Tom DeLay's Lifeline

Tom DeLay needs to keep Terri Schiavo alive in the worst way, because her tragic plight is a political feeding tube for his comatose, scandal-ridden career.

What else can explain DeLay's utter cynicism, and his blatant use of a terrible family tragedy for political gain, waving the flag of "life" to his religious base. This is a man who would subpoena a woman who has been in a persistant vegetative state for 15 years to appear before Congress. This is a man who would say this: "All we're doing in Congress is giving Terri Schiavo an opportunity to come to the Federal courts and review what this judge in Florida has been doing, and he's been trying to kill Terri for 4 1/2 years." Trying to kill Terri. Say it a few times out loud. Now just say "Terri" like you know her, like you know her husband, like you know her parents. Like you're right there for her, holding her hand. What breed of reptilian creature would say those words?

Walk across to the other side of the Capitol and here's what Bill Frist's leadership is handing out to its Republican Senators by way of GOP talking points:

• "This is an important moral issue and the pro-life base will be excited..."
• "This is a great political issue... this is a tough issue for Democrats."

Ah Frist, the respected heart doctor who - after viewing some videotape from the hospice where Terri Schiavo lays without communication - went to the Senate floor and said her doctors were wrong. "She certainly seems to respond to visual stimuli," said the doc.

It would be wonderful if Terri Schiavo awoke, if her family didn't have this burden. I don't know if her feeding tube should be maintained or not, don't know if there's any chance at cognition. Her court-appointed guardian (that's Florida's state guardian, all you anti-Federalists) spent a great deal of time trying to get the young woman to respond. His report and his memories of the experience are moving indeed. I admit, as he does, that it's hard not to think of miracles.

I do know that the Republicans, as Jim Wolcott writes, are "treating this poor woman as if she were their personal pet rock." There's Senator Frist building his case for conservative support in the 2008 primaries. There's Congressman DeLay turning the spotlight from his ongoing corruption probes. And there's Terri Schiavo, unaware of either of them, or anything else.

UPDATE: Our embarrassing Congress (yes, including the Democrats) has apparently reached some compromise to extend the might of the Federal government's legislative branch into this family's tragedy, and our President plans to return to Washington on Monday to sign the slip of paper. Meanwhile, Joe Gandelman has a great round-up of other opinion on this ranging from calls to send in Federal marshals (from Republicans!) to personal descriptions of similar family tragedies (including one from Joe's own family). Chervokas recalls his father-in-law's last days, and adds this: "...as much as I despise the nattering, self-serving, hogwash of the Republican leadership, I nurture a special contempt for religious leaders who teach that the court-ordered force feeding of a woman who will never think again is a celebration of life." More in the same vein from Matthew Yglesias: "... the rank partisanship, crass opportunism, and utter disregard for principle or common decency that the GOP's been displaying on this front for the past several days are quite possibly the most stomach-turning series of events it's been my misfortune to witness in my (admittedly small number of) years as an observer of the American political scene." Hey Matt, I've been around a while and this also ranks as a stomach-turner for me as well. Jarvis points out that this is a rare public moment when liberals and libertarians agree and aren't afraid to say so. And The Bull Moose (libertarian, conservative Democrat) says that the Republicans "give grandstanding a bad name."

Comments

[Tom K]

It's been a very long time since even states-rights advocates argued that the federal constitution does not allow Congress to act where a state is taking a citizen's life without justification. Whether that is what's happening here or not is the point of contention. I have no doubt that politics is at work, but I it is equally at work in your rush to condemn efforts to prevent starving a woman to death who has brain function, whose parents want her to continue, and whose husband, advocating her termination, is so positioned that one can't help but ask whether he has her intentions and best interests at heart.

[Tom W.]

Rush to condemn...starving to death....brain function etc. You're reading from the plabook, Tom. Do yoursself a favor and read the report of the guy from the lower Florida courts (this was pre-Jeb's Law) and what he found. Yeah, I've watched the videotapes - I don't know if anything's there, and neither does Bill Frist. The talking points show that the GOP leadership is just playing politics - and badly at that.

[Tom K]

*starving to death....brain function etc. You're reading from the plabook, Tom.*

Get real. I don't even have the playbook, and I haven't listen to what the Cong. Repubs. are saying. It stands to reason they are saying these things, because they are the things that matter on this issue. My wife was quite surprised to hear that they were going to terminate someone with brain function. You don't like "starve to death"? Well, don't bring up situations where that is proposed to be done, and I won't mention it. If killing this woman is the right thing to do, then they should kill her quickly, not leave her to starve. And I'd be inclined to go with her parents judgment over her husband's, since they evidently haven't yet found a replacement for her in their lives, and are therefore less conflicted. And I say that without assuming the husband's a bad guy: I don't pretend to know, and can't imagine being in his position.

But just to be clear: this talk of "miracles" and "cures" misses the point. The moral question, as I see it, is whether someone in her state *as it is now* has a life that is worth preserving. My instincts are toward yes, but I concede I don't know all the details. So we get back to, who should decide? From what I know of this situation, I trust the parents most as decision-makers. But my major gripe is that you are, once again, arguing that Repubs. "don't care" about their core issues, like life -- this may be true, but it is just like Repubs. arguing that Dems. "don't care" about poverty, that they like it because it increases the Dom. voting rolls. It's ugly analysis and, even though it doubtless contains some measure of truth, it cheapens the discourse to focus on the basest aspects of one's adversary.

[Tom K]

**"All we're doing in Congress is giving Terri Schiavo an opportunity to come to the Federal courts and review what this judge in Florida has been doing, and he's been trying to kill Terri for 4 1/2 years." Trying to kill Terri. Say it a few times out loud. Now just say "Terri" like you know her, like you know her husband, like you know her parents. Like you're right there for her, holding her hand. What breed of reptilian creature would say those words?**

Hmmm. One side wants to end her life, the other displays unwarranted familiarity. Yeah, it's the latter that offends me more, for sure.

Look, I don't know what the right thing to do here is. But to characterize efforts to prevent this woman's termination as "reptilian" is just over-the-top demonizing. Stop yourself; if anyone's listening, you're doing harm.

[Darone]

Trust the parents...This is not about the parents. This is about Terri Shiavo. I don't know about most of you, but after the age of 21 my parents didn't govern my life anymore. The court made a ruling, not her husband, based on EVIDENCE that this woman's wish would not be to substain her life after a reasonable (15 years sounds reasonable) amount of time. This is some seriously ugly politics here, and unfortunately it is here to stay.

[Tom K]

Darone:

I don't pretend to have mastered the details, but someone apart from the state should be responsible for making decisions on this woman's behalf, even if those decisions are subject to review. Parents do not make decisions for competent people over 21, but frequently do for the legally incompetent. Spouses frequently do, to, though in this case that seems to be part of the problem. Even entirely unrelated people may be appointed to make decisions for the incompetent. The idea of the state -- state of Fla. or or Fed. legislature -- being the primary decision-maker for any incompetent is dangerous. If they have a living relative who cares, that is the person who should get first priority, in my view.

[Tom W.]

So you're advocating Congress instead, eh Tom?
It's just not consistent.
Let me be clear: I don't want the woman to die. I'm not sure it's right to disconnect her from the feeding tube. I don't know what she feels.
But I'm damned certain it's obscene to watch DeLay and Frist grandstand on this one person's fate - that is what is reptilian.

[Tom K]

I'm saying that, if the question is what her expressed preference was, I trust her parents But are you really saying that, if the state courts should decide to put someone to death over her husband more under these circumstances. Who should make the call as to whose account is more credible? Generally, the state courts.

That said, if you proceed from the premise that her life is about to be taken improperly as a result of a ruling by a state court, I can't believe you seriously contend that this does not implicate her federal constitutional rights. I might contend that, but only under a view of the Constitution that has long since been discarded by everyone but me and Ron Paul.

I don't know that the feds. should get involved. But I do know that refusing to see the moral case for their involvement is part of the coarsening of political debate in this country. Jon Stewart should log on to tell you that you are hurting America.

Remember, now, her parents disagree with her ex-husband's claim that she said she would want to be terminated under these circumstances. So this isn't a case involving libertarian principles at all, unless you extend those principles, hypothetically, to include termination of an inconvenient spouse. Whatever the ultimate right answer here is, your position that it is "reptilian" for Republican politicians to try and intervene is just ugly, partisan hatifying. Even if, like I said before, it surely has some truth to it, it is the opposite of the process this country needs, whereby we assume the best of our adversaries and then explain why they nonetheless are mistaken.

Your point seems to be almost the opposite of this: you don't know if they're right or wrong, but you know they're evil. (Or maybe just reptilian). Well, include me out of that sort of thing, whichever way it's flowing.

[Tom K]

Excuse my incoherence. Not sure what's going on here. In any case, I amend my first paragraph as follows:

"I'm saying that, if the question is what her expressed preference was, I trust her parents over her husband under these circumstances. Who should make the call as to whose account is more credible? Generally, the state courts."

[bruce b.]

TK, I have to agree with TW that you are being horribly inconsistent from your usual "strict constructionist" postition on what the constitution does and does not allow.

It strikes me as odd -- and inconsistent -- that you feel SO STRONGLY that there is no constitutional precedent or justification for either Roe v. Wade or the right to privacy -- legal precedent be damned, you agree with Scalia that we have to have a narrow interpretation of a 215 year old document -- but in this case you seem to be quite willing to interpret the constitution broadly, as fits your point of view on this issue. Isn't the Schiavo case, if anything, an argument against "strict constructionism"?

Further, your continued use of the term "kill" to describe what is happening to Terry Schiavo is loaded terminology, much more so that TW's straightforward accusation of reptilianism against DeLay.

There is no doubt that the Republicans are using this case for cynical political purposes.

In addition to TW's original point about DeLay using this to rescue his fast-sinking political career -- an excellent point -- what about the issue of how this case distracted attention from the second anniversary of the Iraq war? The Republican policies have killed over 1,500 young Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis. I personally have a very hard time understanding on what possible scale of moral values the life of one woman in a vegatative state for 15 years takes on so much value but the lives of tens of thousands take on so little.

And, by the way, you mistated the history of the ANC, in a loose and cavalier manner, when you spoke of Winnie Mandela's "necklacings". "Necklacing" was a mass phenomena in the townships, used against collaborators, and was never ANC policy. Winnie Mandela was indeed a loose cannon and if memory serves me correctly was accused of having a murder committed for personal reasons -- it had nothing to do with "ANC terrorism." I can't recall the outcome of this accusation. Winnie Mandela proved something of an embarrassment to Nelson Mandela after he got out of jail, although she deserves credit for her steadfastness and sacrifices during his long imprisonment. The ANC DID have an armed wing, I believe it was headed up by Oliver Tambo, formerly Mandela's law partner and a revered figure. Having an armed wing is very different from being a "terrorist organization." Whipping out this argument against the ANC a standard conservative propaganda technique.

But to get back to the original point: could you please quote the section of the US Constitution that justifies the Republican/Delay actions in the Schiavo case?

[Tom W.]

Can't be more clear than this - what is reptilian is Tom DeLay's grandstanding. What part about that don't you get?

[Tom K]

Tom W:

I "get" what you're saying. What I'm saying is that, by refusing to recognize that there is a legitimate moral issue presented here, you are contributing to the coarsening of our public discourse. What part of that don't you get?

[Tom K]

*Further, your continued use of the term "kill" to describe what is happening to Terry Schiavo is loaded terminology, much more so that TW's straightforward accusation of reptilianism against DeLay.*

Bruce:

I hope to respond to the various issues you've raised when I have the time tomorrow. But as to this point, I just don't see what you are saying.

So far as I konw, no one can dispute that this woman is alive -- the question is whether her life, and prospects for recovery, are such that it is better to cease the measures keeping her alive, and whether that is what she would want. I use both "kill" and "terminate", at different points, but don't see why it should matter. There is nothing "loaded" about calling a spade a spade. (One could argue that "terminate" is the more loaded phrase, since it euphamistically obscures what is being done).

That this woman stands to die, by some human agency, is objective fact in a way that Tom's "reptilian" characterization is not. Generally, when one human dies as a result of the actions of another, that is known as "killing". If I had said "murder", I'd see you point, but "kill" is neutral and desriptive in this context.

[chervokas]

Tom K. I don't know if you've ever faced a situation like this. But my wife and her family have, and my experience is that to frame the debate as a primative one based on a supposed moral absolute is just not correct.

Modern technology allows doctors to keep people from dying almost eternally. Look at this poor woman who had been lying in that bed for 15 years! When the natural course of a life and disease or condition has reached the inevitable point of death but machines can forestall that without actually restoring the person, then you're no longer saving a life by leaving the machines in place, you've entered some ghoulish twilight zone.

As my mother--a staunch Catholic and hospice volunteer--said to me when my father in law was lingering on life support and my wife's family was deciding to pull the plug, we weren't keeping him alive, we were just keeping him from dying.

THat's clearly happened in this case. Lower courts have reviewed the matter. The state has determined that the husband has standing and that the woman is in a persistant vegetative state. All that's happening now it that machines are preventing her release from a medical purgatory.

As to the Fed. gov't's involvement, well, a Congressional subpeona to a woman in a persistent vegetative state is just about the most despicable piece of poisonous political ugliness I've ever seen. When I heard about that I literally felt nauseous. These assholes should all be ashamed of themselves. I don't know how they sleep at night.

Meanwhile, I wonder if they're winning political points or losing them. The radical Christian right was already in their corner. And I can't imagine anyone who's actually had to face a situation like Terri Shiavo's feeling anything but loathing and contempt for this kind of unwarranted, unseemly, and frankly inhuman abuse of power.

[Tom K]

*The state has determined that the husband has standing . . .*

I guess this is the point I am uncomfortable with. Putting aside the particulars of this situation, and just posing a hypothetical question as to who ought to represent the interests of an incapacitated person, it seems pretty plain to me that a spouse who has remarried generally is a less appropriate representative than a parent. Not that I presume to blame the guy, but by remarrying he put himself in a position where his commitment to her best interests could reasonably be questioned, and I don't think parents who want to see their child kept alive should be overruled by an ex-spouse.

Now, I don't really know what the significance of the standing issue is here. I assume the state court's function is to determine the will of the incompetent, regardless of who commenced the proceeding. (I don't know, but it seems that should be the case.) So the state's done its job, and I don't see that the feds "should" be overruling its decision here, even if I disagree with it (or suspect I might disagree with it if I educated myself on the subject).

But Tom's partisan take on the situation ignores the fact (I consider it a fact) that there's a tough issue and a reasonable argument to be made here. If I may bring in briefly an aspect of what Bruce had written, it seems odd that I, rather than Tom W, am seen as guilty of inconsistency here.

Tom W hasn't exactly said federal involvement would be legally improper: he's mostly focused on the reptilian qualities he sees in its advocates. But he is at least as much on the negative side of the "federal jurisdiction" argument as I am on the affirmative side -- I haven't advocated federal involvement, I've just advocated not assuming the worst of all those who do advocate it.

So Bruce, why am I charged with inconsistancy but not Tom, who generally favors a more expansive role for the federal government than I do? And Tom, assume for a moment that a federal legislator honestly believed that a state medical determination stood to cause an imminent loss of innocent life, under circumstances where, by your standards, that position was at least plausible. Do you believe that it would be a) immoral or b) unconstitutional for that legislator to try to stop it?

Finally, Jason, I cannot imagine why they subpoenaed the woman. Certainly, that smacks of grandstanding, and it isn't the only aspect of this that does. I did hear that the Judge who ruled most recently had never observed her condition in person; I don't see how that could be corrected by a congressional subpoena, but I do think the final question here is whether the spark of life resides in this woman, and whoever has to make the very difficult decision involved here should undertake direct observation as part of the decision-making process.

[Tom K]

*But to get back to the original point: could you please quote the section of the US Constitution that justifies the Republican/Delay actions in the Schiavo case?*

Bruce: if she were about to be electrocuted by the state of Florida after a full judicial criminal process, is there any doubt in your mind that she would be entitled to federal court review?

If I were looking to argue for federal jursidiction -- instead of merely arguing that we should acknowledge the possibility that those who do so argue are not all evil -- I suppose I would rely on the 14th Amendment, which prevents states from depriving people of life without due process of law.

Was she afforded due process in the course of the various Florida state court proceedings? I would expect she was, but it seems the 14th Am. at least would permit federal inquiry into that. If it were determined that appropriate proceedures were used, but the wrong result reached, we'd then have a question as to whether the Due Process clause secures substantive as well as procedural rights, which is one of the thorniest issues of Constitutional law. If I recall correctly, the answer is no, except when it is yes.

[Ralph]

These right to life assholes make me sick. So 'thou shalt not kill' only applies to the unborn and the brain-dead huh? But war, torture, and the death penalty are all morally acceptable for them. Tom K. you are really pushing the interpretation of 'depriving people of life without due process of law' since back then, people in her condition died. There were no ICUs or feeding tubes to pull. Nobody languished in vegetative states for 15 years. When it was your time to go, it was your time to go. If these conservative Republicans nut jobs believe in God so much, then what about God's will? Why don't they accept that she is better off in heaven with Jesus, than floating in limbo-land on a hospital bed for the next 30+ years. Of course I am being factious, but really, this should be decided by the State of Florida, not a bunch of grandstanding hypocrites. I think the narrow interpretation of the Constitution is crazy. Life in 2005 is much different than in 1788. In fact, we should have a new Constitutional convention.

[chervokas]

Tom-

I dunno. The "spark of life" exists in every case where a plug is pulled or a tube of some sort is removed. That's what makes the decision so brutal for the people making it. I don't think "spark of life" is a meaningful test at all.

I don't think a judge observing the external physical condition of a patient is meaningful either. That's why we have expert testimony and court appointed guardians and any number of other measures designed to quantify the patient's condition. You and I can stand there and look at this woman or any number of people being kept from dying by life support machinery, but that wouldn't come close to qualifying us to make a determination about their condition.

Finally the way the Republican leadership has grabbed this issue, sent members to the hustings with talking points, issued the aforementioned subpeona all point to what's really going on here--a ghoulish attempt to win political points at the expense of a family horror. The state itself should barely have a role to play in that personal drama, but once the state determines the condition and the decision-maker, there's nothing more another layer of government can do besides prolong suffering and tragedy in a twisted, sickening attempt to score political points.

[Chip Culpepper]

As a Georgia legislator once said, "You can't take politics out of politics." This is as good example as can be found. Dump a pile of manure in even the most obscure place and a Democratic will not only find it but will jump in it with both feet and blame Republicans.

It’s getting difficult separating personal agenda from truth in the Terri Schaivo affair. There’s some question about the motivation of the husband. There’s hearsay concerning Terri’s wishes. I’ve seen interviews from people who awoke from similar cases. We have debates over State’s rights versus Federal intervention.
There’s plenty of politics on both sides of isle, each side trying to act sincere while blaming the other of partisan games.
What is more pure than a parents love for their daughter and the desire to keep her alive in the hope she may be able to join them around the dinner table one day? Parents of severely retarded children spend their whole lives caring for a person with not much more ability than Terri Schaivo. One must assume they carry the same hope as Terri’s parents.
Go to a quite place, filter out all the political banter, and get a gut check on this one. For me there’s a crystal clear choice on which side of this issue to stand.
When you know you stand on the wrong side of an issue and continue to fight, you end up in the middle of the road.

*It would be wonderful if Terri Schiavo awoke, if her family didn't have this burden. I don't know if her feeding tube should be maintained or not,…*
* I admit, as he does, that it's hard not to think of miracles.*

The middle of the road happens to be the best place to get run over. This might be an issue for Democrats to clean the manure off their shoes and moveon.tosomethingelse.org.

[Tom K]

*I don't think a judge observing the external physical condition of a patient is meaningful either. That's why we have expert testimony and court appointed guardians and any number of other measures designed to quantify the patient's condition. You and I can stand there and look at this woman or any number of people being kept from dying by life support machinery, but that wouldn't come close to qualifying us to make a determination about their condition.*

Here I must strongly disagree. Direct observation should be *part* of the decision-making process, in my view. Otherwise, one could have a pile of paper leading to the termination of a person who, on examination, is plainly alive. Piles of paper can be wrong, even when written by experts.

In my own experience, I have had doctors tell me a comatose loved one could not hear what was being said, and had that person tell me, upon awaking, what I had read to them while comatose. The experts don't have the whole answer here; I'm not suggesting they aren't a key component, but they aren't, or shouldn't be, the whole deal.

[Tom K]

Bruce:

As I said, I didn't mean to pick on the ANC, but I thought the analogy to Sinn Fein and the IRA particularly apt. Your response appears to be that the ANC was a political party with an armed wing, while Sinn Fein is, what? A terrorist organization, I guess you are saying. I just don't see how the distinction you are drawing has any basis apart from political preference. Indeed, if GWB were here, he might accuse you of "the soft bigotry of low expectations" for failing to hold the South African resistance movement to the same standard you apply to the Irish. (Just kidding on that one, really).

But as to Winnie's guilt, I suggest you check out the following link. Since it is lengthy, I've excerpted what seems to be the pertinent part. As to necklacing not being ANC "policy", it need hardly be said that the McCartney murders did not represent IRA, nor certainly Sinn Fein, "policy". However, necklacings would appear to have been much more a part of established practice in the South African liberation movement than the McCartney murder was part of any "practice" in Northern Ireland.

To reiterate, it is not my point that Sinn Fein, the IRA or the Irish are in any way morally superior to the ANC, its armed affiliate, or the people it represents. Nor do I dispute that the injustices suffered by the black South African population were considerably more egregious than those suffered by those populating the N. Irish resistence movement. But I do not see why the ANC's legitimacy should be unaffected by the excesses of its "armed wing", while Sinn Fein should be anathema on account of the McCartney murder. I just don't follow the chain of logic. Also, note I am not arguing that the ANC *should* be considered illegitimate, so your accusation that I am parroting "a standard conservative propaganda technique" doesn't really fit the facts.

Anyway, here's the link, to what appears a reputable source:

http://www.sabctruth.co.za/slicesright.htm

Hanif Vally:
1. …Statement made on the 13th of April 1986 by Mrs Winnie Madikizela-Mandela, and I quote: "Together with our boxes of matches and our necklaces we shall liberate this country." Unquote. Statement made by Mr Alfred Nzo, 14th of September 1986, and I quote: "Whatever the people decide to use to eliminate those enemy elements is their decision. If they decide to use necklacing, we support it." Unquote. There is an argument to be made that a just war encompasses two elements, not just the end result which must be just, but the means to that end result must also be just. Why did it take the ANC so long to condemn the practice of necklacing?…

[chervokas]

Tom-

Fair enough about the imperfection of medical expertise, but I'm skeptical that an in person inspection by a judge would yeild much of meaningful value except in cases where a person is "plainly alive" and my guess is that those aren't cases that typically wind up in court. It couldn't hurt, I suppose. But I'm not sure how much it would help either.

[bruce b.]

TK,

I just re-read the whole Robert McCartney -- "Ireland Forever" thread to get clear on exactly who said what, when.

You WERE indeed "cavalier" in your reference to "Winnie Mandela's necklacings", which was my original complaint.

it wasn't clear to me what the nature of the Web site you were quoting about the "necklacings" was. Are these excerpts from testimony by the South African "Truth Commission"? By the way, please note that the ANC government initiated these Truth Commissions, which looked at ALL of the practices during the liberation struggle, both the practices of the oppressors and the oppressed.

If these were Truth Commission excerpts, then they just back up my point, which was that the necklacings were a spontaneous phenomena of the mass movement and never the policy of the ANC. The items you quote for the most part state that the ANC was SLOW to condemn them. You also have a quote from Winnie M. that the necklacings were ok precisely because they were a mass phenomena directed against the oppressor.

The ANC did pursue a (very modest) armed struggle -- modest, for example, as compared to guerilla armed struggles in places like Vietnam, China, Nicaragua, Angola, etc. But armed struggle is not the same as terrorism. "terrorism" as a tactic and strategy delineates itself by its indiscriminate use of civilian targets, hence the "terror" that ensues in the general population. this was never the strategy nor a tactic pursued by the ANC. You often mix up categories: "killing someone" == "terrorism" == "Sinn Fein and ANC are equivalent".

I hate to bring this up, but you used the same sort of sophistry in your arguments regarding the Spanish Civil War.

Now, on the IRA: I travelled to Northern Ireland in 2000 (I think that was the year: I haven't checked my date book) on a NYC economic development delegation lead by Michael Carey, son of the former Governor, and got a chance to look into the situation at that time. I got their in the midst of parliamentary elections, where Sinn Fein made great gains and became the dominant party in the Catholic areas. (Both moderate camps lost ground: in the Protestant areas, the extreme right wing party lead by Rev. Paisley (sp?) made gains at the expense of the more moderate party that had taken part in the peace accords.) My feeling at the time was that Sinn Fein was indeed a legitimate political party; that it did have the support of the Catholics masses; but that what TW said about the armed wing, the IRA, was indeed true: it had devolved into a criminal gang, dealing drugs, running guns, etc.

Unlike the ANC (and many other liberation groups), the IRA did indeed pursue terrorist tactics, as you and others have pointed out. Comparing the ANC to the IRA in this regard, based in a quote or two from Winnie Mandela, is grossly unfair. That was my original point.

As for this Schiavo case, you ask why you are being pounded (rhetorically, of course) from all sides for inconsistency, whereas TW is not. Isn't TW a notorious defended of "government intervention?"

I think you are being singled out because of your avowed libertarianism. To the best of my knowledge, TW has NEVER suggested that the federal government should interfere in the private lives of citizens. Just the opposite, this is what the pro-choice position is all about.

It seems like your libertarianism only extends to the concept of "the government can't tax me."

[Tom K]

*It seems like your libertarianism only extends to the concept of "the government can't tax me."*

But I've never said that. My objections to federal taxation have always been procedural: I have a huge problem with the complexity, the related rewarding of evasion, and I believe the progressiveness invites abuse (since everyone thinks the people making more than them should be mulcted). I've never actually objected to the fact or gross amount of taxation, though of course I would prefer it be as low as possible while funding necessary operations.

*You also have a quote from Winnie M. that the necklacings were ok precisely because they were a mass phenomena directed against the oppressor.*

But they weren't necklacing Botha or even whites. (Not that I think they should have: the avoidance of race war through the transition from apartheid, while imperfect, should be source of pride to the new government.) The necklacings were thuggary, as the McCartney murder was thuggary, but unlike the McCartney murder it was part of the armed struggle, as you seem to concede.

*You WERE indeed "cavalier" in your reference to "Winnie Mandela's necklacings", which was my original complaint.*

In what way was I cavalier? I contrasted her advocacy of the practice to the IRA's response to the McCartney murder, to illustrate that both the ANC and Sinn Fein have to deal, like most every liberation movement, with thuggary in their ranks. I argued that the IRA has not "adopted" the McCartney murder in the way that she adopted necklacing, and it hasn't. But even if we stipulate that Sinn Fein and the ANC were equally responsible for these actions (by act or omission), my point was simply that Sinn Fein should not be de-legitimized due to the thuggary of certain associates, just as the ANC properly was not.

Unless you are prepared to argue that the victims of necklacing were legitimate targets, I don't think it is fair to completely reject the analogy, and I don't see what was cavalier about it.

[Tom K]

*As for this Schiavo case, you ask why you are being pounded (rhetorically, of course) from all sides for inconsistency, whereas TW is not. Isn't TW a notorious defended of "government intervention.*

Except here he finds the very suggestion of it not only wrong, but evil. Which seems at least as inconsistent as my position, since I have never questioned, for example, the propriety of federal courts reviewing state death sentences in criminal matters.