The New "Dr. Death": Angel or demon?

I realize this is certain to cause some strong feelings, but I hope it is taken in the spirit offered - not trying to force agreement with my thoughts, but rather to stimulate people to examine what they believe, rather than simply cling to that belief blindly. Whether or not this changes anyone's feelings on the subject, I thank you for at least reading and considering what I have to say.

I just finished reading an article in the Jewish World Review entitled, "Meet the New Dr. Death" (Dr. Kevorkian has passed away and another doctor has been "cited" as his spiritual replacement.) It struck me that the author appeared to be criticizing the assistance provided by this doctor and the associates who help to carry out the wishes of these people choosing to end their own lives. Consequently, I sent this in an email to JWR as a comment:

Is it not more than interesting that so many in America have no difficulty accepting the killing of a fetus, the "termination of a pregnancy" which causes the death of what is absolutely certain to become a human being - even if you believe it is not a human life until birth. This killing is not done at the request of the fetus itself, of the proto-human, if you will, but by the decision and will of another, in a planned and premeditated manner. If done to any living human, it would legally, and actually, be murder. And those assisting, counseling in its favor, would indeed be guilty of conspiracy to commit murder.

Yet many of the same people who have no difficulty accepting and approving of the death of what would otherwise soon be a human being are unwilling to allow someone to choose his or her own death. Unwilling to allow them to seek help in ending their own personal suffering from cancer, from degenerative diseases such as ALS or Alzheimer's, which will eventually leave them helpless and perhaps even mindless, unable to have any quality of life whatsoever. These people who also wish not to be a burden to their spouse or family, who do not want to cause their spouse to end up in poverty from the expense of their illness and care. People who may cringe at the thought of years of personal care where strangers may be hired to attend to their most personal bodily functions, as they cannot.

I have been a "pro-choice" believer for most of my life. I have known people very dear to me who have chosen to terminate a pregnancy, and still feel that their choice was proper for them at the time they made that choice. I do not sit in judgment of them.

That being said, I find myself feeling more and more that it may be wrong to end life in that fashion. But then again, I find myself unable to hunt or kill animals now, and even refrain from killing most insects I come across. The Buddhist concept of "ahimsa" (which _does_ support self-defense) makes more sense to me these days. I am not against hunting, and while I would prefer people hunted only to eat the meat of their kill and not for trophies, I will not question their right to do so. I believe I could hunt again if I needed to in order to feed myself, my family, or friends.

This change in my worldview, however, does not cause me to think that it is immoral for someone to choose to do what they wish with their own life. Yes, there are times I would disapprove, as when children are affected by the death of that person, or if it leaves a spouse or family in dire straits. But that disapproval would be merely an emotional response on my part, one that I would not seek to force upon anyone else. I believe that a person's property should be theirs to do with as they please, and we own nothing as completely and as fully as our own life.

Simply because society feels it has the right to control that life - through incarceration, through forced psychiatric treatment and medication, through laws that affect what we can do with and to ourselves - does not make it right. I firmly believe it is every individual's right to decide - if they are able - the time of their own death. If they wish it to be the last possible moment, they will not seek to end it themselves. But if they _do_ wish to pick a time short of that, it is their right to do so. Getting assistance in achieving that goal should not be illegal. Coercion or force in achieving an early demise - such as happens when the State picks the time, through a court-ordered sentence of death, or the sentence of death administered by a SWAT team in your own home, should be illegal. If the State can choose to terminate our lives before we would wish to, why can we not also utilize our right to terminate our own life when we choose to do so? Which choice is more moral?

What conservative candidates?

Some of the media on and off the Internet have been talking about Mitt Romney as if he is a viable Republican candidate, one that even the Tea Party can get behind. Folks, I hate to sound like a broken record, but Islam is a very real threat to us here in America, even if we aren't suffering their presence the way France, England, and the other European countries are suffering.

Mitt Romney should be ignored for a variety of reasons. My first choice would be the fact that he supported and signed into law "Romneycare" (his Massachusetts version of what we next became familiar with, Obamacare), which was forced upon the people of MA by Romney and their legislature back when he was their governor. Second would be the fact that he is either ignorant or a liar (or both), which are prime pre-requisites for political office, but not what we want if we are trying to improve things here in America. Here is a post from Ann Barnhardt's web site wherein she quotes the fool:

ONE QUICK ROMNEY ADDENDUM

POSTED BY ANN BARNHARDT - JUNE 3, AD 2011 9:28 AM MST

This was just sent to me by reader GM, and had I known of this nugget of pullusfimus [Latin for "chickenshit"] yesterday, this would have been mentioned in the video. Oh well.

Mitt Romney is an imbecile who, if elected, will get a lot of Americans killed on the altar of cultural marxism/dhimmitude:

"There is, however, a movement in the world known as jihadism. They call themselves jihadists and I use the same term. And this jihadist movement is intent on causing the collapse of moderate Muslim states and the assassination of moderate Muslim leaders. It is also intent on causing collapse of other nations in the world.It's by no means a branch of Islam. It is instead an entirely different entity. In no way do I suggest it is a part of Islam."

--Mitt Romney

There's more. Full, dry heave-inducing citation HERE.

Can you believe it? Is it really possible for someone to be that stupid? That misinformed? I realize he is the poster-boy for RINOs, but how can he make statements like that and expect to win in the primaries? By tampering with the electronic voting machines? Bribing the vote counters? Being the only one the Republican party will allow to run in the primaries? Incredible.

Almost funny, but true nonetheless

Jerusalem: An lllustrative Comparative Study of Scholastic Reality

And for those who might try to weasel on this, it means there is no mention of Jerusalem by any name or in any manner in the Quran. Period. The only thing "holy" about Jerusalem in Islam is their desire to steal it from the Israelis (and Christians as well) in order to harm Jews and Christians. But especially Jews. BTW, for those who might not have heard, the muslims have been destroying Jewish archeological structures and remains under the Dome ever since they took over control of that site.

Taking Jerusalem over piecemeal - as they have been doing with Israel itself - until they can kick the Jews out altogether is their agenda. Unless that rare bird, the Great Red-breasted muslim-lover, B. Hussein Obama, helps them take it all in one bite.

Up until now, I hadn't been able to decide whether it is Obama or Carter who hates the Jews more. I believe Carter might have been more open about it, at least until Obama reversed U.S. policy to stab Israel in the back by trying to get them to return Israel to the 1967 borders - where Israel was nine miles wide. But now B. HusseinO has made it obvious by that declaration that the destruction of Israel is on his agenda, as well as Iran's. The Man is evil.

Bits and pieces

A few quotes stumbled upon in my reading on the Web that I feel are worth repeating here:

"Despite a carefully choreographed image of affability and cool, Barack Obama's decisions and appointments as President betray an alienation from the values and the people of this country that are too disturbing to be answered by showing his birth certificate." Thomas Sowell

[Being that Thomas Sowell is an incredibly brilliant and conservative black economist , the Left can hardly play the race card here.]

"In closing, I'll add one point that 'Puter didn't add. Not only are the demographics of the housing market in play here, but you need to consider the investment profiles of the demographics. The Boomers are starting to remove money from the investment markets as they retire. Note 'Puter's ratio of 3:2 between the generations - there will likely be more money coming out than going in. It's not a pretty picture."

Scripsit GorTechie from The Gormogons.com

[When people moan about how we "baby boomers" will be raping the economy with the cost of paying for our retirement, Social Security (like I'll live long enough to see it), and Medicare, this news will occasion even louder screams. My wife and I are drawing down and living off of our 401k's right now. Oops.]

Two from Daphne at Jaded Haven:

"It breaks my heart that so few even recognize their sheer nakedness in the face of open tyranny."

"Our police forces resemble a scary version of combat troops, they’ve become an intimidating fact of life rather than comforting presence on our city streets."

[Including the city streets of Joplin, MO. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=4rRTn-dDBTI. h/t to Silicon Graybeard]

"The spread of evil is the symptom of a vacuum. Whenever evil wins, it is only by default: by the moral failure of those who evade the fact that there can be no compromise on basic principles." Ayn Rand

"Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of a day; but a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period, and pursued unalterably through every change of ministers, too plainly prove a deliberate and systematical plan of reducing us to slavery.

When the representative body have lost the confidence of their constituents, when they have notoriously made sale of their most valuable rights, when they have assumed to themselves powers which the people never put into their hands, then indeed their continuing in office becomes dangerous to the state, and calls for an exercise of the power of dissolution." Thomas Jefferson

[Not much difference here between Republicans and Democrats: Bush's Patriot Act - supported and extended by Obama and the current Congress - and now the loss of the Fourth Amendment via SCOTUS, plus Obama taking us to war in Libya and interfering in the internal operation of several countries, including his betrayal and abandonment of Israel. Add in the burgeoning police state, and it indeed "calls for the exercise of the power of dissolution." Or secession, if there are indeed some who would prefer to remain full slaves of the State.]

Remembrance Day, Memorial Day - for some

Yes, I realize it is the day after. Yesterday was indeed Memorial Day, or Remembrance Day as I believe the Canadians called it the last time I visited Victoria on Vancouver Island in British Columbia. (It was also my anniversary, seventeen years with the lovely lady who was silly enough to marry me, although we've know each other - and loved each other - since 1978. Another "remembrance" for me.)

What actually occasions this note is a post I just now read by Wesley Pruden, posted on the JWR (Jewish World Review) web site. He was speaking of the origins of Memorial Day, and the people involved. At the end of the post - where it so often seems the "meat" of a story resides - he spoke of Gen. Joe Wheeler, a Confederate general who also served with the "Union" army, when he fought the Spanish in Cuba. He wrote:

"The echoes of shot and shell that had summoned men to battle were barely beginning to fade when America stood at the cusp of war with Spain just as the century ended. Not everyone though it was a good idea to organize Southerners into an army so soon after Appomattox. Someone had the good idea of offering command to a former Confederate officer, and to Gen. Joe Wheeler, a hard-hitting cavalry commander from Alabama who briefly delayed Sherman's torching of Atlanta. He and his troops fought well in Cuba, though in the din of battle at Las Guasimas he forgot where he was and rallied his men with the cry: "Let's go, boys! We've got the damnyankees on the run again."

He died with his boots on in Brooklyn a decade later, pleased to parade in his uniform of Union blue, and he is one of the few senior Confederate officers allowed to sleep in a grave at Arlington. The flags of the two American nations whose uniforms he wore decorated his grave this year."

As a technical Southerner, having been born in Houston (although raised in New York and New England and descended from French-Canadian stock), and being aware of the truth of the War of Northern (Federal) Aggression, my sympathies lie with the South. So I was especially pleased to read Pruden's words confirming his understanding that there were indeed two American nations for a brief and bloody period of time. Not one nation and some rebels, but indeed another nation, the Confederate States of America.

And that stirs another memory, another remembrance that may be withheld from our children when they are taught American history, deprived of this knowledge as were many of our generation as we grew up:

Arlington National Cemetery, where so many of our war dead are buried, and where Memorial Day takes on the most serious of overtones, was the home of Robert E. Lee, stolen from his widow as punishment for his leading the fight against the North's insistence that the Southern states would not be allowed to go their own way, to secede from the "Union". It took a Supreme Court ruling and an act of Congress to return it to Lee's descendant, his grandson Custis Lee. One year later, in 1875, he sold it back to the government.

For quite some time, Confederate soldiers were refused burial there, but eventually the North relented, and there is now a Confederate section where some of "the gray" were allowed to be moved and re-interred. Relatively few are the Confederate soldiers who lie there, to be honored with the rest of our fallen warriors, but they should be remembered as well.

Freedom? What freedom?

Just finished reading more horror tales about the TSA. Rape victims being thrown to the floor when they recoil in terror from being groped by TSA agents, six-year-old little girls crying and begging "don't touch me there", in spite of the fact that John Pistole, the head of TSA, has publicly stated no children under twelve would be groped, er, be subjected to an "enhanced at-down".

Now I have read that the government is requiring the installation of "black boxes", data recorders, in every new vehicle sold starting tomorrow, June of 2011. Ostensibly, these devices are placed so that information can be obtained concerning the moments leading up to an accident, including speed, braking, seat belt use, etc. Similar to the data recorder in commercial aircraft. (Will they now be required in civilian aircraft as well?)

[Notice in this photo that the box appears to be marked for a 2004 GMC Envoy. I believe that means that many vehicles sold before June of 2011 already have the boxes, but the will begin to be mandatory starting tomorrow. And all of you folks who love your OnStar? You are already complete with all the equipment needed to track your movement and vehicle operation, but you have the added benefit of a remote operator being able to shut your vehicle off even while you are driving it.]

You can see where this is going, can't you? Weren't wearing your seat belt when someone crashes into you running a red light? You still get a ticket, and your insurance company refuses to pay for treatment of your injuries because you weren't being responsible for your own safety. Exceeding the speed limit when it happened? Another ticket, and perhaps your insurance company now refuses to pay for repairs to your vehicle (I did mention the other driver was an illegal alien without any insurance of his own, didn't I? Or an otherwise responsible citizen who let their insurance lap because they lost their job in this recession?)

Government has become so intrusive, it is possible to claim with strict veracity that we are as put upon as people who lived in Soviet-era Russia. Sure, we have a much better life-style, more comfort, but as far as movement within the country, surveillance by camera and tracking devices, etc. the Soviets couldn't hold a candle to our government.

How many of you realize that law enforcement has started seizing GPS units from vehicles they have stopped, to document the speeds the vehicle has been traveling at? Didn't know that data was stored on your unit, or just didn't think about having it removed from your vehicle without a warrant? Remember, there is no Fourth Amendment anymore. Post 9/11 TSA and the Supreme Court of Indiana and the Supreme Court of the United States have seen to that. May I make a recommendation? If you are stopped for speeding, or are involved in an accident where you were exceeding the speed limit just prior to the accident, know ahead of time how to wipe the memory on you device, especially if it is built into the vehicle, as so many are these days. I think you can do that with most units, currently at least. If not, and it is portable, consider destroying it. Replacement would be cheaper than any ticket you might receive, although you might lose in court and have to pay anyway. It's unlikely you'll slide if they have the data from your Tom Tom or Garmin. (Besides, I'd rather deprive the pr*cks

of the satisfaction of seizing my unit.)

If you have a vehicle that already has a data recorder, what can I say? Personally, I would rather pay a fine for tampering with, or removing, the unit (I wonder how draconian they will get with that bit of legislation?) than to suffer the consequences of the fines involved or loss of coverage should anything untoward happen.

I am probably being naive, though. Somehow I think the insurance companies will be quick to include new restrictions in our policies that negate coverage if we knowingly tamper with such a device, don't you? Law enforcement and the courts will most likely make such tampering presumptive evidence of guilt in any accident or traffic stop that occurs after disconnecting or destroying said device.

And you thought you were still "free", didn't you? You own guns, have permission from the government for concealed carry (unless you are lucky enough to live in one of the four states that recognizes the Second Amendment), can still drive your car from Point A to Point B without passing through a metal detector, skin-irradiating scanner, or sexual assault by TSA. You are still allowed - sometimes - to assemble peacefully (if you get a permit first), speak your mind (at least 1000 feet away from any mosque), and live where you want (until Pfizer, or Bechtel, or your local imam wants your property under eminent domain.) You can still vote for the socialist candidate of your choice, and vote for laws that protect your needs or desires (until the Federal Department of Justice decides it will not enforce those laws, like DOMA, or against AG Holder's "people".) You are still safe within your home, your castle (until SWAT decides they want to pay you a visit, or your local Sheriff decides to do "random house-to-house" searches.)

Yes, we are certainly passing on our long heritage of freedom to our children. If you accept our government's new definition of freedom. For the folks who continue to say, "Yes, but it's still the best place of any on earth", I must ask you: having become use to rape, isn't it swell that you haven't been sodomized? Yet. Could it be that it is getting awfully close to the time when it will be necessary (it is already desirable) to "tamper with or destroy" the mechanism of injustice?

The Guerena Shooting: Initial Analysis

Came across a web site called "Confederate Yankee" where a gentleman who sounds as if he knows what he is talking about (states he has SWAT experience) does a critique of what is known about the SWAT killing of Jose Guerena, including a breakdown of what is visible on the helmet cam video that is available on the 'Net. I don't know if that is the entire video, or if it has been edited or cut short, but he bases his conclusions on what is available. The first half is a lengthy description of what SWAT is supposed to be, and how it is meant to operate. Well worth reading, but if your time and/or attention span are short, the analysis begins about halfway down into the article.

Mike M. is a lot gentler in his statement concerning how Pima County SWAT handled this incident than I would have been, even though I am a former peace keeper with law enforcement experience myself. He posts at the end of his article (please read it):

As you read further accounts of this situation keep in mind that the actions of the police must be judged only on what they knew, or reasonably should have known, when they arrived to serve the warrant that morning. Post-shooting attempts to paint Guerena as the worlds most dangerous drug dealer and homicidal maniac (who, faced with four armed men he likely recognized as police did not take his weapon off safe) mean nothing at all, other than that the police are furiously spinning to justify what may turn out to be unjustifiable.

I don’t have all the facts. No one does. But based on the video, and what is currently known, it is very hard indeed to see how the police acted with anything less than amazing incompetence, incompetence that cost the life of a former Marine, a man who was apparently a solid citizen working hard in a copper mine to provide for his young family.

* * * * * * * * * *

As Mike M. was, I also was amazed by the team member who ducked in at the last minute to shove his pistol past the heads of several of his teammates in order to unleash several shots himself, "me too" shots as Mike characterized them, shots that appeared not even to have been aimed, although he might have been shooting at Guerena's body as it lay on the floor. (I wonder if the coroner will do a forensic ballistics work-up to indicate whose bullets struck Guerena and how many hit him after he was already down and no longer a threat by even the wildest imagination.) Thank the Lord the wife and child were not struck by these or any of the previous rounds these miscreants blazed away with into that home.

It is my fervent hope, although I am too cynical to expect it, that a real investigation of this incident will be done, and that the planners and executors (intentional use of the word) of this SWAT debacle will suffer serious consequences. In either a legal or extra-legal fashion.