Quality of Life

To you who cannot see the value in a "damaged life" and who would judge "quality of life" for someone else, as the mother of a severely retarded son, I offer this:

> > An elderly Chinese woman had two large pots, each hung on the ends of a pole which she carried across her neck.

One of the pots had a crack in it while the other pot was perfect and always delivered a full portion of water.

At the end of the long walk from the stream to the house, the cracked pot arrived only half full. For a full two years this went on daily, with the woman bringing home
only one and a half pots of water. Of course, the perfect pot was proud of its accomplishments.

But the poor cracked pot was ashamed of its own imperfection, and miserable that it could only do half of what it had been made to do.

After 2 years of what it perceived to be bitter failure, it spoke to the woman one day by the stream.

"I am ashamed of myself, because this crack in my side causes water to leak out all the way back to your house."

The old woman smiled, "Did you notice that there are flowers on your side of the path, but not on the other pot's side? That's because I have always known about your flaw, so I planted flower seeds on your side of the path, and every day while we walk back, you water them. For two years I have been able to pick these beautiful flowers to decorate the table. Without you being just the way you are, there would not be this beauty to grace the house."

Let's dump the tax code

by SCOTT BURNS / The Dallas Morning News

A modest proposal: Let's dump the entire tax code. Let's gather all the tax documents we can find, put them in a big heap and have a nationally televised Tax Code Burning Day. If the tax lobbies protest, well, let's toss them on the fire, too.

Good riddance.

Tax Code Burning Day is a new idea, and possibly a bit extreme, but the idea of chucking our income tax system has been around for quite a while.

When I suggested, 10 years ago, that we were all suffering from TDB - tax debate burnout - 5,000 readers agreed. They sent in letters and postcards in support of then-Congressman Dick Armey, R-Flower Mound, and his proposal for a simple flat tax.

Had we adopted the flat tax, we would have avoided a decade in which tax debate has become absolutely poisonous. We could have acted with unity in response to 9-11 and the recession. We might not have the acrimonious, divisive and future taxpayer-punishing tax cuts won by the Bush administration because we¹d already have a broad, lower tax rate. We'd be a healthier country, pulling together.

But that's all spilt milk.

Congressman Mr. Armey's flat tax would have exempted the first $13,100 of income (single return) or $26,200 of income (joint return). Each child would exempt another $5,300 of income. All income over these broad exemptions would be taxed at a straight 17 percent. No itemized deductions need apply.

It was, and remains, a great idea. You would pay no taxes until you had enough income to survive. After that, everyone would pay at the same rate. It's a graduated tax that would eliminate taxes for millions of households.

If reader mail is any indication, everyone liked it except our elected friends in Washington. They, regardless of party, hated it.

Those who make their living sucking up to them really hated it. They want to retain the right to create special tax breaks for left-handed residents of Idaho born under the sign of Aries. They also want to retain the ability to create special business tax breaks to make our air completely polluted, provided it is done with coal by electric utilities.

The only problem with the Armey flat tax proposal was that it didn't go far enough. We need to chuck the entire tax system - we need to eliminate the income tax, the employment tax, the corporate tax and the inheritance tax. We need to start over. Also online

About the Fair Tax

Americans for Fair Taxation

The Fair Tax Act of 2003

The reason for this is that our tax system is so complicated, so ridden with exemptions, special tax breaks and other results of years of highly successful lobbying that we can't have a reasonable conversation about what the real tax burden is and who pays it.

Regardless of which party is in power, we¹re always playing three-card Monte with Washington.

So consider the Fair-Tax proposal, known in Congress as H.R. 25. Houston-based tax reform organization Americans for Fair Taxation has proposed that we eliminate the existing tax system - every bit of it - and replace it with a national sales tax. We would no longer have a special tax on labor, the employment tax. We would no longer tax capital. Instead, we would tax consumption.

Live modestly. Spend little. Your tax bill will be tiny.

Live extravagantly. Spend lots. Your tax bill will be substantial.

Save and invest your money, and you'll pay no taxes. The money will be providing employment and helping the economy grow. Taxes are only paid when you withdraw the money from productive use and spend it on consumption.

Concerned about the regressive nature of sales taxes? Not to worry.

Every household would get a prebate - a monthly check from the government - of all the sales taxes they would pay on any expenditures they would make up to the poverty level.

As a consequence, millions of families would pay little or nothing in taxes. The rest of us would pay taxes in direct proportion to what we consume. We would pay it at a single rate of 23 percent when we buy new goods. Used goods would not be taxed.

What would that do for you and me? Lots.

It would end the fastest-rising and most regressive tax in America, the payroll tax. It would mean that Social Security and Medicare would be supported by a broad consumption tax on money from work, interest, dividends, capital gains and old capital - not just labor income up to $90,000.

It would allow us to focus on a single broad tax as the "price of a civilized society." It would end the ruthless game of divide and conquer that both political parties have been playing for decades.

It would allow us to focus on and debate the biggest unanswered question we face: How large a Social Contract do we want in America?

Scott Burns answers questions of general interest in his Thursday columns. Write Scott Burns, The Dallas Morning News, P.O. Box 655237, Dallas, Texas 75265.

Happy Easter

"Whoso stops his ears at the cry of the poor, he also shall cry
himself, but shall not be heard."

Proverbs 21:13

"If you forbear to deliver them that are drawn unto death and those
that are ready to be slain...does not he that ponders the heart
consider it? and he that keepeth thy soul, does not he know it?
and shall not he render to every man according to his works?"

Proverbs 24:11,12

"Jesus said 'For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty and ye gave me no drink;'...Then shall they answer him saying, 'Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst...and did it not unto you?' Then he shall answer them saying, '...Inasumuch as you did it not to one of the least of those, you did it not to me. And these shall go away into everlasting punishment...'"

Matthew 25:42,44,45

I Want To Know Why

The President of the United States and Governor Bush have lost my respect and my support.

If they can explain why the President and/or the Governor can pardon criminals and save them from death row, yet they could not save Terri, I'll listen but I'll be hard to convince.

The Florida courts said that Elian Gonzales should stay in America yet Federal Marshals went in, at the order of the Attorney General and the President of the United States and sent him back to Cuba.

Why didn't the Federal Marshals do the same to save the life of an American citizen?

I want to know.

I've given my heart, my time, my faith and a heck of a lot of money to support the Bushs until now. However, I don't follow anyone blindly. And even the blind can see that both the President and the Governor had plenty of precedent to act decisively to save a life. And that, after all, is the most important thing anyone can do on this earth.

John 15:13 "Greater love hath no man than this: That a man lay down his life for his friends." And the President and the Governor didn't even have to lay down their lives. All they had to do was sign a little piece of paper.

Maybe the Bushes are weeds after all.

Go With God, Terri

March 24th, 2005

Dear Terri,

You don't know me and you never will. Unfortunately, I know a lot more about you than you could have ever imagined. I am not alone; there are millions of your fellow Americans who can say the same thing. The information I have been given about you is intimate, conflicting and disturbing. I try not to think about you, but the stories about you appear everywhere I look.

The more I learn, the more confused I become. The facts surrounding your situation are complex and hard to grasp. They have been reviewed, analyzed and parsed by every conceivable outlet, agency and personality. I have strived to get to the heart of it. Look for the critical thought paths and logic. Seek the building blocks of reason from which I can take a strong, immutable position.

I have listened to Constitutional experts from Georgetown University Law School. These are not light weights and I always admire the intellectual horsepower they demonstrate by analyzing very complex legal issues and defining them in lucid, easy-to-understand terms.

Somehow, their explanations in your case leave me cold and unsatisfied. I am not at all certain we have done the right thing here. I accept that we are a nation of laws deeply embedded in and flowing from our Constitutional heritage. I understand the inherent tension between federal intervention and states rights. But something gnaws at my psyche like an ulcerous sore. It seems as though we may be technically and
narrowly correct in the adjudication of your situation, but in doing so, have lost sight of a greater good and a time-honored tradition of going to the assistance of those whose lives are in jeopardy.

Many years ago, I was sent to a place called Vietnam. Many others went there as well. It was difficult and filled with instances in which Americans were wounded and for brief periods of time were totally incapable of taking care of themselves. Without hesitation, their comrades sprang to their defense and rescue. Many of the rescuers lost their lives in the effort or were seriously wounded. There was a deep
bond among all of us that said if you were hurt, I will be there to help you. Count on it. It was that trust that made going into harm's way more comfortable and reassuring. It was trust, Terri, that absent my own ability to decide my fate, I could count on others to give me a second chance.

The men and women who participated in these efforts could have hidden behind the rules and the process that said they shouldn't do it because it was too risky. No one would have blamed them. But, they didn't. They stepped out bravely and put themselves on the line and saved lives that surely would have been lost. They showed leadership and courage and took great risks. Their efforts are what help define our American culture.

You see, Terri, this is my experience with protecting life. If there's hope, if there's a chance, if there's a way then we should step into the fray and make it happen. The technocrats will always be there to criticize the efforts. They will sight laws and precedent and opinions. They always do. In Vietnam, they would have been the ones who said that the weather was too bad for the evacuation helicopter to fly into the landing zone where a young soldier or Marine was dying. Despite their
pessimism, a brave air crew took off, rescued them and saved lives that were surely lost if they had listened to the pundits.

That"s what sticks in my craw, Terri. Globally, we seem willing to commit American lives to protect and save lives elsewhere, but right here under our noses, we lack the courage to step from behind the technical interpretation of law and personally ensure that everything has been done to protect yours. Just days ago, they ruled that your feeding tubes were to be removed.

Terri, I am a Dad and a grandfather. I try to imagine what it would be like for me if one of my three beautiful daughters were in your place. I try to imagine watching those tubes being removed and being powerless to stop it. I try to imagine what I would feel seeing you deteriorate each day as your body slowly shuts down because someone who probably never stood by your bedside, looking down into your eyes, made a purely legal call.

I know that I would be incarcerated by now, because I would force my way into your room, and hold you and hug you and cry the tears of utter despair as the flesh of my flesh slipped from my life; and it was all …so legal. I would be restrained firmly and gently by security guards,the ambivalence of their orders etched on their faces, as they dragged me from your room.

Soon, Terri, you will be delivered from all this. You will find peace in a place where the purpose of your life is not restricted by the laws of man nor debated by those who have chosen to ignore the primacy of life. You will be whole and beautiful again. When you reach that place, pray for us and forgive us.

Rest in peace, Child of God.

Semper Fidelis,

Dave St. John

In Love With Death

PEGGY NOONAN

The bizarre passion of the pull-the-tube people.

God made the world or he didn't.
God made you or he didn't.

If he did, your little human life is, and has been, touched by the divine. If this is true, it would be true of all humans, not only some. And so--again, if it is true--each human life is precious, of infinite value, worthy of great respect.

Most--not all, but probably most--of those who support Terri Schiavo's right to live believe the above. This explains their passion and emotionalism. They believe they are fighting for an invaluable and irreplaceable human life. They are like the mother who is famously said to have lifted the back of a small car off the ground to save a child caught under a tire. You're desperate to save a life, you're shot through with adrenaline, your strength is for half a second superhuman, you do the impossible.

That is what they are trying to do.

They do not want an innocent human life ended for what appear to be primarily practical and worldly reasons--e.g., Mrs. Schiavo's quality of life is low, her life is pointless. They say: Who is to say it is pointless? And what does pointless even mean? Maybe life itself is the point.

I do not understand the emotionalism of the pull-the-tube people. What is driving their engagement? Is it because they are compassionate, and their hearts bleed at the thought that Mrs. Schiavo suffers? But throughout this case no one has testified that she is in persistent pain, as those with terminal cancer are.
If they care so much about her pain, why are they unconcerned at the suffering caused her by the denial of food and water? And why do those who argue for Mrs. Schiavo's death employ language and imagery that is so violent and aggressive? The chairman of the Democratic National Committee calls Republicans "brain dead." Michael Schiavo, the husband, calls House Majority Leader Tom DeLay "a slithering snake."

Everyone who has written in defense of Mrs. Schiavo's right to live has received e-mail blasts full of attacks that appear to have been dictated by the unstable and typed by the unhinged. On Democratic Underground they crowed about having "kicked the sh-- out of the fascists." On Tuesday James Carville's face was swept with a sneer so convulsive you could see his gums as he damned the Republicans trying to help Mrs. Schiavo. It would have seemed demonic if he weren't a buffoon.

Why are they so committed to this woman's death?

They seem to have fallen half in love with death.

What does Terri Schiavo's life symbolize to them? What does the idea that she might continue to live suggest to them?

Why does this prospect so unnerve them? Again, if you think Terri Schiavo is a precious human gift of God, your passion is explicable. The passion of the pull-the-tube people is not.

I do not understand their certainty. I don't "know" that any degree of progress or healing is possible for Terri Schiavo; I only hope they are. We can't know, but we can "err on the side of life." How do the pro-death forces "know" there is no possibility of progress, healing, miracles? They seem to think they know. They seem to love the phrases they bandy about: "vegetative state," "brain dead," "liquefied cortex."

I do not understand why people who want to save the whales (so do I) find campaigns to save humans so much less arresting. I do not understand their lack of passion. But the save-the-whales people are somehow rarely the stop-abortion-please people.
The PETA people, who say they are committed to ending cruelty to animals, seem disinterested in the fact of late-term abortion, which is a cruel procedure performed on a human.

I do not understand why the don't-drill-in-Alaska-and-destroy-its-prime-beauty people do not join forces with the don't-end-a-life-that-holds-within-it-beauty people.

I do not understand why those who want a freeze on all death penalty cases in order to review each of them in light of DNA testing--an act of justice and compassion toward those who have been found guilty of crimes in a court of law--are uninterested in giving every last chance and every last test to a woman whom no one has ever accused of anything.

There are passionate groups of women in America who decry spousal abuse, give beaten wives shelter, insist that a woman is not a husband's chattel. This is good work. Why are they not taking part in the fight for Terri Schiavo? Again, what explains their lack of passion on this? If Mrs. Schiavo dies, it will be because her husband, and only her husband, insists she wanted to, or would want to, or said she wanted to in a hypothetical conversation long ago. A thin reed on which to base the killing of a human being.

The pull-the-tube people say, "She must hate being brain-damaged." Well, yes, she must. (This line of argument presumes she is to some degree or in some way thinking or experiencing emotions.) Who wouldn't feel extreme sadness at being extremely disabled? I'd weep every day, wouldn't you? But consider your life. Are there not facets of it, or facts of it, that make you feel extremely sad, pained, frustrated, angry? But you're still glad you're alive, aren't you? Me too. No one enjoys a deathbed. Very few want to leave.

Terri Schiavo may well die. No good will come of it. Those who are half in love with death will only become more red-fanged and ravenous.
And those who are still learning--our children--oh, what terrible lessons they're learning. What terrible stories are shaping them. They're witnessing the Schiavo drama on television and hearing it on radio. They are seeing a society--their society, their people--on the verge of famously accepting, even embracing, the idea that a damaged life is a throwaway life.

Our children have been reared in the age of abortion, and are coming of age in a time when seemingly respectable people are enthusiastic for euthanasia. It cannot be good for our children, and the world they will make, that they are given this new lesson that human life is not precious, not touched by the divine, not of infinite value.

Once you "know" that--that human life is not so special after all--then everything is possible, and none of it is good. When a society comes to believe that human life is not inherently worth living, it is a slippery slope to the gas chamber. You wind up on a low road that twists past Columbine and leads toward Auschwitz. Today that road runs through Pinellas Park, Fla.

Ms. Noonan is a contributing editor of The Wall Street Journal and author of "A Heart, a Cross, and a Flag" (Wall Street Journal Books/Simon & Schuster), a collection of post-Sept. 11 columns, which you can buy from the OpinionJournal bookstore. Her column appears Thursdays.

Citizens Against Government

Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) has named freshman Louisiana Rep. Charles Melancon (D-La.) Porker of the Month for fighting the President’s proposed budget cuts, opposing the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), and bringing home the bacon for his district. Rep. Melancon belittled the President’s attempts at deficit reduction, calling $15 billion in farm subsidies a "miniscule" part of the federal budget. A longtime leader of the sugar industry, Rep. Melancon chose his opposition to CAFTA, a treaty that would lift some restrictions on sugar imports, thereby lowering costs for domestic food processors and American consumers, as the topic of his first appearance on the House floor. Rep. Melancon also took credit for $30 million in pork-barrel projects included in the $284 billion highway authorization act. For resisting much-needed reforms in flawed and abused farm subsidy policies, for shielding the sugar lobby from the free market, and costing taxpayers and consumers billions, CAGW names Rep. Charles Melancon its Porker of the Month for March.

Good for Goose and Gander

An interesting part of the Pantano case is the media intimidation that is occurring.

Lt. Pantano, you may remember, is the Marine who is on trial for murder. He shot two Iraqi insurgents in Iraq, in a war situation, after warning them to stop. That kind of killing happens in war. It always has. John Kerry testified before Congress that he shot a Viet Cong in the back and that he murdered others whom he said were helpless and yet he didn't go to trial.

I plan to write a good deal more about this situation because of what I'm hearing about what is happening to others who have been writing about it. Unlike them, I have nothing to lose.

A fellow blogger was threatened with a lawsuit by a JAG attorney because of her posts about Pantano. She is sympathetic to his cause.

Another more famous name has written about this case with sympathy. Michele Malkin writes in her recent post titled LT. PANTANO UPDATE, "I should note that I have received correspondence urging caution on this story. Always wise. I just hope the Marines exercised as much caution as possible before putting Lt. Pantano in this awful position."

Mona Charen tells the story succinctly,"On April 15, 2004, "commanders dispatched Lt. Pantano's men to a house believed to hold insurgents and weapons. The Marines found bomb-making equipment and were removing it when two Iraqis tried to speed away in a sport utility vehicle, according to Lt. Pantano's account. The Marines stopped the SUV by shooting out the tires, apprehended the two (Iraqis) and placed them in flexible handcuffs. After setting up a security perimeter, Lt. Pantano took off the cuffs and had the two search the vehicle as he supervised." (Presumably so that any booby traps would not kill U.S. Marines.)
After a few minutes, the two suspected insurgents stopped searching and began to move quickly toward Lt. Pantano. Pantano's lawyer explained that "they started talking in Arabic and turned toward him as if they were going to rush him." Pantano shouted at them in Arabic to stop. They did not. He shot and killed both of them. He then placed a sign on the SUV repeating the slogan of Marine Gen. James N. Mattis, "No better friend; No worse Enemy."
Investigation later revealed that the vehicle held no explosives or weapons. By this time, Pantano had participated in the battle of Fallujah. A superior officer evaluated him as an "accomplished infantry leader. His actions during the fighting in Fallujah and Al Zaidon highlighted a solid understanding of tactics and an ability to anticipate the enemy. Leads from the front always and balances his aggressive style with true concern for the welfare of his Marines. Exceptional communication skills for a 2nd Lt. Organized, aggressive, focused and driven. Ready for increased responsibility. Retain, promote, and assign to challenging assignments."

Although Lt. Pantano is to go before an Article 32 hearing on April 25, Congressman Walter B. Jones, R-N.C., introduced a resolution Thursday expressing support for Pantano and calling on the government to dismiss the charges against him.

We can all help with that. Go here to write your congressperson to ask him or her to support HR 167.

It does seem to me that if we are going to punish our soldiers for action in this war, we should punish John Kerry retroactively for his action in the Viet Nam war ...and after, when he committed treason. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, they say.

Sneak-A-Taxes

by Herman Cain

April 15th marks a national springtime ritual that has nothing to do with April flowers. It's the official due date to file our federal returns for taxes we know about and those we never see coming until after they hit us.

Sneak-a-taxes are taxes buried in the 9-million-word tax code mess.

Some of these sneak-a-taxes start out as temporary, but Congress conveniently forgets to end them. Or maybe they just pretend to forget.

Consider the withholding of income taxes. Congress enacted automatic withholding in 1943 as a way to fill the U.S. Treasury coffers each month and mask the true cost of federal spending. Congress explained to the public that, since the United States was busy fighting World War II, automatic withholding was necessary to fund the war effort in a timely fashion.

Congress also promised that withholding would end as soon as the war was over. That war ended 60 years ago.

Automatic withholding is a sneak-a-tax. When you receive a refund check, it means yougave the government an interest-free loan. Many workers have more taxes withheldthroughout the year than they will owe on April 15th to avoid writing Uncle Sam a check or incurring an underpayment penalty. They then seem overjoyed that theyreceive a big refund check from the U.S. Treasury. We are so conditioned to celebrateour sudden windfall from the government that we forget that it is our money in thefirst place. [Ed note: and money you would have earned interest on had you placed it in a savings account.]

The alternative minimum tax is another sneak-a-tax that should have been repealed years ago. The AMT laws were enacted in 1969 by a Democratic-controlled Congress to sock it to the so-called rich. The AMT is a calculation that assigns an alternate tax amount due if your regular income tax liability is not as high as Congress would like it to be.

It is simply an unfair way of forcing people to pay more taxes, even if they follow all the rules and mandates in the convoluted tax code. Each year, the AMT bandit holds up more and more of the so-called rich.

In 2004, anestimated 2.6 million taxpayers fell prey to the AMT. By 2010 33 million, or an estimated one-third of all taxpayers, will be subject to the AMT. All because youand your spouse worked hard enough to earn at least $75,000, which in 1969 was considered rich.

The AMT does not consider inflation, a family's decision for both spouses to work, nor the promotion you received because you worked a little harder last year. The AMT punishes people for investing, working harder and growing their small businesses.

More sneak-a-taxes include corporate income taxes, which lead to higher consumer prices, the double taxation on dividends and corporate earnings, taxes paid on Social Security benefits, raising the maximum income subject to payroll taxes, lowering the maximum limit for certain taxable deductions, limiting the equipment expensing amount for small businesses, and the many taxes, fees, and surcharges hidden in your monthly phone bill.

In fact, one of the most ridiculous sneak-a-taxes is the Federal Excise Tax. The Federal Excise Tax, which is figured at 3 percent of your phone bill, was enacted in 1898 to help pay for the Spanish-American War. That war ended 107 years ago.

The federal tax code is filled with bandits, loopholes and limited deductions. Mostpeople can't afford to find all the loopholes and deductions, but the tax-code bandits find everybody.

The only solution to locking up the tax-code bandits and making sure they never escape is to first repeal the 16th Amendment to the Constitution, which gives Congress the "power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived."

Second, we must replace the federal income tax code with a national sales tax, also known as the FairTax.

Under the FairTax, all citizens will see an increase in their personal incomes and intheir ability to save and invest for their future and their children's futures.

Credit must go to President Bush for bringing long-overdue debate on overhauling the tax code mess to the forefront of the national political agenda. But Congress will not take action without a vocal and persistent demand from the voters in betweenelections, and not just on election days.

Let's put the tax code bandits out of business. Ask your members of Congress to replace the tax code with the FairTax. If they say no, or do nothing, then it's time to replace them.

And that will not be a sneak attack.

Herman Cain is chief executive officer of T.H.E. New Voice, Inc. and New Voters Alliance, and host of the nationally syndicated radio talk show The Bottom Line with Herman Cain. He is past chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, and past chairman and CEO of the National Restaurant Association.

Musings on Lies and Liars

When I was small, children were taught not to tell lies. In fact, I remember some switchings when I got caught in a "little fib." When we asked why we were told "because it's wrong."

That was easy enough to remember because we were taught a lot of things that were "right" and "wrong." It's right to help someone in need and to share what you have. It's right to take responsibility for what you do; it's right to tell the truth.

The other side of the coin was just as clear. It's wrong to cheat, no matter how much easier things would be if you did. It's wrong to steal -- either a person's possessions or his reputation. It's wrong to tell a lie.

Honor was important and not telling a lie was very much a part of honor. People should be able to trust you and your word. If you gave a promise you kept it.

My generation pretty much took that for granted. We expected to tell the truth and expected people to tell the truth to us and that worked pretty well until we began to notice, sometime in the '70s or '80s that there were quite a few people who didn't seem to function that way.

Then came President Clinton. He lied under oath -- an intentional, premeditated, out-and-out lie -- to a Grand Jury. An offense that, thirty years before, was a felony (A person is guilty of perjury, a felony of the third degree, if in any official proceeding he makes a false statement under oath or equivalent affirmation, or swears or affirms the truth of a statement previously made, when the statement is material and he does not believe it to be true) for which he would have been convicted, removed from office and sent to jail.

But the argument was that it was all right to lie under oath if it's on a private, personal matter.

So here we are. Terri Schiavo did not leave a "living will" instruction as to what she preferred in a medical situation like the one she has been in for 15 years.

In the early years, Michael Schiavo said they had never talked about such things because "I was young." But when she was awarded millions of dollars for medical care and therapy, he changed hs mind. With dollar signs in his eyes, Michael suddenly "remembered" that she had, indeed, said she didn't want to be kept on life support systems.

Somewhere in there is a lie. Michael either lied when he said she didn't or he lied when he said she did. So Terri is, in effect, murdered by a lie.

Today Michael says there's only $50,000 left of the millions but, of course, he's not counting the investments he's made and the dollars he's tucked away. The house he lives in far exceeds in value anything a part-time nurse could afford -- and that's what Michael is. A part-time nurse who couldn't keep a job because of his temper.

But back to more questions. I made a living will several years ago but I've asked that it be torn up because I now understand something I didn't know when I made it. That is, there's a difference between life support and life sustenance.

Life support is when they use machines to keep the lungs and heart going. Life sustenance is food and liquids -- something we all need to stay alive and must have every day. I prefer not to rely on machines to keep me alive; but I expect sustenance -- food and water -- if everything else is working.

Why, you wonder? Because I have seen such amazing progress in medical science in such a short time that I believe eventually every medical problem will be solved. I have seen people with half their brain removed recover so that they look normal, with perhaps the slightes ataxia (shaking) in one hand. I know that people who have been "vegetables" have recovered.

Most of all, I believe in life. It is totally wrong to judge a situation and say that it is hopeless UNLESS that situation is death.

Death is irreversible. When someone goes into death all their promise, all they are..is gone and can't be retrieved. With death there is no hope.

It is inexcusably wrong to kill an innocent, living human being. It is wrong to say that she is now what she always will be -- life proves every day that nothing stays the same and medical science continues to surprise us all.

A judge sentencing a living, breathing, laughing Terri Schiavo to death makes a lie of justice.