Growing up, I loved Calvin and Hobbes, a popular nationwide comic strip authored by Bill Watterson. Calvin and Hobbes followed the humorous antics of Calvin, a creative and imaginative six-year old boy, and Hobbes, his sprightly stuffed tiger.

One recurring theme seen throughout the comic describes a game called Calvinball. In Calvinball, players make up the rules as they play, the rules can never be the same twice, players must wear a mask and no one is allowed to question the masks. Essentially, the game consists of Calvin and Hobbes running around, in some cases after a volleyball or a flag, in some cases with tennis raquets and mallets. Points are scored at random, follow no logic and are absolutely meaningless (Hobbes once reported the score as “Q to 12”). Any player can declare a new rule at any point in the game, and enforcement of new rules depends partially on what “zone” the player is in when the rule is declared (opposite zones are zones where the rules are the opposite, corollary zones are zones were only amendments to existing rules can be made). Essentially, Calvinball describes a chaotic game where rules don’t exist (or did, depending on the zone), a sure breath of fresh air from Calvin’s — or any six-year old’s — normal, everyday life.

A few weeks ago, Congress passed a law setting minimum qualifications for future heads of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), following the rather unsuccessful tenure of the rather unqualified chief of FEMA who oversaw post-Hurricane Katrina relief efforts. Michael Brown, Bush’s choice to lead the agency, was largely criticized for the federal government’s slow response to flood victims. Accusations were worsened by the fact that the hire had been a politically connected one, and that Brown had no prior experience in emergency management. It is rumored that Brown couldn’t put “stop, drop and roll” in the right order.

So as to not repeat the same mistake, Congress established job qualifications for future FEMA chiefs in their latest homeland security bill. The new law requires a candidate who has “demonstrated ability in and knowledge of emergency management” and has “not less than five years of executive leadership.”

Hours after Bush signed the bill on Wednesday, October 4, he issued a signing statement saying he could ignore the new restrictions he just signed into law, stating that the FEMA provision interfered with his power to make personnel decisions.

The law, “Bush” wrote: “purports to limit the qualifications of the pool of persons from whom the president may select the appointee in a manner that rules out a large portion of those persons best qualified by experience and knowledge to fill the office.”

Later, other laws presented in the bill were challenged as well. Bush next targeted a provision that allows the FEMA chief to tell Congress about the nation’s emergency management needs without White House permission. The law, “Bush” wrote: “purports . . . to limit supervision of an executive branch official in the provision of advice to the Congress.” Now, before sharing any information with lawmakers, the FEMA director is required to get clearance from the White House.

Since taking office, Bush has challenged more than 800 laws, most of which he states have intruded upon his constitutional powers as president. By contrast, all previous presidents challenged a combined total of about 600 laws. Some argue that such practice by Bush (and other presidents) is similar to a line item veto (a power currently not given to a U.S. president), which gives leaders the power to nullify, or “cross out,” specific provisions of a bill without vetoing the entire bill. Vetoing a bill (which Bush has done only once) would give Congress the chance to potentially override the president if Congress has a 2/3 majority. Some argue that Bush’s practice of signing statements rather than vetoing is a strategy to strengthen and expand executive power at the expense of the legislative branch. It’s easy to argue that Bush’s practices aren’t vastly different from Calvinball.

Bush’s signing statement argues that an experience-driven qualification rules out a large pool of people best qualified by experience. Essentially, Bush argues that we can’t have experienced people held back by lack of experience.

I’m sure Calvin and Hobbes would love George to play Calvinball with them.

Calvin: “Minus thirteen points George! You forgot to follow the rule you just made up: you have to hop on one foot with your arms in the air when you’re going through the monkey zone!”

George: “Nu-uh! When I made that rule up, I had my fingers crossed behind my back and I was in an opposite zone!”

Hobbes: “But crossing your fingers in an opposite zone is a double-negative, and so your rule actually holds!”

George: “Whatever! [stinks fingers in his ears and sings] LA LA LA I can’t hear you!”

Hobbes: “This isn’t fun anymore.”

Calvin: “Yeah, let’s go inside and read.”

Maybe Bush really did have his fingers crossed while signing the bill into law the first time around. Maybe he was in the opposite zone. Whatever the case, little resistance has been made to Bush’s signing statement, probably because in Dubyaball, players make up the rules as they play, players must listen to the president and no one is allowed to question the president.

Because as soon as we start doing that, the terrorists win. Unless we’re in an opposite zone. Then we win.

Behzad Varamini is a graduate student in Nutritional Sciences. He can be reached at bv29@cornell.edu. Gain Through Loss appears alternate Wednesdays.