Rather that write about individual Terri Schiavo stories, this post will serve as the one and only spot for the days Schiavo news and comments. It will be updated (without notice) throughout the day. If the case doesn’t interest you move along – there’s plenty of other material here…
The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals (federal court) has agreed to consider a petition for a new hearing on whether to reconnect Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube. [AP]
Paul Krugman sums up the paranoia of the far left, ignoring the fact that nearly 50% of the Democrats present voted for the Congressional bill that allowed for a de novo review of the Schiavo case in federal court. [NYT]
Talk show host Don Crawford notes that the passions felt on all sides of the Schiavo case is evidence that such ethical and moral discourse is vitally relevant and needed. [WND]
15 hours ago the gave the family a glimmer of hope, this afternoon all hope is lost – Schiavo Appeal Rejected Again By 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals [ABC]
Terri died Thursday morning (more). This picture is alleged to have been taken Wednesday, on a camera phone that was smuggled past security. The photo is old – ignore…Meanwhile 49 people have been arrested trying to enter Terri Schiavo’s hospice attempting to bring her water…
Kevin
look at this
http://www.glennbeck.com/news/03292005.shtml
Terri’s obituary was already published by CBS
RE: sherry’s post (March 30, 2005 01:46 AM)
Terri’s obituary was already published by CBS
SOP. Nothing unique here as many “celebrities” have their obits templated for timely release. Ravenous readers/viewers expect realtime updates, so this is one of the end results. We ask for it and the market delivers.
No, we’re not asking for it. They expect her to die tonight. You ghoulies can barely hide your excitement.
RE: too sedated to spell my own name correctly’s post (March 30, 2005 02:07 AM)
You ghoulies can barely hide your excitement.
Riiight.
It is immediate information. Try reducing your dosage.
Wellll, that CBS article “originally appeared on Monday, March 28, 2005…”
I’d say that CBS is clamping at that bit.
Did anyone hear O’Reilly’s dissing (this day, Tuesday, March 29) of Paul Krugman’s piece? O’Reilly really, really didn’t care for what Krugman expressed. I have to admit, I felt conflicted…by both perspectives.
RE: -S-‘s post (March 30, 2005 02:35 AM)
I’d say that CBS is clamping at that bit.
Oh, I don’t doubt that, but it is not one of morbid excess. They are competing in a highly demanding environment and need to scoop as many media entities as possible. It’s a business model that tries to maximize profits as well as inform. If they can get the spread out first, they’ll get more readers.
I have my own critiques of the MSM but I understand why they do what they do in this regard. To assign to it some nefarious plot with ghoulish glee from a liberal bastion is unfair and biased in and of itself. In fact, it would probably be quite inefficient for them to conduct business such as this in any other way. News archiving is more likely to approach Wikipedia-like form in the future because it is so efficient. Such a dynamic system is perfect for obituaries.
Just goes to show that people know absolutely nothing about this issue and the govt should stay the hell out of it.
And so should those who keep sending me hate mail.
Cindy
Do you absolutely have to do this every friggin day?
Cindy
RE: thfirstbrokenangel post (March 30, 2005 02:54 AM)
Do you absolutely have to do this every friggin day?
Don’t you know this is http://www.blogsforterritoo.com? š
Actually, this topic is great for driving up web traffic and readership. Call it “priming the pump”.
Finally, it remains a news story whether we choose to ignore it or not. Wizbang is choosing not to ignore it.
No one is forcing you two to read the posts or the threads. In fact, if you dislike what Kevin posts or the way he runs his blog, there are plenty of other blogs you can go read. What’s stopping you?
RE: julie’s post (March 30, 2005 04:12 AM)
In fact, if you dislike what Kevin posts or the way he runs his blog, there are plenty of other blogs you can go read. What’s stopping you?
Thank you for your concern regarding my reading habits and your kind suggestion. Nothing stops me and I do read plenty of other blogs. I just enjoy posting here exclusively for you. I’m glad you appreciate the effort and soak up every last word. Again, thanks.
Krugman is off base. For one thing he appears to think that religious people are the enemy and dems should attack. This isn’t going to help in the red states.
Also, while Randall Terry is a mouthpiece here (and I admit I don’t know why anyone would want him for a mouthpiece) this isn’t as clearly a political divide, or even a religious one. It definitely has moral implications, but I think politically this case is one that you just can’t use for political purposes well.
oh-oh…I sense nitpick of the day coming,,,,,
And now I know the world is coming to an end, Rev. Jackson and I agree on something…
CBS News – “Fake but Accurate.”
I sincerely fail to see where this is a partisan issue. I mean, disregarding the House and Senate vote counts, in which both parties stood solidly on the side of life for Terri, you have Tom Delay and Jesse Jackson on the same side of an issue.
I have wondered why the ACLU hasn’t even uttered a peep about this case, even if to say that their attorneys see no reason to intervene. I suppose starvation doesn’t rate at the same level as having panties put on one’s head.
As to the CBS obituary deal–everyone should know by now that high-profile obituaries are pre-written. All they have to do when that person dies is change the dates and slap the link on their main page. I seem to recall several of these “pre-need” pieces being leaked a few months back. Nothing more than a goof by a (likely underpaid) behind-the-scenes tech guy. Nobody gains credibility by making a big deal of this type of slip.
Spare me the drivel. You two obviously enjoy whining and acting put upon. Maybe, you missed this part:
If the case doesn’t interest you move along – there’s plenty of other material here…
Your snarky little comments about what’s written here just make you look like an ungrateful twit.
ps: You have found yourself a great ally in cindy. If that doesn’t scare you, nothing will.
No flags, no tiny little crosses, no baby diddlers, no psycho-rapist-killers = No ACLU.
Fucking hell people. This has been news for long enough. there are more important things going on in this world than one vegetable and what should be a private affair yet is all too public family bickering over what is kindest for her.
Either kill Terri and put her out of her misery…
Or kill the goddamn husband and let her parents get custody and take care of her.
Nuff said.
I don’t give a shit about the left wingers. All they talk about is hippy garbage.
But I’m sick of hearing about this. It shoulda been a private matter from day one. I don’t need it in my life until it comes time for MY family to deal with putting me out! ( Which is sooner than I’d like I think since this old dog aint getting any younger lemme tell you.)
Do you absolutely have to do this every friggin day?
Cindy
Are we going to have to read this in the comments section every friggin day? Move on Cindy.
I was waiting for Terri to wake up last Sunday myself. Would have been the day for it!
But since that didn’t happen, it’s not news anymore in my book. Like her parents, people really need to move on now.
In war, I never dwelled much on a fallen comrade, you gotta pull your socks up and move on, or it ends up hurting you or getting you dead real fast.
You’re another one, Hackney. If you don’t like what you read on this blog, don’t read it and go elsewhere. I’m sick of reading that you are sick of reading about it.
You, too, seemed to have overlooked this:
If the case doesn’t interest you move along – there’s plenty of other material here…
Either shut up or move along. Don’t bite the hand that feeds you, you ingrate.
Bo: Last night I heard various local commentators talking about how Schiavo had deterioted greatly and that they expected her to die within hours. I suspect cbs bet on her dying and deliberately released the obit. What a scoop – Woman denied food and water for 12 days dies!
Posted by: Rob Hackney at March 30, 2005 10:00 AM:
Either kill Terri and put her out of her misery…
Or kill the … husband and let her parents get custody and take care of her.
I think we have our first nominee for the Bad Solomon Impressions contest. And I think Cindy and Rob H are bots. I sleep better at night if I do.
As to the CBS obituary deal–everyone should know by now that high-profile obituaries are pre-written. All they have to do when that person dies is change the dates and slap the link on their main page.
You’re correct. However, this is the issue, in my view:
Michael Schiavo, who was at the bedside of his wife Terri when she died, told Larry King that he lives now with another woman with whom he has two children.
Republican Witch:
Reminds me of last summer when the msm were critiquing Bush speeches and the reaction of the crowd to them — weeks before he actually gave them.
Love your name.
An aside (or maybe not), but…
I was long ago taught the “rule of threes” for survival under conditions of extreme deprivation. It goes like this: An average person can survive
* Three minutes without air
* Three hours without heat
* Three days without water
* Three weeks without food
Terri is now on her 12th(?) day without water. Are there any doctors in the house? Is this remarkable?
I believe I’m actually voicing a valid opinion about this case when a hell of a lotta people actually think this one should have been left out of the public arena instead of turning it into the 3 ring circus media frenzy it has become.
Sorry having an ‘opinion’ gets on your nerves there Julie.
Being annoyed this is still going on is still comment worthy in a country with FREE SPEECH, well, that’s the one I fought for at least.
Rob Hackneyed, March 30, 2005 12:00 PM:
Being annoyed this is still going on is still comment worthy in a country with FREE SPEECH
Actually, Rob, it’s not free. Kevin is paying for it. With comments like yours, Joser’s and cindy’s, I’d say dearly.
RE: julie’s post (March 30, 2005 09:24 AM)
Spare me the drivel. You two obviously enjoy whining and acting put upon…
You should probably reread the initial post and scan to sentence four. You’ll note that I take several positions in that post. At any rate, would you like to be the pot or kettle in this thread? You can be both if you like.
Your snarky little comments about what’s written here just make you look like an ungrateful twit.
No. I appreciate any forum where opinions may be exchanged (even yours) and where hosts don’t panic at the signs of social commentary even from stragglers such as myself. Wizbang doesn’t do that and the hosts are to be commended for their restraint. You may want to look that word up once in a while, not that I don’t enjoy the charming banter.
ps: You have found yourself a great ally in cindy. If that doesn’t scare you, nothing will.
cindy, bless her, has an opinion and is as equally entitled to share it as you are to share yours. Nevertheless, I’m not here to recruit allies though they can be useful in serious debate since everyone has the opportunity to bring something to the table. Table manners aside, the knights of this round table can actually reach some conclusions despite the odd flung peas. What say you Ms. Leseur?
Besides, to some extent, food fights can be quite instructive and entertaining and a nice diversion from the mundane. If it dosen’t get too messy, it actually draws readers into the room… kind of like boxing matches or car wrecks. So in essence, the contrarian view and a subsequent exchange livens the show and draws more readers and traffic. I’m guessing Kevin, Paul, and Jay Tea love your trolling. Me? I just like peas… but not with every meal.
Now who’s for fruit salad?
RE: Cousin Dave’s post (March 30, 2005 12:00 PM)
survival under conditions of extreme deprivation
That’s the operative phrase if those rules still apply. Survival conditions out in the field are different from conditions in the hospice. Not sure I can account for the three day to twelve day disparity but the environment would certainly account for some of it.
Not meaning to interrupt the personal attacks by referring back to what is supposed to be the subject of the thread but I do believe the Florida ACLU at least, perhaps not the national, has come out in support of the “husband.” That is, they have stated that they see this as a Right-to-Die issue and apparently believe every word uttered by Michael Schaivo, at least those uttered after he received the insurance settlement.
Nevermind that his words before receiving the settlement were the exact opposite and he was awarded money for Terri’s care and rehab for fifty years, the lifespan that all parties agreed likely in calculating the expenses for sustaining her. So the pre-settlement Terri had no such death wishes and it was only after receiving the money for use over the next fifty years that suddenly he remembered. Had he voiced her wishes to die in just this circumstance in that trial we all know what the outcome would be. Why would he need money for her care for fifty years if she was going to be allowed to die and even helped along like this?
Is this not insurance fraud? Morally, he should return the proportional amount not used for her care and for the vastly shortened lifespan he has created. We all pay insurance premiums and I for one resent this man being given money for one purpose, using it for another and then proceeding to kill her off long before the time for which the money was to have been alloted.
The horror of killing her in this brutal and cruel manner is bad enough but on top of that, we all pay increases in insurance based on pay-outs and this is one that was not used as agreed and I think should be returned to the company.
He either lied to the company to get the money to use for fifty years or he is lying now saying she wanted to die. It cannot be both ways. But whichever the case, he is morally obligated if not legally to return the money. I wonder if the insurance company will try to recover it. I surely hope that they do.
The fact that he has now squandered it does not relieve him of the moral obligation to return what was not used as intended for her care and rehab which is just about all of it. It was not awarded to him to do with as he pleased as has happened. He should return every penney he has spent on himself (new car) and all the attorneys he has hired for the opposite purposes than awarded.
Maybe I will write to the insurance carrier and suggest that they at least attempt to recover this. Can’t hurt but surely they have already considered this. Has anyone heard anything about their trying to recover the misappropriated funds?
How can you tell this topic is starting to get stale?
When the debate and dicussion in the comments is all about whether or not the post should have been made in the first place.
And the ACLU did join this case, at least in protest of the law written the last time she had the tube in place
Yes, as mentioned by Amelia and Just Me, the ACLU has been co-litigant in at least a couple of courts:
ACLU Joins With Schiavo Legal Team to Ask a Pinellas Judge to Strike Special Law That Reverses Court Order, Violates Patientās Privacy Rights
October 29, 2003
Amelia says, Is this not insurance fraud?
There is so much in your post that are lies and half truths, but I only have time to deal with this single mis-conception.
No, it was not an insurance settlement. It was an award from litigation, that was probably paid by an insurance company. The insurance company for whomever was being sued. Therefore, there is no insurance fraud. But keep grasping for one of those threads.
Release the trolls!
cindy, bless her, has an opinion and is as equally entitled to share it as you are to share yours.
Is that what you call it? And your right to share on Wizbang is up to Kevin. Why you actively have to comment on every thread to every post he makes that you don’t want to read what he has written is not an opinion but merely you two acting like jerks.
Nevertheless, I’m not here to recruit allies though they can be useful in serious debate since everyone has the opportunity to bring something to the table.
Complaining ad nauseam about having to read a topic when you don’t have to read it is not ābring[ing] something to the table.ā It’s just you and cindy demanding attention and being rude to the owner.
Rob:
How is making repetitive posts about how you don’t want to read about the topic, in a thread on the topic, in a blog you don’t have to read, and in which the owner already stated that if you don’t like the topic don’t read it, an opinion?
Being annoyed this is still going on is still comment worthy in a country with FREE SPEECH, well, that’s the one I fought for at least.
There is no right to free speech here, Rob. Your comments are not protected under the first amendment. I would think you would have made an effort to learn what you “fought for.” But, knowing you, it doesn’t surprise me.
julie, why don’t you think comments made here are protected under the First Amendment? Because it’s privately owned? But newspapers are privately owned. Isn’t this the equivalent of a public forum? If, for instance, you were to be so offended by Rob’s tireless ranting (akin to Tony’s faxes??) and sought an injunction against his continuing with annoying and boorish comments (sorry Rob, just making a point — no value judgments here) — or let’s even say his comments were racially or ethnically offensive — do you think a Court could enjoin him? Of course not. Same as the guy shouting outside Cochran’s house, isn’t it?
RE: julie’s post (March 30, 2005 04:15 PM)
Complaining ad nauseam about having to read a topic when you don’t have to read it is not ābring[ing] something to the table.ā It’s just you and cindy demanding attention and being rude to the owner.
Ad nauseum? Really? Intermittently, I’ll commingle several thoughts, one of which might be critical (see above). Other times I’ll agree. Still others I’ll disagree. I’m pretty sure Kevin doesn’t want an echo chamber else we’d call it “Kevin’sKos – the Right Wing” or other appropriate tag. Nevertheless, neither Kevin nor his co-bloggers are that thin-skinned. I figure they can handle some scrutiny just fine.
But let me quote a Leseur pea that once spoke to me, and remember that I’m taking some artistic license to make a point – “Complaining ad nauseum about having to read a response to a topic when you don’t have to read it is not “bring[ing] something to the table.” It’s just you demanding attention and being rude to the guests.”
I was hoping that we had moved on to dessert. Do we now need to throw pies? I’m assuming the guests are getting rather full and a bit tired of ducking.
PS – If you keep up the vitriol, Kevin may want to remove the pot you pea in. [That means “lock the thread” using kitchen slang.]
Wave, the publisher doesn’t have to publish what he doesn’t like – the First Amendment protects people speaking where they may; the publisher in his paper, Kevin on his blog (and anyone who behaves as Kevin deems reasonable), and you in your front yard. People so easily forget that just because there is a comments ability on a blog that you aren’t sitting in your pajamas in your kitchen once you post, you’ve now moved into Kevin’s, um, kitchen. Hey, I like the metaphors. Not that I get the whole peas thing.
FREE TERRI SCHIAVO NOW!
oy
Terri’s still alive (at least as I’m typing). There is nothing aside from Michael’s defective memory (took seven years to recall a rather important fact, I call that a defective memory) to indicate that she would “want” to be released from living this way. The man has an obvious conflict of interest here. If he continued therapy while living with the other woman and his new family, and Terri recovered, what would he do? Leave Terri? Leave Jodi and their kids? No judge who was trying to be objective could fail to see that. If she had left a living will, that’d be different. As it is, we have Michael’s word…..and nothing else. Err on the side of life, indeed. Erring on Michael’s side is irreversible.
If I were Jodi, I’d be pretty darn nervous. Heaven forbid she become inconvenient some day when Michael wants to move on once more.
Anonymous Drivel wrote:
I have my own critiques of the MSM but I understand why they do what they do in this regard. To assign to it some nefarious plot with ghoulish glee from a liberal bastion is unfair and biased in and of itself.
I agree with you. My comments about CBS clamping at the bit (earlier, this thread) didn’t at all begin to suggest that there was some liberal, nefarious plot involved. I DO recognize that there’s a preponderance in our society/world that adulates death, lack of hope, defeatism, desperation, denigration of life…and far more.
CBS panders to that audience, in my experience, and, from the ongoing comments I receive from those among the Left, and read elsewhere, they are the audience, they have lowered expectations and real resentments when someone interjects hopeful alternatives.
I think the Left and their media (most in the media are liberals, as with among higher education — the latter which produces more of the former) have a real enjoyment of a cryptic kind in maintaining a focus on the negative. Such that, they jump the gun about death announcements…since to many, Terri Schiavo “died already” and such and all that. Thus, my earlier comments.
Amelia: yes, the ACLU has even apppeared via spokesperson on FOX News, of all places, affirming that they’ve provided legal assistance and finances to Michael Schiavo on his behalf to fulfill his wishes and secure his opinions.
They’ve endorsed and assisted by a very large dollar amount the perspectives of Michael Schiavo while denying Terri Schiavo so much as a free ride in a wheelchair in the sun outside a dark room.
I’ve interacted with a lot of people from the ACLU via the internet and they always sound pretty much all the same.
-S-,
I understand your perception of the literati in general and CBS/MSM more specifically though I haven’t watched airwave media in years. I think to some extent that it is due to the nature of the industry. Cynicism is one personality trait of the trade. (Some would say scientists share the same gene.) Those with a weaker constitution will succumb to the more negative. The others, hopefully, will gravitate to the more positive and provide constructive criticism rather than just criticism. I always like that about my more spiritual friends… misguided as they may be. š
Well, that doesn’t explain your complete fantasy sprung forth from what I wrote originally on the thread, AnonymousDrivel, earlier. I mean, all that from some moderate comments by me…and all that from your own imagination.
And, not to disrupt any possibility of new-found friendship here, but I’d never use and don’t use term, “literati.” I find that sort of finger-painting “intellectualism” to be along the level of Mr. Cabbagehead maturity.
I recognized a long, long time ago that certain behaviors in media exist, among those preparing memorials and such about living persons, inorder to be ready when/if the need arose.
CBS printing that article on Monday morning seems just so extra special crispy awful to my read as to indicate real anticipation for the actual death event. Meaning, they were just *too ready* for Terri Schiavo to die. Not that she wasn’t “dead already” according to, um, CBS and others.
julie, why don’t you think comments made here are protected under the First Amendment? Because it’s privately owned? But newspapers are privately owned.
I thought you were an atty? Think state action.
RE: -S-‘s post (March 30, 2005 09:30 PM)
Well, that doesn’t explain your complete fantasy sprung forth from what I wrote originally on the thread, AnonymousDrivel, earlier. I mean, all that from some moderate comments by me…and all that from your own imagination.
My original response to you (and the one to which you responded at length) was preceded by the following tag-team commentary:
sherry – “Terri’s obituary was already published by CBS”
tstsmonc – “No, we’re not asking for it. They expect her to die tonight. You ghoulies can barely hide your excitement.”
You – “I’d say that CBS is clamping at that bit.”
As a response to this collection and the predominant thought up to that point, I interpreted and concluded thusly with the following contentious (according to you) excerpt:
“To assign to it some nefarious plot with ghoulish glee from a liberal bastion is unfair and biased in and of itself.”
I don’t think my summary is that far off the mark.
-S- – I’d never use and don’t use term, “literati.” I find that sort of finger-painting “intellectualism” to be along the level of Mr. Cabbagehead maturity.
The term “literati”, which seems to tie you in knots, is my own term (I did not quote you) to describe the news readers (and writers, hence “literati”) of the media. Read into it whatever bias you choose – I’m flexible. Fingerpaint away.