How about some actual South Dakota politics?
Business leaders call for higher teacher pay in South Dakota. In my experience with teacher education students, many of them look outside the state for jobs because they know they can make more money elsewhere. That's an indication you aren't paying enough. If you want an educational system that is "good enough," by all means do nothing. If you want a truly good educational system, you gotta pay for it.
That money won't be coming out of the tobacco tax we passed last November, or so it seems right now. I say we ask that Sanford guy for some money.
Law makers rejected the effort to reduce the minimum hunting age to 10.
"It's to allow kids to hunt with their friends," said Rep. Mike Buckingham, R-Rapid City, sponsor of the failed bill.
Opponents said the legislation would allow 10-year-olds to hunt without first taking gun safety courses that now are required before 12-year-olds can hunt.
Buckingham said the current course is too advanced for younger children, and gun-safety instructors do not want to make it easier because it may not be as effective.
The proposal would let younger children hunt with adults and get guidance and experience in the field before taking the course, he said.
Opponents were unconvinced.
"You've got to be kidding me. We don't want to dumb the safety course down but we're going to pass a law to put high-powered rifles in their hands? It doesn't make sense to me," said Rep. Larry Rhoden, R-Union Center.
I'm with Rhoden. How can a 10 year-old be advanced enough to hunt, but not advanced enough to pass a hunter safety course? Tough to wrap your mind around that concept.
Ahh, abortion legislation. Like Punxsutawney Phil and freezing our butts off, it is an annual February event. The attempt to send it directly to the people seems a bit silly, although I understand the motivation. Why don't we let the legislature act like a legislature and pass the bills it thinks appropriate? Then we can let the voters act like voters, and if they would like to reconsider the law (assuming it passes) in the form of a referendum, well, we can to that, too. I got a kick out of this quote:
"Banning abortions doesn't stop them," said Dr. Marvin Buehner of Rapid City. "Banning abortions only makes them unsafe and illegal."
Well, passing a law against a thing does often make it illegal. And which other humans does Dr. Buehner want to make it safe to kill? What is the safe and humane way to take innocent life? This is not to enter into a debate over "when human life begins." But Dr. Buehner's objections aren't his real objections. There is a preconceived notion that there is nothing wrong with abortion. If abortion is taking a human life, then we don't want to make it "safe" to get one and we don't want it to be legal. If abortion is not taking a human life or if taking an unborn human life is a matter of moral indifference, then Dr. Buehner's objections make sense. Dr. Buehner's position is a respectable one, but let's call it what it is. It is an argument not about the safety or legality of abortion, it is an argument that abortion is a matter of moral indifference about which the public should be silent.
Update: Another possible interpretation of Dr. Buehner's remarks occurs to me. Maybe he thinks abortion is a matter of some moral weight, but the value of protecting the unborn is trumped by the woman's right to "control her own body." But again, that carries presumptions. Either the unborn is not human (thus of minor moral significance), or, being human, its right to life is not as important as the woman's right to "control her own body." But my larger point remains: Dr. Buehner's argument against the abortion bill carries with it some very controversial and, it appears, unexamined preconceptions.
Recent Comments