Any Matter, Any Time
Randall Terry was right Friday about exactly this much: We're seeing what a G.O.P.-led House is made of — again, I'd add.
Thought I'd seen plenty Thursday afternoon as I watched what turned out to be Hour 7 of the House Government Reform Committee's hearings on baseball.
"Rule 10, Clause 4C2 gives us the ability to hold a hearing on any matter at any time," committee chair Tom Davis said the Sunday before the inquiry. "We're the major investigatory committee of Congress."
On Thursday, Davis, on the behalf of his committee, reminded the nation and its ballplayers that "Our primary focus remains the message that's being sent to" — you guessed it — The Children.
The ballplayers, said Davis hours later, "have an opportunity today to either clear their name or take public responsibility for their action, and perhaps offer cautionary tales to our youth."
Generously, Dennis Kucinich — a Democrat, it must be said — paid forward his final minutes of "face" time to the ballplayers, whom he invited, in English and Spanish (for Sammy), to "speak directly to America's youth."
Steroids? They agin'em! Canseco too, rat tale best-seller to the contrary. And 'til you've seen Gold Glover Rafael Palmiero field questions about which is worse for America — ballplayers betting on baseball or ballplayers juicing (hint: play with steroids, lose it all) — well, let's just say Rafy, 'though he came up in the end with the right answer, his game ain't softball.
Our Congressional Pasttime
No longer amused by playing with a presumably innocent man's livelihood, the committee on Friday — at Jeb Bush's and the congressional leadership's behest — began playing a sick game with the lives of Terri Schiavo and her husband, Michael, threatening him and his irreperably brain-damaged wife with congressional subpoenas — states' rights , the Schiavos' rights , and simple decency be damned.
Any matter. Any time.
The Senate , it must be said, also is deep into Florida's and the Schiavos' business, and that as I'm writing this on Sunday morning, Bill Frist appears to be the face of the G.O.P.'s prying eyes.
Party history, like any forgotten history, is doomed to be repeated. Frist, should he linger too long on the front line of the culture wars, will learn his history the hard way come a presidential campaign.
And it'll be his loss.
Eyes Without a Face
The front line's a fine line that Congress — the Democrats and the Republicans — walk with us. We're always looking out for outrage, especially when we can get indignant without even getting up from in front of the TV.
Democrats play mad, sure — Missouri's William Lacy Clay, he's so honked he wants Mark McGwire's name off a highway! — but since the mid-'80s, whether it's Darling Nikki, Sister Souljah, or Grand Theft Auto, Dems have stuck to little-d demagoguery, and quietly quit while they're ahead.
No Q - U - I - T in the G.O.P. — unless it's over Medicaid or Social Security or, y'know, a federal issue.
Hey, we all love a damned shame, the dirtier the better. Did you hear? Michael Schiavo's got a girlfriend, and they've got kids, and they're all rich because his wife's a vegetable.
And there's fewer of us who'd say that to his face then there are watching Fat Actress.
When we think for five minutes like people living face-to-face in the real world instead of as the faceless, heartless, mindless viewership into which citizenship has deevolved, we know this much about the Schiavos: They're nobody's business, least of all the United States Congress'.
And while we all love to hate facelessly from home — whether it's Michael Schiavo, McGwire, Hillary, or Slick Willie we want thrown under our moral bandwagon — our bandleaders, our surrogate scolds? Scolds, them sooner or later we just plain hate.
Buchanan. Starr. Gingrich. C'mon, look at 'em (if you can find them). That's not us, what we're about. What you do and who you do it with, when and where you did it, whether you really love each other, your life, that's not our business — that's our entertainment!
Really. They're not us.
Frist forgets at his political peril what the faces of Republicans Past mean to us when we look at ourselves and see what we'd rather see than somebody like them, looking long and hard for somebody somehow worse than we are.
They Never Forgot
Two elephants, at least, remember the lessons of the '92 convention and the Clinton impeachment.
Jeb, looking for all the world like he's simply done all he could do, he'll be remembered for this outside Florida for Terri's Law — his "by-the-book" and "The Good Book" bonafides ready-made for '08.
And then there's the Master of the House, I wouldn't know him if he hit me with a hammer: Not-Newt himself, Tom DeLay.
Newt was the speaker, you see. DeLay's not, that's that teddy bear, Denny Hastert. DeLay's the leader, at least for the moment.
He's no Newt, simply because with Newt we knew where he stood: in your face at all times, 'til America told him his time was up.
DeLay and the House looked, learned, and left him in the shadows. And for all the hell DeLay's raised from Texas backrooms to Terri Schiavo's bedside, what's he look like?
Exactly.
So here's Tom DeLay.
Here's our business.
Take a long, hard look into the matter.
Any time.
7 comments:
The Shiavo matter is very compelling because any time the State steps in to decide who lives and who dies we all should take pause. A real discussion as to how something like this should be resolved is desperately needed. Perhaps Hydrablog can lead the way...
There are two aspects to this - the practical (should this woman be kept alive or be allowed to die) and the procedural (the precedent setting legacy of the final decision).
To be honest I haven't thought too much about the latter, I'm more concerned with the people involved in this struggle. But I hope someone does delve into the procedural for the sake of considering limits to setting policy based on one case.
The issue here is who gets to decide? Terry left no written instructions which, of course, would have settled everything. You have a husband with much to gain from Terry's demise and a family with much to lose. Why does it strike anyone as fair to take one person's statement and trump those of several others? The reality is that it has not been established that Terry wants to die any more than it has been established she wants to live.
Who makes this call? You have parents and siblings who have been caring for this woman for years. The people on whom the burden falls want to continue. You have a husband who has moved on with his life, which is fine, who says this must end. Why would he say that? And why now? He carries none of the burden. Does he have anything to gain? He does - a new marriage and perhaps some money. What does the family gain from saving Terry? More nursing and care taking...more work.
I have no idea what, objectively, is the correct answer because I have no idea what Terry wants. Neither does anyone else. But how horrifying a thought to watch along with a family as their child and sister slowly dies a preventable death, dies because one man claims to be her spokesman. And that man is the only one with anything to gain from her death.
Someone explain to me the victory that we should celebrate if Terry dies.
Feeling for the Schindlers and Terri Schiavo's siblings above all else, to that you're entitled.
And, yes, none of us can say irrefutably whether Terri Schiavo would have chosen to prolong a life like hers.
But if anyone in lieu of a living will is to be entrusted with the awful responsibility of letting a wife live or die, it's a husband — even Michael Schiavo.
My wife knows more about me than anyone, and if there's anyone I would leave my living or dying up to, it's her.
At this moment, those are my last wishes, such as they are, and should I drop brain-dead at the end of this sentence, the thought that my wife after parsing through the words above in court would have to pass the moral test of you or anyone, or demonstrate after 15 years that she still loved me more than my mom or dad do (let alone as much and as well as Tom DeLay says she should) before she could do with me what she says I would want is — to put it mildly — unacceptable.
It should be no less so for Michael Schiavo.
Here are my thoughts on the practical and the procedural.
Practical: I have to admit what I’m betting no one in congress will, I haven’t read on spec of real data on this. By real data I mean witness testimony, exhibits, judicial decisions, etc. All I know I know from the pretty talking heads on my TV, and what little I recall from the St. Pete Times. But I do think it’s misleading to state that the husband’s opinion should be discounted because of potential monetary gain. If that were the case then anyone who has a will or a life insurance policy automatically exempts those people whom they gifted (and thus presumably love/trust/care for the most) out of the decision making process. Can money motivate someone to make an immoral decision? Absolutely. But “monetary gain” can also be a massive red herring. The question here is, is it irrelevant to the decision, or is it the crux. I don’t know. Only the husband does. It could also be argued that the parents are holding on despite the grim reality that Terry is gone, and is never coming back. I can’t imagine a more terrible event than facing that horrible situation, but is that the case? Is the parent’s emotional, and completely understandable, position keeping Terry’s spirit/soul/essence from reaching its destiny? Depending on your beliefs, maybe. To the best of my knowledge Terry’s doctors have declared her to be in a permanent vegetative state. She’s not blinking out her wishes, and her heart only beats because of the feeding tube. So is she “alive” now, and will she “die” when the feeding tube is taken out? Whole ‘nother topic. This will sound crass, but the Guinness Book of World Records has an entry about a chicken that had its head cut off but “lived” for weeks while the owners put chicken feed down its exposed throat. So who gets the last vote here? It makes sense that the parents/sister should decide because they’ve taken the burden. However, if the husband loves/loved his wife, it also makes sense that he fights for what he believes is best for his wife. I believe that the husband makes this terrible call. Maybe they talked about in bed, or over one of those “questions that make you think” games. Is this perfect? Nope. There’s a 50/50 chance that whoever decides will get it wrong. At the end of all analysis of the people and motives involved, that percentage doesn’t change. Maybe the husband pulls the plug for the cash, but it is what Terry would want. Maybe the family keeps her alive because they think involuntary reactions to balloons are signals, and in five years a cure is found. Even with the wrong motive, the right call may be made. 50/50, flip a coin and you’ll get just as likely chance of getting it right. There’s not a greater message of life, if she would want the tube pulled. There’s not a greater message of euthanasia if she would want a chance at recovery. It just 50/50, and a terrible situation for all family involved. All of which leads me to the procedural part of the question.
I have no idea why Congress took this over. Sometimes I think the New Liberal Party (or GOP) acts like a high school girl. “I can fix this” seems to be the mantra. What law will they write? All I know is whatever comes out of this will be messed up. But now that it’s before them I hope it looks like this: The spouse decides. Our society seems to value the spouse as a person’s closest relationship, and that relationship is protected by law. A spouse cannot be compelled to testify in court, and a spouse is assumed to acquire the deceased estate at death absent any formal declaration to the contrary. This isn’t perfect, and some spouses will act immorally. But on the whole, I bet most spouses will act in the best interest of the injured. What if there is not spouse? Then I take the abortion approach and give the final call to the mother. After that? Well these things used to get decided on a case by case basis in the courts, but since Congress decided to overrule that method (Judicating from the hall again), I don’t know what to do. Estranged cousin? First former spouse? What if brother and sister disagree? How about daughter and son. First born? What if the brother wants to keep someone alive, but can’t afford it? How about John Does? This is one situation that socialized medicine would make easier. If it were on the states dime, then we would just keep everyone alive absent a living will. But I shudder to think that you get to live if you have insurance or cash, and I have to die because I don’t. It used to be, “Well that’s the way it is.” But this case changes that. In the end, I cannot speak for others. I would want the tube taken out. I also bet a study would show that overwhelmingly American’s on an individual level feel the same way. I’ve never heard anyone say, “Keep me breathing in a permanent vegetative state, no matter what.” What I do know is that I do not want my body paraded around so the political maggots can begin their feast before I’m even in the ground.
Long post…sorry.
As far as steroids. I think the DEA busting 10-15 top baseball players would do more to derail steroid use than any amount of testing. This is a crime issue, not Congressional. But the NLP knows no bounds. As M3k noted, any time any place.
I think it is a wonderful thing that Mike3000 can put all his faith and trust in his wife. And it is most heartening to believe that many others are in a similarly blessed situation. I wish that it were true for all people. Please forgive my cynicism when I say all people aren't, and it would be over simplifying to say catagorically only spouses can decide.
I agree with Unknown that monetary benefit is not enough to question someone's motives. I think you have to consider the full picture. In the 1992 suit against the physician who treated his wife before her cardiac arrest Mr. Schiavo testifies to the jury that he will use the award to provide care for Terry for as long as he lived. Seven years later his tune changed and he was suing for the right to let Terry die. Did Terry's wishes change in those 7 years? No, but Mr. Schiavo's did. If he knew all along that Terry's wishes were to leave this world rather than remain in her current state, why did he only share that detail after he had moved on with a new relationship?
This is why I see the spouse default as flawed. This spouse has clearly moved on. The courts would define this as "estranged". He has a new family apart from his wife. Even if he is a good man, can we trust that he can make decisions in Terry's best interest if they infringe on his own?
And in a related pondering: Am I alone in having a hard time making sense of a world that fights for the right to slowly starve an innocent woman to death while calling the execution of a 17 year old murderer "cruel and unusual".
This is such a brutal case. I like the unknowns point about spousal rights but the more fundemental question, and I think it is a politcal one, is the dramatic change in societal priorities. The sanctity of life has been the core principal of our culture and that is being replaced by quality of life. Quality of life is the honest pro choice, pro euthanasia rational.
As a rule, I believe that the rights of the individual should trumpted the rights of society as a whole. Prevention against the tyranny of the majority versus greatest good for greatest number of people. But i'm not so sure on this case.
On narrower grounds, A feeding tube doesn't strike me as an extrordinary measure and miracles do happen but 16 years is an awfully long time.
Can't we just talk about school vouchers?
Post a Comment