Carded!

Today, April the twenty-ninth, 2008, most buzz surrounds the deepening intrigue between the Messrs. Obama and Wright, and with good cause: it is fantastic tabloid entertainment hitting the mainstream, and what can be better? If I may indulge, I would speculate that actual news may edge out the snappy tabloid goodness that is the Obama-Wright affair, and so I will tackle another big item handed down the pike..."carding" voters at polling places.

Of course, there can be no political action without an equal and opposite reaction, and so there are some people who do not hesitate to condemn this edict. My biggest problem with their dissent is not merely the willful exchange of a contrary view, it is the cliche partisan card playing, in this case the "poor card."

"...because of their ruling there is now an undue burden on the poor and elderly to vote. For them, a voter registration card is not enough." (http://www.liberadio.com/, 04/29/2008.)

I can't vouch for many out there, but my voter registration card could be duplicated by twelve-year-old on an Apple II-e. That aside, how does one define "undue?" In order to obtain an official identification card from the State of Nevada, one must:

• Be a resident of Nevada and provide a Nevada street address.
  
• Provide acceptable proof of your name, date of birth and Social Security number if one has been issued for you. See Residency and Proof of Identity.
  
• Apply in person at a DMV Full Service Office. (We do not make appointments.)
  
• Complete a Driver License Application.
  
• Pay the required fee. (Under 18 - $5.25, 18-64 - $11.25, 65 or older - $6.25)
  
• Surrender any existing U.S. driver license, permit or ID card.
  
• Have your picture taken. The ID card will then be issued at the DMV office.
  
  ($11.25 for the majority of voting-age persons; $6.25 for seniors...how very burdensome.)
  

For argument's sake, we will also look at the procedure in Indiana (from www.dmv.org/in-indiana/id-cards.php):

• The Indiana identification card resembles a driver license, but has a non-driver label at the top. All ages are eligible to receive a state ID. The cards cost $13 and are valid for six years. If you are at least 65 years old or disabled, the cost is $10. If you can't afford to pay for a state ID card, you may be issued one for free if the proper documentation is presented.
  
• To apply for a state ID card, just go to any license agency. Make sure to bring along proof of both your identity and your date of birth from the state's acceptable documentation list. You'll need to provide one document each from the primary, secondary, and proof of residency groups. Or, you can show two documents from the primary group and one from the proof of residency group.
  

liberadio.com paraphrases the act of acquiring a replacement social security card:

"You can replace your card for free if it is lost or stolen.
To replace a lost Social Security card:

• Complete an Application For A Social Security Card (Form SS-5); and
  
• Show us documents proving your identity.
  
• Show us documents proving your U.S. citizenship if our records do not already contain that information.
  
• Show us documents proving your current, lawful, work-authorized status if you are not a U.S. citizen.
  

"In most cases, you can mail or take your application and original documents to your local Social Security office. If you live in the New York City metropolitan area, Las Vegas NV, Orlando FL, or Phoenix AZ you may need to apply in person at your local Social Security Card Center.

"All documents must be either originals or copies certified by the issuing agency. We cannot accept photocopies of notarized copies of documents."

Easy. Hey! Wait a minute...,

In Indiana you need a valid identification with picture and signature to get the copy of the birth certificate you need to get a valid identification with picture so you can vote?

That would be the idea, yes. Or, in other words, in order to prevent fraudulent acquisition of a person's vital documents (think identity theft here; even if it were true that a few honest, diligent voters could be turned away at the polls, I think that it is a far better recourse than the possibility of my or anyone Else's loss of finances, credit, property, &c.), a person must present the same documents required of them to obtain employment, open a bank account, cash a check, pay for goods or services by any method aside from cash, &c. &c. &c.

If you cannot afford to pay the $13.00, or roughly the price of a case of Hamm's, the state will provide the ID free of charge, so long as proof of the inability to pay is submitted in writing (this would be akin to taxes). Is this $13.00, if one cannot prove destitution, really a sufficiently burdensome amount to prevent people from excercising their right to vote...or cash a paycheck?

No money to a pay for either a copy of your birth certificate - which, did I mention, you can’t get without a valid picture id? - or the government issue photo id? No problem, just go down to your county’s election commission, and fill out the paperwork to get your certificate of indigency. I’m not sure what documentation you need to prove indigency - probably a valid photo id - but nevertheless, once you have it then you can use it to get all the documentation you need to get the valid photo id without having to pay for it all.

Ah, cynical speculation lends an "incredulous" amount of credibility to any argument.

As I have above alluded, unless a person lives in a cave in the wilderness, trekking into town only occasionally for to procure supplies paid with gold bullion, physical identification with photograph and signature are required to accomplish anything at this point in society; therefore it serves to say that citizens (those entitled to vote) who do not already possess such identification likely have made a conscious decision based upon some socio-political belief.

In my humble, editorial opinion, playing the poor card in this instance is absurd leftism. To be clear, by leftism, at this point, I am referring to the blind use of key "hot" terms or ideas intended for some type of political propaganda usage by the left side of the spectrum. Equally absurd, however, is another primary argument, namely that there is no "evidence" of the voter fraud through "identity manipulation."

I will say that I believe "identity manipulation" is a misnomer; it is identity theft, plain and simple, and if we see it in other, traceable areas, are we so naive as to assume that 100% of the electorate (or "others" passing as lawful voters) would never engage is such egregious behavior? It pains my soul to say, but voter fraud has been in service for a very, very long time, and with the horrors of identity theft hanging as a villainous specter over life in our current day and age, the alignments between what we would consider to be identity theft (as the term relates to matters of personal credit and finance) and voter fraud (as I have alluded to really being the same thing) are no more askew than the fact than differing terms can be ascribed to them. They are one and the same thing, and if a person can create accounts in the name of another, and destroy the life of that other by the third-party liquidation of that other's assets, then it serves equally that that same third party could snatch or create an identity for the purpose of promulgating voter fraud to a virtually unlimited level.

liberadio.com offers a differing opinion, citing:

…the court acknowledged that the record of the case contained “no evidence” of the type of voter fraud the law was ostensibly devised to detect and deter, the effort by a voter to cast a ballot in another person’s name.

Wouldn't the intent of "fraud" be deception? If fraud were carried out effectively, then would there be any evidences? We're not talking about an extended period of time, either, as we would if a Capital One account had been created fraudulently by one in the name of another; we're discussing brief increments of time over the period of a single day involving the heated passions of millions from a myriad of differing positions and agendas each hoping to have their own way. In this modern age of rampant technology, would voter fraud be detectable after the event? would there be a significant push to rectify the fraud if it had occurred, with those same millions clamoring to uphold their results?

Summing up the arguments against photo ID to validate voting procedure can be accomplished with one word: asinine.

This is not an issue, either, of a federal mandate; it is an issue of the highest court upholding a state's individual right to regulate electoral procedure in that state, and, in the end, it should be the right of that state to regulate their own procedures as they see fit to do so, so long as it in no way interferes with a clear constitutional mandate. If the federal government did institute a uniform voting procedure across the nation, it would still be behoving to include procedures such as these in an attempt to curtail voter fraud, and criticisms of such procedures are not only tired, they are just as I have stated above: asinine, a thinly veiled attempt at partisan manipulation, not of the individual votes, but of the entire electoral proceeding.

Re-cy-CLING?

I crossed into dangerous territory today, doing something I'd hoped to avoid for the rest of my God-given life: I fixed a prominent part of my car with duct tape.

It seems that the government is about to explore ideas that it, too, had hoped to avoid, at least through the foreseeable future: namely, the recycling of nuclear wastes. Through recent history, we, the public at large, have been encouraged to "go green," recycling every common item imaginable; they've offered incentives and even preached fear in order to convince as many people as possible to recycle as much as possible. When it comes to nuclear waste, on the other hand, recycling has simply not been an option, and has seldom been discussed at the political level. That seems to be changing, however, as the Feds, together with the TVA, are now legitimately investigating the potential of spent nuclear fuel recycling.

One of the most prominent reasons given for banning the recycling of spent fuel, aside from the potentially great cost involved, is the concern over terrorism, dating back to the Ford administration.

"Ivan Oelrich of the Federation of American Scientists, for example, says that the new type of recycled fuel would contain as much as 90 percent plutonium, making it a much more attractive target to a bomb-building terrorist. Spent fuel from traditional reactors, by comparison, contains only 1 percent plutonium."

Compared to the uranium already used? If it were possible to obtain quantities of plutonium from recycling facilities, does it not serve to say that the same concerns are plausible regarding the possibilities of obtaining the enriched uranium in the first place? To me, this seems like a dodge.

If we are to be convinced to recycle a lowly aluminum can or consumed Grolsch bottle, how much more does the recycling of spent nuclear fuel benefit us all ecologically? If we, as a nation, are looking toward nuclear power as a prominent source of energy in the coming decades in order to reduce emissions while increasing output and efficiency, then the effective and efficient recycling of the byproducts of that process becomes a must, especially considering the volatility of those byproducts. Research must be allowed to flourish in order to fully develop and refine the possibilities, and help to dispel the demonic shadow cast, in the eyes of many, by the nuclear industries.

The Safest Place on the Whole Battlefield; Right Smack Dab in the Middle

I'll keep this observation brief.

I have noticed in recent days that Hillary is pulling her campaign more into the middle ground. Normally, a candidate must pander to the base as much as possible through the primaries; then, when the party nominations are secured, a pullback to more "moderate" positions is attempted.

Obama, true to form, has been shooting himself in the proverbial foot, again and again, from with whom he chooses to associate, to "embittered" comments regarding the populace in the yet-to-come primaries, and each time he has used his powers of oratory and rebounded most skilfully. However, with each "scandalous" moment, his rebounds have become increasingly slow.

This can mean two things, and most likely both: one, Hillary is attempting to break free from Obama politically once and for all, and distance herself as much as possible leading into the final primaries; two, which ties into the first a bit, she feels the nomination drawing nigh and is beginning a larger-scale campaign to set the tone for the next six and a half months. How much does she have to lose?

According to Real Clear Politics, she trails Obama by only 140 delegates, and has a 5.7% lead over him heading into the Pennsylvania primaries. I am not sure that anyone aside from the Almighty completely understands how the Democratic system functions (if, indeed, one could call it "functioning"), but she has a very realistic chance of overtaking, screeching into the convention by just the enamel on her teeth.

However, she trails badly in North Carolina polling...by a devastating 14.5%

Again, an observation, take it for what you may; but I find it fascinating.

Dropping the "A" Bomb

Perhaps this post is a bit tardy, but it should serve as a reminder about certain sentiments, and I should certainly remind any readership of it in coming months.

I can't even say that I find this particular sentiment sad...rather, I find it quite pathetic.

John McCain began launching the first in his series of campaign ads in the fairly recent past, affixing the slogan "The American President Americans have been waiting for." Then came the inevitable attacks, as one would expect. Personally, my first thought would be to attack the use of a preposition in concluding the sentence. Rather, it was the use of the term "American" which sparked the outcry.

It would seem that the use of that term can now be considered racist.

The theory used to validate such claims is that the usage of "American President" was aimed squarely at Barack Obama, challenging his Americanness. Yet not only is this theory unsubstantiated, it is unsubstantiatable. As a point of contention, Republican candidates tend to inject their campaigns with large doses of patriotism, to sometimes extreme levels. With no other metaphors, verbal or visual, which could be used to definitively portray Obama as a specific target, other than this one word, the sentiment that there can be racial overtones for an American candidate to refer to himself as an American while campaigning for an office whose title is even used by a multitude of other offices and in other nations is discouraging and troubling.

That one may attack based solely upon this unfounded "theory" merely reflects ones own sense of inadequacy or inferiority, and that more than anything reflects the desperation felt by the Democrats at this point in time.

April 13, 2008

A personal moment if I may...

Today is a great day, marking an annual tradition for me. Today is:

I MANAGED TO GET MY LBJ-ERA LAWNMOWER RUNNING FOR ANOTHER YEAR DAY!

It is quite an accomplishment, and every spring I hold my breath and await sweet success or catastrophic failure. Since it stimulates such profound jubilation in my own murmuring heart, I felt the need to share it with the world.

Happy Lawnmower Day!!!

My Hypocrisy Knows No Bounds

Earlier today I made a comment, possibly in less than scrupulous taste, that the president (small "P") had passed away. One of my esteemed acquaintances raised a smug, tooth-filled grin and asked: "Bush is dead?" How I was able to keep my composure is a miracle known only to the Almighty, but it prompted some contemplation from the dark recesses of my cranial sac.

It seems that: those who think that war is a pathetic reality which should be dealt with as a crime; those who seek more lenient punishments for the wicked, "feeling" that the problem lies within society or in certain mental conditions, the likes of which we mere mortals can never begin to understand or appreciate; those who are pacifists; feel that the only way to deal with the current administration in the District of Columbia is through the untimely end of the very life of the executive. It has been countless times in recent years that I have heard phrases uttered, such as: "I wish he would just...," "Why won't he...," "Someone ought to..." and the like, in reference to the mortality of a man, regardless of differences of opinion, flesh and blood just as they...an endless torrent of pure hate. These same people, many of whom I have known personally, who utter comments such as these are the very same people who vehemently believe in principles of Chamberlainian pacifism such as I have outlined above, exemplify liberal hypocrisy, and they proclaim their sentiments with ever increasing efficiency and vivacious fervor.

To strive for "change," to clamor for what you determine to be injustice and await reprisal on account of proper, fair judgement in the eyes of your own fellow countrymen is fair and honorable, but to advocate the termination of a human life, a countryman, under the mere pretense that that person's policies are not in agreement with your own is absolutely sickening.

Vai com Deus, presidente Heston

It was with a heavy dose of melancholy I received word of Charlton Heston's death on Sunday. My mind has been swimming to provide an adequate homage, but to no avail.

I will leave it in the hands of bloomberg.com to provide an epilogue, which can be summed up quite succinctly by these words, included in the above article, by his own kin:

"No one could ask for a fuller life than his," his family said. "No man could have given more to his family, to his profession, and to his country,"

The Zaney Democrats

Last month I had brought up some considerations regarding the Democratic Presidential race in a vague attempt to shed light upon an ugly situation. Will their free press propel either candidate through November 4th, or will the supporters of the losing candidate tend to shun the victor?

Here are a few more considerations. There are voters out there who are probably not paying the least attention to the race right now, yet either Democratic contender is pounding the scene with name recognition. Make no mistake, there will be voters out there more inclined to vote for either of them merely because they will have heard their name far more than McCain's.

That said, there will be others out there, though not as many, I'm afraid, who will vote for McCain for that same reason.

Much of Obama's support is with younger voters; many of the older voters are completely turned off by him. If he wins, advantage McCain.

However, here's a new one. In that earlier blurb I made some comments about speaking to the base. Regardless of the winner, by the time the August convention is finished, the last balloon has been popped, and the last protester arraigned, a substantial amount of campaigning has been directed precisely there, to the base of the party, those whose views, even amongst the party itself, tend to be the most extreme, and will therefore bill themselves as decidedly more extreme. McCain has the opportunity of dealing with a broader spectrum of voters right now, and relative advantage normally held by incumbents. McCain will be able to appear as something akin to a "compromise," whereas neither Democrat will be able to appear even somewhat moderate.

For those out there who dread the possibilities, perhaps this last one will help calm those damaged nerves.

The Economy and Nevada, Part Two

On Tuesday I laid the historical background behind the motives for Nevada's more libertarian solutions to economic hardship. While many of these solutions had their roots in the "old West" days, traditions which never fully died off, it was the Great Depression which brought about legislation allowing activities shunned by many to become industrialized, including gaming, leaving tourism to thrive, keeping taxes relatively low.

The relatively low tax rate, aside from benefiting the citizenry of the State, was a huge boon to growth. In fact, as that article will show, the State's population had been shrinking drastically in the closing years of the 19th century, posing a significant revenue problem at the state level. As Nevada has always been considered a "small state" (total state population being under 500,000 into the 1970s), relying upon one primary industry for the bulk of state revenue could be considered adequate (as had been done with mining previously), as became with Gaming. However, as population increases in the fantastic sums Nevada has seen (nearly 50% or above each decade for the past fifty years), sustaining a barely diversified economy becomes difficult.

This is what we see in Nevada today: the growth of the tourism industry is unable to compete with the accelerating growth of residents and the inherent social programs for which that larger population will clamor. Here-to-fore, a balance for a large part of the dividend has been by way of property taxes, a revenue source which becomes fickle between current housing trends as well as a growing need for more "mass housing," i.e. apartments, condominiums, &c, in the larger, metropolitan areas of the state (Washoe County, Carson City, Clark County, and, to a somewhat lesser extent, parts of Elko, Lyon, and Douglas Counties). The tax crisis faced by the legislature in 2003 (to say nothing about current budget shortfalls approaching the $900,000,000 mark) underscores the need to diversify.

But, back to the task at hand, the role of gaming in all of this. The current situation is not pretty, but given what we have to work with, an economy which can be described as sluggish does not lend itself to tax increases, least of all increases in tax rates for the proverbial hand that feeds us. Reverting back to an "old friend" (see Part Two of Historical Musing #1 from March), the Revenue Act of 1932 proves this fact. The question begs to be asked, just what would happen in the event of a tax increase for the gaming industry in particular.

The first to feel the bite would be the smaller casinos. The "little guy" simply would be unable to compete, especially given the current state of the economy, with their larger neighbors. Aside from the distressing number of layoffs created by the closure of several "little guys," the larger neighbors, rather than driving down many of their own rates, would see their product at a premium, actually increasing their rates for room and board, food, and even the gambling activities themselves. For a huge (yet ever dwindling) number of weekend gamers from California this would provide a huge obstacle, and with an increasing number of Indian casinos much closer to home offering the same products (and perceptions of opportunity) far closer to home, a significant portion of the tourists who drive the Nevada economy will simply be far less willing to make the drive across state lines for their excursions. Indian gaming as already had a profound effect upon the Nevada economy (with the Comstock, Sundowner, and Old Reno Club, among others, closing since 2000 in Reno alone; these properties were able to benefit by the housing boom of recent years, a topic to which I will address in a bit more depth shortly), and the state simply cannot afford to wage an all-out war over gaming in the west at this juncture. Less business for the small Nevada casinos translates to more business for the Indian casinos, filling their coffers rather than ours, leaving them to create larger, more truly Nevada-style establishments, further decimating this source of state revenue in the decades down the road.

With the closures comes the unsightly and unfortunate prospect of vacant property. As I began above, several operations were forced to close in recent years. Yet a booming housing market (at the time) salvaged the majority of the physical properties as developers snatched up the not insignificant buildings for conversion into apartments and condos. With housing in a remarkable slump, properties in the immediate future would not be able to benefit from the same types of speculation, and it is far more likely that these buildings would fall into litigation nightmares and left to rot for years upon end, as has happened in the past. The city of Reno here becomes my model. The fabulous Hotel Mapes sat in a state of vacant decay for sixteen painful years before the City of Reno exercised eminent domain and finally demolished the beautiful yet dilapidated structure in January of 2000. The older Riverside Hotel in Reno, likewise, sat vacant for well over a decade before the City was finally able to rejuvenate the sad structure. Currently there is one significant, grotesque monument to this in the form of the old Kings Inn, which operated only from 1975 into 1982. Many others, including the not insignificant in stature Fitzgerald's building downtown, could easily meet similar fates, leaving the downtown a hideous, pockmarked mess, further driving away the all too valuable tourism market. Reno would, unfortunately, not be alone in this disaster, however.

In my opinion, the problems faced today are exacerbated by Nevada's industrial distribution. As of 2006, "Leisure and Hospitality" took the largest share at 27%, followed by "Trade, Transportation, and Utilities" at 17%. Tied for third, at 12% were "Professional and Business Services" and "Government." An industrial distribution where government and the bureaucracy it inherently creates is the third largest chunk is an enormous hurdle not only for solvency, but for the State in general.

Government is where special attention should be aimed, not at thinly veiled attempts at slapping the hand that feeds you...with a hatchet.

The Economy and Nevada, Part One

A short while back a friend of mine lamented the curtailing of a specific program of which she is an avid supporter. While I will refrain from mentioning it specifically, it will suffice to say that it is a fantastic program, however due to the economic constraints under which the great State of Nevada is currently forced to operate they were unable to receive a particular state-funded grant, resulting in the shrinking of the size of the program.

I greatly admire her convictions in the matter, but as she lamented she began stating (blurting, more like) her solutions to these economic constraints. Simply put, it was to punish the purveyors of prosperity.

I.E. levy taxes against the casinos.

In the Beginning...

Nevada has always had a rather "different" culture, and as a state with a fairly small population there was always something steady driving the state's economy. In the earliest years this was at the hands of the vast mineral wealth. Nevada being a state who's population was below 90k prior to the Great Depression, this mineral wealth, in spite of the ever waxing and waning trends in mineralogical development, provided an adequate sustenance for the State.

Once the depression hit, however, Nevada searched for something to sustain the economy. The mines no longer produced the fantastic sums they had in the previous 70 years, and, in a short time, Washington, D.C.'s would expand efforts to create a "more stable currency," further minimizing the economic impact that mining had upon state tax revenue. Having dabbled in permitting and regulating activities shunned by most other states before (in the early 20th century, boxing was highly taboo in most states, and when promoters for the famous bout between Joe Gans and Oscar Nelson, Nevada was more than eager to host the event; the fight was held September 3, 1906, in Goldfield, Nevada), the State once more turned its attention to more unorthodox solutions, chief among them being gaming (legalized in 1931), as well as reducing the minimum period of residency in the state to six weeks in order to obtain a divorce (1931), among others. The industries associated with tourism began to flourish and helped to provide a more suitable tax base for the relatively small population extant at the time, and, as it continued to grow, continued as the primary sources of income for the State.

Thursday I will continue venture into Nevada and her economy, including the growth of population as well as contemporary economic contributions by industry.