March 29, 2005

The Theocrats Are Coming! The Theocrats Are Coming!

So, Terri Schiavo is as good as dead at this point. Are you happy now, "right to die" assholes? You managed to sentence an innocent woman to slow starvation. Congratufuckinglations.

I want to talk about another aspect of this travesty today. Apparently, the Schiavo case has caused some sort of divide between the "religious right" and...well, pretty much everyone else.

I'm calling shenanigans.

This is what we call a self-fulfilling prophecy, ladies and gentlemen. The media decided that they could use this as an opportunity to try and cause a split in the Republican Party, and certain people (I won't name anyone, but they know who they are, and they probably aren't reading this) took the bait.

The media would have us believe that the people who wanted Terri kept alive were simply doing it for religious reasons, and that many of them just wanted to use her as a pawn in their eeeeeevil plan to take away women's right to murder their unborn children. I'm now seeing the old "theocracy" meme from people on both sides.

Bullshit.

Since when does a movement to keep a brain-damaged woman alive signal a push for a Christian dictatorship? Why are people who want Congress to intervene accused of also wanting the "American Taliban" to take over? This is Maureen Dowd territory, but Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, and many others seem to have fallen for it.

Look, very few people want a Christian theocracy in this country. Those who do have little to no influence, and I don't even think they have a voice. Furthermore, supporting Terri Schiavo's right to live doesn't automatically make someone a Bible-thumping fundamentalist who would support a Falwell/Robertson ticket in 2008. There are plenty of non-Christians, including atheists, who didn't want the feeding tube removed. It had nothing to do with religion.

For me, at least, it was never a religious issue. It was an issue of letting an innocent human being starve to death for the horrible crime of not being able to speak for herself. There was no record of her wishes, but for some reason, this country chose the irreversible option. Do you fucking self-righteous pricks understand that? She's going to die. That's it. You don't come back from that. If you let her live, there's always a chance that something can change. But once she's dead...game over. It makes no sense whatsoever, and that's why it doesn't surprise me.

But in any case, that's the fucking issue. Not religion. Not abortion. Not "theocracy."

It's about LIFE. Period.

When will people learn not to trust the media? I'm guessing about a week from next never.

UPDATE
More thoughts on this issue over at Right Wing News.

Posted by CD on March 29, 2005 11:25 AM
Category: Liberal Stupidity
Semi-Intelligent Comments

I think you picked a good time to end your self-censorship. That post would not have had the same impetus with a bunch of $'s around.

By the way, i'm still pushing for the burning terminal hemmoroids for Michael. It'll be a good coping experience for the rest of eternity.

Posted by: tommy at March 29, 2005 12:15 PM

Nail head, meet hammer. Spot on, CD. I'm an athiest/agnostic (depending on my sense of wonder at the moment) who wanted Terri to live simply because she was alive and deserved to stay alive simply because she was alive. That's not religeon, that's just plain hoping for the best. It's Planned Parenthood and their brothers/sisters-in-arms who wanted Terri's life to mean nothing to anyone because if it meant anything it might mean we can't keep killin' "unconscious" babies anymore. They made that connection, we didn't.

Posted by: Tuning Spork at March 31, 2005 10:07 PM

A split in the Republican party? Are you kidding me? How about a 2 week long plug for the religious right that now owns the RNC. This wasn't a terribly compelling issue among most Americans. The polls state that an overwhelming majority of Americans supported Mr. Schiavo's decision, yet this issue received almost as much coverage as the 9-11 terrorist attack in its later stage?

Posted by: Patrick at April 3, 2005 06:39 PM

The polls state that an overwhelming majority of Americans supported Mr. Schiavo's decision...

Yes, because ridiculously slanted polls that portray people who need feeding tubes as being on "life support" create a flawless picture of public opinion.

Moron.

Posted by: CD at April 3, 2005 08:39 PM

Are you ready to assert that reliance on a feeding tube doesn't constitute life-support? If so, you'll have to excuse me for disagreeing with you. I've been on a 20 year long vacation in in a place where logic maintains a respected presence in the definition of intelligence.

Posted by: Patrick at April 4, 2005 02:18 AM

If a feeding tube constitutes life support, then so does a restaurant.

Posted by: CD at April 4, 2005 02:40 AM

Patrick, since you're into polls, this is for you.

Zogby:

"If a disabled person is not terminally ill, not in a coma, and not being kept alive on life support, and they have no written directive, should or should they not be denied food and water," the poll asked.

A whopping 79 percent said the patient should not have food and water taken away while just 9 percent said yes.

Posted by: BD at April 4, 2005 12:04 PM

Patrick:
Which poll are you referring to? If you have a link or source, that would be great. Thanks.

Posted by: Crispy23 at April 4, 2005 03:12 PM

. BD,

You apparently lack the intelligence or proper etiquette, as it may be, to address relevant concepts of an argument.

I'll help you out. We are debating the inclusiveness of life-support in the definition of a feeding tube.

Your poll proves nothing.

The central issue is whether Ms. Schiavo was reliant on life support. I believe that if one cannot perform a simple and necessary function of survival and needs a machine to do the job, then yes, life-support is an applicable term.

Posted by: Patrick at April 4, 2005 03:30 PM

Choose one:


http://www.pollingreport.com/news.htm

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4557190

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terri_Schiavo


Posted by: Patrick at April 4, 2005 03:36 PM

Patrick,

Are you once again going to re-define the meaning of the word "is" for us too?

In the medical community, a feeding tube is NOT considered "life-support".

Posted by: Tony at April 4, 2005 04:38 PM

I believe that if one cannot perform a simple and necessary function of survival and needs a machine to do the job, then yes, life-support is an applicable term.

Somebody had better tell Stephen Hawking about this fascinating new development.

Posted by: CD at April 4, 2005 05:44 PM

What a barrel of laughs you are...

Can you move beyond the one-liners and actually address the issue? A history of your posts depicts a lack of substance, yet you seem to be attacking my sense of logic. -Funny how that works.

In response to the most recent posts-

A feeding tube could indeed be defined as life support. The case isn't closed because Tony's medical community disputes my definition of the term. The English language is inherently ambiguous. Hence the reason for legal disputes. As an academic with an ability to adeptly analyze an issue, I think Stephen Hawking might agree with my reason for dissent. If not, he surely wouldn't criticize me for disagreeing. He might disagree with my argument, but I imagine he would argue along lines that pertain to the issue rather than disregard reasoning that isn't implicit in his belief structure. Naturally, I get angry when Tony tries to liken my analysis with the petty and frivolous argument once employed by an entrapped President.

Posted by: Patrick at April 4, 2005 08:13 PM

Patrick, until you can actually make an argument, rather than insulting my supposed lack of logic and moving the goalposts, please shut the hell up.

Posted by: CD at April 4, 2005 08:28 PM

haha.

You've been bested and the only available measure of reprisal demands the usage of bully tactics and text manipulation.

Wow. Quite the master debater, aren't you?

No response needed. I'm finished here.

Posted by: Patrick at April 4, 2005 09:02 PM

How can I have been "bested" when you didn't do anything but engage in smug, self-satisfied bloviation, fucknozzle?

Good riddance.

Posted by: CD at April 4, 2005 09:26 PM

Incidentally, if anyone can point out an example of "text manipulation" (unless that's just Patrick's enlightened way of saying "writing"), I'll be thoroughly impressed.

Posted by: CD at April 4, 2005 09:29 PM

Taken from the PollingReport.com link provided by Patty,

22 MAR
"Just your best guess -- If the feeding tube that was helping to keep Terri Schiavo alive were reinserted on a permanent basis, how much of a chance do you think there is that she would eventually show significant improvement in her brain activity: a very good chance, a good chance, a slight chance, or no chance whatsoever?"

So now every citizen is a medical expert? What right does the average citizen have making medical decisions about another person's life? Decisions should never be made on the public's "opinion", which are frequently emotional swings instead of thought out decisions grounded in logic.

18-20 MAR
"Suppose you had a spouse who was in the same condition as Terry Schiavo, and it were up to you to decide whether to keep your spouse alive through the use of a feeding tube. What would you, personally, decide to do in that situation: remove the feeding tube or keep the feeding tube in place?"

Most people don't understand what "condition" she was in. Heck, doctors couldn't even agree what "condition" she was in.

Polls are overused and, more often than not, improperly conducted. Most so-called poll results simply reflect the opinions of people that read a certain website.

Since you, Patrick, have spent 20 years in the utopian college world, currently centered at Arizona State Univ, you think this makes you some type of intellectual elitist? I have met very few professors that I would consider intellectual. I am always impressed by the teacher that opens a topic up for discussion and decides to shut it down the minute someone brings up an opposing view that effective shuts down the argument of the so-called teacher. Here you've decided to withdraw from comment because you're argument was incorrectly centered around defining a feeding tube as life support. Great foundation for debate, paratard.

Posted by: Crispy23 at April 5, 2005 08:56 AM

I think "Patrick" is a student, not a professor. I'm not sure what magical liberal wonderland he's been in for 20 years.

Posted by: CD at April 5, 2005 09:10 AM

If that's the case, I'll change my angle ever so slightly:

Since you, Patrick, have spent 20 years in your mysterious underworld, and are currently subscribing to the utopia drivel that is so prevalent among colleges, currently centered at Arizona State Univ, you think this makes you some type of intellectual elitist? I have met very few professors, who are the originators of these fantasies, that I would consider intellectual. I am always impressed by the teacher that opens a topic up for discussion and decides to shut it down the minute someone brings up an opposing view that effective shuts down the argument of the so-called teacher. Here you've decided to withdraw from comment because you're argument was incorrectly centered around defining a feeding tube as life support. There's at least one thing that you've learned while you've been in college.

Posted by: Crispy23 at April 5, 2005 01:40 PM

I couldn't completely stay away. What can I say?

Irony: Crispy23 criticizes me for an alleged unwarranted arrogance when their argument revolves arount berating my intellect, therefore placing the writers inteligence at a higher standard.

What a jackass. Something about Crisp screams low test scores. -Yes, that's me being pompous. Thanks for noticing!

I originally withdrew from the epithet hurling and labeling (it hasn't been a debate since the first few comments) because I was disgusted by a genuine inability to debate the issue. I'm ready to re-engage in a debate about this issue whenever...

...And just so you know, Crispy, it isn't possible to INCORRECTLY center an argument around an issue. There may be issues raised about the respective issue's relevance or importance, but this doesn't make an argument "incorrectly focused." I'm guessing your neither a student, nor a professor.

Posted by: Patrick at April 5, 2005 05:18 PM

Irony: Patrick criticizes me for an alleged unwarranted attack on his arrogance by claiming that I berated his intellect and placed my own at a higher standard when Patrick was the one who said he's been on a mental vacation for 20 years declaring his logic leads to his intelligence.

Also, great job at refuting the rest of my other points. If those were intended as personal attacks, you need some practice.

No, my criticism "revolves" around your lack of an argument. YES, it IS possible to center an argument around the wrong area of an issue. Ever hear of a red herring? Your so called argument revolved around defining a feeding tube as life support. You have yet to offer any other fact or opinion to support your position.

You've also guessed incorrectly about my past. Either way, do you really think a test score matters? Go to the store and buy a clue.

Posted by: Crispy23 at April 5, 2005 10:39 PM

Wow. That's laughable. It's funny to watch Crispy embarass himself

-Since it's obvious your lacking in the vocab department...

red her┬Ěring
Pronunciation: "red-'her-i[ng]
Function: noun
Etymology: red herring something that distracts attention from the main issue, diversion

Again, there is no such thing as an incorrectly for argument. Your disingenious phrase implies that my opinion is somehow "wrong" because I argued over a different aspect of the issue.

The definition states that the purpous of a red herring is to distract from the main issue. Can you show me where I did that? Can you show me where I centered debate around the definition of life support? You see, Crispy the issue was originally raised by CD. If the education systems in Florida/Georgia taught better reading comprehension skills, you might understand, I guess.


I agree that polls are overused and don't necessarily mandate a right or wrong decision. As a prominent democratic senator said about the "nuclear option," a majority can sometimes be wrong too.

Keep in mind that you did originally ask me for links to the polls I cited and that your critique of the results only excuses the findings and doesn't necessarily refute them.

I said that a majority of Americans supported Mr. Schiavo's decision. You read the results of the surveys and decided that (becuase you didn't get the results you wanted or couldn't find a flaw in the polling methods?) the american people don't have a say in an issue that has cost them hordes of tax dollars and raises pertinent issues about the right to die in this country. If the American people don't deserve a say in this than why should you care so deeply about the issue? Why should either of the Bush's or congress have given the issue any consideration. You need to think about some of the statements you make. You're ignorant, and it shows!

P.S. I'm a Freshman at ASU. The comment you guys seem to have trouble with was in referance to my being in my twentieth year (I'm only 19- I lied a little)and respecting the validity of logic for as long as I can remember.

Posted by: Patrick at April 5, 2005 11:36 PM

Since it's obvious your lacking in the vocab department...

If we're going to nitpick, it's obvious you're lacking in the punctuation department. Unless you made that mistake on "purpous."

In any case, the issue is the wording of the poll, not whether the people should have a say in the issue. A feeding tube was first legally defined as life support in Florida in 1999. That means that before then, it wasn't considered life support, and therefore, a lot of people probably wouldn't think of it as such today, hence the problems with polling results. I personally think that if a patient takes over two weeks to die after the tube is removed, it shouldn't have counted as "life support." But that's an issue of semantics.

And finally, if you make another comment that doesn't have a point, I'm going to ban you. You're wasting space, and I'm too busy to deal with your pretentious bullshit. Got it?

Posted by: CD at April 5, 2005 11:48 PM

Again, personal attacks lead to nothing, Patrick.

I don't need a definition of red herring. "Disingenuous phrase", why, because you found it in a dictionary? I also don't need to you remind me what I've asked for.

Polls are NOT the place for politicians to base their decisions. They are also not the formal medium for Americans to voice their opinions to government officials.

It isn't about the use of tax dollars here (which isn't even Constitutional, anyway). It is about the friggin' court-ordered murder of an American citizen. The case was given so much executive and congressional attention because the media turned "Terri Schiavo" into a buzz word and it may have been seen by politicians as an opportunity to score some points with various groups in the American public.

Re: people not understanding her condition: When listening to people discuss the situation, as well as several television reports, a phrase I commonly heard was "pull the plug". There was no plug to pull. She wasn't on a ventilator. She simply had a feeding tube stuck in her side. Removal of this device would lead to a horrendous death by starvation. When people don't understand the condition, they have no right to comment or make judgment.

Since you are only a freshman, you may one day be asked to fill out a survey regarding drug and/or alcohol use at your school. Some questions may ask you how frequently most people use various products or in what ways they use these items. The fact is, you are not qualified to answer these questions because you aren't with every person at your college every waking moment. Remember the blind men feeling & describing the elephant? None of them gave an accurate description because none of them could see the whole picture (pun intended). Same with alcohol usage surveys. Same with public opinion polls regarding medical conditions.

One more point on polls - If you go to a Publix in FL at about 1030 on a weekday and "randomly" ask people entering or leaving the store about social security benefits [insert any issue you wish], most people are going to say we should increase them. Why? Most of the people found at this location, at this time are retired, nearing the ends of their lives and are relying on social security to keep as much money as possible in their own pocket(s). If you go back to the same store and ask the same questions at around 6-7PM, the results are going to be different because you will have working class people added into the equation. During the 1030 model, the working people were at work & unable to give voice to their stance. According to an ideal poll, neither of these models were conducted properly. Neither poll takes a true sample of the population. I'm not going to give a class on polling, but you all get the idea.

Posted by: Crispy23 at April 6, 2005 12:55 AM

CD

"That means that before then, it wasn't
considered life support, and therefore, a lot of people probably wouldn't think of it as such today"

-Do you posses a particular insight about the thinking of Floridians that the rest of the populace lacks? If so, I would love for you to divulge.

Crispy-

Indeed, the issue may not center around concerns of tax dollar usage. Could you elaborate on this statement: "which isn't even Constitutional, anyway"

Posted by: Patrick at April 6, 2005 03:16 AM

Do you posses a particular insight about the thinking of Floridians that the rest of the populace lacks?

Are you really too dense to see my point, or are you just pretending to be a huge dumbass? I'm not even going to bother with you.

Posted by: CD at April 6, 2005 08:52 AM

"Don't feed the trolls."

Posted by: Crispy23 at April 6, 2005 02:53 PM
< MTCloseComments old="10" >