Culture of Life at New Ruskin College
www.NewRuskinCollege.com
Lecture Notes: 03-30-05
The Culture of Life Exposed
Oh, I get it. This is just your way to drive me off the edge! Boy! You guys! You really had me going there.
But you don’t have to do all that. I am going to kill my self. Just a few weeks now.
I know some of you had access to my credit card data, (remember Bo Dietl released Mr. Benedict P. Morelli’s client’s credit history? (well they did the same to me, (didn’t they Garrison?))), so I suppose you have access to my bank information. As you can see the money is almost gone.
Then me too.
Good bye, in case we don’t connect again.
So really there is no need for all this. I’m going. I’m almost gone.
Peace.
Then I think . . . no, they really do not see themselves. They really do not know how phony they are . . . or, how phony they appear . . . give them the benefit of the doubt.
You see when you take up the moralist’s pose over Schiavo’s bed. You know, you condemn everyone else as being part of the “culture of death;” that whole routine of yours.
Right? You know when you claim a profound respect for the dignity of every human being, innate worth, unconditional love for all man kind, that whole routine you have developed? Right? What “quality of life” issue? You know when you pick up your voice to that shrill pitch of self-righteousness?
You know how you do that.
And then when it is pointed out to you that thousands of patients a day, not all in PVS, but literally thousands of patients and doctors and families a day have to face up to the question of when to stop treating a hopeless case . . .
Oh, well, of course, you say, but . . . in this case . . . that husband of hers . . .
You do see that don’t you? The sleight of hand. You have just shifted the debate? You see that don’t you? Tell me you know what you are doing. Please?
You could have held your position and I would have come to you. In Tibet when they start a construction project, before they start digging the foundation, they get down on all fours and pick the worms out of the soil. They do not want to hurt them.
So for me, unlike the liberals, I would not smirk at your religiosity. The liberals will accept the most bizarre religious practices from little brown men, especially little brown men from Asia. Especially the liberal women, they are hot for the little brown men from Asia. (Go figure.)
But let some Mormon, or Southern Baptist, or Catholic set up some religious condition and they are all over it with sarc I, II, III and more. See, White religious people are not allowed to have religious doctrines?
But I am not one of them liberals.
If you had wanted to set it up that we did not give up on anyone I would help you organize it. Calculate how many hospital beds, how many nurses, how much money. It wouldn’t really be that much more. Right now something like 50% of all US health dollars are spent on the last six months of life. (http://www.bioethics.umn.edu/resources/topics/end_of_life.shtml#fact )
So what the . . .
You see as a conservative I was willing to accept your religious doctrine. And unlike Justice O’Conner I do not say your religious principles do not have a place in our law. They do. Remember me? I am the one shouting “Bravo!” Have I not always encouraged you? Am I not the one who said that if you do not hold “the good” as good, then there is no good?
But that is just the problem isn’t it? For when questioned you backed down.
You all say “. . . . well . . . but in this . . . case . . . her husband . . . ?”
You know? Then your voice starts to trail off . . . . you know that thing you do with your voice when you are backing down . . .?
What happened to “kill”? You xxxxxxxx
Counselor: Stop it.
What are you doing?
Counselor: I’m not going to let you talk like that.
Fine.
So what happened, you, . . . what happened to “kill”? “Judicial homicide”? “State sanctioned murder”? You said all of that. (Note Dr. Edel, your patients came to us. )
You cowards. When challenged you changed the subject. And all of you. Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Weiner (who persuaded his first wife to have two, not one, but two, abortions), Bill Kristol, Fred Barnes, Tucker Carlson, everyone of you, when challenged, backed down.
All this talk about how you stand for “the culture of life” and everyone who disagrees with you stands for the “culture of death” turns out on just the most cursory of examinations, what little you allow in a phone call, to be hollow, insubstantial, phony.
For on reflection we discover that “the culture of life” also recognizes that life support can be, even should be, stopped in hopeless cases.
All of this multi-year vulgarity has , it turns out, been hype, overstatement, gross overstatement, phony.
What were at first described as “absolute religious convictions” turn out to be, on sober examination (i.e. without the vulgar emotionalism), contingent, even limited to just this one case: the patient Schiavo.
If your statements were limited to this one case how did you get to “the culture of life versus the culture of death”? I will tell you how. Because you are egotistical, self satisfied hypocrites.
For example, couldn’t your opponents have been – just - wrong about the facts of this one case and yet still not be part of the “culture of death”?
Indeed, what if you were wrong? What if the patient Schiavo died years ago?
But in either case, because now on reflection, you must agree that you are not opposed to the withdrawal of life support from hopeless cases, it is not an absolute, then the only other general subjects for us to discuss are the general topics of when and how, etc.
What should the rule be for determining the wishes of the patient? What is your proposal? For example, where is your model statute?”
Wait ------- let me guess? You do not have a model statute do you! I knew it! Phony, Phony, phony hypocrites.
“Anyone who is trying to do good will always be open to the charge of hypocrisy.’ ---- Glenn Beck.
No! Phony hypocrite. Not anyone. Just those who carry on for years about how “every life is precious to me,” “who can say what makes a life worth living,” “Oh, how can you judge the ‘quality of life’ of another of God’s sacred human beings? Our Brother?!”
And then . . . (I kid you not) . . . and then this sack of shit, this hypocrite on steroids, this low life piece of garbage, (who, whenever he is challenged immediately resorts to ‘Oh, I’m just a recovering alcoholic,’ or ‘I’m just a former drug addict’, and in this way escapes all responsibility); this radio detritus, then every Friday ridicules the “kids wearing the helmets in the back of the short busses,” and calls convenience stores to ridicule the clerks there.
(See? This “recovering alcoholic” is a Yale drop out. Like a character out of ‘I am Charlotte Simmons’ he has it made, he was accepted to Yale. So now it does not matter what he does, drugs, alcohol, playing songs about the kids in the back of the short busses with helmets on their heads, prank calls to convenience stores, smarmy segues from Jesus to commercials (wink, wink, ‘don’t think I take this Jesus stuff too seriously,’ wink, wink), --- see? --- he was accepted to Yale. He is smart.)
And then he goes on the air and makes out like the righteous over the bed of the patient Schiavo. (He must see what he is? Or is he like Weiner? Completely lost?)
Hypocrisy doesn’t even begin to cover it.
Carlson asked “Well if you are right and she (the patient Schiavo) is already gone then how can she suffer any ‘indignity’? I mean if she is already dead what difference does it make?” (. . . if we keep her body functioning.)
So in the middle of this discussion of life support and its removal, Tucker Carlson suddenly wants to take up the Ancient Roman Law of Estate? What, are we going to go back and follow the Etruscan ideas of theology, the role of the father in the governance of society, pater familias, the development of Roman Law and the right of the Estate to the status of legal entity? Shall we consider the theological implications especially with respect to Jesus and the idea of the immortal soul? Shall we see here, (note this Justice O’Conner) that the theological idea of ancestor worship developed into the modern idea of inheritance and estate?
No.
Tucker Carlson was just rambling. He did not want to discuss any of this.
Laura Ingraham made out, (ah, poor choice of words), set out that she was really only interested in examining “how the patient’s intentions should be determined in the absence of documentary evidence.” Lie!
You have yet to examine this general topic. Law degree? University education from Dartmouth? Years of experience? Nothing, for all the good it does us. No model statute, no instructions for the judges, no method of determining the patient’s wishes. Nothing, but emotionalism, self-righteous indignation, phony posturing about being the sole defender of “the culture of life”.
And what of Bill Kristol’s “killing”? So if discontinuing life support for the hopeless patient is “killing” what words shall we use when we discuss agency in termination of life? Euthanasia? Is Mr. Kristol capable of distinguishing between the two cases? Yes and no. He can but does not want to; he prefers to posture.
But let us have no talk about trying to advance the public’s understanding.
And Rush Limbaugh makes no such claim. He bloviates this way and that and then takes another commercial break. He has nothing to say either on this particular case or on the general question, but of course he wants to posture too.
But Sean Hannity is the worst, because the dumbest. He tried to take up “the culture of life” versus “Culture of Death”, but because he is so inarticulate that when challenged he had to revert to “well I wasn’t there and neither were you, but the nurses say that he tried to kill his wife . . . but I’m not even going to go there . . . but they say he tried to kill his wife . . .” A bigger ass could not be imagined. Well yes there is always Michael Weiner, but he is so contemptible that he does not even count.
Hey, Sean, tell the class the most common origin of eating disorders for American women? No? Laura Ingraham? Would you like to explain to the class the most common cause of eating disorders in American women? From whom do children learn their obsessive compulsive behaviors ? Especially the daughters?
Oh, that’s right we do not talk about that.
But we do talk about the nurses who say they heard the patient Schiavo say . . . and even just last week the family told us that they heard her say “I want to live .”
Now class the brain has been well mapped and we know where language, and cognition for language formation occur. Class? Would anyone care to point to the portion of the patient Schiavo’s brain scan to indicate in which portion of the brain the language centers are located?
No? And we do not want to discuss the CAT scan at all do we? Glenn Beck even claimed that there had been no CAT scan. (Even the author of “the Culture of Death”, Wesley J. Smith, on KSFO, did not bother to review the CAT scan or the EEG (which was flat) for the patient Schiavo even though he claimed to have spent years of work on this particular case. So what then? We are not going to discuss either the general or the specific? Exactly. Posture. Yes, all day long, in long emotional tirades. But as for informing the public. Drop dead. Ah, the culture of life. This is what you claim for yourselves. Utterly without shame. Hypocrites.
He claimed to be a medical ethicist? How can you be an ethicist and yet not talk about the medical findings? Then I realized. He is an ethicist, who talks about medicine. But he does not have to actually know anything about medicine. His wife, the columnist Debra Saunders, appearing on the David Gold show, said though she had followed the story “for years” she did not bother to acquaint herself with the medical findings or the medical consensus. You can be a San Francisco columnist without actually knowing anything. For in the post liberal Bay Area, to be a columnist, connections are more important than reporting.)
We do not want to discuss the findings of the last court appointed guardian examiner, Dr. Wolfson?
Dr. Jay Wolfson:
I was appointed by the judiciary, according to the requirement of the law for a special guardian to investigate Terri's swallowing capacity. This opened the door to issues relating to her neurological capacity. I was required to review and report on the previous 14 years of legal and medical evidence and activities. After spending hours with Terri, getting to know her parents and siblings and her husband, and reviewing all of the evidence, my conclusion was that the competent medical evidence provided in the the case, following the Florida rules of civil procedure and evidence, and according to the Guardianship law in Florida, which was carefully crafted over fifteen years of bipartisan political and religious efforts --- indicated by clear and convincing evidence that she was in a persistent vegetative state, according to the most credible science and medicine. I also concluded that based on the same Florida laws and rules, the trier of fact appropriately determined that Terri had expressed, while she was competent, the intention never to be kept artificially alive under such circumstances. The evidence supporting this included competent legal evidence demonstrating that she personally expressed those intentions at the funerals of two family members who had been on life support -- so it was contextual. Due to the conflict between the parties, I suggested that additional testing could and should be done but ONLY if the parties agreed in advance as to how the results would be used. We almost came to agreement on this option, but for legal reasons, one of the parties pulled out on the last minute. ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57781-2005Mar22.html )
We do not want to discuss the consensus of the medical and scientific community? (We always want to misrepresent this by claiming that there are “differing views” or that medical opinion is “split” which are, each of them, a misrepresentation? A lie. (The overwhelming consensus is that the patient Schiavo is dead, though her heart and lungs continued on for years after her death thanks to life support.))
No it does not matter if we look at the general questions or the questions specific to this one case. You are phony from beginning to end.
But now tell me the truth, you have just been putting me on right? You have been trying to drive me crazy.
Make me think that I am living with a bunch of mindless zombies?
Right? It has been a put on?
No?
[ The Insurance Division of Beau Dietl and Associates is currently seeking ambitious, goal-oriented individuals to work as Surveillance Technicians in the San Jose, California area. These positions will be responsible for conducting surveillance field work related to insurance claims including workers compensation. Responsibilities include field work and providing written and oral communication. We offer excellent starting salaries based on experience. Investigators must have a valid California Drivers License, a reliable vehicle, proof of auto insurance, cell phone, personal computer and video equipment. The candidate must be able to work with little or no supervision. Must have excellent communication skills. Minimum of one year surveillance experience.
Is he working with GAB-Robins? ]
www.NewRuskinCollege.com
Lecture Notes: 03-30-05
The Culture of Life Exposed
Oh, I get it. This is just your way to drive me off the edge! Boy! You guys! You really had me going there.
But you don’t have to do all that. I am going to kill my self. Just a few weeks now.
I know some of you had access to my credit card data, (remember Bo Dietl released Mr. Benedict P. Morelli’s client’s credit history? (well they did the same to me, (didn’t they Garrison?))), so I suppose you have access to my bank information. As you can see the money is almost gone.
Then me too.
Good bye, in case we don’t connect again.
So really there is no need for all this. I’m going. I’m almost gone.
Peace.
Then I think . . . no, they really do not see themselves. They really do not know how phony they are . . . or, how phony they appear . . . give them the benefit of the doubt.
You see when you take up the moralist’s pose over Schiavo’s bed. You know, you condemn everyone else as being part of the “culture of death;” that whole routine of yours.
Right? You know when you claim a profound respect for the dignity of every human being, innate worth, unconditional love for all man kind, that whole routine you have developed? Right? What “quality of life” issue? You know when you pick up your voice to that shrill pitch of self-righteousness?
You know how you do that.
And then when it is pointed out to you that thousands of patients a day, not all in PVS, but literally thousands of patients and doctors and families a day have to face up to the question of when to stop treating a hopeless case . . .
Oh, well, of course, you say, but . . . in this case . . . that husband of hers . . .
You do see that don’t you? The sleight of hand. You have just shifted the debate? You see that don’t you? Tell me you know what you are doing. Please?
You could have held your position and I would have come to you. In Tibet when they start a construction project, before they start digging the foundation, they get down on all fours and pick the worms out of the soil. They do not want to hurt them.
So for me, unlike the liberals, I would not smirk at your religiosity. The liberals will accept the most bizarre religious practices from little brown men, especially little brown men from Asia. Especially the liberal women, they are hot for the little brown men from Asia. (Go figure.)
But let some Mormon, or Southern Baptist, or Catholic set up some religious condition and they are all over it with sarc I, II, III and more. See, White religious people are not allowed to have religious doctrines?
But I am not one of them liberals.
If you had wanted to set it up that we did not give up on anyone I would help you organize it. Calculate how many hospital beds, how many nurses, how much money. It wouldn’t really be that much more. Right now something like 50% of all US health dollars are spent on the last six months of life. (http://www.bioethics.umn.edu/resources/topics/end_of_life.shtml#fact )
So what the . . .
You see as a conservative I was willing to accept your religious doctrine. And unlike Justice O’Conner I do not say your religious principles do not have a place in our law. They do. Remember me? I am the one shouting “Bravo!” Have I not always encouraged you? Am I not the one who said that if you do not hold “the good” as good, then there is no good?
But that is just the problem isn’t it? For when questioned you backed down.
You all say “. . . . well . . . but in this . . . case . . . her husband . . . ?”
You know? Then your voice starts to trail off . . . . you know that thing you do with your voice when you are backing down . . .?
What happened to “kill”? You xxxxxxxx
Counselor: Stop it.
What are you doing?
Counselor: I’m not going to let you talk like that.
Fine.
So what happened, you, . . . what happened to “kill”? “Judicial homicide”? “State sanctioned murder”? You said all of that. (Note Dr. Edel, your patients came to us. )
You cowards. When challenged you changed the subject. And all of you. Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Weiner (who persuaded his first wife to have two, not one, but two, abortions), Bill Kristol, Fred Barnes, Tucker Carlson, everyone of you, when challenged, backed down.
All this talk about how you stand for “the culture of life” and everyone who disagrees with you stands for the “culture of death” turns out on just the most cursory of examinations, what little you allow in a phone call, to be hollow, insubstantial, phony.
For on reflection we discover that “the culture of life” also recognizes that life support can be, even should be, stopped in hopeless cases.
All of this multi-year vulgarity has , it turns out, been hype, overstatement, gross overstatement, phony.
What were at first described as “absolute religious convictions” turn out to be, on sober examination (i.e. without the vulgar emotionalism), contingent, even limited to just this one case: the patient Schiavo.
If your statements were limited to this one case how did you get to “the culture of life versus the culture of death”? I will tell you how. Because you are egotistical, self satisfied hypocrites.
For example, couldn’t your opponents have been – just - wrong about the facts of this one case and yet still not be part of the “culture of death”?
Indeed, what if you were wrong? What if the patient Schiavo died years ago?
But in either case, because now on reflection, you must agree that you are not opposed to the withdrawal of life support from hopeless cases, it is not an absolute, then the only other general subjects for us to discuss are the general topics of when and how, etc.
What should the rule be for determining the wishes of the patient? What is your proposal? For example, where is your model statute?”
Wait ------- let me guess? You do not have a model statute do you! I knew it! Phony, Phony, phony hypocrites.
“Anyone who is trying to do good will always be open to the charge of hypocrisy.’ ---- Glenn Beck.
No! Phony hypocrite. Not anyone. Just those who carry on for years about how “every life is precious to me,” “who can say what makes a life worth living,” “Oh, how can you judge the ‘quality of life’ of another of God’s sacred human beings? Our Brother?!”
And then . . . (I kid you not) . . . and then this sack of shit, this hypocrite on steroids, this low life piece of garbage, (who, whenever he is challenged immediately resorts to ‘Oh, I’m just a recovering alcoholic,’ or ‘I’m just a former drug addict’, and in this way escapes all responsibility); this radio detritus, then every Friday ridicules the “kids wearing the helmets in the back of the short busses,” and calls convenience stores to ridicule the clerks there.
(See? This “recovering alcoholic” is a Yale drop out. Like a character out of ‘I am Charlotte Simmons’ he has it made, he was accepted to Yale. So now it does not matter what he does, drugs, alcohol, playing songs about the kids in the back of the short busses with helmets on their heads, prank calls to convenience stores, smarmy segues from Jesus to commercials (wink, wink, ‘don’t think I take this Jesus stuff too seriously,’ wink, wink), --- see? --- he was accepted to Yale. He is smart.)
And then he goes on the air and makes out like the righteous over the bed of the patient Schiavo. (He must see what he is? Or is he like Weiner? Completely lost?)
Hypocrisy doesn’t even begin to cover it.
Carlson asked “Well if you are right and she (the patient Schiavo) is already gone then how can she suffer any ‘indignity’? I mean if she is already dead what difference does it make?” (. . . if we keep her body functioning.)
So in the middle of this discussion of life support and its removal, Tucker Carlson suddenly wants to take up the Ancient Roman Law of Estate? What, are we going to go back and follow the Etruscan ideas of theology, the role of the father in the governance of society, pater familias, the development of Roman Law and the right of the Estate to the status of legal entity? Shall we consider the theological implications especially with respect to Jesus and the idea of the immortal soul? Shall we see here, (note this Justice O’Conner) that the theological idea of ancestor worship developed into the modern idea of inheritance and estate?
No.
Tucker Carlson was just rambling. He did not want to discuss any of this.
Laura Ingraham made out, (ah, poor choice of words), set out that she was really only interested in examining “how the patient’s intentions should be determined in the absence of documentary evidence.” Lie!
You have yet to examine this general topic. Law degree? University education from Dartmouth? Years of experience? Nothing, for all the good it does us. No model statute, no instructions for the judges, no method of determining the patient’s wishes. Nothing, but emotionalism, self-righteous indignation, phony posturing about being the sole defender of “the culture of life”.
And what of Bill Kristol’s “killing”? So if discontinuing life support for the hopeless patient is “killing” what words shall we use when we discuss agency in termination of life? Euthanasia? Is Mr. Kristol capable of distinguishing between the two cases? Yes and no. He can but does not want to; he prefers to posture.
But let us have no talk about trying to advance the public’s understanding.
And Rush Limbaugh makes no such claim. He bloviates this way and that and then takes another commercial break. He has nothing to say either on this particular case or on the general question, but of course he wants to posture too.
But Sean Hannity is the worst, because the dumbest. He tried to take up “the culture of life” versus “Culture of Death”, but because he is so inarticulate that when challenged he had to revert to “well I wasn’t there and neither were you, but the nurses say that he tried to kill his wife . . . but I’m not even going to go there . . . but they say he tried to kill his wife . . .” A bigger ass could not be imagined. Well yes there is always Michael Weiner, but he is so contemptible that he does not even count.
Hey, Sean, tell the class the most common origin of eating disorders for American women? No? Laura Ingraham? Would you like to explain to the class the most common cause of eating disorders in American women? From whom do children learn their obsessive compulsive behaviors ? Especially the daughters?
Oh, that’s right we do not talk about that.
But we do talk about the nurses who say they heard the patient Schiavo say . . . and even just last week the family told us that they heard her say “I want to live .”
Now class the brain has been well mapped and we know where language, and cognition for language formation occur. Class? Would anyone care to point to the portion of the patient Schiavo’s brain scan to indicate in which portion of the brain the language centers are located?
No? And we do not want to discuss the CAT scan at all do we? Glenn Beck even claimed that there had been no CAT scan. (Even the author of “the Culture of Death”, Wesley J. Smith, on KSFO, did not bother to review the CAT scan or the EEG (which was flat) for the patient Schiavo even though he claimed to have spent years of work on this particular case. So what then? We are not going to discuss either the general or the specific? Exactly. Posture. Yes, all day long, in long emotional tirades. But as for informing the public. Drop dead. Ah, the culture of life. This is what you claim for yourselves. Utterly without shame. Hypocrites.
He claimed to be a medical ethicist? How can you be an ethicist and yet not talk about the medical findings? Then I realized. He is an ethicist, who talks about medicine. But he does not have to actually know anything about medicine. His wife, the columnist Debra Saunders, appearing on the David Gold show, said though she had followed the story “for years” she did not bother to acquaint herself with the medical findings or the medical consensus. You can be a San Francisco columnist without actually knowing anything. For in the post liberal Bay Area, to be a columnist, connections are more important than reporting.)
We do not want to discuss the findings of the last court appointed guardian examiner, Dr. Wolfson?
Dr. Jay Wolfson:
I was appointed by the judiciary, according to the requirement of the law for a special guardian to investigate Terri's swallowing capacity. This opened the door to issues relating to her neurological capacity. I was required to review and report on the previous 14 years of legal and medical evidence and activities. After spending hours with Terri, getting to know her parents and siblings and her husband, and reviewing all of the evidence, my conclusion was that the competent medical evidence provided in the the case, following the Florida rules of civil procedure and evidence, and according to the Guardianship law in Florida, which was carefully crafted over fifteen years of bipartisan political and religious efforts --- indicated by clear and convincing evidence that she was in a persistent vegetative state, according to the most credible science and medicine. I also concluded that based on the same Florida laws and rules, the trier of fact appropriately determined that Terri had expressed, while she was competent, the intention never to be kept artificially alive under such circumstances. The evidence supporting this included competent legal evidence demonstrating that she personally expressed those intentions at the funerals of two family members who had been on life support -- so it was contextual. Due to the conflict between the parties, I suggested that additional testing could and should be done but ONLY if the parties agreed in advance as to how the results would be used. We almost came to agreement on this option, but for legal reasons, one of the parties pulled out on the last minute. ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57781-2005Mar22.html )
We do not want to discuss the consensus of the medical and scientific community? (We always want to misrepresent this by claiming that there are “differing views” or that medical opinion is “split” which are, each of them, a misrepresentation? A lie. (The overwhelming consensus is that the patient Schiavo is dead, though her heart and lungs continued on for years after her death thanks to life support.))
No it does not matter if we look at the general questions or the questions specific to this one case. You are phony from beginning to end.
But now tell me the truth, you have just been putting me on right? You have been trying to drive me crazy.
Make me think that I am living with a bunch of mindless zombies?
Right? It has been a put on?
No?
[ The Insurance Division of Beau Dietl and Associates is currently seeking ambitious, goal-oriented individuals to work as Surveillance Technicians in the San Jose, California area. These positions will be responsible for conducting surveillance field work related to insurance claims including workers compensation. Responsibilities include field work and providing written and oral communication. We offer excellent starting salaries based on experience. Investigators must have a valid California Drivers License, a reliable vehicle, proof of auto insurance, cell phone, personal computer and video equipment. The candidate must be able to work with little or no supervision. Must have excellent communication skills. Minimum of one year surveillance experience.
Is he working with GAB-Robins? ]
www.NewRuskinCollege.com
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home