If Americans wish to see the inevitable results of such government patronage in our everyday lives, we need look no further than to our northern neighbor Canada, where the Supreme Court is being asked to give doctors the authority to decide if and when to remove life-sustaining medical care from patients, even if those patients are deemed to be conscious and even against their family’s objections.  From an article published in the British Medical Journal:

Canada’s Supreme Court will next week consider an appeal from two Canadian doctors who seek, against a family’s objections, to withdraw life sustaining treatment from a patient they originally diagnosed as being in a persistent vegetative state, but whom they now describe as minimally conscious.  Hassan Rasouli, 60, a retired Iranian born engineer, contracted bacterial meningitis in late 2010 after surgery to remove a brain tumour, and has since been on mechanical ventilation at Toronto’s Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre.  All parties agree, however, that he is no longer in a vegetative state and has repeatedly given the thumbs up at his wife’s request. . . .  Given the change in the patient’s diagnosis, the family has submitted a motion to dismiss the case as moot, to be heard on 17 May.  But the doctors argue that the full case should still be heard in December, citing in court documents “a great need for guidance from this Court . . . when the law is unsettled.”  “The Court of Appeal misapplied the law of informed consent in order to confer upon patients a right to insist upon the continuation of a particular treatment when the medical standard of care requires it to be withdrawn,” they argue.

In essence, as Wesley J. Smith recently observed on his bioethics blog “Secondhand Smoke,” the doctors aren’t petitioning to remove life support from Rasouli now, but they are arguing that they should have had the authority to do so back when they “had the chance,” before the patient showed signs of consciousness.  “What does that tell us,” Smith wonders, “about permitting bureaucratic ‘standards of care’ guidelines to become mandatory rules of medical practice?”

To answer Smith’s question, this case highlights the primary problem with government-controlled healthcare.  Quite simply, when the government pays the bills, it has the right to call the shots.  The one that pays the piper, as they say, is the one who calls the tune.  In the case of critical healthcare decisions, individualized care based on patient needs and responses goes by the boards, and cookbook medicine becomes the norm.  Bureaucrats are masters at crafting “policy” after all, and they approach healthcare in the same way they’d approach any other policy issue: gather a panel of so-called “experts” to craft a broad-based, generalized set of guidelines designed to achieve the “greatest good for the greatest number” based on the latest cost-benefit analyses and ratios (yes, in the end, it’s really all about money), and then follow these guidelines to the letter even when they aren’t applicable or don’t make sense given the particular situation at hand.

This approach may work out okay for many people much of the time, but in life or death cases, or in situations where the government’s values come into conflict with the values of a patient and his or her family, there is potential for huge problems as this story illustrates.  “Futile” care is a matter of definition.  In this case, the doctor’s felt that continuing treatment for a patient whom they mistakenly diagnosed as merely “vegetative”  was a waste of resources, even though  his family wasn’t ready to give up on him.  If the doctors had had their way they would have pulled the plug on what turned out to be a conscious human being.  This will inevitably occur more often if the Canadian Supreme Court decides in favor of the government in this case.

There’s no doubt that the concept of universal health care has its appeal, but at the end of the day what individuals must consider is who they want making decisions for them in the event of a serious or life-threatening medical situation.  Do they want the liberty to decide what care is best for them based on their individual circumstances and the opinion of their doctor, or do they want a bureaucrat in a faraway government office making these decisions based on manual of “cookbook medicine”?  If you prefer the former, then you must be prepared to assume responsibility for securing your own health care coverage.  Nothing’s free in this world, after all, and if the government is going to assume the cost of your medical care then you can bet that it will assume the power to make decisions about that health care on your behalf.  Which do you prefer?

Forced out of the closet by the unscripted remarks of Washington’s original gaffemeister, Vice President Joe Biden, Mr. Obama has pledged his support for same-sex marriage.  Naturally, the President is being hailed for his bold stand by the liberal media, although everyone knows that he only went public because Biden’s comments on the subject left him no alternative.  Given his druthers, Obama would have maintained his coyness and not made his sentiments public until such time as he he felt he could maximize the political benefits of doing so (i.e., right after the November election).

For better or worse however, the cat is out of the bag and Mr. O is out of the closet, and the strategists behind the Republican electoral machine are wringing their hands now that the spotlight is focused elsewhere than on the economy.  If you are one of the few remaining conservatives who believes that the Republican Party represents traditional cultural values in addition to free market principles, you’ll be disappointed to know that the current Republican leadership has little interest in advocating for traditional marriage on the public stage.  This is why they were cringing in the corner when would-be presidential aspirants like Rick Santorum and Michelle Bachmann were stressing the importance of families headed by a mom and a dad.

For his part, Mr. Romney will find it difficult to navigate this issue because the perception is that he has been on both sides of the so-called fence at various points in his political career.  In the 90′s he pledged fealty to the radical gay agenda, promising to out-advocate his then opponent, Ted Kennedy, on all issues homosexual.  Today of course, he has a different opponent and is seeking to appeal to a different constituency, so he will try to portray himself as a consistent, lifelong supporter of traditional marriage.  Doing so without coming off as a flip-flopper will be difficult, and unfortunately he won’t find much help from Speaker Boehner or Republican leaders in the House or Senate, as they’ve made a policy of essentially ignoring all issues that are not economic.

Nevermind that marriage is an institution ordained by God that has served as the fundamental building block of human society since the beginning of time.  Nevermind that basic common sense (as well as several formal sociological studies) tells us that children need the influence of a mother and a father in shaping their understanding of the world, their sense of personal security and confidence, and their preparedness to function as healthy and productive members of society.  Nevermind that natural law, our anatomical appendages, and the reproduction of the human race all seem innately geared toward heterosexual unions.  Republican leaders in Washington today can’t be counted upon for anything more than a tip of the hat toward traditional marriage.  Such would be beneath the station of Washington elites and is dirty work better suited to the hoi poloi (those of us in fly-over country who cling to guns and religion).

But the American people understand the significance of the paradigm shift advocated by Mr. Biden and his Johnny-come-lately boss.  As recently as last week, 61% of North Carolinians voting cast their ballot in favor of traditional marriage and against extending the sanctity of this ancient institution to same-sex unions.  All in all, 35 states have come down on the side of traditional marriage when their citizens were given the opportunity to do so, indicating that while marriage is under assault from many quarters (high divorce rates and an increase in the rise of cohabitation), the American people intuitively understand that traditional marriage is nonetheless an institution not to be trifled with.

So social conservatives had better get ready to rumble.  The stakes couldn’t be higher, nor the impact of the outcome of the election greater.  It’s about more than the economy Messrs. Romney and Obama, and no, the American people are not stupid.

Basically Romney’s argument goes like this:  I am ahead, I have the money, and I have the support of the establishment so let’s not kid ourselves.  Uniting behind me now will save time and money by allowing the GOP to devote its resources towards making Barack Obama a one-term president.

The trouble is, the myth of inevitability is just that – a myth!  If the Iowa caucuses demonstrated anything, it is just how tenuous that myth is.  In the months leading up to January 3 – depending on the week, of course – victory appeared secure for Michelle Bachmann, then Herman Cain, then Newt Gingrich, then Ron Paul.  Victory finally did go to Romney, but only by a whisker.  In a nail biter that doubtless put some gray in Romney’s impeccably dyed coif, eleventh-hour surprise Rick Santorum (an ex-Senator with little organization and less money) almost pulled out the upset of the decade.  What Santorum lacked in resources, however, he more than made up for with his message, sweat, and shoe leather.

Given another month and a bit of funding, it’s likely that the outcome in Iowa would have looked very different.  Goodness only knows what Santorum could have accomplished with just a little bit of money and recognition.  Comfortably flush with both, the Romney machine is going to do whatever it takes to overcome the lukewarm enthusiasm that has plagued his candidacy since day one.  This is why the inevitability narrative is critical.

But surely Republican primary voters are smarter than that.  Surely they realize that the outcome of the nomination lies in their hands, not the candidates’ or the pundits’ or the media’s.  Can Santorum be the nominee?  Of course.  So can Ron Paul or Newt Gingrich or any other candidate that the voters decide best represent them.  In short, voters should vote their consciences.  They should work for and give to the candidate who best represents their values and ideas instead of letting the talking heads and the money dictate who their standard bearer should be.  They should not fall for the myth of inevitability, but instead create their own reality.

As for the candidates, they should take heed of the lessons of Iowa and take heart.  This competition is far from over.  May the best man win.

It comes as no surprise then that Rick Perry’s campaign is suing the state of Virginia for denying him a place on the primary ballot.  As a southern candidate, Perry knows that he must be competitive in as many southern, conservative states as possible, and in this formulation Virginia is key.  Newt Gingrich, another candidate excluded from the Virginia ballot, has joined Perry in his suit against the state.

As a trial lawyer, I can’t help but marvel at the irony of this situation.  More than any other Republican candidates, Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich have amassed a good deal of political capital by stirring up enmity against those who make their living advocating for the rights of individuals.  Much like fellow Republican George W. Bush, their disdain for lawyers is legendary – especially trial lawyers.  Yet just like President Bush, when the going gets tough and they feel that their rights are being trampled, they waste no time in mustering the best legal teams that money can buy.

Why the hypocrisy?

It is no secret that establishment Republicans love to demonize lawyers, since this rhetoric helps open the checkbooks of big business donors who don’t like lawyers either.  Big Business and Big Pharma are only too happy to support the careers of politicians willing to aid and abet corporate wrongdoing at the expense of the Constitution.  You see, lawyers cut into the bottom line of high-powered special interest groups by holding them accountable for unethical, illegal behavior and malfeasance.  Remember the Vioxx scandal, in which pharmaceutical company Merck failed to disclose the known hazards of the drug, or Ford’s infamous Pinto debacle, or Firestone’s exploding 500 Radial tires?  In each case, people died as a result of companies placing profits ahead of the welfare and safety of their customers.

To shield themselves from the consequences of their actions, companies are willing to spend big bucks to ensure that the legal system is stacked against the victims of corporate wrongdoing and in favor of the wrongdoers.  This scheme is widely known as “tort reform” and it has become the mantra of Republican candidates who are wildly inconsistent in their supposed adherence to the principles of our Constitution.  Such candidates extol the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms while seeking to undercut the Seventh Amendment’s protection of the right to trial by jury in civil cases.

Few are more outspoken in their support of tort reform than Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich.  Of course when their own interests are at stake, these same individuals waste no time in hiring the toughest, meanest, most expensive lawyers money can buy.  Remember when George W. Bush thought his opponents were trying to steal the election in Florida?  Dubya hired a phalanx of lawyers to protect his interests and a lawsuit ended up deciding the outcome of the 2000 presidential election.  And guess who Rick Perry and The Newtster have hired to get them on the ballot in Virginia?  Those same lying, thieving scumbags they love to tell the public to hate.

The hypocrisy of these Republican Establishment Blue Bloods is breathtaking.  Lawyers are good for them when their career aspirations are at stake, but not for you when a dangerous medication causes a heart attack, or faulty tires kill your loved one.  Lawsuits are okay as a means of righting their wrongs, but not yours.  So much for principle.

Two of America’s finest presidents, Abraham Lincoln and John Adams, were trial lawyers – and darned good ones at that!  Perhaps the day will come when the Republican establishment will recognize that the civil justice system is designed to serve the all of the public and not just the privileged class, that equal justice for all is more than just a political bromide, and that those who advocate before the bar of justice are no less honorable than the corporate CEO’s who write the GOP’s campaign checks.  Right, and perhaps one day pigs will fly.

“In deficit reduction, all that matters is tax revenue. . . .  The Republican proposals raise revenue, despite lowering rates, by opening a gusher of new income for the Treasury in the form of loophole elimination. . . .  Raising revenue through tax reform is better than simply raising rates, which Democrats insist upon with near religious fervor.  It is more economically efficient because it eliminates credits, carve-outs and deductions that grossly misallocate capital.  And it is more fair because it is the rich who can afford not only the sharp lawyers and accountants who exploit loopholes but the lobbyists who create them in the first place. . . .   Yet the Democrats, who flatter themselves as the party of fairness, are instead obsessed with raising tax rates on the rich as a sign of civic virtue.”

Krauthammer’s piece details several Republican or bipartisan proposals that would have increased tax revenues while simultaneously cutting tax rates, contrasting this approach with the ineffectiveness of simply raising rates on the super rich while leaving the vast network of loopholes and exemptions untouched.  Such a tactic yields marginal results at best, with revenue increases nowhere near the levels they would be if the loopholes were eliminated.  So why the preference for rhetorical fluff over substantive solutions?  Quite simply, because Democrats have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.  They cannot afford the political price associated with backing reforms that would alienate their core constituencies.  Pinning the stalled deficit reduction efforts on the GOP serves as a convenient red herring, distracting from President Obama’s woeful lack of leadership on this issue.  Krauthammer explains:

“Has the president ever publicly proposed a single significant structural change in any entitlement?  After Simpson-Bowles reported?  No.  In his February budget?  No.  In his April 13 budget ‘framework’?  No.  During the debt-ceiling crisis?  No.  During or after the supercommittee deliberations?  No.

“[It] is the Republicans who passed – through the House, the only branch of government they control – a  real budget that cut $5.8 trillion of spending over the next 10 years.  Obama’s February budget, which would have increased spending, was laughed out of the Senate, voted down 97 to 0.  As for the Democratic Senate, it has submitted no budget at all for 2 1/2 years.”

In trademark Washington fashion, demagoguery and cheap talk are winning out over substantive action.  Both parties are equally guilty of playing this game when it suits their purposes, fiddling away while Rome burns.  At the risk of sounding like a broken record, however, time is running out.  The current crises plaguing the Eurozone could be our Cassandra; if we don’t enact bold reforms, and now, ours may very likely be the next default on the horizon.

No amount of spin, or rhetoric, or blame-gaming can change the mathematical facts on the ground: Our debt has spiraled out of control and we are rapidly reaching a point of no return.  This Congress and this President have had more than enough time to act, but they have failed to do so.  If their dismal approval ratings are any indication, there will be a price to pay for this inexcusable indolence come November 2012.

According to multiple news accounts, numbers of people witnessed the brutal attack on Genovese but did nothing to intervene – or even call the police – giving rise to what is now known in some quarters as “the Genovese Syndrome.”

As details of the Penn State child sex abuse scandal continue to emerge, it is clear that the Genovese Syndrome has plagued the campus at Penn State for years, resulting in the systematic sexual abuse of young boys and the shielding of a sexual predator from accountability before the law.  The newly released grand jury report is a damning indictment of the people and institution at the heart of the scandal – people who had ample time and opportunity to act but did nothing.  The report is a chilling illustration of how dysfunctional our moral barometers have become, and raises more questions than answers:

How is it that an athletic, 6′ 4″ young man witnesses an aging sexual predator sodomizing a 10-year-old boy only to slink way and call his daddy for advice rather than acting to stop the assault right then and there?

How is it that his father advises him to report the incident to the coach, rather than the authorities?

How is it that that coach contacts the Athletic Director, rather than the police?

How is it that a custodial staffer who witnesses the perpetrator performing oral sex on a child doesn’t call the cops?

These bizarre and infuriating questions go on and on up the chain of command at Penn State, to the University President himself.

What can possibly account for such apathy and inaction in the face of the victimization of young children?  Have we become so consumed with our own self interest, with the interest of our institutions, that we can just ignore the victims of these human tragedies?  Have we become so jealous of our own “comfort zones,” that we’d rather see a child rapist walk free than take the trouble to get involved?  What does that say about us as individuals?  As a culture?

At least eight lives have been scarred forever because not one adult had the courage to shout stop, or yell, “What the hell do you think you are doing?”  We raise our children to believe that adults have their best interests at heart, are there to protect and care for them.  This is particularly true of authority figures such as coaches.  Not only were these boys victimized by a man they looked to for guidance, they were betrayed by other adults who had the power to put a stop to the abuse but didn’t.  And why?  Because the witnesses feared for their jobs?  The University’s reputation?  The bottom line of the football program?

It is a sad testament to the character of the Penn State organization and its students that the main concern expressed in the immediate aftermath of these revelations has been the fate of Coach Paterno’s football legacy.  Where are the protests on behalf of the victims?  Where are the tar and feathers?  Where are the adults who were supposed to protect our children?  The apathy and self-centeredness that has been exposed here is breathtaking and should cause us to engage in serious moral and spiritual introspection.

It has been said that America’s universities represent the future of our society.  If that’s true, and if Penn State is representative of other universities, then may God help us all.

Cain, who has been married for 43 years, is alleged to have made sexually inappropriate comments and gestures towards at least three women during his time at CEO of the National Restaurant Association.  At this point all anyone knows for certain is that allegations were made and settlements were reached; but, specific details as to the nature of the purported harassment, the veracity of the claims, and the credibility of the accusers remain unknown.  Though the National Restaurant Association has waived the confidentiality agreement governing the settlement with the primary accuser, she has yet to speak publicly about the details of the allegations (her lawyer is purportedly organizing a joint press conference in which all the accusers will together present their stories to the public, but this hasn’t happened yet).

With nothing concrete to go on, the media has made hay for over a week, essentially recycling the same story over and over.  Cain, for his part, has run out of patience with the media for continuing its probe.  He’s denied any inappropriate behavior and claimed that he was not part of any settlement reached with any of the women, and having devoted one press conference to “putting the issue to bed” he’s refusing to discuss the matter further.

This is only the most recent example of the media’s “guilt by accusation” modus operandi.  Accusations are made, and immediately the burden of proof falls on the accused to disprove them.  Facts quickly become irrelevant.  This is wrong.  Just as our courts of law presume innocence until guilt is proved, so too should the court of public opinion refrain from judgment until all the facts are known.  Anyone can make an accusation after all, and the unique “he said, she said” nature of sexual harassment allegations make it particularly difficult to prove guilt or innocence with any level of certainty.  The architects of this smear campaign – if that’s indeed what this is – know this, and are milking the situation for all it’s worth.  They lit the fire of scandal knowing full well that the media would mindless fan the flames and reflexively jump on the bandwagon of the “victimized women” in this case.

Where was this righteous indignation, one wonders, when Bill Clinton was being accused right and left of much worse sexual offenses while governor and president, when he was committing adultery in the Oval Office and subsequently obstructing justice and committing perjury?  Back then the media had no problem extending the charity of presumed innocence.  After all, the women who accused Slick Willy clearly weren’t credible, and even if they were, it really wasn’t America’s business what happened behind closed doors.  Only uptight, puritanical conservatives get their dander up about such things, after all.  Progressive, open-minded Americans understand that a person’s private conduct and character really have no bearing on their ability to lead.  This is true, of course, unless the accused happens to be a Republican.

The voting public should hold themselves to a higher standard and refrain from judgment in this matter until the full facts are fully known.  Very soon Republicans will have the weighty responsibility of deciding who will represent their party in the contest to render Barack Obama a one-term president.  This decision should be based on who they feel is the man or woman best suited for this not inconsequential task.  This means separating the factual wheat from the hearsay chaff, focusing on the real issues, and not becoming distracted by politics as usual.

Mr. Cain, for his part, must drop his defensive, dismissive posture and address these allegations head-on.  Assuming he has truly nothing to hide or be ashamed of, he should come clean about exactly what happened.  This will require more than blanket denials.  He is, after all, asking the American people to make him the next President of the United States, and like it or not when he threw his hat in the ring, he threw his privacy out the window.

Up until now, Mr. Cain has engendered the admiration of the American people precisely because he has been plain-spoken and shown an aversion for the artificial political correctness that pervades so much of American civic discourse.  He’s proven that he has the resilience to survive this ordeal and continue to build support, but only if he stays true to form and addresses this issue with the same kind of straight talk that has characterized the rest of his campaign.

This is only the first of many political challenges that lie ahead for Herman Cain.  Only time will tell whether he has the mettle to withstand the scrutiny front runners inevitably undergo.

“The people who attack reproductive rights are turning a blind eye to the impossible choices families have to make together, instead callously insisting that it’s lawmakers who know what’s best for women, not women themselves. . . .  The logo for Personhood USA, a leading organization behind the measures, echoes that idea.  It shows what looks like a full-term fetus curled up in a map of the United States, which acts as its womb.  The woman is conspicuously absent.  Personhood advocates are interested in only one kind of ‘person.’”

Credit should go to the author of this piece for at least being honest.  Founder of Feministing.com and author of The Purity Myth: How America’s Obsession With Virginity Is Hurting Young Women, Jessica Valenti clearly does not believe that the unborn are living human beings.  Pedaling the myth that “science” shows no evidence that life begins at conception and citing a 2005 legislative proposal that would have criminalized “suspicious” miscarriages in Virginia (straw man, anyone?), Valenti paints a doomsday scenario of a “personhood” world in which women are prosecuted for failing to take prenatal vitamins, miscarriages are investigated by law enforcement, and of course, abortion is no longer available on demand.

In reality, what the personhood initiative seeks to do is reinvigorate a culture of life in a society that is increasingly selling its soul in the name of “rights” and the autonomy of the individual.  Contrary to what abortion advocates claim, the scientific evidence does support the humanity of the unborn.  From the moment of conception the mother is carrying a genetically distinct human being in her womb.

The consequences of denying this irrefutable medical fact have been tragic.  Since 1973 over 50 million children have been aborted in the United States.  This is tragic not only because these tiny human beings were never given a chance at life, it is tragic because the mothers of these children – often overwhelmed by fear and panic and unaware of the full implications of their actions – must forever live with the emotional and psychological consequences of their choice.

Eradicating post-abortion guilt is a big part of the campaign to venerate a woman’s “right to choose.”  By refusing to acknowledge the personhood of the unborn child, American society and its legal system has fostered a disposable man mentality.  If a baby is unwanted, inconvenient, or imperfect, the it’s mother has a right to kill it.  (This “unwanted, therefore not worthy of protecting or preserving” mentality has jeopardized the lives of the handicapped and the frail elderly, who are themselves often inconvenient and expensive, and has fostered an unhealthy, me-first, self-centered attitude.)  Ironically, of course, if the same woman decides that she wants to have a child, then the process of pregnancy and childbirth magically transforms into a sacred miracle that is to be respected and celebrated.  The same embryo that “wasn’t human” when she didn’t want to be pregnant is now “her child” simply according to her feelings about the situation.  It’s all about how the mother chooses to define her pregnancy.

It is the job of our legal system to reconcile competing interests when they come into conflict with one another.  At present, there is no mechanism in place to advocate for the interests of the unborn, and this is what the personhood movement seeks to change.  Apart from such a change, abortions will continue at epidemic proportions, and all of humanity will be devalued in the process.

In order to evaluate the wisdom of a total troop withdrawal, several questions must be asked and answered.  A good place to start would be to revisit the rationale that was offered for our engagement and ask ourselves whether or not it was warranted in the first place.  The Bush administration built its case for war on the claims that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, that he was engaged in dangerous relationships with radical Islamist terror groups, and that this combination of factors posed a grave threat to the security of the free world.

At the time that this case was advanced, both the Congress and the American people found these to be compelling reasons to move forward with combat operations in Iraq.  In the ensuing years, as the insurgency exploded, casualties rose, and the evidence of WMD waned, public and political support for the war tanked.  But then there was the Surge, which seemed to reverse our fortunes and offer hope that Iraq was not a lost cause after all.

Now, as our engagement draws to a close and we review the roller coaster ride that has been the last nine years in Iraq, what takeaways do we have that can inform our decision making the next time we are confronted with an apparent call to arms abroad?  What, precisely, have we accomplished?  Is America safer and more secure today than we were before the Iraqi intervention?  Have our efforts succeeded in establishing Iraq as an anchor for democracy in the notoriously repressive region?  Have we provided a framework for Sunnis and Shiites to resolve future conflicts without resorting to violence?  Do the Iraqi people appreciate America for its role in liberating them from the tyranny of Saddam?  Will the country descend into chaos without an American presence to maintain order and stability?  What return on America’s investment of blood, sweat, toil and tears did the war yield?

The American people deserve straight answers to these questions, but so far no politician has stepped up to offer a candid assessment.  Will Mr. Obama answer these questions?  Will the Republican aspirants for president offer anything more than sound bites in response to them?  Are they capable of addressing anything other than the economic issues of our time?  They better be, because the so-called War on Terror has not only drained our treasury, it has taken an enormous physical, mental, and emotional toll on the young warriors and their families who’ve born the brunt of this war.  For them, the price of our engagement has been far more than economic.

During military conflicts, the fog of war often obscures the combatants’ vision, but now that our troops are returning home, we must engage in a clear and sober assessment of whether our mission was really accomplished.  We don’t need photo ops of the President in a flight suit on the deck of a carrier with a banner declaring “Mission Accomplished,” we just need the cold hard truth.  Was it worth it – why or why not?

Do we have the courage to ask this question given all that has transpired?  More importantly, will our leaders answer it?

The catalyst for these Capitol Hill hijinks was the new “Take Our Jobs” campaign launched this summer by the United Farm Workers union.  The ostensible purpose of the campaign is to draw attention to the crucial role that undocumented workers play in America’s food supply chain while debunking the notion that illegal immigrants are taking jobs away from American citizens.  When Comedy Central’s Stephen Colbert caught wind of the campaign, he  announced his plans to spend a day in the shoes of a migrant farm worker, and invited Representive Zoe Lofgren, Chairman of the House Sub-Committee on Citizenship, Refugees, Immigration and Border Security, to make a cameo appearance on his show, which aired on September 22nd.  Two days later, in a theatrical role reversal, Mr. Colbert made a cameo appearance of his own before Congress, having been invited by Chairman Lofgren to testify about his one-day experience as a migrant farm worker.

Reaction from Lofgren’s colleagues was mixed.  The move was roundly condemned by Republicans as an outrageous misuse of time and money, not to mention an insult to the American public.  Democrats were put in the odd position of trying to justify the stunt as technically legitimate while acknowledging that it may have been perceived as inappropriate.  Some, like House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, threw concerns for party solidarity to the wind, making no bones about his disapproval of Colbert’s testimony.

Colbert’s invitation was not the first time an elected representative invited a celebrity to appear on Capitol Hill.  It was, however, the first time a prominent celebrity satirist has been invited to testify, tongue firmly planted in cheek, based upon “experience” gained during a comedy sketch.

Does Chairwoman Lofgren honestly believe that Mr. Colbert’s testimony was a wise expenditure of taxpayer dollars?  Does she genuinely believe that it lent credibility to the cause of undocumented migrant farm workers or illumination to the immigration debate at large?  Does she believe that hosting a Capitol Hill comedy hour is a better use of her time and position than, perhaps, scheduling hearings to investigate the ethics charges pending against two of her Democratic colleagues?

These are the kinds of questions on the minds many Americans this week – Americans who are tired of the arrogance and condescension of politicians so mired in the Beltway Bubble that they think nothing of dropping $125,000 on a televised dog-and-pony show that accomplishes nothing and makes a mockery of the American political process.

Was Colbert’s testimony humorous?  Sure.  Was it appropriate?  Absolutely not.  Let no one accuse the American public of lacking a sense of humor.  We know how to take a joke.  When it comes to issues like the economy and national security, however, we’d just rather our elected officials not make jokes – literally – at our expense.  Members of Congress please take note.  Otherwise, come November, you may find that the joke’s on you.