Carpe Datum

Core Principles

Ok, I'll admit I don't know what's right in the Shiavo case. The credible information that I've seen suggests that much of the woman's brain has dissolved and been replaced by spinal fluid. I've also seen that she makes enough random sounds that some of them are bound to be perceived as meaningful (the stopped clock is right twice a day sort of logic). So to me, it seems reasonable to suggest that there is no hope for recovery and that she'll remain in a vegetative state.

Given that, nobody really knows except for perhaps immediate family what her wishes would be. If I were in the same boat, I know I wouldn't want to be a burden. I'd want the plug pulled within a few months at least, just to give it some time to be very clear there would be no recovery. Terri Shiavo has been this way for, what, 17 years now? Still, no one can know what sorts of private conversations went on between Terri and her husband and family regarding this.

What I can criticize here is not the family but rather statements that don't make any sense. 3-4 times in the past few days I've heard or read "pro-life" conservatives say something like this: "They say starving Terri to death will be painless. Oh yeah, well I'd like to see them starve her husband to death so he can see what it feels like." This is just one of the most common expressions supporting lethal violence in regards to this case. It is usually coupled with a lack of recognition of the husband's extraordinary efforts on her behalf for all this time, as if he's been cynically plotting her murder all this time or something.

Shouldn't that end the discussion right there? I mean, this clearly isn't a discussion about life anymore, it's just a matter of who gets to "win". And this sort of thing is pretty common. Republicans claim to stand up for individual rights and/or state's rights then routinely trample them (Patriot Act, bankrupty bill, no-child-left-behind, Shiavo bill) when it is convenient. Republicans claim life is infinitely precious to them, but in the same breath, they support without reservation the war in Iraq or various right-to-die initiatives or actions (e.g. Bush as governor, Frist as doctor, DeLay as family member). Republicans claim to be fiscal conservatives. Enough said.

Exactly what core principles can Republicans be trusted to uphold, aside from gun rights?

The long history of the Democratic party successes show that they consistently stand up for the poor. They disavow discrimination (and don't tell me white males suffer from discrimination ... find me a white male willing to switch places with a black or hispanic male for all the "benefits" first). They promote the rights and equality of women. They support the people in the military (G.I. Bill), not just the military. And that's just for starters.

What history do Republicans have to be proud of in the past, say, 100 years? What major accomplishment (in the face of opposition from the other party, so Reagan's defense spending doesn't count because Democrats passed it, unlike civil rights legislation, for example) can they claim?

Posted by Observer at March 28, 2005 09:35 AM