Dissension in the Ranks

Patton has a piece on uncertainties in the Terry Schiavo case. Most people, I think, who support saving her life do so, not on the basis of certainty, but on the basis of "erring on the side of life," a stance that implies uncertainty. Still, I can certainly appreciate this sentiment:

"Michael Schiavo is either a self-interested, lying s***heel or he's spent 15 years looking out for Terry's best interests. Of that I'm certain. The Schindlers are either concerned parents or they're religious zealots. Of this, too, I'm certain. Congress has engaged itself on a dangerously slippery slope or it hasn't. Ditto. And the more information I get, the more certain I am that all possible interpretations might well be the truth. Looked at in isolation, then, it's possible for everyone with an opinion to claim moral certainty that they're correct and everyone who disagrees with them is wrong.

"I beg to differ."

Part of my confusion on the issue is factual: I know I haven't spent as much time as many, many other people considering the facts and sources in this case. I read on Ace a while back a claim that no MRI has ever been done on Terry. If true, that's prima facie negligence, but I don't know how to verify whether or not it is true. I've heard that Terry's parents actively encouraged Michael Schiavo to date other women. If true, then the constant mentioning of Michael's girlfriend and kids by the pro-tubers is intellectually dishonest and a total cheap-shot, but I don't know how to verify.

I'm also legally confused. When and under what circumstances should government agency X do Y to accomplish Z - these are not easy questions, folks. Is philosophical consistency to be protected even if it means Terry dies? Maybe, if it protects social values that are more important than a single life. And remember, all you supporters of the Iraq war, you support it because you believe that there is something more important than the individual lives that are lost for some greater purpose.

All that said, I couldn't disagree more with former Neal Boortz listeners who call him the spawn of Satan. I disagree with Neal on this issue. I think his position is self-serving and hypocritical. I think he's accepting unquestioningly those facts which support his views while waving off contradictory facts, exactly as he's accusing pro-tubers of doing. But does any of that make him evil? He's looking at the evidence and drawing a conclusion, just like the pro-tubers are doing.

And I see today that Protein Wisdom, A Small Victory and INDC Journal have been removed from this guy's blogroll because they aren't pro-tubers like him.

"As far as my blogging is concerned, I generally try to link to websites that share my ideologies."

When I fail to link someone, it usually laziness or lack of desire to give people traffic. The first is inexcusable if I want to maintain any kind of credibility, and the second is - let's be honest here - a total joke. Kos isn't going to notice if I link him, let alone notice the level of traffic I send his way. But actually removing someone from the blogroll because you disagree with them? I find that ludicrous. If you disagree with someone, link their post and explain why you disagree. "I refuse to acknowledge you" is a tactic of third-graders.