What the F--k! Arizona?

I try not to be an emotional person but as I scrolled through the pictures of the shooting in Arizona yesterday (January 8th) I could not help myself. It is a tragedy on many different levels: a domestic terrorist attack resulting in the deaths of six people, including a 9-year-old girl; an attack on an elected official and member of the judiciary; and an indicator of the extreme hate and violence currently present in American politics. Tea Party supporters and those of the far right have been quick to state that the gunman (Jared Lee Loughner) was not a member of the Tea Party movement; that the Tea Party does not espouse violence; and that the left will blame the Tea Party and far right for the shooting in order to put politics first. Of course, when the Tea Party puts politics first it's a completely different matter:

“While we need to take a moment to extend our sympathies to the families of those who died, we cannot allow the hard left to do what it tried to do in 1995 after the Oklahoma City bombing,” he wrote. “Within the entire political spectrum, there are extremists, both on the left and the right. Violence of this nature should be decried by everyone and not used for political gain.” (from this article at The New York Times)

What needs to be remember now is that, yes, the Tea Party and far right do not officially condone violence or violent methods, but that does not mean they do hold responsibility for inciting violence. Sarah Palin's website included Gabrielle Gifford's (the congresswoman targeted and shot) district in a gun's cross hairs; Glenn Beck has warned that "it is only a matter of time before an actual crazy person really does something stupid" and "the war is just beginning", or, even more darkly, "[we are reaching] a point where the people will have exhausted all their options. When that happens, look out." Seriously, what the fuck? Regardless of whether Mr. Loughner was a member of the Tea Party movement or any other political faction is largely beside the point when violent rhetoric has become par for the course in American politics. It is not sufficient to claim innocence and hide behind the First Amendment: if you encourage and promote violent means to ends then you are indirectly responsible for the violence that may ensue. As my friend Foxy by Nature recently pointed out, the First Amendment does not protect against speech that causes harm to others. The Tea Party movement and far right may not have been directly involved in yesterday's shooting, but that does not absolve them from filling today's political climate with the "vitriol" that led to deadly violence. Until that responsibility is accepted, I do not think the violence is over.

Nuke 'Em!

When I read the op-ed piece by John Bolton and John Yoo (about the New START treaty with Russia involving, what else?, reducing and better controlling nuclear arms) I thought I mistakenly eaten some psychadelic mushrooms: it is surreal. I had to step away halfway through because, for a moment, I thought they were arguing within today's reality - they're not! To claim that the treaty would reduce America's capacity to defend itself when actually the States would retain over 1,550 nuclear warheads is ridiculous. There aren't even 200 countries in the world and only 7 - 7! - have nuclear arms. Say what?  The first paragraph really does say it all:

  Voters want government brought closer to the vision the framers outlined in the Constitution, and the first test could be the fate of the flawed New Start arms control treaty, which . . .  awaits ratification. The Senate should heed the will of the voters and either reject the treaty or amend it so that it doesn’t weaken our national defense. 

I read that connection as such: People love red Twizzlers therefore clothing manufacturers should only produce red textiles. Doesn't really flow, does it?

I can't deride their fantasy with any justice; luckily, Fred Kaplan over at Slate can. Read it, please, and remember you are as sane as you thought you were yesterday.

American Apathy

Go on over to Al Jazeera and read this piece by Mark LeVine (who, by the way, has also written some fascinating essays on modern genocide) and allow the message to sink in. I admit that I do my best to distance myself from the problems currently besetting the States - shameful though it may be - but it is still disheartening to recognize how apathetic the nation has become. Worse, those who do speak out against injustice - of the government, the war(s), corporations or what-have-you - are labeled as modern-day communists, people living on the extremes of sanity and rationality and therefore not to be trusted. True, protesters in the 60s were similarly labeled, but I believe there existed an undercurrent among the general public that those people, those who spoke out, were actually on to something. Now people fear to stand out, to be counted among those whose words and actions make them "America haters", because who knows what will happen then. I sound as though I am fear-mongering, but I don't think we are far from another House Un-American Activities Committee. Hell, the Texas school board recently voted that Joseph McCarthy should be positively highlighted in new textbooks. What the fuck?

Election Day Blues

Millions of Americans are voting today. For the past two days I mentioned the elections, giving reasons both for and against voting, but today I filled with sadness over the emptiness of elections and the elected officials they bring to office. In today's New York Times there is this opinion article by Frank Rich describing how the Tea Party movement has enabled the GOP to maintain and, in some cases, strengthen its hold on politics. The most telling quote comes from Senator Mitch McConnell: "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president." How can that make you want to do anything other than weep? That sentiment means two years of political deadlock, with the president unable to pass anything through Congress and Congress refusing to offer bills palatable to the president. Never mind about what might be best for citizens as long as politicians retain their hold on power, the ruling party is ousted, and lobbyists and corporations continue to cash in. A new Gilded Age is either here or right around the corner, with money being the only political power with any weight. Who will our Teddy Roosevelt be?

Vote! . . . Or Don't

For those in the States, midterm elections are on Tuesday, so this is my public service announcement to all eligible and registered to vote. Or not, if you so choose.

It doesn't seem right to encourage others to vote when I am no, due to technical reasons (where I am even registered at this point? Is that state voting?) and personal: in 2004 I voted for the best of a bad situation and refuse to do so again. The campaign finance system is more corrupt than ever, lobbyists hold more sway than ever, and politicians can't agree on how to make America move forward. They just know they hate each other.

So vote if you believe your chosen candidates will be effective or if there are referendums on the ballot that you feel are important; otherwise, don't. "Not voting" also counts as practicing democracy.

Pledge to America: Still Empty

The Huffington Post has an interesting article on the Republican's recently unveiled "Pledge to America", which includes the lofty provision of spending control. However, it seems the "Pledge" excludes references to Social Security and Medicare, which together take the heftiest chunks from the federal budget (behind defense spending, of course) and benefit the main supporters of the GOP (the elderly and white working-class). If Democrats and liberals are so despised because of their "elitism" and "intellectualism", can someone find down-home way to explain that "spending control" can have negative effects?

Oh, also a way to explain that cutting back on Federal spending doesn't include cutting back on the defense budget or financing a ridiculous and unwinnable land war in (southwest) Asia (over one trillion dollars since 2001. Trillion with a "T"!) $100 billion dollars a year. Could we try to reign that in first?

Continuing Effects

I am preparing my next post on genocide theory, but while waiting for that let's consider the continuing effects of genocide:

The vice-president of Rwanda's Green Party was found dead just a few days ago. The police claim he was robbed, but as his wallet and money were not taken from him and he was found "nearly beheaded", it's more likely he was targeted as an opposition figure. This happened approximately one month after another opposition figure, Faustin Kayumba Nyamwasa, was shot in Johannesburg, and also a month after the journalist who accused the Rwandan government of attempting to assassinate Nyamwasa was himself shot and killed.

So Rwanda is perhaps not as safe as it is touted to be, but what does this have to do with genocide? Everything, actually: Paul Kagame endlessly uses the Rwandan genocide as an excuse for any actions the government and army take that are considered questionable or illegal. This includes invading DRC in order to plunder its mineral wealth; closing newspapers and blocking opposition parties from registering for the presidential elections; and assassinating opposition members. But before you speak up and openly accuse Kagame of such oppressive practices, remember that he and the RPF liberated Rwanda from a devastating and particularly brutal genocide while the rest of world looked away.

However, considering that Kagame and the RPF invaded Rwanda in order to take control of the government and the country - and once the genocide began, continued with this plan, clearly avoiding areas where massacres were occurring - how long can we be expected to turn on our backs on such obvious displays of fascism? Taking power by force is one thing - of course the US can't be too critical about that - but sixteen years later it's time to let the political process normalize.

And stop guilt-tripping people who dare criticize your actions - the honeymoon ended long ago.

Image courtesy www.altnation.com

Betsy McCaughey is full of shit. Yes, this is a rant.

Because AFN aired the Daily Show episode with Betsy McCaughey last night (again) I have decided it's time to throw in my two cents.

McCaughey claims that, according to the bill, doctors are awarded quality points based on consultations with patients concerning living wills and whether or not patients adhere to those consultations. As she reads it, this means that a doctor's score could lower if a patient does not adhere to the wording in their living will - and this is bullshit, because it is almost impossible to quantify. I could make a living will right now and, god willing, not have to use it for another 40 or 50 years - by which time my original doctor will either be dead or no longer practicing medicine. If I decide to go against the will what can Medicare do, retroactively lower my doctor's quality rating?

Rather, the purpose of the bill is to have doctors strongly encourage their patients to make living wills because of the time, money and heartache saved in the future. Their quality points will be based on whether doctors have the conversations; if those conversations include all the required talking points; and if they follow the schedule, having a living will discussion with a patient every 5 years.

Because the bill lists what doctors must discuss, including resuscitation, sustenance, hydration, McCaughey feels - actually, I'm not exactly sure what her problem is here because she never quite details it. Somehow discussing life-sustaining procedures in detail - which is what those elements mentioned above are - gives doctors too much decision-making power in life or death situations. After all, when "most people" are healthy they are all for "pulling the plug", not wanting to exist in a vegetative state and all that, but when the time comes (if a situation occurs where their living will takes effect) they might feel differently and want to change their minds.

Of course, when the time comes the person in the coma is unable to change their mind, hence the reason for the living will. Also, who are these "most people"? Did McCaughey take a survey of people in comas to determine how they felt beforehand? Did she ask five of her colleagues? Could she possibly be making a baseless assumption?

As for the detailed language - ok, let me admit that I am a strong supporter of living wills, even more so of living trusts. After my mom's death took the family by surprise my father had a trust created. It included details, exhaustive details, about finances and medical possibilities such as in a coma but responsive, in a coma but unresponsive, and listed exactly what my father would want done in each situation. For example, if he ended up in an unresponsive state: I do not want artificial means keeping me alive. I want to be provided with food and water sufficient to keep my body performing and medicine, if necessary, to keep my free from pain, until my body naturally expires. So, no ventilators or anything like that, just let me die painlessly and with a bit of dignity. I'm sure it was worded better in the legal document, but you get the idea. Obviously "most people" don't want to imagine anything so horrible happening but the living will is there just in case it does. "Most people" probably also don't realize how many contingencies there can be. A living will, then, provides a sort of death insurance.

But for McCaughey, the living wills clause is disgusting because doctors are (according to her) penalized if patients or their families - and wait, there's the real issue: families. It's not a matter of the patient in the coma changing their mind - they can't; they're in a coma - it's the fact that families will not have any say. It's the son who can't believe his mother wouldn't want to be kept alive at all costs; the husband not wanting to let go of his comatose wife; or the parents selfishly keeping their daughter as a vegetable for 12 years because they refuse to believe she would want anything different. Of course, Terry Schiavo didn't have a living will, only the word of her husband, but even is she did it's possible her parents would have challenged a will court.

A living will allows you to choose either life or death. You can decide that you what to kept alive with all possible means and with any future medical breakthroughs; or you can decide to just peacefully expire, regardless of what others believe should happen. Pro-choice at its finest.

No wonder the fanatic right is foaming at the mouth. Nevermind that Palin and others endorsed living will consultations while they are in the local/ state spotlight - they were just looking out for their constituents. But to support anything seemingly pro-choice on a national level - a clause that allows an individual to make decisions about their bodies - now that's just disgusting.