Sure. And why *not* have two laws when one would do the trick? Just how long do you think the list of banned items should be – 1, 2, 500? I mean, next election red socks might be political statement du jour, so that’d be chicken suits and socks (togehter or individually). After that … beer-can-baseball-caps, then oversized sunglasses, then walking frames (tough if you’re an oldy), then clothes in general. And then, of course, no clothes at all, which will make turning up at a polling booth in legal attire very tricky.

In short: they already had a rule for this (“no campaigning within a certain distance”), so why couldn’t they use /that/, rather than picking on a few dopey cosplay proponents?

Captcha fun: suit atheletic :D

RAISE CHICKENS.

They banned it because political propaganda on the day of the election is forbidden, I guess. Which makes sense.

“Let them eat cake!” though makes no sense whatsoever, since there was no wheat to bake for bread or cake… except as political propaganda of its time, by then England.

Which is to say, bartering does take place, and there’s nothing wrong with that. For a Senate candidate to use it as an example of how people should obtain healthcare – without differentiating at all between urban poor, rural poor, suburban poor, etc – smacks of an ideology and values system which cannot represent reality.

Ultimately, if you raise chickens, and your doctor will take chickens as payment, then the system works fine. But where does any of this represent, for example, the urban poor? Should legitimate healthcare needs be reduced to the level of a drug dependency? “Hey man, I need some Zanax, I think I gotta pawn my wedding ring”

The real criticism, though… is that when questioned on a serious subject upon which a public servant, especially at the current time, should be thoughtful and have an informed and intelligent opinion… this candidate gave the sort of laughably bad suggestion which suggests they don’t care about the issue and have no interest in improving it. A simple boilerplate appeal to tradition is given instead… which appears like an attempt to appeal to a very cynical idea of what her constituents value.

Without all the puffery used to frame the suggestion, they basically suggested that nothing is wrong with the system and maybe poor people should just suck it up and try to liquidate their belongings for healthcare.

It was a very flowery “fuck you”.

Sometimes there really isn’t a sinister purpose behind things.

So entirely appropriate for the subject at hand…

But then again, my grandfather liked to cut corners.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZezfjWox5s

Too bad, because she was shaping up to be the only way Harry Reid could hold on to his seat.