Short Stories, Long Odds

…but apparently, Congress has lost its goddamned mind.

First of all, let me point out that when George Bush was Governor of Texas, he signed into law a bill that allows hospitals to unplug patients in a vegetative state if no one can pay the bill and there’s no hope for recovery. George Bush, leader of the Republican Party for which the Terry Schiavo case is a widely proclaimed “matter of principle”.

Secondly, Tom DeLay has been quarterbacking this highly charged moral issue, all the while making character attacks on Terry Schiavo’s husband. Tom DeLay, thrice spanked by the House Ethics Committee and what should be a hair’s breadth from fending off criminal charges.

Third, the bill itself is a truly bipartisan effort, and I cannot believe the lengths to which Senate Democrats have gone to fail so stupendously. The Washington Post snagged a memo to Senate Republicans concerning the bill:

This is an important moral issue and the pro-life base will be excited that the Senate is debating this important issue,” said the memo, which was reported by ABC News and later given to The Washington Post. “This is a great political issue, because Senator Nelson of Florida has already refused to become a cosponsor and this is a tough issue for Democrats.

I would like to single out a Senate Democrat to righteously wail on about voting in favor of this bill, but I can’t, because the vote was unanimous. There were seven initial holdouts for the Dems, but simply holding out for concessions shouldn’t have been an option. To top it off, when DeLay was forcing the issue of blame on Senate Democrats if the bill didn’t pass, Fearless Leader Harry Reid passed the buck on Thursday:

I am pleased Senator Frist and I were able to pass the bill that protects the life of Terri Schiavo by allowing her parents to go to federal court. If the House Republicans refuse to pass our bipartisan bill, they bear responsibility for the consequences.

Way to go, you retard! You are learning well! By attempting to take the moral high ground on an issue that is abjectly absurd to begin with, you totally gave all claims to morality to the Republicans. To the GOP, a party with a membership that regularly writes off wartime civilian innocent deaths as acceptable collateral damage. Tom DeLay spewed forth the idea that if what was being done to Terry Schiavo by her husband was being done to a dog, it would be illegal. He made no mention of what the legality would be if it were being done to an Iraqi child.

So, we have the absolute failure of the Democratic Party to manage the national agenda, policy or otherwise. This isn’t necessarily difficult to understand, owing to the massive powers of agenda control that rest with the office of the President, regardless of who inhibits that office. That isn’t to say they couldn’t have fought harder, but fear of political retribution replaced the legislative brains of these fools and this is what we’re left with. The true, best part of this whole mess, however, the real punchline, is the legal implication of this travesty of a bill.

First of all, the GOP calling the bill a bipartisan compromise could very well be an attempt at pre-emptive damage control – they have successfully exerted federal power in the matter of the wholesale control and determinance of the fate of an individual citizen. Bush may feel like American families are better at investing their money than the US Government, but apparently American families are ill-equipped to make medical decisions on behalf of loved ones. This should go far in showing classic conservatives where the priorities of the GOP lay: they are no longer afraid to increase the power of government over the individual, and they are willing to go to any lengths, even calling a BRAIN DEAD WOMAN TO TESTIFY BEFORE CONGRESS, to assert those powers.

Additionally, I as usual take issue with the language of the bill because issue must be taken: I can’t believe I’m saying this, but states rights are under attack. By way of the inclusion of the phrase “de novo,” this bill is sending a clear message: we get a do-over. This is a case that’s been fully and formally litigated in the Florida state courts, and Congress didn’t like what they came up with. So, in effect, they are going to wholly disregard any and all decisions made on the issue by Florida courts and are just going to ;askjhdasdt[[[[[[[[[[[[

I’m sorry, I think I was having a tiny stroke.

Social Security reform is dead. Bush’s numbers are in the dumper. The GOP’s salt-of-the-earth base did not react with the election year outrage about the gay marriage upheavals last week. Memos are already circulating addressing the RNC’s concerns about losing seats in the mid-terms. Since their against-all-odds victories in November the NeoCon Funhogs have been getting trounced left and right, foreign and domestic.

Suddenly, an issue that’s been going on FOR YEARS in Florida rears its head and DeLay latches on like a rabid wolverine, without any apologies for not being around before. They can push their Culture-Of-Life hogwash to the extreme and because DeLay and the ProLifers have charged the language with such emotional context, they can totally disregard the normal, Old Tyme Conservative bent about the government staying out of the lives of the little people.

As a husband, I can’t imagine the hell Michael Schiavo is living in. Nor can I imagine how any good conservative can stomach the idea of Bush, first Governor Jeb and then President George, throwing their weight around to overturn the decisions of 19 Florida judges, all of whom have sided with Michael Schiavo. What about the Rule Of Law? What about the GOP’s rank and file derision of the Democrat’s polticization of issues? What about state’s rights? What about, dare I say it, the little-mentioned concept of human dignity?

Congratulations, America. This is what you voted for. Its often said that In a democracy, people get the kind of government they deserve. In this case, we’re getting a government that gives us what it thinks we deserve, whether we like it or not.

Just when I couldn’t get any more depressed aout the baseball hearings, which I will write about presently, I wake up this morning to this headline:

GOP Asks Brain-Damaged Woman to Testify

You think its gonna be on TV? Can we get any more bizarre than this? Obviously she was asked to testify in an effort by the GOP to keep her alive until the end of the month. But then what? Who’s gonna swear her in? I’m willing to bet it won’t be Frist, but then again I wonder which committee they’re involving in this charade.

What will her prepared statement be? And, if it is what I think it is, what are the legal ramifications of declaring your love for kittens and peaches to the Senate?

Okay, I know I promised a bigger update, but despite the fact that I’ve negotiated all the first round of term papers I’m still up to my eyeballs in it. I have two surprise exams next week, so instead of a big ol’ update, I’m going to point out some ridiculous ironies and happenings in the news:

President Bush demands occupying force in Middle Eastern country immediately initiate full pull out of its forces
Pretty funny right? Syria (which had a hand in running Lebanon’s government until the government resigned not too long ago) is on the business end of tersely worded letters and speeches! Up next, we will bomb a country to get it out of the country it is occupying. They are a road block in the road freedom is marching on.

:: omg irony instrumental ::

I will get emails accusing me of hating the troops for this one
I think its perfectly acceptable to support our troops but to also not be terribly happy with all the civilians, kids, and now foreign national agents getting shot and killed by US troops when they fire on cars. I understand that cars are a danger since sometimes they’re loaded with boom juice, I get that. But it seems like every week or so we’re shooting kids or people rescuing hostages or something. Here I will insert the line about how we were told lies about why we went in and how Iraq was, by and large, a grand miscalculation.

How do you write al-QaQaa to the 90th power?
Remember that thing about how that site in Iraq with all the giant-ass explosives got looted of 390 tons of boomjunk after we invaded and occupied Iraq? Well here’s a follow up to that story you aren’t going to see on FOX: it happened 90 other places!

I remember sitting in a bar with my pal Lee the night the war began. He had a daughter on the way and was convinced that this was going to fix the world.

“Trust me,” I said “This is going to be way more trouble than its ever going to be worth.”

Its easy to say I’m wrong now, in the face of international anomalous coincidence where Syria is getting bounced out of Lebanon and everyone is getting to vote. I got news for you: the US didn’t have much to say about Syria’s occupation of Lebanon until the Lebanese took to the streets after their ex-PM got turned into pollution. The UN and the EU are going to fight the US every step of the way if anyone gets even a whiff of more pre-emptive action. And all those explosives are going to turn up at what I dare say will be highly inopportune times.

A shmorgasbortion of anti-choice Democrats
In an age where the strongest Democratic actors on (and contenders for) our legislatiive floor are anti-choice and about as socially non-progressive as one can get, House Republicans are busy contradicting themselves at fundraiser dinners.

The richest irony of the week comes from Jim Gibbons (R-Nev) who pondered how liberals can be against death in Iraq and yet for abortion (which rounds Gibbon’s side out as defending and championing the sanctity of life) and then immediately wishes all the treasonous fuckers opposed to the war had died in it. Say what you will about the human shield activists, but buying them tickets so they can eat a sandy death doesn’t do much to defend and protect life.

Syria has just been outlawed, the bombing begins in five minutes. Enjoy your pancakes.
Thank you Jesus! Speaking of House Republicans, Sam Johnson (R – Texas :: sigh ::) told President Bush and Kay Granger at a church pancake breakfast last week that he would personally like to nuke Syria, after which “you know, we wouldn’t have to worry about Syria anymore.” The big surprise of the story is that he even bothered to make a statement to the Dallas Morning News, in which he said:

“I was kind of joking — you know, we were talking between veterans,” he said. He added that President Bush knew he was joking.

Bush wasn’t sure who the other veteran was, but he was pretty sure Kay Granger got in the shit in Nam or something.

Okay, that’s enough for now. Bushrods and Funhogs alike need their rest.

I have written here about Alberto Gonzales and the process of his confirmation in the Senate, but I have not written about what has been said during that process. I have had the opportunity to review the things said on both sides, and I feel as if there were some alarming elements contained therein.

The opposition raised the spectre of Abu Ghraib and the role Gonzales played as White House Counsel in his judgement concerning the legality of torture and how the American military should view the Geneva Conventions within the context of our current operations in the War on Terror.

Those for Gonzales, roundly comprised of Senate Republicans, spoke about Gonzales’ humble beginnings, his distinguished career as a legal professional, and his sober judgement of the legality of using torture against enemies of the United States.

I watched Senator John Cornyn, representing my beloved state of Texas, deliver the following defense of Alberto Gonzales’ counsel to the White House:

According to Article 4 of the 1949 Geneva Convention, though, only lawful combatants are eligible for POW protections. The Red Cross’s own guidelines state that to earn POW status, combatants must satisfy all four conditions of lawful combat: being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates, having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, carrying arms openly, and conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

Accordingly, Mr. Bush determined that the United States shall treat all detainees humanely, but that as a legal matter, neither al Qaeda nor the Taliban militia are legally entitled to the convention’s protections. The former is not even a state, let alone a party to the Geneva Convention, while the latter does not comply with all four required conditions of lawful combat.

What should disturb us about this defense, regularly championed in the media on op-ed pages around our country and often espoused by Republican elected officials, is what it says about their shared perception of America’s role in the world. It says that while we speak clearly of our commitment to freedom and regularly defend the individual human rights of people around the world, we are content to merely adhere to the letter of the law when exerting our considerable force.

If we, the United States of America, are to safeguard freedom and liberty around the world, we would do well to do better than we have to. We would do well to do more than what is strictly required. What message does this send to the rest of the world?

What our leaders and thinkers are saying when they invoke the strict legality of the Geneva Conventions is that they endorse torture to meet our needs if we can get away with it. They are saying that if an enemy does not meet a certain set of codified requirements, the enemy does not deserve the protection of their basic human rights the Geneva Conventions afford. They are saying that theenemy is not worthy of our mercy, only of our retribution.

It is not the accceptance and utilization of extreme measures in the face of imminent danger to American lives that should disturb us as citizens of this world, but rather the a policy of extreme measures writ large for application on the greater field of battle in the War in Iraq. The abject humliation and fear the Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib were exposed to had nothing to do with protecting American lives or national security – it was instead the total failure of human decency by those charged with not only protecting America but also defending the liberty of a people unable to claim it for themselves, and likewise charged with delivering the message and cause of freedom to the wider world. Charged, in fact, with deliverance itself.

This instance of action against what we as Americans believe in is what Senator Cornyn and his colleagues were defending. To say that Gonzales was charged not with deciding the morality of a policy but only the legality of that policy is indicative of a larger problem in a larger set of choices and administration. Alberto Gonzales answered to his client, and now George Bush wishes to make him the employee of the American people.

We can do better. We can engage in the selection of a slate of representative officials that take into consideration the larger consequences of the decisions they make. Alberto Gonzales has already enabled the United States government to come up short of our ideals and what we defend, and instead to meet only our explicit legal obligations, as opposed to our greater humanitarian responsibilities to the world at large. He should not be allowed to do so again.

If we are to be stewards of liberty and messengers of freedom, if we are to end tyranny in the world at large, and if we are to be the shining beacon of humanity and democracy that we so emphatically seek to be, we not only can do better, we must do better.

I was all worried about Bush having to navigate appointment hearings if Rehnquist dies or steps down for health reasons.

I forgot about the possibility of recess appointment, which would apply since Congress is in recess.

Guess what a recess appointment doesn’t require? An approval process.

The US News and World Report is circulating an email which contains reporting about the Administrations current musings:

“Even though the U.S. Supreme Court has said Chief Justice William Rehnquist will return to the bench following cancer surgery, administration officials are quietly considering candidates to replace him and even the possibility of making a recess appointment. The officials said that they do not want to talk about the process publicly in the last week of the presidential campaign. However, one insider said that the West Wing is considering what would happen if the judge left the bench soon and if a close election next Tuesday meant an evenly split 4-4 court was to decide the winner. Such a situation would likely mean that a lower court’s ruling on an outcome would be final and officials are worried that it would go against the President.”

Slate explains how the recess appointment, an executive power, works. This has officially become my biggest fear. If the administration is talking about it, it is a definite possibility. I would say they wouldn’t have the balls to do this, but you know the punchline.