YES, I’M STILL KICKING

I’ve been down in Central Florida attending the funeral of a friend’s mother. I made a wrong turn in Polk County (Haines City) after leaving Orlando and cruised down State Road 17 instead of taking U.S. 17. It was a lucky mistake; I drove through, around and in the vicinity of many orange groves and it was a beautiful sight. Not only that, their fragrance permeated the air. Luckily, State Road 60 in Lake Wales was a good route west and got me to Bartow in good time.

I’m sure I’ll have more to say about Bartow in the coming days.

UPDATE: I found a website at southeastroads.com on scenic Florida roads that makes me feel better both about taking that wrong turn and for recognizing that it was a scenic roadway:

Northbound Florida 17 (South 10th Street) approaches U.S. 17-92 (Hinson Avenue) in Haines City. Somewhat confusingly, Florida 17 intersects with U.S. 17, and several signs in this area attempt to clarify the difference between the state road and the U.S. highway. Use U.S. 17-92 southwest to Lake Alfred and northeast to Davenport. To return to U.S. 27, use U.S. 17-92 southwest.

They have some photos on that website but they don’t portray the groves at all; just basic roadway shots.

 

HAPPY EASTER, EVERYBODY

Gerard Van Der Leun is on a roll and has the GOOD NEWS:

Unexpected beauty rising in the center of all you can see. Take your eyes away and then look again and its gone. But the day goes on and the light rises around you and you know, with an abiding faith, that beauty will surprise you again when you least expect it, out of the dark on a rush of wings. There are many ways of this world and that one is not the least of them.

I thought for a moment about turning on the news to see what had transpired in the rest of the world while I slept. I decided against it. Held halfway between a death and a life, between Good Friday and Easter, I'd already learned the news of the day.

Amen.

 

THE QUESTION HAS BEEN CALLED . . . MUST YOU CHOOSE?

Gerard Van Der Leun thinks so:

IN THE END, it is never a matter of law, but a matter of what you believe. It is clear that Americans today have two sets of beliefs. The first group believes:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

 

The second group believes:

 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Government and their Laws with many legislatable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Which one you believe determines who you are. And you must choose.

On this Easter weekend, another persuasive post. This is a comment I made on the thread:

Unlike Gerard, I'm not sure we have to choose in that fashion. The post is right on the money -- I think the choice that must be made is more refined than you indicated, Gerard. Or, perhaps I've just assumed too much.

Where the choice has to be made, it seems to me, is whether or not you acknowledge the foundation of our laws and culture, the basis for the founding of this model republic.

The particular tenets don't necessarily have to be yours [you are free to be agnostic, atheist, Bhuddist, even anarchist, etc]. But you must, it seems to me, CHOOSE to be intellectually honest and not only acknowledge the Western Civilization that gave birth to this nation but the centrality of that culture to our beliefs in certain "inalieanble" rights and from whom those rights are derived.

That's where Europe has lost its way, as has the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party.

They chose poorly.

I pray that America will not follow their lead.

 

STILL DIGESTING THE SCHIAVO MATTER AND CONSIDERING TERRI’S REVOLUTION

Bill Kristol on the evident conclusion of the Terri Schiavo case:

[O]ur judges deserve some criticism. But we should not be too harsh. For example, it would be wrong to suggest, as some conservatives have, that our judicial elite is systematically biased against "life." After all, they have saved the life of Christopher Simmons. It would be wrong to argue, as some critics have, that our judges systematically give too much weight to the husband's wishes in situations like Terri Schiavo's. After all, our judges have for three decades given husbands (or fathers) no standing at all to participate in the decision whether to kill their unborn children. It would be wrong to claim that our judges don't take seriously legislation passed by the elected representatives of the people. After all, our judges are committed to upholding the "rule of law"--though not, perhaps, the rule of actual laws passed by actual lawmakers. And it would be wrong to accuse our judges of being heartless. After all, Judges Carnes and Hull of the 11th U.S. Circuit told us, "We all have our own family, our own loved ones, and our own children."

So do we all. They deserve a judiciary that is respectful of democratic self-government and committed to a genuine constitutionalism. The Bush administration should nominate such judges, and Congress should confirm them. And the president and Congress should lead a serious national debate on the distinction between judicial independence and judicial arrogance, and on the difference between judicial review and judicial supremacy. After all, we are a "maturing society," as the Supreme Court has told us. Perhaps it is time, in mature reaction to this latest installment of what Hugh Hewitt has called a "robed charade," to rise up against our robed masters, and choose to govern ourselves. Call it Terri's revolution.

People keep talking about an overreach by Evangelicals, Christian Conservatives, etc. I think they are missing the boat – just as they were deluded into thinking they could keep repeating the line that the Swift Boat Vets for Truth were “sliming” John Kerry and think that would settle the matter. They were wrong. John Kerry was and still is a lying opportunist who violated one of the fundamental rules of a fighting man – do not try and get over on your mates.

The problem with the so-called “husband” in the Schiavo case is that we all know he is not her husband in any commonly understood sense. It is, in fact, offensive to me to be battered by this assertion. He is shacking up with another woman that is his common law wife, has fathered two children by that woman, and people keep deferring to him as Terri’s husband.

Mickey-fickey, please. Terri Schiavo has no husband. Still, the robed masters are not the problem (although I agree with Kristol – there is a drift in the judiciary that favorably contemplates lecturing the public and lawmakers).

No, the problem here is that the Florida Senate blinked – now the question is what will be the legacy of that “blinkering” during a time for action.

 

WHAT DOES THE DENOUEMENT OF THE TERRI SCHIAVO CASE MEAN FOR AMERICA?

Gerard Van Der Leun at American Digest:

To me the lessons that should arise in our souls out of this sorry spectacle are twofold.

 

The first is that, more clearly than any moment I can recall, this case calls up the ancient demand of Deuteronomy:

 

"I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both you and your seed may live.... [Deuteronomy 30:19-20]. "

 

As a country we have, in this case, chosen death.

 

All our legal institutions have chosen death. The husband has chosen death. His lawyers have a long history of choosing death. The judge chose death and all the judges above the judge have now affirmed death. Death is where all our laws and all our "justices" have taken us.

That’s a sobering thought. But he’s not done:

The second lesson of Terri Schiavo is that, in this instance, the country has chosen evil over good, law over love.

 

It is well understood, though usually unmentionable, that in a society which has turned its morality over to lawyers, and made as many misdemeanors into felonies as it can find, the system churns out decisions every day that, while legal, are evil. In a society where secular law determines "right," and justice is often obtained with fees and remissions, evil outcomes are not only unavoidable, but desirable. Religious symbols such as The Ten Commandments lurking about the courts and the legislatures only serve to shame the legions of lawyers and judges, and hence must be expunged in order that evil can be forever hidden beneath the grimy robes of what is "legal."

 

Last week, Peggy Noonan wisely asked about the Shiavo case: "What good will come from killing her?" There has been no good answer to that question because there can be no good answer. The answer given this week by our society and our system is, "So that the law and evil and death can triumph over love and over life; that our will and not Thine be done."

 

One could say that God will punish those among us who created and who revel in this answer, but -- as I have noted elsewhere -- He already has. They've made their cultural casket. Now they will die in it.

That’s a tough assessment and likely goes further than I would . . . but it speaks to my core, and it is persuasive.

 

THE FLORIDA COURTS ARE NOT THE “WRONGDOERS” ON THE TERRI SCHIAVO CASE

Matt Conigliaro at Abstract Appeal makes the point and sounds the right note:

Judging Courage

 

I'm disturbed. I've just finished watching a round of television programs where Judge Greer was once again assailed as lawless, power-grabbing, and out of control. On a mission to kill, it's said.

This is horribly difficult to watch. I cannot help but think that well meaning, honest Americans are home watching these programs, thinking there must be some truth behind the repeated assertions that a single judge or two have turned the justice system upside down. The public deserves better.

Florida law told Judge Greer what he had to do here. Once fate chose him as the judge in the case, he was responsible for following the law laid out by both the Florida Supreme Court and the Florida Legislature, all of which said that where those close to the incapacitated person cannot agree on what the ward would choose to do, then the court should resolve the matter.

Judge Greer is a Republican and a Southern Baptist. No doubt he has his own views about what he thinks he would do, or what he thinks might be in Terri's best interests. But he was charged with deciding only what Terri would do. He found the evidence presented at trial clear and convincing that Terri would choose not to have her life prolonged by the affirmative intervention of modern medicine. Three appellate judges unanimously affirmed that decision.

I receive email after email telling me that no judge has the authority to end someone's life. That life must be preserved where there is even unreasonable hope, or where there is any uncertainty regarding the person's wishes. That oral evidence can never be clear and convincing. That removing "life support" is okay, but removing a feeding tube is barbaric and unacceptable. Perhaps those sentiments are noble, but they are not the law, and it was not within Judge Greer's power to make them the law. It is perfectly acceptable to disagree with the law on these points, but to condemn the judge for following the law as it exists is irresponsible and contrary to the basic principles on which our government, with its separate branches, was created.

I continue to emphasize that I have no opinion on whether the trial judge reached the result Terri would truly want. I did not attend the trial, and having not seen the witnesses and heard them testify, experience has taught me that I am insufficiently informed to second-guess the decision -- no matter how many facts I learn about the case. I do know that a decision was made. I also know that the judicial system offers the checks necessary to ensure that the law has been properly followed. Judge Greer is part of that system, and he operated within it to perform his required role. Those who condemn him, and the judiciary that has thus far upheld his decisions, do not know what they do.

This case is really turning out to be something of a perfect storm for demonstrating the checks and balances of our branches of government AND how each branch has specific roles to play with priorities unique to each branch. Far too many Americans, including reporters, don’t seem to grasp how these branches of government interact.

The key player here was the Legislative branch not at the federal level but the state level. Congress, in essence, tried to show the Florida Senate what it SHOULD have done. The Florida Senate, in its infinite wisdom, was not persuaded.

That’s how politics works. By the way, Matt looks to have a very interesting blog – check it out.

 

LESS COURTESY THAN A CONVICTED FELON?

Surely, the Terri Schiavo case has exposed a fault-line in American politics more curious than I would have expected and (I suspect) I am likely not alone in this assessment. For instance, Dale Franks at Q and O Blog makes my point:

I have to say, though, I am somewhat surprised that the Schindlers' request for injunctive relief hasn't been granted at least temporarily. After all, if Ms. Schindler was a convicted felon on Death Row, a fresh appeal like this would instantly put the kibosh on any plans to execute her, until the appeal reached a final disposition. In this case, if Ms. Schiavo dies before the final disposition of her appeal, the case is mooted, and there's no way that the Schindlers could be made whole. Granted, after three runs at the Supremes already, there's probably no real chance of getting any relief from them either, but still, if she was a convicted felon, there's be no question that her life would be spared.

Unfortunately, Ms. Schiavo didn't butcher a carload of tourists with a hatchet, so we can apparently just let her die, and make her whole case moot. I mean, irrespective of whether or not you believe Congress exercised its authority inappropriately in this case by ordering the de novo review, the clear intent of Congress was to spare Ms. Schiavo's life through mandating another round of review.  Too bad they couldn't find a way to make that explicit in the text of the act.  Apparently, the judiciary is coming over all originalist now, and deciding that, if it's not in the text of the act, it isn't required. 

Still, it's odd that Ms. Schiavo doesn't even receive the same courtesy a convicted felon would receive.

Strange, strange stuff. This is, in part, my response to Dale’s post on his website:

A de novo review means de novo review—and the Schindler’s are the focus, not some squire shacking up with another woman and raising a family with his shack-mate while still (wink, wink) claiming to be Terri Schiavo’s husband.

No, at this moment I am not sympathetic to Michael Schiavo. Not at all. If that was my sister, and my family had made the determinations that the Schindler family obviously has made – I’d be mad as hell.

 

TERRI’S APPEAL DENIED BY THE FEDERAL 11TH CIRCUIT COUT OF APPEAL IN ATLANTA

Michelle Malkin has a good post on the subject, including this sampling of columns:

Isn't it reassuring to know that Terri Schiavo, a woman being deliberately starved to death, retains her privacy rights?

In this week's column, I argue that the MSM's coverage of the case has been abysmal. I focus in particular on ABC's coverage, including the biased poll that Ed Morrissey deconstructed on Monday. More questions about ABC's coverage here.

Not surprisingly, other columnists weighed in on Schiavo as well:

Charles Krauthammer: "There is no good outcome to this case. Except perhaps if Florida and the other states were to amend their laws and resolve conflicts among loved ones differently -- by granting authority not necessarily to the spouse but to whatever first-degree relative (even if in the minority) chooses life and is committed to support it. Call it Terri's law. It will help prevent us having to choose in the future between travesty and tragedy."

Kathleen Parker, "When is a husband not a husband? That's the question that keeps scratching at the back door of the hospice where Terri Schiavo lay slowly dying of starvation through the weekend."

Linda Chavez: "If a court can order Terri Schiavo to be slowly starved to death on the wishes of an estranged husband, who will be next?"

I think many Republicans are right to focus on the invidious “culture of death” that surreptitiously slinks throughout this whole 15-year ordeal. It is a slippery slope and people are right to be fearful that we are lapsing far too much onto the “death” side of the ledger.

I liken this slippery slope to a particular difference between American English and British English related to our different cultural histories. I was listening to BBC America news on television this morning and the anchor said something to the effect of “Pakistan are . . .” rather than “Pakistan is” and that’s when it struck me – the culture of life vs. culture of death is a similar type of difference. Subtle, but often determinative.

How so? Our understanding of government has lead us to a grammatical modification of the language while Britain (still holding onto the remnants of its imperial colonial heritage) maintains the standard: “the United States are” [British English] rather than “the United States is,” [American English]. An American listening to a British broadcast immediately hears these types of linguistic oddities, and vice-versa.

Given this fact, I’m not sure I will be able to agree with Charles Krauthammer (who wrote an outstanding column that I otherwise agree with) when he said the action by Congress was a travesty.

To the contrary, we may look back on this time and instead focus on the actions by the Florida Senate and indict them for blinking when bold action was required. House Bill 701 and Senate Bill 804 are the two pieces of legislation in Florida that seem to be the only remaining hope for Terri Schiavo and both are tied up in the Senate.

In my mind, I’m filing this episode under the “limits of human reason” category.

 

RANDI RHODES?

Who the heck is Randi Rhodes? A Palm Beach County radio personality, apparently. Check out that interview link – then read this update, making sure to click on the comments and read them, too.

Here’s a picture of our fellow Floridian in action, apparently at the Democratic National Convention:

 

Soon, she may be known as the “infamous” Randi Rhodes.

 

R.I.P. DAVID LITTLE

An all-time Gator Great, David Little, has passed away much too soon in Miami:

 

The shadows that enveloped David Little always appeared to be immense.

He grew up and played football in the same city as his older brother, Larry, an All-Pro guard with the Miami Dolphins and a member of the Pro Football Hall of Fame.

When he was drafted by the Steelers in 1981, he backed up perennial Pro Bowl linebacker Jack Lambert, another Hall of Famer, before replacing Lambert in 1984.

But Little never let that bother him. He never tried to ride his brother's fame. Nor did he try to emulate Lambert or any of the other great Steelers linebackers.

"David was his own man," his wife, Denise, said. "He never let anything affect him. He never got caught up in anything."

Little, 46, who played 12 seasons with the Steelers until he was released in 1993, died Thursday while working out alone in his Miami home.

He wore the Orange and Blue during my years in the Army, 1977-80. God speed, David Little.

 

SUPER BOWL IN JAX AGAIN?

Is the commissioner spinning or will we get more Super Bowl's in Jacksonville?

"I think everyone feels the Jacksonville Super Bowl was a big success,'' Tagliabue said at a news conference following the first session of the league's annual March owners' meeting. "The city handled it very well. The host committee was very effective in getting things done and delivering on the concept they had. I would say the way some people said it to me was that there were ancillary aspects of the weekend apart from the game itself that maybe were not ideal, but they were certainly workable. It was a very enjoyable and very successful weekend.''

And what “ancillary” things might that be Mr. Commissioner?

"Taxis were hard to get. Some of the cruise ships leaving early (7 a.m.) on Monday so people couldn't leave at noon, things like that.''

Of course, the Miami Dolphins are trying to raise the bar and lock down South Florida as a semi-permanent host. I’m not betting against the Dolphins and South Florida; the game probably SHOULD be there on a semi-permanent basis.

 

A UNIFIED THEORY ON BLACK AMERICA?

Last Sunday’s New York Times Magazine had a long piece on Roland G. Fryer Jr., a native Floridian from Daytona Beach with ties to Bethune-Cookman. He’s something of a prodigy, 27-years-old and already a force at Harvard.

Roland G. Fryer Jr. is 27 years old and he is an assistant professor of economics at Harvard and he is black. Yes, 27 is young to be any kind of professor anywhere. But after what might charitably be called a slow start in the scholarly life, Fryer has been in a big hurry to catch up. He was in fact only 25 when he went on the job market, gaining offers from -- well, just about everywhere. He abruptly ended his job search by accepting an invitation to join the Society of Fellows at Harvard, one of academia’s most prestigious research posts. This meant he wouldn’t be teaching anywhere for three years. The Harvard economics department told Fryer to take its offer anyway; he could have an office and defer his teaching obligation until the fellowship was done.

Now that he is halfway through his fellowship, the quality and breadth of Fryer’s research have surprised even his champions. ‘‘As a pure technical economic theorist, he’s of the first rate,’’ says Lawrence Katz, a prominent labor economist at Harvard. ‘‘But what’s really incredible is that he’s also much more of a broad social theorist -- talking to psychologists, sociologists, behavioral geneticists -- and the ideas he comes up with aren’t the ‘let’s take the standard economic model and push a little harder’ ideas. He makes you think of Nathan Glazer or William Julius Wilson, but with economic rigor.’’ Henry Louis Gates Jr., the Harvard humanities scholar, says that Fryer is ‘‘destined to be a star. I mean, he’s a star already, just a baby star. I think he’ll raise the analysis of the African-American experience to new levels of rigor and bring economics into the mainstream area of inquiry within the broader field of African-American studies.’’

Go ‘head, fella, go ‘head.

 

THE PROTESTANT TAKE ON MARY

I haven’t had a chance to really sink my teeth into it but it looks as though Mark D. Roberts has an interesting follow-on to the recent TIME Magazine cover story on the Protestant Mary. This is how he breaks out the series:

Table of Contents
Part 1	A TIME-ly Coincidence
Part 2	The TIME Cover Story: An Overview
Part 3	A Pro-Marian Tipping Point? Evaluating the Evidence
Part 4	The Influence of La Virgen?
Part 5