Centerfield

I know, but I want to see the guesses of others...

I have a photo of their spouse right here, part of my memorabilia collection.

Posted by: Tully at April 26, 2005 02:52 PM

I cheated an looked on Sully's site. Won't spoil it for others, though.

Posted by: William Swann at April 26, 2005 02:58 PM

It was the same man who said: "extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice and . . . moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

Perhaps we should remember that before promoting compromise for compromise's sake.

His political beliefs changed a whole lot over the years. In 1964, he voted against the Civil Rights Act because he believed it to be unconstitutional (but not out of any racial animus; he was instrumental in ending segregation in his home town). Yet in 1994, he became honorary chairman of an effort to pass a federal law banning job discriminatino against homosexuals. Hard to how it would be unconstitutional to prohibit discrimination on the basis of race (which laws are rooted in the enforcement clauses of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments) but ok to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation (which is mentioned nowhere in the constitution).

My point is, he travelled a long way during his career. Just because conservatives embraced him and his message in the 1950s and 60s does not mean they would or should embrace him and his very different message in the 1990s.

His career is nicely summed up in this obituary by the Washington Post.

Posted by: PatHMV at April 26, 2005 03:00 PM

P.S., I cheated too, but I didn't look at Sullivan's site, I Googled a phrase from the lengthy quotation and found it in many places.

Posted by: PatHMV at April 26, 2005 03:02 PM

Pat,

You are right...he did mature as his career progressed...at least I like to think of it as "maturing." I guess in my opinion, he was the true "conservative." He believed in a smaller government, period. He didn't make exceptions when it came to "moral" issues, which explain his stance on abortion, gay rights, etc.

I always find it fascinating that the people who consider themselves the modern champions of the conservative cause (the Sean Hannity's, Tom DeLay's, etc.) always call themselves "Ronald Reagan Conservatives." He--the man who lighted the fire--is, for the most part, ignored. I think that comments just like this, where he refused to kotow to the religious right, are what got him brushed aside by his "descendants."

Posted by: AH at April 26, 2005 03:18 PM

With respect to the quote about "extremism in defense of liberty", I never agreed with the sentiment and don't agree now. I think extremism is almost always a vice, whether for liberty or for anything else. There is no such thing as an unmixed virtue and the implication in this aphorism is that we can't tolerate people that disagree. Extremism generally leads ultimately to less liberty, not more. The application to Iraq is obvious, although, of course, many people will disagree with me on that. I think it was a very unfortunate formulation made at a time that this person wanted to be president. I have a lot of respect for BG but I suspect he would not have made this comment in later years.

Posted by: MWS at April 26, 2005 03:32 PM

MWS,

He later clarified that comment in a letter to Nixon. He said what he meant was: "wholehearted devotion to liberty is unassailable and that halfhearted devotion to justice is indefensible."

Abel,

My larger point is that labels and the politics of personality should be relatively irrelevant. The people who supported Goldwater in 1964 supported him as he was then, not as he became later in life. His positions in 1964 that he implicitly repudiated did not become invalid merely by virtue of his repudiation, and his current positions are not inherently right simply because a former conservative leader now holds them.

Posted by: PatHMV at April 26, 2005 04:03 PM

As an aside, I've often found that most politicians who were also airplane pilots, like AuH2O, tend to be more pragmatic, readier to learn from the past and apply those lessons to the future.

yes, I just dated myself.

Posted by: Marcus at April 26, 2005 04:40 PM

I just dated myself.

Careful--that's still illegal in some states! But seriously, pragmatism is indeed a mark of experienced pilots. It used to be a mark of experienced politicians. I hope it will be again some day.

The picture I have is an 8*10 of his wife Peggy passed out on a couch. It's nicely signed, and was obviously taken and developed by the man himself. And I wish I knew the story behind it--it came from the estate of an Eisenhower aide who used to vacation with them.

Posted by: Tully at April 26, 2005 05:04 PM

PatHMV,

I never knew about letter BG wrote to Nixon. That's very interesting. I think the latter formulation is much better than the one in 1964, which was clearly made in the heat of a campaign.

Posted by: MWS at April 26, 2005 05:22 PM

For those who hadn't figured it out yet...the quote came from the "father of Republican conservatism"--Barry Goldwater.

Posted by: AH at April 26, 2005 10:00 PM

Is this thread kinda like the Republicans who point out how much JFK was like them?

Posted by: c3 at April 27, 2005 01:53 PM

LOL, Chris. No, I just liked the quote...thought it was an interesting way to present it.

Posted by: AH at April 27, 2005 02:23 PM

Speaking of politics and religion I thought I'd toss an excerpt fo a speech in here. Should have been given to everyone who attended Justice Sunday....

"I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute--where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant ministers would tell their parishioners for whom to vote--where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference--and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.

I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant, nor Jewish--where no public official either requests or accepts instruction on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source--where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly on the general populace or the public acts of its officials--where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.

For while this year it may be a Catholic against whom the finger of suspicion is pointed, in other years it has been, and may someday be again, a Jew--or a Quaker--or a Unitarian--or a Baptist. It was Virginia's harassment of Baptist preachers, for example, that helped lead to Jefferson's Statute of Religious Freedom. Today, I may be the victim--but tomorrow it may be you- -until the whole fabric of our harmonious society is ripped at a time of great National peril.

Finally, I believe in an America where religious intolerance will someday end--where all men and all churches are treated as equal--where every man has the right to attend or not attend the church of his choice--where there is no Catholic vote, no anti-Catholic vote, no bloc voting of any kind--where Catholics, Protestants and Jews, at both the lay and pastoral level, will refrain from those attitudes of disdain and division which have so often marred their works in the past, and promote instead the American ideal of brotherhood."

Posted by: Marcus at April 27, 2005 07:46 PM

Just a little surprising polling number around the Schiavo case from Christianity Today. I think CBS did the original poll. 51% of Weekly churchgoers agreed with the federal judge's March 22 ruling to leave Terri Schiavo's feeding tube unattached. So regular churchgoers were evenly split. Not a huge surprise. BUT 68% OF White evangelicals said the President and Congress should not have involved themselves in the Schiavo case.

Now this is the supposed "base" of the Republican Party and the majority (in fact over 2/3) disagreed with Congress's action in the Schiavo case.

This is what I've been saying all along, that we "overgeneralize" who the evangelicals are and the "newsworthy" spokespeople for the evangelicals don't necessarily speak for the bulk of evangelicals.

Posted by: c3 at April 27, 2005 10:43 PM

Several times during the election season I pointed out that the popular assumptions about evangelicals were mostly wrong. For the last couple of decades we've been media-trained to think of all evangelicals as the "religious right." But the RR are a small part of the evangelical demographic, a group that is 80 million strong and 44% Democrats.

Seems like the GOP is having some problems with that concept as well. The noisy and obnoxious part of the evangelicals is the RR, but it's a major mistake to believe they represent the majority view.

Posted by: Tully at April 27, 2005 11:54 PM

That is from a CBS news poll. The lead up questions included questions about comas and fatal conditions, neither of which described the Schiavo case.

Look at the results Zogby got, with far more honest questions:

If a disabled person is not terminally ill, not in a coma and not being kept alive on life support, and they have no written directive, should or should they not be denied food and water?

Result? 79%: should be kept alive.
9% said should be denied food and water.

56 percent said guardianship should have been transferred to Schiavo’s parents, when they were told Michael Schiavo had a decade-long relationship with a woman who had given birth to two of his children; 37 percent disagreed.

43 percent said the law should presume an incapacitated person would want to live when he does not leave a written directive for medical care, even if he has a feeding tube, while 30 percent objected.

42 percent said elected officials should order a feeding tube remain connected when there is a conflict over what the patient would have desired, while 18 percent said the tube should be removed.

Posted by: Susan at April 28, 2005 12:25 AM

How is that a far more honest question? A feeding tube is live support.

And why are people hung up on Michael Shiavo's relationship with another woman? His wife was incapable of taking part in a normal relationship for 15 years. What was the guy supposed to do?

Posted by: WHQ at April 28, 2005 09:16 AM

WHQ,

Not to put too fine an edge on it, but the judges order didn't just extend to the feeding tube. It also extended to bringing her cups of water which she could swallow under her own power or feeding her with a spoon, which is also something she was able to recieve.

If you want to consider that "life support" then I guess so are the peanuts that the airlines hand out to passangers aboard flights.

Posted by: cengel at April 28, 2005 12:46 PM

We're getting way off topic here, but there's not much else going on with this thread, so why not?

Terri Shiavo was determined to have been unable to swallow without aspiration, potentially leading to death, due to her lack of neurological function. This is from the report to Governor Jeb Bush and the 6th Judicial Circuit.

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/schiavo/1203galrpt.pdf

I can't find anything in the court order that mentions anything but the feeding tube. I'll take your word for it that the order extended to spoon feeding and providing water orally. In taking your word for it, I would note that that extension of the order was likely intended to protect Terri from drowning in the orally provided food and water.

Posted by: WHQ at April 28, 2005 02:01 PM

Marcus,

Is that speech from Nixon? The reference to Quakers suggests that to me.

Posted by: PatHMV at April 28, 2005 02:16 PM

to Pat:
Nope, the other side. Kennedy in a speech to deflect concerns that he may be too religiously tied to the pope. I guess today it's okay to be tied to evangelicals, as Frist is trying to do, who among other things call all other religions evil.

To Susan - that Zogby poll was not as honest as you present. The problem with Schiavo was no that she was merely disabled but that she was eesentially brain dead. I believe some of the Florida newspapers had pics of more recent CAT scans of what was left of her brain adn it wasn't much. Most of it was cerebral fluid.
If Zogby was honest he would have inserted "brain dead" for disabled.
If there was a problem with that whole Schiavo episode, it was that the parents couldn't deal with her brain death. Frankly the whole affair got pretty sick at the end.

Posted by: Marcus at April 28, 2005 04:48 PM

WHQ,

That would directly contradict statements made in affidavits by nurses who had cared for her:

Heidi Law - "At least three times during any shift where I took care of Terri, I made sure to give Terri a wet washcloth filled with ice chips, to keep her mouth moistened. I personally saw her swallow the ice water and never saw her gag. "[Another CNA] and I frequently put orange juice or apple juice in her washcloth to give her something nice to taste, which made her happy. On three or four occasions I personally fed Terri small mouthfuls of Jello, which she was able to swallow and enjoyed immensely."

I find it interesting that Terri "was determined" unable to swallow when the nurses who cared for her made it a frequent part of thier routiene of care. Doesn't that strike you as the least bit incongrious? Now it could be that Nurse Law and others are commiting perjury.... I don't know since I've never had any personal involvment in the case. But I fail to see what they would stand to gain from such an action.... and if so it would seem to place them at considerable legal jeopardy.

Furthermore, it is comforting to note that the court was so concerned that Terri might be killed due to orally giving her food and water that it ordered it prevented so that she could "safely" die from dehydration/starvation.

If this was NOT prevented by Court Order, then I must inquire on what basis were those individuals who were arrested and charged for attempting to bring her a cup of water held?... and on what basis were Terri's own parents prevented from doing so?

Marcus, I believe the definition of "brain dead" (and I'm sure that Chris or some other physician will correct me if I am wrong) is that the patient shows zero brain wave activity on an ECG. Are you saing that was the case for Terri? If not, then how would that be a more "honest" statement?

Note, that I have not actualy come to any conclusion about which side I would have supported
in the Terri Shiavo case. The only thing I have stated was that I was rather uncomfortable about the seeming level of uncertainty and the standards of evidence applied in the case. I have even gone on record as stating I supported assisted suicide in cases where a person (of sound mind) had made thier wishes clear.

However, proponents of the "remove the feeding tube" side seem to be trying some revisionist history to paint this case as less controversial then it really was.

Posted by: cengel at April 29, 2005 11:45 AM

More fuel for the fire....

While it appears likely that the doctors diagnosis in Terri's case was correct. The hope that Terri's parents expressed was not neccesarly irrational.... since there have been rare but significant precedents for the recovery of patients in diagnosed to be in PVS.

One prominant example, involved the very neurologist hired by Michael Schiavo, Dr. Ronald Cranford. In 1980 Dr. Cranford diagnosed Minneapolis Police Sgt. David Mack to be in a persistent vegetative state. Apparently, as a result of Dr. Cranfords diagnosis he was taken off a respirator. However, rather then die, Sgt. Mack began breathing under his own power. 18 months after the diagnosis of PVS, Sgt. Mack regained consciousness and eventualy "95 percent of his intellectual capabilities"... including the ability to comminicate.

Nor does Sgt. Mack's case appear to be unique. There are quite a number of examples of patients who were diagnosed as being in a PVS, years later regaining conciousness, speech and motor control.
In one study (http://www.neurology.org/cgi/content/abstract/43/8/1465?ijkey=a7e3f7658a2d347d1814c556dae63b0a5ef79088&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha) apparently 37% of those diagnosed as PVS were later shown to have been mis-diagnosed.

Posted by: cengel at April 29, 2005 12:34 PM

No one without a cerebral cortex can recover from not having a cerebral cortex. Those cases were certainly of a completely different nature.

Also, the nurses testimony about moistened cloths and small amounts of jello really doesn't contradict the report to the Governor of Florida and the Sixth Circuit Court. Simply that she didn't gag in those particular instances doesn't prove that she was capable of a sufficient and sustained oral intake of food and water without choking or drowning to death.

Why you would be so skeptical of overwhelming medical evidence, and that is an accurate characterization, but so deferrent to the unsubstantiated and unauthoritative testimony of a few nurses is an open question.

Regarding disallowing oral nutrition and hydration, had Terri Schiavo been shown to have desired being provided any means necessary to keep her alive in any state, she would still have to have been denied such oral feeding in amounts sufficient to sustain live to prevent her from choking or drowning to death given her inability to swallow in a consistent a reliable manner.

Posted by: WHQ at April 29, 2005 03:46 PM

What does this have to do with Barry Goldwater? Why do I keep this up? Nothing and I don't know.

Anyway, it's really not choking or drowning that results from aspiration. It's lethal infection. Notice that insufficient gag reflex contributes to this. (Remember the nurse's testimony.)

Aspiration of foreign material (often the stomach contents) into the lung can be a result of disorders that affect normal swallowing, disorders of the esophagus (esophageal stricture, gastroesophageal reflux), or decreased or absent gag reflex (in unconscious, or semi-conscious individuals). Old age, dental problems, use of sedative drugs, anesthesia, coma, and excessive alcohol consumption are also causal or contributing factors. The response of the lungs depends upon the characteristics and amount of the aspirated substance. The more acidic the material, the greater the degree of lung injury, although this may not necessary lead to pneumonia.

The injured lungs can become infected with multiple species of anaerobic bacteria or aerobic bacteria. A collection of pus may form in the lung. A protective membrane may form around the abscess.

Posted by: WHQ at April 29, 2005 04:30 PM

Sorry to belabor this sidetrack but :

1)

was honest he would have inserted "brain dead" for disabled.

She wasn't "brain dead" she was in a permanent vegatative state. A "brain dead" person doesn't breath on their own. Remember how Karen Quinlin lived for some time after coming off the ventilator: permanent vegatative state.

2)

I personally saw her swallow the ice water and never saw her gag. "[Another CNA] and I frequently put orange juice or apple juice in her washcloth to give her something nice to taste, which made her happy

I assume that she had a formal radiographic swallowing evaluation at some point that demonstrated "aspiration" of swallowed material into her larynx (windpipe) and then into her lungs. Many folks who can't swallow safely have "silent aspiration". Now I'll let you in on an "inside secret", scientific evidence suggests placing a gastrostomy feeding tube (a tube through the abdominal wall directly into the stomach)may not decrease the likelihood of significant aspiration. The feeding tube was likely placed because Ms Schiavo couldn't maintain adequate caloric intake without it. Its the standard procedure with someone in her state.

Oh, if you quote my statement to another doctor (the one about feeding tubes and aspiration) he/she will likely disagree. It seems counter-intuitive but the medical literature isn't very positive about gastrostomy tubes and aspiration prevention.

Posted by: c3 at April 30, 2005 12:17 PM