The roots of Shiavo's opponents: November 2004
As you all must know by now, Terri Shiavo is finally dead. A lot of people have been dreading this moment, Others have been saying it couldn't happen soon enough, while many others have been waiting for it to happen in order for the circus involving this case to be finally over. And it is, more or less. Sure there is still the autopsy's results and all that hoopla, but Terri's dead. So it's over. And now all of this rooting for her to die can breathe a sigh of relief, cause they have won. But I can't help wonder: what did they win exactly? Were they all really for Euthneasia? Did they all believe Michael's less then credible story? Or was there something else at work here? I asked this question to my left libby Boston friends and the answer i have been getting was really disturbing me. It was something i thought of originally but dismissed as being too cynical. But now that i have read MaGdee's post on it i am convinced that it might be the right answer to this puzzle: The big opposition to allow Terri to live is nothing but the left's backlash to the right winning the November election. Flimsy? Maybe.. but follow me on this one! The left has been losing to the right ever since November 2000. Bush has become the focus of hate of every democrat and socialist to the degree that they had no problem voting in droves for a democratic candidate that no one really liked just to get Bush out of the Office. You remember how it was like , the "ABB" army. And they really thought they were gonna win too. They totally believed it, and then came the results and their hopes and spirit was crushed by both a popular vote win and an electroal college win. The taste of losing was very bitter for them and a lot of them are still resentful till this day. They wanted to punish the right, the republicans and Bush. They couldn't do it politically or ideologically. The Democratic party has been losing ground since 1994 for those not paying attention. So the mentality became " if we can't have what we want, we should make sure they don't get what they want either"! They had minor victories with that when it came to judge nominations and social security, but nothing emotionally satisfying, until the Terri Shiavo case heated up again. This was a great opprutunity for them to punish all "the guilty parties" responsible for "the world hating America": People that cared about it included the republican party ( a.k.a "the jerks who keep beating us") , the christian right ( a.k.a. " the americans who want the USA turned into Afghanistan under the Taliban rule") and both Bush Brothers ( a.k.a. " the family that destroyed America as we have known it under clinton"). Letting Terri Shiavo die would mean that all those people wouldn't get something they wanted, and that made the left very freakin happy. "Those right-wing assholes are not gonna win this time" they said to themselves, compeltly ignoring the fact that they are talking about a woman's life there. This was the OJ trial all over again, with the same hollow " moral victory" and the same injsutice attached to it. Well, i hope they are happy. They finally "won" something: They allowed an innocent woman to starve to death. How does it feel? And the saddest part is to hear their accusation to the right of hypocrisy, and no one better puts it as our own MaGdee: "I really thought what the hell is wrong with these people, they can easily vote and support a war that killed 100,000 civilians but they just gather around and pray to save a human vegetable!" So here is the argument : The right supported the Iraq war, they are therfore personally responsible for the many iraqi deaths and should be considerd villians by us lefties. Therefore when they clamor to save the life of someone, we should scream "hypocrisy" and not allow them to, because..ehh..saving a life would mean they are not as evil as we would like them to look. It's funny, cause if the right is that bloodthirsty and evil, then the left should be the ones trying to save Terri's life. Murder is Murder, right? You should try to save a life with the same zeal you show for trying to save a 100,000 lives, right? Or am i missing something? Not to mention, you could at least argue that the iraqi civillians deaths was for a greater cause, which was a free and democtaic iraq, which would kinda justify it. What's the argument for Terri's death? What greater purpose did your support of starving her to death serve? Ohh yeah, i know, not letting Bush win this time. Good job boys and girls! Patt yourself on the back for me!