Looks Like We May Have Lost This One

Terry Schiavo's feeding tube has been removed:

A spokesperson for Michael Schiavo says Terri Schiavo's feeding tube was removed Friday.

[...]

Schiavo is expected to be able to live a week to 10 days without her feeding tube.

There are some last-minute attempts at stopping this, but it looks like governmental remedies have been exhausted. There is always a possibility of a miracle of course, but short of that her death seems inevitable. Sometimes the good guys lose, even given the power of blogs.

Here are a couple of things I think we should take away from this, in the interest of understanding what happened and possibly in order to prevent its happening again:

This is in some sense an inevitable outcome of the death with dignity argument. Once we acceded to the notion that not life itself but quality of life is the ultimate value, it became impossible to avoid the loss of innocent life in the interest of mercy or dignity.

We could have delayed this by legislating that only in the case of a living will could an unconscious patient's life be terminated -- and, indeed, there are such laws -- but any such legislation survives at the sufferance of the interpreting judiciary. If we allow the issue to be framed as a matter of denying a patient's right to die, the judiciary will inevitably feel itself duty-bound to nullify any merely statutory legislation. In fact that is the sense of these comments by Michael Schiavo's lawyer:

"What we experienced today in the subpoena issued by the United States House of Representatives is nothing short of thuggery [...] It is absolutely shocking that according to the House of Representatives, any committee member or subcommittee member can issue a subpoena directed to any American forcing them to have medical treatment to have medical treatment against their will."

Thus evil becomes good and good becomes evil. Losing the moral high-ground is not merely an academic exercise. It is a matter of life and death, as we see here.

We talk about euthanasia and abortion as being part of a culture war, but we are not fighting it as if it were a war. From my perspective it seems more like a playground brawl where the stakes are not very high and we can afford to take a shot whenever we see an opening. But this is not the way to win a war. If the latter is our goal we must take a longer-term, strategic view. This entails controlling the institutions of cultural creation, the churches and the schools, and restraining the power of the courts. Nothing else matters. It is true that journalism and the arts/entertainment industry have a significant impact on culture but they are ultimately secondary. They transmit culture but they do not create it

Looking around I see little concerted effort in these areas. To be sure there are several groups that focus on these three strategic institutions, but they are generally perceived as having less urgency than saving a particular life or protesting a particular law or judicial decision. But if I am right, many more bad laws will be passed due to our lack of strategy and that will ultimately result in many more lives lost (to say nothing of lost souls).

I don't want to disparage the efforts of those who have worked on behalf of Mrs. Schiavo since every life is precious. But in the big picture, if it hadn't been Terri, it would have been someone else. Focusing on such activities may be necessary in emergencies, but we must view it in military terms as akin to charging up San Juan Hill. It may serve as a rallying point, but it also invites counter-attacks and if we are not careful we can end up losing more ground than we gained.

Traction Alert

Here is a partial round-up of blogs linking to the story mentioned in the post below:

Instapundit links without much comment.

Powerline calls it the Story of the Day. (Let's hope it lasts a bit longer.)

Q and O has commentary.

PoliSciFi Blog gets the big picture.

The Great Satan also has thoughts.

Geek with a .45 is livid.

The Blog from the Core thinks this conforms to the law ... just not the law you might think.

I hear Voices telling me this smells.

JennyFromTheHood doesn't have a blog but she comments on Sager's that, after leaving Pew, Treglia was appointed to the Los Angeles City Ethics Commission.

That same Election Law site also has a current post.

Hugh Hewitt says this needs wide dissemination, but that's all he says so far. (In fairness, he was writing in haste before heading off to Colorado.)

Rich Lowry, of the Corner, congratulates Sager.

New World Man has a long post with background.

Reason Hits and Runs.

Chris Muir's cartoon reminds me that tomorrow is another Day by Day.

UPDATE 03/18/05:

Captain's Quarters now has coverage.

Kevin at Wizbang muses that bloggers would be all over the story if it were happening today.

He also links to this long piece by Mark Tapscott of the Heritage Foundation.

Publius Pundit responds via email:

I don't usually blog about things going on in the United States, but that is one hell of a damning article. And I'm more than upset about the issue given that McCain is my senator. And it goes without saying that regulating political speech is totally party-centric and detrimental to our government overall. I wrote a short essay on McCain-Feingold about a year and a half ago. Maybe you should put a poll on your site, or ask people to leave a comment, because I really want to know: How many bloggers or blog readers have actually read the full text of McCain-Feingold? I hate it. The language used actually makes soft money look like a world tragedy.

Rosemary at My Newz 'N Ideas promises to write about this as soon as she wakes up. (Update: Here is her post. She also sent this via email to which I will dedicate a separate post.)

Juan Non-Volokh at the Volokh Conspiracy offers some cautious analysis. (I don't see how Sager's charges could not be true, since he provides the actual video.)

UPDATE 03/24/04:
Sorry for not keeping up with this. Here are some more posts on the subject.

Brain Terminal suggests "McCain/Feingold should be repealed, and it should be repealed now."

A Sailor in the Desert points out that "this is not some thing we can depend on the MSM to cover or investigate. As I have posted before, it is up to us to pressure our representatives..."

Cracker Barrel Philosopher at Country Store predicts a bull market in pond scum.

Danica at heliotrope sees a connection with abortion on demand arguments.

reconsider... does.

Derek Rose asks about "Checkbook Journalism".

The Key Monk may have found George Will's "scare" column.

MoonOverPittsburgh doesn't see a connection with the Armstrong Williams case that Mickey Kaus suggested.

Right Minded Thinking sees the ugly truth coming out.

SoCal Pundit calls this criminal bias.

Rip and Read has a PodCast.

Betsy isn't holding her breath.

More links from Election Law including Washington Times and New York Sun editorials. (The latter is subscription only but here is the summary from their search page.)

Hube's Cube and Jeff the Baptist form a mini food chain.

Chuck is mouthing off about this.

Sandi at Vista also smells something. (And evidently she is Mother Theresa!)

The Spanish Inquisition finds this damning, as we might have expected.

Cheat Seaking Missiles is on target.

John Lott has the longest hyper link I've ever seen.

Pstupidonymous has two successive posts.

Former Naval Person doesn't trust Pew.

Midwest Journal News sees vested interests.

Plonderings sees a Liberal Dirty Trick.

Anthroblogogy wants to screw the FCC!

Sharks with Lasers: funny business.

Politically...Direct links this to the Social Security debate.

Transterrestrial Musings wants to reform the reformers.

Conservative Contrarian: "seriously damaging to the moral high ground and credibility of the artificial pro-CFR caucus."

Nixatron was on this as early as the 3/18.

OK. That is the first two pages of a Technorati search on the keyword "Treglia". There are a total of 8 pages with 147 links, but not all of them are on topic. I think I have about reached my limit in this roundup. Any new developments will get a separate post.

Campaign Finance Scam

Ryan Sager at the New York Post exposes the fraud that influenced the passage of McCain-Feingold:

CAMPAIGN-FINANCE reform has been an immense scam perpetrated on the American people by a cadre of left-wing foundations and disguised as a "mass movement."
But don't take my word for it. One of the chief scammers, Sean Treglia, a former program officer of the Pew Charitable Trusts, confesses it all in an astonishing videotape I obtained earlier this week.

[...]

Charged with promoting campaign-finance reform when he joined Pew in the mid-1990s, Treglia came up with a three-pronged strategy: 1) pursue an expansive agenda through incremental reforms, 2) pay for a handful of "experts" all over the country with foundation money and 3) create fake business, minority and religious groups to pound the table for reform.

"The target audience for all this activity was 535 people in Washington," Treglia says — 100 in the Senate, 435 in the House. "The idea was to create an impression that a mass movement was afoot — that everywhere they looked, in academic institutions, in the business community, in religious groups, in ethnic groups, everywhere, people were talking about reform."

It's a stark admission, but perhaps Treglia should be thanked for his candor.

I have a different idea about that, since this information could have been obtained through honest reporting, as Sager points out at the end of his piece:

"But you know what the good news is from my perspective?" Treglia says to the stunned crowd. "Journalists didn't care . . . So no one followed up on the story. And so there was a panic there for a couple of weeks because we thought the story was going to begin to gather steam, and no one picked it up."

Treglia's right. While he admits Pew specifically instructed groups receiving its grants "never to mention Pew," all these connections were disclosed (as legally required) in various tax forms and annual reports. "If any reporter wanted to know, they could have sat down and connected the dots," he said. "But they didn't."

Here are some details of what this scam entailed:

* In September of 2000, less than two years before the passage of McCain-Feingold, the liberal magazine The American Prospect put out a special issue devoted to campaign-finance reform. With incredible hypocrisy, the magazine failed to tell its readers that the "Checkbook Democracy" issue was paid for with a $132,000 check from the Carnegie Corporation — which, again, has spent $14 million promoting the regulation of political speech in the last decade.

* Since 1994, National Public Radio has accepted more than $1.2 million from liberal foundations promoting campaign-finance reform for items such as (to quote the official disclosure statements) "news coverage of financial influence in political decision-making." About $400,000 of that directly funded a program called, "Money, Power and Influence."

[...]

* Lastly, the Radio and Television News Directors Foundation accepted $935,000 between 1995 and 2001 from liberal foundations promoting campaign-finance reform for things like a "training initiative to help television, radio and print journalists provide better news coverage of the influence of private money on electoral, legislative and regulatory processes."

There are some qualifications that I have ommitted here to conserve space, so read the whole piece. Sager also links to a partial transcript of Treglia's speech. (The transcript page includes a video link.) Here is an interesting quote from Treglia that didn't make it into Sager's article:

...I knew, having worked on the Hill, and having run several campaigns, Congress wasn't going to vote for a full public-financing bill, and frankly no one in America was going to support a full public-financing bill. It's welfare for politicians.

There were the same old advocacy groups ... who were calling for reform, and they had lost legitimacy inside Washington because they didn't have a constituency that would punish Congress if they didn't vote for reform...

We wanted to expand the voices calling for reform to include the business community, to include minority organizations and to include religious groups, to counter the Christian Coalition....[emphasis mine]

This is a much bigger story than Rathergate because this was a fraud that actually worked. I hope the blogosphere gets on top of this one to help bring down McCain-Feingold.
(Via: Instapundit)

UPDATE: Sager has more video clips on his blog. I originally assumed that these were the same clips on the NY Post page but three of them are new.

Betraying the Betrayers

David A of In Search of Utopia almost feels sorry for these guys (NOTE: Beware of sexual content and possible nude pictures):

Men are stupid!

I had an ad on this site called "Adult Friend Finder" My profile was pretty specific with what it was I was seeking and what I wasn't seeking. I posted a g-rated photo (you can and they do post naked photos). I was surprised at the type of email and the men that had emailed me. My surprise quickly turned to amused. I can't tell you how many emails I received and yet not one even came close to what I was seeking. I heard a lot about fake profiles, web sites, hookers and such from some in their emails to me. Out of amusement I decided to create a "fake" profile,
I wanted to see what a "slut" would generate from the site. I copied word for word from some other female profile, got the photographs off some porn website and posted it. Took all of a new email address and 10 minutes of my time.
As it turns out the same men that emailed me at my real profile, the same ones that claimed we had a lot in common are emailing the slut. OH MY GOD these men are acting like teenagers in puberty.
I decided to create this little journal and post some of what is said.

I did form a community dedicated to the ones I despise. It is called legznmore2 That is where I am posting some of my favorites. Leaving thoughts along with the posted emails. Join in!

I don't feel particularly sorry for them at all, but I do have a couple of problems with Legs' methodology. First, not all of the men she exposes are married. I don't have a problem with betraying a trust of confidentiality when the man in question is betraying his own wedding vows, but the single guys are not in quite the same moral category. You could argue that they are worthy of shame because they are committing (or trying to commit) the sin of fornication, but I don't get the impression that that is her issue here.

Second, since she is posing as a slut rather than her original G-rated profile, she really doesn't have much moral leverage for mocking the guys that are attracted to that type of girl. In law-enforcement terms this is called "entrapment". If she had got these responses from an "innocent" profile, I would have far less objection.

However, all that said, I would like to see more women do this kind of thing. Adult Friend Finder provides a cover for people who want to flout the mores of society (to say nothing of Biblical morality) without consequences. If this practice bacame more wide-spread people would never know if their activities could become public, so would presumably be more likely to limit themselves to things they weren't ashamed to admit to.

Of course, some of these guys might not be all that ashamed, but that would be another story.

Bubble Wrap

Just pop it. (You know you want to.)

Joining the Insurgency

I have mentioned before that I don't like stating the obvious, but this seems to be a worthy cause to make an exception: the McCain-Feingold Insurrection. According to the rules posted by GeekWithA.45, in order to be a member

At minimum, you should assert that you view your blog as a sacred expression of your first amendment protected right of free speech, and that you will continue posting whatever the hell you want.

Well, I think my comments on this post made that pretty clear, but just to make it fully explicit: yes I intend to post whatever I think regardless of whether or not it crosses the line of the McCain-Feingold regulations or any similar laws passed in the future. I don't tend to advocate particular candidates and my low velocity of posting and miniscule readership are not likely to bring me to the attention of the Feds. But I am fully committed to solidarity with anyone who runs afoul of this illiberal and unconstitutional piece of... legislation. That includes verbal and written defense, financial support and any thing else that seems likely to be effective.

Afghan Women's Fitness Club

The country's first fitness club for women started 2 months ago with the participation of a dozen women. It has already logged some success. Women from different ages exercise at this club, especially those women who have difficulty with mobility because of their weight. Most women are happy for the positive changes in their bodies in two months.

Nima, the head of the club, who also carried the Afghanistan flag at the Athen's Olympics, said in an interview "I am keen to solve the problems of the women". During her tours abroad as an athlete she collected various sports and exercise equipment now in use at the club.

Women can now exercise in a safe place wearing blouse pants and sports shoes. The club administration said due to demand she would establish clubs in other areas of the capital if she can find suitable premises.

Welcome to the civilized world.

(Via Waheed, who is evidently Afghanistan's first blogger.)

Happy 69th Birthday...

...Antonin Scalia. Fellow conservative, fellow Pisces.

Online Coalition for Free Speech

Captain Ed points to this open letter to the Federal Election Commission:

Colleen Kollar-Kotelly’s decision in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in Shays v. FEC, 337 F. Supp. 2d 28 (D.D.C. 2004) and the FEC’s upcoming rulemaking process may have on political communication on the Internet.

One area of great concern is the potential regulation of bloggers and other online journalists who distribute political news and commentary exclusively over the web. While paid political advertising on the Internet should remain subject to FEC rules and regulations, curtailing blogs and other online publications will dampen the impact of new voices in the political process and will do a disservice to the millions of voters who rely on the web for original, insightful political commentary.

Under the current rules, “any news story, commentary, or editorial distributed through the facilities of any broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication,” is exempt from reporting and coordination requirements. It is not clear, however, that the FEC’s “media exemption” provides sufficient protection for those of us in the online journalism community.

As bipartisan members of the online journalism, blogging, and advertising community, we ask that you grant blogs and online publications the same consideration and protection as broadcast media, newspapers, or periodicals by clearly including them under the Federal Election Commission’s “media exemption” rule.

In order to ensure that there are sufficient measures taken, we also request that the FEC promulgate a rule exempting unpaid political activity on the Internet from regulation, thereby guaranteeing every American’s right to speak freely and participate in our democratic process.

Finally, we ask that you clarify the rules and definitions related to “coordinated activity” to protect bloggers and journalists from running afoul of Commission rules regarding the republication of campaign materials.

The Internet is a fundamental tool in the American political process. Just this week, we learned that 75 million Americans used the Internet to gather news, read commentary, discuss issues, register to vote, and generally join in the democratic process during the last election cycle. We believe the Internet is the primary driving force behind increased participation among traditionally under-represented groups of voters, and we applaud the Federal Election Committee for crafting rules that have allowed the Internet to flourish as a political communications medium.

Like the town hall meeting, online political activism is a vital part of American civic life. We encourage the FEC to provide bloggers, online journalists, and everyday cyber-citizens with the same freedoms that individuals and traditional journalists are free to exercise elsewhere. The Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002 was intended to prevent unlimited soft money contributions and regulate electioneering advertising, not to stifle free speech or grassroots activities on the Internet that serve the common good.

I signed the letter (#676 in case you are wondering) because I think it is a step in the right direction, but I don't think it goes far enough. Exempting bloggers and other "online journalists" from regulation is all very well but I don't agree that "paid political advertising on the Internet should remain subject to FEC rules and regulations." I don't recognize the right of the government to regulate political speech of any sort. There is a part of me that thinks it might be good for this issue to go to court, since that might very well show the severity of the current attack on free speech that masquerades as "Campaign Finance Reform". But, of course, that would assume that the courts could recognize a violation of the first ammendment when they saw it.

In any event, by all means sign the letter, since a major popular response may well serve the same purpose without the risk. And it is always better to exercise that other 1st Ammendment right --petition for a redress of grievances -- before resorting to civil disobedience.

Vietnam: Another Iraq?

Claudia Rosett thinks it is possible:

There's been a lot of talk since Sept. 11 about how President Bush's war-lovin' ways have galvanized terrorists, recruiting jihadis to the ranks. What's increasingly evident, however, is that the character suffering the real blowback is Osama bin Laden, who, as it turns out, jolted the U.S. into a global recruiting drive for democrats. Faced with an unprecedented attack on American shores, Mr. Bush smashed the mold for Middle-East policy, and with the invasion of Iraq lit a beacon for freedom-lovers in a part of the world that until quite recently was widely seen as having none. [When she says "recently" she means "up to and including January 29" -- Jack]

As it turns out, there are many. Already, Mr. Bush has been answered by the breathtaking election turnout in Iraq, the uprising in Lebanon, the tremors in Syria and Iran, the stirrings in Egypt and Saudi Arabia. But the effects hardly stop with the Middle East. In many places, people trapped under tyrannies are now watching. Ballots cast in Baghdad echo way east of Suez.

So it happens that a message reached me last weekend from within one of the world's most repressive states: Vietnam. Word came that the Sharansky of Saigon, democratic dissident Nguyen Dan Que, had been released from his latest stretch in Vietnam's prisons.

[...]

Dr. Que does not have access to the daily diet of news that feeds the free world. But given the feats of modern technology to spread information, he knows enough about what is now happening in the Middle East so that he wished to share his views on how America's intervention in Iraq is like the war in Vietnam, and how it isn't. The similarity, he says, "is the same fighting spirit for freedom." The difference, he adds, is that in the fight for freedom, the side America is on "will triumph this time."
Why?

"The world is changing," says Dr. Que. "There are more opportunities than ever."

He is right, and if the world is changing, it is because the U.S. is hardly alone in prizing freedom. In every country are people who care about liberty--and in most places there are a few willing to pay dearly and take extraordinary risks to lead the way. Dr. Que is one, and as we watch the Middle East, it bears remembering, as he says, that these are "universal values," that in many places there are people who given any chance at all will answer freedom's call.

The parts I snipped out give some cautionary details that are good to remember, so read the whole article. We shouldn't get too cocky about this whole "wave of the future" business. But, I think the general point is valid. What stopped us from winning the war in Vietnam the first time was the threat of a nuclear Soviet Union and a fifth column of "war protestors" who were essentially on the USSR's payroll. (Figuratively in most cases but literally in many others: check out The Sword and the Shield.) The former threat has been eliminated and the latter is becoming increasingly irrelevant. This could all change, of course, so vigilance is still necessary, but for the present the wisest course seems to be to pursue our advantage as far as we can.

Via Instapundit, who remarks "VIETNAM: THE NEXT IRAQ? Heh. I want bumper stickers that say that."

Prisoner of Conscience

Jane at Armies of Liberation sent me this via email:

(Dear Friends and Fellow Freedom Lovers,
[...] we the blogosphere recieved the following letter from Mr. Abdulkarim al-Khaiwani smuggled out of the central prison in Sana’a, Yemen.

I have been advocating for his release since his imprisonment in September as I am convinced that he is a politcal prisoner. He is a newspaper editor, a pro-democracy advocate, and a Yemeni patriot. There are several articles on my sidebar that explain his case more fully.

Kindly read his letter, portions of which are deleted as he is already in jail for insulting the president. If upon hearing from him directly, you wish to stand in solidarity with this man, kindly sign this petition. Futhermore, please feel free to copy the letter to your site and link to the petition not to me.

The petition will close on March 20th. Please consider taking a stand in support of freedom and a free press. For a professional and objective view of his case, the sidebar at the petition site links both the World Association of Newspaper Editors February protest letter and the Amnesty International January Appeal page. The Amnesty page carries his photo. The poor guy thinks I’m a real journalist but lets see what the blogosphere can do here.)

Dear Ms. Jane Novack,
The American journalist and political analyst,

I hereby express my deepest gratitude and most sincere thanks from behind the bars of the central prison in Sana’a, the capital of Republic of Yemen, for your articles on the freedom of press issues including my imprisonment.

Your opinions have genuinely touched my and the reader’s conscience as you have expressed your commitment to support issues of rights and freedoms and emphasized the true understanding of the Middle East issue. Hence you know well that freedom, democracy, and equality are the key solutions to the region’s problems.

Ms. Jane,

Since fifteen years, we have experienced democracy and multi-party system as well as breathed the fresh air of freedom, all which are the achievements of Yemen Unification. Soon later, a regression occurred in this experience after the summer of 1994 civil war. These achievements were emptied from their core cause leaving a margin of press freedom through which we battled to defend democracy, freedom, human rights, equal citizenship, and independent judiciary system, all being conditions for a better future and means to combat corruption and absence of law.

############ force, power, and oppression####### neglecting concepts of separation of powers. The head of the judiciary system is the president of the republic############ Here I am, in a battle which can least be described as unfair. My crime is public humiliation of the president. ########## I was deprived even from my right to self-defense. ########### you can imagine how I was handled by prison and police officers.

Furthermore, solidarity with my issue was prohibited and people in solidarity were punished and even terrorized to visit me in prison or declare their solidarity. In addition, the journalists’ syndicate is falling under tremendous pressures. I believe in democracy, freedom, equality and rights and am willing to sacrifice for their sake simply because I do not wish my children to suffer dictatorship and I will strive to provide them with a better future.

Dear Madam,

Leaders in our region transform into Gods. They even become to believe in their fake holiness which we aim to shatter so that they know they are humans just like us. Democracy and freedom are not granted by a leader or a regime, it is a world-wide human achievement of all the free people on earth.

According to the official interpretation of what is considered criticism of the president - based on this fake holiness- my criticism of the president is a crime that can cost me my life , not necessarily through Justice, but probably in prison by a murder convict. This could be attempted again inside or outside prison at any time. Nevertheless, I am not occupied by this matter, but more occupied with deep-rooting the concept of freedom.

I am also concerned that all Yemeni journalist gain the legal commitment of not being prone to imprisonment because of their opinions. I am also concerned that no other journalist will be imprisoned after me and suffer all that I have suffered. This we can achieve through your support and the support of all democracy and freedom advocates in the world as individuals or organizations.

Dear Madam,

Democracy and freedom are the global language with which I address you, probably too intimately and in detail which might have inconvenienced you. But, my trust in your values and your openness encouraged me to convene this information on our reality and issues to you. I highly value your writings and your advocacy role to democracy and defending rights. ###########

I repeat my thanks to you Ms. Jane Novack, and apologize for consuming your precious time in reading this letter.

With my sincere regards,

Abdul Kareem Al Khaiwany
Central Prison- Sana’a
14/2/2005

(This letter was sent through ############)

(PLEASE CONSIDER SIGNING THE PETITION. It only says we support a free press. This guy deserves to hold his kids again. He has no advocate but us. If the free world does not throw its weight behind him, no one will.)

My Respect for Halle Berry Just Went Up

...Well, it couldn't have gone down much. But, having appeared in a bomb like Catwoman, at least she has the sense to be ashamed:

Halle Berry thanked the makers of Catwoman for "putting me in a God-awful movie" when she turned up to collect her worst actress Razzie award.
The actress, whose surprise appearance got her a standing ovation from a packed house, made a lengthy speech, parodying her 2002 Oscar win.

"It was just what my career needed - I was at the top and now I'm at the bottom," she said.

[...]

Berry made a lengthy speech and parodied her sobbing during her 2002 Oscar win while brandishing her Oscar and Razzie - a small gold raspberry.

She said she turned up in person because she had been told as a child by her mother: "If you aren't able to be a good loser you're not able to be a good winner."

Catwoman also won worst film, director and screenplay, and screenwriter John Rogers was there to collect his prize.

I don't know if I agree that she was ever at the top, but we get the point. (Full disclosure: I never saw Catwoman, having been warned off by some friends in the industry. But one look at that two-story headpiece Ms. Berry wears in the film and you know nothing good can come of it.)

Two Zarqawi Aides Caught

Abu Qutaybah in Anah (Via JPost)

"Abu Qutaybah was responsible for determining who, when and how terrorist network leaders would meet with al-Zarqawi," the government said.
He "filled the role of key lieutenant for the Zarqawi network, arranging safe houses and transportation as well as passing packages and funds to al-Zarqawi," the government said. "His extensive contacts and operational ability throughout western Iraq made him a critical figure in the Zarqawi network."

Mohammed Najm in Baquba (Via LGF)

A TOP aide to al-Qaeda's frontman in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, has been arrested, the Iraqi government said today.

"The terrorist Mohammed Najm Ibrahim, alias Mohammed Najm, who with one of his brothers runs a Zarqawi cell, is responsible for the beheading of several citizens and for attacks against Iraqi security forces," it said in a statement.

They also got one of Zarqawi's drivers according to the Boston Globe (which also lists the two mentioned above):

''We are very close to al-Zarqawi, and I believe that there are few weeks separating us from him,'' Iraq's interim national security adviser, Mouwafak al-Rubaie, told The Associated Press.

Scrapple Face Skewers Michael Schiavo

Some may find this a bit tasteless:

Michael Schiavo to Auction Terri on eBay
by Scott Ott

(2005-02-24) -- In another move designed to show his love and compassion for his wife, Michael Schiavo today announced he would auction off his guardianship of Terri Schiavo on eBay.

The winner of the auction will be named legal guardian for Mrs. Schiavo, who suffered brain damage during a heart attack in 1990. Under Florida law, the guardian has few responsibilities.

"It's better than buying a pet," said Mr. Schiavo.

"Legally, you don't even have to feed her. If you didn't feed your dog, the authorities would take him away from you."

The bidding will start at an amount equal to what Mr. Schiavo stands to gain if his wife dies, but he expects it to go much higher due to "excellent name recognition."

"Money has never been an issue with me," said Mr. Schiavo, who's still married to Mrs. Schiavo but lives with a female friend and their two children. "I want what's best for Terri, and eBay is the best online auction service in the world."
[Emphasis mine]

Mr. Ott demonstrates once again his talent for exposing the absurdity inherent in popular culture. How did we come to a place where you are legally required to feed your dog... but not your wife? Ouch.
(Via Conservative Cat)

Terry Schiavo

William Luse, at Touchstone's Mere Comments blog, has the most lucid commentary I have read on the Schiavo case:

Not long after a Florida judge granted Michael Schiavo permission to have the feeding tube sustaining his wife, Terri, removed, I went round the room of a night class that I teach trying to find out who among the students had found a topic for their research paper. One young lady had chosen euthanasia. Was she for it or against it? Against it. The passive form, the active, or both? Umm, she hadn’t read about that yet.

It’s remarkable how little they know about subjects on which their opinions are vehement. I gave her a couple of examples to illustrate the difference between active and passive, then asked, out of sheer curiosity, if she or any of the others had heard of the Terri Schiavo case. None had. This struck me as odd, I said, since it was happening right down the road in St. Pete. Oh yes! A couple of them had heard of it, but were not familiar with the details. So I laid those details out.

“They’re going to starve her to death,” said the euthanasia girl, Jennifer, which shows that you need not be well read to have an unerring nose for the truth. And they seemed genuinely aghast when I told them it was written into Florida law that nutrition and hydration were to be considered “extraordinary” and unnatural means of prolonging life.

I suggested to Jennifer that she might want to look up the story of Nancy Cruzan to see how a similar case had played out, and that of Karen Ann Quinlan to see how wrong a medical certainty can be. Her appetite seemed whetted, but you never know. In the end, it’s a lot of work they’d rather not have to do.

In another class afflicted with the same assignment, I repeated the process. When I got to a girl in the back, she too had chosen euthanasia. For or against? “For,” she said emphatically, “active euthanasia.” She had done some reading, so I went straight to the issue, and asked if she was familiar with the Schiavo case. Not real familiar, she admitted, but she’d heard of it. Once again I explained the circumstances, and then asked (her name was Sarah, I think), “So . . . should they kill her?”

Believe it or not, this phrasing, this mere statement of fact, shocks. It shocks my students because they’re not thinking in terms of killing, but of “letting her go,” of doing some mercy. Sarah’s eyes widened a little.

“Is she in the process of dying?” she asked. She had done some reading.

“I don’t think so,” I said. “She appears to be in the process of living, with the help of a feeding tube.” When I added that certain therapists were of the opinion that she could learn to take food from a spoon (a fact I consider irrelevant), but that the judge had denied them the opportunity to teach her, in his apparent determination that the tube be pulled sometime in October, her eyes began darting about, looking for another way.

“But if removing the tube would stop her suffering . . .”

“She’s not suffering,” I said, “as far as I can tell. I’ve never seen anyone suffer less,” adding that, by the term most beloved of those who would speed her on her way—that she existed in a permanent “vegetative state”—her capacity for suffering was far less than ours.

I let her indecision become lost in the noise of remarks offered by others (“Pull the plug—she’s costing too much” was typical), and Sarah seemed glad of the reprieve. I think (and I’m guessing again, but it’s well-educated) she still wanted Mrs. Schiavo “let go,” but would have to work on another way to justify calling it that.

UPDATE: Fox News reports that the stay for Ms. Schiavo has been extended until Friday at 5:00 PM EST. (Food Chain: La Shawn -> Musing Minds)

UPDATE: Michelle Malkin points to an aggregator that lists stories about Terri Schiavo. Very useful in keeping on top of the news.