Alarming News: I like Morgan Freeberg. A lot.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: We were following a trackback and thinking "hmmm... this is a bloody excellent post!", and then we realized that it was just part III of, well, three...Damn. I wish I'd written those.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: ...I just remembered that I found a new blog a short while ago, House of Eratosthenes, that I really like. I like his common sense approach and his curiosity when it comes to why people believe what they believe rather than just what they believe.
Brutally Honest: Morgan Freeberg is an intriguing guy...[he] asks great questions and answers others with style, flair, reason and wit. On the blogroll he goes. Make him a part of your regular blogospheric reading. I certainly will.
Brutally Honest: Morgan Freeberg is brilliant.
Common Sense Junction: Misha @ Anti-Idiotarian never ceases to amaze me. He keeps finding other good blogs. I went over to A.I. this morning for my daily Misha fix and he had found this guy named Morgan Freeberg in Fair Oaks, California, that has a blog, House of Eratosthenes. Freeberg says its "The Blog That Nobody Reads" but it may now become the blog that everybody reads.
Jaded Haven: Good God, Morgan, you cover a topic from front to back with a screwy thoroughness I find mind boggling. I'm in awe of your thought proccesses, my friend, you're an exceptional talent. You start by throwing in the kitchen sink, tie in someone's syphilitic uncle, bend around a rip tide of brilliance and bring it all home in a neat, diamond dripping package of an exceptionally readable moment of damn fine wordsmithing. I love reading you.
Mein Blogovault: Make "the Blog that No One Reads" one of your daily reads.
Philmon: When Morgan meanders, stick with him - he's got a point and it'll be worth it in the end. He's not a hit-and-run snarky quip kind of guy. The pieces all fall into place like tumblers in a lock and bang! He's opened a cognative door for you.
Rightlinx: Morgan at House of Eratosthenes is one of the best writers out there. I read him nearly every day because he manages to provide an interesting perspective, even though I don't always agree.
Poetic Justice: Cletus! Ah gots a laiv one fer yew...
E. J. Dionne is attracting a lot of attention this morning with this work:
An attack on the right to vote is underway across the country through laws designed to make it more difficult to cast a ballot. If this were happening in an emerging democracy, we’d condemn it as election-rigging. But it’s happening here, so there’s barely a whimper.
What’s got Dionne upset is identification. Proving that you’re you when you vote. Which means proving you are eligible to vote, and that you’re voting once only.
Problem? Dionne says so, for two reasons: Hey, the fraud is no big deal therefore we should ignore it — and, the corrective measures are “not neutral,” they’ll have different extents of change on different demographics. I think that’s it…
The laws are being passed in the name of preventing “voter fraud.” But study after study has shown that fraud by voters is not a major problem — and is less of a problem than how hard many states make it for people to vote in the first place. Some of the new laws, notably those limiting the number of days for early voting, have little plausible connection to battling fraud.
These statutes are not neutral. Their greatest impact will be to reduce turnout among African Americans, Latinos and the young. It is no accident that these groups were key to Barack Obama’s victory in 2008 — or that the laws in question are being enacted in states where Republicans control state governments.
It seems to me that Dionne’s points answer each other. If fraud is not that big a deal and we can just ignore it without suffering a consequence, then all the hand-wringing and worrying about invalidating votes among this-or-that race or national origin, likewise, should be much ado about nothing. The depressing effect on the Obama vote, likewise, will be insignificant. If it isn’t insignificant — in fact, if it tilts the playing field in such a way that The Great One loses His bid for re-election when He otherwise wouldn’t — then that would mean the corrective measures are overdue, in fact it would suggest that His Holiness never should’ve been elected in the first place.
Dionne needs to go off somewhere and get his talking points straight.
Hat tip to William Teach, who adds,
Democrats know that requiring ID would only solve some of the issue: people can easily spoof with fake IDs or with their regular ID. What they want to accomplish with this line is to set it up so that when Obama loses, they can blame the GOP, saying that Obama lost not because of his being the most incompetent president ever, but for their “racist” and “anti-democracy” voting policies.
Anyone with a long-term memory that is working and active, will see immediately that Teach is right. For the last twenty years, give or take — certainly for the last ten or eleven — there is a great hue & cry about “stolen elections” whenever the democrat loses, in elections national, regional or local.
When the democrat wins, even by a tenth of a percent, these same loud angry voices proclaim “The People Have Spoken!”
Making voters prove they are who they say they are, thereby ensuring voters only vote once, is unfair to democrat candidates therefore we shouldn’t do it. You know, I wonder who falls for this sort of argument. I’d say if that person is a so-called “moderate” then he should just drop the label, get off the fence — over on their side, which is where he is anyway. Come clean. Work your fingers to the bone trying to get more democrats elected, in some position where you’re supposed to be doing that.
Because if Dionne’s protest carries weight with you, you’d probably be happier doing that anyway.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.