Sunday, March 20, 2005

Threats on the judiciary aren't surprising

The New York Times* today has an article on threats to the judiciary. No kidding. And why shouldn't criminals threaten court officials? It's the same behavior we see today in U.S. foreign policy.

The criminals are saying "I'm right and you're wrong. Do what I say or someone will kill you." How is that different from "You're either with us or against us" as President Bush put U.S. policy on terrorism? If it's good enough for the country, why isn't it good enough for everyone else?

I'm sure Mr. Bush would say it's because he's the elected leader of the most powerful country in the world, but that does not excuse uncivilized behavior. We are heading toward -- if we haven't already arrived at -- a might makes right, your wrong because I'm right, society. Tolerance and working together are hanging by a thread, because we and our leaders are embracing an ethic of no compromise and no retreat.

If this continues, we will all either be belligerent bullies imposing our will on others, or spineless slaves doing the bullys' will.

Compromise is an American value I'd like to see more of inside and outside of government.

*I do read papers other than the Times.

Saturday, March 19, 2005

Freedom? Sure, as long as I agree with your choices.

Congress has decided to invite (read: subpoena) a woman who has been in a persistent vegetative state for 15 years. Why? If I'm being charitable, I might say it's because our Senators and Representatives are concerned with Terri Schiavo's rights.

In my less charitable moments, which when it comes to Congress is most of the time, I say these political opportunists are taking advantage of a family's tragedy and making it worse. Bad enough that this poor woman is a vegetable, and her parents and husband are at odds over whether to let her die (I can certainly see both sides in this argument), but to have politicians using her as a cause is despicable. Particularly when these upstanding public servants are arguing against some of the basic principles they choose to tout when it serves their purpose.

The federal government should not interfere in decisions that belong to the states, many conservatives say. Unless, of course, the states aren't making the "right" decisions. And, individuals should be able to make their own decisions about their health care, unless they don't make the "right" choices.

Who's leading the fight? According to the New York Times: "For Republicans, it was a chance to try to carve out new territory in the "culture of life" issues so paramount to passionate religious conservatives, who have flooded Congressional offices with messages beseeching help in keeping Ms. Schiavo alive."

You can read "religious conservatives" as Christian conservatives. You can have freedom of religion as long as you make decisions that are acceptable to the Christian right.

And the Democrats are doing it, too. They want to show that they have moved to the center and are good people that should be re-elected.

I guess freedom isn't an American value after all.