Although I am no fan of township government, I’ve been thinking lately about one way they could stay relevant.

Take poor relief and turn it into school vouchers.

If you think about it, the whole purpose of poor relief is to help people in need and one way to help people in need is to make sure they are self-sufficient.  And what better way to make people self-sufficient is to make sure they have a good education.  And what way to guarantee a good education than to ensure choice?

Remember, poor relief isn’t just cash or food.  It can also come in the form of clothes and in some cases school supplies.  There is already a precedent for vouchers.  When late Congresswoman Julia Carson was a township trustee, she would give vouchers for people to buy clothes.

We can circumvent the church/state issue by making sure the money is spent on “education expenses” and school tuition would qualify as an educational expense?

Now of course there would be an issue of crowd control.  That’s why only the people who qualify for poor relief would be eligible for the voucher.  

Competition is already here, so why not have the trustees get into the act?  It’s not like they have any real work to do anyway.

Secretary Of Make A Decision Already: We’re on, like, Day Five of wondering whether Hillary Clinton will be the next Secretary of State. Seriously, this is getting annoying. What do you think she’ll do?

Aaaaaaaargh, Mateys: United States to pirates: “Yeah, whatever. Take over other people’s ships. We don’t care.”

Sex, Lies, And Old News: I do not care about the call girl who brought down former New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer. Neither should you.

They Do Not Have VCRs In Minnesota: Republican U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Delusional) is still crazy all these weeks after she told MSNBC’s Chris Matthews that she wanted the media to investigate anti-American members of Congress.

And On The Third Day, God Created A Legal Loophole: The Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles crafts a cutesy way to allow a litigious woman to keep her godly license plate but fails to answer the question of why we can have free “In God We Trust” plates but can’t put spiritual messages on personalized plates. Wouldn’t this all be much easier if we kept religion out of it and just let people express themselves through cheesy bumper stickers?

The above map courtesy of Blue Indiana, courtesy the New York Times, shows where Democrat and Republican votes increased in the 2008 election.  The more red or blue,  the more Republican or Democratic voters showed up.

Studying this map has led me to the following conclusion.  

If  white Republicans don’t do a better job of recruiting and attracting more blacks and browns, this country will become more blue and the GOP will only see more red.

Color me confused by this story:

A woman from eastern Indiana has sued the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles commissioner over the agency’s rejection of her request for a personalized license plate with the words “BE GODS.”

Liz Ferris intends for the message to read “Be God’s,” a principle she borrowed from a contemporary Christian musician Rich Mullins and considers central to her life.

Later in the article we learn that administrative code prohibits “personalized plates referring to a race, religion, deity, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, or political party or affiliation, though exceptions are allowed for some racial and ethnic references.”

And yet, as Ferris noted in her lawsuit, we’ve got all these “In God We Trust” plates floating around on Indiana roads.

So…

What do we think about this latest twist in the ongoing saga of “Worship On Wheels”?

Is it acceptable — or legally neutral — for the state to print up and distribute for free plates that talk about God while not allowing a citizen to pay to place a godly message on her car?

Look, I understand statesmanship and diplomacy and the pursuit of peace, love and understanding, but there’s a nagging, partisan part of me that really, really thinks Sen. Joe Lieberman should have had to endure slightly more punishment for his repeated and heated campaign appearances with John McCain and Sarah Palin during their failed run for the White House.

In a 42-13 secret ballot vote, Democratic senators approved a resolution stripping Lieberman of a subcommittee chairmanship, but allowing him to remain chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee.

No staff members were allowed as Democratic senators filed into the old Senate chamber at 9:30 a.m. for leadership elections and other party business. The fate of the 2000 Democratic vice presidential nominee was the first agenda item, as his colleagues discussed whether he would be punished for slights to the party.

Before the vote, Lieberman gave what one senator described as a “heartfelt” speech explaining his actions.

“He did not say he regretted supporting McCain, but he did say he regretted some of the things he said,” said Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo.

Things like this?

“John McCain had the guts to argue against public opinion, to put his whole campaign on the line, because, as he says, he’d rather lose an election than lose in a war that he thinks is this important to the United States,” Lieberman said on “Fox News Sunday.”

“If Barack Obama’s policy in Iraq had been implemented, he couldn’t be in Iraq today,” Lieberman said, adding that Obama “was prepared to accept retreat and defeat.”

I understand why his colleagues in the Senate voted the way they did, and I applaud their magnanimity.

But.

I still think Lieberman should have to do a bit more public groveling for choosing to be an outspoken advocate for the wrong side of history.