Boortz on Schiavo:
I cannot relate to those who wanted to use artificial means to prolong the life functions of this otherwise useless body for decades more, but I can understand their dedication to life. Yesterday on the show we heard from some people who, in light of the autopsy findings, have changed their minds. They now understand that allowing her body to continue the process of dying was the humane and right thing to do. Others are not emotionally strong enough to accept this reality, and they’ll now focus their efforts on Michael Schiavo. They’ll now concentrate on trying to prove that he was abusive, though there is no evidence to support that claim.
In Michael Schiavo’s favor, the autopsy report also casts doubt on the Schindler family’s long-held view that a 1991 bone scan indicated traumatic injury. The report notes that Terri had severe osteoporosis and that the bone scan findings might have also reflected “the aftermath of remote intense CPR, infection, bone turnover, artifact or intense physical therapy. In summary, any rib fractures, leg fractures, skull fractures or spine fractures that occurred concurrent with Mrs. Schiavo’s original collapse would almost certainly ahve been diagnosed in February 1990 especially with the number of phsyical exams, radiographs, and other evaluations she received in the early evolution of her care…”
However, the report notes this caveat: “Without the orginal bone scan and radiographs from that period, no other conclusions can [be] reasonably made.”
Sean Hannity, just now as I was driving home from the grocery store (4:58 EST):
I want everything investigated- Michael Schiavo’s statements the night she collapse, her brother’s statements the night she collapsed. I haven’t come to a conclusion, but I have my suspicions…
Everybody keeps talking about strangulation, but no one brings up the word suffocation.
Unfair and unbalanced.
*** Update ***
Dear Patterico fans. Note the time of the post, and the time the Hannity quote came up. Notice a several hour difference? Good. “Unfair and Unbalanced” was for Sean Hannity- who, just so happens to work for a network whose slogan is, coincidentally, ‘Fair and Balanced.’
But, you might ask yourself, since you are here, why Michelle might choose that one line as one of the few she quoted from a 30 page report. Might it have something to do with the bolded aspect of the Boortz quote above? You don’t have to read between the lines, as Patterico writes:
I doubt it. More likely, he will encourage us all to
But if you want unreasonable conclusions, Michelle’s your girl!
I think Malkin is getting ready to replace Ann Coulter as Ms. Wingnuttia.
The difference between Coulter and Malkin is that Coulter says outrageous and ridiculous things just to get a reaction and knows she’s over the top. I think Malkin actually believes herself.
I think Malkin is getting ready to replace Ann Coulter as Ms. Wingnuttia.
If far-right nutters like Coulter represent a high-school party (I know, it’s a stretch, but bear with me), then Malkin is the unpopular kid who didn’t get invited but shows up anyway, standing outside the window saying, “Hey guys, c’mon, let me in. I said internment camps were hunky-dory–isn’t that the kind of crazy you love?”
I agree with Steven–the worst part about Malkin is that she actually believes herself.
Hannity, on the other hand, is dumb as paint.
Good lord, I thought Nancy Grace was nuts, but Hannity really takes the cake.
What a maroon.
It’s high time Michael Schiavo takes people like Hannity and Malkin to court for libel. I’m sure if he put together a donation fund on the web, he’d receive more than enough donations to pay for the legal fees.
Heck, even if he were to lose a court case to prove libel, if others were willing to help cover the costs, then at least he will have returned the favor by putting Hannity and Malkin through the same kind of overtly public circus and seventh circle of Hell that they have put him through up to now.
I’d easily give $40 to that cause. I’m sure Michael Schiavo could find plenty of us to drop $40 to fund his legal fees to take chumps like Hannity and Malkin to court.
The GOP is supposed to be the party of responsbility and accountability. If asshats like Hannity and Malkin won’t take their own medicine and act like responsible adults with what they say (and how they earn their living being mouth-pieces on the airwaves), it’s high time that Schiavo force the issue on them.
Ditto on the sentiment: if libelled or slandered, he should sue.
Keep us informed, would you.
What an absolute megalomaniac! I want this, I havent’t decided about that. Someone needs to impolitely tell Sean that he’s not the f’n king of America. Who gives a shit what he wants? He apparently wants a new trial to have everything investigated again, but this time, he’s the judge. The incredible arrogance on display by the likes of Hannity and O’Reilly should be their undoing. Sadly though, it appears a good number of people enjoy cocky, lying assholes.
You’ve finally convinced me. What a wingnut that Malkin is! Quoting documents and stuff. *Totally* unfair and unbalanced.
Thank God for people like you with the courage to call her on it.
J. Michael Neal
I’d be quite supportive of Michael Schiavo were to sue for libel. However, I’ll be even more impressed if he simply does his best to fade back into obscurity. No book deals, or talk show tours, just an attempt to put a regular life back together.
I also think it would be healthier for him.
When was the last time you saw Michael Schiavo? I think he’s already faded into obscurity. It’s the Schindlers who won’t spare us their presence.
There’s really little that’s unreasonable or irrational that I can see in the piece that you linked by Malkin–I don’t know about anything else she wrote. Nor is there anything legally actionable there–a lawsuit would go nowhere. Mind you, she may have said other nutty things elsehwere, I dunno, but there’s nothing crazy or nasty there.
Wanting to continue hounding Michael Schiavo strikes me as unreasonable, and I certainly agree that Hannity is over the top. I’m particularly sensitive to this topic because I have written many times in the past about how men are often falsely accused of abuse (or are victims of it themselves). In the absence of evidence, it’s foolish for those who have issues with how this case was handled to keep up the “Michael beat her” stuff when there’s no evidence for that beyond idle speculation.
Trying to make this entire thing a discussion of that is a distraction.
Pro-Schindlers: Apologize if you ever called Mike a wife-beater. Pro-Michael Schiavos: Apologize if you ever called Terri Schiavo a bulimic (and make it extra good if you actually tried to use her faux “bulimia” as proof that she didn’t want a feeding tube.) Too much to ask, I know.
Michael’s not a wife-beater and Terri wasn’t a bulimic (and all the smart-asses who claimed that her “eating disorder” proved that she didn’t want a feeding tube are, I’m sure, sanctimoniously polluting the comments section of DailyKos as we speak).
I don’t think the report disproves the idea that she was a bulimic any more than it disproves the idea that Michael Schiavo abused her. In each instance, it simply debunks evidence previously thought by some to support the theory.
Have you read the autopsy Patterico? You should. The paragraph directly preceding the one Malkin quotes (the one about nothing being observable 15 years later)makes it very clear that no signs of trauma were noted in the intial examination of Terri Schaivo, even though radiographs and other tests were done at that time and in the days following her admission to the hospital. Nor were any signs of trauma such as marks on the neck, petichia in the eyes, or other signs of strangulation or suffocation observed at that time. Of course, those who want to continue to savage Michael Schiavo will decide that her original doctors were incompetent, or had been paid off, or . . . .well you get the point. I’d gladly contribute to that fund for Michael Schiavo to sue some members of the media.
Incidentally, the above mentioned quotes appear on page 31 of the autopsy report if Mr. Patterico would actually like to read it.
No need to be testy, now Bonnie. That is my job. At any rate, he has read it.
Actually, I skimmed it quickly. I have been very busy. But I did recognize and remember the caveat that Michelle Malkin noted. My impression from the time I first looked at the report is that it did a lot to support Michael Schiavo’s position — but based that conclusion more on contemporaneous records than the actual pathological examination itself.
FWIW, I *always* think it’s important to rely on original documents when possible and not the media — and I *always* think it’s important to point out when the media get stuff wrong.
Is there EVER to be an end to the ceaseless red herrings and misdirections surrounding this case?
Michael Schiavo is not a doctor; his opinion about why his wife collapsed is not relevant to anything. He’s a layman and he’ll believe whatever he believes. As, of course, will everyone else.
Hypokalemia was said to be the most likely proximate cause. This is a potassium deficiency. Many things, including ideopathic causes, can result in hypokalemia. Many of these things will not leave behind a pathological smoking gun and thereby easily establish causality.
The exact cause will not likely ever be known.
Nothing that has been said on this subject in these threads has been faithful to the facts, or relevant to this case in any way whatsoever.
Cut the crap.
Your hero Boortz says:
In other words: Terri Schiavo had bulimia and therefore is responsible for her own death.
Oh, sure . . . he doesn’t come out and say it. But why does he feel the need to make this point? I think we all know what he’s really saying. She had it coming to her.
You might say he’s just making clear what the report said and what it didn’t say — and how the media has distorted it. But I don’t know why it would seem to be such an urgent matter to make sure people didn’t misunderstand media reports — reports that may have gone too far in exonerating Terri Schiavo from culpability in her own death.
Etc. etc. I think you get the point by now. For those who don’t: it’s inside baseball. I’m not saying what you think I’m saying, so save your vitriol. I’m just making a point with our friend Johnny. He understands.
“I don’t think the report disproves the idea that …Michael Schiavo abused [Terri]” – Paprika
There it is.
Hey, Bennett: I hear Maureen Dowd is on leave of absence. With that Dowdified and dishonest butchery of my quote, you are a perfect candidate to replace her. I encourage you to send in your application.
Which is more evil?
“I don’t know for sure why my wife collapsed, but I think she might have been bulemic. At least that would explain the potassium deficit that likely caused the collapse.”
“He says she was bulemic. That means he thinks she deserved to die. That monster!”
If you think the answer is “A”, then the whole Schiavo bathosphere is right up your alley.
Hint: It’s “B”. “B” is evil. It’s a baseless and unsupportable conclusion, given the available evidence, and it’s a deliberate attempt to manipulate this issue.
But by all means, keep blathering over it …….. forever.
“It’s a baseless and unsupportable conclusion, given the available evidence.”
I agree. The autopsy reached no definite conclusion on either issue, but your comment is nevertheless absolutely correct.
The argument that “You can’t prove Schiavo didn’t do it” has no more merit than the one put forth by another sort of highly emotive partisan that “You can’t prove that Bush didn’t murder 3000 Americans so that he could start his war for oil.” You can never prove a negative, folks. Period. Next paragraph.
Correct, Phil. But manipulation is never about proof.
Manipulation is always about characterizing within contexts that lack proofs. With mystery and unknowns, imagination is possible, and therefore, spin, churn,and manipulation.
Manipulators will always zero in on the cracks in the information, the gaps, the things that are ambiguous or unknown.
Facts have their own power. People who need more than their share of power need more than facts. They need uncertainty.
“When was the last time you saw Michael Schiavo? I think he’s already faded into obscurity. It’s the Schindlers who won’t spare us their presence.”
Hannity was merely stating bluntly what Malkin was intimating.
Also note that Jeb Bush is launching a politically-motivated prosecution against Michael Schiavo as a result of the autopsy report.
Further proof that the citizens of Wingnuttia are going to continue persecuting him for the foreseeable future.
Right, andrei, Michael Schiavo really wants to go to court in front of a new judge and try to prove Hannity’s statements are false. But I sure would like to see him try it – just like I’d like to see Michael Jackson sue his accusers. Hannity’s stest who will nats to go back i’s going to sue for slander.
“Right, andrei, Michael Schiavo really wants to go to court in front of a new judge and try to prove Hannity’s statements are false.”
He doesn’t have to prove Hannity’s statements are false per se to prove libel. At least in my understanding of how libel cases work. But I’m no expert.
However, as now noted, people like Jeb Bush and Hannity won’t let up. they won’t let him live his life still, accusing him of all sorts of slime using the MSM as their weapon. I think it would be in Michael’s best interest to hire some damn good lawyers to fight on his behalf. If chumps like Hannity are not going to let it go away — and now even a Gov in Jeb Bush — Michael should consider fighting back at them where it hurts: their wallets.
Just my 2 cents.
The autopsy didn’t seem to have anything conclusive about the likelihood that she suffered from an eating disorder that wasn’t typical binge-and-puke bulimia.
She could have been abusing diuretics, or using ephedra-based diet pills, or laxatives. None of these need necessarily involve friends seeing her puking in the bathroom. She might go to the bathroom a lot, but that wouldn’t stick out if, say, she was drinking a lot of tea.
(Aren’t there weight-loss teas? I know there are heavy diuretic teas, meant to “clean out your system”.)
And people with eating disorders do tend to conceal it, don’t they? Or at least, they did then. Now they have internet clubs… (Yeesh).
Truth is always a defense to a libel claim. (As an aside, it is very likely that Schiavo would be considered a public figure, so the NY Times v. Sullivan standard would apply.)
As I commented on another string, ask yourself what it means when Michael Schiavo does not take action against what you call “slime.”
That he’s tired?
That’s right, kimmit – he was tireless in seeing that Terri would be dehydrated and starved, but is too tired to
vindicate his “good name.”