Peter Byrnes wonders why Terri Schiavo is being given morphine? Good question.

Reihan notes Rik Hertzberg’s writing on Terri Schiavo. You’ll recall that the question is whether the left wants Terri dead because Christians want her alive, or because they see saving her life as a blow to abortion rights.

Judging by Hertzberg, it’s a little of both.

But let’s pose this hypothetical: Had the movement to save Terri been identified primarily with disability rights groups (as it was in the early years of the case), and not with Christian pro-lifers, would the left have reacted so strongly in favor of her death?

If you foolishly ignored me yesterday, go to the Michael Bay Blog right now. From his summer movie report card:

TROY: Wolfgang Petersen is the guy who you hire if I’m too busy. Hell, he may be the guy you hire if Simon West is too busy. That said, A PERFECT STORM made Warner Brothers a lot of money, and with the LOTR films making bank this sounded like a good idea. Unfortunately it was mostly boring, and I fell asleep through a lot of it. If I want to read a history book, I’ll go to the library. And the leads all looked really gay to me. I half expected Brad Pitt and Eric Bana to start making out at some point, while Orlando Bloom watched and touched himself.

Copenhagen has a new opera house that—before you fall asleep—has been compared to the grill on a 1955 Pontiac. Fact check! I think the naysayers at WeekendAdvisen meant a 1955 Chevy. Anyway, the new “Operean” is rather captivating. And the grill effect seems rather a positive. It lends shape to what might have appeared to be a large glass bulb.

Did you know the Washington, D.C., police operates a Gay and Lesbian Liaison Unit?

Here is just an excerpt from today’s Washington Post:

“When [Sgt.] Parson teaches police officers at the police academy how to deal with the gay community, he starts with Gay 101. They are blue-collar, white-collar, French collar and no collar. They may withhold the whole truth from you because their lives often are shrouded in necessary fictions. They might be uncomfortable dealing with you because they have been humilated by you in the past….”

Galley Friend M.R. sends along a link to a blog penned by Michael Bay. His manifesto:

Hey readers, admirers, hangers-ons (including you Jerry O’Connell… just kidding), and hot women, I’ve decided to compile some of my thoughts from past interviews and discussions. Also, when I’m not too busy putting the finishing touches on my latest film, THE ISLAND (7/22/05) or scoring with some hot chicks, I’ll post my thoughts about the business and life.

I think I know who’s behind the Michael Bay Blog, but I don’t want to spoil the fun. Worth your valuable time. Another choice sample:

“Dating Fez” has become a euphamism at Casa De Bay; it means you’re stretched out. This kid is a Scott Biao for the 21st century. I’m happy for him (I’m no hater), but I’m also happy to be on the Pre-Fez line of some of his conquests.

Get your Bay Blog before it’s too late.

Bill Kristol has a sobering assessment of our robed masters:

Last month the Supreme Court saved Simmons’s life. The citizens, legislators, and governor of Missouri (and those of 19 other states) had, it turned out, fallen grievously and unconstitutionally behind “the evolving standards of decency that mark a maturing society.” Five justices decided that the Constitution prevented anyone under the age of 18 from being sentenced to death. So Christopher Simmons will live.

It appears, at this writing, that Terri Schiavo will not. . . .

. . . it would be wrong to suggest, as some conservatives have, that our judicial elite is systematically biased against “life.” After all, they have saved the life of Christopher Simmons. It would be wrong to argue, as some critics have, that our judges systematically give too much weight to the husband’s wishes in situations like Terri Schiavo’s. After all, our judges have for three decades given husbands (or fathers) no standing at all to participate in the decision whether to kill their unborn children. It would be wrong to claim that our judges don’t take seriously legislation passed by the elected representatives of the people. After all, our judges are committed to upholding the “rule of law”–though not, perhaps, the rule of actual laws passed by actual lawmakers.

Eric Cohen’s article on How Liberalism Failed Terri Schiavo is outstanding. First, he recalls the basic facts on the ground:

In February 1990, a sudden loss of oxygen to the brain left Theresa Marie Schiavo in a coma and eventually in a profoundly incapacitated state. Terri’s husband, Michael Schiavo, took care of her, working alongside Terri’s parents. He took her to numerous doctors; he pursued experimental treatments; he sought at least some modest restoration of her self-awareness. In November 1992, he testified at a malpractice hearing that he would care for Terri for the rest of her life, that he “wouldn’t trade her for the world,” that he was going to nursing school to become a better caregiver. He explicitly reaffirmed his marriage vow, “through sickness, in health.”

But the lonely husband eventually began seeing other women. His frustration with his wife’s lack of improvement

seemed to grow. When Terri suffered a urinary tract infection in the summer of 1993, he decided to cease all treatment, believing that her time to die had come, that this was what Terri would have wanted. But Terri’s caregivers refused to let her die, and Michael Schiavo relented–for the time being. Not all Terri’s doctors, however, saw their medical obligation in the same way; one physician declared that Terri had basically been dead for years, and told Michael that he should remove her feeding tube. Michael responded that he “couldn’t do that to Terri,” that he could never leave his wife to die of dehydration. But at some point, his heart changed. He decided that it was time for her final exit and his new beginning. He decided that his own wishes–for children, for a new family, for new love unclouded by old obligations–were also her wishes. He decided that she had a right to die and that he had a right to let her die.

Cohen then isolates the two primary questions in the case:

First, what would Terri Schiavo have wanted? Would she want to die rather than live in a profoundly incapacitated condition? Was Michael Schiavo’s decision to remove her feeding tube an act of fidelity to his wife’s prior wishes or an act of betrayal of the woman entrusted to his care? Second, what was Terri Schiavo’s precise medical condition?

Read it all.