CAT Tracks for August 5, 2009 DOG DAYS EDITORIALS

If you'll pardon the expression!

Two unattributed editorials in today's New York Times would seem to confirm the dearth of news articles of the past few days. When there is no real news...no real cause...reach for the obscure.

As an avid practitioner, I'll start with my personal favorite...

Naps...

From reading the first paragraph of the editorial, based upon the survey results, it is purrfectly clear...I am one unhappy, black man!

Of course, the "editor" points out that the survey is flawed. I would extend her/his concerns...there is no mention of young or old, worker or retired, human or animal.

Maybe instead of being an angry African American male, I'm an old, retired, CAT.

Let me lie down and ponder that for a bit...yaaaaawn!

---

From the New York Times...

---

To Nap, Perchance to Dream

The Pew Research Center has just published an interesting survey on naps and napping. It found that 34 percent of American adults had taken a nap in the past 24 hours. Men nap more than women, blacks more than whites and Hispanics, the unhappy more than the happy.

But we can’t help seeing a flaw in this survey, and we suspect, therefore, that it wasn’t written by a napper. For instance, instead of asking, “Have you napped in the past 24 hours?” Why not ask, “Do you nap often or regularly?” The Pew survey also examines the reasons Americans have trouble sleeping, as if trouble sleeping was the major precondition for a midday snooze. Regular nappers know that a good night’s sleep never precludes a good afternoon nap.

Something about the shape of this survey suggests — ever so slightly — that napping is aberrant behavior, a personal rebellion against workplace wakefulness. But how would the number of adult American nappers change if American businesses encouraged napping? If businesses knew, as all good nappers know, that a short nap is the best way to recharge yourself during the day?

We suspect the numbers would rise dramatically, proving that there is no hard and fast distinction between nappers and non-nappers, only a difference in opportunity. After all, napping is an entirely normal part of normal human sleep patterns. And studies have shown that short naps enhance alertness and productivity.

So why is it easier to find a coffee machine in the office than a spot for a doze? Perhaps the simplest answer is that sleep is so relentlessly personal. We are never more who we really are than when sound asleep, and being who we really are is something we’re supposed to do on our personal time.

But let’s try to think of it this way. Plenty of us bring work home. Why not bring a little sleep to the office? It worked in kindergarten. It would work even better now.

I suppose it's harsh to label fighting for the rights of prisoners "obscure".

But...

Voting rights for those behind bars...I draw the line. It's NOT high on my list of concerns...in fact, it's not on my list at all. Count me among the opposed.

Don't get me wrong...I believe that prisoners have rights, mainly the right NOT to be abused...by prison guards or their fellow inmates.

Oh, the "Miranda Rights" are a given. I believe in innocent until proven guilty. Decent food, TV time, exercise time...for it. And, yep...let 'em have law books in the prison library. (The latter is one of those "win-win" situations...gives the many lawyers who go to prison something to do - a ready-made tutoring gig - and it provides a ready rank of replacements!)

Will readily admit to being a believer in "punishment" rather than "rehabilitation" when it comes to the "purpose of prison" philosophy.

If "We, the people" take away your freedom, treat you like a human being during the process, AND you see the error of your law-breaking ways...OUTSTANDING!

BUT, bottom line...we put you behind bars to punish you for not being able to play well with others. We hope that you got the message...LOUD AND CLEAR! If not...you will get another round of "time out", uh, another round of "time in".

This "cause" - voting rights for prisoners - clearly violates an oft-uttered principle of NOT "turning the asylum over to the inmates."

And, let's be for real...do you really believe that receiving the "right to vote" for law-makers is going to straighten up those hard-core, convicted law-breakers that are profiled on A&E daily? Ain't one of them folks that loses sleep over not being able to vote for Mayor, Governor, Representative, Senator, or President! Did the knowledge that they would lose their right to vote if captured and convicted stop them from raping and pillaging, murdering and plundering?

It's simply one of many ploys prisoners learn and employ to gain sympathy...to distract the "do-gooders" from the deeds committed by the "do-badders" to earn their "three hots and a cot."

EXCEPTION...

I AM a fervent believer that once a convicted criminal has "paid his debt to society"...he/she should regain the right to vote. Not even going to quibble about whether the former inmate did the full time or was released early. They don't even have to say "I'm sorry."

Once they walk out the doors of prison, former inmates should be allowed to register and vote according to the timelines available to the general public. (Currently, only 15 states allow former prisoners to vote.)

THAT will be their chance to prove to society how important the right to vote really is to them...can it break the cycle of recidivism prevalent among prisoners.

Anyway...while you are reading the editorial about voting rights for prisoners, I feel a certain recidivism calling my name...Yaaaaaawn!

A Loss for Voting Rights

Voting rights advocates have had little success challenging felon disenfranchisement laws in court. Last week, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, in Boston, became the latest federal court to uphold a ban on voting by convicted felons. Despite these setbacks, the cause is important. Voting rights advocates should keep fighting in the courts, state legislatures and Congress.

In 2000, Massachusetts changed its laws to prohibit felons in prison from voting. Until then, it was one of only three states that let felons vote from behind bars. Even with the change, Massachusetts remains one of just 13 jurisdictions that disenfranchise felons while they are incarcerated but not after they are freed.

A group of prisoners sued, arguing that their disenfranchisement violated the Voting Rights Act. The felons whose right to vote was taken away in Massachusetts are disproportionately black and Hispanic, the prisoners said, partly because of a bias in the justice system.

The appeals court, voting 2 to 1, threw out the suit at an early stage. When it passed the Voting Rights Act, the majority said, Congress did not intend to prohibit states from disenfranchising incarcerated felons.

In dissent, Judge Juan Torruella argued that the ban violated the Voting Rights Act’s plain language, which refers to adding voting qualifications in a manner that results in the denial of the right to vote on account of race. He would have allowed the case to proceed further so the plaintiffs could try to prove their claim.

Judge Torruella was right. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, reached a similar conclusion in another case, ruling that the plaintiffs should be able to try to prove their case. In a New York suit, Judge Sonia Sotomayor — in a dissent that has gotten considerable attention — also argued that the Voting Rights Act applies to felon disenfranchisement laws.

Letting the case go forward would not have meant the prisoners would have won. But it would have recognized that the law could violate the Voting Rights Act, depending on the facts that emerged about it in court.

The United States aspires to be a nation in which the government rules by the consent of the governed people. Prisoners do not cease to be people.

Felon disenfranchisement is also bad prison policy. In recent years, the prison system has all but given up on trying to rehabilitate prisoners. Allowing felons to vote is good preparation for making them free, law-abiding citizens.