Archive for October 2003

Terri Schindler-Schiavo

I have been thinking alot about Terri Schindler-Schiavo, the woman in
Florida whose husband tried to kill last week with the backing
of the ACLU
and others on the Left.
It has simply amazed me yet again of the media’s bias towards this case – which in this case has been overwhelming in favor of Michael Schiavo
against Terri’s parents. Why? Because numerous
religious
organizations
and right-to-life
groups
have come out in support of keeping her alive.

She isn't brain dead but the ACLU is...


Several questions come to mind:

What evidence do we have that Terry has no awareness
of the world around her?
Numerous
visitors and family members
have commented on the fact that Terry
is no Karen Ann Quinlan.
The only doctors allowed to see Terry have been hand-picked by Michael
Schiavo.

Why is Michael Schiavo so keen on seeing his wife
die now – thirteen years after the start of her illness?
According
to Terry’s cousin,
Michael has moved on
. He is living with another woman and has fathered
two children by her. So why now? Could the fact that he stands to inherit
close to a million dollars from Terry’s estate have something to do with
it?

Where is the proof that Terry would prefer death
to the life that she has now?
Currently her husband asserts that
she voiced her wish to die, but he has no proof – and her parents say
that’s completely wrong.

Why has everyone ignored the feelings – if not the
natural rights – of Terry’s parents?
As a parent, I believe that
no one has the right to decide the life and death of my children. If I
were in their shoes, you can bet I would be doing exactly what they have
done. They brought Terry into the world – and should overrule the legal
rights by marriage granted to Michael Schaivo. No parent should be forced
to witness the death of their children against their will. No parent.


While investigating this matter it has become clear to me that Terry
Schindler-Schiavo deserves to live – if only because we cannot prove she
exists in a "persistent vegetative state" beyond a reasonable
doubt.

Soul of a Nation – by Vaclev Havel

One of the world’s great men is Vaclev Havel. If you don’t know who he is, then you are an idiot and shouldn’t be reading this. One of the world’s great women is Aung San Suu Kyi. Today’s entry is a mix of both. Enjoy.

Source: Washington Post

The Soul of a Nation

By Vaclav Havel
Sunday, October 12, 2003; Page B07

Just recently friends of mine sent me a couple of photographs of Aung San Suu Kyi. The nonviolent struggle of this woman for her fellow citizens’ freedom dwells in my soul as a stark reminder of our struggles against totalitarian regimes in Central and Eastern Europe.

Aung San Suu Kyi

Our nation, the Czech Republic, together with the entire free world, has observed with great concern the Burmese junta’s refusal to cede power and the subsequent brutal intervention to quell the protest of its citizens after the victory of Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy in Burma’s 1990 elections.

The Burmese authorities began to allow her to move around her own country only a year ago. It was then that the photos that have so captured my interest were taken. Despite the ban on information about her and despite the junta’s intimidation, the Burmese people have always learned quickly by word of mouth of her presence, and thousands upon thousands of citizens overcame their fear and gathered upon this occasion to listen to her.

I have seen other photos from Burma as well, showing men in uniforms who demand to be celebrated as if they were ancient kings, appearing before staged audiences that betray the motivations of fear and resignation. These men—armed to the teeth—shudder at the sight of unarmed people who are able to overcome their own fear and stand as examples to others. They were so terrified to see the photos of the crowds hailing Suu Kyi that they blocked the road, slaughtered many of her fellow travelers and detained her in May. Perhaps they have foolishly convinced themselves, as many of their fellow dictators have, that their ungrateful nation cannot see the good they do.

I recall that my friends and I for decades were asked by people visiting from democratic Western countries, “How can you, a mere handful of powerless individuals, change the regime, when the regime has at hand all the tools of power: the army, the police and the media, when it can convene gigantic rallies to reflect its people’s ‘support’ to the world, when pictures of the leaders are everywhere and any effort to resist seems hopeless and quixotic?”

My answer was that it was impossible to see the inside clearly, to witness the true spirit of the society and its potential—impossible because everything was forged. In such circumstances, no one can perceive the internal, underground movements and processes that are occurring. No one can determine the size of the snowball needed to initiate the avalanche leading to the disintegration of the regime.

There are many politicians in the free world who favor seemingly pragmatic cooperation with repressive regimes. During the time of communism, some Western politicians preferred to appease the Czechoslovak thugs propped up by Soviet tanks rather than sustain contacts with a bunch of dissidents. These status-quo Western leaders behaved, voluntarily, much like those unfortunate people who were forced to participate in the massive government rallies: They allowed a totalitarian regime to dictate to them whom to meet and what to say. At that time, people such as the French president, Francois Mitterrand, and the Dutch minister of foreign affairs, Max van der Stoel, saved the face of the Western democracies by speaking and acting clearly. By the same token, politicians such as Japan’s Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi and Philippine Foreign Secretary Blas Ople redeem the Asian reputation by not hesitating to speak the truth. The regime in Burma is, as a matter of fact, the disgrace of Asia, just as Alexander Lukashenko’s regime in Belarus is the disgrace of Europe and Fidel Castro’s regime in Cuba of Latin America.

In Burma, thousands of human lives have been destroyed, scores of gifted people have been exiled or incarcerated and deep mistrust has been sown among the various ethnic groups. Human society is, however, a mysterious creature, and it serves no good to trust its public face at any one moment. Thousands of people welcomed Suu Kyi on her tours, proving that the Burmese nation is neither subjugated nor pessimistic and faithless. Hidden beneath the mask of apathy, there is an unsuspected energy and a great human, moral and spiritual charge. Detaining and repressing people cannot change the soul of a nation. It may dampen it and disguise the reality outwardly, but history has repeatedly taught us the lesson that change often arrives unexpectedly.

“To talk about change is not enough, change must happen,” said Suu Kyi during a tour among her people. The Burmese do not require education for democracy; they are and have always been ready for it. It is not necessary to draft a “road map” for establishing freedom of the press or for releasing political prisoners. The will to act now would be sufficient to fulfill both. But that is apparently what is missing in Burma. Aren’t there obvious flaws in a road map if the road for those who set forth on the journey to democracy is blocked and if they are slaughtered or inevitably end up in prison?

The writer is former president of the Czech Republic.
© 2003 The Washington Post Company

Someday Burma will be free. And it will be solely because of Suu Kyi and men like Havel.

On Iraq

I haven’t commented much on Iraq. Mainly this is because I feel that it is too soon to accurately reflect on what’s occurring over there. What is happening there and in the Middle East in general is a revolution, and it would be stupid for me to think that I can say anything about the outcome. It’s kind of like predicting rainfall amounts during a tornado.

Americans – and the Left Wing (which I was once a die-hard member of) in particular – have forgotten that America is one of the few truly revolutionary nations on Earth. Political Revolution involves change – but not the cosmetic type practiced by 3rd world dictators where one junta is changed by another. Revolution by its very definition demands complete change of the type never before seen.

What the US is attempting to do in Iraq and the Middle East as a region is nothing short of revolutionary. We are introducing Democracy into a region that hasn’t known it since the Colonial Era. We are bringing the rule of law and respect for human rights to countries like Afghanistan that have never had these before.

You can rightly be cynical, but think about it. A conservative super-power would respect – no, encourage – the status quo. We would not overthrow regimes and attempt to plant the seeds of human rights and democracy in alien soil.

But America has done just this before. We did it in Japan and Germany – and as so many have forgotten those nations lacked experience with Democracy and basic human rights as well.

So one unaccustomed to the current strains of politics in the West to think that the Left wings in USA and Europe would be clapping their hands gleefully, supporting the US. Funny how that isn’t happening.

The Left has become the new conservatives. The Left now supports the status quo. Any member of the Left that curses the revolution lead by America in the Middle East should rip the Free Tibet sticker off their car, expunge the term “human rights” from their vocabulary and while there, curse the bloody wogs for being completely incapable of governing themselves.

The calls for revolution now reverbrate from the Right. Long Live the Glorious Revolution of Democracy Whiskey Sexy!

2 Year Blog Anniversary

Yet another domain renewal. Has it really been 2 years since it all began? When I look back I get the sense that a sense of normality is returning. However it is a new, different sort of normality, one very different that existed before the towers fell. I know that I have changed. While my views are much more conservative, I feel that I have become much more compassionate too. However the difference between a liberal and myself is that the liberal wishes to bestow compassion on everyone regardless of whether it’s deserved or not, whereas I do not.

Take for example, the question of Palestine. Pre-9/11 I supported a Palestinian state. I don’t anymore – unless the Israelis will it. Why? Well it all goes back to the dancing in the streets, the celebrations of Palestinians over the deaths of 3000 souls on that godless day.

I also do not believe that they deserve a state. Nations are borne by men and women who sacrifice themselves for the greater good – heroes. Yassir Arafat is nothing more than a thug, and the homicide bombers should have their remaining bits buried in pigskin. No state should be created from the blood of innocents.

We’re Back…

We’re baaack. And you thought we had given up the ghost, didn’t you? Well, we’ve renewed the domain name. And we’ll be moving to an active domain. PHPNuke is on the horizon, mwuhahahaha…

Meanwhile, something to consider:

RE: The Palestinians: Ariel Sharon should draw a map of the future Palestine that includes all the territory he can feasibly give away. Feasibly in his case means not having his government overthrown or him being shot.

Next, he should announce the size of that land in square kilometers. Then he should add that for each Israeli casualty, he will subtract one square kilometer from that total. Wound an Israeli? Palestine=X-1. Machine gun a 7 month old baby? X-2. And so on.