On Feb. 24, So. Dak. Rep. Steve Hickey (R-Sioux Falls) posted on Facebook: "My daughter's comment on the far right's opposition to my death penalty repeal: 'They want government to be weak but strong enough to kill people.'"
Based on a couple of years of sporadic exchanges with Rep. Hickey, I find that remark ironic. Assuming that Rep. Hickey agrees with his daughter (why else would he post it?), and given his public statements on a number of issues, I find it so ironic that I spent some time today beating my forehead against the angle of a doorframe.
Prior to the 2013 legislative session, SoDakNORML supplied every So. Dak. legislator--once a week for 17 weeks-- with 17 arguments to quit giving people criminal records for simply attempting to feel better. Three legislators promised me they they would look at the evidence. One, Sen. Tieszen (R-Rapid City), did so after I asked him if he would. Rep. Hickey emailed me, saying he was looking at the evidence. So did Rep. Kaiser (R-Aberdeen).
Of 105 legislators in So. Dak., only three responded to even one of 17 letters, each letter proposing an argument to make pot laws saner. Kaiser and Tieszen co-sponsored a bill to allow medical cannabis use in So. Dak. On the committee that first heard the bill, Rep. Hickey's was the deciding vote that killed the proposal..
Today, in another Facebook post, speaking of a friend, a medical cannabis user who lobbied him on behalf of the bill, Hickey said, "I didn't leave my friend Scott. In fact I looked at both sides of this twice as long because of him. At the end of the day the downside outweighed the upside in my estimation. I've come to believe that there are people who exploit compassion for the hurting because they just want legalized weed. I'm not convinced it's their only medical hope nor do I believe it's dose strength is consistent. I do know healing prayer works."
As a result of that statement, I have one question for Rep. Hickey. "What is the downside of letting sick, disabled and dying people use an herb, to the use of which no death has been credited in history, to palliate their suffering?" Some say cannabis is the answer to their prayers.
[UPDATE 3/1) You can see the course of this discussion at https://www.facebook.com/bob.newland .
[UPDATE 3/1.1) Really, you should take a look at the course of that discussion.
Friday, February 28, 2014
Thursday, February 27, 2014
Eisenhower became convinced that adding "under God" would be the "right thing to do...."
The following is not satire, although it could be, if truth weren't stranger than satire.
So. Dak. Representative Stacey Nelson (candidate for US Senator from So. Dak.) was the prime (first-named) sponsor of the following legislation: House Concurrent Resolution 1006, during the current legislative session. it was passed with one dissenting vote, that of Angie Buhl O'Donnell (D-Sioux Falls).
The bill was passed on 1/30/2014.
The rest of this post is direct copy from the So. Dak. LRC website:
Introduced by: Representatives Nelson, Bolin, Campbell, Kaiser, Magstadt, May, Russell, Steele, and Verchio and Senators Van Gerpen, Begalka, and Jensen
A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION, Recognizing the anniversary of the addition of the words "under God" to the United States Pledge of Allegiance.
WHEREAS, on February 10, 1954, Senator Homer Ferguson of Michigan introduced a bill in the United States Congress to amend the Pledge of Allegiance by adding the words "under God" to the text of the pledge; and
WHEREAS, February 10, 1954, was chosen as the date to introduce the bill by Senator Ferguson to recognize the five-year anniversary of the imprisonment of Cardinal Joseph Mindszenty of Hungary, who was imprisoned and tortured by Communists for his sermons exposing the goal of Communism to eradicate all religion; and
WHEREAS, speeches were delivered in Congress, by members of both political parties, honoring Cardinal Mindszenty and emphasizing the threat posed to America by Communism; and
WHEREAS, upon introduction of the bill, Senator Ferguson commented, "I believe this modification of the pledge is important because it highlights one of the real fundamental differences between the free world and the Communist world, namely, belief in God....Our nation is founded on a fundamental belief in God, and the first and most important reason for the existence of our government is to protect the God-given rights of our citizens. Spiritual values are every bit as important to the defense and safety of our nation as are military and economic values."; and
WHEREAS, the vote to add "under God" to the United States Pledge of Allegiance was a unanimous vote; and
WHEREAS, on February 7, 1954, President Dwight D. Eisenhower became convinced that adding the words "under God" to the United States Pledge of Allegiance would be the right thing to do after hearing Reverend George Docherty preach that the phrase "nation under God" was first used in the Gettysburg Address. It would be appropriate to add the phrase to the United States Pledge of Allegiance because freedom "is defined by a fundamental belief in God"; and
WHEREAS, the first time the revised United States Pledge of Allegiance was recited was on Flag Day, June 14, 1954; and
WHEREAS, it is the policy of this Legislature to recognize and honor such an important date which strengthens the ties of history that bind us to our belief in God:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the House of Representatives of the Eighty-Ninth Legislature of the State of South Dakota, the Senate concurring therein, that the South Dakota Legislature hereby recognizes February 10, 1954, as the anniversary of the addition of the words "under God" to the United States Pledge of Allegiance.
So. Dak. Representative Stacey Nelson (candidate for US Senator from So. Dak.) was the prime (first-named) sponsor of the following legislation: House Concurrent Resolution 1006, during the current legislative session. it was passed with one dissenting vote, that of Angie Buhl O'Donnell (D-Sioux Falls).
The bill was passed on 1/30/2014.
The rest of this post is direct copy from the So. Dak. LRC website:
Introduced by: Representatives Nelson, Bolin, Campbell, Kaiser, Magstadt, May, Russell, Steele, and Verchio and Senators Van Gerpen, Begalka, and Jensen
A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION, Recognizing the anniversary of the addition of the words "under God" to the United States Pledge of Allegiance.
WHEREAS, on February 10, 1954, Senator Homer Ferguson of Michigan introduced a bill in the United States Congress to amend the Pledge of Allegiance by adding the words "under God" to the text of the pledge; and
WHEREAS, February 10, 1954, was chosen as the date to introduce the bill by Senator Ferguson to recognize the five-year anniversary of the imprisonment of Cardinal Joseph Mindszenty of Hungary, who was imprisoned and tortured by Communists for his sermons exposing the goal of Communism to eradicate all religion; and
WHEREAS, speeches were delivered in Congress, by members of both political parties, honoring Cardinal Mindszenty and emphasizing the threat posed to America by Communism; and
WHEREAS, upon introduction of the bill, Senator Ferguson commented, "I believe this modification of the pledge is important because it highlights one of the real fundamental differences between the free world and the Communist world, namely, belief in God....Our nation is founded on a fundamental belief in God, and the first and most important reason for the existence of our government is to protect the God-given rights of our citizens. Spiritual values are every bit as important to the defense and safety of our nation as are military and economic values."; and
WHEREAS, the vote to add "under God" to the United States Pledge of Allegiance was a unanimous vote; and
WHEREAS, on February 7, 1954, President Dwight D. Eisenhower became convinced that adding the words "under God" to the United States Pledge of Allegiance would be the right thing to do after hearing Reverend George Docherty preach that the phrase "nation under God" was first used in the Gettysburg Address. It would be appropriate to add the phrase to the United States Pledge of Allegiance because freedom "is defined by a fundamental belief in God"; and
WHEREAS, the first time the revised United States Pledge of Allegiance was recited was on Flag Day, June 14, 1954; and
WHEREAS, it is the policy of this Legislature to recognize and honor such an important date which strengthens the ties of history that bind us to our belief in God:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the House of Representatives of the Eighty-Ninth Legislature of the State of South Dakota, the Senate concurring therein, that the South Dakota Legislature hereby recognizes February 10, 1954, as the anniversary of the addition of the words "under God" to the United States Pledge of Allegiance.
Tuesday, February 25, 2014
Sunday, February 23, 2014
I knew Bill Janklow. Bill Janklow was an enemy of mine. And you, sir, seem to be trying to emulate Bill Jankllow.
The following editorial appeared in several So. Dak. periodicals and
newspapers in the spring of 1999, including the editorial page of the Rapid City Journal, on
13 March, 1999. No one replied to the Journal with a dispute over the facts.
All events depicted in this account occurred. Attributed quotations are accurate. I saw and heard all the events narrated below. As we review the events of the 2014 So. Dak. legislative session, we can reflect on the hammer-handed regime of the craziest sumbich ever to have settled his mean, fat, ass in the So. Dak. governor's chair.
by Bob Newland
It stormed into town, angry and red-faced. It stomped around the capitol, terrorizing children and the faint of conviction, and coughing up kuchen. A month later, it slunk out, humiliated and red-faced. It was... Senate Bill 210.
Governor Janklow asked the Senate State Affairs Committee to introduce SB210: "Any person who has been convicted of possession, use, or distribution of a controlled substance or marijuana or who has received a suspended imposition of sentence for such possession, use, or distribution, shall, in addition to any other penalties, serve thirty days in the state penitentiary, no part of which may be waived or suspended."
Thirty days in the Pen for a hempseed in your trunk, presuming the court or jury decided you knew it was there.
Senate State Affairs heard testimony from judges and prosecutors that 210 would clog the system. So Senate State Affairs drafted a kinder, gentler, 210 -- reducing the mandatory minimum from 30 to ten days in the custody of the Department of Corrections (instead of specifically the state penitentiary), and allowing judges to depart from the mandatory ten-day sentence if they filed a written explanation. Apparently for balance, though, it set a $1000 bounty on the heads of misdemeanor drug offenders and an open-ended price on felony offenders, appropriating a million dollars for the snitch fund.
Having undergone group therapy, equipped with an attitude adjustment, 210 went to the Senate floor. The whole Senate debated SB210, amended it to make the ten days mandatory for a second offense, removed the $1000 bounty, and sent 210 Lite to the House State Affairs Committee with a disclaimer written under the title; "This bill has been extensively amended (hoghoused) and may no longer be consistent with the original intention of the sponsors."
About this time, some citizens of German extraction from Eureka came to Pierre serving kuchen, in expectation that the legislature would resurrect Eureka from ignominy by declaring kuchen the official State Dessert. Governor Janklow happened by the kuchen table in the capitol rotunda, and sampled. "This is wonderful!" he said. "Let's make Eureka South Dakota's first entirely drug-free town. When the legislature sets up my $1000 bounty, let's make sure the first snitch payment goes to a citizen of Eureka."
The Eurekans looked at each other, then at the floor, and shuffled their feet. The mayor of Eureka offered Janklow another helping of kuchen, having noticed the governor sometimes stopped speaking when his mouth was full.
In anticipation of 210's appearance in House State Affairs, the governor took the House Republicans to the woodshed, threatening dire consequences if they didn't restore the first-offense provision and the bounty. He threatened not to sign the bill in its Senate-amended form. He also threatened to take an active role in defeating Republican defectors in the next election.
The only proponents of 210 to testify were Governor Janklow and his chief-of-staff, Dave Knudson. Janklow said, "I don't have many moral principles, but I get a visceral anger when I think about people giving drugs to young girls and then USING these young girls. That's why we need this bill.
"Now, when I drive over the speed limit, which I do a lot, I take a calculated risk. I know it's gonna cost me $167 if I get caught. I don't mind that. But if I knew I'd go to jail for two days, I wouldn't speed. That's why we need this bill. Everybody knows they've got one free time getting caught with drugs. We've gotta change that."
Knudson said, "We're losing the war on drugs. That's why we need this bill." When asked the goal of the war on drugs, Knudson said, "To eliminate wrecking of lives due to drugs."
First to testify in opposition to 210, I pointed out that no prohibition law has ever worked, and, in fact, has always resulted in an effect exactly opposite the stated goals. Curt Mortenson, the eloquent Stanley County State's Attorney, said, "This bill is the biggest pile of crap I've ever seen." Mike Buenger, speaking for the Unified Judicial System, said, "Enactment of this bill will create a backlog of jury trials which will gridlock the courts."
Tom Barnett, brother of South Dakota Attorney-General Mark Barnett, and lobbyist for the South Dakota State Bar, opposed the bill. Barnett told me, "Alcohol accounts for the vast majority of prematurely-lost virginity in this state, not drugs."
Nick Braune, lobbyist for the South Dakota Peace and Justice Center, opposed the bill, too, as did state senator Frank Kloucek, who, in a moment of weirdness hardly noticed in the context, accused Governor Janklow of making an offensive phone call to Kloucek's daughter last year. Janklow denied the charge.
Janklow then figuratively sank to his knees, "Just give me the bill," he said. "What we're doing isn't working. Just give me the bill. Heck, it won't even go into effect until July 1. You people are all going to be back here in January. You can repeal it then, if you don't like it. Heck, you can even put a sunset on it. Just give me the bill. You can't let these monsters be giving 14-year-old girls drugs and then violating them." He blinked back a tear, staggering a little under the weight of his convictions as he rose.
Representative Dick Brown, member of the State Affairs committee, questioned the governor. "This bill gives judges the option to depart from the minimum sentence as long as they send a note to the clerk, right?" "Yes," said Janklow. "So it really doesn't change anything, right?" continued Brown. "That's right," replied Janklow.
"Look," Janklow said, "it just says we're gonna remand 'em to the custody of the Department of Corrections. They don't have to go to Sioux Falls. They might go to Redfield, or Springfield. They might just clean up the grounds at the State Fair.
"Heck, it won't even cost us much. They're not a threat to escape, so we won't need many more guards. We'll feed 'em a few meals, that's about it. Then we'll send 'em back home with a new, drug-avoiding, outlook."
So what had begun as a get-tough, take no prisoners..., uh..., no, a get-tough, take EVERYBODY prisoner, shock'em straight, no-nonsense thirty days in the Pen was now being touted as a "not really changing anything" bill. And the governor was begging for it.
House State Affairs, swayed by the governor's impeccable logic, and apparently invigorated with new knowledge of their moral righteousness, reinstated the $1000 bounty and the first-offense provision and sent the bill to the House floor.
On Day 37 of the 74th South Dakota Legislature, the House as a whole agreed with Rapid City Senator Mike Wilson that SB210 was ugly, regardless of Dave Knudson's articulate explication of the goal of the war on drugs, and tabled it 40-29, thus killing it. One might extrapolate that dinner in the governor's mansion the evening of March 4, 1999, was punctuated by the sound of plates breaking against the walls.
Oh, the kuchen bill failed also. South Dakota is still without a State Dessert, and Eureka still stands the same chance as it did two months ago of being South Dakota's first drug-free, but snitch-replete, community.
Author's note. I ran into Dick Brown a few months later. He was still picking Janklow's pubic hair out of his teeth.
There were several newspaper reporters in the committee room. None reported Janklow's statements. That's passive fellatio, I guess.
All events depicted in this account occurred. Attributed quotations are accurate. I saw and heard all the events narrated below. As we review the events of the 2014 So. Dak. legislative session, we can reflect on the hammer-handed regime of the craziest sumbich ever to have settled his mean, fat, ass in the So. Dak. governor's chair.
by Bob Newland
It stormed into town, angry and red-faced. It stomped around the capitol, terrorizing children and the faint of conviction, and coughing up kuchen. A month later, it slunk out, humiliated and red-faced. It was... Senate Bill 210.
Governor Janklow asked the Senate State Affairs Committee to introduce SB210: "Any person who has been convicted of possession, use, or distribution of a controlled substance or marijuana or who has received a suspended imposition of sentence for such possession, use, or distribution, shall, in addition to any other penalties, serve thirty days in the state penitentiary, no part of which may be waived or suspended."
Thirty days in the Pen for a hempseed in your trunk, presuming the court or jury decided you knew it was there.
Senate State Affairs heard testimony from judges and prosecutors that 210 would clog the system. So Senate State Affairs drafted a kinder, gentler, 210 -- reducing the mandatory minimum from 30 to ten days in the custody of the Department of Corrections (instead of specifically the state penitentiary), and allowing judges to depart from the mandatory ten-day sentence if they filed a written explanation. Apparently for balance, though, it set a $1000 bounty on the heads of misdemeanor drug offenders and an open-ended price on felony offenders, appropriating a million dollars for the snitch fund.
Having undergone group therapy, equipped with an attitude adjustment, 210 went to the Senate floor. The whole Senate debated SB210, amended it to make the ten days mandatory for a second offense, removed the $1000 bounty, and sent 210 Lite to the House State Affairs Committee with a disclaimer written under the title; "This bill has been extensively amended (hoghoused) and may no longer be consistent with the original intention of the sponsors."
About this time, some citizens of German extraction from Eureka came to Pierre serving kuchen, in expectation that the legislature would resurrect Eureka from ignominy by declaring kuchen the official State Dessert. Governor Janklow happened by the kuchen table in the capitol rotunda, and sampled. "This is wonderful!" he said. "Let's make Eureka South Dakota's first entirely drug-free town. When the legislature sets up my $1000 bounty, let's make sure the first snitch payment goes to a citizen of Eureka."
The Eurekans looked at each other, then at the floor, and shuffled their feet. The mayor of Eureka offered Janklow another helping of kuchen, having noticed the governor sometimes stopped speaking when his mouth was full.
In anticipation of 210's appearance in House State Affairs, the governor took the House Republicans to the woodshed, threatening dire consequences if they didn't restore the first-offense provision and the bounty. He threatened not to sign the bill in its Senate-amended form. He also threatened to take an active role in defeating Republican defectors in the next election.
The only proponents of 210 to testify were Governor Janklow and his chief-of-staff, Dave Knudson. Janklow said, "I don't have many moral principles, but I get a visceral anger when I think about people giving drugs to young girls and then USING these young girls. That's why we need this bill.
"Now, when I drive over the speed limit, which I do a lot, I take a calculated risk. I know it's gonna cost me $167 if I get caught. I don't mind that. But if I knew I'd go to jail for two days, I wouldn't speed. That's why we need this bill. Everybody knows they've got one free time getting caught with drugs. We've gotta change that."
Knudson said, "We're losing the war on drugs. That's why we need this bill." When asked the goal of the war on drugs, Knudson said, "To eliminate wrecking of lives due to drugs."
First to testify in opposition to 210, I pointed out that no prohibition law has ever worked, and, in fact, has always resulted in an effect exactly opposite the stated goals. Curt Mortenson, the eloquent Stanley County State's Attorney, said, "This bill is the biggest pile of crap I've ever seen." Mike Buenger, speaking for the Unified Judicial System, said, "Enactment of this bill will create a backlog of jury trials which will gridlock the courts."
Tom Barnett, brother of South Dakota Attorney-General Mark Barnett, and lobbyist for the South Dakota State Bar, opposed the bill. Barnett told me, "Alcohol accounts for the vast majority of prematurely-lost virginity in this state, not drugs."
Nick Braune, lobbyist for the South Dakota Peace and Justice Center, opposed the bill, too, as did state senator Frank Kloucek, who, in a moment of weirdness hardly noticed in the context, accused Governor Janklow of making an offensive phone call to Kloucek's daughter last year. Janklow denied the charge.
Janklow then figuratively sank to his knees, "Just give me the bill," he said. "What we're doing isn't working. Just give me the bill. Heck, it won't even go into effect until July 1. You people are all going to be back here in January. You can repeal it then, if you don't like it. Heck, you can even put a sunset on it. Just give me the bill. You can't let these monsters be giving 14-year-old girls drugs and then violating them." He blinked back a tear, staggering a little under the weight of his convictions as he rose.
Representative Dick Brown, member of the State Affairs committee, questioned the governor. "This bill gives judges the option to depart from the minimum sentence as long as they send a note to the clerk, right?" "Yes," said Janklow. "So it really doesn't change anything, right?" continued Brown. "That's right," replied Janklow.
"Look," Janklow said, "it just says we're gonna remand 'em to the custody of the Department of Corrections. They don't have to go to Sioux Falls. They might go to Redfield, or Springfield. They might just clean up the grounds at the State Fair.
"Heck, it won't even cost us much. They're not a threat to escape, so we won't need many more guards. We'll feed 'em a few meals, that's about it. Then we'll send 'em back home with a new, drug-avoiding, outlook."
So what had begun as a get-tough, take no prisoners..., uh..., no, a get-tough, take EVERYBODY prisoner, shock'em straight, no-nonsense thirty days in the Pen was now being touted as a "not really changing anything" bill. And the governor was begging for it.
House State Affairs, swayed by the governor's impeccable logic, and apparently invigorated with new knowledge of their moral righteousness, reinstated the $1000 bounty and the first-offense provision and sent the bill to the House floor.
On Day 37 of the 74th South Dakota Legislature, the House as a whole agreed with Rapid City Senator Mike Wilson that SB210 was ugly, regardless of Dave Knudson's articulate explication of the goal of the war on drugs, and tabled it 40-29, thus killing it. One might extrapolate that dinner in the governor's mansion the evening of March 4, 1999, was punctuated by the sound of plates breaking against the walls.
Oh, the kuchen bill failed also. South Dakota is still without a State Dessert, and Eureka still stands the same chance as it did two months ago of being South Dakota's first drug-free, but snitch-replete, community.
Author's note. I ran into Dick Brown a few months later. He was still picking Janklow's pubic hair out of his teeth.
There were several newspaper reporters in the committee room. None reported Janklow's statements. That's passive fellatio, I guess.
SoDak Dist. 30 has no representation
The following is not satire. Sadly.
I live in Legislative District 30 in South Dakota. National Forest, State Parks, National Parks, National Monuments, lots of ranchers and ex-Californians, and an apparently populous and politically active group of tree-ring deniers infected with snake-handler meanness.
That latter group is well-represented by District 30's state legislative cadre, Representatives Mike Verchio and Lance Russell and Senator Bruce Rampelberg. The rest of us are unrepresented, except, on occasion, by accident.
All of these legislators support the Second Amendment, which is okay by me. All of them are okay with denying Second Amendment rights to me, which is not okay by me. All of them say that women do not have the right to determine the course of events inside their own bodies (to the extent that is possible), which is not okay by me.
None of them would deny the right of a man to remove any group of cells within his body, even if it resulted in the man's death.
All would deny the obvious, that a government powerful enough to deny a woman the right to terminate a pregnancy is powerful enough to force her to terminate a pregnancy. In other words, they trip over their individual sovereignty arguments, which are at the base of Republican "philosophy."
All have also denied the obvious, that cannabis has therapeutic value.
My entire purpose in posting this is to state that democracy often fails, especially when lies are promoted as truth by governmental action.
I live in Legislative District 30 in South Dakota. National Forest, State Parks, National Parks, National Monuments, lots of ranchers and ex-Californians, and an apparently populous and politically active group of tree-ring deniers infected with snake-handler meanness.
That latter group is well-represented by District 30's state legislative cadre, Representatives Mike Verchio and Lance Russell and Senator Bruce Rampelberg. The rest of us are unrepresented, except, on occasion, by accident.
All of these legislators support the Second Amendment, which is okay by me. All of them are okay with denying Second Amendment rights to me, which is not okay by me. All of them say that women do not have the right to determine the course of events inside their own bodies (to the extent that is possible), which is not okay by me.
None of them would deny the right of a man to remove any group of cells within his body, even if it resulted in the man's death.
All would deny the obvious, that a government powerful enough to deny a woman the right to terminate a pregnancy is powerful enough to force her to terminate a pregnancy. In other words, they trip over their individual sovereignty arguments, which are at the base of Republican "philosophy."
All have also denied the obvious, that cannabis has therapeutic value.
My entire purpose in posting this is to state that democracy often fails, especially when lies are promoted as truth by governmental action.
Tuesday, February 18, 2014
Satan is very seductive.
Hermosa SD 2/19/2014 Battle Creek Press International:
Today So. Dak. Sen. Cecil Hardwhack (R-Deers Ears) introduced SB 2334, which would prevent state agencies from using tree rings to tell the age of trees.
Hardwhack said, "I used to think that you could tell the age of trees by counting the rings in a cross-section of the trunk, but I changed my mind when I heard Bill Nye-The Heathen Science Guy say that there were trees whose rings numbered to 8000. Well, that's simply impossible since everyone knows that God started the world 6250 years ago. So, I don't want my daughters and grand-daughters, some of whom are together in the first grade, being taught something that is Biblically impossible. I mean, Jesus, if they hear that, they might also hear that being homosexual is beyond their control. I don't want my daughters and grand-daughters being rug munchers and if they count tree rings they might be. Satan is very seductive."
SB 2334 mandates, if passed, that: "All So. Dak. employees must stop using tree rings as a measure of the age of trees. If necessary in the course of their jobs, state employees will calculate the age of trees by using the Jensen/Hickey formula, which states that the 'point of origin of any item can not, by definition, be more than 6250 years ago.'"
Asked, "Do you think this flies in the face of logic?", Hardwhack said, "I can't deal with your stupid questions about logic and remain true to my conviction that the Bible was written by God who had his hand on the pen of all those who wrote on the holy paper."
Asked, "Do you think there are people writing laws in South Dakota whose pens are being steered by God?", Hardwhack said, "I think it's fairly obvious whose pens are being steered by God and whose by Satan."
Rep. Louvely Bestworth (D-Isabella) said, "I believe in God and all that, but these, these details…, I get so confused."
Rep. Lance Russell, (R-Hot Springs) said, "I know what she means."
Today So. Dak. Sen. Cecil Hardwhack (R-Deers Ears) introduced SB 2334, which would prevent state agencies from using tree rings to tell the age of trees.
Hardwhack said, "I used to think that you could tell the age of trees by counting the rings in a cross-section of the trunk, but I changed my mind when I heard Bill Nye-The Heathen Science Guy say that there were trees whose rings numbered to 8000. Well, that's simply impossible since everyone knows that God started the world 6250 years ago. So, I don't want my daughters and grand-daughters, some of whom are together in the first grade, being taught something that is Biblically impossible. I mean, Jesus, if they hear that, they might also hear that being homosexual is beyond their control. I don't want my daughters and grand-daughters being rug munchers and if they count tree rings they might be. Satan is very seductive."
SB 2334 mandates, if passed, that: "All So. Dak. employees must stop using tree rings as a measure of the age of trees. If necessary in the course of their jobs, state employees will calculate the age of trees by using the Jensen/Hickey formula, which states that the 'point of origin of any item can not, by definition, be more than 6250 years ago.'"
Asked, "Do you think this flies in the face of logic?", Hardwhack said, "I can't deal with your stupid questions about logic and remain true to my conviction that the Bible was written by God who had his hand on the pen of all those who wrote on the holy paper."
Asked, "Do you think there are people writing laws in South Dakota whose pens are being steered by God?", Hardwhack said, "I think it's fairly obvious whose pens are being steered by God and whose by Satan."
Rep. Louvely Bestworth (D-Isabella) said, "I believe in God and all that, but these, these details…, I get so confused."
Rep. Lance Russell, (R-Hot Springs) said, "I know what she means."
Even God can't play both ends in South Dakota...
Hermosa SD 2/18/2014 Battle Creek Press International:
Today So. Dak. Rep. Louvely Bestworst (D-Isabella) introduced legislation that would require more transparency from God, at least in South Dakota.
HB 2121, if passed into law, requires God "to disclose His or Her reasons for any actions taken in South Dakota."
Rep. Bestworst said, "It's just not right for God to hide behind 'works in mysterious ways his wonders to perform.' We're elected by the people of this state to do everything from funding education to putting people in jail for trying to feel better. We have to have open debate on every little thing we do. Why should God be able to slap us with blizzards and floods without even so much as a 'How do you do?'"
Sen. Cecil Hardwhack (R-Deers Ears), who is pastor of a small church in rural Butte County, said, "If this bill passes, I don't want to be anywhere near this building. If HB 2121 passes, I will quit at that moment."
Bestworst said, "There's another reason to pass it."
Several Republican legislators and a couple of Democrats as well were seen heading for the Capitol basement carrying rattlesnakes.
Asked if her bill was satirical, Bestworst said, "I'm just sick of God telling some of us one thing and some of us the complete opposite. If God wants to lobby the legislature, let him pony up the 50 bucks for a lobbyist's badge."
Today So. Dak. Rep. Louvely Bestworst (D-Isabella) introduced legislation that would require more transparency from God, at least in South Dakota.
HB 2121, if passed into law, requires God "to disclose His or Her reasons for any actions taken in South Dakota."
Rep. Bestworst said, "It's just not right for God to hide behind 'works in mysterious ways his wonders to perform.' We're elected by the people of this state to do everything from funding education to putting people in jail for trying to feel better. We have to have open debate on every little thing we do. Why should God be able to slap us with blizzards and floods without even so much as a 'How do you do?'"
Sen. Cecil Hardwhack (R-Deers Ears), who is pastor of a small church in rural Butte County, said, "If this bill passes, I don't want to be anywhere near this building. If HB 2121 passes, I will quit at that moment."
Bestworst said, "There's another reason to pass it."
Several Republican legislators and a couple of Democrats as well were seen heading for the Capitol basement carrying rattlesnakes.
Asked if her bill was satirical, Bestworst said, "I'm just sick of God telling some of us one thing and some of us the complete opposite. If God wants to lobby the legislature, let him pony up the 50 bucks for a lobbyist's badge."
Monday, February 17, 2014
That Brian Gosch. He's a card, eh?
Hermosa SD 2/17/2014 Battle Creek Press International:
On St. Valentine's Day, House Concurrent Resolution 1017 was introduced by: Representatives May, Campbell, Gibson, Hawks, Hawley, Heinert, Hunhoff (Bernie), Killer, Nelson, Olson (Betty), Peterson, Schoenfish, Schrempp, Solum, and Tyler and Senators Frerichs, Bradford, and Lucas.
HCR 1017 asks the federal government to observe the obvious--that hemp is a viable, green, useful agricultural product. It came out of nowhere, except that the recently passed federal "Farm Bill" contains a provision that will allow farmers and gardeners in Colorado and Washington to grow hemp and attempt to sell it for purposes excluding ingestion, except for the seeds and seed oil, which are okay to eat.
15 years ago, a group calling itself the South Dakota Industrial Hemp Council asked So. Dak. Rep. Bob Weber, a Republican farmer to introduce legislation that would remove criminality for So. Dak. farmers who wanted to grow hemp. It had no practical value, since if anybody grew hemp, the feds would have taken their farm for "manufacture of a controlled substance." It was the opening shot in a guerrilla campaign that has lasted 15 years.
Several law enforcement agencies and the attorney-general's office testified that hemp fields would make So. Dak. mothers stop producing breast milk. Rep. Weber remarked that no one was too concerned about 200-proof alcohol being stored in swimming pool-sized tanks at ethanol plants without much security.
Since then, SoDakNORML.org and the So. Dak. Industrial Hemp Council (Hemphasis.net) have lobbied several legislative acts and petition drives to codify the obvious, the obvious being necessity of committing criminal acts in order to live a somewhat normal life.
The arguments of those who opposed us are summed up by the hapless Charlie McGuigan, butt-boy "legislative liaison" for whomever has been Attorney General of South Dakota for the last 20 years. McGuigan said, "There are over 400 carciginians in marijuana smoke." McGuigan may have gotten mixed up over the historical 300 Spartans (Carthage and Carthaginians were nearby) who defended the Pass at Thermopylae. Or it may be that McGuigan simply had no fucking idea of what the fuck he was taking about.
In any case, last Friday a piece of legislative meaninglessness came to the floor of the So. Dak. House, asking the federal government and law enforcement agencies to recogfuckingnize that hemp has value.
There are a few curious things about HCR 1017. First, House Speaker Brian Gosch waived the requirement for a committee hearing, where the resolution would have faced opponents and proponents other than members of the House. Second, it was proposed by a Republican, Elizabeth May, from Kyle. Third, it passed on a floor vote in the House by 61-6. Fourth, there was no news coverage, period.
During the floor discussion, Speaker Gosch recognized "Representatives 'Cheech and Chong'," which drew raucous laughter, apparently so funny to a couple of people that they were immobilized. Rep. Don Haggar asked the sponsor if hemp made good cover for game birds. Rep. May replied that it did. Rep.Haggar subsequently voted against the resolution, as did Speaker Gosch, along with Reps. Lance Russell, Brock Greenfield, Leslie Heinemann, Jenna Haggar and Ann Hajek.
State Senator Cecil Hardwhack (R-Deers Ears) said, "Hemp will provide cover for pheasants? Jesus! What the fuck was Haggar thinking?"
Rep. Louvely Bestworst (D-Isabella) said, "I didn't understand the joke about, who was it? Cheech and Chung? Why did everybody laugh? I don't think there are Representatives Cheech and Chung here."
You can listen to the floor discussion in the SoDak House at the following link. The discussion on HCR 1017 runs from about minute 7 to about minute 20.
http://sdpb.sd.gov/SDPBPodcast/2014/hou20.mp3http://sdpb.sd.gov/SDPBPodcast/2014/hou20.mp3
On St. Valentine's Day, House Concurrent Resolution 1017 was introduced by: Representatives May, Campbell, Gibson, Hawks, Hawley, Heinert, Hunhoff (Bernie), Killer, Nelson, Olson (Betty), Peterson, Schoenfish, Schrempp, Solum, and Tyler and Senators Frerichs, Bradford, and Lucas.
HCR 1017 asks the federal government to observe the obvious--that hemp is a viable, green, useful agricultural product. It came out of nowhere, except that the recently passed federal "Farm Bill" contains a provision that will allow farmers and gardeners in Colorado and Washington to grow hemp and attempt to sell it for purposes excluding ingestion, except for the seeds and seed oil, which are okay to eat.
15 years ago, a group calling itself the South Dakota Industrial Hemp Council asked So. Dak. Rep. Bob Weber, a Republican farmer to introduce legislation that would remove criminality for So. Dak. farmers who wanted to grow hemp. It had no practical value, since if anybody grew hemp, the feds would have taken their farm for "manufacture of a controlled substance." It was the opening shot in a guerrilla campaign that has lasted 15 years.
Several law enforcement agencies and the attorney-general's office testified that hemp fields would make So. Dak. mothers stop producing breast milk. Rep. Weber remarked that no one was too concerned about 200-proof alcohol being stored in swimming pool-sized tanks at ethanol plants without much security.
Since then, SoDakNORML.org and the So. Dak. Industrial Hemp Council (Hemphasis.net) have lobbied several legislative acts and petition drives to codify the obvious, the obvious being necessity of committing criminal acts in order to live a somewhat normal life.
The arguments of those who opposed us are summed up by the hapless Charlie McGuigan, butt-boy "legislative liaison" for whomever has been Attorney General of South Dakota for the last 20 years. McGuigan said, "There are over 400 carciginians in marijuana smoke." McGuigan may have gotten mixed up over the historical 300 Spartans (Carthage and Carthaginians were nearby) who defended the Pass at Thermopylae. Or it may be that McGuigan simply had no fucking idea of what the fuck he was taking about.
In any case, last Friday a piece of legislative meaninglessness came to the floor of the So. Dak. House, asking the federal government and law enforcement agencies to recogfuckingnize that hemp has value.
There are a few curious things about HCR 1017. First, House Speaker Brian Gosch waived the requirement for a committee hearing, where the resolution would have faced opponents and proponents other than members of the House. Second, it was proposed by a Republican, Elizabeth May, from Kyle. Third, it passed on a floor vote in the House by 61-6. Fourth, there was no news coverage, period.
During the floor discussion, Speaker Gosch recognized "Representatives 'Cheech and Chong'," which drew raucous laughter, apparently so funny to a couple of people that they were immobilized. Rep. Don Haggar asked the sponsor if hemp made good cover for game birds. Rep. May replied that it did. Rep.Haggar subsequently voted against the resolution, as did Speaker Gosch, along with Reps. Lance Russell, Brock Greenfield, Leslie Heinemann, Jenna Haggar and Ann Hajek.
State Senator Cecil Hardwhack (R-Deers Ears) said, "Hemp will provide cover for pheasants? Jesus! What the fuck was Haggar thinking?"
Rep. Louvely Bestworst (D-Isabella) said, "I didn't understand the joke about, who was it? Cheech and Chung? Why did everybody laugh? I don't think there are Representatives Cheech and Chung here."
You can listen to the floor discussion in the SoDak House at the following link. The discussion on HCR 1017 runs from about minute 7 to about minute 20.
http://sdpb.sd.gov/SDPBPodcast/2014/hou20.mp3http://sdpb.sd.gov/SDPBPodcast/2014/hou20.mp3
Monday, February 10, 2014
So. Dak. Legislature replies, "La, la, la, la"
Josh Luitjens carries a 4.0 at Southeast Tech in Sioux Falls. He also suffers from Colitis/Crohn's Disease, which manifests itself in the form of diarrhea, cramping, abdominal pain, loss of appetite, weight loss, and nausea.
"Conventional" medicine has results varying from pretty good control of symptoms to almost no effect. Josh's treatment has had little effect on what he describes as "this very annoying disease." His doctor is searching for new medicines. Meanwhile, Josh achieves effective relief by using cannabis.
He had medicated before bed on January 20, 2014, in his room at student housing. Someone smelled the smoke and the staff (which has the right to search his room any time) confronted him. He owned up and showed them his stash, amounting to a gram of cannabis. The cops came and arrested and charged him with misdemeanor possession of "marijuana" and possession of paraphernalia (if you have weed, you have paraphernalia; the container is "paraphernalia").
Southeast Tech could have kicked him out of the housing, but chose not to because of his explanation for his use. That argument will not be available to him in court. South Dakota (and federal) law says there is "no medical use" for cannabis. Regardless of the obvious legal defense of "prevention of a greater harm," that defense is not allowed in South Dakota courts even though the accused is simply defending his own life against the predations of a disease.
This is just one more example of the unspeakable cruelty of South Dakota law, promoted by nearly every South Dakota legislator in the face of irrefutable evidence that cannabis is, in many cases, life-saving and life-sustaining therapy.
Here is just one of thousands and thousands of medical abstracts that testify to the efficacy of cannabis in relief of various adverse medical conditions.
http://www.karger.com/Article/Pdf/356512
"Conventional" medicine has results varying from pretty good control of symptoms to almost no effect. Josh's treatment has had little effect on what he describes as "this very annoying disease." His doctor is searching for new medicines. Meanwhile, Josh achieves effective relief by using cannabis.
He had medicated before bed on January 20, 2014, in his room at student housing. Someone smelled the smoke and the staff (which has the right to search his room any time) confronted him. He owned up and showed them his stash, amounting to a gram of cannabis. The cops came and arrested and charged him with misdemeanor possession of "marijuana" and possession of paraphernalia (if you have weed, you have paraphernalia; the container is "paraphernalia").
Southeast Tech could have kicked him out of the housing, but chose not to because of his explanation for his use. That argument will not be available to him in court. South Dakota (and federal) law says there is "no medical use" for cannabis. Regardless of the obvious legal defense of "prevention of a greater harm," that defense is not allowed in South Dakota courts even though the accused is simply defending his own life against the predations of a disease.
This is just one more example of the unspeakable cruelty of South Dakota law, promoted by nearly every South Dakota legislator in the face of irrefutable evidence that cannabis is, in many cases, life-saving and life-sustaining therapy.
Here is just one of thousands and thousands of medical abstracts that testify to the efficacy of cannabis in relief of various adverse medical conditions.
http://www.karger.com/Article/Pdf/356512
Saturday, January 25, 2014
This isn't going to stop anytime soon, is it?
Today,
So. Dak. Representative Louvely Bestworst (D.--Isabella) introduced
legislation that would make it illegal "to withhold service from anyone
who has the money to pay you for your services, no matter what you may
think of their personal attributes."
Bestworst said, "This bill will put a stop to the inhuman, and worse, insensitive, practice of turning people down who want to cut a deal with you, just because you don't like them or how they look or how you imagine they think."
State Senator Cecil Hardwhack (R. -- Deers Ears) said, "Jesus Christ! If that passes then I'll have to put up a sign at my hardware store that says 'No fuckin' shirt, no fuckin' shoes, no fuckin' problem'"
Bestworst said, "This bill will put a stop to the inhuman, and worse, insensitive, practice of turning people down who want to cut a deal with you, just because you don't like them or how they look or how you imagine they think."
State Senator Cecil Hardwhack (R. -- Deers Ears) said, "Jesus Christ! If that passes then I'll have to put up a sign at my hardware store that says 'No fuckin' shirt, no fuckin' shoes, no fuckin' problem'"
Tuesday, January 7, 2014
Why I bother...
Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, Michelle Bachman, Glenn Beck, Billy Graham, Jerry Falwell, Paul Ryan, Jimmy Bakker (can you look at him and believe it!), Richard Nixon, John Ehrlichman, John Thune, Phil Robertson (I can't believe that one!), ....
These and thousands more are the reasons I bother to express my opinion about the existence of "God." I am forced by countless assaults on my freedom to live my life the way I want to, free of legal constraints designed to assure my moral purity, my ticket to heaven.
I am required to endure a prayer prior to the inception of the business of virtually every public meeting I attend. These meetings are held to decide who gets to do what to whom, with public funds collected and expended for the winners.
Since I don't care whether or not you "believe" in "God," I only occasionally chime in on a Facebook thread that proposes some nonsensical argument to support the poster's rejection of evolution. But the steady incursion of selective Biblical philosophy into the decisions of who gets to do what to whom with tax money is worth fighting.
Abortion: A woman has the right to decide whether she wants to allow a growth to exist in her body. Period. If there's a soul involved, God has the option of placing it elsewhere. In any case, I haven't heard a religious argument that says an aborted soul goes to Hell.
Enforced prayer before public meetings: What purpose does it serve except to help identify troublemakers (synonymous with Godless voters)?
Use of non-governmentally-approved methods to feel better: This is an argument that would not exist were it not for the prominent "theologians'" and political "spiritual advisors'" endorsement of an absurd set of public policies that result in the imprisonment of millions of people no sane person can call a criminal, while funnelling trillions of dollars to the most vicious people on earth (tobacco companies, pharmaceutical companies and their illegal counterparts).
The apparent recent endorsement of Everything Phil Robertson Says by an apparently sizeable portion of the electorate, including a Facebook comparison of the bearded duck-calling Robertsons to the bearded "fisher men" of Biblical lore makes my efforts to counter it necessary, if I do say so myself.
These and thousands more are the reasons I bother to express my opinion about the existence of "God." I am forced by countless assaults on my freedom to live my life the way I want to, free of legal constraints designed to assure my moral purity, my ticket to heaven.
I am required to endure a prayer prior to the inception of the business of virtually every public meeting I attend. These meetings are held to decide who gets to do what to whom, with public funds collected and expended for the winners.
Since I don't care whether or not you "believe" in "God," I only occasionally chime in on a Facebook thread that proposes some nonsensical argument to support the poster's rejection of evolution. But the steady incursion of selective Biblical philosophy into the decisions of who gets to do what to whom with tax money is worth fighting.
Abortion: A woman has the right to decide whether she wants to allow a growth to exist in her body. Period. If there's a soul involved, God has the option of placing it elsewhere. In any case, I haven't heard a religious argument that says an aborted soul goes to Hell.
Enforced prayer before public meetings: What purpose does it serve except to help identify troublemakers (synonymous with Godless voters)?
Use of non-governmentally-approved methods to feel better: This is an argument that would not exist were it not for the prominent "theologians'" and political "spiritual advisors'" endorsement of an absurd set of public policies that result in the imprisonment of millions of people no sane person can call a criminal, while funnelling trillions of dollars to the most vicious people on earth (tobacco companies, pharmaceutical companies and their illegal counterparts).
The apparent recent endorsement of Everything Phil Robertson Says by an apparently sizeable portion of the electorate, including a Facebook comparison of the bearded duck-calling Robertsons to the bearded "fisher men" of Biblical lore makes my efforts to counter it necessary, if I do say so myself.
Thursday, January 2, 2014
Why does anyone else care if I believe...
At all times and in every area of our lives we are subject to immense pressure from religion. I'm not opposed to most of that. I am opposed to the disproportionate influence exercised by power mad zealots using some quirky religious belief or another to justify inhuman behavior toward someone else.
While Christopher Hitchens was not a factor in my arriving at pretty close to conclusive lack of belief in a "God, maker of the universe and personally concerned with my welfare," or in any Supreme Design, I do enjoy reading Hitchens' arguments for a similar point of view.
Hitchens said: "Many religions now come before us with ingratiating smirks and outspread hands, like an unctuous merchant in a bazaar. They offer consolation and solidarity and uplift, competing as they do in a marketplace. But we have a right to remember how barbarically they behaved when they were strong and were making an offer that people could not refuse."
Here's the problem. It probably makes little difference to God whether or not I believe in God. Whether or not I exist in a Supreme Design is, by definition, irrelevant to the success or failure of the Design. But people who believe in some combination of "God" and the "Supreme Design" naturally seek out others to convert them or to share their faith. These groups too often then seek, and way too often attain, the power to control an aspect of the lives of others over which they properly should have no control. Throughout history, zealots have used religion to inspire their disciples to put hot irons in the eyes of people whose religion didn't supply them with enough firepower to win whichever war was being fought.
The ritual and social life of the Mormon, Russian Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and various European Protestant factions that I have observed with varying degrees of familiarity provide models of desirable lifestyles, although the level of undesirability that often lurks below the social waterline probably is no lower among believers than among non-believers. I believe I can exist peacefully with people who practice these religions, or any other religion, without trying to force me to practice their religion. Wait, if I knew that somebody down the street was going to excise his three-year-old daughter's clitoris and labia majora and minora, I would do what I could to put a stop to it. That's a little too gruesome for me to accept even in someone else's religion.
A disproportionate influence of exactly the sort I despise is being exercised in Rapid City Council meetings, where a local person of the cloth opens meetings with prayers. There can only be one logical reason for this practice to be imposed on all of us; the Believers want to identify the NonBelievers. Since they can't (as of today, anyway) tie people's hands behind them and hoist them by their wrists until they profess faith, they're left with observing the crowd of citizens, come looking for redress of grievances or some such, to see who's showing less than appropriate reverence.
If the Council People want to pray to God, why, in God's name, do they need to make us part of it? It's people like that who give God a bad name.
While Christopher Hitchens was not a factor in my arriving at pretty close to conclusive lack of belief in a "God, maker of the universe and personally concerned with my welfare," or in any Supreme Design, I do enjoy reading Hitchens' arguments for a similar point of view.
Hitchens said: "Many religions now come before us with ingratiating smirks and outspread hands, like an unctuous merchant in a bazaar. They offer consolation and solidarity and uplift, competing as they do in a marketplace. But we have a right to remember how barbarically they behaved when they were strong and were making an offer that people could not refuse."
Here's the problem. It probably makes little difference to God whether or not I believe in God. Whether or not I exist in a Supreme Design is, by definition, irrelevant to the success or failure of the Design. But people who believe in some combination of "God" and the "Supreme Design" naturally seek out others to convert them or to share their faith. These groups too often then seek, and way too often attain, the power to control an aspect of the lives of others over which they properly should have no control. Throughout history, zealots have used religion to inspire their disciples to put hot irons in the eyes of people whose religion didn't supply them with enough firepower to win whichever war was being fought.
The ritual and social life of the Mormon, Russian Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and various European Protestant factions that I have observed with varying degrees of familiarity provide models of desirable lifestyles, although the level of undesirability that often lurks below the social waterline probably is no lower among believers than among non-believers. I believe I can exist peacefully with people who practice these religions, or any other religion, without trying to force me to practice their religion. Wait, if I knew that somebody down the street was going to excise his three-year-old daughter's clitoris and labia majora and minora, I would do what I could to put a stop to it. That's a little too gruesome for me to accept even in someone else's religion.
A disproportionate influence of exactly the sort I despise is being exercised in Rapid City Council meetings, where a local person of the cloth opens meetings with prayers. There can only be one logical reason for this practice to be imposed on all of us; the Believers want to identify the NonBelievers. Since they can't (as of today, anyway) tie people's hands behind them and hoist them by their wrists until they profess faith, they're left with observing the crowd of citizens, come looking for redress of grievances or some such, to see who's showing less than appropriate reverence.
If the Council People want to pray to God, why, in God's name, do they need to make us part of it? It's people like that who give God a bad name.
Monday, November 18, 2013
This is the end
I was in the area when I heard on the radio that the Janklow paintings had been unveiled at the Capitol. I drove to the intersection of Moody Co. roads 13 & 14, and shot these photos. I think any one is a better portrait of the late political animal than are either of the paintings now hanging in the Capitol.
(above) Southerly view at the intersection. Randy Scott was approaching on the road from the left. This was Janklow's last second in politics, his last view before he ran the stopsign just out of the picture to the right (you can see the back of the stopsign across the intersection). Less than a second later, Bill Janklow's political future was as bleak as the road to the horizon, but without as much promise.
Monuments at the site.
(above) Southerly view at the intersection. Randy Scott was approaching on the road from the left. This was Janklow's last second in politics, his last view before he ran the stopsign just out of the picture to the right (you can see the back of the stopsign across the intersection). Less than a second later, Bill Janklow's political future was as bleak as the road to the horizon, but without as much promise.
Monuments at the site. Sunday, November 3, 2013
Wednesday, September 25, 2013
Nice story on my granddaughter
RC Journal today.
There aren’t many sporting events in which an entire family can participate — often competing in the very same events.
Rodeo families can. Brooke Howell is a happy member of just such a rodeo family.
The Belle Fourche High School all-around athlete is coming off a summer rodeo season in which she spent lots of weekend time on the road riding and roping with parents, Guy and Shanna Howell, and sisters Bridget, 18; Shayla, 14; and Shyanne, 10.
“In the springtime it’s high school rodeo, and then come summer it’s a lot of jackpots and some youth rodeos we’ve gone to since we were little,” said Howell, a junior who, in addition to a very active rodeo schedule, also competes in basketball and track.
“And then this summer I competed in my first Northwest Rodeo Cowboys Association (NRCA) rodeo in July," she said. "And since then we’ve gone to rodeos just about every weekend.”
And very successful weekends at that as the 16-year-old Howell currently sits atop the ladies rookie standings. That's no small feat as the NRCA circuit features many of the top college and high school rodeo performers from South and North Dakota, Nebraska, Wyoming and Montana.
“We had a little pony I first learned to ride on," Howell said. "I was put on a horse so young I can’t even remember, and then at two or three, I began to ride by myself in a round corral.
“I learned to rope when I was about eight. My dad is my number one coach and he and mom are the people I look up to in rodeo since they are both accomplished rodeo athletes," she said.
The summer successes topped off a year of notable accomplishments as Howell began the summer in winning style sharing a South Dakota High School Rodeo team championship with her Belle Fourche High School teammates — placing fourth in breakaway roping and fifth in pole bending — and earning her second trip to the National High School Finals Rodeo in Rock Springs, Wyo., in July where she placed 46th in breakaway roping.
“We knew pretty sure we were up there when the winners were being announced, but when we heard we had won we were pretty stoked,” Howell said. “And to be able to share an experience like that as a team was really special.”
Not surprisingly, Howell comes from a distinguished rodeo family. her father, Guy, is a former PRCA Badlands and Mountain States Circuit team roping champion. Her mother, Shanna, is a two-time South Dakota high school goat tying champion (1984, 1986) while at Belle Fourche and was on the University of Wyoming 1990 national championship team.
Nor is Brooke the only athletic standout in the Brooke household. Bridget, a Belle Fourche senior, is also an accomplished rodeo athlete. She won the pole bending event at Nisland County Fair rodeo in August while Brooke was copping top honors in barrels and goat tying.
Shayla qualified for the South Dakota State Track finals in sprints as a seventh-grader, and 10-year-old Shyanne is most likely simply waiting in the wings.
“Rodeo is a way of life for us and something we all to look forward to,” Shanna Howell said from the family ranch near Colony, Wyo., where, in addition to ranching, the family runs an outfitting operation and Guy conducts roping schools.
“We’ve learned to kind of blend our vacation time, our travel time, and our hobby time together and we know it’s not always a sure thing and won’t last forever," she said, "And so, when it comes to rodeo, we’ve been very blessed.”
The family also raises and trains horses. Guy Howell singled out Brooke’s special knack for developing a special horse/rider relationship as a key to her rodeo success.
“She is able to get performances out of a horse that maybe somebody else couldn’t get out of them,” Howell said. “That, and the determination it takes to be willing to spend time and get to know and have a feel for the animal as well and from that, knowing when you can push them and get more work out of them and when you can’t, and to some extent those are God-given talents.”
Being busy in the rodeo arena is nothing new to Brooke Howell, who competes in barrel racing, breakaway roping, pole bending and goat tying and wouldn’t mind finding a good cutting horse as well.
“It makes for a busy day, but it’s fun, too. I really like all the roping events," she said. "Those are a lot of fun, but I have really good barrel and pole horses, so that makes them fun, too. I guess it comes down to me liking whatever event I’m competing in at the time."
There aren’t many sporting events in which an entire family can participate — often competing in the very same events.
Rodeo families can. Brooke Howell is a happy member of just such a rodeo family.
The Belle Fourche High School all-around athlete is coming off a summer rodeo season in which she spent lots of weekend time on the road riding and roping with parents, Guy and Shanna Howell, and sisters Bridget, 18; Shayla, 14; and Shyanne, 10.
“In the springtime it’s high school rodeo, and then come summer it’s a lot of jackpots and some youth rodeos we’ve gone to since we were little,” said Howell, a junior who, in addition to a very active rodeo schedule, also competes in basketball and track.
“And then this summer I competed in my first Northwest Rodeo Cowboys Association (NRCA) rodeo in July," she said. "And since then we’ve gone to rodeos just about every weekend.”
And very successful weekends at that as the 16-year-old Howell currently sits atop the ladies rookie standings. That's no small feat as the NRCA circuit features many of the top college and high school rodeo performers from South and North Dakota, Nebraska, Wyoming and Montana.
“We had a little pony I first learned to ride on," Howell said. "I was put on a horse so young I can’t even remember, and then at two or three, I began to ride by myself in a round corral.
“I learned to rope when I was about eight. My dad is my number one coach and he and mom are the people I look up to in rodeo since they are both accomplished rodeo athletes," she said.
The summer successes topped off a year of notable accomplishments as Howell began the summer in winning style sharing a South Dakota High School Rodeo team championship with her Belle Fourche High School teammates — placing fourth in breakaway roping and fifth in pole bending — and earning her second trip to the National High School Finals Rodeo in Rock Springs, Wyo., in July where she placed 46th in breakaway roping.
“We knew pretty sure we were up there when the winners were being announced, but when we heard we had won we were pretty stoked,” Howell said. “And to be able to share an experience like that as a team was really special.”
Not surprisingly, Howell comes from a distinguished rodeo family. her father, Guy, is a former PRCA Badlands and Mountain States Circuit team roping champion. Her mother, Shanna, is a two-time South Dakota high school goat tying champion (1984, 1986) while at Belle Fourche and was on the University of Wyoming 1990 national championship team.
Nor is Brooke the only athletic standout in the Brooke household. Bridget, a Belle Fourche senior, is also an accomplished rodeo athlete. She won the pole bending event at Nisland County Fair rodeo in August while Brooke was copping top honors in barrels and goat tying.
Shayla qualified for the South Dakota State Track finals in sprints as a seventh-grader, and 10-year-old Shyanne is most likely simply waiting in the wings.
“Rodeo is a way of life for us and something we all to look forward to,” Shanna Howell said from the family ranch near Colony, Wyo., where, in addition to ranching, the family runs an outfitting operation and Guy conducts roping schools.
“We’ve learned to kind of blend our vacation time, our travel time, and our hobby time together and we know it’s not always a sure thing and won’t last forever," she said, "And so, when it comes to rodeo, we’ve been very blessed.”
The family also raises and trains horses. Guy Howell singled out Brooke’s special knack for developing a special horse/rider relationship as a key to her rodeo success.
“She is able to get performances out of a horse that maybe somebody else couldn’t get out of them,” Howell said. “That, and the determination it takes to be willing to spend time and get to know and have a feel for the animal as well and from that, knowing when you can push them and get more work out of them and when you can’t, and to some extent those are God-given talents.”
Being busy in the rodeo arena is nothing new to Brooke Howell, who competes in barrel racing, breakaway roping, pole bending and goat tying and wouldn’t mind finding a good cutting horse as well.
“It makes for a busy day, but it’s fun, too. I really like all the roping events," she said. "Those are a lot of fun, but I have really good barrel and pole horses, so that makes them fun, too. I guess it comes down to me liking whatever event I’m competing in at the time."
Monday, September 9, 2013
Everything is connected to everything else.
Today I shopped (evaluated the customer experience at) a convenience store. I need a receipt for a purchase in order to get paid. I neglected to get one for the grapefruit juice I bought. I asked for a receipt about 10 minutes after my purchase, letting the cashier know that all I needed was any cash receipt within the last few minutes. I was given the one in the picture.
Since I only buy grapefruit or orange juice at these evaluations, I am morally positioned to ask: Do you think there is a connection?
Since I only buy grapefruit or orange juice at these evaluations, I am morally positioned to ask: Do you think there is a connection?
Thursday, September 5, 2013
Charge folks with crimes, then wring them like dirty dishrags.
From today's Rapid City Journal:
PIERRE | Nearly three-quarters of South Dakota's parolees earned time off their sentences in the first month of a new program that's part of an overhaul of the state's criminal justice system.Since about 65% of those on parole should never have been charged with a crime to begin with, this doesn't seem like much progress in "reform" of the criminal justice system.
Laurie Feiler of the state Corrections Department says 1,975 of the state's 2,794 parolees earned time off their sentences in July. Parolees essentially can shorten their sentences by a month for every month they behave themselves.
A state panel met Thursday to discuss progress in implementing a new law that seeks to cut prison costs by treating more nonviolent offenders through intensive probation, parole and other programs outside prison walls. Many of the programs have not yet started.
The court system is working on rules for handling probation and other programs. It will start some new drug and alcohol courts.
Tuesday, September 3, 2013
Oh, fer cryin' out loud...
From the Argus Leader:
This ordinance will fall if Gustafson pursues the issue. The principles upon which the ordinances are based are, uh, shall we say not founded in Republican dogma. That is to say it has become part of life to cloak one's business in a flag. Gustafson simply wants his part of the action. He built a business, he owns the property, he feels (with justification) that he can project the image he wants to project. If he gets compensated by having folks patronize his joint, he has been blessed by the Lord, and deservedly.
DEADWOOD — A business owner in Deadwood is upset about a city rule that classifies American flags as signs and requires special permission for flags larger than 24 square feet.
Hotel and casino owner Mike Gustafson applied in July for a permit to hang a 375-square-foot flag on his building in the western South Dakota city during the annual motorcycle rally in nearby Sturgis.
The City Commission approved the request but required that the large flag be removed after the conclusion of the weeklong rally, the Black Hills Pioneer reported (http://bit.ly/1foCSQC ).
“The sign ordinance defines signage and what signs are,” said Deadwood Building Inspector Keith Umenthum. “Flags are considered signs, but there are exceptions for signs that don’t require a permit.”
However, Gustafson, who wanted to display the 15-by-25-foot flag for 90 days, needed a permit to hang the flag for a longer period, and city officials denied that request. Planning and zoning commission members cited a part of the ordinance that says American flags shouldn’t be used “to call attention to, decorate, mark or distinguish the building on which it is placed.” Another part of the sign ordinance also limits flags to 150 square feet.
“At 375 square feet, this is by far, the largest sign in Deadwood,” a city report said.
Gustafson said he thinks the city’s ordinance is “outdated and unpatriotic” and should be changed.
“It is a desecration of the flag of the United States of America to be classified as a ‘sign’ by the Deadwood ordinance because it is larger than 4 feet by 6 feet, especially when Deadwood is considered an ‘All American City,’” he said.
“We had nothing but praise and positive comments from visitors and Deadwood residents during the few days it was on display,” Gustafson said of his large flag.
This ordinance will fall if Gustafson pursues the issue. The principles upon which the ordinances are based are, uh, shall we say not founded in Republican dogma. That is to say it has become part of life to cloak one's business in a flag. Gustafson simply wants his part of the action. He built a business, he owns the property, he feels (with justification) that he can project the image he wants to project. If he gets compensated by having folks patronize his joint, he has been blessed by the Lord, and deservedly.
Monday, September 2, 2013
Marihuma
This is the cover and the first inside page of the April 5, 1905 edition of "Punch, or the London Charivari." Wikipedia says:
Punch, or the London Charivari was a British weekly magazine of humour and satire established in 1841 by Henry Mayhew and engraver Ebenezer Landells. Historically, it was most influential in the 1840s and 50s, when it helped to coin the term "cartoon" in its modern sense as a humorous illustration. It became a British institution, but after the 1940s, when its circulation peaked, it went into a long decline, finally closing in 1992. It was revived in 1996, but closed again in 2002.
"Charivari" is defined as (1) "a
cacophonous mock serenade, typically performed by a group of people in
derision of an unpopular person or in celebration of a marriage," or (2) "a series of discordant noises." (mid 17th cent.: from French, of unknown origin)
The
poem, "Marihuma," on the page pictured below (click it to see a larger
version) marks the first time the word "Marijuana" (or a close
approximation thereof) appeared in an English language publication.
I am struck by the allusions to benefits to mood and health and by skepticism for the supposed ill effects. These are still the things we argue about, and the benefits have been shown and the supposed ill effects have been exposed to be vastly overblown.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)