Pennsylvania Voter ID Law: Not Just an Inconvenience

Last March,  Pennsylvania's Republican-dominated House and Senate enacted a measure requiring all voters to furnish a photo ID in order to exercise their right to the ballot. Without missing a beat,  Governor Tom Corbett signed off on it.  ( It should be noted that not a single Democratic lawmaker voted "yes").

Supposedly,  the rationale for this new law is prevention of voter fraud.  Yet lawyers for the State of Pennsylvania have admitted that such fraud is virually non-existent.

So then,  why even bother with this new mandate?  (Hey,  I thought the GOP favored lean  government).   Well,  it seems as if House Majority Leader Mike Turzai let the kitty out of the trickbag in a moment of candor.  He frankly stated that the new law "was going to allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania".

Appalling!  These folks seem utterly incapable of feeling shame!   

In the meantime many Pennsylvanians who've traditionally cherished their right to the ballot  ---  unfailingly exercising that right --- have never until now needed to obtain a photo ID.   They're actually being confronted with the loss of that hallowed right through no fault of their own.

Consider the plight of voters with limited incomes who can't easily travel to  a Department of Transportation (PENNDOT) facility to obtain a photo ID.  For instance,  the City of Philadelphia has only five outlets,  none of which is easily accessible from resource-starved parts of either North or West Philly  without a car.   (18% of all   Philadelphia voters are believed to be lacking photo IDs).

In the Pittsburgh area,   massive cuts in transit service are imminent.   It's already a crushing challenge for someone living in one of the poverty-plagued industrial suburbs along the Monongahela River to get to one of the nearest PENNDOT  facilities,  either in Bridgeville or Penn Hills.

The obstacles facing Pennsylvania voters are being replicated in a dozen other states,  all dominated by Republicans.  If  the Department of Justice or  state or regional federal courts  don't succeed in reversing these blatant injustices,   we could well end up witnessing a perversion of the electoral process --- in Pennsylvania or elsewhere --- akin to the hijacking of the Florida election  in 2000.

Let's hope that history doesn't repeat itself.

With a Heavy Heart: Thoughts About the Latest Mass Homicide

An AR-15 semi-automatic weapon?   Is that what's really required to bag a 10-point buck?


My profuse apologies for the feeble attempt of levity in the wake of yesterday's tragic event in Colorado.   But I'm still trying to understand the logic of enabling civilians unrestricted access to any firearm capable of rapidly releasing enough ammo to cause massive fatalities.


James Holmes,  the apparent shooter who killed 12 and wounded 58 at a suburban Denver theatre showing the latest Batman film,  used just such a rapid-fire weapon.  He purchased it legally along with a couple of more conventional pieces.


Unlike some other mass killers such as Jared Loughner,   convicted of murdering six and critically wounding Congresswoman Gabriella Giffords in Tucson early last year,   Mr.  Holmes had had no previous contact with authorities,  nor did he seem to demonstrate any sort of prior behavior which would have alerted them.   So it would appear as if any processes intended to weed out potentially dangerous gun users are far from fool-proof.


Some folks believe that conceal-carry is the answer;  someone who happened to be armed could have intervened and possibly spared some lives  (by doing what,  firing  at a moving target in a darkened  movie-house and whacking someone else?).    I don't know,  within this gun-crazy society,  it just doesn't seem as if there are any easy answers,  except maybe to eventually find a way to  wean us off this wild fascination for things that go bang.


But couldn't we at least begin by crafting a nation-wide ban on rapid-fire assault weapons,  including their manufacture and importation?    Yeah I know,  it's a tall order.   The National Rifle Association and rigid Second Amendment acolytes would never allow it.


But it's a nice dream.

(Postscript:   A vigilant old friend reminded me that a nation-wide assault-weapons ban existed until it was repealed in 2004.    I had forgotten all about it.   Could the tragic events in Colorado,  Arizona,  Virginia and elsewhere been prevented had the ban not been repealed?    A fair question).

Repressed Feelings in Romneyland: Just Gotta Have It!

His undying love for unbridled free enterprise aside,  Mitt Romney has recently proposed a new mandate:   Every new computer sold in the United States must be equipped with a filter to block access to porn sites.   (I recognize that the intent is to enable parents to shield their kiddos from the opportunity  to ogle a lot of unconventional  stuff out there in cyberspace,  which is understandable;  y'know,  items such as  man-on-dog  unions that crusaders like Rick Santorum are so fond of discussing).   

But Master Romney really oughta know better.   A 2009 survey commissioned by the Harvard Business School  has revealed  that,  in general,   the greatest demand for pornographic ogling is in red states  ---   particularly ones with heavy concentrations of evangelicals.   

The state at the very pinnacle of the list?  Utah!   Among the top ten states --- eight of which bear a deep scarlet pigment --- are such playpens of lust as Mississippi,  Oklahoma, Arkansas,  Louisiana  (Hey there,  Senator Vitter),  and West Virginia.

Does the Good Governor really  want to alienate so many of his likely supporters by creating obstacles that make it more difficult for them to relieve their repressed feelings?   'Cuz that's really what it's all about:  repression!   The more the message that they can't have their visual whoopie is reinforced,  the more they gotta  have it!

These poor  folks just need a chance to drain their anatomical boilers once in a while,  to relieve all that pent-up pressure.  

A word to the wise:  Denial could be dicey!

Reality Trumps Creativity at Romney Fundraisers

Here's a message for aspiring young comedy-writers:  Be afraid!  Be very afraid!

In the wake of a series of ultra-lavish fundraising events held in behalf of the No-Longer-So-Young Master Romney,  opportunities to create new material may well become a bit scarce.   I realize that such a statement may seem perverse,   because one might reasonably assume that moments ripe for rapier-sharp satire would be abundant.

However,  there's one minor obstacle to consider:   the One-Hundredths-of-One-Percenters in attendance at these events  appear to be writing their own material ---  however unwittingly.  Consider the following quotes:

Is there a VIP entrance?   WE ARE  VIP!!!  ---and---

WE'VE  got the message .... But my college kid,  the babysitter,  the nail ladies  (!!!)  ....  everybody who's got the right to vote ....  THEY don't  underSTAND what's going on. I just think if you're lower income ....  one,  you're not EDucated;  two, THEY don't underSTAND how the systems work,  they don't  underSTAND the impact.

So guys,   you have a lot to contend with.   These Self-Anointed Masters --- and Mistresses --- of Our Universe are not only hogging a major share of our nation's wealth,  they're bogarting all the best lines as well.

Good luck!

Two Profiles: One in Courage; the Other in Cowardice

First the portrait of courage:  Like many of my friends and a significant number of political observers,  I expected at least a partial Supreme Court smackdown of the Affordable Care Act  ---  especially the mandate to purchase health insurance.   So I was majorly gobsmacked when the news broke  that the entire law would remain  intact.  (A provision giving states the right to refuse an expansion of Medicaid coverage was passed,   which could pose problems).

Much to the surprise of many,  Chief Justice John Roberts not only voted with his liberal colleagues,  but also penned the majority opinion.   I never expected to find myself toasting The Good Justice,   especially in light of his past support for Citizens United.  But I have to admit,  what he did required a lot of courage.   He's since been taking plenty of flak from the Tea Party and other sundry creatures from the uber-right.   Was it an act of conscience?   I guess only Justice Roberts knows for sure.   Nonetheless,   here's to you,  Judge.

Meanwhile,  Congressman Darrell Issa  (R-CA),  on the very same day of the Supreme Court's monumental decision,  committed ---  at least from where I sit ---  an abject act of cowardice.   As chairman of the House Government Oversight & Reform Committee,   he orchestrated a true smackdown:   A contempt-of-court citation for Attorney General  Eric Holder.   Was the scheduling a mere coincidence?   Or was it a calculated effort to keep this action from being headlined,  knowing that the media would be focused on the Court?

If Mr. Issa (pronounced ICE-uh) was so certain that his case against the Attorney General was  airtight,  then why not schedule the hearings  when they would gain full attention of the media?  (The Congressman readily admitted that he had no evidence that Mr. Holder had any involvement with Operation Fast & Furious,   a tragically flawed attempt to trace guns to Mexican  drug cartels).

A number of Republican governors,  along with their statehouse colleagues have been going to great lengths to prevent likely Democratic voters from exercising their right to the ballot.    Mr.  Holder is currently co-ordinating efforts to challenge the actions of these state officials,  and hopefully stifle them.   So then,  why is Mr.  Issa giving the Attorney General so much grief at this time ---  especially with the knowledge that this action is being overshadowed by another event?

Hmm!   Not exactly a profile in courage!

(For additional info regarding the activities of Congressman Issa,   check out the earliest post on this blog,  Postal Service Deficit:  A Fabricated Crisis  [2/28/12].    Again,  in his capacity as a committee chairman,  he was largely responsible  for killing a measure to restore the USPS's historically successful pension plan,    despite the fact that there were enough likely votes for passage of this bill, according to the Congressional Record.  I'm amazed that    --- at least as far as I know --- no one in the media has ever mentioned this!).   

(Additional note:   Scheduled service cuts have since been postponed,  but they're not by any means off the table).