I had desperately hoped to see a sign from this President, as he weighed the question of whether or not to initiate strikes against Syria, that he is the exceptional leader I have consistently felt him to be.  As he spoke in the Rose Garden today, explaining the two elements of the way he feels we should move forward, I was amazed to observe that he has the ability to surpass even my very high expectations.  

His two-pronged approach to the issue, as described in his remarks today, are one, to communicate his resolve to apply harsh consequences to the Assad regime for the murder of over a thousand of its citizens with poison gas, consequences in the form of missile strikes; and two, to acquiesce to demands that he bring the US Congress into the decision-making process.  

You may not agree with the first part.  Obama's position is that actions taken by Assad in Damascus, using chemical weapons against Syria's own civilian population, including hundreds of children, constitute crimes against humanity so horrific and unique from other types or levels of warfare, that they cannot be ignored.  The President was clear he believes we have an imperative to respond to these actions, separate altogether from any consideration of intervention in Syria's civil war, and separate from the question of regime change.  

You may feel otherwise.  But his decision to withhold an executive order to strike unless and until he has the full support of Congress is beyond reproach.  For those of us who feel on the one hand both skeptical and disempowered by the prospect of another American president making a case for military action, but on the other hand cognizant that what happened in Damascus cannot be ignored, Obama has presented what is perhaps the only acceptable proposition:  if we're going to respond to this somehow, let's decide how to do it together. 

How else would you want a president to resolve a question like this, other than each of us meeting personally with him at the White House to explain exactly what we want to have done? 

Reports from behind the scenes at the White House tell us that over the last 24-48 hours the debate between the President's Cabinet members, national security team and other staff and advisers has been robust, and there was significant sentiment against seeking the support of Congress before taking action. I've read about similar processes occurring in this administration's Oval Office and Situation Room deliberations during the couple of days leading up to the decision to start air strikes over Libya, and before giving the "go" to authorize the operation to get bin Laden.  This President apparently demands a frank diversity of opinion, and afterwards may make a decision flouting the advice of even his closest advisers.  In this case it appears there was much agreement about the need to go forward with strikes against Syria, but a variety of points of view about how far to bring Congress into the process.  Obama went with the approach that relinquishes ultimate control of the final decision.  It should be noted that since Congress does not reconvene until September 9, and he is not asking them to return early to address this, he has chosen not to cheapen his argument for consequences for Assad by implying there is a crucial need to act immediately.  He has also clearly not agreed to seek the approval of Congress as a way to shrink from stating his OWN opinion - his point of view could not be clearer: we should launch missiles at military targets in Syria in order to enforce international norms against the use of chemical weapons.

Whatever you think of that, now your argument must go to Congress.  And make no mistake, members of Congress do read your letters and emails, and do track your phone calls.  Whether the legwork is done by staff, and commentary is sorted into piles of rough agreement, or your communication is discovered to be so compelling, articulate or pertinent that it lands on the Congressperson's desk, none of them are ignored (see my post "Yes, They Do Read Your Letters!" 11/19/11.)  Cynicism about whether they do that to inform campaign messaging or whether they actually care is understandable.  But the argument "they don't care what I have to say" is drastically undermined if you don't say anything.  Over the next ten days, you can spend many hours debating this on Facebook, at the dinner table, or in your own head, but remember that the "representative" part of representative democracy doesn't work without your direct participation.  So take ten minutes out of your facebook time between now and the 9th to contact your Senators, www.senate.gov, and another ten to weigh in with your Representative at www.house.gov. 

MSNBC correspondent Chuck Todd, coming on camera to comment after the President's statement, pointed out how extraordinary it is for Obama to make a decision to seek the approval of Congress before taking action.  Todd noted that for roughly 40 years, since Dick Cheney was pulling strings in the Ford administration, Presidents have continuously sought to concentrate ever more power in the Executive Branch.  The fact that Barack Obama just took a stand in another direction reminds me once again that we are watching a presidency with deep historical significance.

From today's remarks, "...but, having made my decision as Commander in Chief...I am also mindful that I am the President of the world's oldest constitutional democracy.  I've long believed that our power is rooted, not just in our military might, but in our example as a government of the people, by the people, and for the people."

 - Julie Boler

Before leaving my house today to join in the North Carolina “Moral Monday” demonstration in downtown Raleigh, I saw MSNBC correspondent Craig Melvin do a story on the protests.  He interviewed Jotaka Eaddy, NAACP Senior Director for Voting Rights, asking her opinion about the interesting demographics of the arrestees.  


The crowds at these rallies have been overall fairly diverse, and people of a variety of races and cultures have joined the smaller group of hearty souls volunteering to be arrested.  But by the numbers, the latter group – the arrestees – has been a remarkably white, older, middle- or upper-middle class set.  During the news segment, video footage of Moral Monday arrests ran on a split screen opposite the interview.  Melvin observed that while the protests have been led by the NAACP, an organization created to support people of color, a lot of white folks have joined in.  Viewers were shown arrests of a few of them; a 60-ish, carefully-coiffed lady in a tailored silk blouse; a woman in her early 30’s in business attire; an older, bearded professorial-looking gentleman, who, incidentally, was wearing a grey hoodie to signify his allegiance to Trayvon Martin’s cause. 

Eaddy’s answer to the question about this profile of demonstrators was perfectly fine.  She explained how the new voting restrictions will affect voters across demographic lines; not just minority and poor voters, but young voters, seniors, and the disabled as well.  College students will have a harder time voting under the law, and elderly and disabled people of any race or economic status are statistically less likely to possess one of the strictly defined, government-issued photo ID’s required under the bill.  Indeed, injustice aside, the law is poorly conceived logistically, and may impact all voters.  Early voting days are well-used in North Carolina.  If we eliminate them, we will see longer lines on election days. 

But truth be told, many of the people volunteering to be arrested at the General Assembly building during these demonstrations are among those least likely to be affected by the pending bill.  They are professional, educated, employed or retired.  They likely already possess a valid North Carolina driver’s license.  If not, they are likely able to obtain the official documents they need to apply for a state ID.  In fact, it’s their ordinary access to resources and services that allows them to choose to go to jail for political reasons.  They are likely to have some professional, civic, or academic familiarity with the workings of the justice system, as well as access to money for bail and legal fees, free time or flex-time, and support networks. 

That doesn't mean it isn't hard to do this; it takes guts for anyone.  Some arrestees risk professional or familial censure.  Some of them are facing down fears of panic that can arise from sitting in a jail cell.  All of them are agreeing to an utter loss of freedom.  And nobody is making them do it.

So why are they there?  Why do they put their bodies on the line; offering their wrists up to be cuffed, climbing on a prisoner transport bus, staring into the glare of the mugshot light; fingertips inked for prints, and file into a jail cell to await release on to a downtown street in the wee hours of the next morning? 

They go to show allegiance to fellow citizens who will be affected by this bill.  They go in solidarity with those who will soon learn that although they are eligible, registered voters, state lawmakers have chosen to proactively and tangibly discourage them from voting.  

These arrestees exemplify an impressive combination of compassion, insight, and rage. Realize, the oldest of them have witnessed a better way than this.  They have been here during a time - over the last half-century - during which their country learned in fits and starts how to improve access to the polls.  They have seen, over these decades, legions of leaders from both parties strive to make it more possible for everyone to participate in the democratic process.  They have seen both conservative and liberal politicians say, this is critical.  Everyone must have a part in selecting their representatives.  It is essential to the integrity of our system.

Now our arrestees see something very different - something sinister – taking hold in powerful places.  They see conscious efforts to dismantle those decades of good work.  They watch public servants making cynical, short-sighted, and destructive policy decisions.  And they are wise enough to know the damage will be real, and it will hit hardest those who are least able to stand up to power. 

Understand what our arrestees understand: that strict voter ID requirements and reduced voting hours serve no legitimate purpose, and could potentially affect over 300,000 NC voters.  Understand that there will be folks who have counted on expanded voting hours in past elections, who will struggle to make it to the polls, or will be unable to wait hours on Election Day for their turn to vote.  Understand that there will be registered voters who will arrive at the polls on Election Day without possession of an accepted form of ID, who will be turned away.

Understand that there is simply no justification for strict ID requirements.  We have years of evidence showing that protecting the ballot from fraud is simply and effectively done without such requirements.  The threat of voter fraud has proven to be insignificant.  Of course, to the legislators currently in office in North Carolina, "insignificant" is too high a risk.  They have made it clear that they would rather see a number of eligible voters turned away from the polls than a single fraudulent vote cast.  Even still, a higher level of ballot security can be achieved without disenfranchising anyone.  The threat of fraud is so low that high-enough security standards are easily met by requiring voters to provide more readily obtainable forms of ID, such as voter registration cards, medical cards, work ID’s, bank cards, student ID’s, nursing home residence papers, even utility bills or other official mail.  It would be hard to even quantify how low a risk there is that someone would determine to impersonate another voter, arrive at the right polling place at an opportune time, present any card or document in their victim’s name, be handed a ballot, and cast a fraudulent vote. 

It is an understanding of this undemocratic solution to a non-existent problem that has infuriated and mobilized our arrestees.  They see that despite having been presented with copious research and personal testimony on such hazards to be faced by legitimate voters, our state legislators are stubbornly voting this bill into law. 

Our arrestees are standing up in the name of those who can’t.  They are saying with their actions that if these lawmakers want to marginalize some of the very people they represent; people who can’t afford to go to jail to prove a point, then they themselves will go.  Enthusiastically, they will go. 

Think about that.  How does it make you feel, knowing there are those whose own right to vote is not threatened by this bill, who are carving out space in their lives to be arrested protesting it?  I’ll tell you how it makes me feel.  It makes me feel teary.  It makes me feel awe, and gratitude.  It gives me a lump in my throat, and hope.  Today it made me think about a piece of music I cherish; the plaintive and stirring U2 song, “One”.    

Some of the lyrics of the song could be said to reflect on how things go wrong between people.  Listening to it today, the first few verses made me think about the mentality leading to the creation of the malevolent legislation we're seeing.  I hear the way these guys talk about the constituents they don’t care for.  I see how they choose to govern those who have so little - by starving them of support, tampering with their rights - while expecting them to participate as fully and effectively as anybody else in American society.  From the song: “Will it make it easier on you now, you got someone to blame… You act like you never had love, and you want me to go without…you ask me to enter, then you make me crawl… Did I ask too much?  more than a lot?  You gave me nothing and that's all I've got.”

Of course, most of the song is explicitly about who we as a people should be.  It’s about how we are different from each other, but we share "one love, one blood, one life."  And that "we get to carry each other."  

We get to.  
We get to carry each other.  
We get to carry each other, people.

*************************************************************************
One

Is it getting better?
Or do you feel the same?
Will it make it easier on you now?
You got someone to blame
You say

One love
One life
When it's one need
In the night
One love
We get to share it
Leaves you baby if you
Don't care for it

Did I disappoint you?
Or leave a bad taste in your mouth?
You act like you never had love
And you want me to go without
Well it's 
Too late
Tonight
To drag the past out into the light
We're one, but we're not the same
We get to
Carry each other
Carry each other
One

Have you come here for forgiveness?
Have you come to raise the dead?
Have you come here to play Jesus?
To the lepers in your head

Did I ask too much?
More than a lot.
You gave me nothing,
Now it's all I got
We're one
But we're not the same
Well we hurt each other
Then we do it again
You say
Love is a temple
Love a higher law
Love is a temple
Love the higher law
You ask me to enter
But then you make me crawl
And I can't be holding on
To what you got
When all you got is hurt

One love
One blood
One life
You got to do what you should
One life
With each other
Sisters
Brothers
One life
But we're not the same
We get to
Carry each other
Carry each other
One.  One.

Very bad news today from the Supreme Court of the United States.  The court struck down the requirement placed on certain states that they clear with the federal government any changes they want to make to state election law.  The states in question have carried that burden due to a history of voting rights violations.  This requirement slowed down Florida, for example, in at least one instance - if you can believe Florida was slowed down at all - in its efforts to change election law.  The practice for which they were denied clearance in August of 2012 had to do with private groups holding voter registration drives.  The GOP-led State of Florida wanted to prevent groups such as the League of Women Voters and Rock the Vote from sponsoring registration drives.  The state’s request to do so was denied by the Justice Department.  (Of course, Florida Republicans still got away with a plentiful array of other voter disenfranchisement tactics.)

With the preclearance requirement struck down, Florida Republicans would now be able to block such voter registration drives, and opponents of the move would just have to fight it out in court.  Without any requirement for preclearance, states that have formerly been hampered in making drastic changes to ID requirements, early voting hours, etc., will now have an easier time. 

The only ray of hope here is that the court actually left a little room open to bring back preclearance requirements for states that currently show a propensity towards voter disenfranchisement.  The Court’s justification for striking down the law did not reject the idea of preclearance outright.  Rather, the Justices decided that the current list of states burdened with the requirement was developed utilizing a now-outdated formula, reportedly based on information gathered in the Sixties and Seventies.  The Justices claim that such information simply can’t tell us enough about which states are acting in bad faith now.    

Well guess what; they have a point.

In the last few election cycles, we have seen bad behavior from a number of states that have never been required to get federal preclearance in order to change election law.  Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Ohio have outdone themselves in recent years in developing creative ways to keep voters they don't like from voting.  As my own North Carolina legislature enthusiastically pushes to slash early voting hours and institute strict new voter ID requirements, only certain counties here have had – until today - a preclearance requirement.  If a new formula was developed that truly gauges which statewide efforts across the country actually make it harder for eligible citizens to register and vote, and a whole new list of states requiring preclearance was created, there is no doubt the North Carolina General Assembly would be looking at a new barrier to breach before rushing this type of legislation through.  Similarly, states like Pennsylvania and Ohio, which have brashly lead the way in making voting harder, would most certainly fall under any realistic new formula.

So if Congress were to respond to this Supreme Court decision with quickly written and passed new legislation, using an updated formula that places preclearance requirements on any law that attempts to make it harder for legitimate, registered voters to cast a ballot, then wow, it would transform this interesting, but currently devastating, opinion into a godsend.  Maybe that will happen someday, after a lot of damage has been done.  After a lot of marginalized citizens are kept from the polls, and they grow angry enough to start making noise.  After more eyebrows are raised by news footage of increasingly frequent long lines at the polls, wrapped around city blocks, old folks waiting hours in bad weather to vote.  When the average citizen better understands why it is so hard for some people - voters with low access to everyday resources - to obtain copies of new, strictly-defined, government-issued photo ID cards.  When the general public eventually absorbs the fact that because of this plethora of unnecessary and politically-driven changes to election law, American citizens who have a right to vote are being kept from the ballot box.  Maybe then, someday, the tide of public opinion will turn against these laws.  Congress will get the message, and there will be new laws written and passed that show zero tolerance for state election practices that infringe on voting rights.

But we know that won't happen now.  It won't happen before 2014, it's unlikely to happen before 2016, and after that, well - it’s hard to say.  The average citizen, a moderate voter, understandably doesn’t spend hours a day analyzing court decisions or election law.  The average TV viewer will only stay tuned to shrill advocacy and partisan bickering for so much of their time.  How long will it take the average American voter to grasp the level of extremism driving today's Republican Party?  How long to become alarmed by its regressive policies?  How long for dismay to translate into strong opinions, and then into pointed votes?  And as more voters become disturbed enough to vote against bad election law, how many of them will have access to the ballot to cast those votes?

Important questions about the 2012 attack on the American mission compound in Benghazi, Libya, include who the perpetrators were, how the attack was allowed to happen, and what we can learn from it that will help us improve security there and elsewhere in the future.  Also legitimate are questions about chain of command at the State Department, and whether Congress is adequately funding security for foreign posts.

The rest of the current inquiry is nonsense.  Within days after the attack, UN Ambassador Susan Rice was sent on a round of interviews about what was known so far about the attack.  I personally viewed her accounting of the tragedy on one Sunday morning news show after another.  She qualified everything she shared by emphasizing we weren't sure about all the details yet.  I watched as she listened in on one program while Libyan President Mohammed el-Magariaf stated emphatically that this was a terrorist attack.  Rice didn't object to this statement; she simply reiterated that there was still a lot to be learned.  

In short order, as more information emerged, the White House was completely, proactively forthcoming.  It was directly from the Oval Office that we learned this was a planned attacked, carried out by organized and well-armed extremists.  That angle was pursued at the direction of the White House, and turned out to be supported by evidence.  This evidence wasn't dragged out of the Administration by the press, or discovered through exhaustive Congressional hearings.  It was only later, when it became clear that there was nothing about this tragedy that could be pinned on the Obama administration that Republicans began clutching at the straw of the tenor of statements immediately communicated after the event.  Unfortunately for them, no wrong-doing occurred there either.

Routing a memo to a dozen people to hammer out wording before going forward is a scintillating and suspect process to exactly no one who has worked in any office, ever.  The changes supplied by the White House itself could be characterized as minimal, and as more cautious than advantageous for their image; caution well-warranted considering the fact that attacks on the embassy in Cairo occurred simultaneously and were NOT connected to terrorists.  

If you'll remember, standing in stark contrast to that caution was the tone of the statements made on this issue by then-presidential candidate Mitt Romney, who was perfectly comfortable tossing out sweeping, irresponsible, anti-Administration accusations, before all of the parts of this tragedy had even stopped moving.  If nothing else struck fear in the hearts of voters imagining such a man sitting in the Oval Office, that kind of impulsive, short-sighted, and self-serving behavior should have.

As for officials in the Internal Revenue Service targeting Tea Party-associated groups for special scrutiny, well, that news is chilling.  Any hint of such activity on the part of low-level agents would be inexcusable.  In this case it sounds like there were IRS employees with significant authority directing activity against these groups – activity that amounts to harassment.  Any American who cares about free speech should be concerned about this.  A full inspector general's report due out later this week will provide more detail.  We need to know how far-up knowledge of this activity went, and whether Congress was purposely misled.  As high as accountability lies, heads should roll.  But hopes that anyone close to president will bear responsibility are sure to be dashed.  

Those opportunistic members of the GOP who are thinking that either of these issues could provide a way out of their real task - redeveloping a political party that represents honest conservative principles - will have to go, once again, back to the drawing board.

 - Julie Boler

This post is a response to a recent editorial in the Washington Post by Charles Krauthammer, a conservative political writer and commentator.  His column is brief, and this post will make more sense if you read it.  I'll wait.

Okay.  So, if you don't know this guy, I can tell you, he is an unpleasant man. 
FOX News loves him as a guest; he contributes a unique blend of erudite and yet intensely sophomoric and hostile commentary on governmental atrocities committed by our President.  Attacking Barack Obama is his fetish.

The first thing I thought when I read this column is that I would rather think the best of others and be a million times disappointed in life, than go through it with as morose and contemptuous an attitude as Krauthammer’s.  His column reveals much more about himself than it does about Mr. Obama.  

With an air of triumph and pride, he delineates the Republican Party’s successes in their ongoing mission to obstruct at every turn the sitting President of the United States.  Their explicitly stated goal has always been to stand against anything the president supports, because he supports it.  One assumes the objective is for Obama to be seen, currently, and by history, as a failed president.  With this column, (rather prematurely, as we are currently in year 4.4 of the Obama era), based on a couple of GOP victories on high-profile votes, Krauthammer has decided to break out the champagne.  

Never mind that the country is hurting because of these victories.  Never mind that its citizens appear to be gradually catching on to the fact that they were won at great expense to all.  Writing with the same tone as would someone expressing an admirable and legitimate position, Krauthammer crows about recent punches Republicans have landed on the president’s jaw.  Not punches thrown in the name of principle or policy, mind you, but thrown because, well, they just hate that guy.

Let's look at some of what Mr. Krauthammer has to say:

"...the victor (a reelected Obama) is hailed as the new Caesar, facing an open road to domination..."

Mr. Krauthammer, you realize that you folks are the only ones who see it that way, right?  No Democrat I know has any desire for a Caesar in the White House.  On the domestic front, far from wanting to dominate others, we want to empower fellow citizens to each reach a place where they can grow, succeed, and be happy.  We want everyone to have doctors and medicine.  We want to learn to walk ever more lightly on the earth. We don’t want domination internationally, either; you’re projecting.  We want to support fledgling democracies across the world in their efforts toward self-determination.  We want to find peaceful agreement with opposing countries, not destroy them.  I wish you could know what it feels like to be in a party that is for something, rather than against everything.  It can be exhilarating.  It might even wipe that perpetual scowl off your face.

Let’s go on.  What else, Mr. K.?

"...Barack Obama, already naturally inclined to believe his own loftiness, graciously accepted the kingly crown..."

(Eye roll.)  Again...

"Thus emboldened, Obama turned his inaugural and State of the Union addresses into a left-wing dream factory, (including) his declaration of war on global warming (on a planet where temperatures are the same as 16 years ago and in a country whose CO2 emissions are at a 20-year low)…”

Er…  You frighten me, Mr. Krauthammer.

"Obama sought to fracture and neutralize the congressional GOP..."

Wait, Obama did what?  I think Republicans sought to... oh, never mind.  

"Obama cried wolf, predicting the end of everything we hold dear if the sequester was not stopped. It wasn't. Nothing happened."  

Yeah?  Tell that to the people who...  oh, never mind.  

"...Obama’s spectacular defeat on gun control..."

So, "spectacular" is the word that springs to mind for you there, Mr. K.?  I would have gone with "insanely immoral."  Because Republicans didn't oppose this bill in favor of another bill, one with a different approach to protecting the American people from random violence.  There was no pretense of a greater motivation for voting down this bill than a political strike against President Obama.  Mr. K., even if this bill had passed, it would be a time for sober optimism that it might stem the flow of blood.  To call its defeat “spectacular” is obscene.

And do understand, sir: it was a defeat for Obama only in the cheapest political sense.  The real defeat was for the gun-violence victims' families, traveling home from Washington after the vote, to Newtown and Chicago and Tucson and Aurora.  The real defeat will be felt, (terrifyingly enough) by people who don't even know it yet.  Maybe me.  Maybe someone I know.  It’s a defeat for the next victims of mass or otherwise indiscriminate shootings that could have been prevented by this bill.

"For Obama, gun control was a political disaster. He invested capital. He went on a multi-city tour. He paraded grieving relatives. And got nothing...  Obama failed even to get mere background checks."

You usually hear the somewhat unsophisticated label "pervert" applied to someone with socially frowned-upon sexual proclivities.  I don't normally use the word myself.  But what can one say reading this stuff?  "He paraded grieving relatives. And got nothing."  Charles Krauthammer is a pervert.   

Finally, Krauthammer wraps up his column with a sarcastic, school-boy taunt; his take on the Obama Presidency to date: 

"From king of the world to dead in the water in six months. Quite a ride."

Republicans are a tribe.  They have retreated into a national yet somehow provincial horde.  They defend their holdings with all their might.  They see the rest of us as constant threats to their sovereignty and survival. 

Democrats are a party of many tribes.  In the current iteration of the two parties, we are simply the one more comfortable with a broad mix of folks, a wide diversity of opinion within the party, and the ability to think of unlike groups as potential members of coalitions, coming together around overlapping concerns.

Republicans are starting to understand that such a conglomeration, with varying backgrounds, needs and priorities but with a firm set of shared ideals, is likely to keep growing; in size and therefore power.  Their response is to reluctantly edge open the gate to their compound, remain inside, and beg others to come in and join the tribe.  Their strategy is to tell these others that they would benefit from coming inside the compound and hating everyone outside it.  They’ll even accept those who look like outsiders, as long as they agree to mimic and obey tribal customs and dictates.

Welllll, GOP, good luck with that.  You have quite a cheery spokesperson in Charles Krauthammer.  Most of us are honestly hoping you will ditch him and his ilk, pass through the gate, leave the tribe behind, and join the rest of us.  Not to be Democrats, necessarily.  Just come out here away from that tribe.  With us, you can believe anything you want, live the way you prefer, and promote anything you believe in.  That's how we roll out here.  We just ask that you don't sacrifice the good of the people for the will of that angry little tribe.

Then maybe you can get back to making real contributions on important matters.  From a sane conservative perspective, if you like.  On important matters like the economy, defense policy, governmental effectiveness and transparency, tax policy, and so on.  You're needed.

In the meantime, I just hope the rest of us can survive the tribe.

Julie Boler

In discussions about atheism with friends, relatives, and folks in online discussion groups, I've noticed that the separation of church and state issue gets lots of attention.  I think it is the central issue.  It's one thing I always mention.  But I've noticed it doesn't seem to function for some of my associates in these dialogues the same way it does for me.  I think of it as a bottom-line shared value on the left, and I sense in these groups that we all place great importance on it.  But I ultimately hear it employed to say, "The problem with religion is that people want to base laws on it." But isn't that in fact a problem with people that want to base laws on it?

As long as we keep our dukes up and make sure that piece is protected, isn't whatever someone else believes sort of none of our business?  As long as they are not setting policy or writing curriculum, why is there such intense resolve on the part of some atheists to keep pressing and pressing the point that everyone else has stupid beliefs?  That seems like the height of bigotry, and I haven't heard anyone yet say convincingly why it isn't.  

On a personal level, I am getting so sick of people I respect and feel great affection for, whom I assume have similar feelings for me, stating over and over that my belief system - which they know nothing about except that it isn't atheism - is wrong.  That it's valid to use their metrics to evaluate my private intellectual system for organizing ideas about the mysteries of life.  I can't believe it sometimes.  I don't get why that isn't an egregiously prejudiced, snobbish response.

I personally have no interest in searching historical records for signs of miracles or accounts of the lives of prophets.  My eyes glaze over hearing about such things.  In terms of my own beliefs, there is no "proof," for or against them.  They are just how I picture what we don't yet know about life.  You can't really hold them up to a logical analysis any more than you could use a mathematical equation to measure exactly how much I love my husband.  Any more than you can study pride or envy or awe in a laboratory.  But to say "it's not supposed to be logical" to the evangelical atheist is like throwing yourself to the wolves.  "There you go!  If it's 'not logical," then it's faulty thinking by definition!"  

Meanwhile, it's my mind, it's my belief system, and it's a big part of who I am. I don't follow dogma, or worship a god, but I think about intangible things in the universe in a way that is open, curious, optimistic and...throwing myself to the wolves again...spiritual.  I love the word spiritual.  It signals ignorance to my friends.  But there is nothing ignorant about wondering why the sight of geese passing over autumn trees makes me feel melancholy in a good way. And why thunderstorms both scare us and attract us. Yes, dears, they scare us to trigger the adaptive response of taking shelter.  But why do they captivate us too?  It's a rhetorical question; please don't send me the evolutionary reason.  I don't picture thunder as God bowling, but I think it is magical and mystical and it would bore me to hear why it also promotes the survival of the species.  So does minding your own business about what's in someone else's head.  Dears.

And as far as people who do believe in things like Jesus or Allah or rain dances or holy books - I can't believe the way they are condemned wholesale by some atheists.  It is so surprising to me sometimes.  There is a terribly culturally-insensitive aspect to this, so shocking to see played out in liberal discussions.  Some seem to feel comfortable mocking whole cultures; whole groups of people who have for generations woven ritual and talismans and rosaries and prayers and holy water and clergy into their lives and communities.  And the lip-service paid to the idea that religion "can play an important role in society" or "sometimes helps people feeeeel better" is so dismissive and superior it makes me a little ill.  

If the spiritual beliefs of others aren't being forced on you, why does it destroy your day to be aware of them in public?  I get that it is ubiquitous, but so is body odor, if you live in the city.  I get that it is symbolic to some people of their own traumatic childhood upbringings.  To some victims of sexual violence or child abuse, every male with a certain hair color and height does that too. I am not a Christian, but I have the social skills to get through a Christian funeral or wedding.  I may roll my eyes when people think there's praying in football, but I don't spend any time on it.  I'm more turned off by brightly-painted belly flab than by the sign of the cross from the kicker.

Now, I did have a she-Hulk fit, and lodge an official complaint, when I heard a Christian invocation used to open a county-wide meeting when I worked in the public school system.  Although surprised, I stood and bowed my head because I prefered that to noticeably sitting it out.  But I'd have completely respected anyone else doing the latter, especially in that setting.  I made a mental note to email someone to say that even this ecumenical prayer I was hearing should not have been included at a school system meeting.  But when they closed it with "in Jesus' name we pray," I almost flipped the table over.  Even in rural NC you'd think they should know about Jews from TV.  I didn't break anything, but they heard from me later, formally and emphatically.  

But I didn't get bogged down picking apart the contents of the prayer.  The prayer shouldn't have been there at all.  It is beside the point whether I believe Jesus is magic.  I had no interest in pronouncing everyone at that meeting who had crossed themselves to be intellectually bankrupt, superstitious or wrong.  If you try to worm it into public policy or curriculum, you're all mine.  Otherwise, go for it.

It is not true that you have to choose between believing in evolution and science, and having abstract philosophical ideas that are inconsistent with what science knows now. If you think it is, you aren't thinking deeply.  I have been told that believing anything could exist outside what can be proven is by definition superstitious - an ignorant tolerance for the concept of the supernatural.  But doesn't my thinking reflect my love for science when I ponder to myself, "I wonder if there could be a force of love in the same way there is a force of gravity?"  Saying that certain of your ideas exist outside of science and aren't subject to proofs, is not saying you don't believe the proofs we have.  That just sounds obtuse to me!

I will put out a challenge to my readers: please, be the first person who can convincingly explain to me why the following words sound better coming out of one mouth than another: 

• "Your beliefs aren't just different from mine; they're wrong."
  
• "Instead of believing what you believe, you should believe what I believe."
• "You teach your kids that???"
• "I must go out and convince others that this is the only right thing to believe."

Personally, I don't want to hear that mess from anyone.

I think the atheist movement has been brilliant, incredibly important, and exciting.  In an amazingly short time the very idea of vocal, activist atheists has gone from 0 to 60. Just a few years ago, people thought an atheist was some crank father who didn't want his child saying the pledge.  Well that turned out to be a worthy and seminal cause, and now it's a whole movement led and followed by countless intelligent, witty, creative and accomplished people.  This is the perfect time for people in the movement to figure out how to define themselves in a way that doesn't reflect everything they hate about organized religion.

Yes, liberals are giddy.  After eight years of Bush, and many more during which the very word "liberal" was considered slander, we gloat too much about our victories.  We appear to wish death upon the GOP.  In our less realistic moments, perhaps we do.


But we also know that a robust two-party system is vital to the integrity and effectiveness of the democracy.  We know that the push-pull of different political orientations; the vigorous debate that must transpire to get at a truth; and the balance created by having a variety of viewpoints represented over time - those things comprise the genius of the great American experiment.

That is why the failure of the current Republican Party to offer intelligent and helpful debate is felt by some of us as a loss. 

Liberals do feel giddy about this uniquely gifted president, his improbable success, and his ability to brilliantly, unapologetically promote bedrock liberal principles.

But contrary to popular conservative opinion, we don't worship President Obama.  Governing is a human endeavor.  We don’t expect or perceive perfection.  It is a task too complex and critical to leave subject to the fallibility of one person's leadership, or to ask one party to shoulder alone.

At no time has everyone on the left been unified in evaluating the president's effectiveness or judgment.  Even amongst ourselves we have a diversity of opinion on matters of national importance.  We don’t have all the answers.  So it’s actually a matter of unfairness for the entire Republican Party to get so bogged down in wound-licking and reactionary dogma that even its smartest members cede the voice of their party to the wing nuts.   It isn't fair.

Gun violence is complicated.  Poverty is complicated.  Drone use is complicated.  Questions about the ideal purview of government are complicated.  Questions about the proper role of the Intelligence community in Defense endeavors are complicated.  The modern economy is complicated. 

So when particularly sobering problems emerge, forcing our giddiness to evaporate, even those of us on the left who are generally highly partisan and self-righteous about our ideas recognize the need for all hands on deck.  It then becomes infuriating to see the disarray, shallowness, and nastiness that presently rule the GOP.

On Monday, NBC investigative journalist Michael Isikoff broke the news about a memo that reveals the Obama administration’s communication failures and programmatic ambiguity regarding its use of drones to combat homeland security threats.  Critical questions about how and when drones may be used against American citizens are unanswered.  
Questions like, how exactly is it determined that an American citizen has become an enemy combatant?  Would such a person have an opportunity to surrender before being assassinated?  Can such a person be killed on American soil?  As Isikoff pointed out Monday evening on The Rachel Maddow Show, the administration has been effectively unable to say that current guidelines don’t allow for an American citizen, living in a US city, to be killed in bed at night by government operatives.  But because what passes on the right these days for reason is actually a paranoid, lunatic fringe-type thinking, we can’t have a real discussion about it.

The most obstinate partisan must acknowledge the fact that no matter how much you trust the people in power now, within a few years the people in power will be a whole new group of folks, with the same power. 

I have tremendous faith in this administration.  I trust Barack Obama.  But participatory government is our duty in this country, so we should ask these questions, and they should answer.  No administration can get everything right.  I believe the President when I hear him express his intent to improve the transparency and codification of these processes.  I believe him when he describes the challenge of managing on-going and imminent threats while simultaneously trying to draft publicly vetted rules of engagement for a frontier mode of defense.  (A mode of defense that, in my mind, has great promise as a tool to help us delay or avoid full-scale war.) 

I have found it hard to broach this topic outside liberal zones, in politically-mixed groups.  I am stopped by a feeling of protectiveness about the President that springs from the relentless, unwarranted, vindictive scrutiny of him by the right.  I'm not talking about the honest pressure for transparency and ethical rigor that can and should come from an opposition truly loyal to the cause of democracy.  That kind of pressure is good. That kind of pressure is what we need.  

A party that has allowed high-ranking members to go uncensured for meeting the very night of Mr. Obama’s first inauguration to strategize ways to oppose him at every turn, including voting against his favored legislation even if it is in sync with their own positions.  A party still represented by both elected and unelected officials who openly, repeatedly vowed during his first term to put the welfare of the republic at temporary risk if it helped the cause of "making Obama a one term president."  A party that recently reelected a national chair who claimed during his first tenure that Obama's presidency would cause "an end to our way of life in America." 

These examples illustrate the hyper-critical and one-dimensional Republican view of Mr. Obama; they don’t even touch on all the other Stupid Republican Tricks that expose a readiness to abandon our time-tested system of judiciously prosecuting policy proposals.  Tricks like putting creationists on the House Science Committee, proffering "self-deportation" as a legitimate immigration reform device, employing a willful misinterpretation of the "you didn't build that" Obama campaign quote as a major campaign theme, or deeming the taunting of Iran a useful foreign policy approach.  

These doings, along with many others, all demand that countless hours of pointless, inane, mental energy be spent on faux issues or backwards policies while pressing problems are at hand.

Shouldn't thoughtful criticism be the responsibility of everyone?  

Yes, citizen members of the party in power should be expected to push themselves to critique and challenge their chosen administrations, publicly and forcefully.  But we should also be able to rely on the opposition party to be constructively skeptical and civilly unsympathetic.

Republicans.  Pull your selves together.  We need your help on this drone thing.

On October 2nd, Pennsylvania Commonwealth Judge Robert Simpson informed Governor Tom Corbett and Secretary of State Carol Aichele that they could not implement strict, new Voter ID requirements until after the federal election next month. 

Earlier, in July, Judge Simpson had upheld the ID requirements, signed into law in March.  This ruling was immediately appealed to the State Supreme Court by the group of plaintiffs opposing it; a group which includes attorneys for the ACLU, the NAACP, and registered voters who had been unable to produce documents necessary to obtain the ID.

The State Supreme Court then sent the case back to Simpson with explicit instructions to determine whether any voters would be disenfranchised by the law.  Simpson held a new hearing, in which the DOS asserted that, despite a multitude of unanticipated glitches, they were bending over backwards to ease the process of obtaining ID.  They assured the judge that all eligible voters could obtain the necessary ID by Election Day. 

However, the plaintiff group easily demonstrated, with witness after witness, that there were so many hurdles and snafus occurring in the process that there was no chance that every voter needing ID could get it by Election Day.  Judge Simpson duly found that the law would indeed cause voter disenfranchisement, and he enjoined its implementation until at least after this election. 

The rub: he allowed the state, since they intend to go forward implementing the law for future elections, the latitude to ask for but not require government-issued photo ID for this election.  Simpson also allowed that the state’s voter outreach materials could be designed to reflect the eventual need for proper ID.

The situation going forward from this slightly complicated decision announced on October 2nd would have been ripe for confusion even if Pennsylvania State officials had any intention of acting in good faith.  Pennsylvania State officials did not have any intention of acting in good faith.

Following the decision, official state voter education efforts have ranged in approach from what could be generously described as ineffective and confusing, to deliberately misleading.  Ultimately it has become clear that there is a conscious effort to discourage voters without proper ID from coming to the polls, by implying that without ID they will be denied a ballot.

I posted previously about the first signs that the PA DOS would not go out of its way to reassure voters that they would not be tripped up at the polls on Election Day if they didn't have the right identification.  The official Pennsylvania voter education website, votespa.com, had pulled out the stops when it was time to inform voters they would have to show ID.  Once ordered to drop the requirement, they made subtle changes to small-font wording in graphics that retained the overall message that voters would have to show ID to vote.  As of this writing, the confusing homepage graphics remain.

Since then, the disinformation tactics have grown egregiously worse, including mailings, ads, and robo-calls still telling voters that they must produce ID to vote. 

These dirty tricks by top Pennsylvania officials, public servants, expressly charged with facilitating fair elections for the furtherance of democracy, shock the conscience.  Corrupting the central process of the democratic system, the vote, is not only morally wrong, it is pragmatically stupid.  Apparently these political leaders cannot imagine a time in which their own views and policies would be so popular that they would be eager to see the highest levels of voter participation possible, and would want to be able to rely on a sturdy, credible election process.

As various transparent attempts at suppression have come to light, the same (irrepressible) plaintiff group has assembled proof that the disenfranchisement forbade by the State Supreme Court, and ruled against by Judge Simpson, is occurring now.

On Friday the group filed a petition against the State to appear before Judge Simpson asking that he intervene again and shut down these increasingly aggressive and devious efforts to reduce turnout among - let's be clear - likely Obama voters.

Some of the text from the ACLU press release on Friday:

Judge Asked to Order Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to Stop
Misleading Voters About the Need for ID on Election Day
False and Misleading Information May Lead to Some Voters Staying Home

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE  October 19, 2012

HARRISBURG, PA - The legal team challenging Pennsylvania’s voter ID law filed a petition today asking Judge Robert Simpson to order the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to stop disseminating false information about the need for photo ID on Election Day and to make it to clear to the public that ID will not be required to vote in the November 6 election. This request comes in the wake of several recent mailings by both governmental and non-governmental entities that contained outdated information about the law and have added to voter confusion.

In their petition, (the plaintiffs) argue that unless this misinformation is corrected, some eligible voters will stay home on Election Day because they mistakenly believe they need ID to vote in this election…(T)he Commonwealth has circulated misinformation about the voter ID law to voters. Last week, thousands of Pennsylvania seniors received a mailing…that included a Dept. of State card about the voter ID law. The card incorrectly states: "Voters are required to show photo ID on Election Day.”

(C)ounsel has received dozens of complaints (about) radio and TV ads that still say voters need photo ID to vote.  As recently as October 11, some PennDOT locations were still displaying outdated posters and information telling people they need ID to vote.  In their motion, petitioners argue that the Commonwealth has failed to clearly inform the public that the voter ID law will not be in effect for the November 2012 election.  Rather than creating ads that clearly state this information, the Commonwealth instead chose to continue with its “Show It” campaign and merely add the phrase “if you have it” in small print to note that ID would not be required.  These minimal changes to the “Show It” campaign are not enough to combat previous efforts by the Commonwealth to publicize the law, including multiple press releases, press conferences, and a postcard mailing in September to all registered voters.

The petitioners are asking the Commonwealth Court to issue an order requiring that the Commonwealth send notices with correct information to anyone who received false information from the state since October 2 about the law; immediately cease running any ads that still tell voters they must have photo ID to vote; re-word robocalls scheduled for the run-up to the election; issue a clarifying press release to all media outlets; and direct Secretary Carol Aichele to hold a press conference announcing that photo ID is not required to vote this Election Day.

 Sara Mullen
Associate Director
ACLU of Pennsylvania

(For the full text of the press release, and the petition itself, which contains illuminating examples of the State's sneak attack, go to the Pennsylvania ACLU website.)

Judge Simpson is a Republican, and has not by any means rolled over to the plaintiffs on this issue.  It took several rounds of hearings and appeals before he agreed to grant the injunction, and that was only a reprieve to the law for this election.  But he did ask discerning questions during the hearings that indicated a concern that voters not be shut out of the democratic process.  His hesitation to strike down the law altogether appeared to be based on a confidence in the State that they were motivated by legitimate concerns about the security of the ballot, and committed to protecting the rights of eligible voters. 

At some point he must surely begin to feel offended by their failure to live up to that confidence.  Simpson is no partisan zealot.  He comes across as professional and fair-minded.  And he is human.  So it must begin to feel like a slap in the face to find that his trust in the Republican leaders of the Commonwealth has been flouted in this way.

I was ten years old when George McGovern ran for President.  He was my first political hero. 

This was partly because my friends and I thought he was really cute.  But it was also because of what he stood for, and what kind of man he was.


I was fortunate to grow up in a politically-active, socially-aware family;  stalwart Democrats.  We were all-in for the "McGovern for President" campaign.  Even at that age I was tuned in to the issues and loved the excitement of being involved.  My siblings and I would pile in our station wagon and accompany our parents to rallies.  We spent some Saturday afternoons passing out leaflets in shopping centers and neighborhoods. 

McGovern was a national leader that I could look up to in real-time, not from a history book.  His personality conveyed both depth and accessibility.  McGovern exuded integrity, compassion, intelligence.  As I kid, I was impressed with how confident he seemed in speaking out against war and for poor people.

And again, my classmates and I couldn't believe how much cuter he was than Nixon.  I can't emphasize that enough.

So all of this added up to making him a hero to me.

McGovern was a fervent anti-war activist, and a decorated Army combat veteran.  I always thought of that as an unimpeachable combination.  As wide-eyed as he was portrayed to be, Senator McGovern came to his views on war from personal experience in the trenches. 

Like a lot of peacemakers and complex social thinkers, McGovern was un-flashy and under-appreciated.  He was done the same disservice as was eventually done to a string of very liberal Democratic Presidential candidates who came after him; Ted Kennedy, Walter Mondale, Jesse Jackson, Jimmy Carter, Michael Dukakis - serious, intelligent, caring, public servants who were successfully branded as laughingstocks - Don Quixotes, weak-minded, bleeding-heart doves.  McGovern took the brunt of a powerful wave of scorn for leftist thought that created a real stigma around the word "liberal".

I will leave it to political scientists with more knowledge than me to explain the perfect storm of world and national; social and economic events that allowed that stigma to take root.  But even then, even as a young, white, mid-Western, middle-class schoolgirl, I knew it was wrong.  And I knew that my hero, Senator George McGovern, suffered for it; but that he kept his head up in the face of it, and continued to articulate the bedrock liberal values I have today.  Back then we called it being for peace, for women's lib, and for equal rights for black people.  We called it being against pollution, against religious judgement, and against police brutality.  But most of the time we just called it "being Democrats".

I'm glad George McGovern stayed actively interested in politics and public service long enough to see a return of liberal pride.  He had a chance to see his old colleague Ted Kennedy earn his rightful place as a vaunted Democratic leader.  He got to see many advances in the fight for equal rights for women, racial and ethnic minorities, and LGBT Americans.  He got to support Hilary Clinton as a fiercely competitive presidential primary candidate, and then Barack Obama as a successful nominee.

I imagine he had concerns about rising threats to voting rights, choice, and our already fragile safety net.  I'm sure he was disturbed by the ongoing attempt to demonize run-of-the-mill liberal theory as Socialism.  I can imagine he saw the bristling, blustering conservative approach to foreign policy as chillingly ominous.

But hopefully he also felt - looking at those of us who have taken up causes he helped define in the modern era - that he was leaving the country in good hands.

There was a big victory for voter access in Pennsylvania this month, but you wouldn't know it by looking at the official State voter-information website. 

This picture is on the current homepage of the Pennsylvania Department of State voter information page, votesPA.com. 

As of this writing, when voters go to the site for polling-place hours, registration status, and what to bring on Election Day; they see the same vivid VOTER ID graphic now as they did before the Voter ID law was struck down.  When the law was being put in place, the State filled the better part of the homepage with the attention-grabbing bulletin shown above.

Then on October 2, Commonwealth Judge Robert Simpson said that because of its potential to disenfranchise voters, the law could not be implemented for the 2012 Presidential Election.  No ID required!  Everybody votes!

It is hard to tell from the website that anything has changed.

Before the court decision, the wording on the votesPA homepage read: "Voters will be required to show an acceptable photo ID on Election Day."

After the decision, the wording was changed to read: "Voters will be asked, but not required to show an acceptable photo ID on Election Day."

(Emphasis mine!)

When voters click to go to the more detailed page for additional guidance, they see almost exactly the same information they saw before the law was blocked.  The big red banner headline that before, said "Photo ID Required for November 2012 Election," now says "Photo ID Requested for November 2012 Election."  (Again, emphasis mine.)  The page contains the same admonishment that "All photo IDs must contain an expiration date that is current."  It contains the same list of strict, specific forms of acceptable government-issued photo ID.  It has a link to the same complex set of FAQ's, walking voters through the different forms of ID, and the steps one must take to obtain a secure PennDOT ID, including the requirement of a birth certificate with a raised seal.   

It is left to the voter without ID to surmise, "All this means I can vote this year!"  Using these directions, this voter is just as likely now, as before the ruling, to conclude that they may as well stay home.  

Pennsylvania voters without ID have been chastised repeatedly by government officials for complaining about having to learn the new rules and jump through hoops to vote.  Now when these voters proactively seek out information in order to be prepared, they are treated to a slick trick by the State.     

How will Republican Party officials feel in later years, looking back on this time?  A time when they tried to win elections by keeping voters away from the polls.  A time when they coldly dismissed the complaints of their fellow citizens, fellow voters, who they forced to jump through unexpected and untenable hoops, before permitting them to exercise the most critical right held in a democracy. 

How will it be for these officials, when a grandson or granddaughter says,
"Today in class we compared and contrasted the Jim Crow years with the Voting Wars of 2012?  What did you do during that time?  Did you help the people?"




They will have to explain to their progeny that far from helping the people, they helped create and impose such laws. 

That they purposely - in the name of a phantom crisis - placed an unforgivable burden on registered, eligible voters.  That they used dirty tricks, excluding people whose names no longer matched those on their birth certificates, due to adoption or marriage.  Barricading voters by virtue of requiring long hours away from work that they cannot manage.  Usurping the constitutional rights of rural voters who are unable to leave their own precincts and travel on a weekday 200 miles to a county with a DMV office.  Sending hundreds of thousands of people into a panic just before Election Day as they - determined to vote  - scramble to find the right documents.  Hoping to pass the subjective inspection of a clerk in a driver’s license center.

How will Republicans feel when they see themselves in hindsight, demanding of old women that they produce papers they don’t have, papers they’d never needed before, before allowing them to help select their President?  How will they reflect on having told enthusiastic college boys that their state university ID won't cut it?  On having tossed thousands of names off voter rolls just weeks before Election Day, sending out letters saying, “Dear voter, it appears you are dead.  If you are not dead, please call us and prove it by November 6th.”  On curtailing poll hours during the busiest times of day and week, times during which the lines have grown longer each year?

How will they describe their own legacy as a public servant?  How will they defend the way they let their own fear of a particular outcome lead them to prey on others’ fears - of the specter of thugs lurking at polls, plotting to cast fraudulent votes? Do they ever worry that history may cast them as the thugs?

• Students will learn how in Florida, just before a federal election, officials made reckless purges of voter rolls, even though voter-list maintenance is the responsibility of practiced election officials year round, normally done month-by-month, to prevent sudden unnecessary removals. 

• Textbooks will include sections on how in Ohio, officials slashed early-voting hours during times that overlapped with those used mostly by black voters.  Students can draw their own conclusions about that for extra credit. 

• Teachers will lecture on how in New Hampshire, for the first time in 2012, officials tried to ban college students from using their dormitory addresses to register.
  

• High school students will learn how in Pennsylvania, Texas, and South Carolina, officials wrote Voter ID laws that bore an eerie similarity to Jim Crow laws.  Class reports will be written on how in both eras, practices were designed to wear down and discourage voters.  How in both eras, systems allowed for capricious judgments by government clerks and poll-workers to determine who got to vote.  How in both eras, self-appointed citizen “poll-watchers” were allowed to stand inside polling places, appraising voters in line and challenging the eligibility of anyone they decided looked unscrupulous. 

How’s that gonna be; justifying these inexcusable laws to a young person standing before them one day? 

How will the leaders of today’s Republican Party explain,
in the coming years, that once upon a time
they sought powerful positions in a democracy
by obstructing the right to vote?

“Nothing is so necessary to liberty as the freedom to vote without bans or barriers.”  President Lyndon B. Johnson

On a practical level, this helps a lot, and thank goodness for it. 
The State is in court today trying to prove to a judge that they can make it easier to get the ID.  Properly registered voters were having real trouble obtaining all the necessary documents, so this change will help.  

Crowding and long waits at PennDOT centers are a problem.  That will only get worse as voters learn about the new law and pour in to get the ID they need in time for Election Day.  Voter advocates in the state are still pressing for weekend and evening hours to be established, a dedicated line at for those needing Voter ID, and temporary centers to be set up in the nine counties that don't have one.  But this change will ensure voters only have to make one trip to a PennDOT center, and no trips to other government offices to obtain vital records.

On another level, this change further questions the purpose of the law. 
Why can't this process take place at the polls?  Why can't PA voters show a utility bill, medical card, or pay stub at the polling place, like voters do in some states?  Why can't PA voters sign in for a ballot, as voters do in some states, allowing poll-workers to compare that signature to the one on the voter registration card?  How does a card obtained by providing verbal information to a PennDOT clerk better ensure that the voter is the voter they claim to be? 

When the requirement at the polls is for readily available information, something anyone can bring from home, it impacts every voter in the same way. 
When the requirement at the polls is for a very specific, government-issued photo ID, it adds a step to the process that disproportionately impacts some voters. 
It challenges voters without cars, or time off work. 
It burdens voters with disabilities, or small kids in tow. 
It imposes a big hurdle to voting for those who live down the road from the polling place in their precinct, but must travel long-distances to a PennDOT center.  

What would happen in Pennsylvania if the new law applied equally to all voters? 
If, in order to vote in this Presidential election, voters who happen to have a driver's license or military ID also had to go in person to PennDOT center to get a Voter ID? 

If all voters were told that regardless of their age or voting history, or time of residence in a precinct, there is a card that they do not possess now that they must present in order to be handed a ballot?

If they were told that it wouldn't matter if they have voted in the same school basement every year.

If they were told that it won't help if the poll workers in their precinct know them by first name.

If they were told that the following scenario just isn't the State's problem: an older lady gets her driver's license renewed every year for ID, but hasn't driven in years.  She lives in a rural area.  She always has her adult son in the city come out on Election Day and drive her to the polls.  But she doesn't have a way to get to a neighboring county before then to get her ID.  With the new law, if the lady's driver's license instead expired over a year ago - a much more common scenario - she cannot vote without a Voter ID.

What if they were told that the following scenario just isn't the State's problem: a young man with autism doesn't drive, but has a current PennDOT non-driver's photo ID.  He has a volunteer scheduled to come to his apartment on Election Day to get him to the polling place.  But he just learned about the new law, and isn't sure how to get this new ID.  With the new law, if he did not have a current PennDOT non-driver's photo ID - a much more common scenario, he could not vote.

It is even hard to imagine what would be happening in Pennsylvania right now if this were the scenario: a duly-registered voter with a current driver's license, flex-time at work, a car, and easy proximity to a PennDOT center is told that in order to vote in this Presidential election, they must go in person to a PennDOT center on one of the 29 weekdays between now and Election Day, provide the clerk with their name, address, Social Security number and date of birth, and pose for a new DOS photo Voter ID.


The law serves no purpose, and creates barriers to the ballot for certain voters and not others. 
It's a farce to pretend that this Voter ID card is needed to protect the ballot from the threat of the phantom voter impersonator. 
It is a definitive case of unequal access to the ballot. 
There is no justification for this law, and it reeks more with every passing week.

Mitt Romney has made plain what we've always presumed his dark fantasy to be: he believes nearly half of this country comprises a maladjusted, useless, huddled mass. 

Mitt, you have so much to learn about the country you love and want to lead.  Let me see if I can help you down your path of discovery.

• Actually, each and every person on this earth is "... entitled to health care, food, and housing." Applying that to everyone on earth, that's my opinion. But at least for those who live in the US, it's settled law. It's the "life" part of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

• Even if this imaginary group - this mass of whining, irresponsible parasites - existed, rest assured, you and your fellows at that fundraiser would be the last folks on earth we would turn to for help.  You aren't at any risk of misleading "dependent" people into thinking you would throw us a crumb.
• It doesn't exist, this scary group you describe.  Mitt, you patriot, you celebrator of the American people, you don't know your own country.  And you're missing out.

Your vision of the poor people in this country embarrasses you.  Shouldn't you know, at your age, and with your breadth of life experience, that there are whiny, irresponsible parasites at every income level.  Yes, sir, there are individuals who walk around feeling entitled to be handed something they haven't earned.  One can find them living as inner-city thugs, middle-management loafers, and, well, high-level corporate predators. 

But the underclass you envision as dependent is made up of the hardest working people you'll ever find.  You are actually talking about the backbone of the country, Mitt. 

I would have thought a finance guy would take a look at the numbers before making such proclaimations: If you had stopped to compare the number of people on some kind of assistance with the number of people hunting for work, holding down part time jobs, holding down several jobs, working jobs and going to school, working jobs and raising kids, you'd have realized the only way it adds up is when working people still aren't making enough to eat.  They don't stop working when they get food stamps, Mitt. 

You're talking about the people that wait for the bus and catch rides and go to their service industry jobs and hospital jobs and day care jobs and maintenance jobs and food service jobs.  

Think about what you're saying, Mitt - that half the country is sucking off the other half.  You don't know what you're talking about.  But you're talking about us, and we're offended.