Centerfield

Jesse Jackson was originally pro-life. See

http://www.illinoisleader.com/news/newsview.asp?c=11291

In her memoir, former Gore campaign manager Donna Brazile noted that Jackson switched when he ran for President because it would have been impossible to attract any support from white liberals as a pro-life candidate.

For another surprising take, see Rev. Donald Sensing

Little known fact: Jesse grew up listening to Bob Jones Jr. (of Bob Jones University fame) Rick is correct, Jesse changed his stance to win the nomination, much as Poppy Bush changed his to win the GOP nomination.

Jesse does love a camera, though.

Another interesting point...I think the Congressional Black Caucus was evenly split on this issue.

Here's another update at the players roster:

"WASHINGTON, March 24 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Consumer Advocate Ralph Nader and Wesley J. Smith, author of the award winning book "Culture of Death: The Assault on Medical Ethics in America" call upon the Florida Courts, Governor Jeb Bush and concerned citizens to take any legal action available to let Terri Schiavo live."

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=44858

Even after having read this post, I have no idea what it means. "Jesse Jackson Supports Schiavo's [sic]". Schiavo's (as a possessive) what? Which Schiavo? After all, the Schiavos (as a plural) are Mrs. Schiavo and her husband and her husband's family. But the article underlying the post suggests "Jesse Jackson Supports Schindlers" as a more appropriate title, because "supports the Schiavos" implies supporting the status quo, i.e., denying her artificial life support, which is the opposite of what the underlying article says. The Schindlers, Mrs. Schiavo's parents and siblings, are opposed to the status quo, which is the position the underlying article says Jesse Jackson is taking--and so does this post itself by suggesting Jesse Jackson is aligning with right-wing and conservative elements who oppose the status quo.

It's bad enough to have the issues distorted as they have been so pitifully by the press and politicians, on both sides. But can we at least get the language right, so we can identify what was meant to be said?

Relax JJD. If perfection in blog posts (and comments) is going to be the standard, we might as well all quit. Chris has been consistent in his substantive commentary, and substantive commentary is all that really matters for many of us trying to participate in an informed discussion while juggling the 10,000 other things going on in our lives. Parsing of subject lines is a waste of time.

Todd,

I wasn't trying to be a grammar fascist, although the title error certainly sparked the subsequent explosion. There's a genuine confusion between the principle characters in the post and the underlying story, and that's my main concern. Schiavos are not Schindlers. There's a nexus between the Schiavo-Schindler confusion and the grammar of the title that exacerbates the ambiguity: if "Jesse Jackson Supports Schiavo's" intends Schiavo's as a possessive but accidentally leaves out "Parents," it means one thing; if "Jesse Jackson Supports Schiavo's" intends Schiavos as a plural and accidentally introduced an errant apostrophe, it means something else entirely.

I don't post perfectly on my own blog, or on this one, but please let's do try to make what we say clear. It doesn't take grammar fascism to be left perplexed at what appears to be a misidentification of substantive parties--if one read that Bill Frist intended to lead the Senate Democrats in some parliamentary action, one would reasonably be confused about whether the Senate Republicans were mistakenly identified as Democrats or Bill Frist as Harry Reid.

JJD;
You're right. I get confused sometimes too. It should be Jesse Jackson supports Schindler's (in their fight for their daughter).

With that correction, I'm even more intrigued now knowing that Nader also wants the Terry Schiavo decisions reversed.

On a related topic, my personal prediction came true today regarding end of life care issues: Pope John Paul II has been started on tube feedings. I predict there are agnozing times ahead for the Catholic Church. Parkinsons is a progressive disease that usually spares the mind (but not always) He is otherwise pretty healthy. Overtime he will become less mobile, less able to care for himself and more dependant on "extraordinary" measures such as a feeding tube. Will he be put in the difficult situation where his personal wishes will lead to controversy within the church.

There is another coalition behind the Schiavo case besides the relgious fanatics: handicapped persons and their supporters. They see the Schiavo case as a slippery rope into issues that involving handicapped persons. That is the stance, I believe, Nader is taking.

Interesting note: I just saw the AP picture of Jeb Bush and Jesse Jackson standing side by side at a news conference. That's a picture I never thought I would see.

Tyler Cowen over at Marginal Revolution sums it up thusly:

Therein we see the problem for the future.  Say you take a "pro-life" stance on this case.  What will happen when we can maintain, say, 30 percent of the "dying" population in this kind of state for decades?  Such technologies are probably only a matter of time.

Say you take a "pro-husband" stance.  Presumably you cite evidence for Terri's severely impaired mental facilities.  What will happen when we can keep, say, 30 percent of the "dying" population in a somewhat less impaired state for decades?  Such technologies are probably only a matter of time.  Was her vegetative state really the issue, or was it just cost?  Our views will be tested, sooner or later.

I don't see much guidance here from economics, political philosophy, or virtue ethics.  My instincts are to "look toward the future," but I don't have a good argument that avoids all possible repugnant conclusions.  (I will never forget Julie Margolis, asking me in my job interview at UC Irvine, why we do not value human life at replacement cost.  That would be no more than a few thousand dollars, given that some women stand right on the verge of wanting another baby.  I didn't have a good answer, although they hired me anyway.)

As Medicare grows as a percentage of the federal budget, this issue will become increasingly important.  And as technology advances, no one will be left with a comfortable intellectual position.

"I just saw the AP picture of Jeb Bush and Jesse Jackson standing side by side at a news conference. That's a picture I never thought I would see."

And a photo that Bill Frist is having made poster-sized.

Jesse goes where the cameras grow.

Seriously, the man understands the evangelical vote very well indeed (as distinct from the religious right vote). And he is always campaigning. If not for office, for Jesse's income.