HAPPY THANKSGIVING!

My Grandmother Ruby's favorite Psalm of Thanks. My Dad, Aunts and Uncles were all required to memorize it as children:

"Shout for joy to the LORD, all the earth.

Worship the LORD with gladness; come before him with joyful songs.

Know that the LORD is God.

It is he who made us, and we are his; we are his people, the sheep of his pasture.

Enter his gates with thanksgiving and his courts with prasie; give thanks to him and praise his name.

For the LORD is good and his love endures forever; his faithfulness continues through all generations." ~ Psalm 100 (NIV)

An Example of Unconstitutional Hostility Toward Religion

Yesterday I visited Granny Geek's blog. Now, I don't know Granny Geek, I've never met her. I have nothing against Granny Geek. I'm sure she's a fine lady, but the discussion I had with her in the comment section of her blog entry, "Pop Quiz," over the course of last night and this morning has been completely removed. I find that very unfortunate because it leaves her readers with the impression that Pizza Hut and other restaurants which ran a Sunday discount for their patrons who brought a church bulletin into the store were wrong and broke the laws of both Springfield and the State of Missouri. Based on Granny Geek's links that simply isn't the case.

I had a lengthy exchange with Granny Geek on the topic. I asked her some questions which she refused to answer, instead asking me a few questions of her own which I, in turn, declined to answer because I've been around the liberal debate tactic of changing the subject and turning the tables often enough to recognize it when I see it and I wasn't interested in playing the game.

I then took her advice and followed the links she provided in her original post, which I felt was a perfectly reasonable request on her part and if there was a legal precedent which would put the issue to rest I was fully willing to accept that. However, links which she insinuated would set a precedent for her self-proclaimed judgement that the actions of Pizza Hut were illegal and that other restaurants who participated in the giving of discounts in exchange for church bulletins on Sunday were illegal actions turned out to set the opposite precedent than what she claimed.

Following was the last comment I made in the comment section of her post titled "Pop Quiz" but which was almost immediately removed along with every other comment I made (I put it in quotes simply to designate it, I am quoting a comment which was removed and in some cases quoting comments made by Granny Geek which were later removed):"

Look, Ms. Geek, I like to learn and I like the truth. I haven't claimed to be a lawyer and I haven't claimed to be as knowledgable of past legal precendents as you may be but you made some firm statements in your original entry which you failed to prove with your links. You wrote:

"THIS DISCOUNT IS ILLEGAL IN SPRINGFIELD AS WELL AS IN MISSOURI."

You wrote:

"The sign was changed several weeks ago. Springfield is following precedents established in other cities."

However, your link establishes the opposite of what you implied it would establish.

You implied that there was a court case involving Pizza Hut, or perhaps you were referring to the one you referenced at your "other cities" link, when you wrote:

"Jack, (Fat Jack's Erratic Rants) you may disagree with the court’s ruling, but it’s now precedent. Your arguments are for naught."

It turns out the precedent was not what you implied it was but that the court ruled in favor of a base ball team's right to give discounts to those who provided them with church bulletins, even going so far as to state "THAT TO FORBID SUCH A PROGRAM WOULD EVINCE AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL HOSTILITY TOWARD RELIGION…."

Further, even if you can prove that Pizza Hut is "accommodating" the "public" in a sense that it would help your case, you cannot associate a person's having a church bulletin with them being a Christian, necessarily. I pointed out that one does not have to be a Christian to go to a church and obtain a bulletin...therefore, how is there any discrimination involved based on religion when a person does not have to be a
Christian to attend a Christian church or any other church that I am aware of, for that matter?

Had you not presented your argument by making flat statements as though fact and not succeeded in backing up those statements with the links you provided yourself, I would not question you, but you made a statement that it was:

"ILLEGAL IN SPRINGFIELD AS WELL AS IN MISSOURI..."

...and then failed to prove your case.

If you can do so then you are welcome to do so. It isn't my job to prove it
for you. Sorry for the repititon but I based my comments on the links you provided in your post. If you have further information which will prove your point based on a past case involving YUM foods then either post it or don't. That's really not my business or my problem and I think I've already gone above and beyond in my "accommodation" of your requests. I've done what you requested based on your original post and your original links.

You have a nice day too, and a blessed Thanksgiving. :)

Now, let me reiterate that I do not know Granny Geek and it really isn't my intention to set about making as many enemies as possible among the local bloggers in my community. But there is no reason to believe that Pizza Hut or any other restaurant which gave a discount to people for producing a church bulletin has broken any law in Springfield or greater Missouri.

At one point in the discussion I commented that oftentimes businesses or even city governments will simply stop taking an action if there is a challenge to it because it is hardly worth the trouble or expense.

Restaurants are in the business of making a profit, not fighting for human rights' issues such as this and, in my opinion the ACLU takes advantage of that circumstance, knowing full well that, if challenged, a business or small town or city government will simply cave in on the issue to avoid lengthy and costly legal battles in a court of law. That businesses and small town and city governments fail to fight against a complaint is not representative of their concession that they were not within their rights to take an action, they simply don't want to be bothered with such challenges. I find that very disappointing and discouraging. I tire of watching the ACLU bully people, businesses, small towns, cities and other entities into giving up their rights because a person, perhaps only one person, has filed a complaint. A complaint is not proof of illegal activity. I suspect in the case of a person filing a complaint regarding the church bulletin discounts at Pizza Hut with either the Mayor's Commission on Human Rights or the Missouri Commission on Human rights, that both of those commissions are required by law to notify the business when a complaint has been made. Oftentimes a complaint, rather than being valid or holding any legal precedent, is proof of someone's thin skin and inability to tolerate other people's beliefs, sometimes they are simply on a vendetta to "get them stankin' Christians" whenever they possibly can.

In my humble opinion the truth suffered a loss today.

If Granny Geek chooses to have hard feelings over this, that's unfortunate, as well. Like I said, I don't know her, I'm sure she's a fine lady and and upstanding citizen in our community.

Eating Blunt's Cake

Many in the blogosphere were pointing out that John Murtha had been identified as ethically challenged by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) before he lost his bid, with the support of Nancy Pelosi, to become Majority Leader. So, in fairness, if a collective *we* are going to consider CREW a credible and reliable source, it is only fair to point out that Representative Roy Blunt (R-MO) has also been ethically problematic. According to CREW's Beyond Delay, they had this to say about Rep. Roy Blunt (R-MO):

"His ethics issues stem from his misuse of his position for the benefit of his family."

The site claims:

"By pushing for legislation that would benefit Philip Morris and UPS, and, as a consequence, his then-girlfriend and his son, Rep. Blunt may have violated federal law and House rules." (emphasis mine)

...and there's more if you are inclined to read the links.

You may be wondering why I bring this up, especially considering that in the past I have seldom called this sort of attention to Republican leaders. Well, it's because I want to be fair and like many Americans I am weary of corruption among our Representatives in Washington D.C.

I'd like to call attention to Rep. Blunt's recent statement reported at ColumbiaTribune.com, Blunt role viewed as a ‘moderate’ signal:

"Today begins the rebirth of House Republicans’ common-sense agenda with a leadership team that is more unified than ever, ready to regain the trust of the American people and ready to restore faith in our ideals." (Again, emphasis mine)

Isn't that special? Republicans clamored for a return to conservative roots for multiple months prior to the election but there was no interest on the part of House Republicans or Senate Republicans to hear the unrest of their constituents. They had to lose their majority before they were willing to recognize that there was a serious problem with their credibility among Conservative supporters.

So, as though you are paying attention "today," Representative Blunt, I'm sorry but, at least for the time being, you're a little too late with your promises of "rebirth" and "restoration." You, in your arrogance, along with a good many other Republicans, lost the election for many fine Republican Representatives and Senators during this election cycle. Please, do remember that as you take your new position as Minority Whip in the new Congress, Representative Blunt. You can pat yourself on the back and thank yourself on behalf of Jim Talent and your Republican constituents in Missouri. I would have preferred that you had decided to return to a "common-sense agenda...regain the trust of the American people and...restore faith in (Republican) ideals" before the election rather than after the election, but what do I know?

The Fairness Doctrine

Two days after the Democrats gained a majority in the House and the Senate, the "fairness doctrine" has reared its ugly head. Didn't take the left wing blogosphere long to fire it up, did it?

I am a regular listener of the Neal Boortz Show! He's been warning his listeners that the Democrats will try to chill free speech by reinstituting the "fairness doctrine" for a long time. Read: here (under THE DEMOCRATS HAVE NO AGENDA?) here (under FEDERAL CENSORSHIP COMMISSION STRIKES AGAIN) and here (under BLACK DAY FOR THE LEFT).

So, on November 9, 2006, two days after voters elected a Democrat majority, The Huffington Post blogger, Dave Johnson, wrote Restore The Fairness Doctrine! Surprise, surprise!

According to Dave Johnson: "the Fairness Doctrine:"

"would open up America's "marketplace of ideas." It would help to restore civility to our public discourse. It would help restore our democracy.

If the Fairness Doctrine were restored we would begin to see a variety of issues covered by the broadcast media, from a variety of perspectives. Currently we only see subjects that the corporate world is interested in, covered from a pro-corporate perspective. Imagine the effect on the country if the public were exposed to a variety of viewpoints on issues like trade, consumer protection, sustainability, unions, health care, global warming and energy, religion, the environment, nutrition, and SO MANY other issues!

Imagine the effect on our civic discourse if stations had to give time for a response to everyone that Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter smeared on the air!"

But wait just a doggone minute!

Doesn't the media already offer "a variety of issues?" Does the media currently only offer "pro-corporate perspective(s)?" Don't people with varying viewpoints already have forums in which to discuss "issues like trade, consumer protection, sustainability, unions, health care, global warming and energy, religion, the environment, (and) nutrition?" Are people who are "smeared" by Ann Coulter being denied the right to speak out on their own behalf over our airwaves if they so choose?

Further, was Mr. Johnson's article on the "Fairness Doctrine" fair? Did he practice what he preaches Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter should practice? Did he give them an opportunity to respond to his opinion that they "smear" other people? Did he adequately give the other side of the argument, the side against the "fairness doctrine?" Nope. He didn't.

There is another side of the story and a different perspective which Mr. Johnson failed to give equal or "fair" time and consideration.

According to The Heritage Foundation, The Fairness Doctrine Is Anything But Fair:

"The fairness doctrine was overturned by the FCC in 1987. The FCC discarded the rule because, contrary to its purpose, it failed to encourage the discussion of more controversial issues. There were also concerns that it was in violation of First Amendment free speech principles....

...The doctrine's supporters seem not to appreciate just how much the broadcast world has changed since 1949. With the proliferation of informational resources and technology, the number of broadcast outlets available to the public has increased steadily. In such an environment, it is hard to understand why the federal government must police the airwaves to ensure that differing views are heard. The result of a reinstituted fairness doctrine would not be fair at all. In practice, much controversial speech heard today would be stifled as the threat of random investigations and warnings discouraged broadcasters from airing what FCC bureaucrats might refer to as "unbalanced" views."

In other words, in view of our changing culture and "changing informational resources and technology," the fairness doctrine would have the opposite effect than that for which it was intended. Instead of encouraging differing viewpoints to be heard it would stifle the voices which are heard now.

Today, if there is a perspective one would like to consider, all one has to do is click a mouse, type a few characters, click a mouse again and one can access thousands of links to information on any given subject via the internet.

The real reason those on the left would like to see the Democrats reintroduce the "fairness doctrine" is not to make sure differing viewpoints and perspectives are heard. The real reason is that they want to silence Conservative radio talk show hosts.

Mr. Johnson gives himself away when he mentions Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter but doesn't mention any of the radio talk show hosts on, say, Air America, for instance. Why does he not mention any Air America radio talk show hosts? Because he has no problem with the "smears" perpetrated by leftist radio talk show hosts, and apparently he doesn't value his own free speech rights much either. If the Fairness Doctrine is intended to force Ann Coulter to offer other perspectives (and how many other perspectives are there on any given subject, is she required to give one alternative perspective or three alternative perspectives?) then will the fairness doctrine not also effect him, "an active participant in the progressive blogging community..." as described in his own bio, the link for which is listed above? What price are leftists ready to pay to silence the right? Are they willing to give up their own freedom of speech simply to keep a Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter from voicing his/her perspective? I'd like to know what is "fair" about the leftist "doctrine."

According to Wikipedia, regarding the Fairness Doctrine, they quote State Rep. Mark B. Cohen:

"State Rep. Mark B. Cohen of Philadelphia, said "The fairness doctrine helped reinforce a politics of moderation and inclusiveness. The collapse of the fairness doctrine and its corollary rules blurred the distinctions between news, political advocacy, and political advertising, and helped lead to the polarizing cacophony of strident talking heads that we have today.""

I guess we just can't have people speaking their minds and disagreeing with one another, leading to "the polarizing cacophony of strident talking heads that we have today," now can we? How will the government (or leftist socialists) be able to keep the citizens under control if they are openly and honestly discussing issues of concern, getting excited about issues, taking an interest and forming their own educated opinions!? Stop that dang discussion...let's get back to a day when we all relied on Walter Cronkite to tell us what to think. Dang that Al Gore for inventing the internet! Dang that Rush Limbaugh for giving a voice to the conservative movement which it had never been allowed before!

Donkeys who Champion Ethical Purity

At The Blotter, ABC News' Brian Ross and Rhonda Schwartz Report:

"that Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) was one of the members of Congress Abramoff had allegedly implicated in his cooperation with federal prosecutors."

Abramoff who reported to a federal prison close to investigators today has begun to offer testimony regarding Democrat Senators.

In The Blotter story, Abramoff is reported to have stated that Senator Harry Reid not only accepted money from Indian Tribe clients but that Reid "requested" it. Further, The Blotter reports:

"A spokesperson for Reid, elected yesterday as the Senate Majority Leader, said the senator had done nothing illegal or unethical.

"We have no idea what Abramoff is telling prosecutors to save his skin, but I do know that these kind of old allegations are completely ridiculous and untrue," Sen. Reid's spokesman Jim Manley told ABC News." (emphasis added)

We were led to believe that such words when spoken by Republicans implicated by Abramoff rang hollow. Reid's spokesman apparently believes they will have more weight when uttered by a Democrat since everyone knows the new Democrat party plans to usher in a new age of ethical purity.

According to HeraldTribune.com Pelosi has a plan for Nonpartisan ethics reform:

"Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat who could become speaker of the House if her party wins enough seats, has vowed to "drain the swamp" of ethical misconduct if she wields the gavel."

Pelosi is the speaker of the house now, so, naturally, in keeping with her plan to "drain the swamp" of ethical misconduct, Pelosi is backing Rep. John Murtha for majority leader. The only problem is Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics (CREW) BLASTS PELOSI ENDORSEMENT OF UNETHICAL MURTHA FOR MAJORITY LEADER, where they listed Murtha as one of:

"The 20 Most Corrupt Members of Congress (and five to watch). As reported in the study and by the news media, Rep. Murtha has been involved in a number of pay-to play schemes involving former staffers and his brother, Robert “Kit” Murtha."

You can read more about Rep. Murtha at John Fund on the Trail.

Meanwhile, in other news, yesterday, November 14, 2006, S.D. page scandal senator resigns. It seems that at the same time the mainstream media, left-wing blogosphere and press were so busy with the Republican Mark Foley scandal regarding alleged inappropriate instant messages which were sexually explicit and appeared to be grooming pages for later sexual encounter, State Senator Dan Sutton (D - South Dakota) was busy avoiding judgement by a Republican controlled Senate, opting to leave, seek and gain re-election with a 57% voting majority when faced with allegations that he:

"...groped a male high school student who served as a page."

The AP story at the link above tells us that:

"The new Senate seated in January can take up the issue."

Yes, "the new Senate seated in January can take up the issue."

Foley resigns, he is taken out of the running. Sutton runs to hide, we hear next to nothing about it from the mainstream media or press who is overly occupied with the scandalous Republican Mark Foley and Sutton is quietly re-elected by 57% of South Dakota voters.

I'm so proud of our new ethically pure Majority leaders. Ain't you? ;)

Who Needs Senate Orientation Any Old How?

CBSnews.com reported today that Freshmen Lawmakers Begin Orientation, it appears that all of the newly elected freshmen Senators were in attendance...

...with the exception of Senator Elect Claire McCaskill.

According to the report:

"Tester later appeared with his fellow Democratic freshmen _ minus Missouri's Claire McCaskill, who is on a post-election vacation with her husband...."

Kevin McCarthy of California remarked that:

"...the ethics training was important for those like him who came from state legislatures with different rules."

Indiana Rep. Joe Donnelly, a Democrat is reported as expressing:

"he was mostly concerned about getting his office up and running "as quickly as possible, so we can start working for the people back home.""

According to STLtoday Missourians should just Mark Her Absent, one of her spokeswomen said:

“She promised her family that, win or lose, she would take time to be with them after this election.”

Well, I don't know about the rest of Missourians but as a married woman who loves and values my own husband, I think I could expect my husband to be understanding about my need to attend orientation on behalf of my constituents who just days ago elected me to represent them in the United States Senate. If this is any indication of what we can expect from a Senator McCaskill I must say I'm even more underwhelmed than expected.

From the reports I read it appears that McCaskill is the only freshman Senator who felt that orientation simply wasn't important enough to set aside previous plans. Perhaps she feels she has enough understanding of her new job that she really didn't need to be there.

McGovern: "There isn't going to be any decisive victory in Iraq."

Over and over again wary Republicans have accused the Democrats of wanting to "cut and run" from Iraq and over and over again the Democrats have kept their "plan" for victory in Iraq to themselves, offering nothing but destructive criticism. Now, just as wary Republicans have suspected all along here is the proof that we were right in our suspicions that Democrats had no plan for victory in Iraq.

FOXNews reports that Former Presidential Candidate George McGovern will Discuss Iraq Exit Strategy With Democrats, and here it is in a nutshell folks:

"George McGovern, the former senator and 1972 Democratic presidential candidate, said he will meet with more than 60 members of Congress next week to recommend a strategy to remove U.S. troops from Iraq by June." (emphasis mine)

McGovern told reporters:

"There isn't going to be any decisive victory in Iraq."

Not if left up to the Donkeys, that's for sure.

A Donkey of a Different Color

With so many different issues driving voters to the polls Tuesday, I had the unfortunate experience of learning why a few Republicans chose to vote this past election day. It wasn't because of Immigration, Social Security, or even the war in Iraq. It was because of race.

My husband, a lifelong Republican, works for a business where nearly everyone employed there is a Republican and talk of politics is a regular part of their lunch breaks. Afterall, TN is a red state, so it's really not surprising. It being Election day, talk was more lively than usual and talked turned to how everyone would be voting that afternoon. Out of a table of seven men, my husband was the only one voting for Bob Corker because he felt he was the best man for the job. Five of them were voting for the simple reason they didn't want to see a black man win the senate seat for TN. The only democrat at the table was voting for Ford. I have to wonder if, like me, he felt terribly disheartened by the whole exchange. I wasn't even there and it has dampened my enthusiasm about the victories the Democrats achieved that day. I've not even had the heart to talk about Tuesday's outcome on the political thread that I participate in.

Because I had plans to see show at the Knoxville Civic Auditorium Tuesday evening, I had decided to take advantage of the early voting that had been going on in TN. I knew it was going to be a tight race and was looking forward to watching how it all unfolded on Tuesday. Whether Harold Ford lost or won, I felt he had campaigned well and won the admiration and support of many people across my area of East TN. It would have been quite an achievement for him........becoming the first black man sent to the senate from Tennessee since Reconstruction. I was anticipating leaving the show and catching up on all the election news on the way home. But after my husband shared with me what had happened that afternoon, all I could focus on was how stupid and mean some people are. All the way to the show I steamed and fumed. All the excitement I had been feeling vaporized. I shouldn't have given some ill-breed idiots that type of power over my feelings and I think it had to do largely with the shock. Racism isn't anything new here, but I had hoped people would have enough sense and decency to base their votes on the issues they felt strongly about or the content of a candidate's character. I can take the candidate of my choice losing because others didn't like his stance on the War on Terror or his fiscal policies. Disappointed, of course. But that's all part of politics........ya win some and ya lose some. But to think race played a part in it..........well, that's a little hard to take.

I'm not saying I believe all the people who decided to vote Tuesday were there to vote against a man only because he was black or that's even why he lost. For a Democrat, I think he did very well in a conservative state. I'm just saying that knowing anyone did is discouraging and heartbreaking.

On a different note, I just want to commend Jacke for being such a good sport. She has taken the results of the election with grace and style.

Saddle up your Donkeys

Naturally, all the liberals in my debate group are gloating and drawing conclusions that because the Republicans in the group haven't said a lot today after the Democrats took the House and garnered a small majority in the Senate that we're all off licking our wounds and pouting, crying and sulking, angry and depressed.

I'm not. I'm thankful to be living in the greatest country in the world. I'm happy that Republicans have not reacted in the way that the Democrats have reacted in the past when they have lost close elections. Crying voter suppression, voting machine irregularities, voter fraud and the like. I take a chance in saying this, hopeful that Republicans will continue to act like resigned adults, accepting of the choice of the majority in our country. It seems to me to be the responsible and graceful thing to do.

There will likely be those who will blame the media. I can't say that I would blame them for that, it is very tempting, but I don't want to react the way Democrats react to loss. This should be about what is best for our country and I don't think challenging the election every time one's party loses is the best for our country, this is where I differ from Democrats and I hope the Republican party continues to accept their loss with grace and maturity and with a hopeful optimism for the future.

There is some speculation that perhaps Allen will call for a recount in his race, see Webb Clings to Small Lead Over Allen. If the margin is slim enough I couldn't really blame him for that but for the most part Republicans have resigned themselves to the fact that the majority of Americans have spoken and have decided to give Democrats a shot at problem solving in both the House and Senate.

I have no problem with checks and balances. Perhaps they will be healthy for our Nation. That said, I am patiently waiting to see what the Democrats will actually do with their majorities since they kept their "plans" so well hidden that no one really knew what they were voting for, they only knew what they were voting against.

Republican Representatives have been too complacent. They have not been conservative. They have frustrated many of their consituents by not being attentive to what it is the people they were supposed to be representing wanted. It is true that the Bush Administration has not communicated well with the public. I'm not sure why but I don't think Republicans had to lose this election if they had lived up to their own conservative standards and communicated them well.

Likely, Republicans are missing the Great Communicator today. Facing the same problems that Bush has had, Ronald Reagan could have kept the people's support because he had a way of articulating himself that people understood and we enjoyed claiming support of him. The American people are asking for more than sound bytes and rhetoric.

So, saddle up your donkeys, Democrats. Let's see your brilliant ideas. As you've been pointing out, they can't be worse than "stay the course." I'm not so sure about that but I am truly anticipating what your "plans" will be and you can rest assured that America will be watching. Just as you are taking pride in "holding the Bush administration accountable" today, you will be held accountable for your actions. It is a grave responsibility. You asked for it, you got it.

My First Springfield Bloggers' Meeting

The Springfield Bloggers were having a live election night blog session (which apparently pooped out about 10:30) so I went to the Pub and met up with them tonight, excuse me...last night. Well sorta. As stated before, I'm a little shy so I didn't run around the table introducing myself individually to each and every person there and can't say I know who every single person was due to my own awkwardness.

It was a hoot to spend some time talking with John Stone of Curbstone Critic but I was suprised to find that it appears he only has the one set of clothes. Fortunately, his red plaid shirt must have been recently washed...whew! Just one word of advice, John: Buttons are there for a reason.

Then my husband and I scooted off to the Libertarian Party gathering and I had a nice visit with The Libertarian Guy (tm).

Congratulations to the Democrats seem to be in order.

Woo hoo.

Norma Champion is Misrepresented?

The Libertarian Guy (tm) clued me in that he and other politicians would be speaking at Cornerstone Church tonight and so, I decided to drive my Ma's big old Lincoln Towncar over that way and listen up.

The first thing I did was visit the table set up by the door which was covered with papers, bumper stickers and various other goodies. I picked up one of the papers that had Champion and Harpool plastered all over the front of it with little summaries of their views on Healthcare Cuts, Lifesaving Cures Through Stem-Cell Research (Amendment 2) and School Vouchers. The paper was paid for by Harpool New Direction Committee.

I took a seat in the second row of chairs and began to look over the front page of the Harpool paper. I read there:

"Champion supports taking dollars originally allocated for the public school system and diverting those moneys to individuals to attend private schools - the program is commonly referred to as a "voucher program."

"Harpool opposes vouchers. He believes that we should support our public schools, not abandon them."

Being a supporter of school vouchers I naturally bristled at the implication made by the Harpool paper that if you support school vouchers that translates into a desire to "abandon" public schools. It is just this sort of divisive language that keeps us from being able to discuss policies and ideas openly. So, I was thinking to myself, I hope Ms. Champion will mention her stand on school vouchers when she speaks when, about that time, Ms. Champion arrived and sat in a seat about three down and directly in front of me. I approached her, shook her hand and told her that when I was five or six years old I had been on "Children's Hour" with her and that she had scolded me for using my modeling clay to smear out a picture on a piece of paper rather than modeling something with it. I mentioned that the paper seemed to cast her in a bad light and, at that point I don't think she realized I was talking about the Harpool paper because she said the paper didn't endorse her and that was why...I didn't even realize until a moment ago that the paper was paid for by Harpool's committee. That explains the unflattering pictures of Champion and the glowing, toothy smiles of Harpool. Duh.

After Champion spoke and there was a call for questions no one appeared to be getting up to ask a question so I thought I'd give it a shot. Thinking about the vouchers I wanted to give her an opportunity to expound on her reasons for supporting them. I was surprised to find that she doesn't support school vouchers at all, so I guess Harpool or his paper are lying...I mean, if she says she doesn't support them why does his campaign rag state that she does? Politics is a dirty business, ain't it?

She said there were other ways that parents who wanted to send their children to private schools or home school them could have their expenses off set. Such as giving them tax credits.

I wish I could tell you more because she gave a rather lengthy list of other ways the issue could be addressed but apparently, though I thought I had my recorder turned on I didn't get anything recorded, isn't that special? All I can find is the recording of a police officer who spoke at my AWANA Sparkies Club meeting last night and my nephew saying "hello, Jacke."

You might find the police officer's comments interesting but they wouldn't tell you much about Champion's views on how to compensate parents for sending their children to private schools or for home schooling them. I'm not supposed to be *professional* am I? I'm just a lowly blogger doin' this fer kicks. You can sue me out of the stinkin' high pay I get fer doin' this.

Anyway, should parents get new money out of taxpayer's dollars for choosing to send their children to private schools or home schooling them? That doesn't seem to be a very "conservative" approach to me. I still like the idea of reimbursing them by voucher, that way they would simply be getting some of the money back they are paying into the system for access to public education of which they are not taking advantage rather than forcing them to pay for something they aren't using and then forcing all other taxpayers to give them credits or other forms of reimbursement.

I suppose all the money comes from the same place anyway, right? OUR POCKETS. Lots of people pay into the public school system who don't have children enrolled in government schools, unless you consider grandchildren, great grandchildren, infinity. If we pay it in one place and take it out another place we're still all depending on the government, huh? Dang it, now I'm thinking I don't like government schools (but support them anyway because what else can we do?) and I don't think government is responsible for paying for other's choices not to use the government school system either. Sigh. I guess I'm still trying to "figure it out as I go along."*

Thanks, Libertarian Guy, for the head's up...I enjoyed it and yer still tew kewl.

*Indiana Jones