Yes or No?

Widely reported is an ABC poll that purports to show that most Americans support the judicial rulings in the Terri Schiavo case. The poll was conducted with a sample of about 500 respondents. Do you believe it? Should you?

Let me help you on this. Without getting into the discussion of whether or not the media is biased, I'll go straight to the numbers. I won’t bore you with the background, but a poll of 500 is absolutely unreliable. The math employed in probability informs us that 1,100 to 1,500 is necessary for credibility.

Second, ask yourself the following question, one that fairly describes the Terri Schiavo situation:

“As you may know, a woman in Florida named Terri Schiavo suffered brain damage and has been disabled for 15 years. Some doctors who have examined her say it is possible that her condition is reversible with therapy. Her parents and her husband disagree on whether or not she should be allowed to live. Her estranged husband wants her to die, but her parents want to take care of her and pay for therapy. In a case like this who do you think should have final say, (the parents) or (the spouse)?”

Naturally, this is not the question ABC asked. Here’s how they phrased it:

“As you may know, a woman in Florida named Terri Schiavo suffered brain damage and has been on life support for 15 years. Doctors say she has no consciousness and her condition is irreversible. Her parents and her husband disagree on whether or not she should be kept on life support. In cases like this who do you think should have final say, (the parents) or (the spouse)?”

Believe me, ABC did not tell us the question. Michelle Malkin (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/michellemalkin/mm20050323.shtml) broke that story. In fact, it is not the story you see reflected in the mainstream media. It takes a minimal amount of effort to find out that Terri has never had her own counsel; that she never indicated her wish to die not named Schiavo; that her friends quote her as saying, “Where there’s life, there’s hope;” that she was leaving her husband when the “accident” occurred, on witnessed only by her husband; that he remembered she wanted to die some seven years later, after he received a large settlement for her injuries.

Of all the nonsense!

The Terri Schiavo case has had the marvelous effect of turning the lights on in the kitchen and letting us see the cockroaches for what they are.

The LA Times editorial takes the odd approach of dismissing any jurisdiction Congress may exert over the Judiciary, or States’ rights (as though racial integration was effected without the help of Congress and Federal courts), and then fulminating about how hypocritical and politically motivated the Republicans are for doing so. Pardon me? How does that bear on the case? Shame, Mr. Kinsley, you should know better.

A “bio-ethicist” from the University of Pennsylvania informs us that Michael Schiavo shouldn’t be castigated for living with another woman while being married, since remaining married preserves his standing in “fulfilling” her wishes. I would have thought that the ethical way would be to forego other relationships, like fathering children, until the marriage had ended.

This isn’t even a matter of whether Terri Schiavo is really in a persistent vegetative state. Want proof? How about this: let’s say you want to be kept alive as long as your mom and dad are willing. Still think a judge should be able to starve you?

This case is about whether we should believe the claim made by Terri Schiavo’s adulterous husband that she once said she would rather die. This claim was remembered by this man after he had become engaged to another woman and Terri had been awarded money, many years later.

Now for my bona fides on this. On the Saturday before the Super Bowl my family was told by my 94-year old mother’s doctor that Mom would not survive the night. I bought it, she bought it, we all bought it. She lived the next few days in hospice as we gently let her body shut down, and she stopped eating. Towards the end, some of us figured, what the heck! she ought to at least enjoy some ice cream, maybe soup. Yadda, yadda, yadda -- she is back in her own apartment, living alone and livid at the doctors and their opinions. We are thrilled to have her back with us. Amazing what a little food and therapy can accomplish!

Shall we raise taxes?

Think about it. What do you want? More revenue, or lower revenue. If history is any guide, lowering taxes will generate more revenue for the government (cf. Kennedy tax cut, Reagan tax cut, and, yes, the Bush tax cut).

Obviously, there are limits, but at the margin lower taxes mean higher revenue. The real issue is control (see my comment on Eric's comment on Social Security). People who lean toward raising taxes are really driven by their bias for control by the State. They know better how to steer your life than you do. You'll just blow the money on things you want, like a new Dodge Ram, whereas they will set it aside for things you really need, like new programs in education, or a new subway.

If you like being taken care of, turn Left. If you like cutting your own path, it's on the Right.