It seems to me that I have seen almost all these images we are getting of Terri Schiavo exhibiting human expressive "behavior" before - the last time this case made national news, or perhaps the time before that.  The media, however, have been presenting these images without time and date references, and so implying that they are current. Needless to say, if my recollections about this are correct, this would be a clear case of irresponsible reporting.  Any help with dating the history of media coverage, and in particular the images of what is to my mind file footage, would be most appreciated.

I have been looking through news archive databass. I see the same images come up in articles from 2003 (a simple google image search on "Terri Schiavo" turns these up). But I think this case made headlines in the late 90s. There is an article from 2000 in People Magazine to confirm this sense, but I can't access the photos (have to go to a library I suppose). (BTW it is very interesting to compare the angle of that People story with the way the story is framed today).

Thanks in advance for any help on the collective memory front.

On Monday, John Bolton was nominated as US ambassador to the UN. On Tuesday, David Brooks devoted his column to singing the praises of Paul Wolfowitz. What do these two events have in common?

Perhaps nothing. But perhaps a very stark picture of what the New World Order will look like.

In case you haven't been following how the issue of same-sex marriage has unfolded in Canada, I begin with a brief (and no doubt slightly off) history. After the history, I'll highlight a number of points which has allowed the discussion on this highly charged matter to remain civil and principled, and not subject to emotional manipulation of the citizenry.

In Bush's speech in Halifax yesterday, he invoked William Lyon MacKenzie King, the PM who brought Canada into WWII before the US, effectively comparing the terrorist enemies of 'War on Terror' to the threat posed by Hitler's Nazi Germany. (I could write a separate diary entry on the problems with that analogy, but I will leave that to someone else -- none the less the analogy itself is telling.) He also decided to press Canada to join the United States in furthering missile defense.

US citizens may not realize just how bold these two moves were. Bush came to Canada for two days; the Canadians had modest hopes of resolving two trade disputes, neither of which went resolves, and found themselves having their history misrepresented and bullied into a defense plan most here find laughable.  And this was done on a stage in Halifax with Paul Martin standing by his side

For those of you living south of the border, you haven't been able to enjoy (I mean, had to suffer through) a CBC campaign to elect the Greatest Canadian. An odd mix of Alexander Graham Bell and Don Cherry (a loose cannon hockey commentator) and others for whom airports are named made the top ten. But Tommy Douglas was the winner.

What is Tommy Douglas, native of Manitoba, and Saskatchewan politician, famous for? Introducting universal health care to Canada -- as premier of Saskatchewan  he instituted it at the provincial level. (His, in the guise of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation was the first socialist government in North America. However, his transition to national politics was difficult. He became the first leader of the NDP, and lost his first federal election, in part as a result of an anti-socialist backlash. Lester Pearson, Liberal Party PM, instituted universal health care across Canada.

While it certainly wasn't planned this way, it is still fitting that the announcement comes on the eve of Bush's visit.

When I thought my blood couldn't boil more, it starts bubbling away again.I get home from a pleasant morning outing to this article in the NYT.  

I hope that Specter decides to show some spine and to not march in lockstep with his party-fellows. He is being positioned as the test-case for moderate Republicans. Let him call their bluff. If it turns out that it is no bluff at all, Specter has the stature to pull the other moderates away with him, and to create a real voting block of independents. How he responds to this indignity will be how he is remembered.

Last week I found myself in a small town in eastern Holland Arnhem (see A Bridge too Far), thankfully far-removed from N-A media (and even reliable internet access). (Though in the background were the destruction of Islamic education centres in response to the killing of Dutch film maker Theo van Gogh (whose last project concerned the treatment of women by radical Islam), and a raid of an apartment where suspected terrorists were living in Den Hague, but since I don't speak Dutch, I also got to ignore all that.) My first night there, as I ate my dinner, I couldn't help overhearing the conversation at the neighboring table, about Bush and the war on Iraq. I ungraciously intruded myself into the conversation. It turned out the man at the table was in the British military and the woman (Dutch) was presumably his girlfriend -- she seemed to be in business).

A lot of attention in this election has been on voting, voter registration drives as well as problems with electronic voting machines, computerized voting, voter intimidation and the like.  I think that this misses the real problem. And I am not sure I would have seen the problem without living here in Canada (Vancouver).

There need to be federal guidelines about what can be on the ballot at any given federal election. And to my mind, there should just be federal elected offices on this elections. States and localities can hold their elections on different days. I might be willing to concede state and local elected offices going on the same ballot.

My point is  this:  I wonder what the outcome would have been had the ballot initiatives banning gay marriage not been on the ballot in the 11 states it was on. I suspect that the decisive evangelical vote would not have turned out as they did, and we would have a very different outcome.

In today's Globe and Mail (essentially a Canadian Liberal paper, ie, fiscally conservative, socially liberal) the editorial page comes out in favor of Kerry. It seems you cannot get to the editorial without giving them cc information (insane if you ask me), but here are the first two sentences:

The editorial presents a strong argument against Bush continuing in office, focusing on domestic economic policy, free trade, as well as a general criticism of the administration's decision making process.

It makes a weaker argument for Kerry, but holds out hope that Kerry will be decisive leader.

Here is the link

A short summary: After a measured assessment of each candidate's strengths and weaknesses -- which includes a fair analysis of what Bush did get right -- they conclude that the risks associated with a Kerry vote are tolerable, and the dangers of a Bush second term are not. At the center of the case is not domestic policy, or even the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, but rather the ability to keep the US secure in the face of terrorist threats and to stabilize the Middle East (including Iraq, Iran and Israel/Palestine) and the North Korea situation.

Its just a small news item (that happens to make the Globe and Mail's front page on the web:
Castro falls and breaks his knee and arm

I'm not sure what this signifies about Castro's health, but I am curious about how it might impact on Cuban-American voters. Any insights?
UPDATE: I don't know how this happened, but really, I did not mean for this diary to turn into a battle about Castro and Latin American politics. I simply ask those who choose to comment to try to be respectful of those with whom they disagree.

I want to relay a conversation I had tonight with my father, a long-time registered independent, and a classic swing voter. He started off this conversation by saying that he wished he didn't have to vote, implying he didn't like either candidate. We chatted, and I said at the end that I was surprised he didn't like Kerry...that he is pretty moderate, and that he was the Senator responsible for the BCCI investigation, and the Iran-Contra investigation. This got his attention. 'Really?' he said, "Kerry was responsible for the BCCI report?" I told him to read the report himself (just Google 'BCCI' and it takes you right  here.)

I was struck by how much this fact got his attention. Suddenly, to him, Kerry seemed like a much better candidate for President because he helped expose some serious corruption. He said he would check my facts.

Gwen Ifill asked a question about increasing rates of AIDS among African-American women in the US (she explicitly framed the question as not about the international AIDS crisis). I am worried Edwards answer may result in newly-registered inner city voters not bothering to go to the polls and vote. Both candidates made it very clear they hadn't a clue about African-American women and AIDS, but of course, we want these women (and their community members) to vote for Kerry/Edwards. Democratic grass roots groups need to go out and show that this ticket does understand.

I know the read is its not a high-priority -- the claim will be that the African American woman vote isn't going to hinge on this -- and it might not. Still, it is important that this group vote, and they will only vote if they take their representatives to represent them.

Where to begin with the problems with the latest report regarding the mysterious blast near the North Korean-Chinese border. I will skip over the obvious problem with North Korea's demonstrating nuclear weapons capability -- it destabilizes a large chunk of Asia by posing a risk not only to South Korea, China, Taiwan and Japan. I will skip over the fact that we might well find ourselves in this situation because the Bush administration disengaged North Korea and let them do whatever, while all the focus went to Iraq. (Note to Kerry campaign for soundbite: The Bush administration has NOT made us safer: Before Bush nuclear proliferation was under control, now totalitarian dictators seem to have acquired nuclear capability. The world is a more dangerous place than it was 4 years ago, 3 years ago, even 2 years ago because of administration lapses).
What is bothering me right now is how hard it is to get clear information, and how little I trust this administration to tell us and the world what they really know. I just want some facts here.

This is less of a diary and more a simple request for an explanation of why Kerry (or his agents) is not highlighting his central role in the Iran-Contra investigation of the 80s.  I realize that the 80s were a while ago, but the fact of the matter is Kerry helped to expose a serious abuse of executive authority, not unlike some of the allegations we see in the current administration. Indeed, some of the same principals from Iran-Contra are involved in Iraq (Elliot Abrams ring any bells?). A large part of what is at stake in this election is the credibility of the government. The Republicans time and time again (Nixon (invoked explicitly by Arnold at the RNC), Iran-Contra, and here and now) have shown that they abuse power and circumvent democratic institutions and processes. Kerry has been at the vanguard of holding government accountable to the people...do I need to write the whole speech? Why are we not hearing anything like this? Any answers?

No doubt many readers know this already, but some may not, and those that do know may not have done what they couldn't to stop this ban from being lifted.

On September 13, 1994 Clinton signed into law the Assault Weapons Ban. Perhaps not unsurprisingly violence, especially in inner cities, decreased in the 90s. Now, as part of the sunset provision of the law, it is due to expire unless it is renewed. The DC police have gotten behind efforts to renew the law. This should be a no brainer, but of course the NRA is lobbying hard to let the law lapse, and of course, Bush needs to play to his base. But: Banning semi-automatic assault weapons does not conflict with the Second Amendment's guarantee of the right to bear arms.

Make sure you call your senator and congressperson to let them know you think the assault weapons ban has worked and should be renewed.

But thankfully, Bob Herbert and William Saletan do.
I returned home from spending three weeks traveling about the Pacific Rim, blissfully ignorant of US politics, to return to North American at the tail end of the Swift Boat controversy. My mind was addled. What kind of assinine strategy is this? Remind voters of Bush being essentially AWOL in Vietnam? Of his inability to do anything of substance (besides lose large quantities of money) before age 40? And in the process call into question not only Kerry's service but also the honesty of those who served under Kerry and his commanding officers, not to mention the medals of others who served in Vietnam and even the very practice of handing out medals of valor, all while there are troops in danger, being wounded, in Iraq. Surely this sort of tactic would turn folks, not to mention the media, away from Republicans. Bob Herbert's column last week said all this better than I could.

I am starting to sense the Democratic theme of this election, and with a little blush I admit that I find it inspiring. It is simple: Unity. Not only do I think it is a winning political strategy but I also think it provides just the kind of rhetoric and message that, well, makes the US a better place to live. Of course the question will still remain whether the policies put forward match up to the rhetoric, but as rhetoric it is resounding, patriotic, idealistic, and Timothy Noah forgive me, allows us to make America be America again.