Tinfoil hat time

Rick Santorum won the Republican primaries in Alabama and Mississippi. Not much of a surprise -- the tinfoil hat types and religious zealots outnumber rational people by quite a bit down there, at least among white voters (and black Republicans are pretty rare in the heart of Dixie). Santorum's success, like that of Newt Gingrich, shows just what short memories voters have. After all, Santorum lost his Senate seat by a record margin because the voters in his home state of Pennsylvania figured out he was a corrupt son-of-a-bitch who'd say or do anything to keep corporate money rolling into his pocket. His ethical lapses were in the news and have been re-reported since he began his presidential campaign, but too many voters would rather believe the lies he's telling now than remember the lies he got caught out in a mere six years ago.

I do have to say it's rather astounding to see how enthusiastic all those Southerners, those white fundamentalist Baptists and Pentecostals, are about Santorum, a man who's made it plain his religious beliefs trump everything else. Whatever happened to "omigod-Catholics-worship-idols!!" or "the whore of Babylon" beliefs? We live in strange times. . . .

On one level, I kind of hope Santorum ends up as the Republican nominee. He's such a blatant religious bigot and misogynist, someone who makes it real clear his idea of the perfect society would include creating a cabinet-level Department of the Inquisition, that he might actually motivate all the lukewarm voters who think there's no difference between the parties to come out and vote. However, given that no one has ever gone broke by underestimating the intelligence of the American populace, I think the safer bet would be Romney. He's an opportunistic flip-flopper who can shift from one contradictory position to another with blinding speed, but at least he's still marginally sane.

A trip down memory lane

". . . there must have been at least two hundred girls active along Silver Street simultaneously, and perhaps many more. There were a lot of miners, and a girl can only do so much." -- J. B. Martin, Call It North Country, 1944.

This is the town where I graduated from high school. One of my first real jobs was as a waitress at the Club Carnival (on the right in the photo). It was an interesting place to work. The building was designed like a lot of supper clubs, restaurant on one side, lounge on the other. The stage wasn't visible from the restaurant side, but we could hear the music. As a minor, I wasn't supposed to ever step into the lounge side, but of course managed to satisfy my curiosity eventually. Back then, it was old-fashioned Gypsy Rose Lee style burlesque -- lots of sequins and feathers and g-strings and pasties that covered more than some bathing suits do today.

Most of that side of the street is now vacant lot -- lots of mysterious* fires happened after the mines closed but before winter tourism (skiing and snowmobiling) became popular. Business was already dying when I worked at the Club Carnival -- most nights the restaurant had barely enough customers to justify staying open, and the lounge would be practically empty. There was definitely something very sad about a dancer having to get up on a stage and do a strip tease for an audience that could have fit into a phone booth.

For awhile after the night life on Silver Street faded the locals weren't too happy about the lingering association between Hurley and vice, but at some point someone realized that, although the hookers were gone, there was still money to be made off their memory. The Chamber of Commerce now brags about Chicago gangsters having frequented the saloons, and cheerfully describes the city as "long known for gambling and prostitution."

[*although the only real mystery in most cases was how the fire marshal avoided smelling the accelerant or tripping over the gas cans.]

Voter ID laws and unintended consequences

Following the latest round of primary elections around the country, there have been stories about old white guys getting turned away from the polls because they lacked proper identification. In each case, the old white guys had tried to use their Veterans Administration photo ID as identification. They were outraged that it wasn't acceptable. I can understand why they're upset, but, hey, guys, maybe, just maybe, you should have paid more attention when your state legislators were debating the laws. The time to protest was when they were crafting the laws and pushing them through, not after the fact.

Voter ID laws have been a favorite talking point of right wing politicians for years. They're always fulminating about the rampant voter fraud that's corrupting the election process. They can never point to any examples of it happening, but they managed to get a lot of people worked up about the issue, usually by claiming that hordes of illegal immigrants were showing up to vote for undesirable socialist radicals (aka Democrats). This has been such a favorite talking point among conservatives that a sizable contingent within the tinfoil hat crowd is convinced that's how Barack Obama got elected: pure fraud.

In response to the right wing paranoia about voting fraud, the left has responded by arguing that voter ID laws are a blatant attempt to disenfranchise the poor and minorities, two groups that are less likely to have a driver's license. Although it's been brought up a few times that another group -- old white people -- could lack state-issued photo IDs, most of the protesting about voter ID laws has come from groups associated with minorities, such as the NAACP. This could explain why in their eagerness to disenfranchise minorities, the Republicans haven't noticed they're also disenfranchising their own base.

This is the Law of Unintended Consequences in action. You set out to achieve one thing (discourage brown people from voting) and end up achieving another (preventing your supporters from voting). Over on the left,  now that these ID laws are a reality, Get out the Vote activists have been busy encouraging people to both register to vote and make sure they have an acceptable form of identification when they go to the polls. On the right, however, they've just assumed that all those loonies with the tea bags dangling from their hats know what they're doing.

I know it kind of ticks people off when I say stuff like, hey, if some geezer gets told his VA ID isn't acceptable identification that's his problem for not paying attention to what the politicians he voted in have been up to, but it's true. Based on demographics, the elderly veterans getting told their VA ID isn't good for voting are the same people who supported voter ID laws to begin with. Until they got told their VA ID wasn't on the list of acceptable IDs, odds are everyone of those geezers would have told you they supported tough voter ID laws and were happy they were in place. You get what you pay for, and if you vote in politicians who decide that only a very limited number of forms of identification are valid at the polls, you've no one to blame but yourself.

Pass the aspirin

I don't need it to put between my knees -- it's for the dull ache generated by the many head*desk moments that occurred while listening to the bloviating about women's health and oral contraception over the past week. I know Rush Limbaugh makes a living by catering to the ignorance of the poor dumb fools who listen to him, but are there really that many men out there who think birth control pills are like Viagra?

Do we have snow?

After the latest 9 inches fell, the S.O. decided he'd better clear the roof on the Garden Shed (aka Tammi's Shack; the Younger Daughter built it when she was in junior high) after he noticed the rafters had a distinct bow. I'm not sure just how much we've got on the ground, but the snow was about 3 feet deep on that roof.

Election day

The Michigan Republican primary is today. It's an open primary, meaning any registered voter can wander into the polls and cast a ballot. The S.O. is contemplating doing so, and, depending on who's still on the ballot, throwing his support behind someone who is sufficiently obscure that the candidate he selects is  probably going to finish in last place. His only goal would be to reduce the percentages going to the top two contenders by a minuscule amount. I haven't heard if many non-Republicans are planning to attempt to piss in the soup this year, so the S.O.'s actions may qualify as more quixotic than usual, even for him. I'm not registered to vote in Michigan yet, so it's not an issue for me.

Back in 2000, when George W. Bush was jostling with John McCain for the top spot on the Republican ticket, Michigan's non-Republicans did come out in sufficient numbers to play havoc with the results. Our then-Governor, John Engler, was a strong aWol supporter -- he promised Bush he would deliver the state for him. There was a lot of talk of putting Engler on the ticket for V.P. if Bush carried Michigan in the primary. Unfortunately for Engler, he was sufficiently despised by that time that no one wanted to see his party loyalty rewarded: Democrats and independents went to the polls to vote for McCain in that open primary, and McCain won. It no doubt helped that back then, given a choice between McCain and aWol, McCain seemed like a more rational choice. aWol was not happy, and all the chatter about Engler being a rising star evaporated instantly, as did whatever political aspirations he may have still had. The chatter about national office stopped; Engler lost his 2002 bid for another term as governor and vanished into obscurity.

Something for which I can thank Rick Santorum

Thanks to Mr. Frothy, I finally got around to figuring out how to do screen shots:

I must say, it's rather reassuring that more people would rather read about old snowmobiles than read about a Republican trolling for votes.

Bystander effect

Several of the blogs I visit had references yesterday to an incident in Detroit where an elderly man was carjacked and severely injured. What made the incident newsworthy was it happened at a gas station, not in an isolated area, and there were other customers present. Numerous people saw the injured man; no one stopped to help him. As news reports described it, after having his leg broken in the assault, the victim had to crawl from the gas pumps where he'd been attacked into the station to ask for help. Naturally, a number of commentators cited the fact the incident happened in Detroit as a factor in the perceived callousness and inhumanity of bystanders.

Pshaw. It could have happened anywhere. Detroit doesn't have a monopoly on disturbing human behavior. Similar stories make the news on a regular basis, and, despite my occasional rant that they're evidence we're becoming a meaner, more callous society, they've been happening for a long time. The phenomenon is common enough that social psychologists even have a name for it -- bystander effect. It is a perverse characteristic of human nature that the more people who are around when something bad happens to one person, the less likely it is that any of the bystanders will intervene. If you're the only witness to another's misfortune, you're most likely going to step up and ask if they need help or if there's anything you can do. After all, if not you, who? There's no one else around. If, however, you see a little old lady get mugged on a crowded city sidewalk, the odds are you'll walk right on by. It's not your problem. Lots of people around; someone else will take care of it. Everyone else is just walking by; why should you stop? End result? Everyone keeps on walking while the old lady sits there alone and bleeding.

Of course, if just one person bucks the tendency and intervenes, suddenly the entire crowd will remember they're all human, too, and want to help. People aren't always callous; sometimes they're just oblivious to social conditioning.