Below is my letter to the Orange County Register, a normally sensible newspaper which handled the All Caca non-story almost as badly as the New York Dog Trainer did. If you have any election-related letters you want to send them, be sure to get them in by noon today, PDT.

(more…)

Is this the best Texans for Truth can do? Anyone can flip the bird. Even Baby Xrlq can flip me the bird, which in fact he did just the other day. Maybe he’s Presidential material, too.

All this is sooooo much more important than See B.S.’s attempt to outdo John F-Bomb Kerry and the Gray Lady over the All Caca scandal.

Kate sings sings us a cool Rush tune while delivering a well-deserved bitch-slapping to the undecideds. What a deal!

Ari Armstrong has an interesting piece in the Rocky Mountain News on Amendment 36, the ballot initiative asking Coloradans to disenfranchise themselves.

Right now, Real Clear Politics has Bush up by a 2.8% head to head, but only 1.8% against sKerry in a three-way race. I’ve noticed this trend before, but never understood it. Seeing as the third way is Darph Nader, shouldn’t Bush fare better in the three way race than in the two way match-up?

Another problem with the two way vs. three way dichotomy is that one poll assumes Ralph Nader’s name will appear on the ballot in all 50 states, while the other assumes he won’t appear on the ballot anywhere. A more useful figure would a a weighted average of the 3-way polls in the states where there will actually be one next week, vs. 2-way polls everywhere else.

Less (fewer?!) than 24 has passed since Spoons said “screw it” proudly endorsed George W. Bush, and already he is calling for the disenfranchisement of an entire nation.

Gary Langer of ABC News reports that 9% of registered voters have voted already, with Bush leading 51% to 47%. Langer notes that this does not necessarily mean Bush is “winning,” however, as a four point lead is within the margin of error. He also notes that early voters tend to be a bit more Republican than the overall electorate, suggesting that even if the number were statistically significant, a slight lead by a Republican President would not necessarily translate into a lead among the electorate at large.

Langer notes that early voters are located disproportionally in the western states, but does not elaborate further as to how this may skew the overall result. The one state he mentions by name, Oregon, should be the most over-represented of all, as all Oregon voting is done by mail. Next in line would be California, the nation’s most populous state, which allows voters to register as “permanent absentees.” Both states lean heavily Democratic, so to the extent Bush is even slightly ahead among the early-birds there, that really does mean something. Expect similar results from Washington, but opposite results from Arizona, Nevada, Utah and the other western states hardly anyone lives in (and I mean that in a good way).

Bottom line: show me a list of the 28 states that allow early voting, with a breakdown of what percentage of the electorate has already voted in each, and I’ll tell you whether Bush, Kerry or the cat is winning. Based on ABC’s generalities, it’s impossible to tell.

Please keep Baby Soren (via Spoons) in your thoughts and prayers.

Uncle seems to have taken my admonishment in stride, but Publicola is fit to be tied. Rather than respond line by line to a long post, I’ve distilled what seem to be the basic assumptions from his post, and then addressed them separately below.

1. No one should ever be criticized for adhering to his principles.
2. Something incoherent about the Fifth Amendment.
3. The only way to “throw your vote” away is not to vote at all.
4. It’s OK to break laws, as long as you honestly believe that it is immoral for the government to enforce them against you.
5. Alternatively, if that’s not OK, then anyone who breaks some laws is morally indistinguishable from anyone who has ever broken any others.
6. Publicola probably packs heat without a permit, but adheres rigidly to speed laws. Presumably, this has something to do with whether or not it is a good idea to vote for Michael Badnarik.
7. Anyone who violates a law they disagree with is next Rosa Parks or the next Martin Luther King, Jr.
8. The word right is a proper noun.

(more…)

Today, Bill Handel of KFI pointed out that Charles Rothenberg will be released in just over three years if Proposition 66 passes. Rothenberg, you may recall, is the sweetheart who gave sleeping pills to his six-year-old son David, doused him with kerosene, and burned him very nearly to death in a motel in 1983, all to prevent his wife from getting custody. California had no three strikes law at the time, so despite the seriousness of this crime and a string of priors dating back to 1958, Rothenberg was sentenced to a whopping 13 years in prison, of which he served roughly seven.

Following his release, Rothenberg has had multiple brushes with the law, including a count of arson that did not result in an indictment, and an attempted murder charge that ended in an acquittal. Rothenberg was arrested again in 2001 and convicted for fraud and illegal possession of a firearm. Both crimes are felonies, but neither of them are “violent” or “serious” felonies, as defined by either the existing three strikes law or the watered-down version that is Prop 66. Due to the egregious nature of Rothenberg’s past crime, San Francisco D.A. Terence Halinan took the unusual step of pursuing a third-strike charge against him. That charge won’t stick if Prop 66 passes, however. In fact, Rothenberg would not even qualify as a second striker, as the two “violent” or “serious” offenses – arson and attempted murder – were decided in the same court proceeding. Rothenberg raised a similar challenge last year (h/t: Jeff Lewis), alleging unsuccessfully that his current charge should only count as a second strike rather than a first. Under the new law, it won’t count as a strike at all, and Rothenberg will be free to burn more buildings and attempt to murder more people within three years, courtesy of the “Three Strikes and Child Protection Act of 2004.”

UPDATE (4/28/05): Turns out, he won’t get a three strikes conviction after all, even without that dreadful “reform.”