10 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(02/13/08 12:00pm)
Even though America is still bogged down in Iraq, the drumbeat for war with Iran has begun.
Presidential hopeful John McCain is at the forefront of this proposal, joking about how he would "bomb, bomb Iran."
It is said that those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it. I'm not sure what this means for those who ignore recent history, but presumably it's nothing good.
Once again, the nation, fearful of a Mideastern state acquiring nuclear weapons, is debating launching a war that is not necessary.
The consequences of a war with Iran, however, would be far worse than the invasion of Iraq.
Let us imagine, for a moment, how an attack on Iran's uranium enrichment program would play out.
Let us suppose that the United States is able to annihilate the program with a minimum of American and Iranian civilian casualties. This seems unlikely, given that there are several sites, some of which are in major Iranian cities like Ishafan, involved, but we'll ignore that for now.
Iran's efforts to acquire nuclear weapons have been blunted temporarily. Except the Iranian government is still in power, and if they were not set on acquiring nuclear weapons before, they would certainly be after America illustrates how it can bomb Iran without Iran having any ability to respond in kind. All this would do is create an even more hostile Iran, still intent on acquiring nuclear weapons.
Such a situation would be, in some ways, familiar. In 1981, Israel bombed an Iraqi nuclear reactor, crippling Saddam Hussein's atomic program.
Yet 22 years later, America invaded Iraq because, ostensibly, we were worried that Iraq was going to acquire weapons of mass destruction. Would an attack on Iranian facilities merely delay the fateful day when American troops invade Iran?
On the other hand, let's suppose that a president decides to invade Iran. There are a couple of reasons this would be more difficult than the invasion of Iraq. Unlike the Iraqi military, which was largely crippled after the Gulf War, the Iranian military has rebuilt and acquired some modern weaponry.
While it would certainly lose a conventional war at sea and in the air, the economic consequences of Iranian missiles sinking tankers in the Persian Gulf would be, to put it mildly, unpleasant.
Moreover, while the United States could devastate Iran's economy, it is unlikely to be able to secure Iran's land borders.
Iran is also a larger, more homogenous nation than Iraq, without any group able to play the role of the Kurds and Shiites.
Iran's terrain is also more favorable to defense than Iraq's. Much of the country is fairly mountainous, in contrast to Iraq.
Another obvious possibility would be retaliatory strikes in America and at America's assets abroad by members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and other Shiite terrorirsts, such as Hezbollah. In short, an invasion of Iran would create a situation that would make Iraq look like a cakewalk.
None of this means a nuclear Iran is a good thing. But it's not like dictatorships haven't had nuclear weapons before. The world survived with Stalin and Mao in control of nuclear weapons, and the world will survive a nuclear Iran.
Rushing into war with Iraq proved to be a costly mistake. War with Iran would be a disaster.
(09/19/07 12:00pm)
Given the news that routinely comes out of Iraq, it is not surprising that a speech by the vicar of the Anglican church of Baghdad did not attract most of America's attention. The vicar of the Anglican church of Baghdad made a simple statement on the fate of minorities in Iraq before the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom. "Coalition policies," he said, "have failed the Christians and non-Muslims." Dramatic words, perhaps, but surely the situation cannot be as grave as he states.
If anything, the situation is actually worse. Consider the case of the Mandaeans, an ancient religious sect who believe that their founder was John the Baptist. Mandaeism has survived for over 2,000 years, and one of the key tenets of their faith is pacifism. In modern Iraq this works about as well as you would expect. Over 20,000 Mandaeans have fled the country out of a prewar population of 25,000.
Iraq's Christian population has also suffered severe persecution. It has been estimated that around half a million refugees, moving within Iraq as well as out of the country, are Christians of various denominations. Christian leaders within Iraq are routinely assassinated, and Christian businesses are often targeted for extortion and arrest. The situation is so bad that it is estimated that over half of Iraq's Christian population has left the country.
This needs to be put into perspective. Religious communities that could survive Roman Emperors, Mongol hordes and Saddam Hussein may not be able to survive several years of American occupation. Despite this situation, however, America has taken in an insignificant number of refugees from Iraq. Between 2003 and May of 2007, America accepted fewer than 800 refugees from Iraq, compared to Sweden's 18,000 in 2006 alone. And while the Bush administration did state that it would accept 7,000 additional refugees over the course of this year, this is clearly a drop in the bucket.
Fortunately, some lawmakers have recognized the injustice of this situation and have proposed a bill in the House of Representatives, H.R. 2265, to increase the number of refugees America accepts from Iraq. The bill would primarily focus on helping "female-headed households and unaccompanied children," "religious communities" and other minority groups "subject to violence, intimidation, or discrimination by state or non-state actors." The bill would also assist Iraqis who have worked with the United States and various American agencies in Iraq for a year and who have a "manifestly not unfounded fear of persecution, violence, or harm . on account of the work" that they did.
Whether or not you support the war, it is obvious that America has a debt to the minorities of Iraq and should help them leave the country. I urge anyone who feels that the plight of Iraq's minorities is our fault to write your congressperson and tell him or her that he or she should support H.R. 2265.
Information from - uscirf.gov, washingtonpost.com, ap.google.com, news.bbc.cok.uk, govtrack.us, uscirf.gov and cbsnews.com
(09/06/06 12:00pm)
"I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do that?"
These were, of course, the words of Jesus of Nazareth. Yet 2,000 years later, evangelical Christians are among the most fervent supporters of the war in Iraq. This is very odd, as evangelical Christians take the Bible literally. But if one does that, then it becomes clear that true Christians should be opposed to war in any form.
Jesus himself speaks out against using force. According to Christ, "Do not resist the one who is evil, but if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also."
Perhaps the clearest indication of the disdain with which Christ viewed violence comes from the day leading up to his crucifixion. When he was arrested, a disciple attempted to lift a sword in his defense, but Jesus warned him, saying "Put your sword back into its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword."
Faced with arrest, torture and his death, Christ still refused to lift a hand in his defense. And as he stood upon the cross, he forgave his murderers. And as your Father in Heaven is perfect, should you not also be perfect? Like Christ, a true Christian should never lift a hand in his own defense.
But even if you are not allowed to defend yourself, is a Christian allowed to defend someone else? According to the apostle Paul, "If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head."
It is noteworthy too that during his ministry on Earth, Christ met many unjust men who oppressed others, from tax collectors to legionaries. But he used his words and actions to persuade them, not the threat of force.
Even if you are killing someone who is wicked, what does that mean? Are we to believe that no one who is innocent dies in war? If it is wrong to kill someone, even in self-defense, how could it be right to go to war if it means killing others who have done nothing wrong? If what "you do to the least of his brothers, you do to him," how can it be that a war is a righteous act?
In the years before his death, Paul wrote that one should "not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good." It is depressing that, almost 2,000 years later, people have not taken his words to heart.
(03/01/06 12:00pm)
Those of you who went to last week's debate among the various campus political groups heard the Republicans justify their opposition to same-sex marriage (and, to an extent, civil unions). Unfortunately, due to time constraints, I could not respond to their points there, so I decided to do so here in print.
To begin with, there is an argument that because the majority of Americans oppose same-sex marriage, it should not occur. This is strange, because it assumes that justice depends on what the majority believes at a given time. If we followed this logic, Brown v. Board of Education was an unjust ruling, since the majority of Americans opposed it at the time.
This is not to say that gay marriage is as important as desegregating the public school system, but it does illustrate how rights are not contingent upon the rule of the majority. Slavery is not wrong merely because the majority of Americans view it as wrong; slavery is wrong because it is a violation of people's fundamental rights. If an argument against gay marriage is to advance, it should not be based simply upon the fact that the majority of Americans is against it.
Perhaps more unusual is the opposition to same-sex marriage on the grounds that marriage is a religious institution. This is an interesting claim, for a variety of reasons. It is absurd to run a government that promotes a separation of church and state with religious beliefs. It displays a tendency to favor some religions over others, which is deeply disturbing.
The Central Conference of American Rabbis, an organization that consists of Reform rabbis, declared in 2000, "We do hereby resolve that, that the relationship of a Jewish, same-gender couple is worthy of affirmation through appropriate Jewish ritual."
The United Church of Christ, the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, numerous Quaker meeting groups and several ecumenical groups, such as the California Council of Churches, have taken a stance in favor of same-sex unions. Together, the members of these organizations number in the millions. Why should their religious views not be considered valid?
Fortunately, our Founding Fathers had enough foresight to recognize that the government should not involve itself in religious disputes, a course of action that today's government should recall.
A debate on same-sex marriages should be based upon whether they would harm or benefit society. The argument is rarely presented by those opposed to it, however. Since I am unwilling to speak for others, I cannot say whether it is because they realize there is no rational reason to oppose same-sex marriage, or because they simply feel that such arguments are unimportant, compared to making sure that their religious views are the law of the land.
I leave it to readers to decide which they find more plausible and more disturbing.
Information from - religioustolerance.org, data.ccarnet.org, en.wikipedia.org, ucc.org
(02/08/06 12:00pm)
If you've watched the news in the past several days, you've heard Washington politicians make some powerful statements. Al Gore claimed George W. Bush broke the law by spying. Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter, a Republican, even went so far as to suggest that President Bush could be impeached. So what's going on, exactly?
The National Security Agency (NSA) traditionally listens to and analyzes foreign communications. It performs extensive counterespionage against foreign organizations that attempt to listen to the American government's communications. NSA was founded to monitor the communications of enemy nations.
Here's the problem. For the past several years, with the express authorization of the president, NSA has listened to the communications of American citizens without warrants. Normally NSA requires a warrant to wiretap American citizens, but since 2001 Bush personally gave NSA authorization to wiretap American citizens without one.
The Bush administration claims that it was necessary to give NSA the power to listen to Americans to prevent terrorist attacks, but this is absurd.
In the event that NSA needs to immediately wiretap a conversation and doesn't have time to get a warrant, it is legally allowed to obtain a warrant to eavesdrop on a conversation up to 72 hours after it has occurred.
Furthermore, the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Court, which grants warrants to NSA for wiretapping, denied only six out of the 5,645 requests by NSA. In other words, over 99.9 percent of requests for warrants were approved, but because six were not, it was necessary to launch a secret program to monitor American communications.
Allow me to repeat: This is absurd. Clearly the courts have bent over backwards to support NSA and have approved almost all of NSA's requests. So is it really worth ignoring constitutional rights to listen to an additional six conversations?
Evidently, the Bush administration thinks so. But it is not as if NSA requested warrants to wiretap the perpetrators of 9/11 and was turned down. So why should we assume that we'll be any safer if the government has the ability to listen to any conversation it pleases?
In fact, the flood of information from NSA caused hundreds of FBI agents to check out the information they received, almost all of which led to innocent Americans. Numerous officials said they could have been used for more productive counterterrorism work, and that they found few, if any, new leads. Not only was allowing NSA to monitor the conversations of Americans unconstitutional, it was a waste of time.
Less than two years ago, the president said, "Anytime you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires - a wiretap requires a court order." Yet today, we find the president not only justifying wiretaps without court orders, but also criticizing The New York Times for telling the American people that this is happening.
There has to be a balance between security and civil liberties, but there can be no compromise when it comes to honesty, trustworthiness and acting in good faith. Trust is vital for any authority figure, and the president has routinely shown that he is not worthy of our trust.
If the president wanted to extend executive power, perhaps he should have done so in the open, rather than unilaterally disregarding the basic ideals of freedom and fairness on which this country was founded. Perhaps we should be monitoring his activities more closely. At least he is a proven liar, not just a suspected one.
Information from - today.reuters.com, whitehouse.gov/news, cnn.com/2005/POLITICS, upi.com/NewsTrack, nytimes.com and washingtonpost.com
(12/07/05 12:00pm)
One could be forgiven for imagining that the Republicans are devoted to working-class Americans. After all, Bush has often talked about his belief in an "ownership society," where all Americans would have the chance to enjoy the American dream.
Strangely, however, for the past couple of weeks, Republicans have mounted a concerted effort to attack government programs that help Americans do just that.
Let's begin by looking at Republican activities in Congress. Republicans in the House of Representatives are trying to pass a bill to extend tax cuts, which would cost about $70 billion.
This might seem like an odd thing to do, given that the nation has an unprecedented deficit. But the Republicans in the House had an answer for that.
Rather than reducing tax cuts, they chose to cut $50 billion from programs they viewed as unnecessary, like Medicaid, food stamps and student loans.
Now, I think we would all agree that the fact that the nation is in debt is a bad thing. I applaud the fact that the Republicans are trying to do something about it, even though it's a pity they didn't avoid putting the nation in debt to begin with.
But this is simply foolish. Republicans claim that tax cuts are crucial because they help the economy.
But what's going to help the economy more in the long run, $14 billion in tax cuts, or $14 billion to help ensure America has a college-educated workforce?
The Republicans in the House also voted to cut billions of dollars from food stamps, even as the U.S. Department of Agriculture announced that 38 million Americans would go hungry at some point in 2004, two million more than in 2003.
At a time when programs like Medicaid and food stamps are needed more than ever, the Republicans have voted to reduce the help available to citizens.
Of course, the Republicans would claim that their tax cuts will help America's working class, but that's absurd.
Republican Congressmen also rammed through an act extending tax cuts for capital gains.
How many working class Americans would benefit from tax breaks on returns from the stock market to the extent that it would truly improve their quality of life?
If Republicans were truly concerned about helping out working-class Americans, they would have joined Democrats in supporting a bill to raise taxes on oil companies, who have enjoyed record profits this year. Democrats in the Senate attempted to pass a temporary windfall tax on oil companies, and planned on using the money to give a tax break to Americans, who are plagued this year by high gas and heating prices.
Yet Republicans refused to support such a bill. Evidently tax breaks are only acceptable if they help the wealthy.
There is something very wrong when a government cuts desperately needed social programs that ensure the welfare of its citizens while simultaneously cutting taxes.
It should be clear to anyone with any sort of a conscience that ensuring that children don't go hungry should take priority over removing a capital gains tax, yet the Republican party has clearly demonstrated its priorities. Once again, a few rich people will benefit at the expense of thousands of hardworking Americans.
Information from - denverpost.com, biz.yahoo.com, cnn.com, msnbc.msn.com
(09/21/05 12:00pm)
When a friend initially suggested that I write an editorial about Sodexho and Carte Blanche, I was skeptical.
I mean, who's going to write angry editorials defending Sodexho (aside from the managers, of course)? But then I discovered that it costs $5 at Brower Food Court for a fruit cup and a bottle of water.
Every time Sodexho promises to make a change to improve the dining facilities on campus, the end result seems to be one step forward and two steps back.
Sodexho announced that it would give all students with Carte Blanche the option of spending $4.75 at Brower Food Court during lunch hours, to decrease congestion in Eickhoff. And then the prices were raised to the extent that a sandwich and a drink cost more than $4.75.
Now it is still possible, however, to get a greasy burger and a soda for less than that, which is perplexing. Sodexho claims that it's interested in providing students with healthy alternatives, but if that is the case, why are healthy options vastly more expensive than greasy burgers?
Or consider the fact that Sodexho claims Eickhoff is now open until 9 p.m. to accommodate students who have classes that end after 8 p.m. This might be true in theory, but when I was there last Tuesday at 8 p.m., the place was already essentially closed.
Not only had about half of the serving areas already closed, but they had even pulled down a gate.
I suppose it was open in the sense that if some one wanted a salad or leftover pizza they could get it, but to claim that Eickhoff is now open until 9 p.m. is a joke.
Perhaps if the quality of food at other colleges and universities in New Jersey was equally bad, the state of the food at the College might be understandable.
But students at Rutgers pay the same price that we do for room and board at the College, and their dining services are vastly superior. Montclair State University also has its dining halls run by Sodexho, and people who have tried both dining halls agree that Montclair is superior.
So what gives? Why can Sodexho provide quality food at Montclair, but it can't even provide clean silverware at the College? Of course, it should come as no surprise that Sodexho is doing such a poor job.
The College is required by state law to hire the lowest bidder for any job, which explains why the contractors the College hires fail to provide quality food and build science complexes and apartments with architectural flaws.
Sodexho was the lowest bidder, and therefore the College was required by law to hire it.
But that doesn't mean that the College is required to rehire Sodexho. According to state law, an institution can hire someone other than the lowest bidder if the institution has had a negative experience with the lowest bidder in the past five years.
Now, let's be reasonable. We could perhaps argue that merely having a low quality of food, long lines and a standing order to ration items are not indicative of a negative experience.
But repeatedly finding "brown, goopy things inside of cups," as reported last week in the Signal Spotlight, or getting sick from the food, is probably not a good sign.
Frankly, given the sanitary conditions at Eickhoff, I am somewhat surprised that there hasn't been an outbreak of botulism on campus.
Information from - tcnj.edu, studentabc.rutgers.edu,montclair.edu
(09/07/05 12:00pm)
Just the other day, the secretary of Transportation announced that the White House was proposing a plan "that will save gas and result in less pain for motorists at the pump". Unfortunately for Americans, this plan will not take effect until 2011, which means that until then, Americans are just going to have to be content making due with the high gas prices.
But even more unfortunate is that this radical plan consists of raising the fuel efficiency for SUVs, minivans, and pick up trucks. Passenger cars and the largest SUVs would not be subject to more stringent requirements.
Now, of course the government can't take steps to reduce American dependency on foreign oil overnight. But there are several major steps that the government could have done, and should do, to reduce the nation's dependency on oil from overseas.
In the European Union, companies like General Motors have agreed that all passenger cars they produce will have a fuel efficiency of 41 miles to a gallon. The current standard for passenger cars in the United States is 27.5 miles to a gallon. I don't think I need to explain how that difference could add up over time.
Even nations like Brazil are encouraging efforts to develop alternate sources of fuel. Brazil gets 40 percent of its fuel from ethanol, an alcohol produced from various crops such as sugar canes and beets, for about $40 a barrel. Ethanol is, of course, more expensive in America, at about $60 dollars a barrel, but given the way oil prices are continuing to rise, it seems certain that it will soon be noticeably cheaper. And the United States already pays farmers not to produce excess corn, which is an ideal plant to use to make ethanol. Why couldn't that subsidy encourage the production of corn for fuel?
Of course, ethanol is not a perfect fuel. Ethanol based fuel would not work in a regular car, but if Brazil can handle such a program, why can't America?
There are some positive notes, of course. Honda has sold over 100,000 hybrids since they began selling them in what year. That may be a drop compared to the total sales over the years since Honda began selling them, but it is a start. The federal government already grants tax breaks to consumers who buy hybrids, but the tax breaks will only be worth $100 million between now and 2011. That is a drop in the bucket, compared to the $1.5 billion energy bill Bush passed that authorized research in reducing pollution from burning coal. Obviously more should be done.
These changes will undoubtedly cause some economic hardship. It is unlikely that these measures will significantly reduce the cost of gas. But the cost of not changing America's dependency on oil would cause far more. The world's appetite for oil is only increasing, and it is unlikely that the reserves of oil will increase over the coming years. Unless America acts soon, the situation will only get worse.
(04/20/05 12:00pm)
Perhaps it is just me, but it seems as if the Republican Party has begun to take a very odd turn.
The day Terri Schiavo died, House Majority Leader Thomas DeLay (R-Texas) said, "The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior."
Although he later apologized when many Americans found his statement distasteful, he still remains convinced that America is under siege from a "judiciary run amok."
Meanwhile, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) is claiming that Democrats are against "people of faith" because they did not vote to confirm 10 out of President Bush's 214 nominees for the judiciary.
To put the views of these men in perspective, in an interview earlier this week, DeLay also said, "The reason we had a right to privacy is because Congress didn't stop (the judiciary)."
This was certainly a surprise to me. It is true that there is no amendment in the Constitution that says that there is a right to privacy.
At least, that would be the case if you ignored the Fourth Amendment, which tells us "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated."
However, it is not the purpose of the Constitution to list all of a person's rights.
The Ninth Amendment notes, "the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Americans do not have rights because they are listed in the Constitution; Americans have rights because, like all people, "they are endowed with certain unalienable rights from their Creator."
If DeLay is in error, he is certainly not the only Republican. Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Penn.), a possible candidate for the presidency, also feels that there is no constitutional right to privacy.
Similarly, Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) claims the courts have conducted a methodical "assault on religion" for decades.
This represents a new and disturbing change in American politics.
Based on these actions, we are left with two likely conclusions. The first is that many important people in the Republican party do not understand the Constitution narrowly lists the rights of the government to make laws, not all the rights and priveleges of individuals.
The second is that these representatives and senators do understand how the Constitution works, but are choosing to ignore it for their own political gain.
I will let you decide which you find to be more disturbing.
It is clear that the problem these politicians have is not that the courts are disobeying the Constitution and American law, but rather that the courts aren't supporting their views.
Take, for instance, the Schiavo case.
Given that every single judge who ruled on the case sided with Terri's husband Michael, it seems logical to conclude that the courts found him legally correct.
If this is the case, wasn't DeLay's problem that the courts weren't helping him in getting the results he sought (and not that they had committed some kind of legal error)?
It is true that some courts have, in recent years, made decisions that have been unpopular with the majority of Americans.
I was among those who were surprised when the Ninth Circuit Federal Court declared being made to say the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools was unconstitutional.
But this decision was later overruled by a superior court, proving that the system of checks and balances established in the Constitution still works.
With regard to those infamous "activist judges" and their attempts to ram same-sex marriages down the throats of Americans, it is worth noting that the Oregon Supreme Court declared same-sex marriage licenses issued by a county in Oregon invalid.
Strangely, the people who have been protesting activist judges elsewhere in America are silent when an activist court makes a decision they agree with.
It is clear that what men and women like DeLay mean to say is that the courts are not siding with Republicans, not that the judiciary is disobeying the Constitution.
And when they do not get judges who rule what they want, they raise threats of impeachment or of cutting funding for courts that do obey their whim.
All Americans, whatever their affiliation, should be worried about this. America's system of checks and balances has been a model for the constitutions of nations across the globe.
It would be a shame to see it destroyed because of paranoid delusions about attacks upon organized religion.
(04/06/05 12:00pm)
On March 31, after 15 years on a feeding tube and trapped in a persistent vegetative state, Terri Schiavo finally passed away. This was, of course, a tragic event. But the true tragedy is that it took 15 years to carry out her wishes. What should have been one woman's decision was used by politicians and special interest groups across the country for their own benefit.
It is worth discussing, for the benefit of readers who are not aware of the specifics of the Schiavo case, what led to her death on March 31. In February of 1990, Terri went into cardiac arrest and first entered a persistent vegetative state.
In May of 1990, her husband took her to the College Park care and rehabilitation facility in Florida, in hopes of reviving her. Michael Schiavo even had Terri take part in an experiment to use implants to stimulate her brain, to no avail.
It was not until 1994, nearly five years after she had first entered the hospital, that Michael gave up attempts to treat her. And it was not until May of 1998 that Michael petitioned the court to allow him to withdraw Terri's feeding tube.
The court ruled in February of 2000 that if Terri wanted, she could die rather than be "hooked to a machine," as she herself said. It was at this point that the circus began.
Many people are understandably uneasy about this case. People have watched videos of Terri on television and their first impression was that she was aware of what was going on around her. Sadly, this was not the case.
For one thing, that footage was merely clips of much longer videos, in which Terri did not seem to be aware of anyone in the room.
As Judge George Greer stated in his ruling in 2002 after viewing the tapes in their entirety, "The court has carefully viewed the videotapes as requested by counsel and does find that these actions were neither consistent nor reproducible."
It is also clear that Terri's condition would never have improved.
According to CAT scans conducted on Terri, her cerebral cortex was destroyed and essentially liquefied. The cerebral cortex is one of the most important parts of the brain and is crucial for intelligence, personality, memory and even basic consciousness.
Without it, Terri was not capable of performing any of the activities that we associate with being alive.
It is also worth considering just why Michael was Terri's guardian. We would all agree, of course, that Terri's wishes were the ones that would have mattered. When Terri married Michael, she declared that he was to be her legal guardian in the event that she was incapacitated.
If we wanted to respect Terri's wishes, then we would wish for Michael, who knew her better at this point in her life than her parents did, to carry out Terri's decision.
The courts also confirmed that Terri would have in fact wanted to be taken off of life support. At the funeral for Mr. Schiavo's grandmother, in the presence of several witnesses, Terri said that if she were ever on life support, "Don't leave me there. I don't want to be kept alive on a machine."
The Schindler family claimed that Terri told them that she would want to be kept alive at any cost.
However, Mrs. Schindler admitted in court that they discussed it when she was 11 years old.
Surely we can all agree that the wishes of Terri at the time she entered a coma would be more accurately reflected by what she said when she was married to Michael than when she was 11.
What is truly disturbing to me, however, is how we have seen numerous special interest groups in the United States latch onto the case for their own selfish benefit.
Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) claimed that the courts had murdered Terri by taking her off of life support and said that, "the time will come for the men responsible for (the court's approval to take Terri Schiavo off of life support) to answer for their behavior."
Yet, he had no problem taking his own father off of life support after he had been on it for only 30 days, as opposed to several years.
President Bush has also taken a hypocritical stance in this case. He claimed that Terri is not being represented in court.
But as governor of Texas, he signed the Advanced Directives Act, which gave hospitals the right to deny life support to patients who had no chance of recovery, even if the family supported continuing life support.
The act was used just six weeks ago to remove life support from an infant against the parents' wishes.
But as president, Bush cut his vacation short to return to Washington to sign a bill transferring the Schiavo case to a federal court. Either he has had a sudden change of heart, or he is pandering to his political base.
The Democrats, it must be admitted, were little better. No major Democratic congressman came out to oppose the bill that passed Terri's case to the Congressional court.
This was a craven and cowardly attempt to avoid the wrath of conservative groups in America and they should be ashamed for doing what was easy instead of what was right.
One hopes that some good may come out of the disaster that Terri suffered.
Many Americans would not wish to be kept alive in a state like Terri's and hopefully more Americans will tell their family what they want to have happen to them in such a situation and write living wills.
America has seen politicians take advantage of one family's tragedy for their own personal gain. While Terri may have found peace at last, I suspect it will be a long time before the rest of America does.