Republicans

[Brian Peacock]

I'm addressing the point quoted below...

"A serious offense of a violence, theft or significant fraud nature would be considered an offense against society itself and renders the convicted felon untrustworthy to participate in civil government, and loss of the right to vote would part of the sentence."

One might argue that committing any crime (or, more practically, being convicted of any criminal offence) in some way compromises the contract between the community and the individual.

Sure, but there are degrees. I don't think speeding is the same thing as murder, nor would I want the rule to be that people who get speeding tickets lose their right to vote, but murderers, rapists, Ponzi schemers who bilk retirees out of millions.... not so sure that losing their right to vote is the same thing as punishing someone unfairly for a "mistake" they made in their salad days.

The consequences of a criminal conviction are invariably punitive, and generally speaking proportional to the seriousness or severity of the offence. But if severity of offence is to act as a determinant in judgements as to the 'trustworthiness' of an individual, and consequently impact their ability to take part in electoral processes, then certain questions arise: What level of trust must society have in any individual in order to ensure their vote is legitimate; what is the nature of that 'trust' and what exactly is society 'entrusting' voting citizens with, and; where does the demarcation between the trustworthy and the untrustworthy citizen reside, such that society might legitimately endorse or withhold any individual's ability to participate in democracy?

There are lot of potential answers to that question. The best I can say about what my view of it is -- is that that if we applied the "traditional" definition of what a felony is or should be, then losing the right to vote for commission of those crimes -- generally malum in se, rather than malum prohibtum -- and generally extremely serious crimes with mens rea of intent to commit the offense, etc. - we have a defined set of very serious circumstances which I have no serious quarrel with adding the loss of the right vote to the mix.

However, I have no serious quarrel with allowing them to vote either after their criminal sentence is served. I don't really think that we need to be catering to prison inmates, though, and perp-walking them to the voting booths or setting up prison voting booths.

I'd suggest that the foundation of our modern democratic systems is participation, not trust. History and common sense tell us that the wider or broader the level of participation the more secure or robust our democratic institutions become.

I don't know that this is true - what history are you referring to. I think common sense tells us that participation by those who care and are informed (hopefully a broad section of the populace cares and is informed, but if not, random votes by those who have little to no understanding of issues and events would not, applying common sense, seem to add anything good to the mix.

This is because, through our participation, our leaders and representatives are kept in-check and forced to conform to the common will--as Rousseau put it--to consider our interests as a higher priority than their own. Indeed, rights of Suffrage were so hard fought for by so many, and so trenchantly resisted by others, for this very reason.

Well, sure, the right to vote should not be taken away because some people are thought stupid, uninformed, or ill-suited to democracy. But, that, to me, is different from someone forfeiting their right to vote because they commit extremely serious crimes.

Now we're asked to consider if the permanent dis-enfranchisement of a broad section of the community, which is to say, limiting participation rather than extending it, is a more desirable prospect because we cannot 'trust' a certain category of individual. And yet, all we are entrusting the previously convicted with is that they make a decision on their own behalf on the same grounds as everybody else - on the basis of their personal belief systems, ideologies, and policy preferences etc.

I don't think we're being asked to consider that at all. In almost all of the US, there is no such "permanent" disenfranchisement. Overwhelmingly, state-by-state, the rule is that while serving their sentence, and sometimes through probation and parole, there is disenfranchisement, but then once that's all served and done, the right comes back either automatically, or in a handful of states through petition filed by the convicted person. The John Oliver nonsense implies, very strongly, that the rule in the US is that felons never get to vote again. That's not true, not even close.

This trustworthiness argument seems bogus to me - or at the very least a red herring. It casts democracy as an exercise in trust rather than a participatory process, and suggests that it's not the untrustworthiness of someone with a criminal conviction per se which is really in question here but more that some think that they cannot be trusted to vote for the right candidate and/or for the right reasons - particularly because we wouldn't think of applying such 'trustworthiness' conditions to any non-criminal individual, no matter how ill-considered, ill-conceived, or odious their personal views may be or how untrustworthy they actually were. This renders the dis-enfranchise argument arbitrary.

As mentioned, the consequences of criminal conviction are punitive and applied by law and by degrees, but even when a sentence has been served, and all probationary conditions met, exclusionary systems place people who have paid their debt to society at the fringes of that society - it leaves them with no say in how that society, their society, might operate: it renders them democratically voiceless.

In which states does this happen?

By your logic, why not make it so even convicts on death row get to vote?

I guess why not, indeed?

At bottom, I'm not strongly wedded to any position on this issue. It's a public policy issue to be decided by the voters in each State (or country). The US has been described as the most punitive in this regard. However, the wikipedia article on the topic (while saying the US is the most punitive) notes that very few states extend any voting disenfranchisement beyond completion of parole/probation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_disenfranchisement

In this respect, while we might regard the committing of a criminal act compromising to the social contract between the community and the individual, permanently excluding someone who has paid their social debts from democratic participation not only breaks that contract as well, but it ensures that it remains forever broken, and by that it systematically forecloses on the possibility of full rehabilitation and reintegration and on the individual assuming their full role as a citizen. Essentially, it criminalizes democratic participation.

Well, it doesn't seem as if the general rule in the US is permanent disenfranchisement. For most, the loss of the right ends when prison/parole/probation end. Sounds fair. The few states that go beyond that, typically it's based on specified circumstances of the crimes committed, and they will allow the right to be restored by petition.

I really think that a John Oliver rant on this was a bit misplaced, and overblown.

I think your position is very fair on this - a case can be made even beyond what you're saying - let them vote even while on prison, on death row for child rape and murder, or on work release from federal prison - whatever - but, to suggest that the US has some rule that forever bans any felon from voting is inaccurate. The vast vast majority of felons get their right to vote back after they finish their probation.

The argument as stated was that those convicted of the most serious felonies should forfeit their right to vote. That is what we were being asked to consider - an argument against the proposition that individuals should be allowed to vote after completing their sentence as long as all probationary conditions are being met.

Well, if the proposition is whether individuals should be allowed to vote after completing their sentence, as long as their probationary periods have been met, my answer would be that for most crimes they should be allowed to vote after competing their sentence, and actually I think they should be allowed to vote even while in jail (by write in). I see some sense in a law, though, that for very serious offenses, particularly those involving violence, serious theft, rape and serioius bodily harm crimes, and crimes involving frauds and such, and certainly any crime that goes to the integrity of an election (like voter fraud, voter registration fraud, multiple voting, ballot box stuffing, and the like) the loss of the right to vote may make sense. Perhaps with a route to have the disenfranchisement removed via petition for good cause shown (as defined by some factors set out by law).

What I'm interested in are not descriptions of those who may or may not deserve to be disenfranchised, but why the disenfranchisement of certain individuals might be considered reasonable and/or appropriate in the first place.

I gave you the reason why I could think of which would apply to very serious offenders. As I said, the over-felonization of American law these days really militates against any such reason that would or may apply to serious or significant offenders.

To take two examples, you've stated your opinion, but not the reason or justification for why the current system is just or appropriate or should stand.

"A serious offense of a violence, theft or significant fraud nature would be considered an offense against society itself and renders the convicted felon untrustworthy to participate in civil government.."

I specifically dealt with trustworthiness and participation in an earlier post.

"(I)f we applied the "traditional" definition of what a felony is or should be, then losing the right to vote for commission of those crimes -- generally malum in se, rather than malum prohibtum -- and generally extremely serious crimes with mens rea of intent to commit the offense, etc. - we have a defined set of very serious circumstances which I have no serious quarrel with adding the loss of the right vote to the mix."

I addressed the demarcation between so-called serious crimes and others, suggesting that the existence of an arbitrary distinction does not in itself justify it's application as a cut-off for voting rights, while suggesting that systems which limit participation threaten both the security and the legitimacy of democracy.

[Forty Two]

I gave you the reason why I could think of which would apply to very serious offenders. As I said, the over-felonization of American law these days really militates against any such reason that would or may apply to serious or significant offenders.

To take two examples, you've stated your opinion, but not the reason or justification for why the current system is just or appropriate or should stand. [/quote]

There is no "current system" in the US. There are 50 current systems, and about 36 of them are "you lose your right to vote while you are in prison, but get it back either at the completion of incarceration or at end of probation/parole." I don't think I have too much of an objection to that. So, those current systems, I think, are appropriate. Don't you agree? (I got the impression that you did think that was o.k., but I don't want to put words in your mouth) If so, why? If not, why not? I've given you my "why" answer previously, but I haven't heard yours.

Regarding the systems that require petitions to restore voting rights - one interesting point is where a defendant has been ordered to pay restitution to their victim. They don't get their rights back until they've fully paid the restitution. That doesn't sound unfair.

Florida's, incidentally, is up for a referendum in November. The “Voting Restoration Amendment,” Amendment 4, would automatically restore voting rights to felons who have served their sentences, completed parole or probation and paid restitution. Murderers and sex offenders would be excluded. Honestly, I don't have a serious issue with that, and I'd probably vote yes on it. I would think they would exclude, also, anyone convicted of voter fraud, election fraud, ballot box stuffing, felony campaign finance law criminal convictions, and the like -- anything going to the integrity of the election that rises to the level of a felony conviction.

What do you think?

"A serious offense of a violence, theft or significant fraud nature would be considered an offense against society itself and renders the convicted felon untrustworthy to participate in civil government.."

I specifically dealt with trustworthiness and participation in an earlier post.

Sure, you expressed your view of it - but, you asked what a justification would be for it. I gave you one. Just because you don't find it persuasive doesn't mean it's not sufficient to persuade others, and it's a matter of the popular will, isn't it? Democratic vote by the people, or their elected representatives.

I've given you my view, which differs from some states, and agrees with many.

"(I)f we applied the "traditional" definition of what a felony is or should be, then losing the right to vote for commission of those crimes -- generally malum in se, rather than malum prohibtum -- and generally extremely serious crimes with mens rea of intent to commit the offense, etc. - we have a defined set of very serious circumstances which I have no serious quarrel with adding the loss of the right vote to the mix."

I addressed the demarcation between so-called serious crimes and others, suggesting that the existence of an arbitrary distinction does not in itself justify it's application as a cut-off for voting rights, while suggesting that systems which limit participation threaten both the security and the legitimacy of democracy.

There are very few distinctions in law that could not reasonably be made at some other point, or at no point at all. I haven't suggested that the distinction between serious felonies and misdemeanors must be the distinction, and that no other distinction or line could be drawn. I've suggested what I thought seemed reasonable under the circumstances.

I do dispute that the distinction between malum in se and malum prohibitum crimes is arbitrary - malum in se means that a thing is evil in and of itself (against the law because it is by its nature something any civil society would prohibit). Malum prohibitum is something that is illegal because the legislature says it's illegal, not because there is something inherently wrong with the act. Murder is malum in se. Barbering hair without a license is malum prohibitum. Fraud is malum in se. Going 65 in a 55 zone is malum prohibitum. To suggest a dividing line for heightened punishment based on roughly that distinction is not "arbitrary."

In any case, this is a two part conversation, actually - we're discussing what rationales have been advanced in favor of limiting the voting rights of felons (which is a different question from what your or my view on what is an appropriate rule or law to have in this circumstance and why we think that). And, of course, we're also discussing what you and I both think is an appropriate law.

Of the options, one would be "felons never lose the right to vote, even if they are in jail at the time and they can always cast a write-in vote from prison." Do you think that should be the rule? If so, why? If not, why not? Would you have some felons lose the right, but not others? Would you have all felons lose the right but have it restored upon release? Upon expiration of probation or parole? Would you have some felons lose the right (which ones?) and have it restored upon release/parole/probation completion? Why?

I am not positive or clear what position on this issue you are espousing, so if you can clarify, that might be helpful. I suspect that your and my view on it does not differ too greatly.

[Animavore]

[Brian Peacock]

I gave you the reason why I could think of which would apply to very serious offenders. As I said, the over-felonization of American law these days really militates against any such reason that would or may apply to serious or significant offenders.

To take two examples, you've stated your opinion, but not the reason or justification for why the current system is just or appropriate or should stand.

There is no "current system" in the US. There are 50 current systems, and about 36 of them are "you lose your right to vote while you are in prison, but get it back either at the completion of incarceration or at end of probation/parole." I don't think I have too much of an objection to that. So, those current systems, I think, are appropriate. Don't you agree? (I got the impression that you did think that was o.k., but I don't want to put words in your mouth) If so, why? If not, why not? I've given you my "why" answer previously, but I haven't heard yours.

Regarding the systems that require petitions to restore voting rights - one interesting point is where a defendant has been ordered to pay restitution to their victim. They don't get their rights back until they've fully paid the restitution. That doesn't sound unfair.

Florida's, incidentally, is up for a referendum in November. The “Voting Restoration Amendment,” Amendment 4, would automatically restore voting rights to felons who have served their sentences, completed parole or probation and paid restitution. Murderers and sex offenders would be excluded. Honestly, I don't have a serious issue with that, and I'd probably vote yes on it. I would think they would exclude, also, anyone convicted of voter fraud, election fraud, ballot box stuffing, felony campaign finance law criminal convictions, and the like -- anything going to the integrity of the election that rises to the level of a felony conviction.

What do you think?

"A serious offense of a violence, theft or significant fraud nature would be considered an offense against society itself and renders the convicted felon untrustworthy to participate in civil government.."

I specifically dealt with trustworthiness and participation in an earlier post.

Sure, you expressed your view of it - but, you asked what a justification would be for it. I gave you one. Just because you don't find it persuasive doesn't mean it's not sufficient to persuade others, and it's a matter of the popular will, isn't it? Democratic vote by the people, or their elected representatives.

I've given you my view, which differs from some states, and agrees with many.

"(I)f we applied the "traditional" definition of what a felony is or should be, then losing the right to vote for commission of those crimes -- generally malum in se, rather than malum prohibtum -- and generally extremely serious crimes with mens rea of intent to commit the offense, etc. - we have a defined set of very serious circumstances which I have no serious quarrel with adding the loss of the right vote to the mix."

I addressed the demarcation between so-called serious crimes and others, suggesting that the existence of an arbitrary distinction does not in itself justify it's application as a cut-off for voting rights, while suggesting that systems which limit participation threaten both the security and the legitimacy of democracy.

There are very few distinctions in law that could not reasonably be made at some other point, or at no point at all. I haven't suggested that the distinction between serious felonies and misdemeanors must be the distinction, and that no other distinction or line could be drawn. I've suggested what I thought seemed reasonable under the circumstances.

I do dispute that the distinction between malum in se and malum prohibitum crimes is arbitrary - malum in se means that a thing is evil in and of itself (against the law because it is by its nature something any civil society would prohibit). Malum prohibitum is something that is illegal because the legislature says it's illegal, not because there is something inherently wrong with the act. Murder is malum in se. Barbering hair without a license is malum prohibitum. Fraud is malum in se. Going 65 in a 55 zone is malum prohibitum. To suggest a dividing line for heightened punishment based on roughly that distinction is not "arbitrary."

In any case, this is a two part conversation, actually - we're discussing what rationales have been advanced in favor of limiting the voting rights of felons (which is a different question from what your or my view on what is an appropriate rule or law to have in this circumstance and why we think that). And, of course, we're also discussing what you and I both think is an appropriate law.

Of the options, one would be "felons never lose the right to vote, even if they are in jail at the time and they can always cast a write-in vote from prison." Do you think that should be the rule? If so, why? If not, why not? Would you have some felons lose the right, but not others? Would you have all felons lose the right but have it restored upon release? Upon expiration of probation or parole? Would you have some felons lose the right (which ones?) and have it restored upon release/parole/probation completion? Why?

I am not positive or clear what position on this issue you are espousing, so if you can clarify, that might be helpful. I suspect that your and my view on it does not differ too greatly.

My position is that incarcerated citizens are still citizens with a stake in the society and communities in which they are embedded. I have no problem with retaining voting rights for prisoners. As I've mentioned political participation is the basis of a robust democracy and accordingly rights of participation should be extended as far as possible. In this respect I also have no problem in extending voting rights to 16 year-olds - if you're old enough to get married, pay taxes, or be shot at in Afghanistan then I think you're old enough to vote. In fact, many legal immigrants would meet those three criteria and I'd have no problem with extending voting rights to them also, at the very least at the local level. I think that developing pubic policy which systematically limits participation is counter-productive to the democratic project and ultimately de-legitimises democracy and those who claim the authority of a democratic mandate. I recognise that in the US these matters have been devolved to the State-level, but when State-level policies impact the outcomes of general elections then coherence and consistency between States seems as necessary as it does morally obvious - particularly if such policies are to act as a nominally legal method of gerrymandering. It is my view that every voice within the general population should be offered the opportunity to be heard (a vote, in this context) across issues which fundamentally concern the entire population.

[laklak]

16 year olds voting? When I was 16 I was basically a giant, motile erection. I had no more business voting than I did driving a car, which they were stupid enough to let me do. I had three accidents in two years, and drove around blind fucking drunk without a thought. Nah, no way, you should be 30 to vote, at a minimum. You don't even have a functioning brain till you're in your mid 20s, FFS. Trust me, I have grown kids.

[Forty Two]

Well, there seem to be a number of different logical options. I wouldn't allow anyone who was convicted of treason, for example, to vote, because if you are giving aid and comfort to the country's enemies, or selling nuclear secrets, etc., then I think the person has shown himself to be fighting the very existence of the government of which we're considering who gets to vote in. I think the same logic has been applied to violent and dangerous felons. And, I really don't have a huge problem with them forfeiting their right to vote. I don't really have a huge problem with allowing them to vote either. I think a case can be made either way. I don't think John Oliver's wide-eyed "oh-my-god-this-is-just-so-insane" exasperated rant about it is well-taken, though, as I don't find the notion of felons not getting the vote to be so crazy or ridiculous. Democracy doesn't require everyone present on the country's soil to vote - age restrictions, jurisdictional boundaries (I can't vote in another state, even if I have a "stake" in what goes on there), etc., and disenfranchisement for felonious crimes are age-old restrictions and not particularly outrageous.

I would say, as I said before, that the real problem is the expansion of the criminal code so that so many non-felonious crimes are now considered felonies. Felony public urination. Felony failure to follow the terms and conditions of a website. Felony drug possession. That over-expands the class of people involved.

[Brian Peacock]

One in 10 eligible voters in Florida are effectively disenfranchised, thanks to a draconian law that bars former felons from voting and a broken clemency system. When it comes to black voters, the numbers are even more grim: More than 20 percent of otherwise eligible black voters from Florida cannot cast a ballot. In total, more than a quarter of all disenfranchised felons in the entire country are in the Sunshine State.

But this November, Florida voters will have a chance to reverse that by weighing in on Amendment 4, a constitutional ballot measure to restore voting rights to an estimated 1.5 million Floridians who have fully completed their felony sentences. Florida is just one of three states in the U.S. that indefinitely bans citizens with felony convictions from voting.  

Amendment 4 is the results of years of grassroots work by Florida organizers, but it’s also part of recent nationwide push on this front. In 2016, the Democratic Party put in its party platform for the first time a commitment to restore voting rights to formerly incarcerated individuals. Earlier that same year, the Democratic-controlled Maryland legislature overrode the veto of Republican Gov. Larry Hogan and restored the right to vote to more than 40,000 former prisoners still on probation or parole. Also over the course of 2016 and 2017, Virginia’s Democratic Gov. Terry McAuliffe granted clemency to more than 168,000 former felons....

https://theintercept.com/2018/09/06/flo ... on-felons/

[laklak]

Florida. What a country.

[Forty Two]

Florida is just one of three states that indefinitely bans felons from voting. Three.

And, 75% of the convicted felons are white, which is proportional to the white population of Florida, give or take a couple percentage points here or there. So, there doesn't appear to be a racial outcome issue.

The legislature has long made its decision on this, as per the will of the people. And, now it's up for a popular referendum on a constitutional amendment. Sounds like democracy is alive and well in Florida.

What should we be upset about here?

[Forty Two]

Florida. What a country.

I love it. I've lived elsewhere, and I'm fairly well traveled domestically and internationally. The people here are friendly, warm and kind (as an overall tendency). Law enforcement are excellent, and as non-intrusive as I've seen. Anyone who who has experienced Florida cops as compared to the New York/New Jersey area cops -- hands down, far better law enforcement (in terms of relationship with the citizenry) in Florida than up there.

The weather is excellent. A little warm and humit at times, but given that no climate is perfection, it is about as close to paradise as we can get. The beaches are among the best in the world. It's nice to live where some folks go after saving up for years to go on vacation.

The property taxes are low, property values are good, home prices are affordable, no income tax, reasonable 7% sales tax, and a good, thriving, growing economy.

For all its faults, Florida is a great place to live.

[laklak]

It's been Home Base since '68. I lived other places around the country and the world, but I keep coming back here. Weather at the moment is a bit oppressive, I must admit, I understand the Snowbird mentality. Plus, we have Floridaman and face eating zombies.

Enjoy the tax benefits, as soon as the progressives get in it's time to leave. On the plus side, if we go all progressive and shit then people from California will move here, and they're used to paying a million for a 2 bedroom shack. I'll just change marinas to the Alabama coast, with a bigger boat courtesy of California ex-pats.

[Forty Two]

Indeed.

[Forty Two]

I'm pretty sure law and order Republicans are against rape.

If that's a crack at the Kavanaugh thing, this is a person who never mentioned this alleged assault for 30 years after it supposedly happened. She mentioned someone else being there, who says it never happened, and the accused says he never did anything like that, and the party described was not something like anything he ever attended. The incident occurred 36 years ago - give or take - the accuser does not remember which year it occurred in, or where it occurred, or whose house it was in, or how she got there, or how she got home, and never told anyone about it for 30 years (but told her couples therapist without naming names and after psychotherapy), and at her worst description of it, it was a drinking party where she was in a bathing suit (not sure why - was it a pool party? She doesn't remember) and he tried to get on top of her and remove her clothes, but her clothes were never removed and she was never raped - this, she says, was so traumatic that she didn't really remember it for 30 years, and now it's vague recollection making it pretty much unverifiable. Oh, and the allegations were disclosed to a leading Democrat Senator in July, who didn't bother bringing them up at all during the confirmation hearings - we wait until the hearings are over, and THEN bring them up, just in time to try to delay a confirmation vote until after the mid-term elections.

So, yeah, that means that a 30 year career as a federal judge with 300 published opinions, an A++ rating, a completely unblemished history without any issue of any kind, is thrown out the window. Someone said they remember he got handsy in high school, so he's disqualified from serving on the Supreme Court.

[Brian Peacock]

Florida is just one of three states that indefinitely bans felons from voting. Three.

And, 75% of the convicted felons are white, which is proportional to the white population of Florida, give or take a couple percentage points here or there. So, there doesn't appear to be a racial outcome issue.

The legislature has long made its decision on this, as per the will of the people. And, now it's up for a popular referendum on a constitutional amendment. Sounds like democracy is alive and well in Florida.

What should we be upset about here?

I don't know - one doesn't have to be emotionally triggered to take a view on this. A 10% disenfranchisement rate is really quite high though. In Florida Trump beat Clinton by 112,911 votes, or 1.2% (Wiki). The total votes cast and counted was 9,419,886, and with Wiki saying that this accounts for a 75% turnout we can estimate the number of registered voters at around 12.5 million. A 10% disenfranchisement rate amounts to roughly 1.25 million excluded citizens. That number of excluded votes equals 13.3% of the turnout (10% of registered voter), and the total difference between the two main candidates amounts to a mere 9% of that excluded total.

These are rough, back-of-the-envelope calculations, and I'm not saying that reinstating disenfranchised voters before 2016 would have swung it for Clinton - that's not really the issue or the point. I'm just pointing out that even if we estimate turnout among the otherwise excluded population at a rather low 50% it still adds up to a significant number of excluded votes, particularly given the slim difference between the two main candidates which secured all 29 of Florida's electoral college votes for Trump. I think this supports my earlier point about democracy being secured and legitimised by extending participation rather than limiting it.

I wonder if there's enough interest in Florida for the referendum on the proposed amendment to pass? The article suggest a 67:27% split in favour of the amendment, which is encouraging to say the least, but whether that transfers into actually votes is another thing entirely.

[laklak]

All the more reason to restrict the vote! I'm thinking white, boat owning males over the age of 60. Trust me. I know what's best for you.

There are a bunch of proposed amendments on the ballot. Amendment 1 is to raise the homestead exemption so property taxes are lower. Definite YES from me. 2nd is to cap property assessments on non-homesteaded property to a maximum of 10% per annum. Another resounding YES. Third is to force a voter referendum in order to expand casino gambling. YES. Four is the restoration of voting rights for felons, another YES. Five is my favorite. It requires a supermajority of 2/3 in the legislature in order to raise state taxes. There aren't capital letters big enough for my YES. I'm still cogitating about the others.

Of course the various local governments are dead set against the tax limiting amendments, fuck them. Stop wasting money you spendthrit assholes. Starve the fucking beast. I've never seen more ridiculous wastes of public money then what the People's Republic of Sarasota does every bloody day.