What Challenge? How about an honest exchange of ideas and opinions.

If the measuring stick of this so-called challenge is length and bluster, I concede ;-)

Let’s start here:

The reason this argument didn't work in the courts and why it doesn't work for you, is that after 15 years, 19 judges, and more billable hours than you can shake a stick at, it really is impssoble to say that Terri Shiavo is being deprived of anything without due process of law. If Ms. Shiavo's family was not given a day in court and appeals were ignored, then the federal government could claim that the State of Florida was denying her due process. But that's simply not the case. The State was not derlict in it's duty and the 14th Amendment simply does not apply to this case.

For all of your ranting, you seem to have completely missed the point of the 14th Amendment as it relates to due process (especially for someone who makes an exclusively legal argument the rest of the way). The due process question in the Schiavo cases concerns the right to a federal appeal, which is also afforded to criminals. And she was finally granted a federal appeal, albeit a strict procedural review. Unfortunately, she lost. But I fail to see how the 14th amendment argument "didn't work" or how you "dispensed" with it?

The alleged overreaching by congress was acting to ensure that she got this appeal. The jurisdiction for that congressional action is the 14th amendment. Is the crux of your "states' rights" argument that the federal government dramatically overstepped its bounds by ensuring that Schiavo got the same right to due process as a death-row criminal?

I'll get the rest of that diatribe later, but I'm really curious about your opinion on this specific point which forms the basis for your slander of many “so-called conservatives”.

Devil's Advocate - Schiavo

You're right Burnsy, let's just let the runaway jury that is this country's judiciary continue unchallenged. Are you serious? Maybe I could make a case that, based the previous post, you are using less than 5% of your brain and perhaps I could get a court to forcibly remove food and water from you. By your logic, that would not be murder right?

OK, ok, ok. Absurd example. But aggressively denying food and water is MURDER. It perverts the meaning of the word to exempt what happened to Schiavo. Removing medical equipment that performs critical functions as a surrogate for the body is one thing, denying food and water is entirely different. And for all of the moral-equivalists that see no difference and claim that we unplug people all the time, I say (out of pity, not scorn): May G*d have mercy on your souls.

Getting back to the judiciary in this country. I'm not well versed in Florida law (and mind you, neither is William F Buckley), so I will abstain from a point/counterpoint on the nuances of the law. The abuses of the courts are clear on a more fundamental level. Quoting Steyn, who sums it up beautifully:

This is not a criminal, not a murderer, not a person whose life should be in the gift of the state. So I find it repulsive, and indeed decadent, to have her continued existence framed in terms of ''plaintiffs'' and ''petitions'' and ''en banc review'' and ''de novo'' and all the other legalese. Mrs. Schiavo has been in her present condition for 15 years. Whoever she once was, this is who she is now -- and, after a decade and a half, there is no compelling reason to kill her. Any legal system with a decent respect for the status quo -- something too many American judges are increasingly disdainful of -- would recognize that her present life, in all its limitations, is now a well-established fact, and it is the most grotesque judicial overreaching for any court at this late stage to decide enough is enough. It would be one thing had a doctor decided to reach for the morphine and ''put her out of her misery'' after a week in her diminished state; after 15 years, for the courts to treat her like a Death Row killer who's exhausted her appeals is simply vile.

Adding to this sickening decadence is the "state's rights crowd" with whom Monsieur's Buckley and Burns happily align themselves. They attack anyone as being a hypocrite or not-a-true-conservative if that person does not feel that the federal government overstepped it bounds by demanding a federal appeal (something granted to criminals). Hey fellas, want to get off your high horse for a sec and explain away this little gem I found in some obscure document called THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AMENDMENT FOURTEEN:

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. [Emphasis mine]

Agree or disagree, the federal government had jurisdiction. And to Burns in particular, who seems to think Schiavo and steroids are not worthy of Congress's time: If you so fucking smart, let's see you post a full calendar for Congress filled with all the important stuff that Congress should be doing in lieu of these 'trivial' matters. Otherwise, knock off this brand of useless and unproductive cynicism. It's beneath a person of your intellectual capacity. Let's debate these items on their merits.

To lionize Buckley as the father of modern conservatism is to get still another thing wrong. Buckley , for all of the wonderful things that he has contributed to the conservative movement, is still an unabashed paleo-con. Paleo-conservatives, like liberals, have gotten just about EVERYTHING wrong since 9/11. So in the parlance of poker, I gladly see your Buckley and raise you a Steyn, a Barnes and a Kristol.

To quote Joe Lieberman, a democrat who understands morality, and about everyone else with a sane point of view: We should error on the side of life. When there are material questions of about the medical diagnose and disagreement amongst the next of kin, we should error on the side of life. That was not done in this case and it is WRONG. Do have a problem with the federal government standing up to wrongdoing in matters of life and death? ABSOLUTELY NOT.

To close, here is Steyn's common sense take on the so-called "states' rights" issue:

...which is more likely? That Congress will use this precedent to pass bills keeping you -- yes, you, Joe Schmoe of 37 Elm Street -- alive till your 118th birthday. Or that the various third parties who intrude between patient and doctor in the American system -- next of kin, HMOs, insurers -- will see the Schiavo case as an important benchmark in what's already a drift toward a culture of convenience euthanasia. Here's a thought: Where do you go to get a living-will kit saying that in the event of a hideous accident I don't want to be put to death by a Florida judge or the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals? And, if you had such a living will, would any U.S. court recognize it?

.

Devil's Advocate - Steroids

Milhouse - MLB enjoys a unique exemption from this nation's anti-trust laws. In exchange for special treatment, accorded to baseball because of its perceived importance as our national pastime, is it wrong for Congress to ask baseball to hold itself to higher standard than just "entertainment"?

We don't tell Hollywood how to make movies or rock groups how to make noise because open market forces give the audience the power of the dollar to determine what they like and don't like. And to some degree, we do tell Hollywood/Rock Groups how to make movies/noise since indecency laws put limits on the artistic freedoms of these entertainers.

But Baseball is legally exempt from competition. If I don't like Brittany Spears, then I can listen to something else. If find Ben Affleck movies unwatchable (and I do), I don't have to stop watching movies altogether, I have other choices. If enough people agree with me, Brittany Spears would soon be a Vegas showgirl and Ben Affleck would be pumping gas because their noise/movies wouldn't make any money.

By contrast, if I don't like Jose Canseco and his ilk directly and indirectly encouraging my kids to take steroids, then I have to turn off baseball altogether. If enough people agree with me, then baseball simply dies. That's the difference.

I'm not for Congress wasting time, but last week we had the Full Committee Hearing on Drinking Water in the Nation's Capital. I think steroids as a public safety issue is at least as important as that!

Does Congress have nothing better to do

than to investigate whether baseball players have been using steroids? For the life of me I cannot understand how this is any of Congress's business, let alone that of the Government Reform Committee. Don't they have, you know, a government to reform or something? If the Major Leagues have decided to ban steroids, and players are cheating, why isn't that up to the Major Leagues to discover, and to discipline the infringers as they see fit? Perhaps sue them for breach of contract, and get back the millions they've been paid. And conversely, if the Major Leagues decide that discretion is the better part of valour, and that this particular rule should not be enforced too rigorously, isn't that their decision to make? For that matter, maybe the Leagues should just come right out and permit steroids (or legal substitutes that have the same effect, since I gather that steroids have, for some reason, become illegal); isn't that their decision to make? Or are our esteemed legislators next going to investigate foul balls and pitching action, and possible inconsistencies in umpiring?

Get over it, people, it's entertainment! You don't tell Hollywood how to make films, or rock groups how to produce noise, why are you telling the sporting world how to run their business?

Andre Norton RIP

Andre Norton died this morning. In my teens I think I read every single book she had written. Years ago I saw a comment by a reviewer, that Norton had never written a really great book, but she'd also never written a bad one, and that was a better acheivement than most writers could boast of, especially if they'd written as many as she had. May the pleasure and inspiration she brought to millions stand her in good stead.

Eat an Animal for PETA Day

I forgot all about Eat an Animal for PETA Day, and very nearly let the day pass in a vegetarian state. That would never do. Luckily, at about 10pm, having been home all day and not having had dinner yet, I decided to go out for a nice chicken cutlet. Then I came home and found other people's reports of EAPD, and was glad of the impulse that sent me out in search of flesh.

Ward Churchill

I really have very little interest in the whole Ward Churchill brouhaha, apart from the obligatory schadenfreude at the self-destruction of yet another leftie bastion, but if you really want to know all the sordid details, Denver's Radio 630 KHOW has more than you ever wanted to know about the fellow.

Who is a hacker

George Orwell wrote in 1946 that 'the word "fascism" has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies "something not desirable"' (Politics and the English Language). The word 'hacker', which used to be a compliment, and still is in the circles I move in, long ago became a term of abuse in the general community, a synonym for 'cracker'.

But 'cracker' too has a meaning, it signifies someone who performs a particular kind of malicious activity, rather than merely 'something not desirable to do with computers'. Or so I used to think. The word seems to be rapidly moving away from that situation, and towards being just another meaningless term of abuse. Gary McGath blogs on the latest example of this deplorable trend.

The World Gone Nuts or: How I Learned to Stop Ranting and Agree With the Guardian

I read this in the editorial pages of the Guardian [emphasis & shock mine]:

This leaves opponents of the Iraq war in a tricky position, even if [Tony Blair] is not about to rub our faces in the fact. Not only did we set our face against a military adventure which seems, even if indirectly, to have triggered a series of potentially welcome side effects; we also stood against the wider world-view that George Bush represented. What should we say now?

First, we ought to admit that the dark cloud of the Iraq war may have carried a silver lining. We can still argue that the war was wrong-headed, illegal, deceitful and too costly of human lives - and that its most important gain, the removal of Saddam, could have been achieved by other means. But we should be big enough to concede that it could yet have at least one good outcome.

Second, we have to say that the call for freedom throughout the Arab and Muslim world is a sound and just one - even if it is a Bush slogan and arguably code for the installation of malleable regimes. Put starkly, we cannot let ourselves fall into the trap of opposing democracy in the Middle East simply because Bush and Blair are calling for it. Sometimes your enemy's enemy is not your friend.

This may seem painfully self-evident to many, but lots of Democrats in this country haven't figured it out yet. More from the Guardian [different article]:

What is happening on the streets of Beirut is not a result of the invasion of Iraq, nor does it retrospectively justify that invasion. But it does, obviously, have something to do with American policy. The truth is that, starting with the shock of September 11 2001, Washington has groped its way, by a process of trial and error, to a strategic position which it is entirely possible for democrats in both Europe and the Arab world to engage with. A key part of that groping was the realisation in Iraq that, while the United States could win any war on its own, it could not win the subsequent peace; and that democracy would not come overnight, out of the barrel of a gun. If we Europeans do not stand for the long haul to democracy, by peaceful means, what do we stand for?

By George, I think they've got it! As Jonah Goldberg keeps reminding us - we on the political right got far too much wrong about Iraq for any serious 'I told you so' talk. But the Cedar revolution seems to have validated the basic tenants of the Bush doctrine without forcing the opposition on the left to agree with the Iraq war or the man himself. All of us, except the insane absolutist fringes (cough)Democratic Underground(cough), can agree that we we're all wrong about certain aspects of the War on Terror and we all got a bit overheated with the rhetoric, but we all agree one the important stuff which is that bringing Democracy to the greater Middle East is both possible and desirable.

One Man, One Gloat

Steyn is at his best with his latest column. It kicks off at the expense of the Leftists, who still insist war was all wrong, but (begrudgingly) the outcomes are pretty good. Steyn predicts that when the revisionist historians get around to interpreting the events of today, Bush will get the same dismissive treatment that Reagan received after they rewrote the Cold War:

Oh, the Soviet bloc [the Middle East thugocracies] was bound to collapse anyway. Nothing to do with that simpleton Ronnie Raygun [Chimpy Bushitler]. In fact, all Raygun [Chimpy] did was delay the inevitable with his ridiculous arms build-up[illegal unprovoked Halliburton oil-grab], as many of us argued at the time: see my 1984 column 'Yuri Andropov, The Young, Smart, Sexy New Face Of Soviet Communism' [see the April 2004 Spectator column 'Things Were Better Under Saddam: The coalition has destroyed Baathism, says Rod Liddle, and with it all hopes of the emergence of secular democracy' and yes, that really ran in these pages, on 17 April, not 1 April.]

Then after he kicks around the Not-In-Our-Name crowd, he finishes with:

The other day I found myself, for the umpteenth time, driving in Vermont behind a Kerry/Edwards supporter whose vehicle also bore the slogan 'FREE TIBET'. It must be great to be the guy with the printing contract for the 'FREE TIBET' stickers. Not so good to be the guy back in Tibet wondering when the freeing thereof will actually get under way. For a while, my otherwise not terribly political wife got extremely irritated by these stickers, demanding to know at a pancake breakfast at the local church what precisely some harmless hippy-dippy old neighbour of ours meant by the slogan he'd been proudly displaying decade in, decade out: "But what exactly are you doing to free Tibet?" she demanded. "You're not doing anything, are you?" "Give the guy a break," I said back home. "He's advertising his moral virtue, not calling for action. If Rumsfeld were to say, 'Free Tibet? Jiminy, what a swell idea! The Third Infantry Division go in on Thursday', the bumper-sticker crowd would be aghast."

But for those of us on the arrogant unilateralist side of things, that's not how it works. 'FREE AFGHANISTAN'. Done. 'FREE IRAQ'. Done. Given the paintwork I pull off every time I have to change the sticker, it might be easier for the remainder of the Bush presidency just to go around with 'FREE [INSERT YOUR FETID TOTALITARIAN BASKET-CASE HERE]'. Not in your name? Don't worry, it's not.

I think a bumper sticker reading: FREE AFGANISTAN, IRAQ, LEBANON, [INSERT YOUR FETID TOTALITARIAN BASKET-CASE HERE] would be great!!

Scorecard

Tom Paine, over at Silent Running, is at it again:

President Chimpy McSmirk's lame-brained Crusade for Oil enters its fourth ill-advised year, and it's easy to see how prescient the leftist commentariat have been about how disastrious the entire war would be. Lets run through the checklist of disaster and see how well the Chomskys, Pilgers and Rathers have been, shall we?

Is there a word for an operation to extract a tongue from a cheek and put it back where it belongs?