Eyes to See/Ears to Hear

In order to combat my annoyance over the unwillingness of media outlets to tell the truth and avoid letting their bias rule, as well as to have an outlet for my very (at times) wordy self, this blog has been created by yours truly. This will be an accounting of events in the world, my country, and my little piece of the world as best as I can see it, hear it, and relay it.

Location: United States

Monday, March 28, 2005

The Schindler Family

The seeming tug-of-war between the Schindler family and Michael Schiavo is drawing to a close, as the starvation of the Schindler family's daughter, Terri, is in its second week. I had a relative who was very sick and towards the end totally refused food, ,and it took just about two weeks for them to die. There was suffering, no person with a shred of honesty in their body can really believe that to not be so, just to defend their point of view on what is happening to Terri. Terri, however, did not refuse food, it was refused to her. This is to our shame, and this is why the Schindler family has fought so hard and so long for the life of their daughter. Michael has fought for the death of their daughter, his wife, under questionable motivation, that the courts have supported, and now he has his wish. She should be dead very, very soon, and with her death, the Schindler family will enter another painful time of their lives. For how do you reconcile your heart and beliefs, as well as your love for your daughter and the protection of her life, with her court-mandated death by starvation?

The courts have failed both the Schindler family and Terri with this ruling and her pending death. In a sense, we as a nation, have also failed them. For we too measure someone's worth by their physical capabilities, looks, potential, and forget about the right of that person to their life, no matter what value we place on it. The Schindler's recognized the worth of their daughter's life and were prepared to care for her as she lived out the rest of her natural life.

We have made a big mistake here, for there was no compelling evidence that Terri specifically would have wanted to die rather than be brain-damaged and eating via a feeding tube. I have not read every single word of all the motions and case related material made available via Adobe Reader by her family, but it is only Michael's word on a vague, not even specific, recollection of a casual conversation where he recalls Terri saying she wouldn't want to be kept alive artifically. In additon to that, the judge and anyone reading this stuff can see the timeline of Terri's injury, the malpractice lawsuits, Michael's neglect of Terri, her parent's subsequent legal challenge to remove him as guardian due to his negligence, and then his court case saying Terri would want to be dead instead.

The Schindler family fought the good fight, for the right reasons, and deserve our respect and support.

Sunday, March 27, 2005

Resurrection Sunday

He is Risen! He is Risen Indeed.

God forgive us for allowing the taking of an innocent human life in this, the time of 'right-to-die'. As our society continues to slide into this culture of death that our self-centered thinking society is embracing in ever increasing numbers, the words of Christ, who said, 'Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do'. That is my own paraphrase on the verse as I don't have a Bible handy for the exact reference.

But I think we do know what we are doing and we think it is ok. Just think of all the arguments used that brought Terri to such an end, or of the many and varied arguments for the right to abort. The end result of which is that an innocent human being is killed via the will and desire of someone else.

Maybe in the sense that our thinking is so deluded it can be said that we don't know what we are doing. But any way you look at it, we are guilty of cheapening life so that we can live as we wish.

On Reurrection Sunday, may it be that more eyes are open to the truth of this and repentance be the way of the day.

The Lord Jesus Christ did not die in vain, and Terri will not die in vain, any more than her lving life in her condition was of no value, regardless of what any judge, lawyer, or right to die group says.

Friday, March 25, 2005

Terri Again

With all the appeals and rejections, what our court system is telling Terri's family is that sparing her life is not at issue as much as taking her life is; especially this latest rejected appeal that scorned another branch of the federal government, notably Congress, who stepped in to stop the court-ordered starvation of Terri.

Even though her parents have provided claims valid enough to spare Terri's life (and have for many years compiled quite a list) while her care, rather, lack of care and other suspicious circumstances surrounding this entire situation be examined, another court has said, and swiftly, no, by a vote of 12-2.

Here are some of the words uttered by Judge Charles Wilson, who dissented, noting that the court's denial, quote:

"frustrates Congress's intent. . . . The entire purpose for the statute was to give the federal courts an opportunity to consider the merits of Plaintiffs' constitutional claims with a fresh set of eyes. Denial of Plaintiffs' petition cuts sharply against that intent, which is evident to me from the language of the statute, as well as the swift and unprecedented manner of its enactment".

Terri's rights have been violated repeatedly by a court (specifically one judge for the most part) which sought to fulfill the desires of Michael Schiavo while ignoring the right-to-life guaranteed to Terri by the US Constitution.

On the news last night a Michael Schiavo supporter claimed that even Michael mourned the imminent death of his wife, stating, quote: "after all, he is about to become a widower"; this said with a straight face. Yes, I am sure Michael will be torn up as he seeks comfort in the arms of the mother of his two children with whom he has been living with now for years. Just that situation alone should be cause for a conflict of interest to any just judge who looks at Michael's claims as being after what is 'best for Terri' while he is involved with another woman, but it never has been.

This is truly a travesty of justice.

Thursday, March 24, 2005

More On Terri

Sometimes people are legally in charge of someone and the court strips them of their rights when it becomes questionable whether they have the other person's best interests at heart.

There is something here, actually a couple things, that are just not right. For one, since Terri cannot speak for herself, doesn't it seem odd that the courts would err on the side of death, rather than life? Further, is anyone aware of the fact that Michael won two malpractice lawsuits after Terri collapsed, awarded Terri over a million dollars and Michael himself a couple hundred thousand? Or that in court testimony he said he would seek (with any settlement) the best possible rehabilitation and care available for Terri? Or that shortly after the lawsuit was won, he didn't care for her at all, neglecting her care and having her removed to a hospice? Hmm? That is what sparked her parents to try to get him removed as the legal guardian of Terri. It was around this time that Michael suddenly seemed to remember a casual conversation he had with Terri where she shared with him that she would not want to be live like...? Do you know that there was nothing specific he could say that she said? I know I have personally said things in passing regarding say, paralysis, that I would not want to live like that. I don't think that by any means I would want to die should that ever happen to me. It is one thing to say something like that when you see another suffering from one thing or another, and quite a different situation if you find yourself in the actual circumstance. I think we would all think differently.

Then consider that regardless of Terri's severe brain damage, she is NOT on life support, not at all. In fact, the tube is only inserted to feed Terri when it is time to eat. Sorry, but that is not life support, whatever anyone's personal opinion on what kind of quality of life Terri lives or not, or whatever one feels personally about living like that or looking at someone in that condition. And if she herself was going to court for the 'right to die' wouldn't this now mean a precedent for legal suicide in America?

I am amazed that a judge in the United States court system, a court system supposed to be based on the constitution, would deny Terri her God-given right to life as well as her constitutionally guaranteed right to life. Instead, Judge Greer, in cooperation with George Felos and Michael Schiavo, has court-ordered Terri's death by starvation. Cruel and unusual punishment given even at a time when a death row inmate in Texas who was scheduled to die was given a reprieve, and it was clear he actually committed the murder for which he was scheduled to die by lethal injection for. No starvation for him; but wait, he is physically, and (questionably mentally) healthy and not being fed through a
tube, so it wouldn't be right to starve him to death. It is more human to give him a lethal injection for his crime. But Terri has committed no crime to get such a sentence.

Astonishingly here we have a woman, albeit she is severely brain damaged, whose husband, under questionable circumstances for years over whether he has her best interests at heart (and compelling evidence that he does not), has been trying to legally kill her by starving her to death, and you hear not a peep from any of the high profile women's groups in this country. Remember that women's groups, especially NOW (National Organization for Women) proudly proclaim on their website



"[The National Organization of Women] works to eliminate discrimination and harassment in the workplace, schools, the justice system, and all other sectors of society;...; end all forms of violence against women; ...; and promote equality and justice in our society."


but are completely ignoring Terri's fate at the hands of her husband, her husband's lawyer, and the judge, who really has no legal precedence for something like this. Not a peep from them, from Emily's List, Planned Parenthood, or NARAL. Shame on them, but it is not surprising that they don't care about Terri's fate since they themselves support the same culture of death that is being promoted by a legal judgment such as this one.

Though I am not surprised at what is happening, I cannot stop thinking about it, crying for her and her family, and praying for someone to save her, as well as being very angry at the how helpless her family and Terri are in this situation. All they want to do is take care of her until her natural death, at their own home. Anyone who sincerely believes Michael is doing this for Terri, clearly has not read any of the history of Terri's plight. To hear both him and his lawyer say that these people who are trying to keep Terri alive should stop violating Terri's wishes and desires and leave her alone to end her life, as if this is what she wanted, to be starved to death, and that is what they have been fighting for, Terri's rights! I find the both of them (indeed all three) to be both presumptuous and ludicrous.

Wednesday, March 23, 2005


I follow a blog of an Iraqi dentist. He was, I believe, born in Bahgdad, though his parent moved to the UK where he lived till almost ten. He then returned to his home and has been living there ever since. His parents are Sunni Muslims, but he himself doesn't particularly follow any religious path, so to speak, though he, I believe, celebrates his countries various holidays and traditions.

Since beginning to read his blog almost a couple of years back, I have used it as one of my regular sources of getting news about Iraq from someone other than the Associated Press. I have since come to discover that there are an amazing amount of Iraqi's blogging, as well as writing for newspapers in their own country, of their own opinions on things no less, and a wealth of sites dedicated to the long list of positive things happening in Iraq.

Truly most readers of the news take at face value what they read, form a quick opinion, make a snap judgment, and then run with it. So busy that electronic calendars and Palm pockets and cell phones are in most of their hands as well, they pass along these opinions, judgments, and actually perpetuate rumors and lies. Swayed towards opinions by the media's clever use of headlines and choice of what stories are newsworthy, we have a bunch of clones of the talking heads on the tube, who, in human form, pass along the equivalent of internet e-mail rumors, the kind that with a click of a mouse you can find on many websites lists of hoaxes and rumors.

Just recently there was a horrific beating of students in Basra. Unfortunately, the media doesn't deem this story newsworthy. Zeyad's reporting of the story, at his blog, Healing Iraq, has the details. Other blogs talk about the building, sometimes from scratch, of a horribly put together infrastructure, the struggles for water and electricity, the opening of schools and freedom of speech and expression, the friendships that have developed between Iraqis and many members of the coalition, and any number of stories the major media deems not newsworthy. To say that the Iraqi people were better off with Saddam is the comment of ignorance, but, read what Iraqis have to say, just don't read their equivalent of Ted Kennedy and much of the Democratic Party or their equivalent of our various big media super bias.

What Ludicrous Means

In the words of George Felos, the attorney for Michael Schiavo and his right to kill lawsuit, the reinsertion of Terri's feeding tube would be "a horrific intrusion upon Mrs. Schiavo's personal liberty," which may cause one to surmise that this George Felos means the removal of the feeding tube was and is somehow the upholding of Terri's Schindler-Schiavo's personal liberties.

What is wrong with thinking like this? Did Terri ask for this painful death to be inflicted on her? Can anyone be sure that she actually did say to Michael over a cup of coffee casually that she would not want to be kept alive if...? And what exactly did she mean when she said that, did she mean respirator? Did she mean paralyze? Did she mean brain-damaged? How can this judge be sure beyond a reasonable doubt that the conversation even occurred? Shouldn't and wouldn't Terri's personal liberties have been honored by giving her the benefit of the doubt since she cannot speak for herself? Especially in light of the timetable by which Michael Schiavo brought this lawsuit about? How in the world can a judge honor Michael Schiavo as a person caring about Terri's personal liberties with the evidence before him of this case documenting Michael's attitude as well as his shabby treatment of Terri? Where the heck are the judges who have eyes to see and ears to hear? How does something like this happen in my country? It is absolutely cruel and unusual punishment for Terri, for no reason; or worse, via faulty reasoning.

Tuesday, March 22, 2005

Terri Schiavo: A Matter of Court Ordered Death

Regardless of our personal opinions on what we think of Terri's condition, what we think about brain damage, severe or otherwise, or what we think about the whole dying process, what is happening to Terri is court ordered, court sanctioned, murder.

Consider the facts, facts available for anyone deeming to look further than the major media's extremely pro-death bias, from their choice of what words to use in their headline regarding this situation ('Right-to-Die') to their posting of a USA-Gallup poll of 900+adults asked if Terri should have the tube reinserted or kept out-something like more than sixty percent said keep it out, the facts list is a long one, long ignored by the media, though as available to them as it is to my little blogging fingers. Heck, I don't even think what I wrote just there is even a sentence, but I am on a roll and do not want to stop writing to fix it.

The facts are that when Terri's heart stopped those many years ago, Michael filed a lawsuit against her doctor who he claimed misdiagnosed some imbalance in Terri, which caused her heart to stop. A jury agreed with him and awarded Michael and Terri over a million dollar settlement. I wonder how many of those adults asked in that poll are aware that Michael, in court testimony, claimed he would seek, with that award, awarded, by the way, for Terri's care, nothing but the best rehabilitation available. Once awarded the settlement, Michael almost immediately moved Terri to a hospice, you know, the place you go when you are supposed to die. I happen to know that what hospice is actually supposed to be for is those who are terminally ill. Severe brain damage is quite horrible to deal with in a loved one, but it is not a terminal illness. He has never, ever allowed her any rehabilitation at all. It is documented that he even told nurses and doctors to deny her anitbiotics for an infection, allowed her teeth to rot, as well as made it a horrible struggle for her family to even see her. Ask Michael how much time he spent with his wife, right from the beginning even, and you will find the man cared very little for her, and it showed.

After being awarded the settlement, Michael then, and only then, began this lawsuit to have her feeding tube removed, referring to some vague memory of a casual conversation in which Terri had supposedly said she would not want to be 'kept' alive. Why didn't he mention it during the lawsuit trial? It was not like the lawsuit happened overnight, it took some time. And, having had a brother on life support, I can tell you that a feeding tube is not 'life support' care. Some people have trouble swallowing and have feeding tubes, without which, they would of course, starve to death.

The judge should have thrown it out from the very beginning.

I question, and all of God-fearing, life and liberty loving human beings everywhere should as well, a judge that would repeatedly err on the side of death rather than life, especially in light of the readily available facts that I listed, though there are many more, testifying to Michael Schiavo not having his wife's best interests at heart at all, or at the very least, that the judge would have a reasonable doubt arise for himself, that would cause him to look a little closer at Mr. Schiavo's behavior as well as his motive. Nothing, never, nada, from this judge, nothing but constant and continual rulings against Terri's best interests and always in favor of Michael's best interest. Which has been for Terri to die.

Is Terri severely brain damaged? Yes, she is. Does that mean it should be okay for her husband to disconnect her feeding tube? No, it doesn't.

Whether we understand or can come to grips with horrifying situations such as these, we none of us should support the starvation death of someone because we don't think her life is worth living in the state she is in. Who knows the purposes of one human life? Do we have to fully understand it to deem it worthy of living?

The fact that our Constitution guarantees the 'right-to-life', so prominent in importance as to be one of the first things stated in the Document, is doubly tragic in that a judge, one who is sworn to uphold the Constitution and apply it to cases before him, should order Terri's death, the very person who he should have ordered protected from Michael's lawsuit.

It is a nightmare, that is what it is, and it is just another step on the slippery slope we have been on in America for many years now as we continue to devalue human life based on our own selfish desires.

So let us call this what it is, it is not a right to die issue, Terri didn't ask to die, Michael asked a judge for permission to end her life, and the judge said yes. It is a court-ordered murder.

God help us all.