Who Decides?

Did you read the story about the case in Texas where the hospital wants to discontinue treatment for a 17-month-old terminally ill child against the unanimous wishes of the family?

I am not going to retell it, but you can read it here.

There are so many angles to this story, I almost don't know where to start.

In the WaPo story, it says,

Texas's six-year-old "futile-care" law is one of two in the country that allow a hospital's ethics committee to declare the care of a terminally ill patient to be of no benefit and to discontinue care within a certain time frame.

At the risk of sounding stupid, how can treatment that is keeping a person alive be seen as having "no benefit"? Isn't living in and of itself a benefit?

I find it disturbing that the decision to end life support has been taken away from the family. It is now up to a medical ethics team to determine the value of an individual's life.

How will this play out when our health care system is government-run? When there isn't enough money to fund universal healthcare, which history (and the present) shows us will be the case, will euthanasia against the wishes of the family become standard practice for all lives that the ethicists consider unworthy?

This is really not a question of whether or not this child's life should be sustained. Sure, that can be discussed and debated. I cannot say what I would do in this situation and, God willing, I will never have to find out.

The issue here is who gets to make the decision about when to end the life of a child. And what the consequences of the answer to that question will be.

Look, I'm Back!

I take one little, long-weekend break from blogging and all sorts of unexpected things happen.

Burlington Pol took an intermission, Homocon - one of my fav., non-local, conservative blogs - did an entire post linking to She's Right (it's in my Friday Morning Coffee, so I missed it last week), and my favorite blogger, VDB, aided and abetted by that other Vermont lefty blog, GMD, decided to wage a campaign to convince The Caledonian-Record to dump Ann Coulter over her use of the word "faggot."

About that, I have mixed feelings. My knee-jerk reaction was to fire off an e-mail to The Caledonian-Record, urging them to keep Coulter. Just who do these liberals think they are, trying to dictate which conservative voices get heard? Of course they don't like Coulter - she's a conservative.

I'll tell you what, Philip, Jack, why don't you two head over to Town Hall and let us know what syndicated conservative columnist you would like to see in The Caledonian-Record. Then we'll talk.

But, I'm not the knee-jerk type, so I thought about it a little bit more.

Personally, I don't even like Ann Coulter. I don't think she's funny and I think at this point her career is more about her own shock-value and less about making a coherent point. She's done for conservative political hacks what Howard Stern did for horny, teenage boys. If you are into what they are talking about, you get it and maybe even think it's funny, but if you aren't a member of their respective core demographics, you are just disgusted.

I have not read an Ann Coulter column in at least a year or longer. My husband had to tell me the real point of her Edward's comment. (You can read a decent, short summary of that here.)

Even though the real target of Coulter's grade-school level joke was the PC police that will cart you off to "rehab" if you utter a homophobic slur, her tactics are petty and, frankly, really don't do anything for me. I'm so over my emasculating bitch phase. It's called growing up.

I'm sure The Caledonian-Record could find a more thoughtful conservative columnist to run, but I don't even read the Caledonian-Record print edition, so I don't really think it matters what my opinion is.

I get really angry when I see liberals trying to silence opposing viewpoints in the media. Now, I'm not saying that that is what Philip is trying to do. He has been one of the biggest supporters of my blog and I am every bit as conservative as Ann Coulter. I just have a sore spot left from my days in the Free Press Writers Group, when there was an active campaign by a few loudmouth, local liberals to get my column dropped. (It didn't work.)

On the one hand, everyone has the right, even the responsibility, to hold the media accountable for staying within the realm of decent, respectful political debate. It is arguable that Ann Coulter has crossed that line. (And by arguable, I mean a third-grader could easily make the case.) Though, it is worth noting that she did not commit this latest impropriety in a column.

On the other hand, I don't think the the left-wing of the blogosphere is the proper agent for determining what the realm of acceptable speech is for the right. There are plenty of personalities on the left that are just as petulant as Coulter, possibly even more so. Perhaps they should concern themselves with policing their own.

Perhaps American Culture is not so Debased After All

Just when I start to wonder if there is any redemption for our popular culture, I see a glimmer of hope on the horizon.

The turning point is hard to pinpoint. But after 30 years of growing popularity, rap music is now struggling with an alarming sales decline and growing criticism from within about the culture's negative effect on society.

Could it be that we are finally coming to our collective senses and beginning to realize that songs that glorify drug dealing and street violence, and demean and over-sexualize women, are actually not so great for our psyche?

Rap insider Chuck Creekmur, who runs the leading Web site Allhiphop.com, says he got a message from a friend recently "asking me to hook her up with some Red Hot Chili Peppers because she said she's through with rap. A lot of people are sick of rap ... the negativity is just over the top now."

Now? Well, better late than never with that realization, I suppose.

Though music sales are down overall, rap sales slid a whopping 21 percent from 2005 to 2006, and for the first time in 12 years no rap album was among the top 10 sellers of the year. A recent study by the Black Youth Project showed a majority of youth think rap has too many violent images. In a poll of black Americans by The Associated Press and AOL-Black Voices last year, 50 percent of respondents said hip-hop was a negative force in American society.

You can read the whole article here.

Speaking of hip-hop, I had a bizarre experience this afternoon. I was downloading a new ringtone for my cell phone and I clicked over to the Christian/Gospel category and saw a song by R. Kelly. It turns out he had a gospel album in 2004. Who'd've thunk it?

(Yes, I know that R. Kelly is technically R&B, not hip-hop.)

Since you're no doubt dying to know, I ended up downloading the song "Run," by Kutless. (You can see the video on You Tube or read the lyrics, if you're interested.)

Another Storm Forecast for VT

If you are like me, you don't usually look at the weather forecast. Maybe I am an oddball, but in the event that I have other Vermont readers that are equally odd, I wanted to let you know this:

The National Weather Service issued a winter storm warning early Thursday morning. It's in effect from tonight until Friday evening. Forecasters think 8 to 14 inches of snow will fall before the worst of the storm blows out of New England Friday night. Some sleet could mix in. Sleet and even some freezing rain is more likely farther south in Vermont.

The Friday morning commute is expected to be slow at best, with heavy snow, maybe mixed with sleet. Roads will almost certainly be snow covered and slippery, and visibility will be low. People should budget lots of extra time to get to work, or even better, stay home.

They are also recommending that people shovel off any remaining snow from their roofs, etc., before the additional snow hits. (That means I will have to shovel off the snow on my back porch that I left there for my 3-year-old to play in. I doubt it will be able to hold the weight of additional snow.)

In other news, with Town Meeting Day only 5 days away, I am setting a deadline for myself to have some local posts up by the end of today.

Have a great day!

Where Did He Learn That?

Here's some news that supports letting your kids watch TV and movies. At least the kind that depict escaping from captivity.

Clay Moore's mother and stepfather don't want to think about what might have happened if they hadn't made him repair his ripped school uniform jacket instead of buying him a new one.

A safety pin from the torn jacket's sleeve _ and the 13-year-old's composure in frightening conditions _ freed him after a gunman kidnapped him, duct-taped his wrists and left him deep in thick woods 20 miles from home, the boy's stepfather said Tuesday.

Clay put the pin in his mouth, picked away at the tape and walked away hours after he was taken. He found a farmworker in a field and called his stepfather, Steve Kelle, from the man's phone, "as calm as if he was calling from a friend's house," Kelle said.

This story is amazing. What an amazing kid.

The Inconvenient Truth about Gore

Let's dispense with the discussion about whether or not global warming is indeed caused by man and warranting of a political solution.

Let's, for the purpose of this post, assume that (1) the earth is indeed warming to the point that it will be disastrous to life as we know it, if it isn't stopped, and (2) said warming is being caused by man's mass-consumption of fossil fuels and the resulting carbon emissions.

If these two things are true, it follows that we must do something drastic to cut back on our carbon emissions, like, yesterday. Tomorrow is too late. Heck, even today might be too late, right?

That type of drastic measure will undoubtedly require some sacrifice. It will require us to do without things that we would rather have. Although we will feel some minor discomfort, maybe even some moderate discomfort, it will surely be better than the cataclysmic climate catastrophe that awaits us if we do nothing.

Surely, the leader of the global warming movement is setting the example of this sacrifice, right? Surely, he is going without such frivolities as a heated pool, right?

Well, one would think. Unfortunately, here in America, we have come to expect little of substance from our leaders.

The news was out today, just after Al Gore's global warming documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth," won an Oscar, that Gore is consuming energy in mass quantities, according to charges by a watchdog group in Tennessee.

Now, we conservatives already knew this, but today we were given the gift of Gore's response.

Spokeswoman for Gore, Kalee Kreider, did not deny the allegations, but assured us that Gore purchases "green power" to neutralize his carbon emissions.

Let me paint a picture of the rationale used by such hypocrites carbon neutral folks as Gore and Rep. Peter Welch.

See, according to this model, energy use is a fixed amount. What I mean is, we use roughly the same amount of energy every year. An example of this is, when I look at my electricity bill, the comparison between the kilowatt-hours used this month is usually the same as those used the same month last year.

So, imagine the energy is a pool. Perhaps it is a heated pool in back of Gore's mansion. Who knows? Just picture a pool.

This pool represents the amount of energy we will all use.

The logic behind carbon offsets is that it does not matter how much energy I draw out of this pool - even energy that is created by burning carbon-emitting fossil fuels - as long as I put back energy created by green sources via investing money in green energy development. Eventually, the theory goes, the pool will be completely filled with green energy.

It really makes sense, if you want it to.

But, see, I would rather take off my Gore-love blinders and think about this another way.

The energy I take out of the pool was generated by non-green sources. Let's call them "dirty sources." If I really want to stop global warming, my offsets will not do enough. I also need to stop drawing from the pool of dirty energy. At least until those green sources are up and running.

In this case, the case where I really care about stopping this global warming, I must make sacrifices - real sacrifices - to reduce my energy consumption, while continuing to give just as much of my money to the development of green sources. I need to take less out of the pool, while continuing to fill it with green energy.

What does the Gore spokeswoman have to say about all this?

Focusing on Gore's personal electricity consumption misses the point of "An Inconvenient Truth," Kreider said, which is that governments and the public can work together to reduce emissions.

It misses the point? Really!?! No. It hits the point just fine.

See, if Gore really believes his own documentary, if Gore really thinks that the end of the world is upon us if we do not make these changes now, he would cut his emissions, not just invest in green energy so he can pretend that those emissions that he caused don't exist.

And if all of his power came from green sources, even solar panels to be installed on his estate, he would still cut his consumption, so that his extra energy could be sold back to the power company for use by someone else who is currently relying on dirty sources.

But, he doesn't. He doesn't. So, what does that mean?

You figure it out.

Welch goes carbon neutral

Okay, this is my last post on Global Warming, or else I am going to have to make a category for it.

So, today, everyone was gushing over the announcement that Rep. Peter Welch is off-setting the carbon output of his DC office.

How?

A Vermont company allows you to compute the carbon footprint of your household based on energy use and travel. Then, you can pay a yearly or monthly fee based on the amount of carbon dioxide that you are responsible for. That money is used to create wind and/or methane power - you get to choose.

Here is my proposal. Every single American that is concerned about global warming needs to sign up for this. That way, not only can liberals be free from blame when they engage in their rants against Big Oil, but also, conservatives can claim another victory in the free-market versus government-regulation debate.

That's what I call win-win.

I might sign up for it myself. After all, $37/month is a small price to pay to be able to tell JD Ryan to kiss my carbon neutral behind!

More on Global Warming

Update (3:45 pm)

I came across this interesting piece on global warming today. I thought I would post it in honor of the anonymous commenter on this post yesterday.

Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was the first Canadian Ph.D. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.

You can read the column here.

Remember, don't shoot the messenger. I didn't write it, nor am I a climatologist.

Update: JD Ryan submits his refutation of this column (and its author) in the first comment on this post.

This Just In - I am Not Living

Not that I needed another reason to think that the Livable Wage Campaign is a complete joke, but I have one anyway.

According to the fancy graphic in today's Free Press, the livable wage for a family with two parents, two kids (we actually have three), with only one wage earner is $50,319!

I am officially not living.

On the bright side, next time that I have to listen to some liberal tell me how they are going to help the poor, I can say, "Hey buddy! I know all about the poor. We don't even make a livable wage!"

Livable wage includes costs for food, rent, utilities, transportation, child care, clothing, landline telephone charges, life insurance, renter's insurance, health care, dental care, child care and tax obligations. The study also assumes 5 percent of income will be saved. It includes $2.30 per person per day for personal expenses such as books, magazines, newspapers, gifts and movies.

WTF?

The criminal justice system in this state is really messed up. I just want to know if there is any rhyme or reason to what our justice system does - and I use the word justice loosely.

Here is the charming story of Kyle Berthiaume, a 17-year old young man, who repeatedly raped a 7-year old girl in the care of his mother's home daycare, at least 15 times over the period of two years. He will serve not a day behind bars because the victim forgives him.

The mother of the victim says, "The more that we hold onto the anger in us, then the more it's going to hurt us and keep us in bondage. So we needed to just let go and forgive and keep our focus on getting Kyle the help that he needs."

Umm, yeah. That's a great attitude for you and your daughter's healing. Good for you. Now the state needs to step up and do its job. (That would be punishing people who commit horrendous crimes against innocent little girls.)

If this guy had raped 15 different girls, instead of the same girl 15+ times, he would be considered a serial rapist. Yet, since his single victim forgives him, there is no punitive component to his sentence.

I was almost forgot to blog about this until I read this story. Here you have the story of Melanie Hackett, a 24-year old teacher's aid, who had sex with a 13-year old student. Setting aside the question of why on earth a grown woman would want to have sex with a 13-year old, I have to ask, what gives? The judge wouldn't give her a 6-month sentence, even though the victim and his family wanted it.

Is it wrong to want some consistency in our justice system?

I guess my real outrage is at the sentence that 17-year old received. The teacher's aid probably should serve more than 6 months. While they are at it, get her some therapy, too. I just can't understand how 6 months can be viewed as too little by the same system that decided this guy should serve no time at all.

Oddly enough, Berthiaume was a student and Hackett an aid at Missisquoi Valley Union High School. There must be something in the water up there.

In Local News...

This is getting to be a little freaky, but this is the second accident that happened right in front of me. Luckily, this happened just before I got there, otherwise, I would have seen an SUV fall right in front of me from the interstate overpass.

That would have been a bummer.

Man injured when SUV rolls off Interstate 89 in Colchester

Published: Tuesday, January 2, 2007
COLCHESTER - One man has been injured in a dramatic one-car accident at the intersection of Interstate 89 and U.S. 7 at exit 16 in Colchester, according to Free Press staff writer John Briggs, who was at the scene, and Vermont State Police.

David A. Pelkey, 30, had been driving a green SUV southbound on I-89 at about 1 p.m., when his vehicle veered off into the center median, struck a concrete drainage abutment and catapulted over the overpass, on to U.S. 7, said Briggs, who spoke to Williston State Police.

Williston State Trooper Greg Campbell said Pelkey was conscious and alert when he was removed from his vehicle and transported to Fletcher Allen Health Care.

Briggs said Pelkey's SUV, which had been traveling at about 70 mph at the time of the accident, came to a rest on its side near a curb on U.S. 7. Its roof was ripped off. A shoe and a case of unopened grape juice were lying in the vehicle.

Northbound and southbound traffic on U.S. 7 was tied up for more than an hour because of the accident.

Police and fire crews, including rescue vehicles from Winooski, Colchester and Mallets Bay responded to the scene. Northbound traffic was backed up about a mile, to downtown Winooski.

Trooper Campbell said the cause of the accident is still unclear. Police said there were no skid marks on the Interstate and no sign that there was another vehicle involved in the crash.

A Promising Abraham Cherrix Update

Last summer, I blogged about Abraham Cherrix. A 16-year-old Virginian boy with Hodgkin's disease, who was being forced by a court at the request of a social services agency to undergo chemotherapy against the will of him and his parents. You can find those posts here.

Another judge overruled the decision and Cherrix was allowed to seek an alternative therapy, although the family is now required to report to authorities on his condition every three months until he turns 18.

I found an article this morning with an update on his condition.

After six weeks of treatment in September and early October, the tumors in his neck and near his windpipe had shrunk, and he showed no active cancer, according to Dr. Arnold Smith, the physician in charge of the treatment.

The article also mentions "Abraham's Law."

Del. John Welch III, a Virginia Beach Republican, has said he will sponsor "Abraham's law" for the General Assembly session that begins in January.

The bill would change the child abuse and neglect statute to state that parents of mature children with a life-threatening condition who have made a well-informed decision not to seek a particular treatment would not be considered abusive or neglectful.

I thought this might be of interest to longtime readers of She's Right and a certain self-proclaimed "civil libertarian" that agreed with the state's forced chemotherapy.

That reminds me, I am planning a post soon about the civil libertarians on the left.