POSSIBLE TOPICS FOR WBZ TONIGHT

Here is what I am looking at for discussion on WBZ tonight between Midnight and 5 AM...

Deroy Murdock has a good post on the Terri Schiavo case. I agree with him that this isn't simply a story about the Religious Right. He quotes Jesse Jackson and Ralph Nader. He also links to Nat Hentoff's piece in the Village Voice.

The issue of stem cell research is, I think, related to the Terri Schiavo case in that it is about the boundaries of life and how those boundaries are effected by advances in medical technologies and capabilities. Governor Romney in Massachusetts is fighting a bill that would allow a certain kind of stem cell research. He has launched an ad campaign against it. I don't think he will succeed.

A Boston city councilor would like to start charging people a fee for going into certain parts of the city. His idea is based on a program in London. He thinks it would reduce traffic congestion in those neighborhoods. Just another excuse to shop in the suburbs instead of the city.

An activist group wants to get a petition on the Massachusetts ballot to ban gay marriage. I admire their forthrightness, while I disagree with their position. I suspect they may surprise some people by getting more support in the Bay State than some might think.

Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, who I interviewed many times when he was running for President, has an op-ed piece in the Washington Post advocating for a national ID card. He used to oppose it, but now thinks it has to happen.

Of course, other things may come up between now and midnight that may preclude discussion of any of those issues. WBZ-Boston can be heard at 1030 on the AM dial. The call-in number is 617-254-1030. They are also now streaming their broadcasts on the internet. Just go to the website and take a listen.

ODDS AND ENDS

I've never understood why, with the billions we already spend for defense, there are so many people who are opposed to anti-missile defense. Isn't it prudential to create a structure that gives us another option besides the nuclear incineration of the innocent population of a state whose leaders have fired a missile at us? Doesn't it make sense to create a defense against a missile fired by a non-state actor? Shouldn't we have such a system if there were to be an accidental launch? Even if all those scenarios are highly unlikely, can we risk even one such incident?

Here is a defense of building such a system.

Why do we continue to suffer through seemingly inexplicable school shootings? Why do some youngsters decide one day to gather weapons, march through their school killing randomly, and then take their own life? It seems to me that these shootings are a relatively recent phenomenon. I don't recall reading about such incidents prior to the early 1990s. It now seems we have one at least every couple of years in the United States. What has changed? Is it a more readily available supply of high-powered guns? Is it violence in popular entertainment (TV, movies, video games)?

Or, is it that too many of our children are on prescription drugs?

Finally, lest you think the Terri Schiavo case is another left vs. right political fight, here is a piece in the Village Voice, by Nat Hentoff, that calls what is happening to her an example of judicial murder.

WBZ THIS WEEK

I will be filling in for the vacationing Steve Leveille on WBZ-Boston this week. I will do the Wednesday and Thursday morning shifts from Midnight to 5 AM. WBZ can be heard (in 38 states and the very best provinces in Canada) at 1030 on your AM dial.

THE SCHIAVO DILEMMA

If you knew that someone was trying to murder someone else, and you had the power to stop it, would you?

I think most people would answer yes to that question. Which brings me to the Schiavo dilemma. If you truly believe that Terri Schiavo is about to be murdered, by thirst and starvation, then it seems to me you are justified in using whatever power you have to prevent that awful crime. But, if she dies sometime in the next couple of days, is her death murder?

Legally, the answer is no. Over the last few decades we have, as a society, come up with a patchwork of laws and practices that allow life-sustaining treatment to be withdrawn from patients under certain circumstances. I am in favor of those laws and practices. In fact, I have made it abundantly clear to my wife (and she, for her part, to me) that I do not want to live in a "persistent vegetative state". If I cannot feed myself, and have the mental acuity of an infant, without the ability to speak, or otherwise communicate with the people of the world around me, and virtually no hope of recovery, then I want to die. The sooner the better.

For me, unlike Terri Schiavo, there would be no question as to my wishes. If anyone doubted my wife's word, both my brothers and my uncle would certainly affirm that position (one they all share for themselves). If the position was reversed, my wife's mother and brother would certainly affirm that she holds the same position. There would be no question.

With Terri Schiavo, there is a question. There is a doubt. While we must respect the fact-finding that has gone on in the courts, we shouldn't deride the very real passion and sincerity of those who hold a different, usually religiously inspired, view of this issue. Are those of us who would wish to die under Terri's circumstances too quick in opting for that standard for everyone? Are we too quick in projecting our own view onto Terri Schiavo, who cannot tell us how she really thinks, or thought, about the issue?

This case has conservative politicians in Washington jumping through hoops for Federal intervention. It has civil libertarians jumping through hoops to defend the starvation death of a helpless invalid.

It's a bad case, making bad law, and good people too quick to accept that another human being should be allowed to slide into death through a deliberate neglect of her care.

I wish I knew the answer.

WPRO IN PROVIDENCE

I will be on WPRO-AM in Providence tomorrow, filling in for Steve Kass from 9 AM to 11:45 AM. WPRO can be found at 630 on the AM dial.

WILL WE WAKE UP BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE?

Since 9/11 I have been beating the drum for the expansion of our military, especially the Army. On the radio I've said almost from that very day, "We're gonna need more guys". It was apparent to me then, and it is apparent to me now, that the war against Al Qaeda and it's allies will require the use of conventional military force. This is not to say that unconventional force is not also part of the equation. Diplomatic, financial and law enforcement pressure will also have to be maintained to bring Al Qaeda to heel. The CIA and other intelligence agencies will continue to play a major role in the effort.

All that taken into consideration, though, does not change the fact that Al Qaeda is engaged in a war against us, they have allies that wish our demise and are, thus, also engaged in that war, and wars are fought by soldiers. Therefore, we will need as robust and large a military as is necessary to fight these people and be prepared for other contingencies. This Washington Post story this morning is just the latest indicator that we do not have a military as large as we need to win this war and be prepared for other potential conflicts.

The time has long since passed for our leaders to get real about the fix we are in. Useless debate about the draft is not an answer. What we need is a strong commitment by Congress to permanently enlarge the Army by several divisions (the actual number should be determined with the advice of Army leaders), shift resources and responsibilities away from the over-stretched National Guard and Army Reserves to the active component (in order to put the ARNG and AR back as a domestic reserve force, not an overseas expeditionary force).

Once the Congress is committed to a significant increase in the Army, then the process of recruiting can proceed apace. I cannot believe that, given sufficient incentives and public appeals by the President and other leaders, we would be unable to fill the Army's ranks with enough young people to get the job done. If we cannot, then perhaps the country doesn't deserve to be defended.

CHEATING

It shouldn't take an act of Congress to get the owners, union representatives and players of Major League Baseball to clean up their act when it comes to cheating. After all, the integrity of the game, as in any game, relies upon the belief held by those watching that the games are on the up and up. If cheating is going on, especially if it is widespread, then why should anyone watch. It is no longer a contest pitting talent versus talent, rather it is a contest of who can most deviously out-cheat the other side.

This is the context within which I am watching the steroids scandal play out in Major League Baseball (MLB). It is why I am disappointed that too many of the people that make MLB happen are dancing around the issue. It seems even the "good guys", those who by most accounts haven't used steroids and have spoken against their use, are unwilling to "rat out" their teammates and/or call baseball to account.

Unfortunately, in order to keep Congress at bay, MLB has to clean its own house with vigor. This means, in my view, that the cheaters have to be called out. Their cheating has to be exposed, their reputations ruined, the records expunged (if possible). Until that happens, young people are going to believe that the benefits outweigh the risks.

While it was good to see Mark McGwire suffer during the hearings yesterday, as it seems obvious he did cheat his way to some of the records he set, that is not enough. While it is good to see Jason Giambi have to fight through the embarrassment as he tries to prove that he can perform without steroids, that is not enough. The game's greatest active star, Barry Bonds, has to be brought to account. He is on the threshold of breaking Hank Aaron's all-time career home run record. If, as most seem to believe, he used steroids for some portion of his career, then we are going to be treated sometime this season or next to the unseemly spectacle of MLB celebrating as he breaks one of its most storied records. Can anything imaginable be more destructive to the integrity of the game than to have MLB celebrate cheating on the grandest of scales?

It shouldn't take an act of Congress to get MLB to clean up its act. It is time for MLB not only to strengthen it's testing program to deter cheating in the upcoming season, but also to conduct a thorough housecleaning regarding the cheating that has gone on in the past. While it may be impossible to clean up the record books, it will be possible to cast a shadow over those records set by known cheaters (if they can be known), the better for us to judge when we peruse through the accomplishments of those great players of the past, which is a significant part of the glory of baseball.

THE MONSTER IS DEAD

Sad news this morning as the Boston Globe has this story of the passing of Dick "The Monster" Radatz. For Sox fans old enough to remember the team of the 60s (I am not), they remember Radatz as one of the most dominant closers of that era. For younger fans, we remember "The Monster" as a big (very big), gravelly-voiced guy who talked baseball on radio and TV. Red Sox Nation has lost one of the good guys.

NEWS AND VIEWS FROM THE MIDDLE EAST

In Iraq, the Kurds and Shiites are about to get a deal done that would allow them to form a government. They say they will offer Sunnis a share of power. For the first time in its history, Iraq will be governed by people representing a majority of the population, and duly elected by those people. When it is done and the new government is seated, it will be a milestone in the history of the region.

IN Lebanon, the U.N. is finally doing what it should be doing, applying pressure to a pariah state that is violating the law (in terms of a UN resolution) and flouting the will of the international community. Isn't that what the founders intended for the U.N.? A body that would regulate the behavior of nation-states to prevent war, genocide, invasions, oppression, etc.? My biggest problem with the U.N. has always been that the body was made up primarily of representatives from tyrannical regimes, whose votes were equal to those representatives that actually were accountable to their peoples. Just as the League of Nations couldn't work when Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin's representatives were in it (Hitler and Mussolini, at least, were honest about the uselessness of the body when withdrawing their representatives), so, too, the U.N. can't work if it is filled with people representing evil regimes. Perhaps, if the world continues to move towards freedom (a very big if, I grant you), the U.N. will be able to someday fulfill its mandate as a body that helps keep the peace.

In Syria, there are still those brave enough to confront the regime, but they are taking a beating. Will the day come, perhaps sooner than later, when the oppressed will feel bold enough and numerous enough to take on their oppressors?

THE COUNTER-REVOLUTION

Every revolution breeds a counter-revolution. The pro-democracy demonstrators had succeeded only temporarily in putting their Syrian masters on the defensive. The counter-revolution was launched this week when Hezbollah, one of the terror organizations that depends on Damascus for support, brought out hundreds of thousands of people to counter the pro-democracy crowd. That led to the re-appointment of the Prime Minister who had recently resigned under pressure.

The forces of terror and tyranny will not go quietly.

THE TERROR MASTERS

Michael Ledeen calls them "The Terror Masters". He has written a book on the subject. He refers to the governments that direct the terrorists, especially Iran, but also Syria.

This morning, more proof that the terrorist group Hezbollah is inextricably linked to the fascist government of Syria.

COURAGE

My WBZ colleague Paul Sullivan probably wouldn't agree with the assessment of his behavior as courageous, but it is. Mark Jurkowitz (who was a colleague of mine at the old WHDH) writes this article about Sullivan in the Boston Globe.

The courage shown by people like David Brudnoy and Paul Sullivan is, I think, representative of the courageousness of ordinary people in all walks of life exhibited every day. We tend, as a society, to celebrate only the courage that is spectacular (the fireman rushing into the burning building, the soldier on the battlefield). We should take note of the everyday courage all around us of people facing life-threatening adversity and yet continuing on in their duties as mother, father, husband, wife, co-worker, friend. It is amazing to me that the vast majority of people do NOT fall into despair but, rather, soldier on in their jobs and lives.

I've personally heard Paul Sullivan's self-deprecating humor on display, even concerning his fight with cancer. In the Globe article he says the toughest guy he ever met was a bookworm from Minnesota (referring to Brudnoy). I guess it takes one to know one.

SOME GET IT, SOME DON'T

Daniel Schorr gets it.

Gerard Baker gets it.

Of course, Charles Krauthammer gets it.

Austin Bay gets it.

H.D.S. Greenway still doesn't get it.

What is "it"? Follow the links and you might get it to.

THE TIMES THEY ARE A CHANGIN'

If this story is true, then the Democrats are in more trouble than I thought.

Austin Bay adds some perspective on what is happening in the Middle East.

Publius has a round-up of what is happening in Lebanon.

Yes, the times they are a changin'.