Search






Jeff's Amazon.com Wish List

Archive Calendar

November 2024
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930  

Archives

A solution in search of a problem

That’s how AG Eric Holder sees voter ID laws, voter fraud being so uncommon and all. While the racism of whites, which leads to voter suppression, is constant and unchangeable.

But then, Soledad O’Brien and others keep telling me that I’m misunderstanding Critical Race Theory, and so can’t possibly track its manifestations in public policy.

In other words, it’s a Black Thing, and I wouldn’t understand. Except inasmuch as I’m a White Jew, and so understand all too well, IYKWIMAITYD.

Meanwhile, about that non-existent problem with voter fraud:

That we even pretend to accept the notion that voter fraud isn’t a concern — while we allow the government to put Sudafed on lockdown and require we drag our sick asses to a pharmacy and show a photo ID to procure it — is a cultural embarrassment, and yet another example of how we’ve let manufactured consent and perception create politicized realities that, from an outside vantage point, are only realities insofar as a (motivated, often politically homogeneous) consensus agrees to accept as much.

****
update: So let me get this straight: the Democrats want to prosecute those who expose the ease of voter fraud, while refusing to back measures that would help curb it. And this is considered the compassionate, principled position in today’s America?

(h/t Pablo)

27 Replies to “A solution in search of a problem”

  1. Ernst Schreiber says:

    Voter fraud and manufactured consent: can’t have one without the other.

    Since a genuine polical concensus might prove inimical to Democrats.

  2. Dave J says:

    It has not been a problem for the left….well since the days of danglin chads.

  3. Ernst Schreiber says:

    Furthermore, if we took genuine steps to minimize voter fraud, how would Democrats be able to undermine election results in order to preserve the manufactured consent?

  4. Pablo says:

    O’Keefe dropped another video exposing the ease of committing voter fraud yesterday, and Democrats want him prosecuted.

  5. Ernst Schreiber says:

    If only we could be trusted to vote the right way. Then the politicians wouldn’t have to lie and cheat.

  6. B Moe says:

    “I denounce any type of voter fraud or any assault on the integrity of the voting system,” Condos said. “Voting is a constitutional right and the basis of our democracy. Real voter fraud is preventing people eligible to vote from being able to vote.”

    Priceless.

  7. rjacobse says:

    I keep asking my lib acquaintances: Who are these poor, pitiable people who can somehow manage to survive without a valid ID, and how many of them are there?

    You can’t cash a check without an ID.
    You can’t open a bank account …
    You can’t buy booze or tobacco …
    You can’t buy Sudafed…
    You can’t board an airliner…
    In my town, you can’t get a freaking library card…
    It’s getting so you can’t see a doctor without an ID. (One of my gigs is in healthcare, and the official stand at plenty of clinics and hospitals is that they want patients to show ID when they register.)

  8. Car in says:

    You can’t get into the White House w/o ID.

  9. McGehee says:

    Real voter fraud involves canceling out real votes. “Voter suppression” is fraudulent voter fraud.

  10. McGehee says:

    You can’t get into the White House w/o ID.

    BIRTHER BAITER!

  11. Ernst Schreiber says:

    Secretary of State James Condos, who learned about the video from the Burlington Free Press, said Tuesday afternoon that he hopes the Attorney General’s Office will investigate the video to see whether a crime had taken place.
    [….]
    “I denounce any type of voter fraud or any assault on the integrity of the voting system,” Condos said. “Voting is a constitutional right and the basis of our democracy. Real voter fraud is preventing people eligible to vote from being able to vote.”

    Fortunately enough for Mr. Condos and his fellow Democrat’s, he’s out of luck here. There’s no Lèse Majesté in the American legal tradition.

  12. sdferr says:

    Solution: Get Killy!

    Problem: Need for a supply of Bald-Eagle feathers and parts for religious ceremony (who knows whether the ceremony has a contraceptiveabortifacientsterilization effect).

    [After all, it’s not like Bald-Eagles die — in their scores — of natural causes and accident, like say, flying into windmill generators every year.]

    [Ah! But it’s the manner of acquisition that counts! Which is, thankfully, in concordance with our solution. Hence: Get Killy! Y’all Catholics stick that in your Pax-pot ‘n censer it. ]

  13. daveinsocal says:

    “I denounce the exposure of any type of Democrat-initiated voter fraud or any assault on demonstration of the lack of integrity of the voting system,” Condos said.

    Fixed that for ya. Lyin’ tool.

  14. McGehee says:

    The eagle thing bugs me mainly because if I’m on my front porch and see a feather on the front walk and pick it up, and it turns out to be from a bald eagle, I’m a felon.

  15. sdferr says:

    I watched the Norfolk Botanical Garden family raise their brood last year McG, which story ended (more or less) with the female being taken out when struck by the wheel-gear of an airliner landing at Norfolk airport. Damn things turn up dead all’a time.

  16. McGehee says:

    What prison did they throw the pilot in?

  17. LBascom says:

    I’m pretty sure the Arapahos have been using eagles like this longer than eagles have been the national bird. They’re already pissed they have to get a permit.

    I can tolerate the religion. I certainly don’t think we have to worry about the tribe driving eagles to extinction if the government allows the free exercise of their religion. That they’ve been practicing for eons.

  18. sdferr says:

    Is there a question whether the Arapahoe will drive Eagles to extinction? Don’t think so.

  19. LBascom says:

    Isn’t that the justification for protecting them?

  20. McGehee says:

    It’s the justification for criminalizing the mere possession of eagle parts, regardless of how you came by them.

  21. sdferr says:

    The justification for protecting Bald Eagles and other birds is, I thought, owing to the fear that the whole population of the United States could, if unrestrained, drive the birds to extinction. Not the Arapahoe per se.

    In other words, what the Eagle kill waiver exposes is a stark contrast between the (potentially laudably) nuanced reading of Arapahoe religious requirements (down to the manner of acquisition, in other words) — setting one fundamental principle against another — as over against the dull, negligent or outright refusal to recognize Catholics’ fundamental objections to be forced to actively participate in the gravest of evils, by their lights.

    It’s about the meaning of universality in law, I think, and how the Obama administration (among others) is content to serve up an arbitrary tyranny of its own devising — because why? — because they say so, is why.

  22. palaeomerus says:

    I can’t wait for someone to tell me that the Arapahoe are spiritually one with mother gaia and heir to natural spiritual wisdoms that guide them to kill eagles in a green way while that the law is designed to restrain the genocidal forest paving impulses of the descendants of angry white angle colonialist imperial racist patriarchal oligarchical murder culture.

  23. leigh says:

    It sounds to me like the Arapahoe are the racists, insisting that their ways are superior and all.

    We have eagles around here and the Arapahoe can leave ’em alone.

  24. LBascom says:

    I’m glad old Ben Franklin didn’t get his way and have the turkey declared the national fowl. Thanksgiving would suck…eagle is tough and stringy and only feeds three.

  25. guinspen says:

    Meanwhile, in other eagle news.

  26. McGehee says:

    What, the Chicago cops never heard of the three S’es?

  27. wally says:

    The problem when dealing with the left and voter fraud we somehow believe they are playing by the Marquis of Queensbury rule when they are playing by the Joseph Stalin “it’s not who votes but who counts the votes that matters” rules.
    I worked the polls in 2010 in southern Arizona where drunken dolt Raul Grijalva got re-elected by a slim margin. Over half the people who showed up to vote weren’t on the roster. So they vote provisional and the county clerk determines what votes are legit.

Comments are closed.