A reply to Lydia Graslie

Lydia, in her comment, essentially states that the fact that the World Health Organization says smoking’s bad is a reason to ban it in private businesses:

People can still smoke, they just have to smoke outside of bars now. Given that second hand smoke is such dangerous stuff (once again, death, disease, and disability), I think its more than fair.

That frankly, doesn’t matter.

Lydia might think she knows what’s best for business owners, but she doesn’t. In fact, she has absolutely no legs to stand on in this regard. You see, if we were talking about public places- like government buildings- Lydia would have a good argument. Anyone has the right to enter a public building. Therefore, it should be as safe and welcoming as possible.

But we’re not dealing with public places. We’re dealing with private places. Private businesses are like private homes- and owners of private businesses should be able to do what they wish on their private property, just like in homes.

——————–

Next, Lydia attacks my statement about racial issues having been resolved:

And Mr. Hittle, as far as “having dealt with” racism and segregation: there was a hate crime committed in our glorious state last week: http://www.rapidcityjournal.com/articles/2009/03/19/news/top/doc49c2bccc5f6f2850863364.txt This is sad witness to the fact that racism is still very much alive in South Dakota. You are very much incorrect to surmise that this issue has been dealt with.

Unfortunately, Lydia is wrong here, too. We’ve had laws on the books for quite awhile dealing with segregation and discrimination with regard to entering businesses. By “dealt with,” I meant that it was an issue that is not comparable to the smoking ban; and is largely remedied due to laws that are in place. Just because something that is against the law still occurs does not mean that the issue itself has not been “dealt with.” Being “dealt with” does not imply success; it merely implies that SOMETHING has been done to fix it.

Point-Counterpoint Comments

Due to a few highly inappropriate comments, we’ve moved the comment space to  the blog so we can have a dialogue instead of name-calling.

To be a bit clearer about my counterpoint: I participated in the Strollers Show for 4 years as a guitarist in the Phi Delta Theta band. I did it to support my fraternity rather than party. I should note that bands are not closely affiliated with casts and largely do their own thing. I partook in responsible alcohol consumption. And for the record, I’m not aiming my counterpoint at casts, I’m aiming it at the Strollers organization itself.

Now, let’s get to the real issue. Post your comments below.

Cheers,
Matt Hittle

More ruminations on Blake’s reply

Also posted on the USD College Republicans blog

1) Mr. Blake made it sound as if Nesselhuf actually had an active role in the USD money. He had absolutely nothing to do with the bill, other than voting for it like every other senator

2) Mr. Blake said that Nesselhuf is the first Senator from Clay County in 100 years to hold a Senatorial leadership. That is about as much of a stretch as possible. There is absolutely no statute or Senate rule mentioning a “Caucus Chairman.” It is a title made up by the Democrats to make him sound important. If he were something like majority or minority leader, whip, or president pro tempore, he would be a Senate leader. But he isn’t any of those.

Matt Hittle is President of USD College Republicans and Secretary of USD Political Science League

A hit-by-hit response

To Matt Blake’s response to my Nesselhuf column last week:

On the minimum wage and pre-K education

-Of course Mr. Blake is happy Nesselhuf supports these. Increased government meddling in citizens’ lives is a valuable tool for the Democratic Party. 

-Blake makes a knee-jerk assumption that the minimum wage is beneficial (it isn’t) and that pre-K education is a good investment for taxpayer dollars.

On Hyperion

Nesselhuf’s failed bill  would have allowed the state government to write incredibly strict environmental regulations, leaving the door open for opposition to essentially write Hyperion out of existence, by, say, regulating so strictly that Hyperion could not operate.

“I took the laws straight off the books in California…” said Nesselhuf at one of the hearings on Hyperion.

-Also, Nesselhuf was so anti-Hyperion that the Hyperion people don’t want to work with him. Hyperion IS coming. Nesselhuf is not ready. 

My “hard core partisan” stance

-Apparently Mr. Blake knows me…despite the fact that we’ve never met. 

-His claim that I am a hardcore partisan is untrue. Though I am president of a partisan organization, I remove that hat when I write. The Volante hired me to write Matt Hittle’s opinions, not the College Republicans’. There are several issues in the Republican Platform with which I don’t agree.

-It’s smart for Mr. Blake to paint me as a radical, though. It erodes my credibility in the eyes of readers. Both he and Bill Muller, the Nesselhuf campaign manager, have done this now. Muller did it in a press release in which he falsely claimed that my Nesselhuf column was a product of the College Republicans. When asked to correct this mistake, Muller became angry and refused to change the blatant error (or lie, depending on your view).

Nesselhuf voted _____ times for _____

-And? What’s your point? So he voted a bunch of times for bills that don’t pass. Shouldn’t his effectiveness be measured not by the ideas he supports, but by his ability to get those ideas codified into law?

-What do you mean by “helped secure” dollars for USD? You mean he “voted for” the bill that gave dollars to USD. Blake makes it sound like Nesselhuf took the lead, valiantly “securing” money for USD. In reality, Nesselhuf merely voted for a Regents-supported bill. That’s a no-brainer.

Nesselhuf is popular

-No argument there, he’s a nice guy and his father is a nice guy. But you can’t ride the amiability of yourself and your family forever. Eventually, you’ll have to face your record, whether it’s in 2008 or in the next cycle.

Matt Hittle is the President of the USD College Republicans and Secretary of the USD Political Science League

Comments

I think the comments on Volante political columns are hilarious- case in point, my most recent column.

Instead of addressing the issues at hand, the vast majority of the commenters (who are too cowardly to use their real names) use ad hominem attacks.

As you can see from the Wikipedia article on ad hominem, it is almost always invalid. It doesn’t further your argument, nor does it make you look good.

Stopping Muller’s and Nesselhuf’s spin

I’ve been detached from the uproar over my last column, as I’ve been out of town. But I’m pleased as punch!

Bill Muller, the Nesselhuf campaign manager sent out a press release after my column went to print.

Here it is:

———
Friends of Nesselhuf,
With a mere 48 days until election day, the Republicans have begun their attacks on State Senator Ben Nesselhuf. Recently on campus, posters have surfaced against Ben and then in the current issue of The Volante there was an opinion piece personally attacking Ben. Both of these pieces originated with the College Republicans.
The attacks do not change the facts. The fact is that Ben has been a powerful voice for USD in Pierre.
- Since 2001 Ben has co-sponsored, sponsored, or voted upon legislation that would create, expand or fund a scholarship program over 21 times.
- Ben has voted 9 times to reduce tuition for specific categories of students, such as members of the National Guard.
- Ben helped bring $4.3 million in construction money to USD, including $1.8 million for the new medical school.
- Ben obtained special clearance for the Board of Regents to bond for almost $16 million for lab upgrades at USD.
His voting record shows that Ben understands what is important to USD and has provided a powerful voice for students and employees in Pierre.
It is clear that the Republican Party will go to any lengths to take down Ben, so please donate $25 to help defend Ben against these baseless attacks.
You can donate by clicking here.
———

I’ve got a few things to say about this:

1) My column did not originate with the USD College Republicans. In an on-the-record phone call, Mr. Muller refused to fix this error and became quite angry when I said it was wrong.

2) The Republican Party will go to “any lengths” to take down Ben? I’m discussing his legislative history. It seems that the Nesselhuf campaign needs to learn the difference between issue-based and ad hominem attacks. I will VIGOROUSLY attack Mr. Nesselhuf on his legislative history, but I will ALWAYS refrain from attacking his personal life. The Nesselhuf campaign is again trying to squelch discussion of his legislative history.

3) Almost everyone who has been in the legislature for nearly a decade would have sponsored, co-sponsored- or voted upon USD-related legislation. Just the Opportunity Scholarship legislation was proposed several times, was funded by a separate bill, and there have also have been votes to change it. That amounts to several votes on one USD-related issue. Image all of the scholarships that USD provides, then imagine voting on changes to those scholarships. That amounts to tons of tiny votes- that the Nesselhuf campaign spins to appear important.

4) Mr. Nesselhuf may have voted to reduce tuition for specific categories of students, because these bills often arise in the legislature. However, they are typically opposed by the Regents because they rarely include funding to pay for the loss in tuition revenue – the burden is simply thrown back onto the other universities. Leave it to a Democrat to mandate that something occur, but not fund it!

5) As for the USD construction and lab upgrades, these were part of Regents-pushed bills that were supported by the governor. When Mr. Muller says that Mr. Nesselhuf “helped,” that merely means he voted for it, not that he played an active role!

And I think we all would like to know what “special clearance” means.

——-

As you can see, the Nesselhuf campaign states facts in such a way that pumps up the Senator’s resume. They may be true, but when you dig a bit deeper, you’ll find that Mr. Nesselhuf isn’t a leader, but merely follows.

My answer to the letter to the editor

In response to my column last week, USD Democrats President, Brittany Neiles wrote a letter to the Volante editor. An Obama supporter, she was off-the-mark.

Her primary argument is that government-forced civil service, like USD’s IDEA program and other programs, are already established in citizens’ lives. Therefore, expanding them is acceptable.

But this assumes that those initial plans are acceptable. They are not. No kind of government-forced community service is acceptable. In a truly free country, citizens have the right to decide whether or not they want to serve.

Obama’s plan would not only force us to serve, but it would tell us how to serve. We would no longer be able to work in ID Weeks or as a Tech Fellow for student work. Instead, we would be forced to work in a soup kitchen, pick up trash, or any number of community service positions.

A secondary assumption Neiles makes is that the actual work the government forces us to do is good work. By forcing us to do its bidding, the government is telling us what is important. For instance, if I value saving the environment, but am forced to work in a soup kitchen, my passion and knowledge about the environment is wasted. It wouldn’t have been if I had the right to serve if/how I wanted.

The Democrats often say that the US cannot force democracy on nations like Iraq, because they didn’t fight for, and earn, it. If fighting for, and earning, something is required to appreciate it, then it must be true that government-forced service does not instill any values into citizens.

Obama’s plan is still a gross infringement on our freedoms.

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.

A disagreement with David

MATT HITTLE — I read David’s post about the woman at the center of the Wal-Mart litigation. I disagree that Wal-Mart is acting deplorably.

The woman signed a contract and, according to the article, failed to read the fine print. Is it Wal-Mart’s duty to make sure she understands a contract before she signs it? No. It’s her problem. If this weren’t such an emotionally-charged situation, it wouldn’t have even made the local news. Everyone’s getting bent out of shape over this because she’s permanently disabled.

This may sound very cold, but she signed the contract. It is within Wal-Mart’s legal rights to act on the contract.

Dear T-Liggs,

MATT HITTLE — I just read the first sentence of your most recent comment on our website.

For the good of humanity, quit posting.

Sincerely, 

Matt