The Supreme Court yesterday validated all but one of Tom Delay’s redistricting efforts in Texas. Although that sucks from a Democratic standpoint, the part of their ruling that should have both Republicans and Democrats quaking with fear is that Partisan redistricting outside of the standard 10 years required by the Constitution is A-okay.

The implications of this are going to be far and wide. On NPR yesterday they were discussing this and the commentator they had on said something to the effect of “Don’t worry, we probably won’t see a case of gerrymandering this extreme ever again.” Well, I got news for that commentator: “Get ready, ‘cuz here it comes!” Tom Delay and his cronies wanted to play, well they got their wish. In states all across the country we are going to start seeing the redrawing of district lines dependent on who controls the majority in their respective state’s legislature.

There are some who are going to try and defend the Delay redistricting plan by saying it was just to “correct” the district lines that were drawn after a Democratic gerrymander back in the 1990s. To you I say “Horsepucky!” This isn’t a damn game of tit-for-tat here. We’re talking about the right of every citizen to be represented by a candidate of their choice. The redrawing of legislative districts in a way so partisan the minority has about a snowball’s chance in hell of having their candidate represent them is ludicrous. Extremism, although it seems to be the order of the day, is not the way to do business in government. How can a state legislature justify the redrawing of legislative districts without using census data to support the requested changes? There is no justification, it’s purely partisan politics and it’s going to play out bad for the American people. For every partisan gerrymander, there is going to be a lawsuit challenging it. Let me rephrase that, for every partisan redistricting attempt that is not borne from census data, there is going to be a lawsuit challenging it. Did the Supreme Court Justices even anticipate that? Apparently not.

So get ready everybody, ‘cuz here comes one of the biggest wastes of judicial time ever (besides the constant lawsuits attempting to overturn Roe v. Wade).

Commenter Andy left the following in the comments of my post Just a little survey…or is it?. His comment gets straight to the heart of how the Gay Rights issue should be debated. Areas in bold are my emphasis:

If people aren’t going to apply rationality and logic when they engage with the world, there are pills and white suits who can help them, because sociopaths are defined in one sense as being unable to interact with the world in ways which are consistent and, well, sociable.

This questionnare raised a laugh at the same time as making a serious point. Too often gay people are lumped together in ways which heterosexuals would consider outrageous if applied to themselves. Unfortunately for the right-wing, gay people are as diverse in every way as anybody else. Some of us are sex-mad, it is true - but by definition of numbers, there are more heterosexuals that way. Similarly, marriage - if divorce rates are an indicator, something is wrong.

The prevailing US attitude is medieval and out of step with the rest of the civilised world. Here in the UK we focus on more important things for the most part, though violent homophobia remains a problem despite progressive equality laws including the right to legal recognition of gay partnership ceremonies.

I am continually disgusted when ’subjects’ such as homosexuality, abortion and paedophilia are lumped together. I’m no damn subject and neither should any community member be, gay, straight, bisexual, black, disabled. We’re all people and to reference gay men like myself in the same breath as abortion or paedophilia is damned offensive. I’m not an issue to be debated; I’m not a problem to be addressed; I’m not a footnote on some political arsehole’s agenda, a point to be raised with hatred to gain votes or turn a person to Jesus Christ. I’m flesh-and-blood, fully human like everyone, and it’s the dehumanisation which marks out born-again bigots and their ilk as closer to Hitler and Pol Pot than the Lord they supposedly enjoy getting on their knees in front of to worship…

And of course, what truly terrifies now is that many gay people such as my partner and I are not only visible but confounding stereotypes just by living our lives and pursuing our dreams of raising families. And for anyone to suggest our adoptive child next year will be entering into an environment which will indoctrinate him or her into being gay, well - I suggest heterosexuality isn’t as weak and easily diverted as its own supremacy advocates seem to indicate they believe. For my part, I was born meaning I was the product of heterosexual activity and raised with four brothers and sisters all of whom turned out straight, married, et al. And here I am. Gay. So if my sexuality proved resilient to the overwhelming consensus around me, then why the hell should a child in a gay family unit surrounded by loving people of varying sexualities and colours - aunts, uncles, grandparents - be any less capable of turning out straight or gay or whatever?

The above is how this issue needs to be framed. Andy quite clearly cuts through the bullshit spewed by the likes of “man-on-dog” Rick Santorum as well as others on the right. Some Republicans and fundamentalist Christian groups continuously try to pigeon-hole homosexuals, bisexuals, and transgendered folks to the extent of creating straw-men. Santorum attempted to equate homosexuals as being similar to bestiality. That kind of rationality is just as flawed as responding to someone who says that inner-city schools are underachieving by saying “Why do you hate Black people?”. It’s just as flawed as Republicans who claim that Democrats support a “Cut-and-Run” philosophy with regards to the War in Iraq, or as I call it, the Debacle in the Desert™. The truth is, as Andy states, that homosexuals, bisexuals, and the transgendered are just as human as you and I with the same basic needs: food, clothing, and shelter. When this issue is broken down to the human aspect, it becomes quite a silly argument indeed.

Fixer, of both Alternate Brain and Main and Central, jokingly brought up the idea of forming a Blogger’s Party not too long ago as a result of a question posed by Shakespeare’s Sister. Now his post goes into more detail by actually assigning bloggers to posts normally associated with the presidency, but I gotta ask: Why not form a an independent progressive political party?

Bloggers are increasingly getting more and more media attention as evidenced by recent comments from the Whitehouse indicating that they are indeed checking the blogs. The fact remains that blogs ARE important because they tend to be a fairly accurate gauge on what is important to us everyday folks. Even some high profile politicians attended YearlyKOS in Las Vegas a short time ago in order to “gin up support” and subsequently support the bloggers as well. Some who attended may have done so in order to make themselves look good (what politician doesn’t do this?) but others are truly in tune with what bloggers are saying. Take, for example, Michigan’s John Conyers. He has his own blog. He definitely listens to what his constituents and supporters are saying both directly and indirectly about the issues of the day.

My point to all of this is that bloggers are a very politically aware group; even those who do nothing more than read the blogs. A healthy distrust of the spoon-fed news we see on TV is good. Blogs tend to serve as alternate media sources with varying degrees of readership and knowledge on the issues. Personally, I don’t think there is anything stopping us bloggers transitioning from talking about the issues and policies to deciding the issues and policies.

So what do you think? Do you think a Bloggers Party is in order?

Burned and bleeding,
cracked and peeling,
body broken,
senses reeling.

Tears are falling,
children calling,
parents dying,
death appalling.

Windows shattered,
tables scattered,
ripped apart those,
signs are tattered.

Car blown apart,
heat comes, fire starts,
blackened tissue,
bonded to carts.

Insurgents cheer,
Iraqis fear,
death by bombing,
Troops call all clear.

Soldiers with guns,
say cleanup’s done,
shadows grow long,
in morning sun.

Death in the streets,
bodies in sheets,
7 AM,
cycle repeats.

A suburb of Milwaukee (my city of residence) recently hit the local newspaper courtesy of a group called Students for Unity. The town in question is Port Washington, WI. Students for Unity, a student group at Port Washington High School, made the news because of a controversial survey they distributed back in April that asked such questions as “When did you know you were heterosexual?” This student organization hoped to draw attention to the National Day of Silence which is an annual event co-sponsored by New York City’s Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network.

What amazes me is the controversy and not the survey itself. This group, by asking questions such as the one I listed above, hoped to expose the hypocrisy of supporters of a Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage. Those against gay marriage have long asked homosexuals questions concerning when they knew they were gay, how did they know they didn’t like those of the opposite gender and so on. Apparently, what got these students this notoriety, was the fact that two teachers held an impromptu class discussion on the survey. This infuriated several parents. I applaud them for opening a dialog about how we can embrace diversity in our high schools. Kids have enough stuff on their plate and enough societal pressures as it is. The thing that I like about this survey is that it goes straight (no pun intended!) to the heart of what has long been debated: is being gay something you’re born with, or is it “learned”? Those who would argue that it is learned must also agree then that heterosexuality is “learned” as well, else they’re hypocrites. The survey is printed below. So tell me what you think.

Image borrowed from the Journal-Sentinel article linked above

Apparently not.

So Zarqawi has been killed, the Iraqis have finally created that government that was supposed to have been done since December’s elections and our troops are still in harm’s way. Guess there hasn’t been enough bloodshed over there yet. So I wonder how high the death toll, both military and civilian, has to be before we pull our troops out or redeploy them as Rep. Murtha and several others have suggested. Any of you guys know?

The sad fact is that neither of these two events will make a bit of difference. There will still be infighting among the different factions of the Iraqi government and somebody else will take over where Zarqawi left off. There will also be continued abuses and indiscriminate killings of Iraqi civilians because, as several Iraq War veterans have stated, every Iraqi is a suspected terrorist/insurgent.

Maybe after November’s midterm elections we’ll begin to see an honest plan at removing our troops from Iraq. Between you and me, I don’t buy that whole “As Iraqi units stand up, we’ll stand down” bullshit the president is quacking about. Anybody got any hard data on how many US units have “stood down” in correlation to Iraqi units “standing up”?

Oh well, just another day in Iraq, albeit with some good news for a change. Unfortunately, the news isn’t good enough to start a drawdown. Everybody knows we have to “stay the course” until the mission is accomplished.

In light of the investigations surrounding the indiscriminate killings, execution style, of approximately 24 civilians in Haditha, Jack Murtha (D-PA) spoke out about the killings saying those that perpetrated them did so “in cold blood”. Now, as some of you may know, Jack Murtha is a decorated 30-year Retired Marine Colonel. He has the ear of the commanders on the ground in Iraq. When things like Haditha happen, especially by Marines, it tarnishes the reputation that Marines have of being the best. As you all also know, I served in the Marine Corps for 4 years. The actions of the Marines at Haditha, 3rd rotation or not, were not indicative of the training that Murtha, myself, these Marines and countless others received during our respective time serving this country. In fact, the actions of these Marines were diametrically opposed to the Rules of Engagement as well as Geneva Conventions. There are those on the Right that want to say that Murtha’s comment “aid and abet the enemy” but I have to disagree. His comments bring to light disgraceful abuses of power taken by some of our servicemen and women currently in Iraq. I understand also that such things can happen in a time of war, but that does not excuse it! If anything “aids and abets the enemy” it is actions such as those that allegedly happened at Haditha.

(to the tune of Gordon Lightfoot’s Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald)

He served time in Hell, he was wounded as well
But some folks they just won’t believe him.
They question him on the awards he had won.
They say that he didn’t deserve ‘em.

They jumped on his back for his plan for Iraq.
And said he backed cutting and runnin’.
The pundits lined up from O’Reilly to Rush.
In their sights for him they were gunnin’.

He was known as a hawk, but Iraq he now balks
The number of dead just keeps rising.
Out of harm’s way, redeploy them today.
Chickenhawks think he’s fantasizing.

In Haditha he said, there shouldn’t be all those dead.
He slammed the Marines that had killed ‘em.
He got no support, ‘cept from lib’rals of course.
The Left Wing now stands behind him.

A traitor he’s called, the Right Wingers appalled
The calls to resign sure came flooding.
A Dem with some sense, he’s a hawk on Defense
His support’s not waning, but budding.

Diana Irey*, got a little fiery
When she said he put our troops in danger.
Never mind that Bush lied, or the thousands who’ve died.
To war, Jack Murtha’s no stranger.

The report, it’s been said, confirms 24 dead.
Exactly what Jack Murtha stated.
Charges will come, long before it’s all done,
But Jack Murtha still will be hated.

They can’t understand, why gen’rals talk to this man.
When they won’t talk to SecDef Don Rumsfeld.
They speak of his time, like he committed a crime.
They want to see him in a jail cell.

But truth will prevail, and Marines will be jailed.
The rules of engagement they’d shattered.
Jack’s courage to speak, makes their statements seem weak
In the end that will be all that mattered.

He served time in Hell, he was wounded as well
But some folks still think he’s a zero.
A brave man is he, but the foolish can’t see
That Jack Murtha’s really a hero.

*Diana Irey(eye-ree), of Carroll Township, PA, is the Republican challenger to John Murtha in November’s Midterm elections.