Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

A modest proposal…

By

Let’s try a simple experiment, shall we?  Let’s simply ask, as loud and as often as possible why Terri Schiavo was more important than Graeme Frost? Why “Terri’s law” to save her life but a veto to S-CHIP?  What are the underlying differences (if any) to the cases? Let us freep the freepers with these questions. 

Let us ask if Graeme Frost would benefit (sic) from being brain dead? Would S-CHIP then become emergency legislation?  Would the Repugnitcans then rush to save him? Why?  Would Bush have signed the bill if Graeme Frost was in a persistant vegetative state? Would he have at least read it? 

A whole phalanx of petards for the hoisting…

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. And I DID say so at the time – from 2005 –

    <

    p>

    In retrospect, the watchword for 2005 is dissention. One of Porcupine’s favorite memories of the year is arguing with Jack Coleman about the Terry Schiavo matter. Jack felt that the husband was untrustworthy, and the parents should be given custody to care for their daughter if they chose, and her life support should be sustained. Porcupine felt that there was a clear statute that gave the legal authority to the husband, and that the infringement of the state and Federal governments into a private family matter was a matter of gross intrusion. After arguing all through dinner, and driving Jack to a train station, we still continued to argue for another half hour in the car, until a security guard began to give us the fish eye, and we realized it was time to quit. I didn’t change his mind, and he didn’t change mine – but at least our disagreement remained respectful and thoughtful. Looking back over the year, I wish that all the divergence of opinion that runs through the year like veins through marble had only been as honest as our dispute. May 2006 allow us to disagree like ladies and gentlemen, and devil take the hindmost!

    • *[new]  The Schiavo Case was the worst example of rampant Federalism in recent times.  (0.00 / 0)

      And I DID say so at the time – from 2005 –

      <

      p>
      Well good for yoooo! What a nice little hobgoblin you are! All the other sock puppets must just melt in the presence of your consistency!

      <

      p>
      It wasn’t Federalism, it was anonymous cronyism.  It can’t have been federalism if it was so entirely specific and precise and without even the pretext of benefit to the general populace.  That’s the very opposite of federalism, doncha know?

      <

      p>
      But enough about you… let’s talk about your friends:  Are they nasty mean hypocrites or just hypocritical and nasty meanies? Hmmnnn…??

Archives