ad non sequitum
Here comes my Terri Schiavo post ...
Heard a set of propositions bordering on the sublime this afternoon as I tuned in to the eminently entertaining Michael Savage "Savage Nation" radio program (and I mean that in the very worst possible way).
A guy calls in and says something like:
Oh man, I tell ya, these liberals! They're all het up to murder this handicapped woman, but man, they couldn't stand to see Christopher Reeve die. I mean, his handicap costed a helluva lot more money, he needed a lot more care and resources, so why are they so eager to kill this poor handicapped woman????
And this was Savages immediate response:
Let me tell you something. Here's the bad news. What we're seeing today is just the first steps to Nazi rule. Do you understand that?
Can you spot the fallacies? This is college textbook material.
But I lied, of course. This is not a Terri Schiavo post. The ethico-biologico-juridico questions that are the crux of that case are of only occasional, academic, interest to me ... not more so than in the case of Karen Ann Quinlan, or of Nancy Cruzan, or of the diaboloical case of Josef Mengele (which seems to be what Savage was referring to).
Which is to say that here I'm more intrigued by the fray - by listening to the way some people, in some regrettably too large public squares, talk about the way other people talk about, and react to, whatever happens to be on the docket for the week.
I mean it's all too rich.