“Women, Minorities Hardest Hit.”
That’s the old joke about how the New York Times would headline a story about the apocalypse.
Well, in the case of the tsunami, life imitates satire.
“World To End”
“Women, Minorities Hardest Hit.”
That’s the old joke about how the New York Times would headline a story about the apocalypse.
Well, in the case of the tsunami, life imitates satire.
Animal Or Vegetable?
Rob Bailey has some similar thoughts to mine about the Schiavo case, over at Reason.
Overhype
It’s looking like the recent blow against the terrorist camp in Iraq wasn’t as big as originally reported.
The Rest Of The Story
In the wake of the Oscar hype, Sallie Baliunas has a tribute to Howard Hughes, relating some of his lesser-known, but very important accomplishments.
Hilarity
Amidst pathetic whines about plagiarism, Iowahawk has released some previously unseen redneck haiku.
What’s The Rush?
While a little skeptical of the merits of the case, I find it a little surprising that none of the judicial rulings have erred on the side of keeping Mrs. Schiavo alive until all can be resolved with some degree of certainty. After all, there’s no harm in doing so.
Those who want to kill her (and no matter what kind of gloss they wish to put on it, that’s exactly what they’re doing) shouldn’t be in such a hurry–after all, there’s plenty of time to pull the tube later if the de novo investigation comes to the same conclusion. Why are they determined to act with such alacrity, almost desperate to end her life? Some might argue that if it’s her wish to do so, it’s an injustice to her to continue to delay it. But those who argue that also claim that she has no awareness, so why should she care–she’ll never know?
The only rationale that I can think of is that they want to create a fait accompli, because once she’s dead (assuming that no cryonic suspension has been arranged), she’s not coming back. There’s no patient to examine, and the entire issue becomes moot. What are they so frightened of in a potential review that they want so quickly to destroy any of the evidence, put a stake through the heart of the case?
What’s The Rush?
While a little skeptical of the merits of the case, I find it a little surprising that none of the judicial rulings have erred on the side of keeping Mrs. Schiavo alive until all can be resolved with some degree of certainty. After all, there’s no harm in doing so.
Those who want to kill her (and no matter what kind of gloss they wish to put on it, that’s exactly what they’re doing) shouldn’t be in such a hurry–after all, there’s plenty of time to pull the tube later if the de novo investigation comes to the same conclusion. Why are they determined to act with such alacrity, almost desperate to end her life? Some might argue that if it’s her wish to do so, it’s an injustice to her to continue to delay it. But those who argue that also claim that she has no awareness, so why should she care–she’ll never know?
The only rationale that I can think of is that they want to create a fait accompli, because once she’s dead (assuming that no cryonic suspension has been arranged), she’s not coming back. There’s no patient to examine, and the entire issue becomes moot. What are they so frightened of in a potential review that they want so quickly to destroy any of the evidence, put a stake through the heart of the case?
What’s The Rush?
While a little skeptical of the merits of the case, I find it a little surprising that none of the judicial rulings have erred on the side of keeping Mrs. Schiavo alive until all can be resolved with some degree of certainty. After all, there’s no harm in doing so.
Those who want to kill her (and no matter what kind of gloss they wish to put on it, that’s exactly what they’re doing) shouldn’t be in such a hurry–after all, there’s plenty of time to pull the tube later if the de novo investigation comes to the same conclusion. Why are they determined to act with such alacrity, almost desperate to end her life? Some might argue that if it’s her wish to do so, it’s an injustice to her to continue to delay it. But those who argue that also claim that she has no awareness, so why should she care–she’ll never know?
The only rationale that I can think of is that they want to create a fait accompli, because once she’s dead (assuming that no cryonic suspension has been arranged), she’s not coming back. There’s no patient to examine, and the entire issue becomes moot. What are they so frightened of in a potential review that they want so quickly to destroy any of the evidence, put a stake through the heart of the case?
Doing The Right Thing?
It sounds like, so far, the University of Colorado has it right. If he’s canned, it should be for his fraud and plagiarism, not his inspeakably vile utterings (or character).
I have mixed feelings about what the eventual outcome should be. In the interests of academic integrity, the university should get rid of him (and I suspect that it will, and I hope not with a buyout). On the other hand, I think that in a just world, they should have to live with him as punishment for hiring him in the first place, and as a constant reminder to be more careful when granting tenure.