NM, not relevant to this discussion.

The Hawks are clearly discombobulated on the road but the crap the Celts get away with in the Garden is absurd.

I tend to agree with Kevin, here: home teams get the calls. However, I think the better teams, when at home, are treated better than the average or worse teams. Boston is a great team this year, hence the better treatment than most.

NBA refs seem especially deferential to great players, and obviously the best teams have the most great players. Back when Stockton and Malone were at their best, it seemed like Malone could get away with elbowing his man in the head at will without a foul being called; and Stockton, too, regularly got away with what I thought was dirty play. I recall Stockton purposefully kneeing his opponent (it might have been Nate McMillan, though my memory is sketchy) in the nuts when the other player fought through a screen. While McMillan was writhing in pain, Malone hit an open jumper from the elbow and the refs danced down the court to the dulcet tones of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir.

The argument on the poll tax is not that the IDs cost money. It's that the documents required to get the ID often cost money and while most will already have them, it's just one more thing that is likely to prevent people from voting.

I believe that the union is strongest when everyone has the most accessible path to voting. I imagine many agree with me, but I see the other point-of-view.

E-X: I'm sorry your post went off the rails. If you cannot distinguish even malign neglect (which would have to be shown) from "killing", then you're going to be dismissed as unserious. And at some point I think you're going to have to reflect on Rich's points. Since you and I have been at this site, I've seen various and distinct people find you racially divisive (from me to UCCF to Rich). I don't know any of them outside this context, so it's true they may all be secret racists. It's also true, however, that something in your delivery or message doesn't jibe with your concern not to racially divide.

I was simply trying to make the point of how ridiculous it is to blame racial divisions on Wrightish statements. Many African Americans and others are being painted as "dumb" in this thread simply because they don't share the same lack of experience of south side Chicagoan life.

As I said above, the segregation that exists did not grow out of some backlash against mainstream America, nor white people being made to feel bad about themselves.

Obviously we will have to disagree and your points about my tone are accepted and considered. I still conclude what I concluded when I discussed respectfully with Andy--there's a lot of feigned outrage here. I mean consider the fact that Rich has mocked the deaths of my students while implying that I'm a bad teacher because I don't use proper grammar on a baseball blog and I'm the indecent one who is racially dividing America.

I mean, why isn't his tone picked through and why isn't he being held accountable for racial tension due to his need to act like an ####### on every third post?

Why aren't Ray's held accountable for his constantly moving goal posts and redefinitions of terms, while attacking me for redefining things functions with explanation?

I honestly don't know why. I do know that I don't see much empathy here, and I wonder if the golden rule applies? I would hope that if I was attacking Rich's grammar while he was discussing how he had to bury his kids, robin or Lassus or you would tell me to shut the #### up.

I have not been as measured as usual on this thread. Please do not dismiss that as "unserious". It is quite the opposite. I'm sick of burying my kids and I'm sick of people like Daley or Duncan and everyone else pretending like they care but not being the least bit interested in finding the source. And then having to come back and comfort my colleague who is bury another one the next week.

If you first reaction to that is "stop being crazy! You can't prove intention!" and not any sort of interest in addressing the issue, I don't think I'm problem.

E-X: I do hope you'll consider the points others have made about your tone (and style and word choice). I have not yet seen a single person here -- from any corner on the political landscape -- agree that your tone/style/word choice is productive and furthers serious discussion about the legitimate issues you're concerned about.

At some point you have to consider that either the world is wrong on this point, or you are. And adapt accordingly.

Ray: Like anyone, when Eraser-X (still a great name) gets fed up and frustrated with his opponents, which are many and far less forgiving or pliable in their beliefs, he loses clarity. Big freakin' deal. I have to say, this is a standard of debate practiced by both sides, and I've heard way way more insults tossed around from the other side of the aisle over here. THAT's what you consider productive and furthering serious discussion? I recall someone insulting his intelligence, grammar, and judging worth as a teacher? You're getting on E-X after that? Whatever.

His posts have come and gone in a number of political topics. No one's going to consider me an authority on tone probably (that trophy would go to Andy) but if you are dismissing the entirety of his posts due to emotion and then discount of the man-on-the ground regularity of intelligent tone even if there is a ton of emotion behind them, you're only hearing what you want to to come up with your own opinions. My defense if probably only going to make you seem worse, E-X, but whatever.

IF THE "VIEW ALL POSTS OF THIS USER" BUTTON EVER WORKED on this site, I'd like to think my colloquially memory is correct and could be checked on.

The entire world has certainly been wrong before. Which point are you referring to?

I believe that the union is strongest when everyone has the most accessible path to voting. I imagine many agree with me, but I see the other point-of-view.

I believe that the union is strongest when votes are legitimate. Our right to vote in legitimate elections is far more important than the right to vote without the slightest shred of effort. We're not talking about an onerous poll tax, but to ask a voter to take on the absolute bare minimum of responsibility of being a citizen.

What's next? Saying that our system of voting is unfair to illiterates, people who don't like having to stand in line at a polling place, or people who can't be bothered to remember what candidate they like?

The argument on the poll tax is not that the IDs cost money. It's that the documents required to get the ID often cost money and while most will already have them, it's just one more thing that is likely to prevent people from voting.

How many people without ID, who want to vote, do you think could have been assisted in obtaining ID for the amount spent bringing this lawsuit?

I was simply trying to make the point of how ridiculous it is to blame racial divisions on Wrightish statements.

Well, I don't think you succeeded in proving that point; I think you helped illustrate why the claim you're trying to debunk is in fact accurate.

LASSUS: "Attacking liberal-minded folks who recognize that race is an issue and valid problem that affects many facets of modern society as racists for not sweeping the fact under the rug is the oldest conservative trick in the damn book."

This doesn't apply to anything I have ever done, said or written in my life. It's offensive that you would connect my forthright attack on someone else's race-baiting to that.

I'm a little confused as to why you are offended. I said nothing about you, I simply described exactly what you did. You described E-X's views as racially divisible and racist, didn't you? Post 2863? I even quoted it. You see what he said as race-baiting, and your attack (your word) against this is a common (and not altogether ineffective I'd imagine, due to it's commonality) argument used, and has been for decades. Seriously. "You want to give African-Americans hiring preferences? You say I'm racist, but really THAT's racist!"

If I offended you in that interpretation of what you said, I absolutely apologize. But I don't really see the glaring inaccuracy.

THAT's what you consider productive and furthering serious discussion? Insulting his intelligence, grammar, and worth as a teacher? You're getting on E-X after that? Whatever.

Um, just to be clear, I never insulted his intelligence, grammar, or worth as a teacher. I'm not the one who commented on those things. I commented on his word choice, which was not a comment that he doesn't know how to properly use words, but that he does know how, and, yet, deliberately chooses not to. As such, far from calling him stupid, I said he was too intelligent to use words in that way.

His posts have come and gone in a number of political topics. No one's going to consider me an authority on tone probably (that trophy would go to Andy) but if you are dismissing the entirety of his posts due to emotion and then discount of the man-on-the ground regularity of intelligent tone even if there is a ton of emotion behind them, you're only hearing what you want to to come up with your own opinions.

I don't dismiss any of his posts based on his emotion; I dismiss some of his posts, when he deliberately uses words incorrectly.

It's not like he complains that X is "very bad" instead of just "bad" and then I get bogged down and argue that, no, X is only "bad"; that would be the "hair splitting" he accused me of earlier. Rather, it's that he asserts that "unintentional" or "indifference" means "intentional." _That's_ the incorrect word choice I've commented on, and he's done that in other discussions as well.

IF THE "VIEW ALL POSTS OF THIS USER" BUTTON EVER WORKED on this site, I'd like to think my colloquially memory is correct and could be checked on.

Yeah; as long as we're complaining about a site that someone takes his time to provide to us for free, I can't ever get the search feature to work right.

The entire world has certainly been wrong before. Which point are you referring to?

His tone/style/word choice, such as accusing people of "trying to kill" kids when they are not.

#2889. I'm still laughing.

To be clear, Ray, I was referring to Rifkin's comments on E-X in that post, which I considered far LESS productive towards intelligent and decent debate than much of what EX has said. But we all have our preferences and biases, including me, that seems clear.

To someone on the ground dealing with it on a daily basis, a government enacting policies that don't seem to offer any care whatsoever if a socioeconomic group is affected negatively, even towards the point of situations that lead to deaths, these could bring about accusations of "trying to kill" quite easily when it is such a prevelent circumstance.

Does that really not make any sense at all? None? That he might have a good grasp on what's happening to students he sees every single day? I don't see how it is such a inexcusable description, honestly.

I would never complain about the site. It rocks. It's just confusing that the button is there at all. ;-)

To someone on the ground dealing with it on a daily basis, a government enacting policies that don't seem to offer any care whatsoever if a socioeconomic group is affected negatively, even towards the point of situations that lead to deaths, these could bring about accusations of "trying to kill" quite easily when it is such a prevalent circumstance.

Does that really not make any sense at all? None?

No sense at all. None.

It makes no sense at all to characterize "don't seem to offer any care whatsoever" as "trying to kill."

I believe that the union is strongest when votes are legitimate. Our right to vote in legitimate elections is far more important than the right to vote without the slightest shred of effort. We're not talking about an onerous poll tax, but to ask a voter to take on the absolute bare minimum of responsibility of being a citizen.

That's all fine and good, Dan, but the Constitution, specifically the 24th amendment, disagrees with you. The fact that no justice saw fit to address the 24th in regard to a case about voter discrimination is, to say the least, a bit surprising. The 24th and the precedents drawn from the 24th are what you need to look at here, and when you look at them the voter ID laws are clearly unconsitutional.

No sense at all. None. It makes no sense at all to characterize "don't seem to offer any care whatsoever" as "trying to kill."

If that's your view, that's your view. I suppose you have reason to think so. Watch more people than normal around you die for awhile, maybe your opinion will change. That's why E-X thinks as he does, I'd imagine, and he also has reason.

To be clear, Ray, I was referring to Rifkin's comments on E-X in that post, which I considered far LESS productive towards intelligent and decent debate than much of what EX has said. But we all have our preferences and biases, including me, that seems clear.

To someone on the ground dealing with it on a daily basis, a government enacting policies that don't seem to offer any care whatsoever if a socioeconomic group is affected negatively, even towards the point of situations that lead to deaths, these could bring about accusations of "trying to kill" quite easily when it is such a prevelent circumstance.

Does that really not make any sense at all? None? That he might have a good grasp on what's happening to students he sees every single day? I don't see how it is such a inexcusable description, honestly.

Lassus, if Eraser-X had said, "Lots of poor black people think the government is trying to kill them," nobody would be criticizing him. But Eraser-X didn't merely report that belief; he defended and even endorsed it.

If that's your view, that's your view. I suppose you have reason to think so. Watch more people than normal around you die for awhile, maybe your opinion will change. That's why E-X thinks as he does, I'd imagine, and he also has reason.

I don't think there's any way to make

"don't seem to offer any care whatsoever"

mean the same thing as

"trying to kill"

without changing the meaning of the word "try."

Dan, the problem you mention is caused far more by the fact that the sort of black candidates that the Republicans put up have far more in common with Alan Keyes and Clarence Thomas

Andy, what on earth do Alan Keyes and Clarence Thomas have in common, other than their skin color? Yes, they're both on the more conservative side of politics -- in very different ways -- but what exactly is that supposed to mean? Republicans tend to put up "the sort of black candidates" who are consonant with the Republican party. The "sort of black candidates" who have the same views as the "sort of white candidates" they put up.

Which is exactly the problem that black people in general have with the GOP. For the most part, their handful of black candidates are as hard core right wing as their white ones. There are plenty of black conservatives out there who believe in lower taxes, school prayer and restrictions on abortion, but they're not likely to be won over by Atwaterism---and that's a perfectly legitimate codeword for a phenomenon that everyone but you and a handful of conservative Three Monkeys statues seems to recognize as an integral part of the perennial Republican campaign pitch---as seen most recently in North Carolina, Louisiana and Mississippi.

And BTW if you can think of any significant philosophical difference between Clarence Thomas and Alan Keyes, I'm all ears. I am well aware that one is a Supreme Court Justice and the other is a Senatorial version of a Harold Stassen wannabee, but their differences are wholly stylistic.

Lassus, if Eraser-X had said, "Lots of poor black people think the government is trying to kill them," nobody would be criticizing him. But Eraser-X didn't merely report that belief; he defended and even endorsed it.

Because based on his work in the community, that's what he's seen. I'm not entirely sure what you are saying here. He's seen first-hand (and I take him at his word for his view of the students he teaches and their families and community) and is describing why he says that. It is a hyperbolic wording, but again, if you live in the circumstance over the long-term, I don't see how the hyperbole is either inexcusable or a TERRIBLE INJUSTICE AGAINST.... er, against what, again?

The problem with hyperbole is that unless it's backed by a strong set of underlying facts that correspond to the specific subject being hyperbolized, it's ultimately counterproductive and self-defeating. It's the difference between a Malcolm X at his best and a Wright or a Frances Welsing at their worst. One can dismiss the moral case against racial hyperbole and yet still recognize the damage it can do to getting people to listen to one another. If at the end of the day, its ONLY effect is cathartic, after a while you're getting absolutely nowhere, or worse. It's just----dumb, especially when the hyperbolizer knows better.

That's all fine and good, Dan, but the Constitution, specifically the 24th amendment, disagrees with you. The fact that no justice saw fit to address the 24th in regard to a case about voter discrimination is, to say the least, a bit surprising. The 24th and the precedents drawn from the 24th are what you need to look at here, and when you look at them the voter ID laws are clearly unconsitutional.

The Constitution does no such thing. No justice saw fit to address the 24th because the Court generally does not address issues not raised by the parties, and the parties didn't raise the issue, because it was so obviously a loser. If a voter ID law were a "poll tax," so too would be requiring a person to leave his home and travel to a polling place in order to vote.

Ray,

"Sabotage" like "conspiracy" (and I said "I think" in a rather casual observation,and you come back with two paragraphs, including a bizarre reference to "The Real Truth") in another analogous exchange I had with others, is your word. I think it is both--Wright wanted to defend himself, and he timed it in a way to hurt Obama. Pols sometimes say it takes about a week for stuff to sink in--and Wright appeared about a week before IN and NC.

But it is amusing to hear you sticking up for the rev.

Reasonable, Andy, and yet I find that entirely too cold and dispassionate for my taste. Again - deaths around you aren't so easy to explain away without the hyperbole sometimes. Also, I can't imagine there's any amount of figures or reasonable circumstances that wouldn't be explained away by other figures or circumstances by those getting on E-X in this case.

I mean, seriously. How's that working been working out for you, here? I wish I could say I've seen you making headway, but I haven't.

Which is exactly the problem that black people in general have with the GOP. For the most part, their handful of black candidates are as hard core right wing as their white ones. There are plenty of black conservatives out there who believe in lower taxes, school prayer and restrictions on abortion, but they're not likely to be won over by Atwaterism---and that's a perfectly legitimate codeword for a phenomenon that everyone but you and a handful of conservative Three Monkeys statues seems to recognize as an integral part of the perennial Republican campaign pitch---as seen most recently in North Carolina, Louisiana and Mississippi.

I don't know what you think you saw in North Carolina, Louisiana, or Mississippi.

And BTW if you can think of any significant philosophical difference between Clarence Thomas and Alan Keyes, I'm all ears. I am well aware that one is a Supreme Court Justice and the other is a Senatorial version of a Harold Stassen wannabee, but their differences are wholly stylistic.

No. They're very different. Keyes is from the theoconservative wing of the conservative movement; Thomas is towards the libertarian side.

If that's your view, that's your view. I suppose you have reason to think so. Watch more people than normal around you die for awhile, maybe your opinion will change. That's why E-X thinks as he does, I'd imagine, and he also has reason.

Lassus, what you're basically doing here is telling me that I have some shortcoming, since I pointed out that someone else's word choice was totallly incorrect (and I'd even go so far as to say that his word choice was dishonest). I really don't see how you reach that conclusion, but, as you say, if that's your view, that's your view.

Reasonable, Andy, and yet I find that entirely too cold and dispassionate for my taste. Again - deaths around you aren't so easy to explain away without the hyperbole sometimes. Also, I can't imagine there's any amount of figures or reasonable circumstances that wouldn't be explained away by other figures or circumstances by those getting on E-X in this case.

That's why I made the distinction between any sort of a universal moral case against hyperbole, and a pragmatic one. I'm not criticizing E-X's moral stance at all. It's purely a matter of what I think might work best to achieve the same end.

I mean, seriously. How's that working been working out for you, here? I wish I saw you making headway, but I haven't.

I kind of do realize that I'm not likely to convert the Furies, Lassus, but OTOH you never know what the lurkers might be thinking. And in any case, I yam what I yam, for better or worse. I try just to call em as I see em, without any claim of Klem-like infallibility. You can have solidarity without a party line.

Lassus, if Eraser-X had said, "Lots of poor black people think the government is trying to kill them," nobody would be criticizing him. But Eraser-X didn't merely report that belief; he defended and even endorsed it.

Because based on his work in the community, that's what he's seen. I'm not entirely sure what you are saying here.

I am saying that this view is delusional; if his point were just that uneducated people thought that way, it would merely be reporting, but he has endorsed this view. On the previous page of this thread, he tried to walk that back a little bit and claim he was just reporting -- "It's funny. The point wasn't to push my own opinion, but to give you an incite into how many on the South Side feel. " -- but he has since gone back to endorsing it.

He's seen first-hand (and I take him at his word for his view of the students he teaches and their families and community) and is describing why he says that. It is a hyperbolic wording, but again, if you live in the circumstance over the long-term, I don't see how the hyperbole is either inexcusable or a TERRIBLE INJUSTICE AGAINST.... er, against what, again?

Against blacks and whites and race relations. From someone who says of himself that "I can't imagine many have done more to work against racial divisiveness. I have nothing to gain through racial divisiveness."

But everything he says -- like calling everyone racist and claiming that whites are trying to kill blacks -- foments racial divisiveness. When Martin Luther King wrote his Letter from Birmingham Jail, he criticized "white moderates" for not doing enough to support civil rights, but he didn't call them all racists.

David and Ray, I appreciate you simply think E-X is a delusional idiot of some sort. No, you didn't use the word idiot, but you may as well have. He's just wrong, period, about the affect of policies on his students and their families. I do get that.

Imagine, if you will, that you are a teacher in an inner-city school. Do you think you would be thinking EXACTLY THE SAME WAY you think now? Would the deaths of those close to you just be.... because?

I mean, I guess this is like asking you if you'd be the same if you were different, but it makes no sense to me that you wouldn't give someone who is THERE on a daily basis ANY credit for seeing how things work in that community of people.

It's like what happens with Andy - I trust that he was there, he was marching, he saw the racial environment of the time HE LIVED IN. But nothing, I mean NOTHING he says actually makes a dent with those who weren't there to witness. (If I'm wrong about your age, Ray, I apologize, I don't remember) You know what it's like there, and how people thought and acted and what they meant because.... why? Both now in inner-city Chicago and in the 60's?

EDIT: I didn't really say all of that the right way. I simply think that you should give those personally involved a little more credit and latitude for that experience. That's all.

I kind of do realize that I'm not likely to convert the Furies, Lassus, but OTOH you never know what the lurkers might be thinking.

This is a good point, certainly.

Nice Klem reference.

Which is exactly the problem that black people in general have with the GOP. For the most part, their handful of black candidates are as hard core right wing as their white ones. There are plenty of black conservatives out there who believe in lower taxes, school prayer and restrictions on abortion, but they're not likely to be won over by Atwaterism---and that's a perfectly legitimate codeword for a phenomenon that everyone but you and a handful of conservative Three Monkeys statues seems to recognize as an integral part of the perennial Republican campaign pitch---as seen most recently in North Carolina, Louisiana and Mississippi.

I don't know what you think you saw in North Carolina, Louisiana, or Mississippi.

You might ask John McCain about that, since he disavowed the North Carolina ad himself. The other two were cut from the same cloth, and fortunately the Louisiana one couldn't save the Republican candidate.

And BTW if you can think of any significant philosophical difference between Clarence Thomas and Alan Keyes, I'm all ears. I am well aware that one is a Supreme Court Justice and the other is a Senatorial version of a Harold Stassen wannabee, but their differences are wholly stylistic.

No. They're very different. Keyes is from the theoconservative wing of the conservative movement; Thomas is towards the libertarian side.

Then I'm sure you can tell us where they've parted company on any specific public issue that (for instance) has come up before the "Thomas" Supreme Court. Not saying you can't, but I'd like to know of a example or two.

Imagine, if you will, that you are a teacher in an inner-city school. Do you think you would be thinking EXACTLY THE SAME WAY you think now?

Well, I'd like to think so, yes, but the question is an unanswerable hypothetical, as you concede in your next sentence. But I don't think that truth is subjective.

I mean, I guess this is like asking you if you'd be the same if you were different, but it makes no sense to me that you wouldn't give someone who is THERE on a daily basis ANY credit for seeing how things work in that community of people.

But he's not making claims about "how things work in that community of people." He's making claims about how others outside that community of people think and feel. That was the distinction I was drawing between reporting and endorsing these views. If he was saying, "Blacks in the inner cities think whites are trying to kill them," that would be a claim about "how things work in that community of people." But he's actually saying, "Whites are trying to kill them," which is a claim about whites, not "that community of people."

Lassus, you can huff and puff all you want, but you can't change E-X's statement from a lie to the truth, or from delusional to sane, or from incorrect to correct (whichever you prefer).

It's quite rich that you admit he was wrong, and, yet, you still point your finger at those who pointed that out.

Imagine, if you will, that you are a teacher in an inner-city school. Do you think you would be thinking EXACTLY THE SAME WAY you think now?

This is a strawman. The issue is not whether I would think EXACTLY THE SAME, but, rather, is whether I would think people are murderers when they're not.

It's like what happens with Andy - I trust that he was there, he was marching, he saw the racial environment of the time HE LIVED IN. But nothing, I mean NOTHING he says actually makes a dent with those who weren't there to witness. (If I'm wrong about your age, Ray, I apologize, I don't remember) You know what it's like there, and how people thought and acted and what they meant because.... why? I mean, really, I'm literally asking because I do not understand where you are coming from here.

I'm 34. Though I quite literally have no idea what point you're trying to make here with respect to me.

Dan: I see what you are saying, but isn't it problematic when certain groups have so much to gain by making it harder to vote?

With the amount of strife most Americans see in their daily lives, I think we owe it to them to make voting as easy as is humanely possible. I mean, it's not like we are talking about some lazy or marginal 2% out of nearly 300 million who are not voting.

Andy: I am honestly not hyperbolizing, and if that makes me as crazy as Wright, or most of the South Side of the city, so be it. I am certainly not being intentionally hyperbolic.

Ray: You see me as misusing words and then accuse me of twisting language but you never consider that I might be drawing my conclusions from different information.

I completely understand your definition of indifference. But anyone--including some of those on this board where you claim no one agrees with my position (and it's not as if this board is 100% representative of all that is intelligent and good in the country)--who knows my life understands how my own principles wrap logically around the definitions we are discussing.

What I see is policy that is intentionally designed to drive the working poor, and in some cases, folks of certain ethnic groups out of the city. In this intentional dynamic, it is understood that there will be collateral damage.

I have read the plans of the commercial club of Chicago. I have read Lipman's research around school closings and the resulting violence. I have researched the way that terms like "underperforming" and "under utilized" have been used to shut down strongly performing schools and send kids all over the city. I've been there when they've silenced our bells and disrupted our classes so that Mayor Daley can film a commercial in our building about how much he cares about stopping school violence while pushing policy that I sincerely believe that he understands will create more violence.

This is my field. This is my life. I could be entirely wrong. But your tone and your mockery of my beliefs are counterproductive when you have not done your homework on the issue and I have.

If anyone else who has done the level of research on these issues believes as you do and would like to question my conclusions and my emotional responses to the death of our students, I will consider their argument.

The argument, "The government cannot be intentionally causing the deaths of black youth, because that's racist and stupid" is not compelling. It may win traction among those who have not done their research. It may in the end lead to a more compelling argument that eclipses my argument, but that remains to be seen.

This is part of why this is such an emotional issue to me. It's not that you disagree or hate me or what I do. It's that you and most of the country are indifferent. Even as I speak, you are just thinking of the next way to cut down my arguments or write me off WITHOUT acquainting yourself with the lives of my students.

That's simply unacceptable. You are welcome to come to my school at any time, and I will greet you with open arms. I will move heaven and Earth to provide a warm welcome and as much safety as I can possibly give, far beyond what, despite our best efforts, we are able to provide our students. I understand that this may not be possible. That being the case, I simply encourage you to learn more about the issues.

Here's a good article:


We're not blind..

Here's an interesting link that is not vital to this discussion:
Flying guy

I kind of do realize that I'm not likely to convert the Furies, Lassus, but OTOH you never know what the lurkers might be thinking.

This is a good point, certainly.

Just for the record, Lassus, when I checked the stats about 30 seconds ago the lurkers on BTF outnumbered the Primates by a count of 345 to 69. I realize that this spreads over many threads, but nevertheless....

Dan: I see what you are saying, but isn't it problematic when certain groups have so much to gain by making it harder to vote?

Yes, but this is the very basic "know that the person is who they say it is." If it was an onerous requirement or even if Indiana was charging for the IDs, I would feel differently.


That's all fine and good, Dan, but the Constitution, specifically the 24th amendment, disagrees with you. The fact that no justice saw fit to address the 24th in regard to a case about voter discrimination is, to say the least, a bit surprising. The 24th and the precedents drawn from the 24th are what you need to look at here, and when you look at them the voter ID laws are clearly unconsitutional.

As long as we're talking about what's "unconstitutional" rather than what one feels is "right" then the voter ID law in Indiana is constitutional as a matter of fact.

Andy: I cross-posted with you, and you might be surprised that I completely endorse your point that it's often how you conduct yourself in the argument that has the most influence, not whether you subdue some opponent.

I am not a journalist, nor an academic, and I do not have much way to integrate the groups that make up the majority of BTF posters and readers into a wider movement.

I am an inner-city educator and my goal is to identify others who would like to collaborate on doing whatever they can to address the problems facing students in inner-city areas.

If people cannot handle tonal issues or the perspectives that the vast majority of my students hold without getting disrespectful, there's not really much I can do with them.

If they are truly being pushed away from some other part in a righteous struggle simply by their discomfort at a single poster from a different perspective on a baseball web site, then I question their passion in the first place.

I appreciate those who have contacted me through this site which allows me to enjoy baseball and still enjoy some of what I miss from my days in the academic world which seems a billion miles away now while still making some worthwhile connections to the rest of my life.

I would welcome anyone from any political spectrum, ethnicity or any other identity group to collaborate with me. I will happily support their efforts to integrate a completely different view on the dynamics of America and our community into their instruction of youth--I do this daily as I nurture my mentees and defer to my mentors.

However, complete ignorance driving strong judgment is never very constructive.

I guess my question is why you are lecturing me on tonal issues and not Ray or Rich or others?

After all, the problems I raise are real, right? And they certainly have as much responsibility to address those problems as you or I...

You might ask John McCain about that, since he disavowed the North Carolina ad himself. The other two were cut from the same cloth, and fortunately the Louisiana one couldn't save the Republican candidate.

McCain said something to ingratiate himself with the media, regardless of whether the media's political views masquerading as neutral reporting have any basis in fact? What a shock.

Then I'm sure you can tell us where they've parted company on any specific public issue that (for instance) has come up before the "Thomas" Supreme Court. Not saying you can't, but I'd like to know of a example or two.

Alan Keyes is not a lawyer or constitutional commentator; I have no idea what he has said, if anything, about any issues that have come up before the Supreme Court, with the exception of abortion, which he is rather extremely strongly against. Meanwhile, Thomas is not a politician and does not take policy positions. But as usual whenever you get an answer you don't like, you just move the goalposts to something else entirely. The question was about whether they have philosophical differences or just stylistic ones; the answer is yes.

The 24th and the precedents drawn from the 24th are what you need to look at here, and when you look at them the voter ID laws are clearly unconsitutional.

And, of course, I missed the language in the 24th amendment or the precedents stemming from that say "anything even indirectly required to vote is illegal." To get to the polling place and make my vote after all, I'm required to either pay tax on gasoline to drive, tax on my shoes to walk, or pay for a stamp and a pen for my absentee ballot.

Last I checked, not everyone has the legal right to vote, so demonstrating that you're one of the people with a legal right to vote should be a basic, required step to be able to partake in the right to vote. The minimum bar of citizenship, set a nanometer above the ground.

By the way, if the Supreme Court rules that the 2nd amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, are you going to be as vehemently against having to prove who you are before getting a gun or the registration fees for people to take advantage of that right? I won't hold my breath.

I guess my question is why you are lecturing me on tonal issues and not Ray or Rich or others?

After all, the problems I raise are real, right? And they certainly have as much responsibility to address those problems as you or I...

I guess it's because I see you as much more of a work in progress, and whatever our differences of approach, I've found you more likely to be persuaded than some of the others here. God bless David Nieporent, who's every bit as sincere in his beliefs as anyone here, but anyone who sees the southern strategy in racially benign terms, as David does, lives on a different planet than I do. He inhabits his own particular moral universe and I inhabit mine, and neither of us is under any conversion illusions vis a vis each another. Hence the lack of too many attempts along those lines on my part.

---------------

Alan Keyes is not a lawyer or constitutional commentator; I have no idea what he has said, if anything, about any issues that have come up before the Supreme Court, with the exception of abortion, which he is rather extremely strongly against. Meanwhile, Thomas is not a politician and does not take policy positions. But as usual whenever you get an answer you don't like, you just move the goalposts to something else entirely. The question was about whether they have philosophical differences or just stylistic ones; the answer is yes.

Actually that's a perfectly satisfactory answer, which is that regardless of whether or not they wind up on the same side of most questions, they arrive there from different paths. I wasn't trying to "move the goalposts" at all, just trying to ask a supplementary question, which admittedly is tough to answer, to a great extent for the very reasons you cite.

Here's a good article:

We're not blind..

I don't exactly know how one can write a "good" article about how to reform (or not reform) schools without once mentioning how the schools actually perform. CPS graduates just a little over 50% of its students. I would think that fact would be a little more important than whether the teachers are unionized or whether the schools have "local governance."

I guess it's because I see you as much more of a work in progress, and whatever our differences of approach, I've found you more likely to be persuaded than some of the others here.

Thank you. While some might take that as condescension, since it is coming from you and it is certainly my goal, I take that as a great compliment.

I don't exactly know how one can write a "good" article about how to reform (or not reform) schools without once mentioning how the schools actually perform. CPS graduates just a little over 50% of its students. I would think that fact would be a little more important than whether the teachers are unionized or whether the schools have "local governance."

There are plenty of articles that get into the research. The new schools do tend to graduate higher, but that gap disappears to a negative when you account for smaller school size, class size, selective/active parent enrollment, and greater resources. There are certainly individual charters that have had widespread success. However, given their inability to retain strong teachers, there's likely to be a ceiling on the achievement of even the most successful ones.

That doesn't address the deeper problem--the 50% is unacceptable. But that is why the union must be completely renewed as well--transitioned from a business union run by non-teachers into a union that represents its members while also fighting for what its members want--high quality education for all students.

There are plenty of articles that get into the research. The new schools do tend to graduate higher, but that gap disappears to a negative when you account for smaller school size, class size, selective/active parent enrollment, and greater resources.

Well, it's not clear to me that one would want to control for all those things, but you miss my point. My point isn't that these particular Renaissance reforms are good or bad, helpful or unhelpful; my point is that the article you linked to didn't address, one way or another, school performance. It didn't say that the current schools were better than the proposed ones would be; it didn't even seem to think that the questions of how the schools do/would do was worth mentioning.

Sure it did. School performance doesn't appear out of nowhere--this is the problem with NCLB. There is no credible research to suggest that the current reconstitution plan will improve anything. There are mountains of research that suggest that the means which are being used to reconstitute schools--kids being shuffled from school to school across gang lines, constant staff and administrative turnover has direct impact on school performance.

The article addresses much of this. Lipman cannot put all of his research and work into every article. Surely you don't do this, nor does anyone else. Feel free to read more if you are interested.

Here's a good article:

We're not blind..

It is indeed a good article. I'm more familiar with urban development than I am with the sort of manipulation of schools your article describes, and it surprises no one familiar with "urban renewal" of the 1950s and 1960s that that process was, at times, used to bust up politically active black neighborhoods, to create profitable construction projects for politically connected firms, to drive up the value of particular land, and so on and so on. The idea that restructuring schools would not be used to bust unions, to concentrate or dilute political power, to profit politically connected businesses, and so on and so on, is incredibly naive. Whether this is the case, I can't tell from the article linked, of course, but it is certainly suggestive.

edit: love the way whitehouse.gov still lists the disgraced, resigned Alphonso Jackson as the Sec of Hud.

"Many African Americans and others are being painted as "dumb" in this thread simply because they don't share the same lack of experience of south side Chicagoan life."

Many African Americans? You care to prove this statement? I have not read every post, but I have not seen one which supports your allegation.

"I mean consider the fact that Rich has mocked the deaths of my students while implying that I'm a bad teacher because I don't use proper grammar on a baseball blog and I'm the indecent one who is racially dividing America."

First, I never mocked the deaths of anyone. Second, is it wrong of me to assume a teacher knows proper English? Third, you are racially divisive and you know it.

"I would hope that if I was attacking Rich's grammar while he was discussing how he had to bury his kids, robin or Lassus or you would tell me to shut the #### up."

Hypotheticals in English require the subjunctive tense. "I would hope that if I were attacking Rich's grammar..."

To make matters clear, I have never commented upon your competence as an undertaker.

LASSUS: "Attacking liberal-minded folks who recognize that race is an issue and valid problem that affects many facets of modern society as racists for not sweeping the fact under the rug is the oldest conservative trick in the damn book."

RIFKIN: "This doesn't apply to anything I have ever done, said or written in my life. It's offensive that you would connect my forthright attack on someone else's race-baiting to that."

LASSUS: "I'm a little confused as to why you are offended."

First, when it comes to issues of race, you're entirely wrong to draw the conclusion that I am not liberal-minded and that E-X is. "Liberal-minded" means treating all human beings as individuals, regardless of their race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orienatation, religion, etc. I have always done that. In every post I have put my name to, I have done that. However, E-X has done the opposite. Therefore, I challenge the premise of your characterization of me.

Second, I did not attack E-X or anyone else for "recognizing that race is an issue and valid problem." Show me where I ever did that? Rather, I attacked E-X for being a racist and racially divisive. I qualified this in post #2863 with many examples.

Third, your dismissing my allegations against E-X as being "conservative trick" is laughable when applied to me. Either what I said is correct or not. I never tried to trick anyone. I reject racism and did my best to expose it and attack it.

"Imagine, if you will, that you are a teacher in an inner-city school. Do you think you would be thinking EXACTLY THE SAME WAY you think now? Would the deaths of those close to you just be.... because?"

Lassus, as it happens, I have been for many years an unpaid tutor in an after-school composition and reading comprehension program in West Oakland, which likely has a similar socio-economic make-up to the South Side of Chicago.* I also lived in this neighborhood for five years (but now reside quite far from there). No question, my experiences (obviously less daunting than being a classroom teacher) have affected me. However, having insight and experience doesn't excuse illogic, race-baiting and poor argument. Also, nothing excuses E-X's self-righteousness, expressed under the claim that his conclusions are incontrovertible, because he is (figuratively speaking) doing the Lord's work.

* West Oakland is murder central.

E-X: "What I see is policy that is intentionally designed to drive the working poor, and in some cases, folks of certain ethnic groups out of the city."

Tell us which specific policy this is and why its authors want "certain ethnic groups" (qua ethnic groups) out of the city.

If there were a public policy which intended to do the latter, it would be overturned by a court as a violation of the civil rights' statutes.

"This is my field. This is my life. I could be entirely wrong. But your tone and your mockery of my beliefs are counterproductive when you have not done your homework on the issue and I have. This is part of why this is such an emotional issue to me. It's not that you disagree or hate me or what I do. It's that you and most of the country are indifferent."

No, it's that your presenting yourself as christ-dying-on-the-cross-for-our-sins self-rigtheousness is not a logical argument, it's off-putting (at least to me).... Makes me glad I was not living in Judeah 2,000 years ago.

To make matters clear, I have never commented upon your competence as an undertaker.

...

LASSUS: "Attacking liberal-minded folks who recognize that race is an issue and valid problem that affects many facets of modern society as racists for not sweeping the fact under the rug is the oldest conservative trick in the damn book."

"Liberal-minded" means treating all human beings as individuals, regardless of their race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orienatation, religion, etc. I have always done that.

The bolded section about is being ignored--that's the source of the problem. Also, somewhere there is another Rich Rifkin making fun of the fact that orienatation is not a word, but I understood your point. After all, language is not static, and communicative responsibility is shared.

Tell us which specific policy this is and why its authors want "certain ethnic groups" (qua ethnic groups) out of the city.

Already done. But you could also add the entire New Orleans construction plan and the plan for accommodating the 2016 Olympic bid. The demolishing of the housing projects and without creating the same magnitude of low-income housing would also qualify. (Note: before you come back with the "race is not mentioned" argument, please recall the long history of non-race based laws intended to target people of a certain ethnic background.)

If there were a public policy which intended to do the latter, it would be overturned by a court as a violation of the civil rights' statutes.

If their (:P) was a public policy which intended to do the latter, you wood<> probably be unaware of it, and then when it was pointed out to you, you wood mock it's (:)) use of the subjunctive tense.

Lassus, as it happens, I have been for many years an unpaid tutor in an after-school composition and reading comprehension program in West Oakland, which likely has a similar socio-economic make-up to the South Side of Chicago.*

Good for you. That's more than most do. As my sophomores who went to New Orleans could tell you, volunteer work is the first step. Critical policy analysis of the effect of one's work is the next vital step.

ARK! Don't call Rich "incredibly naive"--if you were to do so, he might make fun of your grammer...<>

I thought ridiculing people for their grammar and spelling in internet discussions went out of style 10 years ago? I guess when you need to make yourself feel superior, you look for any angle you can find...

DMN, Dan, I have no doubt that there are airtight reasons to decide Crawford vs. Marion County Election Board as it was decided. As there no doubt were for Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson. But it's just amazing that the American right, which so celebrates the purple-fingered masses voting in Iraqi elections, can only think of reasons why people in the United States shouldn't vote. (And to be fair, the American left doesn't seem much interested in the democratic principle either.) Again, the fact that butter doesn't melt in Clarence Thomas's mouth as he assents to the creeping-back-in of the kinds of obstacles to voting that prevailed earlier in his life is just astonishing to me, but if he's your model of a fine disinterested jurist, that's cool :)

That wasn't a good article, really, was it? It was a propaganda piece written by an activist (I assume) on one side of a contested issue. I don't begrudge her her views, but this was not journalism, but ideology - as one could see from her characterization of unions and markets and from her use of the word "progressive." What I thought was lacking in the article - aside from detachment - was any real concern for the kids. It was fun watching her try to make sense of how smaller schools could possibly be worse for children.

I don't think anyone questions the problems in these schools; the real problems of ethnic and class inequality. But to say of these proposals that they're intended to drive out blacks, and that Daley knowingly proposes things that will increase violence is loony, no matter how often you appeal to your own experience. Experiences, mine or use, don't validate our views; they can help us understand why people think the way they do, but they don't make those thoughts right.

On voter IDs:

Why do we need them? I fail to see why they're necessary and why, then, the move to get them should be seen as anything other than the imposition (for whatever reason) of another burden?

But it's just amazing that the American right, which so celebrates the purple-fingered masses voting in Iraqi elections, can only think of reasons why people in the United States shouldn't vote.

Not being able to demonstrate that one's a legal voter seems to me to be an excellent reason not to let someone vote.

You don't need an id to establish yourself as a legal voter, Dan.

How else can you do so JC?

You don't need an id to establish yourself as a legal voter, Dan.

I disagree, I think the right to vote should be predicated on actually demonstrating you have a right to vote.

As much as I dislike some on the right like the Bushies, this is an example of why I simply can't come to terms with the left. They don't bat an eye about me spending 4 months a year essentially working for the government or going through hoops and red tape to do pretty much anything, sometimes even individual rights, but dare to make someone have to get their birth certificate for a free ID card one time in their life in the rare event they don't already have ID to ensure the legitimacy of our elections? OMG TEH JIM CROW!!!!!!!!!!!!11111111111oneoneone

On voter IDs: Why do we need them? I fail to see why they're necessary and why, then, the move to get them should be seen as anything other than the imposition (for whatever reason) of another burden?

We need voter IDs because without voter IDs, there's no way to control who votes, how often, or where. (And keep in mind that, in terms of affecting the outcome of an election, my voting twice has the same effect as my voting once and refusing to allow you to vote. If I can stuff the ballot box, I don't need to prevent you from submitting a ballot.) If there were no local elections, we could use the purple finger approach made famous by Iraq but used in other countries; that keeps you from voting more than once, but it doesn't keep you from voting in the wrong district. That would also not solve the problem of ineligible people (i.e., non-citizens, felons) voting.

DMN, Dan, I have no doubt that there are airtight reasons to decide Crawford vs. Marion County Election Board as it was decided. As there no doubt were for Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson. But it's just amazing that the American right, which so celebrates the purple-fingered masses voting in Iraqi elections, can only think of reasons why people in the United States shouldn't vote.

The voter ID laws do not ban anybody from voting; perhaps that's why there's no discrepancy here. They are a tiny imposition at best. (Note that while the petitioners in Crawford made much of the fact that the state hadn't proved any voter fraud, the petitioners failed to put forward a single person who actually wanted to vote and was unable to do so.)

(And to be fair, the American left doesn't seem much interested in the democratic principle either.) Again, the fact that butter doesn't melt in Clarence Thomas's mouth as he assents to the creeping-back-in of the kinds of obstacles to voting that prevailed earlier in his life is just astonishing to me, but if he's your model of a fine disinterested jurist, that's cool :)

Again, perhaps because this isn't an example of "the kinds of obstacles... that prevailed earlier in his life." This is a completely racially neutral law, both on its face and in its application. (The problem with literacy tests wasn't that there's something wrong with requiring literacy for voting; the problem with literacy tests was that they were a sham, like the NFL commercial where the kids got "cat" and the NFL player had to spell "chrysanthemum.")

As far as NC is concerned: I suspect Andy is referring to this ad.

-- MWE

All 2,958 previous posts are incorrect.

If there were no local elections, we could use the purple finger approach made famous by Iraq but used in other countries; that keeps you from voting more than once, but it doesn't keep you from voting in the wrong district. That would also not solve the problem of ineligible people (i.e., non-citizens, felons) voting.

Of course, if we did that, we'd have ACORN and other groups racing to block it, saying that purple was chosen so that it would be harder to see on black people's thumbs, thus being part of the effort to disenfranchise them.

In Texas, or at least my part thereof, you have to register to vote. The county sends you a card confirming that registration. You bring the card to the polls and sign the voter roll. There is no need for further ID, though the Texas Republican Party wants IDs in addition to the registration process (and the Democratic Party has been blocking that ID legislation).

In the Texas example, what is an additional ID except an additional hassle that makes it harder to vote? What fraud would the ID prevent?

In the Texas example, what is an additional ID except an additional hassle that makes it harder to vote? What fraud would the ID prevent?

Don't know what it looks like in Texas, but in the states I've been in, a driver's license is a lot harder to fake than a voter registration card.

And, of course, you're being disingenuous saying that you just think it's an additional hassle - or do you generally compare minor inconveniences to Jim Crow laws?

In the MA primary they didn't ask me for anything. They asked my street and then flipped open the voter roll right in front of me to that page. All the voters from the street were in plain view. They then asked my name and I told them and they check me off. I could have easily voted as anyone from my street by just giving my name. Looks pretty easy to vote if not registered by just knowing any street in your town.

Already done. But you could also add the entire New Orleans construction plan and the plan for accommodating the 2016 Olympic bid. The demolishing of the housing projects and without creating the same magnitude of low-income housing would also qualify. (Note: before you come back with the "race is not mentioned" argument, please recall the long history of non-race based laws intended to target people of a certain ethnic background.)

When Andy comes around again to this thread, he ought to read comments like this; it will illustrate why the GOP will never pick up significant numbers of black votes, irrespective of any actual racial issues. People like Eraser-X, like many liberals, define big government itself as being the non-racial position. You have to support, e.g., the governmental creation of low-income housing in order to be on the right side of the racial issues, even though low-income housing has nothing to do with non-discrimination or anything of that sort.

In the Texas example, what is an additional ID except an additional hassle that makes it harder to vote? What fraud would the ID prevent?

No, fraud, there's no evidence of widespread fraud.
1: You have the Karl Rove strategy, slowly incremently make it a hassle for people to register to vote, and to vote and that will disproportionately affect those who would otherwise tend to vote democratic- Is that true? would it really "hurt" Dems more than Repubs? Rove and his people clearly believe so
2: You have those who have been misinformed (to be charitable) and who believe that there is a huge problem in this country regarding vote fraud, people registering more than once, illegal aliens (and legal aliens) voting, convicted felons voting, etc.

I'm of two minds, I think there should be some type of voter ID system, preferably voter ID, on the other hand I am extremely suspect of the motives of those pushing these laws, I do not think they want to deter voter "fraud" I think they want to supress turnout

In Texas, or at least my part thereof, you have to register to vote. The county sends you a card confirming that registration. You bring the card to the polls and sign the voter roll. There is no need for further ID, though the Texas Republican Party wants IDs in addition to the registration process (and the Democratic Party has been blocking that ID legislation).

In the Texas example, what is an additional ID except an additional hassle that makes it harder to vote? What fraud would the ID prevent?

Does the existing Texas voter ID card have a picture on it? (Pretty sure the answer is 'no.') Do you need to show a photo ID in order to register and get one of those cards (Also pretty sure the answer is 'no,' but please correct that impression if it's not right.)

Don't know what it looks like in Texas, but in the states I've been in, a driver's license is a lot harder to fake than a voter registration card

But how would you vote fraudulently with such a card? You would have to pretend to be somebody else (Fridas Boss's strategy :) whose name appears on the rolls, and then either knock that someone else over the head or hope they don't show up to vote, or just go away quietly when they find they've already "voted." I don't get how the ID further establishes your bona fides.

Dan, every impediment to voting has a disproportionate effect on minorities, the poor, the elderly. I don't centrally disagree with you about having to be a citizen in order to vote. But instead of actively working to foster citizens' right to vote, governments seem to be working more and more to either limit that right or to hassle people on Election Day.

Does the existing Texas voter ID card have a picture on it? (Pretty sure the answer is 'no.') Do you need to show a photo ID in order to register and get one of those cards (Also pretty sure the answer is 'no,' but please correct that impression if it's not right.)

No pictures. You have to swear under penalties of various kinds that you are who you are and are a citizen. What's the fascination with picture ID cards, DMN?

But what is also coming across is that it is a big deal when a black pastor lies and "creates" division, but it's not really a big deal what ACTUALLY created and perpetuates that division.

Nobody is saying that. Right now, my job is protecting poor people in Brooklyn from unfair evictions and living in terrible conditions. I am not oblivious to the fact that an overwhelming percentage of people I am helping come from certain minority groups.

South Side African Americans are a diverse group. They don't have a singular perspective. But it is VERY clear that the government is trying to kill them, whether or not the government designed AIDS to do so.

This is a load of crap, and I expect more from an intelligent person like you.

The government does a lot of bad things, but it most certainly does not try to kill its own people because they happen to belong to a racial group. You're not merely implying, but outright claiming that a calculated effort is underway to slaughter black people. That's ridiculous and offensive.

I agree with you that unfair conditions the resulted from prior terrible governments have far-reaching consequences that have not ended for black people. I believe that our justice system is less just for black people and I have as much of a problem with that as you do.

A bug doesn't care if the boot is crushing it deliberately or through carelessness. But human beings aren't bugs, and they should know the difference between ignorance, selfishness, and malice.

Of the two things, I am much more concerned with the government ACTUALLY trying to kill my kids and that no one cares than I am about the inflammatory lie that the government invented AIDS to kill blacks because that makes mainstream Americans of various ethnicities upset.

People do care. But people (in the collective sense) care more about themselves than they do about others. I work in public-interest law, but a good portion of my own worries come from wondering if I'll be able to make my loan payments and get married to my girlfriend and raise a family while working in this area. So I might (and I hope I don't) have to leave this field and do less to help people. That's very different than buying a building and running it like a slumlord.

You don't seem to be able to tell the difference between not actively and loudly working to end a bad situation and making a calculated effort to create and perpetuate that situation. And I simply don't believe that you're that dense. Like I said before, I expect more from you.

I'd suggest you study the structure of more historical genocidal and/or apartheid movements. The very idea that racism can only be exacted by members of a different race is short-sighted.

We're talking about more than mere racism. We're talking about a calculated effort to kill people who are of a certain type. That some Jews in concentration camps did work that made it easier for the Nazis to kill their own people isn't evidence that they were truly willing and/or conscious of what they were doing. Certainly black police may follow policies that are unequal in terms of racial application, but they aren't doing it because they want to eradicate black people from the country.

I'm of two minds, I think there should be some type of voter ID system, preferably voter ID, on the other hand I am extremely suspect of the motives of those pushing these laws, I do not think they want to deter voter "fraud" I think they want to supress turnout

"Those pushing those laws" include Jimmy Carter. After the 2000 election debacle, Carter and the ubiquitous James Baker were tasked with heading a bipartisan committee to propose electoral reforms; they proposed voter ID laws as one of their recommendations.

I am an inner-city educator and my goal is to identify others who would like to collaborate on doing whatever they can to address the problems facing students in inner-city areas.

If people cannot handle tonal issues or the perspectives that the vast majority of my students hold without getting disrespectful, there's not really much I can do with them.

Eraser, I have a book for you to read. The central character was a close friend and teammate of mine in high school and deals with the same sorts of issues you are addressing here:

The Assist

I read it and thought it was a good read, even if you don't know any of the main characters.

But how would you vote fraudulently with such a card? You would have to pretend to be somebody else (Fridas Boss's strategy :) whose name appears on the rolls, and then either knock that someone else over the head or hope they don't show up to vote, or just go away quietly when they find they've already "voted." I don't get how the ID further establishes your bona fides.

Or collect cards for dead people (who are unlikely to show up to vote and ruin your scheme). Or invent fake people (who are also unlikely to show up to vote) and register them.

Does the existing Texas voter ID card have a picture on it? (Pretty sure the answer is 'no.') Do you need to show a photo ID in order to register and get one of those cards (Also pretty sure the answer is 'no,' but please correct that impression if it's not right.)

No pictures. You have to swear under penalties of various kinds that you are who you are and are a citizen. What's the fascination with picture ID cards, DMN?

How else, other than a photograph, does one verify someone's identity? Barring the probably-not-very-significant problem of twins (or triplets, or even sinister quadruplets) stealing each others' identity, a photograph shows that the person holding the card is actually the person who belongs to the card.

They then asked my name and I told them and they check me off. I could have easily voted as anyone from my street by just giving my name. Looks pretty easy to vote if not registered by just knowing any street in your town.

Ah, the time-honored Massachusetts voting pattern: early and often.

Or collect cards for dead people (who are unlikely to show up to vote and ruin your scheme). Or invent fake people (who are also unlikely to show up to vote) and register them

And indeed many Texans are convinced that massive Democratic machines function in the Valley along just such principles, enlisting hordes of day-trippers from Juarez to impersonate dead Tejanos. Oddly enough, instead of encouraging the Republican Attorney General to investigate this fantasy and prosecute any bad guys he might find, the Republican caucus in the Legislature would prefer to slap a picture-ID requirement on everyone in the state, presumably as a stimulus to the fake-picture-ID industry :)

"Those pushing those laws" include Jimmy Carter. After the 2000 election debacle, Carter and the ubiquitous James Baker were tasked with heading a bipartisan committee to propose electoral reforms; they proposed voter ID laws as one of their recommendations.

I don't know if this is disingenuous or just ill-informed, but Carter is not "pushing" ID laws. The price of reaching a bi-partisan report was signing on to ID laws -- GOP members wouldn't agree unless IDs were included (that's how committed the GOP is to disenfranchising Democratic voters). One can debate whether Carter should have made the deal or not, but it's clear he acquiesced to IDs only in order to get bi-partisan support for other reforms he thought were important, not because he thinks they're a good idea.

a photograph shows that the person holding the card is actually the person who belongs to the card.

"Not always," said the teenager as he raised his beer in an appreciative toast.

I don't know if this is disingenuous or just ill-informed, but Carter is not "pushing" ID laws. The price of reaching a bi-partisan report was signing on to ID laws -- GOP members wouldn't agree unless IDs were included (that's how committed the GOP is to disenfranchising Democratic voters). One can debate whether Carter should have made the deal or not, but it's clear he acquiesced to IDs only in order to get bi-partisan support for other reforms he thought were important, not because he thinks they're a good idea.

I don't know what Carter's secret innermost thoughts are, but it's not the case that they had to twist his arm to get him to support them. (I agree that "pushing" may be too strong -- I was using JPWF13's word there. That is, I'm not claiming that Carter was saying, "It's crucial to the future of the country that we have voter ID laws," but that he recommended them.) Your argument makes no sense; if these laws were so horrible -- you've got to love the use of the word "disenfranchise," which does not mean what you think it means -- why would Carter pay that "price"? None of the other recommendations in Carter-Baker, except perhaps letting felons vote, could possibly be worth "disenfranchising" all these alleged would-be voters.

A column by Steve Chapman in the Chicago Tribune today presents what might be a better Wright/Ayers parallel for McCain than Hagee: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-oped0504chapmanmay04,0,1771016,print.column

"Can a presidential candidate justify a long and friendly relationship with someone who, back in the 1970s, extolled violence and committed crimes in the name of a radical ideology—and who has never shown remorse or admitted error? When the candidate in question is Barack Obama, John McCain says no. But when the candidate in question is John McCain, he's not so sure.

Obama has been justly criticized for his ties to former Weather Underground member Bill Ayers, who in 1995 hosted a campaign event for Obama and in 2001 gave him a $200 contribution. The two have also served together on the board of a foundation. When their connection became known, McCain minced no words: "I think not only a repudiation but an apology for ever having anything to do with an unrepentant terrorist is due the American people."

What McCain didn't mention is that he has his own Bill Ayers—in the form of G. Gordon Liddy. Now a conservative radio talk-show host, Liddy spent more than 4 years in prison for his role in the 1972 Watergate burglary. That was just one element of what Liddy did, and proposed to do, in a secret White House effort to subvert the Constitution. Far from repudiating him, McCain has embraced him.

How close are McCain and Liddy? At least as close as Obama and Ayers appear to be. In 1998, Liddy's home was the site of a McCain fundraiser. Over the years, he has made at least four contributions totaling $5,000 to the senator's campaigns—including $1,000 this year.

Last November, McCain went on his radio show. Liddy greeted him as "an old friend," and McCain sounded like one. "I'm proud of you, I'm proud of your family," he gushed. "It's always a pleasure for me to come on your program, Gordon, and congratulations on your continued success and adherence to the principles and philosophies that keep our nation great."

Which principles would those be? The ones that told Liddy it was fine to break into the office of the Democratic National Committee to plant bugs and photograph documents? The ones that made him propose to kidnap anti-war activists so they couldn't disrupt the 1972 Republican National Convention? The ones that inspired him to plan the murder (never carried out) of an unfriendly newspaper columnist?

Liddy was in the thick of the biggest political scandal in American history—and one of the greatest threats to the rule of law. He has said he has no regrets about what he did, insisting that he went to jail as "a prisoner of war."

All this may sound like ancient history. But it's from the same era as the bombings Ayers helped carry out as a member of the Weather Underground. And Liddy's penchant for extreme solutions has not abated.

In 1994, after the disastrous federal raid on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas, he gave some advice to his listeners: "Now if the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms comes to disarm you and they are bearing arms, resist them with arms. Go for a head shot; they're going to be wearing bulletproof vests. . . . Kill the sons of #######."

He later backed off, saying he meant merely that people should defend themselves if federal agents came with guns blazing. But his amended guidance was not exactly conciliatory: Liddy also said he should have recommended shots to the groin instead of the head. If that wasn't enough to inflame any nut cases, he mentioned labeling targets "Bill" and "Hillary" when he practiced shooting.

Given Liddy's record, it's hard to see why McCain would touch him with a 10-foot pole. On the contrary, he should be returning his donations and shunning his show. Yet the senator shows no qualms about associating with Liddy—or celebrating his service to their common cause.

How does McCain explain his howling hypocrisy on the subject? He doesn't. I made repeated inquiries to his campaign aides, which they refused to acknowledge, much less answer. On this topic, the pilot of the Straight Talk Express would rather stay parked in the garage.

That's an odd policy for someone who is so forthright about his rival's responsibility. McCain thinks Obama should apologize for associating with a criminal extremist. To which Obama might reply: After you."

It's too bad the whole question of enfranchisement has become so politicized; while it may not be in the interests of either party, it's in the interests of the country as a whole that

1) Everyone who wants to vote gets to vote, and
2) Only those who are legally entitled to vote get to vote.

Unfortunately, Democrats seem convinced that Republicans are only interested in #2, and Republicans seem convinced that Democrats are only interested in #1. That's a shame, and it's dangerous to everyone concerned, but since doing otherwise requires everyone to give a little, it's probably going to continue being addressed only when one side has the ability to bludgeon the other into accepting it.

I should note that when Jimmy Carter criticized Georgia's ID law, he objected to it costing money (between $10 and $35) and said that the ID should be free, which suggests that he does think an ID is OK if it's free - he didn't say that there shouldn't be an ID at all.

Eraser, I have a book for you to read. The central character was a close friend and teammate of mine in high school and deals with the same sorts of issues you are addressing here:

The Assist

I read it and thought it was a good read, even if you don't know any of the main characters.

Thanks, kevin! I'll put it on my summer plane ride reading list.

RE: the voter ID shenanigans. If you think the 24th doesn't apply, read the precedents.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harman_v._Forssenius

It is cute, however, that our local libertarians are so heavy on the crusade to "fix" a problem that doesn't actually exist. Voter fraud is a issue created for preferred government solution - ID laws - rather than a solution to an existing problem. It's a classic example of the sort of thing supposed libertarians would oppose, government meddling in the most basic rights of the citizenry for no real reason at all.

So, it's voter fraud that's moving us toward ID cards? I didn't realize that that was a big issue (rampant voter fraud). Like TX, MD requires registering to vote, going to the voting center afterwards and answering a series of questions about your identity (address, maybe SS#).

nyc fan: I see no reason in what you describe for McCain to denounce Libby.

The gotcha would be more useful if people were ranting about Ayers in this thread - from searching for "Ayers" the only critical mention is a few people (I counted the instances in one hand), suggesting that it would be a legitimate question in a debate, as it would be with Liddy.

In fact, the majority of the criticism here, by far, has been about Wright, who clearly has a much, much stronger relationship with the Obama campaign than Ayers does or Hagee or Liddy with McCain, no matter how much Andy tries to shoo away the association, as if Wright was just some guy Obama said hi to at Taco Bell and saw this one time in church 7 years ago.

It is cute, however, that our local libertarians are so heavy on the crusade to "fix" a problem that doesn't actually exist. Voter fraud is a issue created for preferred government solution - ID laws - rather than a solution to an existing problem. It's a classic example of the sort of thing supposed libertarians would oppose, government meddling in the most basic rights of the citizenry for no real reason at all.

Agree.

That wasn't a good article, really, was it? It was a propaganda piece written by an activist (I assume) on one side of a contested issue. I don't begrudge her her views, but this was not journalism, but ideology - as one could see from her characterization of unions and markets and from her use of the word "progressive." What I thought was lacking in the article - aside from detachment - was any real concern for the kids. It was fun watching her try to make sense of how smaller schools could possibly be worse for children.

No, it was a piece written by an academic who does data driven research on schools. I have no doubt that you would respect her if you met her or read more of her stuff. I didn't link her research for two reasons:
1) It's thick and takes some contextual set-up for those not familiar with educational policy.
2) I don't have access to scholar these days, nor the time to dig it up.
There's little that I can do from here to convince you of her love for the communities or the kids, I can give concrete examples, and experiences but that doesn't go for much around here.

I would merely request that you either research judgment or follow-up more.

I don't think anyone questions the problems in these schools; the real problems of ethnic and class inequality. But to say of these proposals that they're intended to drive out blacks, and that Daley knowingly proposes things that will increase violence is loony, no matter how often you appeal to your own experience. Experiences, mine or use, don't validate our views; they can help us understand why people think the way they do, but they don't make those thoughts right.

I don't think it's fair of you to call it "loony" without even examining the literature. If you read the various documents release by the Commercial Club of Chicago, you can see what their agenda is.

As you say, I cannot tell you definitively that you are wrong, and I could certainly be wrong. But sending kids across gang lines away from their neighborhoods and giving their neighborhood schools to other groups seems loony and I would love to hear one single explanation for why it would be a good idea.

As I said, every kid in Chicago knows the result of that, so the administration is either the most willfully ignorant group in existence, or is knowingly proposing things that will increase violence, or ?????? please tell me.

I guess the other likely possibility is that the administration is knowingly proposing things that will increase violence in the short term with the belief that it will lower violence in the long term.

That's certainly possible, but wouldn't you in that situation, quantify that justification with data, ask the populace for input so you are not martyring their children without their permission and do all you could to reduce the bump in violence?

None of the three are being done. They are simply holding a lot of press conferences, and disrupting the educational process.

Oh, and to answer your other charge--the attack is not on little schools. I would love little schools. Why not offer this extra funding and little school structure to educators rather than business leaders. We are the ones who came up with the idea and have been pushing for it forever.

It's a classic example of the sort of thing supposed libertarians would oppose, government meddling in the most basic rights of the citizenry for no real reason at all.

Enforcing legitimacy of elections isn't a legitimate function of government?

It's cute that progressives finally found something that government shouldn't be a part of. After all, the people bemoaning the Jim Crow nature of people <gasp> having to show that they're legitimate voters here are a lot of the same people who supported and continue to support gutting the 1st amendment by letting the government enforce government-derived rules for political speech.

I haven't read one word of this thread yet other than its title. But if a thread is close to 3000 posts, I don't want to be left out.

"Can a presidential candidate justify a long and friendly relationship with someone who, back in the 1970s, extolled violence and committed crimes in the name of a radical ideology—and who has never shown remorse or admitted error? When the candidate in question is Barack Obama, John McCain says no. But when the candidate in question is John McCain, he's not so sure.

Obama has been justly criticized for his ties to former Weather Underground member Bill Ayers, who in 1995 hosted a campaign event for Obama and in 2001 gave him a $200 contribution. The two have also served together on the board of a foundation. When their connection became known, McCain minced no words: "I think not only a repudiation but an apology for ever having anything to do with an unrepentant terrorist is due the American people."

What McCain didn't mention is that he has his own Bill Ayers—in the form of G. Gordon Liddy. Now a conservative radio talk-show host, Liddy spent more than 4 years in prison for his role in the 1972 Watergate burglary. That was just one element of what Liddy did, and proposed to do, in a secret White House effort to subvert the Constitution. Far from repudiating him, McCain has embraced him.

How close are McCain and Liddy? At least as close as Obama and Ayers appear to be. In 1998, Liddy's home was the site of a McCain fundraiser. Over the years, he has made at least four contributions totaling $5,000 to the senator's campaigns—including $1,000 this year.

Forget Liddy---if I were running the DNC this Fall I'd blanket the country with tens of millions of posters, billboards and soundless TV spots, with side-by-side head shots of Bush and McCain. Superimposed over that image would be just three words, in Day-Glo letters: "NO THIRD TERM". No further explanation necessary. Beat these motherf*ck*ers at their own "association" game.

And then I'd let the GOP complain about "guilt by association" and lament about how "false" this connection is. But believe me, it would remind the voters exactly what this election is all about: The Republican war and the Republican economy, both of which join Bush and McCain at the hip.

If the thread stops now, it will never be elected to the Hall of Fame.

E-X:

She may be an academic and may be doing real research, but academics write propaganda, too, and that's what that piece was. It was puffery for unions, maintenance of a broken status quo, and "progressivism" that the small-schools approach doesn't possess.

I'm not interested in her "love" for schools and kids and so on. I'm interested in whether these kids are being served by their schools. Apparently not, since the failure rate is 50% or more, as you and DMN discussed.

It's funny, but your entire characterization of the city's response is negative. "They're sending kids across gang lines." WHat does that pablum mean? They're breaking up gangs and creating smaller, more intimate learning situations? Couldn't that be the means employed? "Violence will ensue!" Why? B/c black families and children can't control themselves in new contexts? "Disrupting the educational process." B/c of the press conference when the Mayor came to the kids' school? Couldn't a good teacher turn that into a teachable moment: The mayor's coming. Who's the mayor? What does he do? Why is he here? Why is that more or less disruptive, in itself, than a field trip to New Orleans?