March 31, 2005
I believe that her husband was the person in the best position to make this decision. Like it or not, he was privy to her most private thoughts. He was her partner, her friend, her lover and her husband. He stuck to his promise. I salute Michael Schiavo for making the most difficult decision I think any spouse can make, and when faced with opposition, held the line because of what he believed. Principles only matter if you stand on them when it's painful to do. Bravo. We could use more principled people.
Speaking of principles, let's talk principles. Marriage is sacred. It is a sacred institution, and cannot be weakened or polluted. Certainly not by GAY marriage! Heavens no! We can't allow that! What? Oh, this woman's HUSBAND wants to do what he believes is right and let her die? Let's intervene! Huh? Oh, when I was talking about sanctity of marriage, I wasn't talk about this! I was just talking about homos!
Let's not have a double standard, okay? One standard will do just fine.
Okay, now let's talk about the law passed by Congress and signed into law by President Bush. The 10th Amendment to The Constitution, on a little piece of paper called "The Bill of Rights" says:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Hmm. I'm not a lawyer, but the way that reads to me, in modern speak is: "If we didn't mention it here, it's to be decided by the states, or by the people." Okay, so order of operations is: Constitution, States and/or people, Federal Govt.
So what the hell was Congress doing, meddling in this at all anyway? Is the new standard "State's rights are paramount, unless we don't agree, in which case it's Game On!"? Republicans, who are supposedly "State's Rights Advocates" seem to have trampled all over State's Rights, and OUR rights a whole lot lately and it's beginning to piss me off!
Second bit about the aforementioned law: It doesn't lend equal protection under the law. What I mean by this is, if Terri's parents had won in Federal Court, Michael had no recourse. He was NOT entitled to have the case heard at his behest in federal court. The law specifically mention's the Schindlers by name. As I understand it, this law is unconstitutional. And it tramples all over state's rights. And it STAYS. Uncontested. I am now kind of pissed that the Supreme Court didn't agree to hear the case.
Moving off the the 10th Amendment bit, and the law passed and signed, let's talk about another issue: the way she died.
The reason that Terri Schiavo had to be starved to death is that our FDA won't allow the prescription of narcotics in doses which MIGHT create an addiction to that drug. Not that it matters, if the person is going to die. That's irrelevant. Hint folks: If someone is "terminal", it means that they're not going to recover. Who cares if in the last three weeks of someone's life they're completely hooked on morphine? If I'm going to die painfully, I'm going to spend the last six months of my life completely doped up, legal or not.
Another alternative that's not allowed is assisted suicide, in which case a concoction of drugs are administered to someone who wants to die. (Never mind the fact that's it's perfectly fine to do that to someone who doesn't want to die. i.e. criminals) It's illegal. If it's not the state or federal government doing it, it's called murder. Even if that's what you wanted. If it's the Govt. doing it, it's called "Justice."
If I am ever in a persistent vegetative state, I have asked my wife, and through her my children to make the best judgement they can. Period. I have an Advance Directive, I have a living will, I've given my wife Power of Attorney for medical issues, and I have a VIDEO TAPE of ME expressing MY wishes. Basically, what I'm saying is: If you're not my wife, you have no say. If my wife isn't available, my children have the say. If my children aren't available, I have the last say. Nobody else. Not lawmakers. Not my parents. Not my in-laws. And most of all, not the lawyers, legislature or the court system.
So what have we learned from this? A series of things.
1) Our Republican controled government thinks that YOUR rights are irrelevant if the execution of those rights doesn't agree with what THEY want.
2) The "smaller government" cry of the Republican party is mostly B.S.
3) The "state's rights" cry of the Republican party is mostly B.S.
4) We should be thankful for "activist judges" because they actually look at THE LAW and YOUR RIGHTS as things worth upholding, even if they don't agree.
5) If you don't already have one, you need a will, a living will, an advance directive, medical power of attorney and a video tape of your own mug saying what you want.
Biggest lesson of all? Your "Representative" doesn't represent YOU, s/he represents themselves and nobody else. By and large, they couldn't give a damn about you unless it in some way advances their position. They make me sick.
God, how I wish we were back in the days of the Lewinsky "scandal", where the biggest thing we had to "worry" about was trying to decide if we'd hit it or not.
More later. I'm tired.
March 29, 2005
From: "M. Aram Azadpour"
Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2005 9:49 PM
Subject: Dr., Dr., give me the news; I got a bad case of...
RE: Dr., Dr., give me the news; I got a bad case of...
Dear Sen. Frist,
With your permission, I would like to send you a picture of my left toe which I had a surgery on and there are couple of titanium screws in place to hold things together. I am having some pain. Would you be kind and to look at those Polaroid pictures and give me your prognosis, or, would you rather to have a video tape (should it be in VHS, Beta-max, or DVD format)? BTW, do you practice in male urinary track fields, too; or just in brain related matters?
Since DriveDemocracy.org was not able to locate your Email, Dr. Frist, they suggested we use other's Email-addresses and ask them to kindly forward the Emails for your attention (hopefully, they will be forwarding all the pictures and videos, too, so you can make an accurate diagnosis). As such, I would like to thank your Health Policy Director, Mr. Dean Rosen
It seems you were able to diagnose the health of this patient, Ms. Terri Schiavo, by looking at TV videos and render your opinion (as you stated it on the floor of the US Senate during an open debate) . No doubt, that must had been influenced by your impeccable medical experience . Does the State of Tennessee have a Medical Ethics Board? Incidentally, were the videos you saw of Ms. Schiavo from Fox (so called) News? I hear they have an ability to bring "news" in ways that no other broadcaster can; so perhaps, their video-cameras show brain waves and MRI views to their viewers, whereas, poor other broadcasters can only show an "undated" video of a dazed female. Is this want they call a high-definition TV? Technology, it is amazing, don't you agree!
OK then, I'll be copying this Email to a few other friends and acquaintances I know who may be suffering from pain and such to have them send you photos or videos of their health matters so that you can diagnose them, too. We-all thank you for taking time off of your busy schedule of your oath to uphold the US Constitution to render medical diagnoses. Incidentally, do you suppose the Iraq war is Constitutional? Did the US Congress ever pass a declaration of war! I must had missed it, or may be it was behind closed doors, at any way, we-all still thank you for upholding the US Constitution.
Oh, one more cordial request. Would you get the US Congress to pass a law to nullify this Texas State law called: "Texas Futile Care Law." Mr. Bush (a.k.a. W) enacted it, as the Governor of Texas, in 1999. Under this law, on March 15th (or may be it was the 16th; can not remember, so much noise in the news now-a-days) a hospital decided that it is OK to pull a 6-month old baby off of the life support system and have him, (humm, what is that word being used in the case of Ms. Schaivo, oh yes: execution), executed even-though his mother was against it. She was in-witness when her 6-month old son was executed and said that the little baby was gasping for air (I assume he was feeling pain, I do not know; perhaps you can watch its video and let us know, Dr. Frist)!
Values, hum, pro-life any body!
Darnet, I keep forgetting, forgive me; might I ask for one more cordial request! You know this tort reform (or is it deform, any how) that Mr. Bush (a.k.a. W) is seeking would set a cap to medical malpractice or such injuries (I think he is proposing a cap of $250,000.00, is that right). Do you suppose Ms. Schiavo would have been able to be kept in a hospital for some 15 years with only that much money? Was she not awarded a malpractice reward that paid her hospitalization for the 1st 7~10 years. I am impressed at Gov. Jeb Bush's ability to keep the hospital costs so low in Florida, such that someone can be cared for some 10 years and only cost $250,000.00, amazing! What was the request I was going to ask, hum, can't remember (memory it is something most Americans have too little of). At any way, I thank you for your time while reviewing this Email and upon further guidance from your office, I will send the photos/videos
for your review.
Regards, M. Aram Azadpour
Grapevine, TXThat is all for today. More another time.
March 11, 2005
So Apple wins in the first court go-around, eh? Asinine. Just plain stupid.
Uh, last time I checked, it was the responsibility of a company to protect trade secrets, not the legislature. In my opinion, Apple should not have the right to acquire the BLOGGER'S Trade Secrets (sources) in order to punish someone for their lack of ability to keep THEIR trade secrets.
This would be like saying if someone stole my stereo and you knew who did it (even though YOU'RE not the one who stole it), I can steal your stereo just so I can punish those who stole my stereo.
Trade Secrets are property, the courts have backed that time and time again. By forcing the bloggers to reveal their sources, they're stealing the blogger's property, because they won't be able to use that source again.
And I'm not even getting into the whole 1st Amendment Rights thing yet. In case you're a little fuzzy on this:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
hmm. As far as I can tell, we take two whacks on the 1st Amendment here. The internet is a medium. A publishing medium. It's intent is to make information available to be read. That sounds like the press to me. Okay, so for the sake of argument, let's just assume that "bloggers" aren't journalists. They're just people like you and me.
So, freedom of speech. Yes, I know. Freedom of speech only applies as long as I am not infringing on the rights of someone else. Inciting a riot is an example. I'm not free to rouse a rabble for the purposes of killing someone. (Dang, no Posse for me!) Other than that, I'm free to say whatever I want, or NOT say whatever I want. It is legal for me to say (by the way, this is not true. Nobody told me this, and I'm making it up to prove a point. She could be, but I have no reason to believe it...) "I don't know if it's true, but someone told me that Susie Rottencrotch down the road is actually a lesbian." It is also legal for me to say "No, I won't tell you who told me that!"
That's legal. In no way am I infringing on anyone's rights. That's been proven. It's not libel. It's not slander. It is reporting of fact. Someone told me. That is the only fact claimed in that statement.
Apparently though, YOUR $$ is more important than my freedom of speech and MY $$, because you have more $$.
Just freaking idiotic. We live in a Democratic Republic. Do you know WHY it's a Democratic Republic and NOT a Democracy? Because Ben Franklin and friends wanted to make sure that nobody can take away your rights. In a Democracy, if 50.00001% of the population decided that you could be put into slavery again, they would win. Mob rules. In a Democratic Republic, you have RIGHTS, which NOBODY can take away. The first one of those rights, enumerated in the Bill of Rights, (cool how that all knits together, isn't it? It's not a coincidence) says that I can speak my mind, as long as it doesn't infringe on anyone elses rights. And it doesn't matter is 99.999999999999% of the population disagrees with what I have to say. It is my RIGHT to do that.
Just my two cents. What do you think? Write a comment below.
March 10, 2005
Oh, and by the way: Leave comments right down at the bottom of my posts.
March 08, 2005
I'm sorry, but George Carlin said it best: "Is this the best [women] can come up with? Pointless careerism? Putting on a man-tailored suit and imitating all the worst habits of men?"
How about making a mark in the world that doesn't require you to say "Hey! Look at me! Look over HERE!!!" If you DO big things, people recognize them without any fanfare. Marie Curie, who DISCOVERED radiation, and then the X-Ray, didn't get special adulation because she didn't need to. Nobody said "Hey, look what she discovered! And she's even a woman!" Why is this important to mention? Because SHE had equality. She was recognized as THE expert in her field.
Frankly, women have ALWAYS been tougher than men. THEY have the babies. They have ALWAYS been in charge.
Let me ask you: Who's more powerful? George W. Bush, Carl Rove or Laura Bush? If you said GWB, you're an idiot. If you said Carl Rove, there's definately an argument to be made for that, but I stand on my original thought that Laura Bush is the most powerful.
Look at it this way: GWB asks Carl what to do. Carl says "Do A." Laura Bush says "No, do B." Guess what GWB is going to do? My point exactly.
There is no reason why we cannot celebrate the contributions women make in society, and frankly I happen to think that they should be more publicly visible, but please don't tell me that women are the downtrodden. Everything revolves around everything female. Marketing. Sales. Design. Architecture. Music. Art. EVERYTHING.
Who was the woman into space? Who was the first man into space? I bet you had to think harder about the second one than the first one.
When was the last time you saw 10 Native Americans together in the same place? THEY are the downtrodden.