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.

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).

Well now I’ll get to the meat of this post, and it is by no means chalky. Hopefully I can string together enough “interesting word musements” to keep you in your seat for at least a little while.

I saw Fahrenheit 9/11 tonight. Yes, that’s what I said. I saw Fahrenheit 9/11 and lined Michael Moore’s pockets like everyone else, but hey, I also lined Mel Gibson’s for Passion of the Christ so I guess I’m a sucker for controversy. I think Michael Moore has made a provocative, skillfully edited and personal film. I feel it is almost more personal than political, as its deftness, sadness and wit is permeated by his distrust of the government, and in particular President George W. Bush. Many question the patriotism of Michael Moore’s views. I do not. Nor do I question the patriotism of people like him who protest the war, as they disparage the act itself, not the warriors who fight them. It is also painfully clear that Michael Moore hopes to sway the election back to the left. Perhaps he will be successful. Perhaps he is only preaching to the faithful and his efforts will have little impact on the outcome. Perhaps he is providing additional ammunition to those seeking to lay claim the most powerful seat in the world. And those who would assume that power, are they any better? More on that later.

The film covers a lot of known ground, from the Patriot Act to the personal tragedy of losing a loved one in the field of battle. It is all sad, funny and moving at the same time. Moore never lingers too long on one topic, perhaps for fear of a thread unraveling, and the film is frequently punctuated by Bush blunders and Bushisms. Each passage or vignette attempts to add weight to the argument that the reasoning for going into Iraq was unjust, and was used as a vehicle to implement many long-standing wants and needs of the Right Wing.

I tried very hard to view these subjective vignettes critically without the context to make them whole. In some cases I was successful. I know Michael Moore is adept at feeding his audience a line of bull disguised as an exquisite spread of caviar. But on more than one occasion I was not so successful as I failed to imagine what plausible context would make a particular fact or incident seem harmless. In the end I come away with some of the following personal “truths” that hardened beneath the weight of his film.

• Bush seems both physically and mentally on vacation much of the time.
• Only after the failure to find weapons of mass destruction did the rhetoric change from “killing the evil-doers” to “liberating the Iraqi people”.
• If the “liberation of Iraq” was just, shouldn’t Iran, North Korea, China, Saudi Arabia and countless others be next, for their wanton disregard for human rights and overall general evilness? Treating them with anything less is pure hypocrisy.
• As a followup to the previous item, we would never ever ever ever bite the hand that feeds us, I mean, take action against Saudi Arabia.
• While not the fault of Bush, it is a sad and dark truth that it is frequently the poor and indigent who are thrust by circumstance into a life of military service to sacrifice themselves for our liberty. Wouldn’t the reinstitution of the draft at least level that playing field?
• These are the first of many that clearly come to mind.

Despite my obvious dislike for Bush, I look at John Kerry on the other side and can do nothing but throw my hands in the air. He’s a blank. He’s a waffler. He has failed to define himself, where Bush at least is a known quantity. So I briefly wonder if plotting a new course and new presidency could actually be worse? Perhaps that “stay the course” might be the smart thing to do considering the mess we are in? It’s a tough being a Democrat during these times, and often want to disavow both parties, as over time they seem to be more and more the same, and not in a good way. What is one to do short of relocating your citizenship to New Zealand? And don’t say voting. Please… are you kidding? 2000 anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Anyone?

In closing allow me to be a little provocative in my own way. It is generally accepted that the Middle East’s view of the West is not a favorable one. What we view as liberation the people of Iraq view as an occupation. An occupation by infidels. Our very presence, and our history in the region, particularly with Israel, foments their anger and hatred of us.

I feel it can be argued, and with some success, that we, as well as the rest of the world, are in part responsible for maintaining and in some cases creating, an environment in the Middle East and other parts of the world that allows “terror” to flourish. Despite a cloak of friendship and good will, our motivations are often based on profit. No cloak is ever thick enough, made transparent by history to those at home and abroad. It is sad that survival is almost supplanted by greed as a basic human need.

As time creeps slowly along it seems we have learned nothing. While still relatively short-lived as a species we have found more ways to kill ourselves then any other animal a thousand times over. It is true that the view inside my fish bowl is small and murky from overfeeding, but it is the only view I have. Every day I witness how we mistreat one another. I see the young who will inherit and a small part of me hopes I do not live long enough to fall under the care. I am also wary of bringing up a child in such a world, where they are cajoled and undisciplined, and creativity and original thinking is discouraged via education and medication. I also wonder about a society that celebrates with interest marriages of convenience, money and lack of sobriety, over marriages based on enduring love simply because it is between two men, or two women. But I digress; that’s for an entirely different post.

In the end I wonder if were going to get exactly what’s supposed to be coming to us, and is that something we arguably deserve. This wonderful blue orb floating in space has had many tenants. Many have come before us, and many long after we have gone. It will soon be the time to reap the seeds we have sewn, and either continue paying the mortgage, or foreclose.

That is all, and I apologize for any spelling or grammatical mistakes you may have encountered.