Maggie’s Saturday Morning Links

Saturday, July 14th, 2012

A man said to the universe:
“Sir, I exist!”
“However,” replied the universe,
“The fact has not created in me
“A sense of obligation.”
 -  Stephen Crane

(Thanks to Radley for the first two items.)

Digg it |  reddit |  del.icio.us |  Fark

24 Responses to “Maggie’s Saturday Morning Links”

  1. #1 |  Yizmo Gizmo | 

    This is the modern incarnation of Jim Crow.
    We stop and frisk them en masse in minority neighborhoods and if they have 23 milligrams of some powder in their back pocket–not enough to get
    a hamster high–boom-that’s all it takes, another “darkie”
    off the voter registry.

  2. #2 |  C. S. P. Schofield | 

    It is my understanding -and if I’m wrong, please, somebody correct me – that once the felony sentence has been served (including any parole period) in most jurisdiction a felon can petition a court for the return of his franchise, and such petitions are routinely granted.

    Now, I’m not saying that this is a perfect solution, or fair, or easy to do, but when I see the loss of franchise brought up I seldom see it mentioned that there is redress.

    BTW; Is there anyone in the audience that has firsthand experience of this petition process, as petitioner, lawyer, or other participant? How much trouble is it?

  3. #3 |  Helmut O' Hooligan | 

    “Almost 6 million Americans will not be able to vote in November’s presidential election under tough state rules that have pushed the number of disenfranchised former convicted criminals to a historic high.”

    Well then I call for a boycott of the 2012 election to show solidarity with the disenfranchised. Ok, to be honest I wasn’t going to vote anyway and I pretty openly advocate abstention, but this is another reason to avoid the polls. Anarchy for all and to all a good night.

  4. #4 |  Mike T | 

    Under the currently-popular “lock ‘em all up” mentality, what will happen if abortion is re-criminalized?

    All of the pro-lifers I know who favor criminalizing abortion as a class of murder are in favor of focusing the attention on the providers (not mothers) because it quickly cut off the supply while producing the fewest possible criminal cases.

  5. #5 |  Other Sean | 

    Yizmo, you said: “This is the modern incarnation of Jim Crow.”

    Look, if you want to say the drug war is bad for everybody, and worst for blacks, you’ll get no opposition from me. But that Jim Crow remark has about the same validity and conversational usefulness as a Hitler analogy.

    Jim Crow was an intentional system of racial segregation imposed by whites upon blacks. At its height, there were places in the South where the franchise was denied to 90-100% of voting age blacks.

    The drug war is a really bad policy with a conspicuously disparate impact on blacks. It is also, I regret to inform you, a really bad policy that enjoys massive support from inside the black community. If you doubt me on that, go visit a community meeting in the black part of any major American city and try telling the people there you support drug legalization. (You’ll get some idea how well it’s likely to go over when you notice the meeting is taking place in a church.)

    After 40 years of revolving-door imprisonment, the drug war has denied voting rights to 8% of adult blacks – maybe less, since probably we should not count all offenders in that total. It has also locked away and disenfranchised a few million whites.

    Similar as the experience may feel to the individual victims, there are important differences between intentional discrimination and disparate impact. Those differences are especially important to people who would make it their business to study and fight against the drug war.

    If we confuse one thing with the other, we’ll make mistakes, and smart people who could become our next allies will recoil from what they rightly see as an overplayed analogy that doesn’t stand scrutiny with the facts.

  6. #6 |  Juice | 

    The court had ordered that the boy be sent to a special school in Utah — at the request of his mother Rene Rotta — in light of his problems with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and Oppositional Defiant Disorder.

    Oppositional Defiant Disorder? Are you fucking kidding me?

  7. #7 |  Juice | 

    Also, I got a trojan alert when I went to the website of the Logan River Academy.

  8. #8 |  Highway | 

    From Mike T.

    All of the pro-lifers I know who favor criminalizing abortion as a class of murder are in favor of focusing the attention on the providers (not mothers) because it quickly cut off the supply while producing the fewest possible criminal cases.

    Sure, until that doesn’t work. Like it doesn’t work for anything else they try to stamp out, drugs and prostitution being the two that most readily come to mind. Then it’ll be “We need to shame the customers to get rid of demand!”

    Same song, different verse.

  9. #9 |  Fremdfirma | 

    Would that they were, Juice.
    Those teen concentration camps (cause there really is no other term for them) are seriously heinous and in fact were in many cases the testbed for the tactics now used at Gitmo – the status of youth as subhuman simply prevented it from being an issue till as recently as 2009 when WWASPS finally imploded.

    That whole case smacks of the mother seeking a false diagnosis as revenge on the kid for siding with daddy during the divorce, which is all too common, as is the practice of pitching kids into these hellholes for the pettiest of crimes – something the case of those two PA Judges (Ciavarella and Conahan) brought to light with the added bonus of exposing the kickback schemes usually involved.

    Daddy Rotta deserves one hell of a fathers day card for pulling that one off.

    Also – for more information on just how awful these places are you can check Caica, Fornits, or Jordan Riaks sites, but you might want to pop a valium first….

  10. #10 |  Bergman | 

    One of the core, founding principles of the United States is No Taxation Without Representation.

    Anyone stripped of their right to vote would have a very solid case for not owing any taxes either.

  11. #11 |  Mike T | 

    #8

    Sure, until that doesn’t work. Like it doesn’t work for anything else they try to stamp out, drugs and prostitution being the two that most readily come to mind. Then it’ll be “We need to shame the customers to get rid of demand!”

    Don’t be ridiculous. No one is under any illusions that back alley abortions would be affected (how common they were pre-Roe v. Wade is highly debatable anyway) or that the super-connected won’t be able to get them. However, your comparison to drugs and prostitution is an incredibly bad category error. Abortions are a medical procedure. That means that the supply side is limited by the supply of trained medical personnel capable of doing them; the majority of women would never want to trust their reproductive health to someone without medical training. All it would take would be to execute a few doctors and nurses who participated in the act and most of them would voluntarily quit.

    Same song, different verse.

    Perhaps if you are completely tone deaf.

  12. #12 |  glasnost | 

    10 percent of Florida’s population is disenfranchised. That’s obscene. It’s seriously screwed up that this isn’t unconstitutional.

    It is my understanding -and if I’m wrong, please, somebody correct me – that once the felony sentence has been served (including any parole period) in most jurisdiction a felon can petition a court for the return of his franchise, and such petitions are routinely granted.

    You’re generalizing.

    As of 2011, only two states, Kentucky and Virginia, continue to impose a lifelong denial of the right to vote to all citizens with a felony record, absent some extraordinary intervention by the Governor or state legislature.[3] However, in Kentucky, a felon’s rights can now be restored after the completion of a restoration process to regain civil rights.[3] In 2007, Florida moved to restore voting rights to convicted felons. In March 2011, however, Republican Governor Rick Scott reversed the 2007 reforms, making Florida the state with the most punitive law in terms of disenfranchising citizens with past felony convictions.[4] I

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_disenfranchisement

  13. #13 |  glasnost | 

    http://felonvoting.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=286

    I count eight states that require a pardon from the governor personally or permanently bar some classes of felon. Wikipedia is technically accurate but incomplete.

  14. #14 |  Yizmo Gizmo | 

    ” In March 2011, however, Republican Governor Rick Scott reversed the 2007 reforms, making Florida the state with the most punitive law in terms of disenfranchising citizens with past felony convictions.[4] ”

    Goddamn, I love this guy, in terms of pure love for his constiuency. I can’t believe people he has corporate/cracker interests at heart.LOL

  15. #15 |  AlgerHiss | 

    Why are voting rights always the center of this issue with felons and not firearms rights? Those that regain their right to vote, do they also get back full firearms rights?

    If I don’t trust you with a firearm, I sure as Hell don’t trust you with a vote.

  16. #16 |  DoubleU | 

    Alger #15.
    I have asked that same question many times, it isn’t about rights, it is about the way that person tends to vote.

  17. #17 |  Boyd Durkin | 

    Dan Rotta might be my new hero.

  18. #18 |  Other Sean | 

    AlgerHiss,

    “If I don’t trust you with a firearm, I sure as Hell don’t trust you with a vote.”

    Is there a difference between votes and firearms? Because either way I seem to end up with a barrel pointed pressed against my head.

  19. #19 |  Brian | 

    So what happens when Mrs. Guzman Rotta files divorce and claims a share of the son’s assets?

  20. #20 |  Debi | 

    Re: felons, votes, and guns – There are felons who I’d trust with a gun. There are non-felons who I wouldn’t trust with a gun. The same goes for a vote. I don’t think that felons should automatically lose the right to either.

    Re: abortion – We’ll keep having them. Unless you hate women and want to see us imprisoned, hurting, or dead, you should fight for our right to decide what we do with our own bodies. We have always ended unwanted pregnancies. We terminated before abortion was legal. We’ll terminate if it’s criminalized again. We’re terminating now, when access is challenged. We’re organized enough now that we can continue providing abortions to women who want them even if all the clinics are shut down. We’re intelligent creatures, able to train and be trained in terminations. Medical abortions are as simple as taking some pills. People who are opposed to abortions should be working to provide contraception and comprehensive sex education. They should be fighting for financial assistance for women who want to continue pregnancies but can’t because of money concerns. And they should be educating men to respect women and stop raping us. To make abortion illegal is about controlling and punishing women. It doesn’t decrease or end abortion. We’ll keep having those. To deny us that choice is to imprison us before we ever see a courtroom.

  21. #21 |  Leah | 

    Sure, just cut off the supply because the women you know wouldn’t end a pregnancy if their doctor weren’t allowed to do it. I’m sure that wouldn’t lead to far more of these situations (http://drjengunter.wordpress.com/2012/05/19/when-safe-abortion-isnt-a-choice/) that actual doctors see right now due to access limitations and fear and poverty. But you know, kill off a few women. They’re less important than fetuses anyway.

  22. #22 |  Speakertweaker | 

    Re: felons, votes, and guns – There are felons who I’d trust with a gun. There are non-felons who I wouldn’t trust with a gun. The same goes for a vote. I don’t think that felons should automatically lose the right to either.

    Hearing that makes my heart go pitter-pat. I raise my glass to you, Debi!

  23. #23 |  egd | 

    •Under the currently-popular “lock ‘em all up” mentality, what will happen if abortion is re-criminalized?

    The same thing that happens when modern cancer treatments are criminalized. And when novel surgical procedures are criminalized.

    Why would anyone assume a regulation on medical treatments would result in imprisoning patients? Do we see everyday patients locked up because doctors ignore FDA regulations (even if it is at the urging of patients or their families)?

  24. #24 |  Mark F. | 

    Since abortion is considered murder (by pro-life people), it makes sense to treat the woman as an accomplice in murder, right? So that could include the death penalty. Just sayin….

Leave a Reply