[Peace-discuss] Liberals and Schiavo

[C. G. Estabrook]

I'm a bit concerned that this arrives on April 1, but nevertheless here
are some comments:

[1] The government also prohibited anyone from bringing her food and
water.  She wasn't dying until then.

[2] The government that M. L. King called the greatest purveyor of
violence in the world regularly ends human lives with impunity.  I was
specifically referring to abortion.

[3] The undemocratic device that some liberals seem to be putting their
hopes in, is the filibuster.

[4] I don't think you're attending to what Jefferson meant by
"aristocrats," if you can't find five (and you only need four more). --CGE


On Fri, 1 Apr 2005, Chas. 'Mark' Bee wrote:

> > 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
> 
> _______________________________________________