Thursday, October 23, 2003
I have decided at this point to switch to the new site. As of now, all posts can be seen at:
http://www.legalmemorandom.com aka legalspin.typepad.com.
Please update your bookmarks.
It will continue to be a "work in progress" (ie, toying with colors, eventually I'll have a mast picture of some sort, etc.). But I think overall, it will be better.
(btw: thank you still to Blogger/Blogspot for this product. It helped get me started. I hate to leave it, but there are just certain features (such as domain mapping, more flexibility with template items, integrated comments & counter, etc) and reliability that were lacking, in part because it is a free service).
Press here to go to new site, http://www.legalmemorandom.com.
Wednesday, October 22, 2003
Arthur Caplan, a contributor to MSNBC, rips into Jeb Bush and the Florida legislature for its actions regarding Schiavo. The first paragraph is a good cue as to where this is going:
There have been plenty of bone-headed decisions over the years by government officials and legislators playing doctor in controversial medical cases. But few lawmakers have acted as rashly, ineptly and dangerously with respect to the public as did the Florida state Legislature and Gov. Jeb Bush when they passed a last-minute law intended to stop the death of Terri Schiavo, a brain-damaged woman who’s been in a coma for more than 13 years.
See MSNBC article here.
Caplan is right - the case of Nancy Cruzan has already resolved the right to die in such cases. Unless they can somehow prove that Michael Schiavo is an unfit guardian (they have never been able to make this case, this will be overturned as unconstitutional.
No, this isn't a post about the Ellen Barken movie...
I am still finalizing some details (site colors, mast head, etc.), but I am now posting everything over at a new blogsite, testing out Typepad. So far, I like it, and I think the change is going to happen. I will post when the final switch takes place, but if you can't wait and want to see a work in progress evolve, check out:
http://www.legalmemorandom.com
I suspect that very soon, I will be completely switched over, just as soon as I can figure out how to transfer my archives properly.
Looks like Congress has passed a partial birth abortion ban, with a signature almost certain to come from President Bush.
The bill appears to have no exception for the health of the mother.
I think that this speaks for itself.
Beltway sniper suspect John Allen Muhammad, on trial now for capital murder, has abandoned his pro se status and has reverted to having an attorney representing him. Its not clear why he made this decision, although it seems as though he made the decision on his own.
See CNN story here for more.
It is likely better that he is represented by an attorney, but making this switch mid trial is going to throw off the jury. Better, I suppose, to do it early and get it out of the way.
Tuesday, October 21, 2003
Via Talk Left, comes this fascinating Time Magazine article about how the Zacarias Moussaoui case crumbled from underneath them.
Look at this stinging indictment:
Nearly two years later, the government's case, which had been billed as a slam dunk, is a shambles. On Oct. 2, U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema said prosecutors could not seek the death penalty for Moussaoui and could not even allege that he had a link to the 9/11 conspiracy. She put those shackles on the government's case because it had denied the defendant, on national-security grounds, access to witnesses who were in a position to say whether he was part of the 9/11 gang—Ramzi Binalshibh, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other key al-Qaeda figures the U.S. has captured. Prosecutors are appealing the decision, with their first briefs due this week. But if they lose, they may be stuck with a precedent that would allow defendants access to avowed terrorists, perhaps inspiring the government in the future to try all such cases in military tribunals. Unless Moussaoui's prosecutors yank the case into a tribunal, it would mean that they would have to pursue much reduced charges. Instead of proving Moussaoui to be an actor in a plot that murdered thousands, they would have to accuse him of simply being a me-too schemer whose efforts went nowhere.
My opinion? You probably know it already, but I agree with Uncommon Thoughts (again, via Talk Left article above). The FBI (I'd say the federal government) knows he's not guilty of what he's been charged with. That is why there are all these inconsistencies, and that is why there are all these roadblocks.
CNN and MSNBC are reporting that Jeb Bush has ordered the reinserting of the feeding tube into Terry Schiavo.
See MSNBC story here for more.
Terry Schiavo, for those who don't know, has spent over a decade in a persistent vegetative state out of which there is no real hope that she will recover.
After years and years of hearings, motions, and failed appeals, a Florida Court ordered the feeding discontinued on the wishes of the husband. The parents of the woman continue the fight, although the US and Florida Supreme Courts declined to intervene.
Now, in the last couple of days, Florida's legislature passed a law allowing Governor Jeb Bush to intervene in cases exactly like this one, where the victim left no advanced directive.
The moral of this story - talk to your loved ones and leave an advanced directive describing what you want done if something like this arises.
I imagine the husband and the parents, while opposing one another, mean well. However, it is shameful that the legislature and governor are using this vegetative woman as a political football.
This will surely be appealed to block enforcement of the Governor's act.
Mithras has a good post on the dangers of using peer-to-peer (such as Kazaa) downloading, and points out that malicious code could be lurking in those nifty "free" Britney Speers tunes you're putting on your computer. Malicious code that could trash your computer for good.
At the risk of being a tool of the music industry (I'm really not a big fan of the big music companies), I am still baffled by the fact that people consider this stuff to be acceptable, even when they acknowledge that it is illegal. But I will not get into that again. The risk of losing your own computer to malicious code should be bad enough.
But there is a greater risk. What if you download music at work? I know it happens. I know that there are administrators out there who will not or do not block out peer to peer networks. What if you trash the network at your office? It seems possible to me that you are exposing yourself to a negligence lawsuit. And more and more offices are requiring you to sign an acknowledgment of liability if you damage the network. You can be at risk for thousands of dollars worth of equipment and who knows how much in intellectual property destroyed. There are good arguments to be raised in defense, but why take that chance?
My solution? Stick to bands like Fugazi and Citizen Fish who do not make it a habit of ripping off their fans.
Thanks to their free 30 day trial, I have been playing around with TypePad to see if it is worth it to switch services. I like Blogger - I really do. I think it provides a valuable free service and voice for the taking. The features are really good - especially when you consider what you pay for it.
I will continue posting new posts here with the same regularity. If and when I make a switch, I will also post that here.
The template I am toying with is at http://legalspin.typepad.com.
Ernie The Attorney with an excellent post on the dangers and pitfalls of posting your opinions on blogs.
Here is what I had to say in response on his comments field:
You use your name and stand behind your words, or you do it quasi-anonymously such as Atrios.
The fact of the matter is that even when the economy is running well and we are at good employment levels, bosses simply have a disproportionate amount of power over the employees. Of course, ultimately, it is their business and reputation that is on the line, so if someone makes a comment that can be perceived as being anti-semetic (such as the association of jews being greedy and wanting money), or racist (such as if the comment had instead been something about blacks and the only food satisfactory to them is chicken and watermelon), then its possible that the association with the person can travel all the way back to the employer.
I don't blame people for doing the anonymous thing. I fully realize that if someone connected my "handle" (Russ - I am very creative) with me, that my words could reflect upon me in a job interview. I understand that when I blast the insurance companies, that if I apply to an associate position at an insurance defense firm and they pick up on that, its not going to be very helpful (just like my affiliation with SOLAR - Students Of Law for Animal Rights - didn't help me in an interview with a firm that defended pharmaceuticals).
Its sad that exercise of speech results in this type of response, but the reality is, that an unfortunate association (even if wrongly) with anti-semetism on the part of the employee (a fairly public one at that) will reflect ultimately on the employer.
The reality is, because people can't tell the difference between employees and employers (and don't always realize that employees do not always speak for their employers), it amounts to forced speech on behalf of the employer.
And for those of us who are attorneys, we have to watch ourselves even more carefully. Not only can we be dogged by employers, and can this influence higher office (if you desire to seek it), but it can also conceivably impact us with the bar.
Just some thoughts.
With the Florida House passing the measure, the Florida Senate is taking up a measure today that would:
give the state's governor 15 days to order a feeding tube to be reinserted in cases like Schiavo's. The governor's power would be limited to cases where a person has left no living will, is in a persistent vegetative state, has had nutrition and hydration tubes removed and where a family member has challenged the removal.
Gee, I wonder if that sounds like Terri Schiavo's case.
This is simply wrong, both ethically and probably constitutionally.
I have to imagine that this will result in an immediate battle in court to block enforcement of the law.
The sad thing is that I am sure that Mr. Schiavo wants the best thing for his wife (I have already gone over this - she has been in this state for over a decade - it does not surprise me that if he considers her to be dead, that he would have moved on in some regards), and I am sure that Terri Schiavo's parents want the best thing for their daughter. The true tragedy here is that Terri Schiavo has now become a political football for the legislature and governor to cut their teeth on. That is more than sad. That is embarrassing.
This will be overturned (assuming it passes), hopefully without Terri Schiavo having to endure too much more of this madness.
CNN story says that the kid who hid the box cutters, play doh and bleach on planes did it weeks ago.
Weeks? Is that some sort of joke? Ok, its bad enough that the TSA dropped the ball and allowed all of these items on to the plane. But somehow, they managed to sit on the planes, waiting to be used, for weeks?
This is what I'd call a major mission critical failure in our airline safety net, and even the missing link of security. Think about it. A terrorist gets a job working for the SkyChef or one of these airline food stocking companies. Yeah, they have to go through security, but its not hard to imagine where someone would be able to sneak things aboard the planes in the food trays or somewhere in the truck, if it were broken down into enough pieces. The plane is then later boarded by an unarmed terrorist because hey, nobody bothered to look the plane over for unauthorized materials in the past few weeks. All you need to do is make sure that the flight is one where the equipment used is fairly reliable (say, a plane on a small carrier (such as a Frontier, Jet Blue, etc.) where the same plane is constantly turned around for the same routes - NY to LA and back).
I don't believe that another 9/11 style attack would succeed, if only because passengers would simply have no choice but to fight back or the Air Force would shoot the plane down.
But even a simple bombing or a couple of simple bombings would be devastating to our airline industry and rattle our economy. I obviously do not want these things to happen, but we need to start doing actual airline security in this country, and not the window dressing harassment (that irritates everyone, but never gives anyone a sense that they are particularly safe) that currently passes for airline security.
Monday, October 20, 2003
OK, so you have been charged with a crime, and you want to hire a high priced attorney, but you can't afford one. This happens all the time, and while public defenders do an admirable job under the circumstances, the fact is people feel more comfortable with a Johnny Cochran than with a Johnny University at Buffalo representing them.
I have the solution.
Product endorsements. During the trial!
Picture this exchange:
Defense Attorney: Sir, now what did you do when you woke up in the morning in question?
Defendant:Well, first thing I did was apply some oil of ollay. It makes my skin feel silky smooth all the day through!
or, how about:
Defense Attorney:How do you know that the Plaintiff did not suffer the injuries claimed?
Defendant:Well, they were driving a Volvo XC70, which is regularly rated the safest car on the road!
And we can bring the Prosecution in on this!
Prosecutor:How do we know that the Defendant committed this murder?
Witness:The murder weapon used, a J Henckels knife, had the victims finger prints all over them. The J Henckels is one of the finest and strongest knives on the market, capable of cutting through virtually any solid item, including the bone one might find in a delicious piece of meat. If it can cut through animal bones, it can most certainly cut through human bones.
The possibilities are endless. Not as endless as the ethical complaints you might amass, but if you are going to get ethical complaints, you might as well have some fun.
(if you are somehow not sure, this is not a serious idea)
Well, yet another class action has spread across our desk, with someone filing a lawsuit against Smuckers for their claim of 100% pure fruit, when in reality the product is on the order of 30-40% fruit.
See CNN story here for all the lip-smacking details.
Nobody takes on Mother Theresa quite like Christopher Hitchens. See his Slate article here, along with his latest dissection.
One of the curses of India, as of other poor countries, is the quack medicine man, who fleeces the sufferer by promises of miraculous healing. Sunday was a great day for these parasites, who saw their crummy methods endorsed by his holiness and given a more or less free ride in the international press. Forgotten were the elementary rules of logic, that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and that what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. More than that, we witnessed the elevation and consecration of extreme dogmatism, blinkered faith, and the cult of a mediocre human personality. Many more people are poor and sick because of the life of MT: Even more will be poor and sick if her example is followed. She was a fanatic, a fundamentalist, and a fraud, and a church that officially protects those who violate the innocent has given us another clear sign of where it truly stands on moral and ethical questions.
No, Hitch, what do you REALLY think?
By the way, while I don't always agree with Hitchens, he is often a master of the positions he has taken (even when he is wrong). On this subject, I would recommend his book The Missionary Position.
Lieberman, D-Connecticut, told ABC's "This Week." "It's a time for change from George Bush, but it's not a time for rookies."
No, Joe. Clearly, its a time for a guy who has already lost once to Bush.
Yawn, Joe. Talk about tired arguments. He harps on Clark as being a newcomer to the Democratic party. Clark and Dean should respond about how Lieberman is not such a newcomer to the Republican party.
The following is how NOT to introduce yourself to the jury at noontime: "Good evening."
From the Virginian Pilot blog on the trial, quoting alleged beltway sniper John Allen Muhammad.
A college kid who snuck some box cutters, play doh and bleach onto a couple of Southwest Airlines planes is likely to face federal charges.
The student allegedly left some notes in the bags full of the banned items stating that it was his intention to show that current security measures were inadequate to prevent contraband from coming aboard the planes.
This is the scary part:
A Bush administration official has said the suspected perpetrator last month sent the government an e-mail warning of his intention to conceal suspicious items on six planes and provided dates and locations for the plan.
See, the best thing that the government could do is NOT charge this kid, and in exchange for no charges, have the kid explain how he was able to circumvent our much vaunted security system at airports. They knew he was going to do it and he gave dates and locations and they still couldn't stop him???
I guess that this is so embarrassing that rather than figure out what the problem is and punish those responsible, we'll silence the person who made our system look silly. Sounds good to me! Maybe for the holidays we can return to posting national guard soldiers with unloaded M16s to prop up our window dressing.
Beltway Sniper suspect John Allan Muhammad has been granted a motion to represent himself as opening statements in his trial are expected to begin today.
See MSNBC story here for more details.
The Court appointed attorneys who represented Muhammad will still be available to assist him with the trial.
Usually, I find that going pro se is a major mistake, unless there is something that we haven't heard regarding personality conflict between the defendant and the attorneys. When I hear "defendant has elected to go pro se" on the eve of trial or at the start of trial, the first thing that comes to my mind is "the defendant wants to push a novel theory that the attorneys will not touch (I am thinking convicted LIRR gunman Collin Furgeson's black rage theory - although I do not recall why he dropped his attorneys - for some reason I think Ron Kuby advised him in that case).
Either way, it makes this trial just a bit more interesting. Every time I've gone against a pro se party, it has gone disastrously for that pro se. As a pro se, the judges will bend over backwards for them, yet an attorney will know more about procedure and timing. Time will tell if this was a good idea (although since I expect a conviction in this case, I wouldn't necessarily call a guilty verdict a defeat for Muhammad as a pro se).
Friday, October 17, 2003
Boy, how our perceptions change. When I was a little kid (we're talking late 70's to mid-80's) the coolest games that came out were Missile Command, Gorf, Galaxians, Crazy Climber (am I really the only person on earth who liked that game???) and a handful of others. The biggest most profound revolution in gaming (as far as I can tell) was the introduction of Dragons Lair (featuring Dirk The Daring). That was the beginning of the end for sequenced games and what would turn out to be awful graphics. Now games are (A) advanced, and (B) point totals are phenomenal. Well, no wonder. I was playing pinball the other day, and I messed up and lost my first ball rather quickly, yet somehow managed to have several million points. Several million points? For sucking? Geez, I guess everybody is in fact a winner.
Anyway, this article from Electronic Gaming is highly enlightening on kids perceptions of video games from my generation. Via Feet First.
Re: Pong:
It takes this whole console just to do Pong?
Re: Donkey Kong:
Watch out, Tim, fire. It's smarter than you think.
Re: Handheld Football:
They could've just as easily called this game anything - Baseball, Bowling, Escape From the Monsters.
Re: Tetris:
Which button do I press to make the blocks explode?
Re: Super Mario Brothers:
This is Mario's world. It's supposed to look simple. You have mushrooms walking around. What do you expect?
Re: ET:
He's using his E.T. powers! What does this have to do with the movie? I don't remember the parts where E.T. falls into pits and makes his neck longer.
Finally: Space Invaders:
I'm sure everyone who made this game is dead by now.
A 12 member jury plus 3 alternates has finally been selected for the John Allen Muhammad (aka Beltway Sniper) case. It took almost 4 days to do it.
One of the jurors who was qualified (there were 27 qualified, but only 15 for the jury obviously - so its not clear if they are on the jury or not), sparked a controversy:
Defense lawyers unsuccessfully sought to strike a juror because he said he believes in the principle of "an eye for an eye." Defense attorney Peter Greenspun (search) said the man's philosophy is incompatible with a capital murder trial, in which jurors must consider the possibility of imposing life in prison or a death sentence if Muhammad is convicted of capital murder.
Circuit Judge LeRoy F. Millette Jr. (search) disagreed, saying "if we exclude everyone who had that as a reason for believing in the death penalty, we'd never seat a jury."
This is a valid argument to be made by the Defense, and one that should not be taken so lightly.
When juries are brought in for voir dire in a capital case, they generally (as far as I know) have to be death qualified - that is, they have to be willing to vote for the death penalty. It is my understanding that being unwilling to impose the death penalty is grounds for removal from the jury pool.
That's bad enough (as while weeding out one bias, you are ineluctably allowing other biases to stay (ie, someone pro-death penalty might tend to be inherently supportive of the state in such actions).
But saying "I believe in an eye for an eye" means that the juror will be unfairly biased and predisposed towards imposition of the death penalty (if found guilty) whereas it would have been that defendant's right to attempt to secure life in prison.
Considering that we weed out biases against the death penalty, wouldn't it only be fair to weed out biases in favor of it as well?
Judge Millette's cavalier dismissal of such biases not withstanding, assuming a guilty verdict and death sentence, I can smell an appeal to the Supreme Court already.
(note: text edited to fix typo and clarify that we are talking about capital case juries)
So, someone sneaks a couple of bags through security, loaded with box cutters, bleach and clay and stows them in the bathroom of a couple of Southwest planes. Allegedly, the bags contained notes saying that this was to expose a flaw in the TSA's system.
Government sources told CNN that, in addition to box cutters -- devices used by the September 11, 2001, hijackers -- the bags contained a clay substance that resembled plastic explosive and what appeared to be bleach.
The liquid was contained in suntan lotion bottles; the clay was inside Play-Doh containers, sources said.
This is both good and bad. First, its good that the TSA is getting "friendly" tests (ie, the bag wasn't the real thing, and we didn't learn about it when the plane crashed into a building).
It is bad for one very important reason: While it exposes a hole in security, what it will do is get the TSA to focus on things like box cutters and clay in play-doh containers. This is a major mistake.
There are two sayings at work here. First, those who don't learn from their mistakes are doomed to repeat them, and second, when we fight a new war, we always fight using the last war's tactics and lessons.
That is, we are now obsessed with terrorists using planes to bring down buildings - an admittedly devastating attack - like on 9/11/01. It seems utterly unlikely that such a hijacking could succeed in this country again. The old logic was to appease the hijackers and eventually it would end peacefully. Now that we know the stakes have been upped, the minute someone stands up and says "this is a hijacking" there will be a violent struggle on the plane. The only way such a hijacking could succeed to that extent now is if the passengers were somehow neutralized (ie, gunned down, gassed, empty plane, etc - obviously I do not want this...just idle speculation as to how things might happen).
But the worst thing we could do, if we are truly serious about security, is become obsessed with box cutters once again.
The interesting thing is that this was found in two separate planes. Should be easy to narrow down who did it. But rather than focus on who did it, it would be useful to focus on fixing the problem. If they catch the person who did it, he or she should be allowed to explain how he got through, rather than used as an example for punishment.
Or, why you can't rely on the NY Post for anything.
The Smoking Gun sets us up with this editorial, bemoaning the stunning collapse of the NY Yankees and loss to the Boston Red Sox.
The US Senate voted yesterday to convert a portion of the $87 billion destined to help rebuild Iraq into loans (as opposed to outright grants. 8 Republicans crossed over to support the measure.
I am not sure why this is such a big deal. Iraq is sitting on a sea of oil (I believe to paraphrase a Bush admin official). They are not some backwoods country that will struggle to make ends meet once things are working again. Granted, we are a while off from that, but by making the loans payable when Iraq is able to pay them (ie, we can guarantee that the payments will not exceed x% of their GDP), we are not going to put an onerous burden on them.
How about this solution: Iraq gets the money as grants contingent on their withdrawal from OPEC (and not submitting to a system of similar quotas/ceilings). As soon as they rejoin OPEC or a similar scheme, the grants convert to loans. That way, at worst, Iraq itself determines when it is self-sufficient enough to pay the money back, and in the interim, we reap the benefits of moving away from an anti-competitive cartel like OPEC.
Thursday, October 16, 2003
How ironic is this quote:"Bush told his senior aides Tuesday that he "didn't want to see any stories" quoting unnamed administration officials in the media anymore, and that if he did, there would be consequences, said a senior administration official who asked that his name not be used."
Via Atrios.
A blog called Who Would Buy That? featuring online auction curiosities and oddities (primarily, it seems, from ebay - still looking for that ghost in a jar?)
Not really, humor...more like "too much free time"...but still entertaining none-the-less. Presidential Haikus blog.
Health Law Blog had an excellent piece here a couple of months ago that I suspect we all need to be reminded of regarding this case. It also links to this excellent American Academy of Neurology piece here regarding the assessment and management of people in such persistent vegetative states.
There should be no doubt in anyone's mind about the proper resolution to this matter.
Public Defender Dude goes on the rampage (you'll have to scroll down to "Worthless Public Defenders") about a story regarding Las Vegas Public Defenders. It is alleged that in the Vegas PD office, defendants who were perceived by the office (using such ever-reliable techniques as having an English speaking employee administer a lie detector to a native Spanish speaker) as being guilty were given new (that is, not practicing very long) attorneys, and the "good" more experienced attorneys were held back for those clients perceived as innocent. The result is that it was possible for (take a deep breath here) death penalty eligible defendants to get brand new attorneys handling their cases.
CNN has a story here on an exonerated former death row inmate who was assigned a brand new attorney on his capital case, who is now suing the PD's office for what he describes as basically throwing in the towel once they decided they felt he was guilty.
The importance of this story should not be underestimated. I am sure that most PDs do a diligent job under incredibly difficult circumstances. The criminal justice system requires that each defendant have the opportunity (including use of a court appointed attorney if they can't afford one) to put on a defense, and that the state always be required to meet their burden of proof. In theory, the defendant shouldn't even have to testify if the state hasn't met their burden (in practice, I realize that this can be quite a bit different). The Public Defenders' office is the instrument of assistance in making this happen for those who can't afford their own representation.
If these allegations are true, harm was done across the spectrum. The defendant was deprived of due process. A chip was made in the wall of due process by allowing prosecutors an easy one. The state incurred extra expenses in the appeals of a guy who was eventually exonerated. And an innocent man spent probably harrowing years on death row.
I hope that the allegations aren't true, but if they are, I hope that the man wrongly convicted recovers some serious bucks from the Las Vegas PD's office.
Wednesday, October 15, 2003
An appeals court cleared the way for a man to have the feeding tube removed from his severely brain-damaged wife. But Gov. Jeb Bush (search) said Wednesday he was still seeking a way to intervene in the case.
See FoxNews article here for more.
The story centers around a woman named Terri Schiavo who suffered severe brain damage after a sudden collapse from heart failure. Every analysis I have seen of this case from credible sources suggests that she is in a permanent vegetative state of unconsciousness (as opposed to comatose, in which there would be hope that she could awaken from such a state).
Governor Jeb Bush wants to intervene.
This is a tragic story all around. Aside from the tragic state of Terri Schiavo, it has pit the husband Michael Schiavo (who wishes to remove the feeding tubes per what he alleges were her wishes) against Terri Schiavo's parents. Both sides allege that money is at the root of this, since there was over $1 million in malpractice awards doled out.
One of the most difficult aspects of life is dealing with death and the end of the road, an issue that transcends simple analysis of the law. I can't imagine what the people involved in the Schiavo case are going through. Its not difficult to imagine, however, that people who are very emotionally involved in these cases (such as the parents of the woman) would look to find any sign of hope possible. It sustains families and is almost a defense mechanism to cope with tragedy and avoid acceptance of the loss.
Our family suffered similar decisions when my grandfather had his last stroke back in the early to mid 1990's. The stroke left him in a vegetative state. He would lay there with his eyes open, and he would sometimes react to things (sometimes we'd have no idea what they were). At the time, some of us assigned a meaning to those reactions and blips of hope. In retrospect, as time has elapsed since his death, it seems as though those twitches, noises and movements were either uncontrollable impulse or even primal instinct - but not the movements or actions of an even vaguely conscious or intelligent person.
The result of my grandfather's "actions" was that it made it virtually impossible for my mother and aunt to agree to a removal of the feeding tube, for the very reason that they were not sure if he was "aware" enough to feel suffering from lack of nourishment. In retrospect, this was a miserable decision.
My grandmother died about 5 years earlier rather suddenly - it was a pretty big shock to my family, and especially my grandfather. The loss of his wife was utterly devastating, and he made it completely clear that he wanted to be in the ground next to her. That didn't stop him from living his life and doing some of the things he enjoyed. My aunt and uncle generously took him in to their home to take care of him (it helps that it was something they could easily afford). He still enjoyed a good meal, and he enjoyed going to Belmont (horse racing track, for those not familiar) and OTB. But he made it clear that his desire was to be in the ground next to his wife. Morbidly romantic, when you think about it.
So at the time, many of us were not sure about inflicting possible suffering on him by disconnecting feeding tubes. Hindsight being 20/20, it seems cruel that we did not honor his wishes (which I doubt he could have made clearer following the death of my grandmother). He had a 0% chance of ever coming out of the persistent vegetative state. He eventually had a final stroke that took his life.
Without knowing all of the facts (and I've read many of the articles, including many of the web pages supporting continuing her feeding and restarting therapy), unless I am simply being misled by news stories, I seems likely to me that this is a matter of wishful thinking.
A persistent vegetative state, as I've seen it, is simply not living. It is the shell of a human being, and it is doubtful (from what I've seen) that there is any real self awareness or intelligent thought. The next response I typically get is "what about those with Downs Syndrome, would you kill them too?" I'm sorry. This is just not the same as garden variety mental illness.
When my grandfather died, at the funeral, there was a universal belief that he looked much better at the funeral than he did at any time since the strokes started. At that point, I realized that our family made the wrong decision.
For a different take from a conservative Doctor's blog, check out Kill as Few Patients as Possible (a well done blog, even when I disagree with him).
You'll note that I slightly modified my subtitle above. The blogging world does not need another blog writing on end about the Kobe Bryant trial. (A) There are quite a few more important trials out there (DC Sniper, Zacarias Moussaoui, etc.), and (B) I doubt I would add anything new to this case (in fact, its just a rape trial, and I don't have very much interest in Kobe Bryant or this particular trial - which is not meant to suggest that somehow this is not a serious trial with very serious allegations).
Besides, if you must have coverage of Kobe (and I doubt you'd be here for that), you can go to CNN for news, or for serious analysis, check out a blog like Talk Left (I am sure that they will continue their excellent coverage and analysis of the issues at stake).
So, no Kobe Bryant news and analysis from here, unless something truly profound happens (such as a verdict, or Kobe Bryant snaps and goes on a rampage in the courtroom).
A judge in Nebraska (named Ronald Reagan, no less) has ordered that a father speak to his daughter primarily in English as a term of his visitation rights.
See Omaha World-Herald story here for more. Via Atrios, via To The Barricades!
Ultimately, the ruling allows for some instruction in Spanish, but requires that the father converse primary in English, so as to not confuse the girl's education.
See To The Barricades! article above for a take on this one. I think its a poor decision, or at least, not a very carefully thought out/worded decision (ie, I can see some concern here, but to intervene to this extent with what is essentially the right of the father to teach his child the child's culture should be disconcerting to most). What, will the father be banned from taking his child to a Cinco de Mayo celebration because there might be too much Spanish? How will the Court determine that there is 'too much Spanish being spoken'??? This smacks of one of those 'I can't define obscenity but I know when I see it' cases.
Sorry, but the resolution proposed by the Judge defies enforceability, and therefore, I do not think that this is a satisfactory resolution, nor is it particularly fair.
Send an email to Russ
