Once again a bill to impose a fee on certain pipelines carrying crude oil and to create a crude oil pipeline compensation fund that may be used in the event of a crude oil spill was up for a vote in the South Dakota Legislature this year. The same or very similar bills have been presented for consideration and passage during the previous two legislative sessions. Earlier postings relate to the previous legislation.
This year, Senator Rhoden identified that he had come full circle with his opinion on this proposed legislation. When the bill was presented to the Senate State Affairs committee and on the Senate floor, Senator Rhoden voted in favor of the bill. His stated reason for supporting the bill was to protect property owners from financial ruin resulting from the liability for an oil spill on their property.
Thank you for your votes in favor of this legislation, Senator Rhoden. Senator Rhoden also mentioned that his neighbors and others in his district were influential in changing his opinion on this legislation. Unfortunately, once again a one vote margin stopped the passage of this legislation.
This is a disappointing outcome. Hopefully, this issue will be successfully revisited again in the next legislative session. Support for new business is important to the strength of the state’s economy. However, the desire to make accommodation to attract new business to our state should not outweigh our consideration for existing business. This is especially true with regard to the oil pipeline companies. The pipelines need to cross our state in order for the pipeline companies to conduct their business and existing land owners/businesses have been required to make concessions. The full impact of these concessions was not necessarily apparent to everyone concerned when the project was first proposed to or considered by the legislature.
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Something Less Than Complete Agreement
South Dakota’s governor and the state attorney general have committed South Dakota to a lawsuit that disputes the Constitutionality of the recently passed healthcare reform bill. They believe that the federal government has infringed on state’s rights with a mandate requiring individuals to purchase health insurance. Further, they imply that the federal government should not force individuals to participate in this plan without their consent. Yet the governmental mandate requiring the purchase of health insurance was previously promoted several times by Republican Party elected officials and election candidates.
I do not care to participate in this lawsuit, but apparently the Governor and the state attorney general aren’t actually concerned with this contradiction of governmental perception on personal rights infringements. It isn’t the first time they have acted in this manner. South Dakota’s majority party’s agenda has been pursued through state government with regard to the abortion issue also. Most likely, this is not a situation unique to South Dakota or to just one ruling political party.
An article from the Dakota Today blog site identified Senator Thune’s one sided view of political partisanship. Many people seem to be unable to conceive the possibility that there is than one way to view political issues and that complete agreement is not possible. Compromise appears to be the only way to achieve some level of fairness on many issues, but this concept appears lost on the ears of members of the Republican Party.
Apparently, according to Senator Thune, partisanship is something that Democrats engage in. Republicans participate in strong political opposition. When the Democrats were the minority party in Congress, they were described as partisan obstructionists when they strongly opposed Republican sponsored legislation. Interestingly, it is extremely rare that the Democrats ever act with complete unity in opposition to legislation. The Republicans appear to be able to pull that theoretically amazing unified opposition quite easily. How is it that a political party can be structure such that all of its millions of members are in complete agreement? Is it possible that all those millions are not incomplete agreement with their elected representatives?
Children often form informal groups that appear to share ideas that aren’t necessarily based on facts. Long ago, most of our ancestors were ignorant of the actual shape of the earth and the workings of the Universe. Cosmological ignorance took a long time to overcome and before it was, the incorrect concept of a flat earth was the common and unquestioned view of the majority of mankind. Isn’t it possible that simple ignorance, as well as intentional self-imposed ignorance help to unify the Republican members of Congress?
If it isn’t ignorance that results in what I view as an incorrect or an improbable degree of party unity, then what is it? Is it possible that health care reform is not actually the issue that is being resisted? Is it possible that one party political control is really the reason for the completely unified front presented by the Republican Congressional Minority?
I do not care to participate in this lawsuit, but apparently the Governor and the state attorney general aren’t actually concerned with this contradiction of governmental perception on personal rights infringements. It isn’t the first time they have acted in this manner. South Dakota’s majority party’s agenda has been pursued through state government with regard to the abortion issue also. Most likely, this is not a situation unique to South Dakota or to just one ruling political party.
An article from the Dakota Today blog site identified Senator Thune’s one sided view of political partisanship. Many people seem to be unable to conceive the possibility that there is than one way to view political issues and that complete agreement is not possible. Compromise appears to be the only way to achieve some level of fairness on many issues, but this concept appears lost on the ears of members of the Republican Party.
Apparently, according to Senator Thune, partisanship is something that Democrats engage in. Republicans participate in strong political opposition. When the Democrats were the minority party in Congress, they were described as partisan obstructionists when they strongly opposed Republican sponsored legislation. Interestingly, it is extremely rare that the Democrats ever act with complete unity in opposition to legislation. The Republicans appear to be able to pull that theoretically amazing unified opposition quite easily. How is it that a political party can be structure such that all of its millions of members are in complete agreement? Is it possible that all those millions are not incomplete agreement with their elected representatives?
Children often form informal groups that appear to share ideas that aren’t necessarily based on facts. Long ago, most of our ancestors were ignorant of the actual shape of the earth and the workings of the Universe. Cosmological ignorance took a long time to overcome and before it was, the incorrect concept of a flat earth was the common and unquestioned view of the majority of mankind. Isn’t it possible that simple ignorance, as well as intentional self-imposed ignorance help to unify the Republican members of Congress?
If it isn’t ignorance that results in what I view as an incorrect or an improbable degree of party unity, then what is it? Is it possible that health care reform is not actually the issue that is being resisted? Is it possible that one party political control is really the reason for the completely unified front presented by the Republican Congressional Minority?
Friday, May 1, 2009
The Cost of Self Defense in South Dakota
A demonstration in support of Marc Wisecarver identified several issues that affect us all, even though it appears that the general facts concerning the case are not in dispute. It is not clear that justice has been served in this case by the sentence. According to the Sunday, April 26, 2009 Rapid City Journal article, Mr. Wisecarver was found not guilty of assault, but in his sentencing statement for the second charge conviction, the judge referred to the seriousness of the charge the defendant was found not guilty of. The comparison was made that in Indian Country, “this is just another example of what I see on a day-to-day basis.” Apparently, no mitigation by reason of self defense was considered by the judge or reference to the trespass that caused the confrontation that resulted in charges against Mr. Wisecarver.
The court takes into account other circumstances when imposing a sentence. This is reasonable, but what does “not guilty” mean when the charges an individual was acquitted from are still referred to in the sentencing for conviction on a separate charge? This becomes an important question for those of us who would like to defend ourselves and our property from trespass.
For more insights, information, and comments about this case visit the following websites:
http://www.lakota-aid.co.uk/lakotanews.htm
http://www.rapidcityjournal.com/articles/2009/04/27/news/local/doc49f61d46d8245096828837.txt
http://www.rapidcityjournal.com/articles/2009/04/25/news/top/doc49f327cdf4234810537299.txt?show_comments=true#commentdiv
The court takes into account other circumstances when imposing a sentence. This is reasonable, but what does “not guilty” mean when the charges an individual was acquitted from are still referred to in the sentencing for conviction on a separate charge? This becomes an important question for those of us who would like to defend ourselves and our property from trespass.
For more insights, information, and comments about this case visit the following websites:
http://www.lakota-aid.co.uk/lakotanews.htm
http://www.rapidcityjournal.com/articles/2009/04/27/news/local/doc49f61d46d8245096828837.txt
http://www.rapidcityjournal.com/articles/2009/04/25/news/top/doc49f327cdf4234810537299.txt?show_comments=true#commentdiv
Sunday, April 26, 2009
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
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
Sunday, April 19, 2009
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?
Friday, April 17, 2009
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.
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.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)