Vim and Vinegar

Ain't it Always the Way?

2019-12-17T19:29:00.001-05:00

You get somewhat comfortable in your work environment (even if you aren't particularly enamored with your job), and then there's a suspension of work that impacts a statistically significant percentage of the workforce and puts you at ill ease for your job security.

I really should write that book.

Fair does not necessarily mean Balanced

2019-10-31T20:45:00.001-04:00

One of the objections I've heard about the impeachment inquiry is that it's not been fair to the President. This is bull, of course, but it's what the Republican party has to hang its hat on. The Republican party set the rules by which the House has been operating (but they hope you don't recognize that). The Republican party has also complained about the vote establishing the more public hearings, assailing them as partisan (because they didn't vote in favor of them in bloc).

Here's the thing - there are Republicans on the committees hearing testimony. These congresspeople are entitled to call witnesses. They haven't, either because they elect not to, or because they cannot come up with witnesses who will testify under penalty of perjury that the President did nothing wrong/impeachable.

This is the key. The Republicans are complaining that the inquiry and the hearings are unfair, but this is a false statement. The hearings are not unfair. They are unbalanced. They are not unbalanced because of anything the Democrats have done, rather they are unbalanced because the Republicans don't have a defensible position, which is why they don't bitch about the substance, instead they gripe about the process - quite the tell.

Perhaps, instead of bitching about the president the Republican candidates in the 2016 election complained was unqualified and untrustworthy not getting a fair shake, maybe they should not support a mendacious Oval Office occupant's actions.

Stinking Football Weekend

2019-10-20T19:51:00.002-04:00

This was an absolutely lousy weekend for football in my world. First, Florida benefitted from some SEC Refs knowing it can't let the middling schools in the conference win twice in a row and got some beneficial calls en route to an inexplicable win over SC (not that I'm a gamecocks fan, but it drives me batty that Florida gets as much positive press as it does). Then, the Huskies faded against the Ducks, and Michigan found themselves behind three scores early against the Nittany Lions and weren't able to recover. Fortunately, Michigan State was on a bye week, so they didn't lose.
Today, Detroit found a way to lose to Minnesota, which is awful for a Lions fan, but great for my novel idea (I'll hopefully actually write it at some point). Houston found a way to lose at Indianapolis again, despite likely being the best team in the AFC south, they are looking up at the Colts, and finally, Seattle gave up two touchdowns off turnovers in an ugly loss to the Ravens.

At least the Astros made it back to the World Series. If it can't be the Tigers, may as well be Houston.

CLE me ASAP

2019-10-15T21:17:00.000-04:00

One of the drawbacks of being a solo practitioner, or of working in a JD-preferred role is that you are responsible for your own CLE requirements. Fortunately, there are options out there that can get your hours inexpensively. I have tried both LexVid and Attorneycredits. Both are satisfactory for getting your hours, but not on any particular point, as the videos are all over the map. That said, I did find the content in LexVid to be more interesting.

I should get back into practice.

Home Brew

2019-10-10T23:47:00.000-04:00

I am generally a picky beer drinker. I like beer, but I have a narrow palate. My better half has a broader palate than I, but I think mine goes deeper.

I have tried home brewing from time to time, but have mostly succeeded in making the O'Doul's of home brew, so I rely on local breweries. Fortunately, I moved to the PNW a few years ago, and we are essentially the hometown for micro-brews/craft brewers. I just had a Ruben's Brew Hazealiscious IPA, and it was pretty good. There are so many other local breweries, that I can't give any of them the proper courtesy, but I do enjoy many of them. If you decide to find your way to the greater Seattle area, make sure you try some of the locals (honestly, it's in the middle of tourist land, but Old Stove does a good beer).

Fascinating

2019-10-09T13:03:00.001-04:00

I have watched the documentary on Ted Bundy on Netflix a couple times. I don't know what I find so fascinating about his story - he truly was a monster. But I listen to the tapes that were made while interviewing him in prison, and all I can hear is him talking about himself, how good he was, how stupid everyone else was. Yet, he was the one who was caught, and frankly, it was his own arrogance that probably got him convicted. Based on the documentary, it appears as though a stronger defense team (i.e. without his involvement) would have been able to get him acquitted on the first trial. The second trial was a tougher one, but I digress.

It strikes me that we had in Bundy a charismatic guy, who was able to use his charisma and his good looks to evade serious suspicion for as long as he did. Even after he was arrested and put on trial for the conviction that ultimately earned him his death sentence, he had fangirls going to trial to see him, and people continued to believe his innocence all the way up to when he started confessing. It's a fascinating character study.

Comparatively, we now have an Oval Office occupant who enjoys unbelievable support among his base, who will ignore all transgressions committed by him, and who take any criticism as some form of liberal agenda - a sentiment shared by the occupant himself. I'm astounded at the level of projection he displays ("you're the puppet," "his kids are corrupt," "where are the e-mails," etc.). Additionally, the current president cannot avoid an opportunity to make almost anything about him. A journalist dies, and she was never nice to him. North Korea continues testing missiles and he should have gotten the Nobel Prize. He accepts someone else's Purple Heart, and I guarantee he couldn't give you the name of the man who gave up the medal that was earned.

One was a murderer. The other is on the take. Both demonstrated sociopathic narcissistic behavior, and both had/have huge followings. It's astounding.

Off the Facebooks

2019-10-04T13:45:00.001-04:00

I'd been flirting with the idea for some time, but I do see the social connectivity benefit (it's a means by which I can talk with several friends at near real time), but I've been having troubles - I find myself getting upset at other people's posts, I find myself envious of other peoples' activities, successes, adventures, etc., and frankly I spend way too much time on it (which I no doubt will remedy by spending way too much time on here).

But, the linchpin for me leaving was Mark Zuckerberg's udpating Facebook's official policy to not remove false or misleading political ads.

What this means is that Donald Trump (currently under an impeachment inquiry for those not paying attention) can spend (g)od knows how much money on false advertising on Facebook, spreading misinformation to all those who facebook reaches (hundreds of millions), and Facebook will do nothing about it.

This isn't about truth. It's not about access and connectivity. It's not about anything other than crass profiteering and helps support Senator Warren's contention that the big companies need to be broken up.

Fortunately, 1) few people paid attention to me on Facebook, so I won't be missed, and 2) nobody reads this blog, so I won't be noticed. It'll be nice to be back in the land of the unseen and unheard.

And another one down (non-political post)

2018-10-14T21:08:00.003-04:00

And today I finished my 12th half marathon. This was the third one where I ran with people I knew, and the first where I was there specifically with coworkers.

I didn't have a great finishing time (it was the Snohomish River Run) and I finished in just over 2:20. But, I had a good time. I keep trying to convince myself that I should run more. It's nice to have the results afterwards, but the run itself can be tedious.

Anyway, it helps keep me from getting too rotund. That's a good thing.

No Longer Impartial

2018-10-09T18:21:00.001-04:00

It's not a secret that when Presidents nominate Supreme Court justices, they tend to nominate justices who espouse an interpretation of the Constitution that closely hews to the nominator's.

The challenge with Kavanaugh is not that he is conservative - we have several conservative justices. While I disagree with their interpretation, at least I can appreciate that they arguably mean well. Justice Kavanaugh started his confirmation process by falsely claiming that that the president had done the most thorough search ever, which scarcely qualifies as newsworthy given the president's relationship with the truth. The justice exacerbated the problem by, during his confirmation hearings, he made several demonstratively provable false statements. He then belied his putative ability to be impartial (as once argued during the Bush administration, "just call balls and strikes") when he blamed the credible (the current president's word) claims of sexual assault on the Clintons, among other things.

It astounds me that the current construction of the Republican party, the putative part of "personal responsibility" can somehow find a way to make themselves the victims in almost any situation. As has been noted on multiple occasions, Kavanaugh was not on trial (and therefore, wasn't "proven innocent"). Instead, he was being questioned on his veracity. That somehow, thousands of people turned that into some sort of trial on whether he did or did not attempt to rape women (and whether he had a drinking problem) is absurd on its face, and more evidence that the Republican party voters cares more about hearing what they want to hear than they do about what is right (and what they want to hear is how "their" candidates won, so that they can "own" the libtards").

Every week, we have new evidence that this country is turning into a banana republic. I am still hopeful that the republic will endure, but I lose a little bit of faith every day.

Usurpation of the Republic

2018-09-30T14:38:00.000-04:00

So, I noted some time ago that the country would be fine under a Trump administration. What I've seen instead, is what appears to be an effort to make people reminisce about how nice things were under the Bush administration while undoing everything that happened in between.

I never would have thought I'd find myself in an America where the EU are our adversaries, where we cozy up to Putin's Russia, where Duterte and Kim Jong Un are hailed as exemplary leaders, and where Congress would step aside simply because having the proper initial next to your name makes anything you do legitimate. For all his faults (and yes, he had several), Obama at least tried to operate within the confines of the Constitution and the law. He respected the separation of powers, even if he had his agenda.

President Trump does not. He politicizes everything. He's attacked anybody who doesn't toe his line as being anti-country, which is a dangerous conflation of leader and nation and is exactly what the current stooges in congress accused Obama of wanting to do.

Now, we are on the cusp of the Republican majority in the Senate pushing through an observed perjurer, a naked partisan, and a useful tool for the president into the Supreme Court, fast-tracking with a minimal amount of transparency and with an agenda that only the most partisan could deny with a straight fce. The president has relented in the request for an FBI probe, but has limited that probe to essentially be an exercise in going through the motions.

Democracy/the American Republic isn't going to die from a hostile takeover; rather the country has been systematically chiseled from an experiment of popular voice and serving the constituents to one of being eschewed unless you are a party member. I wish I wasn't so disheartened, but the past six months in general and the last month in particular have not helped.

Trying to Manufacture Some Inspiration

2017-12-27T17:27:00.000-05:00

This is a safe-ish place to do so, since nobody actually reads me anymore (I don't blame you - I don't write on here with any regularity, and when I do, there's not much inspiring coming from it).

If y'all have any ideas, let me know.

No Mojo

2017-12-22T20:23:00.005-05:00

I don't know if it's the political climate, or what, but I've not been able to start running for like a month. I'm so burned out.

Running short on hope

2017-12-17T19:02:00.000-05:00

I'm not sure what to do. I'm not feeling any faith in our country's ability to govern effectively anymore.

And this is only 11 months after saying it's not the end of the world. How things have changed.

It's Not the End of the World

2017-01-26T21:20:00.002-05:00

So it took the election of possibly the least qualified candidate in the nation's history to get me back on V&V, and we still don't have any sightings of our inimitable host.

First things first - the new president has issued a slew of executive orders this week. The irony is that the same party who excoriated the previous president for his use of executive orders (done so in the wake of historic obstructionism by his opposing party congressional members) to facilitate the actual governance of the country has done very little besides applaud the actions of the new CINC. To be fair, I have heard at least one Senator state that bringing back torture is not going to happen, but that's about all I've heard/seen so far.

Here's the thing about executive orders. They don't mean much. Generally speaking, the hierarchy goes something like this: The Constitution is what controls. The end. If it's in the Constitution, that is what counts. Then, the Amendments to the Constitution, which actually supersede what's written in the Constitution itself, and by act of ratification become a part of the Constitution. After that we have statutes and treaties. Statutes and treaties generally apply on an even level of authority with the "last in time" rule - the last statute executed or treaty ratified on an issue is the controlling statute or treaty (see Constitution Art. VI).

You'll notice that at no point yet have I mentioned executive orders. That's because executive orders have no general effect of law. Congress passes laws. The Senate advises and consents on treaties. In other words, in order for those to be effective, they must touch both the executive and legislative branches.

Executive orders are a different animal. They are signed by the executive and control the areas that fall under his purview. There are two areas that I want to touch on regarding the president's authority with respect to executive orders.

The first is the implementation of the laws when necessary. The prime example of this would be immigration and deportation. Congress passes a budget each year allocating funding for immigration control. Congress dictates how much gets spent on immigration control, but it's up the the executive branch to determine where to focus. So, if there are (for example) 500,000 individuals awaiting deportation hearings, but there is only enough funding allocation to handle 250,000 cases, Congress does not get to decide which individuals get deported. That's up to the executive branch (i. e. the president). The president can choose, for example, to direct ICE to focus on deporting violent offenders over someone who is working a full time job who happened to be brought here by his or her parents 20 years ago and had no control over his or her situation. Coincidentally, that was what the Republican party was ignoring while criticizing Obama as being "soft" on immigration during his administration.

The second area where the executive orders apply are areas where the laws of the land haven't touched. In Constitutional Law, we had this described to us as the place where congress has not "occupied the field." In other words, Congress could act and give direction, but for whatever reason, Congress hasn't (the clearest example would have been the War Powers act, where Congress attempted to rein in the President's warmaking authority).

To my knowledge, none of the executive orders that the new president has issued have actually touched on anything that hasn't already been addressed either by the Constitution, statutes or treaties (e.g. NAFTA, Geneva Conventions, etc.). Any edicts that he throws out via executive order is worth exactly as much as the paper on which it is written and the ink with which it was signed.

I believe the new president is unclear on what his actual job entails, and I think that bodes ill for the next four years, but that's why we have blogs - so we can complain about it and keep a journal of just what's going on.

Just checking

2013-08-23T09:32:00.002-04:00

Made you look!

So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish

2012-10-26T15:36:00.001-04:00

I'm not leaving blogging altogether, but you have all noticed a distinct dropoff in my production, both here and at my home blog. I just have run out of pithy commentary and/or time to commit it to the blogosphere.

I want to take a moment and thank all of you for taking your time to read my blatherings, and I want to say that I've greatly appreciated the chance to share what little of my mind I have left with all of you!

Take care

Steve

My Last Post

2012-09-20T09:12:00.000-04:00

The last 48 hours have been revelatory for me, and as with most enlightenment, it hasn't been easy. My most recent post (now deleted) drew some interesting reactions from loved ones.

One reaction seemed to imply that, in always trying to remember from where I come, I conveniently forget where I am. That maybe makes me a hypocrite.

One reaction made me ask myself: why no mention of the possible illegality of that taping of Mitt Romney at a private event? Would you gloss over that point if the speaker had been the President? That definitely makes me a hypocrite.

One reaction made me wonder just when I did start believing the worst about people who don't necessarily hold the same beliefs I hold, and why believing the worst is my first response, and that maybe I don't know everything I think I know. That just makes me stupid. But also a hypocrite, because isn't that what makes me mad - that people assume things about me because of my politics?

I also wondered why I wasn't motivated to follow up with a post about Jimmy Carter's grandson's actions, and whether I thought they were just a bit Rovian ... it's a worthy discussion. That failure makes me a hypocrite. I probably didn't follow up with that post for the same reason I never posted about Holder's troubles at Justice. Hypocrite.

Even though I sometimes write when I'm angry, and I like to think I lend a voice to people who may not have one, that isn't an excuse for engaging in the smartass contest and pretending that's a solution. Especially since I think that's exactly what's wrong with politics.

My opinions here have always been my own, and I hope that much has been clear. I keep my own counsel. I believe in Civil Rights for all, Women's Rights, social justice, a good working system of jurisprudence, and fairness. So when I realize I haven't been fair, I am disappointed in myself.

I almost just deleted the whole blog yesterday, but I wanted to say good-bye first. It's time. Just as I was compelled to start blogging, I'm now compelled to stop. I thought I was participating in politics, but too often, I have been participating merely in the political theater of "bad guys" versus "good guys."

Steve, on the other hand, is more measured, and I hope you will continue to follow him over at Out of the Binjo Ditch. Thanks, Steve, for participating and educating.

Thanks for reading, and good luck.

Unpresidential

2012-09-14T18:06:00.001-04:00

I've been trying to avoid commenting on the rioting going on in the Middle East, in part because I didn't want to speak without having a clear picture of what happened and why. I still don't, so I'm going to try to tread lightly.

Instead, what I'm going to do is take a look at the stark change that has taken place in the Republican Party's leadership over the past several years.

Back in 1980, Iran held several Americans hostage at the Embassy in Tehran. In what turned out to be a painfully foolish decision, President Jimmy Carter sent a rescue mission that failed spectacularly. When he heard about the failed mission, Candidate Ronald Reagan issued a statement: "This is the time for us as a nation and a people to stand united." Also-candidate George H.W. Bush even went so far as to say "I unequivocally support the president of the United States -- no ifs, ands, or buts -- and it certainly is not a time to try to go one-up politically. he made a difficult, courageous decision." (Same link as above).

By contrast, Mitt Romney went out on the offensive, attacking the President for what was said. A great roundup on the matter comes from William Saletan, who notes that the statement is pretty apparent - Free Speech is a right open to all, but one that can be abused, such as by a Muslim-baiting movie. He then properly identifies that Romney's description of the Embassy's first statement ("Sympathizing with those who had breached our embassy in Egypt, instead of condemning their actions") as "blatantly false."

William Saletan's article really does an excellent job unloading on Mitt Romney's press conference, as well - noting the lies and conflation of the issues:

At his press conference, Romney accused Obama of “having that embassy reiterate a statement effectively apologizing for the right of free speech.” Romney claimed that the embassy had said, in his paraphrase, “We stand by our comments that suggest that there's something wrong with the right of free speech." This, too, was a Romney lie. The embassy had declared five times in writing that free speech was a universal right.

What made Romney’s statement and press conference disturbing, however, was his repeated use of the words sympathize and apology to conflate three issues the Cairo embassy had carefully separated: bigotry, free speech, and violence. The embassy had stipulated that expressions of bigotry, while wrong, were protected by freedom of speech and didn’t warrant retaliatory violence. Romney, by accusing the embassy of “sympathizing with those who had breached” the compound, equated moral criticism of the Mohammed movie with support for violence. In so doing, Romney embraced the illiberal Islamist mindset that led to the embassy invasion: To declare a movie offensive is to authorize its suppression.

I really do hope you go and read the article - good stuff.

The gist of it all, is that when it comes to international relations, whether we like the guy in charge or not, we need to project the idea that we are all united together. Just like a married couple doesn't fight in front of company.

Mitt Romney wants to run the whole country, not just the Republicans in the country - he can't have the support of the whole country if he can't show support. Simple give and take. What Mitt Romney did was juvenile and callous and not something that should be done by anyone who would be President.

Like a Dog With A Bone, I Can't Let It Go

2012-09-07T11:41:00.001-04:00

Folks, late yesterday, I posted about a ridiculous piece of propaganda and voter manipulation masquerading as a "survey" about the state of the Constitution under this Administration. I had a little fun with it, but today, I want to get more serious about it. I had already written a post for today about Ann Coulter's latest showing out, but, meh. A post about Coulter is like a post about Rush - shooting fish in a barrel.

Yesterday, I photographed my scribbled "answers" to the Committee for Justice "Survey," and I hope you were able to read the questions posed therein. Here is a list of the Board of Directors for the organization that put its name on this "Survey," and the people responsible for the "Rescue Liberty" project. So-called serious legal minds put their names on a document that pretended to be about Constitutional law - cried out to the heavens that it was first and foremost about Constitutional Law! -when all it was, really, was a vehicle for propaganda, and a pitiful attempt to scare susceptible and gullible voters into believing that our president is dismantling our Constitutional Democracy in favor of socialism and, yes, even communism. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if the next survey asks voters whether they approve of Barack Hussein Obama's plan to gay marry Fidel Castro and co-rule the Western Hemisphere. Y'all, it was almost that bad.

Unfortunately, I cannot find a link to this groundbreaking, vitally important, legal blockbuster of a document online anywhere or I would provide it here. I wonder why not? I wonder if giving the broader public the chance to view such a ridiculous document would somehow diminish the accolades that Mr. Levey so proudly displays in his bio as the President and Founding Director of this organization:

Mr. Levey's articles on the judiciary, constitutional law, and civil rights have appeared in leading national newspapers and magazines, as well as in law reviews and other legal publications. He has been a guest on more than two hundred radio and television programs, and has spoken to dozens of live audiences, including at bar association events and the nation's top law schools.

Bully for you, sir. I would love to hear you discuss in detail the grave Con Law issues you claim are raised by your "survey." I read your 8 page accompanying explanation of the link between your "survey" and how you and the "rightists" are the Constitution's last line of defense. See. I can do that too. Oops. The Supreme Court seems to have weighed in on the issue of Obamacare. Of course, they obviously haven't been informed yet that you and the "rightists" have the last word. See. I can do it a bunch of times too. I also read with interest in that 8 page "legal brief?" that you are a real fan of liberty! Except, of course, not for everybody. Because, let's face it, wasn't it Lincoln who said some civil rights are for some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time, but never all of the people all of the time? I know you will have appreciated that last line, Mr. Levey, as I employed quite deftly a technique you employed in your "survey." See. I'm really super good at this bullshit too. And you should believe that because I say so. Look out! I'm on a roll!

Friends, I don't have a law degree from Harvard like Mr. Levey, but my professors at Wake Forest taught me that understanding Constitutional Law and the issues raised by the Constitution requires not only careful study of the original body of the document itself, but all of its Amendments, as well as the body of case law created by an American judiciary that is charged with interpreting that document and those Amendments. As pointed out by a commenter to yesterday's post, the mailer invited me to co-sign the Constitution sans Bill of Rights and all other Amendments. I'm happy to report that at Wake Forest, I was taught about stare decisis, and precedent, and the basic, fundamental principle that the laws of the land are subject to the Constitution, that the Constitution is and always has been subject to interpretation, and that the Judiciary is a co-equal branch of the government charged with the responsibility of that interpretation. As a result, the term "Constitutional law" also includes the body of case law that has dealt with such interpretation. Sadly, that seems to be an inconvenient truth for Mr. Levey and all the people who put their names on the document calling itself a "Survey." And if a judge were to ever adopt the kind of one-sided language Levy used in that survey and the accompanying "discussion" of Constitutional law in a legal opinion, said opinion would be reversed before you could say the word "Appeal."

But Mr. Levey is no idiot (I'm guessing). He knows that. He's simply exploiting the fact that he has a law degree from Harvard in order to make his pushing a very narrow and very specific political agenda look like a broader concern for Constitutional Democracy. I am appalled that a former governor, a current U.S. Representative, a member of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, several law professors, a former Senator, etc. would allow their names to be associated with what is at best a hoax, and what is, at worst, a shameless attempt to inflame the "rightists'" irrational fear of this president.

By the way, the Committiee for Justice also has a blog, which it describes as existing "for the discussion of all things Judiciary ..." Discussion? Not so much. Comments are not enabled on said blog, so as much as you or I might like to join the "discussion," it ain't happening.

So, these people don't know what a "discussion" is, they pretend that "Constitutional Law" is something it is not, and they have a Rescue Liberty project that is so important, they don't even provide a way for all Americans to participate in taking the "survey" associated with this super important project.

Maybe it's not because they're ashamed of it (hah! Shame? puhleeze). I mean, look at their Recent Press Releases/Issues page. They're still fighting about the Sotomayor nomination to the Supreme Court. Oops again.

Meh. This was a little like shooting fish in a barrel too.

Answering Questions

2012-09-06T22:40:00.003-04:00

It's no secret that there have been several new laws over the past year that address voter identification. I've seen questions about this concept tossed about here and there for some time now, and I've been trying really hard to not get myself enmeshed too deeply into it. I have a friend who recently asked on her fb wall why there's such a resistance to voter identification laws and why it's perceived as preventing voters from voting.

I provided a couple answers, which I'm going to mash and repost here, though I will not be providing any links.

The questions asked was: How is requiring proper i.d. preventing people from voting?? Most states are giving out free I.D. cards to residents, most if not all voters have a drivers license or I.D. card anyway. How is the GOP preventing voters from casting their vote.. unless you want the illegal vote..

The person who asked this quest was legitimately asking for information on the matter and was not trying to be snarky. As I appreciate that she was asking with the goal of gathering information, I was compelled to reply (again - this is not a verbatim response, as I've compiled a couple comments together here):

I don't want to delve into this too deeply, because opinions on this matter are very strong, however, as a brief overview on my perspective, when I was in law school, we were taught in Constitutional Law that the Court had identified several rights that have come to be known as "fundamental rights," including, among others, the right to marry [e.g a state can not forbid anyone from marrying unless he is current on all support payments from a prior marriage (Zablocki v. Redhail)] , to interstate travel (see, e.g. Saenz v. Roe), access to courts, and voting. What this identification means is that these rights are explicitly or implicitly guaranteed by the Constitution, and that actions taken to restrict these rights are met with increased scrutiny vis a vis a rational basis review. In other words, in my view, a vote is a right that is presumed to be valid and it would be incumbent upon the State to prove that a vote is invalid. What voter identification laws serve to do is shift the burden from the State to the individual to prove that their vote is not invalid, and from a civil liberties perspective, that is an unsavory premise to me.

I would take issue with one thing that you wrote. You asked "how is requiring proper i.d. preventing people from voting?" The fact is, states have required "proper" identification in the form of voter registration cards or other means for years. The recent shift pushed by the GOP (and it's been overwhelmingly the GOP pushing for these laws) is for photo identification. There are several issues with this, not the least of which is the availability of securing proper identification. If we assume the argument that all states offer free photo identification, which is not true, then we still have to account for means by which individuals with limited incomes or other potential impediments might acquire said cards. It many cases, the requirement would take time out of their work schedules, which in and of itself costs money. The incidental costs can be viewed as akin to the poll taxes of the 1960s and the risk of losing one's job to secure identification is not one that everyone can make.

We then run into the issue of the states misstating the risks. When pressing for a voter identification law in Indiana, the state cited the risk of voter fraud as the primary factor, however, on examination, the state was unable to substantiate claims of voter fraud having taken place that would necessitate increased restrictions on the right to vote. Pennsylvania's law was not even complete when signed by the governor, and one of the arguments given in favor of that law was that it would burden less than 1% of the state. At trial, the commonwealth conceded that approximately 10% of eligible voters lacked the proper identification and moreover, the commonwealth acknowledged that there has not been a single known case of the type of voter impersonation the law seeks to preclude. Interestingly enough, on the same day that the Court cleared the voter identification law in Pennsylvania, the Corbett (governor) abandoned plans to allow voters to apply online for absentee ballots for this year's election and to register to vote. In other words, the alternative venue provided for voters who were unable to comply with the new voter identification law in Pennsylvania was closed to those same people.

If we were to consider for a moment that the proffered reason for the necessity of the voter identification laws is the need of the State to cut down on voter fraud (a laudable goal, if not entirely accurate, as the link in my previous comment suggests), then one could make the argument that the state is asking all potential voters, those who currently have photo identification and those currently lacking, to prove that they are not committing a crime. Were we to shift the burden in a courtroom so that the accused would have to prove their innocence of a crime vice the state having to prove guilt, I submit that more people would be concerned, however, the two situations are somewhat similar. In a court of law, the Law of the Land is that I am presumed innocent until proven guilty. In a state with a voter identification law, I am presumed guilty of intending/attempting to commit voter fraud until I prove I'm innocent.

With voter identification, we are talking about our only real voice in government - our vote. This is different than showing a driver's license to write a check or open a bank account or rent a movie. It goes to the basic premise of a government of the people, and that premise is what we teach our children - that all of them matter.

Again, this is my perspective, but from that perspective (that a person's vote should be presumed valid and it's the job of the State to show otherwise), then it seems apparent that these actions restrict votes. I understand that others view this from a different perspective, and I respect that that is the case. I have tried to keep this as nonpartisan as possible.

For more information regarding voter fraud, I would direct you to the Brennan Center for Justice's site.

I LIVE for Stuff Like This

2012-09-06T20:51:00.000-04:00

Hello again, kids. Today, I got a "Survey" (read: questions designed to scare you into voting Republican) from a group called "Committee for Justice" which wanted my opinion on whether "America" should "restore Constitutional government." Interestingly, not one of the questions in the survey had justice as its subject matter, but Fidel Castro did make an appearance. Guess who they want me to think ol' Fidel is "pal'in' around with?"

Anyway, hell yes, I like me some Constitutional government! Let's start by arresting everybody who signed off on torture in violation of the 4th, 5th and 8th Amendments, and everybody who conspired to thwart FISA and employed the use of illegal electronic surveillance of American citizens. Also, I move we send everybody who had anything to do with this piece of comedic fodder to a civics class. And please do enjoy the illogic of most of these questions. "Are the leftists really trying to reduce health care costs, or are they moving us toward socialism so they can control your life?" Uhhhh. I don't know! Is the Cracker Bay yacht white, or is it really 147 feet long? Look, I know I was just complaining about the Constitutional compass earlier, but, again, these maroons have got the wrong end of the stick. NONE of these questions addressed legitimate Constitutional concerns. In order to do so, they would have had to indict the previous administration as well as the current administration.

Here's a little help, "survey makers." The so-called "leftists" are busy trying to give people rights (affordable healthcare), and not take them away (Voter ID laws). But if you want to talk to me about Guantanamo Bay, I'm all ears. Oops. Hear that? It's the sound of an opportunity slip, slip, slippin' away. This laughable document makes me more comfortable with President Obama, not less, because if this is the brain trust Romney has backing him? Yeesh.

I'm posting pictures here of my completed survey for all the world to see because, somehow, I feel certain that even if I returned said completed survey to the Committee for Just Us, they would not, in fact, distribute my responses as promised. If you can't read my writing, let me know. I'll be more than happy to translate!

Query: how stupid do you have to be to send this propagandist swift boat full of lies to a registered Democrat who volunteered for PRESIDENT (they kept leaving that word out, but they got his middle name right) Obama???? Answer: pretty damn stupid.

The DNC: There's a New Sheriff in Town?

2012-09-06T11:39:00.001-04:00

I have enjoyed the coverage of the DNC which is taking place just down the road from me. My plan all along had been to participate in some of the festivities as volunteer and/or spectator, but my schedule got too full with other things. The "uptown" is locked down pretty tight, so it's just as well that I am not trying to go back and forth. I am content to watch on television with everyone else, and I love seeing Jon Stewart's Greatest F****NG News Team running around Charlotte!

I will not revisit in detail here my greatest disappointments of the last 4 years. Just as the word "Afghanistan" was glaringly absent during the festivities in Tampa last week, the word "Justice," as in "Department of," has been absent so far here in Charlotte. Nor are we likely to hear anything about Guantanamo Bay. With respect to closing it, and the fact that the goal of closing it is still in the Democratic Party's Platform, I feel a bit like Yoda: Do or do not. There is no try. The last line of that Politico article just linked:

Attorney General Eric Holder has argued that a robust but secret internal process gives American targets like al-Awlaki all the due process they're entitled to.

Just take your word for it, right Mr. Attorney General? Judas H. Priest, does anybody ANYBODY understand why a "robust but secret internal process" is about as different from the Constitutional standard of "due process" as you can get? Does anybody understand why that's unAmerican? Good grief, if the Republicans had any sense at all, and since they are so willing to use fear as a major campaign tool, they would plaster that "robust but secret internal process" b.s. all over the nation. Unfortunately for them, their position on civil rights and all things Constitutional is even more frightening than the current administration's position. What a bunch of maroons. Instead of moving more toward the middle, which would increase their chances of winning this election, they move even further to the right. And they are banking on the American voters to blame GOP obstructionism on President Obama. Oh, and it could happen.

But here's what I like about the DNC so far: these speeches are taking no prisoners and making no apologies. Yes, we are the Party that cares about women's rights, and gay rights, and civil rights. So what? And don't throw your Bible in my face; I own one too, and I'll tell you something else. When I meet my maker, I'm not worried one bit about being judged harshly for trying to champion the rights of others who are marginalized by folks who think that only the people who look, speak, and believe the same as they do are worthy. The righties have done a fine job of making "liberal" a dirty word, so much so that liberals began to adopt the moniker "progressive" instead. How many times have people like me complained about the fact that we continually let the other side define us and set the arguments?

That's changed this week. Democrats are on the offense. And it's about time. Now if we can only find our Constitutional compass again, we might be all right.

Out of Touch

2012-08-29T16:02:00.002-04:00

One of my dreams in life is to be able to afford to buy a boat with which to go deep sea fishing. At this point in time, I don't particularly want to *buy* a boat, but I would like to be able to afford a boat.

While my family is not poor, we are definitely not wealthy. And when you're not wealthy, you really aren't in a position to buy a boat.

And now, it appears, that if you can't afford to buy a boat, then, you can't afford to party with the GOP nominee during his campaign: "Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney’s campaign on Wednesday partied with wealthy donors on a 150-foot yacht that flies the flag of the Cayman Islands, according to an ABC News report. Members of the Romney Victory Council, who have each raised more than $1 million for the candidate, mingled with Romney’s brother, Scott, and other relatives in Tampa aboard the luxury yacht “Cracker Bay.” While they waited outside the unadvertised event, ABC News snapped photos of the Cayman Islands civil ensign flag flying on the yacht’s stern." (source: Rawstory.com)

I'm going to ignore the name of the boat, because while I think it makes for a humorous punchline, it's not pertinent to the overarching point.

Former governor Romney chose to party on a boat flying the flag of the country where he holds personal stakes in Bain Capital funds worth millions. He did so with millionaires who have been bankrolling his campaign. He did so during the convention where he's accepting the nomination to become the president of a country made up overwhelmingly of people who can neither afford to donate millions of dollars to a campaign nor to pay the mooring fee of the boat on which he's partying.

Mitt Romney continues to show himself as a person who is out of touch with the day to day struggles of regular (read: not millionaire donor) Americans. This is not the actions of a leader. This is the action of a person seeking power.

Running on Lies

2012-08-28T19:34:00.000-04:00

Politicians lie. As true as that may be, there is a difference between making campaign promises that you don't intend to keep and spreading outright disinformation. The Romney campaign apparently has decided to embrace the latter. We have seen it in their campaign strategy. There have been a couple campaign ads running that support that notion.

First, we have the campaign ad that states Obama is taking money from retirees' healthcare to provide insurance for those without (i.e. the poor). The underlying premise here is that old people are having their hard-earned benefits being taken away from them and given to people who don't/haven't earned them. Note the dog whistles in the ad - the poor does tend to have a higher proportion of minorities, and taking money from people who have worked for it is, at its core, little different than the debunked "strapping young bucks" argument of the Reaganites.

Then, we have, what Romney advertising strategist Ashley O'Connor referred to as their most effective ad, which is the "welfare" ad. The general principle here is that Barack Obama is taking away the work requirement for welfare recipients, which O'Connor refers to as "new information." The problem, though, is that it's not "new information," it's "false information," i.e. a lie. This is designed, arguably for race-baiting purposes, to invoke the image of the welfare queens sitting back waiting for their free government money.

Again, all of this appears to be designed, and is what the Romney campaign feels it needs to do to win an election. It really is just an extension of the Southern Strategy, which Lee Atwater referenced, and which former GOP chairman Michael Steele admitted was embraced by the Republicans.

It's a campaign of dishonesty being run by a man who claimed that the Obama campaign was running a campaign based on dishonesty.

Perhaps Greg Sargent hits the nail on the head: "the Romney campaign continues to pose a test to the news media and our political system. What happens when one campaign has decided there is literally no set of boundaries that it needs to follow when it comes to the veracity of its assertions? The Romney campaign is betting that the press simply won’t be able to keep voters informed about the disputes that are central to the campaign, in the face of the sheer scope and volume of dishonesty it uncorks daily."

Latent Threats

2012-08-24T19:41:00.002-04:00

I'm not a native Texan. I moved here when the military transferred me here. That's not to say that I'm unhappy in Texas. The greater Houston area has all the amenities anyone could ask for and is firmly entrenched in the 21st century. However, the Texas politicians seem to have a fair number of folks who aren't quite on par with what I would expect from a political mindset.

Take, for example, out Governor, who has actively opined (erroneously) that secession is an option.

We have Louie Gohmert, the Terror Babies guy.

And now we have Tom Head, the Lubbock Judge who has chosen to campaign for a meager (1.7 cent) tax hike in order to pay for the DA office and for more sheriff's deputies by making unfounded claims about the intent of the President and openly discussing the idea of civil war: "He's going to try to hand over the sovereignty of the United States to the (United Nations)." (source: Chron.com)

And what does the good judge think will happen? “I'm thinking the worst. Civil unrest, civil disobedience, civil war maybe. And we're not just talking a few riots here and demonstrations, we're talking Lexington, Concord, take up arms and get rid of the guy."

Fortunately, the judge is prepared for what President Obama might do in response to that: "Now what's going to happen if we do that, if the public decides to do that? He's going to send in U.N. troops. I don't want 'em in Lubbock County. OK. So I'm going to stand in front of their armored personnel carrier and say 'you're not coming in here'.

"And the sheriff, I've already asked him, I said 'you gonna back me' he said, 'yeah, I'll back you'. Well, I don't want a bunch of rookies back there. I want trained, equipped, seasoned veteran officers to back me." (source: Myfoxlubbock.com)

I really don't know where this is coming from. I don't understand why for so many politicians (and so many Republicans in particular) seem to believe that fear is the best way to campaign. Is this really the only way he could think of to support a tax hike? Perhaps for Republicans in the Grover Norquist era, it is... but this really is unhinged thinking here. And I think it is a shame that folks like this get elected because they have the proper initial behind their name at the polls (in Texas, the Republicans control all statewide offices, both houses and have a majority in the Texas congressional delegation). The state deserves better, even if the initials don't jive with your political thinking.