EXTENDING THE RIGHT TO VOTE

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?

PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE DO NOT IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT

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.

JOHN ATKINS HEADS TO THE WOODSHED AND WE'RE HALF-WAY HOME

The Delaware House Ethics Committee recommended yesterday to censure Republican Rep. John Atkins, The Wilmington News Journal reports. The recommendation is expected to go to the full House for action today. In addition, the committee also drafted a resolution outlining other, more serious sanctions the house could impose against Atkins, including expulsion. Reportedly, some representatives on both side of the isle are considering voting to expel Atkins from the House.
The committee's action came in the wake of Atkins' actions during a traffic stop by police last October during which he flashed his legislative ID card after being pulled over for suspected drunken driving.
His actions apparently were successful, as he avoided a DUI arrest despite a preliminary breath test indicating his blood alcohol content was nearly twice the legal limit. He was arrested that that same night, however, after police went to his home to resolve a domestic violence complaint.
Still unresolved are the actions of the Ocean City police officers who turned their backs to the DUI case.

STRAP YOURSELF IN. WE'RE GOIN' FOR A CONSTITUTIONAL SLEIGH RIDE

Like gunslingers in a western movie, a house panel today approved a measure to issue subpoenas for Whitehouse staff, moving the Democratic controlled congress a step closer to a constitutional showdown with the Bush administration. According to an AP wire report, "The panel approved, but has not issued, subpoenas for Rove, former White House Counsel Harriet Miers, their deputies and Kyle Sampson, Gonzales' chief of staff, who resigned over the uproar last week. The full Judiciary Committee would authorize the subpoenas if Chairman John Conyers of Michigan chose to do so."
The panel's action is seen as a flat rejection of the president's offer of allowing staff members to be interviewed, but not be compelled to testify under oath in public. Click here for the AP story.

HARD CHOICES IN A SOFT MARKET

It's time to make some hard decisions about the local commercial fishing industry. Again this year, there are dire predictions about the availability of blue crabs, and genuine Chincoteague oysters are in such short supply that they are almost a dim memory. What with the declining harvests and declining ability to make a living in the water, maybe it's time for a limited moratorium on taking crabs and oysters.... and already I can hear some people limbering up their shotguns, pitchforks and torches to come teach me a lesson about interfering in their livelihoods.... but here's the thing; There's not much of a livelihood left. So maybe if you want or need to see increased profits and harvests, we need to let to crab and oyster populations rest and regrow. Three, four, maybe five years without shellfish is not too much to ask if we expect to have them abound for another 50 years. If we just lay off for a few years, cut way back back on the number of commercial fish licenses the state issue, and then alternate closed seasons, we and the health of the bays may be able to recover what we're so close to losing now.

IN THE 'SOME THINGS NEVER CHANGE' CATAGORY

Click here for a Fox News video report about a Chicago cops who beat the crap out of a female bartender who refused to serve him because he was drunk. The video shows the 6'1" 250-pound "hero-who-puts-his-life-on-the-line-every-day" punch the 5"4' woman to the floor with a haymaker to the head then continue to kick and punch her. The only thing more appalling that the attack is the time it took other patrons to come to her aid.
According to the report, the asswipe was initially charged with misdemeanor assault, but that was later upgraded to a felony.... apparently after the news media got hold of the tape.

THE TRUTH DOESN'T MATTER

A recent poll conducted by WRC-TV in DC, indicates that nearly 75 percent of those responding don't believe the reported confession by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed that he planned virtually every major act of terrorism in the last ten years. ... Count me among the disbelievers.
But don't make the mistake of thinking I don't believe the confession because I think he's innocent- he's not. In fact, I don't believe the confession because the only people who witnessed the "confession" are those who have plenty of reason to lie, and because his interrogators admit they subjected him to torture.
So here's the problem: The federal government desperately wants to catch those responsible to the 9/11 attacks, the attack on the U.S.S. Cole, bombings in Beirut and and a host of other untoward behavior, and the fact it has yet to do so, reflects poorly on the administration. But If someone were to confess to all those crimes, why, it might go a long way toward shining the light of goodness on the Whitehouse. ... So the truth of the so-called confession doesn't really matter to the administration. What matters is the public perception of the truth... So what if Khalid Sheikh Mohammed isn't guilty of all the crimes he supposedly said he is - he's guilty of something and that's good enough for government work.

MAYBE IT'S JUST GEORGE'S WAY OF TRYING TO MAKE NICE

The John Edwards campaign had an unscheduled meeting with law enforcement authorities this week when a white powdery substance was delivered to their offices. Meanwhile George Bush just got back after a visit to South America. Reportedly, he did not have to go through a Customs inspection upon his return. Asked about the substance, Edwards denied any knowledge or actual possession of the powder, adding, "I did not have sex with the President. Oh, he tried to [expletive] me," he said, "but he's doing that to the whole country."