Morning Links

Thursday, February 23rd, 2012
  • Jake Tapper calls out Obama press secretary Jay Carney on the administration’s free press hypocrisy.
  • “To have a passport is privilege, it’s not entitled to you by citizenship.” In other words, the government can bar you from freely leaving the country, for any reason it pleases. In this case, one child of a vacationing family had a passport with a crease that a federal bureaucrat determined disqualified him from the privilege of crossing the border.
  • I must be a nihilist, death-obsessed liberal, because I’m actually okay with most of the worst-case scenarios in this article. In fact, the only accusation against the Dutch that I find unsettling—that Dutch doctors may be euthanizing infirm patients without their consent—is the scenario with little to no empirical evidence to support it.
  • Five reasons you should never agree to a police search, even if you think you have nothing to hide.
  • The war on food trucks continues.
  • Headline of the day. (Here’s the runner-up.)
  • The truth about pot.
Digg it |  reddit |  del.icio.us |  Fark

77 Responses to “Morning Links”

  1. #1 |  Boyd Durkin | 

    The passport article states the it was American Airlines (almost a part of the Federal Guv) and not the Feds. The Feds might have OK’d it…or thrown you in jail and probed your anus.

    However; it illustrates the point that we work (and exist) for the State. Is their travel process crappy and not serving your needs? Too bad! This isn’t Wal-Mart.

    Oh, they got in the line “…for national security”.

  2. #2 |  rapscallion | 

    Regarding search and consent:

    I agree with the author that you should probably never consent to vehicle and home searches, but if it’s a simple pat-down (and I’m certain I have nothing illegal) I’m still inclined to consent to a warrantless, baseless search simply because police will often falsely arrest you if they perceive disrespect. I have no guarantee that the cop isn’t going to be a jackass and make-up a charge to throw me in jail for if I say no, or figure out some way to detain me for 6 hours, probably handcuffing me and making me lie on concrete, too. It sucks, and it’s illegal, but I’d rather just waive my rights to avoid the possibility.

  3. #3 |  DoubleU | 

    More information about not consenting to a search at “flex your rights.com” (no spaces).

  4. #4 |  Henry Acton | 

    Search: If a cop wants to do a Terry frisk, looking for weapons, and I tell him where my guns and knife are – can he still search me?

    The truth about pot: marijuana is AMAZING!

  5. #5 |  Marty | 

    re the passport story- I love how the fucking bureaucrats are making everything a ‘privilege’. It seems the only ‘right’ we have is the right to have our paperwork in order and to hope the bureaucrat is feeling gracious.

  6. #6 |  Mario | 

    Regarding the passport “privilege,” I am again and again reminded of how, back in the early ’80s, in middle school and high school social studies classes, I was told of how things were in “other countries” — you know, like East Germany or the Soviet Union, where people weren’t free to leave.

    We’re getting there.

  7. #7 |  David | 

    Between the passport story and the Messerschmidt decision, the government seems intent on showing the difference between its ability to lock up its citizens and take their stuff, which is a right, and our ability to stay alive and out of jail, which is a privilege.

  8. #8 |  Mike | 

    I hate to break the news, but issuance of a passport is a “privilege” and not a “right”. According to 22 C.F.R. § 51.70 and 51.71, a passport can be denied or revoked for (among other reasons): defaulting on student loans, not paying child support, violation of the Controlled Substances Act (or any state law pertaining to controlled substances possession, manufacture, or distribution), any reason the Sec of State deems as “adverse”.

    How is that not a “privilege”? It shouldn’t be, but it is — and you can thank Congress for that one. Congress writes broad legislation, the bureaucrats determine the details, and things tend to get out of hand fairly quickly.

    If you think that’s bad, just wait until ObamaCare gets fully implemented. Let me draw you one potential picture here:

    You thought you had the “right” to eat McDonald’s? Wrong, flabby: not when “The Secretary shall determine…” is the most common operative phrase in that monstrosity. Before you know it, “The Secretary shall determine” that to maintain your health insurance coverage, your daily diet must comply with USDA nutritional guidelines. Also, “The Secretary shall determine” (soon enough) that “No physician or other medical personnel shall attend to any patient who is not in full compliance with the Affordable Care Act”. No doctor will see you, no hospital will treat you, no pharmacy will sell you medicines, unless you show proof that you’ve knuckled under like a good little Prole.

    Then, the Sec of State shall determine that “Failure to Comply with the Affordable Care Act” constitutes an “adverse” condition, so no passport for you. You cannot leave the country; no doctor will see you or your family (even when you offer to pay cash). You WILL obey, or you (and yours) will die.

    But don’t forget: “The terrorists hate us because we’re free”.

  9. #9 |  Mattocracy | 

    Being able to freely move and travel is a natural right of human beings.

  10. #10 |  FridayNext | 

    Re: The passport story.

    As Boyd pointed out, it was American Airlines who denied the family passage and the outrageous quote Radley supplied was from someone who owns International Passport Visas, a company whose business it is facilitate people getting passports. There was no one from the State Department or other relevant government agency quoted in the article. This seems like a hole in the reporting to me. I am adding this not to defend the government per se but to indict the author of the linked article for incomplete reporting. I have no doubt the companies involved are operating under Government guidance (or lack thereof) but if we want to bitch about how the government is ruling our lives based on this incident we should find out what the government role and position is on it. Was American Airlines operating under USSD guidelines or just being capricious? Did this owner of a private company quote USSD philosophy accurately, or does he benefit financially from promulgating this line? Inquiring minds want to know.

  11. #11 |  WT | 

    The food truck war is all about municipal taxes, restaurants pay large property taxes, trucks don’t. Guess who wins at city hall

  12. #12 |  Pablo | 

    Yes we seem to be getting to the point where more and more things are “a privilege not a right.” How I long for a country where the default position is liberty–e.g. begin with the assumption that you can do whatever the hell you want, and any restriction requires a showing by the govt. that such restriction is to prevent others’ rights from being violated by force/fraud/coercion.

  13. #13 |  EBL | 

    The passport nonsense is infuriating.

  14. #14 |  EBL | 

    The truth about pot: I think most of us know that from first hand experience.

  15. #15 |  EBL | 

    WT: yes that is it about food trucks.

  16. #16 |  CyniCAl | 

    •“To have a passport is privilege, it’s not entitled to you by citizenship.” In other words, the government can bar you from freely leaving the country, for any reason it pleases.

    Without the freedom of movement, there is no freedom. QED.

  17. #17 |  a_random_guy | 

    Euthanasia is a good thing – there ought to be a lot more of it.

    I watched this with my father, who was critically ill for the last 2 years of his life. There was no enjoyment left – just increasingly unpleasant medical treatment. He was absolutely livid when he discovered once that he had been resuscitated (against explicit instructions); he suffered on for several more months afterwards. The situation was also terrible for the immediate family as well – especially my mother.

    We are kind enough to put our animals out of their suffering, when we see that they can no longer enjoy life. Why are we not equally kind to people?

  18. #18 |  Fred | 

    “terminated without request or consent” — e.g. non-voluntary euthanasia.”

    A.K.A Murder

  19. #19 |  CyniCAl | 

    •Five reasons you should never agree to a police search, even if you think you have nothing to hide.

    I have a sixth reason: fuck you cop.

  20. #20 |  fwb | 

    Only the individual may choose to terminate his/her life. It is not up to anyone else to decide. EVER!

  21. #21 |  Pugnacious | 

    Thanks to YouTube and historian David Irving, we are now seeing REAL history that the MSM, Allied governments and the publishing gate-keeper moguls have kept from the world for over a half-century.

    Hitler’s 1944 birthday anniversary celebration.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWP81DDvVss

  22. #22 |  Mannie | 

    #18 | CyniCAl | February 23rd, 2012 at 12:10 pm

    •Five reasons you should never agree to a police search, even if you think you have nothing to hide.

    I have a sixth reason: fuck you cop.

    Assume the position. STOP RESISTING Bzzzzzzzzzzzt

  23. #23 |  Mannie | 

    #19 | fwb | February 23rd, 2012 at 12:11 pm

    Only the individual may choose to terminate his/her life. It is not up to anyone else to decide. EVER!

    What do you do when the individual is comatose, and unable to give consent, yet has no chance of recovery?

  24. #24 |  CP Norris | 

    I have beaten the crap out of all my passports and never had a problem with a US government official for it. That was just some pathetic airline employee trying to flex his muscles.

  25. #25 |  Yizmo Gizmo | 

    Some interesting food for thought I found looking up the right to travel(Passport) and the modern Police State, how big and stupid it’s gotten:

    However, governments violate our natural rights by creating “political laws”–Have you ever wondered where the word “police” came from?–and these “political laws” have nothing to do with natural rights or the original meaning of common law. They are all about restraining people against their will, against their natural rights, and there does not have to be an injured party. Political laws have nothing to do with doing harm.

    “Licenses”, for example, were all created out of political laws. The US Supreme Court has ruled that we all have the natural right to travel, but unfortunately, political laws were created to require a “license to drive”, which can now only be gotten by having a “social security number” (in the US). It is not mandatory to obtain a social security number, but if you do not have one, you can’t get a driver’s license. So if you’re traveling safely with an automobile and a “police” officer sees that you don’t have your seat belt on, he may arrest you and take you to jail for not having a seat belt on and for not having a “driver’s license”. Or if you are caught fishing without a “fishing license”, you could go to jail or be fined.


    And the Denver family story doesn’t surprise me one bit because
    “airport people”–the whole creepy lot of them– don’t give two fucks about your welfare anymore, a legacy of some weird survivor’s guilt
    syndrome we’re all supposed to endure post-911…

  26. #26 |  C. S. P. Schofield | 

    If I am ever asked by a LEO “If you have nothing to hide, why can’t I search?”, I will be strongly tempted to answer “If I have nothing to hide, you are wasting my time, which is an outrage. If I have something to hide, I’d have to be a goddamned fool to let you search. Either way, I lose. You do not have my permission to search. You are not going to get my permission to search by insulting my intelligence. Am I free to go?”

    I know that won’t go over well, so I’ll try to keep it behind my teeth.

  27. #27 |  a_random_guy | 

    Only the individual may choose to terminate his/her life. It is not up to anyone else to decide. EVER!

    This is rather simplistic. You have situations where the affected person is in no condition to consent (severe dementia, flat-lined brain waves, etc.). In such cases, there as here in the US, other people may be empowered to make decisions on their behalf.

    The Dutch are pretty darned careful – Santorum doesn’t really have any idea what he’s talking about. Anyway, why is it the religious folks (who think they have an afterlife to look forward to) who are so damned scared of death?

  28. #28 |  C. S. P. Schofield | 

    “The Dutch are pretty darned careful ”

    One would hope so. What bothers me is that I vaguely recall reading (in Reason magazine) that one or more of the Low Countries had, since WWII, suffered from episodic euthanasia and eugenics scandals … that despite being among the nicest people on earth (a lot nicer than Americans on average, in my experience) there was something about giving that kind of power to Medical Doctors that attracted or created little tin-pot gods.

    The Terri Schiavo case scared the hell out of me, for a reason that everybody else seemed (to me, anyway) to miss. Regardless of the outcome, regardless of Terri Schiavo’s actual condition, the case made it clear that we had moved from “We’ll allow you to refuse treatment if you plan ahead carefully and jump through legal hoops” to “We may decide to withhold treatment from you, based on the unsupported word of someone who has a financial interest in your death.” Ms. Terri Schiavo’s husband may be a saint, with nothing but the purest of intentions. I don’t know. The shift still scares the pluperfect hell out of me.

  29. #29 |  derfel cadarn | 

    Tapper is absolutely correct. The obama administration thwarting of journalists is CRIMINAL. The euphemistically named “justice dept. attempts to sequester the truth from Americans is treasonous , the government operates at our expense we have the right to know the TRUTH.

  30. #30 |  nigmalg | 

    “…why is it the religious folks (who think they have an afterlife to look forward to) who are so damned scared of death?”

    Why do you think they’re so feverishly religious?

  31. #31 |  Boyd Durkin | 

    Pugnacius, why did I just watch Hitler’s b-day party? Am I the only one who got really pumped up watching that? Maybe should’ve kept that to myself.

    CSPS, please don’t forget to mention that numerous politicians (with as much connection to Schiavo as you’d expect for a comatose woman) injected themselves personally into her case. Some for Jesus, others for the children, others for the Emperor (who shall decide who lives and dies). No crisis shall be wasted.

  32. #32 |  Mike T | 

    #26,

    Another serious problem that many missed was that her parents were willing and able to assume responsibility for her medical care. This is one of the reasons why I couldn’t understand why any libertarian could support it. It was a clear cut case of the state colluding with someone who just wanted her dead when there was a private alternative.

    #25,

    Short of brain death, there is no reason to euthanize someone without first gaining their consent. None. Anything other that proven brain death is an act of unjustifiable force against one of our weakest citizens.

    If we are going to support euthanasia, it ought to be only in the form of giving the individual (assuming sufficient lucidity) the tools to do it for themselves. Anything else and we risk creating a basis to empower others to have the ability to terminate life at their discretion. That is a road we cannot risk going down.

  33. #33 |  Nick T. | 

    #26 That was what the law permitted. It wasn’t something brought on by that case or a one-time exception. You may not liek that being the law which is fine and very understandable, but when faced with a person who is clearly unable to consent (as proven through some form of legal procedure) then what do we do? Just keep them alive forever, or let their next of kin make the decision? Let some independent bureacrat make the call? Not easy to resolve but, I think saying they must be kept alive for eternity unless they explicitly indicated otherwise seems silly. Also, next of kin will often have a financial interest in the death of a loved one.

  34. #34 |  Mike T | 

    #29,

    The governor should have ordered the police to disregard the judge’s orders and hand over custody of Terri to her parents. That was a good case of where the political system should have told the legal system where to go and what to do when it got there.

  35. #35 |  C. S. P. Schofield | 

    I believe that the “fear of death” seen in the deeply religious stems from a belief in Life as a gift. The reasoning goes that to reject the gift is to spit in the face of God.

    My Father passed recently, at the age of 88. He had survived my mother by two years, during which time he was moderately unhappy, with occasional flashes of ‘not bad’. But it was against his Christian beliefs to turn his face to the wall, so he kept occupied. But I’m moderately sure that he was glad to go.

    Whether a deep seated suspicion in all advocates of euthanasia, assisted suicide, and the like can reasonably be attributed to a fear of death is another matter. In my Father’s case, I think it stemmed from having lived through the 1930’s, when Eugenics and Euthanasia were respectable topics of discussion among the intellectual Left, and then the 1940’s, when it became clear just how ugly those ideas could become.

  36. #36 |  BamBam | 

    Religious zealots are the worst hypocrites. One the one hand, protect life blah blah blah. On the other hand, BOMB THEM PEOPLES OVER THERE IN THAT COUNTRY, THEY’RE COMING RIGHT FOR US! Some of them are proponents of war because they believe it will bring on The Rapture.

  37. #37 |  C. S. P. Schofield | 

    Nick T.

    I’m not saying the Judge made it up on the spot. I’m saying that while I was busy having a life, the law had drifted to a point that makes me severely uncomfortable.

    Since I believe, on no evidence whatsoever (which makes me different from exactly nobody) that if a person is brain dead, they have already left, I have no problem with keeping a body on life support until the sun goes out, if it avoids the possibility of giving the State more power over life and death. But I’m a Crank.

  38. #38 |  Mike T | 

    Whether a deep seated suspicion in all advocates of euthanasia, assisted suicide, and the like can reasonably be attributed to a fear of death is another matter. In my Father’s case, I think it stemmed from having lived through the 1930′s, when Eugenics and Euthanasia were respectable topics of discussion among the intellectual Left, and then the 1940′s, when it became clear just how ugly those ideas could become.

    In general, that’s why most religious conservatives are scared of it. If you look at the way those in power behave today, our leaders are as amoral and sociopathic as the people who created the eugenic and euthanasia horrors of the 1930s and 1940s.

  39. #39 |  Mike T | 

    Or to put it in simpler terms, Assisted Suicide in America, brought to you by the ruling class which gave us the TSA, renditions, torture and indefinite detention without trial.

  40. #40 |  Davis | 

    …the case made it clear that we had moved from “We’ll allow you to refuse treatment if you plan ahead carefully and jump through legal hoops” to “We may decide to withhold treatment from you, based on the unsupported word of someone who has a financial interest in your death.”

    That’s a gross oversimplification of what happened in the Schiavo case. There was a trial (with a large number of witnesses) — pretty much the biggest legal hoop there is — just to make a determination regarding what Schiavo probably would have wanted for herself. If you’re not willing to allow an adjudicative approach to deciding whether someone should be taken off life support in the absence of a living will, then the only remaining alternative is to never allow people in this situation to be removed from life support.

  41. #41 |  Mike T | 

    #38,

    From a cost perspective, that wouldn’t be a problem. People like Terri Schiavo are such a minority that you could put them in 5 star accommodations for the rest of their lives without even registering as a blip on the GDP. In fact, we could that for them, Alzheimer’s patients, the severely retarded and late stage dementia patients without denting the budget or giving the state or private citizens the right to terminate anyone’s life.

  42. #42 |  MH | 

    “Another serious problem that many missed was that her parents were willing and able to assume responsibility for her medical care. This is one of the reasons why I couldn’t understand why any libertarian could support it.”

    Just because you can find someone to pay for it, doesn’t mean anyone would want to be kept alive in a vegetative state. Nor can it be assumed anyone would want the judgment of their spouse to be overridden in favor of their parents.

  43. #43 |  MH | 

    “From a cost perspective, that wouldn’t be a problem. People like Terri Schiavo are such a minority that you could put them in 5 star accommodations for the rest of their lives without even registering as a blip on the GDP.”

    Do you really believe a government program can be rationalized by comparison to GDP? That would open the floodgates.

  44. #44 |  EH | 

    Schiavo was used by religious people as a substitute for Old Testament-type sentiments. Don’t worry, the priest is in control of your life, just make sure there’s someone to keep him separate from your children.

  45. #45 |  Herb | 

    Suppose you refuse a police search, but the cop wants to ask you questions. What questions are you obligated to answer and for how long?

  46. #46 |  Dan | 

    The elderly, infirm, mentally ill, retarded are not worthy of life. Bad when the nazi’s do it but fine for the Dutch. Reminds me of the ‘Bring out your dead’ bit from monty python and the Holy Grail. “But I’m still alive!”, don’t worry you’ll be dead any minute, just let nice Dr. Mengele give you a shot.

  47. #47 |  Elliot | 

    WTF is the deal with the Pyonyang logo and the recently deceased dictator? Someone please tell me the owner was just being ironic.

  48. #48 |  Mike | 

    #43 Herb, you have the right to remain silent. So STFU! Don’t answer any questions except to reply “I want a lawyer present for any interrogation, and am exerting the right to remain silent.”

    Then, the cops either A) Arrest you, upon which you continue to remain silent, or B) let you go, whereupon you walk away without saying another word.

  49. #49 |  horseydeucey | 

    I just recently renewed my passport (no plans, I just figure it’s a nice thing to have). Imagine my shock when I read the bit about how the government can refuse your renewal if you owe back federal taxes. Since when can America refuse my right to relocate to another country?

    Land of the free, huh?

  50. #50 |  EBL | 

    I did a post using that link on searches. This is information we all need to tell ourselves and our friends all the time. Thanks Radley.

  51. #51 |  MH | 

    “#43 Herb, you have the right to remain silent.”

    False. Under Hiibel, it appears you can be compelled to give your name during a Terry stop. Whether there are criminal penalties for refusing may depend on your state’s law, so check this before deciding to refuse. Giving a false name is probably a crime. (IANAL).

    You might ask if you are being detained, arrested, or if you are free to go. If being detained, you might ask the officer what “specific and articulable facts” have led the officer to think you are involved in a crime. (However, if you have actually committed a crime, perhaps it is better to keep your mouth shut as much as possible until you have an attorney present).

    It might be interesting to try to use your phone to record the officer’s answer to the question.

  52. #52 |  Curt | 

    Ummm… I think Radley has pretty well covered the true Reason #1 not to consent to a police search. Asset Forfeiture.

    You don’t need to have committed a crime or possess anything illegal for the police to choose to steal your stuff. If you consent to a search and the cop decides he wants to take your lunch money, he simply says that he believed you got that $10 by selling drugs. Then you have to prove that you didn’t in order to get it back.

  53. #53 |  Bob Mc | 

    #43 | Herb |

    “Suppose you refuse a police search, but the cop wants to ask you questions. What questions are you obligated to answer and for how long”?

    If the officer answers yes to your “am I being detained” question, then any further conversation constitutes a custodial interrogation. You then have the right to demand an attorney and remain silent.*

    If the officer answers no to your “am I being detained” question, then any further discussion constitutes a consensual conversation. You always have to the right to decline such.

    *Some states require you to identify yourself when detained.

  54. #54 |  EBL | 

    MH, most of the time these stops will be while driving so you will have to give your name with your drivers license and they also have your plates to go off of. But beyond giving your name, asserting you do not consent a search and (if arrested) want a lawyer, shut up. Less is definitely more.

    If you are stopped (say walking a dog in some park without a leash) and the choice is giving a false name or not answering at all, it is always safer not to answer at all.

  55. #55 |  Onlooker | 

    I would add to or amend the 5th reason not to allow police to search. You never know what they may “find”, even if it wasn’t there before.

    Obviously there’s a long time practice of crooked cops framing people with false evidence they’ve place in the suspect’s home/car, etc. You never know if the cop you’re dealing with is honest or corrupt.

    It seems that even the most naive’ fool could see the wisdom of this reason. But alas you’ll never convince some.

  56. #56 |  Onlooker | 

    Curt

    Indeed the scourge of asset forfeiture is another reason not only to not talk to them, but to avoid all contact if possible. That’s quite unfortunate, but it’s where we are right now, until we get a congress and court that will take us back to our constitutional rights.

  57. #57 |  C. S. P. Schofield | 

    Davis,

    I’m just saying that if, in the 1970’s, when my folks were deciding to mske their first living wills, somebody had suggested that at some time in the future a court would, in trying to determine the wishes of a comatose patient, consult the opinion of a person standing to benefit from that patient’s death, everbody would have considered the speaker mad.

  58. #58 |  MH | 

    The Shiavo thread is over — Dan Godwin’d it at #46.

  59. #59 |  Bronwyn | 

    So, question…

    If a cop stops me and asks if he can search my car, I say no.
    If he tells me to get out of my car, do I have to comply? I remember that petite 60 some-odd year woman who was dragged out of her car and tasered…

    So. Do I have to get out of my car?

  60. #60 |  jb | 

    I know that won’t go over well, so I’ll try to keep it behind my teeth.

    Which is good because to do otherwise would be to break rule number one while being stopped by a cop: Shut the fuck up!

  61. #61 |  Stick | 

    ‘Passport Story’ – Americans still like to think they are ‘Citizens’. The realisation that you are actually ‘Subjects’ of your political overlords is too abominable to consider.

    ‘Pot Story’ – All my friends from my younger days used to smoke. The only ones who haven’t ‘made good’ with their lives are the ones who liked alcohol a little too much.

  62. #62 |  nigmalg | 

    “So. Do I have to get out of my car?”

    Yes, you do have to get out of the car. There is some SCOTUS precedent here following Terry, but I can’t for the life of me find it right now.

  63. #63 |  nigmalg | 

    Figures, a few moments after I post. The case was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania_v._Mimms

  64. #64 |  jb | 

    i>So. Do I have to get out of my car”
    Yes, though if you can lock it behind you with the windows rolled up while on the way out (keep you keys in your pocket) then you stand a good chance of not having the car searched while your sitting on the curb. When the cop asks why did you do that answer, “Force of habit. I always lock my door when I get out of my car.”

  65. #65 |  C. S. P. Schofield | 

    I have watched the Legalise Pot/Demonise Pot arguments since I was in middle school. The only thing I have to add to the usual is that it is my understanding that THC is only slightly water-soluable but easily fat-soluable. This coincides with my personal experience of Pot smoking, which was that the effects lingered far longer than the effects of alcohol … or so it seemed to me.

    That said, if the effects of Pot were permanent – every single person who had ever smoked was going to stay stoned until they died – I would still oppose the War On Drugs.

  66. #66 |  EH | 

    An exquisite example of the increasingly rare Positive Straw Man.

  67. #67 |  croaker | 

    “Euthanasia is a good thing – there ought to be a lot more of it.”

    Can we start with Congress?

  68. #68 |  primus | 

    yes, they have proven themselves to be brain dead so let the games begin.

  69. #69 |  Mike T | 

    Just because you can find someone to pay for it, doesn’t mean anyone would want to be kept alive in a vegetative state. Nor can it be assumed anyone would want the judgment of their spouse to be overridden in favor of their parents.

    I see at least three big problems with that…

    1) Schiavo wasn’t able to consent at the time so no one can tell what she wanted; I am unaware of a living willing that said she gave plenary powers over her well-being in the event of PVS to her husband.
    2) Her husband’s behavior, if I remember correctly, is strongly believed to have caused her PVS. Allegedly, he waited a while before reporting her condition to 911. Most people would definitely not want their fate to be in the hands of a man suspected of that behavior.
    3) If #2 could be shown in court, it would be utterly negligent for a court to keep even a living will together since it couldn’t be reasonably argued that any mentally competent person would want someone who nearly killed them to have the power of life and death over them.

  70. #70 |  Mike T | 

    ** who nearly murdered them.

  71. #71 |  Jerryskids | 

    Have you seen this?

  72. #72 |  Dave Krueger | 

    The truth about pot.

    Probably not.

    While the statistics from the studies are interesting, the definitions of dependence and addiction are largely determined by the industry whose profits are directly affected by that definition. Furthermore, they list the addiction rates of various substances for comparison, without mentioning that the “addiction” rate for a legal substance is likely to be higher simply because its use doesn’t carry the same risks as the others.

    Someday I’d like to see a study that determines how addiction rates are affected by the constant propaganda crusade that substances are addictive. For example, for the last couple decades we’ve been in the midst of an aggressive campaign to saturate all forms of media with claims that cigarettes are more addictive that heroine, a claim that is preposterous on its face. And yet, if you say it often enough, people will believe it and quitting cigarettes will become an impossible challenge for them (much to the joy of smoking cessation industry).

    I may not have a lot of company on this, but my personal belief is that legalization of pot should not be argued from the perspective of it being less harmful than other drugs (legal or otherwise) because I believe that all drugs should be legal for reasons that are completely independent of the effects of those drugs.

  73. #73 |  Henry | 

    To be fair about the passport issue. Many countries see it as a sort of privilege. I grew up in a country where males over 18 where required to complete their mandatory military service in order to get a passport even though the army was all-volunteer, but you still had to enroll in the draft.

    Everybody remembers their rights, few remember their obligations.

  74. #74 |  supercat | 

    #69 | Mike T | “Her husband’s behavior, if I remember correctly, is strongly believed to have caused her PVS.”

    Such beliefs may be regarded as innuendo. On the other hand, the record is clear that that very shortly after a trust fund was awarded which was supposed to be used for care and rehabilitation, Mr. Schiavo who had previously claimed to have high hopes and expectations for his wife’s recovery suddenly started pushing for her death. If Terri had truly expressed a desire to be fatally dehydrated if she were incapacitated, Mr. Schiavo’s failure to express such a desire when seeking a malpractice judgment for her care would seem dishonest.

  75. #75 |  supercat | 

    #33 | Nick T. | //Just keep them alive forever, or let their next of kin make the decision?//

    If a married man is openly living with a “fiancee” by whom he has two children, but the “fiancee” wants a Catholic wedding (meaning she could marry a widower, but not a divorce’), should such a man really be regarded as “next of kin” to the wife whom he wants dead?

    Michael Schiavo had the right, under Florida law, to petition for a divorce three years after his wife was incapacitated; the granting of such a petition would have been essentially automatic. Had Michael Schiavo received a divorce, he would have had every right to start a new life for himself with any unattached woman who would want him.

    What I and many others people object to, however, is the notion that a person can openly renounce any restrictions a marriage contract would place upon him, and yet still claim to be his wife’s “next of kin”, superior to other relatives who want her to receive therapy and make a good faith effort to improve her condition. Even if there would only be a 0.01% chance that a person might turn out to be one of those bizarre cases that can walk and talk even though the parts of the brain which “should” be responsible for such functions have been totally destroyed, that’s not a reason for denying those relatives who provide treatment from doing so.

  76. #76 |  Windy | 

    #71, Jerryskids last summer or fall, don’t really recall just when, but I do think it was Radley who linked to it when it was new.

  77. #77 |  Jamessir Bensonmum | 

    re: to have a passport is a privilege

    “Ray Priest, owner of International Passport Visas in Denver, said your passport isn’t actually yours at all; it belongs to the US government.”

    That person quoted owns a service agency. He does not speak for the airline or the government. And he’s a nitwit butthead.

    The problem is that some airline employees and airport employees are catching the disease. What disease? The power tripping control freak personality disorder disease of American law enforcement in general and the TSA in particular.

    This crap shouldn’t even be an issue the family should’ve been on their way.

Leave a Reply