The so-con wing is heard from

Every time that I want to step in and assure someone that the “social conservatives” aren’t really dangerous to liberty, they go and do something like this:

Concerned that the military is selling pornography in exchange stores in spite of a ban, one lawmaker has introduced a bill to clean up the matter.

“Our troops should not see their honor sullied so that the moguls behind magazines like Playboy and Penthouse can profit,” said Rep. Paul Broun, R-Ga., unveiling his House bill April 16.

His Military Honor and Decency Act would amend a provision of the 1997 Defense Authorization Act that banned sales of “sexually explicit material” on military bases. - “Bill: Stop selling Playboy, Penthouse on base” by Karen Jowers, Army Times

National Review’s Kathryn Lopez, channeling Mrs. Grundy, eagerly jumps in:

...I like the idea of the American military having nothing official to do with porn. We train our servicemen to protect and defend, in situations in which they often have to face perilous choices as who to protect and defend. Pornography is a grave indignity and degradation of the human person. If a soldier wants to view pornography, it's his right, but the U.S. military need not provide it to him.

(Ohmygawd, can't you just hear the sanctimony!)

Then, to top things off, there’s this piece of arrogance:

Exchange officials noted that tax dollars are not used to procure magazines in the system’s largely self-funded operations.

But Broun’s spokesman John Kennedy contended that taxpayer dollars are involved — “used to pay military salaries, so taxpayer money is, in effect, being used to buy these materials,” he said.

...a rationalization worthy of Nancy Pelosi.

Well let’s see:  Broun and Lopez dishonestly conflate Playboy (which, last time I looked, you could buy at your neighborhood Borders) with hard-core porn (which, last time I looked, you could find all over the internet).  And then Kennedy proposes that,  just because the government touches somebody’s salary, it has the right to control how that money is spent!

As one poster on the Army Times forum says,

Now that's the slipperiest slope I've ever seen. Since we in the military are paid with tax dollars, these people believe they have a say in what LEGAL goods and services we are allowed to purchase.  Take that argument to a few examples like foods, evironmentally friendly goods, etc.  How do we find such freedom-depriving politicians to "serve" us in government?

And that’s the whole point: Our troops are adults. Playboy and Penthouse are legal goods. Congressional busybodies should butt out.

Oh, and tell me again, what’s the difference between left-wing meddlers and the right-wing social engineers?

Geez. No wonder some people are afraid of Republicans.


Naming names:

Broun’s bill has 16 co-sponsors. Any of them your congress-critter?

Elsewhere:

Via: Ace, where there’s a LARGE discussion.

Posted by: Old Grouch in Rants at 17:09:08 GMT | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 572 words, total size 8 kb.