"I sensed her soul in agony" from the mind of Cowgirl Up.

Well, well. Michael Schiavo's attorney George Felos, the one who seems to think that starving to death results in "a look of beauty and peace", has written a book. Excerpts from the screed, titled Litigation as Spiritual Practice, prove to be extremely revealing:

Although feeling like I could drift into sleep, I also experienced a sense of heightened awareness. As Mrs. Browning lay motionless before my gaze, I suddenly heard a loud, deep moan and scream and wondered if the nursing home personnel heard it and would respond to the unfortunate resident. In the next moment, as this cry of pain and torment continued, I realized it was Mrs. Browning. I felt the mid-section of my body open and noticed a strange quality to the light in the room. I sensed her soul in agony. As she screamed I heard her say, in confusion, 'Why am I still here - why am I here?' My soul touched hers and in some way I communicated that she was still locked in her body. I promised I would do everything in my power to gain the release her soul cried for. With that the screaming immediately stopped. I felt like I was back in my head again, the room resumed its normal appearance, and Mrs. Browning, as she had throughout this experience, lay silent.

New Age zeal appears to be nothing new to egomaniacal lawyers. As we might recall, one of them recently ran for public office.

Over the past week I've found it interesting how many are so quick to dismiss those on the right-to-life side of this argument as zealots. In my book, mind-reading and channeling the thoughts of the dead and silent, severely incapacitated individuals is more indicative of zealotry than speaking out in favor of erring on the side of life.

Separated at Birth? from the mind of Cowgirl Up.

Scott Peterson and Michael Schiavo



Couldn't resist the "separated at birth" comparison between these two bottom-feeders, so I whipped up this image. (I researched the prices of everything... that is, indeed, how much Peterson paid for the boat.) Striking, the resemblance, don't you agree?

One does have to wonder what Peterson thinks when he watches this Schiavo character out there on TV, achieving what Peterson succeeded in completely botching...

Dancing On A Terrorist-Sympathizer's Grave. from the mind of Zeke_Wilkins.

Tomorrow, March 16th, marks the second anniversary of the death of Rachel Corrie. Steven Plaut of Front Page Magazine has an article from a year ago (found here) detailing the events surrounding her death as well as her connections to terrorist organizations. The world is truly a better place when evil moonbats such as Ms. Corrie stand in front of earthmovers and have their life crushed out of them and cease to support the random bombing of Israeli children.

Packing a sack lunch. And heat! from the mind of Zeke_Wilkins.

In the latest edition of The Mast, the student paper of Pacific Lutheran University (my alma mater) had an article on the campus weapons policy. Below is the response I submitted for publication:


I recognize that PLU as a private institution has the legal right to ban firearms from campus; and when I'm on campus I comply with the conduct code. But it is important to ask: does this rule accomplish anything? The answer is "no": the university's stance on the concealed carrying of handguns not only fails to accomplish what it sets out to do, it actually causes harm.

First, the weapon policy fails to secure the campus. PLU had a no weapons policy long before the tragic shooting of Professor Halloway. This event, and other weapons violations, illustrate that rules will never protect the PLU campus from violence and weapons. Short of surrounding the campus with razor wire and having everyone entering campus pass through metal detectors, there is little that PLU can do to guarantee the safety of students, faculty and staff. Just as the "dry campus" policy fails to keep alcohol off campus, the anti-firearm policy is impotent to stop anyone from bringing firearms onto campus.

Second, the weapon policy unnecessarily infringes on the right to self defense. PLU prides itself in maintaining an environment welcoming of diversity, free speech and expression, and thoughtful inquiry. Yet when it comes to the issue of self-defense, the university seems closed minded: they require mandatory disarmament while unable to secure the campus from violence. It is immoral to force individuals to remain unable to protect themselves. Since it has been shown that there is a substantial benefit for women who carry handguns concealed, the reluctance of allowing eligible women from carrying seems especially unjust.

Third, the weapon policy actually fosters a criminally friendly environment. By declaring the campus a weapon-free zone, PLU announces to armed criminals that at least initially they will meet little or no resistance. Further, the policy creates a false sense of security and sets a dangerous precedence: that one can depend on others for their safety. Neither the police nor campus security can be personal bodyguards, and it is irrational and irresponsible to believe so.

Given that the current policy is useless; I encourage President Anderson and the Board of Trustees to reconsider allowing eligible faculty, staff, and students to carry handguns concealed. Holders of concealed handgun licenses are, as a group, some of the most responsible citizens around. Licensees take great care to always abide by the law, undergo thorough background checks, and are as competent as law enforcement officers; sometimes more so. In recent years both the Center for Disease Control and the National Academy of Sciences have announced that they have found a lack of evidence that anti-firearm policies save lives. Rather, it has been shown that areas that allow for the lawful carry of defensive weapons see a reduction in violent crime. It is with all of the above in mind that I call for an honest reassessment of PLU's weapon policy.