HAIL DUBYUS!

An Illustrated Guide to Mendacity and Folly in the Imperium Americanum

To The Victor, The Spoils…Now With The Force Of Law

2006-07-10-gerrymandering_software.jpg

(WashPost)Tolerating Texas Rules

Once again, the new court has taken steps contrary to the spirit of democracy. By supporting the blatantly partisan redistricting plan, they have enshrined the principle of letting the victor make off with the spoils. The 2006 election may be the most important in American history…unless balance is re-established in the legislature, one party rule will become the NEW American way…

DUM DUM DUM, DUM DaDUM, DUM DaDUM!

2006-06-21-goodgov_nonox.jpg

(WashPost) Court Eases ‘No Knock’ Search Ban Illegally Collected Evidence Allowed

(AP?WashPost) Excerpts From Police Search Ruling

I don’t believe I need say much more than Stephen Breyer in his dissent: “The question is not what police might have done had they not behaved unlawfully. The question is what they did do…Without such a rule … police know that they can ignore the Constitution’s requirements without risking suppression of evidence discovered after an unreasonable entry…That rule does help protect homeowners from damaged doors; it does help to protect occupants from surprise. But it does more than that. It protects the occupants’ privacy…Could it not be argued that the knock-and-announce rule … is simply not important enough to warrant a suppression remedy? Could the majority not simply claim that the suppression game is not worth the candle? The answer, I believe, is ‘no.’ That ‘no’ reflects history, a history that shows the knock-and-announce rule is important…Our Fourth Amendment traditions place high value upon protecting privacy in the home. They emphasize the need to assure that its constitutional protections are effective, lest the Amendment `sound the word of promise to the ear but break it to the hope.'”

Let me just add to the supposed followers of the “original intent” form of interpretation…do you really think that the founders, who had personally endured illegal searches by British troops, really meant that illegal searches were to be permitted simply because we had changed the design of the flag? Is it not possible that when they wrote the fourth amendment to LIMIT searches, they actually meant what they had said. The fourth amendment is one of the bulwarks of liberty and its erosion is yet another slip down the slope to police state. You may say, but only the guilty have anything to fear. But I say, what happens when YOUR behavior is declared illegal? As it well might be if extremists of any stripe become elected to power…

And in other news, man, I have NEVER had multiple kidney stones before. Believe me, they are NO fun. I may be going in for a bout of ultrasound to get them out of the system. Updates will follow 🙂

Even the Seven Dwarves Are Upset About This One–They Thought Whistling While You Worked Was Cool ;-)

2006-06-05-no_more_whistleblowing.jpg

(AP WashPost) Quotes on Whistleblower Case

(WashPost)High Court’s Free-Speech Ruling Favors Government

Garcetti et al v. Ceballos (Opinion)

“It will enable management to be more honest and candid in its personnel actions,” said Employment attorney Dan Westman…yup, now they can say, we’re screwing you because you have a big mouth…and won’t have to come up with false job reviews about how someone who’s gotten outstanding ratings for the last five years suddenly merits unsatisfactory performance ratings…I GUESS that’s a plus–if you’re a manager involved in shady shenanigans…or a president…vice president…secretary of defense…This is only to be expected of an administration that favors “corporate loyalty” above adherence to the law. If this is true for the government, what effect will it have in the private sector? Will this become a precedent that will allow any employer to fire an employee for revealing illegal or unethical practices by their company?

There is a quote (mistakenly ascribed to Mussolini) floating around the net that says that fascism should really be called corporatism in that fascism is really the identification of government with corporate interests. A misleading statement–there are other characteristics of fascism that go beyond a mere corporatist viewpoint–but it does identify an essential plutarchic slant of repressive rightwing regimes: that the government is dominated by moneyed individuals and companies, whose loyalities are not to the people, but to their own pocketbooks and power. Do we not have here the natural extension of that identification? If the government can eliminate employees who are “disloyal” to an administration, will that not poison the “corporate waters” for any future administration whose interests run counter to the plutarchs by creating a workforce whose loyalties lie with the administration that favored them?

This is a very dangerous judgment and exposes the ideology of the Bush appointees. Might makes right.

« go backkeep looking »