The Way We Perceive Things

Where in the world is South Dakota? While still quite young, it was a surprise for me to learn that what is considered the Middle West is east of where I lived in South Dakota. However, when considering the area covered by the High Country News magazine, our state is not part of the west. Even though South is part of our state’s name, we are northerners.

Look at that name Middle West and consider that the even though there is a place like that in our country, there is no corresponding complimentary Middle East within our borders. How did these apparent misnomers get by all the political correctness my neighbors like to make fun of. Perhaps, they aren’t socialist concepts?

Socialism seems to be a new buzz word with about the same relationship to reality as some of the place names in our country. I know where Dallas South Dakota is, but when you hear people talking about the Dallas Cowboys, rarely is the boot and hat variety of our locale the topic of the conversation.

Likewise, socialism had a definite definition when I took classes that touched on political science. What I hear as defining socialism today blurs the lines of reality and could be used to describe situations that many of the users of the term would not want included in their disdainful labeling fiesta. Like using taxpayers’ dollars to provide health care for the general public is socialistic. Using taxpayers’ dollars to provide health care for veterans, elderly people, and elected officials is an accepted element of our idea of capitalism. Using taxpayer dollars to feed hungry people is socialist welfare. Using tax payer dollars supplement the relocation of independently healthy and profitable businesses is capitalism. Providing free access to publicly owned highway and road systems, free access to public owned schools, and free access to many other publicly provided services is capitalism and certainly is not wealth transference. However, providing housing assistance to people in need is socialistic redistribution of wealth. Are you confused?

How did these concepts get so turned around? Is there a difference between a business perk and welfare? Don’t get into argument that one is earned and the other is not because upon close scrutiny it can get very hard to identify which is which. Is a gift really a gift if there are conditions associated with reception eligibility? Most of us have heard of perks that come with the job but aren’t tied to the ability to do the job or to doing the job well. If that isn’t the case, what is all the fuss about bonuses for executives that are considered responsible only when the company shows a profit and not when there is a loss?

Why is it that Republican spending is capitalism and Democratic spending is socialism? Ronald Reagan’s administration ran up the first trillion dollar national debt, George W. Bush funded the first major war without a tax increase, and during the G. W. Bush administration a Republican controlled congress went on a spending spree that dwarfed all previous congressional spending sprees. No one accuses them of being borrow-and-spend Republicans. The cost of the Iraq war wasn’t even included in the normal federal budget; instead it was more on the order of an addendum called a supplement. Where were the current Tea Party protestors then and why don’t the protestors now identify these glaring omissions in their public presentations? Well, the answer to that is not really a surprise to anyone; that would be admitting to some holes in hull of their boat as well as the holes in their opposition’s vessel.

What’s that you say? This opinion piece includes some of those inflammatory words? Nanner nanner nann nerr, big fat water rat . . . That proves my point, we’re both able to tell the difference in how to describe things so that they sting and so are most children when they use name calling. Many times we use these words as devices to get the reader or listener’s attention. Unfortunately, instead of adding a little spice, we end up dropping a dump truck load of salt on an open wound. Then it becomes questionable as to just what the intention was or is for the use of this type of language. There are lots of people that use the strategy of divide and conquer. Why we do what we do depends a lot on the relationships involved.

Many of my conservative neighbors in this state have their personal finances under control. They don’t borrow unnecessarily and they don’t spend that way either. However, they wouldn’t let their children go under financially without trying to help them, even when their children may not necessarily be all that deserving of that help. They do it with the hope that in the end the children will see their own mistakes and avoid them in the future. Why is it so difficult to transfer or apply that same idea and reasoning to the family of man? Many of these neighbors that I refer to, have applied that theory through religious organizations they belong to and/or support. The hang-up is in the terminology and labels that we have learned to apply to public programs. Some how the corporations and certain other groups have convinced us that the perks they receive from our government are something other than the so called nefarious welfare giveaways. You wouldn’t be so confused about that at home, even if your children were to incorporate.

There is enough faulty public and private perception and management to satisfy even the sloppiest and unskilled examples of researchers. Unfortunately, most research is left up to political leaders and news outlets that are more concerned with profits and furthering the political ideals and agendas of their owners than in conducting real investigative journalism. Many people are more inclined to look and listen for what they want to hear rather than to skeptically question what they read or hear. Fortunately, there have always been good journalists that do their jobs and provide the information the public needs to separate the spin from the truth. The trouble is that the other kinds of journalists are many times easier to pay attention to since they are serving the food we like to eat.

Now that skepticism is no longer unpatriotic, we need to do what the Tea Baggers claimed to be doing. We need to question the actions of our elected officials. We should question our foreign policy, question our fiscal policy, question our monetary policy, and generally question all of our government policies; forming our questions with the intent of identifying what is good for the country and not what is good for our favorite political party. Political theory and idealism is good for elections and bad for legislation. Do a little checking and you can find lots of examples of good legislation when the political idealism was checked at the door of the debate hall.

Start by checking your own vocabulary and eliminating inflammatory labels and accusations. One-upmanship is an elementary school device that we should be able to do away with. The conservative and liberal talk show hosts have become trainers for the rest of us in how not to get along. We need to find better examples and better teachers. They exist and some of them helped to write our Constitution. Emulate the speakers that don’t insight riot, let the cooler heads prevail and become a majority. There will be plenty of opportunities to sling mud in the elections, but let us keep our hands clean when we are about the country’s business.

I have a brother-in-law that I think very highly of and he ascribes to a political viewpoint quite different from my own. For a while we had to give up talking about politics because we couldn’t do it without becoming emotionally aggravated. Lately, we have been talking about political issues; not because we have changed the way we think, but because we have changed the way we describe what we think. Now it appears as though we agree on far more issues than before, probably because we always did.

References:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan
ftp://ftp.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdm121980.pdf
ftp://ftp.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdm121989.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms
http://www.nationalpriorities.org/cost_of_war_counter_notes
http://momocrats.typepad.com/momocrats/2008/10/tax-and-borrow.html

Letter to the Editor, Published in Rapid City Journal 4-19-09

Thank you for your comments referring to my letter Mr. Johnson. However, what makes you think that I’m defending Democrats? Here is a fact, based on my experience: Visiting numerous Tea Party websites and perusing their lists of slogans, signs, and talking points (when they included those things) did not turn up anti-Bush, anti-Paulson, anti-TARP, or anti-stealing money from our grandchildren to pay for the war in Iraq references. Is it possible that Nancy Pelosi, President Obama, and Timothy Geithner are only part-time Democrats? There were lots of examples on those websites that did not specifically name one party or one administration responsible for maximizing levels of taxation and spending. They almost made me want to join in.

As you pointed out, we agree that people should protest. Are you are unable or unwilling to see how people with an agenda that is slanted against one party also used this event to further that agenda? Perhaps you’ll be on the front lines of some unbiased Labor Day celebration in the future just to spite me.

As for my letter being presented as something other than my opinion, how did it differ in that respect from your letter?

Senator Rhoden responds to my Feb. 9, 2009 letter

Today, Senator Rhoden sent me an e-mail message asking me to speak with him on the phone regarding the questions I asked him in the letter I sent to him and published on this blog earlier. The Senator was very open and forthcoming about his reasons for voting the way he did with regard to pipeline legislation, SB171 and SB190. His main concern when SB171 was being reviewed in the Senate State Affairs Committee hearing was with the constitutionality of the bill. Upon pressing lobbyists for more information about their claim that at least one other state imposes a similar fee, Sen. Rhoden discovered that the circumstances in that state were quite different from the situation in South Dakota. The other state pipelines were intrastate systems and the pipelines in question crossing South Dakota will be inter-state transmission systems. Federal laws regarding inter-state commerce applied to the South Dakota systems that did not apply to the state lines used for comparison by the proponent lobbyists for the legislation.

My letter discounts his likely concern with the unconstitutionality of this issue compared to his apparent lack of concern for the constitutionality of other legislation. Sen. Rhoden explained that in the other case, testing the constitutionality of the legislation was the intention because of the potential for a positive outcome in the Senator's opinion. In the case of the pipeline legislation, the test stood little or no chance of resulting in a positive outcome and would therefore be nothing more than a large waste of money.

Sen. Rhoden is convinced that adequate funding is currently available to cover the costs of potential pipeline spill cleanup from two existing sources. He referenced the average estimated cost of spill cleanup based on documented historical experience numbers for pipelines in the United States.

Senator Rhoden also apologized for not getting back to me sooner. The timing of his response was not as important as the fact that he did respond and took time out to answer my questions personally, just as I had requested. The same cannot be said of all of my local district's elected officials and I thank Senator Rhoden for his time and his consideration.

Tea Party protest in Rapid City

Tuesday, April 14, 2009; Jerry Steinley’s article Spending brings out the tea protest was published in the Rapid City Journal:
http//www.rapidcityjournal.com/articles/2009/04/14/news/opinions/jerry_steinley/doc49de39520221d774387146.txt .

Since then numerous online comments have been posted on the Rapid City Journal’s website and several rebuttal letters have also been published in the print version of the Rapid City Journal. I wrote the following article before reading the online posts and I can see that a number of the people writing in support of the Tea Party should not be included in my one party slant perception of participants. In defense of what I wrote below, my opinion came from the print newspaper rebuttals and from visiting a website that listed the issues of the protest. That list was decidedly one sided and party biased. For better or worse, my letter to the editor appears below:

The accusations and pronouncements of the Tea Party group would be much more believable if their charges of malfeasance included members of more than one political party and more than one presidential administration. Mr. Steinley’s recent editorial very clearly identified the upcoming demonstration for what it is, divisive party exploitation of public anger rather than rational nonpartisan voter indignation.

Mr. Steinley’s editorial also implied that not all of our conservative neighbors accept the one sided accusations. The organizers are apparently not interested in using this opportunity to gather more broad based support for their protest. Broad based, multi-political party, support that could actually and positively affect the future of our nation and help to reduce partisan obstructionism and divisiveness.

We should be outraged by what has happened, demand accountability, demand transparency, and get personally involved. Many of the Tea Party group members think they are doing just that, but they should drop the one political party slant on some of the issues they have raised. They could draw many more participants to their rally.

Americans can be very skeptical at times. Unfortunately, when it comes to politics, some of us seem to have forgotten where we left our skepticism laying.

The Sioux Falls Argus Leader printed my letter to the editor (posted below) under the heading State must protect itself, March 30,2009. The following three comments were posted by Argus readers:

surviveit wrote:

Replying to ManInBlue:

good one..another like opinion
Follow the money. How much has Rounds taken from them in the last 10 years!
3/30/2009 4:05:05 PM
___________________

ManInBlue wrote:

Follow the money. How much has Rounds taken from them in the last 10 years!
3/30/2009 11:07:33 AM
___________________

StopHype wrote:

SD is so anxious to become the pollution center of the US that our government doesn't stop to think about any protections for the state or for the residents!
3/30/2009 10:34:52 AM

To: sibbyonline@hotmail.com
Subject: SB171
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 22:08:46 -0600


Mr. Sibson,

We have never met, but it appears that we are both concerned about the potential consequences of a oil pipeline spill in South Dakota.

I listened to the testimony at the Senate State Affairs Committee hearing on SB171. In researching the issue, I also listened to testimony relating to SB190. A question by Senator Abdalah at the most recent hearing seemed to cut to the heart of the issue and lack of a satisfactory response left me wonder why anyone would be against this legislation.

Comments by Senator Rhoden regarding other legislation and the legislative process made me think that perhaps he could explain to me why this legislation (SB171) was killed in committee by a one vote margin. He did not respond to my letter. Consequently, I wrote to the editor of the Rapid City Journal 3-22-09, asking South Dakotans why we wouldn't want this limited, alternative protection.

Now, I'm asking you.

Sincerely,
Greg Olson
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Greg,

Thanks for your email.

The answer to your question is that the Governor is against this idea. He is afraid of scaring away business. And the Governor pretty much runs thw show in Pierre.

I am surprised Larry did not reply to you. Larry is one of the better legislators, although he is not infalliable. He pushes the line as far as he can.

There is a lot of things we need to be concerned about today. Not sure if we can put a stop to them, but I for one believe the fight must happen.

Keep in touch,
Steve