Tag Archives: Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

Stupid People Should Not Be Allowed To Vote

Anywhere, but in particular, they should not be allowed to vote in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The court case drags on here, and the excuses keep piling up. When the logistical issue of having poll workers check ID’s was thrown out, they jumped to the problems for voters acquiring ID’s. Considering that all voters should have been informed during the primaries that they would need photo ID to vote, and since there’s been intermittent press coverage on this all year, it is difficult to understand why anyone that actually wants to vote hasn’t managed to get the ID required at this point. Even the primary individuals that were the cause for the current case have ID now. And, PennDOT, the agency charged with providing the needed ID’s, has relaxed requirements for obtaining a “voter only ID.” Then there is also the issue that apparently the majority of Pennsylvanians are in favor of needing photo ID to vote. That came out after Commonwealth Court Judge Robert Simpson indicated he may block the law at least in part. Today he was set to hear testimony from plaintiff witnesses – presumably the court was treated to a parade of persons incapable of finding a PennDOT office, and acquiring a free Voter ID.

blackplastic (CC)

On the legal end, the arguments have been laughable, and beyond frustrating. Those against Voter ID have been clinging to their “it will disenfranchise the elderly and minorities” contention, in spite of evidence to the contrary. And then on the other side is the frustrating, vicious cycle on voter fraud. There is no real proof of voter fraud in the Commonwealth, but the only reason why there isn’t is because there is no requirement to verify anyone’s identity when they cast a ballot. Sadly, it calls to mind Nancy Pelosi’s infamous “you have to pass it to know what’s in it” statement – we have to implement the law to know how bad the voter fraud problem is in the first place.

And if it would turn out there is no real fraud, I for one will not believe it. Over the years, I have seen so many irregularities at the polls that made me wonder whether or not certain individuals had been visiting several polling stations to cast ballots. But hey, maybe I misunderstood it when I’d overhear people talking about visiting several polling stations in one day, and casting provisional ballots at each one. But, that’s not fraud, right? Well, it’s not the sort that can stand up in court.

But, this is supposed to be about stupid people that shouldn’t vote. At this point, it’s become fairly obvious that the only people in Pennsylvania that should be having any difficulty with getting a Voter ID are either functionally illiterate, or otherwise mentally incapable of completing a simple form with a legal name and birth date. One no longer needs to prove residency anymore to get the precious little photo now – that I personally find objectionable, of course. And to keep things in perspective, one must remember that Pennsylvania is control state, as in all liquor sales are funneled through the Commonwealth. We only recently started being able to purchase beer in our supermarkets, and at least in the ones near my home, one must provide a state-issued photo ID just to get a brew at the grocery store. It doesn’t matter what age someone is because the cash register system will not permit the transaction to go through without the cashier scanning the barcode on the back of all ID’s. So, if you are so stupid that you can’t manage to get an ID so you can buy a six-pack at the grocery store here, I sincerely question whether or not you should be permitted to vote. Yes, I said it. Voting is a right, and thanks to this nonsense here in Pennsylvania, I’m moving to the point where I think it should be a privilege. If people can’t manage to do simple things like obtain a photo ID, they really shouldn’t be voting at all. I’d go farther and suggest that if people can’t pass a basic test that shows they understand the offices they are casting ballots on, they shouldn’t be permitted to vote. I can just hear the left-wing screaming foul on that last one, since they wouldn’t be able to rely on welfare-dependent, illiterate constituents to keep them in office.

Jerry Sandusky Must Be Glad He Is Not In Texas

Jerry Sandusky didn’t take the stand in his own defense today. The child sex abuse trial that has been center stage at least in Pennsylvania, should be drawing to a close soon – thankfully so. If the testimony presented by the prosecution witnesses did not turn one’s stomach, then the retaliatory spewing of Dottie Sandusky defending her husband on the stand must have.

PSU Old Main

Hey Paul (CC)

But, no matter how fascinating it may be to watch the slow motion train wreck that is the Sandusky trial, the fact remains that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania enabled the man to do what he did – assuming, of course, that he did anything inappropriate in the first place.

While Pennsylvanians might have really liked to see the Penn State administrators that turned a blind eye on Sandusky end up paying for it legally, they will probably have to settle for just seeing their careers in shreds. There have only been three successful cases against individuals that failed to report abuse in the Commonwealth, and the penalties they suffered were laughable. But, that isn’t too surprising, because our laws are extremely vague, and even the experts that are charged with educating “required reporters” on their duties to children cannot offer real definitions of abuse. If the Sandusky mess didn’t make you ill, then the investigative report by Pittsburgh’s ABC affiliate, WTAE, will definitely do the trick. Beyond the problems with real definitions of abuse, and defining the real duties of required reporters, Pennsylvania law is so vague that it is possible for someone to leave welts on a child, and not be charged with abuse.

This issue should be resolved legislatively, and quickly. But given the lack of efficiency in the Pennsylvania legislative branch, and more importantly, the partisan bickering, that’s not likely to happen. On a search of bills in Pennsylvania, using the keyword “abuse”, there are 371 results. Obviously, not all of them are related to child abuse, but there are a few in that list. Yes, they do seem to be intended to address some of the deficiencies in the current laws that have been brought in the spotlight by Sandusky. However, they are little more than band-aids on bullet wounds, primarily because they do not address the issues of vague definitions of abuse throughout the law, and highly restrictive requirements to prove abuse is occurring at all in the first place. In trying to err on the side of caution, our legislators have made it far too difficult to prove abuse, and even more difficult to hold adults that should be required to report abuse accountable when they fail to do so. Now, if this was Texas, there might not even be a Sandusky trial – down there, they kill their child molesters, at least when they’re caught red-handed. While it’s definitely a horrific situation for that family down there, at least they don’t have to worry about being dragged through it over and over again. The man is dead, there won’t be a trial, so they can focus on healing and moving on. That’s the way it should be.