The Cult of Death continues...
Hat tip to
PoliPundit on this one...
Who said judges had to follow the law ( or even be aware of what the law is). This story from Georgia is chilling. A local judge, uneducated in the law, unware of Georgia law in this case and in direct violation of it, has 'ordered' the excecution by starvation/dehydration of a 85 year old woman at the behest of a relative who has no standing in Georgia law to request such a thing.
Adding insult to injury, the woman has a living will that is being disregarded. Additional info, the woman is not terminal, but is/was recovering from major surgery for an aortic aneurism.
Read the whole story
here.
The Power of True Faith...
(Hat tip to The Anchoress for this link)
The Exorcist was the most frightening moving I had/have ever seen; I've never been to or watched what passes for horror films since. In the Exorcist, the plot was even more horrifying than the special effects that were used to illustrate the story. I had not realized until today, that there was a factual story behind this movie, even if it was distorted beyond recognition.
Carol Ianone at NRO writes about men of faith and this true story
here.
John Paul II's funeral and the grieving process
I'm watching the funeral events on EWTN. It is a moving event, but I could do without the talking heads that even EWTN seems to find. I agree with
the Anchoress, there is something within the Liturgy that helps bring a person 'out of themselves' at a time of mourning as see death as just one more step along the road, both for the person who has passed and those left behind.
If we truly believe in our faith, then one thing we are forced to admit during such proceedings is that our grief is really for ourselves and the separation we experience from the loved one who as passed. For that person, we should feel only joy for now they are with the God, the object of our faith and belief.
As I have aged and relatives and other people I've known and grown with have begun to pass, I have come to view the grief that we all feel with something of mixed emotions and some trepidation. Grief at such parting, temporary although it may be, is natural and should be expressed. Such grief is a cleansing of sorts, and as it wans you may have a better appreciation of the person who has passed that you began with. It is also a time of introspection and can be a key event if we feel we need to change something in our lives. We should also try to be more understanding of those around us during these times; we all express our grief in different ways, from quietly crying in solitude, to loud wailing and all the variations in between.
The danger is in allowing grief to cross the line in a self pitying mode. Then it becomes all about me, the person left behind, and no longer about the person who has passed. This type of grief is destructive and so easy to fall into. Rather than cleansing, it becomes like wallowing in mud; the more we wallow in it the more we become weighted down with its detrius, until we become completely subsumed.
As the Anchoress said, the Irish have it right. When I was young I felt wakes were so inappropriate - after all the person had just died, what was there to celebrate!? Now with some time to learn and understand, I realize that they serve two purposes. First, if you cared anything at all about the person who has passed, then certainly they deserve to have their life and your time together celebrated. Second, they are a powerful tool in helping to avoid that tempting slide into self pity.
Having said all that, Good Bye John Paul II! And Welcome Home!
Its the money stupid...
To paraphrase a talking point from both the GOP and Dems (Its the economy stupid..).
A more accurate phrase might be "Its OUR money stupid...". All this is leading up to the latest information on Social Security and PSA's. The core of the Dems/AARP's message on keeping the status quo based on the following premises:
- The government knows better how to use your money than you do. This goes right with the promise "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you." To paraphrase something I read earlier - its impossible to do without government, but never depend on it.
- The majority of Americans are dumb enough/gullible enough they'll believe the song and dance about a 'trust fund' and won't notice that Congress has raided the surplus shamelessly (its called embezzement in the business world) over the last 30 or so years and replaced it with paper OIUs that can only be redeemed by raising taxes or cutting other programs.
- The average American won't notice the sleight of hand they are playing with words when they say the Bush or Ryan/Sununu plan would cut benefits from SS in the future. This is true as far as it goes. The rest of the story is that money going out of the SS fund to workers is gradually phased out in favor of money from those same workers PSA's. So the 'reduction' is only what is coming from the traditional SS fund, not as income to the user (which should increase under PSAs).
- The average American won't notice the similarity of PSAs to 401k accounts that EVERYONE says are a good idea. Don't hold your breath waiting for the AARP or the Dems to give up their 401k's as 'risky' investments.
The manager's of the current SS fund have put out trends charts for those who prefer to recieve their information graphically. See them and the accompanying article at the Human Events web site here.
Military Recruiting and support for our troops
To slightly misquote a favorite author of mine, David Drake said in the book 'Hammers Slammers', .."that a nation that despises its military soon has a dispicable military".
We don't have to look to far back in our History to see this self fulfilling prophesy. Our military in general, and the returning soldiers in specific, were vilified at home and abroad during the Vietnam war. And for what - following the orders of an elected Democatic president and performing their duty to their country.
I believe that something similar is in the offing today.
The self depreciating disappointment that MSM reporters try to display is barely sufficient to hide their glee at anything negative they can find to report about the military and our troops - even if they have to take the reporting out of context to do so. The focus of a quarter of a 'news' broadcasts time slot to report on a single casualty is indicitive. This is done not to point out any heroic action or (heavan forbid) military victory achieved as a result. Instead it is to point out the fact the casualty occured at all and to down play at all costs any military tactical or strategic goals that may have been accomplished in the process.
If you look at the 'kill ratio', our military is more lethal today than at anytime in its history. If this is supposed to be a war of attrition with the terrorists, guess whose side is suffering the most attrition (hint - it isn't US/Coalition forces). Yet this negative broadcasting is working hand in hand with anti-war protesters in their attempt to harass and shut-down military recruiting efforts.
The strategy is simple enough - even the left wing has learned that the majority of America is very sensitive to any overt disrespectful acts toward our soldiers. So instead they have begun to focus on the casualties as a means to discourage our young people from volunteering from service. This is done with the tacit approval, even encouragement of the administration on many campuses. By doing so, the hope is to make the military effort untenable by drying up the manpower supply needed to support it.
Who does this effort favor? Certainly not the US or our near or long term security, far from it. It does favor the EU as imagined by France and Germany. It favors China, Cuba, Brazil, Iran, Syria, Al Queda, and all the Jihadists in the Middle East and Central Asia.
Michelle Malkin follows some of the attacks
here, showing a concerted effort to disrupt events where recruiters are allowed to be by law. The Santa Cruz Sentinal article she references is
here.
I cannot help but think this is a concerted attack on our military capabilities. These attacks serve no one but our enemiesl Whose interest is served by a weakened US? No one but those who hope to profit our expense, be they here or abroad.
I do not support a draft, but that is what these tactics would drive the US to. I think it would be a severe blow to the morale and integrity of our current volunteer force to subject them to an influx of disgruntled and resentful draftees. Having said that, my father and many of his peers supported the idea of a requirement for national service for two years all young males. Yet at the same time (at the strong behest of my mother) neither would allow me to enlist when I graduated from High School, despite a strong desire to do so. Of course, at the time in question - Mid to late 70's) our military was reaching it nadir in terms of moral, self esteem, and internal discipline (thank you Walter Cronkite).
There is a part of me that thinks some time of required national service in return for college tuitition would be a positive thing, especially if a large portion of it was military based and possibly operated along lines like the Depression era CCC. Many of the national parks and other public works that we enjoy today are the products of this program. There is a backlog of projects and needed public works across the nation that would benefit from this type of program as would the young men/women that participate in it.
But would this help our military? Possibly, but the tie-in is weak. If you want to support our military and our troops you need to show this in you daily activities and in the schools and public institutions. Do not acquisce to the shrieking of a small minority that seeks to marginalize and isolate our military from its base of public support. Silence is assent - if we remain quiet about these attacks and attitudes in our schools and universities, then they will proliferate.
Despite what we may think (and their protestations to the contrary) our children are influenced as much by what we do as by what we don't do. Does this mean it may be your (or my) child going off to fight and defend the interests of this country? Yes, but I will not denigrate their effort or their sacrifice by saying no to my own while saying yes to others. One tradition mentioned by David Drake in his book, conerned pratice of the Roman Matrons with their young men - to go forth in Rome's military and "...return with your shield or on it. This practice declined and so did Rome...".
I feel the lessons are fairly clear. We need to support our military and our young men and womens' privilige/right to choose military service or a military career. Service to our nation is the highest tribute that any individual can pay his country and his fellow citizens; this selfless act should never be the subject of ridicule, attack, or other ostracization. If we fail in this, then we fail our selves. More importantly we fail all of those who have sacrificed that we might have the choice to say yes or no to military service. And to put bluntly, those who are attacking our military and military recruiting are not them.
I've got to end this here - the more I think about the spoiled little brats that attacked the recruiters the other day the more trouble I have containing my outrage and anger.
Pope John Paul II - Godspeed and God Bless!!
There have been three Popes in my lifetime, now soon to be a fourth. Pope John Paul II will undoubtedly be judged as the most influential Pontiff in this century, although time must pass before history can make a more 'unbiased' judgement. His suffering, yet refusal to submit at the end of his days may be a mystery to some, but not I think, to those of faith.
So Godspeed and God's Blessings on John Paul II. He faith and his life are an example to all of us, so I believe.
I am both amused and irritated by MSM's gropings to find a way to say that this must mark a 'sea change' in the church, that they must choose a Pontiff who is more relevant to the world. I could not disagree more; the choice of a Pontiff, as always, is up the the College of Cardinals. It is apparent to me that John Paul II drew a line and stood by it - on one side lay evil on the other goodness, and life. We may not all agree on the points on which he drew this line, this moral standard, but we cannot doubt that the faith he exhibited made him an example for the rest of the world.
The Cardinals must choose as they see fit to best serve the needs of God and the Church, not on how the latest trends some MSM poll may show. It is obvious to me that many of these so called reporters need to at least find out the address of a church of what ever they were born/raised in and visit it at least once a year. As it is, the disconnect between most of them and religion in general, Catholicism in particular, is growing ever more apparent and embarassing.
Born and raised a Catholic, my own relation to the Church has waxed and waned over my life, yet I have never doubted the value of the Church nor felt any strong desire to practice another faith. I believe in God, the Creator, however you feel comfortable defining the Supreme to yourself. I have experienced things that leave me in no doubt of the object of my faith, although being human and weak, I may not always rise up to the standard of my faith. That does not mean I cease to try. To this end, Catholicism is my birth right and adult choice in how I express my belief and faith.
That is not to say I'm in total agreement with all of the current tenets from Rome. I don't agree that Rome or the Pontiff have some automatic dispensation that makes them infallible. The Church, at the end of the day, is a human attempt to define our relationship to God, and as a human organization, created and maintained by humans, it is subject to the same failures and foibles that all human endevours are prone to. The History of the Church shows us this; ignoring this is to deny that history and the lessons it offers.
In the history of the Church, celibacy as a mandate rather than a choice for priests is a relatively recent thing. As a married man, I see my relationship with and love of my wife as the greatest gift God could have given me, and I strive to be worthy of it every day. To say that this makes me or any married man automatically unfit for a priesthood is something the Church and I are in disagreement on. The same is true in my perception of the question of women as priests. These are/were decisions the Church made based on politics, rather than dogma, although they are not portrayed that way. I do not believe that this would weaken the Church, just the opposite in my opinion. But it is just my opinion.
The Church, or its reprentatives, are far from apolitical - which is to be expected in a human institution, but not a infallible religous body. After all, politics and political organizations are just fads that come and go in the history of the Church. The place of the Church is to provide a moral standard or compass against which all such 'fads' can be measured. My only problem with this is that up until the rise of John Paul II, the Church in many parts of the world was relatively blatantly pro-Communist. I can remember one Irish priest in our Parish had a constant on going debate with my parents on the benefits of Communism. My father had served during the Korean War, so had seen a Communist Liberation up close and personal; consequently he wasn't buying what the priest was trying to sell. That is not to say we disliked this priest, in fact he was one of the favorites we had of the ones who passed through our church as I grew up. I do think that his pushing a political as well as a religous agenda was, at best, inappropriate.
(As a side issue - if you hadn't noticed or read only the PR stuff on the IRA, you may not realize they have a Marxist/Socialist agenda - the 'liberation' of Northern Ireland is not their final goal, just a necessary step to the implementation of a Communist government - all disavowed in public reports of course. However, only a little research is needed to dig out the 'ultimate' end in mind.)
This just adds to my point that the Church is a Human organization that attempts to define the spriritual, and as a human organization, it is prone to human weaknesses and mistakes. It benefits neither the Church nor the Pontiff to attempt to clothe themselves in the shroud in infallibiliy.
Some would say my opinions are un-Catholic and I cannot call myself a Catholic as long as I hold them. That just avoids the questions these opinions raise and leave them unresolved. The church is a large organization with a long history, consequently nothing changes rapidly, but it does change. At the same time, I feel the pedophilia scandals that have rocked the church are the inevitable outcome of a male only organization with mandated celibacy. It was inevitable when it was first mandated, centuries ago, and it has to have been an ongoing problem that changes in our society and perceptions have made impossible to hide now. I say this indicates that we are possibly a less cynical society than in earlier ages, unwilling to let pass behaviors that in earlier ages got 'wink and a nod' despite the vows of the priesthood. The Church will incorporate this into itself and at some point it may reverse it self on celibacy and women priests. Time will tell.
What ever the failures or failings of the Church or its individual representatives, it has never ceased to attempt meet a higher standard. If nothing else, John Paul II brought the moral compass of religion and the Church back into public awareness and discourse, despite the scandals that rocked every religion at some point during his tenure. And despite the overt efforts of media and popular culture to portray religion as irrelevant and out of step with society, something that only the uneducated practice.
He sleeps in God now, and only HE can judge John Paul II's life.
God Bless John Paul II.
What Would Terry Do?
The title of this is a deliberate (in case you hadn't noticed) play on the popular "What Would Jesus Do" phrase.
I feel that this in an appropriate question, because Terry Schiavo's case raises an uncomfortable question, a personal choice or decision that most of us avoid thinking about. That question - "What if that were me?".
This is not going to be a short post, simply because this is a difficult topic, and one where I'm not sure yet where I stand.
Most of us never seriously consider the possibility of such an injury/condition becoming the our mode of existence, or if we do, our minds shy away from it leaving the question unanswered. Our blythe assumption of "it can't happen to me" shields us from considering this extreme of the human condition as it might apply to ourselves.
But it can.
Traumatic injuries to the brain stem/spinal cord occur somewhere everyday to someone, through accident, malice, or acts of war. So if you wish to condone or condemn the ultimate outcome of what happened to Terry, you must in all honesty consider if it were you in that condition.
Because Terry's husband never allowed the proper diagnostic tests and the courts did nothing to remedy this, no one will every truly know how much of Terry was left. Terry's condition also challenges our understanding and belief in what constitutes life and spirit. There is an inherent contradiction to an extent in how the religious and right to life must view this and their actions in this case, as there is with the right to death/atheistic view that actually won the day.
What are our human bodies and mind? Are they truly the source of existence, of the "I" that views the world and those around me? Or are they just a shell, a housing for something greater that inhabits them for a time, as with a chrysalis, and discards them on a path to God or a higher state of existence (pick your personal religious preference).
It seems to me that if you are atheistic, then you must choose the former view - that consciouness/spirit is bound to the human body/brain, and that without the physical self, there is no "I". To my perspective, if this is what you believe, then physical life of the individual should be preserved at all costs, for the body's destruction/death results in final destruction of that "I" that informed that body. There is no reprieve, no passing on to some other existence, just a final end.
To the religous, the body (in my opinion) is the repository of the soul, the spirit, yet it is not the source. One of the teachings from my early catechism was that no matter what damage there was to the body, loss of limbs, etc, the soul remained perfect. It is how we live our lives that damage the soul, not the physical wear and tear of life. Thus when we die, we would be restored no matter what physical damage we may have incurred.
This is a critical point for me, in my own internal debate. If we take as a given, the assumption that all Terry's brain activity had truly ceased, that all that was present was reflexive activity from the brain stem, then was 'Terry' still present? How much of the body must be destroyed before the anchor of the soul is loosed? In this analogy, the brain is just the antenna that allows the mind/soul to be 'received' and allows it to perceive and communicate with our physical world. Damage/destruction of brain/body, does nothing except affect the quality of this 'communication', dropping the path as it were when brain is damaged beyond ability to function.
Given this understanding/assumption, and in Terry's case, basing it on the additional assumption that Terry was truly brain dead, then Terry, as an individual and soul was no longer, could no longer be present. In this scenario, then all that was being preserved was a husk, a shell no longer occupied or in use. In this case, keeping the body alive contradicts our belief in the greater soul/spirit and becomes a cruel act in itself since it prevents those left behind from moving on. Because the husband/courts prevented thet tests that might have given some clarification on the extent of Terry's brain damage/activity, this question is unanswerable in her case, as are what her true wishes may have been.
How does this play in our own personal choices? What perceptions are left in this condition if the brain is damaged but not destroyed? It is a 'fact' that true total sensory deprivation will drive a person to madness if extended long enough. Our minds/brains demand input and will cease to function if totally deprived of it for long enough. At the extreme, what if I'm so damaged that input ceases, yet "I" am still present, aware but unable to communicate or be communicated to? Is this life, or hell on earth, buried alive in a casket of bone, maintained by medical intervention? Consider all the gradiations in between from this extreme, to minor 'stroke' like symptoms, where movement or speach may be impaired, but full cognizance is still present. Where do you stand to draw your 'shining line' between life and death?
These are some of the questions we must each consider, and we should make a choice and document it in a living will if we do not want to be left on the tender mercies of a court. I still wrestle with this, with one additional parameter to make the mix spicier yet. I believe that we truly are given crosses to bear, to measure our faith and our character. Yet there is another side to this; through chance and circumstance, we may become someone else's cross, their own passage through fire and faith. So the additional question is - Whose cross am I, who will be influenced by my circumstance and choices? The ultimate answer to this passes beyond the obvious (to us) and is unknowable, but it cannot be without bearing on our own choices.
Christ made his choice, choosing certain death to fulfill his Father's promise, rather than life at any cost by running away. I do not believe and cannot choose life at any cost - it is the ultimate cowardice and can hide and justify far more horrible fates and crimes, such as creating life just to harvest organs and body parts to maintain existing lives that would otherwise end.
"Death with Dignity" can hide another host of evil, including killing the cripples/damaged in our lives simply because they are inconvenient. Once on this slope, it becomes easy to the add the old, retired, non-productive, or different.
From the perspective of our society, given this spectrum, we must not let Terry's case set a precedent. Our judiciary cannot be allowed to inflict death by fiat, especially when there are family who willing wish to take on the care of the individual in question. If we must err, then it must be on the side of life, not death, barring any conclusive medical tests that would indicate that there is nothing but autonomous/reflexive function left. And then, we owe these victims at least the same humane treatment we offer condemned criminals. The body must be humanely ended and the court should not be allowed to wash their hands as if they are Pontious Pilate and had not in fact ordered an execution.
As individuals, we must view this same spectrum and decide where within it we wish to make our own pre-determined choice. I read somewhere recently that we can't live without government, but only a fool depends on it. Nothing could be truer in considering this question - if you abdicate considering this question yourself to the government, you can't then complain at the choices government makes for you.
So, where does my choice lie, if I must chose? I cannot not imagine a life in which "I" am reduced to a congizance at level with or less than infant. I cannot abide the thought of my body being maintained, but 'no one is home' and only autonomous functions remain - that would unspeakably cruel to all of my family and especially my wife. Yet I would not want to end just being disabled but still cognizant. Yet caring for a disabled family member is a terrible burden on all involved, especially on those who may have no other family members or limited support from other family. Divorce, abandonment when the burden becomes too great is not uncommon while others persevere against odds that would make Sisyphus blanche.
So there is a point at which I would chose death over just 'existance', after all death is but a doorway to what ever your view of the after life is. If my body is being maintained by active intervention of machines causing my heart to beat, my lungs to breathe, then don't. A second criteria, if food and water are all that is necessary, then am I cognizant - is there brain activity to indicate that "I" am still there, or is it strictly autonomous, reflecixe function. If the later, then put the body down, for "I" have gone on.
These may not be your choices, but that is the point. This is probably one of the most important, individual choices you can make. It cannot be legislated, and there is no broad brush stroke standard that can apply to all. About the only standard I can envision for this would be to make a living will choice/determination along these lines part of the drivers license application/renewal process. Now that is a government function that can help.
Terry's legacy - as I see it
The motives of Terry's 'husband' should be clear to even the most virulent 'right to death' advocate. It is/was, to put it simply, access to the funds from her malpractice law suit. He had his new life all setup, and no longer had the patience to wait for truly natural events to end her life. He could not allow her parents to take over her care or divorce her, since the funds were for her care and would have 'followed' her rather than remaining as his.
At this point, it might be interesting but probably not useful to audit exactly how those funds were used during Terry's incarceration. However, once Terry's husband was no longer willing to wait, her end by some means became inevitable. His luck, was in finding a juidicial system and a judge that were personnaly horrified by Terry's condition and unwilling or ignorant of the presence/need for certain tests to obtain a definitive diagnosis rather than just an opinion (her husband had apparently blocked any PET or MRI tests that would have provided this information).
In this particular instance, a county judge's ruling trumped every legal and procedureal check and balance in the system to prevent just this type of occurance. One could resort to hyperbole and say that this Judge thus became a co-conspirator in Terry's murder. Added to the horror of this situation, is that there was no aritificial life support, no flipping a switch to 'allow her to die'. Regardless of what we may think or think we know of her neural condition, her body was quite capable of sustaining itself as long as it was provided nourishment and hydration.
Rather than euthanize her, as is required for our pets and animals in our care, she was starved and dehydrated, eventually dying of thirst. While there are more painful and agonizing ways to die, there are not many that are worse. Our laws require the arrest and prosecution of anyone who would treat an animal in this manner. Our laws specifically provide that execution of terrible criminals be free of suffering, be humane and pain free. Yet our judicial system ordered a most painful and horrific death for this helpless victim!!
I believe that this incident has exposed a deep and abiding fear and loathing of the disabled that exists in this Judge and, to be honest, in much of society. Death by any means, no matter how painful, is viewed as better than living on this condition. That is acceptable as a personal opinion and choice. However, as a decree by judicial fiat when the wishes of the victim cannot be known is murder.
To say this was Terry's constitutional right is reading something into the Constitution that was never there; our founding fathers would be rightfully horrified by what the judicial branch as become and has done in creating new law.
If Terry's death is to have an impact on us as a nation, then we as a people must make a choice and act on it. We must not just sit in homes, cluck our tongues at the injustice and proceed on with our lives as normal - that is what feeds this type of injustice.
"All that evil needs to prosper, is for good men to do nothing", or words to that effect is what describes the situation we find now. If you truly believe that what occured in Florida was wrong, and want to make a difference, then now is the time to start writing your state and federal legislators and executives. The goal is simple but difficult; bring the judiciary under the same checks an balances that it provides to the other two branches. The judiciary alone, has the ability under current interpretation, to create law by fiat. It can do this without vote, with review or acceptance of either of the other two branches of government.
This was acceptable, when the judiciary behaved as originally intended - the weakest branch. The Founding Fathers never imagined and activist judiciary system that could/would create new law from nothing. The judiciary they put in place, was strictly constructionist; for this reason it did not have the checks placed on it that the executive and legistative branches did.
This can be remedied by legislation, although it must be carefully crafted so to not swing to far in the other direction. It will take a grass roots surge to initiate this, since this is not a minor or trivial exercise. So write, call, or email and make your opinion known.
Silence is Golden
I want to apologize to those few who may (or may not) have been visting my blog. I've been silent for a while, during some relatively momentus events. Really, I didn't feel that I could add much more than heat to ongoing blog outpouring. Also, I wanted to watch and see how the events unfolded and try to discern longer term trends that may result from them. To this end, silence is golden, if only because it allows you to listen, something that is difficult to do with the mouth open and talking.
Something that more people should learn...
