Current Events

[moonflower2]

They took the tube out! The woman responds to her surroundings, smiles and follows with her eyes, and they took the tube out!

Let's Just Starve Our Enemies
Let's Claim Our Enemies Have a Chemical Imbalance Which Causes Anoxia
Let's Starve Them Before Anyone Else Can Find Out What Really Happened To Cause Anoxia

The above episodes are brought to you by the new series: Life In Hell, formerly broadcast in Rome as Can Purgatory Be Any Worse?

[moonflower2]

I find the behavior of Michael Shiavo particularly revolting. Remove a feeding tube to starve his wife to death?  I can't believe that any judge would even consider a request like that! Even aside from Michael's ulterior motives, it is incredible that someone in America would do that. Next, they will be starving senior citizens because it costs too much to fill their prescriptions.

Informative Article from a year ago:

http://www.conservativetruth.org/article.php?id=2019

Article today from Stevensville, Michigan:

http://www.wndu.com/news/032005/news_41058.php

[editor]

I find the behavior of Michael Shiavo particularly revolting. Remove a feeding tube to starve his wife to death?  I can't believe that any judge would even consider a request like that! Even aside from Michael's ulterior motives, it is incredible that someone in America would do that. Next, they will be starving senior citizens because it costs too much to fill their prescriptions.

Informative Article from a year ago:

http://www.conservativetruth.org/article.php?id=2019

Article today from Stevensville, Michigan:

http://www.wndu.com/news/032005/news_41058.php

Great articles.

I have been following this whole thing, trying to figure out what is at stake here, other than the obvious, a person's life.

I am a strong believer in State's rights, and do agree that this matter is out of the jurisdicton of federal courts, in one sense.  However, if we look at this issue from a constitutional point of view, everyone has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Prisoners can't be executed in some states....states' rights.  It's constitutional.

Oak trees can't be executed in California....state's rights.

Poppys can't be picked in California.....state's rights.

Manatees can't be harmed in Florida.....state's rights.

Women can be starved to death?  This is madness.  It's not at all like pulling the plug on a brain dead person.  Legally speaking, death is the absence of brain waves.

This is one case where I think the federal government needs to step in to protect the constitutional rights of Terri.  Slavery was another issue along the same lines. 

There is no doubt about the fact that she is disabled.  However, she breathes on her own, and responds to her environment to a certain degree, no one knows for sure just how much.  She is on par with a 1 month old baby.  Imagine starving a baby, because he can't feed himself....

I think the proper way to handle this affair is for the governor of florida to take a bold stand and issue an executive order stopping her execution, in much the same way he can with a prisoner.  Surely an innocent person deserves the right to live.

Eventually, a ruling needs to be handed down which says that the state's rights do not supercede our constitutional rights.  I don't see how murder can be legal in any state.

The danger here is that this becomes the Roe V Wade of euthanasia.  If some whacko court rules that starving a disabled person to death isn't murder, we are in trouble, much like we have with abortion.  I think the big fear here, for the libs, is that this case has implications that could overturn Roe V Wade.

Brent

[enchilada]

The situation in Florida is something where the parents need to take a stand and break the law as required to maintain life support of their daughter, and then give their son-in-law some physical punishment to put him in his place.  At least that's what I would do if my daughter was in the same position.  Sometimes the law needs to be screwed before it screws those it's alleged to protect.  After all, that is the principle that this country was founded upon. 

In reference to cutting oak trees and hacking poppies in California, I'll just say that my chainsaw and 1-gallon bottle of super-concentrated Round-Up have been put to very good use to help enhance a view and prevent a brush fire.  Goodby poppies; hello moonscape.

[faith]

 

Imagine starving a baby, because he can't feed himself


Actually, Brent, this happens all the time.  When people give birth to defective children they can and do elect to not feed them if they are not willing to care for them.  I have heard many cases of this.  I'm sure there are some hospitals that will not cooperate, but there are ones that do.  This happens with mildly retarded babies, and cp babies that I know of.  These are children that will grow and thrive, but be handicapped.

The issue here, (IMHO)  is who has the right to determine quality of life, and worthiness to live.  There are large segments of our society, including ethics scholars at Princeton, who encourage this kind of selective survival of the fittest.

We all know many cases of retarded people like Terry Schiavo who are living lives that are meaningful to those who care for them.  But there are also many who abandon these people.  Of course it seems like a no brainer that if someone like her parents want to care for her then they should have that right.  But the legal issue is who has the say in determining my life as a married person or as a dependent child.  These things definately need to be reworked.

The truly sad thing is that there is new therapy for people who have had brain injury and cannot swallow.  I can't remember the name of it, but it involves attaching electrodes to the jaw/throat muscels to stimulate them to move, regenerate and operate again.  This is what Terry's parents want her to receive, but Michael has refused it.  It's true, Terry will never improve from being a retarded person, but she is not in a vegetative state and who says there is anything wrong with retarded people?  This guy really has his judgment coming!  Along with the rest of America that throws away "imperfect" people.

[moonflower2]

I heard about the babies first hand from a nurse. They weren't allowed to feed or resuscitate them, and this was the parents' decision.

I heard on Dobson's show this afternoon, that Shiavo had the ability to swallow and say a few words, like "hi" and "help me" at the beginning, but her husband refused any therapy of anykind, so she can no longer swallow or make any recognizable words. 

They must have a guard at her door, because it would be possible for someone to give her ice chips at least. If it were my kid, I'd arrange to have them secretly  wisked out of their room. Or somehow sneak them food. No, I'd get them out of there pronto, somehow.

Weaker, (handicapped) people need protection. They are here for us, and they have value.

[editor]

I heard about the babies first hand from a nurse. They weren't allowed to feed or resuscitate them, and this was the parents' decision.

I heard on Dobson's show this afternoon, that Shiavo had the ability to swallow and say a few words, like "hi" and "help me" at the beginning, but her husband refused any therapy of anykind, so she can no longer swallow or make any recognizable words. 

They must have a guard at her door, because it would be possible for someone to give her ice chips at least. If it were my kid, I'd arrange to have them secretly  wisked out of their room. Or somehow sneak them food. No, I'd get them out of there pronto, somehow.

Weaker, (handicapped) people need protection. They are here for us, and they have value.

Faith, Moonflower

Several people have been arrested for trying to "sneak" water into her room.  You can see the video of the arrests on the Fox news website.

I am aware of the stuff going on with babies, cp kids, etc.  It makes me sick, and to be perfectly honest I am not able to deal with it, or discuss it.

My stepfather, who was every bit a real father to me, passed in 2001.  He had "hospice" care, which was creepy.

I still can't talk about it much,  it is that disturbing to me.  However, they killed him with dehydration, and claim it is a great way to go.  I do not agree at all.  So many meds were required to keep him calm, in order for his kidneys to shut down.

I don't know what it is about this terri Shiavo case that bothers me so much....she is one of many undergoing a similiar fate.  However, the thought of having police protection in order to guarantee that someone can't get water or food is surreal.  I feel as if we, as a society, have crossed a line.  I am not a little frightened by this.

I heard someone on the radio today saying that Terri had no brain, and couldn't think or feel, and had no consciousness.  They said she wasn't human anymore, because of her injury.  If that's the case, what's the big deal if her parents want to keep her alive?  I mean, we can have ornamental plants if we wish, what's wrong with them wanting their daughter alive.  Her daughter certainly doesn't care, since she's braindead.

I can't help but wonder if there is something else, really sinister behind all of this. 

Dan, your ideas about the law, and the founding of the country are right on.  I wonder if we can still do that sort of thing today, have we got the gumption?

Brent

[sfortescue]

The way that many care homes treat their residents is horrible.  To me, it is terrifying even going into such a place, because it is like entering a monster's lair, and because visiting can be construed as endorsement of the abuse there.  They lie to get business and put on a show, as if they are giving good care, but, not so.

Increasingly, the country is being run by big businesses.  Insurance, retirement packages, taxes, etc. all cost them money.  Their interest is that the financial burdens on society of the old and infirm affect their bottom line.  Ebeneezer Scrooge spoke of decreasing the surplus population.  This kind of thinking is encouraged by movies, such as, "Night of the Living Dead", and TV game shows that involve voting people off the team.

The demographics of the end of the baby-boom generation seem intimidating.  A good portrayal of this issue is a story by Chekhov.  Literally, the title means, "Sleep is Wanted", but the Russian expression usually signifies feeling sleepy.  There is a subtle form of word play in its use as the title: sleep is wanted so badly that ...

(Hold the "Ctrl" key while pressing "A" to change to easier to read colors.)
English: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/6422/sleep.html

The original Russian:
http://www.ruslang.com/downloads/texts/apchekhov/apchekhov_spathochetsya.html

Such a false idea will earn its due reward.

The old movie, "Death Race 2000", is another portrayal of the false idea in the form of a cross-country car race with extra points scored for running over the old and infirm.

[moonflower2]

Faith, Moonflower

My stepfather, who was every bit a real father to me, passed in 2001.  He had "hospice" care, which was creepy.

I still can't talk about it much,  it is that disturbing to me.  However, they killed him with dehydration, and claim it is a great way to go.  I do not agree at all.  So many meds were required to keep him calm, in order for his kidneys to shut down.

Could be different in each situation. A friend of mine had it and he was just permitted to die at home with terminal cancer of the bowel matastacised to liver and a different type of cancer in his lung. He could eat and drink when he wanted and was given pain medication when he wanted it.

I can't help but wonder if there is something else, really sinister behind all of this. 

What is sinister behind the present case is the killer husband of the woman. This is at least the second time he tried to kill her (aside from the other court appointed starvations). I can smell it.

Dan, your ideas about the law, and the founding of the country are right on.  I wonder if we can still do that sort of thing today, have we got the gumption?

Sure. We can rent an SUV with blackened windows and curtains when we get down there. We could wear black muslim robes once we get there. They get in anywhere.

[tkarey]

I was in a situation last year that I'd be interested to hear other people's input on.

I am a private caregiver and a CNA. My goal is to become a nurse practitioner after completing the needed science classes. There's a program at a Seattle university that fast-tracks people through the program if they already have a bachelor's degree.

How I do stray from the subject...

Last year my client was in a Catholic nursing home. It's the best one in town, everyone likes it even people who avoid those places. He began refusing food - pushing it away and covering his head with a sheet when the person trying to feed him just wouldn't get it. His organs began shutting down but his body was so healthy - except for his brittle, broken bones - that he lingered for a month or two. He had a living will that declined any intervention so he was given pain meds and anything he wanted for food and water, though he refused both.

His stepdaughter, a Catholic, was incensed that he wasn't tube fed or hydrated. She felt it was the facilities' responsibility to maintain his life no matter what. The facility was bound by the living will.

This issue is different than current events. Yet it's a very common situation, sans the upset daughter-in-law. A resident who goes into cardiac arrest will have his chart checked to see if he's a code or not before giving cpr.

When a teenager committs suicide everyone is devastated. When an adult at the end of their lives essentially does the same thing people are sad but accept it, often approve it.

I don't know where to draw the line. We are in the unenviable place where we have the ability, but not the wisdom, to play God.  How far do we take the concept of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"; the freedom to pursue it any way we see fit, or the ability to stop lives when their ability to do so is compromised.
 
I'm not expecting a final answer, just throwing this question into space wondering about other people's input.

Karey

[editor]

I was in a situation last year that I'd be interested to hear other people's input on.I don't know where to draw the line. We are in the unenviable place where we have the ability, but not the wisdom, to play God.  How far do we take the concept of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"; the freedom to pursue it any way we see fit, or the ability to stop lives when their ability to do so is compromised.

I see, as you do, that the situations are fundamentally different.  As a person in command of my faculties, I have the right to refuse any medical procedure, for any reason.  I also have the right not to eat or drink if I am so inclined.

Obviously, Terri Shiavo's situation is quite different.

However, when you ask the question, "how far do we take the concept of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,"  I would answer you like this.

If you and I both have freedom, by definition that implies that neither one of us has the right to deny the other freedom.  You can't force me to eat, and likewise I can't deny you the ability to eat, or harm you by force.  There is no way to take this concept too far, because the moment your freedom harms or hinders another from excercising his freedom, you have infringed on his rights.  In the constitutional sense, you have committed some sort of crime, whether a tort, misdemeanor or felony.

When the constituion was drafted, it was implied and assumed that people would exercise self restraint, as was customary for our Judeo-Christian traditions and values.  People weren't perfect then---slavery is one glaring example---and they aren't perfect now.  Nevertheless, the principles of freedom are still good ones.

In the most fundamental constitutional sense, Terri Shiavo's rights are being violated.

Aside from the horror her and her family is going through---which has actually caused me to lose sleep, it is so disturbing---I am most alarmed by the way our President is setting aside his oath to defend the constitution.  This is really bothering me.

Just because a judge, or a group of judges decide it's OK to starve someone doesn't mean it OK.  It seems to me that Jeb and a few others could walk into the clinic and take over.  I doubt the police would arrest the governor.  If the judge decided to hold him in contempt, he could get a pardon from his brother, the president.

It would be a great opportunity to do the right thing, and explain to the people why.  I suspect that if he had the courage to do so, his political stock would rise dramatically.  Instead, everyone is sitting on their hands waiting for this woman to die, because a judge said to stop feeding her.

How long do you suppose it will be until we adopt infanticide for live births, and other things like that?

I am very disturbed by this whole thing.

Brent

[Oscar]

Brent,

There are some problems with the thinking behind this paragraph in your post:

If you and I both have freedom, by definition that implies that neither one of us has the right to deny the other freedom.  You can't force me to eat, and likewise I can't deny you the ability to eat, or harm you by force.  There is no way to take this concept too far, because the moment your freedom harms or hinders another from excercising his freedom, you have infringed on his rights.  In the constitutional sense, you have committed some sort of crime, whether a tort, misdemeanor or felony.

1. "by definition"?  Why does my freedom imply that you have freedom?  You are appealing to some overarching standard that guarantees us both freedom.  What is it?

2. "There is no way to take this concept too far".  All law is a limit on freedom.  In society, people give up some freedom in order to have others.   For example, we are free to buy and operate cars.  But our freedom to operate them in any way we wish is severely limited in the interests of public safety. 

Here is a little dilemma for your "libertarian" heart. Your next door neighbor decides to operate a combination whorehouse/drug parlor/gay bathhouse/ bar next door to you.  This has implications for noise, trash, cleanliness, public saftey, parking, property values, property taxes and more.

Of course, under the new libertarian local, state, and federal governments your neighbor's activities are perfectly legal. 

How do you balance his "rights" as they relate to yours? 

3. Just what are "rights"? , where do they come from?, How do we know what they are?

 

Thomas Maddux
Virulent Dog

[editor]

Brent,

There are some problems with the thinking behind this paragraph in your post:

1. "by definition"?  Why does my freedom imply that you have freedom?  You are appealing to some overarching standard that guarantees us both freedom.  What is it?

2. "There is no way to take this concept too far".  All law is a limit on freedom.  In society, people give up some freedom in order to have others.   For example, we are free to buy and operate cars.  But our freedom to operate them in any way we wish is severely limited in the interests of public safety. 

Here is a little dilemma for your "libertarian" heart. Your next door neighbor decides to operate a combination whorehouse/drug parlor/gay bathhouse/ bar next door to you.  This has implications for noise, trash, cleanliness, public saftey, parking, property values, property taxes and more.

Of course, under the new libertarian local, state, and federal governments your neighbor's activities are perfectly legal. 

How do you balance his "rights" as they relate to yours? 

3. Just what are "rights"? , where do they come from?, How do we know what they are?

 

Thomas Maddux
Virulent Dog

Hi Tom,

I'm going to tackle your straw man in a playful manner, OK?

1. "by definition"?  Why does my freedom imply that you have freedom?  You are appealing to some overarching standard that guarantees us both freedom.  What is it?

  Freedom is a right that we all have in this country, according to our constitution.  That document indicates that our rights come from our creator. My opinion on the identity of our creator is identical to yours.  I never said or implied that there was any guarantee of freedom.  In fact, I will go so far as to say that I can guarantee that mostly, the human race is taken up with various activities designed to limit, steal and abuse freedom for selfish reasons.  Freedom is not a guarantee, but it is something worth fighting for, according to many.  So, if liberty and freedom are mine by right, they are also yours, as we are created equal.   This can't be too difficult to understand.

2. "There is no way to take this concept too far".  All law is a limit on freedom.  In society, people give up some freedom in order to have others.   For example, we are free to buy and operate cars.  But our freedom to operate them in any way we wish is severely limited in the interests of public safety.

I disagree totally with this statement.  Laws should not be a limit on freedom, but a prohibition on activities that are harmful to others.  Murder is a good example.  Your basic approach to the concept is backwards, which is why you said what you said above.  If you take it a step or two further, you will pretend that we can change people by making what they do or think illegal.  It doesn't work, and I have incarcerated prisoners to prove it.  If a person continues down this faulty path, they will make more and "tougher" laws that will indeed limit our freedom, which is what we have now....which is bad.

Here is a little dilemma for your "libertarian" heart. Your next door neighbor decides to operate a combination whorehouse/drug parlor/gay bathhouse/ bar next door to you.  This has implications for noise, trash, cleanliness, public saftey, parking, property values, property taxes and more.

Of course, under the new libertarian local, state, and federal governments your neighbor's activities are perfectly legal. 

How do you balance his "rights" as they relate to yours?

This one reminds me of the guy who thinks he can disprove Christianity by saying,  "How do you explain all the different versions of the Bible?  Which version is true, they all say different things?"  This fellow can't be reasoned with because his basic premises are so far off.  Tom, your assessment of Libertarianism is on par with the fellow who thinks there are different "versions" of the Bible.  If the only fish you've ever eaten is a VandeKamps fish filet, and you are convinced that it represents all fish, everywhere, it is going to hard to explain a nice piece of Ahi to you, but I'll give it a shot.

If my nextdoor neighbor started doing what you described above, it would be an infringement on my rights, and would be harmful to me, as you point out.  It would also be against the law, and I would simply invoke the judicial system against him, after which time the executive branch would force him to cease his harmful actions.  What's so hard to undertand here?  Libertarian thinking is not anarchy, never has been and never will be.

If these types of activities were legal, I would move.  If they were illegal, he would move.  The nice part about Libertarianism, is that you and I would be able to decide these issues, instead of the federal government, or some judge or government worker in a cubicle somewhere.  Prostitution is legal is some counties in Nevada, and illegal in others.  If I was going to live in Nevada, I wouldn't choose to live in a county where prostitution was legal.  {YIKES!! on edit I just realized I said LEGAL, I really mean to say ILLEGAL! Please forgive me for this error. You must all think I'm nuts!!}

The way we balance your rights versus my rights is simple.  If you engage in activity that harms me, I have two options:  The judicial system, or self defense.  If you were releasing raw sewage into my front yard, from the holding tank on your motorhome, I'd probably call the police.  If you forcibly entered my house and attempted to injure a family member, I'd use force to stop you.  That's the balance.

However, if you are going to buy cuban cigars and smoke them in your house, I'm not going to report you to the police, because you aren't hurting anyone, in any way.

Why in the world you confuse Libertarianism with anarchy is beyond me.  The foundation of free society is the idea of limited government.  That means there is a government, but that it is limited in scope and power.  That means that there are laws and law enforcement.  Why in the world to you act as if Libertarians don't believe this?

Are you still hung up on the one hippie you spoke with a long time ago? 

Does it trouble you that I am proposing nothing more than the ideas set forth in our constitution? Do you feel that we must move past the constitution?

3. Just what are "rights"? , where do they come from?, How do we know what they are?

The declaration of Independence and the Constitution spell this out pretty clearly.  I'll sum it up:

Life: I have the right to live, therefore murder is wrong.
Liberty: I have the right to freely choose my own path in life, therefore slavery is wrong.
The Pursuit of Happiness: I have the right to enjoy the fruit of my labor, therefore theft and fraud is wrong.

Is this so difficult?

Brent

[Oscar]

Brent,

1.

Freedom is a right that we all have in this country, according to our constitution.  That document indicates that our rights come from our creator.

Seems to me that you are confusing the Declaration of Independence with the Constitution.

The statements about "inalienable rights" is in the Declaration.  This document is based on natural rights theory as modulated through Scottish Common Sense philosophy.  Very popular among the English educated class in those days.

Actually, the Constitution doesn't mention God, except for the date of signing in "this year of our Lord".

It says that we the people...do ordain and establish this constitution.  The rights in the constitution are based on the consent of the governed, not upon the authority of God. 

BTW, the constitution never says that freedom is a right.  Rather, it delineates the powers of the federal government.   The Bill of Rights places certain limits on the exercise of Federal power and states that all other powers are reserved to the states or the people.

2.

I disagree totally with this statement.  Laws should not be a limit on freedom, but a prohibition on activities that are harmful to others.

You do realize, don't you, is that the only way to prevent person "A"'s ability to cause harm to person "B" is to limit their freedom to act?  So, all law is a limit on freedom.


3.

  Your basic approach to the concept is backwards, which is why you said what you said above.  If you take it a step or two further, you will pretend that we can change people by making what they do or think illegal.  It doesn't work, and I have incarcerated prisoners to prove it.

I suggest that you find someone who believes the above and discuss it with him instead of me.

But, the only way to give law any force is to provide for sanctions that actually deter the behavior.

In Singapore they don't have a drug problem.  Sell drugs, you die.

They also don't have a vandalism problem.  Vandalize property, 12 whacks with a kendo practice sword administered by a martial artist, plus a stiff fine.   Kids don't seem to wish to risk this.

You cannot change people by making actions illegal.   But you definitely can change what they do.

3.

If my nextdoor neighbor started doing what you described above, it would be an infringement on my rights, and would be harmful to me, as you point out.  It would also be against the law, and I would simply invoke the judicial system against him, after which time the executive branch would force him to cease his harmful actions.  What's so hard to undertand here?  Libertarian thinking is not anarchy, never has been and never will be.

Now what you are saying is that all the laws about noise, public niusances, health, littering, zoning, fire safety, parking, sewage and so on should be left in place.  The whorehouse should be allowed to stay as long as those laws aren't violated.

If we have the power to make those types of laws, all of which limit the behavior of other people, why don't we have the power to limit prostitution?

I suppose one could say that prostitutes have the right to sell themselves, as long as they don't hurt anyone else.

BUT, what if the presence of the whorehouse next door lowers the value of my property.  In other words, its presence is injurious to my financial prosperity.  Which BTW, would surely be the case.
Who would want to raise a family next door to that kind of place?  So, the pool of potential buyers of my house would be drastically reduced. 

4. BTW, most of the ideas you call "Libertarianism" that deal with maximizing freedom and limiting government have been around at least since John Locke.  This set of beliefs is generally known as "Classical Liberalism".  This should not, however, be confused with modern "Liberalism" which is really a misnomer for Leftist Elitism.

You can find the ideas of Classical Liberalism expressed in the writings of such men as John Locke, William F. Buckley, Vacel Hlavec, Dinesh D'Sousa, Norman Podhorets, Milton Friedman.   Today, we call these folks Conservatives.

I first encountered Libertarianism in the writings of Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff.   Some things I agree with.  But much I don't.   They argue from an athiest basis that ultimately destroys any basis for rights. 

The biblical basis for prohibiting murder is that man was created in the image of God.  Other men do not have the right to damage that image, flawed as it is.

This is, or at least was, also the basis for laws against behaviors that denigrate human beings, such as selling your body, taking drugs, drunkeness, and suicide.

Since the atheists don't believe there IS any God who created man in his image,  they appeal to the "right" of personal freedom, "as long as it doesn't harm others".

But, as I asked before, what makes that true?   If there isn't any overarching value to appeal to, all that's left is, "We say so."
Thomas Maddux

[editor]

Hi Tom,

I'm not confused about the difference between the Decalaration and the Constitution.  I submit that the folks who drafted the constitution still believed in "Life, Liberty and the Pusuit of happiness," and that the constitution was drafted with these ends in mind.  It's a common, accepted viewpoint.

Also, the names you dropped are truly great minds.  Have you actually read what these guys wrote? 

I also agree with you that "conservatives" have adopted the ideas of classical liberalism, and least in the rhetorical sense.  The problem I have is not with what conservatives say, but with what they do.  Getting back to the Terri Schiavo thing, I am dissapointed with how the conservative governor and president have conducted themselves.

In the president's case, he swore an oath to defend the constitution, yet he is standing by and letting the courts make these hideous rulings that result in starving a woman to death.  In the case of the governor, he could simply seize the situation and save the womans life.  Should he be held in contemp, he could get a pardon from the president.

These actions would be spectacular, extraordinary and on par with the Boston Tea Party as far as they are a defiance of unjust "law."  I think that if the president truly believes in the right to life, he needs to exercise bold leadership.  Instead, he is demonstrating that although he is fond of the right to life, he defers to the courts if they say to starve the woman.  That, in a nutshell, is the problem I have with conservatives.  They have abdicated their principles, and their freedom to the government. 

The best question you raise is if there is an "If there isn't any overarching value to appeal to."  I maintain that the founders, for the most part, were believers in, or at least sympathetic towards God.  Certainly, many of the men who risked their lives in fighting the British were men of deep, sincere faith in God.  So, the reason I think murder is wrong is because the Bible says, "Thou shalt not kill."  Is this a good enough overarching value to appeal to?  Have you ever read any of John Jay's supreme court opinions?  He has a masterful way of explaining the ideas of freedom and liberty, with relation to the law, which is strikingly different to what modern "conservatives" are saying. 

We have strayed so far afield from classic liberalism it isn't funny.  While I understand your emotional attachment to the conservative movement---or the lessor of two evils---you have to admit that they certainly don't reflect your values as a christian.  Perhaps they do in what they say, but in the final analysis, they don't deliver the goods.

My libertarian leanings are based on principle.  I have no illusions about their success in the political arena, with the exception that their ideas are powerful and are having a big impact.  However, ideas and real change are not the same thing.  Even so, I can't help but try.

I remember when I first started the website being told by people,  "It'll never work.  We tried something like that, it'll never work."  I also was told a year ago, when I decided to stop taking insurance in my office,  "It'll never work.  It just isn't done that way."  I have read about the opposition that Patrick Henry and his cohorts had, when he was fomenting rebellion against the throne.  They told him, "It'll never work."  You get the picture.  I'm an idealist.  I can't help it, it's just the way i am.  I see Libertarian thoughts and ideas as being the ones that give me freedom to practice my faith, send my kids to a school I agree with, keep my own money, keep and bear arms, and generally pursue happiness.

I see the other guys as being a hinderance, or in the case of the dems, a serious threat to liberty.

What are you going to do if a pro-choice, big government republican gets the nomination in '08?  Are you going to vote for he/she?

(When I say pro-choice, I imply that they will continue to spend your tax dollars to fund abortion, there is a difference between that and what Condi says about it.   Arnold is a prime example, so is Rudi.)

Brent