Thursday, May 8, 2008

Two rules for elections

When I entered school, Cleveland public school district kindergarten, I learned a few things: vocabulary that we did not use at home, ‘vestibule ’– mudroom for removing boots (okay, that came in first grade, the kindergarten entrance didn't have one), ‘lavatory’ – euphemism for the euphemism for the room with toilets, sinks and pissoirs, ‘cloakroom’ – communal closet, but, chief of all, a lesson that I have had reiterated again, and again, throughout my life ― there are different rules for different people. Later, we were taught that the law, America in foremost, was equal for and to each. My experience and observation was contradicted and overruled. Later still, we were taught the scientific method, deductive reasoning, the proposing, testing, confirming or discarding of hypotheses and theories by the experimental method. Science and philosophy and later non-guided study of history had reaffirmed my kindergarten lesson, that civic allegiance had attempted to permanently dislodge. Many, to-day, do not allow that, especially those that are in social and economic comfort.

The one group favors the Democracy and the other group contains reaganites and busheviks. In Ohio the election of 2004 was stolen, not by voting irregularities but by rigging the system. Robert Kennedy Junior was published in Rolling Stone magazine and detailed this. The bush campaign chairman in Ohio, Kenneth Blackwell, was secretary of state (the same two positions were also entwined in Florida in 2000 by Katharine Harris). The heavily partisan Diebold company manufactured the voting machines. The Republican party had practically all state officers and branches of government controlled, in Ohio, for several years. 350,000 voters who came to vote that day, did not have their votes counted. The system was thoroughly gamed to prevent, discourage, disregard, disallow and erase certain targeted voters, Democratic voters. This total was greater than the supposed Bush - Kerry vote differential.

Very recently (28 April), the Supreme Court upheld Indiana’s voter identification law. A justice (Stevens), in his opinion, acknowledged there never was a documented case in Indiana of the problem that the law was meant to correct.
“Today's ruling rightfully allows states to safeguard against such destructive abuse.” ― John Boehner of Ohio, the Republican leader in the House of Representatives
The sixth of May, there was, in Indiana, an election. Several aged sisters of the Congregation of the Sisters of the Holy Cross convent, in South Bend, were denied the vote. Upon the news of their being disenfranchised, other sisters were then disinclined to attempt. It seems that people who voted for Al Smith, and Franklin Roosevelt four times, rarely have driver’s licenses anymore. At the same polling place an eighteen year old student was turned away, her California driver’s license and college identification did not satisfy the law. Another person who had a federal photo identification without an expiration date was also denied suffrage.

Indiana’s Republican secretary of state, Todd Rokita, is the state’s officer in charge and chief defender of the law. Last year, he was agitated by the fact that black people have a tendency to vote for the Democracy. “How can that be? Ninety to 10. Who’s the master and who’s the slave in that relationship? How can that be healthy?” He has since admitted to poor word choice. But no, it is part of his party’s plan of disenfranchisement of targeted voters. It is part of voter suppression. In the middle ’60s when the Democracy led the republic, a constitutional amendment forbade the poll tax. These new laws written by the Republican party have found another method for the same ends.

There is a dope fiend, Republican party, radio agitator, Rush Limbaugh III, who has suggested to his servile and slavish listeners to vote in Democratic primaries for Hillary Clinton, so as to mess with the election. In Ohio one needs to sign a document, that one does this, in good faith, if not, it is a minor felony. There are no charges of election fraud or illegal electioneering directed at him.
Noto bene: this topic is not exhausted, there are many other areas within the political scene where this dichotomy holds, flagrant ones are those concerning impeachment for transgression of constitutions and laws versus sexual improprieties, but add Rokita to the roll of outrageous.

No comments: