Both are interesting pieces. But the fact that the conservatives have funded a bevy of foundations is hardly news. Nor is the fact that they are helping with court costs exactly shocking. This *is* a right to life case, at least from the parents' point of view. You can find out more about the foundations, if you are interested, in a book I just finished called Banana Republicans and another that was recommended to me that I haven't read yet called Don't Think of an Elephant. If y'ou need me to I'll get you the authors/publishers.
I found one comment in the former especially interesting -- apparently the idea is to campaign 'as though America is watching with the sound turned down'. I think but am not totally sure that it was Karl Rove that said that -- I can check if it matters. But just this week I was eating my huevos rancheros at the local diner and sure enough, they had the local news on with the sound turned down. Bush was in town and there was a large sign as backdrop that said "Keeping our Promise to America's Seniors." Now, since I did not want to sign a loyalty oath to the Republicans, I did not even bother trying to get tickets to this event, and I also gave the coverage a miss as I am tired of the Social Security issue and the newspaper here always supports Bush regardless, so I didn.t have a lot of faith in their analysis. But I'm pretty sure that this was not the content we would have gotten with the sound turned up. The Banana Republicans book cites a "cognitive linguist" -- interesting term, that -- about the Republican's genius at getting their message out without ever quite saying anything provably false. There is another story about a reporter who ran a story very critical of the Bush administration, who was surprised when its officials thanked her for the coverage. See, when she ran footage of some of their planned photo ops while a voiceover explained how full of it they were, what registered were the pictures of happy seniors and black children, or whatever the specifics were, I forget. And in effect when she played the footage and asked people what they remembered that was what registered, the visuals. Now in the media coverage on Terri Schiavo I notice a couple of themes keep being repeated over and over, and I wonder if the Democrats have been taking notes. 1) Let her die - assumes she wants to die 2) 19 judges have ruled - no, one has ruled, 18 others have said the law was complied with. 3) If you were in a coma would you want Congress to decide - she is not in a coma, Congress is not deciding. 4) the eating disorder (gee it's all her own neurotic fault) has gone from "perhaps" in the GAL's report to being repeatedly reported as fact. 5) She had three guardians ad litem. Why? Why not one? 6) She has no cortex. Maybe. Looks like we will never know for sure. Dana PS -- I will look at the links over the weekend. On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 22:39:55 -0500, Larry C. Lyons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Another excellent resource on this case is at the NeuroEthics website > supported by the University of Pennsylvania: > http://neuroethics.upenn.edu/terri.html > > It has a very good discussion of all sides of the issue. But this > piece was very telling: > > -- > Watching Terri Schiavo in the videos available online, it is difficult > not feel you are seeing a person interacting with others and aware of > her surroundings. However, clinical and experimental neuroscience have > taught us some surprising things about the range of behaviors that can > emerge from a decorticate brain. Such behaviors include orienting with > eye and head movements toward sights and sounds, generating facial > expressions, and producing nonverbal vocalizations that have meaning > for us, if not the person producing them, such as cries and laughter. > In light of this, we must interpret the behavior seen in the videos > cautiously and with a measure of skepticism. The most natural > interpretation for the behaviors we see on the video is not the only > interpretation. For example, when a dozing Terri is loudly ordered to > "open your eyes!" and does so, does that mean she understood what was > said? Or would she have done the same thing if roused with an equally > loud order to "open your mouth!" or "stand on your head!" > > Humans are hardwired to interpret the behavior of others in terms of > mental states. In the psychology literature this tendency is part of a > suite of abilities termed "Theory of Mind" (ToM) and in most > situations we apply our ToM automatically, without weighing > alternative reasons for the behavior. For a particularly striking > demonstration of this fact about ourselves, consider the typical > response to the robot Kismet. Kismet is part of a research effort at > the MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab to design machines that interact > socially with humans. Kismet has been programmed to gaze at humans who > approach it, orient to salient objects moving within its field of > view, pull back avoidantly if an object is thrust forward at it, and > so on. People attribute cognitive and emotional states to this robot > on the basis of a fairly small set of simple behaviors, and have been > known to become quite attached to it. And this is a contraption made > of metal and plastic, not a human being! My point is emphatically not > to liken Terri Schiavo to Kismet, but rather to suggest a similarity > in our reactions to the woman and the robot. > -- > http://neuroethics.upenn.edu/terri2.html > > larry > > On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 22:31:52 -0500, Larry C. Lyons > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I found an interesting blog at the Journal of Bioethics on the Shiavo case: > > http://blog.bioethics.net/2005/03/have-conservatives-bought-bioethics.html > > -- > > March 5, 2005 > > Have Conservatives Bought Bioethics? > > My friend Jon Eisenberg who is a lawyer working on the Schiavo case > > just published this article. It makes very clear why I flagged the > > growing influence of right wing conservative foundation influence on > > bioethics in a previous blog. While some suggest that it is the 'left' > > which is politicizing our field this article makes it crystal clear > > where the political push is coming from. It also makes it clear what > > the nature is of the greatest threat to the integrity and credibility > > of bioethics--secret non-disclosed funding of journals, > > professorships, conferences, and legal cases by arch-conservative > > foundations. Where are the laments about this source of blatant > > conflict of interest???? > > > > The Terri Schiavo Case: Following the Money > > > > The Recorder > > By Jon B. Eisenberg > > March 4, 2005 > > > > Have you ever wondered who is bankrolling the seemingly endless > > courtroom effort to keep Terri Schiavo's feeding tube attached? > > > > During the Watergate scandal, investigative reporters Bob Woodward > > and Carl Bernstein were famously advised to "follow the money." In the > > Schiavo case, the money leads to a consortium of conservative > > foundations, with $2 billion in total assets, that are funding a legal > > and public relations war of attrition intended to prolong Terri's life > > indefinitely in order to further their own faith-based cultural > > agendas. > > > > For the past 12 years, Terri's husband, Michael Schiavo, and her > > parents, Robert and Mary Schindler, have been locked in a bitter > > dispute over whether to withdraw artificial nutrition and hydration > > from Terri, whom the courts have determined is in a persistent > > vegetative state with no hope of recovery. The Schindlers want the > > doctors to keep Terri alive; Michael does not. Late last year, in Bush > > v. Schiavo, the Florida Supreme Court ruled that Florida Gov. Jeb Bush > > violated the constitutional separation of powers when he attempted to > > overturn a court order to remove Terri's feeding tube. A few weeks > > ago, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the case. > > > > I filed an amicus curiae brief in the Florida Supreme Court on > > behalf of 55 bioethicists and a disability rights organization > > opposing the governor's action. Two months later I participated in a > > public debate on the case at Florida State University. Among the > > participants supporting Gov. Bush's position were Pat Anderson, one of > > multiple attorneys who have represented the Schindlers, and Wesley > > Smith and Rita Marker, two activists whose specialty is opposing > > surrogate removal of life-support from comatose and persistent > > vegetative state patients. I found myself wondering: "I'm doing this > > pro bono; are they?" > > > > I did some Internet research and learned that many of the > > attorneys, activists and organizations working to keep Schiavo on life > > support all these years have been funded by members of the > > Philanthropy Roundtable. > > > > The Philanthropy Roundtable is a collection of foundations that > > have funded conservative causes ranging from abolition of Social > > Security to anti-tax crusades and United Nations conspiracy theories. > > The Roundtable members' founders include scions of America's > > wealthiest families, including Richard Mellon Scaife (heir to the > > Mellon industrial, oil and banking fortune), Harry Bradley > > (electronics), Joseph Coors (beer), and the Smith Richardson family > > (pharmaceutical products). > > > > I found a Web site called mediatransparency.com which tracks > > funding for these foundations. Using just that Web site and the > > Schindlers' own site, terrisfight.org, I learned of a network of > > funding connections between some of the Philanthropy Roundtable's > > members and various organizations behind the Schindlers, their lawyers > > and supporters, and the lawyers who represented Gov. Bush in Bush v. > > Schiavo. > > > > Here are a few examples: > > > > Schindler lawyer Pat Anderson "was paid directly" by the > > anti-abortion Life Legal Defense Foundation, which "has already spent > > over $300,000 on this case," according to the foundation's Web site. > > Much of the support for Life Legal Defense Foundation, in turn, comes > > from the Alliance Defense Fund, an anti-gay rights group which > > collected more than $15 million in private donations in 2002 and > > admits to having spent money on the Schiavo case "in the six figures," > > according to a recent article in the Palm Beach Post. > > Mediatransparency.org states that between 1994 and 2002, the Alliance > > Defense Fund received $142,000 from Philanthropy Roundtable members > > that include the Lynde & Harry Bradley Foundation and the Richard and > > Helen DeVos Foundation. > > > > Wesley Smith and Rita Marker also work for organizations that get > > funding from Roundtable members. Smith is a paid senior fellow with > > the Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based think tank that advocates the > > teaching of creationist "intelligent design" theory in public schools. > > Between 1993 and 1997, the Discovery Institute received $175,000 from > > the Bradley Foundation. Marker is executive director of the > > International Task Force on Euthanasia, which lobbies against > > physician-assisted suicide. In 2001, Marker's organization received > > $110,390 from the Randolph Foundation, an affiliate of the Smith > > Richardson family. > > > > Roundtable members also played a role in financing the Bush v. > > Schiavo litigation. > > > > The Family Research Council, which uses its annual $10 million > > budget to lobby for prayer in public schools and against gay marriage, > > filed an amicus curiae brief in Bush v. Schiavo supporting Gov. Bush, > > at the same time its former president, attorney Kenneth Connor, was > > representing the governor in that litigation. Between 1992 and 2000, > > the council received $215,000 from the Bradley Foundation. > > > > Another amicus brief backing Bush was filed by a coalition of > > disability rights organizations that included the National > > Organization on Disability and the World Institute on Disability. The > > former received $810,000 between 1991 and 2002 from the Scaife Family > > Foundations, the Richard and Helen DeVos Foundation, and the JM > > Foundation; the latter received $20,000 in 1997 from the JM > > Foundation. > > > > These connections may be just the tip of the iceberg. I'm no > > Woodward or Bernstein. I got this information using only the most > > rudimentary Google skills. I imagine that a thorough search by a > > seasoned investigator would yield quite a bit more. > > > > With this kind of big bucks behind them, it's no wonder the > > Schindlers and their allies have been able to keep the legal fight > > over their daughter going for so long. And it's still not over. > > Although the U.S. Supreme Court has refused to intervene, the > > Schindlers' lawyers are now trying to prolong the litigation yet again > > through a series of post-judgment motions which, regardless of their > > merit, could yield stays that would continue to forestall the removal > > of Terri's feeding tube. > > > > Maneuvers within the past few months have included requests for a > > new trial based on something the Pope said in a speech criticizing the > > removal of feeding tubes from persistent vegetative state patients, > > and on a newly minted claim that Terri was deprived of the right to > > independent court-appointed counsel. Those maneuvers achieved the > > desired delay but were ultimately unsuccessful. On Feb. 25, the trial > > judge, George Greer, ordered Terri's feeding tube to be removed March > > 18. > > > > On Feb. 28, however, the Schindlers struck back by filing 15 > > written motions and requesting 48 hours of court hearing time. These > > motions run an extraordinary gamut, from a suggestion that Judge Greer > > should order Terri and Michael Schiavo be immediately divorced, to a > > request for "limited media access" to Terri, to a proposal for a > > 20-hour evidentiary hearing on Terri's > > "medical/psychiatric/rehabilitative status." The ploy is obvious: > > still more delay. > > > > There is something wrong here. The Florida courts have ruled > > repeatedly -- based on her doctors' testimony and evidence of > > statements she previously made about her end-of-life wishes -- that > > Terri is in a persistent vegetative state, would not want her life to > > be prolonged under such circumstances, and should be allowed to die as > > the courts have determined she would wish. But the conservative > > foundations, with their massive funding, have turned the Schiavo case > > into a war of attrition, where delay is victory. > > > > They have met defeat in the U.S. Supreme Court. But they won't > > give up, and they have the cash it takes to out-gun Michael Schiavo on > > every front. It is going to take yet more judicial courage to ensure > > that the rule of law prevails over big money. That will require Judge > > Greer to reject the latest round of delaying motions, and the Florida > > Court of Appeal and Supreme Court to back him up. > > > > Jon B. Eisenberg is an appellate practitioner based in Oakland. > > > > -Art Caplan > > -- > > > > On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 16:14:57 -0600, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Sam wrote: > > > > > > > > You're tiring arguments are: > > > > > > Immature insults aside, I was just showing how ridiculous the "cover > > > up" theory is as it doesn't fit the facts. To me, anything's > > > possible, but the last thing Mr. Schiavo's behavior has done is limit > > > scrutiny. > > > > > > I don't know what street you're getting your word from, but it sounds > > > like it's full of morons. > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Find out how CFTicket can increase your company's customer support efficiency by 100% http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=49 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:151863 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
