"You can't vote unless you can prove that you are who you say you are. All you need is a picture ID."
That sounds sensible and reasonable, doesn't it? That's the Republican line for wanting to pass laws requiring picture identification for voters. They point out that if someone doesn't have photo identification, they can be provided one at no cost by the state. Again, that sounds sensible and reasonable. One such law was passed in Wisconsin in May of this year.
But the devil's always in the details, isn't it? Because earlier this month a high-ranking Wisconsin Department of Transportation (DOT) executive sent out a memo which said,:
"While you should certainly help customers who come in asking for a free ID to check the appropriate box, you should refrain from offering the free version to customers who do not ask for it."
Now, I could understand it if this were a business enterprise that wanted to keep its employees from telling customers about this or that really good discount, but this isn't a business. This is government, and how anyone in government can honorably justify making it more difficult for someone to engage in the most basic of all actions of a citizen in a democracy, voting, I don't know. Oh, I know he'll justify it by saying "We're trying to cut costs," but the key word in my question is honorably, and honor has nothing to do with this particular policy.
Why? Because in a recent test run, nearly 20 percent of all voters did not bring photo identification to the polling place. Because those who lack photo identification are more likely to be minority members or students or who are poor, all of whom strongly tend to vote Democratic, all of whom would be less likely to be keeping up with the latest changes to state policy and who would be much less likely to fork over the money to pay for a photo identification since the government functionary is not allowed to inform them of the free voter identification card. It should never be a requirement that one must know all the recent changes to state voting law in order to be able to cast a vote! If anything, this is a back door poll tax.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - jamminsue
Glenn, Well said
2 - Glenn Contrarian
Thanks, Sue
In my experience on BC, there's three reasons why an article doesn't get much in the way of comments - either it's poorly written, or it's on a topic that's not controversial enough, or the material presented within is too strong to dispute. I'd like to think it's the third, but of course I'm too close to the article to make a proper judgment.
3 - Dr Dreadful
Or there's a fourth, which is that comments in general are way down at the moment for some reason. There are just two or three active threads that are keeping the place twitching, but apart from that everyone seems to have other things to do right now.
That said, this is one of your best efforts, Glenn. I've observed that the right wing in general - this is not just an American phenomenon - feels entitled to power, and is inclined to view periods when other political factions are in office as episodes of disastrous mismanagement, even when the incumbents are pursuing policies not drastically different to those favoured by conservatives.
The equating of the poor to criminals is one manifestation of that attitude.
It manifests itself particularly blatantly in America, which despite its protestations of being a nation that recognizes the fundamental equality of all persons has since its inception been run almost exclusively by a privileged elite.
4 - Clavos
...America, which despite its protestations of being a nation that recognizes the fundamental equality of all persons...
One of America's most foolish concepts and a great flaw in its political makeup. Any observer can see that people are decidedly NOT equal.
...America...has since its inception been run almost exclusively by a privileged elite.
Humph. Bad as it is with the "privileged elite" running it, one shudders to contemplate what a mess it would be if the proles did.
5 - Dr Dreadful
Any observer can see that people are decidedly NOT equal.
Well, we do all start out that way, as basically the same intriguingly quirky brand of ape.
But reality, in the form of genetics and environment, immediately takes over. Life would frankly be rather boring if it didn't.
6 - zingzing
clavos: "Any observer can see that people are decidedly NOT equal."
yes, bigots are awful people.
7 - roger nowosielski
So the object of well-designed political philosophy is to undo genetics (or nullify its effects)?
That would be like applying the affirmative-action principle to the totality of human life.
8 - Glenn Contrarian
So now we see a manifestation of those who believe that we should not strive for equality for all.
And where does said inequality end? Should the disabled have fewer rights than the rest of us? Apparently, we've got many (apparently all are on the Right) who think that Muslims should not have equal rights. And Ron Paul wants a nation where discrimination for any reason is the right of the business owner!
And this is America???? Land of the free and home of the brave, where we look after and protect our own?
And now the poor somehow not deserving equality with everyone else - particularly those who once were once very successful but whose livelihoods were lost for whatever reason?
Roger, if you were in Florida, you'd be given lawfully required urinalysis tests in order for you to receive any state assistance...and the Republicans are trying to pass such a law now in Ohio!
Is this "freedom"? Is this "Limited government"?
America has a choice - to be a nation where everyone is equal, or a nation where NO ONE is equal...and anyone with even a modest appreciation of history knows where the latter leads almost unerringly.
9 - roger nowosielski
@ 8
#7 was posed as a teaser, a bait to Dreadful because of his #5.
Thus far he hadn't bitten.
10 - Jordan Richardson
Yeah, I can't imagine why comments are down...
11 - Glenn Contrarian
I think my suspicions in #2 show that I was a bit too full of myself. Time to deflate....
Phew! That stinks!
12 - Glenn Contrarian
Also, the dearth of comments should give a bit of a sign that it was a mistake by the BC editors to ban Ruvy, Irv, et al. As frustrating as they may be, their wildly different views - as controversial as they certainly are - draw more traffic and widen all our perspectives...if we have enough patience.
For instance, Ruvy did insult, but only rarely towards me because I did not insult him in return, but only replied to him as I do to Roger - and in his own way Ruvy respected me for it. Those on BC who are too impatient to bear with people like Ruvy or Irv need to learn patience - and their patience will be rewarded in time...even if it's a looong time.
I think the BC editors should swallow their pride and invite Ruvy and Irv back to BC, if only to increase traffic.
13 - Dougg Hunter
I had hundreds of comments over years, went over the line one time and questioned authority. Now my IP is permabanned. Oh well, I see those type of policies are really working out.
14 - troll
that's gotta be a mistake Doug...I've been wondering where you'd gone
15 - Jordan Richardson
I think the reason the comments are down is because most of what happens in politics is down to the same ol' boys (and sometimes girls) having the same ol' arguments about the same ol' things.
It's not a very inviting environment for newbies and most are chased away after dropping off just a few comments.
Doug, use a proxy. Google it.
16 - Dougg Hunter
Nah. I'll stick to the occasional lurking. Don't want to be chasing off all the newbies and stuff.
17 - Dr Dreadful
Doug(g), as far as I know you haven't been banned, nor do I see you as the sort of bloke who'd do anything to merit banning.
It's distantly possible, i suppose, that you might have been unfortunate enough for some spammer (we ban those scumb... upstanding citizens on sight) to have pirated your IP address, but other than that I have no idea why you can't post.
Personally I'd love to see you do more than lurk, as you're one of the folks I most respect here at BC.
18 - zingzing
"it was a mistake by the BC editors to ban Ruvy, Irv, et al."
you know, "and al" would only have one more letter.
that said, have you seen what happened over at bc's bitchy younger sister site? al banned irv, and told him not to write no more. then he shut off the comments field completely. oh, hypocrisy... one really has to wonder if he'll see the error of his ways or if he's just so pigheaded he can't even admit how stupid he's just made himself look. as soon as he had control, he started censoring comments and kicking people off the site. a true champion of shooting himself in the foot, that al.
19 - Christopher Rose
Doug Hunter is definitely not banned from commenting at Blogcritics, no idea where he would have got that impression from.
Ruvy, Irv and Al were treated with the utmost patience by Doc D and myself and had the comments policy explained to them multiple times, both in the comments space and via email.
They were all completely unwilling to accept the very modest limitations on self expression that Blogcritics has and the site had no option but to ban them.
As far as I can remember, there has never been a case where someone who has been banned has realised the "error of their ways" and asked to come back with a commitment to play nice, so I have no idea what the management would do in such a situation.
As to the volume of comments being down, it isn't that recent a phenomenon; one major factor is the largely absent Dave Nalle, who used to comment in significant daily volume, which had the knock on effect of boosting participation because so many people, myself included, liked to take on his many inconsistencies and contradictions!
BC could do more to promote engagement within its community but that would require more resource investment than appears to be available currently.
This is a conjecture, but I think another significant factor is the rise of sites such as Twitter. I don't quite understand the appeal of twittering, which seems a complete fail as a means of communication to me.
I guess it does work well as a platform for people to mouth off into a vacuum of unresponsiveness, which is clearly something many people want. Apart from that, it is basically a weird hybrid of customer services and sales messages.
Christopher Rose
Blogcritics Comments Editor
20 - Dougg Hunter
No posting from any browser or computer on my home network. Says 'our software filters have blocked.. Because of who we believe you are.'
Happened same day I told comment editor to FU after I jested lightheartedly (honestly) about his decision to edit my previous comment and he deletedy response.
It's an IP ban.
21 - Jordan Richardson
Isn't there an "or" before the "Because of who we believe you are" and a few other possibilities? I believe I've gotten that message dozens of times.
22 - Dougg Hunter
Yes. I attempted to leave an ellipsis to indicate that. I've tried several innocuous comments including this one, only goes through on my phone.
23 - Christopher Rose
Doug, that is an automated response, not something I have done.
We don't have any control over the automatic systems but, if you send me the exact details of the message you are getting, the exact time and date it happens, the comment you are trying to post and your IP address, I can refer it to the powers that be and see if they can do anything about it.
Christopher Rose
Blogcritics Comments Editor
24 - Clavos
Do it Doug, as you can see, you're most welcome here at BC.
25 - troll
...and I pledge that when elected bc jackass I will continue to work towards salvation for the damned and a general amnesty for the banned
(thunderous shower of rotten veggies)
thank you thank you
(more veggies)
god bless you all and god bless bc