Demagogue

I don't know how anyone can manage to have an affair. A one-time thing when you're out of town on business, sure, but anything that could be called a "relationship" seems impossible. Between the kids, work, and household chores (I think I'm forgetting something; oh, yeah, sleep), I haven't had time to post anything lately. No self-respecting floozie would tolerate such treatment. As I always say to Mrs. C whenever she (jokingly) asks if I'm having an affair, "Who has the time?"

Anyway, a couple of things I've noticed lately and would have said more about if I'd had the energy and time to do it. To quote Linda Richman, "Talk amongst yourselves. Discuss:"

Will the GOP leadership support this bill? If not, why not?

Also on voting: To a lot of people, the notion that citizens should permanently lose their right to vote when convicted of any felony sounds like a good idea. In fact, that's the law only in a tiny minority of states (including Florida), but almost all states disenfranchise at least some felons for at least some period (e.g., only Vermont and one other state that I can't recall permits people to vote when they're still in prison). But whatever you think the law should be, this lawsuit by Ed Still in Alabama shows how felon-disenfranchisement statutes are kind of like the death penalty: you can support them in principle, but the way they are administered is so error-prone, random, and arbitrary that you'd still have to agree the system needs fixing.

And if Ed's case doesn't convince you, check out this study of nationwide variations in administering felon-disenfranchisement laws (pdf).