Reality TV

One of the bad things about staying in a Hotel is... the TV. I didn't grow up with one, and Paula and I don't own one. When it's on I am totally distracted by it. Some of my friends can study with it on: if there is one on in a bar in the far corner I'll have to constantly fight looking at it to remain in a conversation.

Sometimes when I'm in a hotel I'll turn it on and channel surf for hours. I only do this in a hotel. Last night I was doing this and I landed on a reality TV show called American Chopper. I'd never heard of it before. The premise is simple: a father/son team build custom choppers for shows, competitions, and (I guess) customers. It is all welding and sculpture work -- I've seen most of the basics before: the same skills are used when putting together particle physics detectors. But the outcome is totally different (detector, chopper)! It was a lot of fun watching them putting stuff together; much more my speed that most of the other reality shows I've heard of (but never seen).

Comments

[sgaileach1]

Television has become a glaring (and oftentimes sickeningly so) example of the failure of education to meet the standards required to keep the general public anywhere near the cutting edge and reality of the world in which we live. Rather than a means to get real information to the people who can make decisions and act with wisdom and responsibility where called upon to do so, it is become at best a frivolous distraction of quibbling egos and confusion of key issues to the point of obscuring obvious solutions, only further marginalizing the voice of reason to the point where it is beyond shame, beyond embarrassment. Some might say the sort of ignorance it represents is the greatest threat we face to day as a species. So, how about a War on Ignorance, that aught to be fun?

That said I believe there of course is still hope. I am in awe of where we have come as a race, and give thanks every day for my life and a chance to live in such profound times as these. I sincerely believe that we are generally moving in the right direction, and will get there if people just have the courage to step up and speak for something greater then themselves with the confidence that most advocates of faith proclaim, and continue to educate so those voices gradually coalesce into a well informed public that establishes the level of responsibility required of positions of leadership and influence to bring us safely to where we are going, or just to help define more clearly where that is, even where we are now, as I am constantly amazed at how few fully realize what sort of world it is we truly do have the honor and privilege to be a part of.

THAT said, does anyone else not believe we are essentially watching the murder by starvation of a beautiful and innocent young woman with her entire life ahead of her because people have been so distracted and polarized by the tube as to somehow think the key issue here is whether or not she is comatose? This is murder by ignorance in my mind, where none and all are guilty, particularly when successful clinical studies on humans began at Harvard and elsewhere as early as 2001 establishing the possibility to regenerate severely damaged brain cells using umbilical cord tissue, not even a quasi-moral issue.

What strikes my as most disturbing is that while all the questions about political motivations, individual corruptions, and inane right vs. left babble that inevitably takes place every time the ugly side of the media shows its face in rallying the circus around such tragic humanitarian crisis as this have of course been ever-present throughout, virtually NO ONE is asking the fundamentally obvious question:

Can we save this person's life, and not only that but bring her fully back to health once more to live it? I believe I have read enough of the literature as a student and a journalist to know that this is indeed possible. I have emailed and/or phoned just about everyone involved with Terri Schiavo's case from the media to doctors to lawyers, and no one seems willing to take this on. They seem almost afraid more then doubtful.

This is destined to be precedent setting either way. I would prefer, as I am sure most would prefer, to see humanity and life win out over another breakdown of information into ignorance and death, yet it seems we are to watch the execution of that life because people are too distracted and too polarized by the Tube to think critically enough to recognize the simple obviousness of what it is we are doing by failing to act now. Is there anything more important than the chance to save even one innocent human life?

I am terrified that in a time like today the world can allow this sort of thing to happen every single day. Someone must know a doctor that knows a doctor, you know how that sort of thing goes, six degrees of separation and all. Get my the syringe and I'll find a way to get it to her myself. Perhaps then she can awaken before she is wrongfully put to death by fearful people acting on horrible information, and give us her opinion on all this irrelevant BS. Maybe it can be an example of how to act in unity in the future, rather than yet another wonderful contribution by TV of what not to do, and all the wretched ways to fail to do it.

[Gordon Wayne Watts]

Quoting the, sgaileach1@sbcglobal.net, reader/poster above: "I have emailed and/or phoned just about everyone involved with Terri Schiavo's case from the media to doctors to lawyers, and no one seems willing to take this on." (Posted by: sgaileach1 | March 25, 2005 05:38 AM)

Gordon Wayne Watts of Lakeland, Florida responds:

I did a search on my name in the Internet and found a blog by another Gordon Watts, who apparently studied a little bit more physics than I myself. (I got my bioloical and chemical science bachelors with honors from The Florida State University and only got up to the first two physics classes with the most excellent tescher, the late Dr. Fred Petrovich, who taught me in both classes, God rest his soul.)

Anyhow, I did in fact try to address this matter, and, if you go to my web pages, listed at:

http://HomeTown.aol.com/gww1210

http://GeoCities.com/Gordon_Watts32313

or even

http://GordonWatts.com

then you will find I came closer than anyone on the planet to freeing Terri, losing on a 4-3 split decision in Florida's Supreme Court, in case number SC03-2420, a habeas plea, for the illegally imprisioned (late) Theresa Schiavo, who was placed in a hopsice while not terminally ill, a violation of state and federal law, etc.

For the most part, however, you are right: The major players were AWOL -absent without leave and asleep at the switch.

Now, if you check into a Florida hospital and have a speech impediment -you might not get fed. (Terri was, as the videos of her show, very much conscious and cognizent, looking around, and, as many allege, very much able to eat and drink, but denied both feeding tube and also food and water; her lack of therapy may have diminished her ability to eat regular food, but even if true, this would constitute a denia lof proper medical treatment and thus felony abuse under state law definitions; The fact a judge said other wise no more makes this true than when a judge declared Dred Scot a slave in Scot v Sanford, the US Supreme Court case that touched off the US Civil war.)

Gordon Wayne Watts
821 Alicia Road
Lakeland, Florida 33801-2113
Gww1210@aol.com / Gww12102002@Yahoo.com
863-688-9880
863-686-3411
863-687-6141
**
**

[Gordon Watts]

Hi Gordon! I found your web site a while ago. I suspect the two of us have two totally different views on this issue. But one point, you make it sound like she was basically up and about and interacting (speaking, etc.) -- but no doctor seems to have said that (even the ones hired by her parents). There is also the issue of having her husband her guardian (one way that I look at it is I want my wife to be making these decisions for me if I were in that condition, not the state or the federal gov't). But no matter how you look at this whole mess, however, there was no dignity. All sides are at fault for that.

[Gordon W. Watts]

Well, I would not go so far to say that she was up and kicking butt, but here are two links to a video that would shed light on the subject:

http://gordonwatts.com/ConversationWithTerri.wmv

http://hometown.aol.com/GordonWWatts/myhomepage/ConversationWithTerri.wmv

Yes, Gordon, you are right that there are many problems, and blame goes to all points, myself included for not acting faster, better, etc.

Here are a few "talking points," however...

Now, we ask ourselves, is it even the duty of the press to "press the courts" to be fair? While many in the news media say it is not morally correct to influence the courts, the constitutional forefathers say differently:

"Free press doctrine lionized the press as the prime defender of public liberty in its role as a bulwark against governmental tyranny."

http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/lpbr/subpages/reviews/martinrowt.htm

ISSN 1062-7421
Vol. 12 No. 2 (February 2002) pp. 79-83.

THE FOUNDING OF AMERICAN DEMOCRATIC PRESS LIBERTY, 1640-1800 by Robert W. T. Martin. New York: New York University Press, 2001. 238 pp. Cloth $40.00. ISBN: 0-8147-5655-7

Reviewed by Rick A. Swanson, Department of Political Science, University of Louisiana at Lafayette

Thus, the "free press" was NOT willing to "press" the courts to be fair, and thus the following.

TRANSLATION: Had the news media given me more coverage, the out-of-control judges might have yielded one more vote, and, instead of me losing 4-3, I might have WON on a 4-3 split, and Terri Schiavo WOULD have been free and with us today, giving a press conference --and why? Because I am right on the facts and issues:

*PRACTICAL POINT - it could happen to you.* What if YOU are in a hospital, and possibly able to eat and drink, even if it's only applesauce or milkshakes and Jell-O, would YOU like to be deprived of a chance to drink some cool, sweet grape juice, apple juice, water, etc.? (That is, when a person's going to die anyhow, what's to lose by trying to eat and drink?)

*LEGAL POINT - sufficient judicial review?* Why do people continue to say that this Schiavo matter has received *plenty* of review by many courts, when the Florida 2nd District court of Appeal, in Schindler v. Schiavo, 800 So.2d 640, at 646 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) admitted that "...the opinions of the remaining doctors may have been limited by their inability to examine Ms. Schiavo or obtain necessary diagnostic information..."??

*LEGAL POINT - re-litigation* Since the courts in 1992 ruled that Theresa Schiavo's wishes be that she get therapy, rehabilitation, medical care, etc. for like 50 more years, and this decision was never overturned on appeal and became final, then how do those with legal knowledge say that this case has been "litigated and decided" to the extent that "Terri's wishes" were to be denied both feeding tube and regular food and water and other medical care, like antibiotics? (Those familiar with legal things will recognize that Greer's court violated res judicata by re-litigating this matter, when it was a violation of collateral estoppel to find that Terri would be denied medical care, food, etc.)

*MORAL POINT - considering both Jewish and Christian views* If you're one of those Bible thumpers who say it's "God's will" that Terri "go on to live with God," then how do you explain away scriptures like these in the Old Testament (accepted by Jews and Christians) as well as the New Testament Scriptures?

OLD TESTAMENT (Quoting "Wise man," Solomon, accepted by Jews and Christians)

Proverbs 24 (KJV)
11 If thou forbear to deliver them that are drawn unto death, and those that are ready to be slain;
12 If thou sayest, Behold, we knew it not; doth not he that pondereth the heart consider it? and he that keepeth thy soul, doth not he know it? and shall not he render to every man according to his works?

Proverbs 24 (NIV)
11 Rescue those being led away to death; hold back those staggering toward slaughter.
12 If you say, "But we knew nothing about this," does not he who weighs the heart perceive it?
Does not he who guards your life know it? Will he not repay each person according to what he has done?

Proverbs 31 (KJV)
8 Open thy mouth for the dumb in the cause of all such as are appointed to destruction.
9 Open thy mouth, judge righteously, and plead the cause of the poor and needy.

Proverbs 31 (NIV)
8 "Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute.
9 Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy."
Epilogue: The Wife of Noble Character

NEW TESTAMENT (Quoting "Wise man," Jesus; Letters of Christ in red)

Matthew 25 (NIV – Jesus is not a happy camper at this time - He tells some people to "Go to Hell" for picking on His little sister, Terri. Those people end up in Hell, we are told.)
The Sheep and the Goats
31 "When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
34 "Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'
37 "Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'
40 "The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'
41 "Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'
44 "They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'
45 "He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'
46 "Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

(***Resources for this last point below: You may look up state laws, such as 825.102(3) at:
http://FLSenate.gov/statutes

Federal Laws should be looked up in Google.com somehow.***)

*LEGAL POINT - State and Federal Law* If you're a lawyer or legal type that said that the rules and laws were upheld when denying Terri food and water, then how do you square that assertion with the following? (Hint: A judge's ruling is lower than laws, in the same manner that a referee's call is lower than the rules of a game.)

§825.102(3),Fla.Stats. “(a) “Neglect of an elderly person or disabled adult” means: 1. A caregiver's failure or omission to provide an elderly person or disabled adult with the care, supervision, and services necessary to maintain the elderly person's or disabled adult's physical and mental health, including, but not limited to, FOOD, nutrition, clothing, shelter, supervision, medicine, and medical services that a prudent person would consider essential for the well-being of the elderly person or disabled adult; or
(b) A person who willfully or by culpable negligence neglects an elderly person or disabled adult and in so doing causes great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement to the elderly person or disabled adult commits a FELONY of the second degree, punishable as provided in §775.082, §775.083, or §775.084.”
§744.102(10)(b), Fla.Stats., discussed infra, defines: “To “meet essential requirements for health or safety” means to take those actions necessary to provide the health care, FOOD, shelter, clothing, personal hygiene, or other care without which serious and imminent physical injury or illness is more likely than not to occur.” (Emphasis supplied) While this definition does not technically apply to chapter 825 supra, it nonetheless comports to and is in accord with said chapter.
OASAM Code of Federal Regulations, Part 35: NONDISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF DISABILITY IN STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES provides that necessary and appropriate rehabilitation services and physical motor skill therapy may not be denied a substantially disabled patient in the United States of America, §35.130(e)(2) states, “Nothing in the Act or this part authorizes the representative or guardian of an individual with a disability to decline food, water, medical treatment, or medical services for that individual.” (Emphesis was added in capitol letters above to selected words, to clarify.)

PS: Here are my credentials -

Legal - I came closer than anyone to winning Terri's release, garnering more than 42 percent of the vote in one Habeas plea, case number SC03-2420, before Florida's Supreme Court: I lost 4-3 on rehearing before this court in that case number, but Jeb Bush lost 7-0 on rehearing before the *same* court and on the *same* issue: I did better due to the legal strategy I used in using *current*l laws instead of asking that new "Terri's Laws" be written:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=site%3Aprweb.com+watts+schiavo

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2005/2/prweb212613.htm

http://hometown.aol.com/Gww1210/myhomepage/CourtCases.html#Expedite

http://www.geocities.com/gordon_watts32313/CourtCases.html#Expedite

Biological - see my signature at the very bottom, in which I graduated with honors and a double major from The Florida State University, and in the which I was the valedictorian of my class in what was called United Electronics Institute before it changed to Florida Metropolitan University.

GW Watts
Lakeland, FL

Gordon Wayne Watts http://GordonWatts.com
BS, The Florida State University, Biological and Chemical Sciences
AS, United Electronics Institute

ALWAYS FAITHFUL - To God
And God bless my friends who made me this picture.
821 Alicia Road, Lakeland, FLA, USA 33801-2113 http://HomeTown.AOL.com/Gww1210 or http://www.GeoCities.com/Gordon_Watts32313
Home: (863) 688-9880 Work: (863) 686-3411 Voice&FAX: (863) 687-6141
Gww1210@aol.com ; Gww12102002@Yahoo.com
Truth is the strongest, most stable force in the Universe.
TRUTH doesn't bend to the will of tyrants.
Gordon Wayne Watts
Get Truth.

"First, they [Nazis] came for the Jews. I was silent. I was not a Jew. Then they came for the Communists. I was silent. I was not a Communist. Then they came for the trade unionists. I was silent. I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for me. There was no one left to speak for me." (Martin Niemoller, given credit for a quotation in The Harper Religious and Inspirational Quotation Companion, ed. Margaret Pepper (New York: Harper &Row, 1989), 429 -as cited on page 44, note 17, of Religious Cleansing in the American Republic, by Keith A. Fornier, Copyright 1993, by Liberty, Life, and Family Publications.

(Actually, they may not have come for the Jews first, as it's far more likely they came for the prisoners, mentally handicapped, and other so-called "inferiors" first -as historians tell us -so they could get "practiced up;" But, they did come for them -due to the silence of their neighbors -and due, in part, to their own silence. So the general idea is correct: "Speak up now, or forever hold your peace." --Gordon)
*
*

[Gordon Watts]

Hi Gordon. Well, as you may guess, I disagree with you on most of your points. :-) David Brooks, who is a conservative NYTimes columnist, wrote a great column on the problems with the arguments on both sides for this case that really resonated with me. I've included the list at the bottom, but sadly, it is more than 2 weeks old, and the NYTimes charges for everything more than 2 weeks old. Basically, what he says is that one side has the very clear moral message, and the other side has addressed the pratical issues. The failings of each side are the opposite of the other sides strengths.

As far as judges being held accountable -- that is a tricky slope. You want them to uphold the constitution, and not be subject to outside pressure (like elections: I strongly disfavor elections for all sitting judges). Otherwise they are subject to the influence of current opinion rather than what is written in the constitution. And that document is, of course, living: how we interpret it and how we use it changes over time. I think this is one reason why it has lasted so long. The new constituions that are being drawn up these days (like the EU's) are 100's of pages long: will they surive the test of time?

I take that back, 200 years isn't that long... Still!

As far as what I would like to have done to me -- see previous comment. I want my wife to decide.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20610FA3F5B0C758EDDAA0894DD404482&n=Top%252fOpinion%252fEditorials%2520and%2520Op%252dEd%252fOp%252dEd%252fColumnists%252fDavid%2520Brooks

[Gordon Wanye Watts]

Thank you for your studied reply, Gordon.

I was able to put selected text in a search engine, and found this:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22The+core+belief+that+social+conservatives+bring+to+cases+like+Terri+Schiavo%27s+is+that+the+value+of+each+individual+life+is+intrinsic%22

and

http://tampatrib.com/nationworldnews/MGB60SDSW6E.html

where the full article is still online.

I would like to pick a bone with one statemanet that this author makes. He says: "If you surveyed the avalanche of TV and print commentary that descended upon us this week, you found social conservatives would start the discussion with a moral argument about the sanctity of life, and then social liberals would immediately start talking about jurisdictions, legalisms, politics, and procedures."

This is not totally true: I am a "social conservative," and I started my "discussion" with the "practical" and "leagl" arguments, only settling in on some moral arguments long after I had set the tone.

You say you disagree with me on most of my points, and I would imagine that one point is how long to keep hanging in there if a person is disabled. That is my educated guess on your views.

However, you don't specifically say where agree or disagree.

What do you think of the legal points I raised?

The practical point -which some find scary?

If you think the Bible is accurate, then this would suggest that Jesus would have us to at least try to give Terri a cup of water, if the is going to die anyhow, as it couldn't get any worse.

Nonetheless, I raise many good legal arguments, because our laws are still pretty good -even if not enforced, so I am principally curious as to what you and your colleagues think of my fine legal arguments.

Thank you,

Gordon Wayne Watts
Lakeland, Florida, USA