I'm sure it sounded like a good idea at the time. Let's make a citizen group and attack the inability to donate however much we want to our front runners. It's free speech, in the most abusive legal sense, right? Let's get it in front of the Roberts Court and see what they make of it. Obviously free speech does not equal deep pockets. It doesn't, and it shouldn't. Conservative media strategists loved this idea, however, after the financial success of their captive media outlets, who will remain nameless. Roberts played ball with the rest of the closet conservatives on the bench. It is now legal for corporations or individuals to basically give as much as they want, anonymously, and only reveal the tax information after the election is over. There's just one flaw in this plan. Spend as much as you want guys. When it comes down to it, it doesn't matter how handsome or experienced or intelligent your candidate is. If your base doesn't like them, you can throw cash into the ocean all day and it won't make a difference. Nothing has demonstrated this point more succinctly than this three-ring circus of a Republican primary. Liberals, independents and moderates have watched with measured glee and a certain degree of nausea. These well-funded Republican insiders tried to convince Americans, state by state, that their incredible spending limits are the result of a groundswell of support. That grassroots organizers have joined up by the thousands to support them. It's not true. Voters can smell it on them. Conservative Americans are dumbfounded that candidates like Newt and Santorum, whose campaigns should have been DOA, have managed to linger for so long. Paul and Huntsman, the only two even slightly reasonable candidates, didn't get the same special treatment. It's too bad, because either of them would have made this an infinitly more interesting election in November. Now that Romney has become the clear choice moving forward, Conservatives have a bad taste in their collective mouths. Like a bride who has cold feet before her arranged marrige, they aren't sure whether to dutifully walk down the aisle on election day or skip town completely. If you're going to tie the knot, America, do it for love, not money.

If you have to work, you can get up to two paid hours off to vote:
http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/elections_tov.htm

...Also, here's a democratic voter guide for Santa Cruz County:
http://www.cruzdemocrats.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/sc-endorsements.pdf

Seriously guys. Vote. Also go Giants.

Prop 19: Cannabis ballot measure examined

So, after decades upon decades of prohibition, California will finally have another chance to vote on cannabis legalization. The last time Californians had this opportunity was in 1972, coincidentally on a ballot measure that was also named Proposition 19. You old-timers can even reuse your old stickers and posters if you want. It’s easy to guess what happened next. Voters turned out against the measure 66.5% to 33.5%.
I won’t bore you with facts or figures about wasteful law enforcement spending or prisons over-populated with non-violent offenders. I won’t belabor points about cannabis’s rebranding as “marijuana” so that it would remain separate from “white” inebriants like alcohol, which have been legal but controlled since the 21st Amendment was ratified in 1933. Nor will I discuss the success that other countries have had with decriminalization strategies. No.
What I want to talk about is why many medical marijuana dispensaries are against this bill. This bill is not simple legalization. Have any of you stoners bothered to actually read it? Here: http://calpotnews.com/government/ballot-initiatives/full-text-of-regulate-control-and-tax-cannabis-act/
Read it. There’s a provision that says you can’t smoke in a public place. So someone can drink beer in the park but not smoke marijuana without risking a fine or jail time? There’s another provision that says you can’t smoke anywhere if minors are present. What if it’s your own home and they are your own kids? You can get years in prison. The bill allows for cultivation and processing, but only for personal use. So, does that mean each stoner in your household has to have their own separate plant?
It also taxes the heck out of people who want to set up businesses selling or dispensing pot. That’s the main reason that some medical dispensaries are against the bill. Even though they have to jump through a ton of hoops to operate now, cannabis dispensaries are not the cash cow they could be for California’s tragically mismanaged state government. Should they be?

Arizona’s new and highly controversial immigration law is set to go into effect on July 29th. Mexico has requested for an Arizona federal court to prevent the implementation on the grounds that it is unconstitutional.
Mexican President Felipe Calderon has decried the new law as discriminatory, and he’s right. It is. Arizona law enforcement officials, under the new law, would be required to request proof of citizenship during investigations if there is a “reasonable suspicion” that a given person might be an illegal immigrant. Yes, it would be required. It also makes it a misdemeanor to simply exist in Arizona without documentation, and criminalizes seeking day labor, among other things. Besides being patently un-American, this law is also the kind of abuse that is specifically outlawed in the Bill of Rights.
Although Arizona law enforcement officials claim that this new authority will not be misused, the loose wording leaves way, way too much room for civil rights abuse. A Hispanic person born in Arizona will need to carry proof of citizenship around at all times to avoid the possibility of wrongful deportation or incarceration. As a result, many Hispanic-American citizens are leaving the Grand Canyon state all together.
It should be obvious that this new law is a thinly veiled attempt to legitimize the racial profiling that is already rampant throughout the border states. If the implementation is carried out, then other border states may follow suit. If this happens it will arguably do little to prevent illegal immigration. Those who choose to jump border fences in Mexicali or swim across the Rio Grande in search of a better future will still do so. What it will definitely do is make potential, legitimate immigrants tourists and travelers think twice about deciding to live, work or do business in America. If the Arizona federal court wants to uphold the constitution, then there is really only one option. This law must be deemed unconstitutional and thrown off the books. Mexico’s lawsuit is intended to make that happen.

Gulf of Mexico - The situation in the Gulf just got worse. A submarine collision with the vent caused BP officials to make a tough decision and remove the containment cap that has been limiting the flow of oil. Now even more crude is spilling into the Gulf. It's incredibly tragic to see efforts to repair the damage backfire. This situation really shows the lack of technical skill and imagination that has been stalling the repair efforts all along. It seems obvious that BP's best and brightest are not being tasked to the job at hand, but instead are employed by their Public Relations department.

All this came alongside the revelation that two deaths have occurred (so far) in the repair efforts. It might be time to accept that BP simply doesn't have the know-how to fix this disaster. Some entity, whether it's our government, an independent organization, or some international cooperative may have to step in before it gets too late. The sad realization is that it might be too late already.

Welcome to Justin LaneLutter's new blog.