Even an act from Congress couldn't keep Terri alive

Spanish fatwa ripples

There's increasing grumbles coming from moderate Islam.

Strange decision by our former ambassador in Pakistan

restricting the distribution of "wanted" material in Pakistan.

Conservative critiques of Republican maneuvering on Schiavo

In the past, conservatives have been for less, not more government. As far as the right to live, the legal precedent has been that in the absence of a living will, it is up to the next of kin, in this case, her husband, to decide what the affected person would have wanted. But as we all know by now, Tom DeLay doesn't give a damn about what her husband has to say about it.

Here are critiques by Wiliam F. Buckley and Andrew Sullivan about all of this brouhaha, though Sullivan's critique of American conservatism is a little broader.

Here's the Reagan quote I like from Sullivan's column:

“The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less
centralised authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general
description also of what libertarianism is.”

So if you think Congress knows what Terry Shiavo would have wanted better than her husband, than you are aruging for a paternalistic government, one that knows what you want and need better than you do. There was a time when liberalism, the New Deal and the Great Society were criticized for such thinking.

Dowd on Schiavo

Maureen Dowd made a couple of points that have cropped up elsewhere that seem to capsulate the core response from the left regarding the Schiavo case:

Republicans easily abandon their cherished principles of individual privacy and
states rights when their personal ambitions come into play.

What would the left do without the hypocrisy card? Would they be able to form an argument? Hypocrisy is not the end all be all to me. While it’s a weakness that can rightly be exploited – as Jonah Goldberg points out here – it’s not the worst thing that a politician can display, especially in a open democracy like ours where leaders have to pacify constituents by compromises and shifts.

So if a politician has two stances – one for the right to life and another for state’s rights – and those two positions come in conflict, should that politician avoid choosing between them because doing so would be hypocrisy? And as much as Republicans believe in state’s rights, they also believe in the 14th Amendment. So, if the politician believes that Terri Schiavo is being unduly denied her right to life, and the Florida supreme court is not adequately protecting her, then would it not stand to reason that the Senate should act within its powers to protect her?

As for Terri being denied her right to life – that point is admittedly not a proven fact. But there are questions, which is why Congress wanted more appeals on the case. As a friend of mine said, perhaps Terri would have a better chance if she was on death row. Krauthammer made a pretty good assessment when he described the issue as a choice between a legal travesty and a moral tragedy.

And where Dowd thinks that Republicans are advancing there own ambitions, I think it’s more a case of Republicans putting their money where their mouth is.

Dowd quoting Republican House Rep. Christopher Shays:

"This Republican Party of Lincoln has become a party of theocracy. There are
going to be repercussions from this vote."

We will dismiss the assertion that having a Christian element in the party that actually influences party platforms equates a theocracy. At the time of this post (and Dowd’s column) it is appearing less and less likely that the tube will be reinserted into Terri. With Terri’s death dies the argument of Congressional overreach, because it is hard to make such an argument for something that failed. There may very well be repercussions from this issue, but it will hurt the (mostly silent) Democrats more than the Republicans. Why? Because it will fuel Bush’s argument about an out of control judiciary, which has stonewalled any attempts at further deliberation. The more people think about that, the more they won’t understand why Terri had to be starved to death now. And it appears that Congress was no match for the courts. All the while, the left has ridiculed the Republicans for refusing to accept decisions that they (the Republicans) disagree with. In other words, to listen to the left, the Supreme Court is the one branch of government that should be above checks and balances. And, by proxy, it certainly won’t help the Democrats filibustering Bush’s nominees of strict constitutionalists. In a cold political sense, Terri’s death is the worst thing that can happen to Democrats.

Finally, when Dowd charges Bush with packing the courts, she should probably learn what “packing the courts” actually means. It’s not replacing retiring judges with conservative nominees. It is creating new seats to fill with judges of your own liking. The last president to do that was FDR, who was frustrated with the judicial opposition to New Deal programs.

Powerline has questions about the GOP Senate memo that was leaked

Personally, it didn't bother me when I first heard about the memo. I mean, generally speaking, Senators don't do anything unless it's to their political advantage. For instance, watch the dog pile on Social Security - or the lack thereof - even though it's obviously an issue that needs to be tackled for the good of the country.

Some encouraging news on the propoganda front

Dean is going to be a fun DNC chairman to watch

the South is his sphinx. The more he says how Democrats need to respect the South, values and faith - the more it appears that Democrats don't and that's got to be frustrating for the Dems that do.

80 + 25 Vermin killed over past few days

A heartening story of Iraqis taking care of terrorists themselves

A critical look at George Kennan

Big stick is enroute to the Middle East

Opposition candidate in Egypt is charged with forging signatures

This may be too much to hope for, but

the Europeans are rethinking lifting the ban on arms to China.

French support for the EU constitution is down

The president of the European Commission, Jose Manuel Barroso, is upset and "demanded the political leaders of France 'do their job' and 'make an effort to explain the constitution' to French voters, who are turning against the treaty. "

Maybe they can have public readings where they go through the colossal document like it was storytime in the class room. When I first heard of French opposition to the constitution, I thought it may have been fueled by a French desire to have more control over the size of bananas being imported, etc., but apparently that's not the case. This story goes on to say that the French oppose cutting red tape for service industries moving across borders because they see it as a threat to their nanny state.

My 1 cent worth on Terri Schiavo

Since it was the focus of news saturation over the weekend, I figured I’d chime in, though my opinion is lukewarm at best. Obviously I’m not a legal or medical expert – and it appears that the husband has Florida law on his side – but I must side with Terri’s parents on this one (as well as Bush and Delay, etc.) I can’t figure out the husband’s motives on the issue. Something about it is fishy. I don’t think it is a money thing, & I’m not sure if it is necessary for her to die for him to remarry. From what I understand Terri has never had an MRI (she had a catscan in the early nineties). Why is that? She seems responsive enough (more than a vegetable, at least) based on the videos of her that I’ve seen and (assuming it is real) a recently released audio clip. The husband apparently has a new life, complete with fiance and kids, so why not hand over his rights to the parents? I admit that simply can not imagine keeping my future in-laws out of that decision. His attorney seems to be nothing more than a right-to-die advocate whose remarks about the Stalinist nature of Congress and Bush is absurd. This issue has been politicized by right and left – make no mistake.

Incidentally, my friend Jay over at Nonfamous has a penchant for painting Bush and Republicans as fascists. But what fascist errs on the side of life? If I recall, Hitler wanted to kill people like Schiavo for the benefit of the species.

Jay’s post also serves as a sort’ve living will, itself:

Let me say this very clearly to my friends and family. If anything like thisever
happens to me and somehow my wishes aren't followed, I don't want you just to
stop feeding me. And don't wait 13 years to do something, either! I want 80ccof
morphine, a bullet to the head, or whatever it takes--and wherever I end up,I'm
sure I'll see some of you there. OK? Thanks!

I’m sure that can be arranged, Jay.

Finally, Dude’s post with the MSNBC link makes a pretty good point regarding Congress passing a bill for one person. While I don’t have a good argument to the contrary (though I guess that’s the difference between a conservative and a libertarian) I applaud Congress for clever maneuvering to keep Terri alive. So far as I know, the issue has not gone to Congress to decide, but is still up to the courts.

UPDATE: In answer to my question, Schiavo hasn't had an MRI because of some implants that were added to her some time ago. However, she could have a PET scan, which would make a clearer image of the brain than a CAT scan.

Gays in Saudi Arabia have it rough

I know, I know, no surprise, but I thought this story was worth posting.

A direct Secretary of State

Nothing against Powell, but I’m comforted by Rice’s resolve to maintain a strong message against the proposed ban lifting on arms to China right before her trip to Beijing. Her visit to the Presbyterian Church in Beijing – just blocks away from Tinnamen Square and all the Party and government buildings – was a nice touch.

2 Years since the invasion

While we await pictures of this weekend's anti-war protests in Chicago, an Iraqi blogger says what the war means to him. It's never cheap.

Stifling debate in the House

Here's an article on how the Republicans are going back on their word to open up debate since having taken control of the House. It seems that consolidation of power is more central to Republican rule than gathering all points of view when legislating.

"The number of bills the Rules Committee allows to go to the floor under 'open rules,' that is, bills to which any member may offer amendments, has dropped steadily. By the count of the then-minority Republicans in the 95th Congress in 1977-78, 85 percent of nonappropriations legislation in the House were offered under open rules.

But the number of bills open to revision dwindled to 57 percent overall and to 30 percent for nonappropriations bills in 1993-94, the last Congress controlled by Democrats, a denial of process so serious that it led the late Representative Gerald Solomon, a New York Republican, to pledge that the incoming Republicans would make the vast majority of bills open. But the opposite happened.

In the current Republican-led Congress, according to statistics offered by both parties, the percentage of nonappropriations bills open to revision has dropped to 15 percent. "