Today To-Do

No matter your political party, your schedule, your personal feelings: cast your vote today.

Finding Concealed Meaning in a Pile of Dung

I'm placing the religious rhetoric on pause for a moment to discuss an article [link] in the Washington Post today, entitled "MD Democrats say GOP Plans to Block Voters." From the article:

A recently distributed guide for Republican poll watchers in Maryland spells out how to aggressively challenge the credentials of voters and urges these volunteers to tell election judges they could face jail time if a challenge is ignored.

For obvious reasons, this has the Dems in a tizzy. They're worried about potentialities, rather than realities. Their focus, which remains on the potential for the handbook to prevent people from voting, is in the wrong place. One attorney for the state Democratic party gives us evidence of this, saying, "The tenor of the material is that they are asking folks, if not directing them, to challenge voters . . . It's really tantamount to a suppression effort."

A representative from Common Cause said that the technique is an "insidious voter intimidation tactic." They're right. It's slimy. It's also not the real issue. The trouble with bitching about the future is that nothing has happened yet. It's still in potentia. Prosecuting a political organization for informing its lackeys of filthy, evil tactics they can use won't work: ultimately, some damn activist judge will remind us of the whole Bill of Rights thing that protects speech, no matter how vile and insipid.

The real issue is with what the GOP representatives are saying to defend this little guide. From the article:

"I don't think that's borderline suppression," said state Republican Party Chairman John Kane. "It's making sure that people who have earned the right to vote are voting. We've had people die in wars to protect those rights."

For those of you who are slow on the uptake, I'll repeat the most important sentence: "It's making sure that people who have earned the right to vote are voting." Once more, even more condensed: "people who have earned the right to vote." Further: "earned the right to vote."

I have news for the Republican Party Chairman for Maryland: you don't earn the right to vote. It's a right that is assumed with citizenship. Let's quote that pesky Constitution:

Amendment 14 - Citizenship rights:
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Amendment 15 - The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State...

Again in Amendment 24 - The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State

And hey, how about number 26 - . The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State

So: everyone born or naturalized here is a citizen. Every citizen can vote in every election by which he is directly affected. Every citizen over eighteen can vote. This sounds like something that has been repeatedly ratified throughout our history: voting is an American birthright, conferred upon naturalized citizens, and as such is unearned. The only instance in which that right can be taken away is in case of a felony, in which case the rights of citizenship are removed; however, the instances of felony among the population as a whole are exceedingly rare (.3% of Americans have been convicted of a felony), and besides, removing them from the rolls is what your "purges" are all about. In either case, Americans do not earn the right to vote.

Rhetoric reveals, but it also conceals. What implications arise with this statement is taken apart? Possibilities include:
1 - That someone needs to license and/or certify that a voter has earned this right.
2 - That these someones are poll workers trained by the GOP "Guide-to-making-sure-the-youth/hippies/homosexuals/furrin-lookin' people/black people-don't-vote" (okay, that's an exaggeration)
3 - That our license/certification would be subject to approval by the government, now entirely in the hands of the GOP.
More interesting is that the statement is hidden behind some pseudo-patriotic jingoistic cliche: "We've had people die in wars to protect those rights." Yes. The placement of this sentence is an act of rhetorical misdirection: he follows an easily contestable (but almost true sounding) statement with a fact that, in this context, actually supports the opposite: men have died in wars to protect a right to vote that need not be earned. Neat trick, huh?

The Dems, instead of focusing on what the GOP guide to pollster pranks and fun might do in the future, need to foreground the discourse of the present while noting its effects (what is it supporting?).

Acceptance...

Ahhh. The joy of acceptance... Of being told (by someone other than one's own arrogance and ego) that you are RIGHT. That's right, kiddies. Yours truly was accepted for a peer-reviewed panel at CCCC. I'm one of 15%. That includes tenured profs.

Religion in the Public Sphere: Rhetoric & Reconciliation (I)

This election has brought the rhetoric of public religiosity to the fore, and with a vengeance. Sadly, socially if at least not legally, our candidates seem to be subjected to a religious litmus test by newspapers as well as voters. I'm fine with voters asking these questions in a public forum: you are bound by conscience to vote with your values, and although I feel that religion is only one of many sources of personal morality, if a voter puts a question to a candidate - as happened recently in a forum at Catholic University of America (but more on that later) - concerning the ways in which he reconciles his policy beliefs with his faith, that is not only his perogative, but also an interesting way to understand the thought processes of the candidate.

This post will come in several parts. Part I, this present post, is an introduction to the issues I plan to address. Public religious rhetoric is a broad topic, and in our society, it is a tangled, often contradictory web. Part II will discuss the interesting implications raised by the aforementioned public meeting at CUA. Part III will analyze the deeper rhetorical devices seen in public discussions of morality, as well as the complicated role of religion in electoral politics.

Revealing Political Rhetoric

"Politics is the struggle for existence" - Wallace Stevens, Opus Posthumous, "Adagia"

Although political rhetoric has always been charged, emotional, even brutally competitive, the language used by news outlets reveals a good deal about the way that they deal with politics. The term long-used to describe our current style of coverage - "horse-race" politics - isn't quite as accurate as it once was. I think that a more pithy name would be "gridiron politics." Take a look at some of the recent language used in a Washington Post article discussing the antics of pedophile cum congressman Mark Foley (visual pun definitely intended):

"Strategists:" these people used to be called "consultants" or "advisors."
The "strategy" of these strategists "relies on waiting for the story to die down . . . while also accusing Democrats of exploiting a personal lapse for political gain."

Bluntly stated, the pot will call the kettle black. Let's not forget that these are the same people who "exploited a personal lapse" by trying to remove a man from office for lying about a blowjob received from a consenting adult. That, by the way, is a "personal lapse." Pedophilia is not a "personal lapse." It's a goddamn felony. Play defense - maybe wait for the punt, then RAM IT DOWN THEIR THROATS! Knute Rockne would be proud.

"The impact of the Foley scandal will be felt" - Hit. Hit hard.
"local factors could amplify the scandal's destructive power" - Men, Football is war. This is getting ridiculous.

The Washington Post is not alone in its rhetorical strategy; however, as a respected publication, it does set standards for others to follow. The worst aspect of it all is this: the coverage has become so competition-oriented, with reporters struggling to frame political stories in athletic or military metaphors, and reporters in other departments beginning to adopt similar binary structures of conflict, that I'm not sure Americans could understand actual, issue-oriented news coverage anymore.
------------------
currently on miPod - Carl Maria von Weber, Symphony no 2.2

Voter Confidence Quandary

It's time I inserted my own voice into the controversy concerning electronic voting. As an increasing number of states consider moving to electronic voting, industry-leading Diebold continues to try to quell the swelling number of studies and reports of security flaws in its equipment. Meanwhile, a number of websites, including engadget, i-am-bored.com, blackboxvoting.org, and openvotingfoundation.org have posted pages detailing methods by which the machines may be hacked. The Center for Information Technology at Princeton University, of all places, has published a full research paper detailing the massive and serious security flaws in the hardware and software (which Diebold still maintains are extremely secure) of the voting machines that will be used in 357 counties - representing ten percent of all registered voters - across the US in the coming November election.

My opinion? Electronic voting is a foolish outgrowth of what should be considered - following the dot-com crash - outdated and unfounded cyberlibertarian beliefs, more specifically:

1. Technology will efficiently and accurately solve all of our troubles.
2. The Free Market is better than governmental regulation in all cases.

To take these in reverse order: the free market cannot be relied upon to adequately secure individual human rights. The free market has a shitty record in this department because corporations - although they legally act as individuals - care only for the bottom line and pleasing shareholders. If you search Google, you'll find countless images and descriptions of child labor abuses during the Victorian era - before child labor laws: missing fingers (those tiny little bastards could remove objects from gears pretty easily), 16 hour workdays (until the Ten Hours act was passed, making it legal for 13-18 year olds to work only ten hour days), kids playing in the street in raw sewage, and more! Take a look at victorianweb's site about the subject. Hey, take a look at the good old USA, where the meat-packing industry was so corrupt that laws had to be passed against the canning and distribution of rotting meat and other disgusting practices. The free market may be great, but when deregulated, it's a bastard (and the leading cause of communism).

Technology cannot solve all of our problems. Even "secure" technology is rife with flawed security issues. No computer software is too tough to be safe from an enterprising hacker: Google "security flaws" and you'll get over 14,400,000 hits. Anything that can be programmed can be hacked. Hardware designed by human engineers can be modified by geeks nationwide.

Voting is the fundamental right of the citizen in our nation. The right to vote is too important to risk with any computerized system. Paper ballots, marked with ink (instead of punched cards) are the only means by which voters can be certain that a computer will not "miscalculate" or "accidentally delete" their votes - they can be sure that their vote is recorded accurately, at least until someone "accidentally throws away" their vote. The fact that we have to have this discussion makes me ill.
-------------
currently on miPod - Symphony no. 3, 1st movement - Antonin Dvorak