It's So Stupendous, Living With This Tube

It may seem like I'm staunchly on the liberal side of the political spectrum to frequent Inertia readers. Though I think all politicians are essentially scumbags, I do think of Republicans as as bags filled with somewhat more scum than Democrats. But there's a strong libertarian streak to my views as well. For example, I think all drugs should be legalized. All of them. Every single one, from opiates to marijuana to antibiotics to the morning-after pill to Vicodin to black tar heroin with crack smooshed down inside it. You know, for when you need that extra kick.

Also, I think prostitution should be legalized. In fact, I don't understand how prostitution can possibly be against the law. Porn movies are legal, right? And actresses get paid to appear in them, correct? So, women are getting paid, legally, to have sex as long as it's on camera and distributed for the viewing pleasure of others. And that's okay, but just the sex without the videotaping is illegal? What?

This would be a great idea for a legal brothel. Before you choose your girl and go off for your "session," you just sign a form agreeing to allow the brothel to tape you having intercourse. Then, when it's over, part of the fee you pay is that you have to buy the tape of yourself engaged in a sex act. Now, you can destroy it or keep it as a momento, it's up to you, but the mere fact that you've then paid for the videotape ought to legalize the sex you just had. Right? Maybe? If I'm wrong, someone please explain why in the comments below.

But I don't think I'm wrong.

Anyway, my libertarian side has become significantly angry lately over this Terry Schiavo case. If you don't follow the news, Terry Schiavo is a braindead woman whose husband has been fighting in court for over a decade now to unhook her from machines and allow her to die naturally. See, Terry's parents want to keep her "alive" as long as possible, even though there's absolutely no chance she'll ever recover, regain consciousness and live what any one of us would consider to be "a life."

Believe it or not, members of Congress will actually get to decide whether this woman lives or dies. Cause, you know, when you need a really important decision made, there's no better group of people to go to than Congress.

After Terri Schiavo's feeding tube was removed on Friday, members of Congress worked out a deal to pass legislation to allow federal courts to decide the 41-year-old woman's fate and — in the hopes of supporters of the woman's parents — restore the tube that was keeping her alive.

You know, our leaders have always been crooked. They've always been liars. They've always attempted to act in secret. But this is the first time in my recollection that you could really consider the politicains in Washington to be ghoulish. I'm genuinely freaked out by this...that these old guys in the Capitol Building really think the fate of individual Americans should rest in their hands.

Who the hell are they? Why should they get to decide over the woman's own husband. If you're married, think about that...who would you rather make the decision as to whether you live the rest of your life braindead, ingesting protein through a feeding tube? Your spouse, or George W. Bush. Bear in mind, George W. Bush is the guy who decided we had to invade Iraq, cause of all dem nuke-u-lar weapons.

The House and Senate hoped to act on the legislation Sunday, so Bush decided he needed to be in Washington so he could immediately sign the bill, McClellan said.

"The president intends to sign legislation as quickly as possible once it is passed," McClellan said.

During previous travels, Bush has had legislation flown to him overnight by military plane for his signature. But in this case, McClellan said that the fact that a woman's life is at stake made it necessary for him to travel to the bill.

"Terri Schiavo's feeding tube has been removed and we stand with ... all those who are working to defend her life," he said.

Again, you have to pay attention to the language. McClellan stands with those who are working to "defend her life." By his definition, you're alive if your heart is beating. You're alive if a machine verifies that you're not quite dead. But if Terry Schiavo didn't have stuff sticking out of all of her orifices, if she wasn't hooked up constantly to a variety of machines that do everything for her, from breathing to eating to regulating her body's various functions and systems, she'd die. That's what's happening right now - the machines have been removed and she's dying. They want the right to artificially prolong her life, not save it.

If someone's in a burning house and you run in to save them, you've saved a life. If someone's kidney fails and you put another kidney in their body, you've saved a life. But if someone's brain no longer works, if they can't breathe or eat or open their eyes on their own, and you devise a contraption that does those things for them, you're not saving their life, you're extending their lack of life.

We're just so stupidly afraid of death in America. Does anyone really think that to live in Terry Schiavo's condition is better than passing away peacefully, without technological interference?

And how odd is it that we get this behavior from the Kingdom of Heaven crowd? Doesn't G. W. believe that, if Terry Schiavo lived a good life, we're just keeping her away from the Pearly Gates? She could be by God's side right now instead of inert in a Florida hospital bed.