The Daily Hegemonist

A Poppy for Mrs. Schiavo.

On Easter Sunday, the saga of Terri Schiavo draws rapidly (but not rapidly enough, in many senses) to a close:

“Terri is declining rapidly,” Schindler attorney David Gibbs said on CBS' “Face the Nation.” “We believe at this point she has passed where physically she would be able to recover.”

Anti-abortion activist Randall Terry, who is acting as a spokesman for Schiavo's parents, said Gibbs' description of Terri Schiavo as past the point of recovery is “absolutely untrue.”

Gibbs also said Terri Schiavo is receiving morphine for pain.

On the face of it, providing Mrs. Schiavo with opiates whilst denying her basic sustenance is both nonsensical and contraindicated, given the contention of the 'experts' that she is incapable of feeling pain. Even less understandable, now that the decision has been made to drug her with morphine, is the refusal of the self-arrogated arbiters of Mrs. Schiavo's existence to simply increase the morphine dosage sufficiently to send her off into lethean oblivion.

However, on closer examination, this makes a perverted kind of sense. It's apparent that those who swore to avoid the trap of therapeutic nihilism desire to make the claim that, technically speaking, they didn't in fact kill Mrs. Schiavo, but that she merely expired for want of sustenance (how this is to be reconciled with well-established precedents governing neglect, abuse, and depraved indifference is unclear). In this confederacy of dunces we've created, there are no responsible actors, only victims — except for those who've grown burdensome, such Mrs. Schiavo, and whom are somehow to be held responsible for the supposed victimization of the hale and hearty, such as Michael Schiavo.

We should do well to remember the words of that most eclectic founder of the Republic, Thomas Jefferson:

Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that his justice cannot sleep forever.

One can only pray that the end comes for Mrs. Schiavo with a minimum of further suffering; as for those who actively engineered her demise as well as those of us who merely stood by and watched, it is to be hoped that when we reach the respective ends of our days, we are in fact shown the mercy which we signally denied this helpless, inconvenient woman.

Bowling for Karbala.

One of the many disappointments of the modern age is the seemingly irreversible decline in the erudition and rigor of what passes for social commentary throughout the political spectrum, especially amongst the self-anointed champions of the downtrodden. When combined with the incestuous relationship between the mainstream press, publishers, and the film industry, the end result of ridiculously-overhyped mediocrity is as predictable as it is regrettable.

Michael Moore's latest oevure, Fahrenheit 9/11, is a classic example of this trend. Mr. Moore's polemic (one hesitates to term it a 'documentary', given its extremely one-sided viewpoint and lack of follow-through, more of which momentarily) is a tired and tiring melange of partisan ranting, ad hominem bellicosity, and gleeful malice which seems not so much intended to inform or persuade as to flatter the vanity of those who already share Mr. Moore's views on the subject of the current Bush Administration generally and the invasion of Iraq in particular. In point of fact, Fahrenheit 9/11 is distinguishable from the amateur efforts on display at MoveOn.org mainly by the latter's lack of cameos by Mr. Moore himself, none of which add any particular gravitas or insight to the film.

Which is unfortunate because, on a few occasions, Fahrenheit 9/11 touches ever-so-briefly upon several pressing and genuinely relevant issues which merit further investigation:

The tardy, tepid, and timid nature of the Administration's assault upon Afghanistan and the Taliban subsequent to 9/11.

The venality and cupidity of various defense-related corporations so eager to cash in on the supposed windfalls to be had in postwar Iraq that their various officers, spokesmen, and other employees come across as unintentional self-caricatures of the tophatted 'war profiteers' of Marxist demagoguery.

The unsurprising yet completely indefensible fact that very few, if any, Members of Congress bother to actually read the bills set before them prior to voting on the legislation in question.

The Administration's incomprehensible lack of preparation for the aftermath of the Iraqi conflict.

The Administration's inexplicable decision to spirit members of the bin Laden family out of the United States on 9/13/01, without so much as a single interview by the FBI, CIA, or other agencies of the law enforcement and/or intelligence communities.

The Administration's apparent encouragement of the military and CIA to engage in the torture and abuse of prisoners and 'detainees' in Iraq and elsewhere.

The general incompetence, ineffectiveness, and irrelevance of the Department of Homeland Security and its various bureaux.

The fact that the President and members of the Cabinet routinely justify various intrusive and extraordinary measures (detaining suspected terrorists outside the normal legal system, secret trials, warrantless wiretaps, etc.) by asserting that the United States is at war — and yet the Congress has not formally declared war on any nation or entity in response to 9/11, and therefore there is no end in sight to the current claimed state of emergency.

The effect of inadequate numbers of troops, armaments, supplies, and transport, combined with the seemingly open-ended commitment in Iraq, on the nation's ability to respond to more direct and strategic threats from China, North Korea, Iran, and Saudi-sponsored terrorists such as Al Qaeda.

The unprecedented and corrosive influence of Saudi money on the political process in Washington, D.C., in general, and details of the longstanding relationship between the Bush and bin Laden families, in particular.

In short, Michael Moore somehow manages near-total avoidance of a serious examination and critique of the Administration's national security policy from either the Right or the Left, opting instead to produce a shallow and predictable sop to his apparent target constituency, the relatively small body of hardcore political activists who are already guaranteed to share Moore's views without need of further persuading.

For those interested in a substantive discourse on many of these issues, especially the origins of the U.S.-Saudi relationship and Saudi influence on American policy in the Middle East and around the world, former CIA operative Robert Baer's Sleeping with the Devil is a good starting point. And at $17.00 in trade paperback, it's a far better value than spending a similar sum for a ticket to see Fahrenheit 9/11 plus popcorn and soda, while at the same allowing one to avoid Mr. Moore's puffery and self-importance completely — a bargain at any price.

The Op-ed as Ukase.

By way of an op-ed piece in today's Washington Post, the National Security Adviser to the President of the United States has publicly and unambiguously laid out the Administration's intention to establish imperium:

Today America and our friends and allies must commit ourselves to a long-term transformation in another part of the world: the Middle East. A region of 22 countries with a combined population of 300 million . . .

America is determined to help the people of the Middle East achieve their full potential. We will act because we want greater freedom and opportunity for the people of the region, as well as greater security for people in America and throughout the world.

The writer is national security adviser to the president [sp].

I think this pretty much puts paid to the whole 'Republic vs. Empire' debate. For good or ill, it seems that our rulers - for surely this is how they must view themselves, to send out their underlings to make such proclamations in the broadsheets - have decided upon this course, and have kindly deigned to inform their subjects (formerly known as 'citizens') of the burdens we are expected to shoulder.

If I sound bitter - well, I am.