Does the Bow Tie Ever Spin Around?

Have been watching Tucker Carlson's The Situation on MSNBC, primarily because it features left wing radio's smoothest coolest sexiest lesbian, Rachel Maddow. It's not a bad show, perhaps an attempt by Carlson to answer to charges garnered from his participation in the yellfest that was Crossfire, but it often loses me, especially with that dingbat Tucker has employed as his "devil's advocate" on the "Outsider" segment. Wow. I could argue more effectively exerting my diaphragm to squeeze air through my sphincter muscles. And, I often do.

The "Outsider" segment is pretty contrived: Carlson introduces news stories from around the country, and this fella who looks like your RA your second year in undergrad, he's supposed to play devil's advocate and "defend" it. So, tonight Carlson mentions the fact that Gov. Tom Vilsack of Iowa is set to restore voting rights to ex-felons who have completed their sentences.

"Aw, c'mon, Tucker dude," says the Outsider guy. "You know, dude, awwww, those dudes like, already served their sentences, dude." You know, this "Outsider" segment for some reason reminds me of a rumor I hear tell that Tom Cruise likes to work with actors who are very very short because, well, it makes him look tall.

Carlson counters by arguing that ex-cons don't have very good judgement and therefore should not be allowed to vote. He also notes that Alzheimer's patients generally do not make their ways to the polls, and that sex offenders often must fulfill certain requirements after incarceration.

First, a little background. There are five states in the nation that fully deny voting rights to ex-cons. They are Iowa, Kentucky, Alabama, Florida, and Virginia. Other states have varying policies, 14 states automatically restore voting rights; four states restore rights after parole; and 18 do so after prison sentence, parole and probation. Therefore, it should be understood that withholding of the voting right altogether is the exception, not the rule.

Second, to compare the cases of ex-convicts and people not in stable states of mind is directly and nearly moronically contradictory. A person has to be found competent before standing trial, you numbnuts. The state cannot first find a person competent for the purpose of standing trial and then incompetent for the civil privelege of voting. And Tucker, mah man, you cannot compare the general population of convicts to the recidivist-like-clockwork population of sex offenders. Just can't do it.

Denying ex-convicts the right to vote amounts to cruel and unusual punishment, extending a convict's sentence into his entire life. More important, though, it dillutes the effectiveness of the penal systems that prescribe it (as does, I often argue, the death penalty). The true cost to the convicted criminal is supposed to be his loss of liberty, something that's supposed to mean more to the inhabitants of this country than life. Restoration of that liberty should act like a carrot, but without the right to vote included, you might as well be waving a can of beets in front of 'em. I hope those other states, including my own, follow suit.