Marc and Bobbys' Dissent

New ID Laws: I Spy Fakes

2012-01-12T12:05:00.000-08:00

A growing voter-suppression initiative is at hand in several states, Wisconsin included. Many new laws are making changes to the way people can vote--namely, that they'll now have to have an ID to do it. Of course, these changes are being presented under the guise of voter fraud prevention--a laughable pretense given the infrequency of voter fraud and the actual degree to which this small percentage can alter the outcome of an election. With the inevitable confusion that will assail the polls as a result of these laws, millions of voters will find less hassle in forfeiting their votes and saying "fuck it."

Well I say "fuck that." It takes little imagination to identify the true incentive for making people show their IDs at the polls: the young, the poor, and the minorities are less likely to have them, and all of those demographics tend to cast their votes leftward. Any law that makes it more difficult for a person to cast his or her vote is clearly political in nature, and it turns the volume down on the voices of people who already go unheard by the GOP. To the extent that corporations are now able to manipulate elections in whatever fashion they choose, the vote of one concerned citizen already doesn't count as much as it used to, yet the GOP would like to see it count even less. So, what little say we do have (and be assured our say is very little when compared to a corporation's say, corporations being people and all) is being shrunk.

As if that weren't enough, some states are shortening early voting periods (early voting periods tending to benefit democratic candidates) in addition to doing away with same-day voter registration (another service that tends to yield more democratic votes). And how might these changes discourage voter fraud, other than by discouraging voters altogether?

The trend we should be noticing is that when more people vote, more people vote democratic. Same-day registration generated thousands of voters who otherwise would not have voted, and when it's gone, they won't. The will of the majority of the people is apparently to the left. The GOP's solution: try to disallow voting--one of the most basic civil liberties in our society--for as many people as possible.

Excuse me, there's a religious fly in my government soup.

2011-12-21T13:11:00.000-08:00

In one of Rick Perry's many self (and corporate) endorsed reasons to never, ever vote for Rick Perry, he takes an unsettling stance of bigotry as he laments the military's tolerance of gay soldiers. (See his disturbing campaign ad here.)

Michele Bachman has been quoted as saying, "If you're involved in the gay and lesbian lifestyle, it's bondage. It is personal bondage, personal despair and personal enslavement." (Which is too bad because I hate to admit that here she is better than I am at articulating what her presidency would be like.)

So at least two legitimate 2012 republican presidential candidates, who seem to be taken seriously by a large population of people, are prepared to publicly disenfranchise and repress an entire demographic of people who they are campaigning to represent. In both instances, the prejudice appears to come from religion--christianity, in particular. What's unsettling is that these candidates are surrounded by assistants and informants and data and have deduced from what they know that the American people are willing to accept the morality of what they are saying. Rick Perry didn't spend money on a campaign ad that degrades homosexuals just because he believes it; he did it because he knows that christians believe it. (For christians who say they aren't homophobic: if a person is a devout catholic and he or she also claims to accept homosexuality, then that person is simply rejecting a portion of his or her religion. Fine. The fact remains that the religion is still bigoted, and this criticism ought to continue until the religion itself changes.)

For all we know, Rick Perry may not oppose gay lifestyles. Rick Perry may have gay friends. Rick Perry may have gay sex with his gay friends. But his campaign persona suggests otherwise because it has to, because the average conservative voter is apparently unwilling to vote for a gay sympathizer. So Perry's ad and Bachman's statements say more about the voters than they do about the candidates. I'm only slightly disappointed with Perry; I'm more disappointed in the person who watches him speak and nods in agreement.

The problem with an ad like Perry's and a statement like Bachman's is that you can replace the word "gay" with any other demographic, and if you did, people would be justifiably outraged. No educated person finds it acceptable to say "You know there's something wrong when we let jews serve in the military," which is why no educated person finds it acceptable to say the same about gays. Perry's ad is most shocking because of the number of people who were exposed to it. The point with bigotry isn't about who it happens to; the point is that it happens at all, and that whoever it happens to is a human being.

Yet it seems to be religion that continues to prescribe intolerance--of women, of homosexuals, of other religions, and (almost as much as ever) of scientific thought. Because of this, it seems counterintuitive to introduce religion into a governing body that is entrusted with upholding the best interests of all those things. This logic appears to be lost on people who support Rick Perry and on everyone else who generally supports the idea of having religion in government. These people are horrified at the notion of government interference in their lives but they make no such objection when religion steps in. You could tell these people "Sure, we'll allow religion in government, and the religion will be Islam," and they will object. For these people, religion is only okay if it's theirs. But without a commitment to any religion, you are at liberty to accept them all--though it doesn't seem like very many republican voters are sold on acceptance.

Not Army Strong... Perry Strong

2011-12-21T08:20:00.001-08:00

Dissent, It's the American Way.

2011-11-29T07:47:00.001-08:00

Dissent is a vital part of America. While sometimes dissention may feel like the gaseous-bloating you get after eating half a cow at the local fast food joint, you have to keep in mind the euphoric clarity that occurs after a release of such an angst-filled build up. That sort of self-preservation is a viable reason for spouting out your differing opinions to the disinterested masses. At the same time however, providing that voice of opposition creates a much more diverse conversation that benefits everyone. Like slipping ecstasy into the punch at your twenty-five year class reunion, not everyone would say it’s the best move, but the collective experience will be that much richer for it.

With the holiday season upon us we are quickly reminded what it’s like sharing a meal with outspoken people whose political ideologies are so wildly different you can’t help but put yourself in a full-on turkey coma if only for a few moments of escape. You might manage to pacify your deranged, anarchist, uncle with copious amounts of stuffing and gravy, but failing a timely cardiac arrest or perhaps spontaneous combustion, you will hear all the crazed talking points he picked up from Andrew Breitbart. But isn’t that what it’s about? Celebrating our differences by civilized, logical discussion. That is not to say that we should give credence to every boisterous know-it-all that crosses our path. Having slightly better discretion than Nicholas Cage for example would be a start.

Now you as a reader of this blog know this. You are an intelligent individual who is a vital part of this machine we attempt to call a democracy. Better yet, a vital organ. Every organ has a function, a purpose. Except for the appendix. Yeah, I’m talking to you appendix. You’re utterly useless. You just sit there until one day you blow up and threaten to kill the rest of us. I don’t like you appendix.