![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
Utah's sexy Constitution Party & more Matheson 'toons
Not wanting to be "democrat party toadies who care not for principle" and who "want to keep the public ill informed" (as we were called by a commenter on Out of Context), we decided to work extra hard to inform ourselves and the public between now and the election. We started by reading the Utah Voter Information Pamphlet, which was quite enlightening. Take the Constitution Party, for example.
These guys obviously called each other the night before to see what the others were wearing. Each ConParty pitch says the same thing, summarized in North Logan resident Scott Bradley’s senatorial spiel as the desire for “a return to the foundation principles upon which this nation was established, with government constrained to act only within the framework defined within the Constitution, in protection of our individual God-given unalienable rights.” Congressional candidate Mark Hudson says he, too, “is committed to restoring our nation to governing within Constitutional limits.”
Great! “Governing within Constitutional limits” – like not spying on citizens without a warrant? Not incarcerating people for years without charging them? Sounded good to us, so we rushed over to their websites to reinforce our own preconceived notions.
Yea! The PATRIOT Act and warrantless spying are unconstitutional! Yea! Denial of habeas corpus is unconstitutional! And yea—umm . . . “Federal aid to education is unconstitutional.” “Federal aid to unemployed workers is unconstitutional.” The Department of Education, National Institutes of Health, and Medicare are not authorized by the Constitution. The minimum wage is unconstitutional. The prescription drug program is unconstitutional. Child Nutrition programs are unconstitutional. Foreign aid and federal funding of disaster relief are unconstitutional.
Gee, we sympathize with you. I mean, who isn’t tired of all that feeding and educating of children? And why don’t those whiny tsunami victims just get a job? But it gets even worse. According to Bradley’s website, “With the advent of the Internet and the benevolent neglect of the previous administrations, the pornography industry enjoyed uninhibited growth and expansion until the point today that we live in a sex-saturated society where almost nothing remains untainted by its perversion.” All we can say is: Dude, we want to party with you! North Logan Tourism Bureau, meet your new brochure writer. Bring on the tourists!
Thanks a lot, Jim. The Mad Commenter on Out of Context who thinks we're Matheson toadies is upset about the Congressman's vote in favor of the torture bill. So are we. One of us has been saying for years that Matheson will vote for anything, no matter how offensive, in order to get re-elected.
The other of us defended Matheson until he voted for the military commissions bill that was signed yesterday, which gives President Bush the power to suspend habeas corpus for anyone he declares to be an enemy combatant, and to decide for himself what constitutes unacceptable "torture."
Jim, please stop assuming that all Republicans are brainless automatons who automatically support everything Bush does, and who will only vote for you if you do the same. We know plenty who were uncomfortable with that bill. You might be able to vote for principle and still get re-elected. On important issues that affect the safety of our own soldiers and our moral authority in the world, it's worth a try.
These guys obviously called each other the night before to see what the others were wearing. Each ConParty pitch says the same thing, summarized in North Logan resident Scott Bradley’s senatorial spiel as the desire for “a return to the foundation principles upon which this nation was established, with government constrained to act only within the framework defined within the Constitution, in protection of our individual God-given unalienable rights.” Congressional candidate Mark Hudson says he, too, “is committed to restoring our nation to governing within Constitutional limits.”
Great! “Governing within Constitutional limits” – like not spying on citizens without a warrant? Not incarcerating people for years without charging them? Sounded good to us, so we rushed over to their websites to reinforce our own preconceived notions.
Yea! The PATRIOT Act and warrantless spying are unconstitutional! Yea! Denial of habeas corpus is unconstitutional! And yea—umm . . . “Federal aid to education is unconstitutional.” “Federal aid to unemployed workers is unconstitutional.” The Department of Education, National Institutes of Health, and Medicare are not authorized by the Constitution. The minimum wage is unconstitutional. The prescription drug program is unconstitutional. Child Nutrition programs are unconstitutional. Foreign aid and federal funding of disaster relief are unconstitutional.
Gee, we sympathize with you. I mean, who isn’t tired of all that feeding and educating of children? And why don’t those whiny tsunami victims just get a job? But it gets even worse. According to Bradley’s website, “With the advent of the Internet and the benevolent neglect of the previous administrations, the pornography industry enjoyed uninhibited growth and expansion until the point today that we live in a sex-saturated society where almost nothing remains untainted by its perversion.” All we can say is: Dude, we want to party with you! North Logan Tourism Bureau, meet your new brochure writer. Bring on the tourists!
Thanks a lot, Jim. The Mad Commenter on Out of Context who thinks we're Matheson toadies is upset about the Congressman's vote in favor of the torture bill. So are we. One of us has been saying for years that Matheson will vote for anything, no matter how offensive, in order to get re-elected.
The other of us defended Matheson until he voted for the military commissions bill that was signed yesterday, which gives President Bush the power to suspend habeas corpus for anyone he declares to be an enemy combatant, and to decide for himself what constitutes unacceptable "torture."
Jim, please stop assuming that all Republicans are brainless automatons who automatically support everything Bush does, and who will only vote for you if you do the same. We know plenty who were uncomfortable with that bill. You might be able to vote for principle and still get re-elected. On important issues that affect the safety of our own soldiers and our moral authority in the world, it's worth a try.
'toon love
(Anonymous)
Re: 'toon love
(Anonymous)
Re: 'toon love
But seriously, a topic for discussion here: I'm a homeschooler, so I pay entirely (in funds as well as sweat and time) for my children's education. Is not that the responsibility of the parents of specific children, rather than the involuntary duty of homeowners in the community? I have to get in my vehicle, drive to the store, take money out of my wallet to purchase food, and then prepare it myself at home; is not that my responsibility, as a mother? Why should my neighbors' money be lifted from them to feed and educate my children? Or my money be lifted from me, so that I can feed and educate other children as well as my own? If I wish to give, to contribute, that's one thing; but to have my generosity mandated and legally enforced is quite another. Don't you think?
(Doing my best to bring the choler of the KSL comment boards to your LJ.)
(And I won't deny that I've fantasized about someone knocking on my door and contributing to my school fund. I've likewise daydreamed of being exempted from that small portion of property tax which is earmarked for education, so I can earmark it for our educational needs.)
And I see people around me who take government aid only for a short time, and only to get back on their feet. But I also see people for whom freebies become a crutch--"Why do I need to make breakfast, when my kids can get it at school? Why take them to the dentist for fluoride treatments, when they have those at school? Why pay for our school lunch, when we're qualified to get it for free? Why worry about what they're learning, when the teachers are obviously so qualified and the DoE has kindly laid it out in detail?" If we leave the school system out of the discussion, how about those people who are weakened rather than strengthened by the benefits they get from those moral contributions of their community members?
I have been on the receiving end of some very impertinent comments because I have never signed up for WIC, despite several pregnancies and many young children in the household; neighbors have looked me askance because we don't go down to the park on summer days and eat the free lunch there. When I need medical care for my children and pay for it on my own, they tell me, in tones meant to convey my idiocy, that the health department does those very same things for free.
This is the sort of thing I worry about. In a state full of "conservatives" there are many who are dependent upon those little state-sponsored benefits, and in fact consider them their due. "Of course my neighbor is paying for this for me. Why wouldn't they?" I'll give you education. It benefits us all to teach the children. But so many of the other programs, in my view, should be offered at a small fee to parents, rather than as a service paid for out of taxes.