I think most people tend to agree that this is a genuinely unfortunate situation for all parties involved. There really are no winners.

However, as I started noticing today in some unscientific polls, there is consistent data [including This ABC News Poll] that keeps cropping up showing that an overwhelming majority of Americans oppose Congress' decision to get involved in the case. The ABC News Poll has opposition at 70%, with two thirds of respondents believing the action is politically motivated.

I would like to think that this is an opportunity for the supporters of Bush, Kerry, Badnarik and Nader, et. al., to find some common ground that might generate some idea sharing on all parts. Since we now have something to agree upon, maybe we can move forward a bit and start finding more common ground that can make things better for all of us.

In addition, it's mostly Republicans leading this fight, and I would be delighted if DeLay's problems at home [which I must admit I haven't really followed day-to-day] resulted in the old Daschle try in 2006. There are others like him that could also go, as far as I'm concerned. But, is it likely that rampant Gerrymandering, in which the Democrats have also wielded a heavy hand around the nation, will make it unlikely that this gross overreach of federal power by the Sunday morning soundbite proponents of "smaller government" will actually pay a political price in either 2006 or 2008?

Please, I beg of you, try to work on the premise of the original assumption, i.e. political foes of the recent election have found some common ground, rather than blasting religious beliefs, the lack of perceived intelligence among our neighbors to the South, or Karl Rove.

yeah, i just saw the graph on the second page. even (by a slim majority) evangelicals dont support it, which is surprising, since if the republicans are doing it for anyone theyre doing it for their vote. i dont get why they took this stand in the first place, unless they severly misjudged public opinion.

Talking points or no talking points, their decision to act is a bit strange, considering pretty strong public opinion against action, even among the church-goers.

It's just surprising to see this specific case become sensationalized when similar situations occur everyday.

But considering the common ground shared by voters who spend most of their times these days lambasting each other with tired ass sound bites including phrases like "well-oiled hate machine" and "activist judges", do you think there might be a way to break down some of the walls separating the Blue and Red States?

Even pinkos like you could sit at the table...I guess.

can someone explain briefly to a foreigner what this whole shenanigan is about?

http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html

They don't want me, I hate Amerikkka! (joke)

I think the main problem in politics is that we don't have a very broad range of opinions. You just don't see people like Nader and Badnarik sharing equal time with the Frists and Reids of congress. Sure, the left has Kennedy and the right has McCain, but those are exceptions and not the rule. When you mix a narrow political spectrum with a useless corporate media machine, you get a very stale and weak democracy. Imagine if the media, especially TV news, covered more than just the Michael Jackson and Schiavo cases everyday! There's so much important news that people are missing and they don't even know it. People have nothing to talk about so they resort to name-calling and red state/blue state mentalities.

I get the feeling it's about euthanasia

the real silver lining is for these hypocritical republicans....

if she lives: they are heros and protectors of life (well, american life...it's still okay to kill arabs and muslims)

if she dies: the republicans have a poster child against activist liberal judges.....

Interviewed Senator Susan Collins yesterday morning and she says congressional intervention in any medical case sets dangerous precendent and could very well spell terrible trouble for individual rights a few years down the road.

But is the narrow range of opinions a result of effective media saturation, or is it the lack of true leaders without truly novel ideas?

This is one reason I brought up the redistricting issue. The turnover rate in the House is practically non-existent. Shouldn't the extreme unlikelihood of beeing booted in a November election allow legislative officials to pursue more creative solutions or more unconventional methods to approaching issues domestically and abroad.

Could one make a theoretical argument that the lack of turnover has created a situation with advantages analogous to the protections of academic tenure?

This is one of the areas of common ground quite a few people are standing pretty firmly on right now. There is a vocal minority who laud Congressional action, but in the overwhelming majority, there are a large number of voters from November who have vocalized very little if any common ground with the other side, be their state red or blue.

Can this issue begin to illustrate to some people on both sides who are instantly rankled by the voices from their opposition that we aren't all that different, we are all people who share some of the same ideals, which may start to lessen the divide that seems to keep being reinforced thanks to very little compromise or concessions on either side?

Go Cory Go!!! There's definitely an opportunity here to build something here. Nice analogy between political office and academic tenure.

I guess I've gotten cynical enough in politics to think that true leadership isn't electable anymore. The best leaders have the intergrity to admit when they make mistakes, and that's political suicide in today's media.

I suspect it's a function of the homogeneity of our culture. The "USofA" stands, in many minds around the world, for an ideal. Not everyone admires nor supports that ideal, but they recognize it nonetheless. The millions who immigrate are the ones for whom this ideal has appeal. It's really a selection bias.

If you asked most people, they would say that creep in Florida who raped and killed the 9 year old should die, and that sex offendors should be locked up for life.

If you asked most people if they think the government should take their money and give it to the poor, they would disagree.

Most of us don't have the experience, information, nor expertise to comment meaningfully on the environment, nor on world affairs (e.g. Iraq).

Don't draw your conclusions from the talking heads. They talk the way they do because they do it for a living. Do you really think Ted Kennedy or Bill Clinton want the poor to have all their money? It's a role for them, and they play that role to get paid.

Apparently the Federal Judge appointed to the case ruled that the feeding tube is not to be reinserted and the parents have now filed yet ANOTHER appeal to this ruling.

This case is so disturbing. I feel the parents are just clinging to false hope because instead of doing what's obviously best for their daughter they're trying to keep her alive to make themselves happy. So they don't have to suffer any sort of guilt perhaps? I don't know why but I become so damn angry every time I read about the parents fighting this. I can understand a couple years, maybe even five. But 15?? She's not going to come out of this no matter how hard they hope.

I read something yesterday about how even though Doctors can verify her collapse and condition are due to her eating disorder her parents have categorically denied she ever had one(even though it's been claimed in reports her mother was well aware and never tried to do anything). Which is why I brought up the guilt angle above.

I think this poor woman needs to be put at peace.

I think they should reinsert the tube, then send her out on the carnival circuit. You could set up the booth next to Ed Gein's car.

It depends how you frame the question. If you ask, "Are you willing to pay taxes to give poor people your money," they would probably say no. But if you say, "Are you willing to pay taxes to create a safety net that recognizes that people have a right to live," then they might give a different opinion. I think an atheist like myself and an evangelical Christian both believe that people have a right to live, so we find common ground there. If we collectivized our resources to combat poverty and set up a safety net through the federal government, we probably wouldn't need so much charity, and that would free people up to do other things.



We would if the media did some decent reporting. It was very hard for me to find a different opinion on TV during the buildup to the Iraq War. It also doesn't help when they report on the Jackson trial all day.

Her brother was on tv this morning as we were heading out, and his argument was thus:

- The husband is a gold digger, as he stands to inherit close to a million $ from her death
- The husband is a bad guy because he remarried 10 years ago and has 2 kids with the new wife
- The husband's testimony that she wished not to be kept alive like this is not something they ever heard her say, and thus didn't happen... he only wants the $.


Crap. Pure crap. And he played as hard as he could to the heart strings with it, too. I understand it's hard to watch your sister die, but to be frank, the "dying" pretty much happened 15 years ago. If you could dig up yer gramma who died last month and re-animate her corpse by feeding it with a tube and breathing for it with a machine, would you want to? Ask yerself what the difference is, and be honest. And to say that because he's moved on with his life (he's no spring chicken anyway) and remarried, with 2 kids, is a bad thing that somehow means he doesn't love her is appalling. Asshairs.

yeah, this thing has gone on so long that i think that the principals on both sides of the bed have long ago lost sight of the facts.

Hmmm, and which is the more direct question, and which is nothing more than a string of euphamisms? You're saying that you basically have to trick people into agreeing with your position.

You cannot, therefore, conclude that people agree with you. You achieve your results by way of subterfuge.

I think if there's to be a silver lining, it's that this case has raised awareness of living wills. All of this bureaucratic BS - ALL OF IT - would have never even come to light had she had a living will that spelled out her wishes. I'm glad to see my state (AZ) has an online living will thingie. I will be filling that out soon. Then no one will ever have to doubt my wishes to be covered in cheez whiz and set afloat down the Nile.

saw a thing on the news the other day about how a living will will not always be enough - there was talk about getting a power of attorney or something like that in addition.

There;s no way Bush will find a common ground with them as long as jesus is still running the white house. At least not on this issue.

I'm saying you have to give people good reasons why taxes are spent. For example, I haven't seen a good reason why we have to spend more money developing nuclear weapons or a missile defense system, but I see good reasons to develop a universal health care system and strengthen public social security.