Now I’ve represented this kid off and on for some time now.  I know that he does not like to be in custody.  Hates it.

All he had to do today was show up and likely as not that would have been the end of it.  No custody.

But he didn’t show up.

When I told the family that his not showing up would result in the issuance of a warrant, they said they knew, he knew and “it’s on him.”  They tried to convince him.  Even chased him around town trying to “catch him and bring him in.”

Did I mention that he hates to be in custody?  Did I mention that if he had only shown up, things would likely have been over?  Did I mention that a warrant would issue for his arrest?

David Brooks, a New York Times writer, would say that my client is a typical modern American.

In today’s Fresno Bee Brooks notes that

In times of crisis, you get a public reaction that is incoherence on stilts.

After walking through America’s allegedly split personality which demands both that the government stay out of the business of running businesses and that it “take control,” Brooks says

At some point somebody’s going to have to reach a national consensus on the role of government.

The governmental problem has a simpler explanation than that America has a split personality.  The explanation is not a split personality, but a split electorate.  And politicians so fearful about upsetting the electorate that they no longer worry about actually doing their jobs.

In the old days of representative democracy, elected officials were counted on to study a situation — to learn what, if any, role government should play with respect to crime, business enterprises, the environment, etc. — and make a decision based upon sound information and reasoned compromise amongst conflicting forces rather than emotion and the allegedly shifting sands of public opinion.

Today, the concern is to keep one’s position — although I’m not entirely sure what the real benefit of the position is, if you can’t do your job.  One of the worst jobs I ever had paid me a bunch of money, but I was miserable because I was micro-managed.  In these days of a more “pure” democracy, with its referenda, polls and huge amounts of corporate money — now unlimited thanks to the United States Supreme Court’s ruling in the appropriately-misnamed Citizens United case — our politicians are subject to the same micro-management that drove me nuts.  But, if anything, they seem to revel in it.

It keeps them from having to take responsibility for their decisions; they’re just reacting to their “constituencies,” by which I think they often mean they’re remaining true to their pacts with their “PACs.”

At any rate, compromise is a dirty word these days.  Somehow, anyone who compromises is a sell-out.  A traitor.  After all, PACs are funded to achieve specific goals; they exist for one purpose and one alone.  If they can’t have what they want, then screw everyone, baby.  We’re going for this! FTW!

FTW.  It’s an interesting acronym, with an interesting history.  In 2010, the most common use of the term is to rally the troops.  For those appalled at Sarah Palin’s “don’t retreat, reload!,” it is a kinder, gentler rallying cry.  The acronym originally was used for a similar purpose, but the meaning then was “Fuck the world!”

And that is America’s larger problem.  For the majority of us — a much larger majority than can agree on anything else in America — “for the win” has not lost touch with its roots.  It’s all for one and “all or nothing.” We’re going for the win and — fuck the world! — we will settle for nothing less.

Unfortunately, what I’m saying is that Brooks has it wrong.  We apparently have reached a national consensus on the role of government.  It’s just the wrong one; one that is ultimately destructive rather than constructive.  With Americans being split very nearly down the middle on most issues — even the majority of United States Supreme Court decisions carry by a bare 5-4 majority these days — and unwilling to compromise, we can’t fund our social programs; we can’t build roads; we can’t agree on anything.  “Majority” itself these days simply means “one more than the other side gots.”

And my client, whose story opened this post, is probably the one.

Thus it is that there is one thing we seem to do quite well: rally the troops, FTW.  The problem is, when we’re constantly at war, with no ability to compromise, nobody really wins.

I am very loyal to the Democratic Party, but I have a loyalty higher than that to my party. That is to my state and my country. — Dana Bash, “Lieberman to run regardless of primary results” (July 3, 2006) CNN.com.

If only that were true.

If Joe Lieberman really loved his country, he not only would not run for President of the United States, he’d shut up and sit down. If he didn’t have the decency to resign his office, he’d at least wait quietly until his term expired and then slink away into the muck from which he arose to contribute to the downfall of the Democratic Party.

Lieberman says that the reason he will refuse to get behind the party if they refuse to choose him is because of his love for his country. Bullshit. Lieberman’s love is for himself. As one columnist put it:

The three-term senator is billing his decision as a commitment to principle. Mostly, it feels like a commitment to Lieberman. — Dana Bash, “Being Joe Lieberman” (July 6, 2006) The Boston Globe.

Long-time readers of this website are well-aware that I have no love for either President Bush or the Republican Party, but I think I’d actually vote to repeal the 22nd Amendment to the United States Constitution and re-elect Bush if it were the only way to put a stake through Lieberman’s heart.

JoeBob Lieberman has repeatedly shown that he’s even more of an opportunist — just not as smart or as successful at it — as any Republican ever dreamed about being.

At the same time, it really doesn’t seem lately like there’s all that much difference between Lieberman and the other Democrats. Lieberman’s just more crass about it.

Frankly, there’ s a part of me that’s hoping to see the Democrats get their asses handed to them in 2008. The party has completely lost touch with its roots and its “leaders” are too busy trying to see what they can do for themselves to worry about what they can do for the people they were elected to represent.

The most amazing thing is that with the utter corruption — never talked about anymore; it has somehow become acceptable, I guess — within the Bush Administration, it should be easy for the Democratic Party to win. Hell, they shouldn’t just be winning the next election, they should have been successful at mobilizing to remove the President from office!

But they can’t. The party is “lead” by Liebermans.

I think it’s time, once and for all, to put the Democratic Party to rest. If they can’t give us any realistic leaders who will seriously work for what’s right for the People, instead of for themselves, maybe we just have to quit voting for Democrats on principle. Maybe then Joe Lieberman, and the rest of the lot, will go away. Maybe then a real party will rise up which can represent the interests of ordinary Americans.

First, we had former First Lady Barbara Bush saying that the devastation of New Orleans — all the flooding, dead bodies in the street, families and homes destroyed — was “working very well for them.”

“Them,” of course, were poor, underprivileged, African-Americans. No doubt Ms. Bush agreed wholeheartedly with Jon Stewart’s comment that this was “an Act of God.” But whereas Stewart, in response to the suggestion that this called for a day of prayer, jokingly suggested that a shunning was more appropriate, Barbara Bush apparently thought the destruction demonstrated the love God has for African-Americans.

Then there was the controversy over two photographs of survivors of the flooding. One showed a picture of African-Americans with food under their arms — food they had just taken from a grocery store. The caption indicated they were “looters.” A similar photograph — the only difference being that the people in it were white — suggested they were “finders.”

And while some apologists appear to believe that those people who see racism in this are wrong — “Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, people” — it is still mind-boggling to think otherwise when looking at what happened in New Orleans.

And so former Republican Education Secretary William Bennett puts things in perspective for us, “When I and other Republicans talk like we think large numbers of black people are criminals, the people who get mad at us owe us an apology.” After all, when Bennett suggested that aborting all black babies in America would lower the crime rate, he was not really being racist, just realistic.

Sometimes, an Act of God is just an Act of God. Sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar.

On the other hand, sometimes a racist is just a racist.

Blogging not only helps develop my thought, but it creates snapshots of where I’ve been, in terms of my philosophy of various aspects of life. This allows me to go back and see how I’ve changed…and sometimes to see how I need to change.

Since yesterday, I’ve been thinking again — and, as happens not infrequently, it was Abi who started it — about discourse.

As I noted yesterday, Abi posted a haiku that said,

Save us from those who
Looking at an opponent
See an enemy. — Abi Sutherland, Make No Law: The Sullivan Case and the First Amendment. (It’s part of my ADD.) And in Chapter Seven, I found this:

Perhaps it is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad. — Anthony Lewis, Make No Law: The Sullivan Case and the First Amendment. (1992) Vintage Books.

The quote is attributed to James Madison, in a letter sent to President Jefferson on May 13, 1798.

Aha! Sounds just like good ol’ George Bush and his group, I thought, using Iraq as an excuse to strip civil liberties from us today. But another thought pushed its way through…

…”America survived that.”

Sure, for a period of time — like its modern distant relative, the USA PATRIOT Act — the Sedition Act made certain civil liberties technically unavailable. And some people were persecuted and prosecuted under the Sedition Act and sent to jail, just as some have been persecuted and prosecuted under the USA PATRIOT Act.

That’s not all that hasn’t really changed. It’s funny, too, to see that even most of the players are the same. Lewis goes on, after the Madison quote, to point out:

[The] truth [of Madison's quote] has been demonstrated again and again in American history as politicians used the fear of foreign ideology and power to justify the suppression of freedom. The fear that prevailed when Madison wrote was fear of France.

France had supported the American colonies in their war with Great Britain. But gratitude for that help gave way to growing alarm as the French Revolution of 1789 was followed by the Terror of the guillotine. Americans, especially those of conservative bent, came to see France as the home of a malevolent ideology that it would try to send across the Atlantic. Then came war between France and Britain. The United States proclaimed its neutrality, but in Jay’s Treaty of 1794 it accepted Britain’s claim of the right to seize neutral vessels carrying cargo for France. As a result, in 1796, French warships began attacking American merchant ships bound for Britain.

Anti-French feeling was brought to a boil in April 1798 by the XYZ affair. Talleyrand, the French foreign minister, refused to receive a special American diplomatic mission sent to Paris to try to ease relations. Three agents of Talleyrand demanded a large payment as the price of opening negotiations. The Americans rejected the demand and went home, sending a dispatch ahead to President Adams on what had happened. Adams informed Congress of the business in a message that concealed the names of the offending French agents by referring to them as X, Y and Z. Adams quoted Y as saying that France did not fear U.S. diplomats’ breaking off their mission because “the French party in America” would soon repair the breach.

Adams supporters in Congress and the country used “the French party in America” as a reference to the President’s political opponents, Jefferson and his supporters. Political parties were just beginning to be formed then. The Framers of the Constitution had not envisaged this development; they provided for the President to be chosen not by popular election but by an august Electoral College….

The Adams supporters were the Federalist party. The Jeffersonians, ancestors of the modern Democratic party, called themselves Republicans or Democratic Republicans. Two hundred years later, it is not so easy to see why the two parties fought each other so bitterly. Both included signers of the Declaration of Independence and delegates to the Constitutional Convention. Alexander Hamilton, one of the authors of the Federalist Papers, the great exposition of the Constitution, was a Federalist; his principal co-author, Madison, was a Republican. But the differences were passionately felt, as the use of the damning phrase “the French party” indicates. The Federalists tended to be the propertied class, more concerned about order in society; they wanted a strong federal government and felt close to Britain. The [Democratic] Republicans spoke, often in populist voice, for farmers and the less affluent; they were suspicious of federal power. Of course those generalities yielded to circumstance: When Jefferson became president, he was by no means timid in the assertion of federal power. But at the time, each saw the other in exaggerated terms. To [Democratic] Republicans, the Federalists favored centralized authority and English manners so much that they really wanted to introduce a monarchy. To Federalists, Republicans were Jacobins who if they took office would install a French-style terror. Abigail Adams, the President’s wife, wrote a friend in 1798 that the French party — the [Democratic] Republicans — were busy all over the country “sowing the seeds of vice, irreligion, corruption and sedition.” — Anthony Lewis, Make No Law: The Sullivan Case and the First Amendment. (1992) Vintage Books (emphasis added).

In this atmosphere, Lewis notes, the Sedition Act of 1798 became law. Federalists were in complete control of both houses of Congress and the Presidency, but were worried about the possibility of losing that control. Their best bet, they thought, was to silence their critics. And the best way to do that was to pass laws forbidding them to criticize the government.

As I said, there is an ironic hope in this. The United States survived the Sedition Act, which was ultimately repealed…struck down into the dirt whence it had arisen.

There was also a bit of a warning. Today, the Bush Administration doesn’t pass laws that so expressly abrogate the right to criticize the government. They do, however, malign critics as unpatriotic haters of Christianity and morality — or as Abigail Adam’s put it in 1798, “sowing the seeds of vice, irreligion, corruption and sedition.” And isn’t it just a little bit ironic that conservatives today have impliedly accused liberals of belonging to “the French party”?

And while that goes on — while both sides malign the other as solely driven by evil intentions to destroy freedom — there is a real danger that America’s recovery will be long and painful.

For what is ultimately needed is the recognition that mostly good people exist on both sides of the Great Divide springing anew — re-springing, if we recognize the lessons from Lewis’ book — and while we may disagree with one another, we are all Americans.

I personally believe — and I do not find this to be contrary to what I’m saying above — that Bush and his Administration are doing things which have greatly damaged our nation. I believe those things must be stopped and reversed. And while I harbor serious doubts about what drives Karl Rove and sometimes also Bush, I recognize that on some level they believe that what they’re doing is right. They believe they’re doing what’s best. It’s very difficult for me to believe that they are so totally corrupt that they are aware that what they’re doing is purely for their own benefit; I doubt they believe they’re really hurting America. (Admittedly, I sometimes wonder.)

The biggest failing, though, in my opinion — and it’s a failing for all Americans and not just the Bush Administration — is a growing inability to talk to one another and an increasing dislike for the idea of compromise.

If we are to survive as the great pluralistic nation we have been for more than two centuries now, we will need to resolve both those character flaws.

As Abi put it,

Save us from those who
Looking at an opponent
See an enemy. — Abi Sutherland, Special thanks to Abi Sutherland for what she contributes to my blog and to my intellectual life. ]]> http://unspun.us/politics-in-general/the-end-is-not-near/feed/ 1 http://unspun.us/politics-in-general/hey-tom-why-the-delay/ http://unspun.us/politics-in-general/hey-tom-why-the-delay/#comments Mon, 11 Apr 2005 07:44:49 +0000 Rick http://unspun.us/?p=668 Although today’s column talks a lot about Tom Delay, I’m really writing to ask why it has taken so long for something to be done. Why have my Republican friends expressed the opinion that I’m full of [excrement deleted] for having complained to them for over a year now that if the Republican Party was the party of G-d and ethics that they believe it is, something should be done about Tom?

Because the deal here is this: Tom Delay’s own party, having received their signal from the White House, is finally turning on him just as they once did on his intellectual and (un)ethical predecessor, Newt Gingrich.

A word of warning: This is another of my “Balaam’s Ass” posts. Those offended by the occasional encounter with words from the Bible — by which I mean at least 99.9% of all christians — probably will want to skip this article….which is sad, because Balaam’s Ass is primarily trying to talk to you.

Tom Delay has long been a liability for the Republican Party. He has also been a largely adroit politician who has greatly benefited the GOP. So it’s no surprise that they’ve gone to extraordinary lengths to protect him. The Party that — under the “slam-my-hand-down-on-the-podium-while-I-smirk” example of George W. Bush — has virtually handed America and more than 99% of Americans over to corporate interests could not turn on one of those who first came up with the idea of jimmying the electoral systems. After all, the CEO of Diebold isn’t the only favored son of the Republican Party.

But now, as I said, he’s crossed the line — and those aren’t just my words: even Dick Cheney and Majority Leader Republican Senator Bill Frist said so (although it took some time).

Who knows exactly why Delay is doing it? Does he actually believe he is G-d, or is he just yanking the chains of the Theocratic Right? Whatever the reason, there’s still a majority of Americans who don’t cotton to advocating violence against judges who have dared to do their constitutional duty.

As the LA Times notes,

Judicial independence is one of this nation’s distinguishing traits and a hallmark of our constitutional scheme. To endure, our democracy requires that legislators respect the independence of the judiciary, even when it comes to decisions they don’t like. — “The War on Judges” (April 10, 2005) Los Angeles Times.

And even most leaders of the Republican Party — I pine to know they’re right! — think that enough Americans still believe in that to make Delay a gopple. GOPLs, of course, are GOP Liabilities, and Delay is just the latest and most obvious in a long line of them.

And so it is that finally the Party’s party with the fundamentalist theocratic wing may be winding down. Just as in the days of the Reverend Isaac Backus, New England’s most prominent Baptist minister — a Baptist, no less! — writing in 1773, even before the Birth of the United States:

[W]hen church and state are separate, the effects are happy, and they do not at all interfere with each other: but where they have been confounded together, no tongue nor pen can fully describe the mischiefs that have ensued. — “Separation of Church and State” (last visited April 10, 2005) Theocracy Watch (internal quotes removed).

So, too, the leaders of the Republican Party finally may be realizing that the vocal minority which clamors for a theocratic government is the monster they should not have let out of the cage. They may be loud and they may vote, but the fact is that millions more Americans who do not favor supplanting the rule of law with the rule of even supposedly “godly” men also vote.

And we are rapidly beginning to tire of the increasing religiosity of the Republican Party. We know that the world is not divided into just two camps: Those who agree with Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and George Bush…and those who don’t.

And we still believe that for all its flaws — and it is possible to recognize those flaws while still supporting the courts and their judges — the constitutional system of the United States of America is still the best democratic republic in the world.

And we — once riled — outnumber the Theocrats.

If the Republican Party were truly the Party of G-d, they would have read these words:

Woe to the [spiritual] shepherds of Israel who feed themselves! Should not the shepherds feed the sheep? You eat the fat, you clothe yourselves with the wool, you kill the fatlings, but you do not feed the sheep. The diseased and weak you have not strengthened, the sick you have not healed, the hurt and crippled you have not bandaged, those gone astray you have not brought back, the lost you have not sought to find, but with force and hardhearted harshness you have ruled them. And they were scattered because there was no shepherd, and when they were scattered they became food for all the wild beasts of the field. My sheep wandered through all the mountains and upon every high hill; yes, My sheep were scattered upon all the face of the earth and no one searched or sought for them.

Therefore, you [spiritual] shepherds, hear the word of the Lord: As I live, says the Lord God, surely because My sheep became a prey, and My sheep became food for every beast of the field because there was no shepherd—neither did My shepherds search for My sheep, but the shepherds fed themselves and fed not My sheep — Therefore, O you [spiritual] shepherds, hear the word of the Lord: Thus says the Lord God: Behold, I am against the shepherds, and I will require My sheep at their hand and cause them to cease feeding the sheep, neither shall the shepherds feed themselves any more. I will rescue My sheep from their mouths, that they may not be food for them. — Ezekiel 34:2-10 (The Amplified Bible)

But what I really wonder is this: Why is it that my friends who claim to be such devout Christians don’t know these words themselves? Why is it that they continue to support a party which only pretends to be the Party of G-d? Why, when I’ve tried to warn them, do they merely write me off as “a liberal”?

If G-d can use an ass (donkey) to deliver His message, why couldn’t He use a liberal?

My primary question is aimed mostly at those who fancy themselves to be Christians. The Christian Bible teaches that G-d created humans with Free Will on purpose. It wasn’t a mistake. He wanted each individual to exercise that free will; He wanted them to choose to do His will, to freely accept him. Go ahead, ignore my normal constitutionally-based arguments: Why would you think a G-d who created an entire world and the people in it for the purpose of providing them with freedom of choice would be pleased to have your religious views forced on His creation by the government of the United States of America?

How long will you continue to support a party inimical to your beliefs?

And, to the rest of us, who have no excuse for insanity, how long will we continue to believe that the Republican Party stands for “moral values”? How long before we realize that — like Tom Delay and his political action committee which paid a half a million dollars to his own wife and daughter — the Republican Party exists for the benefit only of its leaders and the corporations that own them?

]]> http://unspun.us/politics-in-general/hey-tom-why-the-delay/feed/ 0 http://unspun.us/politics-in-general/terri-schiavo/ http://unspun.us/politics-in-general/terri-schiavo/#comments Wed, 23 Mar 2005 07:32:03 +0000 Rick http://unspun.us/?p=651 I thought about trying to come up with some creative title for this article, but there’s been enough “creativity” surrounding the case of this poor woman from Florida, Terri Schiavo.

This case is a reminder — as if one were necessary — that life, like politics, is not always a happy affair.

It’s difficult — no, actually, it’s impossible — to know the best way to approach this topic. I’ve deliberately waited a few days to give myself time to think…and hopefully to allow emotions (not just mine, but everyone’s) to become a little less raw.

Depending on which poll you read, approximately seven out of every ten Americans think Congress should have stayed out of the Schiavo case. Frankly, that surprised me. For once, the American public displays more intelligence than those who routinely dupe them.

That same poll showed 63 percent of people agreed with the decision to remove Terri’s feeding tube, with only 28 percent opposed. Even a Fox poll shows only 22 percent would keep the tube inserted. The Fox poll reveals that conservatives are less likely (56 to 70 percent) than liberals to think the tube should be removed. In another demonstration of their intellectual superiority, conservatives are also less likely to think any funds should be provided to pay health care costs….

Fifty percent of Americans think the spouse should make the decision, while 31% think it should be the parents. Frankly, if my parents overrode my spouse’s decision, I’d find some way to shake off my belief that death is the end of life; I’d come back to haunt them in the worst way.

Worse than what Terri is going through, I think, is what’s happening around her. If the news reports I’ve read are true — and who the hell can tell that these days? — Terri’s frontal lobe has essentially been replaced with cerebrospinal fluid. Talk about Terri feeling pain, if these stories are true, seem to be as bogus as the claims that she’s responsive to her environment. There’s no “Terri” there to suffer.

But that doesn’t mean there’s no suffering around this case. On the one hand, we have the husband who is accused by people who have no evidence for this — other than that created by the drive of their own private agendas — of wanting his wife dead. Some people — even a Florida legislator — have called for a criminal investigation into the events leading to Terri’s brain damage, which occurred 15 years ago. There have been accusations that he’s “in it for the money” even though, by all reports, there isn’t any money. For his part, Mr. Schiavo is currently working as an emergency room nurse, a career he chose because of his wife’s situation. And so hungry is he for money, that he has turned down offers ranging from $1-$10 million to back off and let his in-laws disregard his wife’s wishes. Sounds like a real selfish dude, doesn’t he?

Then there’s Congress, with Republican Congressman from Tennessee, Zach Wamp, who says “this is not about politics” before going on to note that conservatives are trying to keep Terri alive, while liberals are trying to kill her. (CSPAN televised congressional debate over S686 private bill for Schiavo, which I personally watched March 21, 2005.) Congressional physicians who, as even the Fresno Bee points out, would never diagnose someone from a home video — imagine the malpractice exposure! — have nevertheless decided the time was ripe to continue playing doctor via TV. I’m not even going to pit the children living in poverty who could have benefited from the 4 to 5 million dollars spent on this debate against Ms. Schiavo. (It’s amazing to see the number of “news” stories out there already with the exact words, “The few, objecting House Democrats have so far cost Mrs. Schiavo two meals today,” while there are virtually none noting how many other Americans have gone hungry through the acts of House Republicans.)

And everyone knows the 19 judges sitting in six different courts over at least seven years clearly had some personal agenda to kill Terri. (They were co-conspirators with the police to whom Carla Iyer spoke — see below.) Clearly, these judges never listened to a word of testimony.

And testimony there is. A nurse, fired from the hospital long ago, suddenly revealed in 2003 that all the doctors and others who have testified in the case so far are lying. She personally heard Terri speak meaningful words and phrases. She responded and exhibited a sense of humor. It’s “medically possible” — is that more potent than just “possible”? — that Michael Schiavo routinely injected his wife with regular insulin, although she says, “I don’t have any way of knowing for sure.” Yes, “for sure” she’s not making this up, she says; she just has no proof of it and, hey, it brings her some notoriety. She’s quite believable, too. After she reported what was happening to the police, she was fired. End of story. I know how she feels. That often happens here in Fresno/Clovis when people report crimes to the police.

The sad fact of the matter is just that the fact of the matter is sad. Terri Schiavo, for all practical intents and purposes, is gone. This doesn’t change even if you really believe that 19 different judges in six different courts in virtual unanimous agreement have totally screwed it up. I’m sorry. I don’t care how poor you think our court system is, it’s just too tough to swallow that.

It’s time to put the agendas aside, people. Develop a little shame. Terri Schiavo may be brain-dead, but that doesn’t give Congress or anyone else the right to treat her like a piece of property useful for the advancement of their own political goals.

Terri’s scenario plays out daily across the United States. But as a friend of mine noted, “This case is special.” Among other things, Terri’s not black. (Seriously, do you think if she was, you’d have heard anything about her situation?)

Personally, if I had not already decided that the Republican Party is more likely the party of Satan than the party of God, this would convince me:

S. 529, The Incapacitated Person’s Legal Protection Act

• Teri [sic — so concerned are they, they couldn't even spell her frickin' name right] Schiavo is subject to an order that her feeding tubes will be disconnected on March 18, 2005 at 1 p.m.
• The Senate needs to act this week, before the Budget Act is pending business, or Terri’s family will not have a remedy in federal court.
• This is an important moral issue and the pro-life base will be excited that the Senate is debating this important issue.
• This is a great political issue, because Senator Nelson of Florida [a Democrat] has already refused to become a cosponsor and this is a tough issue for Democrats.
• The bill is very limited and defines custody as “those parties authorized or directed by a court order to withdraw or withhold food, fluids, or medical treatment.”
• There is an exemption for a proceeding “which no party disputes, and the court finds, that the incapacitated person while having capacity, had executed a written advance directive valid under applicably law that clearly authorized the withholding or or [sic] withdrawl [sic] of food and fluids or medical treatment in the applicable circumstances.”
• Incapacitated persons are defined as those “presently incapable of making relevant decisions concerning the provision, withholding or withdrawl [sic] of food fluids or medical treatment under applicable state law.”
• This legislation ensures that individuals like Terri Schiavo are guaranteed the same legal protections as convicted murderers like Ted Bundy.

— “GOP Talking Points on Terri Schiavo” (March 21, 2005) ABC News (emphasis added).

Nothing like a little emotion on a great political issue to get the pro-life base excited, eh? Sadly, that — and not the Republican Party’s undying love for the already-departed Ms. Schiavo — is the reason for all the hoopla.

]]> http://unspun.us/politics-in-general/terri-schiavo/feed/ 2 http://unspun.us/politics-in-general/not-every-one/ http://unspun.us/politics-in-general/not-every-one/#comments Thu, 13 Jan 2005 00:56:36 +0000 Rick http://unspun.us/?p=597 You know, when it comes down to it, you really have to hand it to the Republicans.

They really know how to tweak the religious wing of their party. Running around spouting passages (even if they don’t get it quite right) from the Bible and all that.

Not everyone who saith such things has the cojones of Tom Delay. The GOP in the House of Representatives explicitly designed new ethics rules to make it harder to prosecute him for ethical violations. If ever there were anyone saying “Lord, Lord” who appeared to be a candidate for rebuke….

You read those kinds of things and then these kinds of things or these kinds of things (!!!) and you just cannot…you cannot…help but be amazed. Really. Even if you’ve seen everything.

The people of the United States of America are being ripped off in broad frickin’ daylight and there’s nary a peep.

On the one hand, as I said the other day, nothing really surprises me. But then…

I don’t know. I think I’m actually in shock.

How do they do this right under our very noses? I mean, years past, they’d have been tarred, feathered and run out of town. Today, we think they’re little incarnations of G-d on Earth.

I feel like someone who’s just witnessed a train wreck with massive fatalities…

Only the train just keeps rolling on…wreaking more havoc….

Excuse me if I appear incoherent, but — really — how do we watch this happening and not vote these people out of office?

]]> http://unspun.us/politics-in-general/not-every-one/feed/ 3 http://unspun.us/politics-in-general/sue-the-social-security-administration/ http://unspun.us/politics-in-general/sue-the-social-security-administration/#comments Mon, 10 Jan 2005 09:24:12 +0000 Rick http://unspun.us/?p=596 No time for blogging myself this morning. I’m working downtown these days for a criminal defense attorney and I’m already late!

In my “absence,” check out Fact-esque, which today brings a collection of links on tort reform and the Social Security lie (seems the Bush Administration is publishing all kinds of false stories these days, doesn’t it?) and hitch yourself a ride to the stars!

]]> http://unspun.us/politics-in-general/sue-the-social-security-administration/feed/ 2 http://unspun.us/politics-in-general/proof-im-more-centrist-than-leftist/ http://unspun.us/politics-in-general/proof-im-more-centrist-than-leftist/#comments Sat, 18 Dec 2004 13:31:08 +0000 Rick http://unspun.us/?p=568 I now have proof that I’m closer to the political Center than the Left, something I’ve periodically maintained. Moreover, I show up in virtual the exact middle on the Pragmatism scale.

A different political survey, measuring on slightly different axes, puts me in the middle of the liberal quadrant and the middle of the libertarian quadrant.

No telling, of course, just how accurate these things really are. Some of the questions, I thought, were a little vague on both surveys and I found myself thinking that my answer might be different, depending on how I interpret the question.

]]> http://unspun.us/politics-in-general/proof-im-more-centrist-than-leftist/feed/ 0 http://unspun.us/law-and-legal-issues/how-fraud-won-the-election/ http://unspun.us/law-and-legal-issues/how-fraud-won-the-election/#comments Sun, 05 Dec 2004 11:55:32 +0000 Rick http://unspun.us/?p=552 You do not have to believe that voting machines were rigged, ballots were not counted, or minority voters were intimidated to understand that George W. Bush won the United States election by fraud.

I personally have no doubt those things occurred, but they aren’t necessary to sustain a charge of fraud.

There’s a discussion happening over at Chepooka’s that started over the CBS/NBC/UCC thing and partly encompasses the “how Democrats lost the election” thing.

A number of reasons for the “loss” have been given since the election, most of which are based on myth.

I suppose it’s entirely appropriate that this should be, since in addition to the mythology of the Bible, this election also involved a number of other myths and lies. My favorite is that the people backing Bush, who see no problem with torturing prisoners, holding “enemy combatants” indefinitely (three years so far) without charges or trials, denying rights to people who disagree with them (not limited to gays, who they sometimes actually kill), throwing people in jail forever for stealing videotapes while electing convicted criminals to the Presidency of the United States, cutting social welfare programs — all the things Jesus would not do no matter how much you stretch and twist the Christian bible — are Christians. But another odd favorite is that “we lost to an incompetent.”

It has to be remembered that “we” didn’t lose to George Bush. “We” lost to an army of people, most of whom were willing to do anything necessary, including lying to the public, harassing candidates and voters and, apparently, even rigging voting machines and altering or destroying ballots. And to the extent that they have a single leader at all, it’s Karl Rove — who masterminded the President’s transformation from boozing brat to national leader — not Bush.

Furthermore, it’s hard to make a case for our having “lost” the election at all, when you take into account voting fraud. Losing implies that there was a meaningful and honest contest, which there wasn’t. And I personally think it’s significant that even with the lying, cheating and stealing that occurred, the President’s “mandate” is based on votes from just over one-half the voting population — which, I remind you, is not even close to half the population of the United States. The only man dates the President got have been with Karl Rove and Dick Cheney, who clearly are responsible for that odd smirk he’s always sporting.

Yet, in comments over at Chepooka and on his own website, “Mr. M” argues that if “we” want to win, “we” have to be willing to do whatever it takes.

I should pause to note a few things before developing my response to this. First, I like Mr. M. So readers should not take any criticism of the views he expresses as indicating otherwise. I periodically read his blog and find that I’m often in agreement with him. But as outlined in the current blog entry, I disagree with this particular view about the election and what “we” need to do. Let me remind you that it’s the Republicans who foster the view that if you disagree with an idea, you ipso facto must hate and attack the person who floats it.

The second thing I should note is that repeated use of scare quotes around the word “we.” I’m not sure, but when Mr. M says this, I think he means “Democrats.” I’m not a Democrat — not at all sure I’d want to be a Democrat — and yet I think Mr. M wants to include me in “we.” The scare quotes have been just my way of ensuring that bozos like Nat Dawson don’t slip back into thinking I’m a Democrat.

So back to the point. This election was won by fraud. And it didn’t take rigged voting machines from Diebold, although I think there’s good good reason to believe that happened, too. But the fraud started long before anyone actually voted.

Snay — and to answer a question posed by my wife, I think I figured out that he’s malnurtured because he spends so much time bloggin’! — quotes the Louisiana Conservative as saying,

The truth of the matter is that liberals see things as black and white all the time. The core conviction of a liberal will change at the behest of political convenience. Anything by the left is good. If it’s done by the right, then it is evil. It’s that simple to them. Jeff Blanco, Black and White (December 1, 2004) Louisiana Conservative via Malnurtured Snay.

This quote — a lie — virtually singlehandedly exemplifies the fraudulent methodology used by the Bush Administration and its acolytes to “win” the election. It also demonstrates what I’ve been trying to explain to Mr. M: Republicans have taken their ways, beliefs and attitudes and successfully projected them onto non-Republicans. Americans, who recognize those heinous characteristics as un-American as well as undesirable, have been bombarded with the idea that characteristics that really belong to Republicans are “liberal” traits. And they’ve bought that lie — hook, line and sink-the-Constitution.

Who, after all, said, “You’re either for us, or against us”? There’s no shade of disagreement permitted. You can’t disagree with our view and still be part of our party. You can’t disagree with our approach and still consider yourself our ally.

Who has declared that he has a mandate based on obtaining the support of less than half the United States’ adult population? If that doesn’t demonstrate an inability to see shades of gray, I don’t know what does!

Although it’s frequently been suggested, I’m not going to move to Canada just because Republicans have successfully pulled off a coup with virtually no disruption or significant protest. Not even with Canadians offering to marry Americans so they can become citizens.

I’m going to stand and fight for the truth. And the truth is that the occasional foibles of Democrats and other liberals notwithstanding, liberals not only founded this country, but are responsible for having made America the most powerful nation on earth to date. And the party that truly supports ideas that are destructive of the United States and will cause its downfall if unchecked is the Republican Party.

Fact is, “there are loons on both sides of the aisle.” There are even liars and bad people on both sides of the aisle. But there’s organized deception on only one so far. And I’m not in favor of adopting that strategy to make it two (or more).

]]> http://unspun.us/law-and-legal-issues/how-fraud-won-the-election/feed/ 5