Terri Schiavo Dies in Florida Hospice

After a long, painful, very public fight over her life, Terri Schiavo has died in the Pinellas Park, Florida hospice where she's been living.

Arms to Pakistan - a good idea?

Is anyone else concerned about the Bush administration's decision to reverse a 15 year policy banning arms sales to Pakistan, and sell them F-16's?
Musharraf, who declared himself president after he took over the country in a coup, was quoted as saying "This country is more important than democracy", when justifying why he wouldn't step down as the nation's military leader once he became its political leader. The Pakistani government pardoned the head of their nuclear program, after he sold nuclear secrets to our buddies in North Korea, Iran and Libya.
Of course, we are making the same offer to India, so they aren't upset. These two countries have repeatedly threatened each other with their nuclear programs.
Why are we contributing to this dangerous arms race when we are supposed to be supporting stability in the region? Isn't there another way to help Pakistan?
The Pakistani government has spent so much money on weapons proliferation, it is unable to afford adequate spending on education and job-creation. Those seem like good, productive ways to help the country. Maybe I'm being too simplistic - can someone make this make sense to me?

A Nation at its Worst...

OK, so I'm reading about the US men's national team's loss to Mexico (that's in soccer) this afternoon. It was a disappointing result to be sure, but what really bothered me was something the Mexican fans started yelling after the US scored in the 2nd half. According to ESPN.com, after Eddie Lewis' goal in the 59th minute, the Mexican fans began chanting, "Osama! Osama!" at the Americans. Now, I know soccer is a passionate game, and there are few fans as passionate as those in Mexico. But to me, this is going too far. I'd read about the fans throwing bags of urine and feces at the American players the last time they played in Mexico City, and, while disgusted, I can rationalize that as an attempt at a practical joke (albeit a sick one.) But, to invoke the name of a man responsible for the deaths of thousands of people (not just Americans) all over the world is... well, the words twisted, cruel, sick don't seem adequate... maybe abhorrent works. Am I just over-reacting? I need some perspective here, folks.

Welcome to.....

Does this worry anyone else?

On the Death of "Reasoned Debate"

Maybe we aren't politically polarized, so much as we just like to argue with each other. We argue all the way up to, and past, the point of reasonableness and civility. That's Michael Wolff's point in Mean and Proud:

Now, vituperation—abuse, invective, scorn—has, I would argue, in its ideal state, no necessary political ax to grind. The desire to verbally rough somebody up is not a partisan impulse.

Of course, that’s far from where we are. We’re in a left/right world rather than a funny/not-funny world.

Indeed, polarization, or the pretense of polarization, is the only thing that seems to provide a socially acceptable excuse for vituperation. It just may be that as a function of American uptightness and verbal correctness, we’re forced to invent a political excuse to say something unkind. The end of civility, this corrosive discourse, the taking up of opposite sides is perhaps just a smoke screen under which we can express the natural desire to be impolite.

We may not be so left and right. But rather, more generally, and diffusely, we’re dissatisfied, ambivalent, annoyed, bored. Instead of left and right, we just don’t like the bland, blah-blah, pointless, and point-of-view-less media we’re getting. Hence, the restless quest for newer, more interesting, more radical forms.

U.S. Judge Refuses Appeal in Schiavo Case

Reuters article is here.

Bush Signs Bill to Prolong Life of Terri Schiavo

From CNN this morning:

President Bush has signed legislation transferring jurisdiction of the Terri Schiavo case to a U.S. court. His signature followed a 203-58 vote in the U.S. House early Monday morning approving the bill.

How do you folks feel about what's been happening in the Schiavo case? Is this an egregious mis-use of federal power? Is this a necessary intervention to protect an incapacitated woman's civil rights?

State-Sanctioned Marriage

Harris asked a question about which I wanted to post and hopefully start a new discussion thread.

He raised the question of whether there should be state-sanctioned marriage. Marriage is defined by the American Heritage Dictionary as "The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife."

There are 3 parts: 1) legal union, 2) of a man and woman, 3) as husband and wife. In the popular consciousness this is not only a legal instrument with the attendant benefits, but a sex-specific one (not gender, sex) that requires or calls for or gurantees a certain degree of spiritual/emotional/interpersonal commitment and legitimacy in society's -- and the government's -- eyes.

It's the last two parts which should be separated out and given back to churches and other organizations that can confer the "qualitative" significance to such a union.

Individuals should have to go through a civil union process separately from getting married -- make getting a "marriage license" from the State getting a "civil union license" from the State.

The civil libertarian in me goes on to mumble "not only should the state not sanction marriage, it shouldn't be able to regulate civil unionship beyond the union of two (or more) living, breathing human beings over the age of consent and not blood related (e.g. 1st cousins)". That is to say, those specific conditions which threaten minors (from statuory rape) and unborn offspring (from birth defects).

I say let 'em all get civil unions: the straights, the gays, the polygamists (why is this banned? who cares?), the swingers, the mail-order bride buyers, the sportos, the motorheads, geeks, sluts, bloods, waistoids, dweebies, dickheads... give 'em out at Starbucks for all I care.

I'm being flippant, of course. We still have very serious issues with dissolution of these unions which will mean property ownership rules, child custody and support issues -- everything we associate with divorce today as it relates to the legal portion of "marriage".

What we won't have is the State determining what God -- or whatever or whomever -- means by "marriage". Which I think we all agree is... well... impossible. It's a bit like the State telling us what life means.

Gay Marriage Ban Ruled Unconstitutional

A judge ruled Monday that California's ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional, saying the state could no longer justify limiting marriage to a man and a woman.

Center Aisle Caucus

This could be an exciting development in bipartisanship or nothing more than a failed publicity attempt. Does anyone see value in the Center Aisle Caucus? What would it take to make a difference and what would you want that difference look like?

Accumulated Wisdom: Sixteen Theses for the New Millennium

For those who would have missed this otherwise....

Accumulated Wisdom:
Sixteen Theses for the New Millennium
A. BARTON HINKLE
TIMES-DISPATCH COLUMNIST
Published Friday, March 11, 2005

Herewith the precepts of the Prophet Barticus, handed down from upon the mist-enshrouded mountaintop. Gather all ye who are near, and attend.
. . .
Human nature does not divide along partisan lines. The world is choked with stupidity, willful blindness, and corruption on every side. Therefore, it is folly to try to score general points off the individual failings of one's political foes. If the form of scandal that has beset your opponents has not afflicted your allies yet, wait.
. . .
Political parties will always ignore the preceding precept.
. . .
Newspapers, magazines, and columnists that never criticize their friends when their friends commit the same misdeeds as their enemies are no better than partisan hacks and should be treated as such.
. . .
Politics is not a playoff game. It's okay to concede a point to the other side once in a while. Sometimes it's not just okay, it's required by intellectual honesty.
. . .
Comparisons to history's greatest monsters (e.g., Hitler, Stalin, Mao) should be reserved for those who commit monstrous acts. Those who refer to "feminazis," display bumper-stickers reading, "Rush is Reich," or invoke Josef Goebbels at the drop of a hat are not only not serious people, they clearly have not thought about the disservice they do to the memory of 6 million murdered Jews.
. . .
No one should be held responsible or unduly criticized for any statement made before age, oh, 25. After that, fire at will.
. . .
The Constitution is a set of rules about how all the other rules in the U.S. will be set down. The question as to what is constitutional has nothing whatsoever to do with whether something is good, bad, pleasing, or displeasing.
. . .
People who talk about the causes of poverty are missing the point. Poverty is not caused, it exists ab initio and is the natural state of things. The real question is what causes wealth. In the answer to that question lies the solution to the problem of poverty.
. . .
Freedom is a prerequisite for moral action. There is no virtue in saving a drowning child if someone has put a gun to your head and ordered you to.
. . .
History's great accomplishments cannot be achieved without idealism. But skeptics and ironists never committed mass murder in pursuit of a putative greater good.
. . .
Those who favor big government seem to imagine that government will share their values. When confronted with a powerful government that does not share their values (e.g., the Bush administration), they complain about some people "imposing their views" on the rest of us -- evidently never stopping to consider that they wish to do the same. Limited government, which allows everyone to cleave to his own values, is more harmonious with the inalienable right of each person to the pursuit of happiness enshrined by the Founders.
. . .
Kant was right: "Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made." But a godawful lot of money has been spent trying.
. . .
The most vituperative criticism generally comes from those who pay the least attention.
. . .
The best source of obituaries is the London Telegraph. To wit: "The 6th Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair, who has died aged 82, was known to connoisseurs of botanical art as Alastair Gordon, a painter of flowers and plants; at the age of 80 he became better known to a wider public when he gave a frank account of his youthful exploits among the bordellos of Beirut, London, and Paris . . . .At Mrs. Fetherstonehaugh's in Knightsbridge, the girls were so high-class, Lord Aberdeen recalled, that, rumour had it, one Coldstream Guards officer discovered to his horror that 'the girl assigned to him was his own sister.'"
. . .
The best source of news is The Onion. To wit: "Five or Six Dudes Jump Out of Nowhere And Just Start Whaling on This One Guy"; "Poll: 73 Percent of Americans Unable to Believe This S---"; "God Answers Prayers of Paralyzed Little Boy -- 'No,' Says God."
. . .
A gentle answer turneth away wrath, but a harsh word stirreth up anger. Sure can be fun, though.

God, Monkeys, and the Christian Right

There's a very interesting article in the Post today about the Christian Right's efforts to bring creationism into public school classrooms. I was amazed at how much money and time is being spent on this. It would seem that there are a few different factions within the effort, as well, pushing for varying degrees of inclusion. Some want the theory of creationism or intelligent design taught as footnote to evolution, while exposing the "flaws" of evolution theory. Others want intelligent design taught alongside evolution, as an equally viable theory. And still others want evolution taken out of classrooms altogether.

Personal views on evolution aside (if that's possible), should this be a debate that takes place on a national level, or is it better addressed by state government or even local school boards? Can--and should--communities decide for themselves how to teach evolution/creationism in their schools? Or is it necessary for the federal government to intervene, to ensure that everyone's right to free speech is protected (on both sides of the issue) and the sanctity of the separation of church and state is preserved?

Personally, I'm conflicted. On one hand, I can see how a local school board might be in the best position to most accurately reflect the values of a community, so maybe it should be a local issue. However, I worry that if this is left up to local (or state) government, the liklihood that the minority view's voice will be lost is greater. So, maybe the federal government needs to act to ensure that one highly-motivated and well-funded group doesn't crowd out or suppress the views of another.

Minnesota Bill to Ban 21st Birthday Binges

Having solved all other problems, Minnesota lawmakers want to ban 21-year-olds from drinking at midnight on their 21st birthday (thanks to Fark).

Minimum Wage: The Continuing Crisis

The Senate considered, and rejected, two proposals Monday to raise the current federal minimum wage of $5.15 for the first time in eight years. Democratic Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, sponsor of the first proposal to rise the hourly wage to $7.25/hour said:

I believe that anyone who works 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year should not live in poverty in the richest country in the world.

I couldn't agree more. It's not enough for the "pro-business" lobby to shoot down a minimum wage hike becuase "it's going to make it harder for us to be profitable". And I think it's straightforward dishonest when they say that "jobs will be lost if Congress raises the minimum wage". Oh yeah? That's going to be the crisis -- when we raise minimum wage? How about the ongoing poverty crisis? In the Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, December 2003, an article called American poverty as a structural failing: evidence and arguments summarized the problem:

....a major factor leading to poverty in the United States is a failing of the economic structure to provide viable opportunities for all who are participating in that system. In particular, the labor market simply does not provide enough decent paying jobs for all who need them. As a result, millions of families find themselves struggling below or precariously close to the poverty line.

Opponents of "living wage" policies make me sick to my stomach. I'm going to go out on a limb and assume none of these lobbyists and pro-business pundits have ever tried to feed, house, and clothe their family of four on less than $18,850/year.

Help Wanted...

For nation's 2nd highest diplomatic office; Must be outspoken critic of the United Nations and question the efficacy and usefulness of its very existence; Must be able to anger foreign dignitaries through accusations and inflammatory statements, while openly criticizing the foreign policies of US allies; Must be able to question the diplomatic efforts of your own country when negotiating with nations on the nuclear arms "bubble" (i.e. Iran and North Korea); Must be able to besmirch the legitimacy of other international authorities, such as the International Criminal Court; Good friend of Dick Cheney a plus

"Kettle? Hi, this is Pot calling."

Is it just me, or do the Dems' recent grumblings about Greenspan being a partisan supporter of GOP fiscal policy seem like a case of "the pot calling the kettle black?" When Greenspan was supporting Clinton economic policy in the '90s, they weren't concerned about any hint of partisanship. But, now that he's come out in favor of Bush's proposal to restructure the tax code and create private retirement accounts, Dems are complaining that he's stepped over the line. It could be that in both cases he was out of order, but, if so, let's address the entire issue.

"The One Mix to Rule Them All"

Okay, this is kind of off-topic, but I thought it would be a fun exercise…

Here’s the situation--you just met someone new, and you want to make him, her, or him-her (hey, we’re all inclusive here) the definitive mix CD—one that will lay bare the deepest, darkest secrets of your soul; convey how cool you are (no, really); and/or express your life-long infatuation with the musical styling of the “Velvet Fog” himself, Mel Torme. Name the mix, pick the songs (up to 10), and post as a comment. Go.

"Roots of the Ultra Left"

This gem from the Leadership Institute advertsises their deep, probing (and completely unbiased) look at the "Ultra Left". To wit:

The Roots of the Ultra Left is an in-depth look at 35 things the ultra left really thinks. From Socialism to Communism, from economic and religious oppression to the elimination individual freedoms -- they say it’s all for the common good, but the ultra left’s sordid history tells a different tale. It's the documentary the left doesn't want you to see. It’s the documenatry you can’t afford to miss.

I'm tempted to read the script for the sheer comedic value... 35 things the "Ultra Left" really thinks? Would that include things like:

• Guaranteed access to healthcare for all Americans?
• Separation of Church & State?
• An end to aggressive, pro-war, unilateral foreign policy?
• Sustainable environmental defense?

Juvenile Death Penalty

Earlier this week, the US Supreme Court upheld a Missouri Supreme Court's decision declaring the death penalty unconstitutional and "cruel and unusual punishment" for minors. It was a pretty tight decision, 5-to-4.

As an opponent of the death penalty in any form, I was pleased by the ruling. But, I don't necessarily agree with the establishment of an arbitrary (in my opinion) age limit on executions. I would argue that there are some very mature 17 year olds who know exactly what they're doing, while there are also some very immature 19 year olds who have no conception of the consequences of their actions. How we can say that one should die and another should live? I believe the death penalty is wrong in any case because we as fallible humans ourselves do not have the ultimate authority to end another's life. That belongs only to God. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't have any punishments for heinous crimes. I believe that a life sentence without the possibility of parole should still be applied; I just don't think we can ever say that someone else deserves to die. That's not up to us.

In his dissent, Justice Scalia raised a second issue (and in my opinion, the more compelling one)--the notion that the Supreme Court is not/should not be in the business of making moral judgments for the entire nation, especially when state legislatures have considered and enacted their own standards. Just what should the Supreme Court's role be in a case like this?

Call for new Schmoliticians!

I think we need to swell our ranks with other educated, opinionated, self-righteous (just kidding!) political thinkers. Send me your invitees' names and email addresses and I'll invite them.