What we have learned from the Schiavo situation...

The long struggle is over. Terri Schiavo is now gone. From here, we decide what the rest of us can learn from it all.

First, the easy part. Everybody should have a living will, some kind of official documentation of our wishes and who has the right to speak in our behalf.

But we have also uncovered two important facts.

1. The majority of Americans--both liberal and conservative--think the government should butt out of these very personal family decisions. The activity by the GOP was way out of line, unconscionable and unconstitutional. While the many legal decisions and the public polls showed a strong belief in personal LIBERTY, the Republicans were Hell-bent to undermine our freedom in favor of State domination.

2. We now see for certain who is really running this government. The GOP drive to circumvent both the law and liberty came from their complete subservience to the Religious Right. If there is any group in the country that hates freedom, it’s the Religious Right. We are seeing how extreme they really are. And the GOP is eager to bow to their crazed interests.

Why crazed? What was their motivation in the Schiavo case? A culture of life? Bullshit. Where were they when a Texas law (signed by then-Governor Bush, no less) was exercised to kill a young boy? An eight year old boy’s feeding tube was removed--against the will of his parents--because THEY COULD NOT PAY THE CASH anymore.

Culture of life?!? Schiavo’s husband was acting out of MERCY, and the right-wingers were outraged. The Texas doctors were acting out of GREED, and the right-wingers didn’t give a shit.

Beware politicians who thump their Bibles. For they take away liberty, and provide only hypocrisy.

Schiavo and the Iraq invasion

I’m noticing some strong parallels between what is happening in the Terri Schiavo situation and the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

1. GOP disregard for the law: Bush ignored the restrictions of the “war bill” and invaded Iraq illegally, not to mention the rationale was built entirely on lies. Now, the GOP has successfully dodged repeated rulings in favor of the Schiavo husband. They keep trying to redo the case, and have even passed a federal law in desperation that maybe an activist federal judge might rule their way. Didn’t happen, but the GOP disdain for the authority of the individual states to rule on their own law is now obvious.

2. Selective indignation: Despite all the other tyrannical governments in the world, the GOP supporters got all worked up over the toothless tiger, Saddam. There is worse oppression going on elsewhere, so why pick Iraq? In the Schiavo case, families are deciding to remove loved ones from various means of life extension such as feeding tubes every day. So why let all those others die, but jump feet-first into the Schiavo issue?

I may have figured this out. Conservatives are stuck in what educational psychologists know as Piaget’s Concrete Operational stage. They have difficulty thinking in abstracts and big concepts. They need direct, concrete examples before they can fully process it. In both cases, the GOP/cons processed the concrete example and rose to act. Prior to having those concrete examples, these issues were vague and impersonal. Too distant to be thought about. It doesn’t matter that hundreds or thousands of families willingly let members die (by removal of tubes etc) every year. Until you put a face and a name on it, it’s not real to them.

Of course, this makes them very susceptible to manipulation. Notice that the GOP/cons don’t rise to action against a social ill until it has been officially sanctioned by the Republican party. It’s a pretty neat trick. The GOP trots out a concrete object, tells their base to get excited about it, and viola! There is a big furor.

As much as I find the fate of Terri Schiavo heart-wrenching, the national involvement has nothing to do with her. Just as invading Iraq had nothing to do with liberation of its people. There is a political goal here. The GOP wanted to expand their “pro-life” marketing beyond just the abortion issue. Now it’s about sick people too. But not in a meaningful way, such as making sure everybody has health care. Oh, no. That costs money. (Remember, the GOP never takes a moral position that costs money. It’s always an issue that’s cost-free.)

Keep in mind, despite all their blather about “saving” Schiavo’s life, all the GOP intends to accomplish for her is the continuation of her persistent vegetative state and the need for expensive health care. They have no plan for a cure. How could they? Key parts of her brain are spinal fluid soup. And every doctor has said she is unrecoverable.

Except for one, and he’s a GOP Senator (Bill Frist). But then, he also said he “didn’t know” if AIDS could be transmitted through sweat...! He’s either a pathetic doctor or a pathetic liar. But then again, he also said Bush’s Iraqi WMD lies were true. So, liar it is.

R.I.P. Johnnie Cochran

Since Johnnie Cochran died today (or so I read in a blog somewhere), I guess he won't be attending this much-fussed over lawyer meeting in Florida...

Boy Scouts and kiddie porn

Okay, maybe one scandal has nothing to do with the other... and maybe it does. The director of the Boy Scouts has been charged with "possession and distribution" of child pornography.

"...Douglas S. Smith Jr. was accused of receiving images over the Internet in February of children engaging in oral sex, intercourse and other sexually explicit conduct. Sources in the U.S. Attorney's office told NBC that Smith, 61, was expected to plead guilty."

So let's see, the "Christian" youth organization apparently is dogged when it comes to keeping out gays, athiests, and agnostics, but come up short when it comes to preventing entry of the one group most likely to harm those kids: the child pornographers. Okay, okay, it could happen to any ultra-paranoid "Christian" organization... but it does give a fresh-but-odd new definition to the name Boy "Scouts" of America... (scouting for what exactly?).

How many of these stories must be told before we can put an end to the hypocrisy of the right-wing/conservatives? They are no holier than anybody else. They have just as many freaks as any non-right-wing/conservative/"Christian" groups. The only difference is, the right-wingers overlook their own evils and then bad mouth everybody else's. Personally, I'm sick of it.

Delay's double standards

This stuff makes me sick.

As House Majority Leader, Tom Delay (Republican-Texas) has fought hard for the Federal government into intervene in the family's right to determine the fate of Terry Schiavo case. Is this a matter of sincere concern, or political opportunism?

Well, when it was the Delay family with a member being artificially kept alive, they let him die. So why won't Delay allow the Schiavo husband the same unenviable decision?

True, the Delay situation involved life support machines and the Schiavo situation involves a feeding tube. There is a wide technological difference. But not a moral difference. Both cases involve the decision to remove any artificial means of continuing the person's life. And in both cases, the patient had zero hope of recovery.

If we reversed this into a murder case--where someone removed the life-continuing machines without authority--would there be a distinction between the technologies? I very seriously doubt it. In both cases it is the willfull decision to let nature take its course with the full awareness that the patient will surely die.

Beware of the Dogma!

Creationism is on the march, and now it's about more than just the Bible. It's a point on the spear of destroying everything that can be called liberalism. As one activist put it: "If you can cause enough doubt on evolution, liberalism will die."

That's it in a nutshell. Scientists can be intractible at times, but if you push them they will admit they don't have all the answers. And this chink in the armor of the Theory of Evolution is being exploited by religious and political activists to push not just a religious education agenda, but to push a complete anti-liberal political agenda as well.

If you let the religious whackos get a foothold of doubt in the classroom door, they're going to slam it open to shove religion down our throats in every aspect of our lives imaginable. And the Republicans will exploit that advantage to push their ultra-conservative agenda down our throats as well.

I hope nobody's stupid enough to believe this will lead to lower taxes and more individual freedom for the working class... How do you think all those gov't contracts and corporate welfare gets paid? And has religion ever supported individual freedom?

There are dark times ahead. I knew evolution would play a role in the future of mankind. I just didn't know it would happen so soon!

GOP keeps flip-flopping on 'states rights'.

Don't let the Republicans lie to you. They don't believe in "states' rights" any more than anybody else. In fact, current GOP activity most definitely PROVES they don't want matters in the hands of the individual states.

Just this week, the GOP and Bush signed a federal law that allowed the federal courts to decide the Shiavo case (the Florida woman who's a vegetable surviving on a feeding tube). I don't care about the facts of the case, or which side should win. The issue here is entirely about whether the GOP believes that the states should have final authority.

Obviously, they don't. Otherwise, the GOP would let the state courts' decision(s) stand. Some 19 Florida judges have ruled on this matter, and they have exhausted the legal decision-making process. They came to a final decision about a week ago. (They ultimately ruled that the husband, not the parents, has final say.) But what did the GOP--who PRETEND they want limited federal government--do? Ran straight to the federal legislature to write a law giving federal jurisdiction on this case. So much for state authority.

But that's not all. The GOP recently shifted power away from the states regarding class action lawsuits. Hoping their bought-and-paid-for federal courts (indirectly, through elections) would help them avoid being held accountable, the corporations got the GOP to write a new law letting them avoid state courts in these issues. Again, so much for state authority.

And look at the gay marriage issue. Marriage is a state matter, as delineated in the 10th amendment. But since some states were allowing gays to marry, the GOP last year passed a federal law stipulating that marriage must be heterosexuals-only. So much for the states' rights to define marriage for themselves. (Ironically, the one law that actually gave power to the states over gay marriage was a Clinton law saying that a state did not have to recognize a marriage from another state.)

And where did ol' Dubya run when the 2000 Florida election was contested? Al Gore went to the Florida state courts. Bush ran straight for the federal courts--to adjudicate a wholly in-state election. Hmmm. I'm not saying the Democrats are champions of states rights. But most definitely the GOP aren't EITHER. So don't ever believe the Republican arguments for limited government or power to the states. It's a load of horse hooey. Because every time THEY lose at the state level, they run immediately to the federal level for a new law.

All their rhetoric about states rights is nothing but marketing to a false image in the minds of rednecks. If the South ever truly rises again, it's more likely that the FIRST blow struck in favor of federal supremacy won't be from a Democrat, it will be from a Republican.

They don't trust Bush, and they never should.

If mistrust about the United States is growing around the world, there's plenty of good reason for it. Early this year the Bush administration tried to generate pressure in Asia against North Korea by showing that NK's nuclear program is a threat to the world. Given what the American press has reported about NK being despicable, you'd think the straight facts would be enough to convince anybody. But then, you'd think the same thing about Saddam.

The Bush administration told various Asian nations that North Korea sold nuclear material to Libya in an attempt to help "create a new nuclear state." This is a huge accusation.

And a total lie. North Korea sold material to Bush's good buddy Pakistan, who then turned around and--without NK's knowledge--sold it to Libya. That little detail was conspicuously missing from the Bush reports.

If this behavior looks familiar, it should. It's the same kind of low-life manipulating that Bush used to get support against Iraq. Hopefully, this time around the other countries will be more forceful in demanding real proof about threats, instead of taking a notorious liar's word for it.

Personally, I'm tired of seeing my president make people like Saddam and Kim Jong Il look like honest folks by comparison.

Brit says U.S. "fixed" case for Iraq invasion

Saying Bush lied to start the Iraq invasion isn't exactly anything new. That's been proven over and over. But the evidence that still keeps pouring out is worth noting.

Britain's top intelligence officer, Richard Dearlove, told Prime Minister Tony Blair "that 'the facts and intelligence' were being 'fixed round the policy' by the Bush Administration"--nine months before the March 2003 invasion. The lie was on, the Brits knew it was all a lie, and Blair went ahead and sold it to the British as if it were all true anyway.

Disarmament, which was the only angle Blair could be halfway honest about, was never Bush's goal. Regime change was. Why? Does anyone need to be told at this point? An unarmed and harmless Saddam Hussein would still be in control of all that Iraqi oil. And an unarmed and harmless Saddam would be ten times as hard to get rid of.

Apparently, the MOST IMPORTANT issue of our times!

Don’t look now, but something has rustled the Republicans out of their four-plus year hole. They are holding open, publicly broadcast Congressional hearings this week. Any guess what issue is so urgent, so monumental, that the GOP absolutely must hold hearings and bring it into the public debate?

Is it secret energy meetings between the Vice-President and corporations? No, they’re still hiding that information. Is it funding and executing the terrorist attacks of 9/11? No, that was the Democrats. Is it the administration’s lies about the Iraqi WMDs? No, that’s a non-issue. Is it about the lapdog media and its sugar-coating of all things Bush? Not a chance. Is it about the Bush plan to destroy social security? Nope. Did Janet Jackson uncover the other tit? Huh? Huh?

Then what the hell IS IT? What’s so important?

Baseball players on steroids.

Yep. The biggest issue of the day is how Major League baseball players have been ‘roiding up. Hey, if the MLB owners and players’ union don’t care enough to stop it, why the hell is Congress spending our money to worry about it?

Now, if the owners were forcing the drugs on the players, that would be different. But these are all willing participants. Sure, it hurts the integrity of the sport. But this is “do-what-it-takes” America. Results are all that matters. Nobody wants to pay to see nice guys hit a fly ball. They pay for home runs.

Nor is this about fraud. No ticket I ever bought promised drug-free players. All the league is selling is baseball entertainment. And home runs are about as entertaining as baseball gets.

The hypocrisy around these meetings is considerable. The GOP wants to pretend they’re concerned about something (without actually talking about anything that matters). The league wants to pretend it’s cracking down on steroid abuse, but isn’t interested in any measures that take these stars off the field (which risks lost games and lost sales). And the sports media wants to exploit this issue, and cry crocodile tears over “tainted” stats, but THEY are the ones making heroes out of these ‘roid users in the first place.

There are way too many people trying to have it both ways on this.

Why the GOP says 'freedom isn't free'

They've said it a gazillion times in defense of Bush's warmongering in the middle east. They say "freedom isn't free," meaning that Americans must pay billions of dollars and thousands of lives so that Bush can liberate oil--I mean, liberate the Iraqi people--from Saddam's brutal rule.

What I enjoy about Bush is that he usually is telling you exactly what he really thinks--even though his voter base is too obtuse to catch it. For example, when Bush says he wants to fix Social Security, he means fix it, and "fix it good." As in, ruin it.

Regarding Iraq, Bush said freedom wasn't free. What he meant was, Republicans don't bother liberating people if there's no profit in it. For example, Iraqi people were liberated because they sat on the world's second or third largest oil reserves. On the flip-side, Bush sat on his thumbs regarding the better-documented suffering of the North Korean people, even while "evil" NK brandished nukes in his face. Not coincidentally, North Korea is one poor-ass country.

Lesson: you don't get liberated by Bush if you don't have anything we want.

So it's no wonder at all why the Bush administration and his sycophantic GOP supporters aren't shedding a single tear for the genocide going on RIGHT NOW in Darfur, in the Sudan. Sudan has some resources, but mostly undeveloped. And it's people are suffering from a brutal rebellion.

According to the U.N., 180,000 people have died from hunger and disease in the past 18 months. That's 10,000 per MONTH, and does not include war casualties.

Never, at any time, did Saddam ever commit such atrocities. Where are the Republican "liberators" now?

Waiting, I suppose, for the Sudan to discover more oil...

Bush administration engaging in "covert propaganda."

If you thought bribing "journalists" was bad, then you'll really cringe at how gov't agencies have been literally producing their own coverage themselves and handing it out to affiliates to be presented as real journalism. Plus they've concocted a system of laundering their propaganda, so that it looks like independent journalism to the unsuspecting eye.

The tax-payer funded propaganda scandal surrounding Bush has just gotten worse. The agencies have done more than just buy off journalists, they've taken to completely producing the "news" itself. They create the video segments, often hiding the real identities of the participants and rehearsing the interviews, and then send them to the targeted news affiliates. And the affiliates run them as-is because it's cheaper and easier than doing any work themselves.

According to the Government Accounting Office, this is not only unethical, it is illegal. Three times they refered to Bush-produced segments as "covert propaganda."

The real issue at the heart of this goes beyond just a dictatorial presidency. It is a reflection on the corrosive, subversive, destructive nature of unrestrained capitalism.

Democracy depends on an informed electorate making rational choices. This information comes primarily from the news media. When the news media becomes corrupted, and loses focus of its role in society, democracy breaks down under the weight of misinformation. Media companies are eagerly complicit with Bush's enhanced propaganda schemes because they are openly driven purely by the PROFIT motive. Replacing costly investigative journalism with pre-packaged propaganda is simply good for the bottom line. The ramifications upon democracy is of no consequence.

I know we all love making some profit ourselves. But when even the TRUTH is for sale, then we need to rethink our values. Some things are just too important to freedom and democracy to be left to profiteering.

Scared off by Russia, Bush turns to Syria

If anyone still doubts my assertion that the U.S. doesn’t attack anybody who can fight back, you now have proof.

Bush is hot to attack somebody again, and has been rattling his sabre about getting tough on Iran over its (currently legal) nuclear energy program. Stories have leaked to the press that Bush might invade in June, to at least destroy Iran’s nuclear plants. And of course, George’s big motivation is America’s national security.

While Iran might be too weak to defend itself against the U.S., Iran has a very strong friend. Allegedly, Russian leader Putin told Bush that if any Russians working at the plants are killed, Russia will take it personally. The phrase “act of war” has been mentioned.

So what does big, bad George do?

He starts bad-mouthing Syria. Looks like George is working up his war propaganda to gather enough support to attack. We’re hearing all the same ol’ stuff we heard before. Syria has (Saddam’s) WMDs. Syria is a hotbed of terrorism. Syria tortures people. Syria has aggressed against its neighbors. The same line of accusations Bush concocted against Saddam. The question is, is any of it true?

So far, only the torture part is substantiated (this one is easy, since the U.S. sends people there to be "interrogated"). But none of the rest has any proof so far. But just wait, if Bush holds true to form, he’ll manufacture some soon enough.

One thing that may never get proper coverage in the major media, is that those Syrian troops in Lebanon were INVITED there by the Lebanese government to help stabilize the country in 1989 (something Reagan failed to do years before). Ironically the current situation is keeping Christians in control, and removal of the troops might lead to a Muslim takeover--which wouldn’t do one single thing to improve human rights conditions like torture.

I’m not all that sympathetic to Syria. I won’t cry for them if George stomps a mudhole in them. But I will cry for freedom in the world. You cannot spread freedom at the end of a gun. That's not freedom; that's oppression with the label "freedom" stamped on the package. And I weep for an America that has lost its once-cherished belief in the self-determination of others.

But in the short term, I still question the motives of the man in charge. If Iran is a national security threat to America, why is Bush turning tail and running--simply because Russia flexed its muscles? That’s the tell-tale sign of a cowardly bully. He’s all tough when no one fights back, but at the first sign of resistance he goes after someone smaller.

If Bush is only going to protect America from those countries too weak to fight us, are we even being protected at all? And if this isn’t really about America’s security, then what IS it all about...?

Real life 'Calvin' arrested--UPDATED

Here's a story that is just plain frustrating. On the one hand, it's about a normal kid who daydreamed his school was being overrun by zombies. We've all done this to one extent or another. How many times have we laughed at this behavior when it was played out in a Calvin and Hobbes comic strip?

On the other, it's about a troubled kid whose fantasies about violence against parents, teachers, and police were so strongly felt they had to be written down. We've seen the warning signs before. How many Columbines must happen before we start taking these kids seriously?

The kid wrote what he calls "a story for English class" into his journal. His grandparents found it and called the police. No doubt, they were worried. Probably as much for themselves as for the school. And we see the police are missing no opportunity to appear determined to make us safe, arresting and charging the kid with "terroristic threatening."

This is what all those school shootings and 9/11 have done to us. They've made us hypersensitive to "potential" threats. We're a society shaking in its shoes. Jittery, reactionary, eager to incarcerate. And terrified of our own kids.

But then again...if the kid went on to commit some act of violence at school, the same folks excoriating the officials now would rake them over the coals for not doing something about it when they had a chance.

In the end, it's all way too close to thought-policing for my comfort. The kid took no action to carry out his fantasy. He enlisted no cohorts, he bought no materials, he did not publicize his ideas in any way. You'd think a "terroristic threat" would have to actually be communicated publicly in some way... Maybe I'm just old fashioned, but I prefer the days when you actually had to DO something to get arrested.

UPDATE NOTE (4/2/05): The above was based on news reports in the days following the event. New information was revealed in court that most of the reports were factually false. The kid had actually created his own "trenchcoat mafia" and had written down fairly explicit plans to commit acts of gun violence in the community. I should have done a follow up, but never got around to it and now the story is cold. What irks me most is that I got suckered by a media chain of one false story getting repeated unchecked by all the other (lazy) media. Just because a story is widely reported doesn't necessarily mean it's widely investigated. Too often one news story simply gets retold over and over. This is what happened here. It should be noted that the second, more factually revealing story did NOT get spread like wildfire. Maybe that's just one of those typical cases where the follow-up gets ignored. But my suspicious nature makes me wonder WHO was the source of the initial story. Because, the story that got spread made the police and community look paranoid and reactionary. A truthful telling of the event would make the kid look obsessed with guns and a threat to decent society. I'm beginning to suspect the first story was an obfuscation by pro-gun activists to divert focus away from the central issue: we need to keep guns out of the reach of crazy kids. But that smacks of common sense, and the gun-activists want no part of that discussion.

If you think gas prices are high NOW...

My favorite discussion about invading Iraq for its oil is when defenders argued that Bush would soon bring in an era of cheap gasoline. Predictions almost always ran below a dollar, one being as low as fifty cents a gallon.

Oh how gullible people can be.

OPEC is hinting that oil prices will soon be as high as $80 a barrel! That's almost double what we're paying now. This country can't handle $3.50 per gallon.

At a time when bloated oil corporations (Exxon) are claiming all-time record profits, something's got to be done. How long can they hold us all hostage? I guess at least as long as we have a walking oil corporation for a president...

Stop whining, liberals, and hit back!

The liberals just don't know how to fight. They waste way too much time begging for apologies, and too little time throwing punches of their own.

Instead of demanding Nevada Republican Jim Gibbons apologize for saying anyone protesting war should be shipped off and used as human shields, the liberals should use his words against him. Is this what Gibbons would say about Sam Adams and the Liberty Boys? About the very basic American right to protest your government for a redress of grievances?

Apparently, that's exactly what he'd say. Gibbons is unapologetic about his intolerance for dissent or--in effect--democracy. Instead of asking Gibbons to hide his un-American, un-democratic views, they should be drawing more of them out. This is the kind of man he is, and they shoud be exposing it.

Saying we should kill more of our soldiers is not inherently more patriotic than saying we shouldn't kill any of them. Saying we shouldn't lie about other countries isn't unpatriotic. Saying we shouldn't start wars isn't unpatriotic. Demanding the government to justify its actions isn't unpatriotic.

But to folks like Gibbons it is. What he's really saying is that he is in FAVOR of the suppressive tactics used by Saddam Hussein.

If the liberals ever want to win again, they need to throw some punches. They should bloody his nose by calling him "another Saddam." Because that's exactly what he's trying to be.

Okay, so is it too late to abort...?

The Supreme Court has ruled that juveniles (at the time of the crime) may not be given the death penalty. I must admit, I'm of two minds on this subject.

One, I'm pretty well convinced that a teenager with the mindset to commit murder knows what he's doing. He may not know the full ramifications on society and family members, but he knows he's taking a life. With little kids, I can see that they may not have realized what they were doing. But anyone in high school is well aware. If they can kill like adults, they can pay the price like adults.

But two, I am simply against the death penalty. America is the only advanced nation still using it. I'd rather lead the world forward, than try dragging it backwards. But the real reason is that the verdicts are just too unreliable for that extreme punishment. I can accept a life prison sentence because it always gives the chance for the accused to finally prove his innocence. Also, the whole process is so cumbersome that it's really not cost effective. And I definitely don't want the process streamlined to make it easier to kill an innocent person. Granted, most are probably guilty. But the risks aren't worth it. I'd rather a guilty person serve life in prison than an innocent man get executed.

I just wonder how soon the right-wingers are going to cry "activist judges" on this one. As you know, they ALWAYS cry "activist judges" every time they don't get the ruling they want.

Constitution finally wins!

After holding a man for 2 and 1/2 years without charging him of a crime, Bush's Justice Department has been ordered by a federal judge to either charge Jose Padilla or let him go. This is a big win for the U.S. Constitution.

Bush--who last year said he believed in a strict interpretation of the Constitution--tried to invent a legal scenario where he could subvert the Bill of Rights and begin putting people in prison indefinitely. Padilla was labeled an "enemy combatant" by Bush and jailed without charge, an act the judge ruled completely without constitutional justification.

This is not to say Padilla isn't what the Justice Department says he is: a terrorist linked to Al Qaida. This is to say the government must obey the law, and the law says you must charge someone with a crime if you want to put them in jail. Otherwise, the GOP could simply jail anybody at any time for any reason.

And that's not an America worth spit.