We’ll now find out that Section Two is also very hurtful and unkind

Should be fun to watch conservatives frantically pivot and object to Section Two:

Texas Secretary of State John Steen immediately announced that his state’s voter photo identification law — which had been passed by the Texas legislature in 2011, but then barred by a federal judge using section 5 of the Voting Rights Act — will now be in effect.
Steen was sued Wednesday by Rep. Marc Veasey, D-Texas, who represents a Latino-majority district in the Dallas area, and other plaintiffs who claimed that the photo ID law will cause candidates to incur new costs in running their campaigns; make it harder to mobilize voters; and in some cases, bar people from voting, for example, if the name on their driver’s license doesn’t match the name on their voter registration certificate.
The plaintiffs contend that the Texas voter ID violates Section 2 of the VRA.
As Chief Justice John Roberts noted in the majority opinion in the Shelby County case, “Section 2 is permanent, applies nationwide, and is not at issue in this case.”

Nina Perales, vice president of litigation at the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund in San Antonio, Texas, said, “It’s going to be very costly and potentially time consuming to litigate that (voter ID) issue under Section 2. It’s very expensive to do the kind of statistical analysis that’s required in that case.”
And the burden of proof is on the plaintiffs to show the law would have a discriminatory effect — and not on Texas to justify the law. Attorney General Eric Holder could also decide that the Justice Department will sue Texas under Section 2.
Political scientist Michael McDonald, a voting expert at George Mason University, said the high court’s decision in the Shelby County case “is a yellow light for voting law changes, not a green light for voting law changes – because if jurisdictions overstep, they may find themselves in court under section 2 litigation – and they may find the courts willing to put them back under section 5” using a provision called “bail-in” — which was not at issue in Tuesday’s decision.

Remember, a court already found that the same Texas voting restrictions discriminate against African American and Latino voters, in 2012:

A federal court on Thursday blocked a Texas law that would have required voters to show photo identification, ruling that the legislation would impose “strict, unforgiving burdens” on poor minority voters.
Describing the law as the most stringent in the country, the unanimous decision by a three-judge panel marks the first time that a federal court has blocked a voter-ID law. It will reverberate politically through the November elections. Republicans and Democrats have been arguing over whether tough voter-ID laws in a number of states discriminate against African Americans and Hispanics.
The panel at the U.S. District Court in Washington ruled that Texas had failed to show that the statute would not harm the voting rights of minorities in the state. In addition, the judges found that evidence indicated that the cost of obtaining a photo ID to vote would fall most heavily on African American and Hispanic voters.
Evidence submitted by Texas to prove that its law did not discriminate was “unpersuasive, invalid, or both,” David S. Tatel, a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, wrote in the panel’s 56-page opinion.

Conservatives told us just last week that they object to Section Five not because they are opposed to African Americans and Latinos voting, but because Texas was treated unfairly under Section 5, the state was humiliated, feelings were hurt, and African American and Latino voters are the real racists.
But the hurt feelings provisions of the Constitution don’t apply in Section 2 so national conservatives who are claiming anguish over the SCOTUS gutting the VRA (like Eric Cantor) should be backing these efforts, right?

113 replies
  1. 1
    NickT says:

    I stand with Section 2 against the pale-faced Texan immigrant hordes!

  2. 2
    Baud says:

    Wrong! As you well know, Kay. :)

    Kind if reminds me of how the opposition to abortion morphed into opposition to contraception.

  3. 3
    Kay says:


    A sad as Eric Cantor is (on tv) about this, I would think he would be donating to the non-profit who are suing.

    Finally, he can take action!

  4. 4
    Mino says:

    Ha, ha. And MALDEF has some deep pockets, too. Expect a stay on photo ID pretty quick, I think.

  5. 5
    Baud says:


    Yeah, right after they take care of Jobs! Jobs! Jobs!

  6. 6
    Botsplainer says:

    That name match is going to shithammer younger married women most of all, which is part of the point. It usually takes a couple of years for them to get all of their documents and tax data to match up if they take their husband’s last name. Same thing happens in younger divorces as they unwind names.

  7. 7
    Mino says:

    @Baud: Heh. It has always been against contraception. They just had better control over the message until Teahadists got the mics.

  8. 8
    Higgs Boson's Mate says:

    The conservative siege mentality in action. They’re not racists, they’re just protecting Life as We Know It from the melanin barbarians.

  9. 9
    NickT says:


    You mean Rappin’ Ricky Perry has a bros before hos policy?

    Well I never!

  10. 10
    Mino says:

    @Botsplainer: Unintended consequence. Women keep their maiden names.

  11. 11
    Baud says:

    The Fourteenth Amendment is unconstitutional!

  12. 12
    c u n d gulag says:

    The not-funniest funny thing about all of this BS, is that none of these states which are pushing Voter Id laws, has any plans to expand government facilities to allow for the voters to get ID.

    Free-market budget cuts, prevent them from doing that.

    So, before waiting in long lines to vote, minorities will also have to wait in long lines to get their ID, so that they can then wait in long lines to vote.

    Nice form of government there, Red States, and other states with Republican Governors and state legislatures.
    But you might want to try democracy.

  13. 13
    LosGatosCA says:

    It’s surprising how many people (especially the blahs, the browns, the wimmins) don’t understand the primary legal principle of America that whites have rights if they are men (ex. voting, stand your ground, etc) and all others are extended privileges at the discretion of the white males.

    What’s so hard to understand?

  14. 14
    burnspbesq says:

    Would a finding in a Section 5 case that a law change was discriminatory collaterally estop the state in a subsequent Section 2 case? If I were MALDEF’s counsel, I would sure as shit make the argument.

  15. 15
    PeakVT says:

    How high is the burden for forcing a jurisdiction to be “bailed-in”?

  16. 16
    NickT says:

    @c u n d gulag:

    And, of course, it’s going to take time and money to get the right ID to vote – which is exactly the conservative point here. If you can’t force a property qualification for the franchise into law, the next best thing is to have a property qualification by proxy by making it harder for poor people to get the documentation they need to vote. Throw in some questionably legal “poll watchers” and “conservative” officials as gate-keepers, and you’ve got yourself a nice little white conservative apartheid majority cake.

  17. 17
    burnspbesq says:

    The next step, needless to say, will be the House putting a provision in the FY 2014 DOJ appropriations bill prohibiting the spending of appropriated funds on Section 2 litigation. Then we’ll all have to buy lots of Section 2 Cookies at the DOJ Bake Sale.

  18. 18
    Botsplainer says:


    Unintended consequence. Women keep their maiden names.

    My wife took mine, and there were a number of pain in the ass moments our first 10 years, particularly with regard to social security cards, tax returns and passport renewals.

    As a result, we’ve told our girls that it is easier to keep the maiden name, and they’re on board for that.

  19. 19
    NickT says:


    My wife took mine

    Those wimmins, always stealin’ a brother’s name-stash.

    I blame Obama.

  20. 20
    Citizen_X says:

    News is now reporting that David Brooks has climbed the Capitol Dome in Austin in support of the new policy, and is hollering and waving a flag that says “OUTPOST OF EUROPE.”

  21. 21
    JoyfulA says:

    @Botsplainer: I kept my late husband’s name when I remarried just because of all the places my name would have had to be changed. Imagine forgetting one medical office and then dying because the name didn’t match up with my allergies.

  22. 22
    Linda Featheringill says:

    Section 2? Great!

    Thank goodness for liberal lawyers!

    Question: Gathering voter data to prove harm by application of the [proposed] laws might be time consuming, but how often would it have to be done? Is once enough? Would keeping the data base up to date be difficult?

    Could 50 students create the data base in three months or so?

  23. 23
    Kay says:


    3 is the available judicial remedies for a violation of 2. A court can bail in for a set time or indefinitely. It’s much narrower than 5, so it would apply only to the violation; for Texas, no voter ID changes w/out fed clearance.

  24. 24
    beltane says:

    @Botsplainer: After witnessing the hassles my mother had to go through to reclaim her real name after divorcing my father, I have been adamant about refusing to take my husband’s name. I’m just not enough of a romantic to surrender my legal identity for the sake of love.

  25. 25
    NickT says:


    Yours is the love that dare not speak its name.

  26. 26
    Roger Moore says:

    Sounds like one more reason for women not to take their husbands’ names. Or to shack up instead of bothering to get married.

  27. 27
    dmsilev says:

    The irony is that by acting so blatantly and overtly to make voting difficult for Those People, the Republicans are making their long-range future more difficult. Not only are they pushing ever-larger chunks of various minority populations away from them, they are also fostering the creation and maturation of organizations dedicated to overcoming the roadblocks and increase political activism.

    Maybe they can clamp things down in the short run, but if not they’re creating one hell of a backlash.

  28. 28
    NickT says:

    Apparently Rick Perry is going to announceify something about his political future on Monday:


  29. 29
    Botsplainer says:

    We’ll now find out that section two is also very hurtful and unkind

    Kay, upon reflection, this statement is the key to understanding the mindset of Planet Wingnut. You’re supposed to take their abuse AND be thankful for it; they believe they’re doing God’s Work, regardless of the pain their policies or ineptness inflict on others.

    I’ve seen scores of posts at websites decrying black writers and musical artists of the 30s-50s for being “communists”, with no self-awareness in evidence. After all, what did white America have to offer a Robeson or a Baldwin but economic and political oppression? Why wouldn’t they flirt with a muscular form of leftism? What duty did they have to a white America that treated them as less than a whole person?

    These are the same people who grumble about Mildred Loving.

  30. 30
    beltane says:

    @Roger Moore: In Italy, hardly a bastion of feminist values, it is normal for women to retain the use of their birth name for legal purposes. Unless you are born into a family of notorious criminals, there is something rather practical about having the same name from birth to death. My windowed mother-in-law is in the process of renewing her passport and was just told she has to produce her Dutch marriage certificate from 1963 so as to reconcile the difference with the name on her birth certificate. No thanks.

  31. 31
    Kay says:


    It really is true. I laughed at all the news reports about Romney’s lawyers “on the plane with their bags packed” ready to litigate OH. In Boston.
    Obama had this elaborate lawyer network set up in April. In Ohio.

  32. 32
    NickT says:

    In Italy… unless you are born into a family of notorious criminals

    Oh the temptation!

  33. 33
    Roger Moore says:

    There’s definitely a social component to this stuff. Nobody in my social group would expect a woman to change her name when she gets married. She’s expected to have professional accomplishments under her unmarried name and to want to continue working after marriage, so keeping her name just makes too much sense for anyone to suggest otherwise. Not to mention that there’s a very large Chinese population here, and mainland Chinese women keep their names after marriage. That’s forced a lot of backward institutions to accept that married couples don’t necessarily have the same name.

  34. 34
    beltane says:

    @NickT: In some places it is an advantage to be a member of a family of notorious criminals. I don’t see Dick Cheney’s daughters making any attempts to conceal their origins, but other people have issues with this kind of thing.

  35. 35
    JustRuss says:


    Yours is the love that dare not speak its name.

    Congratulations, you win today’s internets.

  36. 36
    Kay says:


    Some Democrats feed into it. There were all these dumb opinion pieces from Democrats after Sec. 5 went down, where Democrats had drawn majority-minority districts in the south, so trashing 5 would supposedly undo “both sides do it!” minority-packing in districts.
    It’s a ridiculous argument. Republicans are RIGHT NOW drawing lines to minority-pack.in districts to KEEP minorities from competing. Trashing Sec 5 MAKES THAT POSSIBLE.
    The 2 things are not the same but there was this dumb “silver lining” argument some Democrats parroted without thinking it thru.

  37. 37

    @beltane: Completely agree with you sister friend, I have not changed my last name either. Hubcat’s mom was none too happy with it.

  38. 38
    Johannes says:

    @burnspbesq: I would too, and think it could work. The principal difficulty, if I understand section 5’s burden of proof correctly (that the State must prove that any proposed change will not negatively impact voting rights) is that because the burden of proof is different in a section 2 case (on the plaintiffs), collateral estoppel might not apply. Worth a try, though.

  39. 39
    eric says:

    @Johannes: you might have some form of issue preclusion, even if there is no claim preclusion.

  40. 40
    Botsplainer says:

    Have they figured out how to handle all those old black folks born at home, and are thus without birth certificates?

  41. 41
    Johannes says:

    Possible, Eric, but I think the burden of proof question goes to both. Again, worth a try.

  42. 42
    John M. Burt says:

    @NickT: Nah, just the love that dare not speak his name.

  43. 43
    Redshift says:

    @Botsplainer: The Ms. and I both hyphenated, so I have gotten to experience some of these effects, despite being a proverbial white male. Social Security caught up with me after about fifteen years, but it wasn’t too hard to straighten that out. The biggest pain I had, which I doubt is the same now, is that our banks could change the name on her account because her name came first in the hyphenated name, but since mine was now in a different place in alphabetical order, I had to close my account and open a new one.

    With current driver’s license and voter registration laws, it would probably be much more of a pain. I don’t remember having to provide any documentation to get my driver’s license changed. But that was back in the days before the Virginia DMV was found to be so lax that it was the go-to place for terrorists to get bogus licenses.

  44. 44
    Ruckus says:

    Isn’t that one of the things they have been trying to do? Anyone outside of the “mainstream” shouldn’t be able to vote is their point. They can’t change to that so they have to try to make it harder. My question is don’t a lot of old white folks have just as much trouble getting ID and standing in line to vote? Seems to almost be counter productive to rethugs no matter how you look at it.

  45. 45
    Villago Delenda Est says:


    It was always about objection to contraception, because the SLUTS NEED TO BE PUNISHED FOR MAKING THEIR OWN DECISIONS ABOUT THEIR SEX LIVES.

  46. 46
    Kay says:


    A big part of section 2 is language barriers to voting. In 2006, when Republicans renewed the Act, they had a screechy contingent who objected to any multi-lingual accomodations.

    Now that the House is more nuts, I’m hoping this becomes a HUGE issue with the GOP base, because the language accomodations apply to everyone; they run the gamut, Eastern European newer immigrants in Chicago, Asians in LA, it isn’t just Spanish.

    This a real can ‘o worms for them. We’re going do see THE WORST of conservatism as this plays out.

  47. 47
    Violet says:

    Kay, a question for you (or anyone who knows the answer). Are passports allowed as ID for the places that require voter ID? Are passports any easier to get than drivers licenses/IDs? Seems like the federal requirements might end up being less stringent than some of the state requirements–like a normal birth certificate is okay; don’t need long form birth certificate, etc.

    Could getting a passport be an easier way around the difficult birth certificate requirements?

  48. 48
    raven says:

    @Botsplainer: Saw your question about what I was feeding Ralphie in that old photo. I suspect it was something off the Q since I don’t even recall having dog treats 40+ years ago.

  49. 49
    Mudge says:

    Seems like there should be a centralized entity that could provide baseline information and strategy on Section 2 cases. ID is ID, so many of the aspects in NC will be the same as those in Texas.

  50. 50
    a hip hop artist from Idaho (fka Bella Q) says:

    @burnspbesq: I’d be leading and ending with it, but I confess to no experience in voting rights work.

  51. 51
    rikyrah says:

    keep on it,Kay.

    they have always been about voter suppression. always. this is who they are.

  52. 52
    PsiFighter37 says:

    Shouldn’t it be quite obvious to anyone with a thinking mind that these voter ID laws are just a poll tax by another name?

    I mean, Republicans are basically salivating with glee that they will be able to prevent black and brown people from voting. It’s thinly-disguised racism at best…

  53. 53
    Botsplainer says:


    Saw your question about what I was feeding Ralphie in that old photo. I suspect it was something off the Q since I don’t even recall having dog treats 40+ years ago.

    He looked pretty enthusiastic. Whatever it was, he was delighted.

  54. 54
    Kay says:


    It depends on the state. I don’t know that passports would be any easier, though. Mine was pre 9/11 but I helped one of my sons get a new one (he lost his) and it was quite long and fairly complicated.
    Mexico did this right. They revamped their voting system and issued federal voting ID’s. It actually didn’t work. There were still claims of voter fraud.
    Voter fraud fears, IMO, are an attitude, a way of thinking. I’ve seen it in OH. They put an ID measure in, then the screaming continued, so they try to tighten it every year.

  55. 55
    drkrick says:

    @Ruckus: On the old white people question: It took a couple of years to get my grandfather Social Security retirement benefits because the only record of his birth date was a baptismal record in a church that had burned down several decades earlier. I don’t think they ever found good documentation, but the SS people figured if he wasn’t 65 when the process started he surely was two years later.

  56. 56
    Villago Delenda Est says:


    The thing is, a system that is “done right” isn’t going to be “done Right”, if you know what I mean.

    Actually identifying voters is not the objective. Making it difficult for “wrong” voters to vote is.

  57. 57
    Redshift says:

    @Kay: Oh, definitely. When Gov. Ultrasound appointed vote fraudster Hans Van Spakovsky to our county electoral board, pretty much the first thing he did was rule that they couldn’t provide multilingual election materials.

  58. 58
    Mnemosyne says:

    Add me to the list of ladies who didn’t change their names after getting married because it just seemed like way too much of a fucking hassle. G has no problem with it (we discussed it before the wedding) but I did have to go down to the bank and sign an “AKA” card since various relatives kept “forgetting” I hadn’t changed my name.

    One of my co-workers has changed her name twice – rather that go back to her birth name after her divorce, she just hung onto it and then changed again after she re-married. Her father deserted the family when she was a kid and she married young the first time, so she had no connection to her birth name anyway.

    Also, of my two female bosses, one kept her ex-husband’s last name after remarrying and the other kept her own name, so lots of role models. 😄

  59. 59
    Violet says:

    @Kay: Thanks, Kay. So using passports as acceptable ID varies by the state? I wondered if some states would require an official state ID with an address on it that matches the address of the voter registration card. Passports don’t have an address on them unless you write it in them.

    You are correct that voter fraud fears are an attitude and belief system, they’re not based on actual fact. Same people concerned about voter fraud will be concerned about brown people taking over our country, Muslims around every corner, etc.

  60. 60
    Kay says:


    I’ll certainly help with any effort to get folks IDs, but voter fraud fears are irrational. A rational solution doesn’t fix an irrational fear.
    Parents know there’s no.monster in the closet when they “check” the closet for monsters before bed :)

  61. 61
    I'mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet says:

    @Violet: In addition to what Kay said, passports are pretty expensive and require the usual proof of citizenship etc.

    It’s not a problem for many of us, but it’s a huge problem for those that these voting restrictions are already intending to disenfranchise.

    A free national ID card system run through offices in something like the post office would be one way to lessen the burdens, but one can guess how well that would go over in the House these days…



  62. 62
    Violet says:

    @Kay: Completely agree. It’s about fear, and irrational fear at that. And fearful people are more conservative.

    “It’s not that conservative people are more fearful, it’s that fearful people are more conservative. People who are scared of novelty, uncertainty, people they don’t know, and things they don’t understand, are more supportive of policies that provide them with a sense of surety and security,” McDermott said.

    So the policies that are driven by fear are going to be policies that wingnuts want. By definition.

  63. 63
    raven says:

    @Mnemosyne: My bride kept her name and the little old ladies in her hometown courthouse ’bout fell out when we got the license!

  64. 64
    Baud says:


    I do declare…

  65. 65
    Violet says:

    @I’mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet: Yeah. My thinking was that as states get stricter–short form of the birth certificate isn’t acceptable, has to be long form, has to have raised seal, etc.–the requirements for a passport might actually be less strict. I understand the expense is an issue.

    Fighting the restrictive laws is important and equally as important is helping people deal with the new laws while we fight them. I’m just thinking about what ID alternatives are out there and what might be easier/less of a hassle for someone to get, even if the expense is a bit more.

  66. 66
    raven says:

    @Baud: In North Central Virginia, you bet!

  67. 67
    Baud says:

    I wish we could go back to the old way of naming, where it was just a first name followed by a description:

    Kay of Ohio
    Baud, son of Baud
    John, of the Clan Tunch

    Much more appropriate for the Internet age, especially of people got to choose their own descriptor.

  68. 68
    lol says:


    What’s ridiculous is that passports aren’t good enough for proof of citizenship in most states for license. You *have* to have your Social Security Card in order to get the driver’s license. At least that doesn’t require money to obtain, but it does require a lot of time so it’s likely another day’s wages lost trying to get it.

  69. 69
    Baud says:


    That’s the biggest problem in all of this — the uncertainty about how far states will try and be allowed to go enacting new restrictions. If we had some certainty, we could just deal with it.

  70. 70
    Violet says:


    My wife took mine, and there were a number of pain in the ass moments our first 10 years, particularly with regard to social security cards, tax returns and passport renewals.

    As a result, we’ve told our girls that it is easier to keep the maiden name, and they’re on board for that.

    I agree. And it’s going to be more of an issue as time goes on. Changing the names on everything is such a hassle. Wingnuts are going to freak out if fewer women change their names.

    Several years ago I was in the Seattle airport checking in for a flight to come home. Two women were also checking in, but one of them couldn’t. I heard her explain to the woman at the counter that she’d recently got married and her name on her drivers license didn’t match the name on the ticket and it wasn’t letting her check in. The employee behind the counter said the woman had to have her marriage license. The woman of course didn’t have that. She was utterly panicked because there they were, trying to check in for the flight and they were being fucked by a stupid name change.

    What’s the upside to changing your name?

  71. 71
    NickT says:


    John Tunch-Cole
    Was a merry old soul
    And a merry old soul was he…

  72. 72
    Baud says:


    I once didn’t have my ID with me. They let me board, but I had to go through a special security screening

  73. 73
    Spaghetti Lee says:


    I’ll go with “Sir Lee, Conquerer of Pastas”

  74. 74
    Baud says:


    John the Mustardless

    @Spaghetti Lee:

    The Pastafarians won’t like that.

  75. 75
    Svensker says:


    Duh. They can’t vote. Next question?

  76. 76
    Violet says:


    If we had some certainty, we could just deal with it.

    The certainty is that they will do everything they can to restrict voting as much as possible so anyone who’s not rich, white and male has trouble meeting the requirements. That’s the certainty. Keep that in mind and the rest falls into place.

  77. 77

    @Baud: We can label ourselves Tunch Brotherhood

  78. 78
    Yatsuno says:

    @Svensker: Natch. That’s the whole freaking point here. If we let Them vote, well, it’s good-bye Galt’s Gulch!

  79. 79
    Baud says:

    @schrodinger’s cat:

    How about Fellowship of the Tunch?

  80. 80
    Violet says:

    I’m wondering if they’ll start requiring that voters get a doctor’s clearance that they are “of sound mind”, or something. There’s already precedent in that people applying for a green card have to have a doctor’s exam by an approved doctor. So I can see a “doctor’s note” as yet another way to restrict voting.

  81. 81

    @Baud: One Kitteh to rule them all.

  82. 82

    @Violet: It is not a simple exam, requires you to get tested for TB, HIV and be up to date on your vaccines. We are talking of several hundred dollars at the very least.

    ETA: I am sure there are several other things that I am forgetting.

  83. 83
    Violet says:

    @schrodinger’s cat: I’m very aware of the cost and time involved. Doctors have to be on the approved list–you can’t just go to any doctor. All of that would seem to support the suggestion that requiring a doctor’s note would be a new front in the War on Voters.

    In a recent thread about voting I asked if they could implement ridiculous requirements–like voters have to stand on their heads or do a backflip. The response was that requirements have to be related to preventing voting fraud. I can see requiring a doctor’s note as being in that category–you have to prove you’re “of sound mind”. And requiring people to go to a doctor–at an expense of time and money–would eliminate further “undesirables.”

  84. 84
    PeakVT says:

    @Violet: I don’t think there is any conceivable “sound basis” for that kind of requirement. The case for strict voter ID provisions is much better, but is still suspect. OTOH, making the rest of the process as inconvenient as possible doesn’t really need a legal basis. I think that will be the main tactic of the vote-surpressors going forward.

  85. 85
    Ruckus says:

    What’s the upside to changing your name?

    And why doesn’t the man change his?

    Just another throwback to a time of women being chattel.

  86. 86

    @Ruckus: In some Indian communities they even change the first name of the bride, since marriage is supposed to be a rebirth or some such crap. Thankfully that practice seems to be dying.

  87. 87

    @Violet: I forgot about the approved list business.

  88. 88
    NickT says:


    Jean Sans Poupon.

  89. 89
    Ukko says:

    @Violet: oh you so don’t want to do that. My wife had to go through that after we got married and moved back to the states. The approved doctor was a pervy old guy who did things like whispering “c*nt” in her ear and then looking all shocked and saying “I said ‘punt'” (those were not really the words, but you get the idea. Really he said vittu claiming he said kettu for the pedantic. )

    He made her strip to her underwear to check for “scoliosis” and then kept her like that through the majority of the appointment while asking medically useless questions about her newly wed sex life.

    To this day she will only go to a male doctor in an emergency. I was livid and wanted to raise a stink. But he could block her green card and ruin our family. I would not have even said anything befor she had her citizenship. So many ways you can have your life ruined when you are not a real person in the eyes of the system.

    No person should have that kind of authority.

  90. 90
    Mnemosyne says:

    @schrodinger’s cat:

    This may amuse you — one of my friends in junior high and high school was Indian and had a younger sister that everyone called “Shubie,” which apparently is the word for “younger sister.” This being America, the nickname stuck and now that’s the name she goes by. Even her patients (she’s a pediatrician now, IIRC) call her “Dr. Shubie.”

    Yes, I am frightened that the younger siblings of my high school friends are now old enough to be practicing physicians, but that’s life, I suppose.

  91. 91
    Just One More Canuck says:

    I came across the literacy test used by Louisiana in 1964. They gave it to anyone who could not “prove” a 5th grade education


    One wrong answer (out of 30 questions) meant you failed. I doubt that very many people heare (if anyone) could pass, considering you had 10 FUCKING MINUTES to do it

  92. 92
    Baud says:


    Yes, I am frightened that the younger siblings of my high school friends are now old enough to be practicing physicians, but that’s life, I suppose.

    Be very afraid.

    Neil deGrasse Tyson (@neiltyson)

    Just an FYI: The year 1980 is as far in today’s past as 1947 was to 1980.

  93. 93
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @schrodinger’s cat:

    House Tunch, sigil a giant white paw.

    “Sworn enemies of those feline wannabes, the Lannisters”

  94. 94
    Violet says:

    @PeakVT: Yeah, it’s all about increasing cost, increasing hassle and time required to comply, and thus making the pool of people who are willing to jump through the hoops smaller. If the doctor’s note helps do that, some state somewhere (in the south) will try to require a doctor’s note.

    Frankly, I hope they do it. Imagine if everyone has to go to an approved doctor to get a note to be allowed to vote. That’s the kind of thing that will impact everyone, and people will not be happy.

  95. 95

    Speaking of Kittehs, Dr Kitteh made it to the FP of ICHC yesterday, I think he is onpg 2now.

  96. 96
  97. 97
    NickT says:

    @Villago Delenda Est:

    What are their words?

    If it moves devour it; if it doesn’t move, devour it anyway.

  98. 98
    👾 Martin says:

    Asian Airlines 777 crashed at San Francisco. Doesn’t look catastrophic.

  99. 99
    raven says:

    Plane crash at San Francisco Airport.

  100. 100
    Higgs Boson's Mate says:


    Sons of Tuncharchy.

  101. 101
    JPL says:

    OT A jet Asiana Airline flight 214 crashed at San Francisco airport. It’s unclear whether it is a passenger jet or cargo jet.
    If you type in the flight number on google it comes up as landed. ugh

  102. 102
    JPL says:

    This is the feed that I’m listening to about the crash…

  103. 103
    Higgs Boson's Mate says:


    Asiana Airlines 214 has crashed at San Francisco International with 291 passengers and 12 crew members aboard after tail falls off on landing causing plane to roll over on its back slide across runways, and set upright. No word on casualties or survivors.


  104. 104
  105. 105

    @Higgs Boson’s Mate: What about us daughters of Tunchetariat?

  106. 106
    tybee says:

    from the looks of the debris trail, the Asiana flight may have touched down a bit short of the runway

  107. 107
    ruemara says:

    @NickT: That it’s dead? Oh thank heavens, because it was starting to really stink.

  108. 108
    Ruckus says:


    Oh thank heavens, because it was starting to really stinks.

    FIXT for you

  109. 109
    Cermet says:

    Hello and hope it isn’t too hot for everyone (it is here!)

    Some great news – my daughter (who turned 17 a few months ago) just soloed in a powered plane (she has 10 hours in a single engine, Cessna 172)! Next stop is MIT this fall so she is really getting items accomplished this summer! Just wanted to share some good aviation news, for today.

  110. 110
    Higgs Boson's Mate says:


    Congratulations to you and your daughter. Is she going in to aviation?

  111. 111
    Snarki, child of Loki says:

    @schrodinger’s cat: “..up to date on your vaccines. We are talking of several hundred dollars at the very least.”

    Hey, how about we add an IRS audit, then?

    Oh, wait, communism, that’s why.

  112. 112
    sparrow says:

    @beltane: I’ve come around to the idea that a woman taking a husband’s name is not for me. I really look forward to it not being the norm (in the US), too. I don’t see how this isn’t just a vestige of a time when women were considered the man’s property. Love has nothing to do with it. If it did, men would be changing their names in equal numbers. HA.

    I was briefly engaged in my early 20s and hadn’t thought things through enough to resist the “but EVERYONE changes their name” shaming (I had gotten enough for refusing to have a stupid diamond ring). That marriage never happened so if I do get married in the future now at least I know what I want.

    The only remaining fight is with my long-term BF, who would want the kids to have his (incredibily long, hard-to-pronounce) Greek name. I don’t know how I feel about that, but on the other hand I’m not even that fond of my last name. meh.

  113. 113
    sparrow says:

    Also for anyone reading this thread and interested in the plane crash, this is the best place for info:


Comments are closed.