Tonight I saw HBO’s film about the Rwanda genocide of 1994, “Sometime in April.” It’s a powerful movie, and it is especially impressive in making it clear how little the U.N. and the U.S. did despite extensive knowledge of what was happening day by day. As for the French… well, the film does a subtle but devastating job of showing Paris’ sympathy for the wrong side. As it happens, there is something that I and the other millions of people who may ultimately see “Sometime in April” can do other than feel guilty. We can raise holy hell about today’s ongoing genocide in Darfur, a situation in which New York and Paris and Washington (along with Moscow and Beijing) seem determined, once again, to do little or nothing until it is too late.The OAU presence in Darfur is completely inadequate to the task. U.N. action will probably be blocked by Russia and China. Today’s New Dem Dispatch proposes an emergency NATO mission. That will require immediate and vocal leadership from the President of the United States, who for once has a genuine opportunity to show he really believes in a “culture of life,” and in U.S. moral leadership. Like my colleague The Moose, I believe agitating for action in Darfur is a mission that should unite all sorts of disparate elements of the blogosphere.

I know I’m violating my pledge to leave the sad Terri Schiavo case alone, but a reporter friend just emailed me Tom DeLay’s statement on her death:

Mrs. Schiavo’s death is a moral poverty and a legal tragedy. This loss happened because our legal system did not protect the people who need protection most, and that will change. The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior, but not today. Today we grieve, we pray, and we hope to God this fate never befalls another. Our thoughts and prayers are with the Schindlers and with Terri Schiavo’s friends in this time of deep sorrow.

My friend asked for a “translation” of the first line and the “answer for their behavior” comment, and I responded:

If you hoped this was some sort of southern saying, or a quote from scripture, I’ll have to disappoint you. It’s just poor writing. The “moral poverty” line reminds me of that great Dick Gephardt epigram: “Markets are not a morality.” Nor are advertisements an epistemology, but who cares?

The “answer for their behavior” bit is a nice example of deliberately menacing ambiguity, worthy of Tony Soprano, making you wonder if he’s talking about Divine Judgment or a House Republican hearing or worse. Hopefully, Barney Frank or somebody will respond with a statement that says: “The political exploitation of Terri Schiavo is a moral poverty and a legal tragedy. And the time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior, and that time may be November of 2006.”

My colleague The Moose and I were talking this morning about an attack on Tom DeLay that was published by The Battalion, the Texas A&M student newspaper, which the Texas blogger Greg Wythe brought to our attention. I was curious about a reference Greg made to DeLay having once referred to A&M as a “den of iniquity,” and The Moose (a native of Waco) enlightened me with a great link: a 2002 article in the Baptist Standard, the official voice of the Texas Baptist Convention. Turns out DeLay told an audience of Texas Baptists that they shouldn’t send their kids to A&M or Baylor because these famously conservative schools weren’t really conservative any more, and were tolerating all sorts of immoral behavior. (Read the whole rich story, which also reveals that DeLay was booted out of Baylor for a “prank” he committed at–you guessed it–Texas A&M). I don’t know that much about Texas, but I do know two things: (1) there’s no percentage in taking a stance to the right of Southern Baptists on issues of personal morality; and (2) you don’t want to mess with the Aggies. DeLay papered over the furor from his disrespecting of Baylor and Texas A&M, but you never know how much ill-will got stored away for future reference. It’s like the old saying: Be careful who you step on as you climb the ladder, ’cause it can earn you a long, lonely fall from the top.

In case you’ve missed it, Tom DeLay has begun a counter-offensive against those critics who are kinda wondering at what stage his egregious pattern of conduct–unethical, illegal, or just plain crass–will get either his party or his constituents to send him back to the exterminating business. DeLay’s argument, of course, is that it’s all just a lefty conspiracy, probably financed by George Soros, to “destroy the conservative movement.” Now put aside for a moment the rather self-aggrandizing idea that the conservative movement would instantly fall to pieces without the Hammer’s leadership. The more interesting assertion is that his growing cast of detractors–including the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal–is being orchestrated by the godless hordes of the Organized Left.You might want to take a look at the official take of that well-known leftist group, the Soros-controlled, Michael-Moore-loving Democratic Leadership Council, on DeLay’s latest line of defense.

All I have to say about the death of poor Terri Schiavo is: may she rest in peace, in a place where she can laugh with the angels at the political usages of her last days.

As I am sure some of you have already informed me by email, Alan Keyes has indeed make the trek to Florida, and does indeed have a few thousand predictably shrill opinions on the Schiavo case. And the fact that I hadn’t noticed it indicates that the whole scene is so crazy that Keyes just doesn’t stand out.Moreoever, my little joke about a Keyes Senate race in Maryland turns out to be right on the money as well. As Annie Linskey of the Baltimore Sun reported a week ago:

Since Keyes still has a house in Maryland, could he reverse his carpetbagging and come back here for a third attempt to finally represent the state?”I’m waiting for a response from him,” said Connie Hair, a spokeswoman for Keyes. But she warned that Keyes is more engaged with an issue – this time in Florida.He is “completely focused right now on the Terri Schiavo matter,” Hair said, referring to the debate over whether the brain-damaged woman should be kept alive with a feeding tube.

Keyes, in other words, is simply impervious to parody. But hey, why shouldn’t he make another Senate run? After all, the whole Republican Party seems to be heading right in his direction.

The Moose and I were just discussing the Spectacle in the Sunshine when he asked an obvious question: where the hell is Alan Keyes? I mean, isn’t this whole scene kinda tailor-made for him? I shudder at the very idea, but is this a tableau so bizarre that even Keyes wouldn’t stand out?Or maybe the famous Illinois pol is just reacquainting himself with the State of Maryland in anticipation of another fine Senate race. Please.

A large number of bloggers have referred to the ongoing insanity outside a certain hospice in Florida as a “political circus.” I think that’s an insult to clowns and other circus performers. Indeed, if there is a Clown Anti-Defamation League out there somewhere, it needs to put out a press release deploring the comparison, before someone starts asking how many self-promoting political hacks and freaks can get out of a tiny car. So what is a legitimate way to illustrate the depths of this appalling spectacle? Jerry Springer Meets the 700 Club, on acid? Florida Surreal Estate Boom? Jabberwocky? The Trail of Alligator Tears? Ah, we’re already missing Hunter Thompson.

How, you may wonder, is the Republican Party going to extricate itself from the political and legal thicket it entered through its forceful and feckless intervention in the Terri Schiavo case? Well, if you are Bill Kristol of The Weekly Standard, you go back on the offensive by pivoting to the next big GOP outrage, the “nuclear option” for forcing George W. Bush’s judicial nominees through the Senate, and you use the Schiavo case as a reason for doing it. I’ve been reading Kristol for a long time, and I usually disagree with him, but also usually find him smart and logical. But this screed is way over the top in sloppy reasoning and cheap demagoguery. Today’s New Dem Dispatch eviscerates Kristol’s argument, and explores the marriage of convenience between right-to-lifers who are extremists in the pursuit of principle, and GOP pols who are extremists in the pursuit of power.

One of the persistent conservative complaints about the liberal tradition, dating back to the French Revolution, has been its anti-communitarian tendency to view every difficult social issue as a matter of individual rights. But increasingly conservatives themselves are adopting the rhetoric and logic of the once-hated Jacobins. Witness the emergence, as explained in today’s Washington Post, of one of the least stirring Civil Rights struggles in living memory: the “Pharmacists’ Rights” movement.The movement in question asserts the right of individual pharmacists to refuse to fill prescriptions for birth control pills, morning-after pills, or other drugs deemed to violate the druggist’s moral or religious views. The Post’s Rob Stein quotes Steven H. Aden of the Christian Legal Society as making this portentous prediction:

This is a very big issue that’s just beginning to surface. More and more pharmacists are becoming aware of their right to conscientiously refuse to pass objectionable medications across the counter. We are on the very front edge of a wave that’s going to break not too far down the line.

This “wave” is certainly carrying the pharmacy profession down a very slippery slope. The “Pharmacists’ Rights” argument goes beyond simple yes-no propositions about “objectionable medications,” into the claim that pharmacists should be able to become white-smocked judges of the worthiness of individuals–e.g., single women seeking birth control pills–to receive certain prescribed drugs.

An increasing number of clashes are occurring in drugstores across the country. Pharmacists often risk dismissal or other disciplinary action to stand up for their beliefs, while shaken teenage girls and women desperately call their doctors, frequently late at night, after being turned away by sometimes-lecturing men and women in white coats.

Where will it end? Birth control aside, do pharmacists have the “right” to second-guess doctors about the appropriateness of a particular medication for a particular patient? And will pharmacy cashiers be empowered to deny candy bars to the obviously obese; toy guns to the parents of toddlers; and cigarettes to everybody?It’s funny: last time I paid attention to the political issues embroiling pharmacists, some decades ago, the big concern was to prevent giant drugstore chains from consuming owner-operated pharmacies through “unfair” price competition. Under a “Pharmacists’ Rights” regime, the only viable pharmacies would be those large enough to staff several prescription stations: one where “objectionable” medications are not available; one where such medications are available only after an examination of the petitioner, who must perhaps take oaths and/or present a marriage license; and still another where brazen “liberal” pharmacists dispense medications freely.Or perhaps the market will drive us in another direction, with highly specialized drug stores where Pharmacists of Conscience can band together and and serve only those who share their views. Imagine signs advertising Righteous Peoples’ Drugs, a safe haven for those who do not wish to fill prescriptions for, or rub elbows with, fornicators and abortionists. And then, in the big cities at least, you’d have Genie Drugs, “Where Your Doctor’s Wish Is Our Command.” And at the big discount retail chains, you’d probably have the chance to gamble for really low prices if a pharmacist who approves of your medication happens to be on duty.Only in America…