Racist Harpy Hyde-Smith Wins MS Runoff - But Not Because of Deadbeat Dotard's "Help"

"I think Cindy Hyde-Smith is the greatest! Plus she's a white racist just like me! Oink! Oink! Sniff!"

Sadly, but predictably in racist Mississippi, Cindy Hyde-Smith won the state's special runoff election for the US Senate based on results coming in as I write. These show the racist harpy with a margin of 55% to 45%  over Democrat Mike Espy with 77% of precincts reporting. in a closer than expected race that stirred up Mississippi’s  nefarious racial history.

I myself only learned of the vile nature of said history in my freshman year at Loyola given I was situated across the Biever Hall dorm from two good old boys from Jackson:   Roy Woody and Bill Dooley. Late into the night we'd  vigorously argue the issue of race and  how their state - in the fall of 1964- could harbor backward laws that kept African -Americans from using the same restaurants, beaches, facilities that whites could.  According to Woody and Dooley, it was just the "way things were" and besides, the "blacks folks were happy 'cause they wanted to kinda be with their own."

My hostility to the South's Jim Crow laws originated from those Loyola bull sessions, and  was again incited yesterday when wifey and I saw the terrific, Oscar -worthy movie entitled 'Green Book'. It was about a black classical pianist (Dr. Donald Shirley)  traveling throughout the deep South in 1962 on a concert tour - with a tough  Bronx, Italian bouncer ("Tony Lip", played by Viggo Mortensen) as his driver and body guard. Well, he certainly needed the tough guy in a number of situations.

Anyway, the film reminded me once again of how things were in Mississippi in the 1960s, as well as neighboring states.  Janice herself was appalled especially in he scene where Dr. Shirley - who wanted to use a rest room at a particular venue - was directed outside to an outhouse instead. He wasn't allowed to step foot into the facilities in the mansion where he was to play.  "Good god! What kind of people were these?"   Janice asked. Well the same type as Hyde-Smith now.

To clarify, this runoff drew national attention after Hyde-Smith made a series of racially loaded remarks, most notoriously when she said of a supporter “if he invited me to a public hanging, I would be on the front row.”   The statement provoked controversy in a state that had more lynchings than any other  in the country, considering she ran against an African -American opponent, Mike Espy. Hyde-Smith was initially defensive about the comments - especially after more than a half dozen businesses pulled their backing and demanded their donations back.   She eventually offered the standard non- apology, i.e. regretting her remarks to “anyone that was offended”.  In other words, putting the blame on the offended for being "snow flakes" rather than her garbage self for spewing racist hate about lynching black citizens.

Her behavior and flippancy also recalled the "sundown" laws enacted throughout the deep South (and shown in at least one of the movie scenes, in Georgia) where all black people had to be inside by sundown or face lynching.  Both Bill Dooley and his roommate Roy Woody, confirmed for me they were still carried out in Mississippi in 1964.

A more notable question is why Dotard was out campaigning for this racist witch spewing his usual lies, like he was doing for a whole month before the midterms?  Well, the answers are obvious. First, he came out to support a kindred spirit, a fellow racist, and especially in order to increase the Repuke margin in the Senate.  Second, he wanted....needed....to get out and away from the White House -  a place that merely reminds him of his abiding incompetence and laziness. A place that continually mocks all he stands for because he knows he doesn't measure up. He is incapable of any serious activity, and is reduced to watching FOX news, tweeting and gobbling KFC chicken-   that is when hes not taking golfing breaks- more than any other president in history.

But we've known this, most of us, since day one when the swine arrived. Hell, five days into his presidency he  even bawled that the job had  turned out to be too much for him to deal. Too many details, too much stuff to master for an extensive government bureaucracy.  Hence, his penchant for becoming a cable TV and tweet addict. See e.g.

http://theconcourse.deadspin.com/donald-trump-stunned-to-learn-presidency-is-an-actual-j-1792215349

Excerpt:

“Being president is harder than Donald Trump thought,” begins the article, neatly capturing the blithe, criminal ignorance that characterizes both Trump himself and the many dozens of millions of morons who thought he should be the leader of the free world. Yes, being the president is a harder job than Donald Trump would expect, because Donald Trump had never previously held an actual job, because actually, spending your inheritance on a succession of failed cons is not an actual job."

Much insight also arrived with Michael Wolff's book, 'Fire and Fury' - reporting that wife Melania cried after late returns showed Trump had enough electoral votes to win.   But it doesn't take a Mensan IQ to figure out that Wolff's  report on Melania weeping  was true and not fake news.  Why?  Because she - like the other Trumpkins - knew the Dotard.....errr,....."the Donald", was not cut out for a real job and especially one so intense, hyper scrutinized and high profile as the President of the United States. One in which he'd be lashed mercilessly if he didn't live up to the sane and sober standards of previous office holders, like FDR, JFK and Barack Obama.

As one reads from the book adaptation in The New  York Magazine:

"Even though the numbers in a few key states had appeared to be changing to Trump’s advantage, neither Conway nor Trump himself nor his son-in-law, Jared Kushner — the effective head of the campaign — ­wavered in their certainty: Their unexpected adventure would soon be over. Not only would Trump not be president, almost everyone in the campaign agreed, he should probably not be. Conveniently, the former conviction meant nobody had to deal with the latter issue."

 The proof and evidence the Dotard ought not have been president was clear within weeks of his inauguration, and his many getaways to Mar-a-Lago or Bedminster. Why? Because the actual job of running the nation daunted him.  It is a job for which one needs all active brain neurons, and also keeping them working at full attention level. This Dotard Donnie Trump couldn't do, and so he wasn't even able to read a one page briefing or keep his mind on a meeting with staff or a head of state. Hence, the many references to him as a "fucking idiot", "moron",  "imbecile" and on and on.

Recall also the guy had never really worked at a real job outside of owning his family branding business wherein he could order anyone to do his bidding. Oh, and  a real estate weasel and con man who used bankruptcy (of multiple casinos) to make more $$$ mostly at the expense of state governments.

Bottom line? There is little evidence that Trump's campaigning for Hyde-Smith helped her one iota. More than likely, as analyst Cornell Belcher put it on 'All In',  Mississippi's own racial history would ensure that Hyde-Smith would win.  He cited solid historical facts from previous elections that indicated rarely if ever were Mississippi whites going to vote more than 25 percent for a Dem or a black man.  Hence, Espy basically didn't stand a chance- with or without Trump.  He needed at least 20-25 % of the white vote and he didn't get it.

What this shows me is that Mississippi (my late brother Mike's favorite state)  still doesn't get it.  The state would rather continue to grovel in its sordid and sorry racist past than to step boldly into the 2st century.  It's no wonder then on nearly every quality of life indicator - from education to health care- Mississippi ranks dead last, or near to it.

And so long as they keep electing racist dog whistlers like Cindy Hyde-Smith, that won't change.

See also:

Here Are 7 Of The Most Embarrassing Moments From Trump's Latest Interview Revealing He Has No Idea How To Be President

"Hidden Figures" Shows Importance of The 1964 Civil Rights Act

African-American NASA workers compute orbital elements for John Glenn's mission in new movie, 'Hidden Figures'

Problem of the type the women would have had to know how to compute


Orbital geometry the women would have had to help compute.

As the superb film "Hidden Figures" has opened, it's provided an eye opening vista on the critical role of African -Americans in the NASA Manned Space Program. The movie basically highlights a little known facet that a team of African-American women - trained in high level 'rocket science' math- actually did the computations that put astronaut  John Glenn into successful orbit in February, 1962.  The women  (Katherine G. Johnson, Mary Jackson, Dorothy Vaughan) were referred to as "human computers" within NASA.

An exaggeration? Check out the above sample problem and the geometry of a basic artificial satellite orbit (which is what Glenn's craft was) then see for yourself. The irony of it is that despite the skills applied by these talented black women they were treated as second class citizens in the America of 1962. Unable to eat at the same lunch counters as their co-workers, unable to even work in the same room with them or use the same transport (buses)  or use the same rest rooms they to endure not only the sexism of the era but the Jim Crow segregation laws.  Among the other insults, they had to submit a special legal petition to be allowed to attend university math classes at a segregated high school.

Incredibly, some today evidently still have problems with the law (1964 Civil Rights Act) that would have ensured a measure of dignity and respect for these high level NASA workers. According to one distorted meme spread about the law:

" The Civil Rights Act of 1964 should have been two pages long and said specifically that the government can’t keep blacks from voting or turn firehouses onto black women and children, as well as other actions that happened prior to the law. However, the law was ambiguous and opened the doors for it to be used in ways that we were warned against. "

Seriously?   In fact the law (under Title I) did require that voting rules and procedures be applied equally to all races. (See below)  As for  accepting a 2-page mimeograph that the law had to be used solely to prevent fire hose or dog attacks on defenseless people?   Helloooooo! NO one, especially authorities, should  be doing that anyway!  It shouldn't take any law beyond the Bill of Rights in the Constitution to stop it. (But it did require such). It's like saying the only justifiable law limiting the behavior of parents is one to the effect that they should not be able to lock their kids in closets, and beat or starve them to death! That's bare foolishness!

A law defined for civil rights is useless unless it specifically defines those rights and preferably in terms of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution, or earlier civil rights acts (such as one from 1875). Thus, all the 1964 Civil Rights law did is extend to African Americans the exact same rights already allowed to whites, mainly in the Jim Crow South. In the case of the African-American women working for NASA, that meant not  (at a minimum) segregating them from their white workers - working on the same damned project.

As for the 1964  Civil Rights Act being "ambiguous" that is pure, unadulterated  horse manure and codswallop. The law was never ambiguous from the time JFK conceived it  (LIFE December 19, 1960, p. 31, 'Kennedy's objectives' ). It was always intended to repeal the Jim Crow laws, abominations that declared - for example that the team African -American women working for NASA had to go to the back of the bus, and couldn't be served with their white coworkers at lunch counters.The key provisions are laid out below and not are in any way ambiguous.

Title I

Barred unequal application of voter registration requirements.. It did not eliminate literacy tests, which were one of the main methods used to exclude Black voters, other racial minorities, and poor Whites in the South, nor did it address economic retaliation, police repression, or physical violence against nonwhite voters. While the Act did require that voting rules and procedures be applied equally to all races, it did not abolish the concept of voter "qualification", that is to say, it accepted the idea that citizens do not have an automatic right to vote but rather might have to meet some standard beyond citizenship.It was the Voting Rights Act, enacted one year later in 1965, that directly addressed and eliminated most voting qualifications beyond citizenship.

Title II

Outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term "private".

(The last aspect we will get to in a bit)

Title III

Prohibited state and municipal governments from denying access to public facilities on grounds of race, color, religion or national origin.

Title IV

Encouraged the desegregation of public schools and authorized the U.S. Attorney General to file suits to enforce said act..

Title V

Expanded the Civil Rights Commission established by the earlier Civil Rights Act of 1957 with additional powers, rules and procedures.

Title VI

Prevents discrimination by government agencies that receive federal funds. If an agency is found in violation of Title VI, that agency may lose its federal funding.

Under the General provision of the Act we see: This title declares it to be the policy of the United States that discrimination on the ground of race, color, or national origin shall not occur in connection with programs and activities receiving Federal financial assistance and authorizes and directs the appropriate Federal departments and agencies to take action to carry out this policy.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but it makes it clear what the extent of the law's objectives were and tied them to federal assistance. This is why Churches or hospitals receiving such assistance cannot willy nilly engage in segregation practices. A trenchant moment in the film occurs when one of the NASA women informs her boss (played by Kevin Costner): "There are no colored bathrooms in this building or any building outside the west campus - which is half a mile away. Did you know that? I have to walk to Timbuktu just to relieve myself'.

The Act recognized  such outrages were unacceptable. It recognized that refusing positive civil rights, like being able to order food at PUBLIC lunch counters, or attend schools of their choice meant a hollow law, actually devoid of rights.  In this sense, the "right' to not be fire hosed or beaten with truncheons or shot is only the most minimal of negative rights, but not true rights - since those actions ought not be inflicted on a fellow innocent human anyway! How hard is this stuff to grasp?

But this sort of demeaning and regressive thought is typical for too many currently under the influence of fake news in Trumpland.  Others, the Steve Bannon types -  offended that their white privilege is now being challenged- want to trash any and all earlier laws that protect minorities. What is white privilege ? It's often not encoded in any formalism or legal language. It's  the ability to walk down a suburban street or drive and know in your little white heart of hearts you won't be stopped by cops, tased or given a good old fashion boot kicking- or be shot in the back. THAT is what  the most fundamental translation of white privilege is about. The conscious or unconscious sense of entitlement that little white you is basically immune to the slings and arrows that may dog others of darker complexion, oh....who also don't get called "black apes" by little white likes of you.

Another wayward and misplaced interpretation of the Civil Rights Act is one circulating on some blogs:

"The law has outlawed freedom of association, private business operating as it sees fit and any number of private clubs."

In fact the law has done no such thing. IF one establishes a truly PRIVATE club  then he is  indeed entitled to associate with whomever he desires - KKK, Neo-Nazis, proto- Confederates, and exclude those with whom he doesn't.. A "private business' is more problematical. Such as what? No businesses I know are truly private because they operate with licenses in the public domain.  A "private" business, would - by definition - have to limit its very potential for profit and sales by excluding populations. In more than one sense, a "private business" is an oxymoron. This is probably why the 1964 Act left open the definition, it would have been a fool's errand to do otherwise.

Hence, all genuine businesses are subject to laws of commerce which mandate trade in the public domain. The 1964 civil rights act merely formalizes the already existing trade laws which ought to be followed anyway. Our Trumpy brethren don't seem to know that, however.  The type of blabber here about "associations" reminds me  of former Loyola University prof Walter Block's absurd arguments made several years ago in a NY Times piece:

"Woolworth's had lunchroom counters and no blacks were allowed. Did they have a right to do that? Yes, they did! No one is compelled to associate with people against their will."

But consider the consequences if this bat shit crazy meme was extended willy-nilly so that anyone could apply it. Pharmacies could refuse serving people they regarded as 'misfits'  - say denying birth control pills to young, single women or not even permitting blacks to cross the doorway.

Owners of football teams could decide that they want no Jews, blacks, or gays entering their stadiums and they might put that into place. Private hospitals -operating as businesses - might decide that they want no blacks, Jews or gays on their premises either. Restaurants would feel free to bar anyone they think is marginal, including those who look like 'thugs' - or  whoever doesn't fit flitty criteria like hair length, or quality of dress.

In other words, you'd invite a society bordering on chaos, and don't think for a moment that  the millions of excluded folk would just sit there and take it! It is no wonder that Block describes himself as an "anarcho-capitalist".   

Block, like our Trumpy anti-Civil Rights brethren, argues:

"If it is morally wrong to force someone to work for you against their will, how is it any less wrong to force someone else to trade with another against their will? ."

Which is total nonsense and shows the abject ignorance at work in terms of grasping the nature of commercial laws.  That is, the restaurateur or trader is afforded certain privileges (via  licensing) to trade or provide services (such as food) in the public domain. Hence, the so called "freedom" is limited for business owners to do whatever they want. Their commercial warp and woof can't include refusal of service unless there are extenuating circumstances, i.e. the customers enter drunk and disorderly. The public trader doesn't have the latitude or luxury to refuse service on the basis of race, religion, skin color or sexual orientation. Sorry!

But there is an out! If positive civil rights objectors really want to impose their own subjective limitations on business associations they can devise their own private businesses. Good luck in earning any kind of sustainable profit with just a tiny subset of consumers!

See also:

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/05/applications-of-diferential-equations-1.html

The Phony Texas Voter ID Kerfuffle

Colorado College students yell 'Obamanos!' in 2008 as they march to the polls. Being allowed to show just student photo IDs allowed them to vote - though most came from out of state. 

After we moved from Barbados back to the U.S. in January, 1992, my first voting experience in the country was to cast a vote for Bill Clinton as President in November of that year. But first I had to register to vote in the state of Maryland. Since I’d turned in my drivers’ license for good (legally blind) I had to use another form of ID and that became my U.S. passport which I’d had for nearly 21 years (since entering the Peace Corps).

So it was no biggie. Later, I found it more convenient to get a Maryland alternative (non-drivers’) ID featuring my photo and current address. The process to get it was relatively simple, and entailed going down to the DMV and bringing three acceptable forms of preliminary ID which included: 1) My passport, 2) a copy of my birth certificate, and 3) evidence of a bill paid in my name – with address shown. Total cost was $50. The ID was good for 4 years, and could then be renewed.

On moving to Colorado, in 2000, we learned the ID requirements were even lower and only required a form of paid bill (e.g. utility) with one’s name on it. A passport could also be used. Some 8-10 years later, as Repubs grabbed the state legislature, these laws tightened up and you had to have a verifiable drivers license for an ID – or an alternative non-drivers’ ID with photo (like in MD).

The law by 2008 required you to present SIX different previous or preliminary documents, including Passport or military ID, previous drivers’ license or other state ID, birth certificate or stamped (notarized) copy of such, paid bill, and two other forms (e.g. athletic club photo ID, and –or medical, insurance ID). Total cost $100.  The good thing is that student photo IDs were still   allowed, mainly for out-of-state students attending colleges in Colorado but not residing here. This enormous student vote was major in helping Obama take the state in 2008 (after which, student IDs were disallowed).

The issue then becomes: a) Should special photo ID be required to vote, especially given the statistics for voter fraud (meaning one voter impersonating another) are vanishingly small? and b) If such ID is required should it not be such to encourage the greatest voting participation as opposed to the least?

Evidently Texas, supported by a Supreme court take, has answered yes to (a) and no to (b). Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in issuing a stout rebuttal, has noted the Texas law is “discriminatory”

“The greatest threat to public confidence in elections in this case is the prospect of enforcing a purposefully discriminatory law, one that likely imposes an unconstitutional poll tax and risks denying the right to vote to hundreds of thousands of eligible voters.”

I could not agree more – and Texas ought to be ashamed, but I doubt they will be. What does Ginsburg mean by an “unconstitutional poll tax”? She means that, historically, certain segments of the populace were prevented from voting by imposing a tax at the pools – usually in the vicinity of $1.50 per person, but often larger – up to $5  - used to turn away poor black voters in the Jim Crow south. The idea was to suppress the vote, namely the African-American vote.

In the case of the Texas Voter ID law, LA Times columnist Michael Hiltzik has pointed out that getting satisfactory ID that meets the state’s criteria could cost $75 to $175, “much higher than the $1.50 poll tax outlawed by the 24th amendment in 1964.”  The reason is because for some reason Texas disallows normative PHOTO IDs such as student IDs (you receive while attending university) or Veteran’s Administration IDs – which most other sane states permit. So this is totally nuts.

It’s also ridiculous given the Supreme Court suspended the Wisconsin Voter ID law which was not terribly different from Texas. So what gives?

I believe the court is simply trying to appease Governor Rick Perry, who will likely be running again for President and they don’t wish to antagonize all his core voters that may be for it.  If Perry's elected (God forbid!)  they'd also welcome to the Court more conservos appointed by him. Why else allow this Texas’ nutso ID law to go through but not Wisconsin’s?

In the real and sane world neither of these absurd laws would be proposed because voter fraud is not of such incidence that a photo ID is needed – and even if it is – then just allow ALL forms to be accepted, including for students and veterans, for god’s sake.

The argument has been made in some quarters that “any idiot can get an ID” but this is not strictly true. I saw many people turned away, for example, when I went to file for my Colorado alternative ID – because they lacked one of the six forms of preliminary documents needed.  Even Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Richard Posner, a conservative, admitted he “has never seen his birth certificate and does not know how he would go about ‘scrounging’ it up.” (This was after court colleagues repeated the canard that “anyone can scrounge one up”).

Well, to be honest, many Americans have drivers’ licenses – which qualify – but 20 million (like me) do not. So what are they supposed to do?  Well, they are obliged to bring the preliminary documents in to their DMV, including birth certificates, passports or other verifying materials. But what if they have no passports, and (like most African Americans) were home-birthed so lack birth certificates? Then they are up the creek, so to speak. Or disenfranchised, certainly in Texas.

Even if they DO have all the documents why the hell should they have to shell out up to $175 each for the ID? This may be money they need for meds or groceries – certainly for many impoverished African-Americans as well as poor seniors. That forced payment (which is what it is if they want to exercise their vote) then indeed amounts to a poll tax  - to use Justice Ginsburg’s term.

If we really want people- citizens to vote in this country, we need to stop with these cynical games that defeat the very foundations of our society which is supposed to be a democracy. (Okay, if you want to be technical, allowing the exercise of democracy in A Republic)

Sadly, states like Texas are more interested in how they can suppress the votes than enable them – which, I guess – kind of makes Texas a fascist dictatorship.

The Chutzpah of Racist White Trash Yahoos Knows NO Bounds!

Even as some misguided GOOPr morons and white racist asses attempt to “boycott” the excellent film ‘The Butler’ (too late, you dolts!) on the basis of being “anti-American” (because Jane Fonda plays Nancy Reagan) a reminder has surfaced that racism remains as strong as ever in this country

This with an incident at a Charleston, SC restaurant called “Wild Wings Cafe” , where 25 black family members were chased out because one lone white trash woman (of clearly questionable intelligence) claimed she felt “threatened” by the group. Aw, boo hoo hoo, missy. Here’s a piece of advice then: better not go to Barbados where you will find ALL the customers are black.

How the hell could this occur in this day and age, when we supposedly left the Jim Crow past behind, in the South? Well, the logical reason is that too many haven’t heard the news that the Jim Crow laws went out with the Civil Rights Act! Also, maybe the establishment that forced the African-American family out needs to be forced to watch ‘The Butler’ (along with a certain cretin fake Confederate asshole) to see just what went down at multiple lunch counters in the South some 50 years ago.

Turning peaceable folk away who just wanted some food, on the basis of “feeling threatened”? Threatened of WHAT? A spontaneous riot? Violence? Any such feeling must therefore clearly be at the root of a primeval racist reaction – which paranoia NO restaurant should honor or succumb to. The correct reaction here? The rational one?

“Lady, we are sorry you feel the way you do, but we aren’t going to turn away 25 customers because you are suffering from paranoid schizophrenia,”

According to WNEM Channel 5 in Charleston, Michael Brown stood up to the manager and asked her to clarify her actions, which she did as another member of the group filmed the confrontation.

According to Mr. Brown, the woman said – get this – she felt “threatened” by his party so asked the restaurant manager not to seat them in HER section when they’d already been there for two hours! Brown's party was then denied service and essentially informed it had to depart. All this because of one piece of white trash – who really did believe it was HER section and that the restaurant was obligated to meet HER needs! Are U fucking kidding me?

This woman and all the proto-Rebel trash that would defend her and the Wild Wings honchos, need one thing and one only: a series of electro-convulsive therapy treatments! Oh, in addition to seeing ‘The Butler’ in the same manner as the punk protagonist Alex in ‘A Clockwork Orange’ – forced to view therapeutic films to curb his violence with his eyelids taped open!

Brown has since made countless attempts to contact the corporate office of Wild Wings to file a complaint, to no avail. So he took the issue to Facebook, notifying his circle and all others who might read it that he will never go to Wild Wings again. In his own words: “This type of racial discrimination is unacceptable and we have to put a STOP TO IT. The manager looked me dead in the face and said she was refusing us service because she had a right to and simply she felt like it. “

Does a place of PUBLIC business have the right to refuse service based on skin color? No it does not! The era depicted in ‘The Butler’ ought to have ended by now, but this is yet one more reason to go to see the film – to be reminded of what our African –American citizens had to endure a half century ago, and why it must never be permitted to return. No matter how much the disgusting racist revisionists, including all latter day pro-Confederate traitors, want to try to turn history on its head!

On this, the 50th anniversary of Rev. Martin Luther King Jr's 'I Have A Dream' speech (on the D.C. Mall) it reminds us of just how much work we have to do to bring this nation fully out into an era of genuine post-racial reality. Where one's character ought to trump the color of one's skin in any human interaction.

Photo ID Voting Laws: The New 'Jim Crow' Laws At Our Door

During the 'Jim Crow' era of the South, the states of the Old Confederacy were perpetually worried about black voters overtaking their chosen segregationists and making hay. Along with the laws that kept 'White' and 'Colored' accommodations, dining and restrooms separate, as well as water coolers (I was once scolded at the age of ten while traveling through MS, en route with parents for a vacation to Milwaukee for inadvertently choosing a water cooler marked 'colored', then asked if 'can't read') voter suppression was big on the menu. Usually this was done using the ruse of "literacy tests" or some other devious means to disallow any black votes.

Seems now that times haven't changed that much and (especially) since last year as many as 34 states introduced voter ID laws, of which five have been enacted while governors (democrats) in 5 other states have vetoed them. (according to a recent report in the Jan-Feb AARP Bulletin: 'Battle at the Ballot Box', p. 20) Other states are considering them and if all these laws are passed they could have very nearly the same effect of mass voter disenfranchisement as the 50s-early 60s Old South laws. Well, why be surprised when the country seems to have tilted more and more toward all things "Dixie" including on politics, economics and religion since the 1960s? After all, the GOP is now basically the party of the Old South, its politics of "God, guns and Bibles" rules - along with the central economic doctrine of "small gubmint" - ensconced since the time of the Confederacy and Jefferson Davis.

A real problem with confronting voter suppression laws concerns the spread of two memes that appear to reinforce the push for such laws. Simply expressed they are as follows:

1) It's no biggie! After all, you need a photo ID to drive!

2) If it helps stop voter fraud it's worth it!

Meme (1) or "argument 1" if you can even dignify by that, is specious because it flatly conflates a right and a privilege. Voting is a right affirmed in the Constitution, while driving is a privilege. Hence, the meme mixes chalk and cheese, but in a nation often short of critical thinking, this often passes muster. Nor does the comparison to flying and having to present a photo ID to do that pass the smell test. Again, flying - even across country - is a privilege not a right. The same rigid standard simply can't be used for voting.

People who resort to (1) also are usually ignorant of the millions of people affected by the potential photo ID requirement laws. For example, up to 1 in 3 elderly African -Americans would be affected. The reason is that most of these people were born in homes in the rural South where births were never officially recorded. Thus, since obtaining a state photo ID generally requires presentation of a birth certificate, marriage certificate, and other documents....not too mention often high costs - these potential voters are up against it.

The same applies to millions of over-65 American who often surrender their drivers' licenses because of poor vision, but either don't remember to get a generic state ID, or their states don't offer them. In either case, they end up without. According to the AARP report, "nearly 1 in 5 citizens over 65 lacks a current, government issued photo ID". The report also notes "those over 65 are more likely to lack birth certificates because they were born before recording births was a standard procedure".

Students - such as those at university - pose another problem. Many do have IDs but they're useless on account of being uiniversity IDs. What they will need to vote in the states with voter ID laws (see also the list attached) is a proper, government-state issued ID. These can be obtained in most states, but students need to get underway now, including rounding up all the documents they need to support their case, such as birth certificates. They should not wait until the last minute, especially because state motor division offices (where they're issued) are often over-crowded with applicants. Also, there's usually a one month waiting period to actually get the ID in your hands.

The AARP report adds:

"Strict new photo ID laws could make voting this year more difficult for 3.2 million voters in Kansas, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Wisconsin if the new laws stand."

Meanwhile, a lawsuit is challenging the voter ID law in Wisconsin and the Justice Department is reviewing laws in Texas and South Carolina.

Meme (2) became entrenched during the Bush v. Gore battle of 2000, after Bush's brother Jeb and Florida Secretary of state Kathleeen Harris engineered a subtle voter suppression tactic using Choicepoint to place African-Americans on "felons lists". All of this is well documented in Chapter One of Greg Palast's excellent book (now available online free as a .pdf if you google it): 'The Best Democracy Money Can Buy'.

Thus, though over 57,000 black Democratic votes were estimated suppressed in Duval County alone, the Repukes and Bushies circulated the specious counter-claim that it was BUSH at risk from "voter fraud" there, and hence they had to go to the Supreme Court to ensure "equal treatment". All of which is bare bollocks.

But according to Justin Levitt, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, quoted in the AARP Bulletin (ibid.):

"It's more likely that an individual will be struck by lightning than that he will impersonate another voter at the polls".

And indeed, the Wisconsin voter ID law, supposedly introduced to thwart such impersonation under the Walker regime, originated despite the fact (according to Rachel Maddow on MSNBC) that only seven instances of such fraud had been determined since 2000, 4 of which were on the Gooper side.

Let us hope this new, odious techno -version of 'Jim Crow' doesn't eliminate the millions of voters Obama needs to secure a 2nd term. The thought of Mitt Romney as President, and governing under a "Bain financial formula" dictate for the one percent - enabling all companies to toss out workers at will for "higher efficiency" - will see most of us homeless, penniless and hungry. Meanwhile Romney's minions will get to even gorge on more foie gras as they catch their weekly rose wine wraps and 18-holes on St. Kitts.