I cannot say I am disappointed with the United States' Supreme Court's decision yesterday to uphold the State of Indiana's 2005 photo voter identification law. In fact, I applaud it...both the decision, and the law.
Had the result been different it is very possible that in the future the likes of "Mary Poppins" or "James Bond" would be permitted to vote (presumably, for Democrats) and there would be little the 19th State's officials could do to disprove the veracity of such dubious identities at polling places. In the absence of voter ID laws, it is easy to draft the dead to your campaign (it's not like there haven't been instances of posthumous voting in the past).
Undoubtedly, this decision and the policy places a burden on disadvantaged members of the electorate. I don't deny that possibility. But if such individuals really care about voting and participating in our representative democracy, they won't let fees, processing times or whatever else may get in their way deter them from complying with the law.
What is so wrong, so discouraging, about having to prove you're authorized to vote in the elections of the State you're residing in, by presenting a government-issued ID? Would you rather someone else appropriate your identity, and vote in your stead? Ask yourself, who would stand to benefit the most from the absence of a voter ID law in Indiana?
I can't help but wonder how many illegal immigrants are living in The Hoosier State; surely, without the need to prove their legal presence in these States united, Democrats - who often seem to care for the welfare of illegal immigrants more than native-born Americans - would be able to attract the votes of illegal residents in droves...or, as is more likely, gently coerce them to vote for the Jackass Party.
***
As I said in the first paragraph, those in Indiana who really want to vote - and who want their vote to count - will do whatever it takes to comply fully with the State's voter ID law, and won't let it "discourage" them. Those who don't want to vote...won't attempt to comply with the photo ID law - and I guarantee you they'll complain, bitch and moan, all whilst playing the part of the whiny "disenfranchised" victim.
As for those who have agitated against the voter ID law, and who will likely continue to do so in spite of the Supreme Court's Monday decision, I'd be interested to know whether they themselves intend on complying with the law, or will seek to somehow get around it. You know, break it.
This much is obvious: If opponents of Indiana's voter ID law could afford to pay lawyers to take this case all the way to our Nation's highest court of appeal, they can also probably afford to now help pay the State fees of those who - they say - would be prevented (or as they say, "discouraged") from voting due to their inability to requisition a legal ID, due a personal insufficiency of funds. They fought the law, and the law won...why not help the less fortunate in situation to comply with it? It's the least they could do.
A requirement to produce legal photographic identification - incidentally, a requirement in Arizona, too - prior to being given your ballot, and casting it, is not an undue financial burden nor an invasion of privacy; if anything, it should provide reassurance that only those who are authorized to vote in your State, or any State, are the ones who are doing the voting.
***
Since we are still, ostensibly, a country governed by the rule of law and not the rule of men, it seems to me that policies which strengthen our republican democracy rather than weaken it are preferable. After all, a healthy democracy has not simply free elections, but free and fair elections. Does it not?
When voters go to the polls in nascent democracies, or faux-democracies, elsewhere in the world, election monitors are meant to detect and speak out against vote-stuffing and other instances of voter fraud. Riots are known to have broken out in countries following elections in which one victorious candidate or another's claim of voter support is legally suspect. Are we to tolerate an eventual degradation of civilized political discourse and practice in our Republic as well? I certainly hope not.
Simply put, those who seek to hinder the ability of officials to detect voter fraud in America do our democracy a great disservice...and I applaud our High Court's implicit recognition of that fact.
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Friday, April 25, 2008
Who's Calling the Shots Now, Eh? (Part Deux)
To begin, I will quote - thrice - the character of Barney (Neil Patrick Harris), on CBS's How I Met Your Mother:
1. "Look at you, ya beautiful bastard! You suited up! This is totally going in my blog!"
2. "One of the 24 similarities between women and fish are they're both attracted to shiny objects. You really never read my blog do you?"
3. "HEY STUPID BLOG READERS!!! WHY DON'T YOU READ MY BLOG MORE?!?!"
The reason for those pointed quotes? (No, I don't think you're stupid, blog readers - I appreciate you)
Again, I realized called a shot. Again, I've come to realize I was ahead of the game. Again, I am confident that people should listen to me more often. Not because I'm incredibly wise, or psychic. Because I use reason. Common sense. I observe.
And I'm being proven right again and again. Not on everything. But on significant things.
Of course, I am humble - it would be the height of arrogance for me to assume I'm always right. Praise Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful. Thank Heaven! And I'm probably not the only one who thinks, or eventually advertises, such prescient thoughts. I wasn't entirely accurate - I put dollars into the coffers of Big Oil and Big Politics - but since the Arab-Islamic oil states conceivably are a part of Big Oil, I was certainly close enough.
What do I speak of?
In my blog post of 14 March 2008, We're Fueling Taxation Without Representation, I railed against the upcoming economic stimulus checks being sent to the American taxpayer by the Federal Government, not because I don't like free money...rather, it was because I didn't think it was enough of a gesture. It treats a symptom, not the ailment itself. Like Tylenol. Tylenol won't save your life during a heart attack. Aspirin just might.
To quote myself in the very first paragraph of that entry, "You know what I think would help the American people more than any unoriginal, unimaginative tax rebate checks? A repeal, or at least suspension, of the Federal Government's (and any State Government's) fuel tax. That makes infinitely more sense than just handing out money that, sooner instead of later, will inevitably be spent on gas. As anyone who owns a vehicle knows, that that money will probably end up mostly paying for gas (instead of a new flat-screen TV or Blu-ray player) isn't a matter of choice. It's a consequence of necessity."
Now, it is interesting to note that on that same day, 14 March, an article was published on CNNMoney's website making a similar point (mine was published a little after 3 a.m., AZ time...the CNN article was "First Published: March 14, 2008: 2:10 PM EDT". It is that same article, a bit updated, Gas bills ate your rebate, which I am boasting of having bested now...the same day Washington announced those rebate payments would begin to be distributed earlier than planned.
Heck, folks, I even beat Senator John McCain (by a month) in publicly calling for a suspension of Federal fuel taxes (can't claim the idea, of course...that's from 12 years ago - I can just claim a recent suggestion of a contemporary application in this election year). McCain is a candidate for the Presidency of the United States, so to that's not too shabby of me, if I do say so myself.
And I do. Erm...did.
To, again, quote myself, "But like I said...that money isn't going to go all that far, if gas prices continue to fluctuate (up and down, but mostly up) as they have. Big Oil - and Big Politics - will be the ultimate benefactors - not Mr. and Mrs. America." I don't need to stupefy with lots of numbers or equations, as do the "experts". If you want to see the "expert" projections, take a look at the article on CNNMoney.
Those employing big words and big numbers, in place of big ideas, I have little time for. As John Stossel has said, "Any government program that has the support of the political class and media commentators makes me suspicious."
And/or as John Lott, Jr. - senior research scientist at the University of Maryland, College Park; author of Freedomnomics (as well as More Guns, Less Crime) - said in an e-mail to me in an exchange of messages around the time of (and serving partly as inspiration for) the first Who's Calling the Shots Now, Eh? blog post:
"You caught on faster than some of the rest of us."
Whaddaya know...I sure did....hmmm....
I think that means you people should really read my blog more!
1. "Look at you, ya beautiful bastard! You suited up! This is totally going in my blog!"
2. "One of the 24 similarities between women and fish are they're both attracted to shiny objects. You really never read my blog do you?"
3. "HEY STUPID BLOG READERS!!! WHY DON'T YOU READ MY BLOG MORE?!?!"
The reason for those pointed quotes? (No, I don't think you're stupid, blog readers - I appreciate you)
Again, I realized called a shot. Again, I've come to realize I was ahead of the game. Again, I am confident that people should listen to me more often. Not because I'm incredibly wise, or psychic. Because I use reason. Common sense. I observe.
And I'm being proven right again and again. Not on everything. But on significant things.
Of course, I am humble - it would be the height of arrogance for me to assume I'm always right. Praise Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful. Thank Heaven! And I'm probably not the only one who thinks, or eventually advertises, such prescient thoughts. I wasn't entirely accurate - I put dollars into the coffers of Big Oil and Big Politics - but since the Arab-Islamic oil states conceivably are a part of Big Oil, I was certainly close enough.
What do I speak of?
In my blog post of 14 March 2008, We're Fueling Taxation Without Representation, I railed against the upcoming economic stimulus checks being sent to the American taxpayer by the Federal Government, not because I don't like free money...rather, it was because I didn't think it was enough of a gesture. It treats a symptom, not the ailment itself. Like Tylenol. Tylenol won't save your life during a heart attack. Aspirin just might.
To quote myself in the very first paragraph of that entry, "You know what I think would help the American people more than any unoriginal, unimaginative tax rebate checks? A repeal, or at least suspension, of the Federal Government's (and any State Government's) fuel tax. That makes infinitely more sense than just handing out money that, sooner instead of later, will inevitably be spent on gas. As anyone who owns a vehicle knows, that that money will probably end up mostly paying for gas (instead of a new flat-screen TV or Blu-ray player) isn't a matter of choice. It's a consequence of necessity."
Now, it is interesting to note that on that same day, 14 March, an article was published on CNNMoney's website making a similar point (mine was published a little after 3 a.m., AZ time...the CNN article was "First Published: March 14, 2008: 2:10 PM EDT". It is that same article, a bit updated, Gas bills ate your rebate, which I am boasting of having bested now...the same day Washington announced those rebate payments would begin to be distributed earlier than planned.
Heck, folks, I even beat Senator John McCain (by a month) in publicly calling for a suspension of Federal fuel taxes (can't claim the idea, of course...that's from 12 years ago - I can just claim a recent suggestion of a contemporary application in this election year). McCain is a candidate for the Presidency of the United States, so to that's not too shabby of me, if I do say so myself.
And I do. Erm...did.
To, again, quote myself, "But like I said...that money isn't going to go all that far, if gas prices continue to fluctuate (up and down, but mostly up) as they have. Big Oil - and Big Politics - will be the ultimate benefactors - not Mr. and Mrs. America." I don't need to stupefy with lots of numbers or equations, as do the "experts". If you want to see the "expert" projections, take a look at the article on CNNMoney.
Those employing big words and big numbers, in place of big ideas, I have little time for. As John Stossel has said, "Any government program that has the support of the political class and media commentators makes me suspicious."
And/or as John Lott, Jr. - senior research scientist at the University of Maryland, College Park; author of Freedomnomics (as well as More Guns, Less Crime) - said in an e-mail to me in an exchange of messages around the time of (and serving partly as inspiration for) the first Who's Calling the Shots Now, Eh? blog post:
"You caught on faster than some of the rest of us."
Whaddaya know...I sure did....hmmm....
I think that means you people should really read my blog more!
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
No Imagination = No Good
Once again, the imagination of our Federal Government stuns me into an intellectual stupor. Of all the many ways the Feds - both in the Legislative and Executive Branch - could help the American people and the environment, Washington's latest proposal is the one most expedient...and thus, the most lame-brained. I, of course, would love to see vehicles be more fuel-efficient. In theory I'm not against, as the Bush Administration has proposed, requiring automakers to develop 31 mile-per-gallon vehicles. I am, however, against the fuzzy-minded thinking which led to such a well-intentioned yet nonetheless naive proposal.
After all, that 31 mpg auto fuel economy average wouldn't need to be met by automakers until 2015 at the earliest. Not raising any eyebrows, or piquing curiosity? That's to be expected, until one realizes that what Washington is telling us is that fuel prices are only going to continue to go up without much help from our hundreds of representatives in the Federal City, and the only option available doesn't involve cutting or suspending fuel taxes, but letting prices rise and just...us coping with the consequences. What good, I ask you, does a fatalistic government do its people?
What we're being reminded of is, we lack leaders of vision and courage...not to mention imagination. A new bureaucracy would surely be created in order to track and enforce compliance with Federal standards, an incremental increase in national government the relatively ignorant - or informed-yet-resigned - masses will be paying for. I don't have any doubt automakers could meet the compliance deadline...but I feel deciding what will be seven years from now, based only on information known to us now...is stupidity for expediency's sake. It's "government by assumption" - and haven't you ever heard?
"When you ASSUME, you make an ASS out of U and ME."
Far be it from me to suggest that cutting or suspending fuel taxes, so people won't have to choose between a gallon of milk and a gallon of gasoline, is a better idea - one that could conceivably be implemented in the near future and not in the middle of the next decade. No, I'm totally with the Federal Government on this. Let's waste more money, create more rules people and companies are going to find some way to get around, and exacerbate our problems rather than eliminate them. NOT! Come on, people...they're calling for an increase in miles-per-gallon, but not a decrease in gas prices.
Hey, here's an idea - why not increase fuel efficiency, cut fuel taxes, and set a cap on gas prices...so one day, people can fill up their gas tanks for cheaper, and have that gas last longer?
Nah, that makes too much sense.
After all, that 31 mpg auto fuel economy average wouldn't need to be met by automakers until 2015 at the earliest. Not raising any eyebrows, or piquing curiosity? That's to be expected, until one realizes that what Washington is telling us is that fuel prices are only going to continue to go up without much help from our hundreds of representatives in the Federal City, and the only option available doesn't involve cutting or suspending fuel taxes, but letting prices rise and just...us coping with the consequences. What good, I ask you, does a fatalistic government do its people?
What we're being reminded of is, we lack leaders of vision and courage...not to mention imagination. A new bureaucracy would surely be created in order to track and enforce compliance with Federal standards, an incremental increase in national government the relatively ignorant - or informed-yet-resigned - masses will be paying for. I don't have any doubt automakers could meet the compliance deadline...but I feel deciding what will be seven years from now, based only on information known to us now...is stupidity for expediency's sake. It's "government by assumption" - and haven't you ever heard?
"When you ASSUME, you make an ASS out of U and ME."
Far be it from me to suggest that cutting or suspending fuel taxes, so people won't have to choose between a gallon of milk and a gallon of gasoline, is a better idea - one that could conceivably be implemented in the near future and not in the middle of the next decade. No, I'm totally with the Federal Government on this. Let's waste more money, create more rules people and companies are going to find some way to get around, and exacerbate our problems rather than eliminate them. NOT! Come on, people...they're calling for an increase in miles-per-gallon, but not a decrease in gas prices.
Hey, here's an idea - why not increase fuel efficiency, cut fuel taxes, and set a cap on gas prices...so one day, people can fill up their gas tanks for cheaper, and have that gas last longer?
Nah, that makes too much sense.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
