Patterico's Pontifications


Bill Jones: Loser

Filed under: 2004 Election — AMac @ 5:49 pm

I know that the headline is self-evident. Still, does anyone else get the feeling that Jones was running to get the nomination, and not even to bother contesting the election? The man is broke, and hasn’t run a single advertisement. Still, one would expect some sort of center of the news section article on a campaign promise, or speech, or whatever.

Nothing. I swear, I’ve seen Libertarian Party candidates get more press than that joker Bill Jones. I think the kicker, however, was my getting a GOTV phone call from the LA GOP, which didn’t bother mentioning Jones’ name.

Campaign Finance Reform Insanity

Filed under: 2004 Election — Patterico @ 4:24 pm

Okay, you lovers of campaign finance reform: here is the end result of your stupidity: two radio talk-show hosts are facing the possibility of having to go to jail for engaging in political speech on their show.

And you thought the USSR had dissolved. No sirree — totalitarianism is alive and well right here in the good ol’ US of A, thanks to the likes of John McCain, and all you lamebrains who agree with him on this issue.

P.S. Don’t forget to thank our ever-so-conservative Supreme Court . . .

P.P.S. Any lawyers want to file a complaint against, say, the L.A. Times or the New York Times for their endorsements this political season? What do you think those corporate contributions are worth?

P.P.P.S. Justin Levine notes that the complaint is utterly frivolous even under existing campaign finance laws. I don’t care. This is the next logical step. Analogy: five years ago, they joked about lawsuits against fast-food joints. It’s not a joke anymore.

P.P.P.P.S. David Dreier is a putz.

A Fatal Flaw in Proposition 66?

Filed under: No on 66 — Patterico @ 3:57 pm

The version of Proposition 66 that we will vote on Tuesday is not the same version that was shown to voters when signatures were being collected. How different the two versions are in substance remains to be seen. But if the proposition passes, opponents should look into this issue further. The differences between the two versions could be significant enough to give opponents a legal challenge to the measure if it passes.

Here is my evidence:

Criminal Justice Professor on Three Strikes

Filed under: No on 66 — Patterico @ 1:30 pm

Via PrestoPundit, here is a radio segment from the John and Ken show featuring Cal State Los Angeles Professor Jennifer Walsh, who has done a study on the effectiveness of Three Strikes called Tough for Whom?

Prof. Walsh concludes that the law has been very effective in targeting the right people. She also mentions a very important point that I have made before: Three Strikes actually saves money, by preventing crimes that would cost society millions. At the very least, these savings should be considered as an offset against increased prison costs.

Finally, she makes a fascinating point that I have overlooked in this discussion: many people serving second-strike sentences are actually third-strikers who already received leniency from a judge in the form of having one or more of their strikes stricken. If the law is interpreted to apply retroactively to second-strikers, then these people will end up getting two breaks — the one they already got from a judge, and a second break from Proposition 66.

Survey on Proposition 66

Filed under: No on 66 — Patterico @ 10:55 am

I have a question for the readers. Has my coverage of Proposition 66 had any influence on how you (or anyone close to you) will vote on the initiative? Is there anyone whose mind was changed by reading my posts? If so, what was the most significant factor in your decision?

I would truly appreciate any feedback on this.

Has President Bush Created More Idiots By Invading Iraq?

Filed under: 2004 Election,Morons,Terrorism — Patterico @ 10:49 am

Beldar puts to rest once and for all the silly argument that President Bush has created more terrorists by invading Iraq.

Here is my own analogy: we sure have heard a lot of stupid arguments about Iraq from the fringe left over the last year or two. Does that mean that the invasion of Iraq created more fringe leftist idiots?

Daily Breeze: No on 66

Filed under: No on 66 — Patterico @ 2:06 am

The Daily Breeze, a South Bay newspaper, has announced that it opposes Prop. 66. The paper cites the case of child molester Joseph Noble, who was prosecuted by my wife, as an example of the type of criminal who could be released by the initiative:

Among the prisoners serving three-strikes sentences who could qualify for such resentencing hearings is Joseph Noble, the region’s most infamous child molester. Noble has a 26-year criminal history that has included kidnapping and indecent exposure.

In 2001, Noble was sentenced to 25 years to life based on his conviction for a nonviolent third strike: two counts of indecent exposure for masturbating in front of two women jailers. Should Proposition 66 pass, Noble could see his prison sentence reduced, leading to an early release.

The truth is, the three-strikes law was designed to put away those who, like Noble, are serious threats to communities.

The bottom line is that the Daily Breeze has done enough articles about the little girls molested by Joseph Noble. They don’t want to do any more.

Serial Bank Robber Faces One Strike

Filed under: No on 66 — Patterico @ 2:00 am

The Daily Breeze reports: Suspect in 25 bank robberies is caught.

If brought to trial and convicted of all 25 robberies, David Lee Robinson will have 25 strikes on his record. Or, if Proposition 66 passes, he’ll have only one.

UPDATE: Actually, looking at the article again, it appears that he has 30 previous convictions for bank robbery. So I was wrong: if Proposition 66 passes, he will have exactly two strikes for his 55 robbery convictions.

New York Times on Proposition 66

Filed under: No on 66 — Patterico @ 1:11 am

I’d almost be willing to sign onto the New York Times‘s editorial endorsing California’s Proposition 66 — that is, as long as Times editors are willing to spring for a mandatory one-way ticket to New York City for each repeat violent felon released by the initiative.

Failing that, I’d like to gently encourage the editors at the New York Times to mind their own goddamned business.

The Most Trusted Man in News: More Right Than He Knows

Filed under: 2004 Election,Humor,Media Bias,Morons — Patterico @ 12:32 am

Walter Cronkite knows who instigated the Osama video. Why, it was Karl Rove, of course:

So now the question is basically right now, how will this affect the election? And I have a feeling that it could tilt the election a bit. In fact, I’m a little inclined to think that Karl Rove, the political manager at the White House, who is a very clever man, he probably set up bin Laden to this thing.

I know what you’re thinking: “Walter, you crazy old coot! You’re a complete moron!” Au contraire! Investigative reporter Tim Blair has uncovered the e-mail exchange between bin Laden and Rove, which is worth quoting in full:

Date: Thurs October 28, 2004
Subject: new videotaping we have

Yo, Rovemeister!

Is Osama here. How you do? Hope all is well with campaign for evil, etc. (How about that John Kerry wife – the crazy one. Two burkas for her at least! Kerry, he was surely wearing the fermented hummous goggles when they wed!)

Anyways, maybe can help campaign with new video, featuring me in star role. See attachmented clip below.

Yours in happiness,


Date: Thurs October 28, 2004
Subject: re: new videotaping we have

Osama, you old dog!

By all means, please release this video ASAP. And, as we’ve previously discussed, for every percentage point we gain in the swing states we’ll send you another kidney we’ve harvested from murdered Democrats in Florida.

Best wishes,


(Via Baldilocks.)

Next Page »

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2291 secs.