Right to Die

Europe recently had it's version of the Terri Schiavo case. A brain dead patient was removed from life support after a very publicized litigation. Some claim that these patients are internally conscious, while most doctors claim otherwise. I tend to think the doctors are right, but the evidence is not compelling.

Given that there is not a consensus, the method used to terminate the patients life, withholding food and water, is potentially cruel. Dying of hunger is not painful, but dying of thirst is. Unfortunatley, dying of hunger takes a long time, and is therefore much more expensive.

Seems to me the cost should not enter the equation, and the current method should be discontinued as potentially inhumane.

So Much for 'Post Racial'

Eric Holder, the US attorney general, came under fire for this quote:

"Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial, we have always been and continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards."

Rush Limbaugh, displaying his usual keen intellect, called these comments 'inexcusable', and in the very same show said, "People are scared to death to talk about race in this country, Mr. Attorney General, for fear of what's going to be said about them."

Ummm... Rush, if it's inexcusable, why did you say the same thing???

Meanwhile the reason for racial cowardice was amply demonstrated by the reaction to the New York Post, whose political cartoon depicted the recent shooting of a chimp by police, with the caption, "They'll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill."

Given that the stimulus bill was written by a bunch of white males, it is hard to imagine this as a racial comment. But emotions are not always rational, and since lots of people are easily manipulated, the opportunists are out in force.

Al Sharpton can be expected to participate. He dances on the logical tightrope necessary to reach an audience that understands the original intention of the cartoon: "Being that the stimulus bill has been the first legislative victory of President Barack Obama and has become synonymous with him, it is not a reach to wonder: Are they inferring that a monkey wrote the last bill?"

But I am disappointed in the NAACP, whose chairman said, "It seemed to me, an invitation to assassination of the President of the United States, told in the crudest, most ugly way,". The only thing being assassinated here is the credibility of the NAACP, and that is very sad.

Proportionality

Critics have been complaining that Israel's attacks in Gaza violate the principle of proportionality. The same complaint was made during the Lebanon war of 2006. Now, I'm not a big fan of Israeli policies. Settlements in occupied territory are a crime against humanity, for example. But the principle of proportionality is not applicable in Gaza.

Think of it this way. Someone who hates you comes up to you and offers to let you cut off his pinky if he can cut off yours. Of course you refuse. Quick as a wink he pulls out a cleaver and lopps your finger off. When the police show up they say you have the right to cut off his finger, and no more. Somehow this proportionality principle is making your enemy pretty happy. Tomorrow he will come take another finger.

A better way to justify how much force is acceptable is the principle of minimal deterrence. You should retaliate with the least force which will deter future aggression and no more. In many cases the retaliation can be less that the original attack and still provide a sufficient deterrent. Nuclear weapons among civilized nations fall into this category.

But against Palestinian militants, 1 to 1 is certainly not a sufficient deterrent. They would be thrilled to have such a ratio and would gladly sacrifice martyr after martyr for the opportunity to kill Israeli civilians.

Hopefully the minimal ratio is not too large.