Thursday, September 30, 2021

Fearing the reckoning

Many of my friends tell me they now turn off the news. They find it too dishonest, too upsetting. Everything they value is being attacked. Perhaps because of my upbringing, and perhaps because of a project I began some 30 years ago, I have not yet reached that point. I still see a safe path for America's future.


I have written before of how my mother taught me, even before I was in school, not to lie. "If you tell one lie, you will have to tell more lies to cover it up." She also taught the "Golden Rule." Dad taught tolerance. When I used the N-word, when I was just four or five, Dad told me, "I don't ever want to hear you use that word again; it's meant to hurt." When as a child, I began to lecture an adult friend of his on the superiority of Catholicism over Episcopalianism, Dad cut short my discourse with a simple question: "Are you a bigot?"


Then there was the ethical and moral training that I received in the Catholic grade schools and high school, at the University of Notre Dame and at its law school — "the ends don't justify the means."


Then, about 30 years ago, I began collecting the stories of what life was like in America during the Great Depression of the 1930s from people who lived through it. I am not quite sure why I began collecting. Perhaps it was the realization, after my mother's death, that what she and Dad had taught me about the Great Depression was passing with them.


One day, about five years ago, I suddenly realized that all the people who had personal memories of the Depression would soon be gone and would take their memories with them. It was then that I seriously began collecting enough additional stories to write my first book. About a year ago, I signed a contract with Crosslink Publishing, a smaller Christian publishing company, to publish my "Memories of the Great Depression — a Time Forgotten." That process — collecting additional stories — has become a labor of love. At this point, I have enough for a sequel, but I still wish to save more.


In my book, I include the story of a friend and neighbor, the Rev. Charles Willey. The underlying values found in his story, and how they contrast with "modern values," have prompted this op-ed.


"I can clearly recall an incident, when a family had their little eight-year-old girl die from a ruptured appendix and peritonitis. The family had absolutely nothing. They didn’t even have enough money to bury her. The expenses of the funeral were more than they could stand. It was at this point that the whole neighborhood stepped in. When I say the neighborhood, I mean our small rural community—a community where the rural church served as the community center and the cohesive factor that bound people together.


"I can distinctly remember how the church got together and "held ice cream suppers. And how they assembled and held what they called 'pound suppers' or 'jitney suppers.' At a jitney supper, everything was a nickel! A scoop of potatoes was a nickel, and a piece of beef was a nickel. You’d buy a whole meal for twenty-five cents. ... It was a fundraiser; that’s what it was."


"The proceeds of these suppers went to help the family with no strings attached. There was no attempt on anybody’s part to take advantage of the charity. It was rather a symbol of people pulling together to help someone who had a genuine hardship— a hardship that they couldn’t help and couldn’t survive without the cooperation of a community. There was a sense of community which we’ve lost now in the age of the nuclear family. Then, we felt a sense of responsibility for each other and for the people we knew. We weren’t just acquaintances; we were friends. And I guess, maybe human need is the only thing that brings that kinship out."


Perhaps I'm an old fool, but I prefer that America where families, neighbors and communities come together and practiced traditional Christian values to help each.


Certainly major disasters require help from the national government. But where traditional Christian charity or local governments can meet the problems, neighbors and local governments should still be the "first responders."


I am leery of a progressive government which chooses to step in as the first responder in matters traditionally reserved to families, neighbors and units of local government.


Today, our federal government is providing cradle to grave benefits: "Free" food, housing, education and medical care. And for those who don't wish to work, "free" money.

And all this is being done without increasing taxes. Banks, great automobile companies, and state governments awash with pension debt are all bailed out with a few keystrokes of the computer. Hundreds of billions of dollars are magically credited to the account of the Federal Reserve, and made available to support otherwise unfunded government programs.


The progressives believe they can engineer the "Great Hallelujah Day." A few of us old curmudgeons await and fear the reckoning.

Copyright 2021, John Donald O'Shea

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on September 30, 2021 

Tuesday, September 14, 2021

The Illinois Reapportionment System. An Absolute Disgrace!





The Illinois General Assembly is the Illinois Legislative body. It consists of a House and a Senate. The House has 118 members elected from 118 "Representative Districts." The Senate has 59 members elected from 59 "Legislative Districts." Each Senate ("legislative") district is divided into two House ("representative") districts


In the year following each Federal decennial census year, the General Assembly is required by law to redistrict both the Legislative and the Representative Districts.


Article IV, Section 3 of The Illinois Constitution of 1970 provides, "Legislative Districts shall be compact, contiguous and substantially equal in population. Representative Districts shall be compact, contiguous, and substantially equal in population."

No similar Illinois provision governs the drawing of Congressional Districts.


The average citizen's definition of "compact" would be roughly akin to the dictionary definition: "closely and neatly packed together; dense ... neatly fitted into a small space.


But in 1895, Illinois legislators and judges "defined" the requirement of "compactness," which was found in the Illinois Constitution of 1870, out of existence. In approving a gerrymandered map drawn by the legislature, the Illinois Supreme Court did so by defining "compactness" in a way to render the term meaningless.


"[W]e are of the opinion that as used in the constitution ... the provision that districts shall be formed of ... compact territory means that [they] ... must be closely united, territorially."


Under that definition two intersecting road could be deemed "compact." Certainly where they intersect, they are "closely united, territorially." But nobody except a political hack in the legislature or on the bench would say that I-80 and I-74 are "compact" because the are "closely united" at their point of intersection.

The drafters of the Illinois Constitution of 1970 were fully aware of what the 1895 Illinois

Supreme Court had done when they reinserted the "compact" requirement into the Constitution of 1970. But they again failed to define "compact!" So the legislature, and the court following its their earlier precedent, have once again ignored the plain meaning of the word — just as they did in 1895.


Nevertheless, the drafters clearly understood the importance of the "compactness" requirement. The Report of the Legislative Committee which proposed the language adopted by the 1970 Convention. It stated:


"Perhaps no standards for drawing legislative district boundaries possess a longer history than the traditional standards of compactness and contiguity. In our present Constitution, these standards are found in both Sections 6 and 7. These standards directly reflect the objective of improving legislative representation through seeking to insure that districts are not gerrymandered."


Presently the Illinois Senate consisted of 41 Democrats and 18 Republicans. The House consists of 73 Democrats and 45 Republicans. Democrats therefore have absolute control of both houses. The Republicans are utterly irrelevant. In Congress, the Democrats hold 13 of 18 seats.


You can see the results of Democrat gerrymandering — with judicial approval. Just look at the 2011 maps. Or look at the new 2021 maps the Democrats have just trotted out. [Of course, the Republican would do the same thing if they had the power.]


Proposed Illinois Senate Map: https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewerll=40.08707930358038%2C88.48127570835499&z=8&mid=1X9lSD13vTX_-4oIyWqstGk8e1VFGJ_i2

Proposed Illinois House Map: https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/1/viewer?mid=1L7I2r4gat9nRWx9wfaizpn7XkA7i1qL4&ll=39.79510521942542%2C-89.50414500000001&z=6



To see what the Illinois Democrats perceive to be "compact," simply look at the present Illinois Congressional map. Can any sane man honestly describe existing Congressional districts 1, 5, 6, 9, 11, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, as "compact?" This map reduces the redistricting process to crass political cynicism.

https://www.ilga.gov/CongressionalDistrictMaps/Statewide%20View.pdf


As a result of the Democrat gerrymandering in Illinois has been ruled by one-party government for the last 10 years. This map is designed to guarantee that elections are non-competitive. It succeded.

So what's my solution?


As I have no confidence the Illinois Supreme Court will construe the word "compact" as the drafters who wrote our constitutions intended, I see only two possible solutions:


(1) Elect holy angels to draw the map; or (2) amend the Illinois Constitution to provide:

All districts shall be compact — squares, rectangles or triangles. No district shall have more than four sides. All sides shall be straight lines, unless one or more sidesor the sides are the state boundry lines. No arcs, no curves, no squiggles. The only factor, beyond shape, that may be considered in drawing the district's lines is population equality.


Or if the politicians would choke on my solution, they might check out Iowa's. Iowa's Congressional Districts are pretty darn "compact." Copy the Iowa system!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa%27s_congressional_districts


In Iowa there are only four Congressional Districts. Indication that the Iowa system works, is that from the 2014 election until the 2018 elections, Republican held 3 of 4 seats. In 2018, Democrats grabbed 3 of 4 seats. In 2020, Republicans 3 of 4 seats back.




Democracy works best when the voters can "throw the bums out"— whether they are Republican bums or Democrat bums.



Copyright 2021, John Donald O'Shea

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on September 14, 2021 under the caption "Level the Playing Field."