Is the Voter ID Controversy Really an IQ Test for White People?

Categories: Schutze

Shoelaces.jpg
Pop quiz: What is the difference between white shoelaces and black shoelaces?
Last Friday we talked here about the new voter ID law and the difficulty everybody seems to be having with the lack of difficulty. I told you that, after the first election under the new law, I, as a lifelong libtard, was extremely distressed by the lack of distress. I had been counting on mass disenfranchisement of racial minorities, which seemed not to happen. At all.

But I said all of that last week before I found out the Dallas County Commissioners Court is about to vote on spending $165,000 -- on top of the $145,000 it has spent already -- teaching voters how to comply with the law, in spite of the fact that everybody has already complied.

That bit, I must admit, severely stunned me, as in forcing me to sit down and stare at my shoes for a while. My perplexity was existential. I found myself pondering three things: 1) How did we get here? 2) Where is this? 3) When can we go home?

I do believe that the voter photo ID mania started with conservative white people who believe in their hearts that black and Hispanic people don't really know who to vote for -- only white people do -- and that minority voters always vote in ways that are somehow fraudulent. They thought they could ambush all the fraudulent minority voters by requiring them to present picture IDs, which included driver's licenses.

Then on the other side you had my team, white liberals who believed that requiring black people and Hispanics to present driver's licenses was a conservative plot to deny minorities the right to vote, which it was, except for a single factor that completely eluded the conservative whites and the liberal whites alike: Black people and Hispanics have driver's licenses.

Hey. What did we think? Only white people had driver's licenses? Did we think black people and Hispanics couldn't get driver's licenses? After the election went smoothly, did all of us white people, liberal and conservative alike, have a big light-bulb oh-wow moment where we said, "You mean they have driver's licenses, too?"

So what's with the $300,000 the county wants to spend teaching people how to have a driver's license? Tony Pippins-Poole, the country elections administrator and a disciple of Commissioner John Wiley Price, the county's most powerful black elected official, is pushing hard for a big-bucks public information campaign.

Why not? If I were black and I realized white people didn't think I knew how to get a driver's license, I'd say the same thing: Give me $300,000, and I'll figure it out. Next lesson: how to ride a two-wheeler. $2.2 million. I'd keep going until all the white people were busted, conservative or liberal I wouldn't care. Just show me the money.

So there I was over the weekend, staring at my shoes and feeling all existential about it, trying to figure out what's really going on here. All I could come up with was the notion that sometimes conservative whites and liberal whites have more in common than we think.

But if we're going to spend that much money on a public information campaign, I can think of a better cause to serve. It should be aimed at white people, and it should be a public service video about all the stuff black people and Hispanic people have that's exactly the same as what we have.

It could start by running through a list: eyeglass prescriptions, for example. Did you know that eyeglass prescriptions for white people and black people are exactly the same? Next slide: shoelaces. Exactly the same. Also driver's licenses. And voting: same thing exactly, whether done by whites or non-whites. Amaaazing.

Ready for the quiz?


My Voice Nation Help
129 comments
bmock77
bmock77

How about a public service video aimed at whites that's a list of all the things that blacks and whites alike don't have: 1. privilege 2. a history of being enslaved in America 3. a history of not being able to vote in America 4. a history of being lynched in America ... need I go on? 

WhyDontYouJoinNAMBLA
WhyDontYouJoinNAMBLA

Why can't all you do gooder types actually do something rather than complain and help these mythical elderly voters who have never had an ID(or bank account, or utility account, or anything beyond the 19th century) get an ID?


Wouldn't having an ID be a lot more beneficial to them than being able to vote without one?

ruddski
ruddski topcommenter

Here's a radical idea, not sure it would work...

On the left, we have now various organized collectives formed to promote Obama, which changed their names, and now promote Obama's policies. I'm not sure what the right-wing equivalent is, but both sides have GOTV efforts that might be able to aid all these people who have trouble getting ID.

bmarvel
bmarvel

Jim --

Let me put to you an actual case I know about. Elderly voter, lived in the same neighborhood for generations. Eyesight failing, so was not able to pass the driver's test. No license. 

Still, keeps up on the issues, always votes. Now, suddenly faced with the need to obtain a photo id. In spite of what you've heard, people do not just walk into a 7-Eleven and buy a photo ID. They're not passed out door-to-door. Suddenly there's another big hassle in a life that has its own burdens of hassles.

What social purpose does this serve? (I note you've been very clear on why you think the voter ID law is not burdensome; but why do you think it's a good law, a necessary law?)

In spite of our disagreements, Jim, I've always honored you for your compassion, a rare quality in journalists. Except when it comes to the elderly, whom you consistently equate with wealth, conservative views and membership in the power structure. 

Why this sudden failure of compassion? Could it be that you understand your readers all too well, or at least the readers your employer has in its corporate sights? Having a little fun at the expense of the geezers is part of Unfair Park culture.

That would be unworthy of you, but there it is. 

I prefer an alternative explanation. I note you spend a lot of electrons, above, on the issue of voting and race. You conclude, about voter ID, hey, no damage done. Blacks are still able to vote. So what's the big deal with the new law? 

I think I've explained what the deal is. Maybe not a big deal to you and your audience. But a deal, nonetheless.  

Rumpunch1
Rumpunch1

I guess we can call it civil progress.  We had a problem which appears to have a rather low rate of occurrence.   At least it appears that the negative effects of the solution resulted in a low rate of occurrence.  Usually our political solutions negatively effect many thousands for the sake of a few. 


At least there was spending.   We had campaigns for the issue and against the issue.  Now we have consultant spending to ensure the solution is communicated to everyone.  The spending shows be that there was no progress. 

RTGolden1
RTGolden1 topcommenter

I never thought I'd actually witness a liberal prove PJ O'Rourke right about something, but here we go:


"People with a mission to save the earth want the earth to seem worse than it is so their mission will look more important."

P.J. O'Rourke

 "I, as a lifelong libtard, was extremely distressed by the lack of distress. I had been counting on mass disenfranchisement of racial minorities..."

Jim Schutze

danmc888
danmc888

Conservative backers of voter ID have said all along that minorities can get ID just as easily as white people. It's the liberals who refuse to believe that - who's the racist?

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

Same arguments they used to keep "hysterical" women from being allowed to vote for nearly 150 years ... and do note that was 50 years beyond when they allowed black males the right to vote via the 15th Amendment.





libtard_apologist
libtard_apologist

Jim -- research these topics:

1: The 2-repeat MAOA allele and the 3-repeat MAOA allele, their effects on the body and mind, and their relative percentage frequency amongst "population groups".

2: Serum testosterone, its effects on the body, and its relative distribution amongst "population groups".

3. Neanderthal DNA, and its scientifically agree-upon effects upon the evolution of non-African "population groups".

3: Endothelial inflammation, and the unique problems that Africans and African-Americans have with it.

We aren't all the same. Celebrate Diversity, but don't you dare point out any of the actual very real deeper-than-skin-deep differences.

everlastingphelps
everlastingphelps topcommenter

 "I do believe that the voter photo ID mania started with conservative white people who believe in their hearts that black and Hispanic people don't really know who to vote for -- only white people do -- and that minority voters always vote in ways that are somehow fraudulent. They thought they could ambush all the fraudulent minority voters by requiring them to present picture IDs, which included driver's licenses."


Why would you believe that?  It's a legitimate question -- why would you believe that?  It says far more about you than it does anyone else.


The reasons were always stated plainly -- conservatives believed that Democrats would send people out (often poor black people being paid to do it) to vote once legitimately, and then to drive to another polling place with a fraudulent registration, and vote again, and then to another polling place with another fraudulent registration, and so on, voting many times.  Also, Democrats were wrongly telling illegal immigrants that they could vote, and this would end that, as illegal immigrants can't get DLs.


That you have to find some really convoluted, weird conspiracy theory that relies on malice when there are perfectly reasonable reasons (whether you ultimately agree with them, they are within reason) being plainly stated says tons about you.


Also, to speculate when the reasons are plainly stated is just plain bad tradecraft for a reporter.

libtard_apologist
libtard_apologist

Hey look, shitty white-guilt libtard propaganda in the Observer, written by a professional white-guilter who himself white-fled from Detroit.

Wow that's so unusual. It only happens about once every day.

Jim has faith in his faith-based libtard heart that every place that is "too white" can be improved by an influx of lots of illegal aliens from Mexico, and of course by his precious blacks too, the people who constitute the vanguard and pinnacle of western civilization.

ruddski
ruddski topcommenter

No, you don't really need to go on and on. Blacks and whites are taught all this history history from a young age - now more than ever before, that's why we have affirmative action, generational welfare and all the race-based policies and programs which have so empowered the black community to vote reliably democrat since Johnson. It's a single-party community. What more can liberals do at this point, vote for them?

libtard_apologist
libtard_apologist

What, exactly, do you find to be wrong with "wealth, conservative views and membership in the power structure"?

RTGolden1
RTGolden1 topcommenter

@bmarvel No vision test for a State Photo ID, and it costs little more than 1/2 what a license costs.  I'm not sure the law for Voter ID is a necessity, but failing eyesight is a poor counter argument.

ruddski
ruddski topcommenter

I remember reading how some libs not-so-secretly were hoping for lots of military deaths in a war they opposed.

WhyDontYouJoinNAMBLA
WhyDontYouJoinNAMBLA

@danmc888  Liberals are racist, sexist paternalists who believe no one but the great enlightened government can make any choice or take responsibility for themselves.


libtard_apologist
libtard_apologist

Liberal "progressivism" is a faith-based religion combined with a mental disorder that makes the sufferer willfully naive and unable to see the facts barreling down on them like a freight train.

bmock77
bmock77

@ruddski  Whites must not have learned much from being "taught all this history" if you think "generational welfare" is a race-based policy for black people. Who are the primary beneficiaries of welfare and affirmative action. The answer would probably surprise, uh, YOU. 

bmarvel
bmarvel

@libtard_apologist It excludes 99 percent of Americans. Except for the "conservative views" part, because "conservative" no longer has real meaning.

bmarvel
bmarvel

@RTGolden1 @bmarvelThe question remains: Why put someone through the hassle and cost? What purpose is being served here? 

You're probably thinking, big deal. You can just jump in your car, go down to wherever it is they do these things, pay the fee. For a few people this imposes a real burden. Look a little beyond your own little circle of friends, Golden. 


ruddski
ruddski topcommenter

You're confusing raw numbers with percentages. Whites are about 39% of the welfare load and about 75% of the population, blacks are about 40% of welfare, and 13% of the population.

ruddski
ruddski topcommenter

"Since when have you been a fan of the perceptions and reporting pf the mainstream media, ruddski?"

I don't have to be a "fan" of anything to recognize prevailing standards.

Of course, I could approach it as you do, every time I read the words liberal or conservative, I could reply "there's no such thing" to the hundreds, thousands of pieces I read every year - and be ignored.

ruddski
ruddski topcommenter

I don't have to be a fan to talk in their language.

Besides, there is no such thing as a "fan", it's no longer a reliable marker.

libtard_apologist
libtard_apologist

Rip the front door off of your home, Bill Marvel.

How dare you exclude the brilliant, cultured, civilized "99%" from partaking in your wealth and comfort.

libtard_apologist
libtard_apologist

You also have poor reading comprehension skills, as what I wrote was "MOST OF that 99%".

libtard_apologist
libtard_apologist

I think they are, you think they aren't. That's why I call you NAIVE.

You're the one who first claimed that you imagine "99%" to be somehow "excluded" from... uh... something.

Let's deal with that first. It seems obvious that you can't answer the questions.

bmarvel
bmarvel

@libtard_apologist I was more taken with your 99 percent are morons argument, libtard. Let's deal with that, first.

libtard_apologist
libtard_apologist

And I think you are an elderly, out-of-touch, naive, sheltered libtard, so I guess we are even.

Now answer my questions of exactly what this "99%" is "excluded" from, and the exact mechanisms by which they are "excluded" from whatever vague nebulous thing from which you imagine they are "excluded".

libtard_apologist
libtard_apologist

What, exactly, precisely, are this mythical "99%" being excluded from, Bill? After you tell me that, tell me HOW they are excluded.

libtard_apologist
libtard_apologist

You disagree? Big deal. You obviously don't get around much in your old age these days or you stay in your affluent white libtard bubble neighborhood if you really don't think the vast majority of people "residing" in the USA are total morons.

bmarvel
bmarvel

@libtard_apologist Just so long as we have you on record as stating that 99 percent of Americans are "incredibly stupid," libtard.

libtard_apologist
libtard_apologist

Why should I care if it excludes "99%" of Americans?

Most of that 99% is made up of incredibly stupid people. Why should I care about them?

What, in your imagination, Bill Marvel, are they being excluded from anyway?

bmarvel
bmarvel

@ruddski Since when have you been a fan of the perceptions and reporting pf the mainstream media, ruddski?

ruddski
ruddski topcommenter

My point is, this publication, Time magazines, CBS, Rolling Stone and just about every media outlet uses the terms.

I feel comfortable being in the mainstream.

bmarvel
bmarvel

@ruddski the only way to study conservatives or liberals, ruddski, is from a distance, through history, because neither term means what it once did. 

Both words have drifted considerably over the decades and are no longer reliable markers for consistent points of view. The terms are now simply labels for loosely associated sets of attitudes, preferences and emotional tendencies, rather than considered philosophies of governance. In fact the majority of Americans are "conservative" and "liberal" depending upon the particular issue. That is, we are what we have always been -- intensely pragmatic.

If it comforts you to paste one of those labels over someone with whom you disagree, then be aware it's a false comfort. You think you're ordering red snapper but you're really only getting ordinary tilapia.

ruddski
ruddski topcommenter

"... "conservative" no longer has real meaning."

Neither does "red snapper", but at least you know you're not getting "hamburger".

Liberal writers who study conservatives in the wild from a safe distance tend to apply the term liberally, to them it seems to have meaning.

libtard_apologist
libtard_apologist

I'd much rather be "deeply cynical" than "extremely naive", like most white liberal "progressives" are.

WhiteWhale
WhiteWhale

@bmarvel @RTGolden1Even people that don't drive need photo ID.  Go to doctor's office or hospital, they want insurance and photo ID.  Pick up a controlled substance at a pharmacy, they want photo ID.  Go to the airport, security wants a photo ID.  Serve on a jury they want photo ID.  Plus even in situations where photo ID is not required it is an advantage.

WhyDontYouJoinNAMBLA
WhyDontYouJoinNAMBLA

@bmarvel @RTGolden1  I need to present a SS card to get water/trash service in Dallas. Have you ever been through the special sort of hell it is to get one of those?


I need to present a photo ID and submit multiple pages of forms and undergo a background check to buy a firearm from a store. So there goes your "Voting is a right!" argument.




bmarvel
bmarvel

@wcvemail @bmarvel@RTGolden1I'd like to see the law repealed, to start with.  I'd like to see anyone with a valid Voter ID allowed to vote. I'd like to see it the way it was before folks in Austin invented a "problem" in order to pass a law in order to jigger the elections in their favor.

I'd like to see fewer folks making excuses for a bad law because arguments against it are "moot."

wcvemail
wcvemail

@bmarvel @RTGolden1 So what do you want? Do you want me to sign a petition to the Lege, asking them to repeal this law? I can do that. Do you want me to somehow locate, then coach and transport some unknown, mythical, ID-lacking, always-voted citizen to obtain ID? Nah, you do it, but I think you're tilting at windmills.

bmarvel
bmarvel

@RTGolden1 @bmarvelLet's go at this another way, Golden.

I assume that you and I agree this is not a good law. I gather Jim would also agree. That is, it hasn't done significant damage.

My argument goes a step beyond: The law has done significant damage to a small but significant class of voter. That some of your friends "manage to get ID of some sort" seems to me praising the law with faint damns. Why should we force any eligible citizen to somehow manage to vote, despite the barriers the law erects? 

As to the rest of your comment: If I seem testy on this subject, it is mainly because of the glib and offensive tone Jim adopted ("IQ test for white people").


RTGolden1
RTGolden1 topcommenter

@bmarvel @RTGolden1Look beyond yours Bmarvel.  You constantly chastise people here, or belittle their arguments, all the while assuming you are privy to their lives, situations and circumstances.  Yet, let someone indicate that they have the slightest inkling what you are thinking or what you have seen/been through, and you raise holy hell.

Voting is a right, and the government should always err on the side of the citizen when passing any law in regards to voting.  THAT is the only point you have going for your side of this discussion. I know several people with impairments, from blindness to limbs that have been partially or totally blown off.  They all manage to get ID of some sort.

If you read my post, the previous and this one, you'll see that I don't see the need for this law to be in place.  Then again, why bother to read for meaning when you can feel superior deriding people over details?

bmarvel
bmarvel

@wcvemail @bmarvel@RTGolden1

No, there IS a purpose being served here, wcvemail: The law was created and is being used to attack one group's political opponents. 

And you regard that as a legitimate puirpose of the law?

 I do not find this hard to understand at all. I find it a corruption of the idea of law itself. To argue that the point is moot is deeply cynical -- in Jim and in yourself.

Every law imposes a burden on its citizens. The burden should have some justification and be distributed more or less equitably. This law unfairly burdens some -- admittedly a minority --yet has, as you admit, no justification.  

I've always believed  that governments should not be passing laws for which there is no demonstrated and pressing need. Call me conservative -- in the ancient and correct meaning of the term -- but that's the way I am.  

wcvemail
wcvemail

@bmarvel @RTGolden1 No purpose is served here, that's the point, and I don't see Jim arguing that there is a purpose. It's a law enacted to prevent a very few occurrences of a crime, enacted by suspicious people, and now the law has been used as an attack point against the legislators who enacted it. What's so hard to understand about that? You're constructing arguments that have no opponent and are moot.

Now Trending

From the Vault

 

General

Loading...