World of Suck

An article in the NY Times today addressed the issue of whether crazy people should be allowed to vote. Ok, that's not the nicest way to say it, but that summarizes the concept the most simply. But how do you define crazy?

Would most people say that someone who has been found "criminally insane" crazy? I think most people would. But for how long does that status apply? Ok the court agrees they were nuts when they killed someone, but should they get to vote? What about other people? Those with Alzheimer? People with Downs? People who, by law, are mandated to the care of a guardian or institution? Should those people get to influence elections?

This is actually a bigger issue today, with so many races being decided by a tiny percentage of the votes. One has to wonder what the right to vote actually means to someone who society has judged as incapable of being left to their own judgement.

Voting is supposed to be everyone's right and duty as a citizen. Putting aside the cocktards who don't vote because they don't care, is it fair to say that only "normal" people should be able to vote? If the only criteria is the ability to fill out a voter registration form, is that enough to be part of the machine that selects legislators at all levels, including local? If there were an extreme case, where lets say a small town had more patients in a mental institution than they did citizens, and those patients decided to elect one of their own as police chief, is that unfair? And to whom?

I'm not going to offer my own opinion here, but just these thoughts for consideration. At what point is someone who has been removed from society or who has their daily decisions handled by someone else a viable contributor? Where's the line and if there's any question as to their capacity, should they be allowed to vote?

On the other hand maybe it's a novel concept to use votes from the "non compos mentis" as a yardstick. Imagine the news reporting, instead of Red vs Blue, the number of people that voted like "a mass murderer" or "your crazy old uncle". There actually might be some utility in that.

I tell you, we've got some winners in Congress. We really do. Take Rep. Bachus from Alabama's 6th district. He's smart. And wily.

Sadly, it's more like Wile E Coyote.

So, they had hearings this month on internet gambling. And of course, the dangers of children having access to such an immoral and wretched past time.

At this point, they're interviewing a guy named Radley Balko. And Bachus brings out his 'trump card'. The exchange is baffling. You can click the link in the title for the full transcript, but I'll give you the gist here.

Bachus talks about an internet gambling site and notes that they have profiles of popular players. He notes the bio of Ross Boatman. The bio indicates that Ross first learned to play cards at the age of 10 by watching his brother and friends play. They didn't let him play because he didn't have money. But he watched.

Bachus looks up from reading the bio out loud and says "I guess the verification system didn't work."

Wow. Big throw down there. Really showed those internet gambling people, didn't he? Proof that the system is flawed.

Tiny problem... Ross was born in 1965. Which means when he was 12 (1977), the internet didn't really exist. And gambling sites certainly didn't.

Seriously, that was his big finish? That a 42 year old learned to play cards when he was 12? With real cards? That's how he's going to shut the door on INTERNET GAMBLING?!?!?!

So, the guy being interviewed point that little fact out. Bachus just wondered why the bio is still on the site.

Still?? It's not like it's been up since 1977. It's a BIO. Of a player. It's going to include how that guy freaking learned to play.

Freaking hell. Stupid fucking politicians. If you don't know shit about it, you shouldn't be allowed to write up regulations for it.