Texsox

QUOTE(ChiSoxyGirl @ Mar 23, 2005 -> 07:34 AM) As someone that attends services weekly, I think that the views of some people are dismissed because they cannot "play nice," and resort to belitting, rude, and lowest common denominator responses. Very true. I was thinking of times, like in the Howard Stern thread that the comment was made "I don't want some religious wacko making decision on what I can and cannot listen to". PR campaign my religious groups are held in disdain. As if everyone who attends Church holds the same views and they are somehow programmed. I think for some people, the end justifies the means. It wouldn't matter who asked for the feeding tube to be pulled, the "husband", the parents, or a Martian, as long as her life was ended, they would be fine with it. I can certainly respect that opinion, and can understand wishing to see her finally dead. Too bad she has to die a slow death. I feel, in this case, absent of a living will, that her parents should be making the decision, not her spouse who has moved on with his life and would benefit from her passing. When judging people's motives, one thing I look at is what they gain. He gains freedom and possibly some cash, the parents gain a lifetime of caring for a daughter who probably will never talk, eat on her own, or anything. And as I admitted, my experiences as a parent also tug at me. Blood is thinker than water, I believe is the phrase. I pray none of us are in this situation.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Mar 23, 2005 -> 03:41 AM) .... as long as you don't use the word "God". In some parts of the country

QUOTE(Steff @ Mar 23, 2005 -> 06:12 AM) No Tex.. I said that I would not want to be on LS, and to ME a feeing tube in her, as opposed to Chris Reeves, condition is LS. And as I stated, it is the state of her brain, or lack there of, that is a more compelling reason to wish her a speedy death, than that she needs a feeding tube. I did not consider a feeding tube, as a LS in most cases. Comas, paraplegics, etc. all need them. QUOTE(Steff @ Mar 23, 2005 -> 06:14 AM) That's exactly, and all, I have been saying. I did not mean to dismiss anyones opinions because they do not have kids. I understand how frustrating that is. On many occasions here the views who people who attend Church are dismissed because they are religious. That frustrates me, and I apologize if that was how some of y'all took my comment. In retrospect I should have said, people with kids are more likely to support parental rights than someone without kids based on their experiences as a parent. It is their flesh and blood, their DNA. It is an indescribable bond. I saw the inverse as easier to point out based on the posters her who have taken the time to share their opinions. Just like likely voters for a school referendum are usually parents of school age kids. Or people with handguns are more likely to not support gun restrictions. It seems obvious to me, but if other people's experiences and ways of thinking are different, who am I to disagree on how someone claims to think.

QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Mar 22, 2005 -> 11:48 PM) Increase funding for schools. The current status of NCLB underfunds schools (yes, it was an increase in previous funding but they underfunded what it would take to complete all the demands of NCLB) Have peer group counseling. Start with no unfunded mandates. Currently the state can decide on some requirement, forcing schools to do stuff, but the state doesn't have to fund it, they leave that little detail up to the local school board who may or may not have a snowballs chance in South Texas to get a referendum passed.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Mar 22, 2005 -> 11:51 PM) I am completely neutral on this issue. I'm just sick of hearing about it constantly. You are the first person who I know is neutral. Since life or death decisions are probably more common in your line of work than mine, is a living will required for military personnel? Is the decision left up to the military? How is it handled in the service?

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Mar 22, 2005 -> 11:40 PM) Is anyone else sick of this already? I am and I also dont like the fact that Congress and the president are meddling in this. I think they have more important things to worry about. Welcome back Nuke, this must be a twilight zone. I am agreeing with the GOPerheads and Nuke isn't. I'm actually agreeing with Hannity et. al. BTW, the life or death of a citizen should be important enough to get our government involved. I can not think of anything mroe important that life or death. well maybe Buerhle's toe You liberal puss

One initiative being talked about in Texas is moving to learning pods. Smaller more personalized learning approaches. The current system has been in place for decades and decades and does not reflect today's technology, today's careers, and today's adolescent. They want to address three R's. Rigor, making certain high standards are being upheld. Relevance, helping students see how this stuff will connect later. How doing well in 9th grade English will help them down the road. Relationships, along the lines of what Southsider said. If you are in the top 10% of the class, play sports, involved in clubs, teachers and parents know you. If you are in the bottom 10%, being disrespectful, disruptive, and basically flunking out, teachers and administrators know you. If you are in the 70-80% of the kids who arrive each day, do ok, don't get in trouble, no one knows who you are. I've been nominated to be President of my kid's High School PTSO (parents, teachers, student, organization). I am hoping to work towards the second two thirds of this concept. I've read some reports that try to create an A=B causality between some of his Nazi posts and other stuff. I do not believe we will ever know if he was messed up and found the bad influence stuff, or he was ok until he found that stuff. Either way it is a bad mix.

While I feel sorry for the parents, and can not fathom the nightmare they are finding themselves in, I do find some comfort in that her passing will cause many people the world over to contemplate what they would want done in this situation. Basically what I am sending to my lawyer is something along these lines. If my wife and parents agree with my primary care Doctor, that's it. It should be reviewed on some sort of schedule. I debated about including my kids, and at this time have decided I did not wish to burden them with this decision. As they mature, or my parents pass away, I will reconsider. If there is debate, and no consensus, err on the side of keeping me alive. My brain activity is paramount to any decision. I would rather have my electric work than the plumbing or nerves. Drooling and random eye movements isn't enough. I pray by then we pass an assisted suicide or right to die law to allow a Doctor to put me down like a lame horse. Basically if I was in Terri's case I would want to die.

QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ Mar 22, 2005 -> 10:41 PM) Tex, I don't want to interrupt your chat but you overlooked an important part. Judge Greer assumed the role of guardian over Terri's life when Michael deferred that decision to the courts. This didn't occur in the first decision (2000) but it did occur in the subsequent decisions. Essentially when Michael knew he the Judge was on his side he changed his motion. I especially do not like the government ever choosing death for a citizen. I can not think of a single situation where that would be acceptable to me. I am against the death penalty. I do not trust the government that much. If her Doctors, the ones that worked with her, recomended pulling the feeding tube and the husband went along, I would feel less certain of my position. The parents have been more involved the past years, while her husband was busy starting a new life. I've heard from several nurses that he doesn't even visit. Understandable because he believes she is "dead". He moved away from her, let her parents care for her. I am not stating that in all cases parent's rights would trump a spouses. It is not the norm for the parents to survive their children. I have yet to hear anyone claim how she would be harmed by staying alive. Her wishes are only told by the very person who agrees with them. If it was her parents wanting her to die and her husband was keeping her alive, would y'all be defending his decision? Or is this a matter of believing she is better off dead, and no matter who makes the decision, you would be in agreement?

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Mar 22, 2005 -> 09:45 PM) Right, exactly, I "may be" a cold hearted ass who doesn't care if his child dies. That's entirely fair. I'm saying I've spoken to parents -- also in the real world -- who believe that her parents have to accept that their daughter is gone. So the unanimity you're claiming is wrong. Or they must be heartless bastards, right? After all, any parent who loves their kid must ignore all respectable medical opinion because a miracle might happen. Or...they could say, these doctors have more expertise than me, and they all say there's no hope -- none. And as much as I loved my child while alive, she's gone now, and I am going to have to come to grips with that. Nah, they've got to be psychopaths. That's a much better explanation. Would you please read my posts. I have spent time carefully reading yours, you are misstating my position and not addressing the #1 objection to this situation. The person who is claiming to be her spouse has moved on with his life, is living with another woman and has two kids. All the people that * I* (myself, me, and no one else) have spoken with, about a dozen, who advocate death, have no children. I am not implying anything else. Where did I claim any unanimous that all people?? You are misrepresenting my words. If you believe that personal experiences do not have anything to your views, that's you, I believe most people are shaped by their experiences and education. If you believe that experiences, education have nothing to do with your opinions fine. What are your opinions based on? My objection and please read carefully, is that the one person who has the authority right now to have her die is the man who is now living with someone else. No Doctor is recommending her to die. Many Doctors are claiming she has no hope of recovery and I accept that. But no Doctor who is caring for her, is recommending she be killed. The one person who has her life or death in his hands is her legal husband. I do not believe he is in the best position to make that decision.

I do not believe I ever said only the childless, I mentioned the people here who posted the most times to allow her to die, are all childless. I also pointed out that every person I spoke with in the real world that was pro-death, was also childless. So my conclusion is being a parent may alter ones opinions. IMHO seeing your baby for the first time, holding them in a quiet house late at night, changing diapers, teaching them to walk, ride a bike, staying up late when they are dating, sending them off to college, walking your daughter down a wedding aisle, all are included in some people's opinions. If you believe that wouldn't effect your judgement, who am I to disagree with how you believe you will feel. You may be able to give life to someone, then turn over their life or death to another person sho has "moved on with his life" and is only staying involved to see that she dies. I also am not arguing that she should not be allowed to die. In fact, if she had a living will and expressed a desire to not live in this state (absent of brain activity), I would not only support her right to die, but be petitioning congress (again) that these humans should be allowed to choose their manner of death. No one would choose dehydration. She desires, at the minimum, the same painless, speedy death we would give a mass murderer. So her dying is not something I object to. What I do object to is the person who is claiming as her spouse he should be allowed to decide. The courts aren't saying she should die. Doctors aren't saying she should die. The only person who is petitioning for her to die, is living with another woman and his children. Her Doctors and Nurses have been on countless shows saying she should live.

QUOTE(whitesoxmurph @ Mar 22, 2005 -> 07:13 PM) I go to Vegas 3-4 times a year (I live in LA) and I usually stay at either Mandalay or The Flamingo (I like the Bugsy old time gangster feel). I think Texsox is right about setting limits, often though this is related to the amount of booze you are pounding @ the table as well. I set a 4 hour limit and a loss and win limit. I always figure out how much money I have to gamble with and divide it by the number of days I'm going to be there and divide that by two for two sessions a day. I then have my daily amount I can lose. If I go up the amount of my total for the whole trip, I'll walk away from that session, unless I'm playing craps (I'll wait for the shooter to crap out). One thing I discovered the first time I did this was they have shows in Vegas! Who would have thought Booze and gambling is an obvious concern. Why do you think the drinks are so quick to arrive? I like your idea of two sessions per day. That makes a lot of sense. I'm thinking of a serious morning/mid day session, then an evening session at much lower stakes and drinking. As much as I love the 24/7 atmosphere, I just never feel good about gin and tonics at 10:00 am.

E-Lo is Kenny's shining moment so far. Talk about buying low and selling high.

QUOTE(TheDybber @ Mar 22, 2005 -> 06:44 PM) What this case should do...is make every single one of us go out, seek a lawyer, and write up a living will. Especially if you don't want to live like this. If the government wants to keep her alive, then they should take over her care. I think her husband has done enough and maybe it's just too much for him to handle. As for the wife/children argument, I have been married (and soon will be again) and I couldn't see my wife in a vegetative state for 15 years...that's too much suffering for anyone. I don't have kids, but I would think that keeping a child alive is pretty selfish. The problem is she can't make the decision for herself anymore and she's not going to get better. Let her go. Either way it's a slippery slope. Who is suffering? Terri? That's what makes this so interesting. One side believes she has no feeling, no brain activity, and is basically already dead and incapable of suffering, so she should die. I do not believe most people would not want their ex-spouse making this decision, perhaps you would. I appreciate everyone's opinion. This is a matter of choice and I would passionately argue for Terri's right to die, if she had a written document or something more than her ex-spouses word. Her parents have known her all her life. Maybe they too know her. I know how much I love my family. If there was the smallest of hope, I would cling to it, embrace it, and do everything in my power to try and make that happen. I could not imagine turning my back and starting a new family. I watched my parents bury my brother. Parents watching their children die is not the circle of life. Parents give children live, to toss aside their feelings in all this is perverse. I bring my biases, my faith, my family, all my life experiences to this opinion. I will not deny that. People who can set aside themselves, and their experiences, and make a computer like decision have a different make up than me. My wife and I have similar living wills and they do not have explicit verbiage about feeding tubes. It does have verbiage for brain activity and the use of a ventilator.

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Mar 22, 2005 -> 07:07 PM) You are generalizing if you think that applies generally. I've spoken to people with kids who believe she should be allowed to pass, and that's fact too. As for staying with her, the question is whether she, Terri, is even there anymore. So much of her brain is simply gone, she's no longer capable of memory or thought, it's very difficult to say that she exists in any real sense. And noone, noone, is saying that she should die b/c she's on a feeding tube. As I stated, I believe that being a parent changes a person's thinking. So I accept that I bring that bias to my opinion. Are you stating that being a parent would not effect your thinking? Would you then also argue that being religious would not effect your opinion? The "husband" wants to determine her fate. He wants to claim spousal rights, while living with someone else. Steff mentioned it was unconditional love, I disagree. IMHO unconditional love would have me at my wife's bed side, not starting a new family. It makes a mockery of his marriage, and the vows he took. I would have more respect for him if he said, Terri would want me to go on with my life, her parents are willing to accept the responsibility for her care, so I am filing for divorce and allowing her parents to care for her. Steff said that because Terri needs a feeding tube Terri is on life support, and Terri did not want to be on life support. I countered that Terri's brain capability if a far more compelling reason to killing her quickly. Many people have found themselves relying on feeding tubes and are not terminal. Keeping her alive, at worse, is no benefit and at best may allow a miracle to happen. Killing her, at worse, ends a life, and at best ___________________? Someone want to fill in the blank? Tell me how Terri benefits by dying? The same people who wish her a speedy death, claim she has no brain activity and can not sense pain. Remember no anesthesia was used when they removed the feeding tube. Something that is standard in a fully functional person.

I actually like staying off the strip. I charted my wins/loses for a couple trips and noticed my dramatic loses were always at the end of a session. The breaking point seemed to be 4 hours, regardless of game (craps, bj). Even switching games, tables, casinos, didn't help as much as a longish break. So now I stay off the strip, but travel over there for betting, never, ever, playing at the hotel I'm staying. Which means, yes, paying for rooms and meals instead of being comped. However, if I was planning a trip with some first timers, I'd plant their butts on the strip.

wild ass prediction, this is the year of the Crede. I am not too worried about his spring. I've already said this is the year Mark wins 20+. I feel alot better about my Mark prediction than Crede. I also am liking Garland. It's our 3 & 4 starters that leave me more worried.

March 22, 2005 Today's classic list was originally published on June 20, 1996. The Top 5 Least Impressive Mafia Nicknames 5> Jimmy "The Guy Who Scratches His Fingernails on the Chalkboard" Genarro 4> Warren "The Webmaster" Larotta 3> Carmine "The Lovely Swan" Carpecci 2> The Hitman Formerly Known As Vince and TopFive.com's Number 1 Least Impressive Mafia Nickname... 1> Vinnie "Say It With Flowers" LaRosa [ The Top 5 List www.topfive.com ] [ Copyright 1996, 2005 by Chris White ] Join ClubTop5 to see the whole list: http://www.topfive.com/html/clubtop5.shtml

QUOTE(Steff @ Mar 22, 2005 -> 05:17 PM) I respect the point you are making, and I'm sure it's valid for some.. but I don't agree with it one bit and I don't think it's fair to generalize the responses of those that do not have children. I lost a brother to drunk driving, don't you think that has an effect on my opinions on drunk driving? The father who lost a son to steroids, don't you think that has an effect on his opinion of steroids? Don't you think having a child effects your opinion on a parents role? I am not generalizing. Everyone who I have spoken to about this, who are in favor of her dying, do not have children. That's a fact, not a generalization. The point I am making from that fact, is having children changes some people's opinions about some things. It is an observation I made. Some people go through life with the same opinions they had when they are 18. For others, getting married, perhaps having a friend die, or face a life threatening illness, changes them. They look at things differently. I accept that those things do not change everyone, perhaps getting married didn't change your opinion of spousal rights. And I've been thinking about unconditional love and what it means to me. If this was my wife, I would be by her side every day, talking to her. Not living with another woman having kids. But as you mentioned, everyone has an opinion. One final note regarding feeding tubes as life support. To arbitrarily say you wouldn't want this life support means if you were ever in a coma you would want it pulled. Her brain state is a much more valid reason for pushing for her speedy death, than a feeding tube. Every paraplegic or person in a coma, needs assistance receiving nourishment. I don't believe you are saying she should die because she requires a feeding tube.

QUOTE(Steff @ Mar 22, 2005 -> 04:45 PM) All I can say is that at the time that was who she wanted making her decisions.. for 7 years he did everything he could for her until he was told that she would never get better.. with that in mind (that she was never going to get better) he continued to fight for what (he claims) she wanted (not to be on LS). At any time, it's my opinion, he could have walked away from this and went on to live life with his girlfriend (btw... his lawyer claims they are not engaged) and children. He hasn't done that choosing to continue to deal with this.. For me, that speaks volumes. But maybe I'm just stupid to think that there are people out there who love unconditionally and will do things out of the goodness of their heart no matter how much pain it causes them in their own lives. Keeping promises is important to me.. guess I expect that is so for others as well. Does them not being engaged add to or take away from your opinion of him? I'm a little old fashioned (obviously) and fathering two babies and not having plans to marry the mom, seems worse to me. Aren't the parents also loving unconditionally? They are wanting to care for someone who we all agree, isn't all there. They are wanting to sacrifice their lives to care for her. That speaks volumes to me. I've always respected your opinion, and am trying to understand wanting her dead and out of the way as being more altruistic than caring for her. I believe parents make a lifelong promise as well. There is also an attachment that is beyond words. Does anyone believe the nurses that report the husband has walked into her room, in the past and asked when is that b**** going to die? I believe there are so many exaggerations and out and out lies on both sides, this is getting unreal. I really believe that having kids changes opinions on this. Steff, Wino, ChiSoxy, and Queen are all kidless. Trust me things change when you have kids. Emotions and attachments are different. I know I would have argued to let the husband make the decision 18 years ago.

Have you thought about asking one of your buddies? Mathcing tux's would be really cool.

QUOTE(Steff @ Mar 22, 2005 -> 04:31 PM) And I read that they are just involuntary reflexes.. everyone has an opinion I guess. Either way, I agree it isn't much, and isn't how I would like to live. I also wouldn't want my ex-wife making that decision. The mainstream media has been parading people who were considered to be in a persistent vegetative state with no hope of recovery, who now feed themselves, talk, and communicate. What was meaningful to me was they all report being able to hear what was going on around them. I really do not believe that is her future, it seems too far gone. I just can not believe we would allow a man who has divorced her in almost every sense to make this decision. And from what I've read, most of the court rulings have been upholding his right to decide her care over her parents. THat is different then ruling on whether she is better off dead or alive.

QUOTE(Steff @ Mar 22, 2005 -> 09:22 AM) Her brain is liquified. There is no activity. She moves her eyes and body and can make noise. My understanding from listening to Doctors is that requires brain activity. Low level, but brain activity. Here's a question, do you think she would rather have her ex-husband making a life or death decision, or her parents? Can anyone really claim he is married to her in anyway but in a legal sense?

QUOTE(Queen Prawn @ Mar 22, 2005 -> 10:45 AM) Don't say that. You remind me of my baby brother. He is convinced he is the worst looking thing under the sun and he isn't. He recently lost a bunch of weight and he looks good for himself and better than that he is a great guy. I am not saying that just cuz he is my brother, but because I know he treats people right. As for mail order brides, one of Brian's buddies did that about 2 years ago and they are still happily married. (My only point to this is that people do actually do this and every now in then it actually works out.) Are you sure y'all aren't from Mississippi

QUOTE(ChiSoxyGirl @ Mar 22, 2005 -> 09:05 AM) Being at airports all day yesterday, I was lucky enough to watch the media feeding frenzy around this. My take on this is that Ms. Schaivo really died probably at least 10 years ago. I like to think that we are more than just breathing and blinking (stuff that is controlled by the allocortex, the most unevolved part of our brain). Without the cerebral cortex (neocortex, whatever you call it) the person she once was is gone. This isn't like a stroke or a brain lesion. I understand the concern that she's going to be killed--but medically (and I think spiritually) she's been dead a long time. And now all that's left is fighting over how long to keep her body around. As I examine this, I find myself agreeing with all of your premises, but not the conclusion. The slippery slope we would be putting ourselves on is placing a value on a human life based on IQ, personality, memory, brain function, etc. I do not see that as a prudent path for our, or any civilization, to take. A flat lined brain is one thing, but she is not brain dead as we currently believe that to mean. As I have discussed this with people. Those that have kids are far more likely to side with the parents, those without kids, more likely to side with the husband.