by liberal japonicus
Well, the pushback against the restrictive voting laws in Georgia and Texas is happening. A couple of links, please add your own.
Georgia
https://www.npr.org/2021/04/01/983450176/based-on-a-lie-georgia-voting-law-faces-wave-of-corporate-backlash
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/georgia-voting-law-coca-cola-ups-home-depot-voter-rights-ups-delta-for-the-people-act/
https://www.ajc.com/politics/georgia-state-legislature/election-laws-how-georgia-stacks-up/KYO7CBZFVFAC5HFUT4XHZURKWI/
Texas
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/texas-voting-rights
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/03/georgia-texas-gop-election-laws-us-companies-face-pressure-to-oppose.html
I enjoyed Josh Marshall’s take on it (normally behind a paywall, but the share is supposed to allow you to view it. In case you can’t a few grafs)
This disjuncture between consumer America and future America on the one hand and the American political system – both everyone getting a vote and architecture of the system itself – is perhaps the defining tension or dynamic in American life today.
Of course, corporate America’s deepest needs remain access to the levers of state power and finding ideological allies interested in killing regulations and keeping taxes as low as possible. Indeed, beyond this, as we saw in the early years of the Trump administration even the most trendsetting corporations rooted in the country’s most liberal enclaves still want to get close to power. Remember those awkward but smiley moments of Trump convening the CEOs of all the country’s tech giants around one table in 2017.
So we shouldn’t expect corporate America to become Democrats’ best friends. Because they’re clearly not. And in any case, as I noted above, it’s not really right vs left in any case. But this disjuncture remains a central if not the central tension point across the entirety of American politics today.
Bonus points for identifying the source for the quote!
corporate America’s deepest needs remain access to the levers of state power
Often, but not quite always. If your customers, or your employees, care enough, that could be even more important.
For example: baseball has moved the 2021 All Star Game out of Atlanta. Why? Because they have seen how athletes reacted to the Black Lives Matter protests last year. And the last thing they want this year is a players’ union strike over the issue. The Players Association (the union) hadn’t yet spoken up; but the Players Alliance had.
Yes, baseball and its players are far more consevative than, for example, basketball. On the other hand, the gesture carries little political danger for MLB.** And so it’s cheap insurance. And, give how close to the heart baseball is for those longing for a return to the 1950s, one which may be particularly effective.
** Especially since Georgia’s loss is someone else’s gain. They can pick a replacement with an eye to damage control, if it seems necessary.
That’s a good point. And the piece has some more aspects, so I hope you can see it all.
I was trying to find an interview with Warnock, unfortunately, the only thing I could find was a Fox news piece headlined ‘Warnock declines to oppose Georgia boycotts’ which I found to be an interesting phrasing. I don’t remember the interview exactly, but that headline didn’t quite match what I remember.
From Marshall’s piece, this jumped out at me:
a more interesting question about whether we should applaud a system in which corporate America tries to exercise a veto over the political choices of state governments.
That horse is well and truly out of the barn, but even if it’s a question whose answer is a foregone conclusion at this point, it’s worth at least remembering that it’s a question that could be asked.
What I really don’t understand is why every state gets to make their own rules around voting for federal offices. And it would be great if (R)’s stopped trying to keep people from voting.
If states didn’t get to make their own rules on federal elections/voting (and perhaps were even more constitutionally restricted on state and local elections based on voting rights generally), there wouldn’t be states’ political choices of the kinds these corporations are attempting to veto. It’s a clusterf**k at its foundation, so sh*t happens (to put it delicately). I see it as an unstable system.
What I really don’t understand is why every state gets to make their own rules around voting for federal offices.
Because the Constitution says they get to, unless Congress decides otherwise. And it’s a subject that Congress has been historically reluctant to act on. Reluctant, most likely, out of a fear that the gate swings both ways. If the Democrats establish Congressional meddling this year in order to make voting easier, four years from now the Republicans may be in a position to make voting much more difficult everywhere.
From the article: Put this all together and it means that in the domain of culture and consumerism blue America is already leaving red America in the dust. It’s not even close. Think of Nike, Apple, Coke, Pepsi, Google, Nestle, major league sports…
Nestle?
I dunno’, but I tend to see Marshall’s thesis as a bit of a stretch.
Because the Constitution says they get to
Yeah, I get that. So, instead of “I don’t understand why”, maybe read “IMO it sucks that”.
And, sometimes we change stuff in the Constitution. I recognize the political impediments and have no expectation whatsoever that it will change. Just expressing my wish that it was otherwise.
A lot of the Constitution is the way it is because they had to get 13 more or less autonomous parties to sign on. People talk about the Constitution as if it’s some kind of holy writ, but government designed by committee is probably closer to the truth. Not saying it isn’t a remarkable document and a remarkable achievement, just saying it’s a salmagundi of compromises. Or, more to the point, just saying that just because it’s in there doesn’t mean it’s good. Several million people were 3/5 of a person in the original.
Also FWIW, the “it might be to your advantage this year, but think of what the other guys will do sometime down the line” argument is not that persuasive, to me. Not that it doesn’t reflect reality, just that the reality exists now. People mess with the electoral process for partisan advantage all the time, all over the place, right now, and have always done. See also not only voting regulations, but gerrymandered districts and all of the other nonsense that goes on.
IMO it would be appropriate to have uniform standards for who can vote, when people vote, how votes are cast recorded and counted, and anything else to do with voting, for federal offices. People can do whatever the heck they want for state and local elections. And yes, if there was a federal standard, it would probably end up being the way local stuff was done. So be it.
Among other things, equality under the law means everyone gets equal access to the franchise. In my opinion.
And it would be really great if (R)’s didn’t keep trying to keep people from voting. The fact that they feel the need to do so should be a clue to them that their policies and programs do not reflect what people want.
it’s a subject that Congress has been historically reluctant to act on.
Reluctant, not not totally unwilling. See the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Granted, it takes major obstruction of voting by some states, and recognition that they are doing so, to get Congress to act. But what we are seeing at the moment probably meets that threshold.
As for the possibility of a future Congress turning around and enacting national restrictions, I’d say that’s more of a boogeyman that a realistic concern. Even something as generally supported as a national voter ID law might well die in the face of objections to a national identiry card (and database), which that would entail. Especially since a lot of the same people who argue for voter ID laws are the p veryeople who hate the idea of a Federal ID otherwise.
Reluctant, most likely, out of a fear that the gate swings both ways.
Reluctant, most likely, due to our political structure (“sovereign” states) and more or less being comfortable with the status quo.
If the Democrats establish Congressional meddling this year in order to make voting easier, four years from now the Republicans may be in a position to make voting much more difficult everywhere.
So what? They are trying to do so right now…state by state. I would counter that the logic of this kind of reasoning is unilateral political disarmament.
Pass the bill.
The fact that they feel the need to do so should be a clue to them that their policies and programs do not reflect what people want.
Unfortunately, while that’s generally true, locally the people who elected them do want it. Or have been convinced (sometimes without real evidence) that they need those policies — and are in danger of losing them. Which, indeed, they are in some cases. Albeit not in anywhere near as many as they have been told
The fact that they feel the need to do so should be a clue to them that their policies and programs do not reflect what people want.
As if they give a fnck what people want. 🙁
Several million people were 3/5 of a person in the original.
I think it’s important, when nodding toward the three-fifths rule, never to forget that slaves were counted that way not to reduce their voting power from 1 to 0.6, because they had no voting power, but to inflate the voting power of their owners. The more slaves your state had, the more clout you got in Congress, proportional to population, compared to non-slave states.
It occurs to me even as I write this that all this voter suppression is an attempt to recreate those conditions.
Bastards.
Sorry, this is a little obsession of mine. I know you understand this, russell, but people are constantly citing the 3/5 thing as if it counted slaves as 3/5 of a person. It counted slaves as nothing — except padding for their owners’ political power.
Of course, it’s not even that simple. Women — and in some places men who didn’t own a certain amount of property — couldn’t vote either. Is it better to be counted as 1 person or as 0.6 of a person when determining how powerful your betters are?
It’s reasonable for states to be able to decide for themselves what electoral system they want – why shouldn’t Maine and Nebraska be able to split their electoral college votes, or California and Washington be able to hold non-partisan primaries?
It’s not reasonable for politicians to be able to manipulate the polls to improve their chances of re-election, whether by gerrymandering or making it harder for their opponents’ supporters to vote.
Perhaps a reasonable compromise would be a federal law requiring states to set up non-partisan commissions to decide on constituency boundaries and voting procedures.
Perhaps a reasonable compromise would be a federal law requiring states to set up non-partisan commissions to decide on constituency boundaries and voting procedures.
Which is, indeed, one of the provisions of HR 1.
And, as a resident of a state which already has one, I can testify that it works just fine. However much I may dislike the honest-as-Trump Democrat it saddled me with since 2018.
Reluctant, not not totally unwilling. See the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Which set out a target — don’t discriminate based on race. And for some jurisdictions, said that they had to get pre-approval from the DOJ for changes the states/counties wanted to make that the changes didn’t violate the goal. HR1 is down in the weeds: there must be early voting, the number of days/hours there must be early voting, there must be no-excuse vote by mail, lines must never exceed a certain length, polling places must meet a lengthy list of conditions, legislatures may not draw district lines, etc.
Even LBJ probably couldn’t have pushed HR1 across the finish line.
Several million people were 3/5 of a person in the original.
While counting anyone less than a whole person is bad, it did reduce the political power the slave states would have otherwise had.
While counting anyone less than a whole person is bad, it did reduce the political power the slave states would have otherwise had.
Another patented, smug libertarian pronouncement that manages to sound plausible by leaving out all other possibilities and all the nuances and complexities.
Suppose they hadn’t counted the slaves at all for apportionment purposes? Suppose they had only counted people who could vote?
Bleh. This is a fool’s errand.
So there is pushback against a bill that is basically no more limiting than most other states. Because, Georgia is still purple.
Suppose they hadn’t counted the slaves at all for apportionment purposes?
As I recall my history class, that was never a possibility. The 3/5 compromise was a decrease in the political clout of the southern, slave-plantation, states, in order to keep the northern states on-board.
It’s reasonable for states to be able to decide for themselves what electoral system they want – why shouldn’t Maine and Nebraska be able to split their electoral college votes, or California and Washington be able to hold non-partisan primaries?
Assumes the electoral system is not another legacy of government designed by committee. Which is to say, not an invalid point, but it somewhat begs the question.
While counting anyone less than a whole person is bad, it did reduce the political power the slave states would have otherwise had.
As Janie notes, it actually had the effect of increasing the political power of slave states, and that is what it was intended to do.
So there is pushback against a bill that is basically no more limiting than most other states. Because, Georgia is still purple.
or, because…
it has become a flashpoint in the national conversation over voting rights as more than 40 states consider bills that would raise barriers to voting.
The US is now a nation with near-universal literacy and virtually universal access to basic education.
The claims of voter fraud that these restrictions are supposed to be a defense against are based on a vanishingly small number of events, when they aren’t outright lies.
There is no good reason to place restrictions on voting.
The (R) party would like to prevent people who aren’t likely to vote for them from voting at all. That’s not acceptable.
As Janie notes, it actually had the effect of increasing the political power of slave states, and that is what it was intended to do.
But, at the time of the constitutional convention, it was the slave states pushing for slaves to be counted as whole persons.
So there is pushback against a bill that is basically no more limiting than most other states.
Pure unmitigated baloney.
So there is pushback against a bill that is basically no more limiting than most other states.
You mean other states already don’t allow giving water to people standing in line to vote??? Who knew?
/sarcasm
Could solve all of those “voter ID” problems, PLUS the “illegals are takin the jerbs”, and a bunch of other stuff too, by just mandating that everyone in the USA gets ‘chipped’.
just mandating that everyone in the USA gets ‘chipped’.
Great for crime fighting, too. Since we would be able to find out where everybody had been at the time a crime was committed. Alibies for everyone who is innocent! (Only criminals** could object to that, right?)
Of course, the system would inevitably get hacked. Only way for private detectives to stay in business, I guess.
Plus any time we got into a conflict, the enemy could ping the chips to find out exactly where our troops were.
** And Congressmen who were engaging in immoral behavior….
As Janie notes, it actually had the effect of increasing the political power of slave states, and that is what it was intended to do.
But, at the time of the constitutional convention, it was the slave states pushing for slaves to be counted as whole persons.
Duh, of course they were. Because that would have swollen the relative clout of the adult white men who ran everything even further, slave state vs free state.
The more weight given to slaves in this calculation, the more their owners were empowered.
My point, which maybe I’m not making clearly, is that 3/5 is generally cited as a horrible dehumanization of slaves / black Americans. Superficially it is. But behind the bare number is the fact that the higher the number, the more empowering it was / would have been for slaveowners. Slaveowners would have had much less relative clout in Congress if slaves had been counted as zero.
the party of sedition in the name of Q doesn’t even know who the American people are. they seems to think they are the only actual Americans and everybody else is a terrorist lining up to stab real Americans in the back.
As if they give a fnck what people want.
***
the party of sedition in the name of Q doesn’t even know who the American people are. they seems to think they are the only actual Americans and everybody else is a terrorist lining up to stab real Americans in the back.
Truer words were never spoken.
I have the luxury of being able to say to these self-proclaimed “real American” types:
“My ancestors got here, from Europe, before yours did. So, by your own standards, I’m more of a real American than you are!”
They find that particularly hard to deal with. I, on the other hand, find it amusing. For all that it’s nonsense.
Some of my ancestors on my mother’s side got here (from England) in the 1630s.
I’ve got dockyments. 😉
Then my mother went and married the offspring of some later, darker-skinned southern European arrivals, which makes her a traitor, I suppose.
Time was, marrying a German immigrant was seen like that. Who are the outsiders who are wrecking things for real Americans? It keeps changing. Happily, an ignorance of history can spare you those inconvenient facts.
You mean other states already don’t allow giving water to people standing in line to vote??? Who knew?
The worst thing in the new GA law isn’t even that: it’s that the state legislature can, if it wishes, over-ride local Boards and decide on its own which electors to choose. IOW, the new law gives the state the power to do what many of Trump’s lawsuits demanded: throw out election results altogether and let the state legislature pick a winner.
I think the AZ GOP is trying the same thing.
I’m amazed that part of the law isn’t getting more attention. It’s about as anti-democratic as you can get.
Other states don’t allow people from campaigns within 100 yes. The new law allows for water stations to be available. It’s ridiculous hype for solving the common problem they had of campaigns catering the lines. And that’s the only piece that is close to controversial. The rest is pretty middle of the road compared to other states.
Total bullshit reporting. Stupid knee-jerk reactions.
I think the AZ GOP is trying the same thing.
The chances that they will succeed in AZ are vanishing small. It’s just performance art. A single defection in the AZ House and the bill fails. Two defections in the Senate and the bill fails. The governor is term limited in 2022, isn’t running for any other office, and the state party has already sanctioned him for saying good things about the existing AZ voting system. Finally, AZ is a veto referendum state. The bill doesn’t go into effect until 90 days after it’s signed, and if signatures equal to or exceeding 5% of the votes cast in the most recent governor’s race are collected during those 90 days, the law goes on the November ballot and dies w/o ever being in effect unless the people approve it. According to the AZ Sec of State’s web site, voter registration in AZ is split 35/32/32 for Republicans, Democrats, and unaffiliated. These are the same voters who approved an independent redistricting commission, higher minimum wage, family leave, and recreational marijuana over the screams of the Republican legislators.
Other states don’t allow people from campaigns within 100 yes. The new law allows for water stations to be available. It’s ridiculous hype for solving the common problem they had of campaigns catering the lines. And that’s the only piece that is close to controversial.
It’s true that other states don’t allow campaigning near a polling place. Having worked the last several elections here, I’m aware. But Georgia already had that law on the books. If anyone has evidence of providing food or water being used, illegally, for campaigning in Georgia, they have unaccountably failed to make the case under the existing law.
The new restriction on anyone providing food or water to people in line gets attention because it is gratuitously cruel. And the obvious way to eliminate the problem (assuming it really exists) would be to make sufficient polling stations and poll workers available so as to eliminate the lines. Yet there’s no sign this was even considered.
And that’s the only piece that is close to controversial.
That is demonstrably NOT TRUE.
Total bullshit reporting
NOPE.
Marty, where on earth do you get your (bullshit) information (which could also be called kneejerk), that is so easily and readily disproven?
People in actual democracies are shocked by pictures of long queues at polling stations. When I vote I cycle or walk to a polling station half a mile from my house, and never have to queue. This is normal here.
Making people wait hours to vote is the biggest problem in Georgia’s elections. So what does this new law do about it? Well, it says that if a precinct has more than 2000 voters, and there have been very long waits, then Superintendent should either reduce the size of the precinct or not.
If the Superintendent chooses not, he must do something else, however ineffective, which might reduce queuing.
This is not the law one would write if one actually cared about people being able to vote. It is the law one would write if one wanted to be able to suppress the vote in selected precincts.
Are you defending this, Marty?
One thing which is not a problem in elections anywhere is personation. Because there’s a high risk of being caught – the legitimate voter may try to vote also – and a tiny upside – you’re vanishingly unlikely to change the result of an election by doing it. And yet the Republican Party is obsessed with measures ostensibly designed to prevent it. Because they’re actually designed to make it harder to vote, and can be used to discourage the wrong sort of people from voting.
Yet there’s no sign this was even considered.
In poker parlance this is known as a tell.
A tell, and nothing like a subtle one.
What happened to going full hog?
Make any carrying or consumption of food or water within unreasonable distance of a polling location illegal. Use that as a justification to move all (partisanly inconvenient) polling stations out of populated areas. Transporting people to a position within a mile of a polling location will be declared incitement (to vote). This will of course include any means of public transport, although polling locations should be at least that distant from any bus stop, train station etc. anyway. If you intend to drive to your polling location, your car will have to be registered as a ‘voting vehicle’ at your precinct and that registration renewed before any election. State legislature or its chosen deputees will have authority to define the details indivicually for any voting precinct at short notice (i.e. to within one hour before the polls opening).
Any person who’s right to vote is challenged at the polls will have to go to the back of the line again (or arrested on the spot if the challenge is not unsuccessful). There will be no limit to re-challenge*. It will not matter, if you are already in line when polling closes. Unless your ballot is already handed in and properly registered it will not be counted but (to avoid them accidentally be counted anyway) destroyed on the spot. In order to guarantee for the polling location to be closed the minute the time is up the entry doors will be closed a sufficient time period before closing time and no further potential voters will be allowed in. I propose at least as much time as you have to arrive at the avarage airport before departure of your flight (that should be 1-2.5 hours). Any gathering, congregating or queuing before the polls open is to be treated as an illegal demonstration and to be suppressed forcefully (although state legislature or its chosen deputees may give dispense on an individual precinct base).
In order to avoid unnecessary queuing before the polling location any potential voter will need a valid same day queuing registration from a state approved entity which has to be located at least 5 miles from any polling location and can only work during the opening hours of the polls themselves. It has to be renewed any time a potential voter gets in line** (state legislature or its chosen deputees may grant exceptions on an individuual basis).
*State legislature or its chosen deputees will have authority to re-define the details and/or make exceptions indivicually for any voting precinct at any time (including during the elction).
** in particular, if your right to vote has been challenged unsuccessfully as described above
Why make it so complicated? Just go with, “The state legislature will decide which ballots, and votes for which candidates, are counted.” As long as you gerrymander carefully, you can keep all those pesky people from the other party out.
To easy without enough legalese to show that it is in no conceivable way intended to disenfrnachise specific voting groups. It has to be as complicated as possible to allow SCOTUS to weasel out of reading it the way it is actually meant.
Marty, where on earth do you get your (bullshit) information (which could also be called kneejerk), that is so easily and readily disproven?
you know where
you know where
Well, I don’t really. Marty says it’s not from Facebook or Fox, which would be the obvious answers, so other than “the GOP talking points as disseminated into the ether”, I don’t know the answer. Unless you mean that, when Marty watches (or reads) the news on a quasi-respectable media outlet, he only pays attention to whatever is said by the GOP hacks they (the GOP) put up to rebut the facts? Hmm, maybe that’s it.
Have you looked at right-wing Twitter lately?
And yes, there are plenty of GOP hacks on e.g. the Sunday morning talk shows, from what I understand, not to mention podcasts, op-eds, platforms like Substack, and on and on. Meghan McCain goes on The View and spouts (often shouts) right wing talking points, it’s not like you can’t find them everywhere.
Plus, Marty may say it’s not from Facebook or Fox, but I’m not sure I believe that what he means by that is what we think he means by that. He has told us repeatedly that he’s the only sane person in the midst of craziness on both sides, so surely he works out his opinions on his own from the stew around him, which no doubt he makes sure is evenly concocted of viewpoints from all sides. It’s only because it’s The Truth that he and Fox arrive at the same True Conclusions.
Although, come to think of it:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-being-anti-media-is-now-part-of-the-gop-identity/
Marty did say some time ago that he didn’t trust the NYT because it was so partisan (funny, given a) how many of the ObWi commentariat don’t read it because, I suppose, of both-sideserism, and b) how famous the NYT is worldwide for factchecking, even or perhaps particularly in the wake of a few scandals).
Right-wing Twitter: I am not going to link. But Ben Shapiro is a gem. Erick Erickson. Andrew Sullivan. Glenn Greenwald.
Okay, one link. And speaking of which, the National Review, just for example, is neither Fox nor Facebook, and yet…..
It’s a permanent, high velocity Gish Gallop, extremely persuasive to someone who wants to believe all of it anyhow, impossible to refute point by point otherwise.
From your librul New York Times.
b) how famous the NYT is worldwide for factchecking, even or perhaps particularly in the wake of a few scandals).
I don’t read it myself, except for the occasional link I follow, but that goes for any outlet you could name. But the news operation is not the same as the editorial operation. Same goes for WSJ, where I believe the news arm is relatively reality-based and the editorial arm is…not.
Missed your first reply, Janie, and have only now caught up. Yes of course, now you mention it, that makes perfect sense. Confirmation bias takes care of the rest of it. And I have observed a bit of the same phenomenon in parts of the left in the UK (e.g. the Tories have always complained that the BBC is full of liberal/lefties, but even the not-very-far-left complained vociferously about BBC bias during the Corbyn years, and not always with reason. And that was certainly fuelled by some paranoid lefty twitter.)
Let’s not forget, most of us, maybe all of us, are wildly unlikely to change our minds about fundamental values and goals because of “rational” arguments on the internet or around the dinner table or whatever.
I believe that Marty and I want fundamentally different worlds. To the extent that we could use the same vast generalizations to describe the worlds we want, we still have fundamental and apparently unbridgeable gaps in our beliefs about how to get there. It’s not quite true that all the rest is entertainment, and people do “change their minds” and reverse sides (e.g. John Cole), but I wonder how much even then it’s a fundamental reversal versus a realization that your own fundamental values are better served by “the other side.”
gaps between our beliefs, i.e. his and mine
It’s a permanent, high velocity Gish Gallop, extremely persuasive to someone who wants to believe all of it anyhow, impossible to refute point by point otherwise.
it’s a cult. and its members keep shouting its parables at us expecting us to see them as the same gospel truth they do.
Marty is doing his community service by lecturing the infidels.
I can’t help myself, but before I start popping off, I want to make sure I’m shooting at the actual target: what are the specific deficiencies in the new GA voting law that make it racist? Thanks.
what are the specific deficiencies in the new GA voting law that make it racist?
my opinion: it’s not specifically racist. it’s intended to make it marginally more difficult for people who vote for (D)’s to vote.
the fact that people who are relatively more likely to vote for (D)’s are relatively more likely to not be white is maybe of interest, because of the history of voting in GA, but is not essential to the objections to the law.
(R)’s lost GA’s electoral votes and two senate seats by the skin of their teeth. they’re trying the shave the margins back in their favor.
is how I see it.
Marginally on topic here, but I found this fascinating.
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2020/08/31/as-trumps-popularity-slips-in-latest-military-times-poll-more-troops-say-theyll-vote-for-biden/
For anyone who ever worried (or, for that matter, is somehow still concerned) about anything like a pro-Trump military action, it’s quite an eye opener.
e.g. John Cole
Conservatives lost Cole over the Terry Schiavo thing. Or, at least, that was the straw that broke the camel’s back.
In general I think Cole is a guy who (a) has a low tolerance for bullsh*t and (b) has a basic core of decency and common sense, and the (R)’s overstepped on both counts.
I’m not sure he’s that much less conservative than he ever was, I think he simply had his fill of the carnival barkers.
I wonder who in this thread was the first person to type the word “racist”? Once again “we” are being asked to defend a simplistic, caricatured position that no one here has expressed.
In other words, when McKinney says “Jump,” there is no absolute requirement for people to say “How high?”
Although I do appreciate russell’s calm, nuanced reply anyhow.
the GA law:
a) is unnecessary. it’s solving problems that don’t exist outside the fevered rantings of the GOP cult.
b) is petty. who the hell would be upset that people standing in line in GA (FFS!!!) get water?
c) gives the GA GOP ridiculous control over local elections boards – based entirely in the same insanity that Trump used to rally his troops for the failed insurrection on 1/6
also: fuck the GOP and all its works.
“Here, let me straighten that hook out for you”.
LOL.
When enacting a new law one should ask oneself “what problem am I trying to solve, and will this law be effective in solving it”.
In this case the problem is that the Rs get fewer votes than the Ds in Georgia, and the law has a good chance of solving the problem if used in a partisan way. Which it will be.
That’s the objection of people who care about democracy.
If you actually believe that the law is intended to address problems in electoral procedure, go ahead, point out the problems, and show us how the law will solve them.
For example, you might argue: “Ds have been buying votes by offering water to undecided voters in queues at the polling station, so we have to ban water supplies in order to get a fair vote. The alternative of taking effective measures to shorten queues, would be unreasonable because [reason I can’t think of but perhaps you can].” Go ahead, make the case. With evidence.
For example, you might argue: “Ds have been buying votes by offering water to undecided voters in queues at the polling station,”
Of course, if they actually were buying votes that way (or any other), that’s already illegal. So why not just prosecute those involved?
I think I should amend my comment above.
Instead of:
they’re trying the shave the margins back in their favor
please read:
They’re trying to shave the margins back in their favor through legal gamesmanship, instead of adjusting their policies to be closer to what the majority of the people in GA want.
That has been the (R) pattern for some time, and apparently will be for the foreseeable future.
The weird thing is, they probably wouldn’t have to move the needle all that much toward the center to be able to prevail without the legal games. However, as a national party, they’ve been captured by their own lunatic fringe, and so this is what they’ve been brought to.
I thought the issue was that it was racist. Isn’t that what all the fuss is about?
gives the GA GOP ridiculous control over local elections boards – based entirely in the same insanity that Trump used to rally his troops for the failed insurrection on 1/6
Ok, this sounds like it might be something–do you have a link that gets specific with how the GOP can put its finger on the scales?
If it’s not racist, then why the national uproar?
I read LJ’s links. The AJC piece seems pretty straightforward. I’m trying to find out what the fuss is. Thanks.
In this case the problem is that the Rs get fewer votes than the Ds in Georgia, and the law has a good chance of solving the problem if used in a partisan way. Which it will be.
They’re trying to shave the margins back in their favor through legal gamesmanship, instead of adjusting their policies to be closer to what the majority of the people in GA want.
Ok, I understand that this is the end result that is being asserted; however, what I’m missing is: (1) is the new law racist, as many are saying? and (2) in what specific way does the new law tilt things in favor of the R’s?
Again, thanks.
The weird thing is, they probably wouldn’t have to move the needle all that much toward the center to be able to prevail without the legal games. However, as a national party, they’ve been captured by their own lunatic fringe, and so this is what they’ve been brought to.
There’s a substantial population in the US which is fairly conservative. The problem for today’s GOP is that a lot of them are members of various minorities. And on top of being reactionary (the lunatic fringe), much of the existing GOP base is adamantly racist. There’s simply no way to square that circle.
It may (I pray) be possible to put together a center right, but not bigoted, party. But it’s not at all obvious that it’s even possible to get there from where Nixon’s Southern Strategy has left the party.
in what specific way does the new law tilt things in favor of the R’s?
OK, here goes. First, on the “no water” law.
Advantage, Republicans.
Second, on the “legislature control” law
Advantage, Republicans.
There are doubtless more. Since, as the Republican Georgia Secretary of State has testified, there was no election fraud or other problems with election security, the only, ONLY, reason for the law was to advantage the party which currently controls the Georgia legislature. They may turn out to have failed in some caee. But it won’t be for lack of trying.
Ok, I’m not moved by the water issue. There is early voting available to all, so long lines are only an issue for people who do not early vote, and GA in November is no warmer than TX which is to say, not all that warm and, if I understand correctly, the “no water” thing is within 150 feet of the polling place and even then, poll workers, just not partisans, can distribute water (or, people can bring their own).
Now, the legislature will be able (without even needing a substantive justification, let alone evidence) to take over. Including deciding which ballots get counted.
Ok, again, this seems like something bad, but I’m not getting what the GA Leg can actually do. I say this because what people think a law means and what it actually means are often quite far apart. When a partisan–any partisan–is making a partisan point, there tends to be spin. I like to make up my own mind and for that reason, if someone has a link on this specific topic that looks at the statutory language *as written* and then demonstrates how the GA Leg can fiddle with votes, I would be grateful.
As per usual around here, the discussion is being steered away from the very manifest and obvious problems of equal representation and access to voting and into arguments about intentions with not one single bit of concern about the people being harmed by the disparate outcomes that are being not just ignored, but engineered for partisan gain.
I got nothing. If it’s no concern of yours how other people are being harmed, then I don’t really see any point in a discussion.
As per usual around here, the discussion is being steered away from the very manifest and obvious problems of equal representation and access to voting and into arguments about intentions with not one single bit of concern about the people being harmed by the disparate outcomes that are being not just ignored, but engineered for partisan gain.
Thank you. Especially “is being steered.” The legalistic nitpicking is just maddening.
if I understand correctly, the “no water” thing is within 150 feet of the polling place and even then, poll workers, just not partisans, can distribute water (or, people can bring their own).
Just out of curiosity, what real world problem do you see the “no water” thing as addressing?
As per usual around here, the discussion is being steered away from the very manifest and obvious problems of equal representation and access to voting and into arguments about intentions with not one single bit of concern about the people being harmed by the disparate outcomes that are being not just ignored, but engineered for partisan gain.
I’m just trying to figure out what the actual harm being done is. Seems like a fair thing to ask, since everyone appears to be very upset. Who is being harmed and how? I am very much not down with anyone being harmed by state action, so please tell me what harm is being inflicted, particularly if it is being inflicted in a focused, racist way. If, as you say, there are “very manifest and obvious problems”, it should be easy to point them out specifically. Thanks.
Just out of curiosity, what real world problem do you see the “no water” thing as addressing
I don’t see a real world problem of any kind being addressed except that GA doesn’t want electioneering within 150 feet of the ballot box (we have a similar rule in TX) which doesn’t seem like a reason for anyone to be upset.
…if I understand correctly, the “no water” thing is within 150 feet of the polling place…
Within 150 ft of the polling place, or within 25 feet of any person waiting in line to vote. The latter apparently independent of how far the line extends from the polling place. As I recall there were reports from the Atlanta area last November of lines that were at least several hundred feet long.
Within 150 ft of the polling place, or within 25 feet of any person waiting in line to vote.
Ok, that’s an interesting statutory formulation: if no one can approach within 25 feet of someone standing in line to vote, then whether that voter is within or without 150 from the polling place is irrelevant and statutes usually aren’t written that way, i.e. one provision rendering another provision meaningless in the same overall statutory scheme. It also seems strange because every voter is within 6 feet, or less, of those behind and in front–are they prohibited from sharing or giving water to someone in need?
I get that there can be long voter lines, particularly on the last day of an election, but not allowing partisans to give water to people waiting to vote (isn’t that what the statute says), that’s voter suppression? People can’t bring their own water? What am I missing, specifically?
If, as you say, there are “very manifest and obvious problems”, it should be easy to point them out specifically.
How about we start with you doing the work of addressing what actual harms are being addressed by the specifics of the legislation instead.
What harm was done by Fulton County using mobile polling places?
What harm was done by increasing the number of people eligible to vote by mail?
What harm was done by having drop off sites that were accessible 24/7?
What harm was done by opening registration and early voting earlier?
What harm was done by giving water to people waiting in long lines?
Real harms, please, not hypotheticals with no evidence that it’s a real problem, or one-offs that were caught and had no effect on voting integrity.
People can’t bring their own water? What am I missing, specifically?
there’s no reason at all this water thing needs to be in the law.
but they decided it needs to be.
why?
because they want to make it just a bit more unpleasant for people who end up in long lines. and who, in GA, waits in long lines?
guess
that’s why it’s racist. this pointless petty partisan law was written to deliberately make voting a little more unpleasant for people who tend to vote Democratic.
McKinney, lawsuits are being filed about this. You could do your own googling to find the answers to your questions, instead of expecting people here to do your work for you. But I suppose that wouldn’t be as much fun as watching people here hop to your tune.
I used to judge speech contributions at speech and debate tournaments at the local high school. I never judged debate because it’s very technical and it helps to have some experience. But my understanding is that the kids had to be prepared to argue either side of an issue. So that’s another idea: do some research (again, instead of expecting people here to do it for you), and prepare some arguments both ways. You’re a clever lawyer, surely you’re competent to do that. Otherwise this is still nothing but the usual “jump, how high?” And “Can you guys play my game as well as I can?”
How about we start with you doing the work of addressing what actual harms are being addressed by the specifics of the legislation instead.
Answering a question with a bunch of questions. Ok, I’m going to say you don’t have much of a case unless you can actually make it out by linking something in the statute to a real world harm.
Where is the undue burden on anyone’s right to vote?
Cross-posted with nous and cleek….
I don’t see a real world problem of any kind being addressed except that GA doesn’t want electioneering within 150 feet of the ballot box (we have a similar rule in TX) which doesn’t seem like a reason for anyone to be upset.
But they already HAVE a law against electioneering near a polling place. Just like most places have. And there haven’t been any noticeable number of cases involving people breaking it. So where’s the need for this? (Other than just to make life difficult for people they don’t want to vote at all, of course.)
Ok, I’m going to say you don’t have much of a case unless you can actually make it out by linking something in the statute to a real world harm.
Right on schedule: player, referee, commissioner of the league, all in one tidy package.
As for taking over election boards: The first measure the Georgia legislature took (even before the law we are talking about right now) was to take the authority away from the only two (R) officials who refused to go along with Jabbabonk’s scheme to take Georgia by crook.
The people giving water were obeying all existing laws about not campaigning close to polls and were in no way identifying as “partisans.” Also, the people giving water were not asking waiting voters who they planned to vote for, and distributing or not distributing accordingly. Anyone who wanted water was welcome to take it.
Also, there were long lines to vote at some locations DURING early voting days, largely because the number of early voting locations is much smaller than the number of precincts on election day proper.
If voters being manipulated while waiting in line is a concern, how about just increase the number of voting locations and voting machines per location so that there are no lines.
Ok, I’m going to say you don’t have much of a case unless you can[…]
Speaking of tells.
I’ll pass until any of our three devil’s advocates actually engage on substance rather than on procedural, semantic, or historical grounds or in any way acknowledge the larger context in which GA decided to push through these changes.
nous: just out of curiosity, who are “our three devil’s advocates”? What have I missed, other than that this has been another episode in that long-running series, “Same Old.”
On June 9, the last day of voting in Republican and Democratic primaries, the average wait time after 7 p.m. was six minutes — if you were at a polling place where at least 90% of voters were white. If you found yourself at a polling station where 90% of voters were Black, the wait time was 51 minutes. That’s an eight-fold difference.
Ok, I’m still not moved and here’s why: first of all, you are taking a very select cohort: people in line after closing time on election day. Second, you are using a percentage–90%–without sharing the underlying raw numbers that the 90% is being applied to. For example, are their 50 people in line in R areas and 500 in line in D areas, and therefore you get a higher base number, so of course, your wait time is going to be longer. Why is it longer in D areas? Is it because fewer D’s avail themselves of early voting? Or, did fewer R’s show up to vote that late in the day? Or were there just fewer R’s to begin with? Or, is there another reason?
You could do your own googling to find the answers to your questions, instead of expecting people here to do your work for you. But I suppose that wouldn’t be as much fun as watching people here hop to your tune.
I’m pretty sure that I’ve limited myself to two things here: (1) asking what the underlying specifics of the GA law are (and it seems to boil down to partisan water distributions to waiting voters, so, no, I’m not moved) and (2) making my own substantive comments on the egregiousness, or lack thereof, of the GA law. Seems like much ado about very little.
Anyone who is eligible to vote, can do so and everyone has the same access to the ballot box via early voting. Waiting until election day may mean a longer wait in line. Fine, bring water. Not a constitutional crisis. Not racism in any meaningful sense. At least, based on what I’ve seen so far.
Final note: whether I’m a clever lawyer is beside the point. When I take a position–which I often do–I usually make it a point to defend it and I don’t mind defending it (which is why I’m on semi-sabbatical here, because I don’t have time to fully respond and it is fair comment that I’ve dropped a bomb or two and then left without giving others the respect of addressing their views–I’m going to try hard not to do this until I have the time to treat folks as they deserve). I’m certainly not offended when asked to justify or support my arguments. I think the reverse is equally fair and I don’t think asking specific questions or asking for actual evidence or whatever is unreasonable. It’s what’s been going on here since forever.
Finally, I don’t personalize–or at least I try not to.
Also, there were long lines to vote at some locations DURING early voting days, largely because the number of early voting locations is much smaller than the number of precincts on election day proper.
Ok, so it’s still water. If the water thing is *it*, thanks to all, I know what I need to know. I remain unmoved. I will try to loiter for a day or two and address any comments to me posted after after 2:30 CST today, but it will be tomorrow.
Why is it longer in D areas? Is it because fewer D’s avail themselves of early voting?
fewer polling places per capita. and, GA’s black population traditionally prefers to vote on election day (and they don’t trust mail-in voting)
the GA GOP knows what it was doing.
Ok, so it’s still water.
it’s more than water.
but you specifically asked about water, above. that’s why we’re talking about it now.
I was responding to your mischaracterization of the particulars of the circumstances of that particular issue.
Not racist, but racially disparate impact is the reduction in early voting availability on Sundays, where in the last cycle African Americans were 37% of the electorate compared to about 30% of the electorate generally.
I would elaborate more, but I’m at work, so who knows when I will be able to return to this exciting discussion.
I’m just trying to figure out what the actual harm being done is.
LOL…well, if nothing is being “harmed” then why was this legislation rammed through to begin with?
My opinion? The real harm seems to be more stink on the GOP image.
I have provided several links above. When you read them, get back to us. If you express disagreement with what was expressed therein, OK. But if you use the words “not substantive” in your critique, big deduct points shall apply.
Not racism in any meaningful sense. At least, based on what I’ve seen so far.
a bunch of things that didn’t need to be done but all tend to either work against a specific group of Dems (on the ground) or for the GOP (in the election process).
the GA GOP knew what it was doing.
that they crafted each of these provisions to look small and innocuous in isolation so the party faithful can handwave them away one at a time was pretty clever.
don’t pretend to be puzzled why most minorities continue to hate you, though.
“continue to hate you”
you = GOP
i’ll just assume all minorities love McTx personally.
Why the uproar?
Well, it seems pretty obvious.
I’ll pass until any of our three devil’s advocates actually engage on substance rather than on procedural, semantic, or historical grounds or in any way acknowledge the larger context in which GA decided to push through these changes.
Context: GA didn’t push this through, the GA GOP pushed it through on a party line vote.
Context: For those of us who don’t live by the McKinney Rules about what’s “substantial” and what isn’t, it’s telling that not a single GA Dem went along with this farce. I mean, it’s not as if they don’t know who they’re dealing with, or what motivates them.
Context: I’d like to see McK say with a straight face that this law has nothing to do with the fact that GA just elected two D senators by thin margins. No, I’m sure the GA GOP did it out of an abundance of righteousness and a love of justice, so that every Georgian can be sure of having equal access to the ballot box.
Context: A black female state legislator was arrested for knocking on the door while a bunch of white men gathered for the signing of this law beneath a painting of a plantation.
Context.
(1) is the new law racist, as many are saying? and (2) in what specific way does the new law tilt things in favor of the R’s?
I’m on record as saying the law isn’t specifically racist. And, as Janie pointed out upthread, the word ‘racist’ did not appear in this thread until you introduced it.
So perhaps your first question should be addressed to the ‘many who are saying’ rather than anybody here.
Whether you like the NYT or not, this is a pretty good summary of what the law will change.
Very briefly, the law places significant impediments on voting in ways that are, relatively speaking, more commonly used by folks who vote (D).
The water thing is probably not of much consequence, it’s just amazingly dickish.
Vocabulary word for today:
Disingenuousness.
Tomorrow we will tackle triumphalism.
In case it wasn’t clear that irony is well and truly dead, Mitch McConnell is now telling CEOs to stay out of politics.
irony is well and truly dead
A stark reminder of why you should be careful what you wish for, lest you get it. McConnell was big on corporations being allowed to support political positions. And now that they are doing so, he doesn’t like it any more. Oops.
irony is well and truly dead
It has been a subject of conservative assault for some time. The real irony is they don’t seem to notice or care what it is they are killing.
What is really sad is that sarcasm has gone down with it.
Very briefly, the law places significant impediments on voting in ways that are, relatively speaking, more commonly used by folks who vote (D).
Inarguable.
And, as others here have said, this law is proposed and voted for exclusively by a party which has historically held state power in GA pretty much unopposed, in the wake of a presidential election which was held by all observers and officials to be clean and uncorrupted, and senate runoffs ditto, in both of which for the first time in living memory the opposing party won in GA by a wafer thin margin. Whereupon the party in state power rushes to pass new voting laws, which address no observed problems, and which just happen to disproportionately adversely affect voters of the opposing party, and give hitherto unavailable power over elections to the party in state power.
Vocabulary word for today:
Disingenuousness.
To put it mildly.
I was thinking the other day that a little over a century ago, two political changes came sweeping out of the West: direct election of Senators and women’s suffrage. (That is in no way intended to belittle the enormous efforts made by women in other parts of the country, just to note that states that gave women the vote first tended to be in the West.)
My suspicion is that over the next 10-12 years something similar is going to happen: vote by mail and independent redistricting commissions. Last November something over 90% of the ballots cast in the 13-state West were distributed by mail. Last year was peculiar, but in 2018 the number was something over 70%. I believe that a majority of those 13 states have taken redistricting authority away from the legislature. Both of those have been happening in red and blue states.
OTOH, referendums, initiatives, and recalls become embedded in the West at the same time, with much more limited adoption in other regions.
Sorry I don’t have the link, but there was something by a TV writer who said that back in the day when broadcast standards were stricter especially in regard to sitcoms, they would often put in something that would be so over the top and outrageous that it would attract the censors attention and then argue for it tooth and nail. When it finally was rejected, the other risque jokes would get ignored, passing under the censor’s radar. The writer said that the water thing was that thing and the actual object is to take over control of local commissions
https://www.kcrg.com/2021/03/27/gop-lawmakers-seek-greater-control-over-local-elections/
Rather than dance to the tune of AlaMcT’s the monkeygrinder is playing, I’m more interested in how corporations are coping with this. Some more links
https://www.npr.org/2021/04/04/984290214/black-leaders-in-georgia-say-corporate-backlash-to-voting-law-is-too-late
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/05/business/voting-rights-ceos.html
This was interesting
https://www.blackenterprise.com/delta-internal-statement-leaked-showing-praise-for-georgia-election-restrictions-bill/
If you are going to diversify your workforce, you are not really going to be sure whether your deliberations are secure.
I feel like this is a bit of a perfect storm, those corporations saw COVID as a unavoidable pause, and now, as things (and consumption) get back to normal levels, this rises up to put them between a rock and a hard place. I think that different industries have different investments (it’s no surprise that Delta leads off the NYT article)
There are also a lot of stories that have the lede that the Republicans have overreached. wj, who is some ways is our resident optimist, raises the be careful what you wish for idea. I see that, but if that gets trotted out to much, it tends to normalize all the idiocy that goes on, from denying Garland a seat on the Supreme Court to the scene of 7 white men signing a massive bill to change elections after an election that was argued to be ‘never have been more secure or trustworthy’
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/11/21/brad-raffensperger-georgia-results-2020-election-trustworthy/
But no matter what happens, I’m sure that our three horsemen of the whataboutaclypse will find their feelings hurt more and more. Some things will never change.
wj, who is some ways is our resident optimist, raises the be careful what you wish for idea. I see that, but if that gets trotted out to much, it tends to normalize all the idiocy that goes on
Well, I definitely don’t want to normalize idiocy. But my sense is that, in big chunks of the country, it already has been normalized. And celebrated. All I’m doing is pointing out, when they cry over how badly it has worked out for them, that they brought it on themselves.
This was an especially frustrating/annoying drive-by, because I live in Atlanta, follow the local/state news, etc. Had the person who’s profession I dare not name done, for example, a search for AJC articles over the last couple months he would have found factual descriptions about the effects of the law, as well as quotes from various figures that would have illuminated the points of view in the debate. As well as loads of disingenuous BS from GA GOPers, like the state rep from Rome who “wondered” – “why should Fulton County have different rules than Floyd County” in the context of reductions of early voting, drop box hours/locations, etc. Neither he nor the writer of the article mention the detail that Floyd County has a population of 98,000, compared to over 1,060,000 in Fulton County.
Priest, I’m sure he did a through search of Alabama newspapers and finding nothing, was convinced of the rightness of his thoughts…
wj, no malice intended, and I get that. But the ‘they are getting what they deserved’ pops up can often, if one is not careful, make it seem like the system is self-correcting. It ain’t.
can often, if one is not careful, make it seem like the system is self-correcting. It ain’t.
Alas no, it isn’t. At least not in the short run. Nor in the long run, without significant effort on the part of lots of people.
Thing is, McConnell doesn’t care about it on principle. He’s just doing his usual shtick where he makes what sounds like a high minded argument against whatever it is that’s giving team GOP a hard time. He doesn’t care about the free speech rights of corporations. He just wants to piss on liberals.
irony is well and truly dead
Eaten alive by hypocrisy.
Is the third advocatus diaboli by chance me?
If so, I believed my sarcastic intentions to be generally sufficient to make clear where my actual positions are to be found.
Hartmut, my guess is that the 3 are deadly serious, which excludes you.
But who is the third? I don’t think CharlesWT has expressed an opinion on this, and I can’t think of anyone else these days….am I wrong?
GftNC: After thinking about it last night, I decided it must have included CharlesWT as the 3rd, on general principles and methods even if not on this topic.
Hartmut — rest easy.
Check out this by Jamelle Bouie in the Times (that librul rag).
if we could harness the power of the handwaving this fact alone generates, we could stop fossil fuel use cold.
GOP: “This legislation is not racist, so that should be the end of it. People can still vote, can they not? QED.”
McKinney: “That’s good enough for me. If you object, we can obviously dismiss your objections for not being substantive, QED.”
my word for today is: synecdoche
The law includes nary a word about race or Democrats. QED.
*****
If you object, we can obviously dismiss your objections for not being substantive, QED.
The royal “we,” fittingly given the degree of highhanded/handwaving dismissiveness.
Georgia GOP: They won’t get another drop on us!
Marty, McKT, do you remember the recent presidential election? The then president tried to steal the election by putting pressure on Republican officials, including Brad Raffensperger, the Georgia secretary of state, to change the results.
Now politicians in Georgia sympathetic to Trump (Republicans won a tiny majority of the votes in the state elections, and a big majority of the seats) have forced through legislation which increases political control over the election process, and makes voting more onerous in the most populous areas, where Ds win most of the votes.
There’s no actual problem which this legislation seeks to address, other than the Rs problem that they can’t fool enough of the people to win an actual majority of votes for their policies. The one real problem in the Georgia election process – long queues at polling stations in D areas – will be made worse.
Shame on you for not condemning this assault on democracy.
I can’t help myself, but before I start popping off, I want to make sure I’m shooting at the actual target: what are the specific deficiencies in the new GA voting law that make it racist? Thanks.
My apologies—sort of—for this formulation: the media is loaded with overt accusations of the law being racist/Jim Crow, etc. There was a discussion here. I was asking what the fuss was all about.
I put the question to Nous, after quoting him directly, I’m just trying to figure out what the actual harm being done is. Seems like a fair thing to ask, since everyone appears to be very upset. Who is being harmed and how? I am very much not down with anyone being harmed by state action, so please tell me what harm is being inflicted, particularly if it is being inflicted in a focused, racist way. If, as you say, there are “very manifest and obvious problems”, it should be easy to point them out specifically. Thanks.
Nous replied with a series of questions, none of which demonstrate any actual harm to anyone, merely questioning the need for the law (ok, fine, It’s unnecessary, but that’s not Nous’ initial contention).
So, again, I asked, Answering a question with a bunch of questions. Ok, I’m going to say you don’t have much of a case unless you can actually make it out by linking something in the statute to a real world harm.
Where is the undue burden on anyone’s right to vote?
To which Nous offered this: Ok, I’m going to say you don’t have much of a case unless you can[…]
Speaking of tells.
I’ll pass until any of our three devil’s advocates actually engage on substance rather than on procedural, semantic, or historical grounds or in any way acknowledge the larger context in which GA decided to push through these changes.
Nous: what tell, pray tell?
Second question, with the predicate being your own formulation: the discussion is being steered away from the very manifest and obvious problems of equal representation and access to voting: if the problems are “very manifest and obvious” (parenthetical question: do you realize that “obvious” and “very manifest” mean the same thing?), why don’t you tell us what they are? If the GA Leg has done an injustice, or many injustices, spell them out, assuming you are able to do so.
Priest says, I was responding to your mischaracterization of the particulars of the circumstances of that particular issue.
My question to Priest: first, pls show me my word choice that you believe mischaracterizes “the particulars of the circumstances of that particular issue” and explain why I have mischaracterized, if you don’t mind? Of course, you don’t have to. No one is obligated to respond to anyone else here. I will note, however, that it is considered bad form for me to comment and leave but apparently not bad form to offer an ad hominem and then refuse to back it up.
Cleek: a bunch of things that didn’t need to be done but all tend to either work against a specific group of Dems (on the ground) or for the GOP (in the election process).
This may be the case. I will thank Russell at this point to the NYT article, which I read. My overall sense is that, with the exception of the new, 5 person election junta—whose function I haven’t seen yet—the balance of the provisions—as a matter of substantive law—are like rain, everyone gets equally wet. Now, is it reasonable to assume that the GA Leg wrote this law up because it ran out of shit to do and thought this would be a productive use of their time? Not likely. Of course they see electoral advantage in what they are doing. That’s the only reasonable inference. For me, however, unless the law—any law, not just this one—imposes a demonstrable harm on people for whatever reason, I’m just not going to get that upset about it. Now that I’ve learned more about the GA situation, for me, there is a lot less there there.
Vocabulary word for today:
ad hominem
Priest: This was an especially frustrating/annoying drive-by, because I live in Atlanta, follow the local/state news, etc. Had the person who’s profession I dare not name done, for example, a search for AJC articles over the last couple months he would have found factual descriptions about the effects of the law, as well as quotes from various figures that would have illuminated the points of view in the debate.
LJ: Priest, I’m sure he did a through search of Alabama newspapers and finding nothing, was convinced of the rightness of his thoughts…
Actually, what I did was read LJ’s link and make a single, noncontroversial statement about the article that was the opposite of a drive-by since I explicitly stated that I would hang around and finish the discussion at least through today. But, now that the goal posts have been moved—again—and it’s now incumbent on those outside the bubble to anticipate the sensitivities of those like Priest and thoroughly research whatever Priest or others might determine in hindsight should have been researched, I will try to prepare better for future goal post moves.
There are people who either thoroughly misunderstand what I do for a living or who are ignorant either willfully or otherwise. I’m a trial lawyer—usually on the defense, i.e. responding to a claim made by someone, a person, a company, what have you. The system is, by design and definition, adversarial. There are some few lawyers whose style is to attack their opponents across the board: style, integrity, good faith, etc. The name for that style of advocacy is “loser”, because that is what happens in a system where the parties are required to state their case and support it with actual evidence in line with actual law, not just a series of pathetic cheap shots. Most importantly, the issue is decided by either a judge or a jury, so to do the job effectively, one has to be persuasive to a third party.
You can’t refuse to address the other side’s case unless your strategy is to lose by default. Refusing to engage claiming some higher ground as a reason for not dignifying an opposing view is what people who don’t have an answer do. I rarely see it among experienced lawyers, but it’s not too uncommon among beginners. They either learn quickly how ineffective it is or they find out they can’t make a living and do something else.
Real life is no different for me, except I substitute reason and logic–my reason and my logic–for law. Just as in the courtroom, I don’t win every fight and I learn more from losing than winning. My thanks to those who tolerate me and are willing to engage.
Cleek quoted this:
McKinney, someone already presented data about who ends up standing in line the longest to vote, but because that data was limited to a category of voters you objected to, even though it was a category relevant to the metric, you dismissed it. The situation described above will make that problem worse, but because it’s a problem you aren’t likely to acknowledge, its worsening probably doesn’t bother you.
Just as a hypothetical, do you think unnecessarily standing in terribly long lines to vote is a harm?
do you think unnecessarily standing in terribly long lines to vote is a harm?
maybe it’s just that the other, better, areas are being rewarded for voting correctly.
I’ll give McKTX the benefit of the doubt, if he can correctly guess the number of jellybeans in this jar.
Hey, when the US were founded elections were put on Tuesdays so people in rural areas could use the whole of Monday [no travel on Sundays!]to reach the next polling location, so they could vote on Tuesday morning and be home in the evening. If people then were willing and able to sacrifice two whole workdays, then the urban lowlifes of to-day can’t reasonably complain that they have to stand in line for 10 hours or less. Clearly beats a 2-day trip on a horse-cart given how bad the roads were then (although it’s only a matter of time before it will be as bad as then again given the fundamental opposition to investement in infrastructure and its maintenance displayed by the modern GOP).
Player, ref, commissioner of the league.
You all have fun now.
My apologies—sort of—for this formulation: the media is loaded with overt accusations of the law being racist/Jim Crow, etc.
I’ve heard that, on the highest authority, it’s more than Jim Crow. It’s Jim Eagle! So many things these days are at most Jimmy Sparrow.
McKinney, you were obviously stung by comments by some of us here about your lawyerliness, and your adversarial approach. Speaking personally (daughter of an eminent – usually on the defense – lawyer) I certainly don’t hold the first against you, and although the second can be difficult in the context of a usually friendly, even when sparring, blog, I value your contributions. But the point I have made about your arguing with us about views we don’t hold is difficult; I find it so, and I’m not the only one. russell said that you were the first person to use the word “racist” about this new law, and I believe him without having to check. You might have said “I know nobody here has specifically said it’s racist, but that accusation is all over the media. What do you guys think?”
I don’t want to dictate your language, not that I actually could, but there is a difference in tone. Now, I do actually think that the intent of the law is to disenfranchise Dem voters, many or most of whom in GA are black. This seems to be incidentally racist, if only incidentally. But given the US history (often openly acknowledged) of the disenfranchisement of black voters, this should give you a clue (and pause) when considering whether to be “moved” by this issue. Consider, at a minimum, Pro Bono’s comment above at 10.36. You seemed to feel that American democracy was in trouble during the Trump Big Lie about the election – why are you not “moved” by transparent attempts to disenfranchise certain categories of voters?
Structural racism is such a hoot!
Crossed up with GftNC.
although it’s only a matter of time before it will be as bad as then again given the fundamental opposition to investement in infrastructure and its maintenance displayed by the modern GOP
A term for the current infrastructure legislation is MUGA – Make Unions Great Again.
I’d say the new Georgia law could be used by fair-minded officials to conduct fair elections.
It also empowers politicians to run grossly unfair elections.
The evidence, for example the closing of polling stations after Shelby County v. Holder, is that politicians in Georgia will exercise any powers they have for partisan advantage and against democracy.
This piece, in today’s NYT, headlined Georgia’s New Law and the Risk of Election Subversion seems to fairhandedly address the ways that the elections were already at risk, the ways that the new law could make it worse, and the other risks which are not addressed by the Dems’ new HR1 law:
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/06/upshot/georgia-election-law-risk.html?action=click&module=In%20Other%20News&pgtype=Homepage
And what Pro Bono said @12.05, particularly the last paragraph.
synecdoche
indeed.
McKinney: —the balance of the provisions—as a matter of substantive law—are like rain, everyone gets equally wet.
But the situation is actually like this. We have two groups. One has rain gear (hats/hoods, rain coats, boots, etc.). The other . . . does not. Now we pass a law banning umbrellas — which everybody had been using without problems previously.
It’s true, without umbrellas, everybody gets equally wet. On the outside. But only one group gets soaked to the skin. Arguing that the law is neutral because “everyone gets equally wet” is, at best, disingenuous.
the balance of the provisions—as a matter of substantive law—are like rain, everyone gets equally wet.
1. one group was sortof used to the nice weather and made plans around it
2. there was no reason to cause the rain except for #1
it’s a petty, spiteful, clearly-targeted bunch of crap.
AlaMcTex writes:
what I did was read LJ’s link [sic] and make a single, noncontroversial statement about the article that was the opposite of a drive-by
Here is AlaMcTex’s entire first comment
I can’t help myself, but before I start popping off, I want to make sure I’m shooting at the actual target: what are the specific deficiencies in the new GA voting law that make it racist? Thanks.
My post was about the tension between corporations that want to keep in good graces with customers, and not one, but two situations, Georgia and Texas. So you reading my “link” and coming up with an orthogonal point is the definition of a drive-by. Circling around the block to check still makes it a drive-by.
I realize that topics meander and certainly I’m not shocked that the question of whether these lawS are racist emerged. The point of talking about what corporations are doing is to perhaps set aside the question of whether it is racism and frame the post in a way that we could discuss how responsive should corporations be to consumers and if they have a civic responsibility. But your asking about Georgia and not about Texas indicates that you are just interested in trying to be an asshole. Mission accomplished.
I’m all for a discussion about how the law is racist and I’d be happy if you found some link, any link, to suggest that (Maybe you could find one of ‘Sullivan’s brutal fact-based takedowns’ that you get off on waving around) But really, such a transparently disingenuous way (I’m trying to find out what the fuss is. O rly?) is such bullshit. At least be honest enough to state your opinions. That asking about the Georgia law is another one of those tells. You could have told us more about the Texas situation, and provided some actual content. I’m sure you would have gotten pushback from people who might have a different opinion than you, but it would be infinitely better than you wandering in here with your ‘What, me worry?’ badge on.
I note more and more writers are using the word ’emetic’ in their writing. Reading your prose makes me understand why.
McKinneyTexas – to be clear, my comment about tells, along with the bolded part, was not about you being a lawyer. I don’t expect you to stop being a lawyer in your approach to a discussion any more than I expect myself to stop being a rhetorician.
The tell I am speaking of, though, is the habit you have of treating every discussion here as one for which the rest of the commentariat (Marty and CharlesWT excepted) are arguing a case (your words above, bolded) and the way you structure your interactions with the discussion makes it clear that you see yourself as a judge considering the merits of our arguments, rather than trying to understand the situation we are discussing in order to find some shared understanding.
My assumption, meanwhile, is that in the time you spent putting together a detailed response to the blog proceedings here and demanded evidence, you could have gone to any number of national and international groups that monitor elections and advocate for free and fair government. The Brennan Center comes to mind as one that shows up in the reporting for the NYT, the Guardian, and the AJC. Maybe your time will be better spent going to their website and going through their evidence rather than coming here and expecting us to paraphrase it for you and then deciding the merit of the issue based mostly on the quality of our second-hand presentation.
Then we could discuss the issue, not defend our presentation of someone else’s research and analysis.
Just a thought.
McKinney, you were obviously stung by comments by some of us here about your lawyerliness, and your adversarial approach.
Actually, there isn’t much stinging going on here, at least as perceived by me. I tend to view it as lame sidestepping. I have zero problem with people giving it back to me substantively–hell, I’m pretty sure I invite it. What I have an issue with is moving goalposts and snotty cheap shots. If someone doesn’t want to engage, then just don’t. I could care less. If someone makes an assertion and is asked to substantiate or explain, as a matter of comity, if the request is reasonable, a response is due. I try to follow this rule. For the most part, the long-time commenters here and I engage well. Some not so much. Today, for whatever reason, I felt like addressing the latter crowd. I usually follow my own advice and ignore them. Also, in terms of tone and tenor, I’m pretty much in the mix IMO.
And, with that said, let me address your direct question: why are you not “moved” by transparent attempts to disenfranchise certain categories of voters?
I think that if you, for example, read the NYT piece and look at the statutory language, there is nothing facially or substantively that disenfranchises voters of any class or other identifiable description. Therefore, I think your formulation is overwrought. I think much of the reaction to these new laws is overwrought. At worst, the rules have changed in some respects, but they apply equally to all. The changes are not onerous nor are they unprecedented or uncommon.
As an illustration, heads are beginning to explode on the right about raising or eliminating the SALT cap, the spin being that it is “blue state” preference to allow underwriting of blue state heavy spending. Or something along those lines. Even if there is something to that argument, so what? If the blue staters are paying a crap ton in blue state taxes for blue state services, that’s their choice and singling blue staters out for disparate treatment *for that reason alone* is chickenshit. That was my view then and it hasn’t changed.
I’d say the new Georgia law could be used by fair-minded officials to conduct fair elections.
It also empowers politicians to run grossly unfair elections.
Yes and yes, potentially. Right now, it’s speculation–possibly informed and possibly justified speculation, but speculation nonetheless as to what the future holds. GA already has one bad look, signing the law under the portrait of that ante bellum mansion. Padiddling with an election under the guise of state-sanctioned oversight invites Federal scrutiny and fulfills every worst case now being predicted, so doubly a bad look.
Then we could discuss the issue, not defend our presentation of someone else’s research and analysis.
Just a thought.
Well, if I may: why am I obliged to do research that you deem relevant (and how am I supposed to know what you deem relevant?) before asking you or anyone here a question about a statement that your or someone else might make?
I appreciate what appears to be a reasoned and non-confrontational attempt to engage, but I’m pretty sure no one here is expected to do background research from a specific perspective as a prerequisite to *asking a question*.
You made several definitive statements about the effect of the GA laws. I asked for the back-up. What is wrong with that, and what is wrong with expecting a straightforward answer? As me a reasonable question, I’ll try to answer. I’ve been doing that here since ’07 or ’08.
the way you structure your interactions with the discussion makes it clear that you see yourself as a judge considering the merits of our arguments, rather than trying to understand the situation we are discussing in order to find some shared understanding.
One advantage of re-reading a reasoned effort to engage is that I often miss important comments/observations on my first read-through. I plead guilty to “considering the merits of [your] arguments.” I would go farther and say that I openly question arguments and positions I find to be wanting. I am happy when an exchange of views produces a shared understanding, but that would be the exception rather than the rule. The more common outcome of a lengthy exchange is something like “no resolution” or “now I understand your position better, thanks” or “you have given me something to think about.” But these are outcomes, not goals.
It may be that you are not interested – – as you have every right to be, please do not misunderstand me – – in my style of-and-take. If that’s the case, I will try to respect your wishes, but I’m sure there will come a time when you will take a position that I will either question or note my exception to. You are under no obligation to respond. Thanks for letting me know your position. I am attempting to return the favor.
Right now, it’s speculation–possibly informed and possibly justified speculation, but speculation nonetheless as to what the future holds.
So the law has the potential to allow for some very undemocratic actions. That potential must be justified because of the actual problems that have been solved. What were those problems?
Also, too, does the law make it easier or harder for people to vote? If harder, why? What problems did that solve?
at the risk of sounding like a boor… maybe it would be better if this blog didn’t turn into non-stop attacks on the character of one of the regulars?
So the law has the potential to allow for some very undemocratic actions. That potential must be justified because of the actual problems that have been solved. What were those problems?
Maybe. I don’t know and I don’t have the indepth knowledge of what issues GA has had in the past. Russell’s NYT article referenced problems in Fulton County that I took to mean election officials were derelict in some manner, but that was just my take-away from reading the article. I could have it wrong.
Also, too, does the law make it easier or harder for people to vote? If harder, why? What problems did that solve?
Again, I don’t know. My reading of the statute is that, bottom line, not that much of a much. If it turns out there was a hidden sinker that blows up down the line, that will become known when it happens. As for “what problems did it solve”, I’m sure the proponents have their answers, whether its administrative efficiency, more timely vote counting, election security and whatnot. Who knows? I don’t.
Of course they see electoral advantage in what they are doing. That’s the only reasonable inference.
That’s pretty much my take on it.
And it’s of a piece with a number of attempts by (R)’s to make it harder for people who don’t tend to vote for them to vote at all. Which I find offensive.
If you can’t win without gaming the system, the problem is you, not the system.
As an aside, I guess I want to say that (a) I recognize what seems to me to be a lawyerly approach in McK’s participation here, and (b) it used to bug me but then I just decided to not worry about it.
We all have our quirks. I sure do.
Not saying how anyone else should respond to any of that, just saying how I do, FWIW.
A term for the current infrastructure legislation is MUGA – Make Unions Great Again.
Yay!!
As for “what problems did it solve”, I’m sure the proponents have their answers, whether its administrative efficiency, more timely vote counting, election security and whatnot. Who knows? I don’t.
Proponents reasons, as they express them, come down to:
Not because there was any. But just because those same proponents spent months claiming that there was. Even though they could never produce real evidence of any.
So yeah, they have “reasons.” But administrative efficency? More timely counting of votes? Somehow none of their public statements and arguments touch on those.
Just as a hypothetical, do you think unnecessarily standing in terribly long lines to vote is a harm?
I missed this one, sorry. I think the question is subjective as is the answer, but the intent seems to be: if the statute, by design, is calculated to and, in fact, does result in one party, or identifiable faction thereof, be offered objectively reduced opportunities to vote, yes, that is a “harm.” On its face, I don’t see where the statute does that. If the polls are open for early voting 10 or 17 or whatever days prior to election day, it’s the individual voter’s issue to get to the polls. If a particular cohort waits until the last day to vote, I think long lines on the last day are reasonably foreseeable and avoidable.
Pro Bono: I’d say the new Georgia law could be used by fair-minded officials to conduct fair elections.
It also empowers politicians to run grossly unfair elections.
McKinney: Yes and yes, potentially.
A new election law, addressing no previous problems, which empowers politicians to run grossly unfair elections is a bad law, and in a state like GA speculation that the latter (bold type) will turn out to be the case is a pretty good bet. As for it happening in the wake of a large number of GOP politicians seeking to overturn a free and fair election (or what else would you call the vote to not certify on 1/6?), I would say it moves beyond speculation to informed prediction.
And what hsh said @01.20 above.
But why are you not “moved” by this very, or even rather, likely possibility?
And why, out of interest, did you concentrate on the possible racist effect of the legislation, as opposed to the threat-to-democracy effect which we, here, are mainly discussing?
maybe it would be better if this blog didn’t turn into non-stop attacks on the character of one of the regulars?
Yeah, I agree, although God knows putting up with that russell guy is hard sometimes!
don’t get me started.
Yeah, I agree, although God knows putting up with that russell guy is hard sometimes!
Yes, all those reasonable-minded polemics that require multiple uses of the scroll bar…
But why are you not “moved” by this very, or even rather, likely possibility?
Well, for all of the reasons I have outlined above, including in particular my review of the statute, I believe your formulation is not warranted and overstated. IOW, we see things differently. I’m open to actual bad things happening down the road and being addressed at that time.
And why, out of interest, did you concentrate on the possible racist effect of the legislation, as opposed to the threat-to-democracy effect which we, here, are mainly discussing?
I think I addressed this upthread, but my initial thought process was that huge amounts of the buzz outside ObWi is all about the “racist GA voting law”, and so I was asking about whether people here thought it was racist. The answer is, some do and some don’t.
On its face, I don’t see where the statute does that.
On it’s face, it doesn’t.
In the context of the actual demographics and voting patterns of folks in GA, it does.
A lot of the debate here (and elsewhere) seems to be focused on ‘show me where in the law it says that’. To a large degree I think that misses a larger point.
The readily foreseeable consequences of the law are that people who tend to vote for (D)’s will find it harder to vote. And that’s why they are trying to get it passed. As you yourself note, it’s the only reasonable inference.
(R)’s want to make it harder for people who generally don’t vote for them to vote at all. It’s not acceptable.
As an aside, I’d also say that any situation where people have to stand in line for many hours to cast their vote is an indication of a broken system. Regardless of the partisan aspect. Voting is the primary way that the overwhelming majority of people engage with their own government. We are supposed to be a self-governing polity; enabling people to vote should be at the top of our list of public priorities. IMO.
I was asking about whether people here thought it was racist.
For some of the legislators who passed the bill, I think it was strictly about keeping political power, with race quite incidental. For some, it absolutely was all about race, and making it as hard as possible for non-whites to vote. And for some, both factors were important.
However, I think it wildly unlikely that any of them honestly believed that it had anything at all to do with solving real concerns about real problems with the voting process. As opposed to with the voting results.
I will say that, whatever the actual motivations, it’s hard to argue persuasively that the law has any legitimate purpose.
Major League Baseball announced this morning that the All Star game will be played at Coors Field in Denver. There is a moderate Twitter storm going on with people asserting that Colorado’s voting laws are tougher than the new ones passed in Georgia. That may be true for in-person voting… but in Colorado in-person voting is for the <5% edge cases. >95% of people receive their ballot by mail and return it either by mail or using one of the hundreds of drop boxes in the state. For that >95%, there’s no showing ID or waiting in any sort of line.
When experts rate the states’ voting systems for security, accuracy, and ease of use, Colorado is always in the top five and usually in the top three.
Max Boot (what has this world come to?):
I think the question is subjective as is the answer, but the intent seems to be: if the statute, by design, is calculated to and, in fact, does result in one party, or identifiable faction thereof, be offered objectively reduced opportunities to vote, yes, that is a “harm.”
So it’s okay if it makes it harder for everyone to vote (for no good reason)?
For context, this isn’t the only country that holds elections, and it’s the richest nation in human history. Yet people stand in line to vote here far more often and for for longer waits than in other economically developed democracies.
https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-54532189
Forget making it even harder for people to vote. Just leaving things as they are is bad enough.
So it’s okay if it makes it harder for everyone to vote (for no good reason)?
If it does, to what extent is it “harder” (harder than what?) and to what extent can people mitigate or eliminate the issue? I don’t see this a binary or imposing a tangible burden *if* people manage their affairs reasonably.
harder than what?
Um, harder than it used to be, before the law was enacted? Seems obvious, but….
I don’t see this a binary or imposing a tangible burden *if* people manage their affairs reasonably.
i’m willing to bet that nothing in the text of the bill even hints at this being a reason to pass any part of any of these provisions.
social engineering is not the reason.
no doubt the good people of GA will adapt themselves to yet another attempt to make their lives harder than it needs to be.
but, for fuck’s sake, maybe the GOP could stop trying to make it harder for people who don’t vote for them to vote?
“but, for fuck’s sake, maybe the GOP could stop trying to make it harder for people who don’t vote for them to vote”
This is the most ridiculous of all the arguments, for whatever value of harder it might be, it is applied to everyone. The Dems want special treatment of people they anticipate will vote for them. But the law doesn’t actually make it much harder to voge.
This is pretty pointless by now, but McK referred to “partisans” handing out water to voters who were in long lines due to their poor management of their affairs (to use his phrase above) in waiting until election day to vote.
I responded that there was no partisan identification to either those giving or receiving water, and that some of the instances of long lines occurred on early voting days, due to the far fewer voting locations during early voting.
His response to that was “so it’s all about the water, nothing to see here.” Ignoring the correction and additional information. I responded that I was addressing (what I considered) mischaracterizations of that specific part of his comment – I didn’t realize it was only allowed for me to respond to everything in his lengthy comment, rather than just the part I knew to be factually inaccurate and incomplete. I don’t see how that’s ad hominem, I was trying to clarify the narrow scope of my comment. Replace “mischaracterizations” with “mistaken descriptions” if that depersonalizes it.
As to research, nous’s response works for me. I have been living through this as news, not research. I don’t make comments about the granular details of situations in other cities/states that I am only vaguely familiar with and expect others to explain it all to me in the course of a blog comment thread. And yet when specific examples and data are provided (and I’m not going to repeat portions of previous comments where I provided such), they get no response, not even acknowledgement before dismissal.
Leaving meta behind, I hope that Kevin Drum’s take is what will happen, that the effects on election outcomes will be trivial because efforts towards voter education about the changes and turnout efforts will swamp the intended curtailment of “non-quality” votes.
McTX: I’m open to actual bad things happening down the road and being addressed at that time.
A somewhat troubling sentence, there.
Preventing “actual bad things” is often (if not usually, if not always) less fuss and bother than “addressing” them when they occur.
Not wanting to guess what “bad things” McKinney may be “open to” the possibility of, I can easily imagine that “addressing them” after the fact could involve either violence or litigation.
To lawyers in general, litigation may count as a feature and not a bug, of course:)
–TP
The Atlanta Braves baseball franchise should move to Coors Field as well.
The U.S. headquarters of Dominion Voting Systems Inc, soon to be enriched by Court-enforced mergers of the fake wealth of the My Pillow guy and other lying, thieving, lunatic Trump insurrectionists on to Dominion’s balance sheet, is exactly three blocks from Coors Field.
QAnon will soon pounce on that. There must be a tunnel of some kind.
I do hope this season’s All-Star game is sufficiently secured against violent right-wing Republican Party terrorism of the sort (and worse) witnessed on January 6, 2021 at the U.S. Capitol and ordered by Donald J. Trump, the same villain for whom the right-wing legislatures in Georgia and Michigan, and others, are squeezing voter access to the polls, a phenomenon toward which innocent conservative faces turn and see nothing.
Water will be available at polling places in those states in future elections, but it will be, because it will have to be, administered thru high pressure fire hoses as it was in the not so distant American past by those intent on restricting access to the franchise, because this will not stand.
The FOX headlines will read: “Democrats All Wet Over Receiving The Water They Demanded!”
The odd claim that new restrictions placed on access to the voting franchise — making it more difficult to vote — are nothing to see here because they apply to everyone is Anatole France-worthy.
“It would be far better if the franchise were not exercised by ignorant, civics-illiterate people, hypnotized by the flimflam that a great nation needs to be fundamentally transformed rather than competently governed.”
Are ignorant, civics-illiterate citizens refused access to deadly weapons guaranteed by the Second Amendment as well? May I hand a dumbass a bottle of water who is standing in line outside a gun store awaiting his turn to vote semi-automatic?
Seems a naive threat to the well-being of the McCarthy types to restrict the first and encourage access to the latter.
How you say … elitist?
As Constitutional scholar and professional wing man and male hooker Matt Gaetz pointed out the other day: the Founders did not bequeath our Second Amendment rights to us for hunting or self-defense; they gave us the right to arm ourselves and to use deadly force against the tyranny of government (and to force the favors of underaged women … in and out …. in and out … of government).
McCarthy and Gaetz presumably have an afternoon set-to scheduled at the OK Corral to settle this hash.
Back to reading.
One advantage of re-reading a reasoned effort to engage is that I often miss important comments/observations on my first read-through. I plead guilty to “considering the merits of [your] arguments.” I would go farther and say that I openly question arguments and positions I find to be wanting.
Thank you for this.
All I am trying to point out here is that, as is often the case, the arguments in a comment thread are often going to be half-assed summary and paraphrase of multiple sources. I definitely understand pointing to a lack of time to engage. My own research time at the moment is taken up by the subjects I have my students write about (science fiction, music, potentially environmentalism and philanthropy). So while I can follow and try to understand things in GA, or WI, or CO, I’m not at leisure to put together an annotated bibliography for those subjects because that writing time is already accounted for with my other subjects.
Knowing this for myself, I try to respond to, for example, the articles that CharlesWT posts links to, not to his own presentation of them (which is usually pretty minimalist, anyway).
That’s an academic habit right there; move the argument as close to the source of the actual disagreement as you can. Sometimes that takes some extra digging, but it usually also leads to a more productive and nuanced discussion.
The conservative movement state legislators in Georgia and Michigan subscribe to the same deeply racial and nationalist political paranoia, and also believe the election was stolen from Trump, as the insurrectionists who on January 6, 2021 attempted to violently overthrow a duly elected US Government, and murdered human beings in the attempt.
https://digbysblog.net/2021/04/shocked-i-tell-you-shocked/
At the very least, I can question their motivations for restricting access to the polls.
Yeah, but they wanted to murder Mike Pence, too, not that HE seems to mind.
Well, then, nothing to see here, I guess.
Marty: “This is the most ridiculous of all the arguments, for whatever value of harder it might be, it is applied to everyone.”
McKinney: “the balance of the provisions—as a matter of substantive law—are like rain, everyone gets equally wet.”
This line of reasoning is the very same line used to justify the suppression of black voting in the Jim Crow era. THE. EXACT. SAME. BS.
Irony is indeed deader than a doornail.
As for everybody tiptoeing around the word “racism” let’s get real here-the law in its majesty has deemed disparate outcomes as pretty much the current embodiment of RACISM.
This piece of shit legislation would have been burned at the stake by a decent Justice Department before that corporate fuck John Roberts gutted the Voting Rights Act in Shelby County. THAT WAS THE LAW…
But you know when the other side trots out garbage like this, you kinda’ know they are losing the argument, and are really not even trying.
I’m open to actual bad things happening down the road and being addressed at that time.
Actual bad things could happen, McKinney, whether you are open to that happening or not. I’m with Tony P on this.
So, in your own words, the new law potentially empowers politicians to run grossly unfair elections. And although you have not admitted that this law was passed to address non-existent problems, given the near-universal verdict that the GA elections were without fraud, I think we can take this as fact. So the GOP have passed an unnecessary law which potentially empowers politicians to run grossly unfair elections, and you are not “moved” by this, or even much bothered by it, and you think the general response to it an overreaction. You were horrified by Trump and his post-election conduct, but you cannot see the connection between these anti-democratic behaviours, both supported by most of the GOP. OK, I think I’ve got it.
Um, harder than it used to be, before the law was enacted? Seems obvious, but…
Harder by 1%, by 3.5%, tens times harder, harder how? It’s a pretty squishy concept. It’s harder to get a DL in TX now–why? No idea? Is it hard to vote? Not for me–I just show up and vote. The only lines I remember were for early voting back in the day and it seemed to impact everyone the same.
A somewhat troubling sentence, there.
I will attempt to clarify: I am open to being observant to something bad happening in the future and, if it does, addressing it at that time. I am not hoping something bad will happen, I am simply leaving open the potential for the GA law to be abused/misused, producing the need for intervention when something actually happens.
All I am trying to point out here is that, as is often the case, the arguments in a comment thread are often going to be half-assed summary and paraphrase of multiple sources.
We all identify, assess and discuss things differently, the differences often being very subtle. Conversations go sideways for no apparent reason. I try to proof my work before I post and I often edit, if not severely edit if not delete entirely large blocks of my awesome prose. Over the years, I’ve developed somewhat of an ear for how my BS will sit with a half dozen or so ObWi regulars and I try to stay inside my sense of their collective tolerance level. I frequently go back over my stuff and imagine what the response from my mental focus group would be and think, ‘maybe this is a bit much.’
That said, ObWi has always been a place where views were stated, exchanged, challenged, etc. This is only website I visit, much less comment. The give and take can be spicey. My personal rules of the road are to *try*: to ask reasonable questions, respond to questions, state my position, defend it and avoid getting personal. I’m human and subject to error.
That’s an academic habit right there; move the argument as close to the source of the actual disagreement as you can. Sometimes that takes some extra digging, but it usually also leads to a more productive and nuanced discussion.
Not any different than my goal, we just have different ways of getting there.
Thanks for the reply.
This line of reasoning is the very same line used to justify the suppression of black voting in the Jim Crow era. THE. EXACT. SAME. BS
I read that piece this morning. I was not impressed. But, perspectives differ.
Harder by 1%, by 3.5%, tens times harder, harder how? It’s a pretty squishy concept.
Just because it can’t be readily quantified doesn’t make it squishy. Do you have to travel farther? Do you have to wait longer? Do you have to jump through more administrative hoops? Do you have to do those things in a shorter amount of time?
The question is, to me, why should it be any harder at all when it’s already harder than it should be? Why is it easier to vote in other states than it is in Georgia? Why is it easier to vote in other countries than it is in the United States?
(Is it harder to understand quantum mechanics than to learn the alphabet? If so, by what percentage? Oh, you can’t come up with a number? Get lost, then!)
The question is, to me, why should it be any harder at all when it’s already harder than it should be? Why is it easier to vote in other states than it is in Georgia? Why is it easier to vote in other countries than it is in the United States?
Ok, and you may be right, but the GA Leg says otherwise. I suspect the US Senate and the House are going to do some things that make my life harder. I don’t think they should, but it’s going to happen, probably. The context will be different, but the “harder” part will be there.
Others will think the imposition on me and others like me, while regrettable, has other, offsetting benefits and on balance, it’s the right thing to do. That’s more or less the continuing argument in a democracy.
On the matter at hand, I just don’t see this voting law as a huge thing, nor an objective injustice, I just don’t. Others disagree and I’ve read pretty much every comment here. I’m unmoved. If things that I can’t see in the statute produce material and unjustified burdens on voting down the road, I’m open to rethinking. That’s just where I come out on it.
“This is the most ridiculous of all the arguments, for whatever value of harder it might be, it is applied to everyone.”
so. fucking. dumb.
poll taxes and literacy tests were applied to everyone, too. guess who they affected most.
the water synecdoche is applied to everyone. but it’s only an issue for people who have to wait in long lines. and who are those people? take a willlld fucking guess.
and for bonus points, see if you can figure out why the shitbrains in the GA legislature suddenly found water to be an issue that deserves their attention.
and then see if you can figure out how to claim that reducing per-capita ballot drop-off locations in certain counties while raising it in others is ‘applied equally’.
and for bonus points, see if there’s any overlap in the long lines targets and the reduced ballot drop-off targets.
man, talk about needing a hat.
Why is it harder in any state? Why can’t we all do things exactly the same? Why are there any rules?
Because different people perceive problems differently and solve perceived problems differently.
It should be as hard as it needs to be to avoid abuses. Those are perceived differently. One of the red herring arguments is that there aren’t any widespread abuses. There are lots of things we have laws for that don’t have widespread abuse, and some that are abused all the time. That’s not a condition for creating a law. Potential abuse at any level can suffice.
Priest saw no partisan identification in people passing out water and food. Others did. Now you can’t, but water stations can be provided, I think they should have been mandatory but, hell, I live in Florida now and we have our own stupid disagreements.
I don’t think campaigns should be allowed to drive busses around to pick up people and take them to the polls. That seems pretty much election interference to me. But then I think people should make the effort in, for Georgia, 19 days of early voting plus voting day to get themselves to the polls.
Voting is a right everyone should exercise, but it should be OK if it requires a person to do something except wake up on election day and decide to vote.
I was not impressed.
This response is not substantive.
I’m open to actual bad things happening down the road and being addressed at that time.
LOL. Then obviously enacting legislation that makes bad things more likely is not all that bad!
To state the argument is to refute it.
This response is not substantive.
I do not value Bouie’s viewpoints. His contention that, because people said that Jim Crow was race neutral (it wasn’t, but so what), therefore any argument that a statute today is race neutral is tainted by prior use of the same argument is just really shitty logic in my view. I looked at the statute, courtesy of the NYT, and it is race neutral. I don’t care how Bouie characterizes what assholes 80 years ago said. I can read English and make up my own mind.
but it should be OK if it requires a person to do something except wake up on election day and decide to vote.
This “something” is done when the person registers to vote, thereby expressing their desire to actively participate in our civic life.
Making it more difficult is simply opening the door to abuse (real, potential, or imagined).
Why is it harder in any state? Why can’t we all do things exactly the same? Why are there any rules? Because different people perceive problems differently and solve perceived problems differently.
Living where I do, I ask myself at least one of those questions. Every time experts look at states’ voting systems for security, accuracy, and ease of use, the states using contemporary vote by mail systems win. Every. Single. Time. There’s a known best practice. Anyone who isn’t using it has something that they value more than security, accuracy, and ease of use.
It should be as hard as it needs to be to avoid abuses. Those are perceived differently.
Absolutely true. And for some, it is perceived as abuse if their side doesn’t win the election. Which makes it difficult to see how their could be free and fair elections unless everybody miraculously agrees on who should win every time.
Harder by 1%, by 3.5%, tens times harder, harder how? It’s a pretty squishy concept.
A gaming house that sets its slots at 0.3% ‘take’ will still grind up the customers in the long run. For a political party trying to maintain its electoral edge in highly polarized closely contested elections and running against a demographic tide, well, a 0.3% edge can be the difference as between winning or losing.
This should not be difficult to understand.
I do not value Bouie’s viewpoints.
Getting less substantive all the time.
Jim Crow politicians also claimed their election rules were ‘race neutral’…but we all know the impact and/or application was definitely not.
Defenders of this piece of legislative garbage are saying the same words, but the impact will most likely be disparate when evaluated by taking into account race.
Calling this line of argument “shitty” is just calling it names, and is not substantive.
Getting less substantive all the time.
Ok, well, I guess I give up then.
All, I think–for my part–I’ve said all there is for me to say. I’m wrapping this one up (for me). Time permitting, I’ll try to drop in again fairly soon on another topic.
Just to show how evenhanded I am, there are some politicians in New York that should be taken to the woodshed for making the voting process unnecessarily difficult.
How that came to be is unknown to me (machine politics?), but I bet that it didn’t start with, “hey, those blacks like to vote on Sundays, and the all vote for those commie Democrats, so let’s make voting on Sunday more difficult, and just to show how neutral we are, we shall make it a universal rule…LOL, sucks to be you, commie Dems!”*
*from the legislative hearings. Oh, oops..my bad…there wasn’t much in the way of that waste of time.
Cleek writes
at the risk of sounding like a boor… maybe it would be better if this blog didn’t turn into non-stop attacks on the character of one of the regulars?
Normally, I’d say cleek and I are possibly about at the 90% level in terms of being on the same page. This is the other 10%. AlaMcT (that appellation is to remind everyone that he admitted to coming here to throw bombs) is just getting what he dishes out. The only reason I can see that his attacks are not non-stop is because he scurries off after he picks a fight and then pops up anew, repeating the same behavior. If we lined them up, I’m pretty sure they’d be no break. Reaper, meet sower.
nous, on the other hand, I think approaches 99% for same pagitude
The tell I am speaking of, though, is the habit you have of treating every discussion here as one for which the rest of the commentariat (Marty and CharlesWT excepted) are arguing a case (your words above, bolded) and the way you structure your interactions with the discussion makes it clear that you see yourself as a judge considering the merits of our arguments, rather than trying to understand the situation we are discussing in order to find some shared understanding.
That last part bolded. At the risk of ‘mind reading’ (though I think it has been proven pretty much beyond a doubt by what AlaMcT has written), he’s not interested in shared understanding and he’s not interested in discussing the situation. He’s interested in scoring points. He’s interested in using this blog to assure himself that his view is always correct. If we treat him like just another guy, we just make this blog another stage for the counselor AlaMcTx strut. I’m sure that he has picked out the anecdote from here to recycle somewhere else so when he’s talking to conservatives that shows he’s better than they are, he’s a conservative with a broad and diverse group of people. However, he wouldn’t acknowledge that here because it might put a crack in his defenses.
And from the man himself
Others disagree and I’ve read pretty much every comment here. I’m unmoved. If things that I can’t see in the statute produce material and unjustified burdens on voting down the road, I’m open to rethinking. That’s just where I come out on it.
I can’t speak for others, but if he had started this off with this, maybe there wouldn’t have been a pile on in that we wouldn’t have had to play what’s my line to get him to admit it and so just maybe it wouldn’t be ‘personalized’. (I’d argue that one ‘personalize’ things when you lie about why something is being asked.) I’m not sure why that is so hard to understand. But as far as the reaction to AlaMcT, it seems like just returning the volley, it’s not like he wandered in here and got assailed because he’s a conservative lawyer from Texas.
I can’t speak for others, but for my group of three, it is AlaMcT, Marty and CharlesWT. Marty comes in basically unhinged and angry, gets whatever it is off his chest. There is some pushback, but I don’t give him nicknames or cringe when I see him post though I do wonder what he has read that has set him off. CharlesWT simply posts his Reason article or whatever he’s been able to find on a quick google as a rejoinder to whatever is being discussed. I’d appreciate it if he might relate why he thinks the link is so apropos and what experiences of his might be related to it, but I don’t see that happening. So I bitch about that, but after I get that off my chest, I’m good.
AlaMcT, on the other hand, treats this place like a court with the sole objective being for him to win the argument, ideally against as many people as he can. By treating everyone here like the simulcra in his head, he picks fights. Maybe, when he gets to Austin and has time to participate in this list on a more regular basis, he might change. Believe it or not, I’m hopeful. But he seems to want to behave like such an asshole now, he is going to find that the stench will cling to him. Emetic indeed.
If things that I can’t see in the statute produce material and unjustified burdens on voting down the road, I’m open to rethinking.
OK, so let’s assume this legislation, enacted by people who have evinced massive bad faith, is in good faith, then if it’s used to steal an election or two, then we can protest.
…for whatever value of harder it might be, it is applied to everyone…
Right, everyone has an equal right to dine at the Ritz, and everyone has an equal right to overcome unnecessary barriers put in the way of voting.
If a particular cohort waits until the last day to vote, I think long lines on the last day are reasonably foreseeable and avoidable.
Here in the land of the unfree, I decide to vote on election day, I go to the polling station, I vote, I’m back home 20 minutes after I left my house. No forward planning is involved. That’s what happens in democracies. Why do you want to run a non-democracy?
It seems to me, from what Marty has written, that he sees voting restrictions as a sort of test of will, or test of faith. If the obstacles to voting are there and are known, then all that it proves when they stop someone from voting is that the person involved didn’t want to vote badly enough.
Fair inference, Marty, or would you like to qualify this in some way?
Except Michael, no one has to provide proof of identity after the first registration? See, there is no chance that becomes “widespread” voter fraud. But it leaves no check if someone moves out of state and the new person receives their ballot? Or did I read that wrong?
Don’t know if McKinney is still reading. But if he is, he might find this enlightening:
https://thebulwark.com/the-state-assault-on-voting-rights-hurts-all-of-us/
Note that the authors are a) conservatives, b) Republicans, c) former elected officials. One is also a former chair of the Republican National Committee. They make no bones about the negative impacts of the rash of new laws, in Georgia and elsewhere.
So, about McKinney:
I see no harm, myself, in his “style” or “approach” or “behavior” or whatever. It’s not like “winning an argument” in the comment section of even so estimable a blog as Obsidian Wings really amounts to much. Unless there’s an electorally significant number of lurkers around here who are inclined to adopt McKinney’s POV in the absence of responses to his comments, I don’t feel compelled to rebut or refute his “arguments”.
As I have said before, McKinneyTexas represents (to me) what “reasonable Republicans” are like — for better and for worse. Yes, I know wj calls himself a Republican and McKinney doesn’t, but still. So I live in everlasting hope that McKinney may someday persuade me to change my mind about some Republican position. It could happen, but not just because McKinney feels he “won” an argument.
Anyway, when McKinney writes
I am reminded of a question I have asked myself before: how could I convince a color-blind person that not only can other people tell the difference between green and blue, say, but that blue and green are actually different in reality?
The meta-question, of course, is: why try? It’s no skin off my own nose. At best, if he’s my friend, I may feel an obligation to try because the awareness that green is different from blue may prove useful to him, someday, in some bizarre set of circumstances. But my sense of obligation would not overwhelm me.
–TP
Trump explains the Georgia and Michigan voting restrictions:
https://www.mediamatters.org/newsmax/newsmax-host-and-donald-trump-tie-new-restrictive-voting-laws-effort-overturn-2020-election
“Next election, and we won’t have to fight it after the fact.”
Coincidentally when innocent-faced conservatives might take another look, around the same time global climate change merits another look-see.
nous, I don’t see much of this as obstacles. Proving you are eligible to vote isn’t an obstacle it is simply a requirement. Getting to the polls is how it was done, not a n obstacle, a requirement. Easing that requirement too much adds risk.
The Democrats have been out literally convincing people to vote that were apathetic at best for decades, ballot harvesting, bussing people to polls, feeding them on the way, this isn’t even handed let’s get everyone to vote stuff, it’s getting our people to vote stuff.
Making sure all that doesn’t cross a line is ok with me. There are certainly places for helping the elderly and disabled to vote, all good. But campaigns and local party people shouldn’t be allowed to collect votes or people to vote.
So, a fair inference with some caveats.
The part of the GA law that is most worrying from the point-of-view of both the Brennan Center and the ACLU is the provision that allows unlimited challenges to the voter roles and that cedes to the legislature the right to overrule local election boards. Here’s some context for that:
https://www.gregpalast.com/wisconsin-movers-didnt-move/
https://www.gregpalast.com/wp-content/uploads/Palast-Fund-ACLU_Georgia-Voter-Purge-Errors-Download.pdf
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/mass-voter-challenges-georgia-runoffs
These mass challenges are designed to cause bottlenecks and suppress votes, and the reports document who is targeted by those challenges.
Thoughts?
nous, I am not a fan of unlimited, in this case challenges. I am a fan of reviewing the voter rolls and verifying those people are alive and living in LA. Purge errors are an issue, certainly more than an inconvenience so unlimited isn’t great.
I don’t support every dotted I of the bill, it’s not Jim Crow either.
This is the most ridiculous of all the arguments, for whatever value of harder it might be, it is applied to everyone. The Dems want special treatment of people they anticipate will vote for them.
you understand that there is a logical problem here, right?
It’s not Jim Crow in that, unlike Jim Crow, it does not aim to stop all voters of color, just enough of them to eke out a narrow win, while letting just enough vote to allay accusations of racism. And the evidence shows that these laws, though formulated in a color-blind fashion, have a disproportionate effect.
As bobbyp helpfully pointed out earlier, that disproportionate effect language was, until recently, the benchmark for measuring harm to minority voters. With that benchmark waived, suddenly we see all this legislation.
Tony P., I appreciate you weighing in. The analogy I would make would be to playing some weekend sport. Most people who into sports have had the experience of having someone who wants to play the game more competitively than everyone else. Within limits, that’s ok, it’s just the guy (and it’s usually guys, amirite) who does that, if he goes too far, ends up being the only one on the court cause everyone else has decamped to other places. (It also means that a lot of interesting people decamp a lot earlier cause they don’t want the drama, which is our loss) I’ll cop to being that guy far too many times in my life and I think most folks can think of times when they have fallen into that. But if the person doing it has no self-awareness that they are doing that, the other players are under an obligation to tell them, if they want to keep playing on the same court. (that closing sounds like a threat, but it isn’t, it is just an observation)
The Democrats have been out literally convincing people to vote that were apathetic at best for decades
I’m trying to understand why this is bad.
One of the red herring arguments is that there aren’t any widespread abuses.
How the heck is that a red herring?
“We need restrictions because there are abuses”.
“But there aren’t abuses beyond the noise level”.
That seems pretty on point to me.
I don’t think campaigns should be allowed to drive busses around to pick up people and take them to the polls.
Why? How the hell is giving people a ride to the poll “election interference”?
It’s the corollary of the “voting as test of faith” thing. If there are no challenges to voting then faith is never actually tested and proven.
If voting is a given, then it ceases to be a marker of civic virtue. If everybody’s somebody/Then no one’s anybody.
The Democrats have been out literally convincing people to vote that were apathetic at best for decades
I’m trying to understand why this is bad.
I, on the other hand, feel compelled to obsrrve that the sheer numbers testify that the Republicans also, this past year, convinced a lot of previously apathetic people to vote. (That’s just people voting for them. Not counting the previously non-voting people who were motivated to go out and vote against them.)
That being the case, why is it bad for the other side to do so?
lj,
Blitz chess in Harvard Square used to be my weekend sport. The sort of person you describe was somewhat familiar to me. They tended to be good at playing the game. Over the board, they could “win” more often than not. As I have observed before, a game of chess is like an argument in every way except this: you can convince your opponent to acknowledge defeat, within the 5 minutes per side time limit and under mutually accepted rules. In the larger context of spending a pleasant weekend afternoon playing chess at the tables in front of Au Bon Pain, these weekend warriors were NOT popular. The spectators (lurkers, if you like) tended to cheer on their opponents. The regulars tended to seek out other players to have a game with.
Perhaps I should add that much of the time our games had a dollar or two at stake. Little enough that nobody’s retirement was at risk or anything, but still a practical consequence outside of the 64-square arena of the “argument” — another difference with blog comment section disputes.
I must also confess that on occasion I would willingly play against these aggressive weekend warriors, knowing that my chance to “convince” them was small, but the point was to have fun trying. Luckily, fun and not “winning” was my goal.
–TP
Tony, interesting! I played chess as a kid and watched Searching for Bobby Fischer (the book is good too)
This also might be of interest
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/mar/18/bongcloud-meme-opening-carlsen-nakamura
Also, this wired piece
https://www.wired.com/story/bird-feed-seller-beat-chess-master-online-harassment/
and the follow-up on chess.com
https://www.chess.com/news/view/most-watched-chess-stream-in-history-dewa-kipas
Any connections to what happens in ObWI are left to the reader.
My own disquieting conclusion after watching the last few months of elections and post-election flood of legislation is that our politicians are pretty much divided into two groups:
The types who take the government-legitimating concept of the consent of the governed as a bedrock, sacrosanct principle, and the types who take it as an impediment to doing what they want and therefore do everything they can to undermine its widespread application.
Kind of turns the whole American experiment on its head when the people whose power to even create public policy in the first place derives from that very consent use whatever means they can to avoid the complete and thorough expression of that consent.
And then those same underminers of democracy at home will be the first to lecture other nations around the world about the superiority of representative democracy.
Sad.
I agree with Lewis completely, although I suspect which side is which differs.
AlaMcT (that appellation is to remind everyone that he admitted to coming here to throw bombs) is just getting what he dishes out.
mmk, you’re the boss. as such, you set the tone.
…bussing people to polls…
OMG, they’re making it less onerous for people without cars to vote. This is terrible because
.
.
.
.
they might vote for the side I don’t support.
This is the most ridiculous of all the arguments, for whatever value of harder it might be, it is applied to everyone.
“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.”
I agree with Lewis completely, although I suspect which side is which differs.
When I read this, I have to ask if you think the 2020 presidential election was stolen, Marty. If not, all I have left is to shrug. (Now that I think about it, all I have left is to shrug if you do think the election was stolen, but for a different reason.)
“I agree with Lewis completely, although I suspect which side is which differs.”
Yeah, well a good guess is that the side that is trying to ‘solve’ imaginary problems is the one hostile to democracy.
“Maybe you do not care much about the future of the Republican Party. You should. Conservatives will always be with us. If conservatives become convinced that they can not win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. They will reject democracy.”
― David Frum, Trumpocracy: The Corruption of the American Republic
It seems David was prescient.
“I agree with Lewis completely, although I suspect which side is which differs.”
No doubt it does. Althought when one considers that one party has won the national popular vote (for President) only once in the last 30 years, while the other party has won all the rest. Well then who mostly has the consent of the governed is fairly clear. So who likely takes the concept of the consent of the governed as a bedrock, sacrosanct principle, and who inclines to take it as an impediment, is also pretty clear.
I agree with Lewis completely, although I suspect which side is which differs.
Don’t want to speak for either you or Lewis, but I think that means you disagree with Lewis, completely.
Look – is it horrible that voters in GA will only have 3 months, rather than 6, to apply for an absentee ballot? Seems like 3 should be enough, right?
How hard can it be to send a Xerox of your license with your absentee ballot application? Right?
You won’t get an absentee ballot application automatically now, you have to ask for it. But how hard is that?
Fewer drop boxes and no mobile voting locations, but still some drop boxes, right?
If people really want to vote, they’ll still be able to vote.
Right?
So what’s the problem? Why is everyone worked up about this?
I’ll explain it to you.
The GA (R)’s lost their state’s electoral votes and both Senate seats. The (D)’s won by the skin of their teeth. The (R)’s don’t want that to happen again.
To avoid that happening again, they could moderate their platform and messaging so that they appealed to a broader audience. Or, they could work their asses off and get their people to the polls, like the (D)’s did.
Or, they could make it incrementally more difficult to vote in ways that disproportionately affect people who vote for (D)’s.
They picked door number 3. If they can’t win by the rules, they’ll change the rules.
It’s one example among many of the national (R) party doing their damnedest to prevail politically in spite of the fact that they do not represent a majority of the country.
They’ve lost the popular vote in 7 out of the last 8 presidential elections. Their members in the House and Senate represent less than a majority of the country. They, and their policies, are not supported by most people who live here.
And that’s only going to become more so, the longer that they double down on the kind of conspiracy theory and culture war BS that is what they have been running on since at least Reagan.
They can’t prevail in small-d democratic terms, so instead of adapting, they’ve decided to take the Calvinball approach. Move the goal posts.
The changes to the voting laws in GA do not address any real issue or problem with the voting process there. The only thing they are intended to accomplish is to make it less likely that people who tend to vote for (D)’s will vote at all.
It’s a close thing in GA, so they don’t have to shave away that many voters. 11,000 would have done it in 2020. They can probably get to that number by penny-ante shit like making people Xerox their license, or drive another 20 miles, or remember to apply for an absentee ballot.
So that’s the approach they’re taking.
They’re a sinking ship, but they’re damned if they won’t break some stuff on their way down.
That’s why people are angry.
That’s why people are angry.
If enough people get angry enough, they’ll do their damnedest to overcome the added difficulties of voting put in place by the GA law and others like it elsewhere. And they may likely succeed in enough numbers to make such laws counterproductive in practice. Some people take will that as some sort of evidence that these laws were not intended to suppress voting among people not likely to vote Republican. But being hoisted on your own petard doesn’t mean your petard was anything other than a petard.
If enough people get angry enough, they’ll do their damnedest to overcome the added difficulties of voting put in place by the GA law and others like it elsewhere.
it’s what they’ve done in the past, luckily.
the GOP will just keep coming up with new fantasies to justify more of this crap, though.
If enough people get angry enough, they’ll do their damnedest to overcome the added difficulties of voting put in place by the GA law and others like it elsewhere. And they may likely succeed in enough numbers to make such laws counterproductive in practice.
As I said earlier, the apparent ‘self-correcting’ nature of this is a problem because it has Republicans believe that their platform needs no change, no moderation.
I’m curious what the Republicans who came out for Biden think of this. wj helpfully points us the Michael Steele’s take
https://thebulwark.com/the-state-assault-on-voting-rights-hurts-all-of-us/
So what about others? For whom is this a bridge too far? Curious minds want to know.
A little something for McKinney et al. From someone who is nothing like a flaming liberal.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/04/07/lets-not-miss-whats-important-about-anti-voting-legislation/
It’s not just the various specifics in the various bills. It’s the overall trend which is a concern.
More context and evidence for respecting the will of the people:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/aug/06/republicans-florida-amendment-4-voting-rights
Since we’re linking, here’s one from 538 (of course), with some quotes that jumped out at me:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-we-are-and-should-be-talking-about-voting-rights-right-now/
That last one gets at people needing to arrange their affairs (or however McKinney put it). Those lazy poor people just need to try harder, amirite?
The Guardian link nous posted will burn your biscuits, btw.
That last one gets at people needing to arrange their affairs (or however McKinney put it). Those lazy poor people just need to try harder, amirite?
Or get a job, like McKinney, or me (or, I suspect, pretty much everybody here), which allows them the flexibility to schedule work around the need to vote, or even take time off to vote. If your job(s) don’t provide that, well you should find a different job.
More from earlier times about these restrictions and ID requirements (which have nothing whatsoever to do with requiring proof of identity and everything to do with 91,000 votes suppressed in a state that was also gerrymandering for partisan gain).
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/wisconsin-voter-id-law-turned-voters-estimate/
Thank goodness the problems with the GA law have only the *potential* for abuse. I’m sure that things will go entirely differently there than they did in WI, though…
Different states with different needs, amirite?
everyone who trusts the party of 1/6 to not abuse a law that gives them the ability to overturn election results, raise your hand.
now slap yourself with it.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/a-whole-bunch-of-crazy-inside-the-south-carolina-gops-maga-coup?via=newsletter&source=DDMorning
When the fascist right wing starts limiting voting rights for RINOS like Marty and McTX, they’ll see the light at the end of the tunnel coming at ’em and still think it’s both sides.
everyone who trusts the party of 1/6 to not abuse a law that gives them the ability to overturn election results, raise your hand.
now slap yourself with it.
Total waste of time. Nothing short of a 2×4 (maybe a 6×6) will make an impression.
how about a 45″ 1×6, for symbolism?
If it walks like racisim, talks like racism, and acts like racism, then why can we not call it racism?
Signed,
bobbyp, incendiary
OT (because the Trial thread comments are still, quite reasonably, closed)
You can’t make this shit up:
Words fail me.
Oh, I am waiting for the defense to say: ‘If he was unable to breathe how was he (physically) able to voice that?’
Back up to Lewis’ quote of Frum about needing a Republican party, I pass along this
https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2021/04/the-longest-con
If conservatives want to yoke themselves to a party that is going to defraud, lie and steal, they deserve everything they get.
I’m wondering if I want to make a (very small!) donation. Just so I can uncheck thr box and get labeled a “defector”. . . If nothing else, it might stop their spamming text messages.
I just don’t understand how anyone can’t see the blatant stupidity of that “appeal.” How much of a blockhead do you have to be to fall for crap like that?
Blockhead? Or just really, really desperate to “belong” to something? Anything. And terrified, on some level, of being cast out.
That may not be the explanation for all of them, stupidity being as powerful as it is. But it might account for some.
There’s precedent: “You’re either with us, or with the terrorists,” Nuance and shit.
wj: “If nothing else, it might stop their spamming text messages.”
ANY response will get you on the “good address” list…death will not release you.
this just in: Joe Manchin is a doofus. i repeat, Joe Manchin is a doofus.
ANY response will get you on the “good address” list…death will not release you.
Just opening an email can let a spammer know that they have a valid email address that someone is paying attention to.
this is why good email clients (ex Thunderbird) will refuse to download images in email unless you explicitly allow it.
email tracking is typically implemented by embedding a small (1×1 pixel) image in the email: an image that has been created and named just for you! so when you view that email message, your special 1×1 pixel image is downloaded from the sender’s server, drawn in the email body somewhere (though it’s probably invisible) and then the sender can tell that you have opened the email.
nice trick.
I’ve been doing a lot of free-floating pondering about the explanation for why reasonable, half-way decent conservatives (as opposed to racist, reactionary bastards) might be unable to see anything much wrong with the new legislation in GA and elsewhere.
I know I have referred in the past to my observation that liberal/lefty/Dems seem to have more imagination than conservative GOPers, and used the example of my beloved R friend who really saw nothing much wrong with the healthcare situation in America for decades, until a family member who had been adopted from central Europe was found to have Hepatitis B, and the family (though rich) had trouble getting him medical insurance. I observed that left-of-centre people could imagine being in that sort of situation (and many others), just by a sort of empathetic projection, without having to have the actual experience themselves.
I wonder to what extent this could be the explanation for some of what we have been experiencing? And I wonder, for example, how this corresponds with such people’s experience of good fiction, whether they experience the same sort of imaginative identification with characters’ circumstances?
This is very complicated, of course, and no doubt even if I am partly right there are other mechanisms involved. We know from stories Marty has told us that he had a hard childhood and youth, and he nonetheless holds opinions that most of us consider the opposite of empathetic generally towards people in difficult circumstances, (although he does seem personally empathetic when you drill right down to specifics, as opposed to economic generalities).
As I say, this is a sort of vague, free-floating speculation, too vague to even articulate properly. But I wonder if any research has ever been done on it, to go with all the other research that has been done into personality traits of Ds versus Rs.
I wonder if any research has ever been done on it, to go with all the other research that has been done into personality traits of Ds versus Rs.
Are you sure what you’re after isn’t research on liberals vs conservatives? Or perhaps reactionaries vs non-reactionaries? If so, you’d also have a chance for studies (if any) done outside the US.
so shocking.
so, so shocking.
but of course the GA GOP was totally colorblind about which counties got more ballot drop-offs and which got more.
What I’ve learnt, to my surprise and disappointment, is that reasonable Rs see making it harder to vote as roughly neutral (McKTx) or even good in itself (Marty).
Marty: I don’t think campaigns should be allowed to drive busses around to pick up people and take them to the polls. That seems pretty much election interference to me.
For Marty, the natural order of things is that people without cars should find it hard to vote. Any attempt to lesson that difficulty is wrong.
The rest of us think it obvious that voting should be made as easy as possible. So we disagree with Marty on the basic principle of how elections should be run, not some detail of the legislation.
We’re certainly opposed to electoral fraud: no one has spoken against reasonable measures to discourage fraud which actually happens. That would mostly be ballot harvesting, which, unlike personation, could possibly swing enough votes to make it worth the risk. But we think measures against fraud should be proportionate to the actual problem. For us, measures which make it harder to vote could be justified if they reduce actual electoral fraud: for our R commentators, such measures need no tangible justification.
Here’s an article from the Obama-McCain election about busing people to the polls.
https://www.wired.com/2008/11/obama-and-mccai/
Marty is a nostalgic sort, I guess. I’m sure he can point to all the problems with this well-established practice and how it’s somehow unfair, even when available to any party or candidate on the ballot and to individuals and organizations supporting them.
I would imagine enforcing a prohibition on driving people to the polls would be costly and would disenfranchise many voters, particularly those without resources, so I have to think Marty has a very robust justification for making it illegal to give people rides to the polls.
In short GftNC, I think much of the difference lies in the differing levels of empathy and expectation. I am empathetic to individual situations but my expectation is that most people will find a solution themselves, and should. Setting government policy based on the individual challenges people have is ineffective, expensive and always unevenly applied. Moving that to the federal level exponentially exacerbates those problems.
Government policy should be very limited to either the broadest swath possible, lifting all boats, or the narrowest identifiable group that should qualify. It isn’t a question of being less empathetic, it is a question of the expectation of government to solve every problem. Government, especially federal government, is a blunt instrument that is mostly ineffective, even in areas it should be addressing. So stepping outside those is simply counterproductive.
To address your anecdote, there are 350 million people in the US and 35million in Canada.For each anecdote on US Healthcare you can come up with there is one where Canadian Healthcare sounds as horrible. I believe, have all along, that needs based Medicare for the uninsured could be made to work. I get shouted down because people would have to qualify. Again, not a difference in empathy, a difference in expectation. Voter ID is the same, you should provide an ID, it should be free and I would expect people to find a way to get it if they want to vote. I am empathetic to challenges in getting one and assistance for those who actually can’t get one should be a minor problem at the local level.
We should help people, but they have a responsibility also. When they have expended every effort there should be a helping hand. If they sit around and decide it is just too much trouble my empathy fades quickly.
The answer to that view is almost always that I am broad brushing poor people or people less fortunate(welfare mom syndrome), thats bullshit. I know tons of hard working conscientious poor people thatdeserve a hand. I know poor addicts that deserve a different kind of hand. I know people for whom any effort on their part is just too big an inconvenience so they just complain. We spend way too much time trying to set policy based on the last group.
The difference may be that I did grow up poor. I know the range of people who live in these communities.And I did know actual welfare moms who bragged about gaming the system. I know, today, two guys that have 6 and 7 kids by multiple women who go around each month and pick up the check provided by the state. When the kids turn 18 they don’t get a check, so they are told to leave.
There are abuses, and systems with no check will be abused, systems with checks will be abused.
That’s pretty long for me. But it might provide some insight to why I think I, just me, see things different sometimes.
Yes hsh, somewhere between no one can give someone a ride and the campaign getting busses to take people to the polls there’s probably a solution I would be comfortable with. No campaign person can go within 150 feet of a polling place but they can pick them up and take them?
What I’ve learnt, to my surprise and disappointment, is that reasonable Rs see making it harder to vote as roughly neutral (McKTx) or even good in itself (Marty).
Hey! Some of us “reasonable R’s” think voting should be made easier. (Not least because it might reduce the hold of the crazies over my party.)
No campaign person can go within 150 feet of a polling place but they can pick them up and take them?
Yes, because you don’t want people being harassed or intimidated at the polling places and it becoming a zoo. Why? Because that would discourage people from voting. How does giving them a ride discourage voting? And why can campaigners go around knocking on people’s doors, but not give people rides?
honestly, i can see how campaigns giving rides is iffy.
but that just brings up the issue of why people need rides in the first place. and the answer is: many people simply can’t get to a polling place on their own.
so, either provide public transportation to the polls or make vote by mail easier!
the GOP doesn’t want to do that either.
needs based Medicare for the uninsured could be made to work
Isn’t that Medicaid?
I appreciate your comment at 11:44 and agree with a lot of it. I don’t really agree with what I take to be your general attitude about whether voting should be made convenient or not. There’s nothing special-case or helping-the-unworthy about, for instance, mailing a vote-by-mail ballot application to every registered voter. It just makes it somewhat more convenient to vote. Why that is a bad thing escapes me.
That said, I think you miss the point of the dispute about the election law changes in GA. For any specific point in the law, there is some other state that is either more restrictive, or less. The complaint, or at least my complaint, is that the (R)’s response to losing is to change the rules in ways that disproportionately affect folks who vote for their opponents.
Calvinball is bad form.
I’m good with making public transportation available. I am also fine with mail in voting with appropriate ID checking.
I don’t know russell, changing the rules seems to be a popular thing these days. Electoral college, filibuster, number of Senators, voting rules. I think the changes are interesting in GA. The drop boxes for example never existed until the emergency covid order for the last election. So the change to make them permanent seems more notable than the number. It was always ideal for campaign workers to approach the line, the clarification on food and water seems trivial if the election workers provide water.
The ability forthe stare to overrule the local certification is just wrong without a lot of restrictions as to under what circumstances.
So not many rules “changed”. But he one that did is a bad idea. As would some other rules changes being proposed.
Ideal = illegal
So I missed medicaid, no the program is very different than Medicare. Basic Medicare provides a baseline that would ensure everyone has access to routine care.
the program is very different than Medicare
Correct. It’s means-tested. You have to be poor to qualify.
Maybe that isn’t what you meant by ‘needs based’.
also:
Electoral college, filibuster, number of Senators, voting rules.
Changing or eliminating the Electoral College would require a constitutional amendment. The benefit to one side or the other is not really that clear, it could go either way in any given election. It’s just a weird, archaic, perverse way to elect a POTUS, and has the effect of making some votes worth more than others. But no worries, it’s unlikely to change, ever.
I’m not aware of any plans to change the number of Senators. Are you referring to proposals to make DC or PR a state?
The filibuster is a reasonable analogy, although there are procedural reasons for it aside from the obvious partisan motivations. I.e., it might make it possible for laws to be passed.
The voting rules thing is just a straight up play to make it less likely for people who don’t vote (R) to vote.
It’s just a weird, archaic, perverse way to elect a POTUS, and has the effect of making some votes worth more than others.
it also creates confusion and frustration in the minds of voters who have to relearn about the EC (and the meaninglessness of national polls) every four years. and it ultimately creates apathy about government because people aren’t interested in learning the bullshit arcana of why it exists and what it’s for. we’re taught democracy and the biggest vote in the country ends up being a vote for a set of some unfathomable number of anonymous proxies who can, if they want, disregard your vote entirely?
one person, one vote. that’s what people expect. that’s what it should be.
adding complications turns people off.
The proposed changes to the EC, filibuster, and numbers of reps and senators are to make government more representative of the majority – that is, more small-“d” democratic. As it stands, representation is pretty out of whack.
You can make the argument that Democrats only want to do those things because they know those things will help them. I won’t argue that point. But it’s not trivial that a more democratic form of representation will help a given party in a representative democracy. If you’re party has to rely on undemocratic practices to stay in power, then it shouldn’t be in power in a democracy. That’s minority rule.
It’s just a weird, archaic, perverse way to elect a POTUS, and has the effect of making some votes worth more than others.
It also creates an incentive to ignore voters in all but the obvious “swing states.” Without it, candidates would need to campaign everywhere, because “every vote counts.”
adding complications turns people off.
That’s a feature, not a bug, to those who fear a representative government that is actually representative. Anyone who can be turned off should be turned off because they don’t deserve to vote.
But the people who want to expand voter access are “elitists.”
As for GftNC’s pondering about empathy, the current line of political neurobiology has two things to point to. One is the difference left/right in Cingular Cortex vs Amygdala activity respectively when presented with difference. The left reads difference as a puzzle to be understood. The right as a threat to be managed. The second thing is a number of studies that seem to indicate that personal wealth reduces empathy and compassion:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-wealth-reduces-compassion/
Taken together, this covers a lot of your ground.
Marty: I’m good with making public transportation available.
How would we “make it available”? Some level of government hiring vans and drivers, or contracting with Uber and Lyft, for the day? With what money?
Or should we be thinking of a huge (and long-term) infrastructure project to provide convenient public transport in general?
We already have (for now) a public transportation system for MAIL, which is easier and cheaper to transport than people. So I’m happy to hear that:
I am also fine with mail in voting with appropriate ID checking.
What “appropriate” means — to you — may or may not match what it means to me, or to Colorado, or to the Georgia GOP.
–TP
I would think that asking for divine help to hate would result in help from a source other than God.
“A seminary professor in Georgia is featured in a book of prayers asking God to help her “hate white people.”
The book, A Rhythm of Prayer: A Collection of Meditations for Renewal, features a prayer from Chanequa Walker-Barnes, Mercer University associate professor of practical theology, that begins with “Dear God, Please help me to hate White people.”
“Or at least to want to hate them,” the prayer continues. “At least, I want to stop caring about them, individually and collectively.””
New York Times bestselling devotional implores God to ‘help me to hate white people’
Everyone nothing blog knows we are a representative republic. Outside town meetings we were not formed as a one person one vote democracy. We are a federal republic and the notion that this is too complex is bullshit. It is exactly the Democrats trying to do exactly what the Republicans try to do, change the rules to their advantage and find a justification.
“WE” are doing it for noble reasons, it just happens to help us be in charge.
What does “representative” mean to you, Marty? Are you saying there is no democratic aspect to our form of government? Why do we have elections?
I would think that asking for divine help to hate would result in help from a source other than God.
I guess the evangelical right has a hard time with the idea of imprecatory psalms, (which are pretty common).
And they are completely missing the irony of asking god for the ability to stop caring about the feelings of people who wish you harm.
Never expect a culture built on unreflexive literalism to grok poetry worth a damn.
Not playing hsh.
What “appropriate” means — to you — may or may not match what it means to me, or to Colorado, or to the Georgia GOP.
Or the national Democrats. One of the things in HR1 that I’m concerned about — which may simply because I misread or misinterpreted — is a statement that a signature mismatch can’t be used to disqualify a mail ballot. Signature matching is certainly an important part of the security in the Colorado system. For a given election, there is exactly one of the return envelopes sent out for which my signature is the correct token. If my wife and I were to mix things up and swap envelopes, both would be rejected.
We would also be notified that there was a problem and be given an opportunity to cure it.
hsh: That’s minority rule.
From here:
Majority rule is the horror of horrors, but minority rule is just fine as long as it’s the right minority. /s
Everyone nothing blog knows we are a representative republic. Outside town meetings we were not formed as a one person one vote democracy. We are a federal republic and the notion that this is too complex is bullshit
We were set up as a representative republic, in large part, because a straight democracy was simply technologically impractical over the distances involved at the time that the nation was set up. Even establishing a national postal service was a major effort. Today, we could actually do straight democracy if we wished to. At least we could do elections which more accurately represent the wishes of the population.
I would think that asking for divine help to hate would result in help from a source other than God.
did you read past the headline?
what she’s saying is pretty obvious, and the irony in how she’s framing it is unmissable.
Oh wait, before I even got the commented posted Marty chimed in to declare that we aren’t really a representative democracy and he likes it just fine like that.
Minority rule rules.
Silly me.
Outside town meetings we were not formed as a one person one vote democracy.
No, but times change. Essentially every state admitted to the Union after the civil war felt it necessary to include some sort of state-level direct democracy in their constitutions.
the only place we don’t have one person one vote is for President.
mayor, dog catcher, tax collector, governor, Rep, even Senator – all straight count-the-votes-find-the-highest. even when run-offs are involved, it’s one person one vote.
there is nothing like the EC anywhere else in the US. the only other absurdity is the Presidential primary process (which is a party-level thing and could be changed on a whim).
it’s an absurd and pointless anachronism and does absolutely nothing to improve anything about this country.
We were set up as a representative republic, in large part, because a straight democracy was simply technologically impractical over the distances involved at the time that the nation was set up.
“In large part”? Seriously? We were set up so that for the most part, only white men, and in many states white men with a certain amount of assets or property, were allowed to vote. This was absolutely not because logistics were difficult.
But as Michael Cain says — times change. Women have actually been able to vote for a century now! Imagine!
American’s Constitution: A Biography, by Akhil Reed Amar, is a fascinating book that includes a lot of information about who could vote in the early days. It differed from state to state e.g. even for the ratification votes.
Not playing hsh.
Ah, yes. Because my response was so sly and indirect. I’m trying to trick you into discussing what form of government we have in a conversation about what form of government we have. I’m such a troll!
Everyone nothing blog knows we are a representative republic.
Representative means decisions are made by our representatives. So, all 330 million of us don’t vote on legislation etc., our representatives do.
Federal means that there are political entities separate from and subordinate to the national government, which retain some scope of authority that the national government cannot take from them.
None of those things require or imply that the head of state be elected by basically rounding up the popular vote at the state level. To my knowledge, no other nation organized as a federal republic does that, only us.
The closest thing, maybe, is the BRD, but I don’t think they do the rounding up by state thing. I.e., to my knowledge there is no expectation or requirement that all of the representatives from any of the Lander are required to vote for whoever got the most votes there.
I could be wrong about that, I’m sure someone will wise me up if so.
I’d be fine with, or at least far less not-fine-with, the EC if electors in each state were allocated proportional to popular vote in that state. That might even give the advantage to the (R)’s in some cases. So be it. And that would preserve the small state electoral bonus that you seem so concerned about.
If you’re a (R) in MA you might as well stay home. If you’re a (D) in WY you might as well stay home. Your vote is a nullity. In the case of MA, that’s about 1/3 of voters.
That seems wrong to me. YMMV.
One of the things in HR1 that I’m concerned about — which may simply because I misread or misinterpreted — is a statement that a signature mismatch can’t be used to disqualify a mail ballot.
I wasn’t aware of that provision, and FWIW I’m against it.
In MA, if you vote by absentee ballot, your signature is matched against a copy held by town government. No match, no vote.
That seems reasonable to me. It certainly seems more secure than “include a Xerox of your license”.
hsh: and now you’re doubling down!
*****
Signatures: you should at least be able to go and update your signature from time to time, since people’s scrawls do change, and signature recognition is hardly an exact science. Maybe that’s already allowed, I dunno.
Maybe that’s already allowed, I dunno.
Different places are no doubt different, but I can go to town hall and update my signature if it makes sense to do so.
I’d probably have to identify myself via photo id or similar to do so, but then I’d be all set for election time.
It differed from state to state e.g. even for the ratification votes.
Yes. Which is one of the reasons the EC made more sense in the 18th C. than it does now, where there is (mostly*) consistency at the national level about who can vote.
*notable exception being anyone ever convicted of a felony, which is yet another circle of electoral hell.
which may simply because I misread or misinterpreted — is a statement that a signature mismatch can’t be used to disqualify a mail ballot.
i don’t think it says that.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/1/text#HDEF22AF32EEA4341BF9C5D6D156B2993
in fact, it seems to be all about making it difficult for people to outright reject ‘defective’ signatures without second (bipartisan!) opinions, giving the voter a chance to fix it, etc..
(give that link a second to work – it will take you to the top of the bill first and then stick there until it’s all loaded. but it will take you to the relevant section eventually)
nobody should be surprised that there was a lawsuit in (drumroll) Fulton Co GA about the signature issue, which the GOP lost, of course.
Marty, thank you for your long, thoughtful post @11.44.
I hear what you say, and understand where you are coming from (to use two appalling modern cliches in one sentence!) As I mentioned, I have never thought you were lacking in personal empathy. (And, FWIW, empathy was only one small part of what I was speculating about, I was more interested in “imaginativeness”, which is related of course, a precursor to empathy probably, but is I think a slightly different quality.)
Just one small thing: the point of my anecdote about my rich R friend was not intended to be about a comparison between the healthcare systems in different countries. It was to illustrate the point that even a rich, clever, well-read, well-educated conservative was not able to imagine what it would be like to struggle to get health insurance because of a pre-existing condition until it happened to someone in their own family.
***
The left reads difference as a puzzle to be understood. The right as a threat to be managed. The second thing is a number of studies that seem to indicate that personal wealth reduces empathy and compassion:
nous, thank you for this. I was vaguely aware of both these findings, but am glad to be reminded. And although the latter may seem more germane to my ponderings, in fact the former intuitively feels more resonant. I can’t help thinking that reduced empathy and compassion among the rich is probably a pre-emptive defence mechanism.
GftNC – two of the concepts we use in rhetoric to talk about what I think you are working through are Kenneth Burke’s “identification” and “consubstantiality.” Burke shifted his attention away from persuasion as the focus of rhetoric in order to try to understand how we conceptualize communication with another. Identification has to do with finding and expressing shared interests (or at least interests that the speaker assumes are shared). Consubstantiality has to do with acting in common based on identification.
I think that conservative people tend to have more filters working to limit identification based on the perception of threat or a sense of disgust. With conservatives those filters act before identification; with liberals the filters happen after or in concert with identification.
I’m reading Billionaire Wilderness right now – an ethnographic study of the ultra rich in Teton County, WY – and the sort of defensive reactions that you speculate about are something that the author of the book talks about at some length, especially prevalent in those ultra wealthy that came from low-wealth backgrounds. Interesting book.
Here’s the bottom line:
The (R)’s do not represent a majority of the population. Their response to this is to obstruct any and everything they can possible can.
That’s not a sustainable situation. It’s not sustainable because it’s wrong. So it will have to change.
If folks don’t want the filibuster to go away, there’s a simple solution. The (R)’s can quit bottling up the legislative process. Lather rinse and repeat for all of the other scenarios under discussion here.
The fundamental issue in all of this is (a) the Republican Party is a minority party and (b) they’d rather blow stuff up than deal with (a) in a responsible manner. If folks don’t like the things that the Democrats are doing to deal with that, the simple solution is for the Republicans to stop obstructing the proper functions of governance.
Things change. Standing athwart history yelling ‘stop’ is not a useful way of dealing with it. Adapt or die. Or, you know, at a minimum, stop getting in the way.
“We were set up as a representative republic, in large part, because a straight democracy was simply technologically impractical over the distances involved at the time that the nation was set up”
This of course is not the case. We were set up this way because none of the states were prepared to cede all of there sovereignty to a central government, yet they recognized the value of pooled resources for specific functions. And it took two tries to cede any at all.
One of the issues was slavery but it wasn’t he only reason the states wanted to limit the power of the central government. The legislative branch was set up to recognize the voice of the people in one chamber and the equal status of the states in the other. The executive was setup to recognize the voice of the people.
More populous states got more say while recognizing the sovereignty of the state to decide how those votes were counted. We don’t even count the votes for electors the same way because different states still have different views.
The theme is that states retain the power to decide. It is one person one vote in each state. Nothing has changed that makes that less good.
And while, as russell points out, my vote didn’t count for much in Massachusetts, in a direct vote today it wouldn’t matter much anywhere. Having had that experience, why would I think that was good?
Also, many of the founders had doubts about or strong objections to straight democracy.
none of the states were prepared to cede all of there sovereignty to a central government, yet they recognized the value of pooled resources for specific functions. And it took two tries to cede any at all.
your bolds are approximately accurate for the first try. it was a failure.
second try was a quite strong national government. i.e., not at all a matter of “pooled resources for specific functions” but the granting of sovereignty to the national government for every function that characterizes a nation state.
The executive was setup to recognize the voice of the people.
Would that that were so.
More populous states got more say while recognizing the sovereignty of the state to decide how those votes were counted.
Actually, the people in more populous states got less say.
It is one person one vote in each state.
And actually, it is exactly not one person one vote in each state. In all states but two, if you are not in the majority, your vote counts for nothing. For POTUS, that is.
For everything else, yes.
in a direct vote today it wouldn’t matter much anywhere.
In a direct vote, in 2020 your vote would have been worth exactly 1 158-millionth of the outcome, where 158 million is the number of folks who voted. And that would have been exactly what my vote would have been worth.
And that’s what every single person’s vote should be worth. No exceptions.
they also thought black people should be kept as slaves, that the natives should be enslaved or murdered, and that women shouldn’t be allowed to vote.
The Democratic party spent the last four years standing in the way. Not long before that Republicans controlled Congress and Obama stood in the way. The whole standing in the way argument is the way our government is designed, not a bug, a feature.
It makes some good things take longer to accomplish and prevents some pretty bad ideas from becoming law. “Standing athwart history” is just another way of saying I want to get my way now.
The whole standing in the way argument is the way our government is designed, not a bug, a feature.
Checks and balances is the way the government was designed. Refusing to grant SCOTUS nominees a hearing is not the way the government was designed. Refusing to bring bills to the floor for debate and vote is not the way the government was designed.
Should I go on?
“Standing athwart history” is just another way of saying I want to get my way now.
Couldn’t agree more.
You might want to check the provenance of the quote.
1 158-millionth of the outcome
instead, my vote counted for:
(15 / 270) * (1 / 5,524,804) * 0 / who cares because the EC a total absurdity.
My vote in 2020 counted 1 of 11 million or so. Still the way it should work.And my candidate didn’t win. For that matter in 2016 either.
But, I’m thinking the filibuster is a more meaningful concern, and that is more important. This two years will pass and it will be moot for a few years but in 2025 the Democrats could regret killing it.
Marty: “WE” are doing it for noble reasons, it just happens to help us be in charge.
Marty,
I can’t tell whether that comment of yours at 1:50 was meant to address my 1:41 or not.
And I can’t tell whether the final line, as quoted and standing alone, is about the nobility of Republicans filibustering everything at the federal level, or artfully suppressing votes at the state level, or what. I suppose it depends on what “WE” you mean.
But never mind those things. If you are as sincere and reasonable as GftNC gives you credit for, please explain how
The executive was setup to recognize the voice of the people
squares with the Electoral College structure.
–TP
the 60-vote-threshold filibuster has fuck-all to do with any “We”. it has nothing at all to do with the Constitution or the design of the government or representation or democracy. it’s a modern creation, literally younger than everybody here. it’s a Senate rule, one of countless that Senators agree to in order to make their anti-democratic club function, and it was designed to remedy a series of previous procedural abuses by the minority.
that it’s the only Senate rule anyone can name is because it’s such a ridiculous bunch of nonsense that it’s essentially one of those News Of The Weird things that you’re shocked to learn is actually real. and we keep having to have explained to us over and over because it flies in the face of common sense and how people naturally think our government should work.
I’m beginning to think that Marty’s political ideal mostly consist of making all collective action as difficult as possible so that only a tiny set of collective desires, pursued with heroic effort, get mandated.
Goodbye, climate.
it’s: GOP 4E, Dems suck it.
Goodbye, climate.
the climate is a liberal hoax. just like COVID.
it literally doesn’t exist. there is weather and the flu and that’s that. suck it libz.
“We were set up as a representative republic, in large part, because a straight democracy was simply technologically impractical over the distances involved at the time that the nation was set up”
This of course is not the case. We were set up this way because none of the states were prepared to cede all of there sovereignty to a central government
The trouble with this thesis is the obvious detail that the state governments are also set up as representative democracies.
The Democratic party spent the last four years standing in the way.
In the way of WHAT? The Republicans successfully passed the tax cut. Was there anything else that they tried to do (in the first two years, obviously), and which got filibustered? Not that I recall. So, educate me, what were the Democrats standing in the way of, and how did they do it?
My vote in 2020 counted 1 of 11 million or so.
In Florida.
There are 49 other states.
But, I’m thinking the filibuster is a more meaningful concern, and that is more important.
It’s certainly a more immediate issue, and more consequential. Which is to say, it could actually happen something like soon, and it would have a large effect.
The effect would be that it wouldn’t take 60 votes to bring legislation to the floor, and it would only require a majority to pass it.
in 2025 the Democrats could regret killing it.
Quite possibly so.
Equally possibly, if they leave it as is, they’ll regret that, too. And not just then, but now.
It’s sensible to look forward, but you also have to deal with what’s in front of you now.
Right now the (R)’s in the Senate, who neither represent the majority of the people who live in this country nor even a majority in the Senate, can bring legislation to a halt.
Since passing legislation is the raison d’etre of Congress in the first place, that seems… undesirable.
If the counter-argument is that the legislation shouldn’t pass in the first place, my response is “says who?”.
We’re a republic, but that doesn’t mean that the interests and preferences of the people who live here are to be ignored.
I get that we don’t want to trample on the rights of the minority, but “trample on their rights” is not the same as “they don’t get their way”.
oh, the Dems filibustered the hell out of the GOP during the Trump years – 314 times!
they did it almost 2x as much as the GOP did under Obama. 175 times!
which was more than 4x as the Dems did it under Bush. 39 times!
which was almost 3x what the GOP did under Clinton. 15 times!
which was equal to all of the times from Johnson through Bush 1.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/08/senate-record-breaking-gridlocktrump-303811
and it’s not going to get better. and it serves no purpose but to kill democracy.
We’re a republic, but that doesn’t mean that the interests and preferences of the people who live here are to be ignored.
and, of course, nothing in the concept of “republic” has anything to do with a 3/5 majority vote requirement in any chamber.
in 2025 the Democrats could regret killing it.
kill it. kill it now. dead dead dead.
But cleek, those numbers are mostly for who — blocking nominations. (Of, usually, manifest incompetents. Although that is beside the point.)
But my question was about what? What legislation was blocked by a filibuster?
If the filibuster is killed, then the Dems will pass a bunch of legislation that will be broadly popular but will enrage and energize the GOP base. Then the GOP base will work extra hard to tamp down voting to eke out an electoral win and repeal a bunch of broadly popular legislation, which they will try to manage by using more vote suppression to relieve electoral pressure and make their seats safe.
But the only thing that I see changing in any of this is that with the option above, some broadly popular legislation gets passed. I don’t think any of the other particulars will be altered. That pattern is already present even with the filibuster.
Ending partisan redistricting seems like the best way to see a shift in behavior because it would restore the electoral pressure that the GOP *should* be feeling.
I get that we don’t want to trample on the rights of the minority, but “trample on their rights” is not the same as “they don’t get their way”.
True enough, but underlying that is the belief that it’s perfectly fine, even desirable, for people with certain views (and skin color) to trample on the rights of the majority. That’s the entire point of all of this from start to finish. The rest is just lipstick on a pig.
Perhaps relevant, in full or in part.
What I do observe is that, to my knowledge, no (D) is arguing that fewer people deserve to vote, or ought to vote.
In my book, nuff said.
From russell’s link:
The framers had absolutely not created a democracy, he wrote, but rather had worried about “a tyranny of the masses” who would vote for laws that redistributed tax dollars into projects that would benefit themselves.
Because heaven forbid that anything should be allowed to stand in the way of those who are strong and clever and grasping enough to redistribute unfair shares of the bounty of nature to benefit themselves.
Also, FWIW, I am in favor of non-partisan redistricting for all states, even those with a current Democratic majority.
Consent of the governed (in representative forms of government) only matters if there is a meaningful way of registering and bestowing consent in a prescribed, transparent, non-disruptive plebiscite to ensure that those governing still have consent.
Interesting stuff. In the copyright thread, Marty wrote
I would suggest that politically we would still define some people as poor because it is a relative measure that is convenient to address a certain constituency.
I started to write a reply asking Marty to define the certain constituency, but I thought why bother. We’d just go around with the you are calling me racist and I’m not merry go round.
I realize, after GftNC’s ponderings and the replies, that viewing that sort of observation can be quite different when viewed formally vs functionally.
Formally, if someone really feels strongly about condition X, such as the necessity for moral strength in voting or independence as an indication of deservedness, holding that the group that supports the opposite can be viewed as not be prejudicial. Any group that goes against the principle would be subject to dismissal, so the person can assure themselves, formally, that they are being prejudiced. That’s the whole point of the Anatole France quote about the majestic equality of the law, which is also at the top of this blog post, which might be interesting to read, after you finish this comment, of course.
Functionally, this is obviously not the case, and, as folks have pointed out here, many of the provisions in these laws seem to have been targeted, as the appeals court in NC wrote ‘with almost surgical precision’. But if you never think about the function, just about the formality, you can assure yourself you aren’t being prejudiced. And hey, precision is a good thing, isn’t it?
I bring up an oldie but a goodie that may be misremembered by me, when a commenter no longer here was being challenged about problems with police violence, he said nonsense, he would support police being given the death penalty for perjury. So his conscience was clear. It was hard to tell if he really thought this or if it was just a convenient exit to assure himself that he wasn’t going to fall for any liberal claptrap. Who knows?
I hear an almost inaudible roar asking me what this has to do with linguistics, where formalism and functionalism have been locked in a death match. This post by Martin Haspelmath notes that generative linguists are abandoning the comittment to innateness, which, to a functionalist like me, would seem to be giving up on the Generative Enterprise (a phrase from Chomsky that Pullum sends up in an essay in his book The Great Eskimo Vocabulary Hoax and Other Irreverent Essays on the Study of Language)
The obvious conclusion from all this is that formalists need to be put in stocks and pelted with rotten veggies. It’s the only way to be safe.
Reading russell’s link to Heather Cox Richardson, I was reminded of one of my Poli Sci professor’s arguments – the federal government’s expansion is proportional to, and a result of, the expansion of the franchise.
We, the people is constant, but who counts as people changes. To our credit, that has usually meant a move to open and expand the circle, not pull up the ladders and close ranks. That seems to me like it is a progressive and utopian thing, but it looks like we have some vociferous dissent.
Skipping back past lj’s comment, which is going to take me some time to process — this is more or less a repeat of my previous comment from a different angle.
Every time someone complains about taxes and “redistribution,” I would like a reminder to pop up that the complaints only come after certain people have already taken for themselves an outsized (sometimes obscenely outsized) share of what the earth offers to all of us.
If you believe, as I do, that there is enough on this planet for everyone, and that everyone by rights owns enough of a share to live a life of dignity, then “taxes as redistribution” are only the correction (usually feeble enough) of a prior and longstanding redistribution from the many to the few.
It’s kind of like McKinney cherry-picking a starting point for his argument about the west’s superiority. Pick the right starting point and argue to the death that only approved facts are relevant, and you can prove anything — at least to yourself.
who counts as people changes. To our credit, that has usually meant a move to open and expand the circle, not pull up the ladders and close ranks. That seems to me like it is a progressive and utopian thing, but it looks like we have some vociferous dissent.
I have to vigorously disagree. It isn’t a progressive thing. It’s merely the right thing to do. They are not automatically the same thing IMHO.
Come, come, wj,
Unless “conservative” has lost all mooring to etymology, “change” is the liberal preference as a general thing. Someday, perhaps, the status quo will be such that liberals are content with it and conservatives agitate for change — change other than regression to some previous status quo, I mean.
–TP
I have to vigorously disagree. It isn’t a progressive thing. It’s merely the right thing to do. They are not automatically the same thing IMHO.
Small-p progressive, as in moving towards improvement, not merely changing in a value-neutral direction.
Not meaning to claim the principle for a particular political brand.
Unless “conservative” has lost all mooring to etymology, “change” is the liberal preference as a general thing.
But “conservative” doesn’t mean wanting stasis. It means viewing potential changes skeptically, and expecting some cost/benefit analysis of the change and its consequences (both intended and unintended but predictable). It means preferring incremental changes to sweeping ones — for all that the latter may sometimes be a necessity.
nous, fair enough. Apologies for reading more into your wording than was intended.
wj,
The GOP legislators in GA passed a change to the state’s election law. Maybe they viewed the changes skeptically; I don’t know.
I am certain they did a “cost-benefit analysis”, but also pretty sure it was not of a pure, civic-minded sort.
If you want to denounce them as NOT conservative, I honor your sentiment. But then your argument would be with them, not with me.
–TP
Trotting out that old saw, “We’re a republic, not a democracy” is simply dumb.
There is no need to waste time and breath to rebut it, refute it, ponder and explain more nuanced meanings, or seriously consider it at all.
It is just fucking dumb.
It means preferring incremental changes to sweeping ones
Take executing Louis XVI or violent rebellion against George III for example! Incremental is as incremental does.
Take executing Louis XVI or violent rebellion against George III for example!
You will note that I did say, explicitly, that sweeping changes “may sometimes be a necessity.” Preferring incremental change doesn’t mean rejecting anything else out of hand.
Then the GOP base will work extra hard to tamp down voting to eke out an electoral win and repeal a bunch of broadly popular legislation…
Will they? When push came to shove, and the Republicans had the trifecta, McConnell could not deliver 50 votes to defund the ACA. He didn’t deliver money to finish a wall on the Texas border. He didn’t kill the filibuster and write the single sentence into the CAA, “For the purposes of this act, CO2 is not a pollutant” that would have rendered Massachusetts v. EPA irrelevant.
Michael Cain – that’s assuming we follow their argument for not abolishing the filibuster because of that “race to the bottom,” and also assuming that, per the last 30 years or so, the GOP continues to not do policy.
Worst case, even if unlikely, I still don’t see how the threat changes anything about how the parties behave.
But “conservative” doesn’t mean wanting stasis. It means viewing potential changes skeptically, and expecting some cost/benefit analysis of the change and its consequences
I recognize and respect this as an expression of prudence in public affairs. That said, I’m not sure it applies to change as much as it applies to how we respond to it.
Change happens, ready or not, and is typically driven from the bottom up, and/or by circumstances that are completely outside of the scope of public policy per se.
The public sphere just plays catch up, well or badly.
I’m splitting hairs a bit here, but I guess what I’m trying to drive at is that change per se is not usually something we can choose or not choose. All we can choose is our response.
their argument for not abolishing the filibuster because of that “race to the bottom,”
On the evidence of the past couple of decades in Congress, the options are
a) a “race to the bottom”, or
b) no race, only because one side isn’t running. Even though the other is, and has been.
You will note that I did say, explicitly, that sweeping changes “may sometimes be a necessity.”
Well, yes I did. So the question is who gets to decide what constitutes “sweeping” and “necessity”.
change per se is not usually something we can choose or not choose. All we can choose is our response.
Changes will come. Once upon a time, they came relatively slowly. But today, that’s simply not the world we live in. Nor one we can get to — short of participating in an extinction event all our own, I suppose.
So the question is who gets to decide what constitutes “sweeping” and “necessity”.
My inclination is to say that everybody is going to have to make their own . . . wait for it . . . judgement. And their collective judgements determine the answer — that’s how democracy works.
My personal judgement is that, on a number of topics currently, incremental changes have demonstrably proven inadequate. So something more is now necessary. It appears that there is developing democratic concensus on that as well.
The framers had absolutely not created a democracy, he wrote, but rather had worried about “a tyranny of the masses” who would vote for laws that redistributed tax dollars into projects that would benefit themselves.
whatever the Framers’ intentions, the 60-vote threshold filibuster was not among them. that was invented, like me, in 1970.
What legislation was blocked by a filibuster?
less than was blocked by Trump’s ridiculously bad negotiating skills, true.
Calling Trump’s negotiating skills “ridiculously bad” flatters him. He appears to have none at all.
Trump seems to have NEGATIVE negotiating skills.
Trump’s skills are the skills of a confidence man. He convinces people to take unwise action out of greed and then leaves them to either protect themselves when the scheme goes south or twist in the wind as he leaves them on the hook. His art is not negotiation, it’s temptation.
What nous said.
I like to think of him as Former President Screwtape.
That senior demon would take great offense at that. He would not have reached his sublevated position had he been such a bungler. He took great pride in receiving all for nothing in return while leaving his clients satisfied (until the great reveal post mortem that is).
if Manchin is being a colossal delusional dumbass about the filibuster, you can guarantee he’ll be twice that over SCOTUS reform.
but Biden is looking like he could go there nonetheless.
I’ve been briefing my ass off the last two weeks and need a short break and this will be short:
Trump’s skills are the skills of a confidence man.
I think you are giving him way too much credit. He’s a narcissist with zero compensatory mechanisms. That means he says whatever makes him look good or gets him what he wants. A con artist knows the end game and works the mark to that end. Trump just wants to make himself look and feel better. Plus, he’s a bully, which is also part of the narcissist’s game book. That’s why his so-called negotiating skills are for shit.
What McKinney said.
I think you are giving him way too much credit. …. his so-called negotiating skills are for shit.
Because he didn’t actually care about policy outcomes, foreign or domestic. When the end goal is his own profit, he doesn’t need to “negotiate,” and he’s a damn good scammer.
He pocketed nearly $350 million during the 2020 campaign alone, and we still don’t know how much of the rescue act passed in early 2020 he diverted to himself ($500 million unaccounted for, because he fired the Inspectors General who were supposed to monitor where the money went).
Not to mention his ongoing grift of his supporters, with the opt-out repeatable donations, and being labeled a DEFECTOR if they do opt out.
He’s shit at everything except conning people out of money. But conning people out of money is what he cares most about.
what’s tragic about Trump (pre-2016) is that his minimal skill set was enough to keep him wealthy (if not as wealthy as he wanted people to think).
there are a lot of suckers out there.
https://www.lewisu.edu/experts/wordpress/index.php/donald-i-meet-richard-iii/
And yet, we are opined: “We’ve had worse Presidents.”
And yet again, 75 million co-conspirators rushing to the egress in Trump’s thoroughly successful and evil grift.
There will be no justice because America hasn’t the WILL to look in the mirror.
What McKinney said.
Trump’s negotiating skills are:
1. Talk about how great he is
2. Yell
3. Sue
And if all of that fails, whine
I’d like to think that Former President Screwtape has no real skill, that he’s only a shallow narcissist, but what kills me every time is that he’s never had the capital himself to launch any of his many projects. He’s always had to convince someone else to back the project, and how that happens confounds me. He convinces people to put his name on a project that they paid for, and then convinces them to clean up after him and protect his name when the whole thing turns to crap (as russell said back in the day with his Midas-of-shit comment).
And how about all the poor bastards he suckered into Trump University, or whatever the hell it was called? And all the marks (R voters) he conned to vote for him “because he was such a successful businessman”?
And what CaseyL said.
p.s. None of this means he isn’t also a shallow narcissist, bully etc, with zero compensatory mechanisms.
To take a different perspective, what does it say about the United States that Trump is considered to be a success by (goes to 538 to check) almost 40% of the population?
Rather than a what he said, I’ll put it here for emphasis.
There will be no justice because America hasn’t the WILL to look in the mirror.
I can’t reconcile these two propositions:
1) The United States of America is a “great” nation; and
2) The US has an electoral system and an electorate that allowed He, Trump to become its president.
Liberals and conservatives both are invited to relieve my perplexity. Libertarians too, for that matter.
–TP
Liberals and conservatives both are invited to relieve my perplexity.
Nations, not unlike the people who make them up, are not all one thing or the other. They can be great at some things, but terrible at others. If you insist on viewing them thru a binary lens, you are going to be perplexed more often than not.
Get a big enough database with enough tables built on surrogate data, guesses, and subtly wrong algorithms and the data returned gets downright spooky and perverse.
I swear that my time doing data analysis and writing SQL was a better political education than a lot of political philosophy I have read.
I can’t reconcile these two propositions:
1) The United States of America is a “great” nation; and
2) The US has an electoral system and an electorate that allowed He, Trump to become its president.
one possibility:
Presidents don’t matter anywhere near as much as commonly thought. the real power is in Congress (Senate, especially). the President sets a tone, becomes a figurehead, scapegoat, lightning rod, band leader, etc.. but his time is short and his influence temporary.
The federal government seems to be becoming a triumvirate: speaker of the house, senate majority leader, and the president. Everyone else is playing increasingly bit parts in political theater.
They can be great at some things, but terrible at others.
I’m guessing Tony P knows this, but his perplexity regards a nation that is supposed to be great in general while terribly screwing up something extremely important. Like a supposedly great NFL wide receiver who runs great routes, is really fast, but can’t catch the ball. Still great at some things, but not another, right?
I would agree with CharlesWT at 09:35 and just add the rather unique situation of a senate split 50:50 (giving the VP a role of importance) and someone like Joe Manchin* in a position there that gives him essential veto power on everything (as long as the GOP remains in its 100% NO position). If he switched to the GOP he’d lose that power in an instant.
*no, I have not forgotten about Sinema. She’s just a wee more discreet.
Presidents don’t matter anywhere near as much as commonly thought.
Well, I dunno’. In an era of increased political polarization approaching Antebellum levels, The gridlocked (for reasons) Congress has simply abdicated its central role of initiating and passing policy, leaving the Executive and the courts to move into the resultant power vacuum.
but there’s only so much a President can do (domestically) with exec orders or regulation tweaking. he can’t change voting laws or build many roads, etc..
Biden will get the blame for not doing the things he said he wanted (Congress) to do. and that’s Congressional GOP’s entire plan.
“he can’t change voting laws or build
many roadsThe Wall, except with funds illegally diverted from other parts of the budget.”He could drone-strike MAGAt insurrectionists, also, too.
Biden will get the blame for not doing the things he said he wanted (Congress) to do. and that’s Congressional GOP’s entire plan.
It could play out that way. On the other hand, it appears that Biden will get at least a few things done — very popular things. Which can be evidence of good intent. Then in 2022 he can campaign for Democratic Congressional candidates with a theme of “remove the roadblocks!” It’s a message that has been used with success by a couple of past presidents.
He could drone-strike MAGAt insurrectionists, also, too.
this would be welcome.
…it appears that Biden will get at least a few things done — very popular things.
If we take Manchin, Sinema, and McConnell at their words, Biden’s legislative accomplishments are done. McConnell says he has his caucus in hand and they will not vote for anything Biden. Manchin says he wants an infrastructure bill, but not if it goes through reconciliation. Sinema says she supports a voting rights bill, but not enough to weaken the legislative filibuster. So continuing resolutions for the budgets and no more it is…
it’s really pretty amazing that it’s going to be one ostensible Democrat who killed Biden’s Presidency.
oh well. at least we got some C19 relief.
now, 3.5 years of nothing but complaints about how DC gets nothing done from people who don’t understand the all-important democracy-ensuring and Founder’s-given filibuster.
(i got some extra apostrophes, thanks to Biden)
Apostrophes’ make democracy work better. So maybe thank Manchin. 😉
now, 3.5 years of nothing but complaints about how DC gets nothing done…
No complaints from me. From my point of view, gridlock is often better than the alternatives.
I think this is why I fundamentally don’t trust libertarians. I mean functionally what is the difference between wanting gridlock because the alternatives are worse and wanting gridlock because you want to keep the status quo?
what is the difference between wanting gridlock because the alternatives are worse and wanting gridlock because you want to keep the status quo?
None
Zip
Zero
Nada
McConnell’s demand that corporations stay out of politics (frantically amended to not include stopping donations) seems to be headed for an Epic Fail.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/04/11/companies-voting-bills-states/
They’re not staying out. And they’re looking to stop donating to McConnell and Co. over voting rights and other issues dear to the hearts of the far right. Too many companies have looked at their markets and drawn the obvious conclusion about what they will look like going forward.
gridlock is often better than the alternatives.
How do you know?
From my point of view, gridlock is often better than the alternatives.
maybe the view from the ivory tower on the top of Mt Libertania isn’t a very representative POV.
From my point of view, gridlock is often better than the alternatives.
If you had said “better than the alternatives currently on offer” you might have gotten a better reception. Most of us can accept that the alternatives that have been proposed have flaws — whether we think the flaws outweigh the improvements or not. As written, it’s easy to (and several of us did) take it as saying that NO alternative would be better.
what is the difference between wanting gridlock because the alternatives are worse and wanting gridlock because you want to keep the status quo?
If you had said “better than the alternatives currently on offer” you might have gotten a better reception.
I’m not going to make this a two day hang out, because the issue isn’t that difficult. First of all, in pretty much every language I know of, words have meaning. This is true in English, at least for the time being. “Worse” and “status quo” have two different meanings. In the obvious context of two virtually evenly divided parties, it is not a particularly heavy mental lift to derive that Charles was saying that “that neither getting their way is better than either getting their way.” So, ad hominem to begin with and less than rigorous analysis thereafter.
A recurring rhetorical device I see here is critiquing (a usually contrarian) point of view for ‘failure to phrase it just right’, which is a non-existent, hindsight standard that is a useful tool only for those who can’t muster a substantive response. Anyone with the intellectual wherewithal to comment here is capable of looking past the universal and very common lack of perfect communication and determining the writer’s likely intent. Sideshows like picking apart someone’s language use–particularly without at least doing them the initial courtesy of asking for clarification–says a lot more about the dart thrower than the target.
To illustrate: if the Repubs were in charge, pretty much everyone here would be perfectly fine with gridlock preserving the status quo, not to mention being vigorous defenders of retaining the filibuster (and since every Democrat senator except Manchin and Sinema have been squarely on both sides of this issue, all 48 of them can take either side going forward and claim consistency).
Charles WT is too nice. He was in no way unclear. He prefers–as do I–gridlock to what the parties are serving up these days. This is called “not agreeing with the prevailing points of view.” It is refreshing and I recommend it.
Love of gridlock appears to be an enduring right/libertarian trope, so I see nothing remotely refreshing about it. YMMV.
A recurring rhetorical device I see here is critiquing (a usually contrarian) point of view for ‘failure to phrase it just right’
Just to be clear, I wasn’t trying to blame Charles for such a failure. I was trying to suggest something which, going forward, might better communicate what I thought, after further reflection, he might have intended. Sometimes one can attempt (however awkwardly) to help, without intending an attack.
Love of gridlock appears to be an enduring right/libertarian trope, so I see nothing remotely refreshing about it. YMMV.
truly.
decades of context around what people mean when they say it can’t be ignored because words also have literal meanings.
AlaMcTex quotes two different people in order to make his point without separating them. Too busy to make the proper reference or a recurring rhetorical device? I leave it to the reader to decide.
Love of gridlock appears to be an enduring right/libertarian trope, so I see nothing remotely refreshing about it. YMMV.
Perhaps–would you prefer gridlock or Republican ascendancy?
Sometimes one can attempt (however awkwardly) to help, without intending an attack.
Ok, fair enough; however, it was Charles’ failure to say it just right that, as you said, resulted in the push back. Let me float a different hypothesis: many if not most people these days are at Political DefCon 4 and any perceived challenge to “their side” is met with instant, often escalated, retaliation instead of giving some thought to whether what cuts against their personal grain might actually have something to it.
Charles made no personal attacks on anyone, but look at the responses. I think–in this particular instance–the situation speaks for itself. People are substituting verbal hipshots for reasoned analysis and response. And, if anyone wants to say, McKTex, isn’t that a bit of the pot calling the kettle black, I would agree, but I’ve somewhat lately tried–and continue to try–to make that a thing of the past.
AlaMcTex quotes two different people in order to make his point without separating them. Too busy to make the proper reference or a recurring rhetorical device?
Having done the same numerous times myself, I can’t really fault anyone else who does so as well. 🙂
Perhaps–would you prefer gridlock or Republican ascendancy?
Are those my only choices? And is Republican ascendancy necessarily the current Party of Trump Republican ascendancy? That doesn’t sound like much of choice.
That doesn’t sound like much of choice.
Now you are getting my point.
Charles made no personal attacks on anyone, but look at the responses.
Perhaps I’m merely tone deaf. But I didn’t see any personal attacks in the responses. Attacks on the (perhaps, as noted, mis-perceived) position? Definitely. Attacks on the ideology more broadly? Sure. But personal attacks? Was there something specific like that which you saw and I missed?
Having done the same numerous times myself, I can’t really fault anyone else who does so as well. 🙂
Yes, but I haven’t seen you doing drive-bys.
Now you are getting my point.
I’m guessing you would prefer gridlock to Party of Trump ascendancy, too. That doesn’t mean you’d prefer gridlock over just about anything else.
That doesn’t mean you’d prefer gridlock over just about anything else.
And I did not say that. Here is what I said, “In the obvious context of two virtually evenly divided parties, it is not a particularly heavy mental lift to derive that Charles was saying that “that neither getting their way is better than either getting their way.” To me, it seems clear I am speaking of current times. I’m not sure what else there might be that I *would be* referring to.
So, back to my question: gridlock or today’s Repub’s–what is your call?
WJ, just so you don’t think I wasn’t responding to you separately, I’ll repeat my statement from above, “So, ad hominem to begin with and less than rigorous analysis thereafter.” The part responding to you follows the word “and.”
ad hominem to begin with
It’s the ad hominem part that I’m missing. Not just in my responses, but in any of them. Who attached Charles personally? What did they say that you read as a personal attack? As I say, maybe I’m tone deaf, but I’m just not seeing it.
So, a poster’s name and time stamp. A quote. Something concrete. Please.
What I’m trying to say is, I’m willing to try to do better myself going forward. But clearly I need some help recognizing what is problematic. Thank you.
I’m guessing you would prefer gridlock to Party of Trump ascendancy, too.
That is what I said and, recognizing my presumptuous in reading Charles WT’s mind, I’m pretty sure that’s what he was saying. Which is why telling someone they are untrustworthy–along with everyone who shares that person’s belief–is kind of shitty IMO. He may be wrong–I don’t think so, in fact, as stated, I agree–but his position is not different than yours or anyone else’s here if the positions were reversed and the Repubs held the senate only by the VP’s vote. You’d be delighted with gridlock and devoted fans of the filibuster. So, really, who is trustworthy and who is simply opportunistic?
Who attached Charles personally? What did they say that you read as a personal attack? As I say, maybe I’m tone deaf, but I’m just not seeing it.
Ok, thanks for asking for clarification. I’m quoting the ad hominem below.
I think this is why I fundamentally don’t trust libertarians
The above is not engagement on the merits, it is questioning integrity or just a straight out slur–what if I or Marty began by saying, “this is why I distrust libs . . . )? Who would warm up to that?
Moreover, what passes for *engagement* is sloppy, ineffectual and shitty logic, as I plainly demonstrated in direct response to his assertion. Of course there is a difference between “no change” and “the change that the Dems or the Repubs would inflict if they had their way.”
Anyone here who thinks I am wrong is free to tell me, but in fairness, I think it is incumbent on dissenters to address Charles WT’s statement reformulated to imagine “the Repubs in charge”.
To paraphrase me (again), the beauty of the status quo is entirely in the eyes of the beholder.
I’m going to amend my overly broad use of the ad hominem characterization. That was too much for all but one commenter. I’m going to characterize the remaining comments as snidely (to one degree or another) dismissive. Which is not ad hominem. So, my apologies for that.
Gridlock lovers are nothing new. They tend to be anti-government. A government that doesn’t do anything is the next best thing to no/minimal government. That’s all it is and predates the Trump presidency and takeover of the GOP.
Also, too, the sort of obstructionism that Mitch McConnell has espoused – a relatively recent and well-known source of gridlock – belongs to one party and not the other.
Yes, I prefer gridlock to idiocy. I don’t prefer it to good government (an admittedly subjective thing, but one on which there used to be occasional bipartisan agreement).
I’m going to amend my overly broad use of the ad hominem characterization. That was too much for all but one commenter.
OK, I’m getting a grip now. Thank you for the clarification.
Yes, I prefer gridlock to idiocy. I don’t prefer it to good government (an admittedly subjective thing, but one on which there used to be occasional bipartisan agreement).
Ok, fine. And the day that Charles WT, Marty, me or anyone else (left, right or center) calls for gridlock over good government, feel free to open fire. I think the battle lines have always been, pretty clearly, ‘what do you mean by good gov’t?”.
OK, I’m getting a grip now. Thank you for the clarification.
Well, I wouldn’t have gotten there if you hadn’t pressed me for what I thought was clear but which was not. So, first, thank you. Second, your tenacity illustrates the value of a good faith request for clarification rather than assuming the worst. So, thanks again.
But you don’t get gridlock. You get all the changes that the executive branch can make using EOs, the rule-making authority of the various agencies, and the DOJ making choices about not only which cases to pursue, but which side to be on. IIRC, there are a couple of Supreme Court cases in which the DOJ was invited to make arguments and the Biden DOJ has asked for a delay because they want to oppose the side that the Trump DOJ supported. Trump got tax cuts, then four years worth of rolling back regulations. Biden got Covid relief, and if Manchin and Sinema are to be believed, will get four years of changing regulations.
That was too much for all but one commenter.
The process of never acknowledging the speaker, but calling them out is an old rhetorical gambit. It’s meant to try and get everyone else to gang up on them yet maintain plausible deniability. It is kind of the opposite of good faith.
The next time you want to put your oar in the water, instead of trying to start a fight between two other people, why don’t you say ‘gee, I think that was a bit harsh, I’m sure Charles prefers good government over gridlock’.
I don’t expect you will take this advice, but I live to be surprised.
The process of never acknowledging the speaker, but calling them out is an old rhetorical gambit.
A lot like calling someone a loser behind two or three layers of indirection. If you can’t play the lawyer game well, “we call them losers.”
“How high?”
Charles, what did YOU mean?
I’m guessing you meant what you have consistently held here for years, that you prefer gridlock no matter which party is in power and in every instance except if we were to wake up tomorrow with your preferred “good” government in power, a sharply curtailed, mostly inert thing, rarely heard from and barely funded.
Barely a grid to lock.
I’m picturing Charles’ libertarianism coming forth nude on a giant scallop shell, as pure and as perfect as a pearl, birthed anew and never before seen. (That’s partially plagiarized.)
Admittedly, I don’t come by my attitude about gridlock out of thin air. Gridlock is a recurring theme in libertarian venues. And, as McKinney suggested, I apply it to both sides.
The Republicans want to cut some taxes and spend. The Democrats want to raise taxes and spend.
Nice for me, at least in the short run, having stimmies dropping into my bank account. But, sooner or later, there has to be a reckoning. Much higher taxes and inflation with a risk of hyperinflation. Something will have to give. TANSTAAFL.
Public nudity is one tenet of Libertarianism I might be able to get with, though in Charles’ individual case regulation may well be called for.
Oh, my eyes!
See, that’s not ad hominem, that’s a joke.
Nudus hominem.
Charles, what did YOU mean?
I posted before refreshing.
I would prefer a good government. And less of it.
Congress was supposed to be first among equals. But, in recent decades, it prefers to pass vague, overly broad laws and give the responsibility to the executive to flesh them out and write the regulations. That and executive orders create a lot of regime uncertainty that is a drag on the economy and society in general.
See, that’s not ad hominem, that’s a joke.
Me and people my age lolling about nude would be no joke.
Maybe gross-out humor.
Maybe gross-out humor.
I was about to ask: “But how many adolescents do we have here?” Then I reconsidered.
The process of never acknowledging the speaker, but calling them out is an old rhetorical gambit. It’s meant to try and get everyone else to gang up on them yet maintain plausible deniability. It is kind of the opposite of good faith.
Ok, I’m not a big fan of mind-reading, but I’ll go out on a limb and call this projection. But it’s true, I’ve never, not once at ObWi acknowledged you or your existence and for that, I apologize.*
For everyone else at ObWi, if any of you think I am asking you to pile on, to join me in criticizing someone–as opposed to me simply criticizing someone for acting like a jerk IMO–feel free to call it to my attention. I’ll address your comments substantively and if and when that happens.
instead of trying to start a fight between two other people, why don’t you say ‘gee, I think that was a bit harsh, I’m sure Charles prefers good government over gridlock’.
Thanks for making my point. Again.
BTW, just so you know where I’m coming from, you can light me up in your own, inimitable style, all you want and it is highly unlikely I will respond. Life is too short and your points are just too silly to bother with. The exception is if you happen to beclown yourself more than usual, I may not be able to resist taking a shot. Sorry in advance for that.
However, if I think you are being a shit to someone else, I will say so, assuming I have the time. Which I had some of today, but not a lot. So, take your best shot. Beware of ricochets.
*Am I being too subtle here?
McTX: Anyone with the intellectual wherewithal to comment here is capable of looking past the universal and very common lack of perfect communication and determining the writer’s likely intent.
OTOH, many writers will respond with “Stop putting words in my mouth” any time we infer, from their actual text, an implication they find embarrassing.
I suspect that in McKinney’s legal experience, the “I know what you meant but you said it wrong” criticism is fairly common in, say, contract disputes.
–TP
I suspect that in McKinney’s legal experience, the “I know what you meant but you said it wrong” criticism is fairly common in, say, contract disputes.
Insightful. Here’s the difference: in most contract cases, the lawyers are being paid $500/hr or more to pay very careful attention to what they are doing, not commenting on the fly at a blog. They still f it up a lot (I’m briefing that right now, as it happens). But, still, a good point, which is why I think the better, more productive approach is to ask for clarification.
CharlesWT:
Congress was supposed to be first among equals. But, in recent decades, it prefers to pass vague, overly broad laws and give the responsibility to the executive to flesh them out and write the regulations. That and executive orders create a lot of regime uncertainty that is a drag on the economy and society in general.
Michael Cain:
But you don’t get gridlock. You get all the changes that the executive branch can make using EOs, the rule-making authority of the various agencies, and the DOJ making choices about not only which cases to pursue, but which side to be on. IIRC, there are a couple of Supreme Court cases in which the DOJ was invited to make arguments and the Biden DOJ has asked for a delay because they want to oppose the side that the Trump DOJ supported. Trump got tax cuts, then four years worth of rolling back regulations. Biden got Covid relief, and if Manchin and Sinema are to be believed, will get four years of changing regulations.
It looks like Charles and MC have somewhat similar views on what legislative gridlock really means. Stuff still happens, just by different, less-desirable means. Charles seems to like it more, though.
It looks like Charles and MC have somewhat similar views on what legislative gridlock really means. Stuff still happens, just by different, less-desirable means. Charles seems to like it more, though.
From the perspective of someone trying to run a business, having a predictable environment is very desirable. Which means that, in general, legislation is preferable. Just because it takes longer to enact, and (more importantly) longer to change, laws. Regulations, as we saw in the last administration, can be abruptly changed if someone comes into office who has very different ideas of how the world ought to be run.
That desire for stability and predictability is why, for example, auto manufacturers decided to simply ignore the previous administration’s determination to relax pollution emission standards. Better to stick with the prior regulations, however un-fond of them they were, than to put effort into creating something to take advantage of the relaxation. Only to have it made worthless in a few years when the regulations were restored.
However, if I think you are being a shit to someone else, I will say so, assuming I have the time.
No, you won’t. You’ll keep trying to have your cake and eat it too with a steady menu of back-handed lines until someone with a lot more patience than I draws you out. And even then, you don’t defend gridlock, you simply try to make the case that I’m misreading what Charles said. David Koch was considered a libertarian stalwart. As wj noted, the difference between being a libertarian who is standing on principles and being a billionaire who wants to harness gridlock to not have to be taxed is non-existent.
You could have simply said ‘I think that is unfair to Charles’. You didn’t. What am I to infer from that? As you said ‘that you can’t resist taking a shot’. So you aren’t interested in advancing the discussion. QED.
I urge you to point out when you think I’m being too harsh with someone else. (Anyone else is also invited to, that’s part of what give and take on a blog means.) It would nice to be having you participate here in some other mode than drive by, though I supposed dropping in to defend someone is better than dropping in to attack someone. But, as I’ve pointed out before, while formally, attacking me is the same as defending Charles, functionally, there is a difference. To me, it seems that you are just indicating that you can’t acknowledge me and nothing short of mind reading can tell me why that is. Especially as you don’t seem to have time to engage in anything else. If you don’t want me to engage in mind reading, go an extra step and explain why gridlock is a good thing, especially in this Covid era. I’m sure there’s a good discussion there. But pretending to be a knight errant to protect the commentariat from me beclowning them won’t do that.
No complaints from me. From my point of view, gridlock is often better than the alternatives.
Well, I would guess that from a libertarian standpoint a gridlocked government that does nothing is preferable to any government doing something insofar as doing much of anything is a departure from the libertarian ideals.
however,….to continue-the efficacy of that view from a standpoint of effective political decision-making and government policy seems problematical at best.
The party that has a clear popular mandate should be able to rule, even if it is the fucking Republican Party. The problem of gridlock arises out of different factors than mere popularity…institutional arrangements that actually work to promote it.
Charles has a sad because Congress has “ceded” it pre-eminent power. I would agree the power shift is indeed real. Perhaps he could enlighten us as to why we observe this development.
But, in recent decades, it prefers to pass vague, overly broad laws and give the responsibility to the executive to flesh them out and write the regulations
This is just laudy-dah warmed over nondelegation doctrine. It is, to put it bluntly, a pernicious concept.
Charles has a sad because Congress has “ceded” it pre-eminent power.
a system that allows itself to be change will change.
libertarians should invent a system that can’t change, if that’s what they want.
Something will have to give.
But it has not. Please explain why.
It also occurs to me that gridlock, from the fever swamp of your inflationary fears, is the worst possible outcome. To overly simplify like any good libertarian would: If the GOP rules, they cut taxes and cut spending. If the Dems rule, they raise taxes and increase spending.
In gridlock we get the “worst” of both possible approaches. Big spending. Lower taxes.
So tell me again how great it is.
I supposed dropping in to defend someone is better than dropping in to attack someone.
Cor blimey, I made my comment to McKinney (who may have disappeared by now) on the golf thread before I caught up on this thread. Nobody has ever explained to me why blog etiquette (which I have gathered) scorns “mind-reading” so much, so here goes. I am astonished by the combative nature of McKinney’s responses in the last few hours, and not just to lj (with whom he has a notably difficult relationship, to put it mildly). He recently claimed that he had not been “stung” (my word) by a recent discussion in which we had discussed his adversarial style, but his actions since put the lie to this. In fact, most of his comments recently on this thread read like pure retaliation against a commentariat some of whom he thinks have unfairly characterised, or attacked him. Crikey O’Reilly, look within for a change McKinney. A pretence that all you are after is substantive, logical argument is wearing pretty thin.
And, FWIW, I suggest anyone who thinks my comment is “overwrought” should also look at McKinney’s comment, and the 3 comments above it, on the “Urge to Make a Buck” thread.
I’m sympathetic to the view that it shouldn’t be too easy to pass legislation. (There are some interesting comments here on incentives for government to do foolish things.)
But gridlock in Congress is exactly the wrong way to make it harder. Bills are passed through budget reconciliation, which was used to explode the deficit in 2001, 2017, and this year, only the last with any sort of economic justification. And it would have been used to pass the thoroughly stupid and destructive “”Health Care Freedom Act” had three R senators not voted on the side of sense. The reconciliation mechanism ensures that anything that does get passed will be wholly partisan.
When it comes to appointments, gridlock has created the absurd situation that the less popular party has a 6-3 majority on the Supreme Court, with none of the recent Justices being anywhere near the centre.
Now anyone who believes in democracy recognises that fair voting is a priority. So there will be a bipartisan voting act? In my dreams there will.
It’s telling that corporations are coming out against voter suppression. They want low corporation taxes, but even more important than that to them is getting a sane Republican Party. Which is impossible if the Party thinks it can steal power with support in the low forties.
If you want restrained legislation, the current system is precisely the wrong way to get it.
GftNC: Who, do you imagine, is going to think you’re “overwrought”? Certainly not I.
McKinney said my arguments about the new GA law were overwrought, if I am remembering correctly.
Ahhhh, I had either missed or forgotten that. I should have known. Drive-by epithets a specialty. 😉
Charles WT is too nice. He was in no way unclear.
I agree that Charles is a very nice guy, and also that he was clear.
I responded “how do you know” because we don’t completely know what the result of laws and policies will be until they’re in place. We can try to think forward and anticipate how they will play out, but we don’t know.
Likewise, we don’t know how “gridlock”, i.e, “do nothing”, will play out until we do nothing and see what happens.
Situations present themselves, we respond to them according to our best understanding and what we think is good and appropriate. We can’t anticipate everything, so we do our best. And then, when we discover things that aren’t playing out that well, we do our best to address those.
“Do nothing” is not a guarantee of success. It’s not even a guarantee of the status quo. So I’m not sure what it is that Charles is actually preferring.
hence my question.
If the GOP rules, they cut taxes and cut spending
They cut certain spending but afaict the ‘saved’ money plus extras is spent on different things (and with ‘spent’ I do not just mean tax cuts), so they also spend more (even if maybe* less more than the Dems at least after Reagan). And let’s be generous and not include spending on actual wars like in Iraq.
*too lazy to look up actual numbers, so I may be completely wrong there.
GFTNC, sorry the overwrought was offensive. Not personal, I thought the overall reaction was overwrought. As for the rest, it will have to wait until Friday, hopefully in the morning. Adieu.
Apology accepted, McKinney. And again FWIW, I personally would hate to lose you from ObWi. Generally speaking, I agree with russell, PdM and Pro Bono that you add greatly to our somewhat moth-eaten tapestry.
Underwroughtness can be even more maddening than overwroughtness.
It’s always too soon to be overwrought, sez the underwrought.
The underwrought Mr. Spocks among us will give we jittery Captain Kirks the high sign when it is time to become overwrought.
Now?
No, not yet.
When?
After the shots ring out. There will still be time to duck.
When you see me leave the building, then , and only then and with calm, collected demeanors, drop everything and run for your lives.
Kudlowian virus denial. All of those working in Tower #2, please remain at your desks, keep producing and stop gawking at the human debris leaping from Tower #1.
Someone close the blinds, please. Too much overwroughtness on display.
Thank you, and keep in touch.
So many of the underwrought didn’t see 1/6/2021 coming.
Others did.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=loOWKm8GW6A
Today: Not personal, I thought the overall reaction was overwrought.
April 6, 12:52 pm:
An explicit statement about “your” reaction in addition to “much of” the reaction.
https://washingtonmonthly.com/2021/04/12/mcconnell-to-17th-amendment-drop-dead/
America was founded upon a tidal wave of overwroughtness and then renewed during the Civil War by the overwrought against those who were underwrought regarding slavery and secession from the Union.
What is once again required is an explosion of overwroughtness, that watery substance that feeds the tree of liberty.
A Republic, if you can maintain the overwrought energy to keep it.
I notice the suspects counseling that the rest of remain underwrought at some point became overwrought enough in their lives to arm themselves to the gills.
The voting franchise is being stolen right out from under our noses.
A Republic, if you can maintain the overwrought energy to keep it.
I notice the suspects counseling that the rest of remain underwrought at some point became overwrought enough in their lives to arm themselves to the gills.
The voting franchise is being stolen right out from under our noses.
Hard to argue with a word of this.
Janie, thank you for your 12.21, I vaguely remembered this, but I believe McKinney may now be thinking better of it – since he is currently working through his attitude about ad hominem remarks.
As it happens, I had of course read the NYT piece and looked at the statutory language. But I made the (imaginative? I don’t think so) leap that if a longtime state R legislature had passed an unnecessary law (since the recent election had been deemed free and fair) straight after they had narrowly lost 2 federal elections, such that they gave themselves hitherto unavailable power to reverse future elections, they were positioning themselves to be able to prevent such a thing happening again.
Speaking personally, phrases like “on the face of it” raise my suspicions. lj’s explanation of the concept of “functionality” makes sense to me although I had never heard the term. In the real world, as opposed to in a literal, parsing interpretation, one has to assume that if a power is bestowed, it may be used.
The voting franchise is being stolen right out from under our noses.
Hard to argue with a word of this.
I’d argue that, while an attempt is indeed being made to steal the voting franchise, the implication is wrong.
The phrase “stolen right out from under our noses” conveys, to me, the implication that it is happening and is succeeding because we aren’t even noticing. Whereas today we definitely are noticing. And fighting it.
The big money guns aren’t really fighting:
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/big-business-is-sticking-with-the-republican-party-190225636.html
Feigning notice, perhaps, to play both sides.
Annoyingly pedantic clarifying addendum to my 04.00 above: ad hominem (as it applies to me) in the sense that the word “overwrought” is usually used these days to mean over-emotional or hysterical, usually of a woman.
GftNC, about your wondering about mind reading, I’ve had the same thoughts and I think there are two things involved. The first is that it is culturally bound. My ability to participate in Japanese boards is far below my ability to do so in English, but I’ve never come across a fight about mind reading there. The whole idea of Japanese culture is that you are supposed to read minds. ‘Omotenashi’ is a new buzz word here and it essentially mean mind-reading. Here are two articles pro vs con
https://metropolisjapan.com/omotenashi/
https://metropolisjapan.com/defense-omotenashi/
It’s no surprise that the first author is a Japanese raised overseas and the second is born and raised in Japan. The whole point of Japanese communication is that you are supposed to understand what the other person is saying without having them write it all out.
Unfortunately, everything can be gamed, including this. Often times, when involved in arguments where there is not going to be any compromise, this call for ‘mind reading’ often is used to avoid honesty and compromise. I was involved in supporting a group that was dealing with the Ministry of Education. The university had listed the foreign teachers as full-time faculty, but when it came time to grant them tenure, they insisted that they were hired on contracts (even though they had never signed anything, a deeper dive into this would require a lot of discussion of Japanese labor law and practice). When problems with the actual records was brought to the labor board, the president said it was an ‘akiraka na misu’ where akiraka means clear or obvious, but had the nuance of why point that out, everyone knows it was a mistake.
On the other hand, accusations of mindreading can also be gamed, so rather than view them as attempts to understand exactly what the person is trying to say, they are automatically taken as evidence of bad faith. It just underlines that every strength is a weakness and every weakness is a strength.
While I’m on this, a grad school teacher, Thom Givon, was big in functional linguistics and his argument was that sciences like Physics and math are based on axioms (like say gravity) that are true 100% of the time, but linguistics was a science more like biology, in that it is functional (rather than formalism, in biology, the concept opposing functionalism is structuralism and it is a good place to read up about it)
As a functionalist, one of the biggest dangers I see with it is that it is very easy to settle for half measures. If I’m teaching and I come up with something that gets a student to getting things right 80% of the time, I’m down with that, even if it rounds off some edges. But what if it is getting 80% of the students to learn it? Things start to get tricky.
On the other hand, the formalist/structuralist aims for some rule that covers 100%. The thing is, if a formalist settles for 80%, it seems to be a bit more of a stepdown.
As a functionalist, I see the allure of finding a rule(s) that work 100% of the time and I would love to be able to. But I also think everything is messier than you think.
Frankly, I tend not to get too overwrought about my inability to read minds or use the word “substantive” in every other sentence.
You have nothing to worry about GFTNC, nor apologize for.
Thanks, bobbyp, for generous reassurance.
But the truth is, I wasn’t worried about anything (except pedantic clarification, which I continue here). I didn’t (and still don’t) think my concerns about the GA voting law were overwrought. And by overwrought, I mean over-emotional or hysterical, which has been the word’s primary meaning over my entire 65 year life.
“over-emotional”, in my observation, means dislpaying any emotion at all while holding a position contrary to the speaker’s.
As opposed to “robotic”, which means failing to display emotion during a disagreement. 🙂
I am astonished by the combative nature of McKinney’s responses in the last few hours, and not just to lj (with whom he has a notably difficult relationship, to put it mildly).
In fact, most of his comments recently on this thread read like pure retaliation against a commentariat some of whom he thinks have unfairly characterised, or attacked him.
I make no apologies for taking LJ to task for his shitty–and not very smart–little hit job on Charles WT, possibly the politest commenter here. LJ and I don’t like each other. However, I manage to get along with most here, and have for well over a decade. So, I deal with the “most” who I get along with and–as much as I can–decline to engage with LJ and a few others. I will continue to address LJ on occasion, but in the third person. Direct communication with him is pointless. I did try at one time–several years ago–and I concluded that not dealing with him directly is much easier.
To be clear: if LJ makes a statement regarding some policy issue, or if he misfires on a racism accusation, I will address that in the third person. If he treats someone poorly, I will address that directly. I will not respond to whatever he has to say about me personally. I have a pretty good idea who I am and LJ’s opinion of me means less than nothing to me.
As for “overwrought” being ad hominem, it is not. First of all, I was not describing you, I was describing your and others’ response to the GA changes in election law. Overwrought, in my view, means ‘over done.’ I stand by that, but i certainly meant no personal insult. I can’t imagine ever intentionally insulting you, or pretty much anyone, on a personal level. I don’t think putting an adjective in front of someone’s opinion is necessarily insulting, but I will try to be as moderate as my style allows going forward.
I think this discharges my agreement earlier this weekend to respond. If you think I’ve missed something material, please let me know.
defenestrate the police, and every one who thinks the problem is black kids not behaving themselves.
and why would they ‘accidentally’ shoot someone who is likely to have a toy gun?
yes, it’s a mystery.
all lives yadayadayada
The big money guns aren’t really fighting:
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/big-business-is-sticking-with-the-republican-party-190225636.html
Feigning notice, perhaps, to play both sides.
On the other hand
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/04/15/republican-party-big-business-georgia-voting-rights-conservative-481978
Its just good business practice to listen to your customers. Especially when the party on the other side is visible in a downward spiral.
Overwrought, in my view, means ‘over done.’ I stand by that, but i certainly meant no personal insult.
I acquit you of misogynist usage, but I believe that your previous use of the word “overwrought” shows exactly what you understand it to mean:
https://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2020/04/looking-for-death.html?cid=6a00d834515c2369e20240a4fd93de200d#comment-6a00d834515c2369e20240a4fd93de200d
As for “exploding heads”, look at the overwrought title of this thread. Jesus.
The thread, for those disinclined to follow the link, was called “Looking for Death”, and dealt with rightwing gangs/militias and their gathering, maskless etc, despite the pandemic. You, McKinney, were contrasting this with BLM protests etc, which might have been a valid point (at least as regards Covid risk). But in any case, your use of the word “overwrought” here shows you know exactly what it means in most common usage, and you were using it in that way yourself.
However, the “overwrought” issue has (as I have explained elsewhere) ended up being focussed on disproportionately, and not by you. My real point was that, in cases like the discussion of the new GA voting law, your impulse to downplay the threat to American democracy (despite your discomfort around 1/6/21) and therefore to characterise most people on this blog as hysterical over-reactors (more or less), given to ad hominem attacks, was becoming more strident, even more so perhaps in the aftermath of a discussion about your own “adversarial” style.
I notice on the golf thread that you miss my main point entirely in the rush to denigrate lj (you should get out more often): namely that he was saying he had heard very little of Matsuyama during the Masters tournament. lj confirms as much after my “bee in the bonnet” comment:
I just looked back at this and yes GftNC is correct, I was just speaking of the current Japanese reaction to Matsuyama. I’d also add that Matsuyama’s win in thw Master’s Amatuers was reported, but there hasn’t been a press entourage following him for the past 10 years. A number of teasons, including the thinking that amatuer is a step below pro, the number of successful women (a number of which are Korean, which brings its own complications) as well as golf losing a bit of popularity with Tiger receding and no one really stepping up to hold the spotlight.
In any case, this kind of minute examination of past posts is not my speciality, or something I enjoy. Nothing can make you and lj friends, but I have made clear to you that I, along with many others, value your contributions to this site. My only real request, and it is very sincere, is that in discussion of issues like e.g. racism and the connected threat to American democracy etc, you examine your dismissive assumptions about liberals and lefties, ensure that the things you accuse them (“us”) of believing are actually things they (“we”) believe, and look within to check whether your own experiences and recent misgivings might be influencing your urge to insult others.
Speaking for myself, I undertake to do the same regarding rightwingers, particularly the ones on this site.
McKinney,
Compare and contrast:
1) Your opinion is overwrought
2) Your opinion is racist
Both adjectives refer to “your opinion”, not to “you”, so is either one ad hominem?
BTW, can a LAW be “overwrought” do you think?
–TP
The thread, for those disinclined to follow the link, was called “Looking for Death”, and dealt with rightwing gangs/militias and their gathering, maskless etc, despite the pandemic.
The thread compared RW militia losers in MI to the Spanish Civil War. Overwrought was an understatement.
Posted by: cleek | April 16, 2021 at 10:36 AM is beyond f**ked up. I can’t really express it.
McKinney, I didn’t bother to go back and read the whole thread, just the bit under discussion at the time. But your “Overwrought was an understatement” only underlines that by that word, you mean a great deal more than “over done”.
Both adjectives refer to “your opinion”, not to “you”, so is either one ad hominem?
Neither is ad hominem, strictly speaking. Pls see this link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
I infer that you believe characterizing an opinion can effectively be a personal attack on the person holding the opinion–ok, I’ll grant that *can* be the case.
I’m pretty sure, in regard to both the GA voting laws reaction on the left and the much earlier post suggesting some kind of equivalency between a small crowd of MI Bubbas and the Spanish Civil War, my use of the word ‘overwrought’ was and remains an opinion of the collective reaction in the first instance and the substance of the Post in the second. I still think I am right in both instances and I am puzzled why my particular word choice is such a thing as well as why people take offense at what is a not uncommon way of describing an overreaction.
The Michigan RW militia losers compared themselves to winning Nazis and the winning Confederacy, judging by their regalia and social media bloviating, by which I mean both were in first place in deadliness for years, before losing, and not to mention with their military getups they compared themselves to genocidal death squads, American-sponsored or not … which is what thought they were, American-sponsored.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/08/us/gretchen-whitmer-michigan-militia.html
I’d say comparisons to the Spanish Civil War were therefore medium-wrought, though the Franco-loving Catholic insurrectionist-excusing conservative scum over at the American Conservative might consider such a comparison a finely-wrought compliment.
Military fatigues are one thing, but accompanied by military-grade semi-automatic weapons on America’s streets kicks me in an overwrought gear that those f*cks do not want to encounter.
Does it occur to anyone that many statements here and on other political blogs are rhetorical shots over the heads of the actual thread participants and not meant to insult the latter, but rather are framed to condemn entire political movements.
I recall, MCKT, a statement of yours some time ago which accused a pharmaceutical charge by Medicare to be “criminal”, if memory serves, which seemed a bit hair-on-fire wrought, and I’m sure there exist plenty of other examples.
But then I’m a guy who makes up a new curse word for every stubbed toe.
I also consider your statement in January to the effect that you were surprised the January 6, 2021 insurrectionist violence and murders in DC originated from the radical right wing as opposed to the radical left wing, the precise opposite of your expectations, to be, if not mildly under-wrought, then oddly passive, given the enormity of the event and the incessant insurrectionist cross talk from the right wing these many years, including from the effing President of the United States leading up to the as-yet unpunished violence.
You are a conservative. You have biases, as do we all. They show, but your compass seems to pass you off as pointed inerringly to true north.
I suspect lj, and his parents, in their day-to-day lives have been personally the butt of more racial prejudice than either you or me in this country, so it could be he’s ready to go at it at the drop of a hat, just as you are ready and hop to with a conveniently-placed weapon when you suspect an intruder in your home, or the neighbors.
It’s THAT personal.
I’m a little overwrought just having to point this out.
But I am professionally overwrought.
And furthermore, that thread was in 2020 – tell me, McKinney, how many more 1/6s and polls showing a majority of Rs believe the election was stolen have to happen, before you see that concerns about, or comparisons to a possible civil war are not as “overwrought” as all that?
Watch with the sound down, if at all, but notice how Homelander remains preternaturally under-wrought as heads explode all around him.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BfXwEJZRaEo
Kind of a maddening indifference, no?
My only real request, and it is very sincere, is that in discussion of issues like e.g. racism and the connected threat to American democracy etc, you examine your dismissive assumptions about liberals and lefties, ensure that the things you accuse them (“us”) of believing are actually things they (“we”) believe, and look within to check whether your own experiences and recent misgivings might be influencing your urge to insult others.
Speaking for myself, I undertake to do the same regarding rightwingers, particularly the ones on this site.
Ok, this seems fair, although I’m not going to spend much time worrying about other’s word choices to describe my positions. With few exceptions, pretty much anything anyone here has said to or about me or my positions has fallen within the very broad range of what I consider to be fair comment.
But, let me also say that how others “take” things here and how I “take” things may be different in important ways. I was actually giving this some thought earlier today after my initial comments this morning. My regular day–almost every day–involves clash, confrontation, attack and defense. Every day. It’s been like that for over 40 years. It can range from stimulating to frustrating to, on rare occasions, hostility (very rare, 3-5 times a year). Consequently, about the highest level of negative emotion the give and take here produces in me is mild irritation. It may be that others are more invested in what they say and what is said in response.
So, to me, even noticing that someone said “overwrought” seems unusual since I just don’t see where that word is particularly offensive. Perhaps I am insensitive. Others have said that about me, including several close family members. Regardless, the intent is not to offend, but to explain my position. I hope this isn’t gas on the fire.
Let me also address this:
your impulse to downplay the threat to American democracy (despite your discomfort around 1/6/21) and therefore to characterise most people on this blog as hysterical over-reactors (more or less), given to ad hominem attacks, was becoming more strident, even more so perhaps in the aftermath of a discussion about your own “adversarial” style.
Not agreeing with someone and assessing someone’s reaction to a given event is not ad hominem, by definition. The GA laws do not “threaten” democracy. That is simply not the case. Therefore, it is an overstatement. Or, overwrought, as in ‘over done’. Disagreement on substance is not ad hominem. I am very careful not to personalize exchanges here, other than my unfortunate encounters with LJ. If you can find examples of me employing ad hominem, or even strident, tactics against anyone other than my personal expressions to and about LJ, I would like to see them. I take this charge seriously and therefore, would like to see at least one and preferably several examples of what you believe to be out of line. Thanks.
I also consider your statement in January to the effect that you were surprised the January 6, 2021 insurrectionist violence and murders in DC originated from the radical right wing as opposed to the radical left wing, the precise opposite of your expectations, to be, if not mildly under-wrought, then oddly passive,
Do you happen to have a link or something? My recollection was that, going into 1/6, I thought the Rad Right peeps were ineffectual losers incapable anything more than strutting their stuff as in MI. That they did what the did was, truly, quite a surprise to me. That’s my memory. I’d like a link, to see if more context is needed. Thanks.
I’m willing to be proved wrong.
I’ll hunt for a link.
And furthermore, that thread was in 2020 – tell me, McKinney, how many more 1/6s and polls showing a majority of Rs believe the election was stolen have to happen, before you see that concerns about, or comparisons to a possible civil war are not as “overwrought” as all that?
You are operating from a limited and selective number of data points. Prior to the election, there was no shortage of voices on the left calling for all kinds of uncivil response if Trump won. The farther left, or right, you go on the spectrum, the more the one fears the other and imputes the worst. Lefties wonder how Repubs can tolerate Trump. People like me wonder the same thing. Of course, we also wonder why Bernie Sanders and the Prog Left have a home in the Democratic Party. I do not share your concerns about an imminent, conservative-led civil war and I find plenty of the stuff on the left quite disturbing as well: the Prog Left would pack the Supreme Court, eliminate the filibuster, end the electoral college and disband the senate. Don’t think for a minute others don’t find that agenda to be a revolution under the very faint color of law.
Believing an election was stolen vs policy proposals that would upend a form of government most of us are very happy with are not even comparable.
Does anybody else here recall the McKinney eruption about trans in “wrong” bathrooms?
Now that was IMHO overwrought.
Just sayin’
But just to be fair, it strikes me as a bit of a stretch to compare our wannabe nazi thugs to the Spanish Civil War…they are more akin to Oswald Mosley’s ragtag group. This is not to underestimate the danger they could pose.
Carry on.
I’m willing to be proved wrong.
I might have said, as matter of comparison and context, that in light of the protests/riots earlier in the year, that I would have expected the far left to have been more capable of a deployment like 1/6, but that the right was just of bunch of disorganized losers. I still think my overall assessment of the right is correct, but my confidence level is not as high as it was pre-1/6.
Does anybody else here recall the McKinney eruption about trans in “wrong” bathrooms?
I still think it’s horrible that men can follow women and young girls into bathrooms and there is no recourse for women who want privacy. Moreover, I recall that thread well and no one, at that time, pushed back, as I recall.
A man is not threatened by a woman entering the men’s restroom. I know of no women, including many, many liberal women, who want a man in the next stall. Or standing outside their stall. Even less so for teenage girls and preadolescent girls.
I’ve done a significant number of sexual assault cases in which the premises owner is sued because a woman–and in one instance, a teen aged boy–was raped on the premises. Guess what–every single rape occurred in the bathroom. Every one.
So, if you think I buy into this absolute bullshit that men won’t follow women into restrooms with intent to harm, or that trans-women won’t assault other women, I also know that to be untrue. A client of mine operates a system that requires personnel to be on duty 24 hours or more continuously. Separate sleeping and private facilities are set up by sex. A male employee grew his hair, started wearing a bra and said he was a woman and wanted to sleep and bathe with the women. My advice was: no, let him/her sue us. Our female employees would never stand for something like that. While all of this was bubbling around, it became moot, because this person was arrested trying to lure a young teenage girl into his car.
So, no to men who have not had the downstairs plumbing removed and replaced claiming a right of access to areas where women reasonably expect privacy from men.
And, while I am on the subject, no to trans-women competing in women’s, or girl’s sports. For obvious reasons, for most people.
Biology is science and whether someone truly and genuinely feels they were born in the wrong body, it’s still the body they were born in. Trans-women cannot get the healthcare they need from an ob-gyn and unless trans-men are having their prostates removed, they remain at risk for prostate cancer. I’m fine with looking for as much accommodation as we can find consistent with recognizing and protecting everyone.
I might have said, as matter of comparison and context, that in light of the protests/riots earlier in the year, that I would have expected the far left to have been more capable of a deployment like 1/6…
Comparing protests (not riots) to 1/6 is overwrought. Millions of people across the nation “deployed” with no weapons, posing no threat to anyone.
Rioters and looters, on the other hand, while threatening, went after much softer targets than the f**king The United States Capitol. They knocked down local statues, smashed in store windows, and started fires – the kind of stuff people have been doing on occasion pretty much forever, sometimes because of something like their favorite hockey team winning the Stanley Cup.
We don’t have a significant left-wing militia movement in this country.
I’ve done a significant number of sexual assault cases in which the premises owner is sued because a woman–and in one instance, a teen aged boy–was raped on the premises. Guess what–every single rape occurred in the bathroom. Every one.
Right, but that had nothing to do with whether or not trans people could use the bathroom corresponding to their self-identified gender. Men can follow women or boys into the bathroom whether or not trans people are allowed to choose which kind of bathroom they’d prefer to use. No one is saying a trans person is incapable of rape and no one is saying a trans person should be allowed to rape anyone. What they are saying is that, if a trans person uses a bathroom someone else decides they shouldn’t, that someone else doesn’t get to go legally after the trans person.
With or without trans protections, men can follow women and children and other men into bathrooms. The explicit legal accommodations for trans people are to protect trans people from victimization. They don’t somehow allow people to rape other people or cause people to rape other people.
I do not share your concerns about an imminent, conservative-led civil war and I find plenty of the stuff on the left quite disturbing as well: the Prog Left would [1] pack the Supreme Court, [2] eliminate the filibuster, [3] end the electoral college and [4] disband the senate. Don’t think for a minute others don’t find that agenda to be a revolution under the very faint color of law.
Believing an election was stolen vs policy proposals that would upend a form of government most of us are very happy with are not even comparable.
I do not have a concern about “an imminent conservative-led civil war”. I don’t think it is imminent, nor inevitable, but I certainly think it (or something rather like it) is possible, and Trump’s continuing to trumpet his big lie combined with the percentages of Republicans who believe it lays fertile ground for something like a civil war.
In your first paragraph, excerpted here you [1] rather ignore the extraordinary phenomenon of a 6:3 conservative majority on SCOTUS when the Republicans have won a majority of the popular vote in presidential elections how many times recently? And when Merrick Garland’s nomination never even came to the floor under a D president, whereas ACB was nominated and confirmed how fast, and how long before an election?
[2] Please see Mitch McConnell’s pledges to ensure that no D nominations to SCOTUS, or any other Dem policies, go through while he is still leader. There is a context to the proposal to end the filibuster when the Ds win a presidential election by 7 million votes despite the disadvantages of the EC.
[3] and [4} My impression is that nobody realistically proposes these, or thinks there is a snowball’s hope in hell that they could be effected.
form of government most of us are very happy with
A tremendously important assertion, and not in evidence. Particularly in states where laws generally understood to be voter-suppression efforts (by reasonable people who live in the real world, as opposed to “on the face of it” lawyers) are currently attempted. I do understand that these are state government matters, but I think you will find that really significant portions of the electorate nationwide are not “very happy” with your current form of government.
I still think my overall assessment of the right is correct, but my confidence level is not as high as it was pre-1/6.
I was wondering if you ever conceived that you might have been wrong about something, and this seems at least a slightly encouraging beginning.
wtf
they’d also mandate gay sharia abortions!
https://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2021/01/just-trying-to-help-here.html
Couple of comments on that thread could throw it either way.
Lotta both sides do it is the thrust however, which given the singularity of the event, seemed a yeah-but too far.
I’ve seen nothing on the far Left resembling capable “deployment”, more like chaotic pillaging.
Asshole Antifa protestors look like my 10-year old when he was using a plastic garbage can cover as a shield while sword-fighting with an old three iron of mine, club head removed, against the neighbor kids.
I’ve seen Oaf Keepers up close in Denver. They are ready to slaughter and wield the weapons to do it. They were as “deployed” on 1/6 as any military unit would be on a mission, and evidence is building that they had more units in the vicinity standing by for “deployment”, meaning capturing and killing American government officials.
Are we so dead that we can’t get goddamned pissed off at this?
I will admit that the armed black militia mentioned here several times in the past looks like something the far “Left” should emulate if the rightwing paramilitary forces persist in their threatening behavior.
If both sides are going to do it, than more than one side needs to bring what it takes to do it.
“I still think my overall assessment of the right is correct, but my confidence level is not as high as it was pre-1/6.”
I don’t know, this sounds like stubborn speculation that the French still seem more likely to sack and burn Washington DC to the ground after the Brits did just that in 1814.
Then again, both sides did it back then as America sacked a city in Ontario first.
It’s the loud ones you’ve got to watch.
“conservatives” love for the de-facto 60-vote requirement filibuster (a thoroughly modern invention) is fucking hilarious to me.
i just giggle every time they try to make it sound like some kind of critical keystone of government that the Founders gave us to ensure the future of democracy.
With or without trans protections, men can follow women and children and other men into bathrooms.
Not legally. That is the point. Being *trans* is simply a matter of description. A fully intact, outwardly appearing male can claim to be female, and then what? Can that person be legally prohibited from using female facilities?
I’d like to know what you and the rest of the commentariat here think the answer to that question ought to be. Or, if this turns out to be a thread-jack, then maybe we can have this talk some other time.
they’d also mandate gay sharia abortions!
cleek, each of these items is a ‘thing’ on the left. I believe you have advocated for all 4 at one time or another, and the House now has legislation being proposed to add 4 new SCt justices.
Trans men and women should have their own bathroom facilities, or all bathrooms should have locks on the door, but be available when unlocked to all “comers’, so to speak, as some businesses and government facilities now do.
I guess if the Oath Keepers had been trans men and or men pistol-whipping their way into Nancy Pelosi’s office bathroom, we might see unqualified condemnation of the events on 1/6, without ruminating on the possibility that the Cubans were more capable of being behind the whole thing.
MCTX, you should hang at The American Conservative and argue with them about some of their writers’ views regarding the need for a Senate at all and heck, let’s get rid of the Enlightenment altogether too while we’re at it.
McConnell’s blocking of all Democratic court nominees without hearings was and is Court-packing.
That IS worthy of revolution.
See, once again, only one side gets to do it.
The Civil War has already begun.
It’s just that one side hasn’t begun to fight yet.
Conservatives once favored precedent:
https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/why-does-the-supreme-court-have-nine-justices
We need more justices and more Courts.
cleek, each of these items is a ‘thing’ on the left.
things that are going nowhere.
the evil left isn’t going to rewrite the Constitution to abolish the Senate! we can’t even get the seditious GOP to agree to pave roads.
Manchin has killed filibuster reform.
court packing has no constituency in Congress.
best not to waste outrage on impossible things. to do so would be overwrought…
McTX: I infer that you believe characterizing an opinion can effectively be a personal attack on the person holding the opinion–ok, I’ll grant that *can* be the case.
I should hope you DO grant that, McKinney, for this reason: on the internet persons are pretty much entirely their opinions.
We don’t get to see whether a person expressing a racist “opinion” is ugly, or smells bad, or talks with his mouth full. We only see the “opinion”. Which we might (in our own opinion) call racist. Which more often than not results in complaints of the form “How dare you call me racist?”
If you don’t see any parallel between “racist” and “overwrought”, that’s okay.
I do commend you for being un-sensitive to characterizations of your comments. I often feel, myself, that I don’t get worked up enough about things like the implication that I need to look up what “ad hominem” means.
–TP
I often feel, myself, that I don’t get worked up enough about things like the implication that I need to look up what “ad hominem” means.
Phew. Dry.
But, let me also say that how others “take” things here and how I “take” things may be different in important ways. I was actually giving this some thought earlier today after my initial comments this morning. My regular day–almost every day–involves clash, confrontation, attack and defense. Every day. It’s been like that for over 40 years. It can range from stimulating to frustrating to, on rare occasions, hostility (very rare, 3-5 times a year). Consequently, about the highest level of negative emotion the give and take here produces in me is mild irritation. It may be that others are more invested in what they say and what is said in response.
So, to me, even noticing that someone said “overwrought” seems unusual since I just don’t see where that word is particularly offensive. Perhaps I am insensitive. Others have said that about me, including several close family members. Regardless, the intent is not to offend, but to explain my position. I hope this isn’t gas on the fire.
I have just reread this, and think it is an important explanation for why McKinney’s style has struck me, and some others, as so adversarial. I appreciate the honest attempt to
contextualise, and think there’s probably a lot to it. I also appreciate the honesty about possible insensitivity. None of it, as far as I am concerned, is gas on the fire.
things that are going nowhere.
best not to waste outrage on impossible things. to do so would be overwrought…
Ok, good one.
None of it, as far as I am concerned, is gas on the fire.
Thanks. A nice way to bring this to a close.
A good weekend to all.
Just want to point out that it is very common for a trans-woman to be assaulted in a men’s room, and that unless the teenage boy that McKinney mentions was assaulted in the ladies’ room, or assaulted by a trans-woman, that neither of those cases of danger are resolved by laws that pretend to enforce gender segregation in bathrooms.
And the trans-men I know don’t necessarily want access to the men’s room so much as they want not to be either treated as a freak or a threat when using a restroom, or endangered as a rape target themselves.
Ungendered bathrooms would be a good option.
If you’re willing to rape someone in a public bathroom, I doubt you would care if it was legal to walk in. A trans person might be afraid both of being assaulted in the bathroom they could enter legally and running afoul of the law by using the other, safer one.
But who cares about that when someone has a theory with no empirical support, despite trans protections having been in place for years in a bunch of places? It could happen! And it’s more important than the things that actually do happen!
I’m really baffled by the line of argumentation that McKinney is using in defense of restroom policing. I don’t understand why he does not seem to have considered all of the hypotheticals and considered the threats and harms to trans-people that come as a result of the policing, or the failures of our current laws to protect young men from same-sex assault in their legally required restroom.
Once all the considerations and perspectives are considered, it seems clear to me that the thing being policed is not actually addressing the real problem, it’s just deciding where to situate the risk and to whom.
I get the urge to defend women from a vulnerable situation, I just don’t see that any real thought has gone into the situation or how best to mitigate risk for all parts of society. And I’ve never seen anyone in favor of policing restrooms by birth-assigned, non-revisable gender acknowledge the blind spots and downsides of their preferred policy.
At least acknowledge that your preferred outcome is that trans-people should be at heightened risk of abuse in order to give cis-women the illusion of safety from male rapists.
Acknowledge the cost. Own it. Apologize to trans-people for demanding the sacrifice.
Or try to find a way to deal more effectively with the rapists or the lack of safety features in restrooms and make everyone safer.
See, once again, only one side gets to do it.
Yup. That seems to be the nub of it. Mulford Act, which see.
I’m really baffled by the line of argumentation that McKinney is using in defense of restroom policing. I don’t understand why he does not seem to have considered all of the hypotheticals and considered the threats and harms to trans-people that come as a result of the policing, or the failures of our current laws to protect young men from same-sex assault in their legally required restroom.
I don’t understand why you expect to be anything but baffled by the assertions of someone who could write this:
Biology is science and whether someone truly and genuinely feels they were born in the wrong body, it’s still the body they were born in. Trans-women cannot get the healthcare they need from an ob-gyn and unless trans-men are having their prostates removed, they remain at risk for prostate cancer.
I’m baffled, JanieM, because I cannot see how the one thing being argued is at all relevant to the other thing. We aren’t discussing feelings or healthcare. Those things are entirely irrelevant to the subject under discussion. We are talking about people (of whatever genders or biological sexes) being assaulted in restrooms. That’s about power and malice and relative seclusion (and also, not coincidentally, about the likelihood of finding the object of your power fantasy fetish alone in a private place where surveillance is forbidden).
That has nothing at all to do with any of his other arguments, and I’d think that a moment of reflection would reveal that to someone whose living is made off of arguments.
Changing the subject is a deliberate tactic of “argument” for some people. So is filling the air with irrelevant flim-flam. Think of the Gish Gallop. Or more to your point, think of the arguments made in the Chauvin trial. The goal isn’t “we seek for truth.” The goal is to win.
But I will bow back out, because you have enough patience so that you might actually get somewhere, and I definitely don’t and won’t.
From the other side of the Pacific
https://www.hrw.org/report/2019/03/19/really-high-hurdle/japans-abusive-transgender-legal-recognition-process
https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/03/19/interview-invisible-struggle-japans-transgender-population
If folks would think it is worthwhile, I can open a thread, and since this blog leans pretty heavily towards white cis-gender male, I think most of us have a lot to learn (I know I do). I’ve really benefited from the books and pieces that janiem has suggested, and I think that people who are transgender actually represent the new frontier in that the questions of who am I and why am I the way I am are going to be the main questions in the 21st century. Unfortunately, that cutting edge can turn into a bleeding edge. I can understand how that may be frightening to someone who has never had to consider who they are or their role in society, which I think is why the pushback can be so violent.
This all reminds me of Margaret Court
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/jun/03/margaret-court-astounding-champion-who-found-god-and-lost-the-respect-of-a-nation
Anyway, if some folks think it would be a good idea, I could try and open up something.
lj — If nous and others are interested in a thread, go for it, but not on my account. I will likely stay out of it this time.
I can see many of the arguments supporting trans individuals. But.
When it comes to sports, there is a problem. Biology, if you will. If you got thru puberty as physically male, your muscles are just not comparable to those of someone who was physically female. (Unless they were taking lots of steroids, which rules typically forbid.) Simply put, it’s not a level playing field.
I don’t see a perfect solution. About all I can see is telling trans individuals that being unable to enter competitive sports is part of the price they pay. Unless the sport is sufficiently gender-neutral that it already has men and women competing together. (And yes, there are a few.)
I think that there are more problems with sports than just biology, given the vast inequalities in prestige and pay between the (currently understood) genders for most sports.
I’m of the opinion that we should be thinking more deeply about what is meaningful about sports and competition more generally. All of the open questions we have about what it might mean to understand trans in sports are also questions that we need to consider about the role of technological change in sports, be it in equipment or in training or biological performance enhancement. These are all related issues – part of our transhuman moment. Transgender is just one facet.
the sports issue is the one that i get stuck on, for exactly the reasons wj cited. getting through even part of puberty as a biological male is simply a huge advantage in strength. and as long as performance enhancing drugs are out (which they should be), females will be at a disadvantage.
i just don’t see a good solution.
the bathroom issue seems solvable to me – go where you want. but implementation is complicated by gender stereotypes and prejudice and fear of the unknown.
Interesting thread. Anyone who read the life of Lazarus Long is waiting for the ability to experience multiple transhuman experiences over multiple lifetimes. Who wouldn’t want to pick some basic criteria for their next clone? I would love to have a lifetime as a black woman. It would certainly provide context for me.
The challenges of understanding trans people is understandable. The reaction to the whole bathroom thing is on the way to being solved oddly by more and more places having locking bathrooms for families and disabled. This should just be required for any truly public facility. Anyone should be able to use a bathroom without any risk.
Transgender participation in sports is more problematic because simply monitoring for testosterone levels doesn’t really address some of the difference. Sports are waning in popularity and respect, it could become pretty moot.
My only real concern is physical transition prepuberty, there are some pretty big red flags there in my mind. I have known several trans persons who just decided they didn’t want to do that as adults.It seems an unreasonable decision for a 10 year old.
ladies and gentlemen, The Party Of Ideas:
Make Sussex Germanic Again!
Our version is: Germany in the borders of 1237! Naples must stay German!
Explanation: That’s a double joke. 1237 is the year Berlin was first mentioned in a (surviving) document and it also aims at the RW slogan ‘Germany in the borders of 1937’ (i.e. with the now Polish Eastern parts but without Austria). Do I have to mention that the same RWers like Italians as much as US RWers like Mexicans (yes to the food, no to the people)?
what Dr Seuss thought of “America First“..
I didn’t know gold and silver were blockchain-based currencies.
Also, Richardo?
The “America First Education” paragraph is proof that they didn’t have any.
I suppose getting someone with half a brain to edit and proofread their drivel would be too much like admitting they don’t know a comma from teacup.
Marty @ 8:19 am abv.
Good comment.
“I suppose getting someone with half a brain to edit and proofread their drivel would be too much like admitting they don’t know a comma from teacup.”
Punctuation, Spelling, and Teacups are for effete, tyrannical elitists.
The Republican Party is the most dangerous organization on American soil, call it the Earth. A militant bizarro-Christian vanguard calling themselves victims and seeking martyrdom. What could go wrong?
Other countries should tighten THEIR borders to guard against the scourge of American conservatives threatening their national security and sovereignty, as we keep an eye out for al Qaeda recruits at our borders.
https://digbysblog.net/2021/04/trump-plus-nothing/
I agree with the drift of Marty’s 8:19 am concerns regarding physical transition in prepuberty. But these concerns of the kids and their parents should be greeted with great sensitivity.
I can’t think of a single decision I made while going through puberty, or before, that wasn’t sketchy at best. Of course, my record over the ensuing 55 years or so is not stellar either.
The bathroom issue is solvable architecturally, but the Republican Party has now moved beyond even discussing accommodation to placing targets on the backs of all in the trans community, just as they have with EVERY other object of their politically strategic hate over the past many election cycles, since forever.
Dedicated bathrooms for trans humans will become the new Tree of Life Temple in Squirrel Hill and the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston as the fascist republican party triggers their shooters to do the dirty work.
Place locks on all bathroom facilities as a matter of common sense, but now also to protect and provide bullet-proof haven for liberals, blacks, immigrants of all categories depending on the latest strategic but nonetheless deadly hate-fad of conservatives, women, gays and lesbians, trans men and women, government employees, global warming scientists, pandemic mask wearers, vaccine enthusiasts, 51% of American voters … well, anyone targeted by the violent, insurrectionist white nationalist, near-and approaching-genocidal conservative movement, and who may have to gather together and share space behind locked bathroom doors as conservative bullets continue to fly in conservative ungovernable America.
Mike Pence might even have to shoulder his way in, as he soils his smug britches out of sheer fright. He can lock his stall as well.
The facilities can double as bomb shelters as trump’s deregulation of the global nuclear weapons menace builds the arsenals.
They’ll murder even members of the groups mentioned above who favor tax cuts, because the goal of gutting government by minority force shall not be sacrificed by sparing a few fiscally conservative targets who aren’t white, male, and Lindsay Graham effing conservative, and thus fodder for hate-mongering.
I’m overwrought, but these Volk weren’t. There was nothing to see there, until eyes opened too late to see. A revised law here, a new set of rules there, until all that was left was a midden of teeth to sort through for the shiny bits. Why, we don’t socialize with Jews, and we haven’t run into any Nazis among our friends either, so what’s to worry?
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-97999-1_2
America First needs to rent out Madison Square Garden .. again.
Rod Dreher can shrug and write, “What did you expect when perverts want to marry and pass their 401Ks down to their adopted children. I don’t care for the fascist lyrics, but I admit to wanting to get up and dance.
Regarding the self-proclaimed “America First Caucus”, note that Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.), the third-highest-ranking Republican leader in the House and nobody’s idea of a flaming liberal, and Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.), both denounced what the caucus stood for. Kinzinger called for anyone who joined the caucus to be stripped of their committee assignments in Congress.
So, JDT, on this it would seem that conflating “Republican” and these rwnj’s is seriously over-simplistic. There’s plenty to criticize in today’s GOP. No need to use the folks even many of them see as nutters to do so.
The complete document:
America First Caucus Policy Platform
seriously over-simplistic
Tucker “The Dusky Types Will Replace Us All” Carlson is Fox News’ leading star right now.
Trump based his whole political career on white nationalism, and the GOP still adores him.
white nationalism is where Republicanism is these days.
this America First crap is just a hard-copy of what they’ve been saying for the past five years.
Cheney and Kinzinger are outliers in the GOP, two of the few who dared tell the truth about the election results while the rest of the GOP was off in its fantasy world.
Just posted something if people would like to go there and discuss some of the points about trans that have come up.
So, JDT, on this it would seem that conflating “Republican” and these rwnj’s is seriously over-simplistic. There’s plenty to criticize in today’s GOP. No need to use the folks even many of them see as nutters to do so.
I’d like to think so, but so far the rest of the GOP is still treating the White Nationalists as family and the Democrats as tribal enemies.
I won’t believe that the GOP is reversing its spiral into nihilism until enough of their leaders break ranks with the White Nationalist agenda and actually work to pass a bipartisan policy.
The GOP is still terminally ill so long as the America First caucus is seen as the lesser of two evils, and not as the social malignancy that it is.
I won’t believe that the GOP is reversing its spiral into nihilism until enough of their leaders break ranks with the White Nationalist agenda
Note, however, that if it continues down (in both senses) that path, it will also shrink into electoral irrelevance.
Granted, in that case they will necessarily get really serious about ending democracy. As in, nobody gets a say who disagrees with them. Not just nobody who fails to meet their definition of “white” (which likely gets ever narrower), but nobody who disagrees.
I don’t see that approach succeeding — although I’m a notorious optimist. Not only are the raw numbers against them. The numbers get worse among younger voters.
Extreme parties (left as well as right) often have more than one wing. The question is, whether this will lead to a split, to a stamping out of all but one by force or a noxious coalition against the common enemy, i.e. anyone not extreme*. The GOP is used to the latter long enough that I doubt that it will break them. And they have a base to fleece, which takes precedence over almost anything else.
*even the Nazis and the communists joined forces in the Weimar Republic on occasion to fight (literally, i.e. armed street-fighting) against the Social Democrats (who had been declared to be the primary foe by Stalin).
And they have a base to fleece, which takes precedence over almost anything else.
Their challenge is that they have ramped up the base sufficiently that it may not tolerate internal disagreement. At least, it may become far more difficult to fleece if there is tolerance of disagreement on the part of those running the con.
The GA laws do not “threaten” democracy. That is simply not the case.
I don’t understand this claim. If “threat to democracy” means anything it’s the danger that a less popular party will be able to keep itself in power by manipulating elections.
So gerrymandering is a threat to democracy. Voter suppression is a threat to democracy. The whole system of partisan management of elections is a threat to democracy. How could they not be?
Their challenge is that they have ramped up the base sufficiently that it may not tolerate internal disagreement.
just give them a new charismatic (to them, anyway) huckster to follow and they’ll fall in line, as they always do.
just give them a new charismatic (to them, anyway) huckster to follow and they’ll fall in line
But will they tolerant deviance from the new line? I’d bet not. This is, after all, a party where, today, Reagan and Bush would be denounced as RINOs. And would be unlikely to get nominated for national office.
Cheney and Kinzinger are outliers in the GOP, two of the few who dared tell the truth about the election results while the rest of the GOP was off in its fantasy world.
Myself, I think Liz Cheney is bright enough to know Wyoming is facing problems — including being the only Mountain West state that’s managed to lose population in the last few years — and the America First caucus isn’t helping solve those. And then there’s that SW Wyoming is very much a part of the so-called Mormon Corridor, and the “anglo-saxon political tradition” towards the LDS Church was not a kind one.
The whole system of partisan management of elections is a threat to democracy. How could they not be?
You are entirely correct, Pro Bono. But McKinney was unprepared to admit that “on its face”, the GA law suppressed the vote of, or disadvantaged any voters, let alone a particular set. And I suppose, on Earth 2, GA state government could go to either party. But your point holds: partisan management itself is the threat.
And then there’s that SW Wyoming is very much a part of the so-called Mormon Corridor, and the “anglo-saxon political tradition” towards the LDS Church was not a kind one.
A few years back a Mormon friend remarked, “The Baptists in Kentucky think they’re being persecuted? Tell them I said, ‘When you have been chased out of multiple states by the mobs with tar and feathers, and driven most of the way across the continent, you can come talk to me about persecution.'”
She is such a lovely, gentle person that the bitterness really took me by surprise.
https://digbysblog.net/2021/04/midnight-crazytrain-to-georgia/
The Republican Party is a vote-stealing puke funnel.
They are massing to commit genocide.
They will murder RINOs first.
And the RINOs know it:
https://money.yahoo.com/mitt-romney-liz-cheney-other-151428154.html