8-6-25 - 6am - Hiroshima Bombing and Texas Redistricting

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Both of us listening to this show will not be
surprised that downtown Denver has announced that it plans to
double its population in the next twenty years. Oh, how
are they going to do it? They're just going to
eliminate parking. So I guess people will find out who
their friends really are. Oh you want to invite me

(00:22):
to your loft in Rhino or by the baseball park? Nope, nope, parking.

Speaker 2 (00:30):
Funny you mentioned that.

Speaker 3 (00:31):
Go over and listen to the Michael Brown minute on
Freedom and you'll hear my pithy little commentary on that.

Speaker 4 (00:38):
Does that also go for because they're looking to make
a new Mile High Stadium, a new Broncos Stadium.

Speaker 5 (00:43):
So with that, also go for that?

Speaker 4 (00:45):
So they could be like, all right, here's your four
parking spaces in front of Mile High. Could could that
seriously be a thing?

Speaker 2 (00:52):
I suppose it could be.

Speaker 3 (00:55):
I doubt that people are building Mile High with right,
but bros are going to want that. But it could
be a thing, Yes, a thing, Yeah, it could be.
Let's go to the news.

Speaker 6 (01:09):
A short time ago, an American aeroplane dropped one bomb
on Hiroshima and destroyed its usefulness to the enemy. That
bomb has more power than twenty thousand tons of TNT.
The Japanese began the war from the air at Pearl Harbor.
They have been repaid many fold, and the end is

(01:32):
not yet for this bomb.

Speaker 2 (01:35):
We have now added a.

Speaker 6 (01:37):
New and revolutionary increase in destruction to supplement.

Speaker 3 (01:42):
The growing power of our.

Speaker 6 (01:44):
Armed forces in a present farm. These bombs are now
in production, and even more powerful farms are in development.

Speaker 5 (01:55):
It is an atomic bomb.

Speaker 6 (01:57):
It is a harnessing of the basic power of the universe,
the force from which the sun rouses. Power has been
loosed against.

Speaker 5 (02:05):
Those who brought war to the Far East.

Speaker 6 (02:17):
We are now prepared to destroy more rapidly and completely
every productive enterprise the Japanese have in any city. We
shall destroy their docks, their factories, and their communications. Let
there be no mistake. We shall completely destroy Japan's.

Speaker 2 (02:37):
Power to make war.

Speaker 3 (02:40):
It was to.

Speaker 6 (02:40):
Spare the Japanese people from utter destruction that the ultimatum
of July the twenty sixth was issued at Potsdam. Their
leaders promptly rejected that ultimatum. If they do not now
accept our terms, they may expect a ragin of wind
from the air, the like of which has never been

(03:01):
seen on this earth. Behind this air attack will follow
sea and land forces in such numbers and power as
they have not yet seen, and with the fighting skill
of which they are already well aware. We have spent

(03:26):
more than two billion dollars on the greatest scientific gamble
in history.

Speaker 2 (03:31):
And we have won.

Speaker 6 (03:34):
But the greatest marvel is not the size of the enterprise,
its secrecy, or its cost, but the achievement of scientific
brains in making it work.

Speaker 5 (03:46):
And hardly less marvelous has.

Speaker 6 (03:48):
Been the capacity of industry to design, and of labor
to operate the machines and methods to do things never
done before. Oh, science and industry work together under the
direction of the United States Army, which achieved a unique
success in an amazingly short time. It is doubtful if

(04:14):
such another combination could be got together in the world.
What has been done is the greatest achievement of organized
science in history.

Speaker 3 (04:27):
That's President Truman. That's the courtesy of the HARRIEUS. Truman Library.
On August sixth, nineteen forty five, at exactly eight fifteen
in the morning, a B twenty nine bomber by the
name of named Annoli Day dropped the first atomic bomb
in history, nicknamed Little Boy, I'm the Japanese city of

(04:50):
Hiroshima in a blinding instant. The bomb unleashed a catastrophic explosion,
generating a massive mushroom cloud, destroying most of the city,
killing somewhere between seventy and eighty thousand people instantly. Many
thousands more died, as we all know in the days,
the months, and the years that followed, from radiation, sickness,

(05:12):
and from injuries, bringing the eventual death toll of the
Horohima bombing to more than one hundred and forty thousand
people now. Three days later, three days from now, on
August nine, we dropped a second atomic bomb fat Man
on Nagasaki, instantly killing another forty thousand people. In total,

(05:33):
the two bombings killed between one hundred and fifty thousand
and two hundred and fifty thousand people, most of whom
were civilians. The bombings have been remembered every year in Hiroshima,
with survivors called hibakasha or something like that. Don't speak Jabanese, obviously,
because they want to ensure that the trauma and the

(05:54):
memory of the nuclear weapons are passed on to new generations.
Ceremonies are held with herrootion a peace memorial park near
the iconic Atomic Dome. They want to commemorate the immense
loss and the devastation. Now, why did the bombs stop
World War II? At the time, the Allied Powers were

(06:16):
seeking to end World War II? Obviously as quickly as possible.
President Truman US Military command believed that dropping the bomb
would force Japan's leadership to surrender unconditionally, and that would
avoid the really bloody, brutal invasion of the Japanese mainland
that probably would have resulted in millions of additional deaths

(06:38):
of both Americans and Japanese. Now, the Japanese, as you
heard Truman say, completely ignored the Potsdam Declaration. That was
the Allied's demand for an unconditional surrender with a warning
of prompt and utter destruction if you don't heed that warning. Now,
conventional firebombing like that which destroyed Tokyo in March of

(07:00):
nineteen forty five had proved completely ineffective at compelling the
Japanese surrender. The combined shock of the atomic bombings and
then the Soviet Union's surprised declaration of war on Japan
and the subsequent Russian invasion of Soviet invasion technically correct

(07:25):
of Japanese held Manchuria on August eight that probably broke
the final resistance among all the Japanese leaders, and Japan
announced its surrender to the Allies on August fifteen, nineteen
forty five, just six days after the Nagasaki bombing and
the Soviet entry into the war, and the formal surrender

(07:47):
ceremony took place on September second, ending World War two.
I thought it was important to put that in perspective.
The bombings are widely credited with hasting the in the
World War Two. Now, if you want to go online,

(08:09):
you can find any number of debates from historians, ethicists,
the super smart people all continue to debate whether they
were strictly necessary, especially given Japan's desperate military situation and
the impact of the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. But the
use of the nuclear weapons also ushered in a new

(08:31):
and what some call a fearful age because it highlighted
the catastrophic consequences of atomic warfare, a message that the
anniversaries of Eroshima now served to remind the war. There
was an editorial that a because I got an email

(08:52):
from the New York Times about a You know, this
is the editorial that's going to appear today, And here's
what the email says. On the mostly clear morning eighty
years ago today, humanity learned a simple horrific fact about itself.
We Americans had the power and even the will to
incinerate a city with a single ninety seven hundred pound

(09:15):
atomic bomb. The people of Hiroshima learned that too. They
lived it. They witnessed a blinding flash and a deafening bang,
and saw their families torn apart in the face of
a new weapon. Yeah, that's very true, but this isn't
That paragraph completely ignore all of the horrific atrocities that

(09:38):
the Japanese army was inflicting upon soldiers all throughout the
Indo Pacific. The Japanese were brutal, absolutely, as you know,
someboa will be offended by this, but as brutal as
the Nazis. They may not have had an intention of

(10:00):
some sort of genocide of Jews, but the Japanese, in
terms of how they treated prisoners of war, were as
brutal as some of the concentration camps. The New York
Times in that first paragraph completely ignores and is totally
one sided about the ugliness of war. It's oh, we

(10:24):
incinerated a city, and they witnessed it a blinding flash,
a deafening bang, saw their families torn apart in the
face of a new weapon, and they continue. Trumi Tanaka,
a survivor in Nagasaki, where we dropped a second bomb
three days later, was thirteen years old at the time.

Speaker 2 (10:44):
Today, in an essay.

Speaker 3 (10:45):
For The New York Times, he issues an urgent warning
that quote, the nuclear taboo is on the verge of collapse.

Speaker 2 (10:56):
It is How's that I mean?

Speaker 3 (11:01):
Putin has been threatening to use nukes in the Ukrainian War.
He's moved that red line a dozen times. Trump and
an effort to show that he means business, has moved
nuclear submarines into areas. That I mean, first of all,
just even acknowledging our nuclear triad and acknowledging the presence

(11:24):
of nuclear armed submarines. That in and of itself, just hey, lad,
remember we have nukes. We know you do too, but
so do we. So if you want to make that threat,
well remember we can respond. Also, I noticed that when
all of that occurred, remember the nuclear death clock, it

(11:50):
didn't move, It didn't move. They continue in this thing
about the New York Times that the call this thirteen
year old kid at the time his caulder rid this
world of nuclear weapons has never been more pressing. Nuclear

(12:11):
stockpiles are growing, and officials from South Korea to his
native Japan have suggested that they could one day acquire
weapons of their own. He writes, if humanity does not
pursue peace through international law based on United Nations and
its treaties, the next generation may very well live to
see World War three. What a naive sentence. Do I

(12:34):
have sympathy and empathy for this at that time thirteen
year old kid that saw his family ripped apart, flesh
ripped off their bones, Well, absolutely I do. But I
also put that in perspective.

Speaker 2 (12:48):
Of it was World War.

Speaker 3 (12:51):
And we were making a choice. Are we going to
invade and have millions of lives lost? Or are we
going to use these weapons that we've developed at Los Alamos?
And are we going to try to bring about a
swift end of the war and save all of those lives?

(13:11):
And we chose, obviously chose the latter. But to claim
that if we don't pursue peace through international law based
on the United Nations and its treaties. How's that working
out in the Middle East? How's the United Nations working
out in Gaza? Not very well, I would say. And

(13:32):
in fact, if you listened to the speeches yesterday from
the Israeli Foreign Minister and then the brother of that
hostage that we've seen that looks emaciated as if he
is in a Nazi cost concentration camp, and if we
realize that the United Nations Relief Agency is actually in
cahoots with AMAS, you would realize that the United Nates

(13:53):
is are a worthless piece of s word, totally worthless.
But there's another That's what I want to make too.
In December, when the author of this opinion piece accepted
the Nobel Peace Prize on behalf of Neon head On Koya,

(14:13):
a survivor's movement he co chairs, he warned that quote,
ten years from now, there may only be a handful
of us able to give testimony. The Japanese Health Ministry
reports that their average age is eighty six and the
number of officially recognizable Hakashu Kushu, the atomic bomb survivors
in Japan, has fallen below one hundred thousand. Well much

(14:36):
has so the veterans of World War two, the greatest
generation that brought that war to an end.

Speaker 2 (14:46):
But have we thought about.

Speaker 3 (14:49):
The wonderful things that the atomic bomb and the scientists
that all of those people at Lois almost brought us.
If we would learn to not panic over stuff, we
would recognize that virtually everything in the world has a

(15:12):
duality good and evil. My very hands, while not necessarily
trained in any sort of you know, weaponry, nonetheless I
can use my hands to kill someone. Or I can
use my hands if I had any artistic ability, which

(15:33):
I do not, to sculpt or to write or pen,
you know, books or poems or articles or whatever, or
as I was able to do it one time, play
the piano fairly well to create beauty. There's a duality,
And that duality is also true with nuclear weapons, nuclear power,

(16:00):
an infinitesimal amount of cheap power to bring us into
the modern age of well artificial intelligence, which in and
of itself also has a duality. And now we're facing that.
So if we take the stance that something like nuclear
weapons are only bad, and that there is no duality

(16:25):
and there is nothing good about nuclear weapons, or that
there is not a deterrent effect, or that nuclear power
is not something that could power us cheaply well into
the you know, centuries in the future. But we don't
want to recognize that duality. A firearm, a gun can

(16:51):
feed a family, or it can kill a family. It
can preserve a life by defending yourself against the thug
that is attacking you on the street, or it can
prevent that attack simply by its presence. The firearm has
a duality, good and bad, all depending on who uses

(17:19):
it and for what purpose. And so as we celebrate
this eightieth anniversary of the dropping of the bomb on
or don't celebrate it but memorialize it, I cann't help
to think about the duality and this editorial in the
New York Times and how, oh my gosh, we've got

(17:39):
We've got to bring an end to the scourge of
nuclear weapons.

Speaker 1 (17:42):
In the world.

Speaker 3 (17:43):
Well, I'd like to see that too, But I'd also
like to not be as old as I am and
not be as ugly as I am.

Speaker 2 (17:53):
I'd like to have, you know, I'd like to have
a six pack.

Speaker 3 (17:55):
Abs on my abdomen, but I don't, and I'm probably
never will.

Speaker 2 (18:01):
I'd like to have.

Speaker 3 (18:02):
Been a you know, a first basement. But no, no,
that's not gonna happen to you. Duality. We often don't
think of things in their duality. On the other hand,
so to speak. So let's stop and remember all those
who died. So let's also stop and think about all

(18:22):
of those who live because we brought that war to
an end.

Speaker 2 (18:31):
Good morning, Dragon and Michael. I'm trying to listen to you,
but all.

Speaker 6 (18:36):
I heard has is static, which actually is more in
tolient than a while what Michael has to say.

Speaker 2 (18:43):
But I just thought to let you guys know.

Speaker 4 (18:50):
When I tune to the monitor over here, it's wyatt,
but I don't pick up any static.

Speaker 5 (18:56):
It's quiet. I admit that there might be something questionable.

Speaker 2 (19:00):
You mean quiet like there's nothing.

Speaker 5 (19:02):
No, no, it's there, but it's.

Speaker 3 (19:04):
Almost it's just very very hard here, you know, it's
just like everything else. Why does nothing work the way
it's supposed to.

Speaker 5 (19:12):
We got one engineer for the entire region.

Speaker 3 (19:17):
A company that depends upon the engineering capabilities and the
electronic capabilities working in order to produce the product in
order to sell the airtime, in order to make the
profits to you know, keep all of this going. You
would think that we would focus on. In most other businesses,

(19:40):
they call it either QA or QC quality assurance or
quality control, but we don't seem to give a ratsass
about it.

Speaker 4 (19:47):
It was nice back in the days, you know, fifteen
twenty years ago, we had an engineer on staff in
the building twenty four.

Speaker 3 (19:53):
So we had a problem like this when we could
just pick up the phone call downstairs and say hey,
why why why is why is the broadtest so quiet?

Speaker 4 (20:01):
We would just pick up the phone eight eight eight
eight yeah, with eight seconds, right, willkie and pick.

Speaker 3 (20:06):
Up yeah, And within maybe fifteen minutes you'd get a
call back that just said this is the problem and
this is what we're working on. Yeah, And then maybe
you know who knows, thirty minutes later or three hours later,
but whenever, you'd eventually get a phone call that said,
by the way, it's all done, or you might even
get an email or a text it's all done now.

Speaker 5 (20:27):
We just did you put in a ticket?

Speaker 2 (20:30):
Yeah? That's the response to everything. Did you do a ticket?
Did you do a ticket?

Speaker 1 (20:36):
No?

Speaker 4 (20:36):
I find it much faster if I just text you right.

Speaker 3 (20:42):
I've actually convinced our one. That's our favorite. It's been
here the longest that I don't know how to do
a ticket. I've convinced him that I really don't know
how to do a QR code, and just he'll he'll
just do it for me. Not always, because sometimes he
is really because he's just spread so thin he can't

(21:04):
do it.

Speaker 5 (21:05):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (21:06):
So when you when you tell us those things, all
it does is it just pisses us off.

Speaker 4 (21:14):
Because we know why they tell us, because what it's
just why they tell which is.

Speaker 3 (21:21):
Why they tell us, right, because you know and we
know that we just we our hands are I wouldn't
even say our hands are tied behind our backs. We
don't have any hands by which to do anything. You know,
I talked about duality in the last segment. We have
zero ality. We just we can't. We can't do anything.

Speaker 5 (21:40):
With our hands. It's wrong. We do our due diligence too.

Speaker 4 (21:43):
I mean, if somebody says, hey, I'm only getting static,
sure enough, I'm going to turn check our monitor here.
If they say that I can't listen to you on
the app, sure enough, I'm going to pull up the
app on my own.

Speaker 5 (21:52):
Phone and you see what I hear.

Speaker 4 (21:54):
So I always try and confirm what's going on, so
with him saying, just static, I listened to the monitor.

Speaker 5 (22:01):
I don't hear static.

Speaker 7 (22:02):
I just hear things that are very very quiet, right,
So maybe that means what I need to do is
talk louder so I can overcome the engineering problem that
we're not broadcasting loudly enough. I like it.

Speaker 2 (22:14):
How about that. I'll do this for the next three
and a half hours.

Speaker 5 (22:17):
Okay, I've changed my mind.

Speaker 3 (22:25):
The United States Constitution, Article one, Section one paragraph I'm sorry,
Section two paragraph three. Representatives and direct taxes shall be
apportioned among the several states which may be included within
this Union, according to their respective numbers. Apportionment. So let's

(22:46):
talk about Texas for a moment. I really have a
very little interest in Texas, and I just let me
rephrase that I have very little interest in this non
controversy going on in Texas because it's much like by

(23:08):
the way, I want to tell you about sweeen. What's
your name again, Sweeney?

Speaker 5 (23:12):
Sydney Sweeney, Sidney Sweeney.

Speaker 2 (23:15):
I want to tell you about my encounter with Sidney
Sweeney yesterday.

Speaker 3 (23:19):
Yes, you hung out I had. I had an encounter
with Sidney Sweeney yesterday. Oh yes, it was quite interesting.
But so there's the tease of the day right there.
I had an encounter with Sidney Sweeney, or perhaps a poster.

Speaker 2 (23:33):
Of Sidney Sweeney. But it was interesting, fascinating.

Speaker 3 (23:38):
I have very little interest in what's going on in
Texas because everyone is blowing it way out of proportion.
Nobody seems to know what they're talking about. These legislators,
these Democrat legislators, are making fools of themselves by running
off to Illinois complaining that the Republican legislators in Texas

(24:00):
want to jerry manned. And maybe you don't know what
jerry mandering means. I'll explain that in just a minute.
But they wanted jerryman the districts in the congressional districts
in Texas because of a boom and population in Texas.
So in protest, they've denied the Texas Legislature of a quorum,
a requisite number of people present so they can conduct

(24:23):
business by running off to Illinois, which is probably the
second most gerrymandered state in the country, behind Massachusetts, which
is the original state for jerry mandering, Governor Jerry I
forget his name was anyway. Jerry Mandering originated in Massachusetts,

(24:44):
so they make fools of themselves by running off to
a state that is known for jerry mandering. You should
look at a congressional map of Illinois, or if you
can't find the congressional map of Illinois, look up the
congressional map of Illinois and you'll see that it is
jerry mander. I mean, it's absurd. There's there's one little

(25:05):
blue district of Democrat district that runs from the western
side almost in a like a trend line on a graph,
and it looks I mean, I know it's wider than this,
but on a map it looks like it's about ten
miles wide and meander's very narrowly up through the middle
of the state.

Speaker 2 (25:22):
It's really stupid looking, but that's how.

Speaker 3 (25:25):
They get all the Democrats so they can have a
Democrat controlled congressional district. Well, actually I just described what
jerry mandering is. So they're in Texas. They've decided, oh
my gosh, we don't want to wait until the next census.
We already know we have all these these increased numbers.

(25:45):
We want to realign. We went to redraw our congressional
districts earlier in anticipation of the twenty twenty six mid
term elections, because we've got enough people that if we
redraw the lines, we could get either or we could
gain an additional three seats, which would or redraw it,

(26:07):
we could gain an additional three Republican seats. That's what
Democrats do when they draw. When a Democrat controlled state Colorado,
I'm looking at you, any number of states, if you're
controlled by Democrats, they will draw the congressional districts to

(26:28):
maximize the number of Democrat solid districts and minimize the
number of Republican dominated districts. But here's some shocking news
for you. If a Republican controls. If Republicans control the state,
guess what they do exactly the same thing. Apportionment is.

(26:53):
We have four hundred and thirty five congressional districts in
the United States. They represent an average of about seven
hundred and sixty one thousand, one hundred and sixty nine
people according to the last census. That is the standard
that's now used for dividing representation in the House of Representatives.
It's recalculated every ten years after each new census. Now,

(27:19):
since the twenty twenty census, the average population in Each
of the four hundred and thirty five congressional districts has risen,
but slightly. After the twenty twenty census. As I said,
the average was a little over seven hundred and sixty
one thousand people per district. Now, more recent estimates from

(27:39):
late twenty twenty three and last year placed the average
out approximately a whopping seven hundred sixty three to seven
hundred and sixty five thousand people per district. So that's
what that's an additional two or three thousand people per
congressional district. Well, that reflects modest population growth of the
national level, and the number of district remains capped at

(28:02):
four hundred and thirty five, so every district must represent
more people as the US population climbs. That's just the
way it. I know Congress decides to apportion more districts
like add more congress critters, which I don't want them
to do. Four hun and thirty five is enough. The

(28:26):
latest boundary update for the one hundred and nineteenth Congress
in January of twenty twenty five a few months ago,
uses similar calculations, So the typical district now continues to
represent approximately seven hundred and sixty five thousand people. So,
in summary, in twenty twenty about seven hundred and sixty

(28:48):
one thousand people per district. Twenty twenty three to twenty
twenty five estimated somewhere between seven hundred and sixty three
seven hundred and sixty five thousand. So let's just say
that the typical district now continues to represent somewhere around
seven hundred and sixty five thousand people. That shows a
steady but incremental increase which is expected to continue until

(29:10):
the next census, which is in twenty thirty five years
from now. So let's talk about the difference between apportionment
and redistricting, all right, because this is I want you
to understand that what's going on is a big nothing burger.

(29:30):
So the difference between apportionment and redistricting is.

Speaker 5 (29:35):
Next Mike, Michael, and Dragon, I'm hearing you.

Speaker 4 (29:41):
Fine, don't know if that's good or bad, but I'm
hearing you.

Speaker 2 (29:45):
Find well, it can't be good. But you know that.

Speaker 3 (29:50):
That's also a great example of how even though Dragon
and I both take any time anybody complains about quality
of the audio or we can't hear anything, we always
do check it. But the dirty little secret is we
don't believe you, and we normally think it's your problem,
not ours.

Speaker 5 (30:08):
We normally don't believe one of you.

Speaker 4 (30:11):
Yeah, but if ten of you right the exact same thing,
then we start get a little suspicious.

Speaker 2 (30:16):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (30:16):
Fact, remind me, maybe today would be a good day
to talk about the podcast. Remember the email about the podcast?

Speaker 5 (30:23):
Oh?

Speaker 3 (30:23):
Yes, maybe we should talk about that sometimes a day. Yeah,
because that's an example of an email that I don't
reply to and an example of how it's probably user
error and nothing that I could do anything about anyway.

Speaker 5 (30:37):
But they expect you to fix it.

Speaker 3 (30:38):
They expect me to fix it, which is hilarious. I
casually mentioned, how you know. Reapportionment is the division of
the four hundred and thirty five House seats among the
fifty states, so that every state gets their proportional part
of those four hundred and thirty five seats. That's apportionment,

(31:03):
and then there is redistricting.

Speaker 2 (31:06):
Now congress A portions.

Speaker 3 (31:09):
That's what I read from Article one, Section two, paragraph three.
I think it is in the Constitution that the members
of the House shall be apportioned among the states. So
we have four hundred and thirty five seats, we apportion
those among the fifty states based on taking the little

(31:32):
population the number of seats, divide those up among the
fifty states based on their population. So, for example, in
the last census, Texas, Colorado, and several other states gained
a seat, while California, New York, Illinois, and a few
others lost a seat because the population had shifted out

(31:56):
of those states into other states. So that's how they
gets a portion, and that's how each states ends each
state ends up with a particular number of congressmen. That's
all a federal issue, that's all driven by the US Constitution.

(32:17):
Then you have redistricting, which is a purely listen very closely,
it's purely political. Other than you can't racially discriminate, and
it's up to state legislatures. Congress has nothing.

Speaker 2 (32:35):
To do with it.

Speaker 3 (32:37):
Redistricting is simply Congress says, Okay, Colorado or Texas, you
get X number of congressional seats. Colorado you get eight.
Now you go divide them up. However you want to
divide them up among so that each of the districts,
if you get six, or you get thirty two, or
you get eight, or you get nineteen, whatever your number

(32:57):
is you just have to draw the districts so that
every district has essentially the same number of people in
each congressional district. That's redistricting, and that generally occurs. Generally
occurs after the census and after the apportionment every ten years.

(33:18):
So in twenty thirty, sometime after twenty thirty, we'll get
the results of the census. Congress rule reapportion the number
of seats. They're four hundred and thirty five seats. They'll
divide those up, you know, proportionally among the states, and
then the states get to decide how they draw the
congressional districts. That's redistricting. And I just casually mentioned Illinois

(33:43):
and how it was screwed up because it was jerrymandered.
This is Governor. Well, I don't have time to play this.
I'll do this after the break. But interestingly, these Texas
legislators have run to Illinois, which is one of the
most rymer districts in the country. So after the break,

(34:03):
what I'll do is I'll explain what gerrymandering is, why
they ran to Illinois of all places, which seems kind
of stupid, kind of mixed messaging, and how Illinois is
an example of a gerrymandered state. Jerry Mandering is one
of those things that everybody likes to bitch about it

(34:25):
when you're not the party in power. Yes, tex is
a big nothing burger, but I need to explain it
and tell you legally what the US Supreme Court has
said about