Federal ID cards

[packsaddle]

skeptic, do you have a reference for that? Even on this continent we have evidence of human existence which dates back far before that time frame. Trevorum can probably expand on this, it's more in his field.

[skeptic]

I will try and track it down. Always a possibility I misunderstood, or just remember mistakenly. The main point was when did the human species start keeping records of their lives and happening within them? The article I believe was in the L.A. Times, so I will see if I can find it.

[Trevorum]

Skeptic, not sure of what you are referring to. Sounds like something which might have been mis-reported in the popular press (the goal of which is to make money, not be accurate) and then later misinterpreted.

 

Archeological evidence of writing varies by location but dates back only a few thousand years. Maybe 10,000 years in the Near East using a very liberal definition of writing.

 

Evidence of human self-awareness is more difficult to identify, but representational art and grave goods, including flowers, dates back a few tens of thousands of years, maybe 50,000.

 

Our species, Homo Sapiens, biologically dates back perhaps 100,000 years. Some anthropologists push this to about 200,000. The DNA research is exciting.

 

Sophisticated tool making dates back a few hundred thousand years.

 

The use of fire may have become common about a million years ago.

 

Paleontological fossils of the earliest humans (not H. Sapiens, but closely related species) date back a few millions of years.

 

The earth was first visited by Xenu about 10,000,000 years ago (or, alternatively, in 1952). Just seeing if you're still paying attention.

 

 

 

 

 

[skeptic]

Well, I guess you really need to get zeroes in place when looking at these things. Am pretty sure this story http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1112680093/human-skull-migration-082212/ was the one I read, but maybe in the L.A. Times. As I often have done, I then have poked around at related things and came to a connected discovery of what they were calling "modern humans" that discussed them beginning from a range of 40,0000 to 80,000 years ago. But you have to get that extra zero on there to make sense.

 

Too little understanding of something can really confuse you. Still do wonder though how much relation there is to modern man's evolution to cultural thought and the writings of religious materials.

 

Whatever, just proves that the "experts" still are really far apart on their interpretations of our heritage, whether "modern humans" or the relations and how much overlap and intermixing there was.

 

So I am chagrined that I got this as mixed up as I did. May I claim old age?(This message has been edited by skeptic)

[NJCubScouter]

Here is part of what Wikipedia has to say about how long we have been around. (And yes I know anyone can edit Wikipedia, but this seems right and it is more-or-less consistent with what Trevorum said.) I have omitted the footnotes:

 

Humans (Homo sapiens), the only living members of the genus Homo, are mammals of the primate order originally from Africa, where they reached anatomical modernity about 200,000 years ago and began to exhibit full behavioral modernity around 50,000 years ago.

 

The human lineage diverged from its last common ancestor with its closest living relative, the chimpanzee, some 5 million years ago in Africa, evolving into the Australopithecines and eventually the genus Homo. The first homo species to move out of Africa was Homo erectus, the African variety of which, together with Homo heidelbergensis, is considered to be the immediate ancestor of modern humans. Homo sapiens proceeded to colonize the continents, arriving in Eurasia 125,000-60,000 years ago, Australia around 40,000 years ago, the Americas around 15,000 years ago, and remote islands such as Hawaii, Easter Island, Madagascar, and New Zealand between the years 300 AD and 1280 AD. Around 10,000 years ago humans began to practice sedentary agriculture domesticating plants and animals which allowed for a drastic increase in population worldwide.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human

[Trevorum]

The only quibble I might have with our friends at Wikipedia is with the 15k BP date for peopling the New World. This is longstanding dogma, but it is now being increasingly questioned by the so-called "pre-Clovis" hypothesis. Some well dated deposits can't be aligned within a 15k year limit. One exciting possibility is that an early wave arrived from Europe, following arctic sea mammals.

[packsaddle]

Well, since the other thread on politics started to evolve toward issues surrounding disenfranchisement of voters, I decided to bring this one back to life. I have heard this claim several times and this article seems fairly thorough:

http://www.politifact.com/georgia/statements/2012/sep/19/naacp/-person-voter-fraud-very-rare-phenomenon/

 

The claim is that only about a dozen actual cases of impersonation voter fraud have been proven nationwide since 2000. That seems like an outrageous claim until you read the research that led to the conclusion. Basically they focused on THAT particular type of voting irregularity because that is the type which voter ID laws are said to be designed to prevent. In that type, a person attempts to vote by impersonating a registered voter. The photo ID would ostensibly prevent this.

 

So I checked with our voter registrar. Keep in mind that nearly every official in the government of this state is Republican. The registrar stated clearly that yes, we had no such instances of impersonation fraud since they started to keep records. There have been numerous other irregularities such as voting in the wrong precinct, or voting by ineligible persons. When I asked how an ineligible person could vote without a registration card, you know what the answer was?

Answer: The ineligible voter was allowed to vote BECAUSE THEY HAD A LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENT-ISSUED PHOTO ID, namely a driver's license. And some feckless precinct person let them vote. But even those were 'caught' on challenge.

 

So I called the local Republican party HQ and asked why, then, such a sense of urgency for voter ID laws? The answer was: to make sure this exceedingly rare event doesn't happen. When I asked about fake photo IDs, they answered by saying there is NO WAY to prevent all voter fraud.

 

Now even conservative officials admit that a photo ID law is likely to prevent at least 1000 legally registered voters in this state from being able to vote. The vast majority of them are black, elderly, and poor.

 

Does anyone think maybe the true intent of these laws might possibly be something other than preventing voter fraud?

[Eagle732]

No voter fraud here in Maryland where the motto is "Vote early and vote often".

""At a time when many declare we should not be concerned about 'voter fraud', we have a poster child in disqualified 1st Congressional District Candidate Wendy Rosen" stated Delegate Mike McDermott. "These allegations must be investigated and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law as a vigilent reminder that our elections are precious and must be protected".

Delegate McDermott has formerly requested the investigation to look into the allegations that Ms. Rosen voted in the states of Maryland and Florida during the same elections"

 

Bet she had ID!