Cobol - OT - "lie" vs "error"

Author

OT - "lie" vs "error"

William M. Klein

2005-03-23, 3:55 am

As a PHILOSOPHICAL follow-on to another thread ...

What is the difference between a "lie" being made - versus - an "error in fact"
being made?

There certainly may be other considerations, but it seems TO ME, that when
something is "stated as a fact" and what is stated is not "true" then

- if the person making the statement (or reporting what others have said
without qualification of this persons opinion to the contrary) KNOWS that it is
not true, then it is a "lie"
- if the person making the statement (or reporting another's statement)
"believes it to be true" when stating/reporting it, then any "mis-information"
is an error, not a lie.

***

Again, I could be in error <G> - but I think this distinction applies to many
threads in the forum - both those on and off topic.

--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com

jce

2005-03-23, 8:55 am

"William M. Klein" <wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:1e50e.2183556$Zm5.353953@news.easynews.com...
> As a PHILOSOPHICAL follow-on to another thread ...
>
> What is the difference between a "lie" being made - versus - an "error in
> fact" being made?
None. An "error in fact" being made implies control of that error. But you
clarify in the next paragraph :-)

> There certainly may be other considerations, but it seems TO ME, that when
> something is "stated as a fact" and what is stated is not "true" then
>
> - if the person making the statement (or reporting what others have said
> without qualification of this persons opinion to the contrary) KNOWS that
> it is not true, then it is a "lie"

There is also the "lie" through omission.

For example :

100,000 people march in support of President Y in his attempts to hold
power.

This sounds like a united country.....but only if you didn't know.....

200,000 people march in protest of President Y in his attempts to hold
power.

This is far _more_ powerful and is used imho far more often. This is
something that the news media does very well - it's why we can call papers
and TV left wing, right wing, and centrist.

> - if the person making the statement (or reporting another's statement)
> "believes it to be true" when stating/reporting it, then any
> "mis-information" is an error, not a lie.

If they claim to have any knowledge then it is still a lie by virtue of
deceit.
Bush claimed he believed there were weapons of mass destruction. Using your
definition, this was an error because he believed it to be true (unless he
lied about that); however, as he represented himself as having evidence (the
lie) this makes the error a lie also.

> Again, I could be in error <G> - but I think this distinction applies to
> many threads in the forum - both those on and off topic.

The big lie right now is that Terry Schiavo has a life worth saving. People
are saying she blinks, breathes, and has brain activity - therefore she is
alive. They don't mention that her cerebral cortex is mush and therefore
she is about as sentient as a dead person.
They also show the tape where she "responds" to her parents - yes, it was
1992 (I think) and is the same one scene shown each time.

GW tells the people that he cut his vacation short because you have to "err
on the side of life"...which doesn't explain why the death penalty count was
so high in Texas.....
Another example of telling the truth (I think he believes what he is saying)
but looking at his decisions in general, it's a lie.

> Bill Klein
> wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com

JCE

Donald Tees

2005-03-23, 3:55 pm

Robert Jones

2005-03-23, 3:55 pm

Donald Tees wrote:
> William M. Klein wrote:
"error in fact"[color=darkred]
that when[color=darkred]
then[color=darkred]
have said[color=darkred]
KNOWS that it is[color=darkred]
statement)[color=darkred]
"mis-information"[color=darkred]
applies to many[color=darkred]
>
> The simple lie is an untruth.
>
> The more complex lie is lack of truth, or lie of omission.
>
> The really sophistocated lie is the truth told in such a way that it
is
> not believed.
>
> Donald

I think the word deceit would be more appropriate for that. I think lie
means a simple untruth, though unravelling it may be complex, as per
some compound programming IF statements where the end result is true or
false.

Robert

docdwarf@panix.com

2005-03-23, 3:55 pm

In article <1e50e.2183556$Zm5.353953@news.easynews.com>,
William M. Klein <wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote:
>As a PHILOSOPHICAL follow-on to another thread ...
>
>What is the difference between a "lie" being made - versus - an "error in fact"
>being made?

My memory is, admittedly, porous... but I recall being taught something
about 'the intention to deceive'.

As to how one goes about discerning intent - I barely know what *my*
intentions are, let alone anyone else's - ... that might be an exercise
best left for the reader.

DD

HeyBub

2005-03-23, 3:55 pm

jce wrote:
>
> This is far _more_ powerful and is used imho far more often. This is
> something that the news media does very well - it's why we can call
> papers and TV left wing, right wing, and centrist.

Those who do "are in error." There are vanishingly few "right wing and
centrist" papers.

>
[color=darkred]
> The big lie right now is that Terry Schiavo has a life worth saving.

Admittedly the "life worth saving" is, um, convoluted. I think it's really
short-hand "the deliberate taking of an innocent life, or permitting it to
be taken, diminishes us all."

>
> GW tells the people that he cut his vacation short because you have
> to "err on the side of life"...which doesn't explain why the death
> penalty count was so high in Texas.....
> Another example of telling the truth (I think he believes what he is
> saying) but looking at his decisions in general, it's a lie.

The death penalty is often used in Texas because we have (had) some really
bad actors. Fact is, some people need killing: Being on the side of death
for miscreants is not error. Being on the side of death for the helpless IS
error. It's not death, per se, that's at issue: it's the manner of the
process.

>
>
> JCE

Jeff York

2005-03-23, 3:55 pm

docdwarf@panix.com wrote:

>In article <1e50e.2183556$Zm5.353953@news.easynews.com>,
>William M. Klein <wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>My memory is, admittedly, porous... but I recall being taught something
>about 'the intention to deceive'.

I reckon that the concept of "mens rea" just about covers it..

--
Jeff. Ironbridge, Shrops, U.K.
jeff@xjackfieldx.org (remove the x..x round jackfield for return address)
and don't bother with ralf4, it's a spamtrap and I never go there.. :)

.... "There are few hours in life more agreeable
than the hour dedicated to the ceremony
known as afternoon tea.."

Henry James, (1843 - 1916).

Howard Brazee

2005-03-23, 3:55 pm

On 22-Mar-2005, "William M. Klein" <wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote:

> Again, I could be in error <G> - but I think this distinction applies to many
> threads in the forum - both those on and off topic.

There are also positions in between the two.

When a person of authority tells me that I should trust data that I need for my
program, and as a result, my program gives the users bad data - does it matter
whether that person was lying or erroneous? His authority came with a
responsibility to be correct, or minimally to present me with enough information
to make my own decision.

Modern society puts too much value on intent, and not enough on results.

jce

2005-03-23, 3:55 pm

"HeyBub" <heybubNOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1142v8pthc83u01@news.supernews.com...
> jce wrote:
>
> The death penalty is often used in Texas because we have (had) some really
> bad actors. Fact is, some people need killing: Being on the side of death
> for miscreants is not error. Being on the side of death for the helpless
> IS error. It's not death, per se, that's at issue: it's the manner of the
> process.

Not what I said.

George said he had to "err on the side of life".
My point: given the number of people on death row that have been exonerated
recently, one could argue that in the judicial system if we "erred" on the
side of life, we would abolish the death penalty.

Being on the side of death for the helpless IS error, if there is exactly
ONE helpless, and that the help actually is to the detriment of the system
as a whole. Representative government is to govern the masses, not the
individual. Unfortunately hard decisions are made - among them is the right
to allow for a group of people to die because it's too difficult/hard/costly
to do otherwise.

If we were to "err" on the side of life, we would abolish the right for
idiots to let kids have access to guns, drive fast cars.

Point is that what he said was probably a truth - I believe he meant it -
but it's non universal application (absence of contrary evidence) really
indicates it is just used as an ends to a means. Therefore it's a truth,
but the absence of supporting evidence makes it a little "white lie".

JCE

Chuck Stevens

2005-03-23, 3:55 pm

"jce" <defaultuser@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8y90e.243187$JF2.154149@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...

> The big lie right now is that Terry Schiavo has a life worth saving.
People
> are saying she blinks, breathes, and has brain activity - therefore she
is
> alive. They don't mention that her cerebral cortex is mush and therefore
> she is about as sentient as a dead person.

As far as I'm concerned, the issue with the Schiavo case has more to do with
the right of one member of a married couple to make medical decisions for
the other. In this instance, I think it's twenty-five court decisions thus
far that have ruled in favor of the husband's right to make such decisions,
and against the Schindlers' (Terry Schiavo's parents) right to override his
decision. Having a feeding tube inserted counts as "extraordinary measures
to prolong life", and the husband is in a better, and more legally tenable,
position to know Terry Schiavo's most recent thoughts on such matters than
the parents. The next of kin makes these decisions, and the next of kin is
the spouse.

The Terry Schiavo Law of this past w

end gave the Federal courts
jurisdiction on the matter; the US Supreme Court has refused to hear the
case three times so far on jurisdictional grounds; the Schindlers have vowed
to take the case to the Supreme Court to overturn the two Federal Court
rulings against them.

Thus, I think it's not about life or death, it's about one spouse's *legal*
right to allow the other to die with dignity and not to prolong that
spouse's life artificially.

-Chuck Stevens

Howard Brazee

2005-03-23, 3:55 pm

On 23-Mar-2005, "Chuck Stevens" <charles.stevens@unisys.com> wrote:

> Thus, I think it's not about life or death, it's about one spouse's *legal*
> right to allow the other to die with dignity and not to prolong that
> spouse's life artificially.

Having life prolonged by well-meaning governments is the substance of horror SF.

Pete Dashwood

2005-03-24, 3:55 am

"William M. Klein" <wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:1e50e.2183556$Zm5.353953@news.easynews.com...
> As a PHILOSOPHICAL follow-on to another thread ...
>

Oh, Goody, I LOVE philosophical discussions... :-)

> What is the difference between a "lie" being made - versus - an "error in
fact"
> being made?
>

The 'lie' has an intention to deceive, the error doesn't.

Of course, the results are often exactly the same, and it is no comfort to
die because someone made an 'honest mistake' when programming the
autopilot...

It comes down to a responsibility in the dissemination of information. If
you are going to disseminate information you have a responsibility to ensure
it is as accurate as possible, or state that it should not be taken
seriously.

DISCLAIMER: This post should not be taken seriously. (Not because it is not
attempting to discuss a serious issue, but because it is simply one man's
opinion...)

(Neither should any OT posts in CLC.)

I see some posters jumped onto the Schiavi case...

No minds will be changed by discussing this, because the positions are
already entrenched. There are no swinging voters when it comes to the
question of motality. Both sides have some merit in their viewpoints, but
the crux of it is: what do we mean by "life", and how precious is it
really....?

I believe there are worse things than death.

But that is just me, and if you held a gun to my head, I might change my
mind...

I am reminded of a drawing room discussion that took place at a friend's
house some years ago. We were discussing new advances in Science that
indicated it might be possible for the aging process to be controlled, and
people could live to be 170, as a matter of course. There was a general
feeling of uneasiness when this was stated and one person expressed the
thoughts of most of us: "Who wants to live to be 170?"

Without hesitation, another person present responded: "Everyone who is
169..."

We dissolved in laughter, but it stayed with me.

This whole life experience is a very complex thing and, irrespective of
one's religious belief, most of us are in no hurry to shuffle off this
mortal coil.

Whether someone's perception of reality differs from our own, whether they
honestly believe what they say, whether they are relaying information that
is simply incorrect, the measure of a "lie" is the intention behind it.

As John Keats observed, the only real truth is beauty, (and even that is
subjective....)

I wouldn't worry about whether someone got it wrong or is deliberately
lying; simply don't operate on second or third party information until you
have checked it out.

(Obviously, the degree of importance and significance of this information in
your life, makes a difference as to how thoroughly or energetically you will
check it out. If you don't care anyway, you won't (or shouldn't..) spend
time on it.)

Expecting complete accuracy and above board honesty from Usenet postings is
like expecting a COBOL programmer to run a four minute mile; it is
theoretically achievable, but statistically unlikely.

Pete.

LX-i

2005-03-24, 3:55 am

William M. Klein wrote:
> As a PHILOSOPHICAL follow-on to another thread ...
>
> What is the difference between a "lie" being made - versus - an "error in fact"
> being made?
>
> There certainly may be other considerations, but it seems TO ME, that when
> something is "stated as a fact" and what is stated is not "true" then
>
> - if the person making the statement (or reporting what others have said
> without qualification of this persons opinion to the contrary) KNOWS that it is
> not true, then it is a "lie"
> - if the person making the statement (or reporting another's statement)
> "believes it to be true" when stating/reporting it, then any "mis-information"
> is an error, not a lie.

That makes sense - and that's what makes the "Bush Lied" crowd so...
comical (if not annoying). "We were sent into Iraq on a lie!" No, we
were sent in with what was, by the time we got there, faulty
information. We'll never know if that intel *was* accurate at the time
it was gathered.

> Again, I could be in error <G>

Nope, I think you're lying... ;)

> - but I think this distinction applies to many
> threads in the forum - both those on and off topic.

It does - thanks for introducing it here. :) (I still say a politician
that says SS taxes are an investment is lying, though...)

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ daniel@thebelowdomain ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

LX-i

2005-03-24, 3:55 am

jce wrote:
> The big lie right now is that Terry Schiavo has a life worth saving. People
> are saying she blinks, breathes, and has brain activity - therefore she is
> alive. They don't mention that her cerebral cortex is mush and therefore
> she is about as sentient as a dead person.
> They also show the tape where she "responds" to her parents - yes, it was
> 1992 (I think) and is the same one scene shown each time.

Ah - another Floridian for euthanasia... Is it in the water down there?

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ daniel@thebelowdomain ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

LX-i

2005-03-24, 3:55 am

jce wrote:
> GW tells the people that he cut his vacation short because you have to "err
> on the side of life"...which doesn't explain why the death penalty count was
> so high in Texas.....
> Another example of telling the truth (I think he believes what he is saying)
> but looking at his decisions in general, it's a lie.

Tell me why liberals want convicted murders to live and Terri Schiavo to
die. I'm really having trouble taking the left seriously when *they*
are the ones for long, draw-out appeals that take forever, because "what
if advances in technology can prove their innocence?" However, no such
advances are hoped for Terri.

Just peachy - let the guilty live, kill the innocent. No wonder I'm not
a liberal...

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ daniel@thebelowdomain ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

LX-i

2005-03-24, 3:55 am

Howard Brazee wrote:
> On 23-Mar-2005, "Chuck Stevens" <charles.stevens@unisys.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Having life prolonged by well-meaning governments is the substance of horror SF.

I wasn't aware that feeding medical patients food and water (and she can
take both without the tube) was "prolonging life" - I thought it was
what happened when you're in a hospital, nursing home, or hospice.

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ daniel@thebelowdomain ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

William M. Klein

2005-03-24, 3:55 am

I thought I would give one person's response to your serious question about
Why let Terri Schiavo die, but convicted murderers live?

First, I am AWFULLY glad that I am not Terri's husband who has to make his
decision (no matter what happens with it) - just as I am happy that I will never
be pregnant with an unwanted (or rape caused or fatally genetically flawed)
child that I would have to decide if I wanted an abortion.

However, I do believe that there is sufficient medical evidence available that
Terri Schiavo is in a "permanent vegetative state" (despite what Gov Bush said
today) and that, therefore, there is NO reasonable chance that she will ever
regain a "reasonable quality of life". (as her husband believed SHE expressed
that she wanted)

On the other hand, except in VERY unusual cases, when there is a convicted
murderer, I believe that there IS a reasonable possibility that
A) he/she might be returned to being a "productive" member of society (whether
remaining in prison for life - or possibly even out of prison)
and/or
B) she/he MIGHT later be found to be not guilty (given later evidence). This
certainly happened in enough cases in Illinois for my state to go into a
"moratorium" (interesting unintentional pun) on executions.

***

I expect that there are many other "liberals" with different rationales and some
who would disagree either on who should live (despite convictions) or who should
be allowed to die (despite the best medical evidence) - but this is my
reasoning behind my answers to your questions.

--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
"LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:e0d42$42423071$45491f85$32215@KNOLO
GY.NET...
> jce wrote:
>
> Tell me why liberals want convicted murders to live and Terri Schiavo to die.
> I'm really having trouble taking the left seriously when *they* are the ones
> for long, draw-out appeals that take forever, because "what if advances in
> technology can prove their innocence?" However, no such advances are hoped
> for Terri.
>
> Just peachy - let the guilty live, kill the innocent. No wonder I'm not a
> liberal...
>
>
> --
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> ~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
> ~ / \/ o ~ ~
> ~ / /\ - | ~ daniel@thebelowdomain ~
> ~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
> ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
> ~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
> ~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e ~
> ~ h---- r+++ z++++ ~
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

LX-i

2005-03-24, 3:55 am

William M. Klein wrote:
> I thought I would give one person's response to your serious question about
> Why let Terri Schiavo die, but convicted murderers live?

Thanks!

> First, I am AWFULLY glad that I am not Terri's husband who has to make his
> decision (no matter what happens with it) - just as I am happy that I will never
> be pregnant with an unwanted (or rape caused or fatally genetically flawed)
> child that I would have to decide if I wanted an abortion.
>
> However, I do believe that there is sufficient medical evidence available that
> Terri Schiavo is in a "permanent vegetative state" (despite what Gov Bush said
> today) and that, therefore, there is NO reasonable chance that she will ever
> regain a "reasonable quality of life". (as her husband believed SHE expressed
> that she wanted)

What if she's not? Would you still feel this way?

And, why not allow her to be given liquids that she can swallow? She
swallows over a liter of her own saliva a day. If she's going to die,
give her an injection to make it quick - starving her to death is just
cruel.

> On the other hand, except in VERY unusual cases, when there is a convicted
> murderer, I believe that there IS a reasonable possibility that
> A) he/she might be returned to being a "productive" member of society (whether
> remaining in prison for life - or possibly even out of prison)
> and/or
> B) she/he MIGHT later be found to be not guilty (given later evidence). This
> certainly happened in enough cases in Illinois for my state to go into a
> "moratorium" (interesting unintentional pun) on executions.

I understand that thinking. How do you balance the "might" of them
being productive against the "might not" - the fact that they may do
what they need to to be released, and then kill again?

> I expect that there are many other "liberals" with different rationales and some
> who would disagree either on who should live (despite convictions) or who should
> be allowed to die (despite the best medical evidence) - but this is my
> reasoning behind my answers to your questions.

I appreciate that. :)

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ daniel@thebelowdomain ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

James J. Gavan

2005-03-24, 3:55 am

LX-i wrote:
> jce wrote:
>
>
>
> Tell me why liberals want convicted murders to live and Terri Schiavo to
> die. I'm really having trouble taking the left seriously when *they*
> are the ones for long, draw-out appeals that take forever, because "what
> if advances in technology can prove their innocence?" However, no such
> advances are hoped for Terri.
>
> Just peachy - let the guilty live, kill the innocent. No wonder I'm not
> a liberal...
>
>
I am going to get really pissed off at you if you keep on sneering at
LIBERALS. Change your time piece.

My clock is set at 12:00 = Liberals

11:55 = 'Pinko' Conservatives as defined by the guys at 11:40 below.
(This includes Brian Mulroney and the old Canadian Conservatives - and
remember Brian was a big buddy of Ronnie R., plus he has served on the
same board of directors as George Bush Senior).

11:40 - Our Reform/Alliance, (plus Born-again Christians) who morphed
into the new Conservatives - so 11:55 plus 11:40 gives us our 'uneasy'
current Conservatives.

11:35 - Fascism

12:10 - Is where I personally think Tony Blair sits, perhaps 12:05. His
mentor was a former Labour Minister, Roy Jenkins who joined the British
Liberals (Social-Democrats) sitting at around 12:00.

12:15 Labour/Socialism - in Canada we have the NDP (National Democratic
Party) and typically supported by the unions. In UK Labour was also
typically supported by the unions, TUC (Trade Unions Congress) - Maggie
Thatcher neutered the unions' power. Although you have AFCIO etc., for
some unknown reason to me, historically your 'Labor' movement is
non-existent. (Please don't respond with bullshit such as, 'The land of
opportunity').

12:25 - Communism

**********

LIBERALISM sits centre at 12:00 taking from both right and left, and
quite intentionally so. Nobody holds copyright to any political belief.
With no 'Labor' party in the States, your Democrats have to take on some
but not all the ideas of Socialism. (Try 36 million without health care
coverage for starters. Don't equivocate - I got that number, (needs
updating), from a GP from Somerset, Kentucky some five years back).
Whether UK Social-Democrats, US Deomcrats or Canadian Liberals - they
are all essentially centrist parties.

I guess you fit in around 11:40 to 11:45. Go buy a new Timex !

As for the death thing and that poor girl - much too emotive and nobody
will be convinced. Eileen and I discussed it only yesterday - and we
couldn't even agree between ourselves - just one small family unit.

Jimmy

Joe Zitzelberger

2005-03-24, 3:55 am

In article <801ef$42422e8f$45491f85$32215@KNOLOGY.NET>,
LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:

>
> It does - thanks for introducing it here. :) (I still say a politician
> that says SS taxes are an investment is lying, though...)

While on the (off-topic) topic of politicians claiming it is an
investment, not a tax, here are some selected quotes from the MacDaddy
of the program himself, Mr. FDR.

He should server quite well to address questions about when 'the state'
claimed that Social Security was insurance and not a tax -- that is how
he sold it to the people when he was the head of 'the state'. Few
Democrats have had original thoughts since.

From a collection of his various addresses and chats regarding the
program -- you can view the entire texts at
"http://www.ssa.gov/history/fdrstmts.html":

- "I believe that the funds necessary to provide this insurance
should be raised by contribution rather than by an increase in general
taxation."

- "We must not allow this type of insurance to become a dole through
the mingling of insurance and relief. It is not charity. It must be
financed by contributions, not taxes."

- "As Governor of New York, it was my pleasure to recommend passage
of the Old-Age Pension Act which, I am told, is still generally regarded
as the most liberal in the country. In approving the bill, I expressed
my opinion that full solution of this problem is possible only on
insurance principles. It takes so very much money to provide even a
moderate pension for everybody, that when the funds are raised from
taxation only a "means test" must necessarily be made a condition of the
grant of pensions."

- "the system adopted, except for the money necessary to initiate it,
should be self-sustaining in the sense that funds for the payment of
insurance benefits should not come from the proceeds of general
taxation."

William M. Klein

2005-03-24, 3:55 am

"LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:3dfb4$4242391b$45491f85$2166@KNOLOG
Y.NET...
> William M. Klein wrote:
>
> Thanks!
>
<snip>
>
> What if she's not? Would you still feel this way?
>

I have both a "living will" and have signed a "power of attorney for medical
issues" document - to deal with such issues in MY case. If she had done such, I
beleive that things would be "much clearer" and I certainly would encourage
others to take these steps (or whatever your local government allows to handle
such issues).

PERSONALLY, I have minimal "philosophical" objection to suicide - and would
allow a person in his/her "right mind" (if such is possible) to take that step.
The next step of indicating under what circumstances a person would want others
(doctors, hospital, "loved ones") to implement their desires under specific
situations, is also reasonable.

In the specific case of my father, he became "brain dead" after a long struggle
with side-effects from diabetes. "Luckily" he had made his wishes well known to
my mother, my sisters, and to me (even though he had not done "paper work" to
specify this) and my mother authorized the hospital to remove "extrordinary"
means and allowed him to die peacefully and quickly.

In *my* case, I have made it clear to my sisters that should I (permantently)
lose the ability to make appropriate mental decisions for myself, I would ask
that they STOP (have stopped) my AIDS medications - even if I was not suffering
from other physical problems. This would, I believe, lead to my death as
quickly as possible.

I would *not* ask my sisters (a doctor, or anyone else) to take this action if
it was against THEIR beliefs - but I would ask them to allow others to follow my
direction.

***

Now, in the Terri Shiavo case, there MAY be some question about whether she
really did or did not convey her desires to her husband. If that was what was
being argued in the courts, I would have more sympathy with those trying to keep
her alive. However, as *I* hear the news reports, her parents are stating that
she was a "good Catholic" and that she wouldn't want to commit a "mortal sin"
but NOT that they heard her (after the reports from her husband) actually
indicate that she would want to be kept alive in a "vegatative state". Even if
her parents did argue with her husband about exactly what views she had
expressed AND when, I think I would "err" on the side of believing her husband -
unless there was evidence from "neutral parties" that she did not have such a
relationship with her husband.

Finally, I don't think that I quite understand what is and isn't actually
happening vs what is being reported. It seems to me that the news reports have
indicated that the courts have said that the feeding (and hydration) "tubes"
needed to be removed. However, there seems to be some evidence that she is not
being given any food or water thru "normal" means. Some of the medical experts
say that a person in a vegatative state CAN chew and swallow. If this is the
case, then I (like you - I think) don't understand why her parents and the
hospice are being denied the right to provide these.

--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com

jce

2005-03-24, 3:55 am

"LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:e0d42$42423071$45491f85$32215@KNOLO
GY.NET...
> jce wrote:
[color=darkred]
> Tell me why liberals want convicted murders to live and Terri Schiavo to
> die.
First off, no one helped her when she was alive and that's the OVERLOOKED
tragedy of this situation. Hundreds of lives could be saved if we focused
on the cause of all this in the first place. She needed help, and no one
gave it to her.

I cannot speak for liberals, nor would I declare myself to be one. My views
are conservative, liberal, marxist, capitalist depending on the subject. I
have not stated my _personal_ opinion on where I stand on this issue yet -
only the inconsistencies of the position of George Bush regarding "erring on
the side of life" while advocating the "death penalty" which plainly errs on
the side of "death".

Let me be _very_ clear here. CONVICTED = GUILTY <> YEP, THE DEFENDENT DID
IT

A person is convicted of a capital crime based on a court system. The court
system allows for evidence to support the and defend the person. At the
end of the trial - "guilt" is assigned. This guilt is sometimes very well
established, at other times the conviction is based purely on circumstancial
evidence such as a witness statement.

In the Terri case courts used some of the same methods:

Testimony that in 1990,1991,1992 there was no swallowing reflex as
established by MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS.

Every year through 1997 a speech pathologist examined her said that could
not be rehabilitated and had high risk of aspiration.

Medical opinion is on COURT RECORDS that oral nutrition would result in
aspiration with insufficient nutrition passing through. Such aspiration
would lead to infection, fever and pneumonia. The suctioning to resolve
this would kill her.

A trial judge held a trial on the issue of what Terri would have wanted and
determined that the evidence clearly and convincingly showed that Terri
would not want to continue life-prolonging measures in her current state.

Recorded in documents:

"We note that the guardianship court's original order expressly relied upon
and found credible the testimony of witnesses other than Mr. Schiavo or the
Schindlers. We recognize that Mrs. Schiavo's earlier oral statements were
important evidence when deciding whether she would choose in February 2000
to withdraw life-prolonging procedures. See § 765.401(3), Fla. Stat. (2000);
In re Guardianship of Browning, 568 So. 2d 4, 16. Nevertheless, the trial
judge, acting as her proxy, also properly considered evidence of Mrs.
Schiavo's values, personality, and her own decision-making process."

So what is the difference between your CONVICTED murderers as determined by
court. And the wishes of Terri as determined by court ? Don't tell me that
its 12 jurors who haven't read a newspaper.

My opinion is based on a certain level that the court system has done what
it should have done - taken MEDICAL evidence of the doctors IN THE ROOM with
the patient, the testimony of various witnesses including the husband and
family and determined the outcome.

I don't pretend the decision is an easy one. I know it is a hard one, but I
also have to believe that the decisions have been made in her best interest
as determined by the courts. I know people that have died of their own
choosing by switching off dialysis, or refusing medication. I know people
that have had diabetes and heart problems and do not maintain a diet.
They're personal choices - not choices for bunch of anti-conservatives and
not a for a bunch of conservatives.

Politics in america is like a football game - you're either with the home
fans, or with the away fans. People forget to discuss issues and take
sides...it's rather

.

>I'm really having trouble taking the left seriously when *they*
I'm not left.

> are the ones for long, draw-out appeals that take forever, because "what
> if advances in technology can prove their innocence?" However, no such
> advances are hoped for Terri.

This HAS been a long draw out appeal.. Take a look at the timeline when you
have a chance. The tube was REMOVED the first time back in APRIL 2001! She
should be with God already.

Terri is in the state she is in because she PUT HERSELF there. If she had
required a heart transplant at the time of her collapse she could not get
one because of the psychiatric conditions involved. Terri did not do
anything to suggest that she valued her life when she was living. Perhaps
this is why I feel the way I do - she cared enough about other peoples
perception of her healthy self to do this much damage. I cannot believe she
would have wanted to be seen worldwide like this.....and I have to assume
that the courts agreed with this/

> Just peachy - let the guilty live, kill the innocent. No wonder I'm not a
> liberal...
My point was, not everyone on death row is without doubt guilty

http://www.aclu.org/DeathPenalty/De...fm?ID=9316&c=65
http://talkleft.com/new_archives/004595.html
http://www.findarticles.com/p/artic..._54/ai_90888288

The above examples show people not actually executed - however, they show
that there is some chance of error. Defenders will claim that _ZERO_ have
been executed when they were innocent - only it's a little too late to
really ask and find out I would suspect. I have to believe that at least
one of the people professing innocence at the chair wasn't lying...it's not
like they were going to call the whole thing off, have tea and discuss his
innocence at this point....they could have yelled...."Yeah, boi, I did
it...that mofo deserved it...." for as much as anyone actually could do at
that point.

One objection that I have with death penalty is that it's more often than
not an act of retribution rather than anything useful....it's the ancient
eye for an eye theory. I see pros and cons to the death penalty, the
biggest con in my mind is quite simply that the legal system is a sham. I'd
much rather we spend time getting that fixed. Some of the fallout of
pollution politics is far worse than the worst serial killer in the last few
decades.........yet, somehow the trial lawyers cannot pin anything on the
perpetrators of those crimes. I ain't doing nothing to get me killed, and
I'm not actively doing anything to get anyone else killed, so at a personal
level I don't care....makes me shallow maybe.

On a final note, I suppose if there had been no death penalty then Jesus
would have just been put in jail without parole for our sins...not nearly as
catchy as died for our sins...but maybe just maybe it would have quieted Mel
Gibson.

JCE

jce

2005-03-24, 3:55 am

"James J. Gavan" <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:Qmr0e.767677$8l.315077@pd7tw1no...

> I guess you fit in around 11:40 to 11:45. Go buy a new Timex !

So if he's in Alabama....does that make him a Greenwich Mean Time Fascist?

JCE

docdwarf@panix.com

2005-03-24, 8:55 am

In article <joe_zitzelberger-5ACE7B.23304623032005@ispnews.usenetserver.com>,
Joe Zitzelberger <joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com> wrote:
>In article <801ef$42422e8f$45491f85$32215@KNOLOGY.NET>,
> LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>
>While on the (off-topic) topic of politicians claiming it is an
>investment, not a tax, here are some selected quotes from the MacDaddy
>of the program himself, Mr. FDR.
>
>He should server quite well to address questions about when 'the state'
>claimed that Social Security was insurance and not a tax -- that is how
>he sold it to the people when he was the head of 'the state'. Few
>Democrats have had original thoughts since.

Ummmm... the most recent quote you show appears to be from 1935 and states
what the system 'should be'; this thread has already shown a quote from
the IRS dated 1939 showing what it had become.

(All of the quotations you post indicate that the Social Security program
was not in existence ('funds... should be raised, system... should be
self-sustaining'), indicating that it is not yet in existence; it is
compared to the New York State Old Age Pension Act where it appears
that 'funds are raised from taxation'.

This has been going on a few days, now... fascinating that saying 'social
security is not a tax, but an investment' is so very common that it is
easy to find citations of it.

DD

HeyBub

2005-03-24, 3:55 pm

James J. Gavan wrote:
>
> LIBERALISM sits centre at 12:00 taking from both right and left, and
> quite intentionally so. Nobody holds copyright to any political
> belief. With no 'Labor' party in the States, your Democrats have to
> take on some but not all the ideas of Socialism. (Try 36 million
> without health care coverage for starters. Don't equivocate - I got
> that number, (needs updating), from a GP from Somerset, Kentucky some
> five years back). Whether UK Social-Democrats, US Deomcrats or
> Canadian Liberals - they are all essentially centrist parties.

Strawman argument. There are HUGE numbers of U.S.citizens without health
INSURANCE, but very few without health CARE.

In fact, there are more without insurance in the UK (almost none) than in
the US (~40 million)! And both groups get about the same level of care.

Point is, talk about INSURANCE or CARE, but don't meld the two.

Interesting factoid: There are more MRI machines in Seattle (over 200) than
in all of Canada (137) - at least according to GE who makes the damn things.

As for "Labor" party, we have one: the Democrats - we just don't have many
union members.

Joe Zitzelberger

2005-03-24, 3:55 pm

In article <d1u4uk$hcc$1@panix5.panix.com>, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:

> In article <joe_zitzelberger-5ACE7B.23304623032005@ispnews.usenetserver.com>,
> Joe Zitzelberger <joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> Ummmm... the most recent quote you show appears to be from 1935 and states
> what the system 'should be'; this thread has already shown a quote from
> the IRS dated 1939 showing what it had become.
>
> (All of the quotations you post indicate that the Social Security program
> was not in existence ('funds... should be raised, system... should be
> self-sustaining'), indicating that it is not yet in existence; it is
> compared to the New York State Old Age Pension Act where it appears
> that 'funds are raised from taxation'.
>
> This has been going on a few days, now... fascinating that saying 'social
> security is not a tax, but an investment' is so very common that it is
> easy to find citations of it.
>
> DD

I know what it was from the start -- a tax. But there are many that
have long claimed that it was not. The oft cited canard about
'contributions' financing ones 'insurance' is an obvious
misrepresentation -- or more accurately a 'lie'.

It was a lie from the very beginning of the system. It was a lie every
time a politician promised to keep your 'contributions' to the 'trust
fund' in a 'lockbox'.

It is so common that I cannot remember a politician supportive of the
program NOT trying to make claims, hints and suggestions that ones
contributions are sacrosacnt -- even as the are treating said
contributions exactly like taxes for spending purposes.

However, the two times I googled the topic I quite quickly found two
cites that indicate there was gross misrepresentation of the program as
'insurance-not-taxes' from the beginning. And said cites indicate that
the state was the originating participant of the misrepresentations. (I
could do a more in depth search, but the brief search was productive
enough considering my limited time of late.)

Said misrepresentation is still going on by program supporters with the
current clamor about things like 'guaranteed benefits' and denial that
the program is welfare.

Donald Tees

2005-03-24, 3:55 pm

LX-i wrote:
> Howard Brazee wrote:
>
>
>
> I wasn't aware that feeding medical patients food and water (and she can
> take both without the tube) was "prolonging life" - I thought it was
> what happened when you're in a hospital, nursing home, or hospice.
>
>

You cannot seem to see the difference between giving someone food and
forcing it down their throat with a tube to make political points. Of
course, *most* rapists insist that the victim really wanted it.

Donald

Howard Brazee

2005-03-24, 3:55 pm

On 23-Mar-2005, LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:

> Tell me why liberals want convicted murders to live and Terri Schiavo to
> die. I'm really having trouble taking the left seriously when *they*
> are the ones for long, draw-out appeals that take forever, because "what
> if advances in technology can prove their innocence?" However, no such
> advances are hoped for Terri.
>
> Just peachy - let the guilty live, kill the innocent. No wonder I'm not
> a liberal...

I've seen people say the same thing about conservatives on this "right to life"
issue. The thing is that both of you are lumping in a lot of different people
with a wide variety of beliefs and noting that all those beliefs aren't
consistent. You have to know conservatives who have beliefs that you disagree
with. (Heck, the variations of conservative Christians in a small church are
large) Liberals are diverse as well. Admittedly there are a few non-thinkers
who just follow the party line (after others fought hard to establish that line
with compromise and such). But thinking people come up with different
conclusions - even if in general they fall in the "liberal" or "conservative"
camps.

Don't worry about labels.

Howard Brazee

2005-03-24, 3:55 pm

On 24-Mar-2005, "HeyBub" <heybubNOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:

> Strawman argument. There are HUGE numbers of U.S.citizens without health
> INSURANCE, but very few without health CARE.

We have socialized medicine in the US, paid for by workers and their employers.

But when my brother was in between jobs, he did not see a physician about his
cough. When he was hired again, he found out he had cancer, and didn't last a
year. While he probably could have gotten himself looked at in time, in
practice people without insurance often wait as he did.

Howard Brazee

2005-03-24, 3:55 pm

On 23-Mar-2005, LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:

> That makes sense - and that's what makes the "Bush Lied" crowd so...
> comical (if not annoying). "We were sent into Iraq on a lie!" No, we
> were sent in with what was, by the time we got there, faulty
> information. We'll never know if that intel *was* accurate at the time
> it was gathered.

They should say "We were sent to Iraq on a massive federal screw-up".

docdwarf@panix.com

2005-03-24, 3:55 pm

In article <joe_zitzelberger-F9D03B.08572724032005@ispnews.usenetserver.com>,
Joe Zitzelberger <joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com> wrote:
>In article <d1u4uk$hcc$1@panix5.panix.com>, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>

[snip]
[color=darkred]
>
>I know what it was from the start -- a tax. But there are many that
>have long claimed that it was not. The oft cited canard about
>'contributions' financing ones 'insurance' is an obvious
>misrepresentation -- or more accurately a 'lie'.

This 'canard' has been mentioned here repeatedly and yet nobody seems to
be able to bring up a cite for it.

[snip]

>However, the two times I googled the topic I quite quickly found two
>cites that indicate there was gross misrepresentation of the program as
>'insurance-not-taxes' from the beginning.

It should be easy enough to bring them forward, then. Would you be so
kind as to do so?

DD

Chuck Stevens

2005-03-24, 3:55 pm

"LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:dccd3$424230fe$45491f85$32215@KNOLO
GY.NET...

> I wasn't aware that feeding medical patients food and water (and she can
> take both without the tube) was "prolonging life" - I thought it was
> what happened when you're in a hospital, nursing home, or hospice.

JCE posted:

<<Testimony that in 1990,1991,1992 there was no swallowing reflex as
established by MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS.>>

and

<<Medical opinion is on COURT RECORDS that oral nutrition would result in
aspiration with insufficient nutrition passing through. Such aspiration
would lead to infection, fever and pneumonia. The suctioning to resolve
this would kill her.>>

Do you have evidence to the contrary that she *can* get sufficient nutrition
and hydration by "conventioal" methods of eating and drinking (including,
but not limited to, such tasks as chewing and swallowing)?

-Chuck Stevens

James J. Gavan

2005-03-24, 3:55 pm

HeyBub wrote:
> James J. Gavan wrote:
>
>
>
> Strawman argument. There are HUGE numbers of U.S.citizens without health
> INSURANCE, but very few without health CARE.
>
Strange that. If there is no problem getting medical assistance when
required, why is Health Care Insurance such a hot topic in the States ?
If EVERYBODY gets what they need - then why any Insurance scheme at all ?

I have no idea of the physician's politics, we only got around to the
topic in a 15-minute conversation when we were both visiting Lake
Moraine up here in Alberta. (He and his wife were here celebrating their
wedding anniversary). I would be much more inclined to listen to the
comments of a practicing physician, who sees the problem on a daily
basis, rather than Mr. Citizen who is making his own private assessment,
coupled of course with judgment based on selecting the 'right' set of
statistics.

> In fact, there are more without insurance in the UK (almost none) than in
> the US (~40 million)! And both groups get about the same level of care.
>
You compare your system to UK ? I have no idea of how it currently
works, but certainly the British right-wing tabloids consistently take
swipes at UK Medicare. According to them it is an absolute mess. What I
see superficially probably supports that contention.

> Point is, talk about INSURANCE or CARE, but don't meld the two.
>
Covered above.

> Interesting factoid: There are more MRI machines in Seattle (over 200) than
> in all of Canada (137) - at least according to GE who makes the damn things.
>
Fewer MRIs here ? Perhaps we use our reduced number more effectively.
Why wife had no problem getting an MRI when required. A gynecologist
here, (ex-Brit, so obviously some bias), claims he would rather attend
medical conferences in the UK, rather than the US. Certainly he says
there is less money available to buy the latest technology in the UK but
he personally finds them to be more innovative in their ideas.

Technology - you bombed the shit out of the Taliban in Afghanistan, (and
quite rightly so after 9/11), but with all that murderous firepower,
Afghanistan is not a safe spot to take your family on an afternoon
picnic - so much for technology.

> As for "Labor" party, we have one: the Democrats - we just don't have many
> union members.

The Right in the USA has always needed a bogeyman. No Labor - then
Democrats look like a good substitute. (Go back 50 years and the
Democrats become 'those goddamn commies').

Probably wouldn't appeal to an American right winger but the 'West Wing'
last night. The Republican lead candidate, (Alan Alda) for the next
presidency is approached by a 'political fixer', played by Ron Silverman
(?), who is an out and out Democrat. He tells Alda that his philosophy
is what the American people are looking for - somebody with appeal who
can bring Right and Left together avoiding the continuous division in US
politics. In the world of non-fictional politics - not a bad objective.

Jimmy

HeyBub

2005-03-25, 3:55 am

X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2527
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2527
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Response
X-Complaints-To: abuse@supernews.com
Lines: 85
Xref: newsfeed-west.nntpserver.com comp.lang.cobol:110655

James J. Gavan wrote:
> HeyBub wrote:
> Strange that. If there is no problem getting medical assistance when
> required, why is Health Care Insurance such a hot topic in the States
> ? If EVERYBODY gets what they need - then why any Insurance scheme
> at all ?

Quality.

>
> Fewer MRIs here ? Perhaps we use our reduced number more effectively.
> Why wife had no problem getting an MRI when required.

I've had an MRI. I threw my knee all asunder. Saw my doc in the morning, had
the MRI that afternoon.

The average waiting time for an MRI in Canada is seven months.
http://www.vhl.org/newsletter/vhl2001/01bjmric.htm

Likewise, the wait for an abortion is eleven months.

(Joke)

>
> Technology - you bombed the shit out of the Taliban in Afghanistan,
> (and quite rightly so after 9/11), but with all that murderous
> firepower, Afghanistan is not a safe spot to take your family on an
> afternoon picnic - so much for technology.

Maybe not a picnic, but you overlook the pure joy of killing those pests.

>
>
> The Right in the USA has always needed a bogeyman. No Labor - then
> Democrats look like a good substitute. (Go back 50 years and the
> Democrats become 'those goddamn commies').

Good point. Eric Hoffer said: "A mass movement can survive without a god,
but it cannot survive without a devil. All mass movements must have
something to hate." Currently, Republicans hate labor unions and Democrats
hate God. When there are no more unions or God finally dies, the parties
will find other odious villians.

>
> Probably wouldn't appeal to an American right winger but the 'West
> Wing' last night. The Republican lead candidate, (Alan Alda) for the
> next presidency is approached by a 'political fixer', played by Ron
> Silverman (?), who is an out and out Democrat. He tells Alda that his
> philosophy is what the American people are looking for - somebody with
> appeal who
> can bring Right and Left together avoiding the continuous division in
> US politics. In the world of non-fictional politics - not a bad
> objective.

The character Bruno is not a Democrat - he's a political expert (I've seen
many). They are not motivated, in the main, by ideology. In that regard,
they are similar to 18th century generals or modern-day professional sports
coaches.

You need to understand that West Wing is created by one of the leftist of
the lefties (Aaron Sorkin). Since the left is currently out of power,
they've "discovered a new tactic:"* promoting "bring us together,"
"compromise," "cooperate" for the good of the country, return to civility,
progress, peace, and apple pie. So it's not surprising that Sorkin would use
this mantra as a sub-plot. Sorkin evidently feels that since he and his band
are already going to burn in Hell forever, one more bit of misdirection
won't matter.

----
I almost used the phrase "come to Jesus" but it seemed somewhat out of place
in the context.

LX-i

2005-03-25, 3:55 am

James J. Gavan wrote:
> LX-i wrote:
>
> I am going to get really pissed off at you if you keep on sneering at
> LIBERALS. Change your time piece.

I've heard no conservatives say Terri should die.

> My clock is set at 12:00 = Liberals

[snip times]

> LIBERALISM sits centre at 12:00 taking from both right and left, and
> quite intentionally so.

You're not the first to claim that you're liberal, but you're "in the
center".

> With no 'Labor' party in the States, your Democrats have to take on some
> but not all the ideas of Socialism.

They don't *have* to - for some reason, they choose to. Socialism
hasn't led to prosperity in nearly the same degree as our capitalistic,
free-market society - sort of makes me wonder *why* they choose to.

> (Try 36 million without health care
> coverage for starters. Don't equivocate - I got that number, (needs
> updating), from a GP from Somerset, Kentucky some five years back).
> Whether UK Social-Democrats, US Deomcrats or Canadian Liberals - they
> are all essentially centrist parties.

Does someone without "health care" mean that the government should get
involved? I'm of the belief that *most* folks without "health care" are
without it due to the choices they have made in their life - and,
conversely, those who "have it" are also there due to the choices they
have made in their lives. Rewarding irresponsible behavior with free
money (or health care, or whatever) only encourages irresponsibility.

When people have high stakes, they are usually also highly motivated.
I'm in that current situation now with one aspect of my military service.

> I guess you fit in around 11:40 to 11:45. Go buy a new Timex !

Better to be early than late... :)

> As for the death thing and that poor girl - much too emotive and nobody
> will be convinced. Eileen and I discussed it only yesterday - and we
> couldn't even agree between ourselves - just one small family unit.

There's unanimity within our house - but, I know of others where there
is not. It looks like this particular case is a lost cause anyway - I
just wonder how far the "*we* can decide when *your* life's not worth
living" precedent will go.

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ daniel@thebelowdomain ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

LX-i

2005-03-25, 3:55 am

William M. Klein wrote:
> "LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:3dfb4$4242391b$45491f85$2166@KNOLOG
Y.NET...
>
>
> <snip>
>
>
>
> I have both a "living will" and have signed a "power of attorney for medical
> issues" document - to deal with such issues in MY case. If she had done such, I
> beleive that things would be "much clearer" and I certainly would encourage
> others to take these steps (or whatever your local government allows to handle
> such issues).

This is good - I have one somewhere, but it's a little out of date. I
know they've changed them up now, so that you don't have to worry that
if you have a DNR, they won't try to save you - just harvest your
organs. :)

> PERSONALLY, I have minimal "philosophical" objection to suicide - and would
> allow a person in his/her "right mind" (if such is possible) to take that step.
> The next step of indicating under what circumstances a person would want others
> (doctors, hospital, "loved ones") to implement their desires under specific
> situations, is also reasonable.

That's interesting (your suicide view)...

> Now, in the Terri Shiavo case, there MAY be some question about whether she
> really did or did not convey her desires to her husband. If that was what was
> being argued in the courts, I would have more sympathy with those trying to keep
> her alive. However, as *I* hear the news reports, her parents are stating that
> she was a "good Catholic" and that she wouldn't want to commit a "mortal sin"
> but NOT that they heard her (after the reports from her husband) actually
> indicate that she would want to be kept alive in a "vegatative state". Even if
> her parents did argue with her husband about exactly what views she had
> expressed AND when, I think I would "err" on the side of believing her husband -
> unless there was evidence from "neutral parties" that she did not have such a
> relationship with her husband.

I know the Catholic angle was there - but, she has been being denied
"therapy" for quite some time, beginning 7 years ago (3 years after he
began seeing this "new woman"). Nurses were fired for giving her a
washcloth with a piece of apple, for her to chew on and swallow the
flavored saliva from. They were prohibited from putting a small towel
in her hand to prevent her fingernails from cutting her hand, because
that was considered "therapy".

There are also reports from nurses that when Michael would come in, he
would kick all the nurses out of the room - and, when he left, Terri
would seem very agitated. (Now I'm staring to delve into the realm of
opinion...) This abuse has been going on for years and years - it seems
that Michael did everything in his power to *ensure* that she didn't
recover, didn't come out of whatever state she was in. It's even been
discussed in here recently - if you don't use it, you lose it.

Now, after these years of abuse and neglect, the very condition that the
abuse and neglect prolonged is being used as rationale for her demise.
I'm sure Michael Schiavo isn't the first guy to get away with killing
his wife, and he won't be the last. It just concerns me that, given all
these details from the first paragraph and a half are contained in sworn
depositions from this case, these concerns are not being taken seriously.

There are times when it is inappropriate for someone to be the guardian
of someone else, and I think this is one of these cases. Ann Coulter
was priceless in her column - she said that this precedent was set in
that landmark case _Fox v. Henhouse_ of 1898.

> Finally, I don't think that I quite understand what is and isn't actually
> happening vs what is being reported. It seems to me that the news reports have
> indicated that the courts have said that the feeding (and hydration) "tubes"
> needed to be removed. However, there seems to be some evidence that she is not
> being given any food or water thru "normal" means. Some of the medical experts
> say that a person in a vegatative state CAN chew and swallow. If this is the
> case, then I (like you - I think) don't understand why her parents and the
> hospice are being denied the right to provide these.

We're in agreement on this.

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ daniel@thebelowdomain ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Joe Zitzelberger

2005-03-25, 3:55 am

In article <d1uob4$1nk$1@panix5.panix.com>, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:

> In article <joe_zitzelberger-F9D03B.08572724032005@ispnews.usenetserver.com>,
> Joe Zitzelberger <joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>
> This 'canard' has been mentioned here repeatedly and yet nobody seems to
> be able to bring up a cite for it.
>
> [snip]
>
>
> It should be easy enough to bring them forward, then. Would you be so
> kind as to do so?
>
> DD

If it is not enough to have FDR's statement from 70-odd years ago where
he said _publically_:

"Get these facts straight, the Act provides for two kinds of insurance
for the worker. For that insurance both the employer and the worker pay
premiums -- just as you pay on any other insurance policy...Here the
employer contributes one dollar in premium for every dollar of premium
contributed by the worker; but both dollars are held by the government
solely for the benefit of the worker in his old age."

of course that was totally false under the provisions of the act as it
was first passed and ever since.

However, if 70 year old cites are not good, how about the current Senate
Minority Leader, Democrat Harry Reid of Nevada. His website at
"http://reid.senate.gov/socialsecurity/index.cfm" repeatedly refers to
the "insurance" myth, for example:

"It is much more than just another financial investment and I am
committed to ensuring that it remains a stable and secure insurance
policy"

and the guaranteed benefit myth:

"I am concerned that replacing Social Securitys defined benefit with a
system of private accounts would result in the loss of guaranteed level
of benefits for the more than 46 million Social Security recipients."

and

"Social Security was designed to be an insurance plan, not an investment
program. Instead of guaranteed benefits based on an individual's work
history"

Even thought the program is not, and never was, insurance (see Helvering
vs. Davis 1937). Nor were there ever any guaranteed benefits. (see
Fleming vs. Nestor 1960). Though this is the way it was, and still is,
sold to the people.

So why do all workers have a Social Security ACCOUNT Number?

And why such an outcry in the early Bush administration when ssa.gov
started representing the program as the law structures it? Unless it
had been previously misrepresenting?

LX-i

2005-03-25, 3:55 am

jce wrote:
> "LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:e0d42$42423071$45491f85$32215@KNOLO
GY.NET...
>
>
> Let me be _very_ clear here. CONVICTED = GUILTY <> YEP, THE DEFENDENT DID
> IT

And how do we know that? Because the convicted were given long, drawn
out appeals - and during that appeals process, new evidence was found
that exonerated them.

> A person is convicted of a capital crime based on a court system. The court
> system allows for evidence to support the and defend the person. At the
> end of the trial - "guilt" is assigned. This guilt is sometimes very well
> established, at other times the conviction is based purely on circumstancial
> evidence such as a witness statement.
>
> In the Terri case courts used some of the same methods:
>
> Testimony that in 1990,1991,1992 there was no swallowing reflex as
> established by MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS.

Okay - 13 years ago. Medical science doesn't advance much in 13 years,
does it?

> Every year through 1997 a speech pathologist examined her said that could
> not be rehabilitated and had high risk of aspiration.

8 years ago - but still, there has been more recent testimony than that
indicating that she does *not* aspirate, consuming over a liter a day of
her own saliva with no suction needed to clear it, and no infection.

> Medical opinion is on COURT RECORDS that oral nutrition would result in
> aspiration with insufficient nutrition passing through. Such aspiration
> would lead to infection, fever and pneumonia. The suctioning to resolve
> this would kill her.

Let me talk a bit about medical opinion - it is often crafted in a
CYA-type fashion. Medical opinion told my wife that she needed to
terminate her pregnancy at 4 w

s - there's *no* way the baby would
make it, there's a high likelihood that *she* wouldn't make it, and even
if she did, her blood pressure would be through the roof.

Jameson was born February 28th of this year, at 36 w

s old, weighing 7
pounds and 3 ounces. Completely healthy. (And, there a picture in the
blog entry for it, currently the second one down on the page linked in
the sig... :> )

So we (the government, the people) should kill others based on
8-year-old (your emphasis) MEDICAL OPINION?

> So what is the difference between your CONVICTED murderers as determined by
> court. And the wishes of Terri as determined by court ? Don't tell me that
> its 12 jurors who haven't read a newspaper.

It is impossible to know what Terri's wishes are - she cannot tell us.
Her husband, whose motives are suspect at best, has nothing but hearsay
from 15 years ago (amazingly, spousal privilege doesn't seem to be a
concern there).

Think about this, too. Go back 15 years, and think about some of the
things you said then. Do you still feel the same way about those things
now? I know for me, there are lots of things that are different. How
do we know that her wishes haven't changed? (As Bill and others have
said - get that living will in order...)

> I don't pretend the decision is an easy one. I know it is a hard one, but I
> also have to believe that the decisions have been made in her best interest
> as determined by the courts. I know people that have died of their own
> choosing by switching off dialysis, or refusing medication. I know people
> that have had diabetes and heart problems and do not maintain a diet.
> They're personal choices - not choices for bunch of anti-conservatives and
> not a for a bunch of conservatives.

So you don't think that government-ordered starvation doesn't set just a
teeny-weeny little bit of a bad precedent? If she want to die, give her
a shot and get it over with - don't starve her to death...

> Politics in america is like a football game - you're either with the home
> fans, or with the away fans. People forget to discuss issues and take
> sides...it's rather

.

Like I told Jimmy - I haven't heard any conservatives that want her
dead. (Not saying they don't exist, I just haven't heard them.)

> Terri is in the state she is in because she PUT HERSELF there. If she had
> required a heart transplant at the time of her collapse she could not get
> one because of the psychiatric conditions involved. Terri did not do
> anything to suggest that she valued her life when she was living. Perhaps
> this is why I feel the way I do - she cared enough about other peoples
> perception of her healthy self to do this much damage. I cannot believe she
> would have wanted to be seen worldwide like this.....and I have to assume
> that the courts agreed with this/

Oh - so *now* we want to hold folks to personal responsibility. You're
for eliminating welfare and social security then?

> The above examples show people not actually executed - however, they show
> that there is some chance of error. Defenders will claim that _ZERO_ have
> been executed when they were innocent - only it's a little too late to
> really ask and find out I would suspect.

You won't hear me make that claim. Realizing that the government has
the power to take life only underscores the importance of electing
people who will use that power judiciously and only as a last resort.

> On a final note, I suppose if there had been no death penalty then Jesus
> would have just been put in jail without parole for our sins...not nearly as
> catchy as died for our sins...but maybe just maybe it would have quieted Mel
> Gibson.

I don't think that's what God would have accepted...

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage...0&context=verse

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ daniel@thebelowdomain ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

LX-i

2005-03-25, 3:55 am

Donald Tees wrote:
> LX-i wrote:
>
>
> You cannot seem to see the difference between giving someone food and
> forcing it down their throat with a tube to make political points. Of
> course, *most* rapists insist that the victim really wanted it.

She can eat *without the tube*.

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ daniel@thebelowdomain ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

LX-i

2005-03-25, 3:55 am

Howard Brazee wrote:
> On 23-Mar-2005, LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> I've seen people say the same thing about conservatives on this "right to life"
> issue.

Kill the guilty, let the innocent live?

> The thing is that both of you are lumping in a lot of different people
> with a wide variety of beliefs and noting that all those beliefs aren't
> consistent.

The standard liberal, pro-abortion, anti-religion groups are the ones
lobbying for her death. The conservative, pro-life, pro-religion groups
are the ones lobbying for her life. There are exceptions, but the
grouping is there.

> You have to know conservatives who have beliefs that you disagree
> with. (Heck, the variations of conservative Christians in a small church are
> large)

Of course - there are folks in our church with diverse beliefs. I even
saw a car in our parking lot with a John Kerry bumper sticker. (Now
there's someone who needs some churchin'! ;> )

> Don't worry about labels.

I'm not - they're just awfully convenient, especially when they fall
into line so nicely, as they do in this case.

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ daniel@thebelowdomain ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

LX-i

2005-03-25, 3:55 am

Howard Brazee wrote:
> On 23-Mar-2005, LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> They should say "We were sent to Iraq on a massive federal screw-up".

It wasn't just us! The entire coalition (Britain, Australia, Italy,
etc.) thought the same thing.

Stale intelligence is often useless...

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ daniel@thebelowdomain ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

LX-i

2005-03-25, 3:55 am

Chuck Stevens wrote:
> "LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:dccd3$424230fe$45491f85$32215@KNOLO
GY.NET...
>
>
>
>
> JCE posted:
>
> <<Testimony that in 1990,1991,1992 there was no swallowing reflex as
> established by MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS.>>
>
> and
>
> <<Medical opinion is on COURT RECORDS that oral nutrition would result in
> aspiration with insufficient nutrition passing through. Such aspiration
> would lead to infection, fever and pneumonia. The suctioning to resolve
> this would kill her.>>
>
> Do you have evidence to the contrary that she *can* get sufficient nutrition
> and hydration by "conventioal" methods of eating and drinking (including,
> but not limited to, such tasks as chewing and swallowing)?

I've read portions of depositions given by nurses and other health care
workers who cared for her, that spoke to both her abilities as well as
Michael's behavior. I'm sure they're out there on the web.

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ daniel@thebelowdomain ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

LX-i

2005-03-25, 3:55 am

LX-i wrote:
> Jameson was born February 28th of this year, at 36 w

s old, weighing 7
> pounds and 3 ounces. Completely healthy. (And, there a picture in the
> blog entry for it, currently the second one down on the page linked in
> the sig... :> )

My mistake (I don't know my own sig!) - it's the second entry down on
the "Daniel J. Summers Personal Web Site" link, found on the page link
in my sig.

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ daniel@thebelowdomain ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

James J. Gavan

2005-03-25, 3:55 am

LX-i wrote:
>
>
> Does someone without "health care" mean that the government should get
> involved? I'm of the belief that *most* folks without "health care" are
> without it due to the choices they have made in their life - and,
> conversely, those who "have it" are also there due to the choices they
> have made in their lives. Rewarding irresponsible behavior with free
> money (or health care, or whatever) only encourages irresponsibility.
>
> When people have high stakes, they are usually also highly motivated.
> I'm in that current situation now with one aspect of my military service.
>
Daniel - there's the essential difference between Conservatism and
Liberalism, and not particularly associated with one country's politics.
In the UK historically we had Whigs (Liberals) and Tories
(Conservatives) from the Georgian period. Tories primarily represented
the nobility whereas the Whigs/Liberals were the merchant class. Not too
much difference - both were either interested in retaining a buck,
(Tories) or making a buck (Whigs).

Not a clean cut line - but the Tories were the Empire builders; the
Whigs, merchants and naturally they followed where the Empire was set
up. Again also not a clear cut line, but the Whigs/Liberals were the
ones with a social conscience - which held fine until after WWI - then
the Liberals came a cropper because a more ardent form of social
conscience took place - Labour/Socialism.

Let's take your above reference to mean dead-beats, idlers, scroungers,
not motivated - choose your word/phrase. It seems to me a bit of a push
to describe 40 million of your population as being dead-beats. Like it
or not, it boils down to, very often, 'being in the right place at the
right time' - for opportunity to occur.

Reverse the roles - dead-beats versus the 'flourishing' - put everybody
back in the Stone Age. A fair proportion of the dead-beats might have
been brawny Neanderthals clipping you around the head with a dinosaur
bone. "Hey ! That's not fair". "Yes it is. Survival of the fittest !".

I know you rated zero as a Tupperware/Vacuum salesmen (whichever it was)
- Me to if I had tried it :-). Then due to your own built-in abilities,
intelligence, probably with a lot of hard slog, grabbed on to
programming and the USAF - not sure which was first. Like it or not,
those 40 million can't all be Sgt. Daniels. A handful might - but even
if you offered the remainder a starting bonus of $50K the majority would
never become programmers.

I'm not for one moment suggesting reward indolence. All should be
encouraged to be self-motivated and achieve a reward of riches in their
lives. There are some that are truly idle, but also many more who just
don't have the savvy to pull themselves up by their bootstraps - should
we totally ignore them ?

The 'Right' views it as the state *must* provide military defence to
defend the nation - and as you put it elsewhere 'kick butt'. Suggest
that other 'rights' should be provided by the state, then you folks come
on real strong - very often highlighting there are no such rights -
although it's still OK to kill folks using your military. (No - I'm not
a peacenik - how could I possibly be after 12 years in the RAF).

I''m not going to get into a razzle here suggesting what some other
rights might be - sometimes liberals (small "L") think in terms of 'new
rights', other times they reject such suggestions. And when running a
state, idealism counts for naught if you don't have the money in your
national bank account to support new ideals.

Could keep going - but to try and make the point seeing that you are a
religious man. Sit yourself down quietly for half an hour and meditate,
meditate - meditate on the parable of 'The Rich Man and the Poor Man".
Reflect on the message that Jesus was giving. (Hopefully the Baptist
interpretation of that parable matches the Catholic one !). Good Friday
tomorrow - excellent day to do the meditating.

Jimmy

jce

2005-03-25, 8:55 am

"LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:33e30$4243938f$45491f85$5288@KNOLOG
Y.NET...
> Chuck Stevens wrote:
>
> I've read portions of depositions given by nurses and other health care
> workers who cared for her, that spoke to both her abilities as well as
> Michael's behavior. I'm sure they're out there on the web.

Those depositions should be available and recorded in a court document
somewhere I presume?
There _were_ court proceedings, I would think that someone would have liked
to bring them up.

I don't think anyone would mind if the parent snuck in some Mickey D's. If
indeed she can swallow then I'm sure she won't die.

JCE

jce

2005-03-25, 8:55 am

"LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:ac289$424381b9$45491f85$23919@KNOLO
GY.NET...
> James J. Gavan wrote:
> Does someone without "health care" mean that the government should get
> involved? I'm of the belief that *most* folks without "health care" are
> without it due to the choices they have made in their life - and,
> conversely, those who "have it" are also there due to the choices they
> have made in their lives. Rewarding irresponsible behavior with free
> money (or health care, or whatever) only encourages irresponsibility.

Yes, it's a shame when you choose to be born to poor parents.

JCE

docdwarf@panix.com

2005-03-25, 8:55 am

In article <joe_zitzelberger-411CBB.22372124032005@ispnews.usenetserver.com>,
Joe Zitzelberger <joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com> wrote:
>In article <d1uob4$1nk$1@panix5.panix.com>, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>

[snip]
[color=darkred]
>
>If it is not enough to have FDR's statement from 70-odd years ago where
>he said _publically_:

Already addressed, and it has been pointed out that this was specifically
changed by the 1939 revisions.

[snip]

>However, if 70 year old cites are not good, how about the current Senate
>Minority Leader, Democrat Harry Reid of Nevada. His website at
>"http://reid.senate.gov/socialsecurity/index.cfm" repeatedly refers to
>the "insurance" myth, for example:
>
>"It is much more than just another financial investment and I am
>committed to ensuring that it remains a stable and secure insurance
>policy"

Finally! Well, that's at least half... the 'an insurance policy'. The
assertion was, as stated originally and above, 'not a tax, an
investment'... and from the same page:

--begin quoted text:

Diverting current payroll taxes into personal accounts would mean the loss
of revenues that pay the benefits of today's retirees. In order to make
privatization work, benefits would need to be cut, the retirement age
would need to be raised, or taxes would need to be increased.

--end quoted text

.... clearly and unambiguously showing that the funds result from taxation.

Now if you wish to say this fellow is asserting that the funds result from
taxation and are not a tax... then I would be interested in learning how
you come to that conclusion.

As for this 'guaranteed benefit' matter you raise... please, one factual
matter at a time. Mr Brazee's assertion of 'not a tax, an investment'
seems to be as unsupported as when it was originally made... and notice
how the originator has abandoned it?

DD

docdwarf@panix.com

2005-03-25, 3:55 pm

In article <1146ti0l9rije4a@news.supernews.com>,
HeyBub <heybubNOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
>James J. Gavan wrote:

[snip]

>
>Maybe not a picnic, but you overlook the pure joy of killing those pests.

[snip]

>
>Good point. Eric Hoffer said: "A mass movement can survive without a god,
>but it cannot survive without a devil. All mass movements must have
>something to hate." Currently, Republicans hate labor unions and Democrats
>hate God.

[snip]

>So it's not surprising that Sorkin would use
>this mantra as a sub-plot. Sorkin evidently feels that since he and his band
>are already going to burn in Hell forever, one more bit of misdirection
>won't matter.

This, to me, shows a 'fundamentalist's prejudice', found in any extreme
form of monotheism of which I am aware: 'Those whose opinions differ from
mine are against The Lord'.

Granted that I am a man of limited experience... but I have never seen
anything productive come of it.

DD

Chuck Stevens

2005-03-25, 3:55 pm

"LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:12a7b$42438477$45491f85$24537@KNOLO
GY.NET...

is the[color=darkred]
the[color=darkred]
>
> We're in agreement on this.

The question is not whether *some* people in a permanent vegetative state
can chew or swallow; the question is whether *Terri Schiavo* can chew or
swallow. I can't speak to whether she is capable of chewing without
mangling either her tongue or the inside of her mouth (my suspicion is that
she cannot), but there is sworn testimony from physicians that she does not
have the swallow reflex, and she is likely to inhale anything they try to
feed her by mouth. That's why they *haven't* been giving her nutrition that
way.

-Chuck Stevens

Chuck Stevens

2005-03-25, 3:55 pm

"LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:b98ab$42439199$45491f85$4979@KNOLOG
Y.NET...

> She can eat *without the tube*.

Video clip, please, or credible sworn medical testimony to that effect.

-Chuck Stevens

Chuck Stevens

2005-03-25, 3:55 pm

"LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:33e30$4243938f$45491f85$5288@KNOLOG
Y.NET...
> Chuck Stevens wrote:
in[color=darkred]
nutrition[color=darkred]
(including,[color=darkred]
>
> I've read portions of depositions given by nurses and other health care
> workers who cared for her, that spoke to both her abilities as well as
> Michael's behavior. I'm sure they're out there on the web.

I am aware of the nurse who claims that Michael Schiavo beat Terri and
repeatedly asked "When is that b..ch going to die?", but I am unaware of
*any* corroboration for this. I'm also aware of the physician who claims to
have been nominated for a Nobel prize in medicine and who thinks he can cure
Terri by putting her in a hyperbaric chamber. And I'm aware of the
physician who went to visit her and is arguing for reinsertion of the
feeding tube on the scientific grounds that he felt her life force as he
entered the room. I think the preponderance of the scientific evidence and
the sworn testimony -- including that of the guardian ad litem appointed by
the state of Florida -- is that she has limited reflexes and no detectable
conscious responses at all.

-Chuck Stevens

James J. Gavan

2005-03-25, 3:55 pm

docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
> In article <1146ti0l9rije4a@news.supernews.com>,
> HeyBub <heybubNOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
>
I see Doc already picked up on the following, regarding the fictional
'West Wing' :-
[color=darkred]

So let me get this right.

For my money 95% of TV viewing in N. America is abysmal. Flipping
channels I saw that 'American Idol' got the LARGEST viewer rating EVER -
oh my gawd ! Perhaps I might watch at best some two hours of TV in an
evening, either looking for decent movies, documentaries (primarily PBS
- shows like 'Frontline'), or a well-scripted fictional like 'West
Wing'. My prime objective to be entertained and secondly, as an adjunct,
be informed. (One that recently caught my interest was 'House' the
quirky Dr. House with his medical investigative team. I like its
premise, can't guarantee though that I will always be interested in
watching it).

Our friend Mr. Sorkin is an absolute LEFTIE. So before I sit down to
watch anything, I should first establish is the CEO of the TV network a
ver