Mr. McFarlane,

I have to come clean and tell you that I’m not a regular viewer of your program, The Family Guy. I’ve probably seen two episodes since you’ve been on the air. Until now, it’s not been a matter of the content. I’m just not that into television anymore. Perhaps it’s a sign of old age.

In any event, I write to you now about an episode that aired on March 21, 2010. By now, you’re surely aware that this particular episode has stirred some controversy. While some will say it’s wiser to ignore things instead of creating publicity, I’m sure a show as successful as yours doesn’t need to lean on me for additional hype. So, I’ll speak my piece.

Naturally, I’m referring to the sketch, “Terri Schiavo: The Musical”. Before you discard my letter and mutter, “Just turn the channel, lady,” to yourself, let me tell you who I am.

I volunteered as a webmistress and media spokesperson for the family of Terri Schiavo from November of 2002 until March of 2006. In that time, I ran the website, communicated updates and dispersed court documents to those in the news media who covered the case and I spent a good deal of time on talk radio, discussing the goings on in the court proceedings.

I also became quite close with Terri’s family. More importantly, I got to know a great many people in the disabled community. The experience – as a whole — wasn’t what I’d call a happy one. I’ve seen some astonishing things.

Mr. McFarlane, I don’t claim to be an arbiter of what is or is not acceptable humor or creative content. I’m a member of the creative services industry myself and am loathe to hear even suggestions of censorship or any encroachments upon free speech or creative expression. They are rights that I consider utterly sacred.

Having said that, I also believe that – with all rights – we have some basic responsibilities.

I was forwarded a link to the Hulu stream of March 21’s Family Guy. It wasn’t from a Facebook friend or a Twitter poster. It was actually from Terri’s own brother and, needless to say, he was saddened by the content.

And, even though I’ve seen some pretty snarky satire on Terri and her situation, I have to tell you; I was completely floored by the clip. Characters singing about pulling the plug on someone, calling her a plant and a vegetable.

Honestly, I tried to be objective. As you can imagine, that’s not always easy for someone close to a situation that is being parodied. But, try I did and, I simply couldn’t find the first bit of humor in the sketch. To be perfectly honest, it seemed like abject cruelty. Bullying. Dehumanizing.

Mr. McFarlane, I’ve dealt with the issues of the life and liberty interests of profoundly disabled people for over 7 years now. Specifically, those people who live with brain injuries and cognitive disabilities. Perhaps you are not aware, but these people face a battery of injustices: socially, legally and with regards to their expectations of health care. Even American soldiers, returning from Iraq and Afghanistan with traumatic brain injuries, are receiving what amounts to a song and dance from a number of our Veterans Administration hospitals — instead of the care they need.

People who have been rendered helpless by brain injuries or other neurological events are not a separate and unequal class of human being, Mr. McFarlane. Of that fact, I am absolutely certain. Still, they are typically treated as such with certain rights removed by probate courts, their lives continuing at the pleasure of others and what has been (until recent years) a somewhat closeted prejudice against them. These days, that prejudice seems to be very open and acceptable.

Again, I tried (almost desperately) to find a redeeming point in the Terri Schiavo sketch that you produced and that Fox aired. I simply couldn’t. In the end, it just struck me as bigotry and cruelty.

Even if you have not an ounce of empathy or sympathy for Terri’s surviving family, I’d ask that you consider how other disabled people and their carers must of felt if they saw this sketch. What message are we sending them? That they aren’t in the club? That their problems are fodder for the rest of us?

Satire, I think, works pretty brilliantly when it attacks the powerful, elite, obnoxious, careless or narcissistic types we’ve all had the displeasure of running into. When it’s levied on someone who is helpless and defenseless, it just seems a bit cowardly to me. Maybe that makes sense to you. Maybe it doesn’t.

No one wants to be put down or marginalized for something they have no control over.

You know, when I heard that Mary Schindler (Terri’s mother) had seen the clip, I was rather cross. I’ll admit it. I know, first-hand, the devotion this woman has for her family and her loved ones. I haven’t the words to articulate to you how utterly destroyed Mary was when Terri died. You may not agree with Terri’s family trying to protect her life. You may not agree with how they went about it. But, I can tell you that desperate parents sometimes do things that outsiders don’t understand.

It seems clear that you don’t understand the points of Terri’s case. Had you, you wouldn’t have depicted her character as someone hooked up to a slew of mechanical life support machines. You see, Terri only needed a feeding tube to deliver food and water – basic necessities of her life, mine and yours.

Mr. McFarlane, I certainly don’t seek to censor you. It wouldn’t be proper. But, understand that – inasmuch as you have the right to produce the type of content you see fit – others have the right to admonish you for it, cease patronage of your sponsors for it and express displeasure with it. When it comes to the struggles that people with disabilities face, I have to side with those interested in protecting the disabled and not those who dehumanize them.

In parting, I hope you will consider the very real plight of the disabled community as well as the challenges that they and their families face each day. Sometimes, there are victories. Sometimes, there are real human tragedies.

None of us are really any further than one life event away from it.

Regards,

Pamela F. Hennessy
Clearwater, Florida

Video

I’ve never been a huge fan of Bill Maher. Conversely, I’ve never truly disliked him, either. Until now.

Maher is the host of a weekly talk-show that airs on HBO called Real Time with Bill Maher. In each episode, Maher makes commentary of the news of the day and has a panel of guests who are given the opportunity to add their two cents to the discussion. As far as format is concerned, it’s atypical and certainly interesting.

On his July 24, 2009 episode of Real Time, Maher hosted political candidate, Anthony Woods; security consultant, Susan Eisenhower; writer, John Heileman and columnist, Matt Taibbi.

After chewing over the Gates v Cambridge Police Department fray and the topic of political division in the United States, Maher’s fancy turned to health care and, in particular, the now hotly debated legislation championed by President Barack Obama.

Eisenhower took a moment to express her concerns over the aging population and the very real dangers of a health care system breakdown when (what she called) an already distorted system becomes ever more distorted.

After considering her remarks, Maher offered up the suggestion that people on their “last leg” might not be the people we should be taking care of.

Maher asserted that some of us may wish to refuse care (or, perhaps, “take one for the team” is what he meant) so that financial ruin doesn’t befall the United States.

An extremely uncomfortable groan could be heard, rising from a few of his audience members and his panel of guests appeared clearly dumbstruck for at least a moment.

Did he just say what I think he just said?

What Maher’s comments toy with is precisely what opponents of a government-sanctioned health care delivery system are fearing and warning against. Care rationing on a large-scale, pick-and-choose methodology.

Firstly, let’s try to define that last leg of Maher’s.

Does Maher speak of people in the throes of a terminal illness who have been given less than a year to live? That wouldn’t be very good thinking. I know a woman who was given less than three months to live and didn’t lose her battle until more than six years later. Terminal diagnoses don’t always equal a good reason to give up the fight and they’re certainly no reason to deny someone a therapy that might help them get a little more time out of living.

Perhaps, Maher is speaking about people who have lost their cognitive capacity and will never again regain the ability to work, pay taxes or contribute to the local community as they did previously. Should we abandon total-care patients? What if that’s not what they want? What have they done to anyone?

Did Maher mean the elderly? If so, this hardly seems fair to me. Our elders have paid far more, and for far longer, into this broken system of entitlement we live with. The prospects of having to take a little back from what you’ve put in might be a bit unattractive to most. Yet, I’ve always been told it was the reason I put in in the first place. Shouldn’t our elders expect to be treated as full persons and full citizens even if they’ve become dependent on others for help in living? Isn’t anything less a bit barbaric and a bit unbecoming of a free society?

To be fair, Maher did toss a number out there. Six months.

Before you go telling yourself that this is a fair and considerate amount of time, let me tell why I think it is not.

Someone rather close to me lost his wife to ovarian cancer after a battle that went on nearly three years. And, as he describes it, cancer kicked her around like a ragdoll in a hurricane. She suffered tremendous physical limitations and pain. But, they didn’t give up. They didn’t abandon her.

Her doctors took an aggressive clinical track and he took a homeopathic one – both intended to allow her to get as far into life as she could possibly get. After all, it’s what you do.

And, after all the struggle and carry-on, after all the work and stress of caring for someone in her circumstances, he wouldn’t have stolen so much as a second away from her. In fact, he says her last months were important and quite meaningful to her.

Meaningful. To her.

So, I ask you. Who are Maher, the government, you, I or anyone else to rob someone of their ability to live? Who are we to decide who is or is not fit to receive needed therapies or intervention? If it’s the terminally ill today, will it be the chronically ill tomorrow? And really, whose judgment is better than your own for determining what types of medical assistance are appropriate for you?

Maher also fancied that “spiritual” types should be happy to take the plunge. After all, it will get them to God a little sooner.

I suppose I shouldn’t be shocked at such a vulgar remark. Indeed, Maher lost his contract with the producers of Politically Incorrect for saying (less than a week after September 11, 2001) that terrorist hijackers were not “cowardly”. He later “clarified” his comments and declared his support of the United States military.

I’m certain there are plenty of people who find Maher’s brand of intellect engaging. I, on the other hand, do not. Had he ever known what it was like to be discriminated against, such barbaric and misguided things would never come out of his mouth.

Maher can tell me what to do with my life when he allows me to tell him what he can do with his opinions.

George Carlin used to muse that the reason the mainstream media, talking heads and politicians kept the masses arguing amongst themselves over right versus left paradigms was so that they, the elite, could keep giggling off to the bank.

As with many other things Carlin waxed upon, he was probably right on this score.

It’s useful to the power elites, the uber-rich and the corrupt in and outside of Washington, DC for us to become distracted by petty differences.

Over the past 8 years, I’ve observed more side-choosing than at any other time in my life. When I was younger, I can remember Republicans and Democrats who voted issue or person and not straight party ticket. Those days appear to be gone and choosing a public servant based on their career or ethics seems to be an unspeakable sin. These days, everyone seems to be out for blood and the party-defense rhetoric is getting pretty damn creepy.

I have to wonder if some personalities on air take their cues directly from DC. Listen to ‘conservative’ talk radio (is there any other kind?) for an entire day and you’ll notice the exact same topics, catch-phrases, buzz-words and bitching carrying over from program to program and from host to host. It’s all just a bit tiresome and suspiciously ‘on point’.

People in what can only be referred to as the entertainment industry (Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Randi Rhodes) suck down a cool salary for getting you and I to hate one another — based only on our differences in political views. Not a very noble profession, is it? Well, we probably have only ourselves to blame. We are, after all, the consumers and so long as we keep tuning into this divisive hackery, the longer they will continue to produce content.

The fever pitch of the left-eat-right, right-eat-left idiocy is no longer reserved to uneducated and embittered radio hosts. It’s now found its way into our halls of government. I cannot point to a particular moment when it started, but I certainly know when it came to a blistering head. That is, during the Bush administration.

Some of the initiatives that President Bush threw his arms around were very thinly veiled reach-outs to a portion of our population, based on their world views and not anything Constitutionally based. I speak of the National Day of Prayer. I’m of the opinion that the faithful reach out in prayer whether or not they have a national day for it and the rest of us forego the process of our own free will. And, that’s as it ought to be.

But, it was a good mechanism for ‘rallying the base’ and getting people to henpeck one another over things that have nothing to do with public policy in the first place. It was a straw man.

Straw men like that, however, are effective in getting people to denigrate each other, close their minds to views from other walks of life and are, generally, destructive and a massive waste of time. Surely, the government has no Constitutionally based role in promoting or opposing any activity of a spiritual nature. It is, after all, a private matter.

With the election of Barack Obama has come a new twist on the entire right versus left war on human thinking. Now, we’re being conditioned and instructed that criticism of this country’s first non-Caucasian president is an empty act, prompted by racism or Republican sour grapes.

I got my first taste of this after attending a Tea Party tax protest this past April. Along with friends, I carried signs that read “No Answers? No Taxes!” and “End the Fed.” Nary a peep about the current president or his cabinet, mind you. I was protesting what I consider to be enslavement of good people under the Federal Income Tax system and the private banking cartel we call the Federal Reserve.

Yet, comedian Jeanine Garafolo soon appeared on cable news, declaring that Tea Party protestors were nothing more than racists, radicals, evangelicals and right-wingers – all sore as hell that a black man was in the White House.

Huh?

I had shed a tear when Obama was inaugurated. No, I didn’t vote for him. Yet, I knew that he could never have won without the cooperation of white voters. To me, it signaled that my country and finally, FINALLY grown up and shed its moronic value system of race classification. It meant, to me, that we had finally decided that a human being is a human being, irrespective of that person’s color or ethnicity.  To me, even though Obama was not my guy, it was a profound moment in our country’s history. But, Garafolo would have you believe me a racist and a radical. Why? She’s stirring shit.

When I was involved in the effort to protect the life of Terri Schiavo, I was interviewed by a presenter from NPR’s program, Fresh Air and part of that interview went a little somethin’ like this:

Presenter: “Your detractors say that you are right-wing, evangelical Christians who are attempting to impose your will on others. How do you respond to that accusation?”

Me: “I’m actually agnostic and a member of the Green Party.”

Presenter: “So, you’re calling such labels unfair?”

Me: “No. I’m calling them lies.”

The point is that pigeon-holing people is a recipe for fail. There are things that I take a conservative world view on. There are other things that I take a liberal world view on. It’s called thinking.

In June of 2007, then-candidate Barack Obama said of the unending detention of certain persons believed to be terrorists: “We’re not only going to close Gitmo, we’re going to restore Habeas Corpus. We’re going to lead not just by our words, but by our deeds.”

Yesterday, it was reported that he and his administration are considering an Executive Order to allow such suspects to be detained – indefinitely.

Go to any online forum, such as Fark, and see what his supporters are saying. They vigorously defend this move and claim that their president is doing what he has no other choice but to do. These are the same individuals who bemoaned president Bush for doing (stay with me, here ) the exact same thing.

So, the left-right paradigm has been quite effectively sold to the American consumer. We eat it up every day, without questioning a thing, without asking ourselves if what we’re seeing is actually reality or just another dose of DC bullshit — intended to keep us growling at each other. We just don’t get it, do we?

If you really thirst for something different, if you really desire change, if you truly want a new day, you have no other choice but to reject the left-right paradigm. Look at the person. Look to the third parties. Look inside yourself and stop defending a party over your life, your future or your children.

You know what you’re being fed is nothing but a pile of shit. Why do you keep consuming it?

On May 26, 2009, The Hollywood Reporter confirmed that Al Pacino is considering the lead role in the upcoming biopic of Dr. Jack Kevorkian, You Don’t Know Jack. Pacino has long been a favorite of mine so I found the move just a bit of a disappointment.

Though the film certainly isn’t in the can yet and it’s far too early to start tossing barbs at producer Barry Levison, it’s fairly likely that the most negative aspects of Kevorkian’s history will never be committed to celluloid. Dr. Death (as he likes to call himself) has gotten quite a pass from society.

Even though he was convicted of second-degree murder in 1999 and admitted to assisting 150 people to end their lives, Kevorkian has enjoyed an almost bizarre public forgiveness and cult following. Some people have long viewed him as a compassionate soul who has been made a victim by overbearing and obsolete laws. But, peel away a few more layers of the Kevorkian onion and you’ll find some conflicting imagery.

Kevorkian’s line of work was pathology. As a clinical pathologist (and not an actual Medical Doctor), Kevorkian had neither the ability nor experience to accurately diagnose a patient as being terminally ill. Indeed, testimonies and evidence given during Kevorkian’s trial in Michigan’s criminal court reveal that a number of his victims did not suffer from any discernable terminal illness. In fact, a couple of them weren’t even sick.

In 1998, Kevorkian single-handedly ended the life of Thomas Youk, a 52-year old man with advanced Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS). In a video tape later given to the television show 60 Minutes, Youk is seen giving his consent to end his life and Kevorkian administering the deadly cocktail via injection. Kevorkian dared law enforcement to come after him and they did, charging him with second-degree murder and possession of a controlled substance. At the time of the killing, Kevorkian had not held a license to practice medicine for over 8 years.

In his 1991 book, Prescription Medicine: The Goodness of Planned Death, Kevorkian admits to an almost fetish level fascination with human death and a desire to conduct human vivisection – that is the carrying out of medical experiments on dying patients. Kevorkian also admitted to initiating contact with death row inmates in hopes of garnering their permission to conduct what he labeled obitiatric research on them.

In the 1960s, Kevorkian fancied himself something of a painter and produced over 18 oils on canvass depicting death, cannibalism, illness and nightmares.

Kevorkian was paroled from prison in 2007 following his vow to never assist another person to die and a claim of his own terminal illness of Hepatitis C. He has not, however, missed an opportunity to campaign for euthanasia, care-rationing and assisted suicide. The University of Florida, a school that teaches the medical arts and life sciences, hosted Dr. Death in 2008 to discuss the pros and cons of assisted suicide with its student body.

His proponents continue to claim that Kevorkian was a visionary and a compassionate doctor when, in fact, the Hippocratic Oath compels people like Kevorkian to “do no harm” and “give no deadly poisons — even if asked.”

A doctor (yes, even a clinical pathologist) is in a position of public trust and tasked with only two jobs – promoting longevity and ensuring wellness. Killing the chronically ill, terminally ill or disabled members of our society as opposed to caring for them and solving their problems can’t be seen as a building block for misguided hero worship. Kevorkian is a killer. A convicted one. It is both saddening and disturbing to see his agenda of death painted in bright colors and sold as compassionate and forward-thinking.

It’s just killing people.

It’s a shame that someone of Al Pacino’s talent would consider such a tainted project but that’s most surely his prerogative and right. Still, if he knew all the layers to the Kevorkian onion, I wonder if he would feel any enthusiasm with Dr. Death on his list of characters.

A US soldier describes, in great detail, his experiences in Abu Garib prison. He admits to the repeated rape of a 15-year old girl who later hanged herself. To him, it’s just not that big of a deal.

We all know this war and occupation is unConstitutional and illegal. We all know it’s gone on far too long. But, it’s time we started having an honest public dialogue about what war does to human beings.

This young man probably had a chance to be a relatively normal person before his experiences in Iraq. Now, he’s nothing more than an animal — completely lacking in human compassion, dignity or decency.

But, that’s what happens.

So, what’s the time frame, kids? 16 months? 24 months? 10 years? Not good enough. This truly needs to end immediately. The shame of it is growing too big to bear.

I’m going to do something I never do on this blog. Open comments. I want you to do your best to justify this mess to me. Explain to me why we need to stay in Iraq. Explain to me how this kind of brutal and criminal behavior could ever be tolerated by a Constitutional Republic or a polite society.

What you’re about to see is rather depressing and the language is not safe for work.

My question would be, where were all these empty suits over the past 8 years when the Bush administration expanded the powers of the federal executive body to the point of utter burden on the average citizen?

Look, kids. The United States Patriot Act, the Military Commssions Act and the suspension of Habeas Corpus are all still in effect. Hell. Even just today, our Homeland Security Director endorsed a report that claimed that so-called right-wing radicals are a threat to our nation’s security.

I guess we now are endorsing the concept of thought crimes?

Well, since that was perfectly acceptable for those in authority to do during the Vietnam War era against peace-loving people of good conscience, I reckon it’s seen as an acceptable practice now. That is, in the eyes of those starting all these fucking problems in the first place.

There are a whole lot of Johnny-Come-Latelys to the liberty movement, but I suppose that’s better than nothing at all. And, to me, it doesn’t matter if you lean to the left or lean to the right. It doesn’t even matter if you have no opinion at all.

What is of the utmost interest to me is that we live up to the promise we continue to bleat to anyone who will listen. That is that the United States is founded on a deep-seated desire for liberty and justice. That we obey the canons of our building blocks: The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. That we respect the rule of law and that we allow each other to live their lives in their own pursuits, unenslaved by an allegedly servant government.

Listen to Rick Perry. For a cowboy, he’s making a bit of sense.

Luke Rudkowski is your every-day, garden variety scapegoat.

The 22-year old is a slender and clean-cut figure who typically wears a business jacket and tie in public and keeps his hair short and his face clean-shaven. He is certainly not the visual you’d expect of a thug, a violent person or a criminal.

Yet, on March 28, 2009, Rudkowski – along with two of his fellow activists – was detained in a hotel lobby in Manhattan by security workers for New York City’s Mayor, Michael Bloomberg. The three were then arrested, held for several hours and charged with criminal trespass. This was even though Rudkowski asked security to allow him to leave the premises and was, instead, detained. Rudkowski was even told that he would be charged with ‘impersonating a member of the press’, even though he carried credentials on his person.

Rudkowski and his compatriots, Anthony Verias and Manny Valencia, were not harassing patrons of the Hilton Hotel in Manhattan. Likewise, they were not destroying property, publically intoxicated, disturbing the peace or exposing themselves to passersby in the hotel lobby. They were there only to attempt to secure an interview with Mayor Bloomberg.

And yet, this simple act, guaranteed as a right under the First Amendment to the Constitution, got them tossed into the clink like three surly crack dealers.

You see, Rudkowski, Verias and Valencia are all volunteer members of a non-profit organization called WeAreChange. As such, Rudkowski has become a philanthropist of sorts, conducting fund-raising activities to help offset the medical expenses incurred by first responders who have suffered profound medical complications after the events of September 11, 2001.

Though great sums of money were raised some years ago to benefit police, firefighters, emergency healthcare providers and the like, not much has made it into their hands. It is with that in mind that Rudkowski has worked tirelessly to find them respite and justice. As a part of that effort, he oftentimes questions those in government who he feels owe the responders a clear and concise explanation. Because of that, Rudkowski has become a surface nuisance.

WeAreChange is also part of the 9/11 truth movement – a ground-swelling of individuals, scientists, architects, pilots and pathologists who believe that the United States government’s official account of the events of September 11, 2001 are either bogus, flawed or intentionally false. He and his mates have been chronicled in the Alex Jones film, Truth Rising, and are active in handing out collateral materials that support their organization’s call for an independent investigation.

You may or may not agree with Mr. Rudkowski. It doesn’t matter.

These people embody the very spirit of rebellion and patriotism. And.. they’re doing it for complete strangers.

Rudkowski, Verias and Valencia have – effectively – taken one for the team. While a court date has been scheduled and WeAreChange are hurriedly working to find legal defense funding for the three, the time for questioning those who serve the citizenry is certainly here and now. These three men were not arrested for illegal actions. They were made an example of, harassed and improperly detained.

Say what you like about the 9/11 truth movement. Disagree all you wish. But, these young people have reached out to the rest of us, work for the good of those involved on that horrific day and have been made targets of the authorities… all because they challenge what they see.

Rudkowski and his mates could face stiff time and fines if found guilty. Within hours of their incarcerations, the online communities and social networks were ablaze with outrage over the arrests. Oddly enough, the media fell utterly silent.

This is a tremendous and vicious hindrance on the rights of the individual to free press, free speech and liberty in general. And – whether you like where Rudkowski is coming from or not – you should be offended.

I suspect you will hear a bunch more about these three young men and the tribulations they go through now that they have been targeted as criminals for invoking their rights. I also suspect the three video tapes that were confiscated from them by the NYPD will disappear like virginity on prom night.

But, stay tuned. If we know anything from this country’s history or our own personal challenges, we do know this: you can’t keep a good man down.

On a warm day, a number of months ago, I pulled up to a red light and idled, waiting for the magical green ball to tell me it was cool to proceed through the intersection. Being one who minds her surroundings in traffic, I glanced over to the car next to me. It was a beaten up convertible with an attractive young man behind the wheel. He was playing Warren Zevon on his stereo – not loud, mind you – but, loud enough for me to hear it. When the light changed to green and my fellow traveler pulled ahead of me in traffic, I noticed a Ron Paul bumper sticker on the back of his car. I privately mused that there went an inherently cool person and – very likely – a thinker.

The state of Missouri, however, now considers people like that young man domestic terrorists.

In a recently exposed and much bemoaned report from the Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) – titled The Modern Militia Movement – Missouri state police have been advised to keep a keen eye out for what that state considers to be dangerous individuals.

Who are these dangerous, seedy and unseemly types? While the average person would likely consider crack dealers, gangsters, booze-runners, casino owners, thieves, rapists, thugs, Mafiosos, roughnecks and bankers to be dangerous, seedy and unseemly, the MIAC believes those who seek to protect their rights and the rights of their neighbors are the real criminals.

You know. People with Ron Paul bumper stickers.

I shit you not. Reading through the MIAC report is truly reading through an endorsement of something akin to thought policing. The report calls out people who supported third-party candidates like Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin and Bob Barr as being part of the modern-day militia group think.

This libelous report also alerts state police that people who disbelieve the official government account of the events of September 11, 2001 are, likewise, enemies of the state. Even though that ‘official’ account has been blown to bits by independent film-makers, architects, pilots and the very fire-fighters who nearly faced certain death to pull the innocents out of the worst tragedy in recent American history.

I may not know much, but I do know this: firemen don’t lie.

The MIAC report claims that people who own guns and invoke their Second Amendment right to do just that are potential threats. Sadly, there is nary a word about police officers who kick the snot out of teenagers in holding cells or shoot prone suspects in the back. To death.

“Except in dreams, you’re never really free…”

The MIAC report espouses that people who choose to school at home are also part of the problem. As someone whose child did the 12-year stint in the public school system, I can tell you that I wish I had the luxury of time to teach him everything the worthless Department of Education left out. When he turned 18-years of age and was eager to register as a voter, he had no clue which party did what and how. He told me he had no such thing as Civics in school.

“The gypsy wasn’t lying…”

Hey, the schools are too busy indoctrinating children into abstaining from intercourse – based on the government’s perception of morals – to teach them things they can actually use in life.

Never mind that abstinence is a moral concept and morals should come from Mum and Dad and not the Department of Education. They actually take time away from learning life skills, government, hygiene, literature, the arts, history and calculus to teach your kid to keep it in his trousers. Isn’t that your job?

Who, precisely, is the terrorist here?

The MIAC report also warns against certain types of films. In particular, Aaron Russo’s From Freedom to Fascism and the film Zeitgeist are called out as potentially anti-government joints.

So?

When did it become anti-American to be anti-Government? Weren’t our own founders just a bit anti-government? Do these people not understand the very reason this country exists is because a group of people got sick and tired of being oppressed? From there, they made a boatload of mistakes, but they worked to fashion a lifestyle for all citizenry that delivered the opportunity to succeed or fail, the ability to defend body and soul, the means to protect family and property and the right to redress of grievance against those who represent and work for us.

“Don’t the trees look like crucified thieves…”

It doesn’t help matters that Missouri’s governor, Jay Nixon, stands behind this smear report against decent human beings who like to think for themselves. It’s empowering everything the so-called paranoids are espousing. You’re either with us or you’re one of ‘them’.

Those who demand liberty from our servant government are being likened to those who would bomb gynecological clinics in this report and that’s simply not the case.

This libelous piece of rubbish must be challenged. Why, in the name of anything decent, would anyone not feel the government who represents us has begun to own us; has run amuck; is incompetent and untrustworthy?

How dare you call me a suspect? You, you bleedingly corrupt, carpet-bagging, lying, greedy, control-hungry bastards are not only the suspects. You are the criminals.

You know you what you think, don’t you? And that makes you — the honest man or honest woman — a domestic terrorist.

“Don’t you feel like desperados under the eaves…”

My word but we Americans have turned into a disastrously impolite lot.

It’s not as if we aren’t living in a time when embracing one another and endowing each other with just a bit of kindness and thoughtfulness would be an excellent idea. We have an extraordinary opportunity – right now – to show the world what we’re made of; to rise to the occasion and be unified and smart; to treat each other as the concept of Tongji suggests: all together, rowing together, working together.

Nah, screw that. It’s much more entertaining to be vicious.

We now have the New York Post publishing political cartoons of a chimpanzee shot dead by police and the caption, “They’ll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill.” Though it was allegedly meant to connect two major headlines of the day together (a brutal mauling of a woman by a captive chimpanzee and the recent passage of a massive spending bill), the cartoon set off a wave of predictable and perfectly justified protests.

It should escape no one with an ear or an eye that the United States has recently inaugurated its first non-white President. It should also be painfully obvious that a long-lived and low-hanging-fruit means of dehumanizing and humiliating black Americans has been to liken them to monkeys. I personally think there is about a two percent chance that the artist who produced the comic may have been referring to the Infinite Monkey Theory. But, that doesn’t matter.

Did no editor at the New York Post take even a millisecond of pause to consider how such a cartoon would be received by its readers? Are we to believe that the Post’s management had absolutely no inkling whatsoever that such a cartoon could easily have been thought by many to be intentionally racist and cruel?

Seriously?

Even if the depiction of the monkey and reference to the recent spending package weren’t intended to raise fur, wouldn’t common sense and a touch of manners lead editors to shelve the drawing?

It didn’t. And now, one of the most circulated dailies in the United States has enough egg on their collective face to cook an omelet the size of a small town.

But, hey. Shocking sells.

Rolling Stone magazine has also thought very little of manners as of late. A recent ‘satire’, penned by Matt Taibbi and published by the Stone, titled Bush Apologizes, makes an excruciating failed attempt at humor by poking jest at Terri Schiavo. Because there’s nothing funnier than dead people, right?

Ask yourself how you would feel after opening up a pop culture rag (presumably to read yet another Coldplay review) and stumbling across the following content, directed at your dead child or sibling:

Let’s talk about some of the low points of your second term. Why did you make such a big deal out of intervening in the whole Terri Schiavo thing?

Well, Jeb calls me up one day and says, “A bunch of Jew lawyers are trying to pull the plug on some broad down here. I think we can spin it that they’re doing it because she’s Christian.”

I ask him what he means, and he tells me the story. I tell Karl, and Karl says to me, “Mr. President, I am fully erect. This is a winner all the way.” He says we can jam up Bill Nelson down there for his Senate race by forcing him to take sides with the husband in the story, who’s like this Mike Ditka-looking atheist guy who wants to starve his wife to death while he’s running around knocking up other chicks.

Politics is all about forcing people to make simple choices, that’s what my dad always told me, and this one was an A+ choice for us. Karl, you should have seen him, he was on the phone day and night, telling every news director in the country that he wanted to see that Schiavo lady’s face “on every channel, like it’s the State of the Union address.”

So sure enough, we’re watching TV later that night, and CNN just has her and her drooling-ass, doped-up smile on this endless loop. Karl is literally jumping up and down with excitement at the sight of her. “She’s the best thing since Old Yeller,” he’s saying. “I want to see every liberal in the country on Larry King campaigning to yank her feeding tube. Get Ben Affleck on there, Sean Penn. Show them side by side with her looking fat and helpless with those dead-fish eyes of hers, split-screen. She’ll get us 10,000 votes an hour.”

Too bad she died.

Yeah. Karl was almost inconsolable when she passed. He kept looking for a replacement. Karen Hughes called it his “vegetable hunt.” He’d call long lists of registered Democrats, asking if they had a brain-dead wife they wanted to pull the plug on.

Ho. Lee. Shit.

I’m not certain who urinated in Mr. Taibbi’s Cheerios, but that’s a whole lot of hate to pack into just a few paragraphs. I’m all for mocking politicians when you can, but why drag an innocent and helpless woman into it?

Could he possibly think, for a moment, that demeaning a dead woman would bring the chortles? And just what the hell were his publishers thinking when they said “Print it!?” To be certain, they weren’t thinking about how her surviving family members would feel upon reading such repugnant and misdirected bile.

Though I’m a staunch supporter of protected speech in all forms, how on earth could someone find this humorous or even print-worthy?

It was horrifyingly cruel, adolescent and mean-spirited. Why don’t the folks over at the Stone just go shove a few second graders around? It’s, essentially, the same spirit. How do people like this dare call themselves journalists?

And, if all that wasn’t enough to make you rip out at the root what is left of your own hair, we take you now from the media to our own government. That’s right, kids. The mayor of Las Alamitos, California – Dean Grose – thought it might be rather cute to circulate an email that had an image of the Whitehouse with watermelons photoshopped onto the front lawn. He called the subject of his email “No Easter egg hunt this year.”

This is a duly elected public servant who executed this magnificent display of steaming idiocy. Quite regrettably, one of the recipients of his email was a black woman. You have likely already surmised… she was none too amused.

Grose has said he will resign. Well, he probably should. He claims he had no clue that watermelons could be construed as a racial stereotype when linked with black people. Is that a fact?

Now, the core of the problem isn’t really the media or the dopes we elect into public office. I think there may be a greater picture than we’re seeing. When did Americans become so bloody impolite?

Is it that we’re all consumed with ourselves that we’ve forgotten the art of being human towards others? Are our cell phones really more important than acting like respectable human beings? When did this kind of low-brow, mean-spirited shit become acceptable?

Well, perhaps it’s always been that way. It’s just a bit shocking when it comes from the establishment types. You may tend to think of people in prominent positions as your ‘betters’ or as those who have arrived. It doesn’t seem as though they’ve arrived at anything more than vitriol and immature behavior.

And, that’s a sad note.

I’m not going to bother trying to tell anyone how to speak, what to think or which way to behave. Still, I think I’m going to mind my mouth a little more carefully from now on. Because, if being snarky is ‘in’, I’d rather not be in with the in crowd.

If you’re demented, you’re wasting people’s lives – your family’s lives – and you’re wasting the resources of the National Health Service.

Those aren’t my words. They’re the words of one Lady Warnock, a veteran Government adviser in the United Kingdom, who is touting the values of promoting active euthanasia on patients who have become demented due to advanced age or Alzheimer’s Disease.

Ironically, she’s 84 years old.

Warnock is a philosopher – perhaps of the same ilk as Peter Singer who openly champions infanticide against disabled newborns. She chaired a government-sanctioned committee on embryonic therapies and is an open, vocal supporter of euthanasia.

For years, quite literally, I’ve bemoaned right-to-die organizations such as Compassion and Choices (the former Hemlock Society) for promoting not a right to die; rather, a duty to die.

People within such organizations, along with their guns-for-hire in the mainstream media have always denied such charges. Instead, they say, they’re trying to break down the limitations of choice at the end of life.

But, I ask you: if someone is not dying and the government pursues the authority to make them dead because of a disability, how is that a choice?

The problem with all of this rhetoric is not the conversation over quality of life, sanctity of life or intrinsic moral value of the individual’s life. The problem is that this brand of social policy devalues the individual, their rights and their personal choices.

In her interview with Life and Work magazine (a publication of the Church of Scotland), Warnock explains that she sees nothing wrong with someone being “put down” if the end result benefits that person’s family or society at large.

There is something incredibly twisted in that logic and it flies in the face of the entire “choice” argument that right-to-die organizations have bellied up to for decades.

This whole method of thinking assumes that society – not the individual – is the ultimate owner of your body, your life and your existence. This thinking line establishes that a disability or illness strips you of your personhood, rights and sovereignty. Not a lot of choice in that kind of policy, is there?

In creating a duty to die philosophy, we have to assume that your birthrights all have term limits. Those limits are triggered by illness, disability, age, weakness or inability to properly fund your own healthcare services. Though I’d agree that birthrights do have term limits, I tend to think the end of the term is upon your natural death and not when someone else labels you a burden upon society.

Look at it this way. People without homes and jobs can easily be classified as a burden on society. Women escaping abusive relationships and seeking halfway home assistance can be viewed in the same light. Even people who receive WIC benefits for infant children tax society to some degree. Is anyone openly promoting the idea of “helping them to die?”

Certainly not. Because homeless people, abused women and young families got where they are because society isn’t always fair and life is most certainly not easy. We also recognize the value in helping someone help themselves.

But, when it comes to our elder and disabled populations, that sense of charity seems to be nowhere to be found.

Promoting a duty to die is an egregious invasion of privacy. Certainly so when you start talking about getting the government involved. It’s also a failure to see a human being as a sovereign, unique individual. Placing the label “burden” on the less fortunate has such a Third Reich quality to it that the very notion is repugnant.
So, Lady Warnock. If you would suggest that people who are unable to look after themselves have a duty to die, I would like to recommend that people who see them as less than human have a duty to retire.

What you’re selling is not choice. It’s death. That’s it. Just death.

And, for those who wish to live their lives out naturally, you and your like-minded champions of elimination are endangering the very things you claim to promote: dignity, choice, personal sovereignty. That’s not compassion. That’s stealing the only true property anyone actually owns – their self.

This kind of talk is quite frightening. Never mind that she refuses to give a straight answer (apparently, the Straight Talk Express never made it up to Alaska), but note the language that she uses.

Terrorists, Islamic Extremists, destroy America, Terrorists, Terrorists.

This is the language of fear and it’s designed to hoodwink the listener — something the Bush administration has been doing for seven years.

Not once (in the segment) does she mention the Constitutionality of the Bush Doctrine, international law or what’s even proper and lawful.

It’s the kind of mentality that the rest of the world sees and shakes their collective head at.

Those who hyped and screamed that a McCain presidency would be just another four years of Bush’s presidency… you may step forward and collect your cookie now. You were right.