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

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

Current Events: Who Has the Authority?

I'm sick of blogging about this Shiavo soap opera. But I have come to realize that the question of Terri's fate is a question of who has the authority to decide her fate.

Ultimately, Terri Schiavo herself is the only one with real authority to decide her own fate. But if she honestly told her husband that she would not want to be kept alive like that, then she has given him the authority, as her legal guardian, to carry out her wishes. Who are we to automatically assume that Michael's lying, allowing us to step in and prevent her wishes from being carried out?

It's a valid argument, but it breaks down. Since she has no living will, all we have to go on is Michael's word. Now this may be a matter of opinion, but I don't think second-hand accounts should be regarded with as much authority as official, legal documents. There's too many variables. Even if she did say something like that, since there's nothing concrete written down, how do we know to what extent she was talking about? Did she mean she didn't want to be kept alive if she couldn't breathe on her own? Or if her heart couldn't beat on its own? Or only if she couldn't eat on her own? Michael's account is too vague.

There's also the question of his character. In general, it is unjust to automatically assume people are lying about things. We have to assume they are telling the truth, unless confronted with evidence to the contrary. I would like to assume that Michael is telling the truth about his wife's wishes, but it is obvious that he doesn't care about her. There is some evidence that he abused her and didn't even want to help her recover---he just wanted her to die and be rid of her. And it's suspicious that he only started using the "wife's wishes" argument in 2000, closer to the time that he found a different girlfriend than the time his wife was first brain-damaged.

Because Michael's account of her wishes is uncertain and unreliable, and because his character calls into question the truthfulness of his account, we cannot be certain that Terri would want to die rather than be kept alive. Once we are uncertain about Terri's wishes, then an outsider has to decide her fate, which becomes a judgment call---a philosophical question---on whether she deserves to live or not.

Now it becomes a question of who has the authority to make that judgment call. As her legal guardian, Michael is the most likely candidate. And he has decided that she does not deserve life.

OK, that's his right, we can't interfere, too bad. But if he hates her and has an obvious bias against her, then does he still retain that right? That's another judgment call.

I don't know who has or should have the authority. Her husband? Her parents? Apparently the government thinks it does. No matter the outcome of this case, in the aftermath there needs to be reform that clearly outlines who has the authority to decide in cases like these and what can cause legal guardians to lose that authority. Until then, we're forced to let the government step in.

Why Terry Schiavo Has the Right to Live

Now, I don't know who has the authority, but to whoever does, let me argue why you should decide in favor of her life. Two reasons.

First, there is so much controversy regarding the genuineness about her so-called "vegetable state." Perhaps she really is unconscious and brain dead, but until an official investigation can be made---and I don't know why there hasn't been one yet---it would be better to err on the side of caution and keep her alive if she's brain dead, than let her die if she's not.

Second, and for a greater reason, it's a matter of principle. It is true that keeping Mrs. Schiavo alive for fifteen years appears to have accomplished nothing and been a waste of time. But this is an extreme case. If you set a precedent for death here---even if it could be justified, and I truly think it could---where you do draw a line? How far gone must someone be before they lose the privilege to live? Carry the philosophy to its logical extremes, and you're supporting euthanasia. No, the only way to be just is to award all living people the right to live. Now it simply becomes a matter of how you define life.

Does life mean only the beating of the heart? Brain activity? Breathing? Does life mean all of those combined, or more, or something else? To decide if a person has a right to live, all we have to do is decide if they are alive. Terri Schiavo is breathing on her own. Her body can process food, even if it has to be given to her through a tube. No matter what your minimal criteria for life are, I think she easily qualifies.

And so, to preserve the value of life and prevent it from becoming diluted, I believe Terri Schiavo should be kept alive, even if keeping her alive for fifteen years accomplshed nothing and even if it will accomplish nothing more in the end.

Edmond the Hun

Current Events: The Removal of the Feeding Tube

Well, now it's happened. They have removed the feeding tube of Terry Schiavo, who has been brain damaged for fifteen years. They say she can live at least a week without it, and after that... who knows? Conservative Christians and the like are in an outrage at this decision which will, unless opponents can legally break through, ultimately result in the death of Mrs. Schiavo.

If the case was simpler, I would go against the conservative Christian stream and say this is the right decision. She's been like this for fifteen years, doing nothing but eating through a feeding tube and eating thousands of dollars with it. OK, so she has laughed and cried, but those accounts are controversial, anyway. I think it would be best to put her out of her misery.

But it's more complicated than that. It has to be. After all, Terry's husband and Terry's parents have been fighting this for years. And there's something fishy about Michael Schiavo (the husband). The big mystery is: Why does he want to pull the plug? He claims that his wife told him that's what she would want. But no one seems to believe this simple answer. He was even offered a million dollars not to pull the plug, but he refused. There is obviously some deep reason that he wants to pull the plug. Maybe he really does belive that's what his wife wants.

But I know the reason has nothing to do with devotion to his wife. Why? Because he has kids with another woman, but he never officially divorced Terry to marry her. Why? It appears that he wants his wife to die---as his wife---before he marries the other woman. The only obvious motive is that somehow that would give him a lot of money, but he refused a million dollars, so that seems out of the picture.

This whole thing is rancid of corruption, and there's too much we don't know. There's some deep reason that Michael wants Terry to die as his wife. Now Congress is hurriedly trying to pass a law to stop it all. Unfortunately, Terry got caught in the middle of all this corruption, and there's nothing she can do about it. I want to say put her out of her misery---but Michael's mysterious behavior feels like something out of a Grisham novel. So I want to say keep her alive, just in case he has a corrupt (albeit unknown) reason for wanting her death.

Basically, I guess I still don't know one way or the other. It's just a very, very sad and corrupted case.

Edmond the Hun

Current Events: More on the Atlanta Shootings

I have learned some more about the recent shootings in Atlanta, and what we have here is either some stupid officials in charge, or one feisty grandmother. Or both.

Apparently, the woman didn't have the gun on her. (This was apparently all caught on video tape) She had the gun locked up, and as soon as she took the handcuffs of him, he forced the key from her, and went and got the gun himself.

Now, Nichols is 6-foot-1, 210 pounds, and a former college linebacker. Cynthia Ann Hall is a five-foot, fifty-one year-old petit grandmother. But according to the accounts released as of now, there was a three-minute struggle before he got the keys from her. Three minutes! It took a big linebacker three minutes to take down an old grandmother! Either these reports are exaggerated, or we have one feisty grandmother here. Maybe it wasn't as ludicrous as I thought to leave her alone with the guy.

So, kudos and my respect to the poor woman who had to guard this dangerous rapist and murderer all by herself, and also managed to keep him off for three whole minutes!! Good job, Cynthia! I hope you recover from your injuries swiftly so you can testify and put this guy away for good.

Edmond the Hun