by El Zorro Viejo (aka; Jim)

OK, the first thing is that one can't scream that Terri Schiavo's life is precious and then go out and support the death penalty. Either all human life is sacred or it isn't. As soon as you make one exception, the door is open. As a society we cannot insist that Mrs. Schiavo's life be extended and then turn around and execute people. People, it is either one or the other. On this one you can't have it both ways. Now, before anyone decides what my position is on this question, let me say that I support the death penalty as long as there are adequate safeguards to ensure we, as a society, never execute an innocent. My view is that the true social predators need to be removed from society, and, if said predator has taken human life/lives intentionally, then his/her life is forfeit. And as far as Mrs. Schiavo and similar cases go, I'm in favor of accepting the judgment of our medical shamans. My view is that, if we do have souls that go someplace when our physical bodies die, it is time to let them get on with...whatever souls do after the body dies. If we don't have souls, then our being is resident in the brain--so if the brain is irreparably damaged, it is time to say our good-byes and, again, get on with life. In any event, the politicians should get the hell out of the picture...especially the fucking hypocritical Republicans.

But why, you may ask, are the Republicans singled out for their hypocrisy. Well, when George Bush says, "We in government have a duty to protect the weak, disabled and vulnerable...", when his administration has been working both consistently and persistently at doing just the opposite, I think somebody should challenge him on this. (For purposes of this argument, I classify the "environment" as being among the "weak" since it cannot defend itself from Mr. Bush's rapacious friends.) The consistent agenda of the the Republican White House and Congress has been to give more power and control to the already rich and powerful at the expense of all the rest of us; but most especially at the expense of those least able to fend for themselves. The new bankruptcy laws, the attack on Social Security, the dismantling of the "social safety net", the so-called "tax reforms" that benefit the rich while penalizing all the rest of us...and the list goes on and on. (Historically, btw, George Bush signed death warrants in Texas for at least one person who was, by all expert testimony, so mentally impaired that he was incapable of understanding what he had done: George killed him anyway. He also killed people who had used their incarceration to reform their lives, to accept responsibility for their actions, and to sincerely repent.) Until the Republicans start thinking about the weak and vunerable, they have no business doing what they did over this past weekend.

My granddaughter is three years old. I want our elected leaders to think about protecting her...and her future...rather than how to line the pockets of the rich with more and more money. I want her world to have wild places where nature, untrammelled by man, is left to enrich the world. I want the playing field she has to compete upon to be "level" for all competent citizens. And I want the incompetent protected from predators. Again, I come back to the Terri Schiavo affair. While she is about as pure an example of "incompetent" that one can find, the recent actions by the Congress and President are not "protecting" her. At best, they are protecting her parents who cannot bring themselves to say good-bye to their daughter. Even though they know, in their hearts-of-hearts, that she is irrevocably gone, they just cannot seem to be able to let go. As far as I can see, allowing Terri to die would not be doing her a disservice. At worst, she is allowed to complete the journey she began fifteen years ago: the journey her mind has already completed. At best her soul is released from the cage her flesh has become. In either event, there is no "harm" being done to Terri. Finally, if her parents are so selfish that they really can't let their daughter go, then her support and care should be entirely their responsibility: no insurance, no public support, no outside support other than voluntary contributions. If they get solace out of visiting the lump of flesh that was once their daughter, then the cost of maintaining said lump of flesh should be borne by them and by them alone.

In any event, my prayers (for what they are worth) are with all the principles in this sad, sad affair.

'Nuff said"

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License. ©El Zorro Viejo 2002-2005