Excuse me, Ted

I could say an awful lot about the Terri Schiavo scenario, and I'd like to rail on her parents and the lawyers for being indecent media floozies, but for now I’ll limit myself to the following:

Nightline Closing Thought
By TED KOPPEL
WASHINGTON, March 31, 2005

What bothers me is when politics and ideology get in the way of logic and consistency.

For example, it's probably fair to say that most opponents of the death penalty tend to be more liberal than conservative. Not all, but many of them would eliminate the death penalty rather than run the risk of executing even one innocent person. It's a compelling argument; but one that doesn't seem to carry much weight among social conservatives. Even though many of them would argue that you have to maintain the life of someone in Terri Schiavo's condition because there is always the chance - no matter how remote - that brain function may be restored. You would think that this could be fertile common ground.

After all, both conservatives and liberals are drawn to the argument that favors the protection of innocent life - regardless of the odds. But often, it seems, this is true only when it suits a preconceived political position.

I typically like the way Ted Koppel tries to corner and call out bullshitters, so I feel someone should call him out. Firstly, he’s missed that the logical and consistent aspects to the liberal argument are compassion and a basic understanding of what life is. Secondly, every time I read this, I get hung up on the right-appropriated phase "innocent life.” Finally, I love the classic we’d-compromise-if-the-liberals-would-but-they-wont argument implied here.

Also, in case you missed it this past week, apparently one comatose white woman is more important than ten Indian kids.