[extropy-chat] Ethics - Brought to You by the Bush Brothers

Mike Lorrey mlorrey at yahoo.com
Tue Aug 24 14:23:02 UTC 2004

--- Spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:

> > Olga Bourlin
> > Subject: [extropy-chat] Ethics - Brought to You by the Bush
> Brothers
> >  
> > Ooooh, this distresses me:
> > 
> > "...Ms. Hood, handpicked by Governor Bush to succeed the 
> > notorious Katherine Harris as secretary of state, was forced to
> admit
> that the 
> > felons list was a mess. She said the problems were unintentional...
> Partially believable.  Some states allow felons to vote
> after they have served their sentences.  What if the
> felons serve their time, then move to Florida?  What if
> the felon is in the federal witness protection program?
> What if the felons are convicted and serve in Florida, 
> then move to another state?  The way the law 
> is written is contradictory and confusing.

Well, yes, this was one of the bones of contention in 2000. Harris had
all felons purged. Now, another states policy toward felons really only
applies if the felon is voting in that state.

A felon who has gone through the process of petitioning the court for
relief of civil disability is a different story from one who simply has
finished their probation.

> > What clearly was intentional
> > was the desire of Ms. Hood and Governor Bush to keep the list
> secret...
> Are post-release felons entitled to privacy?  Being an 
> openness advocate, I would suggest the contrary, however
> an argument could be made either way.  I can certainly see why
> the felons would want to cover their tracks.

Yeah, felonies are public records, no buts about it. Privacy Act
doesn't cover it because criminal acts are acts against The People, who
therefore have an interest in knowing the records regarding those acts.

> > It was disclosed only as a result of lawsuits filed under Florida's
> admirable
> > sunshine law."
> > 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/23/opinion/23herbert.html
> Olga
> This is shaping up to a replay of 2000.  I wouldn't be surprised
> if pretty much all the same states went to the same parties,
> and once again Florida, with the deciding wad of electoral college
> delegates, is once again was too close to call.  Weeks of 
> bitter acrimony could follow, with disputed undervotes and
> overvotes, ambiguous write-ins, etc.  I saw a poll showing
> Florida voters at 48% W, 46% whats-his-name, 3% Ralph, and 3%
> all others combined (including still undecided), with a +/-2% 
> uncertainty factor.  Here we go again.  {8-|  I notice the IFX 
> ideas futures exchange has been selling republicans for 51 cents 
> and democrats for 50 cents for the past 4 months with scarcely 
> any change.

Yeah, and Banarik has polled as high as 5% in New Mexico and is doing
well in a number of other states. Nationally he could pull 3%
if the vote were today, the best LP showing ever. LP momentum is

I think a few states will flip. California may flip thanks to the
Guvernator, Pennsylvania may flip, and both went to Gore before.
California alone could throw the election.

Mike Lorrey
Chairman, Free Town Land Development
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
                                         -William Pitt (1759-1806) 
Blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism

Do you Yahoo!?
Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now.

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list