Straight Up with Sherri

Saturday, March 19, 2005

Birds of a Feather Chirp Together

“Clear and Convincing Evidence”
Judge George Greer
“Fake but Accurate”
Anchorman Dan Rather

Why is it that sometimes we hear a phrase that just makes us wince? To me, the boilerplate slogans, new or old, are often just a prelude to a forgone conclusion.

There is a story coming up! Do you want to hear it? Creative writers invent catchy titles to capture your attention. And occasionally it works. But there is something else much more important – the byline. For mine, you’ll need to look at the bottom of this editorial – Like that’s necessary! Any one of the groupies, minions, and trolls who frequent this blogsite know who is writing this piece. How? Do you recognize my style, my cynicism, my vernacular? I think so! But it is also my message, my ideology, my objectives that will flavor everything I say, and how I choose to say it!

What do George Greer and Dan Rather have in common? (This is where I insert my blatant, unsupported, biased opinion.) Each has a perfectly well defined objective and each is going to do or say anything necessary in his struggle to achieve it. In every chosen profession, there are catch phrases, such as “clear and convincing evidence”, that are intended to convey an air of legitimacy to an argument. To George Greer, the only one being convinced is King George himself. But it is not always pre-constructed phrases; it may only be words, such as “accurate”. Such revered words can be used to construct a brand new phrase, like “Fake but Accurate”. What purpose is served by this? Well it certainly convinced Dan Rather that he was right! And to this day, Ex-Dan still believes it!

Look beyond the phrases. If you know the conclusion is wrong, the justification for the conclusion is probably also flawed, or the initial postulates. But other times, the words are just words used to convince the speaker. The rest of us know the truth.

Right Wing Nut Job

48 Comments:

  • reminds of me of the slogans like

    "clean skies"

    "freedom for the iraqis"

    "fair and balanced"

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:44 PM  

  • The term "clear and convincing evidence" is actually supposed to mean something. The Florida legislature mandated this particular burden of proof be heeded where proxies make medical decisions for others.

    The problem is not the phrase--it is the fact that the Judge refused to compel the guardian--Michael Schiavo--to meet the burden of proof as mandated by the legislature.

    By Blogger Sue Bob, at 9:01 PM  

  • have you seen the CAT scan?

    dark areas everywhere > showing that the brain has atrophied and has been overtaken with spinal fluid

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:05 PM  

  • Sue Bob is precisely right.

    By Blogger levi from queens, at 9:06 PM  

  • The cat scan is very very old and provides very murky evidence. Anonymous -- why not use modern tools at a current date to get some credible evidence?

    By Blogger levi from queens, at 9:07 PM  

  • People have misinterpreted the CAT scan assessments.

    Essentially, those assessments have been made by people NOT involved in the case. They go something like "CAT scans can't be used to show atrophy in all but the worst cases." But the courts have found (and other courts have reaffirmed) that the CAT scans did show severe atrophy. So this is apparently one of those worst cases.

    Don't forget the flatlined EEGs.

    I'm confident that whether Congress acts or not, the federal courts will reaffirm the state courts. I just don't know how the RR will react to that.

    Finally: why on this site has there never been mention of poor baby Sun. Can't any of you see the similarities here? Is it because he wasn't white? His breathing tube was removed by the STATE against the mother's will! Why no outcry? What's wrong with Texas?!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:22 PM  

  • RWNJ, pls explain the definition of right winger. I can see how Rush isn't, he's more of a Repub. party cheerleader, and I really wonder about Bush, his illegals solution makes my skin crawl.
    Marine Momma

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:24 PM  

  • I shouldn't assume that y'all know about baby Sun.

    http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/front/3087387

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:24 PM  

  • RWNJ, pls explain the definition of right winger. I can see how Rush isn't, he's more of a Repub. party cheerleader, and I really wonder about Bush, his illegals solution makes my skin crawl.
    Marine Momma

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:25 PM  

  • anonymous is incorrect when he says that courts have found. It is only one court--judge greer. All that the other courts have done is found him to be proceedurally correct.

    I would have kept Baby Sun alive. This case is different in that Terri can be kept alive by people willing to do so. It is just that her ex-husband wishes her dead. Some of the outcry is that there are a fair number of people who would not want their ex-husband to determine if they should live or die. (I know they are still legally married -- but Michael is unquestionably living as an ex -husband.)

    By Blogger levi from queens, at 9:38 PM  

  • Marine Momma, these are my opinions. There is no clear Webster. But here it is:
    1. Limited government power (that rules out Bill O'Reilly who expects the government to make rules prohibiting anything he doesn't like).
    2. Small government. Their powers are clearly delineated in the U.S. and several State Constitutions. The are prohibited to do 99.99% of the stuff they do. (That rules out President Bush).
    3. Individual freedom. We are a Constitutional type B society. What that means is that anything that is not an expressly prohibited activity is permissible.
    4. People have rights and priveleges. States have powers and authority. States have no rights.
    5. We have a government of the people. Government officials are our servants, not our leaders.
    6. Right and responsibilty of self defense is granted by God. Individuals should own weapons. The question of whether the police should also is debatable.

    This, of course, is just a start. But it gives an idea of how I think.

    By Blogger Right Wing Nut Job, at 9:39 PM  

  • Quick passage of this bill wil require that no lawmakers object. I have reminded my Sen. Boxer that should she allow herself to be railroaded by the RR, I would no help re-elect her (and God knows there are those on the RR clamoring to replace her). Boxer has yet to let me down (good thing, since I have contributed $$ towards her campaigns)!.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:40 PM  

  • To the person who gave money to Boxer..gee, I'd demand a refund.
    Marine Momma

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:46 PM  

  • To the person who gave money to Boxer..gee, I'd demand a refund.
    Marine Momma

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:46 PM  

  • I do want to comment on the first anonymous on this thread. You are absolutely correct. This is not an issue that is limited to one's views or desired outcomes. People on every side of an issue are free to pitch phrases to support their arguments.
    Sue Bob and levi. Your point that the "clear and convincing evidence" is a specific legal phrase is correct. Applied to a third party or a jury it would be in exactly that context. My opinion is that Judge George Greer has used details in the case to support that conclusion in his own mind. Thank you for raising this issue. My hat is off to you both.

    By Blogger Right Wing Nut Job, at 9:47 PM  

  • To the person who gave money to Boxer...gee, I'd demand a refund.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:47 PM  

  • To the person who gave money to Boxer...gee, I'd demand a refund.
    Marine Momma

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:48 PM  

  • I do apologize for the repeat posts, this isn't working so well right now.Marine Momma

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:50 PM  

  • Quick passage does not require no objections. It requires no amendments!. And, of course, a simple majority of the present, given a quorum.
    Verify this for me, please, Sue Bob & levi. Or am I all wet?

    By Blogger Right Wing Nut Job, at 9:51 PM  

  • Why not just let Terri go?

    The baby jesus will accept her into his home, won't he?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:51 PM  

  • But Congressional leaders acknowledged that quick approval of the bill, patterned on the more narrowly focused approach favored by the Senate, is not certain, since it will require that no lawmakers in either chamber object.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/20/politics/20debate.html?pagewanted=1

    LOL not that the NY Times is always correct!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:56 PM  

  • rwnj-- I would guess u are right-- majority not unanimous -- but I have no actual knowledge.

    By Blogger levi from queens, at 9:59 PM  

  • RWNJ, when you get a chance, could you reconcile your 6-point list (esp, 1, 2 and 4) with the Congressional grandstanding on this issue? Does it all boil down to the talking point about protecting a constitutional right? Would you prefer the bill be broader to encompass more than just Terri?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:01 PM  

  • hey there!

    I am tired! My back hurts, my legs hurt, etc... BUT I am sooo very blessed to be here! Thanks so much to all of you that helped!

    I know you all must have questions. I will plan a question answer thread when I return!

    RWNJ, Henrik, and Sarah D. have also contributed a LOT of their time and efforts!

    WHAT A GREAT TEAM!

    Thanks to Sarah D for a place to stay! FANTATIC HOSTESS!

    Thanks to Henrik and Laura for feeding me. YES they bought me lunch and dinner today!!

    AND RWNJ has just been AWESOME!

    By Blogger Straight Up with Sherri, at 10:09 PM  

  • Reconcile? Easy.
    1. I don't personally believe that the Federal Government should be doing this. However, it seems necessary because King George has violated the Constitutional right of Terri to life and not granted the due process she is guaranteed under the Fifth Amendment in the Bill of Rights.
    2. King George should not even be there. We do not need billions of intermediate judges to litigate every issue under the sun. Particularly when those judges are forming an orchestrated Oligarchy in violation of the Constitution(s).
    4. Judge Greer has no right to order the murder of Terri Schiavo. Does the fact that Greer is colluding with Michael Schiavo make the murder of Terri Schiavo any different than the murder of Laci Peterson by a husband who just didn't want her around, either? (I don't know if Scott did it. There was never even any evidence that a crime was committed.)

    So, you tell me why you think this whole thing is okay. Or, do you?

    By Blogger Right Wing Nut Job, at 10:16 PM  

  • I think the whole thing is tragic. I think that there are passionate, heartfelt viewpoints on both sides of the argument. I think there is not one solution that will fit all situations. I think there is far too much politicking going on, and the deep issues are not going to receive enough debate. And I think that tough cases make bad laws.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:25 PM  

  • RWN, the older I get the more right I lean. I do agree with your points. I'm watching Bush's actions with illegals. The area I live in has tons of migrants. If they're here legally that's one thing, but I'll bet most aren't. I'm not happy with Bush on this.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:30 PM  

  • I agree anonymous. I had actually written a new editorial entitled Congressional Compromise, but I did not want to post it because the discussions are going so well and I did not want to introduce new issues and possibly scatter the participants on the active threads.
    Thank you for raising this very important issue.

    Besides, Sherri is back. And I really want her to take this thing and run with it.

    By Blogger Right Wing Nut Job, at 10:31 PM  

  • Anonymous, did you read my editorial on the financial effect of illegal immigrants? I will find it for reference.

    By Blogger Right Wing Nut Job, at 10:32 PM  

  • As far as hard cases making bad laws....

    I tend to believe this to be true.

    Being as conservative, I am usually very weary of NEW laws and legislaion. I am ususally in favor of gov't hainving more control at the local level with little to no interference from BIG BROTHER...

    That being said...

    We are coming to a point in history where idealogy is the ruler- NOT the Constitution.

    Back in the late 1980's- I told my family I wanted to get married.

    NOW people want to cahnge the definition of marriage--- so, if they succeed- does this mean I am gay?
    NO (not the best analogy, I know)

    My point is that when we allow the judicial branch to make law- by changing definitions, ot just by finding LOOPHOLES- what then do we do? THE judicial branch is not elected BY THE PEOPLE to MAKE LAWS!!

    Until the judicial branch gets a hold of itself- we are headed for trouble.

    In the case of Terri- the fact that a judge can IGNORE AND DISMISS evidence, such as doctor and nurse afidavits, yet allow heresay from a man known to commit perjury we have problems.

    EVEN if YOU accept his word as truth. Terri is said to make these statements back in the 80's. The FLorida Legislature passed a bill in 1999 (FELOS helped to erite the bill) makinf food and water- "artificial" means of life support. Before that- it was never considered to be. Therefor there is NOT REASONABLE way to conclude that Terri's wishes are to be starved to death!

    IT IS INSANE that we need to write legislation in order to ENFORCE laws that already exist!

    But whatis the alternative?

    Let the judicial branch start legislating to the point that our nation starts STARVING THE ELDERLY AND HANDICAPPED????

    By Blogger Straight Up with Sherri, at 10:49 PM  

  • PLEASE EXCUES THE TYPOS


    I AM VERY TIRED!!!

    BTW

    HOW DID YA'LL LIKE THE PIC OF BO!!!????

    BEST ONE OUT THERE-- I THINK!

    (Not the LEAST bit biased, either)

    By Blogger Straight Up with Sherri, at 10:53 PM  

  • EXCUES THE TYPOS ?

    We expect the typos from you Sherri. That is part of your charm!

    By Blogger Right Wing Nut Job, at 10:58 PM  

  • Great pic -- nice point -- if the court is just another legislature, and I think we are there -- it should be treated as such.

    By Blogger levi from queens, at 10:59 PM  

  • Levi! Hey sweetie! Great to see you! Glad you liked the pic.

    RWNJ - Glad I can charm you.

    (hey buttholus - Sarah D.)

    By Blogger Straight Up with Sherri, at 11:11 PM  

  • the financial effect of illegal immigrants

    i love illegal immigrants, they cut my lawn for next to nothing and show up on time, not like those lazy american landscapers

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:19 PM  

  • Thank You, Sarah D. LOL!!!!
    I resemble that remark - and I deserve it. Mea Culpa, Mea Culpa, Mea Maxima Culpa.

    By Blogger Right Wing Nut Job, at 11:19 PM  

  • i love illegal immigrants, they cut my lawn for next to nothing and show up on time, not like those lazy american landscapers



    LOL!!!

    By Blogger Straight Up with Sherri, at 11:21 PM  

  • "Mea Culpa"

    Me a coupla? (not copulation I hope.) Me a cupala? (I am a cup?)

    Cup holder?

    By Anonymous Sarah D., at 11:23 PM  

  • It's Latin! From the Latin Mass; it means, "Through my fault", "Through my fault", "Through my most grievious fault"

    By Blogger Right Wing Nut Job, at 11:34 PM  

  • It is a necessary part of the judicial process that the judge be allowed to exclude material admitted as evidence. We really don't want to be allowing everything lawyers can think of to be admitted as evidence. We really do need a filter.

    The problem with this filter is that it often leaves one side or the other feeling that subjective opinions are getting in the way of seeking the truth. But without the filter, there would be far too much psychological trickery going on. The filter is one of the strengths of our judicial process, not a weakness.

    The "legislating from the bench" argument is best applied to circuit and supreme courts, not trial courts. The rulings of this trial judge have been appealed all the way up the ying-yang, though, and the fact that his rulings have been procedurally validated indicates he's not being an "activist judge".

    The SCOTUS does not want this kind of case in front of them. It's ironic that the religious right, which is so contemptuous lately of the judicial process, is trying to get courts more involved.

    I guess the only point we'll agree on that laws are best levied at the local level.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:58 PM  

  • Latin Mass? Latino's are messy?

    I have heard something about Latins being messy - but I just thought they were LOUD~!

    By Anonymous Sarah D., at 12:01 AM  

  • Re: fast-tracking

    At least one House member, Rep. Robert Wexler, R-Boca Raton, expressed outrage at the attempts by his colleagues to get involved in the case. Wexler said he intends to object to plans to pass the bill through the House by unanimous consent. If any member calls for a voice vote, the House must have at least 218 members present for a quorum. Therefore, Wexler's actions could force House leaders to hold on to the bill until after midnight.

    http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-schiavo20mar20,0,5444446.story?coll=sfla-home-headlines

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:31 AM  

  • anonymous

    everything you are sying is true most of the time-- but latley-- this seems to have changed.

    As of late- judges are ruled by ideology rather tahn the Constitution ans its INTENT!!!

    The real ones playing politics at this stage- are JUDGES!

    They are only ONE of the three branches. If you take a close look at the situation in St Petersburg-- you will find that the 2 of the branches are seriously in collusion!!!!

    VERY BAD!

    Extreme circumstances DO call for extreme MEASURES! I am NOT interested in ONE rogue bunch dictating such a precedent!

    If they have conducted themselves well--- then why worry about a it being reviewed on a federal level!??

    that is ALL this legislation is about!

    EXPANDING HABEAS CORPUS! (buttholeous)

    By Blogger Straight Up with Sherri, at 12:37 AM  

  • > If they have conducted themselves well--- then why worry about a it being reviewed on a federal level!??

    I'm not sure the courts per-se are worried about the federal-level review. Don't forget that both the FL state Supreme Court and SCOTUS have declined to interfere so far. SCOTUS as recently as late Friday. That doesn't vindicate the trial-level court, I agree.

    Is Michael worried about the federal-level review? Possibly. I'm open to the possibility that there was wrong-doing on his part. Mostly due to Crystal's blog pieces about the abusive relationship before Terri's collapse.

    Are many of our elderly -- or those with elderly relatives -- worried about this review? Possibly -- particularly if it is going to affect them. I hope it doesn't. Many people cannot afford the legal costs in creating living wills (I'm guessing average cost is $1000 -- please correct me if I'm wrong).

    Sherri and RWNJ -- if Terri had clearly articulated in a living will that she would not want to even be tube-fed, would you respect her will to let her die? Or are you completely against the idea of allowing oneself to plan for that kind of outcome? I'm interested in your general response to this question -- assuming no wrongdoing on Michael's part.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:48 AM  

  • To anon:

    If I had clear documentation of a loved ones wishes, yes I would follow them.

    Is that your question?

    By Anonymous Sarah D., at 1:03 AM  

  • Yes, that's my question. Thanks.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1:08 AM  

  • Of course, if there were any clearly articulated evidence from Terri, I would be whole-heartedly in support of her wishes. Too many things do not make sense, here. The government should not be a party to this at all - and mostly that means self-annointed Grand Master Greer. Michael should not have the government sanctioning his activity to murder his wife. Further, I do not believe in doctor-assisted suicide. No doctor should be a party to murder, either. That is a patent violation of the Hippocratic oath.

    It must be simple, no more complicated than "if I cannot feed myself, do not do it for me". Whenever things get complex, the demigods will act in their own self-interests; and innocent people die.

    By Blogger Right Wing Nut Job, at 2:43 AM  

  • Sherri, you are doing a great job keeping us abreast of the situation as it happens. Thank you!

    A request: could you "anonymous" posters please sign your comments so we know who is who? Choose a nickname, a number, a letter, ANYTHING. It is hard to follow someone's train of thought when too many people are posting as "anonymous". Thank you.

    By Anonymous Lady Redhawk, at 9:28 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home