In an appeal for public help, Sydney police have released a disturbing x-ray image of a young man who was brutally murdered by driving 34 nails deep into his skull with a nail gun.

The image is of Chen (Anthony) Liu, a gay Chinese immigrant whose body was found decomposing in the Georges river—wrapped in plastic, wire and extension cord—in November 2008, nearly two weeks after his disappearance.

From the Sydney Morning Herald:

“In 36 years, I’ve never seen a murder of this nature,” Supt Beresford told reporters in Sydney on Friday.

“It’s a particularly brutal and vicious murder and hence the reason we are seeking information from the public.”

He said 34 nails had entered “predominantly into the head area” at very close range, fired from an 85mm nail gun.

“We certainly believe the nail gun is responsible for the death, there’s no doubt about that,” he said.

And from the local television station:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfFJsmMXyxM[/youtube]

While the Sydney police are reluctant to qualify the Liu’s murder as a hate crime at this time, if it walks and talks like a hate crime… well my friends, it’s probably a hate crime. Whether it’s based on race, sexual orientation or both.

But if you ask Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, who is vehemently opposed to the hate crimes legislation now coursing its way through Congress, he would likely disagree. From Perkins’ Fight Hate Crimes website:

Hate Crimes legislation is ultimately a Thought Crime law, allowing citizens to be prosecuted for their religious beliefs.

Hate Crimes legislation is a violation of our First Amendment rights of Free Speech and Free Exercise of Religion.

Hate Crimes legislation creates a special class of people based on their “sexual orientation” or “gender identity.”

The Constitutional rights of pastors and religious individuals to peacefully disagree on issues of sexual orientation should be protected.

Again we circle around to the whole religious persecution argument. Mr. Perkins, unless faith is proven to be a major and recurring motive in brutal slayings such as these, then you really don’t have anything to worry about. Or IS that what you’re worried about? This is a free country Mr. Perkins,  and you are entitled to your bigotry and hate, but not the violence that flows from it. And that violence should be punished in kind, not to diminish your faith, but to discourage the violence and hate that often uses religion as its source.

Hat tip to Gay News Blog.

This of course is just a small smattering…

Matt Barber, Director of Cultural Affairs with both Liberty Counsel and Liberty Alliance Action

“Here we go again. While citing the specter of ‘equal protection,’ the Iowa Supreme Court today has unanimously joined a leftist gaggle of ideologically driven judges in California, Massachusetts and Connecticut, creating, from thin air, a phantom ‘right’ to the ridiculous, oxymoronic and postmodern ‘gay’ marriage counterfeit… The U.S. Supreme Court long ago rejected the untenable notion that ‘equal protection’ requires two biologically incompatible persons to be permitted to ‘marry.’ Marriage, of course, by its very spiritual, historical and biological nature, requires binary compatibility. It is no more discriminatory to disallow two men from marrying each other, than it is to prohibit a man from marrying his house plant.”

Douglas Napier, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund

“The Iowa marriage law was simple, settled and overwhelmingly supported by Iowans … There was simply no legitimate reason for the court to redefine marriage.”

Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst at Focus on the Family Action, said the ruling took his breath away.

“The justices brazenly asserted that their role was not only to redefine marriage, but also to legislate whatever new social agenda they favored, ‘free from the influences’ of a society resistant to such change,” he said. “Such an admission is breathtaking in its arrogance and scope.”

Tony Perkins, president of FRC Action

“We need to remember that the marriage-amendment movement has been many times more successful than the same-sex ‘marriage’ movement,” he said. “We urge Iowans to contact their legislators and urge them to move quickly to pass a constitutional amendment protecting marriage … We hope the Legislature will heed the powerful swell of statewide support for an amendment and reclaim from the High Court its rightful place as the state’s policy-making body.”

Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America

“Marriage is a civilizing institution that brings a man and a woman – two fundamentally different yet complementary people – together in an unparalleled bond that provides children with the benefits of the two sexes, male and female. The Iowa justices in reality regress in their attempt to impose ‘progress’ by destroying the concept of marriage in a naked, self-serving power grab. Claiming that they have a ‘keen and respectful’ understanding of the Constitution doesn’t make it so, anymore than claiming marriage can be complete without one or the other sex.”

Rev. Louis P. Sheldon, Chairman, Traditional Values Coalition

“If this ruling is permitted to stand without challenge, it will result in the persecution of Christians and anyone else who criticizes homosexual conduct. This ruling will mean that schools will be forced to teach that homosexual marriage is normal – and parents who object will face ridicule and possible criminal penalties against them. This ruling will be used to force pastors to conduct same-sex ceremonies or face penalties.”

Chuck Hurley, Iowa Family Policy Center

Pardon me while I hunt down my extremely small violin.

Not surprisingly, a number of states — many of them conservative — are at odds with the easing of stem cell research restrictions put into effect by President Obama ealier this week. Currently Alabama, Georgia, Maryland, Montana, North Dakota and South Carolina have bills that would impact stem cell research.

As reported by AP…

While Louisiana already bans the destruction of fertilized embryos, the courts have not yet weighed in, Charo said.

In Georgia, a measure that would ban some forms of stem cell research on fertilized embryos is moving quickly through the state Senate. The bill would outlaw the destruction of fertilized embryos, which the legislation defines as a person. It is expected to face a vote in the full state Senate on Thursday.

Similar “personhood” measures have cleared one chamber each in Montana and North Dakota.

They come in the wake of a Colorado ballot initiative that said human life begins at conception. It failed to win voter approval last year.

David Prentice, senior fellow for life sciences at the Washington, D.C.-based Family Research Council, said Obama’s announcement Monday that he will free federal funds for embryonic stem cell research will rally conservatives.

“This is the beginning,” Prentice said. “I think there will be more to come.”

Many would suggest that any state that hampers or bans stem cell research shouldn’t be able to enjoy the fruits of its research. While I certainly wouldn’t go that far, the state should be penalized in some way without harming its constituents.

The true irony here is that nearly half of those states have some of the highest rates of heart disease and incidences of diabetes in the nation. Chronic conditions that could easily be reduced by breakthroughs in stem cell research.

It brings back that tired but true refrain “always voting against one’s self interest.”

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.