I understand your point perfectly. It's a valid question, but at the same time, we have raised the public consciousness of this case long before the MSM clued in. I don't think we should pillory the Brothers Bush, no sir. No one would relish their position. But don't write off the torrent of prayers, fasting, letters and phone calls to politicians, radio and television interviews and expert testimonies that have been generated just by writing on threads. We are doing everything imaginable to empower the political establishment to do the right thing at minimal political risk. Legislatures have made laws since time immemorial without necessarily having a vociferous population in support. We've created the climate where Jeb Bush can believe he has the moral authority to have DCF take custody of Terri - we've created the climate where President George W. Bush can leave his Crawford ranch and rush to Washington to sign a three a.m. bill on behalf of a formerly nameless, faceless Florida housewife - the leader of the free world! This hasn't gained worldwide attention because Peter Jennings spat his venom on the subject - it's gained worldwide attention because of people writing on threads and in blogs and in chat room forums.
So, I understand your point. But I respectfully disagree.
So, I understand your point. But I respectfully disagree.
Well, with all due respect, it seems to me that your saying that you commitment to the life of one Terri Shiavo ends at the end of a keystroke or on the sidewalk outside of the hospice.
My point is, how many are willing to take it farther than that?
How many are will to rush the police around the hospice in an effort to prevent Terri's death?
How many are will to risk jail or maybe even being shot themselves in order to try and save Terri?
If these things don't take place when all else has failed then, at least where Terri's life is concerned, all the impassioned pleas will have done nothing.
Is this really about Terri? We shall see.