Bunker Mulligan "Let us endeavor so to live that when we come to die even the undertaker will be sorry." ~Mark Twain

I have not posted at all on Terri Schiavo. I know too little of the facts to be able to sift through all the blather from all sides. The best I can do is say that it appears to me her husband decided long ago to let her die, and spent the money which was supposed to be dedicated to her medical care. I believe those to be facts, although I can’t be certain.

Another issue is her medical status. (Why is this a Democrat-Republican issue?) She is not in a coma. Nor has she ever been. She is not being kept alive by any medical equipment. She breathes on her own, and her heart continues to pump blood without assistance. She cannot swallow or ingest food normally, so is fed through a tube. This is not a situation where they unplug the life-preserving machines to allow someone to die with some semblance of humanity. She is being denied food. She will die by starvation.

The third issue is the Federal Government’s involvement. I have never really understood why suicide is a crime. If someone chooses to die, what allows a government to step in and prevent it? I would think that is as personal a decision as there is. The crux here is whether Terri, indeed, wants to die, and we can never be certain. She cannot make her desires known. So, her husband makes the decision. He, of all people, should be the one to make that decision. But his actions since her decline have put him under suspicion as to his motives. Again, who among us can really judge?

What this case really comes down to in my mind is a woman who will never be able to function on her own, and her husband who wants the burden lifted from him. Her parents have offered to take that burden, yet he declines. Again, painting himself as insensitive and having hidden agendas.

So, what is the answer to this dilemma? Does Terri Schiavo have the personal right to end her own life? Does her husband, as her next of kin, have that right?

Do any of us have the right (excluding religious beliefs) to end our own life? Why?

That question will not be answered in this case. And it shouldn’t be. That is a very personal decision, and the kind I don’t want government making.

Patterico asks for a commitment from bloggers who will defy any federal attempt to regulate our writing.

Heh, heh, heh. I built a solid career being a contrarian. This is simple compared to some stances I’ve taken.

I will continue to speak my mind. The First Amendment guarantees me that right. Specifically. In very clear language.

My opinion may be wrong, but I can voice that opinion.

As a follow-up to my earlier post on McCain-Feingold, I need to point you to the follow-up of an article I linked to in that post. Ryan Sager is on top of the story behind “Campaign Finance Reform” here, and the transcript of the video he talks about is here.

The tape — of a conference held at USC’s Annenberg School for Communication in March of 2004 — shows Treglia expounding to a gathering of academics, experts and journalists (none of whom, apparently, ever wrote about Treglia’s remarks) on just how Pew and other left-wing foundations plotted to create a fake grassroots movement to hoodwink Congress.

I don’t care whether it is being drive from the left or the right. The BCRA is a sham, and is designed to do nothing but keep money and power in the hands of incumbents. I think I need to write to my Congressman and Senators once again. I haven’t heard anything back from my most recent epistles.

Except this one.

I’m #125. It’s up to over two thousand, but needs to keep climbing. If you read or write blogs, go sign up.

With all the wailing and moaning about HR685, Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act, I thought I would wander over to Thomas to see what it says for myself.

What I found was a typical Congressional document of 258 sections (quick count, +/- 5 sections accuracy) and 502 PDF pages. What do you think the odds are that any legislator read it completely, even the sponsors?

My understanding of the bill (an overview is here written by Paul Stewart Snyder, an attorney in Kentucky) is that it makes it much harder to file Chapter 7 bankruptcy, and more people will have to file for Chapter 13 instead. Chapter 7 allows the debtor to simply dump all debt. Chapter 13 requires at least some repayment.

Additionally,

Before anyone can file bankruptcy under the Bankruptcy Reform Act, they must receive a certificate from an APPROVED non-profit credit counseling agency that states that they have received a briefing on opportunities for available credit counseling and have been assisted in performing an individual budget analysis.

Is that a bad thing? For folks with huge credit card debt, it may be their best opportunity to learn.

Many of the complaints revolve around credit card companies, as they have spent a lot of money pushing for this legislation. I believe in personal responsibility, and there are avenues for bypassing some of the problems with credit cards if people aren’t carrying around a dozen of them. The marketing of cards at low rates makes it fairly simple to replace a high-interest card with a different one and transfer a balance unless you already have cards from every single creditor in the business. That is the bigger issue. The number of credit card companies is in continual decline. MBNA, CitiCorp, NationsBank. There aren’t many more. And they certainly won’t transfer high-interest debt from one of their cards to another.

From what I can see, the law is nowhere near as pernicious as some would have us believe. It attempts to restrict the ability of people to simply walk away from their debts, and limits the frequency of doing that. When you look at people like Donald Trump who live off other people’s money and bankrupt everything they touch, it is probably a good thing.

And if you don’t like the new law, you’d best look at filing under the current ones:

Most of the provisions of the Bankruptcy Reform Act will not take effect until 6 months after the date President Bush signs it into law. You have that long to get your finances in order and decide if you need to file bankruptcy.

Could this be the reason Senator McCain doesn’t like bloggers?

Sen. John McCain pressed a cable company’s case for pricing changes with regulators at the same time a tax-exempt group that he has worked with since its founding solicited $200,000 in contributions from the company.

Sounds like he has his fingers in the MSM pie.

(Hat tip to a new site I found through Roger L. Simon, Joel Malchow at Dartmouth.)

****UPDATE****
Ed has the details on the Keating Five scandal for those of you who don’t remember it.