Terri Schiavo: The good, the bad, and the ugly

The media: They've been extremely hard on the the Legislature and the President because they're basically wasting time by micromanaging the country, be it with Terri or Major League Baseball. Maybe it's a valid point, but where were these people when Barbara Boxer started her little cat fight against Condoleezza Rice. Even Rice's most vocal opponents to her being Secretary of State readily admitted that Rice would easily get the Senate's blessing. Yet all legislative progress was put on hold so people like John Kerry and Barbara Boxer throw little hissey fits. What the heck was that?!

Senator John McCain, do you have any insight into this nonsense?
Dr. Rice has the confidence of the President of the United States. Dr. Rice has the confidence of the majority of this Senate. We know, as many of her critics have admitted on this floor, she will be easily confirmed.

So I wonder why we are starting this new Congress with a debate about a foregone conclusion. It cannot be for a lack of priorities because we surely have enough on our legislative plate this year. It can't be because Dr. Rice has suggested she has some flaw so fundamental that the Senate must block the President's choice. I can only conclude we are doing this for no other reason than because of lingering bitterness at the outcome of the elections.

McCain 2008. Woot! Woot!

Ehem, anyway, what McCain is trying to say (or what I'd like to pretend to say on behalf of him) is that you should pay no attention to anyone that is criticizing the Federal Government for getting involved in the Schiavo case if they also weren't critical of the delay tactics the Democrats employed because of their "lingering bitterness".

Yes, Jon Stewart, that goes for you. Now knock it off!

Ok, now the media rant is over with. Now onto congress. I can't but feel pandered to by Bill Frist who says the following: ONCE AGAIN IN THE VIDEO FOOTAGE, WHICH YOU CAN ACTUALLY SEASON (sic?) A WEB SITE TODAY, BUT IN THE VIDEO FOOTAGE, SHE CERTAINLY SEEMS TO RESPOND TO VISUAL STIMULI. THAT THE NEUROLOGIST PUTS FORTH.

Maybe a layman can make these claims, but Frist is a medical doctor. And not just "any" medical doctor, a freggin cardiac surgeon! What doctor makes a diagnosis based on a videotape? What doctor would neglect their knowledge of medicine to engage in shameless pandering? What Bill Frist did is simply inexcusable.

Last year, when Frist was asked if AIDS can be spread by tears and sweat he said "I don't know." Connect the dots. Frist is an ideologue first and a doctor second -a very distant second. Americans deserve politicians that level straight with them. Frist has shown he's a guy that will contort his own vast knowledge of medicine so egregiously that even a layman can easily recognize it.

Now onto the Schiavo family: Whether it's fair or not, Terri's husband Michael looks like an ass. Check out this timeline:

1990 - Terri falls and is brain damaged

1993 - Terri is awarded $750,000 in a malpractice suit (also $300,000 is awarded to Michael)

1998 - 8 YEARS after she was injured, Michael starts lobbying to have his wife's feeding tube removed. Presumably because he remembered some 13 years ago that Terri told him she wanted to die if she was ever in a vegetative state. Apparently, Michael's memory gets better when two things happen. 1) Time goes by, and 2) as things become more financially beneficial for him.

1990 to Now - Terri's family has tenaciously fought to have Terri live. It's pretty clear they would have no objections if Michael wanted to completely turn Terri over to the rest of her family. Yet in spite of the admirable efforts of Terri's family, Michael still wants to pull the plug on her.

I'm sorry Michael, that makes you look like an ass. Tough luck. Circumstantial evidence made Scott Peterson look like an ass and that greatly contributed to him getting the death penalty. I didn't shed a tear over him, and I'm not going to over you.

My take: Anyway you look at this story, it's inevitably tragic. What makes it worse people like Bill Frist who forsake any kind of medical logic for pandering, and liberals who have no problems saying Michael should exercise his right to kill his wife, like a farmer would shoot his horse. I find both extremes completely unnecessary and offensive.

On the MACRO level, this is what I think needs to happen is this: Congress should stop micromanaging these types of cases and they should somehow tie in patients with vegetative conditions to missing persons. In the eyes of the law, after seven(?) years a missing is as dead as George Washington. After that time, the spouse is widowed, even if they're the healthiest person on earth. Congress should pass a law allowing for the spouse of a vegetative patient to be widowed after a certain period of time. A year? I don't know.

Is there a legal can of worms there? Yes, but not anywhere as big as the following scenario: A husband disappears for seven years, then he meets up with his wife who's married to someone else. In the eyes of the law, the husband is dead, and his widowed wife simply remarries. In actuality, his wife is now a polygamist. Now THAT'S a can of worms.

If congress can take a shotgun approach to solving the missing persons problem, surely they can do the same for people with a vegetative spouse. Unfortunately, Frist lowered the congressional dialogue to calling his critics pooh-pooh heads, so expecting them to adopt my plan is just a waste of time.

On the MICRO level here's what I think should happen: Michael should give his wife over to the rest of her family. I'm not sure I'd want to claim the responsibility to care for someone in Terri's condition, and the fact that they are willing to 1) care for her and 2) fight this fierce legal battle, is a testament to Terri's family's generosity and character.

Here's what I think should NOT happen: I find it very disturbing that someone would "pull the plug" on any human being who, 1) Is not in pain, 2) has survived 15 years after their injury, and 3) has not made it emphatically clear they wish to die. How people can "just pull the plug" on such a person is beyond me. If people who side with Michael are so gung-ho to have Terri killed, then why don't they put her to sleep like they would a dog? As sick as that sounds, it's unequivocally more humane. Should dogs get more humane treatment than human beings? Of course not! Then why does Terri have to suffer a worse death than a dog being put to sleep? Because all those willing to let her starve to death are too cowardly to put Terri to sleep.

Now I'm all pissed.

P.S. If I find the the name of the guy that actually pulled the plug on Schiavo to kill her, I will post it. If I find trash on that person, I may actually relish it.

Cronkite

So the drudgereport.com says "Cronkite: Dan should have stepped down long time ago."

I feel sorry for people who get all their news from Matt. That's just a flat out lie. Go to the source people!

CRONKITE: Well, I think it's going to be hard to find anybody who is going to be as much liked and appreciated and does such a job as Bob Schieffer. I think he's one of the great television journalists of our time. And he was a good journalist when he came to television from Fort Worth [Texas].

He is, to my mind, the man who, quite frankly -- although Dan did a fine job -- I would like to have seen him there a long time ago. He would have given the others a real run for their money.

BLITZER: Better than Dan Rather would have done? Because he was perennially in third place in the ratings behind Tom Brokaw and Peter Jennings.

CRONKITE: Well, that's certainly true. And it's quite a tribute to him that he -- that CBS held on to him so long under those circumstances. It surprised quite a few people at CBS and elsewhere that, without being able to pull up the ratings beyond third in a three-man field, that they tolerated his being there for so long.

BLITZER: So, you would have been happier if Bob Schieffer would have replaced Dan Rather a while ago?

CRONKITE: I would have thought so, certainly -- if not Bob, someone else.

...later...

BLITZER: Do you sense right now that being the anchor of a major broadcast network is the same as it was when you were the chief anchor at CBS News? In other words, has the situation changed now given the Internet, cable news, all the various ways that people are getting their information?

CRONKITE: Yes, Wolf. It's turned -- it's over on its head. It is vastly different.

When I was there, we -- the three traditional networks, NBC, ABC and CBS -- we shared 100 percent, practically, of the audience. There were just maybe 98 percent or 99 percent of the audience, we had every night. That other half a percentage or 1 percent were the few independent stations in the country. We had no other competition.

Today, of course, we've got all of these other channels that are competing. And, actually, the traditional networks are sharing down around 50 percent of the audience, which is still remarkably high, considering all of the excellent competition they have with such networks as yours.

Maybe it's just me, but why do I feel like Cronkite is making it sound like a bad thing that 3 people no longer control what news everyone in the country sees?

...finally...

BLITZER: What would you do if you had your way? What would you advise all the broadcast news organizations to do right now?

CRONKITE: Give news a little more time and don't request that they also, in their news time, entertain. We're not entertainers. We're journalists. And we need more time to do our job well.

I think he took a shot at Fox News. But even if he didn't, he certainly took a shot at the Daily Show. Funny too because I feel like i can watch 20 minutes of the Daily Show and know more of what's going on in the world than if I watch an hour of Larry King. So I guess you can come to two conclusions: A) Cronkite is wrong --entertainment and news DO go together, or B) the news media is so bad that they actually make Comedy Central's Daily Show look good.

My money is on A).

Bono to head world bank?

There's something different about Bono that separates him from all the other activists out there. Recently it hit me, Bono is one of the precious few activists that doesn't hate people. I guess it's easy to start thinking that hating is a prerequisite to activist-ing, but Bono is living proof that it's unnecessary. How refreshing. I'm not sure of he's cut out for the job, but I think it would serve as a great example for those activists out there that should be spending their energy helping people rather than hating people --who they perceive-- to be standing in their way.