Who's Running This Circus?

What struck me even more about the Gene Healy article in Reason was the following excerpt:

McCain-Feingold clocked in at a mere 36 pages, yet in February 2003 The New York Times reported that the Democratic and Republican party organizations had to hire high-priced lawyers and consultants to run seminars teaching senators and congressmen about the requirements of the law they had just passed. "I didn't realize what all was in it," Rep. Robert Matsui (D-Calif.) said.

They didn't understand the requirements of the law they had just passed. Unbelievable. And this was legislation that directly affected them and the way that they raised money.
McCain-Feingold is extraordinarily bad law. It may have been based on good intentions, but the ramifications of the law have been disastrous. First, it has made it all but impossible for anyone but the very rich to run for office. For some reason, the courts have ruled that spending your money on advertising, etc. to promote your own political ideas or to support your own political campaign is a free speech issue, protected by the 1st amendment, while spending your money on someone else's campaign is not. Therefore, under McCain-Feingold, you cannot give more than $2,000 to any single candidate in any single election. It takes a lot of $2,000 contributions to run a successful campaign these days, especially difficult if you aren't an incumbent.
The loophole that McCain-Feingold left open gave rise to the 527 organizations in the last election. These organizations can accept unlimited amounts of money, but cannot be officially tied in anyway to a candidate. Politician's must love these. 527's can put out the most outrageous and scandalous allegations, and the candidate can say that he had nothing to do with them. Plausible deniability.
So, Congress passed this law, a mere 36 pages of text, and didn't understand it. The Intelligence Reform Bill of 2004 is 200 pages longer. How many Senators actually understand that little piece of legislation? If you want some real reform in government, maybe we should adopt a five sentence rule for legislation. No law can be longer than five sentences long. Of course, maybe we should also make sure that they use single syllable words so that the whole of Congress can understand them, too.

Bring On Mr. Smith

Gene Healy makes some compelling arguments in this article in Reason today. I don't know that I agree with him about the likelihood of the disallowing of filibusters on judicial appointments leading to the end of all filibusters, but he is right that the Republicans would be better off forcing their colleagues on the other side of the aisle to mount a real filibuster. As best I understand it, the current process of acquiescing when the other side announces that they plan to filibuster is nothing more than a gentleman's agreement. In reading the text of the Senate Rule, there is only the requirement of an affirmative vote "in the affirmative by three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn" to close debate, except to change the rules, in which case "the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the Senators present and voting". The filibuster is meant to be used on issues that are so important as to put aside all other work of the Senate. The Democrats want to call on the memory of Mr. Jefferson Smith? Let them emulate him. Bring on the debate, and the cots.

You Can't Win Them All

New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman has consistently been right on the importance and necessity of the war in Iraq, but he has weighed in a couple of pounds light on the nomination of John Bolton to be our Ambassador to the UN (column). I don't know that Bolton is necessarily the right man for the job, although anyone with the chutzpah to say that we could do without 10 floors of the UN building and no one would notice has risen several pegs in my book. I do know, however, that it would be far worse to heed Friedman's advice and nominate George H. W. Bush to fill the role.
The foreign policy goals of the two Bush administrations could hardly be more diametrically opposed. George Bush 41 viewed foreign policy as the need for stability, the theory being that it was better to bear those ills we have than flee to others we know not of. George Bush 43, on the other hand, has instituted a foreign policy based on change and the primacy of freedom. He has a vision of a better world, based on democracy and freedom.
Friedman is also wrong when it comes to the costs of the current Mid-East campaign. Having more allies would not reduce, in any significant measure, the cost in blood nor dollars that America is expending in Iraq. A more Grand Alliance would be merely symbolic. In Operation Desert Storm, the United States provided the vast majority of troops and equipment, and an even more disproportionate percentage of casualties. The same is true in Operation Iraqi Freedom. It doesn't matter. What does matter is doing the right thing. As King Arthur says in the Broadway Musical Camelot, what we believe in is not that might makes right, but that we should use might for right.

Change Everything?

That is the prescription that James Carville and Paul Begala have given the Democratic Party. I am reminded of something I once heard. If two people agree on everything, one of them isn't thinking. I think that the same can be said when two people disagree on everything - one of them isn't thinking either. Their article does, however, get at least one thing right. The biggest problem that the Democrats face is not that they stand for things that the American public doesn't like, but that they stand for nothing. As it stands, it is still the Rupublican Party that is the party of ideas, the party of change and the party of reform. It is not and will not be enough for the Democrats just to stand up and say "No!" (which, by the way, seems to be what they are doing). They must instead formulate an alternative plan from which to govern. Carville and Begala have outlined five issues that they believe can be exploited. Doing so, however, may be more difficult than they imagine.
The Economy. The Democrats solution: Tax the rich, encourage corporations to keep jobs in the US, reform and simplify the Tax Code by making it more progressive (again, tax the rich). There is a plan in place that accomplishes everything in that list save the last, making it more progressive, the National Sales Tax. It is proposed by a Republican congressman from Georgia.
Health Care. The Democrats solution: Some sort of mandated health insurance for every American. Their preference would be a single-payer (government funded) plan, but they would settle for requiring employers to insure their workers, with an additional tax to cover those that fell through the cracks. The Republicans here aren't much better, preferring to let people make their own health decisions - whether it is an employee benefit (in lieu of salary), privately purchased health insurance, or (in the only innovative policy set forth on this issue) private, tax-deductible, individual health insurance accounts. The problem with all but the private accounts is that it hides the cost from the consumer. Do you know that your insurance carrier may be paying more for your doctor visits and prescriptions than you would pay yourself in a "pay-as-you-go" system. And you are probably paying a co-payment for that priveledge.
Foreign Policy. If you haven't been watching, it would seem that the current administration's firm, decisive foreign policy has been having effects far beyond the borders of Afghanistan and Iraq. Although too early to call the campaign for freedom a resounding success, there are now fledgling democracies in both Afghanistan and Iraq, and a general move toward democracy in Lebanon, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. There is even hope for a democratic movement in Iran and Syria. American foreign policy shouldn't be reached as a consensus with other nations. It should be based on doing the right thing, regardless of what the rest of the world thinks. If they come along for the ride, great. If they don't, we can go it alone just fine.
Political Reform. This issue is like the chimney sweep telling the coal miner that he is dirty. There is plenty of political corruption on both sides of the aisle. It is easy to point a finger at Tom Delay now, but now the Democratic House Leader, Nancy please, is having similar allegations flung her way. Political reform as a campaign issue will often take down friend and foe alike. If Carville and Begala don't see this, it is because they see Democrats not as being right, but good, and Republicans not as wrong, but bad.

Time to Ban Assault Rocks

Rocks can be dangerous things, just ask Goliath. In the interest of the public safety, then, it is high time that we look at the danger that Assault Rocks are in our society. In my unscientific estimate, there are in excess of 8 million rocks for every man woman and child in the United States. That is enough of these potentially lethal weapons for every citizen to wipe out an entire major city, yet we allow these objects to fall into the hands of criminals on a daily basis. Not only that, but large-capacity Assault Rock Magazines are made available at no cost at every major grocery store, in two convenient styles, paper and plastic. These magazines can hold hundreds of Assault Rocks at a time, and pose an even greater risk to society. This is a worldwide problem, with incidents in South Africa, Israel, Honduras, Haiti, and Ireland, to name a few.
Here, finally, is an issue where we can get out in front of the curve. Legislation is needed immediately to protect us from this danger that surrounds us seemingly on all sides. I can't believe that there are still people out there that claim "rocks don't kill people - people kill people." We need to make sure that there is a 2 month waiting period before people are allowed to take possession of rocks, and complete FBI background checks performed in the interim. Smooth stones should be completely prohibited, as they are more aerodynamic, and there is no reason for them other than to hurt or kill people and other living things. No rocks should be allowed within 100 yards of a school or government building. The penalty for carrying rocks onto school property by students should be immediate expulsion, and applied to rocks of any size and shape, from grains of sand (which can insidiously be hidden in childrens' shoes) to boulders (which can cause catastrophic damage). It is important, as part of our necessary zero tolerance policy that all rocks and rock-like substances be included in this ban, lest we set a bad example and promote the idea that some rocks are safe and others are not.
Thanks to Jason Adams for the concept and link to the Aran Islands (Ireland) rock-throwing incident.

The Derby

I would be remiss if I didn't at least post something about my sons' Pinewood Derby (Cub Scouts) experience yesterday (April 2nd). Both of them were just so proud of their cars, and both of them did admirably. Ryan placed 4th in his group (Wolves or 2nd graders), and Alex placed 1st in his (Tigers or 1st graders). You should have seen the look of pride on his face as he stood up there waiting to compete against the other division winners.
I was surprised one thing, however. Everything that I had read had indicated that putting more weight in the back would make the car run faster. The cars that I saw do the best, though, had the weight more evenly distributed. In fact, the car that won for the entire Pack was barely more than the original block of wood.
Regardless, though, a good time was had by all, and congratulations to all participants, and especially the winners.

A Dignified Death

Today, the gates of Heaven were opened for Pope John Paul II. His was a remarkable life, and an equally remarkable death. When we speak of 'death with dignity', this is the example that we should look to. John Paul did not hurry toward his death, rushing to embrace it, nor did he shirk or cower from it. The Pope instead accepted death when it came, walking with it, embracing it, while still savoring every last ounce of life while he had breath.
The Holy Father has walked with death for some time. He met it in passing in his youth, losing his Mother just one month before his 9th birthday, his elder brother at the age of 12, and his Father at 21. He lived under both Nazi and Communist rule and no doubt came to know death as at least a passing acquaintance. Death also came calling in 1981, by way of an assassin's bullet. By this time, the Pope was probably on a first name basis with death, but this time it was just a visit, and the Pontiff endured.
With the onset of Parkinson's Disease, death started to become a more constant companion, trailing far behind at first, but coming closer with each step. These past few years, John Paul and death could be seen walking, side by side, in constant conversation with each other. But the Pope had other responsibilities, and the presence of death by his side would not keep him from them. His travel may be curtailed, he may have found it difficult to walk, or, at times, even to speak, but still, he walked on. I am reminded of a line from The Princess Bride, "Life is pain. Anyone that tries to tell you differently is selling you something." The pope, however, was not buying. There was pain, certainly, and suffering, but this man bore his cross with dignity.
This year, however, John Paul's health took a turn for the worse. He contracted the flu, which caused him to have difficulty breathing. Rather than succumb, he allowed a tracheotomy to be performed, so that his lungs could take in enough air. Then his illness caused him to to have trouble eating, so he had a feeding tube inserted into his nose so that he received enough nourishment. He did not feel that these things were undignified. They were necessary to allow him to go on with his mission. As long as his lungs had breath, and his heart had strength, his life had purpose and meaning, and it was that he would embrace, not death, which was now his constant companion.
As ill as he was, Ester Sunday, he appeared at his window, and again on Wednesday, when he traditionally greeted the masses in St. Peter's Square. This is one of those pictures of him that I will remember, embracing life with what little strength he had left. In the end, though, there was no treatment for him. A urinary tract infection put him into septic shock. Antibiotics were prescribed, but they proved unequal to the task. In the hours before his death, though, he continued to receive visitors, living his life as best he could. In the end, though, death took him by the arm, and took him the few short steps to Heaven's Gate. Thus, Pope John Paul II passed from this world to the next, straight and erect and, yes, dignified.
The next time that you hear someone say that they wish to 'die with dignity', remember the way that this Pope carried himself in the face of death, and see if it measures up.
Good-night, Karol Wojtyla. Godspeed.

Crimes Are Misdemeanors

National Security just isn't what it used to be. I thought that government secrets were supposed to be just that, government secrets, and that violation of the public trust in such instances would have severe consequences. I was wrong. It is merely a misdemeanor. A drunk driving conviction would carry more weight in many states.
Last summer, Sandy Berger called it an "honest mistake" when he unintentionally removed 5 classified documents from the national archives. Apparently, this "honest mistake" is neither. Nor did he misplace, or mistakenly discard of, 3 of the 5 documents. Instead, he shredded them with a pair of scissors in his office. The question that we do not have an answer to is "Why?" Why would a man that once held the highest National Security post in the land deliberately remove and destroy documents? I will not speculate on this, but I cannot think of any legitimate reason.
So, what are the consequences of this betrayal of the national trust? A $10,000 fine and the suspension of his security clearance for 3 years. That's right, THREE YEARS. As Jim Geraghty rightly points out, this is farcical. Three years just happens to to fall within the second term of President George W. Bush. Do you think that the Bush administration was planning on granting Berger any access to sensitive documents? Once that second Clinton administration comes rumbling down the tracks, he will be eligible to once again be privy to the most sensitive of our nation's secrets.
To me, this sounds like another "honest mistake."

A Show of Hands

I remember hearing this story once, in a sermon, and it has stuck with me ever since. Apparently, there was a village in Germany, that have a large statue of Christ, arms outstretched, in the town plaza. During WWII, the village was bombed, and I suppose that many, if not most, of the people fled. Upon returning, they found that the statue still stood, but that its hands had been destroyed by the bombardments. At the conclusion of the war, the people were determined to repair the statue, and formed committees with the purpose of raising the funds to do so, but then a local priest stood and made the following argument: Christ taught us that we, the church, are his body - that we are to do his work here on earth, because he is not here to do so himself. In this light, I propose that we leave the statue of our Lord as it is, without its hands, as I constant reminder that we are the hands of Christ, and that it is our duty to do his work here on earth.
Terri Schiavo, even in her diminished capacity, had meaning to her life. She provided those around her, her parents, her husband, her siblings, the opportunity to be the hands of Christ. She also touched a nation, stirring it to look deeply into its soul, and inspiring many others to act as they perceive that Christ would want them to - doing the work of Christ here on earth. Terri is gone now, but she can still inspire us.
Good Night, Terri. Godspeed.

A Taxing Conversion

I have always been a flat tax guy. When I was young and liberal, it was Jerry Brown that inspired me. Then, older (and wiser, I would say), it was Steve Forbes. Sure he had the charisma of a cardboard box, but he was a flat tax guy, too. A National Sales Tax never appealed to me. It was regressive. The poor would have to pay a greater percentage of their income in taxes. The flat tax, however, was imminently fair. Everyone pays the same rate. No loopholes (except, in some plans, for home mortgages). It was especially appealing when the tax would only apply to income above the poverty rate. The poor would pay nothing, everyone else would pay the same rate. Nothing could ever be fairer.
I don't know if it is necessarily fairer, but I am now convinced that a National Sales Tax is better. It was an article by George Will that finally pushed me over the edge. Under the current proposal by Rep. John Linder of Georgia, no one under the poverty level would pay any tax, as each month, the Sales Tax that would have been collected is returned in the form of a rebate check. But there are so many other reasons that it would be preferable to the current system.

1. It would encourage savings, as savings of any kind would not be taxed. To say that the savings rate in this country is pitiful is to be kind. An increase in the savings rate would mean that more capital was available for investment, which could even drive interest rates down again. More capital available for investment would result in more entrepreneurship, which would in turn grow the economy.
2. The underground labor market would dry up. Paying an employee under the table would not decrease tax liability. Oh, and then there are all those people out there who think that they can declare themselves 'Sovereign Citizens of the United States' and not pay any income tax would suddenly become obsolete. Fine, you won't pay any income tax - but just try and avoid the tax register. And, since nearly all states have a sales tax already in place, the infrastructure is already there to collect it - it is just that a portion of it would go to the Federal Government instead of the state.
3. The Trade Deficit would shrink. This is something that I hadn't thought of before, but, since the goods produced in the United States would be taxed only if they were purchased in the United States, our goods would have a competitive advantage in foreign markets. Conversely, foreign goods would now be taxed when they were sold in the US, evening the playing field. In fact, this would again give our goods a competitive advantage over the current system, because many of the foreign goods would be taxed twice - once at home, such as the European Value Added Tax, and once again in our domestic market, while ours would only be taxed once.
4. In the same way as the underground labor market would now be taxed, the illegal.. er.. undocumented workers that come across the border would also be taxed on anything that they spent here, and they would have to spend something.
5. Oh, lets not forget the money that would be transferred from preparing and filing taxes to actual consumption.
6. As Will points out, how about all the lobbying that goes on that is directly related to the tax code and its manipulation?
7. And who among us would miss the IRS?
8. Another good point is that Corporations don't really pay taxes, anyway. They include them in increased prices and we, the consumers, ultimately pay those, too. Why not at least make those taxes visible?

Anyway, I have finally found these to be pretty convincing arguments for a National Sales Tax. The initial suggested rate is 23% (of that over the poverty rate, remember), but I have heard that it might be possible to ultimately get the rate down to 18% (ok, this is admittedly a pipe dream - who ever heard of taxes being decreased).

So here I am, a flat tax guy who now feels that maybe his belief in the flat tax was as realistic as the flat earth, now a convert to a National Sales Tax. Sure, there are things that need to be hammered out, and I wouldn't want to see it without a corresponding repeal of the 16th amendment that authorized the income tax (otherwise we would end up with both), but for now, color me converted.

UNcivilized, UNsecurity, UNconvincing

There is something strangely appropriate about referring to the United Nations as the UN. Use it as a prefix, and you know what I mean. Un- means the opposite of, and that is precisely what the United Nations has become, consisting of such bodies as the UN-Security Council and the UN-Human Rights Commission. It has become downright UN-settling. Today, as the Newsday is reporting that the death toll in Darfur is nearing 300,000, we find the UN-Security Council involved in a grand debate over whether African courts, or the International Criminal Court should have jurisdiction over war crimes committed in the region. In another stirring show of resolve, the UN-Security Council voted to strengthen its arms embargo, now prohibiting the sale of arms to the government of Sudan.
Hurray for the United Nations. Buoyed by the obvious success of an embargo of Iraq, it rushes in and places an embargo of arms to Sudan. I am certain that, upon hearing the news, the millions of Sudanese displaced by this genocide burst into spontaneous celebration. I just know that the 300,001 and 300,002 victims of the massacres in Sudan will be comforted to know that the weapons that killed them were purchased illegally. I am expecting that, in the immediate future, I will see the results of this latest UN-action, and that, now that it is illegal to buy/sell/transport arms in the Sudan, everyone will lay down their arms and strive to turn the region into a Thomas Kincade painting.
Of course, the United Nations has more important business to attend to, such as managing the Oil-for-Food scandal. The lives of Africans in Darfur are far less important than the posteriors of the Secretariat of the UN. The latest on that continuing fiasco finds that Kofi Annan's former chief of staff, Iqbal Riza, ordered the shredding of documents that may have been pertinent to the investigation. If that isn't enough, let us remember who was in charge of UN-peacekeeping during another genocide, Rwanda. That is correct, Riza was also an aide to Annan when he was in charge of UN-peacekeeping. A transcript of a PBS interview with Riza regarding this earlier genocide can be found here.
The performance of the United Nations in the world, when it comes to the big issues can be summed up in a word. UN-satisfactory.
Note: To learn more about Darfur, or to find things that you can do to help, click here.

He Shoots - He Scores!!

Bill Bradley, former Senator, NBA Hall of Famer, has an insightful article in the New York Times today. In it, he basically admits that the Republican Party has taken the mantle as the party of ideas. He didn't put it quite as bluntly as that, but that was the gist of it. He also made the point that the Democrats have, since JFK, relied on charismatic leaders. Because of this, Bradley contends, the Republicans have been consistently more successful, because they have a base core of ideas. They merely have to replace the candidate(s) that espouse them. He then suggests that Democrats, and specifically their largest contributors, follow the Republican model, creating an infrastructure that will define them and their ideas.

Starting to Sound Like an MO

As fond as those on the left are of saying that there isn't any black and white, only shades of grey, it would seem that this is only true when it suits their purposes. A case in point is this article in the LA Times, DeLay's Own Tragic Crossroads. How convenient it is that one of the most vocal opponents of removing Terri Schiavo's feeding tube once had to face a somewhat similar situation himself. This is one of the favorite ploys of the left. To find a member of the opposition that may have acted in a way that can be construed as hypocritical. In this case, the victim of the attack is Tom DeLay. According to the article, Charles DeLay, the Majority Whip's father, suffered a massive head injury in an accident at the family's home. Ultimately, the family decided to remove him from his respirator. They pulled the plug. By this reasoning, Tom DeLay is the worst of all sinners, a hypocrite. How dare he oppose the removal of Terri Schiavo's feeding tube when he, himself, condoned the same thing in the case of his father. You either are for allowing someone to "die with dignity", or you are against it, black and white, or, worse, you are a hypocrite.
The problem with this logic, however, is that it is a straw man. No one is arguing that it is never acceptable to "pull the plug." They are just arguing that it is immoral to do so in this case. In the case of Charles DeLay, his condition was worsening, his organs were failing, he was on a dialysis machine. This seems to me to be completely different from the Schiavo case, where Terri was stable, until her feeding tube was removed. But that, it seems, doesn't matter. Things aren't always shades of grey, sometimes they are black and white.
The writers also found another topic they could cry "hypocrite" on - tort reform. Apparently, after the death of Charles Delay, the family sued the maker of a coupling that the family felt was defective. But Tom DeLay is an advocate of tort reform. He wants to make it more difficult for people to file "frivolous, parasitic lawsuits." I wonder if it might have possible occurred to the authors that Tom DeLay did not consider this to be a "frivolous, parasitic lawsuit." Again, no one is advocating that all product liability lawsuits be eliminated, just the "frivolous, parasitic" ones.

I'm Getting Better

Speaking of Monty Python, I have heard that there is a new musical set to hit Broadway - Spamalot. Apparently, this is an adaptation of the afore-referenced film, Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Ah, to see knights that actually gallop along to the sound of coconuts, to hear, once again, live and onstage, The Ballad of Brave Sir Robin, or to recount the debate on the Airspeed Velocity of an Unladen Swallow, which, by the way, appears to be answered here. It also seems that the production is generally getting some pretty good reviews, too

I'm Not Dead Yet

Thank you Powerline for linking to this excellent article by Harvard student John Ford. Anything with a reference to Monty Python earns bonus points in my book, so I will also link Not Dead Yet. This appears to be their mission statement, which I have copied from their website:

Since 1983, many people with disabilities have opposed the assisted suicide and euthanasia movement. Though often described as compassionate, legalized medical killing is really about a deadly double standard for people with severe disabilities, including both conditions that are labeled terminal and those that are not.

This is how people that can most relate to Terri Schiavo feel, and it appears that they feel threatened. I think that we should listen carefully to them, because, as Mr. Ford says in his article, we that are without disability cannot know what disabilities we might be willing to live with until we are thrust into such a situation.

What Is Extraordinary Care?

Everyone just assumes that, had Terri Schiavo made a clear statement of her wishes, it would be perfectly ethical and moral to do so. I am not sure that it wouldn't be, but I am starting to question that basic premise. A person certainly has the right to refuse any medical treatment, especially surgery. That being the case, the original insertion of a feeding tube, a surgical procedure, could certainly be refused. Once it is inserted, however, can they demand a surgical procedure (removing the feeding tube) that would result in their death? Is this any different than requesting an injection that would result in their death? I think that a strong argument could be made that a doctor could, and perhaps should, refuse such a request.
One could argue, however, that removing someone from a respirator would also be the same. Here, however, I think that a distinction can, and should, be made. Breathing, like the function of most organs, is an autonomic reflex. You do not have to think about doing it, and can be completely unconscious and continue to do it. Eating, however, requires an active effort. You have to tell yourself to eat. It seems to me that this is a significant distinction. If someone can no longer physically do something that doesn't happen automatically, and we have it in our power to assist them, isn't there an obligation to do it?
Update: I have since learned that in some cases, food injested through a feeding tube can end up coming up the esophogus, then back into the lungs, causing pneumonia. In any case that a feeding tube would cause harm to the patient, its removal would certainly be ethical.

There Are Leaks, and Then There Are Leaks

The Weekly Standard has a couple of good articles regarding the 'Talking Point Memo' that was distributed to Republicans in the Senate. I refer, here, to Fred Barnes, and Powerlineblog's John Hinderaker. I am no expert in such things, but I find the questions they raise about the authenticity of the documents to be interesting. What I find even more interesting, however, is to compare this leaked memo to the Democratic Party memo that was leaked nearly a year ago, regarding the filibustering of judges. In that case, the Democrats cried foul, and asked who could be so nefarious as to leak such a document. It's amazing, isn't it? No matter what happens, it always seems to be the fault of the big bad Republicans.

But is it Murder?

Several times in the last several days, I have heard people saying that, no matter how immoral or unethical removing Terri Schiavo's feeding tube is, we can't really call it murder. Two people that I respect greatly, Dennis Prager and Hugh Hewitt have both made the same point. Murder is murder, regardless of the desire of the murder victim. I have to admit, it makes sense. If I were to ask ten people to shoot me, and someone did, it would still be murder. That being said, I think most people would agree that if Terri Schiavo asked to have her feeding tube removed, it should be, and that it wouldn't be murder. If it isn't murder then, it isn't murder now. It makes sense, doesn't it? Except, perhaps, to someone like Scott Peterson, who was convicted of a double-murder in the deaths of his wife, Laci, and unborn son, Conner. Many states have laws on the books that consider causing the death of a fetus to be murder, except for in the case of an abortion. To my mind, this is clearly a case of the desire of the victim's proxy making a murder not a murder.

Who's Suffering is Being Relieved?

I just can't tell if Terri Schiavo is really there. I watch the video that we have all seen so many times, I listen to both sides ad nauseum (emphasis on the nauseum), and I just don't know. I am not sure, however, if it is necessary to know. There are three possibilites that I can see.

1. Terri isn't there, all that is there is the empty husk of her body running on autopilot.
2. Terri really is in there, self-aware, but is just incapable of expressing it for one reason or another.
3. Terri isn't really there. She isn't self-aware, but her soul is trapped inside her body because it hasn't died yet.

In saying that, though, I noticed that in none of the three instances does the word suffering appear. In looking at the video footage that is constantly being replayed, not once did I think that it appeared that Terri, herself, was suffering. I think that is important - Terri does not seem to be suffering.

If Terri isn't there, and all that is left is an empty, soul-less body that happens to still have a heartbeat and lungs pumping, then Terri really isn't living anymore. She is already dead. If that is the case, then killing her body isn't doing a darned thing to, or for, Terri. It is doing it to, and for, the people that love her. If this is indeed the case, it is Michael Schiavo, not Terri, that is being released. Terri's parents and siblings, however, are not being released at all. The act of forcing Terri's death will bring them nothing but pain and heartache. Even if she isn't there, taking away their hope is like taking Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny from a toddler. I suspect that they will never be able to look back at her passing and see it as a welcome release from her burdens, or their burdens, but instead as a constant reminder of the pain of losing her too soon. Their pain will be far more massive than the release that Michael receives.

If Terri is there, and aware of her surroundings, even minimally, then it would appear that there is a certain peaceful contentedness that she has found. If may be frustrating for her not to be able to communicate, but it certainly does not seem that she is suffering. There is no pain. Other than her lack of brain activity and muscle atrophy, she appears to be in good health. She appears to, at least at times, respond and perhaps even enjoy the company of loved ones. At least three nurses that have cared for Terri have reported that she could communicate with them, and did show emotion. You can read their affidavits for yourself here and here. These reports indicate nothing of a desire to end a life of suffering.

The third alternative is difficult to quantify, and starts to delve into the realm of metaphysics. If Terri is not self-aware, but has a soul that is trapped within her body, can that soul perceive and discern its surroundings? If not, then there is little difference between this, and the first instance, in which case, the relative pain and suffering of those close to the patient should be considered. If, however, it can perceive its surroundings, what then? It would see Terri surrounded by people that love her, and want to care for her. I find it hard to argue that this would be a state from which there would need to be 'release'.

As I have noted in a previous post, this case has made me think deeply about end of life matters, and I have found myself surprised at the conclusions that I come to. I do not fear my own death, whenever it may come. I plan to be able to face my God with a clear conscience, or at least as clear as a human conscience can expect to be. My greater fear is the effect that my death may have on others, just as I am concerned about the effect my life has on others. Though I do not fear death, I also will not rush to embrace it. Although I have no real desire myself to find myself in the state Terri Schiavo is, I cannot say that death is preferable. I believe that God does not put before us a cross too heavy to bear. Even if I were suffering, I am certain that I could find the strength to bear it. Again, I would be more concerned by the suffering that I caused others.

Why does God allow suffering? I do not believe that He causes it, but, as there is so much suffering in the world, He most certainly allows it. The answer that I have reached is that, by allowing suffering, others can become better. The tsunami in Indonesia was a great trajedy, but, by our response, we have become better people for it. In the same way, the trajedy that befalls a single individual, such as Terri Schiavo, can stir love and compassion that improves the character, even the soul, of those that desire to care for her. Who are we, who am I, to prevent this?

So, were I ever to find myself in a similar, or even worse state than Terri, my one great desire would be to never become a burden. As long as someone was willing and desired to love and care for me; as long as there is someone that takes solace in the fact that I am alive, and not dead; as long as my life resulted in more joy, happiness, love, etc. than pain in seeing me incapacitated, I will embrace life. If, however, my life results in more pain than joy in those around me, I shall not retreat from death, nor cling to life. In this instance, "pulling the plug" should cause no one to feel guilt nor remorse. There should only be joy in the fact that I am going to my eternal home, and a celebration of a life well lived. I also believe that vesting a single person with sole authority and responsibility over decisions of life and death is a great burden. Instead, I would prefer that my family and friends jointly come to a concensus about what is best for them, collectively.

All this has brought another thought to my mind. I do not believe that Terri Schiavo's wishes in this case are knowable, let alone known. Not being a lawyer myself, I don't know if there are other standards of proof, but I do know that in a criminal case, there is a standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt", and in a civil case, the standard is "by a preponderance of the evidence", the former being a much higher standard of proof. In a case such as this, when a patient's wishes regarding life and death are not known, isn't it reasonable to use the higher standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt." I cannot for a moment believe that there is not enough evidence that Terri would not want this that a reasonable person would have no doubt.

I have a suspicion, as well. Poll after poll has shown that the American public believes that Terri's feeding tube should not be re-inserted. My suspicion is that most of us are finding ourselves, even subconsciously, projecting our own beliefs about what we would want were we in her position. I am certainly willing to admit that it is a possibility in my case. It may be true in the case of Judge Greer as well. I think that this is a natural thing, and something that none of us can get away from. This is an issue that has touched our nation deeply. We all have that voice in the back of our heads that whispers, "there, but for the grace of God....." What is important, though, is what Terri would want, and that, ultimately, is unknowable. It now looks as if she will be passing soon, and I hope an pray that this debate does not end at the same time her life does. There are many questions that remain unanswered, from who has teh right to make medical decisions when the patient is unable to do so themselves, to what it is that constitutes 'life support' or what is the difference between basic care and extraordinary care. If we do not address these questions now, there will someday be another Terri Schiavo, and we will have to go through this ordeal again. Nobody, I am sure, wants that.

Solomon Revisited - A Modern Parable

There was once a young woman - beautiful, vivacious and full of life. Like many young women, she met a man, fell in love, and married. By all accounts, or perhaps nearly all accounts, this man and this women were happy and in love. But then the young women got sick, and nearly died. In fact, she did die, but by the work of skillful doctors, her heart was able to beat again, her lungs could breath, and all of her bodily functions worked as they did before. Except her brain. Her brain had been starved of oxygen for too long, and was damaged. The young woman could no longer speak. She could not run, or even walk. She could not write or communicate in any meaningful way. At first, everyone hoped that, given time, she would get better. She didn't.
Many years passed, and eventually, there was a dispute as to who should care for the young woman, and what the best care was. Because the young woman could not speak or communicate her own wishes, someone else was going to have to make decisions for her. The young woman's parents had come to believe that they could best love and care for their daughter, while the young woman's husband believed that he was the best to care for her. As so often happens in such disputes, they ended up before the great judge, Solomon. Both sides brought forth witnesses, doctors, nurses and family members. Some said that the parents would give their daugher the best care. Others said that the husband was the best man for the job.
After everyone had said everything there was to be said, Solomon made his ruling. "Remove the tube that feeds her," he said, "and do not allow her to eat or drink anything." Solomon knew that this would result in the young woman's death. Upon hearing the decision, the young woman's husband said, "Yes, there is wisdom in this, remove the tube. Let my wife die." The woman's parents, however, were aghast. "Anything but that!" They cried. "Please, just do not let our daughter die."
Now at this point some of you are waiting for Solomon to proclaim that the parents that wanted their child to live were the true caregivers, but here the story takes an unexpected turn. You see, under the laws of the land, once a judge has made a ruling, that ruling must stand, unless there is "substantial likelihood of success" of their appeal. And so, Solomon's ruling of death to the young woman stood the test of appeal after appeal. Every day the young woman grew weaker. But ultimately, the law is the law, the judge's ruling is the judge's ruling, and one day soon, even if we do find that there really was a "substantial likelihood of success", it won't matter, because the young woman will be dead.
How could this have happened? To be fair, I did skip a part of the story. You see, at first, the young woman's husband said that he did not want his wife to die. In fact, he said that he wanted to love her and care for her, and make sure that she got the best possible care, and that he would make every effort to rehabilitate her. He even went so far as to say that he would go to school and become a nurse so that he could care for her himself and not have to rely on other people to give his wife the care that she needed. And when he made this proclamation of love and commitment to his wife, the court was so moved by it, that they not only said that he would be the best caregiver to his wife, but also gave him over a million dollars, of which $750,000 was specifically to be used on care and rehabilitation for his wife. And so, when this husband said that his wife would have wanted to die, and a judge said "remove the tube", it seems that the husband, having already been declared the rightful caregiver, was given a presumption of having the young woman's best interests at heart. And the ruling, which will certainly result in the death of the young woman, still sands.

In fairness, I did not come up with the idea of comparing the Terri Schiavo case with the story of Solomon decreeing that the baby must be split in two in order to determine who the mother of the child really was. It was actually suggested to me in listening to Mark Taylor sit in on Dennis Prager's syndicated radio show a couple of days ago. A guest on that show mentioned it, and that got me thinking. That thought has been lingering with me ever since, and finally found it's way into this, my first blog. Had Solomon proclaimed "cut the child in two" in the United States today, we would have had a funeral on our hands.
I would like to make it clear that I do not doubt that Michael Schiavo believes that he has his wife's best interests at heart. I also do not doubt that Terri Schiavo's parents also believe that they have her best interests at heart. This is actually one of those rare times in American public life where everyone is acting from the purest of motives. No one is playing politics. No one is consciously trying to obfuscate the truth. Even those of us that are discussing the case around the water cooler are speaking from our deepest core beliefs about what is right and what is wrong - not what is best or expedient for 'our team'.
Before I get a slew of comments that this fact or another is different from the Terri Schiavo case, let me say that I know that. I admittedly have taken some liberties with the narrative in order to get it to more closely fit with the Biblical account of Solomon. This was done in order to better make a comparison between to the two stories, and I stand by that comparison.
This is an amazing moment in America. A time when we are all forced to look into our hearts and decide what we would really want, were we to ever find ourselves in such a state. Terri Schiavo, a woman I will never know, has changed my life and taught me things about myself that I never imagined were true. I suspect that I am not the only one. For that I am grateful, and for that, if she does indeed pass from this world into the next, there is some small good, at least, that has come from her ordeal.
Thank you, Terri, for that.