Humane Starvation?

The recent issues surrounding the Terri Schiavo case have hit me square in the gut and have completely knocked the wind out of me. I am not one of those who is always against removing life support from a suffering individual, but I am also not one of those who hail Michael Schaivo's actions as heroic acts in defense of civil rights.

What gets me the most about this issue is the fact that Schiavo, who endured undeniable brain injury, was not in a coma, but lived in a seeming state of at least minimal consciousness. In conjunction with this, no one had any undeniable proof that Terri was, as her husband said, against being kept alive by artificial means.

The reason why Terri was denied any and all forms of nourishment escapes me completely. I guess I could better understand the idea that Terri would have to try to live by eating and drinking on her own, but I do not understand how anyone could deny her nourishment in any form. That's like taking someone off of a ventilator and, seeing them begin to breathe on their own, smother them with a pillow. That is insane. At the very least, Terri should have had the opportunity to eat under her own power.

Instead, this woman was sentenced to death based on one man's claim that she would not have wanted to live like she was living. Why her husband didn't simply relinquish his rights to Terri's parents is also beyond me. They were willing to spend the time and money to care for her, and he wasn't. He wanted her dead and he spared no expense to make sure it was done.

Makes you wonder if Mr. Schiavo wanted her dead for fear that she may recover well enough to spill the beans about any possible assault or attempted murder on his part. Why else would someone go through all this trouble to see that another person is eliminated? If this theory holds any water whatsoever, then my wife was accurate when she said that, "this was the perfect murder."

We wouldn't even do this to sick dogs.

Which Disneyland Attraction Are You?

Splash Mountain: Everybody's got a laughing place to go-go-go-woah!

You are a romp through folk lore from the old south, a cheery log ride that is always pleasant despite such unfortunate circumstances like a five story drop into a briar patch that proves to be more fun than scary.

You are casual, friend, warm, and inviting, if a little reckless, it's always a zip-ee-dee-do-dah day for you even when you get yourself into some mighty steep trouble.

What movie you sprung from, Disney doesn't like to tell, some consider it racist, but never you mind, the critters inside of you (previously stars of 'America Sings') are always cute and you are just here to have a good time.

You love the camera and you live life to your fullest, your thinking is that if 'you WILL get wet' you might as well sieze the day!

===============================

Thanks to Jason M. Hammond for making this quiz available to me. He knows better than most how much I truly love this sort of thing.

To be honest, I was originally found to be most like the Mark Twain Riverboat, but since I have never actually set foot on the darn thing, I took the test again and changed a few of my answers.

If you would like to see Jason Hammond's quiz results, click here.

If you would like to take this quiz for yourself, click here.

If you are not a fan of Disneyland, click here.

Social Security

I understand that the issue of Social Security reform is something that causes people to become uneasy. The thought that the livelihood of our golden years is being tampered with does not make for lighthearted party conversation. The feelings of concern are warranted.

Let us not forget, however, that emotions alone do not make for very solid ground from which to make monumental decisions. Americans need to weigh the specific elements of the proposal with a clear head and fair mind. Just because the idea of creating personal retirement accounts is very ambitious and cutting-edge, does not mean we need to write it off without some serious considerations to the benefits.

Personal retirement accounts would be voluntary. If any American decides that his or her hard-earned money is more wisely invested in the American economy rather than in the deep pockets of Washington, shouldn't’t he or she have the opportunity to make that decision? Why should I trust the government to use my money more wisely than I could? They can’t even balance their own budget.

Personal retirement accounts could be passed on to children and grandchildren. Social Security only takes care of me, not my family. I want the money I invest into retirement to go to my loved ones when I die, not into back into the system. I don’t like the idea of working a lifetime to support another man’s family and leave mine out to dry.

Personal retirement accounts would grow at a much higher rate and in much more capable hands than Social Security currently does. I would rather invest my money into the American economy rather than into government accounts run by career politicians. I know that millions of people think that investing is tantamount to rolling craps dice hoping to land a seven, but the track record for balanced investments is undeniable.

The C Fund (common stock index fund), would be one of many options available for personal retirement accounts, and has yielded an average of 10.99% over the past ten years. The lowest average is the I Fund (international stock index fund) with a 4.32% average annual return over last ten years. Either way you look at it, your money will yield more in personal retirement accounts than in the pockets of Bush and Cheney.

This is a big decision and we need to approach it carefully and with wisdom. Look closely at the proposal and try to separate this from the Bush name.

Michael Gray
Avondale