They Still Have US to Kick Around

Thomas Friedman really hit the ball out of the park with his article today in the NY Times. If Iran and North Korea do indeed develop and test nuclear weapons, whose fault will it be? In the eyes of the world, it will be the fault of those Americans, no doubt. But Friedman questions whether Europe and China have the political will or even desire to pressure Iran and North Korea into giving up their radioactive dreams. The US has already severed nearly all ties with both countries, and therefore has little leverage left. Friedman is especially insightful when he makes this statement:

Are the Europeans and Chinese behaving cynically? Of course, these are the very countries constantly complaining about U.S. "hegemony," and calling for a "multipolar world." Yet the only thing they are really interested in being a pole for is to oppose the U.S. - not to actually do something hard themselves to stabilize the global system.

They complain when we act like the world's only superpower and they complain when we don't. It is almost enough to make you want to return to those halcyon days of American isolationism and quit being the world's policeman. But the world needs a policeman, and who else will take that role? The Europeans? The Chinese? Do we really want them to?

Dead Last

I may not have the quote exactly right, but I heard LA Mayoral candidate Antonio Villaraigosa state today that "of the top 67 largest cities in America, Los Angeles' roads rank dead last." He may be right, I can't quibble about the number, but I find it hard to believe that the survey took into account only 67 cities. Maybe 50 cities, or 75, or even 100, but not 67. If LA had come in the 44th position, the quote would have read "of the top 44 largest cities in America, Los Angeles' roads rank dead last." The same would be true if they had been 23rd, or even 7th. The key thing is that Villaraigosa was able to say that they were "dead last."
I don't have a horse in the LA Mayors race. I don't live in Los Angeles, and wouldn't care much for either candidate if I did. That being said, the use of statistics in this manner is disingenuous at the very least. As my grandfather often would say, "There are lies, damned lies, and then there are statistics."

Thank God for the UN

The United Nations has issued an alarm for women's rights groups in Afghanistan "after three young Afghan women were found raped, hanged and dumped on a roadside with a warning not to work for foreign relief organizations."
I'm just trying to remember - did the UN issue any such alarms for women's rights when they were living under the Taliban?

Words, Words, Words.... Wolf!!!

Words mean something, or at least they used to. Today, however, it seems that even our language is suffering from egalitarianism.
The degradation of the meaning of words takes many forms. In some cases, we degrade our speech by resorting to the use of obscenities. It isn't merely that obscenities are dirty, foul, or degrading, but that they don't have the same power of language. When we are angry, we often say that we are 'pissed'. But what, exactly, does that mean? There are many words for angry: upset, agitated, perturbed, annoyed, mad, furious, irate, livid.... Where, precisely, does 'pissed' belong in a continuum of such words? Instead of finding a place in the continuum, it covers the whole spectrum, and we lose the nuances of the other words that could have been used. How about insults? Calling someone a #(&*@ (coward - female genitalia) just doesn't carry the same weight as saying that they "have the backbone of a chocolate eclair". Even Archie Bunker calling his son-in-law 'meathead' had more meaning than an obscenity would have.
Another way that words lose their meaning is when we use them improperly, especially in improper comparisons. When we use the word 'rape' to describe a woman that wakes up and regrets having sex with the man she met the night before, we degrade the meaning of the word rape, and therefore the act of rape itself. When people use the word 'jihad' to describe the religious right in this country, we aren't just making the religious right out to be worse, we are saying that actual 'jihad' isn't so bad. John McCandlish Phillips references a number of major columnists in this article in the Washington Post.
All this makes me think of the boy who cried wolf. If we continually degrade our language by trying to make dissimilar things out to be similar, soon we won't be able to tell the wolves from the sheep. A serial rapist? Isn't that just another word for a Casanova?

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.