The inevitable time has come. May she finally rest in peace.

An old shipmate ran across one of my blogs (a small one I run for a Navy station we have in common), and although we haven't communicated directly (who does that anymore?), but with a little back and forth, we've found we both have blogs which are a tad right of center.

At any rate, check out my friend Timmer's blog, Righting America.

My crazy friend David just changed hosts after getting raked over the coals by his previous service. I never thought much of TuCows to begin with.

Oh, wait, it was Fat Cow. Nevermind.

Why is Ralph Nader getting involved in the Terri Schiavo case? He's on Fox News as I type, basically taking the Schindler's position in every area under dispute.

Why, you ask? So he can take a shot at the health care industry, who is "more interested in increasing profits than in sustaining life."

Thanks, Ralph. We knew we could count on you to bring your tinfoil hat to the party.

Let me state right off the bat that I tend to think the best of people. I believe that people in general support what they believe to be "right," without a cynical veil or filter to support a particular end, and disregarding the means to achieve the desired result. My attitude applies generally to politicians, judges and the population at large.

On the other hand, I also believe that people tend to be lazy (and I'm one of the best examples of this). Most folks tend to take whatever they hear at face value after passing it through the filter of their own beliefs and biases. In contrast to the above paragraph, I believe this tends to be applicable to the public at large as well as politicians, but less so to judges.

The common theme between these two positions is a lack of maliciousness. Relatively few people base their beliefs and actions maliciously. If there's blame to be assigned for taking the "wrong" position on a topic, it's much more likely that they're too lazy to look into the matter than because they want to cause someone harm. Selfishness often comes into play as well, but I still put it into the "non-malicious" category.

The catalyst for these thoughts is the current controversy over the fate of Terri Schiavo, as well as an article in today's Washington Post. Many, many people, including some of my friends (and "friendly acquaintances") have taken to accusing those who support the decisions of the various courts in this matter of participating in a "culture of death" and other accusations of malicious behavior. The courts, in particular, are vilified by their consistent decisions that 1) Terri Schiavo is in a "persistent vegetative state," and 2) she wouldn't want to continue to exist in that state.

I certainly don't believe that judges are perfect. While I think that they generally do the best they can in their decision-making, they still make mistakes. There are a host of reasons why those mistakes are made, but I believe they seldom stem from malice. And I also disagree with Mark Levin's premise in his latest best-seller, Men in Black: How the Supreme Court Is Destroying America. Disclosure: I'm basing these statements on reviews I've read and heard of Levin's book, but also on statements I've heard directly from his mouth. I am ready to be corrected on any point I may attribute to Levin which is inaccurate.

At any rate, while Levin focuses his ire toward the Supreme Court, I've heard him apply his accusations more broadly at the judiciary at large in the United States. While there are rulings where I agree with his point, I think there are many others where he misses the mark, and I don't believe the Schiavo case is the result of judicial activism at all.

But more importantly, these judges don't deserve the vitriol that has been directed their way by the Schindlers (Terri's family) and their supporters. By and large, I believe they are conscientious men and women trying to do what's right under the law. Trying to characterize their rulings as a part of the so-called "culture of death" does nothing to persuade others or resolve the controversy. It merely fans the flames.

Terri's case saddens me as deeply as it can, considering it involves a person I've never met and have no connection to whatsoever. But just because I believe Judge Greer was most likely correct in determining that Terri is in PVS and that she wouldn't want to exist like that doesn't make me evil, or even particularly stupid (you can find much better examples of my stupidity). I'm not unfeeling; in fact, quite the opposite.

I suppose I'm asking my friends and "friendly acquaintances" who disagree with me to stop fanning the flames of controversy, and even hatred. Those of us who support the various courts' decisions have good hearts, in the main. We're not malicious, and we don't want to "kill" Terri. We may be misguided in your estimation, but we're not worthy of your contempt.

The Washington Post had an excellent article in last Sunday's Outlook section on problems with discussions of the Theory of Evolution.

The | o ry, n:
1 An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.
2 A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

Unfortunately, the above definitions aren't the exact ones used in the subhead to the Post's article, but their web page cuts off the text, and I no longer have Sunday's paper (good little recycler that I am), so I grabbed definitions from Dictionary.com which closely matched what the Post had used originally.

Regardless, this points out a fundamental problem in many discussions about Evolution vs Creationism. While both sides use what appears to be the same term ("theory"), they're not really using the same word. Scientists call it the "Theory of Evolution" because it explains the facts we've discovered in nature, while Creationists take "theory" to mean a hypothesis, a supposition, an assumption, a conjecture. Scientific theory is none of these things.

Personally, I believe that God created the universe, and He put the laws of physics and so forth in place as His mechanism of creation. For me, Science and Religion don't compete. And truthfully, I don't see how they can dispute each other. Science is based on observable fact. Religion is based on faith. We get into trouble when we try to mix the two together.

I have a personal insight into the Terri Schiavo controversy that I wanted to share with you, my friends and readers. Both of you.

If you were reading my blog last August, you'll recall that my father passed away three days before his 79th birthday. In 2003, he had been diagnosed with prostate cancer which had metastasized into bone cancer. He was given a brief series of chemotherapy treatments, but the diagnosis was that the bone cancer was ultimately untreatable and would end up being fatal.

Dad didn't spend much of his life being sad. I'm happy to say that's one of his admirable traits that I appear to have inherited. He wasn't a worrier. If something is out of your control, you're just wasting time worrying about it. Better to enjoy what you have. You know, the whole "when life gives you lemons, make lemonade" thing. Also, his strong faith in God and submission to His will made him unafraid of death. It wasn't something he sought, but he didn't try to hide from it, either.

Dad executed an Advance Directive, often called a Living Will, stating that he didn't want extraordinary medical intervention to keep him alive. He knew his time was approaching, and it wouldn't do him or, more importantly in his mind, his family any good to futilely and unnecessarily extend it.

While I had a passing familiarity about how these things work, I had no understanding of the nuts and bolts of how we deal with folks suffering from a fatal, painful ailment and who have stated that they don't want medical intervention to keep them alive. I don't know if Dad's case is typical, but I suspect it is.

About three weeks before he ultimately died, Dad started experiencing weakness and pain. His doctors examined him and told him that this was the start of Dad's final chapter, and gave him two to four weeks to live. With that in mind, they gave him medicine to alleviate his pain, and blood transfusions to strengthen him so he could make the trip home, where he would receive hospice care.

This was the plan: the blood transfusion would help Dad get around and feel better for a few days, but as time passed, its benefits would also pass, and Dad would first get weaker, and ultimately the pain would return. When that happened, Dad would be given sufficient painkillers (I think it was morphine, but the details escape me) to obliterate the pain. Unfortunately, that medication would also would render Dad immobile and unconscious, and keep him so until he ultimately died.

And that's how it panned out. Once Dad started feeling the pain again, he was given medication which relieved the pain and left him essentially unconscious. From that point, he received no food or water until he died. What was the proximate cause of Dad's death? Did the bone cancer kill him directly? I don't think so. I believe that Dad most likely dehydrated to the point that his heart was unable to keep working, and eventually gave out.

There are many, many differences between Ed Garrett and Terri Schiavo, but as Terri slowly progresses toward her death, I think there are significant parallels. As I understand it (and this is certainly in great dispute, I'll admit), in Terri's persistent vegetative state, she feels no pain. She feels no hunger. She feels no thirst. I suspect that the dehydration that I believe killed Dad will ultimately kill Terri Schiavo. I'm saddened by her passing, but I don't believe she's suffering, just as Dad didn't suffer.

I've commented in the past, both here and in the comments on other blogs, on the current controversy in Florida over whether Terri Schiavo should be kept alive through feeding tubes. My initial, visceral reaction to the situation was that it's wrong, and probably illegal, to starve/dehydrate Terri to death. But I remained uncertain, because there were many claims, counter-claims and accusations swirling around. My bias toward life, though, made me feel that it would be wrong to remove the tubes from Terri's body.

But one thing kept niggling at the back of my mind, and I eventually realized that my opinions were based entirely on the commentary by others on the situation. I hadn't researched the underlying basis for what has transpired. This realization was clarified when I read this post by James Joyner at OTB, which linked to this timeline of events in the Schiavo case, with further links to the base documentation as the case transpired.

After reading the court's decision on the original petition to remove Terri Schiavo's life support, as well as other legal documentation in this case, I have sadly come to the opinion that removing Terri's feeding tubes is the appropriate action. Everyone is free to disagree with me, of course. In the end, though, our various opinions don't matter, but it's still worth discussing.

Any facts that should be brought to bear in this case should have been brought up in that trial, which lasted from 1998 to 2000. It's important to note that many of the accusations that are swirling around concern events that happened well before that trial. So why weren't they brought forward during the trial? Some of them, in fact, were presented to the judge at that time, and they were rejected as either not credible or not germane to the case. And for the "newer" accusations, why haven't these people spoken up before now?

I'll agree that new accusations of actions taken since that original trial have surfaced recently, but all of them that were presented to the various courts have been rejected as either not credible or not germane. If there are others that are, in fact, both credible and germane, why have they not been presented in any of the hearings before the courts?

Much has been said that, upon reflection, is meant to sway opinion through emotion, without factual basis, and sometimes borders on slander. For example, a persistent theme is that it's illegal to starve a dog to death, but we can starve Terri to death. This is a false analogy. If a dog is sufficiently healthy to eat and drink on its own, it would certainly be illegal to deprive it of food and water. But if the dog could only be kept alive by feeding it intravenously, it would be acceptable, in many cases expected, to euthanize it. This is just one example of the extent that supporters of the Schindler family have tried to tilt the debate without regard to facts or reality.

I have a personal experience which touches on this case, and which helps inform my opinion, but I'll save that for another posting. For now, I'll conclude by saying that, while it's sad that Terri Schiavo is in her current condition, I reluctantly believe that letting her die is the appropriate course of action.

May God bless her, and all her family, in this terrible time.

Last week one of my sons came to visit me during his Spring Break from college, and folks, my kids are more important to me than you are. And I don't think any of you (either of you) would take offense at that sentiment.

Since he returned to school, I've been a) busy at work, b) busy catching up on blogs and email, and c) lazy, so I haven't blogged anything. So sue me.

But I have several posts bouncing around inside my head (easy to do, since it's empty) which could erupt at any minute. Don't let it get any on you.

Rhianna's recent post reminded me of one of my own experiences with incompetent support people in the military.

The setup of the situation is that I went for about a month and a half collecting an allowance (simply, money for a specific reason) from the Navy that I wasn't eligible for. I was eligible before the month and a half, I was eligible after the month and a half, but not during that period. It was a tad more complicated than that, but not by much.

Just so I could know how much I would end up having to pay back once all the paperwork got caught up, I went into Disbursing to ask one of the Disbursing Clerks (a pay clerk, in non-Naval parlance) for a rough estimate of how much I was overpaid.

Rather than just using authoritative pay tables which indicate how much the allowance was per day, the clerk went into a full-scale audit of my pay record. Part of the reason he got sidetracked was the fact that I was promoted four days after the end of this month and a half period in question. But I wasn't worried about that — I just wanted him to take the pay table that shows the daily allowance amount and multiply it by (roughly) 45. But no, rather than take five (or maybe fifteen) minutes to get out the charts and punch a few numbers into a calculator, he has to go into a big audit. Which, you can probably guess by now, he screwed up completely.

After an hour and a half, he comes back to me with the news that I had been, in fact, underpaid. I told him that was impossible, because I had been paid the correct amounts both before and after the period in question, and I was overpaid in that intervening month and a half. After a few minutes of futile argument, I left in disgust.

Six months later, I got my pay docked for the period I was overpaid. And all I wanted was an idea of how much that dockage was going to be.

Few people are more annoying than the willfully incompetent.

Back in September, I posted about the search for a missing woman in South Carolina in response to a friend's request. In that case, the last time anyone saw Tamika Huston was the end of May 2003. Her car was found a few miles from her home in Spartanburg, SC, on Father's Day in June, but that was pretty much the end of the road for any leads on Tamika's disappearance.

Her family has persevered in trying to keep Tamika's disappearance in front of the public. Without someone coming forward and providing additional information, there's not much hope of making any headway in finding out what happened.

I don't watch America's Most Wanted very often, but tonight I had it on in the background, and I noticed Tamika's picture, so I stopped and followed the segment. It seems that the AMW folks started investigating some keys which had been found in Tamika's car, and made some interesting discoveries. Rather than repeat all that they said, I'll just encourage you to go to the AMW web site and read their report, maybe view the video segment.

I'll just say that Tamika's case seems to be stymied right now, and the police need additional information before they can make any more headway in their investigation. I hope someone comes forward soon to help us find out what happened with Tamika. Her family deserves no less.

IANAL (I am not a lawyer), nor do I play one in my imagination, but I think a majority of the Justices on the US Supreme Court have forgotten (or possibly, in some cases, never knew) what their responsibilities and limitations are in that role.

Boy, doesn't that sound pretty egotistical? Me, a simple boy from Texas with no education in the Law whatsoever, thinks he knows better than five people who have law degrees, worked as attorneys, most likely served on the bench at various levels of courts, were selected by Presidents and confirmed by the Senate, and have years of experience on the Supreme Court itself.

Yeah, that sounds pretty conceited, even though I'm the one saying it. But that doesn't change what I believe, and I believe that in a case decided earlier this week by the Court in a 5-4 decision, that those five Justices are the ones who are conceited, and have seriously damaged the future value of the Court by their decision.

Okay, I'm arrogant. So sue me. In the meantime, while I'm waiting for those papers to be served, I'm going to tell you how and why they were wrong.

As you've undoubtedly read by now, on Tuesday the Supreme Court declared that executing murderers who committed their crimes prior to their 18th birthday is cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the US Constitution. While I don't necessarily find fault with the ruling, I believe that the rationales used to support it are dead wrong.

Now, before you start jumping to the wrong conclusion about me, as I discussed here and here, I'm against capital punishment. As I indicated in the linked posts, I think there are too many situations where innocent people have been murdered by the state, and as a firm believer in the principle that it's better that ten guilty people go free rather than one innocent man be punished wrongly. And my feelings about that principle multiply tenfold when it comes to putting someone to death.

It's a shame I haven't written the post that's been bouncing around in my head for a while about legislating morality, because it would be really helpful to refer to here. But in a nutshell, that's what lawmaking is: legislating morality. Morality is what tells us that stealing is wrong, lying (perjury) is wrong, murder is wrong. And that's what legislators do. It's not what judges do.

It seems to me that interpreting the Eighth Amendment, as it pertains to cruel and unusual punishment, is exclusively the purview of the legislature. Just as, on a broader scale, society through its elected representatives determines what's legal (moral), so must society decide whether a particular punishment is cruel or unusual. That's not a legal determination based on the interpretation of law. You know, what judges are supposed to do.

The majority on the Supreme Court overstepped their bounds on this one. It's not their job to interpret what's morally acceptable to society. And they need to stop using foreign law and rulings as a basis for interpreting US law.

Justice O'Connor got it right. "The court's analysis is premised on differences in the aggregate between juveniles and adults, which frequently do not hold true when comparing individuals," she said. "Chronological age is not an unfailing measure of psychological development, and common experience suggests that many 17-year-olds are more mature than the average young 'adult.'"

Individual states' laws recognize this point, which is why it should be up to the states to determine what punishment is cruel or unusual. Even though, in my opinion, they got the base result right, this decision is the responsibility of the legislature. This case will hurt us in the long run through its unintended effects, and for many years to come.

One hundred sixty-nine years ago today, the Republic of Texas declared its independence from Mexico. Things just haven't been the same ever since.

After 12 years, this is it — the final episode of NYPD Blue. It's been a good run that certainly ended up in a different place than anyone could have imagined back in October 1993.

The show started out with David Caruso as the star. His popularity rocketed (not least of which, in his own head), so he wanted to change the game, which the production company refused, so he left. This started the slow grind of Dennis Franz, in the role of Andy Sipowicz, to the top of the heap. NYPD Blue is Andy Sipowicz.

Or, it was.

As in real life, some people seemed to just be there, while others come and go. In the end, the only faces present at the end of the run that were there from the beginning were Sipowicz's and Greg Medavoy's, played by Gordon Clapp. Medavoy's bumbling, stammering, uncertain insecurity consigned him to a perpetual backup part, but Andy Sipowicz was the heart and soul of the 15th Precinct.

And in a fitting finale, so painful in its farewell, so comforting in its rightness, NYPD Blue fades into history, focused on Detective Sergeant Andy Sipowicz, Commander of Detectives, 15th Precinct. But he, too, fades.

And how fitting. Because, as you know, Andy was the 15th Precinct. Andy was NYPD Blue. And now they're both history.

It was nice knowing you. Thanks.

From NBC News (broadcast, no link yet), the Iraqi judge who handled Saddam Hussein's hearing last summer has been assassinated. The judge, his wife and three young sons have been living in a heavily guarded residence due to the danger facing the judge.

I hope and expect that, rather than engendering fear among the Iraqi judiciary and the populace in general, this act will stoke the fires of resentment and loathing of the insurgent terrorists. Time will tell.

I'll provide a link and any additional substantive information when I find it.

Update: MSNBC has the story.

Update II: As Angel points out in the comments, this was later determined to have been one of the members of Hussein's tribunal, not the judge presiding over any past or future hearings. I've just been too lazy busy to correct my post.