Skip to main content

Update [2005-3-21 0:41:43 by Armando]: Extended use of original material with permission of the author.

A facetious question (I hope so anyway.) From Digby:

By now most people who read liberal blogs are aware that George W. Bush signed a law in Texas that expressly gave hospitals the right to remove life support if the patient could not pay and there was no hope of revival, regardless of the patient's family's wishes. It is called the Texas Futile Care Law. Under this law, a baby was removed from life support against his mother's wishes in Texas just this week. A 68 year old man was given a temporary reprieve by the Texas courts just yesterday.

Those of us who read liberal blogs are also aware that Republicans have voted en masse to pull the plug (no pun intended) on medicaid funding that pays for the kind of care that someone like Terry Schiavo and many others who are not so severely brain damaged need all across this country.

Those of us who read liberal blogs also understand that that the tort reform that is being contemplated by the Republican congress would preclude malpractice claims like that which has paid for Terry Schiavo's care thus far.

Those of us who read liberal blogs are aware that the bankruptcy bill will make it even more difficult for families who suffer a catastrophic illness like Terry Schiavo's because they will not be able to declare chapter 7 bankruptcy and get a fresh start when the gargantuan medical bills become overwhelming.

And those of us who read liberal blogs also know that this grandstanding by the congress is a purely political move designed to appease the religious right and that the legal maneuverings being employed would be anathema to any true small government conservative.

Those who don't read liberal blogs, on the other hand, are seeing a spectacle on television in which the news anchors repeatedly say that the congress is "stepping in to save Terry Schiavo" mimicking the unctuous words of Tom Delay as they grovel and leer at the family and nod sympathetically at the sanctimonious phonies who are using this issue for their political gain.

This is why we cannot trust the mainstream media. Most people get their news from television. And television is presenting this issue as a round the clock one dimensional soap opera pitting the "family", the congress and the church against this woman's husband and the judicial system that upheld Terry Schiavo's right and explicit request that she be allowed to die if extraordinary means were required to keep her alive. The ghoulish infotainment industry is making a killing by acceding once again to trumped up right wing sensationalism.

What he said. More Digby on the flip.

This issue gets to the essence of the culture war. Shall the state be allowed to interfere in the most delicate, complicated personal matters of life, death and health because a particular religious constituency holds that their belief system should override each individual's right to make these personal decisions for him or herself. And it isn't the allegedly statist/communist/socialist left that is agitating for the government to tell Americans how they must live and how they must die.

One of the things that we need to help America understand is that there is a big difference between the way the two parties perceive the role of government in its citizens personal lives. Democrats want the government to collect money from all its citizens in order to deliver services to the people. The Republicans want the government to collect money from working people in order to dictate individual citizen's personal decisions. You tell me which is the bigger intrusion into the average American's liberty?

Digby and I and others have been advocating a polarizing political strategy of exposing the extremism that is today's GOP. I agree with Digby that this travesty is Exhibit A of why this is the right way to go.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 08:09 PM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  i've got the answer (none)
    We need legislation to exclude Florida from the Union. Quick, call Congress in from recess.
  •  AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (4.00)
    He said it all.  I can't BELIEVE that this is happening.  I truly cannot believe it.  While Senators like Harry Reid travel to Iraq to see the true state of the "war" politicians like Delay have all the time in the world to grandstand.  What CAN BE DONE????

    Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. Margaret Mead

    by jenhoward on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 08:13:53 PM PST

    •  THIS is what I am doing--Blogswarming.. (4.00)
      The The Democracy Cell Project and Majikthise are doing a blogswarm of the media.

      The media has not reported at all on Bush's law, or the fact that DeLay's district had a black baby removed from a feeding tube last week, with nary a peep for the Bugman.  Push them to report the hypocrisy.  Click on the link and follow the directions.

      •  Blogswarm addresses: (none)
        360@cnn.com, 48hours@cbsnews.com, am@cnn.com, Colmes@foxnews.com, comments@foxnews.com, crossfire@cnn.com, dateline@nbc.com, daybreak@cnn.com, earlyshow@cbs.com, evening@cbsnews.com, Foxreport@foxnews.com, insidepolitics@cnn.com, inthemoney@cnn.com, live@cnn.com, livefrom@cnn.com, newsnight@cnn.com, nightline@abcnews.com, nightly@nbc.com, rrhodes@airamericaradio.com, today@nbc.com, wam@cnn.com, wolf@cnn.com, world@msnbc.com, wsj.ltrs@wsj.com, letters@nytimes.com, public@nytimes.com, netaudr@abc.com

        Courtesy of Majikthise

        "Pro-life" really means "pro-criminalization"

        by Radiowalla on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 09:04:32 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  what I sent (4.00)
          to all the addresses on the list:

          I am writing to express my grave concern with the course that Terri Schiavo's case has taken over the last several days.  The decisions about her care should always have been a private matter between her and her husband.  All the doctors involved and all the courts that have reviewed the case over the last 8 years have agreed that her husband has the right to interpret her wishes as her legal next of kin and as the person who knows/knew her best.

          The religious right is being unbelievably hypocritical in (at least) two enormous ways:

          First, they are invading what should be the sanctity of marriage - something they claim to care deeply about - to reverse a private, personal decision.

          Second, they are claiming to care about the life of this woman - against her husband's wishes and her own -  in Florida when George W. Bush himself signed a law in Texas the "Texas Futile Care Law" which expressly gives hospitals permission to cease providing life support for those who can't pay if the hospital decides they have no chance of recovery.   A baby was taken off life support against his mother's wishes in Tom Delay's district just last week.

          No one here is "saving Terri Schiavo's life."  The protesters, the parents, and now the Congress of the United States are interfering with the private wishes of a woman and her husband's desire to carry those wishes out.

          I hope the media will cover the real facts of this issue, not just the noise of the protestors and the spin of the religious right.

          (if you want to send and don't have time to compose your own, feel free to copy any of mine if you deem it worthy, wordy though it is)

          •  My LTE (4.00)
            Steal at will:

            If Terry Schiavo lived in Texas she'd be dead by now, like the baby disconnected from life support a few days ago against its mother's wishes. That's because Governor George W. Bush signed a law letting hospitals pull the plug on patients who can't pay their bills. More recently, the Republican Congress voted to cut off Medicaid assistance for the kind of care Terry receives, and its tort "reform" would eliminate the malpractice payments that have kept Terry alive so far. So why are Republicans clapping their hands over Schiavo's tragedy and celebrating, in their words, "a great political issue?" Because Republicans have proven that, with a little smoke and mirrors, they can play the "right to life" lobby for a sucker every time.
          •  First, they are invading what should be the (none)
            sanctity of marriage - something they claim to care deeply about - to reverse a private, personal decision

            I believe the sanctity of that marriage went out the window shortly after she had her heart attack.  But I don't read much in this blog about his girlfriend, their two children and the settlement he won after her illness.  

            So when Bush "let's the baby die" in Texas he's a jerk.  When he works to save Terri, he's a jerk. I'll bet if he just stayed out of it he would still be a jerk, right?

            In what way would your life be adversely affected if someone were to give Terri some water?  How would letting her parents care for her make this world a lesser place to live?

            Americans see one stupid movie about euthanasia and can't wait to start pulling plugs.  God (or another higher being) help us if their is ever a movie about killing bloggers  whose life is no longer worth living!

            Letting her die might be the right thing to do but  leave the sanctity of marriage out of it this time.

            Lying with his eyes while his hands are busy
            Working overtime
            A soap impression of his wife which he ate
            And donated to the Nation Trust.

            LM

        •  Revelation (none)
          I'm looking at the Blogswarm media contacts (I sent off a few e-mails) and I'm thinking ...Left wing-Right wing Left wing Right wing. Vis-a-vis the MSM, we are in seperate (but unequal) echo chambers now aren't we.... In the land of the blind the one eyed man is lame....How do we, How does any culture pull the plug on the propaganda?
          Religious Tryannies last longer, don't they.
        •  Thank you for posting... (none)
          Majikthise link in the active form.  I kept trying, but I kept making a mistake, although I managed to get it to work on the ahloscn places I posted, Anyway, thank you.
        •  Suzanne Malveaux (none)
          Just heard her mention the 1999 legislation in passing of course today at 10:00 am. The White House says that this is a very special case--who told them that? That quack Frist. Thanks for the Blogswarm!!

          The right to life doesn't end in the delivery room

      •  blogswarming (none)
        isn't that something that happens in Willie Wonka's chocolate factory?
      •  I have e-mailed and faxed this all day long (4.00)
        to Congress, to media, to churches

        _______

        George W. Bush, while governor of Texas, signed a law allowing hospitals to terminate life-support for incapacitated patients, even against the wishes of the family.  Especially if the patient cannot pay.  

        Here's the Houston Chronicle's story referencing the state law signed by Bush:

        http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/3073295

        Hospitals can end life support
        Decision hinges on patient's ability to pay, prognosis

        and another recent Chronicle story regarding the termination of life support of an infant against the mother's wishes:

        http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/front/3087387

        Baby dies after hospital removes breathing tube
        Case is the first in which a judge allowed a hospital to discontinue care

        (This weekend Tom DeLay gave a press conference stating that (1) patients in this condition deserve due process [this family was not able to appeal once, let alone litigate for 15 years] and (2) doctors can be wrong about a prognosis [could have been true here also]).  Where was Tom DeLay?  This story was in the news for several weeks - in his own district.
        __________

        And here's a copy of the state statute:

         Texas Health & Safety Code - Chapter 166

           § 166.046.  PROCEDURE IF NOT EFFECTUATING A DIRECTIVE OR
         TREATMENT DECISION.  (a)  If an attending physician refuses to
         honor a patient's advance directive or a health care or treatment
         decision made by or on behalf of a patient, the physician's refusal
         shall be reviewed by an ethics[0] or medical committee.  The attending
         physician may not be a member of that committee.  The patient shall
         be given life[0]-sustaining treatment during the review.
                 (b)  The patient or the person responsible for the health
         care decisions of the individual who has made the decision
         regarding the directive or treatment decision:
                         (1)  may be given a written description of the ethics[0] or
         medical committee review process and any other policies and
         procedures related to this section adopted by the health care
         facility;
                         (2)  shall be informed of the committee review process
         not less than 48 hours before the meeting called to discuss the
         patient's directive, unless the time period is waived by mutual
         agreement;
                         (3)  at the time of being so informed, shall be
         provided:                  
                                 (A)  a copy of the appropriate statement set forth
         in Section 166.052;  and
                                 (B)  a copy of the registry list of health care
         providers and referral groups that have volunteered their readiness
         to consider accepting transfer or to assist in locating a provider
         willing to accept transfer that is posted on the website maintained
         by the Texas Health Care Information Council under Section 166.053;  
         and
                         (4)  is entitled to:                                                          
                                 (A)  attend the meeting;  and                                                
                                 (B)  receive a written explanation of the decision
         reached during the review process.
                 (c)  The written explanation required by Subsection
         (b)(2)(B) must be included in the patient's medical record.
                 (d)  If the attending physician, the patient, or the person
         responsible for the health care decisions of the individual does
         not agree with the decision reached during the review process under
         Subsection (b), the physician shall make a reasonable effort to
         transfer the patient to a physician who is willing to comply with
         the directive.  If the patient is a patient in a health care
         facility, the facility's personnel shall assist the physician in
         arranging the patient's transfer to:
                         (1)  another physician;                                                      
                         (2)  an alternative care setting within that facility;  
         or                  
                         (3)  another facility.                                                        
                 (e)  If the patient or the person responsible for the health
         care decisions of the patient is requesting life[0]-sustaining
         treatment that the attending physician has decided and the review
         process has affirmed is inappropriate treatment, the patient shall
         be given available life[0]-sustaining treatment pending transfer
         under Subsection (d).  The patient is responsible for any costs
         incurred in transferring the patient to another facility.  The
         physician and the health care facility are not obligated to provide
         life[0]-sustaining treatment after the 10th day after the written
         decision required under Subsection (b) is provided to the patient
         or the person responsible for the health care decisions of the
         patient unless ordered to do so under Subsection (g).
                 (e-1)  If during a previous admission to a facility a
         patient's attending physician and the review process under
         Subsection (b) have determined that life[0]-sustaining treatment is
         inappropriate, and the patient is readmitted to the same facility
         within six months from the date of the decision reached during the
         review process conducted upon the previous admission, Subsections
         (b) through (e) need not be followed if the patient's attending
         physician and a consulting physician who is a member of the ethics[0]
         or medical committee of the facility document on the patient's
         readmission that the patient's condition either has not improved or
         has deteriorated since the review process was conducted.
                 (f)  Life[0]-sustaining treatment under this section may not be
         entered in the patient's medical record as medically unnecessary
         treatment until the time period provided under Subsection (e) has
         expired.
                 (g)  At the request of the patient or the person responsible
         for the health care decisions of the patient, the appropriate
         district or county court shall extend the time period provided
         under Subsection (e) only if the court finds, by a preponderance of
         the evidence, that there is a reasonable expectation that a
         physician or health care facility that will honor the patient's
         directive will be found if the time extension is granted.
                 (h)  This section may not be construed to impose an
         obligation on a facility or a home and community support services
         agency licensed under Chapter 142 or similar organization that is
         beyond the scope of the services or resources of the facility or
         agency.  This section does not apply to hospice services provided by
         a home and community support services agency licensed under Chapter
         142.

         Added by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 450, § 1.03, eff. Sept. 1,
         1999.  Amended by Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 1228, § 3, 4, eff.
         June 20, 2003

        •  Good Job! (4.00)
          I like that.

          I'm keeping it simple myself (little variety for the one's that read on air).

          Please illuminate the context in which Bush's 1999 Texas Futile Care law allowed a hospital to kill a baby against the mother's wishes last week with no intervention from anyone (or coverage from you), while the government has to drop it's important work in Baseball Steroid abuse to "save Terri" no mater how big the hole in her cerebral cortext?

          •  I don't remember any intervention on the (none)
             mother's behalf from the liberal left in the case of the baby in Texas.  Just after the fact does that baby become important.  

            BTW  The law didn't allow the hospital to kill babies.  Sorry if that disappoints you, maybe someday...

            Finally, keeping it simple was probably the best idea you've ever had.

            I'm taking my time for a number of things
            that weren't important yesterday
            and I still go

            LM

    •  Link to the Actual Legislation: (none)
      I didn't want to send an email without a substantive link. I looked up Tonal Crow's diary from earlier today, "It's 1999. You're Terri Schiavo, but you live in Texas"

      The bill is on the Texas Legislature Online site at (leaving the full address visible here):

      http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/cgi-bin/tlo/textframe.cmd?LEG=76&SESS=R&CHAMBER=S&BILLTYP E=B&BILLSUFFIX=01260&VERSION=5&TYPE=B

      Done, and done!

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy....--ML King, "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 09:24:21 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Ah, fun Republican hypocrisy (none)
    Wonderful.

    Outside the box solutions at low, low prices! http://jayshark.blogspot.com

    by Jonathan4Dean on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 08:14:57 PM PST

    •  ah, yes Mr. Kennedy (R-MN)... (none)
      ...we WILL be judged how we treat the weakest among us.  So how's you're record on the tax cuts for the wealthy, support to gut Social Security and a general indifference to the Medicare crisis?

      Thank you for being a perfect republican hypocrite and giving us something to hold up next October!

      He who gives up liberty in exchange for security is deserving of neither

      by joby on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 08:51:34 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Fultility (none)
        I become more cynical by the minute that the true facts of this case that digby so thoroughly laid out will be lost in the black hole of media empire.  

        The media attempts to outrage us at every turn, but they march in step by not critically evaluating any story.  Instead of discussing the facts of the case, every channel spends time showing the voting live, like it's important to see congressmen milling around and pressing buttons.

    •  Where's the hypocracy? (4.00)
      Why is it hypocritical for Bush and DeLay to ask for congressional support for Terry Schiavo?  After all, they've both been brain dead for years while asking for support.  They're just looking after their own.
  •  they know (none)
    it is just too reality-based for them.
  •  The most frightening thing (4.00)
    is that even with a living will, and a spouse and team of doctors that say there is no hope, a group of corrupt politicians can choose to keep any of us in a vegatative state for political gain long after we are gone.

    Mark my words: we will soon have 12-week fetuses "rescued" from women's clinics on congressionally-mandated life support.

    •  Unfortunately, we've got a hefty ... (4.00)
      ...portion of Congress in a persistent vegetative state.
    •  Or (4.00)
      how about a pregnant woman who wants to get an abortion but the father is against it? What's to prevent congress from intervening in that situation.

      Talk about a slippery slop.  This is a nightmare.

      GWB will pry my 19 year old son from my cold dead fingers.

      by Momagainstthedraft on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 08:26:27 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  The debate is both fascinating and not... (4.00)
      ...as a reality-based American with more than faith-based education in science, I find this partisan debate both interesting and laughable.

      The republicans are toeing the company line about moral outrage, sanctity of life and other assorted emotional hot buttons.  The Dems are reciting and arguing Constitutional law, common law and medical findings.  Yet we have to worry that the Repugs will carry the day and overturn 229 years of separation of powers in A (yet another) blatant voter pandering publicity stunt.

      My list of losers?

      Terri Schiavo's body - it will remain in a lifeless state of artificially supported limbo.

      Micheal Schiavo - Just trying to do the right thing as he knows it with intimate knowlegde we aren't privy to

      The Schindlers - Unable to say goodbye to their lovely daughter/sister and hold on to a tragic dream of rehabilitation that will occur just after Santa appears

      The United States of America - By codifying that the ruling party can overturn any judicial decision on a whim because it doesn't suit their fancy or political goals.

      Republicans - 'Cause it's pretty clear at this point that they have unapologetically sold their collective souls to the Devil...hope it was worth it, guys.

      $

      He who gives up liberty in exchange for security is deserving of neither

      by joby on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 08:31:10 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  who wants what (none)
        The Republicans inside the Capitol are, clearly, using this tragedy to placate a loyal constituency.
        The people holding signs and holding vigils to "save" Terri Schiavo are, i think, sincere in their beliefs. They have a sincere belief in the absolute preservation of life, regardless of its quality.

        But what of the Schindlers? I'm sure they're sincere in their belief, but is it simply because they cling to the hope of a miracle? Not that it's going to happen, but what would they say if convinced there was no hope for Terri's recovery?

        Would they say keep her alive? or let her go?

        •  Good points (none)
          As for the Schindlers, I don't think they would allow their daughter to pass even with direct knowledge that Terri's stance would contradict their own.

          I certainly appreciate their love and faith, but not at the cost of our democracy.

          It seems that we're saying that alot lately over the last five years.  My faith in my fellow Americans is being tested daily.

          He who gives up liberty in exchange for security is deserving of neither

          by joby on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 09:44:15 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Appreciate it? I don't. (4.00)
            I don't think it's love. I think it's obsession. Love puts the loved one's welfare above one's own selfish desires.

            And I don't think it's faith. I think it's vain self-delusion. Faith is humble submission to God's will, which includes a time of death for every living being, hard though that is to accept.

            The parents are not mentally healthy people, and they are projecting their own denial of reality upon their daughter. While I pity them, I do not think they are owed one iota of "appreciation", not even for form's sake.

            Massacre is not a family value.

            by Canadian Reader on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 10:37:23 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  The Schindlers (none)
          1.  I believe they are Catholics.  They no doubt believe a miracle will occur and Terri's brain will be restored.  They are probably running through the entire list of saints and potential saints daily.  If only they can keep Terri alive long enough, God will save her.
          2.  They believe that she really is 'in there' right now--this kind of delusion is similar to the one my mother in law had.  She thought her dog talked to her.  She wanted the dog to talk to us.  She would call up my husband and tell him Puppydog wanted to talk to his brother, and my husband would mumble stuff into the phone.  Dogs have the intelligence of about a 2 year old child.  Terri Schiavo has the intelligence of a turnip.  My mother in law was sane, compared to the Schindlers.
          3.  Many people would react like the Schindlers, attesting intelligence to every involuntary movement, every eye blink, every involuntary facial movement, every sound.  They don't want to believe she is already dead.

          This is a hugely sad case.

          It is the hypocrisy that is most sad.

      •  I'm not laughing. (none)
        I'm a little bit frightened actually.
  •  Congresswoman Schultz mentioned it tonight (4.00)
    but out of the 3 cable news channels showing the proceedings, only CNN showed any of this and it cut her off in the middle of it.
    Woodruff then proceeded to summarize what Debbie had already said, ignoring the Bush law thing completely.
    Still, this is an important angle we need to continue to push.  It's too good for the media to pass up for long.
  •  MSNBC is asking for comments (4.00)
    So I gave them mine.  Something like:

    Delay speaking out in the Schiavo debate is a joke.  Did he have anything to say when his own state pulled the plug on the life support for baby Sun against his mother's wishes pursuant to a Texas statute that his beloved Bush signed into law?  Of course not.  His "advocacy" for Terri Schiavo is pure politics.  He could care less about morality.

    Voice your own opinion here:

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3080261/

      •  Thanks! (none)
        I contacted CNN and MSNBC. Didn't bother with Fox News.  It would be a better use of my time to write my complaint on a paper airplane and throw it out my window...that way there would be at least a chance that some actual reporter might read it and start writing/broadcasting about this.

        Start doing the things you think should be done, and start being what you think society should become. -Adam Michnik.

        by GreenSooner on Mon Mar 21, 2005 at 05:15:48 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Paper Airplanes (none)
          It would be a better use of my time to write my complaint on a paper airplane and throw it out my window...that way there would be at least a chance that some actual reporter might read it and start writing/broadcasting about this.

          That's how I feel about my congressman.  Actually, it's how I feal about my congressman, both my senators, my president, my state senator, my state representative, and my mayor.  My local newspapers are not much better either, although one of them once told me it considered but did not published one of my letters.  

          But, I did send something to CNN, and that made me feel good.

  •  Write those letters to the editor! (none)
    All of this must be made plain as day to the editorial page and news editors of the SCLM. Keep raising a stink about this -- this is clear-cut hypocrisy and we can call them on this simply by laying out the facts.

    First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mohandas Gandhi

    by trueblue illinois on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 08:19:35 PM PST

  •  The very name - (4.00)
    Texas Futile Care Law - ought to have Randall Terry foaming at the mouth and threatening the Texas legislature with nonstop protest marches.

    Oh, yeah, I forgot. "Pro-life," when they feel like it. When it doesn't cost 'em anything. When it helps them ace out someone pro-choice in a close district.

    •  Pro-life should be renamed as (none)
      pro-christian-american-life since I dont see a whole lot of protest marches in Washington for the hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis, or the Sudanese in Darfur or the millions dying of AIDS in Africa.

      Nero and his fiddle would probably find quite a few kindred souls in this administration.

  •  More liberal (none)
    And those who read liberal blogs are liberal readers.
  •  God, how I wish we could clone Digby (4.00)
    and get him onto every editorial board of every national news outlet.
  •  I am amazed (none)
    Where are the major newspapers on this issue?  Why was this not on the national news tonight?  What has happened to mainstream journalism?  Where is the Republican Party that has screamed for years about states rights?  I cannot believe the grandstanding by Bush (returning to the White House to sign legislation) for this (emergency federal Schiavo law) while Texas law (under his watch) will permit terminating a life for lack of ability to pay.  What kind of "moral values" permits this sort of behavior?  
  •  THE POPE SAYS (4.00)
    http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-life20mar20,1,4979902.story?coll=la-headlines-n ation&ctrack=1&cset=true

    Sick people in a vegetative state, waiting to recover or for a natural end, have the right to basic healthcare (nutrition, hydration, hygiene, warmth, etc.)," the pope told an international conference of Catholic medical associations. "The administration of water and food, even when provided by artificial means, always represents a natural means of preserving life, not a medical procedure.

    "Therefore, their use must be considered ordinary and proportionate and, as such, morally obligatory."

    When the vegetative state has lasted longer than a year, the pope continued, the unlikelihood of recovery "cannot ethically justify abandoning or interrupting basic care, including food and hydration, of a patient." The withdrawal of food and water from such patients "is truly euthanasia by omission."
    end snip

    The Pope has Parkinson's.  Sooner or later he would be unable to swallow and would contemplate Gtube......

    find your local dem group link: http://www.democracyforamerica.com/local/

    by timber on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 08:23:54 PM PST

    •  Oh really? (none)
      The Pope also says the death penalty is wrong. The Pope also said the Iraq Debacle was wrong.

      Tell you what. If Bush moves to outlaw the death penalty, I'll support him on this Schiavo business.

      "Just say no to torture." -Semi-Anonymous Blogger.

      by Armando on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 08:45:07 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Actually, I wish the pope made a more nuance posn (none)
        What he says will resonate with  Catholic health providers, Catholic families and frankly even with him.

        Wish he did not Redefine gtube feeding as basic instead of artificial.

        And since I am a practicing Catholic and in the health field, this is very disturbing.

        find your local dem group link: http://www.democracyforamerica.com/local/

        by timber on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 09:42:19 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  It's all about biopolitics (4.00)
    Biopolitics, to coin a term from that old warhorse Michel Foucault, is the mode of power that the state holds over the body.  The state's attempt to monopolize the decision of life or death is nothing less than an extension of state power into the regulation of biological life itself.

    It is in this way that it is possible to see how the intervention here in this patient's right to die is inseparable from the larger issue of Republican attempts to monopolize the domain of biological life.  This obviously includes abortion, but also involves the tacit acceptence of torture:  the Gitmo/Abu Grahib debacle demonstrates that at the very moment that the Republicans seek to intervene in the issue of Terry's death, they also seek to suspend the protections that would shield "unlawful combatants"  -- whoever they are -- from naked power over their right to life.

    Dems need first of all to not be steamrollered by the political opportunism of the Repugs.  However, more long term, they could begin to connect the dots on all of the various issues that flesh out the Republican encroachment upon the citizen's body.

    Nothing requires a greater effort of thought than arguments to justify the rule of nonthought. -- Milan Kundera

    by Dale on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 08:25:26 PM PST

  •  I will post this on every diary I see on this (1.40)
    subject. I find these diaries just as scuzzy as what the Republicans are doing. The best statement I have heard on this subject by a poster over on another diary on the subject was that the Democrats should say that we don't have an opinion other than to respect the right and privacy of the family , and keep our traps shut. This is a personal family matter that the Republicans are intruding, and now the Democrats are intruding on. I know some of you (including Armando) take the "but they did it first" approach to this, but I am one again asking you to think about the human element here. We should just stay out of it. I don't expect many of you to get this- you just aren't capable of it I don't think based on a survey of the diaries I have read, but this is not something that you should be getting into. THe right to die is a personal family matter. If you think by creating faux outrage at something of which most of you have no direct experience is helpful here then you aren't getting it. I personally have been through this. It's an impossible situation. Us sticking our nose in it, the Republicans sticking their moralistic bullshit nose in it- just will make a horrible situation for both sides worse.
    •  My outrage isn't false (4.00)
      This is the the most blatantly crass and craven political move DeLay and his minions have yet enacted. I think we can very well respect the privacy of the Schiavo family, but you can't ignore this unconstitutional act of Congress, and the utterly despicable and hypocritical President backing them up. We have to call them on it. No one else is.
      •  Good grief ... (4.00)
        I don't expect many of you to get this - you just aren't capable of it.

        Puhleez.

        It is a family matter. Unfortunately the family members don't agree with each other, and so the legal system (which, much as we'd like to think otherwise, is political) has become involved. We can sit on our haunches and let these politicians and their media lackeys have their way or we can challenge them. When the Tom DeLays back off, I'll back off.

        •  Well (4.00)
          I quibble. The legaql system got involved because thats what the politics, in the form of laws, required.  And a final decision was rendered. Right or wrong.

          Now it used to be that that was the end of it.  But this lunatic Congress and this lunatic GOP is overturning the rule of law and imposing the law of lunatic men.

          "Just say no to torture." -Semi-Anonymous Blogger.

          by Armando on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 09:01:14 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  here's the issue that I am trying to frame for you (none)
          a) We are also trying to use this for political gain. That hardly makes us in the right here emotionally or morally with regard to the invididuals actually affected

          b) Most of the postings act like there is a yes/no to this. Either you accept the Republican frame that we need to debate this at the federal level or you endorse a full frontal assault against what the Republicans are doing. My argument isn't to do nothing- it's to make a different statement- that would have- made people like me- who have actually been through this a little bit more faithful that y ou are doing this for the right reason. Namely, that you would have said- you know what this is wrong- we need to respect the family- we are going to abstain from this horrible debate in process of the absolute wrongness of this situation. Someone in another diary suggested this- that sometimes the best answer is to make it clear there is an absolute line in the sand when it comes to human descency and that we will not play politics with this womans life. If you will read Armando's response- to me- does it sound like this site (or the poll yesterday) is really concerned about the human dimensions of this- or is the real concern political capital- which is essentially what they are arguing the Republicans are doing.

          •  What a load of crap (none)
            That is just about the biggest load of crap I have ever read.

            So the effect of shredding of the Constitution at the most basic human level means nothing to you. You unfeeling sack of shit. If it doesn't have a point of reference in your OWN life, it can't be important,is that it?

            What a self centered narcissist you are.

            You know, I don't mean that above but that is how YOU are sounding to me. Turn it down a notch Bruh, your sanctimony is screechingly annoying.

            "Just say no to torture." -Semi-Anonymous Blogger.

            by Armando on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 09:34:10 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Easy! Real Ques.What is the sanctity of marriage? (none)
              I agree with just about everything you and Digby said.  Hypocrisy runs true in Republican blood.  That's why they are Republicans and we are not.  Once again, Republicans do best when all the issues are cloudy, when not everyone has all the information and not everyone is able to put it all together.  That is their raison d'etre.

              I never saw that there was a written living will signed by Terri Shiavo.  That means someone or something has to decide who is better to decide Terri's fate, her husband or her immediate family.  It could be that her husband has ulterior motives, insurance, a new girlfriend or whatever and, on the other hand, her parents who love her, may be too weak to do what's right.

              The issues are not that clear cut, however, they have been looked at by a bunch of courts and the husband was given the right to let Terri rest.  The courts looked at him and looked at whether he had slefish motives, and they should have.  He wouldn't be ending the life of a woman who is vibrant, functioning, able to communicate or one who could reverse her situation.  Imagine the horror for her, if all she feels is pain and just wants it over but it seems more likely that she just exists and does not want or feel or think.

              We hear so much from the Republicans about the sanctity of marriage, yet here, they say there is no sanctity and there is no legal, spiritual or moral bond between husband and wife.  If parties in a marriage do not trust their spouses to be unselfish, then "the decisions" to prolong life or DNR can be given to others.  If the Republicans want marriage to have meaning, they had better get the hell out of this situation because there is no more intimate bond than that of protection.  In vows, we say, "in sickness and in health till death do us part."

              To Republicans, this is no different than taxes, social security, stem cells, and lying to get us into a war.  They dwell in our ignorance, our fear and our hate.  Their MO is confusion and deception where they can appear to rise above it all.  Can you be more disgusting than that?  
              If the marriage was one of convenience, as many are, then that should be so indicated in the living will by specifically not giving a spouse the power of life.

          •  Well, there have been a lot of ... (none)
            ...Diaries, and probably 5000 comments about Shiavo on this site alone in the past 48 hours. I've read maybe half of those and have mostly seen people arguing that this should be a family matter, not something for political gain.

            And here's what Armando said as late as Saturday morning:

            I think the Dems are handling this perfectly. This should NOT be a political issue.

            I'd love to let this be a family matter, and it was until DeLay and his cronies chose to intervene because they saw it as a chance to get their rightwing faction to cling a little tighter to the GOP. Under the circumstances, abstention from this debate does not serve us, family privacy or the other Terri Shiavos of the world.  

            So when you use words like "scuzzy,"

          •  With all due respect... (none)
            I have been thru a similar situation and you are wrong wrong wrong.  This was a private matter. New legislation has made it a public matter.

            As you draw the line in the sand between your response to this situation and your notions of good taste, I will say a little prayer for you that your fellow citizens will succeed in fighting against a government that would conveniently disregard law in order to insert itself into your most private moments.

            Gonna take hard work. Gonna have to work hard.

            by AriesMoon on Mon Mar 21, 2005 at 06:15:02 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  Then you don't get it (4.00)
      I don't give a shit about Terri Schiavo. If the parents had won the court case, I would have said - well, nothing, cuz I don't give a shit.

      I do care about the rule of law.

      That's the fucking issue. And what Digby points out is that the GOP is a corrupt, extremist lunatic political party.

      And it is critical that we point that out.

      That, my friend, is the ONLY human element here.

      And it is a damn sight more important than whoever's feelings you seem to be worried about.

      "Just say no to torture." -Semi-Anonymous Blogger.

      by Armando on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 08:42:18 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Armando's on it... (none)
        At the end of the day, if the Rethuglicans won't bother to protect and defend the rule of law...it's up to us.

        Really, this is just one piece of the administration's assault on the rule of law. The Iraq invasion, secrecy, torture, Plame affair, those darn activist judges, etc, etc...

        Democracy for America supporter!

        by Danno11 on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 09:03:37 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  i like the way you focus on his rule of law (1.50)
          argument and ingore that he also says he doesn't give a shit about the patient here. Does the fact he says that bother you? If not, then are you doing anything different than the Republicans?
          •  Different than the Repiblicans? (4.00)
            What the fuck? AmI shredding the Constitution cuz I don't like the result of a court case?

            You want me to say I care alot about Terri Schiavo when I don't?

            Bruh, do you specifically care about every death that occurs every fucking day? You are really a sanctimonious piece of work.

            Let me ask you this, why do you care so much about Terri Schiavo but seem not to give wo hoots about the baby who died in Texas the other day? Since Digby pointe dthat out and yopu offered not one whit of sympathy for that baby I can only conclude that you are unfeeling lout.

            That's how you play that game? did I get your technique correct Bruh? This is beneath you man. What is wrong with you today?

            "Just say no to torture." -Semi-Anonymous Blogger.

            by Armando on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 09:30:48 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Armando's looking at the big picture here. (none)
            We can weep for one person or fight to protect the rights of 300 million people.

            Where's the greater good? I think the answer's obvious.

        •  I am appalled also (none)
          That 48 Democrats in the House voted for this bill. And something like only 53 voted against it.
          I am astonished.

          We choose hope over despair; possibilities over problems, optimism over cynicism.-John Edwards

          by wishingwell on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 11:08:25 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Offensive. Your post is. (4.00)
      I don't expect many of you to get this- you just aren't capable of it

      The issue to moved to CONGRESS.  A point you appear to miss.  We may indeed comment on the proceedings and the issues at hand.

      Further this moved to COngress on the 11th.  The site has been restrained.

      According to what you are saying the atty for Mr Schiavo should not have a press conference. IN public.  On TV.

      Shall I recount to you each of my parent's deaths, both at home both at end stage of terrible illnesses?  Both in horrific struggles with physicians and hospice care and private nurses?  Shall I?  These issues matter, it all swings on privacy.

      Get over it.

    •  "they did it first" approach (none)
      So, we are supposed to simply ignore this travesty? The Repubs make a HUGE spectacle, on every news station, of this assault on one family's privacy and you'd have us RISE ABOVE IT by not mentioning it?? If this was happening in my family, I'd be IMMENSELY grateful that at least SOMEONE out there in the world had my back!

      The Repubs DID do this "first." We are the minority power and cannot do anything else BUT respond. I do not know OR care if the Dem's are going to somehow GAIN political clout from our opposition to this, but I do, without a SHRED of doubt, know that the Repubs are wrong and that SOMEONE must speak up.

      If you don't want to be a part of it, then sit on your hands - don't even respond to my comment. Go ahead, rise above it in your sanctimonious and passive silence. Won't you just be so much better than the rest of us then

    •  the situation has evolved (none)
      I think you're raising a lot of hackles because you haven't adjusted your formerly reasonable position to the changing circumstances.

      We aren't butting into the Terry Schiavo case.  Congress is doing that.  And initially, a stance of "let Congress make fools of themselves, while we stay out of it", made some sense.

      But what  we are butting into, is the media coverage of Congress's actions, because the media is making a circus of it all, while misrepresenting it in a way that makes Congress look like the heroes stepping in for a rescue, rather than the hypocritical grandstanding meddling moralizers they actually are here.

      The point is that the media is aiding and abetting Congress.  That is what we're butting into, and it's entirely the right thing to do.  If we don't, Congress will get away with it, and look good doing so.

    •  but bro (none)
      The dems tried to keep Congress hands off the isssue, rightfully claiming it's a family issue. It's ON now because they failed. It is a national issue because the issue is PROPAGANDA and demagoguery and the continuing demonization (literally!) of the Left. This is not a "lesser of the 2 evils thing."
      We live in comic/cosmic book times now, tks to the refux and the religious beliefs of a large part of their base, and so it HAS now become a fight between good and evil. For real.
    •  Hell-OH! (none)
      WE didn't make a federal case (literally) out of this. OUR government is decimating the Constitution over this and you think we should STFU because it's a "private" matter. YOU are the one who doesn't "get it", dude.

      In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act.
               ~George Orwell

      by outragemeter on Mon Mar 21, 2005 at 12:40:46 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Cannot let this pass uncommented. (none)
      I saw, first hand, what the living death looks like.  I watched my mother die.  Slowly.  All she could scrawl on the notepad (talking being impossible through the artificial breathing tube) was, barely legibly, "tired".  That's all she could "say".  In fact, it's the last thing she communicated before died several days later.  Who are these immoral, inconcistent, unethical, corporate ASSHOLES doing, interfering in this most personal situation?  The assholes are simply abusing other people the way they abuse our tax dollars to screw us out of our representation.

      The self-serving "pro-life" republicans invited our comments as a consequence of grandstanding, a political trick, abusing the plight of ordinary people for their own short-term, narrowminded political games.

      To use the personal tragedies of people experiencing great pain and difficult decisions for political gain is so far beyond the pale that it must not ever go without comment.

      If you think by creating faux outrage at something of which most of you have no direct experience is helpful here then you aren't getting it.

      Many of us have directly relevant experience and know based on that direct firsthand experience that it's difficult enough without the most inhumane political grandstanding that I think I've ever seen.

  •  Let me pose the sleaze question of the day (none)
    Terri Shiavo has been under continuous health care for 15 years. I know nothing about the personal finances of either her husband or her parents.

    That said, 24/7 healthcare for 15 years is very expensive. Who is paying the bills? The family or Medicaid? Who's fronting all the legal bills on either side of this tragedy?

    Medical and legal bills together must be a monster whichever way you slice it. Who gives?

    •  Rumor: $$ are from a malpractice settlement (none)
      I've read in blogdom somewhere. Any confirmation?
      •  malpractice then medicaid? (none)
        Just passing along hearsay, but I understand that the malpractice ($1m) paid for the healthcare for a number of years then a judge passed it onto medicaid after the malpractice money ran out.
    •  Here's what google turned up (none)
      As case draws out, cash dries up for Terri Schiavo's care
      As the battle over Terri Schiavo's life rages in the courtrooms and halls of government, the 41-year-old brain-damaged woman lies in a hospice bed, dependent on Florida taxpayers and charity for her care.

      The $1 million received by her and her husband, Michael, in a medical malpractice case in 1993 is nearly gone, attorneys say, spent on her care and the husband's legal quest during the past seven years to stop her artificial feedings so she can die.
      ...
      Terri Schiavo lives at the Woodside Hospice, part of a not-for-profit hospice network in Florida, among terminally ill patients. She is permitted to stay there for free because she is considered indigent, Bushnell said. Patients who can afford it pay about $80,000 a year to stay at the hospice.

      Citing privacy laws, hospice spokeswoman Louise Cleary would not answer questions about the Schiavo case but said, "We never turn anyone away. If they need our care, we take care of them."

      Terri Schiavo's medical costs, which Bushnell says are relatively small, have been paid for the past couple of years by the state's Medicaid program for needy people.

      I'm not up to it tonight, but I'm sure there is somebody here in full-throttle snark mode who can make the necessary remarks about those damned "frivolous medical malpractice suits" the ReThugs rail about. When the President said in the 2005 State of the Union:

      To protect the doctor-patient relationship, and keep good doctors doing good work, we must eliminate wasteful and frivolous medical lawsuits
      did he mean that the Schiavos shouldn't have won that $1 million judgment back in 1993?

      Oh, hey, maybe I am in full bore snark mode.

      There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics. --Benjamin Disraeli, cited by Mark Twain

      by sheba on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 09:20:30 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  How many families of indigents would like (4.00)
        such a deal?

        "Terri Schiavo lives at the Woodside Hospice, part of a not-for-profit hospice network in Florida, among terminally ill patients. She is permitted to stay there for free because she is considered indigent, Bushnell said. Patients who can afford it pay about $80,000 a year to stay at the hospice."

        Well now, maybe we're on to something.

  •  Gov. Bush - TX (none)
    I need help clarifying Bush's actions as then Governor of Texas. From East Bay Molly's post:

    Under chapter 166 of the Texas Health and Safety Code, if an attending physician disagrees with a surrogate over a life-and-death treatment decision, there must be an ethics committee consultation (with notice to the surrogate and an opportunity to participate).  In a futility case such as Sun Hudson's, in which the treatment team is seeking to stop treatment deemed to be nonbeneficial, if the ethics committee agrees with the team, the hospital will be authorized to discontinue the disputed treatment (after a 10-day delay, during which the hospital must help try to find a facility that will accept a transfer of the patient).  These provisions, which were added to Texas law in 1999, originally applied only to adult patients; in 2003; they were made applicable to disputes over treatment decisions for or on behalf of minors.  (I hasten to add that one of the co-drafters in both 1999 and 2003 was the National Right to Life Committee.  Witnesses who testified in support of the bill in 1999 included representatives of National Right to Life, Texas Right to Life, and the Hemlock Society.  Our bill passed both houses, unanimously, both years, and the 1999 law was signed by then Governor George W. Bush.)

    But then I read this in the Houston Chronicle:

    The law was passed in 1999 and amended two years ago. Acting as a negotiator for Houston-based Texas Right to Life, Burke Balch flew in from Washington "20 to 25 times" to sit at a table with represent-
    atives of the Texas Hospital Association and other parties to negotiate the law and its amendment. - - Right to Life was at the table partly because then-Gov. George W. Bush had vetoed a similar bill two years earlier at the request of some members of the religious right, according to its sponsor, then-Sen. Mike Moncrief, now mayor of Fort Worth.

    Did Gov. George W. Bush veto an early version of the bill or sign the bill for adults in 1999? I'm still not clear on the facts.

    •  More on the Texas Law (4.00)
      This is in regards to Spiro Nikolouzos (Sun Hudson is covered by a revision to the law in 2003 as a minor) - Bush vetoed the 1997 version. From a blog entry from Hope, a former staffer of Mike Moncrief:

      And without any warning, Bush vetoed the bill. We were surprised. No one had opposed the bill as it wound its way through the legislative process. No one from Bush's office had ever contacted us to say the governor had a problem with the bill. We just heard about the veto after the fact. So my boss and his chief of staff and I got on the phone with - you guessed it - Alberto Gonzales to determine what the problem was. (The veto proclamation was, as most are, unhelpful in really understanding why the bill was vetoed.)

      And do you know what he told us? The governor himself didn't have a problem with the bill, but that they didn't want to do anything to ruffle right-to-life supporters at that time (I can't remember exactly what reason he gave). Gonzales told Moncrief to re-file the bill the following legislative session and Bush would sign it the next time.

      So Bush vetoes the bill in 1997 but signs virtually the same bill in 1999? What happened to his convictions? Could it be because he was running for President and shifted positions?

      Text of the 1997 veto is here
       - see SB 414.
      History of 1999 bill passed is here - SB 414.

      Is the bill identical? If so, why did Bush flip flop?

    •  Bush signed the 1999 bill for adults (none)
      the amendment to include minors was signed in 2003.
      Texas Health & Safety Code
      •  So did Bush sign the same bill he vetoed in '97? (none)
        Read this comment again from then TX State Senator Mike Moncrief's staffer (Moncrief sponsered the bill, twice):

        And do you know what (Alberto Gonzales) told us? The governor himself didn't have a problem with the bill, but that they didn't want to do anything to ruffle right-to-life supporters at that time (I can't remember exactly what reason he gave). Gonzales told Moncrief to re-file the bill the following legislative session and Bush would sign it the next time.

        So did Bush just sign the same bill in 1999? What kind of moral guide is that? Bush is on both sides of the issue inside of two years - what kind of moral leadership is that? So people know where he stands? This could blow up in Bush's face if he signed the same bill in 1999 during a Presidential Campaign that he vetoed in 1997. Bush is one hollow son of a bitch.

  •  Changing the "role" of the press ... (4.00)
    ... has to be one of our top priorities.  We need think tanks and strategy sessions and public action and whatever else is necessary to get to this point:

    The proper role of the press is NOT to "present both sides of the story"; the proper role of the press is to find and report the TRUTH.

    The reality today is that there are no lies and no truth; there are only opinions, all of them equally worth reflecting in print or on television.

    This reality helps explain why Republicans can be considered the party of small government despite running up extraordinary deficits; how they can be considered the party of limited government while they seek to control women's bodies and prevent certain people from marrying; how President Bush can be considered the man who will keep us safe, despite his continued vacation in the summer of 2001 after continued warnings about an Al Quaeda attack, but a disruption of his vacation now to return to Washington to try and help "save" one woman's life.

    The truth is present nowhere in these realities, but that's because the truth has no place in the media today.  It's all about presenting various opinions, baby, and let the people figure it all out for themselves ...

    We will have a hard time regaining political power until the press decides that it has a responsibility to report the truth.  We would do well to work on finding ways to make that day come sooner rather than later .....

    Come, my friends -- 'tis not too late to seek a newer world .....

    by shurley on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 08:27:05 PM PST

    •  The truth is now (none)
      what people choose to believe. We are living in a faith based world where there are no facts. This is the reality of Bush's realm which we live in.
    •  The American System Doesn't Provide (none)
      for a Press.

      It does prevent government from interfering with one if it happens to exist, but that's all.

      There's not much Constitution or law to mass media spaces, so they're operated as private property where society and individuals other than the owners have almost no rights.

      The country is built to operate this way.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy....--ML King, "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 09:37:18 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Of course not (none)
        But it DOES exist, and it DOES play an unofficial role in our political process ... and just like everything else in this old world or ours, it IS subject to change.

        Changing it should be a priority of ours, is all I'm trying to say, because if -- by public pressure, or advertising boycotts, or think tank studies, or long-term infiltration plans -- we could get the press less focused on the political gamesmanship, and more focused on the TRUTH, we Democrats would win many more elections than we do now!

        Come, my friends -- 'tis not too late to seek a newer world .....

        by shurley on Mon Mar 21, 2005 at 08:28:53 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  MSNBC (none)
    Matthews is doing a special Hardball on this right now. And he was not easy on the Pro Lifer. He was really trying to pin them down as to why they are fighting for the reconnection and the answer was it would not make a difference if Terri was a vegetable or not. She would still want to save her due to the starvation factor.
    And, they kept bringing up the fact that her husband is living with another woman and has 2 kids. To which Chris pointed out it has been 15 years. Etc.

     I am sending the first paragraph of the diary and the link to them now.

    Fix the Problems, Don't create new ones

    by BarnBabe on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 08:30:38 PM PST

    •  Disagree (none)
      Matthews is pounding on whether Terri Schiavo is a vegetable or not. With due respect, who cares? Do you beieve in the Constitution or not? Is 7 years of litigation brought to a final judgment enough or not?

      If you don't like a court decision, can you get a law passed overturning it or not?

      It used to be you could not. Has Tweety asked about THAT/ Fuck no, he hasn't.

      Due respect to you, please don't praise Tweety on this - he absolutely sucks. And is an idiot to boot.

      "Just say no to torture." -Semi-Anonymous Blogger.

      by Armando on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 08:37:51 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Actually, fat cats get court decisions overturned (none)
        by legislation all of the time -- a fact not widely known. Legislatures are generally prohibited by their respective constitutions from passing legislation to help a single person. So they draft it in a way that purports to apply broadly but actually has very narrow application.

        For example, the legislation might apply to all patients who have been on life support for more than 6 years in a private hospital in a county with over 1 million people. That turns out to be one person.

        Its wrong but its common. This case is more blatant. The reason: its an attempt to gain votes not "save" a life. In this case they want transparancy.

        As for Mathews, he is not a newsman or even a commentator. He is a carnival act.

        "Mr. President, I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed." General Buck Turgidson

        by muledriver on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 09:23:12 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Actually they don't (none)
          Court decisions NEVER get overturned by legislation. The specific case is over.

          Prospective rights are of course, overturned all the time, but that won't change the specific result of the case.

          You are talking about something different.

          "Just say no to torture." -Semi-Anonymous Blogger.

          by Armando on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 09:26:43 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Actually this didn't (none)
            The legislation did NOT (to use your emphasis) overturn a court decision. It created jurisdiction in a federal court which may or may not effecitely overturn the decision.

            http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/schiavo/bill31905.html

            "Mr. President, I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed." General Buck Turgidson

            by muledriver on Mon Mar 21, 2005 at 07:49:51 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Oohhhhh (none)
              I guess you missed the part about res judicata being inoperative in this case.

              "Just say no to torture." -Semi-Anonymous Blogger.

              by Armando on Mon Mar 21, 2005 at 08:13:11 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Nooooooo (none)
                I guess I didn't -- that is why I said the court may (or may not) effectively overturn the decision.

                Maybe this will settle you down, Emily Litella: my point is not that this legislation was appropriate. To the contrary. My point is that outrageous legislation like this happens more frequently than people realize. Fat cats go to legislatures and get special legislation -- that in reality helps only them -- all the frigging time. Sometimes it happens after they go to court and lose. The legislature then comes back in and changes the law to help them. It is wrong.

                This Schiavo bill was not fat cat legislation, it was political base legislation -- designed to help Republican legislators win votes and get contributions. They don't care about that poor girl. And, they don't care about the sanctity of life. But it is a similar concept to what I described.

                "Mr. President, I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed." General Buck Turgidson

                by muledriver on Mon Mar 21, 2005 at 08:48:34 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Still missed it (none)
                  Res judicata is what prohibits the overturning. The matter is settled.

                  The federal court MAY agree with the previous finding, but the previous finding is no longer operative - it is disregarded.

                  De novo review means just that - a new case - which may jibe with the previous case, but that does not make it any less an overturning of the previous case.

                  "Just say no to torture." -Semi-Anonymous Blogger.

                  by Armando on Mon Mar 21, 2005 at 08:59:00 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Sorry, but technically no. (none)
                    The legislation did not overturn the court decision and to the extent either of us said so we were technically wrong.

                    The legislation gave the federal court jurisdiction to hear the case de novo. If the parents of the girl don't (didn't) file a federal action the state court case would remain in effect, i.e. it was not overturned.

                    My point -- and one at this moment I am sorry I bothered to make -- is that losing parties with lots of power/money often try to effectively reverse a court decision by going to the legislature. They pay money and they get more rights or they get jurisdiction placed in another forum. Thats a fact, Jack. And, that is similar to what happened here.

                    Whether the legislation overturned the state court decision or empowered another branch of the federal government to overturn a state court decision, it was an abuse of power. On that we agree.

                    "Mr. President, I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed." General Buck Turgidson

                    by muledriver on Mon Mar 21, 2005 at 09:12:58 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Not after the Court decides (none)
                      You keep repeating your error.

                      On the technicality regarding res judicata, true enough. But whemn a lwa is passed to give 1 person special rights and to deprive another person of rights, it is a sure bet that it will happen.

                      But, point taken, a de facto vacation of the state court ruling, but not a de jure reversal.

                      "Just say no to torture." -Semi-Anonymous Blogger.

                      by Armando on Mon Mar 21, 2005 at 09:45:03 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Actually, there is another possibility consistent (none)
                        with my position.

                        Even though the parents have now filed a federal action, the Fla. decision might stand if the federal court declines jurisdiction and declines to order a resumption of feeding pending appeal.

                        I said possibility, not probability.

                        "Mr. President, I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed." General Buck Turgidson

                        by muledriver on Mon Mar 21, 2005 at 10:01:14 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

      •  OK :) (none)
        But in my defense the part I saw where he really tried to pin down a idiot lady as to this case or just the right to live was better than the later comments after they looked at the pictures. I had a choice. CNN, Fox, or MSNBC. Anyway you look at it, Congress should not have been involved, and the GOP saw an opportunity and took it. It sucked.

        But Hunter phrased it better than I could ever do.  

        Fix the Problems, Don't create new ones

        by BarnBabe on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 10:12:51 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Chris Matthews (none)
        RATINGS WHORE.  End of discussion.

        George Bush vacations in Texas; he LIVES in Denial.

        by Joon on Mon Mar 21, 2005 at 08:33:01 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Absolutely correct!!! (none)
         in fact all that you stated above is exactly how we got the present adminstration. Governance by fiat..or better yet good old fashioned "do overs"..this is our Constitution not kick the can.

        "Calmer than you are Dude....calmer than you"

        by sula on Mon Mar 21, 2005 at 04:24:59 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  usurper! / "cat scan fever" (redux) (4.00)
    all this talk about republican plots to vacate the judiciary has got me paranoid. i'm starting to think that armando is trying to violate and dissolve the separation of the front page poster branch and the recommended diary branch of dkos. USURPER!!! however, since he has two posts regarding the media in the schiavo case i don't feel bad about using the same reply in each of them. so here it is (again):

    The refusal of the media to show Terri's CAT scan along with some commentary by a doctor is what I find most disgusting about the coverage.

    All it would've taken to show the religious right as the opportunistic fucks they seem to be is an editorial decision to show Terri's most recent CAT scan (showing a dissolved cerebrum incapable of regeneration) every time they showed the tape of her supposedly reacting with emotion to stimuli.

    But no. The tape of her, apparently edited down to a few minutes from dozens of hours of footage, was deemed better evidence and more newsworthy than a CAT scan that told most of the story in a single unedited glance.

    But, of course, if the story can be told in a glance, how are they going to get days worth of ratings out of it?

  •  Does the Media Know? (3.00)
    Is the wrong question.

    Do they care? Fuck NO!

    Will they investigate? Fuck NO!

    Will they report it if it gets shoved up their ass by an angry horde of progressive bloggers? Fuck NO!

    What are you smoking anyway? And further more, why are you bogarting it? Eh????

  •  This Diary, (none)

    What an excellent day for an Exorcism.... Social Security THERE IS NO CRISIS!

    by DianeL on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 08:40:24 PM PST

    •  I think you messed up the link (none)
      When I went to it it said it couldn't find the diary. I removed the space at the end and got this:
      http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/3/20/124629/495
    •  For Fuck sake (none)
      To all the casual rascists at Dailykos....
      STOP  bashing  whitey!
      It is NOT about Fleshtone folks.
      It is about ignorance.
      You are not heroic when you bash whitey.
      You are not standing up for the uh, "unempowered" when you bash whitey.
      You are simply sucking as hard as David Duke when you bash whitey.
      I t seems there are 2 "safe" groups to HATE in Amerika. On the Right-Gays. On the Left-Whitey.
      Knock the shit off or go kick it at killcracker.com.
      "if your white" my ass!
      •  Rascist? (none)
        I don't think the Diarist is a rascist, and I'm not a rascist, further, I'm white.  No one is bashing anyone, but it's a reality, not a rumor, that, that health care for non-whites, falls far short of health care for non whites.  It's a reality that historically, health care studies have pretty much ignored both non-whites and females.  Lastly, it's a reality, that I've witnessed personally, via others commentary that way too many white americans, are more sympathetic towards the deaths of white people than those of non-white people, and I'm old enough to have heard PLENTY racist commentary made by other white people who assume I fall in line with their beliefs.  

        Your anger isn't warranted in the direction you're pointing it.

        What an excellent day for an Exorcism.... Social Security THERE IS NO CRISIS!

        by DianeL on Mon Mar 21, 2005 at 11:15:33 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  My post (none)
          may seem reactive out of context but I've seen 4 posts around Kos so far with this odious code phrase "If You're white". If ANYONE defines any debate in terms of skin color, if anyone defines themselves in terms of skin color, there you will find rascism and a burning cross in the hearts of both aggressor and agrieved. Ignorance is evil not the color of someone's skin.
        •  Well, don't anyone ask me to be a (none)
          spokesman for their cause, from my sloppy post:

          not a rumor, that, that health care for non-whites, falls far short of health care for non whites.

          it should have read: "not a rumor, that health care for whites, falls far short of health care for non whites."

          And kudos to Sooner for not picking that straw with me, Thank You Sooner!

          What an excellent day for an Exorcism.... Social Security THERE IS NO CRISIS!

          by DianeL on Mon Mar 21, 2005 at 03:55:38 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Starving (none)

    Rep. McHenry, a Republican from NC was just going on with outrage about how a woman
    is starving in Florida.

     There are lots of people starving in Florida and other states and around the world.  Congress and the president should take action to feed all of those people.

      There are lots of people who don't have good health care.  They should push for universal health care.

      As I write this Rep. Mel Watt is making the same point better than I am.

      Rep.  Conyers was also good.

     

  •  "Culture of Life" (none)
    It was kind of weird to hear about establishing "culture of life" from the same person who signed the Texas Futile Care Law. We must be entering the "Through the Looking Glass" world..
  •  CONGRESSIONAL THEATER OF THE ABSURD ON SCHAIVO (none)
    The Congressional action in the Terry Schaivo case is becoming like bad theater of the absurd.

    Decisions on life and death are made everyday in the emergency rooms and intensive care units of American hospitals ----WITHOUT AN ACT OF CONGRESS!

    Indeed, the Right to Life crowd seems to be having their "McCarthy Moment."

    As when commie-hunter, Sen. Joe McCarthy, finally was exposed for the fraud and faker that he truly was.

    Likewise, Right to Life may have seriously overstepped their bounds in the Schaivo case.....

    Few people would call Terri Schiavo's semi-conscieous vegetative state "living." And few would want it for themselves or a loved one.

    The problem is that with modern medical procedures, sometimes a "good death" is very hard to come by. There are machines now that can perform most bodily functions, even in the morbidly ill.

    But, merely "oxygenating tissue" is not really living.......

    At some point in the decline of the human body the organs that are failing, must simply be allowed to fail.....

    Oddly, it is advanced science, so hated by the religious right, that is causing the problems of a prolonged "existence," without prolonging a good life.....or even are "real life." Few would call a vegetative state "living."

    So with health care quickly draining the national wealth,.....the issue of a person's RIGHT TO DIE may be more important that their RIGHT TO LIFE......

    AND, THE SCHAIVO CASE COULD BE THE STRAW THAT BREAKS THE BACK FOR THE RADICAL PRO LIFE CROWD.

    JUST AS "OVER THE TOP" McCARTHYISM EVENTUALLY SOURED AMERICANS ON THE ANTI-COMMUNIST WITCH HUNTS OF THE 1950's......!

    More Content, Less Chat. gloomanddoom.blogspot.com

    by BALTHAZAR on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 08:55:27 PM PST

  •  Digby's right on (none)
    But why are you ripping off her entire blogpost?
  •  MICHAEL SCHIAVO INVITES GOV/PRES BUSH (4.00)
    http://www.sptimes.com/2005/03/20/Tampabay/Schiavo___Come_down__.shtml

    PINELLAS PARK - Angered by the latest political developments in Washington, Michael Schiavo said Saturday that it isn't just the Florida governor who should visit his wife to learn about the case.

    Jeb Bush's brother, President Bush, should visit Terri Schiavo, too, he said.

    "Come down, President Bush," Schiavo said in a telephone interview. "Come talk to me. Meet my wife. Talk to my wife and see if you get an answer. Ask her to lift her arm to shake your hand. She won't do it."

    She won't, Schiavo said, because she can't.

    He made a similar offer to the governor last week, saying lawmakers interferring in his wife's life know nothing about the case. So far, Gov. Bush hasn't responded to the offer.

    President Bush has indicated he will sign any federal legislation to keep Terri Schiavo alive.

    Weary after an emotional visit with his wife, Schiavo said he is astonished that politicians want to interfere in such a private matter.

    find your local dem group link: http://www.democracyforamerica.com/local/

    by timber on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 09:02:32 PM PST

  •  Co-Author of Texas Law: (none)
    http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/healthlawprof_blog/2005/03/lifesupport_sto.html

    Under chapter 166 of the Texas Health and Safety Code, if an attending physician disagrees with a surrogate over a life-and-death treatment decision, there must be an ethics committee consultation (with notice to the surrogate and an opportunity to participate).  In a futility case such as Sun Hudson's, in which the treatment team is seeking to stop treatment deemed to be nonbeneficial, if the ethics committee agrees with the team, the hospital will be authorized to discontinue the disputed treatment (after a 10-day delay, during which the hospital must help try to find a facility that will accept a transfer of the patient).  These provisions, which were added to Texas law in 1999, originally applied only to adult patients; in 2003; they were made applicable to disputes over treatment decisions for or on behalf of minors.  (I hasten to add that one of the co-drafters in both 1999 and 2003 was the National Right to Life Committee.  Witnesses who testified in support of the bill in 1999 included representatives of National Right to Life, Texas Right to Life, and the Hemlock Society.  Our bill passed both houses, unanimously, both years, and the 1999 law was signed by then Governor George W. Bush.)

    "Mr. President, I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed." General Buck Turgidson

    by muledriver on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 09:06:14 PM PST

  •  my head hurts... (none)
       I did send that Houston article you posted to my very conservative friend who is on the other side from you on the Schiavo debate.  She didn't know about it and found it disturbing.  I suspect she'll have it circulating to her network of conservative friends.  At this point she wishes the government would do as was done to go get Elian Gonzalez under Janet Reno or when they stormed Waco to save Terri Schiavo.  These were not golden moments for the Dems.  I know you come squarely down on the right of Michael Schiavo, but what if there has been foul play and he's the culprit?  I don't oppose a special bill for Terri's parents for her.  I do oppose the circus. Michael could be innocent of all the allegations made about how he's treated his wife these 15 or more years.  I wish someone had hotlined him to look into these allegations at day one.  In this case with such upheaval to the entire family and no chance for an autopsy, I think the burden of proof should be beyond a reasonable doubt.  Terri needs independent counsel appointed by the court and an independent guardian for her medical treatment to get all the facts in this case.  If this guy were Scott Peterson or O.J., would you want him to walk, because the case was rigged?  We watched it happen with O.J.

    Winning without Delay.

    by ljm on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 09:06:28 PM PST

    •  The Courts Have Decided (none)
      The Rule of Law says that's it.

      Speculating about foul play? Is that what is left to argue about? Sheesh.

      No offense, but the Republicans are shredding the Constitution and people still want to play Clue?

      "Just say no to torture." -Semi-Anonymous Blogger.

      by Armando on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 09:09:54 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  law and truth (none)
         aren't always the same thing. Foul play isn't what I'm suggesting, it's what Terri's family believes happened and the questions about bone scans done in 1991 on Terri.  The family believes she could have been strangled, not a heart attack. The case stinks, that's all I'm saying.  I've seen too many kids thrown against walls and wind up like Terri Schiavo.  Nobody talks about pulling their feeding tubes, although I did work in the ICU once with a baby this happened to and it was ordered to turn off the respirator.  The kid breathed on his own, didn't die.  Anyhow, congress has passed the bill and they'll have to wake up GW to sign it.

        Winning without Delay.

        by ljm on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 09:46:30 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Who sez it is? (none)
          We have laws and they dictate what we do. What they think and what they can prove are different things.

          And in court, it is about what you can prove.

          Anyway, this is all just stuff - the Court's have decided - and what they think and what I think and what you think don't matter.

          See, I think the Supreme Court stole the Presidency in 2000. But it don't matter what I think, Bush was made President. And that's how the rule of law works.

          Let me ask you this, if there had been a Dem Congress, could they have passed a law to require a do over on the Bush v. Gore decision?  

          "Just say no to torture." -Semi-Anonymous Blogger.

          by Armando on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 09:53:24 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  2000 (none)
              If there had been a Dem congress in 2000, a senator would have signed on the complaint by the congresspeople wanting a recount on the mess that was Florida. If there had been a Dem congress in 2000, don't think it would have gone to the supreme court at all.  Gore would have won.  If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.  Good point about weird things happening in the courts and trampling on states rights.  Seems to be happening more and more.  One thing I think we can agree on, nobody likes a smug Tom DeLay.  
              Even when we disagree, Armando, which isn't often, I still love ya.  I'm really pissed about the rendition thing and Afghanistan being a US jail.

            Winning without Delay.

            by ljm on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 10:08:45 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  QUICK, WHILE HE IS UP (none)
          Somebody please offer him a sack of pretzels!
    •  Foul play? (none)
      That's a new one. She had a heart attack. What the fuck are you suggesting?
    •  I guess that's why (none)
      Michael was the one who called 9/11

      Uh - if he had ill-intent, why not just kill her?  Why call 9/11 to save her?

      •  Yes (none)
        She was bulimic. People with eating disorders are very prone and vulnerable to heart attacks due to low potassium and an electrolyte imbalance. In fact, many with anexoria and bulimia do die of a heart attack...Karen Carpenter is a celebrity with anexoria who died of a heart attack as one example. Teens are dying of heart attacks due to an eating disorder.

        We choose hope over despair; possibilities over problems, optimism over cynicism.-John Edwards

        by wishingwell on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 11:21:12 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Guardian (none)
      ljm, the court DID appoint an independent person for Terri, a Guardian Ad Litem.  He spent 20 days with Terri, trying to elicit a response from her.  He couldn't get one.

      The Florida Court had Michael Schiavo choose two doctors, the Schindlers choose two doctors, and the court chose one, and all of those five doctors found Terri in a persistent vegetative state, with no hope of recovery.  

      The point is, the case has been tried in the state court.  You don't just get to take your case to federal court if you don't like the result.  Well, at least you didn't used to.  Congress has now "undone" the normal rules of law.  

    •  He won a lawsuit based on the Bulimia (none)
      You don't think the doctors and hospital he was suing wouldn't use evidence of abuse to protect themselves?  But it never came up....because there was none.  That whole accusation came out after Michael Schiavo won a later round in court and the parents were trying to come up with something to keep legal options alive.  Bearing false witness, how typically christian of them.
  •  My Letter to the Editor (4.00)
    C'mon folks - take it to the public, not just amongst our selves on dKos.

    For any given issue - spent at least the same effort you'd spend on a clever comment writing 200 words and sending it to your local paper, national magazines, all the news channels, etc.

    the more of us to take a few minutes to send one letter a day - the stronger the pressure will be.  This is how the far right came to dominate the media - by making noise and applying pressure.

    Here's my basic letter on this issue

    In all the GOP orchestrated media circus over the tragic story of Terry Schiavo, I find it odd that Sen. Brownback and Re.p DeLay haven't found the time to object to the fact that Gov. George W. Bush signed a law in Texas that expressly gave hospitals the right to remove life support if the patient could not pay and there was no hope of revival, regardless of the patient's family's wishes.

    It is called the Texas Futile Care Law. Under this law, a baby was removed from life support against his mother's wishes in Texas last week. A 68 year old man was given a temporary reprieve by the Texas courts just last Friday.   Why aren't those lives precious to the GOP?

    The 2006 Bush budget cuts Medicare funds that many long term patients depend on. GOP backed "tort reform" would attack the settlements that enabled the long term care possible.

    Had these changes occurred 10 years ago - Ms. Schiavo would already be dead. But I'm sure that people like Sen. Brownback and Rep. DeLay would just find someone else to use for political gain.

    If they really cared, they wouldn't be advocating the immoral budget changes they support.

    Write those letters - we win in 2006 and 2008 by changing the wind NOW.  It's not about getting your letter published - it's about stuffing mailboxes, influencing coverage, and getting ONE of our letters published as representative.

    anyone have those media contact lists from election time handy?  Let's use em.

    oh and all the news sites unscientific polls are in the 60% range opposing congressional action.

    I support Soulforce - seeking Justice for God's GLBT children. Please join us.

    by its simple IF you ignore the complexity on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 09:12:24 PM PST

  •  Beyond hypocrisy: (none)
    Tonight's emergency session is the last straw.  Hypocrisy isn't even the word for this farce any longer.  

    I honestly think that these power-crazed, self-rightous, rethugs have finally done themselves in.  I think they've given themselves enough rope on this one.  It they win this -- I suggest Congress just eliminate Florida from all judicial decision from here on in.

  •  With all due respect (4.00)
    to Kossacks, be they diarists or front pagers, Digby is one of the best, if not THE best, voices of progressive thought available. Concise, rational, passionate, logical, blablabla...and just as you are realizing that, he'll knock your damned head off your shoulders. Thanks for posting that, Armando - I hadn't gotten over to Hullabaloo today.

    This offering touches on a frame that I've been pondering. Dems are often labeled as the party of g'ment control - intrusion, if you will. It seems to me that Dems tend to regulate groups of people for a common good (environmental protection, corporate responsibility, etc) while repubs prefer to regulate individuals in a quest for a narrowly defined 'moral' good (no abortions, kill the fags, etc).

    I don't know what infuriates me more - the repub's assault on personal liberty, or the Dem's inability to identify it.

  •  Clearly the Republicans were (none)
    left behind in school.

    I'm sitting here trying to figure out how Frist got a medical license, and how these Republican Congressional reps managed to pass high school biology.  

    People can have their opinions, but they can't make up facts.

    "Minimize our defensive posture, maximize our offensive posture."--Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL)

    by Newsie8200 on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 09:26:54 PM PST

  •  MSNBC headline (none)
    Emergency Vote - Lawmakers rush to D.C. to take up Schiavo bill

    Were was the headline "lawmakers rush to do nothing for baby sun" last week?

    "He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetuate it." -- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

    by sgilman on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 09:31:41 PM PST

  •  SEARCHING FOR MICHAEL SCHIAVO (none)
    it's time for MICHAEL SCHIAVO to come out and shame these politicians. to break down and through heaving, unforced, and weary sobs explain why he wants to show mercy to terri and let her go. him finally coming out and talking to the media's satellite arrays is the only way the republicans will ever have the chance to feel the shame they deserve for this.
  •  I really hope (none)
    someone from Countdown and The Daily Show are reading this.  They're our only hope for getting this on the air.

    "He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetuate it." -- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

    by sgilman on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 09:40:19 PM PST

  •  If They Bring Her To Congess-- (none)
    what happens if she lies?

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy....--ML King, "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 09:46:56 PM PST

  •  GOP Memo (none)
    Has anyone heard about the memo to Republican Senators from the party leaders. Here's snippets of what it said:

    "A memo distributed to Republican senators by party leaders called the case a "great political issue" and a "tough issue for Democrats," The Washington Post said.

    It said the case would excite the party's anti-abortion base and put pressure on Sen. Bill Nelson, a Florida Democrat who faces re-election next year."

    This is just more political grandstanding on the Republicans' part. Hopefully, House Dems will not be as weak-kneed as the Senate Dems were and block this Terri's Law junk.

  •  This whole Shiavo thing (none)
    This whole thing is Sadistic Necrophiliac Bestiality

    Beating a Dead Horse

    We have no desire to offend you -- unless you are a twit!

    by ScrewySquirrel on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 09:49:50 PM PST

  •  CNN, Carol Linn (none)
    "The family, the blood relatives of Terri Schiavo are going to the hospice right now to tell her the news."

    To thine own self be true - W.S.

    by Agathena on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 09:58:40 PM PST

    •  this is why Ted Turner is drinking now... (none)
      CNN is horrible, and Linn is the WORST.  She also can't get why they don't put the tube in RIGHT NOW, since Congress voted (forget that signature and judicial review stuff).  The only thing that gives me some pleasure is watching the correspondants look like deer in headlights when she blurts out some crazy question at them.  

      She's consistantly an empty-headed right-wing shrill that makes the bimbos on Fox News look like Water Cronkite.  There is no way she has any decent journalistic credentials.

    •  And then Terri's father (none)
      proceeded to describe the conversation he had with Terri

      "I asked her if she wanted to go for a ride.  And she smiled.  She was very excited about it."

      Linn laughs, nods and smiles.

      THEY ARE ALL CRAZY.

      •  The poor woman's body is contracted (none)
        so her facial muscles have contracted to the point where her mouth will not close. The parents and the insane Republicans are calling that a 'smile!"

        To thine own self be true - W.S.

        by Agathena on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 11:53:05 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Debbie Wasserman Schultz , D-Florida (none)
    "The American people tonight have lost."

    She gave a great speech tonight.

    Where can I find a transcript, later?

    To thine own self be true - W.S.

    by Agathena on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 10:04:36 PM PST

  •  fuck CNN, now and forever. (none)
    Look, don't turn on CNN right now if you don't want to see all out pro-delay propaganda and what must be at this point a willful and mandated quashing of all medical opinion on terri's status and her CAT scans. we had, just now, about 30 straight minutes of unadulterated, uninterrupted dissembling on the facts and silence on the fascist precedent this sets. nothing but:

    CNN EXCLUSIVE: TERRI'S GONNA LIVE HAPPILY EVER AFTER!

    it ended with a little vignette offered up by woodruff about how delay said he wouldn't be happy with the vote until the tube was back in. what a brave man he is, and what an honor it must be for CNN to lionize him.

    as far as complete and utter suppression of facts and evidence re terri AND bush's history, complete lack of reference to polls that show republicans are on the radical fringe here, and a contrived and saccharize melodramatization, this is about the worst i've ever seen it. no, it is the worst i've ever seen.

    and let's not forget this shouldn't even really be a story in the first place.

    fuck CNN. they're truly lost and gone.

    •  you mentioned their House Master... (none)
      how about their Senate Master, Bill Frist.

      Were you watching when Frist fucking Blackburried the CNN doctor saying that he thought she wasn't as bad as the doctor reported on.  Mind you, the doctor was giving his opinion and those of doctors WHO ACTUALLY HAVE SEEN HER.

      Yet, the whole crew just cowered to "Yes, Sir" Frist.

      ** Jesus Christ, just as I type this, Woodriff says they've just been HANDED A MEMO from Jeb Bush.  Where the fuck are they broadcasting from, the RNC?!

    •  please send your comments to (none)
      public.information@cnn.com
  •  OK..I'm a sick (none)
    fuck. But, what do you think of this as a protest: Send a slice of bread and a bottle of water to DeLay's office. Aside from mocking the nutcases who tried to bring these items to Teri Schiavo, it's the only diet the crook from Texas deserves.
  •  Best comment on the Digby thread (none)
    from "TQ":

    "bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States"

    Bush reaction: continue with vacation

    Congress passes bill to 'save' brain-dead Florida woman.

    Bush reaction: immediately return to DC to sign a bill into law to prevent an act of barbarism.

    "We can win elections only by standing up for what we believe." --Howard Dean

    by Jim in Chicago on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 10:23:32 PM PST

  •  Terri Schiavo case (4.00)
    This was a letter I wrote to the Seattle Times this morning.

    Re: Seattle Times

    Terri Schiavo case has potential rewards for the Republican Party?  I don't think so.

    I think the Republican Party is missing something very important when they think about this case.

    What this case shows beyond doubt that what the Conservatives mean by 'ownership society'.  The government now owns the right to say when we have their permission to leave the world.  It also shows very strongly that they do not care one whit about the quality of life that we have, nor about who pays the costs of keeping someone alive.  If they care so much about this one individual, then they should be willing to pay all the costs for the thousands of other people around the country who are in a similar situation.  Let's see someone do some research on how much it cost the taxpayers to bring 218 House members and however many members of the Senate, let alone President Bush from his Ranch in Texas, to pass this bill.  Then I want a guarentee from the government that every single citizen in the US gets that much money available to them for just this kind of situation.
    The Terry Schaivo case shows just how much a universal health care system is needed in America.

    Expanding on the meaning of 'ownership society', if the government takes control of when and how we die, takes control of a women's choice for when to bring a child into the world, and controls the media advertising and content while we are alive, what is left of our ability to make our own choices and live in the freedom that they claim they want to ensure for us?

    The Terry Schiavo case shows just how desparate the Republican Party is to keep in the good graces of the Christian Conservatives.  The followers of Jesus need to wake up to just how poorly their values are being written into the law of the land.  May God welcome Terry Schiavo into his waiting arms, and may her suffering end peacefully.

    Chad Lupkes chadlupkes@earthlink.net http://www.democracyforwashington.com

    by chadlupkes on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 10:29:03 PM PST

  •  Actually, Floridas Law allowing termination (3.50)
    of life is pretty much the same deal. It was designed to allow the medical facilities or health care providers to terminate life even without the family approval if it can be determined that the person has PVS and will not recover (which actulla really cannot be determined medically at all, it allows judge determint that this is the case, it is difficult to determine PVS, and rather large percentages of people who have been diagnosed with PVS turn out to not have it. There are three separate types of causes for PVS and the type cauased by some sudden Traumatic event, as Terri's was, is the one tht has the greatest chance of recovery. There is no way to determine whetther a person will recover after one month or one year or twenty years).

    FLorida's law:765.404  

    Persistent vegetative state.--For persons in a persistent vegetative state, as determined by the attending physician in accordance with currently accepted medical standards, who have no advance directive and for whom there is no evidence indicating what the person would have wanted under such conditions, and for whom, after a reasonably diligent inquiry, no family or friends are available or willing to serve as a proxy to make health care decisions for them, life-prolonging procedures may be withheld or withdrawn under the following conditions:

    (1)  The person has a judicially appointed guardian representing his or her best interest with authority to consent to medical treatment; and

    (2)  The guardian and the person's attending physician, in consultation with the medical ethics committee of the facility where the patient is located, conclude that the condition is permanent and that there is no reasonable medical probability for recovery and that withholding or withdrawing life-prolonging procedures is in the best interest of the patient. If there is no medical ethics committee at the facility, the facility must have an arrangement with the medical ethics committee of another facility or with a community-based ethics committee approved by the Florida Bio-ethics Network. The ethics committee shall review the case with the guardian, in consultation with the person's attending physician, to determine whether the condition is permanent and there is no reasonable medical probability for recovery. The individual committee members and the facility associated with an ethics committee shall not be held liable in any civil action related to the performance of any duties required in this subsection.

    http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch 0765/SEC404.HTM&Title=->2004->Ch0765->Section%20404#0765.404

    Problem in this case is that the medical facility that Terri is at has stated that they will keep andpay for her treament for the rest of here life...this is an indication that their ethics comittee doent concur with wither the doctors for Michael OR the Guardian.

    But the similarity to Texas is here:

    765.401  The proxy.--

    (1)  If an incapacitated or developmentally disabled patient has not executed an advance directive, or designated a surrogate to execute an advance directive, or the designated or alternate surrogate is no longer available to make health care decisions, health care decisions may be made for the patient by any of the following individuals, in the following order of priority, if no individual in a prior class is reasonably available, willing, or competent to act:

    (a)  The judicially appointed guardian of the patient or the guardian advocate of the person having a developmental disability as defined in s. 393.063, who has been authorized to consent to medical treatment, if such guardian has previously been appointed; however, this paragraph shall not be construed to require such appointment before a treatment decision can be made under this subsection;

    (b)  The patient's spouse;

    (c)  An adult child of the patient, or if the patient has more than one adult child, a majority of the adult children who are reasonably available for consultation;

    (d)  A parent of the patient;

    (e)  The adult sibling of the patient or, if the patient has more than one sibling, a majority of the adult siblings who are reasonably available for consultation;

    (f)  An adult relative of the patient who has exhibited special care and concern for the patient and who has maintained regular contact with the patient and who is familiar with the patient's activities, health, and religious or moral beliefs; or

    (g)  A close friend of the patient.

    (h)  A clinical social worker licensed pursuant to chapter 491, or who is a graduate of a court-approved guardianship program. Such a proxy must be selected by the provider's bioethics committee and must not be employed by the provider. If the provider does not have a bioethics committee, then such a proxy may be chosen through an arrangement with the bioethics committee of another provider. The proxy will be notified that, upon request, the provider shall make available a second physician, not involved in the patient's care to assist the proxy in evaluating treatment. Decisions to withhold or withdraw life-prolonging procedures will be reviewed by the facility's bioethics committee. Documentation of efforts to locate proxies from prior classes must be recorded in the patient record

    http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch 0765/SEC401.HTM&Title=->2004->Ch0765->Section%20401#0765.401

    You have a situation in whch the court can appoint someone outside of the family to make the decision. The family is listed, but remember, the court CAN rule that there are good reasons for disallowing a family member to make the decision, such as confliuct of interest of indications that the family member doe not have the patiens best interests in mind or does not intend to do what the patient has been proven to have wanted if  it can be proven.

    The problems with these laws in all of the states is that they can collide with issues of religious freedom ( a person could be clearly of a religious background that precldes euthanssia, but the judge can simply decide something else is in the patienss best interst, elimate all family members from the decision making and appoint someone they know will clealy make the decision that they want.

    Ther is the non religious consideration as, well,as far as I am concerd and that is that if you are goiung to take away the only life a person has, ALL of the eviddnce shoud lean towards that opinion, and not just some.

    But I am of the same opinion for the Death penalty. There are some cromes that are so heinous that the death penalty would be just, But given the large amounts of erroreously ordered death sentences that have been recently proven by DNA evidence, as well as the simply possiblity that as lot of other errors that have no DNA evidnce to prove them, then the line should not be set at provin beyond a reasonable doubt, but beyond AL doubt, before the death penalty can be applied. Otherwise life without parole in order to deal with the rather large possibility that the person convicted may be innocent (given that DNS evidence alone indicated that in the 1990's almost one in 4 of the people on death row in the U.S. were not guilty, I would be inclined to err on the side of life)

    Same thing goes in my opinion in the case of PVS. SInce studies have indicated that anywhere from ten percent to 35 percent of people diagnosed with PVS are not in PVS, erring on the side of caution would be appropriate.

    Given that medically there is actually NO test that can conclusively determine the presence of PVS or the possibility of recovery, It might be wise to hold off on termination of life. In fact in Terri's case, the entire act of classifying her as being in PVS has been merely a matter of opinion of a few doctors, and the judge has chosen to accept those doctors opinions, he has legally declared her as having PVS while there is no actuall medical proof of the state. Out of the total 50 doctors who have looked at the test results nad who have examined Terri, 15 neurologists have comcluded she can be rehabilitated, six other have comcluded that eh does not have PVS at all. The determination of the judge is based on the opinion of one M.D. and one Psycologist. I would think that one would at least want a plurality of the doctors to state she had PVS and would never recover (which again would be opinion as it cannot be proven)In my mind I would want all of the doctrors to come up with the same diagnosis before I acted, and even then I would want ALL witnesses to agree that Terry wanted this, not some.

    •  What the hell are you talking about? (none)
      Given that medically there is actually NO test that can conclusively determine the presence of PVS or the possibility of recovery, It might be wise to hold off on termination of life. In fact in Terri's case, the entire act of classifying her as being in PVS has been merely a matter of opinion of a few doctors, and the judge has chosen to accept those doctors opinions, he has legally declared her as having PVS while there is no actuall medical proof of the state. Out of the total 50 doctors who have looked at the test results nad who have examined Terri, 15 neurologists have comcluded she can be rehabilitated, six other have comcluded that eh does not have PVS at all. The determination of the judge is based on the opinion of one M.D. and one Psycologist. I would think that one would at least want a plurality of the doctors to state she had PVS and would never recover (which again would be opinion as it cannot be proven)In my mind I would want all of the doctrors to come up with the same diagnosis before I acted, and even then I would want ALL witnesses to agree that Terry wanted this, not some.

      Give a citation to the source for your information.  Exactly what is the factual basis for your assertions that 15 "neurologist" conclude that she can be rehabilitated (given that her brain is now liquid, I am skeptical).  Did they see the patient?   Are you counting Bill Frist?
      Come on, give me citation to your source.  I dare you.  Otherwise, shut up.

  •  ARMANDO!!!! (none)
    check email please or email me

    gina dot yearlykos at gmail dot com

    thanks!

    Proud Member of your friendly YearlyKos Convention Team!

    by gina on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 11:04:08 PM PST

  •  Wow (none)
    I did not know this.  That is a new height of hypocrisy, even for Bush!

    But we should not be using this fact to argue for starving/dehydrating Terri to death, but to repeal the Texas law and require anyone to be kept on life support unless they have a signed, notarised document (a "living will") which states otherwise.  None of this "oh yeah, she told me once, yeah, that's the ticket" we get from Schiavo's husband.

    Alan
    Maverick Leftist

  •  Dems should now introduce a bill (none)
    for EACH and EVERY American in Terri's condition

    "Bob's Law"
    "Jane's Law"
    "Sue's Law"

    Force DeLay to ram each and every one through both houses of Congress.

    Jerk Bush back to DC to sign each and every one on an emergency basis.

  •  Here's my post at Digby... (none)
    Digby,

    That is THE single best take I've read on this sad, tragic, farcical turn of events that we are in the process of witnessing. ... THIS is the story that we have to tell to the American people. These self-serving hypocritical fucks don't even care about the shit you folks care about? Wrap your head a round that one, folks.

    If we can't hang this around Tom DeLay's neck like a rotting chicken, I don't know what we got left?

    I couldn't agree more with Armando and Digby. This fucking story stinks to everyone, red and blue alike, and we've got to find a way to illustrate the hypocrisy throughout this Soprano-like shakedown this country has been dealing with for shit, who know how many years?

    Moveon, and whoeverthefuck, have got to get this story out -- with Digby's frame. Live, from New york! Your republican rat fucking of america in one tidy 2-minute story.

    Get on it fellas. Time's a wastin'.

    If you aren't outraged, you're not paying attention.

    by bigskiphazzy on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 11:57:13 PM PST

  •  Politics As Usual (none)
    Find something to stir up the base. Make it an "either your with us or against us" argument. Sweep under the rug the hypocrisy that really exists. This is the same story that's been running for five years, and it works every time.

    technology. politics. culture. life. dimensionsix dot net.
    "the christian right is neither." -- moby

    by storm2k on Mon Mar 21, 2005 at 12:12:37 AM PST

  •  Top 10 kos diary (4.00)

    In the future people will wonder why most didn't challenge Bush's excesses
    The truth? Complacency was easier

    by lawnorder on Mon Mar 21, 2005 at 12:17:03 AM PST

  •  The issue is whether the (none)
    state has the ultimate power to decide who lives and who dies.  The persistence of capital punishment affirms that the state has the power to put people to death and, if it does, then it's logical that it should also be able to determine who lives.
    The assertion that government is merely being responsive to the demands of certains sects of organized religion is a subterfuge, a way of saying "it's not us that's telling you what to do; we're just the agents of a higher being."
    You may think that the role of government is to do the people's bidding, to be public servants.  That's not how those who govern see it.  From their perspective they have been "selected" to tell others what to do and, in particular, to tell them to do things they don't want to do on their own.
    Now, there are two ways to get people to do what they don't want to do on their own volition. You can threaten them with punishment, if they don't obey, or you can bribe them with a promise of rewards.  Needless to say, threats are cheaper.  But, if a threat is to have any meaning, it has to be backed up with the ultimate threat, to deprive a recalcitrant individual of life itself.
    Death to those who do not do as they are told is entirely consistent with the position of those who adhere to the philosophy of limited government.  What it means is that the least possible effort is to be expended to get people to comply with directions--i.e.control is maintained by threatening survival.
    Of course, the threat is much less powerful, if not vitiated entirely, if people can decide for themselves who lives and who dies.  That's why suicide is against the law.  Even when suicide is permitted to be "assisted," that's still consistent with the assertion that the authority of the state is determinative.  When a state grants a permit, it asserts the power to withhold it and punish the covered behavior, if it occurs without a permit.
    When our Constitution states that all powers not specifically assigned to government are retained by the people, it doesn't mean the individual person.  It just means they haven't been specifically assigned YET.  If esential rights were personal, there would be noone without them, such as minors or incompetents.  It would take a significant ammendment of the Constitution to recognize the equal, human rights of every person--equal not just to every other person but to the state itself.
    Taking away the authority of the state to make life and death decisions about the people within its jurisdiction would be truly revolutionary.  Because, once tasted, authority is not likely to be relinquished lightly.
    Just think, there would be no more executive privilege.
  •  Good article from Houston Chronicle (none)
    http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/3073295

    just talks about the law and what it does... not very long but it is a good read.

  •  Schiavo more important than tsunami victims (4.00)
    NYTimes reports today (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/21/politics/21bush.html?oref=login) that bush left his vacation due to the "controversy" surrounding the Schiavo case.

    So let's get this straight...Tsunami kills thousands instantly and threatens the lives of thousands more and Bush can barely be bothered to promise money from his vacation, much less return to the capitol like leaders around the world chose to do.

    But this case, one which he has passed legislation more or less supporting (as reported in the above post) warrants him returning from vacation and satisfying the wet dreams of the religious right everywhere who make more noise about someone with no chance for recovery than the fact that millions of american children cannot afford health insurance.

    sigh...

    "Loyalty to country: always. Loyalty to government: when it deserves it." -Mark Twain

    by quackard on Mon Mar 21, 2005 at 06:18:16 AM PST

  •  When does the soul leave the body? (none)
    Has Terri's soul left her body?  Would her soul have departed when her brain no longer functioned via thought processes?
  •  LTE sent to my local paper this morning (none)
    Dear Editor,

    The hypocrisy of "compassionate" conservatives is astonishing.  Even as they rail against "activist judges" in the context of gay marriage rights, they have themselves become activist legislators in the Schiavo controversy--attempting to undermine the Florida state judicial system.  States' rights, indeed.

    While Governor of Texas in 1999, George Bush signed into law § 166.046, which allows physicians to terminate life support from a patient (with 10 days notice) if there is no expectation of improvement, and if the patient or his/her agent cannot sustain the cost of continued care.  (Life support will be continued, if transfer of the patient to another facility can be affected during the notice period.)  Moreover, the physicians' decision may override the wishes of the patient who has a living will and/or the family, if treatment costs cannot be met.

    Included in this law is a prioritized list of whom, among family members, with recommendation of a single attending physician, can decide to withdraw life support:  (1) the patient's spouse, (2) the patient's reasonably available adult children, (3) the patient's parents, or (4) the patient's nearest living relative.   [Note that parents rank 3rd in the hierarchy of decision-making.]

    Mrs. Schiavo is beneficiary of a trust fund valued at a million dollars.  There is no lack of funds to perpetuate her care.

    Congress is rushing onto a slippery slope. The current proposed legislation is cynically narrow, focusing exclusively on the Schiavo situation.  But the elephant in the living room is:  How will we treat all others in this situation?

    Will homeless persons, the elderly poor, drug addicts, prison inmates and others who are in a Persistent Vegetative State [PVS] receive indefinite treatment, regardless of cost?  Few of these folks will have personal fortunes with which to pay for their life-sustaining care; that responsibility will fall to the American public.

    Ironically,  "Culture of Life" proponents, the very same legislators who inserted themselves in this emotionally-driven family dispute, recently voted to drastically reduce Medicaid funding, the only available treatment monies for most PVS patients listed above.  This is "compassionate conservatism" at its most cynical.  Let Congress put our money where its mouth is.  If Terri Schiavo must be the poster child for sustaining life for political reasons, let her legacy be for humanity for all as well.

    George Bush vacations in Texas; he LIVES in Denial.

    by Joon on Mon Mar 21, 2005 at 07:37:50 AM PST

  •  Summarization (none)
    I am almost pretty sure that has summarized the feelings that alot of people realized looking back on news prior to enjoying blogs and internet news. With RSS/Atom, news has become insanely easy to obtain in a diverse and varied manner. So, thanks, not only for that summarization but all the work.
  •  Additional Facts on Bush's Texas Record (none)
    The Texas Futile Care Law was only one instance of Bush's general disregard for those in assisted living facilities. As Texas Governor, he pushed for Medicaid block grants to allow him to drop poor seniors' nursing home coverage and force their children to pick up the bill ... a great way to encourage respect for the sanctity of life.

    And nursing home care was the worst in the nation during his time as governor.

    A February 28, 1999 Fort Worth Star-Telegram article describes, "[A] state inspector found five residents of the Arms of Mercy Nursing Home in San Antonio last September lying in beds caked with feces and urine.  The bedding and the residents' undergarments had not been changed in 'a long time,' the inspector's report stated."

    See here for my full post:
    http://demstovepipe.blogspot.com/2005/03/as-texas-governor-bush-put-profits.html

  •  Do you really expect the MSM to tell the truth? (none)
    Truth: Governor George W. Bush signed a law that enables the state of Texas to disconnect life-support equipment from vegetative patients OVER THE OBJECTIONS OF THEIR FAMILIES.

    Truth:  The above truth is not going to get circulated in the mainstream media.  

    Why?  Because it's just not, that's why--according to the MSM, Bush is a "popular wartime president" (with a 45% overall approval rating) who only gets high marks when the public rates him on "handling terrorism".

    Yes, I know, it makes absolutely no sense--why are they covering for this guy?

    Well...

    Where are those CBS producers who dug up inconvenient facts about President Bush?  Oh, that's right, they all got fired.

    Where's Dan Rather, who tangled with both the President and the President's father?  Oh, that's right, he got shoved into retirement.

    However, I am absolutely certain that the "get out of jail free" cards that the MSM keep handing to Bush have nothing--repeat, NOTHING--to do with THIS:

    New Media Ownership Rules at a Glance

    Published: June 02, 2003

    (AP) The Associated Press compiled the previous media-ownership rules, adopted between 1941 and 1975, and changes adopted by the Federal Communications Commission Monday:

    * National TV Ownership Rule (1941), as amended, prohibited a company from owning TV stations that would reach more than 35% of U.S. television households.

    The new rule approved today raises the cap to 45%.

    * Radio/TV Cross-Ownership Restriction (1970) limits the number of radio and television stations one company may own in the same market. Newspaper/Broadcast Cross-Ownership prohibition (1975) prohibits a company from owning a full-service radio or television station and a daily newspaper in the same city.

    The FCC combined the rules into one and largely ended the ban. The provision lifts all restrictions in markets with nine or more TV stations. Smaller markets would face some limits and cross-ownership would be banned in markets with three or fewer TV stations.

    * Local Radio Ownership Rule (1941) limits the number of commercial radio stations a company may own, operate, or control in a single market, based on how many stations the market has.

    The FCC changed how local radio markets are defined to correct a problem that has allowed companies to exceed ownership limits in some areas.

    * Local TV Multiple Ownership Rule (1964) limits a company to ownership of no more than two TV stations in the same market. It may own only two stations if one is not among the highest four ranked stations in the area and provided the market still has at least eight other independently owned TV stations remaining.

    The new rule allows a company to own two stations in a market if the market has five or more TV stations. In the largest cities like New York and Los Angeles where there are 18 or more TV stations, a company can own three stations. When companies own multiple stations only one can be among the top four in the ratings.

    linked text

    There are three kinds of people: Those who see; those who see when they are shown; those who do not see.

    by Shadowthief on Mon Mar 21, 2005 at 08:13:35 AM PST

  •  Undermining marriage sanctity... (none)
    A friend of mine from Florida had this thought on the case:

    "Doesn't marriage grant the spouse certain legal
    responsibilities regarding the other spouse's will and such?  So
    when the 'right' intervenes on behalf of this woman's parents,
    they're actually undermining the legal sanctity of marriage,
    right?"

    "Loyalty to country: always. Loyalty to government: when it deserves it." -Mark Twain

    by quackard on Mon Mar 21, 2005 at 08:16:02 AM PST

  •  Emailed Olbermann, (none)
    with an MSNBC link no less, about baby Sun in Texas.  I'll make sure Harry Reid gets it too.  This hypocrisy can't go unnoticed.

    Listen all of y'all it's a Sabotage! - Beastie Boys

    by See you out there on Mon Mar 21, 2005 at 08:21:27 AM PST

  •  Just e-mailed Olbermann too (none)
    I feel like he's our only help in the MSM. Sent him the Houston Chronicla article, which puts a very human face on this issue.
  •  some research (none)
    trying to find out more about this Texas Futile Care Law.

    apparently it was written by, or at least with consultation by pro-life atty./activists.

    while this law did set the legal terms by which Sun Hudson would be allowed to die, the law itself was reported, at the time, ... within the context of preceding legislation, as a pro-life piece of legislation.

    i just want to be sure, so if anyone can help me out here...  wasn't the intent and result of the Texas Futile Care Law to RESTRICT (not broaden) the terms by which patients could be taken off critical care machines?  didn't the law make it more difficult to pull the plug on terminally ill patients, not easier?  didn't it do things like take the 72-hour notification to the family and make it 10-days?  and stuff like that.

    don't get me wrong, if there is hypocrisy here, i want to know about it.  most definitely.  i hope i'm wrong and have been misled by the scant research i've done.

  •  Looks...Bad (none)
    Armando's original post quoted Digby: "Those of us who read liberal blogs are aware that the bankruptcy bill will make it even more difficult for families who suffer a catastrophic illness like Terry Schiavo's because they will not be able to declare chapter 7 bankruptcy and get a fresh start when the gargantuan medical bills become overwhelming." I'm reading here and there, as time permits. I'm also new to blogs, so I can't rattle off a great many blogs nor remember exactly what direction they go in. Offhand, They do seem to be liberal, which does nothing for me. I've bookmarked one blog by a rightwing writer and pundit, but only because it was recommended by a liberal leftwinger in the Toronto Star who I think does good, but not perfect, work.

    My favorite websites, I guess, would be more leftwing than DKos. For example, I consider Alexander Cockburn's 'CounterPunch' to be right on and 'not' in the least liberal or mainstream. So perhaps folks here won't be interested in Alexander's observation about the one party state of America and the facts he relates about the Democratic support for Republican measures like the much maligned, here, bankruptcy bill. Three Card Monte And The One Party State

    I also have no idea what Armando meant when he stated: "Digby and I and others have been advocating a polarizing political strategy of exposing the extremism that is today's GOP. I agree with Digby that this travesty is Exhibit A of why this is the right way to go." I only know that it doesn't sound good. There 'is' polarization (but not always where folks say it is). But why does any group want others to not agree with them and their position?

    *Five trillion $ (500 billion, approx, are American) sit in tax havens, protected by G.W. Bush, while 'leaders' whine that they can't afford social spending.*

    by Arby on Mon Mar 21, 2005 at 09:26:24 AM PST

  •  I don't see why so many (none)
    fail to understand Mr. Bush's position:

    He was for withdrawing life support before he was against it.

    Or, in detail, he signed the Texas Futile Care Bill into law before he signed an Act For the relief of the parents of Theresa Marie Schiavo into law.

  •  Will the mom whose baby (none)
    was removed from life support recently under Bush's "Kill the Poor" law willing to come forward and talk about it?
  •  Schiavo's Rights (4.00)
    Maybe Michael Schaivo should transfer his wife to a Texas hospital and refuse to pay.  That would certainly set up an interesting political battle between "Culture of Life" crusaders: President Bush and Tom DeLay versus former Governor Bush, Tom DeLay and his cronies in the Texas State Legislature.  

    Ms. Schiavo might well be allowed to rest in peace in this scenario or we'd get back our right to make our own decisions as individuals and family members about what kind of healthcare we are willing to endure.

  •  A Summary of Health Care, Republican Style (none)
    *If you are conscious but need medical care, you can't get it unless you pay an exorbitant amount for medical insurance (and even then it's not a sure bet you'll get care).

    *If you are in a vegetative state and need medical care, you will not only get it but be forced to receive it.

    *If you are a fetus, a battalion of Republican lawyers and activists will rush to protect your rights.

    *Once you are born, you are ON YOUR OWN because these damn "welfare mothers" just keep having kids to get cheques from the state.

    Right, got it, inscribe it on a stone tablet and we're done.

    There are three kinds of people: Those who see; those who see when they are shown; those who do not see.

    by Shadowthief on Mon Mar 21, 2005 at 11:32:16 AM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site