Florida errs in right-to-die case

Why is the state’s decision so awful? The Legislature tried to craft a law that would apply only to Terri’s situation, but has instead created a policy that will have far-reaching consequences for all the state’s citizens.

Sadly, most people do not have living wills or other documents that state in writing who should make decisions for them or what they would want if they should fall into a permanent coma or be unable to communicate. Under the new law, every person in Florida who does not have a living will is now in a situation where a spouse’s decision to remove artificial feeding can be challenged.

But there is nothing medically special about feeding tubes — and the legal challenges will not stop there. Parents or siblings will now have more legal authority to override the decision of a spouse to stop kidney dialysis, ventilators or any form of medical technology that can maintain physiological function in someone who is dying or unable to think.

Try to get the Florida legislature to vote for statewide health insurance — they’ll call that socialism and too expensive. But they don’t hesitate to tell you what treatment you can or can’t have; the costs are your problem. mjh

”The right to ask questions, debate, and dissent is under attack. The drums of war are beaten ever louder in an attempt to drown out those who speak of our predicament in stark terms.

”Even in the Senate, our history and tradition of being the world’s greatest deliberative body is being snubbed.” — Robert Byrd

”[I]t is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship. …[T]he people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.” — Hermann Goering

Rescuing the Democrats

In the current issue of The Weekly Standard, Fred Barnes argues that we have seen the birth of a Republican majority. In 1992, Barnes points out, Republicans held 176 House seats. Today, they hold 229. In 1992, the G.O.P. controlled 8 state legislatures; now it controls 21. In 1992, there were 18 Republican governors; now there are 27.

But the really eye-popping change is in party identification. In Franklin Roosevelt’s administration, 49 percent of voters said they were Democrats. But that number has been dropping ever since, and now roughly 32 percent of voters say they are. As Mark Penn, a former Clinton pollster, has observed, ”In terms of the percentage of voters who identify themselves as Democrats, the Democratic Party is currently in its weakest position since the dawn of the New Deal.”

The (Finally) Emerging Republican Majority

…[U]nmistakable signs of realignment. But he won’t call it realignment. Whoa! says Bill McInturff, one of the smartest Republican strategists, let’s not be premature. Before anyone claims realignment has put Republicans in control nationally, McInturff says, the GOP must win the White House, Senate, and House in 2004 and maybe even hold Congress in 2006. Bush adviser Karl Rove agrees. He recently told a Republican group that the realignment question won’t be decided until 2004.

There’s really no reason to wait. Realignment is already here, and well advanced.

Both of these articles are worth reading, if only to put some fear into Democrats and independents. The Republicans believe they have taken power — and we know what that leads to. mjh

Bush calls for ‘final defeat’ of terrorism

”Today, our nations are challenged once again,” Bush said. ”We’re threatened by ruthless enemies unlike others we have faced. Terrorist groups hide in many countries. They emerge to kill the innocent. They seek weapons to kill on a massive scale.”

”We must fight terrorism on many fronts,” he added. ”We must stay on the offensive until the terrorist threat is fully and finally defeated. To win the war on terror, we must hunt a scattered and resourceful enemy in dark corners around the world.”

PCWorld.com – Patriot Act Amendments Offered

A bipartisan group of senators is introducing legislation designed to curb the sweeping government surveillance powers authorized by the USA Patriot Act, passed in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

Under the Security and Freedom Ensured Act (S. 1709), the Federal Bureau of Investigation will be subject to additional judicial oversight in its search procedures.

”I believe the SAFE Act is a measured, reasonable and appropriate response to concerns we have with the USA Patriot Act,” said Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho) at its introduction. ”This legislation intends to ensure the liberties of law-abiding individuals are protected in our nation’s fight against terrorism, without in any way impeding that fight.” Craig and Senator Dick Durbin (D-Illinois) are cosponsoring the bill.

Well, they at least got a good acronym: SAFE. mjh

BBC NEWS | World | Middle East | ‘Bin Laden tape’ warns US

”I tell the American people we will continue fighting you and we will continue martyrdom operations inside and outside the United States until you stop your injustice, and you end your foolishness,” [bin Laden] said.

”We reserve the right to retaliate at the proper time and place against all countries that take part in this unjust war namely Britain, Spain, Australia, Poland, Japan and Italy.

”Islamic countries that take part will not be excluded. This applies particularly to the Gulf states, chiefly Kuwait, launchpad for the crusader forces.”

Fact-Free News

In a series of polls from May through September, the researchers discovered that large minorities of Americans entertained some highly fanciful beliefs about the facts of the Iraqi war. Fully 48 percent of Americans believed that the United States had uncovered evidence demonstrating a close working relationship between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. Another 22 percent thought that we had found the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. And 25 percent said that most people in other countries had backed the U.S. war against Saddam Hussein. Sixty percent of all respondents entertained at least one of these bits of dubious knowledge; 8 percent believed all three.

The researchers then asked where the respondents most commonly went to get their news. The fair and balanced folks at Fox, the survey concludes, were “the news source whose viewers had the most misperceptions.” Eighty percent of Fox viewers believed at least one of these un-facts; 45 percent believed all three. Over at CBS, 71 percent of viewers fell for one of these mistakes, but just 15 percent bought into the full trifecta. And in the daintier precincts of PBS viewers and NPR listeners, just 23 percent adhered to one of these misperceptions, while a scant 4 percent entertained all three.

[And, from the other side:]

News for Nincompoops?

Meyerson’s critique relies entirely on this faulty syllogism: A lot of people have wrong ideas about the war with Iraq. A lot of people watch Fox News. Therefore, Fox News has given them wrong ideas. Absent a single example of Fox News’s promotion of the alleged misperceptions, the whole thing collapses under the weight of its own illogic. — John Moody, a senior vice president at Fox News.

The problem is in the study’s methodology for selecting errors to investigate. The errors selected for study all have one feature in common: The correct answer supports the anti-war position and an error supports the pro-war position. — Marvin S. Cohen, Arlington VA