I’m writing this after coming home from work with allergy eyes so glassy and red that I look like a roady for a Cheech and Chong reunion tour. It’s March 31 and, although I should have set to write something thoughtful and meaningful by now, it’s been quite a struggle. Writer’s block, mixed emotions, reopened wounds and a great many regrets have kept me from the chore. I had to wonder what particular piece or angle I’ve not yet covered and came up empty-handed. But, I simply couldn’t ignore it any longer.

Five years ago, on this day, Terri Schiavo lost a years-long battle for her life. At the hands of the Sixth Circuit of Pinellas-Pasco Counties, Schiavo was ordered to have medically-assisted nourishment withdrawn from her and was denied the provisions of food and fluids of any variety. After over 13 days without so much as a chip of ice on her tongue, she succumbed to dehydration and died on March 31, 2005.

Her family, Robert and Mary Schindler, held a memorial service several days later in the town of Gulfport, Florida and I spoke, for a brief time, to the congregation that assembled there. I talked about the value of putting aside differences and embracing others in the light of something dramatic and profound. I thanked Terri’s parents and siblings for teaching me the real meaning of friendship. I tried to underscore the importance of valuing all human beings, be they able-bodied or not, and I expressed my deep regret that Terri Schiavo had not been valued in that way.

Then, I went home to an empty house and drank and sobbed until I was no longer capable of engaging in either activity.

I hold very firm the belief that our society lost so very much more than just a single individual that day. Somehow, we’ve lost a bit of innocence. Somehow, we’ve lost touch with what’s important in life’s journey as well. At least, part of it.

I had always thought that the greatest measure of our wealth is how much we’re willing to give away. Seems to me that someone rather dear to me made mention of this phenomenon a good number of years ago. And, with Terri’s case, many people came together on a single, clear and precise purpose: to protect the life and liberty interests… of a stranger.

People from the disabled community, pro-life groups, religious groups, legal aid organizations, medical professionals and your garden-variety community members all put their hands into this garden to try to cultivate a solution that made sense for someone they had never met. Of those people, the vast majority had nothing to gain, had at least a bit to lose and had no guarantees of the ultimate outcome.

Though Terri’s death came wrapped in unimaginable sadness for her family, her parents and siblings took with them a small amount of satisfaction. That satisfaction was in being under the obligation of strangers who reached out to them and to Terri. Indeed, without the kindness of strangers, the Schindlers’ battle would have been a far more frightening and lonesome prospect.

Yet, here we are: five years later and some of those support networks for Terri’s family (and a great many other families) have either disappeared or have become otherwise engaged. Mind you, these things happen. Your luxury of time certainly gets impinged upon. Your focuses can change from time to time. Everyone is feeling a pinch, economically or in other aspects of their commitments. I do, as well.

But, let’s look at a very broad analysis of Terri Schiavo’s situation and see if there is something here that impacts us all.

A young and healthy woman becomes brain injured and determined incapacitated. Her guardian relinquishes his decision-making authority to the circuit court. The circuit court judge becomes a de-facto guardian (as well as the adjudicator of the guardian) and doesn’t enforce a known medical directive. Rather, he orders that all forms of nourishment and hydration be withheld from her. She dies. She dies because the circuit judge orders so. She dies because she is disabled.

Armed with the knowledge that an actor of the state took virtual ownership of a citizen’s body and life and that this particular actor of the state created the environment under which that undying person was deliberately made to die (for circumstances beyond that individual’s control), would you not sit up? Take notice? Get involved?

Would you were it your own kid? Of course you would.

Five years from Terri’s death, I am witness to an uncloseted and very open mockery of people with cognitive disabilities in what I view, what I read and what I hear. Five years later, I know of virtually no one who has a protective medical directive that ensures they receive the types of health care they want to continue, in the event of catastrophe. Five years later, there is no public outcry for the protections of the life and liberty interests of our disabled, elderly and chronically ill citizens. And, five years later, I see the abandonment of persons with complicated life circumstances becoming more and more acceptable.

We started a good thing and, somehow, it’s been muddied up or forgotten.

But, let’s be honest. The fashionable thing (at the moment) appears to be the whole right to die movement. I’m a marketing person and can tell you – these people absolutely know how to market.

The product might suck, but the message can be compelling. Look back to those posters and handbills produced by the eugenics campaigners in the US as well as those in the era of Europe’s Third Reich. They sold, baby. They definitely sold.

I’m holding out on the hope that we’re all a wee bit wiser now. That we understand that – what happens to the least of us will certainly happen to the rest of us. That’s the selfish part, but I don’t think (in this instance) it’s such a bad thing to be selfish.

Perhaps, if I wish really hard and kick my heels together, we’ll put aside personal and world-view differences for just this one thing. Maybe we can come back to the table as neighbors and friends and settle firmly in the belief that – no matter what your challenges may be – you mean something. You’re worth something. You’re someone.

I can also wish away the oak pollen that’s turning my eyes into orbs of fire, but I don’t imagine I’ll have much luck with that. The other bit, however, might be within reach.

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

In the past week, a number of my friends on Facebook have published the following statement as their status:

No one should die because they cannot afford health care, and no one should go broke because they get sick. If you agree, feel free to post this as your status for the rest of the day.

On its face value, I can’t think of a statement I could more eagerly agree with. Still, I resisted the urge to repeat this passage as my status for a couple of reasons. Firstly, I’m just not a very good follower and anyone who knows me well will tell you that. Secondly, and more importantly, I was hesitant to appear as though I was in support of the current push in the United States to nationalize our system of health care delivery under House Resolution 3200.

The proposed legislation, “America’s Affordable Health Choices Act” has people up in arms on both sides of political aisle. Nowhere in my recollection can I point to a time when senior citizens showed up (sometimes, in droves) to public forums to vocalize their displeasure over proposed legislation. Never, in my life, have I seen such utter vitriol from people on opposite sides of an issue.

It goes without saying that health care is something that Americans are taking very personally. And, rightly so.

I’m one of those unfortunate types who sits on the outside looking in. Since my world view doesn’t align easily with my political view, I don’t have a firm side to take in this argument. But, as with many matters, I can understand both sides rather well. The top-surface positions on this hotly-debated legislation, appear to go something like this (correct me if I’m wrong):

The American Left: It is disgraceful that health care is treated as a privilege and not a right. The true measure of our country’s security and prosperity is a population that is healthy, thriving and able to obtain needed care. We cannot discriminate against those unable to afford health care when it comes to matters of life-saving and life-prolonging care. There should be an affordable public option for those between employment.

Makes sense, yes?

The American Right: We haven’t the means to fund a proposal as lofty as this one. The plan includes provisions that could limit the medical and financial privacy of the individual. The plan places undue burden on smaller employers and reduces competition for qualified employees. The proposed legislation could usher in care-rationing on a broad scale.

Also makes pretty good sense. At least, to me.

The truth is, both sides have very compelling arguments. As someone who actually gives a damn about these things, I understand. If the citizens of the United States would simply take off their Liberal hats or Conservative coats for a moment and actually read the resolution, they might find themselves agreeing with the other side to some degree.

Since I stand on the outside of this mess, some might find my take a bit odd, but here it is anyway.

As a socially-liberal minded person (take that in the old school sense of community, tolerance, volunteerism), I think any country that espouses a Constitutionally-supported right to life must also support the right to fight for one’s own life. That means access to health care for one and all – irrespective of financial status, age, physical or neurological ability or orientation.

As someone who embraces a Libertarian view of government (that the federal government should be no larger than your average garden pea), I bristle at the idea of the federal government obtaining access to your private medical records, financial information and having power over treat or no-treat decisions. After all, these should remain personal decisions, made by you and not strangers in Washington.

I don’t claim to know anything about anything. But, what I would like to see happen, instead of HR 3200, falls along these lines.

- Tort reform
Find some sensible, fair and Constitutionally-correct way to cap medical malpractice payouts and reduce the number of frivolous suits against medical practitioners. The result (I reckon) would be the reduction of medical malpractice insurance premiums that physicians, other health care workers and facilities are made to pay. An immediate reduction in the cost of care delivery.

- Dismantle the near monopoly of HMOs
Through hefty lobbying, lots of money changing hands and not a small bit of corruption, HMOs (managed care providers) enjoy a market share that cannot be challenged by major medical insurers. To get rid of this, you’d likely have to fire half the people serving on Capitol Hill, but I think the house-cleaning is worth it. Your employer should have the absolute authority to offer you a cafeteria style benefits package. Not just managed care. Eliminate the stranglehold and you’ll reintroduce competition for premium dollars – thereby reducing premiums overall.

- Reserve lobbying to non-profits only
No one should ever have a problem with lobbying efforts from groups like PETA, ACLU, National Right to Life or any other non-profit group that represents a constituency in an ethical fashion – even if you don’t agree with their platform. But, when Kaiser Permanente, UHC, Pfizer and Baxter make up the most potent lobbying arms in this nation, you must know that something’s wrong. Eliminate the elbow-rubbing and pay-outs and let corporate factions go back to competing in a free market for business. No one in Washington should ever allow corporate interest to bump the queue when it comes to what is in the public interest.

- Realign some money
Pick a department of little to no use (the do-nothing Department of Energy springs to mind), abolish it and then use those federal dollars to ensure health care for the indigent.

- Community-based health care initiatives
I’m talking about federal or state dollars moved around to assist communities in establishing first-care facilities. There is no reason in the world anyone should go to an emergency room with an ear infection. Currently, such clinics are scarce. Get them opened and allow their physicians and nurse practitioners to actually spend time with patients and minister outside of the HMO guidebook and you’ll have a far healthier community – at a far lower cost.

- Freedom for alternative therapies
I think people should have the choice to seek alternative therapies for their ails. Hoxsey therapy seems to be quite helpful for some forms of cancer treatment. Yet, it’s not permitted in the states. Still, the government will be rolling out some 175 million doses of a flu vaccine in October that has not even been through clinical trials. There’s a drop off there. Allow insurance to underwrite more therapies and they will.

Those are for starters, mind you. And, you might think me mad for suggesting them. Still, I don’t think the problem with health care is that we haven’t nationalized it yet. I think the problem is that we’ve allowed it to become big business between HMOs and Washington. This has served to reduce the quality of care, drive costing through the bloody roof and eliminate your choices.

Some members of your servant government have allowed themselves to be compromised and corrupted, in the name of corporate success. This doesn’t serve the public good and it’s certainly not what the founders envisioned as government responsibility.

I think a nationalized system of health care delivery should be viewed as the Hail Mary pass at fixing a broken system. The first play should probably be healing what ails the system itself.

No. No one should die because they cannot afford health care. And, no one should go broke because they get sick. On that, I am completely with you.

But are we treating the illness or just masking the symptoms?

My father died in 1997 at the age of 55. Although my parents divorced when I was too young to understand the process, and my father was not always easily accessible to me, he more than made up for the lost time when I needed him or when my older sister needed him. I’m certain people judged him, based on their own world views of what a father should be. Me? I was just grateful that he had my back when I required a bit of reinforcement.

Beyond that, my father was an amusing character. He had a decidedly odd sense of humor, a love of animals and the earth, a fondness of little old ladies, pancakes, beer and oddities. My father was a talented doodler and produced some rather remarkable art in his off hours. He had a ferocious temper when it came to the impolite behavior of those around him. He was a gentleman, a bastard, a hero and a humble lad.

Though it may be difficult to string all those personality traits together, trust me on this one. It happens.

In my eyes, a father’s greatness did not spirit out of his ability to earn more or provide a groovier family room carpet. It came from a father’s ability to love, honor and protect his children.

It’s not at all surprising, then, that I took to a man by the name of Bob Schindler with rapidity. Bob was the ‘all of the above’ choice when it came to matters of family and community. Schindler was a decent bloke and sorely misunderstood by those who felt qualified to judge him.

Perhaps, you know the name. Bob Schindler was the father of Terri Schiavo. Terri was the profoundly disabled young woman the Florida courts saw fit to dehydrate to death, simply because she lived with a marked cognitive disability.

I took on the task of helping Bob Schindler, his wife Mary and his two youngest children in their effort to protect Terri’s life. They did all the heavy stuff. I just maintained a website and dealt with the news media.

But, bringing such an undertaking into my life also brought with it knowing and understanding Terri’s family. In particular, I got to know her dad.

Bob Schindler was your garden-variety cool guy. We oftentimes talked about politics, religion, the weather, rock and roll, the idiocy of the news media and so on. He retained that long-lost ability to disagree gracefully. He never ended a telephone conversation without telling me to get some rest or drink some orange juice.

This was a man who was facing the loss of his daughter to a court decree. But, beyond all his troubles, he (and his wife, Mary) had the unique ability to still give a damn about the people close by.

I consider it a lost art of common humanity.

He was enthusiastic about good nutrition and whole foods, but he dearly loved tea cookies. He knew he should have walked more, but he spent the better part of every 24 hours behind a computer screen, searching for something – anything – that could benefit or protect his eldest child. You could probably call him obsessed, but how else should a father be?
He drank way too much coffee.

He rarely used foul language.

He liked Monty Python’s Flying Circus (I reckon this was a guilty pleasure).

He loved a dopey joke.

He preferred comfy shoes.

He was quick with a hug.

He adored his wife.

He adored his children.

So, that’s what you want in a husband and father, isn’t it? Pity that Bob Schindler was so mangled by the news media for just doing what good men do.

Throughout the years that this unassuming and affable man from Philadelphia did everything in his power to look after the first child he and his spouse brought into the world, Bob Schindler was admonished. And, that’s a pity.

The news media and editorialists painted Bob Schindler as a religious whack job and a speak-piece for the Evangelical Christian community. He wasn’t. Though the Schindler family (and, Terri, in particular) are observant Catholics, nothing they did for Terri was driven by any church or any ideology. It was far simpler than that.

Bob, Mary, Bobby and Suzanne Schindler all held the firm belief that Terri was a human being, guaranteed of certain unalienable rights, good and innocent, loved and worthy. And, most importantly, that she would have never agreed to the course the circuit courts laid out for her.

Bob Schindler would go broke defending his daughter’s life. He would be called a religious nut by the news media. He endured unbelievable scrutiny and blow back – just for doing what parents typically do.

Bob Schindler was not a crusader. He simply believed a life is a life is a life. I’ve seen him reach out in affection to disabled people, elderly people, children, skateboarders, punks, priests, rockers, housewives, bank tellers, burger sellers, homeless people, cats, cyclists, cooks and the occasional pest control specialist. He just had an empathy for the human condition.

Amazing it is, that a man so filled with appreciation for the good stuff around him, a deep devotion to his family and a love of life could be so carelessly painted an agenda-driven aggressor by people who never had the pleasure of shaking his hand.

I, on the other hand, know better.

Bob Schindler died on August 29, 2009. He never met my father, but I rather suspect the two would have enjoyed the hell out of one another. Both understood and honored the relationship a girl has with her father, both had odd senses of humor, love of life, appreciation of the world, kindness towards strangers and a deep understanding of what it means to be a man.

God rest you, Bob Schindler. You took over where my dad left off.

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 June 20, a 26-year old woman named Neda Soltani was gunned down in the streets of Tehran, Iran, during a protest over the outcome of that country’s recent presidential election.

A mobile phone video of her murder circulated across the internet on YouTube and Facebook. Details were almost immediately being published by amateurs and citizens on Twitter and other social networking sites.

In an article posted the LA Times, it’s clear that friends and family regarded Neda Soltani as a likeable and nonviolent young woman:

She loved music, especially Persian pop, and was taking piano classes, according to Panahi, who is in his 50s, and other friends. She was also an accomplished singer, they said.

“She was a person full of joy,” said her music teacher and close friend Hamid Panahi, who was among the mourners at her family home on Sunday, awaiting word of her burial. “She was a beam of light. I’m so sorry. I was so hopeful for this woman.”

Such a horrible waste.

Senator John McCain had the following to say about the incident and, although I’m not a fan of his, I certainly think his words were appropriate and timely.

We cannot change what has happened to this innocent young woman. But, perhaps, we can all agree that violence is never the answer.

I will not be embedding or linking to the video of Neda Soltani’s death as I don’t find it very respectful at this stage.

Ron Paul, you cheeky thing! Giving the corrupt, private banking cartel a bunch of grief for destroying our monetary system and trying to hold their feet to the fire with HR 1207?

Looks like you might just get your wish, kid.

Steve Watson of infowars.net had this to report on the number of co-sponsors to Ron Paul’s HR 1207, a bill that would force auditing of the Federal Reserve:

At time of writing, a bill that would see the Federal Reserve bank audited for the first time in 59 years has 207 cosponsers in the House and is gaining traction with every single day.

According to Ron Paul’s Campaign For Liberty, the latest to become cosponsors are, Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D-CO) and Rep. Chris Lee (R-NY), both House Financial Services Committee members, as well as Rep. John Boehner (R-OH), Minority Leader of the House.

This means just 11 more cosponsors are needed for a majority to be reached in the House.

The text of this delicious bill is here.

UPDATE: Ron Paul on the Alex Jones radio program reports that the actual number is 209.  Right on, Doctor.

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.