PINELLAS PARK, Fla. -- Theresa Marie Schindler Schiavo died today, ending an agonizing 15-year odyssey that divided a family and a nation over her right to die. She was 41.
Schiavo took her last breath 13 days after her life-sustaining tube was removed by a court order.
Experts said her story was a lesson for countless Americans who never discussed, much less wrote down, what they would want if they were suddenly thrust into her tragic situation.
"Thanks to Terri, people who have never had that conversation are having it right now," said Kenneth Goodman, a medical ethicist at the University of Miami. "That is her legacy."
There is a God. She didn't die of gangrene or a heart attack or infection, or any of the other miserable ways the bedridden can die. Of course, Jesse Jackson is making an asshole of himself on CNN. He's talking about health care for normal people, which means he just doesn't get how evil his new friends are.
Do these people understand that they wanted to condemn Schaivo to a miserable, painful death? That the parents were so unhinged that they didn't care if she suffered from other diseases as long as she was alive?
Now the circus will go into overdrive. The fundies are singing. Pasty face white folks with no jobs holding a tent revival. Ah, thank you Bill Frist, thank you Tom DeLay. Without your interference, none of this would have become the most important story in America. It would have taken years to expose them. Thanks to your catering to the most deranged elements in US society, we now see them exposed and the GOP tied to them like a chain gang.
One of the wacko priest supporting the Schindlers, said the brother and sister were asked to leave so Michael Schaivo could spend the last minutes alone with his dying wife. He said "his heartless cruelty continued".
What? Heartless what? The Schindlers slandered this man, allowed protesters to haunt his small children, tormented him for eight years and they want to talk about heartless cruelty? They tore into him for years, slandered him and placed his life in danger. There's been plenty of heartless cruelty and it lays at the feet of the Schindler's.
BY JOSHUA ROBIN, GRAHAM RAYMAN AND PRADNYA JOSHI STAFF WRITERS
March 30, 2005, 9:23 PM EST
The Jets are expected Thursday to win MTA approval to build a West Side stadium, according to a key authority board member, but the team still faces steep obstacles before its long-awaited home field rises along the Hudson River.
Legal and political challenges stand before the $1.9 billion stadium -- including lawsuits from Cablevision, environmentalists and neighborhood groups.
Cablevision, which owns Madison Square Garden and proposes a residential community on the Metropolitan Transportation Authority site, struck at the last minute yesterday with a letter asking the MTA to disqualify the Jets based on the claim that the team violated a ban on bids contingent on zoning changes.
In response, an MTA spokesman would only say that the letter would be forwarded to board members.
The demand came as the Jets were perched to capture a major victory today. By the estimates of Pataki-appointed MTA board member Barry Feinstein, all or nearly all of the required 14 MTA votes would be cast for the Jets over Cablevision and a Brooklyn gas company.
In recent days, Feinstein and six other board members have voiced their support for the Jets proposal.
"There's been no indication that there's any support for the Garden's bid," Feinstein said.
But stadium backers must also win over officials who hold the power over zoning and funding requirements. Among them are Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver (D-Manhattan) and City Council Speaker Gifford Miller (D-Manhattan).
Silver, sphinx-like, has carefully refused to state a position; Miller, a mayoral contender, is opposed to the stadium and has called on the MTA to delay today's vote.
Feinstein, who said he backs the stadium, conceded it could take several years before the first kickoff.
"Your children will enjoy going to the opening game -- he said, adding "I'm assuming you don't have any."
Delaying the project may be legal battles against the larger stadium plan that have already begun. There is pending litigation from the Garden and West Side residents alleging the city omitted and mistated facts in rezoning the area.
The fight for the stadium has just begun. The MTA is likely to be sued over this process by Cablevision, the city is likely to be sued for rigging the process, The residents of Hell's Kitchen are likely to file several suits, the City Conucil is likely to withhold funding and be sued. In short, this will kick off at least five years of litigation. The problem for the Jets is that unless Bloomberg is the next mayor, the city will not support the stadium project.
If I was Freddie Ferrer, I would be jumping up and down for joy if the MTA approved the bid, I would be estatic. Why? Because the stadium is poison to Bloomberg. It hurts him with every ethnic group, across income groups and across the city. It is the single largest reason people will vote for anyone else. The fact that this will drag on and the Olympics is likely to go to Paris, is going to define the election. Why? Because the stadium is not the only Olympics related suit. Several sites planned for Olympic venues will also be subject to litigation as well. The IOC would be quite foolish to choose New York as a solo bid. Without using Northern New Jersey as a joint bid, where many of the facilities already exist, litigation will tie up and even cancel needed facilities.
The stadium still faces bitter opposition regardless of the appeal for jobs. I think Al Sharpton's support will cause him more problems than help the Jets. Because people see that money going away from city services and no one makes a case that won't be true. They can argue it, but no one believes it.
I think the stadium is such a negative for Bloomberg that it will become the main issue which defeats him.
Bob Somersby makes one hell of a point about Wonkette
THE BEST THEY CAN DO: For ourselves, we never criticized Wonkette—nor would we have done so—until Tom Brokaw insulted the nation by dragging her onto NBC after the second Bush-Kerry debate (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 10/6/04). Who is Wonkette? A vacuous figure who peddles a pre-feminist, backlash persona—the smutty vamp with the dirty mouth, the slut who can’t stop talking about booze and sex. There’s a certain kind of man who loves that crap—and yes, the “press corps” is full of them! At any rate, Brokaw dragged her onto the air, and E. J. Dionne dragged her out just last week, with the completely predictable outcome (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 3/28/05). Adding insult to injury, of course, Brokaw put Cox on the air as a “liberal.” But let’s let Leiby describe her further. Here’s the “liberal spokesman” Brokaw threw on the air to discuss a presidential debate:
LEIBY (9/28/04): Celebrating her 32nd birthday and arrival as a New York Times Sunday mag cover girl, Ana Marie Cox—better known for her dirty-minded Internet persona, Wonkette—had a predictable reaction to the latest article boosting her fame: "I liked the part about me being a bitchy lush," she told us at a party in her honor at a U Street rooftop bar Sunday night. (Also predictably, she was quaffing champagne.)
The piece elevated Cox to goddess status in the blogosphere, detailing her activities—not to be confused with "work," we assure you—at the Democratic and Republican conventions. The cover featured Cox in a white tank top—the better, perhaps, to show off what the article described as her "peachy cream skin"—flanked by old-media campaign scribe Jack Germond and fellow veteran R.W. Apple Jr. ...
Inexplicably, the piece overlooked one key fact: Cox is married. Her husband of 41/2 years—Mr. Wonkette, also known as Chris Lehmann, formerly of The Post and now an editor at New York magazine—called it a "weird detail to omit." But, he said, "the blog is a persona. I think our marriage proves that you can talk slutty and still be a devoted spouse."
Yes, that is the best the Post newsroom can do, a fact we’ve discussed for the past seven years. When will people who do fine policy work accept the unpleasant but obvious truth about this lack of involving ideas—this trait which defines our modern “press corps?”
Now, I don't know how Bob keeps sane, tracking the lies of the Beltway Kool Kids Klub.
But this post points out the one thing I don't get about these folks, Ms. Cox has a husband. So unless she really is a slut, and I think that's not the case, all this leering is seriously pathetic. Maybe it's me, but wedding rings usually kill any erections I get. Dead.
Goddess? At this rate, it's like the line from About Last Night "if she didn't have a pussy, there would be a bounty on her ass." The left bloggers are disgusted with her profound incompetance in public. Me? I know she's not part of our little people's collective and she isn't going to work on the farm. It's all about her. But if I were her, I'd start covering my ass and making friends.
Here's the deal: the drinking slut is an act, and a bad one. At least when Liz Phair did it, you had the feeling she really did have that stray dick in her mouth. With Wonkette, it's all a cheap act, poorly done.
Why?
Because the much fired Ms. Cox has made stop after stop from Suck, to Mother Jones to the Chronicle of Higher Education and is in reality as much of a geek as the rest of us, but sees her career clock flashing before her eyes. So she works for Nick Denton and plays at being some kind of drunken slut.
What are the hazards of such a career? She should stop by her husband's job and talk to Amy Sohn, who used to write in incredible detail about her sex life for the NY Press. Well, it came up to bite her in the ass when she found people didn't seperate her column from her. And she found out that if you act like a slut, you get treated like a slut. And oddly enough, she didn't like it.
Or someone doesn't get that it's an act and actually comes on to her, in a serious way. And that's not fun either and I'm not talking about Big Media Matt or some other kid, but a horny old man, the kind which litters Washington.
But what I don't get is how guys are fooled. I think if you took Ana, not Wonkette, to Babes in Toyland, or Good Vibrations, her face would be as red as a Skins jersey. She would stammer and find a way to get the fuck out of there, running. Why? Because it's an act. You think her husband bangs her in the ass? Yeah, right. He'd probably have to walk through Anacostia in a white hood and robe first. She just likes to talk about it. I bet she's never even kissed another woman. Come on, someone who gets married at 27 and then at 32 turns into a drunken slut HAS to be acting. If she was having such great sex at 27, she wouldn't have married, what five years out of school? She just wants you to think she's this wild woman.
In my experience, the women who have interesting sex lives are loathe to let you know it. They don't run around and talk about drinking and assfucking because of the consequences, which is being tagged a slut. And that is the death knell of a reputation.
The whole idea of the dame, which is what that persona is, is not only retro, but somewhat undignified. Because it implies a woman who is, despite her attitude, subservient to men and their desires.
The feminists I know seem to get a lot more from sex than women playing at being dames. Because they can embrace their sexuality honestly and without playing at being what they aren't. If they like assfucking, it's on a need to know basis, not a public declaration.
I wonder if we're just beating up on her because she's famous, sort of. But then I talk to female bloggers and they HATE that image. It's like a slap in the face to them. For the most part, they're serious women who work hard to be well regarded, Wonkette undermines them.
But the reason the poor woman is the subject of such ire is this: if you go out to slay dragons, there better be some dead motherfuckin' dragons at your feet. Don't go pet them on the nose and pat them on the head and play burn the village with them. Not one person has said: "Steve, you're picking on her, you're jealous." They use invective to describe her instead, And not one word of it would see print if she went out once and kicked ass. There wouldn't be 70 fucking people screaming that "she isn't one of us" if she could kick a little ass and not play with the dragons.
Republicans embarass us. Why didn't they choose the baby hippo instead
Will the GOP need life support? A prominent conservative blogger says Republican leaders have abandoned the traditional principles of small government and federalism -- and warns they may soon come to regret it.
- - - - - - - - - - - - By Glenn Harlan Reynolds
March 31, 2005 | The Terri Schiavo story is a tragedy in the truest sense. It is a case in which there are no happy endings and in which the mighty fall. One thing that has fallen is the notion of the Republican Party as a bastion of federalism and limited government. Some might argue that this notion was already in doubt, in light of the Bush administration's less-than-parsimonious budgeting, but pork is part of politics, and you have to expect a certain amount of give in that department.
Widespread Republican support for legislation taking an individual case away from state judges and placing it in front of the federal judiciary is another thing. The "if it saves just one life, it's worth it" argument has more typically been associated with gun-control activists, and other groups that are generally looked down upon by Republicans, but now many in the GOP seem to have picked it up as a slogan. Indeed, the entire notion of the "rule of law" -- itself once a favored slogan of conservatives -- seems to have fallen into disrepute. Quite a few conservatives are unhappy about that state of affairs, and I wonder if it doesn't presage a realignment within the Republican Party, and the fracturing of some alliances on the right.
Schiavo hysteria certainly has some Republicans in its grip. Bill Bennett wrote that state law doesn't deserve our respect if it conflicts with natural law. Bennett went on to urge Florida Gov. Jeb Bush to risk impeachment by violating the orders of the Florida Supreme Court. Fox News' John Gibson was less measured. "Just to burnish my reputation as a bomb thrower," he wrote last Friday on the Fox News Web site, "I think Jeb Bush should give serious thought to storming the Bastille." In other words, Bush should consider sending police in to remove Schiavo from the hospice and reattach her feeding tube. "The point is, the temple of the law is so sacrosanct that an occasional chief executive cannot flaunt it once in a while, sort of drop his drawers on the courthouse steps and moon the judges, as a way to protest the complete disregard courts and judges have shown here, in this case, for facts outside the law," Gibson wrote.
Judge bashing has been a staple of Republican rhetoric for a while, though the judges being bashed have more often been federal than state judges. And, to be fair, the judges have often been generous in providing ammunition, offering rulings that strain the facts or go beyond settled law, though that doesn't appear to be the case here. In fact, the courts seem to have been very thorough, and hardly liberal activists. (Florida law blogger Matt Conigliaro notes that Pinellas-Pasco Circuit Judge George Greer, the trial judge, is a Republican and a Southern Baptist.) Some people on the right are pointing that out and are appalled at their colleagues' rhetoric. Daniel Henninger wrote in the Wall Street Journal that while Greer has ruled against Terri Schiavo's parents many times, so have Florida's appeals court, the Florida Supreme Court, U.S. federal courts and the U.S. Supreme Court. "It is difficult for me to believe that these are all 'liberal' judges intent on 'killing' Terri Schiavo," Henninger wrote.
But the judge bashing has gone on, and Congress' rush to pass legislation intervening in the case was unprecedented. This is too much for some conservatives, and quite a few libertarian fellow-travelers such as myself. As Nashville Christian-conservative blogger Bill Hobbs wrote, "I have not written about the Terri Schiavo case because it is too complex, too multi-layered, and too steeped in unknown or unknowable facts for me -- indeed for most people -- to have a fully informed opinion ... I do know that the Congress did the wrong thing, intervened where it had no Constitutional right, and solved nothing."
...........................
Some activists -- like Bill Quick -- want to set up a MoveOn-type organization, only with the goal of dragging the Republican Party in a small-government direction. Others are threatening to vote Democratic next time. More, I suspect, will remain Republicans, but less committed ones: less likely to donate, volunteer, or turn out to vote. A Republican Party that was winning elections by landslide margins might not mind that. But I don't think that today's Republican Party has that luxury. The Schiavo legislation looks like that classic political misstep, a move that's dramatic enough to upset people, but not dramatic enough to satisfy the hard core. (Bush is now being savaged by pro-lifers for not doing enough.) In the end, I suspect it would have been better to stick to principle. It usually is.
Instacracker smells civl war.
And so do I.
Well, Glenn, you didn't discourage the Jesus freaks when they were voting your way. You let them blather on about abortion, bash judges and gays and now you sit back horrified?
Bwaaaahhhh.
We told you so. We told you these people were batshit crazy. We told you this would happen, that the devil would want his due. And Satan's got Saddam Hussein and Kenny along for the ride and he wants to collect in spades.
Imagine a large red man with horns standing in a room with Karl Rove:
Karl: But, but we paid you
Satan: Paid me? Motherfucker, you ain't pay shit. The GOP sold me their soul and I am going to collect.
Saddam: That's right bitch. Pay up, piggie.
Devil: Soul, motherfucker. You wanted my deluded minions to elect you. Now, they WILL be paid. Or YOU will pay. Seen Jeff lately?
Rove: But America will think we are crazy
Devil: So? is that MY problem. I think not, Karl, I think not. Like I said, payment is due. Good night, Karl.
Saddam: Pay up bitch.
You guys led the fundies on for years and did you think they would be happy with speeches? A few useless laws on stopping gays. No my friend, they expected you to back word with deed, not excuses. You boys ran around with the cross, made it seem as if you were one, and now, you back down? No, no, no. Not so simple.
They smelled the Okey Doke when Bush forgot to push his fag bashing amendment. Didn't have the votes he said. Didn't seemed concerned. Then, this mess happened. They expected action, not excuses, no excuses.
And while you may be tempted to pay them off with something else, the rest of the GOP is watching in absolute horror. While they liked the votes, they don't like paying for them. Who does? Too bd so many Republicans were so cowardly that they refused to step in and say anything, while Randall Terry and the Schindlers became the face of the GOP.
WASHINGTON — The U.S. military's Abrams tank, designed during the Cold War to withstand the fiercest blows from the best Soviet tanks, is getting knocked out at surprising rates by the low-tech bombs and rocket-propelled grenades of Iraqi insurgents.
In the all-out battles of the 1991 Gulf War, only 18 Abrams tanks were lost and no soldiers in them killed. But since the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, with tanks in daily combat against the unexpectedly fierce insurgency, the Army says 80 of the 69-ton behemoths have been damaged so badly they had to be shipped back to the United States.
At least five soldiers have been killed inside the tanks when they hit roadside bombs, according to figures from the Army's Armor Center at Fort Knox, Ky. At least 10 more have died while riding partially exposed from open hatches. (Related story: Tanks adapted for urban fights they once avoided)
The casualties are the lowest in any Army vehicles, despite how often the Abrams is targeted — about 70% of the more than 1,100 tanks used in Iraq have been struck by enemy fire, mostly with minor damage.
.......................... Because it was designed to fight other tanks, the Abrams' heavy armor is up front. In Iraq's cities, however, insurgents sneak up from behind, fire from rooftops above and set off mines below.
A favorite tactic: detonating a roadside bomb in hopes of blowing the tread off the tank. The insurgents follow with rocket-propelled grenades, mortars and gunfire aimed at the less-armored areas, especially the vulnerable rear engine compartment. ..................................
"Be wary of eliminating or reducing ... heavy armor" as the Army modernizes, the officers warn, arguing it is crucial against insurgents' "crude but effective weapons."
The Army says most of the "lost" tank hulls can be rebuilt and returned to battle someday. Meanwhile, the Army is upgrading the Abrams, including better protection for the tank's engine compartment.
By R. Jeffrey Smith Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, March 31, 2005; Page A01
The Army has deployed a new troop transport vehicle in Iraq with many defects, putting troops there at unexpected risk from rocket-propelled grenades and raising questions about the vehicle's development and $11 billion cost, according to a detailed critique in a classified Army study obtained by The Washington Post.
The vehicle is known as the Stryker, and 311 of the lightly armored, wheeled vehicles have been ferrying U.S. soldiers around northern Iraq since October 2003. The Army has been ebullient about the vehicle's success there, with Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, the Army chief of staff, telling the House Armed Services Committee last month that "we're absolutely enthusiastic about what the Stryker has done."
But the Army's Dec. 21 report, drawn from confidential interviews with operators of the vehicle in Iraq in the last quarter of 2004, lists a catalog of complaints about the vehicle, including design flaws, inoperable gear and maintenance problems that are "getting worse not better." Although many soldiers in the field say they like the vehicle, the Army document, titled "Initial Impressions Report -- Operations in Mosul, Iraq," makes clear that the vehicle's military performance has fallen short.
The internal criticism of the vehicle appears likely to fuel new controversy over the Pentagon's decision in 2003 to deploy the Stryker brigade in Iraq just a few months after the end of major combat operations, before the vehicle had been rigorously tested for use across a full spectrum of combat.
The report states, for example, that an armoring shield installed on Stryker vehicles to protect against unanticipated attacks by Iraqi insurgents using low-tech weapons works against half the grenades used to assault it. The shield, installed at a base in Kuwait, is so heavy that tire pressure must be checked three times daily. Nine tires a day are changed after failing, the report says; the Army told The Post the current figure is "11 tire and wheel assemblies daily."
"The additional weight significantly impacts the handling and performance during the rainy season," says the report, which was prepared for the Center for Army Lessons Learned in Fort Leavenworth, Kan. "Mud appeared to cause strain on the engine, the drive shaft and the differentials," none of which was designed to carry the added armor.
Commanders' displays aboard the vehicles are poorly designed and do not work; none of the 100 display units in Iraq are being used because of "design and functionality shortfalls," the report states. The vehicle's computers are too slow and overheat in desert temperatures or freeze up at critical moments, such as "when large units are moving at high speeds simultaneously" and overwhelm its sensors.
The main weapon system, a $157,000 grenade launcher, fails to hit targets when the vehicle is moving, contrary to its design, the report states. Its laser designator, zoom, sensors, stabilizer and rotating speed all need redesign; it does not work at night; and its console display is in black and white although "a typical warning is to watch for a certain color automobile," the report says. Some crews removed part of the launchers because they can swivel dangerously toward the squad leader's position.
Well, don't you people want to change the country? You don't like the radical right? Well, you're not going to confront them in the street with baseball bats. You have to wage this battle in forums and panels and on TV shows.
Yet some of you wonder why bother.
Because that's where they are. They are in those places and the people who run Brookings need to understand that if they have a panel, they better include us just like they do the right.n This isn't whining or weakness. It is a sign of strength. When Brookings gets e-mails asking why people representing your point of view isn't included, they notice. When they get calls, they really notice. This outsider/cool bullshit is just that. The game is inside. Even the late, sainted Hunter Thompson knew that. He wasn't ranting about being an outsider, he met with presidential candidates.
Being outside the process means that the process can run right over your ass.
This is the way politics is played in Washington and it took us this long to realize it. Sure, we raised a shitload of cash, but that's only one aspect of power. Unless you're seen with the other players, you don't count. No matter how brilliant you are, unless you're on the stage, you don't count. Just because the game is rigged, doesn't mean you don't have play.
Getting It Wrong March 30
Members of the National Press Club,
In our previous letter, we noted with concern that serious liberal political bloggers are being intentionally excluded from the academic and media dialogue on blogging. We protested your exclusion of serious liberal political bloggers from an upcoming panel on which you have placed the conservative political operative Jeff Gannon, neé Guckert.
This panel portends to discuss the meanings of the words "journalist" and "blogger" and whether the two are different things or one and the same. We note that this topic has once again been raised in light of the Gannon case, although the debate on blogs as journalism has been going on for years here in the so-called "blogosphere." As Gannon is not a blogger, we feel his inclusion means that the panel is largely about Gannon himself and what his specific case means in context of the discussion. We also note, as you must have, that Gannon's presence on the panel will allow him to once again air his side of the story. Who will air the other side?
While we commend your about face by extending an invitation to Matthew Yglesias to sit on this panel, it ignores the larger issue. We think highly of Yglesias' work publicizing the mission of bloggers and don't want to exclude him, or anyone, from the panel, but he was simply not a central player in regards to the Gannon story. A panel on the case of Jeff Gannon, especially one including Gannon himself, should have representation from someone who did heavy lifting there, someone intimately familiar with the process that brought Gannon's identity and his relationship with the White House Press Corps to the public eye. That voice must be a blogger who was a key player in the investigation of Gannon, his role in the media and his background.
Many people at various blogs, including SusanG at Daily Kos, Media Matters, World O Crap, Atrios, and AMERICAblog were at the fore of this investigation. Traditional media ignored the story until bloggers uncovered it. That's why you're having a panel on it. However, not one of the individuals who worked hard on the story was approached with an invitation to speak on the panel. Even outside the context of right versus left, this exclusion raises a serious issue of journalistic imbalance. This was not a careless oversight. The institutional press is giving the investigated his voice while not allowing the investigator to have its say.
Thus, we cannot recommend strongly enough the inclusion of AMERICAblog's John Aravosis on this panel. He has volunteered to be the representative of those who worked on the Gannon investigation.
As we have noted above, you're discussing a story broken by blogosphere yet cutting out the very people who made it a story there. This exclusion is shortsighted and raises questions of journalistic imbalance and ethical malfeasance. Thus, we again must raise our collective voice and insist that John Aravosis sit on the panel.
Sincerely,
Sean-Paul Kelley, http://www.agonist.org Think Progress, Think Progress DCMediagirl, http://www.dcmediagirl.com Ezra Klein, http://ezraklein.typepad.com Echidne of the snakes, http://www.echidneofthesnakes.blogspot.com Amanda Marcotte, http://www.pandagon.net Mark Karlin, Editor and Publisher, http://www.BuzzFlash.com Matt Stoller, http://bopnews.com Democratic Underground http://www.democraticunderground.com/ Lindsay Beyerstein http://majikthise.typepad.com Shakespeare's Sister, http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com and http://www.bigbrassblog.com Bob Brigham, www.SwingStateProject.com Dave Johnson, http://www.Seeingtheforest.com Matt Singer, http://www.leftinthewest.com Kos, http://www.dailykos.com Kari Chisholm, http://www.blueoregon.com Steve Gilliard, http://stevegilliard.blogspot.com/ Kevin Drum, Political Animal Crooks and Liars, http://www.crooksandliars.com/ Brian Balta, http://balta.blogspot.com That Colored Fella, http://www.ThatColoredFellasweblog.bloghorn.com Anna Brosovic http://annatopia.com/blog.html skippy the bush kangaroo http://www.xnerg.blogspot.com David Neiwert Orcinus http://www.dneiwert.blogspot.com Julien 's List http://www.educatedeclectic.blogspot.com General J.C. Christian, http://patriotboy.blogspot.com/ Laura Rozen, http://www.warandpiece.com/ Liza Sabater, http://www.culturekitchen.com Chris Patil, http://www.marchingorders.org Billmon, http://www.billmon.org Ralph Dratman, http://newsfare.com David (Austin Tx), http://supremeirony.blogspot.com Ellen Dana Nagler, http://bopnews.com Sean Carroll, http://preposterousuniverse.blogspot.com media girl, www.mediagirl.org Joe Giblin Stephen Anderson, http://steveaudio.blogspot.com -Kevin Hayden, American Street Elaine Supkis Culture of Life News II Melanie Mattson Just a Bump in the Beltway Kenneth Bernstein http://teacherken.blogspot.com ZenYenta http://zenyenta.blogspot.com James E. Shirk www.degenerateart.blogspot.com Hugo http://hugozoom.blogspot.com/ Dennis Perrin -- Red State Son Margaret Imber http://pudentilla.blogspot.com Read The Otter Side http://otterside.blogspot.com Kerry Lutz http://www.100monkeystyping.com Kelly B http://spacetimecurves.blogspot.com/ Carla, http://preemptivekarma.com/ Wes Flinn, Walk In Brain Greg Turner, http://www.independentreport.org Jeremy, http://upyernoz.blogspot.com Dean Lawrence Velvel, www.velvelonnationalaffairs.blogspot.com The Purple Coalition http://purplecoalition.blogspot.com/ Erik Wilson, The Generik Brand Clif Burns www.OutsideTheTent.com Sandra Wooten, Dallas, Texas Nico Pitney, Center for American Progress Hughes for America, http://hughesforamerica.typepad.com/ Ben Varkentine, http://blogs.ink19.com/soundcrowd/ As I Please http://barneymac17.blogspot.com/ Lane Schwark, Dr. Laniac's Laboratory stumpy, stumpysfindings.com Jeff Tiedrich, Editor and Publisher, The Smirking Chimp Ryan Pitts, Dead Parrot's Society Paperwight, Paperwight's Fair Shot The Farmer, http://corrente.blogspot.com Mr. Thomas M. Fiddler, Somerset, KY 42502 Sidsel Anderson, http://www.newframes.typepad.com Boadicea, We are the Resistance Frederick Rhine, BeatBushBlog Riggsveda, It's My Country Too! John J. McKay johnmckay.blogspot.com Larry Hosek, Silence Is Consent ice weasel, private blog James Benjamin, The Left End Of The Dial exceive, http://www.moonwaves.com/exceive/ Charles Kuffner, Off The Kuff Chris Bowers, MyDD Tom Burka, Opinions you Should Have Bill Scher, Liberal Oasis
From Bill Mears CNN Washington Wednesday, March 30, 2005 Posted: 5:08 PM EST (2208 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In a victory for older workers, the Supreme Court concluded Wednesday that people over 40 can sue for alleged age discrimination under a less burdensome legal standard of proof.
The justices ruled 5-3 that older workers can sue in federal court over claims of "disparate impact" -- the loss of wages or benefits enjoyed by younger employees. Previously, older workers had to prove their company had "discriminatory intent," a higher legal standard.
Wednesday's ruling means that companies and employers can be held liable for age discrimination even if their policies were not meant to be discriminatory.
The ruling made clear it might still be difficult to win cases of age discrimination, even under the relaxed standard that will apply to bringing such a suit.
The court agreed that 30 police and public safety officers in Jackson, Mississippi, had the right to bring a case alleging disproportionate harm because younger officers were given proportionately higher wages.
Yet the justices dismissed the lawsuit, saying the older workers failed to prove "harmful" discrimination.
"It is clear from the record that the city's plan was based on reasonable factors other than age," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in the majority opinion. "We hold that the city's decision to grant a larger raise to lower echelon employees for the purpose of bringing salaries in line with that of surrounding police forces was a decision based on a 'reasonable factor other than age,' that responded to the city's legitimate goal of retaining police officers."
Stevens turns 85 next month and is the court's oldest member.
Briefs filed with the court show that about 75 million people -- almost half of the U.S. work force --
Gilly--WOW, looks like Bush's plan to pimp out the ENTIRE judicial branch just ain't working.
This is a MAJOR legal victory--I still bitterly remember the dotcom days, and how so many older working moms got turned away by buttheads who rode scooters to work....
PINELLAS PARK, Fla. — A week ago, the demonstrators outside Terri Schiavo's hospice were mostly calm. They prayed, sang hymns and awaited word from protest organizers about legal developments in the case, hoping their presence might help save the brain-damaged woman.
By Sunday, after nine days of legal defeats for Schiavo's parents in their effort to have her feeding tube reattached, much of the optimism was gone. Last week's unity among the demonstrators had splintered, and an undercurrent of anger ran through them.
Their ire was directed at Michael Schiavo, Terri's husband, who successfully petitioned the courts to have her feeding tube removed; at state judge George Greer, who has ruled consistently in his favor; and increasingly, at President Bush and Florida Gov. Jeb Bush.
"If Gov. Bush wants to be the man that his brother is, he needs to step up to the plate like President Bush did when the United Nations told him not to go into Iraq," Randall Terry, a protest organizer, said of the governor. "Be a man. Put politics aside."
Sharon Mull, who drove here from St. Augustine, said she had written three letters to the governor in the past few days. "It seems like he could have intervened more," she said. "At this point, it's getting too late to help this woman. She's being tortured. She's being murdered."
Last Monday, President Bush signed an emergency bill from Congress enabling Schiavo's parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, to have federal courts hear their appeal to restore her feeding tube. Gov. Bush asked state courts for permission to take custody of Schiavo. But the Schindlers have been turned down by every court, and the president and the governor have said they can do no more.
Among the messages on protest signs Sunday: "Barbara Bush: Are you proud of your sons now?" "Stop the American Holocaust!" "Send in the National Guard!"
And that's gone so well, Randall.
This is an American freakshow gone haywire. When Jesse Jackson called the black members of the Florida Legislature to take the Schindler's side, they politely hung up on his ass. Is he that desperate for the spotlight? I guess the answer is yes. Sun Hudson died without a word from Jackson.
They had to stungun a guy who rushed the hospice today.
This business will get out of control. It will get out of control and we will be lucky to live through it.
Be a man. What the fuck is he talking about, be a man. This piece of shit who torments pregnant teenagers. Who abandoned his own family. Be a man is advice that he never fucking followed.
You know, freaks usually keep out of sunlight. They work best in the dark, slinking along. But this Schiavo case just blew up into this freakshow, some mad contest to the bottom of the rule of law, with no one able or willing to put the brakes on. Jeb cowering, George prentending he didn't unleash the loonies, Randall Terry acting like a Serbian paramilitary, but with only one rapist by his side. When the fuck did medical decisions become tests of machismo?
And what fanatsy world do these people live in? Jesus isn't going to lead the PSTD ridden Florida National Guard in some kind of kidnappimg. What the fuck do they think this is, Die Hard 5, the fundies strike back? What do they think is going to happen? Sam Jackson and Bruce Willis are going to save the day with a helo and some smoke bombs?
And none of these fuckers seem to consider what would happen if they actually got poor sainted Terri? Well, the odds are they would kill her. Yeah. Kill her dead.
Reality left the room long, long ago. The idea that Terri Schiavo can speak is so bizarre as to be funny, if there weren't people charging the doors of the hospice. When does the gun nut who won't stick up a gun store, just walk in and buy weapons instead show up. I'm surprised that someone hasn't said Jesus told them to shoot the cops and rescue Terri, because things are just that crazy. You can't keep screaming murder and then expect everyone to go "oh well, she's gonna be murdered", like she was a nigger on death row. Someone is going to act. These sick fuckers are even calling in bomb threats.
And when they do, I hope someone tries to sue the Schindler's back in time. They did this, they created this circus, robbed their daughter of dignity, robbed the other dying of dignity, tortured the innocent, placed Michael Schiavo kids in mortal danger, and didn't thank anyone for anything. Hell, they sold the begging list to all comers. They allied with people who consort with terrorists. Remember Paul Hill? Walked right up to a doctor and shotgunned him to death. Guess who he ran with? Terry and Mahoney. In just a little digging, we found out one protestor was a convicted rapist and another was an admitted torturer and anti-muslim bigot. If you did a background check, you'd have more people who had been in the system than a Liberty City street corner.
The thing about a mob is that it is not controllable. Once you unleash them, they can do anything they choose, like riot.
It is amazing what people will do to get what they want. The fact that their daughter was so bulemic that she had a heart attack and died is so obvious and so directly attributable to her control freak mother that they call out the circus to hide this. But while it will diminish, the freak show is far from over. There are the dueling books, the tours on Christian radio and TV, the lawsuits, in short, this mess will linger on, our only hope is that it stays around long enough to bite their sponsors right in the ass.
By Derrick Z. Jackson, Globe Columnist | March 30, 2005
DESPITE promising us a compass, charter schools have hit another shoal. More evidence says they are no better than public schools.
''Proponents of charter schools have a deregulationist view of education that says the marketplace leads to better schools," Lawrence Mishel, president of the nonprofit, nonpartisan Economic Policy Institute, said over the telephone. ''The facts of the matter suggest that this view is without merit."
Mishel and three other university researchers from Columbia and Stanford universities are authors of the forthcoming book ''The Charter School Dust-Up." The researchers reviewed federal data and the results from 19 studies in 11 states and the District of Columbia. They found that charter school students, on the whole, ''have the same or lower scores than other public school students in nearly every demographic category."
In a politically charged environment where the White House and many governors, including Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, are pushing charter schools, the authors found that federal data ''fail to confirm claims that the performance of charter schools improves as these schools accumulate experience." Charter schools four years or older ''report lower scores than new charter schools."
Coauthor Martin Carnoy, an economics and education professor at Stanford, said one of the most telling findings was that low-income African-American students, the group many charter advocates claim to want most to help, showed no improvement. The study found that the test scores of low-income black students in charter schools are lower than in the public schools in both math and reading. That is despite the fact that a lower percentage of black students are low-income in charter schools (68 percent) than in public schools (76 percent).
.................................... Also, many charter schools rely on less-experienced, uncertified, and often less-well-paid teachers. In a regular central city school, 75 percent of the teachers have more than five years' experience. In a charter school the percentage is only 34 percent. In public high schools, 70 percent of the math teachers either majored or minored in math in college. In a charter high school, the percentage is 56 percent. ''While freedom from certification rules undoubtedly permit charter schools to hire teachers who are more qualified than typical teachers in regular public schools, the data do not reveal evidence that charter schools, on average, are actually using their freedom to do so," the authors wrote.
.........
.''If you want to talk about real improvements in education, you are probably going to have to talk about vastly expanding early-childhood education and targeted in-school and after-school programs for kids," Mishel said. ''We are probably talking about substantial after-care and a community schools approach that incorporates health, social services, and housing. It's going to take a full-court press . . . to attract quality teachers to stay in schools. It's not going to be one single thing."
It is certainly not going to be -- by themselves -- charter schools.
Public schools which are funded and supported by the community can work.
Only in the US do we so little value our public edcuation system that we want to fragment it and slowly grind it up in the name of saving it.
A group of liberal bloggers has issued an "Open Letter" protesting the inclusion of the infamous Jeff Gannon on a panel at the National Press Club. Now, don't take it on my word that this crowd is a bunch of clueless whiners. Let them demonstrate it to you in their own inimitably whiny words: "We, the undersigned bloggers, are very concerned about how liberal political bloggers are being systematically under-represented and belittled in the mainstream media, academic settings and media forums. By being intentionally excluded away from these venues, we are effectively pushed out of the discourse of opinion-leaders. The result is that the conventional wisdom about blogging, politics and journalism, as it concerns liberal blogs, becomes a feedback loop framed by the Conservatives and their media allies."
"... we are faced with an entirely new situation that is more insult than misrepresentation. The discredited conservative media operative Jeff Gannon, neé Guckert, has been invited to sit on a panel at the prestigious National Press Club to talk about the scandal surrounding his access to the White House and more generally, the similarities and differences between bloggers and journalists. Guckert's token liberal counterpart will be a gossip blogger and sex comedy blogger. While we have nothing but the greatest respect for Mr. Graff and Ms. Cox we believe that neither represents bloggers who write about hard-nosed politics. And as for Mr. Guckert, he isn't a blogger, he's barely a journalist, and not a single political blogger involved with the Gannon/Guckert scandal, or otherwise, has been invited to sit on the panel to counter Mr. Guckert's arguments.
"Therefore, we the undersigned bloggers, respectfully but firmly insist that a serious political blogger such as John Aravosis, of Americablog.org be included on the panel to fairly and accurately represent our industry and us. Mr. Aravosis has agreed to our request that he serve on the panel as our representative and is available should such an invite be forthcoming.
"This situation is simply unacceptable. We will push back against the growing bias and sloppiness we see in the mainstream media as it concerns serious political blogging. If we do not we will never achieve any semblance of balance in the media. If we do not, we abdicate our ability to tell our own side of the story. If we do not we leave it to others to define us and defame us. "
A more insufferable prissiness would be hard to imagine. These people really take themselves far too seriously -- and their only problem is that nobody else does.
And why, pray tell, should Gannon have to sit on the same panel with John Aravosis -- because Aravosis is gay? Is that it? Sheesh, talk about oppressive -- do we really have to "balance" out a gay conservative with a gay liberal? Does this mean Ann Coulter has to be "balanced" out by the liberal blonde of their choice? What a sad commentary on the "enlightened" liberals of our era, who think in such petty narrow-minded terms.
Speaking of petty and narrow-minded, the blogger known as "Billmon" posts an outburst of sex-phobic babbling that sounds like Jerry Falwell on hallucinogens:
"What's next? An interactive NPC panel session on masturbation? A guest lecture on bestiality and blogging? A press conference by the North American Man Boy Love Association? No, wait, the House isn't in session this week.
"I hate to sound like a prude here, but this is one of those moments when I start to think the fundamentalist gizmos might just be right."
Look, I'm no Jeff Gannon fan, but Billmon is right: he does sound like a prude. And a hateful one at that. The problem with Gannon isn't that he's "the world's only conservative gay prostitute journalist with a blog" -- and I can guarantee you that isn't true -- it's that Gannon was an administration plant, a shill who reported for a partisan front organization disguised (but not very well) as a "news agency." So Jeff Gannon is a gay conservative -- so what? So is Andrew Sullivan. So am I. So are any number of gay people -- who, I hate to break it to Billmon, are not uniformly Barney Frank liberals. We are everywhere, bud.
As for the prostitute part -- again, so what? At the age of 43, he's charging a thousand bucks a session -- and getting it. The problem with most people, however, is that they can't even give it away. And that, I'll bet, is the case with liberal geeks and policy wonks who signed that
I e-mailed him the letter below, you're free to join in
Justin,
You know, we have e-mail addresses and you might have used one before embarassing yourself in print. And since research is obviously beyond your capacities, you know like hitting a link, or asking someone what was going on before making yourself look like an asshole in print, let me help you out.
No one cares who Gannon sleeps with. Certainly not John, but I guess you'll get your own e-mail from him.
The first question you should ask, and the journalists at Romanesko asked is this: why is a man who had zero journalism credentials and a blog, which at best, was reprinted White House Press releases, being placed on a panel at the National Press Club? You know, a place for journalists? But we're all prudes, right? Not that five minutes looking at John's archives might have provided a clue as to why we wanted him on the panel.
Maybe to ask him how he made a living beyond his work for Talon News. How he got that job. How he renewed his press pass for two years after a new security regime was in place at the White House. How much did Talon News pay? In fact, how was he hired by Talon News in the first place after working in an auto body shop up until 2002. About his mysterious service record, which can't be found in either DOD or Marine Corps files. There are a lot of questions to ask Mr. Guckert, very few of which have to do with his sex life. And oddly enough, John had done most of that reporting and lives in DC. He's not the only one, but he did a lot of work on the story and has questions.
See, Justin, you jump to a halfassed conclusion because you read something and didn't even extend the courtesy of asking any one of us what was going on. I don't agree with you on many issues, but I would at the minimum ask you via e-mail what was going on if I disagreed with a stand you took.
So what about the prostitution? Ask yourself this simple question: how did he pass the security check? Because in the states he lived in Delaware and the District, prostitution is a crime. And he was not exactly subtle about it. I mean his face was on the ads. I would bet that a woman prostitute advertsing on the internet wouldn't be admitted to the White House, pass a security check, much less ask the President a question in the White House Press Room.
The sex jokes come from the inclusion of Wonkette and a sex blogger, more than Guckert's prostitute ads online. But again, this would have been explained through even a simple e-mail to anyone who signed the letter.
One other point, which has been raised by MSM reporters: why has no one who is actually familiar with the details of Guckert's history being asked to appear to him. For a radical, you seem to have fallen for corporate spin without pause. You think we cared about his tricks? How silly are you? We want to know where he came from and who paid him, and how a male prostitute can get into the white house. Like we would with a female prostitute.
But instead of asking, you resort to invective which makes you look stupid. Why? Because you decided to sneer instead of ask. And that's a nice bit of invective you tossed on in the end, making you seem confident and funny. Why I pissed my pants.
And Justin, here's a bit of information you might want to consider before you toss insults around. The reason we wanted to be included in these panels is simple: they never bother to ask. They include Instapundit and Powerline, while Kos and Atrios have not only more readers than they do, but as much as a major daily newspaper. Surely someone toiling at antiwar.com can understand that issue about not being heard. After all, they keep talking about politics and blogging and forget to invite the liberals. To answer your question: why does there have to be balance? Because when the right goes on alone, they have a history of oh, lying. We'd like to challenge those lies. But of course, if you had e-mailed any of the 70 bloggers on the list, they might have explained this in detail, being liberal geeks and policy wonks and all. But I guess you were too busy running tired leftists and preaching to the choir to even bother with the simple courtesy of asking someone what was going on.
Why bother? We're all prudes and can't get laid.
Do you seriously think John or anyone else would take time from their day to ask Guckert about his well advertised 8 inch cock? I thought you didn't trust the media and there you go, parroting it like Daryn Kagan.
Meanwhile I'll be reading Foriegn Policy and beating off to Cinemax.
[NOTE: We were actually just going to take this and replace every instance of the word "husband" with the word "penis," but it seemed a little juvenile. We went this way instead.]
5:30 A.M. Last night I set the alarm clock half an hour early so I could wake up before my husband does and stare at him while he sleeps. One of the kids was crying, but I shut the door. My husand looked so peaceful. Vital and peaceful. I love him.
6:15 A.M. After whipping up an omlette aux fines herbes and squeezing the oranges for his juice, I wake up my husband with the customary morning blowjob. Torrid. From what I can make out through the door, the kids have realized that they're going to have to cook their own breakfast again. I hope they also realize that if they make a mess, they're going to have to clean it up. This mommy business is rough, demanding stuff. The husband finishes his breakfast and takes me from behind.
7:00 A.M. While bathing the husband I notice a small mole on his back. Worry for a second that it might be cancerous. Weep. Wonder how I'll go on without him. Huge crash of dishes from the kitchen snaps me out of it. Continue scrubbing husband; those little brats better have that floor spotless by the time I get out there.
8:00 A.M. The hardest part of the day; I send the husband to his office. As soon as the door shuts, four faces look up at me, expecting - what, comfort? Caring? I flip on the TV and doodle variations of my first name and my husband's last name on a notepad.
8:30 A.M. Am worn out with all this child-rearing and sick with longing for my husband. I suggest that the children take a nap.
9:30 A.M. Daily crying jag.
10:30 A.M. Complete my blog post on suicide. If it weren't for my husband, I would have killed myself a long time ago.
11:30 A.M. Have finished dusting all the husband's pictures and knitting him a scarf. Need fresh air. Suggest that the children go play in the park for a little while. They want me to push them on the swings, but I tell them that Mommy's got things to do in the sandbox; if they want to join me, they may, but maybe it's time they learn a little self-reliance.
12:30 P.M. Complete construction of life-size sand-statue of my husband. I can tell that all the other moms in the park are jealous. Well, suck it, bitches.
1:00 P.M. Drag the kids along to Toys in Babeland. The owners called last night to let me know that there's a whole new section of stuff my husband can stick into me. I'm so excited. Eldest daughter somewhat disturbed when I explain the purpose of the double-headed dildo to her.
1:30 P.M. Compare prices on three-pronged rubber truncheon at Good Vibrations. It's slightly more expensive than at Babeland, but they split the difference since I'm in so often. Youngest boy goes crazy with spray-on lube while I'm at the counter. So embarrassing… I never thought I'd be one of those moms who has “difficult” children. Depression returns.
1:45 P.M. Husband calls on the phone to remind me to pick up dry cleaning. Light has returned to my life.
2:30 P.M. Put kids down for nap number two. Say my daily prayer, thanking Lord for my husband's brain, body, balls. Beg Him to keep my husband safe.
2:45 P.M. Begin writing column for Salon.
2:46 P.M. File column with Salon. Wonder if exploiting my children for an online magazine is a mortal sin or only a venial one.
3:30 P.M. Surprise treat! Husband home early! He fucks me against the sink AND does the dishes. Sometimes I think I'm the luckiest woman in the world.
4:30 P.M. Husband takes the kids to the park to give me a break. Being bookish, I use this time to catch up on my reading. Reread Wonder Boys. What a great book.
5:30 P.M. Everyone comes back. I make the usual fuss about the husband, and eldest daughter asks if I love the husband more than I love them. She's intuitive, this girl. I almost feel a slight twinge of affection toward her. Quickly suppress the feeling; I wouldn't want to take anything away from my husband.
6:00 P.M. Kids to bed. Showtime.
7:00 P.M. Sore and satisfied. Tell husband how much I love him.
8:00 P.M. Reading on the couch. Catch glimpse of husband, fold page of novel over. Husband folds me over.
9:00 P.M. Need large quantity of Vicodin for the physical pain. Take some Welbutrin for the mental pain.
10:00 P.M. Drift off to sleep in the arms of the greatest man in the world. What will tomorrow bring? I don't know, but as long as I have my husband, I can face any challenge. Even motherhood. My kids don't know how lucky they are. But I do. I love my husband. Husband husband husband. I have a husband! We still do it! Life is good. Good night!
This article was reported by Scott Shane, Stephen Grey and Ford Fessenden and written by Mr. Shane.
WASHINGTON, March 29 - Maher Arar, a 35-year-old Canadian engineer, is suing the United States, saying American officials grabbed him in 2002 as he changed planes in New York and transported him to Syria where, he says, he was held for 10 months in a dank, tiny cell and brutally beaten with a metal cable.
Now federal aviation records examined by The New York Times appear to corroborate Mr. Arar's account of his flight, during which, he says, he sat chained on the leather seats of a luxury executive jet as his American guards watched movies and ignored his protests.
The tale of Mr. Arar, the subject of a yearlong inquiry by the Canadian government, is perhaps the best documented of a number of cases since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in which suspects have accused the United States of secretly delivering them to other countries for interrogation under torture. Deportation for interrogation abroad is known as rendition.
In papers filed in a New York court replying to Mr. Arar's lawsuit, Justice Department lawyers say the case was not one of rendition but of deportation. They say Mr. Arar was deported to Syria based on secret information that he was a member of Al Qaeda, an accusation he denies.
The discovery of the aircraft, in a database compiled from Federal Aviation Agency records, appears to corroborate part of the story Mr. Arar has told many times since his release in 2003. The records show that a Gulfstream III jet, tail number N829MG, followed a flight path matching the route he described. The flight, hopscotching from New Jersey to an airport near Washington to Maine to Rome and beyond, took place on Oct. 8, 2002, the day after Mr. Arar's deportation order was signed.
After seeing a photograph of the plane and hearing its path, Mr. Arar, 35, of Ottawa, said in a telephone interview: "I think that's it. I think you've found the plane that took me."
He added: "Finding this plane is going really to help me. It does remind me of this trip, which is painful, but it should make people understand that this is for real and everything happened the way I said. I hope people will now stop for a moment and think about the morality of this."
Records of the jet's travels also show a trip in December 2003 to Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, where the United States holds hundreds of detainees, suggesting that it was used by the government on at least one other occasion.
If the plane was used to move Mr. Arar, it is the fourth known to have been used to transport suspected terrorists secretly from one country to detention in another.
Besides Mr. Wolfson, I was joined by an individual who gave us a glimmer into how Terry Schiavo’s parents have been able to survive literally millions of dollars’ worth of legal bills over the years they have fought their son-in-law.
Glenn McGee is the director of the New York Institute For Bioethics, and editor-in-chief of The American Journal Of Bioethics.
{Transcript} OLBERMANN: Do you know where this money is coming from? The Schindlers can't possibly have afforded this on their own, can they?
MCGEE: Well, Keith, my research group at Albany Medical College has been looking for the past couple of days into the question you just raised. Namely, if there were 30,000 persistent vegetative state patients around the country, how is it that this one case attracted so much attention and so much litigation?
And what we found is that on both sides of the aisle on this set of legal actions, there's been an enormous amount of money. Some of it's actually been money to support lawyers but most of it has been gifts from large law firms and lobbyists to enable multitasking firms, the kind of thing we saw in the O.J. trial, on behalf, mostly, of the Schindlers.
OLBERMANN: Do you know where that money came from? Do you know how much it amounted to?
MCGEE: Well, we don't know exactly how much it amounted to. Because as I said most of is it what you would call in kind contribution by lawyers who, in essence, agree with the cause.
So for example, among the representatives of Michael Schiavo's side, the American Civil Liberties Union most recently, and a number of different lawyers who work for firms that specialize in this sort of thing.
But more interesting, the Schindlers have enlisted legal assistance that's amounted to millions of dollars at this point, mostly from national right to life associated groups.
OLBERMANN: Millions of dollars.
MCGEE: At least $20,000 for each filing. And on top of that, there's procedural funding and funding for each and every action that moves up through the system.
You have to remember, Keith, when a case gets to the 11th District Court, it's moved through at least 25 different judges. And appellate lawyers have examined constitutionality questions in teams of 20 and 30. Many of these lawyers billing as much as $500 or $600 an hour.
So how have the Schindler's repaid their supporters?
WASHINGTON The parents of Terri Schiavo have authorized a conservative direct-mailing firm to sell a list of their financial supporters, making it likely that thousands of strangers moved by her plight will receive a steady stream of solicitations from anti-abortion and conservative groups.
"These compassionate pro-lifers donated toward Bob Schindler's legal battle to keep Terri's estranged husband from removing the feeding tube from Terri," says a description of the list on the Web site of the firm, Response Unlimited, which is asking $150 a month for 6,000 names and $500 a month for 4,000 e-mail addresses of people who responded last month to an e-mail plea from Schiavo's father. "These individuals are passionate about the way they value human life, adamantly oppose euthanasia, and are pro-life in every sense of the word!"
Experts on privacy and law said the sale of the list was legal and even predictable. "I think it's amusing," said Robert Gellman, a privacy and information policy consultant. "I think it's absolutely classic America. Everything is for sale in America, every type of personal information about everybody."
Executives of Response Unlimited declined to comment. Gary McCullough, director of the Christian Communication Network and a spokesman for Schiavo's parents, confirmed that Schindler had agreed to let Response Unlimited rent out the list as part of a deal for the firm to send out an e-mail solicitation raising money on the family's behalf. The Schindlers have waged a lengthy legal battle against their son-in-law, Michael Schiavo, to prevent the removal of the feeding tube from their daughter, who doctors say is in a persistent vegetative state.
These are sleazy, controlling people who will stop at nothing to get their way.
They have benefitted from unprecedented contributions and have not uttered one word of thanks and only belatedly tried to control the freak show outside their daughter's hospice. I would be amazingly unsurprised if the Schindlers were sued by the families of other patients for that circus outside. I'm surprised no one got a TRO.
You know I want to sympathize with them, but at every turn, they do something even sleazier and more revolting. They should have stopped the children from being arrested. That hurt them. Badly. Then Mary Schindler's creepy appeal tonight to "have her daughter". She was a married woman. Not her property. Now, the sale of the list and the allegations of abuse. I think this will end up with someone suing someone. They just won't quit.
How sleazy are these people, why have they lost my sympathy in this horrible situation? Because they said nothing when people picketed Michael Schiavo's house when his kids and girlfriend are there. They have never once discouraged violence. And they have not even thanked the politioians for their support.
There is no restraint. Jeb Bush was about an hour from going to jail for them. He risked a shootout between the FDLE and the Pinellas County cops. Yet, no thanks for that intense effort on his part, as insane as it was. Just a demand he sign some paper.
Character in crisis always shines through. Michael Schiavo has not raised money, not appealed to anyone's emotions and has been through eight years of torture from his inlaws, who have done everything possible to malign him and his motives on the scantest evidence.
The sad part is that by throwing in with extremists they have no one to pull them from the brink, no one to make them see reality. At every turn, they have ramped up the tension and the acrimony. It's a sad situation, but they are making things as bad as they can be. It will be a stroke of luck if no one is killed in this mess.
Columbus, Ohio - Christian conservative leaders from scores of Ohio's fastest growing churches are mounting a campaign to win control of local government posts and Republican organizations, starting with the 2006 governor's race.
In a manifesto that is being circulated among church leaders and on the Internet, the group, which is called the Ohio Restoration Project, is planning to mobilize 2,000 evangelical, Baptist, Pentecostal and Roman Catholic leaders in a network of so-called Patriot Pastors to register half a million new voters, enlist activists, train candidates and endorse conservative causes in the next year.
The initial goal is to elect Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell, a conservative Republican, governor in 2006. The group hopes to build grass-roots organizations in Ohio's 88 counties and take control of local Republican organizations.
"The establishment of the Ohio Republican Party is out of touch with its base," said Russell Johnson, the pastor of the Fairfield Christian Church and the principal organizer of the project. "It acts as if it lives in Boston, Mass."
Pastor Johnson's challenge to the party establishment could have far-reaching consequences in a state dominated by Republican elected officials but still considered a bellwether in presidential politics. Conservatives in other swing states are watching closely.
"In Ohio, the church is awakening to its historic role as the moral voice in the community," said Colin A. Hanna, president of Let Freedom Ring, a conservative group based in Pennsylvania that trains ministers in political activism. "Ohio is in the vanguard of that nationally. I very much want Pennsylvania to be with them."
The church leaders say they will try to harness the energy of religious conservatives who were vital not only to Mr. Bush's narrow victory in Ohio but also to passage of an amendment to the state constitution banning same-sex marriage. The amendment, known as Issue 1, was credited with drawing large numbers of rural and suburban conservatives to the polls and increasing Mr. Bush's support among urban blacks.
"We're calling people to act, not just wring their hands in the pews," said Rod Parsley, senior pastor of the World Harvest Church outside Columbus, who is considered a rising star in the religious broadcasting world and will be an inspirational speaker for the project. "We got people motivated last year, and then the election was over. We don't want folks to think our work is over."
Republican officials are watching warily. The chairman of the state party, Robert T. Bennett, warned that the decade-long dominance of his party could be jeopardized if it was pushed too far to the right. "This is a party of a big tent," Mr. Bennett said. "The far right cannot elect somebody by itself, any more than somebody from the far left can."
The conservatives point to the governor's race as an example of what they consider wrong with the state Republican Party. Of the three Republican candidates, only Mr. Blackwell has the solid support of religious conservatives. Jim Petro, the attorney general, opposed the same-sex marriage amendment on the grounds that it would invite litigation against companies that provided domestic partner benefits. Betty D. Montgomery, the state auditor, has supported some abortion rights.
...................... Democrats say they are buoyed by the insurgency of Mr. Blackwell. "He's formidable in many ways, but he's the candidate we'd most like to run against," said Greg Haas, a strategist for Michael Coleman, the mayor of Columbus, who is seen as a favorite for the Democratic nomination.
In an interview, Mr. Blackwell, who is black, said that Ohio had shifted to the right and that he now represented mainstream voters. He also predicted that he would draw black religious conservatives into the Republican Party, breaking the Democrats' hold on urban precincts.
"I think what's happening is we're seeing a struggle for the heart and soul of the Republican Party," he said. "And that's healthy."
Experts said that religious conservatives could bring energy to campaigns, but that they had mixed results trying to win control of local political organizations.
"For short periods of time, they often had successes," said John C. Green, a professor of political science at the University of Akron. "But it was very difficult to sustain."
Ah, them anvils is flying out of the workshop.
This is the start of the GOP civil war. You can smell it coming. Norquist and the money people are scared. They actually got close to messing up social security, a decades long goal. And in the middle of their long awaited campaign, a dead woman threatens to ruin it all. And this is the gift which keeps on giving, to the point where the Schiavos and Schindlers may wind up suing each other, extending this ugliness for another few years.
Sambo is dreaming. You would have to ignorant to be black and vote for him. I would bet $100 that he is specifically targeted by the NAACP next year. He messed with voting rights and black folk will look at him like they did Alan Keyes, like vermin.
What I think happens is this: people just forget to vote for him. They will talk him up in redneckland, and when election day comes just forget to vote for him. It happened to Vernon Robinson and Herman Cain. They got real close to the fundies, said they would get black votes and they just didn't get the votes needed. We're talking what? About 120K votes? That's a thin margin in a statewide race. In a primary, I doubt an alliance with the fundies is a smart move for a black candidate. And after 2004, Blackwell has a LOT of enemies ready to kick in money to defeat him. And they may not wait for the general election.
But the real problem is the that, as Green said, the fundies alienate people. And they scare the GOP mainstream. Blackwell is an especially stupid man in many ways. And one way is he thinks he's going to be the first black president and that ain't happening. He's gonna lose to a white candidate after being vilified by black radio, and draw nationwide emnity. Think Alan Keyes with vigor. Because Blackwell did something besides run his mouth.
The upside is that the fundies are feeling their oats and seek to wage war in the GOP to get their way. Let them slag each other andhelp stir the pot. Republicans against religous tyranny would make a great website.
Neurologist Cranford confronted Scarborough, MSNBC daytime anchor: "[Y]ou're asking me if a CAT scan was done? How could you possibly be so stupid?"
On the March 28 edition of MSNBC's Scarborough Country, host Joe Scarborough interviewed Dr. Ronald Cranford, one of the two neurologists selected by Michael Schiavo to examine Terri Schiavo pursuant to an October 2001 appellate court mandate. As part of that duty, Cranford "reviewed her medical records and personally conducted a neurological examination of Mrs. Schiavo," according to the June 2003 Florida appeals court review of that hearing.
Following is the transcript of the interview:
SCARBOROUGH: Now, the question on everybody's mind tonight is this: How is Terri Schiavo doing? You know, it's been 10 days. She is starting her 11th day now without food and water. Let's go back to Pinellas Park [Florida], where Lisa Daniels [MSNBC daytime anchor] is standing by -- Lisa.
DANIELS: Well, Joe, at this point, we are going to delve into the medical aspect of the story. I want to bring in Dr. Ronald Cranford. He's a neurologist at Hennepin Medical Center in Minneapolis. And, Doctor, before we continue, I want our viewers to understand what your role was in the legal case. I understand that Michael Schiavo and his team asked you to examine his wife. Is that correct?
CRANFORD: Yes. Yes, they did.
DANIELS: And from my understanding, I just want to be accurate, you examined Terri Schiavo for about 45 minutes. Is that right?
CRANFORD: I think 42 minutes, but 45 is fine, sure.
DANIELS: All right. Well, we want to be accurate here. What was your conclusion at the end of --
[crosstalk]
CRANFORD: Wait a minute. You are not accurate on a lot of things here. You're saying a lot of -- she's not starving to death. Do you understand that? She is dehydrating to death.
DANIELS: Well, why do you say that? Tell us how you came to that conclusion?
[crosstalk]
CRANFORD: Can I tell you why? Because I have done this 25 to 50 times. I don't know how many times Joe has done it, but I've done it 25 to 50 times in similar situations. And they die within 10 to 14 days.
Nancy Cruzan did not die in six days [as guest Patrick Mahoney of the Christian Defense Coalition suggested earlier in the program]. She died in 11 days, 11.5 hours. And Terri Schiavo will die within 10 to 14 days. And they are dying of dehydration, not starvation. And that's just a lie. And Joe doesn't have any idea what he is talking about. And you don't have any idea what you're talking about.
DANIELS: Well --
CRANFORD: I have been at the bedside of these patients. I know what they die from. I've seen them die. And this is all bogus. It's all just a bunch of crap that you are saying. It's totally wrong.
DANIELS: Well, with all due respect, Doctor, it sounds like you think that you know what you are talking about, so let's ask you about that.
CRANFORD: Sure.
DANIELS: Are you 100 percent correct in your opinion that Terri Schiavo is in a persistent vegetative state? Do you agree with that?
CRANFORD: I am 105 percent sure she is in a vegetative state. And the autopsy will show severe irreversible brain damage to the higher centers, yes.
DANIELS: Why are you so sure, Doctor?
CRANFORD: Because I examined her. The court-appointed guardian examined her. Four neurologists at the hospital where she was has said she's carried a diagnosis of vegetative state for 12 years. Every neurologist that examined her, except for Dr. [William] Hammesfahr [a neurologist selected by Terri Schiavo's parents], who is a charlatan, has said she is in vegetative state. That's what the court found. Just because you don't like --
[crosstalk]
DANIELS: Doctor, was a CAT scan -- Doctor, your critics would ask you, was a CAT scan used? Was an MRI taken? Were any of these tests taken?
CRANFORD: You don't know the answer to that? The CAT scan was done in 1996, 2002. We spent a lot of time in court showing the irreversible -- you don't have copies of those CAT scans? How can you say that?
The CAT scans are out there, distributed to other people. You have got to look at the facts. The CAT scan is out there. It shows severe atrophy of the brain. The autopsy is going to show severe atrophy of the brain. And you're asking me if a CAT scan was done? How could you possibly be so stupid?
SCARBOROUGH: Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait a second.
[crosstalk]
SCARBOROUGH: Hold on a second, if I can interrupt here.
CRANFORD: Go ahead. Joe, interrupt me.
SCARBOROUGH: Why don't you go ahead and tell the rest of the story there? Why don't you tell us that the radiologist that looked at the two CAT scans said she showed improvement in 2002 over 1996? You know, you seem so sure of yourself. The Associated Press reported yesterday --
CRANFORD: Joe, the judge didn't believe him.
SCARBOROUGH: Hold on a second. Hold on a second. You're so sure of yourself -- respond to this. AP had a report yesterday. They said seven doctors have looked at her. Four said she was in persistent vegetative state. You were one of them, hired by Michael Schiavo to do that. There were three others that looked at her that disagreed. How can you be so absolutely sure that everybody that agrees with you is 100 percent accurate and everybody on the other side is a charlatan?
CRANFORD: Joe, Judge -- Judge [George W.] Greer disallowed, didn't believe what [Dr. William] Maxfield [a doctor selected by Terri Schiavo's parents] said. You got your numbers wrong. There were eight neurologists saw her. Seven of the eight said she was in a vegetative state. Only one said she wasn't.
SCARBOROUGH: I am quoting an Associated Press report from yesterday.
CRANFORD: Joe, you've got to get your facts straight.
SCARBOROUGH: I have got my facts straight.
CRANFORD: Get your facts straight. You've got your facts way off.
SCARBOROUGH: Why don't we talk about -- hold on a second.
CRANFORD: Go ahead.
SCARBOROUGH: You talked about a 1996 scan.
CRANFORD: No, 2002, 2002.
SCARBOROUGH: Let's talk about it. A radiologist told the court that the 2002 scan actually showed improvement over the 1996 scan. Is that inaccurate? Did the AP report that wrong?
CRANFORD: Absolutely. Maxfield said it was improved. And Judge Greer didn't buy it because the others said it wasn't improved. It was probably worse than it was before.
SCARBOROUGH: Is he a charlatan also?
CRANFORD: Yes. Maxfield is an HBO [hyperbaric oxygen], vasodilator -- look it up, Joe. See what vasodilator does. See what hyperbaric oxygen, see in these cases, and you tell me they are not charlatans. Just because you don't agree with me -- I don't call everybody a charlatan. I'm not calling [Dr. Richard] Cheshire [who has argued that Terri Schiavo is not in a persistent vegetative state] a charlatan. I think he's a reputable neurologist. I think he examined her, he interviewed her. So, just because I disagree, I don't call them charlatans. But you have got your facts so far off that it's unbelievable, Joe. You don't have any idea what you are talking about. You've never been at the bedside of these patients. And this will come out in the next three to five years about this condition and starvation.
SCARBOROUGH: You were there 42 minutes, Doctor.
CRANFORD: Yes, I was.
SCARBOROUGH: You are only one doctor that's been there. And somehow, in your 42 minutes of observing her, you have all the answers and everybody that disagrees is dead wrong, I guess.
CRANFORD: No, that's just a -- you know what? You've gotta see what Judge Greer said. You've gotta see what the appeals court said. If you read that, Joe, you will understand why the judge decided the way he did.
SCARBOROUGH: All right.
CRANFORD: He didn't believe Hammesfahr. He didn't believe Maxfield. And it's not starvation. And Nancy Cruzan did not die in six days. She died in 11 days and 11.5 hours, 11 days and 11.5 hours.
SCARBOROUGH: All right.
CRANFORD: OK?
SCARBOROUGH: Thank you, Doctor.
CRANFORD: My pleasure.
SCARBOROUGH: You know what? This is the disappointing thing. You try to have a conversation. You try to talk about what is going on. And I found this as an attorney, too. I have been attorneys for plaintiffs. I have been attorneys for defendants. And what I always find out is, there are certain doctors -- I am not claiming that this doctor is a charlatan. I don't know his body of work. I am not claiming that he is a hired gun.
But too many doctors out there can be bought off by attorneys on either side. And then they come out, instead of telling you the facts, you get into debate like you are talking to an attorney. It is very, very disappointing.
I want to apologize to Lisa for interrupting her, but the thing is, Lisa was getting attacked because of what I said. I think that is unfair.
Joe, if I were you, I'd be looking for a demand letter to retract the implication of that statement. You impune his integrity and if you don't want to add to your lawsuits from Michael Schiavo, you might want to apologize. Soon.
We, the undersigned bloggers, are very concerned about how liberal political bloggers are being systematically under-represented and belittled in the mainstream media, academic settings and media forums. By being intentionally excluded away from these venues, we are effectively pushed out of the discourse of opinion-leaders. The result is that the conventional wisdom about blogging, politics and journalism, as it concerns liberal blogs, becomes a feedback loop framed by the Conservatives and their media allies.
Indeed, just a few weeks ago, The Brookings Institution hosted a panel that originally included no liberal political bloggers and yet while including numerous conservative political operatives in the event. We registered our protest and the Brookings Institution's response was simply to invite a few liberal political bloggers to attend, yet not sit on the panel, as we had originally insisted upon.
Today, however, we are faced with an entirely new situation that is more insult than misrepresentation. The discredited conservative media operative Jeff Gannon, nee Guckert has been invited to sit on a panel at the prestigious National Press Club to talk about the scandal surrounding his access to the White House and more generally, the similarities and differences between bloggers and journalists. Guckert's token liberal counterpart will be a gossip blogger and sex comedy blogger. While we have nothing but the greatest respect for Mr. Graff and Ms. Cox we believe that neither represents bloggers who write about hard-nosed politics. And as for Mr. Guckert, he isn't a blogger, he's barely a journalist, and not a single political blogger involved with the Gannon/Guckert scandal, or otherwise, has been invited to sit on the panel to counter Mr. Guckert's arguments.
Therefore, we the undersigned bloggers, respectfully but firmly insist that a serious political blogger such as John Aravosis, of Americablog.org be included on the panel to fairly and accurately represent our industry and us. Mr. Aravosis has agreed to our request that he serve on the panel as our representative and is available should such an invite be forthcoming.
This situation is simply unacceptable. We will push back against the growing bias and sloppiness we see in the mainstream media as it concerns serious political blogging. If we do not we will never achieve any semblance of balance in the media. If we do not, we abdicate our ability to tell our own side of the story. If we do not we leave it to others to define us and defame us.
Please call Julie Shue at the The National Press Club and politely insist that they include John Aravosis of Americablog.org at their event. Here are there numbers: 202-662-7500 or 202-662-7501 or email at tglad@press.org and info@npcpress.org.
Sincerely,
Sean-Paul Kelley, http://www.agonist.org DCMediagirl, http://www.dcmediagirl.com Ezra Klein, http://ezraklein.typepad.com Echidne of the snakes, http://www.echidneofthesnakes.blogspot.com Amanda Marcotte, http://www.pandagon.net Mark Karlin, Editor and Publisher, http://www.BuzzFlash.com Matt Stoller, http://bopnews.com Democratic Underground http://www.democraticunderground.com/ Lindsay Beyerstein http://majikthise.typepad.com Shakespeare's Sister, http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com and http://www.bigbrassblog.com Bob Brigham, www.SwingStateProject.com Dave Johnson, http://www.Seeingtheforest.com Matt Singer, http://www.leftinthewest.com Kos, http://www.dailykos.com Kari Chisholm, http://www.blueoregon.com Steve Gilliard, http://stevegilliard.blogspot.com/ Crooks and Liars, http://www.crooksandliars.com/ Brian Baltahttp://balta.blogspot.com That Colored Fellahttp://www.ThatColoredFellasweblog.bloghorn.com Anna Brosovic http://annatopia.com/blog.html skippy the bush kangaroo http://www.xnerg.blogspot.com David Neiwert Orcinus http://www.dneiwert.blogspot.com Julien 's List http://www.educatedeclectic.blogspot.com
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court refused Monday to shield the news media from being sued for accurately reporting a politician's false charges against a rival.
Instead, the justices let stand a Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling that a newspaper can be forced to pay damages for having reported that a city councilman called the mayor and the council president "liars," "queers" and "child molesters."
The case turned on whether the 1st Amendment's protection of the freedom of the press includes a "neutral reporting privilege." Most judges around the nation have said the press does not enjoy this privilege.
Lawyers for more than two dozen of the nation's largest press organizations, including Tribune Co., which publishes the Los Angeles Times, had urged the court to take up the Pennsylvania case and to rule that truthful news reports on public figures deserved to be shielded.
They said politicians have been hurling false and damaging charges at their rivals throughout American history. The press cannot do its duty to inform the public if it is not free to report what public figures say, they argued.
But the Pennsylvania Supreme Court said the press has never "enjoyed a blanket immunity" from being sued over stories that print falsehoods that damage a person's reputation. The law "has placed a burden (albeit a minimal one) on the media to refrain from publishing reports that they know to be false," the Pennsylvania court said.
The U.S. Supreme Court's refusal to take up the case sets no legal precedent. However, one lawyer involved in the dispute said the court's action "signals the demise of the neutral reporting privilege."
The case that reached the high court began 10 years ago when the Daily Local News in West Chester, Pa., printed a story titled "Slurs, Insults Drag Town Into Controversy." It reported that the city council in nearby Parkesburg had been torn apart by shouting matches and fistfights. The most outspoken councilman was William T. Glenn Sr.
In comments during a meeting and in an interview with a news reporter, Glenn referred to Mayor Alan Wolfe and Councilman James Norton as "liars" and a "bunch of draft dodgers." He also strongly suggested that they were homosexuals who had put themselves "in a position that gave them an opportunity to have access to children."
When asked to respond, Norton was quoted as saying: "If Mr. Glenn has made comments as bizarre as that, then I feel very sad for him, and I hope he can get the help he needs."
Later, the mayor and the councilman who were the targets of the charges sued both Glenn and the Daily Local News. .
All that had to do was say none of these charges have any basis in fact or get a quote refuting them. Real simple.
So how much is Fox going to give Michael Schiavo?
And Nancy Grace better hope Michael Jackson is convicted.
By Steven Ginsberg Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, March 29, 2005; Page A01
Matt Clausen's friends told him he was crazy. Absolutely nuts. How in the world did he and his wife expect to take care of a new baby if they got rid of their only car? How would they get to the doctor's office? See their friends?
Clausen harbored his own doubts, but he had also done some math. He was paying $450 a year in insurance and $800 in repairs, plus gas and other nagging costs. The hassle equation didn't add up, either: His station wagon broke down a lot, and he was sick of hunting for parking.
So he ditched the clunker and put his trust in Zipcar, one of two car-sharing companies in the Washington region that offer a range of vehicles for rent in increments as short as a half-hour.
Unlike traditional car rental outfits, car-sharing companies station small numbers of vehicles in neighborhoods across the region that users reserve online or by phone. They use electronic cards to get into cars and must return them to the reserved spots where they picked them up. Both companies in the Washington area, Zipcar and Flexcar, include gas, insurance and maintenance in their rates.
"It seemed like a car was more of a hassle than anything else," said Clausen, of Capitol Hill, who, with his wife, Margarita Diaz, spent about $1,000 on Zipcar the first year they tried it. "I wanted to have the freedom of having a car around in case I needed it, but it ended up sitting out on the street all the time. Zipcar . . . tipped the scales for me."
Many people in the Washington region -- with its crowded neighborhoods, limited parking and nightmarish traffic -- have come to the same conclusion, turning it into a proving ground of whether Americans are amenable to the culture of car sharing.
The companies got their starts in Seattle and Boston, but the Washington region is the only place in the country where two car-sharing companies compete, and company officials confirm that it has quickly become one of their hottest markets. After three-plus years, the companies have stationed a combined 226 cars in the area and have signed up more than 14,000 members, nearly half of them in the past year.
Company executives and some local politicians and transportation officials say car sharing represents the future of how people will get around in congested cities. ...............................
Users say the services are handy for running to suburban stores, loading up on home improvement supplies, picking up a piece of furniture or visiting family and friends. Some businesses sign up to give employees a way to hustle between offices or pick up materials. Another perk, users add, is that they get to drive all kinds of cool cars.
"I drove a BMW for the first time in my life," Clausen said. "I've tried VW Bugs. I tried a convertible once."
Rep. Dennis Baxley, R-Ocala, has introduced a Horowitz-inspired so-called Academic Freedom Bill of Rights in the Florida State legislature. In our Orwellian world, this is actually a bill to destroy academic freedom and take away rights of free speech on campus. Baxley is a funeral director, and apparently he wants to bury higher education in this country along with his other clients.
"The bill sets a statewide standard that students cannot be punished for professing beliefs with which their professors disagree. Professors would also be advised to teach alternative “serious academic theories” that may disagree with their personal views.
According to a legislative staff analysis of the bill, the law would give students who think their beliefs are not being respected legal standing to sue professors and universities.
Students who believe their professor is singling them out for “public ridicule” – for instance, when professors use the Socratic method to force students to explain their theories in class – would also be given the right to sue.
“Some professors say, ‘Evolution is a fact. I don’t want to hear about Intelligent Design (a creationist theory), and if you don’t like it, there’s the door,’” Baxley said, citing one example when he thought a student should sue."
Let me explain some things to Representative Baxley, and to do so I suggest we look at how well he is doing his job.
The per capita income in the United States is $37,800.
Florida's per capita income in 2003 was $27,610.
And what of Ocala, for which Mr. Baxley supposedly is working? "The per capita income for the city is $18,021. 18.1% of the population and 13.2% of families are below the poverty line. Out of the total population, 28.6% of those under the age of 18 and 9.8% of those 65 and older are living below the poverty line."
Hmmm. Ocala isn't doing very well. Its people are making about half what Americans generally do, and quite a few of them are dirt poor. I wonder if Baxley has done anything lately for the 18 percent of his constituents who are doomed to live below the poverty line? Or, indeed, has he provided jobs and income to his hardworking constituents. If I were them, I'd find a state representative who would work hard to lift people out of their difficult circumstances, instead of one who seems to want to keep people mired in ignorance and poverty.
So if Baxley, who desperately needed to take Biology 101 at Florida State (which should consider revoking his BA), succeeded in his little ploy, what will likely ensue?
If I were Baxley I wouldn't stand anywhere near I-95 north of Gainesville, since he's likely to get run over by the rush of professors fleeing the state at 95 miles an hour. Post-secondary teachers already suffer from low salaries and poor working conditions compared to their peers who go into the professions. The only trade-off they get is that academics have more control over their lives and the time to research and teach things they are interested in. Given a choice between being made Baxley's slaves and braving hurricanes in Florida or living in a state that respects its thinkers, Florida's educators will pour out of the state faster than a 'gator chasing a fat, balding funeral director through the swamps.
Baxley may be happier without any of those intell-Ec-tu-al riffraff cluttering up his state. But maybe his constituents won't be. Knowledge workers, you see, are the geese that lay the golden eggs. Post-secondary teachers are the ones who train the people who found computer software, biotechnology and other companies key to the twenty-first century economy. They also train society's managers and middle managers. The more high-powered academics you have in your state, the wealthier your state will be.
Ocala, and Florida more generally, look to me like they would benefit from some biotech companies. But you know what? That requires being good in a little thing called biology. Baxley clearly can't think straight on that subject, being blinded by fanaticism. And he wants to make Florida inhospitable to high-powered biologists. The people of Florida, and more specifically Ocala, should give some thought to whether they really want this loud-mouthed ignoramus to plunge them into poverty and make them mule drivers and ditch diggers by his destruction of education in the state.
In fact, Ocala has a Central Florida Community College where that dangerous subject of science is actually taught. Want to make a bet that Baxley has never done anything in the legislature to try to expand it into a four-year college so that some of his constituents could get their education without having to leave town or going to a private university? Wouldn't such an expansion create a multiplier effect, helping with Marion County's poverty? Instead of expanding education for the people he says he is serving, Baxley is trying to destroy the state's universities.
All this is without regard to the practical effects of this horse manure on our intellectual environment on campuses. If Baxley's bill passes, professors who teach the history of the Holocaust will just have to give A's to students who deny it ever happened, I guess.
Finally, the post-secondary educators in Florida might just form a Political Action Committee similar to the one in Alabama. They might reach out to the faculty in the medical schools, who are mysteriously attached to the academic study of biology, and who are not without resources. Perhaps they will decide to channel large sums to Baxley's opponents in the next election, whether a Republican challenger or a rival from another party. You wonder if educators should let a thing like this be forgotten, or just lie down and let themselves be walked all over by paleontologically-challenged funeral directors.
posted by Juan @ 3/29/2005 06:21:00 AM
Chairman Dave strikes again. Why do conservatives still need to be victims? op
I posted this on some site where they were all whining about not being noticed by Atrios. Someone thinks I'm a dick for saying this. Well, they really won't like my revised and extended remarks.
I like my easy, tiresome design. That's why I chose it.
But this is one of the most pathetic fucking discussions going right now. here's the deal: you do good work and not worry so much about who links to you or who notices you and you might build an audience.
Why are you wasting a second's energy on how atrios runs his blog? Why? Not cutting edge? Uh, do you know him, are you in his head?
I think this is really the bitching of people who don't have the talent or skill to actually stand out and do good work. The comments are more interesting than many of the people whining.
There is only one way to get noticed: write something people want to read.
If you can do that, people will read you. As it stands, this sad mewling about getting noticed doesn't inspire respect, but contempt.
Jesse's comments were worthy of the contempt I gave them. Because you people spend more time whining about getting noticed than doing anything to get noticed.
I thought it was hillarious he could expend so much time on Atrios instead of writing something someone would want to read.
You would be laughed out of a newsroom with this kind of argument. If you want to get noticed, stop worrying about Kos or Atrios and do good work.
And here's some advice: if you're so desperate to get noticed, cross post in a Kos diary. I love the writing there and pick up a lot of pieces from there for my site.
But I don't have any respect for anyone who is wasting time whining about which blog notices you and which doesn't. It's embarassing to watch and inspires my deepest contempt for the people bitching.
The people who are screaming are mediocre writers with unoriginal ideas, which is why they need to politick instead of working on being better writers.
Believe me, if you write strongly and clearly people will read you. If you just run the same old crap, no one will care. No one owes you anything and the respect you get, you earn. Try remembering that.
One other point: what makes you think you deserve notice? What makes you think your work is so good that it merits attention? Are you really saying anything not found in Kos's diaries.
I think if you whiners actually worked together and promoted each other, people might notice you. Don't wait for Atrios to save you, or anyone else. You don't need him to get seen, you need you to get seen, you need to bring something new to the table.
Until you do that, you will contiunue to be unhappy. stevegilliard | 03.25.05 - 8:59 pm | #
And while we're on the subject of whiners let me add this:
Your mommy may love you, your professors may coddle you, but you are a useless piece of shit if all you can do is call me a dick for telling you a bitter truth.
You aren't that special. Your ideas aren't so revolutionary that people must stop to read them.
When I hear people whining about not being noticed, all I can think is : geez that person's writing must really fucking suck.
Because good writers, funny writers get noticed. People flock to good writing. They don't need some artificial help. I have NEVER asked anyone repost my work or link to me. I don't promote the Koufax Awards, hell, if I had my way, I'd abolish them. I have never felt the need to have to alert people to my work.
All this whining about "big bloggers", "whales" or whatever is pathethic mewling. I know your mommy made you wear a helmet to ice skate, but this is the adult world. Do you think you get my sympathy by complaining about attention? Or my utter and lasting contempt? You pick and I'll make it easy, it ain't the first.
Why? Because you're worried about the wrong fucking thing. Why do you want Atrios's attention? To get more hits? To make a name for yourself? Why? How does it help your writing? How does it make you a better writer?
I see a lot of people who write a few lines or some long, boring ass essay and then wonder why people aren't helping to promote them. Well, because much of what you write is said better and shorter in comments.
In the last week, I've reposted two comments and work from several people I've never read before.
Now, don't get me wrong, I like when people say look at this, but 99 percent of the time, it's because it's interesting and much of the time, it comes from third parties. But I sneer when people say "we don't get support from the big bloggers". Why? Because the people saying that are not saying "We're doing really good work, take a look." But, "we all have to stick together and you owe me attention". No, they don't.
Has all your whining changed anything? No? But you have been laughed at by people for your whining, right?
Let's talk about how someone gets noticed.
Our friend Political Junkie actually attended Tavis Smiley's State of the Black Union and wrote it up on her blog and Kos. I saw it and reprinted it, since I had mentioned the event before and was impressed by her writing. She didn't politick me, she didn't say notice me. She wrote something that made me stop and read and want to share.
We had a long post by Clio, who had to pull the plug on her husband about 15 years ago. It was beautiful and heart felt and I lifted it right out of comments. She didn't ask or expect it, but I felt people needed to see it.
Steve Sanders wrote a really thoughtful essay on the Schindlers and their legal battle. I had never seen his blog before I hit a link on Majikthise, a blog I had never read until this weekend. Which I reran as well.
None of these people whined about big bloggers or begged to be noticed, but they wrote compelling pieces which I felt needed to be seen by more people.
Why did I choose them? Because what they wrote impressed me. I may not have agreed with every line, but they made coherent arguments which wanted me to do more reading.
I think a lot of these whiners want to play politics and not actuially write well. Here's a hint: when you start out writing, people do not notice you. I've been writing online for nine years and it took stops at NetSlaves and Kos to build up an audience and then two years of further work to develop an audience which liked reading me. And that is with over 3,000 posts, minus two months in the hospital. Seven days a week, every day. Posting at midnight, every night I'm home, even if I want to watch BBC America or Fox Soccer Channel. And that came after 10 years of writing offline.
That is no small amount of work. Yet, people are shocked when they don't get noticed? Please. Just because you say the right things doesn't mean you deserve notice. You have to say them in a compelling way.
That will get you noticed. Whining will only draw contempt from the readers as well as the bloggers you favor you seek to curry.
..An author and terrorism expert hopes his new book will be a wake-up call to all Americans. Investigative journalist Paul Sperry claims Washington, DC, has allowed radical Muslims to penetrate the U.S. military, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Department of Homeland Security. Sperry is a media fellow at the Hoover Institution. His book is called Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives Have Penetrated Washington. The author believes political correctness has allowed Muslims to gain access to all of the major U.S. security agencies. "They've penetrated our institutions, but we have not penetrated theirs -- and that is a scary proposition," he says. "This book is a wake-up call to Americans across the country. We've been played for suckers about this Islamic threat. We've been lulled into a false sense of security." Sperry says his book will make readers "hustle-proof," providing them with "cold, hard, politically incorrect facts and truths you have not heard since 9-11, and you deserve to hear without the PC spin out of Washington." Another area of concern Sperry points out is America's prison system, which he says has become the top recruiting ground for al Qaeda. And now, the author warns, terrorist recruiters have worked their way into U.S. public schools as well. [Chad Groening]
Yeah, like all those muslim spies getting killed as 11B's and translators. These fucks sit at home while sons of muslim immmigrants serve in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Or is this a diatribe against Saudi influence in Washington.
What we need - and we aren't seeing - is a firm stand by moderates against religious extremism. Some people ask, with justification, Where are the Democrats? But an even better question is, Where are the doctors fiercely defending their professional integrity? I think the American Medical Association disapproves of politicians who second-guess medical diagnoses based on video images - but the association's statement on the Schiavo case is so timid that it's hard to be sure.
The closest parallel I can think of to current American politics is Israel. There was a time, not that long ago, when moderate Israelis downplayed the rise of religious extremists. But no more: extremists have already killed one prime minister, and everyone realizes that Ariel Sharon is at risk.
America isn't yet a place where liberal politicians, and even conservatives who aren't sufficiently hard-line, fear assassination. But unless moderates take a stand against the growing power of domestic extremists, it can happen here.
The legal battle over the life of Terri Schiavo may have ended, but a thick, fervent crowd remains in the makeshift encampment outside the Woodside Hospice House here . . .
No, we're not going to go home," said Bill Tierney, a young daughter at his side. "Terri is not dead until she's dead" . . .
Mr. Tierney, a former military intelligence officer in Iraq who works as a translator and investigator for private companies, cried as he talked about watching the Schiavo spectacle on television and feeling the utter need to be at the hospice.
New York Times Protesters With Hearts on Sleeves and Anger on Signs March 28, 2005
Bill Tierney . . . had just returned from eight months working as an interrogator for US forces in Baghdad, and had come to talk, on the record, about torture.
''The Brits came up with an expression – wog,'' Tierney said. ''That stands for Wily Oriental Gentleman. There's a lot of wiliness in that part of the world.''. . .
After explaining his various psychological tactics to the audience, interrogator Bill Tierney (a private contractor working with the Army) said, ''I tried to be nuanced and culturally aware. But the suspects didn't break.''
Suddenly Tierney's temper rose. ''They did not break!'' he shouted. ''I'm here to win. I'm here so our civilization beats theirs! Now what are you willing to do to win?'' he asked, pointing to a woman in the front row. ''You are the interrogators, you are the ones who have to get the information from the Iraqis. What do you do? That word 'torture'. You immediately think, 'That's not me.' But are we litigating this war or fighting it?'' . . .
Asked about Abu Ghraib, Tierney said that for an interrogator, ''sadism is always right over the hill. You have to admit it. Don't fool yourself – there is a part of you that will say, 'This is fun.' ''
Boston Globe Spy world February 13, 2005
Sunday, it was convicted rapist Scott Heldreth, Monday, admitted torturer Bill Tierney. What kind of nuts did Pat Mahoney and Randall Terry collect outside that hospice?
Remember, this is your GOP, people so scary they need to be locked away.
The part which is truly nuts is that these folks are small fry, tiny people with little support. Terry and Mahoney are useful stooges to wake up the hard core, until they do. The Dobsons and Robertsons hide behind them, acting as if these are independent actors when they are clearly not. They can only exist because larger groups carry their themes.
I think they're going to be shocked when they are hammered in lawsuits. Not just by the Schiavos, but by other family members of hospice patients for that mess they helped create. I wouldn't be surprised if the Schindlers were sued as well. They pissed off a lot of people with their antics.
What I think is missing is that the GOP is so tied to these people now that if something happens, it goes right to the White House and Congress.
If you had chanced upon the front door of Grace Church School on lower Broadway on a sunny morning in the fall of 1969, you might have come upon a radiant boy clutching a brown paper bag that contained a piece of sacred turf harvested from Shea Stadium, where the New York Mets had recently won the world championship of baseball.
That boy grew up, slightly, and in the early spring of 1986, he vowed that he would ask his girlfriend to marry him the day the Mets won their 30th game of the season. The Mets got off to an unnervingly fast start that year, and the young man decided to postpone his proposal until the 40th win. But he followed through with it, and the marriage has even endured what his wife calls his Metsomnia - his tendency to toss and turn sleeplessly after his favorite baseball team has suffered a painful defeat.
And yet we are the playthings of fate and lead lives filled with strange twists, and I (for it is time to throw off the artfully constructed mask) now find myself contemplating the uncontemplatable: that I will switch my allegiance from the beloved Mets to the new team of my adopted town. I will become a fan of the Washington Nationals.
First: this asshole is a Metsfan?
Chris Rock, Jerry Seinfeld, Matthew Broderick, Jon Stewart OK.
David Brooks? How the fuck did that happen?
Second, I wished I lived in the UK, where such a public pronouncement would lead to a lynchmob being sent to one's door.
Oh, I no longer like Livepool, I like Everton. Well, that would be your last words as your house caught fire if you were over 12. They would see your shadow hanging from a street lamp.
A grown man should have firm alliegences. Who the fuck cares where you live. If he wants to root for the Expos in drag, fine by me. Fucking beltway asshole. But a man who chooses a team should stick with that team if he has pubic hair. Or unless he's a front running fuck.
Personally, the idea of Brooks being a diehard Mets fan like Charles Osgood makes me ill. Sick to my stomach. So let him root for the Nats, Rats or whatever the fuck they are.
AMSTERDAM - Just minutes before a high-stakes soccer game not long ago between this city's home team, Ajax, and their rivals from the southern city of Eindhoven, a chant built to a roar in the hall packed with supporters where they were serving plastic pint cups of Dutch beer.
"Jews, Jews, Jews!" thousands of voices cried.
Outside, souvenir stalls sold Israeli flags or flags with the Ajax logo, the head of the fabled Greek warrior, emblazoned inside the star of David. Fans arrived with hats, jackets and scarves embroidered with Hebrew writing. Until recently, the team's official Web site even featured the ringing tones of Hava Nagila and other Jewish songs that could be downloaded into fans' mobile phones.
Few, if any, of these people are Jewish.
"About thirty years ago, the other teams' supporters started calling us Jews because there was a history of Jews in Ajax," explained Fred Harris, a stocky man with brush-cut hair and a thick gold chain around his neck, "so we took it up as a point of pride and now it has become our identity."
For years, the team's management supported that unique identity. But over time what seemed to many people like a harmless - if peculiar - custom has taken on a more sinister tone. Fans of Ajax's biggest rivals began giving the Nazis' signature straight-arm salute or chanting "Hamas, Hamas!" to provoke Ajax supporters. Ajax games have been marred by shouts of "Jews to the gas!" or simply hissing to simulate the sound of gas escaping.
The most disturbing displays have come during games against teams from The Hague or Amsterdam's greatest rival, Rotterdam. But even Eindhoven fans get into the act: not long after the game started, a chant arose from the corner section of the city's stadium reserved for fans of the opposing team.
"Everyone who's not jumping is a Jew!" the crowd cried over and over again as thousands of people in the section jumped up and down.
Ajax games have become so charged with such anti-Semitic displays that many of the team's Jewish fans now avoid the games altogether. The offensive behavior is not one-sided: during a game against a German team late last year, a group of Ajax supporters displayed a banner that read "Jews take revenge for '40-'45," a reference to the Holocaust.
"We were probably too tolerant," said Uri Coronel, a Jew who was a member of Ajax's board in the 1990's, speaking about the management's past attitude.
Since then, the atmosphere at the games has become "unbearable," he said, adding that the fans' adoption of a Jewish identity is widely misunderstood as something positive.
"A lot of Jews all over the world believe that Ajax fans are proud to call themselves Jews, but it's a kind of hooliganism," he said.
There is no clear reason why Ajax, founded in 1900, became known as a Jewish club. Amsterdam has always had the largest Jewish population in the Netherlands and the club had two Jewish presidents in the 1960's and 1970's. It has had Jewish players at various times. The club, which owns 73 percent of the listed company that owns the team, also has some Jews among its 400 members, but no greater a percentage than their representation in the city's general population. There are no Jews on the club's current board.
"The club has no real Jewish origins," said John C. Jaakke, the club's dapper president, speaking before the Eindhoven game.
Nonetheless, the club became identified in the public mind with Jews in the 1950's, and by the 1970's, opposing fans began to call Ajax supporters Jews. The supporters adopted the identity in a spirit of defiance.
Mr. Jaakke said the trend had bothered the club's management for the past 10 years, and many Jewish supporters have complained that it makes them uncomfortable. Finally, last year, during a period of national debate about the language being used in soccer stadiums, the board decided to take the opportunity to address the issue. One of the main catalysts for that debate was not anti-Semitic chants, but chants calling the well-known girlfriend of an Ajax player a prostitute.
Mr. Jaakke called a meeting with representatives of the club's two main supporters' associations last year to communicate the management's concerns. Mr. Coronel, the son of Holocaust survivors, spoke to them about how hurtful the language was to Jews. Finally, in his New Year's speech, Mr. Jaakke expressed the management's desire that fans drop their pretended Jewish identity.
"Not only Jews are bothered by this," said Mr. Jaakke, "I'm not Jewish and I hate it, too."
The club has asked an independent committee, headed by the Dutch foreign minister, to discuss the issue and try to come up with a strategy for ending the practice. Mr. Jaakke said there had been some suggestion that fans substitute the word "Goden," or gods, for "Joden," or Jews, and call themselves "sons of gods," on the logic that Ajax was a sort of god.
Mr. Jaakke conceded that forcing the fans to change their behavior was a daunting task. "It's difficult for the supporters because it has become part of their identity," he said. "Many people are walking around with Jewish stars tattooed on their bodies and they're not Jewish at all."
Jen
Bleh. No comment. Guess those evil, anti-Nazi laws that the big bad Americans forced down Europe's throats just...didn't..sink...in. Could you imagine the reaction if racial slurs were widely used at a national-level sports game by detractors of any one team? "Riot" wouldn't begin to describe it.
As I replied to Jen, this is nothing new.
Actually, this has gone on for at least two decades. For some reason Ajax fans embraced Jewish identity and other teams fans taunted them. They used to hiss at them during games to simulate the gas chambers.
But this isn't the nastiest rivalry going. Celtic vs Rangers in Glasgow is by far the worst. Celtic was supported by the IRA, Rangers by the UVF. They would sing secterian songs like Fuck the Pope and Up the IRA in the stands. People have died in riots between the two teams. You can get killed weainkring the wrong jersey in the wrong neighborhood.
What Europeans don't understand is that this kind of rivalry is unacceptable in the US. Old Miss's use of the Confederate flag was not only harshly criticized, but cost them recruits. A professional team would never tolerate this or be allowed to have this conduct take place. From the league management on down, the use of racial slurs is simply not permitted. If you were to start yelling oh, Fuck the LA Niggers in Utah, not only would you be booted, you would probably lose your season tickets.
What Americans don't understand is that football isn't just sport, but life. Like being a Red Sox fan times 25. It defines your social identity in ways that few things do. So stopping them from calling them Jews and waving Israeli flags and gear is unlikely. It took two decades to get Celtic and Ranger fans to stop using the games as shadow wars for the paramilitaries in Northern Ireland. Football teams represent class, unions, ethnic identity to an amazing degree.
This is more about image than rampant anti-semitism. The PSV Eindhoven fans don't hate Jews. They take great pride in their role in the liberation of Holland. But they do hate Ajax and its fans and the easiest way to get to people embracing Jewish identity is to use anti-semitic slurs and pro-Arab sayings. Of course, this has to be extremely painful for Dutch Jews.
But if Ajax is now going to change the team's identity, that's going to take a lot. Unlike with Celtic and Rangers, where violence was being spurred on the clubs fans with some of the hard cases being UVF or IRA members or supporters. Changing the club's off field identity is very difficult, especially if it's 50 years old and the reason to change is the ultras on the other sides saying nasty things.
I think it would far easier to deal with the other sides and show how their anti-Ajax chants make them look like anti-semitic clowns and disgrace not only their teams but their country.
Driftglass posted this in comments and it's too damn funny to stay there.
IMHO it’s as simple as: “Never jump into bed with someone who’s crazier than you are.”
For the Suburban Gated, the non-deranged gunnies and the Tax Cuts Uber Alles Republicans, it’s all jolly good fun having a romp with the Fundies…as long as they keep delivering the 20% margin the GOP must have to win anything and as long as they stay the fuck away from my house and family, its all just good kinky fun…
…until the sun comes up, and you realize that the Electoral Candy you were offered was just bait to get you into the Windowless Fundy Panel Truck. Oops.
And now you’re waaaay out in the country somewhere you don’t recognize without your pants, and you start to figure our that all the Burning Crosses and Swastikas and Apocalyptic Paraphernalia that tricks out the inside of the van isn't tatted-up Goth Chick posturing.
And Randall Terry and Tom DeLay wave to you from the front seat and say, “Mornin’ shug! Get ready; we gonna burn us some ‘a them Chirst Hatin’ Abortionists today.” Or Fags. Or Negros. Or Liberals. Or Ay-rabs. Or Jews. Or, really, Anybody.
And all of the slack-jawed yokels who were so eagerly helpful while you were passing you’re Lovely Tax Cuts are sitting around you giggling…and armed to their snaggled teeth.
And then you hear, “Bring Out The Gimp.” (Which, for my money, should be the Democrats’ Lead Media Message for the next four months.)
Oh. God. You mean these crazy fucks were serious? Like, really, really serious?!
No shit they’re serious, Suburban Weekend Bad-Ass -- and it's not exactly like you weren't given Ample Warning: Now they have your shriveled nuts in a razor-lined C-clamp, they want the very high interest vig on the Electoral Loan they made you to pay for your Optional War and Drunken Safety Net Shredding Good Times.
As I've been saying, the devil wants his due, and he's come to collect.
They thought they could play them forever. I guess forever is today,
UPDATE: Someone just noted that it is possible this event isn't being hosted by the Press Club, but rather by another organization that is simply renting out the Press Club. We're investigating - stay tuned.
There's an upcoming panel at the National Press Club about the differences between bloggers and journalists and they invite GannonGuckert to be on the panel as, what? He's not a blogger - his so-called "blog" launched a mere 3 weeks ago, and it's hardly much of a blog. And he's most certainly not a journalist, even by the National Press Club's own definition on their Web site:
"You may qualify for Active membership if you fit into one of the following groups:
Work as a:
Reporter, editor, writer, publisher....
For a publication, news service, broadcast outlet or news Internet site that is:...
* Regularly issued
* Supported by advertising or paid subscriptions or published or funded by a non-profit organization Operated with editorial independence from any political, governmental, commercial or special interest
* Not a house organ of any organization or movement"
So what is GG even doing on the panel? The other blogger invited is Wonkette, who, for the record, I adore, but who isn't a political/journalist blogger at all - she's a humorist, and that's great, but to put her opposite John Stanton of Congress Daily seems a bit inappropriate (not to mention, I can't wait till she starts talking about butt-fucking).
And in any case, what is GannonGuckert doing there at all? Like he's an expert on the difference between blogging and journalism? How so? He thinks journalism means parroting press releases and transcripts. As for blogging, again, he started a so-called blog 3 weeks ago and now he's representative of all bloggers? Is he even a blogger at all? Some standards the Press Club has there. They couldn't even get any REAL political bloggers on the panel? Did they even try?
But we really shouldn't be surprised, this is part of a larger ongoing trend, from the LA Times to the Brookings Institution, where bloggers and blogging are distilled and belittled to their most extreme fringe elements - a sex humorist (who again, we love) and a male hooker who isn't even a blogger or journalist at all. Neither is representative of political journalist blogging.
Yet again, the mainstream media is all about selling tickets and belittling the competition rather than addressing a topic seriously. Wonkette sells sex, and sex sells. And GannonGuckert, well, he's literally a whore, so res ipsa loquitor.
Stay tuned as we investigate who the actual sponsor is of this whore-fest.
Well, Wonkette doesn't mind whores, as we all know.
Can anyone imagine a less serious conversation?
But this is silly. It's an insult to right bloggers to have manwhore Guckert there, a man so stupid as to use his ho name on his White House Press Psss. He doesn't represent them and if they had brains they would be screaming.
As for Wonkette, she will appear anywhere, anytime to promote Nick Denton's blog. Maybe he pays her more money or something.
But the day she appears on a real panel, especially with women bloggers, and yes they do exist, that will be one ugly event. Her blonde hair/blue eye cuteness will not work with them and they will gut her like a fish. Not every woman likes to make a joke of anal sex, and as most men can attest to, like to raise the subject at all, even with a bottle of wine under their belt, forget in a public forum.
I can see the public event when some woman just tees off on Wonkette, more than a man would, because they don't want to be seen as bullying. It's not that people care that she appears, it's just that she gets hammered by people not playing cute. But at least she's smarter tham the manwhore.
But not by much.
Bob Somersby shows us why Wonkette needs to stop embarassing herself in public
This is how she answers a question from EJ Dionne. Unlike most of his peers, Dionne has a doctorate in political science and usually thinks about stuff before he writes.
DIONNE: Let me begin with Ana Marie Cox, who posted an interesting set of questions in her [background submission]...She also said, and this is what I think I’ll throw at her: “It wouldn’t be a blogging panel if someone didn’t ask about. ‘Don’t bloggers sometimes get things wrong.’” So why don’t we start there?
COX: It’s usually my own private drinking game—when someone asks about bloggers getting everything wrong, everyone drinks. I wish! First, I just want to say, if my answer seems sort of more fuzzy than usual, it’s not the bourbon, it’s Robitussin. I’ve got a bad cough.
Jen would hit me in the back of the head with her bag if I ever gave such a stupid answer in public. This woman is a working journalist, has been for years, and this is what she comes up with.
Sgt. John J. Savage III and his wife fought an illegal foreclosure on their house. Federal law limits the ability of lenders to foreclose against active-duty service members.
Sgt. John J. Savage III and his wife fought an illegal foreclosure on their house. Federal law limits the ability of lenders to foreclose against active-duty service members.
Boatswain’s Mate Second Class Kevin Cornell had no problem readjusting the interest rate on one credit card through the relief act, but had trouble doing the same on another.
Sgt. John J. Savage III, an Army reservist, was about to climb onto a troop transport plane for a flight to Iraq from Fayetteville, N.C., when his wife called with alarming news: "They're foreclosing on our house."
Sergeant Savage recalled, "There was not a thing I could do; I had to jump on the plane and boil for 22 hours."
He had reason to be angry. A longstanding federal law strictly limits the ability of his mortgage company and other lenders to foreclose against active-duty service members.
But Sergeant Savage's experience was not unusual. Though statistics are scarce, court records and interviews with military and civilian lawyers suggest that Americans heading off to war are sometimes facing distracting and demoralizing demands from financial companies trying to collect on obligations that, by law, they cannot enforce.
Some cases involve nationally prominent companies like Wells Fargo and Citigroup, though both say they are committed to strict compliance with the law.
The problem, most military law specialists say, is that too many lenders, debt collectors, landlords, lawyers and judges are unaware of the federal statute or do not fully understand it.
The law, the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, protects all active-duty military families from foreclosures, evictions and other financial consequences of military service. The Supreme Court has ruled that its provisions must "be liberally construed to protect those who have been obliged to drop their own affairs to take up the burdens of the nation."
Yet the relief act has not seemed to work in recent cases like these:
¶At Fort Hood, Tex., a soldier's wife was sued by a creditor trying to collect a debt owed by her and her husband, who was serving in Baghdad at the time. A local judge ruled against her, saying she had defaulted, even though specialists say the relief act forbids default judgments against soldiers serving overseas and protects their spouses as well.
¶At Camp Pendleton, Calif., more than a dozen marines returned from Iraq to find that their cars and other possessions had been improperly sold to cover unpaid storage and towing fees. The law forbids such seizures without a court order.
¶In northern Ohio, Wells Fargo served a young Army couple with foreclosure papers despite the wife's repeated efforts to negotiate new repayment terms with the bank. Wells Fargo said later that it had been unaware of the couple's military status. The foreclosure was dropped after a military lawyer intervened.
Little-Known Legislation
The relief act provides a broad spectrum of protections to service members, their spouses and their dependents. The interest rate on debts incurred before enlistment, for example, must be capped at 6 percent if military duty has reduced a service member's family income.
The law also protects service members from repossession or foreclosure without a court order. It allows them to terminate any real estate lease when their military orders require them to do so. And it forbids judges from holding service members in default on any legal matter unless the court has first appointed a lawyer to protect their interests.
The law is an updated version of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act, which was adopted on the eve of World War II and remained largely unchanged through the Persian Gulf war of 1991. But in July 2001, a federal court ruled that service members could sue violators of the relief act for damages. And the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11 prompted Congress to take up a long-deferred Pentagon proposal to update the old act. The revised statute, clearer and more protective than the old one, was signed into law in December 2003.
But the news was apparently slow in reaching those who would have to interpret and enforce the law.
"There are 50,000 judges in this country and God knows how many lawyers," said Alexander P. White, a county court judge in Chicago and the chairman of one of the American Bar Association's military law committees. "Are people falling down on the job - the judges, the bar, the military? Probably." And broad understanding of the law "is not going to happen overnight."
The problem is especially severe with Guardsmen and Reservists and their spouse, because this is an obscure provision and military lawyers have to fight over and over to emforce these provisions.
The same with the employment provisions of the act as well. People lose their jobs all the time behind military service.
In the spring of 1996, Lee McFarland quit his high-paying job at Microsoft, sold his house and drove his Jeep Cherokee from Redmond, Wash., to Surprise, Ariz. He had come to build a church. McFarland, who was 36 at the time, knew little about leading churches and less about building them: he wasn't even halfway through the correspondence classes he was taking to become an evangelical pastor. Nevertheless, he'd been hired by a small group of Christians in an adjoining community to do just that. And so a few days after he arrived, he put on a pair of slacks and a polo shirt, said goodbye to his wife, Sandy, and their two kids, who had come to Surprise several weeks ahead of him to get settled in their new house, and set out to find believers.
For decades, Surprise, which is about 45 minutes northwest of downtown Phoenix, was mostly scrubby cotton, rose and citrus fields, with a small grid of streets where migrant workers lived. In the early 90's, developers discovered the town. By the time McFarland and his family arrived, its population had climbed past 15,000, and more, many more, were on their way. Most of Surprise's new residents were young white families drawn to affordable homes and jobs within commuting distance. Many of them hadn't gone to college but no doubt hoped that their children would.
These were the people McFarland was seeking when he started knocking on the doors of one light brown stucco tract home after another. Applying a lesson he learned a month earlier in a church-development seminar in Orange County, Calif., he introduced himself to the locals as the pastor of a new church that he was calling Radiant. From there he expected to begin long, probing conversations about their lives -- what was missing, what their kids liked to do in their free time and so on. But the mothers and fathers who greeted him were barely civil. ''This was,'' as he put it to me not long ago, ''a radically unchurched area.'' No wonder Surprise's three existing churches were struggling.
After a few days of trekking through identical streets and cul-de-sacs under the hot Arizona sun, McFarland figured he had better try a different approach. He traded in his business-casual attire for a T-shirt and blue jeans, bought a clipboard and posed as the representative of a secular organization. He limited himself to two questions: ''What's your favorite radio station?'' and ''Why do you think people don't go to church?'' The conversations grew longer, and McFarland's mission became clear. People in Surprise listened to rock music. And they didn't go to church because they didn't have any fancy clothes, didn't like being asked for money and didn't see how any of the sermons they had heard in the past related to their lives.
....................
For several months, Brett and Cristina attended a Christian parenting class at the church, where they discussed things like how to help their kids handle science class in public school. (''If the teacher is up there teaching evolution as fact,'' Brett told me, ''there's nothing wrong with you asking very pointed questions, and it's a great opportunity to share your faith.'') Brett and Cristina attend a potluck dinner every other Saturday night with couples from the church. On Tuesday nights, Brett leads a Bible study class at the church; on Friday mornings he has breakfast with a group of Christian contractors. ''Now I know what it means to have brothers in Christ -- seeing guys, giving big hugs to each other, just that feeling,'' he told me, explaining the transformative effect that the church's small groups have had on him. ''It's not Radiant magic dust, but Radiant encourages you to let the spirit grow inside you and take down the wall you build up around yourself.''
As soon as he arrived in Surprise, McFarland could see that the city didn't have the infrastructure to support an influx of young families. He sensed opportunity. ''From Day 1 we were going to be a church that was going to really impact our community and provide something very tangible that would solve a problem,'' he says. ''Just helping the community opened a lot of doors, made people feel like we weren't just a church.''
The first problem McFarland set about solving was that of the public schools. The newly arriving parents told him they were terrible. So in the summer of 1998, less than a year after he'd started offering Sunday services, McFarland rented a trailer, strung up a banner and began signing up children for an as-yet-unbuilt charter school, Paradise Education Center; C.E.O., Lee McFarland. ''We had nothing to show them,'' he told me. ''Literally there was just land here.''
It was a measure of just how desperate parents were for an alternative to the public schools that the parents of 225 children turned up, vaccination records in hand, and registered them. Today the school, a ring of single-story white stucco buildings directly across the street from Radiant's massive worship center, is thriving. It has more than 1,000 children, and a waiting list close to 200.
Because the school relies on public funds, teachers are required to follow state-approved curriculum guides, but Paradise nevertheless provides free advertising for Radiant. ''To this day parents will come by here and go, 'We just moved to Surprise and my kids go to school here, so tell me about this church,' '' McFarland said. ''We usually say it's a real positive church, real upbeat, kind of a community feel. A great place to get to know people. And they go, 'Great, I'll check it out.' That story has happened hundreds of times.''
Today the problem with Surprise's public schools isn't merely one of quality, it's one of quantity. The city builds two elementary schools every year and a new high school every other year, but parents still complain of overcrowding.
Commercial development has started catching up with the population growth. Surprise's main thoroughfare, Bell Road, is now a traffic-choked avenue lined with strip malls filled with all of the usual suspects (Target, Home Depot, Wal-Mart, Wendy's, Chick-fil-A, etc.). But it's the affordable homes that draw people to the city. The appetite for houses is so strong that most developments have a lottery system; if there is no lottery, people camp out overnight whenever new properties are about to be released. Demand is pushing up prices. At one development I visited, Legacy Parc, homes are climbing between $5,000 and $15,000 every month. But even with these steady increases, the average house in Surprise goes for $175,000.
It's an attractive price for many families who are either trying to make the move into the middle class or remain there in the face of mounting debt and growing expenses. Which explains why the typical Surprise resident, as in many fast-growing exurbs, is a young, white, married couple of modest means.
These are people that the Republican Party has always run well with -- it's conventional wisdom among political analysts that young, middle-class couples raising children tend to be conservative -- and in 2004 the G.O.P. made a strong play for exurbanites. Megachurches were a key part of the strategy. Supporters were asked to supply the Bush-Cheney campaign with church directories so it could make sure these churchgoers were registered and planning to vote. ''For the first time we didn't just engage businesspeople or Second Amendment supporters; we engaged people who said they were motivated first and foremost by their values, and these people were often churchgoers,'' Gary Marx, a liaison to social conservatives for the campaign, told me recently. ''We asked them to reach out to their community, and their community is the megachurch.''
And this is the group for which this Schiavo circus hits home. They aren't fundies, but more like the Simpsons, people who go to church because they think they should. And since church membership is a great way to have friends in a new community, they have no problems socializing with church members. They live in these places because they can't live closer to their jobs and urban areas. You have a lot of ex-servicemen, blue collar workers and the like, people who usually vote Republican anyway, have since their grandparents voted for Eisenhower.
But when they saw that freak show in Florida, this hit them in the head like a 2 by 4. They may be pro-life or whatever, but they are anti-in law. The reason they moved to an exburb was to have their own lives. The Schiavo circus is a nightmare for these people, like being trapped ion a burning building or crashing in an airplane. These young couples can imagine exactly how this would play out in their lives and they don't like it one bit. Time's polling is so bad, Joe "dead staffer" Scarboruough wants to wish it away. Unfortunately, he doesn't have a corrupt coroner to help him out here.
The people who flipped out the most were young husbands imagining dealing with grief-crazed in-laws. Hell, they fight over sending the kids to visit now. They plan those Disney World trips for a reason, being in central Florida in August beats a week with the inlaws. Imagine if tragedy was involved.
No matter how many times I write about it, I just can't believe the GOP thought this would help them. Randall Terry and Pat Mahoney made their name bullying women. The Schindlers come off badly, delusionally. And while some folks thought those pictures would help the GOP by creating compassion, most folks were thinking: If that's me, please fucking kill me. Please.
Some people think this is some kind of cable TV distraction. And it was. I've followed this case for years and was annoyed when Jeb! jumped in . But then DeLay decided to raise the stakes and play with the Constitution. Then the pundits jumped in, calling for Jeb! to become King of Florida as if people supported him. Bill Bennett casually tossed around impeachment like it was a ball gag. Well, Jeb! wasn't worried about impeachment, but jail for murder and kidnapping. These people talk about freedom on the march, but they wanted Jeb! to act like the Sauds and make the laws he wanted.
Then it became the most important story in America, because they were going after the courts in a rather scary way. I know Europeans are shaking their heads, along with our Commonwealth friends, but they shouldn't take the wrong lesson away from this. Sure, we have some wingnuts who think America should be a theocracy, but most don't. These people took a shot at imposing the rule of man over law for this one case, and then it would all start to unravel. They didn't think people would react so badly, but Americans aren't idiots. They know when politicians are running a scam. Then Dubya jumped in with both feet, with his dramatic return to Washington.
The GOP must have believed that nonsense about a manadate, forgetting that 3m votes is a close election. The country was already divided, this wasn't going to help. So now, people like Grover Norquist are going "holy shit, what are these maniacs doing". Kinda like the exburb church goers. They didn't sign on for non-stop lunacy.
And given the naturual cowardice of the Bushes, who they had pumped up for years as plain talking straight shooters, they were left with Jeb! and Dubya running for the hills when Randall Terry and the delusional Schindlers became the face of the GOP, endorsed by Tom DeLay. Instead of nice families going to church, the GOP is now being seen as a collection of wingnut protesters complete with criminals in the mix. The kind of people who will torment the dying to make their point.
That cowardice was exactly the wrong move, the anti-George Wallace. Wallace may have stood in the schoolhouse door, but he led his people away from there as well. He didn't flee the scene and leave the Klan in charge. Which is exactly what the GOP did. They let Terry and Mahoney not only challenge the GOP, they didn't refute those challenges, which makes them look even weaker. A pol should have stood up and said "It's easy for Randall Terry to say violate the law, but he doesn't live in Florida and he won't be going to jail in Florida." But the GOP won't even challenge these guys when they pose a direct threat to their reelection. Which they now do. All you get is Jeb! wimpering in the corner and not saying the obvious, he's gone above and beyond any reasonable standard to help the Schindlers, placing his office on the line for them. Nope.
These same people talk about weak Dems, yet when faced with violent loons, all they can do is wimper and hide
TALLAHASSEE, Florida (CNN) -- With their court battles apparently exhausted, supporters of Terri Schiavo's parents said Sunday that they would take their efforts to Washington on Monday.
The Rev. Patrick Mahoney, a conservative Christian activist who has become a prominent figure in the protests over Schiavo's case, said he will go to Washington to plead with congressional leaders and the Bush administration to enforce a subpoena issued March 18 by a House committee for the 41-year-old woman to appear before Congress.
The conclusion of Mahoney's news conference Sunday afternoon was disrupted by a minor scuffle among protesters jostling to get their signs within camera range.
After remarks by Randall Terry -- an activist against abortion rights who has been acting as a spokesman for Terri Schiavo's family, the Schindlers -- members of a group calling itself the Revolutionary Communist Youth Brigades seized control of the microphones and blasted Terry as a "Christian fascist thug" trying to interfere in "the most intimate affairs of life and death."
"[Terri Schiavo's] brain is not functional. It's not going to recover. Let her die in peace," pleaded Sunsari Taylor, a member of the group.
Before the disruption, Mahoney had said: "We are going to plead for Terri, to be her voice in Washington, D.C."
The congressional subpoena was quashed the same day it was issued by the Florida judge who ordered Schiavo's feeding tube removed, and the U.S. Supreme Court rejected an appeal of that decision by Republican congressional leaders.
Mahoney said the fact that Schiavo has survived nearly 10 days since the removal of the tube that has supplied her with nutrition and water indicates that she wants to appear before the House Government Reform Committee.
He challenged House Speaker Dennis Hastert, an Illinois Republican, to show that he was not "just playing politics" with the subpoena.
With tensions flaring, security outside Schiavo's hospice in Pinellas Park, Florida, was doubled Sunday from the day before to as many as 10 police officers.
Protesters have gathered daily outside the hospice, and some have been arrested trying to enter the facility in ceremonial efforts to take water to Terri Schiavo.
Despite the Schindlers' requests that people spend Easter at home with their families, demonstrators showed up outside the hospice Sunday. Their son, Bobby Schindler, asked protesters to stop volunteering to be arrested.
"It's not going to help at all to do anything that's going to lead to arrests," Schindler said. Police "are here to do a job," he added
Wow, Bob Avakian is back. All the loonies are crawling out of the woodwork. And the scary part is RCYP are the sanest people there.
The less pols do to help her, because they should have said no to begin with, the madder the fundies get. I just wonder what they wll do when she dies. For some reason the pols never planned to deliver and now they're shocked that people are pissed at them. Gee golly wilikers, these folks are extremists and their pundit allies are so wrong they make the Clinton impeachment look logical. They thought people would approve of this, which they don't by a margin of 2-1.
I think a lot of pols are going to be busy in meetings tomorrow. Bcause the last thing they need is a photo op with Randall Terry. After the poll numbers hit, he should be totally radioactive.
An Associated Press article is beginning to circulate at http://www.wfmynews2.com/news/local_state/local_article.aspx?storyid=38304 and elsewhere regarding 10 year old Joshua Heldreth and his father, Scott Heldreth. Heldreth is a longtime Operation Rescue/Operation Save America participant as is clear from a simple Google search and any claim that his son induced him to come to Pinellas where many other OR/OSA people and their leadership were present is clearly bogus.
Further, Scott Heldreth is a registered sex offender in the state of Florida, marked as "absconded from registration," according to this FDLE flyer:
A Howard Scott Heldreth is registered as a sex offender in both Illinois and Florida and a Scott Heldreth has let his son get arrested outside Terri Schiavo's hospice. Both pictures are very similar.
It seems he wasn't registered in North Carolina, where he lives, as a sex offender.
The problem with the whole circus outside the hospice is that you don't know what kind of people you attract. You drag in all sorts and if this is true and Heldreth is absconded from registration as a sex offender.
What is amazing is that after seeing this guy let his kid get arrested, no one did as much as a google search on him until someone did on Kos.
Don't we have reporters any more? Or are they all stenographers?
Now, this guy has been reported and I think may well be arrested, but it seems no one cares about who exactly is around that place or what they may be up to.
National service: the draft with apartheid built in
as long as a draft means this, it will always be opposed
The Case for the Draft America can remain the world's superpower. Or it can maintain its current all-volunteer military. It can't do both.
By Phillip Carter and Paul Glastris
A better solution would fix the weaknesses of the all-volunteer force without undermining its strengths. Here's how such a plan might work. Instead of a lottery, the federal government would impose a requirement that no four-year college or university be allowed to accept a student, male or female, unless and until that student had completed a 12-month to two-year term of service. Unlike an old-fashioned draft, this 21st-century service requirement would provide a vital element of personal choice. Students could choose to fulfill their obligations in any of three ways: in national service programs like AmeriCorps (tutoring disadvantaged children), in homeland security assignments (guarding ports), or in the military. Those who chose te he latter could serve as military police officers, truck drivers, or other non-combat specialists requiring only modest levels of training. (It should be noted that the Army currently offers two-year enlistments for all of these jobs, as well as for the infantry.) They would be deployed as needed for peacekeeping or nation-building missions. They would serve for 12-months to two years, with modest follow-on reserve obligations.
Whichever option they choose, all who serve would receive modest stipends and GI Bill-type college grants. Those who sign up for lengthier and riskier duty, however, would receive higher pay and larger college grants. Most would no doubt pick the less dangerous options. But some would certainly select the military?out of patriotism, a sense of adventure, or to test their mettle. Even if only 10 percent of the one-million young people who annually start at four-year colleges and universities were to choose the military option, the armed forces would receive 100,000 fresh recruits every year. These would be motivated recruits, having chosen the military over other, less demanding forms of service. And because they would all be college-grade and college-bound, they would have?to a greater extent than your average volunteer recruit?the savvy and inclination to pick up foreign languages and other skills that are often the key to effective peacekeeping work.
A 21st-century draft like this would create a cascading series of benefits for society. It would instill a new ethic of service in that sector of society, the college-bound, most likely to reap the fruits of American prosperity. It would mobilize an army of young people for vital domestic missions, such as helping a growing population of seniors who want to avoid nursing homes but need help with simple daily tasks like grocery shopping. It would give more of America's elite an experience of the military. Above all, it would provide the all-important surge capacity now missing from our force structure, insuring that the military would never again lack for manpower. And it would do all this without requiring any American to carry a gun who did not choose to do so.
The war in Iraq has shown us, and the world, many things: the bloody costs of inept leadership; the courage of the average American soldier; the hunger for democracy among some of the earth's most oppressed people. But perhaps more than anything, Iraq has shown that our military power has limits. As currently constituted, the U.S. military can win the wars, but it cannot win the peace, nor can it commit for the long term to the stability and security of a nation such as Iraq. Our enemies have learned this, and they will use that knowledge to their advantage in the next war to tie us down and bleed us until we lose the political will to fight.
If America wishes to retain its mantle of global leadership, it must develop a military force structure capable of persevering under these circumstances. Fortunately, we know how to build such a force. We have done it many times in the past. The question is: Do we have the will to do so again?
I like Phil, but he should know better. First of all, one of the big problems in Iraq is qualified 11B's. Draftees will be shunted to the combat arms first and foremost.
First of all, this is Universal Military Training with a smile attached. Personal choice my ass, this is the Vietnam draft but worse. At least college grads could be drafted. This? This ensures a poor, minority and poor white Army, like the one we have now, but poorer. Teachers will direct the smart kids to Americorps while the poor kids there will suddenly find that they have a new opportunity, the Army.
Second, the army would get the leftovers. The kids with personality problems, the petty criminals and discipline cases. Teachers and parents would direct their kids in unprecidented numbers.
Also, the main reason kids are joining the military is for college, you offer Americorps in its stead, most wouldn't think twice about it.
This ahistorical fanatasy is comical on it's face.
Ethic of service? Is he kidding?
Let me explain reality: bitter kids stuck doing grunt work would do the minimum they would have to to pass the requirement. Theft, drug use, violence would be introduced into these settings, since this would be compulsary.
All of the hard cases, kids teachers didn't like and wouldn't help would suddenly be stuck in the combat arms, ripe to repeat the 1970's.
This is another beltway fanatsy by people who should know better.
The draft has only existed for 40 years in this nation's history and has been deeply unpopular each time it was used. The Army, in both WWI and WWII held hundreds of thousands of men back from the combat arms for education. In WWII, it took massive casualities before the ASTP and Air Cadets were disbanded and their men sent to join infantry units and then, they still had to form black platoons to serve with white companies.
Does anyone think middle class kids will suddenly flood the Army?
Please.
This is like comparing racism with apartheid. You would codify class inequality and make it frighteningly easy to create a poor, unmotivated Army. Those with means will choose non-military duty, those without would be shunted into the military. Even now, most enlistees want college benefits. If Jessica Lynch could have gotten to college without joining the Guard, she would have never seen Iraq. So who would be left? The violence prone, the unstable, those not accepted in civilian programs. Patriotism? Nothing is stopping people from enlisting today. And they won't do it. Especially the middle class.
This should be called draft the poor and protect the middle class.
Oh yeah, Homeland Security? Is he suggesting a national police force to guard ports or a home guard. You can do that today with decent salaries and training? See how corrupt the TSA is? Wait for this monster to pop up.
You want a realistic policy? No more wars of choice. That will improve the Army and end need for the draft.
I cannot believe Phil Carter thinks he'd get an MP Company of middle class, motivated kids. He should ask some Vietnam-era vets what kind of guys they got in 1971/72. Motivated kids are going to be motivated away from the military.
These numbers portend a disaster for the GOP. While 2006 is a long time away, the immediate effect is to undermine trust in Congress over Social Security.
A lot of you are thinking: well, the GOP will find a way of this, no one cared about Iraq.
Iraq's effect on people is limited. The idea of the government siding with your inlaws is not. And the radical right pundits were even scarier than Congress. Seize her, ignore the judge. Uh, people left El Salvador, Cuba, Eastern Europe behind that kind of lawmaking. Americans may hate lawyers, but like the law. And they don't like politicians.
The GOP has no superpowers, just talking points and those ain't working. They miscalcuated on an epic scale. That doesn't mean you should reserve seats for Bush's impeachment trial just yet, but it is a starting point. By trying to placate their base, they failed on two levels, one by scaring the shit out of even evangelicals, and two, by not actually rescuing her. They thought with the Bushes and Congress on their side, they had to win.
Jeb meekly saying that he can't exceed his powers is not what they expected, and Congress didn't expect a backlash.
My question is why? Bush won by 3 million, not 30 million votes, John Kerry is not in some obscure exile, but plotting to run again. Why did they think that they could just bend to the will of the wingnuts and no one would mind. Especially on such a personal matter?
Why did they miscalculate so badly?
If I had to guess, Tom DeLay led the charge and married his sympathy for the Schindlers with a need to hide his legal problems. They had been working Congress for a while. They had no idea that instead of eliciting sympathy with pictures of Terri Schiavo, most people were thinking: Jesus, kill me if that happens to me. Those pictures scared people and shifted public opinion decisively against Congress
And the most devestating number is the last one. People would vote against their Congressman for this, oddly enough, most Dems didn't vote.
But of course, seeking to snatch defeat from victory, Lieberman endorsed the losing position, a position Republicans are fleeing from like they were on fire. God he needs to be defeated.
It isn't easy to define what a journalist is — or isn't. Forty or 50 years ago, some might have dismissed I.F. Stone as the print equivalent of a blogger, writing and publishing his independent, muckraking "I.F. Stone Weekly." But Stone was an experienced journalist, and his Weekly did not traffic in gossip or rumor. He was so highly regarded by his peers that he was widely known as "the conscience of investigative journalism."
BLOGGERS require no journalistic experience. All they need is computer access and the desire to blog. There are other, even important differences between bloggers and mainstream journalists, perhaps the most significant being that bloggers pride themselves on being part of an unmediated medium, giving their readers unfiltered information. And therein lies the problem.
When I or virtually any other mainstream journalist writes something, it goes through several filters before the reader sees it. At least four experienced Times editors will have examined this column, for example. They will have checked it for accuracy, fairness, grammar, taste and libel, among other things.
If I'm careless — if I am guilty of what the courts call a "reckless disregard for the truth" — The Times could be sued for libel … and could lose a lot of money. With that thought — as well as our own personal and professional commitments to accuracy and fairness — very much in mind, I and my editors all try hard to be sure that what appears in the paper is just that, accurate and fair.
Do I sometimes make mistakes? Yes, I'm only human. Do my editors always catch my mistakes? Most of the time, they do. But not always. They're human too. The "For the Record" corrections published on Page 2 of The Times every day make our human fallibility only too clear.
Shield laws (and the 1st Amendment guarantee of freedom of the press, the philosophical progenitor of these laws) were created to enable the media as an institution to inform the citizenry, without government interference.
And it's the institutional safeguards of the traditional media that differentiate them from bloggers and the blogosphere, even if those safeguards sometimes fail. When they do, as they clearly did in the case of several recent media scandals, heads roll.
Many bloggers — not all, perhaps not even most — don't seem to worry much about being accurate. Or fair. They just want to get their opinions — and their "scoops" — out there as fast as they pop into their brains. One of the great advantages of the Internet, many Web lovers have told me, is that it's easy to correct an error there. You can do it instantly, as soon as the error is called to your attention, instead of having to wait until the next day's paper.
But the knowledge that you can correct errors quickly, combined with the absence of editors or filters, encourages laziness, carelessness and inaccuracy, and I don't think the reporter's privilege to maintain confidential sources should be granted to such practitioners of what is at best pseudo-journalism.
I'm not saying that all bloggers are lazy, careless or inaccurate. I'm sure many take as much pride in their work — their professionalism — as I do.
Certainly, some bloggers practice what anyone would consider "journalism" in its roughest form — they provide news. And just as surely, bloggers deserve credit for, among other things, being the first to discredit Dan Rather's use of documents of dubious origin and legitimacy to accuse President Bush of having received special treatment in the National Guard.
BUT bloggers also took the lead in circulating speculation that what appeared to be a bulge beneath Bush's jacket during his first debate with Sen. John Kerry might have been some kind of transmission device to enable his advisors to feed him answers.
No credible evidence has emerged to support that charge.
First of all, a blog is a tool, not a person. Which means anyone can use it for anything.
Second, as Digby points out, Shaw and his editors make two major errors in this piece.
In the first case, the Columbia Journalism Review did a thorough debunking of the blogging "journalism" in the Dan Rather case.
And there is ample evidence from real gen-u-wine accurate 'n fair jernlists that the NY Times pursued the Bush bulge story, was ready to run with it and killed it as it drew too close to the election. A NASA scientist came forward with sophisticated imaging to prove it (as Salon magazine reported at the time.) The Times' science editor Andrew Rivkin, who contributed the bulk of the reporting, had told [ombudsman]Okrent that the scientist’s assertions “did rise above the level of garden-variety speculation, mainly because of who he is. ... He essentially put his hard-won reputation utterly on the line." Certainly, the bizarre denials by the white house --- that it was "bad tailoring" should have made any legitimate journalist question what was going on. This was not just idle blogging gossip.
If editors and lawyers prevented libel, Wen Ho Lee wouldn't be suing the New York Times. Jayson Blair, Stephen Glass, Ruth Shalit and Jack Kelley would have been fired as soon as they piped a story. That did not happen.
Recklessness? That should be the name of Nancy Grace's new show. How much money is Michael Schiavo going to win after he sues people for slander. Not one journalist pointed out to the wingnuts attacking this man that every false charge had previously been adjudicated. Had been heard by a judge and disproven and if they continued, they'd be committing slander.
He's accusing bloggers of being unfair and inaccurate? You had columnists literally calling for the governor of Florida to kidnap a dying woman against the wishes of her husband, including two former government officials. They wanted him to ignore court rulings, which is the height of irresponsbility. And Shaw is worried about bloggers. Earth to David, all of us can be sued for libel as well and the Tribune won't pay our bills.
Modern journalism is broken. Objectivity is a failure. The reason there have been so many lavish tributes to Hunter Thompson, from The Onion to Cartoon Network, to a full issue of Rolling Stone filled with loving comments from friends, family and lovers is that he was right. And despite the antics, was a scrupulously honest and dedicated journalist. His passing wasn't just about nostalgia for a man, but for a kind of journalism which wasn't about keeping score and being fair to lunatics. Before accusing bloggers of falsehoods, look at what runs in newspapers these days? Judy Miller rings a bell?
Shaw is suggesting the silly. A blog reflects the person using a tool. A journalist using a blog is a journalist. Because a blog is a tool. No more or less.
The Army's recruiters are being challenged with one of the hardest selling jobs the military has asked of them in American history, and many say the demands are taking a toll.
A recruiter in New York said pressure from the Army to meet his recruiting goals during a time of war has given him stomach problems and searing back pain. Suffering from bouts of depression, he said he has considered suicide. Another, in Texas, said he had volunteered many times to go to Iraq rather than face ridicule, rejection and the Army's wrath.
An Army chaplain said he had counseled nearly a dozen recruiters in the past 18 months to help them cope with marital troubles and job-related stress.
"There were a couple of recruiters that felt they were having nervous breakdowns, literally," said Maj. Stephen Nagler, a chaplain who retired in March after serving at Fort Hamilton in Brooklyn, where the New York City recruiting battalion is based.
Two dozen recruiters nationwide were interviewed about their experiences over four months. Ten spoke with The New York Times even after an Army official sent an e-mail message advising all recruiters not to speak to this reporter, who was named. Most asked for anonymity to avoid being disciplined. ...........................
But most told similar tales: of loving the military, of working hard to complete a seemingly impossible task, of struggling to carry the nation's burden at a time of anxiety and stress.
................................. At least 37 members of the Army Recruiting Command, which oversees enlistment, have gone AWOL since October 2002, Army figures show. And, in what recruiters consider another sign of stress, the number of improprieties committed - signing up unqualified people to meet quotas or giving bonuses or other enlistment benefits to recruits not eligible for them - has increased, Army documents show. ..................... The Army is seeking 101,200 new active-duty Army and Reserve soldiers this year alone to replenish the ranks in Iraq and Afghanistan, elsewhere around the world and at home. That means each of the Army's 7,500 recruiters faces the grind of an unyielding human math, a quota of two new recruits a month, at a time of extended war without a draft. ............ The Army is the nation's largest military branch, comprising 80 percent of the 150,000 troops in Iraq. Its recruiters are among its best soldiers. Most are sergeants with 5 to 15 years of experience, pulled randomly from the top 10 percent of their specialty, as defined by their commanding officers. More than 70 percent did not volunteer for the job. ..................................
But several senior officers interviewed, including Col. Greg Parlier, retired, who until 2002 headed the research and strategy arm of the Army Recruiting Command, said the pressure on recruiters shows the policy should be re-examined, and initiatives like national service should be considered.
....................................
The follow-up process often takes months. Though parents do not have to sign off on the decision to join, recruiters said it is virtually impossible to enlist a new recruit without their approval. Over dinners and on the phone, they make the Army's case over and over to win parents' support.
If they succeed, they are responsible for bringing the recruit in for 5:30 a.m. processing , organizing physical fitness training or, in the case of one California recruiter, taking 3 a.m. phone calls to comfort a recruit crying over a breakup with her boyfriend.
The whims are many from the young, restless and uncertain, experts said.
Recruiters have "the only military occupation that deals with the civilian world entirely," said Charles Moskos, a military sociologist at Northwestern University.
Even before the war, recruiters contacted on average of 120 people before landing an active-duty recruit, Army data showed. That number is growing, recruiters said.
One recruiter in the New York area said that when he steps outside his office for a cigarette, he often is barraged with epithets from passers-by angry about the war.
In January, the brother-in-law of a prospective recruit lashed into him. "He swore at me," the recruiter said, "and said that he would rather have his brother-in-law in jail for selling crack than in the Army." .
National service, or the truly unfair draft. Where people can choose to work in schools or hospital or the Army. Because you don't have to guess which people will get civilian jobs and who gets to be an 11B. It won't be the Duke Class of 2006 in Fallujah.
For some reason, the Army just isn't a popular option now.
But if you think it's unpopular now, wait until they start talking up the draft.
The Bushies have already performed acts one and two of seppuku: Going after social security and allying with the hard radical right. Why not complete the act with talk of a draft. I do want to see the newly Democratic House impeach Bush and Cheney in 2007. They keep it up, well, dreams may come true.
Happy Easter. Now I know some lunatics have been kidnapping Christ for their own crazy ends as of late, well since the Crusades really, but that shouldn't ruin the holiday, which when I was a kid was church, the Auto Show and ham.
Now, I don't much like a lot of ham, but Jen does. We all know Jen does.
Now you may be wondering how a Jewish woman can love ham so devoutly. Well, she's only half-Jewish, and if you met her, you'd really have to ask. Trust me. The other, ham-loving half is Lutheran, which can be an advantage on what is basically ham day.
Me, I like ham in small does. Well, that makes one of us. I think if Jen didn't have a refined palate, she would eat ham every day.
But she's well-rounded, she also likes chocolate. But I don't think as much as ham.
So what am I having for Easter?
I think biscuits, gravy, ham, eggs.
But I think dinner will be a roast, I haven't had a roast in a while. I like the idea of a roast, pink and dripping with pan juices which gets whipped up into a gravy. I should have bought a bottle of wine today for the gravy, so grape juice will have to do, or bourbon, of which I have a nearly full bottle of. Jen brought them for Christmas and I usually don't drink at home, because then I would never go out.
New York's liquor laws are weird. I'd have to go to Best Cellars for a bottle and I'm just too fucking lazy Besides, I don't drink that much wine, ever. I leave the red wine drinking to Jen, although I should keep some around to cook with.
Anyway, it's been one mad evil seven days. Kinda like watching drunks drive at Daytona and hoping they stop before you get a truly spectacular fireball. It would be nice if the crazies went home for a day so we could all have a Sunday uninterrupted by anything but basketball.
Only in America could a family channel, in this case, Showtime Family, show a war movie Farewell to the King. This movie is one of my favorites because it deals with Force 136 in North Borneo. Force 136 was the name for Special Operations Executive, the British wartime sabotage agency. Basically, the British land among the Dyaks and train them to fight the Japanese. This movie is a good example of how unintended consequences can wreak havoc, that even good intentions can cause utter misery and destruction. Now, while the war here is obscure, the situation is not.
Every time you do something, something unexpected can happen, something unplanned or just something which is inevitable but unforeseen. You teach tribesmen to be guerillas, they may get killed in the process. The Americans did it, the British did it and paid for it for 30 years. The guns they gave out under duress came to haunt them.
Politicians need to think before they act. The things they encourage today may have unforeseen consequences tomorrow.
The radical right is trying to salvage the mess Congress created with the Schiavo case, by attacking liberals for a "culture of death". Only problem,. these attacks are falling on empty trenches. While the radicals pretend Bush will get credit for doing something, I laugh at their naiveity.
We're not dealing with factory workers here, but ultras, the hard core. Ultra is a term used in European football to describe the diehard fans, the people who protest to fire a coach after a loss. Bush and Bush didn't jump into bed with the pro-life moderates, but the ultras, the hard core. These people are extremists and they expect to win. They aren't going to accept a good try. If you fail them, they will seek revenge.
I think Jeb got talked to Friday. When he was told about the polling and how being seen with Pat Mahoney was not smart. So he ran. The problem with ultras is that they are never pleased unless they get their way. And Jeb was close to committing political suicide on Thusday, maybe an hour away. If he had moved to grab Terri Schiavo, he wouldn't be worrying about impeachment, but a murder and kidnapping trial while he sat in custody and a massive civil suit. The unreality of people like Bennett and the NRO egging Jeb on was amazing. They didn't care about the consequences.
They thought 25-50,000 people would join them out by the hospice.
Ah, the delusions of radicals. They think the revolution is coming, it never is and if it was, they wouldn't be part of it.
So how do Dems respond?
First, I think most of us agree that Harry Reid did a great job in getting out of the way of this. The wingnuts hit an empty bag and that confused them. One of the Dems problems was not remaining mute, but being set up to be the GOP punching bag. This time, they hit air and are reduced to pretrending their stand is right, even if the polls are hammering them.
But I think they need to start talking not so much about the rule of law, but the right of families to make their own decisions.
The GOP is not about conservatives, but radicals and the Dems need to stress that, by using a little jujitsu. The first would be to send up a bill affirmning the primacy of spouces in health care decisions barring evidence of abuse and neglect. Then discuss "big government" in a simple way, yhe "in law state". Highlight Krauthammer's "Terri's Law" and explain what it would mean. The right of inlaws to interfere in family decisions, when they may not have all the facts. Or share different religous beliefs. Suing to make your kids go to a specific church or school.
Then, they need to tee of on DeLay for being a crook and hiding behind the Schiavos.
After, tie it to Social Security. How? Well, suggest a government which is that intrusive and that politically driven to ignore the law for political gain simply can't be trusted with your future. How can you trust somone who would let your inlaws run your life?
The GOP is scared of these people and they don't know what to do. A key talking point is that they can't do anything about them.
I know people are thinking that the GOP will pull this off again, but like people thought the Japanese kloved the jungle, they have to learn that any opposition can be defeated if they screw up and you use the right attack at the right time, and the subtext here is "the inlaw state".
Steve Sanders of Reason and Liberty wrote this a couple of days ago. I was thinking along these lines,. but he wrote an excellent essay on the subject. Hit the original artcle for links
Here is how Terri Schiavo's father Bob Schindler, interviewed last night on CNN, interprets the array of laws and court proceedings that have attempted to safeguard his daughter's rights and determine what would be her intentions:
She has been really railroaded into a death sentence by this particular judge, the circuit court judge.... He has a crusade to kill this girl.
This was not an isolated outburst. Schindler has been quoted on Christian websites asking for help to rescue his daughter from the "clutches of death by judicial homicide."
Of course, no judge has decided in the abstract that Terri Schiavo would be better off dead than alive. Rather, multiple court proceedings have found clear and convincing evidence that it would be her intention to be liberated from artificial life support. The Schindler family, which refuses to accept this, has received every legal appeal and every measure of due process our system affords -- indeed, thanks to the extraordinary intervention of Congress, more appeals and due process than anyone else could expect in the same situation.
And so, no matter how deserving of our empathy he and his family might be, when Mr. Schindler goes before millions of people and incites contempt toward that system by calling a judge a murderer, he has crossed a dangerous line. His words become more than just the ravings of a man who has put his arguments before more than 20 different judges, including nine justices of the Supreme Court, and failed to see his position prevail. He has enlisted himself -- and allowed his daugher to be exploited -- in a larger enterprise of the American political right: to undermine trust in, and attack the legitimacy of, the judiciary, which they regard as a hindrance to shaping law according to their social and religious vision.
Consider that the Schindler family decided four years ago to seek the help of leading figures on the religious right -- most notably, the controversial anti-abortion extremist Randall Terry. And consider that two of the family's most powerful supporters, Republican leader Tom DeLay and former Family Research Council president Ken Connor, both are on record with the belief that laws, even the Constitution itself, should be overriden when higher moral and religious imperatives (identified, presumably, by people like them) are at stake. DeLay, who earlier this week said Mrs. Schiavo had been sent by God to help energize the conservative religious movement, wrote yesterday in USA Today:
Behind the law — and I would argue, above it — is the universal law of right and wrong.... If our laws don't prevent a helpless, disabled woman, capable of rehabilitation, from being starved and parched to death by an estranged husband with a clear, personal conflict of interest, then our laws are meaningless.
One begins to understand that for Mrs. Schaivo's parents, as for DeLay and Connor, law has indeed become meaningless. The only thing that matters is that their personal and religious positions prevail. And in that fight all is fair, including raw political muscle in the form of direct interventions by Congress and Jeb Bush; media spin that misleads the public about the actual legal questions involved; and irresponsible attacks that cast doubt on the integrity of judges and on the very idea of law as a system of neutral rules and objective inquiries.
This is, of course, a prescription for chaos. It betrays a taste for authortarianism. The very reason we have laws, courts, and a Constitution is to create a rational framework for weighing rights and applying law fairly and consistently to individual cases.
In the past three days, as attorneys for the Schindlers, Jeb Bush, and others have raced from federal district court, to federal appellate court, to the U.S. Supreme Court, back to a Florida state court, and tonight back again to federal district court, one almost wonders if one point of the whole enterprise isn't to pile up as many hopeless, if not downright frivolous, claims as possible, so that when they are all denied, the Schindlers and their allies will be able to say: "See? We told you all these judges had it in for us and for Terri from the start." Indeed, Bob Schindler has already said as much: "I don't think that the courts are going to be helpful at all. Actually they've banded together to uphold this one particular judge.... They're not hearing any of the evidence that we presented them.... [T]he judges are running this country. It's not the people any longer."
It's no doubt unreasonable to expect any family to think in detached and objective terms when the proceedings concern their dying daughter -- even when the best evidence has shown she would wish to be set free from the medical indignities and bodily invasions that have defined her condition.
But the Schindlers decided long ago to take their battle public. They have linked arms with a movement that believes courts must be brought to heel when judges decline to enforce the moral agendas of people like Tom DeLay, Ken Connor, and Jeb Bush.
The Schindlers have thus weakened their claim to our empathy, and raised troubling questions about the people, tactics, and messages they have chosen to fight this battle.
I would just add that they have permitted things like allowing children to be arrested in their cause, disrupting the hospice for all other patents. made claims that contradict their own testimony and have not called for calm and to reject violence.
There is a desperate selfishness here which is amazing. Everyone would be compassionate towards them as Terri lay dying. but they seem to endorse any reckless action in her name. They have done more than link to a movement which thinks the courts must be brought to heel, they have linked to people who advocate violence. And for all the charges of adultery around Michael Schiavo, they are represented by a deadbeat dad who doesn't talk to his children and abandoned his wife for a 22 year old.
What is most surprising is that in the quest to win this one battle, they have attacked the bonds of marriage, a stand which will come to haunt them in the future.
The appointment of George Bush's leading hawk as head of the World Bank was heading for a crisis over his relationship with a senior British employee.
Influential members of staff at the international organisation have complained to its board that Paul Wolfowitz, a married father of three, is so besotted with Oxford-educated Shaha Riza he cannot be impartial.
Extraordinarily, they claim she played a key role in pushing the 61-year-old Pentagon official into the Iraq War. And the row comes amid claims that Wolfowitz's wife Clare once warned George Bush of the threat to national security any infidelity by her husband could cause.
A British citizen - at 51, eight years younger than Wolfowitz's wife - Ms Riza grew up in Saudi Arabia and was passionately committed to democratising the Middle East when she allegedly began to date Wolfowitz.
............ Bulent Riza said Shaha started to "talk to Paul" about reforming the Middle East. And New Yorker magazine's respected commentator Paul Boyer observed that a senior World Bank official "named Shaha Ali Riza" was an "influence".
Downing Street 'furious' at nomination
............... "His womanising has come home to roost," a Washington insider said. "Paul was a foreign policy hawk long before he met Shaha but it doesn't look good to be accused of being under the thumb of your mistress."
One of his opponents at the bank said: "Unless Riza gives up her job, this will be an impossible conflict of interest."
National security risk
Wolfowitz married Clare Selgin in 1968. But they have lived separately since 2001, after allegations of an affair with an employee at the School of Advanced International Studies where he was dean for seven years.
According to one Republican Administration insider, Clare was so upset by rumours about the affair that she wrote to then President Elect Bush, saying if the story were true it could pose a national security risk.
Yesterday, she refused to comment on whether her husband had been unfaithful before their separation, saying: "I really do not want to share this with you." .......................... By tradition, the United States picks the bank's president, but the decision must be approved by its board. The US has a 16 per cent vote, but Europe collectively has about 30 per cent.
The bank's staff association has told executives it has been swamped with complaints from employees about Wolfowitz.
However, Wolfowitz's only comment on the complaints has been a terse statement issued through a Pentagon spokesman. He said: "If a personal relationship presents a potential conflict of interest, I will comply with bank policies to resolve the issue."
Well, just look for a divorce filing in the DCn area courts. If there is one, then he's not an adulterer, juist whipped by hismistress, kinda like Bill Bennett without the screaming
Maybe the Conugress should make a law forcing them back together for national security.
Two of the works carried an anti-war message A British graffiti artist has managed to evade security and hang his work in four of New York's most prestigious and well-guarded museums.
"Banksy", who has never disclosed his real identity, claims to have carried out the unusual smuggling operation on one day, during opening hours.
Some of the pieces went undetected for several days - such as a beetle with missiles attached to its body.
Banksy raided the Metropolitan Museum, but decided to spare the Guggenheim.
"I would have had to appear between two Picassos," he said.
"And I'm not good enough to get away with that."
The three other museums which unwittingly hosted some of Banksy's work were the Museum of Modern Art (MoMA), The Brooklyn Museum and the American Museum of Natural History.
PINELLAS PARK, Fla. (Reuters) - Terri Schiavo's parents begged Florida Gov. Jeb Bush to intervene as their brain-damaged daughter edged closer to death on Friday and federal courts again rebuffed their efforts to have tube feeding resumed.
"With a stroke of his pen, he could stop it immediately," said Schiavo's father, Bob Schindler, suggesting that Bush could intervene in some executive capacity, although the governor has said he cannot.
"He's put Terri through a week of hell and I implore him to put a stop to this. This is judicial homicide and he has to stop it," he said.
What is he supposed to do? He's not the king.
They need to stop. Their daughter died 15 years ago.
These are not nice people. Children are being arrested, people are talking violence. They don't care. Bobby Schindler, a teacher, walked by and patted kids on the head while they were at this volitile scene. They keep ramping up the slander. At some point, someone will get hurt. As responsible people, they need to say something to prevent violence. Jeb Bush, to be fair, has marshalled every ounce of his power behind these people and thensome. But it's not enough.
It's never going to be enough. Not after years of court decisions, and their own admissions.
This is about control. They want control at any price and they do not care who is hurt in their quest.
Hours after a judge ordered that Terri Schiavo was not to be removed from her hospice, a team of state agents were en route to seize her and have her feeding tube reinserted -- but they stopped short when local police told them they would enforce the judge's order, The Herald has learned.
Agents of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement told police in Pinellas Park, the small town where Schiavo lies at Hospice Woodside, on Thursday that they were on the way to take her to a hospital to resume her feeding.
For a brief period, local police, who have officers at the hospice to keep protesters out, prepared for what sources called ``a showdown.''
In the end, the squad from the FDLE and the Department of Children & Families backed down, apparently concerned about confronting local police outside the hospice.
''We told them that unless they had the judge with them when they came, they were not going to get in,'' said a source with the local police.
''The FDLE called to say they were en route to the scene,'' said an official with the city police who requested anonymity. ``When the sheriff's department and our department told them they could not enforce their order, they backed off.''
The incident,known only to a few and related to The Herald by three different sources involved in Thursday's events, underscores the intense emotion and murky legal terrain that the Schiavo case has created. It also shows that agencies answering directly to Gov. Jeb Bush had planned to use a wrinkle in Florida law that would have allowed them to legally get around the judge's order. The exception in the law allows public agencies to freeze a judge's order whenever an agency appeals it.
CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS
Participants in the high-stakes test of wills, who spoke with The Herald on the condition of anonymity, said they believed the standoff could ultimately have led to a constitutional crisis and a confrontation between dueling lawmen.
''There were two sets of law enforcement officers facing off, waiting for the other to blink,'' said one official with knowledge of Thursday morning's activities.
In jest, one official said local police discussed ``whether we had enough officers to hold off the National Guard.''
''It was kind of a showdown on the part of the locals and the state police,'' the official said. ``It it was not too long after that Jeb Bush was on TV saying that, evidently, he doesn't have as much authority as people think.''
State officials on Friday vigorously denied the notion that any ''showdown'' occurred.
''DCF directed no such action,'' said agency spokeswoman Zoraya Suarez.
Said Bush spokesman Jacob DiPietre: ``There was no showdown. We were ready to go. We didn't want to break the law. There was a process in place and we were following the process. The judge had an order and we were following the order.''
Tim Caddell, a spokesman for the city of Pinellas Park, declined to discuss Thursday's events.
.......................... DCF INTENTIONS
According to sources, DCF intended to take Schiavo to Morton Plant Hospital, where her feeding tube had been reinserted in 2003 following a previous judicial order allowing its removal. But hospice officials were aware that the hospital was not likely to perform surgery to reinsert the tube without an order from Greer.
''People knew that taking [Schiavo] did not equate with immediate reinsertion of the feeding tube,'' a source said. ``Hospital officials were working with their legal counsel and their advisors, trying to figure out which order superseded which, and what action they should take.''
Hardy, the hospital spokeswoman, said she does not believe the hospital was made aware Thursday morning that DCF and state police planned to bring Schiavo in. ''We were not aware of that three-hour period,'' she said. ``It's not a discussion we even had, really.''
George Felos, Michael Schiavo's attorney, said he does not think DCF officials knew of the window of opportunity they had created until well after they filed their appeal.
''Frankly, I don't believe when they filed their notice of appeal they realized that that gave them an automatic stay,'' Felos said. ``When we filed our motion to vacate the automatic stay . . . they realized they had a short window of opportunity and they wanted to extend that as long as they could.
``I believe that as soon as DCF knew they had an opportunity, they were mobilizing to take advantage of it, without a doubt.''
Jeb is real lucky they didn't take her.
Imagine the madness when she was returned under court order.
He was going to play poker with her life and that, alone, is amazing.
People forget, Schiavo works for the Sheriff's department. They are not going to abandon him now, regardless of what people may think
A man has been arrested and charged with offering a $250,000 reward for killing Michael Schiavo.
Richard Alan Meywes was arrested in Fairview, North Carolina by the FBI and the Buncombe County Sheriff's Office.
On March 23, the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office forwarded an email to the FBI in Tampa which purportedly offered a $250,000 bounty on "the head of Michael Schiavo." The email placed an additional $50,000 bounty for the elimination of a judge who recently denied a request to intervene in the Schiavo case.
Ok, wingnuts, this is your chance. The Iraqis do it every day. Time to go commando.
Here's the plan. You wire up a few kids with explosives, C-4 will do. Then send them up to the hospice and blow them up, Jesus won't mind. Maybe toss in a car bombing or two to pull police away. Maybe a random sniper to tie up the SWAT team.
While all this is going on, you back a stolen ambulance up to the hospice and make a dash for Terri's room. Hey, a few people may have to be pistol whipped, even shot, but it will get done. So now you take Terri and bundle her up to a hospital. Then of course, you will have to force a doctor to reinsert her feeding tube at gunpoint, because no one would touch her otherwise, then off to some secret location.
Of course, the FBI will be searching for your terrorist asses at this point, but hey, Terri will have been saved.
Judges? Hey, they kill them in Iraq, why not here?
The last time anyone suggested such a doomed action was the OAS in French Algeria. There, too the Ultras had the day, and they were eventually hunted down and killed.
The wingnuts have been aided in their movie delusions by the radical right of Washington.
Conservatitve? Not any more. These folks are radicals. They are no better than the Weathermen or SLA with suits. And like those other radicals, they are about to be shocked at how little support they truly have.
Look, we may not agree on gay marriage or prayer in schools, but the people who believe that are not malicious for the most part. They genuinely believe those measures will help society and affirm morals. We disagree on that, but much of that is not hate driven. These people, otoh, are extremists. The Terrys and the Mahoneys are people who flirt with violence and delusionally believe some great uprising is around the corner.
Instead, they get a hundred freaks and a few thousand followers, and call it a movement. Because Rove thinks that this plays well with their base, he encourages it. But they bet against fairness of the American people. And gutted their entire agenda for what they thought would be an easy win.
Joe "Dead staffer" Scarsbourough had this rant going.
I can try to understand why many would side with the husband, but I will never comprehend why the same political activists that fight for the protection of the spotted oil and snail darter are so eager to see Terri Schiavo die.
Moveon.org, Air America, and a host of other left-of-center organizations have sprung to life to support the death of Terri.
Obviously, many Democrats see this as a political opportunity to attack the President and Tom Delay. But the intensity of their anger at any one who tries to protect Ms. Schiavo's life is disturbing at best.
It is also politically dangerous.
Does the liberal wing of the Democratic Party really be known for supporting the killing of helpless women?
Of course not. But that is the corner in which they are painting themselves.
And that should trouble a Democratic Party whose two public relations moves over the past year have been opposing the spread of democracy in the Middle East and protecting the life of a helpless young woman.
Liberals can cite polls until they are blue in the face. They can talk about Texas laws and legislative hypocrisy. They can attack every last person who is trying to save this young woman from starvation.
But in the end, Americans shocked by this macabre chapter in American politics will see the Democrats as the party on the side of death and see George Bush as the defender of defenseless>
Well, Joe, does the radical right want to be known as the agents of assassination? What attacks? Where are they? The Dems are the conservative ones here. They aren't raising money off the Schiavos or calling for murder and kidnapping.
After two years ranting about the sanctity of marriage, which party is seeking to take a husband from his wife. The marriage bonds now mean nothing.
No, Joe, while dead black babies rank just above staffers in things you don't care about, they do not see George Bush defending life. The Texicutioner? No, they see a nanny state, where in-laws can tell any lies, mock your marriage vows and make decisions in your marriage without your consent and it frightens he hell out of them. There is no bigger government than the one which can control your marriage.
You want to ignore the polls because they portend a deeper disaster for you. That Americans think your culture of life is a vulgar interference in a marriage, that this could be visited upon them.
I have never seen so many radicals so irresponsible and so blind to the consequences of their actions. Americans prize their legal system and the order it imposes. They don't like threats to it from any quarter.
No, Joe, what people see are politicians so craven that they will use a delusional family deepest hopes as political pawns. And they don't like it.
ALBANY – In two days, more than 17,000 visitors have downloaded free forms and information about living wills and health care proxies on the New York State Bar Association’s Web site. This information was made available as a public service by the Association as the Terri Schiavo case sparks intense public interest in these issues.
The documents available on the Web site allow individuals to make their wishes known about their treatment in the event of a future illness or incident that leaves them unable to communicate. They also enable the designation of a family member or close friend to make health care decisions for you when you lose the ability to make those decisions for yourself.
State Bar President Kenneth G. Standard of Chappaqua (Epstein, Becker & Green, PC) said, “Lawyers have long advocated the use of living wills and health care proxies so that people can have some measure of control over decisions that are made regarding their health – and indeed, life and death. This is a difficult topic for most people to deal with and many people put it off. However, as the Schiavo case demonstrates, it is very important – whatever your age – to do everything possible to make your wishes clear in advance. We are pleased to be able to respond to this increased public interest by providing information and access to the necessary forms online.”
Forms for New York Living Wills, Health Care Proxies, and a brochure describing the background and the purpose of these two documents, can be downloaded, free of charge, at www.nysba.org then then click on the first item listed under NYSBA News, Notes and Notices.
Once filled out, signed and witnessed, a Living Will, together with a Health Care Proxy, becomes a legally binding document that gives your family and health care providers your instructions concerning how to proceed with your medical treatment. You may change, update or revoke your Living Will at any time.
Standard also said that the state bar’s Elder Law Section would be conducting a statewide series of information programs for senior citizens and their caregivers as part of “Decisionmaking Day” on May 5, to help elderly New Yorkers prepare an annual legal checklist to insure that their affairs are in order. Topics that lawyers will discuss include: health care proxies and living wills, do not resuscitate orders, guardianship issues, powers of attorney, organ donations, probate, and wills.
“This marks the 11th consecutive year the Association will conduct these programs for the public to review advance directives so that individuals make certain they will maintain control of their own healthcare. It is an important step toward ensuring that healthcare wishes will be carried out as planned,” he said.
The New York State Bar Association, with more than 71,000 members, is the official statewide organization of lawyers in New York and the largest voluntary state bar association in the nation.
Jen, ever the good lawyer, passed this on . a living will prevents circuses.
Sign one today, unless you want the circus to come to your hospice.
In more news of stoking the loonies, Charles Krauthammer proposed "Terri's Law"
Conservatives enjoy railing against the "Oprahization" politics and culture, the sentimentalizing of difficult issues by liberals and other softies. Rush Limbaugh often says that the difference between conservatives and liberals is that conservatives argue from reason, liberals from emotion. Which is another way of saying conservatives are from Mars, liberals from sissy Venus.
But it's the conservatives who've been Oprahified, which would okay if only they'd admit and quit trying to act so manly and butch. The hug at the State of the Union address between the Iraqi woman whose father was killed by Hussein and the mother of a slain; the purple finger of Democracy on magazine cover after magazine cover (you would have thought from the coverage no Iraqi men voted); and now the Terri Schiavo super soap opera, which threatens to reduce Peggy Noonan and NRO's K'Lo to a pool of salty tears and melted sugar.
Charles Krauthammer, who prides himself on the sardonic cut of his superior mind and drips with so much distaste that he requires an oil change every 50,000 words, is the latest to get into the act.
Not even waiting until Terri Schiavo is dead, he proposes Terri's Law to prevent future tugs of war over no-hope cases.
The column rises above Krauthammer's standard of bilious character-assassination. For once, he seems to have put his sneer in the denture cup to let it rinse. But the conservative agenda is still secure in place. "There is no good outcome to this case. Except perhaps if Florida and the other states were to amend their laws and resolve conflicts among loved ones differently — by granting authority not necessarily to the spouse but to whatever first-degree relative (even if in the minority) chooses life and is committed to support it. Call it Terri's law. It would help prevent our having to choose in the future between travesty and tragedy."
So if a wife believes her terminally ill husband would prefer to have life support removed, his parents agree, but (say) a sister "chooses life" and fights for custody, the sister's wishes should prevail over the wife's and parents'? There's never going to be an easy way to adjudicate these matters, and it would be characteristic of Republicans to pack something as Lifetime-cable sounding as "Terri's Law" with all sorts of mischief. Particularly since Krauthammer and his allies are rallying around Terri as if she were a large-scale fetus, which explains the use of the code phrase "innocent life" used by Randall Terry and others to describe her. As one of the vigilants, sounding tired and sad beyond his years, complained on cable news today, "Between abortion and euthanasia, it seems like they got you coming or going." Fostering a "culture of life" is just another way of trying to control women's bodies, which is what animates conservative mullahs, even to the point of trying yet again to subvert women's college athletics and Title IX.
What a lot of people miss in this is how personal the whole Schiavo mess is. When people compare it to Abu Gharib or Iraq as a whole, people forget how impersonal that is to most Americans. For 150,000 families, it is deeply personal. But for the rest of us, it's the news. People don't care about Muslims being tortured. Sad, but true. But they sure as hell care about Jeb Bush making family decisions on behest of their inlaws.
Jeb is now on the back of a wild animal he has no hope of controlling.
Some nutjob walked into a gunstore in Pinellas County to steal a gun to "take some action and rescue Terri Schiavo".
That line from Red October is running through my head again:"This business will get out of control. It will get out of control and we will be lucky to live through it."
Why? Because the Republicans are still counting fundie votes. They think they can control this, that nothing will happen and the base will be excited. But most of the base is revolted. They are horrifed at the sanctimony and the increasing rhetoric from people who should know better. Ignore judges? Kidnap a dying woman? Are they kidding?
Why is this happening? Because they thought it would be a gimmie. That the only people who would care is the radical right and their foot soldiers. They could get their way and trap the Dems in the process. But now, the Dems stepped out of the way and let the GOP take every bit of heat for this. You have the spectacle of Randall Terry, hasbeen, making demands on Jeb Bush, who meekly says "I can't go beyond my powers."
Bush and Bush seem to be puppets of the fringe elements, a group who would let their kids get arrested, which horrifies most people. All that political capital has been squandered, as Jim Wolcott said, on a Sunday flight from Crawford.
But Bush has never spread political risk. He has always heaped it on and expected to be rewarded in the end. There has never been a downside for this. But there is now. If Judge Greer or Michael Schiavo is harmed in any way, that turd is going to land right on the doors of the White House and Congress. They unleashed this madness and the idea that they could escape it is unlikely.
They and the media act like people want Terri Schiavo to live. They want her to die with dignity instead.
People are not rallying to the ultras side, they are fleeing from them. Even as the radical right pundits toss gas on the fire.
Oh yeah, someone raised this point and it needs to be repeated. When are the Schindlers going to ask people to behave peacefully? When are they going to ask no one to use violence?
One other point: what happens if Jeb kidnaps Terri Schiavo and has the feeding tube reinserted. Does he plan to pay for her care ad infinitum? He couldn't expect Medicaid to pay against the husband's wishes? Where will he keep her? In his mansion? How many guards will he keep around her? How long will he prevent Michael Schiavo from seeing his wife? All the radical rightists screaming for Jeb to seize her, are they willing to deal with the consequences and the massive legal judgement Michael Schiavo would win against the state of Florida? After all, Jeb would be acting illegally, and in the end, as Jeb is cooling his heels in state prison, not just being impeached, since he has no legal standing to take Schiavo anywhere, depsite the rantings of wingnuts, are they going to pay as well? Or do they just want Jeb to set up the Christian Republic of Florida.
It will be fun to see, when this is all over, the Cable News companies handing over seven figure checks to Michael Schiavo. If he were especially mean, he'd seek to have Nancy Grace barred from the practice of law forever. Remember the security guard the FBI tried to frame after the Atlanta bombings? He's now a millionaire cop. I think Michael Schiavo will be a millionaire jail employee.
One note for wingnuts: Michael Schiavo works for the Pinellas County Sheriff's Department. Any wingnut trying to harm him will be messing with his friends.
Update: This comes from Atrios
Cowardly Jeb Cancels Appearance
Gov. Bush Cancels Appearance at Good Friday Service for Fear of Facing Schiavo Supporters
To: National Desk
Contact: Rev. Patrick Mahoney of the Christian Defense Coalition [phone number removed]
TALLAHASSEE, Fl., March 25 /Christian Wire Service/ -- Governor Jeb Bush was scheduled to attend and participate in an outdoor Good Friday service at 12:30 pm, at Florida State University. According to event organizers, the Governor canceled at the last minute.
As part of this event Jeb Bush would have publicly read from a printed program that includes the following text entitled the Fifth Station of the Cross; "Lord Jesus, sometimes I don't want to do what is right or to help someone in need, but you want me to respond positively to the needs of others in my life. Help me to say 'yes' and be willing to give heroic assistance to all who are in need."
"It is clear that Governor Bush canceled his scheduled participation in this Stations of the Cross service out of fear and guilt of seeing supporters of Terri Schiavo pleading for her life. Our prayer for Governor Bush is the same prayer he would have prayed publicly on this Good Friday, had he kept his scheduled appointment.
The wingnuts are angry.
If Jeb doesn't invade that hospice, he's a momma's boy.
The fact that Bush should be miles from a loon like Mahoney is lost. My bet is that they are going to turn on their own. That's what you get when you let the Ultras take the stage.
Randall Terry lost this in his luggage. Don't worry, Bill Bennett will lend him another one
Karl Rove drummed it into the Bushes that they had to place nice with the fundies, and for a long time, it was pretty much one way. They made demands, got some face time and got delivered tidbits.
Rove said let's harp on gay marriage. Which they did and squeaked by a reelection.
But the devil would want his due.
Bush thoght he was slick when he looked around and say "sorry, no gay marriage amendment, don't have the votes". Bush thought that he could toss them some judges and some nominations, and that would be it.
Sorry, you can pawn off politicians like that, but the devil, he demands attention.
Did Bush play this smart? Is Rove manipulating this?
Are you insane? Rove may be clever, but this, this is a nightmare speeding downhill with no brakes and a sharp turn at the bottom. Even worse, some of the folks on the train are tossing shit out of the windows to go faster.
People ask where are the Dems on this, why don't they stand up.
And I was thinking about this tonight, and I was wishing that Kennedy or Kerry would stand up and denounce these people. Then I realized something, they aren't responsible for this. They didn't unleash and encourage the ultras.
WHERE IS THE PRESIDENT?
He started this mess and he sees this thing spinning wildly out of control, and like the coward he is, has nothing to say. He signed the bill, a sham bill, and he has yet to say one word about respecting the rule of law and the judiciary. This is unacceptable in the extreme. The president is not suposed to let his radical right allies rant about ignoring the rule of law and acting like a fascist mob. He could kill this talk in one interview.
Is Bush and his brother going to let a tragedy strike? Things in Florida are getting scarier by the day, the Schindler's allies lie about Michael Schiavo like there were no libel laws or court cases. This mess is harming his party immeasurably. Yet he and the rational people in the GOP remain silent, as if this can be controlled. They seem to be smoking around a fuel dump and tossing the smokes in the air.
The editors at the cable news networks will be much poorer at the end of this. Wholesale slander costs money. And of course, their reporting throws more gas on the fire. The cameras, the vigil, the accusations of murder, all fly around like they have no legal liability. And they make things dangerous, not just worse, not just bad, but dangerous.
People are asking where the Democrats are, I'm asking where the Republicans are. Why are they not defending our democratic institutions and justioe system? Why are they silent in the face of the call for mob rule? I expect the Dems to condemn this, but they didn't start this and they cannot end it. The President and the rational leadership of the GOP need to calm people down, not set them loose with the talk of the brownshirt and SA trooper. Because when you talk of judges being ignored, you are talking the rule of the mob and the thug.
And if this is the case, they need to toss the Lee Greenwood and sing a more appropriate song.
Horst Wessel Lied
Die Fahne hoch die Reihen fest geschlossen S. A. marschiert mit ruhig festem Schritt Kam'raden die Rotfront und Reaktion erschossen Marschier'n im Geist in unsern Reihen mit
Die Strasse frei den braunen Batallionen Die Strasse frei dem Sturmabteilungsmann Es schau'n auf's Hackenkreuz voll Hoffung schon Millionen Der Tag fur Freiheit und fur Brot bricht an
Zum letzen Mal wird nun Appell geblasen Zum Kampfe steh'n wir alle schon bereit Bald flattern Hitler-fahnen Uber allen Strassen Die Knechtschaft dauert nur mehr kurze Zeit
Die Fahne hoch die Reihen fest geschlossen S. A. marschiert mit ruhig festem Schritt Kam'raden die Rotfront und Reaktion erschossen Marschier'n im Geist in unsern Reihen mit
Translation
Flag high, ranks closed, The S.A. marches with silent solid steps. Comrades shot by the red front and reaction march in spirit with us in our ranks.
The street free for the brown battalions, The street free for the Storm Troopers. Millions, full of hope, look up at the swastika; The day breaks for freedom and for bread.
For the last time the call will now be blown; For the struggle now we all stand ready. Soon will fly Hitler-flags over every street; Slavery will last only a short time longer.
Flag high, ranks closed, The S.A. marches with silent solid steps. Comrades shot by the red front and reaction march in spirit with us in our ranks.
Feud may be as much over money as principle By Larry Copeland and Jill Lawrence, USA TODAY PINELLAS PARK, Fla. — Michael Schiavo and Bob and Mary Schindler once were very close. He was the husband. They were the in-laws.
............
It is a feud, to some degree, over principle. Michael Schiavo says Terri should be allowed to die because she told him long before she was stricken that she would never want to be kept alive by a feeding tube or other such measures. The Schindlers say their son-in-law is starving Terri to death. They want to keep her alive and try to rehabiliate her.
But it also appears to be a fight over money — how a $1 million malpractice settlement Schiavo won 13 years ago over Terri's care should be spent. ...............................
In 1992, Schiavo had filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against two doctors who had been treating his wife before she was stricken. Late that year came a settlement: Schiavo received $300,000 for loss of consortium — his wife's companionship. Another $700,000 was ordered for Terri's care.
................................ By February 1993, Schiavo had the money from the lawsuit.
On Valentine's Day that year, he testified, he was in his wife's nursing home room studying. He wanted to become a nurse so he could care for his wife himself. He had taken Terri to California for experimental treatment. A doctor there had placed a stimulator inside Terri's brain and those of other people in vegetative states to try to stimulate still-living but dormant cells.
According to Schiavo's testimony, the Schindlers came into Terri's room in the nursing home, spoke to their daughter, then turned to him.
"The first words out of my father-in-law's mouth was how much money he was going to get," Schiavo said. "I was, 'What do you mean?' 'Well, you owe me money.' "
Schiavo said he told his in-laws that all the money had gone to his wife — a lie he said he told Bob Schindler "to shut him up because he was screaming."
Schiavo said his father-in-law called him "a few choice words," then stormed out of the room. Schiavo said he started to follow him, but his mother-in-law stepped in front of him, saying, "This is my daughter, our daughter, and we deserve some of this money."
Mary Schindler's account of that evening is far different. She testified that she and her husband found Schiavo studying. "We were talking about the money and about his money," she said. "That with his money and the money Terri got, now we could take her (for specialized care) or get some testing done. Do all this stuff. He said he was not going to do it."
She said he threw his book and a table against the wall and told them they would never see their daughter again.
A rift beyond repair
The accounts of that confrontation came in testimony during a January 2000 hearing on a petition Schiavo filed to discontinue his wife's life support. Pinellas County Circuit Judge George Greer ruled the next month that the feeding tube could be removed.
Despite the row over money, Schiavo and the Schindlers agreed on one major point in the 2000 testimony: the extent of Terri's brain damage, according to additional court documents cited by The Miami Herald. In the documents, Pamela Campbell, then the Schindlers' lawyer, told the court that "we do not doubt that she's in a persistent vegetative state." Campbell could not be reached to confirm the statement.
At this point, however, the gulf between Schiavo and the Schindlers could not be bridged.
"On Feb. 14, 1993, this amicable relationship between the parties was severed," Greer wrote. "While the testimony differs on what may or may not have been promised to whom and by whom, it is clear to this court that such severance was predicated upon money and the fact that Mr. Schiavo was unwilling to equally divide his loss of consortium award with Mr. and Mrs. Schindler."
Daniel Grieco, the attorney who handled Michael Schiavo's malpractice case, says his client never promised money to Bob Schindler. He also said Schindler never understood that he wasn't entitled to money under Florida law.
Grieco says the money is at the root of the estrangement. "It was the precipitating factor," Grieco says. "That was the fracture. That was the basis of it."
................... Today, the money from the lawsuit settlement is almost gone, Grieco, the attorney, says. Just $40,000 to $50,000 remained as of mid-March. The $700,000 in Terri's trust has paid for her care, lawyers, expert medical witnesses. Michael Schiavo's $300,000 share evaporated years ago, he says.
Contact: Ralph Nader, 202-387-8034; Wesley Smith, 510-886-8609
WASHINGTON, March 24 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Consumer Advocate Ralph Nader and Wesley J. Smith, author of the award winning book "Culture of Death: The Assault on Medical Ethics in America" call upon the Florida Courts, Governor Jeb Bush and concerned citizens to take any legal action available to let Terri Schiavo live.
"A profound injustice is being inflicted on Terri Schiavo," Nader and Smith asserted today. "Worse, this slow death by dehydration is being imposed upon her under the color of law, in proceedings in which every benefit of the doubt-and there are many doubts in this case-has been given to her death, rather than her continued life."
Among the many injustices in this case, Nader and Smith point to the following:
The courts not only are refusing her tube feeding, but have ordered that no attempts be made to provide her water or food by mouth. Terri swallows her own saliva. Spoon feeding is not medical treatment. "This outrageous order proves that the courts are not merely permitting medical treatment to be withheld, it has ordered her to be made dead," Nader and Smith assert.
The medical and rehabilitation experts are split on whether Terri is in a persistent vegetative state or whether Terri can be improved with therapy. There is only one way to know for sure- permit the therapy. That is the only way to resolve all doubts.
The court is imposing process over justice. After the first trial in this case, much evidence has been produced that should allow for a new trial-which was the point of the hasty federal legislation. If this were a death penalty case, this evidence would demand reconsideration. Yet, an innocent disabled woman is receiving less justice.
The federal and state governments are spending billions on what we are told will become miracle medical cures for people with all sorts of degenerative conditions, including brain damage. If this is so, why not permit Terri's parents and siblings who want to care for her do so in the hope that such cures are discovered?
Benefits of doubts should be given to life, not hastened death. This case is rife with doubt. Justice demands that Terri be permitted to live.
Yeah, fucking contact Ralph Nader.
After all the shit Nader has done...this is outrageous. I didn't know they taught medicine at Harvard law.
Try therapy? Feed her by mouth? Is he insane?
They tried therapy for eight years, she cannot swallow, to try to feed her by mouth would be to kill her.
There is no split, none. They have quacks who claim the impossible, but neurologists say she's brain dead..
No, if this was a death penalty case, in Florida, Terri Schiavo would have been long dead. Because there is no new evidence.
My God, Nader has been a lawyer for almost 50 years. He knows this case has been adjudicated for the better part of a decade. 22 judges have looked at the evidence. Why is he in the middle of this? The radical right is discussing voiding a court ruling, his entire's life work. His alliance with them is absolutely heartbreaking. Are these the people he really wants to stand with? People who endorse mob rule?
My God, I never thought Nader would sink this low.
Defend this. I want someone to defend Nader's stand in this. For two years, we told you about his alliances, and you kept talking about working with him, how right he was. Now this is staring you right in the fucking face. Nader is aligned with the most extreme ultras of the radical right, people who would endorse kidnapping. Now, explain this away, explain why he would do this? The cheating of workers, taking help from the GOP, it wasn't enough.
But please explain this stand away. Please explain why he has rejected the rule of law. What excuse will you use now?
You are staring unvarnished evil in the face. Let's see you justify this.
Any progressive who defends him now is merely an idol-worshiping fool.
By Steve Fainaru Washington Post Foreign Service Friday, March 25, 2005; Page A13
BAGHDAD, March 24 -- New details about an intense battle between insurgents and Iraqi police commandos supported by U.S. forces cast doubt Thursday on Iraqi government claims that 85 rebels were killed at what was described as a clandestine training camp.
Accounts of the fighting continued to indicate that a major battle involving dozens of insurgents occurred Tuesday on the eastern shore of Tharthar Lake, which is about 50 miles northwest of Baghdad. However, two U.S. military officials said Thursday that no bodies were found by American troops who arrived at the scene after the fighting. A spokesman for the Iraqi Interior Ministry, meanwhile, said he presumed the announced death toll was accurate, but he played down the scope of the fighting.
"I wouldn't call it a major incident," said the spokesman, Sabah Kadhim. Its significance, he said, was that it was "the first major operation" to be conceived and executed by the nascent Iraqi security forces with U.S. soldiers in a supporting role.
The stated death toll ranked the operation as the most lethal since November, when U.S. forces supported by Iraqi troops pushed into the western city of Fallujah, killing some 1,000 suspected insurgents. This time, however, Iraqis took the lead, with only a squad from a U.S. liaison unit -- the 3rd Battalion, 69th Armor Regiment of the 42nd Infantry Division -- involved in the initial assault.
The reported rout appeared to bolster recent claims by U.S. commanders that Iraq's beleaguered security forces are improving. U.S. officials have said repeatedly that American troops will withdraw from Iraq only after the Iraqis are deemed able to defend the country.
Maj. Richard L. Goldenberg, spokesman for the 42nd Infantry Division, said, "I can't confirm the estimate" given by Iraq about the number of insurgents killed in the fight. He said that by the time additional U.S. ground forces arrived, "the insurgent forces who had fled . . . were able to recover their casualties and take them with them."
Noting that an Islamic militant group had said 11 insurgents were killed, Goldenberg said: "I would tell you that somewhere between 11 and 80 lies an accurate number."
Goldenberg said crewmen who provided support in two Apache attack helicopters and an OH-58D Kiowa Warrior helicopter later estimated that 80 to 100 insurgents participated in the fighting. Asked how 85 bodies could have been carried away, Goldenberg referred the question to the Interior Ministry.
To our Vietnam Vet readers, doesn't this seem achingly familiar, aerial body counts of phantom dead.
Sometimes you needed wings to stay above the bullshit, it flew so fast.
TORONTO (AFP) - Canada denied refugee status to a US paratrooper who walked out on the 82nd Airborne Division to dodge combat in Iraq (news - web sites), in a decision that will dismay scores of other American deserters.
Jeremy Hinzman, 26, had filed for refugee protection arguing he would face persecution over his political beliefs or cruel or unusual punishment if returned to the United States.
But Canada's Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) found that Hinzman, his Laotian-born wife and young son would benefit from fair and independent justice in the United States.
.................... "We don't believe that people should be imprisoned if what they're asked to do is illegal," Hinzman's lawyer, Jeffry House (eds: correct) argued Thursday, adding that the legality of the war would be questioned in the appeal.
The case was seen as a barometer for seven other US soldiers who have also applied for refugee status in Canada, who also absconded over the Iraq war.
Up to 100 other US deserters, yet to file refugee claims, are believed to be sheltering in Canada, reviving memories of an "underground railroad," which spirited Vietnam war draft dodgers over the border in the 1960s.
IRB member Brian Goodman found in his judgment that Hinzman would be offered protection by a fair and independent military and civilian justice system should he be returned to the United States.
...................... "Given that I enlisted for a noble country, doing noble things, I thought, if called upon I would do it. After being trained, I realised I could not," he said.
Hinzman's plea to be recognized as a conscientious objector was turned down by the US military, and he said he was left no option but to desert, faced with fighting a war he saw as immoral and illegal.
Observers had always seen Hinzman's claim as a longshot, given that he was a volunteer soldier, and that no previous US combatant has been awarded refugee status in Canada.
I feel bad for Hinzman, but the problem is that EM's have been discharged without trial for going AWOL, while NCO's have been given short sentences, if that. To claim persecution is a big stretch. This should also serve as a warning to parents who think crossing the border will protect their kids from a draft. Because the draft board has an appeals process, refugee status is going to be hard to get, and their kids over 18 will not qualify to immigrate. Canada has some very specific laws about who can apply and they don't seem to include single 18 year olds with no job skills. Although attending a Canadian college may postpone a draft for a few years.
I truly hope that the Canadian government eventually rules in his favor.
CANTON, Mass., March 24 -- A teenager who won a groundbreaking legal battle last summer to "divorce" his killer father walked out of court Thursday with new adoptive parents.
"I don't think I'll ever be over it," Patrick Holland said of his mother's 1998 killing by his father, "but it's a step forward. It's about the biggest step you can take at one time."
Patrick, 15, was adopted by Ron and Rita Lazisky; the pair have been his guardians and were close friends of his mother.
The Laziskys, of Sandown, N.H., have cared for Patrick since shortly after Daniel Holland fatally shot Liz Holland at the family's home in Quincy, Mass. Patrick, then 8, found his mother's body the following morning. Daniel Holland is serving life in prison without parole.
Patrick was one of the first children to initiate a parental-rights termination proceeding against one parent for killing the other. He argued that Daniel Holland forfeited any right to be his father the night he shot Liz Holland eight times.
The Massachusetts Department of Social Services placed the boy in a "bridge" home while grandparents on both sides fought the Laziskys for custody. But Patrick wanted to live with the Laziskys, and he did so after they qualified as foster parents.
"I'm just so happy. I never thought I'd see the day," a beaming Rita Lazisky said after the closed hearing in Norfolk County Probate and Family Court.
By Matthew Mosk Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, March 25, 2005; Page A01
Maryland Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. accused a former state employee yesterday of trying to "blackmail" him. The woman involved said she was trying to protect herself against a retaliatory "whisper campaign" by the administration that could cost her a job.
And after a winter of partisanship and allegations of political dirty tricks, the tension ratcheted up another level when Ehrlich (R) stood in front of the State House and charged that there was a campaign at work to make his administration look bad.
"We really want to know about any political orchestration" by Democrats, Ehrlich told reporters.
The latest accusations still involve Joseph Steffen, the longtime aide whom Ehrlich fired last month for circulating rumors about a political rival, Baltimore Mayor Martin O'Malley (D). Ehrlich dismissed Steffen immediately after learning from The Washington Post that Steffen had boasted on the Internet about spreading gossip about O'Malley's marriage.
Ehrlich said at the time "I will not put up with this, bottom line." Yesterday he suggested that Steffen had been set up and asked reporters to find out how that happened.
As evidence, he released an e-mail from Michelle Lane, a registered nurse who held mid-level posts on Ehrlich's transition team and in his administration before being fired last summer. In the Feb. 13 e-mail, Lane accused the governor's aides of trying to smear her, and she threatened to distribute damaging correspondence she received from Steffen if Ehrlich's staff did not leave her alone. She included one sample, in which Steffen describes efforts to "start cleaning house" at a state agency.
Ehrlich told reporters, "Getting a blackmail e-mail . . . that was certainly interesting."
Lane declined to respond to the governor's accusations. But her attorney called them obscene. He described Lane as a Republican whistle-blower who wrote the e-mail in desperation after it appeared that Ehrlich's staff was trying to get her fired from her new job, teaching a nursing class in Towson.
Ehrlich's comments yesterday marked the latest twist in a story that has roiled Annapolis politics and intensified partisan differences that have marred the 90-day General Assembly session. Even before the Steffen story broke, there was a controversy over Ehrlich's annual State of the State address, in which the governor scolded Democratic lawmakers for not showing him proper respect. There also have been tussles over Democratic senators' refusal to confirm scores of gubernatorial appointments, and there have been allegations of a Republican purge of seasoned state employees.
When the news of dirty tricks emerged, top Democratic lawmakers went on the offensive, pledging a full investigation into Steffen's activities.
At a mid-afternoon news conference, Ehrlich was defiant, saying of the probe, "Bring it on."
This is silly, very silly.
Steffen was caught redhanded spreading rumors about Baltimore Mayor Martin O'Malley, and now this? You can bet the liar here is sitting in the atate house. Jesus, I know his Lt. Gov was an idiot, but any time a pol says this, they might as well say they're guilty and be done with it.
Terry Schiavo is near death. If actions are to be taken to save her life, they must be taken now.
Let us briefly review the relevant facts: Terri is a human being whose physical condition is in dispute, but perhaps not for long. She is the daughter of loving parents, and she has a brother and sister. She is the wife of a man who once loved her, may still love her, but has taken a new woman and has with her two children. It is his duty under Florida law, and by common sense, to be her guardian.
Florida courts have found that she is incapacitated and beyond repair. Doctors have voted three to two that she is in a "persistent vegetative state." Her husband and legal guardian claims that she would have wished not to be kept alive should she find such a state. The courts agree. Florida law, as interpreted by Florida courts, provides that she should be allowed to expire. It appears Terri Schiavo has no legal right to life.
................................
James Madison remarked in the 51st Federalist that "auxiliary precautions" — constitutional mechanisms such as separation of powers and checks and balances — are necessary for limiting the power of government, a means for the end of protecting rights. But, Madison also reminded us, "a dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government." The Florida constitution echoes Madison when it states in Section 1 that, "All political power is inherent in the people."
The "auxiliary precautions" of Florida government — in this case the Florida supreme court — have failed Terri Schiavo. It is time, therefore, for Governor Bush to execute the law and protect her rights, and, in turn, he should take responsibility for his actions. Using the state police powers, Governor Bush can order the feeding tube reinserted. His defense will be that he and a majority of the Florida legislature believe the Florida Constitution requires nothing less. Some will argue that Governor Bush will be violating the law. We think he will not be violating the law, but if he is judged to have done so, it will be in the tradition of Martin Luther King, Jr., who answered to a higher law than a judge's opinion. In so doing, King showed respect for the man-made law by willingly going to jail (on a Good Friday); Governor Bush may have to face impeachment because of his decision.
In taking these extraordinary steps to save an innocent life, Governor Bush should be judged not by the opinion of the Florida supreme court, a co-equal branch of the Florida government, but by the opinions of his political superiors, the people of Florida. If they disagree with their governor, they are indeed free to act through their elected representatives and impeach him. Or they can vindicate him if they think he is right. But he should not be cowed into inaction — he should not allow an innocent woman to be starved to death — because of an opinion of a court he believes to be wrong and unconstitutional.
Governor Jeb Bush may find it difficult to protect Terri's rights without risking impeachment. But in the great American experiment in republican government, much is demanded of those who are charged with protecting the rights of the people. Governor Bush pledged to uphold the Florida constitution as he understands it, not as it is understood by some Florida judges. He is the rightful representative of the people of Florida and he is the chief executive, in whom the power is vested to execute the law and protect the rights of citizens. He should use that power to protect Terri's natural right to live, and he should do so now.
Is this same Bill Bennett who lost $8m in Vegas and was accused of being some Dom's slut puppy bitch? I know he's real committed to the holy bonds of matrimony.
It seems however, he's also committed to mob rule and dictatorship.
A democracy, more than anything else, is about the rule of law over the whims of men. May have to face impeachment? He should face years of jail for breaking the law like this, and I bet, a murder indictment for killing Terri Schiavo.
Some judge? Some judge?
What the fuck? Some judge my ass. The judge makes decisions of law, to minimize his role is to minimize democracy. Even George Wallace listened to Frank Johnson. The law is sacrosanct, it isn't to be altered at the whim of a man, governor or not. The 1960's is testiment to the abuse of law which results when people ignore it.
What is Jeb supposed to do? Keep her in seculsion and bar her from her husband? What is this, 1858? Schiavo may mean slave in Italian, but it doesn't mean she is one. And what kind of family would permit this? What kind of people?
This man once sat at the President's cabinet, now he advocates a position which would turn Florida into Cuba North. The court decides what is and is not constitutional. Not governors and legislators.
This reminds me of the book and movie Damage. In it, an MP cheats on his wife with his son's troubled fiance, and then when discovered, leads to the son's accidental death. Everything in his life, his family, the mistress, his position, stripped away in an instant. He winds up living alone and isolated, shuffling from store to home a nroken man. All that risk for such massive loss.
Bill Bennett is advocating GOP electoral suicide. This is already wildly unpopular as is. Going beyond the bonds of law for this seems extremely risky, suicidally risky.
It's like the line from the Hunt for Red October: "This business will get out of control. It will get out of control and we'll be lucky to live through it."
I know Bill Bennett is an irresponsible gambler, a denegerate slot jockey, but this is irresponsible beyond words for a former cabinet official to write.
If I was Steve Moore or Larry Kudlow and read that, I would shit my pants and call whoever I had to to end this shit. Because the fundies are gonna give the store away. Even Bennett's words create a more dangerous climate, given his status and former position. It puts even more pressure on Jeb and makes it that much easier for someone to slip over the edge.
Seeing someone struggle with an anvil is amazing. God, imagine if we had listened to that twit Amy Sullivan and Tim Roemer. Values? I guess marriage has no value when it gets in the way of your insane crusade.
The wrenching struggle over Terri Schiavo's life and death has always been entwined with a money battle.
But now that the struggle may finally be reaching a climax, the money is long gone.
The million-dollar malpractice settlement that Terri and husband Michael Schiavo received in 1992 was spent first on various therapies and then on the seven-year legal fight over whether to end her life.
The money - $300,000 for Michael and $700,000 for Terri - reportedly caused an early break between Michael Schiavo and his in-laws when he refused to share it..............
Michael Schiavo's attorney since 1998, George Felos, has been paid a total of nearly $400,000, but he and other lawyers have been working for free for the past two years, according to court records.
The Schindlers are being represented for free by lawyer David Gibbs of the fundamentalist Christian Law Association.
Their legal and PR fight is financed through the Life Legal Defense Foundation by the anti-abortion Alliance Defense Fund.
The Schindlers have also been soliciting funds since 2002, collecting about $40,000 last year. They were fined $1,000 by the state of Florida last month for failing to register as a charity.
Gee, and Nancy Grace is so quick to accuse Michael Schiavo of looking for money.
The attacks on his character have become talk-show fodder and high-profile commentary, from the Wall Street Journal's editorial pages to website chat rooms and morning drive-time call-ins. It has also raised the emotional temperature among those standing vigil outside the hospice, where 60 to 80 protesters chant and sing in hopes that Terri Schiavo's life will be extended and where a handful of right-to-die advocates denounce the intrusions.
Some have come to the husband's defense, despite the overwhelming sentiment against him at the vigil.
"Michael has done everything possible for Terri over the years," said registered nurse Angie Olson, who doesn't know Schiavo personally but has worked with his colleagues.
"He was a respiratory therapist before she had the accident, and you can't tell me they never talked about life-and-death decisions. That is something he would have been dealing with every day."
Michael Schiavo has given few interviews and could not be reached Wednesday, as he was reportedly in the family quarters of the hospice to spend time by his wife's bedside — alternating with her parents and siblings. But in an interview with the St. Petersburg Times last week at the offices of his lawyers, Schiavo, a 41-year-old nurse, said one of the most painful elements of the controversy over his wife's future was the accusation by his in-laws that he had mistreated her. "None of it is true," he told the paper in the March 16 interview.
Other attempts this week to reach Michael Schiavo and his attorney, George J. Felos, were unsuccessful. No one answered a knock at Schiavo's Clearwater home, and Felos' voice mail was full, rejecting further messages.
Michael Schiavo's brother, Brian, has also been critical of the government intrusions and activist smearings, telling a Fox TV interviewer that they "should be ashamed of themselves" for making a painful and emotional situation worse.
But most of those sporadically standing vigil outside the hospice as courts considered conflicting legal motions described the man who is Terri Schiavo's legal guardian as well as her husband of 20 years as evil incarnate.
He is compared with Scott Peterson, convicted of killing his pregnant wife, to Nazi proponents of euthanizing the infirm, to Southern racists who sought to deprive fellow citizens of constitutional protections. Posters abound with provocative barbs such as, "Is Florida the Next Auschwich [sic]?" and "Michael, are you partying yet?"
Terri Schiavo's brother, Bobby Schindler, has used the spotlight to draw attention to claims that his sister suffered bone fractures and other abuses. A state court this month rejected a state agency's effort to investigate, saying the allegations had previously been found to be groundless.
The round-the-clock protest of legal rulings against further medical intervention has become, day by day and one appeal after another, an incubator for vilifying Michael Schiavo and for exploring conspiracy theories.
Some have come from the Schindlers themselves. In a petition filed Feb. 28 seeking a divorce for their daughter, they contended that her marriage to Michael Schiavo was "irretrievably broken" because he had committed adultery and undermined his wife's care and comfort.
Michael Schiavo met Theresa Marie Schindler in 1982, when she was a 19-year-old freshman at Bucks County Community College in Pennsylvania and he was preparing for a career in nursing. They married in November 1984, and Michael Schiavo was initially so close to his in-laws that the newlyweds lived in their home and moved with them to Florida less than two years later.
Conservative groups and disabled advocacy organizations have disseminated garish parodies of the husband they see as relishing his wife's potential demise.
"I, Michael Schiavo, Am Starving My Wife Today (and I feel good)," said the headline of a mock letter distributed by a group called the Hospice Patients Alliance.
I said soon after the election that Bush would regret making a deal with the devil and that day seems to be fast approaching. The wingnuts expect to have their way, as they have in the past. They vilify Michael Schiavo with a vile ease. They seem to be getting nuttier by the day and Jeb may find that he cannot meet their demands.
The parents are taking cash from the right with glee and working the room, but the danger of playing with ultras is their refusal to accept reality. The backlash could hit Jeb square in the face. The further he goes with this, the more he and DeLay invest in this circus, the more they have to lose. If Jeb intervenes illegally, he'll be hammered by the courts. If he doesn't, the Ultras may get even crazier. The more emotional this gets, the more liklihood there is of violence. What's to stop someone from shooting their way into the hospice in a misguided attempt to rescue Terri Schiavo? The radical right has created an evirnoment where violence could explode at any moment. People so reckless that they will let their kids get arrested.
Even the GOP is mervous about how this plays out and they should be. The rage of the ultras may be turned against the GOP pols in a violent way.
By raising expectations of some kind of relief against any legal reality, they are creating this fantasy world. And by siding with the Schindlers against the husband, there is the expectation that Jeb can perform some miracle which he cannot.
March 23, 2005 | Los Angeles -- A federal lawsuit filed by several Navy SEALs and the wife of a special forces member claims the Associated Press violated copyright and privacy laws and endangered the servicemen's lives by publishing photographs of them with Iraqi prisoners.
The lawsuit, filed Monday in federal court in San Diego, seeks unspecified damages. It also asks the court to bar the AP from further use of the photos and to require the news agency to protect the SEALs' identities.
It replaces a lawsuit filed in state court in December to add the federal copyright infringement allegations, said plaintiffs' attorney James W. Huston.
"The claims are just as groundless in federal court as they were in state court," said Dave Tomlin, the news cooperative's assistant general counsel. "The pictures are of obvious public interest. AP obtained them in a completely proper way and was right to publish them."
Navy SEALS? Not liking publicity? Someone better tell the Discovery Channel, which has a couple of documentaries of SEALS in training.
I think the problem has to do with the torture of prisoners. Because the Navy does not demand that either SEAL or Marine Recon teams identities be covered. I would suggest they head to the nearest bookstore and pick up Generation Kill to see how silly their suit is. Or that they worry about torture charges.
Jamal (not his real name) is a 16 year-old high school student who was minding his own business on Tuesday shopping at Pittsburgh's Waterworks Mall. He was on the sidewalk when a white Chevy Malibu slowed down beside him. In the car were two white men casually dressed in jeans and T-shirts. The men called out to Jamal. They had an offer for him.
Now, when you hear a story about two grown men outside a mall trolling for kids you might fear the worst. If it was a younger child, you might expect them to offer candy or tales of a lost puppy. You might think that a kid who took them up on their offer might meet with an ugly death. In this case, your assumption that the men were offering Jamal the chance to die young is correct.
The men in the white Chevy Malibu wanted to know if Jamal was interested in signing up with the Marines.
To be fair, Jamal is a tall kid. He could easily be mistaken for 18 and the age requirement for joining the Marines is 17 to 29. Jamal explained to them that he was only 16. The men in their civvies and shiny white car didn't miss a beat. They asked him if he went to Fox Chapel High School. They continued to engage him in the benefits of signing up. They only stopped when Jamal held a cell phone to his ear and said he had to make a phone call. Only then did the men stop their drive-by recruitment and leave Jamal who promptly called his Mom to tell her what had happened.
At this point in the story you may have some questions. Questions like: I saw Fahrenheit 9/11; I thought recruiters targeted poor kids and minorities. Isn't the Waterworks in a pricey area? Yes, but it has a Walmart (a known Mecca for the cost-conscious). And, yes, from the name I choose for the 16 year-old, I was purposely telegraphing that Jamal is African American.
So what's wrong with Marines going to malls where the young hang out looking for recruits? I'll let Jamal's mother answer this one.
Theresa (not her real name) is a political activist and about as progressive as it gets. She's completely opposed to the war in Iraq and fearful of a possible draft. So concerned are she and her husband about the possibility of Jamal being subjected to a draft in the future that they have applied for Canadian citizenship. And her son, Jamal, is a bright, sensitive, politically aware kid who often argues about the war with his largely Republican classmates.
Theresa was beside herself when she called me on the phone yesterday and she had many questions. Why did the recruiters continue to talk to her minor son after they found out that he was only 16? What made them think that they had a right to mark her son for possible death on a faraway battlefield? Did they target him in particular because he's African American? What chance does a kid have to make a good decision on their future when they are trolled by Marine recruiters and not by college recruiters or employers?
She recalled an interview with a former recruiter that she had just heard on the Democracy Now radio program. The former recruiter had stated that he had to quit because as he put it, "Going to Iraq is not a career option." He further explained how he just couldn't stay at a job where he had assured a young man that he wouldn't have to go to Iraq and then learned that the young man had ended up dying in that very same place.
As I indicated, Theresa is not an easy mark for a recruiter's pitch and neither is Jamal. Jamal later joked that if they had asked for his name he was going to tell them it was "Ishmael Mohammed."
But what if Theresa had never discussed her feelings about Iraq or George W. Bush with her son? What if Jamal was more of a typical teenager who paid little attention to world events. What if he was one of the many Americans who soldiers returning from combat complain about when people ask them, "What war?" What if this minor child only had the recruiters promises of a good job and skill-training opportunities to base his decision on? Is it right for recruiters to aggressively target minors? They are in our high schools now and they are at job fairs marketed to high school students. Should they have a shot at our children (pun intended) when the children's parents are not present? Should they target them at mall and fast-food parking lots?
In this culture where we try to shield our children from any and all possible harm, including mandating warning labels on everything from music CDs, video games and movies to cigarettes, do the Marines (and other branches of the Armed Services) have an obligation to issue a warning statement to those youngsters whom they try to recruit to be sent to war where they will face real bullets and not the fantasy ones found on a PlayStation?
In this instance the recruiters targeted the wrong mother's son. Theresa is already active in conscientious objectors and antiwar groups. If anything, they have only hardened her resolve. She now has plans to protest outside recruitment stations. She's told me that I shouldn't be too surprised to hear that she might sometime in the near future be arrested for civil obedience.
She will not let her child -- or any mother's son -- be a marked boy.
First, since it's legal for 17 year olds to enlist, like my father did, they can talk to 16 year olds. And if they don't recruit teenagers, who WILL they recruit?
Second, that is EXACTLY the point, they want the kid to choose the Marines over college. They want that kid more than any other, the college bound kid with a high IQ.
And again, I would point out that applying for Canadian citizenship is no guarantee. As long as you are an American citizen, you can live in Fiji, and if you are selected for induction, they will let you know. Canadian citizenship does not abrogate US citizenship for one thing. So if you are eligible for the draft, you will still be eligible for the draft as long as you have US citizenship. Which also means you can NEVER return to the US if you evade the draft.
I wish these parents would think harder about this. In their quest to protect their kids, they so shelter them that more than a few will be drafted just to spite their parents. Being stupid at 18 is not uncommon. These loving parents, instead of protecting their chidlren, will be driving them into the arms of the military as a sign of rebellion.
Parents need to say less and give kids a lot more information about the military and let them make informed decisions. I see a lot of women who think they're going to control the way 17-18 year old boys behave. Well, there are sons of pacifists in Iraq at this moment. Why? Because they have their own minds and ideas. The last thing I would do is tell a kid not to enlist. I would, however, explain that military life is a lot different than the movies and you can be injured or killed in Iraq, where you are certain to serve. They may be kids, but the military will have adult expectations of them in ways they cannot imagine or comprehend.
Talking about a lifetime in exile is not a decision a parent should make. I think an 18 year old should be making that decision for his life, because if they leave the US to avoid the draft, that may end their lives as American citizens. Which is not a decision a parent should be making for that child. I know a lot of people think it will be a couple of years, but it may be forever. Any decision to avoid the draft needs to be a decision that child makes, not the parent. Because, ultimately, it is that 18 year old who will have to live the consequences of that decision, not the parent. That or being drafted is an adult decision, one with serious consequences for their future. If some well meaning parent drags their kid to Canada and that kid doesn't adjust and winds up being arrested and deported, then in the Army anyway, what good was all that?
If a kid wants to avoid induction, then a parent should support them without reservation, but that needs to be their decision. Because they will live out what happens. A smart kid will figure their options and go from there, and I don't think Iraq is part of it.
WASHINGTON -- The Army expects to miss its recruiting goals this month and next and is working on a revised sales pitch appealing to the patriotism of parents, Army Secretary Francis J. Harvey said Wednesday.
Whether that boosts enlistment numbers or not, Harvey said he sees no chance of a military draft.
"The `D' word is the farthest thing from my mind," the former defense company executive told a Pentagon news conference, his first since becoming the Army's top civilian official last November.
................................
One of those new approaches is designed to persuade more parents to steer their children to the Army.
"We're going to appeal to patriotism," he said.
That might be done through a new advertising campaign, he said. He also is encouraging more members of Congress as well as senior Army leaders and Army boosters to spend time in local communities touting the benefits of military service.
The Army also has increased the number of recruiters on the street by 33 percent and is offering bigger signup bonuses. Last week the Army announced that the National Guard and Reserve were raising the maximum age for recruits from 34 to 39 to expand the pool of potential enlistees. The regular Army could not raise the maximum age without congressional approval.
Some have suggested the Army could ease its recruiting crunch if the Pentagon altered its "Don't Ask/Don't Tell" policy that permits gay men and women to serve only if they keep their sexual orientation to themselves. Harvey, however, said he opposes changing the policy.
"I don't see any need to change it," he said.
In a related matter, the Army said more people in the Individual Ready Reserve -- those no longer in uniform and not obligated to train -- are going to be hearing from the Army in the weeks ahead. The Army has revised upward the number of IRR soldiers it plans to put on active duty, from the 4,402 announced last summer to 4,653. Of those given mobilization orders so far, 370 have failed to report for duty, according to Lt. Col. Pamela Hart, an Army spokeswoman. An additional 2,229 have asked for delays in their reporting dates or for exemptions.
Harvey also disclosed that the Army is "looking at" changing its policy on having more than one sibling in a combat zone at the same time. He did not say how the policy might be altered, and he declined to say more about the subject, other than to indicate that it came up when he visited the Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany, where wounded U.S. troops are treated. .
What is the Army's recruiting problem? Dying in Iraq.
Members of Congress? You mean like draft dodgerws like Tom DeLay and Dennis Hastert?
The benefits of military service? You mean like having to pay for your wife's medically necessary abortion and having to sue for it? Having to spend months in Walter Reed? Coming home and sleeping in your car after losing a kidney, or being discharged from a Texas military hospital and being docked thousands of dollars? Or having to pay for meals and phone calls from your hospital bed?
My question is what happens when all of this fails.
As they say: patriotism, the last refuge of a scoundrel.
The Fish Cheer & I-Feel-Like-I'm-Fixin'-To-Die Rag Gimme an F! F! Gimme an I! I! Gimme an S! S! Gimme an H! H! What's that spell ? FISH! What's that spell ? FISH! What's that spell ? FISH!
Yeah, come on all of you, big strong men, Uncle Sam needs your help again. He's got himself in a terrible jam Way down yonder in Iraq So put down your books and pick up a gun, We're gonna have a whole lotta fun.
And it's one, two, three, What are we fighting for ? Don't ask me, I don't give a damn, Next stop is Iraq; And it's five, six, seven, Open up the pearly gates, Well there ain't no time to wonder why, Whoopee! we're all gonna die.
Well, come on generals, let's move fast; Your big chance has come at last. Gotta go out and get those muslims— The only good muslim is the one who's dead And you know that peace can only be won When we've blown 'em all to kingdom come.
And it's one, two, three, What are we fighting for ? Don't ask me, I don't give a damn, Next stop is Iraq; And it's five, six, seven, Open up the pearly gates, Well there ain't no time to wonder why Whoopee! we're all gonna die.
Huh!
Well, come on Halliburton, don't move slow, Why man, this is war au-go-go. There's plenty good money to be made By supplying the Army with the tools of the trade, Just hope and pray that if they drop the bomb, They drop it on the dead enders.
And it's one, two, three, What are we fighting for ? Don't ask me, I don't give a damn, Next stop is Iraq. And it's five, six, seven, Open up the pearly gates, Well there ain't no time to wonder why Whoopee! we're all gonna die.
Well, come on mothers throughout the land, Pack your boys off to Iraq. Come on fathers, don't hesitate, Send 'em off before it's too late. Be the first one on your block To have your boy come home in a box.
And it's one, two, three What are we fighting for ? Don't ask me, I don't give a damn, Next stop is Iraq. And it's five, six, seven, Open up the pearly gates, Well there ain't no time to wonder why, Whoopee! we're all gonna die.
By Caryle Murphy Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, March 24, 2005; Page A15
BAGHDAD, March 23 -- An Iraqi official said Wednesday that 85 insurgents were killed on Tuesday when Iraqi commandos, assisted by U.S. air and ground support, staged a midday attack on a suspected training camp in a rural area northwest of the capital.
The guerrilla death toll was the largest in any battle since the Marines led an assault on the insurgent-held city of Fallujah in November, when more than 1,000 fighters were reported killed.
Seven Iraqi special police officers were killed and five were injured in Tuesday's attack on the camp, located near Tharthar Lake in the Sunni Triangle, Sabah Kadhim, an Interior Ministry spokesman, said in an interview.
"It was cleverly hidden in the middle of swamps," Kadhim said of the camp, adding that the insurgents had used boats to transfer supplies to the site.
The special police, formally known as 1st Police Commando Battalion, are attached to the Interior Ministry.
The clash was the latest in a series of firefights involving large numbers of fighters.
On Sunday, U.S. forces killed 26 insurgents in a fight that broke out when 40 to 50 insurgents, armed with rocket-propelled grenades and small arms, ambushed a U.S. military-escorted convoy of civilian trucks driven by Iraqis on the southern outskirts of Baghdad, the U.S. military said. Six U.S. soldiers were wounded.
In Tuesday's attack on the suspected training site, Iraqi forces were assisted by elements of Task Force Liberty, a U.S. combined force consisting of units from the Army National Guard's 42nd Infantry Division, along with the 116th Brigade Combat Team, the 278th Regimental Combat Team and the 1st and 3rd Brigade Combat Teams from the Army's 3rd Infantry Division.
"An early assessment of the site indicates a facility for training Anti-Iraqi Forces," a statement from the 42nd Infantry Division said, using the U.S. military's term for insurgents. The statement said evidence recovered at the scene indicated that some of the fighters were foreigners.
Simple question: why, after two years of combat, do guerillas feel confident enough to set up training camps and gather in large numbers?
Drop in registered electorate hits seats held by ministers
David Hencke, Westminster correspondent Thursday March 24, 2005 The Guardian
Tens of thousands of potential voters have failed to register their right to vote in time for an expected May 5 general election. The vanishing voters, who appear to have gone missing disproportionately in Labour-held seats, are revealed in government figures and a report by MPs today.
There has been a countrywide drop in voter registration in the runup to the election, compared to the numbers who registered to vote in 2001 when Tony Blair was returned with a second landslide majority.
The findings, compiled from returns by electoral registration officials for the Office for National Statistics, are backed by a report by two parliamentary committees which says that registration is in "decline in all cases".
The most alarming finding for Labour comes in a submission to the Commons constitutional affairs and local government and regions committees from Clive Betts, Labour MP for Sheffield Attercliffe, after interviewing the city's electoral registration officer, Eirwen Eves.
He found that one in five households had failed to register to vote across the city, but the figures were disproportionately worse in inner city Labour seats. Nearly 90% have registered in affluent Totley and Dore, while only 56% have registered in Burngreave ward, part of the Sheffield Central constituency of sports minister Richard Caborn.
The MPs conclude: "When the widespread expectation of a general election is taken into account, a factor which is usually taken to boost registration by making it seem more relevant to the voter, the latest figures are more disturbing."
The figures from the ONS show a dramatic difference in seats across the country between 2001 and 2005. In the bellwether seat of Basildon in Essex - which signalled that Labour had lost in 1992 - the number of electors is down by 2,000 from 2001.
Welcome back to my blog... For reasons I cannot get into it's been a while since there has been a new post in here. I will just say this, this blog apperently is very powerful and read by some very influential people. I still do not know the scope of influence I have, yet I know why the things I say are so dangerous... Because I speak the truth, I can call out the naked truth of liar when I see one, and people are afriad of being exposed to something as powerful as the truth.
Well well well, anyways there are some very disturbing things going on in the world right now and as the title of this blog taken from a great Dwight Yokam song suggests, we the world are standing around singing Dixie as people are dying. Well I for one will not stand by and sing Dixie, I will stand up and fight for the truth and justice in this world.
Right now there is a case in Florida going on, that is bigger than anyone can ever imagine. Terri Schindler Schiavo, an innocent handicapped women is being executed by her scum bag husband for doing nothing wrong. Many people are misled on this, the myths, she is brain dead, she is on life support, she is in a permanant vegatative state.
Well, here are the facts...
Terri Schindler Schiavo, was orginanlly put into the hospital I believe in 1990 for suspicious causes, some attribute it to a heart attack, others in the medical community argue other wise. However, no one will no, because her "husband" Micheal Schiavo will not allow anyone to exam her. In fact, he has declared (as her legal guardian) that if she dies, there will be no autopsy and she will be immediately creamated.
Up until 1997, when Micheal Schiavo came forward saying his wife wishes to die, (despite not saying this on her arrival in the hospital in 1990 and suspiciously after winning a large legal settlement), Terri was making progess, even being able to walk with aide!
After that time, all rehab work on her has stopped, and she lives on a feeding tube, not a breathing machine, she can breath on her own, recognize people, sit up and respond to doctors. She possibly could get better but right now we will not know.
Now others argue she needs the feeding tube because she cannot eat on her own. They havent tried to see if she could eat or swallow. Micheal Schiavo will not allow them. Micheal Schiavo the happy husband does currently live in a common law marraige and has children with another woman. ..................... The Power of One Judge and a hand ful of people in Senate One non ranking judge of low importance has ordered all this to be carried out, he gave a big FU to members of the Senate and House when he declined their wishes today. This is actually a crime he should be disbarred and arrested. And a few sneaky democrats with vested interested in the right to die movement also helped prevent any real bill to protect Terri from death by starvation. (Interesting to note, if I starved my dogs to death, which i would never do because I love them, I could be sent to prison for cruelty to animals.)
The President President Bush actaully has the authority to stop this all at any time. Any time he can send in federal marshals and put an end to this sitiuation. He expressed verbal arguments for Terri, but has yet to put his money where his mouth is. I feel if he does not act when needed to he will have lost all credibility with me. He should have this judge and Micheal Schiavo arrested. (Side note: A Green Beret tried to arrest Micheal Schiavo on a citizens arrest, but this did not work.. This Green Beret should be given a medal of honor for attempting to perform his civic duty) If the Republicans fumble on this, I feel minus the few who spoke up, as Peggy Noonan wrote today online, they will be put out of power quickly.
Have you ever heard of him? No? Well, that's because you aren't important and don't have influence.
Anyone want to point out the legal errors in this post?
Let me start with two: Florida doesn't permit common law marriage, a fact Google will demonstrate in less than a minute.
The President cannot send US Marshals to kidnap a woman from her husband. Much less have a federal judge arrested.
The post is long and silly, as radical as the yippies without the humor. But there is enough to work with here. Hit the link for more things to correct.
Navy won't pay for procedure for woman who carried severely brain-damaged fetus
Wednesday, March 23, 2005
By MIKE BARBER SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER
When she learned that she was carrying a baby with almost no brain and no chance of survival, a devastated young Navy wife from Everett pleaded with a federal court in Seattle to force her military medical program to pay for an abortion.
"I could not imagine going through five more months of pregnancy, knowing that the baby will never survive or have any kind of life whatsoever," the woman, then 19, told a federal judge in August 2002. "I understand that even if the baby is born alive, it will probably die after it takes a few breaths. I am really terrified of the prospect of giving birth, then watching the baby die."
She won her case and had the abortion. But more than two years later, the federal government continues to fight her, trying to get the woman and her sailor husband to pay back the $3,000 the procedure cost and trying to cast in stone a ban on government-funded abortions.
The case of Jane Doe. v. the United States will be argued before a federal appeals court next month. Like the Terri Schiavo case in Florida, involving a severely brain-damaged adult, this matter involves questions of what is human life, when can family decide to end it and how far can the government go to block that decision.
Federal lawyers have aggressively appealed the Navy wife's case, often using moral arguments against abortion. The case focuses on the Hyde Amendment regulations, which forbid use of public funds for abortions except if a mother's life is endangered, or in cases of incest or rape -- but not for lethal fetal ailments.
After a lengthy tug of war in which Jane Doe's case bounced between two courts of appeal, on the East and West coasts, arguments will be heard April 6 before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which is based in San Francisco.
"It's a sleeper case that no one is talking about because it's so far from over, but when it hits, it's going to be a big one," predicted Maureen Britell, former executive director of the now-defunct Voters for Choice lobby in Washington, D.C.
An Air Force wife, Britell filed the only similarly known case involving anencephaly, abortion and military health coverage 11 years ago. It is the case upon which Jane Doe's is based -- Britell v. the United States.
Anencephaly is a neural tube defect that causes a fetus to develop without a forebrain, cerebellum or cranium and which is 100 percent fatal to the fetus, although not to the mother, medical experts say.
The Everett woman, named Jane Doe in court documents to protect her privacy, has declined to be interviewed. She and her husband now have a healthy baby.
Her attorney, Seattle lawyer Vanessa Soriano Power, has built the case on constitutional grounds, arguing that federal regulations violate the equal protection clause of the Constitution by denying abortion coverage concerning cases where fetuses, not just the mother, are certain to die.
"I can't understand the impetus behind the government pursuing this case," Power said of the time and expense federal lawyers have invested. Power, with lawyer Rita Latsinova, first argued the case successfully in 2002 as a cooperating attorney for the Northwest Women's Law Center. (
"This young woman didn't have the money to pay for it herself," Power said. "Her husband is an enlisted man, and she was essentially earning minimum-wage working at the Navy Exchange, and the procedure becomes more expensive and risky to the mother the further along the pregnancy is carried. We essentially asked the court to force the government to stop withholding payment."
U.S. District Judge Thomas Zilly in Seattle agreed, issuing a strongly worded decision in February 2003 and ordering the military's Tricare medical system to pay for the abortion.
But the battle continues.
All to keep the fundies happy.
Tom DeLay should call this the culture of torment.
Should Congress and the President be involved in the Schiavo matter?
Yes 13 No 82
This is turning into a disaster of epic proportions for the GOP. They thought they had the Dems wedged, and instead they have wedged themselves from the American public. Congress is being exposed as the cynical, power-mad, ethics-free zone that it has become under DeLay's leadership.
Read the poll. It has nothing but bad news for Republicans. And don't miss Bush's numbers on Iraq - his approval ratings in the war are down six points in the last month - from 45 percent to 39 percent.
Update: The party breakdown for this poll is:
Republican 44 Democrat 29 Independent 28
If the poll represented the actual partisan breakdown of the US public, the numbers would be far, far worse.
This is a disaster, not in the making, not possible, but happening live as we speak.
People didn't vote for this, nothing like this. They thought this was about killing Bin Laden, and taking care of Iraq, not catering to the ghoulish request of a delusional family. No one signed on for this and they don't like it.
What I think Dems were told and missed was that evangelicals were as varied as any other group. The people haunting the Schiavos are doing as much street theater as the Yippies and it's going even less well. There was a lot of sulking and bitterness after the election without a lot of thinking on how to reach these people.
My cousin, who is an evangelical is so busy she never watches the news. She didn't even know about social security. But she isn't stupid, she's a systems analyst. But her life is just that crazy, with relatives and church and the like. There are a lot of people like her, busy in their own lives who ignore politics or are ignored by politics.
The GOP made the same mistake, but in a different way. They thought if they catered to their ultras, everyone would be pleased. The fact is that people need to realize that church, even opposition to gay marriage, doesn't make them brainless. Most people have fairly sophisticated views on issues when asked. But because the GOP think a few ultra rightists speaks for this vast community.
Now, they have this polling nightmare on their hands, all they can do is push harder.
But the risk of that is it will alienate even more people.
Some people are disappointed that the Dems didn't jump up, but what could they have said? If they jump in the way, the family attacks them. That's the politics of the past. The new politics is one of common sense. No Dem stand could have done this. This isn't about principle, but politics, a brutal game which only rewards winners. If you hate what Congress did, it's up to you to object, it's up to the Democratic minority to make sure that the radical right weakens itself by any means possible. If it means watching winguts pretend to care about life, fine.
What people need to watch for is the response when this is all over. The one unpolled question is this: do you trust Congress to protect your future? This whole circus undermines that to a degree Tom DeLay will not like in the next few months.
That's where I'll judge the Dems, if they have the flexibility to use this against DeLay and Bush, not for avoiding Tom Delay's trap.
A good place to be would to use to this "culture of life" to define our issues. They care about life, what about health insurance, decent wages, day care and other issues which can improve a life. Shove these words down their throat. They want to argue about a culture of life, let's have that fight. We know it means more than an already dead woman.
Is Terri Schindler still legally married to Michael Schiavo?
If not, then the power of attorney for her, during her incapacity, should fall to her next of kin, most logically - her parents.
Michael Schiavo is currently effectively married with children, in a common law arrangement, with another spouse, and while he has benefitted from a 1.7 million dollar lawsuit related to Terri's condition, he has abandoned Terri, hoping to be liberated from Terri upon her death, with no messy divource necessary.
"I moved on with a part of my life. I'm sorry that the Schindlers can't move on with any of theirs," Schiavo was quoted in an interview with the internet magazine WND(WorldNetDaily).
But while Shiavo claims to have moved on, his first wife, has yet to move on, and lies in a hospital bed dying of starvation, as per the instructions of her estranged husband, supported by a judge who has appeared wholly inconsiderate of Terri's parents' protests.
In an earlier petition to remove Schiavo as Terri's guardian, Terri's parents failed to impress Judge Greer, who was unconvinced Michael Schiavo's adulterous relationship with a "fiance" constituted a conflict with his guardianship of Terri.
As yet though, Terri's parents have not yet attempted to drag Mr. Schiavo into "family court", and perhaps there is still hope to be had there.
While "Guardianship" may not be in conflict with adultery, "marriage" certainly is, and with Michael Schiavo openly calling his new common-law wife a fiancee, he is blatantly declaring the dissolution of his union with Terri both in word and deed. He is estranged from Terri, and has started a new family. He should be charged with bigamy, or compelled to a divorce.
If Terri can be legally separated, or divorced from her ghoulish spouse, then Judge Greer will be compelled to transfer Terri's medical, and general powers of attorney over to her parents, as her next-of-kin.
That Judge Greer has supported Michael Schiavo is in itself suspicious after reviewing the facts of the case available, but there can be no question as to whether Michael Schiavo as a husband is now "estranged" from Ms. Schindler. The only possible attenuating circumstance conceivable in Michael Schiavo's defense, is a possibility that he might in fact be following Terri's wishes in killing her, and finding another partner to get on with his life. But while this is precisely the defense Schiavo maintains, none of Terri's parents or friends support him in his allegations, and his disgraceful behavior in the pursuit of a new sexual liaison, and fiancee, while his wife still lives.
A Family court judge should remove Michael Schiavo from his burdensome conflict of interest, one that most consider sacred - his marriage.
And a final note to Michael's new common law wife... Girl, you would be wise to set up a "living will", and leave a copy with your parents, or a lawyer somewhere. You never know when it might save your life..
The simple answer is yes.
Just because he has kids with another woman does not constitute abandonment.
Abandonment also applies to the husband/wife or parent/child relationship, when a person has severed ties with and failed to provide support to the other related person for such length of time to find that the familial relationship ceases to exist legally, in order to pursue criminal charges, annulment, divorce, adoption, or emancipation. In fault divorce states, a party guilty of abandonment may be found at fault, constituting grounds for a divorce, which may be a factor in property division, support, and custody issues. However, merely moving out of a marital home, particularly to a nearby location, does not constitute a fault ground of abandonment.
Unfortunately for the wingnuts, there has been no abandonment. Has Michael Schiavo, in any way, shape or form refused to care for his wife? Has he refused to pay her bills or be a custodian of her care?
Clearly the anonymous wingnut who penned this doesn't have any idea of marital law.
CAN A COUPLE BECOME LEGALLY MARRIED BY LIVING TOGETHER AS MAN AND WIFE UNDER FLORIDA’S LAWS? Florida common law marriage.
No
That was simple.
Under Florida law, until she dies or he files for divorce, they are still legally married. Kids, a new girlfriend, doesn't matter.
And since this had been litigated over 20 judges and eight years, and there is no evidence Michael Schiavo has acted in any way contrary to his legal duties as her husband, every bit of it has been examined. She is physically unable to live in his home, which he tried or do anything a wife would do. And he could have ended this long ago by handing over custody to the family. He has consistently kept in daily contact with her as well as his family.
But what surprises me is that someone thinks, after eight years of trying to save her, going to nursing school, that he wanted her dead. Hell, he could have walked away from her years ago. Any money was gone long ago. I don't think he wanted to be here. Or that he even wanted her to die. No one has asked him how he feels. Everyone assumes he wants her out of the way, but no one has asked him his feelings. He's not saying that he thinks she should be better off dead, he's saying that is what she wanted. Other people directly testified to that.
The only way to extend this woman's suffering to destroy marriage. Simple as that. If you want to rip apart the bonds of marriage, then keep this poor woman alive. Because that is the only way to do that. Parents often mistrust son-in-laws, for many reasons. But just like they aren't parties to custody actions or a whole host of actions where the marital bond is seen as supreme, you can't just make up reasons to rip it apart because you don't like the decision.
At some point, Michael Schiavo will have to sue some of these people for slander and libel, because every time they accuse of wanting money or murdering his wife, they are libelling him, it is reckeless disregard of the truth. All of these issues have been adjudicated, testimony taken. These are facts, not rumors or suppositions. Not one of these people can claim a reasonable belief that he is guilty of any of these things.
God, if they don't get Nancy Grace into therapy, she's gonna crack up on the air and get CNN sued.
The battle over whether to build a $1.7 billion football stadium on Manhattan's West Side is causing players to form unlikely teams on both sides.
The latest draft is the Rev. Al Sharpton, who announced on Wednesday that he supports the Jets proposal because of the economic opportunities their plan includes for minorities.
In doing so, Sharpton is stepping away from some allies and fellow Democrats, including the pack of candidates running against Republican Mayor Michael Bloomberg this year. The move also aligns Sharpton with several longtime political foes, including Bloomberg and his predecessor, Rudolph Giuliani.
"Who says that Al and Rudy can't agree on anything?" Bloomberg cracked during a WWOR radio interview Wednesday.
At City Hall, Sharpton said his endorsement of the Jets bid was based not on politics but entirely on the portion of the team's proposal that ensures participation of minority- and women-owned businesses in the construction project.
"We don't always agree in a party, but I think this is above partisan politics," Sharpton said. "The only plan on the table that guarantees jobs and guarantees inclusiveness is this plan, so I don't know what other plan we could go with."
The Jets say a stadium would create more than 18,000 construction jobs and 7,000 permanent jobs. Opponents say the city should address more pressing economic needs before taking on such an expensive project.
So how much did they pay him. There has NEVER been a construction project which has gained significant work for minorities. But the Jets have been handing out cash to get black pols.
It really doesn't matter that Harlem pols have taken Jets money, because the stadium is uniformly unpopular with their constituents. It doesn't give me a warm, fuzzy feeling, but I think that this is about taking money from the rich more than anything else.
The problem for the Jets is that people are not mindless. The same people who will listen to Sharpton on city politics know that the Jets are scamming the city. No one can ever accuse Sharpton of getting out of the way of an easy buck. The only upside is that Cablevision will have to match the Jets' promises. There is no other reason to support the stadium but money. Don't think Sharpton will get a pass on black radio either, he's gonna get some hard questions about this.
Nothing so far has undermined Cablevison's basic contention that the money would be siphoned from the city's others needs. Now, the mirage of jobs is a nice one, but anyone would argue that apartments would lead to more stable jobs. But the Cablevison has been less than generous with their wallets. They should have been bidding on more pols as well, But the Jets are an easy mark. With a 2-1 opposition, my question is what did the Jets really get for their money? Shelly Silver is likely to not kick in any money to this boondoggle, the City Council will probably sue, along with community groups, and the legal fight for this hasn't even begun yet.
What I don't get is the way the Jets have tried to manage this fight. If Bloomberg loses, the stadium is dead, city support will be withdrawn. Buying Harlem pols is not going to get them a stadium in Manhattan. It's not in their neighborhood. One of the things that matters is neighborhood politics. If they don't get the West Side pols on their side, it will always face opposition.
It's also a shot across the bow for Ferrer.
Sharpton announced that he was going to endorse someone in two weeks and my bet is Ferrer, which will drive Fields from the race. But he wants to remind him that he better start getting in shape if he wants to win. This does it.
Keep in mind, in America's most litigious city, only the Jets have sued. No one has sued the Jets, and I think the environmental studies which have been done are bogus. Given the traffic in that area on a normal day, a game day would be nightmarish. The area is a dead zone in normal times, building a stadium is unlikely to help matters. I would expect that a lawsuit will follow on several fronts.
The Jets have been tossing cash around like drunken sailors, but frankly, if the Giants were doing this, we'd have to settle it in court. But the Jets can carpet the city with money, but they are unlikely to have their way.
Part of the Jets money offensive is due to protect their flanks if a lawsuit takes place, by using the Harlem pols to say that "these folks are keep us from getting jobs", it's a clever bit of racial politics, but with one with one flaw, people from another neighborhood cannot tell the people there how to live. I don't want people from Hell's Kitchen to stick a garage in my neighborhood and if they oppose a stadium, that's good enough for a lot of people, including me. None of this, even the city money, would be debated if this was in Queens. But sticking a football stadium in Manhattan is counterintuitive at best.
The latest op-ed by David Brooks contained an assertion about Focus on the Family and Dr. James Dobson's alleged acceptance of gambling money to become involved a battle between competing casinos. This untrue claim is addressed by Focus on the Family Vice President Tom Minnery in the letter to the editor bellow and attached. Please contact me with any questions.
- Christopher Norfleet Public Policy Media Representative Focus on the Family 719-548-4570
March 22, 2005
To the Editor:
David Brooks asserts (“Masters of Sleaze,” March 22) that Focus on the Family accepted gambling money from lobbyist Jack Abramoff to fight a competitive casino. Sorry. Untrue. We don’t know Mr. Abramoff and haven’t taken a dime from him. Had Mr. Brooks asked we would have told him. But then that would be journalism, wouldn’t it.
Focus opposes gambling – in any guise, in any community. In the last five years, we have worked on this in more than 30 states. Dr. Dobson’s service on the National Gambling Impact Study Commission brought home the devastation gambling leaves in its wake.
Several times Dr. Dobson has blistered politicians of both parties – by name – for their egregious acceptance of gambling money. Mr. Brooks could have discovered this with a little research. He chose instead to engage in the journalistic equivalent of a drive-by shooting.
Tom Minnery Vice President, Government & Public Policy Focus on the Family 8605 Explorer Drive Colorado Springs, CO 80920
(719) 531-3400
Despite their denials, I assume they did. Just from another body, not Abramoff
I will say this: I trust Dobson a lot less than Brooks. Brooks has editors and fact checkers. Dobson is a truly evil, despicable man, if Satan had an agent on earth, he lives in Colorado Springs.
I assume that Brooks has no reason to lie, no matter how sloppy he is and that Dobson, besides being beastially evil and an agent of the anti-christ, as well as unchristian, is capable of any evil or deception in his quest for personal power.
Oh well. I hope Brooks takes this as a wakeup call.
I don't think Focus on the Family will reprint this any time soon.
Texas has become ground zero for capital punishment. Between 1976 (when the Supreme Court lifted its prohibition on the death penalty) and 1998 Texas executed 167 people. Next in rank was Virginia which executed 60 during the same period.
Why do capital murder cases proceed through the Texas state court system with a speed unimaginable in other parts of the country? Brent Newton, in an article entitled "Capital Punishment: Texas Could Learn a Lot from Florida,"[1] argues that there are three procedures unique to the state's judicial system that enable it to execute convicted murderers with astonishing frequency:
1. Texas' appellate judges are elected to office and hence serve according to the pleasure of the public. Not surprisingly, they require a record of toughness on criminals in order to win re-election. Also, there are many indications that elected appellate judges generally are of a lesser quality than their appointed counterparts in other states. Newton even claims that these elected judges do not carefully consider the complexities of each specific death penalty case. As evidence, Newton argues that "[e]specially during the past few years...the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has refused to publish most of its decisions in death penalty cases, including many cases that discuss important issues of first impression. Often these opinions take positions entirely inconsistent with prior decisions by the court and fail to mention the conflict. Generally speaking, there is a hit-and-mostly-miss quality in the Court of Criminal Appeals' death penalty decisions. Only a few judges during the past decade have been capable of or willing to write thoughtful, scholarly decisions, whether granting or denying relief." Additionally, Newton notes that these judges tend to dismiss habeas corpus appeals even in cases where there appears to be glaring unanswered questions about the defendant's guilt.
2. Texas does not have a public defender system for indigent defendants, and instead relies upon court-appointed lawyers who likely do not have experience in capital murder defenses or appeals. Newton notes that incompetent defenses in capital murder cases are legion in Texas, and that, even in a death penalty appeal, bad lawyering is hard to prove. One decision, which turned down a defendant's habeas appeal due to bad lawyering, concluded that "[t]he Constitution does not say that the lawyer has to be awake" during trial proceedings. Furthermore, Texas was not obliged to provide lawyers free of charge to post-conviction habeas appeals until September 1, 1995, and the amount the state is willing to pay lawyers for these appeals is sufficiently low that most defendants still do not receive counsel for their appeals.
3. Until the early 1990s, Texas did not permit jurors to adequately consider mitigating evidence in the sentencing phase of a trial. Thus, there are a number of people currently on death row that may well not be there had information about their mental illness or youth been weighed.
In addition, some other features of the Texas judicial system streamline the process between conviction and execution for death row inmates.
Texas gives the bulk of clemency power to its Board of Pardons and Paroles and not to the governor. Indeed, the Board must vote to recommend commutation in order for the governor to grant clemency. Stephen E. Silverman examined the impact of this procedure on the frequency of executions. In a law review note, entitled "There is Nothing Certain Like Death in Texas: State Executive Clemency Boards Turn a Deaf Ear to Death Inmates' Last Appeals,"[2] Silverman argues that the Supreme Court appears to affirm the constitutionality of curtailing repeated habeas appeals in part because of the existence of executive clemency. However, the Governor of Texas' inability to grant clemency himself is an unconsidered loophole in the procedural safeguards that the Court cited in its argument. In other words, Texas--as well as eleven other states--can execute inmates who might have been granted executive clemency had the governor had the power to do so. Silverman thus concludes that "[t]he assertion by three Justices of the United States Supreme Court that state clemency procedures adequately protect against executing those later able to make convincing claims of innocence may not be accurate. Even though only twelve states that provide for the death penalty require some sort of panel decision to grant clemency, these tend to be states with the most aggressively enforced capital murder laws. The dilution of responsibility that operates as a consequence of giving no single person the power to commute a death sentence could tend to reduce the chances for the condemned to have an opportunity to have his clemency appeal receive meaningful consideration."
Moreover, Jordan Steiker, of the University of Texas Law School, notes that execution dates in Texas are set by the trial judge, not by the governor, thus removing an informal power of clemency. The governor is unable simply to not assign an execution date. Many governors in other states have that power.
More generally, Steiker points out that Texas, unlike many other states, has worked out the statutory and procedural "kinks" in death penalty cases and appeals. In particular, Texas' 1995 law expediting state appeals has successfully cut down the time between conviction and execution.[3] He argues that Texas doesn't sentence more people to death than a number of other states, but it executes a higher percentage because many other states' procedures have not been fully tested and affirmed. Steiker believes that other states will soon catch up with Texas' execution rate. Indeed, Virginia came relatively close to matching Texas' rate in 1998: Texas executed 20 individuals, and Virginia executed 13.
Finally, it bears noting that the 5th Circuit of the Federal Court of Appeals is strongly pro-death penalty, and hence places extremely few roadblocks to executions in the states over which it has jurisdiction. In comparing the Fifth Circuit with the neighboring Ninth Circuit (which has jurisdiction over California and other Western states), Michael Sharlot, dean of the University of Texas Law School, states that "The Fifth Circuit is a much more conservative circuit. It is more deferential to the popular will."[4]
And here is a link to more people about to experience the culture of life Bush so deeply embraces. And you can even see what they ate before they were embraced by Texas's culture of life.
CHELSEA manager Jose Mourinho has been reminded by UEFA that he is innocent until proven guilty, but that all evidence in his spat with European football's ruling body will be scrutinised.
Mourinho will appear before UEFA's Control and Disciplinary body next Thursday in Nyon, Switzerland to answer charges which, if proven true, could lead to Chelsea being disqualified from the Champions League.
UEFA has accused Mourinho, his assistant Steve Clarke and security official Les Miles with making "false, wrong and unfounded" allegations that Barcelona boss Frank Rijkaard spoke with Swedish referee Anders Frisk in his dressing room at half-time during their Champions League first leg tie in the Nou Camp last month.
UEFA say Chelsea's claims created "a poisoned and negative ambience" in an attempt to influence the second leg, and Chelsea could face the ultimate sanction of disqualification from the Champions League when their case is heard on March 31.
Mourinho on Tuesday however hit back, saying he had no fear of any sanctions from UEFA, who hold the Portuguese partly responsible for the resignation of referee Frisk after he received death threats following the first leg.
Even though Chelsea has bought themselves a Premiership championship with oligarch money, their manager has the class of their yobbo fans. Why not send a few yobs to smack UEFA around. That's the Chelsea way, right?
What? Someone is cheating Chelsea from their due? Who? Where? What ref is conspiring to harm the Blues? Please let us know. And at Barca no less. Oh wow. Stop the Champions League, Chelsea is being screwed over.
John Podesta, president of the progressive Center for American Progress (CAP), faced pointed questions from lawmakers at last Thursday’s New Democrat Coalition (NDC) meeting about an inflammatory e-mail his organization sent to liberal activists and bloggers.
In a March 9 e-mail, David Sirota, a fellow at CAP, accused 16 pro-business Democrats of supporting bankruptcy-reform legislation because they received political contributions from the commercial banks and credit-card companies that stand to benefit if the legislation becomes law.
The e-mail coursed through the blogosphere and generated angry phone calls from liberal activists to the offices of the 16 centrist Democrats. Sirota, a former minority spokesman for the House Appropriations Committee, criticized 16 of the 20 Democrats who wrote Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) March 7 urging him to bring bankruptcy reform to the House floor.
“And a look at campaign finance records shows why — the House Democrats who signed the letter pocketed a combined $750,000 in their two-year campaigns for Congress in 2004. To put that in perspective, that’s the equivalent of the industry giving these members $1,000 every single day of the last two years,” Sirota wrote, relying on figures from opensecrets.org.
The bill has yet to be voted on this year in the House.
Nearly every lawmaker who arrived at Thursday’s meeting with Podesta, former President Clinton’s last chief of staff, voiced concern about the Sirota broadside, calling it overtly personal and unhelpful to the two organizations’ shared goal of helping the Democratic Party grow.
It was unclear if Podesta was invited to the centrist group’s meeting as a result of Sirota’s e-mail, but the invitation came after the missive was sent March 9.
Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), who did not support the bill in committee, told The Hill that he found the e-mail “personal and inappropriate.”
Personal? That's a fact.
Why do they think they're immune to criticism on a bill which will hurt their constituents for the sake of MBNA?
They don't like it, stop sponsoring stupid bills like this.
The problem with considering the evangelicals the GOP base is that evangelical is a religious movement, not a cult. Many, many conservative Christians are grossly offended by the hamfisted interference into people's lives by government. The people who pushed DeLay into this were morons. But the Schindlers are owned by the GOP's paymasters and field workers. So if Tom DeLay wants peace with his supporters, he figures he'll toss them a bone. His lawyers knew this was a dead end, but he was banking on being opposed by the Dems over this gross abuse of power.
Even better, some Hill Rat says, we'll place the Dems in the middle of this and accuse them of being pro-murder. But Harry Reid has some friends in that movement as well, so he knew that was coming.
The trouble signs should have been there when Linda Douglass is reading this idiotic memo on the air live. Now, who leaked that memo to the Dems who passed it to her? Someone revolted by this.
So the stage was set, except for two brutal miscalulations:
One, the Schindlers aren't all that sympathetic
Two, Michael Schiavo would decide to talk.
The problem with the Schindlers comes with their friends, like Randall Terry, who is detested by everyone outside his wingnut circle. While they are crying about their daughter being killed, people are seeing the brain scans and the video and it horrifies people. It doesn't make them seem sympathetic, but cruel. Peoples first thought is "God, please let me die if I EVER wind up like that." So when they go on TV, they seem unhinged. Saying she's fine makes them look crazy. Anyone can see she isn't fine. The brother looks like a used car salesman as well.
So as they make their arguments, DeLay was thinking they would be sympathetic. Instead, people recoil from their sanctimony, they are offended by it. Most adults choose a spouse to make sure their parents can't run their life.
While his radical right friends said this would be a winner, most people can only see a brutal fight between their spouse and their parent as they lay dying and most people don't want any part of that.
Then Michael Schiavo finally broke his silence. For years, he's been called an adulterer and a murderer and never rose to the bait. But when he did get on TV, he handled himself better than his lawyer did, calm, dignified and insistent on his wife's right to die. Suddenly, this media monster was a deeply responsible man, who's story finally came out. His years of devotion, his refusal to give up on his wife until he went to nursing school and saw that his wife wasn't ever going to recover. That part is left out. Michael Schiavo became a nurse to help his wife and when he got educated, he saw his quest was futile.
His speaking for himself gained him a lot of support.
This whole circus, now with the DOJ intervening in a private case just digs the in GOP deeper. And now , Kos has a story up showing big splits in the GOP.
Now, people were screaming: where are the Dems? Why aren't they speaking out?
Well, there was no profit in that. DeLay had set that trap and Reid squirmed out of it with skill.
What was even stupider is having Bush come back to sign this crap, a bill which didn't even meet quorum. He didn't do that on 9/11.
Of course, having a child die in Texas was unforseen, but it didn't make Bush look any better, especially when he signed a bill allowing hospitals to pull patients off life support without the family's permission.
Ooops.
Now, all the ire is focused on the radical right.
All this stuff is scaring even conservatives. They see the invasion into people's most intimate decisions and they don't like it.
So how did they miscalculate this?
Because they have, in part played this like Tom Daschle was still around and he's not. Reid is a different kind of leader, a lot tougher for one, and a lot smarter tactically.
The smart, but hard move was to see this play out for the disaster it would become. If the Dems got in the way, they would be seen as obstructionists. Instead, they didn't even vote on this. They let the GOP overplay their hand and reap the anger.
The GOP also suffers from closed loop thinking. They thought this was a can't miss, instead of a party-fracturing move. But the fiscal conservatives and moderates have remained mute for so long, that they thought they would continue to do so. But being led into a disaster by a compromised leader is not a recipe for future success.
Imagine how this gross breach of public trust undermines every thing else the GOP will attempt to do. If they can't respect the basic rights of the married, what will they respect? Your savings? Your privacy? All are fair game.
What the Dems needed was a chance to show the real face of the radical right and how unhinged they are. To create the idea that people might want to reevaluate their support for that party. After all, family values means family regardless of what your spouse wants. Not a lot of people would like that. But with all their sanctimony and idiocy, the GOP has created that opportunity without Dems doing so much as heavy lifting.
And what was even dumber was after all their railing about the sanctity of marriage, and how gays would ruin it, they launch a full-bore attack on marital bonds against a husband who remained loyal to his wife despite millions of dollars and vile slanders against his name. Even as he moved on, he remained loyal to her and cared for her.
Yet, this is the man the radical right would vilify for their own narrow ends.
LANSING, Mich. (AP) -- A Michigan lawmaker is working on legislation that would prohibit a spouse having an affair from denying food, fluids or medical treatment to a wife or husband who cannot make such decisions.
Rep. Joel Sheltrown on Tuesday said he wants to avoid a situation similar to Terri Schiavo's.
The 41-year-old Florida woman has relied on a feeding tube to keep her alive since suffering severe brain damage in 1990. Her husband, Michael Schiavo, has fought for years to have her feeding tube removed because he said she would not want to be kept alive artificially.
The tube was disconnected Friday on the orders of a state judge, and a federal judge on Tuesday refused to order it reinserted.
Terri Schiavo's parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, appealed the decision the same day to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta, warning that their daughter was "fading quickly" and might die at any moment.
The Schindlers have said Michael Schiavo wants their daughter dead so he can marry his longtime girlfriend, with whom he has young children. They have begged him to divorce their daughter and let them care for her.
Sheltrown, a Democrat from West Branch, said Michigan should strengthen its protections before a similar situation happens here.
"While people, in happier times, may trust their spouses to make future medical decisions for them, situations change," Sheltrown said in a statement. "In a situation where an incapacitated patient lives at the mercy of an adulterous spouse, it is in the patient's interest to make a presumption in favor of life."
Michigan law already prohibits the denial of life-sustaining treatment, such as food and water, unless the patient has expressed that such action be taken, said Sheltrown, who expects to introduce the bill in about three weeks.
Matt Resch, spokesman for Republican House Speaker Craig DeRoche of Novi, said House leaders will review the bill when it is introduced and decide which committee to assign it
WHAT? Are they kidding?
Uh, how do they prove it? How do they approve the effects of adultery in the marriage?
This is just dumb and unconsitutional. Why are the GOP so willing to wreck marriage after talking it up as the ultimate human state.
Do they understand what they are setting up here? Or is this just insane pandering. No court would accept adultery as grounds to abrogate the marital contract in lieu of divorce. In no other situation would adultery be strong enough to abroagte any other marital responsibility, from chld support to home equity. Only in this narrow case could a family member start digging around the most private aspects of a couple's life and then dominate medical procedings. The representative here doesn't understand what he is doing. While he thinks he's preventing another Schiavo case, he's not. Any spouse would go to court to protect their marital rights. What this would do is allow ANY family member to investigate a couple's private life.
This is collective madness. If there is reason to doubt the motives of a spouse, that's why courts exist. There is NO evidence that Michael Schiavo has acted in any way contrary to his wife's wishes and delayed the decision to end her treatment for eight years. Michael Schiavo has had every aspect of his life examined in court and has not been found wanting. If there was the slightest credible evidence that he wanted to harm his wife for gain, he would have had his guardianship stripped. This is one of the most litigated cases in Florida history.
Big cases make bad law, and this is a prime example.
Dan Gonzales, of the racist League of the South, political group reads a letter written to the Florida House of Representatives about Terri Schiavo's condition in Pinellas County, Florida on March 22, 2005. Scum rises to the top once again.
The smug hypocrisy about Terri Schiavo is nausiating. People who have never had a serious illness or seen someone die are making pronoucements about people they do not know.
They let a black baby die against his mother's wishes in Texas without so much of a thought. Not one Catholic prelate, not one right to lifer raised their voice in objection. Maybe if his mother had been a tool of the radical right, or been white, people might have cared.
When the handicapped start mewling about not being killed, my response is this: can you express yourself? Then write a fucking living will and go about your lives and leave this man and his wife alone. No one wants to kill you, this isn't Nazi Germany. You keep talking about how capable the disabled are, well tell people what kind of care you want and when to end it. Don't be afraid to share. Don't glom on to this tragedy l.ike we have a gas chamber waiting for you at the sanitorium or euthanasia is legal
I'm sick of this, Nancy Grace's hysterics, the delusional comments of the parents, Bush's political gamesmanship.
But what is so grossly offensive, so amazing, is that the Congress has turned into a national Gladys Kravitz, minding the business of others because of what they think is right. When two gay men want to get married, oh shit, we can't have that. Those faggots fuck each other up the ass, that's not what married people do. It damages the institution of marriage. Gays and lesbians, by marrying, make marriage cheap and unworthy.
Yet, without pause, they deem the martial bond of the Schiavo's unworthy as if they both had penises. When they got married, they didn't imagine this, they didn't expect she would linger and die and that her mother would go insane. More than a few married men have kids outside their marriage, that alone doesn't make someone evil. And given the fact that his wife was dead in any meaningful sense, and that he was suffering from a crushing loneliness, what person of conscience could blame him.
Nothing, nothing could EVER damage marriage more than Michael Schiavo's martial rights being abrogated. Adults don't tell parents some things they tell their spouse. When people get married or die, family members can get ugly, mean and desperate. The parents do not know what their daughter told her husband. Nor should they. Spousal rights, the one so cherished by these insanely cruel people, are being threatened. This treacle about "let Terri live" is just bullshit, noxious bullshit. What they are saying is that a parent's desires should be paramount, even in a marriage. Which is insane and contradicts all their love of straight marriage? Well, unless Michael Schiavo has a pussy, that's his wife and under most human systems of law, he gets to make final decisions for her.
I feel bad for the parents and their delusion. Obviously the mother wants a shell and not a daughter. That's her property, how can her husband take her away. She's invested so much time in delaying the inevitable, she won't have anything to do afterwards.
But I can understand that. There were women who never believed their sons were killed in WWII. They waited for them to come home until they died. Their inability to accept reality is excusable on their part. For the Radical Right? No. How can they explain this cruelty? They will use the Schindlers as long as they can and then dump them for some other victim.
What they did is wrong, very wrong, but they are desperate people. So is Tom DeLay, but for very different reasons. His crimes cannot be excused so easily. He is hiding behind them because his sleazy ass is going to jail and he knows it. Anything to delay that day is good enough for him.
Clio posted this in comments and I thought a lot more people would read this if I posted this up front.
I loved my husband, who died of cancer 15 years ago, when our youngest was 5. The kids were young. Hell, he was young. We fought that damn disease with everything we could find.
Since I have an in to the medical field I knew who to call, the questions to ask, and the strings to pull. He went to the best doctors and centers and got the best medicine has to offer from all over the country. It gave him 15 months, not the standard 2 that that type of cancer at his stage usually gives, and mostly they were good months, but it was not enough.
At the end, after we had run out of all the options, (3 different types of chemo, different ion radiation, direct drug instillation, etc, etc, etc), I looked up from his bedside, and there, finally, was a sister from the family that had never come to visit him when he was doing well.
Why was she there? To demand that I have the body cremated so she could "take it home."
Now one thing cancer gives you is time to talk. Something the Schiavos didn't get. We had talked for hours as I sat by his bed at the end, as we drove to treatments, at night when he couldn't sleep. I knew for certain sure that the one thing my husband didn't want to be was cremated.
That may sound silly. Heck, he said, he knew it was silly: after all what would he care? What would he know? But...promise me, he said. What would you say?
When I told his sister that he didn't want cremation she got upset. It was what the family wanted! What his mother, the mother who had not visited, wanted! What right did I have to stand against their wishes? I had known him far fewer years than they had. The fact that the family was not close; that they had not come; that he had made me promise, (something I didn't say) didn't matter.
There was a lot more, including the fact that I was "murdering him," because I had, there at the end, when he became unconscious, turned off everything but the morphine (something else we had discussed). She loudly insisted that my husband, her brother, was not unconscious! That he would wake up, talk to her, and tell her his real wishes! She screamed at him (and me). She shook him. Even in his coma, she hurt him. I saw it on his face.
The nurses, who had come in at the screaming, stopped her. Thank God, my children were not there. Thank God, I didn't have to touch her. I don't know what I might have done.
Of course, it didn't matter. I was his wife. I had written directives, a durable power of attorney, and a whole teaching medical center staff that had witnessed that the kids and I had been his only visitors until that day.
Not that his family gave up easily. they threatened me with lawsuits. The called and threatened the hospital administration. They talked of murder to the point that the center did an autopsy and toxicology tests after my husband died. (He and I had discussed that also.)
If George Bush, Tom Delay, the US Congress, and a bunch of sanctimonious strangers, had done to me what they have done to Michael Schiavo I could not have been nearly as forbearing as he has been.
I loved my husband. I could not save his life, but I could honor his dying wishes. I would have done a lot more than I had to do.
Michael Schiavo loved his wife. She's dead now. Honoring her wishes is all he has left to do to fulfill his last promise to her.
Only after he has completed the last task she gave him, that he took on for love of her, can he move on.
Tuesday, March 22, 2005 Posted: 11:09 AM EST (1609 GMT)
TAMPA, Florida (CNN) -- A federal judge on Tuesday denied an emergency request to reinsert a feeding tube for Terri Schiavo, a brain-damaged woman at the center of a national legal battle over her life.
Attorneys for Schiavo's parents appealed the ruling to a three-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta, Georgia.
Schiavo has been without food or water since a Florida state judge ordered her feeding tube removed Friday at her husband's request.
Tuesday's ruling by U.S. District Judge James Whittemore in Tampa came after Congress and President Bush enacted legislation aimed at allowing federal courts to review Schiavo's case. (Full story)
The Bush administration would have preferred a "different ruling," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said while accompanying the president on a trip to New Mexico.
McClellan said the administration hoped the Schindlers will find relief in the appeals process.
In denying the request for a temporary restraining order to restore the tube, Whittemore wrote that Schiavo's parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, didn't have a "substantial likelihood of success" on the merits of their arguments.
"This court concludes that Theresa Schiavo's life and liberty interests were adequately protected by the extensive process provided in the state courts," the judge wrote.
He acknowledged the "gravity of the consequences of denying injunctive relief."
"Even under these difficult and time strained circumstances, however, and not withstanding Congress' expressed interest in the welfare of Theresa Schiavo, this court is constrained to apply the law to the issues before it," the ruling said.
Schindler spokesman Gary McCullough called the decision "extremely cruel."
"Here's a woman whose life is hanging. She's being slowly starved," he said.
"This judge could have made his decision and give the family's attorney time to appeal this. From what I understand, the attorneys will appeal this."
Scott Schiavo, brother of Terri's husband, Michael, told The Associated Press that the ruling was "a good thing" and that Congress shouldn't have intervened.
"There's not a law that's made for this," he told the AP. "This is something that goes on 100 times a day in our country, that people, their wish to die with dignity is not a federal issue."
The appealate process will go the same way.
The radical right's quality of mercy depends on the color of your skin, ask Sun Hudson's mother, and your political usefulness.
The chief executive and the chairman of the firm assisting the MTA in evaluating bids for the West Side yards have given at least $100,000 to the city's Olympic campaign -- a drive centered on the bid to build a stadium on the site.
Told by a Newsday reporter of the donation last evening, the MTA immediately began a review of the firm's role in what was already a contentious bidding process.
The Metropolitan Transportation Authority last month hired Manhattan-based Newmark & Company to help evaluate bids for the West Side yards. Aside from the Jets, which are seeking a stadium there, Cablevision also bid on the property, as did a Brooklyn energy company.
Newmark, a major player in the city's commercial real estate market, was to be paid a maximum of $250,000 by the MTA.
But Newmark is listed as contributing at least $100,000 to the city's Olympic organizing committee, NYC2012, according to the city's Olympic bid Web site.
......................
Critics say the connection is problematic.
Assemb. Richard Brodsky (D-Westchester), chairman of the committee that oversees the MTA, said he had spoken to authority officials "and explained the obvious concerns."
"Assuming it was not disclosed to the MTA at the time the bid was awarded, it's extremely serious," he said.
"What you don't want is a situation where the institution that is helping to evaluate plans already has a pony in the race."
Gene Russianoff, staff attorney with the Straphangers Campaign, said that even though Gosin is not directly charged with evaluating the MTA bid, "I'm sure his views carry a lot of weight in the final decision."
"It's disappointing," he said. "A higher-up in the company they hired is not neutral."
.....................
With the Olympics and stadium a major thrust of Mayor Michael Bloomberg's first term in office, donations that fund or fight the stadium battle have taken on added significance.
Some elected officials have charged that donations to the city's Olympic committee are tantamount to donations to the mayor's campaign. Bloomberg has criticized Democrats for taking donations from Cablevision.
Wanna bet if the MTA accepts the Jets $720m bid that this is a key component of the upcoming lawsuits. The Jets, even if they win, they will then face a barrage of lawsuits.
March 22, 2005 -- The Jets offered an astounding $720 million for the West Side rail yards yesterday in a blockbuster deal that has the football squad teaming up with six of the city's biggest real-estate developers, sources told The Post last night.
By huddling with the developers, the team — which wants to build a $1.7 billion stadium on the site — was able to boost its bid to more than seven times what it offered to pay the MTA just a month ago.
The NFL team and Madison Square Garden submitted rival bids to the MTA yesterday afternoon — several hours before the deadline — in the ultra-high-stakes battle for the future of the West Side.
The Jets' bid now calls for buying up all the development rights for the 13-acre site. Its partners would transfer roughly two-thirds of those rights to build on sites in the surrounding district. The Jets have partnered with Glenwood Management Corp., Jack Resnick & Sons, Rockrose Corp., The Related Companies, Donald Zucker Organization and The Brodsky Organization.
Madison Square Garden officials would not say how much they bid for the site.
....................
Steven Spinola, president of the Real Estate Board of New York, said he was approached by the developers who were interested in partnering with the Jets. A longtime supporter of the stadium project, Spinola said the real-estate firms believe the stadium will boost the development potential of the surrounding area, making their investment pay off.
The idea of a West Side stadium — a critical element of the city's bid to host the 2012 Olympics — has come under fire from the Garden's owner, Cablevision, and neighborhood groups, as well as local elected officials.
And Democratic mayoral candidates have attacked the $600 million in public financing and the Jets' initial offer.
At a press conference at Radio City Music Hall earlier yesterday, Garden officials outlined their proposal but declined to say how much they're now offering the MTA.
The Garden's proposal calls for construction of 5,800 high-rise apartments, a 750-room hotel, commercial space that would house businesses that support the theater district, a five-acre park and room for an elementary school and library. The project would be built in phases, with completion slated for 2018.
"We expect our proposal will be better than any other proposal in every way," said Garden Vice President Hank Ratner.
Garden officials estimate that their plan would employ more than 3,000 construction workers annually for 12 years until the project is done and it would generate $275 million in new taxes for the city and state by 2018.
Even if the MTA agrees, the stadium is still vastly unpopular and it is unlikely to get any city or state funding. Silver has remained uncommitted to the project and the City Council is inclined to prevent ANY city funding. The Garden's proposal is far more likely to get approval from the wider community.
Now that REBNY is involved, there is an even greater likelihood to get fierce opposition to the development of a stadium. Remember, none of the community groups have sued yet, and they are likely to file if the MTA accepts the bid.
Fernando Ferrer holds a commanding 14-point lead over Michael Bloomberg in the mayor's race, but some Democrats are irked by Ferrer's claim that the police killing of Amadou Diallo wasn't a crime, according to a new Newsday/NY1 News poll.
If a general election were held now, the former Bronx borough president would wallop Bloomberg 49 to 35 percent, defeating the mayor in all five boroughs, including the GOP stronghold of Staten Island, the poll found.
But Ferrer falls 6 points short of the 40 percent needed to dodge a runoff against three Democratic primary opponents, according to the poll of 1,072 registered voters.
The survey, conducted by Blum & Weprin Associates from March 16-21, has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percent among general election voters and 3.5 percent among registered Democrats.
"On the surface there's a lot of good news for Freddy, but there's some bad news lurking underneath," said pollster Mickey Blum. "He's doing very well, but the Diallo issue has had a surprising effect... And $100 million from now, Bloomberg can look a whole lot better."
The primary will be held Sept. 13, followed by a Nov. 8 general election.
Despite Ferrer's strong showing, the Democratic primary remains remarkably fluid, with a higher number of undecided or apathetic voters -- 37 percent -- than Ferrer's 34 percent primary tally.
It also points to Bloomberg's continued vulnerability, despite historically low crime rates and a rebounding city economy. Still, the Diallo issue has emerged as the first major hurdle for Ferrer, who has padded his lead by battering Bloomberg over his plans to build a West Side stadium.
Last Tuesday, Ferrer told a group of cops in the Bronx that the killing of the unarmed African immigrant in 1999 wasn't a crime and that prosecutors tried to "over-indict" officers in the case. Many longtime Ferrer allies, including Bronx District Attorney Robert Johnson, accused him of flip-flopping on the issue.
Blum & Weprin inserted Ferrer's comments into the poll script and found that it immediately altered the the dynamics of the race.
Thirty-seven percent of the 927 voters asked about the statements said they were now less likely to support Ferrer.
In a blow to a campaign that relies heavily on African-American support, 56 percent of registered black Democrats said they were backing away from Ferrer's candidacy.
One-third of voters who identified themselves as Ferrer supporters also said the Diallo flap made it less likely they'd support him. ..............................
Two thing pop up with this poll: one, the stadium is absolutely murdering Bloomberg's reelection chances. People really oppose it and factor that in when they consider him. The numbers indicate that opposition is crossing racial lines and is a definite negative for him.
The stench from the stadium deal is so rancid that people who would vote for Bloomberg , outer borough whites, union members, will consider Ferrer. Peopole who curse the Dolans as the source of all evil reflexisively. Who are pissed that they are keeping the Mets off Time Warner. With all that, they still hate the stadium more than the Dolans and that is amazing. Because sports fans really hate the Dolans.
The second is the deep anger black New York still feels about the murder of Amadou Diallo. Now, legally, the Albany jury says the cops didn't murder him. No black person in New York believes that. Period. Freddie trying to finesse the issue is a lot riskier than he and his advisors thought it would be. He's got to deal with that before Miller or Fields can use it against him. Because it is still an open wound.
And it's one of the reasons I keep saying that Giuliani's political career in New York is moribund. If Ferrer can sustain serious political damage from a single comment, imagine if Giuliani tried to run again in New York State. This issue would come up front and center in any Giuliani run. Nothing is forgotten or forgiven.
But if I was Bloomberg, I would seriously at how the stadium is playing out. He can spend what he wants, but Freddie can say "why are we spending $600m on a stadium instead of schools" and that works as well in Harlem as it does in Forest Hills.
If I was Ferrer, I would fix that Diallo damage ASAP. Fuck they cops, they won't vote for you and white voters are pissed about the Stadium, as long as you hammer that, they may well vote for you.
Joshua Lopez used to walk up the block nearly every week to the small, dark laundromat near his Ridgewood apartment, often jockeying for washers and dryers in cramped quarters.
Now, Lopez and his girlfriend, Janice Crespo, head to the 8,000 square foot Laundry Depot in the Bushwick section of Brooklyn -- just minutes from their home.
With their 14-month-old daughter, Samaria, in tow, they never have to wait for a machine, can grab a bite to eat or watch one of four different television programs as the dryer spins -- all without leaving the store.
"It's more convenient than the smaller one," Joshua Lopez, 24, said. "It's a lot more pleasant."
The so-called "super laundromat" is a relatively recent phenomenon in the New York metropolitan area, but has long been popular on the West Coast and in some midwest cities. And if some of the newest players in the $5 billion industry, like Laundry Depot, are successful, they could be the Starbucks or Home Depot of laundry, creating appealing spots for customers, but potentially squeezing out some of their smaller, older competitors on nearby corners.
Spacious and brightly-lit, super laundromats offer many more machines and a host of other amenities, including food, television and Internet access.
They're often open 24 hours, and usually start at 4,000 square feet -- far bigger than the more traditional 1,500 square foot laundromat. And they're an urban trend -- mostly because that's where there's a higher concentration of customers, particularly those living in apartments with poor or no laundry facilities.
The Bushwick-based Laundry Depot -- the newest of the company's three locations in Queens and Brooklyn -- is double the starting super size, with 100 washing machines, 100 dryers and additional space for eating a snack, doing homework or playing a video game.
If you live in an apartment, especially in a place like NY or Boston, you understand the appeal of such a place. Just getting a seat in a laundromat can be a pain in the ass. A large, well-lit, seat filled laundromat is a luxury. And even if you have a washing machine, some things are too large to wash and dry at home.
A semiotically confused website called Whiskey Bar which is evidently the work of a historically challenged individual with the nom de net of "Billmon" has attempted a heavy-handed satire of the academic freedom for students movement, caricaturing it as an attempt to pull off a Maoist purge of leftwing academics and their doctrines from American university campuses. Other equally at sea leftists, have linked the Billmon agit-prop and spread it across the net . . .
This deviousness and disregard for the truth is to be expected from the actual heirs to the revolutionary aspiration embodied in witch-hunters like Mao Dzedong. Radicals necessarily have little respect for institutions or principles except as a means to their own power and political ends.
David Horowitz Orwellian Leftists March 21, 2005
How low the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks have fallen is shown by Alexinsky's foulest and most infamous slander, paraphrased to read like a “state” document by the officials of the Cabinet of Tsereteli and Co.! . . .
The counter-revolutionaries are closing their ranks. The Cadets form their basis. The General Staff, the military leaders and Kerensky are in their hands and the Black Hundred press is at their service. These are the allies of the bourgeois counter-revolution. [But] foul slander against political opponents will help the workers to realise all the sooner where the counter-revolution is, and to sweep it away in the name of freedom, peace, bread for the hungry and land for the peasants.
V.I. Lenin An Answer July 1917
Racist David Horowitz has been a radical thug since he entered politics. First from the left, now the right. Billmon nailed Comrade David and his ilk as the radicals they are. Like the parasite running dog Yankee imperialist he is, Horowitz has followed the money. When the left had a voice, he was cheek and jowl with the Panthers, refusing to see their destructive side.
Now, he hauls his radical carcass to the right, using the same tactics and following even more money. For a professional radical like Horowitz, who denounces the left because the right pays better, and would switch tomorrow if Soros gave out money like Olin and Scaife. Now professional tool of the upper classes, he rewrites the Communist Manifesto for the ruling class and it pays pretty well. Where else but a America could a bearded, aging Jewish radical switch sides, embrace racism, and be taken seriously. For the eternal radical, revolution is where you make it, especially when you make enough money not to care who wins.
How low is Horowitz, how racist is he? He once said that welfare was reparations for slavery. Funny, I didn't know poor white women were slaves, since they are the largest demographic group of AFDC recipients. But the radical must continue to provoke, make outre statements to gain attention. Horowitz follows his masters and their wallets. Why he'd lead a pogrom and change his name to Harmon if there was money in it.
But of course, like all old radicals, he can never renounce the language of radicalism. Agit-prop? Semiotics? Good work Comrade David, your former communist friends would be proud. Why he still writes like a commie after all these years. Which of course, Billmon, was kind enough to point out in his Photoshop essay. Horowitz may have new paymasters, but his radicalism has never changed. Black panthers, fundies, as long as they seek to destroy the system, Comrade David will be there. Revolution forever, and a profit for me.
It's not Billmon's fault that Horowitz's words were used against him and made him look like the radical he was. Hey, he's still using the same red playbook he used in the '60's, except for new masters. I bet he was shocked to see the link. But Comrade David, we so remember your pointless, angry work on the left, that to see you move to the right amuses us leftists. You accuse us of following Mao? Why you're the one still using his playbook, Comrade. A little projection perhaps?
Still, over the longer term, they run a risk in challenging Bush without ideas of their own. Social Security requires a fix. It's not the largest or most imminent budgetary crisis the nation faces. That's Medicare. But it's impossible to deny that Social Security will be in a bind as baby boomers retire and live longer than previous generations. In 2018, it will begin paying out more than it's taking in. And by mid-century, it will have spent its savings. Doing nothing is not a viable option.
Without a plan, Democrats risk looking unconcerned about future retirees. What's more, they risk ceding to the GOP an issue that they've dominated for 75 years.
Democrats need to counter the perception that they are a party without ideas. A recent poll by Democrats James Carville and Stanley Greenberg found that just 44% - scarcely anyone beyond diehard Democrats - think the party has any ideas for addressing the nation's problems. If party leaders can't offer ideas on Social Security, it's hard to challenge the public's perceptions.
Some in the party point out that the GOP never offered an alternative to the Clinton health plan. That's true. But health care was a far more complex problem. And Republicans weren't so widely perceived as lacking ideas.
The Democrats don't need to lead with their chins by proposing the tough medicine that Bush hasn't offered himself.
But a set of ideas and principles would allow them to put forward a good-faith effort to be part of a solution. Some concepts floated by liberal-minded policy analysts - but not endorsed by Democratic leaders - include raising benefits for the poorest retirees and creating private accounts as a supplement to traditional Social Security, rather than as a partial replacement of it.
Somehow the two parties need to put aside their political agendas to reach an accord. As with the last Social Security bailout, it may take a bipartisan panel to provide both sides with political cover for tough choices. For now, the Democrats' "just say no" strategy reflects poorly on the party.
Why?
The Dems make a ceal, then it gets changed in committee.
Bush is failing. Let's make a deal on our terms, The current radical right cannot be trusted.
By Jay Mathews Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, March 22, 2005; Page A10
Robert Shaw, an educational consultant based in Garden City, N.Y., was working with a very bright Chinese American student who feared the Ivy League would not notice her at New Jersey's Holmdel High, where 22 percent of the students were Asian American, and she was only in the top 20 percent of her high-scoring class.
So, Shaw said, she and her parents took his daring advice to change their address. They moved 10 miles north to Keyport, N.J., where the average SAT score was 300 points lower and there were almost no Asians. She also entered, at his suggestion, the Miss Teen New Jersey contest, not a typical activity for the budding scholar.
Educational consultants Robert Shaw and Victoria Hsiao of Ivy Success help students get accepted to Ivy League colleges, but Shaw notes: "Students can get a quality education at hundreds of colleges throughout the country." (Helayne Seidman For The Washington Post)
It worked, Shaw said. His client became class valedictorian, won the talent portion of the Miss Teen competition playing piano and got into Yale and MIT.
"As admissions strategists, our experience is that Asian Americans must meet higher objective standards, such as SAT scores and GPAs, and higher subjective standards than the rest of the applicant pool," he said. "Our students need to do a lot more in order to stand out."
Asian American students have higher average SAT scores than any other government-monitored ethnic group, and selective colleges routinely reject them in favor of African American, Hispanic and even white applicants with lower scores in order to have more diverse campuses and make up for past discrimination.
Many Asian Americans and some educators wonder: Is that fair? Why shouldn't young people of Asian descent have more of an advantage in the selective college admissions system for being violin-playing, science-fair winning, high-scoring achievers?
"Chinese and all Asian Americans are penalized for their values on academic excellence by being required to have a higher level of achievement, academic and non-academic, than any other demographic group," said Ed Chin, a New Jersey physician who has campaigned for years for a change in college admissions procedures.
Yet, Chin notes, Harvard humanities professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. recently estimated that two-thirds of blacks at Harvard are not descendants of American slaves but the middle-class children of relatively recent immigrants from the Caribbean and Africa. "Why should they deserve admission with lowered standards -- relatively speaking -- based solely on the color of their skin over a high-achieving Asian American living in a Chinatown ghetto or a black ghetto, or a poor white from the slums of New York City?" Chin asked.
Here's a simple solution: end legacy admissions. Legacies tend to be the least qualified students admitted. It's not about blacks or hispanics, who have an even lower rate of college admission, but the entrenched factor of privileges handed out to whites. Few minorities of any stripe qualify for legacy admissions. And what I mean by legacy is rich people. Just because your father went to Yale means little if he hasn't been keeping up and kicking in or if he went to grad school.
Qualified Asians are made to jump through hoops because they aren't going to inconvience whites to admit based on merit alone. Chin is chasing the wrong target, because how many Asians would also be the children of immigrants? 40-50 percent, higher? Should they be tossed in the pool over American-born Asians?
I seriously doubt anyone but whites are being accepted over Asians for racial diversity. And blacks are less of an issue than Hispanics who have lower numbers, yet will be one third of the US. At some point colleges have to reflect rhe people who will be funding them. Do not hhink Affirmative Action is a sop to racial justice. It is a political program to ensure continued state funding for colleges. You can bet UT Austin admits blacks and Hispanics to make sure they have friends in the Lege. Don't expect Charlotte's state reps to care about NC State (where my cousin now goes) if the school is all white. AA created stakes for politicians to support schools as demographics changed. Even private schools made sure to include minorities so federal government funds would flow their way.
Asians have to meet higher standard so they don't take the place of white students and jeopardize community support. Any other reason is fictional. Colleges look the way they do so people will give them money. If Asians were 25 percent of the US population, and more importantly, formed considerable blocs in state houses, this issue would fade away.
And we would beat the Russian prisoners with these sticks like your father did
Hello
My name is Ed Smith and I work for a company called Mohre Communications and we have partnered with the California Republican Party and JP Morgan Chase Company, we would like to make you an offer but first let me explain the program
The CRP Credit Card Program The CRP has partnered with its coalition of volunteer organizations and JP Morgan Chase & Co. to introduce a credit card that provides a percentage of the value of each of your credit card purchases as contributions. Without adding any cost to your purchase, it allows to support the CRP.
For everyone you get to join the CRP receives $4.00 and your site will receive $2.50.
If any questions please contact me at ed.smith@mohre.com
Down in the depths of the netherworld, where Tammany Hall grafters and Chicago ward heelers gather amid spittoons and brass railings, a reverential silence now spreads across the communion. The sleazemasters of old look back into the land of the mortals and they see greatness in the form of Jack Abramoff.
Only a genius like Abramoff could make money lobbying against an Indian tribe's casino and then turn around and make money defending that tribe against himself. Only a giant like Abramoff would have the guts to use one tribe's casino money to finance a Focus on the Family crusade against gambling in order to shut down a rival tribe's casino.
Only an artist like Abramoff could suggest to a tribe that it pay him by taking out life insurance policies on its eldest members. Then when the elders dropped off they could funnel the insurance money through a private school and into his pockets.
This is sleaze of a high order. And yet according to reports in The Washington Post and elsewhere, Abramoff accomplished it all.
Yet it's important to remember this: A genius like Abramoff doesn't spring fully formed on his own. Just as Michelangelo emerged in the ferment of Renaissance Italy, so did Abramoff emerge from his own circle of creativity and encouragement.
Back in 1995, when Republicans took over Congress, a new cadre of daring and original thinkers arose. These bold innovators had a key insight: that you no longer had to choose between being an activist and a lobbyist. You could be both. You could harness the power of K Street to promote the goals of Goldwater, Reagan and Gingrich. And best of all, you could get rich while doing it!
Before long, ringleader Grover Norquist and his buddies were signing lobbying deals with the Seychelles and the Northern Mariana Islands and talking up their interests at weekly conservative strategy sessions - what could be more vital to the future of freedom than the commercial interests of these two fine locales?
Before long, folks like Norquist and Abramoff were talking up the virtues of international sons of liberty like Angola's Jonas Savimbi and Congo's dictator Mobutu Sese Seko - all while receiving compensation from these upstanding gentlemen, according to The Legal Times. Only a reactionary could have been so discomfited by Savimbi's little cannibalism problem as to think this was not a daring contribution to the cause of Reaganism.
................................
They made at least $66 million.
This is a major accomplishment. And remember: Abramoff didn't do it on his own.
It took a village. The sleazo-cons thought they could take over K Street to advance their agenda. As it transpired, K Street took over them.
By Dana Milbank Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, March 22, 2005; Page A01
Even with the intervention of Congress and President Bush, Terri Schiavo's parents have only a slim chance of convincing federal courts that their daughter should be kept alive indefinitely, constitutional lawyers said yesterday.
The unusual action by Congress on Sunday gave the parents of Schiavo the right to sue in federal court over the withdrawal of a feeding tube for their severely brain-damaged daughter -- trumping the judgments of Florida courts and the wishes of Schiavo's husband-guardian. Although the move raises a wide range of complex constitutional questions and could ultimately require the Supreme Court's involvement, Schiavo's parents face a daunting array of legal obstacles in persuading federal courts to involve themselves in an area of state authority.
"There are so many substantial hurdles that the case has to get over that it's hard for them not to trip on one," said Michael C. Dorf, a professor of constitutional law at Columbia University.
Alan Meisel, who directs the University of Pittsburgh's Center for Bioethics and Health Law, called it "very, very unlikely" that Schiavo's parents will prevail.
The difficulty showed itself immediately yesterday when attorneys for Schiavo's parents, Robert and Mary Schindler, filed their request for an injunction in U.S. district court. They argued that the federal court should rule that the Florida judge's order to remove Schiavo's feeding tube "violates and continues to violate" her constitutional rights of religion and due process. But that request is at odds with the law signed early Monday by Bush directing the federal courts to consider the case de novo -- without taking into account the state court's findings.
The judge assigned to the case, James Whittemore, expressed skepticism about the Schindlers' lawsuit. "I think you'd be hard-pressed to convince me that you have a substantial likelihood" of success, he said, declining to give an immediate order to restore the feeding tube.
......................
The Schindlers' success may hinge on their ability to disqualify the judgment of Schiavo's husband, Michael. Their complaint yesterday made some effort to do that, noting that he "abandoned his marriage to Terri in 1995 by cohabiting with and having two children by a woman other than his wife."
But to convince the courts that Michael Schiavo is acting in bad faith as her guardian would require a federal court to reach a finding on the medical evidence that is different from the state court's. "If the Florida courts are doing their jobs, it's inconceivable the district court would find anything different," Meisel said. "If there had been a problem, somebody would have caught it." The case has been in Florida courts for 12 years.
In the lawsuit filed yesterday, Terri Schiavo is both the plaintiff and the defendant, represented by her parents as plaintiff and by her husband as defendant. That creates an unusual situation: If the federal courts recognize Michael Schiavo as guardian, then the federal proceedings requested by her parents could violate her constitutional rights.
"Can they force her to relitigate a right she has won?" Cheh wondered. "That may be a violation of her due-process rights." Cheh said she, for one, is happy not to be the one to answer such odd questions. "If I were the judge who got assigned to this by the computer, I'd flee the country," she said.
While this circus was playing out, some kid lit up a school in Minnesota today. Guess which leads the news.
The whole abandon the marriage claim is just not valid. At no point did he act as anything but a guardian for his legal wife. The odds are that the judge will toss this in very strong language and then he needs to have a bodyguard of marshalls. Because the wingnuts have lost all contact with reality. Terri Schiavo doesn't speak, know any thing, does anything but respond to the most basic functions of existance. Yet, you have that cheating scumbag Randall Terry popping up and Tom Delay giving these people false hope.
Something very bad could happen behind this, with someone in that family getting killed.
"Err on the the side of life?" Bush actually said that, forgetting to add "unless you're a nigger or Mexcan on Texas's Death Row." Then of course, he and Alberto had you on the fast rope to the death house.
The idea that Terri Schiavo can recover, after 15 years to any kind of normalcy is delusional.
OK, so Jim Wolcott got a laugh when I said when I wouldn't leave my friends with a couple of cases of beer in my home to await a grandfather clock. He assumed I was joking.
I WAS NOT.
Now, I love my friends, as I said, but they have interesting habits.
I stopped by the bar Saturday night, because my friend had come up from Florida and I wanted to say hello.
So, A, another friend I hadn't seen in a while popped in to see his girlfriend. I'm sitting there with him and his buddies watching West Virginia battle Wake Forest. As the bar gets packed, one of his buddies who had come up for St. Paddy's day.
As he was leaving with his fiance, A said "You know, come up in July and we'll go around, have a bachelor party"
His finace said, "I don't know, that doesn't sound like a good idea, I don'twant there to be strippers or anything".
Now, I had seen a Dr. Phil with this issue, and the poor groom had to negotiate his bachelor party. Idiot. But more on that later.
So he says to her "Oh no, we were just going to hit a few bars and get drunk. You know I don't like strippers, I don't like strip clubs, it's a waste of money. My girlfriend," he said pointing to her behind the bar," wouldn't go for it either. We would just hit some bars and drink."
At this point, I am laughing my ass off. My head is in my hands and covered by my Mets cap. Because unless he had found Jesus, he was lying. Not a little lie either. But more on that later.
She believes him, and they leave. He sits back down, and I say, "A, you weren't serious about that, were you?"
"Fuck no, are you kidding? I love those fucking places. But someone had to be the good friend here."
I figured Jesus was going to strike him dead for that kind of lie. It wasn't just a big lie, but humongous, like Rock Hudson being straight.
Now, I really dislike strip clubs and strippers. When I went to strip clubs, I always felt like they were going to pick my pocket. Never had a good time in them.
But I know that no bachelor party is complete without naked women. Now, what that idiot on Dr. Phil should have said is "I'm just the guest, I have no control over what they do, or where they go." If he's the kind of guy who would get a blow job from a stripper, then that's who he is. The strippers are for the guests. He's an adult, a little naked tit shaking isn't going to drive him crazy with lust.
Any woman who gets a man who would let them dictate a bachelor party is getting a wimp. Since no one will tell you what happens there, don't worry about it. When asked one time, I said "read the Bible", like it was any of her fucking business.
Of course, some fucked up things will happen, people getting laid and the like, but don't worry about it. What you don't know, you don't know. No one with real friends will tell you anyway,
Any woman worrying about bachelor parties is wasting her time. Either the guy is trustworthy or not.
So I asked the owners when they got home, and the answer was 9 AM. Thursday and Friday night. 7 AM saturday. Closing time in New York is 4 AM.
My friend, one of the owners, left at 3:30. In the Afternoon. He was a bity sloppy after 15 hours of drinking.
Another friend got so drunk that they were going to duct tape him to a chair and leave him passed out in the DJ booth
Ever wonder what bar owners do after closing?
Drink. Heavily. Until after the sun rises.
When I was younger, I'd leave 6-7 AM as well, eating pizza and drinking beer.
But this was a special week, St. Paddy's and the Tourney, so people tend to drink until they have to sleep. Then get up and repeat it.
Which is why I go home early. I do have a blog to write.
So Jim, that one story would indicate why I wouldn't trust my otherwise hardworking and responsible friends in my home with beer and a fragile delivery
By FREDRIC U. DICKER PHOTO RUDY GIULIANI Photo: Rick Dembow
March 21, 2005 -- FORMER Mayor Rudy Giuliani — weighing a run for president or governor — will hold a summit of top advisers within a month to "set the direction" for his political future, The Post has learned.
Two prominent Republicans familiar with the summit say Giuliani has not — despite widely held views to the contrary — ruled out running for governor next year, and is likely to do so if he concludes he can't win the GOP presidential nomination in 2008.
"Anyone who thinks Rudy has ruled out running for governor doesn't know what he's talking about," said a source in regular contact with the former mayor.
"He has not ruled it out. If he does rule out running for president, he's likely to run for governor, assuming Gov. Pataki doesn't run for re-election.
"And if he does run for governor and wins, he's going to stay in Albany and try to straighten out the state, not run for president the next year," the source added.
He also said "the big one" — running for president — remains Giuliani's "first focus." But he then cited Sen. Trent Lott's recent warning that Giuliani's liberal views on abortion, civil unions and gay rights in general could make it difficult for him to win the long series of GOP primaries necessary for the nomination.
"Rudy's aware of the problems he would face running for president in 2008 and knows it wouldn't be easy," the source said.
........................
Sources also say no one should doubt that Giuliani — who has been making tens of millions of dollars annually in the private sector since leaving office in December 2001 — wants to return to elective office.
"Rudy loved being mayor of New York City, loved being able to make a difference for his city and would love to be able to make a difference again," the second source said.
Another reason? His wife, Judith, "absolutely loves being part of the political world.
"I've seen it on her face," one source said. "She loves the role she plays in political settings."
This nonsense can be boiled down to Bernie Kerik.
Is he fucking kidding? Spitzer would say two things: Bernie Kerik and Amadou Diallo. One to remind people his top official was a mobbed up crook and that the NYPD murdered a black man with him cheering it on.
Guiliani talks big, but Kerik is a burden to him, and with new dirt rising to the surface, how he delusionally thinks he can run for governor is beyond me. I can see it now: Kerik facing indictment for being a mob shill and Giuliani running for governor. President? Yeah right.
If Giuliani was to dare to run for office again in New York, he would face a lot more opposition than people think. If it wasn't for 9/11, he would have been leaving in disgrace. And now that he's backed the wildly unpopular stadium, well it gets better all the time.
There will be talk like this for years, but he hasn't got the balls for a real fight, not one where ALL the dirt would hit the table.
Let him run again. You want to see lines of voters in Brooklyn, go ahead.
Apparently, Pat O’Brien is just like the rest of us and requires at least a bottle of Wild Turkey to get through an episode of The Insider, as the host has checked into rehab to battle an alcohol problem. O’Brien slipped a written statement announcing his dry vacation to the AP on Sunday and disappeared into the ether. Lest you worry that his absence will cripple the celebrity salad-tossing capabilities of the show, Lara Spencer, a woman we’ve never heard of, wi
