Several years ago, I had a living will done up. If the worst should happen, I’m never going to have to concern myself that politicians, like leeches, will attach themselves to my case the way they have with poor Terri Schiavo. Screaming hypocrites who consider all life sacred–unless, of course, we’re bombing it into oblivion or consigning it to death row for execution.
Yes, friends, the US government–the one that the GOP claims they want to keep out of people’s lives–just loves mixing into people’s deaths, setting the calendar on life termination and making sure that no one, absolutely no one, dies before the government is ready to send them to their deaths personally.
I strongly suggest to any and all reading this that you decide one way or the other while you still can. If you want to insist your family takes whatever measures possible to continue your life, even if medical science says it’s hopeless, then make that clear in writing. If, like me, you don’t want to burden your family and force them to watch you lie there like a slab of meat, consigning you all to a sort of twilight zone holding pattern for year after year after year, then make that clear as well.
Don’t leave it in the hands of politicians, lawyers, judges, and, God forbid, a Bush.
PAD
• 
Monday night, I wrote:
This case has gone through several courts, but at the moment has been decided by one particular Florida judge. Said judge has received multiple death threats, and has been forced to travel everywhere under armed guards. I’m not even sure he and his family feel safe in their home at this point. I would very much like to see those who claim to value Terri for the sake of “a culture of life” distance themselves from the sick bášŧárdš who think killing a judge is okay. I frankly don’t think some of you have it in you.
It is now Thursday morning.
Not one single person has stepped forward to say that the threats against this judge are wrong.
Not. One. Person.
Can’t say as I’m entirely surprised, but I’m profoundly disappointed.
TWL
Tim, I agree, I’m not really surprised either.
THe folks are their must be using their “Old Testament” decoder rings that say “an eye for an eye”, if Terri dies, they figure the judge must die too…
But of course, National Health Care for all Americans is just wrong and bad…
Plus, the Supremes are being courted now (bad pun, I know) by the ignorant parents, and that’s much bigger news to the religi-fascists, so naturally they won’t admit to how crazy they are…
Tim, I think that pretty much everybody here would agree that the stalking and threatening of the judge (or anybody) is wrong. Sometimes when you state the obvious, it’s unnecessary to jump up and shout “I AGREE”.
But when their initial response to something as preposterous as stalking and death threats is silence, you really have to wonder about them…
There’s a lot of things that are “obviously wrong” (to paraphrase you), you think people shouldn’t speak up about them because they are obviously wrong?
THAT is obviously wrong…
Tim,
Kinda have to agree with Jeff in NC here. Answering the question gives it a legitimacy that the people in question may not feel it deserves. Sort of like if a conservative pro-war person insisted that all the liberals take a pledge that they were not, in fact, unpatriotic–I’m guessing the response would be largely comprised of the words “screw” and “you”, in various forms.
I have to disagree with you, Bill. I think in any case, if a fringe element is engaging in violence of terroristic threats, any nonviolent group that may share the same position has an obligation to distance themselves from the fringe element. To not do so is giving that group their tacit approval.
Anytime a suicide bomber goes off in Israel, one of the first things you hear are calls for the Palestinian leadership to condemn them.
Den,
I understand your point but if, say, a right wing Christian asked everyone who supports gay marriage to publically condemn the North American Man Boy Love Association and swear that they were not in favor of pedophilia it would not be unrealistic for the people asked to take umbrage at A-being linked to an extremist group just because they happen to share a few goals (which is arguable anyway) and B- the implication that they would support an unsupportable position.
Also, it invite easy reprisals. It’s just a variation on the Guilt by Association fallacy.
I have to disagree with you, Bill. I think in any case, if a fringe element is engaging in violence of terroristic threats, any nonviolent group that may share the same position has an obligation to distance themselves from the fringe element.
I think this is a good idea, because it helps create a more nuanced spectrum of views. Too often, the opposing side takes the more extreme elements of the opposition and states the entire opposition is like that—and folks let it happen without comment. That’s a contributing factor to the polarization in current society.
Bill,
Kinda have to agree with Jeff in NC here. Answering the question gives it a legitimacy that the people in question may not feel it deserves. Sort of like if a conservative pro-war person insisted that all the liberals take a pledge that they were not, in fact, unpatriotic–I’m guessing the response would be largely comprised of the words “screw” and “you”, in various forms.
Perhaps, but (1) if you look at the paragraph, I didn’t challenge “all conservatives” to do so, and (2) nobody even stepped up to say “screw you for even intimating that we might think it’s okay.”
The tactics of Earth First! are often used to smear the entire environmental movement. Doctors who perform abortions are routinely threatened and shot at, and people like Randall Terry stand idly by whistling past the graveyard. Jerry Falwell blamed liberals and atheists for 9/11, and while criticized was not nearly as condemned as he should have been. Your own senator, dear ol’ Jesse Helms, gave Clinton a veiled threat not to come to NC lest he be killed, and I don’t recall him getting particularly roasted for it.
Your analogy is entirely too broad. I’ve asked the people who have spoken about this specific case for a particular specific reason to condemn violent acts related to this specific case for a particular specific reason. The silence has been deafening.
I didn’t seriously think a lot of people here think violence is fine — but frankly, now I’m a lot less sure of that confidence, not more so.
Perhaps you feel I’m giving the issue unfair legitimacy. I think urging people to speak out against violence is entirely legitimate and appropriate to the situation. Your mileage may vary.
TWL
The Schindlers have offered to “free” Schiavo of any legal connections to to his unfortunate wife. But he refuses, because this isn’t about money. It’s about Michael Schiavo burying his conscience.
Sorry if being married to a vegetable is putting a crimp in your libidinous needs, dude. But adultery is still adultery. Adultery is grounds for estrangement. Estrangement is grounds for removal of Powers of Attorney.
Let’s see if Jebediah can figure that out.
I understand your point but if, say, a right wing Christian asked everyone who supports gay marriage to publically condemn the North American Man Boy Love Association and swear that they were not in favor of pedophilia it would not be unrealistic for the people asked to take umbrage at A-being linked to an extremist group just because they happen to share a few goals (which is arguable anyway) and B- the implication that they would support an unsupportable position.
Bill, your analogy is false on its face. Supporters of gay marriage and NAMBLA do not share the same goals. One wants legal recognition of a coupling between two consenting adults; the other wants to legalize child rape. Only ignorant people equate homosexuality with pedophelia. They are two different things.
The people who threatened Judge Greer share the same goal as anyone else supporting Shiavo’s parents does: reinsertion of the feeding tube. What Tim asked was for people who share that common goal to condemn threat of violence done in Terri Shiavo’s name. For your analogy to be even remotely valid, Tim would have had to have asked supporters of the Schindlers to condemn the Oaklahoma City bombing.
Sorry if being married to a vegetable is putting a crimp in your libidinous needs, dude. But adultery is still adultery. Adultery is grounds for estrangement. Estrangement is grounds for removal of Powers of Attorney.
If all he wanted was separation from his wife, he could have just divorced her years ago, left her in her parents care and washed his hands of his responsibility towards. Despite taking up with another woman (something I don’t agree with), he has continued to act as Terri Shiavo’s legal guardian. Since another way out form the marriage is available to him, that means he’s doing this for only one of two reasons:
1) He’s a complete sociopath who just wants to see her dead.
2) He truly does believe this is what she would want.
As far as denouncing goes, keep in mind that the threats to the judges are probably coming from the same religious right that routinely calls on all Muslums to denounce the terrorist actions of the few, then labels all Muslums as supporting terrorism when there isn’t (to these groups) sufficient denouncation.
The religious right is awfully quiet about denouncing violence when it is carried out or threatened by those who claim to be ‘Christian’.
* A medical clinic that provides abortions
* A doctor or other clinic staff (including non-medical personnel such as secretaries) is murdered
* A televangelist calls for God to ‘remove’ judges from the Supreme Court (Being a lifetime appointment, you figure out how they would be removed)
I don’t recall ever hearing other parts of the religious right condeming any of these things the way they expect all Muslums to do when something is done by someone claiming to be a Muslum.
Powell:
>The Schindlers have offered to “free” Schiavo of any legal connections to to his unfortunate wife. But he refuses, because this isn’t about money. It’s about Michael Schiavo burying his conscience.
Honestly, how do you come up with these conclusions? Seems to me that if this were the situation, it would only strengthen the liklihood that Shiavo is doing what he believes is right over money or an easy way out. Regardless, none of us can really say what is truly going on with any amount of certainty.
Fred
Michael probably hasn’t divorced her because he knows that her parents would then become her guardians, and they clearly desire to keep her body alive for as long as possible. If her true wishes were to not live like this, then by staying legally married, he can make sure that the one last thing he can do for her, give her the death she wanted, is carried out.
Powell, if you were to die, would you want your spouse to give up, for the rest of their life, companionship? A chance for a family? Would you really be that selfish to deny the one you supposedly loved more than any other a chance to move on with their life? If Terri parents hadn’t started this attempt to preserve an empty shell over 8 years ago, the husband would have been free to move on however he deemed fit. Instead, because of the prolonged court battle, he’s forced to carry the burden of fighting for the wishes of his wife.
And Karen, I actually got promoted, but “SupremeEmporerBobb” is too much to type all the time.
Living in Illinois, we just lost a judge’s husband an mother to some crazy that blamed everyone in the legal system for the injuries and financial loss he suffered associated with his heavy smoking. He had a whole hit list of judges and lawyers he was going to kill in revenge.
These people are just doing their jobs, best they can. Judges are bound by law. Following the law sometimes means making a hard decision that will have very real consequences on very real people. From having worked for a judge, I know that (at least not all of them) do not take this responsibility lightly.
For those that receive unfavorable decisions to blame those charged with making those decisions, I think, just shows how small-minded they are.
Estrangement is grounds for removal of Powers of Attorney.
Apparently not, as the courts have not ruled that way.
But I’ll just quote Ted Rall on this one:
“Why are people picking on Michael Schiavo? Many right-wingers are attacking him for having acquired a girlfriend a mere two years after his wife slipped into oblivion. Where were they when some 9/11 widows remarried a year after their husbands and wives had died?
I remember: the 9/11 widows, they said, were crazy with grief and were therefore justified to behave any way they wanted. Anyone who thought differently was a cur and a traitor.
Michael Schiavo, a 26-year-old man whose wife suddenly collapsed in the hallway of their home five years after getting married, surely was just as devastated.
In the United States, however, victimhood depends on your political affiliation.”
An observation:
There are quite a few people, both here and in the media spotlight, who are trying to demonize Michael Schiavo.
On the other hand, I’ve not heard a single person taking Michael’s side who is demonizing the parents. Nobody thinks they’re evil — grief-stricken and not seeing straight, perhaps, but not malicious.
I completely and utterly believe that both sides, the parents and the husband, are doing what they believe best reflects Terri’s wishes and desires.
A number of people on the other side of the argument are not willing to grant the same courtesy.
I leave it to the reader to decide which “side” sounds rational and which one sounds as if it needs to pause and wipe the froth from its mouth on occasion.
TWL
I just read an article in the paper (Seattle P-I) today that says Michael cared for Terri for 5 years and even took nursing lessons to better care for her. After 5 years he came to agree with her DOCTORS that there was no hope since part of her brain is gone. That he held on for 5 years before accepting the inevitable shows he did not do this for any reason except for Terri. So he has a new family now. Should he have given the rest of his life to a woman who will never be sentient again? The easy way would have been to give up long ago and let her parents have their way. He did not. He is fighting to give Terri HER wishes. If I were in that state and no one, including my parents, listened to my husband about what I wanted, well, I guess I’d have to haunt them when I finally died because being a vegetable I couldn’t do much else.
Congratulations SupremeEmporerBobb. Why weren’t we invited to the coronation?
100% agreed, Tim. The fact that there is even a need that is felt to pick sides between those effected is troublesome.
Fred
About those talking point memo’s:
I heard two things today. First, the Republicans have denied the talking point memo is authentic. The memo is not on senate letterhead and it is unsigned. Second, there is growing evidence that is was possibly forged by Democratic Senate staffers. ABC and the W. Post have not been willing to offer any authtication for the memo or give their source.
If this unfolds as being true, remind me again, who is the political bloodsuckers?
Iowa Jim
Bobb,
To continue, my stepson is “The next step in the evolution of man”. I am simply known around the house as “The envy of all I survey.”
As for the talking points memo, I doubt it came from the Democrats. They aren’t that well organized. About the only thing they are organized enough to do is to cave in & allow the Republicans whatever they want.
Besides, if it had come from Democratic Senate staffers, I have no doubt they’d be able to get the correct letterhead. Hëll, I could probably get it through a Google image search.
IowaJim:
If this unfolds as being true, remind me again, who is the political bloodsuckers?
Does this mean that you’ll be fine with casting the GOP as political bloodsuckers if the memos ARE legitimate? Just checking — seems to me that you’re implying a bit of a double standard.
(I would also point out that almost nobody here is looking at the memos as the only, or even primary, reason why we think the Congressional actions have been so disgusting.)
Karen:
Congratulations SupremeEmporerBobb. Why weren’t we invited to the coronation?
“What do you mean ‘we’, white man?”
TWL
Checker of Coats and Server of Bits of Food
No white men here. I like to go with “swarthy” myself. It keeps people guessing.
What can I say…the world’s a dangerous place. And if I didn’t do something to expand my empire, I’ve got an arch-nemisis with mind-controlling spider plants that’s just waiting for his chance at world domination. We’re working on getting an heir, now that I rule everything. Or at least my 2br condo.
Not ANOTHER forged memo. Who’s going to take the fall for this one? Haven’t we already lost all the Big Three nighttime news anchors I grew up with (surely a sign the apocolypse is almost upon us…either that, or I’m going to have to start admitting I’m getting closer to OLD rather than YOUNG). Did Ted Koppel retire yet?
It wouldn’t surprise me if that memo did turn out to be a fake or a joke. Which is sad. What’s even more sad is that I’d not be surprised if it turned out to be real. In which case, no surprise that it’s not on Senate letterhead. Those staffers can be pretty bright folks, and the government’s full of people that excel at dodging responsibility.
And I’m not JUST talking about the elected ones.
About those talking point memo’s:
I heard two things today. First, the Republicans have denied the talking point memo is authentic. The memo is not on senate letterhead and it is unsigned. Second, there is growing evidence that is was possibly forged by Democratic Senate staffers. ABC and the W. Post have not been willing to offer any authtication for the memo or give their source.
If you’d written it, would you want to sign your name to such a disgusting example of politicking? Anyone would deny its parentage. And why would it have Senate letterhead if it’s a GOP memo?
And what growing evidence is there? I’ve not heard anything.
If this unfolds as being true, remind me again, who is the political bloodsuckers?
Well, since the GOP actually instigated this mess, yeah I’m afraid they’re the bloodsucking opportunists here. (Even if they didn’t explicitly outline their motives in a memo, the sentiments listed in the memo — forged or not — are dead accurate.)
And I would be very disappointed in those Democrats who would sink down to the opposition’s level.
Way off topic but here we go. Tonight is the jewish holiday of Purim where, as tradition dictates, Jews should get drunk. Sort of like a Jewish St. Patrick’s day. To those of you that are jewish, go out, and get happy drunk. To those of you that aren’t, go out and get happy drunk too. The more the merrier I always say, and after all this mess I think we all could use a good drink.
So cheers. (I was going to say L’chaim, but that means “to life” and it’s a bit too loaded for this conversation).
From Tim,
Perhaps, but (1) if you look at the paragraph, I didn’t challenge “all conservatives” to do so, and (2) nobody even stepped up to say “screw you for even intimating that we might think it’s okay.”
I wasn’t trying to make a totally accurate comparison between your statement and my hypothetical, only to give an example of something that was unfair and unlikely to elicit much response.
The tactics of Earth First! are often used to smear the entire environmental movement.
And the thing is, it’s wrong to do so. thanks for giving me a perhaps better example to use. If someone complains about drilling for oil in Alaska and I come back with a request that they first renounce any alliance with those who set fires to SUVs and try to maim loggers, wouldn’t that that be correctly perceived as using the guilt by association card?
Your own senator, dear ol’ Jesse Helms, gave Clinton a veiled threat not to come to NC lest he be killed, and I don’t recall him getting particularly roasted for it.
I recall he DID get some grief…probably about as much as John Kerry did for his joke about assasinating Dan Quail.
Ok. So then I say:
I understand your point but if, say, a right wing Christian asked everyone who supports gay marriage to publically condemn the North American Man Boy Love Association and swear that they were not in favor of pedophilia it would not be unrealistic for the people asked to take umbrage at A-being linked to an extremist group just because they happen to share a few goals (which is arguable anyway) and B- the implication that they would support an unsupportable position.
and Den comes back with:
Bill, your analogy is false on its face. Supporters of gay marriage and NAMBLA do not share the same goals. One wants legal recognition of a coupling between two consenting adults; the other wants to legalize child rape. Only ignorant people equate homosexuality with pedophelia. They are two different things.
Geeze louise…first off, I KNOW all this. THAT’S why it would be WRONG to do it, which was the point…I think it’s likely that NAMBLA members are in favor of gay marriage. I am also in favor of gay marriage. If someone expected me to renounce pedophilia to earn some measure of credibility on the gay marriage debate I would be pìššëd øff because it would be, by its nature, putting me in the same category as those creeps.
And I think its wrong to do that. maybe I’m being oversensitive. Since I don’t have a particular dog in this fight I guess I’ll just let it go but I’ll bet that the next time some anti-war anarchist group does something stupid we can expect some pro-war poster to insist that everyone else who is against the war take the loyalty pledge or something.
Capital Punishment as revenge? Hmmm.
I always thought is was something along the lines of “he/she did it once. Never again.”
The DP may not be a deterent, but it prevents the executed person from killing again (except, you know, in comic books and movies).
Of course, so does true life imprisonment, without the added messy bit about “are we really, really sure that guy was innocent?”
Something that bothers me with all this is that many of the people “erring on the side of life” are also saying things like “we aren’t God…I thought only God could decide who should live or die.”
Yet many of these same folks support the death penalty. If you’re of the mindset that only God can say who can live or die, shouldn’t that dictate an opposition to capital punishment?
And speaking of capital punishment, it’s really only punishment of you believe in Hëll. Atherwise, what’t the point? Punishment is supposed to teach someone the error of their ways. If you just kill them, well, not like they can demonstrate that they’ve learned their lesson, can they?
Talk about completely missing the point. Bill, it’s about common goals. That’s what Tim was trying to get at.
“Talk about completely missing the point. Bill, it’s about common goals. That’s what Tim was trying to get at.”
Tim’s exact statement was “I would very much like to see those who claim to value Terri for the sake of “a culture of life” distance themselves from the sick bášŧárdš who think killing a judge is okay. I frankly don’t think some of you have it in you.”
I think that, while Tim’s intentions are good and I agree with the “sick bášŧárdš” part–(well, actually, calling them sick sort of implies that they are not entirely responsible for their actions, and they manifestly are. I would further suggest that they, if caught, get a very very harsh amount of jail time since, unlike murder, this is the sort of thing that CAN be easily discouraged by making an example of a few idiots.)–the phrasing was deliberately confrontational and not at all conducive to any real dialogue.
My point is and has been that you shouldn’t have to defend yourself against linkage to people who use immoral and illegal means to achieve ends that you agree with. There are few causes worth fighting for who do not have extremists who are either willing to use any means to acheive the end or are just sociopaths latching onto a good reason to hone their skills.
First, the Republicans have denied the talking point memo is authentic.
Is this a “Hello, McFly?” moment or what?
Second, there is growing evidence that is was possibly forged by Democratic Senate staffers.
Let me guess: the same evidence that has the Republicans denying the memo?
Get real, Jim. You’re usually above this kind of political BS.
Based on the precedent of those that bombed or killed doctors at abortion clinics (or worked at them), those penalties have been pretty harsh. I don’t think the perps had any priors, but at least one was executed, and another is serving life. The fact that not many more happened after that either does support the idea that harsh penalties for this kind of “planned retributive” murder does deter copycats.
Craig,
The thing about the “GOP talking points memo” is that, if you read the story carefully, ABC and the Wash Post were pretty careful not to actually say that it was from the GOP or necessarily talking points. It was a memo though. ABC now describes it as “the memo discussed a republican bill and was distributed to republican senators.” Hmm, a memo that discusses a republican bill. Wow. Not QUITE the same impact as “a secret high level strategy plan to exploit the Sciavo tragedy” which is the impression most got from the initial stories.
All they said was that it was “distributed” to several senators. Seems like it’s more significant who it was who distributed it than who it was distributed to. But maybe that’s just me.
The fact that it has some curious mistakes (such as getting the number of a mentioned bill wrong) and has sections that were apparently copied from a website make it look more like the sort of thing that a lobby group would send out than an actual, made by a staffer talking points memo.
There is also the red flags that might have gone up at the following line from the New York Times article on the memo: “As tensions festered among Republicans, Democratic aides passed out an unsigned one-page memorandum that they said had been distributed to Senate Republicans. “This is an important moral issue and the pro-life base will be excited that the Senate is debating this important issue,” the memorandum said.”
Umm, so the first we heard about this came from Democrats? And THEY said it was given to republicans? Hello McFly!
Not that it will matter to the folks who think that Fake But Accurate is a legitimate journalistic standard. Me, if it turns out some Republican staffer wrote it, I hope they get fired. If it came from the Democrats I doubt that any heads will roll–they’ll probably be congratulated for outside the box thinking.
Tim,
Off topic but I was wondering–has your wife read about the new amazing discoveries reported this week in the field of genetics? http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-gene24.html
NPR had a good segment on it yesterday. If this holds up it’s time to rewrite those textbooks again.
Bobb said:
“Something that bothers me with all this is that many of the people “erring on the side of life” are also saying things like “we aren’t God…I thought only God could decide who should live or die.”
Yet many of these same folks support the death penalty. If you’re of the mindset that only God can say who can live or die, shouldn’t that dictate an opposition to capital punishment? “
Me:
That has always confused the hëll out of me.I mean i would think you would support the importance of all life,not just the ones that you can live with.Of course that is assuming that someone is truly sincere in their beliefs and not just a situational believer.
Of course if we have pro lifers are there pro -death advocates too???
Tim Lynch,
This response is a bit late, but I typed the hëll out of a response to your opening speech at the beginning of this thread on Tuesday night into Wednesday morning and found out my URL connection was screwed up when i tried to post. (Same thing happened to some of my Dixonverse responses).
let’s just say, after my lengthy response was lost that “Scarface” had less cursing than was heard in my humble abode.
Anyway, here goes, and I’d like to get this one out of the way first.
“Monday night I wrote:
‘This case has gone through several courts, but at the moment has been decided by one particular Florida judge. Said judge has received multiple death threats, and has been forced to travel everywhere under armed guards. I’m not even sure he and his family feel safe in their home at this for the sake of a “culture of life” distance themselves from the sick bášŧárdš who think killing a judge is okay. I frankly don’t think some of you have it in you’
I do, Tim. I have always been of the mind that to be silent about something is to passively endorse it. I condemn those who have threatened this judge completely, totally and vehemently.
Sorry I was not able to post this the first time I tried.
Let’s
Okay, several things here to respond to.
Bill:
I wasn’t trying to make a totally accurate comparison between your statement and my hypothetical, only to give an example of something that was unfair and unlikely to elicit much response.
So noted — but unless the comparison is accurate, it doesn’t make the point that my statement is unfair. I mean, I could draw a comparison between those who buy into astrology and those who sexually molest pygmy marmosets, but I think I’d have a lot of problems making the comparison stick.
The tactics of Earth First! are often used to smear the entire environmental movement.
And the thing is, it’s wrong to do so. thanks for giving me a perhaps better example to use. If someone complains about drilling for oil in Alaska and I come back with a request that they first renounce any alliance with those who set fires to SUVs and try to maim loggers, wouldn’t that that be correctly perceived as using the guilt by association card?
Perhaps — but it’s also extremely easy to respond with a simple “they weren’t allied with us in the first place, and I absolutely reject their tactics.”
Even that comparison, however, isn’t really all that valid, as Earth First! and your hypothetical complainer do not have identical goals. Some of those goals are similar, but the goals of EF are much broader than simply objecting to ANWR drilling.
Ok. So then I say:
I understand your point but if, say, a right wing Christian asked everyone who supports gay marriage to publically condemn the North American Man Boy Love Association and swear that they were not in favor of pedophilia it would not be unrealistic for the people asked to take umbrage at A-being linked to an extremist group just because they happen to share a few goals (which is arguable anyway) and B- the implication that they would support an unsupportable position.
and Den comes back with:
[Den’s response deleted for space]
Geeze louise…first off, I KNOW all this. THAT’S why it would be WRONG to do it, which was the point…
But you’re missing Den’s point, which is similar to mine. The two groups do not have identical goals.
Randall Terry and Eric Rudolph (if I’m remembering his name properly) DO have identical goals: to stop any and all abortions. Rudolph does it by gunning them down. Terry does it politically, but to my knowledge has never condemned Rudolph or others of his ilk.
Those out protesting the judge’s decisions in the Schiavo case and those threatening the judge’s life and family DO have the same goals — to get Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube reinstated and the court verdicts reversed. Only their tactics differ.
As such, I consider the comparison valid.
And I think its wrong to do that. maybe I’m being oversensitive.
Maybe.
On a related note, however … a ways back I said that I thought you were showing a decided reluctance to criticize one side in a political debate, despite claims of fairness and evenhandedness. We left it unsettled, but if memory served you asked me to provide examples. This is one: you claim you “don’t have a particular dog in this fight”, yet you’re jumping on my point while letting those accusing Michael Schiavo of abuse and attempted murder go unchallenged. I find that somewhat less than even-handed — perhaps I’m being oversensitive because I’m the one being jumped on, but I think some of your claims of doglessness are ringing a little hollow.
I’ll bet that the next time some anti-war anarchist group does something stupid we can expect some pro-war poster to insist that everyone else who is against the war take the loyalty pledge or something.
Probably — and they’ll look rather silly in so doing, since that comparison isn’t valid either. (I also never “insisted” upon anything.) Asking members of that group to disavow support for their more extreme members, however, strikes me as valid — and yes, if some member of the ACLU blows something up I’ll be perfectly happy to disavow them.
Just to draw one more example — do you think it’s wrong for Gerry Adams to be called upon to disavow actions taken by the IRA?
TWL
As far as I’m concerned, one of the reasons this is so attractive to the GOP in general–and Bush in particular–is because it’s a very attractive sop to the religious right.
I mean, they can’t be very happy. As much as they shout and fuss, their anti-abortion efforts remain stalled. Two thirds of the country still believes in a woman’s right to choose. The Supreme Court isn’t any closer to overturning Roe v. Wade. But this…the right-to-lifers must be lapping it up with a spoon. Their representatives, steamrolling over the traditional GOP belief in state rights (a philosophy that went out the window with Bush vs. Gore) are doing their best to give the right-to-lifers a really good show. Oooo, see the evil liberals not giving a dámņ about some poor woman’s life!
It’s good politics. The fact that the majority of the country thinks they should’ve kept their nose out of it is irrelevant. They did this, at least in part, to appeal to the remaining minority, the ones who vote aggressively and often.
PAD
Okay, several other responses to shorter posts of Bill’s.
I think that, while Tim’s intentions are good […] the phrasing was deliberately confrontational and not at all conducive to any real dialogue.
I’ll cop to that. I don’t know that it changes the validity of the point as much as you seem to think, but it was definitely more confrontational than a lot of my posts. I take this particular case extremely seriously, not least because my mother watched my stepfather die of a brain tumor a decade or so back. I’m a huge believer in Death With Dignity acts and in living wills — and I see Congress’s moves in this case to be about half a step away from claiming the ability to invalidate living wills on a whim. I find that terrifying, and as such tend to get rather vehement in these arguments.
On the “talking points memo” bit — which I’ll admit I’ve not been following and don’t really care that much about…
Me, if it turns out some Republican staffer wrote it, I hope they get fired. If it came from the Democrats I doubt that any heads will roll–they’ll probably be congratulated for outside the box thinking.
Would you also agree that whatever administration official linked Valerie Plame’s name to the media should be fired? Seems that in the heat of little scandals people seem to forget about the ones that actually, y’know, cause deaths and stuff.
Off topic but I was wondering–has your wife read about the new amazing discoveries reported this week in the field of genetics?
It was on the front page of Wednesday’s NYT (and quoted a professor we’d heard speak back when we lived in LA). You bet she’s read about it. 🙂 (She thinks it’s overstating the case a bit — it might be more along the lines of providing an evolutionary “backup” than anything else. Regardless, it’s monstrously cool.)
TWL
Jerome,
I condemn those who have threatened this judge completely, totally and vehemently.
Thank you — and my regrets that you weren’t able to post that when you originally intended.
Let’s
“It’s…”
TW (semprini!) L
Actually, PAD, I read something earlier that says that quite a few conservatives are actually getting semi-pìššëd about this.
It seems that the Republicans in power have caught themselves in a Catch-22:
Ignore the pro-lifers or ignore those conservatives that still believe in small government and the rights of the states.
Also, Bill, I consider the NYT about as reliable as Fox News.
Deano,
“I realy hope there is a special part of HÊLL reserved for the politicians and media members that have turned this tragic situation into a f—-ing three-ring circus.”
First, I’m really tired of that phrase. Every celebrity trial is a “three-ring circus”. The California recall was described that way, too. Now, this. It’s getting a lot of attention, because A.) people (believe it or not, that includes politicians) passionately believe what they’re doing is right, whichever side of the debate they’re on.
B.)It is something, unlike abortion, going to war, or capital punishment that can DIRECTLY happen to each and every one of us.
Sorry, I don’t see such people sharing living quarters with Hitler, Stalin….
“ME: That [death penalty supporters]. I mean, I would think you would support the importance of all life, not just the ones you can live with.”
Gee, Deano, that is such a black-and-white position! You mean there isn’t any precious “nuance”, which is seemingly so important to liberals on every issue to be had when it comes to being able to call yourself a “pro-life”?
“Of course, that is assuming that someone is truly sincere in their beliefs and not a situational beliver.”
And you judge this using what scientific method?
“Of course, if we have pro-lifers, are their pro-death advocates too.”
I could say – to illustrate how I feel about that statement, “Yeah, they’re pro-abortion, pro right-to-die crowd” – but I don’t really feel that way. So I won’t.
On a related note, however … a ways back I said that I thought you were showing a decided reluctance to criticize one side in a political debate, despite claims of fairness and evenhandedness. We left it unsettled, but if memory served you asked me to provide examples. This is one: you claim you “don’t have a particular dog in this fight”, yet you’re jumping on my point while letting those accusing Michael Schiavo of abuse and attempted murder go unchallenged. I find that somewhat less than even-handed — perhaps I’m being oversensitive because I’m the one being jumped on, but I think some of your claims of doglessness are ringing a little hollow.
I guess the difference is that I highly respect you and, therefore, would be more troubled by any statement from you that I disagree with. Also, I know you will either agree with me or make a good argument in reply, which makes for a more interesting exchange than either silence or a snarky non sequitor insult.
I can see why you might not find that to be all that great a thing but, when you think about it, it’s a compliment. There are some people, who shall remain nameless, who can pretty much say anything and it’s just water off a duck’s back at this point–they amuse more than provoke. There are others, you among them, who I think I actually can gain something from.
And, to defend myself a bit here, I did, either in this thread or the other one, bring up the accusations against Mr Schiavo and state that they did not pass the logic test–if he had attempted to kill his wife he would NOT be trying to take out her feeding tube, turning a potential attempted murder charge into a potential murder charge. In Florida, state motto “We execute almost as many people as Texas”.
It also seems to me that 15 years is plenty of time for people to have investigated this claim.
Perhaps I should be more angry at those who make the accusation but after 4 years of paranoid theories regarding 9/11, everything from “Bush did it” “Bush knew about it” “And the Jews, they had something to do with it too” etc. I am becoming somewhat immune to outrage. It seems like everyone WANTS there to be a Big Conspiracy. Maybe there is a comfort in that, I don’t know.
Just to draw one more example — do you think it’s wrong for Gerry Adams to be called upon to disavow actions taken by the IRA?
I thought he was a member of the IRA. In which case, that’s not quite the same thing. But if someone were in favor of better civil rights for Catholics in Northern Ireland, it would be wrong to automatically link them to the IRA.
I mean, am I wrong here or isn’t it at least skirting with the “Guilt by Association” fallacy to ask proponents of an argument to disavow illegal actions of a few extremists? (Assuming that nothing they have argued in any way would give one reason to believe that they are in favor of such tactics)? It makes at least an implicit link in the minds of the audience between the argument that the person is making and the actions of a few and it in no way shape or form addresses the true merits of the argument.
Would you also agree that whatever administration official linked Valerie Plame’s name to the media should be fired? Seems that in the heat of little scandals people seem to forget about the ones that actually, y’know, cause deaths and stuff.
Absolutely, if it was a crime. I had thought that this was beyond questioning but just the other day I nearly spit out my coffee reading the WaPo:
A federal court should first determine whether a crime has been committed in the disclosure of an undercover CIA operatives name before prosecutors are allowed to continue seeking testimony from journalists about their confidential sources, the nation’s largest news organizations and journalism groups asserted in a court filing yesterday.
The 40-page brief, filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, argues that there is “ample evidence . . . to doubt that a crime has been committed” in the case, which centers on the question of whether Bush administration officials knowingly revealed the identity of undercover CIA operative Valerie Plame in the summer of 2003. Plame’s name was published first by syndicated columnist Robert D. Novak and later by other publications.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61388-2005Mar23.html
Amazing how, after the election, the seriousness of the story has shifted in the eyes of the media.
Now, in MY mind it would still be wrong, regardless of whether or not it’s a crime. I don’t know of any “deaths” you mentioned but I can see serious issues around the naming of CIA operatives. (I can also, however, see some interesting first amendment issues regarding this…what if a reporter wants to report on crimes committed by a CIA guy, is he or she legally unable to write about this possibly very important aspect or the case).
Anyway…I’m off to PA to see my girls. Take care everyone, happy easter, happy spring break, vernal equinox, annual sacrifice to the Corn God, whatever floats you boat.
To those who would denounce Michael Schiavo for his “adultery”, I would strongly suggest they shut their mouths unless they want to defend the adultery of Newt Gingrich.
For those who don’t recall Newt’s sordid little tale, when his first wife, Jackie, was in the hospital undergoing cancer treatment, he discussed divorce. He DID have her sign the papers while she was recovering from surgery. Then, a few years after marrying Wife #2, Marianne, he started fooling around on her (all the while criticizing sex outside marriage, even while participating in the attacks on Clinton’s extramarital relationship). The timeline is a bit sketchy, but Marianne was diagnosed with a neurological condition which could lead to MS and some months later, in May of 1999, Newtie called his mother-in-law to wish her a happy birthday, then told Marianne he wanted a divorce just a few minutes later.
Let’s also not forget the sad tales of Rudy Giuliani, Henry Hyde, and Bob Dole, among others.
Michael Schiavo may be less than an angel when it comes to the strict *religious* concept of adultery, but no one has any right to judge his concern for Terri.
Technically speaking, they have all the right in the US to criticize.
Whether they *should* is another matter entirely. And pretty much, from what I’ve seen of the accusations leveled against Mr. Schiavo regarding his “adultery,” all pretty empty, and only serve to make the critic look shallow, unrealistic, and deluded.
Gerry Adams is a member of Sinn Fein, a group that has often been called the “political wing” of the IRA. Sinn Fein doesn’t engage in violence, but it’s widely regarded that its members has close ties with the IRA.
Bill,
I guess the difference is that I highly respect you and, therefore, would be more troubled by any statement from you that I disagree with. Also, I know you will either agree with me or make a good argument in reply, which makes for a more interesting exchange than either silence or a snarky non sequitor insult.
After I posted, I wondered if your response might be something like this. I’m flattered, and I can certainly take that for a good answer at present — I’ll just remind you next time someone cogent says something that’s desperately demanding a rebuttal.
And, to defend myself a bit here, I did, either in this thread or the other one, bring up the accusations against Mr Schiavo and state that they did not pass the logic test
Fair enough — I’d forgotten that. Apologies. (It doesn’t address the general abuse/neglect charges, but you’re certainly making the overall point.)
Just to draw one more example — do you think it’s wrong for Gerry Adams to be called upon to disavow actions taken by the IRA?
I thought he was a member of the IRA.
I believe he would disagree with that, though I’m not sure. He always refers to himself as a member of Sinn Fein, which is not the same thing.
He sympathizes with the IRA’s goals, certainly, but he’s not a member and not one of the people who’s ever been accused of the bombings.
I mean, am I wrong here or isn’t it at least skirting with the “Guilt by Association” fallacy to ask proponents of an argument to disavow illegal actions of a few extremists?
Skirting with it, yes; actually falling prey to it, IMO no. Again, I think it’s a question of the specificity of the arguments as opposed to just broad overall sympathies.
Would you also agree that whatever administration official linked Valerie Plame’s name to the media should be fired? Seems that in the heat of little scandals people seem to forget about the ones that actually, y’know, cause deaths and stuff.
Absolutely, if it was a crime.
It is. I don’t care what the Washington Post says. It’s a crime, and IMO one bordering on treason.
Amazing how, after the election, the seriousness of the story has shifted in the eyes of the media.
I’ll agree with that, only I’d add “appalling” after the “amazing”. Perhaps I’m more easily appalled.
Anyway…I’m off to PA to see my girls.
Have a great time. Me, I’m doing third-quarter grades this weekend, which either means I won’t be around here at all or will be here way too much and should be getting back to work…
TWL