Is it time to refer a law? Who's with me?
Not that I'm worried about legislators overturning the Governor's veto, but just on the off chance, I think that it might be a good thing to get ready to go on referring HB 1189, the bill to force 5, 6, & 7 year olds into car seats because their parents supposedly don't know any better and need advice criminalized. And that's refer as in "put it to a public vote."
If there is anyone out there who might be interested in helping? If so e-mail me directly at dakotawarcollege@yahoo.com.
I think it's important to draw a line in the sand with nanny state legislation such as this. Because it isn't something that's important public policy - it's a legislator's pet peeve. And the prime sponsor Willadsen (apparently a nanny-state liberal in Republican clothing) even noted that in his justification fpr bringing the bill that he did so because he didn't like how some mom was bucking her kids in.
Well, boo hoo.
Just because a person is elected to office does not give a busybody the right to tell a person that they need to conform to his idea of what is proper, and what is not.
I have not spoken to a single parent who thinks this silly nonsense is reasonable. In fact, most comment quite derisively towards the legislature for the very idea. Except for a couple of insurance companies, and Susan Randall, head of the South Dakota Coalition for Nosy Liberals Who Know How to Raise Children Better Than the Rest of Us, there was no groundswell of support. None whatsoever.
(Think I'm exaggerating? Check out this quote from the website - “I’ve had so much fun over the past year in dealing with wonderful people like Susan Randall, Alan McCoy and Linda Lea Viken,” reflects Hayward. “These people really care for children.” And you tell me if I'm going overboard with the liberal crack or not.)
If we don't stop this kind of measure dead in it's tracks, it's just going to open the floodgates of regulating personal behavior even more. They're standing at the gates - those who want to ban handguns, cell phone use in cars, the use of trans-fats in cooking, force cyclists to wear helmets, etcetera.
I think it's time they were sent a message.
So, if they pass it through despite the veto, and you want to stop this kind of legislation in it's tracks, e-mail me here.
Or if you want to stand with Mark Willadsen, Susan Randall and Lind Lea Viken, you just give them an "atta boy" to keep the nanny state legislation coming.
If there is anyone out there who might be interested in helping? If so e-mail me directly at dakotawarcollege@yahoo.com.
I think it's important to draw a line in the sand with nanny state legislation such as this. Because it isn't something that's important public policy - it's a legislator's pet peeve. And the prime sponsor Willadsen (apparently a nanny-state liberal in Republican clothing) even noted that in his justification fpr bringing the bill that he did so because he didn't like how some mom was bucking her kids in.
Well, boo hoo.
Just because a person is elected to office does not give a busybody the right to tell a person that they need to conform to his idea of what is proper, and what is not.
I have not spoken to a single parent who thinks this silly nonsense is reasonable. In fact, most comment quite derisively towards the legislature for the very idea. Except for a couple of insurance companies, and Susan Randall, head of the South Dakota Coalition for Nosy Liberals Who Know How to Raise Children Better Than the Rest of Us, there was no groundswell of support. None whatsoever.
(Think I'm exaggerating? Check out this quote from the website - “I’ve had so much fun over the past year in dealing with wonderful people like Susan Randall, Alan McCoy and Linda Lea Viken,” reflects Hayward. “These people really care for children.” And you tell me if I'm going overboard with the liberal crack or not.)
If we don't stop this kind of measure dead in it's tracks, it's just going to open the floodgates of regulating personal behavior even more. They're standing at the gates - those who want to ban handguns, cell phone use in cars, the use of trans-fats in cooking, force cyclists to wear helmets, etcetera.
I think it's time they were sent a message.
So, if they pass it through despite the veto, and you want to stop this kind of legislation in it's tracks, e-mail me here.
Or if you want to stand with Mark Willadsen, Susan Randall and Lind Lea Viken, you just give them an "atta boy" to keep the nanny state legislation coming.
Comments
drj
Carbon isotopes indicate that the bulk of the increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere result from combustion of fossil fuels.
Satellite systems above the atmosphere measuring the energy outfput from the sun show no change in the average over a 20 year period. Sun energy is not driving the current climate temperature increases.
A friend of mine told me that State senator Bill Alter from Missouri was trying to get a bill passed last year that would really help with the “drinking and driving” problem.
This is how it would work: Ban liquor stores from selling cold beer! If you see beer over 60 degrees that would help stop drunk driving. Selling only warm beer would lessen the temptation of opening a beer right away. Senator Alter said, “the only reason why beer would need to be cold is so that it can be consumed right away”. You would have to take it home and put it in a refrigerator for a time before you would drink it. What a great idea to protect our people from those that drink and drive! And as a side benefit, this law would help conserve energy! None of the liquor stores would need all those coolers running 24 hours a day! This is great!
Which Republican should I contact about getting a law like this passed in South Dakota?