It has been some time since posting here, and I apologize. The deluge of news, most of it bad, has left me at a loss for words. The sorry state of affairs in this country has sometimes made me ill, and sometimes extraordinarily angry. But my silence ends today.

Seems ABC and the folks at the mouse house are putting out a little mini-series this Sunday night called “Path to 9/11”. The “docudrama” is causing quite a stir, raising the ire of many on the Left while at the same time receiving accolades by many on the Right. Especially if you ask Rush Limbaugh, one of the lucky few who have actually seen the film.

Consider my ire sufficiently raised.

Before this tirade builds up any steam, let me address one thing. Some are already saying “What’s the big deal? Michael Moore made “Fahrenheit 9/11“? Why can’t we have our own movie.” Well if your among the 40+ percent in a recent CNN poll who believe Iraq had something to do with 9/11, you also probably don’t know the difference between a docudrama and documentary so move to the back of the line.

First of all “Fahrenheit 9/11” was a movie at the “movie” theater, that you had to PAY to see. Also there was no illusion that this film passed through the filter that is Michael Moore, a controversial and opionated documentarian often prone to hyperbole, as demostrated in his previous films. Also of note, Disney refused to distribute the film, as not to become entangled in the political process of an election year (allow me to lift one ass cheek in response as the gas, I mean hypocrisy begins to build).

The “Path to 9/11” however has a few notable differences. It will play on TV… not at you local cinema, for FREE, carried over the airwaves the FCC has so graciously licensed for our enjoyment. It is based soley on the 9/11 Commision Report (apparently) and purports to have the air of fact and truth about it. Its airing coincides with 5 year anniversary of the attacks of September 11, and also comes on the eve of what may be the most crucial midterm elections in this nation’s history. Depsite growing criticism, ABC/Disney is moving forward with it’s airing despite its pre-election timing (other cheek is now airborne, followed by a resounding “whoosh”).

Give me an F’ing break.

Let’s talk a little truth.

• Only right wing media (in additional to the usual bevy of TV reviewing publications) have been allowed to preview the film and have subsequently praised it as gospel; the same media that slammed that Reagan film a few years ago which eventually aired on the sleep-inducing Lifetime network.
• The film contains factual inaccuracies (dramatic license I’m sure), most notably a scene that never actually happened, and was improvised on the set. Said scene infers that the Clinton administration had the chance to capture Osama (essentially troops standing outside his door, awaiting orders to go in) but declined.
• Its writer, Cyrus Nowrasteh, is a conservative activist, who has spoken out against Michael Moore and Bill Clinton, and praises the Patriot Act. The film is factually-based on the 9/11 Commission Report (at least up until yesterday). In addition, Nowrasteh has granted interviews only to right-wing sites, no mainstream of left-wing interviews to be found.
• At least one member of the 9/11 Commision has denounced a key scene in the film.
• Scholastic Press has pulled it’s “Path to 9/11” discussion guide from distribution in high schools, saying the materials “did not meet their high standards.”

You know I wouldn’t have much of a problem with this film if it was showing at the theatres, where people actually paid to see it, you know, like that other film. Many say that other film contains factual errors too. I feel however that “Path to 9/11” is imminently more dangerous then “Fahrenheit 9/11” (as viewed by the Right) ever was. It masquerade’s as historical fact, delivered into every home’s idiot box without cost but plenty of bias (smells like the “P” word). It could certainly affect the positions of those on the fence, particularly those mentioned in that earlier poll. And the timing of the film certainly plays into the hands of the Right desparately attempting to hold power past November.

If nothing else, with something as important as 9/11, ABC/Disney is seriously remiss in not telling a story as accurate as possible, and in doing so dishonors those who lost their lives on September 11, 2001. It also insults the intelligence of the 50+ percent in that poll who heard and understood when Bush said that Iraq hand nothing to do with the attacks on 9/11.

As of this writing it appears ABC may be re-editing the film to give it a more balanced view of the events. Too little. Too late. The damage is done.

Our prayers go out to those struggling to survive in the wake of Katrina. The video footage is both harrowing and heartbreaking, and I hope the government and those who are willing and able can get down there and help. The situation is dire for many and may turn deadly in a few days.

While I am reluctant to use this catastrophe as an opportunity to pose some questions that may (and may not) reflect my political and personal views, I feel compelled to do so in the hopes of opening doors by engaging in a lively debate.

• For those who are not convinced that global warming is not actively occurring: Do you really want to take the chance? How could pouring all these non-natural materials into the environment help anything?
• For those who insist on living in areas frequently threatened by natural disasters or generally deemed unsafe, is it the governments responsibility to bail them out disaster, after disaster, after disaster?
• Was it right for the Bush administration to cut hurricane funding in New Orleans, a city frequently cited in worst case scenarios for natural disasters?
• If logistically possible, do you think we should accept Venezuela’s offer to assist with disaster relief? Also, it appears that few if any countries have offered to help with relief… while the U.S. is often the first to offer aid (at least to our Allies). Does the lack of reciprocation alter your view of when and if the U.S. should offer aid?
• Do you feel President Bush’s lack of immediate response with regards to hurricane Katrina (over 2 days) was appropriate? In addition do you feel the plans put forth in his speech are substantive enough to really have an impact?
• Do you feel the War in Iraq has impacted out ability to handle disasters here it home because of a lack of resources and a lack of focus?
• And finally, did God destroy New Orleans because of the “Gays” as indicated by the evangelic Christian group called Repent America? It certainly isn’t the first time we’ve been blamed.

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).