Michelle Malkin’s catholic reading tastes apparently even include the Lancet, where she finds this harrowing story of institutional Belgian infanticide, in violation of Belgian law:
The results of a survey on the causes of death were stark: paediatricians who responded to the survey admitted they had taken “end of life” decisions in more than half the cases. Most commonly, that involved withholding or withdrawing treatment because physicians believed the baby had no real chance of survival or the baby had no chance of a “bearable future”.
In 40 cases, opiate pain killers were used in doses with a potentially life-shortening affect. In 17 cases, a lethal dose or lethal drugs were administered….
This was an investigation of all infant deaths in Flanders, the region culturally and linguistically more similar to the Netherlands…including their “merciful” destruction of imperfect children. Note that these were the doctors making the decision to end these lives; there is no mention of whether parental consent was obtained or even whether they were informed. (Not that that would have made it all right.)
Dude sent ten million spam e-mails a day. And that was just to me, I think.
There are disputes about whether the law is unconstitutional because it is a state statute restricting interstate commerce (which is of course Congress’ realm) but this Times article says they probably won’t overturn the case. So it looks like Jeremy Jaynes is doing nine years, which is some pretty hard time. I wonder what happened to the $750 K a month he was pulling down? Can I instigate a class action against him on behalf of everyone who’s lost time dealing with his noxious pandering?
Related: The other day I got a spam from someone named “Unscientific L. Poop” using a compuserve address.
Uh-oh. Looks like they’ve got the Olympic bomber!
Wait. That’s not Ray Liotta. It’s actually right-wing nut and McVeigh wannabe Olympic Bomber Richard Jewell!
UPDATE: Fox is saying it’s not Richard Jewell after all, but dumpster-diving fugitive Eric Rudolph copping to the ’96 Atlanta bombing. Oh.
Captain Ed reports that General Motors has decided to stop advertising in the Los Angeles Times due to the paper’s habit of getting facts wrong.
Accuracy and fairness: they matter — even to the bottom line.
Thanks to Ed for his kind mention of this blog’s coverage of the L.A. Times. Readers interested in that paper’s bias can get a representative sample of my coverage of the paper by clicking here.
For full coverage, consult my Dog Trainer category.
And a hearty “How’s it goin’, eh?” to the Captain’s new legion of Canadian readers!
UPDATE: Some say: this is pure petulance by GM over unfavorable articles. That may be; I understand that. But such a strategy might backfire at a paper with a strong reputation for accuracy. Apparently, GM isn’t concerned, which suggests to me that GM executives think readers will be receptive to the message that this paper is biased and inaccurate.
That, to me, is the true significance of this episode.
In the post below, we discuss whether Sandy Berger was dishonest, or just dumber than a bag of hammers.
Keep in mind that the same question applies to Mel Martinez. Right now, the claim is that he is just unforgivably stupid. That may well be. Or, he could be lying.
Responding to my post about whether Sandy Berg(l)er took documents or originals, commenter Matthew Hoy points to this Wall Street Journal piece:
The confusion seems to stem from the mistaken idea that there were handwritten notes by various Clinton Administration officials in the margins of these documents, which Mr. Berger may have been able to destroy. But that’s simply an “urban myth,” prosecutor Hillman tells us, based on a leak last July that was “so inaccurate as to be laughable.” In fact, the five iterations of the anti-terror “after-action” report at issue in the case were printed out from a hard drive at the Archives and have no notations at all.
I reported the details of that “urban myth” here. It was originally reported in the Washington Post.
Oddly, Berger’s actions are more consistent with the Post‘s “urban myth” than they are with the official line. If Berger had originals with damning information, it might make sense to cut 3 of 5 versions with scissors.
To believe prosecutor Hillman’s version, you have to believe that, as Matthew Hoy says, Sandy Bergler is “dumber than a bag of hammers.”
Perhaps he is. But I’m not so sure. I still think there may be more there than meets the eye.
Hillman says we’ll know more details in July. Maybe this will all be clearer then. I hope so.
[UPDATE: I see See-Dubya already handled this issue below. Great minds link alike. This illustrates the dangers of blogging with a Treo.]
The prosecutor in the Sandy Berger memo-sneaking trial reiterates to the Wall Street Journal that Berger didn’t destroy any unique documents with incriminating hand-written marginalia, but rather copies “printed out from a hard drive at the Archives and [that] have no notations at all.”
“Those documents, emphatically, without doubt–I reviewed them myself–don’t have notations on them,” Mr. Hillman [the prosecutor] tells us. Further, “there is no evidence after comprehensive investigation to suggest he took anything other than the five documents at issue and they didn’t have notes.”
The WSJ then goes on to scold the Washington Times, Dick Morris, and the Rocky Mountain News for keeping this canard alive. I’m willing to drop it, except…forgive my density here, but just how did Mr. Hillman personally review the documents in question if Lightfingers Sandy destroyed them? Is he yet another one of these clairvoyant lawyers?
We’re picking up speed down a slippery slope, and I fear we burned out the brakes trying to save Terri Schiavo from destruction. From Fr. Rob Johansen, emphasis mine:
The similarities of Mae Margourik’s situation and Terri Schiavo’s are obvious: Once again we have a family divided over what care should be given to a seriously ill relative. And once again, we have a judge playing God with someone’s life. But what is different, and in a sense worse, is that Mae is being deprived of food and water in clear contravention of her own stated wishes, and at the request of someone who should have no standing under Georgia law.
God help us.
(h/t: the Dawn Patrol.)
UPDATE: The granddaughter says “She has glaucoma and now this heart problem, and who would want to live with disabilities like these?”
Well, I for one would prefer it to the alternative, and apparently, judging by her CLEARLY WRITTEN LIVING WILL expressing a desire NOT TO BE TAKEN OFF LIFE SUPPORT, so would Mae Magourik.
UPDATE FROM PATTERICO: Tom Maguire has an interesting angle on this.