Just kidding - the three following posts are all april fool's jokes! Although I wouldn't be surprised if the ACLU did something like that. And I don't know how Terri stayed alive that long. And there are fears that the price of oil barrels will go from $55 to $100, which could easily translate over here into over $3 a gallon. But that might not even happen, and if it does, probably not $4. But then what do I know about gas pricing logistics?
Anyway, the gas price one has the most chance of actually happening, and the Terri one is so ludicrous that I hope you didn't believe it. Have a happee April!
Edmond the Hun
Saturday, April 02, 2005
Friday, April 01, 2005
The ACLU and April Fool's Day
The ACLU has long been a champion of extreme and dumb liberal rights. Now Ron Greenwood, their spokesman, has spoken out against the informal celebrating of April 1 being April Fool's Day. They say that it discriminates against people who are gullible, and they want to make it a crime to recgonize April Fool's Day. Senator John Edwards is sponsoring a bill to make this a law.
What the Zeus? I think that's going a little overboard. I don't like being paranoid all day, but it's only one day of the year. Come on, people!
Edmond the Hun
Gas Prices Still Soaring
The Arabs in the Middle East are sick of rising protests over rising oil prices, so they decided to limit production. Oil barrel prices are expected to double within the week, and oil prices may soon top $4.00 a gallon. This is ridiculous! Why can't we just drill our own oil in Alaska? The hydrogen car stuff is going too slow. If gas prices rise any farther, I wouldn't be surprised if people march on Washington or something drastic like that.
Edmond the Hun
Terri's Still Alive!
Yes, that's right. Terri Schaivo is still alive. The doctors have been secretly reinserting her feeding tube during the night. They paid the media networks to release news of her death so they could take her away from Michael. It's a deceptive and risky plan, but it might work. I thought this sounded a little far-fetched, especially considering today's date, but think about it---she's been without water for two weeks! How can anyone possibly survive that long? What else could explain it? I just wish this whole thing would be over...
Edmond the Hun
Thursday, March 31, 2005
Turkey: Hitler, Best-Selling Author
Hitler's anti-semitic politically radical book Mein Kampf (My Struggle) is a best-seller in Turkey, thanks to new cheap publishing that allows it to be sold for $4.50 a copy. That's kinda scary.
Don't get me wrong here. I'm all about free press. And I have some desire to read works with beliefs that I disagree with---Mein Kampf, the Koran, possibly the Da Vinci code---for the purpose of fully understanding my opposition so that I know best how to combat it (although I haven't actually read any of those). Call me an arrogant cynic, but I doubt all the Turkish people have such noble motives. I wonder why they're all so interested in it... why now? Why Turkey?
Edmond the Hun
War In Iraq: Unnoticed Progress
There is progress in the war in Iraq! It's interesting that when the media replaces the war with a brain-damaged Florida woman, the protests for the war disappear for awhile. Anyway, I read this on the bottom of the front page, last Thursday actually. We (meaning, the US Army and Co., or whatever "our side" is called) killed 85 insurgents in one day last week. Eighty-five! That was part of a multi-day raid somewhere in Iraq that totaled a couple hundred! (And the dissenters protest when we lose a single life) The article also reported that Iraqi citizens are now starting to give us information about the insurgents, whereas a couple months ago it used to be the other way around. The point is, we're making good progress in Iraq! And it did make the front page, but still second to Terri.
When bad things happen in Iraq, people cry out in protest. When good things happen in Iraq, no one notices. Or at least, not much.
Edmond the Hun
When bad things happen in Iraq, people cry out in protest. When good things happen in Iraq, no one notices. Or at least, not much.
Edmond the Hun
The Aftermath of Terri
What Reform is Needed?
Whatever your position was, she's finally dead, and she can now stop crowding other things off the news. The big question now is: what reform is needed to prevent future cases?
The most extreme option is to say that, if there is no living will, as long as a person is breathing or their heart is beating, everything must be done to keep them alive. No questions, no exceptions. But families often have to make the choice to end varying degrees of life support to their loved ones, and sometimes they feel that it's the right choice to let them die. And even if it's not written down in concrete, sometimes the person has communicated their desires to the family members. I don't think it's fair to deprive them of that right and say everyone always has to be kept alive.
I don't like the government intruding in on personal family decisions. But when someone abuses a system, the government has to get involved. Michael abused the system. There is overwhelming evidence that he did not care about his wife's wishes or interests. But he had the authority as a husband---and I don't think husbands should be deprived of that authority---to decide whether or not to maintain the feeding tube.
I propose reform that would clearly outline the levels of authority that various family members have. If a family member objects to the decision of another with more authority(i.e. parents to husband) and if they can't work it out themselves, then there must be a legal battle. A simple one. Not to determine the fate of the disabled family member. A legal battle to determine if the family member with the higher authority is making a decision based on the person's best wishes and interests. That's vague. So I would say the only way someone can be deprived of their authority is if there is overwhelming evidence that their decision is based on selfish or outside motivations. In this case, Michael would have lost that authority, which would have been transferred to the parents.
I'm not saying that Michael was wrong and the parents were right. I'm saying Michael should have lost his authority. If Michael had wanted to keep her alive and Terri's parents wanted to kill her, then Michael could still have been deprived of his authority if something corrupt was involved (say, someone was paying him to keep her alive).
Anyway, that's the reform that I propose. Maybe I should do something active and e-mail my representatives...
Edmond the Hun
Whatever your position was, she's finally dead, and she can now stop crowding other things off the news. The big question now is: what reform is needed to prevent future cases?
The most extreme option is to say that, if there is no living will, as long as a person is breathing or their heart is beating, everything must be done to keep them alive. No questions, no exceptions. But families often have to make the choice to end varying degrees of life support to their loved ones, and sometimes they feel that it's the right choice to let them die. And even if it's not written down in concrete, sometimes the person has communicated their desires to the family members. I don't think it's fair to deprive them of that right and say everyone always has to be kept alive.
I don't like the government intruding in on personal family decisions. But when someone abuses a system, the government has to get involved. Michael abused the system. There is overwhelming evidence that he did not care about his wife's wishes or interests. But he had the authority as a husband---and I don't think husbands should be deprived of that authority---to decide whether or not to maintain the feeding tube.
I propose reform that would clearly outline the levels of authority that various family members have. If a family member objects to the decision of another with more authority(i.e. parents to husband) and if they can't work it out themselves, then there must be a legal battle. A simple one. Not to determine the fate of the disabled family member. A legal battle to determine if the family member with the higher authority is making a decision based on the person's best wishes and interests. That's vague. So I would say the only way someone can be deprived of their authority is if there is overwhelming evidence that their decision is based on selfish or outside motivations. In this case, Michael would have lost that authority, which would have been transferred to the parents.
I'm not saying that Michael was wrong and the parents were right. I'm saying Michael should have lost his authority. If Michael had wanted to keep her alive and Terri's parents wanted to kill her, then Michael could still have been deprived of his authority if something corrupt was involved (say, someone was paying him to keep her alive).
Anyway, that's the reform that I propose. Maybe I should do something active and e-mail my representatives...
Edmond the Hun
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)