Think for yourself

Over the course of the last several weeks, since the Shiavo case hit the public consciousness (through the media's choice of coverage), I have taken an interest in reading what people write in the "Letters to the Editor" in the primary newspaper I read to get a handle on public opinion. And, to my surprise, I have found that many of the folks who have taken time to write in have views that are similar to those already voiced in this blog.

What I found disturbing was a trend for people to jump to conclusions about "other people's" opinions based on their stance on the Schiavo issue. Threads that I saw through a number of these included: Terri should live=abortion is bad=the Iraq war is good=the death penalty is good="people who don't believe like me are bad".

So let's follow the logic through these positions: Life is good, so Terri (and all other folks who have at least minimal function) should live. Abortion is "killing babies", so life is good. Still self-consistent.

The Iraq war is good. Many thousands of Iraqis have been killed, along with over 1500 of our troops, fighting over fictional WMDs based on falsified and trumped-up "intelligence" reports. But life will be better for those still around after, so we're still self-consistent, I guess.

The death penalty is good because it protects the rest of us from "bad" people. People who do "bad" things. Kill people who don't believe like me. In this case, life is bad because of choices someone made.

There are two problems with this line of thinking. First, we don't live in a perfect world where all people who are convicted of murder charges and sentenced to death actually did the crime. Many convictions have been brought into question and overturned based on faulty evidence or a variety of other issues, and yet we still kill others imprisoned by the same system. Why? "The deterent value." Just don't be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

The second, bigger problem, is being self-consistent in your reasoning. If you espouse a "Right to Life", that should mean under any circumstances. Anti-abortion - check. Terri Schiavo - check. War in Iraq - war can be justified in some cases but, in this case, no. Many innocent Iraqis and Americans are being killed for very little to do with "life". Capitol punishment - ah, no.

Which brings me back around to my original point. When it comes to considering your personal position on an issue, make up your own mind. Don't let political or religious dogma, or peer pressure for that matter, make up your mind for you. Make up your own mind based on your own beliefs, and don't be afraid to speak your mind.

But listen to what others have to say. Just because they don't happen to believe as you on one certain subject, that doesn't make them bad. And you shouldn't infer their positions on other subjects based on this one bit of knowledge. You may find that, on most issues, you actually agree and you may have found someone you want to be around and develop a relationship with.

That's the real beauty of the First Amendment. That, coupled with tolerance of "others'" viewpoints.

Congressional "Action"

Reading the news accounts of our leaders inaction - particularly this week - I continue to be reminded of a joke from a Gallagher (the comedian) tape I once watched - “If progress means moving forward, then what does Congress mean?”

The first of our leaders' "activities" is the opening of the Arctic National Wildlife refuge in Alaska to oil drilling and exploration. If you’ve read previous postings, you know my slant. The currency of oil, through the holdings of various people in the Administration and Congress, is dictating policy.

It’s not enough that we have to attack sovereign nations, get tens of thousands of the inhabitants of those nations killed and injured, put tens of thousands of our own sons and daughters in harm’s way on false pretenses, and have a body count of those sons and daughters exceed 1500 SO FAR, now we’re turning the assault to one of the very last undefiled, unspoiled sanctuaries on Earth in our insatiable need for oil.

And why is that? There is no doubt that someday, and depending on who you talk to it could be just a few decades out or it could be as much as a century, the oil will run out. No debate. No one suggests that there is a limitless supply. Not to mention the damage we are doing to the environment around us with the combustion by-products.

What does our forward-thinking leadership in Washington do in the face of this reality? Boldly challenge the country to come up with new energy alternatives by 2015 in the face of a looming disaster? Provide funding for basic research into the improvement of basic technologies required to support some of those alternatives?

No. Save the “Bold Initiative” speeches for the greatest entitlement of all - Social Security. It’s the ME generation taking care of itself. No, the response is to just go off and drill for oil somewhere else; somewhere that is so far removed from where most people want to go that there is no other financial payback possible for that land. And who cares about the wildlife up there - it’s only a National Wildlife Refuge.

If the same deposits of oil were to be found by drilling in Yellowstone National Park, do you think for an instant that anyone in Congress would be making such a proposal. Of course not. And why not? That land supports itself through tourism revenues.

The second issue of the week is whether to keep Terri Shiavo alive by reinserting the feeding tube that has been keeping her body functioning since she went into a vegetative some 15 years ago.

After a Florida judge allowed the feeding tube to be removed (for a third time through the entire ordeal) Friday, Congress re-injected itself into this debate by issuing subpoenas to Terri, members of her family, and some of those responsible for her care for the end of March. By doing so, Congress is trying to use its subpoena power to extend Terri’s life until it can enact legislation around a moral issue of choice. Didn’t that work so exceedingly well with Prohibition?

The aptly-named House Majority Leader Tom DeLay justified the action with the following statements. “Terri Shiavo is alive. She’s not just barely alive. She’s not just being kept alive. She’s as alive as you and I are.”

Is being alive and living your life to its fullest potential sitting in a hospice year-in and year-out in the same room, being fed through a tube some indescribable and untasteable mush, unable to move, unable to get out of bed in the morning and enjoy a walk around the house or neighborhood, having someone cleanup your diaper several times a day because you cannot make it to a bathroom and take care of business yourself?

That’s your life, Mr. Right Honorable DeLay? I hardly think so. People have rights, and one of those rights is to die with dignity. While there is no written Living Will in this case, Terri’s husband Michael is on record repeatedly as saying that Terri’s wish would not be to be kept alive in this state and under these circumstances. With all due respect to Terri’s parents, the conversations of two adults in a committed, loving, covenant relationship supercedes the selfish wishes to keep her alive with a feeding tube.

It also supercedes Congressional intervention. Rep. Henry Waxman’s comments perhaps best reflects upon the flagrant abuse of congressional subpoena power in this case. “Congress is turning the Schiavo family’s personal tragedy into a national political farce. The committee has no business inserting itself in the middle of an excruciating private family matter.”

Congress - get out of the Shiavo’s lives. Let Terri die with whatever dignity she has left, let Michael try to get beyond the loss of his mate and make something more of the rest of his life (whatever that might be), let the hospice bed be used for someone who truly needs it - someone with a terminal illness in the final days of their life that needs pain relief and a place to be comfortable and cared for, and let this country go of this narcissistic Congressional political theater we are all enduring.

There are no more important things for Congress to be doing than getting embroiled in this issue? What are you on the “Religious Right” afraid of - that Terri might get there before you and tell God what’s really going on down here?

Ask yourselves this simple question - if this were you, what would you want? If it were me, pull that feeding tube. No question. No debate. That’s not living, that’s barely existing.

What would you want?

The "Liberal?" Media

Shame on you, Chicago Tribune Editorial Board. Censoring the Boondocks comic strip on Tuesday. Bad Bored. I quote, "Today's original Boondocks strip presents inaccurate information as fact. Please enjoy this substitute."

The original strip contained two frames. In the first, one of the main characters is listening to a news report, which states, "Reportedly, a conversation in which President Bush admitted smoking marijuana was recorded by Doug Wead."

No factual misstatements there. As ironic as it is, a man named Wead did record the Prez talking about smoking weed. Fact.

The second frame continues, "This just in. We just got two more revelations from Joe Blow and Petey Crack." Fact? Hardly. Irony, with the creator making a point? Exactly. Who in their right mind would think that Joe Blow and Petey Crack were, in fact, real people? No one, apparently, except the Tribune Editorial Bored. It's parody - do you get it now that I've explained it to you?

Do you fact-check ALL your strips? How about the Boondocks the following day? Do you know beyond a shadow of a doubt that Paris Hilton's phone's address book contained the phone number to the Free Clinic? Did you ask her? Do you really think the multi-billionaire heiress of the Hilton fortune would go to the Free Clinic for anything? She could buy her own clinic, and keep it staffed exclusively for herself.

And yet you printed the Hilton strip.

Why?

She's an entertainer. An one without a particular stellar reputation. So what if the satire in the strip about her propagates that impression?

But the Prez!?! Take a shot at him? Can't let that happen unless it's proven fact!! Not as a member of the Impartial Media Elite, or perhaps even the Liberal Media. You know what the worst part about this is - it's not even close to the best of the actual "Bushisms" that spew forth from the Prez' mouth. He's even more clueless!

Oh. Wait. McGruders' Boondocks strip actually has a point. And makes sense. IF you don't have cranio-rectal inversion syndrome.

Let's put the shoe on the other foot for a moment. Let's say someone in Clinton's administration tried to put the brakes on a story that wasn't flattering to him. First, you'd print it (and you did. Whitewater. Lewinsky. Ad nauseum). Then, you'd air the story that someone tried to censor you.

Yet you censor this comic strip creator's first amendment rights.

You hypocritical pack of Republican, Conservative schmucks. (I can't type what I REALLY want to because one of the guiding principles I swore that I would not do in this blog is swear). Most times you at least try to sound impartial, but this is so egregious, you have to be called out.

Get the surgery required to correct for your inversion. Pull your collective heads out.

It's comedic satire, stupid.