A Nation of Hypocrites
I’m here to weigh in on the Schiavo case. Unless you’ve been living under a rock under a box in a cave in the backwoods of Deliverance country somwhere, you’ve surely heard about it by now.
But for you mouth-breathers out there — and that includes you Dubya pinheads, as the phrase “mouth-breather” must, as you will see — it bullet-points out like this:
- Terry Schiavo is brain-dead and has been for nearly 15 years.
- Her husband has been trying to follow her stated (to him) wishes not to be kept alive artificially and has been fighting her parents to have her feeding tube removed so she can die with the dignity she wanted.
- Her feeding tube has been removed three times now and reinserted twice as her parents pursued increasingly desperate losing appeals up the judicial ladder.
- The Florida courts have supported at every step Terry Schiavo’s husband’s right under the law to follow her wishes and remove the feeding tube. The two previous times it was reinserted was to let the parents’ ultimately losing challenges work their way through the court.
- In 2003, the last time it was removed, Florida Governor and Dubya brother Jeb Bush prodded the Florida State Legislature into passing “Terry’s Law,” a narrowly-written law that applied only to Terry Schiavo that forced her tube to be reinserted.
- The Florida Supreme Court ultimately ruled this law to be unconstitutional.
- All appeals having failed and the court having ruled (consistently) that the tube can be removed, her feeding tube has now been removed for the third time.
- …and now fucking Congress and fucking Dubya are getting involved, passing legislation that will allow her parents to plead their case in federal court, and thus probably require reinsertion of the feeding tube again to keep her alive while this desperate gambit fails.
Those are, I believe, the facts of the case, with maybe a little personal bias on the last point.
This is what we’re coming to. This is what you red state nippleheads have wrought. This is us reaping the whirlwind of hysterical conservatism.
We are a nation of laws, laws that are interpreted and applied by the courts. But now we have rulers in power who don’t respect the laws or the courts applying them. They talk about “activist judges” when they don’t like the outcome that was mandated by law. And now they insert themselves illegally into private matters (“activists,” anyone?) and twist arms to enact new, illegal laws tailored to produce the ruling they wanted but couldn’t get legally. This case isn’t about life or death. It’s about abuse of power.
Florida state law clearly states the conditions under which artificial life-prolonging measures may be withdrawn. The state law provides that the spouse, not the parents, makes the ultimate decision, based on the patient’s written or expressed wishes and the advice of medical experts that the condition is irreversible. This is the law, period. The Florida courts are correctly interpreting it, period.
I’ll say it again: This case isn’t about life or death. It’s about abuse of power. BushCo and the congressional Republicans are abusing their power and are making a mockery of our system of government by jury-rigging federal law to insert themselves into a private family matter they have no business in. Where do they stop? Where will they stop?
They claim theirs is the party of smaller government, of freedom, of personal rights, of dignity. How much longer are you going to believe them?
Terry and Michael Schiavo should be left alone. Give them their privacy — and their legal wishes.
Call me a pinhead(just don’t call me a “cat fucker”) but I happen to agree with you on most of these issues. I shudder to think the implications of the government stepping all over personal rights like they are in this case. The husband is the legal guardian and his beliefs that Terry did not want to live like this should be not only respected but followed.
As I’ve mentioned before, I’m not a Republican but a libertarian. On most government issues my beliefs are pretty conservative but on this one it’s clear they are WAY overstepping their bounds.
I’m still not ready to join Mike and Mike(Farrell and Moore) in their “we know what’s best for you and everyone else” campaign. They both still scare me more than the Republicans.
I agree with you so much, that I’m going to copy and paste this post into my blog, (crediting you, naturally).
This is just too good not to say twice.
Don: I can only be amazed at your willful blindness to Republican actions vs “Mike & Mike’s” potential actions. You’re more afraid of what someone *might* do than of what someone’s actually doing that’s worse. Curious. I’ve long since decided that you and I will never change the other’s mind, so I’ll just say that your politics make no sense to me and I’ll leave it at that.
Jim: I’m here to help. Thanks for liking what I said — and for agreeing with me.
Chuck, I am so with you. Last night I fell asleep on the sofa watching C-SPAN (which I neve watch, but may start doing so). It was the vote re: Terri Schiavo . I was so infuriated by the Republican congressmembers that I couldn’t sit still. Absolutely unbelievable.
Don, why on earth would Mike and Mike frighten you? They don’t know better than everyone else. Nor do they feel that way. They’re just fighting on the side of human dignity. Something the current incarnation of Republicanism cares nothing about.
I’ve seen Michael Moore speak in person and was impressed by his humility (yes, humility) honesty, passion and compassion.
As for Mike Farrell, I am slightly acquainted with him due to a mutual friend and, as such, have been fortunate enough to speak with him on several occasions. All he cares about is human dignity and fairness and is willing to fight on behalf of others who may not be able to fight for themselves. He’s definitely one of the good guys.
Chuck: You’ve made a statement about my “willful blindness” to Republicans yet I’ve just given you an example where I am exactly against what they are trying to do. There are other things they do that I don’t like. I don’t like the fact that Bush is spending tons of money for education, charity, faith based inititives, and social engineering. I don’t like many things they do. That said, see my reply to Carol why I still would rather support them. And no, I don’t expect we’ll change each other’s mind.
Carol: My main reason for choosing Republicans over Democrats is this. Saddam would still be killing hundreds of thousands a year if the Dems were in power. My taxes would be MUCH higher if Dems were in power. The Dems, Mike and Mike included, believe they know best how to spend my money. The Repubs aren’t much better but if they followed their stated party lines the Federal Government would be much smaller. I’ve got a lot more reasons but this is a comment section not an editorial section.
Don,
I’m not wild about how Sadaam led his nation, but there are other worse dictators in the world that we’re in league with (King Faud) and basically ignoring (Kim Jung Il). It’s not our job to clean up other countries.
And taxes are not the only factor in our financial well-being. Our national debt plays a part too. :D
And what makes you think the Dems think they know how to spend your money more than the Republicans?? I would venture that the Reps simply spend it on stuff you agree with.
Jim,
The main purpose of the Federal government is to protect the country from those who would attack or harm us. They also are responsible for certain laws but the Constitution is quite clear that the feds are not responsible for educating your’s or my kids, providing cheap medicine to old, infirm, or poor people, setting prices on ANYTHING, or many of a ton of things both parties seem to think they are.
Your “venture” into what I agree or don’t agree with is, as usual for a Liberal, way off. I do believe the Repubs are more likely to protect this country militarily and impose less in taxes but that’s just about where I part ways. Both parties are spending way to much on things the Feds have no business doing.
If you really are interested in what I think read up on libertarians. Yeah, didn’t think you were.
Don,
You’re making assumptions, and you are wrong. I was a registered Libertarian for 16 years, a member of the party, and actually met Harry Brown. But go ahead and assume I’m just a dopey ol’ Democrat.
When was the last time you read the Consitution by the way? Maintaining a standing army is just ONE of the 20 or so powers given to Congress. Also, the Government is able to legislate anything that is “necessary and proper” for executing its powers, one of which is to “provide for … the General Welfare … of the United States.” The writers of the Constitution used these vague phrase specifically because they had no idea what the country would need in 20 years much less 225. Sorry to interrupt your dream, Don.
While I am sympathetic to your Libertarian sensibilities. Your argument does not hold up against the Constitution.
And by the way, our education is paid for by the States.