0 9678 777 000 5675 245 0
SIMS : ROCKS ARE FREE, AND SLINGSHOTS EASILY STOLEN.
0 comments

Thursday, January 10, 2008
21st Century Poll Tax

The Supreme of the United States is currently listening to a case regarding whether the state of Indiana can legally require voters to show ID as they go to the polls. The law's proponents claim that it will stop voter fraud in that state, but the funny thing is, there has never been one single previous case of in-person voter fraud in Indiana.

This law is so good, it even works retroactively!

Meanwhile, there is strong evidence that fraud does exist in regard to absentee voting, but this case doesn't address that. Opponents argue that requiring a state-issued ID to vote puts an undue burden on the fundamental right to vote.

"Just show your driver's license, you babies!"'

But what if you don't have one?

"Then use your state-issued ID card!"

Will you please drive me to the office to get one? And what's more, will you pay for it?

This is really the simplest way to explain the issue, that requiring a citizen to pay a fee in order to be able to vote is effectively a poll tax. Even if IDs are issued at no cost, well, you still need to travel to get one, and in some states, government offices can be hours away, and certainly aren't accessible by public transportation.

The bill obviously affects poor people disproportionately, which is the point, since people with lower incomes are more likely to vote for Democrats, if you go by past voting trends.

"Now you're just being paranoid!"

Maybe, but not about this. It was a Republican-led legislature in Indiana that proposed and passed this law in 2005. There are 400,000 people in that state eligible to vote, who have no qualifying ID, and 200,000 of them are registered to vote. Studies in Georgia and New Mexico show that blacks are 83% more likely than whites to lack such ID, and Hispanics are twice as likely. Anyone care to speculate which party these groups tend to vote for in overwhelming numbers?

It's a clever gambit, and I'll give conservatives credit for coming up with it. But it's still illegal, so that's that. Except...

See the opening sentence.

In days of yore, the Supreme Court listened to a case, and judged it on its own merits, mainly whether or not it was legal or illegal. Nowadays, almost any case you can name starts of at a 4-4 deadlock, based solely on the personal ideologies of the justices. Anthony Kennedy is considered a swing vote, but he's pretty reliably conservative.

I wonder if we will ever see a time when the justices will get back to reviewing a case such as this voter ID scam, and simply say, "This law is illegal. You knew it was when you wrote it up, you knew it when you passed it in the legislature, and you knew it when you were disenfranchising American citizens at their polling places. You have done nothing less than stolen the hard-earned right of people to vote, and you deserve to be castrated with a potato peeler."

That last part is only valid if I can get that whole "cruel and unusual punishment" law passed by the Indiana legislature. Fingers crossed!

Labels: , , , ,


posted at 11:10 AM

1 comments

Sunday, October 30, 2005
Brace Yourselves

Well, the people that know things say that the Bush Administration has just completed it's worst week. Katrina fallout, Iraq quagmire, oil prices, interest rates, and Harriet Miers. Call me a starry-eyed optimist, but I am supremely confident that these geniuses can do worse. But things are looking up for the Fighting Legacies of Andover. Aunt Harriet has decided to fall on her sword, and do one last favor for her idol, George Bush. But wasn't it an interesting few weeks? I am reminded of the harsh criticism levied at Arlen Specter a year ago, when he dared suggest that maybe moderate judges made sense for a country in which most citizens think of themselves as moderate. Now, we'll probably never know what Miers is about, although I deeply suspect she is about very little. But it was riotously funny watching Christian Conservatives ("The No Health Care for 45 million Americans" people) just savage this woman, who by all accounts, is one of them. The problem is, that they just couldn't prove it, even though the president knows her heart. So, I suppose the days of blind faith in W are over.

But they still love the little guy. Jan LaRue, chief counsel for Concerned Women of America (Are you concerned about wage disparity? Rape?) actually said the following about Bush:

"I think he thinks we're all mad at him," LaRue said of the president. "But we're saying, 'We know you'll get it right this time, and we will be there."

What is he? A five year-old who struck out playing softball? Did he get knocked out of a spelling bee? Did he make boom-boom in his pants? He is getting a do-over. And his loyal followers will be there for him, as long as he does exactly what they want. Some friends.

"Get it right, and we'll be there."

Think about that.

He should nominate the head of Planned Parenthood to the Court, and tell these jackals that they could have had Harriet Miers, but perhaps they will trust him next time. And maybe he gets another chance, and maybe he doesn't.

Yet another reason I'm unelectable.

But in the meantime, brace yourselves for someone philosophically worse, if qualificationally better, perhaps as soon as tomorrow.

Labels: , , , ,


posted at 7:02 PM

2 comments

Wednesday, October 19, 2005
My Friend Harriet

There is nothing quite like having it both ways. Make no mistake about it, we all want it like that.

Eat like a pig, and never gain a pound!

Drive a tank and have gas for a dime!

Write a fantastic blog and remain utterly anonymous!

So, sometimes, you can have it both ways. But most of the time, that's a privilege only for the wealthy and connected among us. Like our increasingly out-of-touch president.

After somehow managing to nominate a truly world-class mind as Chief Justice in John Roberts, George has decided that we need a Justice that more Americans can relate to. Someone, who like so many of us, has never been a judge. Someone, who like us, really doesn't have any expertise where the Constitution is concerned.

"I like her! She reminds me of my aunt who helps out at the shelter when she's sober!"

None of that matters, though, because George W. Bush knows her heart. Unfortunately, the rest of us are learning about her head. It really is a frightening little mind there.

She referred to the president, as, and I quote, "The most brilliant man I have ever met."

I don't particularly care for the president. I think his policies and hypocrisy are hurtful and disgusting, and I know he is causing unbelievable damage to this country. I think it will take decades to repair what he is still doing to the United States. I find him to be an average intellect at best.

He is not the stupidest man I've ever seen, I will concede that. He may be the worst president in history, but I will allow that perhaps there have been one or two that were worse. But, come on! Have you ever heard anyone refer to George W. Bush as brilliant? The word simply does not apply!

Either Harriet Miers is full of crap, hasn't left the house much, has suffered a brain injury, or she believes this treacle. Sadly, the first three options frighten me less than the last. This woman, who would replace the brilliant Sandra Day O'Connor comes off like a starry-eyed groupie. This should embarrass all of us.

But, the President knows her heart.

Now, what was it, six weeks ago? Two months? John Roberts went through the same process of confirmation, and was asked a lot of questions. Now, Justice Roberts is a Catholic, and people asked whether that would color his judgment.

"Whoa, hey, wait just a minute!" screamed the administration. "You can't ask this man about his faith, his religion. That's bigotry!"

And, maybe it is. I'll allow that it may be, in a way.

So, when Nominee Miers was announced, having no experience, and seemingly no opinions of her own, the press and the citizenry asked, "Um, so...what can you tell us about this person?"

And instantly, we got a pile of solid info! I found out the name of her church, what denomination she is, when she converted from Catholicism to Evangelical Christianity, all of it!

Because now, the administration needs to have it both ways.

This woman is a lightweight, legally, and apparently intellectually. This has nothing to do with her gender. Bush nominated her because he knows her heart. He knows she will do his bidding, because she is such a groupie. She will vote to overturn Roe v. Wade at the first opportunity, because George wishes it, and she lives to make him happy. She will carry out this Far Right activism from the bench, and you will kiss your remaining civil liberties goodbye. The fact that the only way they can sell her to America is as a Christian is an affront to all of us. It is, once again, the hypocrisy that galls me the most.

Because what was wrong for John Roberts, simply cannot be right for Harriet Miers.

Labels: , , , ,


posted at 8:02 PM

0 comments

Wednesday, July 20, 2005
We have a nominee!

President Bush announced John G. Roberts last night to fill the slot on the Supreme Court vacated by the retiring Sandra Day O'Connor. The reaction has been interesting.

I'm sad to say that there has been a fairly obvious knee-jerk reaction on the part of most of your left-wing lobbying groups. I don't really like the President, his legislation, worldview, or anything, really. But I want to examine Judge Roberts before I form an opinion.

Roberts has argued cases 39 times before the Court, winning 25 of them. He knows how this thing works. He has only been a judge for two years, which means there isn't a substantial paper trail of his rulings. The left seems to be focusing on the fact that he had argued against the Roe v. Wade as an advocate. Abortion is going to be a major point of contention. However, when he was nominated for his current post at the DC appellate court, he stated simply that the Roe case was “"the settled law of the land."” I'd like a guy to say he supports a woman's right to choose, but I think we have to take this at face value.

Most of Roberts' experience was as a paid advocate for corporate, and in general, right-wing interests. This may indicate his personal leanings, but not necessarily. Every single one of us has done things we didn't believe in, or said things we didn't believe, just for money, sex, or even food. I'm not convinced this guy is another Scalia.

Judge Roberts may yet turn out to be a staunch conservative, but from what I've read of his writings, he has a substantial intellect. He has the capability to examine all sides of an issue, and it is my sincere hope that he will invariably choose to do so. I'll take a brilliant conservative on the court if I can get one. You can't buy insight, ask the president.

What's equally encouraging to me, is the right-wing reaction to Roberts. No less than Ann Coulter has spoken out against him. Ann is an interesting case. Clearly, one of the smartest people out there, and so terribly twisted and bitter. I wonder how she got that way, and if she can recover from it. Part of her statement read as follows:
"It means nothing that Roberts wrote briefs arguing for the repeal of Roe v. Wade when he worked for Republican administrations. He was arguing on behalf of his client, the United States of America. Roberts has specifically disassociated himself from those cases, dropping a footnote to a 1994 law review article that said:

'“In the interest of full disclosure, the author would like to point out that as Deputy Solicitor General for a portion of the 1992-93 Term, he was involved in many of the cases discussed below. In the interest of even fuller disclosure, he would also like to point out that his views as a commentator on those cases do not necessarily reflect his views as an advocate for his former client, the United States.'”

This would have been the legal equivalent, after O.J.'s acquittal, of Johnnie Cochran saying, 'hey, I never said the guy was innocent. I was just doing my job.'"

Like I said, Ann's a bright lady when it comes down to it. And if she is put off by John Roberts, then America may be in decent shape at the end of the day.

I'm not expecting that I will agree with every decision he sides with, but I have a feeling that even on the ones I do disagree with, Roberts will make a compelling, lucid argument that will make me think. I can live with that. Let's get this guy confirmed, and save filibustering and fundraising for the real nutjob that Bush puts forward when Rehnquist retires or dies.

Labels: , ,


posted at 7:34 PM

1 comments

Saturday, July 02, 2005
What has 18 legs and 5 halos?

Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor announced her retirement yesterday, and it took me back five years to the summer of 2000. Candidates Bush and Gore were zipping around the country, pretty much saying the same things in regard to why we should elect one of them President. I now recall just how bored and disappointed I was in the lack of differences between the two. There were some, but you have to remember that Bush was still feeding us that "compassionate conservative" bullshit, so there wasn't a whole lot of difference in the rhetoric.

But even with both of them trying to wear moderate clothes, I knew when November rolled around, I would end up voting for Gore, even though I wasn't truly excited about it. And my sole reason for doing so was because, in spite of the fact that a President Gore wasn't going to really do much to improve the country, he would at least not completely fuck up the Supreme Court should an opening arise.

So, here we are.

Justice O'Connor was really a damned-near perfect Supreme Court Justice. And I say that because, even though I think you could properly peg her as more conservative than liberal, you could honestly say that with any case, she would always consider it on it's own merits, and vote how she saw best for that case. That is such an important distinction. There are justices serving right now that whose opinions on certain issues are very rarely in doubt. I suppose it's ok to have some like that, but it's crucial to have a majority of thoughtful, deliberative jurists like O'Connor to sort out the facts, instead of knee-jerking all the time.

I try to remain optimistic, and hope that President Bush will nominate a mainstream moderate, who is capable of forming an opinion that hasn't already been handed down by Ralph Reed or James Dobson. The idea of an Evangelical Supreme Court Justice is frightening beyond belief. I really don't think that anyone who believes that these are "End Times" and that God is going to wrap this whole thing up in the near future has any business in a position of authority. The Supreme Court's main function is to see the future, and someone who believes that there won't be one ought not be making important decisions for the rest of us.

An example of that type of thinking leaps out from Justice O'Connor's writing on the recent Ten Commandments decision. She mentioned "the violent consequences of the assumption of religious authority" by governments around the world, and asked the only question that need be asked in regard to maintaining secular government:

"Those who would renegotiate the boundaries between church and state must answer a difficult question: Why would we trade a system that has served us so well for one that has served others so poorly?"

That is the entire argument right there.

I want to believe that this president is capable of doing something that will benefit the entire country, and not just satisfy millionaires and/or Christians. But you look at who his friends are (Ken Lay), who he chooses as his second-in-command (Dick Cheney), or who he nominates for Ambassador to the UN (John Bolton), and you just know he's going to fuck this up. I've been saying it for well over four years now, "Please, prove me wrong. Just once, George. Don't do what I know you're going to do. Do something for all of us."

Sandra Day O'Connor was truly an excellent jurist. I hope she has a long and happy retirement.

Labels: , ,


posted at 8:09 AM

0 comments

Sunday, November 07, 2004
Actual letter to Arlen Specter

I sent a note to the Pennsylvania senator today in regard to this:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6429816/

This is the complete text of my letter:

Sir,

I wanted to congratulate you on your re-election win this week. For awhile there, it looked like it was going to be very close, but your constituents must have remembered what type of man you are, and stepped up.

That being said, you had a bit of a rough time following your victory, because of those comments you made about potential Supreme Court nominees. I am not writing to blast you, as I'm sure so many others have. I feel that what you said was sensible, and prudent. I would like you to consider something, though.

My understanding of your voting record in regard to abortion issues is that you have been remarkably consistent. That being the case, I would like you to never forget what happened this week. You made ONE remark that seemed even slightly centrist in regard to this issue, and the people whom you have supported, and who financially have undoubtedly supported you, turned on you like jackals. They called for your ouster as head of the Senate Judiciary Committee. They called you unspeakable names. Be warned, Senator, that when you lay down with people of this ilk, you never get back up smelling good.

I certainly don't expect you to change the way you vote on matters of this nature, but do remember what your "friends" tried to do to you this week. Your willingness to backpedal and kowtow to this type of fanaticism is unworthy of your office. Look to your colleague John McCain if you need inspiration. He's easy to find; he's the principled person in the Senate chambers.

Good luck, I believe you'll need it.

Most sincerely,

(My REAL name. Call Arlen if you want it.)

Labels: ,


posted at 2:45 PM

0 comments

Thursday, October 21, 2004
It Looms

Each day that goes by, we get more and more stories of voting "irregularities" in certain swing states. It gives you the impression that Florida in 2000 is going to seem utterly quaint by the end of the year.

Missouri - This state has 4.3 million election age voters. Guess how many have registered? 4.2 million. I had no idea Missourians were so civic-minded. (Unlikely)

Ohio - Thousands of absentee ballots already sent out have a typo on them. Why must I nitpick? The typo "inadvertently" involved the disappearance of the letters "K-E-R-R-Y." (Obvious)

Nevada - A judge refuses to reopen registration in Clark County where a Republican-funded group apparently destroyed thousands of voter registration cards on which people had the temerity to select "Democrat" as their affiliation. Clark County is where Las Vegas is, by the way. (Obvious)

And, of course...

Florida - Thousands of, ah, ethnic-sounding names purged from the registration rolls.
Asian-sounding names? Hispanic? No, not so much. But if your name happens to be Leonard Washington, I wouldn't count on making it into the booth this year. The governor's fingerprints are literally all over this one.

In a trial run last week, voting machines malfunctioned and thousands of test votes disappeared. The problem is that they overheated. But you know, it never gets hot in Florida...

How have we come to this? We already allow the ownership class in this country so much leeway. We know that their kids will go to better schools, including college. We know that they will get breaks when it comes to securing jobs. We know that these people always protect one another, unless of course, there is a dollar to be made by stabbing someone in the back.

But why have we ceded to these people the right to choose our leaders? Are we really so lazy and apathetic? I'm not so naive that I believe that the election of one candidate over another will instantly make things better. Frankly, my inclination is to give Bush another four years, and let him clean up his own fucking messes.

Iraq: We won't win if we stay, and we won't win if we leave.
The deficit: No matter who wins, we will be paying interest on this gargantuan thing for decades.
Partisanship: I think we may never go back to a time where people were able to put the good of the nation ahead of the advancement of party politics.

It's pretty depressing, and I understand why people don't participate, I really do. Giving Bush another term would serve him right. If there was any justice, impeachment hearings would have begun 18 months ago.

But since that won't happen, he has to go in November, and I'll again say why: The Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court justices are aging faster than Trump's show, and even with their conservative bent, they are the only thing standing between us and an Ashcroft/Bush Christianization of all public institutions in this country. In his nominations for lower judgeships, Bush has very clearly been promoting not simply conservative judges, but reactionary ones. If you are a woman, a non-Christian, or any sort of minority in this country, you really ought to be frightened. And not like "I hope it doesn't rain while I'm out at Wal-Mart" scared. I'm talking "I hope I don't have to thank Jesus for my textbooks in class" kind of scared.

Think you may want to have an abortion? If Bush gets re-elected, you'd better spend most of December having them, because by 2008, it won't be an option. Want to protest against the war? Better hurry up, because by 2006, that will be considered as treason, and you will be jailed. Feel like writing a blog that doesn't tow the party line? Get it out of your system because even at this point, the FBI has broad powers to invade your privacy, and lock you up. If the so-called PATRIOT Act is renewed or further expanded, dissent in this country will be further criminalized. And please, don't be a Jew, Muslim, or God forbid, an atheist. Those are fake religions, and Jesus tells me so. Well, he tells George W. Bush it's so, and I'm sure the President would never stoop to lying about his deep, DEEP religious convictions. What would he have to gain? Oh, yeah. Another four years in office, bankrupting this country in every sense of the word.

I don't care what you believe in, honestly. Whatever gets you through the day without killing someone else is a good thing. But if you honestly believe in this country, and care about it at all, we have to change course. Stop taking it for granted, and stand up for your own freedom. Ask around, it can be taken away.

Labels: , , , , , ,


posted at 6:29 AM

maystar maystar maystar designs | maystar designs |
Get awesome blog templates like this one from BlogSkins.com