[Peace-discuss] Liberals and Schiavo

[Chas. 'Mark' Bee]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at alexia.lis.uiuc.edu>
To: "Chas. 'Mark' Bee" <c-bee1 at itg.uiuc.edu>
Cc: <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 4:50 PM
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Liberals and Schiavo


> On Thu, 31 Mar 2005, Chas. 'Mark' Bee wrote:
>
>> ...That is the real issue here, it is what this case is being used for
>> by those who seek to eliminate choice...
>
> I think that you're right about this, in a sort of reversed fashion: those
> who insisted that the government must end the life of Terri Schiavo, who
> wasn't dying, did so because they feared that, unless they did, they'd
> have to admit that they couldn't end other human lives with impunity.

   Nicely put, but quite wickety-wack.  The government did not end the life of Terri Schiavo.  It refused to allow right 
wing nutters to interfere with her last wishes as they were understood by her guardian (and her friends).  Any child 
sees this.  'State killing' is a straw man argument of the first degree here.  It should be a source of humiliation for 
anyone of any intelligence caught using it.  Of course, not as much as the intimation that opposition to governmental 
intrusion is motivated by who's involved.   And this new one - a desire to end other human lives with impunity.  That's 
a corker.  ;)

>
>> ...Of course, this case - out of thousands over the past decade or so
>> - is also being given national publicity in order to generate enough
>> antipathy toward the judiciary branch to produce an army of useful
>> idiots, who will shortly run interference as the Republican congress
>> attempts to eliminate the filibuster for judicial nominees - in order
>> to put all of us under religious control for decades.
>
> Perhaps, instead of regarding them with contempt, we should talk to those
> "useful idiots" -- our fellow citizens -- about what should be done,

  That's going to work.  Yes, certainly.  When you are accosted, tied up, and thrown in someone's trunk, or any other 
organized main-force denial of rights for that matter, do you consult with them on what should be done while it's 
happening?  If so, does it work?

> instead of clutching onto a undemocratic device, long used by
> segregationists, as the savior of liberalism, and propounding fantasies of
> "all of us under religious control for decades."

  Can't quite work out what this device is, from the clues you've given.  Are you talking about the judiciary branch? 
Regarding religious control, here's a little Google:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/3/30/22051/7199
http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/3/afa/292005gst.asp
http://www.yuricareport.com/Law%20&%20Legal/AConstitutionalCrisis.htm
http://www.truthout.org/docs_05/010205K.shtml
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/391khfhv.asp
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1370800/posts
http://judicialnetwork.org/
http://www.christianmusictv.com/leftjudicial_assault_.htm

  Easy as falling off a log.  The stuff is everywhere, mostly coinciding with the Terri Sciavo publicity.  Certainly I 
am not the one indulging fantasies here.  Attack on the independent judiciary is always one of the first steps in the 
conversion to tyranny.  It is nothing less than corrupting the ability of human conscience to limit governmental action. 
Tom Delay sounded the battle cry yesterday.  Since Incurious George was selected in the late 90s specifically as their 
appointed standard-bearer, and our Democratic legislators are reeling from PR body blows delivered by nationally 
organized religiowack constituents, I suspect we'll ride it out in the trunk.  Hopefully, by 2008 people will be sick of 
the fumes.

>
> Thomas Jefferson made an important distinction between "aristocrats" and
> "democrats." The aristocrats are "those who fear and distrust the people,
> and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher
> classes." The democrats, in contrast, "identify with the people, have
> confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the honest & safe ...
> depository of the public interest," *if not always "the most wise."*
>
> Many of our contemporary liberals are aristocrats in Jefferson's sense.

   Haven't met any that I know of.  Bet you can't find me five.  Certainly in this case it is the anti-choicers who fear 
and distrust the people and their power.  It's their standard MO - implicit in their every argument.

  And now, up, up and away!  But I date myself.  No, not like that.   -cmb