I was on vacation through Wednesday of this week, but did post an omnibus reaction piece to the Cuddyer, V-Mart, and Gose deals. I also held a Klawchat on Thursday.
This week’s links …
- I was arrested for voting. Iowa is ignoring the rules of our democracy.
- I was noodling around, looking for substitutes for cheddar cheese in a dish, and found two good links on the classes of cheese, organized by melting properties, one from Fine Cooking, and one from cheese expert Liz Thorpe.
- Scientists keep learning more about our microbiome, like how bacteria in our GI tracts might help fight off viruses.
- I know you’ll be shocked, but the 2014 All-Star Game didn’t live up to financial projections. Those projections are always pie-in-the-sky claims from people with a vested interest in the event. Ignore them.
- That video of the heroic Syrian boy who rescued a young girl while under fire? It was fake. Even if the creators’ hearts were in the right place, this will do far more damage than good.
A nifty trick to avoid being arrested for illegally voting as a convicted felon: Don’t commit felonies.
That ignores the salient issues in the post. One is that the law was changed ex post facto. Another is that a nonviolent drug offense isn’t the same class of crime as, say, assault and battery. A third is the question of whether someone wrongly convicted of a felony should lose his/her right to vote. And most important is the question of whether convicted felons should lose their right to vote at all.
“Convicted felon” is redundant, like Rio Grande River. A felon is one who’s convicted of a felony.
Keith
You are using ex post facto incorrectly. Laws change and actions are newly criminalizes all the time. Ex post facto would be if the law changed and criminalizes actions taken before the law changed. Here, the law changed in 2011, she voted in 2013, not ex post facto.
Tony: I know what “ex post facto” means – it’s Latin for “after the fact.” The penalty that applied at the time she committed her initial crime was changed after she was done with the legal process. It’s like saying someone who served six months and was released has to go back and serve another month because the penalty for the crime changed.
It is most Astonishing that politicians gain votes for ever worsening punishment to individuals.
Keith, I would argue that the most important issue in the article is this young woman’s propensity towards committing felonies, not her (in)ability to vote for whichever Democrat politician promises her the most government assistance.
A delightfully judgmental point of view, Carter.
Don’t doubt you know what the Latin phrase means but you are using it in the American jurisprudential sense and, while it may be technical, you are using it wrong. Changing the voting consequences of having a felony is changing the collateral consequences of a conviction, not the punishment. That the civil consequences of a conviction are not part of the punishment is clear under the law and, therefore, changing those consequences cannot be ex post facto. Not saying that change is right, but it doesn’t violate ex post facto. You seem to be someone who appreciates precision in language so I would hope you’d want to be precise and accurate here too.
I appreciate precision, but not pedantry. The penalty was changed after the fact – ex post facto – of her conviction.
Sure. But I’m not being pedantic. Saying a law is ex post facto is saying it violates the U.S. Constitution. Which this does not. The ACLU suit makes no such claim as far as I can tell. One man’s precision can be another’s pedantic I guess, but you’re wrong here.
By the way, thanks for the PKD review. I’ve not read Flow but I need to check it out. If you want good sci-fi, I recommend Red Mars if you haven’t read it.
Aside from the issue of disenfranchising felons, I really don’t see how you can “unknowingly [be] registered or cast a vote.” Look, I’m not a felon, but I do have a criminal record. Trust me. I’m intensely aware of the details of my situation. I know how long it will be before I can buy a gun in my state. I know where I can and can’t work. I know how long I’ll go away the next time I break the law. I know whether or not I’m allowed to vote.
Maybe it’s because we haven’t let felons vote in California for at least as long as I’ve been alive; but I’m kinda surprised that anyone with a felony on their record would expect that they’d be allowed to vote. Before reading this, I thought that a felony resulted in automatic nationwide disenfranchisement. (Although I’m not completely convinced that it should).
Here’s an interesting thought experiment… Would she gain as much public sympathy if she were arrested for trying to buy a gun? Just saying… that bit is in the Bill of Rights.
I would love to get your take on the La Stella and Vizcaino deal. Obviously, international slot money as well, but it seems like a strange move for the Cubs with the glut of middle IF players both at the MLB level and in the minors.
Vern: I posted that reaction on Monday.
Regarding the All Star Game and the now revised revenue estimates, I think, or others, may have recommended Soccernomics to you. Despite the title, there are a few chapters that talk about subjects beyond soccer that you’d find interest in. One of them deals with the fact that there is no economic reason to host a major sporting event (by major, they use Olympics or World Cup). They do find that these major events can help a city’s or country’s morale. Whether a MLB All Star game fits is up to debate. Of course, one only needs to look at the cities withdrawing their bid to host the 2022 Winter Olympics that even this isn’t worth the enormous expense of hosting the games.