NOW DECIDE
WHO'LL GET
"THE PILL"
to filling
birth-control
prescriptions
won't even transfer it to another pharmacy when time is of the essence."
McDonald's to pay rappers $1 - $5 when they are
mentioned in songs on radio
59 American Ex-Diplomats Join in Opposition to
UN nominee Bolton
FACE DEFEAT IN SCHIAVO CASE
"Wanted" posters for their vote against a second
"Terri's Law."
"I advocate the use of force to rescue Terri Schiavo
from being starved to death. I further advocate the
killing of anyone who interferes with such rescue."
Police Showdown! Near-Constitutional Crisis--in
Schiavo Case
| Priority News |
| Look Around |
| MQAblog |
Dr. William Cheshire is in fact a leading member of the
Christian right-to-life movement who has never performed a
medical exam on Mrs Schiavo
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
by the right wing is emerging once
again. You know how it works. First
they come out with demands: that
Government be made smaller;
abortions be made illegal; or more
recently that Terri Schiavo be kept
alive. They protest, generate
pressure on politicians and claim
their beliefs are indisputably
backed up by the constitution, the
bible or some other "super
document". Usually they get much
of what they want. Clinton said the
era of big government is over,
funding for any organization with
the slightest connection to abortion
is targeted and court after court
(and politician after politician)
move to reinsert Schiavo's feeding
tube.
But when a belief system is so
absolute, as with conservatives,
even getting most of what you want
is not enough. And sadly, through
American history, these are those
forces more than willing to consider
violence to get their demands met.
Oklahoma City was a result of a
hatred toward "big government".
The abortion bombings and doctor
shootings were meant to intimidate
those who dared follow US law over
"God's law". And now with the
Schiavo case we see an inner
domestic terrorist tendency come
out. First there was Randall Terry,
infamous for his vicious attacks on
women who feel the need to
terminate a pregnancy, leading
protest that shook congressional
Republicans and the Bush Brothers
into action. Then we have Red
media hosts entertaining the idea of
circumventing the law to save Terri
Schiavo's life. Next, JEB Bush, days
after failing to convince a judge with
a medical quack, apparently
prepares to send in the state police
to confront the local police. Think
about it. The Governor of Florida's
cops preparing to attack other cops
and to 'kidnap' the poor women. All
despite the fact that our legal
system has repeatedly found that
she should be left alone. One local
cop, facing the prospect of attack
from other law enforcement was
said to have nervously joked
"whether we had enough officers to
hold off the National Guard".
What country are we in again?
Now we see threats against the
judges and doctors in the case and it
seems only a matter of time that the
next right wing domestic terrorist
will use violence to forward the
agenda. The time for politicians to
stop pandering to these nut cases is
long past but the moment to point
out their pattern of behavior can
come none too soon.
Let me be clear. I am not saying all
Republicans condone domestic
terrorism (or the threat of it's use).
But those who vote Red are helping
to empower this small but critical
bloc of the GOP. It is time to face
the facts. The most influential
segment of the Republican party
has no use for the laws of the United
States unless they directly match
their beliefs and desires. If they do
not - they feel completely justified
to take any means necessary to get
their ways. In this case it is the
unprecedented legislative actions of
Bush and Congress, the forwarding
of fake "experts" to justify illegal
actions and now the consideration
of a "kidnap Schiavo" plan by the
State Police. But no matter how
much we appease these people they
will not rest until they get what they
everything want. So be horrified but
not surprised when violence,
encouraged and justified by the
right wing, is used once again as by
those determined to keep hold of
their Red America.
FROM BUSH 'EXPERT'
“The views expressed by Dr. Cheshire in the case of
Terri Schiavo do not represent the opinion of the
Mayo Clinic or its Departments of Neurology. Mayo
Clinic recognizes that the standard of care for the
evaluation of a comatose patient includes a detailed
review of the patient’s history and previous
evaluations as well as the performance of a
comprehensive neurological examination".
of Presidents approval ratings
Bush heaps praise on School Guard killed in shooting
Bush failed to mend fences with Mexico/Canada
Trash TV head set to take over Fox
Military Hospital
| Top Picks |
K
G
| COUNTDOWN TO OPENING DAY |
| Featured Columnist |
That has always been the dirty and not-so-little secret of our governance. Both Democrats and Republicans, both liberals and
conservatives, have always wanted bigger and more powerful government. They want activist and interventionist government.
The only difference has been a debate over when, where and how that government should intervene. In this case, our rulers can
play both physician and God.
Was the great conservative, Ronald Reagan, the president who said he would get government off our backs? Yes, he did, as he
ran up more deficit spending than all the 39 men who proceeded him in that most powerful of offices. He borrowed that money to
finance bigger government, particularly a bigger military. Yes, he did hate government bureaucrats, or at least the idea of them,
but he never seemed to understand that a bureaucrat by any other name was still a bureaucrat, even in uniform.
If someone else had been in the Oval Office during those years, he would have glorified the public sector in other ways. A liberal
Democrat might have raised taxes rather than mortgaging the earnings of children and grandchildren yet unborn, perhaps spending
the money on universal health care or public education or AIDS research. But the result, viewed from the top down, would have
been the same: more power at the top.
Are the Republicans in power now? Oh, yes. Hard to remember who they are -- or used to be -- when the party's platform last
year boasted of a 29 percent increase in government spending during the first term of George W. Bush. At one point the
Republican platform, commenting on federal education spending -- No Child Left Behind and all that -- bragged that it represented
"the highest percentage gain since Lyndon B. Johnson."
At that point, some smart intern reminded a boss that the conservative idea was to roll back the works of LBJ. The wording was
duly eliminated, changed to "... since the 1960s."
The most important real difference between the parties these days is the Republicans' aggressive Onward Christian Soldiers
crusade for what they consider God-approved virtues and values. Paternalism of the highest order. It is that commitment (or
strategy) that led the president and his men to react to the Schiavo dilemma by embracing a couple of preached old vices, the
dominance of central government and judicial activism. What is the point of having the power of government without using it?
Actually, in the last couple of heady years, conservatives have been talking about some of this. Having seized power with artful
judicial activism after the 2000 election, they are coming to a consensus about using it. "Big Government Conservatism" is the
term of art, apparently coined by Fred Barnes of The Weekly Standard, who wrote last year:
"Sure, some conservatives are upset because he (George W. Bush) has tolerated a surge in federal spending, downplayed swollen
deficits, failed to use his veto, created a vast Department of Homeland Security, and fashioned an alliance of sorts with Teddy
Kennedy on education and medicine. They (the Bush administration) simply believe in using what would normally be seen as
liberal means -- activist government -- for conservative ends. And they're willing to spend more and increase the size of
government in the process."
That really is the reason we have come to this politics of values, the politics of imposing the victor's values on friends and foes
alike. The government is big. The government is arrogant. The government is intrusive. The only difference now is what the
holders of the power of the moment choose to do with it -- and to us.
