News brieflets

The content on this webpage contains paid/affiliate links. When you click on any of our affiliate link, we/I may get a small compensation at no cost to you. See our affiliate disclosure for more info

Last updated on March 5th, 2018 at 01:41 pm

* Not up to speed on the Terri Schiavo case? Then study John Hawkins’ Schiavo FAQ.

* The Dog Hook 5000 will answer all your dog-storage needs.

* Chrenkoff has a whole new batch of Good News from Iraq.

* If the tumor grows, you must decompose.

* Darlene Taylor claims to be an ex-blogger. She’ll be back.

* Gay Patriot has been silenced by a brutal-sounding campaign against gays who are pro-conservative. Talk about the crushing of dissent …

Posted by Tim B. on 03/30/2005 at 11:18 AM
    1. Re the Hawkins FAQ, I wish the pro-Terri folks would stop relying on “neurologist William Hammesfahr,” who gives every appearance of being a fraud.  He has published almost nothing in peer-reviewed publications (but has appeared in the National Inquirer) and has been giving interviews saying that, with proper care, Terri could enjoy life again, go to movies, etc. Really.  Glenn Beck, the canniest and funniest of US righty radio commentators, kicked Hammesfahr off his show, saying he was damaging the credibility of the pro-Terri side.  Which is quite right, IMO.

      Posted by BruceW on 2005 03 30 at 12:39 PM • permalink


    1. What is it about Australian women like Darlene who are moderate to conservative, intelligent, and principled?  They seem rather sexy to me.

      Margo on the other hand … I’m sorry but doesn’t the woman have one good picture to use for her T shirts?

      Woman, go to Glamour Shots and get a decent photo made, right this minute.

      Posted by wronwright on 2005 03 30 at 02:22 PM • permalink


    1. Goodbye and good riddance to Johnnie Cochrane.  Even the guilty have the right to be defended in court, but Cochrane never failed to play the race card, even when he didn’t need to.

      Posted by RebeccaH on 2005 03 30 at 04:35 PM • permalink


    1. Bruce:

      I don’t think that is fair. There are a lot of strange people on both sides of this sad affair. Felos [Schiavo’s attorney] goes into trance like states where he communes with the spirits of the suffering earth bound trapped in the body and begging to be free. And he is the lawyer who outlawyered the Schindlers.

      I can’t beleive I find myself agreeing with Ralph Nadar when he says that this starvation death of Terri Shiavo is barbaric.

      Posted by terryelee on 2005 03 30 at 05:46 PM • permalink


    1. Dear BruceW: I’m a pro-live-Terri person and I’ve not only never heard of this Hammerhead (whatever) person, I couldn’t care less about what he has to say nor what anyone else has to say about him. But then again, I’m kind of focused on the stupid and pointless fact that it is wrong at every level to kill someone by refusing to give them water and food, never mind on the say so of someone who would profit greatly in worldly pleasures by not having her around anymore.

      Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2005 03 30 at 11:19 PM • permalink


    1. And let me expand on my point further: it is not only wrong and evil to kill Terri Schiavo by starving/thirsting her to death—it’s wrong to kill her. Why? My reasons:

      1. There is no official, notarized, legally-recorded statement straight from Mrs. Schiavo asking for such an end should she end up in her present condition,

      and 2. It is wrong to kill an utterly helpless person for any reason whatsoever. My reasons outlined further here.

      Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2005 03 30 at 11:23 PM • permalink


    1. Andrea, your point two is a very good argument. I don’t think it requires any further clarification. I disagree with the unequivocal nature of such statements but if it is view sincerely held, so be it.

      My problem has been with most of those supporting the parents wishes has been there tendency to attack those involved on the other side, particularly the character assasination of the husband on the flimsiest of grounds because he has an equally strong but different view. It seems to me that if I held such a view then campaigning for a change in the law would be the correct course of action.

      Posted by Dean McAskil on 2005 03 31 at 02:07 AM • permalink


    1. Sexy?

      Who me? Nah.

      Posted by Major Anya on 2005 03 31 at 06:39 AM • permalink


    1. Oh god, spare me with the “it’s okay to be sincere” bullshit. People who are “attacking” the other side are perhaps giving the people who want Terri dead more credit than they deserve. Do you think it hasn’t occurred to me that it is possible that Michael Schiavo and his supporters are acting on sincerely held beliefs that what they are doing is good for Terri and good for society? Don’t you see that that makes it so much the worse? Perhaps you don’t, but keep in mind that most Communists, Nazis, et al weren’t acting out of some deep-seated giggling hatred of the human race—Communists sincerely thought that starving millions of people to death was a fine number of eggs to break to get the world transformed into Marx’s paradise of the proletariat; many Nazis sincerely believed that Jews, gypsies, and other “non-persons” could not possibly be leading a happy existence as “subhumans.” The worse things have been done in this world in the name of good. If only Michael Schiavo was simply after money.

      Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2005 03 31 at 08:17 AM • permalink


    1. Andrea, at first I flipped out thinking you were making some kind of moral equivalency argument. Secular humanists, like me, equals nazi. I assume you’re not, so no matter.

      I am going to bow out of any discussion beyond this point because I have (probably too slowly) come to realise that most (not all) on the other side base their argument in faith, or the concept of manifest evil. I don’t share these beliefs so will always be at odds without some common ground.

      Frankly the idea that people make life and death decisions based on what they think an imaginary omnipotent being might think scares the shit out of me, but each to their own. What gets up my goat is when they start trying to impose those standards on others.

      Actions are what counts, and in democracies these are either legal or illegal. If illegal then there are penalties. If not, then it’s non of my business. If I don’t like the lines of demarcation I should attempt to have the law changed.

      Posted by Dean McAskil on 2005 03 31 at 09:48 AM • permalink


    1. Personally I think both sides are wrong.  And right.

      I’m not nearly smart enough to determine what is the right course to take.  And I thank God I haven’t been faced with that decision.

      My sympathies are to both the husband and the parents.  There is no winning side in all this.

      Posted by wronwright on 2005 03 31 at 10:20 AM • permalink


    1. The article on the silencing of Gay Patriot is chilling.  If Rogers is that rabid about conservative gays, and is a bona fide liberal, then the DNC still has a ways to go before entering the deep dark abyss.  Talk about your jackboots!

      Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 03 31 at 02:44 PM • permalink


    1. The Real JeffS — Hmmm… do any businesess advertise at Rogers’ site…?

      Posted by richard mcenroe on 2005 04 01 at 12:54 AM • permalink


  1. ’Fraid not, richard.  Or should I say “Thank God!”?

    Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 04 01 at 12:53 PM • permalink