Patterico's Pontifications



Filed under: General — Patterico @ 9:10 pm

NEW FAVORITE CANDIDATE: Forget Arnold, Gary Coleman, Angelyne, Larry Flynt, Arianna, and the rest — porn star Mary Carey is the candidate to beat. “The 22-year-old blonde said her electoral platform would include taxing breast implants to generate revenue and hiring porn stars to help negotiate better wholesale electricity prices in the energy-strapped state.”

Her new ideas don’t end there. “She also wants to create a Porno for Pistols programme under which gun owners would be urged to swap their weapons for X-rated movies in a bid to reduce violence in the free-wheeling golden state. . . . ‘If more guys had orgasms, they’d be less violent,’ she said. . . . She also came up with a novel solution to a key global problem, global warming: ‘Wear less clothes.'”

Perhaps most provocative to many is her proposal to make lap dances tax-deductible.

Her slogan is pretty catchy, too: ”We’ve had Brown, we’ve tried Gray. Now it is time for some blonde.”

(Initial link courtesy of the Hindustan Times — a reminder that the whole world is watching this race. You think the war in Iraq created terrorists? Ha! A fraction of the number generated by the California recall election!)


Filed under: General — Patterico @ 8:55 pm

WHAT YOU TALKING ABOUT?: Arnold is in! No, not Schwarzenegger. I mean “Arnold” from “Diff’rent Strokes.” That’s right, Gary Coleman is on the ballot. But he says he’s not going to campaign — and he’s going to vote for Schwarzenegger.

I need to create a keystroke that will automatically type out the phrase: “You think I’m kidding, but I’m not.”

Hey, rest of the country: if you weren’t laughing at us before, how about now?


Filed under: General — Patterico @ 8:20 pm

TOTAL RECALL (SORRY, CAN’T RESIST): Arnold is in, Feinstein is out.

That Top Ten List I reprinted below just became obsolete.

Isn’t this great? I guess if I took the California Governorship that seriously, I’d be appalled. But I don’t, so I’m not. Arnold will probably give us decent judges — better than Gray Davis. That’s all that counts, in my book.


Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:15 am

NEW YORK TIMES MAKES . . . SENSE?: It is rare that I agree with a New York Times editorial, but this one, titled Shortchanging Security, makes sense. It criticizes the Bush administration for not devoting enough resources to internal security against terrorism. For example, the Bushies had floated the idea of cutting the air marshal program. Now, it is simply outrageous that there are not multiple air marshals on every major commercial flight in this country. Talk about forgetting Sept. 11. But the Bushies were talking about reducing the pitiful program we had! Unbelievable.


Filed under: General — Patterico @ 6:46 am

KRISTOF SUPPORTS OUR USE OF THE A-BOMB: In a link sent by a reader, Nicholas Kristof examines “one of the most morally contentious events of the 20th century, the atomic bombing” — and concludes that it was justified. Given Kristof’s record of reflexive liberalism, this view is surprising — and interesting.


Filed under: General — Patterico @ 6:42 am

YET ANOTHER DANGEROUS NINTH CIRCUIT DECISION: You can read about it here, at How Appealing. In a nutshell, the court held that “officers may not use deadly force against an otherwise nondangerous felony suspect simply because a chase of that suspect, high-speed or otherwise, would become or does become dangerous.”


How does Stephen Reinhardt become involved in all these decisions??

Nevertheless, his involvement is a good thing, because it means the decision will get extra attention from the U.S. Supreme Court. In the past, when the Supremes were generally rational, I would have confidently predicted that this case would get overturned. Nowadays, I am not so sure. You’ll have to ask Empress O’Connor.


Filed under: General — Patterico @ 6:36 am

GREAT MINDS THINK ALIKE: I was struck by this piece by a couple of law professors, titled Why An Important Part of the California Recall Process Is Unconstitutional, According to U.S. Supreme Court Precedent. The piece posits the following scenario:

“For example, suppose that 49% of the voters favor keeping Davis, but he is recalled because more than 50% vote against him. Suppose further that there are successor candidates on the ballot, and that the leading vote getter among them – call him candidate A (for Arnold?) – gets only 10% of the successor vote. Can it be that a candidate with 10% support will oust a governor with 49% support?”

(I thought this sounded eerily familar, right down to the percentages. I checked my archive and found my entry on the topic. Turns out I use the same exact example with the same exact percentages. The professors’ article was published two days before my entry, but this is no Jayson Blair situation. I had never seen the article or anything else citing it. I guess the percentages just leap to mind as the obvious way to communicate the hypo. Still, that’s weird.)

Anyway, the article is interesting because the professors point out that this could actually render the recall unconstitutional under Bush v. Gore. If everyone’s ballot is supposed to be treated equally, how can the 10% defeat the 49%? (The professors say this challenge will likely fail, though.)

While we are on the topic of recall challenges, Rick Hasen, the election law expert whom I linked to yesterday in the post immediately below, says another Bush v. Gore challenge may have some merit. A lawsuit says it is unconstitutional for some counties in California to use punch cards, and others to use some other voting method, because of the differing error rates. Apparently a federal judge in Illinois has bought off on a similar argument. Hasen discusses this and other equal protection challenges here.

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2014 secs.