How Much More Like O.J. Can You Get?
Dean
You know, I worked really, really hard to stick to it when I said "this is my last word on the subject," but Jesus Christ on a pogo stick, how much more like OJ Simpson can you act? "I kept my promise?" On someone else's tombstone?!? Michael Schiavo, you are the scum of the earth, and your defenders should be ashamed.
Screw this bastard, AND anyone who continues to defend him. I've gone from thinking maybe I had him all wrong, maybe I'd just misjudged, and it was just a family dispute... from "Who can say who was ultimately right? At least she's in peace now."....to being fairly certain he murdered this girl.
"Go Jeb" is all I can say.
What a lowlife piece of human excrement.
* Update * XRLQ has a picture of the gravestone. I want to vomit.* Update 2 * I see in my trackbacks that at least one of Michael Schiavo's verminous defenders refers to my outrage as "getting religious." As if "being a vicious, hateful pr*ck who uses someone else's tombstone as a way to get revenge" is now some sort of requirement for being an atheist. Well I'll admit this much: I'd turn religious if someone could prove to me that there was a special place in Hell reserved for people who act like this--or who defend it.
Related Posts (on one page):
- A Question For The Schiavo Triumphalists
- How Much More Like O.J. Can You Get?
- I Don't Remember...
- Schiavo Triumphalism
Seriously, if I hadn't sworn off the Schiavo issue, and had decided to be really perverse and come up with a tombstone that "I'll bet that rat bastard Michael Schiavo would use," I'm not sure I could have come up with anything more perverse than what the real Michael Schiavo really did use.
His defenders are in denial.
Period.
Assuming all that to be truth, I cannot imagine disliking the Schindlers so much that I'd behave like this. I find it inconceivable for anyone who isn't a sociopathic monster.
Yeah, that's brilliant.
He is showing his anger. That doesn't make him a murderer. I would hope someone would suggest to him that his chioce of words is extremely poor and suggest he is, at best, heatless, and if he really loved his wife the best thing would be to simply change the tombstone.
In any case, this to me is a side issue. What is more important in my mind is coming to a conclusion about what is considered "alive" a "human life" and how we should treat someone who is alive, regardless of how useful they are or may be.
Do we really want to be the society where one's utility is the deciding factor in determining if one is either alive or deserving of life? (I have a feeling you agree with me, just asking the question.)
So the bastard killed her, then mocked her on the tombstone he had erected for her. It would be fitting if someone took his life, then put those same words on his tombstone:
"SO DID WE."
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Rachel: It has been my position all along--as someone who has been involved in a life/death decision like this one more than once--that it is best to err on the side of caution, but to acknowledge that ultimately some cases never have easy answers and that people of good will can disagree.
I also have nightmares about being in Terri's shoes and being artificially kept alive--I wouldn't want it if there were no real hope.
Still, I cannot imagine so cruelly and heartlessly dismissing the concerns and wishes of other family members. Even if I did want to override those other family members, I could not imagine being so cruel and heartless about it.
If this were my wife, and her family was begging me to keep her on a feeding tube and let them try alternative treatments, and there was no evidence she was in physical pain, I cannot imagine being so cruel and heartless as to absolutely refuse. Bugger any legalistic claim that "I'm her only family as her husband"--the notion that the people who gave birth to her and raised her and grew up with her have no say at all is just obscene.
Even still, I was willing to grant Schiavo the benefit of the doubt, and to assume he was acting on conscience even though he didn't seem to be--but this latest blow just tells me that there's nothing decent at all about him as a human being. Nothing. He wanted this girl dead, and wants to see himself as a saint and a hero. How vile.
But if anyone was ever acting like he has something to hide, it is Michael Schiavo. I'm glad that I'm not the only atheist who sees that.
The guy got pretty much everything that he wanted in this sorry story involving his wife's treatment and death. In the end, however, Schiavo couldn't resist giving her grieving parents the metaphorical finger at her gravesite.
Perhaps "schmuck" is too good a word for him.
Nah, a mere schmuck might do that.
Indeed. As anyone who's seen the Yiddish version of Team America can attest, schmucks perform a necessary function in life. Michael Schiavo doesn't.
Really? Then you're a better man than me.
If my wife had a heart attack, and after a squabble over her insurance her parents had repeatedly insinuated to the media that I had beaten her -- and than insinuated that by pulling her feeding tube at her request I had _murdered_ her -- I'd be pretty pissed.
I'd still like to think that I wouldn't descend to this level of pettiness...but if he is innocent (which I feel there is no way of knowing) -- I can understand the impulse.
Indeed, assuming he is innocent of all accusations and was entirely and completely honest, then at minimum this is a very cheap and nasty shot.
I completely agree.
The Schiavo case is a sad one, in part because it's an ugly family squabble that has been magnified for the whole world to see. But the only people I condemn in this saga are not the Schiavos and Schindlers, but those who chose use their pain for petty political gain -- on both sides.
As far as I'm concerned, we should never pull a feeding tube. Thank God my sister can swallow.
Yours,
Wince
But Michael was fighting this issue with the Schindlers for what? Fifteen years? He endured fifteen years of this kind of anger at the center of his life, waking up angry, going to bed angry--that does bad things to a person.
So yeah, this was tactless. Cheap shot. It was wrong for him to do it. But I think I understand why he did it.
Xrlq, in a previous post on his blog, predicted that the "right to die" will soon be replaced with a "duty to die". You may remember when Governor Richard Lamm of Colorado told the old people that "you have a duty to die and get out of the way to make room for the next generation." Of course, "the next generation" is too busy getting aborted en masse in the name of "the right to kill" (they are not so honest as to put it that way of course, but....) You may also remember the case of "Baby Doe" who was "allowed to die", i.e., to starve to death, because she was deformed. Abortion, euthanasia, eugenics.... ....what next? Yes, this is a Death Cult and I'm against it.. You may remember Dr. C. Everett Koop. Back before President Reagan chose him to be Surgeon General, he wrote a book, Whatever Happened to the Human Race?, showing the answer to that question, the end of the road, the dead end. The Ominous Parallels....
I have duty to resist "duty to die". Duty to die sounds like an actual fascist concept, worth rebelling against.
Yours,
Wince
Ah, fucking bullshit.
Over a decade ago he moved on. He found another wife, had children with her, and made a new life without Terri. He was free at any time--with Terri's parent's blessing--to move on and forget the whole thing.
He chose not to. He chose to rub her parents' face in it. He chose to rub her brothers' face in it. He chose to rub her sisters' face in it. He left her and found another family over a decade ago, and now he plays the martyr?
Fuck him. What an asshole.
Jesse Jackson, Randall Terry, Joe Scarborough, Sean Hannity, Rick Santorum, Tom Delay, and Bill Frist all exploited this issue for personal gain with the consent and support of the Schindlers, and for that they deserve a spanking.
If they want to apologize and make amends, I believe Michael should change the inscription. But as things stand they need to be reminded that their behavior has been unacceptable, and so do their goons.
I personally will never, ever vote for the people who've smeared Mike Schiavo, and I recommend others to do likewise.
Here's three for you:
1) Make sure that your sister's guardians are caring, loving people who wouldn't cause her harm. If you are already her guardian, make sure your will stipulates an appropriate successor.
2) Work to change the law. There's a fine disabled-rights group called Not Dead Yet; while I disagreed with their take on the Schiavo case, I think they do a lot of good work in protecting the rights of vulnerable citizens. Volunteer for them, or give them money.
3) Work to change the health care system. Under our current system, there will often be pressure to pull the plug on the vulnerable, because their care costs money, and the people paying for that care will usually be HMOs and other monoliths, whose primary concern is reducing their own costs to appease their shareholders. Try setting up a healthcare co-operative; these can work on a small scale, with just a few dozen committed folks, and can work wonders in times of need.
The idea that the "right to die" must automatically become an "duty to die" is a logical fallacy. The slope stops where we say it stops. I am in favor of the former, because a democratic republic must always defend its citizen's rights to make the best choices for themselves; however, I am strongly against the latter, and I do favor laws that err on the side of life when a person's will is in doubt.
Apologies -- I misread part of your post. However, with the exception of #1, my answer remains much the same. I am willing to work with disabled-rights groups, and am very open to laws that pass guardianship onto willing parties when a citizen's living will is in doubt. And I'm already engaged with health care activism.
"It would be fitting if someone took his life, then put those same words on his tombstone:
"SO DID WE." "
</blockquote>
Such compassion.
I am a part of the system. Advising me to change what I do to protect my sister is perfectly acceptable, and so much more than I got elsewhere.
Thank You,
Wince
Oh really?
No problem. I'm only sorry you had poor experiences with people on the "other side" of the debate. I believe that most politics should be civil and friendly, even when there are hugely polarized opinions.
Tom
I will stand by my analysis of him as irrational, but "irrational" just doesn't quite sum him up. I think something similar might be said about Felos and Greer.
Thanks.
Pretty far down as things go. And look! They have a spot at the link open just for Schiavo. Hell is waiting.
Now as far as proving this, my advice would be to ask Virgil.
An astute reader told me that Dean has de-linked my blog, but I see his links to Blogs for Terri, Patterico, and Xrlq are in good shape. That says a lot.
Praise the Lord, Dean, and pass the Intelligent Design.
Of course I de-linked your blog, Richard. After all, you are one of those complete assholes who say that Terri's mother, father, sisters and brothers are all to be dismissed as "venal" and "religious fanatics."
Do you think for one second, Richard, that Terri herself would appreciate the things you have said about her parents, brothers, and sisters? Do you think it even for a second?
You're a vile troll who enjoys other people's suffering. You wouldn't know "compassion" if it bit you on the ass.
"The idea that the "right to die" must automatically become an "duty to die" is a logical fallacy. The slope stops where we say it stops. I am in favor of the former, because a democratic republic must always defend its citizen's rights to make the best choices for themselves; however, I am strongly against the latter, and I do favor laws that err on the side of life when a person's will is in doubt."
Quite true. The "slippery slope" is by no means an automatic process. E.g., homosexual marriage does not necessrily lead to polygamy or bestiality, nor does denial of homosexual marriage necessarily lead to putting homosexuals in concentration camps. It doesn't logically have to be a slope at all. But, it somebody is actively tilting it, greasing it, and then giving you a shove, then it does become that.
Tom strong wrote to the other good Tom:
"Wince,
No problem. I'm only sorry you had poor experiences with people on the "other side" of the debate. I believe that most politics should be civil and friendly, even when there are hugely polarized opinions.
Tom"
Both of you gentlemen are exemplars of civil debate. Too bad I'm not, I don't have the temperament for it. You are better men than I am. But we also need Dean and the Queen cussing people out when they deserve it. And we most certainly need Arnold Harris.
Richard Bennett said that he would never vote for any of these people:
"Jesse Jackson, Randall Terry, Joe Scarborough, Sean Hannity, Rick Santorum, Tom Delay, and Bill Frist"
Neither would I, for reasons totally unrelated to this case, and I'm sure they demagogued this issue for all it was worth to them. But, unfortunately, I have to be on the same side with them in this case. That's the way the cookie crumbles.
As she's been dead for fifteen years, it hardly matters. Now, if you can expand your mind a little beyond the pretzel you've got it bent into, what do you suppose Terri (or anybody who's not completely deranged, for that matter) would think about the accusations her mother, father, sister, and brother have made, on national TV, about her husband? Is it nice to accuse him, in the complete absence of a shred of evidence, of wife-beating, murder, and exploitation? And is it "nice" to do that while peddling a videotape of her on her hospital bed for $100.00 a copy? Think about that, and don't reply. The thought process is what we're aiming for here, not the clever rejoinder.
You're a vile troll who enjoys other people's suffering. You wouldn't know "compassion" if it bit you on the ass.
Better a troll than the type of hateful moron that typically frequents your blog, big fella.
For the record:
1. Ebonics is not a language.
2. HIV causes AIDS
3. Intelligent Design is a religious dogma.
4. The Schindlers are profiteers.
That about covers it.
I love it. You are slandering this woman's father, her mother, and her sisters and brothers, and excusing it all because "it's been 15 years."
While your conscience may allow you to do that, mine won't--no matter how much you pretend that this is a "theists versus atheists" argument.
As for your shallow assertions:
1. Find me the linguist who agrees with you. I'll give you $20 if you can.
2. You hope you're correct. A big believer in everything you've been told about Africa, are you?
3. So is our shared atheism.
4. Would you care to tell me where they've made their money--and why you think Terri would approve of your slander of her mom and dad?
Man, those agnostic ID scientists are gonna have an issue with this one. And yes, there are more than a few of them.
Check out the Discovery Institute for more information. However, I was kind enough to provide this from their FAQ:
As for compassion, I prefer that everyone has liberty. Then, just maybe, they can really swim through lives of quality, self-sustenance and self-satisfaction. Rather than being reduced to floating around on leaky innertubes of compassion.
Think on all that. I don't care if you agree with me. Just think. Always.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
"3. Intelligent Design is a religious dogma."
And Dean replied:
"3. So is our shared atheism."
And so is my polytheism. So is the Trinitarianism of Christians. So is the ethical monotheism of Jews. So is the totalitarian monotheism of our Muslim terrorist enemies.
It's all religious dogma. Evolutionists make fun of Catholics for venerating the relics of the bones of saints -- and then the evolutionists make relics out of the skulls of monkeys.
Dean, I'm neither a Christian nor an atheist, I'm an Episcopalian.
CENTER FOR THE RENEWAL OF SCIENCE &CULTURE
INTRODUCTION
The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built. Its influence can be detected in most, if not all, of the West's greatest achievements, including representative democracy, human rights, free enterprise, and progress in the arts and sciences.
Yet a little over a century ago, this cardinal idea came under wholesale attack by intellectuals drawing on the discoveries of modern science. Debunking the traditional conceptions of both God and man, thinkers such as Charles Darwin, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud portrayed humans not as moral and spiritual beings, but as animals or machines who inhabited a universe ruled by purely impersonal forces and whose behavior and very thoughts were dictated by the unbending forces of biology, chemistry, and environment. This materialistic conception of reality eventually infected virtually every area of our culture, from politics and economics to literature and art
The cultural consequences of this triumph of materialism were devastating. Materialists denied the existence of objective moral standards, claiming that environment dictates our behavior and beliefs. Such moral relativism was uncritically adopted by much of the social sciences, and it still undergirds much of modern economics, political science, psychology and sociology.
Materialists also undermined personal responsibility by asserting that human thoughts and behaviors are dictated by our biology and environment. The results can be seen in modern approaches to criminal justice, product liability, and welfare. In the materialist scheme of things, everyone is a victim and no one can be held accountable for his or her actions.
Finally, materialism spawned a virulent strain of utopianism. Thinking they could engineer the perfect society through the application of scientific knowledge, materialist reformers advocated coercive government programs that falsely promised to create heaven on earth.
Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies. Bringing together leading scholars from the natural sciences and those from the humanities and social sciences, the Center explores how new developments in biology, physics and cognitive science raise serious doubts about scientific materialism and have re-opened the case for a broadly theistic understanding of nature. The Center awards fellowships for original research, holds conferences, and briefs policymakers about the opportunities for life after materialism.
This is religion, not science.
"This is religion, not science."
And it's absolutely true. Evolution isn't science either. After reading what evolutionists say about their Creator (i.e., that there is no Creator) and about themselves (i.e., that they are nothing more than "evolved" monkeys), I've concluded that it's a gigantic hoax. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot not only totally believed in the theory of evolution, they proceeded to carry it out systematically. I used to call myself a theistic evolutionist, but now I see that that's no longer possible. I'm a creationist -- proudly.
"An idiot is what you are, Anderson, proudly or otherwise."
True, har! har! Also a fucking asshole moron bastard. And many other things. Dogmatic, reactionary, elitist, egoist, imperialist warmonger, deviated prevert, etc., etc....
About Arnold Harris, as I wrote here:
Arnold Harris is a man of superlative rationality, independence, integrity, honesty, justice, productiveness, pride, a quintessential American (with all that that word implies), the kind of man who built this country, an individualist par excellence, consistent and true to his principles of liberty and justice for all. He is a hero.
Because of Arnold Harris, Mount Horeb, Wisconsin, is a sacred place to me, even on a par with Monmouth, Oregon.
And, HAIL TO THE QUEEN OF ALL EVIL....!!!!
I admire Dean
For marrying the Queen.
I admire the Queen
For marrying Dean.
"You're also an ass-kisser."
Not yours. The Queen's, except that Dean would then give me the death penalty, har! har!
Over time, I have learned that SMA owns one of most refreshingly original minds commenting on Dean's World, and I greatly value him for that. It took me a while to realize that conversations with someone capable of drawing intellectual sustenance from Oswald Spengler, Friedrich Nietzsche, Ayn Rand, Jean Laponce, L Frank Baum, George Orwell, Jack T Chick, and G K Chesterton is an experience to be treasured.
Why? Because in a complex world, there is an increasing need for all of us to learn the art of studying mutually contradictory points of view. And I think SMA does that better than most of it. He certainly does it better than me.
Think on all this. Maybe it will change your mind, just a little.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
I wish I were half the man you make me out to be in your comments. (Note my purposeful use of the subjunctive.) But by the time you get to be 71 years of age, and you are honest with yourself, you come to recognize your shortcomings as well as your strengths.
Like Dirty Harry said: "A man has to know his own limitations."
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
THANK YOU!!!! (again) My statement about you still stands.
It's been fun arguing with you, Richard, but I hear your Mama saying it's time for bed. Nighty-night. Be sure to pray your rosary.
"SMA,
I wish I were half the man you make me out to be in your comments. (Note my purposeful use of the subjunctive.) But by the time you get to be 71 years of age, and you are honest with yourself, you come to recognize your shortcomings as well as your strengths.
Like Dirty Harry said: "A man has to know his own limitations.""
I recognized my shortcomings as well as my strengths since before I was 7, and I would say that I would gladly trade your shortcomings for mine, except for the one reason that, even with all my abundant shortcomings, I still have never wanted to be anybody else but who I am, Steven Malcolm Anderson from Monmouth, Oregon.
That's a tall order, as linguists are generally loathe to wade into debates over whose "dialect" should be considered a "language," or vice-versa. There is no clear definition of either. The best I've seen to date is that a language is a dialect with an army.
That said, I could, off the top of my head, produce at least two names of prominent linguists who have studied BEV extensively and come as close to saying "Ebonics is not a language" as they would of any other English dialect, be it Scottish, Welsh, Texan, New Yorker or whatever. I won't post those names right now, though, as doing so would enable Mr. Cabeza to copy and paste them into another comment and claim his $20.
That, by contrast, has got to be one of the single dumbest thing I've seen on the Internet in almost a week. I was going to say year, but then I remembered a bunch of other really dumb things Cabeza has said of late, along with another Schiavo apologist who proudly announced the "fact" that you can't see the balloon in the (in-)famous Terri Schiavo video. That one ranks so high in the dumb department I'm not sure even Cabeza can top it.