Saturday, April 02, 2005
The Great Terri Schiavo Round-up
I said yesterday that I had been saving a lot of posts on topics related to the entire Terri Schiavo situation. I am now going to present them all organized as I proposed yesterday.
MEDIA
The media coverage was truly amazing. Most of it bad. This from the NYTimes and this from USA Today both struck me as efforts just to make Michael Schiavo look good, though I have no idea why that would want to. I guess just to appear "fair." This piece, covering the squabble over the funeral arrangements, from the normally reliable Scotsman seems designed purely to sell newspapers. In my opinion, that really is purely a family matter.
Speaking of getting it wrong, Cheat Seeking Missiles takes apart the LA Times editorializing after Terri died.
Duckwriter is a journalist and I really like his blog. He went off on a rant during this whole episode, and since he is a journalist, this seemed like the best place to share the rant.
Wesley J. Smith wrote for the Weekly Standard how the internet made this Terri swarm happen. He does not mention the great word "blog" but that is pretty much what drives information through the internet these days.
And while I am bringing up blogs, Right Wing News, shows the old media how it should be done. This lengthy post is a Terri FAQ and sticks to the facts, really, really well.
CHURCH AND THEOLOGY
There has been, at least in my reading, a lack of good church and theological writing on this issue. The best work I saw was stuff by John Mark Reynolds that I linked to when it was completely fresh, emanating from his guest hosting of Hugh Hewitt's radio show. To date, the greatest shame the church in general has suffered is, in my opinion, when it mostly stood on the sidelines as Hilter rose and acted. The Roman Church was pretty active in this debate and some individual Protestant congregations were likewise active, but the greater church organizations were largely mute. If they continue so, they risk being relegated to the trash heap as pointless, or worse yet, being viewed as complicit in evil.
All I really have to share are four posts, not really theological in nature, but from preachers/bloggers that I read regularly and respect. They bring a Godly perspective to whatever they write. Three come from Sheep's Crib -- this -- this and this. The last comes from the every reliable Milt Stanley and it is here.
POLITICS
The politics here were truly amazing. This issues surrounding Terri crossed traditional dividing lines to some extent, but in many ways it was still business as usual.
The American Thinker posted a letter to Terri, that while not strictly political in content, asked a lot of the right questions about how politics are working right now.
Everybody wondered about political payoffs and backdoor deals. What else could possibly motivate a judge to be so recalcitrant in the actual killing of someone? Worldnet Daily looked into it, but most of the substance they found was a $250 donation to Judge Greer's campaign from George Felos. If that explains it, Greer sure is cheap. I personally think this is something that needs to be looked into much, much further.
Of course, the media wanted a political twist along traditional lines and tried to make create a rift in the conservative coalition. (HT: Duckwriter)
The normally right on Thomas Sowell seemed to want to blame liberals regardless of what he was talking about. Don't forget the libertarians Mr. Sowell; they're usually consider on the right.
In my opinion, the biggest political observation of the entire episode is that many opposed saving Terri, seemingly and purely because President Bush and the Republican controlled Congress wanted to. Hugh Hewitt saw it in a host of the usually suspect commentators. James Taranto explored the seamy underbelly of the Democratic party and found real ugliness. (3rd item in the BOTWT linked) But Powerline hit the perfect level of pith:
Anyone that knows much of anything knows that the American legal system is not perfect. It usually produces what is legal, but what is legal and what is just or right can be two different things. We have a secular government, even if most of us have a faith of some sort. Most of us think it good to have a secular government, but so long as we do there will always be some differentiation between the legal and the moral. But in this case, that gap seemed to many a chasm, and rather than Solomonic wisdom from the judges we saw strict legalism and plays for power.
The independent discretion given to the judiciary was intended to be there as a check and balance to prevent the tyranny of the majority from overwhelming the rights of an individual. The problem is that here, they chose not to consider Terri as an individual, and chose to protect Michael's rights. I think what angers most of us most is that because of of her medical status Terri's individuality was counted as legally unimportant. That is an injustice very similar to that visited on chattel slaves, and our system is supposed to have evolved beyond that.
I really enjoyed Hugh Hewitt when he got on board with this issue. He put on his lawyer hat and did an excellent job explaining the legal issues.
Andrew McCarthy at NRO was the go to guy during the federal legal battles, he was just excellent. I linked to almost all his stuff at some point, this is the only one that came during my break in blogging on Terri to respect her dying.
So what really happened? -- The Schindler's got out lawyered, it's as simple as that. Powerline seems to agree. More starkly than even the OJ Simpson case, this case illustrates that money really can buy a verdict. I personally think we have to start paying judges better. Many judges are only mediorce legal scholars who take to the bench because the cannot attract enough business in private practice. I think we ought to pay judges enough to attract the best legal talent to the bench. Judges should be smarter than the lawyers in front of them, and help bring equity to the cases when the lawyering is unbalanced.
If looking for legal round-ups this piece by William Anderson from the Weekly Standard is good and this post at Mullings is a very efficient read.
The ramification through the legal system shall be most interesting, particularly if Tom Delay has anything to say about it.
ETHICS
Most people do not think ethically, they think practically, or religiously. I personally try to operate from a "religious ethic." That is to say, theology does not constitute an ethic, but should definitely inform one, and most religious systems of belief have a well-established ethic. Unfortunately, in the case of Protestants, they tend to pay little attention to the ethic and talk about the theology -- all the time. That is changing and lies at the heart of much of the religious denunciation that has flowed in the wake of this situation, but given the simplicity of the arguments I have been hearing "on the street" we have a long way to go.
Blog Allthings2all was my inspiration throughout this entire episode. She has many posts worthy of reading and I have linked to most of them. This one from last weekend is just one I have not previously linked to.
The starvation aspect of this whole thing was really troubling, and most of us were astonished at the medical profession defense of the practice. I think everyone saw through it as an artificial construct allowing doctors to claim they do not actually kill anyone, when if fact they induce suffering at levels much higher than those they are trying to relieve. Radley Balko tackled the inanity of this construct at FOXNews. Milbloggger Major K wonders pointedly about the difference without distinction that is implied in this whole starvation thing.
National Review Online was marvelous throughout. In this piece, Wesley J. Smith examines with a bioethicist the concept of personhood (how the heck can we even have such a conversation?!). Rich Lowry examines the Orwellian nature of the whole episode and how very twisted the language has become around it.
From England, Michael Gove had some interesting things to say, and he writes one of the best quotes I have seen throughout the entire episode:
Of course, one of the key questions in all of this is they value of life. Many, many people think a life like Terri's is not worth living, or is even not life at all. I bet a lot of those same people think "fur is cruel." Orson Scott Card at RealClearPolitics.com examined this value of life question, as did Carol Stahl from the Amarillo Globe News. I spent my elementary school years in Amarillo and am very glad to give it a plug.
There is a tendency to over-react in this situation. John Mark Reynolds cautions us about what are ethical responses to unethical actions.
I am somewhat worried that this event will be a flash-in-the-media-pan. I hope not though. What I want to do with this post is to illustrate that this episode points out much that's good and bad with our nation and can serve as a guide to help us improve it.
MEDIA
The media coverage was truly amazing. Most of it bad. This from the NYTimes and this from USA Today both struck me as efforts just to make Michael Schiavo look good, though I have no idea why that would want to. I guess just to appear "fair." This piece, covering the squabble over the funeral arrangements, from the normally reliable Scotsman seems designed purely to sell newspapers. In my opinion, that really is purely a family matter.
Speaking of getting it wrong, Cheat Seeking Missiles takes apart the LA Times editorializing after Terri died.
Duckwriter is a journalist and I really like his blog. He went off on a rant during this whole episode, and since he is a journalist, this seemed like the best place to share the rant.
Wesley J. Smith wrote for the Weekly Standard how the internet made this Terri swarm happen. He does not mention the great word "blog" but that is pretty much what drives information through the internet these days.
And while I am bringing up blogs, Right Wing News, shows the old media how it should be done. This lengthy post is a Terri FAQ and sticks to the facts, really, really well.
CHURCH AND THEOLOGY
There has been, at least in my reading, a lack of good church and theological writing on this issue. The best work I saw was stuff by John Mark Reynolds that I linked to when it was completely fresh, emanating from his guest hosting of Hugh Hewitt's radio show. To date, the greatest shame the church in general has suffered is, in my opinion, when it mostly stood on the sidelines as Hilter rose and acted. The Roman Church was pretty active in this debate and some individual Protestant congregations were likewise active, but the greater church organizations were largely mute. If they continue so, they risk being relegated to the trash heap as pointless, or worse yet, being viewed as complicit in evil.
All I really have to share are four posts, not really theological in nature, but from preachers/bloggers that I read regularly and respect. They bring a Godly perspective to whatever they write. Three come from Sheep's Crib -- this -- this and this. The last comes from the every reliable Milt Stanley and it is here.
POLITICS
The politics here were truly amazing. This issues surrounding Terri crossed traditional dividing lines to some extent, but in many ways it was still business as usual.
The American Thinker posted a letter to Terri, that while not strictly political in content, asked a lot of the right questions about how politics are working right now.
Everybody wondered about political payoffs and backdoor deals. What else could possibly motivate a judge to be so recalcitrant in the actual killing of someone? Worldnet Daily looked into it, but most of the substance they found was a $250 donation to Judge Greer's campaign from George Felos. If that explains it, Greer sure is cheap. I personally think this is something that needs to be looked into much, much further.
Of course, the media wanted a political twist along traditional lines and tried to make create a rift in the conservative coalition. (HT: Duckwriter)
The normally right on Thomas Sowell seemed to want to blame liberals regardless of what he was talking about. Don't forget the libertarians Mr. Sowell; they're usually consider on the right.
In my opinion, the biggest political observation of the entire episode is that many opposed saving Terri, seemingly and purely because President Bush and the Republican controlled Congress wanted to. Hugh Hewitt saw it in a host of the usually suspect commentators. James Taranto explored the seamy underbelly of the Democratic party and found real ugliness. (3rd item in the BOTWT linked) But Powerline hit the perfect level of pith:
I don't know how to account for it, unless one concludes that for some liberals, politics is about hate, period.LEGAL
Anyone that knows much of anything knows that the American legal system is not perfect. It usually produces what is legal, but what is legal and what is just or right can be two different things. We have a secular government, even if most of us have a faith of some sort. Most of us think it good to have a secular government, but so long as we do there will always be some differentiation between the legal and the moral. But in this case, that gap seemed to many a chasm, and rather than Solomonic wisdom from the judges we saw strict legalism and plays for power.
The independent discretion given to the judiciary was intended to be there as a check and balance to prevent the tyranny of the majority from overwhelming the rights of an individual. The problem is that here, they chose not to consider Terri as an individual, and chose to protect Michael's rights. I think what angers most of us most is that because of of her medical status Terri's individuality was counted as legally unimportant. That is an injustice very similar to that visited on chattel slaves, and our system is supposed to have evolved beyond that.
I really enjoyed Hugh Hewitt when he got on board with this issue. He put on his lawyer hat and did an excellent job explaining the legal issues.
Andrew McCarthy at NRO was the go to guy during the federal legal battles, he was just excellent. I linked to almost all his stuff at some point, this is the only one that came during my break in blogging on Terri to respect her dying.
So what really happened? -- The Schindler's got out lawyered, it's as simple as that. Powerline seems to agree. More starkly than even the OJ Simpson case, this case illustrates that money really can buy a verdict. I personally think we have to start paying judges better. Many judges are only mediorce legal scholars who take to the bench because the cannot attract enough business in private practice. I think we ought to pay judges enough to attract the best legal talent to the bench. Judges should be smarter than the lawyers in front of them, and help bring equity to the cases when the lawyering is unbalanced.
If looking for legal round-ups this piece by William Anderson from the Weekly Standard is good and this post at Mullings is a very efficient read.
The ramification through the legal system shall be most interesting, particularly if Tom Delay has anything to say about it.
ETHICS
Most people do not think ethically, they think practically, or religiously. I personally try to operate from a "religious ethic." That is to say, theology does not constitute an ethic, but should definitely inform one, and most religious systems of belief have a well-established ethic. Unfortunately, in the case of Protestants, they tend to pay little attention to the ethic and talk about the theology -- all the time. That is changing and lies at the heart of much of the religious denunciation that has flowed in the wake of this situation, but given the simplicity of the arguments I have been hearing "on the street" we have a long way to go.
Blog Allthings2all was my inspiration throughout this entire episode. She has many posts worthy of reading and I have linked to most of them. This one from last weekend is just one I have not previously linked to.
The starvation aspect of this whole thing was really troubling, and most of us were astonished at the medical profession defense of the practice. I think everyone saw through it as an artificial construct allowing doctors to claim they do not actually kill anyone, when if fact they induce suffering at levels much higher than those they are trying to relieve. Radley Balko tackled the inanity of this construct at FOXNews. Milbloggger Major K wonders pointedly about the difference without distinction that is implied in this whole starvation thing.
National Review Online was marvelous throughout. In this piece, Wesley J. Smith examines with a bioethicist the concept of personhood (how the heck can we even have such a conversation?!). Rich Lowry examines the Orwellian nature of the whole episode and how very twisted the language has become around it.
From England, Michael Gove had some interesting things to say, and he writes one of the best quotes I have seen throughout the entire episode:
Attachment to the rule of law is certainly a foundation stone of our civilization. But so is respect for the moral principles on which our civilization has been built.Eric Cohen at the Weekly Standard reminds us that liberalism is more than a political movement, it really is a set of ideas, and they have consequences.
Of course, one of the key questions in all of this is they value of life. Many, many people think a life like Terri's is not worth living, or is even not life at all. I bet a lot of those same people think "fur is cruel." Orson Scott Card at RealClearPolitics.com examined this value of life question, as did Carol Stahl from the Amarillo Globe News. I spent my elementary school years in Amarillo and am very glad to give it a plug.
There is a tendency to over-react in this situation. John Mark Reynolds cautions us about what are ethical responses to unethical actions.
I am somewhat worried that this event will be a flash-in-the-media-pan. I hope not though. What I want to do with this post is to illustrate that this episode points out much that's good and bad with our nation and can serve as a guide to help us improve it.
