There are those situations when you do a double take on something completely unexpected. The late Douglas Adams described that feeling in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy when you're tooling along the highway at 70, and suddenly, the hoopy frood that you are -- isn't, and you mistakenly shift into first gear. Yeah, sorta like that.
Well I was cruising the Internet on high-speed DSL, and I fell right over the following comment by Connie du Toit regarding Terri Schiavo, her feeding tube, and Terri's husband who wishes to remove it:
The relationship between a husband and wife is SACRED.
Really!
Well, some coincidences are more improbable than the phone number of an Islington flat, but in this case, I'm a long time (but infrequent reader) of Mrs. du Toit and her husband Kim. Before Connie agreed to the Sacred and Holy Nuptials when she adopted "du Toit" as a symbol of her submission to the oppressive male dominated society, Connie was affectionately nicknamed "Liberal Rubbish Girlfriend"[1]. Indeed. But perhaps Dubya's lesson that conservatives could be compassionate sunk in. As Kim proselytized for the right to bear arms, she converted from an anti-gun fanatic to a pro-gun fanatic. After that religious conversion, she was "liberal rubbish" no more, and of course "girlfriend" turned into "wife."
Did I say religion? Connie and her husband Kim are atheists. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
But if you trot over to trusty ol' Merriam-Webster, you see a funny sense about the word "sacred" -- holy, worship, deity, etc.
But after a bit of fun over the primary sense of the word, one can readily acknowledge the secondary sense, that is: "very important." But it's much stronger than that -- the words M-W uses are "unassailable" and "inviolable."
That's funny, because in her bio -- excusing the fact that she's in her second marriage (and Kim's third)[2] -- Connie writes, "We're all entitled to a 'starter marriage' which fails miserably." Unassailable? Inviolable?
I suppose that over time, both might have found religion, but in the same article I tripped over I discovered that Kim refers to Terri as "The Florida Vegetable Woman." I guess not. And maybe Dubya's lesson in compassion hasn't sunk that deep.
I doubt that Christopher de Vinck would agree with that sort of characterization:
"Well, I guess you could call him a vegetable. I called him Oliver, my brother. You would have liked him."
Now I have a secret life, heretofore unrevealed, of lurking in a Paleo-Conservative mail list that reveres one of the intellectual founders of modern conservatism (no, no, not the one with the secret handshake, I said "paleo"). They've got this litmus test that infallibly determines whether one is a Jacobin. For those who don't know, Jacobins are not the squirrels that Cosmo the Wonderdog chases, they're those radical leftists in the French Revolution who turned the world on its head. That test is whether you like Abe Lincoln. No word yet on Tommy Jefferson who actually admired the progress of that revolution. It's silly actually (the test is, that is). It represents the Southron influence on the Paleo strands of conservatism and libertarianism. They don't like Abe.
But it has been suggested that there is dividing line based on Terri Schiavo's case (by someone who has unfortunately chosen the handle Zippy):
"I think the Schiavo case is forcing us to choose which side of the chastity-life line we are on. Those who choose to affirm the dignity of life - even of a life that the person himself does not want to live - are on one side. Those who choose to equivocate and play with interpretations in order to affirm death are on the other."
This is not so silly.
As an atheist she's usurped the word sacred in a fashion that she has no business doing. She is either unaware that sacred has a different meaning to religious folk than it does to her, or she seeks to exploit that double standard in meaning to her own advantage.
Let me explain. In a religious sense, a marriage is two flesh made one flesh. For that marriage bond to be sacred there must be in some sense -- in some fashion -- true that its composite parts are sacred as well.
Terri's marriage is sacred. Terri's life is sacred. To use the sacred marriage bond to advance Terri's death is to have it both ways: Terri's life is sacred and it is not.
And I should not have to mention to Connie that the jack-booted thugs of the government do step into the inviolable marriage in the case of spousal abuse. But then I would the get the libertarian sturm und drang about individual rights, their fists, and my nose. Sadly forgotten in the libertarian cornucopia of individual rights are the rights of the weak and helpless. They're not sure if fetuses rate rights yet. Unfortunately, Terri was unable to escape her failing starter marriage[3]. Might Terri's marriage fail to reach the heights of inviolability by Connie's own standard?
I need not hum Deutschland Uber Alles to prove the point. Diane Alden, whom the du Toits may have encountered through her piece "Moms With Guns", has extensively documented the slippery slope on euthanasia and the Weimar Republic in "Futile Care: The Terri Schiavo Case". But it need not be forgotten history, such things repeat and it does, in this case Netherlands.
And at this point, I'm sure Connie -- if she bothered to read this -- is probably completely exasperated that we pitchforkers refuse to acknowledge her point about the Sacrament of Marriage. It's been considered.
But the first question is whether Terri has a right-to-die regardless of whether her "husband" speaks for her. This begs the second and most important question, whether Terri has any rights at all. Has Terri lost her humanity? Auschwitz beckons.
Notes:
[1]"Whereupon my wife (bless her heart) said sweetly, 'I’d rather teach my son macho self-defense, than encourage him to be a quivering victim.'
"This was an interesting statement coming from my wife (not to mention, of course, a devastating put-down). Interesting because when we first met, she was a resident of Beverly Hills CA, a place not known for its conservatism, and she had been a Hollywood agent, in an industry renowned for, well, Alec Baldwin and Martin Sheen. Indeed, when we first started dating, she announced to me in no uncertain terms that she hated guns. My nickname for her at the time was 'my Liberal Rubbish Girlfriend.'"
http://www.kimdutoit.com/latl/LAL2pf.htm or
http://www.kimdutoit.com/dr/latl/latl.php?id=P75
[2] From http://mrsdutoit.com/bg/Bio.htm and http://www.kimdutoit.com/bio.htm. I note that Kim acknowledges the contradiction: "values the sanctity of marriage, but is married to his third wife."
[3] Various sources report the allegation that Terri was abused by her husband. I choose to link to the Schindlers' side of the story as reported by Fr. Rob at Thrown Back (scroll down to Part II)
[The original essay was authored on 2003-10-25. The original and related essays are found here and here and here]
Over at Right Minds Forum, I felt I was being goaded by John William Kurowski, founder of what appears to be a one man organiztion, the American Constitutional Research Service (no single link or website seems to be available). The question is related to Judge Greer's decision to remove Terri Schiavo's feeding tube. This is the question that John thought was insufficiently answered: "Who would you say is to determine the facts and judge the law when a life is at issue in a legal matter: Judge, Jury, Executive, Legislature?" My first answer was none of them should, but John persisted. I reproduce my second answer here because I thought that it was well written and plus it explains an essential characteristic of my political philosophy. The original title was "If I had a hammer, I'd hammer in the morning..."
I admire your tenacity, but some point you should reassess your monomania. You're like a child who's discovered a hammer for the first time, and everything looks like a nail. For you, every issue is a constitutional issue.
You got an answer. You didn't like it. Therefore, you assume we didn't sufficiently consider the constitutional merits of the issue.
The government should not have the power to decide death in right-to-die cases. If I followed your wishes, and said, "Gee, John you're absolutely right; the jury should decide the facts in a right-to-die case," then I will have ceded to you that there is a right-to-die and that the government can compel death in situations where no crime has been committed. I absolutely refuse to accept the premise your question implies.
But if you wish me to concede that we live under a regime of judical tyranny as you seem to imply in this sentence -- "Unfortunately, those who believe in saving Terri from a court approved sentence of death have not used their time wisely to counter what Terri’s husband’s shyster lawyer will argue in court to have Terri’s Bill overturned as being unconstitutional, and then have Terri‘s feeding tube removed, and for the final time!" -- then, by all means, I agree, judges rule by fiat, they can overturn the expressed will of the people on a whim under the multifaceted emanations and penumbrae of a constitution only their eyes can see.
Let's examine your questions in terms of a criminal death sentence.
"Should the Legislature make this decision?"
Indeed, legislatures can decide whether capital punishment is an allowable sentence, and when it can be applied.
"Should a Judge make this decision?"
In some cases, a jury can decide the death penalty, but in most cases, a jury decides guilt or innocence, and the judge determines the penalty.
Should the Executive make this decision?"
The executive can pardon or commute a death sentence.
Hmmm... it appears that all three branches are involved in the question of life or death. So there you go, you have two answers: all or none. But somehow I doubt that you'll be satisfied.
The title of the original post was "More compassion from the Culture of Death". It's a post about culture. Culture transcends constitutionality. Unless, by some strange reason, you believe that governments should decide culture, as many liberals appear to think, then maybe you ought to lay this constitutional stuff down for a minute.
Because my sincere belief is this: there is no sense in applying constitutional patches on a corrupt culture. Just as there is no sense in applying patches to a set of severely worn out jeans. The patch won't hold.
These are quotes I hold close at hand:
"My reply," said Ratcliffe, "is that no representative government can long be much better or worse than the society it represents. Purify society and you purify the government. But try to purify the government artificially and you only aggravate the failure."
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
-- John Adams, founding father and president of US of A.
See the pattern?
I've added a new link to the Soapbox on the left-hand side. I've called it "Death Watch" and it's about JPII and the culture of death and the Gospel of Life.
This is not the first time that I've mentioned Fr. Ray's "Obsolete Man." I believe I did a better treatment in my blog post "One Man".
I reveal now that that "One Man" had a hidden meaning that would have been noticed only by a select few. "One Man" was the obvious follow up to "Right to Privacy: Suicide" and "Hobson's Choice".
After I had written "Hobson's Choice," I found out that an Internet buddy had committed suicide. I cannot know what ran through his mind, but I can make some guesses. He was a long-ago divorced man whose teenage daughter reportedly rejected his advice. And he was recently laid off from his long held job. I suspect that the last event was the final straw.
It was with this in mind that I composed "One Man."
It should be easy to see that "Death Watch" is a continuation of sorts to "One Man." I pray that JPII continues to preach the dignity of man and the Gospel of Life.
First posted at GIGO
I believe that the responsiveness of not only California, but other States as well, will be improved regardless of the winner of the election. To put the incumbents on notice that they are not immune is better done with recall elections than revolutions. Either way, such notice serves a valuable purpose. Our Founders knew that, but in the intervening years, some people have forgotten.
--BartB
When, I first read Bart's post yesterday, I thought that he made a very good point. It is important that politicians understand the wishes of their constituency. But upon a more sober reflection (at least I hope so), I thought that maybe the politicians are too responsive. We all know a metaphor for democracy is three foxes and a chicken deciding what's for dinner. Governor Davis created the California debt by handing out goodies to his constituency. When energy price caps threatened to wipe out California power, he intervened with government money without giving much thought that higher prices might actually reduce energy demand. Now that his term is threatened, he has been signing the most liberal of bills in the hopes of propping up his liberal base.
In George Will's book, Restoration, Mr. Will identifies the major reason why there is such a low turnover rate in Congress: pork. Indeed, stretching back to 1994, when I was debating the merits of Mitt Romney over Senator Kennedy -- and the drunkard that the senator was then -- liberals were unabashed in their reasons for support, "he brings home the bacon." (I did point out that the state of Massachusetts actually paid more in taxes than it got back from the federal government.)
Pork is an expression of responsiveness. Promise them that you'll get more money for schools, for dams and bridges, that you'll keep the military base protecting that golf course operational. As the GOP quickly discovered after 1994, the debate can be easily framed around what is being taken away -- hence the loosening of brakes against entitlements. George Bush, having never met a domestic battle he'd wish to fight, has happily grown the government to liberal dismay -- they can't make demands fast enough!
The hope of the Founders was that with republican government we might distance ourselves from the passions of the moment. They hoped that a wise elite would be selected to represent people in the national government (senators and presidents were not directly elected). They deliberately designed a government with checks and balances to put roadblocks against responsiveness. Otherwise they could have chosen a unicameral parliament that would form the executive branch and select the judicial branch.
In Restoration, George Will summarizes a portion of Edmund Burke's speech after winning the election to represent Bristol in Parliament. I'll provide a little more of that speech than Mr. Will quoted:
Certainly, Gentlemen, it ought to be the happiness and glory of a Representative, to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinion high respect; their business unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasures, his satisfactions, to theirs; and, above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own. But, his unbiassed opinion, his mature judgement, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you; to any man, or to any sett of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure; no, nor from the Law and the Constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your Representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgement; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.
No doubt, as George Will guesses, there were quite a few audience members who thought, "Oh, now he tells us!"
Later in his speech, Burke continues:
Parliament is not a Congress of Ambassadors from different and hostile interests; which interests each must maintain, as an Agent and Advocate, against other Agents and Advocates; but Parliament is a deliberative Assembly of one Nation, with one Interest, that of the whole; where, not local Purposes, not local Prejudices ought to guide, but the general Good, resulting from the general Reason of the whole. You chuse a Member indeed; but when you have chosen him, he is not Member of Bristol, but he is a Member of Parliament.
Indeed, our public servants our tasked with more than just representing our interests and responsiveness, they have an obligation to the welfare of the whole. Gray Davis, other politicians, and their constituencies should take note of that.
If life hands you a lemon, make lemonade.
--William Melanson (1930-2003)
If there ever was anyone who owned that quote, it was Uncle Billy. Until I was eighteen from before I was able to remember, my family always made an annual trip to New Brunswick to visit relatives in the area my parents grew up. Usually it was during the summer, but once or twice the trip was made during Christmas time.
One of the visits while there I looked forward to was the visit to Uncle Billy (who was actually my great-uncle or my father's uncle). It was partly because he was willing to speak English, but it was mostly a welcoming warmth that told us children that we could be part of the adult conversation at any time. We were there, and Billy wasn't going to ignore us.
Billy put the lemonade quote on the front page of the family tree he had assembled. He not only worked on the Melanson family tree, but also worked on the family trees of his brothers-in-law. It was a penetrating quote because Billy sat in a wheel chair with muscular dystrophy.
When in Canada, we usually stayed at my maternal grandfather's cottage along the Buctouche River. And some summers, we would winch Billy into the car or van, so that Billy could spend a day at the cottage.
It seemed Billy loved to move around. There is a picture of Billy as a young child in a small wagon with a dog harnessed to it. Billy had just a few years of walking before the disease made it too difficult. The dog would pull Billy to school in either the wagon or a sled in the winter (this was long before special education). I've been told stories of his "golf cart" and how he ranged as far north as St-Antoine from his home in Irishtown (almost ten miles), trusting that his batteries would hold out.
When it became too difficult for his mother to take care of him, he choose to move to the nursing home where his brother Frank (who also had muscular dystrophy) stayed in, rather than choose one closer to his relatives (note: the chronology is hazy for me here, there were several homes, but the point is that when he had the option, he choose to stay close to Frank while his brother was still alive). And so when Billy moved to Fredericton, because the ride was several hours long, sometimes the trip was a family option, but I always choose to make the ride with my father.
It was during one of those trips that I saw his faith and one the the hardships that Billy faced. We had only been there for an hour or so, when Billy told us that he was to attend Mass. At the home he was in, he was not able receive the Blessed Sacrament on a weekly basis, and so he was not willing to miss any opportunity to attend Mass. Billy was not one to wear his faith on his sleeve, rather he lived his faith.
The last time I saw Billy was a couple of years ago when I made the trip up north on my own. It was during a nursing strike (they always seem to have nursing strikes up there), and when I got to Fredericton, I had found out that because Billy was high maintenance as far as nursing care, they had moved him 30 miles north to Stanley. The poor frazzled supervising nurse gave me directions and apologized because Billy was upset by the move. I was pretty frazzled myself, because I finally found the new nursing home after two hours, after stopping several times for directions. It turned out to be a nice place. Billy, as usual, was outdoors enjoying the sun. After I passed on the apologies of the supervising nurse, Billy explained that he was upset because of the unknown and because of the change. It was quite an operation to move him from bed to the wheelchair and then back again at night. And then there is always the problem of scheduling time for a bowel movement. There is always a learning curve for nurses. It turned out that this nursing staff was a class act, and his worries turned out to be unfounded.
It ain't easy when you're that dependant. Perhaps that's why Billy always took advantage of the independance his electric wheelchair afforded him. My visit ended just before the evening meal. Billy preferred to eat his meal in bed, because the nursing schedule is just too crowded after dinner for them to get him to bed at a reasonable time.
Since his brother Frank had died several years earlier, he was petitioning to be moved to a home closer to his relatives (the long trip made visits infrequent). He was able to move to Shediac, and he was lucky enough to get a roommate he could converse with.
Billy was very intelligent and able conversationalist. He kept up with current events in politics, sports and family. And though it became increasingly difficult (because of lack of muscle strength), he still composed letters and enjoyed receiving them. And though his heart was physically weak, his heart was spiritually strong. And so this week, I remember Fr. Rob's blog entry on Needing the Needy: "This is ultimately the contribution of the dependent to the rest of us: they teach us how to love, and be loved."
Early this week, my mother told me, "Billy is sick." I'm not often informed of family illnesses but I'm begining to detect a pattern here. Wednesday morning, Billy "shuffled off this mortal coil." Requiescat in pace.