A Study in Contrasts

My thrill at locating a soft drink stands in stark contrast to the other things bouncing across my skull tonight.

One thing that has my mind churning was covered far more effectively in a couple of diaries at dKos - the level of response to the Red Lake school shootings by our nation's leader. The first notes the Clinton responses to Littleton (Columbine), Jonesboro, Paducah, and Springfield (Thurston). The second gives time intervals for major administration statements re: Columbine from Clinton and VP Gore. Both provide links to original sources... for me, the most telling contrast is this: unprompted, the Clinton adminstration had already issued an on-air statement from the President WHILE the Columbine event was still underway. (2:33pm, five minutes BEFORE the lockdown of the school was completed), while the Bush administration responds only when prompted by a directed question, during a spokesperson briefing given the following day.

(The President) was briefed on it last night. Our thoughts and prayers are with the families of those who were killed. This is a terrible tragedy. I think it's difficult for anyone to fully understand how something like this could happen. And our thoughts and prayers go out to the loved ones. Anything else?

How hard is it for a compassionate conservative to show some compassion in a timely manner? How hard is it for an administration with a renewed committment to deal with youth and violence (remember the State of the Union and the naming of Laura Bush to lead this effort) to address the second worst single incident of youth violence in the history of the nation in a timely manner. President Clinton's first Saturday address following Columbine was entirely on the topic. Bets on tomorrow's address from the current President? UPDATE: President Bush actually does devote the bulk of his address to the shooting, after a lead-in re: Easter and the troops, both appropriate, given time of year and geopolitics, he then gives Red Lake four pararaphs. The topic takes about half of the total address.

---

The other thing that I am sitting here stewing about is the Terri Schiavo situation. That has components on so many levels I am not sure where to start.

• Sanctity of Marriage - apparently only applies as long as you are willing to not follow stated wishes concerning end of life choices. Every one of the 50 states in this nation considers a husband to be next of kin - parental claims diminish noticably when someone reaches the age of 18, and evaporate completely when they get married. Schiavo is 41. And married.
  
• Rule of Law - apparently only applies in nations other than this one - here, the executive and legislative branches, along with the media, are actively speaking against the judiciary. These are the same courts who "agree or disagree" we needed to honor the decisions of a few times in the recent past - Bush v Gore in 2000 LEAPS to mind.
  
• The 'experts' on TV are being titled with qualifications that DO NOT EXIST (there is NO "Nobel Peace Prize for Medicine" no matter how much Everybody Loves Raymond actress Patricia Heaton is allowed to spout repeatedly on FOX News that there not only IS, but that some doctor with no published research, clinical trials, video tape, patients, or ANYTHING was apparently nominated for it.)
• Consciousness is NOT part of the legal argument here, despite the contention by every legal 'expert' on TV that it is - the argument is whether Terri Schiavo expressed to her husband a specific 'end of life' scenario concerning extraordinary measures. Some ridiculous number of judges at several jurisidictional levels, some selected by random lot, have ALL ruled that she did. But that is apparently not enough for several national legislative leaders, nor the Governor of Florida.
  
• Didn't we just pass federal law to prevent "judge shopping" in some civil cases - laying some groundwork for preventing it in other procedings. Yet here we are watching this move from court to court to court hoping for a ruling - spurred on by the exact Congressional leaders who just passed the recent law. I think something like three dozen actual Jurists have ruled, either as individuals or as part of panels. What does it take? There has been NO determination at ANY level in opposition to the husband's position.
• And now people are offering money to kill people - kind of a "respect life or I'll kill you..." position. Can cognitive dissonance make a person's head actually explode (re: Dave Chapelle's Clayton Bigsby sketch)?

How did we get here? Where does this end. Cruising the discussion on both sides is frightening right now. There are some very impassioned people out there, like the man who broke into a gun store to steal firearms to "rescue Terri" - I am willing to bet not everyone on both sides of this is a "let cooler heads prevail" type.

Peace.