I'm an independent in Georgia, and am happily surprised at your balanced treatment of this complex issue. The new Georgia voting law isn't great; but neither is the Democratic treatment of it. Glad to see your take come down the middle.
The Walmart insulin news...would be so much better if they weren't simultaneously the purveyors of bulk junk food at the lowest prices. Now if they did a combo of cheap insulin and discounted quality foodstuffs (with added taxes/fees on junk to subsidize the quality food discount) then it'd be a one-two health punch I'd feel better about.
The excellent 1953 novel, In the Wet by Australian author Nevil Shute, tells of an imaginary time when people could have up to seven votes. Everyone got a basic vote. Other votes could be earned for education (or a commission in the armed forces), earning one's living overseas for two years, raising two children to the age of 14 without divorcing, being an official of a church, or having a high earned income. The seventh vote was given only at the Queen's discretion.
Multiple voting was common in England until the 1940s. University graduates got a vote, as did property owners who did not live on their land, so a college educated farm owner living in London could have up to three votes.
As a Georgia resident and voter, I read SB202 back when it was pushed through the state legislature and the outcry started. It definitely makes voting slightly more difficult, and arguably marginally more secure with ID/residence requirements, but it's not a return to full blown Jim Crow laws as some tried to assert. The most concerning changes, as Isaac briefly mentions, are the ones that give more election oversight power to State Republicans (since all the rural State Representatives will never be outnumbered in the State Legislature) - including the ability to essentially take over a voting district and replace their staffs as they see fit after a petition and review process.
This is such a strange lawsuit from the DOJ and I don't see any way it succeeds. In fact, it will probably go on to embolden Republicans across the country to push more restrictive voting laws in the future. Both sides seem to be pushing as far as they possibly can, but the Democrats appear to be shooting themselves in the foot on this one. It's all so incredibly frustrating at this point: Lies/fear/uncertainty/doubt campaign leads to law changes, leads to doomed lawsuit, leads to more potential laws and less voter participation.
I'm an independent in Georgia, and am happily surprised at your balanced treatment of this complex issue. The new Georgia voting law isn't great; but neither is the Democratic treatment of it. Glad to see your take come down the middle.
The Walmart insulin news...would be so much better if they weren't simultaneously the purveyors of bulk junk food at the lowest prices. Now if they did a combo of cheap insulin and discounted quality foodstuffs (with added taxes/fees on junk to subsidize the quality food discount) then it'd be a one-two health punch I'd feel better about.
The excellent 1953 novel, In the Wet by Australian author Nevil Shute, tells of an imaginary time when people could have up to seven votes. Everyone got a basic vote. Other votes could be earned for education (or a commission in the armed forces), earning one's living overseas for two years, raising two children to the age of 14 without divorcing, being an official of a church, or having a high earned income. The seventh vote was given only at the Queen's discretion.
Multiple voting was common in England until the 1940s. University graduates got a vote, as did property owners who did not live on their land, so a college educated farm owner living in London could have up to three votes.
As a Georgia resident and voter, I read SB202 back when it was pushed through the state legislature and the outcry started. It definitely makes voting slightly more difficult, and arguably marginally more secure with ID/residence requirements, but it's not a return to full blown Jim Crow laws as some tried to assert. The most concerning changes, as Isaac briefly mentions, are the ones that give more election oversight power to State Republicans (since all the rural State Representatives will never be outnumbered in the State Legislature) - including the ability to essentially take over a voting district and replace their staffs as they see fit after a petition and review process.
This is such a strange lawsuit from the DOJ and I don't see any way it succeeds. In fact, it will probably go on to embolden Republicans across the country to push more restrictive voting laws in the future. Both sides seem to be pushing as far as they possibly can, but the Democrats appear to be shooting themselves in the foot on this one. It's all so incredibly frustrating at this point: Lies/fear/uncertainty/doubt campaign leads to law changes, leads to doomed lawsuit, leads to more potential laws and less voter participation.
I don't use insulin but i wonder from what country the inexpensive Walmart product comes from.