no. you're missing the points: 1) No one (least of all me) is saying it's SANE. It's totally unreasonable, and that's one of the reasons they'll try to use it against Americans. It's a wedge issue and we've seen the right has tremendous facility with wedge issues.
2) The point the author made is that the only voice in front of the cameras on this is Michael Shiavo's. So the right has concentrated all their efforts on discrediting him. If they succeed, well, then in the totally insane court of public opinion, the people supporting Terri's right to die backed the wrong horse. Not having any strong statements from congressional leaders or others, she's saying we risk letting the GOP and their more Christo-fascist elements do whatever they want with the imagery and the "spin."
On the other hand, if a senator (let's say, John Kerry?!) had stood up in front of a camera and said "I support Terri Schiavo. Americans should support her and the rule of law which protects her rights from cradle to grave. What's more, I call on these factions to stop using the politics of division to reduce Terri and her family into either the so-called 'culture of life' and 'culture of death.' This is cynical manipulation and Americans want it to stop." Support Terri, keep the focus on Terri, it's Terri's rights. Then the husband can't be made the issue: Terri and the rule of law are.
Just say Something, especially if you dissent! They can make our silences out to mean ANYTHING, so we have to say something. Otherwise, they'll use it as a wedge to radicalize those people who are not yet radicalized.
"the many Americans who are growing increasingly distressed (with accompanying feelings of powerlessness) are likely to undergo a personal transformation wherein their more moderate views are discarded and they begin to identify with angry, extremist persons or groups."
I think that's possible in this case.
Of COURSE it's bullshit. What part of "I just think we should support the President and everything he does" (i.e., politics in the last four years) hasn't been bullshit?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2005-03-30 03:30 pm (UTC)1) No one (least of all me) is saying it's SANE. It's totally unreasonable, and that's one of the reasons they'll try to use it against Americans. It's a wedge issue and we've seen the right has tremendous facility with wedge issues.
2) The point the author made is that the only voice in front of the cameras on this is Michael Shiavo's. So the right has concentrated all their efforts on discrediting him. If they succeed, well, then in the totally insane court of public opinion, the people supporting Terri's right to die backed the wrong horse. Not having any strong statements from congressional leaders or others, she's saying we risk letting the GOP and their more Christo-fascist elements do whatever they want with the imagery and the "spin."
On the other hand, if a senator (let's say, John Kerry?!) had stood up in front of a camera and said "I support Terri Schiavo. Americans should support her and the rule of law which protects her rights from cradle to grave. What's more, I call on these factions to stop using the politics of division to reduce Terri and her family into either the so-called 'culture of life' and 'culture of death.' This is cynical manipulation and Americans want it to stop." Support Terri, keep the focus on Terri, it's Terri's rights. Then the husband can't be made the issue: Terri and the rule of law are.
Just say Something, especially if you dissent! They can make our silences out to mean ANYTHING, so we have to say something. Otherwise, they'll use it as a wedge to radicalize those people who are not yet radicalized.
I think that's possible in this case.
Of COURSE it's bullshit. What part of "I just think we should support the President and everything he does" (i.e., politics in the last four years) hasn't been bullshit?