The Dog Trainer reports that the Dog Terminator is not to be.

The governor said that the plan to repeal the law prohibiting the destruction of animals for at least six days was a “mistake” made when he hastily put together his budget after taking office last year.

“That was an oversight of mine in December when we were trying to put the budget together in two seconds,” said Schwarzenegger, a self-described animal lover and the owner of three dogs: Sarge, Sammy and Spunky.

“And of course I grew up with every animal you can think of,” he said. “I’m an animal lover.”

The May Revisions to the Governor’s Budget (PDF) didn’t say word one about animal control issues, but between then and now, some idiot inserted a provision into the California Budget that would repeal all of the 1998 changes to California’s animal control law. Some of the proposed changes would help balance the budget some, others would have no budgetary impact, and others still – such as the repeal of the law requiring those convicted of animal cruelty to pay for the animal’s care while guilt is being determined- would actually exacerbate it. None of this stuff belongs in the budgetary debate, especially after having been smuggled in in the eleventh hour. The proposed changes include the following:

1. Ending the state’s policy preference of animal adoptions over euthanasia.
2. Abolishing the requirement that people convicted of animal cruelty bear the costs of the animal’s care while guilt is being determined.
3. Allowing parolees convicted of animal cruelty to own animals immediately upon release.
4. Removing the requirement that shelters use all currently acceptable methods of identification (e.g., microchips) to locate the owner of a seized or impounded animal.
5. Allowing shelters to euthanize animals turned in by their owners, without even attempting to adopt them out.
6. Ending the requirement that shelters be required to relinquish animals to non-profit rescue groups upon payment of the requisite fee. The Times article suggests that this law is unlikely to be repealed.

The budget is almost a done deal, so time is of the essence. Call your Assemblyman and State Senator now – and I do mean NOW – to register your opposition to this horrible bill. If you don’t have the names or phone numbers of your representatives handy, you can get them online by following this link and selecting “Find My District” on the side bar. Then call Arnold himself at (916) 445-2841 (Fax: (916) 445-4633) and email him at http://www.govmail.ca.gov/ to tell why even the legitimate issues with the Hayden bill – such as the unintended consequences of the six-day holding period – demand a serious debate of their own, and should therefore not be smuggled in to the budget debate.

After you call your Legislators and your Governor to register your opposition, you will then have more leisure time to read up on the idiocy you’ve just opposed. I’ve reproduced below an email Mrs. X received from Best Friends, and you can read more about this dreadful legislative sleight of hand at Yahoo! (h/t: Spoons), the Los Angeles Times and, allegedly (according to Sen. Ackerman’s assistant), somewhere in the Orange County Register.

UPDATE: Meanwhile, a friendly dog in Toronto just accomplished what Canadian gun laws could not: preventing a shooting rampage (h/t: Dean Esmay).

ANOTHER UPDATE: Joe Gandelman concurs.

FINAL UPDATE: It’s over. Gov. Schwarzenegger has admitted the error of his ways. Thanks to all who made it happen.

(more…)

Via Jessica’s Well (hat tip: Chadster):

Many, myself included, have long been critical of Muslim groups in the West for their muted response to various and sundry atrocities committed by Islamic extremists. Whatever messages may have been circulated within the Muslim community, the ones that made it through to much of non-Islamic America were the following:

1. Islam means “peace.” It’s got nothing to do with Islam. Leave me alone.
2. OK, OK, so it really means “submission.” You got me there. My bad! Now leave me alone.
3. Yeah, it’s awful what those guys did, but America is just as bad.
4. Yeah, it’s awful what those guys did, but Israel does worse things than that every day.
5. Yeah, it’s awful, but the worst part is that Muslims’ civil liberties may get violated in the future.
6. Yippee! That’s great! Um, I mean, that’s really, like, terrible. Now stop giving tax money to Israel, and maybe it won’t happen again. Whatever.
7. We condemn terrorism in all of its forms. Oh, by the way, the very existence of an Israeli state is one of those forms.

The common thread between the above statements is that where an unequivocal condemnation was in order, we got a cagey, “I’m against terrorism, BUT….” response instead. Many, myself included, have complained early and often about this. One group which has borne the a lot of this criticism, some of it deserved, is the Council on American-Islamic Relations (“CAIR”). CAIR appears to have gotten the message, and is circulating an online petition condemning all terrorism in the name of Islam. Unlike the usual, mealy-mouthed semi-condemnations we’ve heard in the past, this one takes the terror issue head-on, without bringing up Israel, Abu Ghraib, heightened airline security, or any other red herrings. Here’s the text, in full:

(more…)

F is for “frank exchange of views.”

Link via Spoons.

“Digital brownshirts.”

Just one more reason why Al Gore is not my President.

The New York Court of Appeals, which is the highest court in the state, has overturned the death penalty (PDF) in that state by a 4-3 margin. Thus far I’ve only skimmed the case, but based on what I’ve gleaned from it, and from the Newsday story (h/t: Drudge) reporting on it, it seems that the ruling was based on an unusual aspect of New York’s law, which would have mandated life with the possibility of parole in the event that the jury could not unanimously agree to recommend either death or life without parole. The constitutional objection (which was based on a provision of the New York constitution, and therefore cannot be appealed) appears to be the coercive nature of this rule, as it may pressure some jurors to join the pro-death majority rather than run the risk that a killer may be allowed out on parole later on.

My tenative view is that the court’s ruling is unfortunate, but understandable at least to the extent that the objection applies to the actually sentences and not just to the jury instructions that make the jury aware of them. Personally, I think death sentences should be mandatory under certain circumstances, but the U.S. Supreme Court has prohibited that for decades. New York’s weird statute doesn’t make a death sentence mandatory, but it does have a coercive effect that may have the effect of forcing a death sentence in some close cases. If there is a coherent reason why anyone should be sentenced to life with parole solely because the jury couldn’t agree whether or not life without parole was enough, I have yet to hear it.

Not here. Here.

You may be wondering why thus far, I have expressed precious little interst in President Bill Clinton’s new book, My Life. My reasons are best expressed in song. Fortunately, some other guy named Bill has given me a pretty good head start.

(more…)

To protect, serve, and treat you like a King.