Charles Blow, "Where’s the Outrage?": Blow in Need of Anger Management

I just took a train from New York to Boston, and when purchasing my ticket, I was required to show government-issued photo identification. As stated by Amtrak (see: http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/Satellite?c=Page&cid=1241267382692&pagename=am%2FLayout):

Amtrak has undertaken heightened security measures for the benefit of our customers.

Valid Photo Identification Required

Photo ID Required
Amtrak customers 18 years of age and older must produce valid photo identification when:

Obtaining, exchanging or refunding tickets

In order for the ID to be valid, Amtrak demands that the identification be "current and in-force." The identification can consist of "one piece of photo identification issued by a government authority, or two pieces of identification, at least one of which is issued by a government authority."

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Where’s the Outrage?" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/28/opinion/blow-wheres-the-outrage.html), Charles Blow decries state legislation that requires voters to produce photo identification:

"Millions of Americans don’t have these forms of ID, and many can’t easily obtain them, even when states say they’ll offer them free, because getting the documentation to obtain the 'free' ID takes time and money.

. . . .

Make no mistake about it, these requirements are not about the integrity of the vote but rather the disenfranchisement of voters. This is about tilting the table so that more of the marbles roll to the Republican corner."

Blow would further have us believe that state photo identification requirements for voting are aimed at preventing Obama from being reelected:

"Furthermore, most voter laws have emerged in the last two years. What is the difference between previous decades and today? The election of Barack Obama. It is no coincidence that some of the people least likely to have proper IDs to vote are the ones that generally vote Democratic and were strong supporters of Obama last election: young people, the poor and minorities."

I suppose Amtrak, by asking for photo IDs from it riders, is also seeking to prevent supporters of Obama, i.e. young people, the poor and minorities, from riding its trains. Indeed, where is the outrage?

No such thing as presidential election fraud? According to David Greenberg, in a Slate article entitled "Was Nixon Robbed?" concerning the 1960 election results in Illinois (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/history_lesson/2000/10/was_nixon_robbed.single.html):

"On the other hand, some fraud clearly occurred in Cook County. At least three people were sent to jail for election-related crimes, and 677 others were indicted before being acquitted by Judge John M. Karns, a Daley crony. Many of the allegations involved practices that wouldn't be detected by a recount, leading the conservative Chicago Tribune, among others, to conclude that 'once an election has been stolen in Cook County, it stays stolen.' What's more, according to journalist Seymour Hersh, a former Justice Department prosecutor who heard tapes of FBI wiretaps from the period believed that Illinois was rightfully Nixon's. Hersh also has written that J. Edgar Hoover believed Nixon actually won the presidency but in deciding to follow normal procedures and refer the FBI's findings to the attorney general—as of Jan. 20, 1961, Robert F. Kennedy—he effectively buried the case."

But more to the point, demands for photo identification at polling places are not going to determine the outcome of the 2012 election. As observed by Obama in August 2011 (see: http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-3445_162-20095106.html):

"'It frustrates people, understandably, when you've got an unemployment rate that is still too high, an economy that's not growing fast enough. And for me to argue, 'Look, we've actually made the right decisions, things would have been much worse has we not made those decisions,' that's not that satisfying if you don't have a job right now,' the president said. 'And I understand that, and I expect to be judged a year from now on whether or not things have continued to get better.'"

In short, Obama himself has acknowledged that the upcoming election will be determined by the health of the US economy and has asked that the American electorate decide in November 2012 on the basis of "whether or not things have continued to get better." Personally, I'm all in favor of Obama being granted this most reasonable wish.

Posting by New York Times of Anti-Semitism: "Amtrak Will Take Your Thoughts Under Advisement As We Consider Our Advertising Options"

In response to my most recent e-mail to Amtrak (see prior blog entry: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2010/08/amtrak-makes-no-claims-to-endorse-or.html), I received the following message from their Office of Customer Relations:

Thank you for your email response.

I have been informed that Amtrak will take your thoughts under advisement as we consider our advertising options.

I believe it is sufficiently plain that Amtrak plans to reconsider advertising with The New York Times given the willingness of this news organization to post anti-Semitic readers' comments.

This is an important development. Amtrak is the first organization to acknowledge the gravity of The New York Times's conduct.

Time to inform other New York Times advertisers of Amtrak's decision.

Amtrak "Makes No Claims to Endorse or Support" Anti-Semitic Readers’ Comments Posted by The New York Times

See below the response of online New York Times advertiser Amtrak to my complaint concerning their advertisements placed beside anti-Semitic readers' comments posted by New York Times employees:

We regret that you are unhappy with Amtrak advertising with NYTimes.com. However, as an advertiser, Amtrak makes no claims to endorse or support the opinions of readers’ comments in response to news items and op-eds in the publications and websites on which it advertises.

My reply:

Given that Amtrak is a U.S. government-owned corporation, your response raises grave legal and ethical questions concerning Amtrak's online advertising where anti-Semitic readers' comments, which purportedly have undergone "moderation", are posted by employees of The New York Times.

Is it enough to distance yourself from such anti-Semitic comments by claiming that "Amtrak makes no claims to endorse or support" such opinions? Let's examine your contention by means of what is termed in economics a "stress test":

Would Amtrak advertise on a white supremacist website, where readers' comments regularly demean African Americans, inasmuch as "Amtrak makes no claims to endorse or support" these opinions? This would never happen, because such advertising would be deemed to legitimize these readers' comments and subsidize their publication. If so, why is Amtrak willing to place advertisements where vulgar anti-Semitic readers' comments are posted by New York Times employees?

If you wish to claim that the examples and references that I cited do not provide irrefutable evidence of flagrant racism targeting Jews in readers' comments posted by New York Times employees, just say the word. Meanwhile, please note that The New York Times very recently posted the following reader's comment advocating Holocaust denial, which states in relevant part:

"In other words survivors of the alleged Holocaust can say whatever they want, accuse whomever they choose, make the most outrageous and irrational statements i.e. fabricate reality and lie and not have to produce an iota of evidence to sustain their contentions nor suffer the rigors of cross examinations."

http://community.nytimes.com/comments/krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/30/bad-for-the-jews/?sort=oldest&offset=10

You write, "We regret that you are unhappy with Amtrak advertising with NYTimes.com." Frankly, I am astounded that the management of Amtrak, a government-owned corporation, is not equally upset with the appearance of its advertising beside vulgar expressions of anti-Semitism.

I await your immediate response.

Yours sincerely,
Jeffrey