June 10, 2004

• this appears to deal with the 2000 purge, but doesn't mention 2004 even though it's from today.
• While I disagree with the fact that ex-cons are barred from voting in Florida, quite vehemently, I don't see this as any more than the governor enforcing the law. I just wish there was a little more independent oversight, but we are talking about Florida here.
• I suppose you're not including CNN in the category of "American media circulation...?
• I disagree with the fact that ex-cons are barred from voting Why?
• Because they have served their time and are deemed punished and reformed by being released back into the public.
• I don't really understand why anybody should be barred from the vote. I really have never heard a valid reason why people can be removed from voting lists.
• In the 2000 election, state officials purged voter rolls of the names of more than 173,000 people identified as felons or otherwise ineligible to vote . . . After the Supreme Court closed the door to recounts, President Bush edged then-Vice President Al Gore in Florida by a margin of 537 votes, enough to win the state and, with it, the White House. (from the CNN article above - thanks davidmsc) --Mmmmmmyeahhhh.
• didn't see this earlier the MeFi thread chock full o' links.
• That's because there isn't a valid reason, dng. It's usually "Dem dar peepl arr bad egz!" followed up by how you "Don dezerve to ave a say if hughve broked the lawr." All of which is aribtrary, binary, and leads to a voting public that is not representative of the population.
• Why is it the most often used argument against [typically] conservative laws/views/ideas involves the use of stereotypical speech patterns of some backwoods hick?
• Maybe it has something to do with the old John Stuart Mill quote in addition to some other reasons that are on the tip of my tongue.
• Could also be because we're talking Florida here. And yes, I have lived there.
• just because lots of people *believe* a stereotype to be true doesn't make it any less a stereotype, or less demeaning, or less untrue. When one feels the urge to characterize all conservatives as something funny, replace the word "Conservative" with, say, "African-American" and see if it's still as big a laff.
• Kyeut! Kyeut! Kyeut! /Roscoe_P_Coletrain
• So felons vote Democrat? err.... uhhh... if they were allowed to vote....yeah...
• Interesting Kyeut Factoid: Coletrain, despite living in Hazzard County and serving in local government there, was *originally* from New York City. Upper West Side, I think.
• Yes, fes, because changing the context of a statement somehow retains it's meaning or something. Also effective? Parody. Observe. just because lots of people *believe* a stereotype to be untrue doesn't make it any less an observation, or less making people look at the mirror, or less true. When one feels the urge to characterize all liberals as something funny, replace the word "liberal" with, say, "cheese-eating surrender monkey" and see if it's still as big a laff.
• I try to replace the word, "conservative" with "African American", but I always end up laughing at the concept. And again, we are talking Florida conservatives here. Do they all talk like hicks? Hell no, but you can bet your ass some of them do.
• So felons vote Democrat? err.... uhhh... if they were allowed to vote....yeah... No, however if you look at it from a statistical standpoint, a felon is more likely to vote Democrat.
• Yes, fes, because changing the context of a statement somehow retains it's meaning or something. What I was trying to say is that while YOU may think that characterizing all conservatives as backward ass country fucks is funny, and those who believe likewise may also find it funny, and that you might all have a giggle about it, there are a great many conservatives who are NOT backward ass country fucks who might find being characterized so not entirely all that funny. Especially when it happens over and over and over again, and especially when the conservatives who might read the aforementioned characterizations are precisely the ones who are likely not to find it funny, as well as being the conservatives who are most likely NOT to characterize liberals similarly.
• *sigh* It's not about you, shawnj, I know (well, trust) that there's no animosity there. But I have always tried not to fall into the liberal v. conservative gladiator school, but I've been tarred with that brush a few too many times for my taste, and I tend to get ranty about it. I espouse certain conservative viewpoints, and people automatically assume that I'm some sort of violent fundemantalist Christian neaderthal racist with a sixth grade education who reads the Left Behind books with my lips moving and has as Confederate flag patch on my turned-around baseball cap. Most of the time I laugh it off, but sometimes it get up my ass. Anyway, no offense meant to you personally, and I apologize if that was inferred.
• I agree with Fes. Also, earlier I was asking a serious question - why do you, in America, remove peoples vote even after they've been released from prison. In Britain, as far as I'm aware, anybody not currently in prison can vote (although maybe people on parole can't - I'm not sure about that). (On a side note, I think that really, anybody, in prison, on a short sentence who would be released before the next term of government would end, should be allowed to vote. Although I would be very surprised if that would ever happen.)
• I espouse certain conservative viewpoints, and people automatically assume that I'm some sort of violent fundemantalist Christian neaderthal racist with a sixth grade education who reads the Left Behind books with my lips moving and has as Confederate flag patch on my turned-around baseball cap. I never thought that about you Fes, but that's a spectacular image.
• Oh, see, the comment that started that was not intended to be funny in the least. Think of it more as a value judgment on my part concerning how highly I think of that viewpoint. I used a backwards hick accent for it because I feel that the viewpoint is quite backwards, especially in a land where voting is a right held quite highly and where we pride ourselves on fair elections and promoting our system of government across the world.
• There isn't any animosity here. I'm quite prone to hyperbole and exaggerration (Damn my Saggitarius birth), and it oft leads me into trouble. I merely have a strong disagreement with the particular viewpoint. It had nothing to do with the people that have the viewpoint unless you want to infer that by my belief that a belief is backwards that the person therefore is backwards, at which point I would ask that you kindly get a clue.
• ...while YOU may think that characterizing all conservatives as backward ass country fucks is funny... It *is* funny. Get over it.
• And yet, when Limbaugh does his similarly stereotypical characterizations of liberals and feminists - based on his strong disagreements with particular viewpoints - somehow the targets of his parodies tend to have some difficulty seeing the humor in it. *gets clue, gets over it, goes back to work*
• Fes is cool.
• So we're alienating both conservatives and liberals with southern/hillbilly/country accents now? Well, ah'm goan next dough-er.
• Anyway, I'll be interested to see if anyone can come up with a good rationale as to why former convicts, no longer even on parole, are denied the vote.
• So we're alienatin both "African Americans" and "cheese eating surrender monkeys" now?
• What you asswipes have against aliens, I'll never understand.
• They have big teeth and stick in your chest?
• Oh Yeah. But they vote Democrat, so what ya gonna do?
• Anyway, I'll be interested to see if anyone can come up with a good rationale as to why former convicts, no longer even on parole, are denied the vote. Maybe if I ask a third time I'll finally get an answer...
• "while having served a sentence discharges a felon
• Three articles about the disenfranchisement of felons. It seems to be a relic of a time when only white males could vote.
• in other words, good question, dng.
• yeah it is. Looks like time to get Organized.
• how about: denying the vote to ex-convicts [is] necessary to preserve the "purity of the ballot box" from the "invasion of corruption" and that "this class should be denied a right, the exercise of which might sometimes hazard the welfare of communities. ?
• Poor rodgerd does't get it. The're EVILDOERS!
• Another question (I don't stop, do i?): What constitutes a felony crime? That can't just be murder, surely, if 2% of the adult population are felons?
• Poor rodgerd does't get it. The're EVILDOERS! Wrong thread. You should post that here...
• Matt Welch wrote an excellent article on why felons should have their voting rights restored. Even Glenn (RNC Talking Points) only the most extreme criminals should have their voting rights taken away.

  Those things shouldn't be felonies. To my mind, imposing civil rights deprivations for such minor, mala prohibita matters is a due process violation. Adopt that approach, and you don't have to worry about felons being deprived of voting rights unless they're murderers, robbers, rapists, etc. You know: real criminals.

• blogRot: Hmm. I suppose it's interesting to argue that if one has a sufficiently large bloc of people involved in crime, they might take over the government. The problem I see is that while I could imagine the upside of that - not allowing active Mafioso to vote, say - the downside seems more worrying. Ask vitalorg pointed out on the MeFi thread around this, there are a huge range of things that are or have been serious crimes (felonies, in the US context) where the law is often dramatically out of step with the views of a broad segment of society: smoking pot may be one good examples; miscegenation laws would be one peculiar to the US. It would seem to me that there's a huge risk of a tyranny of the majority, where an entrenched power group seek to hold power by criminalising broad segments of the population, who are thereafter disenfranchised. In that regard, this application of felon disqualification looks like nothing so much as Jim Crow era voting shenanigans. As a broader principle of justice it would concern me, as well. Asses a punishment. Levy it. And have it line with the crime. It may be one thing to revoke the vote of, say, Al Capone. It's another to revoke the votng rights of someone caught with a big bag of weed, and an entirely disproportionate punishment at that. Cruel and unusual, even. And, on a practical level, I've got to wonder what people imagine it's going to do for chances of reoffending. "Here, you're going to be sent to prison. You'll be assaulted and quite probably raped repeatedly, because we don't give a shit what happens in our prisons. When you get out, you'll be forbidden from participating in the most fundamental element of the social contract of a democracy. You probably won't be able to get a job with a criminal record. But we don't want to see you back here!"
• But I'm still not sure what being a rapist, etc., has to do with not being able to vote, Sullivan. Once someone has served his or her sentence, shouldn't they have restored rights? (I'm not even sure they shouldn't be allowed to vote while serving sentences,.)
• redgerd - you just reminded me that prisons aren't for rehabilitation anymore.
• "Preserving the purity of the ballot box"? How exactly do you do that when you take away the right to vote? If by purity you mean affluent, maybe you're on to something.
• Exactly, path, even if someone is serving a sentence, they are still citizens and have as much of a stake in elections as someone on the outside.
• What constitutes a felony crime? Blackstone: "As a rule, in the old English [common] law, offenses capitally punishable were felonies; all other indictable offenses were misdemeanors. In common usage, the word crime is employed to denote the offenses of a deeper and more atrocious dye, while small faults and omissions of less consequence are comprised under the gentler name of misdemeanors." Most (US) states break their crimes into two major groups - felonies and misdemeanors. Whether a crime falls into one category or the other depends on the potential punishment. If a law provides for imprisonment for longer than a year, it is usually considered a felony. If the potential punishment is for a year or less, then the crime is considered a misdemeanor. In some states, certain crimes ("wobblers") may be considered either a misdemeanor or a felony, because under some conditions the punishment may be imprisonment for less than a year, and in other situations, the criminal may go to prison for a year or more. (Findlaw) Wikipedia has a good summary; covering more than just the US. Also, this is cute.
• That second link reminds me of the whole Maury Povitch thing a few weeks ago.
• Anyway, I'll be interested to see if anyone can come up with a good rationale as to why former convicts, no longer even on parole, are denied the vote. punative. See: the US has more people in jail per capita than any other country. (or so I've read in multiple places of some repute - links anyone?) Suh, you hahve sullied mah honah! *Glove Slap!* Glove slap! Baby Glove slap! (yeeeahhh bayybee that's where it's at!)
• Smell the glove, baby.
• One reason to limit voting rights for felons is to insure the integrity of the electoral process, especially in states and jurisdictions where the populace directly elects judges, law enforcement officers and district attorneys.
• yes but the question is about a "permanent" disenfranchisement, not limiting voting rights. Felon @ 18; disenfranchised until dead @ 88?
• I'm with shawnj on this one. If a person is a citizen then they should have the right to vote. Period. Here in Canada, criminals have that right.
• How would it insure the integrity, f8x? People on the outside vote due to personal experience, too, you know.
• The premiums for that kind of insurance must be a real bitch.
• Most people on the outside don't have a real personal stake in electing a guy who will make it easier for them to get away with crime. Personally, I'm not opposed to change, but I'd have to see a good reason why felons should be allowed to vote.
• Felon @ 18; disenfranchised until dead @ 88? That'll teach 'em to become a felon later in life, rather than earlier. I say be responsible now, sow the wild oats later...
• So, what you're saying is that one person's reason for voting for someone is better than someone else's, and therefore people with the bad reasons shouldn't vote? What next, do we disenfranchise people who vote Mickey Mouse as a joke? How is this any different from buisiness leaders who vote for people who promise to roll back restrictions on business? You may not see a good reason why felons should vote, but I don't see a reason why they shouldn't. They are still citizens, like you and me.
• but f8x, there are plenty of people who break laws, some of them felonies, who are on the outside because they either haven't been caught, haven't been brought to trial yet, or the government couldn't convince a jury to convict. Think Bernhard Goetz. OJ Simpson. How about Ken Lay? What about Ed Rosenthal, posterboy for "Railroaded by the Feds"?
• If we want to make voting part of the whole citizen's rights thing, then why are we also depriving felons of liberty, sometimes for life? Or happiness? Frankly, I'm inclined to believe that felons who are currently serving a sentence should be considered criminal citizens, and as such, curb their rights (since they did not abide by the laws of the outside, there is no reason they should have those self-same rights inside). Once outside, perhaps a rehab voting process could work in such a way that reformed criminals could have their voting rights restored systematically, say after a 5 or 7 year period...
• Why not perform medical experiments on them, too?
• How is this any different from buisiness leaders who vote for people who promise to roll back restrictions on business? Well for one, you're assuming a)business leaders are criminals and b)rolling back restrictions is a criminal gesture. I don't buy this comparison argument. I'm talking about murderers and rapists and hardened thieves, not legitimate businessmen, however unscrupulous they may be. Outside of breaking the law, they are allowed to be as nasty and mean as they want, and vote for things that are bad for society--it's up to society to correct those votes in a responsible manner. Criminals, having abjured their constitutional rights and privileges in violence and abandonment of the law, ought to have a rigourous time regaining their voting rights after being released.
• Why not perform medical experiments on them, too? Or better yet, let's compare depriving CONVICTED FELONS of voting privileges to crimes against humanity.
• Do you not see any irony in the fact that a man who committed the heinous crime of using drugs, and got caught, loses his right to vote for president; while another man who committed the heinous crime of using drugs, and didn't get caught, is president?
• but f8x, there are plenty of people who break laws, some of them felonies, who are on the outside because they either haven't been caught, haven't been brought to trial yet, or the government couldn't convince a jury to convict. That's the burden of proof, my dear. If not convicted in a court of law, it's rather unprincipled and illiberal of you to cast guilt upon the party who has passed muster. Regardless of how guilty you think they are in private. As for those who have not yet been brought to trial--the wheels of justice move slowly. Their day will come. And for those who haven't been caught [yet], in this case, it seems that the government status of 'criminal' has different requirements than the social status. Until the social criminal is caught and becomes a governmental criminal, all you can do is request and vote for more legislation that will enable the capturing of said criminals more readily. Sounds glib, I know, but there it is.
• Frankly, I'm inclined to believe that felons who are currently serving a sentence should be considered criminal citizens, and as such, curb their rights (since they did not abide by the laws of the outside, there is no reason they should have those self-same rights inside). f8x, this already is the case. Incarcerated felons have very few rights. The state may search their cells at any time without notice, read their mail, limit their movements, etc. But those rights are restored when they have completed their sentences. I'm talking about murderers and rapists and hardened thieves, not legitimate businessmen, however unscrupulous they may be. So somebody who gets busted for growing too many pot plants in his basement- is he a criminal, or simply an unscrupulous businessman? it's rather unprincipled and illiberal of you to cast guilt upon the party who has passed muster. Okay, I'll take your point insofar as it applies to OJ. But not Bernhard Goetz. Sorry.
• Well for one, you're assuming a)business leaders are criminals and b)rolling back restrictions is a criminal gesture. Not at all. Do you understand what an a-n-a-l-o-g-y is? The point is that you were saying that the reasons that they couldn't vote was because of their rationale behind their voting. Thus, you are making a judgment based on someone's rationale for voting, despite the fact that voting does not require any rationate at all. I'm talking about murderers and rapists and hardened thieves, not legitimate businessmen, Ad hominem. They're all still citizens, right? Outside of breaking the law, they are allowed to be as nasty and mean as they want, and vote for things that are bad for society--it's up to society to correct those votes in a responsible manner And how is that any different from any of us on the outside? Aren't you free to vote for things that are bad for society? And show me where it is against the law to be mean or nasty. What next, should we take away the right to vote for anyone who happens to prescribe to a certain philosophy or religion? Because the two lines of logic are analogous. Your argument is like swiss cheese left in the summer heat. It's full of holes and stinks to high heaven.
• But Goetz was convicted of felony gun possession charges. Whether he should have also gotten convicted of vigilantism is not the question. Pot growers - right now, the law says it's a felony crime, so yes, they're criminals. It's like the old saying, "I don't make the rules, I just enforce 'em." Granted, I can definitely see the difference between a murderer and a pot-grower, but the principle should be the same (although personally I think a pot-grower shouldn't be given lifelong sentences, whereas I believe murderers should get the death penalty). Criminals, regardless of the crime, should have their voting rights curbed in prison for sure, if not afterword. Currently, only 13 states actually prevent felons from voting.
• Criminals, regardless of the crime, should have their voting rights curbed in prison for sure, if not afterword You say that, but you have yet to provide a single logical, Constitutional, or rational reason why they should.
• having abjured their constitutional rights I'm confused. Can you point me to where you draw that conclusion from? Because I'm not finding it.
• So let me get this straight, f8xmulder: Ken Lay should vote because of the "burden of proof"', but someone who has shown no evidence of having comitted a crime in 40 years ought to be regarded as a criminal? You're awful quick to swing the "murderers and rapists" card. Happy that a black guy with a white woman in the car, crossing states lines in the 50s may have ended his life unable to vote? Oh, that's right, it would be terrible to let him. He might have voted to get laws he didn't like changed.
• And how is that any different from any of us on the outside? Aren't you free to vote for things that are bad for society? And show me where it is against the law to be mean or nasty. What next, should we take away the right to vote for anyone who happens to prescribe to a certain philosophy or religion? Because the two lines of logic are analogous. You've misread me, shawnj. My point is everyone who is a citizen is free to vote for things that aren't good for society. And I'm saying that convicted criminals shouldn't be allowed to have that right. Definitely not while in prison, and at least not right after they are released. As I said before, I think a 5-7 year vote reinstating process might be worth trying.
• Do you really believe that if ex-cons could vote, that murder and rape would be legalised?
• Well, shawnj, as you probably know, the Constitution leaves this issue up to the states to decide, which the states have done. State constitutions vary; the ones that deny convicts the right to vote have no doubt spelled out their reasons...
• No, but if ex-cons could vote, they might be more likely to vote for someone who could get them off the next time they commit a crime. I'm not saying it will happen, only that it could. U.S. District Judge James Lawrence King wrote, "The African-American felon plaintiffs have not been denied the right to vote because of an immutable characteristic, but because of their own criminal acts. Thus, it is not racial discrimination that deprives felons, black or white, of their right to vote, but their own decision to commit an act for which they assume the risks of detection and punishment." It should be noted that Florida laws allow felons to seek the restoration of their voting rights once they have completed their sentences and paid restitution to victims. This I have no problem with, as I've said many times (but seems to be ignored).
• rodgered, please note that I am not opposed to restoring voting rights to those who have gone through restitution and rehabilitation. I don't believe that's unkind or unfair to expect a criminal to prove he/she has decided to live once again in accordance with human law.
• you give them the right to vote, you gotta give them the right to posess firearms as well.
• More from King: "The court finds that victim restitution is a crucial part of the debt the convicted felon owes to both the victim and society. Payment of that debt is directly related to the question of the applicant's rehabilitation and readiness to return to the electorate." It might be pointed out that Amendment XIII indicates that a conviction under law implies a loss of rights, including civil liberties. Implication, yes, but also precedent for a number of vote-remanding state laws.
• But those rights are restored when they have completed their sentences. those rights you mention are (mostly) restored when they complete the incarceration, not when they complete their sentencing.
• My mistake.
• And yet, when Limbaugh does his similarly stereotypical characterizations of liberals and feminists - based on his strong disagreements with particular viewpoints - somehow the targets of his parodies tend to have some difficulty seeing the humor in it. It's not the material, it's just that he's *not funny* and no pro-GOPers are. They just can't tell jokes. They can *be* jokes, but they can't tell them. See? That's the way it works. This is a law of nature.
• f8x, sorry to join the pile-on, but you're too good a troll to resist. Well for one, you're assuming a) business leaders are criminals and b) rolling back restrictions is a criminal gesture. Do you know any "business leaders"? I mean, know them well enough to have dinner at their houses and know their spouse and kid's names? How can you assume they aren't? I'm talking about murderers and rapists and hardened thieves, not legitimate businessmen This is a common right-wing bogeyman; the career criminal, evil incarnate, past redemption. How many felons do you personally know? I'll bet someone nice person you know casually has a secret criminal past. I believe murderers should get the death penalty Does this include murder committed by the mentally ill or developmentally disabled? How about accidental killings, or mistaken identity? Again, how many murderers do you know? f8x, you tend to state things in absolutes, as though problems can be understood in simple Black/White, Right/Wrong terms. Reality has many shades of grey, my friend, and the difference between a "business leader" and a "criminal" is much less than you might suppose.
• f8x, It might be pointed out that Amendment XIII indicates that a conviction under law implies a loss of rights, including civil liberties. Amendment XIII Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. Fairly obviously, this amendment was enacted to abolish slavery after the Civil War. It in no way implies any loss of Constitutional rights for felons subsequent to their legally-sanctioned servitude. To suggest otherwise is - frankly - desperately poor legal reasoning. if ex-cons could vote, they might be more likely to vote for someone who could get them off the next time they commit a crime. Name me a candidate who runs on that particular platform.
• ... as though problems can be understood in simple Black/White ... There's the rub that shapes our ends.
• Huey Long. Gerald Ford.
• Gerald Ford. Ha ha! You win :(
• except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted Please to explain this...
• I like how I'm a troll, but everyone else is a legitimate poster. Thanks zed, you make me feel so very special.
• Yeah, f8x, that bothered me, too. I guess the modern definition of "troll" is "somebody I disagree with."
• Hey, let's not be branding f8x here, ok? He's just espousing a point of view. It's true that we seem to be arguing at cross purposes here, but he's helluva lot more civil than the trolls over at the blue. Let's be grateful for small mercies. f8x, can you explain to me why it's not a problem that all other rights are returned to a convict upon the end of his sentence, but you feel that the right to vote should be suspended for years or even permanently? After all, criminal or not, they live and work and pay their taxes in the country and state. Surely that alone gives them the right to help decide who should be in their government?
• f8x, I apologize for the 'troll'. You've admitted in the past that you enjoy stirring things up a bit, and there are times when your statements fit the definition, but what the hell. Sorry. Didn't mean to offend. I notice that you avoided answering my questions. Care to give them a try?
• f8x: I like how I'm a troll You're not a troll ( ... although I am ... ). You're our friend, and we love you! :) Please to explain this... No: you explain it. It's your Constitution. Explain to me how the Thirteenth Amendment supports your proposition - "It might be pointed out that Amendment XIII indicates that a conviction under law implies a loss of rights, including civil liberties." Furthermore - I wanna know something about your proposition herein quoted: "if ex-cons could vote, they might be more likely to vote for someone who could get them off the next time they commit a crime." I've been thinking about this for a day or so now. I'd like - if it's OK with you - for you to expand on this point. Give us some examples of where such a situation could happen, where it could cause problems. I'd also like a more detailled analysis of the premises of such a statement. It's surely not the case that any person convicted of any crime whatsoever should be considered so outrageously anti-social that they should not be trusted with a say in their own society - is it? Furthrmore, surely you, f8x, as someone who values democracy, sees the danger in de-franchising people en masse who might have valuable contributions in - let's say - their more mature years, or even in a more enlightened legal climate?
• Nostrildamus: PJ O'Rourke is funny. Well, he used to be. zedediah: Talking to fx8 always makes me feel like one of us lives in a strange parallel universe, and is often frustrating thereby, but he's never struck me as a troll. fx8: Much of your position in this simply seems to be arguing that because the law is the law, it's right. This seems a touch short-sighted, to put it mildly. Besides, what's the problem with felons voting for someone to change the laws they don't like. Let people propose the legalisation of rape. Let a candidate stand on such a platform. See how far it gets. The only place I can imagine a small proportion of the population making a difference is in issues where there is, in fact, no broad social consensus about whether a given act ought to be illegal. Like smoking pot. In that case arguing for the abridgement of the voting rights of former criminals mostly seems like a desperate attempt by one power bloc to retain that power, rather than a legitimate exercise in justice or good democratic practise. And once someone has served their sentence in the manner prescribed, they have earned the right to rejoin society. That's a pretty fundamental aspect of our notions of justice. Having had a quick scan, it appears that, surprise surprise, the most Draconian of these laws correlate nicely with many of the most enthusiastic Jim Crow states.
• Sorry all, I've been away most of the day, so I missed all the updates. I'll respond to each as I can find the time... zed, you first. From that link, "...An individual posting honestly-held but controversial opinions is often mis-labeled as a troll." I enjoy stirring things up, but not for the sake of stirring things up -- I hate to see conformism in open forums like this, and it just so happens my view is not one of the majority. So my stirring things up is in the interest of achieving dialogue, not to screw with your head. Sorry if I've given that impression. To answer your questions: Do you know any "business leaders"? I mean, know them well enough to have dinner at their houses and know their spouse and kid's names? How can you assume they aren't? Do I know the CEO of Enron or WorldCom? Is that the kind of business leader we're talking about? If the CEO of Enron is to be taken as a model for your 'business leader', you're automatically throwing out the 99% of big business leaders who AREN'T crooks. That's my only point. A business leader could be a crook, but most likely isn't. How many felons do you personally know? None, how about you? Does this include murder committed by the mentally ill or developmentally disabled? How about accidental killings, or mistaken identity? Again, how many murderers do you know? This is off topic, but whatever. Murder is the intentional killing of another human being. So, if someone who is developmentally challenged can be proven to have intentionally killed someone, I think they deserve death just like any other murderer. Accidental killing isn't murder. I'm not sure I get the mistaken identity thing. f8x, you tend to state things in absolutes, as though problems can be understood in simple Black/White, Right/Wrong terms. Reality has many shades of grey, my friend, and the difference between a "business leader" and a "criminal" is much less than you might suppose. Well, let me ask you this. Is there such thing as Right and Wrong? I believe there is, and yes, I do tend to state things in those terms. But that doesn't mean I'm unaware of shades of reality. I'm very much aware of it, in fact. I simply choose to also believe that there are absolutes, that truth isn't relative, that Right and Wrong are definite moral absolutes, and that we, as humans, are defined by morality. I believe that morality is above creed, religion, race, or code. That it also coincides with my faith is a matter of course.
• can you explain to me why it's not a problem that all other rights are returned to a convict upon the end of his sentence, but you feel that the right to vote should be suspended for years or even permanently? The rights returned to the ex-convict are the ones mentioned explicitly in the Constitution. The right to vote is an implied right granted by the social contract and social law (two separate things, I feel). While social law allows for a person's rights to be reinstated, the social contract is something a bit more nebulous and carries with it more than just a law-broken/law-fulfilled expectation -- instead the punitive reach of social contract extends far beyond pure law, and implies a continual, lifelong payment--a life debt, if you will--for violations of the contract.
• Then again, something I just thought of is that once ex-convicts are back in the workforce, ie. paying taxes, then there is the whole "no taxation without representation" thing. As I've repeated before, I think that a legitimately good solution to this would be to provide an "x-year" plan for restoring voting rights. After incarceration and/or parole has been served, allow an amount of time to pass whilst the ex-con 'proves' he/she is back on the team. Pass an evaluation and voting rights are restored. Simple. Maybe I'm missing something with that solution...
• f8x, I'm not gonna reply to all your statements because I don't have time today for a proper response, and all this is waaaay off topic, but I do appreciate you taking the time to answer. In short, I've known business leaders, politicians, felons, and murderers, in descending quantity. Each catagory contains people who are ethical in greater or lessor ways, in roughly equal proportions. Some of the felons are pretty nice guys, but come from crummy backgrounds, and I wonder how they would have turned out if they'd have grown up without drunks and poverty and violence in their families. I include politicians in this list because the secret connections between 'business leaders' and them are strong, and both break the law in ways we rarely see. I'm sure where ever you live has some fine examples. Check out where your local paper's reporters hand out, make a couple of friends, and maybe they'll tell you some news that never sees print. Well, let me ask you this. Is there such thing as Right and Wrong? I believe there is, and yes, I do tend to state things in those terms. But that doesn't mean I'm unaware of shades of reality. I'm very much aware of it, in fact. I simply choose to also believe that there are absolutes, that truth isn't relative, that Right and Wrong are definite moral absolutes, and that we, as humans, are defined by morality. I believe that morality is above creed, religion, race, or code. That it also coincides with my faith is a matter of course. This is where we'll have to agree to disagree. I see morality as a cultural value: many parts of the world do not share our western morality, and they get along just fine. I prefer to use "ethics", a close relation that avoids the religious connotatons and does indeed connote a 'relative' truth. To answer your question, yes, I do believe some things are 'right' or 'wrong', but it's not that simple. Some things are right or wrong for me personally, or for the society I live in, or for the human species, or for the world that we try to exist in. It would be folly to confuse these distinctions: some things may not be good for me, but fine for you, but we can both agree that murder is a Bad Thing for society. Our social contract is always evolving to meet new situations, and absolute statements only hurt this process. Honestly, your way sounds so much easier. Not to demean your beliefs, but I envy your ability to adopt a morality that 'coincides' with your faith; my conscience won't let me. (Damn! This is my 'short' response?) Back on topic, once an American citizen has paid their debt to society, there's absolutely no reason why they shouldn't have the full rights of citizenry again, and Florida's government is full of old dried-up poopy-heads. THAT'S an absolute for ya!
• Judge rules for media on Florida voter list.
• "Florida is one of a handful of states that bar people convicted of felonies in that state from voting."
• Congresswoman Corrine Brown Censured...

  Representative Brown said, "I come from Florida, where you and others participated in what I call the United States coup d'etat. We need to make sure that it doesn't happen again. Over and over again after the election when you stole the election, you came back here and said get over it. No we're not going to get over it and we want verification from the world." Those comments drew an immediate objection from Republican members of the House. Leaders moved to strike her comments from the record. The House also censured Brown which kept her from talking on the House floor for the rest of the day. Congresswoman Brown responded to the matter in a statement late Thursday night. Congresswoman Brown wrote, "Striking my words from the House floor is just one more example of the Republican Party's attempt to try and cover up what happened during the 2000 election... When the words of Corrine Brown are stricken from the floor, so is the voice of her 600,000 constituents in Florida's 3rd Congressional District."

  I can hardly wait for the interspectacular, fantabulous Coup d'etat 2004! It's going to be... instupituous!
• you sick fucks.® Mr. Speaker, I move to strike Florida from the South!