Thursday, September 14th, 2006

Government's Disregard for Human Rights
You may have heard of Abu Ghraib and you may have heard a federal judged ruled that it is unconstitutional for the prez to use wiretap without warrants, and you would have thought that would be that. But oh, no. The prez wants congress to help him reconsider Article 3 of the Geneva convention, and he wants congress to help him write laws that allow him to use those wiretaps. This is not just politics, this is an out-and-out powert struggle. Thankfully, some top republicans are opposed to both of these, albeit for reasons I can't wrap my head around.

For example, the prez and his boys want to be able to torture prisoners, but a few congressional republicans are opposing this because it would allow our own soldiers to be tortured when captured. Politically, yes, but practically? Didn't the rest of the world see Abu Ghraib? Isn't that invitation enough? And the rhetoric that gets tossed around leads one to believe that the terrorists don't give a fig for civilization at all, so why would they bother with memorizing the Geneva convention? Seems to me this is just another example if putting a tax levy on marijuana- so you can bust 'em for possession AND tax evasion, keep 'em in jail longer. By maintaining this Geneva convention, we can justify our invading countries that broke some rule they never agreed to in the first place.

And as for the eavesdropping thing, well, we all know why that's wrong. Democrats are being accused of using political obstruction tactics to keep this from being voted on, which is a hypocritical accusation considering Republican shenanigans of the past 9 months (see below). I'm still confused though, why this is even still under discussion. The judge has judged! In Seattle, we're used to this-- we voted down a new football stadium three or four times, and we got one anyway. Sigh.

The Aforementioned Shenanigans
Abramoff is a word that will ring for a while in American political discussion, not unlike Watergate. Republicans at the beginning of this year where even using it, assuring American that reforms where on the way to see to it that this sort of lobbying crime would not be able to happen again. But 9 months later, no new reforms have been established, and what little fighting remains over them is in the ridiculous realm. We all poo-poo politics as a bunch of nonsense-for-nonsense sake, but you've got to play the game a little. Democrats are trying to push through changes that absolutely no one can accept, which is sort of like trying to pay for groceries with dirty diapers-- even if you're the only customer of the day, the shopkeeper would rather eat his own stock than take your payment. On the other side, Republicans are tossing out measures left and right, turning "lobby reform" into "lobby renaissance." Feh. The good thing about all of this is that it is waking people up to the problem with a republican congress- the GOP doesn't like government, and they become very good at doing nothing. Well, we need something done, and so look for people voting for action 2 months from now.

And More Shenanigans
A short one that might get bigger: If it's not Rove, or Rumsfeld, it's Kempthorne, though his name in particular did not come up in the article I read. Seems the department of the Intirior is being called out for it's increasing reluctance to pursue or prosecute it's own officials who time and again abuse their power for personal gain. The department is reposblisble for covering up some oil-leasing snafus that will cost us billions, while at the same time enjoying an atmosphere of "anything short of a crime goes." This includes dismissing charges against a former lobbyist who was once deputy secretary of the interior during W's first term. Coupled with these other lobbyist shenanigans, it's just more bad news for GoP stodgemeisters who see the congress as their personal cash cow.

Gays in The Military Yet Again
There's probably a word or phrase or analogy for it, but the government is starting to consider letting openly gay citizens into the military, if only because they the numbers. Those still staunchly opposed to it say that allowing gays in would ruin morale and cause recruitment numbers to drop dramatically. Then again, in Europe where gays are allowed into the military, this has not been the case. Then again again, America is not the same as Europe. I for one still don’t understand why any one, or why the whole country, needs the identity of a person to be tied to what he or she wants to do with his or her genitals. I'll just bet that my one predilections can be nuanced as different from some other heterosexuals-- do we need to be defined as such? Will the fact that I'm a "leg man" be used to identify me as opposed to that "breast-man" over there?