Think_a_Minute

A lot of people are concerned about the precedent that the Terri Schiavo case establishes, and so am I--but probably for a different reason than most people.

I'm concerned that so many people are so ready to turn to the Federal government to solve what amounts to a family matter.

Private decisions made by public policy almost always turn out to be a bad idea.

Here's just one dimension of the issue: Once you give over the life/death decision to the government, there is no moral distinction between them deciding that you must live from deciding that you must die.

A couple of people have asked me what I think about the Terri Schiavo case.

On the surface, I think it's none of my business; I don't know any of the people involved, and it sure seems like a very personal situation. But since this has become a story and this is my weblog, I do have some thoughts on the subject.

First off, let me tell you a little story. A few years ago I had surgery; I was in a semi-private room with some poor guy who was in for open-heart surgery.

He and I never talked, because he had Alzheimer's, and didn't know where he was, who he was, or why people kept bothering him. He wanted some water, which they wouldn't give him, because was being prepped for surgery. At one point in the middle of the night, he woke up and attacked a nurse. He had to be restrained by a burly orderly. They strapped him to the bed.

Later that morning, his wife came in to keep him company. He didn't know who she was. The look in her eyes broke my heart.

This whole thing struck me as an unspeakable, unconscionable tragedy. Not for him--he had no idea what was going on--but for his wife & family.

Here's a guy so far gone that he literally doesn't know who he is, and he was going to undergo an expensive operation--so that he could "live" longer. I didn't get it, and I still don't.
The Germans have a saying: Better an end in horror than a horror without end.

I think it applies in the case of Terry Schiavo.

For me personally, I wouldn't want a pet of mine to undergo what's happened to Terri, let alone a family member, let alone myself.

Public appearance alert:

For those readers in the Dallas/Fort Worth area, I've been invited to give a talk about my book. It'll be Tuesday, April 12th, I think.

Details to follow.

...Everyone would buy a copy of this book:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/059523559X/

Never Too Busy For You

Some review excerpts:

"It's thoughtful, funny, very easy to read, enlightening where you thought you'd heard it all, and informative. It's fiction but you have to wonder about that because it all seems so real."

"Feels like a classic...Light-hearted and deep."

"perceptive, revealing and amusing in the way he writes light dialogue that covers deep subjects of religion and spirituality. "

"Few books contain ideas that keep me up at night, thinking, wondering, but this is one of those rare tomes that kept my mind spinning long after I had closed the cover."

Michael Barone's column today on Jewish World Review (http://www.jewishworldreview.com/michael/barone031405.php3) contained an interesting quote:

"In the New Republic, John Judis takes a longer view. Since the 1970s, he notes, Democrats have had little success expanding government."

Let's see...how much bigger has government gotten since the 1970's? Here's a good illustration:
http://carriedaway.blogs.com/carried_away/2003/10/us_government_s.html



Total government spending is 31% of GDP. Out of every hundred dollars produced by the entire economy, thirty-one of them go to government.

Good Lord, isn't that enough?

I shudder to think what the picture would look like if the Democrats had a lot of success at expanding government!

Here's something I bet you didn't know.

Amid the controversy of professional athletes who are using steroids to bulk up, there's a very prominent American figure who used steroids extensively, and today he's perceived as a near-saint.

The man I'm talking about is President John F. Kennedy.

He started taking steroids in the 1930's, and by the time he was in the White House, was receiving injections almost daily.

If you look at pictures of the young Kennedy, he was quite slender, but by the time he was assassinated, he had gotten considerably rounder. That in itself is a common experience of middle-aged men, but Kennedy's size increase was a side-effect of the extensive steroid use.

At that time, it wasn't well-understood that long-term steroid use had terrible side-effects--and in Kennedy's case, it didn't matter anyway.

Is it the best policy to treat others as you are treated, to treat them as they want to be treated, or to follow The Golden Rule?