Posted by Andrew Lent

Ok, we just averted a weird issue where comments were overwriting articles. Everything should be ok now and comments all over the site can now be made. PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE notify me at whim@radford.edu if you happen to notice something get overwritten by a comment.

Thank you, enjoy Whim this week!

Posted by Patrick

I do hope that, as part of your test on American history, you're looking to include basic knowledge of poll history. Among other things, literacy tests, as described (among other things described) in the following links, illustrate the sheer fetidness, the malorodous ignorance, the formidable cluelessness of -- at the least -- this portion of your great plan:

Link 1 Link 2 Link 3 Link 4

And read here about why your test is prohibited by the Civil Rights act of 1965:

Link 5

Posted by Some Anonymous Whim Reader

Well, given the history of Ray Gunter's posts on Whim, he has clearly demonstrated his incapability of moving from Logic Point A to Logic Point B. Since this is nothing nearly as complex as solving algebraic equations, I would say that by his own test standards, Mr. Gunter has rendered himself unable to vote.

Whew . . . the world is a safer place.

Posted by Dan

Since we're depriving liberty, why not go ahead and deprive life as well? Mandatory executions for all those of voting age who fail to pass such a literacy requirement! If they're not good enough to vote, then why should they be good enough to procreate? Since you brought up Lenin...Communism was a "good idea" on paper too. I don't hate myself because I know I'm right. I don't hate you; I just think you're uninformed and poorly educated. Personally, I'm glad to live somewhere that people such as yourself are allowed to say such things freely. Perhaps instead of reforming our electoral system, we should look at reforming our educational system.

Posted by Jason Daniel Hayden

I have read your article three times. It is racist and classist and of little use. Good day sir. JDH

Posted by Kanye West

Ray Gunter hates black people!

Posted by Adam

I think what is sad is that in normal fashion, only a comment or two attacked the substance. The rest just attack Ray. This is what happens when people say tru, but tough love kind of things.

Posted by Rick Snee

This is why children under the age of 18 are not allowed to vote. For the most part, they lack the life experience and the knowledge essential to casting a ballot.

But how can one vote wrongly? There is no wrong vote if you believe in what you are voting for, right? Well, yes. However, when you are uninformed, you are more easily persuaded by people who tell you what is in your "best interests." One party is notorious for these kinds of scams. This mainly happens in the inner cities.

So if you're poor and live in the inner city (aka African American), you're no better of a voter than a child under 18? You can see the insidious machinations of "their" political party, yet they can't? And you think a literacy test (which is unconstitutional as hell) will fix all that?

I expect you'll say that the quoted statements aren't racist because you skirted around race; however, your Mark Twainesque parody of ebonics ("P. Diddy done told me that if I not vote, he gonna pop me.") says otherwise, as does your stunning ignorance of the Civil Rights Acts.

You've been voting for 5 minutes, dude--I hardly consider you an expert.

Posted by THE Blake

I think Ray's argument is that people in the inner city are essentially brainwashed by the media and their Left-aligned school systems to vote Democratic and therefore shouldn't be able to vote because, since they have been brainwashed, they cannot think for themselves and are manufactured votes - and as a result shouldn't be allowed to vote.

I don't agree with taking away their right to vote simply because they have been brainwashed but I see what Ray is taking about.

That is, if I got the crux of Ray's argument correct. Did I?

Posted by Ray

I'm staying out of this. I'll let other people have a voice on my articles.

Posted by Adam

Ya know, I don't get you. Ray made a few great arguments. I want to number them off and also say that I donh't always agree with Ray.

1- Black people do speak in Ebonics. That is not racist to say. It is true. Not all do, but most. If someone made fun of me for sounding like a well-to-do New England Aristocrat, that doesn't make them a racist. Careful with that term.

2- Do you know why voting fraud has been so prevalent in the south and not the north? In states like Mississippi and Alabama, poll workers coax the illiterate into voting. As a side-bar, they vote Democrat. Do politicians take them to school to learn to read or to the polls every once in a while to screw themselves over? Mayor "Chocoloate" Nagin used those buses to take people to the polls for his election, but couldn't seem to get them going for all of the poor people outside of election day.

3- The Civil Rights Acts don't apply here. That might sound nuts, but his article is not just about race, or even much at all. STUPID PEOPLE OUGHT NOT BE VOTING. They have a right to, but our Founders were well understood in their determination that voting was to be done by the educated. ******* And ... keep in mind that the Constitution of the United States does not grant the right to vote. The first popular Presidential election was not until 1824. Before that, State Legislatures chose electors to choose the president and VP.

4- Literacy tests have been deemed Unconstitutional, but some sort of common knowledge about who was the first President or who is the president now or what was the Declaration of Independence or Constitution... Those are good things for a voter to know. How can you know where we are going, if you don't know how to get there?

5- All of these aptitude tests in the south were brought to the U.S. by Southern Dixiecrats i.e. Democrats. They preach equality now, and pretend that their racist past does not exist.

6- The empirical argument about age is valid. Right now, African Americans in inner cities have the educational aptitude of the average 7-9th grade child. So, a minor student would logically be more ready to vote than an adult Black. I DON'T LIKE THIS EITHER, but it is ture all the same.

I hope everyone chews on this for a while, mostly because it is honest. I don't have a dog in this fight, just the desire to see a real intellectual debate.

Posted by Patrick

"I hope everyone chews on this for a while, mostly because it is honest. I don't have a dog in this fight, just the desire to see a real intellectual debate."

Yeah, as long as nobody recognizes the truck-sized holes in your argument. While I misspoke about the particular piece of legislation forbidding one of the measures Ray indicated he'd like to see, you very carefully neglected to mention the fact that what Ray espoused has been against the law for the past 40 years. But we press on, because this is a good exercise for the crowd in how not to form a sieve of an argument.

"1- Black people do speak in Ebonics. That is not racist to say. It is true. Not all do, but most. If someone made fun of me for sounding like a well-to-do New England Aristocrat, that doesn't make them a racist. Careful with that term."

People who live in inner cities tend to speak in dialect. I've met lots of people who sound like this, and a heaping helping of them are quite visibly (because, as we all know, there is no scientific basis of race, only sociocultural ones) white.

"Mayor "Chocoloate" Nagin used those buses to take people to the polls for his election, but couldn't seem to get them going for all of the poor people outside of election day."

You might, if you are crudely (or, in fact, at all) referring to Hurricane Katrina, want to read up on who was responsible for that particular planning fiasco. (Hint: last season's Whim had a Vent article about the man responsible.) You might also want to fetch some actual evidence for your claims of voter fraud, but I'm not holding my breath given the dishonesty you've already displayed.

"And ... keep in mind that the Constitution of the United States does not grant the right to vote."

This is patently, ridiculously, demonstrably and min-numbingly false. While the Bill of Rights grants no voting rights, check this from the 15th Amendment to the Constitution:

"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude--"

And there were even provisions put in place in case someone tried to circumvent this with, oh, a literacy test:

"The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

"STUPID PEOPLE OUGHT NOT BE VOTING. They have a right to, but our Founders were well understood in their determination that voting was to be done by the educated."

You are actually making this argument. Wow. Originally, white land-owning (for the most part; Pennsylvania and New York are two states which allowed men without land-holdings to vote) Protestant men were the only people allowed to vote. So not only was the electorate meant to be educated, it was meant to be male, usually at least moderately wealthy, white and Protestant.

So let's hear your argument for why this should still be the case. Clearly you think intent is useful here, after all.

"Those [things about our nation's past] are good things for a voter to know. How can you know where we are going, if you don't know how to get there?"

Irony abounds, indeed. And while I am fully in favor of a well-educated electorate, I despise the idea that literacy tests are a good thing.

"All of these aptitude tests in the south were brought to the U.S. by Southern Dixiecrats i.e. Democrats."

I would caution you to be careful how you tar the current party with how it was 60 years ago, but given your displays thus far, I think I will try to teach a pig to sing instead.

Posted by Jim

Aren't you a progressive, gay, hippy?

Posted by Rick Snee

Ah, Adam. Of course you don't get me--you don't know me. Trying to "get" someone on this forum is pretty stupid--just like when you tried to guess my religion.

Nice try with the Constitution, though. Someone as "smart" as you would realize that it's a living document that was intended to be changed, or amended, as necessary by its original framers. As Patrick mentioned, it was changed with the 15th Ammendment. Pretty stupid to quote the Constitution yet not even know it.

Even stupider is believing civil rights only apply to race. They apply to everyone, even you. And characterizing a race based on dialect in a negative light is racist. Sweeping generalizations are also, categorically, stupid.

So maybe you and Ray are right. You just lost your vote based on your own criteria.

Posted by John

Whim doesn't like Ray because he's Ray.

Posted by Some Anonymous Whim Reader

Whim doesn't like Ray because he's an asshole.

Posted by David

Rick and 'rick nail you guys at every turn.

Posted by Andrew Lent

"Throughout history, men have risen to great power because they knew what was in the best interests of the common man. Many times, this power over ordinary people was exploited. With my system, this will not happen, and for two reasons. First, I am not calling for an overhaul of the American system. People like Lenin rose to power because they led revolutions and influenced people into handing over their rights so that he could manage them for their own good."

This is interesting, because in contrast, Hitler and Mussolini were voted into office in fair elections.

I don't think any "system" that removed a certain segment of the population from the vote would be seen as a credible system. While it is true that most urban areas vote Democratic, you cannot make the assumption that they vote this way because the urban voters are poor and minorities (In fact, considering it was the Republican Party that really pushed Civil Rights legislation back in the 1960s, you almost have to wonder what they have done over the past forty years to make what should be a reliable constituency defect to the opposing party). Urban voters tend to vote Democratic because they see it as the more liberal of the two American political parties. Urban lifestyle and demands historically has lead to voting on progressive trends.

However, if you are trying to insinuate that Republicans don't have their fare share of voting corruption than you're credibility is already shot. Both parties are guilty of voter fraud, it isn't just indicative of one group or the other.

Posted by Some Anonymous Whim Reader

"And ... keep in mind that the Constitution of the United States does not grant the right to vote. The first popular Presidential election was not until 1824. Before that, State Legislatures chose electors to choose the president and VP."

Your interpretation of those facts isn't correct. The entire foundation of our government was based on voting. Just because the first popular election wasn't until 1824 doesn't mean that people weren't voting. Who voted for those State Legislatures? The people did. It was an indirect method to vote for the President. All 1824 did was give us a direct method of voting for the President of the United States.

Posted by Sam

I am not sure what history books everyone is reading, but the last time I read a history book ... or two, a higher percentage of Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act than did Democrats. Nice try with slipping that one in Andrew. If you don't believe me, look it up.

Posted by Andrew Lent

Sam, I believe you need to read for context: "(In fact, considering it was the Republican Party that really pushed Civil Rights legislation back in the 1960s, you almost have to wonder what they have done over the past forty years to make what should be a reliable constituency defect to the opposing party)."

That sentence clearly says it was the Republicans that pushed Civil Rights (as in they made it happen) back (as in the past) the 1960s. That is why I said you'd have to wonder why 40 years later the minorities were defecting to the opposing (Democratic) party.

Posted by Patrick

"I am not sure what history books everyone is reading, but the last time I read a history book ... or two, a higher percentage of Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act than did Democrats. Nice try with slipping that one in Andrew. If you don't believe me, look it up."

On the contrary, he was the one who first made the point. From the relevant comment:

"In fact, considering it was the Republican Party that really pushed Civil Rights legislation back in the 1960s, you almost have to wonder what they have done over the past forty years to make what should be a reliable constituency defect to the opposing party)."

Summary: Republicans pushed for it; despite this, they have failed to maintain the poor, black vote.

One assumes Republicans voted for it, as you asserted and Andrew certainly implied. I think you misread his comment. At least, that's the most sympathetic view I can come up with.

Posted by Sam

Aren't you still a Liberal, gay, hippy?

Posted by Andrew Lent

Sam, if he is, what does it even matter? Unless you're just trying to use it as a slur?

Posted by Some Anonymous Whim Reader

Well then, Sam, it looks like you just lost an argument to a liberal, gay, hippy. How's it feel?

Posted by Sean

First off, good article Ray. Literacy tests would be great if the public school system was actually doing what it is supposed to. How is it so bad that people should have basic knowledge before voting for the people who run our country, the most powerful nation in the world? It would still be important if this was a rinky-dinky 3rd world nation, but the people who run this nation, also play a major part in global politics as well. There is a public school system in this country designed to produce people who are educated and can think for themselves. Sadly, the public school system fails miserably at educating free thinking adults. Anyway, here is the point that Ray is trying to make, at least in my opinion, people should be informed and be able to make informed decisions when voting. The issue is not whether people vote Dem or Rep here, but rather are they making an informed decision, and not being unduly persuaded because they do not know any better. One mistake that a lot of people are making is assuming that the parties have stayed the same throughout history. They have flip flopped back and forth throughout the history of our nation. http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A4538793. that site gives some good explanations on where the parties have stood on various issues throughout history. Ya’ll can read, so I’m not gonna read it to you. A little research will show that they have changed positions all over the spectrum, so read it before commenting on democrats vs republicans in the past. A lot of ya’ll are falsely accusing Ray of being racist, which isn’t surprising coming from a bunch of Democrats, who believe that government is the answer and can fix all problems. Race only has to with your physiological makeup. Culture has nothing to do with race. This is fairly obvious in that you can take a white kid, and raise him in a black, urban home, and he’s gonna come out with black culture, but his race is still white. The problem with calling culture statements racist, is that since you cant change your race, and culture is part of race, you cant change your culture, and therefore, since you cant change your culture, your not responsible for it. And if you aren’t responsible for your actions and culture, then you can do whatever you want without consequences, which is absurd and not true at all. But the logic flows very well. And since the people cant change, big government has to come in and take care of you. With this view, the people will naturally accept big government to come in and take care of them, and thus that party has captured all their votes. They have become too lazy to go out and try to get a job and be self sufficient, they would rather live off welfare, and why vote for a party that actually expects that you should get out there and work for your living??? A lot of these issues goes back to the new deal and the start of welfare. Once people go on this horrible program, they very rarely come off. I mean, whats not to love if you can get free money for doing nothing but sit on your butt all day? And finally, there have been some comments on urban blacks being poor and uneducated, sadly this is true for the most part. With all the opportunities that everyone has today, from education, to work, there is no excuse in this. But they would much rather sit there on welfare and collect money for doing nothing, or worse, resort to crime. Granted, there are plenty of whites on this list too, but they don’t have to be on welfare either. The bottom line, and this goes for a lot of things, not just this topic, is that everyone has a choice, they have complete free will when it comes to these things. And while you cant choose where you start in this game called life, you surely have the power to decide where you end up, and since you have the power to decide where you end up, you are responsible for it. And I don’t want to hear that our society today is racist and holding the black man down, he has more opportunities today than ever before, which is how it should be. The sad thing is how is he using these oppurtunitites given to him. To choose inaction, and do nothing, or to accept what comes your way, is still a choice, and thus you are responsible for it.

Posted by Rick Snee

Thank you for that fillibuster-esque wall of barely readable ranting, Sean.

Here's a question regarding literacy tests: where do you get your news? Wouldn't an "informed" voter watch the news and debates on TV? Where do you need literacy for that? Even the test itself does not rate whether you're informed, just whether you have enough education to read and write--but how far would that go? Would they need to conjugate verbs? Perhaps identify sonnets by Shakespeare? I know: prove they've read six books for a vote and personal mini-pizza (Book-It was awesome). We can't even set criteria for standardized school testing, yet you want an already illegal literacy test for voters?

And why is this test only needed in the inner city? How can you try to say it's not directed at African Americans in this article when no other geographical location other than inner cities is listed? Hell, he could have gone the homeland defense route and cited immigrant families in the Southwest--but he didn't.

Culture is not defined by your dialect. Ray's cute ebonics quote negatively (and inaccurately) depicts ebonics as violent and stupid. So based on your arguement, does that mean their culture is stupid, but they could always adopt yours?

Give me numbers on welfare. I keep hearing the reasons why it's driving America's wealthy to unemployment thanks to high taxes (read: irony), but never hear any actual numbers. Your arguement here is devoid of fact and whiny.

We may not be a "rinky dink [third] world nation," but we're not an oligarchy to be ruled by the most influential. Where do you think poor college students would rank there? I hope you enjoyed your right to vote--if you're old enough to have had a chance.

I don't believe society is holding back the black man--I just call racism where I see it and that's regarding this article. I never said the government should solve our problems; bigger government is never the answer. This is about denying voter rights--the two issues are not connected. Turning this into an issue of welfare just because inner city residents are mentioned, though, is racist.

By the way, I'm not a Democrat, but thanks for your generalization. Considering how many "NASCAR dads" vote Republican, you may want to reconsider your position on "idiots voting." That was also irony, race fans.

Posted by Eric

So Ray, I am guessing you're one of the yahoos helping Erskine run for SGA President. You're all the same.

Posted by Peter

Well since Ray and company seem hellbent on turning back the clock, are we going to start dressing white performers up in blackface and bring back the ministrel shows?

Posted by Christi

Voting is not a right, it is a priviledge. Those who are informed of the candidates and have desire to help our country suceed should vote. Not everyone can choose where or what family they are born into, and should be given the benefit of the doubt.

Posted by Ray

If you did not watch the State of the Union without a credible reason why you missed it, then I dare say you are a candidate for not being allowed to vote.

Posted by Andrew Lent

The State of the Union? It's nothing more than a giant soapbox of crap. No matter who the President is I only watch the State of the Union with mild interest.

Posted by Some Anonymous Whim Reader

Andrew, after reading his article and comments, you should realize that Ray's favorite things in life are "giant soapbox[es] of crap," ranging from his picket line opposition to closing the library early for a fundraising event earlier this semester, to making racist comments simply to get a rise out of people, to composing ridiculous articles like this one that seek nothing more than to draw attention to himself. He's a sad little person who makes people mad so they pay attention to him. He seems to feel that it's better to be hated than ignored.

Posted by A bystander

First, I want to say I have never met Ray and disagree with him on many things, but I do feel like the attacks against him are not fostering any type of discussion and are childish. Apparently someone agrees with him considering the petition circulating through campus has had over 600 signatures in under 24 hours. As for the racist comments: where? I believe you are confusing race with ethnicity. I have never seen him make a racist statement, certainly not in this article. Distasteful and crude, yes. But racist, no. I do not agree the right to vote should be in any way restricted, however, no where in this article does it ever say anything about race. You generalization of the inner cities, claiming they are entirely black, is not only incorrect, but more racist than anything he has had to say. I understand his point to be anyone, no matter where they live, should have a basic background in politics before they are allow to shape America. This includes rich, white people like Paris Hilton. Next time, try not pulling the race card until you have had time to think about if it is really racist, or if you are merely trying to create a race problem because you can't fight him with substance. Thank you for your time.

Posted by Some Anonymous Whim Reader

Calling someone a "towelhead" sounds pretty racist to me.

Posted by Some Anonymous Whim Reader

"A Bystander" = Ray Gunter...that's even more sad.

Posted by Rick Snee

I do not agree the right to vote should be in any way restricted, however, no where in this article does it ever say anything about race. You generalization of the inner cities, claiming they are entirely black, is not only incorrect, but more racist than anything he has had to say. I understand his point to be anyone, no matter where they live, should have a basic background in politics before they are allow to shape America. This includes rich, white people like Paris Hilton.

If Ray meant political knowledge, then why advocate literacy tests? Literacy does not equal knowledge of current events.

I never said the inner city was entirely black. But did Ray mention "idiots" anywhere else in America? Did he make fun of dialects attributed to uneducated whites? No, he didn't.

So should voting rights remain unabridged as you started to say? Or do voters need "a basic background in politics before they are allow [sic] to shape America?" Pick your position.

By the way, I only cited sources in the article for my arguements--I did not bring up Ray's comments from the past. I am just that opposed to his idea in this one.

Posted by Ray

Ok, I'll post:

Bystander was right. I never used race in anything. I used the inner cities as an example becuase the democrats set up bus routes in order to get people to voting stations, provide day care for parents, and have manipulated illiterate people into casting a ballot for them. This is not done anywhere else that I know of, because the majority of people who live in the subs are conservative. That's just a fact. It has nothing to do with the P. poppa doody puff or whatever he is calling himself right now. That was an entirely different campaign to get the MTV youth, who are primarily democrat also (or so they thought) out to vote. They are entirely unrelated.

How can you say literacy test are a bad thing? If people cant write at a second grade level, they should be allowed to vote? Why should someone who dropped out of high school be allowed to vote on education referrendums? Give me a break.
Also, contrary to Blakes argument, I dont even go so far to say the media has manipulated people into voting for their party, even though they have.

As for the unconstitutionality of it--no [poop]. That is why they would have to make new legislation to allow for this. Remember, blacks voting wasnt constitutional for a while. You guys are all about change, so how about you change that?

Anyways, is that about it, or do I need to clarify anything else? No, I am not bystander. You should know better than I would sit behind a fake name. If I piss you off, I want you to know it is me. And I am not racist. But that was a good point there is a difference between race, culture, and ethnicity. But I can no longer use any of those slurs, so its not really an issue anymore. (BTW, ever notice I say y'all? There's my dialect.) I cant even say you are creating a mountain out of a mole hill because there isnt even as much as a molehill of truth to what you are saying. You are making this up out of no where because you know deep down inside stupid people should not be allowed to bring this country down with them.

Posted by Ray

The loaded context of Kanye West: Remember when he said this about Bush and everyone labelled him as an idiot? What this says to me, is all these people who are pulling this race card are no different. Ignorant people who don't know what they are talking about. It did make me laugh though.

Posted by Ray's Inner Monologue

Wow...no one really seems to be getting worked up about this. I expected to get people as worked up as Erskine does. Maybe I'll post a few MORE offensive things and see if I can get someone to pay attention to me. I thought for sure the Kayne West thing would get people going. Hello? Someone? Maybe I can get my mom to write in to stick up for me again...that worked pretty good last time.

Posted by Ray

Maybe no one is getting worked up about it because it's not supposed to be contraversial. Because I am not (entirely) criticing people's moral beliefs. People mistook it for racist, which it is not, but other than that it is just common sense. I am not trying to cause drama. I had a point I thought would be pretty well received, and from the lack of opposition to it, it seems to have been. Maybe it isn't as contraversial as Brian or Blake's pieces becuase they are more conservative when it comes to social issues? If I wanted to write something purely for a fight, you'd know it. Everything you have seen so far is relatively tame for what I can say to really spark a debate. Or is that what you want? Nice try though.

Posted by Ray's Inner Monologue

Must....get....last....word....know I'm....being...baited...but can't.....control it...too insecure....to let it....go....

Posted by Rick Snee

Thank you for clarifying your position on potential racial issues.

I still think eliminating people's votes based on literacy or welfare status is elitist garbage, but I know a dead horse when I beat one. After all, why would we amend the constitution to take away people's rights?

Posted by Ray

It's not about taking away rights as I see it, it is about awarding those who have accomplished something. I'm not saying literacy test should be super hard, but just basic reading and writing skills (IN ENGLISH). But those who are literate and would be most affected by politics should have a far greater say than those who can not even finish middle school. I'm not trying to be an elitist, I am just trying to secure the future of our great nation by eliminating the frivilous and uneducated votes. It seems like the way things are going, these could be the swing in national elections, not to mention here in Radford where a recent election was decided within 5 votes.

Posted by Dan

"It's not about taking away rights as I see it"

No, that's exactly what it is. The Constitution, as it currently exists, gives all those over 18, regardless of sex, race, or any other criteria, the right to vote. When you advocate a position that would introduce an additional criterium that would reduce the number of eligible voters, you are taking away rights from those who could previously vote.

"I'm not trying to be an elitist"

But you're doing such a great job of it!
elitism - The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources.