BLOG

WorldMagBlog is posting about euthanasia in the Netherlands. My understanding was that it was already legal in that country to euthanize without the express consent of the patient, yet the latest Dutch debate is whether they should allow for the euthanatizing of patients who have "no free will," meaning infants and incognizant persons. Question: If I am bound and gagged, does that put me in the "no free will" category?
The following quote is from Herbert Hendin in his book, Seduced by Death .

The experience of the Dutch people make it clear that legalization of assisted suicide and euthanasia is not the answer to the problems of people who are terminally ill. The Netherlands has moved from assisted suicide to euthanasia, from euthanasia for people who are terminally ill to euthanasia for those who are chronically ill, from euthanasia for physical illness to euthanasia for psychological distress, and from voluntary euthanasia to involuntary euthanasia (called ?termination of the patient without explicit request'). The Dutch government's own commissioned research has documented that in more than a thousand cases a year, doctors actively cause or hasten death without the patient's request.

Lisa Yount in Euthanasia backs this up.

One doctor, for instance, euthanized a woman with advanced cancer against her will because 'it could have taken another week before she died. I . . . needed this [hospital] bed. '

Pretty soon you'll have pass an IQ test to earn the right to stay alive.

Here are some sites worth checking out.  First up is a blog focusing strictly on scientific news breaks. ScienceDaily has much of the same thing but in more of an uncondensed newspaper format.  Check out some very cool bugs in the entophiles, or get specific and look at insects from a single country, like Thailand.  For you water-loving folks, visit the Aquarium of the Pacific and browse the Animal Database.  Learn to distinguish a butterflyfish from a mackerel or a goby, or sit back and look at the best photos of the month from FishBase.  There is a site out there for you, whether you prefer amphibians, or reptiles, or if you'd like to click through the whole animal kingdom (but be aware of the evolutionary slant).
Two other sites I like are Nine Planets--"A multimedia tour of the solar system"--and another site called Naturesongs, where you can play clips of bird calls, bee buzzings, or--if you're interested--the sound of a striped skunk.

Please note: The "Recommended Sites" page has been updated.

NYT reports that homosexual students increasingly are challenging the traditional requirements for becoming homecoming king or queen--namely, the requirement to be male or female.

This is a seriously bizarre story.   A pregnant woman in Columbia had a cafeteria drink, felt light-headed, and woke up in a field to find someone had kidnapped her unborn child by C-section.
Sounds like a plot for a thriller.

This is from North Korea, our favorite.
The Washington Times has the story.

Brokaw is gone, now Rather is done . . . Jennings must be feeling the ice on his neck by now.  And who has the courage to mention it? The New York Times!

"Terrorism" is a euphemism.  Let's stop using it.
In a press release, the FBI defined international terrorism as " violent acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the US or any state, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the US or any state. Acts of international terrorism are intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, influence the policy of a government, or affect the conduct of a government."
This definition is so broad and vague I begin to think terrorism has no definition at all.  Think; if voluntary and involuntary euthanasia is legal in the Netherlands (it is), but a crime in the US, will the FBI start hunting Dutch doctors?  Something that is a crime by local law cannot define terrorism.  You'll notice no one uses "terrorist" to describe any national government--Hitler's holocaust, or the mass graves behind the iron curtain and in the hills of Iraq, are never called acts of terrorism, though I think they certainly qualify. People attempt to limit the term to individuals or groups who are not the clear governmental authority in their country.
War is terrorism.  The purpose of war is always to "intimidate or coerce a civilian population, influence the policy of a government, or affect the conduct of a government."  In other words, to beat the enemy.  But war can often serve a good purpose, despite the brutality of it.
The Bush administration and US government in general calls our enemies terrorists because it is not politically correct to call them what they (or at least many of them) are--Islamic jihadists.  You see, that sounds bad for Islam.  (By the way, 27 million is still out for info leading to the capture of Osama. . .)
We should call acts of violence or genocide or war or euthanasia what they are, and knock off labeling everything anti-US, "terror".  However sincere they are, the interests and policies of the US government do not define the good and evil in the world.  Terrorism is euphemism, so look twice when you see it.

Surprise, surprise. This is from a New York Times story about Liberty University's new law school--Liberty School of Law--which I hadn't heard about 'till now.  It is not accredited by the American Bar Association yet, which is means that the students are taking the risk of not being able to take the bar exam when they graduate in 07, unless Liberty gets accredited before then.  But the school's mission statement looks good.


Read the rest of it here.