If you’re not reading Jeff Jarvis’ “Buzz Machine” at least once a day you’re missing out on the most insightful commentary of both the new and old media in the blogosphere. Jarvis has emerged as a spokesman of sorts for the new media appearing often on MSNBC’s “Connected” to discuss blogs and blogging.

That’s why it pains me to have to give Mr. Jarvis something of a well-deserved fisking for his outrageous post entitled “Jumping the Shark for Jesus.”

It could have been called “The Christians are coming! The Christians are coming!”

I gather from reading Mr. Jarvis that he considers himself in the political mainstream and I’d be hard pressed to disagree with him. His positions on most issues tend toward moderate conservatism on fiscal and security issues with a healthy dose of libertarianism on social issues. This makes him no different than Glenn Reynolds, Bill Ardolino, Jeff Goldstein, and another half dozen or so of the larger blogs around.

Come to think of it, it makes him not much different than me.

But Mr. Jarvis’ over heated rhetorical smash against Christian conservatives claiming that “(t)he religious right is separating itself from the rest of America,” and “(t)he theocrats may have finally gone too far too often,” is, to put it mildly, bunkum. It’s the same load of horse manure I’ve heard for 25 years from both liberals and mildly religious Republicans who express a deep, underlying distrust of people who believe a lot of things that the libertarian’s secular outlook on life won’t allow them to accept.

Being something of an atheist, I can sympathize with Mr. Jarvis and his libertarian brethren about expressing a healthy skepticism when it comes to analyzing the motives and motivation of the “fundies” as the DU moonbats call them. But I cannot accept the notion that either their beliefs or their political activism represents a threat to the republic or any of its institutions.

And her mother hugged her and she began to cry. Her mother, as she had done ten thousand times in their 41 years together hugged her daughter harder and whispered words of love and comfort. That’s what mothers do. Its their job. Its what they do best. Except this time, the words of comfort were empty and devoid of meaning.

How do you comfort a child who is dying?

What can you say to ease their pain? Words are not only inadequate, they’re superfluous. Words at a time like this are an insult to the soul of the soon to be departed. So she hugs her daughter tightly, silently railing against the inability of her words to have the desired effect of easing the passage of her child who, balanced now on the edge of life and death, will soon drift away into the great and glorious unknowable.

She doesn’t want to let go. Perhaps a rush of memory causes her eyes to mist over as she recalls her daughter’s first steps, her first communion (her last communion being inexplicably denied her by a lawyer who sees a human being starving to death as “peaceful” and “comfortable”), her first date. Perhaps she sees the beautiful young woman smiling as she walked down the aisle at her wedding or the more mature, pensive adult who, until her heart stopped mysteriously that horrible day, was a friend, a confidante, a blessing.

She looks into her daughter’s eyes and sees…what? Does she see recognition, a spark of human awareness, a flicker of life? She says she does. She’s got 41 years of experience looking into those eyes. She knows what she sees. Why won’t anyone listen to her?

The doctors, the medical gods with all of their instruments, and charts, and diagnoses, have looked at her daughter and walked away shaking their heads. She’s gone, they tell her, let her go.

The doctors mean well. They’ve been, for the most part, kind and considerate of her feelings. She knows that their years of training and experience have given them the expertise to treat her daughter’s body.

But they don’t know her daughter. Were they there when she fell off her bike and needed the special care that only a mother could give; care that no doctor, no medicine, no balm could possibly duplicate? Were they there when she lost her first love and needed to be in that special hollow between a mother’s breast and shoulder where all troubles, all pain seems to vanish as if a fairy waved a magic wand and made the world right again?

She sees her daughter’s sunken eyes. She hears the labored breathing and knows it won’t be long now. The day, the hour, the moment is approaching when whatever germ of humanity was left in her daughter will soon be gone and all she’ll have left is memory. She tries to push this out of her mind but still, it intrudes on her thoughts and jars her senses as she realizes a great part of her life-being a mother to a daughter-will soon be at an end.

Does she hug her daughter tighter at the thought? Is she bereft of hope that her own life will have meaning and purpose? Surely she has a loving husband and son who will do their best to comfort and console her through her grief. But do even they understand the hole in her soul her daughter’s death will leave?

She doesn’t care about courts and judges and such anymore. She doesn’t listen as politicians pontificate and others who care less about her daughter than they do their own personal and political agendas scream at each other and accuse each other and rant against each other in an inexplicable spectacle of emotion tinged with fear and hatred. She doesn’t hear it. She doesn’t care. She doesn’t want to think about that now.

All she wants to do is hold her crying daughter and tell her there, there, it will be alright. Soon you’ll be with Him. Soon the glorious light of eternal mind will wrap you in its arms and you will know the indescribable and wondrous feeling of eternal peace. And you will be comforted.

And her mother hugged her and she stopped crying.

Cross-Posted at Blogger News Network

Every once in a while the curtain of history is pulled back ever so slightly to reveal a moment that people can point to and say “here’s where things turned” or “things were never the same” after a particular event. And while I hesitate to call the Schiavo case just such a moment, the great cultural divide between those who wish to save Terri and those who think her life should be ended is eerily reminiscent of another moment in history where Americans were bitterly divided and couldn’t imagine how the other side could possibly rationalize the position they took.

Radical abolitionist John Brown was perhaps the most polarizing figure in American history. Born in 1800, he spent a good deal of his life in debt due to bad business decisions and horrible luck. He sired 18 children, 7 of whom died before the age of 10. His first wife died in 1833 when he married a woman half his age. His strict Calvinist upbringing gave him a resiliency and passion that was to both serve the cause he so cherished as well as lead to his death on the gallows.

In 1855, Brown decided to join his three oldest sons in Kansas. The decision turned out to be a fateful one for Brown, his sons, and the nation. Before departing for Kansas, Brown consulted with several noted abolitionists including Frederick Douglass who had this to say about the man he called “Captain Brown:”

Though a white gentleman, he is in sympathy a black man, and as deeply interested in our cause, as though his own soul had been pierced with the iron of slavery.”

In Kansas, Brown joined other free staters in trying to counter the efforts of “Border Ruffians” from Missouri who were flooding the territory with pro-slavery forces in anticipation of a vote to determine whether Kansas would be a slave state or a free state. When the town of Lawrence, Kansas was sacked resulting in the death of two free state supporters, Brown’s son Owen said his father “went wild” and said “we’ll show those slavers they can’t take away our rights!”

A few days later at Pottawatomie Creek, Brown, his sons, and two others killed 5 pro-slavery settlers by hacking them to death with broadswords. Thanks to this gory deed and others, people all across the nation began referring to “Bleeding Kansas.”

Not content with stirring up trouble in Kansas, Brown hatched a plot to start a slave revolt in the South. With the assistance of several prominent Northern abolitionists, Brown and a cadre of a few dozen men descended on Harpers Ferry, Virginia where a lightly defended federal arsenal of muskets, shot, and powder could be had for the taking.

Brown’s plan was simple: Capture the arsenal and town, hold off any forces that could be brought against him by taking hostages and rallying nearby slaves to his cause, and then set off on a march through Virginia freeing slaves as he went until his “army” was able to cause a general revolt among the slaves throughout the South.

While most historians agree that Brown’s “plot” never had a ghost of a chance of succeeding, in the end he achieved more than he could possibly have imagined. Following the federal government’s suppression of Brown at Harpers Ferry, an extraordinary chasm opened up between North and South and for the first time, American’s began to look at each other across a sectional divide where each side saw a foreign country rather than brothers who shared a common history and culture.

It wasn’t the raid itself that generated this feeling, it was the reaction to it on each side that caused the South especially to rethink its role in the Union. The South saw Brown as a murderous brigand who wanted to encourage the slaves to murder their masters in their beds. The North saw Brown as something of a lunatic but whose “heart was in the right place.” Some even went so far as to make him out to be a martyr. This from the Springfield Republican:

“We can concieve of no event that could so deepen the moral hostility of the people of the free states to slavery as this execution. This is not because the acts of Brown are approved for they are not. It is because the nature and spirit of the man are seen to be great and noble…”

The last straw for the South may have been on the day John Brown was hanged. It was a day of mourning in churches all across the north as bells tolled solemnly and people went to church and prayed for the repose of Brown’s soul. The Southern attitude was one of astonishment. Here was a man who wanted to arm the slaves so that they could take their masters lives and he was being lionized by both the northern press and politicians. Jefferson Davis best summed up this attitude by saying Brown’s raid at Harper’s Ferry represented an attempt “by extensive combinations among the non slave holding states to levy war against Virginia and stigmatized the Republican party as one “organized on the basis of making war” against the South.

The gulf that has opened up today between Americans who believe that starving Terri Schiavo to death is wrong and those who believe it to be a tragic but necessary act has some parallels with the aftermath of the John Brown raid on Harper’s Ferry. Both sides believe they are in the right. Both are astonished at the other side’s lack of a moral compass. “Hypocrisy” cry those who wish Terri dead. “Callousness”scream the pro-Terri forces.

And more than that, it is the recognition that this huge divide exists not as some fancy political expression but as a living, breathing thing that has fueled the debate and turned it into into an “us versus them” cultural Armageddon. Both sides see the forces of darkness at work; people in favor of life seeing the “culture of death” in the ascendancy while the supporters who believe it was Terri’s wish to end her life see their opposition as “The American Taliban.”

The two sides couldn’t be farther apart. And looking across the divide at one another, each see strangers where they should see brothers and sisters.

It is a rift manufactured by forces that have been at work for more than 20 years. The religious right, marginalized for years by an ever increasing stridency in the leftist press and their ideological brethren in Hollywood, are feeling their oats after the reelection of George Bush and are making this case a litmus test for politicians. The left, after nearly 20 years of decline are desperate for power and see the case as a way to energize their base and scare middle of the road Americans (and libertarian Republicans) by proselytizing about the dangers of religious extremism.

It’s a recipe for disaster. At a time when external threats to our security are bigger than they’ve been in more than a generation, America is about ready to come apart at the seams. Can anything be done to waylay this threat to the very essence of our unity?

My hope is that the one tiny bright spot in this debate-the support of a few brave liberals who have spoken out in favor of life for Terri-will be the beginning of a search for common ground on many issues that divide right and left so bitterly. It’s up to us on the right to open this dialog by reaching out and finding some common themes that both sides can hang their hat on.

Otherwise, the cultural chasm that has opened before us could become a permanent fixture of the American political landscape.

Mr. and Mrs America are breathing much easier tonight as police in Pinellas Park, Florida made a hugely significant arrest in the ongoing plot to subvert the constitution, overturn the rule of law, violate the separation of powers, and-horror of horrors-give water to a thirsty woman.

Omigod…what is this country coming to. A woman can’t even starve to death in peace without all these people running amuck, breaking the law, and violating the judicial fiats of a euthanasia loving, black robed activist who sits on the board of directors of the very hospice that this extremely dangerous criminal tried to trespass.

Here’s a picture of this dangerous threat to American liberty:

Note to Pinella County Sheriff’s Department: ARE YOU GUYS BLEEPING NUTS? A ten year old kid? IN HANDCUFFS?????

For most competent police departments, when a demonstration takes place as the one currently underway outside the hospice, it’s customary to have the plastic tie-on restraints rather than real, honest to goodness police handcuffs. Here’s a link to a photo showing this dastardly criminal in irons.

Is this the same police department that Nurse Iyer brought her complaints about Michael to? Ya think?

Note to AP: I thought it was customary to protect the identity of minors by not releasing their names when arrested. Well…he’s only a Christian, right? Maybe you thought you were just protecting the rest of us from his radical notion of “loving thy neighbor” or maybe it was “when I was thirsty, did you bring me drink?”

And what did this threat to our way of life have to say for himself to justify his unwarranted, extra legal conduct?

‘’I don’t want her to die,’’ Joshua Heldreth, 10, from North Carolina, said before his arrest. ‘’I’m not afraid because God is with me.’‘

I’m pleased to announce that Rightwing Nuthouse has been chosen to sit on the prestigious Watcher’s Council sponsored by Watcher of Weasels. Each week the Council members choose posts from around the blogosphere and a vote is held amongst the Council to determine which post is most worthy. The Council also votes on posts submitted by members themselves. Results of the latest vote can be found here.

The winning Council post is from Alpha Patriot and is entitled “Iraqi Bravery.” It highlights several positive developments in Iraq recently.

I might add that I can learn much from Mr. Patriot about begging (and whining and crying and gnashing of teeth as well) as this weepy, angst-ridden post about not ever winning the Council vote shows:

Are you freakin’ kidding me? How am I ever expected to win with competition like Dr. Sanity, Sundries Shack, Wallo World, Education Wonks, Little Red Blog, and so on?!

Doris, take a memo: It worked.

The winning non-Council post comes to us via Husayne at Democracy in Iraq. This is a must read, emotional post about the last two years in Iraq and how all the blood spilled-both Iraqi and American-has been worth it.

Yours truly received 2/3 of a vote finishing tied for a distant third.

Austin Bay has a link to a Defense News article that should prick the Radioactive Mullah’s interest in Iran:

Turkey is planning to accept “very soon” a U.S. request to use the critical air base at Incirlik in southern Turkey as a logistical hub for operations east of the country, a Turkish official said late March 23.

“I expect a Turkish government decision on Incirlik very soon. I don’t know exactly when, but very soon,” said Murat Mercan, deputy chairman of Turkey’s ruling party. He spoke at a panel of the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank in Washington.

Mercan did not elaborate, but other Turkish officials in Washington said that Ankara was preparing to accept Incirlik’s use as a logistical hub for U.S. missions in Iraq and Afghanistan…

“Operations east” of Turkey could include Iraq and Afghanistan…as well as Iran, Syria, and perhaps even Kyrgyzstan as Mr. Bay points out.

But I think there’s little doubt that Iran is setting itself up for a huge fall. While we’ve heard many good reasons for not trying to take out the Iranian’s nuclear bomb building capability, someone is going to do it and soon. If not us, then certainly the Israeli’s. The introduction of a true “Islamic Bomb” would be just as destablizing and dangerous in the middle east as Kruschev’s placing medium range nuclear missiles in Cuba. Israel has already purchased the ordinance necessary to do the job; 500 ‘bunker busting” bombs from the United States.

If you’re dusting off your war scenarios, try this one. The Israeli’s bombs Iranian nuke facilities but don’t take out their entire capability. For that, you need boots on the ground. And a commando raid won’t suffice because the Iranians have turned their facilities into armed fortresses guarded by elite shock troops supplied by the Revolutionary Guard. Who you gonna call? We just happen to have 135,000 troops a stone’s throw away in Iraq.

While it would be unprecedented for Israel and the United States to work together militarily, it would make sense from that standpoint only. Strategically, it would be a colossal mistake, a blunder that would set back our mid east diplomacy for the forseeable future. Not to mention that we’d probably have to face an oil embargo from the Arab states that would truly be frightening for the economy.

All in all, not a good idea…unless the idea of Iran having nuclear weapons is worse.

Marvin is not in the House today.

He and Chloe went to Acapulco for spring break and to meet a man named “Manuel” about buying “some real good shit” whatever that means.

Superhawk

GREAT BIG HAT TIP TO LOYAL READER MARGO FOR SENDING ME A TAPE OF THIS WEEK’S EPISODE!

One of the more puzzling twists in the plot of this season’s “24” has been the largely unexplained presence of so many Americans working with Hamid Marwan, the terrorist mastermind. Who are they? Are they just a PC construct used by Fox to show that Arab Muslims aren’t the only terrorists thus placating the American Muslim community? Or are they working with the terrorists to achieve their own nefarious ends?

McGLENNON-FORSTER

While it’s apparent that Mr. McGlennon was in the dark about Marwan’s activities, we were told that for Marwan to get clearance to work there he would have needed help. Someone in that company (someone who’s presumably still alive) helped Marwan to evade all the security checks. Security VP Conlon is dead. Who was it?

THE PILOT

This clean cut, all-American looking killer is either current or ex Air Force. If our speculation pans out about the pilot attempting to shoot down Air Force I, he’s going to have to have the expertise to fly a fighter escort.

You don’t learn how to fly a fighter jet by playing Lethal Skies II.

ADULTEROUS WOMAN

The sleazy woman who was sleeping with the real pilot John could very well be ex-special forces or ex-black ops CIA. Either way she’s in business for herself. Could Marwan have had some help in recruiting? Could some rouge intelligence agents have some part to play in the unfolding drama?

THE “ROAD CREW”

Getting those guys out to the tunnel on such short notice is either a weak plot device or evidence of extraordinary precision. Since several of the “workers” who spoke had American accents we have to assume some kind of coordinated effort here. But why? And what is it?

Could the President’s conversation with Secretary Heller about martial law be a clue? Does someone in the American government want the country under martial law?

Could we possibly be looking at some kind of attempt by the military to take over the government?

Don’t put it past these Hollywood types. As unrealistic and preposterous as it sounds, military plots to take over the country are standard fare in Hollywood through the years.

SUMMARY

With Audrey’s accusatory look (“Tell me Paul is going to live, Jack”) still fresh in his mind, Jack comes up witha real “Andy Hardy” idea; why not have Dina go undercover with Jack as hostage and pay a visit to terrorist Joseph Fayeed. Maybe Fayeed can get them close to Marwan.

Andy Hardy, for those not familiar with 1960’s Saturday morning TV, was a character portrayed by Mickey Rooney in a series of movies with Judy Garland back in the 1940’s when both were playing teenagers. The story was always a variation on a theme. Mickey and Judy would have to solve some financial problem for some poor widow or an orphanage or some other worthy cause. How did they do it? Mickey would think a minute and then announce “Hey kids! Let’s put on a show!” Which, of course, gave Mickey and Judy a chance to do a few musical numbers and save the day.

So here’s Jack thinking outside the box again and what does he say? “Hey kids! Let’s mount an undercover operation!”

And it’s a doozy. But wait. If this crazy, loony plan is going to have any chance of success, we’re gonna need top-flight surveillance from beginning to end. Fat geek Edgar doesn’t appear to be up to the challenge. Oh dear, what are we going to do?

Why call Chloe of course! And with her usual persnickety manner, Chloe accepts Michele’s appeal to her loyalty to Jack and rejoins the crew.

So now, they’re all back together-Jack, Tony, Michele, and Chloe-battling the forces of evil while trying to keep their personal dramas from destroying the country. All that’s missing is President Palmer (stay tuned for that potential shocker).

With Dina in tow, Jack arrives at Fayeeds house. But he’s faced with a rather perplexing problem; how do you convince the terrorist that the cover story, which has Dina escaping from CTU custody with the help of her terrorist cell, is real? Jack comes up with a novel, if rather painful solution.

He stabs himself.

The look on Dina’s face when Jack commits partial Harri-Kari should be bottled and sold. It was that precious. It reminded me of the look that Dale Arden used to get on her face when Flash Gordon was about to jump into a pit with some extraterrestrial monster to save Prince Baron; absolute horror along with a touch of “What the hell are you doing?” (More 60’s flashback TV. Sorry.)

As far as the plan itself, Marwan smells a rat immediately. When Fayeed gets off the phone with him, you can tell by the look on his face he’s been ordered to commit suicide. Why did Marwan order that unless he didn’t believe a word of the cover story? Then there was the vehicle switcheroo in the tunnel. It all adds up to one thing; Jack’s in big trouble.

The plan falls completely apart when Dina is ordered by Marwan to whack Jack to prove her loyalty. When Dina aims the gun at Marwan and pulls the trigger only to have the hammer fall on an empty chamber, the jig is up and poor Behroos becomes an instant orphan.

Meanwhile, back at CTU Audrey professes her loyalty to Paul who may be crippled because a bullet is lodged against his spine. It’s unclear at this point who she’s going to choose but the smart money is going to be on Paul. Which brings me to a question I’d like to ask all female readers? Why is it that women can love two men at the same time?

I’m 51 years old and never been in love with two women at once. The very idea is beyond my imagining. Is this something only women are capable of. And by the way, how DO you make a decision between the two? Anthropologists the world over are waiting for an explanation.

BODY COUNT

Real pilot John and his family are toast (we didn’t see the family get it but the faux pilot was kind enough to inform John that his family was dead…just before putting a bullet in poor John and cutting off his finger so that he could gain fingerprint ID access to flight ops).

Also, Fayeed gets to play with his 72 virgins for martyring himself and taking a CTU agent with him. And Dina probably wishes she had reasoned out the fact that if Marwan suspected her, he wouldn’t have given her a loaded gun.

Jack: 27

Show: 122

LOOSE END

Anyone else notice the crappy return salute given by the fake pilot to the AF security guy? What a joke! If I had been that Sergeant, I would have been immediately suspicious of an officer who couldn’t salute worth a damn.

Not unexpected, but a blow nonetheless:

WASHINGTON (AP) – The Supreme Court on Thursday refused to order Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube reinserted, rejecting a desperate appeal by her parents to keep their severely brain-damaged daughter alive.

The decision, announced in a terse one-page order, marked the end of a dramatic and disheartening four-day dash through the federal court system by Bob and Mary Schindler.

Justices did not explain their decision, which was at least the fifth time they have declined to get involved in the Schiavo case.

The Supreme Court is always loathe to overturn lower court rulings unless there’s some kind of blockbuster error by the original judge or the issue gives them an opportunity to make new law.

In the Schindler case, Greer evidently, according to legal precepts, made no error in his Finding that Terri is PVS.

The court’s decision was not surprising. Not only had justices repeatedly declined to intervene in the Schiavo case on prior occasions, but they routinely defer to state courts on family law issues. Judges in various Florida courts have sided with Schiavo’s husband in the 15 years since she suffered brain damage.

The issue before the high court was whether Schiavo’s tube should be reinserted while her case is fully reviewed in the lower courts.

Justices could have ruled in favor of the parents if they had found a “substantial likelihood” the Schindlers would win on the merits or that Congress intended for Schiavo to remain attached to a feeding tube during the federal court review called for in the bill passed last weekend

How could this be? What criteria did Greer use for his Finding that Terris is PVS?

It has to do with 1) a legal definition of PVS; and 2) How Greer arrived at his decision that Terri would not want to live under those conditions. Here’s the “legal” definition of PVS:

Persistent Vegetative State (PVS): A clinical condition of complete unawareness of the self and environment. Even though PVS patients may exhibit sleep wake cycles, they show no evidence of response to or understanding of environmental stimuli. Unlike with a coma, there is no reasonable hope for recovery for those in a PVS. Normally it takes up to 3 months to make a definitive diagnosis of PVS for patients who suffered a loss of oxygen to the brain. It can take a year to make a definitive diagnosis of PVS for patients who suffered a blow to the head. Although life expectancy for patients in a PVS is between two and five years, there a a number of cases where PVS patients are sustained on life support for decades. It has been estimated that there are somewhere between 15,000 and 35,000 PVS patients being sustained in the U.S. at any given time.

Remember, Greer never visited Terri’s bedside to determine for himself whether Terri had any “response or understanding of environmental stimuli.”

And here’s how Greer got away with ordering the feeding tube removed even though Terri didn’t leave a Living Will declaration. In legal terms, it’s called “Substituted Judgment:”

Substituted Judgment: This standard of decision making permits the decision maker to take into account the patient’s general value system and personal beliefs as well as previously made statements about medical treatments. The decision maker is to “stand in the patient’s shoes” and make the decision the patient would make in the same situation, if able. The description of the concept in the Jobes decision (New Jersey) is often cited by other courts, and instructs the surrogate decision maker to refer to:

[“the patient’s personal value system for guidance. The surrogate considers the patient’s prior statements about reactions to medical issues, all facets of the patient’s personality that the surrogate is familiar with—with, of course, particular reference to his or her relevant philosophical, theological, and ethical values—in order to extrapolate what course of medical treatment the patient would choose.”]

In other words, Greer had extraordinarily wide latitude to rule however he wished on the question of Terri’s wishes.

This is something that can be fixed by legislation, as the Florida legislature was trying to do until the measure was finally defeated yesterday:

The Florida Senate rejected a bill Wednesday to keep Terri Schiavo alive, turning back an attempt to resolve the contentious end-of-life debate with a state law, as legislators did in 2003.

The bill would have prohibited patients like Schiavo from being denied food and water if they didn’t express their wishes in writing. It would have applied only to cases where families disagreed on a patient’s wishes. The 21-18 vote came five days after her feeding tube was removed under court order.

Let me say that I’m cognizant of all the issues raised by both conservatives and liberals on this matter. I do believe that end of life decisions are generally a family matter and should not be interfered with by the state (especially the Congress, although my feelings about this exception are mixed, I think they did the right thing).

The thing that makes this case so frightening to me is the way the state court rode roughshod over Terri’s rights. In the end, the courts didn’t allow anyone TO SPEAK FOR TERRI! This is the job of the guardian. The fact that Michael’s conflict of interest in this matter is so profound, so obvious, and the courts, due to tradition and law were helpless to do anything about it, should open our eyes to the necessity for a change in law.

Terri is not alone. Who will stand up for the rights of those among us who can’t speak or are only vaguely aware of their surroundings? Who’s to say a guardian has a big enough conflict of interest that it should disqualify them from further representing the afflicted? Can these matters be legislated? Adjudicated?

Tough questions…few answers.

Blogs for Terri has been in the forefront of the effort to save Terri Schiavo’s life. But what they advocate here is just plain wrong:

This ad hoc partnership of religious and political organizations—which will gather in front of the White House and the Florida governor’s mansion—will call on President George W. Bush and Gov. Jeb Bush to use their executive powers to protect Terri Schiavo from starvation.

“There are two people in the United States who can save Terri Schiavo’s life right now. The president of the United States and the governor of Florida have the authority to use the police services at their disposal to take Terri into protective custody, restore her food and hydration, and arrest anyone who would interfere,” said Dr. Paul Schenck, executive director of the National Pro-Life Action Center on Capitol Hill. “For the sake of Terri’s life, we cannot afford to wait while the courts dither over jurisdiction.” Details of D.C. Press Conference

I’m sorry to say it, but this just goes too far.

Do we turn the United States Constitution completely on its head to save one person’s life? Do we set what are demonstrably dangerous precedents to try and overturn another dangerous precedent?

There are better, more effective ways to fight Terri’s fight. Sadly, since it now appears that the opening battle of this fight has been lost and Terri will soon be free from pain, her memory will animate many of us to continue advocating for those who for whatever reason are unable to speak for themselves.

This is not the place or time to ask the President to use the federal government’s “police services” to effect a result, no matter how desirable.

Not all people who will hold the office of President will be as honorable as George Bush. And any use of the extraordinary powers available to him would set an example that could, in the future, make us rue the day that the President acted in such a high handed and anti-constitutional manner.

We can’t let our emotions override our judgment. Save Terri? Yes. Do everything within the law to accomplish that? Yes.

Run roughshod over the constitution to achieve the desirable outcome we all hope and pray for? Absolutely not.

And somehow, in the abstract, I think Terri would probably agree.