Welcome to 201k.com - A Commonwealth Perspective.

Funny how some subjects just seem to jump into everyone's mind at once. Reader Paul said:

Its interesting that you brought this up. I had put this and the Valerie Plane (SP) case out of my mind of late. It is pretty clear that the FBI was avoiding any obvious statement about the political orientation of the victims. They spent a lot of time and money chasing after Dr. Hatfield, to the point of draining a pond. Politics were all over the case since they made a very big show when they in fact had absolutely no clue. While I doubt very much that the FBI deliberately did a poor job, they sure did do a poor job.

Pardon if my comments make no sense today (and my spelling is way off too), I was up all night holding hands and praying with Terry Randall.

8:59 AM, March 31, 2005

Meanwhile, though, Mr. Jared Pace of New York tells the Times:

To the Editor:

Paul Krugman's March 29 column reminded me of a letter I received in the mid-1990's from the National Rifle Association.

The letter sought to whip up hysteria over alleged abuses and excesses on the part of federal law enforcement officials, going so far as to invoke a future of "jack-booted government thugs" raiding the homes of innocent citizens who did not have the wherewithal to defend themselves.

I did not renew my N.R.A. membership after that.

How can Mr. Krugman associate Terri Schiavo's parents, Tom DeLay, Gov. Jeb Bush and conscientiously objecting pharmacists with possible political assassinations? Mr. Krugman's inflammatory rhetoric is more extreme than the cultural conservatives'.

Jared Pace
New York, March 30, 2005

Hmm. 201k can't help thinking that letters filled with U.S. weapons-grade anthrax mailed to two Democratic Senators and three network news anchors must qualify in some sense as attempted "possible political assassinations".

What else were they? Five innocent bystanders died. In another era this would have been a bomb-throwing at a parade.

Then, as Paul points out, there was the outing of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame, which was politically motivated--and which once upon a time would have been considered treasonous, if not exactly an "assassination".

Then of course there was the decision by two U.S. Army veterans to blow up a federal building in Oklahoma in 1995.

There was the $43 million investigation into a (Democratic) presidential blow-job. The one with the "witness" who'd been transferred to the White House from the Pentagon. You know, the one who befriended the young woman "involved"--then taped their phone conversations?

There was the U.S. Supreme Court decision to reverse a State Supreme Court decision and stop a presidential election vote recount--with no supporting legal framework and with the caveat that it never be used as precedent. That was an interesting moment in the whole "rule of law" thing.

Just last week we had the Congress pass and the president sign a blatantly unconstitutional measure in an attempt to usurp proper state judicial authority, to the accompaniment of a resounding media propaganda campaign that attempted to confuse Americans as to the very nature of the separation of powers--an attempt which fortunately failed.

There was the state judge who decided to reinterpret the Establishment Clause of the Constitution and put an enormous monument to the Ten Commandments in his court plaza, then refused a federal order to remove it.

Oh, and the college philosophy student who for some reason believed he was entitled to take over teaching the class because the professor disagreed with his interpretation of the sixth Commandment and its relevance to Plato.

Exactly what is Mr. Pace waiting for? An angry armed mob in the street?

201k is concerned that he may not have to wait too long.

There's no doubt that history will record September 11, 2001 as the decisive event of our era. But 201k thinks the importance of the seven anthrax-laden letters sent to two Democratic Senators and several members of the so-called liberal media (SCLM) in the weeks following the 9/11 attacks should not be overlooked.

Coming as soon as they did after the devastating attacks of 9/11, the anthrax letters effectively silenced any opposition to or meaningful criticism of the Republican Party's post 9/11 agenda.

While it's not always useful to work backwards from an effect to look for a cause, we do wonder who would find it helpful to send anthrax to Tom Daschle, Patrick Leahy, and three network TV anchors. Al Qaeda? The ACLU?

Who would have US weapons-grade anthrax all ready to be dropped into a mailbox in New Jersey a week after 9/11 anyway? The Sierra Club?

Even putting aside theories of cause, the effect has been miraculous. We could not have a more docile opposition party, nor a more compliant press.

Historians should remember this when they look back at the origins of the end of the rule of law in America.

Having missed the Great Days of the Rainbow Coalition due to a previous engagement with sex, drugs, and rock and roll, 201k admits to not being up-to-speed on the glory days of Jesse Jackson. We're more familiar with the more recent version, who we admire in the way one admires a somewhat dissolute uncle who once played semi-pro ball.

But if anything tops president Bush's super-hero flight back from vacation just in time to sign special legislation to save Terri Schiavo from herself, it's Jackson's getting involved in her story when there was no chance whatsoever of that effort succeeding.

Presumably the Schindler's will have to make room for one more at the "Lovely Amazing Grace Moment To Come".

All that's left to wonder is: will Rev. Jackson be holding hands with Randall Terry while he sways back and forth to the music?

Regarding yesterday's post on Mr. Scott Heldreth, Paul said...

It only goes to prove that if you are born again, it doesn't matter what you have done before. In fact as I understand it, once you are "saved", you can do just about anything and still find your place in heaven.

I guess the only character flaws that count are those of their political opponents.

6:15 AM, March 29, 2005

This falls into that "I used to be a drunk and a drug abuser but now I've found Jesus and I'm going to tell you repeatedly that you need to find Jesus, too, because I realize now He's the only True Way" category.

I've always felt, you know, look: I wasn't a drunk or drug abuser. I didn't beat up my wife and drive the car into Lake Michigan. I wasn't charged with two counts of assault and one count of wreckless endangerment--you were. I'm glad you found something to save yourself, but please don't presume that everyone was as f*****-up as you were and needs to "find" the salvation you did.

The presumption is breathtaking. And haven't you noticed that these people throw themselves into "salvation" with the same fervor they used to have for partying? Can you say "sublimation"?

Speaking of which, our president no longer jogs incessantly (because of a bad knee) but has taken up bike riding with equal passion:

These days Mr. Bush's chief form of exercise is biking - he no longer runs since his knees gave out last year - and he has taken it on with the same aggressiveness as he did his old 6:45 miles. "He's turned into a bike maniac," said Mark McKinnon, a biking buddy of the president who was also his chief media strategist during the 2004 campaign. "He grinds, and he goes flat out from beginning to end."

From today's Editor & Publisher:

As protests outside the hospice housing Terri Schiavo in her final days mounted last week, numerous newspaper reports, many based on an Associated Press account, mentioned or quoted 10-year-old Joshua Heldreth and/or his father, Scott Heldreth. Josh was one of several youngsters arrested for crossing police lines in Pinellas Park, Fla., in an effort to take water to Schiavo.

None of the stories revealed that Scott Heldreth, a religious activist and anti-abortion crusader, is a registered sex offender in Florida-- until The Charlotte Observer mentioned it on Sunday.

A widely published AP story on Sunday by Allen G. Breen had painted a warmer picture of the Heldreths...

The Charlotte Observer story, however, revealed that [Scott] Heldreth had pleaded guilty to sexual battery, was in jail for parts of 1992 and 1993, according to court records, and served time on probation.

"The former Naperville, Fla., resident remains listed on the Florida Department of Law Enforcement's sex offender registry," the Observer reported...

Heldreth declined to discuss the specifics of the incident that led to his jail time. Online research shows that Heldreth was arrested after an incident at Ohio University and charged with two counts of rape and one count of kidnapping.

In the unlikely event you needed any more insight into Mr. Heldreth's thinking process--because his letting his 10-year-old son get arrested wasn't enough--here's a quote from the same story:

Heldreth claimed that his religious beliefs came to him while in jail. Before then, he said, "I basically agreed with everyone trying to kill Terri Schiavo." Then, he said, he accepted Christ and turned his life around.

Memo to Mr. Heldreth: those of us who support Terri's Shiavo's right to die weren't charged with two counts of rape and one count of kidnapping. You were.

Sunday, March 20

"My daughter is in the building behind me, starving to death, Please, please, please save my little girl." - Mary Schindler

Thursday, March 24th

"Terri has been railroaded into a death sentence by the judges." - Robert Schindler

Friday, March 25th [The New York Times]

Ms. Schiavo's parents invited Randall Terry, the founder of Operation Rescue, who is estranged from the group, to help organize rallies and protests for their cause.

Saturday, March 26th

"Terri is weakening and she's down to her last hours. Something has to be done, and has to be done quick." - Robert Schindler

Sunday, March 27th

Outside the hospice...the crowd...spent most of the day heckling police and protesting loudly. The noise prompted Schiavo's brother, Bobby Schindler, to come out and ask protesters to tone down their behavior:

"You are not speaking for our family.''

Here's a few words on the same subject. It's from a Reuters wire story.

CRAWFORD, Texas (Reuters) - President Bush broke his public silence on Saturday about the deadliest U.S. school shooting in six years, touting the government's response "at this tragic time" after some American Indian leaders complained he paid little attention to the rampage.

Bush's delayed public reaction to the shooting stood in contrast to his swift and high-profile intervention earlier this week to try to prolong the life of Terri Schiavo, a brain-damaged woman in Florida whose feeding tube was removed.

Bush's job-approval rating has sunk to the lowest level of his presidency in the latest national survey, with some pollsters citing a public backlash against his intervention in the Schiavo case.

While White House spokesman Scott McClellan spoke briefly about the shooting on Tuesday, Bush did not respond publicly while he focused on Schiavo's fate, critics say.

Clyde Bellecourt, a Chippewa Indian who is the founder and national director of the American Indian Movement in Red Lake, said Bush's response came too late. "He should have been the first one to reach out to the Red Lake Indian community," he said.

Bellecourt cited Bush's decision to break off his Texas vacation to sign emergency legislation on Monday that permitted federal courts to consider appeals by Schiavo's parents to force the reconnection of the feeding tube.

"He does not have any problems flying in to restore the feeding tube to Terri Schiavo. I'm sure if this happened in some school in Texas and a bunch of white kids were shot down, he would have been there too," Bellecourt said.

Apparently a poll is worth a thousand words, too. Not they'd we'd question Mr. Bush's "beliefs". Not at all. Mr. Bush is entirely consistent: his superhero routine--flying back to Washington to "save Terri"--isn't over.

He's just switched characters: from "Super Man" to "The Invisible Man."

[Note: This is our response to the comments on the previous post - Editor]

Comments appreciated. But we think the degree and subject of our "mean-spiritedness" and "condescension" is presumed a bit by the commentators; all we said was "Pretty much all you need to know..." A picture may be worth a thousand words--allow us to point out we purposely didn't supply any words.

Since you asked, though, we'll admit our feelings about the photo would be different if we thought either of the people in it were in the habit of throwing themselves on the ground in a religiously-inspired fervor for the thousands of people who are starving--and are aware of it.

Or homeless. Or destitute. Or alone.

Who knows--maybe they do. But we doubt it. And even if they are the media isn't covering it--and the photo is about the media as much as anything else.

And if they are Congress and the President aren't flying back from Easter break to do anything about it--and the photo is about them as much as anything else.

Maybe we'd feel differently if the people in the photo had been as zealous for Terri Schiavo in the fifteen years leading up to this point; or even in the first few years after her trauma, when there was hope that she could recover.

And of course there are the thousands of other people with devastating brain injuries--do the people in the photo throw themselves to the ground and pray for each of them?

We just don't think so.

We aren't questioning or mocking their "beliefs". We're questioning their priorities, and their willingness to be sucked into a media and political maelstrom created and sustained by people who have hijacked the sad Terri Schiavo case for their own agenda.

We're very open-minded. We're not very tolerant. And we're truly frightened by the attack on the judiciary being mounted by the Right. It is a conscious effort to replace the rule of law with the rule of men by people who are currently in power. They believe that by replacing the rule of law with mob rule--while they rule the mob--that they'll increase and prolong their power.

This is the true subtext of the public face of the Terri Schiavo matter. And it's the true subject of the photo.

See for yourself.

In answer to charges that Tom DeLay will suffer in the public eye from his involvement in the Terri Schiavo case after polls indicate that he and the rest of the GOP leadership were radically out-of-step with the American public on the issue:

"A month from now, people are not going to remember." - Carl M. Forti, spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee.

Nice. But at least they aren't "liberal elitists", right?

Dear 201k,

I stumbled on your site a few days ago as I was doing some web searches on the Terri Schiavo case. What little I had read was pretty difficult to understand. Part of this was due to reaching Terri's parent's website first. Your site naturally pointed me to the research site that had a rather more detailed timeline on it with document references (interestingly the documents are linked to the terrisfight.net archive). Being the compulsive fool that I am I ended up reading nearly everything, particularly the report written by the GAL to Jeb Bush.

Things started to come into better focus. My father died from cancer and the desperate hopes that my family and I had for his recovery never left until the end. Terri's parents have clearly lost touch with reality and are willing to believe anyone who will offer them hope no matter how faint. I feel sad for them since I can understand the difficulty of letting go. Its harder for them no doubt since Terri could stick around indefinitely. My sympathies are limited however, since they have decided to engage in a rather mean spirited attack on Terri's husband. Naturally, our spiritual guides from the religious right have interjected themselves into a debate that has long been over. The recent attention by Mr. DeLay, the paragon of ethics he is, would be funny if it was not compounding our rather public tragedy.

The truly tragic thing about all of this is that we are spending so much of our attention, energy and resources on a woman who can't be helped while we ignore all of the other more pressing cases around us. Frankly in the best of cases these people are living in a fantasy world, and more often they are hypocritical and power hungry.

Thanks for you entertaining insights, on this and other matters.

Paul

Thank you, Paul.

Two of 201k's main contributors lost fathers to cancer; the editor lost his to brain cancer while he was in high school. His father--and the family--were spared the slow agony of dashed hope by an immediate, finite diagnosis, and were spared the prognosis of a long, slow physical and mental deterioration by a sudden aneurysm. We have always appreciated the relative good fortune of that. As you know, in those circumstances you take whatever comfort comes your way.

201k is not at all unsympathetic to Terri Schiavo, her husband, or her family. We have strived to keep emotions out of our commentary in order to focus on the pernicious legal damage that's being done behind a screen of emotion and "faith". We predicted the inevitable sad outcome of this tragedy the day the Florida courts rendered their decision--what's been left to say on the subject has been driven by the actions of those who would use it to further their political agenda, and those who obscure or ignore the truth out of either fear or sympathy for the cause.

The level of damage has unfortunately dwarfed the personal tragedy that begot it.

At least some of the national media is beginning to do fact-based reporting on the Schiavo case. Here's what the NY Times found about Jeb Bush's "renowned neurologist":

William P. Cheshire Jr., the Florida doctor cited by Gov. Jeb Bush yesterday in his announcement that he would intervene again in the case of Terri Schiavo, is a neurologist and bioethicist whose life and work have been guided by his religious beliefs.

Dr. Cheshire directs a laboratory at the Mayo Clinic branch in Jacksonville dealing with unconscious reflexes like digestion, and he is director of biotech ethics at the Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity, a nonprofit group founded by "more than a dozen leading Christian bioethicists," in the words of its Web site.

"Although Terri did not demonstrate during our 90-minute visit compelling evidence of verbalization, conscious awareness or volitional behavior," he wrote, "yet the visitor has the distinct sense of the presence of a living human being who seems at some level to be aware of some things around her."

Well that's certainly scientific.

Mr. Bush called Dr. Cheshire a "renowned neurologist," but he is not widely known in the neurology or bioethics fields. Asked about him, Dr. Arthur Caplan, director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania, replied, "Who?"

"There is just no excuse for going in and making any pronouncement about the state that Terri Schiavo is in unless you're going to go in and do some form of technologically mediated scanning that would overturn what's on the record already," he said.

Dr. Ronald Cranford, a neurologist and medical ethicist at the University of Minnesota Medical School who has examined Ms. Schiavo on behalf of the Florida courts and declared her to be irredeemably brain-damaged, said, "I have no idea who this Cheshire is," and added: "He has to be bogus, a pro-life fanatic. You'll not find any credible neurologist or neurosurgeon to get involved at this point and say she's not vegetative."

"Her CAT scan shows massive shrinkage of the brain," he said. "Her EEG is flat - flat. There's no electrical activity coming from her brain."

A profile of [Dr. Cheshire]...states that he was "searching for how he should integrate his faith with his medical career."

He was also the author, with others from the Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity, of a paper opposing stem cell research.

So apparently you're not only entitled to your own facts, your own cable news channel to broadcast them, and your own personal law to enforce them--you get your own medical science to back it up.

Must be nice.

This morning 201k decided to check out the patriotic lounge known as "Freerepublic.com". We'd heard a lot about it but had never visited.

There we found a discussion of "judicial activism" in which the participants seemed more or less unanimous that Marbury vs. Madison actually established legislative supremacy over the judiciary.

Rather than argue the point (since it was successfully argued in 1803) we signed up for the site and posted the following simple question:

Say the US Constitution is amended to require that marriage be between a man and a woman only. Then say that in the due course of time a slim majority of people in the country decide that they're ok with gay marriage, and either pressure their legislatures to pass laws permitting it, or pass such laws themselves as referendums.

Would you consider it "judicial activism" for the Supreme Court to find those laws unconstitutional? In that they were going against the will of the legislative branch, and/or "the people"?

We were genuinely interested in what the posters there would have to say.

The post was deleted by the moderator within two minutes, and our posting privileges were revoked.

And thus ended our adventures in Constitutional dialog at FreeRepublic.com.

Heard the one about the "liberal media" that pushes a left-wing agenda while ignoring conservatives? So have we.

Check out this protester at Terri Schiavo's hospice stepping forward to offer a "symbolic drink of water".


James Estrin/The New York Times (Used without permission, of course)

The Rolling Stones should get coverage like this. Or even the war in Iraq. Or even--just for laughs--the kids in Florida who'll go hungry tonight.

Hmm, we seem to have a little disagreement here. Criticizing Federal Judge Whittemore's decision, Tom DeLay said:

"...this decision is at odds with both the clear intent of Congress and the constitutional rights of a helpless young woman...Section three [of the "Terri Schiavo Act"] requires the judge to grant a temporary restraining order because he cannot fulfill his or her recognized duty to review the case de novo without first keeping Terri Schiavo alive."

But Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said just the opposite as the law was being passed, agreeing that it mandated no such thing:

"Nothing in the current bill or its legislative history mandates a stay. I would assume, however, the federal court would grant a stay based on the facts of this case because Mrs. Schiavo would need to be alive in order for the court to make its determination. Nevertheless, this bill does not change current law under which a stay is discretionary."

In fact, Frist is right and DeLay is wrong.

Join us as we hold our breath waiting for the national media to explain this clearly to America.

Yeah, right.

Sidenote: why did Delay refer to "his or her recognized duty"? He knew the decision had been rendered by Judge Whittemore. Was he reading something that had been written earlier?

Now here's an interesting quote:

"Congress explicitly provided Terri Schiavo's family recourse to federal court, and this decision is at odds with both the clear intent of Congress and the constitutional rights of a helpless young woman."

Apparently Mr. DeLay believes that Congress can pass a law that not only sends a state matter to federal court, but also instructs the federal judge on what his finding should be, and oh, by the way, decides what is and isn't Constitutional. Handy! Must be some new theory of the separation of powers.

"Section two of the legislation we passed clearly requires the court determine de novo the merits of the case -- or in layman's terms, it requires a completely new and full review of the case."

Hmm, he seems to be saying it again. The federal court is hereby ordered to retry a case that was litigated for nine years in its proper venue and must come to the conclusion we decree regardless of whether it finds a violation of federal law. I'm getting a feel for this now.

"Section three requires the judge to grant a temporary restraining order because he cannot fulfill his or her recognized duty to review the case de novo without first keeping Terri Schiavo alive."

Yup, that's it alright. He not only believes Congress can expand the jurisdiction of the federal court without providing any legal framework for it--he thinks he can tell that court how to rule.

Must be nice to be king.

For the record, Judge James D. Whittemore of Federal District Court in Tampa applied the law exactly right. He found no violation of Terri Schiavo's rights of due process. Accordingly he did not grant the temporary injunction mandating the reinsertion of a feeding tube.

To give you, poor readers, an understanding of what the Schindler's were asking--and what Tom Delay says he expected Judge Whittemore to agree with--here, in layman's terms, are the specific five complaints they bought forth:

1. That by ruling against them Florida Judge Greer had become an "advocate", which denied Terri Schiavo her rights of due process. Judge Whittemore found--and you may want to write this down 'cause it's a complex concept--that judges are "judges" who try cases and then issue a "decision", and that by ruling against one side he did not become an "advocate" for the other side. Tough legal concept, we know. (Actually, for Tom Delay, it is--he thinks judges just do whatever he tells them to.)

2. That Terri was denied due process when Judge Greer: a) failed to appoint a guardian ad litem b) failed to appoint an "independent" attorney for Terri and c) failed to meet her in person. Judge Whittemore found: a) that the court had, you know, appointed a guardian ad litem (and pointed out that he'd testified at the trial) b) that neither due process nor Florida law required the trial judge to meet Terri, and c) that not only was Terri adequetely represented by counsel in the form of her guardian's attorney (who was, legally, acting on her behalf) but that even considering her parent's contention that only they were acting on her behalf, well, they were pretty well represented, too. (Very well represented, actually, if you consider that they got a special law out of Congress and President Bush passed just for them.)

3. That Terri was denied her right to equal protection because she needn't have had a guardian appointed because the rules governing incapacitated people vary and are different for those who aren't incapacitated (and, presumably, she wasn't incapacitated). Judge Whittemore found this claim to be without merit.

4 and 5. That Terri's rights to religious freedom were denied because the removal of a feeding tube is contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church. Judge Whittemore found that a judgement to determine a person's "wishes" was not a government burden on his or her religion (since it was Terri's, and not her parents' "wishes" that were at issues), and that by the way Michael Schiavo can't be sued on these grounds because he's not a government and the law only prohibits "religious burdens imposed by governments".

Now, which of these findings do you suppose Tom DeLay would want reversed? We'd love to hear it.

Strike that--no we wouldn't.

Yes, 201k has decided to give "Google Ads" a try. They made it too easy.

We've limited them to the sidebar, and tried to make them as visually inoffensive as possible. Additionally, we'll watch them and filter out any objectionable ones we notice. Let us know if you see any.

If we were a Republican publication this is where we'd take credit for offering our readers--at no additional cost--the added value of links to informative and beneficial products and services. But we'll just say that we've decided to try running ads.

GOP governors cut state workers' rights


By Robert Tanner
March 21, 2005 | Republican governors in a few spots across the country are angering state employees by removing one of organized labor's strongest tools--the right to collective bargaining.

Governors in three states who've taken the step say it's about making government more efficient or being fair to non-union workers. Critics say it's political payback for labor's traditional support of Democrats and part of a wider shift to undermine workers in favor of big business.

Within hours or days of taking office this year, Mitch Daniels in Indiana and Matt Blunt in Missouri eliminated collective bargaining agreements for state employees, affecting about 50,000 workers. Kentucky Gov. Ernie Fletcher did the same when he took office in 2003. In each case, the agreements had only been granted by executive order, not by law.

In Mississippi, where state employees don't have collective bargaining rights, GOP Gov. Haley Barbour supports a legislative effort to eliminate existing civil-service protections. In Oklahoma, the GOP-controlled state House approved a measure to repeal a law granting collective bargaining to municipal employees.

There's no winners in the Terri Sciavo case. But thanks to Congress we have to add the Rule of Law to the list of losers.

Anyway...

In reading the letters to the New York Times on the subject, 201k is struck by the amount of bad information that people are working with. What has the media been doing that people are so misinformed?

All the information on the case is easily available. This gentleman has a website that is a great resource should the national press be overcome with the sudden urge to tell Americans something resembling the facts. Not that there's much profit in that, mind you.

Several Times letter writers believe that Michael Schiavo made the decision to remove Terri's feeding tube. He specifically did not. Recognizing that he could not make that decision himself he followed Florida law and petitioned the court to act as a surrogate guardian for the purpose of making the decision, which it did, after hearing testimony from many people.

Letter writers also believe that it's only Michael Schiavo's word that Terri Schiavo would not have wanted to live in her current state. Also false. The court heard direct testimony from others who credibly described conversations with Terri on the subject. They were found credible both because they described conversations with reference to specific incidents--for instance, surrounding the illness and death of a grandparent--and because their testimony included "non-favorable" remarks which the witnesses made no attempt to hide.

On the other hand the court found the testimony offered to the contrary--that is, that Terri had expressed her wishes not to die in such a circumstance--to be problematic. There were "time frame" issues, changes in degress of certainty and details recalled, and worst of all, what the court found to be questionable differences between testimony offered in earlier depositions and at trial.

We've also seen a great number of people who charge that Michael Schiavo "never took care" of Terri, or worse, that he abused her in some way. It might interest these people to look at the time line of events. Terri collapsed in February, 1990. For four years, until March, 1994, her husband spared no effort--and this is confirmed by the testimony of doctors--to give her "rehabilitation" treatment. It wasn't until four years after that--eight years after she'd collapsed--that he became convinced, based on the diagnosis of doctors that her brain had deteriorated beyond hope, that she was in "a persistent vegetative state" and asked the court to determine whether she'd want to keep living. That was in May, 1998.

The issue of abuse was twice dismissed by the courts as "unfounded". At one point the court appointed a Guardian Ad Litem, who found that there was no reason to remove Michael Sciavo as guardian.

Terri's family most recently petitioned the court with the abuse allegation through the Florida Department of Children and Families, who for some reason agreed--only to have to stand before the court and declare that they'd investigated every charge and determined them to be "unfounded". Hmm, 201k wonders...who could have ordered a Florida government agency to allow itself to be used to file a petitition it then had to acknowledge had no merit?

A sad case. Happens every day in courts across the country. But only in this case did Congress throw the rule of law out the window.

Some interesting random tidbits from the various Schiavo decisions in Florida, as archived here.

To read these decisions is to be absolutely stunned by the media coverage of this event. Literally nothing is as the media is reporting.

For instance, from the February, 2000 decision in which Judge Greer rules that clear and convincing evidence shows Terri Schiavo would chose not to receive life-prolonging medical care under her current circumstances:

"During the period of time following the incident of February 25, 1990 the parties worked together in an attempt to provide the best care possible for Terri Schiavo. On February 14, 1993, this amicable relationship between the parties was severed. While the testimony differs on what may or may not have been promised to whom and by whom, it is clear to this court that such severance was predicated upon money and the fact that Mr. Schiavo was unwilling to equally divide his loss of consortium award with Mr. and Mrs. Schindler. They have literally not spoken since that date. Regrettably, money overshadows this entire case and creates potential of conflict of interest for both sides."

Why in the world would the parents feel they were entitled to half a "loss of consortium" award?

"The record before this court discloses that should Mr. and Mrs, Schindler prevail, their stated hope is that Mr. Schiavo would divorce their daughter, get on with his life, they would become appointed guardians of Terri Schiavo and become her heirs at law. They have even encouraged him to "get on with his life". Therefor neither side is exempt from finger pointing as to possible conflicts of interest in this case.

So much for Michael Schiavo's being a cad for having a girlfriend. But, we all know he abused Terri, right? And cut off her therapy, right? The right-wing blogosphere is ABUZZ about it. There's petitions from nurses out there, for goodness sake!

"Mr. and Mrs. Schindler filed an action to have him removed as Guardian based upon numerous allegations, including abuse. ...a Gaurdian Ad Litem appointed by this court found that there was no basis to have him removed.

"It is interesting to note that Mr. Schiavo continues to be the most regular visitor to his wife even though he is criticized for wanting to remove her life support. Dr. Gambone even noted that close attention to detail has resulted in her excellent physical condition and that Petitioner [Michael Schiavo] is very involved.

So much for the abuse allegations. Out in the wacky world of right-wing conspiracies, though, the abuse is a "fact", and they've moved on to suggesting Terri Schiavo's "heart attack" was no accident, or that there's an "improper relationship" between Michael Schiavo and Judge Greer. Begging the question of why 201k is not somehow making money off these people. Oh wait, that's what Republicans do.

The Schindlers tried again with an abuse charge, by the way, earlier this month, getting the Florida Department of Children and Families to petition the court. Here's what the court had to (curtly) say about that:

"...DCF admits that it has received scores of abuse reports in this case which it has obviously investigated and found to be unfounded."

Ah-hah! So the DCF is in on the conspiracy.

On another subject, here's some interesting court opinion on the "expert" witnesses the Schindlers brought in:

"Mrs. Schindler has testified as her perceptions regarding her daughter and the court is not unmindful that perceptions may become reality to the person having them. But the overwhelming credible evidence is that Terri Schiavo has been totally unresponsive since lapsing into a coma almost ten years ago, that her movements are reflexive and predicated on brain stem activity alone, that she suffers from severe structural brain damage and to a large extent her brain has been replaced by spinal fluid, that with the exception of one witness whom the court finds to be so biased as to lack credibility, her movements are occasional and totally consistent with the testimony of the expert medical witnesses."

Oh, and there's also this one, from July of 2004:

Schindlers file new motion for relief from judgment based on Pope John Paul II speech

Sadly, the link to Judge Greer's finding on that motion is broken, so we can only imagine. In any event we strongly recommend this site for a disinterested timeline and explanation of the Schiavo case.

Dear 201k,

Don't you get it? Keeping Terry Schiavo a living vegetable means that we have a "culture of life," despite the hundred thousand or so Iraqis we've killed in the name of liberation.

People in comas and fetuses are so much easier to deal with than those pesky living people and their unfortunate habits of having opinions and voices.

P.M.

Good point. One can only hope for Mrs. Schiavo's sake that she won't have to declare bankruptcy. After denying her husband the right to let her die Tom DeLay would authorize MBNA to remove her gold fillings.

Early this morning President Bush signed an extraordinary bill allowing the parents of a woman found by the state of Florida to be in "a persistent vegetative state" to ask a federal court to force her to remain on a feeding tube despite the wishes of her husband and the findings of the Florida courts.

Terri Schiavo suffered irreversible catastrophic brain damaged when her heart briefly stopped in 1990. Since that time her husband Michael Schiavo has waged a legal battle with her parents, Robert and Mary Schindler, to remove her feeding tube. The courts have repeatedly found Mr. Schiavo to be credible, and his contention that his wife would not have wanted to live in her current state has been consistently upheld.

Most recently a Florida Judge agreed with medical experts that Mrs. Schiavo was in either a "persistent" or "permanent" vegetative state with no hope of recovery. In carefully reviewing all evidence--including a video which has been promoted as demonstrating Mrs. Shiavo's ability to track a balloon with her eyes and respond to commands--the court found

that these actions were neither consistent nor reproducible. For instance, Terry Schiavo appeared to have the same look on her face when Dr. Cranford rubbed her neck. Dr. Greer testified she had a smile during his (non-videoed) examination. Also, Mr. Schlinder tried several more times to have her eyes follow the Mickey Mouse balloon but without success. Also, she clearly does not consistently respond to her mother. The court finds that based on the credible evidence, cognitive function would manifest itself in a constant response to stimuli.

President Bush had no comment on this finding. He also offered no personal opinion as to why anyone would want to live in a "persistent vegetative state".

The President likewise made no mention of the court's having conclusively disagreed with the more hopeful prognosis offered by two doctors hired by Mrs. Schiavo's parents, and its finding that "that the credible evidence overwhelmingly supports the view that Terry Schiavo remains in a persistent vegetative state" and that "there is no..testimony, much less a preponderance of the evidence" that supports claims that her quality of life could be improved.

In signing the bill, which was pushed through Congress in an unprecendented manner by Republican leadership late last night, the President offered no commentary on the Florida court's finding that Dr. Hammesfahr, put forth by Mrs. Schiavo's parents as an expert in this case, was a "self-promoter" who runs a "clinic on a cash basis in advance" from which he dispenses a "patented" procedure "not recognized in the medical community" to patients--a majority of whom suffer from "whiplash".

The President also did not explain his decision to allow Mrs. Schiavo's parents the Constitutionally questionable interjection of the federal courts in their desire to forcibly reinstate Mrs. Schiavo's feeding tube in light of the Supreme Court's already having denied to hear this case.

Here's an interesting quote from the Times:

The Schiavo case was striking a particular chord among social conservatives because, they said, it showed the power and what Mr. Perkins called "the arrogance" of the judiciary involved in the case.

Hmm. Let's look at the decision again, and see who's arrogant.

The primary "expert" witness for the Schindlers, Dr. Hammesfahr, is described in the court's decision as "a self-promoter" who "operates his clinic on a cash basis in advance", from which he offers a "patented procedure" which is "not recognized in the medical community."

Further, Dr. Hammesfahr "did not present to [the] court any evidence other than his generalized statements as to the efficacy of his therapy on brain damaged individuals". Of the approximately 50 patients "in the same or worse condition than Terry Schiavo" he claimed to have treated since 1994 "he offered no names, no case studies, no videos and no tests results to support his claim that he had success in all but one of them."

The court found it "inconceivable that he would not produce clinical results of these patients", none of whom, it noted, "were in a persistent vegetative state", all of whom "were conversant", and the majority of whom suffered from "whiplash". In extraordinarily blunt words the court found that it could "only assume that such substantiations [were] not available".

And while the court decided not to involve itself in determining if Dr. Hammesfahr's claims to have been nominated for a Nobel Prize were true--nor whether the Nobel "committee 'accepted' the nomination, 'received' the nomination or whatever" (yes, the court said, "or whatever")--it did opine that to establish this claim Dr. Hammesfahr "should have had for the court's review a copy of the letter".

Regarding Dr. Hammesfahr's claim that Terri Schiavo "squeezed his finger on command", the court found--rather euphemistically--that a video "focused on her hands...would not appear to support that" and noted that Dr. Hammesfahr's own "reaction on the video likewise would not appear to support that testimony."

As for the famous "tracking the balloon" video, the court "carefully viewed the videotapes as requested by counsel"--the entire video footage, not just the few seconds that have played endlessly on TV--and found "that these actions were neither consistent nor reproducible" and noted that "Mr. Schlinder tried several more times to have her eyes follow the Mickey Mouse balloon but without success."

We could go on but will spare you.

The only question anyone should be asking now is: why isn't the media reporting the substance of this decision? Why aren't they telling America the truth? Anyone reading the decision--especially the particulars of the "expert witness" Dr. Hammesfahr--would conclude that an exhaustive job was done to determine Terri Schiavo's condition.

We've repeatedly read Mrs. Schindler 's claim that "we laugh together, we cry together, we smile together, we talk together..." and have yet to see the media report the courts finding that Terris Schiavo "clearly does not consistently respond to her mother."

What the hell is the media doing?

Well, we've read an awful lot of decisions and can't remember when a judge so deftly called a witness a liar. Judge for yourself (emphasis added):

http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/trialctorder11-02.txt

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT IN AND FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

In re: The GUARDIANSHIP OF Theresa Marie SCHIAVO, Incapacitated.
Michael SCHIAVO, as Guardian of the person of Theresa Marie Schiavo,
Petitioner,
v.
Robert SCHINDLER and Mary Schindler, Respondents.
No. 90-2908-GB-003.
Nov. 22, 2002.

ORDER

...The evidentiary hearing commenced on October 11, 2002 and concluded on October 22, 2002 during which time the court heard testimony on separate days from the treating physician of Terry Schiavo and five board- certified expert physicians, two selected by the Petitioner, two selected by the Respondents and one selected by the court since the parties could not agree upon an independent fifth expert. This procedure was pursuant to the Mandate. The court also received into evidence numerous exhibits including copies of published medical articles, copies of summaries of published medical articles, CT Scans and videos of medical examinations. The court also had the opportunity to observe the witnesses when they testified, to note body language, pauses, inflections and other non-verbal factors utilized in determining credibility which would not appear in a transcript of these proceedings.

...three of the five doctors testified that Terry Schiavo was in a persistent vegetative state, although Dr. Cranford felt it more appropriate to phrase it permanent vegetative state which meant that the condition was irreversible. Two of the doctors felt that she was not in a persistent vegetative state. These two sets of opinions had little in common. Those who felt she was not in a persistent vegetative state placed great emphasis upon her interaction with her mother during Dr. Maxfield's examination and the tracking of a balloon. Those who felt that she was in a persistent vegetative state felt that her actions were neither consistent nor reproducible but rather were random reflexes in response to stimuli. However, the court has not and will not make its decision or a simple head count but will instead consider all factors.

At first blush, the video of Terry Schiavo appearing to smile and look lovingly at her mother seemed to represent cognition. This was also true for how she followed the Mickey Mouse balloon held by her father. The court has carefully viewed the videotapes as requested by counsel and does find that these actions were neither consistent nor reproducible. For instance, Terry Schiavo appeared to have the same look on her face when Dr. Cranford rubbed her neck. Dr. Greer testified she had a smile during his (non-videoed) examination. Also, Mr. Schlinder tried several more times to have her eyes follow the Mickey Mouse balloon but without success. Also, she clearly does not consistently respond to her mother. The court finds that based on the credible evidence, cognitive function would manifest itself in a constant response to stimuli.

Dr. Hammesfahr testified that he felt that he was able to get Terry Schiavo to reproduce repeatedly to his commands. However, by the court's count, he gave 105 commands to Terry Schiavo and, at his direction, Mrs. Schindler gave an additional 6 commands. Again, by the court's count, he asked her 61 questions and Mrs. Schindler, at his direction, asked her an additional 11 questions. The court saw few actions that could be considered responsive to either those commands or those questions. The videographer focused on her hands when Dr. Hammesfahr was asking her to squeeze. While Dr. Hammesfahr testified that she squeezed his finger on command, the video would not appear to support that and his reaction on the video likewise would not appear to support that testimony.

The record is replete with the doctors disagreeing over what the videotapes appeared to portray. For instance, was it a visual orienting reflex or was it tracking. Was it a cognitive focus of the eyes or was it a startle response looking to the sound. Perhaps the most compelling testimony was that of Dr. Bambakidis who explained to the court the agony and soul-searching which he underwent to arrive at his opinion that Terry Schiavo is in a persistent vegetative state. He concluded that all the data as a whole supports permanent vegetative state. While the others may have gone through such an analysis, their testimony does not indicate that.

Another issue involved the piano music played via cassette tape in her room during Dr. Hammesfahr examination. Dr. Maxfield testified she related to it and "tried to sing". However, this music was played markedly louder than any other music or voice commands of the doctors. It was probably louder than the handclasp or dropped objects that always seemed to produce a startle reflex. Dr. Greer testified that the length of the reflex depends on the direction of the stimulation.

Dr. Maxfield also felt that '02 CT Scan showed improvement in the quality of the remaining brain matter and that one reason Terry Schiavo was not in a persistent vegetative state was that she could swallow her own saliva and breathe on her own. These views were not supported by any of the other doctors and Drs. Greer, Bambakidis and Cranford strongly disagreed with his '02 CT Scan opinion. Dr. Cranford further testified that saliva handling is from the brain stem, a reflex.

Viewing all of the evidence as a whole, and acknowledging that medicine is not a precise science, the court finds that the credible evidence overwhelmingly supports the view that Terry Schiavo remains in a persistent vegetative state. Even Dr. Maxfield acknowledges that vegetative patients can track on occasion and that smiling can be a reflex.

The real issue in this case, however, deals with treatment options for Terry Schiavo and whether or not they will have any positive affect so as to "significantly improve her quality of life". The treatment options essentially were the vasodilatation therapy offered by Dr. Hammesfahr and the hyperbaric therapy proposed by Dr. Maxfield. While none of the doctors are really involved in stem cell therapy, it was discussed at great length by each of them. Perhaps one of the few agreements between these experts is that stem cell research is currently at the experimental stage and is years away from being accepted either medically or politically. It would not appear from the testimony that this is a viable treatment option at this time.

Hyperbaric therapy has been in use for more than a century. It is used abroad far more than it is used domestically. Medicare recognizes only eleven procedures involving hyperbaric therapy while Russia recognizes almost seven times that many. Dr. Maxfield felt there was an 80% chance of improvement in Spect Scan results from hyperbaric therapy. He has seen such with similar patients. Also, he felt there was a significant probability Terry Schiavo would improve cognitive ability with hyperbaric treatment. Drs. Greer, Bambakidis and Cranford have all referred patients for hyperbaric therapy but none for this type of brain injury. They felt that such therapy would have no affect on Terry Schiavo. It is interesting to note the absence of any case studies since this therapy is not new and this condition has long been in the medical arena.

Dr. Hammesfahr feels his vasodilatation therapy will have a positive affect on Terry Schiavo. Drs. Greer, Bambakidis and Cranford do not feel it will have such an affect. It is clear that this therapy is not recognized in the medical community.

This next part is pretty amusing, as far as that's possible in this sad case. Wonder how many "cable news" stations have covered this bit?

Dr. Hammesfahr operates his clinic on a cash basis in advance which made the discussion regarding Medicare eligibility quite irrelevant. A lot of the time also was spent regarding his nominations for a Nobel Prize. While he certainly is a self-promoter and should have had for the court's review a copy of the letter from the Nobel committee in Stockholm, Sweden, the truth of the matter is that he is probably the only person involved in these proceedings who had a United States Congressman recommend him for such an award. Whether the committee "accepted" the nomination, "received" the nomination or whatever, it is not that significant. What is significant, however, and what undemises his creditability is that he did not present to this court any evidence other than his generalized statements as to the efficacy of his therapy on brain damaged individuals like Terry Schiavo. He testified that he has treated about 50 patients in the same or worse condition than Terry Schiavo since 1994 but he offered no names, no case studies, no videos and no tests results to support his claim that he had success in all but one of them. If his therapy is as effective as he would lead this court to believe, it is inconceivable that he would not produce clinical results of these patients he has treated. And surely the medical literature would be replete with this new, now patented, procedure. Yet, he has only published one article and that was in 1995 involving some 63 patients, 60% of whom were suffering from whiplash. None of these patients were in a persistent vegetative state and all were conversant. Even he acknowledges that he is aware of no article or study that shows vasodilatation therapy to be an effective treatment for persistent vegetative state patients. The court can only assume that such substantiations are not available, not just catalogued in such a way that they can not be readily identified as he testified.

Neither Dr. Hammesfahr nor Dr. Maxfield was able to credibly testify that the treatment options that they offered would significantly improve Terry Schiavo's quality of life. While Dr. Hammesfahr blithely stated he should be able to get her to talk, he admitted he was not sure in what way he can improve her condition although he feels certain her can. He also told the court that "only rarely" do his patients have no improvement. Again, he is extremely short of specifics. Dr. Maxfield spoke of a "chance" of recovery although he stated there was a significant probability that hyperbaric therapy would improve her condition. It is clear from the evidence that these therapies are experimental insofar as the medical community is concerned with regard to patients like Terry Schiavo which is borne out bythe total absence of supporting case studies or medical literature. The Mandate requires something more than a belief, hope or "some" improvement. It requires this court to find, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the treatment offers such sufficient promise of increased cognitive function in Mrs. Schiavo's cerebral cortex so as to significantly improve her quality of life. There is no such testimony, much less a preponderance of the evidence to that effect. The other doctors, by contrast, all testified that there was no treatment available to improve her quality of life. They were also able to credibly testify that neither hyperbaric therapy nor vasodilatation therapy was an effective treatment for this sort of injury. That being the case, the court concludes that the Respondents have not met the burden of proof cast upon them by the Mandate and their Motion. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED AND AJDUDGED that the Motion for Relief from Judgment filed herein by Robert and Mary Schindler, Respondents, be and the same is hereby denied.

The decision by Congress to get involved in the sad case of Terri Schiavo is one of those beautiful moments that cynics like 201k relish, as it confirms everything we hold dear.

The temptation to grandstand on behalf of poor Mrs. Schiavo is more than any (Republican) politician can resist, especially as it comes with the opportunity to use the words "pray", "prayer", and "prayers" repeatedly on national television.

And there's no danger, from their perspective, of actually making bad law in the process, in that the inevitable end of this miserable tale will be Mrs. Schiavo's death, either by natural causes before the legal melodrama is played out ("God took her") or, better still for Repubican lawmakers, when the last legal appeal is exhausted and her feeding tube is removed--after which they can avail themselves of the rare, golden opportunity to hold hands and sing "Amazing Grace" on national television.

It's win-win, really. Except, of course, for Terri Schiavo.

The cynics at 201k ruminated on the media's role in facilitating this grandstanding for some time last night. Certainly their interest in perpetuating the circus--at the expense of easily demonstrated reality--merits some mention other than here. But we won't hold our breath.

We were reminded of the Gary Condit case, in which the former Congressman was nightly convicted in the court of cable news of--depending on which channel you were watching--everything from obstruction of justice to murder. We remember one attorney in particular who was given a generous nightly platform from which he spared no unsubstantiated allegation against Condit.

Now we wouldn't know Gary Condit if we found him in our oatmeal, but we did find it odd that no one (on TV, anyway) felt that he was owed the benefit of any doubt.

Regarding Mrs. Schiavo, we have seen an awful lot of politicians make an awful lot of nasty accusations against her husband. We don't know Mr. Schiavo from Adam, but it does trouble us when the politicians in question happen to be lawyers--and who therefor know that this case has been decided already by several courts who have heard these allegations already, and who have discounted them already. And yet they somehow fail to mention that while on mic.

But, of course, thus the beautiful inevitability of the thing. They know, poor reader, how this must end. What they say therefor is merely for the gallery, contrived to set the stage for the lovely and touching candlelight "Amazing Grace" moment to come, which will be wonderfully choreographed, lit, and broadcast on their behalf by their friends, who are, after all, professionals.

The New York Times follows-up its story on the Bush administration's use of fake news reports with an editorial condemning the practice. The editorial also reveals one or two more disturbing details:

...in at least some cases the stations are the main culprits in the deception - as at the Fox affiliate in Memphis, where a station reporter narrated a State Department video, using the text that came with it. The Times also reported on a small central Illinois station that was so eager to snap up this low-cost filler that it asked the Agriculture Department to have its "reporter" refer to its morning show in his closing lines.

It's been a while since we've said this, so we'll repeat it: the way to understand what's going on is to realize that the GOP in general--and the Bush administration in particular--are business, not state organizations, and that they operate according to the rules of business, not those of public service.

Which in turn boils down to one simple rule: what the boss (or in this case, the boss's son) says is right, and everyone is expected to go along with it. Get it?

Our national media are not a free press so much as a public relations department. Their job is to disseminate the company line. We the people aren't "citizens", we're "employees"--or as "Hardball" host Chris Matthews once described us, "peasants under glass." The bottom line is: management owns the place, and we're all just lucky to be here.

See? Doesn't it all make more sense now?

To make sure you keep a firm understanding, just remember the words of that great former VP of Public Relations for the Executive Branch, Ari Fleischer: everyone needs to watch what they say.

1. Since business is obligated to maximize profits, and labor is much cheaper outside of the U.S., why is that some people keep insisting that cutting taxes will create jobs here?

2. Opponents of the increase in the minimum wage claimed it would cost jobs. But realistically, exactly what jobs would go away that haven't already? What minimum wage jobs would go away? Service-sector jobs can't be outsourced to India. Would copy service places, fast-food restaurants, and house-cleaning services close up shop?

3. The U.S. is currently running the second largest trade deficit on record. Three-quarters of imports--commonly referred to as coming from "other countries"--actually come from overseas-based subsidiaries of U.S. companies. So if an "American" company is incorporated in the most advantageous location--say Bermuda--and manufactures in the most advantageous location--say, China, which has no meaningful labor protections--and merely sells its goods in the most advantageous location--say, the U.S.--then is it really an "American" company?

4. If capital can operate globally as described above, but labor can't--because business manufactures in countries that either discourage or actually forbid meaningful labor organizations--isn't it inevitable that jobs won't return to the U.S. unless labor and living standards here fall to the lowest global levels?

5. That being the case, can one really say, at this point, that "what's good for American business is good for Americans?"

6. Are the beneficiaries of this system--including a great many very wealthy and politically powerful Americans--truly "patriotic"? Or are they actually a new species of international corporate citizen who give lip-service to America and American values while merely using it as a convenient place from which to operate?

7. Aren't U.S. workers really, really screwed?

The following 18 Democratic Senators voted this week in favor of the despicable new bankruptcy bill:

Sens. Max Baucus, Evan Bayh, Joe Biden, Jeff Bingaman, Robert Byrd, Tom Carper, Kent Conrad, Daniel Inouye, Tim Johnson, Herb Kohl, Mary Landrieu, Blanche Lincoln, Ben Nelson, Bill Nelson, Mark Pryor, Harry Reid, Ken Salazar and Debbie Stabenow.

Yet another missive from Boston's only literate sax player:

The House Government Reform Committee has subpoenaed seven baseball stars, some active and some retired, to testify before Congress about steroid use in baseball. They subpoenaed Mark McGwire, Jose Canseco, Frank Thomas, Curt Schilling, Rafael Palmeiro, Jason Giambi and Sammy Sosa. They decided not to subpoena Barry Bonds because finding out that Barry Bonds used steroids is kind of like finding out that Ashley Simpson lip-synched. Everyone suspected it anyway, and then they had to watch that stupid dance over and over and over.

In an explaination of the investigation, Rep. Tom Davis, chairman of the committee, said "I'm extremely concerned about the message sent to children." That explains why he is scrapping the talks on the Iraqi exit strategy to interview major league baseball players.

The "steroid crisis" is an issue that all congressmen and congresswomen can agree on. No one wants to see young people using steroids because of the potential for serious side affects. Young men who use steroids are much more susceptible to unwanted advances from big-haired girls from Revere. They are also at risk if they try to rotate the tires on their Iroc without a jack.

The legal counsel for Major League baseball is fighting the subpoenas on legal grounds, so there is a chance that the hearings will be postponed. Until the legal challenges are resolved Congress might have to kill time talking about social security, oil drilling in the Alaskan wilderness and Janet Jackson's right breast. Whenever the hearings are held, the questions deserve answers............

Barney Frank: Mr. Giambi, let me remind you that you are under oath. In the spirit of full disclosure and to further my own research on the subject, would you please show the committee exactly, to the best of your recollection, where on your buttocks you injected yourself with steroids?

Stephen Lynch: Mr. Canseco, you played in Boston. I'll never forget that game when a fly ball bounced off your head into the right field stands. That was freaking hilarious. But anyway, you might then be at least aware of my district of Southie. It is a neighborhood of hard working families trying to ensure a bright future for their children. I know several men in my district, hard working, blue collar men in my district, who give up many hours of their free time to coach little league baseball. They do it to keep the kids out of trouble and because of the important lessons that friendly competition can teach. When I asked these dedicated family men and community servants what I should ask you during the hearings they were unanimous in their answer. "What was Madonna like in the sack?"

P.A.

Here's an interesting Globe article on the alarming and previously unsuspected presence of mercury in New England.

201k can't help wondering what the 2008 GOP presidential nominee-elect hopeful (otherwise known as the governor of Massachusetts) will have to say about this when he starts paying his inevitable visits to the midwest. Maybe between eye-rolling "mmm-mmm-good" bites of bratwurst he'll explain that mercury poisoning is actually caused by gay marriage.

Higher levels of mercury seen polluting region

By Beth Daley, Globe Staff | March 8, 2005

Mercury contamination is more pervasive in New England than researchers previously believed, according to a study being released today that indicates the toxic substance appears to be polluting the environment in ways that scientists previously did not think possible.

Mercury can damage the developing brains of fetuses and children and can cause a host of physiological and behavioral problems in wildlife. The naturally occurring element is released into the air by coal-fired power plants and eventually falls to land. The Northeastern areas of the United States and Canada have signifi- cantly cut mercury emissions. But mercury continues to drift from elsewhere in the country, and amounts harmful to humans and wildlife persist in the environment.