“Free” Voter-IDs Cost More Than Poll Taxes

Vote Baby Vote!This morning, Jonathan Chait wrote about some research that concludes something that I’ve been pushing for a while. It is that voter-ID laws are just a new form of poll taxes. If the people pushing these laws were really concerned about in-person voter fraud, they would have provided funding for photo identification. And they didn’t. They only added this when the courts made them. This is because the truth of the matter is that voter-ID laws have never been about supporting democracy; they have always been about tearing it down.

I’m not saying that the people who are concerned about voter fraud are actually anti-democratic. I think it is simply that in their minds shadowy people running around voting multiple times takes on a mythic quality. The rational concerns about voter disenfranchisement are nothing compared to what has become an existential threat to democracy in their minds. Of course, I’m talking about the Fox News viewers here. I think the Republican operatives who are pushing these laws are doing it as cynically as the people who created the poll taxes.

Here’s Chait’s summary of Richard Sobel’s report, The High Cost of “Free” Photo Voter Identification Cards (pdf):

The report aptly presents voting restrictions as a modern form of the poll tax, which was outlawed in 1964. Indeed, the costs of contemporary voter ID requirements, even in inflation-adjusted terms, is many times the level of the poll taxes that existed before they were outlawed in 1964.

And this isn’t even including the fact that some people don’t have the necessary documents to get photo-ID. For example, if I had to do so, I have no idea where either my birth certificate or my Social Security card is. But I’m sure I could manage getting photo ID if I didn’t already have it. I’m motivated and I have a lot of resources. But that’s the whole point of voter-ID laws. It isn’t to stop people like me from voting. It’s just meant to make it an bigger pain to vote for a certain kind of person — a poor person — a person more likely to vote Democratic.

But I’m not surprised that Republicans would look out at the electorate and decide that their best chances were to stop people from voting by creating the Poll Tax V 2.0. What I am surprised about is how conservatives in the federal court system would not find this a clear violation of the Twenty-Fourth Amendment. Let me just quote that amendment in its entirety. It ain’t complicated:

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

I suppose that we can quibble about exactly what a tax is. But the sad thing is that we have to. Republicans have been complaining for decades about liberal judges “legislating from the bench.” And I certainly think that some of that went on in the 1960s and 1970s. I still think that erring on the side of the weak is a relatively small sin. But during my entire adult life, it has been the conservatives who have “legislated from the bench.” And they have done it most abusively in giving more and more rights to companies and fewer and fewer rights to individuals.

And now we have five members of the Supreme Court who will twist themselves into knots to avoid seeing that the new voter-ID laws are just an update of the old poll taxes that were meant to disenfranchise a certain kind of voter. Will we need a Twenty-Eighth Amendment? The Twenty-Seventh Amendment took over two centuries for ratification. I don’t think we have that long.

James O’Keefe’s Tired Cons

James O'KeefeI have a visceral hatred of James O’Keefe. You should know him as the con man who managed to get ACORN defunded by pretending to be an ethical investigator. His work has never shown what he has claimed, and the press could never be bothered to check out his claims before reporting them. My hatred is not primarily about the effects of his work. It is rather that as partisan as I may be, I still have a commitment to the truth. It bothers me when people try to finesse an argument. But when they knowing lie — in a way where it absolutely goes past any question of self-delusion — I go crazy. It doesn’t help that O’Keefe has been shown to be a fraud time and again, yet mainstream news still treat him as though he had something to offer. You don’t need any other information to conclude that such news sources are primarily interested entertainment.

These days, James O’Keefe is more known for sting operations that get revealed. For example, there was his creepy attempt to make some kind of a secret sex video of his attempted seduction of CNN reporter Abbie Boudreau. But most recently, he’s been sniffing around Colorado where he’s been trying to entrap the Democratic Party with his typically obvious stunts. Here is Andy Kroll at Mother Jones, Colorado Dems: We Caught James O’Keefe and His Friends Trying to Bait Us Into Approving Voter Fraud:

Last Tuesday, a man who appeared to be in his 20s showed up at a Democratic field office in Boulder wanting to volunteer to help elect Udall and Rep Jared Polis (D-Colo.), according to a Democratic staffer who met with him and asked not to be identified. The man introduced himself as “Nick Davis,” and he said he was a University of Colorado-Boulder student and LGBT activist involved with a student group called Rocky Mountain Vote Pride. Davis mentioned polls showing the race between Udall and Gardner was tight, and he asked the staffer if he should fill out and mail in ballots for other college students who had moved away but still received mail on campus. The Democratic staffer says he told Davis that doing this would be voter fraud and that he should not do it.

On Friday, Udall campaigned with Sen Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) on the University of Colorado-Boulder campus. After the event, a woman calling herself “Bonnie” approached a different staffer and, according to this staffer’s boss, asked whether she could fill out and submit blank ballots found in a garbage can. The staffer, according to her boss, said that she told her no.

That same day, the guy identifying himself as “Nick Davis” returned to the Democratic office in Boulder. He was accompanied by a man wearing heavy makeup and a mustache, according to the Democratic staffer who had met Davis three days earlier. Davis introduced his friend as a “civics professor” at the University of Colorado-Boulder and the faculty adviser to Rocky Mountain Vote Pride. Davis and the professor, who said his name was “John Miller,” picked up Udall campaign literature and canvassing information.

Rocky Mountain Vote Pride is pretty clearly a fake group. Their URL is held through a privacy company — not something that a grassroots group would do, but very much what an astroturf group would. It was created only on 10 July of this year and as the article noted, there is no contact information on the site. And I’ll add this: it looks exactly like just about every other astroturf website I’ve ever seen.

The “civics professor” wearing heavy makeup was James O’Keefe as shown in the photo above. O’Keefe tweeted it out himself, probably because his attempt to apparently plant incriminating evidence at the nonprofit group New Era Colorado was foiled. The tweet claimed, “I went in Disguised as 45yo, this time people may lose their jobs.” This time?! Like thousands of people didn’t lose their jobs as a result of his ACORN con?

Regardless of all this, what I think is interesting is just how unsubtle O’Keefe is. I think this is because as a Republican, he just assumes that the other side must be as unethical as they are. Consider voter fraud. Republicans are the only ones pushing it as a big deal. Yet the only major cases of it recently have been perpetrated by Republicans. So I don’t doubt that Republicans think voter fraud is a big deal; they know they’re okay with it. And O’Keefe thinks that Democrats must be just chomping at the bit — waiting for a college student to come in and suggest that they ought to vote for people who have moved away.

This is the state of Republican thought. The truth is that O’Keefe’s exploits are an embarrassment. They are very much akin to the John Birch Society and Robert Welch’s The Politician. But that caused the Republican establishment — National Review most especially — to turn on the group. But the Republican Party and the conservative movement more generally has lost all grip of what a republic is all about. This is why I call them proto-fascists: all that matters is power. And as long as the mainstream media are gullible enough to believe James O’Keefe’s newest scam, he will be embraced as a hero. Because he helps the Republican Party gain power. To hell with the truth.

Afterword

O’Keefe claims that big things are coming in the next week. And what are we likely to see: a heavily edited video with comments taken out of context. It will ultimately be the same thing it always is: nothing. But that doesn’t mean that it won’t get a lot of coverage.

Are Magic Secrets Always Ugly?

The PiddingtonsRadio Lab recently produced an episode called Black Box. As always, it is great. I think Radio Lab is the best thing on the radio. And this episode is about black boxes: situations where you know what comes in and you know what goes out, but you don’t know what happens inside to make the change.

The Piddingtons

The second segment is about “The Piddingtons” — a husband and wife mentalism act from Australia that was huge on BBC Radio in the 1950s. The story is told from the perspective of their grandson and his search for how they did their act.

The act was pretty much the same every time — just like every other mentalism act. Mr Piddington was on stage with an audience. He got some random bit of information from the audience. For example, an audience member picked a passage from a book. And then Mrs Piddington, who was someplace far away (in one case in an airplane), read her husband’s thoughts and revealed the passage.

This sort of act can be done with a code — and codes can be remarkably subtle. But codes are normally the first thing most people assume. So they aren’t used that much. What’s more, in one of the examples, Mr Piddington hardly speaks — certainly not enough to transmit the amount of information that Mrs Piddington reveals.

Search for the Secret

Supposedly, the grandson could not find anyone who could tell him how the trick was done. Well, that’s a magic thing. Magicians have this thing about revealing secrets. But it’s nonsense.

The most sensible thing I’ve ever read was Teller writing on an old internet newsgroup. He said that he doesn’t tell people how the tricks are done because they don’t want to know. If they did want to know, all they had to do was go to the library and get a book of magic tricks.

That is very true. The Tarbell Course in Magic was published in 1928. In terms of the techniques of magic, nothing has changed since that time. There is nothing you will see David Blaine or Criss Angel do that isn’t explained in those books.

Enter Penn Jillette

The Radio Lab crew went to Teller’s partner, the generally very annoying Penn Jillette. (He’s actually kind of charming here.) They wanted answers. That was probably a smart move. The one really good thing about Penn and Teller is that they aren’t pretentious about magic.

Jillette said something interesting about magic secrets: they are always ugly. He said that the reason tricks are hard to figure out is that people are looking for an “Aha!” moment when they should be looking for an “Ugh!” moment.

While that is generally true, it isn’t always true. There are quite beautiful tricks like the Elevator Cards that would indeed give a spectator with an “Aha!” moment.


Elevator Cards performed by Matthew Furman

Frank’s Magic Rule of Thumb

I have a better rule of thumb that is totally true of The Piddingtons’ act: the trick is over before the audience knows it started.

This is especially true with slight of hand. Once the audience is engaged with the trick, there is too much “heat” on your hands. That’s definitely true of the Elevator Cards above.

Despite what you may have heard, the hand is not quicker than the eye. One of my favor tricks to perform for an audience was always Daryl’s Twisted Aces. It was a refinement of an older effect, Twisting the Aces (Dai Vernon), where the magician works with a packet of four aces. One at the time, the aces are “magically” turned face up. Daryl’s innovation[1] was to cause the final ace to disappear completely from the packet and land face up in the middle of the deck that had been set aside. It blew people’s minds. Needless to say, that ace was stolen out of the packet long before the audience really understood what was happening.

The “Secret”

So how did The Piddingtons do the trick? If you want to know, Radio Lab provided an extra bit of audio explaining it, The Ugly Truth — Don’t Click This.

Of course, it isn’t news. There is a 1989 Columbo episode that explains one permutation of it in some depth, “Columbo Goes to the Guillotine.” Is it really ugly? I don’t think so. I think that the Radio Lab people are just following from Jillette’s lead.

If you want a single word explanation, the trick is a “force.” If you want a whole sentence, “Mrs Piddington is told the phrase ahead of time, and Mr Piddington forces the audience to pick that phrase.” And if you want even more, click on the link, although you really ought to listen to the episode first.

One thing that wasn’t discussed is that because mentalism acts (and to a slightly lesser degree all magic) is incredibly repetitive, performers tend to mix things up. For example, a performer might do a trick using a code early on in the act. That might even heighten the effect of later tricks that don’t use a code.

The Magic Doesn’t Matter

In the end, magic acts are exactly the same as any other kind of performance: the performer must be interesting. Every performer has his own techniques for holding the audience’s attention. Magic is actually very bad in this regard and that’s why so many successful magicians are little more than comedians or storytellers.

But The Piddingtons weren’t, nor are David Blaine or Criss Angel — which is why I have no use for the lot of them.

Update (23 October 2014 12:34 am)

I found the Columbo episode. If you want to get the full effect, watch the first act of the video — the first twenty minutes. Then you can skip to the 1:15:00 mark to see Columbo recreate the effect. At 1:22:00 Columbo shows how it is done, including a couple of interesting subtleties.

I’ll just add one thing: the blindfold of the volunteer is critical to the effect; it couldn’t be done without it. But the audience is told it is to make sure that the volunteer picks a truly random location so that there can be no collusion blah, blah, blah. That’s another important thing to remember: all magicians are con artists.

The whole episode is good. If you like Columbo, you might watch it. It was directed by Leo Penn — the father of Michael and Sean. Although I will warn you: as is true of most of the later episodes, the ending is stupid.

[1] Larry Jennings actually came up with this before Daryl, but the effect wasn’t published until after Jennings had died — decades before he first came up with it. But even still, Daryl’s version is superior with a number of impressive subtlties.

Two Decades of Gary Webb Attacks Continue

Gary WebbLast month, I wrote about the then upcoming Gary Webb bio-pic Kill the Messenger. It is about how Webb’s reporting on CIA-affiliated smuggling of cocaine into the United States in the 1980s was attacked by the major press outlets. This eventually led to Webb killing himself. But I noted, “I’m sure… the press will push it as a story of one of their own, even though the primary reason that Webb seems to have taken his life is that no one would hire him.” Well, I was wrong. What I forgot is that a lot of the people who attacked Webb are not only still alive, but still working. So of course they aren’t going to laud them as the best that journalism is. Webb is long dead, but they still feel the need to attack him.

Recently, there was much coverage of the the Watergate break-in because of the fortieth anniversary. I discussed the coverage, Bob Schieffer Believes in Journalism That Happened 40 Years Ago. (Schieffer, of course, being the man who thinks that Edward Snowden should be thrown in jail — and maybe Glenn Greenwald as well.) In that article, I mentioned that if there had not been the incriminating tapes, Nixon would never have been forced to resign; Republicans would to this day be claiming that it was a small scandal; and most of all, journalists would not celebrate Woodward and Bernstein. And notice: the tapes are nothing that they uncovered; the tapes simply proved them right.

On Friday, Jeff Leen at the Washington Post wrote, Gary Webb Was No Journalism Hero, Despite What “Kill the Messenger” Says. And who is Jeff Leen? Well, at the time of Webb’s reporting, he was a reporter at the Miami Herald, doing work on the drug trade. And part of that work was to counter Webb’s work. It is almost twenty years later, and he’s still working that assignment.

Robert Parry wrote a great response to Leen at Consortium News, WPost’s Slimy Assault on Gary Webb. In 1985, Parry and Brian Barger broke the story in the Associated Press that the Contras — the rebels we supported who were fighting against the Nicaraguan government — were shipping cocaine into the United States. Webb’s work followed up on that, showing that CIA contractors were involved and that the CIA was complicit. So Parry knows what he’s talking about.

I highly recommend reading the whole thing because he takes Leen apart. Of course, it won’t matter to Leen, who is a typical career journalist whose biggest asset to a paper is that he will never file anything that would upset anyone powerful. But what stood out to me in the article is the way that people like Leen can continue to nitpick away at Webb, even while later events have shown him to be right.

That made me wonder what would have happened if Nixon’s tapes had existed, but didn’t get released for a decade after Watergate. Based upon the treatment of Webb, it must be that much of the media establishment would never have forgiven Woodward and Bernstein, much less lionized them. Here is Parry on an interesting comparison:

Instead of diving into the reeds of the CIA and DOJ reports, Leen does what he and his mainstream colleagues have done for the past three decades, try to minimize the seriousness of the Reagan administration tolerating cocaine trafficking by its Contra clients and even obstructing official investigations that threatened to expose this crime of state.

Instead, to Leen, the only important issue is whether Gary Webb’s story was perfect. But no journalistic product is perfect. There are always more details that a reporter would like to have, not to mention compromises with editors over how a story is presented. And, on a complex story, there are always some nuances that could have been explained better. That is simply the reality of journalism, the so-called first draft of history.

But Leen pretends that it is the righteous thing to destroy a reporter who is not perfect in his execution of a difficult story — and that Gary Webb thus deserved to be banished from his profession for life, a cruel punishment that impoverished Webb and ultimately drove him to suicide in 2004.

But if Leen is correct — that a reporter who takes on a very tough story and doesn’t get every detail precisely correct should be ruined and disgraced — what does he tell his Washington Post colleague Bob Woodward, whose heroic Watergate reporting included an error about whether a claim regarding who controlled the White House slush fund was made before a grand jury?

While Woodward and his colleague Carl Bernstein were right about the substance, they were wrong about its presentation to a grand jury. Does Leen really believe that Woodward and Bernstein should have been drummed out of journalism for that mistake? Instead, they were lionized as heroes of investigative journalism despite the error — as they should have been.

Yet, when Webb exposed what was arguably an even worse crime of state — the Reagan administration turning a blind eye to the importation of tons of cocaine into the United States — Leen thinks any abuse of Webb is justified because his story wasn’t perfect.

Those two divergent judgments — on how Woodward’s mistake was understandably excused and how Webb’s imperfections were never forgiven — speak volumes about what has happened to the modern profession of journalism at least in the mainstream US media. In reality, Leen’s insistence on perfection and “extraordinary proof” is just a dodge to rationalize letting well-connected criminals and their powerful accomplices off the hook.

In the old days, the journalistic goal was to “comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable,” but the new rule appears to be: “any standard of proof works when condemning the weak or the despised but you need unachievable ‘extraordinary proof’ if you’re writing about the strong and the politically popular.”

In another scathing attack on Leen’s article, Al Giordano and Bill Conroy at Narco News wrote, The Washington Post Needs a Bus — and to Throw Jeff Leen Under It. It makes the argument that the big three newspapers didn’t destroy the story because of its subject matter, but because Webb’s story was the first big news story on the internet. They were trying to kill electronic media and Webb was just a casualty of that. Here is Webb discussing the impact of the internet:

But what’s especially great about the article is that they interviewed Nick Schou, who wrote the book, Kill the Messenger. Leen took some quotes from his book to prove his case that “Gary Webb Was No Journalism Hero.” Well, Schou read Leen’s article and was not pleased:

I’m glad this guy wrote what he did because it reveals exactly why the movie gets the story so right. The writer of this worthless and whiny op-ed perfectly captures the craven mentality of cowardice of most of Webb’s critics at the three major papers. And he totally takes my statement out of context. I do believe that Dark Alliance contained major flaws of hyperbole, but they were mostly the story’s logo and a few unnecessary phrases that overstated the evidence Webb had at the time. What I’ve always argued is that had Webb been allowed to keep writing, and had the other papers including the Post actually done their job, the true extent of the story would have been revealed. The fact remains that Webb’s story nonetheless forced the CIA to admit that the true flaw of Dark Alliance was hardly one of hyperbole but the exact opposite – the story radically understated the scandal.

The article also contains a bit of text from Webb’s book, Dark Alliance where he calls out the work of Jeff Leen. I’ve transcribed it:

A handful of researchers, James Inciardi for example, maintain that the crack market in Miami developed simultaneously with that in LA, but the historical record to support this is much thinner. One of the journalistic advocates of this scenario is Jeff Leen, a self-styled cocaine expert formally with the Miami Herald. If Leen is correct, however, it means he missed the story by about four years. His first article on crack (which he erroneously referred to as “free-base” throughout) didn’t appear until December 30, 1985, a month after the New York Times announced its presence on the Eastern seaboard.

Giordano and Conroy added, “Leen thought he could publish Friday’s essay without disclosing that it was none other than Gary Webb who exposed Leen’s early cocaine journalism in that passage of his book.” But the sad truth of the matter is that Leen will get away with the article. It’s been several days and I’ve only found a smattering of articles about it — only two of which were in Google News. And Leen will finish out his unremarkable and cowardly career and have a nice retirement. I’d like to believe that Giordano and Conroy are right and that Leen will be thrown under the bus. But it doesn’t work that way. People like Gary Webb who speak truth to power are thrown under the bus. People like Jeff Leen who kiss up to the establishment are cherished.

Update (21 October 2014 11:23 am)

The Rancid Honeytrap has posted an article about some other attacks and resources about the work that Webb and the work he did, Misremembering Gary Webb. It is very good.

Update (21 October 2014 1:46 pm)

Joseph Palermo at Huffington Post wrote a good overview of the history of the whole thing, The Gary Webb Story: Still Killing the Messenger. Also: Kenneth V Smith wrote, Yet Another Mainstream Media Attack on the Ghost of Journalist Gary Webb. After listing three article about Webb, he wrote, “The above are left-of-center websites, with which I normally disagree. I would like to find a right-of-center or libertarian article that is critical of The Washington Post’s attack on Gary Webb, but so far, nothing.” Funny that! Well, I have a clue. For the conservatives, well, they don’t want to hear anything that will shed a negative light on Reagan. There is a reason that liberals often refer to him as Saint Reagan: their love of him is faith based and facts will not get in the way. As for libertarians, well, as I’ve noted before, they aren’t much more than embarrassed Republicans. If the conservative movement had any substance to it, you would think they would love this story that paints a very bad picture of the government. And I expect that Reason will have something to say on the issue. But no conservative can get really excited about denigrating the Reagan years when they accomplished the one thing all conservatives believe it: Tax Cuts for Rich, Tax Hikes for the Rest.

To Be or Not to Bop With Dizzy Gillespie

Dizzy GillespieOn this day in 1917, the great jazz trumpet player Dizzy Gillespie was born. Actually, that kind of under-sells him. He was a whole lot more than that. He was probably the most important person in the development of bebop. And if you think of jazz, you probably think of bebop unless you are just really boring. The great thing about bebop is that it killed swing. I’m not saying that there is anything wrong with swing, but it was played out and yes, it was boring.

Bebop was distinct from swing in two primary ways. The first is obvious, even to modern (but careless) ears: it is highly syncopated. I especially like this. I’ve always had a great fascination with what I call “jagged” melodies. This has not endeared my music to others, but I love it. The second distinction is something that I’ve never been very creative about but which I admire as a listener: harmonic complexity. Swing stayed pretty much to standard chords like a 9th: C-E-G-Bb-D. But bebop composers and improvisers — led by Gillespie and Charlie Parker — played with this in a big way. They especially liked to flatten the 5th and 9th. And augment them. So you end up with things that sound quite dissonant and start to lose all standard harmonic structure. For example: C-E-Gb-Bb-Db, which is really just a Gb7 chord with a flatted 5th thrown in on the bass. The theory confuses me, but it sounds great.

Here is “Woody ‘n’ You,” which Gillespie wrote while working with Coleman Hawkins. It is the very dawn of bebop. It still sounds very swing-y. But it is more syncopated and it is introducing more harmonic complexity. But it isn’t making a full break with the past, and indeed, it is an homage to swing band leader Woody Herman.

But let’s jump ahead. Gillespie was also very important in the development of Afro-Cuban jazz. A great, early example of this is “Manteca” — originally recording in 1947, I don’t think any version was released until Afro in 1954. Anyway, here is a great live version from 1970. You also get to see some of his playing:

I’ve had a hard time finding video of Gillespie really letting fly as a performer. There are videos, but they are generally in hour long sets. So you will just have to make due with this performance of “One Note Samba” from a performance in Paris in 1965. It is just amazingly wonderful. But it doesn’t especially highlight Gillespie. Still, listen:

Happy birthday Dizzy Gillespie!