It's been while since I have written, and right now I am writing this on my new Treo 650. Fun little device. Anyway, I am thrilled with the few responses I had after I posted my post from class. Thanks to all of yoy who either posted a comment or emailed me. I appreciate your support.

[Posted with hblogger 2.0 http://www.normsoft.com/hblogger/]

"Tolerance" Discusison

I am in the process of getting my Bachelors Degree and one of my classes is called Success Strategies. Every week we must engage in an online discussion that varies in topic, and in this class rarely has anything to do with the topic we are actually studying. Below is the latest week’s article for discussion. After that is my response to the discussion and to other’s posts that I read as I became more and more angry at the foolishness of those responding who had not been out in the work force for as long as I have or simply have no knowledge of what the “real” work place is like. The response is based on my own experiences.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Diversity in the Workplace

Below is a topic to begin our discussion this week.

A diverse workplace is becoming more prevalent as technology and communications grow and companies seek to find the most talented individuals possible. Let's explore this topic further as it relates to you. Please participate in the discussion below.

You work hard through school and end up landing a great job right after graduation. The only catch is that you have been hired into a firm that is owned and operated by a Uzbekistan group. You had to look that up on the internet to know that this is a country slightly larger than California located in Central Asia, just north of Afghanistan and it was formally part of the Soviet Socialist Republic. While in the office, most of the other workers speak Uzbek with each other. Their sense of timing is very different than yours and they often forget to meet when you have scheduled time with them. They seem to be functioning with a sense of humor that you do not understand and they rarely take the time to explain. During the noon hour, the entire office fills with strong sour scents from the workers warming their meals. There are times when you find the odors unbearable and have to take a walk outside to escape. Usually after a full day of work, you notice that almost the whole office is now working quietly at their desks and you always worry if they think you are uncommitted by leaving when you do.

Although you love your work and you tout the prestige and income that accompanies a high-level job, you sometimes feel very frustrated at your lack of connection with your peers at work. After sometime, you try to catch the international soccer games on ESPN just so you can try and participate in their Monday morning discussions. You also invite them out to their ethnic restaurants and try to engage them in some more American cultural events to keep their interest. However, throughout your concentrated efforts, you only reach one or two sympathetic peers who seem to try and make you feel welcome.

One day, in a fit of desperation, it occurs to you that this is what many Chinese, Indian, Afro-American, homosexual or even blind employees must feel at times in their jobs. Funny, you never thought that you would be in this situation. However, now that you are, you have a new appreciation for what these diverse groups must feel being in different environments.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, here is my response:

NOTE: I used capitol lettering because of the lack of bold, italics and colors that can be used in our discussion forums. There was no other way of emphasizing.

I agree with at least one student here that one’s success or failure in the work environment has nothing to do with anything but one’s skills, personality compatibility, teamwork, and performance of the job they are given. In all the years I have been in the workforce, whether it be at the small costume shop that was my first job, to the video rental store, to the Toys R’ Us, to the government contractor that I work for now, I have not seen any form of discrimination that has been listed in the above article. I think there are those that take isolated incidents and blow them out of proportion to the point of making others think there is an epidemic of discrimination in the workforce. I just don’t believe it’s there. I’m not saying discrimination doesn’t exist in the workplace, but I don’t believe it is as prevalent as some would have us believe. I took some time to talk to a few of the “minorities” that are a part of my company and asked them about discrimination. All of them, without one exception, stated that in their entire careers, they have not once experienced discrimination in the workplace. I have to admit that I grow tired of people having knee-jerk reactions to reports of discrimination. For some, if they hear about one incident, one single report of an isolated incident, the whole world is experiencing it and it’s out of control! Give me a break!

As far as equality in the work place. It’s completely impossible. There is no way anyone can ever be equal in the workplace. It could not function. I don’t subscribe to the unrealistic expectation to make everyone feel equal. I have found that to be impossible as well. Every person in AmericaAmerica will be afforded the same opportunities. People’s circumstances, upbringing, financial state, values, etc., will all determine what opportunities exist. The same goes for the work place. Ultimately every person may be presented with the same benefits, but the opportunities in that same work place will not be given to every person. We would have to go back to the point about success being dependant on one’s skills, personality compatibility, teamwork, and performance of the job they are given. I can not be given the same opportunities as others in the work force simply because of the diversity, another catch word with political implications, of talent that exists. As far as “treating” everyone the same, no one can even define what that means. If it means everyone should be given the same amount of respect, I disagree. Respect is earned in the work place, not freely given out like candy. If it is, there will be problems. One should have to earn the respect of their superiors. That’s the way the “real” work place works anyway. If a person is unfriendly, doesn’t work well with the team, doesn’t have the capacity to follow orders when given and has little respect of authority, how well do you think this person should be respected. Now of course, as I said before, none of this has anything to do with culture, religion, which was not listed in the article as people who are discriminated against, color of skin, orientation, whatever. has the same rights, but VERY FEW in

Then there is the whole matter of the word “tolerance”. Boy, there is an abused and redefined word! The Websters New College Dictionary, printing 1995, defines tolerance as “The capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others. a.) Leeway for variation from a standard. b.) The PERMISSABLE DEVIATION from a specified value of a structural dimension, often expressed as a percent.” Now if you look this up, for example using MS Word’s dictionary, you get the following definition, “The ACCEPTANCE of the differing views of other people, for example, in religious or political matters, and fairness toward the people who hold these different views.” No longer is it simply being respectful that someone else has a different view, it is the acceptance of that view. Nope, sorry, ain’t gonna happen! Those people who purport and use the “tolerance” card on me are the same people, who by the very “modern” definition of the word that they helped to define, violate it on a regular basis. I have been told I am intolerant, not because I have tried to even talk about my belief system or culture or anything else for that matter, no, it has been simply because of WHO I AM and WHAT I BELIEVE that I have been violated on a daily basis. I have been discriminated against so many times it’s not worth mentioning. Even here in this discussion group it has been stated that I have an out of perspective view, unprofessional and negative because I may at one point or another mention my faith or belief in the workplace. Folks, it’s not against the law, it’s against what some would call the “dominant culture”.

Now, before I get a bunch of nasty-grams from people, please notice, I am not attacking anyone, I am not pointing fingers at anyone, I am not making sweeping generalizations about anyone, I am simply drawing on my own experiences and relaying them to you. I am in a minority group that is harassed daily, pushed aside and told to shut up, put down by media, the educational system, labeled as intolerant, told we should not be involved in public institutions or public policy and slandered on a regular basis. Now I know that some of you have been trying to figure out what minority group am I talking about. Some of you may have even jumped to several conclusions now and made assumptions about me. There may even be one or two of you that I have permanently lost the respect of. That’s fine, I am used to it. My minority group, as we are called, have developed pretty tough skin. No matter what we say, how we say it or what platform we use, we get the same response.

How tolerant are you really? What definition of “tolerance” do you see as valid? Can anyone really be “tolerant” in the modern meaning? Is it really possible to not only allow, but accept every single point of view, religious faith and political view as valid? I am very loving to people, not groups. I don’t like certain activities, words, language, and choices people make, notice I didn’t say anything about the person themselves. I have worked with individuals, very successfully I might add, for years, that I didn’t agree with anything they did of believed outside of work. It’s okay to disagree with people, it’s okay to not agree. It’s okay to be strongly against one person’s point of view.

In limiting this to the workplace, which is what I think this is really all about, as long as these differing views do not cause problems in the workplace, it’s fine to adamantly disagree philosophically with the persona in the next cubicle. Just because a conversation leads to religious discussion of differences or beliefs, doesn’t make it illegal, unprofessional, foster a negative work environment. Personally, I feel if it does, there are some pretty immature people working there, or some really intolerant people being the squeakiest wheel.

As far as one expressing their faith in the workplace….Did you know there are actual laws that protect our rights to express ourselves in the workplace. I tire of people using the “don’t push you faith on me” or “force you religion” on people. Come on! Nobody even knows what that means! To one person someone pushing their religion is simply mentioning that they have one faith or another. To another person if someone decides to bring it up in conversation that’s pushing it. To yet another if someone has the decency and cares enough to say, “I will pray for you”, that’s seen as offensive. What a load this whole thought is. How many times have people actually had someone corner them in a cubicle at the office and state that no matter what they say they are going to preach to them until they convert? How many? If I saw that I would have to say, yes, this person is out of control, but even then I would suspect an emotional problem, not a religious one! I’m tired of non specific terms that can be redefined on a whim to serve as someone’s way to shut another individual up simply because they disagree with them or don’t want to hear it. I listen to offensive talk, language, jokes, etc. every day and I have no recourse. I’m the one being intolerant if I say anything, I’m the one making problems if I express my faith or religious values, yet people can crawl all over mine, make fun of them, insult them, degrade them, and try to make people believe they are invaluable and don’t belong, and I AM THE INTOLERANT ONE?!

Well, there it is. This is what I feel about this subject and what I was reluctant to express. I know there will be those who disagree with me and that’s okay. I don’t ALWAYS agree with everyone or anyone for that matter. By the way, here’s my minority group. I am a white, male, Christian Conservative, who believes in traditional values, believes the family is the backbone of society, is Pro-Life, Republican and really likes Rush Limbaugh. Now, you try walking down the street or work in today’s workforce environment with THAT target painted on your back!

From My Phone

I can now send short entries from my phone to the blog. Cool huh?

--

Mobile Email from a Cingular Wireless Customer http://www.cingular.com

Friday Rantings

I don't know if I ever told you before that I'm considered one of the biggest problems today's society has. Let me explain.

I am a white, male, Christian conservative, which in most parts of the country I might as well have a target painted on my back! LOL!

I'm for traditional values, watch out for my children, monitor my kids friends, school, television watching, play, language and take an active role in teaching them about the world, how to grow up with a Biblically based morality. I teach them the "real" history of our country that consists of Christian values and show them how far America has departed from those values and how we, as citizens, Americans, Christians, and humans not only have the right, but the responsibility to make a difference and speak up against the departure.

November is not just any month, it's decision time and those who don't utilize the vote, I believe, have no place to complain and moan about how the country isn't going in the direction they want it to go in.

I believe we have activist judges that not only go against the majority of the public's beliefs and values, but are arrogant enough to state that the country needs to believe and adopt thier policies, beliefs and value system.

I believe that the term "tolerance" actually means "anyone but Christians", and this has been proven over and over.

I am patient and kind to all those around me, even those who don't hold the same values, beliefs and convictions that I do, yet those same people I am so patient with are the same ones who would stab me in the back at thier first opportunity, and have done so.

I believe the Bible is the one true source of ethical principals on which our laws, Constitution, Declaration of Independance and all those who signed these believed and cherished.

I believe that there is a movement to completely remove any and all moral and ethical absolutes from society worldwide in order to justify what people know is inappropriate and wrong behaviour.

I believe that abortion is the killing of innocent life in the name of convienience, just as the Babalonians did. It's wrong and no one can prove to me it isn't. The term "fetus" is yet another way people attempt to distance them selves from taking responsibility for what they know they are really doing.

Terry Schivo would have lived a long time and prospered, would have been supported by the liberal media and politicians if she would have been in prison, on death row! Like abortion, Terry was the victim of societies belief that convinience is more valued than life. Legalized killing of a spouse has now been demonstrated and justified by the national media.

I fear that soon, like several other countries, the Bible will become "hate speech" here in America, because people will no longer, just like now, be able to "tolerate" the truth being told to them or anyone else for that matter.

I pray for our future, our country, our children and our future as a free people. It concerns me that my children have to defend themselves against thier schools, teachers, curriculum, school books, recommended reading lists from the Department of Education and more! It hurts me to know that these underpaid, morally inepts individuals are in charge of teaching the next generation of politicials and leaders. And yes, I did mean those are seperate. There is a difference you know.

Why is a promise no longer a promise? Why can't poeple in leadership, friendships, politics and parental roles actually say what they mean and mean what they say? Why is promiscuity so easily accepted and abstinment looked at as weak and foolish. I see them as the other way around! It takes only a minute or so to loose one's virginity, but it takes a real man or woman to say "no" and mean it! It takes a minute or so to lose it, but you can wait a lifetime and never get it back!

Why is spanking considered abuse by most people, while these same people complain about the "out of control" children running all over the place? Why has society gotten to the point where the difference between discipline and abuse no longer is clear? Why can't people say the word "punishment" without cringing? Why is a child's comfort more important than thier responsibility to themselves, others, property, etc.? Why is respect for authority something that no only is not taught, but discouraged in schools? Why are stupid people put into positions of authority in schools? Sorry, just had to ask.

I feel that if a school has to have thirty (30) pages of rules, something is wrong with the individuals in charge of the school. If a student is considered tardy if they are not "ready" for class, and every teacher can define "ready" as they like, why are people suprised when thier children don't seem to be doing well in school? I think it's a cop out and is teaching our kids to make it up as they go when something as simply as "ready for class" isn't defined in clear terminology in a book of foolish rules.

Well, I think I've gotten that out of my system for the time being. Have a great weekend everyone who reads this! rant at ya later! LOL!

A Message to America

Reciently Focus on the Family's Dr. James Dobson released a newsletter from the Action section of the organization which allows for political statements that are not allowed under the Christian organization. The following are links to this message that I feel we all need to hear or read.

This link goes directly to the written version of the newsletter:

http://www.focusaction.org/articles/A0000066.cfm


These links take you to part one and part two of the broadcasts in which Dr. Dobson reads the newsletter. You can hear the passion and compassion in his voice for the various subjects he discusses:

Part 1 - You need the Windows Media Player

Part 2 - You need the Windows Media Player


I sincerely hope that you will listen or read this newsletter. It's an important message for all of us to consider and take to heart.

Thanks!

Just Like Baby Doe

It pains me to announce the murder of Terri Schiavo. Yes, I said murder. I feel that's exactly what it was. If you have been following this so-called "right to death" case, you have no doubt heard two stories, two sides to the ordeal. The bottom line comes down to what the FACTS say, not what the media posts, we all know by now that the last thing the media, for the most part, will publish is the facts. The facts of this case, I published in my last entry.

Just like abortion, we put to death a person who, through no fault of thier own, inconvinenced someone with thier existance. This has been seen throught history. We change laws, do bodily harm to and dispose of those who "get in the way" in the name of compassion and a bunch of "what ifs". I fear for our nation. I fear for those that society as a majority would find "burdensome". I fear for those who have children, loved ones, parents, grandpaprents who have diabilities or are infirm. These people who become "burdens" on society now have the possibility of an "impartial" (yeah right!) judge becoming god in deciding whether thier life is worth living or not. We now have a legistlative branch, who has the responsibility to "balance" the powers of the courts, so castrated from special-interests, media pressure and "societal popularity" that they are impotent in thier actions. They sit idly by allowing atrocities to flow from the judicial branch like a river of sewage! Where will it end? We also have a President, bless his soul, that tries to
do the right thing and is balked at every side from foolish politicians who are more concerned with retaining thier office than human life or judicial nominees that would balance out the radical fools we have in there right now. It's disturbing.

Now, I know, you're saying, Anim8or, you've been ranting for some time about Terri and the goivernment, what and who is Baby Doe? Well, it's actually from a song by Steve Taylor that he put out in 1984. The following is the lyrics from the song.

Unfolding today
A miracle play
This Indiana morn

The father - he sighs
She opens her eyes
Their baby boy is born

"We don't understand
He's not like we planned"
The doctor shakes his head

"Abnormal" they cry
And so they decide
This child is better dead

I bear the blame
Believers are few
And what am I to do?
I share the shame
The cradle's below
And where is Baby Doe?

A hearing is sought
The lawyers are bought
The court won't let him eat

The papers applaud
When judges play God
This child is getting weak

They're drawing a bead
Reciting their creed
" Respect a woman's choice"

I've heard that before
How can you ignore?
This baby has a voice

I bear the blame

Believers are few
And what am I to do?
I share the shame
The cradle's below
And where is Baby Doe?

Where will it end?
Oh, no...

It's over and done
The presses have run
Some call the parents brave

Behind your disguise
Your rhetoric lies
You watches a baby starve

I bear the blame.

Believers are few
And what am I to do?
I share the shame
The cradle's below
And where is Baby?

You say it's just a song. It doesn't really mean anything...really? The following is an article about the "case" that the song talks about.

BABY DOE ARTICLE

The cases of Baby Doe in Bloomington, Indiana and that of Baby Jane Doe in New York demonstrate to what degree the respect for human life has been eroded even after birth.

In both cases, court decisions supported the parents' wishes see their disabled children die. In the case of Indiana, it resulted in death by starvation. In the New York case, the parents were only required to provide comfort while they waited for their child to die. In this case, however, the child survived.

Both cases provide examples of how the abortion on-demand mentality has infected the American legal system. Instead of being welcomed into life and protected by law, many disabled children are seen as "burdens" to be disposed of as others see fit.

• Baby Doe in Bloomington, Indiana
  In 1982, a Bloomington, Indiana child with Down's Syndrome was born with a connection between his food-pipe and windpipe, a condition know as trachea-esophageal fistula. This prevented the child from being fed since food could not reach the stomach.
  
  A routine operation could have been performed by several surgeons in a 50-mile radius. Because the child had Down's Syndrome, the parents refused to grant permission to operate and had decided to starve the child to death.
  
  When word of the situation became public, a dozen families came forward and offered to adopt the baby.
  
  The parents refused. Though it would have cost them no money, time or effort to allow someone else to raise their child, the parents, their doctors and the Supreme Court of Indiana said they had the right to starve the child to death.
  
  The child died seven days after birth, before the U.S. Supreme Court could hear an appeal to the Indiana decision.
  
  In addition to the horrible injustice, another troubling aspect of this case was the the reaction by pediatricians and pediatric surgeons. More than two-thirds stated that they would go along with the parents' wishes to deny life-saving surgery to a child with Down's Syndrome. Almost 75% said that if they had a child with Down's Syndrome, they would let the baby starve to death.

This case, along with that of Baby Jane Doe in New York motivated Congress to pass legislation in 1984 prohibiting the withholding of "medically indicated" treatment from any disabled newborn.

• Baby Jane Doe in New York
  
  The Case of Baby Jane Doe is a sobering example of the lengths to which abortion-on-demand has corrupted our culture with the message: "If you don't want your
  child, it is acceptable to kill her through abandonment, neglect, or abortion." Sadly, children (especially those with mental or physical disabilities) are often seen as burdens to be disposed of rather than gifts for which we are called to care.
  
  The parents of Baby Jane Doe were apparently ready to give permission to doctors to perform a surgical procedure to close the spinal defect with which she was born and to place a shunt to prevent hydrocephalus (water head).
  
  When they were told that the baby could be mentally retarded, they changed their
  minds and refused surgery. Without closure, the infant would die from recurrent meningitis infections which would enter through her open spine. Several such infections did occur.
  
  Unlike the case of Baby Doe in Indiana, the parents could not starve the child to death, but a New York court ruled that the parents could treat the child "passively" with adequate food, antibiotics and dressings. In other words, all the parents were obligated to do was to keep the child comfortable while they waited for her death.
  
  However, the little girl's skin spontaneously grew over the spinal defect about three months later, closing it. The parents then consented to the placement of the shunt.
  
  Prior to this consent, the federal government and a private attorney had attempted to step in and have the surgery authorized without parental consent.
  
  The following timeline outlines these efforts, which ultimately led to the passage of the federal Child Abuse Amendments of 1984:
  
  
  
  • Oct. 11, 1983: Baby Jane Doe is born at University Hospital at Stony Brook, New York. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services receives a hotline
    complaint that Baby Jane Doe may be a victim of denial of medically beneficial care for her spina-bifida (an opening in the spinal column).
  
  
  • Oct. 1983: The first physician who examines Baby Jane Doe recommends surgery. The first judge who hears the evidence orders surgery. Her parents refuse to consent and receive court approval to pursue custodial care only. During the ensuing court battle, Baby Jane Doe undergoes surgery, which will allow her to talk, laugh, and attend school in a wheelchair in the future.
  
  
  • Nov.17, 1983: HHS, denied access to the medical records by University Hospital, is forced to commence legal action to obtain the medical records for Baby Jane Doe and is denied the records by the Federal District Court.
  
  
  • Feb. 23, 1984: A three-judge panel of the 2nd Circuit, U.S. Court of Appeals, rules 2-1 that the government may not have access to the medical records of Baby Jane Doe, saying that Congress had not intended Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 to apply to cases involving denial of medical treatment to handicapped newborns.
  
  
  • May 8, 1984: The Justice Department files a request with the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals asking the entire 12 member court to rehear the government's Baby Jane Doe case.
  
  
  • Mar. 13, 1984: The American Medical Association and five other medical groups file suit in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to invalidate the Administration's new Baby Doe regulation on the basis of the 2nd Circuit decision, claiming that efforts to investigate "alleged discrimination in treatment decisions involving impaired new born infants" are contrary to congressional intent. The judge delays ruling on the regulation, but issues a verbal warning against enforcement of the regulation in the meantime. (AHA & AMA v. Heckler)
  
  
  • May 17, 1984: The Second Circuit Court of Appeals denies the Justice Department's request for rehearing the Baby Jane Doe case.
  
  
  • May 23, 1984: U.S. District Court Southern District of New York grants summary judgment in AHA & AMA v. Heckler invalidating the Administration's Baby Doe regulation saying that they were promulgated without statutory authority.
  
  
  • June 11, 1984: The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York issues its final injunction order against the Baby Doe regulation, declaring it "invalid and unlawful" and halting any further implementation of the regulation, including any investigation of charges of medical neglect of handicapped newborns.
  
  
  • July 26, 1984: The Baby Doe provisions of the Child Abuse Amendments of 1984 pass the U.S. Senate by a voice vote.
  
  
  • Aug. 17, 1984: The Justice Department decides to drop efforts to obtain medical records of Baby Jane Doe, but appeals injunction against Baby Doe regulation to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. (AHA & AMA v. Heckler)
  
  
  • Oct. 9, 1984: President Reagan signs the Child Abuse Amendments of 1984, making it illegal for doctors to withhold nourishment or medically indicated treatments unless the infant is comatose, the treatment will promote its death or is "futile in terms of the survival of the infant."
  
  
  • Dec. 10, 1984: In order to implement the Baby Doe provisions of the Child Abuse Amendments of 1984, HHS publishes a proposed regulation which closely follows the expressed intent of Congress. Receipt of federal funds for child abuse programs will be dependent on the states assuring that denial of ordinary medical treatment for handicapped babies will be treated as a form of child abuse or neglect and responded to accordingly with legal remedies.
  
  
  • Jan.15, 1986: The U.S. Supreme Court hears oral arguments in the AHA & AMA v. Bowen case (formerly AHA & AMA v. Heckler). At issue is whether the civil rights statute for the handicapped, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, applies to medical treatment decisions for handicapped newborns.
  
  
  • June 9, 1986: The Supreme Court of the United States rules in favor of the AMA and AHA and affirms the decision of the Court of Appeals indicating that HHS regulations are invalid. In its decision, the court stated that "Section 504 does not authorize the Secretary (of HHS) to give unsolicited advice either to parents, to hospitals, or to state officials who are faced with difficult treatment decisions concerning handicapped children."
  
  

So, here we are again today with the same type of actions going on, with the same result, just different ages and people involved. Does the death of Terri Schiavo really not matter? Does her death enforce the privacy of family, the right to death, or is it more sinister that these? Has Terri's death opened up the door to more power for the court to determin, without any fear of reprisal, who should live and who should not? Where is this heading? We already have abortion on demand, we have legalized uthinasia, now will we have legalized convienience killing? Even with the out of allowing her parents to take care of her, at no cost to himself, Terri's husband refused. He just wanted her dead. Why? What was in it for him and/or his girlfriend, that he had been living with and had two children with since Terri had been incapacitated? There are many questions that come up when you read all the fatcs behind this case. I don't know the answers, only God does for sure. I pray that this will awaken people to the dangers of an all-powerful judicial system. Pray! Pray for our country! Pray for God to forgive us of this horrible act we have allowed to happen. We need to repent or I know God's judgment on America is not far off. How long will He tolerate the killing of the innocent?

Here are some links to more information about these subjects:

Terri's Fight
Baby Doe
Baby Doe Song by Steve Taylor

The Truth About Terri Schiavo

This is a story I had avoided for quite some time. I didn't want to know about it, didn't want to hear about it, because all I had heard, from a co-worker, was the arument that Terri had a signed written advance medical directive that she didn't want to be sustained on life-support. If I were in a coma, and the possibility was great that I would come out of it greatly brain damaged or vegitable in state, and I was on all sorts of life support, I would want them to pull the plug. And that someone was trying to keep that directive from being followed. The judge that was saying to end it, no detail were given on HOW they would end her life, was simply following her request. I thought hey, if my coworker said she had one, then she must have had one. I figured I could trust what I was hearing from him......boy was I ever wrong! The following is from Focus on the Family, and before any of you make some sort of snap judgement, the facts in the story are backed with the sources. Remember i had heard that there was a signed written advanced medical directive. This has never been produced, it was only mentioned by Michael Schiavo, Terri's husband who is living with his girlfriend, still being legally married to Terri, and has had two children with this girlfriend. Interesting how the story changes when all the fact are brought out, isn't it? Here's the story....By the way, keep in mind, Friday, March 17th 2005, by court order, Terei's feeding tube, her only source of food and water, will be removed and the painfully torturous, and in my opinion cruel, process of death by de-hydration will begin.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What You Need to Know about Terri Schiavo
March 7, 2005

by Carrie Gordon Earll

Terri Schiavo's fight for life has been widely publicized in the media but do you know the facts?

Terri Schindler Schiavo is a 41-year old disabled Florida woman at the center of an on-going legal despite between her estranged husband, Michael, and her parents.

In 1990 at 26-years of age, Terri collapsed in her home when her heart temporarily stopped, cutting off oxygen to her brain and leaving her severely brain damaged.

Terri is not dying or terminally ill; she is not brain-dead or in a coma. She is an otherwise healthy mentally disabled woman. The diagnosis that she is in a “vegetative state” is disputed by many medical experts, including neurologists. Some neurologists believe it’s possible that Terri is in a “minimally conscious state” (MCS)— a neurological diagnostic criteria first defined in 2002. ¹²

Terri breathes on her own without the aid of a ventilator. Her only dependency is on a feeding tube into her stomach for liquids and nourishment. ³ She swallows her own saliva, a fact that leads some experts in speech pathology to believe that with sufficient time and therapy, she could regain her ability to swallow fluids by mouth. ⁴ As recently as 1997, nursing staff who cared for Terri testified that she could swallow fluids and Jello-O, follow people with her eyes and even speak. ⁵

An attorney for Terri’s parents, Barbara Weller, has posted narratives on the Internet describing her recent visits with Terri. During these visits, Weller witnessed purposeful interaction between Terri, her parents and other visitors. ⁶

At the time of her collapse, Terri did not have a written advance medical directive. Since her disability, medical decisions have been made by her husband, Michael Schiavo.

Michael Schiavo won a medical malpractice case on Terri's behalf in 1992, pledging to use the money for Terri’s rehabilitation and care for the rest of her natural life. ⁷ The court awarded more than $1 million: $300,000 directly to Michael for his loss and additionally, more than $700,000 for Terri’s care. ⁸ Terri’s parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, claim that prior to the settlement a neurologist recommended progressive therapy for Terri and that Michael agreed to provide such therapy, only to deny it and confine Terri to a nursing home after receiving the jury award. ⁹

It was after the settlement that Michael first claimed that Terri had previously stated that she didn’t want to be kept alive by artificial means — a statement he never mentioned during the malpractice trial. ¹⁰

As guardian, Michael Schiavo controls the $700,000-plus trust fund awarded for Terri’s care. ¹¹¹² Meanwhile, Medicaid helps to pay Terri’s $5,000-a-month nursing costs at a hospice in Pinellas Park, Florida. ¹³

Since 1995, Michael Schiavo has lived with a girlfriend, Jodi Centonze, with whom he has two children. ¹⁴ Michael remains legally married to Terri, as well as her guardian.

In 1998, Michael Schiavo petitioned the court to have Terri’s feeding tube removed.

Terri’s parents have offered to take care of Terri at their own expense, allowing Michael to keep all money remaining in the trust fund. To date, Michael Schiavo has refused, insisting that Terri die from dehydration.

Florida Sixth Judicial Circuit Judge George Greer has set Friday, March 18 at 1:00 p.m. EST as “date and time” certain to remove Terri’s feeding tube — an act that will cause the painful death of an otherwise healthy disabled person whose body processes and benefits from the nutrients and fluids she receives daily.



TIMELINE: ¹⁵

On February 25, 1990, 26-year old Terri Schindler Schiavo collapsed in her home when her heart temporarily stopped, cutting off oxygen to her brain and leaving her severely brain damaged.

In November 1992, her husband, Michael, won a medical malpractice lawsuit after claiming that doctors failed to diagnose the chemical imbalance that caused the heart attack. The court awarded approximately $1 million in damages with $300,000 to Michael for his loss and another $700,000 to Michael for Terri’s guardianship and care.

In July 1993, Terri’s parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, petition the court to have Michael removed as Terri’s guardian — a request that is denied in August 2001.

In May 1998, Michael Schiavo petitions the court to have Terri’s feeding tube removed, claiming that Terri told him that she did not want life-sustaining intervention in the event of her incapacitation.

In February 2000, Florida Circuit Judge George W. Greer rules that the feeding tube can be removed.

After several court appeals, it is removed on April 24, 2001. Two days later, Florida Circuit Judge Frank Quesada orders doctors to reinsert Terri’s feeding tube.

In October, 2001, the Florida 2nd District Court of Appeals indefinitely delays the removal of Terri’s feeding tube pending the examination of Terri by five physicians: two selected by Michael, two by the Schindler’s and one by the court. The two doctors selected by Terri’s parents tell the court that she can recover; the remaining three stated that she is in a vegetative state with no hope of recovery. The following month, Judge Greer again orders the feeding tube to be removed again. More court appeals follow.

On October 15, 2003, Terri’s feeding tube is removed for a second time.

October 20-21, 2003: the Florida State Legislature passed legislation (dubbed “Terri’s Law”) allowing Governor Jeb Bush to intervene, ordering the reinsertion of Terri’s feeding tube — six days after it was removed.

May 6, 2004 — January 24, 2005: Various courts, including the Florida Supreme Court, strike down “Terri’s Law” as unconstitutional; the U.S. Supreme Court refuses to hear the case.

March 2005: Members of the U.S. Congress and the Florida State Legislature introduce legislation to intervene on behalf of Terri and other medically vulnerable patients.

Researchers are beginning to test this criteria against that of “persistent vegetative state” (PVS) with other patients. As of fall of 2003, Michael Schiavo’s attorneys reported that the trust fund was down to $50,000, with more than $430,000 going to “pay for court costs associated with her husband’s legal battle to remove his wife’s feeding tube.”

---

¹ Affidavit of Neurologist Beatrice C. Engstrand, M.D., March 3, 2005; Affidavit of Neurologist Jacob Green, M.D., February 22, 2005; Affidavit of Neurologist Lawrence Huntoon, M.D., March 3, 2005. Affidavits may be accessed on-line at www.terrisfight.org
² J.T. Giacino, et al., “The minimally conscious state: Definition and diagnostic criteria,” Neurology, February 2002; 58: 349-353; Melanie Boly, et al., “Auditory Processing in Severely Brain Injured Patients,” Archives of Neurology, February 2004, 61:233-238.
³Abby Goodnough, “Governor of Florida orders woman fed in right-to-die case,” The New York Times, October 22, 2003.
⁴Affidavit of Speech Language Pathologist Sarah Green Mele, July 25, 2003; Affidavit of Carolyn Heron, M.D., March 3, 2005; Affidavit of Neurologist Beatrice C. Engstrand, M.D., March 3, 2005; Affidavit of Speech and Language Pathologist Jill Joyce, PhD, March 3, 2005. Some affidavits may be accessed on-line at www.terrisfight.org
⁵Affidavits of Certified Nursing Assistant Heidi Law, September 1, 2003; Registered Nurse Carla Sauer Iyer, September 1, 2003.
⁶Narrative by Barbara Weller on visit with Terri December 24, 2004, accessed on March 1, 2005 at www.terrisfight.org/press/BJWnarrative.html; Narrative by Barbara Weller on visit with Terri February 24, 2005, accessed on February 25, 2005 at www.alliancealert.org/2005/20050225.htm
⁷Vickie Chachere, “Michael Schiavo says money, activists motivate in-laws,” Associated Press,
⁸Patrick Kampert, “Parents or husband: Who decides?; Courts to choose victor in battle over woman’s life,” Chicago Tribune, October 12, 2003.
⁹Interview with Robert and Mary Schindler, Larry King Live, September 27, 2004.
¹⁰Kampert, Associated Press.
¹¹Hugo Kugiya, “Decision for Death; Florida woman’s feeding tube pulled after court okays action, Newsday, October 16, 2003.
¹²William R. Levesque, “Schiavo’s husband says he’ll fight back,” St. Petersburg Times, October 24, 2003; Chris Gray, “Both sides in Schiavo fight point to control of money,” Philadelphia Inquirer, October 29, 2003.
¹³Mary McFachlin, “Schiavo case a growing legal, moral morass,” Palm Beach Post, October 26, 2003; Levesque, St. Petersburg Times.
¹⁴Rich McKay and Maya Bell, “How to deal with Terri Schiavo’s tragedy splits family,” Orlando Sentinel, October 26, 2003; Warren Richey, “Can state intervene in medical decisions?” Christian Science Monitor, August 3, 2004.
¹⁵With assistance from “Key Dates in the life of Terri Schiavo,” Associated Press, January 24, 2005. October 28, 2003.

Restless

Do you ever get a feeling that your heart is being tugged on by God, but you have no idea what it is He wants you to do, think about, feel, remember, or whatever? I'm feeling that today. It's almost an axious feeling that I need to pray for a friend of mine. I have, but I still feel it. I don't know.

God whatever it is that you need me to be doing, I think interceding, please give me the wisdom to do so. Lord, whoever it is that needs help, strength, wisdom, security, hope, whatever it is, God I pray you will grant it to them. Lord I know you love them and always want what's best for us, which means it's not always what we want. God grant this person the grace to accept it and the strength to conintue in you.

God, if it's a tugging on my heart and attention you want from me, God I give it. Guide me Lord, speak to me God. You are my saviour and king. You are the everlasting Lord of all, the one with no beginning and no end. The one that confounds explaination. Yours is the highest kingdom of all.

Bless this day Lord. Be with us throughout it. Be here for us Lord, strengthen us, give us your wisdom. Help me to hear your voice and obey. Relieve the stress, make me bold where I should be and humble where it is needed. Give me the heart of discernment so that I can do your will. Thank you Lord.

Bless every person who reads this. God be with them all day long. And if they truely don't know you, show them your glory, your grace, your forgiveness and power. Give them the prick of love on thier heart that you give your children every day. Help them, and me, to feel your presence.

Thank you Lord.
I love you.
So-Be-It (Amen)

This Just Doesn't Make Any Sense!!

I just don't get it! If I were to have a bunch of people come to me and ask me a question about Christianity. . . let's say they ask if there is anything that can seperate us from the love of God, and I were to go to the Mormon Bible, the Koran, the sayings of Buddah or any other resouce besides the Bible, I would be looked at as a fool! Plus, I don't think God would look lightly on the fact that I would be misleading people, possibly His people, by using anyone's words but His to answer a question about Him!

I know, you say this would be stupid. No one would accept the answer I would give, simply based upon the SOURCES I was using, right? If they did, they're more misinformed that I would be to do this, or they are downright ignorant! Do you consider yourself one of these ignorant, uninformed people who doesn't care where the source of the information comes from, only that the information is given?

What is I were making a decision about car care? Instead of using a manual for the Ford car that's in question I was using one from a Totyota. how accurate of a decision would I be able to make? Toyota has no background in how Ford makes thier cars, why the very functions of the engine are vastly different. They run on the same gas, can go the same speed, can get one from here to there, but really, ask any mechanic, it would be foolish to use a Toyota manual to make a decision about a Ford car, much less try to fix it!

So why then are we, as Americans, allowing the Supreme Court to use "international" law to decide cases for us, Americans? Why would Justice Anthony Kennedy, Supreme Court Justice, be allowed to use international law on several occasions to make decisions for Americans?! What is the deal? Why is there not more outcry about this? Has the Constitution of the United States become so impudant that we must go outside the country for guidance on internal affairs? I'm sorry, I thought we were a sovriegn nation, not an internationally directed community!

It bothers me greatly when I look around and see the corruption of the court system. I fear it has gotten more than out of hand, it has gotten, in my opinion, treasonous! I see it as treason to ask a Russian to tell me what I should do for my country! I see it as treason to look to France to tell me how I should conduct myself in my own country! I see it as downright evil to look to any other country, that has no knowledge of my freedoms or the cost thereof, that has no concern for my coutry's welfare, to be used to make decisions about MY FUTURE, MY CHILDREN, MY AFFAIRS! Good night people! This was the whle point about seperating from England in the first place!! Freedom! Will the courts put us back under another country's rule? Technically they are already heading in that direction, and most people are applauding them for it!

Folks, don't let this continue. There has got to be something we can do. I feel either the law needs to be changed as far as Supreme Court Justices tenure, or the Congress need to get off thier hind quarters and get involved with stopping this Judicial Tyranny! Will we stay asleep to the far reaching ramifications of the court's decisions? Or will we stand up and say, "That's Enough!".

Here's one way to take some action. The American Family Association Online has a petition that they are putting together to compel the Senate Judiciary Comittee to question all those up for the Supreme Court on the issue of looking to the laws of other countries and international law to make thier decisions. At least then we will have the information BEFORE they get into thier seat, if they make it if this comes out. Please, take the time to get involved. You would be suprised at how little effort it really takes to make a difference.

Here's the link to the American Family Association Online petition for the Senate Jusdiciary Comittee. You can also look up your congreeman and senators and write them as well. It's not that hard to do!