Butthole Bandits 7 and a throwback to Jim Crowe

[Major Robert Dump]

As a fan of fine music and cinematography, I decided to partake in the fine arts upon passing the XXX Barn south of San Antonio. I had heard rave reviews about the long-awaited release of Butthole Bandits 7: the music, the acting, the continuation of open ended plot lines, character development.

I entered the store and located my copy. I went to the counter to check out, and upon announcing "49.99" the clerk also asked to see an ID.

I was agast. An ID? This is art, something that should be shared and enjoyed by all. This was America. And this guy was asking me for an ID in order to purchase Butthole Bandits 7? I had purchased Butthole Bandits 1, 4 and 6 without showing an ID. Yet this guy -- this white tea partier in his Cure t-shirt and face piercings and Stalin tatoos -- wanted me to produce an ID?

It finally hit me, after all these years of being insensitive. What a throwback to Jim Crowe laws! Think of all the immigrants, think of all the so-poor-I-am-melting-people, think of all those senior citizens... they won't even be able to open a bank account, or get a drivers license, or buy alcohol, or wire money to their prostitute-turned-wife in the Philippines, or get a cell phone service plan, or buy a car, or buy tobacco, or rent an apartment, or rent a movie, or get a credit card, or get into a bar, or get utilities turned on, or get an Albertsons Savings Club Card, or buy a copy of Butthole Bandits 7 -- because they do not have an $20 ID. Why, there must be like 7 people in the whole state of Texas who are just absolutely screwed, and we aren't going to throw out all common sense and allow the obvious to transpire?? And in an election year, no less.

This country makes me sick.

[Montmorency]

upon announcing "49.99"

You can't keep an industry afloat singlehandedly.

[Greyblades]

I'm too tired to think of some witty way of saying this, so I'll just say it; 'You still pay for your porn? What an idiot.'

[PanzerJaeger]

I'm going to make a guess that this is a critique of the liberal outcry over voter fraud laws enacted by Republican legislators across the country after the 2010 elections that require voters to show IDs. If so, what a masterful delivery. Good show!

[Major Robert Dump]

Why would you ever think that? No state EVER in the history of the USA has a program to help poor people get IDs, and no city anywhere EVER has a transit system to get people to the tag agency to get their ID, and no really, really, really poor person anywhere EVER has had enough free time due to being unemployed to make the trek to the tag agency to get their ID. Why, those whopping 5 people that were produced to explain they cannot get an ID because they cannot get their birth certificates are totally worth turning a blind eye to voter fraud that is TOTALLY NOT happening, because people NEVER EVER commit fraud anywhere ever when it benefits them financially, not with disability, not with insurance, not with stealing cable

I do not know where you get these accusations from PJ, this was but merely a story of a lonely guy shopping for anal sex movies (shhhh, don't tell Vuk or Xaihou)

[Strike For The South]

When I come home we are getting drunk

[Papewaio]

I think MRDs version of the Onion should be called the Chai & Cucumber.

[drone]

I get carded buying spray paint at Home Depot. I can make a few extra bucks supplying the underage taggers with the tools of the trade.

[Whacker]

You can't keep an industry afloat singlehandedly.

Zen yu rakk skirr and disciprin!

[Major Robert Dump]

I was actually hoping for some Lefties to explain to me, without laughing, how this law is a massive attack on the poor, the minorities and the elderly.

So far, in the states where the law has gone forward, I hear three types of SOB stories:

#1: I am too poor to buy an ID/ get to the ID place. I am too busy being unemployed to walk there.

I find this incredibly hard to believe, all the "free ID programs" for the poor notwithstanding.

#2: Due to some bad clerical error on the part of the government, or unavoidable instances (like a courthouse fire that destroyed birth records) there are rare occasions when this is the case. Truly unfortunate and there should be an alternate means of getting this info, although I find it RICH that these people have never bothered with this until the voting ID thing came about, which leads me to

#3: I have never had an ID, have never needed the documents, etc etc. This is the one I am reading the most. In other words, you have managed to fly under the radar for the last 20 years. And now you actually have to go file applications and stand in line like the rest of us. My sympathy is lost here. I cannot for the life of me feel sorry for someone who has lived in this country for 20 years and never had an ID. This person has obviously gone to GREAT PAINS to not get an ID, as she would only be able to pay in cash, would have no credit, would have to have utilities in someone elses name, would have to rent in someone elses name, would have to have someone else buy her booze and her smokes and pick up her prescriptions.

So basically, I feel sorry for group number two.

Now how many people is that really? And even if we include 1 and 3 how many people really?

I recall a Texas group that said it would alienate 400,000 potential voters in Texas. Turns out, that list also had George W Bush and several Texas legislators on it. So, a bad list. Back to square one.


If the left really wants to make an impact, instead of using a bogus Jim Crowe Poll Tax argument, they should take a page from the Libertarians and basically say that voting is a natural right in our country and we should not have to show ID. I would be willing to listen to that argument.

But instead, we get something that -- to me at least -- looks like a group of people who know fraud is occurring and will do anything to keep it that way. The argument that we have not exposed any fraud is bogus, as we quite frankly do not look for and have poor methods of stopping it. Just because I have not given any speeding tickets in my neighborhood does not mean that no one speeds. People will commit fraud wherever fraud can be committed for financial or personal reasons. A presidential/Senate/House race -- and more so state and local -- has an impact on peoples pocket books, both real and percieved.

We see what groups like Acorn are capable of. We see what police are capable of. We know that there are people who will justify the means by the end, hence the Chic Fil A thread and FRC, so whats a little lie here and there to get your guy in office?

I tend to vote Democratic. And while I would like to sit back and say that fraud is okay as long as it benefits my guy, it's not okay, and it always comes full circle. If one side does it both will do it. Patriot Act, cough cough.

So yeah, completely obvious what the Democrats are doing here.

And their reasoning and accusations of institutional racism is no less than shameful

[Ironside]

I was actually hoping for some Lefties to explain to me, without laughing, how this law is a massive attack on the poor, the minorities and the elderly.

US issue. Yes I find it as stupid as you do, but in the US you got enough of persecution complex and "total withdrawal from an oppressive state" for someone to drive it as an issue.

To compare, if you're over 18 and have a residential adress, then you can vote here. The'll send you a paper that says where your designated voting spot is (the closest one). If voting somewhere else, then you'll need to bring that paper, so they can phone in and check you off the list. ID required since 2006 (or that someone with ID confirms that you are you).

[HoreTore]

US issue. Yes I find it as stupid as you do, but in the US you got enough of persecution complex and "total withdrawal from an oppressive state" for someone to drive it as an issue.

To compare, if you're over 18 and have a residential adress, then you can vote here. The'll send you a paper that says where your designated voting spot is (the closest one). If voting somewhere else, then you'll need to bring that paper, so they can phone in and check you off the list. ID required since 2006 (or that someone with ID confirms that you are you).

I see Sweden still has their bogus elections.... Lrn2vote, Ironside.

Identifying yourself with an ID is a complete non-issue. Of course you should have to identify yourself when voting. What is this really, Iraq under Saddam? And while we're at it, everyone should also be given a social security number at birth and kept in state records from the moment you shoot out of mommy. You shiuld of course also be required to have an ID. I find it hard to believe that someone living in the west in 2012 is capable of not owning a drivers license, passport, bank card, etc. Have you by any chance moved to Burkina Faso, MRD?

And a final question; can anyone tell me how this is a left/right issue? Isn't this a sane/loonie issue?

[Major Robert Dump]

This is a left/right issue because Democrats in the USA like to use a couple of choice arguments, chock full of blanket statements and racial undertones:
#1: Poor people and minorities (who or more likely to be poor or, perhaps, won't get an ID because they are too busy fighting The Man) will be disproportionately affected by ID laws, and in at least one of the cases in the high court the voter advocacy group sued under the guise that the law was discrinimatory against minorities
#2: Very little voter fraud has been discovered, therefore it must not happen. Of course, no one looks for it and there is very little governance over the issue, but that is a moot point for the left


To take a page from the play book of US Democrats, I think we may be the only industrialized democracy on the planet that does not require an ID to vote.

I do not see it as a left/right issue, but that is what it has become. It is discussed almost in passing amongst the talk shows. No one debates this from the left, they just throw out pointless statistics and heart wrenching tales of grandma, and call supporters racist. It is obvious pandering. It is obvious there is fraud. I am insulted byt heir arguments

[Vladimir]

And a final question; can anyone tell me how this is a left/right issue? Isn't this a sane/loonie issue?

Although I know both parties have done it, the Democrats, or the left, are more known for voter fraud (e.g. Chicago, Jackson's spoils system, etc). They're better at gaming the system. It's also more of a "leftist" issue because the people who would be discouraged by this are more likely to vote Democrat and/or receive public assistance. In both cases, the Democrat Left wouldn't benefit as much, or have their influence decrease, as a result of such a law.

There are also a lot of people that genuinely believe this would disenfranchise the poor or cause them additional, if minor, financial and personal hardship. Those tend to be to the left as well.

It is a sane/loonie issue, but the effects affect each side differently.

[Major Robert Dump]

There are also a lot of people that genuinely believe this would disenfranchise the poor or cause them additional, if minor, financial and personal hardship. Those tend to be to the left as well.

I don't think any of these people are genuine. It will affect .00001% of potential voters, so lets not only not require IDs, lets go to court and if the left wins it will be tantamount to endorsement of the fraud we all know is happening.

So do we open ourselves up for exploitation to cater to a very small, small, small minority of people affected (who can be helped and appeased through various other methods that do not include blanket allowance of fraud?)

I just don't see anything genuine here.

[Vladimir]

I don't think any of these people are genuine. It will affect .00001% of potential voters, so lets not only not require IDs, lets go to court and if the left wins it will be tantamount to endorsement of the fraud we all know is happening.

So do we open ourselves up for exploitation to cater to a very small, small, small minority of people affected (who can be helped and appeased through various other methods that do not include blanket allowance of fraud?)

I just don't see anything genuine here.

Most of the post is based on perception to answer HoreTore's question. It doesn't have to be true but people have to believe it's true, then go about their daily lives.

[Lemur]

Actually, this is a partisan dogfight on more than one level. If we were all behaving in good faith, it would look something like this:

1. In-person voting requires photo ID
2. State IDs need to be 100% subsidized, no fees whatsoever, to avoid any possibility of a poll tax. (We just need to eat this cost. There are already documented cases in both WI and PA of low-income voters being told that they need to pay for IDs, even though the state law says for teh poors it's free. Most reliable way to avoid this is make all State ID (excepting commercial and drivers' licenses) free.)
3. All voting machine software need to be open-source (this will help with the well-documented red shift in swing counties, thanks, Diebold!)
4. Mail-in ballots need to be looked over as well, but I've never used one, and I know little about how they work. I do know that almost every documented case of widespread vote fraud that does not involve a vote machine involves mail-in ballots.

Now, of course none of this will happen, because the Dems are operating in bad faith, and the Repubs are operating in atrocious faith. If Repubs actually gave 1/10th as much of a damn as they claim to about voter fraud, they would attack it from the two most commonly known angles: paperless vote machines and mail-in ballots. But they are spending 0% of their effort on either of those.

And if the Dems had any honesty they would concede that an ID is not a ridiculous request for in-person voting, and would instead fight to make IDs widely available for free. That's the tack they should be taking, but they're not. Why? Because they're Dems, and they never miss a chance to miss the point.

I hate to say "a pox on both your houses," but, well, a pox on both your houses. The Repubs are obviously, clearly uninterested in voter fraud, since they are ignoring the most well-documented methods, and instead focusing on in-person voting, which has as close to zero documented cases as you could care to model.

And the Dems, being Dems, just want to keep doing the voter turnout thing they've been doing for decades, and can't imagine changing, because they're Dems.

Manufactured controversy, plain and simple.

If somebody has the testicular fortitude to go after Dieblod, then I might be impressed.

-edit-

Last point: Any changes to voting requirements should be made during non-major-election periods, for obvious reasons. All of this jockeying for position a few months before a presidential cycle is ridiculous.

[Major Robert Dump]

The timing is suspect. I was actually surprised about the one case that resolved itself, as I assumed they would all be delayed until after the election, that way both parties had an out in the event they lose.

[drone]

The GOP is doing it now not to catch walk-in fraud, but to spread FUD among the people that aren't going to vote for them. Discouraging poor people from voting is a win for them.

Large scale fraud through sketchy electronic voting machines? That's the real way to steal an election.

[Lemur]

Large scale fraud through sketchy electronic voting machines? That's the real way to steal an election.

Don't get me started. Every single voting machine should use open source code that our brightest geeks can inspect. Since the introduction of electronic, paperless voting, there has been a real and measurable shift in voting outcomes, which historically correlated pretty closely with exit polls. Since the introduction of these voting machines, reputable exit polls no longer track with outcomes. Instead, they shift Republican, hence the term "redshift." Go figure. The paper I linked earlier goes pretty deep into the statistical math, but here's a (somewhat hysterical, but plain-English) article. (I suppose you could make the argument that voters began lying in exit polls around the time these machines were introduced, and they just happened to start lying in the small percentage required to change election outcomes. I would find such an argument a bit iffy.)

Unadjusted exit polls are the gold standard in uncovering election fraud. Ohio’s 2010 unadjusted election exit poll results showed incumbent Governor Strickland defeating John Kasich by 50.1% to 47.4% of the vote. However, when Kasich won the actual vote on the voting machines provided and serviced by private Republican-connected vendors, then the exit pollsters adjusted the exit poll numbers to match the machine vote count.

Overwhelmingly, the adjustments are red, or Republican, in terms of a beneficial shift in what voters are saying when they exit the polls and what the Republican-connected voting equipment company machines are reporting.

Despite public pressure for universal automatic voter registration and hand-counted paper ballots, the unverifiable electronic voting system remains intact in Ohio and proliferates throughout the nation.

The source code for these machines is not available for public scrutiny. Nor is there a reliable paper trail provided individual voters or independent monitors.

For further reading, here's a link to a spreadsheet by a mathematician who has been playing with the numbers. Of interest to statisticians such as @CountArach.

[Lemur]

The Onion, as per usual, nails it.

Restrictive Voter Laws On The Rise

This year 41 states have introduced at least 180 bills that would reduce voting, whether by requiring an ID at the polls, curbing registration drives, or limiting early balloting. Critics argue these measures are aimed at disenfranchising the young, minorities, and the poor. Here are some of the more controversial laws under consideration:

• Nevada: Polling places will no longer supply ballots; voters must bring their own
• Ohio: Voters must present valid Republican Party membership card
• Tennessee: All registered voters must show up at polling areas with at least one normal-looking coworker who promises that voter is cool
• Pennsylvania: No restrictions
• Kentucky: Polling place staffed by voters’ high school girlfriends and boyfriends
• Alabama: Voters required to correctly guess the number the voting inspector is thinking of
• Arboria: To be deemed worthy, potential voters must complete the Rite of Passage ceremony by sticking their hands into the hollow stump
• Oregon: Voters have to give five reasons why voting actually matters
• Minnesota: Each voter must devise one new voting restriction for next person in line before being allowed to enter booth

[drone]

Source code isn't going to cut it, the machines' physical security is a joke. You would think the manufacturer of ATMs would know how to make a secure cabinet, which tips the incompetence/malice debate towards the latter.

[Lemur]

I would also be curious to hear how absentee mail-ballot fraud works, since apparently the biggest documented cases of vote fraud all centered on them.

[Major Robert Dump]

I do know that you have to make the request early, and that all of our (military) ballots come through a central person who distributes it to the individual.

I was under the impression that absentee voter fraud had more to do with losing, delaying or not counting ballots due to technicalities, real or percieved.

In order for an illigetimate person to use an absentee vote, that person would need to make the request in the voters name. The request that I made asked for name, birthday, state and county/district, but this was through the military.

[Lemur]

Gah, I got nothing on hand, and no time to do the research (end of day deadlines) but I recall reading that the BIG vote fraud operations of the past involved fictitious people, dead people, and shut-ins being absentee balloted.

In other words, you wanted to mess with an election, you used mail-in ballots. Makes much more sense than trying to do it with walk-in voting.

Hasn't been a big case for a while, at least I don't think. Why mess with the mail when you can adjust a voting machine, or better yet, just fiddle the numbers a little bit at the back end? Much safer, much simpler.

[Montmorency]

Allegations of vote-fixing on a massive scale, if ever proven and linked to the Republican leadership, would precipitate one of the biggest political shakeups in American history.

Should we hope it's the case?

[Major Robert Dump]

Allegations of vote-fixing on a massive scale, if ever proven and linked to the Republican leadership, would precipitate one of the biggest political shakeups in American history.

Should we hope it's the case?

No one will ever prove anything, and even of they did, no one would really be punished.

We aren't even allowed to know who exploded our Presidents head on live television. Apparently, we can't handle the truth.

[Ironside]

I see Sweden still has their bogus elections.... Lrn2vote, Ironside.

It's identical to yours afaik. The paper you get is proof on that you're on the electoral roll (röstlängd) and the extra thing about phoning in is because only the local voting place will have the one with your name on.

[Lemur]

Had a moment to get my Google on. I guess absentee ballot fraud is not so much a thing of the past, although it seems a lot of it is confined to primaries these days, which makes sense. Smaller number of total votes, so a smaller fraud can have a bigger result. Also, I don't believe primaries are policed by the state so much as the parties themselves. Fudging the numbers makes a lot more sense. Anyway, recent examples:

State senate primary, Republican, MA

Congressional primary, Democratic, FL

Local elections, FL. This is a good one, cops actually found filled-in absentee ballots warehoused in the home of a self-described "ballot broker."

Lots and lots of articles about Florida. I guess something about the election structure of the Sunshine State makes absentee ballot fraud especially easy. I've said it before, I'll say it again: God hates Florida.

So these are recent, verified, and in some cases quite large instances of vote fraud. Apparently nobody cares. All anybody wants to talk about is walk-in voting, which makes sense if you are a complete and total idiot.

Look at it from a criminal's perspective: What's the least-effort, lowest-risk way to stuff a ballot box? How unbelievably stupid would you have to be to commit the crime in person when you could insulate yourself? This is why there are a grand total of ten (10) documented cases of in-person voter fraud since 2000. Here, a detailed list of all of them. I cannot begin to express how false and mendacious I find this entire "controversy." Even if you decide to count every single charge of in-person voter fraud, and don't bother with due process or conviction, there have been 633 charges of in-person voter fraud since 2000. That averages out to 53 charges of in-person voter fraud in the entire USA per year.

As opposed to the well-documented problem of absentee ballot fraud, and the inexplicable redshift since the introduction of paperless voting machines.

Gah.

[Beskar]

There was also the whole Bush/Gore scandal which would have changed history as we know it.

Voting errors can cause serious differences in outcomes.