2005: Year in Review by Lileks
Lileks has an interesting piece on 2005 in American Enterprise Online:
Pope John Paul II dies. To the horror of many, his successor turns out to be Catholic.
Hehehehe…
December 13, 2005
December 1, 2005
5 Years of Sobriety
I write about it here at Dean’s World
For those of you who knew me before then, you’ll understand what an accomplishment this is.
November 4, 2005
La Republique francaise Islamique
France continues to burn - for a 7th day. Yesterday the French Minister of Social Cohesion Jean-Louis Borloo “said the government had to react “firmly” but added that France must also acknowledge its failure to have dealt with anger simmering in poor suburbs for decades.”
Minister of Social Cohesion? Minister of Equal Opportunities?
I have a suggestion to France: Stop creating government posts that have absolutely no power to improve life.
If they still must create jobs for political sycophants, how about useful jobs like a “Minister of Stop Trashing the Place or We’ll Deport Your Ass back to Algeria”? Or a Minister of Stop Burning Cars or We’ll Make Sure You Never Ever Own One”.
Minister of Social Cohesion? What’s next: Minister of Silly Walks?
The New York Sun nails the situation in today’s editorial:
It’s a barely kept secret that Mr. Chirac led the opposition to the Iraq war out of fear of how his Muslim population would react. This fear is a big part of why France portrays itself as America’s counterweight and why it criticizes Israel at every turn and coddled the terrorist Yasser Arafat right up to his death. This doesn’t elicit thanks from Muslim radicals in France. It turns out to project an image of weakness. Unsurprisingly when faced with some unhappiness they believe they can pressure the French state into submission.
The riots may eventually burn out, but the problem remains: A French political elite that believes it can appease its foes (exception: The United States - it will stand against us at all costs).
Coming to an EU near you: The Islamic Republic of France.
Comments Off
June 18, 2004
More on Terry Schindler-Schiavo.
The more I read about Terry Schindler-Schiavo, the more suspicious I get. Terry’s father appeared on Fox News at the same time her husband was on CNN’s Larry King. He claims that the husband has refused rehabilitation and treatment for his wife over the past 13 years, and produced a neurologist who was appointed to examine her condition by the court who stated that he believed that he could rehabilitate her. The family’s attorney then went on Greta van Sustern to argue that on Terry’s last day, she had called her best friend and spoken about plans for the two of them to divorce their husbands and move into an apartment together. She also said that there was no proof that Terry had suffered a heart attack, and that the type of neck rigidity she displayed that night has been shown to be consistent with attempted strangulation in other criminal cases.
Mickey Kaus notes the media bias against the parents, and also mentions the “Darwinian conflict of interest” between the male - who has trouble being monogamous even when his mate isn’t in a “persistent vegetative state” - and the natural rights of parents - who have a much longer investment in their offspring. As I stated previously, the natural rights of parents should trump the rights of spouses on the issue of life and death, simply because no society should force a parent to witness the death of a child. Andrew Sullivan takes issue with this point, but only because he sees it as devaluing the institution of marriage. While I agree with Sullivan that gays should be allowed to marry, I disagree with him on this issue.
When a bride is handed over to a groom by her father, we as a society accept this as the symbolic termination of parental rights. While legal rights are terminated at that point, parents do not give up the role of parenthood. Why? Because to do so would seem idiotic to us - and that idiocy stems from the recognition that parents have done something that the spouse has not: created, borne and over a period of decades developed a human being. No ceremony can terminate this bond, and while we may tolerate or even encourage divorce in our society, we hesitate before interfering with parental rights.
To paraphrase the Bard, something is rotten in the state of Florida - and it isn’t Jeb Bush playing fast and loose with the law as so many on the Left would have you believe. To summarize we have following facts:
1. The marriage between Terry and Michael was troubled.
2.Without any prior medical condition Terry ends up gravely injured for no apparent reason.
3. No clear medical opinion exists on the woman’s condition.
4. No consensus exists between the parents and the woman’s husband.
5. Michael stands to inherit close to a million dollars in medical settlement money and life insurance should his wife die.
6. Michael has lived with another woman for seven years and sired two children by her.
7. No proof exists as to Terry’s wishes.
Given the uncertainties involved, Terry Schindler-Schiavo should not be killed.
