==> The Truth About Political Stuff <==

Thursday, March 24, 2005

Heart surgeon Frist has pulled the plug regularly

New York Daily News
Heart surgeon Frist has pulled the plug regularly
BY RICHARD SISK and KENNETH R. BAZINET
DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU
Wednesday, March 23rd, 2005

WASHINGTON - Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, who has championed the "rescue" of Terri Schiavo, is a renowned heart surgeon who has pulled the plug on a "regular basis," his office acknowledged yesterday.

But Frist (R-Tenn.) ended life support only when the patient was ruled brain-dead, and he is convinced Schiavo is not brain-dead.

"He certainly has a lot of clinical experience" in the withdrawal of life support, said Frist spokeswoman Amy Call.

Frist, the driving force behind the Senate bill to move Schiavo's case to federal court and a likely 2008 presidential candidate, is under fire for declaring she is not brain-dead after reviewing a video of Schiavo.

"On a regular basis, he's dealt with a diagnosis of brain death," Call said defending Frist, a heart and general surgeon.

Medical ethicists like Dr. Kenneth Prager, chairman of the Medical Ethics Committee at Columbia Presbyterian Medical Center, say it's "inappropriate" for Frist to make an armchair diagnosis. "A diagnosis should be made bedside by a neurologist. He's not a neurologist, and he wasn't bedside," Prager said.

In a 2002 interview with the Chicago Tribune, Frist recalled moral debate into "Why is somebody dead when there's no brain activity, but everything else is warm and beating?" from the early days of organ transplants. "Finally, we came to a consensus, an ethical framework, that people can generally agree to and have faith in."

The other driving force behind the Terri Schiavo bill, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.), is accused of using the Schiavo case to divert attention from his own ethics problems. A Texas grand jury has indicted three of DeLay's cronies and is now looking into his campaign finances.

A DeLay spokesman said, "Anybody would be hard-pressed to question Congressman Delay's commitment to life issues throughout his career."

Wednesday, March 23, 2005

Terri Schiavo Would Not Be Starved in Israel

Terri Schiavo Would Not Be Starved in Israel
By Julie Stahl
CNSNews.com Jerusalem Bureau Chief
March 23, 2005

Jerusalem (CNSNews.com) - Terri Schiavo probably would not be disconnected from her feeding tube if she lived in Israel, experts here said.

A bill allowing "passive euthanasia" -- the removal of life support -- is currently under debate in the Israeli Knesset. In the first of three readings, the bill passed overwhelmingly.

But experts here noted that the bill would not affect Schiavo's case.

The pending "Terminal Patient Bill" would allow the removal of life support if the patient is terminally ill and expected to die within six months; is experiencing "great suffering"; and has "clearly requested not to be kept alive under the above circumstances."

Schiavo is not terminally ill and she did not leave any clear request regarding the termination of treatment.

"It's a very difficult case," said Professor Michel Revel, chairman of the newly created Bio-Ethics Council of Israel.

He said Schiavo would not be classified as terminally ill but would fall into the category of "somebody who is incapable or communicating with the outside world," Revel said in a telephone interview.

Nevertheless, he said, it is possible that after 15 years in a coma a court might decide in favor of a legal representative's request to disconnect life support.

The pending Israeli law is based on the principle that there can be no "active action taken to end the life of a person," Revel said. There is a very strict protocol of tests that must be administered to determine if a person is "brain dead," he said.

The Israeli law is based on Jewish law, which forbids helping someone die; but says if death is inevitable, prolonging life is not allowed.

An editorial in the Jerusalem Post on Wednesday also noted that Schiavo's case doesn't fall within the criteria laid down by the Israeli law and that the outcome here would likely have been very different.

"It is indeed hard to imagine an Israeli court ruling like the one in Florida in a case such as Schiavo's," the paper said.

"True, preserving life can sometimes risk prolonging suffering in a way that a patient would not choose. But our judicial system is right to be wary of an even greater danger, that of granting license for the elimination of incapacitated people, especially on the say-so of people who can hardly be trusted to have the patients' best interests at heart...

Avraham Ravitz, who belongs to a religious Knesset faction, supports a "passive euthanasia" law.

"It is very necessary [to have a law]. Without a law every doctor could make a decision [and] a judge is making decisions not based on [anything but] his personal feelings," Ravitz said in a telephone interview.

There have been several cases in Israel where terminally ill patients brought their cases before civil courts demanding the right to die.

But Ravitz said that the Israeli law would protect doctors.

Family members that wanted to dispose of relatives they thought were too bothersome would not be allowed to do so, nor would doctors be allowed to make a final choice for death if family members wanted to keep a relative alive.

DeLay and Schiavo: Who's saving whom?

salon.com

DeLay and Schiavo: Who's saving whom?

In our most cynical moments over the last few days, we began to wonder
whether Washington's obsession with the Terry Schiavo case weren't some
sort of wag-the-dog distraction from what would otherwise have been a
weekend marked with second-anniversary assessments of the Bush
administration's adventures in Iraq.

It may have been worse than that. As the New York Times reports

this morning, Tom DeLay told a conference organized by the
ultra-conservative Family Research Council Friday that God himself
handed Republicans the Terry Schiavo issue in order to help further
their conservative political agenda -- and to save DeLay from
accusations about his own ethical lapses.

"One thing that God has brought to us is Terri Schiavo, to help
elevate the visibility of what is going on in America," DeLay says on a
tape provided to the Times by Americans United for Separation of Church
and State. "This is exactly the issue that is going on in America, of
attacks against the conservative movement, against me and against many
others."

According to the Times, DeLay said that the "other side" has finally
learned how to "defeat the conservative movement" by engaging in
personal attacks and persuading the media to report on them. DeLay said
the "whole syndicate" -- and by that, we assume he means the
reality-based community
-- is
involved in a "huge nationwide effort to destroy everything we believe
in."

With Terri Schiavo, the man once known as "Hot Tub Tom" believes that
the religious right finally has a way to turn the fight around. In the
morality play that is Washington, we thought that Schiavo was the
victim and DeLay was playing her savior. It turns out that we had it
exactly wrong.

Tuesday, March 22, 2005

Right to Life backed law that allows hospital to kill spouse

HoustonChronicle.com

Right to Life backed law that irks wife
By RICK CASEY
Copyright 2005 Houston Chronicle

Jannette Nikolouzos is angry with the Texas law that allows St. Luke's Hospital to unhook her husband from life support tomorrow.

"I'm so ashamed of my state that it executes civilians without criminal history," she told reporter Todd Ackerman.

She may be surprised to learn that National Right to Life, the organization that is helping to lead the fight to keep a Florida hospital from removing life support for Terri Schiavo, helped write the Texas law.

Spiro Nikolouzos had been unable to speak for some time, and was fed through a stomach tube by his wife at home. But she said he was able to recognize family members and show emotion. A month ago she rushed him to the hospital, where it was determined he had bleeding related to a shunt in his brain. He has been on a ventilator since.

Doctors apparently determined further care was futile. Under the law, the hospital's ethics committee met last week to consider the case, with Mrs. Nikolouzos able to participate. The committee, over her objection, agreed with the doctors.

She then had 10 days to find another facility to take her husband, while the hospital made a good-faith effort to do the same. When she was unable to find such a facility, she went to court.

'20 to 25' meetings

Judge Tony Lindsay expressed "most sincere sadness and apologies," but said the law required Nikolouzos show a reasonable expectation of finding an alternative facility before Lindsay could order the hospital to continue treatment it did not feel was advisable.

It's the same law under which another judge denied Wanda Hudson's request to force Texas Children's Hospital to maintain Sun Hudson on life support.

The law was passed in 1999 and amended two years ago. Acting as a negotiator for Houston-based Texas Right to Life, Burke Balch flew in from Washington "20 to 25 times" to sit at a table with represent-
atives of the Texas Hospital Association and other parties to negotiate the law and its amendment.

Balch is director of National Right to Life's Robert Powell Center for Medical Ethics.

Right to Life was at the table partly because then-Gov. George W. Bush had vetoed a similar bill two years earlier at the request of some members of the religious right, according to its sponsor, then-Sen. Mike Moncrief, now mayor of Fort Worth.

Making compromises

After new negotiations, the bill went before a Senate committee without opposition. Balch testified in favor, as did representatives of the Baylor Health Care System and the Texas Conference of Catholic Health Facilities.

Balch said both the right to seek an alternative facility and the 10-day period to do so were negotiated compromises.

"When you're dealing with legislation, you make compromises," he said.

Two years later, his group won an Internet registry of doctors and institutions willing to consider accepting patients under the bill in order to make it easier to find them.

"Before this bill there was no legal requirement to provide treatment in these circumstances at all, so we found it an advance to provide this opportunity of a transfer," Balch said.

Before the bill, however, judges had little guidance from the law when families went to court to challenge the decision of hospitals, or of some family members pitted against others. Boston College ethics professor John Paris, a leading medical ethicist, said judges were extremely reluctant to allow life support to be removed.

He told the story of presenting a national seminar on the subject, with former Texas Supreme Court Justice C.L. Ray in attendance. He said he asked Ray how he would rule if, as a judge, a young lawyer asked for 30 days to research the legal questions in requiring a hospital to keep a child on life support and wanted him to order the hospital to do so while he did the research.

"I'd tell him, 'Son, take 60 days,' " Paris quoted Ray as saying. When Paris said he knew why, Ray continued, "You're damn right. I'm hoping the kid will die on his own during that time so I won't have to make the decision."

Now in Texas, judges don't have to make the decision as to who is right. They just have to decide whether the hospital followed the law and whether there is a reasonable prospect of finding another institution to take the patient.

And the law they follow was made in a manner that appears to be growing old-fashioned: by consensus.

This article was originally published on March 10, 2005

Definitions: Compassionate, Conservative

compassionate
-------------

adjective

1. Feeling or expressing pity: commiserative, condolatory, pitying, sympathetic. Archaic piteous, pitiful. See feelings, pity.

2. Concerned with human welfare and the alleviation of suffering: charitable, human, humane, humanitarian, merciful.

verb

To experience or express compassion: ache, commiserate, feel, pity, sympathize, yearn. Idioms: be sorry, have/take pity.

Synonyms: humane, compassionate, humanitarian, merciful

These adjectives mean marked or motivated by concern with the alleviation of suffering: a humane physician; compassionate toward impoverished people; released the prisoner for humanitarian reasons; is merciful to the repentant.

---

conservative
------------

adjective

1. Strongly favoring retention of the existing order: orthodox, right, rightist, right-wing, Tory, traditionalist, traditionalistic.

2. Kept within sensible limits: discreet, moderate, reasonable, restrained, temperate. See plain/fancy, restraint/unrestraint.

3. Clinging to obsolete ideas: backward, reactionary, unprogressive.

4. Able to preserve: preservative, protective.

noun

One who strongly favors retention of the existing order: orthodox, rightist, right-winger, Tory, traditionalist.

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition and Roget's II: The New Thesaurus, Third Edition by the Editors of the American Heritage

Torture doublespeak

The Washington Times
www.washingtontimes.com
Torture doublespeak
By Nat Hentoff

The word "covert" has long been associated with the CIA's use of "extraordinary renditions" by which suspected terrorists, believed to have essential information, are sent to countries our own State Department condemns for torturing prisoners. This is no longer a secret, as shown March 6 on CBS -TV's "60 Minutes," which began with: "Witnesses tell the same story: masked men in an unmarked jet seize their target, cut off his clothes...Tranquilize him and fly him away."

The next night, on ABC-TV's "World News Tonight," chief investigative correspondent Brian Ross reported: "Flight logs shown to ABC News detail trips to Morocco, Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Afghanistan and Uzbekistan." And on "60 Minutes," Scott Pelley had noted that one of these kidnapping planes "made at least 600 flights to 40 countries... after 9/11." And on March 7, on Fox News, a network not notable for criticizing the Bush administration, Senior Judicial AnalystJudgeAndrew Napolitano emphasized that "the United States signed over four treaties prohibiting this practice of extraordinary rendition. And the treaties required that the signing countries enact criminal statutes prohibiting them.

"They carry 20-year penalties for anybody having anything to do with... planning it (and) supplying planes." Mr. Napolitano added: "The president... can't change a treaty, he can't change a law... the most he can say to his CIA operatives is: 'On my watch, you won't be prosecuted.' " But there is a growing disquiet among certain CIA operatives that despite the "special rules" the administration has given the CIA, there might be consequences for those agents who have broken both our laws and the international treaties we have signed.

On "60 Minutes," Mr. Pelley interviewed Michael Scheuer, who helped begin the rendition program under Bill Clinton and, until recently, was a senior CIA counterterrorist official. Mr. Scheuer said: "Basically, the NationalSecurity Council gave us the mission... take people off the streets so they can't kill Americans." Mr. Scheuer, who still believes these renditions are productive, characterizes them as "finding someone else to do your dirty work."

Or, as one Bush administration official told the Washington Post (Dec. 26, 2002): "If we're not there in the room, who is to say?" However, Mr. Scheuer candidly told Mr. Pelley: "Oh, I think from the first day we ever did it there was a certain macabre humor that said sooner or later this this this sword of Damocles is going to fall, because if something goes wrong, the policy maker, the politicians and the congressional committees aren't going to belly up to the bar and say, 'We authorized this.'" On March 6, in the House of Representatives, Rep. Edward Markey, Massachusetts Democrat, held the sword of Damocles over the head of President Bush when he declared that "the president needs to rescind his extraordinary rendition 'outsourcing torture' directive... I call on the President to declassify this secret order of his immediately.

"The war against terrorism," Mr. Markey continued, "is a war against those who engage in torture. If we fight our enemy using the same inhumane and morally bankrupt techniques that we are trying to stop, we will simply become what we have beheld. I call on President Bush to stop the outsourcing of torture immediately, in deed as well as word." On ABC-TV's "World News Tonight," Mr. Markey said hopefully: "Like Abu Ghraib, it took a while for the outrage to build. The more the American people find out we are allowing other countries to torture in our name, there is going to be an outcry in this country."

I am listening hard, but I don't hear that outcry yet, certainly not among the Republican leadership in Congress, which refuses to authorize an independent investigation of the CIA's "renditions." One of the CIA's jets transporting suspected terrorists made 10 trips to Uzbekistan. Craig Murray, the former British ambassador to that country, told Mr. Pelley about the techniques of Uzbek interrogators: "drowning and suffocation, rape was used... also the insertion of limbs in boiling liquid... it's quite common." Mr. Murray also told Brian Ross of ABC News that he received photos of one prisoner who was actually boiled to death.

That corpse may not have been a person the CIA kidnapped, but how do we know? In a March 6 New York Times story on these horrifying renditions, a CIA official "would not discuss any legal directive under which the agency operated, but said that the CIA has existing authorities to lawfully conduct these operations."

The authority came directly from the president in a Sept. 17, 2001 "memorandum of notification." Then why doesn't the president let us and Congress see this directive? Meanwhile, Fox News reports that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales says "the United States would never send terrorism suspects to countries where they would be tortured." But he did admit that once they had been sent, "the U.S. government didn't have control over how they were tortured." Isn't this manipulation of words what George Orwell chillingly called "doublespeak"?

originally published March 21, 2005

VALUES: 'Defending Life for All Americans'

The Progress Report

by Christy Harvey, Judd Legum and Jonathan Baskin with Nico Pitney and Mipe Okunseinde

www.progressreport.org

3/22/2005

VALUES: 'Defending Life for All Americans'

President Bush said that he intervened in the Terri Schiavo case
yesterday morning because he believes in " defending life for all Americans,
including those with disabilities
(http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/03/20050321.html) ."
Supporting life, however, takes more than political grandstanding. Time and
again the Bush administration has pursued policies that undermine the
lives and health of the American people. While the Schiavo case is
being considered by the federal courts
(http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=awf.g_4rPNs8&refer=top_world_news)
, President Bush has an opportunity to show his commitment to
"defending life for all Americans" by reconsidering his policies that affect
millions of Americans.

ELIMINATING HEALTH CARE FOR THE POOR: According to the Institute of
Medicine, lack of health insurance already " causes roughly 18,000
unnecessary deaths every year in the United States
(http://www.iom.edu/report.asp?id=17632) ." Since President Bush took
office the number of Americans who are uninsured has swelled by more
than 5 million people
(http://www.kff.org/uninsured/loader.cfm?url=/commonspot/security/getfile.cfm&PageID=49531)
. Now he's poised to make the situation worse. President Bush is
proposing significant funding cuts to Medicaid and the related State
Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). Bush's 2006 budget slashes funding
for the programs -- which provide vital health coverage to 1 in 6
Americans and 1 in 4 children -- by more than $20 billion over five years.
According to Heather Boushey, an economist at the Center for Economic
and Policy Research, " the cut would make 1.2 million children unable to
access the system.
(http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0321/p15s01-cogn.html) " Gov. Mike Huckabee (R-AR) said of Bush's proposed Medicaid cuts:
"[P]eople need to remember that to balance the federal budget on the
backs of the poorest people in the country is simply unacceptable.... You
don't pull the wheelchair out from under the child with muscular
dystrophy
(http://www.theledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041226/ZNYT02/412260419)
."

EXPOSING CHILDREN TO TOXIC MERCURY: Mercury is a powerful toxin that
can have serious neurological effects, especially in kids. It is known to
directly harm the nervous systems of children
(http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/14/politics/14mercury.html?ex=1268542800&en=c5b2dcc816096d3f&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt)
, causing birth defects and other maladies. Currently, 600,000 babies
born in the United States every year "may be exposed to dangerous levels
of mercury in the womb." Yet, the Bush administration recently issued
rules which would allow some power plants to " increase [mercury]
pollution
(http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/03/14/national/w233123S45.DTL)
, while others turn a profit selling unused pollution allowances." The
new "cap-and-trade" policy rolls back a plan created by the EPA in 2000
which "would have mandated curtailing emissions at every plant by the
maximum amount possible, which proponents said could bring a 90%
reduction in three years
(http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-mercury15mar15,1,1811310,print.story)
using existing technology."

UNDERMINING PROPER NUTRITION FOR BABIES: Bush's proposed budget
significantly reduces funding for the Women, Children and Infants (WIC)
program -- " a major preventative against low-weight babies.
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54741-2005Feb25.html) "
In 2010, for example, Bush's budget would cut funding for the program
by $658 million, which would require eliminating coverage for 660,000
women.

LEAVING THE DISABLED ON THE STREET: Bush's statement about his
intervention in the Schiavo case implies that he is a champion for the
well-being of the disabled. Not quite. He is proposing " to stop financing the
construction of new housing for the mentally ill
(http://www.disnetwork.org/Housing%20Cuts%20Article.htm) and physically
handicapped." The program has existed for three decades.

A Blow to the Rule of Law

The New York Times
March 22, 2005

A Blow to the Rule of Law

If you are in a "persistent vegetative state" and there is a dispute about whether to keep you alive, your case will probably go no further than state court - unless you are Terri Schiavo. President Bush signed legislation yesterday giving Ms. Schiavo's parents a personal right to sue in federal court. The new law tramples on the principle that this is "a nation of laws, not of men," and it guts the power of the states. When the commotion over this one tragic woman is over, Congress and the president will have done real damage to the founders' careful plan for American democracy.

Ms. Schiavo's case presents heart-wrenching human issues, and difficult legal ones. But the Florida courts, after careful deliberation, ruled that she would not want to be kept alive by artificial means in her current state, and ordered her feeding tube removed. Ms. Schiavo's parents, who wanted the tube to remain, hoped to get the Florida Legislature to intervene, but it did not do so.

That should have settled the matter. But supporters of Ms. Schiavo's parents, particularly members of the religious right, leaned heavily on Congress and the White House to step in. They did so yesterday with the new law, which gives "any parent of Theresa Marie Schiavo" standing to sue in federal court to keep her alive.

This narrow focus is offensive. The founders believed in a nation in which, as Justice Robert Jackson once wrote, we would "submit ourselves to rulers only if under rules." There is no place in such a system for a special law creating rights for only one family. The White House insists that the law will not be a precedent. But that means that the right to bring such claims in federal court is reserved for people with enough political pull to get a law passed that names them in the text.

The Bush administration and the current Congressional leadership like to wax eloquent about states' rights. But they dropped those principles in their rush to stampede over the Florida courts and Legislature. The new law doesn't miss a chance to trample on the state's autonomy and dignity. There are a variety of technical legal doctrines the federal courts use to show deference to state courts, like "abstention" and "exhaustion of remedies." The new law decrees that in Ms. Schiavo's case, these well-established doctrines simply will not apply.

Republicans have traditionally championed respect for the delicate balance the founders created. But in the Schiavo case, and in the battle to stop the Democratic filibusters of judicial nominations, President Bush and his Congressional allies have begun to enunciate a new principle: the rules of government are worth respecting only if they produce the result we want. It may be a formula for short-term political success, but it is no way to preserve and protect a great republic.

Shooting Rampage by Student Leaves 10 Dead on Reservation

The New York Times
March 22, 2005
Shooting Rampage by Student Leaves 10 Dead on Reservation
By JODI WILGOREN

CHICAGO, March 21 - A high school student went on a shooting rampage on the Red Lake Indian Reservation in northern Minnesota on Monday, killing his grandparents, five fellow students, a teacher and a security guard, as well as himself, the authorities said.

A dozen others were injured in the barrage, which erupted at the 300-student Red Lake High School about 3 p.m., officials said. The grandparents were apparently killed at their home earlier in the day, and the authorities were investigating whether guns used in the shooting were taken from the grandfather, a veteran officer on the tribal police force.

"It will probably take us throughout the night to really put the whole picture together," Paul McCabe, an F.B.I. spokesman in Minneapolis, said at a briefing. "It's still a very fluid investigation. Right now there's still a lot of work to do."

Mr. McCabe did say that "we do have evidence that we believe that the shooter is dead," and that "we believe he was acting alone."

He identified the gunman's grandfather as Daryl Lussier, a longtime officer with the Red Lake Police Department and said Mr. Lussier's guns may have been used in the shootings, The Associated Press reported.

The shooting was the worst at a school since 15 people were killed at Columbine High School near Littleton, Colo., in 1999, and came just 18 months after two students were fatally shot at Rocori High School in the central Minnesota town of Cold Spring, 200 miles away.

Roman Stately, director of the Red Lake Fire Department, told The A.P. and local television stations that the police found the grandparents' bodies an hour after the school shooting and that the young man used his grandfather's shotgun and two pistols in the rampage.

"Apparently, he walked out in the hallway shooting and then he entered a classroom," Mr. Stately told KARE-TV, the NBC affiliate in Minneapolis-St. Paul. "Shot several students and a teacher." He added, "And then himself."

Witnesses told The Pioneer, a newspaper in Bemidji, the nearest town, an hour's drive away, that the gunman was "grinning and waving" as he fired his weapon and that students pleaded with him to stop, according to The A.P.

"You could hear a girl saying, 'No, Jeff, quit, quit, leave me alone, what are you doing?' " The A.P. quoted Sondra Hegstrom, a student, as telling The Pioneer. "I looked him in the eye and ran in the room, and that's when I hid."

A teacher, Diane Schwanz, told The Pioneer that she herded students under benches as she dialed 911 on her cellphone. "I just got on the floor and called the cops," she said.

Mr. McCabe said the victims at the high school were all found in one room. The dead teacher was a woman, he said, the security guard a man; four students, including the gunman, died at the scene and two more later at a hospital.

The Red Lake reservation, about 240 miles north of the Twin Cities and about 120 miles south of Canada, is home to about 5,000 Ojibwa Indians, commonly called Chippewa. The tribe operates three casinos and other tourist attractions on some half-million acres.

Clyde Bellecourt, founder of the Minneapolis-based American Indian Movement, said he could not "remember anything as tragic as this happening" on a reservation.

"Everyone in the Indian community is feeling really bad right now, whether they're a member of the Red Lake or not, we're all an extended family, we're all related," he said. "Usually this happens in places like Columbine, white schools, always somewhere else. We never hear that in our community."

Mr. Bellecourt and his brother Vernon, another longtime American Indian leader, said that the gunman's grandfather had been on the local police force for perhaps 35 years, and belonged to one of the tribe's most prominent and respected families.

"No one would ever think that that type of violence would visit itself in our communities, it's not part of our culture and our traditions, so we're kind of puzzled by it all," Vernon Bellecourt said.

"But our young people are not exempt from the same problems young people have across the country," he added, "so our communities are now being victimized by this same kind of violence."

Sherri Birkeland, a spokeswoman for North Country Regional Hospital in Bemidji, said six of the injured were treated at her emergency room, two of them later airlifted to MeritCare Healthcare Systems in Fargo, N.D.

One of the remaining four died, Ms. Birkeland said, declining to release information about the conditions of the others or describe any injuries. The hospital was shut for several hours afterward, she said.

In Fargo, Carrie Johnson, a spokeswoman for MeritCare, said the first victim arrived by helicopter at 5:55 p.m.

Gov. Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota issued a statement Monday evening expressing "profound sorrow" and extending "heartfelt prayers and condolences to the families who lost loved ones in this senseless tragedy."

Reporting for this article was contributed by Mikkel Patesfrom Fargo; Kermit Pattison from Minneapolis; and Gretchen Reuthling from Chicago.

It's 'Private' vs. 'Personal' in Social Security Debate

The New York Times
March 22, 2005
It's 'Private' vs. 'Personal' in Social Security Debate
By ROBIN TONER

WASHINGTON, March 21 - What's in a name? Would a personal account by any other name smell as sweet?

Apparently not, according to strategists in the two political parties.

In the Social Security debate, one of the most ferocious struggles is over language, whether President Bush is proposing to create "personal" or "private" accounts in the program, whether he is really proposing the "privatization" of Social Security.

Mr. Bush complained last week that " 'privatization' is a trick word," intended to "scare people." Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, interrupted a news conference to correct a reporter who asked about "personal" accounts.

"It's 'privatization,' " Mr. Reid said, adding that "personal accounts" was "the Republican term."

The staff of the House Franking Commission, which regulates the political content of Congressional mail that goes out at taxpayer expense, has weighed in with advice on which versions of the word "privatize" can be used to describe the president's plan. (The distinction revolves around the difference between "full" and "partial" privatization.)

This is not simply a semantic exercise. Real issues are at stake, the sides agree. Mr. Bush has proposed letting younger workers divert part of their payroll taxes into private (or personal) investment accounts.

Democrats say that amounts to a fundamental revision of the 70-year-old program, draining huge sums of money from it, reducing the government's role and exposing individuals to far more risk - in short, at least partly "privatizing" it.

Republicans say it is no such thing.

"To most people 'privatization' means you're going to take the program out of the federal government and put it in the hands of private individuals totally," said Representative Jim McCrery, the Louisiana Republican who is chairman of the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Social Security. "That's not what I'm proposing, and it's not what the president is proposing.

"Accounts are not private in the sense that that individual has complete control over those accounts. He doesn't. His investment choices are very limited. He can't take the money out for any reason other than retirement. And he must annuitize a certain portion of it upon retirement."

In short, a frustrated Mr. McCrery said: "They are not private accounts. They are personal accounts."

The Republican National Committee distributed to reporters a definition of "privatize" and why it should not apply to the proposal.

Democrats and their allies counter that such individual investment accounts have been described as a form of "privatization" for many years - by the very people advocating them. The Cato Institute, the research center that has long pushed for the accounts, called its effort the Project on Social Security Privatization until a few years ago.

Michael Tanner, an expert on the issue at Cato, said the organization decided to change the name independently of the Republican Party, but added, "We were all probably reading the same polls."

Peter Orszag of the Brookings Institution, a critic of Mr. Bush's approach to private accounts, said: "I do find this a bit Orwellian. It's taking a term and saying you're not allowed to use this, even though it was widely used for years."

The two sides agree that the language struggle is fueled by polls and pollsters, who say public opinion can swing significantly when the word "privatize" is used.

"What it conveys is putting your retirement up to the mercy of private-sector forces that you may or may not have any control over," said Geoff Garin, a Democratic pollster who works for a coalition of groups that oppose Mr. Bush's plan. "It conveys a fundamental change in a program that works."

Frank Luntz, a Republican consultant who has performed extensive work with focus groups on language, said:

" 'Private' is exclusive. 'Private' is limiting. 'Private' is something that's not available to all.

" 'Personal' is encompassing. It's individual. It's ownership. In the end, you need the combination of 'personal' and 'security.' "

A recent poll found that it made no difference whether the accounts were described as personal or private, and Robert Blendon, an expert on public opinion at Harvard, theorized that the public reacted more to the way the argument was framed than the use of a few words.

Glen Bolger, a Republican pollster, noted that a recent poll that his firm helped conduct for National Public Radio highlighted that effect. When asked, "Do you favor or oppose President Bush's proposal to create voluntary personal retirement accounts as part of the Social Security system?" 41 percent favored it, 49 percent opposed.

When asked, "Do you favor or oppose President Bush's proposal to privatize Social Security and divert part of the Social Security system into private accounts?" 34 percent said they favored it, and 58 percent opposed.

"Calling it a personal retirement account is stronger across the board," Mr. Bolger said. "Whereas 'privatization' hurts across the board."

The House Vote: For the relief of the parents of Theresa Marie Schiavo

For the relief of the parents of Theresa Marie Schiavo

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass
House Roll Call No. 90
109th Congress, 1st Session

Passed: 203-58

See how your Representatives voted:

http://mygov.governmentguide.com/mygov/issues/votes/?votenum=90&chamber=H&congress=1091

Monday, March 21, 2005

TERRI SCHIAVO AND THE LIMITS OF CYNICISM

washingtonmonthly.com/

March 21, 2005

Kevin Drum

TERRI SCHIAVO AND THE LIMITS OF CYNICISM....Via Think Progress, here's a fascinating ABC News poll about the Terri Schiavo affair. It turns out that not only do large majorities favor removing her feeding tube and oppose federal intervention in her case, but huge majorities know perfectly well that Tom DeLay and his crew are in it solely for political advantage. When you drill down into the numbers, it becomes obvious that even people who support DeLay's position don't believe he has any actual concern for Terri Schiavo.

Now, I realize that in one sense this doesn't matter. This whole thing isn't about majority support, it's about pandering to one specific segment of the GOP base. But here's the thing: even evangelical Christians don't support congressional intervention. Apparently the DeLay/Frist/Bush axis has dealt with this so cynically that even the people they're pandering to are uneasy about being treated with such open condescension.

"Compassionate" Conservatism?

"Compassionate" Conservatism?

OK. So let me see if I understand Compassionate Conservatism (aka Neo-Conservatism aka right-wing conservatism) correctly:

Compassionate Conservatives (aka Neo-Conservatives aka right-wing conservatives) believe it is ok to execute people as a form of punishment (the death penalty -- Texas, home of President Bush who was formerly Governor of Texas, and home of Representative Tom Delay, being the state with the most executions). It is also ok to torture people, spy on people, and take away and semblance of personal freedom.

Compassionate Conservatives (aka Neo-Conservatives aka right-wing conservatives) believe it is ok to send US citizens to fight and die in a war against a country that was not a threat to the US (so long as none of the US Citizens that are sent are friends or relatives of theirs).

Compassionate Conservatives (aka Neo-Conservatives aka right-wing conservatives) believe only the very rich should have money and the ability to generate more. The middle class should be eliminated. All jobs should be moved offshore so large corporate CEOs and their friends can make more money. The poor are not entitled to any rights (see below).

Compassionate Conservatives (aka Neo-Conservatives aka right-wing conservatives) believe in the sanctity of marriage, but only if it is between a man and a woman.

Compassionate Conservatives (aka Neo-Conservatives aka right-wing conservatives) do not believe in the sanctity of marriage if it means that the spouse can make decisions for the other spouse if that other spouse is incapacitated -- even if it can be shown that the decisions are consistent with previously expressed wishes of that incapacitated spouse -- as proven and accepted by a court of law. In such cases, they now believe that Congress and the President should overstep its bounds, and ignore the constitutional separation and definitions of the three major branches of the US government. But wait: George W. Bush (as Governor) signed a law in Texas that expressly gave hospitals the right to remove life support if the patient could not pay and there was no hope of revival, regardless of the patient's family's wishes. It is called the Texas Futile Care Law. Under this law, a baby was removed from life support against his mother's wishes in Texas just this week. So Congress and the President won't get involved if you are poor. The President has also recently signed into law a revision to the bankruptcy rules that make it even harder to afford health care if you have no or limited funds or if medical expenses exhaust your funds.

Clearly, the term "Compassionate" does not apply.

Another perspective: Should Terri Schiavo Live or Die?

Aish.com
Should Terri Schiavo Live or Die?
by Daniel Eisenberg, M.D.

The Terri Schiavo saga in Florida, where a patient in a vegetative state has recently had her feeding tube reinserted by order of the legislature and governor, reminds us of the reality of modern life. An inescapable result of the extraordinary technological progress of the last several decades has been that critically ill patients who would have died early in their illnesses, often in the relative comfort of their homes, are now kept alive much longer in hospitals, often suffering great pain.

In addition to the component of human misery involved in discussions of medical treatment of the irreversibly ill, the skyrocketing cost of healthcare, particularly the large percentage of healthcare consumed in the last six months of life, have led to calls to limit "futile" treatments. Today, when there are almost limitless therapeutic options but limited economic resources, society may not be willing to provide "useless" therapies to patients who will not benefit.

In secular ethics discussions, medical futility encompasses several issues only loosely related to one another. Futility of treatment is often confused with "futility" of life. The Torah teaches us that every moment of life is intrinsically valuable; life itself is never futile. Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, a leading halachic authority of the past generation, points out that we have no "yardstick" by which to measure value of life. Even for a deaf, demented elderly man, incapable of doing any mitzvot, we must violate the Shabbat to save his life.1 It is not within our moral jurisdiction to decide what quality of life is "not worth living" and therefore unworthy of treatment.2

The only components that are open to halachic debate are those involving futility of treatment. From a Jewish perspective, we must ask whether the physician may withhold, and whether the patient may refuse, futile therapy.

MEDICAL FUTILITY IN HALACHA

The intrinsic value of life does not necessarily imply that every patient must be treated in every instance. Nor does this mean that we do not appreciate that death may be preferable to a life of extreme pain.3 As Rabbi Auerbach writes, we may pray for the death of a terminally ill patient4 who is in great pain, but we must never do anything to hasten his death. He also recognizes that inaction is sometimes the best approach when life is "bad and bitter."5 Despite the obligation to treat even the sickest patients, it is well established that patients do have limited autonomy in refusing treatment for terminal conditions, particularly when they are in intractable pain.6

Medical futility is a recognized concept in Jewish law.7 A treatment that will not reverse the condition to which it is being applied, even if successful, is an example of true medical futility. Performing CPR on a terminally ill patient whose heart has stopped -- not because of a cardiac abnormality, but because the patient has reached the point at which his body can no longer support life -- is truly futile and may be withheld.8 Reviving the patient may be possible, but cardiac arrest will almost certainly recur within a very short time.

This can be contrasted with performing CPR on an otherwise healthy individual who develops an irregular heart rhythm that will result in sudden death. If resuscitation is successful, the arrhythmia may be treated and the patient may live a long life. It goes without saying that this second patient must be resuscitated because the therapy is helpful and sometimes even curative.

ON THE DEATHBED

But, independent of the aspect of futility, in the case of the first patient, halacha would likely dictate that intervention is forbidden because of the principle of "goses" (the moribund patient). A patient on his deathbed, for whom no cure is possible and death will inevitably occur within three days, may not be disturbed at all and must be allowed to die.9 The Mishna compares the life of the goses to a flickering flame that will be extinguished if even slightly disturbed.10

Interestingly, the "goses" may not be touched at all except for comfort measures.11 Practically speaking, this means that when a patient is approaching death, one may not take his temperature, measure his pulse or blood pressure, and certainly may not draw his blood unless curative therapy or comfort measures will be applied based on the test results.12 In circumstances such as these, the physician may grounds in Jewish law to refuse to administer the "futile" therapy.

REFUSING THERAPY FOR THE TERMINALLY ILL

A second form of futile therapy involves a treatment that is extremely unlikely to be successful, but is intended to reverse the condition to which it is being applied. An example would be a patient with a cancer that has not been shown to be responsive to standard chemotherapy. The physician may offer the chemotherapy. But clearly, according to Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, if the patient is in intractable pain and the therapy is not proven to be efficacious, the patient may refuse the physician's offer of a "futile" therapy that prolongs life without a reasonable expectation of cure or relief of pain.13

Rabbi Feinstein further states that in such a situation, the patient should not be treated unless a cure or pain relief is possible.14 Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach writes that while we cannot force the patient to accept the treatment, the patient should be encouraged to accept the therapy because of the intrinsic value of life lived even in extreme pain.15 Nevertheless, this would be a case where a patient can halachically refuse the futile treatment.

WHAT IS NON-TERMINAL ILLNESS?

It is important to note that Jewish law clearly distinguishes between terminal illness and progressively debilitating illness (a distinction that is often ignored in secular ethics discussions).

An incurable illness which will likely result in the death of the patient within one year is considered terminal with respect to Jewish law. A patient with such an illness or condition is called a "chayay sha'ah,"16 -- one whose life is "timed" or "time-limited." One who is expected to survive beyond a year is considered a "chayay olam" -- one whose life is considered "eternal" in the sense that their life expectancy is presumed indefinite and not limited.

Thus, in halacha, persistent vegetative state and Alzheimer's disease are not terminal conditions, per se, despite the fact that they are progressive, irreversible and inevitably result in death. Halacha insists that patients with these illnesses deserve the same full range of treatment that is made available to any other patient. They are not "terminal" (until the very end stages of their illnesses) and must be aggressively treated without regard to the apparent "futility" of their lives.

THE CASE OF TERRI SCHIAVO

Let us take the example of Terri Schiavo. She is not brain dead nor is she terminally ill. She is brain damaged and remains in what appears to be a persistent vegetative state. All of her bodily functions are essentially normal, but she lacks the ability to "meaningfully" interact with the outside world (although her parents claim that she does minimally respond to their presence and to outside stimuli).

Her impairment is cognitive and Judaism does not recognize any less of a right to treatment for one cognitively impaired than one mentally astute.

It is a denial of the Jewish ideal of the fundamental value of life that drives the forces that wish to remove Terri Schiavo's feeding tube. While Judaism does recognize quality of life in certain circumstances (such as the incurable terminally ill patient in intractable pain mentioned above), the Torah does not sanction euthanasia in any situation. To remove the feeding tube from a patient whose only impairment is cognitive is simply murder.

We must ask ourselves when we view images of cognitively impaired patients such as Terri Schiavo whether the pain that we feel is Terri's or whether it is our own. While we may suffer watching movies of the severely brain damaged, it is our own thoughts of the horror of a life without cognition that drives us to project that pain onto the victim who may not be suffering at all.

The key to analyzing any situation is to realize that good ethics start with good facts. One must provide the posek (halachic decisor) with an accurate, honest, and thorough assessment of the patient's medical condition. Only then can a halachically valid and ethically proper decision be made.

Adapted from an article that appeared in Viewpoint: National Council of Young Israel, Winter 1996 entitled: "HALACHIC ISSUES REGARDING FUTILITY OF MEDICAL TREATMENT: Applications To Nutrition And Hydration In The Terminally Ill Patient

FOOTNOTES
1 Auerbach, Rav Shlomo Zalman, "Responsum Regarding a Very Sick Patient," Halacha U'Refuah, vol. 3, p60

2 Auerbach, Rav Shlomo Zalman, "Treatment of the Dying," Halacha U'Refuah, vol. 2, p. 131: "a person is not master of his body to relinquish even one moment"

3 Aruch Hashulchan, Yoreh Deah, 339:1: "...even though we see that he is suffering greatly in his moribund state (a goses) and death would be preferable, nevertheless it is forbidden to do anything to hasten his death, for the world and everything in it belongs to Hashem, and this is His will."

4 Ran, Nedarim 40a

5 Auerbach, ibid.

6 Feinstein, Rav Moshe, Igros Moshe, Choshen Mishpat II, Volume 7, siman 74, p.311-315.

7 Eisenberg, Dr. Daniel, "Futility of Treatment," Maimonides: Health in the Jewish World, Vol. 2, No. 3, Fall, 1996

8 Nishmas Avraham, Yoreh Deah, siman 339, sif katan 4, p.445-446

9 Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah, 339:1

10 Shabbos 151b and Smachos 1:4

11 Igros Moshe, Choshen Mishpat II, Volume 7, siman 73:3, p.305

12 Opinion of Rav Auerbach in: Abraham , Dr. Abraham S. The Comprehensive Guide to Medical Halacha, Revised edition, Chpt. 38, p.192, 1996 and Nishmas Avraham, Yoreh Deah, siman 339, sif katan 3, p.444

13 Igros Moshe, Choshen Mishpat II, Volume 7, siman 73:1, p. 304

14 Igros Moshe, Choshen Mishpat II, Volume 7, siman 74:1, p. 311-312

15 "Treatment of the Dying (Goses)," Halacha U'Refuah, vol. 2, p. 131:: "if the patient is G-d-fearing and mentally intact, try very hard to convince him that better is one moment of tshuvah in this world than eternity in the world to come" 16 Feinstein, Rav Moshe, Igros Moshe, Choshen Mishpat II, Volume 7, siman 75:1, p.315

End of Life Issues in Halacha English Bibliography

Abraham, Abraham S.: The Comprehensive Guide to Medical Halacha, revised edition, Feldheim Publishers, 1996

Angel, Rabbi Marc D.: Halacha and Hospice. Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society XII: 17-26, 1986

Berman, Rabbi Anshel: From the Legacy of Rav Moshe Feinstein, z"l.. Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society XIII: 5-19, 1987

Bleich, Rabbi J. David: Judaism and Healing: Halakhic Perspectives, Ktav Publishing House, Inc. 1981

Friedman, Dr. Fred: The Chronic Vegetative Patient: A Torah Perspective. Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society XXVI: 88-109, 1993

Herring, Rabbi Basil F.: Euthanasia. Jewish Ethics and Halakhah for Our Time, Ktav Publishing House, Inc. Yeshiva University Press, 67-90.

Ifrah, Rabbi A. Jeff: The Living Will. Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society XXIV: 121-152, 1992

Jakobovits, Rabbi Immanuel, The Dying and Their Treatment, Jewish Medical Ethics, Bloch Publishing Company, 119-125, 1975

Rosner, Dr. Fred: Jewish Perspectives On Issues of Death and Dying. Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society XI: 50-69, 1986

Rosner, Dr. Fred and Rabbi Moshe D. Tendler: Death and Dying, Practical Medical Halacha, Third Revised Edition, Association of Orthodox Jewish Scientists, Ktav Publishing House.

Rosner, Dr. Fred: Rationing of Medical Care: The Jewish View. Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society VI: 21-32, 1983

Rosner, Dr. Fred: Rabbi Moshe Feinstein on the Treatment of the Terminally Ill, Modern Medicine and Jewish Ethics, Ktav Publishing House, Inc. Yeshiva University Press, 233-246, 1991

Schostak, Rabbi Zev: Ethical Guidelines for Treatment of the Dying Elderly. Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society XXII: 62-86, 1991

Steinberg, Dr. Avraham: On Death and Dying. A Concise Response: Jewish Medical Law, Beit-Shamai Publications, Inc., 148-154, 1989

Weiner, Rabbi Yaakov: Ye Shall Surely Heal: Medical Ethics From a Halachic Perspective, Jerusalem Center For Research, 1995

Zwiebel, Chaim Dovid: A Matter of Life and Death: Organ Transplants and the New RCA "Health Care Proxy". The Jewish Observer, Summer 1991: 11-14

A Matter of Life and Death-- Revisited. The Jewish Observer, October, 1991: 11-22 (Letters of response by Rabbi Moshe D. Tendler, Dr. Yoel Jacobovits, and Chaim Dovid Zwiebel)

See also "The Terri Schiavo Case: Related Ethical Dilemmas."

Author Biography:

Dr. Daniel Eisenberg is with the Department of Radiology at the Albert Einstein Medical Center in Philadelphia, PA and an Assistant Professor of Diagnostic Imaging at Thomas Jefferson University School of Medicine. He has taught a weekly Jewish medical ethics class for the past 10 years. He moderates the monthly Jewish medical ethics study group at Albert Einstein Medical Center and lectures internationally on topics in Jewish medical ethics.

GOP Talking Points on Terri Schiavo

ABC News
GOP Talking Points on Terri Schiavo
Memo, Obtained by ABC News, Was Circulated Among Senate Republicans

Mar. 21, 2005 - The following memo listing talking points on the Terri Schiavo case was circulated among Republican senators on the floor of the Senate.

This is an exact, full copy of the document obtained exclusively by ABC News and first reported Friday, March 18, 2005, by Linda Douglass on "World News Tonight with Peter Jennings."

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

Teri (sic) Schiavo is subject to an order that her feeding tubes will be disconnected on March 18, 2005 at 1p.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 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.

The Days Of Our Lives

digbysblog.blogspot.com

The Days Of Our Lives

Tom DeLay of Texas says:

"Mrs. Schiavo's life is not slipping away - it is being violently wrenched from her body in an act of medical terrorism," DeLay said. "Mr. Schiavo's attorney's characterization of the premeditated starvation and dehydration of a helpless woman as 'her dying process' is as disturbing as it is unacceptable. What is happening to her is not compassion - it is homicide. She doesn't need to die, and as long as Terri Schiavo can breathe and her supporters can pray, we will not rest."

By now most people who read liberal blogs are aware that George W. Bush signed a law in Texas that expressly gave hospitals the right to remove life support if the patient could not pay and there was no hope of revival, regardless of the patient's family's wishes. It is called the Texas Futile Care Law. Under this law, a baby was removed from life support against his mother's wishes in Texas just this week. A 68 year old man was given a temporary reprieve by the Texas courts just yesterday.

Those of us who read liberal blogs are also aware that Republicans have voted en masse to pull the plug (no pun intended) on medicaid funding that pays for the kind of care that someone like Terry Schiavo and many others who are not so severely brain damaged need all across this country.

Those of us who read liberal blogs also understand that that the tort reform that is being contemplated by the Republican congress would preclude malpractice claims like that which has paid for Terry Schiavo's care thus far.

Those of us who read liberal blogs are aware that the bankruptcy bill will make it even more difficult for families who suffer a catastrophic illness like Terry Schiavo's because they will not be able to declare chapter 7 bankruptcy and get a fresh start when the gargantuan medical bills become overwhelming.

And those of us who read liberal blogs also know that this grandstanding by the congress is a purely political move designed to appease the religious right and that the legal maneuverings being employed would be anathema to any true small government conservative.

Those who don't read liberal blogs, on the other hand, are seeing a spectacle on television in which the news anchors repeatedly say that the congress is "stepping in to save Terry Schiavo" mimicking the unctuous words of Tom Delay as they grovel and leer at the family and nod sympathetically at the sanctimonious phonies who are using this issue for their political gain.

This is why we cannot trust the mainstream media. Most people get their news from television. And television is presenting this issue as a round the clock one dimensional soap opera pitting the "family", the congress and the church against this woman's husband and the judicial system that upheld Terry Schiavo's right and explicit request that she be allowed to die if extraordinary means were required to keep her alive. The ghoulish infotainment industry is making a killing by acceding once again to trumped up right wing sensationalism.

This issue gets to the essence of the culture war. Shall the state be allowed to interfere in the most delicate, complicated personal matters of life, death and health because a particular religious constituency holds that their belief system should override each individual's right to make these personal decisions for him or herself. And it isn't the allegedly statist/communist/socialist left that is agitating for the government to tell Americans how they must live and how they must die.

One of the things that we need to help America understand is that there is a big difference between the way the two parties perceive the role of government in its citizens personal lives. Democrats want the government to collect money from all its citizens in order to deliver services to the people. The Republicans want the government to collect money from working people in order to dictate individual citizen's personal decisions. You tell me which is the bigger intrusion.

If Jesus returns, Karl Rove will kill him

freepress.org

If Jesus returns, Karl Rove will kill him
Harvey Wasserman

March 21, 2005

As we enter another Easter Season, it's become all too obvious that if Christ returns, those who hate in Jesus's name will have him slimed, then killed.

Christ was a long-haired peace activist who would have hated the war in Iraq. "Blessed are the peacemakers" Jesus said in his defining Sermon on the Mount. "Turn the other cheek...Love thy neighbor."

Such hippie-radical ideals are the "Christian" right wing's worst nightmare. The GOP would never tolerate an upstart like Jesus gathering a following in the face of their corporate-fundamentalist crusade. These are Christians who love power but would despise the actual Christ, just as they love a Zionist Israel but can't tolerate actual Jews.

In the wake of Jesus's exemplary life of non-violent rebellion, a perverse liturgy weighted by twenty centuries of intolerant bloodthirsty bigotry has erupted in his name. Attacks on people of color, on nations with oil, on humans of the same gender who love each other, on youth who enjoy sex….all have become enemies of a new fundamentalist crusade doing in Christ's name things that would have left him sickened and horrified.

In large part through the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus came to be viewed as Divine because he spoke eloquently for a gracious, loving God.

Karl Rove, Tom DeLay and their ilk believe George Bush and his corporate-fundamentalist minions speak to and for a very different kind of God, one with characteristics at war with those described by Christ.

Bush-Rove's Divinity is a nasty dictator, defined by hate and greed, intolerance and hypocrisy.

Christ kicked the moneychangers out of the temple. Rove-DeLay's Republicans have enshrined them.

Christ spoke of a God of compassion and joy.

Today's so-called Christian fundamentalists worship one of greed-driven warmongering totalitarianism. The only way to salvation, they say is THEIR way, through a spiteful God that hates all Jesus preached.

As Tecumseh, the great Shawnee warrior, shouted at William Henry Harrison in the early 1800s, "You killed the son of your God, then you worshipped him when he was dead, and now you kill those who choose not to follow him."

If Christ came back today to resume preaching the Sermon on the Mount, Karl Rove would slime him in the media, then kill him outright, then turn his words into right wing hatespeak, then kill those who refuse to follow in his name.

If Christ came back to organize against Bush's war, Rove's pet bloviators would shriek about Mary Magdalene. Isn't that her seated next to Christ in DaVinci's "Last Supper"? Wasn't she unmarried, pregnant with Christ's bastard child, catching his blood dripping from the cross?

Rush Limbaugh would demand to know what right did the self-proclaimed "Son of God" had to a relationship out of wedlock? Who was he to feed those loaves and fishes to the undeserving poor, prolonging the existence of inferior racial stock? Who was he to attack those moneychangers who are the Elect of God and the sponsors of Rush's air time?

Then O'Reilly would slime the Easter thing. A self-anointed "peace prophet" rising from the tomb? Poppycock, he'd say. Just another pinko hippie terrorist conspiracy theory.

But if Christ persisted, and built a following like, say, Martin Luther King or Malcolm X, Cesar Chavez or Nelson Mandela…well….they'd kill him.

They'd set it up to blame someone else, like, say the Jews, or the terrorists, or the Willie Hortons. They'd find some patsy to take the fall for the assassination.

Rove would cloud his death in shadowy scandal. Stories would surface unconfirmed debts. Or tainted investments. Maybe something about hashish, no stranger to the region.

Hannity would feature some lovers he jilted. There'd be rumors he was gay. Talk of a love triangle. Ugly gossip about Mary and Judas. False leads about Jews wanting him dead. New doubts about that "virgin birth."

Whatever it would take to rub the sheen off an anti-war "Son of God" and to turn his death tawdry, Rove would do.

But would Jesus stand for the slaughter of 100,000 Iraqis in his name merely because of oil and dubious Biblical prophecy? How would Christ view a president in love with the gas chamber and electric chair? What would Jesus, who hated hypocrisy above all, say about a Bush who scampers back to prolong the life of a brain-dead woman who wanted to die, but who gleefully executes 150 people as governor and as many more as president as he can get his hands on? How would Jesus cope with a self-proclaimed Divinity demanding the death penalty for children?

What would Jesus think of the torture in American prisons, where much the same is being done to innocent inmates as was done to Christ himself? Mel Gibson's "Passion of the Christ" stands as a documentary of the daily torture and slaughter of too many of the 2.2 million prisoners held in the US military and civilian gulag, a barbaric prison system that makes the Romans' look benign by comparison.

Systematic sexual abuse by both prison guards and Catholic priests? The wholesale slaughter of Iraqi children? The debasement by corporate money of both church and state?

Christ would lead the non-violent charge against these cornerstones of GOP rule---until Rove killed him.

What would Jesus do about gay marriage? "Love they neighbor," he'd say.

What business is it of those who use his name, he would ask, to prolong bigotry and intolerance just as 50 years ago those same cynical haters claimed Biblical sanction for laws preventing people of color from marrying the white people they loved.

Christ would never stand for such a hate campaign. So Karl Rove would have him killed.

Hitler claimed Christ was an Aryan supremacist. Now Rove, DeLay & company use him to justify dictatorial, greed-approving, gay-hating, war loving, torture-is-fine bigotry.

Easter says otherwise. It should remind us that if Jesus returned to preach the Gandhian love-thy-neighbor subversion with which he challenged the Romans, Karl Rove would do what Pilate did.

But Rove would be better at the spin.

--

HARVEY WASSERMAN'S HISTORY OF THE US is at www.harveywasserman.com, as is his GLIMPSE OF THE BIG LIGHT: LOSING PARENTS, FINDING SPIRIT.

Our Terrorist-Friendly Borders

The New York Times
March 21, 2005

Our Terrorist-Friendly Borders

After the Sept. 11 attacks, it was shocking to learn how easily the hijackers entered the country. What is shocking today is how little progress has been made in securing our borders. Terrorists may well be entering the country by crossing from Mexico or Canada. But it is just as likely that they are coming in the way the Sept. 11 hijackers did: at airports, slipping through the Swiss-cheese security system now in place.

Until this year, immigration officials routinely handed phony travel documents back to people caught trying to enter illegally, and even now visitors are not always required to show the simplest of evidence that they are truly here on a visit: a return ticket. The government still does not have a workable system for monitoring whether visa holders actually leave when their visas run out.

At Senate hearings last week, it was clear that the sense of urgency the nation felt after Sept. 11 has faltered. Only 2 of the 27 "visa-waiver countries," whose citizens can enter the United States without visas, are expected to meet the Oct. 26 deadline for having new machine-readable passports - which was extended from Oct. 1, 2003. And U.S.-Visit, a much-heralded new system for tracking arrivals and departures, has been rolling out at a glacial pace.

One of the most important tasks Michael Chertoff, the new secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, and Congress jointly face is pulling in the welcome mat for would-be terrorists. If Mr. Chertoff does not have the resources or legal authority he needs to make the borders safe, he should say so publicly, and often. Among the areas that need to be attended to are these:

1. More Resources at the Borders - A growing number of non-Mexicans are crossing over the Mexican border. And suspected terrorists have long been entering the country from Canada. More guards need to be put in place, and there should be more use of fences and ground sensors to detect movement.

2. Better Means of Tracking People Who Overstay Their Visas - One of the biggest sources of illegal immigration is people who enter the country legally but decide not to leave. The Department of Homeland Security must push to complete work on the U.S.-Visit system so that the government can identify people whose visas have expired.

3. Better Information for Front-Line Immigration Officials - Stolen and lost passports are a major terrorist tool, and not enough is being done to detect them. There needs to be a greater international effort to centralize data about lost and stolen passports, and the data needs to be made available on computers so front-line immigration officials can consult it before admitting a visitor.

4. Shorter Lengths of Stay for Visa Holders - Most of the Sept. 11 hijackers were admitted as tourists and given automatic six-month stays, far longer than the typical vacation. Lengths of stay should be more precisely tailored to the needs of individual visitors - tourism, study or visiting relatives. This may require more resources, but it is worth it to ensure that terrorists are not guaranteed a half-year to prepare an attack.

5. Tougher State ID Requirements - The Sept. 11 hijackers obtained 13 driver's licenses. The rules need to be re-evaluated, so non-citizens cannot get such high-quality identification. This is a complicated issue. Congress needs to find an answer that would not violate civil liberties as some national ID programs would, and also gives undocumented residents access to some kind of driver's license for safety and insurance reasons.

Getting terrorists into the United States is a vital step in most of the worst terrorist scenarios. We now know that Al Qaeda has travel facilitators, who are experts at exploiting the weak points in our border security. The federal government needs to act quickly and forcefully to make their jobs harder, and the nation safer.

Keeping Sgt. Lazo Out of Cuba

The New York Times
March 21, 2005

Keeping Sgt. Lazo Out of Cuba
By BOB HERBERT

"Sometimes you just have to pray." - Carlos Lazo

Washington

Sgt. Carlos Lazo, a medic who returned to the U.S. from Iraq two weeks ago, still has the searing images of the ferocious assault on Falluja racing through his head. He drove an ambulance during the campaign and was accompanied by two buddies, who were also medics. His buddies mostly rode in the rear with the wounded.

At times the battle raged so loudly the three friends could barely hear one another. With earth-shaking mortars exploding all around them, and with the nearly constant din of gunfire and other explosives, Sergeant Lazo could not always be sure his buddies were all right.

"We would sing so we could hear one another," he said. "They called us the Latin team. All three of us were Latin American. One was Puerto Rican, one was Mexican, and I am Cuban-American. We would sing Spanish songs, sing loud, and then we would know everything was O.K."

Living through the combat in Falluja was "extremely intense," he said. "It was very sad, you know, to see somebody talking, like two hours before, and then later to see that person wounded, screaming. And what you try to do is calm him down, saying: 'Hey, relax, my brother. Everything is going to be O.K.' "

Sergeant Lazo, who turned 40 yesterday, is a member of the Washington State National Guard. His team of medics, which performed heroically throughout its tour in Iraq, was attached to a Marine regiment for the Falluja offensive. I interviewed the sergeant in Washington, D.C., where he is seeking support for a new, more personal mission.

An American citizen, Sergeant Lazo has two teenaged sons in Havana. He visits them as often as he can, but they do not want to emigrate to the U.S. Last June, during a two-week leave from Iraq, the sergeant visited relatives at his home in Seattle, then flew to Miami, where he had planned to board a flight to Cuba for a brief visit with his sons. He wanted very much to see them before heading back to Iraq.

But tough new restrictions on travel to Cuba by individuals with relatives on the island were about to take effect. "I went to the airport, but they wouldn't let anybody board the planes," Sergeant Lazo said. "There were two more days before the restrictions would take place, but they told me the planes were leaving empty."

The planes were flying to Cuba to pick up Cuban-Americans traveling back to the U.S. In anticipation of the tighter rules, no new passengers were allowed to fly to Cuba. Sergeant Lazo had to return to Iraq without seeing his sons.

Under the old rules, individuals authorized to visit relatives in Cuba could go there once a year, and more often in the case of family emergencies. They could visit cousins, aunts and uncles, as well as immediate relatives.

But with President Bush facing a re-election campaign, and hard-line Cubans in Florida complaining that the administration was not being aggressive enough with Fidel Castro, the rules were changed. Now relatives can visit just once every three years, and the visits must be limited to the immediate family. Emergency visits are not allowed.

"If my father or one of my sons is dying," said Sergeant Lazo - he paused to knock loudly on a wooden table - "I couldn't be with him."

The sergeant has not seen his sons in more than two years, and he will not be allowed to see them until next year. His new mission is to seek an end to the ban on travel to Cuba. He is being aided in this effort by the Center for International Policy, which has long opposed the travel restrictions.

Sergeant Lazo told me he never had any second thoughts about going off to Iraq. "I signed up for the National Guard and I swore to defend the United States, my adopted country," he said. "My duty was to serve."

But he thinks it's unreasonable for the government, which he was willing to die for, to prevent him from seeing his children.

The arbitrary, politically motivated restrictions on travel to Cuba are cruel, counterproductive and, frankly, absurd. They have hardly any real support outside the small group of aging anti-Castro reactionaries in South Florida. The restrictions are part of a 45-year-old U.S. embargo that has been nothing short of a complete and abject failure.

As long as these policies remain in effect, real people, like Sergeant Lazo, a true American patriot, will continue to suffer unnecessarily.

E-mail: bobherb@nytimes.com

The U.S. may pay for its success in Iraq

The Daily Star
dailystar.com.lb

Monday, March 21, 2005
The U.S. may pay for its success in Iraq
By Trita Parsi

Analysts have long argued that the interests of Iran and America largely coincide and that their poor relations have political rather than strategic roots. Many expected the operations in Afghanistan and Iraq to bring these common interests to the forefront and end the U.S.-Iran estrangement. Instead, the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan deepened American penetration of Iran's security sphere and crystallized a rivalry between the two for pre-eminence in the Persian Gulf, with roots dating to the reign of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.

The shah aptly recognized that Iran's rise as a regional power necessitated greater control over its expanding security sphere. The presence of British troops in the Persian Gulf hindered the Iranian monarch's ambitions. When the British withdrew in 1971, the shah intensified his efforts to convince Washington that the security of the region should be left to regional powers who shared an interest in upholding stability. This approach, the shah argued, would leave the regional powers more content with U.S. global leadership while creating a more sustainable foundation for regional security.

With the U.S. preoccupied in Vietnam, Washington had no choice but to accept the shah's offer. Once the Persian Gulf was under his domination, the shah's primary objective was to sustain Pax Iranica by preventing the great powers from finding a pretext to re-enter the waters.

The reinvention of Iran as an Islamic state did not change Iranian interests in the Gulf. Tehran viewed the first Persian Gulf war as a means for the U.S. to re-establish itself in the region. Throughout the 1990s, Iran repeatedly called for a U.S. withdrawal, repeating the argument put forward by the shah, that the security of the region should be guaranteed by regional powers and not by foreign troops.

Through the 2003 Iraq invasion, Washington invited itself further into the heart of the region with the aim of setting up permanent military bases in Iraq. In Germany, Japan and South Korea, U.S. bases served to balance a threat or a potential challenge to America's hegemony - from the Soviet Union, China and North Korea respectively. In the Middle East, 'the bases will serve to balance the local challenger to American dominion - Iran - and to ensure [America's] domination of key strategic resources' in the Persian Gulf, in the words of Tom Donnelly of the American Enterprise Institute. The Iraq invasion would, as members of the Project for the New American Century wrote in the late 1990s, "project sufficient power to enforce Pax Americana." Tehran's ambitions to revive Pax Iranica had to be deferred to the future.

The invasion was seen as necessary since instability in the Arab sheikhdoms had made the continuation of American military bases there uncertain and insufficient; the 27,000 U.S. troops in the Persian Gulf were dwarfed by those in Germany (100,000), South Korea (37,000) and Japan (47,000). Due to political tensions with Riyadh, bases in Saudi Arabia were abandoned in 2003. Furthermore, military bases in Kuwait and Qatar could not substitute for the kind of strategic depth and flexibility offered by bases identified by the Pentagon in Iraq. These included the Baghdad international airport; the Talil airbase near Nasiriyya; a base in the desert near Syria; and Bashur airfield in Iraqi Kurdistan.

Washington and Tehran's inability to come to terms with each other made the U.S. feel that its only option was to assume domination over the "key strategic resources" of the Persian Gulf itself, an imperative that became increasingly important as America sought to temper the unipolar world's inevitable transition toward multipolarity. Since the American challenge of the 21st century is to prevent China from assuming the role of a global power, Washington's domination over the strategic resources of the Persian Gulf and the Caspian Sea is critical in pacing China's growth and restricting Beijing's power to regional dimensions.

However, this is where America's failure may lie in its own success. There is little evidence that a democratic Iraq would agree with the Pentagon's plans. Roughly 80 percent of Iraqis oppose a permanent U.S. military presence in their country, according to polls conducted by the Coalition Provisional Authority in June 2004. Moreover, unlike Japan, South Korea and Germany, a democratic Iraq may not feel the need for U.S. military protection since threats to Iraq's security that could justify a permanent American military presence are not prominent. Just as Iraq's neighbors fear Iraq's disintegration more than they fear Iraq itself, few regional states can threaten Iraq to the extent that Baghdad would need to turn to Washington for protection.

As the January 2005 elections already have indicated, a democratic Iraq's interests are unlikely to match Washington's goals in the region, leaving no basis for alliance. Rather, U.S. military bases in Iraq may constitute a point of contention between Iraq and its neighbors, particularly Iran, with dangerous consequences for Baghdad.

As a result, failure in Iraq from the American perspective may not lie only in the continuation of the insurgency or Iraq's disintegration, but also in an unexpectedly successful democracy where public rejection of a permanent U.S. military presence is translated into actual policy.

Contrary to the expectations of Bush administration neoconservatives, democracy in Iraq may enable Tehran to outmaneuver Washington without firing a single shot. Though Pax Iranica isn't likely to be resurrected any time soon, and though Pax America has yet to take its last breath, the success of Iraq's democracy may undo America's plan to checkmate its Iranian rival.

Trita Parsi, a PhD candidate at Johns Hopkins University SAIS in Washington, is writing his dissertation on Israeli-Iranian relations.

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Fair Use Notice
This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of political, human rights, economic, democracy, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Politics

Site

Meter

Who links to me?