Randall's Blog

The Schiavo Case

Ok ok I was hoping to avoid this issue, with the excuse that I only post a few times a year. But that's not enough. Now that the blogosphere and media has become more consumed with Terri Schiavo's case than anything since the Iraq war I have run out of excuses.

My first thought is something that I have not seen expostulated anywhere. How many people do you know who have talked about Ms Schiavo and said something other than "I sure wouldn't want to be kept alive in such a state." Come on, be honest. Nobody? I thought so. Me neither. So for those who think that her husband's "hearsay" evidence is proof of nothing, how extraordinary is it anyway? Assuming the subject even came up (again hardly an extraordinary topic of conversation for a couple married for many years), how much more likely is it that she said "Honey, if I am ever permanently braindead and being kept alive by machines, I want my body to linger as long as possible." It is hardly inappropriate for the several courts which have already decided on the matter to accept this.

Now, my opinion on Ms Schiavo's situation, given all the information I have absorbed, is that her brain is severly damaged to the point where she has no higher brain functions; what we usually think of as consciousness. This is not the same as a coma. The damage is incurable and irreversible. Terry Schiavo's mind is gone forever, and her eye and other movement we have all seen on TV is reflex to physical stimuli. She is not clinically brain dead - her low level brain functions that control breathing, the heart, and muscle movement are to at least some extent still working. And no, before you assume that I am some kind of commie secular humanist (I am in fact more like a right wing secular humanist) I do not believe that any of this has a bearing as to her intrinsic worth as a human being. Also this is more or less what all the courts involved to this point have agreed.

Let's look at the three main players involved: Ms Shiavo's husband, her parents, and the fanatical pro-lifers. I do not believe that any of them are acting in bad faith or for nefarious motives, as so many are accusing them (and especially the husband) of. It is a sincere difference of opinion.

First, the religious nuts. This is the best thing to happen to them since abortion clinic bombings went out of style. Out in front of the hospice you see some of the craziest pro-lifers in the US, having travelled there from afar for the occasion, describing to the eager cameras precisely the state of Ms Schiavo's condition and mental state. "She is now valiantly struggling for life and saying she doesn't want to die" "Terri is begging for water" "Terri is saying "Feed Me"" "No Marriage for Homos" (huh?)  and so on. How can they know stuff like this? Obviously they don't really - they must think God has revealed the information to them or something. Maybe they think if they pray hard and loud enough on television God will put back the missing parts of Ms Schiavo's brain. How deluded is that. And how about the guy who drove hundreds of miles with his two small children to bring Ms Schiavo a drink of water (did he really think he was going to save her?). He coached his kids what to do and of course the police intercepted them all when they tried to enter the building, and had to haul them all away in handcuffs. These kids weren't ten years old! I hope that guy is explaining to a judge right now why he believes he is still fit to have them in his custody.

Then there are Ms Schiavo's parents. It is not possible to fault them for wanting their daughter alive. However they are, in the end, doing what I could never do. They have blinded themselves to reality in their hope that their daughter will somehow, some day, be cured. I don't know how I would feel in their place as I have no children, but I understand the strength of feeling. They remind me of the mother of the loner nut who went on a killing spree saying "my son would never have done that" - and ALL mothers of loner nuts say that. But come on, eventually it has to sink in. There would come a point where I, if it were me, would have to give up and accept the inevitable. I'm no theologian, but aren't they as Catholics supposed to believe that their daughter is going to go to Heaven and be with God and Jesus and little fluffy clouds and all that? How bad can that be? And what's with this demand of giving her communion EVERY DAY? Does the Pope even get that?

Finally, there is Ms Schaivo's husband Michael. Again I probably could not do what he is doing. Even though my mate has made it clear that she would not want to linger like this, there would come a point where I would probably give up. When the state governor, the Congress, and the President are all putting such time and effort into thwarting my mate's wishes rather than pay attention to the economy or national security; when much of the country thinks me a psychopath who is trying to cover up the almost-successful murder of my wife; when most of the rest think I am a huge creep and doing it for an insurance settlement - I don't think I would have the intestinal fortitude to carry on. My mourning period would have been over by now, and under these circumstances I would probably cave and sign over the guardianship of my wife to her parents. After all, Terri will never know.

In the end though one thing is clear. None of this energy and emotion is being expended on Ms Shiavo's behalf. Everyone has their motives, but she has been dead for fifteen years and will never be aware of any of it. It's just that her organs haven't figured it out yet. Should her body be allowed to die now? I dunno, but she doesn't care.

UPDATE: Here are some other interesting takes on this by:
Christopher Hitchens, Slate
Colby Cosh
Robert Friedman, St Petersburg Times

Abbotsford Air Show

I went to the Abbotsford Air Show again this year, as I try to do every year. To me this displays some of the greatest achievements of our civilization and shows why ours is superior to a particular medeival one that has unilaterally decided to go to war against us.

There are of course a lot of American aircraft and exhibits there, both military and civilian. Frankly if there weren't there would not be much to see. The US flag flies at the centre of the field along with the Canadian, British and British Columbian flags. I really appreciated the way we can show this solidarity and friendship with the US, in a time when it is politically correct in this country to spit on the US, its President, and everything she stands for. I had a few chats with US servicepersons as I toured some of their aircraft. I was impressed by a brand new C-130 Hercules. They are still making this aircraft after about 50 years and it is one of the most incredible and useful planes ever built. Too bad our Canadian ones are all 40 years old. Oh well maybe we can replace them after the Sea King helicopters have been taken care of.

Nothing was more incredible to me than a fully restored B-17. I won't wax on about its history here but it is one of the top aircraft of all time, and without it Europe may not have been liberated from the Nazis. I have never seen one before but when I was a kid I had a book about it, and it was my aviation dream to tour this plane. It made a few passes along with a P-51 Mustang, a Sea Hawk, and a handful of Harvard trainers. Then it landed and was open for touring. It took only a mere $7 donation to the Commemorative Air Force and I had my run of the interior.

The show ends with the Canadian Forces Snowbirds. This is, and I am not exaggerating here, the best precision aerobatics team in the world, bar none. At a time when our armed forces are a mere shadow of their former selves, desperately struggling to field a few thousands of troops, we still have the Snowbirds to show the world how incredible Canada can be, when we want to. I have seen the US Navy Blue Angels perform here, and while they put on a great show with four or five planes, the simply do not approach the precision and beauty of our Snowbirds. Neither does any other squadron that I am aware of. The Snowbirds do not fly the latest fighters - in fact they use a pretty old jet trainer, but they put their nine aircraft into the tightest formations as they loop and roll around the sky.

Iraq IS SO Part of the War on Terror

A lot of people, Democrats in the US and what seems like almost everyone in Canada and Europe, believe that the liberation of Iraq was a big mistake. There are a number of reasons given for this but the one that strikes me right now is the claim that it was a "distraction" from the "War on Terror" - popularly believed to be a synonym for the "Hunt for Osama bin Ladin."

Somebody ought to inform the terrorists of this. They have been streaming into Iraq with the goal of making it impossible to form the first democratic civil society in Arab lands. Why are they doing this if events in Iraq do not relate to their goals? The answer is that they understand perfectly well that the success of Iraq will do great damage to their cause.

After 9/11, there was a lot of talk amongst the whining classes about "root causes" and "why do they hate us?" Poverty and despair caused by decades of imperialist American foreign policy resulted quite naturally, they think, in the self-immolation of 19 upper class educated Saudi and other Arab men as they destroyed the greatest symbol of Western capitalism and 3000 innocent lives. Something is not right here. If poverty and despair cause terrorism, one would expect most of them to come from places like Haiti, Liberia and the Congo. But they don't. If American foreign aggression causes terrorism we should see a lot of them coming from Vietnam, Korea, Russia, Grenada, Panama, Germany and Japan. But they don't.

They hate us because we are successful, rich (comparatively) and free. They are Islamic extremists and their agenda is domination of the planet by fundamentalist Islam. The biggest problem they face in this eternal struggle is the temptation our freedom and wealth presents to their people, without us trying or even caring about it. Strict Islamic society is not a fun way to live, and the spread of modern communications is making the difference clear to every Muslim. The very existence of free liberal societies is a mortal threat to their goals, so they have only one option, and that is to destroy them or die trying.

That is why the establishment of such freedoms, and the increase in wealth that is sure to follow, right in the middle of their territory is just about the worst thing that could have happened to them. So all you who whine about the "root causes" - look, they are finally being addressed! As the great experiment in Iraq slowly succeeds, and it will, it will be a beacon of hope to all the other Arabs who live under brutish tyrannies.

The War on Terror was never about just finding and punishing the perpetrators of 9/11. The goal is not vengeance, it is to make the US (and incidentally the entire free world) safer from future and much larger attacks. When you are being attacked by alligators, you can endlessly kill them one by one, or you can drain the swamp. There are a number of reasons why liberating Iraq was the best way to start this process, including the state of war that still remained from the Gulf War after incessant violations of the ceasefire terms, Saddam's inherent hostility and belligerence, and his inevitable drive to acquire nuclear weapons once he finished bribing the French and the Russians to get rid of the UN sanctions.

President Bush and his administration understand this. Why don't you?

UPDATE: Donald Sensing writes about root causes.

First Spain, Next Britain?

Last Sunday, Spanish voters turfed the American-friendly government of Jose Maria Aznar in favour of the local socialists, who were not expected to win the election. This occured after a brilliantly-timed terrorist attack in Madrid, carried out by Al Qaeda or some subset of it.

Now, many Spaniards (and other appeasers) are saying that they did not surrender to Al Qaeda when many of them switched their votes at the last minute. Probably many of those who switched their votes even believe this (although I have heard some comments from Spanish voters admitting they voted out of fear). Unfortunately for them, the jihadists have other reasons and far older grievances with Spain than their participation in Iraq.

It doesn't matter though - what matters is that Al Qaeda believes their operation was successful, and now that they believe that they have found out how to control the foreign policies of European governments, we can expect them to use this relatively simple tactic again.

In terms of European foreign policy, there can be no greater victory for Al Qaeda than sundering the alliance between Britain and the US. However this will not be as easy for them to pull off. Britain will likely not have a general election until 2005 sometime, and that is a long way off. The opposition Conservatives are probably more likely to remain friends with the US than even Labour is, so it would not help Al Qaeda to precipitate that change. From a recent speech by the Conservative leader Michael Howard:

"It would be a terrible thing indeed if last week's murders in Madrid led the terrorists to conclude that attacking America results in retribution, but attacking Europe results in victory.

"Countries cannot insulate themselves from terrorist attack by opting out of the War on Terror. We cannot buy ourselves immunity by changing our foreign policy. Apart from the moral cowardice of that position, it can never work in practice."

No, where Britain is vulnerable is within the Labour party itself. There is significant opposition in that party to Blair's policy of close alliance with America and the operation in Iraq.

I don't know enough about British politics to know if Blair may face some sort of leadership challenge before the next election. Here in Canada the parties have various requirements for leadership reviews at some interval between general elections. Of course they are usually a mere formality. Perusing the Labour Party website I was unable to find their party constitution or rules which may pertain to this.

So, the important question for Britons today is - how will Al Qaeda attempt to replace Blair with a more compliant appeaser? If Blair faces some sort of scheduled leadership review before the next election, I believe they will definitely use that opportunity to attack with the hope of replacing Blair with one of his rivals, who would then do what Spain is doing and pull Britain from the American-led coalition in Iraq.

If such a leadership review is not scheduled, what else might Al Qaeda try? How would Britons (and most importantly sitting Labour MP's) react to a spate of coordinated subway bombs? Might enough Labour MP's decide to bring down their own government in Parliament, or at least threaten Blair with the possibility, in order to force a withdrawl from Iraq? Would the Conservatives and other opposition members support such a move?

I believe Britons would be crazy to think that pulling out of Iraq would make them safer in the long run, but I thought that about the Spanish too, and now I know they are crazy. Hopefully, for all our sakes, the Brits are not.