April 17, 2005
The New York Times
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Get Tom DeLay to the Church on Time
By FRANK RICH
scandal is like any other melodrama: It can't be a crowd pleaser unless the audience can follow the plot. That's why Monica Lewinsky trumped Whitewater, and that's why of all the story lines ensnaring Tom DeLay, the one with legs is the one with the craps tables. It's not just easy to follow, but it also has a combustive cultural element that makes it as representative of its political era as Monicagate was of the Clinton years. As the lies and subterfuge of the go-go 1990's coalesced around sex, so the scandal of our new "moral values" decade comes cloaked in religion. The hair shirt is the new thong.
This time the plot begins with money. Two K Street fixers, a lobbyist named Jack Abramoff and a flack named Michael Scanlon, managed to snooker six American Indian tribes into handing over $82 million in exchange for furthering their casino interests. According to The Washington Post, some of their tribal takings, cycled through a nonprofit center for "public policy research," helped send Mr. DeLay golfing in Scotland. The pious congressman, a gambling foe, says he had no idea of his trip's sinful provenance. Never mind that Mr. DeLay was joined abroad by Mr. Abramoff, whom he has described as one of his "closest and dearest friends," or that Mr. Scanlon had once been his spokesman. Mr. DeLay was as innocent of the goings-on around him as a piano player in a brothel.
Beltway cronyism, dubious junkets, loophole-laden denials are all, of course, time-honored Washington fare. The few on the right backing away from Mr. DeLay, from The Wall Street Journal's editorial page to Newt Gingrich, make a point of reminding us of that. As they see it, more in sorrow than in anger, the Gingrich revolutionaries who vowed to end the corruption practiced by Congressional Democrats have now been infected by the same Washington virus as their opponents. That's true, but this critique of Mr. DeLay and company by their own camp all too conveniently sidesteps the distinguishing feature of this scandal. Democratic malefactors like Jim Wright and L.B.J.'s old fixer Bobby Baker didn't wear the Bible on their sleeves.
In the DeLay story almost every player has ostentatious religious trappings, starting with the House majority leader himself. His efforts to play God with Terri Schiavo were preceded by crusades like blaming the teaching of evolution for school shootings and raising money for the Traditional Values Coalition's campaign to save America from the "war on Christianity." Mr. DeLay's chief of staff was his pastor, and, according to Time magazine, organized daily prayer sessions in their office. Today this holy man, Ed Buckham, is a lobbyist implicated in another DeLay junket to South Korea.
But it's not merely Christian denominations that figure in the religious plumage of this crowd. Mr. Abramoff, who is now being investigated by nearly as many federal agencies as there are nights of Passover, is an Orthodox Jew who in his salad days wore a yarmulke to press interviews. In Washington, he opened not one but two kosher restaurants (I hear the deli was passable by D.C. standards) and started a yeshiva. His uncompromising piety drove him to condemn the one Orthodox Jew in the Senate, Joe Lieberman, for securing "the tortuous death of millions" by supporting abortion rights. Mr. Abramoff's own moral constellation can be found in e-mail messages in which he referred to his Indian clients as "idiots" and "monkeys" even as he squeezed them for every last million. A previous client was Zaire's dictator, Mobutu Sese Seko, who, unlike Senator Lieberman, actually was a practitioner of torture and mass murder.
Another Abramoff crony is the political operative Ralph Reed, whom Mr. Abramoff hired for his College Republicans operation in the early 1980's. Mr. Reed, who has called gambling "a cancer on the body politic" and is running for lieutenant governor in Georgia, is now busily explaining that he, like Mr. DeLay, had no idea that some of his consulting firm's Abramoff-Scanlon paydays ($4.2 million worth) were indirect transfers of casino dough. Mr. Reed, of course, is best known for his stint as the public altar boy's face of Pat Robertson's political machine, the Christian Coalition.
It was at a Christian Coalition convention in Washington in 1994 that I first encountered yet another religious figure who pops up in this tale, the South African-born Rabbi Daniel Lapin. He was regaling the crowd with scriptural passages proving that high taxes are "immoral." Now the show rabbi of the Christian right, Rabbi Lapin has moved on to bigger broadcast pulpits. When he's not preaching the virtues of "The Passion of the Christ," he is chastising "Meet the Fockers" for promoting "vile notions of Jews" that "are not too different from those used by Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels." He apparently didn't like the idea that Barbra Streisand and Dustin Hoffman played characters who enjoy sex.
Rabbi Lapin, according to Slate, is the networker who jump-started the mutually beneficial business relationship of Jack Abramoff and Tom DeLay by introducing them in the early 90's. That was some mitzvah. As Marshall Wittmann, a former Christian Coalition lobbyist who later jumped to the Democratic Leadership Council, told me recently, "We now see the meaning of Judeo-Christian values."
The values alleged so far in this scandal - greed, hypocrisy, favor-selling, dissembling - belong to no creed except the ruthless pursuit of power. They are not exclusive to either political party. But the religious trappings add a note that distinguishes these Beltway creeps from those who have come before: a supreme righteousness that often spirals into anger and fire-and-brimstone zealotry that can do far more damage to America than ill-begotten golf junkets.
It's not for nothing that Mr. DeLay's nickname is the Hammer. Or that early in his Christian Coalition career, Ralph Reed famously told a Knight-Ridder reporter that he wanted to see his opponents in a "body bag." The current manifestation of this brand of religious politics can be found in the far right's anti-judiciary campaign, of which Mr. DeLay is the patron saint. As he flew off to the pope's funeral in Rome, the congressman left behind a rabble-rousing video for a Washington conference on "Confronting the Judicial War on Faith" staged by a new outfit called The Judeo-Christian Council for Constitutional Restoration. Another speaker, a lawyer named Edwin Vieira, twice invoked a Stalin dictum whose unexpurgated version goes, "Death solves all problems; no man, no problem." The reporter who covered the event for The Washington Post, Dana Milbank, suggested in print that one prime target of the vitriol, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, might want to get "a few more bodyguards." It wasn't necessarily a joke.
You can see why Dick Cheney and President Bush in rapid succession distanced themselves from Mr. DeLay's threats of retribution against judges who presided in the Schiavo case. If an Eric Rudolph murders a judge in close chronological proximity to that kind of rhetoric, they've got a political Armageddon on their hands. Mr. DeLay got the message, sort of. At his Wednesday news conference, he tried to dial back some of his words, if only as a way of changing the subject from Indians and his own potential outings in a court of law. Unlike Bill Frist, he has yet to sign on to next Sunday's national Christian right telecast bashing what its organizer, the Family Research Council, calls "out-of-control courts."
Many believe that Mr. DeLay's legal fate is tied to that of Mr. Abramoff, whom the congressman has now downsized into one of "hundreds of relationships I have in Washington, D.C." Mr. Abramoff, intriguingly enough, hasn't always been a creature of the capital. He was raised in Beverly Hills, the town that is supposed to be anathema to every value that Republican theocrats stand for. And he returned there for a time in the late 1980's, when he produced an anti-Communist action film called "Red Scorpion." Once it was reported that extras and military equipment had been supplied by South Africa's racist government, Arthur Ashe's Artists and Athletes Against Apartheid condemned the film, and no major studio would touch it. But it opened nationwide nonetheless, to few customers and many protesters.
In 1992 Mr. Abramoff, eager to prove that he was unlike secular show-business Democrats, told The Hollywood Reporter that he was starting a Committee for Traditional Jewish Values in Entertainment to emulate Christian anti-indecency campaigns. (He didn't.) But "Red Scorpion," on which Mr. Abramoff shares the writing credit, has many more four-letter words than "Meet the Fockers," as well as violence, bloodied beefcake (Dolph Lundgren's) and crucifixion imagery anticipating "The Passion of the Christ."
Though Mr. Abramoff has closed his yeshiva and is now being sued for back wages by its former employees, his cinematic creation survives on DVD. "Red Scorpion" is seriously Godawful, but, unlike the Ten Commandments displayed in Tom DeLay's office, it may yet endure as a permanent monument to what these people are about.
Sunday, April 17, 2005
Is there any doubt that this is the worst presidency ever?
Sweeping embarrassments under the rug
by kos
Sun Apr 17th, 2005 at 15:23:11 PDT
Sirota lists some of the wonderful government information Bush has scrubbed in the past four years:
Knight-Ridder reports today that the Bush administration announced yesterday that it has "decided to stop publishing an annual report on international terrorism after the government's top terrorism center concluded that there were more terrorist attacks in 2004 than in any year since 1985, the first year the publication covered."
When unemployment was peaking in Bush's first term, the White House tried to stop publishing the Labor Department's regular report on mass layoffs.
In 2003, when the nation's governors came to Washington to complain about inadequate federal funding for the states, the Bush administration decided to stop publishing the budget report that states use to see what money they are, or aren't, getting.
In 2003, the National Council for Research on Women found that information about discrimination against women has gone missing from government Web sites, including 25 reports from the U.S. Department of Labor's Women's Bureau.
In 2002, Democrats uncovered evidence that the Bush administration was removing health information from government websites. Specifically, the administration deleted data showing that abortion does not increase the risk of breast cancer from government websites. That scientific data was seen by the White House as a direct affront to the pro-life movement.
Can there be any doubt that this is the worst presidency ever?
by kos
Sun Apr 17th, 2005 at 15:23:11 PDT
Sirota lists some of the wonderful government information Bush has scrubbed in the past four years:
Knight-Ridder reports today that the Bush administration announced yesterday that it has "decided to stop publishing an annual report on international terrorism after the government's top terrorism center concluded that there were more terrorist attacks in 2004 than in any year since 1985, the first year the publication covered."
When unemployment was peaking in Bush's first term, the White House tried to stop publishing the Labor Department's regular report on mass layoffs.
In 2003, when the nation's governors came to Washington to complain about inadequate federal funding for the states, the Bush administration decided to stop publishing the budget report that states use to see what money they are, or aren't, getting.
In 2003, the National Council for Research on Women found that information about discrimination against women has gone missing from government Web sites, including 25 reports from the U.S. Department of Labor's Women's Bureau.
In 2002, Democrats uncovered evidence that the Bush administration was removing health information from government websites. Specifically, the administration deleted data showing that abortion does not increase the risk of breast cancer from government websites. That scientific data was seen by the White House as a direct affront to the pro-life movement.
Can there be any doubt that this is the worst presidency ever?
Friday, April 15, 2005
Thank God Somebody Finally Comments On Disheveled Bolton
This would be rather petty and to a degree is considering that John Bolton is the absolute worse pick for the U.N. Post that Bush is rewarding his buddy with. But, I thought it was just me that thought Bolton looked like an unmade bed everytime he is phtotgraphed. Now really, shouldn't he at least try to clean up his act a bit? This is a geat article.
Bolton's Hair: No Brush With Greatness
By Robin Givhan
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, April 15, 2005; Page C01
John Bolton, President Bush's nominee for ambassador to the United Nations, desperately needs a haircut. It does not have to be a $600 Sally Hershberger cut. Bolton simply needs the basics. Tidy the curling, unruly locks at the nape of his neck, tame the volume at the crown, reel in the wings flapping above his ears, and broker a compromise between his sand-colored mop and his snow-colored mustache.
He needs to do this, not because he should be minding the recommendations of men's fashion magazines or grooming experts but because when he settled in before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee this week to answer questions about his record, his philosophy and his intentions at the U.N., he looked as though he did not even have enough respect for the proceedings to bother combing his hair -- or, for that matter, straightening his tie, or wearing a shirt that did not put his neck in a chokehold. Bolton was one wrinkled suit away from being an insolent mess.
These are not flaws or imperfections of nature. This is not a cruel attempt to hold an everyday man to the standards of an airbrushed model or a nipped and tucked actor. This is a matter of personal style.
Bolton sat across from his questioners with a thick, dull slab of hair positioned diagonally across his forehead. It is tempting to say that he has a sloppy schoolboy's haircut, but that would malign studious young men and suggest that they are dismissive of propriety and the importance of making a good public impression. Looking back to Bolton's school days at Yale, one notices that he was better groomed in his younger years. In his 1970 class book photo, Bolton essentially has the same haircut, but his locks are not drooping over his forehead as if he'd stepped from the shower and shaken his hair dry in the manner of an Afghan hound. His tie also appears to be straight. Thirty-five years ago, his shirt fit. (Perhaps it is the same shirt?)
That tidy 1970 haircut -- no long hippie locks for Bolton -- has evolved into a bureaucrat's hairstyle, one that is willfully dismissive of the value of a polished appearance -- a kind of intellectual style-snobbery. In "Fahrenheit 9/11" Paul Wolfowitz was so appearance-conscious that he used a bit of saliva in lieu of gel to make sure that he was looking presentable for a television appearance. Bolton seems unlikely to spit-comb his hair for anyone.
It has not been lost on observers, least of all the late-night comics, that there is an incongruous relationship between Bolton's impenetrable blanket of hair and his equally lush, but white, mustache. A more vain man would -- ill-advisedly -- dye his mustache, trim it down so that it did not look like it should be attached to geek glasses and a rubber nose, or shave it altogether. But not Bolton. It sits there in all of its 1980s "Magnum, P.I." glory. But Bolton is not Tom Selleck and so the image is more likely to stir thoughts of Wilford Brimley and walruses.
The fulsome silhouette of the mustache makes for a particularly dreary distraction and seems to pull his whole face downward. It makes Bolton, who is only 56, look hoary and dour. For a man who has shown little evidence of a capacity to charm -- an ability that can come in handy for an ambassador -- the mustache makes him appear unwelcoming. For all of the testimony about his spiteful dealings with both colleagues and underlings, and his denials of such behavior, he managed to look mean.
Bolton sat before the committee with his tie askew. Not slightly crooked or just a hint off-center but looking like it had been knotted in the dark. The tie itself was an uninspired dark red with bright yellow stripes. It was looped tightly under the button-down collar of his pale-blue shirt -- a shirt that encircled his neck in a menacing way.
A Hollywood costumer could not have ordered a more perfectly stern Washington insider. Bolton embraces with a flourish all of the cliches that afflict so many men in Washington. During this testimony, his hand was constantly reaching up to adjust his no-frills glasses. His attire was not merely bland but careless. His hair was so poorly cut, it bordered on rude. Bolton might well argue that appearance has nothing to do with capabilities. But it certainly can be a measure of one's respect for the job.
Bolton's Hair: No Brush With Greatness
By Robin Givhan
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, April 15, 2005; Page C01
John Bolton, President Bush's nominee for ambassador to the United Nations, desperately needs a haircut. It does not have to be a $600 Sally Hershberger cut. Bolton simply needs the basics. Tidy the curling, unruly locks at the nape of his neck, tame the volume at the crown, reel in the wings flapping above his ears, and broker a compromise between his sand-colored mop and his snow-colored mustache.
He needs to do this, not because he should be minding the recommendations of men's fashion magazines or grooming experts but because when he settled in before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee this week to answer questions about his record, his philosophy and his intentions at the U.N., he looked as though he did not even have enough respect for the proceedings to bother combing his hair -- or, for that matter, straightening his tie, or wearing a shirt that did not put his neck in a chokehold. Bolton was one wrinkled suit away from being an insolent mess.
These are not flaws or imperfections of nature. This is not a cruel attempt to hold an everyday man to the standards of an airbrushed model or a nipped and tucked actor. This is a matter of personal style.
Bolton sat across from his questioners with a thick, dull slab of hair positioned diagonally across his forehead. It is tempting to say that he has a sloppy schoolboy's haircut, but that would malign studious young men and suggest that they are dismissive of propriety and the importance of making a good public impression. Looking back to Bolton's school days at Yale, one notices that he was better groomed in his younger years. In his 1970 class book photo, Bolton essentially has the same haircut, but his locks are not drooping over his forehead as if he'd stepped from the shower and shaken his hair dry in the manner of an Afghan hound. His tie also appears to be straight. Thirty-five years ago, his shirt fit. (Perhaps it is the same shirt?)
That tidy 1970 haircut -- no long hippie locks for Bolton -- has evolved into a bureaucrat's hairstyle, one that is willfully dismissive of the value of a polished appearance -- a kind of intellectual style-snobbery. In "Fahrenheit 9/11" Paul Wolfowitz was so appearance-conscious that he used a bit of saliva in lieu of gel to make sure that he was looking presentable for a television appearance. Bolton seems unlikely to spit-comb his hair for anyone.
It has not been lost on observers, least of all the late-night comics, that there is an incongruous relationship between Bolton's impenetrable blanket of hair and his equally lush, but white, mustache. A more vain man would -- ill-advisedly -- dye his mustache, trim it down so that it did not look like it should be attached to geek glasses and a rubber nose, or shave it altogether. But not Bolton. It sits there in all of its 1980s "Magnum, P.I." glory. But Bolton is not Tom Selleck and so the image is more likely to stir thoughts of Wilford Brimley and walruses.
The fulsome silhouette of the mustache makes for a particularly dreary distraction and seems to pull his whole face downward. It makes Bolton, who is only 56, look hoary and dour. For a man who has shown little evidence of a capacity to charm -- an ability that can come in handy for an ambassador -- the mustache makes him appear unwelcoming. For all of the testimony about his spiteful dealings with both colleagues and underlings, and his denials of such behavior, he managed to look mean.
Bolton sat before the committee with his tie askew. Not slightly crooked or just a hint off-center but looking like it had been knotted in the dark. The tie itself was an uninspired dark red with bright yellow stripes. It was looped tightly under the button-down collar of his pale-blue shirt -- a shirt that encircled his neck in a menacing way.
A Hollywood costumer could not have ordered a more perfectly stern Washington insider. Bolton embraces with a flourish all of the cliches that afflict so many men in Washington. During this testimony, his hand was constantly reaching up to adjust his no-frills glasses. His attire was not merely bland but careless. His hair was so poorly cut, it bordered on rude. Bolton might well argue that appearance has nothing to do with capabilities. But it certainly can be a measure of one's respect for the job.
Tom Delay Has a New Website Just For His Scandals
There is something just so endearing to me with regards to James Carville. I think that it is that he is so decliciously wicked when he chooses his victims from the wide array of scandulous Republicans. And, what better one to target now than "The Hammer" Tom Delay. So as Delay is saying his goodbyes in Washington, Carville goes in for more blood and does it so well.
CLICK THE TITALE TO VISIT THE NEW TOM DELAY WEBSITE.
Dear RAY,
Well, in addition to the laughs we had playing the DCCC's March Madness game, we picked quite a doozy as the winner. That's right, Tom DeLay has been given the prestigious Most Vindictive Partisan award by your votes! But since you chose so well, the DCCC decided to go above and beyond their promise of a mere web video ad, and have launched an entire new site in his honor. I am pleased to present you with...
Tom DeLay's House of Scandal:
http://houseofscandal.org/
This is an open letter I wrote to Tom in light of his recent shenanigans…
Dear Tom,
Recently I heard you tell all Americans concerned about having an ethically challenged man leading the Congress to “bring it on.” I've also heard you and your allies crowing about how any real Republican will come and stand by your corrupt side in your time of need.
Well, Tom, I'm here to tell you that at your request, we are indeed “bringing it on.” As for forcing “real Republicans” to rally to your side, I have to ask: How much more to do you want?
Your precious little rubberstamps in Congress have already gutted the ethics rules, forced out the Chairman of the Ethics Committee, and purged two other GOP Members of the committee, all to protect you. They've voted as you've told them more than 90% of the time, taken your dirty money, and helped bring your legal defense fund to over $1,000,000.
Can't remember who did what, too many to keep track of? Not to worry. You can find all the details on how each of them has done your bidding, courtesy of the DCCC, at the new website, Tom DeLay's House of Scandal:
CLICK THE TITLR OF ENTRY TO CONEECT TO:http://houseofscandal.org/
I won't go into the particulars - I'll leave that to the website - but it must be said that this is no idle hanky panky, this is nothing short of the Republicans treating tax dollars like found money to trade off with your special interests buddies, all at the expense of hard working Americans. Gas prices are through the roof, heath care prices continue to skyrockets, and you're still too busy cozying up with your guys in the oil and pharmaceutical industries to care about middle class families.
And you couldn't have done a lick of it without a Republican Congress rubberstamping every single thing you throw at them! They've been eagerly scampering to vote as you see fit for years … all in exchange for a ride on the DeLay fundraising train.
I invite you and every American taxpayer to go to this site now. Go find out what each of Tom DeLay's Republican rubberstamps have been up to, what he's been giving them in return, and witness the travesty that is Tom DeLay's House of Scandal. Then Americans can decide if this Congress is serving their interests – or those of your big corporate funders.
James Carville
CLICK THE TITALE TO VISIT THE NEW TOM DELAY WEBSITE.
Dear RAY,
Well, in addition to the laughs we had playing the DCCC's March Madness game, we picked quite a doozy as the winner. That's right, Tom DeLay has been given the prestigious Most Vindictive Partisan award by your votes! But since you chose so well, the DCCC decided to go above and beyond their promise of a mere web video ad, and have launched an entire new site in his honor. I am pleased to present you with...
Tom DeLay's House of Scandal:
http://houseofscandal.org/
This is an open letter I wrote to Tom in light of his recent shenanigans…
Dear Tom,
Recently I heard you tell all Americans concerned about having an ethically challenged man leading the Congress to “bring it on.” I've also heard you and your allies crowing about how any real Republican will come and stand by your corrupt side in your time of need.
Well, Tom, I'm here to tell you that at your request, we are indeed “bringing it on.” As for forcing “real Republicans” to rally to your side, I have to ask: How much more to do you want?
Your precious little rubberstamps in Congress have already gutted the ethics rules, forced out the Chairman of the Ethics Committee, and purged two other GOP Members of the committee, all to protect you. They've voted as you've told them more than 90% of the time, taken your dirty money, and helped bring your legal defense fund to over $1,000,000.
Can't remember who did what, too many to keep track of? Not to worry. You can find all the details on how each of them has done your bidding, courtesy of the DCCC, at the new website, Tom DeLay's House of Scandal:
CLICK THE TITLR OF ENTRY TO CONEECT TO:http://houseofscandal.org/
I won't go into the particulars - I'll leave that to the website - but it must be said that this is no idle hanky panky, this is nothing short of the Republicans treating tax dollars like found money to trade off with your special interests buddies, all at the expense of hard working Americans. Gas prices are through the roof, heath care prices continue to skyrockets, and you're still too busy cozying up with your guys in the oil and pharmaceutical industries to care about middle class families.
And you couldn't have done a lick of it without a Republican Congress rubberstamping every single thing you throw at them! They've been eagerly scampering to vote as you see fit for years … all in exchange for a ride on the DeLay fundraising train.
I invite you and every American taxpayer to go to this site now. Go find out what each of Tom DeLay's Republican rubberstamps have been up to, what he's been giving them in return, and witness the travesty that is Tom DeLay's House of Scandal. Then Americans can decide if this Congress is serving their interests – or those of your big corporate funders.
James Carville
Thursday, April 14, 2005
He Says Bolton Is "Nuts"
Disaster, Not Diplomacy
The Washington Post
By Richard Cohen
Thursday, April 14, 2005; Page A27
It is my impression -- gleaned from reviews -- that Malcolm Gladwell's book "Blink" posits that first impressions often are right on the nose. Nonetheless, for reasons having to do with caution, prudence and a debilitating sense of fair play, I have until now withheld my first -- and only -- impression of John Bolton, probably destined to be the next U.S. ambassador to the United Nations: He's nuts.
I recognize that, as a diagnosis, the word leaves something to be desired. But it is nevertheless the impression I took away back in June 2003 when Bolton went to Cernobbio, Italy, to talk to the Council for the United States and Italy. Afterward he took questions. Some of them were about weapons of mass destruction, which, you may remember, the Bush administration had claimed would be found in abundance in Iraq but which by then had not materialized.
The literal facts did not in the least give Bolton pause. Weapons of mass destruction would be found, he insisted. Where? When? How come they had not yet been discovered? The questions were insistent, but they were coming, please remember, from Italians, whose government was one of the few in the world to actively support the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
Bolton bristled. I have never seen such a performance by an American diplomat. He was dismissive. He was angry. He clearly thought the questioners had no right, no standing, no justification and no earthly reason to question the United States of America. The Bush administration had said that Iraq was lousy with WMD and Iraq therefore was lousy with WMD. Just you wait.
This kind of ferocious certainty is commendable in pit bulls and other fighting animals, but it is something of a problem in a diplomat. We now have been told, though, that Bolton's Italian aria was not unique and that the anger I sensed in the man has been felt by others. (I went over to speak to him afterward, but he was such a mass of scowling anger that I beat a retreat.) Others have testified to how he berated subordinates and how, to quote Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), he "needs anger management." From what I saw, a bucket of cold water should always be kept at hand.
The rap against Bolton's nomination as U.N. ambassador is that he has maximum contempt for that organization. He once went so far as to flatly declare that "there is no United Nations," just an international community that occasionally "can be led by the only real power left in the world -- and that's the United States." He has expressed these sorts of feelings numerous times over the years -- so much so that it is not clear whether he has been rewarded with this appointment or punished with it. Whatever President Bush's motive, the fact remains that he has not sent the United Nations an ambassador so much as a poke in the eye. Still, no U.N. ambassador makes policy; he merely implements it. Bolton, no matter what his views, can do only limited damage.
But there are things that the United States will want done at the United Nations -- and Bolton is the wrong guy to get them done. After all, once an ambassador is instructed as to a policy or personnel issue, it is up to him or her to implement it. That means constructing the argument, persuading opponents, flattering friends. It means, in short, diplomacy.
After Bolton's appearance in Italy almost two years ago, I wrote a column expressing my dismay. I did not, however, know for sure if what I had seen was typical of him -- although others said it was. Now, though, it is clear that he is often as he was that day -- abrasive, insolent and so insufferably self-righteous that he cannot allow the possibility of his being wrong.
Why the Bush administration would want such a person at the United Nations is beyond me. As always, the administration is entitled to great leeway when it comes to presidential appointments. If it wants a neocon, fine. If it wants a hard-liner, fine. If it wants a U.N.-trasher, it can have that, too. But it should not have someone who will be ineffectual in implementing its own policies -- who, if he is himself, will alienate other delegates and further isolate the United States.
This is what Bolton did one glorious spring day on the shores of bella Lake Como. What he will do on the shores of the non-bella East River on a cold, gray day in New York will be far, far worse. Bolton's is not a bad appointment. It's a downright disaster.
cohenr@washpost.com
The Washington Post
By Richard Cohen
Thursday, April 14, 2005; Page A27
It is my impression -- gleaned from reviews -- that Malcolm Gladwell's book "Blink" posits that first impressions often are right on the nose. Nonetheless, for reasons having to do with caution, prudence and a debilitating sense of fair play, I have until now withheld my first -- and only -- impression of John Bolton, probably destined to be the next U.S. ambassador to the United Nations: He's nuts.
I recognize that, as a diagnosis, the word leaves something to be desired. But it is nevertheless the impression I took away back in June 2003 when Bolton went to Cernobbio, Italy, to talk to the Council for the United States and Italy. Afterward he took questions. Some of them were about weapons of mass destruction, which, you may remember, the Bush administration had claimed would be found in abundance in Iraq but which by then had not materialized.
The literal facts did not in the least give Bolton pause. Weapons of mass destruction would be found, he insisted. Where? When? How come they had not yet been discovered? The questions were insistent, but they were coming, please remember, from Italians, whose government was one of the few in the world to actively support the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
Bolton bristled. I have never seen such a performance by an American diplomat. He was dismissive. He was angry. He clearly thought the questioners had no right, no standing, no justification and no earthly reason to question the United States of America. The Bush administration had said that Iraq was lousy with WMD and Iraq therefore was lousy with WMD. Just you wait.
This kind of ferocious certainty is commendable in pit bulls and other fighting animals, but it is something of a problem in a diplomat. We now have been told, though, that Bolton's Italian aria was not unique and that the anger I sensed in the man has been felt by others. (I went over to speak to him afterward, but he was such a mass of scowling anger that I beat a retreat.) Others have testified to how he berated subordinates and how, to quote Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), he "needs anger management." From what I saw, a bucket of cold water should always be kept at hand.
The rap against Bolton's nomination as U.N. ambassador is that he has maximum contempt for that organization. He once went so far as to flatly declare that "there is no United Nations," just an international community that occasionally "can be led by the only real power left in the world -- and that's the United States." He has expressed these sorts of feelings numerous times over the years -- so much so that it is not clear whether he has been rewarded with this appointment or punished with it. Whatever President Bush's motive, the fact remains that he has not sent the United Nations an ambassador so much as a poke in the eye. Still, no U.N. ambassador makes policy; he merely implements it. Bolton, no matter what his views, can do only limited damage.
But there are things that the United States will want done at the United Nations -- and Bolton is the wrong guy to get them done. After all, once an ambassador is instructed as to a policy or personnel issue, it is up to him or her to implement it. That means constructing the argument, persuading opponents, flattering friends. It means, in short, diplomacy.
After Bolton's appearance in Italy almost two years ago, I wrote a column expressing my dismay. I did not, however, know for sure if what I had seen was typical of him -- although others said it was. Now, though, it is clear that he is often as he was that day -- abrasive, insolent and so insufferably self-righteous that he cannot allow the possibility of his being wrong.
Why the Bush administration would want such a person at the United Nations is beyond me. As always, the administration is entitled to great leeway when it comes to presidential appointments. If it wants a neocon, fine. If it wants a hard-liner, fine. If it wants a U.N.-trasher, it can have that, too. But it should not have someone who will be ineffectual in implementing its own policies -- who, if he is himself, will alienate other delegates and further isolate the United States.
This is what Bolton did one glorious spring day on the shores of bella Lake Como. What he will do on the shores of the non-bella East River on a cold, gray day in New York will be far, far worse. Bolton's is not a bad appointment. It's a downright disaster.
cohenr@washpost.com
The Haunting of Emile Griffith
April 14, 2005
OP-ED COLUMNIST
The New York Times
The Haunting of Emile Griffith
By BOB HERBERT
The ex-champ was a few inches shorter than I'd imagined, and he had put on a few pounds. At age 67, all of his hair and some of his memory were gone. Absorbing blows over several years from the hardest-hitting people on the planet can cause confusion.
But he looked good. He smiled easily and was playful as a child. We went to lunch, and he told me some things he'd been reluctant to say for decades.
I had always thought of Emile Griffith as a man who had gone through most of his life dragging two enormous weights behind him. Although a five-time world champion, he is most widely known for a ferocious barrage of punches that he unleashed in the 12th round of a televised fight on a Saturday night in March 1962.
At the other end of those punches was the welterweight champion, a Cuban fighter named Benny (Kid) Paret. Paret was helpless, trapped on the ropes in a corner of the ring at the old Madison Square Garden in such a way that his body could not fall to the canvas. Griffith punched and punched, the blows landing with tremendous force, one after another after another, on Paret's unprotected head.
When the referee finally pulled Griffith away, Paret slid slowly to the canvas. I was a teenager watching this on television. It was obvious that Paret was in desperate trouble. His body seemed utterly lifeless. They carried him out on a stretcher, and he died 10 days later.
An extraordinary new documentary, "Ring of Fire," by the filmmaker Dan Klores and his co-director Ron Berger, tells the story of Emile Griffith and this fight that has never stopped haunting him. The film makes it clear that you can't explore that tragic fight and its aftermath without talking about Mr. Griffith's feelings about his own sexuality, which is the other torment he's had to haul around all these years.
One of the things I thought after watching the film was how far we haven't come in 43 years.
The fight on March 24, 1962, was the third between Griffith and Paret. They had split the first two bouts. Over that period Paret had repeatedly taunted Griffith, who had been a hat designer in the Manhattan garment district and was known to frequent gay clubs. At weigh-ins Paret would mock Griffith, and he called him a "maricón," a Spanish word guaranteed to infuriate.
It still infuriates. At lunch, Mr. Griffith's smile faded as he recalled the taunts he took from Paret. "I got tired," he said, "of people calling me faggot."
He said again, as he has many times, that he was sorry Paret had died. But he added: "He called me a name. ... So I did what I had to do."
How much has changed? As a society, we're still painfully twisted when it comes to homosexuality. A couple of guys holding hands. ... Women kissing on the mouth. ...
We know from the ugly and irrational fury over the gay marriage issue, and the silly "don't ask, don't tell" policy in the armed forces, that there are still tremendous reservoirs of fear and loathing ready to be unloaded on gay men and women who'd like nothing more than to live their lives freely, honestly and openly. Things are not as bad as they were in 1962, but they're not good.
Media reports have applauded the tolerance toward gays that has supposedly developed over the past several years, but I think much of that tolerance is wafer-thin. Millions of gay or bisexual Americans still live their lives locked inside the protective cloak of a falsehood - afraid, for very good reasons, to come out.
A poll conducted for NBC Universal's USA Network, which will be showing "Ring of Fire," found that 44 percent of the respondents believed that "homosexual behavior is a sin." A third said society should not accept homosexuality as a way of life, and 14 percent believed gay athletes should not be permitted to play team sports.
I asked Mr. Griffith if he was gay, and he told me no. But he looked as if he wanted to say more. He told me he had struggled his entire life with his sexuality, and agonized over what he could say about it. He said he knew it was impossible in the early 1960's for an athlete in an ultramacho sport like boxing to say, "Oh, yeah, I'm gay."
But after all these years, he wanted to tell the truth. He'd had relations, he said, with men and women. He no longer wanted to hide. He hoped to ride this year in New York's Gay Pride Parade.
He said he hadn't meant to kill Benny Paret, "but what he said touched something inside."
E-mail: bobherb@nytimes.com
Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company
OP-ED COLUMNIST
The New York Times
The Haunting of Emile Griffith
By BOB HERBERT
The ex-champ was a few inches shorter than I'd imagined, and he had put on a few pounds. At age 67, all of his hair and some of his memory were gone. Absorbing blows over several years from the hardest-hitting people on the planet can cause confusion.
But he looked good. He smiled easily and was playful as a child. We went to lunch, and he told me some things he'd been reluctant to say for decades.
I had always thought of Emile Griffith as a man who had gone through most of his life dragging two enormous weights behind him. Although a five-time world champion, he is most widely known for a ferocious barrage of punches that he unleashed in the 12th round of a televised fight on a Saturday night in March 1962.
At the other end of those punches was the welterweight champion, a Cuban fighter named Benny (Kid) Paret. Paret was helpless, trapped on the ropes in a corner of the ring at the old Madison Square Garden in such a way that his body could not fall to the canvas. Griffith punched and punched, the blows landing with tremendous force, one after another after another, on Paret's unprotected head.
When the referee finally pulled Griffith away, Paret slid slowly to the canvas. I was a teenager watching this on television. It was obvious that Paret was in desperate trouble. His body seemed utterly lifeless. They carried him out on a stretcher, and he died 10 days later.
An extraordinary new documentary, "Ring of Fire," by the filmmaker Dan Klores and his co-director Ron Berger, tells the story of Emile Griffith and this fight that has never stopped haunting him. The film makes it clear that you can't explore that tragic fight and its aftermath without talking about Mr. Griffith's feelings about his own sexuality, which is the other torment he's had to haul around all these years.
One of the things I thought after watching the film was how far we haven't come in 43 years.
The fight on March 24, 1962, was the third between Griffith and Paret. They had split the first two bouts. Over that period Paret had repeatedly taunted Griffith, who had been a hat designer in the Manhattan garment district and was known to frequent gay clubs. At weigh-ins Paret would mock Griffith, and he called him a "maricón," a Spanish word guaranteed to infuriate.
It still infuriates. At lunch, Mr. Griffith's smile faded as he recalled the taunts he took from Paret. "I got tired," he said, "of people calling me faggot."
He said again, as he has many times, that he was sorry Paret had died. But he added: "He called me a name. ... So I did what I had to do."
How much has changed? As a society, we're still painfully twisted when it comes to homosexuality. A couple of guys holding hands. ... Women kissing on the mouth. ...
We know from the ugly and irrational fury over the gay marriage issue, and the silly "don't ask, don't tell" policy in the armed forces, that there are still tremendous reservoirs of fear and loathing ready to be unloaded on gay men and women who'd like nothing more than to live their lives freely, honestly and openly. Things are not as bad as they were in 1962, but they're not good.
Media reports have applauded the tolerance toward gays that has supposedly developed over the past several years, but I think much of that tolerance is wafer-thin. Millions of gay or bisexual Americans still live their lives locked inside the protective cloak of a falsehood - afraid, for very good reasons, to come out.
A poll conducted for NBC Universal's USA Network, which will be showing "Ring of Fire," found that 44 percent of the respondents believed that "homosexual behavior is a sin." A third said society should not accept homosexuality as a way of life, and 14 percent believed gay athletes should not be permitted to play team sports.
I asked Mr. Griffith if he was gay, and he told me no. But he looked as if he wanted to say more. He told me he had struggled his entire life with his sexuality, and agonized over what he could say about it. He said he knew it was impossible in the early 1960's for an athlete in an ultramacho sport like boxing to say, "Oh, yeah, I'm gay."
But after all these years, he wanted to tell the truth. He'd had relations, he said, with men and women. He no longer wanted to hide. He hoped to ride this year in New York's Gay Pride Parade.
He said he hadn't meant to kill Benny Paret, "but what he said touched something inside."
E-mail: bobherb@nytimes.com
Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company
Monday, April 11, 2005
Michael Musto Checks In On The Pope's Legacy
Pope Springs Eternal—But Why?
Why one sinner can't cry for John Paul
The Village Voice
By Michael Musto
April 7th, 2005 5:27 PM
I'm surely going straight to hell if I say anything critical of the late pope John Paul II, but according to him, I was heading there in a handbasket anyway, so what the fuck. The truth is I am a bit fed-up with the wall-to-wall lionization of this man, who admittedly brought inspiration and faith to millions, but who also propagated some ancient, reactionary viewpoints that—just my humble fag opinion here—fanned the flames of widespread oppression, all in the name of God's will. Not since Ronald Reagan's death last year—when the dead prez became painted as a forceful, flawless leader, with nary a reference to his callous, longtime refusal to acknowledge AIDS deaths—has there been such a wacky whitewash of someone's controversial canon. This time around, all the cable channel phonies—few of whom have been known to live lives of quiet piety, especially the gays—took on a nauseatingly hushed, reverent tone as they indulged themselves in nonstop slobbering over the icon they exclusively portrayed as noble, divine, and even well accessorized.
As evidenced by the overwhelming response to his passing, the guy surely tapped into the hopes and dreams of loving throngs around the world, all fighting for hotel rooms in Rome. But as I've clicked the channels for days on end, I haven't heard a single person question the "man of the people" 's rabid anti-abortion stance, his aggressive anti-condom platform, or his intense demonization of gay marriage as "a new ideology of evil, perhaps insidious and hidden, which attempts to pit human rights against the family and against man." Of course maybe someone's death might not seem like the right time to say, "He furthered sexual guilt, disease spreading, and hate crimes," but actually, when there's exhaustive, weeks-long coverage of a man's life, what better time could there be? (At least a pundit on an ABC special did note that the pope may have disliked democracy as much as he hated Communism.)
The reality is that, as the world—and even the church—started inching forward and becoming more accepting, John Paul II tried to hold things together with a moral vise that often proved intolerant and unrealistic. As women gained more control over their bodies and gays developed some rights of their own, he was frantic to push down the progress by promoting absolute respect for human life, except for individualists and "deviants." This was no shock—religion has traditionally specialized in messages of love that double as tools of persecution, and fanatics have always picked sections of the Bible at random in order to oppress unpopular people, while ignoring other parts that might put a damper on their own fun.
Just recently, Christian, Jewish, and Muslim leaders all got together to denounce the upcoming Jerusalem WorldPride march and to agree on one thing—gays suck. The protest was an eye-popping reminder that so many of the different gods people pray to seem to have the very same queers-are-the-devil message. Even these groups' usual distaste for each other was effectively buried as they united in fear of the common gay enemy.
As a shameless queen myself, I was brought up on strict Catholicism, but strayed after brilliantly sensing I wasn't that welcome in my own religion. Not only did the ruler-wielding nuns seem scarier than the flames of hell, but the church clearly wanted me to stay and be terrorized only if I'd admit I was a sinner and grovel for forgiveness. Given a choice between "immoral" nightclubs where people shrieked, "Girlfriend! You look fabulous!" and a place of worship where everyone snarled, "Heal your soul!" I chose the clubs and haven't looked back since.
John Paul couldn't have been too upset about losing one more messy miscreant. A 2003 document issued by the Vatican reminded the world that "homosexual acts go against the natural moral law." (So what, I always wondered, should someone growing up with gay feelings do? Get electroshock treatments? Become a priest? Or simply be honest about them and live as a papal disgrace?) The report compassionately took pains to add that "allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children." This from the church that silently condoned abuse of children for centuries.
The beloved pope was also dead set against the use of condoms to curb disease and unwanted pregnancy. After all, that would be acknowledging that humans actually have sex. Instead, the pontiff stood for the loftier goals of abstinence and/or marital monogamy, the kind of family values that, when preached too fervently, often result in scandal headlines. To further this no-nooky agenda, the church has long promoted the idea that condoms can cause disease more than they prevent it! Yes, listen to the Vatican and you'll believe that scumbags are inherently unsafe (gee, so is pushing abstinence or monogamy) and they actually encourage promiscuity (though the more scientific-minded tend to recognize that condoms don't cause sex any more than a coat brings on the cold).
To the pope so mourned on cable, any kind of contraception was an absolute no-no because it blocks children, as if the world is somehow lacking in people. (And if condoms don't work anyway, then what's the problem?) You'll recall that his recent book went so far as to equate abortion with the Holocaust because both are supposedly a result of usurping the law of God. So an indigent woman who considers aborting an unaffordable baby (which, let's say, exists because Mama wasn't able to use condoms, and has AIDS for the same reason) was suddenly Satan and Hitler combined.
And then there was the pedophilia-in-the-church scandal, which blew up in 2002 after decades of hush money payoffs and the transferring of accused child molesters to different parishes the way you'd move a rotting vegetable from the fridge to the freezer. The priesthood has long been a place for ashamed gays to hide (along with the truly devoted). In the old days, you usually couldn't make your Catholic family proud by coming out, but you certainly could do so by stuffing your sexuality, marrying God, and becoming a man of the cloth. The church loved the deception too—so much so that it turned a blind eye to the twisted intergenerational acts these self-loathing closet cases perpetrated while abusing their power. When it all finally exploded, the media erupted in GLAAD-protested reports that gleefully equated gay with evil, triumphantly playing right into the church's long-held theory that homos are bad people.
I'm certainly not rejoicing that the pope has passed on—I'm not a big fan of human suffering and death, even if it brings one closer to God. Still, it's hard to forget that John Paul's love of society's fringe characters always had a big but attached. You know, we care for PWAs, but they're in this predicament because they're sinners. We denounce gay bashing, but—according to official doctrine—"the proper reaction to crimes committed against homosexual persons should not be to claim that the homosexual condition is not disordered." Oh, yeah? Well, I think a lot of your moral decrees were disordered, O holy Father. I certainly loved you for the sanctity and uplift I kept hoping I could turn to you for. But . . .
Why one sinner can't cry for John Paul
The Village Voice
By Michael Musto
April 7th, 2005 5:27 PM
I'm surely going straight to hell if I say anything critical of the late pope John Paul II, but according to him, I was heading there in a handbasket anyway, so what the fuck. The truth is I am a bit fed-up with the wall-to-wall lionization of this man, who admittedly brought inspiration and faith to millions, but who also propagated some ancient, reactionary viewpoints that—just my humble fag opinion here—fanned the flames of widespread oppression, all in the name of God's will. Not since Ronald Reagan's death last year—when the dead prez became painted as a forceful, flawless leader, with nary a reference to his callous, longtime refusal to acknowledge AIDS deaths—has there been such a wacky whitewash of someone's controversial canon. This time around, all the cable channel phonies—few of whom have been known to live lives of quiet piety, especially the gays—took on a nauseatingly hushed, reverent tone as they indulged themselves in nonstop slobbering over the icon they exclusively portrayed as noble, divine, and even well accessorized.
As evidenced by the overwhelming response to his passing, the guy surely tapped into the hopes and dreams of loving throngs around the world, all fighting for hotel rooms in Rome. But as I've clicked the channels for days on end, I haven't heard a single person question the "man of the people" 's rabid anti-abortion stance, his aggressive anti-condom platform, or his intense demonization of gay marriage as "a new ideology of evil, perhaps insidious and hidden, which attempts to pit human rights against the family and against man." Of course maybe someone's death might not seem like the right time to say, "He furthered sexual guilt, disease spreading, and hate crimes," but actually, when there's exhaustive, weeks-long coverage of a man's life, what better time could there be? (At least a pundit on an ABC special did note that the pope may have disliked democracy as much as he hated Communism.)
The reality is that, as the world—and even the church—started inching forward and becoming more accepting, John Paul II tried to hold things together with a moral vise that often proved intolerant and unrealistic. As women gained more control over their bodies and gays developed some rights of their own, he was frantic to push down the progress by promoting absolute respect for human life, except for individualists and "deviants." This was no shock—religion has traditionally specialized in messages of love that double as tools of persecution, and fanatics have always picked sections of the Bible at random in order to oppress unpopular people, while ignoring other parts that might put a damper on their own fun.
Just recently, Christian, Jewish, and Muslim leaders all got together to denounce the upcoming Jerusalem WorldPride march and to agree on one thing—gays suck. The protest was an eye-popping reminder that so many of the different gods people pray to seem to have the very same queers-are-the-devil message. Even these groups' usual distaste for each other was effectively buried as they united in fear of the common gay enemy.
As a shameless queen myself, I was brought up on strict Catholicism, but strayed after brilliantly sensing I wasn't that welcome in my own religion. Not only did the ruler-wielding nuns seem scarier than the flames of hell, but the church clearly wanted me to stay and be terrorized only if I'd admit I was a sinner and grovel for forgiveness. Given a choice between "immoral" nightclubs where people shrieked, "Girlfriend! You look fabulous!" and a place of worship where everyone snarled, "Heal your soul!" I chose the clubs and haven't looked back since.
John Paul couldn't have been too upset about losing one more messy miscreant. A 2003 document issued by the Vatican reminded the world that "homosexual acts go against the natural moral law." (So what, I always wondered, should someone growing up with gay feelings do? Get electroshock treatments? Become a priest? Or simply be honest about them and live as a papal disgrace?) The report compassionately took pains to add that "allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children." This from the church that silently condoned abuse of children for centuries.
The beloved pope was also dead set against the use of condoms to curb disease and unwanted pregnancy. After all, that would be acknowledging that humans actually have sex. Instead, the pontiff stood for the loftier goals of abstinence and/or marital monogamy, the kind of family values that, when preached too fervently, often result in scandal headlines. To further this no-nooky agenda, the church has long promoted the idea that condoms can cause disease more than they prevent it! Yes, listen to the Vatican and you'll believe that scumbags are inherently unsafe (gee, so is pushing abstinence or monogamy) and they actually encourage promiscuity (though the more scientific-minded tend to recognize that condoms don't cause sex any more than a coat brings on the cold).
To the pope so mourned on cable, any kind of contraception was an absolute no-no because it blocks children, as if the world is somehow lacking in people. (And if condoms don't work anyway, then what's the problem?) You'll recall that his recent book went so far as to equate abortion with the Holocaust because both are supposedly a result of usurping the law of God. So an indigent woman who considers aborting an unaffordable baby (which, let's say, exists because Mama wasn't able to use condoms, and has AIDS for the same reason) was suddenly Satan and Hitler combined.
And then there was the pedophilia-in-the-church scandal, which blew up in 2002 after decades of hush money payoffs and the transferring of accused child molesters to different parishes the way you'd move a rotting vegetable from the fridge to the freezer. The priesthood has long been a place for ashamed gays to hide (along with the truly devoted). In the old days, you usually couldn't make your Catholic family proud by coming out, but you certainly could do so by stuffing your sexuality, marrying God, and becoming a man of the cloth. The church loved the deception too—so much so that it turned a blind eye to the twisted intergenerational acts these self-loathing closet cases perpetrated while abusing their power. When it all finally exploded, the media erupted in GLAAD-protested reports that gleefully equated gay with evil, triumphantly playing right into the church's long-held theory that homos are bad people.
I'm certainly not rejoicing that the pope has passed on—I'm not a big fan of human suffering and death, even if it brings one closer to God. Still, it's hard to forget that John Paul's love of society's fringe characters always had a big but attached. You know, we care for PWAs, but they're in this predicament because they're sinners. We denounce gay bashing, but—according to official doctrine—"the proper reaction to crimes committed against homosexual persons should not be to claim that the homosexual condition is not disordered." Oh, yeah? Well, I think a lot of your moral decrees were disordered, O holy Father. I certainly loved you for the sanctity and uplift I kept hoping I could turn to you for. But . . .
Thursday, April 07, 2005
LOL, Tom Delay A Martyr, Hardly
Delay and Company have just come off of 10 days of the worst in his political cereer. More trips revealved, family on payroll, promising to punish the judges in the Schiavo mess. When Dick Cheney says that he disagrees with Delay then you know he is on way way down and out. Here a note from Jamres Carville.
BTW, CLICK THE TITLE TO LINK TO DONATIONS TO HELP BRING TOM BOY DOWN IF YOUR BUDGET ALLOWS.
"It's nothing but a bunch of leftist organizations that have a public strategy to demonize me..."
-- Tom DeLay, casting himself as the victim in response to ethics accusations
Dear RAY,
Let me tell you, Tom DeLay is no martyr. The Republican-led Ethics Committee did not condemn him three times just last year because he is part of the "conservative movement." Two of his closest aides are not under indictment for money laundering because of their religious beliefs. The Wall Street Journal editorial page - normally the epicenter of GOP spin - did not call DeLay the "undisputed and unapologetic master" of influence peddling because of a grand Democratic conspiracy. And still no word from Tom on why the archconservative watchdog group Judicial Watch has asked him to resign from Congress altogether.
And yet at this very moment DeLay and his extreme right wing allies are boasting about their pathetic strategy to paint him as an innocent victim of circumstance, making clear that his recent publicity was just the opening salvo in one of the most cynical, hypocritical PR campaigns we've ever seen. If Tom DeLay's a martyr, I'm Goldilocks.
Just last week, DeLay told Americans concerned about ethics in their government to "bring it on." We've decided to take Tom up on his offer, and we'll be turning up the heat - but we need your help to fund our campaign!
The fact is that rather than even pay for his own sins, much less anybody else's, DeLay simply ordered his obedient rubberstamps in Congress to gut the Ethics Committee rules and remove the Chairman, Members, and even the staff that admonished him last year.
And he's got good reason to attack any avenue of accountability for his actions. One of his closest pals and associates, a lobbyist named "Casino" Jack Abramoff who has made his fortune trading on DeLay's name, is now being investigated for scamming several Indian tribes to the tune of $80 million.
In Republican circles, he's known as "Director of Travel for DeLay Inc." for his role in a slew of shady junkets for DeLay and his pals, all paid for by foreign agents, casino money, sweat shop advocates, you name it. He's now being investigated by the Justice Department and two Republican-led Senate Committees, along with his "partner in crime" Mike Scanlon - who wouldn't you know it, is a former spokesman and confidant for one Tom DeLay.
In truth, this spectacular scheme is just the tip of the iceberg for "DeLay Inc." For folks who follow Washington, it sure looks like DeLay uses his position to auction off legislation to the biggest donor, always at the expense of hard working Americans, and then funnels millions in shady campaign donations from the CEOs into Republican campaigns across the country. And once all of those "DeLay sponsored" Republicans get elected, they follow the rules and vote exactly how DeLay, Inc. tells them! Some racket, huh?
The plain fact is that the Republican Party has undergone a full out corporate merger with massive special interests, and Tom DeLay is the granddaddy of the whole operation.
But if we can keep exposing the Republicans on their "moral values" hypocrisy, we can lay the foundation to win a Democratic majority in 2006. You can help put Tom DeLay, Inc. out of business right now by spreading the word and forwarding this on to your friends. Thank you kindly, as always,
James Carville
BTW, CLICK THE TITLE TO LINK TO DONATIONS TO HELP BRING TOM BOY DOWN IF YOUR BUDGET ALLOWS.
"It's nothing but a bunch of leftist organizations that have a public strategy to demonize me..."
-- Tom DeLay, casting himself as the victim in response to ethics accusations
Dear RAY,
Let me tell you, Tom DeLay is no martyr. The Republican-led Ethics Committee did not condemn him three times just last year because he is part of the "conservative movement." Two of his closest aides are not under indictment for money laundering because of their religious beliefs. The Wall Street Journal editorial page - normally the epicenter of GOP spin - did not call DeLay the "undisputed and unapologetic master" of influence peddling because of a grand Democratic conspiracy. And still no word from Tom on why the archconservative watchdog group Judicial Watch has asked him to resign from Congress altogether.
And yet at this very moment DeLay and his extreme right wing allies are boasting about their pathetic strategy to paint him as an innocent victim of circumstance, making clear that his recent publicity was just the opening salvo in one of the most cynical, hypocritical PR campaigns we've ever seen. If Tom DeLay's a martyr, I'm Goldilocks.
Just last week, DeLay told Americans concerned about ethics in their government to "bring it on." We've decided to take Tom up on his offer, and we'll be turning up the heat - but we need your help to fund our campaign!
The fact is that rather than even pay for his own sins, much less anybody else's, DeLay simply ordered his obedient rubberstamps in Congress to gut the Ethics Committee rules and remove the Chairman, Members, and even the staff that admonished him last year.
And he's got good reason to attack any avenue of accountability for his actions. One of his closest pals and associates, a lobbyist named "Casino" Jack Abramoff who has made his fortune trading on DeLay's name, is now being investigated for scamming several Indian tribes to the tune of $80 million.
In Republican circles, he's known as "Director of Travel for DeLay Inc." for his role in a slew of shady junkets for DeLay and his pals, all paid for by foreign agents, casino money, sweat shop advocates, you name it. He's now being investigated by the Justice Department and two Republican-led Senate Committees, along with his "partner in crime" Mike Scanlon - who wouldn't you know it, is a former spokesman and confidant for one Tom DeLay.
In truth, this spectacular scheme is just the tip of the iceberg for "DeLay Inc." For folks who follow Washington, it sure looks like DeLay uses his position to auction off legislation to the biggest donor, always at the expense of hard working Americans, and then funnels millions in shady campaign donations from the CEOs into Republican campaigns across the country. And once all of those "DeLay sponsored" Republicans get elected, they follow the rules and vote exactly how DeLay, Inc. tells them! Some racket, huh?
The plain fact is that the Republican Party has undergone a full out corporate merger with massive special interests, and Tom DeLay is the granddaddy of the whole operation.
But if we can keep exposing the Republicans on their "moral values" hypocrisy, we can lay the foundation to win a Democratic majority in 2006. You can help put Tom DeLay, Inc. out of business right now by spreading the word and forwarding this on to your friends. Thank you kindly, as always,
James Carville
Monday, April 04, 2005
Identity theft scandals grow! Take action now!
I just sent an email to lawmakers in Congress urging them to clamp down on information brokers like ChoicePoint that put consumers at risk of identity theft because of lax security practices. I hope you will do the same.
Click on the link below (or click on the title of this entry) to send free emails to Congress:
http://www.financialprivacynow.org
Once you've sent your free email to Congress, please take a moment to forward this email to your friends and family and ask them to join us in taking action to protect consumers from identity theft.
Click on the link below (or click on the title of this entry) to send free emails to Congress:
http://www.financialprivacynow.org
Once you've sent your free email to Congress, please take a moment to forward this email to your friends and family and ask them to join us in taking action to protect consumers from identity theft.
Friday, April 01, 2005
SHAME ON HIM: Bush Toys With Black America Clergy
Preachers would leave us at the back of the bus
by Rev. Barbara Reynolds
NNPA Columnist
There was a time when Black preachers could be counted on to confront the ruling pharaohs of their day when the powerless were receiving a raw deal. But if Black folks had to depend upon today’s clergy for leadership, they would still be confined to the back of the bus.
At a time when Black America is in murky, troubled waters, too many of the Black clergy, especially those heading mega-churches, are either apolitical or apologists for the status quo.
The Rev. Clarence James, a social critic and author of “Lost Generation? Or Left Generation,” says the trouble with today’s clergy is there are too many priests and not enough prophets. “The priests are the servants of the privileged, criticizing little crimes at the bottom while ignoring those at the top. The prophets remind the rulers they are not exempt from the laws of God, but the priests are blinded by wealth and power.”
Recently a small group of conservative preachers (the priests) have been hotfooting it over to the White House. But these are not the kind to trouble the water. With no agenda that encapsulates the needs of Black America, they are in danger of being perceived as sell-outs.
One group is the newly established High-Impact Leadership Coalition, formed by Maryland pastor Bishop Harry Jackson. It has unveiled the Black Contract with America on Moral Values to gain more clout within the Republican Party. Bishop Charles E. Blake Sr., senior pastor of the 25,000-member West Angeles Church of God in Christ, and the Rev. Fred Price, pastor of the Crenshaw Christian Center are among the West Coast leaders of the movement, according to the Christian Examiner. Even the Right wing, anti-Black Heritage Foundation is organizing a group of Blacks to focus African-Americans on moral issues.
Jackson says the new movement supporting President Bush would return the Black church to its once-prominent place. That, of course, sounds reasonable only to Blacks suffering from amnesia. The Black church did not become Black America’s most significant institution through appeasement or accommodation. Black preachers brilliantly led opposition to slavery, Jim Crow and segregation and fueled the political movements resulting in electing more than 10,000 Black officials.
With so many issues plaguing African-Americans, the top issue for Jackson’s Black contract is fighting same-sex marriages. This provision was a successful strategy concocted by Karl Rove, Bush’s top gun, to throw enough red meat at evangelical Christians to have them running to vote for Bush. While the guys at the top split the wealth of billions in tax cuts, plus the booty flowing from Iraqi oil contracts, the little folks can occupy themselves with their butterfly nets chasing gays.
No matter what you think about same-sex marriages (I am against them), banning them as a top priority for Black folks is ridiculous. Are married homosexuals responsible for draining billions from health, education and housing for the poor to spend on blowing up Iraq? Are gays responsible for the failure to prevent the murder of thousands of Black Christians dying in Sudan? No, the genocide could be stopped if Bush used his clout in the UN Security Council to send troops to Sudan that could drive the murderers out.
Gay marriages are something that the president can afford to spend rhetoric on because it doesn’t cost him a dime, but for Black America it is a diversion we cannot afford.
When the Black conservatives talk to Bush, I bet they do not mention access to higher education for Blacks because that would embarrass Bush, who has aggressively opposed affirmative action, including two cases involving the University of Michigan.
I bet they do not talk about the budget, a moral document reflecting the values paid for in taxes and in the blood of our daughters and sons in the U.S. military. The current budget, projecting a $427 billion deficit, with its severe cuts in social programs and tax cuts for the rich, is so immoral you’d think the preachers would be rising up in outrage, but little church mice make more noise than most religious leaders.
Where are the pointed questions coming from those bragging about dining with the president? Why, when North Korea defiantly announces it has weapons of mass destruction, did Bush look the other way but instead attacked an oil-rich country with no weapons of mass destruction that had not attacked America?
Since they have so much clout inside the White House, why are the Black preachers not telling the president that since Black America depends more on Social Security in their senior years for survival than Whites, the system cannot be left to the mercy of his rich friends on Wall Street.
Are these well-heeled preachers telling the president that while Washingtonians, many of whom are African-Americans, are dying and being wounded in Iraq, they have no vote in the U.S. House of Representatives nor the Senate.
So while so much is threatening our survival, many of our nation’s clergy are busy cracking down on gay marriages. Do you want to laugh or cry?
Rev. Barbara Reynolds, the religion columnist for NNPA, is an author of four books, including “Out of Hell & Living Well: Healing from the Inside Out,” and a graduate of the Howard University School of Divinity and the United Theological Seminary, where she earned a doctorate degree in ministry. She can be reached at www.reynoldsnews.com.
by Rev. Barbara Reynolds
NNPA Columnist
There was a time when Black preachers could be counted on to confront the ruling pharaohs of their day when the powerless were receiving a raw deal. But if Black folks had to depend upon today’s clergy for leadership, they would still be confined to the back of the bus.
At a time when Black America is in murky, troubled waters, too many of the Black clergy, especially those heading mega-churches, are either apolitical or apologists for the status quo.
The Rev. Clarence James, a social critic and author of “Lost Generation? Or Left Generation,” says the trouble with today’s clergy is there are too many priests and not enough prophets. “The priests are the servants of the privileged, criticizing little crimes at the bottom while ignoring those at the top. The prophets remind the rulers they are not exempt from the laws of God, but the priests are blinded by wealth and power.”
Recently a small group of conservative preachers (the priests) have been hotfooting it over to the White House. But these are not the kind to trouble the water. With no agenda that encapsulates the needs of Black America, they are in danger of being perceived as sell-outs.
One group is the newly established High-Impact Leadership Coalition, formed by Maryland pastor Bishop Harry Jackson. It has unveiled the Black Contract with America on Moral Values to gain more clout within the Republican Party. Bishop Charles E. Blake Sr., senior pastor of the 25,000-member West Angeles Church of God in Christ, and the Rev. Fred Price, pastor of the Crenshaw Christian Center are among the West Coast leaders of the movement, according to the Christian Examiner. Even the Right wing, anti-Black Heritage Foundation is organizing a group of Blacks to focus African-Americans on moral issues.
Jackson says the new movement supporting President Bush would return the Black church to its once-prominent place. That, of course, sounds reasonable only to Blacks suffering from amnesia. The Black church did not become Black America’s most significant institution through appeasement or accommodation. Black preachers brilliantly led opposition to slavery, Jim Crow and segregation and fueled the political movements resulting in electing more than 10,000 Black officials.
With so many issues plaguing African-Americans, the top issue for Jackson’s Black contract is fighting same-sex marriages. This provision was a successful strategy concocted by Karl Rove, Bush’s top gun, to throw enough red meat at evangelical Christians to have them running to vote for Bush. While the guys at the top split the wealth of billions in tax cuts, plus the booty flowing from Iraqi oil contracts, the little folks can occupy themselves with their butterfly nets chasing gays.
No matter what you think about same-sex marriages (I am against them), banning them as a top priority for Black folks is ridiculous. Are married homosexuals responsible for draining billions from health, education and housing for the poor to spend on blowing up Iraq? Are gays responsible for the failure to prevent the murder of thousands of Black Christians dying in Sudan? No, the genocide could be stopped if Bush used his clout in the UN Security Council to send troops to Sudan that could drive the murderers out.
Gay marriages are something that the president can afford to spend rhetoric on because it doesn’t cost him a dime, but for Black America it is a diversion we cannot afford.
When the Black conservatives talk to Bush, I bet they do not mention access to higher education for Blacks because that would embarrass Bush, who has aggressively opposed affirmative action, including two cases involving the University of Michigan.
I bet they do not talk about the budget, a moral document reflecting the values paid for in taxes and in the blood of our daughters and sons in the U.S. military. The current budget, projecting a $427 billion deficit, with its severe cuts in social programs and tax cuts for the rich, is so immoral you’d think the preachers would be rising up in outrage, but little church mice make more noise than most religious leaders.
Where are the pointed questions coming from those bragging about dining with the president? Why, when North Korea defiantly announces it has weapons of mass destruction, did Bush look the other way but instead attacked an oil-rich country with no weapons of mass destruction that had not attacked America?
Since they have so much clout inside the White House, why are the Black preachers not telling the president that since Black America depends more on Social Security in their senior years for survival than Whites, the system cannot be left to the mercy of his rich friends on Wall Street.
Are these well-heeled preachers telling the president that while Washingtonians, many of whom are African-Americans, are dying and being wounded in Iraq, they have no vote in the U.S. House of Representatives nor the Senate.
So while so much is threatening our survival, many of our nation’s clergy are busy cracking down on gay marriages. Do you want to laugh or cry?
Rev. Barbara Reynolds, the religion columnist for NNPA, is an author of four books, including “Out of Hell & Living Well: Healing from the Inside Out,” and a graduate of the Howard University School of Divinity and the United Theological Seminary, where she earned a doctorate degree in ministry. She can be reached at www.reynoldsnews.com.
A Letter From Nancy Pelosi through the DCCC
Dear Ray,
Democrats in Congress are in a battle for the very soul of our nation with Republicans whose arrogance and abuse of power have made a mockery of the US House of Representatives. As House Democratic Leader, I should know.
We must ask ourselves, do we want to adopt corruption, indifference to suffering, and contempt for democracy as American values? Will we allow the progress America has made over the past five decades under Democratic leadership to be erased in a few short years by an extreme right-wing Congress run amuck?
The Republicans in the House of Representatives, Senate, and White House are awash in scandals involving everything from bribery and intimidation on the House floor to vicious attacks on America's most vulnerable. Are these the "moral values" that the Republicans like to crow about?
They are not my moral values.
The 2006 elections are closer than you think. At this very moment, the stage is being set and it is vital that the DCCC have the funding it needs to fight back against the onslaught of Republican propaganda and funny money. We must be able to put the Republicans on the defensive where they belong.
By contributing to the DCCC today you're sending a message that the American people will not stand by as Republicans try to turn back the clock on all that we have accomplished as a nation.
The Republicans' arrogance and abuse of power has risen to new heights in this 109th Congress. Never before has the institution of the House of Representatives - which is suppose to represent all of the American people - been used so cynically by one party to protect their own power. We need to put them back in their place, and with your help, we will.
For just a few examples of Republicans' abuse of power...
The Assault on Social Security. Social Security is the most popular, most successful government program in history, and now the Republicans are attempting to turn this New Deal program into a raw deal that would reduce benefits by up to 40% while adding trillions to the debt. A new study from President Bush's own Yale University informs us that 71% of recipients would likely lose out through privatization, and yet Republicans charge on without a care.
A Reverse Robin Hood Budget. President Bush and House Republicans are pushing a budget that will shortchange housing, education, and veterans while heaping even more tax cuts on the extremely wealthy and handing out the few sacred preserved lands that belong to all of us as prizes to their political contributors in the oil industry. Nowhere is our government's morality tested more starkly than in the hard numbers of the federal budget, and this year's proposal fails this test miserably.
The Gutting of Medicaid. Bush and House Republicans have targeted the social program providing the most basic health care to struggling Americans, with a staggering $40 billion cut that will have repercussions for virtually every state in the union. The Republicans hope to dismantle our great social contracts, destroy our very moral fabric, and make America into a country that leaves its most vulnerable destitute - even as tax giveaways for the super rich are given the highest priority.
Leading an Unethical Government. Judging by the steady stream of ethical scandals revolving around Republican House Leader Tom DeLay, involving everything from bribes and intimidation on the House floor to junkets paid for with millions in extorted casino money, ethics must somehow be the opposite of moral values. This comes after three separate ethical condemnations last year and the looming threat of indictment for shady corporate fundraising in Texas. But rather than curtail his corruption or humble himself, Tom DeLay along with his loyal rubberstamps in Congress have simply rigged the ethics rules to protect him and purged from the ethics committee the Chairman, Members and staff who held him accountable last year. The American people do not conduct their lives in an ethical vacuum and our Representatives should not either.
These are not representative of my moral values and I am sure they aren't yours. In fact, they're an affront to the values of tens of millions of Americans who believe their government should work for all-not just the well connected and the very wealthy. We are for progress, we are for REAL reform, and we will not tolerate attempts to turn back the clock on our beloved country and our democracy.
In the last Congress, House Republicans became the most arrogant, unethical and corrupt majority in modern Congressional history. Tragically, this profoundly immoral behavior is continuing without a pause in the first few months of this Congress.
Thank you so much, and I look forward to fighting along side you.
Sincerely,
Nancy Pelosi
House Democratic Leader
Democrats in Congress are in a battle for the very soul of our nation with Republicans whose arrogance and abuse of power have made a mockery of the US House of Representatives. As House Democratic Leader, I should know.
We must ask ourselves, do we want to adopt corruption, indifference to suffering, and contempt for democracy as American values? Will we allow the progress America has made over the past five decades under Democratic leadership to be erased in a few short years by an extreme right-wing Congress run amuck?
The Republicans in the House of Representatives, Senate, and White House are awash in scandals involving everything from bribery and intimidation on the House floor to vicious attacks on America's most vulnerable. Are these the "moral values" that the Republicans like to crow about?
They are not my moral values.
The 2006 elections are closer than you think. At this very moment, the stage is being set and it is vital that the DCCC have the funding it needs to fight back against the onslaught of Republican propaganda and funny money. We must be able to put the Republicans on the defensive where they belong.
By contributing to the DCCC today you're sending a message that the American people will not stand by as Republicans try to turn back the clock on all that we have accomplished as a nation.
The Republicans' arrogance and abuse of power has risen to new heights in this 109th Congress. Never before has the institution of the House of Representatives - which is suppose to represent all of the American people - been used so cynically by one party to protect their own power. We need to put them back in their place, and with your help, we will.
For just a few examples of Republicans' abuse of power...
The Assault on Social Security. Social Security is the most popular, most successful government program in history, and now the Republicans are attempting to turn this New Deal program into a raw deal that would reduce benefits by up to 40% while adding trillions to the debt. A new study from President Bush's own Yale University informs us that 71% of recipients would likely lose out through privatization, and yet Republicans charge on without a care.
A Reverse Robin Hood Budget. President Bush and House Republicans are pushing a budget that will shortchange housing, education, and veterans while heaping even more tax cuts on the extremely wealthy and handing out the few sacred preserved lands that belong to all of us as prizes to their political contributors in the oil industry. Nowhere is our government's morality tested more starkly than in the hard numbers of the federal budget, and this year's proposal fails this test miserably.
The Gutting of Medicaid. Bush and House Republicans have targeted the social program providing the most basic health care to struggling Americans, with a staggering $40 billion cut that will have repercussions for virtually every state in the union. The Republicans hope to dismantle our great social contracts, destroy our very moral fabric, and make America into a country that leaves its most vulnerable destitute - even as tax giveaways for the super rich are given the highest priority.
Leading an Unethical Government. Judging by the steady stream of ethical scandals revolving around Republican House Leader Tom DeLay, involving everything from bribes and intimidation on the House floor to junkets paid for with millions in extorted casino money, ethics must somehow be the opposite of moral values. This comes after three separate ethical condemnations last year and the looming threat of indictment for shady corporate fundraising in Texas. But rather than curtail his corruption or humble himself, Tom DeLay along with his loyal rubberstamps in Congress have simply rigged the ethics rules to protect him and purged from the ethics committee the Chairman, Members and staff who held him accountable last year. The American people do not conduct their lives in an ethical vacuum and our Representatives should not either.
These are not representative of my moral values and I am sure they aren't yours. In fact, they're an affront to the values of tens of millions of Americans who believe their government should work for all-not just the well connected and the very wealthy. We are for progress, we are for REAL reform, and we will not tolerate attempts to turn back the clock on our beloved country and our democracy.
In the last Congress, House Republicans became the most arrogant, unethical and corrupt majority in modern Congressional history. Tragically, this profoundly immoral behavior is continuing without a pause in the first few months of this Congress.
Thank you so much, and I look forward to fighting along side you.
Sincerely,
Nancy Pelosi
House Democratic Leader
A Fine Tribute To The Life Of Terri Schiavo
I have read so many articles on this subject pre and post death. This from The New York Times is, in my opinion, a beautiful tribute to her and to all of us as we are challenged to make arrangments for our health care as we face death.
April 1, 2005
The New York Times
EDITORIAL
Theresa Marie Schiavo
ne of the most astonishing things about the human experience is the realization that loved ones die. The first time it happens, we are invariably amazed that nearly everyone who has ever lived has weathered an experience so wrenching. We see other humans on the street and in the shops and marvel that they manage to simply go about their business - that there is no constant, universal primal scream in the face of such an awful fact.
That level of grief seldom brings out the noblest emotions. The sufferers can barely make their way through the day, let alone summon their best reserves of patience and compassion for the lucky people who continue to live. In the case of Terri Schiavo, the whole world witnessed what happens when that natural emotional frailty is taken captive by politics.
It was awful, and according to the polls, the American public shrank from the sight of it.
What little we know about Terri Schiavo - the person, as opposed to the videotape - tells us that she would have been appalled by the last weeks of her life. What worse nightmare could a rather shy and affectionate young woman conjure up than 15 years of lingering unconsciousness, in which the entire globe became intimately familiar with the sight of her wasted limbs while the people she loved most engaged in a vicious court fight for control of her body?
That kind of ordeal - even if the victim was unaware she was enduring it - deserves to be honored with some meaning. On the most pragmatic level, she has been the instrument of thousands, and probably millions, of intimate conversations in which family members told one another what they would like to happen if their own bodies outlived their minds. In countless other cases, people recalled the days on which they had said goodbye to loved ones, and perhaps many came closer to peace in dealing with their own great losses.
Americans are a deeply pragmatic people, who constantly surprise ideologues of every persuasion with their willingness to accept whatever solution seems to work best at the moment. Our great ideals, when they are boiled down at a moment of crisis, often turn out to be mainly instincts - for fairness, for the right of individual self-determination or sometimes just for the pursuit of happiness. Watching the Schiavo case unfold, most Americans quickly opted for the solution that would end the ordeal.
Some people hold religious convictions so heartfelt that they could not bow to public opinion or the courts and accept the conclusion that Ms. Schiavo should be allowed to die. They deserve respect, just as her husband and her other relatives deserve sympathy.
Those relatives also deserve to be left alone, to be protected from a spotlight that turned a family tragedy into an international spectacle of sometimes shocking vulgarity and viciousness. The case attracted outsiders in search of little more than another opportunity to further their own self-aggrandizement. But worst of all were the powerful people who looked at the world we live in today, in which politics is about maximizing hysteria at the margins, and concluded that the Schiavo fight was a win-win - for everyone but the people who actually cared about the dying woman.
Today, finally, there is a moment of consensus. Rest in peace, Theresa Marie.
April 1, 2005
The New York Times
EDITORIAL
Theresa Marie Schiavo
ne of the most astonishing things about the human experience is the realization that loved ones die. The first time it happens, we are invariably amazed that nearly everyone who has ever lived has weathered an experience so wrenching. We see other humans on the street and in the shops and marvel that they manage to simply go about their business - that there is no constant, universal primal scream in the face of such an awful fact.
That level of grief seldom brings out the noblest emotions. The sufferers can barely make their way through the day, let alone summon their best reserves of patience and compassion for the lucky people who continue to live. In the case of Terri Schiavo, the whole world witnessed what happens when that natural emotional frailty is taken captive by politics.
It was awful, and according to the polls, the American public shrank from the sight of it.
What little we know about Terri Schiavo - the person, as opposed to the videotape - tells us that she would have been appalled by the last weeks of her life. What worse nightmare could a rather shy and affectionate young woman conjure up than 15 years of lingering unconsciousness, in which the entire globe became intimately familiar with the sight of her wasted limbs while the people she loved most engaged in a vicious court fight for control of her body?
That kind of ordeal - even if the victim was unaware she was enduring it - deserves to be honored with some meaning. On the most pragmatic level, she has been the instrument of thousands, and probably millions, of intimate conversations in which family members told one another what they would like to happen if their own bodies outlived their minds. In countless other cases, people recalled the days on which they had said goodbye to loved ones, and perhaps many came closer to peace in dealing with their own great losses.
Americans are a deeply pragmatic people, who constantly surprise ideologues of every persuasion with their willingness to accept whatever solution seems to work best at the moment. Our great ideals, when they are boiled down at a moment of crisis, often turn out to be mainly instincts - for fairness, for the right of individual self-determination or sometimes just for the pursuit of happiness. Watching the Schiavo case unfold, most Americans quickly opted for the solution that would end the ordeal.
Some people hold religious convictions so heartfelt that they could not bow to public opinion or the courts and accept the conclusion that Ms. Schiavo should be allowed to die. They deserve respect, just as her husband and her other relatives deserve sympathy.
Those relatives also deserve to be left alone, to be protected from a spotlight that turned a family tragedy into an international spectacle of sometimes shocking vulgarity and viciousness. The case attracted outsiders in search of little more than another opportunity to further their own self-aggrandizement. But worst of all were the powerful people who looked at the world we live in today, in which politics is about maximizing hysteria at the margins, and concluded that the Schiavo fight was a win-win - for everyone but the people who actually cared about the dying woman.
Today, finally, there is a moment of consensus. Rest in peace, Theresa Marie.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
