Thursday, March 31, 2005
The Terri Schiavo Case: What I’ve learned, Part 1
1) Many people don’t know what “adultery” means
After thirty years of social pathology, combined with the dumbing down of the population resulting from union-infested government schools, our society has apparently reached the point where some people actually don’t know what the word “adultery” means. I’m not talking about stupid people. I’m talking about smart, engaged, open-minded, well-intentioned people who have thought about this case and who are capable of critical analysis and open to new information.
For example, please consider this comment from one of my smart listeners:
“I find it interesting that many people are calling the husband an adulterer because he's moved on and started a new family. Unless he was cheating while she was ok that I'm not aware of? If I try to put myself in a similiar situation - my wife being in such a state and the doctors telling me there is no hope(which from what I've heard is what happened), I might fight and be in denial for a period of time. Over time though, the reality would eventually set in that she is gone, at least all that you knew and all that she was. At that point, I can see a person deciding to move on. If I loved that person with all my heart, like I hope I would, I would still be bound to executing what she wanted. Perhaps I couldn't do it for a long time for my own selfishness or denial, but eventually I would be bound to do my final duty. I guess I wouldn't see it as adultery if she was basically gone already. You'd still have a responsiblity for what was left though, and that would be difficult to bear I'm sure. With all this said, I have no idea what's in the mind of Michael Schiavo.”
As I explained to this smart listener, (and I mean that sincerely because he IS smart, which I know because he has written before):
“I'm distressed that you find it puzzling that we refer to M Schiavo as an adulterer because he is, regardless of the reason. Any one of us could say that we have emotionally moved on, and use that an excuse to cheat. Regardless of the reason, if you want to "move on," the answer is to get divorced, unless of course you might want to continue to control the proceeds of a $1m malpractice settlement that you got by promising to care for your disabled wife for the rest of her life.
What about that "in sickness and in health" thing? Just toss it when it's inconvenient and you're not committing adultery?
Oh, you can't mean that!
As far as the solemn vow to carry out her wishes, he's WAY too enthusiastic to carry that out, IMO, and he has a serious conflict of interest in the form of an entire new family that makes many of us extremely skeptical of his motives. I don't know what's in his mind either, but I do know what's in his bed and that makes him seriously compromised where the question is doing what is best for Terri.”
Frankly, calling him “adulterer” is the best that Schiavo can’t hope for from me, since I don’t think that “murderer” would be a stretch under the circumstances.
2)Many people, including some probate court judges who according to the New York Times are also “legal scholars,” don’t know what “conflict of interest” means
I mean really. If anyone doubts that Michael Schiavo had every reason to tell himself that he was doing what Terri wanted, and that he had NO conflict of interest, ask yourself, what would have happened had a miracle occurred a couple of years ago and she had recovered? How would he explain the other woman he had been shacking up with for ten years with whom he had produced two kids to his legal wife? Isn’t it obvious that he had to eliminate Terri for good?
Why then would Judge Greer suggest that Michael had satisfied the standard “clear and convincing” to prove that Terri would want to be starved and dehydrated? I’ll address that in more things I have learned from this case in future postings.
1) Many people don’t know what “adultery” means
After thirty years of social pathology, combined with the dumbing down of the population resulting from union-infested government schools, our society has apparently reached the point where some people actually don’t know what the word “adultery” means. I’m not talking about stupid people. I’m talking about smart, engaged, open-minded, well-intentioned people who have thought about this case and who are capable of critical analysis and open to new information.
For example, please consider this comment from one of my smart listeners:
“I find it interesting that many people are calling the husband an adulterer because he's moved on and started a new family. Unless he was cheating while she was ok that I'm not aware of? If I try to put myself in a similiar situation - my wife being in such a state and the doctors telling me there is no hope(which from what I've heard is what happened), I might fight and be in denial for a period of time. Over time though, the reality would eventually set in that she is gone, at least all that you knew and all that she was. At that point, I can see a person deciding to move on. If I loved that person with all my heart, like I hope I would, I would still be bound to executing what she wanted. Perhaps I couldn't do it for a long time for my own selfishness or denial, but eventually I would be bound to do my final duty. I guess I wouldn't see it as adultery if she was basically gone already. You'd still have a responsiblity for what was left though, and that would be difficult to bear I'm sure. With all this said, I have no idea what's in the mind of Michael Schiavo.”
As I explained to this smart listener, (and I mean that sincerely because he IS smart, which I know because he has written before):
“I'm distressed that you find it puzzling that we refer to M Schiavo as an adulterer because he is, regardless of the reason. Any one of us could say that we have emotionally moved on, and use that an excuse to cheat. Regardless of the reason, if you want to "move on," the answer is to get divorced, unless of course you might want to continue to control the proceeds of a $1m malpractice settlement that you got by promising to care for your disabled wife for the rest of her life.
What about that "in sickness and in health" thing? Just toss it when it's inconvenient and you're not committing adultery?
Oh, you can't mean that!
As far as the solemn vow to carry out her wishes, he's WAY too enthusiastic to carry that out, IMO, and he has a serious conflict of interest in the form of an entire new family that makes many of us extremely skeptical of his motives. I don't know what's in his mind either, but I do know what's in his bed and that makes him seriously compromised where the question is doing what is best for Terri.”
Frankly, calling him “adulterer” is the best that Schiavo can’t hope for from me, since I don’t think that “murderer” would be a stretch under the circumstances.
2)Many people, including some probate court judges who according to the New York Times are also “legal scholars,” don’t know what “conflict of interest” means
I mean really. If anyone doubts that Michael Schiavo had every reason to tell himself that he was doing what Terri wanted, and that he had NO conflict of interest, ask yourself, what would have happened had a miracle occurred a couple of years ago and she had recovered? How would he explain the other woman he had been shacking up with for ten years with whom he had produced two kids to his legal wife? Isn’t it obvious that he had to eliminate Terri for good?
Why then would Judge Greer suggest that Michael had satisfied the standard “clear and convincing” to prove that Terri would want to be starved and dehydrated? I’ll address that in more things I have learned from this case in future postings.
Rest in Peace, Terri
Terri Schiavo lost her fight for life this morning, and I am very very sad, not only for the Schindler family, but for our country. Can we really have reached the point where we permit the starvation and dehydration of an innocent, disabled person by an adulterous husband, aided and abetted by an arrogant judiciary taking its cues from ghoulish, proponents of a death cult like Dr. Ronald Cranford and George Felos? I shudder when I think about the whole hideous scene.
Terri Schiavo lost her fight for life this morning, and I am very very sad, not only for the Schindler family, but for our country. Can we really have reached the point where we permit the starvation and dehydration of an innocent, disabled person by an adulterous husband, aided and abetted by an arrogant judiciary taking its cues from ghoulish, proponents of a death cult like Dr. Ronald Cranford and George Felos? I shudder when I think about the whole hideous scene.
Wednesday, March 30, 2005
Results of the HB Egg Trial During Last Week’s Show
As you know if you were listening, producer Michael Garay and I both proclaimed our respective selves the owners of the best hard-boiled egg recipe on the planet, and last Sunday we brought in the proof. We colored the eggs, and asked producer Jo Wheeler to be the judge. The result: Garay is the winner! I was a close second though. Just like John Kerry.
As you know if you were listening, producer Michael Garay and I both proclaimed our respective selves the owners of the best hard-boiled egg recipe on the planet, and last Sunday we brought in the proof. We colored the eggs, and asked producer Jo Wheeler to be the judge. The result: Garay is the winner! I was a close second though. Just like John Kerry.
Now we know why Barack Obama Was So Offended by the Truth
In his 3/25/05 “White House Briefing” column in the WaPo, Dan Froomkin reports:
“Christopher Cooper ,writing in the Wall Street Journal, looks at the advance work -- and the goals -- underpinning Bush's Social Security events.
He describes how the Rev. Larry Brandon, an African-American minister, found himself at a pre-event screening session with a White House official. "As a result of the interview, planners decided to place Mr. Brandon on the dais with the president for the event. He responded with effusive praise, telling Mr. Bush, 'I thank God for your approach that you are running towards this Goliath, to slay this Goliath.' "
Cooper writes that while only inviting supporters, the White House is nevertheless reaching out to a range of minority constituencies with these events.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62963-2005Mar24.html
I prefer the headline in the original story, which ran on 3/24/05 and is available online only to WSJ subscribers),"Bush Lines Up Unlikely Allies." I like the subhead even better “Private Accounts Resonate With Voters Beyond Republican Base.” While Mr. Froomkin focuses on the fact that attendees are “pre-screened” note what he left out: the Rev. Brandon is “a self-described Democrat” who “didn’t endorse George W. Bush in the 2004 election.”
Let’s see a 39-year-old African-American democrat who supports personal accounts and agrees that the current system is a rip off for people like him? Could politics and the fear that some African-American voters might leave the democrat planation be the reason that our junior senator tried to stifle a discussion about the benefits of modifying the unfair, deceptive and unsustainable ponzi scheme that is Social Security? Is this why he tried to change the subject? Consider this statement from the esteemed senator from Lynn Sweet’s article:
“He criticized what he said was the cynical use of disparities as a reason to dismantle Social Security. Instead, people should be talking "about how are we going to close the health disparities gap that exists, and make sure that African-American life expectancy is as long as the rest of this nation."
"The notion that we would not be talking about lack of health insurance, and reducing diabetes, and reducing incidents of AIDS, and making sure that African Americans have the wealth and the income to save into retirement and supplement Social Security is stunning to me."
Obama find Bush's pitch "offensive"by Lynn Sweet, Chicago Sun-Times, 3/11/05
http://www.suntimes.com/output/sweet/cst-nws-obama11.html
Geez, these liberals do have a one-track mind, don’t they? There’s one answer for everything and that’s more of their crypto-socialist doubletalk. We can discuss those issues, and have been, but does that mean that we have to continue the current theft-by-deception scheme that the government has been running? Can’t we talk about fixing that?
Worst of all for the democrats, as the Wall Street Journal article says of the Reverend Brandon, “[h]e also says of President Bush “After meeting him, I felt in my heart that he was legit.” And that’s more than I can say for Senator Obama’s reason to be offended.
In his 3/25/05 “White House Briefing” column in the WaPo, Dan Froomkin reports:
“Christopher Cooper ,writing in the Wall Street Journal, looks at the advance work -- and the goals -- underpinning Bush's Social Security events.
He describes how the Rev. Larry Brandon, an African-American minister, found himself at a pre-event screening session with a White House official. "As a result of the interview, planners decided to place Mr. Brandon on the dais with the president for the event. He responded with effusive praise, telling Mr. Bush, 'I thank God for your approach that you are running towards this Goliath, to slay this Goliath.' "
Cooper writes that while only inviting supporters, the White House is nevertheless reaching out to a range of minority constituencies with these events.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62963-2005Mar24.html
I prefer the headline in the original story, which ran on 3/24/05 and is available online only to WSJ subscribers),"Bush Lines Up Unlikely Allies." I like the subhead even better “Private Accounts Resonate With Voters Beyond Republican Base.” While Mr. Froomkin focuses on the fact that attendees are “pre-screened” note what he left out: the Rev. Brandon is “a self-described Democrat” who “didn’t endorse George W. Bush in the 2004 election.”
Let’s see a 39-year-old African-American democrat who supports personal accounts and agrees that the current system is a rip off for people like him? Could politics and the fear that some African-American voters might leave the democrat planation be the reason that our junior senator tried to stifle a discussion about the benefits of modifying the unfair, deceptive and unsustainable ponzi scheme that is Social Security? Is this why he tried to change the subject? Consider this statement from the esteemed senator from Lynn Sweet’s article:
“He criticized what he said was the cynical use of disparities as a reason to dismantle Social Security. Instead, people should be talking "about how are we going to close the health disparities gap that exists, and make sure that African-American life expectancy is as long as the rest of this nation."
"The notion that we would not be talking about lack of health insurance, and reducing diabetes, and reducing incidents of AIDS, and making sure that African Americans have the wealth and the income to save into retirement and supplement Social Security is stunning to me."
Obama find Bush's pitch "offensive"by Lynn Sweet, Chicago Sun-Times, 3/11/05
http://www.suntimes.com/output/sweet/cst-nws-obama11.html
Geez, these liberals do have a one-track mind, don’t they? There’s one answer for everything and that’s more of their crypto-socialist doubletalk. We can discuss those issues, and have been, but does that mean that we have to continue the current theft-by-deception scheme that the government has been running? Can’t we talk about fixing that?
Worst of all for the democrats, as the Wall Street Journal article says of the Reverend Brandon, “[h]e also says of President Bush “After meeting him, I felt in my heart that he was legit.” And that’s more than I can say for Senator Obama’s reason to be offended.
Monday, March 21, 2005
Do you suppose these poll results would be different if people knew the truth?
ABC News reports today (3/21/05) on the broad disapproval for federal intervention in the Terri Schiavo case. To quote the story by Gary Langer, “The public, by 63 percent-28 percent, supports the removal of Schiavo's feeding tube, and by a 25-point margin opposes a law mandating federal review of her case.”
I don’t doubt that. The Liberal Death Star (the New York Times) story on Sunday, March 20, 2005, “Congress Ready to Approve Bill in Schiavo Case,” contained several quotes from people on the street interviews like this one “It’s a family issue. At most it’s a state issue. Congress shouldn’t step in.” It’s tempting to agree with that statement. I might have, too, if I hadn’t dug a little deeper than our MSM friends’ reports to get some additional facts. What follows are a few statements made in recent days that are absolutely false, but which are repeated so often a casual observer will believe them to be true. Remember Goebbel’s “Big Lie?”
“This woman has a right to die in peace without artificial life support, as she wished.”
George Felos, Michael Schiavo’s attorney, MS-NBC, 3/18/05
How exactly do we know what she wished, Mr. Felos? Forgive me if I sound cynical, but do you really expect anyone to accept your client’s hearsay as the last word, especially since he has moved on with his life by shacking up with another woman and siring two children with her? Many of us have a tough time understanding why he can’t just divorce Terri, marry his new tootsie and let her parents take care of her as they wish. Doesn’t it seem particularly cruel to not simply allow this woman, who you claim to love, to just live? She is not on “life support,” any more than you or me. She needs food and water like any other living creature on this planet.
She’s not bothering anyone, unless it bothers you that she might regain the ability to speak and cause trouble for you in the future. Does your girlfriend find it inconvenient to have her on the same planet with you as you continue with your lives? Most important, how can this be a “right to die” case, when the person exercising that right has never left evidence of her desires?
The very fact that you are so eager to allow her to be starved and dehydrated, something I don’t think Judge Greer would permit anyone to do to his Yorkshire terrier, makes me question your qualifications as her guardian. What am I missing?
Mr. Felos, lawyer to lawyer, I ask you: in a case like this one, where there is no clear evidence in writing of the disabled person’s intent, and her “guardian” has in effect abandoned her by pursuing a new life with a new de facto spouse, should that “guardian” be able to satisfy the standard “clear and convincing” evidence of intention with an alleged remark made while someone was watching a television show? Are you really prepared to say that we can take innocent human life on that basis?
“Terri Schiavo has lived in a permanent vegetative state for 15 years.”
Alison Stewart, (filling in for Keith Olbermann)MS-NBC, 3/18/05
As we discussed on the air, Sunday, March 20, 2005, despite the incessant repetition of this mantra by nearly everyone reporting on this case, it may not be true. In his National Review online article “Starving for a Fair Diagnosis,” Reverend Robert Johansen points out that many neurologists are shocked at the way this PVS diagnosis was reached. One doctor, Peter Morin, quoted in the article described as “criminal” the fact that Terri Schiavo has never received an MRI or PET scan, which are used to diagnose the extent of brain injuries. He also asked incredulously “How can he [Michael Schiavo] continue as guardian? People are deliberating over this woman’s life and death and there’s been no MRI or PET?” He added that the fact that Judge Greer went along with Michael Schiavo’s refusal to let her have an MRI “It seems as though they’re fearful of any additional information.”
The article is worth reading for another reason, to learn the truth about Schiavo and Felos’ expert witness, a major advocate for the “right to die” and physician-assisted suicide movement, Dr. Ronald Cranford of the University of Minnesota. Read the chilling description of Dr. Cranford’s diagnosis of one Robert Wendland as PVS, even though he could operate a wheelchair and identify specifically colored blocks or pegs. Fortunately for Mr. Wendland, his case was decided by the California Supreme court, not Judge George Greer. Be prepared for your cringeometer to go off—big time.
You can find the article on my personal web page. Please scroll down to the section “Recent Show Topics” on the home page.
“Those people that voted for this bill never asked for any information or any facts about this case.”
Michael Schiavo, CBS “Early Show,” 3/21/05
This from the man who has refused to allow Terri a proper and state of the art diagnosis? Here’s a fact for you, Michael. In the Johansen article, he cites a 1996 British Medical Journal study that concluded there was a 43% error rate in the diagnosis of PVS. Not when you use Dr. Cranford as your expert, I understand. I think his business card says: “You want PVS, you’ve got PVS.”
Does Michael ever mention his new family in any of these interviews? There’s some information I think the court might find interesting. I know I do.
"The actions of the majority in attempting to pass constitutionally dubious legislation are highly irregular and an improper use of legislative authority," Ms. Pelosi said. "Michael Schiavo is faced with a devastating decision, but having been through the proper legal process, the decision for his wife's care belongs to him and to God."
Nancy Pelosi, New York Times, 3/21/05
We’re all well aware at how distressed democrats become when something constitutionally dubious happens. That’s why they’ve spent the last 4 years trying to unilaterally amend the Constitution and undo the results of two presidential elections by requiring 60 votes to confirm well-qualified nominees to the federal Appellate courts. As far as the proper exercise of legislative authority, since when do liberals know anything about that? Ask a liberal about where legislative authority belongs and they’ve got one answer: wherever we can get the result that reflects social justice, protects the environment and holds the right to choose as the most sacred of all human right, in other words, the courts.
Perhaps I need to show some compassion for Ms. Pelosi. Perhaps this sort of twisted thinking is an unfortunate side effect of one too many Botox treatments, or perhaps, like me, she went to government schools and doesn’t know that Congress decides the jurisdiction of the federal courts. They always have. It’s in the U.S. Constitution. See if you dems can find a copy of it lying around someone’s office. I suggest trying one of your Republican colleagues’ offices.
Speaking of the libs, isn’t it hilarious to seeing this outfit, who will run to the federal courts at the drop of a hat on behalf of a convicted mass murderer or to try to shakedown any legal business they don’t like (gun industry, for example), suddenly becoming more ardent supporters of states’ rights than Jefferson Davis or, to use a more contemporary, albeit only slightly more, reference, Robert Byrd back in his “Sheets” days?
As far as Michael Schiavo making a decision for “his wife,” I assume she means Terri and not the woman he has been living with for ten years and with whom he has fathered two children. And people say that liberal democrats have no respect for the institution of marriage.
For more on the Terri Schiavo case, please check out the posting on my personal blog, “A Definition of Marriage Scott Peterson could love.”
ABC News reports today (3/21/05) on the broad disapproval for federal intervention in the Terri Schiavo case. To quote the story by Gary Langer, “The public, by 63 percent-28 percent, supports the removal of Schiavo's feeding tube, and by a 25-point margin opposes a law mandating federal review of her case.”
I don’t doubt that. The Liberal Death Star (the New York Times) story on Sunday, March 20, 2005, “Congress Ready to Approve Bill in Schiavo Case,” contained several quotes from people on the street interviews like this one “It’s a family issue. At most it’s a state issue. Congress shouldn’t step in.” It’s tempting to agree with that statement. I might have, too, if I hadn’t dug a little deeper than our MSM friends’ reports to get some additional facts. What follows are a few statements made in recent days that are absolutely false, but which are repeated so often a casual observer will believe them to be true. Remember Goebbel’s “Big Lie?”
“This woman has a right to die in peace without artificial life support, as she wished.”
George Felos, Michael Schiavo’s attorney, MS-NBC, 3/18/05
How exactly do we know what she wished, Mr. Felos? Forgive me if I sound cynical, but do you really expect anyone to accept your client’s hearsay as the last word, especially since he has moved on with his life by shacking up with another woman and siring two children with her? Many of us have a tough time understanding why he can’t just divorce Terri, marry his new tootsie and let her parents take care of her as they wish. Doesn’t it seem particularly cruel to not simply allow this woman, who you claim to love, to just live? She is not on “life support,” any more than you or me. She needs food and water like any other living creature on this planet.
She’s not bothering anyone, unless it bothers you that she might regain the ability to speak and cause trouble for you in the future. Does your girlfriend find it inconvenient to have her on the same planet with you as you continue with your lives? Most important, how can this be a “right to die” case, when the person exercising that right has never left evidence of her desires?
The very fact that you are so eager to allow her to be starved and dehydrated, something I don’t think Judge Greer would permit anyone to do to his Yorkshire terrier, makes me question your qualifications as her guardian. What am I missing?
Mr. Felos, lawyer to lawyer, I ask you: in a case like this one, where there is no clear evidence in writing of the disabled person’s intent, and her “guardian” has in effect abandoned her by pursuing a new life with a new de facto spouse, should that “guardian” be able to satisfy the standard “clear and convincing” evidence of intention with an alleged remark made while someone was watching a television show? Are you really prepared to say that we can take innocent human life on that basis?
“Terri Schiavo has lived in a permanent vegetative state for 15 years.”
Alison Stewart, (filling in for Keith Olbermann)MS-NBC, 3/18/05
As we discussed on the air, Sunday, March 20, 2005, despite the incessant repetition of this mantra by nearly everyone reporting on this case, it may not be true. In his National Review online article “Starving for a Fair Diagnosis,” Reverend Robert Johansen points out that many neurologists are shocked at the way this PVS diagnosis was reached. One doctor, Peter Morin, quoted in the article described as “criminal” the fact that Terri Schiavo has never received an MRI or PET scan, which are used to diagnose the extent of brain injuries. He also asked incredulously “How can he [Michael Schiavo] continue as guardian? People are deliberating over this woman’s life and death and there’s been no MRI or PET?” He added that the fact that Judge Greer went along with Michael Schiavo’s refusal to let her have an MRI “It seems as though they’re fearful of any additional information.”
The article is worth reading for another reason, to learn the truth about Schiavo and Felos’ expert witness, a major advocate for the “right to die” and physician-assisted suicide movement, Dr. Ronald Cranford of the University of Minnesota. Read the chilling description of Dr. Cranford’s diagnosis of one Robert Wendland as PVS, even though he could operate a wheelchair and identify specifically colored blocks or pegs. Fortunately for Mr. Wendland, his case was decided by the California Supreme court, not Judge George Greer. Be prepared for your cringeometer to go off—big time.
You can find the article on my personal web page. Please scroll down to the section “Recent Show Topics” on the home page.
“Those people that voted for this bill never asked for any information or any facts about this case.”
Michael Schiavo, CBS “Early Show,” 3/21/05
This from the man who has refused to allow Terri a proper and state of the art diagnosis? Here’s a fact for you, Michael. In the Johansen article, he cites a 1996 British Medical Journal study that concluded there was a 43% error rate in the diagnosis of PVS. Not when you use Dr. Cranford as your expert, I understand. I think his business card says: “You want PVS, you’ve got PVS.”
Does Michael ever mention his new family in any of these interviews? There’s some information I think the court might find interesting. I know I do.
"The actions of the majority in attempting to pass constitutionally dubious legislation are highly irregular and an improper use of legislative authority," Ms. Pelosi said. "Michael Schiavo is faced with a devastating decision, but having been through the proper legal process, the decision for his wife's care belongs to him and to God."
Nancy Pelosi, New York Times, 3/21/05
We’re all well aware at how distressed democrats become when something constitutionally dubious happens. That’s why they’ve spent the last 4 years trying to unilaterally amend the Constitution and undo the results of two presidential elections by requiring 60 votes to confirm well-qualified nominees to the federal Appellate courts. As far as the proper exercise of legislative authority, since when do liberals know anything about that? Ask a liberal about where legislative authority belongs and they’ve got one answer: wherever we can get the result that reflects social justice, protects the environment and holds the right to choose as the most sacred of all human right, in other words, the courts.
Perhaps I need to show some compassion for Ms. Pelosi. Perhaps this sort of twisted thinking is an unfortunate side effect of one too many Botox treatments, or perhaps, like me, she went to government schools and doesn’t know that Congress decides the jurisdiction of the federal courts. They always have. It’s in the U.S. Constitution. See if you dems can find a copy of it lying around someone’s office. I suggest trying one of your Republican colleagues’ offices.
Speaking of the libs, isn’t it hilarious to seeing this outfit, who will run to the federal courts at the drop of a hat on behalf of a convicted mass murderer or to try to shakedown any legal business they don’t like (gun industry, for example), suddenly becoming more ardent supporters of states’ rights than Jefferson Davis or, to use a more contemporary, albeit only slightly more, reference, Robert Byrd back in his “Sheets” days?
As far as Michael Schiavo making a decision for “his wife,” I assume she means Terri and not the woman he has been living with for ten years and with whom he has fathered two children. And people say that liberal democrats have no respect for the institution of marriage.
For more on the Terri Schiavo case, please check out the posting on my personal blog, “A Definition of Marriage Scott Peterson could love.”
Monday, March 14, 2005
The Most Appalling Thing About the Social Security Debate
Thanks again to Prof. Thomas R. Saving!
There are only 6 trustees of the Social Security Trust Fund (so-called ), four of whom are the secretaries of HHS, Labor and Treasury and the Social Security Commissioner. We were very honored and fortunate to have one of the 2 public trustees, Prof. Thomas R. Saving (there's that name theory again!) on the show on Sunday, March 13, 2005. It was great to have a genuine distinguished expert guest. He really classed up the joint, didn't he?
In all the discussions I've had about Social Security, both on or off the air, including yesterday's, I've been struck by one appalling and inescapable fact. Very few people have the slightest clue about how this government ponzi scheme actually works, yet they willingly accept the regular and consistent confiscation of a portion of their hard-earned wages, no questions asked. Beginning with your first paycheck, and continuing for the rest of your working life, you see that part of it has been snatched away before you even get to wave goodbye. All that's left is the list of deductions with names like "F.I.C.A." We're from the federal government and we're here to help you. No, make that help ourselves. Have a nice day.
This theft by deception goes on for years, and yet the very same people who are so enraged that they will spend a half day on the phone to demand an explanation for the extra $3.00 service charge on a bank statement merrily submit to getting only part of what they've earned.
How can this be? I suspect that the reason is the exceptional skill that the democrats, beginning with FDR, have in deceptive use of the English language. People hate to pay more taxes, but they don't mind making "contributions" to their future retirement "accounts" that are being held in a "trust fund." Like the victims of any fraud, by the time they realize that there is no trust fund, and there is no account into which their so-called contributions have been segregated for their future use, the scam artist has done the vanishing act with the money. In this case, the scam artists are the pathologically dishonest and profligate politicians who will be long out of office by the time their pigeons know what hit them.
As Prof. Saving said on the show yesterday, we can make personal accounts happen if we can educate people about the truth.
Thanks again to Prof. Thomas R. Saving!
There are only 6 trustees of the Social Security Trust Fund (so-called ), four of whom are the secretaries of HHS, Labor and Treasury and the Social Security Commissioner. We were very honored and fortunate to have one of the 2 public trustees, Prof. Thomas R. Saving (there's that name theory again!) on the show on Sunday, March 13, 2005. It was great to have a genuine distinguished expert guest. He really classed up the joint, didn't he?
In all the discussions I've had about Social Security, both on or off the air, including yesterday's, I've been struck by one appalling and inescapable fact. Very few people have the slightest clue about how this government ponzi scheme actually works, yet they willingly accept the regular and consistent confiscation of a portion of their hard-earned wages, no questions asked. Beginning with your first paycheck, and continuing for the rest of your working life, you see that part of it has been snatched away before you even get to wave goodbye. All that's left is the list of deductions with names like "F.I.C.A." We're from the federal government and we're here to help you. No, make that help ourselves. Have a nice day.
This theft by deception goes on for years, and yet the very same people who are so enraged that they will spend a half day on the phone to demand an explanation for the extra $3.00 service charge on a bank statement merrily submit to getting only part of what they've earned.
How can this be? I suspect that the reason is the exceptional skill that the democrats, beginning with FDR, have in deceptive use of the English language. People hate to pay more taxes, but they don't mind making "contributions" to their future retirement "accounts" that are being held in a "trust fund." Like the victims of any fraud, by the time they realize that there is no trust fund, and there is no account into which their so-called contributions have been segregated for their future use, the scam artist has done the vanishing act with the money. In this case, the scam artists are the pathologically dishonest and profligate politicians who will be long out of office by the time their pigeons know what hit them.
As Prof. Saving said on the show yesterday, we can make personal accounts happen if we can educate people about the truth.
Wednesday, March 09, 2005
The Inside Story on USA Today’s Expert on Teens and Their Problems: A Convicted Child Molester, Stalinist Apologist and FOK (Friend of Kerry)
Imagine my shock and horror on Monday, 3/7/05. While reading USA Today’s cover story about the latest scourge threatening America’s youth, cyberbullying, I turned to the jump page and saw a photo of a gray-bearded, aging hippie type, sitting cross-legged with a guitar on his lap. This guy looked familiar, but at first I assumed he was just another academic, the sort of “expert” the mainstream media digs up whenever they want to tell us about the latest crisis. Then I read the caption and discovered he was none other than the whiny folk singing Stalinist apologist Peter Yarrow! Oh, there’s someone you want around young people in their formative years—maybe in Cuba! Of course, as many of you know, that’s not the worst thing about exposing them to Peter Yarrow, the key word being “exposing,” as in what he did to a 14 year-old who came up to his hotel room in 1970, apparently seeking an autograph. The girl must have been shocked when he answered the door naked. Talk about “Blowing in the Wind!” He pled guilty and served three months of a one-three year prison sentence.
"There are ongoing ways for kids to hurt each other," says folk singer Peter Yarrow of Peter, Paul and Mary, and founder of Operation Respect, a nonprofit that teaches tolerance in schools. "If it isn't the Internet, it's reality TV or something else." MMM. . . something else like being felt up by a naked pinko warbler? Thinking back to my own days as a 14 year-old girl, somehow I think I’d rather read a mean posting about myself on a classmate’s blog.
Wouldn’t you love to know who is funding this “nonprofit?” Is it George Soros or Teresa Heinz (formerly Teresa Heinz Kerry)?
Speaking of Te-re-ZAH, this lefty fossil is a dear friend of John Kerry’s. In fact, he is such a good friend of the haughty French-looking losing candidate (who, by the way, assisted the Khymer Rouge, or so he said on “Meet the Press”) that he is the godfather of Kerry’s daughter, Alex. He serenaded lovebirds John and Teresa at their 1995 wedding.
During last year’s campaign, right around the time the Martin Frost cancelled Yarrow’s appearance at a fundraiser, figuring that having a convicted child molester wasn’t part of the image he needed to get re-elected, Yarrow said this about Kerry on (where else?) NPR:
"He is in touch with his emotions. He is in touch with his joy at something beautiful. He has enough of the artist in him to know that there is that side of the human being."
Here’s the best part: he was pardoned by none other than Jimmy Carter. Yet another stunner! The guy who thought we had an inordinate fear of Communism obviously feels the same way about child molesters, at least the left-leaning, crooning variety.
The real news here is that all of the facts I’ve just given you about Mr. Yarrow were omitted from the USA Today story. Perhaps you might say “so what? Why is any of this relevant?” I would respond “Is a convicted child molester pitching a politically-correct ‘tolerance’ agenda the best the mainstream media can do when looking for an expert?”
Mary Mapes had the Kerry campaign operatives in her Rolodex, and apparently she’s not the only one of our mainstream media friends to have close contacts with democrats, which of course, is not news at all.
Imagine my shock and horror on Monday, 3/7/05. While reading USA Today’s cover story about the latest scourge threatening America’s youth, cyberbullying, I turned to the jump page and saw a photo of a gray-bearded, aging hippie type, sitting cross-legged with a guitar on his lap. This guy looked familiar, but at first I assumed he was just another academic, the sort of “expert” the mainstream media digs up whenever they want to tell us about the latest crisis. Then I read the caption and discovered he was none other than the whiny folk singing Stalinist apologist Peter Yarrow! Oh, there’s someone you want around young people in their formative years—maybe in Cuba! Of course, as many of you know, that’s not the worst thing about exposing them to Peter Yarrow, the key word being “exposing,” as in what he did to a 14 year-old who came up to his hotel room in 1970, apparently seeking an autograph. The girl must have been shocked when he answered the door naked. Talk about “Blowing in the Wind!” He pled guilty and served three months of a one-three year prison sentence.
"There are ongoing ways for kids to hurt each other," says folk singer Peter Yarrow of Peter, Paul and Mary, and founder of Operation Respect, a nonprofit that teaches tolerance in schools. "If it isn't the Internet, it's reality TV or something else." MMM. . . something else like being felt up by a naked pinko warbler? Thinking back to my own days as a 14 year-old girl, somehow I think I’d rather read a mean posting about myself on a classmate’s blog.
Wouldn’t you love to know who is funding this “nonprofit?” Is it George Soros or Teresa Heinz (formerly Teresa Heinz Kerry)?
Speaking of Te-re-ZAH, this lefty fossil is a dear friend of John Kerry’s. In fact, he is such a good friend of the haughty French-looking losing candidate (who, by the way, assisted the Khymer Rouge, or so he said on “Meet the Press”) that he is the godfather of Kerry’s daughter, Alex. He serenaded lovebirds John and Teresa at their 1995 wedding.
During last year’s campaign, right around the time the Martin Frost cancelled Yarrow’s appearance at a fundraiser, figuring that having a convicted child molester wasn’t part of the image he needed to get re-elected, Yarrow said this about Kerry on (where else?) NPR:
"He is in touch with his emotions. He is in touch with his joy at something beautiful. He has enough of the artist in him to know that there is that side of the human being."
Here’s the best part: he was pardoned by none other than Jimmy Carter. Yet another stunner! The guy who thought we had an inordinate fear of Communism obviously feels the same way about child molesters, at least the left-leaning, crooning variety.
The real news here is that all of the facts I’ve just given you about Mr. Yarrow were omitted from the USA Today story. Perhaps you might say “so what? Why is any of this relevant?” I would respond “Is a convicted child molester pitching a politically-correct ‘tolerance’ agenda the best the mainstream media can do when looking for an expert?”
Mary Mapes had the Kerry campaign operatives in her Rolodex, and apparently she’s not the only one of our mainstream media friends to have close contacts with democrats, which of course, is not news at all.