Maybe not relevant, but I grew up in Greenville, SC, which is somewhat close to the border with NC. Once, I went on a Boy Scout camping trip near a Civil War battlefield in the mountains along the border. After visiting the history center on the site, our scout leader told us to hike back to camp, with an older boy in the lead (while the scout leader drove back). Because the hike in had been quite long and seemed roundabout, a small subset of us decided to take a "shortcut" that our friend Finley insisted would get us back to camp sooner (which I guess was important because we had vital "set things on fire" projects to get back to).
We set off from the main group, and away from the well-defined trail; I don't remember if the boy in charge objected to our innovative approach to returning to camp, or just couldn't be bothered with it, but they went on ahead without our small adventure crew. The main group made it back to camp, as expected, about two hours later.
Our group, on the other hand, was still wandering through the woods as dusk approached about four hours later. Before panic set in, we luckily heard a truck off in the distance...so, we headed for it, and found a road. We assumed it was the road where the campground was located, and figured we'd be back to camp in no time (surely we were really close, given how long we'd been walking). An hour later, we saw a sign..."Welcome to South Carolina". We'd walked from South Carolina into North Carolina, and were many miles from camp.
The scout leader found us a few hours after dark; we were on the wrong road, going the wrong way, and had likely crossed back and forth from NC to SC a couple of times in our hike. We got back to camp around 11:30PM. Henceforth, getting lost was called a "Finley Shortcut".
This story doesn't have any real point, but I'd guess the border that we crossed a couple of times during that hike has since changed.
I'm not sure which state you're saying has superior pulled pork, but I think those are fighting words in either case.
I'm fond of both mustard and vinegar sauces. Tomato is good, too (that's actually what's popular where I'm from in upstate SC and western NC).
The last time I ever ate red meat (or large mammal meat) was a pulled pork sandwich 23 years ago. I became a vegetarian a few months later, after having étouffée in Louisiana on my way to Texas. I still partake of BBQ pretty regularly, and make my own sauce, but it's always tofu, seitan, jackfruit, etc.
Melvin's and Maurice's were always must-stops for my family. Maurice's in Columbia on our way to the beach (either Myrtle or Charleston or Hunting Island) and Melvin's regularly when my dad was working in Charleston for a couple of years. Both at their original locations, AFAIK. I didn't know anything about the politics of Maurice at the time, but read about it later (that very article, I think, was linked on HN a while back).
So, yeah, even vile racists make good BBQ in SC, and nobody held their racism against them through decades of successful operation. I always found that history pretty fascinating, even before the racism came up...brothers kinda duking it out in a BBQ turf war, in a state where BBQ really matters.
Not sure when you attended schools in Greenville, but I was in elementary school there back in the mid-80s. It was only a few years back that I learned about an ugly little side of the school system there. Back in that era, all the elementary schools were built without air conditioning, but they were designed in such a way that it could easily be added. The PTA groups in the more affluent parts of town were party to this and would always chip in for the AC units (my school had AC in every classroom). I understand that the schools across town weren't able to do the same. As I recall, it can get pretty hot and humid down there. I'm sure this wasn't unusual in the south, but I was nevertheless surprised to learn about it.
To add some levity. It's an opinion piece, not a feature article. The whole subject is a bit ridiculous to begin with, so the quip is in the spirit of the subject. Think of it like late show talk hosts.
Not everything is always lawyer speak. Sometimes, jokes are okay.
And yes, in an article about prop 64, a similar remark might very well be found about California.
Jokes I'm fine with, I just don't respect authors who go out of their way to insult folks. I think clock_tower's comment has quite a bit of truth in it. I would imagine the doctor from the story didn't find the whole subject ridiculous.
> And yes, in an article about prop 64, a similar remark might very well be found about California.
Jokes I'm fine with, I just don't respect authors who go out of their way to insult folks.
But both of the Carolinas have passed or attempted to pass needlessly restrictive Voter ID laws. So perhaps we should consider it "unnecessary commentary" or "snark" instead of an insult?
Requiring ID to exercise the right to vote is no more 'needlessly restrictive' than requiring it to exercise the right to bear arms or the right to drink. Canada, Germany, Switzerland & the Netherlands are among the countries which require ID to vote, and none of those is a dark dystopia of voter restriction.
I would be completely fine with requiring ID to vote if that ID was provided to you at birth or the age of majority, maintained at little to no cost by the state, and was convenient to replace or update due to marital or name change.
Instead, the states that are implementing voter ID laws are primarily states that used techniques like poll tests to disenfranchise minority voters, have limited access to ID issuing facilities in areas where voters tend to lack ID, and require documentation for issuance that people may not possess.
Seen through that lens, it's difficult to see America's regional interest in voter ID as anything other than a disingenuous attempt to continue to disenfranchise minority voters.
Sorry, no, that argument is baseless and "fake news" to coin the term. Anyone who looks into it or lives in the state knows it's so easy to get an ID in NC and you have months to get it done between election days. It's even free if it's not tied to a DL. It's seriously no harder than registering to vote, and you can do both at the same time.
Most of the commentary about voter ID laws here is from ignorant politically motivated journalists who find it easy to look down and judge southern states because everything they're doing must be racist and we're morally superior in every way. They don't even bother to look at what it's arguing. Sorry, but it gets a little tiring, and when it comes to this attitude of regarding southerners as ignorant and prejudice it's often the most ironic example of the pot calling the kettle black. It's harder to do something so basic as get utilities turned on in a new apartment to say nothing of a passport, and an ID would be required anyway for that, that anyone of basic competence can do it and it isn't some great imposition on them. It's not a literacy test or requiring proof of land ownership or anything like that.
Then why aren't all the businesses and banks and insurance companies who also require an ID not being prosecuted for placing an undue burden on minorities. If what you are saying is right, then it should be an open-and-shut case. Right?
Regarding the Netherlands, everyone aged 14 or older is required to always carry ID. This means that here, voter ID laws won't be restrictive because essentially everyone has ID.
Germany also seems to have similar laws.
The point being, whether voter ID is restrictive depends on how widespread accepted ID is, and what the barriers to getting such ID are. I recall that, much like gerrymandering, there are cases where US state legislators explicitly demanded demographic information on ID ownership before moving forward with voter ID laws.
That is to say, there isn't just correlation between voter-id proposals and partisan advantage, there are clear signs of actual intent.
Those countries didn't specifically design their ID requirements to prevent black people from voting like the Carolinas were proven in court to have done.
It is needlessly restrictive when the system is simultaneously designed to make it difficult for specific parts of the populace to get identification and when its enforcement is not uniform but selective.
Furthermore, in the absence of any widespread voter fraud, what purpose does it serve or accomplish other than to intimidate or disenfranchise voters? Voter ID only makes sense when there are concerns about fraudulent activity.
It stuck out to me too. I think it may be the case that the writers at NYT legitimately believe that any responsible adult is a progressive, and if you aren't a progressive, then you're probably one step away from being declared incompetent.
It's not so much the insult to the states, but equating of solving problems in a mature manner with progressive politics. There doesn't seem to be any wealth redistribution or protection of underprivileged groups involved, so I'm not sure what's progressive about it.
"talking it out" rather than "us versus them conflict" (court) is the 'progressive' thing. Mediation over strongest-takes-all. It doesn't have to be about welfare or underprivileged groups to be progressive; that's a conservative canard. Look at marijuana legalisation, for example.
I honestly do not understand why they felt compelled to disrupt so many people's lives to solve a paper problem, instead of just changing the official description of the border to match the de facto alignment?
I'm looking for more than just "grabbing tax dollars" or "justifying their existence" reasons. What legally compels the states to solve the problem this way instead of in a way that is least disruptive to the people who actually live there?
Not sure if this spot was included in the change or not, but for a long time there was a little piece of South Carolina that was not accessible by land without driving into North Carolina first.
International borders are not immune to this kind of thing either. Point Roberts, WA is only accessible by driving through Canada. https://goo.gl/maps/ZZqPvck2oU82
We set off from the main group, and away from the well-defined trail; I don't remember if the boy in charge objected to our innovative approach to returning to camp, or just couldn't be bothered with it, but they went on ahead without our small adventure crew. The main group made it back to camp, as expected, about two hours later.
Our group, on the other hand, was still wandering through the woods as dusk approached about four hours later. Before panic set in, we luckily heard a truck off in the distance...so, we headed for it, and found a road. We assumed it was the road where the campground was located, and figured we'd be back to camp in no time (surely we were really close, given how long we'd been walking). An hour later, we saw a sign..."Welcome to South Carolina". We'd walked from South Carolina into North Carolina, and were many miles from camp.
The scout leader found us a few hours after dark; we were on the wrong road, going the wrong way, and had likely crossed back and forth from NC to SC a couple of times in our hike. We got back to camp around 11:30PM. Henceforth, getting lost was called a "Finley Shortcut".
This story doesn't have any real point, but I'd guess the border that we crossed a couple of times during that hike has since changed.