Our nation once stood as one of the most admired countries in the world. Our nation advanced the ideals of progress, human achievements, and concepts of justice, liberty, and freedom for all. Our United States of America, from July 4, 1776 on, was a model for other nations, individuals, and peoples to examine, dissect, and emulate. From the French revolutionaries in 1789 to Símon Bolívar to the colonial founders of Liberia, America has stood as an ideal to aspire to.

The last few years, however, this proud history and legacy has been tarnished. It is difficult to say today, speaking in the year 2006, but I believe future historians and peoples will look back and say that September 28, 2006 marked the beginning of the end of the American Republic.

To the casual reader, this may seem an alarmist, drastic statement to make. But I disagree; for yesterday, the House of Representatives, and today, the Senate of the United States of America voted to permit the President to determine when to use torture. While torture is still not officially codified, it is now more or less government policy, despite the earlier grand show of protestations by John McCain & Co. The restrictions on torture thus far only apply to the military, but not to the CIA. The fact that the final decision is being left to the executive branch places far more power than should be allocated into the hands of just one man. For several decades, no U.S. president or government has had any difficulty following or defining what was permitted and what was not allowed under the Geneva Conventions– through several undeclared wars and conflicts, from Korea to Vietnam to Grenada to the Gulf War, and up until very, very recently. All of a sudden, there is now a rush, a mad dash to “clarify” what has up until now been clear to generations of leaders and Americans.

Our legislators voted to abrogate habeas corpus, a right that has its origins in Magna Carta, the document King John signed at Runnymede in 1215. Since the 13th and 14th centuries, the Great Writ has emerged as one of the cornerstone protections in Western civilization. As of today, both houses have decided that the detainees we have at Guantanamo and elsewhere cannot avail themselves of the ability to use habeas corpus in their attempts for redress. Habeas corpus is protection for individuals against the state. Right now, only non-citizens are being barred from this ancient legal right; but this leads to a slippery slope. Who’s to say which group of people will be limited in their use or rights under habeas corpus next?

Finally, the amendment of the War Crimes Act of 1996 was also a package of the bill that has passed in the halls of Congress. Originally drafted and legislated to define war crimes as violations of the Geneva Conventions and issued to protect American nationals abroad from suffering at the hands of others, it is now being revised to provide retroactive immunity for any and all persons for post-9/11 actions.

Taken all together, these are the desires of the current administration: the wish to be able to use whatever means necessary to elicit information; the ability to escape punishment for past violations of federal and international law; and the opportunity to erode a foundation of our legal system. The fact that Congress has complied indicates a legislative body not only complicit in weakening what this country stands for, but willing to diminish its own responsibilities to conduct oversight. In this nation, we supposedly have a balance of powers: the judicial, the legislative and the executive branches all have checks and balances. Today is a step towards radically and permanently altering the structure of our government.

As I’ve stated before, perceptions are very important. It’s not just a matter of good public relations (something the U.S. needs a giant shot in the arm of); it’s a matter of reciprocal treatment. You think other nations are going to say, “Oh, we’ll just keep following the Geneva Conventions, now that the United States has decided to alter the playing field to its advantage”? Most will, but some decidedly won’t. It’ll be a game of, “You’re doing it, so it’s okay for us to do it too.” Allowing torture is not just wrong on a basic level of human rights; it’s also wrong because at some point down the line, some unlucky soldier, diplomat, or government representative may needlessly suffer because some nation, government, or group has decided that it too can afford to ignore international protocols. It’s not about coddling terrorists or prisoners; it’s about providing equal protections across the board.

Additionally, I’ve commented on Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. The portions concerning habeas corpus are the one part of this odious bill that I think will ultimately be defeated, or at least retarded; the Supreme Court has made it clear that there are fundamental legal rights and protections that Bush and his cronies cannot tamper with. Still, the fact that our Congress thought it was okay to limit habeas corpus depresses me, makes me sick to my stomach. The path to tyranny, throughout history, has been marked by actions such as these: the abrogation and termination of the rights of the individual versus the rights of the state.

Finally, the evisceration of the War Crimes Act infuriates me. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al have stated that they view the Geneva Conventions in a dim light; indeed, Alberto Gonzales called portions of the Conventions “quaint” and “obsolete.” Yet they are obviously perfectly aware that what they are doing is wrong. If the acts permitted under this government are legal, then they have nothing to worry about. Why fight it out in the courts? Why try to amend and change laws? I grew up believing immunity was something granted only to criminals; why does our gummint need immunity? For a better opinion piece on this matter, see here.

It isn’t just those of us on the left or in the center that harbor serious doubts about the events of the last few days. Even Andrew Sullivan has come out stating that this “kind of political pressure… is breath-taking and shameless.”

There comes a time when every nation faces a turning point in its history. A time when a nation either grows, expands, and rises beyond its past to new heights; or a point where it plateaus, or in many cases, begins to slowly stagnate, and eventually fall. In the case of our United States of America, over the last few days, we’ve faced a crossing that will place us on an irreversible path. I fear that today we crossed a moral Rubicon.

As you already know from numerous previous posts, I have a Thing for Books. There’s five bookcases here, and an additional 20-odd boxes of books in storage. We’re rapidly running out of space, but to me, books are treasures. They transport you to other places, times, and planes of existence. Books aid the imagination, and believe me, the imagination is a wonderful thing.

But I don’t know that many folks in my life who are as crazy about books as I do. My once and future walking partner is definitely one, and I’ve met kindred souls throughout the years. Thus we were delighted last year to be invited to a book club. Although the invitation was extended a while back, we didn’t have the opportunity to experience the group until this summer.

Our first foray into the club was in July, when a small but hardy group of us met to discuss Paulo Coelho’s The Alchemist. I had only vaguely heard about the book, but was looking forward to reading something new. While I wouldn’t herald it as the best book ever, or in my top ten, it was an enjoyable book, and definitely provoked discussion. The session leader who chose this selection also picked our meeting place, a wonderful Spanish restaurant in the urban wilds of Echo Park (it was such a good restaurant that we’ve been back since, on our own!).

The responsibility for our next gathering fell to me, and I chose today for our small coterie to join spirits and minds once again. Since we were entering the month of September, with all that it brings– fall, school, a return to the daily grind, I decided to go with a “back to school” theme and decided that we’d read The House of Dies Drear, by Virginia Hamilton. We would dissect said book at (yes) Chuck E. Cheese’s in Burbank.

Our foray into juvenile literature was a great success. Hamilton’s book is about a contemporary family, with the story’s background focusing on the Underground Railroad. I had seen this book for years while growing up, but had never gotten around to reading it. When I did, I expected the book to be different than it was, but I ended up appreciating something different. It was the kind of book I would have read as a child (a book about historical events/themes), and worried the group would think I chose this book for that exact reason. But fortunately none of us had read it, all of us enjoyed it, and we certainly had a rather different atmosphere– costumed mice, loud, flashy video and arcade style games, and edible pizza. My dark secret here is that I’d never gone to Chuck E. Cheese’s before this.

I’m not sure what our next reading choice will be, but I’m glad to have the opportunity to participate in a literary salon composed of deaf members. It’s gratifying to meet people I can discuss literature with, and it certainly demonstrates both the ordinariness and the potential of deaf people, a reality I wish a lot of parents, doctors, and other professionals would realize: deafness does not have to be a barrier. It’s in the mind, and using the mind is the most important thing.

Ironically, I didn’t realize when we met up for bland pizza, unlimited soft drinks, and skee ball that it was the beginning of Banned Books Week. This year’s observance was the 25th anniversary. It’s amazing the amount of censorship/attempted censorship that’s out there in a supposedly free nation. Personally, I think it’s idiotic; challenging a book will just result in more people who are curious about the book and willing to check it out and read it, compared with if they just said nothing. Some people will even take a perverse pride in reading banned authors; my grandmother’s grandfather was an ex-Catholic who annually chose a book from the Index to give to my grandmother on her birthday. This defiance led her to be probably the most well-read child on her block.

If I had known about this beforehand, I probably would have picked a banned or controversial book. Still, suffice it to say, in spite of bland pizza and munchkins everywhere, our Deaf Literary Salon is fast becoming one of my most pleasurable outings.

Postscript: In the wake of my last post, there have been a couple of articles pointing to the seriousness of the healthcare situation in the U.S.; first, according to Reuters, 9 out of 10 Americans could not buy their own health insurance. Additionally, tuberculosis is in the news again, and it’s not good news.

Every time I worry about things, or fret about the future, one thing I’m always thankful for (and need to remind myself!) is that I grew up with good health care. No matter how poor we were when I was little, or how hopscotch my benefits have been as an adult, I had a great dentist and a very good doctor. That’s something not everyone has benefitted from.

I know in the near future I’ll have to find a new dentist and a new doctor, and I do wonder if I can find good ones. But what really bothers me, when I sit and think about it, is how many people in this country do not have adequate access to medical services, how many people do not have medical insurance, and how many people do not have doctors or dentists at all.

One of the things many politicians don’t talk about is reforming health care. By “reform,” I’m not talking about cutting the public health rolls in regard to Medicare or other similar programs, but actually overhauling the system. HMOs are not the answer, and many people know it. Once upon a time, individual doctors ran their own practices, and could assume a great deal of latitude in terms of who they treated and for how much, the fee scales, and how to make allowances and still protect their bottom line.

Now, it’s all done by faceless people in centralized offices who work according to pre-determined charts, formulas, and the like. Some procedures are approved; others are not. Premiums get higher by the year; co-pays go up in tandem.

While I’m not necessarily in favor of providing FREE health care for everyone (I think it should be a progressive system, akin to taxes– the more money you have, the more you should chip in), I do think there needs to be a massive change; if not universal health care ( a single-payer system), then a new way of accessing medicine than the system that we currently have now. I also think our leaders and politicians not only need to be talking about this, but constantly coming up with ideas of their own.

That’s why I’m disappointed in Herr Gropenfuhrer, who is currently the governor of my home state. He has in the last couple of weeks indicated he would veto health-related bills. The first was a bill championed by State Senator Sheila Kuehl that would have provided universal health care.

Today, he vetoed an employer health care bill, advocated by State Senator Carole Migden, that would have required companies to either provide health benefits for their employees or pay into a state health fund. Both times, he claimed it’d be too expensive, and wouldn’t solve our problems.

Ok, fair enough. Let’s hear YOUR proposals then, Governor. Because I can’t really respect someone who talks a good game, but doesn’t walk the walk. The problem as I see it isn’t so much as one of who pays what, or who *should* pay what. The problem I see right now is two-fold.

1) the system we have isn’t working. More and more people are underinsured or uninsured, including children. More people are using emergency rooms for non-emergencies, which in turn comes back to all of us, in higher bills, premiums, and taxes. People are paying through the nose because of high co-pays on pills, and sneaking over the borders to Canada and Mexico, either in person or on-line, to make sure they have their medications. When you have problems like these, that indicates that it’s *not working.* That means you don’t veto bills; it means you start talking about solutions, and crafting compromises.

2) disease doesn’t affect one person; it affects many. When bird flu eventually strikes, or TB makes a resurgence (and in recent years, there have been troubling indications that TB cases are on the rise again), it’s going to be difficult to localize and contain the spread of disease. In this era of globalization and rapid transportation, a disease that once took months, if not years, to spread from one corner of the globe to another will now take weeks, if not days. The increase in drug-resistant strains of bacteria and viruses means we are going to have to stay steps ahead if we want to manage disease. It certainly isn’t going to help if people do not have access to doctors, to vaccines, to preventative health care.

When an epidemic hits, it isn’t going to matter if you’re rich or poor; it *will* matter if you have medical and dental care, and it will matter if you have access to medicines and vaccines. For some illnesses though, we have gone for so long without major epidemics that if one should arise, we’re in big trouble. When your co-worker comes to work sick, she doesn’t have a choice– she can’t take days off because she needs that paycheck. When your employee comes to work sick, he comes in that way because he doesn’t have benefits, or the “benefits” he has aren’t helping him to stay healthy. It not only costs your office/business in terms of productivity and profits, it also exposes you to whatever disease is being spread. A common cold today could very well be an outbreak of tuberculosis or something similar down the road.

This is why I’m not crazy about denying immigrants, both legal and illegal, health services. There may be legitimate reasons (or not) for barring them from a lot of services and benefits, but when it comes to health, I don’t think any of us should be playing games with bacteria and viruses that could be simple- or not. This is also why I think we need to set our politicians straight– not just Schwarzenegger, but everyone, from county officials up the ladder to Smirk himself. We need to have a national conversation about health care, and we need to come up with solutions sooner than later. No lollipops for our pols until they can stop just long enough from vetoing solutions that others come up with, and start coming up with solutions of their own.

Today, of course, is September 11. There’s so much out there on the web, I’m not sure I’d do any good by adding to it. Although it’s our collective national tragedy, it has more meaning to New Yorkers and the denizens of DC who were there that day, those who experienced the pain firsthand.

Two places in the deaf blogosphere that I think are good places to remember and share are Ridor’s blog, where he’s posted his own memories of that day, and invited his readers to do so. If you feel a cathartic need to share with a community, I recommend heading over there, or a similar site.

A fellow lover of history has posted a lovely, haunting poem in remembrance of 9/11. To experience Der Abschied, go to Bellamoden.

In remembrance. 9.11.01