Anonymous is right (on both counts, actually). I do love a great discussion/argument (which, unless we’re talking about drug legalization, pd seemingly cannot provide). On the second count, pd is trying to thread a blanket from two strands of string (or make something from nothing – choose your favorite analogy). Has anyone else noticed pd’s pattern, by the way? He (or she) levels a charge (racist, ageist, etc.), I’ll respond with facts, logical refutations, and serious questions. Pd’s comeback? A re-issue of the original charge. Anyway, as I read the article, one of the FEW actual complaints received by the state of Indiana yesterday involved the case of a group of nuns being turned away from their polling place after failing to produce a photo ID. Now, as I read the article, it appeared to me that the group of nuns KNEW of the new law, but chose to show up without one anyway. I don’t know about anyone else, but I would consider an “disenfranchised” individual one who fulfills all of their obligations in order to vote but is yet turned away for a totally different ( and/or unconstitutional) reason (i.e., the color of their skin). Also, pd’s article didn’t explain why the nuns didn’t return (or bring in the first place) with two of the dozens of acceptable forms of identification under the new Indiana law. Other than the nuns and a few other isolated cases, Indiana saw very few problems yesterday with the new law. Of course, all of this means little to pd, who really never seems to tire scolding “racist, backward conservatives” such as myself from the comfort of his/her gleaming ivory perch. Actually, I’ve concluded that if pd is calling me names, it’s more likely that not that I’m on the right side of the issue. Oh, by the way, pd, please don’t cut me any slack now or in the future. You wouldn’t want to go and ruin all my fun, now would you?