“Voting is as much an emotional act as it is an intellectual one.” – Monica Crowley

Georgia’s Controversial New Voting Law 

So, is this new law racist? Is it some new version of Jim Crow?

It’s no longer possible to get a trustworthy answer to a political question by going to any single source – right or left. To answer even a question about facts, like this, you have to read multiple accounts from both sides and then (if you can get it) source material.

I did. And this is what I’ve found.

There are four primary criticisms against the law:

  1. It decreases and restricts voting hours.
  2. It denies water to voters waiting on line.
  3. It requires voter ID, which many Black Americans don’t have access to.
  4. It is racist – a new form of Jim Crow.

 

Claim 1. The new legislation would restrict voting by decreasing early voting hours and mandating that polls be closed at 5 p.m.

* Biden: “It’s ridiculous. Closing the polls at 5.”

* Chuck Schumer: “Republicans recently passed a bill to eliminate early voting on Sunday – a day when many church-going African-Americans participate in voter drives known as Souls to the Polls.”

The Facts: This is flat-out false. Voting hours, in fact, were expanded by adding an extra mandatory Saturday of early voting and continuing to allow Sunday voting. Early voting now must be open from at least 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., a step up from the “normal business hours” required by previous law. Counties can extend those hours to 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., as many have done in the past.

 

Claim 2. The bill denies voters, waiting on line to vote, easy access to water.

* Biden: “It’s an atrocity… You can’t provide water for people about to vote? Give me a break!”

* James Carville: “It is going to be illegal to give water to somebody that’s standing in line to vote. I have never heard of water being an illegal substance in the United States.”

The Facts: False. The law allows for free and easy access to water for voters, either by providing unattended receptacles of bottled water or hand-distributed by poll workers. What it prohibits is the distribution of anything – flyers, candy, water, soda – by political partisans within 150 feet of a voting building. (This was done to support the existing prohibition against political promotions by either party within 150 feet of a voting building – a regulation that is common in both Blue and Red states.)

 

Claim 3. The Georgia election law suppresses the vote by requiring onerous voter ID requirements that disproportionately affect Black voters.

* Biden: The voting ID requirements “adds rigid restrictions… that will effectively deny the right to vote to countless voters.”

* Facebook: “We support making voting as accessible and broad-based as possible and oppose efforts to make it harder for people to vote.”

The Facts: Half true. Half false. Yes, the law requires voters to present some form of legally valid ID, such as a driver’s license or a state ID card. But if the voter doesn’t have that, he can furnish his Social Security number. But no, there is no evidence that ID laws decrease voter turnout. Nor is there any evidence that African-Americans are less likely to carry ID than other Americans. 97% of Georgia voters have a driver’s license or a free state voter ID. And almost all have a Social Security number, the last four digits of which can be used to cast an absentee ballot thanks to the new law.

 

Claim 4. The bill is racist and harkens back to Jim Crow.

* Biden: “This makes Jim Crow look like Jim Eagle. I mean, this is gigantic what they’re trying to do, and it cannot be sustained.”

* Elizabeth Warren: “The Republican who is sitting in Stacey Abrams’ chair just signed a despicable voter suppression bill into law to take Georgia back to Jim Crow.”

The Facts: Jim Crow laws – which included segregation, poll taxes, grandfather clauses, and literacy tests – were designed to restrict African-American voting. Obviously, the Georgia law makes no distinctions based on race. So, the logic behind those that have criticized the law must be based on either the absurd notion that African-Americans are more in need of water or less likely than other Americans to carry ID.

 

 What’s Going On? 

One view comes from Kay James (who is an African-American), president of the Heritage Foundation. She says the criticism is an “attempt to rally support for a bill currently in Congress, ironically called the For the People Act, or H.R. 1, that would actually allow for greater fraud and election tampering. It would allow illegal votes to cancel out legal ones. It would diminish the very voting rights that my relatives in the 1960s, the women suffragists of the early 1900s, and all the men and women of the armed forces throughout our history fought so hard to gain and protect.”

I talked about H.R. 1 here.

My view is that this bill is about political power. The Democrats want to increase voter turnout among certain groups they consider likely to vote Democratic, including African-Americans, illegal immigrants from Central America, and convicts. Republicans want to limit voter turnout among these groups.

But of the claims made by Biden and others about the Georgia law, three were absolutely false, and the fourth – that the requirement of a voter ID would decrease the African-American vote – is not only unsupported by evidence but is patently racist.

Take a look at this

And this

What do you think?

Continue Reading

8 Worthy Thoughts About First Love 

I have a special home in the city of my heart where my first love resides. I didn’t build it. At least, not consciously. I found it many years later.

My first love was not my greatest love. Or my most enduring love. That real estate belongs to K. But that first adolescent experience of loving was deep and affecting. It lifted me up and it brought me down harder than anything I had ever experienced as a child.

When I think of it now, which is not very often, it has a special significance that I cherish. It comes to me like a small gift from the past, something delicate and valuable, something fragile but enduring. As a memory, it’s a gentle souvenir of not just a cherished someone else but of the younger, more vulnerable person I once was.

Dr Mardy – I don’t know who he is, just that he publishes a blog on quotations – says, “Our memories of the past can be quite sketchy, but there is one thing almost all people vividly remember: the experience of first love. Whether it happened during the relative calm of childhood or, more commonly, during the turbulence surrounding early adolescence, the experience of a first love seems permanently etched in people’s memories. In old age, when so much has been forgotten, there it is, ready to be recalled and experienced, generally with great pleasure, and often with a hint of sadness.”

Here is a selection of quotations about first love that Dr. Mardy uncovered from the past:

* “The magic of first love is our ignorance that it can ever end.” – Benjamin Disraeli

* “How on earth are you ever going to explain in terms of chemistry and physics
so important a biological phenomenon as first love?” – Albert Einstein

* “Among all the many kinds of first love, that which begins in childish companionship is the strongest and most enduring.” – George Eliot

* “When first we fall in love, we feel that we know all there is to know about life, and perhaps we are right.” – Mignon Mclaughlin

* “First love is a momentous step in our emotional education, and in many ways, it shapes us forever.” – Laura Miller

* “First love is only a little foolishness and a lot of curiosity.” – George Bernard Shaw

* “The first experience can never be repeated. The first love, the first sunrise, the first South Sea Island are memories apart, and touched a virginity of sense.” – Robert Louis Stevenson

* “We always believe our first love to be our last, and our last love our first.” – George Whyte-Melville

Continue Reading

I’m not sure why I clicked on this video. I guess I do. It was the headline: “Louisiana woman accused of refusing to return $1.2M after bank error.”

It’s like an elevator pitch for the opening of a movie.

Since it was coming from Fox News, I expected it would be critical of the woman. Or have some sort of political slant. But I was happily surprised to see how they presented it – a mini trial in 3.48 minutes.

Should she be acquitted or convicted? You decide.

Continue Reading