Michael Schiavo belongs in jail, Part II

As this horrible situation continues, more and more information about Terri Schiavo’s husband, Michael, is revealed.

The following timeline shows the early events following Terri’s medical emergency.

1990
Feb - Terri Collapses in her home
May - Terri discharged from Humana Hospital in St Petersburg, Florida.
Dec - Terri taken to California for experimental implant

1991
Feb - Terri moved to home with husband.
Jan - Terri moved to Bradenton Mediplex Rehabilitation Center.
Apr - Terri's condition is assessed as improving.

To this point, Michael Schiavo appears to be acting as the husband and legal guardian ought to. These events are an effort to give Terri the therapy needed to improve her condition, and they were producing positive results. However, later in April, he was advised to move her to Gainesville Rehabilitation Center to receive advanced therapy to continue her recovery, but instead decided to move her to a nursing home, rather than the rehab center where her improvement could continue.

In 1992, court actions in August and November produce damage awards totaling $2.25 million, $1 million of which was reportedly placed in a trust fund for Terri’s treatment. The following events then occurred:

1993
Feb - Michael Schiavo denies recommended rehabilitation treatment.
Feb - Schiavo and Terri's parents have falling out regarding lack of therapy for Terri.
Feb - Schiavo withholds medical information from Terri's parents.
Feb - Schiavo posts Do Not Resuscitate order in Terri's medical chart.
Jun - Schiavo threatens Schindler family with lawsuit.
Aug - Schiavo orders medical staff not to treat Terri for potentially fatal infection.
Sep - Bob and Mary Schindler petition courts to remove Schiavo as Terri's guardian.
Nov - Schiavo admits in deposition that he knew withholding treatment of infection could result in Terri's death.

Suddenly, Michael Schiavo’s attitude toward his wife’s rehabilitation changed. What could possibly cause a loving, devoted husband to stop successful therapy for his wife, and helping her to recover? To paraphrase The Church Lady: “Could it be … MONEY?” As her husband, he would be the heir to her estate, including the trust fund.

Something changed in Michael Schiavo. He no longer was acting to help Terri recover from her medical condition, which had improved under therapeutic treatment. In fact, he was acting contrary to Terri’s best interests, by ending therapy that was helping her, and worse, prohibiting medical staff from acting to save her life, and ultimately ordering that she be starved to death. At this point, Michael Schiavo was no longer qualified to be responsible for Terri’s care. He was trying to kill her.

In July 1997, Michael Schiavo becomes engaged to Jodi Centonze. At this point, there can be no doubt that he was no longer Terri’s husband in any but a strictly technical sense. He had abandoned her completely.

Despite these developments, Pinellas Circuit Judge George Greer repeatedly refused to protect Terri from her “husband” and legal guardian, to remove Michael Schiavo as legal guardian for Terri. The good judge repeatedly denied requests for various medical tests or to restart therapy, and at one point moved forward the projected date to remove her feeding tube. One wonders just how the law can force such behavior from a judge who in such cases ought to have the best interest of Terri Schiavo as a consideration.

So I restate my previous opinion that Michael Schiavo, the person upon whom Terri Schiavo depended for her well-being, the person who was legally responsible for her welfare, and who was instead working to end her life in complete and total contradiction to the intent of the responsibility of a legal guardian, is criminally negligent, and should be charged and tried in a court of law.

Government growth hurts the economy

A growing government is contrary to America’s economic interests because the various methods of financing government—taxes, borrowing, and print­ing money—have harmful effects, according to Daniel J. Mitchell, Ph.D., McKenna Senior Research Fellow in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation, in an article on the Heritage Web site from which this information was taken.

This is also true, he said, because government spending is often economically destructive. The many reasons for the negative relationship between the size of government and economic growth include:

• The extraction cost. Government spending requires costly financing choices.
• The displacement cost. Government spend­ing displaces private-sector activity.
• The negative multiplier cost. Government spending finances harmful intervention.
• The behavioral subsidy cost. Government spending encourages destructive choices.
• The behavioral penalty cost. Government spending discourages productive choices.
• The market distortion cost. Government spending hinders resource allocation.
• The inefficiency cost. Government spending is a less effective way to deliver services.
• The stagnation cost. Government spending inhibits innovation.

The common-sense notion that government spending retards economic performance is bol­stered by cross-country comparisons and aca­demic research. International comparisons are especially useful. Government spending consumes almost half of Europe’s economic output—a full one-third higher than the burden of government in the U.S. This excessive government is associated with sub-par economic performance:

• Per capita economic output in the U.S. in 2003 was $37,600—more than 40 percent higher than the $26,600 average for EU–15 nations.
• Real economic growth in the U.S. over the past 10 years (3.2 percent average annual growth) has been more than 50 percent faster than EU–15 growth during the same period (2.1 percent).
• Job creation is much stronger in the U.S., and the U.S. unemployment rate is significantly lower than the EU–15’s unemployment rate.
• Living standards in the EU are equivalent to living standards in the poorest American states—roughly equal to Arkansas and Mon­tana and only slightly ahead of West Virginia and Mississippi, the two poorest states.

An International Monetary Fund study con­firmed “Average growth for the preceding 5-year period…was higher in countries with small governments in both periods.”

According to the Organi­zation for Economic Co-operation and Develop­ment, “Taxes and government expenditures affect growth both directly and indirectly through investment. An increase of about one percentage point in the tax pressure— e.g. two-thirds of what was observed over the past decade in the OECD sample— could be associated with a direct reduction of about 0.3 per cent in output per capita. If the investment effect is taken into account, the overall reduction would be about 0.6–0.7 per cent.”

Clarity on the role of the Supreme Court

"The Consititution does not constitute us as 'Platonic Guardians' nor does it vest in this Court the authority to strike down laws because they do not meet our standards of desirable social policy, 'wisdom,' or 'common sense.' ... We trespass on the assigned fundtion of the political branches under our structure of limited and separated powers when we assume a policymaking role."

Chief Justice Warren Burger, 1982
Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 242 (1982)

Introducing The Windjammer

Regular visitors may have noticed two posts by The Windjammer on the site under the banner first of "Guest Columnist," and more recently as "Gullible's Travels."

I hope that my friend's columns will be frequent, and I invite everyone to read and comment on his thoughtful commentaries, which are often peppered with wry wit, and always contain a good dose of common sense.

Michael Schiavo belongs in jail

Terri Schiavo’s parents have been begging to be given legal responsibility for their daughter so that they can care for her, and now are begging for that responsibility so that they can prevent her from being starved to death by virtue of a decision from Terri’s husband Michael.

Terri Schiavo is not on life support, breathes on her own, and is able to maintain proper blood pressure without assistance. She need assistance eating, and is fed through a tube.

There are many ugly accusations about Michael Schiavo’s behavior toward Terri’s treatment since her medical event 15 hears ago, some or perhaps all may be true. For example, Terri was undergoing therapy and making progress. She could walk a little, and talk a little. Then, Michael moved her from the hospital setting where she was receiving therapy to a hospice where people go to die.

Michael has been trying for all he’s worth, and that’s not much, for the last five years to have Terri’s feeding tube removed and starve her to death.

Michael became involved with another woman who now lives with him and who has borne him two children.

So whose husband is Michael Schiavo? The woman he is raising a family with, or his legal wife whom he is trying to starve to death? Michael stopped being Terri’s husband in all but the most strict legal sense years ago, wants her to die, yet will not divorce her, and he will not surrender custody rights to her parents. Why? Clearly, he has no interest in Terri beyond hastening her death.

Michael asserts that Terri told him she didn’t want to be on life support, but her parents dispute that claim. There is no written document to back up his claim. And of no little consequence in this matter, she is not on life support.

Watching videos of Terri show clearly that she is severely affected from the event in 1990. But she is not in a coma, and does respond to stimulus. She has a loving family that wants desperately for her to live and to take care of her.

Terri belongs under the care of her parents, who unlike Michael will get her some help that may improve her life. All Michael wants to do is to keep her from getting help, and to starve her to death. A good case can be made that Michael Schiavo is guilty of criminal neglect, perhaps even worse.

He belongs in jail.

The Theater of the Absurd

Whoever said that life is stranger than fiction must have had things like the following in mind:

Item 1 - John Evander Couey, the registered sex offender, pervert and lowlife who confessed to murdering 9-year-old Jessica Lunsford, is under a suicide watch in a Georgia jail.

Item 2 - Terri Schiavo, the woman who has lived in a brain-damaged state for 15 years, but who is not on life support, and who shows signs of cognitive activity, and whose parents are begging to be given legal custody for her, is being killed by starvation by her “husband,” with the complete support of the Florida legal system.

Item 3 – Scott Peterson, the cold-blooded killer of his wife and unborn son, has been recently sentenced to death and transferred to death row at San Quentin, has already had proposals of marriage from two desperate women.

Terri Schiavo's case: an emotional rollercoaster for all concerned

The story of Terri Schiavo is a true conundrum. Without going into too much detail, here is the situation:

• Terri has been in what is termed a “persistent vegetative state” for 15 years.

• She can breathe on her own, but is unable to feed herself, and has a feeding tube.

• Her husband Michael has legal medical responsibility for her.

• He says she expressed an unwillingness to be on life support, and he wanted to remove the feeding tube that has been supplying her sustenance for all these years. Friday the feeding tube was removed.

• Courts at the state, state appellate, and federal level have either approved the right of the husband to make medical decisions for his wife, or have refused to review the case, meaning that the husband is legally able to remove the feeding tube, and commence the process of starvation that will end her life.

• Doctors say that this process is not a painful one, and that Terri will lose fluids and enter a coma and will die a quiet, peaceful death.

• With the feeding tube removed, she will likely pass on within two weeks.

Other factors, however, enter into this situation that make it so much more than a mere legal matter:

• Terri’s husband has a common law wife and two children. It is not being unfair to him to say that he is Terri’s husband only in the legal sense. He does not function in any way as her husband.

• Terri’s parents believe that with medical intervention she can progress to where she can eat without the feeding tube, and 30 doctors reportedly have confirmed that.

• There is a disagreement as to what medical event put Terri in this current state, and therefore what the chance is for her to improve.

• She has never had the assistance of a MRI to help ascertain her exact medical condition.

• The parents want to assume legal medical responsibility for her.

• A timeline for this case from the original medical problem on the Schindler family’s Web site.
  

Some opinions and questions:

• This should not be a matter for the U.S. Congress.

• The most important factor in this matter should be the preservation of life, so long as that life is one of cognizance and awareness, and one which does not involve suffering, if that can be absolutely determined.

• Legal issues must not be allowed to bring about an end to a life that has human value, meaning that there is awareness and intellectual functionality in the person.

• In cases where it is difficult to determine whether awareness and intellectual capacity exists, we must ALWAYS err on the side of life.

• Why won't Michael allow Terri's parents to assume legal medical responsibility for her?

• Why hasn't Michael gotten a divorce from Terri?

• Is it true that at one point in her therapy that Terri was able to walk with assistance and talk a little bit, but that Michael ended the therapy? If so, why?

This is a very complex and emotionally draining case, if you really get into it. How it ultimately is resolved is important, not just for Terri Schiavo and her family, but for all of us. What is the harm of taking a little time to re-evaluate Terri's condition? What is the harm if she lives for a little while longer, or for year's longer? She is not suffering, and it is possible that she can improve with therapy.

Let's give Terri the benefit of the doubt.

The "nuclear option"

The “nuclear option,” a fearsome sounding term referring to the development of tactical and strategic nuclear weapons. The more nations that exercise the “nuclear option,” the more dangerous the world becomes. We must act to deny the nuclear option to …

What’s that you say? “Nuclear option” isn’t about nuclear weapons? It’s about changing a rule in the U.S. Senate?

Senate Democrats use this term to denote the potential change in the Senate rules that would prevent them from avoiding voting for or against nominations to the judiciary, including the Supreme Court.

Any such change would mark "an unprecedented abuse of power," Sen. Harry Reid D-Nev., wrote Majority Leader Bill Frist R-Tenn. "The power to confirm judges includes the right to use well-established Senate rules to reject nominees." Translation: “We demand to be able to continue to avoid our responsibility to approve or reject nominations by the Bush administration, and to do so for purely political reasons, inasmuch as the administration intends to appoint judges who will merely interpret the Constitution’s plain language and who will refuse to make law from the bench. We prefer rather than simply voting ‘no’ on those individuals whom we deem unfit by virtue of their unreasonable adherence to the Constitution’s original intent, that we may delay a vote on those individuals until Hell freezes over, at which time there would be no need for anyone to hold that position, thus rendering a vote moot.”

Republicans rebutted swiftly, Sen. Frist in the lead. "To shut down the Senate would be irresponsible and partisan. The solution is simple: Return to 200 years of tradition and allow up or down votes on judges," he said in a written statement.

What Sen. Frist refers to is that judicial nominees are confirmed by a simple majority of votes, which in the Senate is 51 votes. Because Republicans hold 55 seats in the Senate, and because most Republican senators will support the administration’s nominees, the Democrats can only block nominations by finding some back-door scheme that requires more votes than the Republicans can muster. By initiating the filibuster rule on a given nomination, the nomination is effectively stalled because it takes 60 votes to end the filibuster.

If a filibuster is invoked, and the Republicans can muster only 55 of the 60 votes needed to end it, the nominee who should only need 51 votes to be confirmed will have gotten effectively 55 votes, but still will not be confirmed. This is just wrong.

What Sen. Reid expects Sen. Frist to do is to nullify filibuster as a means to block up or down votes on the nominees. However, Sen. Frist has made no statement to that effect.

In his statement, Frist said: "I am committed to getting the work of the American people done in the Senate, which includes advice and consent on the president's judicial nominations as outlined in the Constitution. Never before in the history of the Senate has a nominee with clear majority support been denied an up or down vote on the Senate floor because of a filibuster."

"The Democrats have it backwards," said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah. "They broke with a long-standing tradition of giving judicial nominations that reach the Senate floor an up or down vote, and we simply want to restore that tradition."

The Democrats/liberals/progressives depend upon having judges appointed to the judiciary who will make laws from the bench, because the American people do not support their initiatives in big enough numbers to have them made into law properly through the legislative process. They understand that if Mr. Bush’s nominees are approved, there will be more judges who will not short-circuit the democratic process of lawmaking, and they will be unable to have their unpopular, and often extra-constitutional, ideas “enacted” into law by judges.

And so they indulge in this unseemly and un-American scheme to change the rules when the rules get in the way of their agenda.

Story here.

Terri Schiavo's struggle continues, at least for a little while longer

The House of Representatives passed legislation late Wednesday intended to delay the removal of the feeding tube keeping Terri Schiavo alive. The brain-damaged woman’s husband has been given permission by a state court to remove the feeding tube and allow her to die.

"What's going on in Florida regarding Terri Schiavo is nothing short of inhumane," said House Judiciary Chairman James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., who introduced the bill with Rep. Dave Weldon, R-Fla. But some House members criticized the bill, which Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., called "a dangerously reckless way to deal with some serious issues." Both are correct. This is not the best way to address this issue, but under the circumstances, it may be the only way to save Schiavo’s life while the details of her case are being sorted out.

For years her husband has battled her parents over his efforts to allow her to die, which he contends she would prefer rather than live in a vegetative state. Her parents want her to live.

Here’s a question: What’s the hurry?

This is a question of life and death, and it is a question of how to confront such complicated moral issues. There is a party that opposes allowing her to die, and willing to take over responsibility for her care.

Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube can be removed any time, but once it has been removed, that is likely the end for her.

What’s the hurry?

Biological weapons: A different view

by The Windjammer

I am not an expert on biological weapons or warfare, but some of my ancestors were. They were on the receiving end. I have Native American ancestry and, believe you me, biological warfare destroyed more of our people than all the firesticks, swords and sharp hatchets combined.

When Columbus landed on Watling Island in the Bahamas (names which hadn’t been coined at the time), he found a relatively peaceful people who were a part of the Arawak linguistic group. Those people were called Tainos (pronounced tie-nose). They soon became extinct.

The Spanish brought with them not only a lust for curry powder and turmeric. The sailors had other things on their minds. They also brought syphilis, syphiloid diseases and smallpox. Those were the real gifts of the "civilized" Europeans who made "first" contact.

When Hernando Cortes finally made contact with the neo-Mayans in Mexico and later with the Aztecs, the "white death" and the "easy death" almost wiped out those populations. Reliable estimates (there is another name for that which I won’t use) placed the Aztec population alone at well more than eleven million. I believe those estimates are well-based. The Spanish would not have had enough of those little wooden boats to carry enough Conquistadores and weaponry to these faraway shores to accomplish that effect with military might.

That biological warfare may have been entirely accidental, although I doubt it. Not all of what followed after the British arrived falls into that category.

The "Americans" (before there was a United States) spread disease against which the natives had no natural immunity among the eastern nations.

The Americans (after there was a United States), particularly the military, deliberately spread disease among our people to expedite military successes.

Reliable estimates which I believe to be quite accurate have placed the population of the North American continent at roughly seventy-five million.

I am now an elder and have been for quite a few years. I have passed the information to as many of my progeny and that of others to as many as will listen. I heard that information from my elders and from others who were furnished the information by their elders of the devastation caused by the biological weaponry. And that is exactly what it was.

It will be impossible for anyone who has no concept of the disastrous effect of biotoxins or chemical agents to convince me that those are not weapons of mass destruction.

They can be delivered with relative ease. Some of those which destroyed so many of my people came disguised as free blankets.

Bush's budget cuts and program cancellations are a step in the right direction

Here on the Virginia/West Virginia border the outcry against President Bush’s budget is loud and abundant.

The federal government cannot, much to the consternation of the socialists and other Democrats, pay for everything. Furthermore, the government should not pay for some things. The idea that the country depends upon Congress approving a budget that would take care of every conceivable problem may be an exaggeration of reality, but it is not an exaggeration of what a fair segment of our citizenry wants. Socialism is alive and well in the United States, although fortunately it is still looked down upon by a significant majority of Americans.

One example getting local attention is funding for three airports in the region. The program that funds the nearest airport will be cut under the President’s proposed budget to the extent that the local airport would have to raise nearly $250,000 to qualify for matching funds. This was not the case last year. So, guess what? A segment of the populace is outraged that Mr. Bush, who carried West Virginia in November, would “turn his back” on the state in this fashion.

The truth is that the airport is a definite asset to the area. However, when people travel, they don’t travel out of this airport, because the cost of getting to a connecting hub is exorbitant. Plus, it’s not that inconvenient to drive a couple of hours and save hundreds of dollars. Thus, passenger traffic at the airport is not high.

But passenger traffic is not the only service the airport provides. It allows convenient access to the area for businesses, and allows area business persons to easily go other places in private aircraft housed at the airport.

I don’t want to see the airport suffer and perhaps close, but what will it cost to keep it going, and is it realistic to expect U.S. taxpayers to fund it? Does it make sense in the larger scheme of things to pour money into this facility when there doesn’t seem to be a broad public need?

When you boil this issue down to its basics, it comes down to the ever-present conflict between what is proper and necessary for the federal government to do versus what people who don’t care about what is proper want the federal government to do. Mr. Bush’s critics scream bloody murder over the high deficit. Now that he’s doing something about it, they are screaming even louder. Brother! You just can’t please some people.

But you should never forget that it was never intended for the federal government to take so much money in taxes from the citizens, and then dole out that money to pay for things like local airports and buildings named after politicians.

It seems to me that if the area wants the airport, and needs it badly enough, the local money to qualify for matching federal money will be found, if officials are willing to go out and get it. After all, what’s wrong with asking localities to help fund their own airport?

This same principle ought to be applied all across the nation for all manner of things that people want. We have to start taking responsibility for our own fortunes, and quit depending upon the federal government to solve our problems for us.

Mr. Bush, through these budget reductions and program cancellations, is helping us do what we ought to already be doing.

Where did all the weapons go?

Where did all the weapons go? That is the question. Opponents of the Iraq war, opponents of the United States, and the haters of George Bush cling to the notion that Iraq did not have WMD, and that the U.S. and Britain were mistaken in attacking Saddam. Some even suggest that Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair both knew that there were no WMD in Iraq, but lied to the world so as to justify the war. Objective people recognize that that opinion has no basis in fact. But I won't go into that here.

A couple of weeks ago, radio host Charles R. Smith filed a column titled, Russia Moved Iraqi WMD on the NewsMax Web site, claiming that Moscow moved the weapons to Syria and Lebanon, and that the CIA satellites and NSA listening posts failed to detect it.

Is this column authoritative? Is it correct? I confess that I don't know. But I think it's worth your reading and forming your own opinion. Here are a couple of excerpts:

"I am absolutely sure that Russian Spetsnatz units moved WMD out of Iraq before the war," stated John Shaw, the former deputy undersecretary for international technology security.

According to Shaw, Russian units hid Saddam's arsenal inside Syria and in Lebanon's Bekka valley.

"While in Iraq I uncovered detailed information that Spetsnatz units shredded records and moved all WMD and specified advanced munitions out of Iraq to Syria and Lebanon," stated Shaw during an exclusive interview.

---

Shaw's information also backs allegations by a wide variety of sources of Russia's direct involvement in Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program. One U.N. bioterrorism expert announced that Russia has been Iraq's "main supplier of the materials and know-how to weaponize anthrax, botulism and smallpox."

Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Robert Goldberg cited former U.N. weapons inspector Richard Spertzel, who stated that Moscow supplied Baghdad with fermentation equipment to produce biotoxins.

According to Spertzel, the Russians on the U.N. inspection team in Iraq were "paranoid" about his efforts to uncover smallpox production.

There is one apparent discrepancy that concerns me. Or, perhaps, I just missed something. But in one place he says "Shaw's assertions match the information provided by U.S. military forces that satellite surveillance showed extensive large-vehicle traffic crossing the Syrian border prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom." But later he said "[t]he Russians were able to move hundreds of tons of chemical, biological and nuclear materials without being discovered by CIA satellites or NSA radio listening posts."

Hopefully, many of my visitors will read this column, and a delightful discussion will ensue.

What in God's name were they thinking?

I hate to kick people when they are down, but when you think how lax the security was at the Atlanta courthouse, you just have to criticize them.

What were they thinking? The only person escorting this 6’ 1”, 210 pound man, an accused rapist who had been caught with crudely fashioned weapons in his shoes only a day or two before, was a 5’ 2”, 52 year-old female deputy. With a gun, no less.

This defies understanding.

John Bolton a good choice for U.N. post

President Bush has nominated John Bolton to be U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. Mr. Bolton has a great deal of experience, currently serving as Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs. Mr. Bolton is not everyone’s first choice, and his selection has caused much consternation among liberals.

Wesley Pruden wrote in his inimitable way in his column in The Washington Times, “The New York Times, still in recovery from a full swoon, can't imagine a real American standing up straight, looking the nation's enemies in the eye and telling them to stuff it. The editorial page of the old gray lady is particularly upset that Mr. Bolton is skeptical of the International Criminal Court, a transparent creation of the vest-pocket nations of the world with names that sound like an entree in a fish restaurant in Lower Volta ("Burkina Faso is served on a bed of shredded cucumber with a reduction of arugula over toasted risotto"), which would enable the envious and churlish of the world to put American soldiers and maybe even commanders in chief in the dock as war criminals just for doing their assigned jobs.”

Mr. Bolton has said the ICC, "is based largely on emotional appeals to an abstract ideal of an international judicial system." This system doesn't make much sense in the real world, and we are bound to live in the real world, not some idealized version of it that doesn’t exist.

Following are comments by Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, and Mr. Bolton on the appointment:

Secretary Rice: “Now, more than ever, the UN must play a critical role as it strives to fulfill the dreams and hopes and aspirations of its original promise to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, to reaffirm faith and fundamental human rights and to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom. President Bush has sent our most skilled and experienced diplomats to represent the United States at the UN. Today, I am honored to continue that tradition by announcing that President Bush intends to nominate John Bolton to be our next Ambassador to the United Nations. 

“The President and I have asked John to do this work because he knows how to get things done. He is a tough-minded diplomat, he has a strong record of success and he has a proven track record of effective multilateralism. For the past four years John has served as Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs. In that position, John has held primary responsibility for the issue that UN Secretary General Kofi Annan has identified as one of our most crucial challenges to international peace and security: stemming the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. "

Mr. Bolton: “Madame Secretary, my record over many years demonstrates clear support for effective multilateral diplomacy. Whether it be the Proliferation Security Initiative, the G-8 global partnership or adopting UN resolutions, working closely with others is essential to ensuring a safer world. We all agree that there are numerous challenges facing the United States and the security of our country and all freedom-loving peoples must be protected. Close cooperation and the time-honored tradition of frank communication is central to achieving our mutually-held objectives. The United Nations affords us the opportunity to move our policies forward together with unity of purpose. 

“As you know, I have over the years written critically about the UN. Indeed, one highlight of my professional career was the 1991 successful effort to repeal the General Assembly's 1975 resolution equating Zionism with racism, thus removing the greatest stain on the UN's reputation. I have consistently stressed in my writings that American leadership is critical to the success of the UN, an effective UN, one that is true to the original intent of its charter's framers.” 

Full text here.
 

Mr. Bolton, if confirmed, will not be the first plain-spoken U.N. Ambassador. He was preceded by Jeanne Kirkpatrick and Daniel Patrick Moynihan, both outspoken and effective. No doubt Mr. Bolton will do a fine job at a time when the U.N., wracked with scandal and inefficiency, needs backbone.

Chain blogging

While blog surfing this evening I discovered the following, and "borrowed" it, from Buffalo's Path, who had borrowed it from Michele's Hangout.

Here's how it works:

1. Grab the nearest book.
2. Open the book to page 123.
3. Find the fifth sentence.
4. Post the text of the next 3 sentences on your blog along with these instructions.
5. Don’t you dare dig for the “cool” or “intellectual” book in your closet! I know you were thinking about it! Just pick up whatever is closest.

The book I'm currently reading is Men in Black, by Mark R. Levin. The excerpt:

"They would diminish the prestige of our commanders, not only with enemies but with wavering neutrals. It would be difficult to devise more effective fettering of a field commander than to allow the very enemies he is ordered to reduce to submission to call him to account in his own civil courts and divert his efforts and attention from the military offensive abroad to the legal defensive at home. Nor is it unlikely that the result of such enemy litigiousness would be [a] conflict between judicial and military opinion highly comforting to enemies of the Unites States."

Okay, now it's your turn.

I've had it with Michael Jackson

I think Michael Jackson is as talented as anyone on the pop/rock music scene, and more talented than most.

His music is good, he sang well, he was a terrific dancer, and his performances -- like "Thriller" -- were electric.

He had the best musicians on his recordings, and when he and Quincy Jones linked up, they were unbeatable

As the years went by, he got a little stranger, year by year. He was a good looking kid, as a black kid. But that wasn't good enough.

So he began having plastic surgery to make himself look "better."

He started doing unusual things. In this photo to the right, he uses a tiny magnifying glass to read something.

Most of us would wear glasses if our eyesight was poor. But Michael chooses a magnifying glass. A small, odd looking glass.

Then he started getting really weird.

Here, he wears a mask to keep from breathing impurities in the air. A black mask. Not a more common white mask, or even a green surgical mask.

He looks like Zorro.

Or Esteban.

In this photo, one of his staff holds an umbrella over him, not to keep off the rain, but to keep off the sun. Is he Dracula?

He thinks it's normal to sleep with young boys. Whether or not he is guilty of pedophilia and molesting his house guests, this is obviously abberant behavior.

He apparently believes he is excused from following procedures the rest of us readily accept.

Like showing up for trial on time.

And not getting fully dressed before going to the courthouse.

I don't know if Michael Jackson is guilty as charged or not. But I've just had it with all the crazy stuff he does.

Michael, enough already!

Guest Column

---

Gullible’s Travels
by The Windjammer

I continue to be amazed at the ongoing arguments about global warming.

I have read numerous articles written by those who claim we are in the middle of a warming trend and that the warming is caused by industrial pollution. I have read several articles which claim that global warming does not exist or that it is so slight and gradual that it can hardly be noticed.

I have noticed that most of the articles which declare flat-footed that global warming is caused by industrial pollution miss or choose to ignore what should be the most important factor in any environmental study. Man. Or to be a bit more specific, mankind. I wrote a book nearly fifteen years ago in which I said that any environmental program which does not include man is doomed to failure. Man is an integral part of the environment and his welfare must be considered in the implementation of any program which either attempts to preserve the ecology in a pristine state, one which uses the environment for his benefit or one which destroys portions of the planet. Man will some day become extinct, but he is here now.

In the first place, there is no such thing today as "a pristine state of the environment" and hasn’t been since before the dinosaurs left their footprints on the sands of time. We may attempt to set aside areas which are off-limits to development, use and travel and call them "pristine areas," but those can only be islands of nature preserves or some such. They can exist, not because of the whims of man, but because of the "whims" of nature. The recent activity of Mt. St. Helens is ample proof of that. Some of that activity took place only yesterday and again proved to man how little control he actually has over nature. We are still being affected by the eruption which took place several years back, and that one didn’t come close to making the record books.

Global warming exists. It has been around since before mankind came into being. So has global cooling. If you doubt that statement, think a minute about only the last ice age which we call the Wisconsin Glaciation. I am writing a brief story about that one in my new book (now in process) about my ancestors. Some of those who were the progenitors of the Seneca and the Cherokee (and countless others) waded the icy water which resulted from the melting. I am surprised that anyone could get past the first year in high school without learning that there is a latent heat of freezing and a latent heat of melting. We measure those today in BTU’s. I can solid guarantee you that it took several hundred BTU’s from some constant reliable source to melt the glaciers which left evidence of their passing in such places as Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and other places in Yankeeland and Siberia. I will admit that I went to high school more than 70 years ago, but some laws can’t be changed at the discretion or indiscretion of an activist judge.

I have read that there were at least seven such freeze-ups over the past 200,000 years or so, according to scientific core drilling. The conclusion reached by those scientists, based on the core sample readings, was that each of those was preceded by a period of strong warming. I suspect that they are correct. According to the time schedule determined by those, we are on the verge of entering another such period. "Verge" does not mean this week, but it may mean within the next millennium.

Measurements taken in recent years in the antarctic indicate that atmospheric temperatures there are NOT increasing, but decreasing. Atmospheric temperatures are a bit more accurate than ground temperatures because of a variety of influences. A great deal of the misinformation about the arctic is just that.

There will continue to be some degree of global warming for quite a long period. I doubt that any of us alive today will see the end of it. Most of that increase will be by natural causes. There may be some small additional increase from man-made pollutants, but no one to my knowledge has accurately determined that amount or even if it will occur.

Meanwhile, let’s remember the real problem for which I coined the term "Popollution,". We are projecting more than nine billion people a short way down the road. That is a lot of neighbors. The pollution they create will not be only from hot breaths.

Mercy killings: A troubling step down a dangerous path

The Groningen Protocol: A system/process for euthanizing seriously ill newborns. My blogger friend Marlin Huston (A Time For Choosing) posted on this subject in December.

Please see The Groningen Protocol and The Groningen Protocol, Part II

The Protocol has the appeal of ending the suffering of seriously ill newborns, as the story excerpted below relates, but it also opens the door to more widespread euthanasia of seriously ill people of any age, and even people just because they are old, perhaps. Already in the Netherlands the procedure may be used on children up to 12 years of age.

It is a good time to examine the furthest extreme to which this process may eventually reach, and to ask how long it will be before committees of physicians will be able to decide who lives and who dies, and under what circumstances.

---

Study: Newborn euthanasia underreported

Euthanizing terminally ill newborns, while still very rare, is more common in the Netherlands than was believed when the startling practice was reported a few months ago -- and experts say it also occurs, quietly, in other countries.

Dutch doctors estimate that at least five newborn mercy killings occur for every one reported in that country, which has allowed euthanasia for competent adults since 1985.

In 2002, doctors at University Medical Center Groningen helped create the so-called Groningen protocol, a list of standards for performing and reporting euthanasia of newborns with serious, incurable deformities. The aim was to encourage more reporting and discussion.

The Groningen protocol requires being sure that the newborn is suffering greatly with no hope of improvement, that the prognosis is certain and confirmed by at least one independent doctor, and that both parents give informed consent.

Two pediatricians at the hospital, Drs. Pieter J.J. Sauer and Eduard Verhagen, report in Thursday's New England Journal of Medicine that 22 mercy killings of newborns who otherwise would have lingered in intensive care for years were reported to authorities from 1997 to 2004, about three each year. But national surveys of Dutch doctors have found 15 to 20 such cases a year, out of about 200,000 births.

Verhagen, who supports such euthanasia, said in an interview the doctors were allowed to review district attorneys' records on the 22 reported cases. None was prosecuted.

"These were all very clear and very extreme cases," he said, where the newborns were suffering from severe, untreatable spina bifida, with major brain and spinal cord deformities and sometimes other birth defects. "Do we have them continue life in suffering or do we end the life and end the suffering?"

Euthanasia opponents and others have been highly critical of that viewpoint.

"During the past few months, the international press has been full of blood-chilling accounts and misunderstandings concerning this protocol," the doctors wrote in the journal.

Details of the newborn's condition and the euthanasia procedure, usually an infusion of lethal drugs, must be reported to local district attorneys under the protocol, so they can assess each case without interrogating physicians.

"We believe that all cases must be reported if the country is to prevent uncontrolled and unjustified euthanasia," the doctors wrote.

Snow jobs on climate change

Patrick J. Michaels, senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute and professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, has written a piece appearing in The Washington Times that takes what I think is a balanced view of environmental science. Here are the first two paragraphs:

Want to raise the blood pressure of an entire region? If you're within a few hundred miles of Washington D.C., just say "snow" into a TV camera. But if you're more interested in planetary hypertension, simply substitute "global warming."

It turns out the forecasting methods for both snow and global warming are quite similar. And what happened with the Feb. 28 Mid-Atlantic snowstorm tells us much about the climate of the next 100 years.

Michaels' seems to put into perspective the nearly age-old misconception that man is going to kill the Earth with his indiscriminate behavior.

Read the column here.

Profiling isn't nice, but is that all that is important?

It’s not nice to suspect someone is up to no good just because of the way they look. We have had it jammed down our throats for years that profiling is wrong, despite logic to the contrary.

Yet a story today indicates that political correctness may have had a hand in allowing two of the 9-11 terrorists to board an airliner that morning.

A former U.S. Airways ticket agent who issued boarding passes to the terrorists who later hijacked a plane out of Boston on Sept. 11, 2001, says he felt guilty afterward.

Michael Tuohey, of Scarborough [Maine], said he was suspicious of Mohamed Atta and Abdulaziz Alomari when they rushed to make their flight out of Portland International Jetport early that morning.

Atta's demeanor, his angry-looking eyes and the pair's first-class, one-way tickets to Los Angeles made Tuohey think twice.

"I said to myself, 'If this guy doesn't look like an Arab terrorist, then nothing does.' Then I gave myself a mental slap, because in this day and age, it's not nice to say things like this," Tuohey told the Maine Sunday Telegram. "You've checked in hundreds of Arabs and Hindus and Sikhs, and you've never done that. I felt kind of embarrassed."

A few hours later, Tuohey was blaming himself as he watched news reports of the attacks on the World Trade Center.

New developments in Italian reporter saga

New developments in the death of an Italian intelligence officer at a U.S. military checkpoint in Iraq indicate that Italian officials withheld information from American officials about a ransom paid to free an Italian journalist held captive by Iraqi terrorists.

Italian agents likely withheld information from U.S. counterparts about a deal with terrorists holding Giuliana Sgrena, fearing that Americans might block the trade, according to Italian news reports.
The decision to keep the CIA in the dark about a deal for the release of the reporter, might have "short-circuited" communications with U.S. forces, which might explain why the U.S. military was not aware that the Italians would be heading to the airport on the road where the incident occurred, which is a hotbed of car bombing and other terrorist activity.

Sgrena, a reporter for the Communist daily Il Manifesto, still clung to her assertion that the U.S. might have deliberately targeted her because it opposes dealing with kidnappers, but offered no direct evidence to support the charge, and later toned down that suggestion in a interview with Reuters news agency.

Had the Italians informed U. S. officials about the deal to free Sgrena it is possible, if not likely, that Sgrena’s vehicle would not have been fired upon as it sped up to the checkpoint, since it would have been expected there and U. S. personnel would have been watching for it. However, it still seems that the driver of the car bares major responsibility for the incident because of the manner in which he approached the checkpoint, and the fact that he did not heed warnings by the U.S. military personnel to stop his car.

Yet another action by U.S. soldiers second-guessed

The Italian journalist, 56 year-old Giuliana Sgrena, wounded by American troops in Iraq after her release by terrorists, rejected the U.S. military's account of the shooting and suggested she was deliberately targeted. One man in her party was killed in the incident, and others in the car were injured.

U.S. military spokespersons said the car Sgrena was riding in was speeding on a road to the airport notorious for car bombs, and in a live combat zone. Americans used hand and arm signals, flashing white lights and warning shots to get it to stop at the roadblock.

However, Sgrena, in an interview with Italian TV, said, "There was no bright light, no signal." She also said the car was traveling at "regular speed."

Sgrena is a reporter for Il Manifesto, a communist daily. Her paper has been fiercely against the war. She said she remembered her captors' words, when they warned her "to be careful because the Americans don't want you to return."

Sgrena offers a scenario that is at odds with common sense: That military personnel who deal on a daily basis with cars approaching the checkpoint, and who must be cautious about car bombs and other possible threats, would in this instance react differently to her vehicle than to all the others. Could the soldiers at the checkpoint have known who was in this car speeding toward them? How would they have known?

Furthermore, the allegation that her captors – anti-coalition Muslim terrorists – told her the U.S. might target her is unpersuasive. Why would she believe what her captors told her? Why would anyone believe what terrorists say? For that matter, why would any true American believe the word of a communist journalist whose publication has been a staunch and vocal critic of U.S. action in Iraq? Does Sgrena have an unbiased perspective? I think not.

So far, the U.S. military has not initiated any action against the personnel involved in the incident, which is a good sign. White House spokesman Dan Bartlett told CNN, "… people are making split-second decisions, and it's critically important that we get the facts before we make judgments."

However, in Italy there is an uprising against the U.S. over the incident. Media trustworthiness to report accurately being what it is, it is difficult to know the level of anti-American sentiment among Italians. Whether the government will bend to pressure from Italy is still a question, but given two other prominent cases of second-guessing our military’s actions in combat situations, we should not be surprised if more of our soldiers are accused of acting inappropriately.

Political Map of the Middle East

This map is offered to give everyone a reference to the area where so much of our attention is focused these days. Click on the map to enlarge it.

How's that again?

This is from the BBC. No comment is necessary:

The government of Niger has cancelled at the last minute a special ceremony during which at least 7,000 slaves were to be granted their freedom.

A spokesman for the government's human rights commission, which had helped to organise the event, said this was because slavery did not exist.

From PowerLine

Martha Stewart goes home

Martha Stewart has been in the news too much lately. Having served her five months in federal prison, she has gone home to complete her sentence with five months of home confinement.

A lot of people think Stewart got what she deserved. A lot of people think she got off easy. A lot of envious people think no sentence is stiff enough for her.

The stories about Martha Stewart paint a picture of a woman who is arrogant and mean, and who treats the “little people” with disdain. Perhaps five months in prison, even in the minimum-security facility where she was incarcerated, will have taught her some humility, and given her some compassion. If so, then perhaps some good will have come from this exercise in government impropriety and over-reaching, and over-zealousness and resume building on the part of some federal prosecutors.

You see, Martha Stewart committed no real crime. What she did, and all anyone knows for sure that she did, was to sell some stock in ImClone Systems, Inc. just before that stock lost a big chunk of its value. Even if she had the benefit of some inside information, what she did harmed no one.

But federal authorities charged her with giving a supposedly misleading explanation for a perfectly legal stock sale. She was accused of saying she could not recall details of a two-minute phone conversation, and also of sometimes confusing her broker with her broker's assistant.

But in the eyes of federal prosecutors eager to bring down a big name, and build up their small names, Stewart was charged, tried and convicted of making false statements to investigators – lying, but not perjury, since she was not under oath at the time. She was sentenced to five months incarceration, five months of home confinement and fined $30,000, which was the minimum sentence she could receive. For lying under oath – committing perjury, a felony - Bill Clinton became a hero to Democrats, but got no jail time.

When the government misbehaves like it did in the Martha Stewart case, and someone is harmed, as Stewart was, it should send a signal to the rest of us to watch out. You might be next on the hit list.

Senator Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va.

I am a native West Virginian. In my younger days, I worked for the local TV station news department. At the time - 1975, I think - Robert C. Byrd was the Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, the committee that doles out federal largesse to the states. I had always held Sen. Byrd in high esteem, being somewhat in awe of a U.S. Senator, but even so was a bit irritated that he was doing a good job with the committee, but a poor job of getting West Virginia its “share” of federal money.

I had the occasion to interview Sen. Byrd for a 10-minute segment of a program that followed our 11 o’clock news show, and asked him many questions, among which was “why are you not as aggressive as senators from other states in bringing federal money to your state?” To which he answered, “As Appropriations Chairman, I do not want to be accused of showing favoritism to my state over other states,” which I thought was an honorable position for him to take, even though his state suffered for it.

Sen. Byrd made up for those years of under-pork-barreling West Virginia after he was elected Democratic Leader in 1977, and was no longer Appropriations Chairman, and more recently has come to be known as the “King of Pork.” I have defended him numerous times, knowing the early history. I firmly believe that even though he is very active in getting federal money home, when you average it all out over all these years, he’s probably no worse or better than most other senators.

I have also defended him against the use of the fact that 60 years ago he was in the KKK. It irritates me that Republicans and conservatives would stoop to the level more familiar to Democrats and liberals where someone is forever guilty of their youthful indiscretions. I do not believe that Sen. Byrd is a racist, has not been one for at least the last 40 years, and may actually never have been a racist, and I think it is a cheap shot and intellectually dishonest to use the KKK membership issue to batter him.

In the last few years, however, Sen. Byrd’s behavior and rhetoric have taken their toll on my respect and high regard for him. His recent tirades savaging the Bush administration have pushed me over the limit of my patience, and this last absurdity in which he compares Republicans to Hitler in their effort to abolish the Democrats’ filibustering judicial appointments, and bring nominees to the floor for a vote is the last straw.

Sen. Byrd is 87 years old, and it has begun to show. This 46-year veteran of the Senate, once beloved in his home state now behaves so badly that he has become an embarrassment to his constituents.

It is time for you to come back home, Senator. You have served your state well, but it is time for you to go.

Fox News continues to gain viewers from CNN

Fox News Channel continues to gain market share against CNN, a development sure to madden the Left, which is adamantly against FNC.

In a desperate attempt to discredit Fox News, the Left accuses it of being a Right-wing shill parroting the Bush administration line. However, objective viewers recognize that while there are conservative opinions expressed on FNC, those opinions are labeled and separate from news coverage, and the Fox approach to news, as opposed to its approach to commentary, is as advertised: Fair and balanced.

My own theory as to why the Left perceives Fox as Right-leaning has a couple of elements to it. First, many people do not understand that there is a distinction between news and commentary, or they have been trained by the mainstream media, which routinely pollutes its news coverage with opinion or bias, to believe that news and commentary are the same thing. They may not understand that there are two separate types of content, one a factual accounting of events, the other opinions about issues.

Second, the mainstream media is so dramatically tilted to the Left/liberal view, once the public has become accustomed to that slant and perceive it as normal, anything neutral – that is to say right of the mainstream – is mistakenly interpreted to be Right/conservative, rather than properly perceived as neutral.

One hopes continually that data like those confronting CNN will communicate that the country rejects the mainstream media’s liberal bias, and that the media will then move to the center and restore its credibility. Alas, this news shows that this transformation is yet to come.

Some results from the recent market data:

• CNN is falling farther behind Fox News Channel, with a network-wide 16 percent falloff in viewership for February and a 21 percent slide in prime time.

• The New York Post reports, "Fox News was the only one among the four cable news networks to post ratings gains during the month," an 18 percent gain, to be exact, pushing Fox News to nearly triple the viewership of its rival.

• CNN's "Paula Zahn Now" down 17 percent; Fox's "O'Reilly Factor" up 9 percent

• CNN's "Larry King Live" off 23 percent; Fox's "Hannity & Colmes" up 19 percent

There is a reason that Fox’ ratings are going up and CNN’s are going down: People like Fox News coverage and programming better. CNN had better figure out why this is true pretty fast, or it will wither away.

Young murderers can’t be executed

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that criminals who were under the age of 18 when they committed their crimes cannot be executed for those crimes. The ruling throws out the death sentences of about 70 juvenile murderers in 19 states that had the provision to execute young murderers, and bars states from seeking to execute minors for future crimes.

The high court called the executions unconstitutionally cruel. Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, cited the fact that most states don't allow the execution of juvenile killers and those that do use the penalty infrequently. The trend, he noted, was to abolish the practice.

"Our society views juveniles ... as categorically less culpable than the average criminal," Kennedy wrote.

So, let's review what this ruling means:

• The death penalty is still legal in the United States for murder, but if the killer is fortunate enough to be under 18 when he or she willfully and deliberately kills a small child in cold blood, or sniper-kills multiple victims at gas stations in and around Northern Virginia, the killer can’t be executed.
• A young male who turned 18 on January 5, 2004, say, decides to murder someone on January 4. He cannot be given the death penalty. But if he waits one day to kill his victim, he can be executed.
• The Supreme Court said it is “unconstitutionally cruel” to put to death someone who kills when he is 17 years, 364 days old, but it is not unconstitutionally cruel to put to death a killer who is one day older when he kills.
• But according to Justice Kennedy, because most states don’t allow the execution of juvenile killers, and because those states who do allow it don’t do it very often, we should simply dispense with the practice altogether.
• The juvenile murderer is “less culpable” at 17/364 than the “average criminal,” but one day later presumably would not be less culpable.

Such bizarre and muddled thinking on the part of Supreme Court Justices is responsible for other similarly goofy decisions that plague us today.