Palau

Even Texas Judges are Worried…

Jeralyn Merritt at Talk Left links to Court TV anchor and former Texas Judge Catherine Crier’s blog. Crier is not known for her flaming radicalism, but even she is alarmed by the implications of the current filibuster row:

The Senate filibuster fight between Republicans and Democrats is not over the majority?s attempt to put more conservative judges on the bench. Contrary to their mantra–that liberal ?activist? judges have taken over the courts–the nation has had a majority of Republican appointees on the federal bench and Supreme Court for generations. No, this is a fight over a very specific judicial ideology that the far right wing of the Republican Party wants ensconced in our courts.

Crier interviewed arch-theocrat and Bush supporter Pat Buchanan on her show, where he was blunt, even brutal ,in outlining the Republican/Dominionist agenda. She’s since had time for the full import of his words to percolate:

“Thank you, Pat, for your honesty. What the far right wants is a ?super legislature? of their own. Their mission is clear; to reverse case law involving civil rights, abortion rights, the ban on execution of juveniles, and even the application of the federal Bill of Rights to our state governments, to name but a few areas under attack.” (My emphasis) “The federal court nomination of Justice Janice Rogers Brown of the California Supreme Court is now before the Senate. She has clearly expressed her feelings about the ?socialist? policies enacted during FDR?s administration, and in a recent speech, she made it clear that religious values in America are threatened by ?an increasingly secular culture?. She went on the say that ?these are perilous times for people of faith?. Good Lord, how?

The Christian right has portrayed themselves as victims long enough. Every Sunday morning, I have several national networks offering me salvation. Of course, I can always join Pat Robertson on the 700 Club. This fundamentalist voice dominates talk radio, and cable talk shows have elevated dramatically their agenda in the public eye. Christian music is rockin? and the Left Behind series outsells every other fiction book on the market. A new megachurch (defined as one attracting more than 2,000 members weekly) spring up every two days in this country according to the founder of Church Growth Today. Just how much do they want? They want it all.

The real fight is not over the lower courts in the federal system, but instead, the ultimate prize–the highest court in the land. There is no question that President Bush will have the opportunity to appoint several justices to that Court during his second term. He has made his ideological preferences clear. Conservative justices aren?t enough. He wants jurists of a particular persuasion. They must satisfy the requirements of fundamentalist Christians, with a willingness to roll back the clock to a time where children prayed to Jesus in public school, gays were back in the closet and women were forced into back alleys.

The filibuster row isn’t about some abstruse point of parliamentary protocol. Think Malcolm Glazer and Manchester Utd. Glazer needed over 75% of the shares to take the club out of the control of the shareholders, so he could turn in it into his own private Subbuteo game. Like any capitalist, he likes to win. But a football club is not a country.

The Republicans are already at the metaphorical 75% shares point; they have the White House and both Houses of Congress. They have it all. That’s not enough for them, though. It’s not enough to turn the country into Bush’s private playpen but there must be no complaints and no opposition. They will not brook dissent. Disagreement, even rational disagreement, must be stifled by any means, fair or foul; but mostly foul. The ability to speak against legislation and nominations to government posts, no matter how inefectually (and yes, I mean you, Democrats) is essential in any society that calls itself free.

The filibuster, in itself, is not the crux of the matter. What is central is the White House’s determination, channeled through that ventriloquist’s dummy Senator Frist, to change Senate rules to ban the filibuster.The Republicans can’t win a vote to to change the rules, so are relying on Dick Cheney, of all people, who is hardly a disinterested observer, to place a casting vote in their favour and pass the filibuster ban that way.

When he does, and he will, there will be no impediment to the exercise of unfettered Republican power. They’ll be able to change the rules on a whim. Bush and his Dominionist handlers will be able to pack the Supreme Court with a selection of variously and severally batshit-insane, corrupt, theocratic and ethically compromised judges, for life. This will set the tone of government for generations to come, should there be any, and the Supreme Court will be just the start. Next stop the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Crier is right to be worried. We should all be worried. Naked power-grabs, stifling dissent, stealing elections, locking people up without trial, torture – the US has entered Mugabe-government territory. Who knows where this will lead.

Enough, Already

Harry at Harry’s Place doesn’t like George Galloway, that much is clear. But even he is getting tired of continual GG-baiting. He says as much in his latest post:

Right, I’m sure you have all had enough of me banging on about George Galloway everyday and I’m getting a little weary of it all myself.

I’ve made clear enough times what I think about Galloway and his supporters and put forward the questions I would like to ask the Respect MP – all of which still stand, so there is no point in continuing with long posts on the issue.

But I also know that there is a lot of interest in this topic from a good number of you so I think that perhaps the way to avoid the blog becoming a single issue campaign yet still be a source of useful info is if, when the occassion merits, I simply link to stories on the issue without the need for lengthy commentary.

He then goes on about Galloway for another 30-odd lines… not too weary then. Or certainly not as weary as Senator ‘Oh, fuck, what did I do” Coleman.

Trevor Blake, posting at American Samizdat spots this piece of research from the University of Florida, which appears to show that children with ‘African-American-sounding’ names do less well at school:

A new study suggests that black students with exotic names don’t do as well in school as black students with more common names. The University of Florida study found that students with names such as Da’Quan or Damarcus are more likely to score lower on reading and math tests. Researchers said that black students with unusual names are also less likely to meet teacher expectations and be referred to gifted programs than black students with more common names, such as Dwayne.

[…]

University of Florida economist David] Figlio said boys and girls with exotic names suffer in terms of the quality of attention and instruction they get in the classroom because teachers expect less from children with names that sound like they were given by parents with lower education levels. He said the lower expectations often become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

[…]

Figlio found that poorly educated black women overwhelmingly gave their children names that begin with certain prefixes, such as “lo,” “ta” and “qua,” and certain suffixes, such as “isha” and “ious.”

Comparing pairs of siblings, Figlio found that teachers treated the children differently – depending on the name. A boy named Damarcus, for example, was 2 percent less likely than his brother Dwayne to be referred to a gifted program, even with identical test scores, Figlio said.

[…]

Figlio found opposite results for children with Asian names. Students with Asian-sounding names were more likely to be recommended for gifted programs than siblings with common American names and similar test scores, he said.

I very deliberately gave my children, both boys and both now adults, sensible names, despite much pressure from my then sisters-in-law, who are themselves African American. I did this for very much the reasons outlined in the research. People should’t make judgements – but they do, and the judgement that is made about someone with an obviously confected name is that their family are idiots. You may as well stick a big sign on your head saying ‘My mum is a pretentious moron, treat me like one too’.

This is so regardless of race (check out the Utah Baby Namer for confirmation; there’s no weird name quite like a Mormon weird name, how about Ahmre Jade or Tiphany or even Vyquetoriya Walkasheaqua? Check it out, they’re real names.). But, and this is very important, it’s exacerbated by names that clearly identify a person’s race. Sod self-expression and African pride, they’re not enough reason for saddling your child with a handicap that will allow people to identify them by race and enable them to be discriminated against more easily.

No responsible parent should put their own needs for self-expression above the potential well-being of their child.

Senator Coleman, You’re A Numpty

For those USanians confused by some of George Galloway’s expressions in the Senate hearing yesterday, the commenters at Catch bring you this: the Scots/American online dictionary.

Not Only A Creep But A Scab

I knew there was a good reason for loathing Charlie Falconer, aside from the fact he is a fat, sweaty, underqualified and over-promoted Tony-crony who lies like the rest of us breathe.

I only just came across this or I would have posted it earlier, as it was tucked away in the back of the Grauniad’s Freedom of Information campaign pages (insofar as one can have back pages online). It seems that Mr Labour Lord Chancellor Charlie was instrumental in breaking up the National Union of Mineworkers and the consquent ripping apart of the very Labour party of which he purports to be a supporter:

Secret papers reveal Falconer role in breaking up NUM

David Hencke and Rob Evans
Monday May 16, 2005
The Guardian

Labour’s current lord chancellor, Charles Falconer, provided vital legal advice at the height of the miners’ strike 20 years ago to enable the Thatcher government and the National Coal Board to assist the breakup of the National Union of Mineworkers, according to previously secret documents released to the Guardian.

Lord Falconer was engaged in his then role as a barrister to advise Sir Ian MacGregor, brought in to run the coal board, on how to handle miners who defied their union leader, Arthur Scargill.

[…]

Mr Falconer was an established barrister advising commercial companies. During 20 years at Fountain Court chambers in London, his clients included British Nuclear Fuels, for whom he fought a series of cases against leukaemia patients and Greenpeace activists, and the NCB.

He also advised the Labour party on a number of legal actions. He gave up his commercial law practice when he was made a peer and minister by his longstanding friend Tony Blair in 1997.

Yesterday a spokesman for Lord Falconer confirmed that he had acted for the NCB, but pointed out that at the time the coal board felt they should be able to enter collective bargaining agreements with groups who wanted to negotiate with them, particularly because a majority of the Not tinghamshire miners had effectively left the NUM.

During the pits dispute, most miners in Nottinghamshire carried on working.

Mr Falconer’s advice was to keep informal links with Mr Lynk, but not to have formal discussions in case the meeting became public.

In the following months, he and Fountain Court colleagues provided detailed legal advice to the board on how to open talks with the minimum of danger of repercussions from the NUM, even though the new union had yet to have a ballot or made the necessary rule changes. By October, Sir Ian MacGregor took personal responsibility to open negotiations with the union.

Only Tony Blair would even consider appointing a scab to government: this says all you need to know about him, his political friends, and the whole New Labour project and its plans. The miners’ strike was the most divisive political event of modern times in Britain: it was a head-on clash between socialism and democracy, as represented by the mineworkers; and capitalism and hegemony as personified by Thatcher and her Tory government. It was crucial to Thatcher’s plans to break the unions, and the NUM was the biggest and strongest.

For someone who portrays himself as a Labour supporter to have enabled the defeat of the miners and midwived the ascendance of Thatcher and all the neo-connery that followed – well, I can’t find words strong or slimy enough to describe it. Wanker just isn’t good enough. Suggestions on a virtual postcard please.