Jeb Bush: Stalker Extraordinaire

An autopsy report may have vindicated Michael Schiavo, but Florida Gov. Jeb Bush isn’t going to let a pesky little thing like the truth deter him in his quest to ruin the man’s life. Bush has now asked a prosecutor to look into why Terri Schiavo collapsed 15 years ago. The working theory is that there was a large gap of time (40-70 minutes) between when Michael found Terri and when he placed a 911 call, during which anything may have happened (sinister wink).

As if it wasn’t evident during the whole feeding tube debacle, Bush has a serious hard-on for Michael and seems willing to make him suffer no matter what. But what is disturbing is the extent to which he is willing to warp logic and fudge facts to support his belief that Michael was up to no good. Bolstering the “fact fixing” assertions of the Downing Street Memo, its clear that the Bush boys haven’t quite learned you can’t attempt to alter reality to fit your whim and expect to get away with it.

<>The consideration that gnaws the most about this new investigation is time. Bush tells us, “Mrs. Schiavo’s family deserves to know anything that can be done to determine the cause and circumstances of her collapse 15 years ago.” Fair enough. But if that is the case, why wasn’t a deeper investigation launched 15 years ago? Obviously, the authorities at the time didn’t think too much of the alleged gap before the 911 call, else Michael might have found himself on trial. Further, why is it that during more than a decade of legal wrangling, replete with numerous invasive inquiries into Michael Schiavo, this issue didn’t pop up in any significant way?

Much as Michael Schiavo’s timing in pushing for feeding tube removal made him a shady character, Bush’s timing in launching this investigation calls his motives into serious doubt. If Bush is so concerned about justice, perhaps he should launch an investigation into the people threatening Judge Greer. Greer, a conservative Baptist, has received death threats for sticking to the law in his ruling in the Schiavo case. He’s become a poster boy for the Christian Right eating its own.

<>Time, by the way, also puts a dent in the physical possibility of the “Michael killed Terri” theory. Had he waited 70 minutes after finding her, wouldn’t she have died?

Don’t be surprised if Bush and his supporters come up with a phony medical “expert” to back their claim or if a high school girlfriend suddenly (after all these years and a sizeable silent payoff) forward to vouch that he was “abusive.” I’m not sold on Michael as a good guy, but the extent to which he’s been hounded makes me sick. His detractors seem ready to do literally anything to bring him down.

Footing the bill for famine

The LA Times tells us that the Group of 8 (that's the US, UK, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and Russia) has voted to forgive $40 billion worth of debt to 18 of the world's poorest nations. Bono and Bob Geldoff must be thrilled and Gordon Brown's political stock just shot up a zillion points. But seriously: did anyone bother to consider the possibility that this isn't a good idea?

First of all, this sends a bad message to third-world countries. Instead of (gasp) cutting aid or perhaps even tying it to policy-based incentives, this sort of carte-blanche debt relief basically says if you are poor enough and a few rock stars sympathize with your plight, you have nothing to worry about. The more developed nations of the world are paying the tab at the IMF and World Bank. Instead of treating these impoverished nations as equal partners in world affairs, we are offering them the presumption of fiscal incompetence. Fear not Africa, the white, Western world is here to rescue you.

In addition to this gross paternalism, paying for debt relief is only going to enlarge the U.S.'s budget deficit. Perhaps we should give thought to paying off our own debts before we tackle Ghana's.

None of this would matter, of course, if debt relief actually did what it was supposed to do. After all, you can't put a price on curing poverty. But since when does forgiving debt mean that poverty will automatically be cured? Remember, we aren't pumping capital back into the economies of these countries; all we are doing is letting them off the hook for money they already owe. Assume for a moment that most of these countries have corrupt governments that set bad policies that resulted not only in accruing billions of dollars of debt, but poverty, famine, oppression, etc. Now suppose we say to these governments, "OK....you're off the hook." What's really changed? And, given that, why should we expect anything to improve?

The world will be a better place if I'm wrong about this. Sadly, I don't think I am.