It was most probably the year 1980 when Tom DeLay revealed his vision thing: gerrymander the state of Texas so that only goppers can get elected. Earlier, Robert Kennedy had said:Some men see things as they are and ask 'Why?' I dream things that never were and ask, 'Why not?'"DeLay, however, dreamed of GOP majorities that never were and asked why the hell not? DeLay dared to dream of election-proofing an entire state, striking blows against Democracy from the bottom up. That was a difficult dream in 1980, when expensive IBM mainframes lacked the power that laptops have today. It's easy to imagine a Republican circa 1980, pouring over census tracks, trying to figure out how district lines could re-drawn to—Robert F. Kennedy
- Protect GOP majorities in right leaning districts;
- Dilute Democratic voting strength.
Something Wicked This Way Comes
In those early days in Texas, the GOP was making noise, flexing its muscles, kissing up to the "moral majority". These were heady times for the GOP. Ronald Reagan had won the Presidency and Bill Clements had just pulled off a stunning upset to become Texas' first Republican governor since Reconstruction days.In retrospect, the GOP sweep was not merely apocalyptic, it was the harbinger of yet more horrible things that have, in fact, come to pass.
On the morning of his own election to the State Senate, a Sugar Land "neighbor" of Tom DeLay would rub his hands like a river boat gambler and ask: "Now....when do I get to meet with those lobbyists"? I witnessed that act. And it forever changed my thinking about the GOP. It was the end of political innocence. I would never see Mr. Smith Goes to Washington in quite the same way ever again.
How the GOP sold Democracy down the river
Certainly, the GOP had hit upon a sure-fire strategy for keeping what was theirs and taking what wasn't. It was a simple, three point strategy: Get power; gerrymander the state in order to keep it; and build up a powerful ruling cabal. Since then, the Abramoff scandals have proven that the GOP has most certainly blazed new trails, literally partnering with powerful lobbyists in order to enrich personal GOP fortunes. Dick Cheney has taken it to new levels, cutting out the middle man entirely, running the entire nation for the benefit of Halliburton.Now —thanks to the US Supreme court, majorities of either party are not limited to re-districting only after a census. A worrisome 7-2 decision has clearly put the highest court in the land in the position of supporting —yet again —a purely partisan decision that helps only the GOP. Whenever it might appear to state GOP leaders that the demographics of a district are changing, new lines can be drawn. The party in power draws them. And, historically, the GOP has always drawn those lines to its own advantage. Unlike 1980, this act of theft is done by sophisticated computers.
Sure, sure.
SCOTUS threw Texas Democrats a bone. Big deal. One district in Texas was found to have been drawn such that the hispanic constituency completely lost their representation. One district, when, in fact, the GOP has stolen an entire state once yellow dog Democrat —and proud of it. One district got a symbolic nod from SCOTUS but too late to give back to some 100,000 Texans the very representation that is promised them in the US Constitution.Sadly, Democracy in America has not died in a blaze of glory. There is no Phoenix from the ashes, no fragile promise of its return. No one has pledged its defense unto death itself. "Give me liberty or give me death" seems a relic but not because Henry was wrong. I haven't heard anyone, save Stephen Colbert, look Bush in the eye and tell him that his ship of state is the Hindenberg. There are no heroes —not even the redeeming cartharsis of Greek tragedy. American Democracy dies daily of a thousand tiny, ignominious cuts. No blaze of glory —rather, a whimper before oblivion.
Some updates on Bush's war on Constitutional government. Cautiously, I ask: has the Supreme Court —at last —decided to check Bush's unprecedented war on the separation of powers?
At the very least, the high court is now on record as obliging a rogue "President" not just to specific international laws but the principle of international law itself. An aide to my congressman told me that international principles —such as the Nuremberg Principles and the Geneva Conventions —infringed upon US sovereignty. Naturally, I disagreed and pledged to work for an opposing candidate.Supreme Court ruling blocks Guantanamo trials
(Filed: 29/06/2006)
The US Supreme Court has found that President George W Bush exceeded his authority by ordering military war crimes trials for Guantanamo Bay detainees.
The ruling is a major setback to Mr Bush's 'war on terror'.
John Paul Stevens, the judge writing for the majority, said the administration had violated US military law and the Geneva Convention in ordering the military tribunal.
The ruling came in the case of Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a Yemeni who worked as a bodyguard and driver for Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan.
Hamdan, 36, one of over 400 foreign prisoners at Guantanamo, has spent four years in the US prison in Cuba. He faces a single charge of conspiring against US citizens from 1996 to November 2001.
Tony Snow, a spokesman for President Bush, said the White House would not comment until lawyers had had a chance to review the decision.
Mr Bush was granted expanded powers by Congress one week after the September 11, 2001 attacks on America, but the Supreme Court's decision makes it clear that Mr Bush has overstepped those powers. ...
Signing away our freedom
By DOUG THOMPSONPresident George W. Bush, through his use of "signing statements," has declared himself, on more than 750 separate occasions, above the laws of Congress, the laws of the land and even the Constitution of the United States.
With each stroke of his pen, Bush wipes away more of the freedoms once guaranteed by the Constitution, undermines the system of checks and balances that is supposed to protect our government from despots and brings this nation closer and closer to the precipice.
His actions come, ironically, as the nation prepares to celebrate the birthday of its independence, an independence threatened as never before not by Islam-spouting madmen but by an opportunistic politician with a fountain pen.
Signing statements allow a President to say he will choose to ignore a law passed by Congress if he feels that law infringes upon his powers during times of war or national crisis.
Thanks to Bush, we're at war, a war based on lies, a war predetermined by an administration that decided, long before the events of September 11, 2001, to wage against a manufactured enemy for political means.
Those attacks provided a much-welcomed opportunity to galvanize a shell-shocked nation into an ill-conceived war that cannot be won, fought against a determined enemy who cannot be defeated in a land that neither requested nor welcomed our manufactured campaign to free it. ...
The Existentialist Cowboy
Supreme Court
Gerrymandering
Democracy
12 comments:
Now —thanks to the US Supreme court, majorities of either party are not limited to re-districting only after a census. A worrisome 7-2 decision has clearly put the highest court in the land in the position of supporting —yet again —a purely partisan decision that helps only the GOP.
Well said, Len, the strange parenthesis which was the O’Connor presence in the Supreme Court, with her liberal – or simply “sane”- influence over this government entity has made American believing that the Supreme Court was designed by our founding Fathers as the people’s tool in order to protect their rights; and which was exclusively designed as the horse in charge to carry the carriage of social progress.
Not quite.
The Supreme Court was designed to put a nice face – in a form of “supreme” ruling- over the corporative injustices. And today, the Supreme Court is up to its old tricks. For the today’s Rockefellers it is a truly heart warming moment to see that “order has been restored inside the court”. Meaning, the Supreme Court is back full throttle to what it was designed for in the first place: A place where we theologize and anoint the Gods of ultra-Capitalism.
The Supreme Court is the Vatican of Ultra-Capitalism. And the supreme judge is its pope. The new chairman of the US Federal Reserve Board is just a mere vocal bishop. Actually, to think of it, even regarding the debate about what place racial profiling has in our society, about the way or the right to pray or not, our right to get an abortion, the desecration of the flag or just wondering if “labor force” is synonym of “human beings”, the Supreme Court has acted since its creation like nothing more than a bunch of guardian of a religion. God bless the United States after all. And, surely in the mind of people like Tom delay or George W. Bush, He’s got a direct line to our Supreme Court; which truly must be giving its powerful ruling or dissents according to what the thunderous voice from Capitalist heaven has muttered.
Thanks anonymous. Difinitely got to follow up those links. I had been thinking that drawing districts is a math problem and, as such, there should be a formula (perhaps to be found in graph theory) that would insure fairly drawn maps.
Dante, you write:
The Supreme Court was designed to put a nice face – in a form of “supreme” ruling- over the corporative injustices. And today, the Supreme Court is up to its old tricks.
And so it would appear. Bush v Gore, of course, didn't even try to maintain the pretense of making case law. And, in effect, prohibited in the decision itself its ever being cited as "precedent". How more transparent could one be?
Fuzzflash:...but it ain’t time to get wasted just yet, pal.
Oh don't worry about me. It was St Thomas More (as I recall) who said something to the effect that our duty lies in escaping. Dead martyrs are only dead. It will take millions of very much alive people to put Bush in the dock at the Hague.
The fuckers only win if we quit.
That's is absolutely correct. Clearly, however, this Bush administration is illegitimate. Thomas Jefferson and Che Guervarra would most certainly have something to say about that, and, in fact, did say plenty about lesser abuses than those perpetrated by the Bushevik regime.
Alinsky put it this way: ORGANIZE!
I'm far away but cheering you guys on. The SCOTUS decision against Guantanimo 'justice' is a good sign. One Aussie, David Hicks (a fool of little consequence) has been sitting in Gitmo for four years waiting for a 'trial' that is nothing more than theatre. Meanwhile our government has sat on its hands and refused to protect an Aussie citizen.
I do what I can. Our leading paper, The Australian, recently decried Hicks as unsavoury because he had operated as a muslim mercenary in Kosovo. I pointed out to them (in a letter that had absolutely no chance of publication) that the official Dutch inquiry into the Srebenica massacre had detailed US intelligence efforts to fly islamic terrorists into Kosovo against UN resolutions. The US had funded, armed and imported islamic terrorists into Europe!
Clearly, the public must be protected at all times from the depradations of history - an official Dutch government report, no less!
The bigger job is clearly within the US itself. I don't envy you, Len, but your writing is a powerful contribution to the task. There may be a sense in which the American people are starting to wake up to the totalitarian nature of this government.
Clearly, the public must be protected at all times from the depradations of history - an official Dutch government report, no less!
Interestingly, there is increased debate about whether or not there IS "history" that can be known let alone a "history" from which lessons can be drawn. The entire argument seems moot to me. I believe that "a" history can be determined based upon available evidence. Secondly, the lessons of history are not always "historical", oddly enough, as many lessons can be drawn from parables and fairy tales. Lessons from history are lessons of "analogy" and are not entirely dependent upon the absolute verification of historical minutiae. Moreover, it would seem that those raising doubts about the "lessons" of history are most often those on the wrong side of it. Just recently, Thom Friedman asked: "What does being right have to do with anything?" A question that only those who are wrong would raise!
Sorry, Fuzzflash, that was my moral judgement showing. Hicks is a bit player in the terrorism game, existing on the fringes of al Qaeda. It appears that the only role he played was to guard a tank! He never harmed anyone, as far as I can determine, so in that sense he is of 'little consequence'. He allegedly was in Kosovo, and I don't know what to make of that or what role he played there. But it would have been minor.
I use the term 'fool' because he involved himself with islamic jihadists primarily in order to give himself some meaning and identity. He appears as a fairly immature young man and one easily led. His involvement in complex situations like Afghanistan and Kosovo was never a choice likely to assist any oppressed muslims with whom he expressed sympathy. He had all the privileges of a very sheltered Western lifestyle. He could have helped muslim causes in so many productive ways. I'm always deeply suspicious of people who tell me their principles require them to take up weapons - especially in foreign countries and for poorly thought out reasons.
So I don't welcome David Hicks home either as an Islamic jihadist driven by religion, or as some kind of civil rights Mandela holding out in Gitmo.
In the terms described he always was a fairly inconsequential character who should have been off doing something more useful with his life.
Islamic terrorism is real enough and needs to be rebuffed. There are also legitimate political resistance goals for persons in Middle East countries that are currently occupied by the US military or its appointed lackeys.
None of these countries need people like Hicks to stick their nose in where it doesn't belong. As it stands his best service has been to support the Bush administration lies that al Qaeda poses a threat to western values and way of life (they don't)and that because of the possible corruption of westerners like Hicks by jihadist ideology, police state supervision of citizens is necessary in western democracies.
I don't like or dislike the guy - I think he's a nuisance.
None of which excuses Gitmo.
Len, I'm reminded of Churchill's phrase:"I know history will be kind to me because I shall write it!"
Yes, it's somewhat fashionable to assert that historical reporting is so corrupted that there is no veifiable truth, just political interests and spin. But either Napoleon did enter the gates of Moscow in 1812 or he did not. So I agree that there is a substrate of historical truth free from mere opinion which may or may not be accessible from historical evidence.
I guess I was angry at the kind of in-your-face editorial policy of some media outlets that would seek to rewrite history simply by refusing to acknowledge credible historical sources that would point to facts at odds with their political stance. It's an easy way of being in the right.
I should have properly said:
The public must be protected at all times from the depradations of historical reporting at odds with our view on the facts.
I expect this principle to form the staple of Fox News, but I am absolutely disgusted that an otherwise quality paper such as The Australian should head down this track.
- I wrote them about the fake Zarqawi letters published by Dexter Filkins at the NYTimes, but - by the same principle - that was never reported either. link
I'm reminded of Churchill's phrase:"I know history will be kind to me because I shall write it!"
And he did, indeed! His "History of the Second World War" is almost an autobiography but, having played the role he played, he is excused. I also have his "History of the English Speaking Peoples" in which he said of the Arthurian legends: "If they are not true, they ought to be!"
Having said all that, I share your outrage at Fox in general. Clearly there is verifiable evidence to be found in the public record UNLESS there is a concerted evidence to rewrite the past or —as Bush has done with 911 —destroy all evidence one way or the other.
I have been exceedingly busy of late and have not had time to post about the latest SCOTUS decision binding Bushco to international law and, indeed, our own US codes having to do with war crimes, et al.
The decision strikes at the very heart of the manner in which Bush has waged the so-called "war on terrorism" —misnamed because Bush has, in fact, made terrorism worse even by his own definition. Bush cannot have it both ways. Now —we learn that Bush has broken international laws and the GOP in Congress will scramble to make legal ex post facto the crimes Bush has already perpetrated.
But —most importantly: SCOTUS has striken at the war itself. If Bush is obliged to International Law, then his "war of choice" i.e., aggressive war is a war crime.
More later.
Sorry Len, no politic today. I'm sabring the champagne toasting Zizou....
Yep! And here's the link for the non-soccer public:
France Upsets World Cup Favorite Brazil
Just a quick one, Fuzzflash. I don't have much enthusiasm for David Hicks, but I have absolutely no doubt that his incarceration and mistreatment at Guantanimo is an absolute outrage. I am entirely in agreement with you on the matters you raise, and in fact I have held similar views all along. As I said: None of which excuses Gitmo.
It has been interesting following the SCOTUS decision to listen Maj.Mori, Hicks' defence counsel. The contrast between his statements and those of Howard could not be more stark: Mori denouncing the Bush admin and affirming many of the ideas we have been making here; Howard unconditionally supporting detention without rhyme or reason. I have nothing but contempt for our third rate, sychophantic, gutless PM (feel free to step right in and add any expletive deleteds that take your fancy).
The Gitmo detentions have no legal basis and Howard and Bush and criminals. themselves.
Damien, fuzzflash...I have at last found some time to write a few words about Hamden. It's my latest post. Not surprisingly, the GOP is already plotting to make Bush's crimes legal.
Post a Comment