In any court proceeding, there’s usually a winner and a loser. Not in this case, though. Here, everyone loses.
Her husband has been nationally villified by people who don’t even know him. His parents have lost their daughter, but not before presenting a national picture of themselves that wavered between pathos and pathetic, depending upon one’s point of view. Her life was cut short. And whereas anyone who remembers Karen Quinlan has forever etched in their minds the smiling picture taken as a school portrait, Terri Schiavo leaves behind a lasting image of a bedridden woman with glassy eyes who is either looking hopefully at her parents or–as her liquified brain would suggest–wasn’t looking at anything. Politicians attempted to make some quick hay and capital by going national over something that should have remained personal, with plenty of shame available to cover both GOP and Dem behavior.
Everyone loses.
This should never happen again.
But it will.
PAD
• 
This should never have happened. Experts are stating that given care and therapy, Terri could have been a functioning, talking human being again with perhaps some mild problems using her arms. But she was shut away from her loving family, denied music, TV, any sunlight – denied even antibiotics for a uninary tract infection – all on orders from a man who sleeps in another woman’s bed every night.
This was murder.
Why is everything in terms of Bush or the Republicans? I wasn’t talking about the Republican Party’s problems, I was talking about the Democratic Party and ITS problems.
So that means I can’t talk about the Republicans?
Hey Race?
Are you a doctor who personally examined Terri and are familiar with the case and have even a shred of real information?
Didn’t think so, áššhølë.
To suggest that the husband will be gunned down by a supposed ex-Operation Rescue member is ok on this site? But the thoughtful, researched opinion that it was wrong to remove the feeding tube is not ok?
There are wacko, extreme factions on both sides of the political spectrum that have done such things. But there is NO reason to even suggest this will happen to the husband other than to villify a position with which you disagree. I can pull up multiple stories in just the last few weeks of “wacko liberals” who have thrown things at conservative speakers, such as Pat Buchannan and William Kirstol. And yes, there are stories of people trying to storm the room to bring food and water to Terri. This is not a matter of ideological neccesity, but simply individuals who take advantage of a situation to act in an inappropriate manner, in a way that neither side would endorse.
Disagree with conservatives all you want about this case. But spare me the over the top scare tactics of saying “conservatives” are just moments away from killing the husband.
Iowa Jim
This should never have happened. Experts are stating that given care and therapy, Terri could have been a functioning, talking human being again with perhaps some mild problems using her arms. But she was shut away from her loving family, denied music, TV, any sunlight – denied even antibiotics for a uninary tract infection
Wow. Not a single word that has any basis in fact.
Fact: The overwhelming consensus by physicians who were not seeking self-promotion was that Terri Shiavo had no higher brain function and no hope of recovery.
Fact: He cerebral cortex was filled with spinal fluid. There is no therapy or treatment that can repair this kind of brain damage.
Fact: Michael Shiavo spent five years caring for his wife before finally accepting what the doctors had been telling him all along, that she had no hope of recovery.
Fact: Michael Shiavo went as far as taking nursing course to better care for her.
It takes about five seconds of googling to uncover these facts. Come back when you have something other than hate-filled lies.
“But spare me the over the top scare tactics of saying “conservatives” are just moments away from killing the husband.”
Umm, Jim:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/03/25/arrest.schiavo/index.html
“Authorities said Richard Alan Meywes of Fairview, North Carolina, offered $250,000 for the killing of Michael Schiavo and another $50,000 for the death of Circuit Court Judge George Greer”
Yes, because as we all know, the Republicans under the leadership of the Bush administration has been nothing but open-minded towards those that disagree with their “neoconservative” viewpoint
Havent’ you heard? It’s one big tent in Republican world. Everyone is welcome.
Especially if Tom DeLay and his bully boys have anything to say about it. Can you believe he wants to impeach the Federal judges who didn’t fall into lockstep with Congress and instead followed the law in regards to Schiavo? What a chilling effect. Bush should make it a moral imperative to overrule DeLay’s comments immediately. The moment you start punishing judges just because you don’t like their opinions, that’s pretty much it for checks and balances.
What check and balance? That is the very point. There IS a constitutional way of providing a check on the judiciary. It is impeachment.
Let us say the courts began ruling not only that gay marriage was wrong but that someone who even had a gay orientation was a criminal and should be imprisoned. The first check on the latter absurd claim would be a higher court. But another constitutional check is to remove the judge through impeachment.
The fact is, we have some very incompetent judges in place right now. Not because they disagree with me, but because they truly are incompetent. But the very logic you are using is what keeps them in place to continue making absurd rulings. (For examples, just read the Reader’s Digest annual list of bad judges.)
In this particular case, I am not worried about Delay’s threat. I happen to believe the courts did not protect Terri. But I am not a lawyer and don’t see clear proof of legal incompetence. And that is what will have to be shown if this goes to impeachment. It is one thing to make charges now, it is another to actually prove it later.
Bottom line, our system is not perfect, but it is the best one out there. While I do think it let Terri down, I think it will survive Delay’s actions.
One final thought: It is interesting how both sides are often unwilling to believe the motives of the other. (Yes, that includes me at times, though I try my best.) What some of you don’t get is that some of these politicians DO believe what they are saying. They are not just grand standing. This issue does matter to them. I personally think that the comparisons between this case and Delay’s father are just plain invalid. But even if Delay truly is a hypocrite, there are many others who have been highly consistent on this issue. The vilification of the Republicans will probably continue, but it comes more from personal opinions the actual facts.
Iowa Jim
“Authorities said Richard Alan Meywes of Fairview, North Carolina, offered $250,000 for the killing of Michael Schiavo and another $50,000 for the death of Circuit Court Judge George Greer”
The fact that one person did so does not mean this is what 99.9% of conservatives want or approve of. Anymore than I believe 99.9% of liberals want George W. Bush assasinated or agree with the extremists who suggest such a thing.
Iowa Jim
Well, you don’t have to look far to see that, Peter. Just read what some of the people have posted in your own forum about him.
Interesting… who here is calling for Michael Schiavo’s head on a stake?
Glad to see logic and common sense being used.
Interesting… who here is calling for Michael Schiavo’s head on a stake?
Obviously reading comprehension isn’t your strong suit. Peter was speaking metaphorically. I know that’s a big word, so consult a dictionary. Several people hear have been villifying him, calling him a murderer and (oh, I don’t know) a dìçk.
So? You’ve been a dìçk in this thread too. Calling for your head on a stake would be if I said something like, “This man is evil!”
I love “conservative”, mindless automatons (redundant, I know) that march in lock-step with whatever they are told to think. I’ve often thought that the “problem” that liberals have is that they fail to mindlessly obey whatever directives are passed down to them from on high. I often hear my friends and co-workers criticizing a liberal politician for some bone-headed maneuver, but my conservative friends and co-workers are always ready to spout the days talking points, despite the fact that it may contradict the fundamentals of “conservative” philosophy. Where does this mindless loyalty come from, and how can I bottle it? I find it difficult to believe that the vast majority of conservities I speak to and read the writings of agree on every single high profile issue that comes out, but they are very, very good at making it seem that way.
Since when did “conservatives” muck around in state politics? When did conservatives favor big government? When did conservatives decide that state’s rights meant nothing? When did conservatives feel that it’s the government’s job to interfere in personal family matters.
When did conservatives decide that Republican-appointed judges (over half of the 22-or-so judges that presided over this case, and that doesn’t include the 9 on the Supreme Court that refused to hear it) were ‘activists’? And if they are, can we really trust the Republicans not to appoint more out of control, whacko judges in the future??
The truth is that poor Terri is just the flavor of the week for a conservative political arm that is increasingly enamored with power and less concerned with the will of the people. Hëll, they don’t even seem conserned with their base anymore; despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of people, including the evangelicals that delivered them the election in November, think that the government should butt the hëll out. So unwilling to accept the fact that they’ve made a mistake, gone too far, and overstepped their bounds these people continue to pound the podium and fight for face-time in front of the cameras, despite a downward spiral in support from anyone who is not a mindless zombie or a nutso.
Speaking of the “evangelicals” and the rest of the moronic 53% that voted for Bush in November, these are the same boneheads that are now reaping what they have sown, giving Bush the lowest approval rating of any re-elected president since such polls were taken on the very day that he was sworn in for his second term, and it’s only gone down from there. How could these people vote for him when they don’t like him, the job he’s doing, the economy, his proposed budget or porgrams, the war he wages, or anything else that he sets his mind to, including meddling in the private affairs of people struggling with life’s most difficult and intimate decisions?
The ultimate insult is the fact that Bush so effortlessly weaves this case into 9/11. Is this the sign of some transition period? Are we going to phase out justifying every poor decision that this President makes by shouting 9/11 until everyone forgets what you’re talking about and replace it with this latest tragedy? Or is this just more of the same, where any topic, no matter how unrelated, just gets awkwardly tied back into 9/11, the gift from on high that got one of the most bumbling and foolish Presidents in modern history re-elected?
Personal, private decisions like these are made by families each and every day, and they will continue to be for as long as the government obeys the wishes of the people. I know that when my time comes or, God forbid, the time of my wife or parents or, even worse, my children, that the last thing in the world that I want is George Dubyah knocking on my door and instructing me on how to properly make my decision.
And I think that a President who continues to ignore genocides in any country not rich with oil overrun by a dictator that ‘tried to kill mah dahddy’, who is responsible for the deaths of over 100,000 Iraqis and 1,500 A,erican troops, and who personally signed dozens of orders of execution is the last fricken’ person who should be preaching about a “culture of life.”
I used to think that conservatives thought that life ended at birth; once you’re out of the womb it’s a free for all for bombings and executions. But now it’s obvious that they’re also in favor of life after death. For people who are so gosh-darned convinced that there’s a Heaven waiting for them on the other side, they sure seem obsessed with staving it off as long as possible.
Of course, if I were Tom DeLay, I’d probably be concerned about the afterlife, too.
Phinn
The fact that one person did so does not mean this is what 99.9% of conservatives want or approve of. Anymore than I believe 99.9% of liberals want George W. Bush assasinated or agree with the extremists who suggest such a thing.
Nor did anyone suggest that; it was merely suggested that some ‘culture of life’ nutbag would try to kill Michael within a week of Terri’s death. Apparently the original poster gave the nutbag too much credit.
It’s great that killing two living, vital human beings is the twisted ‘eye-for-an-eye’ to letting a woman who has been a vegetable for 15 years die quietly and in dignity after suffering for so long. Only a fundamentalist could even begin to try to explain that…
Phinn
“The fact that one person did so does not mean this is what 99.9% of conservatives want or approve of.”
No, but it does mean that there is a “reason to even suggest this will happen to the husband other than to villify a position with which you disagree”, despite your claim to the contrary.
If you want to switch this to some claim about the general base of conservatives, then you seem to be addressing some statement not made in this thread.
I can pull up multiple stories in just the last few weeks of “wacko liberals” who have thrown things at conservative speakers, such as Pat Buchannan and William Kirstol.
Yes, because throwing salad dressing at Pat Buchanan is exactly the same thing as putting a bounty on a judge’s head. Can I call bûllšhìŧ on that?
What some of you don’t get is that some of these politicians DO believe what they are saying. They are not just grand standing. This issue does matter to them.
That’s probably true, but I personally don’t believe that DeLay is one of them
So? You’ve been a dìçk in this thread too. Calling for your head on a stake would be if I said something like, “This man is evil!”
I’ll tell you what, Matt, why don’t we continue this discussion once you’ve grown up a little more, okay?
I don’t usually like to argue with children.
Yes, Dad.
Jeeze, who would have thought the discussion could take a downward turn?
I love “conservative”, mindless automatons (redundant, I know) that march in lock-step with whatever they are told to think. I’ve often thought that the “problem” that liberals have is that they fail to mindlessly obey whatever directives are passed down to them from on high. I often hear my friends and co-workers criticizing a liberal politician for some bone-headed maneuver, but my conservative friends and co-workers are always ready to spout the days talking points, despite the fact that it may contradict the fundamentals of “conservative” philosophy. Where does this mindless loyalty come from, and how can I bottle it? I find it difficult to believe that the vast majority of conservities I speak to and read the writings of agree on every single high profile issue that comes out, but they are very, very good at making it seem that way.
Respectfully submitted for your perusal: http://www.instapundit.com and http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/corner.asp
At NROs the corner you can read the various arguing among the conservative members over Sciavo and other matters. Some see this as evidence of an upcoming crackup among conservatives though I think its more likely the party that DOESN’T allow for disagreement and dissent that should worry.
But I believe you when you say that you believe that conservatives are always in agreement. One of the bad things about the internet is that one can, if one chooses, pretty much limit ones self to only those views that one wants to hear. You can create a nice warm little world where things are as you want them to be, with the occasional nasty surprise from the Real World the only fly in the ointment (Elections that have results that Simply Cannot Be–that sort of thing.).
It’s fictional but nothing’s perfect.
“Authorities said Richard Alan Meywes of Fairview, North Carolina, offered $250,000 for the killing of Michael Schiavo and another $50,000 for the death of Circuit Court Judge George Greer”
The fact that one person did so does not mean this is what 99.9% of conservatives want or approve of.
Yeah, but all it takes is one bullet from one nutcase to make Michael Schiavo or Judge Greer dead. I think the more heated rhetoric on both sides should be toned down, and the extremist elements have to be taken seriously and admonished to ratchet it down. It’s not like targetting judges for death is something that’s implausible…
The fact that one person did so does not mean this is what 99.9% of conservatives want or approve of.
I’m not talking about the large majority of conservatives who are in touch with reality. As a conservative myself, I can whole-heartedly say that I wouldn’t want to see someone gunned down in the cause of “life.”
And I would argue with your “99.9%” number. Have you BEEN to FreeRepublic.com lately? There are lot of people out there who are buying champagne in anticipation of a Schaivo/Greer/Felos trifecta.
It’s not enough to shake our heads and condemn it after the fact and refer to the “ex-Operation Rescue member” as a “poor deluded soul” who’s “acted on his own.” Randall Terry has done this before, and he’ll do it again. He knows if he keeps pushing it more and more, some nutjob will carry his water.
Yeah, but all it takes is one bullet from one nutcase to make Michael Schiavo or Judge Greer dead. I think the more heated rhetoric on both sides should be toned down, and the extremist elements have to be taken seriously and admonished to ratchet it down. It’s not like targetting judges for death is something that’s implausible…
There’s no small wisdom there but suppose Bush gets asassinated by some kook–will everyone who talked or wrote about how the country was going to hëll and our future was at risk and it’s just like Germany yadda yadda have to feel guilty about encouraging a nutcase?
The way to eliminate the threat of nutcases is not to try to create a conflict free world to placate them. The way is to come up with some better method for the early identification and neutralization of nutcases.
There’s no small wisdom there but suppose Bush gets asassinated by some kook–will everyone who talked or wrote about how the country was going to hëll and our future was at risk and it’s just like Germany yadda yadda have to feel guilty about encouraging a nutcase?
No, I’d feel more pìššëd that this nutcase DIDN’T GET IT. The call was for the ballot box and not the point of the gun. (Which I think is a different matter than someone actually calling for assasinations; Richard Alan Meywes is simply on the same level as the Aryan Nations figure who called for the assasination of judges he didn’t like).
What some of you don’t get is that some of these politicians DO believe what they are saying. They are not just grand standing. This issue does matter to them.
Maybe. But, going straight to the top, I’m not too sure about Bush himself for all his talk. Do any of you know who Sun Hudson was? While the world was watching the circus around the Schiavi family an infant in Texas Children’s Hospital was taken off life support against the will of the mother.
Sun’s death was the first time a hospital has been allowed by a U.S. judge (that I can find)to discontinue an infant’s life support against a parent’s wishes.
Texas law allows hospitals to do this even if patient’s family disagrees.
A far more important and scary case, I think, than the Terri Schiavo case. In the Hudson case, for the first time ever, a hospital bureacracy terminates the life of a child (who was not in a vegetative state), against the family’s wishes, when the family can’t pay their bills.
It was the Texas Futile Care Law that empowered the hospital to do this. This thing was signed into law by then-Governor George W. Bush.
Really went to the extreme to build that “culture of life” he talks about so much.
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/HS/content/htm/hs.002.00.000166.00.htm
This should link you to the law
A far more important and scary case, I think, than the Terri Schiavo case. In the Hudson case, for the first time ever, a hospital bureacracy terminates the life of a child (who was not in a vegetative state), against the family’s wishes, when the family can’t pay their bills.
You are misrepresenting the case. Baby Hudson had been on a breather since birth last summer and would never be off of it. He had a disease that would always keep his lungs too small to support his body. The baby was not disconnected because the mother couldn’t pay the bills, but because there was NO HOPE. The baby lived just moments after the breather was disconnected.
In such an instance the attending physicians and the hospital ethics board must concur that there is no possibility of survival. Then, the family has the option to 1) legally challenge and 2) find medical alternatives.
The hospital – in a very classy move – paid the expenses of the mother’s legal challenge. Once the judge ruled the hospital had done its due diligence, the mother was given 10 days to find alternatives. Every hospital that was called (over 30) reviewed the case and refused to take it on for the same reason.
The mother was also a bit on the crazy side. She claimed the baby’s father was not a man but “the sun in the sky”.
I think the hospital did the right thing under the circumstances, and went above and beyond in trying to deal with it. When you have a guardian unwilling to accept the inevitable, this is the type of guidelines (kept under STRICT control) can be a good thing.
Can you site a link on the story with those details. I knew about the mother but several stories (News sites/Not blog sites)I’ve read on it made the baby’s condition to be a long shot but not an impossible cure.
R. Maheras:
As I said in a response I posted on Mike Gold’s column, in my opinion, the Democratic Party is currently on life support, and if the radical Democrats don’t lose their myopia and intolerence for those who disagree with their “progressive” viewpoint, the next victim in a semi-vegitative state they kill might be the party itself.
Den:
Yes, because as we all know, the Republicans under the leadership of the Bush administration has been nothing but open-minded towards those that disagree with their “neoconservative” viewpoint. /sarcasm
…and this sort of “witty banter” is why it is my belief that unless there is a successful centrist party that emerges in the next decade or two, this country is gonna fall completely apart. A revered statesman once said, “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” It’s even worse when the divisions do not cut across any boundary; where, quite literally, there’s a Republican family in one house and a Democratic family in the next…
Only if we overcome the labels “liberal,” “conservative,” “Democrat,” or “Republican” can we steer the country back on course…
I originally found the story on the Dallas News web site (I live in the DFW area). http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/031605dntexbaby.bc467.html
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/004081.php is a blog that has a lot of commentary from someone in the Houston area who saw a LOT more of it, and here is a Houston Chronicle article from a Baylor doctor. The child had to be constantly anesthetized to be on the ventilator:
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/editorial/outlook/3103113
Here’s the interesting and somewhat sad thing. I absolutely agree with you that they both thought they were doing what was best. The thing is, it seems to me–based purely on observation and not any sort of scientific polling–that those on the husband’s side, more often than not, have empathy for the parents and don’t condemn them for their efforts. Whereas those on the parents’ side, more often than not, want the husband’s head on a stake.
PAD
Well, I’d certainly agree with that, but I don’t think it necessarily speaks volumes about folks on the parents’ side. I mean, I personally supported the husband. However, ultimately that means supporting a person’s death. Yes, it’s also supporting the end to a person’s needless suffering, but there’s no getting around the fact that you’re heralding a cause that will leave someone dead.
The fact that the opposers of Michael Schaivo–who wanted death–were angrier than Schavio’s supporters were at the parents–who wanted life, shouldn’t be really surprising, should it?
Maybe when our culture stops treating the concept of death as the ultimate evil rather than a natural an inevitable part of life (and perhaps even fun, who the hëll knows?), that will be different.
“What check and balance? That is the very point. There IS a constitutional way of providing a check on the judiciary. It is impeachment.”
What are you, the Conservative movement poster boy? Is there NO extremist Conservative idiocy that you will not leap to defend?
Tom DeLay literally threatened Federal judges with impeachment for doing their jobs simply because he didn’t like their decisions. That is not “checks and balances.” That’s bullying, pure and simple, no matter how eagerly you try and put one of your typical spins on it. It is indeed “one thing to make the charges now,” and that one thing is “retaliation.” It is wholly inappropriate, it is an abuse of power, and I personally think any Conservative with a lick of sense should condemn such thinking immediately.
PAD
http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition=thanatophoricdysplasia
This site explains what Sun had. One passage is key.
*”The term thanatophoric is Greek for “death bearing.” Infants with this condition are usually stillborn or die shortly after birth from respiratory failure; however, some children have survived into childhood with a lot of medical help. These children are severely mentally retarded due to a variety of brain abnormalities and have difficulty breathing on their own.”*
This site is one of the few I’ve found that you don’t have to have a Masters Degree to read the entire thing. It does state that the victim’s chance of passing it on to later generations is 0% since victims die but this site
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=search&term=thanatophoric+dysplasia%5Bmajr%5D+AND+human%5Bmh%5D+AND+english%5Bla%5D&db=PubMed&orig_db=PubMed&filters=on&pmfilter_EDatLimit=5+Years
has updated medical info that seems to state, from what I can tell, (dámņ it, Jim! I’m a cop! Not a doctor!) that this may no longer be the solid rule.
With the newer info (thanks for the link) it doesn’t seem quite as scary for the direction we’re going. But (big But)…..
If the latest Med info says that the infant can be kept alive into late childhood and that there may beways to deal with this on the near horizon; where does that fall in “err on the side of life?”
The baby was kept alive on a machine. So was Terri. It’s still in dispute if she could have lived without a machine. Terri may well have had a better chance of living but Sun still had a chance at a longer, if not fuller, life then he had. So where do we draw that line?
Make no mistake. I thought that the outcome with Terri was the right one. I want to read a bit more on Sun but it seems that it may have been right as well. But will our lawmakers, the majority party seeming to disagree with me on Terri, do something so stupid and over reaching in the attempt to err on the side of life that we’ll all be posting a few years from now on why the government should let babies like Sun die as well as keep away, living wills or no, from adults like Terri? If they stay the course of their soap boxes (yeah, slim chance really but stranger things seem to be happening in politics of late) we might. Now, that’s scary.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200503290007 has information on the under-reported last minuted intervention plans.
Tom DeLay literally threatened Federal judges with impeachment for doing their jobs simply because he didn’t like their decisions. That is not “checks and balances.” That’s bullying, pure and simple, no matter how eagerly you try and put one of your typical spins on it. It is indeed “one thing to make the charges now,” and that one thing is “retaliation.” It is wholly inappropriate, it is an abuse of power, and I personally think any Conservative with a lick of sense should condemn such thinking immediately.
How, exactly, is it bullying? How is it an abuse of power? Is there a single judge, liberal or conservative, who is going to change their opinion because Delay made this “threat”?
First, I don’t condemn it simply because there IS a conflict between two constitutional entities here. The Judicial branch is not “above” the Congressional branch. Judges can strike down congressional laws, but they should not be writing them. In this case, they did not strike down the law so much as simply ignore it. And let’s be clear: Congress did not change any prior ruling in this case, they simply demanded it be changed to a federal court — which is their constitutional right to do. Was that the best thing to do? Perhaps not. But they did NOT defy a court. Nor did they unconstitutionally remove a state’s right. Which is why the feeding tube never was actually put back in. Whether I like it or not, the system DID work as it was supposed to.
Second, whether you agree with the reason why or not, it is Delay’s option to threaten impeachment. As I said before, the threat is rather empty in my opinion. But I don’t think it is grand standing. I think it is frustration. Until a judge is actually brought up for an actual impeachment proceeding, it is not even close to an abuse of power. (Or would you consider the threats made to impeach Bush over the war in Iraq also an abuse of power?) I doubt it will actually go that far.
Do I endorse Delay’s threats? No, for two reasons: it will not go anywhere, so it is an empty threat, and it doesn’t address the real issue. But will I condemn his actions? No.
Iowa Jim
Yes, because throwing salad dressing at Pat Buchanan is exactly the same thing as putting a bounty on a judge’s head. Can I call bûllšhìŧ on that?
What is not the same is that aggressive and even violent actions are actually occurring against conservatives, not just threats of violence. Obviously, if the bounty is real, it is a criminal act and should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. But it is interesting how the acts against conservatives are overlooked while conservatives are accused of creating a culture of violence.
Iowa Jim
What are you, the Conservative movement poster boy? Is there NO extremist Conservative idiocy that you will not leap to defend?
The answers are “no” and “yes.” I condemn any and all statements that advocate violence against Michael, the judge, etc. I condemn the violation of the law for any reason other than passively refusing to do an act that goes against ones personal beliefs. If there had actually been a raid by Jeb Bush or Congress or the White House to actually “free” Terri, I would condemn it.
Of course I am sure there are plenty of other conservative idiocies I would be happy to defend.
Iowa Jim
http://mediamatters.org/items/200503290007 has information on the under-reported last minuted intervention plans.
Funny that after complaining about the lack of attention that the story rceived Media Matters was forced to aknowledge that it HAD been reported on…Fox news. Heh.
Of course, one problem may be that the original story could not be corraborated. The original seemd to have a lot of anonymous sources so…
Hopefully the now indisputable fact that Sandy Berger stole classified documents, psersonally cut them up with scissors, and lied about it will get the attention it deserves…but who knows?
First, I don’t condemn it simply because there IS a conflict between two constitutional entities here. The Judicial branch is not “above” the Congressional branch. Judges can strike down congressional laws, but they should not be writing them. In this case, they did not strike down the law so much as simply ignore it
I find this incredibly hard to believe. In fact, I find this an incredible distortion of fact. I think you need to defend this.
Funny that after complaining about the lack of attention that the story rceived Media Matters was forced to aknowledge that it HAD been reported on…Fox news. Heh.
Actually it states this….
Fox News host Juliet Huddy mentioned the Herald report on the March 26 edition of Fox & Friends.* There was no mention on network news broadcasts.
I wouldn’t really say that’s reporting. Without seeing the transcript I would guess that it went the way of a number of other things that got mentioned on Fox & Friends about this case (or others). I’ll bet on a, “those nutty libs are actually trying to say…” type of thing. Plus, lets face it… Fox and Friends is to the news what Good Morning America is to the news. They’re both the fast food version of news.
Plus it does point out a number of other sources. It’s not like Fox was the only one. It’s just that most the other sited sources were or were closer to being harder news sources.
And, hey, since you seem to be taking a bit of a sarky shot at Media Matters I should point out that they, quite fairly, did list even that minor mention. They also updated their site to point out that the Factor did a piece on it after media Matters put their piece up. Seems to be a fairly unbiased little write up for them (for a change.)
Of course, one problem may be that the original story could not be corraborated.
You are talking about the same network that was reporting that the Pope had died for about ten or so minutes today. Understandable I guess since so much was coming through the wires but they should have noticed that no one else was breaking that bit of news. Still, it’s a fun bit of timing for talking about Fox News and corraborating things. Or maybe it’s just the huge doses of flu medication that’s making its way through my system that makes it seem funny.
But it is interesting how the acts against conservatives are overlooked while conservatives are accused of creating a culture of violence.
Who overlooked it? It was on the Yahoo homepage this morning.
And let’s be clear: Congress did not change any prior ruling in this case, they simply demanded it be changed to a federal court — which is their constitutional right to do.
But here’s the thing, Jim, the federal courts, all the way up to the Supreme Court (four times) had already looked at the case and found no reason to overturn the state court’s decision. What Congress ordered was a “do over” because they didn’t like that ruling. The facts of the case didn’t change, so it isn’t all that shocking that the federal courts didn’t rule differently the second time around. To threaten judges only because they didn’t bend over and take it from Congress is an abuse of power.
For anyone who has not yet done so, and wants to see if they can actually laugh at something coming out of this whole mess, I strongly recommend this week’s SOUTH PARK (to be repeated yet on Saturday and Sunday) for several interesting POVs on the subject.
If nothing else, I guarantee that, when the missing last page of Kenny’s will is finally found and read, you may find yourself laughing more than you’ve laughed at anything in a long time.
Oh, yeah.
Somebody tell me how they do that! When South Park did the school election and nailed the entire 2000 election I thought, “wow. They couldn’t have known just how funny that would actually turn out when they did it.” Then they came out with other eps that were fairly close to topical. But this? I thought it took months to put an animated (even computer animated) show together. These guys must being doing it (and dead on funny as hëll) in days/weeks. Either that or I really want to see their lotto picks for the year.
And let’s be clear: Congress did not change any prior ruling in this case, they simply demanded it be changed to a federal court — which is their constitutional right to do.
Actually, I don’t think it is. At least, according to the ennumerated powers in the Constitution, the Schiavo case does not fall into any of the categories where federal courts have jurisdiction. The simple demand to hear it in a federal court doesn’t seem to have a leg to stand on.
Jerry writes:
Funny that after complaining about the lack of attention that the story rceived Media Matters was forced to aknowledge that it HAD been reported on…Fox news. Heh.
Actually it states this….
Fox News host Juliet Huddy mentioned the Herald report on the March 26 edition of Fox & Friends.* There was no mention on network news broadcasts.
And, hey, since you seem to be taking a bit of a sarky shot at Media Matters I should point out that they, quite fairly, did list even that minor mention.
Actually, what they wrote down at the bottom was:
* Correction: This item originally failed to note that the Herald story was mentioned on the March 26 edition of Fox & Friends. We regret the error. The story was also discussed on the March 29 edition of Fox News’ The O’Reilly Factor, which aired after the original item was posted online.
So the original article had nothing about Fox at all. I wasn’t really picking on Media Matters, I just found it amusing that a story that puts a republican in a poor light only got mentioned on the news channel that many liberals claim is just an extension of the Republican party, Just a little ironic (and for me maybe it was just the migrane medicine talking. One nice thing about visiting my ex-wife is that she always stocks me up on expired medication).
Of course, one problem may be that the original story could not be corraborated.
You are talking about the same network that was reporting that the Pope had died for about ten or so minutes today. Understandable I guess since so much was coming through the wires but they should have noticed that no one else was breaking that bit of news. Still, it’s a fun bit of timing for talking about Fox News and corraborating things.
Errr…no. If Fox news is bad at corraborating things then maybe that’s why it was the only one to mention the uncorraborated story about Jeb Bush. Which was sort of my point. Why should Media Matters be surprised that lots of outlets took a pass on a story that, while it sounded nice and juicy, doesn’t seem to have anyone willing to vouch for it and use their real name?
One of the problems with the media of today is that it is easy to get a lie out and have it travel around the world in days before anyone can reveal it to be false and by the time they do we’ve gone through 20 other hot stories. Bill Moyer recently wrote a widely read article that contained a bogus story about some James Watt. Watt challenged him on it and Moyers apologized (to his credit). You STILL seethis story popping up here and therein blogs and commentaries. It’ll be in Watt’s obituary in some places.
So if Jeb admits later that it was true or the newspaper admits later that it wasn’t, the one that lied will probably get away with it, the story will have moved on. Iwish someone would take the time to actually nail it down while it matters.
Jerry wondered, about SOUTH PARK, “Oh, yeah.
Somebody tell me how they do that! When South Park did the school election and nailed the entire 2000 election I thought, “wow. They couldn’t have known just how funny that would actually turn out when they did it.” Then they came out with other eps that were fairly close to topical. But this? I thought it took months to put an animated (even computer animated) show together. These guys must being doing it (and dead on funny as hëll) in days/weeks. Either that or I really want to see their lotto picks for the year.”
In interviews, Trey Parker and Matt Stone said they can get an interview done in a week or two (as when they rushed the “who is Eric Cartman’s father” episode after everyone hated the April Fool’s prank), so it’s not that surprising they could get this episode done this quickly. It’s also nothing that the ending they came up with (which was frickin’ hysterical!) didn’t rely on the outcome of the real-life case, but was appicable regardless of the result of the real-life trial.
The time South Park most impressed me with their speed was regarding the famous photo of Elian Gonzalez crying in the closet with a relative during the Easter morning raid. They had that photo spoofed in an episode that aired for the first time just three days later. Even if the episode is already built, they can clearly put together another scene or two and slip it in on only a few days notice. (Or is that “days’ notice”?)
By the way–Sciavo’s sister-in-law, who lives not very far from me, has asked for police protection because she has received several death threats against her and her children from various sources.
Way to go, “culture of life” …
R. Maheras, I’m sure by now you’ve heard about the memos passed by TOm Delay (who now denies to the hilt that he made it and blames a “staffer”…yeah, right) promoting the “opportunity” the Schiavo case had. The Republicans DID parlay this case into something big…and are now standing with salad dressing on their faces because of it.
I’m at least glad that you didn’t deny that most news media are toeing the Republican line. Although they really didn’t have to; their need to exploit human tragedy and screw up people’s lives for the sake of a story would have brought them to that side anyway. I’ve worked in local TV for decades. I know how the news mind works…when it works at all.
So, is everyone enjoying the newest death watch? Whether you’re enjoying it or not, are you still paying rapt attention to it on TV and in the paper? If so, then Faux News and their compatriots have done their jobs.
Thomas R. wrote: “The Republicans DID parlay this case into something big…and are now standing with salad dressing on their faces because of it.”
Not “The” Republicans… it was allegedly “A” Republican. I try not to paint either Republicans or Democrats with broad brush.
But you ignore my main point, which is that a significant number of Democrats also wanted Schaivo’s feeding tube to remain in.
As far as the media “toeing the Republican line” regarding the Schaivo case, has the thought ever occurred to you that there are a sizeable number of people who are Republican, Democrat and Independent who just might not agree that Schaivo should have been allowed to die? Despite what some hard-line leftists may think, the Republicans don’t always reflect the minority view about an issue.