24 Sep 2004 | Chris S said...

Using kids to pimp politics is disgusting no matter who you support.

24 Sep 2004 | Suzanne said...

Completely agree with Chris S above.
It only took 15 days to build a website that sells the shirts thru PayPal? That's incredible!

24 Sep 2004 | One of several Steves said...

I'll echo the thoughts on using kids to pimp your politics, your religion, your ACLU or Christian Coalition membership, etc. It's incredibly cynical and maninpulative to use kids as propaganda tools. Let kids be kids. They've got plenty of time to get bogged down in politics later.

24 Sep 2004 | veuth said...

Parents imposing their political beliefs on their children is pretty disgusting. Next thing you know they'll be imposing their religious beliefs on them too.

24 Sep 2004 | Mike said...

I'm liberal, but still think that this might bring some unnecessary harassment to the child. Imagine her walking into a 1st grade class with that shirt on, and her teacher is a hard-and-fast Conservative. Segregation all over again.

24 Sep 2004 | Woody said...

Yet again a "Anti-Bush" statement as opposed to a "Pro-Kerry". Nice positive message from the left. I'd rather vote FOR something rather than AGAINST something.

24 Sep 2004 | Chris S said...

Veuth, people not only have a right but an obligation to impose their beliefs and values on their children. It's called parenting.

That doesn't extend to using them as a public, walking propoganda tool.

Bumper sticker religion and politics is exactly why people as a whole can't discuss, disagree, and demonstrate a little civility afterwards anymore, and I think it's ironic that the very people who often think of themselves as "more serious" and decry the fact that no one will listen to anyone else anymore are often the very same people who resort to silly, immature sloganeering (the epitome of which is turning your child into a bumper sticker).

Hell, I would sooner take a bullet in the hindquarters than vote for Kerry and co., but I've never used my kids as a medium for my views. As they have gotten older, I've discussed with them my views and why I have them, but as they leave home and make their own way they will end up making their own decisions, just as I did.

The problem with political discourse in this country is that most everyone seems to approach it as though they were still 17. This sort of thing just makes it worse.

24 Sep 2004 | Chris said...

$22 delivered for a kids t-shirt? Apparently the Coudal folks didn't actually talk to any real parents before they did this. And really, how can any self-respecting liberal spend $22 on a kids T-shirt when kids are starving in Africa? What kind of message does THAT send to your children?

24 Sep 2004 | LNJ said...

I agree and disagree with some of the above, but that is that...

What I want is shirts like that in adult sizes. How great would it be seeing a 40 something guy wearing a shirt like that. I think that would be great.

24 Sep 2004 | Darrel said...

"Parents imposing their political beliefs on their children is pretty disgusting."

I agree, though, that's what we do. Politics and religion tend to be inherited more than learned. ;o)

24 Sep 2004 | Mike McKenna said...

Funny thing, there was a heated discussion on Boston radio this morning about this sort of thing. The only difference is that the hosts were talking about how bad it was to raise your kid to be a Yankee fan in Boston, how wrong it was to deck them out in Yankee garb and bring them to Fenway tonight.

Regardless of what you think about Coudal's new venture, i thought it amusing that the hosts (NOT sports radio) were basically equating raising your kid a Yankee fan to rasing him an a-hole.

24 Sep 2004 | Ryan Mahoney said...

Oh man!

Coudal, disregard these people... they're too uptight! ;)

I think this is great. I'm not a voter* but I like the idea of people being public, walking propoganda tools for what they believe in (or their parents/constituents or whatever), as opposed to rocking a Nike shirt and promoting their brand/ideologies inadvertently.

Re: Mike's comment about segregation/harrassment... oh come on man! Getting picked on/picking on other people or being excluded/excluding others is just another joyous part of the human condition.

*You know, I'd vote if there was a hot latin chick running or something, but I have no tolerance for all these wrinkled old white dudes.

24 Sep 2004 | Randy Peterman said...

One of the definitions of religion:
A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion

Politics often equals religion. Don't separate the two in your mind or you may have a false dichotomy.

24 Sep 2004 | Brad Hurley said...

Actually what's great about these t-shirts is that they work forever, even as hand-me downs to the next generation. Somebody's mommy will always want a new president, no matter who happens to be in office.

After Kerry wins in November, his supporters can sell their kids' used t-shirts to Republicans. ;-)

24 Sep 2004 | PWH said...

Heck, you could take it from idea to business in about an hour using the services of www.cafepress.com. And they may even be cheeper.

24 Sep 2004 | Chris McMahon said...

Remember when this weblog was about UID?

Good times, good times.

24 Sep 2004 | Jonny Roader said...

"Remember when this weblog was about UID?"

No.

I've been visiting since it was set up, and over the years it's had a decent range of topics. I don't think it has ever solely been about UID.

Great t-shirts btw. Good to see that some Americans at least are still capable of seeing the bleedin' obvious.

24 Sep 2004 | len said...

i think a cute shirt would read "i shoulda been aborted"

24 Sep 2004 | Jon said...

T-Shirts I would buy...

"Flip-flops are for feet, not politics"
"I've converted to Hunts"

24 Sep 2004 | noodlebrain said...

Great t-shirts btw.

Wait til you see the condoms!

24 Sep 2004 | cryptic funnybone said...

If by President, you mean diaphragm, then yes... because obviously that one aint working...

24 Sep 2004 | bk said...

I'd rather vote FOR something rather than AGAINST something.

Conservative Hipster vs Liberal Hipster.

If you read the "About" page, they promote this exact thing... sort of.

24 Sep 2004 | karl said...

"Regardless of what you think about Coudal's new venture, i thought it amusing that the hosts (NOT sports radio) were basically equating raising your kid a Yankee fan to rasing him an a-hole."

So if you raised your kid a boston fan would you be raising him to be a drunk loser resigned to failure?

24 Sep 2004 | indi said...

Yeah ... using kids as political billboards is pretty far down there. I think this would tend to backfire. I would like to believe that most sensible parents would feel offended by someone using their kid in this particular way. I think if you are going to wear a message you should be cognizant of it.

Now having said that, on a certain level it is cute and funny.

24 Sep 2004 | One of several Steves said...

Veuth, people not only have a right but an obligation to impose their beliefs and values on their children. It's called parenting.

Funny, I always thought parenting was teaching children how to function as adults in a complex world and teaching them the ability to think critically and make their own decisions based on their own values. I wasn't aware that it was supposed to be an 18-year exercise in indoctrination and brainwashing.

24 Sep 2004 | Ian Firth said...

15 days for a 3 page site, a really poor PayPal solution and securing a t-shirt printer ? Good lord that's sad.

24 Sep 2004 | Ian Firth said...

For comparison (and to justify my post above), I built this online store, in about the same 120 hours. It also uses PayPal, but the cart is on my end, and not limited to the popup window cart PayPal offers.

http://www.mosesludel.com

25 Sep 2004 | Paperhead said...

Anomalous Data.

25 Sep 2004 | Chris from Scottsdale said...

I think the bit about having this up in under 15 days was more or less intended to impress the clients about speed. Most clients get kicks out of stuff like speed. Not sure why (sarcasm).

Anyways, I'll be voting for Bush this November.

25 Sep 2004 | Coudal said...

Guess I shouldn't take the kids to church this weekend either, or feed 'em a cheeseburger until they are old enough to make their own decisions about eating meat.

25 Sep 2004 | Ian Firth said...

Chris (from Scottsdale), that was my point. 15 days is a very long time to build a 3 page site, especially if more than 1 developer is involved.
I don't see that claim as a selling point.

25 Sep 2004 | indi said...

"teaching them the ability to think critically and make their own decisions based on their own values"

Well where do you want kids to get their initial set of values from? TV? Friends? Popular Music? I want my daughter to get her values from me. I have every expectation that along the way she'll learn things I didn't and can teach her old man a thing or two. But at least I'm giving her a solid foundation to start with.

25 Sep 2004 | indi said...

Oh, and to be fair, it says from an idea to a business in 15 days not from e-commerce website spec to site launch in 15 days. Who knows how long that idea percolated until the actual work on the website started.

25 Sep 2004 | Coudal said...

Once we decided on things, the site took a couple hours to build. Creating the name and mark, working out the marketing and PR plan, prototyping and designing the shirts and spec'ing the materials, dealing with copyright and fulfillment, shooting photos and a bunch of other stuff took 15 days. We could have done it faster, but we love to argue about stuff at CP and that takes time too.

25 Sep 2004 | Chris from Scottsdale said...

Yeah, fifteen days is impressive if you consider your average agency workload and I'm guessing they didn't drop everything they were working on.

If you don't understand how a client would be impressed by this you haven't dealt with enough clients.

25 Sep 2004 | Jeffrey said...

Ok. Maybe it's post 9/11 America that's made everyone so friggin' high strung, but my suggestion is that everyone take a deep breath and cool out a little. It's a message. It's supposed to be a little tongue-in-cheek, a little 'edgy', and it's serving its purpose - love it or hate it, it's making you think. Who cares where it goes!

Jim's point about not taking his kids to church or feeding them cheesburgers is exactly correct. They're his kids. Our newfound-midwar-PC plagued society has made it impossible for you to even mildly joke about anything anymore. Are you all so boring and anal that you can't even look at something for what it is?

Christ sake people - don't take things so personally. Unless of course you're George Bush, in which case you can suck it.

25 Sep 2004 | indi said...

well, then maybe the t-shirts should read my mommy wants a new president and all I got was this stupid t-shirt

25 Sep 2004 | brian breslin said...

does anyone have any info on getting shirts like these printed? is it best to call local print shops? go online to do this or what?

I ask 'cause i was curious about setting up a small t-shirt line and have no real experience with t-shirt/apparel. if you have any info on this please email me brian(AT)breslin.com

25 Sep 2004 | Ian Firth said...

Coudal, a couple hours sounds a lot better :)

Posting 15 days on your home page is fine, because it's client facing. Most of us in here are designers though, so I think "a couple hours" would have made more sense.

25 Sep 2004 | eric said...

Coudal, so you dress your kids in shirts with religious messages as well? Try that one, implying that Catholic/Jewish faith is better than the other.

We were at dinner the other night and the older couple next to us said "[political party] followers are bunch of morons". I had to stop my wife for a minute... why even waste your time arguing with people that make blanket statements like that? So basically you agree with everything YOUR party says, or disagree with everything the other party says? This is why I hate discussing politics or putting myself in some 'group' or another.

25 Sep 2004 | Coudal said...

My kid's Mommy does, in fact, want a new President Eric. What's so wrong with that message? I just don't see how that's offensive. How does that say I/we agree with everything OUR party says? Jeez, it doesn't even say what OUR party is...

25 Sep 2004 | Sam Sherwood said...

I don't think people so much find the message itself offensive, as they find means for delivering said statement a bit funky. Like eric pointed out, it's akin to putting a child in a 'I wouldn't worship God if I were you' shirt.

For me, this isn't about teaching your kids values/beliefs, such as going to church or eating beef; yet, the issue does revolve around turning them into a walking advertisement for said beliefs.

25 Sep 2004 | brian breslin said...

wow. one thing that seems to be popping up alot in this convo is that people are confusing religious beliefs with politics. i mean do you get offended when a catholic/christian wears a cross around his neck? no. do you get offended when a jew wears a yamakah (sp?)? didn't think so.

also in defense of coudal, these are creative, and again they do not say you are republican or dem. lots of republicans dislike W. and lots of dems like him, so let them give their kids Tees that support the views that are being fostered in their household. its a free country after all (or at least it was until the patriot act....)

just my 2cents.

25 Sep 2004 | Sam Sherwood said...

No one's confusing anything. It just happens to be the nearest example of an equally heated realm of opinion. To use an example of another political slogan would be rather moot, don't you think?

Your examples happen to be symbols of faith, not literal messages. Once again, this isn't about adults involved in political satire, it's about using one's children as vessels of political satire.

And yes, it still is a free country... that's why no one has said 'You can't' instead of 'I wouldn't.' Personally, I use a lot of dry -- sometimes off-color -- humor, and I get a kick outta being called uppity. Heheh.

25 Sep 2004 | Lee said...

Using kids like this is plain wrong.
Rebut me with clever comparisons, hip wording, but's and if's - it's still wrong.

26 Sep 2004 | SU said...

Just curious... How many of you decrying Coudal's "shameless use of kids" actually have kids yourselves?

All of this reminds me of a guy on NPR who's father told him in 1992 "If Clinton wins, I'm cutting your allowance in half" in order to teach him a political and economic lesson about those tax and spend liberals. The kid is now an adult and his father's lesson seems to have had quite an effect -- he's a rabid Bush supporter... Ah, parenting.

26 Sep 2004 | indi said...

SU, I have a seven year old daughter and I sure as heck wouldn't use her to promote my political point of view. I would have assumed it was those who think it's just fine to use your kids as part of political satire who don't have kids of their own. Unfortunately I would probably be wrong in that assumption.

And yes, I am making a value judgement, so there -- nyah!

26 Sep 2004 | One of several Steves said...

Well where do you want kids to get their initial set of values from? TV? Friends? Popular Music? I want my daughter to get her values from me.

She's going to get her values from all of those things. Do all of your values come from your parents? I know mine don't. A lot of mine are quite a bit different from my parents' values. The really important stuff - thinking for yourself, respecting others, being able to respect yourself, treating people with compassion and dignity - I got from them, as well as others to a lesser degree. I don't share their religious value, their political values, their aesthetic values. But the way I was able to shape those particular values came from the core values that they did play a large part in teaching me.

And, to me, that's what parenting is about. That's what I was getting at with the first comment, although quite possibly not very articulately (to make up an adverb on the fly).

26 Sep 2004 | One of several Steves said...

Guess I shouldn't take the kids to church this weekend either, or feed 'em a cheeseburger until they are old enough to make their own decisions about eating meat.

I think there's a big difference between feeding your kids a cheeseburger and slapping a "Meat is murder" t-shirt on them and maybe trotting them off the local PETA rally.

Using kids for sloganeering or prostelyzation strikes me as no different than the stage or athletic parents who use their kids to relive their past glories or the glories they never had. Let kids be kids instead of billboards. Just my personal viewpoint.

27 Sep 2004 | Richard B said...

For God's sake, lighten up people. What happened to your sense of humor? Isn't the land of the free? The land of unadulterated capitalism? Isn't that why we are all here and not living in a war-torn third world country where producing a t-shirt like this would have you thrown in prison or worse. If you don't like it don't buy the t-shirt. That hurts more than the high brow morality speech.

27 Sep 2004 | Jonny Roader said...

"Just curious... How many of you decrying Coudal's "shameless use of kids" actually have kids yourselves?"

I have one four year old son, and I personally wouldn't put a partisan political slogan across his chest. (He does however have a very cute Bob Dylan top, if that counts?)

But then like most most people I have little or no issue with the 'silent brainwashing' that sees kids plastered with the corporate logos for Gap and Nike, etc. I'm struggling to see the difference really, except that one form is overt.

27 Sep 2004 | Chris S said...

One of several steves:

Imposing is not brainwashing. It is enforcing a standard of conduct and values that one's children are obligated to obey. They of course have the option to refuse, in which case, punishment.

Yes, they will pick up things from all different kinds of places, TV, friends' houses, etc. But I am the final authority, so if there's a conflict between my values and my childrens', they are obligated to obey mine until they are old enough to take care of themselves.

Children don't know what's best for themselves. They have to be taught that. In my house it's non-negotiable. I always happily explain to them my reasons if they ask politely and respectfully. But they still have to do it my way whether they like it or not because I know what's best for them.

Again, it's called parenting.

27 Sep 2004 | Brad Hurley said...

the 'silent brainwashing' that sees kids plastered with the corporate logos for Gap and Nike, etc.

And not just kids. Whenever I buy clothes for myself that have a logo sewn on, I cut it off...I hate being a walking billboard, even if it's for a company that I like. Unfortunately, more and more clothing manufacturers are putting on their logos with embroidery now, making them impossible to remove without damaging the clothing itself.

I personally would be willing to spend more ($10-$20 more per article of clothing) for logo-free clothing; it's getting harder and harder to find good clothes that don't have a logo on the outside.

27 Sep 2004 | John said...

No difference between this and Palestinian protestors dressing their kids up as suicide bombers with little (ostensibly) fake blocks of C4 stapped to their chests. Everyone corrupts their own children in their own way, whether forcing their religion/beliefs on them or letting them absorb it through the teevee.

27 Sep 2004 | indi said...

For God's sake, lighten up people. What happened to your sense of humor? Isn't [this] the land of the free?

I really hope we can get past this repeated comment. Many of us have said, yeah, it's kinda funny but I wouldn't use my kid that way. That doesn't mean we have no sense of humor, we are just looking beyond the momentary yuks and chortles to the larger issue of using kids for political gain.

I have a similar problem with that guy who showed up at a Kerry rally and had his young daughter on his shoulders holding a pro-Bush sign. Someone came up and tore the sign making the girl cry. That child should not have been put in that situation at all. Sure the guy had the right to take his kids there, but what a jerk.

27 Sep 2004 | Ritz said...

do you get offended when a catholic/christian wears a cross around his neck? no. do you get offended when a jew wears a yamakah (sp?)? didn't think so.

Big difference... A shirt saying "Jesus Rules" is just someone promoting thier beliefs, a shirt saying "Jesus is wrong, get a new religion" can be a little bit offensive. Then when it's put on a kid who doesn't have a clue what's going on is just disturbing.

I love talking smack as much as the next guy, but I'm not gonna put my words on my kids chest and hope for the best. "You wouldn't punch a guy with glasses" just got demoted... You wouldn't punch my kid, would ya?

27 Sep 2004 | Linda said...

I'm voting for Bush, but I'm buying these t-shirts for my liberal friend's kids 'cause they're so CUTE!!! People are too uptight. I suppose I can't take my kids to Catholic mass because it's "imposing my beliefs" on them. Horsepoop!

Kudos to Coudal!

27 Sep 2004 | Ken said...

Lotta Bush votes in the room. Yikes.

27 Sep 2004 | LNJ said...

I like what Coudal last said... He's note saying, "Vote Kerry" he's simply saying that he is unhappy with the current guy. Nowhere on teh T-shirt (that I have seen) does it say, Vote Dem or Vote Indi or vote anyhting, it says "Mommy wants a new Prez." What if this shirt was released 3 years ago? Would you all have cared then?

I don't like Bush, I'm not enraptured by Kerry, and I don't think that Nader will get on enough ballots to make a real difference. So, for me, the shirt sums it all up... I want a new one, but I don't think that is going to happen so don't mind me as I lie on the floor throwing a tantrum for the next 20 minutes or so.

By the by, I still think the shirt would be oddly and pervertedly awesome on a middle aged guy.

27 Sep 2004 | Coudal said...

Not to give out any trade secret but the second shirt, I wouldn't vote for Bush if I were you was my daughter's idea. She's seven. I'm not sure how she feels about Kerry but she thinks W is "icky." So there.

27 Sep 2004 | indi said...

OK, Coudal ... I take it all back. My daughter is seven also and she has definite opinions about who should win ;-)

28 Sep 2004 | Andy said...

Excellent!

Although, I have to agree that I'd be nervous about having my kid wear one of these. Republicans are scary, and I think you might be taking an unnecessary risk here. You never know what those people are capable of.

28 Sep 2004 | indi said...

Republicans are scary

Now that's comedy ...

28 Sep 2004 | lisa said...

kids repeat what their parents say...

We were once discussing our feelings about the H2.
A few days later our 8yr old says "eeewww hummer".

Anyone remember singing to the tune of Oscar Meyer ...
"...and Jimmy Carter has a way of messing up the USA"?

I know at under 10 yrs. of age I had done no research on the
effectiveness of Mr. Carter as a President... I simply repeated
what I heard.

I don't agree with the message of the shirt... but the kid is cute!

28 Sep 2004 | lisa said...

If anyone needs a good resource for truth in all the hype,
I've found this site is a good reference:
http://www.factcheck.org/

28 Sep 2004 | One of several Steves said...

Imposing is not brainwashing. It is enforcing a standard of conduct and values that one's children are obligated to obey. They of course have the option to refuse, in which case, punishment.

Maybe we're getting hung up on semantics here. To me, imposing is much more Draconian than teaching values. I agree that a big part of a parent's job is teaching their children values. I would argue that a lot of parents today are doing a poor job of it. But imposing connotes that it's being done by force and fiat. And I've seen way too many cases of kids who were forced into particular value systems who end up doing everything contrary to that after they get free from the restrictive environment they grew up in. It happens often enough that it's pretty much a clich.

Children don't know what's best for themselves. They have to be taught that.

Depending on age, sure. Or, rather, the lessons are different at various stages. But, long-term, it doesn't do them much good to learn only to do what mom and dad tell them to, rather than learn how to make good decisions based on positive values they've been taught. Again, maybe we're missing each other in language here, but I've seen very few cases of adults who ended up holding their parents values when those values were imposed rather than taught and encouraged. Yes, that teaching occurs through structure and discipline, but that's different than imposing. And isn't the end goal of parenting not to get the kids to behave right this minute, but to teach and equip them to be good adults?

28 Sep 2004 | yey said...

That's what is great about kids, you get to teach 'em who to hate...

28 Sep 2004 | Darrel said...

"I know at under 10 yrs. of age I had done no research on the
effectiveness of Mr. Carter as a President... I simply repeated
what I heard."

That *is* a catchy lyric now that you bring it up... ;o)

"That's what is great about kids, you get to teach 'em who to hate..."

A great comment!

For comparision, what do you all feel when you see those cute photos of parents taking their kids all dressed up to Klan rallies?

28 Sep 2004 | indi said...

For comparision, what do you all feel when you see those cute photos of parents taking their kids all dressed up to Klan rallies?

Same thing ... misguided parenting, but without the "cute and funny" factor ameliorating the disgust. Parents should not be teaching hate. Unfortunately the world seems to be filled with hateful people with kids.

28 Sep 2004 | Darrel said...

Unfortunately the world seems to be filled with hateful people with kids.

I heard the founder of Earth Day (Gaylord Nelson?) answer an audience question on what could we as a society do to help save the planet. His answer was 'let children vote'. Letting children vote would seem to fix so many problems. ;o)

Another favorite quote of mine are these lyrics:

children are innocent
a teenager's fucked up in the head
adults are even more fucked up
and elderlies are like children

29 Sep 2004 | pb said...

Zazzle is even faster than CafePress for T-shirts.

29 Sep 2004 | Don Schenck said...

... and it doesn't hurt that the young lady on Zazzle's home page is smokin' !!

:-)

29 Sep 2004 | stp said...

I think they'd sell more if the shirt said "Daddy wants a new Macintosh."

29 Sep 2004 | Don Schenck said...

"Daddy wants a new Mommy" ... obvious choice, eh?

29 Sep 2004 | Jason said...

It's the same kind of smug, smarter-than-thou schtick that always gets us progressives in trouble, and will continue to lose us elections. Yay for those of us who can afford to trot around Wicker Park with our SUV strollers and alternatively-schooled kids in their witty little tees. Yay for those of us who can't for the life of us understand why anyone would vote for George Bush. And yay for those of us who will sit dejectedly staring into our iBooks on November 3, wondering why it is that the Christian Right has once again whupped our asses good and continued their battle against gays, women and the Constitution.

Well, at least we've got better tees, right quipsters? Yay for that!

30 Sep 2004 | Indi said...

whupped our asses good and continued their battle against gays, women and the Constitution

Battle against women? I don't grok that. Examples please ....

(that doesn't mean I concede the other issues completely ... but at least I see your point with those)

30 Sep 2004 | lisa said...

Yay for those of us who can afford to trot around Wicker Park with our SUV strollers and alternatively-schooled kids in their witty little tees.

Is it such a bad thing for people to work really hard and do really well for themselves?

30 Sep 2004 | indi said...

Lisa, I took Jason to mean that when we get caught up in our own little self satisfied world, hanging with people who think as we do, we may be in for a rude awakening when we discover we are in the minority.

BTW Jason, I thought that was quite eloquent.

30 Sep 2004 | TresWife said...

And on and on and on...

I'm so bleeding glad that my daughter and I relocated to Canada (my husband is Canadian), where she could wear a shirt like this if she wanted, and not receive one lick of grief.

The shirts are not partisan. They simply state that someone doesn't think the current guy is the best guy for the job. It makes my skin crawl just thinking about it, but that could even mean that the wearer of said shirt would prefer Cheney as prez... or even Rush Limbaugh.

Would I buy this just to slap it on my 7-year-old and send her out in public expressing my own views? No. But if she said she agreed with it, liked it, and wanted it... most certainly. At 7-years-old, my daughter has a very definite opinion regarding Bush, and she has based a lot of it on what she has seen through the news, what she has learned in school, and how she has seen and heard people change towards each other since the whole "War on Terror" began. Kids see the world as how it should be, not as how it is, and when something like this war makes those two realities collide, it's a sad day for innocence.

And for the record, neither one of her parents preaches highly about Kerry - my husband can't vote in the US, so he doesn't care much, and I think they're both terrific lying idiots who will continue to run the US into the ground.

30 Sep 2004 | Chris S said...

Jason, that's a great point, but once you allow the rabid socialists who support democrats to cancel out the similarly rabid extremists on the right, what you're left with is pretty much a huge group of Americans who are decent, hardworking folks who have differing views. The emotional rants and slogans of the left are just as abhorrent as the emotional sloganeering of the right.

The problem is we allow the debate to be reduced to a brawl between each side's "boogeymen" who have a strong basis in reality but who only represent a minority of each side's constituents. Once our straw men are finished fighting, all we're left with is hay, but we have learned or accomlished nothing.

Has the federal government enacted well-meaning but unconstitutional measures under Bush's watch? Absolutely. Just as Clinton/Gore, Bush/Quayle et al. did.

Bottom line is, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights have been infringed upon by every incarnation of the federal government that has been in office since I've been alive (I'm 38).

Full Disclosure: I'm a libertarian (in spirit only, these days) who's voting for Bush because I'm convinced that, for all of his failings, he's still ten times better than Kerry. My reasons are rooted in my deepest convictions about the purpose of government as defined in the Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights, the Federalist papers, the Anti-Federalist papers, etc.

30 Sep 2004 | Darrel said...

Battle against women?

Continued cuts for single moms on welfare.

Continued cuts to government subsidized child care.

Lack of any solid health care system for all children.

No improvement on maternity leave benefits.

Restrictions on pregnancy coverage on health care plans.

'Faith Based' funded family planning systems promoting marriage over birth control.

Arcane paternity and childsupport laws.

(Granted, the left isn't pushing for improvements too much either...)

I'm so bleeding glad that my daughter and I relocated to Canada

Are you a dual citizen, Tres? I'm eligible for that myself and wondering how that's working out for folks.

My reasons are rooted in my deepest convictions about the purpose of government as defined in the Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights, the Federalist papers, the Anti-Federalist papers, etc.

And, out of curiosity, how is Bush upholding those?

30 Sep 2004 | Darrel said...

Chris...not trying to start a fight, but I am curious about the 'libertarian supporting Bush' logic.

Libertarian, by definition, is 'One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state.'

I'm probably not a libertarian, but I can certainly appreciate the sentiment. I don't think Bush nor Kerry are close to being libertarians, either. That said, Bush has spent a gigantic amount of our money on gigantic expenditures. He's pushed faith based systems into our government system. He's (not directly, but during his reign) has given unprecedented control of our government to media corporations (induce act, for instance...and the FCC). He's enacted nation wide but poorly implemented requirements such as No Child Left Behind. He's against letting the 'free market' deal with price gouging on presccriptoins while at the same time pushing to oppress legal rights of malpractice victims. He wants to legislate the simple right to mary a loved one by appending the constitution. He's created an energy policy that is completely government regulated for the sole benefit of the energy industry (behind closed doors, yet).

I find that he's pretty much the opposite of libertarian.

Kerry, while he certainly believes in some social plan reforms, is at least targetting folks with issues that actually have some bearing on their day-to-day life...health care, for instance.

I don't think a libertarian can feel too good about voting for either, but a Vote for Bush seems (to me) a complete vote against libertarianism.

30 Sep 2004 | Chris S said...

Darrell

You can't vote your conscience when all viable candidates are liars.

The tax issue should be a non-issue because the tax code is a ridiculous pyramid scheme legitimized by a bunch of liars and thieves.

Bottom line is...the money is not theirs to give, regardless of who they are giving it to. The government has no right to take my income and give it to someone or something they think is more deserving, period. That's my decision, not theirs.

The federal government is supposed to be run solely on excise taxes to fund the execution of the limited powers they have been granted. Go read about how the 16th Amendment was passed. Chicanery.

One example: Look at the Pittman-Robinson act, where beneficial improvements done by the Fish and Wildlife service (on their own or through the states) to public lands are funded by hunters and fishermen through their purchases of licenses, firearms, and gear. And those improvements benefit more than hunters and fishermen.

Kerry would have worked/will work to further gun control while Bush allowed the assault weapons ban to expire without much more than a peep of protest. Good for Bush. The government has an obligation to protect my 2nd Amendment rights just as much as it must protect my 1st Amendment rights. Kerry would further a limit on free speech masquerading as "campaign finance reform". And worse.

Go back and look at the Democrats' record on the 4th and 5th amendments. Look at the Clinton/Reno debacle in that area. The Democrats have a lousy record of defending any individual who makes more than 10,000/year, and all of the help they've thrown to the poor is off of the shoulders of people who work for a living.

What it's coming down to is that Democrats more and more will be elected by people who vote for a living, or at least for a check of some kind.

I agree, it's the government's responsibility to stay out of our way. Neither Bush nor Kerry, the republicans nor democrats, has an exemplary record of doing that, but one has to live in the real world.

30 Sep 2004 | Darrel said...

You can't vote your conscience when all viable candidates are liars.

*sigh* You are right. ;o)

The tax issue should be a non-issue because the tax code is a ridiculous pyramid scheme legitimized by a bunch of liars and thieves...

You're sounding more right-wing extremist than libertarian. A pro-assualt-gun/'poor people suck' platform. Do note that having a large population of oppressed poor people with military rifles tends to lead to a less-than-ideal environment to live in. ;o)

30 Sep 2004 | Chris S said...

You're sounding more right-wing extremist than libertarian. A pro-assualt-gun/'poor people suck' platform.

Actually, check out the libertarian stance on gun control.

A pro-assualt-gun/'poor people suck' platform.

I'm definitley pro-Bill of Rights, and that includes the second amendment. Incidentally, the so called "assault weapons ban" didn't actually ban assault weapons. That was political terminology used manipulatively to scare liberals, soccer moms, and city folks.

Oh, and I never said "poor people suck." I was once a poor person...compared to the incomes of many on this board, I probably still am. We are all responsible for ourselves...anything more should be by personal choice. And I do believe (and practice) helping others...but I don't believe in having that choice mandated and administered by the feds.

Do note that having a large population of oppressed poor people with military rifles tends to lead to a less-than-ideal environment to live in. ;o)

First off, I don't see too many "oppressed poor people" in this country. I see poor people. I don't see alot of oppression going on. Who's more oppressed, the one who's getting free money, or the one who's having it taken from him without his consent?

Second, poor people have a right to self-defense just like the rest of us. I'm much less worried about a thug wielding a firearm than I am a politician who wields a pen, and knows how to use it.

I can defend myself against a thug. The politician is another story.

30 Sep 2004 | indi said...

Darrel, you gave an interssting list of things showng how the religious right is combatting women, but then ended it with "Granted, the left isn't pushing for improvements too much either..." so I'm just as confused aboutht e attacking women comment as before.

BTW, do you have specific references in mind for cutting single mom welfare and cutting subsidized daycare? I am not aware of any cuts, but I nmay have missed them.

Also, I don't have a problem with the faith-based initiatives as long as they don't preempt other efforts. What is wrong with pushing marriage or abstinance over abortion? It's not realistic after the fact in many cases, but shouldn't abortion be a last resort not a first resort?

30 Sep 2004 | indi said...

Yikes, that was one of the least proofread postings I've ever made!

Sorry.

30 Sep 2004 | lisa said...

Continued cuts to government subsidized child care.
Lack of any solid health care system for all children.
No improvement on maternity leave benefits.

Okay, I'm a woman, and I just want to know, when has it become the government's job to give me subsidized child care, health care for my kids and maternity leave benefits?

Who do you suppose will pay for this?

30 Sep 2004 | Darrel said...

Actually, check out the libertarian stance on gun control.

From that link:

In particular, Libertarians want to see all people treated equally under the law, as our Constitution requires.

It's hard to argue that point. Sounds good to me. I'm not sure if I can say assault rifle owners deserve my vote more so than gay people that want to be treated equally under the law. But that's just me.

First off, I don't see too many "oppressed poor people" in this country.

Perhaps oppressed is too strong of a word. I see a lot of disadvanteged poor people. Again, it kind of goes back to 'all people treated equally'. The catch, I suppose, is that everyone has a different definition of 'equally'.

BTW, do you have specific references in mind for cutting single mom welfare and cutting subsidized daycare?

Not specific links, but in MN, where we now are republican controlled, we've had severe cuts to both of these types of programs over the past couple of years. I'm not necessarily blaming republicans, though they are doing some illogical things in this state these days.

Also, I don't have a problem with the faith-based initiatives as long as they don't preempt other efforts.

Well, that's the catch. It's diverting funds away from the 'other efforts'.

Faith Based isn't inheritently bad. My wife is actually working as part of a faith based iniative. But it adds yet another layer of accountability issues. That and I'm a big fan of separation of church and state when it comes to the accounting books.

What is wrong with pushing marriage or abstinance over abortion?

Who said anything about abortion?

30 Sep 2004 | Darrel said...

Okay, I'm a woman, and I just want to know, when has it become the government's job to give me subsidized child care, health care for my kids and maternity leave benefits? Who do you suppose will pay for this?

We are the government. It's not an us vs. them thing.

Either we decide that giving all children a fair shot at succeeding in life is something we want to contribute to or we decide that it's not worth it.

In *MY* opinion and experience, I think government run child care, early child hood development, improved schools, and before/after school programs are one of the best investments we as a society can make. Take care of the problems at the root level instead of paying for them (with inflation) later in life when so many of these disadvantaged youth revert to welfare, drug programs, crime, drugs, etc.

Same thing goes with the abortion issue. I see so many anti-abortion people that are equally anti-child care. If you want to stop abortion, give people a reason to not even have to consider it.

The thing about kids is that they really care. They really try hard. But they tend to give up come 8 years old when there just isn't any support out there for them. Just seems like such a waste of our great country's resources.

I'm Darrel and I approve of this message.

30 Sep 2004 | lisa said...

so...
Are you all saying we should become a socalist government?

30 Sep 2004 | Chris S said...

People need to be responsible for themselves, Darrel. It's not my responsibility to support someone who chose to have sex and participate in the creation of that child. That's taking money that I've earned away from my children, and that's wrong.

Perpetuating that system doesn't help those people drawing the checks, either. It merely increases their dependence, and that certainly doesn't lead to more freedom, but less.

30 Sep 2004 | indi said...

Who said anything about abortion?

Whoops, I misread when you said "pushing marriage over birth-control". Sorry about that.

30 Sep 2004 | indi said...

Regarding cutting benefits ...

Sometimes governments have to make hard decisions to regain control over spending. Out here in California, Arnold tried to cut the amount of time stray dogs and cats would be held by pounds until they are put down as a way of saving some money. He had to back off over the flack he received for that one. So imagine how hard people scream when you try to cut off their "entitlements" and how quickly politicians back-pedal. Remember, if you even suggest reducing a planned increase from 10% to 5% your opponents will call it a draconian cut at the expense of single moms, children and the elderly.

30 Sep 2004 | Darrel said...

so...
Are you all saying we should become a socalist government?

No.

30 Sep 2004 | Darrel said...

Perpetuating that system doesn't help those people drawing the checks, either. It merely increases their dependence, and that certainly doesn't lead to more freedom, but less.

Well, you're taking a very black/white view of the situation. All poor people are not lazy social leeches. All rich people are not hard working dedicated people. IMHO, all children do deserve support regardless of the qualifications of the parent.

But, anyways, I was just curious as to why you felt Bush aligns more with libertarians than Kerry. I guess if it's solely about the gun issue, then that makes sense.

01 Oct 2004 | Chris S said...

Look, Darrel, I'm not calling those folks anything but "poor people," and my intention is not to dehumanize them. But the fact is, for most people, if someone's giving it to you, you're not standing on your own two feet. You're putting words in my mouse :-)

And it's not solely about the gun issue. In fact, in general, Bush's record on that is abysmal as well, constitutionally speaking.

04 Oct 2004 | Don Schenck said...

I think this t-shirt would be more appropriate for a toddler.

05 Oct 2004 | Chris in Canada, formerly of Brazil said...

Actually, it would have been funnier if the t-shirt read "Mommy wants a new pool boy".

09 Oct 2004 | Valariems said...

I love the shirts. I ordered one two weeks ago, and received it right away (before i ever saw this thread.) I put this one in the "I wish I'd designed it" files, and said as much on my blog...

How many of you are teaching your kids about government and politics? My four-year-old doesn't understand it all, true. But now is as good a time to start as any for him to start seeing his Mommy take action about what she believes is right and wrong. He sees mommy watching news shows and CSPAN instead of mindless sitcoms or violent shows. It's the responsibility of a parent to teach responsibility to their kids.

I actively campaign for Kerry. My son has accompanied my in a parade as part of the Kerry contingent. He absolutely loved walking the parade route handing out stickers. He's been to a "Moms for Kerry" event with me, and will go to more. He will also go with me as I drive voters to the polls.

I've also taken him to see George Bush. (I did not wear Kerry gear or speak of my views. I was there to see the President, and give my son that opportunity as well -- not to protest.) And he remembers it. He sees the President on television and says, "Mommy, that's George! We saw him!"

He looks darn cute in his shirt. Some people laugh out loud when they see it, others smile, and others just ignore.

This is HIS future that's of importance in this election. I cannot, and will not, ignore that fact, nor shield him from my political activism. That's MY style of parenting. I want to raise a child who is a critical thinker, and I will answer each and every one of his questions as he grows older with viewpoints from each side of the fence. I do the same now with my 12-year-old stepson. And he's learning how to think through the positions to draw his own conclusions. He doesn't understand why our neighbors can't get married if they want to, even though they are two men. "Why should anyone else care?" he asks. He watches the news, CPAN, and talk shows with us. He asks us questions when he has them, and other times, just comments about a viewpoint that "that seems dumb." Then we discuss.

My son loves his shirt (and his 12-year-old brother thinks its great, too.) Oddly enough, when my son tells me what it says, it comes out sounding like "mommy wants a new prisoner." Okay, well... maybe he's wise beyond his years.

Thanks, lowercase tees, for the shirts!

30 Jan 2005 | compatelius said...

bocigalingus must be something funny.