Lady Liberal

Moussaoui and the Death Penalty

2006-04-04T07:57:00.000-07:00

I am having some issues w/the govt going after the death penalty w/Moussaoui...
he seems like (and it has been testified) that he is just a low level screw-up peon...
nobody really involved or really important to 9-11...
not saying that he didn't want to be...
or that he didn't *imagine* he was...

but aren't convictions supposed to be based on actual events, not on what somebody wanted to do or might have done?
I have no problem w/him being tried for what he actually did...
I have no problem with him being tried as a conspirator...
but I dunno...
it just seems to me that the death penalty is more about the fact that they cant punish the actual hijackers so they are using him as a whipping boy/stand-in..

Moussaoui seems to be desperate to be a matyr...
He wants to be seen as more important then he actually was..
but just because he wants to be one...
if the facts don't support his claims should the govt. matyr him just because they need to make somebody pay the ultimate price as punishment for 9-11?

hunting accidents

2006-02-15T07:08:00.000-08:00

If I hear one more republican say (IRL) that Cheney shooting his hunting buddy was no big deal and that things like that *happen all the time*, I may scream.

I was raised in a family of hunters. They hunted to supplement their food, in order to have meat in the winter. Hunting was and is a way of life...deer hunting, gun and bow, turkey hunting (I was grown and married before I ever had a store bough turkey for thanksgiving dinner), quail squirrel, rabbit..you name it, if it was a game animal in missouri...they hunt(ed) it.

My cousins, uncles, etc are descendants of mountain people...meaning they are a bit crazy..but you know what?...never ever, not once have they ever *accidentally* shot a hunting partner. Never, nada, zilch. In fact there are not even any stories of this occurring in family legends...which to blunt do contain some doozy of a story stories....

And then for Cheney not to immediately admit and report what happened? Just one more example of the veil of secrecy this administration operates under...the contempt they have both for the press and the american people.

Cheney's Got a Gun
Cheney's Got a Gun
Cheney's Got a Gun
Everybody's on the Run

http://spaces.msn.com/facubeitch/Blog/cns!1pPsYOTxs55oafBnXvgHvOXQ!203.entry

"Keep going, we'll come back for him later, he's fine."
"Um. Sir. Mr. Vice President, he's kinda just laying there."
"Shhhhhh!!!! He's a lawyer. You want him to sue?...Harry? You OK? Harry? See? He's fine. This is just part of the administration's new tort reform package."
"Sir, he's not moving."
"He's just sleeping it off.Hand me another round. I'm going to get me some quail."
"I think he's hurt sir. He's bleeding."
"You think he's hurt. Are you a doctor?"
"Yes. I'm your doctor. I travel with you all the time."
"Ah yes. The Jew. I didn't recognize you without the rib spreader."
"I think we need to call one of your ambulances."

"Aw, now why do you want to go and do something like that? If Antonin hears about this he won't come duck hunting next time there's an important case before the Supreme Court that I need him to rule on."
"Sir. I'm doing the best to stop the bleeding, but we're out in the middle of nowhere. No equipment. No sanitation. This is a far cry from George Washington University Hospital."
"Yeah, it's more like the County Hospital right next door to it. Well, do your best."
"I'm stanching the blood flow."
"No you idiot. I meant do your best to make it look self-inflicted."

http://politicalhumor.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill%2Dmaher/cheneys%2Dshooting%2Dspree%5Fb%5F15611.html

Jerry and Joe Long imagined this statement from the veep on huffingtonpost.com: "Since the days of Aaron Burr, under our constitution, the vice president has the implied authority to shoot whomever the hell he pleases. … In a time of war, it would be inappropriate to comment further on how and under what circumstances a 78-year-old man underwent a minor pellet infusion."
Political comedian Andy Borowitz offered this press release on his site: Cheney Says Shooting of Fellow Hunter Was Based on Faulty Intelligence Believed Shooting Victim Was Zawahiri, Veep Says
"I believed I had credible intelligence that al-Zawahiri had infiltrated my hunting party in disguise with the intent of spraying me with pellets," Mr. Cheney told reporters. "Only after I shot Harry in the face and he shouted 'Cheney, you bastard' did I realize that this intelligence was faulty."

http://politicalhumor.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/story%3Fid=1615177%26page=1

Just ask

2006-02-08T09:52:00.000-08:00

Basically the only reason Congress is upset that the President is spying on american citizens is because he didn't ask their permission. However if asks Congress then they will pass a bill giving him unlimitted power over American citizens w/no system of checks and balances.

Our founding fathers must literally be rolling in their graves.

Why are Americans so ready to give up their civil liberties? Why are they so naive that they believe that if they aren't doing anything wrong then they have nothing to worry about from the government.

Have Americans learned nothing from history.

If history has one thing to teach us it is that Power Corrupts and Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely.

Where Did America Go

2006-02-01T06:11:00.000-08:00

If you have been paying attention it shouldn't come as a surprise that the bush government would arrest someone for wearing a t-shirt that called attention to their lies. Somehow though, for some reason it does still surprise and shock me.

My first instinct is to think, *there has to be more to the story*. I mean this is america, freedom of speech, freedom to have dissenting opinions, land of liberty, land of freedom. You can't be arrested in the US for simply wearing a T-shirt the government doesn't like or approve of, or disagree with....

But apparently in the Brave New Bush World...that is exactly what the government can and will do. Think like us or be arrested. How outrageous that more people are not outraged about this.

So what is the *official* story?

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Peace activist Cindy Sheehan was arrested Tuesday in the House gallery after refusing to cover up a T-shirt bearing an anti-war slogan before President Bush's State of the Union address.
According to a blog post on Michael Moore's Web site attributed to Sheehan, the T-shirt said, "2,245 Dead. How many more?" -- a reference to the number of U.S. troops killed in Iraq.
"She was asked to cover it up. She did not," said Sgt. Kimberly Schneider, U.S. Capitol Police spokeswoman.
Schneider said Sheehan was arrested around 8:30 p.m. on charges of unlawful conduct, a misdemeanor that carries a maximum penalty of a year in jail.
She was handcuffed and held in the Capitol building until she was driven to the Capitol Police headquarters for booking. According to her blog, she was released about four hours after being arrested. http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/31/sheehan.arrest/index.html

and for those of you who only believe the Fox spin zone: WASHINGTON — Cindy Sheehan finally got her invitation to see President Bush again, but before she set eyes on him at the State of the Union address, Capitol Police removed her from the gallery overlooking the House chamber.
The offense: her shirt, bearing an anti-war message and other "unlawful conduct," police said.
Sheehan, the mother of a fallen soldier in Iraq who reinvigorated the anti-war movement, was handcuffed and charged with unlawful conduct, according to Capitol Police Sgt. Kimberly Schneider. The charge was a misdemeanor and Sheehan was being released on her own recognizance, Schneider said.
Schneider said Sheehan had worn a T-shirt with an anti-war slogan to Tuesday night's speech and covered it up until she took her seat. Police warned her that such displays were not allowed in the House chamber, but she did not respond, the spokeswoman said. (somehow there version doesn't sound much better does it?) http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,183392,00.html

You can read Cindy Sheehans letter giving her version of events at: http://www.michaelmoore.com/mustread/index.php?id=594

No matter whose version you believe it all comes down to the same thing. Under the rule of the tyrant..any tyrant..civil liberties and freedom only apply to those who agree with the tyrant and everyone else is expendable and unimportant collateral damage.

Men just don't get it

2006-01-30T06:24:00.000-08:00

do they?

My husband made the comment about Alito "He'll be okay. We could have gotten someone a lot worse"

Ummm...no honey we couldn't have...at least not if you are a women of child bearing age.

What we are getting is a rich white male fundamental protestant who believes that HE should get to control women (cause afterall Eve ate that damn apple and the Bible says MEN are in charge)and that the government (made up almost entirely of rich white protestant men) should own and control a womens uterus. Because after all if you control the uterus you basically have control over the lives of women.

Think I am exaggerating about what we as women have to look forward to?

Check out his rulings and writings and postitions...

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20051114-015136-2101r.htm
Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr., President Bush's Supreme Court nominee, wrote that "the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion" in a 1985 document obtained by The Washington Times. "I personally believe very strongly" in this legal position, Mr. Alito wrote on his application to become deputy assistant to Attorney General Edwin I. Meese III.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/06/AR2005110600836.html
Planned Parenthood v. Casey
He reasoned that married women were a minority of those seeking abortions and married women who didn't tell their husbands a very small minority of those; because only a small percentage of women overall would be affected, the provision did not constitute an undue burden to the right
of abortion in general. His dissent suggests
an inclination to read abortion rights as narrowly as reasonably possible

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/01/11/durbin-exposes-alito/
Yesterday, when you were asked about one man, one vote, you clarified it. You said those were my views then, they’re not my views now.
When Senator Kohl asked you about the power and authority of elected branches as opposed to others, no; you said I want to clarify that’s not my view now.
And yet, when we have tried to press you on this critical statement that you made in that application, a statement which was made by you that said the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion, you’ve been unwilling to distance yourself and to say that you disagree with that.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1102/p01s04-usju.html
If there was any doubt about where US Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito stands on abortion, his 90-year-old mother quickly and decisively put that question to rest.
"Of course he's against abortion," Rose Alito told the Associated Press in a telephone interview from her Hamilton, N.J., home

*************

I don't get it

2005-12-29T06:22:00.000-08:00

If you read the web you will start to notice a trend.

A lack of care about what is going on in the world.

A need to focus on small issues while hiding the head in the sand to ignore big issues.

You will be hard pressed to find people talking about how the president lied to the american people (oh I am sorry he mis-spoke because the information he was given was incorrect)and that thousands of people have died, an entire region has been destabilized and country has been destroyed and America is less safe now then it has been at just about any point in our history.

But you will be able to find site after site of people who seem to think they have the right to make decisions concerning other people.

All women have to breastfeed...never mind the info they post in support of their stance is debateable...*THEY* know what is best for others.

Nobody should be allowed to smoke in public places...but god forbid a law be passed to reform pollution and wood smoke exhaust..both of which are bigger dangers to health then second hand smoke. (for info on the dangers of wood smoke including a comparison to second hand smoke check out http://www.burningissues.org )

Get a clue people....The US is in serious trouble....while you are focusing on the little issues that in most cases are none of your damn business...you are allowing a government to turn this country into a place where your civil liberties no longer exist.

And no the wiretaps, patriot act, library usage, etc etc etc scandals are not just something *terrorist* need to worry about and loyal patriotic americans are safe from....at least that is not true unless you believe the Quakers are terrorist threats to America?

Is this the USA or the USSA?

2005-12-20T08:12:00.000-08:00

Which do we live in? The Country founded on Freedom...or the Country becoming a clone of the old Soviet Union...

Nothing more I can say will tell as much as the following news items..

http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/12-05/12-17-05/a09lo650.htm
A senior at UMass Dartmouth was visited by federal agents two months ago, after he requested a copy of Mao Tse-Tung's tome on Communism called "The Little Red Book." Two history professors at UMass Dartmouth, Brian Glyn Williams and Robert Pontbriand, said the student told them he requested the book through the UMass Dartmouth library's interlibrary loan program. The student, who was completing a research paper on Communism for Professor Pontbriand's class on fascism and totalitarianism, filled out a form for the request, leaving his name, address, phone number and Social Security number. He was later visited at his parents' home in New Bedford by two agents of the Department of Homeland Security, the professors said. The professors said the student was told by the agents that the book is on a "watch list," and that his background, which included significant time abroad, triggered them to investigate the student further.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/19/nsa/index.html
President Bush defended Monday a secretive program that eavesdrops on some international phone calls involving U.S. citizens, saying the United States must be "quick to detect and prevent" possible near-term terrorist attacks.
At an end-of-the-year news conference, Bush spent much of his time answering questions about the program, which bypasses the normal procedure of attaining a court warrant and is designed to intercept communications between suspected terrorists in the United States and other countries.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/19/bush/index.html
President Bush defended using government wiretaps without court authorization to monitor terrorism suspects and urged the Senate to renew the USA Patriot Act during his year-end news conference Monday.
The president said he intends to continue using secret international wiretaps to monitor activities of people in the United States suspected of having connections to al Qaeda.
"To save American lives we must be able to act fast and to detect these conversations so we can prevent new attacks," Bush said during the event, in the East Room of the White House. (Watch Bush defend using secret wiretaps -- 2:23

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10454316/

A year ago, at a Quaker Meeting House in Lake Worth, Fla., a small group of activists met to plan a protest of military recruiting at local high schools. What they didn't know was that their meeting had come to the attention of the U.S. military.
A secret 400-page Defense Department document obtained by NBC News lists the Lake Worth meeting as a “threat” and one of more than 1,500 “suspicious incidents” across the country over a recent 10-month period.

http://www.forbes.com/work/feeds/afx/2005/06/24/afx2110388.html
US acknowledges torture at Guantanamo; in Iraq, Afghanistan - UN 06.24.2005, 11:37 AM GENEVA (AFX) - Washington has, for the first time, acknowledged to the United Nations that prisoners have been tortured at US detention centres in Guantanamo Bay, as well as Afghanistan and Iraq, a UN source said. The acknowledgement was made in a report submitted to the UN Committee against Torture, said a member of the ten-person panel, speaking on on condition of anonymity.

http://hrw.org/campaigns/torture.htm
Each day brings more information about the appalling abuses inflicted upon men and women held by the United States in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere around the world. U.S. forces have used interrogation techniques including hooding, stripping detainees naked, subjecting them to extremes of heat, cold, noise and light, and depriving them of sleep—in violation of the Geneva Conventions and the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. This apparently routine infliction of pain, discomfort, and humiliation has expanded in all too many cases into vicious beatings, sexual degradation, sodomy, near drowning, and near asphyxiation. Detainees have died under questionable circumstances while incarcerated.This must end. Torture or other cruel, inhuman, or degrading practices should be as unthinkable as slavery. U.S. Department of Defense officials have announced that certain stress interrogation techniques will no longer be used in Iraq. But President Bush should ban all forms of abuse during interrogation in Iraq and everywhere else that the United States holds people in custody. It is wrong in itself and leads to further atrocities.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-04-22-gitmo-cover_x.htm
President Bush ordered the Pentagon to create the tribunal system to try foreign terrorism suspects while guarding U.S. intelligence-gathering methods.
But Begg and the others won't have the range of traditional rights that defendants get in U.S. civilian courts. A year after the Pentagon began releasing rules for the tribunals, a picture is emerging of a system in which the scales of justice are tipped against foreign terrorism suspects in favor of protecting national security.
The system contains twists on defendants' rights that likely will be unfamiliar to U.S. citizens who are used to civilian and military courts anchored by independent judges and unbiased juries.
•There will be no independent judge, and no jury will be selected to decide a case.
The government will have broad discretion to hold portions of trials in secret.
Terrorism suspects who are acquitted by tribunals still could be detained indefinitely.

Not so Intellent Discussion of Intelligent Design

2005-12-19T08:10:00.000-08:00

There is lots of talk about Intelligent Design and Evolution...

I see two problems that are occuring here.

One is a misunderstanding of what Evolution is about. Evolution has nothing to do with creation. Evolution has nothing to do with WHY we are here. Evolution teaches about what happens as life progresses. It says nothing about HOW life came about.

In other words Intelligent Design has absolutely nothing to do with Evolution.

That is one reason why Intelligent Design has no place in the science classroom.

A second reason is a basic misunderstanding of the word THEORY.

Theory in scientific terms has a different meaning then it does in non-scientific terms. One word but two completely different meanings.

In laymans terms a theory is a hunch or a guess....something that may or may not have a basis in facts.

In scientific terms though a theory is not an unsubstantiated hunch or guess...it is: Theories are typically ways of explaining why things happen, often, but not always after the fact that they happen is no longer in scientific dispute. In referring to the "theory of global warming" for example, the worldwide temperatures have been measured and seem to be increasing. The "theory of global warming" refers instead to scientific work that attempts to explain how and why this could be happening.
In various sciences, a theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a certain natural or social phenomenon, thus either originating from or supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations made that is predictive, logical, testable, and has never been falsified.
In physics, the term theory is generally used for a mathematical framework derived from a small set of basic principles, capable of producing experimental predictions for a given category of physical systems. A good example is electromagnetic theory, which encompasses the results that can be derived from Maxwell's equations. This theory is usually taken to be synonymous with classical electromagnetism.
The term theoretical is used in science to describe a result that is predicted by theory but has not yet been observed. For example, until recently, black holes were considered theoretical. It is not uncommon in the history of physics for theory to produce predictions that are later confirmed by experiment; failed predictions, however, also occur, and sometimes work to falsify a theory. Conversely, at any time in the study of physics there can also be confirmed experimental results that are not yet explained by theory.
For a given body of theory to be considered part of established scientific knowledge, it is usually necessary for it to characterize a critical experiment, namely an experimental result not predicted by any existing established theory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

A case might be able to be made for including Intelligent Design in a Cosmology Class...but only if you are going to cover other Non-Scientific theories of how life began....like the theory that a giant ape sneezed and life was the result of that mucus explosion...

But you know I have a better idea...lets keep science (made up of facts and scientific theories) in the science classroom..and lets keep religious beliefs and non-scientific theories about the origin of life in religion and humanities classes...

Because science is about the HOW not the WHY.

Tookie or Teminator...who is the real monster?

2005-12-13T08:37:00.000-08:00

Last night the state of California put a man to death.

This man epitomized a human monster..a master of evil. He is responsible for thousands of deaths, millions of lives ruined because of drugs, uncountable numbers of beatings, rapes and robberies.

He was the co-founder of the Crips.

But since his incarceration he had became someone different. He had been redeemed. He had been rehabilitated. He had been transformed.

He had become an example of everything that we claim prison is there to achieve.

Prison is supposed to be a punishment for your crimes, but also a place for rehabilitation.

Tookie Williams was the posterboy for both.

So what was achieved by his execution?

The Terminator showed that in California prison is simply about vengence and punishment.

The US showed that it follows Paul the Zealot and has no use for the words and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth.

Maybe someday the US will become a Christian nation, as it claims it is, but for now the US has once again shown that it is a Paulian nation that doesn't care about redemption, but only about Vengence.

When the World Stopped

2005-07-12T07:35:00.000-07:00

There are several moments in history referred to as life changing moments for society at large. The instant when something momentuous, and usually tragic, occurred. For the rest of that generation *the* question becomes: where were you when?

I can think of several since I have been alive.

Where were you when Kennedy was shot?

Where were you when the first man walked on the moon?

Where were you when Saigon fell?

Where were you when the Space Shuttle exploded?

and of course the two biggies...

Where were you when the Murrow Bldg and the Twin Towers were blown up?

Times when in one blink of the eye the world changed forever. When you feel like Alice and wonder just what would be on the other side of the looking glass.

However there are other moments when the world also stopped for you. Private moments. Ones which you may be the only person aware that for a brief second the world stopped spinning and your reality was changed forever.

Like with the ones affecting large groups of people unfortunately the majority of these are tragic occurances. The ones which years later still make you want to curl up in a corner and pull a blanket over your head. That is because tragedy seems to leave a more lasting imprint on our psyche.

Sometimes you have to stop and think to remember that others though were miracles of joy.

These are the ones which years later still bring a flutter to your heart and a smile to your face.

The moments when the world stops spinning and we pass into that black hole is a defining moment for all. Whether we are talking about a private or a public one. They are what we use to shape whom we become. T

he question is:

Do we use the joyous ones to stop having empathy for those less fortunate?

Do we make the tragic ones an excuse to stop living or to lash out at others?

or do we use them to make both ourselves and our world a better place for all?

Unfortunately the tendancy at the present in both our private worlds and our world at large is to use tragic moments as an excuse to lash out and punish others...and to use joyous ones as an excuse to think we are better and more blessed then the those less fortunate.

How can you be a Christian and anti choice?

2005-07-01T10:43:00.000-07:00

Recently walking through a parking lot I saw a car with the following bumpersticker:

You can't be Catholic and pro abortion.

How silly. Nobody is *pro* abortion. Anyone who believes the argument about abortion is a pro or anti abortion one is either stupid or just unwilling to face reality.

I guess though for many people they have to refuse to face what the issue really is...because if they did, as a christian, they would not be able to continue with their mission.

Abortion rights are not about promoting abortions. They are about promoting knowledge. Complete knowledge about woman's individual reproductive decisions.

Personally I have never had an abortion. However I have been given the information concernign this option and asked if I would like to speak with a counselor concerning this option. No pressure was put on me. I was treated as a person who, if given the all the information, was capable of making the decision that was best for me.

Pregnancy is an intensely private affair. Nobody else can go through it with you. They can help you, they can comfort you, they can rejoice with you. But it is occuring in your body, and only you can know what it means. Something that may seem minor or unimportant to someone else may be more then you are capable of bearing or vice versa...a condition or problem that may seem overwhelming to others may not be for you.

We hear time and time again and see the billboards saying: Adoption not Abortion and 2 million couples waiting to adopt.

Why do none of those billboards mention the thousands of children awaiting adoption in this country? Why do none of those billboards mention the thousands of children in foster care, many in facilities because there are not enough foster parents. Instead of trying to force pregnancies on women, why are these people not worrying about the children already here?

Instead of focusing on making it the law that every pregnancy results in birth..why not try to make sure that every birth results in a wanted and loved child?

I had an old priest who gave a very unusual *life* sunday sermon. He talked about all life. Especially the already living. He told the parishioners that if they wanted to stop abortion to start volunteering. That more abortions are stopped by this then by all the laws in the world.
He finished by saying "If I see any of you picketing outside of Planned Parenthood today, I will stop and pick you up and take you to the food kitchen or pregnancy hotline to volunteer."

The main reason a woman has an abortion is because she feels that she has no other choice, or that this is the best choice she has available. Change that belief and you will cut the number of abortions. But you have to let go of your preconcieved decisions of what makes up a legitimate choice/option. Because you don't matter...what you believe doesn't matter....It is what the pregnant woman believes that matters.

The bumper stickers I want to see are two very simple ones:

How can you be a Christian and be anti-choice?

and

God can trust me with choices, why can't you?

Human Monsters and the Death Penalty

2005-03-19T09:41:00.000-08:00

There have been three big cases on the news this week.

Scott Peterson recieved the death penalty for the murder of Lacey Peterson and her unborn son, who was also his unborn son.

Robert Blake was found not guilty of the murder of his wife.

And just last night another monster in human clothing confessed to stealing Jessica Lunsford out of her bed while her parents slept and raping and killing the 9 year old child.

I am going to post some musings on each of these cases...and try to explain my feelings concerning *justice and the death penalty and what is expected of a juror* in the American Legal System.

IN THEORY...I think the DP is warranted for some crimes...some are so heinous that just as a mad dog or rabid animal has to be put down for the safety of society, there are some animals in human form that fall into that same area.

BUT I am against the DP IN PRACTICE because there is too great a risk of mistakes...

(that in our drive for vegence, in our need to make someone pay..

anyone pay...

in our belief that we can tell (gut instinct) if someone is guilty...

that nobody would be arrested if the police didn't have evidence...

that nobody would be found guilty of a DP crime if they really weren't)...

that innocent people who are only guilty of being different or odd...

or slow...

or black...

or hispanic...

or in the wrong place at the wrong time...

or looking like the person who did it....

or acting *wrong* according to societies norms...

will end up (as has happened too many times)being put to death for crimes they didn't commit.

So for me at least it is better that those rabid monsters masquerading as humans do not recieve the DP, then take the risk of a single innocent paying w/their life for a crime that they did not commit.

If we are going to err, then unless we want to be guilty of also simply masquerading as human, then we must always err on the side of compassion. Even if that means showing compassion to monsters who had no compassion for their victims.

Now turning to the issue of Scott Peterson.

I personally think he is guilty..but that does not matter.

The prosecution did not prove his guilt and that is what they are required to do, under law.

Instead the jury decided he was guilty and that he didn't prove his innocence..

When juries start deciding that it is not up to the prosecution to prove guilt, but instead it is up to the defendant to prove innocent it becomes dangerous for everyone in the US, because everyday in this county someone is arrested who could be innocent.

A jury is not supposed to decide if the person is Innocent or Guilty...they are supposed to detirmine if the prosecution did or did not PROVE guilt.

The Peterson jurors said: he didn't *act right*. That should not matter. Different people react differently to grief and stress.

Scott Petersons actions had nothing to do with his guilt or innocence of the crime. A juror is not supposed to like or dislike the defendant..they are supposed to listen to the evidence and decide if the prosecution proved their case.

The Robert Blake jury got the distinction.

That it is up to the prosecution to prove guilt and if they don't

then you have to find not guilty even if you *think/believe* the person committed the crime...

They understood, as too many people in the US do not, that not guilty does not mean you believe the accused is innocent.

Going back to Scott Peterson and his death sentence. It is a bad, bad, bad precident to set, to sentence a person to death in a case in which there was no physical evidence
and only circumstancial evidence
and the ability of the prosecutor to manipulate the jury better then the defense lawyer.

That is right Scott Peterson was found guilty cause the prosecutor was better at manipulating the jury then the defense lawyer. He was able to get the jury to vote based on their emotions, instead of based on the (lack of) real evidence presented.

Robert Blake, with the same amount of evidence against him, was found not guilty, because the defense lawyer was able to keep the prosectutor from manipulating the jury into voting with their emotions instead of their brains. Finally a jury understood what they are supposed to do... not decide guilt or innocence, but decide whether the prosecution PROVED guilt.

I saw an interview Friday morning on the Today showabout Robert Blakes not guilty finding.

A couple of the jury members said they didnot necessarily think he was innocent..

But they had to vote not guilty because there were other possible scenarios for her death and the prosecution did not prove that only Blake could have been responsible..

Blakey's daughter said the same..that while she believes Blake killed her mother, the evidence was too circumstancial against him and the case was not proven.

Too bad the Peterson jurors did not get the distinction between not guilty and thinking the person was innocent.

Maybe the court system needs to change how they describe the verdict instead of saying

"We the jury find the defendant *guilty/not guilty*"

they should have to say

"We the jury find that the prosecution *did/failed to* prove guilt".....

Hopefully something good will come out of Petersons DP sentence...

Maybe the courts will rule that the DP can not be used in cases that are decided completely on circumstancial evidence ONLY.

That in order to sentence someone to die for a crime that there MUST be physical evidence that they committed the crime.

Keeping a Body Functioning is not Keeping a Person Alive

2005-03-18T11:06:00.000-08:00

This is a complilation of posts I have posted at different websites concerning the Teri Schiavo situation and the MISinformation being spread in the Media.

Newsflash people: withdrawing nutrients is not *starving someone to death*. if you want the unbiased information about this case go to http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html you can read the actual court documents, etc. A very different story emerges then the one being spread by her family members. Teri is gone...her brain is atrophying and being replaced w/neuro-spinal fluid. Brain tissue can not be regenerated, ever. All the therapy and medical treatment in the world is not going to make any difference in her condition. She is in PVS..permanent vegatative state...permanent. http://www.sclhsc.org/mission_vision_values/ethics/pvs.asp also http://www.bethel.edu/~rakrob/files/PVS.html The persistent vegetative state may be defined loosely as a condition in which there is no awareness of the self or the surroundings though the patient appears at times to be awake. The condition results primarily from severe cerebral injury and is usually associated with but not limited to functionally complete destruction of the cerebral neocortex. The electroencephalogram (EEG) reading is either very depressed or flat. Under the microscope most patients' brains show extensive cortical destruction, but a small number may have more localized damage. Individuals in PVS are seldom on any life-sustaining equipment other than a feeding tube.{13} The brainstem—the center of vegetative functions (such as heart rate and rhythm, respiration, gastrointestinal activity)—is relatively intact. PVS individuals thus breathe spontaneously, their hearts beat regularly, and they show sleep-wake sequences. They may have a grasp reflex, may exhibit yawning or chewing movements, and may swallow spontaneously. When food and water are supplied the digestive system utilizes the nutrients, the intestines produce waste products, and the kidneys yield urine. Most patients are silent, but some groan at times. The heart, lungs and blood vessels continue to move air and blood. "Personality, memory, purposive action, social interaction, sentience, thought, and even emotional states are gone. Only vegetative functions and reflexes persist.{14} The American Academy of Neurology has concluded that PVS patients do not experience pain or suffering. Ronald Cranford, a leading authority on PVS, states that "from a neurologic standpoint, they simply do not experience pain, suffering, or cognition."{15} (Cranford is one of the doctors involved w/Schiavo case) Are PVS individuals permanently unconscious? If their condition is sometimes reversible, the decision to discontinue fluid and nutrition is a much more difficult one to make. If their condition is genuinely irreversible, the moral obligation for continuing artificial feeding is harder to establish. Do we know for sure that PVS patients cannot recover? To answer this question Schernmer presents the recent findings of Fred Plum, a professor in the department of neurology at the New York Hospital—Cornell Medical Center, and his associates. Plum has been at the leading edge in this area of neurological research. He and Bryan Jennett were the first to describe the medical condition of PVS after brain damage.{41} Plum’s latest findings{42} are highly significant. Using positron emission tomographic (PET) measurements of regional cerebral blood flow and glucose metabolic rate, [researchers] discovered there is no metabolic overlap between vegetative patients and either normal or locked-in persons. They also found that even patients with marked cerebral atrophy could not be confused on the CT [computerized tomography] scan with those in the vegetative state (complete cortical death).{43} What this means, according to Schernmer, is that for the first time since we began connecting people to machines that replace their vital organs we can now determine whether we are keeping a person alive or keeping a body functioning. He calls this a "welcome breakthrough" that "may provide us with our first truly ethical release from one aspect of the life-support dilemma."{44}

***********************

what the scans have shown w/TS is that we are simply keeping her BODY functioning..she is not being kept *alive*. Please take some time to read the actual medical and court documents instead of taking for truth the partial truths and misrepresentations of her parents, etc. I am speaking from experience here...w/both my FIL (following a car accident that ruptured his aorta) and my mother (she slipped into a coma following surgery for sepsis following bowel surgery and after her ovarian cancer had spread to her liver)..sometimes the greatest gift you can give a loved one is to allow them to die. Terri died many years ago...it is time to allow her body to rest as well.

**********************************************
more on the withdrawal of nutrients from a pvs patient Removing nutrients is not *painful starvation* for someone in PVS. They are not hungry..it is more cruel to continue forcing nutrients on them. Do you have any concept of how painful a gtube and catheter are that have been in place for years? That is cruel. Please read the links that have been given. You are operating under false assumptions. (in regards to what her husband has and has not allowed and what her actual medical condition is) In looking at comfort measures for the terminally ill, Billings went a stage further in noting: "... fluid depletion in dying patients should be regarded as a disorder with relatively benign symptoms. Successful treatment of the discomfort of thirst and a dry mouth generally does not require rehydration." By 1988, Printz had publicised the little-known situation where: ... A hospice nurse in 1983 noted a correlation between comfort and lack of medical hydration. It appeared to her that terminally ill patients in end-stage dehydration experienced less discomfort than patients receiving medical hydration. The dehydration, resulting from lack of nasogastric or IV fluid, seemed to produce a natural anaesthetic effect, often allowing for a reduction in pain medications. http://www.globalideasbank.org/creend/CRE-13.HTML A study by Andrews and Levine published in 1989 showed widespread support among hospice workers for dehydration in some terminal patients: '53% of nurses agreed that dehydration can be beneficial for the dying' Of the hospice nurses surveyed, 71 per cent agreed that dehydration reduces the incidence of vomiting, 73 per cent agreed that dehydrated patients rarely complain of thirst, 51 per cent reported that there is relief from choking and drowning sensations when fluids are discontinued, and 53 per cent agreed that dehydration can be beneficial for the dying patient. Also, 85 per cent of nurses surveyed disagreed with the need for hydration by IV and/or tube feeding when dehydrated patients have a dry mouth. Finally, 82 per cent of the nurses disagreed with the statement that dehydration is painful. They concluded that, in contrast to the assumption of most health professionals, dehydration was not painful, and that it was therefore a viable alternative to facilitate a comfortable death. "Isn't starving people to death cruel?" Persons in an irreversible coma or persistent vegetative state are in deep coma. They have no sense of time and they do not feel pleasure or pain. They do not sense the withdrawal of artificial nutrition and hydration. 'In a natural death, the terminally ill person refuses food and all but sips of water' For all of history, until very recently, people have been dying without artificial nutrition and hydration. In a natural death, the terminally ill person does not want and even refuses food and all but sips of water. It is natural for the dying to refrain from ingesting food and water. It is unnatural to "force-feed" the dying. In 1986, Belding Scribner, MD, Professor of Medicine at the University of Washington, inventor of long term artificial kidney treatment and consultant on nutrition and hydration, testified before the Washington State Senate about whether it is humane to withdraw hydration. He stated the following: Withholding of hydration has to be considered in two parts: First, the withholding of salt water (normal saline) causes no pain and suffering of any kind. It takes weeks or months for significant salt depletion to develop and, when it does, the effect is a gradual drop in blood pressure and eventually a painless death from severe low blood pressure. Secondly, concerning withholding of plain water, here is where opponents conjure up images of the '49ers dying of thirst in Death Valley with horrible thirst, swollen tongues and cracked lips. The case is quite different for the comatose, terminally ill patient lying in bed, usually in an air-conditioned environment. The condition of the mouth depends upon the oral hygiene provided by the nursing staff, not on the state of hydration. Thirst, if present, is very subtle and easily treated, where appropriate, with ice chips or sips of water. There is no other pain and suffering that occurs. http://www.hospicecare.com/Ethics/MacDoc.htm 1. Comatose patients do not experience pain, thirst, etc. 2. Fluid may prolong the dying process. 3. Less urine output means less need for bed pan, urinal, commode, or catheter. 4. Less gastrointestinal fluid and less vomiting. 5. Less pulmonary secretions and less cough, choking, and congestion. 6. Minimize edema and ascites. 7. Decreased fluids and electrolyte imbalance act as natural anesthetics for the central nervous system with decreased levels of consciousness and decreased suffering.

**************************************
ROUGH TIMELINE AND DECISIONS
I encourage anyone interested in this case to read the judicial decisions that have been entered. Most informative, from a factual point of view, are Judge Greer's orders and the Second District's decisions. The December 2003 guardian ad litem report to Governor Bush provides perhaps the most detailed factual chronology available.

December 1963… Terri's birth date

November 1984… Terri & Michael marry

February 1990… Terri suffers cardiac arrest and a severe loss of oxygen to her brain

May 1990… Terri leaves hospital and is brought to a rehabiliation center for aggressive therapy

July 1990… Terri is brought to the home where her husband and parents live; after a few weeks, she is brought back to the rehabilitation center

November 1990… Terri is taken to California for experimental therapies

January 1991… Terri is returned to Florida and placed at a rehabilitation center in Brandon

July 1991… Terri is transfered to a skilled nursing facility where she receives aggressive physical therapy and speech therapy

May 1992… Michael and the Schindlers stop living together

January 1993… Michael recovers $1 million settlement for medical malpractice claim involving Terri's care; jury had ruled in Michael's favor on allegations Terri's doctors failed to diagnose her bulimia, which led to her heart failure; case settled while on appeal

March 1994… Terri is transferred to a Largo nursing home May 1998… Michael files petition for court to determine whether Terri's feeding tube should be removed; Michael takes position that Terri would chose to remove the tube; Terri's parents take position that Terri would chose not to remove the tube

February 2000… Following trial, Judge Greer rules that clear and convincing evidence shows Terri would chose not to receive life-prolonging medical care under her current circumstances (i.e., that she would chose to have the tube removed) [READ]

April 2000… Terri is transferred to a Hospice facility

January 2001… Second District Court of Appeal affirms the trial court's decision regarding Terri's wishes [READ]

April 23, 2001… Florida Supreme Court denies review of the Second District's decision [READ]

April 23 or 24, 2001… Trial court orders feeding tube removed

April 24, 2001… Terri's feeding tube is removed

April 26, 2001… Terri's parents file motion asserting they have new evidence regarding Terri's wishes

April 26, 2001… Trial court denies Terri's parents' motion as untimely

April 26, 2001… Terri's parents file new legal action against Michael Schiavo and request that the removal of Terri's feeding tube be enjoined; the case is randomly assigned to Judge Quesada

April 26, 2001… Judge Quesada grants the temporary injunction, orders Terri's feeding tube restored

July 2001… Second District rules that Judge Greer erred in denying the motion alleging new evidence and, in essence, orders the trial court to consider whether new circumstances make enforcement of the original order inequitable; Second District also reverses the temporary injunction and orders dismissal of much of the new action filed before Judge Quesada [READ] (uncertain)… Terri's parents detail their reasons why enforcement is inequitable: (1) new witnesses have new information regarding Terri's wishes, and (2) new medical treatment could sufficiently restore Terri's cognitive functioning such that Terri would decide that, under those circumstances, she would continue life-prolonging measures; Terri's parents also move to disqualify Judge Greer (uncertain)… Trial court denies both motions as insufficient

October 2001… Second District affirms the denial of the motion to disqualify and the motion regarding the new witnesses; the appellate court reverses the order with regard to potential new medical treatments and orders a trial on that question with doctors testifying for both sides and a court-appointed independent doctor [READ]

March 2002… Florida Supreme Court denies review of the Second District's decision [READ]

October 2002… Judge Greer holds a trial on the new medical treatment issue, hearing from doctors for both sides and a court-appointed independent doctor; Terri's parents also assert that Terri is not in a persistent vegetative state Schindlers file emergency motion for relief from judgment based on a 1991 bone scan report indicating Terri's body had previously been subjected to trauma

November 22, 2002… Following trial, Judge Greer denies Schindlers' motion for relief (new medical evidence motion), rules that no new treatment offers sufficient promise of improving Terri's cognitive functioning and that Terri is, in fact, in a persistent vegetative state [READ]

November 22, 2002… On this same day, Judge Greer denies Schindlers' emergency motion related to the 1991 bone scan [READ]

June 2003… Second District affirms the trial court's decision denying Schindlers' motion for relief from judgment [READ]

August 2003… Florida Supreme Court denies review of the Second District's decision [READ]

September 2003… Terri's parents file federal action challenging Florida's laws on life-prolonging procedures as unconstitutional

October 10, 2003… Federal court dismisses Schindlers' case

October 15, 2003… Terri's feeding tube is disconnected

October 20, 2003… Florida House passes a bill to permit the Governor to issue a stay in cases like Terri's and restore her feeding tube

October 21, 2003… Federal court rejects injunction request

October 21, 2003… Florida House and Senate pass a bill known informally as "Terri's Law" to permit the Governor to issue a stay in cases like Terri's and restore her feeding tube [READ]; Governor signs the bill into law and immediately orders a stay; Terri is briefly hospitalized while her feeding tube is restored

October 21, 2003… Michael brings suit against the Governor, asking to enjoin the Governor's stay on grounds "Terri's Law" is unconstitutional; Judge Baird rejects Michael's request for an immediate injunction, allowing the tube to be restored, and requests briefs on the constitutional arguments involving the new law

November 7, 2003… Judge Baird rejects Governor's motion to dismiss Michael's suit and have case litigated in Tallahassee

November 20, 2003… Judge Baird rejects Governor's request for the judge to recuse himself

December 1, 2003… Guardian ad litem appointed under "Terri's Law" to advise Governor submits report to Governor [READ]

December 10, 2003… Second District rejects Governor's effort to have Judge Baird disqualified

April 2004… Second District affirms Judge Baird's decision denying Governor's motion to dismiss and have case litigated in Tallahassee [READ]

May 2004… Judge Baird declares "Terri's Law" unconstitutional on numerous grounds [READ]

June 2004… Second District certifies "Terri's Law" case directly to the Florida Supreme Court

July 2004… Schindlers file new motion for relief from judgment based on Pope John Paul II speech

September 2004… Florida Supreme Court affirms Judge Baird's ruling that "Terri's Law" is unconstitutional [READ]

October 2004… Judge Greer denies Schindlers' most recent motion for relief from judgment (motion based on Pope John Paul II speech) [READ]

December 1, 2004… Governor asks U.S. Supreme Court to review Florida Supreme Court's decision declaring "Terri's Law" unconstitutional

December 29, 2004… Second District affirms (without written opinion) Judge Greer's ruling denying Schindlers' most recent motion for relief from judgment

January 6, 2005… Schindlers file new motion for relief from judgment, alleging Terri never had her own attorney, that the trial court impermissibly applied the law retroactively, and that the original trial on Terri's wishes violated separation of powers principles

January 24, 2005… U.S. Supreme Court declines review in "Terri's Law" case

February 11, 2005… Judge Greer denies Schindlers' latest motion for relief from judgment [READ]

abstractappeal.com/schiav...l#timeline

***************************************

1. I do not agree it is *murder in the eyes of God* instead is allowing God to take Terri home and stopping mans interferance with the will of God. 2. Him being with another woman is a non-issue since TS is gone..there is a huge difference between keeping a body functioning and keeping someone alive...TS is no longer *alive* her body is simply being kept functioning by science. 3. When a person reaches a terminal state of illness the natural reaction of the body is to stop taking in nutrition..once again man is interferring w/Gods design to force nutrition on her body for no reason. If an animal was tortured in the is way the person involved would be imprisoned for cruelity to animals. Instead *christians* are complicit in the torture of TS. 4. Difference is TS is not in a *coma* of any type..not even a vegatative one..she is in PVS..which is completely different...and as scans have shown her brain tissue is dissolving and being replaced w/neuro-spinal fluid (which his brain was not having happen). Brain tissue can not be regenerated. If you would read the links I provided last time you would realize that opening her eyes in the manner which hers occurs is evidence of severe brains damage and minimal brain stem activity ONLY being left.

Please read through the documents at http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html

also Whichever model of recovery pattern was accepted by individual clinicians it was agreed that there were three phases of profound brain damage:

Coma State of unarousable neurobehavioural unresponsiveness. The patient does not have a sleep awake pattern (in absence of bilateral third cranial nerve lesion or lid apraxia) but may respond to painful stimulation by subcortical reflex pattern responses. It is generally accepted that coma rarely lasts more than one month before progressing into the Vegetative State or to higher levels of awareness.

Vegetative State The principle difference between coma and the Vegetative State is the appearance of a sleep-awake cycle and the return of bulbar reflexes. The term Vegetative State was coined by Jennett and Plum2 to provide a clinical diagnosis based on behavioural observations of the patient.

The term 'vegetative' was specifically chosen to describe "a merely physical life, devoid of sensation and thought".
The characteristics they described were:

Absence of any psychologically meaningful adaptive response to the external environment.

Absence of any evidence of a functioning mind which is receiving or projecting information.

Patient has prolonged periods of wakefulness.

Akinesia is relative because postural adjustments and stereotyped primitive withdrawals are usually possible.

Patients do not speak (verbalise) though may make sounds (vocalise).

Fail to signal appropriately by eye movements, although they sometimes follow moving objects in a slow intermittent pattern. Initially the EEG may be isoclectric, but considerable activity and even µrhythms may be found once the state has lasted several months.

Jennett & Plum2 describe in detail the type of clinical picture which may be seen in the Vegetative State:

After a variable period of coma patients open their eyes, at first to pain and then to less arousing stimuli.
This is then followed by periods with the eyes open.
May blink to menace but appear not to be attentive.
There may be roving eye movements and the patient's eyes may seem to briefly follow moving objects.

Reflex posturing.

Flexor withdrawal after a delay and is slow and dystonic and never takes the form of a brisk response.

Non-volitional grasp reflex may be present.

Fragments of co-ordinated movement, such as scratching or even moving the hands towards a noxious stimulus.

Reflex postural alterations of the limbs may be provoked by neck movements.

Chewing and grinding of teeth.

Liquid and food placed in the mouth may be swallowed.

Grunting and groaning may be provoked by noxious stimuli but no speech occurs.

No meaningful response to the spoken word.

More recently the Multi-Society Task Force on PVS3 gave the following criteria for diagnosing the Vegetative State:
No evidence of awareness of self or environment and an inability to interact with others.
No evidence of sustained, reproducible, purposeful, or voluntary behavioural responses to visual, auditory, tactile, or noxious stimuli.
No evidence of language comprehension or expression.
Intermittent wakefulness manifested by the presence of sleep-awake cycles.
Sufficiently preserved hypothalamic and brain stem autonomic functions to permit survival with medical and nursing care.
Bowel and bladder incontinence.
Variably preserved cranial-nerve reflexes (pupillary, oculocephalic, corneal, vestibulo-ocular, and gag) and spinal reflexes.
They go on to point out that in the Vegetative State patients are usually not immobile.

They may move the trunk or limbs in meaningless ways, they may occasionally smile, and a few may even shed tears, utter grunts or, on rare occasions, moan or scream.

Post Vegetative State
This is a state where the patient has progressed from the Vegetative State and is making definite responses to the internal (e.g. pain and bowel or bladder discomfort) and external environments which could be interpreted as being an expression of awareness.

.....A long life expectancy can be compatible with the Vegetative State.
Although a high proportion of patients in the Vegetative State die during the first six months it was the experience of members of the Working Party that a life expectancy of at least 15 years was common.
There are reports of people in the Vegetative State still being alive between 10-15 years after the brain damage.108,110
Jennett and Teasdale111 describe the case of a man who remained vegetative for 18 years.
The longest surviving PVS patient in the study by Tresch et al112 was 16.8 years in a 35 year old lady following a road traffic accident and she was still alive at the time of reporting.

The longest patient in 'coma' on record according to the Guinness Book of Records (admittedly not the most scientific of sources) is that of over 37 years though there is a case reported of a lady in the Vegetative State who is still alive 48 years after the brain damage.

LATE RECOVERY Although it has been stated that patients who are still vegetative at three months following the brain damage do not make significant levels of recovery there are several reports in the world literature of patients who have made a late recovery.

Andrews113 described a number of patients who recovered from the Vegetative State between 4-8 months after the brain injury, though many of these remained severely disabled.

Rosenberg et al114 describe the case of a 43 year old man who was in a Vegetative State for 17 months following anoxic brain damage before showing the first signs of awareness. He progressed to being able to tell stories and jokes though was unable to recognise complex collections of objects in pictures and was unable to read.

In another case115 a 44 year old man in a Vegetative State showed signs of recovery only one year following a subarachnoid haemorrhage to regain nearly normal physical and mental capabilities.

Information from the Traumatic Data Bank23 of 84 PVS patients who were followed up long-term (by phone rather than by clinical examination) found that 6% made some recovery between one and 2.5 years.
In a five year follow up116 of 30 patients in PVS, five recovered from PVS between one and five years though only two recovered to a level where they could communicate.
One was a 61 year old lady who was vegetative for three years following a subarachnoid haemorrhage.
The other was a 26 year old man who was vegetative for 8 months before beginning to respond. Both reached levels where they could read, watch television, write, calculate simple mathematical addition and subtraction, tell the time, feed themselves, were wheelchair independent and could speak well.

Other reports of recovery after a considerable length of time include that of an 18 year old lady in a Vegetative State for two and a half years following a road traffic accident. She progressed to a state within the following three years of being able to comprehend and communicate, take a considerable interest in her environment and able to establish interpersonal relationships114.

An even longer period of six years in a Vegetative State is described concerning a 25 year old woman who was involved in a road traffic accident. After 14 months of rehabilitation she was able to feed and groom herself and could dress and transfer with some assistance whilst her speech and cognitive function improved considerably. 118

(TS has been in PVS for 10 yrs) http://www.comarecovery.org/artman/publish/ReportOnTheVegetativeState.shtml

and http://www.bethel.edu/~rakrob/files/PVS.html

In recent discussions of euthanasia, coma, and the withdrawal of artificially supplied nutrition and fluids, considerable confusion exists where these topics intersect with the condition known as persistent vegetative state (PVS).

For example the terms "PVS" and "coma" are sometimes erroneously used interchangeably, especially by the popular media.

{1} Further, regarding the withdrawal of food and water from PVS individuals, some opponents of the practice wrongly allege the intention to kill (aiming at death) on the part of all who allow the practice.

{2} Such withdrawal is sometimes incorrectly viewed as euthanasia and is grouped indiscriminately with the deliberate termination of the lives of conscious yet severely disabled persons.

{3} Concerning the morality of withdrawing mechanical feeding in cases of PVS, two main positions have emerged, even within the evangelical Christian community.

Typical of the one side is Joseph Foreman, a founder of the antiabortion group Operation Rescue. Foreman called Cruzan's death a tragedy. "I think in the next few years you will see an entire industry spring up around putting people to death whom family, friends and so forth have deemed to be no longer of use to anybody," he said. "There will be wings of hospitals devoted to putting people to death like this."

{7} This side considers Nancy Cruzan's death a case of euthanasia and morally wrong.

Typical of the other side is Kenneth Schemmer, a surgeon in Orange County, California, and a member of First Evangelical Free Church of Fullerton.

A physician for twenty-five years, Schemmer stated his opinion before the Supreme Court heard the case. He argued that the Court "should allow Nancy Cruzan's living corpse to die."

In Schemmer's view "Nancy actually died on January 11, 1983, of anoxia" as the result of her car accident, which produced cardiorespiratory arrest. Because Nancy's cerebral cortex—the seat of consciousness, reasoning, value decisions, and everything else we associate with personality—was so severely damaged that it no longer functioned, only her living "animal" body remained. Her "mammalian body" should be allowed to die.

{8} What is a proper Christian response to the issue of PVS?

Specifically, should Christians ever request the withdrawal of fluid and nutrition from individuals in this condition? According to the American Medical Association there are an estimated 10,000 PVS patients in the United States. To disconnect food and water from those in PVS will almost certainly result in dehydration and starvation within seven to fourteen days. To continue to supply food and water will ensure the maintenance of bodily processes for a time, often for years (the longest PVS case on record is thirty-seven years), but will almost certainly not lead to improvement in the patient.

{9} ......... The human body must always be respected—in death and dying as well as in life—because the person who was, while on earth, the image of God functioned as God's representative through that body. But the prolongation of biological life in the apparent absence of personal life is not mandated by the Christian principle of respect for life.{55} Because equipment is available to feed a body does not mean that it should always be used. Some who oppose withdrawal of artificial feeding tubes are unwilling to have such devices connected to themselves or their loved ones in the first place, if their prognosis should be for a prolonged and permanent vegetative state. This unwillingness to connect feeding devices reveals that such persons actually agree that whatever may be used to prolong bodily existence is not always morally obligatory. If it were obligatory, no upright person should ever hesitate to connect artificial feeding equipment to a loved one who would by this means be enabled to live possibly many more years, if only in a vegetative state.{56} In Christian ethics one's intention is always a key factor in determining the morality of a given action. To disconnect the feeding tube from a PVS individual must never be done with the intention to kill—to take a person's life. Our attitude and intention should be that of turning the individual over to God's providence, allowing the condition to take its course. Yet—as with many conditions judged "hopeless" by human standards—we may hope beyond all reason for hope that God will yet quicken the loved one if that would honor him and be best for the patient. Even though we may be quite reasonably assured that the individual's personal life is over, we may hope otherwise.

********************************

To sum this up: Terri Schiavo no longer has the capacity to feel anything..the parts of her brain that allow feeling have been totally destroyed. She can not feel cold, heat, pain, hunger, thirst, etc...

This issue has a personal tie for me. My mother fought Ovarian Cancer for 7 yrs, before losing her fight for life on May 5, 2004.

We removed my mothers feeding tube and iv nutrients on May 1, 2004..

(my mother died of ovarian cancer...she slipped into a coma (not pvs) following a second surgery in 2 weeks to try and clear up sepsis from the previous surgery to clear an intestinal blockage from scar tissue, my mother was not going to get better..if she did come out of the coma she only had days, possibly weeks of horrendous pain to look forward to because the cancer had spread to her liver).

We did leave a morphine pump attached *just in case* for my fathers peace of mind...and we also agreed that if she showed any signs of hunger we would restart the nutrients.

In the days before slipping into the coma my mother was in agony...she was in pain even with the morphine drip/pump...

she kept drifting into other states of mind..

she would ask us to bring her mother to her (my grandma died 2-14-89)...

she would tell her mother that her shoes were too tight...

she kept asking to go home...

she could not eat or drink anything..even ice chips made her gag..

My mothers physical death was very peaceful and gentle,

once the tubes were removed and we allowed her body to shut down naturally.

She lay still (no more moving around as if searching for something..

no more shaking her head making murmering sounds...
no more lines of pain etched into her face...
no more mouth held tight as if in pain)..

she looked peaceful, like the mama of my childhood.....

she never roused..
she never showed discomfort...
she never showed hunger or thirst....

she breathed in and out....slower and slower as the days progressed.

.and at 8:30 AM on May 5, 2004 she took a last deep breath, let it out and went home to God.

The only thing *horrendous* about this procedure was that we were losing the last earthly contact with someone we loved so much..

.my father was losing the ability to sit beside the woman he had loved for 50 yrs and talk to her...
to look at her face and see her breathing in and out...

but in return we knew we were letting her go because it was what was best for her...and we were doing this because it was the only thing left that we could do for her.

The feeding tubes, etc were no longer *keeping my mom ALIVE* they were simply *keeping her body functioning* and it was time to let go with human interferance and let God decide.

Lets put the Reason back in the Season.

2004-12-23T05:57:00.000-08:00

There is a lot of hoopla going on right now by some conservative groups to "put Christ back into Christmas". I personally don't think we need to "put Christ back into Christmas", instead I think we need to remember the "reason for the season"...Jesus.

The conservative christians focus so much on Christ that they seem to forget about Jesus. They focus on the words of Paul and seem to forget the words of Jesus. Jesus of Nazareth seems to have become completely unimportant in their worship of Christ of Paul.

Jesus of Nazareth was not about exclusion, he was not about following the letter of the law, he was not about don'ts and shall nots. Paul is the writer of those things. Jesus of Nazareth was about love and acceptance. He was about the spirit not the letter. He was about the do's and the shall's. Paul said "don't associate with non-christians", Jesus said: "love your neighbor as yourself". Paul said "hold yourself apart from the world", Jesus said: "let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Paul said "christians should only marry christians", Jesus said "let all come to me".

Christmas is about more then just the birth of Christ, it is supposed to be a celebration of the gift to the world of Jesus. The early church realized that you can not keep out the world and that you cannot force converts, so they incorporated important things from other religions into Christianity. The exact date of the birth of Jesus is not known, because they did not find it an important event. They were more focused on the resurrection or the rebirth of Jesus. When it came time to establish an observance of the birth of Jesus, they chose the date of an important pagan celebration..Mithras day and changed that to the birth of Jesus and ordained that instead of orgies and secular celebrations, it would be observed with a Chirst Mass, a day of worship. They practiced what Jesus had taught, inclusion-not exclusion.

You can not celebrate the birth of Jesus if you are only concerned with Christ. This season forget about "putting Christ back in Christmas" and instead work to be a living reminder of the "reason for the season". Emulate Jesus and accept all people without judgement by wishing each and everyone of them a "happy holiday", because their is only one God, no matter what the name that is used, and when you try to claim exclusive right to God, you have already taken Christ out of Christmas and forgotten the reason for the season.

Explain to me again how stem cell research is immoral.

2004-12-16T05:42:00.000-08:00

Thirty plus years ago my father watched as his parents slipped into the mist of time. Isn't that a pretty way to say that they went, as it was called then, senile?
They both had hardening of the arteries. First they would forget things. Nothing major, they still were able to live alone, together. I was only 3 or 4, and I only have vague memories of these grandparents. I remember (or think I do) that my grandpa was a big man. About the only clear memories I have of grandpa is sitting on the porch and listening to him tell stories about working on the railroad. I can't remember those stories, I just know that was what the stories were about. I can remember him singing "Old Dan Tucker", and I can remember walking down the block to the gas station to get a soda pop. My sister would get a grape soda, I would get an orange soda and Grandpa would get a root beer, and he would always tell us not to tell grandma, cause she didn't approve of *beer*. I must have spent all my time at their house with grandpa outside, cause I don't have any memories of being inside with grandma.
But slowly their forgetfulness became worse and my father had to place his parents in a rest home. He didn't want to, but had no choice. He didn't have the money to hire home health care, and our house wasn't big enough to take them in. He had three children and a two bedroom home. Thankfully my father will be spared losing himself to *the mists of time* because when he was in his 60's his doctor discovered he had morbidly high chloresterol. Not just high, his was past that designation, and chances are so were his parents. My dads number was 430. No that is not a misprint 4 (four) hundred and 30 (thirty). Medication and diet has brought his count down and his arteries now at age 80 are *clean as a whistle*.
Asthma runs in our family. Severe asthma. Asthma that mimics cystic fibrosis. Asthma that causes high fever and so much mucus that mucus plugs form and cause you to choke and gag for air. Constriction that sends you into dry heaves and delirium from oxygen deprivation. My dads grandmother died 3 yrs (to the day) before he was born from an asthma flare. When my dad was 8, his 15 yr. old sister died from asthma as well, following a burst appendix. Because of medical advances my son survived his asthma (at least he has to age 24) and my neice survived a burst appendix last year.
Last May my dad set by the bedside of my mother as she finally lost her fight with ovarian cancer. After 7 yrs of fighting, after 4 operations, after countless hours of chemo, my mom took her last breath and went home to God. Leaving dad alone, at age 80, after 46 yrs of marriage to carry on alone. She also left him to face their oldest daughters cancer and death alone as well. The same day as my mom had her final surgery, a week before she died, my sister was diagnosed with stage 4 colon cancer that has metasticized into 4 lung nodules and 12 lymph nodes.
Not too long ago I sat in church and listened as my priest explained how we as catholics have a responsibility to make sure that medical advances are ethical. How using embryonic stem cells for research is not ethical, because those cells come from potential life. My thought was and is: explain to me what is ethical or moral about allowing people to suffer, go through torture, and die when we can prevent it? Who are we to decide that the ways and means that God has given us to try and prevent this is *unethical*. Why is it ethical and moral to allow the already living to die, because of refusal to use cells that have the *potential* for life? And please explain to me how it is ethical to allow others to go through the torment of watching loved ones suffer and die when we have the ability to use stem cells to prevent this? Because I just don't get the reasoning. It doesn't seem either ethical or moral to me.
I guess I just have to accept that different people have different views of what is and isn't *ethical*, but I am not sure why in a country that holds as one of its highest principals, the separation of church and state, we are so willing to allow religious ethics and morals to make medical and scientific decisions.

The Original Religious Right

2004-12-10T11:41:00.000-08:00

The Religious Right of Jesus' day

The religious right is nothing new. They existed at the start of the Church as well. These were the Jews who were only concerned with the letter of the law and with making sure that everyone else lived by their interpetation of that law.

But they weren't the Pharisees, the Pharisees were the Liberal Jews. They were the Sadducees..and they were despised by the religious right then just as now. The problem with this behavior by the current day religious right, by the current day Sadducees, is that Jesus was a Pharisee..a liberal...and when they condemn the Liberal Christians they are condemming Jesus, in essence.

The Religious Right, the Conservative *christians* are not really followers of Christ the Pharisee, they are actually followers of Paul, the Sadducee.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sadducee ....Most of what we know about the Sadducees comes from Josephus, who wrote that they were a quarrelsome group whose followers were wealthy and powerful, and that he considered them boorish in social interactions.....They rejected the rabbis' interpretation of the Torah, and are presented as denying that any of the Hebrew Bible, apart from the Torah, is authoritative. As to the Torah itself, the Sadducees are presented as interpreting it literally and rigorously on subjects it directly covers, while rejecting the Rabbinic traditions that mitigate the harsher penalties or aim at preventing unintentional rule-breaking......According to the Talmud, in regard to criminal jurisdiction they were so rigorous that the day on which their code was abolished by the Pharisaic Sanhedrin under Simeon ben Shetah's leadership, during the reign of Salome Alexandra, was celebrated as a festival. The Sadducees are said to have insisted on the literal execution of the law of retaliation: "Eye for eye, tooth for tooth", which pharisaic Judaism, and later rabbinic Judaism, rejected. On the other hand, they would not inflict the death penalty on false witnesses in a case where capital punishment had been wrongfully carried out, unless the accused had been executed solely in consequence of the testimony of such witnesses.......and the Liberal Lefthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharisee .....In contrast to other Jewish groups of the time, such as Sadducees, Pharisees held that the books of the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible, also called the written law) have always been transmitted in parallel with an oral tradition. They pointed as proof to the text of the Torah itself, where they said many words were left undefined, and many procedures mentioned without explanation or instructions; the reader is assumed to be familiar with the details from other sources. This parallel set of material was originally transmitted orally, and came to be known as "the oral law". By the year 200 much of this material was edited together into the Mishnah, the core document of rabbinic Judaism. Thus, from the Saduccee and Essene point of view, the Pharisees were the liberal party, which allowed for flexibility in the interpretation of the law..... The Pharisees, on the other hand, claimed Mosaic authority for their interpretation, at the same time asserting the principles of religious democracy and progress. With reference to Ex. xix. 6, they maintained that "God gave all the people the heritage, the kingdom, the priesthood, and the holiness" (II Macc. ii. 17, Greek).....the Pharisees represented also the principle of progress; they were less rigid in the execution of justice ("Ant." xiii. 10, § 6), and the day when the stern Sadducean code was abolished was made a festival (Meg. Ta'an. iv.).While the Sadducees in adhering to the letter of the law required "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth," the Pharisees, with the exception of Eliezer ben Hyrcanus, the Shammaite, interpreted this maxim to mean due compensation with money (Mek., Mishpatim, 8). The principle of retaliation, however, was applied consistently by the Sadducees in regard to false witnesses in cases involving capital punishment; but the Pharisees were less fair. The former referred the law "Thou shalt do unto him as he had intended unto his brother" (Deut. xix. 19, Hebr.) only to a case in which the one falsely accused had been actually executed; whereas the Pharisees desired the death penalty inflicted upon the false witness for the intention to secure the death of the accused by means of false testimony (Sifre, Deut. 190; Mark i. 6; Tosef., Sanh. vi. 6; against the absurd theory, in Mak. 5b, that in case the accused has been executed the false witness is exempt from the death penalty, see Geiger, l.c. p. 140). But in general the Pharisees surrounded the penal laws, especially the death penalty, with so many qualifications that they were rarely executed (see Sanh. iv. 1)The laws concerning virginity and the levirate (Deut. xxii. 17, xxv. 9) also were interpreted by the Pharisees in accordance with the dictates of decency and common sense, while the Sadducees adhered strictly to the letter......

How do we change the perception of Mr. & Mrs. Middle America

2004-12-07T05:51:00.000-08:00

I recently read two articles about *why* the democrats lost the election from the viewpoint of the other side. I posted these on a democrat support board and all the responses were "well I am not going to change to repug" or "if you support them you should go there".

Not one single poster seemed to care that these viewpoints are what Mr. and Mrs. Middle America believes, because of the superb selling job by the radical conserves. I am not talking the fundamentalist who voted for Bush. I am talking about your moderate neighbor. The ones that you can't understand why in the world they voted for Bush, cause after all financially they are in the same place that you are.

What many liberals, especially the more extremist ones, do not get is that Mr. and Mrs. Middle America, do not vote based on the economy or on the war. They don't believe their finances are affected by who is in power. They completely believe that *all* politicians are rich boys, who are out to screw the middle and lower class.

Instead they base their vote on *god, guns and booze*

Here are short excerts of the two articles:
http://www.oaoa.com/columns/edit111004.htm The post-mortems on the Bush election victory have been fascinating, especially those coming from supporters of Sen. John Kerry. Some Democratic backers have been remarkably sober in their judgment. But others have drawn conclusions of the sort that will only make it more difficult for Democrats to win future national elections.Democratic strategist Bob Bechtel said on the Fox network’s “Hannity and Colmes” that Democrats need to reach out to pro-life voters. That’s an amazing concession and a recognition that the reason Democrats failed to attract enough voters in the red states has something to do with Democratic priorities and the contempt Democrats often have for Middle America....Democrats need to evaluate these trends rather than engage in the name-calling and demonization of red-state America that some commentators are engaging in. That may be enjoyable, soon after a bitter election loss, but it’s destructive in so many ways.

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=5699 Have you witnessed the fallout from the latest election -- how it has affected Liberals? It has unmasked them entirely. They think religious people are stupid. Not just stupid, dangerous.Make that Christians. More specifically, make that Evangelicals. The Left, the base of the Democratic Party, hail the virtues of tolerance and consider themselves to be the tolerant citizens of America. In their touting of tolerance they express their obvious disdain for those whose views run contrary to that of enlightened Liberalism. Dare to make a statement of conviction of any kind, and one of these Leftists will set down his cheese and wine, pause his lecture on the virtues of plurality and the absurdity of the belief in absolute Truth, and tell you your convictions -- everything you believe and hold dear -- are absolutely wrong. Where does he get his understanding that what you claim is "right" is actually not? Against what standard is this wrongness measured? He can't say. All he knows is that you're a bigot, you're intolerant, you're not worthy of being an American. In fact, you're not smart enough to understand what it means to be an American.And not only are you dumb, you're dangerous. Fanatics like you don't belong in a "tolerant" culture like ours. You and your beliefs and the people who share them should not be allowed in our civilized society . . . or, at the very least, you should be denied the right to vote. Because when you vote, when you're politically active, you screw everything up. People like you foist upon the world monsters like Ronald Reagan, George Bush, Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, and Antonin Scalia.People like you are the most likely to attack America: you're no different than the Islamists who fly planes into buildings, suicide-bomb pizzerias, detonate car bombs in the middle of busy streets, and blow up buses. At least those Islamic terrorists had a reason: America, pushed by people like you, has oppressed the Arab world. Yes, you are the reason 3,000 Americans were killed on September 11.Nowhere has your un-Americanism been more poignantly explained and demonstrated than on the New York Times opinion pages over the last two days. Need evidence? Here are portions of five opinion pieces that made it into the ever-so-prestigious (and self-righteous) newspaper of record........
**********************************************************************************

This is the perception of the dems and libs that the repubs have been able to sell to Mr and Mrs middle america.
I am not saying change to repub or that bushie boy has did anything good for the country.
And even if I were, that is not relevant to the situation.
Because Mr. and Mrs. middle america doesn't *get* that..to them the repubs are protecting their god, guns and booze...and keeping the dems from turning all their kids into promiscous gays and lesbians..who will use abortion as birth control and do satanic and pagan rituals in school...
These articles hit it exactly bullseye on how the dems and libs are now percieved by Mr. and Mrs. middle america, not just by the extremist fundies.
So how do we change this perception..cause the way we did it in this election did not work...and going even further to the left wont work.
In my dream america Dennis Kuc would be president and Bill Clinton would be Secretary of State..but I know that will never happen..so I am willing to compromise on what my exact perfect situation would be and try to come up with candidates and stances that while staying true to the core of the liberal platform and beliefs are watered down enough that we can win back the middle vote..cause right now all we are doing is to let the conserves have all the power and I have to live with the very realistic fear of all abortion becoming back alley again, the government being in all of our bedrooms and McCarthy style witchhunts starting up again...and I am not willing to be at blame for those things simply because I refuse to compromise while bitching that the conserves wont compromise and have no concern w/what 49% of the voters want...

Debt Reduction and Real World

2004-12-06T10:42:00.000-08:00

I sat in church on sunday and listened as the priest spoke about some old friends who are involved in a debt reduction contest. He spoke glowingly of how they able to reduce their debt by $92,000 by selling one of their houses and no longer eating out and only doing family recreation that was free. He enthused about how these people would have did well living in the time of Christ, because they understood the message of *living simply*.

But what I heard was a story of a family who was blessed with material wealth. Their *sacrifice* did not seem like a sacrifice to me, or an example of living simply.

What the priest apparently doesn't realize is that most people don't have an extra home they can sell to reduce their debt. They have one home, either with a mortgage or rental payments.
And as the economy has spiraled downward and jobs and salaries have done likewise, as the cost of living has climbed. Most middle americans and those below the middle mark already don't eat out. They don't take family vacations and they only do family activities that are free.

The lifestyle he was enthusing about is the reality of much of the real world.

I would have been much more impressed if his story had been about Mr. & Mrs. Average American who were now growing their own food, making their own clothes, cutting their own wood for heat and walking or riding a bike to work and/or school.

His example was simply of a family blessed materially who had fat that could be easily cut w/out any worries about how to pay for the medicine that the doctor prescribed for a sick child.

Don't get me wrong, some of the stories on the website are inspiring. However the one the priest held up as an example, to me, was not one.

The website he referred to is: http://www.totalmoneymakeover.com/challenge/vote/

Extremist Christians and Extremist Atheist: Two sides of the same coin

2004-12-03T12:33:00.000-08:00

I have come to notice when discussing religion that there are three subgroups.

The largest group are those who believe that everyone should believe whatever they want/need to believe. This group is made up by both christians and atheist.

The other two groups are much smaller, but also much more vocal.

They are the extremist christians and the extremist atheist.

They are really one and the same.

I am sure both sides will take offense at that statement, but it still holds true.

Both groups of extremist have more in common then they do in opposition.

They believe in their moral and intellectual superiority.

They believe that they hold the patent on the *truth*.

They refuse to compromise their beliefs in any way, shape or form.

They want to inflict their viewpoint on everyone and force everyone to conform to that viewpoint.

So I have an idea.

They should start their own political party.

Instead of Conservatives, Moderates and Liberals and instead of Republicans, Democrats and Libertarians, lets have Extremist and Non-Extremist.

The only hope for this country is if those in the middle start to speak up and neutralize the extremist on each end of the spectrum.

What is Lady Liberal

2004-12-02T13:07:00.000-08:00

Just what it says. A blog by a lady liberal. One who is desparately trying to understand what has happened to our country.
Why have the forces of fear been embraced by so many?
Is it because of the internet and instant news?
Is the world really such a scarey place to so many people that all they want is for someone to tell them what to do so that everything will be okay?
How do we teach people that it is okay to think?
Okay to question, okay to not be sure?
That admitting you don't know or that you made a mistake, or that you didn't have all the info is not a weakness, but actually a sign of strength.
How do we convince people that just because someone can scream the loudest "I am a christian and I *know* what Jesus would do", doesn't mean a whole lot, if they also don't live the life?
Why is this country once again regressing to the same social conditions and beliefs that led to the Salem Witchtrials and the McCarthy witchhunts?
I am scared by what I am seeing occur in our country..it is a repeat of what has happened so many times before in so many other places, and it never has a good result in the long run.