The Purge Begins

This certainly has been a fun week, as I am currently, to borrow a phrase, suspended somewhere between meltdown and release, having quickly passed from buyer’s remorse and buyer’s clinically-diagnosable buyer’s depression and run smack dab into ownership disgust. I guess my recognition that my party’s wingnuts are an honest-to-goodness threat just as real as the A.N.S.W.E.R. crowd is threatening to those who wish to continue the myth and makes me an enemy, which is pretty damned stupid.

Just for a little background, I am 34 years old. In 1983, during the Reagan Revolution, I joined the Brooke County Young Republicans, and pretty faithfully attended Republican party meetings in Brooke County, WV. The meetings consisted of me, Al Ossman, Professor Emeritus of Political Science at Bethany College, and William Young, who is now deceased and a former Professor of History at Bethany College and a disabled WWII veteran, and about ten other men in their 50’s and 60’s. And that was the extent of the Brooke County Republicans.

I attended summer camp with Teen-Age Republicans for several years at a state 4H camp (my friends called them “Hitler Youth Camps”), and I registered Republican the moment I turned 18. In the 1988 election, I voted for Bush/Quayle. In 1992, I voted for Bush/Quayle. In 1996, I voted for Dole/Kemp. In 2000, I voted for Bush/Cheney. In 2004, I voted for Bush/Cheney. In every state election, I voted for the Republican candidate for governor, with the exception of last year when the Republican was too crooked and stupid for even the current Republican party, and I voted for the Democrat, now Governor Manchin.

I campaigned for the opposition to Byrd twice, including spending days going door-to-door, manning phones, stuffing envelopes- anyone else remember John Raese- I walked all over Brooke, Ohio, and Marshall County for that failed endeavor. I campaigned against Rockefeller. I voted for the Republican candidates against Alan Mollahan my entire voting life. When Republicans were not on the ballot, I voted for the Libertarian. When neither was available, I didn’t vote for that office. Only at the local level did I vote for the individual, and then I tended to prefer the Republican when they were not flat out insane.

For those keeping count, in my lifetime, that is a 5/5 vote for Republicans in Presidential elections (including 4 votes for people named Bush), 4/5 for Republicans in Gubernatorial elections, a perfect record of voting for Republican House and Senate candidates, and mixed but decidedly Republican votes at municipal/local level.

In short, I am the Republican Party- except I still believe many of the same things I always have- limited government, lower taxes, fiscal responsibility, strong national defense (I still have my Reagan era “Peace Through Strength” button), free trade, free markets, individual responsibility, the right to bear arms, states right’s (as something other than an excuse for racism), free speech, judicial restraint, individual liberty, and a general aversion to quick and unwarranted change. I think Reagan was one of the greatest human beings who ever lived, William F. Buckley is a legend, and Margaret Thatcher is the most important woman of the 20th century. I still believe in all of those things. My party, apparently, no longer does.

Enough with the credentials- if you have read me for a while, you should know where I stand. But most of all, if you ask any of the lefties, I have been a fierce partisan for the Republican cause. So, when my party gets co-opted by the God squad (which, as I have stated previously, is partly the fault of enablers like me), I find it pretty damned disturbing.

This attack on the judiciary and the rule of law is disgusting. The power grab by Congress is revolting. The sheer cynicism is mind-boggling. And the lying and the absolute rejection of all things science, all in the pursuit of an ends justifies the means mentality, is deeply disheartening. We are a party without principles, unless you count the things I listed earlier as principles. At any rate, I have now deviated from the party line, so I am, apparently to the wingnut right, no longer a Republican in good standing:

And as for the other so-called conservatives: why exacerbate the problem by admitting the Democrats were right? Here’s a reminder, of the 100 democrats voting for the Schiavo bill, 47 voted in favor.

Is this all it takes for you to get shaky? What a fine bunch of fair-weathered friends you are. Oh, and thanks a lot to the author of this blog for giving the Democrats all the red meat they can eat.

Let me remind everyone here of something – this issue is not that important, despite the blogstorm, despite the protesters in Florida, despite the media. It will all be forgotten in a few months. If this issue is enough to make you jump ship, then don’t let the door hit you in the ass on your way out. We real Republicans wouldn’t be able to count on you in the foxholes anyway. Just don’t come whining back in 7 years when we get a Democratic president in 2008, and you don’t like what he (or she) has done.

Pardon me while I pause to stop giggling before I move on. But, for those Democrats watching this with much glee, you will get another chuckle from this:

It is much easier to take the position that says Terri Schiavo should be put down like an injured horse when you are comforted by the belief that she is not capable of having an “aware” type of life.

I am not convinced this is the case. I won’t get into rehashing all of the surfacing evidence that Terri may have been able to communicate and respond to commands. Most of you have seen that on other websites. So, you know there is a likelihood that Terri might not be PVS. For every so-called specialist and authority I have heard, I have heard a dissenting view. It is impossible to tell what her condition is. Nobody can be sure.

So why then do those that say she should die keep telling us what we know has not been proven? Of course short of that argument, they can not justify their “fight” to kill Terri Schiavo. A write-up on this subject by the left-wing blog, doesn’t even bother to consider she might not be PVS. The writer simply assumes you know that Terri is a freakin vegetable!

I am not assuming anything anymore, the stupid is so rampant.

Yours truly,

John Cole
Left Wing Blogger

*** Update ***

Some thoughts from another noted left-winger, former Rep. Bob Barr (R-GA):

In thus favoring one family member over another, based solely on the fact that the favored plaintiff shares the views of the congressional majority, the law provides for future mischief by later congresses. It also opens the door for parents to sue a disfavored spouse of their child, creating further problematic scenarios.

Left out in the cold are the Florida courts and Legislature, both of which have grappled with this case for years and tried to resolve it as best they could. Also given the legislative high-hat are the federal courts that have repeatedly refused to hear the case correctly deciding that the case really is a matter for state law and policy-makers rather than federal.

The final legislation pays lip service to the notion that it does not set a precedent. But if it does anything at all, it sets a precedent. In fact, it sets a precedent potentially more far-reaching than most others I can recall, in terms of legislative policy and process, equal protection, federalism, state’s rights, separation of powers and family law.

27 replies
  1. 1
    van says:

    I feel your pain. I, too, sided with the GOP in 2000. My senators (Fisk and Alexander) have never met a spending bill they did not like (especially Alexander). Alexander believes the progressive(regressive) income tax is still the way to go. What is a true conservative to do? I have to say vote Libertarian.

    I have heard all of the comments. The best one is that the local Libertarian Party can meet in a phone booth. No, I do not support all of their views. Which party has consistently believed and voted for smaller government? Neither Dems nor GOP really believe in a smaller government. Heck, the GOP is a mirror image of Wilson, FDR, Kennedy and Johnson. What has the GOP done to deserve my vote? Yell that they are not the like those liberal Democrats. No. Not yet.

    If you don’t want to vote Libertarian (not that I blame you after the last election’s results), vote Democrat for the White House and GOP for Congress. That way nothing gets done.

  2. 2
    NoIvory says:

    John, I applaud you for speaking out against the religious right’s overextension into our system of government and your party. Unfortunately we are losing some of our Dem base to fundamentalism, in particular black Dems. Our once secular country is in fast disrepair. I for one enjoy keeping my relationship with my God personal and private. To make such a relationship public undermines it- for me.

  3. 3
    Fersboo says:


    I’m roughly the same age as you (36) and am 4/0/0 in the last 5 presidental elections (didn’t know how to vote while in boot camp, but I did get to sweep a couple miles of road before then VP Bush (the Senior) arrived for a fun run). We probably see eye to eye on most issues. So why have I been giving you a bad time today?

    Well, I tired of being attacked. I’m white, of european descent, and until yesterday, a non-religious Republican (w/libertarian streak) raised in a Baptist church. What happened yesterday? People advocating euthansia. Too many of the facts and the legal findings of fact seem shaky and I think that TS’s death is being imposed from the bench, just like abortion. I have no problem with someone refusing treatment and living wills and mercy killings, but I have a hard time have others determine when its time for someone to die.


  4. 4
    ray says:

    The Republicans should probably have stayed out of the Schaivo issue, but really….get a grip.

    This wasn’t some judge discovering words in the Constitution that had been invisible for 200 years. This was Congress making a law, and various people petitioning multiple layers of courts.

    This was also, you might note, activist people trying to keep someone alive. A bit different from activists seeking death.

  5. 5
    S.K. says:

    John, I disagree with your position from a legal standpoint, that Terry should not deprived of life without a right to due process. Honestly, I find the moral issue to be well intentioned but overboard. I can care less what Michael Schiavo’s motives are or anybody’s motives. Call it a Congressional power grab, but I see it as enforcement of the 14th Amenedment. That being said, I don’t plan to drop this site from my blogroll anytime soon because I may not like Terry starved to death, but I enjoy the debate within conservative circles. I encourage you to be more politically conservative and less Republican.

  6. 6
    apostropher says:

    Terry should not deprived of life without a right to due process.

    It’s been in the courts for a decade, S.K. What would it take to constitute due process for you? 15 years? 20? I suspect due process is not your true concern here, but the outcome. with the exception of Karen Ann Quinlan, no vegetative person has ever had more due process than Terri Schiavo.

    John, welcome to the left wing.

  7. 7
    Jorge says:

    I’m really curious what it is about the legal findings that folks find shakey? There are three witnesess who tesitfied under oath that Terri said she would not want to be kept alive by aritificial means. No one, not even Frist, is arguing that cutting a whole in a person’s stomach and inserting a plastic tube through which liquid nutrients are pumped into the body is not artficial. Terri specifically said that she did not want to be kept alive on tubes.

    Also, Terri Schivo entered into a legal marriage contract with Michael Schiavo. The marriage contract, among other things, states that if one is ever needed, your spouse is your chosen legal guardian. She signed a paper that gave Michale Schiavo the right to make this decision. And to clarify, removing feeding tubes is legal and some of the same Senators/Doctors who are protesting this case have removed feeding tubes from their own patients.

    So, what insight into the law does anyone have that proves that numerous judges, appointed by Republican and Democrats, who have studied this case for years, are wrong?

    To equate this to the Roe versus Wade abortion ruling just doesn’t hold water. The appeals court in Atlanta consist mainly of Republican appointed judges. Greer is not the only judge to have presided over this case. So, is the claim now that all judges – no matter who appointed them – are part of the Pro-Choice agenda?

    Why can’t people separate the legal argument from the moral one? The legal argument has been decided by the courts in a long and very careful process. However, there is a moral discussion that can be had here. Or are we to the point that the only way we can have a dicussion about values and morals in the country is to talk about mandating behaviors through laws?

  8. 8
    John Cole says:

    This isn;t even a moral debate, really, because the moral thing to do would be to recognize the wishes of Terri Schiavo and her husband.

    If you fail to agree with the court of law, which has extensively and exhaustively debated this issue, even prior to the latest judge-shopping that has been going on the past few days, then your problem is with the ENTIRE judicial system.

    And even then it isn’t a moral issue- it is a political one, although personally, I find it profoundly immoral for one group to defy the law to impost their sense of morality on the rest of us.

  9. 9
    Roman Berry says:

    I was a Reagan voter. The current Republican Party has no place for me. Just as happened with Berry Goldwater, I suspect that the current Republican Party would also have no place for a common-sense man like Ronald Regan either. He never would have stood for this sort of intrusion of the government into the private lives of citizens and would have stood firm with Michael Schiavo and the Florida court systems rights.

    The current party seems to be a rather unholy alliance of wanna-be theocrats and the big biz/military complex President Eisenhower tried to warn us about. There is little place for a man like me who puts a premium on ideas about individual liberty, limited government and fiscal responsibility. Whatever the current Republican Party is, conservative it ain’t.

  10. 10
    AT says:

    Oh dear, you mean Ayatollah Khatami is working with General Dynamics and the Jews, I mean Zionists, I mean neocons in the Pentagon to turn this place into a caliphate?

    Head for the hills, folks.

  11. 11
    Andrew J. Lazarus says:

    While I’m delighted by the new left-wing orientation of the blog, can someone point me to evidence that International ANSWER has the clout in the Democratic Party that the pro-tube extremist faction has in the GOP?

  12. 12
    Bryant says:

    FWIW, I’m glad you’ve said these things; I’m glad you’re a Republican; and I’m glad you’ll continue to find a different path than the progressives and the Democrats. We need different paths. We need disagreements.

  13. 13
    Mike Stiber says:

    Fersboo said:

    Too many of the facts and the legal findings of fact seem shaky…

    John, I agree with you about the anti-science, anti-intellectual bent of the neo-cons and their supporters. They’ve gone to great lengths to “re-educate” the American population about “science”, to make as many people as possible believe that “nobody is sure about evolution/herbal remedies/global climate change/the health effects of {cell phones,mercury,arsenic,…}”, “you can prove anything with statistics”, “intellectuals are fuzzy headed/outside the mainstream culture/unpatriotic”, etc., etc.

    The results of this attack is that people who likely have no legal or medical education to speak of (and certainly no access to detailed information about this case) feel free to make statements like the quote at the start of this comment. It is generally considered unprofessional behavior for a doctor or lawyer to make a diagnosis or render a legal opinion without first-hand review of all of the relevant information. But, in our new society, where education, intelligence, and expertise are ridiculed, any random ignoramus feels that his or her “opinion” carries the same weight as any expert.

  14. 14
    Just Passing Through says:


    Throughout this story you have consistently made the assumption that since the high profile republican response to Terry’s case has been correctly or incorrectly married to religious principles that this is what drives anyone in the party in disagreement with you.

    I call bullshit on this.

    I am by no stretch of the imagination someone who lets religious beliefs drive his opinions. I would best be described as a non-practicing agnostic. My opposition to the way that events have progressed is based on ethical and not religious considerations. A hell of a lot of people that I have discuessed this with or overheard discussing this during this past week have the same rational has I do. These people are both quiet republicans and strident democrats. They aren’t bringing God into it. Their disturbance has an ethical not religious basis. I have watched the media polarize this issue all week as a collision between church and state. You have only to skim the more batty left blogs to get a sense of their glee at this. You have fine republican credentials, but in this case have completely bought into a media chimera.

    This whole circus is ethically wrong at so many levels that one can make just about any claim of agenda that one could wish. Push aside all these claims and really read what the opposition has been saying all week in your own comments. It’s about ethics John, not the rights of a husband, parents, the state of Florida, Tom Delay, or religious right wingnuts. It’s about doing the right thing.

  15. 15
    Ron Phelps says:

    I tell you. I am a Dem but you guys seem like you have a brain or two. I am from Jerry Falwell country (Lynchburg, VA.) and the republicans here are – may I say it – Brainless. In fact a lot of dems here are totally brainless as well.
    But. Bush has made it very hard for ME to do my job. I work as a nurse on a skilled care unit. I go through this kind of stuff every day. We stop hydration and feeding a lot.
    A LOT.
    Now, I think, its going to be much harder for me to talk to the families of the dying people I take care of. Most are in total denial anyway.
    Stopping hydration and feeding is REALLY a peaceful way to die. We fight with the old time docs constantly not to start an iv of normal saline that just prolongs the patient and the families agony. Without hydration, the brain cells swell slightly, confusion sets in. One goes into a kind of fugue state. We medicate with morphine, take care of the families needs and hopefully don’t get too emotionally involved. They die peacefully. Some who die are simply totally heart wrenching when you get too close to the family and patient. This isn’t just about politics .. its about the living .. the survivors.
    People just need to get over it, go through the grieving process and move on.

  16. 16
    CaseyL says:

    JPT, John didn’t ‘bring God into this,’ and sure as hell the liberals haven’t, either.

    Have you seen the godnuts camped outside the hospital? Have you seen their endless prayer vigils? Have you heard DeLay/Randall/et al. yammer on about how Terri Schaivo is a “blessing from God” to the conservative cause?

    Have you looked at the Save!Terri! blogs? It takes a strong stomach, granted, but the Bible thumpers are easy to spot: their posts are mostly run-on sentences, mostly in caps, and when they’re not accusing Michael Schiavo of murder, they’re saying this *is* a religious matter.

    What ethical standards do you think are in debate here?

    Medical ethics? – Terri Schaivo is a textbook hopeless case, a PVS who isn’t going to get better. That’s not debatable. Her cerebral cortex just plain isn’t there anymore. The only ‘medical professionals’ who say otherwise never examined her, never explain the CAT scan, or are lying quacks. There are thousands of cases like hers every day, and every day families decide whether or not to remove feeding tubes. A lot of them decide to do so, and they don’t wind up on the evening news, vilified by religious and political snake oil salesmen.

    Legal ethics? – The case has been in court continuously for years, always with the same decision: Terri Schiavo would not want to go on existing as a PVS. A neutral GAL reviewed the case and concluded the sane thing: Terri Schiavo would not want to go on existing as a PVS.

    What are the ethics of forcing repeated surgeries and medical treatment on a person who doesn’t want them?

    Say the feeding tube is re-inserted. What then? What if she goes into cardiac arrest? What if she develops pneumonia, cancer, gangrenous bed sores? (Her parents have said, have plainly stated, that they would be willing to have Terri Schiavo’s limbs amputated if she develops gangrene.)

    Having established a precedent of “life at any cost” – regardless of the quality of life, regardless of the patient’s wishes in the matter – you reduce the value of humanity to a mere beating heart, destroy the idea of dignity and autonomy… and, in this specific case, reduce a person to a piece of property, ‘owned’ by whoever can find enough political pull to get a special Act of Congress passed.

    Yeah, it’s about ethics. You haven’t thought through what you’re talking about.

  17. 17
    Just Passing Through says:

    “John didn’t ‘bring God into this,..’

    Um, yes he has. All week.

    ‘Have you seen the godnuts camped outside the hospital….’

    So? The religious agenda that some people carry into this does not invalidate the separate reasoning other people have used.

    ‘Medical ethics?…Legal ethics?’

    Nothing to do with my position. I find the circumstances at multiple levels disturbing from a personal standard of ethics.

    ‘Having established a precedent of “life at any cost” – regardless of the quality of life, regardless of the patient’s wishes in the matter …in this specific case, reduce a person to a piece of property…’

    I’ll call bullshit on this whole statement in it’s entire also. Tthe glaring ethical hole in your argument is summed up right there. No one owns the rights to her life or can reduce her to a piece of property – except her husband. As long as he can’t be challenged successfully on his hearsay claim that his wife expressed her wishes in this matter, her life is his to dispose of.

    ‘Yeah, it’s about ethics….’

    Yeah, it is. Simply put, it’s about doing the right thing.

    ‘…You haven’t thought through what you’re talking about.’

    Long and hard. Followed the story very closely. I have heard no valid argument here or elsewhere that maintains that it is in Terry’s interest to die.

  18. 18
    Gary Farber says:

    “A write-up on this subject by the left-wing blog,”

    Yeah, and I’m a conservative, myself; I just read that on a blog last month. Honest.

    I did link to this, by the way, but with no gloating; I think I’ve made my policy clear.

  19. 19
    apostropher says:

    I would best be described as a non-practicing agnostic.

    Just out of curiosity, what distinguishes a non-practicing agnostic from a practicing agnostic?

  20. 20
    AaronS says:

    One of John’s most important points is that we have to expect our courts to follow the rule of law. It bothers you that “As long as [Shaivo] can’t be challenged successfully on his hearsay claim . . .” First of all, since you’ve been following the story closely, you know that there wasn’t just one, but three witnesses to Terri’s expression of her wishes (it was corroborated by Michael’s brother and sister-in-law). In response, Mrs. Schindler testified that Terri had said, while watching news reports concerning the Karen Ann Quinlan case, that they should not remove the life support from Karen Ann Quinlan. But, Judge Greer decided that testimony wasn’t credible since Terri would have been only 11 or 12 at the time of the Karen Ann Quinlan proceedings (a fact Mrs. Shaivo conceded when confronted with newspaper accounts of the story.)
    Did Judge Greer ignore the law in allowing “hearsay” evidence of what Terri’s expressed wishes were? You think maybe Judge Greer (who has been presiding over trials since 1992) forgot to bring his notebook the day they discussed hearsay in his evidence class? Well, no. In Florida, as in most states, a statement that reveals a person’s state of mind can be testified to in court as an exception to the hearsay rule. The Florida Statute (90.803 Hearsay exceptions …(3) THEN-EXISTING MENTAL, EMOTIONAL, OR PHYSICAL CONDITION.–
    (a) A statement of the declarant’s then-existing state of mind, emotion, or physical sensation, including a statement of intent, plan, motive, design, mental feeling, pain, or bodily health, when such evidence is offered to:
    1. Prove the declarant’s state of mind, emotion, or physical sensation at that time or at any other time when such state is an issue in the action.”) had been the law of the State of Florida since well before Judge Greer made his evidentiary rulings in the case.
    I have to agree with John. The more closely you examine the rulings made by the courts, the more it seems that they did what they had to do in following the law.

  21. 21
    Em5 says:

    I am glad to see that there are Republicans out there who are still lucid. Our only hope as a country is if we remain a country of people who make good laws and follow them. The Republican party, what used to be the Republican party, has been kidnapped and is now held hostage in a strip-mall “church.” And we all know what people will do for their faith. Break the law and not give it a thought. Remake the law to suit themselves and call it justified. Kill judges and judges’ families and those who disagree with them. The prospects are scary. The only people who can bring the Religious Right into some semblance of decency and civility are precisely those who rode this horse to the halls of power. The power has been given now–the elections are over for now. Paradoxically, those who won power through the Christian right must now somehow cram the beast back into the stable before it tramples the whole society.

  22. 22
    Just Passing Through says:

    ‘Just out of curiosity, what distinguishes a non-practicing agnostic from a practicing agnostic?’

    A practicing agnostic tells people who ask what his affiliation is that he’s an agnostic. A non-practicing agnostic says none and leaves it at that. (Not my characterizations, but I think I got them right. Read them somewhere long ago and they stuck with me.)

    Aaron, I agree with John totally about the courts following the rule of law. All for it. There are cases where the court is called in as the arbiter on something that is not a point of law but concerns the rights of an individual. Happens in juvenile courts all the time. A third party, Youth Services for instance, presents the case to a judge that in the interests of health, safety, or well-being, a child needs to have different guardianship. This is an ethical question upon which a judge will rule not as a point of law but in the interests of an individual.

    The Florida courts did not act in the interest of Terry. They acted in the interest of Michael. Another party offered different guardianship that would have been in Terry’s interest. The original court ruling was wrong and for many reasons but first and foremost the rights of an individual were placed secondary to the rights of a second according to what you call the rule of law. Michael’s rights as the husband do not trump Terry’s. The court should have taken temporary guradianship, allowed for the MRI and examination by experts other than those appointed by Michael, and made their final determination on the sole basis of what was right for Terry. Everything that has came after that failure of basic ethics is irrelevant and no good can come from it.

    Personal ethics don’t have a damn thing to do with religion or points of law. Both set ethical boundaries that interested individuals are expected to abide by, but the individual’s sense of ethics can and should also operate outside those boundaries

    I got into this discussion not because I have the answer, but because John is letting the fringe, in this case the republican religious right, define the reasoning for a position that has been taken by a great many people in both parties without any regard for how the fringe defines their position. There are a lot of us who don’t see this as a point of law or the ethics of the medical profession, but that removing the feeding tube according to the ruling of the Florida court given the circumstances and information at hand is simply wrong.

  23. 23
    AaronS says:

    I think that any judge is going to get in trouble if he starts with the result he wants and then works backwark, which is what you’re suggesting be done. Terri’s husband was her guardian because, in Florida as everywhere else, a spouse is considered the next of kin. You suggest that he should have been removed because he didn’t want what was best for Terri. The court held a hearing on that, and your argument that the court acted improperly really boils down to: it didn’t come out the way I would have decided it, so someone must have done something improper. Respectfully, the only facts you use to support your argument (other than: “it didn’t come out the way I wanted it to”) are simply incorrect.

    You say the court should have allowed an MRI. There were very conclusive CT scans as well as EEG’s. The CT scans show conclusively — and rather dramatically — that her cerebral cortex has been replaced by spinal fluid. Plus, an MRI would not be determinative because of the intrathalamic stimulators implanted in Terri to to reduce tremors. Performing a Magnetic Resonance Imaging test wouldn’t be a simple matter of wheeling her down to the radiology lab; it would necessarily require extensive and complicated surgery to remove the implants.

    You also feel that the court should have provided for examination by experts other than those appointed by Michael. Good point, he certainly should have. And he did. During 6 days of testimony in 2002, Judge Greer heard from 6 medical experts: Terri’s primary attending physician, two neurologists chosen by Michael Schaivo, two experts chosen by the Schindlers (a neurologist and a radiologist) and an expert appointed by the court. So the court did not, in fact, confine itself to a consideration only of Mr. Schaivo’s medical evidence.

    I got into this discussion because I think that rational discussion is impossible if it is based on emotion rather than facts, and because I think that in a Democracy, if you don’t like the law, you try to have it changed. To do otherwise, to simply say that the law gives us the wrong answer so let’s not follow it, leads not to morality but anarchy.

  24. 24

    Hey John! Thanks for the traffic to my site.

    I do stand corrected. You are not the left-wing blogger I thought you were. You resume is unlike other Socialist-pigs I have encountered. But you must play one on television because your tendency, like the left, to automatically believe Terri Schiavo’s rights belong to her so-called “husband” is pure LEFT-MANIA. I know most lefties make this assumption because it makes it all together easier to call FOR HER DEATH. What I don’t understand from reading your posts is why (other than the legislation) you are so against saving Terri while we investigate all the facts. Perhaps you will enlighten me. Take care Mr. Cole! Kevin D. Korenthal

  25. 25
    Just Passing Through says:

    ‘The CT scans show conclusively — and rather dramatically — that her cerebral cortex has been replaced by spinal fluid.’

    Nope. Inaccurate and the context misleading. There was cellular death in the cerebral cortex sustained by the incident that put her in this condition. Her cerebral cortex has atrophied – shrunk – as a result. Cerebral spinal fluid has filled the space that the atrophied cortex filled beforehand. The inaccurate statement that cerebral fluid has replaced the cortex is a favored one on blogs and the MSM and is simply wrong. Cerebral atrophy is not at all uncommon in this condition and not a definitive indication that all activity in the cerebral cortex has stopped.

    Also be careful what you assume about the EEG. It has also been bandied about that Terry’s EEG is flat. This is the defining indicator of brain death – no electrical activity in the brain. In this condition, autonomous breathing halts. Always. Without a mechanical respirator, the heart stops within minutes. Terry’s EEG does not indicate cessation of electrical activity in her brain and if you read some of the experts weighing in, the claim that the EEG is flat is greeted with incredulous suspician.

    To simply say that the law gives us the wrong answer but it’s the law so accept it, leads to the dissolution of ethical behavior.

    Again beside the point. The judge started with the point of law that as Terry’s husband and therefore next of kin his wishes in this matter were of prime consideration and Terry’s rights and well being – SUCH AS IT IS – are of secondary consideration. He had an out – the parents. He didn’t take it. He would have been in no ‘trouble’ if he had forced the issue to the further clarification that Michael inexplicitly refuses to entertain. (And don’t give me the ‘Terry told me this’ crap).

    The judges ruling was a statist ruling applied when the rights of the individual were not fully explored and satisfied and as such ethically wrong.

  26. 26
    Kynn Bartlett says:

    John, you may remember me arguing with you a lot in the past, me taking the leftie side.

    I don’t know whether to laugh or cry for you, to see you listed as a “left wing blogger.”

    These people really can’t see past their own preconceptions. If you don’t toe the (current) party line, you are not loyal and you will be purged. That might make sense for a tiny group trying to effect change, but we’re talking about the Republican party, which is currently in control of nearly all of the government.

    The fact that the aforementioned “party line” is now theocratic is even more frightening, and I can imagine it must be maddening for you. I disagree with you on nearly everything, but even I can see the anguish you must feel when your own GOP has rejected conservative principles.

    Hang in there.

  27. 27
    Kalblog says:

    Blame the Judges

    John Cole has been writing a lot about the whole Schiavo thing, and I think one thing he (and a lot of libertarian-ish bloggers) is missing is one they got so well in the runup to the Iraq war: what…

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. Kalblog says:

    Blame the Judges

    John Cole has been writing a lot about the whole Schiavo thing, and I think one thing he (and a lot of libertarian-ish bloggers) is missing is one they got so well in the runup to the Iraq war: what…

Comments are closed.