You’ve heard my take on the Wilbanks nonsense, now off to the Photodude for some more common sense.
It Starts Again
I am already getting catcalls about my position regarding Terri Schiavo because of this new story of a wonderful surprise recovery of a NY fireman:
The Buffalo, N.Y., firefighter who started speaking after nearly 10 years might one day help scientists unravel the mysteries of coma and consciousness.
On Saturday, after almost a decade locked in his own world, answering “yes” and “no” questions but nothing more, Donald Herbert, 43, began a lengthy dialogue with loved ones, including his wife, Linda, and four sons, near his home in Orchard Park, a Buffalo suburb.
Scientists say such awakenings into normal consciousness and speech are rare, “but they are certainly telling us something about the human brain,” said Nicholas Schiff, a neurologist at Weill Cornell Medical Center in Manhattan.Scientists there have been putting people like Herbert through extensive brain scans and cognitive tests to figure out how they regained coherent speech after so many years.
Herbert was initially in a coma after a roof came down on him during a fire rescue a few days after Christmas 1995. During the next year, he regained consciousness, though his speech was slurred, his vision blurred and he needed help with daily activities. He was bedridden and seemed to have no memory of family, friends or the world.
Then Saturday arrived and with it an untapped reservoir of words and memories of his wife, his sons, who were 14, 13, 11 and 3 at the time of the accident, and his extended family.
Of course, there is a marked difference between someone who is minimally conscious after a brief coma and someone who has languished in a persistent vegetative state for fifteen years, which is why, after all, the lawyers for the Schindler family kept trying to assert that Mrs. Schiavo was in a minimially conscious state- because there IS a possibility for recovery for people in a minimally conscious state:
But Gibbs argued that medical science has changed since Schiavo was last evaluated medically in 2003, and that she has improved since then.
Specifically, he said, Schiavo could be in a minimally conscious state rather than a persistent vegetative state, and therefore could possibly be helped through therapy.
Unfortunately, we will never know what Dr. Frist might have diagnosed from the floor of the Senate, but an inability to detect such ‘nuance’ is predictable from people who practice ‘faith-based’ medicine and whose understanding of biology is rooted in a rejection of evolution and a warm embrace of creationism and intelligent design:
The Kansas minister says many opponents of creation science and intelligent design curricula are shocked and surprised to learn that “there are a lot of intelligent people who happen to know a little bit about science and also about the Bible, and that we really are well represented with great knowledge when it comes to biblical science.”
As the organizer of a coalition of 1,200 activist conservative pastors, Fox says he has observed a growing interest in the heartland of America for schools to teach alternatives to the theory of evolution, such as creationism and intelligent design. “We think that there needs to be a balance put into the public schools,” he says. “They’ve had one side for a long time.”
In the hearings this week, the State Board of Educators will be allowing testimony from 24 opponents of the current pro-evolution science standards in Kansas. Three conservative Board members have decided to permit both sides to spend up to $5,000 in state money to bring in witnesses.
Pastor Fox says there is a “conservative resurgence” going on in Kansas. He cites growing interest in the teachings of alternatives to evolution and last month’s passage of a state marriage amendment and as just two recent examples.
Yeehaw. Flame away.
Third Time is the Charm
More on the vile Nancy Grace:
This is the third time Grace’s conduct as a prosecutor has been criticized by an appellate court.
In 1997, the Georgia Supreme Court skewered Grace for her actions in prosecuting Weldon Wayne Carr for allegedly setting fire to his house and murdering his wife. Carr later was freed when Fulton prosecutors waited too long to bring him up for a retrial. While the court reversed Carr’s 1994 conviction for other reasons, the justices said Grace withheld evidence entitled to the defense and made improper opening statements and closing arguments.
“We conclude that the conduct of the prosecuting attorney in this case demonstrated her disregard of the notions of due process and fairness, and was inexcusable,” wrote then Chief Justice Robert Benham. Carr v. State, 267 Ga. 701 (1997).
In 1994, the Georgia high court voted 6-1 to reverse a heroin trafficking conviction won by Grace because she “exceeded the wide latitude of closing argument” by referring to drug-related murders and serial rape, which were not at issue. Bell v. State, 263 Ga. 776 (1994).
Good ole ‘Hang ‘Em High” nancy. And for true haters, don’t miss this old Village Voice expo:
Grace often snickers at Michael Jackson’s lack of awareness about his public image, but the criticism easily applies to her. For a media supernova, she has very little control over her facial expressions. Every time I freeze-frame her show, I catch Grace wrinkling her nose in blatant disgust or twisting her mouth in a contemptuous gesture. (She obviously doesn’t follow Tyra Banks’s advice on America’s Top Model to practice making pretty faces in the mirror.) She’s a Saturday Night Live sketch waiting to happen, a self-made cartoon character who turns world weekly news into a baroque passion play. It’s rare to see this kind of female rage vented on television, though it doesn’t amount to anything more revolutionary than the angry white-male pundits.
Much, much more here from Dwight Meredith.
A Novel Idea
From Loews (via Drudge):
Loews Cineplex today announced that it will begin publicizing the start times of feature presentations. Beginning with the Company’s locations in Connecticut on May 13, Loews movie listings will note that the feature presentation will start 10 to 15 minutes after the published showtime. The Company expects to begin including this added information in all markets nationwide over the next month. Loews anticipates that patrons will continue to arrive prior to showtime to visit the concession stand and select their seats.
I like watching the trailers and previews because I love movies, but there have been occassions when I have watched so many movies that by the time the movie starts I have forgotten what exactly I came to see.
Now, if Loews institutes a policy that makes it permissible for me to shoot chattering teens, whining babies, people who chew their popcorn with their mouth open (CRUNCH CRUNCH CRUNCH) and the tall person who invariably sits right in front of me, I will be a customer for life.
Shocking News
The auto companies thought they were really helping themselves by resisting an increase in CAFE standards. Be careful what you wish for:
The latest automobile sales figures show that Americans are increasingly wary of gas-thirsty sport utility vehicles. That was particularly bad news for General Motors and the Ford Motor Company, which both saw their sales slip last month as consumers continued their steady march into Asian car companies’ dealerships.
Both Toyota and Nissan posted record sales gains in April, which helped push overall auto sales in North America up 1.8 percent.
Of course, reality always hits hardest for those who have worked so hard to fool themselves:
General Motors has long maintained that gas prices do not affect how consumers approach buying a car or truck. But on Tuesday, G.M.’s chief industry sales analyst, Paul Ballew, appeared to retreat somewhat from that position, saying that record gas prices were likely playing some role in falling S.U.V. sales.
“It’s probably impacting a bit on the margin,” Mr. Ballew said. Pointing to G.M.’s improved large truck sales, he added a caveat: “People want to quickly say large utility sales are down because of gas prices, and that is just not the cause-and-effect relationship that we can find.”
In other news, tobacco executives maintain their product is not addictive.
The glory days of unfettered gas consumption are over, and their addiction to the profits from behemoths is coming home to roost. It would be funny if a failing and waning auto industry were not going to be so devastating to our economy.
Site Maintenance- RSS Feeds and Such
HEy folks, I am working on creating an additional RSS 2.0 feed for the site, using the template provided here. If you have anything more you want, act now, please, so I can do this all at once.
Also, I finally got approved for AdSense by Google (third time is the charm). Thanks to whoever suggested I try again.
Also, I have lowered the prices for blogads, and there are still other ways to support the site (I need to raise cash for a re-design- tired of this clunky MT and I am SICK TO DEATH OF DELETING TRACKBACK SPAM).
Other ways to support this site include:
IF there is anything else you need to make this place readable and convenient, please let me know.
The War on The Judiciary
I don’t like abortion.
I do, however, recognize that it is the settled law of the land, and I will abide by that law. I will never put myself in a position to cause an abortion, and I really have no problem with parental notice and 24 hour waiting periods, in general.
I recognize that there are some people who think abortion is murder all the time. I recognize that there are those who think that abortion should be legal all the time. I think both camps are a bit extreme.
I do recognize that not all people feel the same way I do, and, with that in mind, I have staked out a clear weasily middle ground that leaves me ripe for attacks from both sides. I do, however, respect the law and the people we have elected to write and administer the law, and believe that just because some people want to end abortion all the time, they have no right to force their viewpoints on individuals, particularly in cases in which we have determined there is a right to privacy, invented or not, bad logic of Roe v. Wade or not. If it is legal, and they are within their rights, your vieewpoint does not matter, however sincere you are and however strong your belief may be.
As such, I have not had much to say about the abortion case in Florida in which a 13 year old, a ward of the state, got pregnant and requested to have an abortion. The Florida Department of Children and Families, everybody’s favorite new political football in the abortion/religion/culture of life debate, did the wrong thing, in my estimation, trying to stop the abortion. Florida law is pretty clear:
743.065 Unwed pregnant minor or minor mother; consent to medical services for minor or minor’s child valid.–
(1) An unwed pregnant minor may consent to the performance of medical or surgical care or services relating to her pregnancy by a hospital or clinic or by a physician licensed under chapter 458 or chapter 459, and such consent is valid and binding as if she had achieved her majority.
(2) An unwed minor mother may consent to the performance of medical or surgical care or services for her child by a hospital or clinic or by a physician licensed under chapter 458 or chapter 459, and such consent is valid and binding as if she had achieved her majority.
(3) Nothing in this act shall affect the provisions of s. 390.0111.
I understand that the DCF is under statutory pressure and obligation to not consent to abortions, but they were not the ones consenting- the thirteen year old was. As the law states, the thirteen year old’s consent was to be viewed as “valid and binding as if she had achieved her majority.”
This case is sad for a number of reasons. If you think about it, it is simply sad that a 13 year old has to grow up in the custody of the state. It is sad the DCF did nothing to report her absence when she ran away. It is sad young people are having careless and loveless unprotected sex. Everything about the case is saddening.
But what really angers me is that this was a political maneuver- a game, and there was no excuse for it. In the past, this never would have happened, and for those who want to correct me, according to the NY Times, it never has:
Carolyn Salisbury, associate director of the University of Miami Children and Youth Law Center, said she knew of many minors in state custody who had received abortions, and of only one other case where the state had objected. In that instance, she said, a state lawyer dropped the objection on being reminded that Florida does not require parental consent.
“Her case shocked me because for decades, girls in foster care have been consenting to their own abortions,” Ms. Salisbury said. “The state wouldn’t aid the girl but it wouldn’t stop her, either.”
The law is clear, but with Schiavo having just died and the usual suspects looking for payback, or affirmation of their beliefs, or whatever, the state through its agency engaged in a little game of political football in clear violation of Florida law. And, as such, this will be spun as another example of judical activism and an out of control judiciary. Look at the rhetoric coming from Jeb Bush:
“Look, if the judge has ruled, it’s time to move on,” Governor Bush said. “It’s a tragedy that a 13-year-old child would be in a vulnerable position where she could be made pregnant, and it’s a tragedy her baby will be lost. There’s no good news in this at all.”
Bush is smart, and he recognizes that what his DCF tried to do was clearly against the law, so now he is distancing himself and putting this all off on one of those ‘activist judges.’ And let’s be clear- the judge did not rule on whether or not she should have an abortion- the judge was not in a position to make such a determination. He was simply required to judge whether or not she was mentally competent, which she clearly is:
“Why can’t I make my own decision?”
That was the blunt question to a judge from a pregnant 13-year-old girl ensnared in a Palm Beach County court fight over whether she can have an abortion.
“I don’t know,” Circuit Judge Ronald Alvarez replied, according to a recording of the closed hearing obtained Friday.
“You don’t know?” replied the girl, who is a ward of the state. “Aren’t you the judge…”
L.G., who told Alvarez she had run away at least five times from her youth shelter, maintained, “It would make no sense to have the baby.”
“I don’t think I should have the baby because I’m 13, I’m in a shelter and I can’t get a job,” the girl said as Alvarez and her guardian ad litem, assigned to shepherd her in the legal system, questioned her.
L.G. laid out different reasons for wanting an abortion.
“DCF would take the baby anyway,” she said, but later added: “If I do have it, I’m not going to let them take it.”
She also questioned the health risk of carrying the fetus to term.
“Since you guys are supposedly here for the best interest of me, then wouldn’t you all look at that fact that it’d be more dangerous for me to have the baby than to have an abortion?” she asked. Alvarez called that “a good point.”
Activist judges are not running around forcing thirteen year olds to have abortion. Judge Alvarez did not pick up a phone book, flip through the pages, and randomly choose a pregnant 13 year-old so he could order her to have an abortion. All he did was rule that she was competent to make her own decision, a clear affirmation of extant law.
This should be recognized as ‘doing his job,’ and this was not judicial activism in any sense of the term. It was activism on the part of the DCF to politicize this issue in clear contradiction of the law of Florida, but this was not judicial activism. It was judicial restraint. Judicial activism would have been ruling that a clearly competent minority entitled to act on her own behalf as a majority is ‘incompetent.’ Now THAT would have been blatant judical activism.
Which is precisely what some people want:
The barely teenaged girl is a ward of the Florida Department of Children and Families and has run away numerous times. Judge Alvarez also ordered either the young girl’s custodians or attorneys (one of her lawyers is the executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida) to actually drive her to get the abortion.
“Here you have yet another judge who has established a pattern of decisions that are contrary to stated public policy. This is a clear example of a system that should be protecting this young girl and her unborn child, yet has failed miserably,” says Tony Perkins, President of Family Research Council.
“Judge Alvarez created rights for a 13-year-old girl who is far too young to make such decisions and understand the repercussions, both physical and emotional, of terminating her pregnancy,” continues Perkins.
“The ACLU and Judge Alvarez seem to believe children know best when it comes to abortion even though they legally cannot determine whether they are ready for a body piercing, tattoo or even a tanning booth until they have reached the age of eighteen in some states. This is an absurd and very harmful abuse by the ACLU and Judge Alvarez to advance their own political agendas regardless of who will get hurt in the process.”
Judge Alvarez created no rights for this girl. The ACLU made no judgement on what rights she should have. The Florida legislature did.
Keep this in mind when you hear about judicial activism, because what is really being debated here is not judicial activism, but control of the judiciary and instilling judicial activism. While there are clear cases of judicial activism, the now focus-grouped phraseology is being applied broadly and inappropriately as a weapon in the culture wars.
If you follow the logic of the tanning booth or body piercing comment, what they want is rather blatant and straight-forward activism. They want a judge to say something like this:
“Despite the clear intent of the legislature to confer majority status to minors regarding their health care in cases such as this, I find that this makes no sense in a state where we forbid minors to vote, buy liquor, get tattoos, have elective cosmetic surgery, or go to a tanning booth without permission from their parents. Therefore, I am ignoring the law and forbidding this girl from having an abortion by declaring that she is incapable of making that decision.”
That is what they want, and that is judicial activism. It doesn’t get any clearer than that.
You don’t have to like abortion, but you do have to respect the law. If you don’t like the law, change it. Change your representatives and other elected officals. Change the governor and replace him with a governor who will move to change the Florida Constitution.
But quit pretending there is some crisis in the judiciary when decent people apply the law as written, and quit smearing good people. And most of all, quit attacking our judges, the overwhelming majority of whom are doing EXACTLY what they are supposed to do- faithfully interpreting the law and applying it fairly.
Please.