As I seem to have touched a sore spot with a few individuals on this forum, and I'm obviously in their dog house, I figured I might as well dig myself down a little deeper, under the presumption that I have nothing to lose. So here goes... Why is it that liberals declare victory irregardless of the circumstances? How is it that they've so mastered the art of spin? Is it because they're inherently less tied to quaint notions such as objective truth? E.J. Dionne's latest article on the Schiavo case is exhibit one. This article was posted on this forum; it was, as one might expect from that fine example of journalistic excellence: even-handed, unbiased and intellectually honest (I'm being ironic). It would seem that the findings show, as near as doctors can tell, that Ms Schiavo was apparently not beaten to death nor strangled nor otherwise--as near as they can tell 14 years after the fact-- done in by her husband, but that she did not show any signs of an eating disorder as per his claims. Sounds like a draw to me. But people on this forum and in the MSM seem giddy about that news, smugly demanding apologies. Hmmm.... Next, many seem exultant at the news that the autopsy revealed Ms Schiavo was blind and had a shrunken brain. What of it? There are millions of Americans with shrunken brains, some even argue that my brain has been shrunken by reading too much right-wing rhetoric, but would you euthanize me? (maybe you would!) There are some profoundly retarded people living in institutions all over America that have very few cognitive abilities, they just stare and must be fed and hydrated. Shall we euthanize them? I doubt that many on my side harbored illusions that Ms Schiavo had an undamaged brain, nor did we presume that she had 20/20 vision--we acknowledged she was profoundly impaired. I know that some--particularly her parents--hoped against all hope that she could regain more cognition with proper rehab, but that was by no means the linchpin of the arguments of those like myself, who argued against starving a woman to death who was not brain dead. Just seems so axiomatic to me: even if you're substantially impaired, unless you're literally brain dead, you have a right to food and water. You shouldn't be starved to death in a manner to which we wouldn't subject our sick animals. Because that's what happened, whitewash away if it makes you feel better. The fact is that no one will ever know what level of cognition--however primitive--she had, or whether, on some level, she wanted to live. But that decision was made for her by a court that accepted the flimsiest of evidence: _________________________________________ MR. SCHIAVO: "Well, we were at this movie years ago, see, and Terri, she said, she said it just like this: 'I wouldn't want to live like that'." COURT: "So, Mr. Schiavo, did she set up a living will per the laws of this state documenting these intentions?" MR. SCHIAVO: "No." COURT: "Did she draft a durable power of attorney under the laws of the state of Florida to memorialize these heartfelt wishes?" MR. SCHIAVO: "No." COURT: "Did she write it on a napkin, or anything of any sort at any time whatsoever in her life?" MR. SCHIAVO: "No, not at all." COURT: "Well, I guess that settles it, it's obvious she wanted to be starved." _________________________________________ What a monument to fine jurisprudence! Oliver Wendell Holmes would be proud. There now, folks, fire away and hate me. And while you're at it, have a nice weekend. Do you remember when Apu, the character on the Simpsons said to Homer, after he'd belittled his religion: "I spit on your ancestors...and, have a nice day." Classic.