« The Legacy of Terri Schiavo | Main | Tom Delay Butchered in Polls »

April 4, 2005

TBO: "Lawmakers Refocus As Pall Lifts"

Topics: News

I'd like to offer my sincerest apologies to Speaker Bense for distracting him and other Florida legislators from business that is far more 'important' than the killing of an innocent life by judicial fiat(sic).

(...) Florida's legislators are used to the first month of the annual session being hectic and intense, a grueling pace as they pack a year's worth of legislation into the 60-day session. They're not used to it being as emotionally draining as it has been this year.

(...) During the first 30 days of this year's session, lawmakers have had to grapple with end- of-life issues - whether they should or could intervene in the Terri Schiavo case - while at the same time losing one of their own, Rep. David Coley, R-Marianna.

(...) Lawmakers were inundated with criticism, personal attacks and even death threats from some of the public as they struggled to determine what, if any, legislation they could pass to prevent Schiavo's feeding tube from being removed.

(...) A shaken Sen. Nancy Argenziano, R-Ocala, said she feared for her life as she described the threats on the Senate floor last month.

(...) A hard-nosed legislator, Argenziano is widely regarded as one of the toughest senators. She once gift-wrapped a 25- pound bag of cow manure and sent it to an industry lobbyist she opposed over nursing home reforms.

Read More ...

Gosh, that's really something to be proud of Nancy(Argenziano), and as for you, Speaker Bense, I certainly hope that you can get back to more important business - after all, life is so cheap, at least to you, Michael Schiavo, George Greer, George Felos, and nine Florida legislators. However, if you don't mind(and even if you do), many sincere people from all over the political spectrum are taking a small step back, and making plans to work together and make meaningful changes in a political and judicial climate that ignores the importance of the gifts of life and compassion for others, regardless of their "perceived human worth" or economic value to society.

Cross posted at Hyscience

Posted by richard at April 4, 2005 11:17 AM

Articles Related to News:


And how about this last sentence from the article: ``I think the Schiavo issue is beginning to fade away and we're moving on from David Coley,'' Bense said. ``The shroud has been lifted ... it's time to knuckle down, wipe our brow ... get down to business.''

Nice to know where the priorities of the Florida legislature lies. It certainly isn't with the sanctity of life.

Posted by: LifeisPrecious at April 4, 2005 12:01 PM

> Lawmakers were inundated with criticism,personal
> attacks and even death threats from some of the
> public as they struggled ....
> A shaken Sen. Nancy Argenziano, R-Ocala, said
> she feared for her life as she described the
> threats on the Senate floor last month.

That's IT. Put up or shut up! Let them publish those supposed "death threats", and let us put the perpetrators, if any, in jail.

Because you know what? Other than the arrested man in Georgia, I don't believe there have been any "death threats". I believe they are "fabricating" their supposed "death threats" to garner sympathy for themselves in their hour of shame for having voted for the killing of Terri Schiavo.

You know what I saw on Greta Van Sustern the other night? Scott Schiavo, and "recorded phone threats". You know what I heard? A recording of a man who was very upset and had gotten Scott's phone number, who called and left a recorded message that the Schiavos were killers, and asking them how they were going to possibly explain it to Schiavo children, when it was likely all their schoolmates were already asking them about it too.

But there was not one single "threat". It was alot of namecalling, but there was not one single "threat".

Thanks Greta, for twisting the truth by calling it something it wasn't.

Let anyone who has received "threats" over this case put up or shut up. Publish and prosecute all "threats".

No? I didn't think ya could.

Posted by: Suzanne. at April 4, 2005 12:14 PM

I also heard the so-called "threats" from Michael's brother Scott Schiavo's phone message (the same lovely man who said "[now that's Terri's dead] she has all of her dignity back" - Give me a break! Being disabled doesn't mean you have no dignity!), and I agree, I heard anger, but no threats of violence or anything like that.

Posted by: Sirena at April 4, 2005 12:22 PM

Okay, I think these people need to figure out who the real victim of this story was...um, it wasn't Nancy "manure" Agrenziano, nor was it ANY of the Schaivo brothers. It was TERRI SCHINDLER-SCHAIVO.

Poor, poor babies, so disconnected with the real world.

By the way, was it the tax payers of Florida who paid for that bag of manure?

Posted by: JIHC at April 4, 2005 2:03 PM

I think the schiavo family are a sorry bunch. I heard michael's brother talk on Larry King and I hope I never have the misfortune of running into him ever in my life. Terri was dead and all he could tell her family was a load of BS through hate-filled words.

Posted by: sujata at April 4, 2005 2:21 PM

A man was arrested after putting a bounty on Michael and Greer, encouraging to "inflict as much pain and suffering that he can bear".

A man tried to rub a gun store to rescue Terri and threatens violence against the shop owner if he's on the wrong side of God.

Pro-life groups hand out the home addresses and phone numbers of judges and politicans involved in the case.

'Wanted' posters of Republicans who voted no appeared in the state capitol in Tallahassee.

People on Schiavo's street received anonymous postcards saying: "Your neighbor Michael Schiavo is trying to murder his wife."

A bomb threat was made with the caller stating he would blow up the hospice if Terri died.

It's impossible to miss the comments made here in the past two weeks where a great many people advocated violence and who wished harm on Michael, Greer and even their families and children.

It's one thing to be angry at an injustice and show it in words and something else entirely to actively seek those people out and confront them with your anger.

It takes a lot out of the arguement that a "culture of life" is supposidly about compassion and cherishing life when you condone a "culture of hate" where you don't denounce acts of intimidation, ill wishes or even deaththreats made against any individual, especially against innocent spouses and children.

I'm sure not many of you will agree, but saying all these people somehow deserve what they're getting is simply wrong and it really doesn't show devotion when you're pious in one comment and hateful in the next. There are much better and infinitely more productive ways to get your point across.

Posted by: Vanessa at April 4, 2005 2:26 PM

Vanessa, I've noticed from your posts in the past few weeks, it seems to me that you are trying to cause dissention within the commenters here. Am I wrong?

No one here has ever said that we should go after those who we are angry with. Sure, we are appalled and frustrated with Terri's murder, but I think everyone here would agree that threats, violence or anything of that nature is NOT legal or acceptable.

Posted by: Sirena at April 4, 2005 2:45 PM

A great many people here advocated violence and wished harm to Schiavo, Greer, and their children?
Noooooo... I've seen lots of comments about the sorry excuse for human beings they are.. and unfortunately I have seen a couple of people wish harm upon them. But "a great many" is not true, and I honestly haven't seen people advocating violence.
Please stop making generalizations.
Yes, I do agree that wishing harm on others is wrong.
Righteous anger is not wrong.

Posted by: Foug at April 4, 2005 3:06 PM

Unfortunately there are individuals who are willing to use any cause as an excuse for violence and intimidation and there are others who willingly exploit such actions in an attempt to invalidate the moral standard and sacrifice of many. Along the way the true victim (Terri) is somehow forgotten despite the fact that she was starved to death in an unconscionable act that was protected via the full power and force of the state.

Violence and hatred will not solve anything or benefit those who suffer injustice via coerced euthanasia, such as Terri Schiavo. Pro-life leaders who support Terri Schiavo universally opposed violence. The few wackos who apparently saw force as an option give the unjust and those who support mandated mercy killing an excuse to write-off noble attempts to protect the innocent.

Posted by: tim at April 4, 2005 3:17 PM

I have a bone to pick. On April 3, 2005 10:04 AM, I posted on a thread here ( http://www.blogsforterri.com/archives/2005/04/there_is_no_sta.php ) about how I was equated to "Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Vladimir Lenion, Timothy McVeigh and John Brown" purely because I said I put life above law, particularly innocent life. I also gave a link to the particular entry.

Had certain people bothered to check, they would have found that the person who made that comment was NOT the owner of the site. Although the owner of the site, John, does not agree with the views of this website regarding Terri, he discusses it in a civil manner without making personal attacks. I respect John and he is entitled to his opinion, and the fact we can and have discussed matters like this without it becoming personal in the past is the reason I keep coming back to his weblog.

John is a cancer survivor, and I think partly as a result of that trauma, he relates to Terri's position and I believe it is part of the reason he holds a differing view to us as to what Terri would have wanted.

Unfortunately John has been receiving hate mail, thanks to what I posted here. One of the lesser examples was:
"Too bad cancer didn't kill you. You are an unamerican ungodly person who does not deserve the life or freedoms you enjoy as an american."

To the people sending this messages to John, please desist immediately. John did not make the statements equating me to a terrorist, someone else did. If you have any honour or respect, you would also apologize to John for what you have said.

All you have achieved is to lower yourselves to the same level as the person who compared me to a terrorist, and not only that, you have done a disservice to an innocent party as well as contradict everything you claim to stand for, particularly with a comment such as the one above.

I feel ashamed for these people's actions.

Posted by: demonsurfer at April 4, 2005 3:51 PM

I would have to agree with you.. Those who did that are horrible. But I think MOST people who comment here are not the type of people to ever say such insensitive things to people.

Posted by: Sirena at April 4, 2005 3:57 PM

Well, some unfortunate incidents have happened here, due to the frustration and pain of helpless people who wanted something very much, namely that Terri live and America still be the land of the free. Neither was to be and so some lashed out in their pain, as even the best dog will do given enough pain. Who can measure the pain of another?

For my part I am in as much pain as I was back when we began this oddysey with Terri. I am in this pain because I want something VERY much and I can't get people to respond to me. I feel so strongly that the propriety of the judiciary as the forum for this is highly questionable and should be questioned in depth, that I am just sick that almost no one will give it any thought. Ultimately what we do or don't do now will at least partly determine the fate of other Terris. Won't you please help me.

And beloveds, let us love AND FORGIVE one another. I wish Dave was still Blogging, we need his sound advice.

Posted by: mary et. al. at April 4, 2005 4:24 PM

This article scares me.

Cheney Opposes Retribution Against Schiavo Judges


Posted by: LauraB at April 4, 2005 4:36 PM

Sirena & others:

I think that a summary and review of passed, proposed and pending legislation is more important and more useful than an allegation of how Michael will make money by selling rights, or critizing senators about whether or not their claims of being threatened are true, exaggerations or fictional.

A bill being drafted in Michigan will prevent a spouse who has an extramarital affair from effectively making decisions about withdrawing medical care from their partner. I personally think it's an admirable effort but doesn't quite go far enough.
A New Jersey bill being drafted would require couples to submit a living will before a marriage license will be issued.

There are a handful more, yet I haven't seen a single word about any of it on here while it seems rather relevant to the 'mission statement' as I understand it.

I doubt some public scrunity over whether a measure goes far enough or to show public support for those who are working on them would be a bad thing to do.

You can't change all the no votes that were made in the previous weeks by "targetting" the ones who cast them or those who spoke out against it. But you can use the pressure they're currently under or were under to urge them to redeem themselves by supporting legislation that will prevent more injustice.
Give them something they can't say no to without ensuring their own political demise next election.

I also find the debate over the semantics of "living wills" vs "will to live" rather frivolous while there are still states that don't have to honour them and the fact that a living will by itself will do you very little good to stay alive should such be your wish. That's assuming it's even fully up to the requirements of whichever state you live in. Getting the same requirement for form and content in all the states would be a big improvement already.

If the final intent is to make actual changes about the current situation I just feel the direction should move steadily away from finding fault with everything and everyone and instead move to something more fruitful and constructive.
That doesn't mean that whatever allegations exist against Michael, Felos or Greer should be forgotten about. I personally think a lot of them are farfetched but ultimatly I'm not in the position to know, and I'm happy that I'm not in a position to have to decide on their merit. If it's still possible to have them properly investigated, then by all means, they should be. But it shouldn't be the one and only focus.

If I'm too harsh in choice of words, I'm sorry, but I'm mostly seeing a lot of person related reaction here, but very little call for preventive action.
As for the "a great many", in hindsight I probably should have picked "some" so I'd like to apologize to anyone who felt like I was labelling everyone.

Posted by: Vanessa at April 4, 2005 4:50 PM

I am very deeply saddened that everyone is forgetting Terri already and that it is a thing of a Past. They managed and effectively put things and shrub under the rug. We cannot let this happen, we need to keep Terri's Legacy alive and get an investigation on this to bring Justice for Terri. Some would tell us to "move on" and forget about it, it is just one person. But Terri represents one of many Disabled and Voiceless People out there, and possibly same thing happens to them which is Death. We need to protect every aspects of Life in this World. If people put on Farm Aid Concerts for Africa Famine, why can't we do this to protect Disabled and Voiceless People? I would very much like to see a Foundation set up and an Aid Concert to get the Money to support Disabled People like those of March of Dimes. If we need new Law to protect them, and we need Lawyers to fight them. This is one way to go.

As for People looking out for violence seems to be far fetched, they know well they will go to Prison. But the irony is that they are the same ones that say those hatred words against the Schindler's. We are angry and frustrated that they let Terri Die. But we are not going to stoop to their level by parcipating in Killing. No way. We are not the same, we know well what God's Laws are and WE will abide and obey them to the fullest and to try the best as we can. This is an Evil, evil World we live in. We have to show we are not going to be the same Micheal's out there killing each other, but we will learn to Love one another and forgive each other. That is one thing they will never have and they who killed People are going to lead a very, very Sad Life. The one who choose Life gets all the Blessings and the one who choose Death will be Cursed, even with their Children. That is what's happening right now with the Schivao Family. They inflicted upon themselves not us. ~ Deutronomy 30:19 exactly said just that. I am not quoting myself, but what God exactly say when it comes to choosing Life and Death. It is not our fault that they are getting problems with their Children, they chose Death and they will be cursed. It does not have to be Violence per se. It is those Children or other Adults that will talk about the choice they made and they will be made as outcasts. Just like we do our responsiblity to kick out Sex Pedophiles out of our Church and cleaning up, it is our responsiblity to keep the Church intact from Evil. And that is what they just did with Judge Greer, they kicked him out of the Church because of the choice he made and he is cursed and his Family is cursed because they are no longer attending Church. I am sorry, we are not the ones that inflict anything on them, they did it themselves by making the choice on Death. God said if you make that choice, curse will be onto you. If it was the opposite, no one will be talking about this Today.

Posted by: momforGod at April 4, 2005 5:30 PM

No, Vanessa, Michael, Felos and Greer shouldn't be the one and only focus, but it should probably be one of the starting points. When injustice occurs, it is a good starting point to look directly at that injustice and to expose it openly, so that it can be seen for what it is and so that others can see in what direction injustice lies.

The talk about a 'living will' vs. a 'will to live' is absolutely valid - not frivilous at all. It is certainly much more than a semantic debate. It is in fact not a debate but a point, that it is the inner content of these documents that are radically different and are the difference between choosing to say one wants to die versus choosing to say one wants to live! In fact, your suggestion of: "Getting the same requirement for form and content in all the states would be a big improvement already" is a dangerous one! Can you not envision the control over people that this could cause? Those who wish to control others, always lie, don't they?

Please do not make any attempt to lull good hearted readers here into a seemingly peaceful falsehood. I believe you want to present a good solution, but please, Vanessa, look at what you are saying.

Thank you for being so kind to say what you did at the end of your post.

The folks here really are mostly very caring, and in fact that is why they are here, and were concerned about Terri in the first place.

Posted by: juleni at April 4, 2005 5:33 PM

Mary et. al.

Is this what you are saying, in a nutshell, and trying to get across?:

That there is an inappropriateness of using the judicial system as the forum for deciding who lives and who dies, and if we can't get this out of the court system then we must enact laws demanding trial by *jury*, (so that no one man can be judge, jury and executioner)?

Agreed, having a jury is a good goal.

My question, as not trained in this area, would be, (and Vanessa - you suggested law changes also) - is how to go about changing or enacting laws?

How do we do that? (anyone...)

Posted by: juleni at April 4, 2005 5:41 PM

Bless you, Juleni, you are the light of my life.

The judiciary is inappropriate because it was created to accomplish the task of APPLYING the law in a cold and impartial manner. A judge can very well see what you are getting at and that you are even right in the situation, but he will still rule according to the law and that's just tough for you.

Law courts aren't about justice, they are about law. I say if we can't get this out of the court system, then we must demand trial by jury. What, tell me what, would have happened if ms pleaded his case for killing Terri before 12 of us???????????

Posted by: mary et. al. at April 4, 2005 5:54 PM


I do agree! How does one go about changing laws? A law requiring a jury - or laws to fill in where laws are missing regarding the treatment of the disabled, or legislation that will prevent more injustice, as Vanessa said?

I know, a bill has to be signed to be voted on. But that's about the extent of what I know about it. Where does a bill start? I know that Richard said earlier today that BFS is looking into starting some things, but after Tuesday, after the mass for Terri, which I can understand. Maybe he will share some ideas then, to begin with on changing laws (I hope!). I would like to help...

"Give them something they can't say no to without ensuring their own political demise next election." - is a good idea. But it has to be for life!

Posted by: juleni at April 4, 2005 6:05 PM

Vanessa - You raise some very valid points - ones that I agree with wholehardedly! I think the focus should be on improving the system rather than casting blame on people. I too have tried to take this path - that NO good can come out of having extremists like Randall Terry pursuing your cause. And I too have been criticized for it.

Learn from history or you are bound to relive it! Basically, I think that every person should have a health care proxy - one who knows your wishes. I think it could be a spouse, but certainly a parent, child, sibling or friend could serve in that capacity.

I have had some interesting converations with my aunt - who is an RN regarding this. My grandmother chose not to have a feeding tube after she had a massive stroke. However, my aunt and uncle put my cousin on a respirator as a short term measure in order to improve his recovery from illness. So there are some grey areas - even when it comes to living wills.

I still have one, along with advanced directives. I need to decide who will be my health care proxy as I am not married. And I have been sure to make my wishes and beliefs known to everyone I feel comfortable sharing it with.

Posted by: Blogging Beth at April 4, 2005 6:12 PM


You have to get a congress person to sponsor a bill and it goes from there. But I am not convinced that we need to make or change laws here.

What I am advocating is looking into why this is in the judicial system at all. OK yes the pro-death people put it there, and they are having good success with it (which is why they chose this forum) and we went along with it like the good little sheep we are, ASSUMING that this was all kosher. Never once questioning it. We Must Question This. And if we can't find a better forum, then yes, make sure that there are no more Terris whose fate is decided behind closed doors.

You never said what you thought would happen if 12 of us were in the jury deciding Terri's fate.

Posted by: mary et. al. at April 4, 2005 6:20 PM

Even thought the question is not addressed to me I would like to answer. If 12 people had been allowed to be on the jury and hear ALL the facts Terri would be alive. As I have said before, as the days pass and people begin to find out more the public opinion is swaying.

Mary-I am confused by what you are saying. I have been following your posts as I have been posting that laws and judges need to be changed if at all possible too. You said ealier that you felt that we needed to not change laws but learn how to use the current ones against them-turn them around to work in our favor and really understand them. I agree to a point but how do we do that without trying to change them? If they are bad laws souldn't we try and change them?
I guess what I am asking is, what do you suggest-what would be the outcome of investigating why the laws are there in the first place? I think you are onto something here but maybe just need a bit of brainstoriming with all of us to get it figured out. What do you think?

Oh and by the way-if ever I am laying in a hospital and someone is trying to pull the my feeding tube (my husband would NOT let that happen) but just in case, I want Randall Terri fighting for me.

Posted by: alwayschooselife at April 4, 2005 6:39 PM

Thank you, alwayschooselife for responding,

I didn't really say turn them around to work in our favor, but I think someone did.

Stay with me Always, because I really need people to grasp this. In war a good general picks the battle ground according to any advantages it may give his army. In this war the pro-death picked the most advantageous ground for them to win in; the judiciary. But the judiciaries function is anti-sympathetic to right and wrong, good or evil, life or death. It is about law, only law.

Pro-lifers have made the chronic mistake of fighting this in enemy held territory and on terrain that guarantees failure. Why? Because they never questioned it. When ms went to court to have Terri put down, the Schindlers were obliged to go to court to fight him. Had they found a better forum, more hospitable to good, right, life, they probably would have won.

WE HAVE TO DO THAT. We have to find a forum that is proper to the issues here. The laws, good or bad, are not amenable to situations, and jurists deal only with the laws, not the situation. They are by the bookers. If it's not in the book,it doesn't exist. Even though a judge may know it and sympathize he must rule according to the law.

But a jury, now, they are different. They can and do respond to the situation and THEY are the finders of fact and renderers of the verdict. We would have rendered a verdict of life for Terri and the judge would not have been able to do a thing about it. He would have had to leave her alone. We would have rendered a verdict of ms as a compromised guardian and the judge would have had to take action on our ruling. Do you see? If not, please tell me where I am dropping the stitch so I can pick it up

Posted by: mary et. al. at April 4, 2005 6:53 PM

oh Demonsurfer, I am so sorry John got such disgusting hate mail! I'm shocked anyone from here would say such awful and hypocritical things. I strongly hope that any guilty parties from this site will apologize!!! :(

Posted by: Foug at April 4, 2005 7:27 PM

Hey, Foug,

We seem to be alone here.

Would you like to talk to me about the judiciary thing.

Posted by: mary et. al. at April 4, 2005 7:38 PM

Okay I am starting to get it. Before I go on please understand that sometimes things get messed up in writing and I am completely on your side here-just trying to figure it out. The question I have is what forum would they have fought it in-if Mike took it to court-what other forum is there? Is that what you are suggesting-another type of forum- or are you suggesting that if they had gone to a jury first-if the way the system works is that you go to a jury no matter what first.Then, things would have been different. So if that is where you are going with this then what you are suggesting is change the system so the judges do not have all the power. Did I get it?

Posted by: alwayschooselife at April 4, 2005 9:09 PM

That last comment was for mart et al. One more thing, I love your passion for this issue. Do not stop trying to get us to listen

Posted by: alwayschooselife at April 4, 2005 9:22 PM

Hi Always,

Sorry I was gone so long and hope you pick back up on this.

When someone takes you to court, you have to go to court to fight them. My point here is that it should never go to court in the first place because these issues aren't within the competency of the court. If you understand the court system, like say you understand the purpose of a blender. If you wanted to make meringue, you would not use a blender, you would use a mixer. There are better analogies than that, but if we don't nit pick it will do. A court is and always was about choosing between two things. Guilt or innocence, yea or nay to divorce, contracts, etc., etc.

Life is a mystery, quality of life, when it starts, when it should end aren't things you can legislate on and certainly you can't render a verdict on them based on a law. Jurists rule according to the law. So if the law says all blonde females must be imprisoned every other Friday, then all blonde females would be rounded up and imprisoned every other Friday. It doesn't matter if the law is as cockeyed as the one I just wrote; if it is the law and is accepted as the law and you are a blonde female, don't make any plans for every other Friday.

That's why they say justice is blind. The courts make their decisions according to their interpretation of the law is and all too often according to what they want the law to be (that's what we call corruption). But what if a judge were honestly color blind and started packing the jail with light brown haired women. In this the judge would be the finder of fact (you are a blonde; no I'm light brunette; take her away).

That's why millions of babies and now who knows how many grown people have been executed on the orders of one man who either could not or would not see what was right before his eyes. That's where a jury is far more preferential than one judge behind closed doors.

But honestly, these things should never be decided by others anyway. We cannot walk in another's shoes, we cannot know the joy or pain or hopes or fears of another and it is beyond arrogant to think we can. Always in the past God and/or the church has made this call. That man is messing in it at all can't begin to be a good or profitable thing.

But he is and now we have to fight him in the courts because that is where he has taken it. Is there another, better forum? I hope so, but I don't know so. That's why this needs to be questioned, seriously questioned. IF it were in the executive branch we would be extending an open invitation to another Saddam Hussein. If it were in the legislative, at least there would be several hundred people dealing with it instead of one.

Let's look at that. What if every case like Terri's and every case of wanted abortion, had to go before a full house or a full senate. The chances of anyone even bothering would be slim, but even if they did, their chances of getting a majority vote would be even slimmer. The reason this has worked so well for the pro-death people in the judiciary is because you are dealing with just one man or woman, who can be influenced by many things, but is trained to follow the letter of the law (greer picked and chose which laws to follow) and hand down a sentence or decision (you win, you lose).

There is a certain mentality among judges, and until you understand their mentality and rules, it will be very hard for you to understand what must seem very cold blooded to you. Remember Whitemore's response to "She's dying"? That's the response of a jurist. They just aren't competent to decide these things.

I've rattled on forever, now and I hope I didn't lose you in my effort to find you. Ha! Let me know if you "get it" or not.

Posted by: mary et. al. at April 4, 2005 10:50 PM

Uh, if I lost you back there, Always, I apologize and maybe this will pick you up.

Attorney Gibbs' arguement was that Terri had been denied Due Process. The law is that no one may relieve another of their life, liberty or property with out due process of the law. One of the components of due process is trial by jury. For whatever reason (perhaps because the judges have been doing this business all by themselves for so long) the courts ruled that she had not been deprived of due process. At least I think that's what they said (the federal and appeals courts, etc.)

This needs a bit of study and PERHAPS a law mandating due process including jury trial for innocent people as well as for the guilty. The law though, calls for a jury for criminal AND civil cases.

Stay with me, ok, Always and thanks so much

Posted by: mary et. al. at April 4, 2005 11:36 PM

It took me a while to understand what you were saying, and I think I see it now. It is true that you have more rights before you go to a judge than you ever do after. Going to a judge acknowledge's the judge's authority in a case. The old saying is it is far easier apologize after the fact than it is to ask permission before the fact. Hence, Jeb's mistake was actually asking Judge Greer's permission to take her into custody, when in fact Jeb already had the law on his side, and asking Greer only let Greer say No. Jeb should have taken her and then let the lawyers sort it out after the fact.

Greer himself was aware of this, the act first apologize later premise. He knew he was facing the scrutiny of the United States Congress, and if she ever went to DC, he would never be able to kill her as he intended to. So by ripping her feeding tube out the day the subpoenas arrived, he knew he was setting the "status quo", before anyone could manage to appeal, and he knew the upper courts would preserve the "status quo" even if it meant her death.

The whole object of winning in a court is to take action before litigation in order to set the status quo outside the court first. Overturning the status quo in a civil court is very difficult, because as we see, civil courts don't care about justice. Sometimes even criminal courts don't care.

Posted by: Suzanne. at April 5, 2005 2:52 AM

hello mary, What other forum is available to settle disputes, then? To me, it's not that the court is the one "they" choose, it is the one WE chose as a form of civilized government (verses a shoot out at ten paces downtown at dusk---which in many cases would be more fair). Yes, we should question this, why our court system is the only form of dispute resolution, find that it is not working satisfactorily, and design other methods, in my mind those that are not government run or controlled. However, in order for alternate conflict resolution methods to be effective our society as a whole must support them, otherwise the powerful would have no motivation for persuing resolution of disputes based on a system of negotiation, if they could still hope to prevail based on a power structured system of "justice". These are really my raw, (thoughtful) but unedited ideals. Our courts are however indispensable as part of our system of government and must be reformed. These issues deserve and cry out for much more discussion. By the way, the problem with the courts is NOT that they are simply dispensing the law as they should, more accurately courts are dispensing injustice when to follow the law and to follow the rules would do justice. Far too many judges in America rule on the power of the bench rather than on the facts and the law. If there was an appropriate forum available I would make this far more clear to the average citizen than Pat Robertson did in his book Courting Disaster.

All of this is not to say that we should not also change our laws when we find that existing law is either not useful or is harmful or is inadequate protection for our citizens, most especially when we find they do not safeguard the most vulnerable among us.

We can blame our government for its failures, but the failures of government are really a mirror image of our own failures. They are divided because we are divided. They are ineffective because we are ineffective in governing THEM. Our government in America is a reflection of us, her people. WE are responsible. I ask you to see that there is hope in that. And that in this difficult task fraught with obstacles and sacrifice we must endure to the end. We must.

Of course, much of what I'm talking about is centered on an educational process. That is because we must not only be prepared for changes in our society, it is the people who must create those changes, not the government. What you have seen happen here was a long, long time in the making. Those who have said they didn't hear about it until the end were just not paying attention to what is really important. We need to recognize that and own it. Those who have been advocating for reforms have been trying to wake up the rest of the country, at great personal risk, for decades. Join the debate, spread the word, give your time and resources. We are here to serve and to save as many as we possibly can. This is a great battle. Sacrifice yourself for the greatest good and we will see the changes in our lifetime.

Posted by: that woman at April 5, 2005 3:17 AM

I hope that by now the extremists will forget about this situation and move on to something else. In that way the moderates amongst this great group of people will be able to take up the task of working towards ensuring justice for all disabled, elderly and mentally incapacitated people.

There are so many areas that need to be "attacked" that I believe you will have to do it in sound bytes. As part of Terri's legacy you have been able to bring together people from all religious and political spectrums. You are now a group who are committed to change so that justice will prevail in the future.

As it stands, MS thinks that he has gotten away with the perfect crime, a judicially approved homicide. He did not count on the publicity, and he did not count on the fact that there is now a dedicated group of people who have not given up working out precisely what happened, and who are determined to make sure that George Felos, George Greer and Richard Cranfield have shortened careers. I think that he has been overwhelmed by unwanted publicity. He more than likely that he could hide behind his lies and once Terri was dead he would be able to rest easy about never getting found out over what he has done.

However, he has in fact made a series of mistakes and it will be those mistakes that will in the end, bring the whole Schiavo family down.

Every time I look at the transcripts of the court cases, or of television interviews I seem to find something new. Did you realise that George Felos said in an interview that Terri's money was spent on rehabilitation and hospital fees? Like sure George? I wonder if he is talking about what is lining his pocket since he is still a member of the Suncoast Florida Hospice.

Did you know that Michael, on the morning of the incident, said to the attending policeman that he could think of no reason why Terri would try to commit suicide? It is in the police record. At that early stage the possibility that Terri collapsed from asphyxiation was mentioned but it was never raised again. Why not?

Why is it that the hospital staff did not order x-rays as well as the CT scans?

MS and ghoul Felos are gloating that there were no marks on Terri and therefore it is not true that he attempted to strangle her. However, and I hope there are some martial arts experts hanging around, what if he applied a martial arts manouvre to the neck? What if that manouvre does not normally leave any bruises, yet it leaves a person "dead" as a door knob.

Terri suffered a spinal cord injury. That is not normal for someone who was allegedly a bulimic. The evidence in favour of bulimia are very thin on the ground. No associated "drugs" or preparations were found in her bathroom. Yet another thing that points to bulimia is missing.

Short term diets that lead to malnourishment for a short period of time does not lead to bulimia. The recorded weight fluctuations, as given in the deposition for the malpractice suit do not point to bulimia. The jury erred in favour of a man who did a good sob story, and more than likely they did not know he had a girlfriend and daughter.

On the other side, there is evidence that suggests that for reasons unknown Terri had an infection that was treated in the hospital. That infection was present at the time of her admission into the hospital.

Posted by: Maggie4life at April 5, 2005 5:36 AM

I don't believe this. I wrote a really long response to you guys (after I signed in) and then it said I wasn't signed in AGAIN and wiped it all out. I HATE this server!!

Here goes again:
Yes, Suzanne, going to court assumes and delivers authority to the judge. I can't think why we have done that all these years. But That Woman's comment is right on here. The premise is that this is a dispute issue. And disputes are in the court's competency--there is no other forum for disputes and doesn't need to be. That's why I say courts are alright for what they were disigned for, but they were never designed for these issues. I feel like screaming! "People are not bones for two dogs to fight over!!!"

I'm not going to address every one of your points this second time around for lack of time. But I noted them and they are good points which need to be dealt with. For now, I will just put these things down.

Why are lives being litigated?

What other forum can we find/create?

Why wasn't Terri given a trial by jury?

Why have we allowed the courts to be the self appointed experts in something they know nothing about?

Maggie, I wish I could sic you on my sister. She won't listen to anything I say about these matters. Maybe she would listen to you.

I am not going to quit on this because I am certain it is the crux of our lose, lose battle. I hope and pray you all and others will hang in there on this until we bring it to closure. Pray as if it were all up to God and work as if it were all up to you.

God bless and I am looking forward to talking to you all again. Can we set a time and place to get together in toto?

Posted by: mary et. al. at April 5, 2005 10:34 AM


I think it's very good to talk about the forum that these matters are decided in.

I think we need input from some legal types about this. Jeff?

How easy would it be to change the forum, as I'm sure each state or county has laws pertaining to these things that probably vary from place to place concerning whether or not a jury is required, etc. But in life and death issues as this, I think it would be best to have the decisions made by as many people as possible (jury) as opposed to a single judge, which as we have seen in Terri's situation, may be nothing more than a kangaroo court, with the verdict all bought and paid for.... sadly out of the funds that were meant for Terri's physical improvement. (and just as an aside before I forget again, I couldn't believe that Jesse Jackson started talking about having to look into the issue of malpractice awards, but that at least Terri was the beneficiary of such an award that enabled her to receive the care that she had gotten all these years...NOT...Schiavo, Greer and Felos benefited from Terri's malpractice award, not Terri. In fact, it was probably that award that enabled greedy men to set the wheels in motion to seek her death.) Greer should also be brought up on ethical charges for ruling that those funds could be used for anything other than her care and rehabilitation. He has violated so many Florida Statutes that I can't see him not being brought up on charges, but I guess that depends on if the agency charged with reviewing his behavior is in his pocket or not.

Brainstorming is definitely needed to defeat this monster. We will need God's wisdom like never before.

*sigh* I wish we could go back to the days when it was a given that life was sacred and killing was wrong.

Posted by: Eyes Wide Open at April 5, 2005 7:19 PM

Mary, I think I get it. This leads me though to the question of what exactly were the courts designed for because if it was originally to settle things like family disputes (which one could argue is how this began) then what are the other options? Or is this a case of "this is how it has always been and no one has questioned it" so it just continues to go on. I know, that is what you are tying to figure out. Why are lives being litigated? Well, in this case I am assuming it was because it was considered a family dispute-suing for custody. Maybe the answer lies in there-there should be a way to fight in courts for the right to live-instead of a custody issues this should have been a live or die issue, except the courts did not see Terri as alive soooo.....(I am really perplexed)Why wasn't Terry given a trial by jury? That was what the congress was trying to give her-that was what Whitmore said no too-if he had examined the case he would have had to given her a trial by jury. Soooo, maybe there is an answer in there-keep pressing congress for more legislation? The only other thing I can think of is the education side of things-it was mentioned up above and I believe you mentioned Operation Rescue at one point. Well, isnt one of their main operations educating the public. That seems to be a big issue here-there is not enough education about how often this really happens. Terri was a huge media ordeal, but what about the others? Is there any kind of education campaign for this type of thing. I know right to live, but maiNly that deals primarily with abortion and it does relate here but I do not think it addresses specific issues of this sort.

Posted by: alwayschooselife at April 5, 2005 9:38 PM

Hi, Eyes Wide Open and Always,

Thanks for responding. I am going to respond to each of your comments, and if this thing says I'm not signed in and wipes me out...I'll...I'll..do something!!

I've been in a joking mood all evening and got into some trouble over it, so excuse me on this. Just feel the need to lighten up, I guess.

But on this issue I am dead serious and I can't rest until we have gotten it off the ground or buried it, one. Eyes...your term "Kangaroo court" so exactly describes this case it is uncanny. When I was growing up that's what happened during freshman initiation and everybody knew it was a farce. But this one was taken seriously and the results were that Terri is no longer with us. That is horrifying!!!

I think greer may be expendable to his masters now, or they might choose to protect him. We shall see, but I'm sure he will cost them a LOT if they do choose to protect him, because there is going to be a deafening hue and cry when every body knows he isn't legit.

I echo your sigh! Not only is this deadly and scary, it is SO TWILIGHT ZONE. I don't know how easy it would be to change the forum, but it would be easy enough to see to it that all these cases were heard by a jury. I have hit upon a possible forum for this and I will explain.

Given that jurists are not trained for this (there are no classes on human life or its value in law school), and the system isn't geared for this (courts are about punishing criminals and deciding between disputants), an idiot could see that the judicial system is incompetent to make these decisions. The bogus law I made up about blondes and Fridays illustrates the cookie cutter approach which is guaranteed to us under the banner that all are equal under the law.

So the next question is, who is trained in human life issues and my guess is clergy and doctors. Could we not have a court of clergy and doctors to decide this? Lives should never be litigated and there should never be a valid dispute over another human being. They are not property and that is one thing that people need educating on. If someone thinks a person should be put down, then they would petition that court to look into it, just as ms petitioned the court.

I am fully aware that something needs to be done about the judicial system and I have some ideas about that. But THIS issue needs to be gotten out of there entirely, and we can do that, I hope, with the simple and very basic fact that humans aren't property and judges aren't trained for this. Elaboration is necessary here. As I said earlier today I believe the U.S. Supreme court is utterly hopeless and should be abolished or restructured or just plain starved to death for want of any one to give a care about their rulings.

I think that is where the higher courts and everyone was coming from: this is the way it has always been and so forth. But my question is, Why??? And especially WHY do we accept that and keep playing ball or waging war or whatever in their totally inappropriate field???

I don't know how much Operation Rescue is into educating. Their big thing is to take God to a spot where babies are being killed and kind of turn the Holy Spirit loose there. And it works because the whole city gets better immediately. It probably goes back down when they leave, but there was an opening there for people to step through. I'm sure they would join in this fight, too, as they are pro-life all the way around. Very few have really addressed the euthanasia, mercy killing issue, I'm sorry to say. I knew it was coming over twenty years ago, because it was the natural advance of abortion.

So, we've taken a couple more steps here and that is good. If I missed anything, let me know, OK?

Posted by: mary et. al. at April 5, 2005 10:43 PM

Such good thoughts Mary, but one problem I foresee here- One of the rantings that went on during the past month over Terri was the idea that she had died 15 years ago thus the argument would be that she was not really human. Just a shell of a human-in fact I think I heard that once or twice. That is where the education comes in. The same way so many have been educated on life in the womb, educate on life until God chooses to take it away. I would almost say that it needs to start in our churches being as most of them seemed to keep strangly quiet during this ordeal. The pastors I talked too said that it was too politically hot to get into-too politically hot??? If church is where the core of the people supporting life are going to come from then there has to be something said. Side note-I am not talking about the catholic church here-they did a pretty good job. I do not go to a catholic church. Anyway, back to the issue of where to fight it. I would be interested in finding out how a court of clergy and doctors would work-how to make that legal-the only problem with that though is we would still be deciding who is worthy of living and who is not based on what science thinks it knows. I wish(in my fairytale world) that we did not even have to find a place to figure this out because I just really believe that life is not ours to give and take. But like I said-fairy tale because that is just not reality-man has decided that it knows best, so I guess we just have to figure out how to best curtail it.

Posted by: alwayschooselife at April 5, 2005 11:26 PM

Hi, Always,

Granted the churches are well larded with liberals and cowards and that makes things a little more difficult, as per having a really good group on a clergy/doctor court. But I still think people would be far and away better off there than in our judicial system which is so utterly unfit for the job. This should never be an issue, you are SO right about that, but it is and so we can only pray, hope and work for a better forum where life stands a better chance of winning.

Terri's sacrifice did more to educate people than all of us together ever could. Terri made it real and showed how horrendous it was. I've seen pro-choicers on here and other sites rooting for Terri and some re-thinking their views. I've agonized over how to present the truth to people in the past and God gave me to understand that the truth is there for anyone that wants it. The ones who don't want it, won't have it no matter if you do miracles for them. Jesus said that, remember? So just turn no seeker away, don't waste your time on scoffers, pray as though it were all up to God and work as though it were all up to you. Did I miss anything?

Posted by: mary et. al. at April 5, 2005 11:57 PM

P.S. Clergy and doctors are supposed to be educated on life issues--if not them, then I know not who. Unfortunately some of them have become Kavorkian/Crandalls, but I hope not too many and that none of them ever gets on this court if we should manage to create it. If we don't then we must make sure that a jury decides these issues.

Fr. Pavone is going to start a group to fight euthanasia. If we can get some really solid stuff here we could present it to him and see what he could do with it.

Posted by: mary et. al. at April 6, 2005 12:02 AM

ENOUGH! If you want people (like me, for example) to participate in the forum discussions the use of labels and terms such as: liberals, and generalizations of all kinds MUST cease. I for one have been extremely tolerant of this, this discourteous and unproductive speech, but no more! If you don't have a mind that is open enough to tolerate people with views that are different from yours, then you will not be a part of any practical solution to the serious societal problems we face. And I will not waste my time reasoning with those who have either closed minds or minds so open their brains fall out.

Posted by: that woman at April 6, 2005 12:22 AM

My opinion is that passing the buck from courts to doctors or theologians will not solve the problems. Because who is deciding is not really the problem. It's how it's being decided. Unchecked power is always dangerous leading to brutal lawlessness and unfairness.

Whoever puts a person into a position of power - must share responsibility for every right he/she violates thereafter. The main business of the American people was and is not to protect themselves against political power, but to accept the responsibility of governing themselves.

The Dutch wishing to die must “consistently, repeatedly and lucidly” make requests for euthanasia and then are required to express these wishes to an independently chosen doctor who must concur.

Even with these precautions in place it is still possible that doctors could falsely claim patients requested euthanasia.

If such concerns seem far-fetched, it is worth noting that the Journal of the American Medical Association, in consultation with Dutch physicians, found that "no request for death was made by the patient" in a very large number of so-called euthanasia cases in Holland between 1990 and 1995.

The lesser of two evils is still evil.

Posted by: that woman at April 6, 2005 12:47 AM

Sorry, That Woman,

Didn't mean to step on your toes. When I think of liberals, I think of pro-death people, and since that is obviously not you, I stand corrected. I guess it's kind of like the Catholics: some who do not believe what the church teaches and have no intention of living by it, still claim they are Catholic, which makes for some very mixed reviews on Catholicism. Some times things get mixed up and I should have known better than to make generalizations, but I didn't and may not yet again. These things need to be re-thought from time to time, but we seldom do that until something comes up to point it out to us. You have just pointed out one such thing to me. I apologize and yes, I very much do want your help.

Posted by: mary et. al. at April 6, 2005 12:58 AM

I'll go for a good option as opposed to the lesser of two evils. What have you got in mind?

Posted by: mary et. al. at April 6, 2005 1:13 AM

I re-read your last comment, Always, and apropos of them saying Terri had been dead 15 years that could have been simply and finally settled by going and seeing how dead she was. That would have to mandatory, that the court ascertain for itself. Hearsay evidence isn't the highest evidence in any court by a long chalk, barring a biased and corrupt court, of course.

Posted by: mary et. al. at April 6, 2005 1:23 AM

Why do I feel like I'm the only one up at this awful hour? And why am I up at this hour? Because I said I would be.

Then, sadly, I offended and ticked off the one person who was willing to keep the watch with me. What next?

Posted by: mary et. al. at April 6, 2005 1:26 AM

Well, I do think that good use could be made of conflict resolution centers that are either set up as not for profit entities or for profit businesses or both. This does exist but is very limited and really should be brought more into wide public use. There are some examples or models of what this would look like, but that is for another day's discussion, as it is late and I still have some other things to finish tonight.

This would not eliminate the courts as arbitors of private disputes and the reforms necessary there must still be addressed sooner rather than later, as I mentioned earlier.

However, I can imagine that taking alternate conflict resolution in to the public forum would work well with publicly outting court corruption. One providing the need for the other. But we simply cannot ignore the rampant abuse present in our judiciary.

In my model conflict resolution centers could be part of community services provided by local churches and other community focused organizations. In my mind the more available alternate dispute resolution services become the more they will be used and the less people will rely on courts to solve their disputes. There is also a model for actually teaching conflict resolution in communities as well as part of school curriculums. This should be mandatory for every one, children and adults alike.

None of this can happen over night, it is a process. And we can start now building on what is already working. I would be happy to provide a detailed plan, or a model of what this looks like in action. I certainly do not have the answers, but like you I have asked a lot of questions and thought about strange things like how to solve really big problems.

This is a very good thing to talk about, mary et al. Thank you for sticking with this subject and for seeking information and for being willing to explore and experiment.

I look forward to reading your thoughts and ideas, as well as others ideas, about all this. I don't know where we will pick up this discussion tomorrow. What you did tonight was a good idea to say what topic was being discussed in what forum. But I think let's bring our discussions somehow into the current topics because going back is difficult and it also doesn't give new posters an opportunity to participate. Somehow I think the blog king will figure out a way to get us an ongoing alternate forum here that is like a chat group (?). I don't know if that is what it is called but maybe someone knows what I'm talking about since I don't!! :-)

Posted by: that woman at April 6, 2005 1:38 AM

That Woman,

Got your comment and I want to study it and think about it for awhile then answer. So if you have something you need to do, go do it and then check back in if you don't pass out first. I committed to this and I appreciate your keeping me company, but you don't need to feel obligated if you need your rest. Either way I will answer and wait a while.

Are you still mad at me?

Posted by: mary et. al. at April 6, 2005 1:46 AM

But... I am not sure this is just about conflict resolution. I just do not see the conflict. in whether or not to end someones life. If they are not dying they should not die-its very simple. I think that is the bottom line-the core of this issue. If we do not address the issue that life is gift that is not ours to take away- then where are we? PLEASE do not get me wrong-I think there is something to the conflict resolution plan. I just firmly believe though that the "conflict" has to be resolved at the same time. Just a thought to add to the model.

Posted by: alwayschooselife at April 6, 2005 1:53 AM

Ahh, always, you are talking about changing the law, which I have said and agree should also be done.

Posted by: that woman at April 6, 2005 1:56 AM

Alice: But I don't want to go among mad people!

Cheshire Cat: Oh, you can't help that. Almost everyone is mad here. Ha... ha ha ha ha ha! You may have noticed that I'm not all there myself.... hahaha...


Posted by: that woman at April 6, 2005 2:01 AM

Oh, always, I think I see your point? If everyone would agree, or somehow could be forced to agree or at least abide, that one could not choose under certain conditions to end one's life, then there would be no conflict.

In a perfect world there would be no illness or poverty or violence, but we are not there yet and this, what we have now, is what we have to work with. Opting out of the resolution is not an option because we don't live in a perfect world. Can we make it more perfect by force of will, force of law, or violenct force? How can we make it a better world while respecting free will AND dealing with sin? It's tricky but not impossible!

Posted by: that woman at April 6, 2005 2:12 AM

always, Even in changing the law we still must deal with the judiciary.

As we have just seen yet another example of the powerful making the law irrelevant.

Education, legislation, community services and accountability for judicial action/inaction that amounts to malfeasance or misfeasance. More caring for one another and our neighbors.

Freedom does not depend so much on repealing or enacting laws as weakening the state's authority.

Posted by: that woman at April 6, 2005 2:27 AM

Well when you put it that way.... I know it is a fairy tale. I know, I know. It also sounds ridiculous, people being forced to agree, but sometimes I really wish I could get that to happen.
What I guess I am trying to say is that no matter what happens, no matter what kind of system is put together, the bottome line has to be the sanctity of live. I would never want want to force that on someone, but I feel deep in my heart that it needs to be shared-kind of how when you go to a pro-life center and tell them you are an unwed mother who wants an abortion they share with you all the reasons why they believe it is not right. The same concept applies here-
oh wait I might be getting somewhere in my tiny brain-(yes I am making fun of myself) So, a conflict resolution center set up to present the other side of things and education that does the same-or is that too biased?

I know we have to deal with the judiciary-I am going to post this but I am still thinking.

Posted by: alwayschooselife at April 6, 2005 2:30 AM

I wrote to you in depth and this blankety blank thing did it to me again. But I will try to do it all over again.

I hear your message that the judicial system needs cleaning up and I couldn't agree more. But even if they were cleaned up they would still be the wrong tool for this job. I like conflict resolution centers, even once entertained the desire to work in one. But if there is any way humanly possible to end the notion that people can fight over other peoples lives I want to see that done.

The forum I would like to see created would carry the presumption toward life. If a person felt that someone should be let to die, they would petition this court to check into it. If it is obvious that the person in question was brain dead, then that person is truly dead and you might as well let the machines rest. Easy call. Terri's case would also be an easy call. She was very much alive and there was no "letting" involved. This group would determine between "letting" and "forcing". There would be no dispute, a petition would bring the question up, the group would investigate, sans hearsay, and determine which it was. There's more I could say but this is the second time I've written this so I'm going to let it slide for now.

There are some things we really, really need to avoid. De-humanizing people by allowing their lives to be litigated as if they were a thing, a piece of property, is really a big one. I'm sure we will find other things that would send the wrong signal to the world, as well, and eventually show up to bite us in the butt. We need to close all the doors and windows against the death forces.

I'm probably forgetting some of your points but I want to post this as I've taken so long writing it twice. I will be here tomorrow as soon as I can to carry on and if we want to move we can pick a place and carry it on from there.

hey, Always, I just noticed you were there when I went up to check That Woman's comment for points I missed. You guys are fun and good at the same time. Yes, it's a sick world and we have to deal with it as it is. Circle the wagons and all that. I'm going to post this and get back to that.

Posted by: mary et. al. at April 6, 2005 2:35 AM

Hey Mary just a note-when it does tht to you just click your back button at the top of the screen and scroll down-you should see what you wrote-right click, press copy, then press post again-it will say you have to sign in again so you will do that but you will have your messaage saved-right click and paste.PRESTO

Posted by: alwayschooselife at April 6, 2005 2:39 AM

You guys are something else. Less laws, yeah, praise God, let's party. Oh, how I wish. But the judiciary doesn't make the laws, the legislature does. The judiciary adds curly cues and jots and tittles and so forth and so on.

Posted by: mary et. al. at April 6, 2005 2:41 AM

We all feel the strong desire for the world to right itself and become sane again. My ex, the strangling one, once convinced me I was nuts, so I went willingly to the shrink and after a few sessions he told me my problem was that I was too sane. Go figure.

We really need a shorter comment section, do you want to move to the top article? Will wait for your answer.

Posted by: mary et. al. at April 6, 2005 2:46 AM

Mary don't you think there are some laws that have to be changed? I completly agree with fighting this in a different arena, but exploring all fronts and attacking on all sides seems like a good idea. (I am thinking of your general analogy and adding a bit to it).As for the judiciary, the legislature makes the laws but the judiciary enforces them, so now we go back to the question of how to get tyrannical judges off the bench while keeping those intent on doing good.
The Legislature is a good idea too-they were on the right path for a while there, and I really think that would be a great discussion for tomorrow-for tonight I cannot keep my eyes open any longer-I feel like I am going in circles.
I liked the attachments you sent-Thank you

Posted by: alwayschooselife at April 6, 2005 2:54 AM

Oh, I did not see your last post until now- I will find you tomorrow.

Posted by: alwayschooselife at April 6, 2005 2:55 AM

Always, I do agree that laws need to be changed and the best change of all would be to throw a lot of them away. if I don't see you until tomorrow, good night and rest well.

Are you still with me That Woman, or should we just give up and go at it tomorrow?

Posted by: mary et. al. at April 6, 2005 2:57 AM

Story of my life, always riding drag. Hey, it just struck me that Nancy A. fears for her life. Someone needs to tell her to join the crowd. We all do now, thanks in good part to her. The only one of us that doesn't is Terri and that's only because she no longer has a life to fear for, thanks in good part to Nancy. Welcome to the real world, Nancy.

I'll see you guys in the comments under the top article, and if you sleep in, you get to guess which is the top article. Ha!

Posted by: mary et. al. at April 6, 2005 3:35 AM