MANIFESTO OF THE WPPFF/WILD TURKEYS/COALITION OF THE SANE

Me. | 29MARCH05 | Long Cut

[Long Cut]

We, the Witness Protection Program For Freepers, aka the Wild Turkeys, aka the Coalition of the Sane, have through mutual discussion and rigourous thought, determined that:

1. The discussion threads regarding Terri Schiavo (hereafter referred to as "TS") have become too full of innuendo, rumormongering, hyperbole, hysteria, namecalling, paranoia, and general poor behavior to warrant participation.

2. Said threads have degenerated into "echo chambers", wherein the same, common thoughts are continually posted again and again, and the same old disreputable, unconfirmed and/or false urban myths are propagated.

3. Anyone who joins in said theads with alternative viewpoints to the most extreme posts are routinely driven away with slander, accusations, and vile namecalling.

4. No data or evidence contrary to the "prevailing opinions" are accepted, considered, or discussed; and in fact are rejected outright in most instances.

5. That the continued calls for armed insurrection, military or paramilitary involvement, impeachements of politicians and judges, and death threats are embarassing, stupid, shortsighted, doomed to failure, and contrary to most if not all conservative thought prior to this case, as well as damaging in the extreme to FR and the conservative movement as a whole.

6. That such emotional, hyperbolic, and propaganda-driven hysteria is in fact contrary to all conservatives USED to stand for.

7. That the holding up of swastika and other Nazi imagery towards the police and the Bushes, the use of children as political props, and the disruption of the peace at the Woodside Hospice can only reflect badly on conservatives in general, and should be discouraged.

8. That the pursuit of this issue to the exclusion of all others by the GOP has damaged, perhaps beyond repair, the pursuit of other important issues as well as the reputation of the GOP, FR, and conservatism.

The WPPFF is NOT of one mind as to the case of TS or its correct outcome. In fact, wide disagreement exists within our little group. However, we are united in our wish that reason and sanity be respected in the discussion, as well as the rights of all parties involved or participating. We wish to discuss this as adults and intellectuals, as conservatives and as FRiends, not as children screaming past each other on some playground of hysteria. We wish for facts and evidence to be provided, discussed reasonably, and considered fairly.

We reject all accusations of Naziism, "death cultism", or other slander as methods of debate. We reject the practice of "spamming" multiple threads, of posting unending vanities, and the posting of propaganda and calls for violence. We reject, in fact, all unseemly and childish behavior which has come to characterize this case on FR.

We DO invite others to come and reasonably discuss the issue. We have no problem with FReepers who wish to debate in a rational and fair manner, and with due respect for their fellow FReepers. We have NO problem with those whose views are formed by religion; however we reject "preaching" or "being beaten with a Bible" as legitemite debate tactics. Not all of us are Believers, and such tactics only cheapen the source.

If a FReeper finds this an acceptable meansd to discuss this and other issues, they are welcome to join in and participate. Those who find pleasure in attacks, flame-baiting, slander, stalking, and personal atacks will be ignored, and their egos will go unfed.

We assume this thread to be a zone of sanity in an overheated atmosphere. Thus, a general amnesty is in effect. If posters conduct themselves within the guidlines above, we will be happy to discuss and debate with you. If a poster wishes to apologize for past slips of the tongue, or for possible "over-the-top" statements to another, it will be graciously accepted, and your company welcome.

Please bring a sense of humor; we feel that too many have been taking themselves too seriously lately.

Let the discussion begin!

Signed,

The WPPFF, aka The Wild Turkeys, aka the Coalition of the Sane.

[nunya bidness]

Wanna bet that, a year from now, nothing, absolutely nothing, will have been done to the law that allowed this horrible turn of events?

I'll take that bet too sink. You might want to keep us posted as to how the fine folks of Texas deal with their own "right to die" legislation which is much worse than Florida's.

[TAdams8591]

WE agree.

[FairOpinion]

"A dark chapter in this country's history has begun. A chapter where murdering our disabled has now been sanctioned."

I agree with your heartfelt, eloquent post.

[MrDem]

Do you still believe that the President should have sent in the Federal Marshalls as you stated?

Yes

Good call Jim. When in doubt, think...WWRD (What Would Reagan Do)

To a man's man, Reagan, there would have been nothing to think about, and no hand-wringing ("oh what should I do?").

FDR 'violated the law' over and over again, to stand up against Nazi Germany.

Little men, allow 'bad laws' to rule over them as opposed to allowing what is right,just,moral.

Our founding father expressly said it was a citizens duty (ah.. not "suggestion") to disobey immoral laws.

And the law to starve a healthy woman to death, is utterly immoral.

[MrDem]

Of course, the one-liner 'law-zombie/robots' (Repeat - "It was the law","It was the law","It was the law",...) will respond with "We are a nation of laws", but never mention one word, not one peep, ever, how Greer violated or allowed the law to be violated. See #4515 for starters.

[atlaw]

Considering that her "home" was with her husband, clearly that is where she was taken, NOT to her parent's home, which would have been identified as such.

Also clearly the "family was overwhelmed" means that MICHAEL didn't want her at home.

Michael Schiavo was living with the Schindler's at the time Ms. Schiavo was brought home in 1990. Michael Schiavo, not the Schindlers, was also responsible for pursuing the extraordinary therapeutic efforts in California and Florida after Ms. Schiavo's brief stay at home.

Also note, that while MS played the devoted husband, to a T, UNTIL he got the $$$$$ award, as soon as he did, he stopped Terri's rehabilitation, and didn't even want her treated for infection.

Sheer, unmitigated nonsense. Please take the time to actually learn the facts. I know it has been said that facts just don't matter here. To the extent that this is in reference to a conclusion that Ms. Schiavo should not have been refused continued feeding, I can understand the sentiment. But facts do matter where the alternative is deliberate falsification in pursuit of a lynching.

[mhking]

Of course, the one-liner 'law-zombie/robots' (Repeat - "It was the law","It was the law","It was the law",...) will respond with "We are a nation of laws", but never mention one word, not one peep, ever, how Greer violated or allowed the law to be violated.

OK. That's it.

Please, stop with the name-calling.

You disagree with people here, and that's fine. The name-calling has to stop.

You mention doing what Reagan would do, but Reagan's "11th Comandment" was not insulting other Republicans.

And just as you counter with Greer's "disregard" for the newly-passed law, one could point out the disregard for Michael Schiavo's legal spousal rights - no matter how much of a piece of slime any of us think Schiavo is (and I think his actions have been reprehensible), he was still legally her wife. And if everyone feels so strongly that she was murdered, why has Michael Schiavo not been charged with murder and arraigned?

As I've said previously, there are no winners in this case. But the destruction of civil discourse here has been a great travesty. Too many good people have been slimed with being called "zombies" or "murder cultists" or "nazis." Many good folk on the other side have been called "Terri-bots" and other names.

Please, please, please stop the name calling. Stop the personal attacks. Stop the bomb-tossing.

If the law was so, so, so wrong, then work to change it now. Not just for Terri Schiavo, but for all people in similar situations. Make the changes needed. Make the sanctity of life as strong as the sanctity of marriage.

And at the same time, stop judges from legislating from the bench. But do so with reason and with wisdom.

Part of the problem that so many have with the law passed while trying to help Terri is the Constitutional question. "Does that law pass Constitutional muster?" If it does, then certainly most here would support an impeachment query against all the jurists involved. But if the law does not pass Constitutional muster, then were the judges truly at fault, or were their hands tied? And if their hands were tied, doesn't the fault then go back to the legislators in Washington, either the obstructionists, or the actual writers for failing to do what needed to be done legally?

[Long Cut]

Good post. I will only add that the reason that most of us feel that facts and evidence MATTER is that, if you feel that the outcome of the case was wrong (and I do), one MUST then decide what course of action to take in fixing the problem. Thus, we need facts and evidence and actual laws to refer to to FIND what went wrong.

If we go off half-cocked and don't adress the real problem, we risk 1. not solving anything; and 2. making it worse instead of better. Raw emotionalism is no way to conduct such inquiry.

There seems to be two schools of thought on this...one side holds that this was the result of a runaway judiciary. The other holds that it was the result of legislatures passing bad laws.

Judges are only SUPPOSED to rule based on the law. Apparently, in some cases, many conservatives feel that they should not. That in itself leads inexorably to judicial activism, because if ONE side does it, then the other has license to do so as well.

I believe that the Florida law in this case is a bad one. It should be looked at thoroughly and fixed or repealed if possible. I also believe that blaming the judges misses this point.

It is perfectly justifiable to debate whether the judges actually followed the law, and I am open to the arguments from those who say they did. However, I am not open to unproven conspiracy theories and hyperbole in that debate. Nor am I disposed to listen to those who use vile, incendiary imagery and language in the argument.

The problem we now face, if we DO decide that it was the judges' fault, is in their replacement. Judge Greer was elected; no help there. As for the federal judges, they are appointed. The backlash from this case has shoved just enough Senators away from the "Nuclear Option" so as to make it impossible at this time. In essence, in the actions taken to save Terri, the Right has, in my opinion, lost the larger battle over the judiciary.

If those who are so passionate about this case now turn to the possible, i.e., the changing of the laws in the first place, we still can have some effect. I'm just wondering now how many will conduct this work. Doing it will involve few demonstrations, sign-waving, and other "fun" stuff. It is long, persuasive-intense, and boring work.

[mhking]

he was still legally her wife

he was still legally her husband

(Haven't had my first cuppa joe yet!)

[jwalsh07]

I would appeciate your being more specific as well. You said you didn't think the state should be involved at all, then amended it to say that the state should become involved where there is a dispute.

You could not have read my posts and made such a claim. Do you think cuteness wins debating points here?

Would you suggest the state intervene in all cases where there is a family member who does not agree with the patient's previously chosen power-of-attorney?

Terri Schiavo never "chose a power of attorney". Why don't you take a deep breath and state your position? It doesn't cost you anything.

[DCPatriot]

I've asked these questions before because they point out the quandary we're caught in.

Why is pulling the plug on a respirator acceptable but not pulling a feeding tube? Is it okay to suffocate someone but not starve them?

And is it okay if they are elderly but not when they are young? And is it okay because they are terminal? What difference does it make if someone will only live a few more days?

We all need to look within ourselves and confront our feelings on all of these.

Worth repeating.

[DCPatriot]

Considering that her "home" was with her husband, clearly that is where she was taken, NOT to her parent's home, which would have been identified as such.

I read in transcripts of testimony that Michael and the Schindlers all lived together when Terri was transferred to home care...for 3 weeks, before the Schindlers realized they wouldn't be able to care for her.

[cyncooper]

Your snide tone is not winning the day here and that is for sure.

The poster has been discussing in a rational tone and has been perfectly comprehensible and you wish to put on this wide-eyed "you weren't clear" act when we all know you better than that.

Stick to the issues.

[malakhi]

Only one. Absent a written living will, the state should err on the side of life.

I agree, and have been saying this for the past week.

[unbalanced but fair]

I'll ask you the same question that I ask everyone . Would it then be okay for the President to use the same action against abortion clinics where innocents are killed every day? Isn't Roe vs Wade a bad law? Isn't it immoral?

[cyncooper]

Of course, Terri did not even receive the benefit of a trial much less the benefit of the doubt. She was simply snuffed out per a judge's order based on three out of five expert "opinions." It's a shame and a disgrace and a mockery of justice.

Well, I see when it suits your purpose you'll cite "facts" to buttress your position, but you don't wish others to point to any points of facts within the actual opinions offered?

I do believe the post that prompted your "facts" don't matter response was the poster making an effort to clarify the record of which expert actually said what in their testimony before the court. A factually sound way of debating an issue that has always in the past been the basis of discussion here at FR rather than "just because" type arguments.

I, too, didn't see why her parents couldn't and shouldn't have been granted guardianship since they were begging for it, however that does not justify making things up or hyping an argument to the unacceptable tone and commentary that has been allowed to run rampant here.

[cyncooper]

Reagan would not have done what you say.

[Randjuke]

I would appeciate your being more specific as well. You said you didn't think the state should be involved at all, then amended it to say that the state should become involved where there is a dispute.

You could not have read my posts and made such a claim. Do you think cuteness wins debating points here?

Your post 4498: I don't think the state should be involved at all.

Your post 4504: There are cases, like the Schiavo case, where different parties have different opinions and the lack of a written living will requires litigation.

I appreciate your thinking I'm cute, but I am trying to understand when you feel the state should become involved, since to many people that is really the crux of the issue.

Would you suggest the state intervene in all cases where there is a family member who does not agree with the patient's previously chosen power-of-attorney?

Terri Schiavo never "chose a power of attorney". Why don't you take a deep breath and state your position? It doesn't cost you anything.

I understand Terri did not choose a power of attorney. My question didn't reference Terri. I have taken a deep breath but am still formulating my position. I am interested in how you would decide when it's appropriate for the government to intervene.

[cyncooper]

You present evidence that demonstrates how Ronald Reagan would have acted and it was just as George W. Bush acted.

[unbalanced but fair]

When I read peple advocating a return to FDR, it becomes rather frightening. I don't think most people realize that a slippery slope can slide either way.