of substance. I don't agree. As a nation we've been through so much sacrifice, heroism, death, loss and recovery these past 4 years and in some respects we are now looking at if (or how much) these momentuous events have changed us.

Follow the "continued" link below if you want to read more, or skip it if you're tired of the subject. It's exhausting, and should be. We've been through two wars, are holding our collective breaths over Lebanon and Krygyzstan (and now Estonia) and once again need to define who and what we are.

I need to sleep or I'll be a total wreck tonight, so I'm signing off (unless I can't sleep. Sigh.)

By the way, there is a somewhat atypical Ann Coulter column, Starved for justice, up at Townhall.com, and she makes a suggestion that is very appealing:

Democrats have called out armed federal agents in order to: 1) prevent black children from attending a public school in Little Rock, Ark. (National Guard), 2) investigate an alleged violation of federal gun laws in Waco, Texas (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms), and 3) deport a small boy to Cuba (Immigration and Naturalization Service).

So how about a Republican governor sending in the National Guard to stop an innocent American woman from being starved to death in Florida?

[...]

In two of the three cases mentioned above, the Democrats' use of force was in direct contravention of court rulings.

Posted by: Debbye at 01:07 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 915 words, total size 6 kb.

Mar. 24 - Interfax news agency reported that Kyrgyz President Askar Akayev and his family left the capital Thursday evening by helicopter after protesters seized control of government buildings and communications centers and a later report said that they were headed to Russia.

Caution: These reports have not been verified and rely on unnamed sources.

March 24: Protesters surround the presidential compound in Kyrgyzstan.
AP

The storming of the compound was the culmination of the first major rally in the Kyrgyz capital since opposition supporters seized control of key cities and towns in the south to underline their demands that Akayev step down amid allegations of fraud in this year's parliamentary vote.

The rally started with about 5,000 opposition supporters moved down Bishkek's main avenue, halting in the city's main square adjacent to the white stone presidential and government headquarters. The building was surrounded by helmeted riot police with truncheons and shields. Protesters chanted "Akayev, go!"

Many of the demonstrators had come from a rally on the outskirts of Bishkek, where protesters roared and clapped when an opposition activist asserted that Akayev's foes would soon control the entire Central Asian nation.

[...]

Many of the demonstrators wore pink or yellow headbands signifying their loyalty to the opposition — reminiscent of the orange worn by protesters who helped topple the Ukrainian government late last year.

Stay tuned.

Posted by: Debbye at 09:46 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 292 words, total size 2 kb.

Mar. 23 - Another moral dilemma: Bail bid for detainee Mohammad Mahjoub, who has been held in a Toronto jail for nearly 5 years on suspicion of terror connections:

AFTER BEING held for nearly five years in a Toronto jail because of secret evidence and a national security certificate, Mohammad Mahjoub must wait several more months to learn if he will be granted bail. Mahjoub, 44, an alleged high-ranking terrorist with ties to Osama bin Laden, is one of five Canadians held on secret CSIS evidence as a threat to national security.

He appeared in federal court yesterday seeking bail, while Ottawa continues its efforts to deport him to Egypt, where, all sides agree, he faces the risk of torture.

One more for the "no easy answers" category. (I'm kidding; I don't have such a category ... yet.)

Posted by: Debbye at 07:27 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 217 words, total size 1 kb.

Mar. 23 - Charles Krauthammer speaks to the issues in the Schiavo case, The law is failing Terri and to the conflict over whether Congress and the president overstepped their bounds:

The general rule of spousal supremacy leads you here to a thoroughly repulsive conclusion.

Repulsive because in a case where there is no consensus among the loved ones, one's natural human sympathies suggest giving custody to the party committed to her staying alive and pledging to carry the burden themselves.

[...]

Given our lack of certainty, given that there are loved ones prepared to keep her alive and care for her, how can you allow the husband to end her life on his say-so?

Because following the generally sensible rules of Florida custody laws, conducted with due diligence and great care over many years in this case, this is where the law led.

For Congress and the president to then step in and try to override that by shifting the venue to a federal court was a legal travesty, a flagrant violation of federalism and the separation of powers. The federal judge who refused to reverse the Florida court was certainly true to the law.

But the law, while scrupulous, has been merciless, and its conclusion very troubling morally. We ended up having to choose between a legal travesty on the one hand and human tragedy on the other.

I can't judge if Terri Schiavo is truly "brain dead." I can't judge what her wishes would be could she express them. I can't judge if she is or is not capable of responding to therapy.

I can only judge that her life has great value to her parents and that they are willing to fight to preserve that life.

I prefer to go with the option that does less harm, the option that is not irreversible, the option that springs from love and faith.

I prefer not to play God.

05:45 - I think what is most in my mind when I look at this case is (almost unavoidably) the example of Pontius Pilate, who followed the letter of the law and has been reviled for doing so by Christians. It's so easy on this side of the judicial bench ...

I dislike publishing personal facts about my family, but after thinking about this I think I should probably disclose that my sister was in a coma for several months, was non-responsive, and that the odds she would recover were low (she suffered a base skull fracture.) BUT she did wake up, and despite her chronic physical problems due to the injury, I know for a fact that she is glad to be alive as indeed are those of us who love her. That is probably why I shrug when I read assumptions printed as "facts" about Terri's awareness and potential for recovery. Doctors, like weather forecasters, make predictions based on probabilities but do not - or should not - exclude possibilities.

06:22 - Michelle Malkin sheds considerable light on the ABC poll which purported to show most Americans would prefer not to be kept alive in similar circumstances as Terri: they were misled about her condition!

6:32 The 11th Circuit Court denied the request to re-insert the feeding tube 2-1. The Schindlers plan to appeal.

06:53 - Kateland is also awake and posting early. She has a couple of posts on Terri Schiavo, and poses an challenging question on the Pope's quality of life and why people in Israel might be horrified that a woman be allowed to die of thirst and hunger. Good, penetrating posts.

07:19 - Peter Worthington points out that should Mr. Schlinder kill Mr. Schiavo, Mrs. Schlinder's wishes would prevail. (Pull in your horns, people, no one is actually advocating such an act! He's simply making a point about the illogic of the current law which would, in the absence of the husband, grant the decision in this case to Terri's next closest kin.)

Posted by: Debbye at 05:33 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 714 words, total size 5 kb.