Great Minds Think Different

The Bush administration likes to portray the United States as a champion of democracy worldwide. A democratically elected government is seen as the first step on a path of improvement for countries that don’t already have one.

The fact that the US’s own democratic process is so riddled with irregularities and attempts to undermine it is a disgrace to the nation’s image and a display of massive hypocrisy. A government that wishes to be considered a role model for others should not have this much doubt cast over the process by which it is formed.

Irrespective of the widespread usage of electronic voting machines, which I view as the biggest threat to democratic process in this election, there is human interference that could severely damage the fairness of the election.

Attempts to disenfranchise and suppress voters are already rife – whether through the spreading of falsehoods about the process or through simply destroying votes. In Colorado, students attending college out-of-state are being told they cannot vote in Colorado if their parents claim them as dependents in another state, or that they will lose their residency at home if they vote in Colorado. In Virginia, a flier was distributed telling Republicans to vote on November 4, and Democrats on November 5. There have been initiatives to purge voter rolls in poor areas in Ohio, which have disproportionately high numbers of home foreclosures, with the intent of suppressing the votes of people whose homes have been foreclosed. Outright lies have been spread, telling voters that if they have outstanding arrest warrants, they can be arrested at the polls.

There is also the matter of the ACORN controversy. The blame for this lies on ACORN. Although their actions do not constitute voter fraud (there is no voter fraud unless someone casts a ballot using a phony registration), they do show a disturbing levity with regard to the electoral process. The matter at hand is too important to make a mockery of it by submitting obviously phony registrations. Republican outrage over this episode was in part justified. It was not voter fraud, but it was dangerous behavior. It has also cast doubt over tens of thousands of legitimate voter registrations, which is already leading to attempts at overzealous purges of voter rolls.

Meanwhile, Ted Stevens, a convicted felon, will be allowed to vote. Alaskan law holds that a felon convicted of a crime of “moral turpitude” (which includes receiving a bribe, one of the charges Stevens was convicted of) is stripped of voting rights, but that law’s definition of conviction includes sentencing, and Stevens will not be sentenced until February. So he will be able to vote for himself, and, presumably, John McCain.

Both presidential campaigns have already dispatched squadrons of lawyers, many of them volunteers, all over the country, to guard against partisan interference at the polls. This is small comfort to anyone who saw what happened in 2000, as election irregularities were contested for months. Hopefully the lessons from that fiasco will not be forgotten.

A country that purports to be a force for democracy in the world should set a better example.

It looks like the Democratic presidential candidate this year is going to be a black man. Well, a half-black man, but the media forget that detail for the sake of not diluting the impact. “Look how far we’ve come; a black guy is a presidential candidate! Oh wait, he’s half white. Now it makes sense.”

But check out this story; specifically, the fourth paragraph.

I’ve said this before, but I think with all the commotion now it bears repeating: the cause of racial equality hasn’t won yet, as is obvious by the fact that a black presidential candidate is a big deal (or any sort of deal at all) because he’s black. Certainly there are other things that make Obama a candidate unlike many others, but right now, in the wake of his apparent victory in the nomination race, the media will not let go of the fact that he’s black.

To make it more clear what I mean here: when Bush was elected president, did the media wet themselves with excitement reporting that Bush was the forty-second¹ old white man to become president? No. If Obama is elected president, will the media wet themselves with excitement reporting that Obama is the first black man to become president? Indeed, the streets will be awash.

So what did he say in the fourth paragraph of the aforelinked article?

“I have heard from a number of people already, both black and white, that their kids — 7, 8, 9 years old — take for granted now that, of course, a black can run for president, that a woman can run for president,” he said. “There is a matter-of-factness to it that I think bodes well for the future.”

He seems to get it (as I’d hope, him being the focal point of all the crap). We’ll only truly have racial equality when nobody even bothers mentioning race. If kids nowadays are growing up with the idea that there’s nothing unusual about a black guy being a presidential candidate — if they don’t even bother to notice a candidate’s skin color — then we’re on the right track.

I realize we do have to go through this phase of idiocy before we get to true racial equality, much like all worthwhile people had to go through the completely shitty phases of infancy and toddlerhood before becoming worthwhile. And I’m not trying to downplay the importance of this achievement. I’d just like to keep it in perspective.

1. He’s styled the 43rd president, but since a single individual (Grover Cleveland) was the 22nd and 24th, Bush is the 42nd individual to be president. I GOT YER TRIVIA RIGHT HERE

This year’s Super Bowl will be between the Chicago Bears and the Indianapolis Colts. The news media (even outside of sports segments and sections) are in raptures over this. Not because of who the teams are, but rather because…can you guess?…both head coaches are black.

The news media present this as a giant step towards the goal of racial equality in football. The main-news segment of CBS News gave some stats: 70% (or so) of all NFL players are black, but only 14.7% (or something) of head coaches in the NFL are black. Now here we are with two black-head-coach teams in the Super Bowl! Yay for racial equality!

Everyone, however, is missing the point. To my mind, this is a step backward. Here’s my observation: making a point of highlighting race, whether in a positive or negative way, is still racial discrimination. If the world were truly blind to race, nobody would have batted an eyelid when two black head coaches made the Super Bowl.

The head coaches themselves are handling the asinine questions with as much grace as can be expected, saying, in effect, “it doesn’t matter”. This is the best response I could imagine, short of giving offending reporters a good hard poke to the solar plexus. Or, if the journalist is a member of an underrepresented minority among journalists, asking in response, “What do you think about a [offensive word for whatever minority the journalist is a member of] being allowed to interview a Super Bowl-bound head coach?”

In other words: the US is nowhere near racial equality. If you couldn’t see that, you’re completely deluding yourself. The evidence is everywhere. The press uproar over the simple fact of there being two black head coaches in the Super Bowl is more than enough evidence.

Pretty soon, there will be a new issue. I’m pretty sure that the Democratic presidential candidate in 2008 will be either black (Barack Obama) or female (Hillary Clinton). For months, the press will heatedly debate the issue of whether the US is ready for a member of either of those groups to become president. The response to two black head coaches in the Super Bowl is microscopic in comparison (although, on second thought, I’m sure there are a goodly number of people who care more about the Super Bowl than the presidential election, but that’s a completely separate issue).

Is the US ready for a black or female president? Obviously not. We’re not even ready to handle black coaches in the Super Bowl.

Dead Woman Wins Local US Election

OK, the stupidity of the voters of Jerauld County amazes me. If you had a chance to elect someone named Merlin, why wouldn’t you??

I just got back from casting my ballot. When I got home, I thought to myself, “Which news source do I trust to give me the most accurate, unbiased news about how the election is going?” I came to the rather unsettling realization that I don’t trust any of the major US news outlets to give me accurate, unbiased news about the election. Then I came to the realization that cheese is good, so I went and ate some cheese. But that didn’t change the fact that I don’t trust any major news media players to do what they’re supposed to: supply accurate, unbiased news.

The source that came the closest to earning my trust in that little moment of reflection was the New York Times. Then I was unsettled again when I read one of the top headlines on the main website: “As Voters Pass Judgment, Many Confront Technical Bugs.” My voting district wasn’t using Diebold machines, thank God, but from preliminary reports it seems that the Diebold machines are again throwing monkey wrenches in some already bollocksed works. Honestly, if I were the government, I would be like, “Diebold, you suck. You’re completely incompetent at making the machines that the voting public trusts to convey their votes, which determine who’s in charge of the country. A block of cheese could do a better job than you. DELETED.” Then I’d slap them upside the head six times. Then I’d probably slap myself upside the head eleven times for allowing Diebold machines to be used to elect me, again, but that’s beside the point.

Here’s a thought I had while I waited for the nice 400-year-old lady to find my name on her giant list of voters: either democracy really isn’t all it’s cracked up to be, or people don’t realize it. Otherwise, why would so many people pass up the opportunity to do exactly what democracy is all about? Everyone I know here hasn’t voted, here or in their home states. And I know they’re not apathetic about politics, either. Maybe it’s because an individual’s vote has zero tangible impact on anything. Knowing that, a lot of people don’t get enough satisfaction from voting to justify the bother of registering and going to the polling place. I mean, voting took an hour out of my afternoon that I could have spend doing more fun things (like eating cheese). But I figure that if I vote, then I’ve earned the right to bitch about politics. And, for some reason I can’t really pinpoint, I felt like I should vote, even though I really don’t care that much about who governs or represents the state. I dunno, maybe I’m not such a cynic after all.