cahwyguy | 📰 Saying the Unspeakable (Reply)

Recently, I’ve been reading the news and having a bunch of unspeakable (or unpostable) thoughts. Perhaps I should explain. These are thoughts that might be unpopular with the folks that just superficially read the news, who don’t bother to think deeply about the news and consequences, or don’t understand that many issues have deeper complexities than might just be on the surface. Trying to describe these in the short-form post that is FB or other social media doesn’t work well, so I’m turning to my blog. Here are some of these potentially unpopular thoughts:

Not Everyone Named in the Epstein Files is a Pedophile. What prompted this thought was Lauren Gunderson. Gunderson is playwright and author; she is actually the most produced playwright of the last 3 years, with many feminist and scientific plays out there. Recently, a theatre company in Rhode Island cancelled a production of Gunderson’s play the Revolutionists (see my review of another production) because Gunderson’s name surfaced in the latest batch of publicly released Jeffrey Epstein-related files. Now, Gunderson has never met Epstein and has never had anything to do with him (as she notes in her response). However, her ex-husband knows him well; one reason (I presume) he is an “ex”. I’ve also seen memes going around saying that anyone mentioned in the Epstein files should be prosecuted and treated as guilty even without a trial.

Hopefully, we all agree that pedophilia is bad. But simply being named in the files doesn’t make one guilty of that crime. I write loads of posts and emails that mention Trump; that doesn’t mean I’m guilty of the same crimes. A fundamental notion in the USA is that folks are innocent until proven guilty. The Epstein files should be analyzed, in their unredacted form, to determine those who are likely to have committed crimes. Those crimes should be then investigated to find corroborating evidence, which can then be used by the legal system to bring people to justice. But a simple mention in the files should not be viewed as proof of guilt of the same crimes as Epstein.

And, yes, this means that some guilty men may have finessed the system to suppress sufficient evidence to convince a jury. That’s where the civil courts come in: there’s a lower standard to sue for monetary damages. Remember that OJ was not convicted criminally for the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman; he was convicted in civil court. Further, the low moral standards that come from deep involvement with Epstein likely mean there are often other crimes for which there may be more evidence (and prison is still prison). But we must remember that our society presumes innocence, and the mere mention in the Epstein files or a passing association therein doesn’t mean the individual is guilty of Epstein’s crimes. There needs to be more than a mere mention.

Our Current Election System is Suitably Strong to Prevent Non-Citizens From Voting. Recently, the SAVE Act has been in the news. On the surface, this seems like a good thing: We don’t want non-citizens voting in local, state, and Federal elections. Who could be against that? Well, I’m against this act, because it is a backdoor way of limiting the citizens that can vote, serving to disenfranchise the poor, minorities, the disabled, and women. This article explains things well. The SAVE Act requires proof of citizenship, IN PERSON, at the time one registers. The “in person” is a problem for many, especially the disabled and those who cannot travel or take time away from work. It is a problem for the military. The only acceptable proofs of citizenship are birth certificates and passports, and they must match the name on your ID. The requirement for a passport is a problem: A large percentage of Americans don’t have passports because they don’t travel internationally, or cannot afford the cost of the passport (plus the cost of the pictures and other documents). Birth certificates are also a problem, as some folks simply don’t have them due to home births, or can not obtain or afford them. Plus, if people have changed their names, they then need the extra costs of obtaining the paper trail of the name changes, which might not be acceptable (and remember, each government document will have processing costs). Lastly, all of these takes time.
More importantly, it isn’t needed. We already have laws that prevent non-citizens from voting, and states already require proof when folks register, and match up information in state databases (for example, they should be able to match up information with the Real ID information which also notes citizenship). Further, despite all the claims by the Trump administration, non-citizen voting is not a problem. Recent research has shown that noncitizen voting occasionally happens but in minuscule numbers, and not in any coordinated way. “Noncitizens are not a large threat to our election system currently,” said David Becker, the executive director of the Center for Election Innovation & Research (CEIR), which conducted the research. “Even states that are looking everywhere to try to amplify the numbers of noncitizens … when they actually look, they find a surprisingly, shockingly small number.” The fact that there is a “shockingly small number” means that it isn’t sufficient to impact an election — certainly not at the national level, which is what the SAVE Act is worried about.

In reality, the SAVE Act is just an attempt to make it harder for segments of the population that are likely to vote Democratic to be able to register. It is just a poll tax in disguise. But to speak out against requiring an ID to vote sounds like you are saying just anyone can vote, which is something very different.

Denying Passports Based on Non-Payment of Child Support Is Bad. Another item in the news relates to the State Department denying passports to those who don’t pay child support. On the surface, this seems like a reasonable idea. After all, non-payment of child support is a bad bad thing. But think about this in terms of the requirements of the SAVE Act, and suddenly this seems like a bad idea. After all, the goals of this idea can be met in many other ways: most notably, by simply putting the names on the TSA “no fly” list and watch lists at ground borders.

Here’s why doing this by denying passports is bad: Given the SAVE Act, it can also serve to disenfranchise. Now, we do disenfranchise at the state level for some crimes, notably convicted felons. States could certainly choose to do this for child-support scofflaws. But it should be at the state level. If the Feds could do this by State Department fiat, think of what else they could do. Deny passports to naturalized citizens. Deny passports to people whose parents are citizens. It is just the crack in the door to more voter suppression. This proposal has its hard in the right place, but the implementation is flawed.

So, I’ve said it: Three things that on the surface sound like I’m taking the wrong position. But, when you think about them, you come to realize that the opinions of the “court of public opinion” are often not well thought out.

This entry was originally posted on Observations Along the Road as 📰 Saying the Unspeakable by cahwyguy. Although you can comment on DW, please make comments on original post at the Wordpress blog using the link to the left. You can sign in with your LJ, DW, FB, or a myriad of other accounts. Note: Subsequent changes made to the post on the blog are not propagated by the SNAP Crossposter; please visit the original post to see the latest version. P.S.: If you see share buttons above, note that they do not work outside of the Wordpress blog.