kimmy

It is politically advantageous to have the opposition force another costly election. Well, at least you're in agreement that the omnibus bill was about gaining political advantage. Hopefully this sort of candor is the start of a trend. Ok, once more. It doesn't matter if they form a majority or not. As long as they do better now than they would 6 months to a year from now, it is worthwhile for them to have an election now. Thats seems pretty likely. Clear now? What you're saying is clear. However, what you're saying is wrong. If they go to the polls now, they could STILL wind up having to go back to the polls in 6 months unless they win a majority. Why are the Liberals so worried about their election chances after Gomery's report? After all, they don't have to call an election for 4 more years! Oh yeah, it's because since they don't have a majority, their government could be brought down if they lose a confidence vote. So if they go to the polls before Gomery's report comes out, fail to secure a majority, how are they better off? They would still be in a minority government that could brought down if they lose a confidence vote. Think about it. Unless they think they can get a majority, going to the polls before Gomery's report doesn't make a shred of sense. So, given that sentiment, you must be pretty cheesed with the current process that gives a party with 40% of the popular support and 43% of the seats in Parliament a 100% say in the appointment process? I assumed that everyone except for 4 year olds and the mentally retarded would assume I was not seriously advocating that Jack Layton's pornstache and Elinor Caplin's ass could be committee members. Are you 4? Being obtuse on purpose? Obtuse because you just can't help it? The point of my suggestion was that a committee could reflect the proportions in the HOC. If you don't share my sense of whimsy, or find the notion of fractional politicians to be amusing, perhaps there is some sort of exotic solution to this complicated dilemna. What if we replaced the fractional politicians with whole politicians (3 Liberals instead of 2.6, 1 ND instead of 0.4). Or, what if we doubled the # of committee members from my original suggestion. (5 Liberals, 4 Conservatives, 2 BQ, 1 ND.) I realize that those are probably pretty radical ideas that might not have occured to somebody like yourself. -kimmy

The Liberals are likely at the best point they will be for the next two or three years. They don't have to "want" an election now, they just need to want an election now more than they want one in a year. If it's that important to them, they can certainly call one any time they want. Again, there's no reason to assume they could form a majority, as their numbers in Quebec are still too low. Having an election before Gomery reports is only advantageous to the Liberals if they can form a majority. And there's just no reason to think they'd get a different result than last time. How on earth can a small party be permitted "meaningful" input into the process without making it fundamentally undemocratic? You obviously have very little imagination or creativity if you can't think of any possibilities. I'll suggest one later on. Who said equal? Are you running around making assumptions again? (do you live in some kind of parallel universe where Canada has a majority government? or where a majority of Canadians voted for the Liberals? Or support them currently? By what possible definition can the Liberals be considered "the majority" in 2005?) Well, how about a committee proportional to the parties' strength in Commons? There are roughly 300 MPs, with roughly 130 Liberals, 100 Conservatives, 50 BQ, and 20 NDP. So, how about a committee of 6 members... that'd break down as 2 Conservatives, 1 BQ, 2.6 Liberals... (2 MPs plus Elinor Caplan's mouth), and 0.4 NDP (perhaps Jack Layton's pornstache would be on the committee). -kimmy

At least we can agree on something. (translation: "I can't think of a positive spin at the moment; I'm hoping the party spokesmen can get their heads together and come up with something that sounds plausible." ) Horse-pucky. The Liberals know that Kyoto implementation is not an issue that can win them an election on its own; it was there for the taking last election and got nary a whisper during the campaign. The Liberals don't want an election right now-- they would still be pummelled in Quebec and still come up short of a majority. If you won't take Jean Lapierre's word for it, I'm sure you can find some public opinion polls to prove the point. Have I really thought about it? Well, more or less in the same way I've thought about whether Spiderman or Batman would win in a fight. It's an interesting question, but it's not like it'll ever happen, so why spend a lot of energy thinking about it? I know you've debated the judiciary issue ad-nauseum with other members of the forum, and I don't see much point in reopening it. My own opinion is that I don't see why it would hurt for an all-party committee to have a chance to have *meaningful* input into the process. Last time, of course, Minister Cotler put on some sort of dog-and-pony show for an all-party committee, as I'm sure He Misses Trudeau will point out, but the truth is that the event was for appearances only and had nothing to do with meaningful input. As for the Senate... my understanding is that in reality their role is almost entirely committee work and legal paperwork regarding pending legislation. I'm sure that elected senators could do those jobs equally well. -kimmy

I my dear Kimmy am not a "leftist" thank you. I am a more balanced and do not appreciate the cold hearted money motivate extreme right that you adhere to. That wasn't even my message you're responding to. If I'm considered "the extreme right" here, well, frankly that says a lot more about the hive-mind at Mapleleafweb than it says about me. If you think I'm speaking from a "cold hearted money motive" then I guess that either you've read nothing I've said, or you're being obtuse on purpose, or you're being obtuse because you just can't help it. Money motive? It's widely reported that a California businessman offered Michael Schiavo a million dollars to sign over custody of Terri to her parents, and Schiavo refused. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7150458/ Does that sound like a guy who is motivated by money? If you really want to wonder at a "cold-hearted money motive", let's look again at Dr Hammesfahr and his private clinic, and the windfall of publicity that he has reaped thanks to preying on Terri's poor parents for the past several years. Desperate families will be beating down his door for years thanks to this. "He's the miracle man who could have saved Terri!" -kimmy

I would be deeply embarrassed if my government made any acknowledgement of Coulter at all. Why give her that kind of a boost? I'm sure Coulter herself would love nothing more than to get into a public war of words with some representative of the government of Canada-- the higher ranking, the better. She could turn the whole experience into her next book. She's probably already even got a title picked out. Perhaps something like "Idiots and Igloos: Coulter Takes On Canada" or something equally high-brow would suit her. Jessie Coulter = good Ann Coulter = not so good -kimmy {"Storms never last, do they, baby?" -J. Coulter}

An attempt to force an election, I suspect. hmm? What the blazes are you talking about? The Liberals don't need to "attempt to force an election". They can have an election any time they want. If they want an election, Paul Martin can just go down to Rideau Hall and call an election. Huh? Elections are a "kick in the groin" to democracy? I didn't say elections were a kick in the groin for democracy. I said the Liberals' strategy of bundling unrelated issues into an "omnibus bill" to put their opponents in the position of having to vote against their conscience on one of the issues is a kick in the groin to democracy. I thought I was fairly clear about that. But explaining it again can't hurt. I don't even want to know how you made the leap in logic from "omnibus bill" to "elections". That just totally smacks of trying too hard. The two issues should be voted on on their own merits, not on the basis of other issues to which they've been attached. If the Liberals democratized the senate and the judiciary, I'll go buy a LPC membership myself. But something tells me I won't have to part with that $10 any time soon. They just wouldn't be the Liberals if they did that. They could declare martial law, and their apologists would find a way to spin it as "defending Canadian values." They could start shitting gold bricks, and some people would criticize it as an inflationary measure. That's about as likely to happen as them democratizing the senate or the judiciary. If Harper went around downtown Ottawa curing lepers through the power of prayer, it would be criticized by the left as "too Christian". And again, yeah that's about as likely as the gold bricks or the democratizing. By the way, how did we get from discussing the "omnibus bill" to discussing what if the Liberals democratized the senate? I mean, don't you think it's quite a leap to assume that because I'm blasting them for this omnibus bill, that I'd also blast them for democratizing the senate? If Canada was Seinfeld, do you think that Paul Martin would be Jerry, George, or Kramer? -kimmy

Jeb Bush was ready to send state troopers to defy court orders... St Louis Today columnist The columnist had this thought on Jeb: (emphasis mine.) I think that is the whole issue in a nutshell. -kimmy

Yahoo article What is the purpose of bundling these two issues together? Kyoto implementation and a deal on equalization don't appear to be related issues to me. I'm not sure why they would be part of the same vote in Commons. Cynics like me would suspect that the Liberals' intention is to put the Conservatives in a situation of voting against one of their own issues-- either "no" to the Atlantic accord, or "yes" to a Kyoto plan that apparently declares carbon dioxide to be toxic. (CO2 toxic? WTF? Did anybody in the Environment Ministry take grade 10 science??) However, Liberal House Leader Tony Valeri says that's not it at all, and that there's a big picture that cynics like me just aren't seeing. Toronto Star article As far as I can determine, the Liberals' approach seems to be more of the same-old same-old. This is another kick in the groin for democracy. -kimmy

I will admit to being arrogant, and perhaps even a twit, but I don't feel I'm ignorant. I've gone to great efforts to inform myself about many aspects of this issue. If the big difference between Tom DeLay and Michael Schiavo is that Tom DeLay unplugged a dialysis machine instead of a feed tube... that seems like a very tenuous distinction for calling one man a barbarian and murderer while calling the other a champion of life. Don't you think? As for Terri's parents, I do feel a lot of sympathy for them. I think the biggest tragedy in all of this is that this Dr Hammesfahr-- con-man, witch-doctor, medicine-man-- has taken such advantage of their vulnerability andfilled them with false hopes for so many years. Terri's soul has been gone for a long time, but because her body still clings to life, her parents have not been given a chance to accept that she's gone. I hope that when her heart finally stops beating they can go find the peace that they've been denied for much too long. I can related to them in a sense... one of my grandfathers died of an inoperable brain tumor that took a long time to finish him off. While he was going, he became increasingly helpless and demented. He said many paranoid and hateful things, particularly towards his childrens' spouses. And though watching him go was a painful and upsetting experience, at least we had the comfort of knowing that his fate was inevitable and that there would be closure. Dr Hammesfahr has denied the Schindlers even that much. The one thing that really strikes home for me in all of this is that when my number is up, I hope I go in a way that leaves no doubt. I hope my end is quick, decisive, final, and if necessary, really really gory, if that's what it takes to give my loved ones the peace that comes from letting go and moving on. I could not bear to think of having my loved ones huddled over a hospital bed for years and years wondering if maybe today was the day that I finally expired. -kimmy

Hi Christine, I've read your letter, and I think you have done an excellent job of expressing your side of the issue. I found it very persuasive. I am not an expert at battling government bureaucracies, but I suspect that your best chance might be to go to media people with this. This is the sort of situation where muck-rakers like the Sun chain of papers actually have a role to play; unfortunately I don't recall Victoria having anything of the sort. However, I do recall that there is a local news radio station, and an independent local TV station; these sorts of outlets often have a "troubleshooter" or at the very least an editorialist who is willing to listen to "the little guy." I think that your persuasive letter would get the attention of someone like that, who would be able to stir up some fuss over your case. I would also suggest looking at media outlets in the Seattle/Bellington area: virtually everybody in Victoria (and the Greater Vancouver area) has access to these stations, and I am sure that if your story made the news in Seattle, it would spur a lot of response in Victoria. From your letter, I get the impression that the child welfare services have been able to shift all the focus to you. I think that putting this to the media would put some of the focus on the child welfare people as well. -kimmy {hoping things work out for the best. }

LA Times: DeLay family tragedy Tom DeLay knew that his father wouldn't have wanted to live like that. Yet he's been publicly berating Michael Schiavo for making the same choice for his wife. Tom DeLay is a big fat hypocrite. And a piece of crap. -kimmy

Indeed. I think "error" is about the kindest thing that could be said for the kind of hysteria, hyperbole, denial of reality, and outright fanaticism we've seen from the "Save Terri!" people. I spent some time visiting some of the sites our friend Max linked to earlier, and was utterly startled by some of the dementia I witnessed. I might, just for laughs, chronical some of the absurdity I read about in a message here. Although, I honestly don't know whether to be amused or just plain worried at the mentality of some of the people out there. Let's be courteous. caesar deserves respect and consideration. In fact, she deserves extra respect and consideration, because she was there in person on the day they invented the wheel. -kimmy

I am assuming this guy, Dr William Hammesfahr, is the "noted neurologist" caesar keeps referring to, the guy who says he has patients worse off than Terri who have made full recoveries. Dr Hammesfahr is also the guy who has been telling the Schindlers that he can heal their daughter. They have used him as their medical expert in the hearings into Terri's condition, each time stating the view that his therapies can revive her. He has appeared on several TV programs with the same message. How does the medical community at large feel about Dr Hammesfahr? http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7288728/page/2/ While Dr Hammesfahr promotes himself as a "Nobel Prize Nominee", the truth is slightly different. http://mediamatters.org/items/200503240007 Judge Greer summarized Hammesfahr's credibility as follows: So, while people are busy doubting the motivations of Michael Schiavo, perhaps they should also take a moment to consider the motivations of Dr William Hammesfahr. What has Dr Hammesfahr got to gain in all this? How about this: http://www.hni-online.com/ As it turns out, Dr Hammesfahr operates his own private clinic (or "Neurological Institute" as he calls it), providing for-profit treatment to stroke victims. As a couple of the above articles mentioned, Dr Hammesfahr has been disciplined in the past by the Florida Department of Health for his therapy, which is considered of questionable value by the medical community. I think it is perhaps fair to ask whether Michael Schiavo is motivated by the insurance money. However, I also think it is fair to ask whether this Dr Hammesfahr has been selling the Schindlers a mountain of false hope, exploiting their desperation to garner a windfall of publicity for his private clinic. -kimmy

caesar, the CT scan shows what it shows. It is 100% true that there is still lots of grey matter. The brainstem I mentioned earlier has loads of grey matter. It is 100% misleading to imply that that means she could recover. There is grey matter in your spine. There is grey matter in little blobs located other places in your torso, too. Grey matter is simply nerve cell bodies. That's all it is. The term "grey matter" is used to differentiate nervous tissue between 2 kinds of nervous tissue. "Grey matter" is areas that contain groups of nerve cell bodies. Grey matter can be in the brain or the spine, or in groups called "ganglia" inside your torso. "White matter" is areas that contain axons, the long parts of nerve cells that carry signals to other places. These areas appear white when you look at them, because many of the axons are wrapped in tiny sheets of fat called myelin. "Grey matter" is NOT a synonym for "BRAIN STUFF". If they cut off Terri's head, the grey matter in her spine is not going to just turn into a brain and start thinking. Nor is the grey matter in her brainstem going to turn into a brain and start thinking. Terri still has lots of grey matter, but none of it is in the areas that allow people to think or communicate. Her cerebral cortex-- the part of the brain that separates mammals from earthworms-- has disappeared. That's shown clearly. NO neurologist would look at the CT scan and disagree. If some neurologist says "she still has lots of grey matter", he is telling you something that is not a lie, and which makes uninformed people think that there is hope for her to recover. He knows that most people hear "grey matter" and immediately associate it with "BRAIN STUFF". He knows that people hear "she still has lots of grey matter" and they think "she still has lots of BRAIN STUFF" and they figure that means she has a chance of recovering. But that neurologist, if he is being honest, will concede that her cerebral cortex is simply not there. He would concede that she's got no chance of ever having a personality or thinking. He would concede that some peoples' contention that therapy or "new techniques" could restore that capability is simply wishful thinking. We can't even heal a few bundles of cells in the spinal cord. Why do people think that we could restore a whole brain??? This whole debate has really demonstrated how uninformed and gullible people can be. People grab onto any piece of information that suits their political views, because they don't have the knowledge to evaluate the facts for themselves. That's why the "Terri's Fight" side of the argument has been putting out meaningless comments like "she still has lots of grey matter!" for people to swallow. They know that they can throw out junk-science and meaningless factoids and most people simply don't know enough to weigh the merits. And the media doesn't know the right questions to ask to get meaningful answers. Most peoples' understanding of these issues has been formed by years of bad television, sci-fi movies, and inane old wives tales like "we only use 10% of our brains!" (well, in your case, caesar, that 10% figure might not be far off the mark.) You're out there looking for sound-bites to support your personal views. I've spent the past 3 months learning about this stuff in detail. Your ears are too open, and your brain's not open enough. -kimmy

That information did come from a neurosurgeon. Bull. -kimmy

I'm not sure I agree. While I'm sure that the movie wouldn't show the explicit penetration or graphic dismemberment of the actresses, that's about all I'm sure of. I don't think it would be very surprising if the film puts the viewer on the scene during the rapes, though I'm sure anything explicit will have a quick cut-away to Karla as she holds the camcorder... -kimmy

Terri's activity has been said by some doctors to be merely brain-stem activity. Time for more brain talk. The stuff you do when you're awake tends to be associated with the cerebral cortex: the large thing that occupies most of your skull. That's divided into a number of sections, with abilities roughly associated with each part: -frontal lobe: thinking, reasoning, creativity, logic, personality, and other stuff. -temporal lobe: language comprehension and speaking, memory -parietal lobe: sensory processing and conscious motor control -occipital lobe: processing of visual information. -limbic lobe: basic drives ("hungry", "horny", "happy", "mad", "scared"... basically, animal-level reaction.) Even dogs and cats have all of this to some extent (though obviously a little light on the frontal and temporal lobe functions. ) Ok, so why don't you stop breathing when you go to sleep? What is it that drives the muscles that move last night's Taco Grande through your intestine? Meet the brainstem. The brainstem basically has two roles. First off, it's the "wiring box" for your brain. All those connections between the cerebrum and the rest of your body are all made through the brainstem. There's a lot of complicated circuitry. And secondly (and more importantly, in Terri's case) there is the reticular formation. The reticular formation has a number of functions. It keeps you breathing, even if you forget to breath. It can accelerate or slow your heart-rate. If you're standing up, it innervates the proper muscles to keep you from falling down or tipping over. Researchers have found that cats who have had their cerebrums removed are still able to walk or run if put on a treadmill and even stand up if they've been tipped over. All of your senses connect to your nervous system through the brain-stem through the 12 pairs of cranial nerves. The muscles that move your eyes side to side, up and down, dilated or constrict your pupils, and open and close your eyelids connect to the brainstem through the cranial nerves. The muscles that move your tongue, jaw, and enable you to swallow connect to your brainstem through the cranial nerves. If Terri can breathe on her own, then it sounds like her brainstem and reticular formation are ok. So there's how she can move her eyes around, swallow if you put something down her throat, and so on. That doesn't mean there's a person in there. It just shows that some of the hardware is still connected. She would also probably jerk her hand away if you jabbed it with a pin, or grab your finger if you touched her palm. But those are simple spinal reflexes-- they'd work the same way if her head were cut clean off. I'm just trying to offer some information about what is and isn't working in Terri's nervous system. You're free to evaluate that information however you wish. The question of what makes a person a person is not cut and dried, but I do believe the medical information is pretty straightforward. -kimmy

On what basis do you say that? Do you object to the word "simulating", as opposed to (for instance) "re-enacting"? Or is there something else that makes it implausible that I'm just not seeing right now? -kimmy

On the husband's financial motives: he has been offered a million dollars to simply sign over guardianship of Terri; he refused. I think that is all the response needed to the accusation that he's just after the money. caesar, with all due respect, you have no idea what you're talking about. I actually *do* have some idea what I'm talking about, as I have been attending a neuroanatomy class this winter. And while this doesn't make me a neurosurgeon or anything, it does at least give me an idea of how a brain is put together and how a brain is supposed to work. Of the ideas floating around in discussions about Terri, and her chances of recovery, it's obvious that a lot of these ideas are coming from people who *don't* have any idea how a brain is put together or how it is supposed to work. Let's have a look. First, here's the CT of Terri's brain. We're going to refer back to this often: http://www.amptoons.com/blog/images/schiav...avo_ct_scan.jpg So, what actually are we looking at? The bright white stuff is bone. The dark blue with no features in it is fluid. The lighter blue is soft tissue. Some of it is neural tissue (grey or white matter) and some of it is connective tissue (veins and the membranes that cover the brain-- the meninges, primarily what's called "dura mater".) While it is hard to tell soft tissue apart, the central fissure of the brain is clearly visible: it's the light blue line between the hemispheres in Terri's brain. The central fissure is line with dura mater, so it appears that the connective tissue shows up lighter than the neural tissue in the CT. The problem with a CT scan is that they are very good for bones, and not very good at telling soft tissue apart. That's why some people feel that an MRI scan would give a better indication of how damaged Terri's brain is. The truth is, while an MRI would give a better indication of how destroyed Terri's brain is, the CT shows enough to know that it's pretty darn destroyed. First off, the most obvious feature of Terri's CT scan is the huge "blobs" right in the middle. Those "blobs" are the lateral ventricles. In a healthy brain, these are narrow wedges when seen from the top (from the side, they look kind of like the letter "C"). In Terri's brain, they're swollen to several times their normal size. The little white thing in the middle of Terri's right ventricle is a piece of hard material; I am assuming it is some portion of the thalamic implant mentioned in the blog that makes it impossible for Terri to have an MRI. The grotesque size of the ventricles is evidence of how much brain tissue is missing. But what kind of tissue? Grey matter or white matter? Actually, it doesn't really matter: either way, she's suffered huge amount of damage: if it was grey matter, she's simply lost the mental capabilities associated with that portion of the grey matter. If it was the white matter, then the connecting pathways in her brain have been lost; whatever grey matter was associated with the lost white matter is now disconnected. Here's a picture contrasting a healthy brain (click here for image) with an infant who has suffered leukemia that has resulted in the death of brain tissue. Note how narrow the ventricles are in the healthy adult brain as compared to the ventricles in Terri Schiavo's brain. Terri's brain looks a lot like the poor infant whose brain is here in picture 2. As the body removes dead brain tissue, cerebrospinal fluid fills the empty space... this is also what has happened in Terri's case. We can learn more from the CT scan by looking at the edges of the brain close to the skull. From the picture of the healthy brain, we can see the little grooves at the outside of the brain are narrow and tight. And on Terri's brain, we see that they are huge and wide and spread out. There's big lakes of fluid instead of little grooves. This *IS* evidence of how much grey matter Terri has lost. The surface that those grooves are formed in is the grey matter. In particular, look at her frontal lobe: in Terri's brain, the gray matter has shrivelled so badly that there's nothing but fluid where the grey matter of the frontal lobe is supposed to be. Similar atrophy is clearly visible on the sides, around what used to be Terri's temporal lobes-- in the healthy brain, the groove between the temporal lobe and the parietal lobe is tight, and in Terri's brain it's all fluid. There's just nothing there. The CT clearly does show that parts of Terri's brain that are responsible for things like personality, thought, and language comprehension are simply *not there anymore.* Now, maybe you saw a TV show where they had people who had been declared vegitative, but if they were there talking, they had functioning frontal lobes and temporal lobes. Terri doesn't. She never will. The ability to heal or regenerate those part of the central nervous system is simply beyond medical science. -kimmy {and on Chretien: if applying the "Shawinigan handshake" to the throat of a homeless protester doesn't make you a scumbag, then what does? If ordering the pepperspraying of university students, then joking about it later doesn't make you a scumbag, then what does?}

Is there statistical information to support your claim? Yes. I presented it in a discussion here sometime last fall. Based on homicide figures from Stats Canada. I can't be bothered to find the information right now, but I'm sure that with a little use of this forum's search functions you will be able to dig it up. Can statistics not give us an idea of how well it's working? 1) I can't see the future. Neither can you. That's a cop-out. We can at least make educated guesses as to the outcomes, can we not? For example, you said you believe the registry will be more effective in reducing crime than Argus' police ass-scratchers. You have reasons for this belief, yes? Ok, let's state them. There's some truth to this. Even before the arrival of the firearms registry, there has been a long-term trend of a declining number of yearly firearms deaths in Canada. But if one looks a few years before the registry and a few years after, surely there wouldn't be any societal change having more impact on gun violence than the registry itself? How so? This is another of those situations where you can explain what you think and why you think it. -kimmy

I'll second the claim that the registry has not prevented gun crime in Canada. There's no statistical information to suggest otherwise. Of course, the response will be: well it hasn't been operating long enough to have an impact yet. Give it some time and we'll see. So instead of arguing about what it has done, let's discuss what it *will* do. Will the gun registry reduce gun crime in Canada? IMT, you can start off the "yes" side. Argus, please start off for the "no" side. I will chime in later with my own views. -kimmy

Hello, I don't believe Senate Reform has ever been on the Liberals' agenda. While Paul Martin might have an academic interest in the subject, I think he'd sooner jab a fork into his own eyeball than attempt to pursue any kind of constitutional reform. In the case of Senate reform in particular, an "equal" senate would never fly amongst voters in his central-Canada power base. And an "elected" senate is contrary to his needs as a political leader. If he can't hand out senate seats as rewards to party hacks, then what can he use instead? -kimmy

I have suggested that even had there been no political opposition whatsoever, there would still have been substantial delays due to the flaws built into the registry through inadequate computer systems and excessively complicated forms. They have confessed themselves that they were unable to properly process even the applications they did receive. So while blaming opponents for the backlogs is certainly a convenient excuse for registry administrators, I think it's very appropriate to question how much of the delay was *really* due to opponents, and how much is was a result of their having to revamp their computer system. It's there in black and white that their computer system had problems that Are we really supposed to believe that they were able to do business as usual while they were replacing their computer system? I personally feel that it's a lot more of the latter than registry-types are willing to admit, and that their stubbornness in clinging to the former is the real politicking being played here. I know you disagree with that, and that's fine. We'll agree to disagree. Aside from that line of thought, there's also the registry's own 2002 audit. They claimed total costs of $629 million, of which staffing and "other" costs were included in a $332 million figure. Since the argument for backlogs causing cost over-runs is that they had to keep staff on longer than planned, and since *total* staff costs (according to their figures) were only half of the cost of the venture, and backlog-related costs were necessarily only a portion of total staff costs, we're clearly looking at a portion that was much less than half the total costs. So while you might have a fair point in saying that opposition to the program contributed to the costs of the program, I personally doubt that it constituted a significant portion of the cost over-runs. I think logic and examination of the facts they've offered us bears that out. I feel that allowing the government to use this as an excuse for the cost over-runs without any scrutiny is simply another failure of our government to provide any kind of accountability. -kimmy

Are you a twelve-foot lizard, Black Dog? Just asking, because I'm not. Yet. -kimmy

It is tragic and very sad that this has gone on for so long. What I find saddest is the poor woman's family. "They've saved her life!" her sister said in one article I read. No, they didn't save her life. She's dead in every way that counts, and has been for years. Even if their quack doctors could somehow regrow her cerebral cortex (not that any medical research is even close to suggesting this is possible...) the person that she used to be has been long gone. I would think that true Christians would want to let the poor woman go be with god. And one would think that courts who have looked at this case over the span of 7 years would have a better understanding of this case than a bunch of politicians who are jumping on this to score some quick political points. Using a brain-dead woman and her family as a political football is saddening. -kimmy