JustOneMinute

Growth And Stock Returns

The NY Times does it again.  A few weeks back, we praised their cogent article on the Social Security Trust Fund; today, we praise their article on the esoteric subject of economic growth and stock market returns:

In barnstorming the country over Social Security, administration officials predict that American economic growth will slow to an anemic rate of 1.9 percent as baby boomers reach retirement.

Yet as they extol the rewards of letting people invest some of their payroll taxes in personal retirement accounts, President Bush and his allies assume that stock returns will be almost as high as ever, about 6.5 percent a year after inflation.

...A growing number of economists, however, including many who favor personal accounts, say Mr. Bush's assumptions are optimistic.

Many believe that stock returns will be lower than they have been in the past, closer to 5 percent than 6.5 percent, and that returns on a balanced mix of stocks and bonds will be much lower than that.

"Most economists would argue that, over a long period of time, there is a linkage between what the stock market will return and how well the economy does," said David Blitzer, chairman of the Standard & Poor's index committee, which oversees the S.&P. 500 stock index.

...In a paper to be presented on Thursday at the Brookings Institution, three economists who are longtime critics of Mr. Bush argue that stock returns are likely to be about 4.5 percent if economic growth slows as much as the administration predicts.

"We find it arithmetically very difficult to construct scenarios in which asset returns are at their historic average values and real G.D.P. growth is markedly slowed," wrote the economists, Paul Krugman of Princeton University, whose Op-Ed columns in The New York Times have long been sharply critical of Mr. Bush's plan; J. Bradford DeLong of the University of California, Berkeley; and Dean Baker of the Center for Economic Policy and Research, a liberal research organization in Washington.

A recent draft of the paper is at Brad DeLong's site.

To make the numbers work, the economists contended in their paper, domestic profits would have to grow far more rapidly than they have in the past, or American companies would have to become huge exporters of capital to faster-growing countries. At the moment, the United States is a huge net importer of foreign capital.

Well, they also note that higher dividend payouts solve the problem, as will be mentioned below.

Administration officials and many independent analysts disagree, saying the link between overall economic growth and investment returns is weak.

But many Wall Street analysts warn that stock returns are likely to be significantly lower in the future for a separate reason: stock valuations are high relative to expected earnings, and they are likely to remain that way.

The S.&P. 500 index is currently valued at about 20 times earnings, which translates to an expected return of about 5 percent a year. The historical average is about 15 times earnings, or an expected return of more than 7 percent.

William C. Dudley, chief United States economist at Goldman Sachs, estimates that stock returns are likely to be about 5 percent in the future, because investors are accepting lower "risk premiums."

My official editorial prediction is "5%", for reasons similar to those mentioned by Mr. Dudley of Goldman, Sachs.

...Stephen Goss,  chief actuary for the Social Security program, defended the administration's assumptions.

"Keep in mind that we are trying to make projections over a very long time, 75 years," Mr. Goss said. "I would suggest that 5 percent at the moment makes perfect sense. But if you buy at another time, when the price-earnings ratio is 10, you would expect a higher return over time."

Many experts agree that slower economic growth in the United States does not mean lower rates of return. Confronted with lower demand in the United States, companies can spend less money on expansion and more on dividends. Or they can invest more heavily in countries with faster-growing populations.

"Growth might slow in developed countries, but it's not clear to me that world growth is going to slow down at all," said Jeremy J. Siegel, a professor at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania and a leading analyst of long-term stock trends. "I think world growth will go up."

Ahh, well.  Regular readers will recall the brawl that was sparked by Paul Krugman's assertion a while back that returns of 6.5% were "impossible" in the projected lower growth environment.  But the intellectual ball seems to be advancing.

Terri Schiavo, R.I.P.

The NY Times obit.

Most annoying excerpt:

"Not only has Mrs. Schiavo's case been given due process, but few, if any similar cases have ever been afforded this heightened level of process," Chief Judge Chris Altenbernd, of the Second Court of Appeal in Florida, wrote earlier this month.

Oh, you processed the tar out of it, all right.  Too bad the phrase "shocks the conscience" never crept into the analysis.

Of Missing Persons:  The Times told us a lot more about Michael Schiavo's life, including his new love interest, in this piece.

Possible recruit for the pajama-hadeen:

President Bush was awakened shortly after 1 a.m. that day and, still in his pajamas, signed the legislation.

I am deeply disappointed by this result.

MORE:  Hope is a good thing, maybe the best thing, and no good thing ever dies.

And this is either Hugh Hewitt, or Hugh quoting Peggy Noonan:

Terri Schiavo has endured long enough to force nearly everyone to recognize the barbarity of a court order that forbids a mother from offering her dying daughter an ice-chip.  The national shudder will have lasting effects, and those politicians who sought mercy for Terri Schiavo have nothing to fear from those effects.

Medal Of Honor To Be Awarded Monday

From Eric Schmitt of the NY Times:

Sgt. First Class Paul R. Smith, killed nearly two years ago defending his vastly outnumbered Army unit in a fierce battle with elite Iraqi troops for control of Baghdad's airport, will receive the Medal of Honor, the nation's highest military award, administration officials said Tuesday.

No soldier who served in Afghanistan or Iraq after the Sept. 11 attacks has yet received the medal. The last conflict to produce a Medal of Honor recipient was in Mogadishu, Somalia, in 1993; two soldiers were awarded the medal posthumously for actions there, later depicted in the movie "Black Hawk Down."

...Sergeant Smith's "extraordinary heroism and uncommon valor without regard to his own life in order to save others are in keeping with the highest traditions of the military service," a draft of the medal citation says.

President Bush will present the award to Sergeant Smith's widow and children at a White House ceremony on Monday, the second anniversary of the airport battle and the soldier's death.

This honor has been wending its way through the system for a while. Here is a Winds of Change post providing background on the incident; an old NY Times story provides personal and family background.

UPDATE:  Excellent round-up of salutes to this great American by Don Singleton.  We single this out for special comment:

 James Joyner blogged The Medal is so revered in the service that anyone wearing it, regardless of rank, is entitled to a salute from any non-recipient, regardless of their rank.

C'mon, buddy, we learned that watching Heartbreak Ridge!  (And I think Don's link to James Joyner needs fixing, but I have the correct link here).

I will also append Abe Linclon's letter to Mrs. Bixby.

Liberals For Terri

Thunder from the left on behalf of Terri Schiavo's parents and siblings: Nat Hentoff, Jesse Jackson, and the Liberals for Terri blog.

Listening to Sean Hannity praise Jesse Jackson was indescribable.

Well, Noam Scheiber thinks that Democrats will be campaigning as supporters of Operation Iraqi Freedom by 2008; maybe they will switch sides on this a bit more quickly.

MORE:  The Brother Judd chides Scheiber and Democrats.

UPDATE:  Who's The Man?  We have all been wondering how this ties in to the Sharpton-Jackson tussle for leadership of whatever faction for whom they claim to speak.  Fortunately, the Times is all over this like a borrowed suit:

The Rev. Patrick Mahoney of the Christian Defense Coalition, who has lobbied Congress and the Florida Legislature on behalf of the Schindlers, said he posed the idea last week of inviting Mr. Jackson to Pinellas Park. First, Mr. Mahoney said in a phone interview, he asked the Rev. Al Sharpton to get involved. When Mr. Sharpton refused, he said, he told Randall Terry, the anti-abortion activist who has served as a spokesman for the Schindlers, to reach out to Mr. Jackson.

...Mr. Sharpton said in a phone interview that like Mr. Jackson, he supported resuming Ms. Schiavo's feeding, but that it would be hypocritical for him to advocate last-minute government intervention here after criticizing President Bush and Republicans in Congress for enacting the legislation that authorized the federal courts to step in.

"I do as a minister support her being reconnected," he said, "but I do not feel that I could respond to the request and at the same time criticize the president for intervening."

We will make a states' rights conservative out of Al yet.  (Yes, he was adamantly opposed to states leading the way on civil rights during the primaries - am I looking for logic and consistency?)

It Doesn't Always Matter What The Facts Are

The Houston Chronicle covers the "DeLay is a hypocrite for pulling the plug on his dad" story dreamed up by the LA Times.

Briefly, Tom DeLay's dad was in a ghastly accident, suffered severe injuries, and was in a coma with multiple organ failures; apparently he was on a respirator and about to be put on kidney dialysis when the family mutually agreed that enough was enough, and doctors declared him to be terminal.

Well, in a bit of a reversal, I think I can actually see the foundation of the "Delay is a hypocrite" idea.  This Kinsley column seems to presume that George Bush's dictum to "err on the side of life" means "never pull the plug".

And these letters to the Times suggest that the Times can find support for such an interpretation by cherry-picking its readers:

...What the "moralists" are really arguing is that a competent Ms. Schiavo would not have the right to refuse the feeding tube...

...That Mr. Brooks (as well as Congress, President Bush and the protesters outside Terri Schiavo's hospice) does not seem to take the individual's wishes into account is frightening.

...I thought the point about the "right to die" position is that there should not be a universal standard, but that the person himself (or his surrogate) makes the decision for himself.

The position that no one can tell me I must be forced to live by extraordinary means is surely based on moral grounds.

Well.  I'll say this - folks who believe Tom Delay's position to be that the plug must never be pulled are at least being consistent in following their caricature to its logical conclusion and deeming him to be a hypocrite with respect to his father.  And, as the Chronicle observes, sometimes facts don't matter.

However, I will toss in these facts - of the mainstream religious groups out there, I believe the Catholic Church is most strict in its guidelines for preserving life.  However, even the Church does not believe that heroic and extraordinary efforts to preserve life are always appropriate:

In 1998, speaking at a hospice in Vienna, Pope John Paul II proclaimed that keeping patients alive by "extraordinary or disproportionate means," as well as the artificial "hastening of death" by pulling the plug, were both at odds with Catholic principles. Both implied "that life and death are realities entrusted to humans beings to be disposed of at will," he said.

Or, here:

"The sick person in a 'vegetative state', awaiting recovery or a natural end, still has the right to basic health care (nutrition, hydration, cleanliness, warmth, etc.), and to the prevention of complications related to his confinement to bed. He also has the right to appropriate rehabilitative care and to be monitored for clinical signs of eventual recovery". (Pope John Paul II, March 20, 2004)

So, if you think (and would care to demonstrate) that Tom DeLay is stricter than the Pope about preserving life, then fine, he is a hypocrite.  But my guess is that the premise is flawed; here, for example, is his statement about Terri Schiavo:

“She’s not being ‘kept alive’; she is alive. It won’t take a miracle to help Terri Schiavo; it will only take the medical care and therapy that all patients deserve. Mrs. Schiavo is not being denied heroic measures; she’s being denied basic, basic, basic medical and personal care.

Emphasis added to make the point that he seems to be aware of the distinction between heroic and ordinary care.  DeLay is also troubled by the fact that Terri Schiavo's family and husband are not united (as his family was).

On the salient points, he has been consistent; however, facts probably don't matter.

Trouble In Oz

Aussie blogger Tim Blair is not getting it done!  This Times story is enough to make men chunder:

A poll released Monday in Australia, long known for friendly relations with Americans, found that only 58 percent of the population had a positive view of the United States.

That put the United States behind China (69 percent positive), and not even in the overall Top 10 countries, regions or groups that Australians respect. They have a more positive opinion of France (66 percent) and the United Nations (65 percent), according to the poll, which was commissioned by the Lowy Institute for International Policy, a research institute with a generally center-right orientation.

The AP Lead:

Most Australians consider U.S. foreign policy to be as threatening as Islamic fundamentalism, according to a survey released Monday.

More than two-thirds of respondents, 68 percent, said Australia takes ``too much notice'' of the United States when setting its foreign policy agenda, and 57 percent judged U.S. foreign policy to be as much of a threat as Islamic fundamentalism.

The Executive Summary has other gloomy news,  However, we also find this in the main report:

Despite our ambivalent attitudes towards the United States and its foreign policies, Australians still recognise the importance of our security alliance for Australia ’s international security.A clear majority (72%) think the alliance is either ‘very important ’or ‘fairly important ’.  Even those who expressed negative feelings towards the United States feel safer with our alliance in place:53%think the alliance is either ‘very important ’or ‘fairly important ’.Of those who expressed positive feelings towards the United States,86%see the alliance as either ‘very important ’ or ‘fairly important ’.

Well, we still love 'em.  So what can we do to help, Tim?  We are already sending a good-will ambassador.

UPDATE:  Let's hear from Aussie Tim Dunlop.

Krugman Versus The NY Times

Paul Krugman battles the NY Times.  From the Politically Plugged-In Prof:

Before he saw the polls, Tom DeLay declared that "one thing that God has brought to us is Terri Schiavo, to help elevate the visibility of what is going on in America." Now he and his party, shocked by the public's negative reaction to their meddling, want to move on.

From yesterday's NY Times:

After a string of fruitless legal and legislative efforts, the central question in the Terri Schiavo case - Who makes end-of-life decisions when the patient's wishes are disputed? - is headed back to Capitol Hill, where debate over broader legislation has already begun.

On Sunday, lawmakers of both parties agreed that Congress has a role to play in such cases and should contemplate legislation that would give added legal recourse to patients like Ms. Schiavo. While it is difficult to predict whether such a measure could pass, the Schiavo case has clearly pushed thorny questions about end-of-life care to the fore on Capitol Hill, as well as in state legislatures around the nation.

The Republican-controlled House already passed a bill that would allow the federal courts to review cases like Ms. Schiavo's, in which the patient has left no written instructions, the family is at odds and state courts have ordered a feeding tube to be withdrawn. That bill evolved into one that was narrowly tailored to Ms. Schiavo.

Now some Democrats, prodded by advocates for the disabled, say Congress should consider whether such a law is needed.

My money is on Sheryl Gay Stolberg of the Times; C-Span will cover the action as it unfolds.

UPDATE:  Powerline and Right Wing Nuthouse join the fun.  Having read their posts, we identify a rising star for "Weirdest Paragraph of this Weird Column:

America isn't yet a place where liberal politicians, and even conservatives who aren't sufficiently hard-line, fear assassination. But unless moderates take a stand against the growing power of domestic extremists, it can happen here.

"Isn't yet"?  "Unless... it can happen here"?  Boy, what is the opposite of a 60's flashback?  Has the Earnest Prof ever heard "Abraham, Martin and John" on the radio?  Who does he suppose it is about?  If I said "Kennedy, Kennedy, King" could he think of a common theme other than the first initial?

Or, we could cite George Wallace and Ronald Reagan.  Whew.  Someone buy Krugman a subscription to a newspaper, or the history channel, or something.

Market Reforms In North Korea

Timesman Howard French, who has been their man in China for quite a while, continues his series from the North Korean border.  The theme is that North Korea is experimenting with market reforms inspired by the experience of China, but some of the reforms are quite novel - he saves the best for last, and so shall we.  Some excerpts:

The view from China, though, in cities like this, where small groups of North Koreans can be found in the downtown shops and hotels, scouring the city for bargains, is of a country already well into an experiment, however uncertain, aimed at rebuilding its economy and even opening up, ever so gingerly, to the outside world.

John Fund On Elian Gonzalez

John Fund notes parallels between the Elian Gonzalez and Terri Schiavo cases.

Based on this PBS timeline, he seems to leave out many key differences, including the final resolution in Federal courts.  Not that I am a Janet Reno fan.

HELP:  What is the trick to perma-linking WSJ stories?

The Times Rediscovers Tom Harkin And The Disabled

Why did Senate Democrats sheepishly support the Schiavo Relief Bill on Palm Sunday?  No courage, no conviction, and no polling data, as Joyce Purnick of the Times and Richard Cohen of the WaPo suggested?

Well, the NY Times has finally re-discovered Sen. Tom Harkin, a champion of rights for the disabled.  He appeared last Monday, when the Times told us this:

Senate Democrats were helpful as well. Some were reticent about opposing the Schiavo measure because of the highly charged emotions surrounding it. But Senator Tom Harkin, the Iowa Democrat who is an author of the Americans With Disabilities Act, pressed hard for the measure and helped to assuage the states' rights concerns of other Democrats, and the Senate Democratic leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, ultimately supported the bill as well.

Sen. Harkin then reappeared in the Boston Globe, but a search of the Times site shows he dropped out of the story (other than a modest reader revolt in the letters) until today:

On Sunday, lawmakers of both parties agreed that Congress has a role to play in such cases and should contemplate legislation that would give added legal recourse to patients like Ms. Schiavo. While it is difficult to predict whether such a measure could pass, the Schiavo case has clearly pushed thorny questions about end-of-life care to the fore on Capitol Hill, as well as in state legislatures around the nation.

The Republican-controlled House already passed a bill that would allow the federal courts to review cases like Ms. Schiavo's, in which the patient has left no written instructions, the family is at odds and state courts have ordered a feeding tube to be withdrawn. That bill evolved into one that was narrowly tailored to Ms. Schiavo.

Now some Democrats, prodded by advocates for the disabled, say Congress should consider whether such a law is needed.

"I think we should look into this and very possibly legislate it," said Representative Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts, who opposed Congressional action in the Schiavo case. Mr. Frank was speaking on Sunday on the ABC News program "This Week With George Stephanopoulos." Mr. Frank added: "I think Congress needs to do more. Because I've spoken with a lot of disability groups who are concerned that, even where a choice is made to terminate life, it might be coerced by circumstances."

In the Senate, Tom Harkin, Democrat of Iowa, has also been consulting with advocates for disability rights and is preparing to introduce legislation along the lines of the bill that the House passed, a spokeswoman said. Senator Harkin, an author of the Americans With Disabilities Act, was one of the few Democrats in the Senate who spoke in favor of the so-called private relief measure that allowed a federal court to review Ms. Schiavo's case.

Perhaps we will have some fun watching the "All Change" sign go up on the left, as they  explain why Harkin's bill is desperately right, but the version already rejected by the Senate was desperately wrong.

A Breakthrough For Cat Lovers

Reuters:

A new chemical compound, part-cat and part-human, may provide an end to misery-making cat allergies, U.S. researchers reported on Sunday.

Yes, but can the compound relieve allergies to cat-blogging?

Hit Job By The LA Times

The LA Times runs a hit piece on Tom DeLay.

Patterico is on this; Michelle Malkin rounds up cheering from the critical thinkers of the left - apparently a headline of "Tom DeLay Does Awful Thing" disables the reading and thinking skills of half the blogosphere.  Worth remembering.

And the Right Wing Death Beast invites Tim Dunlop out for a spotlight dance on this one. 

Tim's response so far (in the UPDATE) includes this nugget:

...they are suddenly confronted with his gross hypocrisy in the form of the revelation that he (and his family) had allowed his father to die after they deemed he wouldn't recover from a serious accident.

Hmm.  "[T]hey deemed he wouldn't recover...".  Really?  Well, the incident was in 1988, prior to the 1990 Cruzan ruling.  At the time, Texas operated under the Natural Death Act.  A quick summary of the relevant procedure seems to be here:

The Natural Death Act (which became Texas law in 1977) says [the patient] must have a terminal condition before life support can be removed. Two physicians (one of whom may be her primary care physician) must concur in the diagnosis. One physician must certify that her death will come in a short time if she is removed from life support.

When those conditions are met, the law allows the doctor and the patient’s court appointed guardian to disconnect life support. Before they do it, they have to sign a “natural death directive” on the patient’s behalf. It must be witnessed just like the patient was signing it.

What if the patient has no court appointed Guardian, as in your situation. Texas law then requires that the doctor and certain family members agree that life support should be withdrawn. The family participants are drawn from a statutory list — and should include at least two people from the following categories:

• the spouse;
• the children;
• the parents; or
• other living relatives.

Emphasis added. 

And let's hear from Tom DeLay his bad self, describing the Terri Schiavo case:

“She’s not being ‘kept alive’; she is alive. It won’t take a miracle to help Terri Schiavo; it will only take the medical care and therapy that all patients deserve. Mrs. Schiavo is not being denied heroic measures; she’s being denied basic, basic, basic medical and personal care.

Emphasis added again.  Folks intent on seeing a parallel in these two cases probably will be able to.  But that is more a tribute to the power of the human imagination than to the actual connection.

More on the Natural Death Act here; Cruzan story and opinion excerpts; interesting view of "medical futility" from Baylor.

MORE:  LeanLeft is a medical ethicist, an honorable chap, and a lefty, so if he had any sense at all, he would duck this one.  Let's see - troubling.

UPDATE:  The NY Times piece by Shery Gay Stolberg is certainly more fair and balanced.  This sentence  - "their other children made the initial decision to withhold kidney dialysis and other treatments when it became clear that he could not recover" - is ambiguous, because there is a difference between "terminal" and "could not recover".  Terri Schiavo, for example, can not recover (in the opinion of virtually all experts), but is not "terminal"; based on the account and the law, Mr. DeLay was "terminal".

However, the Times closes with this:

However, Tony Perkins, the president of the Family Research Council, said that Mr. DeLay did not act inconsistently, and that the congressman's father could not be compared to Ms. Schiavo, who was receiving no medical treatment other than nutrition and hydration through a feeding tube.

"Two different situations," Mr. Perkins said. "With Terri Schiavo, there was no plug pulled, there was no respirator taken away from her. She was simply by court order deprived of food and water."

Here is the AP account, which is also better than the LA Times, but has troubling elements.  Here is a puzzling quote:

Maxine DeLay, the congressman's 81-year-old mother, told the Times. "Tom knew, we all knew, his father wouldn't have wanted to live that way."

Well, that may be the case, but it also seems to be true that he had no choice about living that way - major organs were failing, and death was nigh.  Or, if he could have been maintained indefinitely, than "that way" means, at a minimum, on a respirator, dialysis, and a feeding tube - this is hardly Terri Schiavo's plight, a point they quote a DeLay aide as making.

 

Michael Kinsley Must Be Awfully Smart

Micheal Kinsley, LA Times editor and WaPo columnist, must be awfully smart.  The current evidence - he seems to know a lot about George Bush's agenda regarding late-stage medical care and the "Right to Die":

In the Schiavo case, Bush and de facto House Speaker Tom DeLay earnestly believe that human life is a gift from God that no one has the right to extinguish. "No one" includes the person whose life it is. The president and Congress probably would not swoop down and prevent a family from pulling the plug if everyone involved agreed that this was the unambiguous wish of the patient herself. But the situation is rarely so clear. Even when there are living wills, people's wishes are often thwarted. The right to die on your own terms -- and, more important, the ability to take comfort in knowing, long before you need to, that you will have that right if you wish to exercise it -- is barely alive. Clearly, if Bush and DeLay had their way, they would pull the plug on that notion.

Clearly?  Upon what is that statement based?

Here is the President's statement on Terri Schiavo:

The case of Terri Schiavo raises complex issues.  Yet in instances like this one, where there are serious questions and substantial doubts, our society, our laws, and our courts should have a presumption in favor of life.  Those who live at the mercy of others deserve our special care and concern.  It should be our goal as a nation to build a culture of life, where all Americans are valued, welcomed, and protected - and that culture of life must extend to individuals with disabilities.

Well, maybe Mr. Kinsley sees the intent in that paragraph, but I don't.

Or perhaps Mr. Kinsley is thinking of the 1999 Advance Directives Act George Bush signed while Governor of Texas.  Here is a description, and another.  But wait!  Far from outlawing the "right to die", it actually clarified the rules under which a hospital can terminate a patient on the basis that further care is futile, and the rules under which a patient can refuse further treatment. 

By the way, this Texas bill became a major talking point amongst lefties who misread the reporting and misunderstood the bill.  Even the national press noted an apparent inconsistency between Texas George the plug-puller, and D.C. Bush the err-on-the-side-of-lifer.  Bush has certainly not left much of a record supporting the Kinsley thesis.

Although we applaud Mr. Kinsley for his independent thinking, please - when can we expect the "reality based community" to re-connect with reality?

MORE:  Kinsley on the couch, or "Why is he making this up?"  How would I know?  But my guess is this - he is inventing a  reason to oppose the Terry Schiavo Relief Act, which, as Kevin Drum noted, is not really all that offensive to conventional liberal sensibilities. 

Maybe the image of Kinsley on the Ramparts, defending our right to terminate the terminally ill, has appeal to him; the fact that our post-Cruzan rights are not threatened by Bush (and were clarified when he was in Texas) is only the merest of impediments to this slippery slope fantasy.

More evidence - these three ideas appear consecutively in the column, but are near-nonsense:

Specifically, people are terrified of being kept joylessly alive, active minds trapped in shut-down bodies or lost minds mocking the dignity of a lifetime, just to prove somebody's political point.

The Schiavo case is not exactly about anyone's right to die, since we don't know whether Schiavo would want to die in her current circumstances. But concern about being able to choose death over pain and/or extreme degradation is what has riveted people to the Schiavo story.

It is riveting because of the choice between death and degradation?  Then why did CNN show the video of the mom and her daughter every five minutes?  I almost thought the story was riveting because a mother was trying to save her child. 

And if the Schiavo case is "not exactly about anyone's right to die", then why does Mr. Kinsley tell us that "people are terrified of being kept joylessly alive...just to prove somebody's political point"?

Baffling.  Re-connect the reality tube.

 

Reopening The Stem Cell Debate

With the Schiavo Relief bill, one might well ask - why did Congressfolk support an unpopular and ineffective bill?

In what I view as damage control, various groups are emerging to explain.  The Times implies that moderate House Republicans may have won concessions on the stem cell debate.  From the Times:

The Republican leadership of the House has told party moderates that the House will vote this year on a proposal to modify President Bush's stem cell research policy, opening another contentious moral, theological and scientific debate about when life begins and ends.

Representative Michael N. Castle, the Delaware Republican who is leader of a group of party moderates who have been pushing to ease restrictions on financing stem cell research, said the leadership pledged to take up some version of a proposal to allow federally financed research on stem cells taken from leftover frozen embryos from fertility clinics.

...Mr. Castle said the Republican leadership agreed in meetings on Wednesday and Thursday of last week to consider the proposal. Those same days the House was racing to enact emergency legislation in the case of Terri Schiavo, the critically brain-damaged Florida woman whose feeding tube was disconnected last week. In contrast to the Congressional intervention in the Schiavo case, adoption of the stem cell proposal would be a setback for those who argue for the sanctity of human life from conception to natural death.

House Republican aides said the leadership had not committed to taking up the specific proposal Mr. Castle has backed.

We will see. [More at the WaPo - no link mentioned to Schiavo.  And Ramesh Ponnuru of The Corner is already plotting killer amendments.]

Meanwhile, one might argue that Senate Democrats are among the big losers.  John Kerry and Hillary Clinton want to lead the nation, but can't even stand up to Tom DeLay?  Was Ted Kennedy afraid of the right-to-life challenging his seat?  Joyce Purnick of the Times buries the Senate Dems, as does Richard Cohen of the WaPo, and both overlook the Tom Harkin damage control story which only gained prominence after the polls came out.

Kevin Drum offers what strikes me as a brilliant yet baffling defense - it cogently explains why the principles ostensibly at stake are not that consequential for traditional libs, but leaves us wondering, why the outrage on the left?  Reflexive oppositionalism?

And, since this is that kind of an issue, I am in nearly total agreement with Josh Marshall:

Clearly, you've got a family that truly believes they're watching their daughter being allowed to die for lack of nourishment. Whatever the antics of their supporters or the larger political purposes this is being put to, they believe it.  And I can only imagine the sense of impotence and despair they must be experiencing.

...What's more, as Kevin Drum mentioned on his site earier, I could see where a state might make a law that absent clear and specific evidence (like a living will) of a patient's pre-illness wishes, you assume they would want to be kept alive. I'm not saying that's the right or the wrong approach. I'm only making the point that I don't see anything sacrosanct about the particular legal regime about end-of-life care that currently prevails in Florida.

The only clarity I've been able to see in this case or find in it is that there is a set of laws governing these issues in Florida and those laws appear to have been followed. Not only followed, but now submitted to numerous appeals. As for the medical questions involved -- specifically, Shiavo's level of awareness or consciousness -- from what I can tell, every independent doctor who has examined her has put her in the PVS category. Those who don't turn out to be either quacks or doctors who didn't do a complete examination.

That doesn't mean those legal or medical judgments are correct. But I know that those judgments have been arrived at by people with vastly more expertise and information at their disposal than I have.

My basic position has been, the legal result - a husband effectively ordering the termination of his spouse over the objections of the mother, father, brother, and sister - shocks the conscience, or my conscience, anyway.  And, as Dr. Marshall notes, there is nothing at all sacrosanct about the Florida law.

I will probably have more.

Raise The Cone Of Silence

The Saturday Times continues their Schiavo coverage with a front page catch-up Michael basher.  Innuendo, unanswered questions, no mention that the trust fund is virtually depleted - why now?

As we noted, as of last Monday, his personal story was not newsworthy.

Under A Swift Sunrise

JRR Tolkien was a devout Christian; I thought this scene from the battle at Minas Tirith, which was added for the movie, did a good job of illustrating his religiosity:

[We see how inside the city the people are running from Sauron's forces as the Nazgûl fly around the city again. Everything looks hopeless as the enemy tries to break the gate the men are defending. Farther away, Gandalf and Pippin are sitting together, watching the destruction. The hobbit turns to look at Gandalf.]

Pippin: "I didn't think it would end this way..."

Gandalf: "End?  No, the journey doesn't end here.  Death is just another path...One that we all must take."

[Pippin listenes and watches Gandalf, as he continues. All sounds of the surrounding battle quiet down.]

Gandalf: "The grey rain-curtain of this world rolls back, and all change to silver glass..."

[There is a little smile on Pippin's face.]

Gandalf: "...And then you see it."

Pippin: "What? Gandalf? ...See what?"

[As Gandalf continues, we can hear the melody of 'Into the West' on the background.]

Gandalf: "White shores...and beyond... the far green country under a swift sunrise."

[They both smile as they look at each other.]

Pippin: "Well, that isn't so bad."

Gandalf: "No...No it isn't."

Have a great weekend, all.

The Schiavo Bill - What Did Congress Pass?

Glenn sends us to Ann Althouse and Jonathon Adler, on the question of Congressional intent in the Schiavo relief bill.

The NY Times had this yesterday:

...And in what could be read as a dig at Congress, the judges suggested that better drafting might have yielded a different result.

"Congress considered and specifically rejected provisions that would have mandated, or permitted with favorable implications, the grant of the pretrial stay," the majority said.

An early version of the legislation passed on Monday said that the district judge hearing the Schiavo case "shall" issue a stay of the state court proceedings. A later one said it "may" issue such a stay. The law as enacted omitted the provision entirely.

Yesterday's panel decision quoted at length and with something like glee from an exchange between Senator Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan, and the Senate majority leader, Bill Frist, Republican of Tennessee.

Senator Levin asked Senator Frist about the significance of the omitted stay provision.

"Nothing in the current bill or its legislative history mandates a stay," Senator Frist replied. "I would assume, however, the federal court would grant a stay based on the facts of this case because Mrs. Schiavo would need to be alive in order for the court to make its determination."

Dr. Frist assumed wrong, the majority suggested. Indeed, the music of the panel decision was that Congress could not win. Had it passed the earlier version of the law, the courts might well have held it unconstitutional. The version Congress did pass, the panel majority said yesterday, was ineffective.

Naturally, we can easily find conspiracy theories "obvious hypotheses" from the left, but I lean to the more obvious explanation that the Constitution tied Frist's hands, so he did what he could.

UPDATE:  More from Law Professor Ann Althouse:

...I took a lot of heat on the conlawprof email list arguing that Congress did have the power to pass this statute. I think some of the "intent" that Congress failed to express in the language of the statute was left out because it would have created constitutional problems. For example, if Congress had dictated to the federal courts that they issue a particular form of relief or if it had instructed the federal courts to redo the state law parts of the case, the statute would probably have been unconstitutional.

And from legal theorist Mark Kleiman:

Tom Maguire, understandably reluctant to see DeLay and Frist as they are, quotes a New York Times story suggesting that for Constitutional reasons Congress couldn't have inserted a clause ordering the court to issue a TRO. That's almost certainly not right; if Congress can Constitutionally intervene to reopen as a Federal case a matter already fully resolved under state law, then it can change the rules of procedure for that case as well.

Well, legal theorist Kleiman has not yet responded to our queries on this, ahh, fevered dream of his legal imagination, something I will keep in mind as I weigh his latest legal advice against that of Ms. Althouse and the Times.

My Apologies

I am experiencing what I hope is merely a glitch in the commenting software - currently, I seem to be banned from leaving comments at my own site.

It is possible that my friends are performing an intervention, but I am leaning towards "bug".

In any case, if you, too, are being blocked, please don't take it personally.

UPDATE:  Problem solved!

Reality Intrudes On North Korea

The NY Times takes us to the border of North Korea and China and finds some deeply disillusioned North Koreans:

Glimpse of World Shatters North Koreans' Illusions

...The refugees pose challenges for China and for North Korea. Chinese officials fear that a flood of North Koreans across their borders would not only pose a huge economic strain on the region, but could eventually stoke a territorial dispute because of historic Korean claims in the region. For North Korea, the refugees' flight to China offers a pressure valve, allowing the poor to earn desperately needed money. But it also allows them a glimpse of the richness of the outside world, and that could be destabilizing.

...One woman who plans to keep shuttling between countries is a 42-year-old military nurse. "I am in China now, and it is just like I had heard - very developed, full of people, with everything you could ever want to buy," she said. "But I have no ID card, no residence permit. I am in a free country, but I am not free."

...most recent arrivals here, including many who live close to the border, said they had a vague idea of China's striking new wealth.

In interview after interview, they spoke of the huge shift in perspective they experienced upon entering China. "When I lived in Korea, I never thought my leaders were bad," said one woman in her 50's, a farmer who had brought her grown daughter to Yanji recently from her home not far from the other side of the border for treatment of an intestinal ailment. "When I got here, I learned that Chinese can travel wherever they want in the world as long as they have the money. I learned that South Korea is far richer, even than China."

"If we are so poor," she continued, "it must be because of Kim Jong Il's mistakes," she said referring to North Korea's leader. The woman said her daughter had decided to stay in China, but that she would soon return home, after illegally earning money doing piecework for a factory here.

North Korea's oppressive control of its citizens through policing and propaganda could be felt through the words of another woman. "Until the end of the 1980's, we were convinced we were the greatest country on earth, and in fact, many people still believe this," the woman said. "We've always been taught that other countries are poorer than we are. They say that South Korea is full of beggars and that people can't afford even to send their children to school."

This woman, a rural dweller in her early 40's, said she had never heard anyone blame Mr. Kim for her country's problems. On the contrary, he was "sincerely adored," she insisted, because of an all-pervasive personality cult. "If I had ever had a chance to meet him face to face, I would have been moved to tears," she said. "We really believed that wherever he went, flowers bloomed. And if he or some other high official arrived in our area and said he needed my daughter, well, we would have been honored."

Asked how they felt now, after having seen some of the outside world, each person interviewed said his or her illusions about North Korea had been shattered. "There is no way I can believe my government again," said one person who had been in China only a few weeks. "They spend all their time celebrating the leaders. There is one thing I have understood in China, and that is, as long as there is no freedom, we will never get richer."

We had more last week: "North Korea - Losing The Culture War?"

Is It Safe?

Joyce Purnick of the Times chides the profiles in courage amongst the Senate Democrats:

THE House of Representatives acted quickly over the weekend in the wrenching case of Terri Schiavo, so quickly that maybe those who opposed the special bill allowing the federal courts to take over the case might have missed the Senate's role - conspicuous for its silence.

The debate was confined to the House, for nearly four hours late Sunday night and early Monday. In the Senate, home of Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein of California, and, of course, Hillary Rodham Clinton and Charles E. Schumer of New York, nothing.

Plame Case - Not A Crime?

Jack Shafer gets results!  Per the WaPo:

A federal court should first determine whether a crime has been committed in the disclosure of an undercover CIA operative's name before prosecutors are allowed to continue seeking testimony from journalists about their confidential sources, the nation's largest news organizations and journalism groups asserted in a court filing yesterday.   

The 40-page brief, filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, argues that there is "ample evidence . . . to doubt that a crime has been committed" in the case, which centers on the question of whether Bush administration officials knowingly revealed the identity of undercover CIA operative Valerie Plame in the summer of 2003. Plame's name was published first by syndicated columnist Robert D. Novak and later by other publications.

Glenn Reynolds asks, presumably rhetorically, why the major media are coming to this realization only after the election - folks like Jack Shafer were making this argument in September 2003.  Glenn does not link to this - heh.

The "no crime" theme was also kicked around by James Taranto when the light shone on the NY Times a month ago.

However, the real "Shafer gets results" is this - back in mid February, he advised the NY Times legal strategists to get a new attorney, in a piece headlined "Fire Floyd Abrams. Hire Bruce Sanford".

Well, hello, Bruce - what does the WaPo tell us:

Bruce W. Sanford, a lawyer who handled the case for the group of news organizations, said yesterday that "it's a very poor result if somehow reporters got entangled in a net of prison sentences in an investigation which ends up with no indictment because no crime has been committed."

OK, we argued last month that this strategy was the best available, but unlikely to succeed, and we will stand pat.  Beldar reached a similar conclusion, and has a much snappier title here (with a broken link!).

Finally, here is one of the Sanford articles that set this ball in motion.

Not Biased, Just Weird

The Times has a puzzling front-pager on urban demographics:

Vibrant Cities Find One Thing Missing: Children

PORTLAND, Ore. - The Pearl District in the heart of this perpetually self-improving city seems to have everything in new urban design and comfort, from the Whole Foods store where fresh-buffed bell peppers are displayed like runway models to the converted lofts that face sidewalk gardens.

Everything except children.

Crime is down. New homes and businesses are sprouting everywhere. But in what may be Portland's trendiest and fastest-growing neighborhood, the number of school-age children grew by only three between the census counts in 1990 and 2000, according to demographers at Portland State University.

That is not "three percent".  That is three new kids, and I heard that one of them called in sick today.

OK, it is an interesting topic.  But let's get to some of the weirdness:

The problem is not that children are leaving for private schools, officials said. It is that new people attracted to the city tend to have higher incomes, having already raised a family; are retiring; or are single and unlikely to have children.

"Single and unlikely to have children" - what is this, the demographic that dare not speak its name?  C'mon, cities attract gay people.  Why so coy at the Times - is this suddenly a secret?  And how will they describe this demographic when gay marriage becomes a reality?  Puzzling.

Now, let's have an old-fashioned fact-check:

"If you took immigrants out of the equation, the United States would be like the rest of Europe," said Phillip Longman, a senior fellow at the New America Foundation, a public policy research organization in Washington. He is the author of "The Empty Cradle: How Falling Birth Rates Threaten World Prosperity and What To Do About It."

Not according to this 2002 Economist article:, which noted that, unlike in Europe, in the United States "fertility rose among native-born whites and blacks as well" in the 1990's.

Updated fertility stats by demographic group ought to be available at the Census Bureau, the National Center for Health Statistics, or the Population Reference Bureau.  And maybe with the new data Phillip Longman is right, and the Economist is passe.  Maybe.

And finally the last weirdness - does any of this have any political implications at all?  Red state, Blue state, urban areas for Dems, suburbs for Reps - any implications? 

None are mentioned in this story, so I will suggest one - the Dems are already in the pocket of the NEA, and not exactly pushing bold innovation in education reform.  If, in addition, Dem voters are concentrated in low-child zones, education becomes even less of a priority issue for Democrats.

Or maybe not - but couldn't a Times reporter take a stab at this?

UPDATE:  We hear about zoning issues in a Delaware resort area:

As best anyone can determine, the area’s population will continue to grow at a     brisk clip. We just won’t see nearly as many kids in the local mix as we once did.

 

Maybe We Need A "Futile Blogging Law"

On the subject of the Texas Futile Care Law and Bush's inconsistency in signing both that and the Federal bill providing relief to the family of Terri Schiavo, Mark Kleiman misfired somewhat, but remains undaunted.  His theme - Bush was inconsistent in signing a 1999 Texas law that would seem to lead to a similar outcome as in the Terri Schiavo case.

Some background:

The 1999 Advance Directives Act in Texas allows for a patient's surrogate to make end-of-life decisions, and it spells out how to proceed if a hospital or other health provider disagrees with a decision to maintain or halt life-sustaining treatment.

If a doctor refuses to honor a decision, the case goes before a medical committee. If the committee agrees with the doctor, the guardian or surrogate has 10 days to agree or seek treatment elsewhere.

Thomas Mayo, an associate law professor at Southern Methodist University who helped draft the Texas law, said that if the Schiavo case had happened in Texas, her husband would have been her surrogate decision-maker. Because both he and her doctors were in agreement, life support would have been discontinued. 

Armed with this information, where does Mr. Kleiman take us?  Here is his post; Atrios excerpted the good stuff, and from that I will extract the Comedy Classic:

Schiavo - Let's Hear From Some Liberals

Mary Johnson draws a connection between Terri Schiavo and rights for the disabled at Common Dreams and the Baltimore Sun.  From the Sun:

THE CASE of brain-damaged Terri Schiavo, a woman who cannot speak for herself, has politicians intoning about the "sanctity of life" and right-to-die advocates insisting it should be a private family matter.

But for the organized U.S. disability rights movement, the issue is one of civil and constitutional rights.

...Most of us who are not disabled cannot imagine living like Mrs. Schiavo. But the disability rights movement is made up of individuals who are living lives that they may not have previously imagined, either. Individuals who can communicate only via high-tech means have told me they were long thought to be unable to think or feel. People who have experienced aphasia - the loss of the ability to speak or understand spoken or written language - people who have had strokes and people with brain injuries say similar things.

To these people, the case of whether Mrs. Schiavo should be kept alive looks very different. And who better to understand the issue than those whose lives hinge on the same question?

..."Disability groups don't think guardians should have carte blanche to starve and dehydrate people with conditions like brain injury, developmental disabilities - which the public calls 'birth defects' - and Alzheimer's. People should have the right not to be deprived of life by a guardian who feels that their ward is as good as dead, better off dead or that the guardian himself or herself would be better off without the ward."

More than two dozen national disability rights groups have been concerned about the Schiavo case. Two years ago, disability groups urged the Florida courts to "require a genuine application of the due process standard" and require "that Terri's wishes be proven by clear and convincing evidence, consistent with the Cruzan standard set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court," according to a brief filed by Not Dead Yet. It didn't happen.

..."There are a lot of people in the shadows, all over this country, who are incapacitated because of a disability," Sen. Tom Harkin told reporters Saturday.

The Iowa Democrat, who has worked on disability rights issues for decades, said, "There ought to be a broader type of a proceeding that would apply to people in similar circumstances. ... Where someone is incapacitated and their life support can be taken away, it seems to me that it is appropriate - where there is a dispute, as there is in this case - that a federal court come in, like we do in habeas corpus situations, and review it and make another determination."

A writ of habeas corpus is used to bring a person before a court or judge to decide whether that person is being unlawfully denied his or her freedom.

It's past time for Congress to pass a law providing for federal habeas corpus review of disputed state court rulings that order the withholding of food and water from legally incapacitated persons who did not leave a written advance directive or who did not choose their own substitute decision-maker.

A Prophet Without Honor

Max Sawicky, who occasionally graces us with a visit from the other side of the aisle, has a new paper out on Social Security.

He has already gotten some praise from TAPPED; I have no doubt he would welcome some constructive criticism from the readers here.  Or, I imagine he could tolerate a few "Hosannas", given the approaching weekend and all.

And of course, bilious scorn is always an option.  Just remember, if you start something up, you go in as a heavy underdog.

In other Soc Sec news, the Bush marketing plan continues to evolve.  I can not address the rumor that, having used posters saying "Strengthening Social Security" and "Keeping Our Promise to Seniors", the White House is going to roll out "Brother, Can You Spare A Dime?"

And here is reporting on the new trustees report:

The Social Security and Medicare programs will run short of money even faster than recent projections had anticipated, trustees for the programs said today in a report that immediately intensified an already bitter political debate.

Beginning in 2017, not 2018 as previously projected, the revenue from Social Security payroll taxes will be less than the benefits the government will be paying out, Treasury Secretary John W. Snow said, forcing the government to dip into reserves.

Moreover, those reserves, which have been built up by surpluses and will keep benefits at their normal levels even after payroll taxes are insufficient, will be depleted in 2041, not 2042, as previously anticipated, Mr. Snow said...

Max is satisfied that the fix was not in.

The Ultimate New Jersey Joke

This one will slay you.

Taking The High Road

Can I have a "Heh"?

Kerry Advisor Backs Wolfowitz

Bush diplomacy works!  Jamie Rubin, Kerry FoPo advisor, endorses Paul Wolfowitz for the World Bank.

Good News On The EU / China Arms Embargo

Bush/Rice diplomacy works!  (For now).  The threat a unified, angry Congress clearly helped the US, and the subtle Chinese diplomatic maneuverings clearly hurt France.

Yielding to pressure from President Bush and threats of retaliation from Congress, the European Union has put off plans to lift its arms embargo on China this spring and may not press the issue until next year, American and European officials said Monday.

The officials said that in addition to American pressure, European nations have been shaken by the recent adoption of legislation by the Chinese National People's Congress authorizing the use of force to stop Taiwan from seceding. The Chinese action, they said, jolted France and undercut its moves to end the embargo before June.

Media Critic, Criticize Thyself

The NY Times resumes its comical "coverage" of the Terri Schiavo story by looking at how the story was handled by the talking head shows over the weekend.  Their focus was on the video of a seemingly-responsive Terri Schiavo, but Ms. Heffernan also wrote this:

Ms. Schiavo's case is complex, and the complicated dynamics of her family life, as well as her medical history, have been a subject for the courts, but rarely for television.

The networks missed a chance to do the story right, to cover its full arc and give viewers more than a few snapshots on which to base their discussion of this pressing moral issue.

"The complicated dynamics of her family life?"  Times readers who bought the subscription but lost the decoder ring must wonder what that means. 

Let's see if we can help - put your hand up if you are aware that Michael Schiavo has a very complicated personal life, since he is now living with another woman, by whom he has two children.  Do you suppose this influences, if only subconsciously, his desire to see Terri continue to live?  Once she dies, he can marry the mother of his children - what does he want, and what does his new love interest want?

This is all gibberish to Times readers, of course - in eight bylined stories about the Schiavo situation since March 17, the "other woman" has not been mentioned.  Cherchez la femme, but don't cherchez in these pages.

Anything else?  Well, since you ask, raise your hand if you knew that there was some malpractice award, and a trust, and that Michael Schiavo stood to pocket anything not spent on the care of Terri Schiavo.  Oh, if your hand is up, you are getting your news from outside of Timesworld.  Their only mention of a possible financial angle is here:

The battle between Mr. Schiavo and his wife's parents began with a rift over a $1 million malpractice settlement. In 1998, when Mr. Schiavo went to court for permission to remove his wife's feeding tube, the Schindlers challenged him.

More thoughts on that at the NRO, or the WSJ excerpts.  Cui bono, except at the Times.

Now, does this mean that Michael Schiavo's judgment must be warped by love, or greed?  Of course not.  But is it part of the story?  We are trying to understand why this man is so determined to see his wife's life ended - surely a bit of basic background into his own situation is appropriate.  Or surely not, at the Times.

MORE:  These are the major Times stories - I dropped the wire service and some local color reports.

Mar 17;  Mar 18; Mar 19; Mar 20; Mar 20; Mar 20; Mar 21; Mar 21; Mar 21.

UPDATE:  Ask, and ye shall receive: on Mar 22, the Times puts this in the last two paragraphs of their lead Schiavo story:

In Tallahassee, Gov. Jeb Bush said he was grateful to Congress for passing a law but said he still wanted the Florida Legislature to pass a measure tightening the requirements for guardianship. Mr. Schiavo lives with a girlfriend with whom he has had two children, and Mr. Bush said that presented a conflict of interest.

"I think our state ought to change our laws to say in those circumstances, that that guardian needs to be changed," Mr. Bush said.

Meanwhile, Times readers with a long memory will remember their profile of Michael Schiavo from Nov 2003.  The print version, and the on-line archive, are titled "With His Wife in Limbo, Husband Can't Move On"; apparently somebody realized that this story is about more than Michael, so the revised headline is "Schiavo Case Brings Unwelcomed Spotlight".  It could have been titled "Schiavo - Saint or Monster", because it tries to present both sides (but guess which way it leans).  The key tidbit - Schiavo's attorney claims the malpractice award is essentially exhausted.

 

The Times Goes To Law School

The NY Times editors have been thinking about Justice Scalia, strict constructionism, and the Constitution, and applaud the idea of an evolving document:

Many of the most central principles of American constitutional law - from the right to a court-appointed lawyer to the right to buy contraception - have emerged from the court's evolving sense of the meaning of constitutional clauses. Justice Scalia seems to be suggesting that many, or perhaps all, of these rights should exist only at the whim of legislatures.

My goodness - dare we whisper to the Times editors that in their beautiful world, these "rights" exist at the whim of Men in Black?

Of course, some rights have been enumerated by amendment; other times, as with the Civil Rights Act or the Voting Rights Act, the "whim" of legislators seems to be acceptable.  But who can tell with the Times?

In other legal news, Dahlia Lithwick seems to think that when Congress writes laws, that is "congressional activism".  The Monk smites her (but you have to read to point 4).

Right-to-Life Hypocrisy, or Blogger Error?

[CREDIT WHERE DUE:  Since he has delivered four updates and two follow-up posts, it is incumbent upon me to note that Mr. Kleiman is making a good-faith effort to clarify and correct some of the many problems in his initial post.  For me to have diagnosed his problem as "illiteracy" (since deleted from the post title), or to have stated that he made a deliberate decision to "make stuff up" and "retreat to fantasy" was wrong and offensive, and I apologize.  "Attack the idea, not the person" is one of my own rules, and I did not meet that standard.

Since I am neither a psychic nor a psychologist, each reader will have to rely on their own devices to guess just what process led to the many assertions unsupported by evidence that appeared in Mr. Kleiman's initial post.]

Meanwhile, over in the "reality based community", we see an interesting reaction to the Terri Schiavo story - make stuff up post follow-up corrections.  Well, it didn't seem to work on the bankruptcy bill, and the abortion debate is ongoing.  We are curious to see whether the retreat to fantasy attempt to correct an erroneous post is effective here.

Mark Kleiman starts us off with this post comparing the Terri Schiavo case in Florida to two recent cases in Texas.  Briefly, in one case, Sun Hudson was an infant with a rare genetic disorder who was kept alive on a respirator for six months before the hospital pulled the plug over the objections of the mother; the second case was that of Spiro Nikolouzos, a badly brain damaged and very ill 68 year old man.

Mr. Kleiman's theme is that right to lifers are hypocrites for rallying to Terri Schiavo's cause while ignoring these two cases:

Where, I would ask, is the outrage?  In particular, where is the outrage from those like Tom DeLay, who referred to the withdrawal of Terry Schiavo's life support as "murder"? If it's appropriate to Federalize the Schiavo case, what about the people being terminated simply because their cases are hopeless and their bank accounts empty?

Hmm, their bank accounts are empty?  No evidence at all is presented that the decision in the case of Sun Hudson was made based on finances; none of the newspaper accounts linked by Mr. Kleiman refer to the mother's insurance status at all.  The entire basis for this accusation seems to be the comment made by the Chief Medical Officer at St. Luke's who said this, in discussing the Spiro Nikolouzos case:

"If there is agreement on the part of all the physicians that the patient does have an irreversible, terminal illness," he said, "we're not going to drag this on forever ...

"When the hospital is really correct and the care is futile ... you're not going to find many hospitals or long-term acute care facilities (that) want to take that case," he said. "Any facility that's going to be receiving a patient in that condition ... is going to want to be paid for it, of course."

Please note - he did not say that St. Luke's was terminating Mr. Nikolouzos for non-payment; this story makes the medical situation a bit more clear.  Apparently St. Luke's had been turned down by over thirty institutions before finally finding one that would accept this patient; perhaps the CMO was caught by the reporter simply thinking out loud as to possible motivations.

In any case, no evidence whatsoever was presented that financial considerations played a part in the Sun Hudson case; we are curious to see how long this casual slur of the neo-natal intensive care team and of the ethics panel at the highly regarded Texas Children's Hospital remains uncorrected. 

Mr. Kleiman asks, "where is the outrage", but the question is surprisingly easy to answer.

Let's see - hiding in plain sight is this Houston Chronicle story explaining the differences between the cases.  Helpful headline - "Schiavo case differs from 2 situations in Houston".

And I happen to have Marshall McLuhan right here, or at least, a blogger who actually helped draft the Texas statute in question.  Here is an excerpt:

In a futility case such as Sun Hudson's, in which the treatment team is seeking to stop treatment deemed to be nonbeneficial, if the ethics committee agrees with the team, the hospital will be authorized to discontinue the disputed treatment (after a 10-day delay, during which the hospital must help try to find a facility that will accept a transfer of the patient).  These provisions, which were added to Texas law in 1999, originally applied only to adult patients; in 2003; they were made applicable to disputes over treatment decisions for or on behalf of minors.  (I hasten to add that one of the co-drafters in both 1999 and 2003 was the National Right to Life Committee.  Witnesses who testified in support of the bill in 1999 included representatives of National Right to Life, Texas Right to Life, and the Hemlock Society. Our bill passed both houses, unanimously, both years, and the 1999 law was signed by then Governor George W. Bush.)

In the Hudson case, the hospital ran through the statutory procedure, but decided nonetheless to get a court order authorizing withdrawal of Sun Hudson's ventilator support.  The hospital undoubtedly had its own sufficient reasons for taking this additional step; the statute doesn't require a court order.  Indeed, the statute was designed to keep these cases out of court, if possible.

So let's see - pretty much everybody got on board with what seemed to be a sensible compromise, and now, two years later, the right-to-lifers are being excoriated for working within a system they helped to design.  Odd.

And are there other differences between Sun Hudson and Terri Schiavo?  Well, Sun Hudson had a terminal disease, required artificial respiration, and was "sedated for comfort".  Is being on a respirator painful?  Was this baby's general condition painful?  I can't say - yet, anyway.  In any case, no one is arguing that Terri Schiavo is in pain.

So, in the case of Sun Hudson, medical ethicists weighed the case of a terminally ill infant in (possible) pain with no hope of recovery, and elected to suspend respiration - that is well within the guidelines of medical ethics set by the Pope, Protestant churches, and, if we can believe these Brits, the Jewish faith.  Is anyone inclined to argue that all of these criteria are met in the Terri Schiavo case?

Where is the outrage?  Where is the reality?

UPDATE:  The Kleiman meme circulates:  Here are James Joyner; a Small Victory; Matt Yglesias; and the Angry Bear, none of whom seem to have taken to heart the exhortation to "Trust, but verify".

And HUGE PROPS to LeanLeft, who actualy delves a bit and realizes that Kleiman is making this up.

Now, do we have time for a betting pool?  Will the Kleiman meme be picked up (a) MoDo; (b) Krugman; (c) both; (d) neither?

I say it is mentioned by both, by the end of the week.

UPDATE 2:  From the Health Law Prof Blog:

The next day, the Chronicle reported -- misleadingly and even inaccurately, as far as I can tell -- that the patient's hospital cited "[a] patient's inability to pay for medical care combined with a prognosis that renders further care futile [as] two reasons a hospital might suggest cutting off life support."  What the hospital's chief medical officer appeared to say, however, was that it would be difficult to find a hospital or other facility that would be willing to accept a patient with such a bleak prognosis who was also unfunded.  Lack of funding was not cited by the CMO as a reason for his hospital to discontinue life-sustaining treatment.

What he said.

MEME WATCH:  On Tuesday, the meme breaks through in the Times:

The Schiavo case resonated through the president's day as Mr. Bush found himself on the defensive against accusations from Democrats that his signature on the bill was inconsistent with a Texas law he signed as governor in 1999.

"Clearly there has been some hypocrisy here," said Representative Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, Democrat of Florida, who first raised the issue on Sunday on the House floor.

The Texas law allows a patient's surrogate, like Ms. Schiavo's husband, the right to make end-of-life decisions. But it ultimately gives hospitals the right to withdraw life support if there is no hope of revival, regardless of family wishes. Under the law, a critically ill 5-month-old was taken off life support and allowed to die last week in Texas, even though his mother objected.

White House officials said that Mr. Bush signed the 1999 law as a compromise over an earlier bill that he vetoed in 1997 as too onerous for patients on life support. The 1999 bill, said Thomas Mayo, a law professor who helped draft it, added several protections for patients, including a 10-day period that would allow families the time to find another hospital for a patient once the initial hospital decided to end life support.

MEMEWATCH II:  Dan Froomkin of the WaPo picks this up, citing only Kleiman and Digby.  We will e-mail him links to LeanLeft, the Healthlaw Prof (statute, ability to pay), the Houston Chronicle story, and yours truly - lots for him to ignore.

Try Mr. Froomkin at:  froomkin@washingtonpost.com

LAST GASP:  An update from Mr. Kleiman acknowledges some of these points.

TRULY FINAL:  Mr. Kleiman acknowledges that money isn't everything in this post.  Hmm - his two main points did not hold up well.

Terry Schiavo

Patterico has been following the Terry Schiavo case since it made headlines in the fall of 2003.  As usual, his media bias slant is superb; he also has lots of facts and research supporting the "Let her live" side.

I hope to come out swinging soon enough, but just for the record - my current, essentially uninformed opinion, is that there will be difficult "right to die" cases, but this is not one of them.

Michael Schiavo, the guardian, has two glaring conflicts of interest - per the NRO, he will receive any unspent money in the malpractice award trust fund established to provide for Terri Schiavo's care until her death.  So, one might argue, he has perverse incentives to economize on testing and treatment.  In fact, according to Patterico's summary of Sen. Bill Frist's statement, she has never had a PET scan or MRI (a point questioned by the Health Law Prof.  Troubling.  [AHH!  Apparently she has had CAT scans, not the more sensitive PET or MRI scans].

So fighting to keep Terri alive we have her mother, her father, a brother and a sister; her guardian seems to be the driver behind ending her life.  Later, Congress may opine on apple pie, but right now, motherhood seems to be at issue.  Easy.

Now, what about the states rights, and federalism?  Surely proper conservatives should respect the legal process at the local level, and leave this to the Florida courts?

Uh huh.  And surely we should respect tradition and established precedent.  But wait!  These "right to die" laws are all very new - the 1990 Supreme Court "Cruzan" case would seem to be the starting point.  Might Florida have gotten their "right to die" law wrong?  I could be convinced.

Hence my starting point - the laws are new, her medical condition is ambiguous, her family, other than the husband, wants to keep her going - keep hope alive.

Now, I am delighted to see that the Senate Democrats did not engage in ritual seppuku over this, and, again per Patterico, we see that House Dems who came back to vote were split roughly 50-50 (OK, 47 in favor, 53 opposed). 

Mickey is insightful as ever on this; Dahlia Lithwick provides good legal background but is utterly unconvincing.  And we expect to savage, or at least respond to, this Mark Kleiman post sometime soon.

MORE:  Via Glenn, we see that both sides are getting aired at SISU; here is a "Keep hope alive" WSJ excerpt; a "wack the witch" "Respect my privacy" post; hope; privacy.

And possible court documents, from Patterico - [ignore] his link, with the disclaimer, [and go here].

UPDATE:  Ann Althouse on the federalism issue; the NRO editors support the current Congressional action; and interesting background at the Orlando Sentinel.

Prof. Bainbridge has an excellent post grappling with the federalism issue; lots of links and ideas at Carpe Bonum; Eugene Volokh cites a chap trouncing the federalist case, this new bill, and everyone who said "Terri" or "bill" today.  Hard luck for fans of Giant baseball.

Stone Cold Killers

Ice runs in the veins of the NY Times editors!  On Saturday, they stood ready to wack Terri Schiavo.  And on Sunday, they dropped the last pretense of compassion and called for the execution of both Bambi and his mother.

I should try and take the Times more seriously (and I am taking the Schiavo case very seriously).  However,  since they have surrendered their weekend edition to The Onion,  I am just trying to play along.  Here, to round out the merriment, is a Times Comedy Classic inspired by Terry Schiavo:

Experts Say Ending Feeding Can Lead to a Gentle Death

To many people, death by removing a feeding tube brings to mind the agony of starvation. But medical experts say that the process of dying that begins when food and fluids cease is relatively straightforward, and can cause little discomfort.

"From the data that is available, it is not a horrific thing at all," said Dr. Linda Emanuel, the founder of the Education for Physicians in End-of-Life Care Project at Northwestern University.

In fact, declining food and water is a common way that terminally ill patients end their lives, because it is less painful than violent suicide and requires no help from doctors.

...Once food and water stop, death usually comes in about two weeks, and is caused by effects of dehydration, not the loss of nutrition, said Dr. Sean Morrison, a professor of geriatrics and palliative care at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York. "They generally slip into a peaceful coma," he said. "It's very quiet, it's very dignified - it's very gentle."

The process of dying begins in the kidneys, which filter toxins from the body's fluids. Without new fluids entering the body, the kidneys produce less and less urine, and the urine becomes darker and more concentrated until production stops entirely.

Toxins build up in the body, and the delicate balance of chemicals like potassium, sodium and calcium is disrupted, said Deborah Volker, an assistant professor of nursing at the University of Texas who has written extensively on end-of-life issues.

This electrolyte imbalance disrupts the electrical system that triggers the action of muscles, including the heart, and eventually the heart stops beating.

Thank heaven for experts!  Well, as various states rule out specific methods of execution for capital crimes on the basis that it is cruel and unusual, it is good to know that we can always fall back on "death by dehydration", with the endorsement of the NY Times. 

And remember, the next time you overhear someone saying "I'm dying of thirst", just answer, "Yeah, ain't it great!"

UPDATE:  More on Terri Schiavo's "quiet, dignified, gentle" exit here - "Terri's Exit Protocol".

MORE:  Lots of info at The Terri Schiavo Information Page.

 

Lieberman v. Krugman

Joe Lieberman gets a letter published in the NY Times.  (And why can't I?)

Dare we address the substance?  The dispute is over Lieberman's claim that "every year we do nothing about Social Security's coming insolvency we add $600 billion in unfunded liabilities".

My utterly unresearched guess is that the $600 billion is calculated as 6% interest on a $10 trillion unfunded liability.  Since the $10 trillion is a deficit to eternity, that figure is also a bit controversial.

Well, have a great weekend!

UPDATE:  The eternal deficit on Miracle Max's mind.

Two Years Later

Newspapers follow the election returns.  After the elections in the US, Palestine, and Iraq, the NY Times editors seem to have emerged  from their bunkers, and, like Japanese military holdouts in 1947, are discovering a bold new world.  Today, the Times looks back (and forward) on the war in Iraq:

The Real Reasons

The Bush administration was famously flexible in explaining why it invaded Iraq, and the most important reason, in the minds of Americans and in the arguments made by American diplomats, turned out to be wrong. There were no weapons of mass destruction to destroy. Worse, the specialized machinery and highly lethal conventional weaponry that Saddam Hussein did control was looted during the invasion and is now very likely in the hands of terrorists...

However, there was another theory behind the invasion. Mr. Bush might have been slow to articulate it, but other prominent officials were saying early on that overthrowing Saddam Hussein would shake up the hidebound, undemocratic regimes in the Middle East and free the natural democratic impulses of Arab and Islamic people. This rationale may still hold up. Iraqi and Afghani voters marching stolidly to the polls was by far the most hopeful image in the past two years.

Do tell. 

The Times also lays down an interesting mental health marker:

With all that said, even the fiercest critic of George Bush's foreign policy would be insane not to want these signs of hope to take root. That would not excuse the waging of an unnecessary war on false pretences, but it could change the course of modern history. Grieving families would find the peace that comes with knowing that spouses, parents or children died to help make a better world.

Let's see what the fiercest critics say.

Read My Lips - Keine Neuen Steuern

From the Times:

As Election Looms, Gerhard Schröder Seeks Tax Cut and New Spending

With one eye on the persistently stagnant German economy and another on an important coming state election, Chancellor Gerhard Schröder proposed both new tax cuts and new spending measures on Thursday in an effort to stem this country's relentless tide of unemployment.

In a much anticipated speech to the German Parliament, Mr. Schröder said he wanted to reduce corporate taxes to 19 percent from their current 25 percent to improve business competitiveness. He also announced a $2.6 billion program for rail and road expansion as well as measures to aid small businesses and the long-term unemployed.

While Mr. Schröder's speech was geared toward Germany's economic problems, it was seen here as an important political gesture, aimed at trying to forge an informal alliance with the main conservative opposition parties in a search for solutions to the country's stubborn economic woes. Unemployment, the worst of them, is now at levels unseen since the 1930's. The corporate tax reduction has long been favored by the opposition, which last week proposed what has come to be called a jobs summit meeting to develop common solutions to Germany's dismal economic performance...

No mention of how this ties in to projected German compliance with the No-Growth and Instabilty Pact for the Euro members.

Buying Campaign Finance Reform

Ryan Sager of the NY Post peeks behind the curtain of campaign finance reform:

CAMPAIGN-FINANCE reform has been an immense scam perpetrated on the American people by a cadre of left-wing foundations and disguised as a "mass movement."

But don't take my word for it. One of the chief scammers, Sean Treglia, a former program officer of the Pew Charitable Trusts, confesses it all in an astonishing videotape I obtained earlier this week.

Lots of reaction at Memeorandum.

Now, the "true confessions" aspect is interesting, but the underlying story is not new.  The American Conservative Union released a report in 2001 titled "Who's Buying Campaign Finance Reform".  In it, they name many of the same names as Sager, among both donors and advocacy groups.

And the 2001 report was not ignored - we see it linked by PBS, and by the Campaign Reform Information Center.

Well.  How open a secret was this funding for reform as the bill was debated and passed?  Did the opponents of McCain-Feingold emphasize it?  Did the media ignore it? 

If anyone has some killer links (or Shameless Self-Promotion), I would welcome some research help.

MORE:  This looks like the George Will piece mentioned in the Sager column although I am puzzled by the timing - it seems to have been written after the bill was passed, in a judicial review phase, which is not how it seems to be described in the Sager column.

Here is some quick history from Open Secrets.

UPDATE:  A double play from the Monk:  this George Will column cites the ACU study noted above, *and* precedes the signing of McCain-Feingold.  That makes it a strong nominee.

Here Comes A Filibuster

The Judiciary Committee sends the controversial William Myers to the full Senate.

The Baseball Crank has more on the current scorecard for Bush's Courts of Appeal appointments .

Things To Think About

A collection of thirteen puzzles to occupy your weekend.

Where The Girls Are

Patrick Sullivan and the Hindrocket find a strong female voice commenting on the issues of the day.

A Culture Of Life

Eugene Volokh came out in favor of cruel and unusual punishment for the Iranian "Vampire of the desert", thereby sparking a storm amongst left-leaning bloggers.

Atrios provides links to outraged reaction here and here; the Volokh Conspiracy trackback provides more, as does Glenn.

Now, Prof. Volokh does admit that "I can't prove the soundness of my position any more than (I think) the other side can prove the soundness of its. In this area, we quickly come down to moral intuitions and visceral reactions. And, who knows, perhaps mine are wrong." 

But the other side is quite clear that their moral sense is superior, and that Prof. Volokh is uncivilized.  Matt Yglesias even offers a slippery slope coarsening-of-the-culture argument to explain his opposition.

I am deeply heartened.  Now that a consensus has emerged on the left that certain behaviors are simply beyond the pale, perhaps we can see progress on upholding the ban on the dilation and extraction abortion procedure, known also as the partial birth abortion.

Wait, what's that you say?  Those procedures, while considered gruesome by many, are really a matter of individual choice?  But didn't we just agree that "cruel and unusual" is a matter of general consensus, that some people's morality trumps others, and that the state has an interest in promoting "civilized" behavior?

Or maybe we didn't.

I have an idea then - spare me the bloviating.

For myself, I am firmly on both sides of this.  I deeply admire people who can embrace the Christian notion of forgiveness even for such a criminal.  I was struck by the remark made by, of all people, white supremacist Matthew Hale's father, when commenting on the suicide of Mr. Ross (who killed the husband and mother of Judge Lefkow):

"I'm sorry for the person's family that did do this," Mr. Hale added. "Somebody loved that person, and it is too bad that it happened."

Somebody loved that person.  Indeed.

Regrettably, I suspect that if one of my children were a victim of this particular criminal, I would, if given the chance, fall short of the standard set by my faith.

So, if Prof. Volokh feels that way, whatever.  If he puts forward a constitutional amendment, I will have to oppose it.

And if he is ever charged with vigilantism in defense of one of his own children, well... the prosecutor won't want me on the jury.

MORE:  Interesting theological perspective here.

How Soon They Forget

Elisabeth Bumiller of the Times attracted attention at yesterday's Presidential news conference with her modestly non-partisan question:

Elisabeth Bumiller, of The New York Times: "Paul Wolfowitz, who was a chief architect of one of the most unpopular wars in our history "

Bush: "That's an interesting start."

Bumiller: " is your choice to be the president of the World Bank. What kind of signal does that send to the rest of the world?"

C'mon, Elisabeth - Robert McNamara was a fine World Bank President, and he was appointed by Lyndon Johnson in November 1967, during another unpopular war.  What a wasted opportunity to mutter "It's Vietnam all over again".

MORE:  Ms. Bumiller's classic "Is God on our side", asked at a Democratic candidates debate, managed to irritate Dems while being tilted against Bush; here, we catch her in a rare anti-Dem moment.

Wolfowitz To Head World Bank

Dan Drezner and Gregory Djerejian round up the Wolfowitz story.

And, with props to Bill, let's add this - if newly-appointed World Bank President Wolfowitz declares a War on Poverty, stand back!

A Second Blogger Covered The Presidential Press Conference!

These bloggers are ubiquitous - a second one got a day pass for the regular Brady Room press festivities, and got swept into the suddenly-scheduled Presidential press conference.  No chance to ask a question, however.

So, how do other bloggers get a pass?  If I am following the "how-to" from trail-blazer Garrett Graff at FishBowl, you need to be A DC resident, so my interest wanes...

Bring Your Thinking Cap

The mysterious "Sammler" has a fascinating post on what he calls "the Initiative Hypothesis", which he states thusly:

The rate of both technological and material progress within a society inevitably increases with increasing freedom.

But does it?

Well worth reading.

It's Maureen's World

Ms. Dowd continues her in-depth coverage of her favorite topic - herself:

At the Gridiron Dinner in Washington on Saturday, where Old Media gently mocked politicians with corny songs, I sat next to a presidential gag writer, Landon Parvin. He was saying jokes work best when Republicans make fun of Republicans and Democrats make fun of Democrats.

President Bush, looking spiffy in white tie and tails, swung by to talk to Mr. Parvin. He didn't look my way, but proceeded back up to the dais.

Suddenly, W. turned around, stopped and looked right at me. Then he flashed a wink, not a flirty wink but a mischievous Clark Gable "I've got your number and you think you've got mine but I win" wink.

Who knew Bush could say so much with just a wink?  He's quite a guy, with simple but effective rules: "Don't think, blink; Don't speak, wink".  Whatever.

I may have gotten a presidential wink, but I still don't have my regular White House pass back. (Maybe I'd get it back if I became a male escort?) But Bush aides have now decided to let in a blogger. Maybe they're grateful that bloodhound bloggers ran off Dan Rather.

Is MoDo ignorant, or wilfully deceptive?  (Please don't spend a lot of time on that.)  Perhaps she is still peeved that James Guckert is having more luck meeting men than she is.  In any case, she presented this misinformation before - Ms. Dowd was turned down for a permanent pass, aka a "hard" pass; Guckert was operating on a day pass, reissued daily.

As to "Bush aides have now decided to let in a blogger", well, that is a bit trickier - the first blogger admitted described it as a collaborative process between the White House Press Office and the White House Correspondents Association.  The two bloggers let in so far seem to tilt left, however, so it is an odd payback for Dan Rather.

And why do I bother even reading Ms. Dowd, let alone rebutting her?  Beats me.

Sometimes Nothing Is A Real Cool Hand

Patterico makes an astute point about possible FEC regulation of blogs under McCain-Feingold:

I have repeatedly argued that asking the FEC for a media exemption is nothing more than asking our masters for permission to speak. We shouldn’t have to do it. And I’m not going to.

His plan - do nothing different, and let the chips fall where they may.

This dovetails nicely with Roger Simon's "Send In The Clowns" strategy.  (Wait, Roger didn't say that?)

Patterico also tips us to the latest non-reassurance from Sen. Feingold.

UPDATE:  A whole lot of nothing at Patterico, as bloggers take the pledge.

Do Not Turn Your Back On This Woman

Writing on the Susan Estrich/Micheal Kinsley debacle, Anne Applebaum of the WaPo brings a knife to a catfight.  Heather MacDonald made similar points about the perils of tokenism a while back, but let's excerpt Ms. Applebaum:

As for Estrich, I don't know much about her at all, except that she's just launched a conversation that is seriously bad for female columnists and writers. None of the ones I know -- and, yes, I conducted an informal survey -- want to think of themselves as beans to be counted, or as "female journalists" with a special obligation to write about "women's issues." Most of them got where they are by having clear views, knowing their subjects, writing well and learning to ignore the ad hominem attacks that go with the job. But now, thanks to Estrich, every woman who gets her article accepted will have to wonder whether it was her knowledge of Irish politics, her willingness to court controversy or just her gender that won the editor over.

Ms. Dowd grappled with the same issue of women in journalism last Sunday - for anyone who still thinks Ms. Dowd is a useful writer, the comparison to the Applebaum column is striking.

MORE:  Matt Yglesias and Ezra Klein spanked MoDo, so you don't have to.

UPDATE:  Dahlia Lithwick is journalism's answer to Dr. Kevorkian, urging her male colleagues to commit professional suicide:

Claims that no man wants to step on the landmine of political correctness, gender stereotyping, and identity politics should not justify bowing out of the conversation. Maureen Dowd, Deborah Tannen, and Anne Applebaum are smart, serious people. They have taken the time to initiate a conversation. They deserve serious responses from men and women alike.

Uh huh.  Earlier in this column Ms. Lithwick explained why they won't:

More likely, [men] are terrified to opine on the debate because the inquiry is so fraught with the possibility of career-terminating levels of politically correct blowback—à la Larry Summers—that they deem it better to hold their tongues and wait for the storm to pass. Imagine a man writing, as Dowd just did, that women want to be "liked" whereas men don't care. I can already smell their scorched Dockers.

I can already smell the warmed-over oatmeal that will be served up by any major male columnist who tackles this subject.  Could a man clinging to a job in the MSM say this:

There are probably fewer women, in the great cosmic scheme of things, who feel comfortable writing very straight opinion stuff, and they're less comfortable hearing something on the news and batting something out.

Gail Collins of the NY Times said just that.  Check Kevin Drum's trackbacks to see what happened when he said something similar.

Or here, Bob Somerby of the Daily Howler ripped Ms. Franke-Ruta of Tapped, who promptly suggested he was sexist (prompting more mockery - now, why make Bob mad?).

Discuss away, Ms. Lithwick.

STILL MORE:  Kevin Drum and I have forged a psychic bond, and which of us finds that to be more troubling?  He has a longer response to Ms. Lithwick, with a similar theme.

It Lives! (II)

Nick Kristof is the latest to recycle last fall's debunked Democratic talking point that abortions fell under Clinton and rose under Bush:

Mrs. Clinton has helped turn the debate around by emerging as both pro-choice and anti-abortion.

That is potentially a winning position for Democrats. Abortions fell steadily under Bill Clinton, who espoused that position, and have increased significantly during President Bush's presidency. (One theory is that economic difficulties have left more pregnant women feeling that they cannot afford a baby.)

Stop it - the two established authorities for national abortion statistics are the Center for Disease Control and the Alan Gutmacher Institute, neither of which have updated their national statistics past the year 2000.

This meme is based on the Stassen study of sixteen states, and has serious flaws.

As noted by Mr. Kristof, Hillary does get it, and was quite careful not to overstate the evidence in her speech of Jan 24:

In the three years since President Bush took office, 8 states saw an increase in abortion rates (14.6% average increase), and four saw a decrease (4.3% average), so we have a lot of work still ahead of us.

Although even that phrasing drew rebukes, she at least showed some awareness of the underlying research (and the rebuttals), unlike John Kerry, who tackled this subject (or was tackled by it) on 60 Minutes.

They live for reader feedback!

Nick Kristof: nicholas@nytimes.com

Daniel Okrent: public@nytimes.com

Now, dare we address the substance of this column?  His advice to Dems seeking the Presidency amounts to this:

(1) Be obviously and sincerely religious;
(2) Be pro-choice, but anti-abortion;
(3) Be a man.

Our guess is that on a different day, he would add (4) Don't be Joe Lieberman.