Was it a snub?

Saturday at USD’s graduation ceremony (121st Spring Commencement Exercises), former Senator, and hot-in-the-news, George McGovern was on hand to receive an honorary doctorate. On the program it listed that President Abbott was to give McGovern the accolade, but he didn’t, Acting Provost and Vice President of Academic Affairs Matthew Moen did the honor.

Given the recent big news that McGovern switched his support from Clinton to Obama, did Abbott snub McGovern because he’s in Clinton’s camp?

Caution: Obligatory graduation post ahead

DAVID WHITESOCK — Almost there, well, not me specifically, I have another full year, but for many of you, this it and Saturday is the BIG day. Or is it?

We all have our separate paths which we’ve traveled to get to graduation day. Some of our stories are typical rural Midwestern middle-class graduation stories — mom, dad, 2.2 kids and 2.2 cars and a mound of federal financial aid. For others, our path has been rocky, or adventuresome. There are single mothers working part-time, taking 12 credits a semester trying to get that degree to give a better life to their young child — and themselves. There’s that guy who loved partying at the “frat” too much the first time around in college and had to work construction for 10 years before deciding he was tired of that work and wanted something different. Or, how about that gal you know who often takes a semester off to work because she can’t get a loan for school so she has to work and save to pay for the whole tuition right then and there. It took her 6 years, but she’s going to graduate on Saturday and it is going to be one heck of a day for her and anyone else around her who appreciates the accomplishment.

Accomplishment. Graduating college, no matter how smart you are or how you did it, is an accomplishment. It’s really easy to break out the broad brush and say that there too many who will graduate on Saturday and it will just be another day. Mom and dad paid for their tuition, their rent, pizza and beer, and whatever else was needed to get through this four-year hell, and for them, all that matters is that their dad has a connection for a job and that he’s throwing a kegger for a reception party that night. Others though, will have deep gratitude for the work their parents did to make sure they could get the education and hurray for you.

As a self-admitted people-watching addict, I tend to hear all kinds of conversations. I do nothing with these conversations except store them in my cranium somewhere for retrieval when I decide to write my memoirs some day. Interestingly though, I’ve heard too many conversations from people who are annoyed by the fact that they will have to sit for 3+ hours on Saturday, in an ugly bright red robe just so they can shake President Abbott’s hand and get a fake diploma — “all for what?” they say.

Many say they have complained to their parents that it’s not worth the long drive; they’ll mail the diploma, and we can have a party then. Others I’ve heard claim that getting the undergrad degree is not that big of a deal, that when they get that masters, that J.D., or that M.D.; now that will be worth it. Yes, that will, but for the time being, you don’t have that degree, and who says you’re actually going to finish the next 2 to 3 years — grad school is hard, and many get weeded out of programs. Good luck, you’ll need it.

Regardless of what anyone thinks, graduation day is a BIG day. Forget all the bluster that you are going to change the world and humanity is better off because you spent (or borrowed) tens of thousands of dollars for a quality higher education. No, the real story on Saturday will be about perseverance and character. Who’s overcome what obstacles to get to this day? How will that affect them and what they do in the future? For many families still, you just might be the first in your family to get a college degree. How incredible of a thought is that? Despite all the turmoil in the world and difficulties in our own backyard, you went to college, hopefully learned all you could about everything you could, and now you are ready to contribute to yourself and your community.

We all walk down different paths. But for one day, many of you will converge on the same path of accomplishing something that still too many in the United States don’t have the fortune to get or too many take for granted. Go, walk across that stage, it might be annoying to you, and damn it all if the batteries on your iPod go dead; but just know that there are friends and relatives sitting way up there in the stands of the Dome, proud as hell of you. Some of us made that rough journey already and others of us are still on it, but we all say, “Way to go, kid!”

Facts, the Law, and Stuff.

KELSEY COLLIER-WISE — Since Volante Opinion is now Volante Opinion on Abortion, I thought I’d throw one more log on the fire before I begin enjoying my summer and stop thinking about Constitutional law altogether. Instead of getting into the “opinion” stuff, I’m going to stick to some undisputed (but often misstated) facts about the law surrounding abortion. Not quite as incendiary, but perhaps a little more informative (this is a newspaper, after all — well, the blog of a newspaper — well, the blog of a newspaper section).

Roe v. Wade did not make abortion legal. Abortion was already legal in several states and restricted in various ways in others. Roe set a standard that restrictions on abortion had to meet to be constitutional.

Obviously, Roe v. Wade is an important case. Landmark even. But people need to stop talking about it like it’s the controlling case on abortion restrictions. There have been a number of cases that came after Roe that have significantly changed the standard. Reading Roe is not going to tell you much about how restrictions are evaluated by a courts today.

The constitutional right to privacy was not established by Roe v. Wade, and abortion restrictions are by no means the only area governed by it. People can certainly make a legitimate argument that there is no right to privacy in the Constitution, but be aware that without it, states would be able to arrest people for providing birth control, or allow police to bust into your home and arrest you for engaging in consensual sex.

Roe v. Wade is not especially notable in the way it deals with “state’s rights.” I’m not convince there was ever a time when states had all these supposed rights. If I remember correctly, we even fought a war over it. Not that things can’t change, but at least currently, the tenth amendment is pretty useless. And while the idea of the Bill of Rights applying to the states is a relatively new one, it’s an idea that most Americans get behind, primarily because they don’t like the idea of states being able to run roughshod over people’s liberties, segregating schools, using evidence from unlawful searches, etc.

Plenty of people have issues with the current standard for abortion restrictions in this country (I would be one of them). Plenty of people are unconvinced that a right to privacy exists in the Constitution. I’m sure there are even plenty of people who don’t believe in the incorporation of the Bill of Rights by the 14th Amendment. But none of those things really have much to do with Roe v. Wade.

The opinionated way of The Volante

DAVID WHITESOCK — I find it interesting that when the issue of of abortion is ever discussed in the media, especially newspapers, the paper is oftentimes put at fault for bringing it up. Mostly this angst comes from people who don’t feel the overall tone or direction of the conversation is in their favor, but that is neither here nor there.

If you are looking at pointing fingers for why this issue is “back in the news” look at the groups of people who continue to bring up referendums in South Dakota to either ban abortion outright, or to revise the current law on the books. Within the last week a new referendum was introduced and will most likely be on the ballot in November for the people to vote on — again!

Don’t blame the opinion section of The Volante for discussing the issue, it is certainly relevant. Come next semester, you’re likely to see more of it.

Lastly, in defense of all opinion editors before me, and those to follow, the opinion section is at the mercy of which writers show up. This year, the majority of writers tended to lean a little more to the right and the ones that did lean to the left chose not to write partisan political columns. From day one, and I told Angie this when I took over for her, I would not dictate to any of the writers what they could and could not write about. I urged them to consider that what they chose to opine on was first to be relevant to this community, then to move regionally, then nationally, and finally internationally, if they wanted. For the most part we lived up to that billing and I commend all the opinion writers this semester for that.

The First Amendment is a wonderful thing, and if The Volante Opinion section did anything this last semester it was to fully use that right. This time it’s abortion. Next it will be the death penalty, as South Dakota is going to kill someone again this summer. I will be in Verm and doing work for The Volante over the summer, and you bet your Bill of Rights that I will be giving my opinion on that topic.

For the most part I have enjoyed my U. experience, but if there is one thing that has disconcerted me the most about this campus, it is the sheer lack of individuals willing to join the conversation, any conversation. There will be an Iraq War protest tomorrow outside I.D. Weeks — WOW, on the last regular day of classes. Nice timing. Pardon my French, but where the fuck were you people all semester long? Or even those who favor the war? Where were you? Where’s the lively debate that is supposed to exist on college campuses? I know this is not the 1960’s, but if you take a look around, we have a disastrous war (as if there is any other kind), rising gas prices, and an increasing food demand in the world — not to mention Hyperion in our back yard — looks familiar if you know anything about 60’s and 70’s history.

I’ll say it again, if you don’t like the opinions in The Volante, then join the staff. The opinion section does strive very hard to be “the student’s voice,” but we cannot satisfy everyone all the time.

The Environmentalists Strike Back…barely

MATT HITTLE — This is in response to the first two commenters on my most recent column.

TO Dumb!-
-Martin Luther King Day is in remembrance of Dr. King’s birthday.
-Veterans’ Day was originally in remembrance of Armistice Day, the day WWI ended.
-Presidents’ Day is in remembrance of two presidents. It’s located around their birthdays.
What do these have in common? They’re all remembrances of a specific time or person. Earth Day is ridiculous because it “celebrates” THE EARTH in general. C’mon. Seriously.

Also, capitalism HAS trumped environmentalism. Why do you think we need environmental legislation? Because most capitalist pigs could care less about the environment. It’s all about the Benjamins, baby.
——-
TO MIKE-

“Pish Posh, those evil “free market” lovers need to have eyes rolled at them! THAT will show them!”

Please step down from that throne and grace us with your presence on Earth for a moment. I’ve got a request:
Please tell me, Mike, what countries around the world have ever functioned well without a largely free market? Name them. In alphabetical order. Please. You’re not smarter than Milton Friedman. Not even close.

Next, if you couldn’t tell- and apparently you couldn’t- I was making a joke about ANWR. While I still definitely would kill a caribou for $1 gas, I don’t think gas prices will go down. Ever. No matter what. We need to drill in the ANWR not because it will make oil cheaper but so that we can buy more time in our transition to a better fuel source.
Also, Mike, read THIS article from today’s RealClearPolitics. Here is a pertinent excerpt:
—
“What keeps these areas [like ANWR] closed are exaggerated environmental fears, strong prejudice against oil companies and sheer stupidity.”
—
I certainly hope your reasons aren’t the latter, but I’m not convinced they aren’t.

I certainly hope this has cleared up the confusion from my column. I’m still waiting on that list, Mike.

This isn’t high school people

Lauren Hollister - I was privileged to miss out on this little bit of drama earlier today otherwise I probably would have gone into some sort of flaming rage.  Band in itself is full of drama, I don’t think it’s unique to any other club or organization as far as the amount it has, but being in it exposes me to it just about every day.  And looking back on it, this whole situation is absolutely ridiculous.  But anyway, it basically happened like this.  Some guy takes some other girl’s music stand.  When she asks for it back he pulls “seniority” by saying that since he’s a senior and she’s a freshman he gets first choice of stands.  I guess it must be really difficult to walk the extra 5 or so feet to go grab one off the wrack, especially for someone as dignified and wise as this so-called “senior”.  The girl, incredibly, was the mature one in this situation and didn’t try to pursue any sort of argument, nor did she do anything like shoving his stuff off her stand and taking it back (which I probably would’ve done).  But seriously, who does that?  Who actually pulls seniority in college of all places?  As if high isn’t ridiculous enough, you have to bring stupid high school attitudes and traditions to college.  What’s even worse is it’s some guy in his 4th year of college, it’s not like he’s some freshman just out of high school, trying to pull seniority on a person just because she hasn’t been in college as long.  Who does that?  We might as well bring back all the high school hazing stunts if we’re going to start pulling seniority on freshmen and sophomores just because we are too lazy to do something ourselves.  Whatever, it just bugs the hell out of me that people actually behave this way still.  Grow up!

What have we learned?

DAVID WHITESOCK — From all the “debate” on the abortion issue over the last week or so, what have we been able to parse out and learn? Anything? I don’t know about you, but I haven’t really learned much. It’s a topic which comes tandem with lighting bolts, and all that seems to happen is that everyone goes back to their corners, saliva dripping from there mouths still wild with fury.

A few things I do know. Angie Buhl and I disagree, but her form of argument is to insult and not necessarily debate. Kelsey Collier-Wise, who is extremely intelligent and whom I greatly respect, took me to task, and obviously we do not agree either, but at the end of that sparring I feel like we’ve essentially agreed to disagree. And, there are more than two sides to this issue. However, most don’t see it that way.

I re-read through many of the comments on Brian’s column and the comments on the blog here, and at the end I was simply tired. It is a very demanding issue. But, before I went to bed last night, I pulled up some late night reading, the Supreme Court opinion in Roe V. Wade. One passage in particular from Justice White’s, albeit short dissent, sums up my opinion on the matter, and I will leave it at that, but I do suggest everyone read the full opinion of the Court, so that we are all on the same page regarding where the courts really are with abortion.

The Court apparently values the convenience of the pregnant mother more than the continued existence and development of the life or potential life that she carries. Whether or not I might agree with that marshaling of values, I can in no event join the Court’s judgment because I find no constitutional warrant for imposing such an order of priorities on the people and legislatures of the States. In a sensitive area such as this, involving as it does issues over which reasonable men may easily and heatedly differ, I cannot accept the Court’s exercise of its clear power of choice by interposing a constitutional barrier to state efforts to protect human life and by investing mothers and doctors with the constitutionally protected right to exterminate it. This issue, for the most part, should be left with the people and to the political processes the people have devised to govern their affairs.

The abortion debate…

DAVID WHITESOCK — Because I have been called out, more than once, in the comments section of Brian Broekemeier’s column, “Please, have the kid, we’ll deal with it,” I thought it appropriate to explain why I decided to let the column run as it was submitted to me.

There seems to be an odd assumption that when someone; columnist, blogger, whomever, writes about abortion, that something new will be said or that everyone will just agree and that as that. Obviously this is never the case, so when writers do decide to stand upon this third rail, they play it safe, usually discussing policy positions or the latest in legal nuances from state to state.

Yawn. (except for the legal nuances… I’m a nerd)

Brian told me he was writing something up about abortion, and immediately I said “great!” From what I know of Brian’s writing to this point, it happens to be sarcastic, witty, and oftentimes satirical. This piece isn’t a direct satire, but it is witty and certainly sarcastic.

What he believes on the issue is irrelevant. I do not know his position on abortion, and frankly, I don’t care. What I do know, is that when I finished reading the piece, the only thought in my mind was, “huh, why isn’t there more talk about responsibility?”

We tend to merely discuss this issue down a woman’s right to chose or a religiously wrong line. Sure, those are the two sides, but let’s put religion aside and simply examine what is morality. You do not need to be of faith or subscribe to any such religion to be a moral person. As humans, we have set natural moral laws. These laws are basic. Don’t kill. Don’t steal. And, of course, there is the golden rule of treat others how you wish to be treated. Follow these fundamental rules and civilization could be good.

What has happened along the way, however, is we have confused liberty and freedom with a right to do whatever we want — this is so remarkably contrary to the idea of personal freedom, it is laughable. If you are a moral individual and you believe fully in your heart the tenets of liberty, than aborting an unborn child (regardless of the stage of birth) is absolutely wrong.

(Consider that this commentary is coming from a Libertarian!)

We all have an unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness — this begins at the very beginning, does it not? Pro-choicers extend their philosophy based on these words scripted in the Declaration of Independence, but I guarantee if you asked Jefferson, Madison, or Franklin (Locke, Bacon, Hobbes from years before too) their thoughts on this matter, they would suggest that you have bastardized their meaning of freedom and liberty.

Last night while at the Political Science Awards Banquet, Matt Michaels, former South Dakota House of Representatives Speaker, gave a keynote address on public service, but more so on service to others. He said a number of times that governments cannot hug you, kiss you, wipe away your tears or even solve your problems. People do these things. Yet, this is what we have attempted to have our governments do, from the local level all they way up to the federal level.

You want the government to take care of you when you make a mistake. Well, that thinking is the mistake. You err, and you must deal with it. Government is merely a means for securing the very basic and fundamental rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Government is there to secure life.

If you, and the individual you tango with, make a mistake and a pregnancy ensues, then it is not government which is meant to solve this issue for you — it is you, your partner, your family, and your community (i.e., church, neighborhood, etc.).

The debate which has been taking place in South Dakota for the last few years has been about the exceptions to the abortion law — those exceptions being rape, incest, and harm to the mother’s life. All of these instances of protection are proper and constitutional, not to mention morally correct. This is government acting within the natural law bounds set forth by Jefferson in the Declaration and carried out through the Constitution.

We have the freedom to do what we will to our bodies, consume alcohol or drugs, eat 18 cheeseburgers, pierce our unmentionables, whatever, but morally, the taking of our life or the taking of a life inside of us, is inhuman on every level — not just a religious one.

I let Brian’s column run because this is the debate I hoped would be had. I hoped a debate about morals and responsibility would come of it. We all have a responsibility for our own actions. If a man decides that he is going to not live up to his end of the bargain, then those around the woman need to step up and help her out — not some uncaring and unfeeling government program — but actual people who can hug and cry. As much as Hillary Clinton’s “It Takes a Village” phrase makes me want to projectile vomit, when the shit hits the fan with our family and friends, the village better step up to the plate, because that is how it is done, that is how we move forward, and that is how we know that when it is us who needs help, it will be there.

Making New Friends via the Internet

KELSEY COLLIER-WISE — If you can believe it, I’ve never received any abortion-related hate mail before. Until today!

From: Aaron Helseth <ahelseth3@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 7:50 PM
Subject: Abortion article

Nice incoherent nonsensical article baby killer. Thankfully your a lesbian and can’t have babies so you won’t be able to kill any of your own at least. Thank you for exercising your choice to be stupid.

I just know I wouldn’t have gotten this kind of reaction if Dave would’ve let me go with my original title, “Like Groundhogs Day, But With Less Bill Murray and More Abortion.” Who doesn’t crack a smile when they think of that movie?

Anyway, the mention of “exercising your choice to be stupid” made me think of something that I just had to share with all of you. Mashed potatoes can be your friend! Enjoy!

Gay marriage and you

DAVID WHITESOCK — Looks like this is what the Opinion Blog is going to become, a back and forth between Matt Hittle and I. Both of us are libertarian in philosophy, but as issues get parsed out, I’m coming to realize that we are on extreme ends of the libertarian spectrum.

Take his recent web column on gay marriage for instance.

Matt is almost there. He gets on that gay marriage-libertarian road, but takes the exit right before suggesting an actually solution to the issue. This is no fault of Matt’s per se, it just happens to be the way political discourse goes in this country.

What needs to be addresses, which both comments on the article touch on, is this notion that marriage is a “right.” No, marriage is not a right. Marriage is a privilege, a luxury, an extra-curricular choice to life, if you will.

The problem with the gay marriage debate is we have all seemed to zip past what the proper place of marriage is in a political society, especially ours, and what is its definition.

I think we should all agree that marriage is, and for a long time has been, an institution of organized religion. Unfortunately, the United States government has bastardized the institution and made it a function of our tax code. Which creates the problem.

Like it or not, the connotation with the word marriage is a union between man and woman under the auspices of religion. Why should there be any change in this definition? Organized religion is a greater sham on people than governments are, but marriage belongs to that realm, so be it.

Governments, particularly the U.S. government, recognized at some point, that the institution of marriage could be a viable political football. It was recognized that the segment of the population which was married was a large one, and in order to keep this group of voters happy, maybe there should be incentives within the tax code for entering into this “moderately stable institution.” And eureka, tax credits for married folks were created.

The problem with this, however, is that if we agree that marriage is a religious institution, then the meddling of government in this sphere is not necessarily proper. I happen to disagree with the Supreme Court on the separation of church and state and the banning of all (or most) religious functions from public schools and such, which has been an extreme misinterpretation of Thomas Jefferson’s original intent in his “wall of separation” letter to the Danbury Baptists.

It may begin to appear that I am stepping on my own toes with this argument, but hear me out. Jefferson’s main concern with religion and government was merely the fear that the government would sanction one form of religion or another and enforce that religion upon the people. The involvement of religion, generally, within the government is not necessarily a bad thing, and I presume Jefferson would agree.

However, regarding marriage, government has chosen to benefit a certain group of people over another, when such a benefit is not at all necessary. Having a marriage tax credit or exception within our tax code could be done away with and this issue in relation to gay marriage would be solved.

There is another layer to this issue which essentially clouds the whole debate. Because marriage between a man and a woman is “sanctioned” by the federal government through the tax code, states have taken that lead and extended other benefits or legal protections. These legal protections do not extend to unmarried couples nor gay couples… but gay couples feel the burning desire to have access to those protections. That is understandable, but as the system is set up currently, only marriages are recognized.

What many states have chosen to do is to allow for these legal protections to be extended through civil unions. Not only does this feeble attempt at a solution not solve anything, it makes the problem between federal and state law even more muddy. Because the federal government has made marriage a part of its purview, they now feel that civil unions established by the states are an infringement on their Constitutional powers.

Here, the federal government (as is mostly the case) is wrong and the states are right.

The federal government never should have sanctioned marriage through the tax code, that was an unconstitutional move. The federal government cannot create a so-called ban on gay marriage. It doesn’t exist. What the states can do, however, and Jefferson would agree, is create for themselves a civil union law which would be the measure for all couples — male/female, male/male, female/female — who wish to enter into a contractual partnership for certain legal protections. This is what should be offered to all people.

Government, both state and federal need to wipe marriage exceptions from their tax and legal code. Marriage must be returned to the sanctuary for which it belongs — religion — and governments could concentrate on establishing a legal framework which would answer all the problems relating to living wills, power of attorney, property rights, etc.

This is a long post, but this issue always gets short-shrift, which does the debate more harm than good.