Wednesday, July 20, 2005|
Don't you just love it when stupid, idiot politicians from other states try to write laws that do nothing but screw people who aren't their constituents? Yeah me too.
Mr. Smith, where have you gone? |
Sunday, April 10, 2005|
John Kerry continues to cry about losing. Sad. 7:15:12 PM permalink What do you think? [] trackback [] |
Tuesday, March 22, 2005|
Federal judge rules against reinserting Terri Schiavo's feeding tube. In my mind, this is the only truly adequate outcome in this case. It's pretty clear to me that Schiavo has been protected to the fullest extent of the law. It is also pretty clear, based on the medical records, that there is no chance of any form of recovery here. Her cerebral cortex has basically turned to liquid. She has been in a persistent vegatative state for over 15 years. The only activity in her brain comes at the brain stem level and is not indicative of human life. For far more compassion and even-handedness, read this post at Obsidian Wings. I believe that the Republicans in Congress have acted disgustingly, inhumanely, and dishonestly. They have consistently lied about the case; they are using this poor woman as a political ploy to appeal to certain aspects of their constituency; basically, they are embarassing to anyone who considers themselves conservative and in support of both life AND liberty. Because at the core of this case we find liberty. Terri Schiavo's life as it can be thought of in the human sense has been gone for years. All that is left is her liberty and (pdf) the findings of the court that clearly show she would not have wanted to be kept alive in this state. The Republicans in Congress have forsaken their duty to protect individual liberty and have instead used the government to interfere in a single, narrow case with no application at any other level in an inhuman attempt to appeal to their base. I see no other explanation. Some on the right, including some whom I admire argue that because of Michael Schiavo's possible conflict of interest (He would receive any money left over from a malpractice suit), he is not the one to be allowed to make this decision. This is ignorant on many levels. First, almost always the spouse will stand in inheirit the estate of the deceased. Is this reason for disallowing the spouse to make right-to-life decisions? I think not. Second, in this case, Michael Schiavo is not the only one with a conflict-of-interest as the parents are hardly blameless in this matter. They have tried consistently to have Michael Schiavo's right to guardianship removed, even though he has shown nothing but the highest respect for his wife and given her the highest level of care in his ability (I urge you to read the .pdf file above as it is the actual court testimony of the case where the right to remove the feeding tube the first time was decided.) Her parents are clearly acting in their own interests, probably monetary, not in the interests of their daughter. Third, right-to-die case law is not 15 years old as quoted by Tom Maguire. The Florida case sites case law from 1984. Also, the idea of liberty and the right to refuse medical care if it is unwanted is firmly established in the law. Saying otherwise is to trivialize the liberty of the individual. And finally, what is really at stake is the rights and desires of a woman with irreparable brain damage which have been established and protected to the fullest extent in the judiciary at the state and even the federal level. The case above examined the facts and found that Terri Schiavo would not have wanted to exist in this state. By ignoring those wishes, fancfifully thinking that because she did not write them down, then they cannot be true, we ignore her right to liberty and autonomy of her own life. I'm sure this will not be the end of this sad and terrible saga. But the Right has further sullied and tarnished their image as the party of liberty. There are no words I can use to express my disappointment in that fact. |
Friday, March 18, 2005|
For those of you wondering how the Republican party might begin to lose its stranglehold on power in our fair country, read this, this, and this. We're fighting a war on two fronts, we're running a massive deficit, Social Security is supposedly practically insolvent, and the people running our government are holding hearings on steroids, a brain-dead woman, and here in our great state, a moron is introducing a bill to make it illegal to have sexually suggestive performances at athletic events. I am constantly amazed by the lunacy foisted upon us by our leaders. Baseball should be left to police itself (something it's actually doing quite well-positive results in steroid testing has actually dropped in recent years), a husband should be able to make a decision concerning the life of his wife if she is incapable of making the decision herself, and cheerleaders, by definition, are SUPPOSED TO BE SEXUALLY SUGGESTIVE! Someone has forgotten to lock the gates and the morality police have escaped. UPDATE: Upon closer inspection, the fellow trying to outlaw sexually suggestive cheerleading is in fact a Democrat. Since when did they become the morality police? |
Thursday, March 03, 2005|
Good God, campaign finance laws get even more stupid. This was never a good idea and it's getting worse. To think that you would regulate the Internet to make sure people don't forward campaign materials to other people is beyond ridiculous. McCain and Feingold ought to be run out on a rail. (Via Chez Nadezhda) More from Captain Ed |
|
The Times continues to spin numbers against Bush, unsurprisingly taking numbers from a poll that are pretty clearly leaning towards Bush and claiming that Bush is out of step with the American people. Do they still cling to the belief that we the Public are all general dolts and will take whatever they say to heart without questioning? Someday, the main stream media will wake up. 7:25:54 AM permalink What do you think? [] trackback [] |
Wednesday, March 02, 2005|
True greatness. "There's always hope that this might not work." Actively rooting for America to fail so that your opponents look bad is not the best way to get back into power. 9:01:37 PM permalink What do you think? [] trackback [] |
Sunday, February 27, 2005|
Byron at Burnt Orange Report gets a little overboard attributing dark and sinister motives to a former Congressman concerning Social Security. His emphasis notwithstanding, if you read the linked article, you can see that Armey pretty clearly isn't saying we should get rid of Social Security. Here's his first quote:
To me, that sounds about right. Given the chance to invest my own money or have the government do it, I'm going to choose the former any day. I'm not saying get rid of it, I'm saying let me invest it myself. That's an entirely different concept. The second thing Byron is up in arms about is how the Republicans, via Armey, have no understanding of the problems the poor in our society have to deal with. While this may be true, Armey hardly says anything about it and the reporter's paraphrase that Byron clings to doesn't really gell with the rest of the story. Couldn't find a transcript so it's hard to say. However, even if we take the paraphrase as truth, it's accurate in that destitute people don't get Social Security as far as I know. In order to get Social Security, you have to have worked. Homeless and destitute people probably don't have anything in Social Security to fritter away with bad investments. So that argument doesn't wash anyway. I haven't really gotten into all the details of Bush's plan to privatize Social Security, but I just can't see how it's the end of the world as many on the left portray it. Why WOULDN'T you want the chance to invest your own money? I just don't see a compelling argument against that. |
Last update: 7/29/2005; 10:51:50 PM .
