i just heard my october interview on npr's justice talking show about felon voting. for some chair/meeting-related reason, i had to run to the kfai studios that day, so i arrived winded and overcaffeinated in the midst of a pledge drive (hint: diet coke is a no-no before on-air interviews).
i liked the show and its host, margot adler, so i'm disappointed that the program isn't carried locally. they asked me for a quick "big-picture overview" on felon disenfranchisement, which is fine with me. my bit preceded a more intense debate between spencer overton and john lott on the subject. i really dislike debating, so i usually decline invitations to argue for or against policy changes. part of this is due to my self-concept as a social scientist, but part of it is because i'm a ridiculously conciliatory debater (yeah, i can sort of see your point there, mr. rumsfeld. are we almost done here?). i'm probably not alone -- many of us are probably more at home doing the "current state of knowledge" segment rather than the "what is to be done?" portion of such programs.