If you haven’t had a chance to visit From Where I Sit, please do. It is an excellent blog by my good friend Mark D’Elicio who also has  the good fortune of having guest columnists, which I do not (all interested in applying click here.) His latest guest column explores the recent media coverage of  Jane Fonda and the Pope. I of course could not let this pass without adding my own two cents. My response to the column is below, and while I it feel stands fairly well on its own, it is best served in response to the original column, which can be read here.

While it is true that Hanoi Jane made a number of incendiary and completely regrettable statements during the Vietnam War, she made those statements over 30 years ago. I am certainly not trying to diminish the impact her words and actions had back then, and continue to have to this day for those who survived. But why do I sense an air of hypocrisy when many of her detractors insist on turning a blind eye to our own Baghdad Bush?

Sending our troops into an unjust, unprovoked war, misleading them and us as to their intent, failing to armor them properly and failing to take care of all of them upon their return is more criminal then any syllable uttered by Fonda. While it can be argued that President Bush is not directly accountable in every instance, it can also be argued that the Captain of a ship is responsible for the actions of his crew, and that the difference in accountability between a president and an actor should be at least as wide as the Grand Canyon. Again I don’t justify or condone what Jane Fonda did, I personally abhor it, but how can I not turn that same critical eye toward the current administration and the current "Vietnam?" And I’d be obligated to train that eye regardless of which Party was in power.

As for the Pope, outside of the editorial section, it was never my impression that the "liberal media" disapproved of him. It was my impression however that there was far too much coverage and too much sensationalizing of the events (of which both the liberal and conservative media are frequently guilty) while legitimate local and national news suffered. The lead story in most newspapers and news programs concerned the Pope’s death and the build up to his successor, and not 50 plus U.S. Troops and countless Coalition troops and Iraqis who died that month.

I think electing a new Pope of color would have been a bold and forward-looking move for the Catholic Church but it is the least of my concerns. What does concern me is that the previous and current Pope have not done enough to address the Catholic scandals here at home (and possibly abroad), short of calling many back to the church, conducting investigations in secret, and giving one a prominent role in a recent Vatican function after the Pope’s death. And before I am painted as either anti-Catholic or anti-religion, I would raise the same red flag whether they were Atheist or Protestant.

Circling back to Jane Fonda, her recent notoriety will no doubt be short-lived, as the "liberal media" moves on to the next American Idol and Apprentice at the bereft of what is really important. By the way, where was the "liberal media" when it was hanging Clinton on a stained dress? No FOX News was required back then. Is the leaning of the media inversely proportional to the leaning of the administration in power at the time? Food for thought.

First of all, I’m sorry to have been away for so long. My muse vanished without so much as thank you (or a playful pat on the behind) and I have been wandering aimlessly ever since. Sure I have started a number of posts over this long break, but they all sit idle, their relevancy passing into the long night. That was until Terri Schindler Schiavo.

I’ve long been on the fence about whether or not Terri Schiavo should be allowed to pass on to the next world. I can’t believe she doesn’t long for it, assuming she is capable of “longing” at all. But as time passes and the controversy and the drama surrounding her grows, it has moved well beyond what should simply be a family decision. It’s grown into something much larger and dangerous: an opportunity.

I can’t help but think that the Right who are in office are grateful for the Terri Schiavo case. She serves to polarize their base, particularly the religious right that many feel played a significant role in putting George W. Bush back into the White House. This is evident in statements made by House Majority Leader Tom DeLay speaking at a conference organized by the Family Research Council, a conservative Christian group. DeLay is quoted as saying “One thing that God has brought us is Terri Schiavo, to help us elevate the visibility of what is going on in America.” He later went on to say, “That Americans would be so barbaric as to pull a feeding tube out of a person that is lucid and starve them to death for two weeks.” DeLay then closed by viilifying those who have attacked him and others in the Conservative movement, perhaps in reference to alleged ethics violations. These two trains of thought are practically joined at the hip.

Even Tom DeLay’s website, a press release discussing a bill he is trying to push through is quoted as saying “The few objecting House Democrats have so far cost Mrs. Schiavo two meals already today, and we’re working now to resolve this in time for her to get some food and water tonight.” Sounds more than a little partisan, painting house Democrats and anyone who feels similarly as evil and heartless in allowing Terri Schiavo to starve. Mr. DeLay, I’m afraid it’s a lot more complicated then that.

As usual the rhetoric spills down into the Right’s media bastions: talk radio and Fox News. Sean Hannity, a popular right-wing talk show host, interviewed the Nobel Prize nominated neurologist William Hammesfahr on Terri Schiavo and possible treatments for improving her condition. Repeatedly Hannity and his co-host Joe Scarborough reiterated Hammesfahr’s Nobel qualifications, when in fact he was never legitimately nominated; unless of course you count the unqualified nomination by one Rep. Mike Bilirakis (R-FL) from a largely conservative district north of Tampa Bay, Florida. I’m sorry Mr. Bilirakis; you’re not qualified to make such nominations under Nobel rules.

But getting back to Hannity and Scarborough, did they knowingly twist Hammesfahr’s credentials, propping up a man who has been previously disciplined by the Florida board of medicine, accepts only cash when treating patients, and proposes treatments that are unorthodox, untested and unproven? Or were Hannity and Scarborough simply duped. I sense a Ratherism coming on… Damn I can’t find it.

I think the Right also appreciates Terri Schiavo’s wonderful sense of timing, serving up a convenient distraction from the steady but ill winds blowing through Washington: social security privatization DOA; the regular deluge of bad news from Iraq; Tom DeLay’s alleged ethics violations; a gargantuan out-of-control deficit and the passing of a budget that cut plenty of useful programs (including some that impact Terri Schiavo’s continued healthcare) but fails to account for the cost of the War on Terror?

It makes sense that most decisions made and judgments passed about Terri Schiavo are based on emotions and understandably so, but I think it’s now clear that many, more frighteningly, are politically motivated. Yes, it is emotional event, but that emotional event needs to be tempered by the hand of science, by people who are qualified and can see past emotions to help families make reasonable and informed decisions. Instead we have partisan driven diagnoses by unqualified cardiologists outside their field of expertise (Yes, I am talking to you Mr. Frist). And that too goes for Presidents/former governors from states where the law would have forced the removal of the feeding tube years ago.

And surprisingly I think much of America agrees, as the sentiment tends to cross party lines. Polls indicate more support for removing Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube then against, and even more feel that Congress is overstepping its boundaries by getting involved. Is this the America, neighboring on 70% that Tom DeLay is referring to as barbaric? Seems a number of those barbarians elected him and many of his peers into the offices they now hold. Be careful not to bite the hand that feeds you.

Let’s not forget this is the same government that is attempting to legislate marriage. Now it thinks it can muscle its way into the Terri Schiavo case feeling better qualified to determine her fate. I think it sets a dangerous precedent, one that is contrary to one of the primary tenants of the Republican Party and that is for the government to stay out of the way of the people. When similar cases occur in the future, will the one of the courses of action be: “Get Congress on the phone!”

As I muddle my way through this I realize I am no longer on the fence. In fact I am nowhere near the fence. I now know that I am not qualified to pass judgment. And neither are you. And neither is the government. And really not even the courts. But when the parties involved cannot reach an accord it must fall on our courts, which with the help of experts, make the most informed decision they possibly can. And while not always popular, it should be adhered too. Especially when the same conclusion is reached multiple times by multiple courts.

You just can’t keep going back to the well simply because you don’t like the taste of the water…

There it is… I found my Ratherism. Until next time.

For the past 8 months I have shared my long drive to work with three men in my car, but never all at once, and never enjoying the advantages of a carpool lane. Before you get any strange ideas, it was only their voices, piped through my speakers courtesy of Talk910 KNEW, a local, and yes, mostly conservative talk radio station here in the bay area.

I can imagine the outcry of my more liberal friends even now, fearing I that I’d be brainwashed by the vast rightwing conspiracy, forced to turn in my gay card and join the Dark Side, with only an intervention at an undisclosed location in Marin country to save me.

But considering the current state of music (don’t get me started, that’s another post entirely), and the unnaturally long commute (anything over 10 minutes) I decided to dip my toe into those murky shadows, to see if that singular toe came out grimy or squeaky clean. I thought it important to see how the other side thinks. “Know thine Enemy” the saying goes, plus I had my trusty light saber just in case it got a little rough.

My morning commute was usually filled by the vocal stylings of one Bill O’Reilly. Part of the “Fair and Balanced” family over at Fox News, O’Reilly always claimed to be “looking out for us.” Self appointed guardian of the common man, I sometimes felt irritated with the presumption we couldn’t look out for ourselves or each other. Often O’Reilly’s grand pronouncements seemed to come from up on high, opinions so inflated that they were capable of affecting policy and public opinion from sea to shining sea.

But despite the seemingly endless and effortless self-aggrandizement, much of what O’Reilly said had the ring of truth, particularly with regards to the liberal media. Time after time he cited examples that painted a very biased media (NY and LA Times in particular), that pushed their barely concealed agenda as fact.

Now I view the press and the evening news with a far more critical eye. Thanks Bill.

During my lunch breaks I would catch Glenn Beck, a largely conservative talk radio personality out of Philadelphia. I enjoyed a lot of the funny segments including “More-On Trivia”, a bit similar to the Jay Walking segment on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno. Looking back however I feel there was a subtle elitism to the piece, which poked fun, mocked and sometimes disrespected the “common people”. This parallels Beck’s view of the Hollywood Elite and the values and tactics he claims they espouse. Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for making fun of people, even fat and/or gay people (which I am). Political correctness has gone way over the line and we need to take each other a little less seriously. I just think it’s a little bit of the pot calling the kettle black. 🙂

Other than the constant Kerry bashing, and his steadfast pro Bush stance, I enjoyed listening to his show. I would have preferred something a little more neutral, but that’s not who Glenn Beck is, and I can appreciate that. He’s also pretty damned funny.

As for my evening commute, it was filled with loud rumbling and bellows of Michael Savage, easily the most controversial and opinionated of the three, and perhaps of all talk radio. Sometimes a difficult listen, early on I’d change the radio station in disgust, but would always keep coming back as the election fast approached. Savage is definitely an acquired taste.

Despite the continuous patting himself on the back (you’d figure he’d need a shoulder replacement by now), the continuous accusations of verbal theft (others in the media using his catch phrases), and the continuous predictions of future events that will invariably come true (including picking the president by at 51-49 margin), Michael Savage makes for entertaining theater. And much of it is exactly that… theater. Savage excites and enrages people simultaneously. I’ve never heard anyone so adept at pushing people’s buttons. I can be screaming at his sheer idiocy one minute and pounding the steering wheel in agreement the next.

He does begin to wear however like an overly gnawed bone. Eventually you realize you’re not going to get any more “meat” out of listening to him and you need to move on. This coupled with Savage shifting his arguments and disconnecting/cutting off callers to protect his view point grows tiresome and belittles that part of his listenership with a reasonable but contrary point of view. Not everyone has a swastika on his heart. Not every liberal has a mental disorder.

But there are a couple of points Savage hammers with great rapidity that I have taken to heart: protection of our borders and the protection of our language, both important to our national identity, continued sovereignty and safety. His stance on immigration, while on the surface radical to most, makes more sense than I would care to admit. I won’t go into the details as that’s entirely another post and this one has gone on long enough.

So that being said, now that I have put down my three passengers and lifted them back up again, and since the election has come and gone, it’s time to kick them out of the car. While my radio dial will surely cross paths with them again, it’s time to take a breather and hope that there is now some decent music radio to listen to. If not, there’s always my IPod. So until the next election… Adios.

PS. At the time of this writing KNEW910 has dropped Phil Hendrie from their lineup, easily one of the funniest men on talk radio (and deserving of his own post), I am now considering boycotting the station and writing KNEW910 to complain. I encourage all of his fans in the bay area to do the same.

I’m not really suprised that Bush took home the coveted prize as I feel it was the Democrat’s race to lose. In putting up a candidate that refused to define himself, the Democratic ticket was vulnerable to this outcome. I think they also over-estimated the importance of the war among voters.

I was however surprised by the strength of Bush’s evangelical base, buoyed by such issues as stem cell research, abortion, and particularly gay marriage. I think this is key. Eleven states on Nov 2 passed resolutions to ammend their constitutions to ban same sex marriages (list at the bottom of this post), and Ohio in particular went as far to ban civil unions. I feel strongly this was a central issue to many of those who voted for George W. Bush. Exit polls seemed to indicate that moral leadership and the economy rated more important than the war in Iraq and more broadly the war on terror. I think it is safe to say that mainstream America is simply not ready to accept homosexuality, rooted either in their faith or their homophobia.

While discouraging, it’s not suprising that this happened. Gay activists (and certain mayors) pushed so hard for this equality that it backfired. You can’t force something like gay marriage — no matter how reasonable or fair-minded the argument — down the throats of people who barely tolerate homosexuals in the first place. Many of which would prefer to have us shipped off to some island (and those are the nices ones) then deal with us walking down the aisle, revering that which they frequently take for granted.

But please don’t get the wrong idea. I’m all for gay marriage, or gay civil unions — which ever gives us the same rights and privliges as heterosexual couples without jumping through hoops and causing undue financial stress. I just feel there is a right time and place for these things, and doing them in climate that is condusive to change. The climate during a war, is not one of them.

Only history will tell if the strong push for gay marriage ultimately tilted the election one way or the other. It would be presumptious of me to declare that. But I do know that I don’t feel quite as safe today, as I did yesterday.

States Banning Same Sex Marriage on Nov 2:
Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon and Utah…

which join existing states…

Wisconsin, Kansas and Missouri (please let me know if I have missed any).