Right Wing Nut House

Tonight at the Oscars, in addition to the usual speeches thanking mothers, fathers, friends, co-workers, hairdressers, and dog groomers. we’re probably going to hear the occasional anti-American, anti-Bush rant about Iraq.

This is fine. It is, after all, Hollywood. And Hollywood as we all know is a place of dreams; not to mention a place of self-absorbed, self-obsessed, drug-addled nincompoops with a collective I.Q. not much larger than the number of steps in an alchoholic rehabilitation program. Couple this with a child-like faith in their own intellectual and moral superiority and what will be on display tonight will be American liberalism at its finest. Or, in Hollywood jargon, kind of like Mary Poppins meets The Hunchback of Notre Dame with our Hollywood heroes flying in to do battle with the ogrish George W.

So, while the children on stage complain, sniff, grumble, and rant, the grownups have been busy really changing the world.

CAIRO, Feb. 26 - President Hosni Mubarak asked Egypt’s Parliament on Saturday to amend the Constitution to allow for direct, multiparty presidential elections this year for the first time in the nation’s history.

On the face of it, the unexpected proposal from Mr. Mubarak, a former Air Force general who has ruled Egypt unchallenged since 1981, represents a sea change in a country with a 50-year history of one-party governments.

(NY Times 2/27/05)

Who woulda thunk it?

Mubarak took this action one day after American Secretary of State (and new international sex kitten, if you believe the Washington Post) Condi Rice cancelled a planned trip to Egypt in protest against the arrest of a democracy activist:

Ayman Nour, head of Al Ghad, a newly approved political party, was imprisoned on Jan. 29 on allegations of forging some 2,000 signatures to gain a license for his party last year. He denies the accusation, and government critics note that his continued detention seems to undermine the president’s commitment to greater democracy.

Everybody on the planet can see the obvious connection. Mubarak, an inveterate survivor, sees the handwriting on the wall as country after country in the region breaks for democracy.

And Cairo isn’t the only Capital where the siren song of participatory government is being sung. Lebanon, a nation that’s seen more than a quarter century of sectarian strife is now uniting behind the idea of evicting their long-time oppressors and occupiers, the Syrian army:

JERUSALEM — The U.S. led war against terrorism and its advances in Iraq and Afghanistan have enhanced the climate in the Middle East and will enable the international community to force Syria to withdraw its troops from Lebanon likely by May, former Lebanese Prime Minister Michel Aoun told WorldNetDaily today in an exclusive interview.

“The U.S. and EU are backing us in our movement to free Lebanon,” said Aoun, speaking to WND from France. “They are interfering through diplomacy and threats of sanctions, and the situation is such today that Syria must comply. If the U.S. and Europe follow through, Syria will be obliged to withdraw before Lebanese elections in May.”

(WND: 2/25/05)

Columnist Thomas Friedman, sometime supporter of Bush’s mid-east policy, is encouraged:

After the Hariri murder, Lebanese just snapped. Lebanon became the story of a broad majority of Lebanese Christians, Muslims and Druse no longer willing to remain silent, but instead telling the Syrians, and their Lebanese puppet president, to “go home.” Lebanon went from a country where few dared whisper “When will Syria leave?” to a country where nearly everyone was shouting it, and Syria was having to answer.

What liberals from Hollywood to Harvard Yard are going to have to start dealing with is the possibility that, once again, they’re wrong. They’ve been wrong so often over the past 2 years (hell, over the past quarter century) that, if they were studio executives, their record would have required them to be fired for gross incompetence.; kind of like Oliver Stone’s “Alexander” meets Michale Cimino’s “Heaven’s Gate.”

From “Afghanistan can never have democracy” to “elections will never be held in Iraq,” liberals haven’t only been wrong, they’ve been clueless. The world wept as Afghani women, who until recently were beaten to death if they went uncovered in public, emerged from polling places having exercised their right to vote. And can anyone forget the tears of joy shed by Iraqi citizens as they raised their purple-stained fingers to the sky in triumph following their election last month?

Elections in Palestine, democracy roiling in Lebanon, Egypt now in lock-step, rumblings in Syria, the radioactive mullahs getting more and more nervous…all of this is a direct result of the policies initiated by George Bush and the United States government (Hat Tip: U.S. Military).

Looks like the makings of a real blockbuster.

I read this letter reproduced in part below courtesy of And Rightly So and realized how old fashioned I truly am. You see, I have something of an outdated sentimentality about patriotism, love of country, and an admiration for the United States military.

It’s hard being patriotic in public. Write something nice about the United States on your blog and you’re likely to get a Ward Churchill wannabe telling you what an evil dupe you are…or worse. This is fine. We call this free speech. Even if that speech is hurtful and deliberately designed to inflict pain (giving the lie to the term “compassionate liberal”) the kids referenced in the letter below are fighting and dying for their detractor’s right to spout their bilious hatred to their heart’s content and not have to worry about being lined up against a wall and shot or sent to a gulag-like prision for “re-education.”

This only makes me admire them more.

There are times when all of us have had second thoughts about this war. Mine have had to do with the young men and women we’re asking to fight. On more than one occasion I’ve taken George Bush to task for trying too hard to carry on “business as usual” as our people are fighting and dying over there. I can understand the political necessity of the strategy. After all, when you enemies are so bitterly hateful and are looking for any opening at all to tear you apart like a piece of raw meat in a shark tank, you tend to downplay your political vulnerabilities. That was John Kerry’s problem in the last election. Bush made Kerry’s position(s) on Iraq the issue, not the war itself or Bush’s handling of it.

Good strategy…but done partially at the expense of our warriors over there.

By not calling on us to sacrifice much, I believe in a way, the President demeans the sacrifices of our men and women in Iraq. But what kinds of sacrifices could be relevant? Many liberals want to raise taxes to pay for the cost of the war. If the present pace of spending on Iraq keeps up and if the threat from Iran and North Korea doesn’t lessen in the next 18 months, the moonbats are going to have company. I can guarantee that fiscal conservatives will be up in arms if we keep spending $18-20 billion a month on the war effort as we are now without an equal cut in expenditures on the domestic side. And those cuts will cause pain and involve real sacrifice.

Which brings me back to these kids and the sacrifices they are making:

I have never seen anything like this. Trucks and Humvees that looked like they had just come through a shredder. Their equipment was full of shrapnel blast holes, and missing entire major pieces that you could tell had been blasted by IEDs. These kids looked bad too! I mean, sunken eyes, thin as rails, and that 1000-yd. stare they talk about after direct combat. Made me pretty damn embarrassed to be a “rear area warrior”.

All people could do was stop in their tracks and stare… and feel like me…like I wanted to bow my head in reverence. A Marine Captain stationed with me, was standing next to me, also headed to the gym. He said, “Part of 1st Brigade Combat Team, 8th Marines, sir. Took the heaviest losses of any single unit up north as part of Task Force Danger, sir.”

As the convoy rolled up, all of us watching just slowly crept toward these kids as they dismounted the Hummers and 5-tons. Of course, we were all shiny and clean compared to these warriors. This kids looked like they had just crawled from Iraq. I had my security badge and ID around my neck, and started to help them unload some of their duffle bags.

A crusty Gunny came up to me and said “sir, you don’t have to do that…” I said, “Gunny…yes I do…” They all looked like they were in high school, or younger!! All held themselves sharply and confident, despite the extreme fatigue you could tell they had endured. “You guys out of the triangle?” I asked. “Yes, sir.” 14 months, and twice into the grinder, sir” (both fights for Fallujah).

Read the whole thing here.

We here at The House take seriously our responsibilities to inform, educate, and propagandize the public-to the extent that anything I say or do has any relevance to anyone other than Significant Otherhawk and my large, extended family.

That being said, I feel it necessary, as a public service, to post this excellent test from Spacemonkey over at Frank J.’s.

Top 10 Indicators You May Be Left of Liberal

10. You never could throw your full support behind John Kerry once you found out his first name is found in the Bible, of all places.

9. One of the few reasons you couldn’t bring yourself to assasinate the president is you’d have to actually buy a gun.

8. Your opinions and values carry more weight than those that oppose you, because you care.

7. To save money you bought an effigy of Bush made of asbestos. You later returned it when you realized ‘the bush burned with fire, but the bush was not consumed.’ is ALSO found in the Bible.

6. You believe the death penalty should be abolished…after it’s applied to those that support it.

5. You believe that any news service that doesn’t keep ‘Bush is EV1L Incarnate’ as its lead story is undeniably linked to a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.

4. Four years later and you are STILL protesting outside the Broward County Courthouse for Gore-Lieberman 2000.

3. You have made a sign which you carry to every protest that just says ‘NO!’. It’s written in your own blood from when you carved ‘I’m Sorry, World’ on your forehead.

2. You acknowlege the ‘Vast Right Wing Conspiracy’ exists and is inherently evil but often lose sleep at night worrying there are smaller ‘Widespread Right Wing Conspiracies’ that need to be stamped out too and aren’t getting the attention they deserve.

And the number one Indicator You May Be Left of Liberal….

1. You strongly believe cannibalism is wrong. Not because it takes a human life but because it’s…meat.

Marvin is in the House!

WHO SLEPT WITH GANNON? (By Marvin Moonbat)

One of my major responsibilities as a member of the Reality Based Community (RBC) is to speculate on repugnut wrongdoing and then announce my findings before any evidence is found.

While this may sound a little odd, I would direct your attention to the debate over global warming. Or the obvious White House involvement in the 9/11 conspiracy. We in the RBC never let subjective things like “facts” get in the way of our search for truth. First of all, if we did that we wouldn’t have much of a case, would we? But more to the point, it’s important how you feel about an issue. This is what separates us from you unfeeling, uncaring wingnuts. Emotions play a vitally necessary role in uncovering the truth.

For instance, I can feel the truth surrounding the Jimmy Jeff scandal. I don’t have any evidence about some of these things yet, but know them to be true because I believe them to be. Sort of like “wishful thinking” except its better because being a member of the RBC, I’m endowed with an insight and intelligence far beyond what any wingnut would consider to be “average.” It sort of places me in a special, self-selected “aristocracy of the mind.”

Pretty cool, huh?

So I’m looking at this Jimmy Jeff scandal and saying to myself “Marvin, something isn’t quite right here.” Here you’ve got this gay escort with no journalism credentials working for a partisan rag who uses an assumed name and gets a White House press pass to lob softball questions at the President’s Press Secretary Scott McClellan. That just simply isn’t fair. Why there must be dozens of White House reporters who’d love to ask McClellan questions…you know, important, non-partisan ones like “Is the President upset with the fact that he’s murdered a million Iraqi’s and has the blood of 1500 American soldiers on his hands?

Just once I’d like to hear a reporter ask as good non-partisan question like that!

Anyway, it’s got to be obvious to anyone with half a brain-like those of us in the RBC-that Jimmy Jeff had to be sleeping around to get this kind of treatment. The only question is who? Here’s my list of probables:

Karl (The Blade) Rove

I know that by mentioning his name, I’m probably going to have my mail opened and my hard drive searched, but can anyone doubt that Karl Rove is intimately (chuckle) involved in this scandal? Nothing that goes on in the White House (or the world for that matter) is beyond Rove’s Machievellian reach. It stands to reason that since no woman would ever sleep with him (he’s pretty ugly after all) Rove has to get his jollies from somebody, somewhere. Who better than a fake newsman? In typical Rove fashion, he kills two birds with one stone. He gets a partisan hack into the press room while playing a little slap and tickle on the side.

I heard he met Jimmy Jeff in a gay Republican chat room on the internet. His handle was either “The Blade” or “The Prince.” I’m still investigating.

Dick (”Big D”) Cheney

Dick Cheney has been called “A Man’s Man” for more reasons than one! It’s obvious he swings both ways. He is, after all from Wyoming. What else is there to do in frickin’ Wyoming for God’s sake!

Piece of evidence #2; Did you ever notice that Cheney is never in the White House Press Room? He’s just too clever by half! He knows that if he ever showed up in the Press Room and the reporters saw he and Jimmy Jeff looking at each other they’d know right away that the two of them were havinga little tete a tete, so to speak. (Hee Hee!) We in the RBC are particularly good at discovering links when there’s no evidence to support them.

I think that Jimmy Jeff met Cheney at a White House Christmas party last year after Rove had tired of his little “boy toy” and passed him on to his old buddy Dick. It makes sense. Again, it’s Rovethink. He gets Cheney involved in a homo relationship and then gets to hold it over his head if Cheney tries to step out of line.

Brilliant!

The Smirking Bonobo

Well…why not? In case you didn’t know, Bonobos are closely related to chimapanzees but have a different social structure. They use sex to solve problems in the group. Sort of like Chloe and me. Whenever we have a problem, we screw like rabbits for three days. By the time were exhausted, we’ve forgotten what we were fighting about…or at least I’ve forgotten about it. I’m not so sure about Chloe…

Sex and power…that’s what its all about. Doesn’t matter if its with a woman or a man, everyone knows that Presidents have sex with everything and everyone. It’s the way they maintain dominance. You’ve heard the rumors about Condi and Georgie? Well, why not Georgie and Jimmy Jeff? Besides, there are other rumors I’ve heard. How about Georgie and Rummy? How else can you explain our Chimp in Chief keeping Donnie as Secretary of Defense? Or Georgie and Alberto. I mean, why else would the President name a Hispanic as Attorney General? Everyone knows wingnuts hate Hispanics. It’s got to be something else.

There are other rumors about our chickenhawk President that I’m checking out right now. If any of them pan out into full blown unwarranted speculation, I’ll let you know.

Raven at And Rightly So is a medical professional who cares for the aged and chronically ill. Although I didn’t ask her, from her commentary on the following “Exit Protocol” (Ravens comments follow the ~ sign) she appears to have some experience in being present when feeding tubes are either removed or “clamped off.” With permission, I’ve reprinted her post on what it’s like to starve to death.

NOTE: If you’re at all squeamish, I suggest you NOT read the following.

This “Exit Protocol” is a recipe for how to kill someone by starvation and dehydration, and then manage their symptoms while they slowly die.

For instance, the nurses will put lip balm on Terri because her lips will crack, peel, and bleed from the dehydration.
~And her mouth will not open after a day or two…the aides will pry it open to do oral care. They’ll do a good job with it though.

They’ll use body lotion because Terri’s skin will begin to break down and show signs of flaking, drying, cracking, or being parched.
~Hopefully they’ll use a nice scented lotion so Terri can have stimulation. The aides will never forget the smell.

They’ll put a “scopolamine patch” behind her ear to enhance the drying up of saliva and other secretions.
~Can you imagine how your mouth would feel?

“Chux pads” will need to be used-and changed quite often because of incontinence of Terri’s bowels and bladder.
~Only for a few days. Then there will be nothing left to void. Ever had a UTI? That’s what it will feel like.

When Terri begins to writhe in pain (multifocal myoclonus) and she becomes agitated from metabolic changes and electrolyte imbalances due to no fluids or nutrition, the attending staff will have to give her 5 to 10 mg of Valium (diazepam)-rectally-every 4 hours.
~Ha. This will only “cure” the movements, not the pain. She will still have tears.

If Terri experiences a Grand Mal seizure, they’ll give her 15 mg of Valium immediately, and then as needed thereafter.
~Ever have a seizure? It’s not fun. And they can kill you.

When her body shows signs of an inability to breathe by gasping for air (dyspnea), they will immediately give Terri 2 to 4 mg of morphine every 4 hours.
~And the morphine will cause her respirations to decline even further, thus aiding in the process of her death.

And all of this will go on for 7 to 10 days…
~Maybe longer.

For those who think that the Terri Schiavo matter is a “Right to Die” issue, you simply must read the following from the “Voice for Terri” blog:

If you’ve heard about Terri only through the news media, you’ve probably been led to believe that Terri is in a coma… that shes brain dead…that she’s a vegetable… that she’s on extraordinary life support… or that she wants to die but her parents stubbornly won’t let it happen.

Terri can breathe for herself. She is not on a ventilator. Her vital organs are working fine, which means she is not hooked up to a machine. Furthermore, she is not dying or being “kept alive” by artificial means. She does not have a terminal disease, and she will be able to feel pain if she is starved to death.

In fact, if you want a short history of Terri’s condition and the court case to determine whether she lives or dies, keep scrolling for a very good wrap up.

Back in December, it was revealed that doctors at a hospital in Groningen, Holland had euthanized 4 children, who in their opinion, were terminally ill and in great pain. What made this such an outrage is that the doctors performed the euthanasia without consulting the parents. It was revealed that the hospital had set up a series of “protocols” for euthanizing children up to 12 years old. These protocols allowed physicians to terminate the life of a child for a wide variety of reasons including “quality of life” and “chronic, severe pain” with no prospect of alleviation.

Back then, I wrote:

How did we go from the idea that terminally ill people should decide for themselves whether to live with their suffering or end it with the assistance of their family doctor to this nightmare scenario of faceless bureaucrats deciding who lives, who dies, and on what basis those decisions are made? Is this the “slippery slope” opponents of assisted suicide have been talking about for years?

I vividly remember the debates about the Oregon “Right to Die” law back in 1994. At that time, the assisted suicide lobby paraded dozens of patients that wished to end their lives for a variety of reasons; some were not even terminally ill. We were warned at that time by right to life groups that it was a short step from assisted suicide to euthanizing people without their permission and against the judgement of their families.

The Terri Schiavo case proves that we’ve now entered that territory.

Denied therapy for 12 years by her husband (despite the fact that the nearly $1 million judgement Terri recieved stipulated that she be given this therapy) whose motives are suspect for a variety of reasons not limited to any financial gain that would come his way if she dies, Terri lies in a hospice bed with the shades drawn and all personal effects removed from the room to prevent her from recieving any stimuli that would improve her condition. Her husbands lawyer, George Felos, a right to die activist in Florida, has testified that he can ascertain a person’s desire to die by “looking into their eyes and letting their spirit speak directly to him.”

Terri’s nurses have filed affadavits that she has spoken words on numerous occasions including “momma” when her mother has entered the room and “stop” when a particular medical procedure was causing her discomfort. Her parents confirm these statements and add that Terri laughs and responds to them when they visit.

What all this adds up to is Groningen with a vengeance; a clear case that someone else is going to decide whether or not a relatively healthy but brain damaged woman will die against the express wishes of the only people in the case who seem to have nothing to gain by her death: Her parents.

Captain Ed, as usual, makes a strong case for life:

The issue is a society that treats its infirm and inconvenient as unnecessary burdens, weights that can simply be tossed in the trash as easily as fast-food wrappers. We abort babies by the truckload because they complicate our lives. Some of them get tossed into dumpsters after having reached birth. We execute prisoners because it’s supposedly more cost-effective to do so, even though they inevitably eat up years and years of courtroom time on almost-endless appeals. The suicidal get heroic treatment in movies and real life, with ghouls like Jack Kevorkian lauded and feted and, after getting locked up, becoming a minor celebrity cause.

And the Captain warned us about this last December when the Groningen protocols came to light:

“Ladies and gentlemen, we have not just reached a slippery slope - we have hit a greased chute, which is what depresses me more than anything else. Now that Groningen has commenced killing the undesirables and the world has answered with a shrug, we will now hear from the chorus of statists telling us that in an era of limited resources, we need to make these hard decisions for the benefit of the families involved and the greater good of society. That child who may never walk or talk will be such a burden on his family, they’ll say; the parents are too close to the situation to make an informed decision, so we’ll make it for them - for their own good, of course.”

Makes the Captain look like a prophet.

UPDATE: 2/27/04

PBS Watcher informs me that the blogosphere has been inaccurate in its coverage of the Groningen protocols in that in fact, parents must be notified and consulted in the euthanasia decision:

A point of order regarding the Groningen protocol. Contrary to all the blogosphere traffic in December, the protocol does not allow euthanasia without parental consent. We need to be careful with the facts to avoid the Eason Jordan / Dan Rather “fake but accurate” syndrome. See The Groningen Protocol?? for details.

While that may clear up one aspect of the protocols, it still doesn’t lessen my distaste for euthanasia. Human beings are not horses to be shot when in pain or dogs to be put down when an incurable illness occurs. Death is part of the human experience. How we deal with it in all of its pain and sorrow, is what sets us apart from the rest of the dumb brutes who inhabit this planet with us.

Thanks to PBS Watcher for the correction.

Today Terri Schiavo lies at the brink of execution by order of the court, she reacts to stimuli, interacts with her family, feels pain, says things like momma and help me, and yet - according to Judge George Greer and Michael Schiavo, she’s a worthless human being worthy of death by starvation and dehydration. (Courtesy of Blogs for Terri; 2/23/05)

The rap on the bloggers so far after Jordan’s resignation is that we conducted a witch hunt, and Jordan was nothing more than a victim. The dreaded term “McCarthyism” has been thrown at us as well. However, a witch hunt demands innocence of its victim, and Jordan was anything but. (Courtesy Captains Quarters; 2/15/05)

Two stories. Two important stories. Two Blogswarms. What’s the difference?

The Eason Jordan story was driven to the fore of mainstream media coverage as the direct result of the excellent work and tireless efforts of many of the larger blogs.

The Terri Schiavo tragedy has played itself out largely on the fringes of the blogosphere. The work by bloggers has been just as excellent and just as tireless as those who brought Eason Jordan to account. But the probability is that Terri Schiavo will die. And a legitimate question can be raised asking about the indifference of most of the larger blogs to what those of us farther down the food chain are talking about and whether or not their active participation in the blogswarm could have made a difference. (UPDATE: Terri’s case has been continued until 3/18).

This disconnect spells nothing but trouble for this new media. When something as vitally important as the euthanizing of a relatively healthy but brain damaged woman gets lost in the daily dish of gossip, news, and commentary found on the larger sites, one has to ask some penetrating questions about the nature of this new media and what will drive it forward.

Now, we’re not naive here. The sphere is, after all, not a democracy. People can post on whatever topic moves them. In fact in many ways, a blogger is rewarded for blogging on things that no one else is commenting on. By the same token, however, when more than 200 blogs are involved in the fight to save Terri and nary a word is heard from people that could do the most good on this issue, something is terribly amiss.

A check of some ecosystem stats may be revealing. Blogs for Terri is ranked #123 with more than 1200 daily visitors. Technorati reveals nearly 800 individual posts mentioning Blogs for Terri (more than 5400 posts on Terri Schiavo with an unknown number of those in favor of her euthanization).

Compare those stats with ones for Eason Jordan’s story. The Ecosysetm shows the Jordan story tapering off. In its heyday, however, the Easongate site received more than 8500 hits a day, which would have put it into the top 50 sites on the TLB. However, a Technorati search turns up something interesting. Taking into account the difference in time frames for the two stories (each having lasted approximately three weeks), the number of posts on the subject are almost identical.. “Terri” stories were more than 5400 while “Jordan” stories number 5600 to date.

I guess the question that needs to be asked is why was Eason Jordan given the boot while the end of Terri’s life could be merely hours away? Jim Geraghty of TKS links to a post by Doublethink about the way the right side of the blogsophere works:

Do people on the right “vote” a blog post into popularity? No. Are research tasks assigned, or project volunteers sought? No. Glenn Reynolds provides a link to a blog, an Instalanche results, and whatever message was there is widely dispersed. Of course, there are plenty of other large blogs directing traffic, so readers and ideas certainly move independently of Glenn, but he is a major hub.

Now it’s not my intent to pick on Glenn Reynolds or any other blog by name here. And I think, while generally accurate, the quote above is an oversimplification. There are other noteworthy blogs who can flog a story and have proven that in the past. The point is that once you get above a certain level in the ecosysetm, a deadening insularity is evident in what the individual sites post about. Each has their own favorites for certain issues (is there anybody but Chrenkoff who blogs the good news from Iraq better?) and each has an interesting perspective, otherwise we wouldn’t read them now, would we?

So a better question should be asked of ourselves. Why should they care that 200 bloggers are desperately trying to save a woman’s life? Here are some answers from people who have been posting on this issue for weeks. Beth from My Vast Right Wing Consirpacy:

Yesterday I fumed all day about how there are dozens of us small to mid-size-bloggers and ONE biggie (name withheld. ed.) all staying on message with the Terri Schiavo blogburst, with little to no help from those who direct the fuckin’ traffic. While the biggies are busy patting themselves on the back for their success in taking down Eason Jordan (they weren’t the ONLY voices, BTW) and fighting with the moonbats over stupid shit like Jeff Gannon, of all things, we smaller bloggers are actually trying to effect POSITIVE change-trying to save a life, ferchrissake.

Beth’s frustration is showing through, but can you blame her? She and dozens like her have worn their fingers to the bone and feel like their efforts are not only going for naught, but that their voices are getting lost in the gigantic cave that is the blogosphere. With no amplification from larger blogs, the voices trying to save Terri are but a distant murmur, a barely discernible echo in the blogosphere universe.

Crystal of Crystal Clear has brought her perspective as a licensed famiy counselor to this issue in an email I solicited from her:

There are similar issues in blogging about Terri with regards to the facts, truth, and accountability that are similar to Easongate and Rathergate. The main difference I see is that they aren’t bringing down one big wig such as Eason or Rather. Additionally, there is a strong sense in the MSM and the Schindler’s have encouraged this (not right or wrong) of this being a right to die and right to live issue. Although I think that is indeed part of it, I think some people…myself included to a point until last week did not want to be associated with what are perceived in the MSM as right wing religious fanatics.

That’s a possible explanation. Most of the larger blogs do not post much on social issues. But is Terri’s life or death a social issue? Or something more? Here’s Cao of Cao’s Blog:

“…it’s a travesty that the larger bloggers haven’t taken the media to task the way they have in other cases such as the Rathergate affair, Eason Jordan, even the fake indian with his anti-American statements, John Kerry, and many others. There is enough information out there to show beyond a shadow of a doubt that Michael Schiavo is not who the media represents; and to me this an important case–a terribly important case–in terms of the separation of powers e.g., the Judiciary usurping legislative action (which isn’t supposed to happen), an individual’s right to legal counsel-which in Florida is supposed to be guaranteed, particularly if you’re handicapped (which Greer denied her), socialist euthanasia as happened in the ’30’s under Nazi Germany, and even the media bias in favor of Michael Schiavo’s lawyer who is parading his “Right To Die” book around on the money that was supposed to have been used for Terri’s rehabiliation…”

Cao raises some very serious issues. These are issues that have been written about since this story began but which have been ignored by those blogs who would normally look on these same issues with great interest; judicial activism, trial lawyer misdeeds, slanted coverage by the MSM.

What it comes down to is I don’t know why this issue has not cracked the digital ceiling that separates the larger blogs from the rest of us. From my own perspective, it’s very disappointing and a little bewildering that people I admire and who I’ve learned so much from would fail to particpate in this very worthy and worthwhile effort.

My fear is, this is only going to get worse. As late as the November election, the MSM either totally ignored blogs or didn’t even know what they were. Now many of the larger bloggers are finally getting some of the recognition they so richly deserve on both TV and in print. What does this bode for the blogosphere? Will the MSM exposure work to drive more traffic their way while insulating them even further from the rest of us?

For all the talk about the new media being open and self correcting, are we in danger of creating MSB’S? (mainstream blogs). A heirarchal structure would be natural given the ruthless form of democracy practiced on the internet . In such a large universe, the cream can’t help but rise to the top. But, not everybody can be made into Ben and Jerry’s Ice Cream. Some of us will remain “off-brands” for the forseeable future.

The sphere is changing rapidly. More blogs and more readers will mean upward and downward movement in the blog food chain. What will it take to stay on top? Hopefully, the ability to lead the pack on important issues facing the country. But just as importantly, the ability to recognize ideas and issues that bubble up from time to time from the bottom. Perhpas that takes as much courage and determination as bringing down an important newsman. It will certainly mean a leap beyond one’s own insular world at the top of the TLB Ecosystem.

Twenty-five years is a long time in someone’s life. I realize that many who read this aren’t yet 25 years old or are too young to remember 25 years ago.

But I remember. I was there. I lived it.

I was very much alive when the United States Olympic Hockey Team defied bigger odds than any other sports team in history to defeat the Soviet Union in the semi-finals of the Olympic Hockey tournament 25 years ago yesterday.

As a sports story, the victory would have been big enough. Anyone who’s seen the excellent re-enactment of the game in the movie Miracle knows of the grit and pluck exhibited by a bunch of college kids against the mighty hockey machine that was the old Soviet Union. The Soviets had won the last four Olympic Golds and were unbeaten in 15 years of international competition.

But this was much, much more than a sports story. And for that, we have to examine what kind of country the United States was in 1980 before the Olympic Hockey Team captured our imaginations.

It seems unbelievable looking back on it. The entire nation was held hostage by a group of religious fanatics in Iran who had kidnapped American State Department personnel and were holding them in violation of all tenets of international law and tradition and all norms of civilized behavoir. And while we were supported in a half-hearted way by most of the rest of the world, it seemed that the United States was an impotent giant, a laughable Gulliver being held down by the lillipution-like Iranian Mullahs.

Jimmy Carter was President. Last week, I was taken to task by some who thought I was too rough on Mr. Carter on the occasion of the Navy naming an attack sub after him. If anything, I let the guy off too easily.

It wasn’t the way Mr. Carter handled the hostage crisis. I actually thought that he did about as well with it as any President could. It’s the fact that the hostage crisis with Iran was symbolic of what Mr. Carter had done to the United States of America in less than 4 years of his incompetent, bumbling, sanctimonious, and extraordinarily dangerous presidency.

Carter came to office following the Viet Nam war and the Watergate scandal that resulted in Nixon’s disgrace. Inflation was high-almost 5%-and unemployment was rising. The policies that Carter initiated with the help of the largest Democratic majority in Congress since the time of FDR proved absolutely and totally disasterous. Inflation skyrocketed as did interest rates. And unemployment rose steadily until it reached above 6%, near post-depression highs.

If you haven’t lived through a period of double digit inflation its hard to explain what it was like. Imagine every time you went to the grocery store, the food you buy all the time-milk, cheese, hamburger, fruit-went up in price. And not just a little. Sometimes, hamburger would go up 10 or 15 cents a pound in a week. Sometimes fruit would be unavailable because the store owner knew that nobody would pay the retail price that had doubled in a week.

Imagine watching the money in your savings account (this is before mutual funds and other financial instruments we take for granted today were in widespread use) lose 10% of its value every year!. As a young person, you realize it’s stupid to save money because in a few years, it wouldn’t be worth anything.

Imagine trying to buy a house…with interest rates at nearly 20%! Credit card interest rates topped 35% on unpaid balances. You couldn’t buy a house, or furniture, or a car, or anything else that required interest of any kind without realizing that the value of your money was shrinking almost daily.

When the moonbats try to tell you that the economy we live in now is the worst since the great depression, those of us of a certain age laugh in derision. Either they have selective memories or weren’t alive during the late 1970’s.

Then there was the spiritual decline of America under Carter. I’m not talking about a fall off in religiosity but rather a feeling that, as a nation, we’d reached our peak. That from here on out the United States would be in decline. This feeling was enhanced by the seeming unstoppable march of Communism that Carter allowed to occur on his watch. The list of countries is astonishing; Somalia, Yemen, Nicaragua, Angola, Afghanistan, and Ethiopia all fell into communist dictatorships either because Carter refused to act or, as he did in Nicaragua, actively worked to bring a communist dictatorship to power.

This feeling of helplessness was fed by Carter himself who, in April of 1978, gave what is considered the strangest Presidential speech in history where he blamed the American people for the problems he was too incompetent to solve. Leftists the world over picked up on this loss of faith in America and the west. From the so-called “Council of Rome” whose experts predicted the world would run out of oil by 1995 to the “Zero Population” movement that predicted mass starvation in the 1980’s on the Indian subcontinent and China because of overpopulation, moonbattery was in full bloom-and all at the expense of America.

The final straw occured in December of 1979 when, after telling us for four years that we Americans had an “inordinate fear of Communism,” the Russians invaded Afghanistan. Americans watched in horror as the Soviets began butchering the Afghan people while Carters tepid response told a sad tale of American decline.

This was the background on February 22, 1980 when the US Olympic Hockey Team took to the ice. And when those American kids beat the Soviets, the entire country erputed into a spasm of joy that, looking back on today, still brings tears to my eyes.

Curiously, the victory didn’t rub off on Carter. By the time election day rolled around, the hostages had been held a year and other Carter blunders had sealed the fate of this, the most incompetent President in a hundred years.

That election featured the landslide victory of Ronald Reagan. And the rest, as they say, is history.

UPDATE: MORE NOSTALGIA

Pat over at Brainsters weighs in with his thoughts.

I don’t know whether the event was historic in the sense that it changed the world, but the Miracle on Ice is something of a dividing line in my life. I was still a bitter and angry young leftist when the USA hockey team took to their skates that night in Lake Placid; by the time they celebrated I was cheering “USA, USA!” It wasn’t the end of my personal cynicism, but it was a major crack in the wall.

Hard to imagine one of the Founders of one of the most influential election blogs- Kerryhaterss- a “bitter and angry young leftist.” Is it any harder to imagine someone who runs a site known as Rightwing Nuthouse being in a similar frame of mind?

The year was 1783. While formal hostilities had virtually ceased between the Crown and the American colonies, peace talks continued to drag on in London. The Congress was broke and in serious debt even though the Articles of Confederation, which required individual states to contribute funds to the Congress, had been approved two years earlier.

The Continental Army was restless. Many of its officers hadn’t been paid in months. Promises made by Congress at the time of their enlistment regarding reimbursement for food and clothing, pensions, and a pledge to give the officers half pay for life were either not being honored or were rumored to be withdrawn. Petitions by groups of officers to Congress asking them to redress these and other grievances either went unanswered or were brushed aside.

As a result of these indignities, a cabal of officers headed up by Colonel Walter Stewart and Major John Armstrong, an aide to George Washington’s chief rival Horatio Gates, were making plans to march to Philadelphia at the head of their men to force Congress to deal with their demands. The implication was clear; if Congress would not address their concerns, the men would enforce their will at the point of a bayonet.

The plotters believed that General Washington would be forced by their actions to become a reluctant participant in a military coup against the government. They believed that by presenting a united front composed of the senior officers in the army, Washington would have no choice but to back them.

To that end, they scheduled a meeting on March 10 of all general and field officers. With the invitation to the meeting, a fiery letter was circulated calling on the soldiers not to disarm in peace and, if the war were to continue, to disband and leave the country to the tender mercies of the British Army.

Washington got wind of the meeting and was deeply troubled. He issued a General Order canceling the gathering and instead, called for another meeting on March 15 ” of representatives of all the regiments to decide how to attain the just and important object in view.” The next day, another letter was circulated by the plotters that implied by issuing the General Order, Washington agreed with their position.

With the army teetering on the edge of revolt and the future of the United States as a republic in the balance, Washington stood before the assembled officers and began to speak. He started by saying he sympathized with their plight, that he had written countless letters to Congress reminding them of their responsibilities to the soldiers, and begged the officers not to take any action that would “lessen the dignity and sully the glory you have hitherto maintained.”

At that point, Washington reached into his pocket and withdrew a letter from a Congressman outlining what the government would do to address the soldiers grievances. But something was wrong. Washington started reading the letter but stopped abruptly. Then, with a sense of the moment and flair for the dramatic not equaled until Ronald Reagan became President, Washington slowly reached into his coat pocket and withdrew a pair of spectacles. There were gasps in the room as most of the officers had never seen their beloved General display such a sign of physical weakness in public. As he put the glasses on, Washington said “Gentlemen, you’ll permit me to put on my spectacles, as I have grown not only old but almost blind in the service of my country.”

Witnesses say that the officers almost to a man began to weep. This powerful reminder of the nearly eight years of service together and their shared sacrifices and hardships won the day. The revolt died then and there.

It could be argued that this was the greatest day of the greatest American who ever lived. And the fact that we no longer officially celebrate Washington’s birthday on February 22 as a national holiday is a travesty that makes this and other deeds of George Washington seem like mere footnotes on the pages of history.

In fact, the third Monday in February is still designated as Washington’s Birthday, not “President’s Day” as it has come to be known. As Matthew Spaulding of the Heritage Foundation points out, several times, legislators have introduced legislation to direct all federal government entities to refer to the holiday as George Washington’s Birthday but to no avail. President Bush could issue an executive order to that effect but has failed to do so.

This doesn’t address the issue of celebrating February 22-no matter what day of the week it falls on-as a national holiday. The argument that no other American is so honored just doesn’t hold water. The fact is, there wouldn’t be any other Americans to honor if it weren’t for the character, the purposefulness, and the determination of George Washington.

For long stretches during the Revolution, Washington was the government; the only recognizable entity for people to rally around. Couple that with Washington’s superhuman efforts in molding and shaping the Presidency and then exhibiting the sublime understanding to step down after two terms to cement the foundation of the new republic to the rule of law and not of men, and you have a strong case to make an exception to the rule of honoring individual Americans.

Currently, Martin Luther King is the only individual American who is honored with his own holiday. And the Fourth of July and Veterans Day are the only federal holidays covered under the Monday Holiday Law passed in 1968 that are celebrated on the day of the week regardless of whether or not it falls on a Monday (Thanksgiving’s date changes yearly. Christmas and New Years day may be celebrated on either Friday or Monday depending on what day of the week they fall on in a given year). Designating February 22 as a national holiday to celebrate the life of someone called “the indispensable man” of the American founding by his outstanding biographer James Thomas Flexner would seem to be fitting and proper.

We owe so much to Washington that it seems almost trivial to deny him this singular honor.

This article originally appeared in The American Thinker.