Discussion about this post

User's avatar
The Heart of Everything's avatar

I understand the purpose of a state of the state address—it’s not to address specific issues other than in the broadest strokes, but honestly, this seems like just so much bobbing and weaving. The property tax solution is to allow local jurisdictions to raise taxes and redistribute them. The solution to poor educational outcomes is to decrease funding for education—okay, holding it flat, but with cost increases baked in, it’s actually a reduction forcing school districts to figure out what to cut. I get that we’re open for business, but the big debate will be how much of a tax break for corporations interested in building data centers in South Dakota will the legislature approve. Right now the proposal calls for a 50 year sales tax exemption. Remember that time when the legislature gave the citizens of South Dakota a 50 year exemption on sales tax to encourage growth . . . neither do I.

And yeah, let’s get tough on all the people doxxing SD Highway Patrol officers, or politicians or local officials. "Doxxing of law enforcement officers has become a serious problem in other states. They’ve had their homes targeted and their families attacked. We’ve also seen elected officials targeted, including the tragic attacks on state legislators in Minnesota.” I’m sorry, but to use Minnesota as an example, where a rabid Trump supporter with a hit list of Democrats impersonated a law enforcement officer and killed a state senator and her husband and their dog as support for protecting SD law enforcement from doxxing, is a bit of a stretch. I’m not aware SD has a problem, but sure let’s make sure it doesn’t happen.

Likewise the whole, we won’t let abortion pills into SD is just so much government over-reach. You’re free in SD unless you’re doing something I don’t like—supposedly abortion is legal in SD to protect the life of the mother, so why would medication abortions be illegal? And really as evidence of the danger you cite medical experts (not doctors to my knowledge) from two crisis pregnancy centers one of which proclaims on their website that they "don’t offer, recommend or refer for abortions or abortifacients, but are committed to offering accurate information about abortion procedures and risks.” At the same time, you’re suing an organization who is also not selling or providing “abortifacients” but is committed to offering accurate information about abortion procedures. Make it make sense. Free speech for me, but not for thee.

And finally, Rhoden brings up the 250th anniversary of the US and upcoming fireworks at the monument that "celebrates four of our greatest presidents, who fought for the revolutionary ideal 'that all men are created equal, and that [we] are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights.' Nearby, Crazy Horse monument celebrates the legacy of the native people who met us here. We are able to enjoy our Black Hills today, in part, because of the foresight of one of South Dakota’s greatest leaders, our ninth governor, Peter Norbeck.”

All men are created equal, eh? The Supreme Court ruled that the Treaty we violated in taking the Hills is legally binding and as one federal judge opined: “A more ripe and rank case of dishonorable dealing will never, in all probability, be found in our history.” The notion that “native people met us here” is some pretty good white washing of the history of the Hills and our interactions with the “native people who met us here.”

I don’t think harkening back to 1919 where "the sturdy, intelligent manhood of her sons, and the chaste womanhood of her daughters” is the ideal. Chaste womanhood—the good old days where husbands could rape their wives and women couldn’t take out a bank loan or have a credit card or make health care decisions or buy a home without a man’s signature. That seems like a great vision for the future if you’re a hunk of sturdy manhood but not so much if you’re a woman.

No posts

Ready for more?