Mar 31 2005
We Have Reached The End
Sometimes you just can’t resist a good cause. When Slobokan came to me on the Friday they removed Terri’s feeding tube and said he was considering doing some kind of strike until the tube was reinserted, I was all for it.
One of the things we bloggers have going for us is an audience that likes what we have to say. At times, we take that gift for granted. Some of us go on about our lives and post when we have time. Some of us leave our blogs to lie fallow for months on end before getting around to posting something about our socks being mismatched. That’s fine, and there’s no real rule for blogging.
But every once once in awhile, we’re presented with an opportunity. In this case, it was an opportunity to help speak for someone who was unable to speak for herself. Someone that, who no fault of her own, was executed in one of the cruelest ways a person has ever been executed in the history of this country. Someone whose only crime was mentioning once upon a time when she was 21 years old that she would “never want to live that way.” Based on that one off-the-cuff remark and the corroboration of her husband, brother-in-law and sister-in-law, that was enough to sentence Terri Schiavo to death by starvation.
As bloggers, we were presented with two choices. Let this stand, or do something. For me, it was no option; and I took up the cause. I wrote every single day about Terri. About the court cases. About the history of the case. About the people involved. About the coverage of the case. About living wills, power of attorneys, and the importance of having them. The world needed to know and I was more than happy to tell it.
It’s stressful fighting an uphill battle, particularly when wearing rollerskates. Terri’s case was about as hopeless as it could be. Numerous court rulings, public opinion that was being swayed every day by asking people questions like, “Would you want to live like that?” and “Do you think the brain-dead woman should be disconnected?” The questions that pitted the public opinion in a massive way against those doing whatever they could to save Terri. Some people clinically declared that the courts had ruled and that should be the final word, assuming that the courts are never wrong. Some people derisively barked that she was stupid for not having a living will at 26. Some even delimited the case into a small group of Jesusfreaks being the only ones supporting Terri in her fight for her very life. Jesusfreaks like Tom Harkin, Ralph Nader, and 40+ members of the Senate who do not have an R after their name.
People accused the President, Jeb Bush, Congress, the Florida Legislature, and even bloggers like myself of trying to score points, even while it was readily apparent that most people who looked at our actions did not do so favorably, but with scorn and mockery. If this was a great campaign to turn IT into a powerhouse on the back of a dying woman, it was the worst possible example of a PR stunt gone horribly awry.
I’ve lost some friends over this. I’ve been called every name in the book. I’ve been mocked, told I suffer from ‘roid rage, told I wasn’t thinking rationally at all (as if the only “rational” position was to pull the tube and starve a helpless woman), wasn’t examining the evidence, and was being fooled by the big bad media executives in ivory towers in New York and Los Angeles. In fact, I was the biggest sucker in the world.
And while the “Go Darwin” crowd called the intervention of Congress one of the darkest moments in our nation’s history, they’re eerily silent tonight as the woman whose death they supported has passed on into the next life. Speaks volumes for their character, doesn’t it?
To the people who hung around, debated the issue, argued with my band of “man-haters,” called me an idiot but still debated, but at least listened to what I had to say however unreceptive they were to it, thank you for hanging around. You truly epitomize what makes doing this a great experience. While we didn’t agree on the issue, we argued the issue, not each other.
For those of you who I used to call friends who have since moved on to whatever it is you people moved on to, I can only say one thing. No matter what you call me, say about me, accuse me of, it just doesn’t matter to me anymore. I know I did the right thing in my heart of hearts. I stood up for someone when nobody would stand up for her. I believed wholeheartedly every word that came off my keyboard since the first time I wrote about Terri in October of 2003.
Looking back on all of it, I can tell you how many things I would change: zero.
Alexander Hamilton once said that someone who stood for nothing would fall for anything. In doing so he set a challenge forth for people to never just blindly accept that which was patently wrong.
My true friends understand that edict quite well.
Rest in peace, Terri.
April 1st, 2005 at 1:34 am
How come I miss out on all these “coming of age” blog experiences.
I just battle trolls and make fun of moonbats.
April 1st, 2005 at 7:51 am
So by the last paragraph where you quote Hamilton - and all of your other rantings - you don’t mean what he is saying - you mean “Those who don’t stand for what I stand for, will for for anything…”
That is the problem with people like you. You cannot accpet the fact that there are others who think differently than you do. And like this assclown above and his ass jockey friend, that bugs the shit out of you. You *HATE* any difference of opinion. You hate it so much that you dismiss it is wrong rather than saying “oh well, difference of opinion..”
get over yourself.
April 1st, 2005 at 8:00 am
I think it was a noble undertaking on your part to devote your blog to Terri Schiavo’s cause during her last days. The whole business is sad and cruel, and, I think, made more cruel by the courts.
I have a couple of things to express to you that I haven’t put in the comments. I have refrained from bashing Michael Schiavo. It’s not for me to say that he didn’t act in what he felt were Terri’s best interests or in the way in which she would have wished. Perhaps he was sincere. Only he knows for sure what his motives were. But I do think it was unnecessarily cruel of him to deny her family
the chance to be with her in her final hours. I can find no way to justify that. As a parent, I know without question that I would have wanted to be with my dying child until her last breath.
I don’t doubt that the doctors were right that Terri was in a “persistent vegetative state” and that there was really no hope of recovery with today’s medical knowledge. But with all the discoveries being made with gene therapy, who’s to say that in a year or two there might not be some procedure that would have restored Terri to some sort of viable life? If that were my child, I would hold on to every shred of hope. I believe the cruelest thing for a parent is to know that you will never see or touch that child again.
Where I really dispute the courts’ findings is that there was no substantive proof of what Terri’s wishes would have been in the situation. We have only conflicting hearsay. Given that Terri was a devout Catholic, by all accounts, and that the removal of life support is against Catholic doctrine, I have to believe that being starved to death would not have been the option she would have chosen. Granted that her husband was her legal guardian, it still seems to me that the courts did not consider the whole picture. In light of the fact that her parents opposed the removal of the feeding tube and were willing to shoulder the entire burden for her care, I really cannot for the life of me understand how or why the courts ruled in favor of Michael.
This will have far reaching implications. The sad saga is far from over.
April 1st, 2005 at 8:08 am
Cameo, you have no idea what you’re talking about, so don’t base interpretations of me on one post.
You have no idea what happened here in the last two weeks, so just move along. There’s plenty of room for that sort of shit; in fact most of those assholes have their own blogs where they can spout off as much as they want.
April 1st, 2005 at 8:30 am
Vinnie is probably one of the most tolerant of other views person I have ever had the pleasure of knowing. Some of most regular readers, most devoted readers, don’t agree with him on about 90% (give or take) of what he says. He does not bash them, call them names, imply they are stupid. They remain respectful of him and he has always remained respectful of them. Vinnie doesn’t tell people to ‘f**k off’ until they have become so completely disrespectful of himself and his other readers. To generalize Vinnie by one post, or by only two weeks of posts does not show much tolerance on your part.
April 1st, 2005 at 8:56 am
Stop feeding the troll.
Cameo’s just bitter from all the bitchslapping it’s got.
April 1st, 2005 at 11:21 am
JackLewis.net
Today’s blog roundup
Links marked with an asterisk (*) are ones I found particularly good. Sandy Burger pleads guilty, well, sort of: La…
April 1st, 2005 at 1:07 pm
Cameo: You’re talking out of your ass. Vinny and I strongly disagreed on this topic. He stood up for what he felt was right, I stood up for what I felt was right. He attacked my postion, but not me.
Did I mention you’re talking out of your ass?
April 1st, 2005 at 1:21 pm
Talking out of one’s ass is an affliction many of my recently arrived never been here before critics seem to have lately.
Then again, it’s an affliction many “friends” have also…
April 1st, 2005 at 1:46 pm
I’m a troll exterminator.
I love it when they swing by Dog Snot. I make a dog and pony show of them and typically within a short while they dash off with their tail between their legs.
Every now and then they’ll make a reappearance. We poke them with a stick and they ran away again.
Good sport.
April 1st, 2005 at 3:07 pm
I don’t know how you guys put up with it.
Seriously.
April 1st, 2005 at 5:02 pm
I didn’t call you an idiot, and I was receptive to your views. I just disagreed. As screwed up as I think the whole situation was, I tend to follow the belief that we are a nation of laws.
What I DON’T understand, though, is why Michael was charged under Florida statute 798.01 for “Living Openly in Adultery” and removed as guardian for that reason.
April 1st, 2005 at 5:08 pm
I know. But then again, we’re always arguing so that’s nothing new
April 1st, 2005 at 5:18 pm
I meant “wasn’t charged”, not “was charged”
April 1st, 2005 at 5:31 pm
Vinny…the honor was mine.
April 1st, 2005 at 6:39 pm
What I DON’T understand, though, is why Michael was charged under Florida statute 798.01 for “Living Openly in Adultery” and removed as guardian for that reason.
Because Adultery is only a Misdemeanor. So is speeding. So is littering. I wonder how many people have had their marriages annulled for littering?
April 1st, 2005 at 7:24 pm
Littering doesn’t annul an marriage. Neither does speeding. Neither does adultery.
It does, however, make a pretty good argument regarding spousal interests, though.
April 1st, 2005 at 7:28 pm
If I comment here I am a Man Hater again…..well maybe I am but the ONE who I DO hate is Michael Schaivo.
April 1st, 2005 at 7:51 pm
Call me a man-hater if you must, but there is no getting around it… i really despise Michael AND Felos.
April 1st, 2005 at 11:37 pm
Speaking of troll extermination, I haven’t seen you post in a while, Dumptaster.
You still living with your Mom?
March 23rd, 2007 at 3:17 pm
JackLewis.net
Today’s blog roundup
Links marked with an asterisk (*) are ones I found particularly good. Sandy Burger pleads guilty, well, sort of: La…