In case you missed this — and it’s possible you did since only Los Angeles’ local public radio station reported it — there were shots fired outside Stanley “I killed four people but they called me Tookie” Williams’ funeral two days ago.

The Governator has thus far in his office declined to interfere in any of California’s executions. There’s another one scheduled for January 17th. I expect less of a brouhaha surrounding this one, but you never know. In that vein, here’s an introduction to one Clarence Ray Allen.

Allen was sentenced to death for hiring a hit man who murdered three people at a Fresno market. Allen, who was already in prison for murder, had the trio killed because he feared their testimony would hurt his chances of prevailing on appeal, prosecutors said.

The convicted hit man, Billy Ray Hamilton, also is on death row. Prosecutors said Hamilton was following Allen’s orders when he killed Bryon Schletewitz, Douglas Scott White and Josephine Rocha.
…
In a letter to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Atty. Gen. Bill Lockyer’s office argued against granting clemency to Clarence Ray Allen…

I no doubt expect some people to pressure Schwarzenegger to grant clemency. Let’s just wait and see. Since 1978, when the death penalty was reinstated in California, 13 inmates have been executed out of a death row population of over 600.

Professor Bainbridge is not amused by the Governator’s latest pick. I’m not sure I am, either. One of the strongest arguments for the Miers nomination was that a known conservative could never make it through the U.S. Senate. That argument doesn’t apply to California, as judicial nominees don’t go through the U.S. Senate (or, worse, the California Senate). I’m reserving judgment until I’ve had more time to familiarize myself with Judge Corrigan’s record, but my first thoughts are no likey. The Other Xrlq has more.

As expected, John Campbell easily won Chris Cox’s seat yesterday, capturing 44.7% of the vote. It was kinda cool to see A.I.P. candidate Jim Gilchrist get 25.1% of the vote, coming dangerously close (OK, maybe just Kerry-close, but still) to beating out the Democrat, Steve Young, who garnered 28.0%, in the race for second place. It’s often been said that votes for Gilchrist were to “send a message.” One possible message is that Campbell should get serious about immigration. Another is that his seat is so friggin’ save that he needn’t bother. Time will tell.

UPDATE: Why am I not surprised that no matter how badly a Democrat does in one of the most heavily Republican districts in the country, some dweeb will convince himself that the Democrats could win here if they’d just get more serious about border control? I thought of floating that theory in my original entry, but decided against it because I thought the numbers made it so obviously silly no one would entertain the theory. Guess I was wrong.

UPDATE x2: According to Lonewacko, Gilchrist’s site, an anonymous Corner reader and a Freeper, Gilchrist actually won among non-absentee voters. I haven’t seen anything official, but have done the math and the numbers are at least consistent with the official totals.

On the heels of passing its doubly illegal handgun ban, Frisco wasted no time taking advantage of S.B. 861, the new law which will allow doggie racism effective January 1. Coming next: a new ordinance declaring Wiccan the official religion of Frisco, and another redefining “probable cause” to authorize warrantless searches of the homes of anyone who has publicly expressed opposition to gun control, breed control, or any other law banning possession of anything Frisco has taken it upon itself to ban. Tom McClintock had some choice words for this turkey:

Proponents of this measure have said this is a matter of local control. The reality is that local officials can be just as despotic as state officials and Senate Bill 861, at its core, is a despotic bill.

There are two types of laws. One type of law holds individuals accountable for their own actions. In such a society, the irresponsible, reckless one percent who endanger others are held accountable for those actions, and we have laws that punish them. They hold the individual accountable for his actions, they punish the reckless people and they leave the other 99 percent of law-abiding individuals alone.

The second type of law treats all people as if they were irresponsible and Senate Bill 861 would create such a law. These are the kind of laws that destroy freedom and create societies of subjects rather than citizens.

I ask you to consider what direction we are taking society when we begin passing laws that treat all individuals as if they were all irresponsible. That’s what this bill does. It is an insult to California’s law-abiding citizens and is an affront to a free society.

Attorney Dawn Capp is leading the charge for a referendum to overturn S.B. 861. Time is of the essence; we only have until Tuesday, January 3. You can download the petition here.

Today’s the day. All the polls say Arnold’s much-needed reforms are going down, and my intuition says that by this time next year, all the voters are going to be pissed off at Arnold for failing to rein in the unions, balance the budget, level the playing field between unions and other special interests, and/or establish a real democracy instead of the self-selecting Legislature we have now. Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to prove them and me wrong.

Once again, here are links to the blogger election guides of which I’ve been made aware:

1. Dafydd ab Hugh
2. Stephen Bainbridge (update here)
3. BallotBrain
4. BoiFromTroi (73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 80)
5. Tammy Bruce
6. California Conservative (see also)
7. Cobb
8. Matthew Hoy
9. K.G. at California Mafia
10. Lonewacko
11. Hugo Schwyzer
12. Smash
13. Verix
14. Michael Williams
15. Yami Monkey
16. Xrlq

BFL Special Election blog

I’ve updated my voter guide and moved it to a permanent page where it won’t get buried by date. Recent polls indicate that almost all of the initiatives either will pass handily, get clobbered, or something in between. Dafydd ab Hugh sorts it all out.

My next door neighbors, government school teachers both, have a CTA/NEA-issued sign on their front yard urging voters to “Protect Our Kids” by voting “no” on Propositions 74, 75 and 76. It sure is nice to know that the National Extortion Association wants to protect our kids from good teachers, depoliticized unions and balanced budgets.

As you probably know, there’s an upcoming special election in California. To keep the polling booths from overcrowding, registered Republicans are asked to vote on Tuesday, November 8, while Democrats are to vote on Wednesday, November 9. Well, not really. If you are a registered Democrat, please do consider voting on Wednesday, November 9. I’ll be your best friend. Well, not really. But I will appreciate the gesture, that’s for sure.

Anyhoo, whether you’re a Democrat, a Republican, a Real Republican who wasted his vote on McClintock in 2003 (which is not to be confused with voting responsibly for McClintock in a 2006 he might actually win), a moonbat Democrat, a Looneytarian or anything else, if you’ve posted your ballot recommendations please let me know. My election guide is here. Where’s yours?

In alphabetical order (to be constantly updated):

1. Stephen Bainbridge (update here)
2. BoiFromTroi (73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 80)
3. California Conservative (see also)
4. Citizen Smash
5. K.G. at California Mafia
6. Lonewacko
7. Hugo Schwyzer
8. Michael Williams
9. Yami Monkey

BFL Special Election blog

On the off chance anyone actually (1) cares how I’m voting next month and (2) hasn’t figured it out, here’s how I’m voting, and urge others to do likewise.

Statewide Measures:

• Proposition 73 (Abortion Notification) – Yes. Abortion may or may not be the moral equivalent of first-degree infanticide, but it isn’t the greatest thing since sliced bread, either, and certainly not so lovely that the state should allow teens to get them behind their parents’ backs. The only odd thing about this initiative is that it is a constitutional amendment, which seems a little odd. Not a big deal, though, as California’s Constitution is almost as easy to amend as any voter initiative; it just takes more signatures to get it on the ballot. [UPDATE: Actually, it is a big deal, as the California Supreme Court ruled in American Academy of Pediatrics v. Lungren, 16 Cal.4th 307 (1997) that a prior parental notice statute was unconstitutional.] Unsurprisingly, the L.A. Times disagrees.
• Proposition 74 (Teacher Tenure) – Yes. If you work in just about any field other than education, chances you don’t have tenure. Neither should school teachers. Unfortunately, that reform is not on the ballot. Raising the tenure period from 2 to 5 years is a baby step in the right direction, so modest even the L.A. Times doesn’t have a problem with it. This is a small reform where we need a big reform, so let’s take what we can get.
• Proposition 75 (Paycheck Protection) – Yes. No one has a right to dip into anyone else’s paycheck and force them to “contribute” to political campaigns they may not support, and in any event have never consented to have their money spent on. Why is this even controversial? [UPDATE: Or is it?]
• Proposition 76 (Spending Limits) – Yes. Opponents cleverly call this a “power grab” by the governor. Well, of course it is. If the buck is going to stop there (and it should), then dontcha think we ought to give the governor enough power to actually do what voters expect of him? Besides, these nefariously “grabbed” powers only kick in when the fiscal year is half over and over budget. If you support balanced budgets, vote yes. If you oppose them and favor runaway entitlements instead, vote no. It’s really that simple – unless you write for the L.A. Times.
• Proposition 77 (Legislative Redistricting) – Yes. If the California voter initiative process allowed cumulative voting, I’d encourage you to cast all eight votes on this one. As important as the rest of the initiatives are, there’s at least a decent chance that they ought to be left to a democratically elected Legislature accountable to the people, and not by the people directly, by initiative. But that argument only works if you have a democratically elected Legislature, which we don’t. As long as Legislators get to choose their voters rather than vice-versa, the Legislature remains accountable to nobody, save to itself. How bad are the current districts, you ask? This bad. Or, for Times watchers, this bad.
• Proposition 78 (Prescription Drugs Trojan) – Maybe. This is a dumb law, but not nearly as dumb as Prop 79, which it is intended to defeat. If both initiatives pass, only the one that passes by a greater margin will take effect, so be sure to check the polls right before Election Day. If Prop 79 is going down, vote no on Prop 78. If Prop 79 has a realistic chance of passage, vote yes on Prop 78. L.A. Times says no to both intiatives, a tempting alternative.
• Proposition 79 (Socialized Prescriptive Medicine) – No. This one is bad all around. Even the L.A. Times doesn’t like it. Vote no.
• Proposition 80 (Ban on Energy Deregulation) – No. The theory behind this initiative seems to be that if Steve Peace, Pete Wilson and Gray Davis were able to find a way to do energy deregulation wrong, no future administration – even one the L.A. Times might approve of – should be allowed to even try to do it right. If that argument makes sense to you, consider moving to Cuba. If it doesn’t, vote no on Prop 80.

The rest relate to local (Orange County) measures. If you live anywhere else, move along people, nothing to see here.

• Measure D – Money Grab by Fire Dept. No. This would force 100% of Orange County taxpayers to pay taxes to an authority that services only 43% of us (and I’m saying this as part of the 43% that would benefit from it), whether they need it or not, at the expense of police and other public safety agencies that don’t get the same dedicated property tax revenue that the fire authority does. If you are a firefighter who cares only about your own salary, pensions, etc., vote yes. If you are anybody else, vote no.
• Measures B,- Measure C, Measure E – None of these are really necessary, but any of them would make a decent tactical vote against Measure D, so why not?

Oddly enough, the L.A. Times agrees with me on all of the Orange County measures, all but one of the Ahnold Amendments, Props 79 and 80, and disagrees with me only tactically on Prop 78. In a typical election cycle, the average conservative voter could do worse than to simply take the L.A. Times voter guide with him to the polls, and vote the opposite. Don’t do that this time, or you’ll end up voting right on two initiatives (Props 73 and 76) and wrong on everything else. If you must based your vote on the recommendations of any newspaper, don’t vote anti-Times this time around. Instead, pick up a copy of the Orange County Register and vote their recommendations on everything, except maybe 78 for purely political reasons (i.e., to help ensure 79′s defeat).

UPDATE: The version of my voter guide you are viewing is here for archival purposes only, and will not be updated. The updated version is here.

I’m here with fellow Bearflaggers Flap and Sacto Dan liveblogging Arnold Schwarzenegger’s luncheon speech at the California Republican Party convention. [Note: the speech reads in the past tense due to subsequent editing.] Arnold took the podium at 1:00 p.m. before a sold-out crowd of 530 paying guests. Arnold began with the usual acknowledgement to Duf Sundheim and his Republican friends, then launched into some semi-self-deprecating remarks (but not really) about how everyone thought in 2003 that he was a better politician than actor, and now everyone thinks he’s a better actor than politician. He promptly un-deprecated himself by drawing a distinction between being a good politician, which he doesn’t care to be, and a good governor, which does.

Arnold then proceeded to remind us of some of the issues that were huge in 2003 but which are all but forgotten now. He referred us to a recent poll asking what I consider one of the stupidest questions ever – “Are we on the wrong track or the right track?” – and said he agreed with the people who think we’re on the wrong one. He hearkened back to the old campaign theme of “recover, reform, rebuild,” reminding us how he helped us recover from a near bankruptcy and a nasty car tax, which would hella suck right now on top of the increased gasoline prices we also have to pay at the pump. He also reminded us of the repeal of the driver license for illegal immigrants, and of workers’ comp reform which lowered rates up to 30-40%. He also claimed (can anyone verify this?) that California now has a balanced budget, that revenues are up by $6 million, and that businesses and jobs have come back. He also bragged about the increases in educational spending, and the allegedly Republican crowd cheered.

Next he launched into the nasty ads we’ve been treated to over the past few months. He said that when he entered politics, he was told by the insiders to play ball “or else,” and that these ads are the “or else.” He then attacked “the system,” which undos all reforms. He said half a million people move here every year because it’s such a great place, but that means we’ll need a lot more roads, hospitals, nurses, parks, police, water, energy, schools and other basic infrastructure, all of which are at the breaking point. He then said something about spending more than we take in (how does that square with his earlier comment about the budget being balanced?).

Arnold now changed the topic to initiatives generally. He said that back to his youth, when he was first voting, he thought ballot initiatives were a pain in the neck. (He then added that he actually thought the pain was in a different part of the body, but he’s not allowed to say that anymore because he’s the governor.) He said he later learned that real reforms come not from politicians, but from the people. He cited Prop 13, the three strikes law and legislative term limits as examples of major, much-needed reforms that never would have passed through the legislature. [Side note: California actually has two three strikes laws, one of which really did pass the legislature shortly before the November, 1994 election. It is doubtful, however, that this bill would have gone anywhere in the Legislature if Prop 184 had not been looming on the horizon.] He followed up with a statement that the people must be the ones to reform the system, noting:

All the changes came about through the initiative process. Not the legislative process but the people’s process.

That was his segue into the November special election. Arnold briefly commented on Propositions 74-77, as follows:

1. Proposition 74 – require new teachers to work 5 years before they get “tenure and a job for life.” Cites the “dance of the lemons,” where principals must shift around the teachers who aren’t any good. Dance them right out of the schools.
2. Proposition 75 – He just endorsed this one for the first time. Public employees should not be forced to contribute to campaigns they don’t believe in. “That’s not a ‘contribution,’ that is a tax.”
3. Proposition 76 – Control spending to end state deficits, balance budget without raising taxes. Require government to live within its means; existing rules require us to pay $1.10 for every dollar we take in. [But we balanced the budget?!]
4. Proposition 77 – Good government initiative: let independent judges draw legislative districts instead of the politicians themselves. Last November 153 congressional and legisaltive seats up for re-eection, not a single seat switched. “It’s like letting a poker player go through the deck and pick out his hand. Of course he’s going to win!”

Then he led everybody on a big chant, “Yes on 74, 75, 76, 77,” talked again about how hard but necessary it is to change the system, adding that “I’m bloodied but unbowed.”

Arnold then promised to continue to fight for reform in a second term as Governor. He asked his fellow Republicans to help him “reform the present and rebuild the future,” and ended his speech with the usual Arnold lines about making the Golden State once again the state of dreams. As he left, they played Petty Tom’s “I Won’t Back Down,” the song that got Dubya some grief during the 2000 campaign. Does this mean Petty Tom supports the Governator? Or, even more implausibly, that he has gotten a life?