Food for thought

Three Ls it is, so he must have been confused about who we were referring to. ;-)

Wayne

Ed,

Truly fascinating, 'cept I can't follow what the h*ll the topic is/was!

Mike Eberle>

"Let no good deed go unpunished"

-Carl

Ed,

Truly fascinating, 'cept I can't follow what the h*ll the topic is/was!

Mike Eberle>

I heard the usual Gunner reply when he can't defend his remarks: silence.

-Carl

I don't think the topic matters anymore, Mike.

Ed Huntress

Well, he's got so many going at once, I think he just bothers with the ones for which he has a handy rejoinder.

Ed Huntress

He's got his hands full I would say. It's sort of like tag team wrestling, we can all take a break now and again, but he has to keep up the pressure.

Maybe I should change over to the other side and help out...

Jim

================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ==================================================

In article , Spehro Pefhany a three-"L" lllama is one hell of a conflagration

I think my LLLLLLLLL key is sticking....

Jim

================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ==================================================

I can get you permission from Usenet Head Office for switching teams.... so long as you agree to buy all your half-baked cites from me. Three for a buck, seven for two bucks if you can match gunner's volume. :-)

Wayne

On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 18:07:37 GMT, "Ed Huntress" brought forth from the murky depths:

You successfully formed a full sentence (with proper punctuation) which made sense and contained no lies or promises.

TAG, you're IT!

On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 22:55:59 GMT, Spehro Pefhany brought forth from the murky depths:

Right. Dalai Lama.

Baa? Is Jim's fave Dolly the Llama?

Or a stuttering metalverker.

Hoho! Do you have a holster, so you'll look the part? I'd loan you mine, but I'm a lefty.

Ed Huntress

My legal advisor suggests this is not true.

This may be determined on a state by state basis. Felony =/ federal crime.

Jim

================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ==================================================

It was an irresistible straight line, you know? I've saved that joke for 20 years.. and it only works with the right kind of accent.

Best regards, Spehro Pefhany

Yep, me, too! My hat's off to those two guys for such a great show!

Harold

This is just plain wrong. The word "felon" refers to someone currently incarcerated, on probation, or otherwise under supervision. An "ex-felon" is someone who has fulfilled all sentence obligations from a felony conviction. This distinction is standard in sociological research.

-Mike P.

I'll reply to this one rather than the Phyllis Schlafly column, which isn't really so much an analysis of the Uggen and Manza paper as it is an attempt to scare the conservative faithful.

First, the citation for the paper is:

Uggen, C., and J. Manze. 2002. "Democratic Contraction? Political Consequences of Felon Disenfranchisement in the United States." _American Sociological Review_, 67:777-803.

This paper implies about 70% of felons and ex-felons (i.e., those who have completed their felony sentences and probation) would be expected to vote for a Democratic candidate. This estimate is based on a consideration of income, education, race, etc. of the felons/ex-felons.

A couple of important points, however. First, the felons/ex-felons are predicted to about half as likely to vote as are nonarrestees -- this is just predicted, of course, since many states prohibit voting by this group. Violent offenders are half-again as likely to vote.

Of those felons/ex-felons who would vote (if they could) about 70% would vote for Democrats. This is the overall average. But it's quite interesting to note that this excess preference for Democrats is driven principally by those arrested for drugs and alcohol-related offenses. Among this group, the offendees are nearly 4 times more likely to vote for Democrats.

If we just consider violent offenders (which is how this discussion started, remember?), there isn't any preference for Democrats.

The fact that it's largely the drug/alcohol offenders who are most likely to vote for Democrats is interesting. It kind of puts a new spin on the "War on Drugs."

So the "cite" you provided basically makes *my* point that there isn't a significant difference in murder rates (or violent crime rates) between Republicans and Democrats.

-Mike P.

Odd, my wife, after years of doing criminal law, said that most of them were just too plain stupid to get a real job. Now a less charitable person might make some crack about republicans at this point but I think I will let that one pass.

Jim

================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ==================================================