So says ABC News. (Link via DBR.)

Prof. Althouse visits the LBJ Presidential Library and offers some neat pictures. There's also this exchange, in reference to some counter-culture songs being played at the museum: "'Did people hate him more than George Bush?' Chris asks. 'Yes,' I say without hesitation." Prof. Muller takes issue with that, at least as "hatred" is manifested in approval/disapproval poll results.

With the caveat that I wasn't around during President Johnson's tenure, I think there's at least a case to be made that antipathy for LBJ was deeper than the current incarnation against President Bush. For starters, Prof. Althouse points to two big differences between then and now: "Remember, there was a draft, and many more people were dying in Vietnam." I think that personalized so much of the anti-war sentiment then, while so much of the current anti-war feeling (not all, of course, but a lot) is purely political, as in how will it help get Democrats elected.

I mentioned a long time ago here my stepfather's story about the night LBJ announced he wouldn't run again. (He was at the school where Prof. Muller is now.) Everyone watched that speech in suspense because they were worried they might all be going to war. When LBJ dropped his bombshell, a party broke out. People didn't watch Bush's "surge" speech, for example, with the same kind of personalized fear, and I think one reason LBJ-hatred was so strong was that he made them feel like they were all under the gun. And the casualty reports from Vietnam reinforced that sense of dread.

Also, while there are anti-war protests and marches now, they aren't on the scale that happened during the late 1960s. Plus, for as much as some people hate Bush and blame him for everything from the condition in Iraq to the attacks of Sept. 11, there are a lot fewer people up and leaving the country on principle now than there were then. I realize there are ways to express hatred short of hopping the Canadian border, especially if you're not going there to avoid conscription. But you're going to have to do something more than, say, post an online impeachment petition to convince me that you're overcome with enmity and despair.

Finally, and maybe most importantly, so many people hated LBJ that, less than four years after winning one of the biggest electoral landslides ever, he was hounded from office and declined even to run for re-election. In contrast, a lot of people said they hated George Bush in 2004, but he ran and was re-elected with a majority of the popular vote. Maybe he couldn't win an election today, and maybe a lot of people who didn't hate him two years ago hate him now, or are more willing to express it than they were against Johnson. Prof. Muller does have some numbers on his side. I'm not saying it's another LBJ landslide. So maybe Prof. Althouse shouldn't have answered "without hesitation." But LBJ certainly has a strong argument in his favor. And maybe Prof. Muller should prefer it that way -- after all, look what all that Johnson-hatred got us: President Nixon!

I mentioned organ donation a few posts back in regard to the death of UNC mascot Jason Ray. Then I saw (via Slate) this story in the Post about a new model anatomical gift law. (For the nonlawyers, model uniform laws like this are promulgated from time to time by a panel of experts, in order to foster uniformity among state laws. Click that last link for more.) Several states have passed the Revised Uniform Anatomical Gift Act or are working on it.

There are a couple of interesting, and potentially controversial, aspects of the law. Basically, the organ donation decision -- often made in haste in the driver's license line -- trumps in most cases. For one thing, the donor's decision trumps the wishes of family members who might not want to donate a loved one's organs. For another, it might trump the donor's decision not to be placed on life support if doctors need to keep the donor alive long enough to get the organs ready for harvesting. Some people are also worrying that it might make doctors more reluctant to administer palliative care if they worry it might damage the organs.

These are the kind of concerns you could spend a semester in a Bioethics class discussing. But I'm cautiously in favor of the revisions. First, the donor's intent should trump the desires of third parties, but of course it's desirable for donors to discuss their intent with their families. Second, the living will conflict can be handled with better notice at both ends -- perhaps a pamphlet from the DMV when you check the box, and a paragraph on the living will form or something.

Over time, and through experience, I'm sure this new protocol will become the norm. Hospitals will have to get used to it, and while there will surely be glitches, I think overall it will streamline the process and lead to more donations. I think the life support provision might cause some fuss, given the existing controversies over when to declare a patient dead and harvest the organs. But it's not as if they'd want to keep someone alive Schiavo-style, for years, because that would degrade the organs. At most, I'd think, we're talking about a few hours or days until the harvesting and donation apparatuses can be put in place.

I think most people who go to the trouble of declaring an intent to donate organs and also execute a living will are going to have some idea that this overlap exists, and will probably be okay with a limited amount of preservation. A little play in the joints, if you will. I know that's the position I'll take. So if anyone out there reading this knows me and is around when my end-of-life decisions come into force, I want to donate my organs, and although I don't want extended life support measures (especially if I'm in a PVS), I'm okay with limited life support until they can harvest me of all the good parts. After that, Dandy Don can take it away: "Turn out the lights, the party's over...."

(The subject of this post is a line a bum used on me once in New York City.)