Patterico's Pontifications



Filed under: General — Patterico @ 11:43 pm

YET ANOTHER LIBERAL RIPS THE RECALL DECISION: This time it’s Slate‘s liberal legal pundit Dahlia Lithwick: “There’s really only one way to read the panel’s decision from Monday. It’s a sauce-for-the-gander exercise in payback. Pure and simple.”



Filed under: General — Patterico @ 11:17 pm

GRAY’S FAVORITE LAW: Gray says: “My favorite law after being five years as governor is the law of unintended consequences.”

Damn. He signed that one too?

Okay, so that was a stupid thing to say, but he saved himself when he followed up with this:

My vision is to make the most diverse state on earth, and we have people from every planet on the earth in this state. We have the sons and daughters of every, of people from every planet, of every country on earth.

Someone has to ask the obvious: what planet is he from?


Filed under: General — Patterico @ 9:44 pm

LONG LIVE JILL STEWART: Read her piece on the awful bills recently rushed through the California legislature. A couple of the wackier ones include this one:

AB 1742. If your taxman has more than 100 clients, he now must send your return in via Internet. Your privacy is at risk.

And this one:

AB 587, by Mark Ridley-Thomas. A box asking your skin color will now go on voter registration forms. It’s voluntary—but expect a move next to make it required. Davis signed this creepy law Wednesday.

But the real doozy was this:

AB 231, by Darrell Steinberg. “Reforms” the food stamp program, which required that nobody own a fancy car if taxpayers were buying their food. Up to now, car value was capped at $4,650. But now? Now, you can own a Rolls, and your household can own as many luxury cars as it wishes. Also, no more face-to-face interviews to qualify. Just give a buzz. Who’s this for—busy, jobless billionaires? If it’s really so poor workers can keep reliable cars, why wasn’t a new cap set of $15,000? Did I mention that California’s food stamp program is rife with fraud, and in particular is being targeted by con artists who are not poor?

Interesting piece, and a nice “only in California” companion to my otherwise relentless onslaught of recall coverage. By the way, as Stewart points out, good luck finding this stuff in the Dog Trainer. (Via Kausfiles.)


Filed under: General — Patterico @ 9:34 pm

L.A. WEEKLY GUY MAKES SENSE ON RECALL: “Whaaaa?” is what I said when I read this piece in the L.A. Weekly.

The L.A. Weekly is your typical alternative rag: great for looking up whether your favorite rock band is in town, full of of ads for prostitutes, and overflowing with political commentary so leftist that Noam Chomsky once called its editorial staff “a bunch of pinkos.”

So I was surprised to a guy writing in the L.A. Weekly denouncing the bogus recall decision. It’s a pretty good piece, which responds point by point to the nonsense of the Democrat hitmen at regarding the recall. My favorite line in the piece is not an original point, but I like the way it’s phrased: “All because the paper ballots that were sound enough to elect Gray Davis are all of a sudden too unreliable to unseat him.”


Filed under: General — Patterico @ 9:05 pm

MORE ON BOGUS RECALL DECISION: Marc Levin makes some nice points I hadn’t seen elsewhere about why the recall decision is bad.

The most salient, in my opinion, is that “it cannot be assumed that this election will be so close as to make it even statistically possible that the disparity in voting technology could affect the outcome.” But Levin notes that even if that happens, California has generous provisions for election contests and manual recounts — with a clear, uniform standard for whether a vote counts or not.

And, this all becomes a problem only if people don’t punch the chad all the way through. As a top Los Angeles election official said: “Who could fail to punch their chad all the way through after all the attention this has gotten?”

Nice piece.

PREDICTION: The Ninth Circuit will

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 3:19 pm

PREDICTION: The Ninth Circuit will not rehear the recall decision en banc. There will be at least one written decision dissenting from that denial.

Worth what you paid for it.

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1753 secs.