Radically Different Political Views

I was reading Dr. Helen's column on Pajamas Media the other day. Her final question was:

Do you think you could ever be married to, or in a long-term relationship with, someone with radically different political views from your own?

My answer is "no."

Dr. Helen's answer was basically that she has certain qualities that she values and, as long as the person has those qualities, political views shouldn't matter.

That sounds good, but for most of us, our political views flow from the qualities we value, so it would follow that vastly different political views would indicate some level of incompatibility.

I have no problem getting along with people who have different political views, but I wouldn't want to have to reconcile those opposing views on issues that impact my personal life.

When it comes to the big issues in life, for example, raising children, I just don't see how two people with radically different views could make it work, or at least, why they would want to.

I'll take my extreme, right-winger hubby any day. It just makes life that much easier.

The War on the Environment

I really want to get back to doing some homeschooling posts, but, well, there hasn't been a whole lot of homeschooling going on around here lately.

This past week, we were gone most of the time with Bob's grandfather's funeral and all associated traveling.

The week before that, we were busy with the neighbors moving and all associated celebrating and crying.

So instead, you are getting this post.

On my ride home from my parents-in-law's house in Massachusetts, once I had crossed into Vermont, I saw a car with Vermont plates that had the following bumper sticker:

At least the war on the environment is going well

To put it in context, this was the view from my window:

Someone needs to tell those evil conservatives to step up that war on the environment!

I think people forget when they transplant to Vermont that this line of attack doesn't play so well here.

Sure You Had Your Seatbelt On

I was reading this morning that the Vermont legislature is trying to work out the differences in the highway safety bills that came out of the two chambers. It looks like they won't resolve it this session, which is good news for anyone who does not want to see Vermont turn into a police state.

No, I'm not complaining about the banning of cell phones.

I'm referring to the primary enforcement seatbelt law that both chambers agree on. The legislature is selling our freedom for 3.7 million in federal highway dollars. Once this passes, the police can stop a person for not wearing a seatbelt.

My guess, based on the overwhelming support for this, is that most people already wear seatbelts. They figure that this law will not affect them.

They couldn't be more wrong.

This law authorizes the police to pull over anyone they want to, as long as they claim that the person did not have on a seatbelt. I have no reason to believe that the police will abuse this power, but I have no reason to believe that they won't either.

The important thing here is that once we give our rights away, we are not likely to get them back.

Here's a question for those who are supporting this law: when you are in court fighting your ticket because you were wearing your seatbelt, who do you think the judge will believe, you or the officer?

This law grants power to the police that they should not have. Thankfully, since the legislature cannot agree on whether or not to ban hand-held cell phone use while driving, there is still time to stop this.

I can't believe that cell phone use would bring about disagreement, but giving police a free pass to pull over anyone they want garners universal support.

Do I sound like I have anti-government paranoia? Maybe, but I'm not the only one.

Here's a good post, from a non-local.

Fred Thompson on Federalism

On Town Hall today, Fred Thompson has a short piece on Federalism. Take a look by clicking on the "clipped from" link.

clipped from www.townhall.com Our government, under our Constitution, was established upon the principles of Federalism -- that the federal government would have limited enumerated powers and the rest would be left to the states. It not only prevented tyranny, it just made good sense. States become laboratories for democracy and experiment with different kinds of laws. Federalism also allows for the diversity that exists among the country's people. Citizens of our various states have different views as to how traditional state responsibilities should be handled. This way, states compete with each other to attract people and businesses -- and that is a good thing.