Friday, March 30, 2007


So, another dimwit felt the need to post an anonymous comment in the Daily Crime today.
"The Democrats in Maryland both the House and Senate have passed a bill to restore convicted felons' voting rights. Now this bill sits on Gov. Martin O'Malley's desk, waiting for him to sign it into law. This is simply outrageous. If O'Malley signs this bill, he might as well open all the cell doors in every prison in this state of Maryland and let all these inmates go free."

But as we address this issue, let's leave out the fact that the comment makes no sense and concentrate instead on the larger question of allowing ex-convicts to vote.
First, I can't see a reason for them not to be able to vote... is thee some sort irrational fear that they could emerge as a voting block and perhaps elect someone who is stupid, malicious, or dishonest? Well, don't worry about it, because the bonafied voters have already done that time and again, and all too frequently those voters and elected officials came from the "law-and-order" party.... just look at recent history: Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew were chased out of office with the hounds of felony charges snapping at their heels; Ronald Reagan and King George I were haunted by their traitorous acts relative to the Iran Contra affair.
So what's the reason? Is it a belief those who are convicted of crimes should lose all their rights and liberties forever? If we subscribe to that policy, then where is the incentive for those who have served their sentences to rejoin society as a productive and law-abiding member?
Still unaddressed here, is the real reason this bill needs to become law, and it has a lot to do with that fact that minorities are convicted of felonies at a significantly higher rate than us white folks, and by some estimates that means that about 25 percent of the black population is barred from casting a ballot.... and that's one way of getting around the Voting Rights Act, huh? So, is that the reason for the opposition.... because it might eventually mean a minority would occupy the Statehouse or even the Whitehouse?

Monday, March 26, 2007


Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagle is the latest politico to mention the words Geroge Bush and impeachment in the came context, and God knows they fit together like Oreos and milk. And despite the temptation to gobble it up like a stack of cookies, any outcome of an impeachment would be a disaster for America. ... If Bush is impeached and found guilty, then what are we to do with him? If he's sent to prison (the ideal outcome)or merely ousted from office, then the nation is left to the mercies of Dick Cheney. And if he's found guilty and not ousted, then what have we accomplished except to prove that the president is immune from sanctions as well as the traditional constitutional system of checks and balances.
No, we have to ride out this storm and take some hard-learned lessons from the experience - not the least of which is to never again let so-called "religious" leaders have a say in choosing political leadership. Moreover, we must all assume a certain degree of responsibility for Bush being in office in the first place. But let the vast majority of the weight for that clusterfuck fall on the shoulders of whose who voted for him, and let a similar amount of weight be shouldered by those who din't bother to vote at all. And let's not forget those Democratic elected officials who did absolutely nothing to curb the First Cur in the first six years of his reign of political terror.