« Zojirushi Electric Dispensing Pot | Main | A Sam Loyd Checkerboard Puzzle »




OK. Also, what do you think is wrong with O'Reilly? I think there are definitely some things wrong with him too, but I wonder what you think.

Tom McMahon

I think of myself as a moderate's moderate. It's just that liberalism has moved so far to the left that I appear conservative to the untrained eye!

To be serious (but why start now?), let me think on that one a bit . . .


He's not uniformly conservative enough for you, or he just sucks, or both? He differs on a few issues from conservatives, but he's pretty conservative. I'm not sure how conservative you are, on the 1 being almost Stalin and the 100 being almost Mussolini scale that I just made up?
1-10 Wacky liberal (Hightower)
11-30 Liberal (Ted Kennedy)
31-70 Various shades of moderate (Chafee, Collins)
71-90 Conservative (W)
91-100 Wacky conservative (Falwell)

I'd put myself at a...40 I suppose. Where are you do you suppose, Tom?

Tom McMahon

Bill O'Reilly, by the way, has jumped the shark.


Heh, well perhaps your predictions will be closer this time, but I have my doubts. I see a lot of the "the more they know, the more they support us" talk. However, it seems to be "the more we tell them about the facts as we see them, the more they support us". If you tell people that the doctors badly misdiagnosed her, that the husband was definitely lying, that the court case was a sham, etc. of course more will jump on board. I don't think the handful out of the 200 or so judicial nominees being held up will change either. Democrats don't hold a lot of the cards right now, but Republicans seem to want Dems to hold absolutely none, and I don't think it's right. Complete dominance by either party is a bad idea. I also think judicial activism had nothing to do with this case, and that was brought up later because it was a rallying cry already for conservatives on other cases. I just don't think it fit that well in this case. Even Bill O'Reilly who is pretty conservative said that the law was followed as it was written. If you want a different result, change the law in Florida.

Tom McMahon

First, a caveat about my predictive prowess: On Election Day 2000 I predicted a Bush victory, and also predicted that "it wouldn't be as close as everybody thinks it will be". Kinda like Custer telling his men "not to take any prisoners".

The Schiavo case has the Right more energized since the 2000 election, and maybe even since Reagan. This will break the logjam in the Senate over the judicial nominees. Second, the more people know about the particulars in this one case, the likelier they are to support Terri Schiavo's now moot right to life. And already there's a Zogby poll out showing numbers much different than the first polls, which were horribly skewed.

Finally, maybe, just maybe, we have just seen the high water mark of judicial activism. "Those judges killed Terri Schiavo!" may lack elegance, but it's a powerful rallying cry for millions of voters.

On the other side, I only sense a reactive sort of passion -- Bush is for it, so I need to be against it, that sort of thing.

One more thing: I've been watching this case percolate along for the last 2 years, and I never thought it would get this big, ever.


More specifically, what will be the impetus, since the majority of people did not think that the decision was wrong?


Hm, what do you think will happen?

Tom McMahon

Actually, I think we may well have reached a "tipping point", and the tide will start to go the other way.


I'm burned out on the whole TS case. Check back with me in a year when all of the prognosticators have been proven wrong, and the world has not collapsed on itself because of this decision.

firq krumpl
3/29/2005 Killing Terri SchiavoJemima Pereira @ 11:49 pm

I’ve been interested in the Terri Schiavo case since the previous attempt to starve her to death but I’ve been remiss in commenting on the latest developments–mainly because my opinion hasn’t changed. Persons in a vegetative or near-vegetative state do not retain any abstract desire to die from their pre-vegetable days, so living wills are beside the point. You cannot make a suicide pact with your future self.

It’s all well and good to respect the desires of the dead when it comes to cremation or inheritance, all other things being equal (which they sometimes are not), but it’s a whole different matter to leave instructions to other people to kill you. Suicide is a natural right only the individual can exercise, and that right (such as it is) ends where your ability to follow through ends. If you can’t kill yourself, then you can’t kill yourself. Terri Schiavo may be able to roll her head but she can’t kill herself, so she has no right to die.

What happens to vegetables doesn’t matter to them; it only matters to us. The public’s squeamish kill-her-already attitude is the most surprising part of Terri’s case, and the least appropriate reaction of them all. Take my word for it–Terri doesn’t mind the publicity. She doesn’t care if you squabble about her autopsy by her deathbed. It doesn’t matter whether she would have minded, back when she had a mind. Terri is no longer her own problem–she’s ours, and Congress should be making a federal case out of it. At some point we do need to decide whether a husband has the right to starve his ailing wife to death. Our legal system is based on case law, and this is a case and a half.

The comments to this entry are closed.