Thursday, March 31, 2005


With the Schiavo case at its inevitable conclusion, here's an attempt to sort some of the wheat from the idiotorial chaff.

  • In the Washington Post, Abigail Trafford attempts to understand the controversy in light of her own experiences with her terminally ill father.

  • On RangelMD, Chris Rangel attempts to provide a medical context for the case.

  • In the St. Petersburg Times, Robert Friedman takes a sarcastic look at some of the atrocious conduct that has occurred in association with the Schiavo tragedy.

  • On Crime and Federalism, Norm Pattis opines that the Schiavo case represents the start of our slide down a very slippery slope.
(I'm not a fan of "slippery slope" arguments, but I do think Norm is describing what no small number of the Schiavo intermeddlers would like to see happen.)

1 comment:

  1. The Rangel piece should be read for a better understanding of why pieces like this Daily Standard piece are reactionary claptrap. And the Weekly Standard piece exemplifies the worst of the Schiavo coverage - the author, who doesn't like the outcome, ignores medical science and heaps scorn upon any who disagree with him to the extent of calling them Nazis. (I don't actually mind the scorn thing all that much - provided it is coming from people who get their facts right. But I have little patience for the self-righteous ignoramus, even if he has a medical degree. The Nazi allusion? I'll apply Godwin's Rule.)


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.