Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Donkey's Inn -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (11921)	3/21/2005 9:40:59 PM
From: Mephisto	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15516

Back in August 2001, George W. Bush refused to return to Washington when he opened his Presidential Daily Briefing that told him Osama Bin Laden planned an imminent attack on the United States. Yet, George W. Bush hurried back to Washington from his Texas ranch to sign a bill that Republicans in Congress passed to get the Schiavo case to a Federal Court. And Bush and DeLay want us to believe that their motives aren't political?

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (11921)	3/22/2005 1:06:03 AM
From: techguerrilla	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15516

I breathe to despise Bush ... eom

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (11921)	3/22/2005 2:47:02 AM
From: Mephisto	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15516

RIGHT TO DIE:HASTY LEGISLATION SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER EDITORIAL BOARD Haste often causes trouble. The congressional rush to throw itself into the Terri Schiavo case will lead to new difficulties in numerous situations. Having spent decades unable to create a national health care system like those of other advanced nations, Congress suddenly took up one person's health care in an extraordinary Sunday session. The legislative and executive branches of government wanted so badly to intervene that they created a special, new jurisdiction for a federal court. Unavoidably, the measure's passage comes dangerously close to expressing a wish for specific judicial action. Despite a lot of upbeat talk, it seems unlikely that the political intervention will mainly send a positive message on the importance of living wills. We don't think huge numbers of people, especially the young, will now rush to write documents detailing how some medical catastrophe will be handled. Many married couples will continue to rely on the good judgment of a spouse or another surviving family member. That remains an understandable instinct, despite the blatant political interference in the Schiavo case to undo the decision of Terri Schiavo's husband, Michael Schiavo. Huge amounts of complexity, uncertainty and conflicting values mark the case. Few can fail to sympathize with her parents' desire to keep Terri Schiavo alive, hoping for at least some recovery from her persistent vegetative state. Their pursuit of every legal avenue to prevent her death makes sense. A proper appreciation for the need to protect the rights of the disabled also weighs into some thinking about the case. But we see no indication that the courts made Nazi-style judgments about the quality of Terri Schiavo's life by asserting her husband's ability to decide on humanely removing a feeding tube. It is one thing, moreover, to have qualms about Michael Schiavo's decision, quite another to turn the legal system upside down to undo his choice. The case has already been through a legal mill, repeatedly. Except in a nation where soap opera-style emotional manipulation has replaced political discourse, it is hard to imagine an emergency political action to override the sanctity of one marriage. But that is very much what the measure is. Shoving aside an individual spouse's judgment in a difficult case will create vast confusion. After this, will there be any predictability short of a legal code bizarrely attempting to cover every possible situation? Although the new law narrowly targets the Schiavo case, many backers indeed hope to create a general right for interventions. They would like nothing better than to see authorities able to force heroic medical interventions in any case. The aim would be to reverse the valuable progress society has made toward empowering individual and family decisions about the end of life. We are certain that a Republican memo, given to The Washington Post and ABC News, made an astute judgment when it informed party lawmakers that intervening in the Schiavo case is "a great political issue." That makes it all the more impressive that the Eastside's new Republican member of Congress, U.S. Rep. Dave Reichert, voted against the ill-advised law, one of only five GOP House members to do so. For most members, though, politics and a desire to play on voters' sympathies and ideologies dictated a rush to judgment. Now, America will have to sort out the consequences. seattlepi.nwsource.com