Morality vs Legality: Who wins?

1. From a Legal standpoint. Do I agree or disagree with the decision to remove the feeding tube.

I agree that it was legally sound however, on a legal morality or rather a legal ideal: I think that the courts should have exhausted all possible sources of appeal (for keeping of feeding tube) before the decision to remove the feeding tube and take Terry Schiavo's life was decided. Personally I think that the 2002 case decision (link) was rushed by Judge Greer and that the right-to-die advocate was not credible for the case. Terry was given pain medication and thus the doctors felt she could feel pain therefore not being brain-dead by definition but brain-injured, which would not be cause for removal of a feeding tube (link). However this was revealed during the autopsy after Terry's death, and frankly the doctors did their job. This advocate's ties to Michael would obviously played a factor and a second opinion should have been sought out by judge Greer.

On a second legality note, I would like to bring up the issue of the House of Representative appeal to the Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy who resided over the 11th U.S. Circuit and therefore, the Schiavo case. This appeal was made after the Government Reform Commitee of the U.S. house's attempts to try and stop the removal of the feeding tubes which had been ordered previously by Greer. These attempts in turn came after the entrance of bill's aimed at saving Terry Schiavo's life however in a blatant mockery of the governmental system the bills were stalled in Congress and in the Florida Legislation [whom I'm sure were motivated to protect of their judges]. In another mockery of the United Courts and Government, the appeal was ignored! Apparently Judge Greer couldn't be found to make an official reply and thus the action went through without comment (link). She died at about 1:41 pm. At least they should have tried! The justice should have pushed for the appeal. Judge Greer should have litsened to more witnesses (which became a factor AFTER her death), and he should have at least allowed for such an appeal to happen. In this case he was thinking more of the constitutionality of the case(in other words, stability so that other cases that spark similar public and political outrage do not rise again) rather than the ideals of the case (in which he should have thought that the court was on the people's side and in a case such as this would rule on their behave fairly, not with a bias motivation).

2. Bush's decision to move the case from a state judicial court to a federal one was indeed the correct choice morality and legally. However, I think it hurt his image in the end because it highlighted the faults of the federal system as well. But back to the main point, there was clearly something wrong with Judge Greer's handling of the case. And on a morality issue, the parents of Terry were begging nationally for support and tried every possible option to save thier daughter's life. It was the correct thing to do, who is to say who dies? No one should be able to. I believe that that individual should even not be able to, it would be suicide. What, so people in vegestative conditions can be killed if they stated before hand? How about a disabled person? How about a handicapped person? What if they have it in their will before-hand. Watch the video One by Metalica and ask yourself those questions. And so, I think Bush was a kind man who saw a parent's plea and being one himself he sympathized with the parents. He also sought to darken the light cast upon the fault of the state Judicial system. And so he brought it to the federal level, it was a correct decision...at least thats what we believed at the time.

3. The federal system does have the power to hand one's life into the hand's of a family member. I just don't think that they should be allowed. But this an argument that will never be one and one on my side will always look like a radical or a heartless human, both of these conjectures are wrong but in the eyes of the average person whom society has born and recieves, they will see me or those on my side as no different. It would be a different case if I was disabled and had these convictions but I am not. Now, aside from the little rant there, I believe that the federal system will always have the power to hand one's life into the grasp of the closest family member in the American Governmental system. The only question left is what denotes a stronger tie? Strict family bonds like parent's or spouses? I think the only way to deliberate such a thing is to take all of the possesions of that person's life, gather all the evidence presented and come to a decision as too which the person would allow to do so.

End of the Blog. Hope you had fun reading it.

Blog # 2

After seeing a couple of those Pbs video's on Thursday afternoon, and looking back at them now, I still feel the same way.

I feel like some were the generalized dreams that most of us have in our minds but I also found some people who were different and I liked their opinions the most. David Baker wanted a total re-vamp of the system, well not to the extend of some radical politicians but he feels that this country has taken some steps that he was not fully behind and he wants the nation to make up for them. What made David Baker and another: David Beckmann stand out were that they wanted for their dreams a better life for others. David Baker talked about global warming and how we must take action against it, also about decent health care, a new healthcare system that will have everyone insured and protected. Baker talked also about education and a standard life of retirement guarentee. Perhaps he wants alittle too much for the present but I think that it is good to have large goals that can be completed at a later time. David Beckmann stood out because he talked very briefly about hunger in the world and said simply that we can change it, and that it is a reality, I believe this and I think thats all we have to know before we strive to reduce it.

My own view is somewhat similar but godawfully more selfish. I want transcend my existence. That is my American dream, and in short I think it is THE american dream. Afterall, why do we seek to improve the our situations? In most cases to improve lives for the others around us and our children, in otherwards we do good to be remembered well...we are selfish. Sure huge and fancy things are nice but those are not my cup of tea, those are material things and do not grant emotional pleasure past a few weeks or months maybe. My American dream is to write a book and then die. Dieing will grant that book a profound existence, as if it is the last trace of someone, and in that book I will include EVERY single tradgedy and obstacle that I've faced (Which lately have been so abundant that my life seems to almost be in decline.) I will also include EVERY single triumph and pleasure I've experienced and describe them for others to see and feel and assume onto themselves. Finally I will fill the book with my all of my knowledge that I have, all the life lessons that I have learned and have picked up, I will write these down and formulate them into One big story that will transend my existence. This is my american dream, and I don't see how this is any different from aspiring to own a big house or have a big family (which would be nice, don't get me wrong) or nice car.

Blog post #1

The Blog: CommenTerry
Blog name: The Perils of Going for Two Too Early

Quick and short to the point. This blog was off-topic among Terry Mitchel's other seemingly politically based blogs. I searched for him from another liberaltarian blog search engine and was interested in reading some really radical remarks; however, this proofed to be a light and interesting read. The blog was about a game of football and how a team up by one touch-down yet only 5 points away and how going for a game winner (conversion) is not the best option when you can kick and rely on chance (or your defense). In other words, potentially tieing up the game is better than taking a risk of winning and loses it along with the game. Though I somewhat knew what he was getting at: "Go for what you got, not for what you can get." Perhaps the blog was to demonstrate some principal which he was trying to tie to the liberaltarian party but I saw no trace of it, so I assumed it was just a humorous and interesting rant/post. His blog seems interspersed with rantings and other commentary of the sort, mostly political in flavor. Its an easy set up of about 300 words a day or less, an easy read and covering interesting topics.

The Blog: Radical Blogs
Blog name: Iraq Veterans Arrested/Beaten

Apparently there was a protest from members of Iraq Veterans Against the War and their supporters. They gathered near the Hempstead, N.Y. train station where they would march on the final presidential debate at Hofstra University. At the gates they began to do the usually routine of questions and yelled answers. (EX: What do we want? "Some type of change!", When do we want it? "As soon as Possible!"). They stood together. After ten veterans were arrested, 5 civilian's took their place. The escalation was rising from the protestor's account and even though non-violence was stressed by the protestors and even set up by the police, violence sparked. Many of the police did things that were borderline illegal, a picture of a man with a busted eye was presented as proof...I took it as such (Though most likely accidental, the man was trampled by a bunch of police horses after they charged their horses at the sidewalk). The auther of the post himself was arrested and his friend had been injured. The man obviously needed medical attention but police said they would only help if the man asked for it himself. Apparently the man was still too dazed by taking a hoof to his eye to answer. The auther was angry. I love this blogs lay-out. Written by anonomous authors and covering a large amount of human right/government reform topics, this blog had an interesting lay-out and their articles from the six that I skimmed were pretty interesting. I picked this blog post in particular because I really like how the reader gets a first hand report, like an inner look of what a newspaper "dances around."