Woman to Woman

By Mara

April 4, 2005 08:05 AM | Link to this

I’ve noticed that it’s only the “activist” judges who’s interpretation of the law violate conservative ideology who get whacked by the right-wing echo chamber. Just because you object to a judges ruling doesn’t mean that he or she is imposing ideology onto society. Often laws are written as broadly as possible to ensure that politicians don’t offend anyone in the electorate. Laws are also sometimes written for ideological reasons that do violate the Constitution. A broadly worded law is indeed subject to interpretation and judges are often asked to do this interpreting. When they don’t interpret it as conservatively as the dittoheads want it to be done, the judge becomes an “activist” judge. When a law is patently un-Constitutional or if it violates previously accepted precedent, a judge is oath-bound to rule so. Just because some don’t like the ruling doesn’t mean that it is beyond the scope of the judiciary. There have been many rulings by more conservative judges that, in my opinion, didn’t uphold the liberal intent of the legislature. Did I whine and cry about the judiciary? Did I threaten them with “repurcussions or “consequences”? No, I did not. I became active in trying to change the LAW. The term “activist judges” is merely radical right-wing Orwellian-speak for “judges who uphold laws we don’t like”.

By mit

April 4, 2005 08:17 AM | Link to this

shaunti, the klan is accepting applications.

I believe the law in florida is that the husband is the guardian. the judge ruled in the husbands favor because that’s the law. so, now that things didn’t go your way, the us supreme court, the 11th court of appeals, and the state courts in florida are full of ‘activist’ judges. funny, funny! Diane kicked your butt on this one.
all that’s running through your mind is Terri’s fate, like you care about anyone else in that situation, obviously not since she was not the only one in that situation in this country, them damn f*, and abortion. three things these all have in common? Its none of your business. not even a little bit. Are you Terri’s guardian, gay, or having someone else’s abortion? i think not but you are willing to butt into someone else’s life at a moments notice to tell them you are right and they are wrong. and then when a judge sees it another way they are labelled ‘activist’. this stuff makes me sick. why don’t you fix your own life because i know its not perfect enough for you to spend all your time worrying about everyone else’s.

By Brian Curtis

April 4, 2005 08:22 AM | Link to this

Well said, Mara. This is another example of far-right reactionaries trying to invent a crisis where none exists.

The courts, as Diane correctly points out, are the last refuge of the minority seeking protection from the majority. That’s how our system is set up; it’s one reason we have a Bill of Rights, after all, that spells out liberties that no legislation—however popular—can ever take away. And if anyone tries, we have the courts to smack them down and protect the small, unpopular groups.

In other words, everything’s fine. I’m glad we have judges like this.

By Lyrazel

April 4, 2005 08:26 AM | Link to this

I find it strange how one case makes a judge an activist. Greene was a conservative judge who was a staunch Republican and a going-to-church on Sunday christian. Now he is a left of center liberal without a trace of morality. Its odd Shaunti focus would be on Greene who operated within the law and not on the Morality Radicals who phoned-in death threats to the judge, and threatened Shiavo and his family. So why no talk about them who want to kill these activist judges?

I am certain radical judges who brought sweeping changes to civil rights also came under death threats—and their law was considered as a hideous atrocitiy of radical judicial power taking over forefathers established rights of white people.

So why no comments about the resurgence of the fanatic morality crusaders who take gods book and shape justice with a bullet or bombs for their righteous causes, or dont the right-wing want to claim fanatic believers either?

By Archie

April 4, 2005 08:36 AM | Link to this

Is Shanti being paid by the Bush administration? Of course not but her argument this week is ridiculous. I always thought the spouse had the right to make a decision about the other spouse’s healthcare when that other spouse is incapacitated. By Shanti logic judges should rule based on the will of the people. She needs to ashamed to put that in a paper as an educated person. Judges have to rule based on law regardless of the majority may like. Dianne used some brilliant examples in her argument. This is a good topic but Dianne rules on this issue as Shanti doesn’t use a lick of common sense.

By Donny

April 4, 2005 08:58 AM | Link to this

Most of the comments today are typical of left wing extremist. Is this debate? “shaunti, the klan is accepting applications”; “Is Shanti being paid by the Bush administration?”; “So why no talk about them who want to kill these activist judges?”

Conservatives should be allowed opinions without such overreaching statesments by the left.

By Melissa

April 4, 2005 09:35 AM | Link to this

Far-right conservatives are big on calling anyone who dares to stand against them “unAmerican,” “unpatriotic,” “against God,” and, of course, “Activist.” Most Americans don’t hear or don’t understand the legal process, and it’s easy to make baseless allegations that a judge is an activist when judges, who are by nature supposed to be objective and nonpartisan, make decisions based on the law. They are, by design, a check on Congressional activism. Had Judge Greer, a conservative judge, as many are, by the way, decided to forget the actual law and do what Congress wanted, he would have been a true activist. When he follows the law, he’s a judge.
Specifically, Shaunti should LEARN how the law works before ignorantly commenting. For example, her partial birth abortion comment, always used by conservatives, was wrong. The law was overturned because one part was unconstitutional. You cannot write a law that does not have a provision for the health of the mother. The original law basically said that the baby’s life was paramount to the mothers at all times, in all cases, no matter what. There was no exception. Had Congress added a minor sentence, it would have been valid. If judges were to blindly ignore the law, they would have then been ACTIVISTS.
Most conservative talk show hosts and columnists make arguments on the law that any first-year law student would know were wrong and ignorant of the law. Let the judges follow the law and balance the Activist Congress.

By vince

April 4, 2005 09:42 AM | Link to this

I hope everyone read Shaunti’s column in close detail. Here’s the summary:

Judges are bad when they prevent a hospice patient from living. Judges are bad when they allow living, tax paying, law abiding citizens into gay marriage. Judges are bad when they allow abortion.

And the most important element in her column is she adheres the Bush Administration’s tactic of trying to side step the issue by peppering the debate with religious hot topics. I hope, by now, Americans have realized Bush’s fabrications have proven dangerous. (No WMD’s, no evidence of a plane hitting the Pentagon on 9/11, etc.)

Do judges take it too far? What is too far? My take of too far is the absurdity that a fetus has more rights than a dying person, that heterosexual marriage has no statistical merit, but gays wanting to be married is the problem, and the fact that christian conservatives refuse to admit that abortion was legal in this country until the late 1870’s. The reason to make a case against abortion had nothing to do with God or the bible; it was a campaign by the American Medical Association to get rid of mid-wives because doctors wanted to cash in on the birthing procedures. And, for the record, when our government thought the AMA’s argument that mid-wives were evil witches was absurd, the AMA started a full out campaign convincing people that if abortion remained legal, the Catholic immigrants would soon outnumber the Protestants. This made the Protestants furious because after all, they built this country.

By Randy

April 4, 2005 10:02 AM | Link to this

Are federal judges out of control. Ya Think. DA.

By Brian

April 4, 2005 10:04 AM | Link to this

The Federal Judges in the Schaivo case did the correct thing. Congress authorized them to hear claims of a violation of Terry’s Federal or Constitutional Rights. I would not term these Judges “activists”. Right to life and the attached issues should be left up to local governments and local debate-congress was wrong to federalize the issue and I was pleased to see how the courts analyzed the issues.

However, you cannot deny that when a Judge baselessly and undemocratically reads rights such as the right to gay marraige, abortion, and a ban on the execution of juvenilles INTO THE CONSTITUTION, these opinions contain the stench of a dictatorship unknown to the founding fathers of our country. There are activist judges. They were not the judges in Terry Schaivo’s case; but they decided Roe v. Wade, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Roper v. Simmons (our constitution now means whatever “evolving standards of decency” are), and most importantly, Brown v. Board. Those judges were wrong then, and they are wrong now. Activist Judges-not just a term used by the “religous right”-you can read the opinions.

By Brian

April 4, 2005 10:08 AM | Link to this

Left-wing extremists? So, strongly defending the independence of the judiciary and its place as a defender of individual rights is left-wing extremism? I thought it was patriotic Americanism, not to mention constitutional law.

Did you read past the first lines of mit’s and Archie’s posts, Donny? You should, because they both contain strong arguments. And if you had read just three words past the first sentence from Archie, you would have seen him say “Of course not.”

Shaunti, if a judge disregards his honest and scholarly interpretation of the law because of his assessment that the will of the people is opposed to the decision required by law, does the opinion not contain “value judgments” or “social mores.” For example, if same-sex marriage cannot be prohibited without violating the state or federal constitution, but a judge allows same-sex marriage to be prohibited “solely because California has always done so before,” would that judge be avoiding peppering his opinion with “value judgments” or “social mores”? Your real problem is not with the presence of values in judicial decision-making. Your problem is with the idea that those values present are not shared by yourself. I think judges should continue to do what they have done - simply apply the law.

Great work, Diane.

By mit

April 4, 2005 10:16 AM | Link to this

donny,

how can you justify hatred as a good opinion. gays can’t get married in this country because of hate. if it wasn’t hate then everyone would just turn a blind eye to a same sex couple getting married. but instead there has to be a law that bans this. just like there were laws banning black people from drinking out of the same water fountains as white people. HATE. there is nothing else to call it. So when someone forms an opinion on the dislike of others, then I have to say it is a “klanistic” opinion. the argument for banning gay weddings states that this will end the sancity of marriage; a cop out. This statement says that anyone not having christian ideas can’t get married because marriage is based on the bible, but we all know that is not true. so why else would you ban same sex marriage, because you like them? i think not.

By Randy

April 4, 2005 10:28 AM | Link to this

The judges did not do the right thing. Wrong was done to Terri’s parents and probably Terri also. If the parents want to care for their child, that right should not be taken away. The question is where does it stop. When do and at what level do federal judges stop playing GOD? This was true arrogance!

By Randy

April 4, 2005 10:33 AM | Link to this

Gays can’t get married not because of hate, but because of character(or a lack of it). We christians will not allow gay marriage, as it encourages that lifestyle and that lifestyle is not healthy for our society. It’s like a stripper wanting to be legimate in the business world(executive)no one takes them serious.

By Brian Curtis

April 4, 2005 10:34 AM | Link to this

Your parents do not have final say over your life forever, Randy. The SPOUSE is the legal guardian, not the parents. And the spouse in the Schiavo case made his decision—one that was supported by medical evidence.

Other family members may have disagreed, but it’s not their call. Nor is it the place of judges to interfere with the spouse’s decision, as many far-right extremists wanted in this case. When do judges stop playing god? My question is, when do they START? And the answer is: “When they interfere with private medical decisions between a patient and her legal guardian.”

By Randy

April 4, 2005 10:36 AM | Link to this

Really I have some experience in this area, my father was in a simular situation 7 years ago. I would hate to think that if I volunteered to care for him, that the federal judges could say, No he must die. Who do they think they are?

By Brian Curtis

April 4, 2005 10:38 AM | Link to this

And if accusing all gays of “lacking character” isn’t hate, what is?

Thankfully, we do not live in a Christian-ruled nation. And thanks to principled judges who protect minority rights against the majority, we never will.

By Randy

April 4, 2005 10:39 AM | Link to this

Brian, The spouse has been living with another woman for 10 years, why couldn’t he just say. I don’t want to care for Terri, in fact I have had 2 children with another womana and want to get on with my life and give control to the parents. No he was a jerk, I am going to control what happends to this woman after 15 years and even control here burial. This guy is a mean person.

By Brian

April 4, 2005 10:42 AM | Link to this

Randy, do you support the death penalty? I hope not, because you would be hypocritically authorizing judges to play God.

Remember the sanctity of marriage conservative Christians always talk about with regard to gay rights? Well, regard for the sanctity of marriage in our legal system is what compelled the judge to listen to Terri’s husband when he said that she expressed a desire not to be kept alive in such a condition and that she should be compassionately allowed to die with dignity. The judge acted in accordance with state and federal law.

By Brian Curtis

April 4, 2005 10:43 AM | Link to this

Randy: The situation you propose is unrelated to the Schiavo case, where the legal guardian made a care decision that the courts upheld. No judge “ordered her death”—that far-right extremist spin.

If you were your father’s legal guardian, the choice would be up to you, not the courts. Just as it was with Mrs. Schiavo.

By lozen

April 4, 2005 10:44 AM | Link to this

I agree with Diane. Shaunti’s arguments are ridiculous.

By Brian Curtis

April 4, 2005 10:45 AM | Link to this

And what does this have to do with judges? “Mean people” can be legal guardians too, unless there’s sufficient reason to remove them from the case. He’s the spouse and the legal guardian. What you think of his personality is irrelevant.

Again, you’re simply complaining that everyone involved didn’t conform to your personal preferences. But it’s not your business any more than it was the business of Congress or the Supreme Court to interfere.

By smithy

April 4, 2005 10:46 AM | Link to this

It isn’t hatred that makes people not accept “gay marriage”. It is simply the fact that people shouldn’t be forced to embrace the whims of a group of people who choose to engage in risky sexual behavior and whose lifestyle choices fly in the face of the values and morals of the majority of Americans. I have no hatred for gay people, nor do I have any emotion for them. People may be born gay, but it is their CHOICE to act on those feelings, therefore making their lifestyle a choice. If gays want to have a civil union done recognized by the state, that’s fine. But don’t call it marriage, which is a sacred institution endorsed by God for the purposes of procreation and a relationship between a man and a woman.

Comparing the issue of gay marriage to the issue of the civil rights violations the black people experienced in the past is simply wrong. People don’t choose to be black and have no control over that. People DO choose to engage in gay behavior, therefore making it a personal decision. It’s apples and oranges.

By Michael

April 4, 2005 10:46 AM | Link to this

I found Ms. Feldhahn’s use of the Schavio case as an example of judicial overreaching profoundly implausible. It was clearly Congress and the White House who were violating the separation of powers by contriving special legislation in the “For the Relief of the Parents of Theresa Marie Schiavo Actâ€? to apply to this one case and compelling the courts to reenter an issue that had already been decided. The only “activismâ€? here was on the part of an overreaching Republican Congress and the Bush administration who, along with others, turned this individual matter into political theater (or theater of the absurd.) And interestingly, the public, including most conservatives disagreed with their actions.

We saw similar efforts on the part of former attorney general Ashcroft, who first issued an order to prosecute any physician or pharmacist who, under Oregon law, assisted any patient suffering from terminal illness in ending their life, and when that failed, then undertook a law suite against the state. Who overreached here? Majority opinion prevailed in Oregon since the law was twice passed on a statewide referendum, but Ashcroft viewed the law as an affront to his Pentecostal morality.

Consider too the U.S. Supreme Court’s action in 2000 when it overturned the Florida Supreme Court,offering a decision that split along ideological lines, with the conservative faction ruling against recounts and the liberal wing, joined by Justice Souter, arguing in favor of them. The results were, from a logical perspective, paradoxical: The five staunchest states-rights advocates, who had argued throughout their careers for minimal federal interference in state decisions of this sort, constituted the majority that overturned the decision of the Florida Supreme Court. (Reminds me of Tom Delay’s remark while passing the Schavio Act: “no little judge sitting in a state district court in Florida is going to usurp the authority of Congress.”) This is same inconsistency that we saw in the recent action of the Republican Congress, White House, and earlier with Ashcroft. Getting a certain result is what matters for most of these conservatives, not principles of state-rights,separation of powers, or judicial restraint.

The issue isn’t “judicial activism,� but the particular positions that are arrived at by the courts. We see the Bush administration and their supporters on the religious right doing everything in their power to have judges appointed who will help instantiate their religious-political-ethical agenda into law. They just haven’t been as successful as they would like, so they complain.

By Brian

April 4, 2005 10:48 AM | Link to this

Randy, do you support the death penalty? I hope not, because you would be hypocritically authorizing judges and juries to play God.

Remember the sanctity of marriage conservative Christians always talk about with regard to gay rights? Well, regard for the sanctity of marriage in our legal system is what compelled the judge to listen to Terri’s husband when he said that she expressed a desire not to be kept alive in such a condition and that she should be compassionately allowed to die with dignity. The judge acted in accordance with state and federal law.

I should also defend Michael. He sought numerous treatment options. He slept next to her for five weeks. He was then encouraged to go on with his life and to date other women by the same parents who now use that against him. He has been with another woman for 10 years, but Terri has been in this condition for 15 years. It’s not like he moved in with this other woman the next day.

By mit

April 4, 2005 10:56 AM | Link to this

Randy,

i think you have the playing god card in the wrong hand.

the doctors were playing god by putting the tube in. the judges were playing judges when they sided with the husband (the legal guardian) to let him make the decision.

By Brian

April 4, 2005 11:04 AM | Link to this

Sorry for the double post of those two paragraphs. I thought the first try didn’t take.

Smithy, the only argument you make against homosexual behavior is that it is “risky.” Is homosexual intercourse between inherently more risky than heterosexual intercourse? I don’t think so, especially when neither partner is infected with an STD. Even if homosexual behavior is more risky, isn’t that an argument for encouraging monogamy? And the idea that a person would be born homosexual but not act on it and presumably marry a person of the opposite gender is absurd. We should tell all gays to act straight and tell all blacks to move to Africa. It’s their choice to live here, right?

Also, I wasn’t aware that in America they had to run their lifestyle choices by the majority for our approval. I was under the impression that Americans believed in individualism, liberty, religious freedom, and the pursuit of happiness.

By smithy

April 4, 2005 11:15 AM | Link to this

Brian - by virtue of your argument, we should also then accept NAMBLA and pedophiles, since sex with children is THEIR pursuit of happiness. After all, they may CHOOSE to act out those feelings but they were born that way so it’s okay, right?

And I don’t see the need to send people “back to Africa” when they were born here. The majority of blacks have never even BEEN to Africa, making the lable of “African-American” one of the most ridiculous ever created.

If gays were typically monogomous, that would be a wonderful thing. However, that isn’t how it is and their behavior is inherantly risky because of the fact that there are people who live their lives as a straight person but engage in secret gay sex, puting their straight partner then at risk. It affects everyone when promiscuous gay sex goes unchecked.

Your entire argument is ludacris and flimsy. If gay people want to act gay, more power to them. But don’t expect the rest of society to accept it as normal.

By otise

April 4, 2005 11:20 AM | Link to this

The interesting thing to me about the supposed “right” ideology is that it decries a more liberal perspective for trying to tear apart and reconstruct the social fabric of our nation at the very same time that it exerts an immeasurable amount of pressure on our government to do the same thing. Shaunti accuses certain judges of administering social policy from the bench, when in actuality, it seems that she is calling for the very same thing. Any legislation produced in response to changing social mores is social policy, pure and simple. What we know is this; calling for the continued suffering of Terri Schiavo based on her “right to life” is a moral one. Whether or not her parents legally had the right to demand dictation over her care was a legal one. In fact, whether or not abortion is actually murder is a issue up for social debate; whether or not a woman has the constitutional right to decide if she can terminate a pregnancy if she so wishes is a legal one. Should Ms. Feldhahn have her way, what we would see is the emergence of a host of new social policy, whose time would see its day come and go, much like welfare reform, healthcare reform, and sadly even educational reform.

And what we know is moral issues have no clear answer. Conservatives like Ms. Feldhahn rally for the lives of vegetative people and unborn fetuses, all the while staunchly supporting the war in Iraq that has taken the lives of thousands of young Americans and countless innocent Iraqi young children women and even innocent men in the name of an invisible threat. While legislation was being introduced to “save terri” thousands of others in a similar state were being disconnected from their feeding tubes, not because their families are ready to see their suffering end, but because there is no one able to finance their fight. Where is the conservative clarion call for them? Or is that right to life reserved only for those who can afford it? And for every right to life person who demands the life of a fetus be protected, there is a woman who has been raped, a woman who faces social ostracism, a woman who literally fears for her life should she carry a baby to term. Now are any of the above excuses to terminate a pregnancy? I dont think so, but then again, I have never been in any of these positions. Who am I deny the right to choose from a woman who has?

Perhaps the saddest thing to me about the Schaivo case is that the one single most important social issue born of her struggle is one that it seems both liberals and conservatives are eager to ignore. Fifteen years ago, Terri Schiavo’s heart stopped because she suffered from what has vaguely been refered to as “an eating disorder” and thanks to medical malpractice, she wound up brain dead. Any potential discourse that her life, vegetative state, and ultimate death could have sparked has been ignored for the more politically charged topic of her right to continue existing. But why aren’t we hollering, picketting, and demanding more funding for programs that help those with eating disorders? Why arent we calling for legislation that brings an end to websites and chat rooms that promote anorexia and bulimia, in Terri’s name? Why aren’t we taking a closer look at care adminstered in hospitals and emergency rooms around the country and changing malpractice legislation that benefits the healthcare system more than its patients?

I guess the point I am trying to make is this; social issues, be they conservatively or liberally driven, change with the times. It is the function of the law to ensure that the rights of the people do not swing from left to right with the changing of the social tide. The law exists to serve as a beacon of light that does its best to garauntee systemic order irrespective of my moral beliefs or yours. Thankfully, the law - unlike the the majority of our republic - is objective. Let us all hope that those entrusted with its administration continue to respect this, its most fundamental prinicple.

By mit

April 4, 2005 11:25 AM | Link to this

this is what i mean: “marriage, which is a sacred institution endorsed by God for the purposes of procreation and a relationship between a man and a woman.” — smithy

so anyone who doesn’t believe in God and doesn’t procreate shouldn’t be allowed to marry is what you are saying. this is not reality.

here’s another one in the same post on gay marriage: “It is simply the fact that people shouldn’t be forced to embrace the whims of a group of people who choose to engage in risky sexual behavior and whose lifestyle choices fly in the face of the values and morals of the majority of Americans.” — smithy

so all gay people practice risky sexual behavior? you don’t consider the same behavior risky between a man and woman?

in other words, it’s not that we hate the gays, we just don’t like them very much. and since we don’t like them, we will try to control them as much as possible.

so how is this different from the black and white issue again? we didn’t create jim crow laws because we liked black people but because we disliked them. skin-color and sexual orientation may be apples and oranges but the laws written to control these people is the exact same thing.

By Tim

April 4, 2005 11:27 AM | Link to this

oh I love it when in one sentence people like ‘smithy’ say ‘it isn’t about hate’… and then in their next sentence compare me and other gay men and women to pedophiles… if that isn’t hate speach I don’t know what is you’re a sorry piece of crap

sorry but I am done being nice and respectful… anyone who equates me with being a pedophile does not deserve me to be respectful… you sir or madam are the scum beneath my toes!

everyone else have a wonderful day :)

Lyrazel I was glad that you brought up the fact that Judge Greene is a conservative BAPTIST Christian… I guess Shaunti conveniently left that part out! and to show how much love his church had… they have told him not to come back to that church… wonder what Christ would think about that? doen’t very much like ‘the love of Christ’ to me

By Brian

April 4, 2005 11:31 AM | Link to this

NAMBLA and pedophiles don’t involve two consenting adults. Were pedophiles born that way? I haven’t seen a lot of scientific evidence on it, but I think most pedophiles are a result of environmental conditions (such as abuse as a child).

Research indicates that homosexuals have never been heterosexual. It doesn’t stop you from wanting to make them choose to live differently. Acting on your sexual preference is a choice, just as living in America is a choice. Blacks wouldn’t be happy in Africa, and homosexuals wouldn’t be happy in a heterosexual life. But the important thing is that everyone conform to the majority, isn’t it?

Your third paragraph provides great support for my position (but you accuse me of using ludicrous and flimsy arguments). Forcing gays into pretending to be heterosexual through social pressures or the law increases the likelihood that diseases will be spread because they must act in secret.

I do recognize that you support civil unions, which is good. It’s still discriminatory, though. Furthermore, I believe civil unions are now illegal in Georgia thanks to the constitutional amendment that passed overwhelmingly this past November.

By Archie

April 4, 2005 11:38 AM | Link to this

83 percent of people believe that the Schiavo rulings were not influenced by activist judges. This is according to an unscientific poll. I stress unscientific but the fact that an overwhelming majority believe the decisions were not based on activism in that case causes me to believe that people respect the rights of the decision-making-spouse and many people simply don’t want to live with a feeding tube year after year. As a christian I have a problem with starving someone to death but the courts ruled time after time that the husband had the right to make a decision and he made the decision so that’s how the situation ended. As for gay marriage Bush is trying to change the Constitution so that legally judges can block gay marriage. Right now there isn’t anything in the Constitution to address it and that’s why states are rushing to pass laws that get around the Constitution just as they did with civil rights. Let’s face it marriage establishes order not love. If you marry you have the right to make healthcare decisions for your spouse and you get the social security benefits,etc. because of the marriage. That’s what gays want,benefits. Whether I like the lifestyle or not they(gays) work and pay taxes so why can’t they get benefits if we can establish in an orderly fashion how those benefits will be distributed.

By J. Morris

April 4, 2005 11:39 AM | Link to this

Yes Tim - I love it when the ignorant masses like smithy and Randy deign to tell me that I have no character and am a child-chasing pedophile because I’m gay. Their gross stupidity, bigotry and sheer ignorance astounds me.

By Michael

April 4, 2005 12:09 PM | Link to this

Otise,

I agree with a lot of what you said, but rather than using the Iraq war as an example, though I opposed the war, as you did, I think that the conservative opposition to virtually any attempt to extend health care to the uninsured and under-insured is a better example in this context. Conservative political leaders such as Bush and DeLay will move heaven and earth to protect fertilized eggs from stem cell research, fetuses, and an adult in a hopeless persistent vegetative state, and nothing to assist the 45 million people in the United States who have no health insurance and the millions of others who have limited insurance, high premiums, and deductibles. So, after the last major effort at health care reform in 1994 failed, we remain the only Western industrialized country without universal health care, while at the same time we spend more per capita on health care than any country in the world. I doubt that DeLay and other Congressional leaders, let alone the White House, would consider flying back to Washington for a special session to deal with this issue.

By Mara

April 4, 2005 12:26 PM | Link to this

Well, good discussion today. Almost no mention of abortion, for a change.
First, Brian Curtis - thank you for your kind words. You seem a man of rare refinement and discernment. Smithy - you sir, are an idiot. NAMBLA advocates for the right to rape children. This is not a “relationship”, this is a crime against innocents. Pedophilia has nothing, NOTHING at all to do with whether 2 consenting adults will be granted all the rights and priveleges inherent in that government-sanctioned institution called marriage. And otise - well said. Well said indeed.

The term “activist” seems to be solely reserved for judges who do not toe the social conservative line. People have spoken of Terri Schiavo and vilified her husband for not allowing her parents to continue her care. Their opinion, it seems, is that it was immaterial whether or not she wanted to continue life hooked to a feeding tube and with absolutely no chance of recovery. Life at all costs, whether you like it or not. This, to me, is “activist”.
When the Alabama Supreme Court ordered Saint Roy Moore to remove his idol of the 10-Commandments, they became “activists” because they ruled against the social conservatives who wanted to foist religious dogma onto anyone required to visit the government building that housed the court. Whether or not you agree, judges rule by the law. We have appeals processes to ensure that the law is followed. In fact, we have multiple appeal processes just to be absolutely safe. When all appeals are exhaused, one can be relatively certain that it was the rule of law, not the rule of personal ideology that was upheld. Activist judges are a lie and a sham propagated by the Taliban arm of the Republican party.

By Ben

April 4, 2005 12:34 PM | Link to this

I’ve been reading the comments here and other topics for a while now and have never posted my comments. However, I just want to say that while the majority of the content is amusing, a great deal of the info is in it’s own way, somewhat educating.

I always start to post a comment or my opinion but I can’t always find a Web site or quote some study, or some person to back it up.

But then again, do I need to cut and paste 1,000 words to back up my OWN thoughts and beliefs.

Just Curious!

By Donny

April 4, 2005 12:38 PM | Link to this

See what I mean. The left always results to name calling.

“Activist judges are a lie and a sham propagated by the Taliban arm of the Republican party.”

Stick with the facts. It will always provide for better more intellectual debate.

By lozen

April 4, 2005 12:46 PM | Link to this

Well you all know if one is gay they should never, ever have a sex life. Just say NO! Never mind that sexual needs are one of the strongest needs any of us have. I don’t think straight people who choose to engage in risky sexual behavior like Bill Clinton, Newt Gingrich, Jimmy Swaggart, Magic Johnson, and the high percentage of other heterosexual men and women who have sex outside their marriage should be able to remain married. Their lifestyle choices fly in the face of the values and morals of the majority of Americans! Lets just do away with marriage totally unless people can prove they’re virgins when they marry and then have to pass a test every year to prove they haven’t made any choices that fly… well, you know.

By Zack

April 4, 2005 12:52 PM | Link to this

DID YOU REALLY THINK I HAD LEFT THIS BLOG FOR GOOD? NAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WELCOME BACK, ZACK, IF I DO SAY SO MYSELF.

Oh, I did catch Lozen’s comment/accusation of my posting under Norman’s name. Lozen, I don’t do that and haven’t, so for once, just once, stop your infernal lying through your teeth.

As for judges, yes, they’re out of control. All they’re doing nowadays is imposing their tyrannical beliefs on the majority. This is no way to have a country. We need to return to basics and put these people in their places.

I could go on and on. I repeat, however, Lozen, quit lying through your teeth. Thank you.

By Miranda

April 4, 2005 12:57 PM | Link to this

Okay, Brian, out of simple curiousity, could you explain exactly what, in your opinion, was wrong with the decision reached in Brown v. Bd of Education? Apparently, you believe this decision was reached in error and……not sure what you think should have happened (too scared to let my mind go there) Shaunti, I pretty much disagree with you on every topic, but at least you usually make a plausible argument. This time, okay I’m sorry, you really said some stupid things. Perhaps you didn’t read over your piece before you submitted it. At this point, I simply give up. I cannot find a redeeming quality in the religious right, conservative faction of this country. I tried, God knows I did. “Don’t judge a book by its cover, have an open mind, embrace those different from yourself”…..whatever. Protestors marching and yelling at a HOSPICE no less….that was absolutely the ultimate in disregard for the other patients and their families. A complete lack of respect for 70 other individuals suffering from terminal illness…and I’m supposed to believe you actually give a rat’s a* about Terri Schiavo? Give me a break. I have heard not one apology about the circus created by the Schindlers…and that’s what it was, a circus. You disagree with the courts, then protest at the courthouse. Unbelievable.

By E. Lewis

April 4, 2005 12:59 PM | Link to this

It depends on your perspective on any given case. Having been a rather keen observer of politics, I’ve noticed that “activist” judges tend to be the ones who rule against the wishes of whoever is barking the loudest and getting the most press.

By Sandy

April 4, 2005 01:22 PM | Link to this

Smithy, you aptly demonstrate, among other things, that the opposite of love is not hate, it’s indifference.

By R. Friedman

April 4, 2005 01:25 PM | Link to this

Like many of you, I have been compelled by recent events to prepare a more detailed advance directive dealing with end-of-life issues. Here’s what mine says:

• In the event I lapse into a persistent vegetative state, I want medical authorities to resort to extraordinary means to prolong my hellish semiexistence. Fifteen years wouldn’t be long enough for me.

• I want my wife and my parents to compound their misery by engaging in a bitter and protracted feud that depletes their emotions and their bank accounts.

• I want my wife to ruin the rest of her life by maintaining an interminable vigil at my bedside. I’d be really jealous if she waited less than a decade to start dating again or otherwise rebuilding a semblance of a normal life.

• I want my case to be turned into a circus by losers and crackpots from around the country who hope to bring meaning to their empty lives by investing the same transient emotion in me that they once reserved for Laci Peterson, Chandra Levy and that little girl who got stuck in a well.

• I want those crackpots to spread vicious lies about my wife.

• I want to be placed in a hospice where protesters can gather to bring further grief and disruption to the lives of dozens of dying patients and families whose stories are sadder than my own.

• I want the people who attach themselves to my case because of their deep devotion to the sanctity of life to make death threats against any judges, elected officials or health care professionals who disagree with them.

• I want the medical geniuses and philosopher kings who populate the Florida Legislature to ignore me for more than a decade and then turn my case into a forum for weeks of politically calculated bloviation.

• I want total strangers - oily politicians, maudlin news anchors, ersatz friars and all other hangers-on - to start calling me “Bobby,” as if they had known me since childhood.

• I’m not insisting on this as part of my directive, but it would be nice if Congress passed a “Bobby’s Law” that applied only to me and ignored the medical needs of tens of millions of other Americans without adequate health coverage.

• Even if the “Bobby’s Law” idea doesn’t work out, I want Congress - especially all those self-described conservatives who claim to believe in “less government and more freedom” - to trample on the decisions of doctors, judges and other experts who actually know something about my case. And I want members of Congress to launch into an extended debate that gives them another excuse to avoid pesky issues such as national security and the economy.

• In particular, I want House Majority Leader Tom DeLay to use my case as an opportunity to divert the country’s attention from the mounting political and legal troubles stemming from his slimy misbehavior.

• And I want Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist to make a mockery of his Harvard medical degree by misrepresenting the details of my case in ways that might give a boost to his 2008 presidential campaign.

• I want Frist and the rest of the world to judge my medical condition on the basis of a snippet of dated and demeaning videotape that should have remained private.

• Because I think I would retain my sense of humor even in a persistent vegetative state, I’d want President Bush - the same guy who publicly mocked Karla Faye Tucker when signing off on her death warrant as governor of Texas - to claim he was intervening in my case because it is always best “to err on the side of life.”

• I want the state Department of Children and Families to step in at the last moment to take responsibility for my well-being, because nothing bad could ever happen to anyone under DCF’s care.

• And because Gov. Jeb Bush is the smartest and most righteous human being on the face of the Earth, I want any and all of the aforementioned directives to be disregarded if the governor happens to disagree with them. If he says he knows what’s best for me, I won’t be in any position to argue.

By Lola

April 4, 2005 01:30 PM | Link to this

A lot of differing opinions here, that’s for sure. I think there are some judges who have been more out of control than others. Terri Shaivo’s case is not an example of that, though. Her parents should be ashamed of themselves for creating the spectacle that they did by bringing on the likes of Randal Terry to speak for them. She had no quality of life, and while that didn’t seem to mean anything to them, it meant something to her husband, who loved her enough to see her wishes through, even after 15 long years.

The topic of gay marriage - that’s a tough one. The majority of Americans don’t want it to be legal, but does that make it right to deny them the same rights that are extended to heterosexuals? Probably not. Is it one judge’s authority to override what the majority has expressed? That’s where things get sticky. I can’t really make a call on that. I’m just glad I’m not the judge who has to make that decision.

I think the mud-slinging on both sides here has been shameful. The left-wing obviously wants more liberal laws and agrees with the “activist” judges who endorse those. The right-wing obviously wants more conservative laws and finds judges who act outside of that realm to be “activist”.

Everyone here is entitled to their opinion, whether or not others agree with it. I just think it would be nice if we could all discuss things without the name calling. That brings the level of intelligence down faster than anything else. Smithy may be a bigot, but he’s entitled to his opinions, even if we find them vulgar and idiotic. They’re still allowable in a public forum like this.

I do have to say that I disagree with Michael on the topic of socialized healthcare. Yes, Canada and other Westernized countries have universal healthcare, but they also have 9-12 month wait times to get an appointment for non-urgent care, and there is no choice in which doctors you can see. You are at the mercy of whatever they give you, whoever they give you. I prefer to have some say in my healthcare providers, as well as a say in what kind of healthcare I receive and when. That’s one of the benefits of living in a capitalist society.

By Archie

April 4, 2005 01:37 PM | Link to this

Michael, that was a good post. I said the same thing last week about healthcare. The thing that disappoints me is that so-called liberal people don’t come out and vote. This topic is a strong topic in a sense because of how active Bush and his people were. Bush and his people were activists and they failed but liberal folk aren’t activist at the polls so laws will get changed and you will really have out of control conservative judges,possibly. I do applaud Shanti and Dianne for the topic because as a christian I am taught to follow the law of the land and if you have judges that interpret the law improperly then people like me are only left with the option of peaceful protest. I am amazed at how many people on the left that are so out of tune politically. With 45 million uninsured you would think that would be a hot button issue. The former governor of Oregon wrote about how the lack of healthcare caused someone to die but we’re discussing judges because of one or two cases.

By Joel

April 4, 2005 01:41 PM | Link to this

The left’s arguments on Schiavo are perverse. An innocent woman was condemned to death by a single judge, who accepted hearsay testimony as the sole foundation for her execution. If Teri Schiavo had simply murdered someone before developing her medical problem, a governor could have pardoned her. In the left’s view, only evil people should ever be forgiven; the innocent must die when they become inconvenient.

By J. Morris

April 4, 2005 01:41 PM | Link to this

It all comes down to power. The Right is in such ecstasy over its current control of the Executive and Legislative branches that it can’t stand that it doesn’t have a strangle-hold over the Judicial. So, they manufacture catch-phrases like “activist judges� to whip the fears of the average citizen to a fever pitch, and then propagate said soundbyte through the labors of radio shock-jocks, government-funded “journalists� and inflammatory spokespeople.

Lest we all forget, the Judicial Branch is not subservient to the other two – it is a component of a balanced triumvirate and is under no obligation to act as a rubber stamp to the President OR the Congress. Judges are doing exactly what they should be doing – determining how the law as written should be applied in accordance with the Constitution.

Were the Justices in Loving v. Virginia “activist� when they struck down Virginia’s miscegenation law? I’m sure that people of the time thought so. We the Justices who determined, in Brown v. Board of Education, that “Separate but Equal� was not acceptable, “activist�? I’m sure that people of the time thought so.

Because something is POPULAR does not make it right. Because the religious right WANTS to be able to discriminate against gays or women, or to turn a simple case of family law into some kind of distorted pro-life side show, that doesn’t mean they SHOULD be. Some of the worst excesses in the history of the world have occurred because the majority wanted them to, or believed they were right.

Pay close attention to Randy and Zack and their supporters; these people represent the Tyranny of the Majority better than any example I could pull from a history text. Their rabid hatred for groups unlike themselves shows why we NEED judges who will make sure that every American is protected, that every human being who sets foot in this country is treated equally under the law. Even those two.

By J. Morris

April 4, 2005 01:46 PM | Link to this

Yo, Lola - try being called names by people like Smithy for most of your life and then see if you can retain your calm. Try listening to other people who don’t know you tell you what a horrible person you MUST be for most of your life, and see if you don’t start using words like bigot to describe them.

I don’t care a whit for their feelings. I’ll call them worse names if goaded, and not feel a shred of remorse. They ARE bigots, they ARE ignorant, they ARE hate-mongers, and I personally wouldn’t care if every one of them vanished off the face of the planet. They certainly would express no remorse if the same happened to every gay person on the planet.

By J. Morris

April 4, 2005 01:49 PM | Link to this

Um, Joel…please read more. The Schiavo case was reviewed 22 times by various levels of the judiciary. Over and over and over. Hardly the opinion of single judge accepting hearsay testimony.

By Miranda

April 4, 2005 01:49 PM | Link to this

to R. Friedman - that was great!!!

I think Michael Schiavo, by saying very little to the public, refraining from responding to unsubstantiated allegations and avoiding the limelight, has shown incredible restraint and dignity. My heart went out to the Schindlers…right up until I read they sold their mailing list to various conservative groups….then my compassion turned into disgust. Actually, I was already incensed by their total lack of decency with regard to the other patients (its a Hospice, I’m thinking there must have been a patient or two in the last few months, other than Terri, whose last days were not met with calmness and tranquility).

By Mara

April 4, 2005 01:50 PM | Link to this

Dear, dear Donny. The evangelical christian movement, which is reliably Republican, advocates many of the same ultra-conservative ideals as the Taliban. Ideals like mandating religious observances in schools. Like using religion as a basis to craft legislation regulating “immoral” behavior. Like the idea that fundamentalist Christianity is the one true religion and all others are lies and idols, much as the Taliban believes about Islam. Most egregiously though, is that their interpretation of what God wants infringes on the lives of people who don’t share their religion. These are the book burners, the art destroyers, the music haters, and the misogynist. They are filled with anger and hate for anything that they decide is “against God” and believe themselves fully justified in destroying it. They are to Christianity what the Taliban is to Islam. Just because you don’t like the name doesn’t make it “name-calling”. And just because the judiciary follows the law instead of the Bible doesn’t make them “activist”.

By Tim

April 4, 2005 02:02 PM | Link to this

‘Yo, Lola - try being called names by people like Smithy for most of your life and then see if you can retain your calm. Try listening to other people who don’t know you tell you what a horrible person you MUST be for most of your life, and see if you don’t start using words like bigot to describe them.’

JMorris… couldn’t have said it better myself

By Lola

April 4, 2005 02:12 PM | Link to this

J. Morris - I understand that you’re angry, and I can’t possibly say that I know what it’s like to be singled out like you have been by some of the people here. I can only imagine how infuriating and belittling it is, and I don’t condone that one bit. My heart goes out to any group of people who are criticized and labeled by the ignorant jerks out there who claim to speak for us all. They don’t. The world needs all kinds of people and no one should presume to be better than another.

I find it incredibly sad that Michael Schaivo has been accused of abuse, adultry, and all the other horrible things being slung by the Right-to-Lifers. This woman had an eating disorder, which nobody seems to take into consideration. As sad as it is to say, her condition was self-induced and a result of very self-destructive behavior. I’m not saying she asked for it. I’m simply saying that her own actions resulted in the tragic condition she found herself in. Michael is not to blame for that.

By lozen

April 4, 2005 02:30 PM | Link to this

R. Friedman, Applause, APPLAUSE…… Friedman! Friedman!, Friedman for President!

By Brian Curtis

April 4, 2005 02:43 PM | Link to this

Well, Friedman IS a professional writer… this is his latest column from the St. Petersburg Times.

Joel: The notion that one or more judges “condemend her to death” is the latest spin from the Religious Reich, but it’s just that—spin.

The decision to end her life support was made by her spouse and legal guardian, as is his right. All the judges did was uphold his right to do so, and reinforce once again the principle that the government should stay the heck OUT of private, family medical situations.

Hard to belive that self-proclaimed conservatives would have a problem with that, isn’t it? But then, they’re typically more talk than action when it comes to “smaller government,” “less federal intrusion into personal lives,” and the like.

By L. Givens

April 4, 2005 02:51 PM | Link to this

I commend the comments of R. Friedman, below, to all who would take an interest in this subject. I wish I had written that and I whole heartily agree. WELL SAID!

An “activist” judge is any judge who disagrees with George Bush (spelled K-a-r-l R-o-v-e; the puppet master), Tom Delay (spelled; has the check come from the ___ company lobbyist yet? fill in the blank with the company of your choice - while you still have a choice)or the rest of the right wing “I know what is best for you” camp. This is nothing new. It was, after all, a republican senator from Ohio (Taft) who in the early fifties accused Gen. George Marshall of being a communist sympathizer.

And so it goes….

By Steve

April 4, 2005 02:52 PM | Link to this

Okay, lets reason and get the correct definition of Liberal activist Judge and a conservative Judge. First, Activist Judges are typically called liberal judges. Not because of their political point of view, but because of the way they will apply the law. For example, in the present case of Congress passing that bill that gave a general directive of giving federal jurisdiction to the case. A liberal activist Judge (like Thurgood Marhshall) would assume and expand (hence activist) the meaning of congress’s law and would have granted a stay and reinsertion of the feeding tube. Justice Marshall was known for this, in fact Justice Marshall argued the Brown v. Board of education case on the simple argument “it is the right thing to do.” If you remember there was NO law in the land at that time that addressed De-segregation. Only Plessy and the Sweat case were prevailing law and those were separate but equal cases. The Supreme Court Justices acted outside of prevailng case law and expanded and made law. This was a liberal application and activist role the court took. Now in contrast, a conservative (constructionist judge, again nothing to do with political views, but with application of the law) would only apply the law as written and nothing else PERIOD. If congress does not say it, a conservative Judge will not apply it-NO ASSUMPTIONS-just what the black letter ink says. If it is not in the Const. spelled out it is not a right that applies to citizens or the government. These are the majority of the Judges that serve on the 11th and 5th cir. Mainly appointed by republican Presidents. Now the Schiavo case was rather easy to predict. The 11cir has 11 appointments by Republican presidents all conservative Judges only one was a Clinton appointee- (the only one who voted for reinsertion-a liberal Judge) Thus The 11 cir in its conservative manner only applied the law to the black letter ink as to what congress said. If you read Congress’s Schiavo law they did not say “stay the preceding and reinsert the feeding tube and then do a De novo review.” Congress wanted the Judges to assume that is what Congress meant say-again; conservative Judges do not assume anything. If congress meant to say it then let congress put it in the law. Congress was a moral coward, a carpet bagging snake oil salesman. Congress got the Schiavo’s all-full of hope but did not have the guts to say reinsert the feeding tube!! Congress does have the right to expand and narrow federal jurisdiction BUT they must supply the law with any new piece of legislation. So the conservative dist court and 11 Cir Appeals court had to apply well established law for injunctions (Cruzan case) in absent of what congress did not provide. All congress had to do is say in this Schiavo Law the courts will use new standards for injunctive relief and spell out what congress’s wants the Judges to do. So these are not Activist judges they are strict by the law judges who only do what congress tells them to do. So if one has a problem with the outcome yell at congress and the Republicans who put Judges on the Bench that only follow the letter of the law and not create laws. The reason why Republicans want conservative Judges like Justice Thomas, Renquist on the bench is to overturn Roe v. Wade, not on moral or political grounds but based on conservative judicial philosophy. Roe. v. Wade was not decided on moral or political grounds but based on a Const. right to Privacy. (Read the decision you will not see the moral or political grounds raised) Conservative judges like the ones on the 11 cir do not believe that there is a Const Right to Privacy—Why because it is not spelled out in the US Const. Remember, they only apply what is written not what is assumed. That is what is absolutely hilarious about all the Political conservatives like Cal Thomas, Tom Delay, Sean Hanity and many others calling the 11 cir court Activist liberals. If you want Roe v Wade overturned keep appointing conservative Judges, but remember that judicial philosophy spelled death for Terri Schiavo. How Ironic that the right to life people support the Schiavo’s and those who they call the culture of death view Judges would have kept Terri alive. Long before the Schiavo’s dilemma there was the very similar case of the Speluncean Explorers written by Lon Fuller, I implore each of you to read it and decide who would you rule. Then ask yourself do I really want conservative judges on the bench or do I want some one more that has the judicial philosophy of H.LA. Hart, Jerome Frank, or Karl Llewellyn. We have to stop thinking in terms of red state v. blue state Right to life v. Pro Choice, “we must think about are thinking.â€? Otherwise you might get what you ask for and it will be the death of you.

By Gina

April 4, 2005 02:53 PM | Link to this

No, the gay marriage movement should not be compared to the Civil Rights movement. It cheapens the Civil Rights movement. One can hide the fact that their gay. One can’t hide their skin color.

And no, Blacks shouldn’t have to hear this “Go back to Africa” crap anymore! You don’t hear us telling Europeans to “Go back to England, France, etc.” It goes back to the superiority issue of European descent people thinking they own whatever land “they discovered”.

Stop comparing the Civil Rights movement to the Gay movement!

By Michael

April 4, 2005 03:04 PM | Link to this

Lola,

No offense, but most of these claims about health care in other Western nations are exaggerated, apply to certain select cases in some countries, while not in others, or are just plain false. Very few people in Europe, Australia, or Canada would trade their health care for ours, and for good reasons. The United States health care system, is not in Bush’s words in the last debate, “the envy of the world.� To the contrary, it is often invoked in other Western countries, sometimes unfairly, as the model of a failed system, and one to be avoided.

All I can say, with respect, is to do a little more research using objective sources and good sources are available in abundance. I have, since the subject is of interest to me, and since I believe that access to quality health care is also part of a just society. I have also lived in and visited countries with other systems and I think most of these claims against their systems are just ideology.

It is difficult to overcome the political socialization that Americans have been subjected to over this issue, a socialization that has bred stereotypes that are seemingly impervious to evidence. (The long waits, high cost, mediocre care, for example.) I was talking to a colleague a few weeks ago, a history professor, originally from Finland who is married to an American, took his PhD here, and has lived here for a while. (In fact, this man’s American wife goes to Finland when she can for her own medical care.) He took a friend, a conservative engineer from Georgia Tech with him on his last swing through Scandinavia, and it precipitated, to use his words, an “epistemological crisis,â€? since none of what he experienced fit the conservative ideology of his friend. Our conversation was overheard by another person, who raised the same questions grounded in the usual stereotypes. He was open minded enough to listen as we disabused him of these beliefs from our own experiences and knowledge.

Last week I learned that the brother of a friend of mine, an American who has been living in Norway since the late 60s, is moving there from Texas because, despite being a corporate executive (and Republican), he can no longer afford to pay for his wife’s medical bills. His father was Norwegian, so he can claim citizenship and move there and take advantage of their outstanding health care without losing all that he owns.

Bush may popularize the phrase “Old Europe,� but the European Union is faring better than the United States in many respects. We ought to just face that and not, as most conservatives typically do, just attack the person who disagrees with them.

By Randy

April 4, 2005 03:05 PM | Link to this

In answering earlier posts, no I do not support the death penalty. If one person who is innocent is put to death(by mistake) that’s one to many.

By Jack

April 4, 2005 03:08 PM | Link to this

If you were sitting there having dinner with your spouse and he/she said that they would not like to live as a vegetable and would not want to live this way, then before anything was put in writing, she had a stroke and was in a vegetative state, do you people think it is the government’s place to say she should stay a vegetable? Her parents gave up the right to that decision on her wedding day.

By Randy

April 4, 2005 03:11 PM | Link to this

There is two ways to look at things, one I am superior what I want is what I want(subconscienously I think I am God)or I didn’t create this universe in the beginning and I am going to follow the entity who did create the universe’s advise. My associate pastor said something yesterday at church very on the point. He said that people who have yet to experience Jesus, are doing all they can, that is who they are, that’s all they know. Not to fault them, they just don’t know. Some even don’t know that they don’t know.

By Leslie Carbone

April 4, 2005 03:19 PM | Link to this

On March 31, 2005, thirty years after feminism’s hey-day in the 1970s, a woman died from dehydration, on the orders of her adulterous husband, who was supported by the courts in his quest to end his wife’s life. On February 25, 1990, Theresa Schindler Schiavo collapsed in her home and suffered significant brain damage. In 1992, Mrs. Schiavo’s husband Michael was awarded a $1,050,000 malpractice settlement, of which $300,000 was allocated for Mr. Schiavo’s loss of consortium and $750,000 for Mrs. Schiavo’s rehabilitative care. Mr. Schiavo subsequently refused to allow rehabilitative care for his wife. There are other reasons to doubt Mr. Schiavo’s good will. According to the affidavit of Carla Iyer, a nurse who cared for Mrs. Schiavo during the mid-1990s, Mr. Schiavo “would be visibly excited, thrilled even, hoping that she would dieâ€? whenever she contracted an illness, such as a cold or urinary tract infection. “’I’m going to be rich!’â€? he would exclaim, and “talk about all the things he would buy when Terri died, which included a new car, a new boatâ€? and a trip to Europe. On other occasions, according to Ms. Iyer, Mr. Schiavo would ask, “When is that b—-h going to die?â€? and “Can’t you do anything to accelerate her death?â€? During this time, Mrs. Schiavo was capable of limited speech, reports Ms. Iyer. One of her “most frequent utterancesâ€? was “Help me.â€? Ms. Iyer reports that she would record Mrs. Schiavo’s words, as well as Mr. Schiavo’s, in the patient’s chart, only to find them deleted by her next shift. Ms. Iyer’s affidavit was dismissed as “incredibleâ€? by Florida Probate Judge George Greer, who allowed the March 18 removal of Mrs. Schiavo’s feeding tube, which led to her March 31 death. In 1997, Mr. Schiavo became engaged to another woman, with whom he now has two children. Since the mid- to late-1990s, Mr. Schiavo sought to have his wife’s nutrition and hydration terminated, claiming that she would want to die. The feeding tube was removed and then reinserted twice before the final removal on March 18. Mrs. Schiavo’s parents, Mary and Robert Schindler, fought for years to prevent their daughter’s death, but federal and state courts found over and over in favor of Michael Schiavo. Mr. Schiavo consistently denied the Schindlers access to his wife’s medical records and even refused to allow them to be by her bedside at the moment of her death. That court after court could find in favor of the death desired by a woman’s cold-hearted, adulterous husband over the life desired by her loving, heart-broken parents shows the corruption of modern culture. Theresa Schiavo’s death also marks a milestone in modern culture’s embrace of feminist values. Premier among these values is the wholesale rejection of the sanctity of life. Feminism’s most significant victory was the 1973 legalization of abortion-on-demand. Alan Guttmacher, then president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, hailed the U.S. Supreme Court’s verdict in Roe v. Wade as bringing the nation “a step further toward assuring the birthright of every child to be welcomed by its parents at the time of its birth”. This bizarre notion that abortion protects children’s rights is rooted in a materialistic view of life, according to which its value is not absolute but is instead subject to its perceived utility. Over the last three decades, the power of this materialistic view of life has expanded to threaten not only the unborn, but also the old and the disabled, like Terri Schiavo.
At the same time that feminism forged the cultural rejection of the sanctity of life, it has also forged the cultural rejection of the sanctity of marriage. In the 1960s, feminists began to see success in their push for no-fault divorce, which they claimed would make it easier for women to leave abusive husbands. Since then, the divorce rate has skyrocketed, as have cohabitation and out-of-wedlock births. Massachusettshas legalized homosexual “marriageâ€?. And large numbers of Americans claimed it didn’t matter when a married President of the United Statesengaged in sexual activity with an intern in the Oval Office. Against this cultural backdrop, Michael Schiavo waged a campaign to end his wife’s life while conducting a long-term sexual relationship with another woman. The courts ignored the obvious conflict of interest, and talking heads reflect modernity’s moral dissonance by insisting that Mr. Schiavo loved his wife and at the same time claiming that there’s nothing wrong with his “moving onâ€?, the euphemism for shacking up with another woman while his wife lay disabled and denied care. Once life and family have been trashed, the hard work of providing care for them is devalued as well. Caring for a family isn’t a real job, the feminist culture tells us. Neither is community work. In her affidavit, Ms. Iyer even describes a fellow nurse who “made many comments about Terri being a waste of money, that she should dieâ€?. When “an unusual number of patients seemed to dieâ€? on this other nurse’s shift, Ms. Iyer reports, she would say, “They are old - let them die.â€? Replacing the value that used to be placed on life and on marriage and family is the new value of choice, which is really a code word for selfishness. Women facing unplanned pregnancies may choose to terminate them. An Oscar-winning movie glorifies the murder of a young woman whose paralysis ends her boxing career and, with it, the cheers and applause without which she doesn’t choose to live. We’re even supposed to believe, on the basis of her adulterous husband’s word, that Terri Schiavo would have chosen to be dehydrated to death, and, apparently, large numbers of people do. In all these cases, the value of self supercedes the value of life. Marriages end at the request of one or both parties, because “it’s not working outâ€? or “we’re not compatibleâ€?. Two selves clash, and actually trying to work it out would in some way diminish one or both. Any children involved will understand and be supportive, because they’re better off when their parents are “happyâ€?. Fulfillment comes not from building and caring for a family, but from career success and all its material trappingsâ€â€?money, power, prestigeâ€â€?in other words, from serving one’s self instead of one’s family. The irony is that this exaltation of self favors the powerful. The unborn, the old, and the disabled are at the mercy of those on whom they depend. The spouse who makes the most money—usually the man—fares far better after divorce than the one who makes little or nothing, as well as the children for whom she usually retains primary custody. It’s because feminist values favor the powerful that feminists are so often in the awkward position of having to defend men who have harmed women. Leading feminists, like Patricia Ireland of the National Organization for Women, defended Bill Clinton, on the grounds that his affair with an intern was consensualâ€â€?in other words, of her choosing as well as his. NOW even opposed charging Scott Peterson with the murder of his unborn son Conner, on the grounds that the nearly full-term Conner wasn’t a person yet. Michael Schiavo alone was empowered to speak for his powerless wife, and his obvious reasons for wanting her to die were overlooked, while his claim that she would have chosen death is accepted. The law is supposed to protect the powerless from the powerful. But by ruling against Terri Schiavo’s parents again and again, the courts have perverted justice to enforce the same might-makes-right ethic that would prevail under anarchy. And Theresa Marie Schindler Schiavo lies on the feminist altar of self. May she rest in peace.

By Randy

April 4, 2005 03:22 PM | Link to this

Also, I don’t hate anyone, do I defend the Christian position, ABSOLUTELY. The fact that people who are not Christians don’t like my defense of that position, should tell them something. You all really don’t know me, you can’t get me mad even if you tried, in person I’m one of the most easy going people you will ever meet. But I do believe in Character, loyality, honor, Jesus and being a stand up guy.

By Lola

April 4, 2005 03:24 PM | Link to this

No offense taken, Michael. You have obviously done a LOT more research on the topic than I have, and I will defer to you on this hands-down. My mother is German and has always said that she wishes America had the same medical care for everyone that they do in Germany.

Gina, I agree with you that the gay marriage issue is not a Civil Rights issue, and comparing those two does a great dis-service to the struggles of the black population back when the law wasn’t on their side. But now black people have the same, if not more, rights than whites do, and are protected by law from the kind of racism they dealt with in the 50’s and 60’s. The gay community, on the other hand, is now dealing with a different kind of battle. They want marriage benefits. I don’t think that is comparable to the battle black people fought to be recognized as an equal human being. It’s a Marriage rights issue now, not a Civil Rights issue.

By mit

April 4, 2005 03:24 PM | Link to this

gina, no one is comparing the civil rights movement with the gay rights movement.

but laws written to control them are the same, no matter how you look at it.

you honestly think gay people should just go and hide?

By Randy

April 4, 2005 03:25 PM | Link to this

Just thinking about it, if you people think I’m to stern. Maybe it’s because it’s black and white to me. I have no doubts about Christianity. I just don’t understand why everyone can’t see it. To me it is so plain and simple.

By Mara

April 4, 2005 03:28 PM | Link to this

Sorry Gina. Equal rights under the law is what civil rights was all about. As for being able to conceal ones race, yes you can. They used to call it “passing”.

I never chose to be hetrosexual. I didn’t decide that I would respond erotically to men but not to women. I didn’t make a consious choice to not to desire women. I just don’t. Much like homosexual men just don’t. Asking them to “pass” as hetrosexual and pretend to be something they aren’t just because you are uncomfortable with their orientation is discriminatory. You can couch it any way you want to, but denying equal rights under the law to all people is the core of civil rights. When you pick and choose who gets to have this right or that right, that’s about the time you have to look at your own motivation. Equal is equal, be it black equals white, or gay equal straight.

By Tim

April 4, 2005 03:33 PM | Link to this

Randy… you question if any gay person has character… you say something like that to my face (or to any other gay man or woman) and I could EASILY be ‘mad’ at you in person as well

again everyone… have a lovely day

By Mara

April 4, 2005 03:36 PM | Link to this

Sorry. It should have read “providing equal rights under the law to all people is the core of civil rights”.

By Jack

April 4, 2005 03:46 PM | Link to this

Sorry Leslie, the judges had it right.

By Randy

April 4, 2005 03:47 PM | Link to this

Tim, I actually like you, but what I said stands. I see no character. Sorry. Be a man!

By Mara

April 4, 2005 03:47 PM | Link to this

hey Randy. Just out of curiosity…do you think that one can have character, honor, morals,loyalty and generally be a stand-up guy without being a Christian?

By mit

April 4, 2005 03:48 PM | Link to this

randy,

the main reason why i don’t “see it” is this.

christianity states that there is only one god and jesus is his son. that’s cool by me but…

its the newest religion there is (well, islam too, they are the same to me really, i guess as they all are) but back on point; the newest religion. wouldn’t god have told somebody sooner? so in that light, hindus are the right ones to follow, they came up with the gods first.

second, there is just toooooo many religions out there (includes now and lost ones too). so who is right? which leads into thirdly; how many people have to die before one comes out on top?

this country tried to solve this problem but people like you (not saying your mean or anything like that) don’t want to be bothered by religions not christian based so you get mad when the 10 commandments can not be displayed in courthouses, public places, etc. and you forget the fact that you can place them in your front yard if you want. so instead of getting mad about where the 10 commandments are not placed, place them in your front yard for all to see and be happy that you are able to do so. but at the same time you can’t get mad at your neighbor who can put his very own verse of the commandments in his front yard.

i chose to not listen to preachers or others and looked into what I personally believe. now i have a conclusion and i am happy with it. just because its not what you decided does mean I don’t “see”.

By Van

April 4, 2005 03:49 PM | Link to this

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said Friday that as a justice she considers foreign laws – not just U.S. laws and its Constitution - in forming her legal opinions.

This is an example of an Activist Judge.

How can you consider if a law is constitutional if you step beyond the COnstitution? An example is the “world” view that 17 year olds should not face the death penalty, even if they are prosecuted as an adult.

By Randy

April 4, 2005 03:49 PM | Link to this

Tim, I am shaking at the fact you or any gay would be mad at that statement. Scary. Woooo

By Tim

April 4, 2005 03:57 PM | Link to this

Randy… how many gay people do you know? how can you see character if you don’t want to see it… I have more character in my big toe than a lot of ‘Christians’ I run into on a daily basis… ‘be a man’ what is that supposed to mean?… here is one for you… grow a brain

By James

April 4, 2005 03:57 PM | Link to this

Point by Point: 1)Get it right Diane; Al Gore would NOT be president because more individuals voted for Bush than for Gore in FLORIDA. 2)Brown v Board; most whites were ashamed their race treated others so bad. The Supreme Court only affirmed silent popular opinion. 3)Nowhere has the “will of the people” sanctioned torture. 4)Supreme Court recount in Florida? See sentence No. 1. 5)”Judges often protect individuals from what is often called the ‘tyranny of the majority.’” The majority don’t want the unborn killed. The judges discriminate on whom is deemed worthy to live or die. 6)The people don’t have an absolute civil right to do anything they like in a civilized society. Boundries exist or do you believe anything goes? 7)Fortunately, few judges interpret laws conforming to their own personal biases. Too bad the judge who ruled Terri Schiavo should die didn’t stand for protecting the weak and innocent of society.

By Randy

April 4, 2005 04:00 PM | Link to this

Mit, Most all religions go back to the same creator, the God of Abraham, Jewish, Christian, Islam. That covers most of the people in the world, at least the ones who are allowed to practice religion, over the last 100 years. I didn’t decide anything. Really what it is like is, when you are growing up and they are picking for sides in basketball. God choose me, for his team, I didn’t choose him. I’m real glad he did! Maybe some day he will want you on his team also.

By Randy

April 4, 2005 04:01 PM | Link to this

Tim, Where do you want me to grow my brain, I think it would look weird, but I’ll try. As you wish buddy.

By Tim

April 4, 2005 04:07 PM | Link to this

Randy… well first you would have to start with taking your head out of your rear… and if you don’t know where brains are supposed to be then I nor anyone else can help you there

By Miranda

April 4, 2005 04:18 PM | Link to this

Ms. Carbone, it is painfully obvious that the fictional world of Ozzie and Harriet is your idea of an ideal America, lily-white….no color whatsoever. Incredible, all the ills of society are blamed on the radical, not shaving, burning bra feminists. I have no idea how many women work outside of the home to support their materialistic needs. I do know that every woman in my family, generation after generation, has worked outside of the home (slavery, sharecropping…yeah, that would classify as work outside the home). Can’t say that any are working for the SL500, most are just trying to put the $2.08 per gallon in the Honda. Oh, and I’m talking about married women. Your economy of yesteryear doesn’t quite mesh with the rising costs of every da*n thing. They work because they have too. How quick you are to believe one nurse, but not another with a completely different account of Michael Schiavo’s actions towards Terri. Do you have some telepathic ability to see into one person’s head but not another? Its so easy to judge, which is why its so good that only a few get to actually do it.

By lozen

April 4, 2005 04:19 PM | Link to this

Leslie Carbone who wrote the long article someone posted about feminism failing Schaivo also wrote this! *But Social Security’s untenable financial situation is only part of the problem. The Social Security system is morally untenable as well. As Christians understand, human nature is inherently sinful. Civil government exists to restrain human sinfulness. The Social Security system does the opposite, encouraging the vices in human nature.

Social Security is a wealth transfer program, constituting, in the words of the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-NY), “outright thievery� from young workers. It supports a leisure class on the backs of working families. Social Security fosters a sense of entitlement; this is clear in the often hysterical rhetoric surrounding proposed reform. “The Capitalists Must Keep Their Greedy Hands Off Social Security!� one website demands.*

By Lyrazel

April 4, 2005 04:20 PM | Link to this

Donny My comment about looking at the lunatics who send in death threats still stands. Are we going to see advocates of life-always bombing hospices to make sure no feeding tubes are removed? We saw it with abortion clinics…why…not expect the same from the same fanatic group?

By Miranda

April 4, 2005 04:37 PM | Link to this

If even half of the energy and rhetoric that the right wing zealots use on the abortion issue was spent on actually helping children who are poor, hungry and abused….do I even need to say it? Actions speak louder than words, until you can begin to get that through your thick skulls, you can believe Roe v. Wade will not be overturned. Holler, scream, whatever…unless you are working diligently in the Appalachian mountain, the inner-city ghettos, rural America, the Delta, wherever, to overcome the massive bleakness that all the children in these areas face…..then you can get the F*ck out of my face with your bull, because that’s all it is.

By lozen

April 4, 2005 04:52 PM | Link to this

Another quote from the Carbone article really made me laugh: “Caring for a family isn’t a real job, the feminist culture tells us. Neither is community work.” Gosh I wonder who that was telling me caring for a family wasn’t a real job when i was a young mother in the 60’s before feminism was around? Couldn’t have been the whole culture I lived in could it? The work of taking care of children and a home was not valued at all (it was women’s work) and it wasn’t feminists who created that mindset. As a matter of fact, some feminists worked out a formula showing what that job should pay and what a father would have to pay someone to take over that job if something happened to the mother. Ms. Carbone has twisted a few facts, but then she wasn’t there before feminism, and during feminism; I was.

By Crystal

April 4, 2005 05:05 PM | Link to this

Here’s from a conservative and proud to be one. Most conservatives do not have their feet and mind stuck in concrete. We are not any more “Taliban” than liberals are “Fidels”. Instead of talking about judges, we get mainly the “same old, same old” about religion, gays and over inflated intellectual egos.

I don’t tell the world about my sex life and I don’t want to hear about yours. The smartest people I know rarely mention their degrees, intellect, etc. As to my faith, I prefer to show it in action, not calling names. My church is supportive. The case of Terri Schiavo was very sad and should have ended years ago.

You may call me any names you wish. I am proud to be a conservative American who wouldn’t leave this country if they bought me a ticket for a country that paid my health insurance and income tax. If you see greener pastures, please do not let us interfere with your departure for new happiness. We do not imprison unhappy citizens here, we let them “blog”.

By J. Morris

April 5, 2005 08:02 AM | Link to this

I’m sorry – I’m confused…what is character? By Randy’s definition it’s…well, he doesn’t really define it, does he? He suggests that gay people don’t have it, but he can’t say what IT is. He suggests it has something to do with masculinity, which implies that he has the typical stereotypical impression of gay men as weak and effete (He tells Tim to “be a man� and then makes sarcastic comments about being “scared� of gay men being angry at him) but he never actually defines what IT is, nor does he let us know why gay men lack “it�.

So please, Randy…tell us what character is. Is it standing up for your mistakes? Putting others before yourself? Is it doing the right thing? Or, as I suspect it is in your mind, is it being a fundamentalist Christian?

Is it character, Randy, to pretend to be that which you are not? Is it character to involve yourself with a woman when you KNOW that you will never be able to love that woman with the trueness, the integrity that a true relationship, a true marriage demands? I tried that, Randy. I spent four years in college pretending, and it remains the great shame of my life that I so deceived and mistreated a woman for whom I still have the utmost respect and affection. Is that CHARACTER?

Please tell me what character is so that I can run out and get it.

What’s more – damn, I feel like Shylock, pleading with the court: “If you p****** us, do we not bleed?�…so be it if that’s what it takes – what will it take to convince you that we are just people like you?

Do you know what my “Gay agenda� is, Randy? It’s getting up at 7 every morning, making the coffee, showering, putting on clothes and going to the office. It’s spending hours every day working to strengthen my company’s position in the market, to serve our clients as best I can, to make it easier for my coworkers to accomplish their jobs, and to find new ways to innovate and change so that I and my friends will continue to have a job.

It’s going home in the evening exhausted, to work out, to have a drink, to make dinner, to read, to talk to and spend time with my friends and family. It’s climbing into bed looking forward to the next morning, more of the same.

It’s going out on Friday and Saturday nights with my almost exclusively heterosexual friends who would never, ever, ever think of defining me by who I am attracted to, laughing, drinking, talking, enjoying life. It’s hoping I’ll eventually meet the right person so that I’ll have the same joy in someone as many of my friends. It’s collapsing into bed at the end of those nights to sleep, get up, clean house, do laundry, clean out the fridge, run to Barnes and Noble.

I play first base on my company softball team. I’ve been losing my hair gradually since college, but thankfully from the front and not the back. I’m a damn good cook, which I learned from my very heterosexual father who loves me and accepts me without reservation, with a fierceness that I never, ever could have dreamed possible when I was a terror-stricken teenager just coming to terms with being gay. I’ve got bad knees from old injuries. I have a subscription to Sport’s Illustrated, and right now I am about to explode with excitement that the Braves start playing again on Tuesday night, and that Smoltz looks like he’s going to make a stunning comeback as a starter, and that, if Spring Training is any judge, Andruw and Chipper seem to have overcome last season’s problems at the plate. As I’m writing this, Illinois and North Carolina are squaring off on the court – if the ‘Heels win, I win the office March Madness bracket pool.

Does any of this make you realize that I, and all of my gay brothers and lesbian sisters out there, are just as human as you are? Does it make you question your dismissal of us as less-than-human, as lacking in character, or morality or ethics, or disrupt your dearly-held stereotypes of what gay men are?

I really, really hope so…because if not I have just wasted a lot of time and emotion in trying to convince you.

By Lyrazel

April 5, 2005 08:08 AM | Link to this

Lozen, isnt it interesting that women like Leslie Carbone would never be heard from but thanks to the womens movement? Voices like hers can bash the plum of sisterhood with criticism yet it was the very movement that brought women journalists up out of the gossip/cooking columns and onto the opinion pages—of that so male dominated industry. She scores a golden Duh!

By Gina

April 5, 2005 08:49 AM | Link to this

Mara, I know what “passing” is and most Blacks can tell who is/was “passing”.

Mit, I don’t care how people live their lives as long as they don’t step on the rights of others. It doesn’t matter to me if someone is gay, I just don’t like the comparison to the Civil Rights movement. As Lola stated, it is a marriage rights issue. However Lola, the most protected people in America are white women. They were included in the minority population when it comes to hiring plus they are females. And, when something happens to a white women, especially in the south, the whole country is up in arms.

By The

April 5, 2005 08:58 AM | Link to this

Just to clear up a few things.

There is proof that a plane hit the Pentagon. Stop reading lunatic French propaganda and open your eyes. http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

Norwegian and other European countries health care may be free, but “outstanding” is not what we would use to describe that. If you want outstanding care, you need to be here in the United States ,but you must pay for it.

If you care to dispute, simply think about your own Human Nature. If someone is paying you nothing to perform a service as simple as mowing their lawn, how good of a job will you do. Now, say the person next door to them will pay you $50 to do the same job. Which yard is probably going to look better?

By Lyrazel

April 5, 2005 09:09 AM | Link to this

The, European countries health care is not free. They pay an astounding amount of taxes to keep healthcare subsidized…they also pay more for a lifestyle whose rewards Americans dream on with envy as we work more hours than other nations….imagine a month off…with pay!

By Jack

April 5, 2005 09:11 AM | Link to this

Van you got that right. Our supreme court should NEVER consider foreign laws when making a decision that affects us in AMERICA!

By Tim

April 5, 2005 09:28 AM | Link to this

J Morris… very well said! my life is very similar to yours (as well as most every other gay man and woman)… I too look forward to opening day today! and can’t wait to actually get to another game

Randy… what I and I am sure J Morris have been trying to say is there is only one difference between us and any heterosexual person out there… but you would actually have to take the time to get to know one of us to actually figure that out… that is a little difficult than just judging someone (which you do with great zeal)

By seaborn

April 5, 2005 09:31 AM | Link to this

From Randy:

Just thinking about it, if you people think I’m to stern…

Randy, buddy, you really have an over-inflated opinion of yourself…sorry but most of us don’t thing you are that significant to care how stern you think you are. C’mon…you haven’t once made an intelligent contribution to this forum. You are either an amateur preacher or you just post something for the purpose of antagonism. At leat the other regular conservative posters seem reasonably informed, even Zack. You just come across as simple minded.

As far as the concept of character…I’d be interested in your explanation of how you have more character than Tim, J Morris, or myself. Even an unbiased reader can read their post versus yours and see that they have more integrity than you. So please, tell us what makes you so great…and sorry, having the holy ghost won’t cut it.

By John

April 5, 2005 09:37 AM | Link to this

Studies, Investigations, and Audits… Is anyone listening?

They were educated through studies, investigations, and audits…

They were told…

They sat stagnant while Nature sent them all the signs…

They were warned about 9/11…

They were informed about the children bullied in our public schools…

They were given enough prior information to intercede the recent shootings at the Atlanta Court House…

They have retold the stories repeatedly…play and rewind…at 6pm and at 11pm, and some continuously, by the minute, as it unfolded…

They do not seem to care…

They just don’t seem to get “itâ€?…

It is like they are running a car without any maintenance…They never check the oil…the air in the tires…the power steering fluid…They are riding out a rainstorm with poor windshield wipers…

They stop to fill the tank with over-priced gas to keep the traditional old ride running…

An experienced attendant, seeing the oil burning from the exhaust, yells out warnings over the sound of worn out wipers scraping the smooth glass, “Something is about to happen; you need to do something about those bald tires. Something is about to happen!”

They do not worry…â€?Oh yes, someone gave me a report about all of that; it is in the glove compartment…somewhere. Maybe, I’ll get to it next week.â€?

They rattle on and on about knowing… all the while, ignoring all the vital signs…

The car pulls off…

They listen to the statistics about the war in Iraq on the news…

They do not worry about war, because it is not on the “homeland�.

All along, denying the signs…showing clearly… The war is on the homeland…It is not overseas…

They (the leaders) continue the free ride in a poorly maintained limousine…waving to their political supporters…knowing all of this …with a drunk reckless driver…ready to slam into the next unsuspecting innocent victim…

They cannot wait for their next chance in front of the FOXy camera…to explain to everyone what they already seem to know…

They choose to ignore the information they were given in advance…

Maybe, the next tragedy will be the one that makes them change…stops the war, stops the violence…stops the next tsunami, stops the unnecessary loss of life…

They did not listen to the recommendations made by the maintenance crew at the Atlanta Court House…Nor did they listen to the advisors at our nation’s airports. They did not listen to the recommendations before the war. They did not listen when the teacher pointed out the signs to the administrator…And they did not listen to the child that told the teacher about the bully on the playground…

They did not listen to Nature…

They seem to want our society to function on fear, with someone with a gun on his or her hip, ready to take aim…or better yet, a machine to detect a gun…

Shamed…

They now realize it took a man with a gun to get them to open their eyes at the Atlanta Court House.

And a woman with the mind of Jesus to stop him…

Do you think… if …the FBI and law enforcement officials had it, their way…they would have arrested the young lady that saved the day?

They might have booked her, then taken the credit themselves, reluctant to admit that kindness worked when force did not?

I hope not…

But, I do know…

This story was has proven to be an embarrassment to the faulty systems they currently have in place…

They would have rather hunted the killer down like an animal and displayed their brute force to a public that feeds off violence…

Everyone was tuned in!

Instead, they were sent a challenging story from Almighty God of love, compassion, and forgiveness. It has slammed them blind sided…They do not know what to do. How will they charge him? How will they hide what he exposed?

Innocent messengers tried to expose the problems without the use of a gun…

Unsuspecting messengers from God (employees, professionals, and yes…even children and nature’s events) are sent through caring individuals with their daily reports of wrongdoing, faulty systems and corrupt leadership that could have eliminated many of history’s tragic stories…

Instead, they were ignored and sometimes silenced. The truth is not what they want to hear…

Listening is essential when trying to develop a responsible maintenance contract…

They want to run the system without one. Ignoring everything the messenger attempts to report to the authorities…the leaders… that run the system…

They choose to ignore the truth from the messenger…

They want drama… before they will act…

They like to live on the edge of violence and they are receiving it…

One trip to the pawn shop at a time…one gun at a time…one story at a time…

Right here on the “homeland�!

They choose to rape and silence the reporting messengers…those trying to provide a peaceful solution to the problems in our society…in nature…

They are at war…and the war is among the leaders and the messengers. It is among the people. The enemy is within…all among them…

They want to continue with the same traditional ride on the same old track.

They want to turn a blind eye…and wait…

They choose not to act until acted upon…

They choose not to maintain until it falls apart…

They are a true display of a material world and a “throw away” society…

They choose to do nothing…

From the ignored maintenance of our environment, to the unprotected borders, to businesses not held accountable, to the poorly managed economy… to the lies, the fraud, the corruption…they choose to turn their backs and ignore all the signs…

Unfortunately, the violence and the “will and fear” of the people will probably force a change…

And Nature always produces a change…

History has repeated this over and over…

Humans choose not to get it right…

They receive the same old lessons…

They listen to the same old broken record and the same old beat of the drum in pages of our history books…

The Atlanta Court House shootings tell me a different story …

They were warned…I heard it from every person in front of the news camera that day…

They did not hear what was said. I believe they chose to ignore the messenger…

Maybe he was a Soldier of God?

Maybe God sent him to make the change?

Maybe this is how God now operates through them in our violent world at war?

Maybe this is the only way they will receive God’s message?

Maybe there is more to be uncovered in the fraud and misspent money of Homeland Security?

Maybe the young man knows more about the corruption at the courthouse than we are aware of?

Maybe not all of the corruption has been disclosed…yet…

I see and hear a different message from the messenger…

I am concerned…

Am I brave enough to ask these questions?

I am not sure if “theyâ€? in our violently fed society will allow me to ask these questions…

The messenger often threatens them…

Maybe, I taught First Grade for too many years…

I’ll try…

Why did everyone refer to the judge as the “fairest judge” in the courthouse?

Why was the court reporter referred to as the most honest and ethical person among them?

I would think that all judges should be fair…and all individuals at the courthouse should be honest and ethical…

Did I teach the children something wrong?

Do you mean, you are telling me that there are unfair, unethical and dishonest people in our justice system? Those individuals were deserving of the fatal bullets more than those that received it?

I am concerned that I might be the only one that received this message…from the messenger…

Are they still at the courthouse?

Are they still working there? And people know this…and told this to the authorities capable of doing something about it…and still nobody seems to react to the real disclosed issue?

No expensive audit or investigation is needed?

No study to prove it?

There are unethical, unfair, dishonest people in the courthouse and someone has murdered the most honest and ethical individuals that would represent us fairly?

Does that mean we are left with the unethical, unfair, and dishonest leaders?

Has anybody listened to what was really disclosed?

Are they going to investigate this?

Or, is it more than they will ever let exposed?

How will they protect those that are left…all of us…using the courthouse for fair justice… and those in the courthouse?

The sacrificed deaths were a part of the process of uncovering the real truth…

I believe they might still be covering the truth…

The verses from some songs say…

“When will they ever learn?â€?…and …â€?Why must the good die young?â€?

The innocent unsuspecting lives of “good peopleâ€? were sacrificed so that “theyâ€? all might learn something more…about the situation…and themselves…

They were given the daily statistics and numbers of our sacrificed soldiers, our sacrificed children at the unsuspecting schools and unprotected communities, our good judges and professionals trying to do what is fair and right…

They were given the signs in Nature…

Are individuals sacrificing their lives for them to continue doing nothing?

Are they tabling the information…calling for more studies…and ignoring the messenger who cannot spell it out any more clearly?

Are they going to do something about all of this?

And who will hold them accountable?

The universe is calling out to each and every individual willing to step forward to expose corruption, wrongdoing, bullying, and evil in nature’s world…

It is a simple message…

A child does it everyday on the playground…

Some children offer signs of pollution…litter… broken glass…

Some offer bugs…

Small gifts to educate…those…who will take the time…

Some children offer found money…

Some child offers an insightful story…

Some children offer hidden secrets…

And one child is brave enough to tell on the bully…

Is anyone listening?

By Brian2

April 5, 2005 09:41 AM | Link to this

Hey John,

Try a hyperlink next time…

By Whiley

April 5, 2005 09:49 AM | Link to this

“Is anyone listening?”

zzzzzzzz Wha? Huh?…..

By Brian Curtis

April 5, 2005 09:51 AM | Link to this

Good grief, John: Not only was that one of longest, most aimless rambles ever seen (beating out the cut-and-paste efforts of “Texas/Tony”), but it had nothing to do with the forum topic. (Judges, remember?)

Randy: The fact that you keep coming here and preaching to people who are entirely satisfied with their lives, even though they’re different from yours, says volumes about you and your insecurity. What’s the problem—it doesn’t count as a valid worldview unless you get everyone else to go along with it?

Seriously, guy: Be happy with your own choices and leave others to theirs. You’re not scoring points with us OR with the “big guy” by screeching about how stupid everyone is who doesn’t go to your church.

By Jack

April 5, 2005 09:51 AM | Link to this

John, Please don’t clog the blog. We don’t need to read all of that. Dummy.

By Brian

April 5, 2005 09:52 AM | Link to this

Eighth Amendment Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

How do you define “cruel and unusual”? Those words do not have concrete meanings and clearly were intended to be subject to new interpretation over time. The definition of “cruel and unusual” is affected by evolving standards of decency.

So, how do we assess the modern standards of decency? If we only look to U.S. law, isn’t it possible that that clause in the 8th Amendment would lose it’s importance? After all, isn’t statutory law on the death penalty a reflection of the American majority’s views? And isn’t the 8th Amendment meant to check statutory law, thereby checking the majority and protecting individual rights?

We should look for any enlightenment we can find on what is today considered “cruel and unusual.” I think it is absolutely appropriate to consider decisions of foreign jurisdictions, among other factors, in making that determination.

The bigger issue here is the effort of the GOP and its supporters to undermine the authority and independence of the judiciary. That is a direct and dangerous threat to our constitutional form of government.

By caroline

April 5, 2005 10:04 AM | Link to this

The judicial system is not out of control. The legislative system is. The legislative systems of many states, including Georgia, have passed radical tort reform laws that go well beyond placing caps on medical malpractice damages. The Georgia General Assembly passed a tort reform law that states that a party has to pay the other side’s attorney’s fees if it does not accept a settlement offered to them that is within a 25% of the value of the judgment it later obtains. So if you are in an auto accident and obtain a $10,000 judgment, you may have to pay the other side’s attorney’s fees of $10,000 if the other side offered you $7,500 to settle the case. That’s pretty radical. The AJC has NEVER reported this. Michigan passed a law that says pharmaceutical companies cannot be sued. It’s unbelievable. The extreme right Republicans (not the middle of the road Republicans) have began a campaign to attack the judicial system and its judges. Now every respectable judge is considered “out of control”. It’s DISGUSTING!

By Michael

April 5, 2005 10:15 AM | Link to this

Crystal

I thought that misspelling your name would get a rise out of you, similar to what you are always trying to do with others. I replaced my Kerry sticker some time ago with an appropriate anti-Bush sticker….now if you conservatives will just get over Clinton’s BJ….the removal of the Confederate battle flag from the state flag….the civil war….Roe vs. Wade….all in the past. But as William Faulkner said about the South, “The past is not dead. In fact, it’s not even past.â€? But the empty suit inhabiting the White House is our unfortunate present.

I agree that the Taliban comparison is offensive and wholly uncalled for, just as a many insults issued here from the left, as well as the right. I will not be associated with such comments. However, I disagree that most conservatives are open minded or knowledgeable. There is an abundance of evidence that indicates the contrary.

The Center for Policy Attitudes, a non-partisan research institute affiliated with the School of Public Affairs at the University of Maryland continuously surveys the political attitudes and knowledge of American citizens on domestic and international issues. Some of their findings released in a study on October 21, 2004 (available online at their web site) were the these:

“72% of Bush supporters believed that Iraq had actual WMDs or a major program for developing them.�

“75% of Bush supporters believed that Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda and 63% believe that clear evidence of this support has been found. 55% assumed, incorrectly, that this was the conclusion of the 9/11 Commission.�

“Furthermore, majorities of Bush supporters were wrong about Bush’s policies on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (69%), the treaty banning land mines (72%), the Kyoto Treaty (51%), the International Criminal Court (53%) and 74% misidentified his position of the inclusion of labor and environmental standards in trade agreements. In all these cases, majorities of Bush supporters favor the positions that they impute to Bush, though in each case Bush opposed these positions. Kerry supporters were much more accurate in their perceptions of his positions.�

On March 15, 2005 the Gallop poll showed that 53% of Americans still believed that Saddam Hussein’s regime possessed WMDs immediately prior to the invasion. This is despite the fact that the findings of “the Comprehensive Special Advisor to the Director of Central Intelligence on Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destructionâ€? or Duelfer report (named after its special advisor Charles Duelfer who replaced David Kay) concluded that there were no WMDs nor significant programs for developing them.

The report was released October 6, 2004. On January 6, 2005 the Bush administration finally admitted that there were no WMDs and that the search for them was officially concluded.

Most Americans, and certainly most conservatives, are about as informed as the people Jay Leno interviews on his segment “Jaywalking.” And that is one of the reasons we have a president who didn’t know who the names or parties of the prime ministers of Canada, Pakistan, or India when he ran for office. Bush was still being taught the difference between the Sunni and Shia Muslims in Iraq on the eve of the invasion. And we are all paying the price for such ignorance.

By mit

April 5, 2005 10:33 AM | Link to this

randy,

you named 3 religions with the same creator. these are not the only religions around. I didn’t get much out of your post. these 3 are not the only ones that count and are you saying if a civilization is not free to practice their religion that it doesn’t count as a religion?

By Sandy

April 5, 2005 10:42 AM | Link to this

J. Morris, indeed not a waste of time. Passionate, eloquent, human, humble, and poignant, and the embodiment of character. Very pleased to meet you.

By RS

April 5, 2005 10:47 AM | Link to this

J. Morris & Tim: Well, gentlemen, you heard it here. Because you love & are attracted to people of your own gender, you have NO CHARACTER, are EFFEMINATE & indulge in activities such as PEDOPHILIA & even INCEST & BESTIALITY. My goodness. Never mind, Tim, that you are obviously a compassionate, loving individual & you, J. Morris, also lead a good decent life & are still regretting having inadvertently hurt your female friend when you were younger & confused. Gina, sad to say, you may be right that white women are protected above all others, but-ONLY if they are (considered) “attractive”. Women who are “ugly” are reviled over & above any group. Wow, I get to make a match! Leslie, meet Zack; Zack, meet Leslie. Hope you two will ride off into the sunset & live happily ever after (in denial)

By Scalia

April 5, 2005 10:49 AM | Link to this

Earth to Shaunti:

Marbury v. Madison … read it, learn it, live it.

By Miranda

April 5, 2005 11:06 AM | Link to this

How ironic that Shaunti and other Christian conservatives are aghast that “the will of the people” doesn’t always prevail. Didn’t we just celebrate a Christian holiday rooted in the story of an innocent man being crucified because of the “will of the people”? Didn’t Pontius Pilate give in to the “will of the people”?

By lozen

April 5, 2005 11:27 AM | Link to this

Yeah Lyrazel, women like Carbone amaze me. I wondered after reading a couple of her pieces, if she really believes what she writes or has just decided bashing feminists is a sure fire way to get someone to give her a job! John, puleeeeeeeze!

By Joseph

April 5, 2005 11:31 AM | Link to this

One comment - if you disagree with the Schiavo decision, that is fine, but that is the activist position (conservative activism, granted, but activism nonetheless). liberal restraint is the opposite of conservative activism, conservative restraint is the opposite of liberal activism. there is restraint and activism on both sides. Shaunti is very much a conservative actvist, whereas Justice Greene is a conservative judicial restratintist.

By Bruce

April 5, 2005 11:43 AM | Link to this

I believe there are some judges that over step their authority just as there are everyday people that allow their individual opinions and morals help them make decisions. So to say all is right or all is wrong, to me, would be incorrect. Just because I disagree with a courts ruling doesn’t make it wrong but on the other hand if it is one I agree with it doesn’t make it right.

What I do not understand is why my High School Civics teacher would teach me a lie. It has been a few years, but I am almost sure he taught us this country was founded on the principle or majority rule. And this may stir a few of you up but why is it that just because you do not agree with the majority the majority is stepping on your rights? We have become a country ruled (governed) by those that can scream the loudest and we say the H**l with the majority.

By Gina

April 5, 2005 11:44 AM | Link to this

RS, I agree with you when you state attractive women are protected more if they are considered attractive. There was a study done that in some cases a person’s salary corresponded to their attractiveness

By Tim

April 5, 2005 11:53 AM | Link to this

Dang Gina… if there is a correlation between salary and how attractive one is then I must be a dog :)… seriously though you and RS make interesting points

glad to see RS make an apprearance on here!! ;)

By Jack

April 5, 2005 11:58 AM | Link to this

Bruce is right. Political correctness is contributing to the downfall of this country.

By Gina

April 5, 2005 12:06 PM | Link to this

Tim, I am sure you are not a dog :-).

They did an experiment on a show…I think it was 20/20. They had two women interview for a position and two men interview for a position. The women had almost identical qualifications except one was dressed down and plain and the other was more attractive. The attractive woman was offered the job plus incentives. They did the same experiment with the men.

In some careers, such as the sciences, I think it works against a woman if she is attractive.

By Kim

April 5, 2005 12:08 PM | Link to this

Where EXACTLY does “GOD” come into the political structure of the US? It seems to me that we are more and more blinded by “mores,” but who sets the standard? Christians, Catholics, Buddists, Jews? Why does this become a theologiacal debate instead of a “golden rule” type of argument?

Our country’s founders came here because they were either imprisioned or tired of the English churches. To be honest, this country is becoming more puritanical and provencial, exactly why our ancestors left England. Why is it the “Christian decision,” or “right wing decision,” or “left-wing decision” instead of HUMAN RIGHTS and just plain old GOOD JUDGEMENT? So gays and lesbians want to get married …. GOOD FOR THEM. What makes their feelings and relationships have any LESS right than Christian Man/Woman feelings and relationships?

So your GOD says that marriage is between a man and a woman? What does this have to do with politics? NOTHING!
The Constitution says that we ALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO LIFE, LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS. Not just christians or jews or quakers, or puritans, but EVERYONE! GET OVER MIXING RELIGION AND POLITICS, THEY DON’T MIX! Hence, separation of church and state.

Even if you do not fit into one of these categories, whatever happened to good old-fashioned open mindedness, and love thy neighbor? Think about how you would feel in this situation (BE OPEN MINDED) and make your decisions not based on some out dated book, but by the GOLDEN RULE. “Do unto others as you would have done unto you.”

By Lukas

April 5, 2005 12:11 PM | Link to this

Bruce,

I am sorry for the mis-information provided by your civics teacher. This country was founded on the principle of “rule of law” with a “Republican” or representative form of government based on a Constitution. Periodically, a number of persons are elected to represent the population in the local, state, and national govenments. It was hoped, by the founders, that we would elect rational and wise persons to carry out the business of government (however this is often not the case). Often, it is the groups that spend the time and effort to contact thier representatives and participate in the election process ( campaing contributions) that get heard the most.

On a number of occasions, the “will of the majority” was against the principles that this nation was founded upon — such as the equality of all persons under the law. The “activist judges” charge is always thrown around by the extreem right when a judge hands down a decision that “they” do not agree with. A case in point is the Brown v Board case from the 1950’s. Do you remember the furor and the “majority” being against desegregation in the south?

By Jack

April 5, 2005 12:13 PM | Link to this

Gina, unfortunately if a straight man has to make a decision between 2 females with the same qualifications he will offer the job to the attractive one. This is the way the world has always been and probably won’t change until what is considered attractive does.

By Chantel

April 5, 2005 12:15 PM | Link to this

In regards to whether judges are overstepping their bounds, which was the question despite the random soapboxes many of you spun from it, the answer is absolutely not. If anything, in the case of Schiavo, they understepped it by not getting involved, which is exactly what they should’ve done. The executive and legislative branches are not all powerful; it was the soul voice of reason from the judicial branches that kept this case from underminding our entire system. While I sympathize with her parents, it is the not the government’s place to interfere in family decisions. Now, see how easy it is to voice your opinion without resorting to profanity and childish bickering?

By Lisa Fabrizio

April 5, 2005 12:31 PM | Link to this

Terri Schiavo executed by the state of Florida at the request of noted death advocate George Felos acting in behalf of her husband Michael. Executed without trial by jury, without congressionally ordered federal appeal and most cruelly, despite her family’s heroic efforts to feed and care for her.That the termination of an innocent, brain-damaged yet otherwise healthy woman has taken place is reason enough to grieve. More mournful still is the state of our government and the cultural circumstances that brought us to this sad day.Weep for Terri if you must, but also for the precious loss of the constitutional balance of powers, so sagely crafted by our Founders, that should have prevented this most awful event. This ravaging of our system of government begins and ends with a judiciary drunk with power; a power that has yet to be reined in by the formerly co-equal branches. Congress, as is its prerogative, passed a bill that provided an order to the federal courts to conduct a new, or de novo, trial to determine whether Terri’s constitutional rights were violated by the Florida courts. The bill specified further: “The District Court shall entertain and determine the suit without any delay or abstention in favor of State court proceedings, and regardless of whether remedies available in the State courts have been exhausted.” Yet, instead of conducting the mandated new, fact-finding trial, U.S. District Judge James Whittemore quickly ruled, “Theresa Schiavo’s life and liberty interests were adequately protected by the extensive process provided in the state courts.” Higher courts then completed the congressional nose-thumbing, right up to the Supreme Court. Even as that highest court in this land has defined the execution of underage murderers as “cruel and unusual punishment,” they have refused to even consider whether the same can be said of the state-ordered starvation of an innocent woman. Even as they usurp state law in finding federal ‘rights’ to sodomy, affirmative action and same-sex marriage, an appeal to protect Terri’s most basic right fails to move them. Even as they forbid every state from deciding the life-and-death issue of abortion, they have now allowed the state of Florida to adjudicate the life or death of a guiltless American citizen on hearsay evidence. Even as the heinous industry of pornography is glorified as art and ordered protected by the First Amendment, a practicing Catholic is denied her religious rights under same. Now that the death lobby, the leftist media and the ACLU have another scalp under their judicial belts, they will speak in hushed tones about the sadness of this case but pompously claim that the rule of law must be served. Yet they ignore the most basic tenets of our legal system; first that our rights are God-given and second, that the U.S. Constitution alone dictates the relationship between the judicial and legislative branches. The latter assigns solely to Congress the role of lawmaking and the creation, configuration and even the dissolution of all federal courts save the Supremes. But they also have the power to limit the high court’s appellate jurisdiction as they see fit, as they have done before and are considering again. While leftists in Congress will fight judicial reform and abrogate their Senate duty to advise and consent on judicial appointments through filibusters, their allies in the media and academia will do battle on the ‘God’ front. A reliable weapon in their arsenal was used once again to label those who defend innocent life as the lunatic fringe of the religious right. By using Clintonian language, skewing the facts and downright push-polling, they pulled out all the stops and succeeded in molding public opinion, which probably restrained further federal action in Terri’s case. Since the left and their ACLU allies have been moderately successful in demanding a separation of church and state, they now seek the separation of church and people. For we now live in a country where even the most casual religious believer is reviled by the intelligentsia as some kind of fanatic, devoid of any reason, as if, for most of recorded history, man has not sought out and worshipped his creator. This God-fearing coalition, who seeks to dispel any religious or moral input into the affairs of state, has scored a victory with the execution of a beautiful young woman they deemed unworthy to live. They have also succeeded in the further crippling of the Constitution toward the creation of a super-judiciary.

By Gina

April 5, 2005 12:33 PM | Link to this

Let’s just face the facts…there is no justice in our courts. You win a judgement, the other side appeals, your judgement is lost if you don’t settle. The system is set up for one with money.

By lozen

April 5, 2005 12:45 PM | Link to this

Lisa Fabrizio is a freelance writer who lives in the People’s Republic of Connecticut. She is a proud conservative whose aim is to recapture the public from the all-consuming fog of liberalism which seizes them early in school and pervades almost all aspects of their lives.

By J. Morris

April 5, 2005 12:49 PM | Link to this

“Majority Rules” is the most damaging and misleading oversimplification of the democratic process that I have ever heard. Elementary school social studies teachers use this to convey the basic idea to minds to young to appreciate the true intricacies of our government. Unfortunately, many of them never get past it.

Let’s ask ourselves what the world would be like if the Majority really DID rule absolutely, if there were no checks on the whims of a large homogenous group of people living in and among numerous other smaller groups.

If history teaches us anything, its that a majority with absolute power will always, always, always trample on the rights, the lives and the freedoms of the majority. How many ethnic cleansings and religious crusades and Holocausts must we go through before we realize this?

By Miranda

April 5, 2005 12:53 PM | Link to this

Wow Ms. Fabrizio, that was hilarious. You should do stand-up.

By Crystal

April 5, 2005 01:01 PM | Link to this

As usual, Michael has rewarded us with all the facts from his heavy internet research and Jay Leno shows. With his usual retro vision, he complains about the south. But, it is doubtful that you could run him off with a stick.

Amazingly, Michael is still fidgeting in agony over Pres. Bush’s reelection. Fortunately, a majority of Americans knew they had a strong man and reelected the president. Also surprising, isn’t it, that so many countries are NOW anxious to get on Pres. Bush’s good side. The president can see the great qualities of people like Condi Rice. She does not confuse a multitude of facts with real knowledge and has an understanding of people. The president is strong and likes to work with strong, wise people.

I do not approve of all of President Bush’s policies and proposals. But he is the best thing we’ve got in America with no one on the horizon to match him. Not one.

So keep on complaining in the true American way, Michael. But don’t wait for the phone to ring. There’s enough liberal hot air in Washington already. They don’t need any more.

By cliff lewis

April 5, 2005 01:07 PM | Link to this

You statement: “Otherwise, Al Gore would be president because more individuals voted for him than for Bush.”

How did you figure that? Looks like a statement based on emotion than evidence. No other way to say other than…You are wrong. Take a look at just one of many…

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/florida.ballots/stories/main.html Florida recount study: Bush still wins

Study reveals flaws in ballots, voter errors may have cost Gore victory. WASHINGTON (CNN) — A comprehensive study of the 2000 presidential election in Florida suggests that if the U.S. Supreme Court had allowed a statewide vote recount to proceed, Republican candidate George W. Bush would still have been elected president.

The National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago conducted the six-month study for a consortium of eight news media companies, including CNN.

NORC dispatched an army of trained investigators to examine closely every rejected ballot in all 67 Florida counties, including handwritten and punch-card ballots. The NORC team of coders were able to examine about 99 percent of them, but county officials were unable to deliver as many as 2,200 problem ballots to NORC investigators. In addition, the uncertainties of human judgment, combined with some counties’ inability to produce the same undervotes and overvotes that they saw last year, create a margin of error that makes the study instructive but not definitive in its findings.

As well as attempting to discern voter intent in ballots that might have been re-examined had the recount gone forward, the study also looked at the possible effect of poor ballot design, voter error and malfunctioning machines. That secondary analysis suggests that more Florida voters may have gone to the polls intending to vote for Democrat Al Gore but failed to cast a valid vote.

In releasing the report, the consortium said it is in no way trying to rewrite history or challenge the official result — that Bush won Florida by 537 votes. Rather it is simply trying to bring some additional clarity to one of the most confusing chapters in U.S. politics. Gore’s four-county strategy

Suppose that Gore got what he originally wanted — a hand recount in heavily Democratic Broward, Palm Beach, Miami-Dade and Volusia counties. The study indicates that Gore would have picked up some additional support but still would have lost the election — by a 225-vote margin statewide.

By Jack

April 5, 2005 01:08 PM | Link to this

Mr. Morris, You did mean majority trampling on the minority right? If so, yes you are correct. Good thing we are a republic and not a true democracy or the minorities would be trampled on.

By Jack

April 5, 2005 01:20 PM | Link to this

The democrats lost the election because their campaign platform was “anyone but Bush” Bash Bush. No new ideas or solutions. John Kerry is in the same league as Jane Fonda. He is nothing more than a gigilo. With Kennedy and Kerry as senators for Mass. it shows the intelligence level of the voters there.

By Michael

April 5, 2005 01:23 PM | Link to this

As usual, Krystal’s statements consisted in the usual ad hominem mixed with the usual Bush panegyrics, and, of course, no evidence, no argument, and little real content to address. (And I suppose most conservatives like you would indeed like to “run people off with a stick” if they could.)

The study I cited is widely known and I noticed you didn’t attempt to refute it. And, no, Europeans are not trying to get on board with Bush, that is more Fox propaganda.

I offer no apologies for being reasonably well read, as an academic I read a variety of sources, including conservative ones (you might have read my letter in the Weekly Standard a month ago,if you read anything, which I seriously doubt) on many subjects and not just philosophy, which is my field.

So, Krystal, I politely suggest you get busy, read, and repair your ignorance, so you can distinguish argument from hot air. I think it will prove to be a mighty task. (Thank God, you are not one of my students!)

By Janet

April 5, 2005 01:24 PM | Link to this

JMorris, I am in complete AWE! Thank you for you post, it is by far the best I’ve read on this blog.

By jr3

April 5, 2005 01:25 PM | Link to this

Jack and J. Morris you are both correct. It is too bad msot people do not understand how our country operates. They scream about the constitution,but have no clue about that either. The president and congress overstepped their bounds. The judiciary’s response was to ensure that did not happen. Noone was executed, and the rule of law pervailed.The justices were not making laws, merely upholding rights. Michael Schiavo was the legal guardian. Right,wrong of indifferent, that is what the case was about.

By barbara tate

April 5, 2005 01:44 PM | Link to this

The judges who heard the Schiavo appeals were certainly in the mainstream of Americans’ thoughts when they upheld the original judges’s ruling. A vast majority of Americans did not approve of Congress’s interference in this case and do not feel that outside groups should interfer in a strickly personal family matter.

By Lyrazel

April 5, 2005 01:47 PM | Link to this

Ok, being the one admitted-to ugly woman, I am going to say Gina, Jack, you might have a point about hiring in the TV-world. HOWEVER, hehehee, the interview may be with a woman, or a significantly older man. After 23 interviews in one day, they look back at notes on resumes. Rare have I seen women hired who came to interviews dressed like booty calls—or men hired—dressed like gym decides wardrobe. HOWEVER, the older you get the greater the possibility a younger the person will be hiring—and sometimes people wont hire workers who are older than mother/grandmother. They dont do age on TV very well, like putting a 45 year old woman vs a 23 year old for the same job. Dowdy ugly women RULE! Oooo I hear the ice cream truck—Im gone!

By Greg Hicks

April 5, 2005 01:50 PM | Link to this

Judicial activism is not about the unresponsiveness of judges to the “will of the people” (as judged by public opinion polls or otherwise), but about judges acting beyond the scope of their authority, contrary to the powers delegated to the judiciary by the Constitution of the United States and the Constitutions of the States.

The United States is not a democracy - our founding fathers were much too wise to lay majority rule as the foundation upon which our nation would be built. Instead, they founded this nation as a constitutional republic. The Constitution is the ultimate standard, the ultimate rule by which all agree we will be governed and our laws will be judged.

Based upon the Constitutional delegation of powers, every judicial action/decision that goes beyond the simple, basic act of interpreting the Constitution and statuatory law (and by this I mean an interpretation consistent with the original intent of the Constitutional framers and/or legislature) is an encroachment on the powers clearly delegated to the federal legislative branch and/or the rights reserved to the people and/or the States. It is the judicial mindset that says, “the law is and means what we say it is and means” that threatens our free society.

Roe vs. Wade is but one prominent example of this encroachment. Our Constitution delegates to the people and the States powers not specifically delegated to the federal government; there is nothing in the Constitution that can be reasonably construed to even infer that the powers to regulate abortion are delegated to the federal government. As such, prior to Roe vs. Wade, the states regulated abortion; each state had laws consistent with the “will of the people” as expressed through laws enacted by the people’s representatives. In Roe vs. Wade, the Supreme Courts invented the so-called “right to privacy”, asserting it is implied in the Constitution, and struck down the law of all 50 states.

This explains why Roe vs. Wade remains an open wound more than 30 years later; what liberals could not do through the provision provided by the Constitution (amendment of the Constitution or laws enacted by the legislative process) they achieved through judicial fiat. The people expressed through their State legislatures what they viewed as the State’s interest in regulating abortion; Roe vs. Wade removed the opportunity for the people to even have their voice heard.

We can expect liberals to continue the “Borking” of President Bush’s judicial nominees, to see them continue to fight tooth and nail to ensure judges who will strickly interpret laws based on the original intent of the framers of the Constituion and the legislature never make it to the bench. What liberals cannot enact through the legitimate process of legislation by the people’s representatives, they intend to continue to cram down our throats by the tyranny of judicial activism.

But as my brother used to say, when you cram something down someone’s throat, don’t be surprised when they throw up on you.

It’s time to end the judicial tyranny that threaten’s our liberty.

By Vincent

April 5, 2005 01:55 PM | Link to this

Not since the death of Princess Diana in 1997 can I remember such a passionate interest and empathy displayed by so many over the death of a single human being. These same feelings are on display again by tens of millions of Americans, and across the globe, over the death of Terri Schiavo. Terri finally succumbed to death, bringing to a close a 15-year nightmare in which she lay in a semi-vegetative state. But for many, beneath the grief over Terri’s passing lies a rage over a judiciary branch that has recklessly incorporated personal political yearnings in its decisions as opposed to preserving constitutional law. How can this happen when the founders of our country set up the judiciary to be of equal footing alongside the executive and legislative branches of government â€â€? answerable to the Congress, and ultimately, the people? Though law and constitutional scholars hold varied opinions as to how and when the judiciary started behaving as a de facto government unto itself, few would disregard the ramifications of the decisions reached by the Supreme Court in the 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison. In brief, it is thought that in Marbury v. Madison, the court granted itself new, unprecedented powers. The court established that it had the power to decide the constitutionality of congressional and executive legislation, chiefly in what is now commonly known as “judicial review.” The effect of judicial review since its invention by Chief Justice John Marshall in 1803 has been nothing short of nation-shaping. Throughout the centuries of court rulings from federal and lower courts, judges have assumed powers that are unprecedented, taking on a legislative role, and making law instead of enforcing it. Historical cases like Dred Scott v. Sanford, Roe v. Wade, and Plessy v. Ferguson are federal examples of judges ignoring the clear meaning of the Constitution and instead creating a new mandate that in turn becomes the law of the land. Judicial activism is not only prevalent on the federal level, but an increasingly worrisome trend on state levels as well. The American people have seen state courts overturn the will of the people and rule “unconstitutional” such mandates as California’s Prop. 187 in March, 1998. They have seen the legalizing of gay marriage in Massachusetts by the will of that state’s Supreme Court in November, 2003. Even less sweeping advances by activist jurists have stained the process. Witness the New Jersey Supreme Court, which ruled in October, 2002 that Democrat Frank Lautenberg could replace a compromised Robert Torrecelli on the ballot for that state’s Senate seat, even though New Jersey law clearly states that a change in candidates must occur no less than 51 days out from an election. Torrecelli bowed out with only 34 days remaining until Election Day. In some respects, the judiciary is looked upon by the public as some sort of mystically-shrouded, black-robed guardianship of society, whose words are to be adhered to, lest the walls of chaos come crashing down upon civilization. But in truth, judges are just lawyers, who, in terms of being human, are just as “susceptible to or representative of the sympathies and frailties of human nature.” Judges read the morning newspapers, and form opinions â€â€? political or otherwise â€â€? as do most people. At times it seems like the Judiciary has what I call the “conservative complex,” which is basically a need to be liked among the elite establishment that populates the mainstream media. Their rulings oft-times tend to be more in line with perceived social trends among society, and based on a populist stance while disregarding a lawful rendering of fact. Judges, like politicians, have a vested interest in their legacy as well. It is just absurd for anyone to casually say that judges are above the vanity and failings of other prominent figures, like politicians, with regard to how history will view them when their time on the bench is over. Nobody, even the most passive among us, wants to be remembered badly, or in the case of judges, as men of pedestrian ability. Finally, the sway of near-omnipotent and arrant authority, the “stroke of the pen, law of the land” enticement as once stated by ex-Clinton aide, Paul Begala, is a reality among some jurists. It is this unapproachable power â€â€? that has only metastasized with time â€â€? which Americans are now coming to realize infects their judiciary today. Ed Meese, former attorney general under Ronald Reagan, once said: “The American people will never be able to regain democratic self-government â€â€? and thus shape public policy â€â€? until we curb activist judges.” It is the very first line in Mark Levin’s prescient best-selling book, “Men in Black,” that aptly decries and categorizes the history of an activist judiciary. Americans, from now until Election Day, will be hearing a lot about its judiciary from the major political parties that seek to control the courts through appointments. President Bush seeks to place judges in the courts with what he calls “originalists,” jurists who follow the Constitution narrowly, and who believe in the intended separation of powers. As of now, the courts are ruled by activists robbed in black, whose lifetime appointments were originally planned by the founding fathers as a hedge against judges becoming embroiled among the political intrigues and doings of the elected branches of government. The irony here is that, if anything, it is government that is reacting to the assertive politics of the judiciary, and its continued reinvention of constitutional law. It is a crisis that America, and the Congress, can no longer afford to ignore.

By Mary M

April 5, 2005 02:13 PM | Link to this

The U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, usually thought to be a “conservative” court, ruling that the issue at hand was not life but “the legitimate exercise of judicial power.” Judge Stanley F. Birch , appointed in 1990 by President H.W. Bush, declared the law passed by Congress and signed by President George W. Bush (Public Law 109-3) allowing Federal Court review of Florida Court’s decision to withhold food and water from Terri to be “unconstitutional.” On what grounds, you might ask? On the grounds that the “legislative and executive branches of our government” with passage of Terri’s law, (Public Law 109-3) were “demonstrably at odds with our Founding Fathers’ blueprint for the governance of a free people â€â€? our Constitution.” Birch stated “I conclude that Pub. L. 109-3 (“the Act”) is unconstitutional and therefore this court and the district court are without jurisdiction in this case under that special Act and should refuse to exercise any jurisdiction that we may otherwise have.” Birch referenced “precedents in the law, specifically Rooker-Feldman. Since I had never HEARD of Rooker-Feldman I looked it up. It is an obscure 1923 U.S. Supreme Court decision on a case between a William Rooker and The Fidelity Trust Company that states: “The District Court was of opinion that the suit was not within its jurisdiction as defined by Congress, and on that ground dismissed the bill.” In his dissent, Judge Gerald Tjoflat observed, on pages 28-29 of the decision Terri’s law “is not a case of Congress ‘arrogating’ power to itself” but instead is Congress prescribing “a particular approach to a particular problem in the general domain of federal jurisdiction, without presuming to dictate â€â€? in any respect â€â€? our performance of a court’s essential function: ‘so say what the law is.’” Judge Tjoflat would have granted rehearing the entire case since “a plausible claim that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires clear and convincing evidence of an individuals wishes before a state court may order withdrawal of life-sustaining nutrition, hydration and other medical attention.” So, what have we just witnessed in the death of Terri Schindler? Judge George Greer totally ignored what Congress said. That is the OPPOSITE to Rooker-Feldman, since IT was based on Congress NOT passing a law. For ten years George Greer, a PROBATE judge in Florida, has consistently maintained dictatorial control over Terri Schiavo. We have witnessed even little children being arrested for trying to carry a class of water to Terri. Why? What law was ever passed to forbid food and water to handicapped people? The 1949 Geneva Convention specifically REQUIRES that food and water be given to prisoners of war, including terrorists.

By RS

April 5, 2005 02:18 PM | Link to this

(Oh, Tim, I just KNOW I didn’t hear-well, see you call yourself a “dog”.) Yes, Gina, I HAVE read those studies about job offers & salaries based on physical attractiveness but I’m not sure how relevant that is. I resemble, at best, the south end of a northbound Mack truck, but have a gorgeous husband, have never had a problem getting/keeping jobs & make a decent salary (although it has to stretch a long way, ha!) I HAVE heard of “unnattractive” women being barred from entering public places; yes, in the USA,in this day & age! And also, attractive people getting better health care than their less fortunate counterparts. Ah, now Zack has TWO to choose from, Leslie Carbone AND Lisa Fabrizio! Look, conservatives, Terri Schiavo died 15 years ago. Period. What “starved to death” last week was, sadly, no longer a viable human being, but a shell of what used to be a living young woman. Yes, she was inconvenient. Sounds harsh & unfeeling? Well no. The money spent keeping a living corpse “alive” could have gone to better uses, such as improving transportation & the environment; animal causes & medical research. All “life” is NOT sacred. get your priorities straight, people.

By Gina

April 5, 2005 02:19 PM | Link to this

Lyrazel, beauty is in the eye of the beholder and everyone has something beautiful about them. Don’t claim that because I am sure you aren’t. However, you attributed attractive to “dressing like a hoochie” from the scenario I described. In the scenario from the TV program, all of the participants were in suitable business attire. The interviewers picked the more attractive candidates.

You are so correct about television. Most of the women are younger. The exceptions are Barbara Walters and locally, Monica Kaufman. Men can stay on television forever. Most of the cable news stations go for younger women. Hey, I am going to join you on the quest for ice cream! It is Spring!

By James

April 5, 2005 02:20 PM | Link to this

J. Morris, if I were single, you would be my man! But, I have been in a stable relationship for 13 years. (Longer than the average Hetero. marriage) I, like J. Morris, wake up (me at 5:15am), feed the cat & dogs, shower, dress, go to work. I do the best I can to manage my staff to provide the best possible service to the public. I come home exhausted, watch some TV, eat some dinner & am in bed by 9pm. My weekend is mowing the grass/regrouting the tub/etc. I go to church at 11am each Sunday and then to lunch. The rest of the day is rest. Occasionally, I take my Mother out to dinner or go visit my Grandmother. We own a home in Alpharetta, pay our taxes, work hard to better our community, and are basically ‘white bread’. I have ALLOT of character. I have morales & standards. I dated women, but agree, it would be horribly unfair to not give them the loving relationship they deserve. I am sick of men who have wives coming on to me for sex. I firmly believe all the conservatives on this site want me to put on a good face. Marry the woman, have the kids & do what I am told. It is all OK, if you don’t tell the truth.

As for Terri Schivo. Several Doctors and judges looked at her case. This was a family matter. Take care of your own home before interfering in others. Congress & Bush are pandering to you. They just want your $$$$$. When will you people learn, you are lambs to the slaughter. They tell you what you want to hear. Then, pass laws to support their big business buddies in Insurance & Industry at your expense. Bush’s relationship with the Saudi family and the price of oil have NO COMMON LINKS. (sarcasim there)

I find it ironic that the extreme christians in America want all the laws written from The Bible, but the Taliban must go! Hypocrite! I believe you can simply replace the Nazi Schwastica for the Christian Fish, and watch it all happen over again. Live by the golden rule: Do unto others are you would have them do unto you.’ and you will be fine. Learn the real leasons from the Good Book & stop dwealing on the details.

By norman

April 5, 2005 02:24 PM | Link to this

As our nation embraces social Darwinism, don’t be fooled into believing its kiss of death only pertains to those with physical handicaps and disabilities. It also includes the unintelligent, ignorant, idiotic, mindless, illogical, moronic scatterbrains we have to deal with everyday. Remember, one of the most widely used arguments against Terri was that she did not possess enough cognitive ability to reason, think or analyze the events unfolding around her. So, with this in mind, we no longer have to put up with those idiots we run into here on this blog. We can just eliminate them. Even though we might have a problem defining who’s stupid and who’s not since such a classification would be relative from person to person, I’m sure we’ll figure it out. J Morris, Brian Curtis, norman, lozen, RS, Lyrazel, mit, Tim, ect. ect. can’t seem to get the hang of right vs. wrong. They’ve been struggling all year meanwhile other boys and girls are now learning. The police call their families in for a conference and explain the situation. “These people just doesn’t understand. They can’t grasp the concept, and I doubt he ever will. All of the other children are well beyond them. To be honest, I don’t think they possess enough cognitive ability to analyze these simple concepts. I’m sorry, but tomorrow we’re going to have to send them to the hospital where they’ll be starved to death. Don’t worry about a thing. Given their inferior intellect, lack of feeling toward others and inability to reason, I’m sure they won’t feel a thing.”

By RS

April 5, 2005 02:26 PM | Link to this

True! Lyrazel, you certainly have INNER beauty & that counts for a lot in MY book! James, you sound like a very together person & you’d make some lucky fella a wonderful husband; I hope & pray to see that happen in my lifetime. I, too, view that fish symbol as a symbol of tyranny. I have nothing against REAL Christianity, the way Christ intended. What I have a problem with is that arrogant “One Way” mentality. Grrr!

By Gina

April 5, 2005 02:32 PM | Link to this

James, I am conservative in my views but yet I feel I should not dictate which gender a person decides to love and share their life. I do feel same gender couples should have inheritance rights, etc. The marriage issue, I must admit, I am still torn due to my religious views.

I have several people in my family who are gay and they are all law-abiding citizens who just happen to be in a same gender relationship. I love them before they came out and I love them now.

Just as rights of same gender couples aren’t recognized by the courts, the rights of non-custodial parents aren’t recognized by the courts. I wish we could just treat all people equally.

By Donny

April 5, 2005 02:35 PM | Link to this

Is this the view of those who disagree with Evangelical Christians?

Mara said: “The evangelical christian movement, which is reliably Republican, advocates many of the same ultra-conservative ideals as the Taliban”;”They are to Christianity what the Taliban is to Islam”

Please stop the Hate talk toward Christians just because you have different beliefs or views! Win your argument at the polls like they have been doing for the last 20 years.

By Tim

April 5, 2005 02:38 PM | Link to this

RS… that was just my attempt at a lame joke ;)… but I must disagree with one thing you said… I haven’t seen you in person but I know for a fact that you don’t resemble the southend of a North bound mack truck :)

James… well said… I will soon be moving to Alpharetta (darn gays aren’t staying in midtown where they belong)… you have just reiterated that there is but one difference between us and anyone else out there

By Bruce

April 5, 2005 02:39 PM | Link to this

RS,

What were/are Christ intentions?

By Seaborn

April 5, 2005 02:47 PM | Link to this

norman,

Can you try your post again…I have no idea what you were trying to say…The police call their families in for a conference and explain the situation…They can’t grasp the concept, and I doubt he ever will

come again?

By lozen

April 5, 2005 02:47 PM | Link to this

Whoever you are you really can tell how intelligent you are just from a sentence or two…They’ve been struggling all year meanwhile other boys and girls are now learning. The police call their families in for a conference and explain the situation. “These people just doesn’t understand. They can’t grasp the concept, and I doubt he ever will. It doesn’t make any sense and you certainly didn’t learn any rules of grammar where you went to school.

By Tim

April 5, 2005 02:48 PM | Link to this

haha ‘norman’… that was funny… gave me a good chuckle… I will try my very hardest to git as smart as you is and then maybe I be smart enough to live

By RS

April 5, 2005 02:50 PM | Link to this

Oops! My bad! Tim, you’re right, it’s actually a U-HAUL truck I resemble, at least from the (what used to be my) waist down. Alpharetta?!? No kidding; I WORK up there! Goodness, honey, you’ll die of boredom…Bruce, I’ve actually read the Bible & Christ was NOT hateful or bigoted. I never saw where he lambasted gays & lesbians; I never saw where he even mentioned abortion. He preached love & tolerance. Going by that, I formed the opinion that Christianity, therefore, IS about love & tolerance..Was I wrong??? My idea of a REAL Christian is Tim.

By lozen

April 5, 2005 02:59 PM | Link to this

Bruce, Yeshua said, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” He said, “Judge not that ye be not judged.” He said something like, (can’t quote it verbatim) don’t worry about the splinter in someone else’s eye but instead remove the mote in your own eye. Now you can go to other places and other people in the bible who say homosexuality is an abomination and so forth. But if you stick to what Yeshua says, you have nothing to say about gay marriage. NADA. Zip.

By J. Morris

April 5, 2005 02:59 PM | Link to this

I have to say I crack up when a fundamentalist says “Stop the hate talk”. It’s like a Nazi saying “Stop calling me a racial purist!”

Just so you know, Donny, we don’t actually hate Christians. I suspect you’ll find that many of us on the other side ARE, in fact, Christians. We hate fundamentalism - a philosophy that has tainted more than one Religion with its rigidness, its demands that everyone emerge, cookie cutter-like, from the same bland sheet of dough.

We do have different views and beliefs, Donny. You are spot-on there. The real difference, however, is that you want to force your views on everyone else and write your religious-based discrimination into law. I, on the other hand, couldn’t care less if you want to speak in tongues, dance around, or handle snakes.

In fact…I encourage it! At least the snake handling part.

By Crystal

April 5, 2005 03:04 PM | Link to this

Yes, Mikey, I figured you were out in left field. As to philosophy, I’m not sure that is the field. And Mikey, even liberal Southerners would like to “run you off with a stick” if you don’t appreciate your fine surroundings.

I don’t have to defend President Bush. He does very well on his own. And to add a few words about the “topic”, most judges are hardworking, diligent civil servants performing a difficult task.

Now, Mikey, to elucidate on the enormity of my gratification for your contemplative convictions, let me AGREE with your declaration: (Thank God, I’m not one of your students!)

P.S. I also own a Roget’s Thesaurus.

By Tim

April 5, 2005 03:07 PM | Link to this

lozen and seaborn… I am bilingual… I speak English and dumb a$$ so I think I figured out what ‘norman’ was trying to say… was saying that we had no cognitive functioning so someone should starve us to death like Terri Schiavo (even though she has been dead for years)

RS… eh God just blessed ya with a good back side ;)… well since I already have someone and we never ever ever go out there is no point in living in midtown… we decided we wanted to add a lil color and sas to the burbs… also… that was a pretty good summation of Christianity (I am starting to wonder if you are one of those ‘Jews for Jesus’ jk)

By Brian

April 5, 2005 03:07 PM | Link to this

Greg, please don’t use the word “tyranny” to describe the judiciary when you complain of its expansion/protection of individual liberties. It just sounds sort of ridiculous.

norman, I resent being accused of not knowing right and wrong, inferior intellect, and inability to reason. Perhaps your arrogance and use of groundless personal attacks indicates a failure to grasp right and wrong. I find that the golden rule and honesty work pretty well for me. And while I wouldn’t be so pompous as to consider myself smarter than anyone else, you might be interested to know that IQ and reasoning tests put me in the top 1%, so you’d probably have trouble proving that I possess inferior intellect or an inability to reason. Good luck trying, though. Of course, your analogy of Schiavo in a persistent vegetative state to fully functioning and conscious posters on this site clearly demonstrates that you yourself possess superior cognitive abilities.

By Donny

April 5, 2005 03:08 PM | Link to this

RS,

Just to comment on your statement about Christianity. Yes it is about Love but that love must be accepted. Jesus Christ said in the book of John 3.16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. Two verses later he told us the consequences of rejecting His free gift of Love in the same passage John 3:18 “”He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.”

We should love the person, but hate the sin!

By mit

April 5, 2005 03:18 PM | Link to this

i don’t think that was the real norman.

the real norman would know that it is etc and not ect.

do you all really believe that TS was actually executed? i mean, come on. executed? now i am not saying that letting her starve to death was the correct thing to do, because i personally would have opted for some drugs to speed it up a little.

So everyone with a living will now that says let you go in case you are in this situation I would tell you to put in some kind of way of actually going too.

anyway, executed? that would be a correct assumption if she got up and walked off after taking the feeding tube out and the doctors forced her back to the bed but… she was let go and that’s it. doctors keep her here by using a feeding tube. then LET HER GO by taking it out.

some need a healthy dose of South Park.

By Brian

April 5, 2005 03:21 PM | Link to this

Donny, How about loving the person, keeping your nose out of the sin, and letting God handle the rest. It’s not enough that they’re going to Hell, you’ve got to make their natural life miserable, too?

By Lyrazel

April 5, 2005 03:23 PM | Link to this

Gina, I used a very biased visual but you understood exactly the look that horrifies some employees from hiring young attractive folk. But it was biased. How about Flashy Dresser? Like they should be going to a club…had a boss once who would not hire men if their suit was shiny; my father would never hire anyone with a frat ring. True office politics seldom follows logic. Comparing ugliness to cars…ok, I guess I would be a low-rider GMC Pacer/Gremlin…wonder if I would be beautiful in new puffy combs designer rims?

By Donny

April 5, 2005 03:30 PM | Link to this

Brian,

We can love the person but if you read Matthew 28 Jesus himself said, “18And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen. This doesn’t set well with the masses, that is why He was crucified.

By Lawrence D.Pierce

April 5, 2005 03:33 PM | Link to this

RE:Are judges out of control

In our nation of laws, judges have been the bearer of interpretation with knowledge and understanding, to the common people who lacks insight will complain and compalin if, decisions don’t go their unlearned knowledge of the legal system. The same aspect of the former could be used for our present administration and elected officials to place blame on topic for political reasoning instead of logic in which judges use to interpret the laws of our nation. With this concern, non-legal people don’t understand the logic, thus, they complain and complain, which inflames the non-legal mind and the mind of a maturing nation. In my present circle, we call that symptom, “Cognitive Dissonance,” the changing of reality to make political gain. Our legal system is just fine!

By norman

April 5, 2005 03:35 PM | Link to this

Give the kid a hand. There’s hope for you yet Tim.

By mit

April 5, 2005 03:39 PM | Link to this

huh donny, jesus was crucified for treason.

By Seaborn

April 5, 2005 03:39 PM | Link to this

Tim,

Midtown really has changed anyway…seems more like Buckhead these days…or what Buckhead used to be like. At any rate, it seems kind of boring to us. My partner and I live over in Brookhaven. By the way, Brookhaven and Chamblee are going to be the next intown place to be…(I’m trying to start a movement :)), so if you know any gay couples that want to move from Midtown but not too far out, tell them to check out my area.

Anyway, to be slightly on topic…I have to ask how Shaunti got through Harvard without ever having taken a basic logic course…but here’s one for her to look up…”fallacy of traditionalism”.

By Brian Curtis

April 5, 2005 03:40 PM | Link to this

The norman imitator continues to amuse…

Rant on, little fundie. This nation is succumbing to fundamentalist dogma—at least, not without a heck of a fight. And proudly Constitutional judges will be at the forefront of our forces in preserving liberty despite the Bible-thumpers’ best efforts.

“Can’t seem to get the hang of right vs. wrong”… now, that’s funny! It’s actually quite simple. Right is respecting the principles of freedom and liberty this nation is based on; wrong is pretending that everyone has to go to the same church to be a good citizen, and similar acts of Lying for Jesus. I can understand that you’re struggling with this concept, but at least in MY America you have the freedom to try to figure things out for yourself.

Now run along, faux-norman; the grownups are talking. But if you sit quietly and pay attention, maybe you’ll learn a thing or two.

By J. Morris

April 5, 2005 03:41 PM | Link to this

Donny, I think that what Brian is trying to say in a calm, rational way is “We don’t give a damn what you say Jesus said. STFU and keep your interfering, self-righteous nose out of my life and worry about your own damn family”.

See, sometimes I’m not calm or rational.

By Tim

April 5, 2005 03:41 PM | Link to this

takes a bow

By Brian Curtis

April 5, 2005 03:42 PM | Link to this

The norman imitator continues to amuse…

Rant on, little fundie. This nation is not succumbing to fundamentalist dogma—at least, not without a heck of a fight. And proudly Constitutional judges will be at the forefront of our forces in preserving liberty despite the Bible-thumpers’ best efforts.

“Can’t seem to get the hang of right vs. wrong”… now, that’s funny! It’s actually quite simple. Right is respecting the principles of freedom and liberty this nation is based on; wrong is pretending that everyone has to go to the same church to be a good citizen, and similar acts of Lying for Jesus. I can understand that you’re struggling with this concept, but at least in MY America you have the freedom to try to figure things out for yourself.

Now run along, faux-norman; the grownups are talking. But if you sit quietly and pay attention, maybe you’ll learn a thing or two.

By Bruce

April 5, 2005 03:43 PM | Link to this

RS and of course Lozen,

Christ teachings are all about love that we agree on. But in you last sentence you said: “What I have a problem with is that arrogant “One Wayâ€? mentality. Grrr!” Well wasn’t it Christ that said the ONLY way to the father is through me? Would that be considered “One Way”?

By Donny

April 5, 2005 03:47 PM | Link to this

He was crucified because of blasphemy not treason. Read John or Matthew’s account. Pilate made fun of the fact that the religious leaders considered him a threat to Roman Rule.

By Brian Curtis

April 5, 2005 03:49 PM | Link to this

Sorry for the double post, all; slow system today.

By Tim

April 5, 2005 03:56 PM | Link to this

Seaborn… if I hear of anyone moving I will give them your recommendation ;)

By Donny

April 5, 2005 03:56 PM | Link to this

Look at my comments at the beginning of the blog. The left always resorts to name calling in the end. They start a debate on then was refuted they immediately start calling names…..very consistent. Where is their openmindedness or tolerance?

By Janet

April 5, 2005 03:58 PM | Link to this

Donny, As a Christian what I don’t get is when Jesus plainly says in all four of the Gospels to ‘love your neighbors as you love yourself’ (Matt 22:39, Mark 12:31, Luke 10:27) or ‘I give you a new commandment Love one another. As I have loved you’ (John 13:34) And he also very plainly says ‘Stop judging, that you may not be judged. For as you judge, so will you be judged, and the measure with which you measure will be measure out to you’ Matt 7:1-2 (This also where the the splinter in the eye of someone else vs the plank in your eye is compared.) And Jesus even go as far as to make the statement ‘let the one among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone’ Mark 8:7 Anyway back to what I don’t get: Why do ‘Christians’ treat other in a way I’m sure they would not want to be treated, why do ‘Christians’ continue to judge based on ‘rules’ set out in Leviticus (a book written because the people of that time had a hard time following the Big 10 and need it broken down further) If We are ‘Christians’ better known as ‘followers of Christ’ wouldn’t we be better served to follow the ‘commandments’ HE gave.
Just wondering if you could help me with this, since you know where to find the answers.

By mit

April 5, 2005 03:58 PM | Link to this

bruce, did jesus really say that? i mean that sounds a bit arrogant.

i will look this up.

By RS

April 5, 2005 04:04 PM | Link to this

Well, Bruce, I have a problem with there only being “one way” to God; what about all the good, decent people of non-Christian faiths? That is why, Tim, I (sorry!) don’t identify myself as a Messianic Jew (i.e. “Jew For Jesus”) although I admire Him greatly. Seaborn & Tim: I lived in Brookhaven 2 years ago; too darn close to Buckhead; ha! What I did like was the plethora of gay men in my apt complex. Well, Tim, you’ll certainly liven up the burbs!

By arnold

April 5, 2005 04:07 PM | Link to this

It’s not the judges that are out of control. It’s the politicians.

By Jack

April 5, 2005 04:37 PM | Link to this

Lozen & Rs’ husbands are lucky guys. Quit telling everyone you’re unattractive. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. (smart is better than looks anyday)

By Janet

April 5, 2005 04:37 PM | Link to this

Donny, As a Christian, what I don’t get is if Jesus so plainly in all 4 gospels told us to “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Matt 22:39, Mark 12:31 Luke 10:27) or “I give you a new commandment: love one another. As I have loved you, so you also should love one another.” (John 13:34) AND He also says “Stop judging, that you may not be judged. For as you judge, so will you be judged, and the measure with which you measure will be measured out to you” (Matt 7:1-2, this is also where He goes on to tell you to worry about the beam in your eye, before you tell someone else about the splinter in theirs) Furthermore Jesus also said “Let the one among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone.” (John 8:7) Anyway back to what I don’t get as a Christian, we are supposed to follow Christ teachings, right? Then why do so many “Christians” treat people with such contempt? is that how they would like to be treated? Why are so many “Christians” so quick to judge, are they so sure that their lives will measure up to the standard they are setting for others? It just seems to me that you know a lot of the answers, so I was hoping you could help me understand why so many “Christians” are so focused in on the ‘rules’ instead of Christ’s teachings?

By Janet

April 5, 2005 04:39 PM | Link to this

Donny, As a Christian, what I don’t get is if Jesus so plainly in all 4 gospels told us to “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Matt 22:39, Mark 12:31 Luke 10:27) or “I give you a new commandment: love one another. As I have loved you, so you also should love one another.” (John 13:34) AND He also says “Stop judging, that you may not be judged. For as you judge, so will you be judged, and the measure with which you measure will be measured out to you” (Matt 7:1-2, this is also where He goes on to tell you to worry about the beam in your eye, before you tell someone else about the splinter in theirs) Furthermore Jesus also said “Let the one among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone.” (John 8:7) Anyway back to what I don’t get as a Christian, we are supposed to follow Christ teachings, right? Then why do so many “Christians” treat people with such contempt? is that how they would like to be treated? Why are so many “Christians” so quick to judge, are they so sure that their lives will measure up to the standard they are setting for others? It just seems to me that you know a lot of the answers, so I was hoping you could help me understand why so many “Christians” are so focused in on the ‘rules’ instead of Christ’s teachings?

By Steve

April 5, 2005 04:58 PM | Link to this

Lisa Fabrizio-good rhetoric but no cigar. My grandma ma use to say watch what people don’t say rather than what they say. Congress orders a De novo review but did not give the judges new law to follow when doing an injunction. That is where Congress punked out. Congress writes new laws every year and writes the new law for judges to follow. But in this case Congress wrote a law like a law school exam-giving language that came close to what congress intended but hoping the Judges would go down the rabbit hole and make up some law to assume what congress really meant. But, right minded CONSERVATIVE Judges do not play that game they only apply what Congress tell them to-and since CONGRESS did not say “ Stay the state court proceedings and re-insert the feeding tube the Judges did not do it. How hard is it for congress to say that in writing. Those very same right wing Judges are the ones who ruled against Pres Bush. Read a book and stop watching Sean Hanity on FOX to get your rhetoric. If I hear or read “thumbing your nose� one more time-what do you e-mail each other what to say!! “Think about your thinking.�

By Janet

April 6, 2005 08:19 AM | Link to this

Donny, As a Christian, what I don’t get is if Jesus so plainly in all 4 gospels told us to “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Matt 22:39, Mark 12:31 Luke 10:27) or “I give you a new commandment: love one another. As I have loved you, so you also should love one another.” (John 13:34) AND He also says “Stop judging, that you may not be judged. For as you judge, so will you be judged, and the measure with which you measure will be measured out to you” (Matt 7:1-2, this is also where He goes on to tell you to worry about the beam in your eye, before you tell someone else about the splinter in theirs) Furthermore Jesus also said “Let the one among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone.” (John 8:7) Anyway back to what I don’t get as a Christian, we are supposed to follow Christ teachings, right? Then why do so many “Christians” treat people with such contempt? Is that how they would like to be treated? Why are so many “Christians” so quick to judge? Are they so sure that their lives will measure up to the standard they are setting for others? It just seems to me that you know a lot of the answers, so I was hoping you could help me understand why so many “Christians” are so focused in on the ‘rules’ instead of Christ’s teachings?

By norman

April 6, 2005 08:21 AM | Link to this

Brian Curtis, the first step to resolving a problem is admitting you have one. I’m glad you finally admit that you’re slow, but FYI…This isn’t your America, it’s the peoples. Now what did you call us? The “Fundies”? …Yeah, it’s theirs too, and we’re NOT going away. What color is the sky in your world Brian Curtis?

By Brian Curtis

April 6, 2005 08:25 AM | Link to this

Janet: Probably because it’s easier to criticize others than live a good life yourself and set an example. I suspect it’s more fun, too.

Unfortunately, religion can attract vicious control-freaks in addition to inspiring regular people to virtuous behavior. Fortunately, religion isn’t the only path to virtue.

Now, about those judges….

By Brian Curtis

April 6, 2005 08:28 AM | Link to this

Faux-norman, you get sillier with each post! Thanks for the chuckle.

As for whose America it is: Once you admit that people who disagree with you—even on (gasp!) religion—are no less citizens than you are, THEN you’ll be allowed to call yourself an American. Good luck with that; we’re all rooting for you.

By Boscoe

April 6, 2005 08:46 AM | Link to this

Janet…The sentence “Judge not, that ye be not judgedâ€? is usually quoted out of context. Christ did not enjoin us to refrain from ever judging. What he went on to say in the next four verses is that we should judge ourselves before we judge others—not that we shouldn’t judge at all. Recognizing the potential for evil in moral judgments, he instructed us not to always avoid making them but to purify ourselves before doing so. The greatest kindness one can render to any man consists in leading him from error to truth. Fraternal correction is a loving act, because it seeks to help our brothers and sisters attain their greatest good and happiness, God in Heaven “Toleranceâ€? can be a genuinely harmful force when it becomes a euphemism for moral exhaustion and a rigid or indifferent neutrality in response to every great moral issue it becomes the virtue of people who do not believe in anything. Love of God and love of neighbor, are one and the same thing. Charity towards God and charity towards our brothers are not two distinct or sister virtues; they are one and the same. In a word, what we love in our neighbor is not exactly the weak and perishable man, but the immortal child of the Father, the living member of Jesus, the co-heir of heaven. Beyond the veil of this poor mortality, our faith has perceived God. What we love, then, is both our brother in God, and God in our brother. Whoever truly loves his friend loves God in his friend. Learn to love the Creator in His creatures, the worker in his work, and do not let things made by Him for your use make your forget Him

By Boscoe

April 6, 2005 08:50 AM | Link to this

Brain Curtis, what are the other paths to virtue if religion isn’t the only one?

By James

April 6, 2005 09:01 AM | Link to this

Donny,

Jesus loved the sinner and the saint. However, the he rejected the leaders of the organized churches of his time. He was the original liberal. Like I said before, read the overall message and stop worrying about the details. The Bible was written at a time when a man could sell his daughter, own slaves himself & multiple wives were considered a good thing. We recognize these things are not right today. Maybe the fundamentalist movement should open their minds. I am a Christian & have always kept Christ in my heart. I have made my peace with life. God will determine my fate, not you. I respect you and your beliefs. I want you to be happy and loved. Please do the same for me.

As for Ms. Schiavo, I can not imagine being kept a prisoner in my own body for 15 years. I do agree, starving her was NOT the best option. But, it was the husband’s decision, NOT Congress, NOT the President. Allot of Terri’s problems were the result of her starving herself, just like Karen Carpenter. Karen died because we did not have the technology at the time. God wanted to take Terri home 15 years ago. A true Christian would be happy to let Terri go home. PS: I URGE EVEYONE TO GET A LIVING WILL. YOU CAN DO IT FOR FREE ONLINE!

And thank you for the positive comments j morris and others. I respect and love all of you, even norman & Donny. You may not like me, but I sure do love you. No name calling on my behalf. I know what is right in my heart. I am just very afraid of going through another Nazi Germany or Red Scare agian. We know they were wrong for their actions, let us not repeat mistakes of the past.

By Sandy

April 6, 2005 09:07 AM | Link to this

From today’s New York Times editorial page:

Senator John Cornyn, Texas Republican, offered a smarmy proclamation of “great distress” at courthouse thuggery. Then he rationalized it with broadside accusations that judges “make raw political or ideological decisions.” He thumbed his nose at the separation of powers, suggesting that the Supreme Court be “an enforcer of political decisions made by elected representatives of the people.” Avoiding that nightmare is precisely why the founders made federal judgeships lifetime jobs and created a nomination process that requires presidents to seek bipartisan support.

That nightmare provided us with our current president, with the Supreme Court claiming that they were not setting precedent.

I liked the following comment by Greg Hicks: But as my brother used to say, when you cram something down someone’s throat, don’t be surprised when they throw up on you.

You mean like activist Judge Roy Moore of Alabama putting the 10 Commandments on courthouse property?

The same is true for religious ideology, only that which is regurgitated is more bitter and caustic… The gut instinct of our constitution framers was to eschew governmental sanction of religion. Stop me before I make disgusting medical puns and analogies…

Perhaps Jesus was saying that if we love our neighbors as ourselves, that is the way to salvation, period. Without all the human caveats. When Jesus said “Through their actions you will know them,” I don’t think he was encouraging cramming his teachings down other peoples’ throats, nor feeding tubes, or anything else.

In Buddhism, there is a branch (or vehicle) called the Mahayana, which means that a practitioner of that vehicle will defer enlightenment until every other being is enlightened, a completely selfless act. How many fundamentalist Christians so bent on converting non-Christians would be willing to do the defer salvation in the same way? Back to dancing on pin heads, I guess.

By Tim

April 6, 2005 09:08 AM | Link to this

RS… you go be whatever Jew, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, atheist, or whatever else you want to be (that is one of the great things about living in this country you can practice or not practice whatever religion you want) ;)… I was just messin with ya when I said I was starting to think you were a Messianic jew

as for judges nope don’t think they are out of control… I do think Terri Schiavo’s parents are though… have they once apologized to the families of the other patients in the hospice? if not then that is just sad and selfish!!! those other people did not deserve to have to go through that circus to visit their dieing relatives

By Bruce

April 6, 2005 09:27 AM | Link to this

Mit,

Please look at John 14:6.

By Lyrazel

April 6, 2005 09:35 AM | Link to this

Mary M: you said: * We have witnessed even little children being arrested for trying to carry a class of water to Terri. Why? What law was ever passed to forbid food and water to handicapped people? *

What damn nerve! That some stranger would believe himself superior to doctors, to nurses, to caregivers and an entire hospice—to give a glass of water. If the criminal would have tried to get her to swallow the water she would have died sooner! Thats what IVs are for—when unconscious cant drink they are hooked up artificially! This protestor wasnt a doctor was he? Just some uninformed laymen with time on his hands to interfere! I would slap him with attempted murder—good intentions my bleeped word! Equally more offensive is if this parent put their kid up to it knowing full well if arrested they are juvenile but parent would be tried as an adult and would have a criminal record. Tell me the bravery!

My post about having creepy squads of believers outside hospices and hospitals is ringing even louder. When do the morality police start checking their own ranks? Was it the liberal left who phoned death threats to Judge Greene? to M. Shiavo & family? Why is it the ranks of believers are so filled with those who will resort to violence if their gods way is not done? (Its true of fanatic believers in every faith so dont think I single out one.)

I am frightened by the hoopala and worry that my death could be prolonged because of some legislator—who knows nothing about me, my sickness, my doctors, my medical history—but insist their morality justifies prolonging my death for the sake of re-election PR! But I cant afford 15 years on life support—I sleep in peace knowing the government will kindly step in when I reach the end of my Medicare benefits and pull the tubes away.

By Brian Curtis

April 6, 2005 09:58 AM | Link to this

From Boscoe: “What are the other paths to virtue if religion isn’t the only one?”

That’s easy! There are plenty—reason, social mores, humanism, philosophy, and intuition are just a few that spring to mind. You don’t have to have a Supernatural Threat hanging over your head to behave decently to your fellow man. And, of course, plenty of non-religious people are ethical, charitable, and (yes) virtuous even without the goad of religious obligation.

On the flip side, we see plenty of examples of wholly religious people who do despicable things—murder, bomb-throwing, hijacking, rape, etc. So just as clearly, religion does not guarantee virtuous behavior; it’s one approach to opinion and behavior. One among many.

By Matt

April 6, 2005 10:16 AM | Link to this

It appears that the comments are very divided among social lines. It also appears that we are all very human in our views towards our fellow man. Birds of a feather flock together! However, it also appears that we have our fallibilities. I dare say, given the comments above, that both liberal and conservative proclaim that they are not bigots, hatemongers, etc. Except their comments show that we ‘hate’ the views of the other side. The promise of an utopian society is empty! You will not overcome human nature. Judges will judge in a way that seems right or moral to them and it is a reflection of their biases. In the end, we all have the same shortcomings, just expressed in different ways.

By Janet

April 6, 2005 10:27 AM | Link to this

Sorry about the multiple posting…. tried posting yesterday, it would not go through. When I tried again this morning it said it wasn’t going through. Guess it did.

By J. Morris

April 6, 2005 10:46 AM | Link to this

Matt, I think you will find that the difference is simple. While I may “hate”, as you say, the religious narrowness of Boscoe, Randy, etc., I fully acknowledge their right to hold to their own religious views. They, however, do not extend the same courtesy to others. Anyone who rejects their strict fundamentalism must be converted, reviled, legislated against, etc.

I do not deny that I despise fundamentalism - how many monsters and evil men have grown from the cespit of religious rigidity? However, you don’t see me trying to pass constitutional amendments to keep them from going to church.

By Toni Hunter

April 6, 2005 10:52 AM | Link to this

Yes, Judges are out of control not all but most are out of control.

By Bruce

April 6, 2005 10:55 AM | Link to this

Are there any lawyers posting on this subject? have any of you had to appear before a judge? If so, did your lawyer make any comments concerning if they were glad/ disappointed with the judge hearing the case?

By Edmond

April 6, 2005 11:24 AM | Link to this

Do we live in a constitutional republic rooted in the rule of law, or an oligarchy, manifested in rule by the judicial branch?

Consider: A husband has the right, based upon unsubstantiated anecdotal evidence, to have his wife put to death; in such a case, the parents have no right to preserve the life of their child; so says the judiciary, not the constitution.

A mother has the right to kill her unborn child; the father/husband has no right to preserve the life of his child; so says the judiciary, not the constitution.

A minor can commit murder, but not be held morally responsible (a minor cannot understand the moral consequences of his act); a minor female can end the life of her unborn child (she is able to understand the moral consequences of her act); so says the judiciary, not the constitution.

The rule of an unrestrained judiciary has resulted in rulings that clearly are in conflict with one another.

Food for thought: If an unborn child is a part of the mother’s body, was Terry Schiavo a part of the medical machinery that fed her and kept her alive? Both the unborn child and Terry Schiavo gained sustenance through a feeding tube that entered through the navel. Unborn children are genetically distinct form their mothers, just as Terry Schiavo had her own unique genetic character, so being “a part� of the mother’s body is a relative concept.

By J. Morris

April 6, 2005 11:30 AM | Link to this

Actually, Edmond, the rights of Michael Schaivo to have his wife removed from life support result from the Florida statutes…not the Judiciary.

By Janet

April 6, 2005 11:50 AM | Link to this

Boscoe,

Okay, got the part that we are allowed to make ‘judgements’ as long as we ourselves are willing to recognize and do something about our own issues. I’m under the impression that all sin is sin to God, none greater or lesser than another. Unlike how people view it.

And I get it that it is a ‘great kindness’ and ‘loving act’ to correct another. I even get that we are all children of God and we are to love person, not the sin.

What I don’t get, is the way this love is shown. Never once have I ever felt the ‘love of God’ or the ‘love of my brothers and sisters in Christ’ when insults are being thrown, or when ridicule, scorn and condemnation are being given. I honestly believe this is the issue most non-Christians have with zealots, and for that matter the issues of some Christian with those professing the same faith.

By Boscoe

April 6, 2005 12:57 PM | Link to this

Brian Curtis…Humanism is a godless belief system (a godless religion) in which man puts himself at the center of creation, in place of God. Even the humanists admit this. All forms of humanist sentimentality ethics have one common characteristic: subjectivism. Humanists love their own opinion not because it is true, but because it is their own. Man then becomes a mere tactician, no longer seeking the common good but rather his own selfish interests. Skepticism, rejection of the Commandments and Church authority, atheism, and many of the rationalizations(another word for reason?) of psychology are some of the many by-products of this rejection of objective truth and God’s Revelation in Jesus Christ. Under the banner of humanism, man (not God) becomes the measure of all things. With the self as the measure of all values, psychological man could transform the standards of morality, consequence, responsibility, and free will that had once seemed the unshakable pillars of bourgeois society. Man turns in upon himself in self worship and “the commandment ‘Know and express thyself’ has replaced the Judeo-Christian commandment ‘Love God and others.’â€? Humanists decide for themselves what is right and what is wrong without any external entity to instruct them. Pope John Paul II writes, “The blindness of pride deceived our first parents into thinking themselves sovereign and autonomous, and into thinking they could ignore the knowledge which comes from God.â€? This is the great seductive lie that satan uses over and over again: that man alone decides what is good and evil. Our holy religion was not invented by human reason, but was most mercifully revealed by God; therefore, one can quite easily understand that religion itself acquires all its power from the authority of God who made the revelation, and that it can never be arrived at or perfected by human reason.” - Pope Pius IX, Qui Pluribus (On Faith and Religion) Janet, you are absolutely correct. Both parties on these issues throw insults at each other. I forgot where exactly this came from but someone wrote “What good have you done if you keep the commandments but you don’t have charity for one another?” We should love our enemies,(as in, love the God in them) not certainly in as much as they are unjust and wrongdoers toward us, but because they still remain, despite all, God’s creatures. Certainly we are obviously entitled to detest and condemn in others feelings of wickedness, rancor, jealousy and brutality, of which we are the victims, but we must always avoid any spirit of hate or vengeance.

By RS

April 6, 2005 01:05 PM | Link to this

Jack, you are a true gentleman..YOUR wife is the lucky one. No, Tim, I DID take you seriously, but not to worry, sweetie, I wasn’t offended in the LEAST. I’d like to feel sorry for Terri Schiavo’s parents but yeah, they’ve made it difficult. I also heard where they made no bones about referring to their son-in-law’s lady friend’s children as “b—-tards”. Nice. James, you, like Tim, are what I perceive a TRUE Christian should be like.

By Brian Curtis

April 6, 2005 01:10 PM | Link to this

Ummm, Boscoe? What, exactly, was your point? I mean, I can refute just about every one of your claims about humanism, rationalism, etc…. but why? Did you have some point to make?

Surely you’re not trying to prove that non-religious people can’t be virtuous or compassionate; that’s bogus on the face of it. And equally surely you can’t pretend that ALL religions lead equally to virtuous behavior (how could they, if all but your own are false?).

Pius noted that religion (his religion, anyway) “derives all its power power from the authority of God… that can never be arrived at or perfected by human reason.â€? Okay; but so what? We were talking about morality and virtue, not power and authority. And reason most certainly can (and has) derived many moral and ethical principles entirely separate from religion—ones that work just as well as, if not better than, those that spring from, oh, let’s say Christianity.

Again, what’s your point (if you have one)? Morality does not equal religion, and vice-versa.

By mit

April 6, 2005 01:11 PM | Link to this

boscoe, your message to brian curtis makes no sense to me. this country’s leaders determine what’s right and wrong for us everyday by writing laws. they also work on their own self interest. yet you believe they are not humanist but christian. but your message says they are humanist and therefore laws written for this country are not needed as long as you have the bible.

By Seaborn

April 6, 2005 01:16 PM | Link to this

Only the intellectually weak and those of with little will need an external entity to instruct them as to what is truly right or wrong. Humanist are so because they recognize the need for compassion towards humanity. Those that need fear to be compassionate, truly are not.

By J. Morris

April 6, 2005 01:49 PM | Link to this

As usual, Boscoe thinks that quoting a Pope is a substitute for a valid argument. Does the man (?) have an original thought?

By James

April 6, 2005 01:52 PM | Link to this

If find this converstation to be so very amusing. But, ultimately, none of this really matters. When the world ends (sooner or later) we will all be before Christ & God. I feel Extremist Chritians, Muslims, etc feel the need to be superior. I had a Sunday School Teacher when I was a child. She taught me the most important leason: Love is what it all boils down to. She loved everyone: White, Black, Asian, Gay, Str8, Jewish & such. I felt her kindness & carring. She taught me that all this squabbling is just something to pass the time. She knew we all had faults, but it was not up to her to change us. Just show us what she knew, and love us. God will take us all into his arms in the end. This is how I am able to respect Boscoe, Norman, & other conservative’s points of view. I don’t agree, but judge not lest ye be judged. Do what you feel is right, and let others do the same. If you really think about it, if we were in a plane crash or were being attacked by some outside force, would you really turn to me, a fit & very able gay man, and tell me to leave because I was not worthy? No, you and I would rally around a common good. We have the luxury of these conversations because of the peace given to us by our government. That peace can only be maintained by ALL sides keeping a watch. Republican, Democrat, Christian, Muslim, etc. All things in balance.

I don’t feel as though I am better or worse than any of you. I just am. God loves me, he loved Terri Shciavo and he loves all of us. Don’t try so hard to win his favor, you already have it.

By Michael

April 6, 2005 01:59 PM | Link to this

Question. When is a judge not an activist? Answer. When a ruling supports the desired outcome of conservatives, and religious fundamentalists.

Case in point. A judge who rules in favor of gay unions is considered to have diminished the sanctity of marriage and is labeled an activist. A judge who refuses to interfere in the sanctity of marriage (Re: Schiavo), recieves the very same label - ACTIVIST.

The only good to come out of this entire activist judge squabble is that it shows us the wisdom of the founding fathers in establishing a separation of powers. Perhaps we should honor their foresight and stop behaving like children on a playground who resort to name-calling when things don’t go their way.

Shaunti, even you would have to concede that the most significant social changes of the last century eminated from the courage of the judiciary to uphold the constitution, not from the the electorate. Exactly where would civil rights protections be today, if the good people of Georgia would have been the sole arbiter and allowed to vote on it?

If the answer evades you, ask any gay man or woman.

By Lola

April 6, 2005 02:01 PM | Link to this

James - I know you’re a gay man and I’m a straight woman, but would you marry me anyway? :)

By Sandy

April 6, 2005 02:07 PM | Link to this

If we’re created in God’s image, wouldn’t it make sense to find God through introspection? In fact, I would argue that in order to find the peace that is our birthright, it can and must be done without ego worship; we need to evolve to a certain level of consciousnes, to recognize that good and evil come from the same place, and that it is possible to go beyond that, to be liberated from the dichotomy of good versus evil, which some call Nirvana. It’s a recognizing that there is a place beyond good, and when we reach it, we are no longer separate from God, and are co-creators.

In the early stages of his evolution, though, we make choices, some good, some bad, but they are all a part of the process, shaped by the supreme intelligence. We know it as paradox.

Maybe it’s the notion of evolution of and in our nervous systems that makes the fundamentalist Christians, well, nervous. And talk about your paradox, the idea of this spiritual evolution is older than Christianity, as are many other worthy spiritual beliefs.

By James

April 6, 2005 02:19 PM | Link to this

Sure Lola, My partner may be a little confused after being with me for 13 years, but hey…could be a fun time! ; 0 )

By Janet

April 6, 2005 02:22 PM | Link to this

James, I love you!

By Lola

April 6, 2005 02:22 PM | Link to this

If he’s as wonderful a man as you are, tell him he can come too! :)

By Janet

April 6, 2005 02:25 PM | Link to this

I see Lola got to you first, just wondering if there is enough of you to go around? ;o)

By RS

April 6, 2005 02:30 PM | Link to this

Unfortunately, there is too much competition for James but I hope TIM is still open to having his own personal “f* hag!”

By Tim

April 6, 2005 02:33 PM | Link to this

RS… haha you are at the top of my list ;)

By Jack

April 6, 2005 02:34 PM | Link to this

Now ladies…..

By James

April 6, 2005 02:36 PM | Link to this

You ladies are sweet. Any man would be lucky to have either of you. But, if I ever decide to try something different, I’ll let ya know. LOL!

By J. Morris

April 6, 2005 02:38 PM | Link to this

I’m feeling left out

By Janet

April 6, 2005 02:40 PM | Link to this

RS, you’re right Tim is great, but so young! Same age as my oldest son…. just wouldn’t seem right.

By Tim

April 6, 2005 02:41 PM | Link to this

J Morris you can join RS and I :)

By Janet

April 6, 2005 02:41 PM | Link to this

JMorris, I promise I would still respect you tomorrow!

By J. Morris

April 6, 2005 02:44 PM | Link to this

Yeah, like I haven’t heard THAT before ;-)

By Tim

April 6, 2005 02:44 PM | Link to this

and what is your sons name Janet? I KID I KID!!! ;)

By Jack

April 6, 2005 02:48 PM | Link to this

This blog is getting funky.

By J. Morris

April 6, 2005 02:49 PM | Link to this

Oh great Tim. Give the “ilk” fodder for claiming we’re trying to “convert” people. :-)

By Lee

April 6, 2005 02:53 PM | Link to this

The most recent “activist judge” I could name would be Roy Moore. He secretly moved a monument to the 10 commandments into the courthouse, then refused orders to remove it. He stood by his own beliefs and ignored the laws - as previously interpreted by other courts. He was removed from his court because of his actions. I’m sure he’ll appeal it to the Supreme Court.

He probably sees it as a freedom of speech issue, but everyone else as a separation of church and state issue. So, it’ll be up to the court of appeals to decide which issue takes precedence. (Personally, I think he overstepped his bounds as a person who represents the ideals of the United States of America - by implying a preference to a particular religion.)

Activist judges are removed from their courts. Judges who go by the law, follow the law, and are then reprimanded by their church for their rulings based on law are NOT.

By Tim

April 6, 2005 02:54 PM | Link to this

haha JMorris… oooooooooops

By RS

April 6, 2005 03:01 PM | Link to this

Yes, J. Morris too! And don’t forget Seaborn! And, anyone remember Dane? Wonder how HE’S doing? Doubtless, the aforementioned are not only sweet, intelligent, sensitive, caring, respectful & witty but it wouldn’t surprise me if they are also above average in looks, taste & grooming (Q: Why is it so difficult for women to meet men who are attractive, well-groomed, smart, romantic, sensitive & caring? A: Because men like that already have boyfriends..)

By Jack

April 6, 2005 03:02 PM | Link to this

The “ilk” hasn’t attacked because they’re in shock from reading the recent posts. LOL!

By Janet

April 6, 2005 03:03 PM | Link to this

JMorris, can’t convert.. sexual preferance is not a ‘choice’ that can be made. Either you are born that way or not. Everyone knows that! (except those in the ‘ilk’) ;o)

By Tim

April 6, 2005 03:06 PM | Link to this

RS… I prefer it that way lol… the whole metrosexual movement I really don’t like! now I have no clue who I am ‘allowed’ to look at HAHAHA

Jack… you are a funny guy!!

By J. Morris

April 6, 2005 03:06 PM | Link to this

I do have to say I’m kinda ticked that “f*” doesn’t get caught in the profanity filter.

By Tim

April 6, 2005 03:09 PM | Link to this

I think I am falling in love with Janet!… don’t worry RS there is enough love to go around ;)

By Jack

April 6, 2005 03:12 PM | Link to this

Cigarettes used to be refered to as “f*” didn’t they? The dictionary says a f* is a bundle of wood.

By James

April 6, 2005 03:14 PM | Link to this

RS: You know that a lot of women line up at these ‘Converted to Str8’ places. They say they can find a man who 1)Can cook, 2)Likes to keep clean, 3)Looks good and takes care of himself, 4)Will listen to her & most of all 5) Will Not Pester Her For Sex! LOL!

By Tim

April 6, 2005 03:14 PM | Link to this

JMorris… I noticed that too… but you cannot say p*** or v****… I don’t understand that

By James

April 6, 2005 03:15 PM | Link to this

Now I have to admitt, I do like shocking the str8s!

By Tim

April 6, 2005 03:23 PM | Link to this

next weeks question… what words are appropriate on this blog when referring to a p*** or v****?

By RS

April 6, 2005 03:28 PM | Link to this

Tim, metrosexuals confuse us ladies too! Yes, Jack, cigarettes are called “f*” in the UK; also, in Britain, if you’re gay, you’re “bent”, a “poof” or a “Nancy boy”. And you’re right about the bundle of wood. James, seeing as I live in Little 5 Points, I’m a bit hard to shock! No I never heard of a ” ‘Converted To Straight’ place”. What is it & where’s the closest one? (HA!) If those men are even half as wonderful as they sound on paper, then #5 won’t even be an issue (blush..)

By Jack

April 6, 2005 03:30 PM | Link to this

One is the train and the other a tunnel.

By RS

April 6, 2005 03:30 PM | Link to this

Tim: Uh, “lady parts” & “man parts”? Or, if anyone remembers Monty Python; one’s “naughty bits”. Oh gosh, I can’t be thinking about this stuff at work!

By Seaborn

April 6, 2005 03:31 PM | Link to this

Tim,

Do a google on “monty python meaning of life john thomas”, I think you will find quite a number of useful substitutes :).

hint: Look up the “Third world” skit

By Tim

April 6, 2005 03:34 PM | Link to this

RS and Seaborn… thanks for the tips… I will do that!… but I honestly don’t understand… those are the technical words one learns in school… are they now taboo to say? lol

By J. Morris

April 6, 2005 03:35 PM | Link to this

I’m a jeans and t-shirt kind of guy myself when I’m not in office clothes!

For Tim’s topic, I propose we use the old standby - Who Who and Cha Cha.

By Jack

April 6, 2005 03:38 PM | Link to this

Whos the who who and whos the cha cha?

By Tim

April 6, 2005 03:38 PM | Link to this

I am with JMorris… I prefer my homer simpson pj’s when I am at home lol

those are good suggestions JMorris… I guess I am going to have to think like my 5 year old sister… girls have lulus and boys have wulus

By J. Morris

April 6, 2005 03:50 PM | Link to this

I think it’s actually who-who-dilly and cha cha, and I’m pretty sure that the Y chrom gets the who-who-dilly. Thank you, South Park.

By J. Morris

April 6, 2005 03:51 PM | Link to this

Y’all know that any minute now, Crystal is going to appear and tell us all how boring and dumb we are, right?

By Jack

April 6, 2005 03:53 PM | Link to this

We’re probably getting the blog police confused.

By Jack

April 6, 2005 03:55 PM | Link to this

We’re not boring!

By Brian Curtis

April 6, 2005 04:00 PM | Link to this

According to Mel Brooks, what you really have to watch out for is “pee-pee envy” from someone with a “woo-woo.”

By Lola

April 6, 2005 04:22 PM | Link to this

I’m laughing too hard to post!!! You guys are hysterical! Why can’t I find any STRAIGHT guys this fun? :)

By RS

April 6, 2005 04:37 PM | Link to this

Lola, if straight guys were that fun, they’d be-GAY! Oh, never mind Crystal, if ZACK resurfaced right now, he’d be telling us we’re vulgar, “desperate” & everything that’s wrong with our “worldview.” Well, does anyone remember the term “Tallywhacker” from the 1980s’ movie “Porky’s”?

By Jack

April 6, 2005 04:40 PM | Link to this

I’m straight. And very married.

By J. Morris

April 6, 2005 04:46 PM | Link to this

Uh oh - Jack’s manhood’s been threatened! ;-)

By Jack

April 6, 2005 04:49 PM | Link to this

Don’t think so.

By James

April 7, 2005 07:46 AM | Link to this

Don’t worry Jack, we won’t molest you. much…….. Just kidding. This is a hoot!

By Crystal

April 7, 2005 07:51 AM | Link to this

Right! Y’all are “boring and dumb”.

But most people know that already, even J. Morris.

By J. Morris

April 7, 2005 08:06 AM | Link to this

Ah, more words of utter stupidity by Chrysti.

By Crystal

April 7, 2005 08:25 AM | Link to this

Just wait until I tell your mother what you said, JayMo.

By FundementalistNutso

April 7, 2005 09:00 AM | Link to this

I am getting sick and tired of activist judges. It is way past time we confronted their judicial war against faith. Congress passed the Ten Commandments, and President Bush will sign the bill as soon as he gets back from his Pope chores. We need to ban judicial filibusters and get some right-thinking judges in the courts!

By Whiley

April 7, 2005 09:02 AM | Link to this

Hi I’m back ! What are we talking about today?

By Tony

April 7, 2005 09:13 AM | Link to this

Justice: the maintenance or administration of what is just.

For what ever reason and after three years Michael Schiavo stopped all medical care for his wife Terri. This is documented by the nursing home where Michael refused to treat an infection Terri had developed. This is when the Schindler’s and Michael cease to come to terms concerning anything ever again. This is where for the next 12 years Bob and Mary Schindler seek justice for their daughter.

Who among us after unsuccessfully trying to open-up a jar of honey would throw it away before allowing someone else wishing to try an opportunity? Who among us would deny a father and mother the opportunity to seek medical care and advice for their child? If the courts would have allowed Mr. & Mrs. Schindler the opportunity to administer care for their child, might Mr. and Mrs. Schindler come to the same conclusion? Where’s the justice?

I don’t know about you, but if I believed my child was trying to communicate and you told me to but out, I would have to be restrained. To judicature that a father and mother do not have any say in the life or death of their child based on hearsay evidence is not justice. To me, Justice would have been served if Mr. and Mrs. Schindler would have been granted the opportunity to treat their child and present there findings before starving their child to death.

My child is 24. He will still be my child when he is 41. If your justice is to deny me any say over his wife who refused to treat him, you need to reevaluate the meaning of justice.

Michael was a part of Terri’s life for only a few years, whereas Bob and Mary were and was a constant part of their daughters life. To deny them the opportunity to seek medical intervention on behalf of their daughter and to allow Michael for 12 years to let Terri rot away is not Justice.

Bob and Mary Schindler sought justice for their child. Justice is not what they received.

By J. Morris

April 7, 2005 09:20 AM | Link to this

Tony…the only activism in the Schaivo case was on the part of the Congress. The letter of the law was adhered to by the Florida courts…how is this activism?

It’s time to embrace FACTS and not feelings Tony. The autopsy will reveal that her brain was destroyed beyond any hope of recovery. All irrational, touchy-feely, sentimental nonsense about her “trying to talk” will be shown to be the clap-trap it is. Get over it.

Crystal…JayMo? Please. Can’t you come up with anything better than trite gay jokes? Oooo…I’m gay so you can call me “Mo” and that makes you FUNNY!

By Jack

April 7, 2005 09:36 AM | Link to this

Clap trap?

By Ray

April 7, 2005 10:05 AM | Link to this

What has been lost upon our judiciary is common sense. Sure, Florida law may provide that the spouse is guardian. But when that spouse has moved on to a new life with a common law wife and two children, common sense would lead one to believe that his guardianship should be terminated since he no longer has his spouse’s best interests at heart. Micheal Shiavo long ago left Terri in the rear view mirror, yet he was allowed to decide her fate. Judge Greer should have ruled for the family who clearly showed their love for Terri….but he rarely (if ever) used common sense in this case, even ruling against the family when they requested a lock of Terri’s hair….what harm would that have caused? On a side note, our Constitution clearly states that any right not specifically granted in the Constitution, by default falls to the states to decide. Roe v. Wade is clearly “the judiciary making law” as the Supreme Court federalized an issue (not in the Constitution) that should have been left to the states to decide, as it was prior to 1973. Judges do indeed legislate from the bench, and that is why the left fights incessantly for the judiciary…they know that they can never get their left wing social agenda passed through proper legislation, so they rely upon activist judges to do it for them.

By J. Morris

April 7, 2005 10:27 AM | Link to this

So Ray, what you’re saying is that in interfering with an issue clearly under the jurisdiction of the State of Florida, the Congress was being “activist”…right? If it’s not covered in the Constitution it should be handled by the states…that’s what you said…

THEN you claim that the judiciary should use “common sense” rather than follow the letter of the law. Were’nt you just saying that Judges SHOULDN’T legislate from the bench? Well…what do you think using “common sense” instead of following, you know, THE LAW would be. Jeeze.

You know, I really hate the phrase “Common Sense”. It’s generally used by someone who thinks that he knows more than an expert in a field. Doctors have been examining Terri for 15 years, but my “common sense” tells me I know more than they do…This case has been reviewed over and over by every branch of the judiciary but my “common sense” tells me that I am better qualified to judge the legalities of the situation.

By James

April 7, 2005 10:32 AM | Link to this

WHOA Ray! Remember, the Right has used ‘activist’ judges to their advantage also. The judge in Alabama using his post to insist on the 10 Commandments being displayed. Just because something is ‘popular opinion’ does not mean it is right. Blacks were slaves & then second class citizens until ‘activist judges’ did the Right thing. Women were treated like objects and harrassed in the work place unitl activist judges did the Right thing. Public sentament at this time is against the Iraq war by 61%, but that ain’t gonna fly. So, saying the Liberals can only get there way by using judges is sometimes the only way to do the Right thing. Conservatives of the day felt Blacks and Women were beneath them and should not be treated as equals.

Terri Schiavo’s parents, God Bless Them, were hoping for miracle that has been proven many times over that would not happen. The order of the law was followed in Florida. Of course, like any party (Liberal or Conservative), when the judgement does not go your way, it is an ‘activist’ judge. When it goes your way-it is justice. I believe most judges work very hard to follow the law as it is spelled out for them. They do what is right within those parameters. I have great respect for the law & firmly believe it is often the only thing that saves this country from going too way one way or the other.

God Bless America-Dang It!

By Brian Curtis

April 7, 2005 10:45 AM | Link to this

Ray: The Constitution also states that states do NOT have the right to deprive citizens of any Constitutionally guaranteed rights that are protected at the federal level (14th Amendment). That’s why Georgia, for example, can’t outlaw free speech or declare a state religion just because they’re not “Congress.”

The right to privacy is a recognized component of the Fourth Amendment, and that includes control over your own body. Thus, since Congress cannot abridge the Constitutionally-protected right to an abortion, neither can the states.

If you want to throw around the Constitution as an argument, make sure you’re familiar with ALL of it.

By Brian Curtis

April 7, 2005 10:47 AM | Link to this

P.S. The person “showing the most love for Terri” is a subjective argument at best. Personally, I think it shows greater love to know when it’s time to let go and quit prolonging a pointless existence.

By Jack

April 7, 2005 10:50 AM | Link to this

Her folks gave her up when she walked down the isle. She’s gone. Get a living will. Get over it.

By Tony

April 7, 2005 10:50 AM | Link to this

Mr. Morris, never once do I refer to activism. Justice Sir. You seek Justice Mr. Morris. Is it so difficult to see the unjust treatment of others? Justice Mr. Morris. Justice for loving parents wishing to administer care for their daughter. Justice DENIED. Mr. Schiavo is the legal guardian, however the legal guardian without written consent does not have the right to end another’s life. In this case, Mr. Schiavo convinced the court that the wishes of Terri was not to be kept alive, hearsay evidence. Bob and Mary Schindler sought Justice for 12 long years and in the end couldn’t adminsiter a glass of water to their own child. Where’s the Justice in that?

By J. Morris

April 7, 2005 10:56 AM | Link to this

The case wasn’t about Justice, Tony. You’ve jumped on the irrational “hearsay” evidence bandwagon with all the other religious folk, but the simple fact is that this case was blown all out of proportion by attention-seeking politicians and religious fanatics. The case, as has been said over and over and over, was reviewed more times than any other civil action in the history of the country. Don’t ya think that if the evidence used was improperly admitted, that SOMEONE would have reversed the decision? No. Please continue on in your sentimental, illogical daze.

By Sandy

April 7, 2005 11:03 AM | Link to this

Thomas Jefferson said “Christianity neither is nor ever was a part of common law,” in letters to Horatio Spafford and Dr. Thomas Cooper.

Believing that life begins at conception is a matter of faith and beyond the scope of the Constitution or state laws. Legal abortion is the compromise and should remain a right and individual choice, for better and worse.

Regarding the Schiavo case, the story goes that the Michael cared for Terri for many years. The Schindler’s encouraged Michael to get on with his life, to start dating, etc. How do we know this was not manipulation on their part? How do we know that their actions were not motiviated by some twisted Munchausen’s by proxy syndrome, where they identified so strongly with their brain-dead daughter and the attention they received? Maybe they thought they could shame Michael into releasing custody for their own twisted purpose using the media and courts. How do we know that Michael was not motivated by love?

If you depend on faith in this case, then on that level it’s really between the Schiavos, Schindlers, and their respective deity or god, and none of our business.

On the legal level, due course was granted and laws were upheld, and none changed, despite the efforts of a misguided president and congress. This makes us stronger as a liberty-loving society, not weaker. The laws must not bend to faith-based martyrdom and manipulation.

Regarding Ray’s statement about left wing social agenda: What exactly was Judge Roy Moore’s leftist social agenda in putting the 10 commandments on federal court property?

“People don’t change when you tell them they should, but when they tell themselves they must.”— Thomas Friedman, today’s NYT column. This law of human nature applies to many, many topics, especially faith, religion, and spirituality, and politics.

By Crystal

April 7, 2005 11:07 AM | Link to this

So, JayMo is a trite gay joke? Who would have known? Not me. It probably escapes your twisted mind, J. Morris, that I don’t know ANY kind of gay joke. Why would I? That’s not my line of thought.

Nevertheless, don’t call me Chrysti or any other cute name. It might be a bad joke for SOMEBODY.

By J. Morris

April 7, 2005 11:12 AM | Link to this

The only twisted mind here is yours Chryshizzle. Please go away and don’t come back until you have something constructive to add. I’m sure your Hubbie has some commands he’d like you to carry out, and your children need you to bake them cookies for when they come home from school. Gosh, gee whilikers!

By Tim

April 7, 2005 11:28 AM | Link to this

anyone remember the memo that stated that the Terri Schiavo case was a ‘great political issue’ that was provided to ABC and The Washington Post… anyone remember how Republicans said that Democrats wrote that to smear them? well looks like Mel Martinez… Senator from my ‘great’ home state of Florida has accepted the resignation of his legal counsel because he has admitted to writing it… but no Republicans didn’t get this memo? PAAAALEASE it came from the office of the main sponsor of the Schiavo bill… coincidence I THINK NOT!

for anyone who would like to read the article it is very interesting… go to www.orlandosentinel.com

By Tony

April 7, 2005 11:32 AM | Link to this

Terri Schiavo is dead. May God rest her soul. No bandwagon is going to bring her back Mr. Morris. Sworn affidavits by nurses taking care of Terri stated in their testimony that Michael Schiavo had told them that he did not know what Terri’s wishes where. Sworn Affidavits! ALL medical care was denied by Mr. Schiavo. NEVER, NOT ONCE, did the court allow DOCTORS who stated that they could improve Terri’s condition the opportunity. Doctors who stated that Terri could swallow on her own if only given therapy. Justice would have been served by allowing this minimal service. You can claim Political and Religious propaganda, but in the end, the simple act of allowing a therapist an opportunity to see if Terri could indeed swallow on her own was DENIED. That my friend in my humble opinion proves that TRUE Justice was indeed DENIED!

By Crystal

April 7, 2005 11:45 AM | Link to this

Now, J. Morris——Chryshizzle? I’m insulted. I once heard a joke……oh, nevermind.

We have to add something constructive to this blog? Are you still posting? As to cookies, let me run bake some. My husband and children love them. I just don’t do much baking in the laboratory. You know. All that blood and body fluids stuff.

Topic comment: Let us not keep trying the Schiavo case. She’s dead and the judges were NOT out of control.

By J. Morris

April 7, 2005 12:14 PM | Link to this

Chrystie, I’m sure you once did hear a joke, but I doubt you got it.

Tony, you have to ask yourself this question. WHY would numerous judges refuse to consider the various things you have mentioned? How many of these things have a factual basis?

It seems that all of the people getting their info from the Terri’s Fight or whatever it is site don’t use logic and reason - they would rather believe that there was some vast conspiracy of death to “murder” poor Terri than to believe that things happened simply as they should.

By Bruce

April 7, 2005 12:30 PM | Link to this

Crystal and J Morris,

Would one of you please start acting like an adult and take the high road. You both are acting like a couple of 6 year olds on the playground. Geez, enough all ready!

Sorry, btu I just had to get that off my chest, please continue.

By Sandy

April 7, 2005 01:04 PM | Link to this

Thanks for the link, Tim. For anyone interested, a portion of the text reads:

Brian Darling, whose resignation was confirmed by Martinez aides late Wednesday, is a former partner at the GOP powerhouse lobbying firm Alexander Strategy Group, founded by a former chief of staff to Senate Majority Leader Tom DeLay of Texas.

Isn’t that special? DeLay and his ilk…if I may use that term.

By Crystal

April 7, 2005 01:12 PM | Link to this

Yes, Bruce, it is trivial and I hope you feel better.
But where were you yesterday afternoon at the highest point of triviality? Even the “blog police” were deadly silent. Of course, the “blog police” are one old computer and a child in India who doesn’t speak English. You should have spoken then.

But continue onwards into the great unknown of judicial activity. Somebody’s got to do it. Cheers!

By James

April 7, 2005 01:19 PM | Link to this

Crystal: I may be gay, but can you bake me some cookies? My Mom can’t bake & neither can my partner.

JMorris: You know I love ya, but calm down, it will all be OK. Come here and let me give ya a hug

Terri Schiavo was in a living prison. Any Good Christian would have been able to let her go home to heaven. Her parents were being selfish by keeping her inside her body that could do nothing. So what if she could learn to swallow! Do you want to be nothing but a burden on everyone around you? Even though they had unconditional love for her, they should have thought what was truely best for her. Having an active spirit in the body of a carrot is not loving-it is selfish. That is my opinion & what is written in my living will.

By Michael

April 7, 2005 01:19 PM | Link to this

To “By Theâ€?

I don’t know what sources you relied upon in arriving at your conclusion regarding the quality of health care in Western countries. I chose the word “outstanding� quite deliberately based upon first hand experience, the experience of many friends, but much more important than such limited anecdotal evidence, what professional health care people who know these issues have said. The Harvard School of Public Health regularly compares health care systems as do other schools of public health in the United States, the WHO also engages in the kind of research and these assessments are featured regularly in medical journals, journals of public health, and international reports. These are the people with the relevant expertise to judge what is largely a factual issue, not an ideological one. Most Americans rely upon stereotypes, selectively presented anecdotal evidence, and political attitudes without reading and informing themselves about what health care is really like in other countries. In general, and we have to examine countries case by case, specialists in public health do, in fact, evaluate the systems of Scandinavia, France, and Germany in particular, as equal in their provision of high tech medical to that available in the United States. Furthermore, it is available to almost everyone in these countries, not just those with good insurance.

The U.S. spends more per capita than any country in the world on health care and yet leaves 45 million people, 75% of whom work full-time, without health insurance, dependent upon stop gap measures such as an unevenly funded medicaid system and public clinics. The American Medical Association,hardly a radical organization, estimates that 18,000 people die each year in the United States from lack of access to health care. That is not many in the larger framework in which over two million Americans die, usually from natural causes, but it is 18,000 too many. Millions more in the working and middle class are under insured, pay high premiums, and high deductibles.

Incidently, I wonder why more Christians, especially those who were so worked up over the case in Florida, are not equally exercised by the millions of their brethren who struggle with health care. I believe it is a moral disgrace that the richest society in the history of humanity permits such a state of affairs.

By Bob

April 7, 2005 01:22 PM | Link to this

Nuculer option? Yes, but the party of Chappaquiddick Ted has already used it to change the 200+ year old US Senate advise and consent practice for judge approval. Always 51. Now 60! So GOP must use the anti-missile defense weapon!

By Whiley

April 7, 2005 01:26 PM | Link to this

I, Whiley, being of sound mind and body currently, do not wish to be kept alive indefinitely by artificial means. Under no circumstances should my fate be put in the hands of selfish politicians who couldn’t pass ninth-grade biology if their lives depended on it.

If a reasonable amount of time passes and I fail to sit up and ask for a margarita, it should be presumed that I won’t ever get better. When such a determination is reached, I hereby instruct my spouse, children and attending physicians to pull the plug, reel in the tubes and call it a day.

Under no circumstances shall the members of the Legislature enact a special law to keep me on life-support machinery. It is my wish that these boneheads mind their own damn business, and pay attention instead to the health, education and future of the millions of Americans who aren’t in a permanent coma.

Under no circumstances shall any politicians butt into this case. I don’t care how many fundamentalist votes they’re trying to scrounge for their run for the presidency in 2008, it is my wish that they play politics with someone else’s life and leave me alone to die in peace.

I couldn’t care less if a thousand religious zealots send e-mails to legislators in which they pretend to care about me. I don’t know these people, and I certainly haven’t authorized them to preach and crusade on my behalf. They should mind their own business, too.

If any of my family goes against my wishes and turns my case into a political cause, I hereby promise to come back from the grave and make his or her existence a living hell.

By Jack

April 7, 2005 01:35 PM | Link to this

Mr. Morris needs to lighten up on Crystal. Youi are starting to sound like you belong in grade school. She is entitled to her opinion as well as you. You seem to get offended too easily. Get a thicker skin.

By J. Morris

April 7, 2005 01:46 PM | Link to this

Look, all Crystal ever does is come here and randomly heap derision and insults upon everyone. Why are y’all defending her?

By Bruce

April 7, 2005 01:47 PM | Link to this

Crystal,

I agree that some folks got silly yesterday but you and J have been just plain mean to each other. I am sorry I stuck my nose into it but being trivial is one thing being mean is uncalled for. Please forgive me. We may not always agree but we can at least be civil.

By Tony

April 7, 2005 01:47 PM | Link to this

No doubt America has her flaws Michael. But I got to wonder why Millions come to America for special health needs? In addition Michael, Every year the Citizens Against Government Waste publishes their annual list of federal pork-barrel spending. It’s called the Congressional Pig Book.

In a list of some 14,000 pork projects, supported by politicians of both parties, the total tab for this year’s spending is $27.3 billion. With a national debt in the trillions and an annual deficit of hundreds of billions, this is all the more outrageous because it’s borrowed money. So not only are politicians buying votes with pork-barrel spending, but they’re financing it. So now future generations will pay interest on today’s pork.

At any rate, here are some of the projects that made the list:

$6.3 million for wood utilization research.

$1.4 million for various Halls of Fame, including: $75,000 for the Greater Syracuse Sports Hall of Fame and $70,000 for the Paper Industry Hall of Fame.

$300,000 for Anaheim Resort Transit (read: Disneyland) bus and bus facilities in the district of Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-Calif.).

$25,000 for the Clark County School District in Nevada for curriculum development to study mariachi music.

$23.8 million in High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area Program grants.

$6.7 million in YMCA funding.

Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) for his $646 million in pork for Alaska.

$100,000 for the Tiger Woods Foundation.

$2 million for the buyback of the USS Sequoia Presidential Yacht.

John Peterson (R-Pa.) for adding $100,000 for the Punxsutawney Weather Discovery Center Museum.

$3.3 million for start-up operations at the Capitol Visitor Center.

Senator Robert Byrd (D-W. Va.) for his $399 million in pork for West Virginia.

$1.7 million for the International Fertilizer Development Association.

$8.2 million for the Fort Lewis Army Chapel, which offers diverse services for Christians, Jews, Muslims, and even Wiccans.

I wonder why more Liberal Professors aren’t equally exercised by the $$$ millions wasted for Political gain?

By Crystal

April 7, 2005 01:53 PM | Link to this

Sure, James, I’ve got some hot ones. Come on over. But promise not to mention politics. I just saw “ilk” pop up again. We need a new word for springtime.

By J. Morris

April 7, 2005 01:56 PM | Link to this

Tony, why do you say “Even” Wiccans? Now, I’m not a pagan myself, but it is a recognized religious group with adherents all over the world. Your use of the word “even” smacks of religious prejudice…but that wouldn’t happen, would it.

And, since you’re complaining about the budget…guess who sets it? Um…Republicans, maybe?

Bob - I find it hilarious when Republicans/Conservatives complain about the Democrats use of Filibuster for judicial nominees. Not only is the filibuster NOT a new thing as you suggest, but the only judges that the Demos have threatened to filibuster are those who are so extremist that they have been rejected before. The Conservatives are trying to stack the courts with far-right Judges that many of their own peers dislike.

More than that, the Democrats under Bush have confirmed a VASTLY larger slate of judges than the Republicans under Clinton, who did everything they could to block candidate after candidate. For them to cry dirty pool now is not only laughable, it is hypocritical at best. As usual, the propaganda machine is at full swing.

By Michael

April 7, 2005 02:01 PM | Link to this

To “By Theâ€?

I don’t know what sources you relied upon in arriving at your conclusion regarding the quality of health care in Western countries. I chose the word “outstanding� quite deliberately based upon first hand experience, the experience of many friends, but much more important than limited anecdotal evidence, what professional health care people who know these issues have said. The Harvard School of Public Health regularly compares health care systems as do other schools of public health in the United States, the WHO also engages in the kind of research and their assessments are featured regularly in medical journals, journals of public health, and international reports. These are the people with the relevant expertise to judge what is largely a factual issue, not an ideological one. Most Americans rely upon stereotypes, selectively presented anecdotal evidence, and political attitudes without reading and informing themselves about what health care is really like in other countries. In general, and we have to examine countries case by case, and specialists in public health do, in fact, evaluate the systems of Scandinavia, France, and Germany in particular as equal in their provision of high tech medical care to that available in the United States. Furthermore, it is available to almost everyone, through socialized systems, private based systems, or combinations, and not just to those with good insurance.

The U.S. spends more per capita than any country in the world on health care and yet leaves 45 million people, 75% of whom work full-time, without health insurance, dependent upon stop gap measures such as an unevenly funded medicaid system and public clinics. The American Medical Association, hardly a radical organization, estimates that 18,000 people die each year in the United States from lack of access to health care. That is not many in the larger framework in which over two million Americans die each year, usually from natural causes, but it is 18,000 too many. Millions more in the working and middle class are under insured, pay high premiums, and high deductibles.

I wonder why more Christians, especially those who were so worked up over the supposed injustice in the case in Florida, are not equally exercised by the millions of their brethren who struggle with health care. I believe it is a moral disgrace that the richest society in the history of humanity permits such a state of affairs.

By Janet

April 7, 2005 02:13 PM | Link to this

JMorris, I think we just expect better behavior from you. I respect you today (just like I said I would) but am questioning what has got you so offended.

I may be naive, but I thought the “JayMo” comment was just “Jay” for J. and “Mo” short for Morris. Misspelling your name like you were doing hers. And Crystal did say something that I think you would agree with: “Topic comment: Let us not keep trying the Schiavo case. She’s dead and the judges were NOT out of control.”

By J. Morris

April 7, 2005 02:28 PM | Link to this

Janet, I am irritated not because of one remark, but becuase of her long pattern of behavior. Review past weeks and you’ll see that all she ever does is makes posts about how boring we all are, or how misguided, or how stupid, or about how witty and clever she is, but she never actually says anything about any topic. She is always there to point out if we are OFF topic, but never comments ON topic. She can criticize, but then when asked to put her money where her mouth is and contribute to the debate, she just continues with more of the same. I guess it’s finally gotten to me.

By Michael

April 7, 2005 02:34 PM | Link to this

To: Tony and by the

First, let me add a response to the by the last sentence in “by the’s” post.

Most physicians in most of these countries believe that they are sufficiently remunerated for their services. Furthermore, “human nature� arguments aside, some people are a bit more complex and their motives are not confined to monetary interest and this is often the case with medical professionals, academics, teachers, writers, and people who view their work as being personally meaningful and at the same time making a contribution to the public good. In Europe, health care is viewed by everyone as a human right, not as a business, and medical practitioners view themselves as fulfilling that right for their fellow citizenry.

The last article I read, by the way and Tony, have a look it if you like, was by Arnold S. Relman, “The Health of Nations, Medicine and the Free Market,” in The New Republic, March 7, 2005. Relman is professor emeritus of medicine at Harvard Medical School and the former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine. He is currently writing a book on this issue and virtually everything he said in the article above goes against these superficial generalizations about health care that are routinely made by American political conservatives. Have a look at the facts, not speculation about human psychology.

Secondly, Tony, there are not “millions” of people coming to the United States to receive health care from other Western countries. Most of those who do come, not a considerable number, do so to receive special, often experimental treatment that is not available elsewhere. The issues of access to experimental health care and medical research are different from the issue of access to most health care. Canada, for example, has less than 1/10th the population of the United States and does not have the economies of scale to generate a lot of new medical research, though they continue to provide excellent care to their population (and surveys show over and over that very few Canadians would trade their system for ours.)

American medical research is still outstanding and, (though barely) continues to lead the world in many fields. (A recent girlfriend of mine, a medical doctor trained in Switzerland came to get her second doctorate at Emory for that very reason.) But again, medical research, experimental procedures, and general access to quality health care are different issues.

The edge in medical research that the United States narrowly has over other smaller countries is rapidly being overtaken as is science research in general. Some of this is inevitable, as other countries put more money into research, and as large countries such as China grow in wealth. However, there is near universal agreement among American scientists (the National Academy of Sciences for example) that this current administration’s policies are virtually anti-science. From the unjustifiable limitations placed on stem cell research (complained about in a New York Times editorial two days ago by former 3 term Republican Senator Danforth) to the undermining of high school science education, with this creation science versus evolutionary theory nonsense, this administration is threatening the status of science research and doing next to nothing about health care. Americans deserve better than this.

By Janet

April 7, 2005 02:44 PM | Link to this

JMorris, It isn’t necessary to review, I know you are right about that…. but if you will look back to yesterday when we all got kind of silly, you baited her. So of course she is going to tell us all how ‘boring and dumb’ we are. It just seemed that you jumped right on that today, instead of blowing it off as more Crystalisms. I think James is right… You need a group {HUG}.

By J. Morris

April 7, 2005 02:51 PM | Link to this

Ok when you’re right, you’re right, Janet. :) My apologies for the baiting.

By Crystal

April 7, 2005 02:57 PM | Link to this

James, I’ll bake you another batch of cookies. I’m sending these to J. Morris. He needs something sweet.

But I’m thinking deep thoughts and quotations here. They are so likeable on “blogs”. Harry Truman once said “If you can’t stand the heat, don’t go in the kitchen.”

Well….OOps! My cat just threw up. She is eighteen years old so I forgive her. Gotta go clean up. Deep thoughts tomorrow!

By Jack

April 7, 2005 03:05 PM | Link to this

I always heard “get out of the kitchen”. How about”If it doesn’t fit, force it. If it breaks, it needed replacing anyway” or “If it smells like a duck, it is a duck”

By Tony

April 7, 2005 03:32 PM | Link to this

James, yesterday you spoke of love and being before God and not judging. Today, well :(

Not only did the court order that the feeding tube be removed, the court also ordered that no attempts be made to provide her water or food by mouth. You see, Terri swallows her own saliva. Spoon feeding is not medical treatment. This outrageous order proves that the courts are not merely permitting medical treatment to be withheld, they ordered her to be starved to death.

On March 23, outside the hospice where Terri was growing steadily weaker, her mother, Mary, said to the courts and to anyone who would listen and maybe somehow save her daughter:

“Please stop this cruelty!” Love?

By Janet

April 7, 2005 03:46 PM | Link to this

(slapping my self upside my head, thinking what?????) Thanks for the info on the cat, Crystal.

By J. Morris

April 7, 2005 03:46 PM | Link to this

Tony, you will find that this is yet another piece of incorrect propaganda.

The AMA and every other legitimate medical professional association in the country holds that the provision of food and water IS a form of life support and is classified equally with a respirator or other form of artificial life support. The removal of a feeding tube is medically and legally no different from turning off a respirator.

This occurs thousands of times every month all over the country. People make the decision to have a relative removed from life support. The ONLY reason this case created a stir was because the politicians and religious fanatics tried to make hay out of it.

The only outrageous behavior was that exhibited by violent “loving” protestors outside the hospice. Claims of “suffering” were emotional and not rational, as there was no person there to suffer.

This argument is getting ridiculous - will you be satisfied when the autopsy PROVES that the brain was gone? I doubt it, since you don’t care about facts, only psuedo-science.

By Les

April 7, 2005 04:00 PM | Link to this

Greetings. I’m a long time reader; first time poster.

I have truly enjoyed reading the posts on this topic. Most are well written and I have learned a lot. The entertainment value is definitely worth the price I paid for admission. This sure beats working on my quarterly reports!

By Sandy

April 7, 2005 04:07 PM | Link to this

Michael, thanks for that myth-busting post. The fact that the US has the capability to do experimental treatments and research does not mean that they are necessarily distributed to everyone who needs them.

The number of people without health insurance is alarming. Consider that often with every job change, it may mean up to 3 months before insurance benefits become active, with no affordable interim measures. COBRA is a joke and way out of reach for most Americans. For families with children or pre-existing medical conditions, it’s a huge risk to go 3 months or more without insurance. My family was without health insurance for most of last summer. The thought of an emergency was panic-inducing. My husband is about to change jobs again… another crap shoot. Hope we make it through. Yep, greatest health care system in the world, if you can afford it.

Interestingly, the last time I took my father to his orthopaedist, he told us to hurry to schedule a knee MRI because soon it would be necessary to petition the HMO to have it done, “just like in Canada.” Whenever I get on my soapbox about the US creating a national health care system, I almost always hear, “but the Canadians have to wait for their health care; Americans would never agree to that…” Well guess what, we’re not agreeing to it, but it’s happening anyway. And we can’t even sue our HMOs.

I’d like to think that as Americans, we could do it better (see how much I hate America?) Even if we had to scale back on the research part, (especially the new drugs that are really old drugs only with more side effects) we might be able to reach more people with the tried and true procedures we’ve already paid for.

There are objections about governmental bureacracy and interference from the same people who support this president who is doing his damndest to ruin our economy, dismantling the one system that is working, and ignoring the real crises of Medicare and Medicaid. My HMO still has not paid my surgeon for a procedure done almost 4 years ago. Prior to the surgery, I could not get the HMO to confirm what percentage I would have to pay out of pocket—they called to inform me the day after my surgery. How’s that for bureacracy?

We have the technology, and the smarts, (at least until the full effects of NCLB and the nadir and subsequent entropy of neo-reactionary creationism is felt).

What we don’t have is an administration who sees health care as a basic human right unless it fits its political agenda, and yet claims to be “pro-life,” despite our infant/child mortality rate for industrialized nations.

The other argument is that it’s “too hard and will take too long.” Not with bipartisan support, but the “nuclear option” could put the kibosh on that, too, I suppose. I would guess that putting together a national health care plan is not any harder or expensive than bringing democracy to the Middle East…

Damn, this soap box sure is heavy.

By Tony

April 7, 2005 04:17 PM | Link to this

I care about Facts J. Morris. The fact is that the court not only ordered the feeding tube to be removed based on hearsay evidence, the court ordered that no attempt shall be made to give her water or food by mouth. That is outrageous.

You don’t have to continue cooresponding with me about this issue. I was posting in reference to James’s post. This forum is about out of control judges. You can go back to your “who-who-dilly and cha cha” I won’t tell you your getting ridiculos, so don’t tell me.

I will never be satisfied with this issue. Loving Parents wanted to care for their daughter, there is no down side to letting her live. If Terri where alive and living with her parents what difference is it to you.

You talk about staying out of peoples lives, well why don’t you practice what you preach!

By Jack

April 7, 2005 04:34 PM | Link to this

Tony did you ever consider that Terri may have actually told her husband that she would not want to stay alive that way? Of course not. That wouldn’t suit your arguement.

By J. Morris

April 7, 2005 04:35 PM | Link to this

Oh by all means Tony. “Err on the side of life” even if it is utterly pointless. Allow those parents to go to their graves still caught in a limbo of grief and denial. That’s healthy. Continue to drain resources and emotion from those who are actually left alive and aware. No harm? I beg to differ with you.

Again, you haven’t answered the basic logical question here. If, as you say, improper evidence was admitted then why was the decision never overturned in the 22 appeals and reviews? Where’s your Occam’s Razor for that question, Tony? What reason is there for the vast conspiracy you assert exists?

As to the impact of this case on me - no, her personal case doesn’t impact me directly. However, the precedent that could have been set affects all of us. The idea that we can override the law just because we want to, or that concepts like “the sanctity of marriage” or the rule of law are only important as long as they don’t become inconvenient, or that the federal government can intrude into a matter of family law because it sees an opportunity for winning votes or hiding from scandals - these things DO affect me directly, and affect you directly too, Tony.

It’s too bad you’re so caught up in the hysteria of the case to be rational.

Oh…and really Tony, if you don’t have a sense of humor or of the absurd, then you can just skip over those sections where we are obviously being silly or joking around. I wouldn’t want you to overstress yourself.

By Les

April 7, 2005 04:41 PM | Link to this

Tony, let’s say Terri’s parents were given custody of her then a few years later they pass away. Who would take care of her then? Her siblings? What if she outlived everyone in her immediate family? Who would take care of her then?

By Whiley

April 8, 2005 08:24 AM | Link to this

HAS ANYONE EVER SAID “ABSOLUTELY KEEP ME ALIVE NO MATTER WHAT ! NO MATTER HOW MUSH MY BRAIN IS !”

Name one person !

I say lets keep Randall Terri alive forever if he is ever in that state. Put a TV in front of him & only play that MTV channel. Show him what he missed his whole tightA!@#!@#ed life.

By RS

April 8, 2005 08:38 AM | Link to this

Actually, Whiley, I DO know someone who’s said he has no intention of making out a living will & wants to be kept alive no matter what because “where there’s life there’s hope”. I think his “brain” has already turned to mush…

By Bruce

April 8, 2005 08:47 AM | Link to this

It is Friday everyone’s brain is mush:-)

By Whiley

April 8, 2005 08:50 AM | Link to this

Oh MY RS ! We’ll stick your friend next to Randall Terri’s bed. They can share feeding tubes.

By Real Norman

April 8, 2005 08:50 AM | Link to this

What are out of control are Republicans.

By jr3

April 8, 2005 09:35 AM | Link to this

Is anybody concerned about the Tom DeLay situation. This man has become far too powerful and is perhaps the most corrupt man in Congress. He seems to be the “point man” for the administrations attempt at reshaping our country (as a teocracy?)by silencing any and all critics. His talking points memo, which he disavows(go figure)isone example of how low the religious right will go to use whatever means available to shape public opinion for the weak and weak minded. These folks are out of control,not the courts. I can see a “constitutional crisis” on the horizon unless these people are brought under control.

By Michael

April 8, 2005 09:41 AM | Link to this

Tony,

Tony,

“Hearsay evidence�? It was the judgment of several court appointed neurologists who had conducted physical examinations, CAT-scans, and EEGs, who watched the woman “interact� with her family at her bedside, and watched nine hours of videotape of her with her family members. The media featured the same four seconds out of those nine hours over and over again which gave the false appearance of her being aware of those around her.

Biomedical ethicists around the country offered the same view, so Jeb Bush had to scare up some obscure doctor, formerly affiliated with the Christian Coalition to tell him what he and other supporters of Schavio’s parents wanted to believe. (Reminds me of the careful use of evidence by his brother in constructing the case for WMDs in Iraq.)

As I say in nearly every post, most American conservatives care nothing about the facts, and you guys simply provide more anecdotal evidence every time you place something here. (And I notice you also gave no evidence for any of your sweeping claims about other the health care systems of other Western countries.)

By Real Norman

April 8, 2005 09:50 AM | Link to this

To: jr3

Delay’s activities in Congress and outside of it are good examples of how out of control the GOP is.

Other examples: Bush appoints an ambassador to the UN, John Bolten, who wants to destroy the UN. Bush is destroying our economy because of skyrocketting oil prices caused by our Middle eastern war. Bush wants to castrate all Democrat opposition in the Senate as Delay has in the House. Taxes are cut to benefit small business while actually it is big business who benefits from the Bush policies. While most of us have our federal taxes cut, our states and local districts will have to raise them or cut necessary services. The only advantage is that local and state taxes can be deductible on federal returns but federal taxes are only deductible in Hell!

In his prior career, Delay was an exterminator! Figures.

By Les

April 8, 2005 10:02 AM | Link to this

I find it interesting that Tom Delay along with his family had to decide whether to sustain his father on life support after a “freak” accident at his home. I believe this happened in the early ’90s. I’m sure the decision to remove his father was a very personal family matter and they agonized over before deciding to remove life support. I wonder how Tom would have felt if their case was made public the way the Schiavo case was. He should be ashamed of himself. By the way, I live in Texas (not by choice) and Tom is worshipped here. I’m just glad I don’t live in his district in Sugar Land.

By Michael

April 8, 2005 10:05 AM | Link to this

Boscoe,

I saw in one of your earlier postings in which you asked “what other path to virtue is there other than religion?� and another in which you claimed that secular moralities were all “subjectivist.� I don’t think you are a bad guy, but I do believe, with respect, that you have never seriously considered these claims nor made any serious effort to see if there are defensible alternatives to religious morality.

The word “virtue� itself, derives from the Greek word “arete� and what is called “virtue ethics� in philosophy, recently popularized with all the talk about “character education,� ultimately comes from classical Greek philosophy. Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle were pre-Christian or pagan philosophers who developed virtue ethics with little reference to religion, and that is certainly the case with Aristotle who wrote the first work in history exclusively devoted to ethics in the Nicomachean Ethics. The history of Western philosophy, outside of the Medieval period, is replete with examples of justifications for ethics that do not depend on religion and normative ethical views whose content is developed entirely from other sources. (I teach ethics and I will be happy to provide a list, but you can try reading Aristotle, Immanuel Kant, and John Stuart Mill for starters.) In fact, there is little reference to religion in most contemporary philosophical work in ethics, just as there is little reference to God in most work in science.

There are brutal secular moralities in practice just as there are brutal religious moralities throughout history and we should not pretend otherwise. There are brutal religious people (we have some examples of some pretty bad ones posting here who go out of their way to insult Morris) and religious leaders, just as there are good ones and we should acknowledge that. There is no one path to virtue or being a good human being and it simply flies in the face of the empirical evidence to assert that there are no good nonreligious people. That shouldn’t cause any problem for anyone, including deeply religious people, unless they are mere dogmatists.

By Sandy

April 8, 2005 11:06 AM | Link to this

In my note-taking this morning, came across the passage:

A spiritual person is a good listener of silent voices, a sharp observer of invisible objects. These traits are more important than trying to act in a way God would reward with a gold star.

My spirituality is based on the knowledge that there are different levels of consciousness and that each is appropriate at some point. At the fundamentalist level (not just Christianity, but other religions and philosophies as well) there is the idea of sin, punishment, and the need to fit in, i.e. conformity, as being necessary to survive and to avoid abandonment.

If this does not fit one’s view of the world, then one can evolve to a higher level. Knowing that evolution is a buzz word with many, it occurs to me that if one simply refuses to evolve and adopts this refusal as a personal truth, ironically, the rest of the world may still evolve, one can be abandoned or “left behind” anyway. I wondered if this is cryptically related to the inspiration behind the fictional Left Behind series by Tim LaHaye.

As often happens, when I get an idea like this, I will often get some information ‘out of the blue’ that touches on the topic. Minutes after thinking about Left Behind, I picked up a book I got out of the library a couple of weeks ago (on my way to the bathroom if you must know…) and opened up to a chapter mentioning LeHaye and his series. The title of this book is “When Religion Becomes Evil” by Charles Kimball.

Briefly, the premise is as follows:

Five Warnings Signs of Corruption in Religion: 1. Absolute Truth Claims

Any one of these is a warning sign.

Kimball names perpetrators of this phenomenon, including Ralph Reed, Jerry Fallwell, Pat Robertson, Pat Buchanan, but also talks about antidotes, such as supporting democracy in the Middle East…just in the few pages I read.

Our politicians know that there is a tremendous amount of voting power and money if they tap into the spiritual psyche of Americans. Recent events illustrate that they will use folks’ faith and beliefs in ways that are antithetical to individual rights. Believers and nonbelievers must question their motivation every step of the way and not allow themselves to be manipulated.

Our founding fathers saw this as a possibility when they refused to establish a state religion. Don’t throw our hard fought liberties to a bunch of people who are actually hoping for the End of Days… My reality is working for something better.

By Karen

April 8, 2005 11:48 AM | Link to this

Please investigate the story all over the net about Mae Magouirk being dehydrated to death in LaGrange GA on court order by a granddaughter who has only financial power of attorney in spite of living will that states hydration is NOT to be removed, and relatives willing to care for her, AND she is not comatose or PVS.

http://soundingthetrumpet.blogspot.com/2005/04/now-for-grandmothers.html

If this is truly happening, look what Judge Greer, Felos and Michael Schiavo started. Legalized killing of humans by deprivation of fluid and nutrition. Please investigate this. And you ask if judges are out of control?

By RS

April 8, 2005 12:25 PM | Link to this

Sandy, with all due respect, you forgot #6: The arrogant assumption that one’s own religion is the only way to the Creator. Whiley: Let’s hope Randall Terri isn’t a vegetarian because my co-worker sure isn’t!

By J. Morris

April 8, 2005 12:30 PM | Link to this

As if the name of the web site weren’t enough: Sounding the trumpet, it’s interesting that a Google search of the name mentioned ONLY brings up various religious-based pro-lifer type blogs. Where are the reports from legitimate news sources?

Over and over, this type of internet-driven rumor or conspiracy theory or whatever has been debunked when subjected to rational scrutiny.

Are we honestly to believe that if this case is as Karen is presenting it that SOMEONE, at least Fox News with its nauseating, sycophantic, worship-the-president spin, would have picked up this story in the wake of the Schiavo case? Where are the articles from major Newspapers?

And please, don’t say “liberal bias”, because if that were the case we wouldn’t have been subjected to weeks of non-stop Schiavo stories.

By Lyrazel

April 8, 2005 12:37 PM | Link to this

Karen, sorry. I stay out of grandstanding other persons deaths. If you feel harm is being done then go forth and consult the woman—since she is alert, as you say. Far too often compassionate strangers are drawn into the mechanics of a disfunctional family feud that inevitably occur when a dying person leaves an estate, trust or no will. I think doctors and family involved should be allowed to give the woman peace and dignity in dying without my barnstorming her hospice with my opinions of justice and faith. Certainly her doctors judgement regarding when to begin a compassionate dying is far more qualified to judge than any man or woman on the bench, on the street or in a blog.

By Reals Norman

April 8, 2005 12:44 PM | Link to this

Tom Delay is against evolution. Do you know why? Because no self-respecting animal, however blood-thirsty or vicious, wouls admit to kinship with the likes of him. He used to be an exterminator. I suspect he is descended from sand gnats.

By Sandy

April 8, 2005 01:01 PM | Link to this

Karen, Felos, Schiavo, and Greer didn’t start anything. For real insight into the ‘pro-life’ politics of W. Bush and DeLay, take a look at the law they passed in Texas in the late 1990s regarding hospitals removing life support, despite family wishes. And then ask yourself if these politicians are hypocrites and using god-fearing people for their own devices.

By REP

April 8, 2005 01:11 PM | Link to this

Shaunti, you have zero clue what you are talking about on the Schiavo case. I am a litigation attorney. It is abundantly clear that if you knew one thing about the judicial system that you would know it would have been “activist” for the rulings to have come out any other way than they did. Look, this case was reviewed by the federal courts, and most of the appointees are Republican. The 11th Circuit is known to be conservative, not “activist.” The U.S. Supreme Court is basically center-right, given its present make up. Just b/c you don’t like the ruling doesn’t make a judge or a court activist.

And why is “activism” so bad anyway? Are the courts to sit around and do nothing if rights are being violated just b/c the “will of the people” is otherwise. We have a constitution that judges must uphold, and each state has a constitution too. Slavery was once the “will of the People.” Discrimination and segregation were once the “will of the people.” Not allowing women to vote was once the “will of the people.” It was the “will of the people” to exterminate Jews in Germany. Should the courts have not required integration of the schools? Should we still have blacks and whites separated in public places? Should you not get to vote b/c you are a woman? In many instances, the will of the majority should prevail, but the rights of minorities must be protected too, which is why we have a court system and a constitution. Shaunti, get a clue!

By Janet

April 8, 2005 01:30 PM | Link to this

Karen, I don’t know if this is true or not… but I live in LaGrange, and work in the medical community. I have heard nothing about this. Knowing the type of ‘news’ or paper prints…. this would be front page news. It isn’t. Our headlines are ‘More Buildings Coming to Downtown’ and ‘Bar-B-Que caterers won’t abandon customers’ I really think if this were happening here…. it would be the talk of the town, especially in the medical community.

By Seaborn

April 8, 2005 01:40 PM | Link to this

I’ve done a good bit of searching on “Mae Magouirk” and “Beth Gaddy” the alleged guardian and the only results appear in a few blogs. I also can’t pull up any information on anyone named Magouirk in La Grange. This sounds like an “internet” urban legend so far. I would think at least one wire service would have picked this up if not. Are you into propaganda Karen?

By J. Morris

April 8, 2005 01:42 PM | Link to this

Janet, I know you are relived to hear that you won’t be abandoned by your BBQ caterers!

By Zack

April 8, 2005 02:08 PM | Link to this

Yes, judges are out of control. To put it simply, judges are trying to impose their liberal, unconstitutional views on the rest of society. Something needs to be done.

People can argue and moan and call names all they want, but the above is true.

By Janet

April 8, 2005 02:17 PM | Link to this

Karen, made a few calls, have others looking into it too. No one has heard a thing.
Seaborn, there are some in the phone book. JMorris, you know no Georgia town can go without its BBQ catering!

By Alex

April 8, 2005 02:17 PM | Link to this

“Activist judges” legislating from the bench is WRONG

But legislators pontificating from the chambers of Congress are RIGHT?

Tell me, again, which does our Constitution expressly forbid?

By J. Morris

April 8, 2005 02:21 PM | Link to this

Ah, Zack is back with his enjoyable brand of circular reasoning. “It is because I say it is.”

By Ack

April 8, 2005 02:26 PM | Link to this

No, judges are not out of control. To put it simply, Judges are trying to use logical, legal means to interpret constitutional issues, that actually will benefit the rest of society. Something needs to be done. The conservative whiners that don’t get their way need to shut up.

People can argue and moan and call names all they want, but the above is true.

By Zack

April 8, 2005 03:01 PM | Link to this

J. Morris—Don’t accuse me of doing what you and your type are doing. Your type is the one that tries to base laws on relativist whims rather than the absolute foundation, the Bible.

Ack—You are 100% wrong. You sound just like Lozen and Whiley. I’m quite confident you’re using multiple screen names. Your beliefs are extremely wrong, and you are defensive to those who show you otherwise.

Fight judicial tyranny!

—Zack a.k.a. the main cog of the blog

By Phillip

April 8, 2005 03:02 PM | Link to this

From the very same paper that we are debating reads this: Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

� Benjamin Franklin

I think B.F. was close enough to the “founding fathers” to have known pretty much what they were talking about, eh?

By Zack

April 8, 2005 03:10 PM | Link to this

Go ahead. Stay in here all afternoon with your preposterous babble, but you should take your own advice about shutting up. Why not get a job and give something back to society, as opposed to sitting in front of your computer screen like a pawn in front of her TV screen believing everything the liberal media tells her?

As for plagiarizing, you shouldn’t do that, but you did impress me with her taste; indeed, I’m a fine person to plagiarize from. In the meantime, please keep your rhetoric to yourself. You have nothing whatsoever to support any of your claims, not atypical of your type.

By Les

April 8, 2005 03:12 PM | Link to this

After reading Zack’s posts I’m convinced there’s a village somewhere that’s missing its idiot.

By J. Morris

April 8, 2005 03:23 PM | Link to this

Zack, we really missed your raving and ranting.

Just so you know, Zackie, the Bible isn’t the absolute truth about anything. It’s the simplistic and superstitious writings of a barely literate tribe of nomads who still fell on their knees in fear and terror when an eclipse occured and who slaughtered various animals and burned their entrails in the hopes that they could commune with their Deity.

In case you missed it - well, obviously you missed it - ACK is someone making a play on ZACK…they took your words and turned them around. I understand that subtlety escapes you, but even you should have gotten that one.

I think that pretty much…all of us…have jobs. You may not, unless you consider making license plates a job.

Has anyone ever noticed how cumbersome Zack’s syntax is? It’s like he’s trying to sound intelligent, but he never quite makes it. He uses “big” words, but almost always incorrectly, his sentence structure is clumsy and his conclusions remind me of those drawn by five year olds.

Zack, you have never proved a single thing in your entire life. You think that proving something is saying “nuh uh”. Before you accuse anyone of having “nothing whatsoever to support your claims”, maybe you should try actually providing evidence to support YOUR claim. And guess what - the BIBLE DOESNT COUNT.

In short, Zack. Please, we were much happier when you were not hear polluting the place with your garbage. Please go back to whatever benighted, dank, superstitious, narrow-minded, bigoted, venom-filled hole you have been hiding in and stick your head back into which ever oriffice you were keeping it in.

GG, k thk u BBN.

By J. Morris

April 8, 2005 03:25 PM | Link to this

And yes, that was a rant of my own. It’s been one of those days at work.

I support Zack for Pope. That way he’ll have to move to another continent.

By Tim

April 8, 2005 03:42 PM | Link to this

indeed, I’m a fine person to plagiarize

careful Zack that sounded a little bit like pride… you wouldn’t want to commit one of the seven deadly sins now would you?

By Ack

April 8, 2005 03:42 PM | Link to this

Zack�You are 100% wrong. You sound just like Zack, Zack, and Zack. I’m quite confident you have multiple personalities. Your beliefs are extremely wrong, and you are defensive to those who show you otherwise.

Fight paranoia!

yes, of course I am using a different screen name…how else can I do a parody of you? But I’m none that you mentioned.

My brother “Hack” may be posting soon :).

By Crystal

April 8, 2005 04:02 PM | Link to this

This seems a good day for long lectures so here’s my conservative one:

All conservatives are not whiners and religious nuts. All liberals are not name callers and Godless goobers. In fact, both factions are Americans, in case that is forgotten. I won’t tally this blog to see who is doing what. Maybe I don’t even care. All I know is that I am conservative and similar to many conservatives who think that Tom Delay will soon be caught in the web of his own unethical behavior; that most judges do the “right” thing as in the Schiavo case; that some fanatic is spreading crazy rumors about dehydrating patients; that the baby in Texas was as unrecoverable as Terri Schiavo. Implying that our president somehow wants to kill babies is the absolute pits of political propaganda. Both sides of the political sphere are far from innocence and ethical behavior.

Again, remember you are first an American. Our enemies are looking for cracks in our armor of morale. If you want another 9/11, just keep on with the vitriol. You could be “building up” instead of “tearing down”. You could save your rabid railing and vote in the next election, if we are still here to have one.

By Jack

April 8, 2005 04:26 PM | Link to this

Nice post Crystal.