The Second Amendment

I don't have time to write anything right now, so I thought I would post up something I wrote in response to a comment left on this post on Burlington Pol.

Nat Kinney said...
The Second Amendment does not say that every yahoo has the right to own any weapon he or she wants.

It says:"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State ... "

Within the context of a well regulated Militia, there exists the right to bear arms. The NRA types want us to ignore this part of the constitution and for us to think that anyone should be able to carry an uzi into any school, church, hospital or mall -- no questions asked.

My response from that comments thread is below. I am not accustomed to arguing for the Second Amendment, but it is as important as any other, so I figured I would give it a shot.

---

“Within the context of a well regulated Militia, there exists the right to bear arms.”

That is not what it says. It says, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Meaning, that since a well regulated Militia is necessary for the security of a free State, we shall have the right to bear arms. Well regulated in this sense does not mean government regulated, as we have come to know it in the age of big government. By examining contemporaneous documents, it is clear that well regulated, means well trained and organized.

A Militia is not just an arm of the government. Sometimes the people who are threatening the security of the free State are the government. The Second Amendment is there to allow us the ability to always keep our freedom, even in the light of an oppressive government.

You have to remember, these guys just came from fighting an oppressive government for their freedom. They know that sometimes the people must rise up against the government and they wanted the right to bear arms protected.

The right shall not be infringed. Period. That is what it says. It does not say, “the right of the Militia men to keep and bear Arms.” It says “the people.” If, as you said, it was only in the context of the Militia, it would say so.

And, just so you know, I am not an “NRA type.” I hate guns. Just the same, I am not comfortable with the only people who own guns being the government and the criminals.

I do know that many of history’s dictators started their reign by banning guns, leaving the people helpless to stop them, and I sleep better knowing that there are gun owners in this country willing to die fighting for our freedom should it ever come to that.
---

So there you have it, my first attempt at defending the Second Amendment. Feel free to tear it apart. It's the only way I will learn.

Blog Added

Fells is back with some posts over on "From the News and Sports Desk." He told me in an e-mail that he will be posting more now, so I added him back onto the blogroll.

His latest post is about what happened when he was on the scene of the Essex shootings. It is chilling.

Welcome back to the blogosphere, Fells!

New Template

I am in the process of moving "She's Right" into a new template. There are still some things that I am trying to work out, so bear with me. Unfortunately, there is no "Recent Comments" at this time. I really hope to get that feature back soon, but I don't have time to tweak the code right now.

I use Internet Explorer and it looks great, but I can't see it in Firefox until "the optimizer" gets home and fires up his Linux machine. Let me know if it looks funky to anyone and tell me what browser you are using. Thanks.

Update: I cannot get the Recent Comments hack I was using to work with my new template. It was designed to be compatible with the templates provided by blogger. It's a pretty involved piece of code. I was able to mess with some of the JavaScript, but I couldn't get it to look right, so I gave up. For now anyway.

I loved that feature, but I also do not need it, since I get the comments e-mailed to me anyway. Does anyone else find that feature useful? If not, then I am not going to bother unless I am really bored someday. So here is your chance to save the Recent Comments. Let me know in the comments field.

More GOP Senate Debate

Yesterday, the Republican US Senate hopefuls Greg Parke and Rich Tarrant faced off in what was their first debate, since Greg Parke was absent for the Channel 17/Mark Johnson Show debate.

According to the Free Press story, the two were virtually identical, with the exception of the issue of healthcare.

I was surprised to hear this since I have met both men in person and they are anything but the same.

I interviewed Greg Parke on She's Right and had a conversation before and after with him and his wife. I have a good feeling for where he stands and he is a solid conservative.

I also met Rich Tarrant at a small luncheon at the Wind Jammer last year when I was still Chair of the Burlington GOP. I sat right across from him while he was grilled by a conservative friend of mine. Let me just say, he did not pass that test.

I will have to listen to tonight's debate on VPR's Switchboard at 7:00PM and hear for myself. That debate will also have candidate Cris Ericson.

More on this race tomorrow.

The Green Mountain Daily Debate

I just returned from Channel 17 where I taped a show with Jess Wilson about today's online debate over at Green Mountain Daily between the two Democratic primary candidates for Lt. Governor, John Tracy and Matt Dunne.

It was a brief spot where we discussed the growing role of the internet in campaigns.

The debate is just now wrapping up. If you missed it (as I did, since I was at channel 17, then traveling home), you will be able to view the full transcript at www.greenmountaindaily.com shortly. There will no doubt be discussion there as well.

If you are looking for more Dem. Lt. Gov. debate action, check out the podcast of the channel 17 debate here.

Man, those people at Channel 17 are fast. The podcast is already up of the show Jess and I just taped. You can listen to it here. I am not sure yet when it is going to air. The Channel 17 daily schedule is here, but I will post dates and times when they become available.

Tarrant's Bernie

On Friday, I received an e-mail from a leftie She’s Right reader asking me to give my opinion of the “attack ads” that Republican US Senate candidate Rich Tarrant has been airing against Congressman Bernie Sanders.

I know you're supporting Parke, but wondering what you think of the latest series of Tarrant's Bernie-bashing ads?

I have been able to miss most of the Tarrant ads, so I had to watch them online.

Bernie has responded with his own ad, which I have seen on TV. In it, Bernie directs people to his website “The Truth,” where he defends his record.

According to this BFP article, “Noting that Tarrant has tapped his personal fortune to finance his bid for a Senate seat, Sanders said he couldn't answer each Tarrant ad with one of his own.”

BS doesn’t just stand for Bernie Sanders. According to the last filing with the FEC, Sanders actually had more money than Tarrant. Tarrant’s self-financed campaign was the best thing that ever happened to Sanders. It has made it easier for him to milk as many donations as he can out of his left-wing supporters.

Back to the ads, I think that when facing a politician who has been in office for such a long time, whose record has been largely unchallenged and has been given a free-pass by the media, it is perfectly acceptable to call his record into question. Bernie should have to answer for these votes, especially when he is one of 15 or so representatives who voted no on most of them.

In some cases, he has responded and he certainly has the venues to do so through the media and his own campaign.

I can’t help but notice that Bernie’s truth website does not address some of the areas raised by the Tarrant campaign, most notably the charge that he repeatedly voted to cut intelligence funding.

The question being raised, by Bernie himself even, is whether or not this type of campaign is acceptable in Vermont. To that I propose a counter-question: if there was a Republican candidate in this election, who held a federal office and supported President Bush, would it be okay to criticize his record? Would the holier-than-thou left-wing refrain from such “dirty tactics”?

No. They would jump on that quicker than you can say “Jim=George”!

Two wrongs indeed do not make a right, but I felt the need to highlight the blatant hypocrisy at work here.

Now for my opinion of the ads themselves. I think they only serve to make Tarrant look bad. I doubt that many people will want to believe that what they say about Bernie is true, even if it is. Bernie has a persona built in the minds of Vermonters as someone who cares about them and these ads portray the opposite of what they have come to know about Bernie.

I think a better strategy would be to represent Bernie as he is known to people and explain why Tarrant is a better choice.

Bernie is a Democratic Socialist and admittedly so. Bernie cares about the poor and the working class. Bernie believes that the best way to help them is by taxing the rich and the greedy corporations and putting that money into government programs.

That is who he is. People know and believe this.

But, is that what people really want?

When I was growing up (in Vermont, BTW), there was a saying, “you can’t trust the government to fix anything; they’ll only make it worse.” The stubborn, hard-working native Vermonter does not trust the government to get it right.

Bernie Sanders represents the opposite of Vermont’s independent roots. Bernie encourages dependence and Vermonters don’t want that.

There is no shortage of hard-working Vermonters, who would never rely on a government program due to their rock-solid work ethic, who continue to vote for Bernie because they believe that he cares, even though his brand of caring goes against their own beliefs. Someone should point that out to them.

If I was running, I would represent Bernie exactly as he represents himself and tell you why, although he means well, in the long run his ideas will end up hurting our state and our country.

Socialism does not work. It goes against the very nature of human beings to strive to be their best. A socialist system that is based on the government redistributing wealth punishes success and rewards complacency.

I could fill pages with the reasons why socialism will ruin America, but my point is that Tarrant doesn’t need to paint a picture of Bernie that goes against the image people have come to know. He could simply show Bernie for who he is and present himself as a better alternative.

The Aftermath

The early buzz has started about the need for gun control, as the region is reeling from the shootings in Essex. I know this is an emotional time and perhaps not the best time to expect logic and reason from people, but I too am emotional and need to rant.

I am not going to focus on the inanimate object used in this incident. The gun did not terrorize a community and end two lives. Like them or not, we have a constitutional right to bear arms. There is a good reason for this.

If you shouldn't get mad at the gun, then where should you focus your out-of-control emotionalism?

How about at our messed up "justice" system? The shooter in this incident had a record of making threats against a former girl friend in Springfield, Massachusetts. She obtained a restraining order. He violated it three times and never showed up to court. The case is "pending."

Pending? Pending?!? There is something you can be pissed off about. What the heck was this guy doing on the streets? How does this happen? Why does the law enforcement community not take domestic violence seriously? (Don't even try to tell me they do, or I will so go off on you. - Hey, I can be emotional, too.)

There's another thing that can and should be done to prevent this from happening. When a teacher or other school staff member has a crazy ex-boyfriend, whom she just described to the police as "flipping out" for the past two days, keep her away from the school and post a marked police car out front.

I am not trying to attack the victim here. Her mother is dead and I am sure she is in a really bad place right now mentally/emotionally. I truly feel for her. More than you know.

This is about policy - the policy of a government agency that expects us to place our children in their care. They have a high burden of responsibility to keep them safe. Can you imagine if this had happened next week when school was in session? They should have a policy that requires staff to report any kind of domestic situation so they can take precautions. They should require the staff to be reminded of this policy yearly, at least.

Once I worked at a place where a woman was having a domestic problem and they instituted a new lock system and gave us all key cards. This company took the safety of its employees seriously. Why should we expect anything less from the schools?

All schools should require that teachers/staff alert the principle of any domestic situations. The staff member should then be required to take some leave time and there should be police stationed at the school, just in case.

There is no gun control law that would have prevented this. A person with Williams' criminal past can easily obtain a gun on the street. As it stands, the laws already in existence made it illegal for this man to have a gun. It is illegal for a person with a relief from abuse order (restraining order) against them to have a gun. It is also illegal for a person with certain criminal convictions to own a gun. My guess is that selling drugs in a school zone and car jacking fall into that category.

So, if you are angry, upset, grief stricken, fearful, or experiencing any other intense emotions in the wake of this incident (in other words, if you are human), do not focus your anger on guns. It would be far more productive to focus your emotions on changing the systemic failures in our government agencies of law enforcement, criminal justice, and the schools.

Breaking News

(Updated)

WPTZ just had a live broadcast from the arraignment of Christopher Williams, who shot two teachers at Essex Town Elementary School yesterday, killing one, after killing the mother of his estranged girlfriend in her home.

Judge Cashman, yes that Judge Cashman, sent Williams to the state hospital over strong objections from the state prosecutor over the safety of placing this violent and dangerous man in such a low security establishment.

During the hearing that ensued, a social worker from the Howard Center said that Williams was suicidal. This was based on a 35 minute interview, where Williams claimed to not remember what happened, even though he had admitted it to police prior to the interview. This information was not known to the social worker and she did not take it into account after being given this information at the hearing.

The state prosecutor again stressed that the state hospital did not have enough security and placing Williams there would put the other people there in danger. The judge was concerned about Williams’ risk of suicide, even though he can be evaluated and watched at the correctional facility, as the prosecutor pointed out. His understanding is that Williams will be returned to a correctional facility if he turns out to be a security risk.

What I want to know is why we give a flying you-know-what about whether or not scumbags like this off themselves. He did just kill a teacher the week before school starts for crying out loud.

Let’s get this straight: A terminally ill person, who is depressed and doesn’t want to burden his family should have help in committing suicide, but someone who just killed two people and wounded two others, sending shock waves through a community, needs to be carefully watched so that he doesn’t take his own life, even if it puts innocent people at risk? Got it.

The worst case scenario if they put him in the correctional facility: He kills himself, the victims’ families and the living victims are spared the pain of a trial, and the tax payers don’t have the expense of a trial and incarceration.

What’s the worst case scenario if he goes to the state hospital and it turns out to not have enough security?

Update: Yet one more reason why it was sheer stupidity to place this guy in the state hospital instead of the correctional facility, which has tighter security: his "rather extensive" criminal record from Massachusetts includes "escape from custody." (Source: BFP, Hat tip: Alphecca)

GOP Senate Debate

Yesterday, the Republican US Senate Primary candidates had their first debate. Unfortunately, my candidate in that race was a no show. Greg Parke was out of town at flight training school.

The remaining two candidates - Cris Ericson and Rich Tarrant - did debate, though. I have yet to listen, but you can listen to the podcast here, or read a story in the Free Press about it here.

If you like listening to the Channel 17 podcasts, they have a bunch of candidate stuff. For a full list, visit the podcast main page here.

I am trying to get the house ready to start the homeschool year on Monday, so I might not get a chance to post anything about this today.

Why Mommy Is An Idiot

I usually like to have my own commentary, but Jeff says it so well, I am just going to give you a link to the post on Alphecca. You have to read this.

On to the governor's race...

Scudder Parker released a position paper on “Investing in our Youngest Children.”

(He's the guy running for governor against Douglas.)

Click here to open the PDF of Scudder’s proposal in another window.

There is no one answer to funding a comprehensive and coordinated early childhood system that meets the needs of Vermont families and their young children. I will find creative ways to pay for the care and education of our children in their early years, with a combination of resources from parents, business and the public sector, such as tax credits to employers or families.

He criticizes Douglas for not supporting the early education bill that would have added pre-school for 3- and 4-year-olds to the state education budget. That is the budget funded with property taxes. The one that is already increasing at an out-of-control rate. Douglas was right on that issue.

Vermonters may care about the young, but when it comes to increasing the tax burden on already strapped tax-payers, this is a losing issue for Mr. Parker. The number of people looking for state funded early child care and education programs is outweighed by the number of people who will not be willing to foot the bill for a service they will not use.

Some of his principles:

• We need to help our children grow as competent and confident learners and communicators, healthy in mind, body, and spirit, and secure in their sense of belonging.
  


• We must provide an environment that fosters children’s learning and development.
  


• I strongly believe that if our children are safe, nurtured, and provided with quality early care, health and education, these investments will improve their opportunities for success throughout their school years and in life.
  

I hate to state the obvious, but all of the same benefits can be obtained by the child staying at home.

I am not suggesting that the government mandate all families have one parent at home, but if both parents choose to work, then it is their responsibility to make arrangements for their children. The only possible exception being for single parents transitioning off welfare.

I know not everyone holds my extreme right wing view on this, but I am willing to bet that there are enough people tired of paying higher taxes to fund education that this will prove to be a losing issue.

Rainville/Shepard Debate: the short version

I realize that my post about the Rainville Shepard debate was long, so I want to sum a few things up.

Here’s a quick summary of their views from the debate:

Shepard:

• Thinks the US needs to get out of Iraq as soon as it is stable enough (a year or two, tops).
  


• The government is too powerful and spends too much of our money. He favors less bureaucracy and lower taxes.
  


• He opposes No Child Left Behind and Medicare part D.
  


• Supports privatizing social security.
  


• He is pro-life.
  

Rainville:

• She thinks we need to stay in Iraq as long as it takes. She hinted at needing to go into Iran at some point.
  


• Gives lip service to fiscal constraint, but also said the government needs to fund "unfunded mandates" (aka spend more money), touted a new bureaucracy to oversee ethics, supports Medicare part D, and the goals of NCLB, but notes that it is too cookie cutter.
  


• Does not support privatizing social security. Says we need to strengthen it long term without cutting benefits, raising payroll taxes, or raising the retirement age. (Yet did not propose how to pull off that magical feat.)
  


• She is pro-choice, but supports parental notification and opposes late-term abortions.
  

So there is the gist.

The reason I like Shepard is because he has a philosophy that is consistent throughout – the Federal government has too much power and spends too much of our money. You can see this strongly throughout all of his answers.

Rainville has the same problem liberals do. She lacks a philosophy about the role of government. She takes the issues one by one, which means there is a lack of consistency in her answers.

I bet you that I can guess Shepard’s position on any issue and be right 90% of the time, or better. The same cannot be said for Rainville.

As for Rainville, if she is going to go on and face Welch, she needs to lose the long-winded answers and cut to the chase. Shepard gave short and to the point answers. She wanted to wander into the nuances of every issue. She might think that gives her depth, but in the age of the sound bite, her words will just get taken out of context as they were here by those wily Dems.

What kind of nerd are you?

What's your nerd score? The score is the percentage of test-takers who scored lower (less nerdy) than you. I scored 81. That's right, I am 81% nerd.

What does this mean? Your nerdiness is: High-Level Nerd. You are definitely MIT material, apply now!!!

I know that it is just another stupid internet quiz, but to a former math and science nerd, who was once a rising star in the UVM Physics Department (albeit very briefly), turned stay-at-home mom with no outlet for her math genius other than to try and produce a new generation of math nerds, it is great to have someone call me "MIT material," even if it is just an automatically generated response from an on-line quiz.

So, how nerdy are you? Take the quiz and report back via comments.

(Hat Tip: O'DonnellWeb)

The Rainville/Shepard Debate

Okay, I just listened to the whole debate between Martha Rainville and Mark Shepard, who face off in the Republican Primary for the chance to run for Bernie's vacated US House seat against Democrat Peter Welch.

Here is a summary of the debate. I wrote it as I listened, as each candidate spoke, but these are not exact quotes. This is my paraphrasing of their statements.

This is not fully proof-read because it took way longer than I expected. Sorry.

There are also some comments of mine in italics/parenthesis.

I will say this: with a three-year-old babbling in the background, it is hard to focus on Rainville’s long-winded answers.

If there is any challenge to my version of events, please let me know asap by e-mailing me using the link in the sidebar, or by commenting.

The questions were asked by Mark Johnson, unless otherwise noted. He is referred to as "MJ" in some cases. "R" refers to Rainville; "S" refers to Shepard.

Here we go....

Experience:

S: Vermont native, worked in trades and as professional, business owner. State Senator for Bennington County. Legislative experience.

R: (I did not get this part. It is at the begining of the interview, so you can just listen to it if you want.)

War:
Some conservatives are now thinking that the US is losing the war in Iraq.

R: Good communication has been missing in this war. She believes that we are making progress in this war, but it is not steady – some steps back. We need to remain committed to the goal of turning it over to the Iraqis.

S: We should not call it quits now because we need to support what we started to help the Iraqis gain stability. He does not support a long-term occupation.

How much longer will Americans tolerate the war?
S: Not much longer - a year or two tops.

R: We can’t put a date on it. (I kind of nodded in and out of listening. Blah, blah, blah.)

Rebuttal:
S: The Middle Eastern nations want to see themselves as independent from a heavy American hand. We need to ensure stability and get out quickly as possible. We also need to move away from our dependency on that region.

MJ read Martha’s Quote: we are at one point supporters, at one point critics, asked what that means.
R: We need to support our troops, but also look critically at the info we are presented with.

Has the US done enough in the Israel/Lebanon conflict?
R: We took a step back and allowed the UN to work, which was a good approach. (Yeah, because all conservatives love the UN.)

S: I hesitate to pass judgment on Israel. Imagine us in Vermont being surrounded by people who wanted us annihilated. How can we judge how they deal with it?
I agree with Ms. Rainville that we do not need to jump into every conflict.

Nuclear power, domestic production of oil, ANWR drilling: Do you support?
S: I would support all in certain cases, but we need to look for new sources. In another 30-40-50 years we will have new sources that we haven’t even thought of.
I do not support subsidizing the oil industry. If we saw the true cost at the pump, instead of subsidizing with taxes, we would want to put more into new sources of energy, ie ethanol.

R: The only way to reduce foreign dependence, we need to increase domestic production. I support off-shore drilling and new refineries. No need to drill in ANWR right now. We need to wean ourselves off from fossil fuels, too. In the mean time, we need to increase refining capacity. Nuclear power has a place at the table, especially with new technology.
Get our kids involved with math, science, and engineering so they can find these future fuel sources.

What are you telling Republicans are the major differences between you?
S: I really have a lot of faith in the people – investing your own money in Social Security. The democratic process is more important than the end. This race started with us having different opinions on the issues, but the democratic process is being pushed aside and going along with that is part of the problem. Both parties are doing this and it is a problem.

R: There is a lot of common ground. Much more than most people would want to admit. There are differences and those come out when we are out talking to people. People around the state want change. Change from the way things are being done, they want things to get done. (What is she saying? What are the differences? I am not sure that she is answering this question. She is off on a tangent now.)

I guess I was right. MJ re-asks her the question.
R: She brought up S.S. since Shepard talked about it. She does not support privatization. Most Americans do not want that. We need to strengthen it long term, without cutting benefits, without raising payroll taxes, without raising the retirement age. (Good luck with that.)

What do you say when people say you will just support the GOP leadership?
S: (Hello dumb-ass, the GOP is supporting her. Obviously he has parted ways from their leadership.) This election has shown that he is not afraid to go against party leadership. (They wanted him to drop out of the race.)

R: I am there to serve Vermonters, not to serve the party or a particular party agenda. However, you are more successful as a leader when you bring people together.

To the phones…(At this point for some reason, I started using "I" instead of "he" and "she." Sorry about that, but I do not have time to fix it. These are still not exact quotes.)

Caller: Do you believe that abortion kills a human person?

R: I am pro-choice. I think we need to have parental notification for 16 and under, and I support a ban on partial birth abortion. I believe a woman should have a right to choose. I would not have one, but I believe that a woman should have a choice.

S: Pro-life. It is the same person inside or outside the womb. I have seen my own children inside the womb and it was the same person. They were all there. I can’t just put that aside. There are better solutions. I do not think ending the life of a young child is a good solution.

Caller: Questions about securing the borders, immigration policy, amnesty.

S: We need an immigration policy that allows for people to immigrate. We are a nation of immigrants. Securing both borders is important. I do not support an amnesty policy. I do not support tax-payer funds supporting folks that are here illegally. We need to have all immigrants go through a process to be here legally, but that doesn’t mean they will necessarily have to go back to Mexico to go through the process.

R: Both borders need to be secured. The needs are different, though. We need to address those differences. We need to address the immigration problem. I do not support amnesty. I do not support a purely punitive program because that will drive them underground. Our national security depends on knowing who’s here. We need to reform the legal immigration system.

MJ: Guest worker program?

R: We have to determine what immigrant we want here (good ones) and ones we don’t (bad ones). We have to realize the needs across the spectrum. Secure the borders and identify who’s here.

Caller: You say Vermonters need change, but you pledge to support the leadership. How do you reconcile that?

R: I don’t know what you mean by saying that I agreed to support the leadership.

MJ: Would you vote for the Democrat for House Speaker?

R: Probably not, I don’t see that voting for Nancy Pelosi – the likely candidate - would be in Vermont’s best interest. (HA, HA, HA! Good answer!)

Vermonters want to see someone who will make a change in the ethical landscape. I will look forward to putting in an ethics bill as my first bill. To have an objective office to resolve ethics violations instead of the party in power (either). Office of Public Integrity and a reform on lobbying.

S: Not just a Republican issue. It’s a mater of whether you support the status quo, the establishment politics. There are problems on both sides. I do not support all of the things that the GOP has done. NCLB, Medicare part D, how they handled New Orleans, just dumping billions down there. I also don’t see how you handle ethics reform by building another bureaucracy. The way you get ethics reform is by election people who have a record of doing things you think are right. An office will have a political agenda and cost tax-payers money.
If you care about finance reform, you can do something about it in this election. You do not get change by passing a law but by voting for someone who does not take special interest money – me.

Caller: Foreign policy – Iran. What is the best way to make sure that we are able to keep Iran in check? Domestic – too much power in government is root of corruption.

S: Iran - the young people in Iran see things different than the leadership. What kind of government will be in power when they get nukes? There is motivation in Iran for some change. I met someone at MIT from Iran. This is one way we make change there is by letting people come here and see democracy and take that back and tell people in their home country.

Power in government - The problem of people buying power comes from there being too much power to buy. At the federal government level, they are removed from the people whose money they are spending.

R: Iran – we have gone beyond looking at what would be nice and we need to look at what exists. They have been a huge player in the region. We are dealing with a culture and tradition that is very different than what we are used to dealing with. We need to take that into account. We need to work through other allies in the region. When we need to go in, we need to make sure we don’t underestimate where they are headed.

Power – I agree that there is too much involvement of the federal government in the state and in our lives. Ethics reform, finance reform, budget reform.

MJ: Would you set a time limit as you did when you were adjutant general?

R: I am looking into that. I think that it is important to have someone there who is not there for 30 years. I think the framers envisioned having different people come in and out of the congress.

MJ: Mark, would you limit yourself?

S: I limited myself in the state legislature. I am not sure we should have a law, but we might need one. I think the framers did envision having different people there.

Caller: Were you at any time in position of pictures or film of the 9/11 attacks?

R: I saw what you saw on CNN etc.

MJ: There are people who thing the government had to do with 9/11. What do you think?

R: I have not seen anything that would make me think that.

S: It is important to look into. I have not seen anything to make me think it is true, but sometime unbelievable things happen in our world.

Caller: Yes or no. Would you have voted to go to war?

S: Given the information at the time, probably yes. We know different things now. I still do not have the info congress had. I probably would have said yes.

R: I do not agree that that is a simple yes or no. I was not there, so I will not speculate. (What a load of crap answer!)

MJ: Who would you support for GOP Pres. In 2008?

R: McCain, but I don’t want to lock myself in.

S: I am still looking. I like McCain, but I do not like his finance reform. It locks out newcomers to politics. I support simplification of our finance system, simplification of our tax policy, simplification – not weakening, but simplification – of our regulatory policy, and I don’t see Sen. McCain going in that direction.

MJ: What American Pres. have you most respected?

S: In my lifetime, Reagan.

MJ: All through history, would your answer be the same?

S: Washington, John Adams (except when he closed the press off), Jefferson, Lincoln. We just have had some remarkable people in our history. That is why we are where we are.

R: In my lifetime, Reagan. He rebuilt our military, jumpstarted the economy. In history, Washington. He used his military experience, and provided leadership. Then left on his own when people wanted him to stay. Also Coolidge. He governed well without talking a lot. We can all learn a lot from him.

MJ: How would you rate Bush?

R: Weakness is communicating. I wish he would tell more of the good news about what is happening in our country. The growth in jobs and economy. The help that we are giving to the Iraqi people.

S: I think I would go around a “C.” There are some things I support. The tax cuts. The fact that freedom and democracy around the world help security. No Child Left Behind (NCLB) is a mistake. The federal government cannot govern education. Medicaid part D. A huge entitlement program that will cripple this country. Did not solve the drug price problem, just shifted who pays for it.

MJ: Do you support NCLB?

R: I support some of the goals. The cookie cutter approach does not work in Vermont. It was meant to solve problems in inner city schools. That does not work for VT. I also do not agree with the comments on Medicare part D. It helped many seniors in VT who have to choose between drugs and food. It is not perfect, but it has helped thousands and thousands of seniors in VT.

Rebuttal:

S: The NCLB circumvents the 10th amendment. I think there was a reason the founders set it up that way. You cannot control education from the federal government.

Medicare: I agree that it helped seniors, but there were other ways to help seniors. FDA process, patent laws, advertising. To think you have to pass a program like that quickly because you need a solution is wrong.

R: While we were working for that program, we would have seniors who would not have drugs.

What issue is of greatest concern to Vermonters that we have not addressed today.

S: Vermonters want to take care of their families. That happens through economic growth. I helped in Bennington with bringing in the micro-technology center. I have had clients of my business leave the state. That affects Vermonters ability to take care of their families. One thing would be I would let Vermonters buy health insurance anywhere. This can happen right now because it has support already.

R: Affordability. Fund unfunded mandates. Health savings accounts. She supports buying insurance anywhere. Encourage people to make good health choices. We need to (man, I totally lost this part because she started rambling on. Sorry.)

This was the end.

Overall Shepard was better. I liked his clear answers and his commitment to less government spending. He sounds more real and less like a politician. Yet, he has legislative experience.

Martha had some good answers, but she is too supportive of spending and bureaucracy for my liking. She also tends to ramble on with the answers that are too wordy. She should try to do more with less and sound less Washington.

GOP Primary for US House

I can't believe that I missed the debate this morning between Martha Rainville and Mark Shepard! CCTV to the rescue! The podcast is now up on the Channel 17 website. Here is the link. I will be back later with my thoughts on it, after I listen.

She's Right podcast now up.

Here is the link to the podcast of last Friday's "She's Right." I haven't listened to it, but from what I remember, it was not my best. First, I had two calls about an issue that I have not been following. Then, when I was talking about the House race, I got mixed up about one of Martha Rainville's positions and it took me a minute to get back on track.

Summary: I compared the "issues" pages from each candidate's website to give me an idea of what issues were most important to them.

Greg Parke (for Senate) and Mark Shepard (for House) are the conservative candidates. Mark Shepard lists as his first two points limited government and free-market economics. Need I say more? Greg Parke also supports conservative fiscal policies and brings to the table an impressive resume of military experience in the Middle East.

Tarrant and Rainville are "moderates," which I have strong reservations about. Exhibit A: Tarrant and Rainville both support raising the federal minimum wage to Vermont's level. If you do not already know why conservatives oppose the minimum wage, you can read this Cato Institute policy analysis, or this piece from the Heritage Foundation, or this column by Thomas Sowell from Capitalism Magazine to start you on your road to understanding.

So get out there on September 12 and vote for Parke and Shepard, or next month's show will have to be about the process of shifting my support to candidates that I opposed in the primary.

More primary coverage to come.

She's Right - Tonight

Updated (twice).

This evening on "She's Right," which airs at 5:25 PM on channel 17 in the Burlington area, I will be discussing the upcoming Republican Primaries for US Senate and US House.

Check out the candidates' websites and be sure to get out and vote on September 12.

U.S. Senate
Greg Parke *
Rich Tarrant

(Update: I have just learned that Cris Ericson is running for the Republican nomination for Senate also. You may remember her from the 2004 election, when she ran on the Marijuana Party ticket. Take a look at her site, too. She has some interesting things to say.)

U.S. House
Mark Shepard *
Martha Rainville

* indicates She's Right endorsed candidate.

If you miss the live broadcast, check back Monday for the podcast, available for download or on-line listening. I will also post a write-up of the show later on this weekend.

And don't forget that Channel 17 will be holding live primary debates, which will be simulcast on The Mark Johnson Radio Show on WDEV - AM 550 and 96.1 FM.

GOP US House Primary Candidates - Tues. 8/22 @ 9am
GOP US Senate Primary Candidates - Thurs. 8/24 @ 10am

You can view the full schedule of Channel 17 primary debates here.

(Update: I just got a call from Greg Parke yesterday and he is not able to attend the debate on Thursday. I will update you if that changes.)

Judge Finds NSA Program Unconstitutional

I am sure that you have all heard the big news...

A federal judge on Thursday struck down President Bush's warrantless surveillance program, saying it violated the rights to free speech and privacy, as well as the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution.

U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit is the first judge to rule on the legality of the National Security Agency's program, which the White House says is a key tool for fighting terrorism that has already stopped attacks.

"Plaintiffs have prevailed, and the public interest is clear, in this matter. It is the upholding of our Constitution," Taylor wrote in her 43-page opinion.

The administration said it would appeal to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati.

"We're going to do everything we can do in the courts to allow this program to continue," Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said at a news conference in Washington.

White House press secretary Tony Snow said the Bush administration "couldn't disagree more with this ruling." He said the program carefully targets communications of suspected terrorists and "has helped stop terrorist attacks and saved American lives."

Taylor ordered an immediate halt to the program, but the government said it would ask for a stay of that order pending appeal. The American Civil Liberties Union, which brought the suit, said it would oppose a stay but agreed to delay enforcement of the injunction until Taylor hears arguments Sept. 7.

The ACLU filed the lawsuit in January on behalf of journalists, scholars and lawyers who say the program has made it difficult for them to do their jobs. They believe many of their overseas contacts are likely targets of the program, which monitors international phone calls and e-mails to or from the U.S. involving people the government suspects have terrorist links.

The blogosphere will no doubt explode with commentary regarding this decision over the next few days, so I figured I should jump in here, too. I am not big on the National Security/War on Terror type issues, not because I have no opinion or because I lack knowledge, but because that subject carries such high-level emotional baggage that I just don't want to get into it.

I did read something really, really interesting today, though. It was a comment on this post from a homeschool blog I read.

Newt Gingrich was on the Sean Hannity show, arguing that Americans will either perceive the upcoming election as a “political election” or a “historic election.” If conservatives vote their feelings this time around, the GOP is toast. They are MAD at Bush, Congress, the deficit, the border, and so much more.

But…

The dynamics are a little like Lebanon. There are plenty of Lebanese who despise or fear Hezbollah… but after Israel started attacking, those Lebanese citizens were ready to hand guns and ammo to Hezbollah to go kill Israelis. To the disgruntled conservative, every ACLU win is like another Israeli bomb.

I never really thought about it that way, but then I am no Newt Gingrich, am I?

This is going to be interesting. I have read a couple of blurbs on some right-leaning blogs that this judge is an activist from the Carter era. This could play right into the GOP's hands. If this program has foiled terrorist plots and saved American lives, as the Bush administration says, and the ACLU and some liberal activist judge wants to shut it down, the Republicans suddenly don't look so bad.

Blogger Beware: this could happen to you...

For those of you wondering what happened to Politics VT, VDB has the full scoop. You have to read this.

Update: Politics VT is back up - here, at a new URL.

Abraham Cherrix Update

Breaking news from a Virginia ABC affiliate:

A settlement was reached Wednesday in the case of Abraham Cherrix, the 16-year-old Eastern Shore teenager fighting for the right to forgo conventional cancer therapy to treat his Hodgkin's disease.

13News has learned that Cherrix will not have to undergo chemotherapy, but he will admit himself to North Central Mississippi Regional Cancer Center in Greenwood, Mississippi.

The teen was there last Friday and was treated by radiologist Dr. Arnold Smith, who does alternative treatments with radiation and is against the use of chemotheraphy.

Cherrix’s attorney said in court the Cherrix family believes this decision will lead to his cure of cancer.

The agreement, between the family and Social Services, requires the Cherrix's to provide the court updates on Abraham's treatment and condition every three months until he's cured, or turns 18, whichever comes first.

Circuit Court Judge Glen Tyler approved the agreement and added that the decree states that the parents weren't medically neglectful.

It is great that this boy is free to move on with treating his illness and is no longer bogged down with fighting the state. I am glad that they were able to find a more "legitimate" doctor, who shared their views on chemotherapy. If they were only using the clinic in Mexico, then the judge would have probably ruled against them - a ruling that would make it harder for others to seek alternative treatments for their children.

It is still disturbing that the state feels that they have the right to keep tabs on Abraham's progress. If the court decreed that the parents are not medically neglectful and Abraham is now seeing a government approved doctor, then they need to leave this family alone.

Suggestion Box

She's Right airs this Friday on channel 17 live @ 5:25 and I have no clue what I am going to talk about. I am currently taking suggestions in the comments field.

In other channel 17 news, they are hosting live candidate forums for primary candidates. You can view the full schedule here. The following debates will also air live on the Mark Johnson Show (on the radio on WDEV AM 550 & FM 96.1) for those of you who will not be in front of your TV at 9AM.

Tues. 8/22 @ 9am - GOP House Primary Candidates
Thurs. 8/24 @ 9am - Democratic Lt. Governor Primary Candidates
Thurs. 8/24 @ 10am - GOP US Senate Primary Candidates

Ned Lamont on Fox News Sunday

So, a couple of weeks ago, I decided to cancel my subscription to the Free Press as part of a concerted effort to remain as ignorant as possible. No, just kidding, as part of a concerted effort to trim down our household budget.

For over a decade, I have been voting against my best interests for candidates who do not champion a welfare state and as such, I am forced to rid my life of unnecessary luxury items such as newspapers.

At any rate, I have had a hard time keeping up with the news because I usually read the paper in the morning and now I don't. I have tried to replace it with internetting, but then that takes away from my blogging time. If I have no time to blog, I might as well not read the news because it just gets me all worked up, which is why I needed to start a blog in the first place. It's just a vicious cycle, or something like that.

Finally, Sunday morning for some odd reason that I can't even remember, I got to actually watch the first half-hour of Fox News Sunday. I only even like that show because I totally dig Bill Kristol, who isn't even on until the last half-hour, which I missed anyway.

What I did get to see, though, was an interview with Ned Lamont, the guy who beat Joe Lieberman in the Democratic Senate Primary in Connecticut.

My plan was to make a couple of comments, link to the transcript, then do a link-dump of what other bloggers are saying.

In order to compile the link dump, I had to actually read the posts first. While I was doing that I realized three things. 1. (Some) Liberal bloggers swear a lot. 2. (Some) Liberal bloggers are really, really mean people. 3. I don't care enough about this to continue to waste my limited time reading the mad rantings of hate-filled lunatics spewing venom on all who dare to disagree.

Instead I offer you this:

- The transcript.

- A Google blog search of "Lamont on Fox News Sunday."

If anyone else happened to catch the interview, I welcome your comments. I hope to get around to adding mine later.

Cherrix case resumes next week

A while ago, I blogged about Abraham Cherrix (here and here), the 16-year-old Virginia boy who’s family was dragged into a social services nightmare because they supported Abraham’s decision to refuse a second round of chemotherapy to treat his Hodgkin’s disease.

Their court battle continues next week. I found an excellent story posted today on CNN.com that gives a more detailed account of his ordeal.

I just want to comment on a few things.

First, many of the people who support this state intrusion make it sound like the chemo is a sure-thing and the Hoxsey treatment is a death sentence. The fact is:

“According to studies compiled by the American Cancer Society, the five-year survival rate for those who undergo a second round of chemotherapy and a bone marrow transplant is between one-third and one-half, depending on the treatment facility.”

This would be Abraham’s second round treatment, meaning he is facing a survival rate of one third to one half. How can a judge order a treatment that is only successful 33% - 50% of the time?

Oh wait, I forgot how the government measures success. Just look at the reading assessment results of our public schools. (Did you know that only 30% of Vermont eighth-grade boys can read at or above grade level?)

The other thing that strikes me is why it is a constitutional right for a woman (or a girl) to get an abortion because of “privacy,” but this does not fall under that constitutional protection.

As I said before, this is not a case of neglectful parents. This is a case of alternative vs. mainstream medicine. When did we decide as a country that it is the government’s job to determine which medical treatment was acceptable? Regardless of your OPINION of this treatment, why does the government have the right to decide?

It is the belief of many people that abortion is murder, yet the government is constitutionally barred from prohibiting it. Why then can they prohibit this boy and his parents from pursuing this course of treatment just because there are people who do not believe it is the best treatment?

In reality, they should not be able to, but it is expected that they will. This should be a word of warning to us all that our government is slowly inserting itself into our lives as the final decision maker. Those of you who agree with what the government is doing to this family, don't be surprised when it is your life that the government is trying to control.

Word Verification

I have been getting a boat load of spam lately. Yesterday alone, I received a dozen or so. It is a pain to have to delete them all, so I just put on the word verification for posts. That's where you have to type in the letters that are in the box. Sorry, Haik, and anyone else who hates this feature. It had to be done.

Carmen George Speaks Out

For some reason my Recent Comments doesn't piack up comments made on old posts. (Actually, I think I know the reason.)

Carmen George left a comment the other day on the post "Burlington's Core Mission."

At 8/05/2006 05:24:29 AM, Carmen George said…

I introduced the Healthy People 2010 - Breast-feeding resolution after being invited by the Vermont Department of Health to join this national campaign.

The federal government is promoting breast-feeding because it understands the huge cost savings offered by breast-feeding. Breast-feed children reduce their risk of a long list of health problems including ear infections, childhood cancer, diabetes, SIDS, respiratory infections and intestial diseases. A women who breast-feeds reduces her risk of breast and ovarian cancer.

Two of the big expense for the City of Burlington are healthcare and disability.

It is time to get beyond the packaging and start taking the cost savings offered by breast-feeding seriously.

P.S. I was the lead sponsor on the neighborhood repaving plan. Breast-feeding received more coverage...no pun intended. :)

On a somewhat related note...

I am way behind on my news because I have been working for days on getting my paperwork ready to submit to the state so they can allow me to homeschool my own kids again this year. Heaven forbid they actually trust parents and back the heck off. (Hey, can you tell that I'm resentful?)

At any rate, did you guys see this article in Seven Days about the problems that some people are having with the new water treatment at the Champlain Water District? Back in April, they replaced chlorine with a chlorine-ammonia compound called chloramines.

At least two dozen people have contacted the group [People Concerned About Chloramines] complaining of symptoms such as bloodshot eyes, rashes, burning skin, sinus and nasal congestion, coughing, wheezing and choking.

The change does not affect Burlington because we have our own treatment center, but this article is disturbing, not only for the symptoms that these people are experiencing, but also for the fact that the powers that be at CWD deny the link between their problems and the chloramines.

I totally understand the reason for chlorinating the water supply, but people really need to take some control over their own health and consider filtering it out, whether it's chloramines or old-fashioned chlorine.

We bought a shower filter for chlorine a while back after reading about the effects that the vaporized chlorine you breathe in and absorb through your skin in the shower can have on your body. The first time I showered with the new filter, I could actually breathe. All these years, I thought it was the steam making it hard to breathe, but it was the chlorine! Scary stuff.

My chlorine shower filter was only $50 and the filter is good for a year. I just looked on the website and it also filters out chloramines. Of course, I have to use another filter for my drinking water at an additional expense, but it still beats the $1500 system a woman in the article bought in terms of affordability.

She's Right on the Environment

The fifth and final post in this week’s series focuses on the fifth survey question: What is the “She’s Right” view on the environment?

I wish that I had used some different answers on this one, like global warming and fossil fuel type answers. Instead, I focused on the consumer power that we have to encourage businesses to be more environmentally friendly.

The answer choices were: She hates clean air and clean water; She opposes all environmental regulation; She uses all natural soaps and detergents; She buys organic as often as possible; She drives a hybrid car; She thinks that government should play a very limited role in regulation; She believes that people will choose to patronize businesses that share their values, making it cost effective for businesses to be more environmentally friendly.

One person humorously said that I hate clean air and clean water. Not true.

No one, not even that joker, said that I oppose all environmental regulation. Those smart She’s Right readers were correct. I am not quite fully in the Libertarian camp on this one. (Okay, I guess I am according to this coment left by Hardy Machia.) I still think the government should play a very limited role in regulation (as 5 people correctly said).

Five people said that I buy organic as often as possible and five said that I use all natural soaps and detergents. Guilty as charged. I do not so much do this for the environment as I do it for my own health, but it really is all connected. For example, the Seventh Generation laundry detergent I use helps the lake because it contains no phosphates. It also helps conserve petroleum (they claim on the label) because it is vegetable based. So even though I use it for health reasons, I am helping the environment, too. By the same token, all of the precautions I take to keep chemical-free won’t help me much if the earth is polluted.

Speaking of conserving petroleum, two people said I drive a hybrid car. I wish! I would jump at the chance to save on gas, but I have never owned a new or remotely new car in my life. No, I drive a 1998 mini-van with power-nothing and my husband drives a 1992 Honda Accord that his mom gave us.

Anyway, back to saving the environment. Ideally the government should not be forcing environmental regulation. We as consumers have the power to make companies more environmentally friendly. It’s all about putting your money where your mouth is.

Take my laundry soap. I pay $5.99 for a bottle half the size of a $2.99 bottle of Arm and Hammer laundry soap, but it is important to me to have a natural product. (The same goes for dish soap, dishwasher detergent, shampoo, soap, make-up, etc.) If this is important to me, it is my responsibility to reflect that with my personal choices.

I believe that people will choose to patronize businesses that share their values, making it cost effective for businesses to be more environmentally friendly (as 6 people correctly answered). You can see this happening already. At Hannaford, my grocery store of choice, they now carry their own store brand of natural and organic products, from soy milk to salsa. It is a lot less expensive than the specialty companies’ products, allowing me to purchase more organic products. This did not happen because the government forced them to carry organic products. It happened because more and more people are buying organic and they wanted to capture some of that market.

Another example is Wal-Mart’s environmental plan released last fall. They know that people today care about responsible environmental stewardship and are willing to take their dollars to companies that share that concern. It makes good business sense to try and attract those buyers by becoming more environmentally friendly.

It is not necessary to relegate the responsibility and authority to the government to make those decisions. That gives the government power it should not have. The people have the power to make businesses be more environmentally friendly because we control the money that keeps them in business.

Friday Afternoon Blog-surfing

I am planning on finishing out the week strong and getting up my fifth post in the survey series by the end of the night.

In the mean time, here are some links to keep you occupied.
(All links open in a new window.)

~ Over at Candleblog, there is a picture the freakiest thing I have ever seen. Check out “Forget the snakes, it's Larvae On a Bike!”

~ Cathy has a post up at 802 Online that explores the language of our times, in “Real VT: Overheard conversation in Uncommon Grounds.”

~ My favorite homeschool blogger, Spunky, tries once again to explain that the government should be accountable to the people, not the other way around, in “Some people just don't get it.”

~ Alphecca lays it on the line about Muslims in “The US is not Europe.”

“If American muslims want to fight a ground war here in the U.S., bring it the fuck on.”

~ And Politics VT has the results of their campaign website contest.

She's Right on Taxes

In case you missed it, a couple of weeks ago, I posted a link to a reader survey (now closed) to gauge how much She’s Right readers know about my views on five hot topics. This week, I have been doing a series about the results and the correct answers. Scroll down or click for day one, day two, and day three.

The fourth question in the survey was: What is the “She’s Right” view on taxes?

Answer choices were: She thinks that the current system is about right; She thinks that the tax burden should be more heavily on people who can afford it; She thinks that everyone should pay some amount of taxes; She thinks that programs like the Earned Income Tax Credit should not be refundable (people should not get a bigger refund than their withholding); She thinks that if taxes were used only for what they should be, the tax rate would be much lower and we wouldn’t need to talk about taxes.

Zero people said that I thought the current system was about right. Right on.

Also, zero people said that I think the tax burden should be more heavily on the people who can afford it. Right again.

As much as it would totally suck for people like me, who currently pay no federal income taxes, I think that everyone should pay some amount of taxes (as three people guessed). I think placing the tax burden more and more heavily on a small group of people leaves the rest of us with no real, tangible interest in how the government spends the money.

I understand that the people with higher incomes will always pay a disproportionate amount of the taxes collected, but my concern is over the number of people who pay $0 in income taxes. Worse than that, many people are getting a tax rebate of money that they did not even earn through the Earned Income Credit (EIC).

If a person has an EIC that exceeds their tax burden, that money is refunded to them.

A lot of people do not understand this, so I want to take the time to explain it. I did the taxes of a friend of mine on my Turbo Tax program for tax year 2004. Luckily, I keep everything on my hard drive, so these are real numbers for a single-mom with two kids.

The tax on her taxable income was $583, but she also had a $583 childcare deduction, so her tax liability was $0. She had $289 withheld from her paychecks and qualified for a $2,566 EIC. She ended up getting the $289 plus the $2,566 refunded to her.

Not only did she pay no taxes and get back all money withheld, but she also made money from her tax return.

This practice needs to stop. Tax refunds should not be welfare payouts. (Three people correctly chose this answer on the survey.)

If everyone paid at least a little something in income taxes, then everyone would have more of a reason to care about government waste.

Even the conservative flat tax proposal still leaves some people paying no taxes. I tried the FreedomWorks flat tax calculator (just enter income, status, and number of dependants) and we would still pay no taxes.

At any rate, as eight people said in the survey, I think that if taxes were used only for what they should be, the tax rate would be much lower and we wouldn’t need to talk about taxes. The question then of course is, what should they be used for?

The federal government should, as it is spelled out in Article one, Section eight of the Constitution, “pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States.” (General Welfare in this case does not mean providing “welfare benefits” to certain individuals, a concept that did not exist when the Constitution was written.)

The federal government should not be involved in regulating education, paying for healthcare, providing welfare benefits, or sending money back to the states for projects that have no national significance (not to mention the long list of other things the federal government should not pay for). These are things that should be dealt with on a state or local level, allowing the residents thereof to determine what services and tax rates they desire, giving more control to the people.

She’s Right on Helping the Poor

Okay, I took a short break from my energy conservation to turn on the computer and give you the next installment of “Five Reasons for Liberals to Hate Me,” as I have decided to name this week’s series.

Grab a She’s Right and dig in. Today’s piece: “She’s Right on Helping the Poor.” Of course, you probably already read that in the title.

The third survey question was: “What is the “She’s Right” view on helping the poor?”

The choices were: She supports a broad social safety net; She thinks the payment for these programs should come from income tax, with the super-wealthy paying the bulk of it; She thinks that the government was not meant to take money from one individual and give it to another; She believes that people will support private charities if the government does not provide welfare programs; She believes that everyone should give their time and/or money to help those in need, but the government should not force them to.

One person came in from outer space and incorrectly guessed that I support a broad social safety net. No, I don’t. I think that we need programs that help people who are in a bad way to get back on their feet, but I do not support the type of far-reaching welfare programs we have now.

In his/her defense, neither he/she nor anyone else believed that I would ever suggest a tax on the rich to pay for it, which is good because I would have banned from my blog anyone who chose that answer!

Three smart people said I think that the government was not meant to take money from one individual and give it to another. Why more people did not know that perplexes me, but also tells me that I need to focus more posts on this area.

Let me restate that, the government was not meant to take money from one individual and give it to another. In fact, I hope to do a post soon about James Madison’s veto of the bill that would have provided federal money “for constructing roads and canals” under the guise of facilitating interstate commerce. Madison felt that this was outside of the scope of the powers given to the federal government. See as the “Father of the Constitution,” Madison knew a thing or two about the original intent. I can only imagine what he would have to say about the current welfare state.

Of course I only say that because I am some rich trust-fund baby who looks down on poor people.

Or perhaps I am really just a stay-at-home mom struggling to make ends meet on my husband’s small salary, but who believes that people will support private charities if the government does not provide welfare programs. Yeah, it’s that last one and five people who took the survey knew that, too.

Eight loyal She’s Right readers said that I believe that everyone should give their time and/or money to help those in need, but the government should not force them to. That is correct.

Maybe I am naïve, but I believe that people are generally caring, or at least enough are that we would have enough help out there for those who truly need it should the government ever get out of the caretaker business.

The problem with the government holding that role is that (1) it gives it too much power and control over the people it serves, (2) it uses that power to take money that it has no rightful claim to from the people who legitimately earned it, and (3) it creates programs that may or may not actually address the need of the people they serve because the people who develop the programs are far removed from the people using them.

We would be far better served as a society to have privately-run charitable programs closer to the people they serve, run on funds voluntarily contributed and caring neighbors willing to volunteer their time.

This would help keep the government’s power limited to areas enumerated in the Constitution, giving us all more freedom, and make us more accountable to each other on a local level, where those giving would know those receiving.

The She's Right

Whew, I don’t know if it’s global warming or these hot-button topics I have been discussing, but it feels like it’s 100 degrees in here. I might have to break down and have my husband put in the AC tonight.

In honor of Happy Hour and this oppressive heat, I would like to share with you the She’s Right cocktail - a great way to cool down when the political conversation is heating up.

How to make a She’s Right:

Mix 8 oz. lemonade with 1 – 1.5 oz. Amaretto in a glass with ice. Float a few frozen raspberries on top.

Enjoy and stay cool!
(Remember, don’t drink and blog.)

She's Right on Marriage

Continuing in the series I started yesterday, the second poll question was “What is the “She’s Right” view on marriage?”

The answers were: She thinks that marriage should be between a man and a woman; She thinks same-sex marriage should not be legal; She thinks same-sex marriage should be legal; She thinks civil unions do the same thing and should be good enough; She thinks the government should stay out of marriage altogether and let churches and individuals work out their own marriage contracts; She hopes to someday officiate the marriage of her gay brother and his partner.

Four people said that I think marriage should be between a man and a woman. This is correct – to a point. I think of marriage in a religious context and in that context, it is between a man and a woman.

Three people said that I think same-sex marriage should not be legal, nobody said that I think it should be legal, and three people said that I think civil unions do the same thing and should be good enough.

To the last one, I agree with that statement only because the rhetoric used by the gay marriage lobby is that they want the same legal protection as heterosexual couples and civil unions do provide that. If that was the sole motive behind the movement – and it’s not – then civil unions should be enough. (Although, Cathy Resmer explains in the comments why civil unions do not offer the same legal protection.)

The most popular answer, given by five people, was that I think the government should stay out of marriage altogether and let churches and individuals work out their own marriage contracts. This answer is correct. As I said above, I think of marriage in a religious context and I do not really understand why the government regulates it anyway. For those who are not religious, they could enter into a civil marriage contract with each other.

The government should not be regulating marriage. It then follows that they also should not dictate who can marry (other than that the persons must be doing so of their own free-will). That includes marriage arrangements that I would never enter into, such as polygamous or homosexual. Even though I believe that God designed the family to have one man and one woman as the parents, I also do not believe that I have a right to force that view on others through legislation.

That being said, my view reflects a perfect world where the government is much less intrusive. That is not the case, as unfortunate as that is.

As far as the current brouhaha over marriage, I do not think the government has the right to redefine marriage in a way that undermines the beliefs of religious organizations. For a better understanding of what I mean, you should read this previous post.

It would really benefit all sides if we banded together to get the government out of marriage altogether, but I do not see that happening because (1) both sides hate working together, (2) the left likes it when the government is powerful, and (3) if marriage isn’t government regulated, then it cannot be used to force religious organizations (and others) to embrace homosexuality. (It would be really helpful if you read this post before you launch into your barrage of hate mail/hate comments, to understand where this is coming from.)

The final question was a trick one. As some of you know, I do have a gay brother. However, he has no plans to get married that I know of. Two of you were stumped.