I don't watch much football. It's not that I don't enjoy it when I do sit down to watch a game, I am just not invested enough to put that much time into it. Unless the Steelers are playing, I don't particularly care who wins (if the Cowboys are playing, I want them to lose. Can you tell which decade my football alliances come from?), and I have so many other things to do. This is not to denigrate the joy that others get from the sport. Plenty of my entertainment indulgences would be trivial and banal to much of the world.
I do usually watch the Superbowl, however. It's a good time to get together with friends, drink beer on a Sunday (I do this anyway, but it's nice to have it not only validated but expected), and whoop and holler. I get to critique that ads and see a spectacle of a half time show. Hopefully the game is good.
This year, rooting for no one, we spent the Superbowl at the home of good friends who are the parents of babywhumpus' best friend. The kids get to play, and the adults get to watch the game (Mostly. The boys are three, after all). We were also treated to scrumptious Mexican food, thanks to our host. I was most looking forward to the halftime show, as Madonna was performing. I have a deep love for her that goes back to her first album when I was 12. She is an enduring and talented female artist who has been in my life for the past 30 years.
Along with many individuals, I am rather involved in Twitter. While I only regularly "live tweet" one program (Nature on PBS. Yes, I am that kind of nerd. It's OUR version of football.), I enjoy following the live tweets of others who watch Downton Abbey or award shows along with me. I was interested to see what my feed would produce about the halftime show.
It's always a spectacle of some sort. Hopefully. It's supposed to be 12 minutes of jam-packed entertainment. Of course, no one will ever forget Boobgate and apparently the Black Eyed Peas came close to annihilating the entire western world with the awfulness of their performance, but Prince put on one of the best shows I have seen, and Bruce Springsteen not only ran into a camera on one of his knee slides but he also tore up the place.
Funnily enough, I don't remember many comments the next day about how old those guys are. Prince is the same age as Madonna, and Bruce Springsteen is ten years older. I love both of them, and they put on amazing live shows.
I should not have been surprised to watch my Twitter feed fill up with jokes about how old Madonna is, one tweet after another, how she's a has-been (haven't people been saying that for 30 years?), and how terrible the show was. Granted, I am a fan, but that doesn't mean that I love everything she does or am incapable of seeing her with a critical eye. (I barely cracked her album "Hard Candy," and I have never seen the movie "Swept Away.") She seemed a bit nervous and a little stilted at the beginning. I heard somewhere that she was nursing a hamstring injury, but I don't know if that's true. I thought the show was over-the-top--a little bit hilarious due to the Gladiators and the obvious references to the male sports event happening around her. It was entertaining, splendid, and she chose great songs. Not to mention, she looked amazing.
Let's check the Twitter feed, shall we? Old, old, super old, oh em gee so old, old joke, old.
Neither terribly clever nor funny. All by men.
The next week, I sat down to watch the Grammys. Bruce Springsteen performed. Paul McCartney performed. The whole show ended with old white guys playing the guitar. Penis, penis, penis. (Oops, did I type that? Forgive me, it's early, and I haven't written in awhile.) Twitter feed: nary an old joke.
I am not saying they were not out there, this is anecdotal data based on who I follow, and I was busy being appalled that a batterer was being given stage time--TWICE--plus an award and a standing ovation, but given the amount of old jokes laid down for Madonna, there should have been at least one for Paul McCartney. Come on, the dye job alone should have been enough for at least one comment!
You know, I don't need to rewrite territory that has been written much better by Naomi Wolfe over at The Guardian, so just read this. I have a lot to catch up on.
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Thursday, February 9, 2012
ID Me: Oh No, Not Again
In honor of today's Democracy Day of Action, I am revisiting a post from 2010, with minor editing. It's unfortunate that I have go here again, but like the issue of marriage equality, this just keeps popping up, this time in the possible form of a constitutional amendment. Like the constitutional amendment to enshrine marriage inequality, this possible amendment would institute inequality in the constitution of the State of Minnesota. This is the opposite of what constitutions are meant to do.
I have been serving as an election judge since the 2010 primary in August. I enjoy being involved in our political process, and this civic duty is a logical extension of that. It's a long day (14 and a half hours, at the least), but it goes by surprisingly fast, even when turn-out in your precinct is only 22%, as it was for the primary (this was unfortunately rather high, in reality) or 9% for a special election. I knitted six washcloths one election day and almost the whole body of a sweater for my son on another.
On November elections, I do not expect to get that much knitting done (only four much smaller dishcloths) because turn-out would be higher. For the 2010 election, we had 59% in our precinct, which is also, unfortunately, considered high. I expect that 2012 will be higher, though still not what it should be.
We were warned by our head judge that there may be issues with voters wearing "ID Me" buttons or insisting that we check their ID. Just a few days before the election, the Supreme Court had denied a case brought by "Tea Partiers," in which they wanted the right to wear these materials. It was deemed to be covered by the "no campaign or political materials in the polling place" law, and we were to ask people to cover any such items. This includes sample ballots from specific parties and tee shirts that say "Wellstone!" even though he is clearly not running for election.
I did not see any buttons that said "ID Me," but I did have some rather forceful or snide individuals, muttering comments or stating outright nonsense regarding voter identification. I was only on the roster table for a few hours, so I am not sure what other judges may have heard, but I had three notable people offer their opinions. One woman was rather incensed, having "just found out today that Minnesota does not require ID to vote."
"I mean, that's ridiculous."
"It's the law, " I replied.
"Well, it's a stupid law," she said.
Another muttered, when I said that it was the law, "No wonder this state is so screwed up."
The final major comment was from a gentleman who proffered his ID in my face. When I said that we do not require ID, he said he knew, but wanted me to check his ID. I said it was the law that Minnesota does not require ID to vote, and I asked his last name. He remained silent and held the ID in my face. Once I had given him his ballot receipt, he said "It's the government's law that you have to have ID on you at all times. It's the law."
I closed my lips together firmly to keep from answering. He moved on.
Now, I have to say, "Really?" Where does he live, and where is he getting this information, and moreover, why does he believe it?
Voter fraud is a current specter striking fear into the hearts of white people across America. As this issue does divide mostly along partisan lines, with republicans favoring more voter ID requirements and Democrats being against them, I have to ask the question, "Why?"
Is voter fraud a big problem? If so, would identification laws solve it? What's the big deal about requiring ID? You need ID for a lot of things, and voting is pretty important, so requiring ID to do so seems innocuous. Why does it divide along party lines? Who benefits and who loses? Why do some people assume that everyone else is lying, even when they themselves never would? Why didn't these people get upset in 2000 or 2004 when there were massive voting irregularities? Do they believe that liberals are stealing elections through voter fraud, and ID laws will fix that? Do they think that Minnesota is the only state that does not require ID?
In reality, 24 states do not require ID, and the other 26 have varying degrees of requirements. (National Conference of State Legislatures) Furthermore, from what I could gather, voter fraud of the type that would be caught by requiring ID is so rare as to be statistically uncountable, leading Project Vote to say:
"Voter identification requirements, while increasingly popular in state legislatures around the country, are a solution without a problem."
So, if voter fraud via voter impersonation is not a real problem (Again, the kind that would be caught by requiring Voter ID), then what is this really all about?
According to the Brennan Center for Justice, as much as 12% of the eligible voting population does not have a government-issued photo ID. The majority of these people are seniors, people of color, people with disabilities, low-income voters, students, and women. It seems to me that Voter ID hoopla is meant to instill fear in a certain sector of the population, that certain other sectors of the population are voting illegally, so that ID laws can be passed, making it harder for those certain other sectors of the voting population to vote.
If we are truly concerned about fairness in elections, then we need well-funded, well-trained election oversight departments and officials, who can track down irregularities when they occur. We need to pursue cases of voter intimidation, which, unlike voter impersonation, actually do happen. We need to make information about voting and voting rights as well as election and polling information easily available to the voters.
The "Voter ID" issue is a low-hanging fear-fruit. It "sounds good" when you hear it, and people will shrug, thinking it's no big deal. That's often because they have not thought any deeper about the issue, such as barriers to obtaining government-issued ID, how those barriers affect different groups of people, and who it is that these laws would keep from voting. Once it's personal, and it keeps your grandmother, college-aged son, or disabled friend from casting their vote for an elected official, people start to wake up. We have a growing segment of the population that has to decide between food and medication, or that simply does not have enough to eat. Spending the time and money to get a photo ID is not in the budget. Sometimes, it is not even possible, and these people are voting citizens.
Here in Minnesota, we have an incredibly fair and well-run elections process, with a dedicated Secretary of State and excellent local elections offices. Two widely publicized recounts have proven that Voter ID laws are unnecessary, here or anywhere.
These laws only "sound good" when you don't have to think about it and it doesn't affect you.
I urge you to do all you can to oppose Voter ID laws in Minnesota and around the United States.
I have been serving as an election judge since the 2010 primary in August. I enjoy being involved in our political process, and this civic duty is a logical extension of that. It's a long day (14 and a half hours, at the least), but it goes by surprisingly fast, even when turn-out in your precinct is only 22%, as it was for the primary (this was unfortunately rather high, in reality) or 9% for a special election. I knitted six washcloths one election day and almost the whole body of a sweater for my son on another.
On November elections, I do not expect to get that much knitting done (only four much smaller dishcloths) because turn-out would be higher. For the 2010 election, we had 59% in our precinct, which is also, unfortunately, considered high. I expect that 2012 will be higher, though still not what it should be.
We were warned by our head judge that there may be issues with voters wearing "ID Me" buttons or insisting that we check their ID. Just a few days before the election, the Supreme Court had denied a case brought by "Tea Partiers," in which they wanted the right to wear these materials. It was deemed to be covered by the "no campaign or political materials in the polling place" law, and we were to ask people to cover any such items. This includes sample ballots from specific parties and tee shirts that say "Wellstone!" even though he is clearly not running for election.
I did not see any buttons that said "ID Me," but I did have some rather forceful or snide individuals, muttering comments or stating outright nonsense regarding voter identification. I was only on the roster table for a few hours, so I am not sure what other judges may have heard, but I had three notable people offer their opinions. One woman was rather incensed, having "just found out today that Minnesota does not require ID to vote."
"I mean, that's ridiculous."
"It's the law, " I replied.
"Well, it's a stupid law," she said.
Another muttered, when I said that it was the law, "No wonder this state is so screwed up."
The final major comment was from a gentleman who proffered his ID in my face. When I said that we do not require ID, he said he knew, but wanted me to check his ID. I said it was the law that Minnesota does not require ID to vote, and I asked his last name. He remained silent and held the ID in my face. Once I had given him his ballot receipt, he said "It's the government's law that you have to have ID on you at all times. It's the law."
I closed my lips together firmly to keep from answering. He moved on.
Now, I have to say, "Really?" Where does he live, and where is he getting this information, and moreover, why does he believe it?
Voter fraud is a current specter striking fear into the hearts of white people across America. As this issue does divide mostly along partisan lines, with republicans favoring more voter ID requirements and Democrats being against them, I have to ask the question, "Why?"
Is voter fraud a big problem? If so, would identification laws solve it? What's the big deal about requiring ID? You need ID for a lot of things, and voting is pretty important, so requiring ID to do so seems innocuous. Why does it divide along party lines? Who benefits and who loses? Why do some people assume that everyone else is lying, even when they themselves never would? Why didn't these people get upset in 2000 or 2004 when there were massive voting irregularities? Do they believe that liberals are stealing elections through voter fraud, and ID laws will fix that? Do they think that Minnesota is the only state that does not require ID?
In reality, 24 states do not require ID, and the other 26 have varying degrees of requirements. (National Conference of State Legislatures) Furthermore, from what I could gather, voter fraud of the type that would be caught by requiring ID is so rare as to be statistically uncountable, leading Project Vote to say:
"Voter identification requirements, while increasingly popular in state legislatures around the country, are a solution without a problem."
So, if voter fraud via voter impersonation is not a real problem (Again, the kind that would be caught by requiring Voter ID), then what is this really all about?
According to the Brennan Center for Justice, as much as 12% of the eligible voting population does not have a government-issued photo ID. The majority of these people are seniors, people of color, people with disabilities, low-income voters, students, and women. It seems to me that Voter ID hoopla is meant to instill fear in a certain sector of the population, that certain other sectors of the population are voting illegally, so that ID laws can be passed, making it harder for those certain other sectors of the voting population to vote.
If we are truly concerned about fairness in elections, then we need well-funded, well-trained election oversight departments and officials, who can track down irregularities when they occur. We need to pursue cases of voter intimidation, which, unlike voter impersonation, actually do happen. We need to make information about voting and voting rights as well as election and polling information easily available to the voters.
The "Voter ID" issue is a low-hanging fear-fruit. It "sounds good" when you hear it, and people will shrug, thinking it's no big deal. That's often because they have not thought any deeper about the issue, such as barriers to obtaining government-issued ID, how those barriers affect different groups of people, and who it is that these laws would keep from voting. Once it's personal, and it keeps your grandmother, college-aged son, or disabled friend from casting their vote for an elected official, people start to wake up. We have a growing segment of the population that has to decide between food and medication, or that simply does not have enough to eat. Spending the time and money to get a photo ID is not in the budget. Sometimes, it is not even possible, and these people are voting citizens.
Here in Minnesota, we have an incredibly fair and well-run elections process, with a dedicated Secretary of State and excellent local elections offices. Two widely publicized recounts have proven that Voter ID laws are unnecessary, here or anywhere.
These laws only "sound good" when you don't have to think about it and it doesn't affect you.
I urge you to do all you can to oppose Voter ID laws in Minnesota and around the United States.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)