Letters to the Editor

• Like a gory car accident

  [Read the article: Coulter: "Who's running this holocaust in Darfur, FEMA?"]
  [Read more letters about this article: Here]

  I can't look away when I see the words "Ann Coulter", but when I do look, I nearly toss my cookies.

  I know that if I want to keep my breakfast down, I should skip over your AC posts--you put her name right in there, what more could you have done?-- but I can't, and I see I'm not alone.

  I guess I'm waiting for the day when she either:

  a) says the worst possible thing (hasn't she already? but apparently not) and is finally ostracized;

  b) does the worst possible thing (gets caught killing puppies for her supper or something) and is finally ostracized;

  c) is murdered for saying something like the things she says, which would be terribly tragic for the cause of free speech;

  d) dies of really anything, which would mean no more stupid things said by her; or,

  e) is visited by three ghosts on Christmas Eve, is blinded by a light on the road to Damascus, has a near-death experience where the light is really red...and hot..., gets bitch-slapped by Jesus who returned for just this reason (in his defense, He'd just had enough), or in some other fashion changes her heart completely.

  Until then, I guess I just have to peek between my fingers to see if today's Coulter Update has any one of those five.

  Permalink Monday, April 9, 2007 10:09 AM

• If these felons were actual criminals

  [Read the article: Florida gives voting rights back to felons]
  [Read more letters about this article: Here]

  I might see that they've forfeited the right to participate. However, considering the unfair drug laws in this country, I can only assume that many of these "felons" have been caught in this mess of a "drug war", and I can't assume that they are people I wouldn't trust with our polictical system.

  I never had a problem with felons not being able to vote for three reasons: a) criminals have forfeited the right to participate in the system by outright refusing to play by the rules; b) it's possibly a deterrent--break our laws, you don't get to play anymore; and c) in theory, if you had enough criminals voting, they could make the illegal things they like legal.

  However, the drug war changes all of that. People medically addicted to drugs may have questionable judgement (depending on the drug, I guess) but not necessarily a criminal temperment. Threatening people with not being able to vote or serve jury duty is not going to cure them of their addictions.

  Also, because of the drug war being such a mess, I think that it's only fair to give those who have been convicted in it the right to vote to change the laws. Who cares more about legalizing pot than the guy who got busted in college with two ounces? And who will change the laws if not the people who are being unfairly targeted by them? The people doing the targeting are already happy.

  Fighting back in the case of the drug war, and particularly in the case of marijuana use, is fighting the tyranny of the majority (or possibly in this case, the minority).

  William S. Burroughs was the first person who pointed out to me (um, not in person, obviously) that if the gov't wants to lock up a group of people, it needs to find out what they're into and make it illegal. Pot laws (besides being backed by Dupont and other anti-hemp folks) were largely targeting blacks and immigrants. His point was, that's how the goverment can lock up all the "undesirables". I'd say also that if you don't ever allow them to vote again, then you're also making sure your laws can never be overturned. Just arrest anyone who doesn't like the law and breaks it, and then you've cancelled out one vote forever. Do that a million times or more, and your stupid law can never be overturned.

  So, kudos to Florida for making the change.

  Permalink Monday, April 9, 2007 10:35 AM