October 11, 2014

"Unless conservatives and liberals are masochists, promoting laws that hurt them, these laws must suppress minority voting."

Writes 7th Circuit Judge Richard Posner, marshaling the evidence about voter ID laws, including the evidence that "conservatives... support them and liberals... oppose them."

Here's the opinion, dissenting from the denial of a rehearing en banc, in the Wisconsin voter ID case.

122 comments:

Anonymous said...

I downloaded the link. Some of it was over my head, but this part stuck out to me:
343 0 obj
<>stream
hfib```f``≤e`a``=Õ ÃÄ

Gahrie said...

Why does Liberal equal pro-minority, and Conservative equal anti-minority. This statement alone should be enough to vacate his decision on charges of bias.

The reply however is obvious....Liberals want the ability to cheat and steal elections, and Conservatives want fair elections.

Michael K said...

India has voter ID. Maybe Judge Posner needs to travel.

MayBee said...

Posner = drunk on his own thoughts

Mark O said...

The opinions of political parties are not substantive evidence of the effect of voter ID laws. In fact, those opinions should be irrelevant.

Posner needs a guardian appointed.

SomeoneHasToSayIt said...

All of this rhetorical diarrhea is obfuscation of the highest order.

This issue is blindingly simple.

If the principle of One (eligible) Person, One Vote is fundamental to a free society's fair and binding elections, then reasonable requirements that one prove one is who one claims to be, is essential. Further, reasonable precautions that one, once proved eligible, must get only one vote, is not just desirable, but necessary - is facilitated by that same id (finger dye would be better).

A picture id, especially in this day and age, is used to prove that one is who one says one is, and this then greatly helps in determining that one has used that id to vote only once.

Anyone who opposes this, unless they do so only to offer an even better id solution, simply wants to make cheating easier.

They expose clearly who they are, every bit as vividly as did the mother who agreed that Solomon should indeed cut the baby in half.

MayBee said...

We should amend Obamacare to require every insurance enrollee is provided a picture id.

Then everyone will have one.

fivewheels said...

The logic of that statement is mostly sound, and, I think, true as far as this issue goes. Except it's missing a word: "... these laws must suppress ILLEGAL minority voting."

Now it makes perfect sense.

Michael said...

The question is not whether voter ID suppresses turnout but whether it suppresses legitimate turnout, minority or otherwise. To the extent that votes recorded for dead people, illegal aliens, convicted felons, people who have already voted, and registered voters who have not themselves cast the ballot come disproportionately from certain communities or favor a certain party, there will be a disparate impact. But there should be, in those circumstances.

Andrew Koenig said...

Hmmm...So the argument is that if one party generally supports a law and the other generally opposes it, it must be unfair? If so, isn't that a sufficient reason to overturn Obamacare?

SomeoneHasToSayIt said...


Let me put this another way.

I am a free human being. I am capable of both good and evil. I could cause, as could any one of us, great harm and destruction, if I wanted to.

But I am willing to agree to abide by the laws of my country, and to be ruled even by people whose policies I detest, providing only one thing - that the rules and law makers were elected by a true majority of my fellow citizens.

Think of that. I agree to be ruled by people who's policies I may detest, and who may do and require of me things highly detrimental to my personal well-being.

I ask only one thing. Fair, honest elections. One Person, One Vote.

If IDs had to be invented just for this purpose. If IDs did not already exist and in fact be required for any number of things, one might have some argument about 'burden'. But such is manifestly not the case.

PB Reader said...

It's interesting that the same people who see a few hot days and then go bat-shit crazy that it's proof of global warming see a few examples of vote fraud and then claim, "Nothing to see here!"

SteveR said...

It's become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

PB Reader said...

Democrats even stand in the way of efforts simply to clean the voter rolls of dead people and those who have moved away, claiming these efforts cause disparate impact.

chickelit said...

MayBee said...
We should amend Obamacare to require every insurance enrollee is provided a picture id.

Don't you see how that's unfair to those who come here seeking free treatment?

Don't you see how that undermines the Coward-Piven strategy?

Mark said...

Michael K, nice talking point but Voter ID is not PHOTO ID. It is what we call proof of residence here.

Perhaps you are the one who needs to travel more, as you obviously have not been in India during elections.

`India allows the use of fifteen different types of identification, ranging from property documents to arms licenses to income tax identity cards. Included, too, are forms of identification most likely to be possessed by the poor.... For instance, voters can present ration cards issued to the poor to allow them to buy food staples and kerosene oil at subsidized prices.”

---- These are not photo ID. Nice fake comparison.

Big Mike said...

I understand that the 7th Circuit sits in the Dirksen Building in Chicago. Consequently I do not understand how Judge Posner can be unaware that Chicagoans boast about the illegalities of Chicago elections and the blatant vote-stealing of the Cook County Democrat party. I can only conclude that Judge Posner acquiesces in election fraud.

garage mahal said...

Posner took Easterbrook to the woodshed and beat him senseless. That has to be embarrassing. You might as well make the claim that Bigfoot or Yeti are stealing elections. And even if Bigfoot were voting, Republican laws wouldn't prevent it anyhow. So dumb.

rhhardin said...

Posner has gone round the bend.

n.n said...

That's assuming that "minorities" are not human or sub-human and intellectually and physically inferior. I wonder if this applies equally too all "minorities" everywhere. That all people classified as "minority" are inferior with respect to the majority.

That said, with around 20 million illegal aliens, and rampant identity theft, there is probable cause to require positive identification to mitigate disenfranchisement.

With a multi-trillion dollar welfare economy, there is no rational excuse that any American remains indigent, homeless, or unidentified.

chickelit said...

rhhardin said...
Posner has gone round the bend.

Perhaps he's just posing for a higher appointment.

Bob said...

Did any of you actually read the opinion? Judge Posner distinguished between Indiana and Wisconsin laws, noting that Indiana permitted a number of forms of ID (just as Mark above said about India).

Posner didn't deny voter fraud exists (he even mentioned Illinois in passing), and he appears to consider it a serious issue. He just said voter-impersonation fraud is rare, and the picture ID doesn't stop more common types of fraud.

"The one form of voter fraud known to be too rare to justify limiting voters’ ability to vote by requiring them to present a photo ID at the polling place is in-person voter impersonation." -- page 13.

I consider myself at least a moderate conservative who favors adequate laws to provide clean elections, and I found this opinion to be compelling.

Bobber Fleck said...

"...these laws must suppress minority voting."

It appears Judge Posner has very little faith in the ability and motivation of minorities to go through the simple process of seeking a picture ID.

BTW, kudos to those who have posted thoughtful and insightful comments on this thread.

Skeptical Voter said...

I liked the line from Posner, "Some of the evidence. . .is downright goofy if not paranoid."

He unintentionally described his own opinion.

Carl said...

No, that's dumb. Voting laws could very well be designed to curtail illegal voting, which, observationally, benefits liberals and hurts conservatives. (Hard to see how it could be otherwise: conservatives are all about restricting government largesse, especially towards the criminal or illegal resident, and liberals are all about the reverse.)

It may be, of course, that most illegal voting comes from minorities. Which means "minority" in Posner's illogical statement is just a proxy for "illegal."

Always somewhat amazing to me how poor even Federal judges are at elementary logic. Did they all fail 7th grade algebra? Is that why they went into law?

Mark said...

Bob, this thread is much like the 7th circuit ruling on John Doe .... the post links the opinion, but no one bothers to read it before they recite the old pablum talking points that Posner addresses.

Its intellectually weak and shows no effort.

But don't let that stop them from calling people without ID as the lazy ones.

Big Mike said...

Posner didn't deny voter fraud exists (he even mentioned Illinois in passing), and he appears to consider it a serious issue. He just said voter-impersonation fraud is rare, and the picture ID doesn't stop more common types of fraud.

@Bob, Posner knows that it is rare because why? There are numerous forms of election fraud, e.g., dead people voting, which seems to be a favorite in Chicago, which fall under the general rubric of impersonation fraud.

hombre said...

Posner, in his dotage, has become a loudspeaker for Democrat talking points.

Nothing original, but: Why is it too onerous to get an ID to vote, but not so to get an ID to sign up for government largesse?

Perhaps the answer is that Democrats have a constitutional right to vote more than once or to vote for someone else. To interfere is to disenfranchise. Posner knows that.

Bob said...

Hi, Mark.

I missed that one, and it doesn't appear to me as though I missed much.

This is very disappointing. There's a reason I like Althouse's commenters, as well as Althouse, George Will, Charles Krauthammer, and Megan McArdle, among others. But, today the Althouse commentariat ain't coming off so well.

Michael K said...

"These are not photo ID. Nice fake comparison."

Did I mention photo ID ? India requires valid ID. We sent a man to the moon. Are you saying that photo ID, required for every other function in this society, is beyond our ability ? No, I think you just like vote fraud. It has worked well for Democrats like Senator Franken and Governor Gregoire in Washington.

Purging the rolls of dead people would sharply reduce turnout in Illinois so that must be discriminatory.

Idiot !

Bob said...

Big Mike said, "There are numerous forms of election fraud, e.g., dead people voting, which seems to be a favorite in Chicago, which fall under the general rubric of impersonation fraud."

Mike, I'm not aware of dead people showing up at polling places to vote. I suppose if they carried the proper ID, they should be allowed to do so. But, generally, if dead people are voting, it is because someone else, probably an election official, is doing it for them.

Posner's point is that photo ID doesn't prevent that.

Perhaps I should have said "in-person voter impersonation." Maybe there's better than a snowball's chance in hell it would have been more clear.

Joe said...

To vote, in my state I am required to bring one form of ID with my current address. Ironically, my local library requires two forms of ID to get a library card.

I guess the right to check out a book needs more protection than the right to vote.

BTW, one thing people seem to be ignoring is local elections. Last year, we had a $60 million bond in my town. It was defeated, but that could have been different had the vote been held in a major election year and voter fraud for national political reasons was taking place. (Looks like we did right, too. The town council got the message and scaled back their plans by a factor of five! The new bond proposal is for $12 million.)

Michael K said...

It isn't just Republicans that Posner doesn't like. He really had it in for Conrad Black a conservative non-citizen when he reinstated a dismissed count during an appeal on other matters.

A year later, the nine threw out the honest-services statute except in cases of bribery and kickbacks, which had never been alleged in Black's case. They found that Judge St. Eve, by offering the jury the chance to convict Black on honest services, had given it instructions that were, as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg put it for a unanimous court, "incorrect."

So Black, who by then had been in prison for more than two years, was finally allowed to post bail. Judge Posner's panel then vacated his conviction on two of the three fraud counts. But it left in place the conviction of obstruction and the remaining fraud count.

On the latter, Black argued, Judge Posner and his colleagues laid aside Black's Sixth Amendment right to have a jury try the facts regarding whether he had committed pecuniary fraud, as opposed to the now-discredited honest-services fraud. Instead, the circuit judges assumed for themselves duties normally exercised by a jury, ruling that the government's evidence on the last count was so credible that no reasonable jury would refuse to convict Black of pecuniary fraud.


Posner has some odd ideas, one of which is abrogating to himself the trying of facts.

Black has vowed to never again place himself in a jurisdiction of US courts. I don't blame him.

chickelit said...

Mark sniped: But don't let that stop them from calling people without ID as the lazy ones.

Perhaps that's because most of us who have ID don't see it as onerous to obtain nor a burden to carry.

Here are some real examples of simple-minded, lazy thinking:

If you're here illegally, you deserve to vote because you live here.

All felons deserve a vote too.

BTW, did you know that two states allow felons to vote from prison? Guess which two.

Jupiter said...

Blogger Bob said...
"Did any of you actually read the opinion?"

No, Bob, we didn't. We read the part Althouse posted as the subject of this thread, which was Posner's rather frank statement that he sees his judicial duty to consist in striking down laws favored by conservatives, on the grounds that they are favored by conservatives.

n.n said...

Bob:

Positive identification is the first but not last step in mitigating disenfranchisement.

SMGalbraith said...

GOP is trying to suppress Democratic voters not minority votes.

Yes, and also weed out corruption as they see it. Corruption that favors Democrats.

It can be both. Doesn't have to be just one or the other.

KLDAVIS said...

Did he sign it, Post hoc ergo propter hoc?

Clearly, no one could possibly be interested in the rule of law. It's all about the ends. Thus spoke Posnerthustra.

Michael said...

Oddly, the voter ID laws apply even to nitwit redneck meth heads who are, of course, white and who can and do get voter ID. Only black Democrat voters cannot go to the trouble and their people loving fellow Dems are too busy or too lazy to help them get ID.
Or maybe I am wrong and the Wisconsin law was actually drafted to exclude white Republicans from the requirement and is a mean spirited law aimed at clueless black Americans who, as the Democrats have fervently believed over decades, are incapable of much of anything without being given hand.

The judge knows in his very fair heart that black people cannot get ID but racist redneck backwoods living hillbillies can and do and will.

Mark said...

Yes, Posner has some odd ideas. He approved of Indiana's Photo ID law when it came before his court.

I don't suppose you lump that case will the others you say are wrong and make him a one trick pony.

Michael said...

Oddly, the voter ID laws apply even to nitwit redneck meth heads who are, of course, white and who can and do get voter ID. Only black Democrat voters cannot go to the trouble and their people loving fellow Dems are too busy or too lazy to help them get ID.
Or maybe I am wrong and the Wisconsin law was actually drafted to exclude white Republicans from the requirement and is a mean spirited law aimed at clueless black Americans who, as the Democrats have fervently believed over decades, are incapable of much of anything without being given hand.

The judge knows in his very fair heart that black people cannot get ID but racist redneck backwoods living hillbillies can and do and will.

Alex said...

Funny how white people in 'vote by mail' states do not have to show picture ID to get their voter ID cards.

Just sayin'.

Jason said...

This is stupid.

Like liberals, generally.

garage mahal said...

Corruption that favors Democrats.

If that were true Republicans would pass laws that actually addressed the corruption and prevent it. But they aren't interested in the least. The state couldn't come up with instance of voter fraud that would have been prevented by their photo ID law. Not one fucking case. Pathetic.

Rusty said...


Mike, I'm not aware of dead people showing up at polling places to vote. I suppose if they carried the proper ID, they should be allowed to do so. But, generally, if dead people are voting, it is because someone else, probably an election official, is doing it for them.

Well. Doh! Absentee ballot.
Jeeze. You really don't know how this works?

Another example.
Your from somewhere south of the Rio Grande. When you cross the city limits into Chicago you are immediately eligible for state benefits. You get an ID. You go outside the welfare office and trade mexican IDs with a friend. You and your friend walk to the next precinct and register for benefits again. and so on and so on.
When you register for benefits you are automatically registered to vote in Illinois.
Since none of these people are ever going to cast vote in person there are people that work for the city that will get an absentee ballot for them and conveniently fill it out for them.
This is how democracy works.
Well. Democrats anyway.

Anonymous said...

To vote, in my state I am required to bring one form of ID with my current address. Ironically, my local library requires two forms of ID to get a library card

Are they the same forms of ID in both cases, or does the library allow other forms of identification, such as a current UW student ID or an electric bill or a Military Veterans ID? Because none of those are allowable for voting in Wisconsin.

Anonymous said...

Oddly, the voter ID laws apply even to nitwit redneck meth heads who are, of course, white and who can and do get voter ID.

Concealed Carry permits are accepted as Voter ID.

wildswan said...

Maybe voter impersonation is quite common.

Consider these facts:

Voting lists are not being purged in Milwaukee City.
Minlwaukee City has many renters and about 60 % of renters change their address every five years.
In Milwaukee City about 25 % of the students change their school every year because their address changes.
AND
In Milwaukee City many precincts are reporting huge voter turnout - 70, 80, 90, % of the the people on the voting rolls are voting.

BUT because of turnover
the unpurged voter rolls in Milwaukee City cannot be composed of 70%, 80,%, 90% of people eligible to vote in the reporting precinct. Sixty percent of the people on the unpurged voter rolls have moved so sixty percent of the people on the unpurged voter rolls can't be legally be voting in that precinct.

When city precincts with unpurged voter rolls in Milwaukee or any other city report such turnout that is prima facia evidence of voter fraud. Turnover doesn't allow that kind of turnout.

What do you think?

damikesc said...

So, Posner is unaware of SCOTUS precedent that found laws like these quite legal when done in Indiana?

Does his court allow people to enter without showing ID? I'm betting not.

Posner took Easterbrook to the woodshed and beat him senseless. That has to be embarrassing. You might as well make the claim that Bigfoot or Yeti are stealing elections. And even if Bigfoot were voting, Republican laws wouldn't prevent it anyhow. So dumb.

SCOTUS has already ruled these laws Constitutional. The senile old fool is going to be overturned, as usual.

Anonymous said...

Couldn't Posner's own "logic" be applied equally to court decisions? "Unless Judge X is a masochist, he would not decide a case in a way that pained him."

I used to respect Judge Posner, and his son Eric (also a U. of Chicago Prof.), but I've come to think that neither one has any principles, only shallow pragmatism.

harrogate said...

"The reply however is obvious....Liberals want the ability to cheat and steal elections, and Conservatives want fair elections."

Voter fraud is not an issue in this country, and arguments from the contrary emerge from political fever swamps.

Oppression of racial minorities, however, is quite real, and it oughtn't be the case that only "liberals" can see this.

The Crack Emcee said...

Michael K,

"India has voter ID. Maybe Judge Posner needs to travel."

India doesn't have our history of Jim Crow.

Maybe you need to read,...

Michael K said...

"Funny how white people in 'vote by mail' states do not have to show picture ID to get their voter ID cards.

Just saying'."

So, black people from 'vote by mail' states do have to show ID ?

Dope.

Michael K said...

Just another repressed repressed minority voter

Ayala, 31, is accused of voting in local and state elections in districts she did not live, the Chief State’s Attorney’s Office said in a press release.

The arrest warrant affidavit also alleges Ayala provided fabricated evidence to state Election Enforcement Commission investigators that showed she lived at an address in a district where she voted while actually living outside the district, according to the release.

Ayala, who represents the 128th District, was elected in 2012, replacing her cousin, Andres Ayala, who was elected to the state Senate. She chose to run for reelection earlier this year, despite the voting fraud investigation, but lost a four-way primary in August.


Just another figment of conservatives' imagination.

The Crack Emcee said...

Ann,

Since "suppress minority voting" is right in the title of this post, shouldn't it have a "race" and/or "racism" and/or "white supremacy" tag added? I mean, this IS straight-up Jim Crow we're talking about:

Not it's kinda-like, or maybe, or I believe, but Jim Crow itself, just as it was done before, with no changes what-so-ever.

Except for whites, today, denying that's what they're engaged in - relying on most people's ignorance of (recent) history to pull it off - which, in itself, is an acknowledgement they, at least, know how it looks. Which is SOME improvement in white culture:

Now, appearances are starting to matter,...

Job said...

"Voter fraud is not an issue in this country, and arguments from the contrary emerge from political fever swamps.

Oppression of racial minorities, however, is quite real, and it oughtn't be the case that only "liberals" can see this."

Wow. Exactly the opposite of correct on every point.

There is voter fraud. It is rarely a big problem but it exists and it undermines confidence in elections.

In contrast, racial minorities are not only not oppressed, they are actively and very substantially favored in hiring, university admissions, promotions, etc.

Minorities -- and everyone else -- can easily obtain IDs and vote.

The idea that voter ID laws prevent minorities from voting is risible. Only the rankest sort of partisan propaganda should claim it.

chickelit said...

Shorter harrogate: Voter fraud has never been an issue in the country and never will be. So shut up already because Dems need to win because they are the only ones who pander to my special issue which is gay marriage.

That about covers harrogate, doesn't it? I've followed his remarks for a long time.

chickelit said...

Alex wrote:

Funny how white people in 'vote by mail' states do not have to show picture ID to get their voter ID cards.

Just sayin'.


Funny how Alex needs to include that little qualifier "white people."

What about people of other flavors?

Big Mike said...

Mike, I'm not aware of dead people showing up at polling places to vote. I suppose if they carried the proper ID, they should be allowed to do so. But, generally, if dead people are voting, it is because someone else, probably an election official, is doing it for them.

Posner's point is that photo ID doesn't prevent that.


Doesn't it? It makes it harder. At any rate your position, and Posner's, seems to be that it's okay to let some fraud go through because the proposed approach doesn't prevent all or even most forms of fraud. Obviously a more rational person would feel otherwise.

The Crack Emcee said...

SomeoneHasToSayIt,

"If the principle of One (eligible) Person, One Vote is fundamental to a free society's fair and binding elections, then reasonable requirements that one prove one is who one claims to be, is essential."

But, unfortunately, whites only thought that was true now that blacks have the power to vote. Previously, they did everything in they could to keep blacks from doing so - hence the racist Jim Crow voter suppression tactics.

And they've been trying some version of it since the end of the Civil War.

How they think blacks will not understand what they're doing - when they've been doing it, off and on, for over a century of our history - is confusing.

Like the whites of yore, it's like they think we're stupid or something:

Which totally rips open any credibility they have, when it comes to claims of being our friends, or defending democracy, or even being decent Americans:

Whites, today, claim they're not anything like their ancestors.

But, on that score, they're - willingly - failing miserably,...

The Crack Emcee said...

Scrolling down the list of comments, it's amazing that I'm the only one mentioning this aspect of Jim Crow - the deliberate, century-plus-long effort by whites to keep blacks from voting. How can that be? It's over a hundred years long and - poof! - it's disappeared in the minds of whites most invested in politics.

Just like 256 years of slavery occupies one antiseptic chapter in their school textbooks - with little-to-no death, blood, rape, or terrorism. It was a work program, nothing more sinister.

It's amazing how out-of-touch these supposedly-most American whites are willing to appear,...

cubanbob said...

Bob said...
Big Mike said, "There are numerous forms of election fraud, e.g., dead people voting, which seems to be a favorite in Chicago, which fall under the general rubric of impersonation fraud."

Mike, I'm not aware of dead people showing up at polling places to vote. I suppose if they carried the proper ID, they should be allowed to do so. But, generally, if dead people are voting, it is because someone else, probably an election official, is doing it for them.

Posner's point is that photo ID doesn't prevent that.

Perhaps I should have said "in-person voter impersonation." Maybe there's better than a snowball's chance in hell it would have been more clear.

10/11/14, 12:21 PM"

Posner's point isn't uncontroverted fact. Considering that in Philadelphia for instance some precincts reported 100% voting of all registered voters (does anyone actually believe that?) belies Posner's point. Now in order to legally cast a vote, the voter has to sign his or her name on the register before being handed the ballot so a photo ID would deter a vote fraudster to a degree.

YoungHegelian said...

@harrowgate,

Oppression of racial minorities, however, is quite real, and it oughtn't be the case that only "liberals" can see this.

What else is quite real and it shouldn't be only conservatives who can see are racial minorities who run their local "minority/majority" governments as corrupt fiefs, and fight tooth & nail against reformers even from their own racial/ethnic group.

But, now you're going to tell me that I haven't lived near DC, Prince Georges County, & Baltimore for the past 35 years, either.

Eric said...

Well said MayBee

Mark said...

Damike, Posner wrote the opinion upholding Indiana's Voter ID bill when it went through the 7th circuit.

I am sure he is aware of what he wrote.

Anonymous said...

The fact that Posner can not even CONCEIVE of people passing a law because they think it's a good idea, utterly disqualifies him as a judge.

tim in vermont said...

I just changed my residence to Florida. I can now vote there. I no longer have a Vermont driver's license though I am registered to vote there. The only ways to keep me from voting twice are to rely on my honor, or to check if I have a Vermont ID.

Michael said...

Harrogate

You are right about oppressed minorities and there is no better way to oppress them than require them to have voter ID. Because they are so confounded by modern life and so dumb and lazy they cannot be expected to do what evil white Republican racists have to do. Thank God you recognize that and are here to help those who cannot expect to help themselves. Not so much, however, as to actually help a stupid and lazy black get an ID. That would be wrong. Because 1963.

cubanbob said...

tim in vermont said...
I just changed my residence to Florida. I can now vote there. I no longer have a Vermont driver's license though I am registered to vote there. The only ways to keep me from voting twice are to rely on my honor, or to check if I have a Vermont ID.

10/11/14, 4:30 PM"

I live in Florida and cases of that happening have been reported. Someone get the memo to Judge Posner. Crack keeps telling is how laws that written neutrally are really in disguise Jim Crow laws when the law is equally applied. doesn't offer any actual evidence but he does make the assertion repeatedly. Harrowgate thinks its a nothing since vote fraud apparently never favors Republicans.

RecChief said...

hacks are found in the judicial branch too.

Paul said...

That is the most hokie opinion I've ever seen. Total bilge.

Time for SCOTUS to man up.

jr565 said...

Posner is a poser.

chickelit said...

I just googled reasons why people don't have IDs. There are good several discussions out there.

One sad thing I came away with was how vulnerable those without ID are to fraud. If you are so unaware of your origins that you can't be bothered to have a birth certificate or a SS number, the more likely it is that you will be targeted for identity fraud. In other words, if you're not using your own identity, someone else will.

I suppose that the Cracks and other Progressives of the world could insist that governments quit recording births altogether to put everybody on equal footing.

jr565 said...

And you wonder why Posner also found for gay marriage. The guy has leftism in his blood.
And I don't see why people couldn't be masochists promoting laws that hurt them if at the end of the day they want to get a certain side elected.
In this case one side is denigrating laws that don't hurt them because they don't supress minority voting, not because they do so, but for a political end.
What is Posner even arguing?

chickelit said...

The new Progressive mantra is that if you're merely here...if you just show up at a polling place -- it doesn't matter who you are -- you have a constitutional right to vote. Isn't this what the gavage mahals are clamoring for?

Tell me how they're not.

Gahrie said...

Like the whites of yore, it's like they think we're stupid or something:

You're the one saying that Black people are either too stupid or too lazy to get a photo id............

jr565 said...

""If the person does not have all of
the documents the DMV requires to obtain an ID, then the
person will most likely have to visit at least one
government agency in addition to the DMV. If that
is the case, then the person will likely have to take
even more time off of work and pay additiona
l
transportation costs. ... Perhaps it is possible for a
person to obtain a missing underlying document by
mail, but even so that will require time and effort."
Luckily then the elections are not held tomorrow, and not held every single day.
There may be some obstacles to obtaining voter registration too, but that doesn't me dont' get people to register. BUT, what if they have to take a day off from work!?!!

There is no reasonable reason to claim that its a burden and voter suppresssion for minorities unless you are trying to keep minorities down and make it sound like htey can never get basic ID that will allow them to function in society.
If they have jobs, odds are they have ID already and if they dont' have jobs, one of the first things they should do is go out and get ID.

jr565 said...

And the arguments posed by the liberal judges is boilerplate lefty jargon. Seriously, does the left hand out talking points at the various meetings? It's like listening to MSNBC. Someone who is a judge is supposed to have a bit more common sense.

jr565 said...

"That is the most hokie opinion I've ever seen. Total bilge."
Did you read Posners's gay marriage decision? I think it might be tied for inane garbage disquised as legalese.
Maybe this is the best we can expect from Posner.

The Crack Emcee said...

Michael,

"Harrogate"

No, Crack

"You are right about oppressed minorities and there is no better way to oppress them than require them to have voter ID."

How many schemes do whites need to implement - each somehow affecting the black vote specifically - before you acknowledge they need to stop it?

"Because they are so confounded by modern life and so dumb and lazy they cannot be expected to do what evil white Republican racists have to do."

Sorry but blacks aren't responsible for the grotesqueries Republicans have become, no matter our education levels - which, through white supremacy (which blacks have never known life without) whites are partially responsible for. We didn't create the Southern Strategy, we didn't make Lee Atwater spell it out, and we don't have to be perfect people to expect fairness - from a historical perspective - in our government or country. Attempting to suppress black's vote is white history as well as ours. It's American history, and deserves to be left there.

"Thank God you recognize that and are here to help those who cannot expect to help themselves."

Republicans (and their supporters) are the only ones left who admire the Ayn Rand cult's position of selfishness as a way to form a more perfect union. It is the tendency to hate those who do care about our fellow Americans that has turned Republicans into monsters. No better than Nazis, stepping over Jews in the street and calling themselves "superior" for the effort.

That you can't see other Americans as Americans, because you're blinded by political partisanship, ideological rigidity, racial resentments, historical ignorance, or anything else, is your own failing as a human being - and an American. I care about you. That's why I'm here every day.

We're Americans and - as leaders of the free world - deserve each other's help.

"Not so much, however, as to actually help a stupid and lazy black get an ID."

Which addresses white's "stupid" actions not at all. I'm more concerned about when they will seek "help" for their obsession with us. Their desire to keep power in a country they've mismanaged, despoiled, and covered in blood and semen.

Get help for that and I bet you blacks will stop being "lazy" and snap awake in a heartbeat.

"That would be wrong. Because 1963."

Yer damn skippy - within my lifetime. And the last official lynching was in 1981. So what? Every year, on July 4th, you expect me to salute 1776 - a much older date that doesn't lose it's resonance with age for either of us.

Don't you see you're picking-and-choosing what parts of our history are important - with the black ones deemed unworthy, just as with our white forefathers?

And they were racists?

Figure it out, man,...

,...

jr565 said...

"garage mahal wrote":
"Posner took Easterbrook to the woodshed and beat him senseless."

considering he uses the EXACT argument that lefties use, almost verbatim we can see why you might find it persuasive.
If you're not a died in the wool lefty though, the argument comes across as mushy headed.

trumpetdaddy said...

Crack thinks India doesn't have a "Jim Crow" type history? Really? I guess he never came across the term "caste system" in all his years of assiduously studying racial discrimination.

It's sad how ignorant he is about how NON-unique the sufferings of blacks in America have been, compared against the tide of history. Just in Central and South America alone, the Spanish enslaved and killed (mostly through disease) millions of natives. That's just in the last 5 centuries in the western hemisphere. Go back into the history of any culture and you'll find atrocity after atrocity.

It is the particular conceit of the modern, western liberal to think that things have never been so terrible or so oppressive as they have been under the liberal's own culture. It's a way of making oneself seem superior in moral reasoning to the rubes one perceives to be around oneself.

I can only conclude that Althouse keeps Crack's self-hating, ignorant racism around because his trolling provokes further page hits and additional comments, as I am obviously guilty of succumbing to doing by posting this, myself.

chickelit said...

@trumpetdaddy: The reason Crack doesn't care or even denies those racial injustices is because he can't see any money in it. He's NOT out to rectify injustice -- he's in it for the $hakedown. I thought that was pretty clear by now.

Think about it.

chickelit said...

I can only conclude that Althouse keeps Crack's self-hating, ignorant racism around because his trolling provokes further page hits and additional comments, as I am obviously guilty of succumbing to doing by posting this, myself.

I second that.

The Crack Emcee said...

trumpetdaddy,

"Crack thinks India doesn't have a "Jim Crow" type history? Really? I guess he never came across the term "caste system" in all his years of assiduously studying racial discrimination."

Sure I have, but that's not Jim Crow. Blacks, as slaves, were part of white's families - suckling the kids and everything - then faced a white retreat into hatred when we got freedom. Rapes continuing for generations, one blood running into another. That's not a caste system but something perverted, and sinister, and sick.

That you would try to minimize it, as an American, is part of the sickness.

"It's sad how ignorant he is about how NON-unique the sufferings of blacks in America have been, compared against the tide of history."

Please. There is nothing whites have done to blacks that they didn't first do to each other. Does that make it less wrong? Only to you. You seem to think if someone was cruel to another, that means blacks have no right to say it's wrong.

If whites have been too stupid not to suer for their rights, how does that equate blacks wmust be that dumb, too? It doesn't. So why are you bringing up anybody else's depravity? As a distraction for your own - including this latest attempt, by you, to do so. Just stop, man.

You have no leg to stand on, and the sooner you understand that, the sooner the pain will end.

"Just in Central and South America alone, the Spanish enslaved and killed (mostly through disease) millions of natives."

That makes you feel good - as a white American - by comparison? Bad choice, if you ask me. You're basically accepting yourself as a murderer and saying it's ok because you do - sorry. Doesn't work that way.

"That's just in the last 5 centuries in the western hemisphere."

Not a thought about what we, in The New World, are supposed to be about - no American exceptionalism - just a dive into barbarity with both eyes open to it.

Bravo - you've admitted we're Nazi Germany, just as I said.

"Go back into the history of any culture and you'll find atrocity after atrocity."

But not justice. Gee, wouldn't that be a nice change? You seem to think so when a white loses a job to a black because of Affirmative Action, but not for anyone else - weird - except when we include the history of white racism in this country. Then it all makes sense.

"It is the particular conceit of the modern, western liberal to think that things have never been so terrible or so oppressive as they have been under the liberal's own culture."

Still nothing about righting wrongs - just a general acceptance of barbarity - fascinating.

"It's a way of making oneself seem superior in moral reasoning to the rubes one perceives to be around oneself."

Well you ARE the one endorsing mass murder as a nation-building conceit. I think it'd be pretty easy to feel superior to amost holding that idea to their bosom.

"I can only conclude that Althouse keeps Crack's self-hating, ignorant racism around because his trolling provokes further page hits and additional comments, as I am obviously guilty of succumbing to doing by posting this, myself."

How many people have made that assumption - with no evidence - before you now? It's surely another sign of the sorry reasoning abilities of those opposing justice for Americans.

"I can only conclude"?

Since there are billions of options available (like one being Ann actually agrees with me, irregardless of the click factor) I can only conclude you're working with a defective thinking apparatus that limits your imagination to the point of irrelevancy.

That's certainly how it appears,..

The Crack Emcee said...

chickelit,

"@trumpetdaddy: The reason Crack doesn't care or even denies those racial injustices is because he can't see any money in it. He's NOT out to rectify injustice -- he's in it for the $hakedown. I thought that was pretty clear by now.

Think about it."

Yep - I put "make a donation" on my blog posts and that translates to a shakedown, as I talk to folks who would never give me a dime under any circumstances.

Perfectly sound reasoning thare.

Especially because I beg here so often - look at this thread:

A demand for individuals to give me money on every post.

Not reparations for blacks - me. Come on, how many times have I mentioned money on this thread? Go to a count.

It'll prove how valuable chicklit's word is,...

Michael said...

Crack:

You don't believe that blacks are capable of getting a simple voter ID. Stupid whites can get them and are required to get them where the law is in place. I know you like the romance of equating this to Jim Crow, freedom rider that you have become at this late safe date, but they are not the same. Even remotely.

Perhaps you would prefer a system that simply counted the number of black people above voting age and cast their votes for Democrats relieving them of their need to even visit the polls.

Relieving them as well of the necessity to think for themselves. Much less act for themselves.


Michael K said...

I keep waiting to see some intelligent black organization come after Crack for implying that all blacks are as stupid as he is.

The Crack Emcee said...

Oh - and it's so nice (as whites critique my non-existant shakedown tactics, or want to talk about cruelty in other country's etc.) that none of you will address white's long history of black voter suppression.

It's the one thing you don't want to talk about for some reason.

Totally relevent - there's over a hundred years of it -but you can't go there.

As chicklit says, "think about it",...

The Crack Emcee said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
The Crack Emcee said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Unknown said...

Dead people and political schizophrenics are protected classes.

Michael said...

Crack:

OK, I'll give it a try. Blacks were prevented from voting at all until 1940 and then were constrained by literacy tests up through the Voting Rights law of 1960 or 1965. Voters registration was made difficult in many jurisdictions for purely racist purposes into the late 70s but black participation in the voting process eroded most, if not all, impediments by the 1980s. Dozens, if not hundreds, of cities and towns in the south are now administered by black elected officials.

So, there was a very long history of suppression of black voters. Very very long. Extra long.

But that suppression ended for legal and practical reasons long ago as well. There is no impediment today for any black person to register to vote, to vote by absentee ballot or in person. None.

It is simply stupid and, as you would say, ahistorical to equate the move for voter IDs with an attempt to suppress the black vote. Only white liberals who hold blacks in utter contempt and race hustlers think otherwise.

The Crack Emcee said...

Michael,

"Crack:

You don't believe that blacks are capable of getting a simple voter ID."

That's not the issue - it's white's obsession with designing schemes to limit our particiapation. A subject you have no interest in, for obvious reasons.

"Stupid whites can get them and are required to get them where the law is in place."

Again - not the issue. I don't know why you keep it up - it's stupid. You can't win with this history, so why not address the history?

Because it reveals you as racists.

"I know you like the romance of equating this to Jim Crow, freedom rider that you have become at this late safe date, but they are not the same. Even remotely."

To whites - who have been doing this for centuries. Just stop. You can't win denying history.

"Perhaps you would prefer a system that simply counted the number of black people above voting age and cast their votes for Democrats relieving them of their need to even visit the polls."

Again with the partisan nonsense:

You're like Bush haters in reverse - it's really sick.

"Relieving them as well of the necessity to think for themselves."

Insulting us because we don't agree with you isn't going to win you any friends either:

We think for ourselves and think you're racists - got it?

"Much less act for themselves."

Only a white racist would think blacks voting in the country's interests - and not that of white's - isn't acting for ourselves.

But then, we're not obsessed with maintaining white supremacy,...

The Crack Emcee said...

Michael,

"Crack:

OK, I'll give it a try."

Wow - one guy goes for it and, I guess, that says nothing about the problems the rest have with addressing reality. No - it speaks volumes. We're up to 93 posts, as I write this, and whites have wasted most of it avoiding the main issue - while pretending they're having a "serious discussion".

Fucking hilarious.

"Blacks were prevented from voting at all until 1940 and then were constrained by literacy tests up through the Voting Rights law of 1960 or 1965. Voters registration was made difficult in many jurisdictions for purely racist purposes into the late 70s but black participation in the voting process eroded most, if not all, impediments by the 1980s. Dozens, if not hundreds, of cities and towns in the south are now administered by black elected officials.

So, there was a very long history of suppression of black voters. Very very long. Extra long."

In every state, using various means, for over a hundred years - but we're supposed to forget that as you come up with new ones.

"That suppression ended for legal and practical reasons long ago as well."

Bullshit - it'll end when you quit trying new schemes.

"There is no impediment today for any black person to register to vote, to vote by absentee ballot or in person. None."

White supremacy really doesn't exist to whites, does it? You really think that whites deciding to implement a new law - all by their lonesome - for a danger only they can perceive will pass as innocent?

If so, I've got a bridge to sell you.

"It is simply stupid and, as you would say, ahistorical to equate the move for voter IDs with an attempt to suppress the black vote."

No, what's "stupid" is whites - with the centuries of (unaddressed by them) history you outlined - assuming anyone will buy their cries of innocence. It's really a remarkable thing. Whites are sold on their own goodness when nobody else knows it - from experience - and then, outrageously,pretending the problem is with us. We're "stupid" and crazy not to trust you?

No more than Jews with Germans.

"Only white liberals who hold blacks in utter contempt and race hustlers think otherwise."

There we are with the "only" type thinking again. Trumpdaddy could "only conclude" his outlook weas the only one, too - isn't that strange? The way you guys "only" have one way to see things - yours - when there are LOTS of others to choose from?

You truly are some kind of insane to us,...

Joe said...

To vote, in my state I am required to bring one form of ID with my current address. Ironically, my local library requires two forms of ID to get a library card

Are they the same forms of ID in both cases, or does the library allow other forms of identification, such as a current UW student ID or an electric bill or a Military Veterans ID? Because none of those are allowable for voting in Wisconsin.


In my state, the requirement for voter ID is something with your name and address on it, such as a bill. Student IDs do not have this and thus aren't eligible. Passports don't work since the address isn't permanent. My town uses the same standard for library cards.

In both cases, they want you to show that you are a resident of the voting precinct or of the town.

The Crack Emcee said...

Michael,

"There is no impediment today for any black person to register to vote, to vote by absentee ballot or in person. None."

The mass incarceration of black males is "no impediment"? Even if the majority of them are in prison - and deprived of the vote - for "crimes" whites are now profiting from, like the numbers (now the lottery) and pot dealing?

You are so naive,...

The Crack Emcee said...

Let’s recap how the word “lazy” has been used on this thread:

Mark started us off at 12:06 by noting - before I got here - that these conservatives overlook their own faults to accuse others of laziness.

Chicklit proves Mark right by deciding to provide examples of OTHER’S laziness.

Michael does the same, saying “Dems are too busy or too lazy to help them get ID,…” which he thinks is a winning theme, as he repeats it to Harrogate.

One of my favorites, Gahrie, then accuses ME of saying “Black people are either too stupid or too lazy to get a photo id” because, as we all know, that’s what I do.

Keep in mind, the point here is SOMEONE has to see the other (to whites) as lazy. No other characterization is presented or suggested as possible, because fit individuals not doing as these guys want would suggest something else is at work - including the possibility they are simply wrong.

But that can't be,...

The Crack Emcee said...

Let’s move on to “stupid”:

“It is simply stupid and, as you would say, ahistorical to equate the move for voter IDs with an attempt to suppress the black vote.”

Jason thinks an opinion from the bench, that I’ve been voicing for some time now, is “stupid”.

I then get to play Mark and say “Like the whites of yore, it's like they think we're stupid or something”.

Of course SOMEONE does, but it’s not Michael, who fingers Harrogate as the one who won’t “actually help a stupid and lazy black get an ID.”

I’ve already pointed out Gahrie’s contribution, also combining “stupid” with “lazy” as Michael did, keeping it classy.

Then Michael continues something Gahrie started, where these guys have noticed something within me that I didn’t know was there:

A total lack of faith in black people’s abilities.

Michael says “You don't believe that blacks are capable of getting a simple voter ID.” and says even “stupid whites” do, after Gahrie says “You're the one saying that Black people are either too stupid or too lazy to get a photo id” - which, of course, I never said.

I said this is a bad racist law, supported by bad racist actors, in a bad racist country, with a bad racist history - add it all up and there’s nothing in there to suggest I think blacks are either “stupid” or “lazy” but these guys won’t let that stop them from saying otherwise.

And then they wonder why blacks say the white man’s a liar. Take Michael K. He can’t resist trying to get his pound of flesh, but - since he’s no more imaginative than the other neanderthals - he can only envision “some intelligent black organization” that will punish me - ME - for what? “Implying that all blacks are as stupid as he is.”

With reasoning like that for entertainment, do you guys have to wonder why I come here?

Eric said...

Apparently minorities don't buy beer, serve on juries, open bank accounts, drive, borrow library books, or fly.

Crack, what do you people do all day?

Carnifex said...

Crack uses the poor and specious argument that the sins of the father are the sins of the son. It's a liberal thing. Conservatives being all wrapped up in that Ayn Rand "personal responsibility" bullshit.

The use of voter ID is not to squash votes, it's to squash illegal votes.

stlcdr said...

There are far too few eligible voters voting. The Voter ID laws are simply to determine that when you say you are John Doe, you have an ID from a trusted (sic) authority they you are, indeed, John Doe. Since almost everything in this society requires an ID of some kind, the burden of showing an ID to vote is not at issue.

The fact that democrats choose to champion a non-cause demonstrates that their cause is not 'for the people', but their own agenda.

What is worrying is that Judges seem to be more and more taking sides in any legal question, and are now not shy about doing so. Indeed, their arguments are now not holding any legal argument to support their position. Sure, they still pontificate with legal jargon, but it is summarized to 'because I think so'.

tim in vermont said...

I would be OK with just cameras at the polling places from the time the voter identifies themselves at the polls.

Paper ballots.

Inventory the ballots.

Publish the video of the polling place in a high enough quality that software can compare site to site.

Or you could issue a Photo ID at the polling place, and require a fingerprint so that it is issued only once in a person's lifetime, and updated over the years at the polling place.


Mark said...

Eric, name me a non-financial transaction that requires photo ID.

You know what is as popular? Background checks for guns, but the same people arguing that voter ID or gay marriage bans should be in place because a majority want them wil argue unending the opposite when the subject is guns.

The same people upset that one vote might be cancelled out and want to possibly disenfranchise thousands to prevent it will not apply the same standards to firearms purchases.

Apparently owning a gun is a more vital constitutional right then voting to commenters here.

Michael said...

Mark

Your logic is twisted and wrong. These things are not like each other. And the following are not financial transactions.

Entering an office building in NY requires an I D.

Going through security at an airport requires ID.

Showing a drivers license when stopped for speeding requires an ID

Borrowing a library book is not a financial transaction despite what you think

Signing in for jury duty requires an ID

And so forth.

Your final sentence does not have anything to do with gay marriage. And finally, the national sentiment is hugely in favor of gun rights. We're it not one of the many stupid gun laws discussed over the last two years would be laws. They are toxic to politicians outside the liberal enclaves.

Michael said...

Crack

I see I was rewarded with bullshit for my attempt to discuss voting restrictions for blacks. And you are right, a correction is in order.

Before blacks could vote, as you rightly point out, they could not vote. I second that and raise you this.

From the time of the very very very first human being blacks could not vote in America. Fixed.

Oh, and there are many more white men in prison than black men. The white men were put there to punish them for crimes they were convicted of. Not to squelch their vote.

Your arguments are weak on this voter ID issue. Many states with miniscule black populations have these requirements. Or maybe you think Alaska has them as a prophylactic.

The Crack Emcee said...

Carnifex,

"Crack uses the poor and specious argument that the sins of the father are the sins of the son."

And Carnifex uses the poor and specious argument that, if his father ruthlessly stole something, Carnifex can now claim it as his own - and even dress himself up in it, claiming he "earned" it, and the fact he has it to parade around those he and dear ol' dad impoverished is used as evidence of their own industriousness and self-worth.

And Carnifex does that for no other reason than, he says, he was raised right.

Which argument has more moral weight?

I bet you, he can't figure it out,...

The Crack Emcee said...

Carnifex,

"The use of voter ID is not to squash votes, it's to squash illegal votes."

Boy, if whites spent as much time fighting illegal arrests as they are unseen voter fraud, blacks might actually like them.

Little chance of that, though.

Because 1963,...

The Crack Emcee said...

stlcdr,

"The Voter ID laws are simply to determine that when you say you are John Doe, you have an ID from a trusted (sic) authority they you are, indeed, John Doe."

"A trusted authority"?

ROTFLMAO!!!!!

White people are a hoot,...

The Crack Emcee said...

Michael,

"Crack

I see I was rewarded with bullshit for my attempt to discuss voting restrictions for blacks."


Only whites think the facts are "bullshit".

"And you are right, a correction is in order."

Wait - I am right? I thought it was bullshit?

"Before blacks could vote, as you rightly point out, they could not vote."

For 300 years - in which time whites have erected an edifice we live under, which they deem "good," and expect everyone to adhere to because - this is rich - dear old Dad made it.

And, as Carnifex said, you don't fuck with dear ol' Dad's shit because whites today are only their kids living off the proceeds.

"I second that and raise you this.

From the time of the very very very first human being blacks could not vote in America. Fixed."

Because whites didn't want us to - not just because. It was a deliberate act they couldn't justify. Just as whites attempting this voter ID scam is a deliberate act they can't justify.

They just do it.

"Oh, and there are many more white men in prison than black men."

More of the two-wrongs-make-a-right-thinking. What does that have to do with the wrong inflicted on black men? White men are in prison - so? Is there a documented effort - over hundred of years - to disenfranchise them? No? Then why bring them up?

Whites love to attempt distractions from the issue.

"The white men were put there to punish them for crimes they were convicted of. Not to squelch their vote."

Fine, but the evidence says that's NOT why black men are there, it's because whites want us there and always have since slavery ended. The evidence is over-whelming but what do whites care about evidence, right?

There's also white men in there with them - boo!

"Your arguments are weak on this voter ID issue."

And so, the 100 year history of Jim Crow - which you're the only one brave enough to address - is wiped under the carpet once more. By a white man, because he says so.

No white supremacy involved - because a white man said so - which means whites did nothing, I guess.

That's the strong way to deal with it?

"Many states with miniscule black populations have these requirements. Or maybe you think Alaska has them as a prophylactic."

Is there any state in the union where white supremacy has allowed blacks freedom?

My God, whites are so demented,...

jr565 said...

" Many states with miniscule black populations have these requirements. Or maybe you think Alaska has them as a prophylactic."


Good point. So, for all the people saying this is voter repression, are these states trying to repress what will be majority white voters?
Why can someone from Alaska get a drivers license but a minority can't? Explain that logic. Liberals really have a patronizing view of blacks and minorities. So unable to fend for themselves, even the most basic act of getting an ID, which apparently white America takes for granted, is beyond their abilities. Bullshit.

The Crack Emcee said...

"My daddy stole it, so it's mine, I earned it!"

That seems to be the winning argument to whites.

The idea - that the American flag has actually been a pirate flag authorizing the theft of others for centuries - doesn't matter. Daddy's dead.

But the flag waves on - unreconstructed - authorizing the thieves to keep what Daddy stole. Or so whites "think".

Unfortunately, events aren't working to support that conclusion. For instance, we have the maps of government red-lining. We can now PROVE what's happened. We know who the guilty parties are and where the stolen wealth is.

This seems to be a problem for whites - despite their claims to holding ethical standards that prohibit such things today - they seem to think this history also authorizes them to be judge and jury over the righteousness of their Daddy's position and actions.

It's so bizarre, it's mind-blowing we don't live in South Africa,....

The Crack Emcee said...

Somehow, his world-view, his take on society, now so overlaps with the dominant narrative that it is like a Death Star hiding behind the moon. We cannot unpick his thoughts and feelings from the “proper, right-thinking” attitudes of our society. It is like in the past, when people who spoke in cut-glass, RP, BBC tones would insist they did not have an accent, only northerners and poor people had one of those. We live and breathe in a Default Male world: no wonder he succeeds, for much of our society operates on his terms.

The Default Man we chose to interview for our series, pooh-poohed any suggestion when asked if he benefited from membership or if he represented this group. Lone Default Man will never admit to, or be fully aware of, the tribal advantages of his identity. They are, naturally, full subscribers to that glorious capitalist project, they are individuals!

This adherence to being individuals is the nub of the matter. Being “individual” means that if they achieve something good, it is down to their own efforts. They got the job because they are brilliant, not because they are a Default Man, and they are also presumed more competent by other Default Men. If they do something bad it is also down to the individual and not to do with their gender, race or class. If a Default Man commits a crime it is not because fraud or sexual harassment, say, are endemic in his tribe (coughs), it is because he is a wrong ’un. If a Default Man gets emotional it is because he is a “passionate” individual, whereas if he were a woman it would often be blamed on her sex.

When we talk of identity, we often think of groups such as black Muslim lesbians in wheelchairs. This is because identity only seems to become an issue when it is challenged or under threat. Our classic Default Man is rarely under existential threat; consequently, his identity remains unexamined. It ambles along blithely, never having to stand up for its rights or to defend its homeland.

When talking about identity groups, the word “community” often crops up. The working class, gay people, black people or Muslims are always represented by a “community leader.” We rarely, if ever, hear of the white middle-class community. “Communities” are defined in the eye of Default Man. Community seems to be a euphemism for the vulnerable lower orders. Community is “other.” Communities usually seem to be embattled, separate from society. “Society” is what Default Man belongs to.

In news stories such as the alleged “Trojan Horse” plot in Birmingham schools and the recent child-abuse scandal in Rotherham, the central involvement of an ethnic or faith “community” skews the attitudes of police, social services, and the media. The Muslim or Pakistani heritage of those accused becomes the focus. I’m not saying that faith and ethnic groups don’t have their particular problems but the recipe for such trouble is made up of more than one spicy, foreign ingredient. I would say it involves more than a few handfuls of common-or-garden education/class issues, poor mental health and, of course, the essential ingredient in nearly all nasty or violent problems, men. Yeah, men—bit like them Default Men but without suits on.

Jupiter said...

"But that suppression ended for legal and practical reasons long ago as well. There is no impediment today for any black person to register to vote, to vote by absentee ballot or in person. None."

You seem to be unaware that felons cannot (legally) register to vote. Talk about your disparate impact!

Jupiter said...

"Apparently owning a gun is a more vital constitutional right then voting to commenters here."

Damn straight.

jr565 said...

Mark, in regards to background checks for guns, we already have those. I'd be perfectly willing to say that you should present some kind of ID as part of the background check. So, if law abiding citizens wanted to buy guns legally having an ID would allow them to do that, regardless of their race.

Mark said...

Jr, most states do not require background checks for guns purchased from private individuals at gun shows.

So background checks are far from universal.

Nice try.

The Crack Emcee said...

Well, that’s for sure. It’s not even over. I mean, I remember being so surprised and fascinated and kind of shocked in the early ’60s when the civil rights movement was really dominating the news, when it was the national story. The most important national story, the one that everyone had to have opinions about one way or the other, but not just about the civil rights movement, but this event and that speech and that outrage and that atrocity and whatever might be happening. It was the ruling question of national life, and it was so clear that the Civil War not only had never ended, it had never been … nothing had ever been resolved for countless people. Black and white, in the South particularly, but in the North, too. Everything was still open, everything was still being fought over.

And you learn something about history when you look at things that way. You learn that it isn’t … that what is passed on from generation to generation is often passed on whole. Nothing’s lost, nothing’s diminished, it’s very scary. With Barack Obama’s election, and a lot of people my age never, ever thought they would see a black president in their lifetimes, and it was shocking when it happened. People were weeping, and they weren’t weeping out of joy, they weren’t weeping out of sorrow. They were weeping out of … because they were coming apart, the whole conceptual apparatus that they used to construct themselves as social beings was coming apart because of this event, and it was just so overwhelming that you didn’t know how to talk about it, so you cried.

It happened to a lot of people, but I remember thinking, and I remember writing, right after Barack Obama was elected, that this country was not less racist the day after his election that it was the day before, and it might even be more so. And that I thought a lot of really ugly, scary things were going to start coming out of the ground. And it didn’t take very long for that to happen. And I’m not just talking about people at Tea Party rallies saying there’s a lying African in the White House and showing a picture of Barack Obama with a bone through his nose and stuff like that, which is disgraceful enough.

Cont'd.

The Crack Emcee said...

There has been a breakdown in decency in this country over the past number of years to the point where, just this weekend, somebody showed up at a Vikings game where Adrian Peterson, their running back, had just been suspended or not suspended … suspended by his team for a game because of child abuse indictment. Somebody shows up at the Vikings game in Minnesota wearing an Adrian Peterson jersey and carrying a tree switch, of the sort that he used to beat his son. It’s like, what kind of … how sick do you have to be to even think of doing that? Let alone do it.

But with Barack Obama, racism has become ordinary discourse since his election in a way that it wasn’t before, and the contempt and the ridicule with which Republicans treat him. Not even Bill Clinton, who they felt they could disparage because they thought he was a dumb white cracker, not even Bill Clinton has been treated the way Barack Obama has been treated. He’s been treated as if he’s an impostor, an interloper and as scum.

I mean, the things that have been said about Michelle Obama, the way she’s talked about on Fox News, you know, forget about Twitter or comments on news stories or anything like that where all the morons live, but the way she’s been talked about, can you imagine Laura Bush ever being talked about that way? Laura Bush actually killed somebody. But that was never mentioned, that was never talked about, because it was impolite to bring it up.

- Greil Marcus

Anonymous said...

Or, the DNC is committed to winning via election fraud, and the GOP is opposed to election fraud.

Which party seems to be in bed with fraudsters, and even celebrates when judicial chicanery releases convicted frauds?

Unknown said...

crack, I'm sorry to tell you this, but you've passed the point of no return. That is to say, now I'm just skimming past your posts until you and everybody who's talking to you/ about you is just gone past. You're now on my mental ignore list. I know you don't care but really you need to get help...yeah right, you know what you're doing. God bless you, or should I say, God have mercy on your soul.

The Crack Emcee said...

From the NYT:

"On Thursday, the Supreme Court stepped in and blocked one of the worst laws, a Wisconsin statute requiring voters to show a photo ID to cast a ballot,...

Similar laws have been aggressively pushed in many states by Republican lawmakers who say they are preventing voter fraud, promoting electoral “integrity” and increasing voter turnout. None of that is true. There is virtually no in-person voter fraud; the purpose of these laws is to suppress voting.

In Texas, where last week a federal judge struck down what she called the most restrictive voter ID law in the country, there were two convictions for in-person voter impersonation in one 10-year period. During that time, 20 million votes were cast. Nor is there any evidence that these laws encourage more voters to come to the polls. Instead, in at least two states — Kentucky and Tennessee — they appear to have reduced turnout by 2 percent to 3 percent, according to a report released last week by the Government Accountability Office.

Voter ID laws, as their supporters know, do only one thing very well: They keep otherwise eligible voters away from the polls. In most cases, this means voters who are poor, often minorities, and who don’t have the necessary documents or the money or time to get photo IDs.

In her remarkable 143-page opinion in the Texas case, Federal District Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos found that the law violated both the Equal Protection Clause and the Voting Rights Act, and that by forcing registered voters to track down and pay for qualifying documents, it functioned as an “unconstitutional poll tax.”

CONTINUE READING THE MAIN STORY
16
COMMENTS
Most striking of all, Judge Ramos found that the rapid growth of Texas’s Latino and black population, and the state’s “uncontroverted and shameful history” of discriminatory voting practices — including whites-only primaries, literacy restrictions and actual poll taxes — led to a clear conclusion: Republican lawmakers knew the law would drive down turnout among minority voters, who lean Democratic, and they passed it at least in part for that reason."

RAAAACIST,...