Monthly Archives: March 2005

Still busy, but I wanted to direct your attention to this article by Eric Boehlert. It's in Salon so non-subscribers will have to watch an ad or something if they want to read it. But it claims something about the Terri Schiavo case that I hadn't realized. (That's assuming it's true. If it isn't, I would imagine it would be pretty easy to rebut by citing the correct numbers.) Here are two key paragraphs…

Recent polling data, in outlets from Fox News to the Washington Post, shows that an overwhelming majority of Americans back the position of Michael Schiavo, Terri's husband, that he, and not his wife's parents, should have the final say about removing the feeding tube of his wife, who has been severely brain-damaged and incapacitated for the past 15 years. The polling data seriously undercuts the notion that Americans are deeply divided on the Schiavo case. Yet ever since March 18, when Republicans began their unprecedented push to intervene legislatively in a state court case that had already been heard by 19 judges, the press has all but disregarded the polls.

The Schiavo episode highlights not only how far to the right the GOP-controlled Congress has lunged — a 2003 Fox News poll found just 2 percent of Americans think the government should decide this type of right-to-die issue — but also how paralyzed the mainstream press has become in pointing out the obvious: that the GOP leadership often operates well outside the mainstream of America. The press's timidity is important because publicizing the poll results might extend the debate from one that focuses exclusively on a complicated moral and ethical dilemma to one that also examines just how far a radical and powerful group of religious conservatives are willing to go to push their political beliefs on the public.

I'm guessing that if you polled people on the question of whether Congress should decide who wins on American Idol, more than 2% would think that was appropriate. So is there any reason the Schiavo matter is in Congress at all?

My gut is split two ways on this matter, though neither thinks most of the folks riding the Terri Schiavo bandwagon are out to do anything but demonstrate their power and/or fealty to the Religious Right. On the one side, I think there is a state-level process in place that decides this kind of thing and that Ms. Schiavo's defenders have shown no reason to depart from that process, other than that they don't like what it has repeatedly determined. The other side says that we should err on the side of compassion and giving "life" (such as it may be in her case) the benefit of the doubt. But even there, I don't think that should stop with Terri Schiavo. If we're going to do everything possible to keep her breathing, let's make the same effort for everyone else whose death could perhaps be prevented with more human effort. One Republican I saw on C-Span the other night made what I'm sure he didn't intend as a great argument for National Health Care and increases in Medicaid, Medicare and access to cheaper prescription drugs. Or is anyone out there so disingenuous as to deny that people who are much more "alive" and salvageable than Terri Schiavo die due to lack of affordable health care and medicine?

I kinda like a lot of what I'm hearing from the G.O.P. about denying "the culture of death" and about doing everything we can to prolong life. I just think it oughta apply to everyone who might actually be helped instead of just one poor lady who, sad to say, is probably never going to get any better…and maybe didn't even want this kind of "help."

Here's this one from Dennis Donohoe. I'll reply and then I have to get back to paying work…

I too am conflicted about this case. However, I see a distinction (as did your e-mail correspondent) between cutting off "life support" and removing a feeding tube. Consider the sad case of Karen Ann Quinlan. She had life support cut off, but proceeded to live another ten years. Clearly she still had a feeding tube. I think it is grotesquely cruel to let someone slowly and painfully starve to death by cutting off their food. If the courts (and her husband) want her to die, why not give her a quick acting injection and bypass the suffering? The answer seems to be that this would offend the public's sense of propriety.

This is a sad situation. I agree with you, by the way, that this Congressional intervention is crazy.

Even if there is a difference between cutting off "life support" and removing a feeding tube, I don't see how it matters to the debate currently going on in this country. Either way, people make a decision and it leads to the patient dying.

When I first read about the Schiavo case, several elements of the story had me conflicted, and one was this notion of someone painfully starving to death. In such a situation, I would sure rather go via lethal injection. However, I then read in a couple of articles like this one [Miami Herald, subscription may be required] that what is now being done to Ms. Schiavo is peaceful and painless. The right-wing news sources all say otherwise…and I think this all dovetails with the article by Dana Milbank to which I linked last night. We have competing sets of facts here, perhaps on at least one side, tailored to fit the readership.

Don't anyone write and tell me which one is correct. I know who I want to ask about this, and I'll accept what he tells me. But we don't read the news so we can get "facts" that cancel one another out, and then have to go out and do our own research. News exists to tell us things with some authority, even the things we might not want to hear. Or at least, it used to. We don't have to believe everything we're told, and we shouldn't. But we also ought to have some sources that won't fib or sugar-coat to appease their key demographic group.

Incidentally, I think the argument for letting the patient starve as opposed to administering that lethal injection is that in the latter, it seems more like humans are taking a life, whereas in the former, it's like we're stepping back and letting God work His or Her will. But I also think that's one of those distinctions without a real difference.

This just in from John Thomas…

Terry Schiavo is not on life support. She is not suffering from a "fatal congenital disease." If her feeding tube was not removed, she would continue to live, much like if Christopher Reeve's breathing tube was not removed, he continued to live.

There's way too much conflation of the different kinds of medical status to compare Schiavo's case to a myriad of other things, but it's apples and oranges, and just serves to confuse people who might not know what's going on. The insinuations in your recent blog post are part of that confusion.

Why not declare to people that Terri Schiavo is not on "life support" any more than Christopher Reeve was, and that she is not suffering from a fatal disease like the child referenced at the blog you linked to.

You're right that the two cases are not exactly alike but I think you're wrong, at least in a conversational sense, that the term "life support" does not apply in the Schiavo situation. I just did one of them nifty Google searches and found well over 3,000 news stories and headlines that disagree with you. A lot of folks, including doctors on both sides, seem to think she was on "life support."

In any case, the rhetoric and arguments that people are using to demand that her feeding tube be reinserted could certainly apply to darn near any instance where human action or inaction leads to the termination of a life. And without taking sides on the Schiavo matter — because I'm conflicted on many aspects of it — I have to wonder what larger principle her defenders think they're fighting for. Tom DeLay is convening emergency sessons to make sure this one woman has "every opportunity to keep living" but there are plenty of people who don't get that opportunity and I don't see him spending five seconds on them. And just last week, DeLay was trying to cut $40 billion from the Medicaid program, and that would certainly hasten a lot of deaths…and in people who are alive in more than the technical sense that Terri Schiavo is still alive.

If you read the article about the child in Texas, you'll see that it's also about a 68-year-old man who, like Schiavo, is in a "persistent vegetative state." Texas law apparently allows the hospital to turn off his ventilator, which will end his life just as surely as yanking Terri Schiavo's feeding tube will end hers. That man's family is fighting to keep him alive and there isn't even anyone in the case saying, like Terri's husband says of her, "this is what (s)he wanted." Why isn't Congress convening emergency sessions to give that man "every opportunity to keep living?" If we want that to be our national goal, great. Let's apply it to everyone.

The National Cartoonists Society has done a major upgrade of its website. Of interest to all will be the member listings where each NCS member (with a few holes) has done up a little bio of him- or herself. And even more interesting are the ones done in the past by those no longer with us.

As you may note over there, the NCS is having this year's Reuben Awards Weekend in Scottsdale, Arizona from May 27 to 29. The festivities are generally open only to members but they've invited me to be there in order to roast my friend Sergio Aragonés and to emcee a rousing game of Quick Draw!, the cartoon improv game we play at conventions. This should be a lot of fun, except that the dinner requires formal wear. I own two tuxedos, one of which is too big for me now and one of which is too small. I've been losing about four pounds a month since I got a new doctor. (Good news because I was afraid my family was going to petition Congress to remove my feeding tube.) If this keeps up, by the end of May, I might be to the point where my tailor can take in the jacket of the too-large tux and let out the pants of the too-small tux, thereby creating one tuxedo that will fit me. We would then take the coat and trousers that remain and use them to dress Jabba the Hut.

I'm still in Cream of Mushroom mode, but if you're interested in the Terri Schiavo case, read this blogpost about how people in Texas are having their life supports disconnected under a law signed by George W. Bush.

Dana Milbank of the Washington Post says that…well, here. I'll quote one key paragraph…

Partisans on the left and right have formed cottage industries devoted to discrediting what they dismissively call the "mainstream media" — the networks, daily newspapers and newsmagazines. Their goal: to steer readers and viewers toward ideologically driven outlets that will confirm their own views and protect them from disagreeable facts. In an increasingly fragmented media world, ideologues have already devolved into parallel universes, in which liberals and conservatives can select talk radio hosts, cable news pundits and blogs that share their prejudices.

An excellent article it is…but I think Milbank misses one key point. It's that a large part of the press, in a misguided quest to attract more customers, has abdicated their responsibility to print things that some might consider "disagreeable facts." I do think he's right though that too many people are now seeking out "news" that will spin reality their way. If you think otherwise, read a wide range of stories on the Terri Schiavo matter. It's almost like the Liberal and Conservative sites are talking about two separate cases.

Speaking of which: I have now decided that there's something lower than being in a Persistent Vegetative State. It's being in a Persistent Vegetative State and having Tom DeLay watching out for your interests.

Starting tonight, GSN (née The Game Show Network) is running episodes of The Name's the Same hosted by Bob and Ray. I have not seen these. I don't think they've ever been rebroadcast since they first aired around a half-century ago. But nothing Bob and Ray ever did was without interest, and I'll be eager to see how much they could improve what was basically not a very good game show.

For the first time in many months, I invoke the long-standing Internet Tradition that I invented and which hardly anyone else follows. The way it works is that when the proprietor of a weblog is too busy to update said weblog, the proprietor posts a photo of a can of Campbell's Cream of Mushroom Soup. I have deadlines and things that must be done, and I have to pay for the new roof on my garage. (They should finish tomorrow afternoon, about the time it's supposed to start raining.) I shall return to you when work is done and the roof is paid-for.

The annual TV Land Awards debuted the other night and will rerun a few times throughout the coming weeks. These shows are a bit too self-congratulatory for my taste, and you sure get the idea that the winners — and even the categories in which they "win" — have everything to do with who's willing to show up for the taping. Nevertheless, there are fun moments, and it was very nice that they did a little salute to our boy, 100-year-old Charles Lane.

To put Mr. Lane's long career into a bit of perspective, try wrapping your brain around this fact: At the time Charles Lane began his professional acting career, Joe Barbera was still in school, studying for a career in banking.

Frank Rich brings back a Golden Oldie…Enron.

Like (I'm guessing) a good many of you, I thought Robert Blake was guilty of murdering his wife…though this is not an opinion I came to by scrupulously examining evidence, hearing all sides and deliberating the matter for more than about ten seconds. I felt he did it the way I feel it will rain this weekend. A lot of folks are saying so…and since a lot of them seem to know more about it than I do, I go with the flow. Even after the verdict, I'm not sure about Blake, nor do I have the interest to study up on it. Maybe he didn't do it or maybe there just wasn't sufficient proof that he did it. Not the same thing.

I did follow the O.J. Simpson case closely enough to have an opinion about which I felt strongly. I think the first jury — the one that acquitted him — had their heads up their judicial posteriors. But about the Blake case, I dunno. I feel like I was lied to by several articles I read. They said not just that he did it but that the evidence was undeniable and overwhelming. Clearly, it was not. He may have murdered his wife but the evidence could not have been as airtight as those articles made it out to be.

The Blake case differs from the O.J. case in a number of ways that may make it possible for him to function in society and — who knows? — even get some acting work again. Blake and his lawyers did not seem arrogant the way Simpson and his Dream Team appeared. There was no Race Card for them to play, nor did they particularly demonize the police. Blake was not turned loose despite a mountain of forensic evidence. Blake's supposed victim did not seem as innocent and mourned as the two people Simpson hacked to death. A lot of those who got mad at the O.J. verdict were mad on behalf of the highly-visible families of the deceased, Fred Goldman especially. There have been no conspicuous mourners of Bonny Lee Bakley. (Her sister phoned in to Court TV after the verdict and seemed mainly distraught that they now will probably not get anything from the civil suit they've filed against Blake.) Most of all, Blake seems rather sad and beaten, almost like he's already paid a fairly stiff penalty for a crime he may or may not have committed. If he's guilty, of course, it's insufficient penalty. But maybe we're so cynical by now about rich 'n' famous murderers getting properly punished that we'll settle for this much.

I love photos of Los Angeles, especially historic Los Angeles. This site has some great current photos of places that have been around for a long time.

My skepticism over reports that TiVo is doomed seems to be justified. This is good news for the company…good enough to put some of the Deathwatches on hold for a bit. They're still some distance from showing a profit but if the Comcast people are going to be equipping their zillions of subscribers with TiVos, there's going to have to be some sort of long-term support there. So things are looking up a bit.

I wonder if anyone has done any sort of study on Technological Frustration, which is my term for the restlessness of consumers to see their software or hardware improved. I use a program called Forte Agent for most of my e-mail, and I'm convinced that the only thing that prevented it from dominating the market is that it took its various makers (the company changed hands a few times) ten years to make improvements that could/should have happened in two. Its remaining users are still sitting there, wondering if certain promised new features will appear this year or next or the one after…but many have given up on it, the same way a lot of folks gave up on Betamax back when all the sexy new developments were over in the VHS column. One can understand a company being overly-cautious about perfecting a new feature before releasing it — that seems to have been what delayed Sony with its Betamax advances. One can also understand that some techological advances just take time…more than anyone could anticipate. Still, at some point, you just get impatient.

TiVo was introduced into the marketplace in March of 1999. I ordered my first (of many) a month later and it was really quite a wonderful invention. I demonstrated it to everyone who came by my house for about the next year because that's how long it took before most people had even heard of the thing. The company sold at least a dozen more of them because of my efforts but I didn't want a commission. I only wanted TiVo to improve its product…and they have. Just not fast enough. The new "TiVo to Go" feature is disappointing for reasons I explained here, plus many are finding the picture quality unsatisfactory. But the whole thing is probably a greater disappointment than it could have been because it took so long to arrive. For months and months, we heard, "It's coming, it's coming." That kind of thing increases expectations and breaks down brand loyalty.

A few of my friends have given up on TiVo and assembled their own, homemade versions using computers and some software like Media Portal or Snapstream. One said to me, "It took me two days to build a Personal Video Recorder that can do everything I want. Why has it taken TiVo five years?" There are plenty of reasons, of course, including the fact that TiVo keeps being sued or threatened with suits for the supposed damages it will wreak on the television industry. But the point is that in this era of Immediate Gratification, a lot of folks aren't willing to wait…or to trust TiVo to improve itself at a satisfying clip. If they could only manage to do that, we could get rid of all the Deathwatches, once and for all.

The other day, I linked to an extremely funny/clever video cartoon about prescription drugs. Here's a better link, direct to the page of the folks who commissioned it. I hadn't realized that it was Consumers Union, which is the organization that puts out Consumer Reports. I am a big fan of Consumer Reports, which has always struck me as one of the few truly untainted voices for consumers…especially now that Ralph Nader only seems to be crusading for Ralph Nader. You might want to read this page they've posted about some of the recent outrages in the field of prescription drugs. It's one of those areas where, I think, too many people shrug their shoulders and say, "Well, there's nothing we can do."