Looking ahead to the new year, Dr. Savage mused about the steps needed to “save this country” from both Democrats and a Republican leadership addicted to power, money and big government.

The American people, he warned, may have to adopt the extreme tactics of leftist activists if they wish to succeed.

“In January, I’m going to start telling you what the Republicans need to do to save this country,” Savage said to his listeners.

I don’t know if we can do it, but we’ll try.

We’re probably going to have to get in the face of Boehner, McConnell and the rest of the GOP leadership. We’re probably going to have to become a sort of conservative “Occupy” movement in order to get them to stop screwing us.

I know one rule in life: When Democrats and Republicans get together, the American people are being screwed. That’s what’s going on right now.

Make no mistake: Boehner wasn’t elected. He was brought in on the coattails of all the young conservative people that were swept into power. He and McConnell and the rest of the so-called leaders are hated.

Yet they act like their mandate to keep screwing the American people has been renewed. 

Forwarding the above resulted in this reply:

I can see his point to an extent, but most of the tactics of the left (blocking bridges and traffic during rush hour, flash mobs, demonstrating in malls, etc) just tend to P**S people off – lol

I think the louder and crazier the Left gets, the better it is for us.  Most people aren’t particularly ideological but they DO tend to block out belligerent and noisy.

OK.  Reasonable enough…but it seems to the Chief that that response forgets that one can be more assertive without resort to the hard-core obnoxiousness of the progressive occupiers: Remember when the TeaParty got started?  There was plenty of “direct action” there that didn’t go over the line…the key principle there is that my exercise of rights stops  before rights of others such as free passage, etc., are violated. There are ways of being more assertive in a targeted way without going around the bend crazy like the anarcholeft.

The thing that DOES drive me crazy is the spineless lack of principles exhibited by Boehner, McConnell, and the GOP establishment.  There is no real reason we shouldn’t be standing up for ourselves, rather than knuckling under with stuff like the cromnibus, plans for “comprehensive immigration reform”, etc.

Local case in point: Sen-elect Rounds declaration of a bi-partisan strategy for legislation.  Oh joy.  That sure as hell is NOT what we need…especially when the Dems’ idea of compromise is to propose some new and/or expanded “progressive” scheme, and then reduce the size of the expansion as a “compromise” deal. Of course in all such cases, the only argument is not whether or  not to continue the leftward drift.  The only debate under those terms is how fast we socialize.

Daschle was the Grand Master of this when he was Senate Majority Leader. If THIS is what Rounds stands for waffles on,  Pressler should have been elected–at least HE was honest during the campaign in defining himself as a progressive.

The actual issues themselves are NOT really complicated in spite of what the Republocratic Demicans and the lame-stream media make it out to be, whether it’s health care, taxes, or whatever.  This is worth additional comment, which will be forthcoming in the near future. ’nuff said.

]]> http://www.radioactivechief.com/?feed=rss2&p=3773 1 http://www.radioactivechief.com/?p=2581 http://www.radioactivechief.com/?p=2581#comments Tue, 09 Feb 2010 07:24:02 +0000 http://www.radioactivechief.com/?p=2581 There has been a running discussion lately in the SD blogosphere relating to support or opposition to HB 1277 and HB 1278, which relate to “obtaining certain information from online content providers in slander and libel actions. ”

There have been thoughtful and thorough comments from various SD blogs. I particularly liked Ken’s comment on SD Politics hearkening back to the “ancient” (to borrow a descriptive designation from the SCOTUS decision bouncing McCain-Feingold) traditions of our early republic, and its lively, invective-filled, and often anonymous debates.

I started on a somewhat lengthy commentary from my own point of view…and finally decided that to address everything I thought about this idea, I would be writing a major thesis.  I have enough writing to do for the history master’s program I’m in, so have to pass on that one for now.

So, it’ll just have to be enough to say that these bills are NOT a good idea for a number of reasons, both technical and philosophical, many of which have been discussed elsewhere by others. The long and short of it is that I don’t see a benefit in extending the police power down to the levels that would be necessary to even attempt to enforce this.  Besides,  based on what I know of history, who would say that sometime in the future it might be considered libelous to criticise officeholders, etc.   This HAS already happened elsewhere, and elsewhen.

I know, “It can’t happen here!”  Wanna bet?  (I don’t!)

It may well be the proverbial cold day in hell since I agree with the ACLU …hmmm…the Saints won the Superbowl…maybe it really is cold down there!

Germany’s Otto von Bismarck (who evidently had a bunch of fans up in ND), observed that “Laws are like sausages. It’s better not to see them being made.”

This piece provides some of the details of the legislative side of the process as it takes place up at Pierre.

South Dakota legislators will face important matters of life and law among the 500 or so bills likely to be filed during the 2010 session.

They’ll also face issues that aren’t quite so earth shaking.

The 131 bills that had already been filed last week through the Legislative Research Council included proposals to authorize charter schools, raise the state gas tax and approve a building addition at Northern State University.

Also in the mix were ideas with less-clear impacts on the state — like honoring and supporting “Czech Days in Tabor” and the “Scotland Kuchen Feier on the occasion of its first annual event.”

It’s easy (and sometimes fun!) to throw figurative mud-balls at some of the proposals that float up through the process, but look at the bright side…concerns about community festivals and kuchen MAY distract from other things…like more iterations of nanny-stateism, tax increases, etc.

The grandson of former South Dakota Sen. George McGovern has decided not to follow in his grandfather’s footsteps. At least, not yet.

Matt McGovern of Sioux Falls said Tuesday that he will not run for the U.S. Senate seat held by Republican Sen. John Thune.

The Chief is NOT a gambling man, but 5 will get you 10 that he’ll be going for the senatenext time out…like, can anyone imagine Johnson going for another term? There’s a lot better chance going for an open seat instead of trying to a likely futile round of butting heads with popular Sen. John Thune.

Meanwhile, the SD Donkey Party is looking for a sacrificial lamb candidate.

A small but enthusiastic group of the local Tea Party group was out on a late notice event to show their colors along 57th street, just around the corner from Donkey Party Senator Tim’s Sioux Falls office.

Interesting interview piece with SD Senator John Thune in the Sunday Washington Times

Sen. Thune points out similarities with Daschle v. Thune race, and the vulnerabilities of “Dusty” Harry Reid in this election cycle.

The Republican who ousted the Democratic leader of the Senate in 2004 says Harry Reid finds himself in a similar predicament of representing a conservative-leaning state but leading a liberal party.

Sen. John Thune made Senate history when he unseated Sen. Tom Daschle by exploiting the gap between Mr. Daschle’s interests in Washington and those of his home state of South Dakota. That’s exactly where Mr. Reid, the Senate majority leader, is now, he said.

“In the case of Senator Daschle, he was leading a left-of-center caucus and representing a right-of-center state — it was very difficult to reconcile those two,” Mr. Thune told The Washington Times. “I know that Senator Reid will work very hard over the course of the next several months to convince his voters in Nevada that he’s still very connected to them and in touch, but I think that the perception that he’s got to overcome is that he is leading a left-of-center caucus in Washington that’s trying to do all these things with which they disagree.”

Some other issues are also noted in the piece:

Mr. Thune, a former three-term House member, has earned a reputation as a rising GOP star among the upper chamber. The affable Midwesterner has been a fierce critic of government spending throughout President Obama’s first term — during the debate over the stimulus bill, he routinely noted that one could spend $1 million each day since the birth of Jesus and still not match the plan’s $787 billion price tag.

Also, the proposed interstate CCL legislation that almost slid though the Senate in spite of the Donkey Party majority…

He’s also taken the lead on gun rights, and says Second Amendment supporters remain a powerful force despite not winning every vote.

In June, Mr. Thune forced several Democrats to take a tough vote on a measure that would have required states to honor the concealed weapons licenses of out-of-state citizens, who would then be subject to the conceal-carry laws of the state in which they were traveling.

Mr. Thune’s amendment, which he tried to attach to the defense authorization bill, garnered 58 votes — two shy of the 60-vote threshold in the Senate for contentious legislation. The vote was a rare loss for the gun rights lobby, which earlier in the year had a significant win with Oklahoma Republican Sen. Tom Coburn’s amendment allowing guns in some national parks.

“The issue I decided to take on was clearly the most controversial of all. It energized people on both sides of the Second Amendment debate, but I think that to say that you got 58 votes in the Senate — that somehow [the gun rights] movement is losing steam is just not reflective of reality,” said Mr. Thune, noting that he lost two Republicans but picked up the votes of 20 Democrats.

The Chief notes a realistic dose of realpolitik in his role as a GOP leader…sort of reminds one of Reagan’s approach to the more…moderate…portions of the GOP:

As the new head of the Senate Republican Policy Committee, Mr. Thune — who replaced Nevada Sen. John Ensign after Mr. Ensign disclosed an extramarital affair — hosts the party’s weekly policy lunch and helps shape the GOP legislative agenda. Though members of the conference may disagree in certain areas, he said it’s better for Republicans to have a wide tent that includes moderates who will vote with the party on core issues.

“It’s a question of whether you want to be an ideologically pure minority or a government majority. I think that you know you’re going to have places in the country where a Republican in Maine isn’t going to be the same as a Republican in Oklahoma; that’s just the way it is,” he said. “If you want to set the agenda, if you want to be the party that’s actually leading the country, you’re going to have to recognize that you’re going to have to have a party that includes a lot of people that you may not agree with on every issue.”

ON a less (or more, to some?) serious note, the Senator will have to be careful of a serious “killer” issue.

Mr. Thune, a native of Murdo, S.D., a small town in the central part of the state, said one of his early political lessons came during an appearance he made at a St. Patrick’s Day parade. An avid supporter of the Green Bay Packers, he sported a team sweatshirt at the event, underestimating the passions of a constituency dominated by Minnesota Vikings fans.

“It was bizarre. People were screaming stuff at me and it was just — never again,” he said. “I probably lost a thousand votes doing that.”

When it comes to the Vikings, the Chief admits to being a fan of the BYU Cougars. What’s the connection? It’s football, right?

THEY’RE hard pressed?!?!?! What about US?

State and local governments are raising taxes and inventing new ones as they scramble to balance their budgets even as the nation’s economy begins to emerge from the deepest recession in seven decades.

State budgets typically take a year or two to reflect improvements in the national economy, the National Association of State Budget Officers and the National Governors Association explained in its latest fiscal survey of states. The report warned that “state fiscal conditions will remain weak in fiscal 2010 and likely into fiscal years 2011 and 2012.”

So, brace yourselves for a deluge of nuisance taxes, sin taxes and “fees,” limited only by the imagination of revenue-starved governors, mayors and legislators.

Wait! Here’s an alternative to try out: STOP SPENDING MONEY!

When us normal (come on, give me the benefit of the doubt!) folks get short on money.,.we have to cut back spending, and perhaps even do without something we would like. MAYBE our government at ALL LEVELS could try this out for a a change!?

What a concept!

Something to keep in mind when the next session up at Pierre opens up.

With B.O. and Congressional Donks pushing for the passage of the energy mega-tax bill, these items are either directly or indirectly related.

First Some of their political strategery…

Al Gore not coming to D.C.

Awwwwwwwww!

Former Vice President Al Gore canceled plans to fly to Washington for a news conference with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Thursday, and instead was working the phones from Tennessee to help push a landmark climate bill to passage.

Hopefully this next bit is wrong…but we’ll see what happens.

Friday’s vote on the measure is expected to be close, but multiple sources on both sides of the aisle say they’re confident that the bill will pass — with some Republican votes — following a deal between House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman and Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson.

Why is this a BAD idea: a number of issues are in play here:

The Cap and Tax Fiction

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has put cap-and-trade legislation on a forced march through the House, and the bill may get a full vote as early as Friday. It looks as if the Democrats will have to destroy the discipline of economics to get it done.

Despite House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman’s many payoffs to Members, rural and Blue Dog Democrats remain wary of voting for a bill that will impose crushing costs on their home-district businesses and consumers. The leadership’s solution to this problem is to simply claim the bill defies the laws of economics.

This will NOT be doing anything to help the economy, quite the contrary. (Are you paying any attention Congresscritter Herseth-Sandlin?)

The biggest doozy in the CBO analysis was its extraordinary decision to look only at the day-to-day costs of operating a trading program, rather than the wider consequences energy restriction would have on the economy. The CBO acknowledges this in a footnote: “The resource cost does not indicate the potential decrease in gross domestic product (GDP) that could result from the cap.” [emphasis added]

The hit to GDP is the real threat in this bill. The whole point of cap and trade is to hike the price of electricity and gas so that Americans will use less. These higher prices will show up not just in electricity bills or at the gas station but in every manufactured good, from food to cars. Consumers will cut back on spending, which in turn will cut back on production, which results in fewer jobs created or higher unemployment. Some companies will instead move their operations overseas, with the same result.

So what else is new in the Glowbull Warming debate?

EPA Suppresses Internal Global Warming Study

Scientific findings at odds with the Obama Administration’s views on carbon dioxide and climate change are being suppressed as a result of political pressure, officials at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) charge.

“This suppression of valid science for political reasons is beyond belief,” said CEI General Counsel Sam Kazman. “EPA’s conduct is even more outlandish because it flies in the face of the president’s widely-touted claim that ‘the days of science taking a back seat to ideology are over.’”

The agency has never made the study public or included it in official reference materials, according to CEI. As part of a recently concluded EPA public comment period on a proposed rule, CEI submitted a set four EPA emails, dated March 12-17, 2009, as evidence that the suppressed study included a critique of the agency’s global warming position.
CEI has asked EPA to make the study public and to allow public comments on it. CEI has also asked that EPA to prevent any reprisals against the study’s author who has been employed with the agency for 35 years.

And then there’s this this bit of common sense:
Electric Cars Will Not Decrease Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Says Federal Study

The stimulus law enacted in February promoted the purchase of plug-in electric cars by the federal government and the broader market, but a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report released this month says that the use of plug-in electric vehicles will not by itself decrease greenhouse gas emissions.

To do that, the report argues, the United States would have to switch from coal-burning plants to lower-emission sources to generate electricity such as nuclear power.

“If you are using coal fired power plants and half the country’s electricity comes from coal powered plants, are you just trading one greenhouse gas emitter for another?”
Mark Gaffigan, co-author of the GAO report and a specialist in energy issues told CNSNews.com.

Well, DUH!

The judge in South Dakota’s education funding lawsuit has filed a preliminary decision and she’s sided with the state.

A group of parents and students sued the state, claiming it doesn’t do enough to adequately fund education in South Dakota. After a trial and months of deliberation, Circuit Judge Lori Wilbur ruled that the plaintiffs didn’t prove the education funding system is defective.

Dozens of families and around 70 school districts claimed that the state doesn’t do enough to support education, and the funding formula is flawed.

Some additional details of the decision are noted below:

Judge: Education not a right

South Dakota students aren’t guaranteed a quality education, a circuit judge ruled Wednesday, finding that the way the state pays for education does not violate the state constitution.

Circuit Judge Lori Wilbur’s decision follows a trial that saw six superintendents complain that a lack of money was hurting South Dakota’s students. An appeal to the state Supreme Court now is likely, according to the lawyer representing students and their families.

The state’s funding system has room for improvement, Wilbur acknowledged, but she also found that education is not a fundamental right; the state need not prepare students for college or “meaningful employment”; and the testimony of the superintendents was unreliable.

[B-SLAP!]  Superintendents testimony unreliable?!  That’s gotta hurt!  She basically called thgem a bunch of liars.

The judge said students receive adequate educational opportunities even without the “wish lists” various school superintendents presented at trial.

“Whether school districts, if given more money, could provide more programs or resources, or higher teacher pay, or build better facilities, is irrelevant if the constitutional minimum is being provided,” Wilbur wrote.

This following point is something the Chief CAN get behind.

She said that some policy options discussed at trial could improve education, but those decisions are for the legislature, not the judiciary.

If people are not concerned enough about the issues cited by the Superintendents during the trial to carry them to their legislators, then I guess they get the system that they are willing to accept, and pay for, and the students get the leftovers of the public trough.  Kind of harsh for the schools, but that’s life in a representative republic.

(Disclosure: the Chief is a public school educator currently at a small school district.)

Freedom in the 50 States: Index of Personal and Economic Freedom

This paper presents the first-ever comprehensive ranking of the American states on their public policies affecting individual freedoms in the economic, social, and personal spheres. We develop and justify our ratings and aggregation procedure on explicitly normative criteria, defining individual freedom as the ability to dispose of one’s own life, liberty, and justly acquired property however one sees fit, so long as one does not coercively infringe on other individuals’ ability to do the same.

This study improves on prior attempts to score economic freedom for American states in three primary ways: 1) it includes measures of social and personal freedoms such as peaceable citizens’ rights to educate their own children, own and carry firearms, and be free from unreasonable search and seizure; 2) it includes far more variables, even on economic policies alone, than prior studies, and there are no missing data on any variable; 3) we adopt new, more accurate measurements of key variables, particularly state fiscal policies.

We find that the freest states in the country are New Hampshire, Colorado, and South Dakota, which together achieve a virtual tie for first place. All three states feature low taxes and government spending and middling levels of regulation and paternalism. New York is the least free by a considerable margin, followed by New Jersey, Rhode Island, California and Maryland. (Emphases added)

The Chief knew there were a number of reasons why he liked living in South Dakota. Many of them relate to the topics covered in this analysis. Check it out.

If you’re a South Dakota liberal, let not your heart be troubled…Minnesota is right next door and Eastbound I-90 will take you there easily.  Don’t let the door hit you in the — on the way out!