What Happened to Local Control?

Today Mr. Heidelberger talked about the silliness of SB112.  The bill co-sponsered by the likes of Don and Jenna Haggar, Lederman, and District 6 Senator Ernie Otten (I think he has signed onto every single bill connected with education or discrimination) would allow teachers like me to teach intelligent design.    The brilliance in the bill is the lack of anything substantial in the way it was written.

        FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to prohibit schools from preventing the instruction of intelligent design.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA:
    Section 1. That chapter 13-33 be amended by adding thereto a NEW SECTION to read as follows:
No school board or school administrator may prohibit a teacher in public or nonpublic school from providing instruction on intelligent design or other related topics.

That is the total extent of the bill.  I thought that schools should have local control.  If a school board decides that intelligent design should not be part of the biology curriculum, then shouldn't they be able to have control over their curriculum?  What if a private school with very fundamental beliefs has a curriculum that pushes evolution only?  This is getting so bad that Pat Powers has resorted to a bit of potty mouth in response to some of the hijinks connected policies like this and those dealing with anti-homsexuality free speech.

“An Act to protect the citizens and businesses of South Dakota regarding speech pertaining to views on sexual orientation and to provide for the defense of such citizens and businesses.” Have we had one lawsuit in South Dakota arising from someone being sued for expressing their religious beliefs on the subject of sexual orientation? Even the threat of one? 

If we’re going to perseverate on a topic and introduce loads of legislation on it, why don’t we focus on bringing new and better jobs to South Dakota? Or, reducing the cost of college tuition? Or how about measures that reduce government red tape or the tax burden on it’s citizenry?...

Put more bluntly, we can protect the sanctity and definition of marriage without being dicks about it. 

This bill is like many of the bills that have been offered by the GOP and the likes of Ernie Otten that has fallen into the special category named by Mr. Powers. 

SB 67 Has Been Pulled

Three hours ago it appears that Ernie Otten's SB 67 bill has been pulled from the docket.  Representative Steve Hickey posted on the Twitter

stevehickey @stevehickey

SB67 has been pulled by it's sponsors meaning it will not proceed through the legislative process. Waters are too muddy. SB66 is a go.

If by muddy waters he meant that the bill allowed for pure and simple discrimination in the public and private businesses, he was correct.

SB66 is a bill I would be willing to support since it does protect religious institutions from being forced to perform ceremonies if it is against the church's or religious leader's beliefs. I think that a Catholic church should have the right to refuse to marry any couple, straight or gay, if they don't happen to be Catholic. If a Methodist church choose to marry a same-sex couple, then they have that right.

From my reading of the bill, it is limited to church and church officials and specific to the marriage issue

    Section 3. No member of the clergy nor lay official of any church or religion may be required to solemnize any marriage, provide services, accommodations, facilities, goods, or privileges for a purpose related to the solemnization, formation, or celebration of any marriage, or treat any marriage as valid for any purpose if such action would cause any such entity or individual to violate their sincerely held religious beliefs.

If there is a loophole built into the bill, I hope someone would point it out to me.  

My guess is that the muddied waters of SB 67 actually comes from the backlash that the bill had received and that the GOP wanted to put out that fire.  Even the "journalist" Pat Powers pointed out that the Democratic party was going to make this a clear election issue.  The a Democratic e-mail emerged showing that a petition against the bill had already received over 3500 signatures.  It is clear that the GOP is running scared from the issue.

Ernie Otten Not Republican Enough?

Ernie Otten has been busy this year with lots of bills related to the Common Core, and it seems that he has gotten into some trouble from it because he doesn't hate it enough.  Bob Mercer reports that a speaker against the Common Core, calling it a path toward socialism and communism, claims that Ernie Otten can't be trusted.

Last week the state Senate failed to pass legislation that would have created a panel to evaluate Common Core and deliver a report to the Legislature and the governor by Dec. 1, 2015. 

The bill’s sponsor, Sen. Ernie Otten, R-Tea, said the evaluation was a way for all sides to present information about Common Core. 

The vote was 18-16 in favor, but the bill needed a two-thirds majority of 24 ayes because it contained an appropriation for the panel’s expenses. 

Thompson, speaking to a reporter Monday, said the panel was a ruse intended to endorse Common Core.
Otten, a first-term legislator, was one of the Senate’s most conservative members last year. Thompson said his allegiance can’t be trusted now, because he’s been appointed chairman of the Senate Taxation Committee for the 2014 session.

So Daugaard is a Communist, many of the Republicans that supported Common Core in 2010 are Communists, now it seems that Ernie Otten can not be trusted as not being a Communist.  When will people see the dangers of extreme rhetoric and how it will come back to bite you?

Ernie Otten Fail at Defending SB 67

Senator Otten gets into a bit of a back and forth on his Facebook page over SB67, the bill that would make it okay to discriminate against a person because you think your religion encourages it.  The discussion starts off in an uncivil manner and Mr. Otten responds in a more civil manner that allows for an actual back and forth.  I won't put the first comment, but do want to share the rest of the discussion.

• 
  

  • Ernie Otten for South Dakota I’m not forcing or imposing an agenda on anyone. What it does do, however, is protect any South Dakotan from anyone trying to impose his or her radical views upon them by way of strong-arm tactics using legal & financial threats.

    Yesterday at 11:56am · Like
  • 

    Dennis Lyons You sidestepped the point. What are you going to do when someone denies you or someone you know a service based on their religious beliefs?

    Yesterday at 1:08pm · Like
  • 

    Ernie Otten for South Dakota I'm free to go elsewhere.

    Yesterday at 1:16pm · Like
  • 

    Dennis Lyons You are okay with, say, Hobby Lobby suddenly demanding that all their employees take an oath to some Protestant church and then firing any Catholic or atheist that doesn't? And what makes a religious belief so special? Do you support someone's right to deny services based on racial beliefs? What if someone used their religious beliefs to justify racism? This isn't a hypothetical question. Religions (including Christianity) have used or misused their texts to justify segregation, subjugation and slavery based on race or creed rather regularly.

    Yesterday at 1:54pm · Like
  • 

    Ernie Otten for South Dakota You set up strawman arguments to mislead.
    You are okay with the extremist radical activists & Progressive activist judges in other states punishing those Christians who hold a deeply-held Biblical belief, thereby forcing them into financial ruin rather than allowing them to live in peace with their moral convictions. It’s become a way for the extremists on the left to push their radical agenda of intolerance of someone else's conscience.

    Yesterday at 2:40pm · Like
  • 

    Dennis Lyons What straw man? There is an undeniable historical precedent and the language of your bill leaves this as a wide open possibility.

While I appreciate the reference to the strawman fallacy, and the argument does move into the strawman area, there is still a valid question that Mr. Otten fails to address.  The bill does allow for me to deny service based on my religious beliefs which will open the door to all sorts of blatant bigotry.  If you look at the bill, section 3 makes discrimination acceptable.  

Section 3. No person or any personal business may be required to provide services, accommodations, facilities, goods, or privileges for a purpose related to the solemnization, formation, or celebration of any marriage, or treat any marriage as valid for any purpose if such action would cause any such person or personal business to violate the person's sincerely held religious beliefs.

Despite calling out the other person's strawman with his own strawman.  This just goes to show the thinking pattern of this Senator.  I do not think that the Supreme Court of the United States radical and activist judges.  The other person was correct is saying that I could hold a deeply-held biblical belief that Christians should not be served in my store since I am Hindu or Muslim.  If that happened, I am sure Ernie Otten and his Tea Party would be up in arms.  Lines like, "It’s become a way for the extremists on the left to push their radical agenda of intolerance of someone else's conscience." makes the intentions clear:  It is okay for me to push my views on someone, but not okay for them to have an extreme opposing view.

Ernie Otten and Isaac Latterrell Abandon Reason and Evidence to Score Political Points

Recently Senator Ernie Otten and Representative Isaac Latterell from abandoned the evidence that was gathered by a bi-partisan committee to study the problems of education in getting and keeping teachers in school districts for a wide variety of fields of studies and especially in more rural schools.  The committee decided not to push for any specific bills, but instead to just get the Representatives and Senators to agree that there is actually a problem and that there are several reasons including low teacher pay for that shortage.  The House saw some opposition over the vote with Isaac Latterell voting with his Tea party friends Don and Jenna Haggar.   Part of the reasoning given by Don Haggar was he just couldn't believe that pay had anything to do with the teacher problem; however, the non-binding resolution passed the house with a large majority of 49-18 vote.  

So the resolution was on to the Senate with support by such Republicans as Senator Larry Tidemann.  The bill failed on a vote of 15-19 with Ernie Otten against it and not bothering to give a speech on why it should be rejected.  He did take time to report his vote on his Facebook page to those watching, but still no explanation.  I did ask him for his justification and will let you know if I hear a response.  

Not every Republican has taken a leave of his or her senses.

“We need to move forward and do our part,” Sen. Larry Tidemann, the school funding committee’s Vice Chair, said during his testimony in front of the Senate in support of the resolution. “We do have a teacher shortage. We can do nothing or we can recognize there is a problem.”

Sen. Tidemann noted testimony during the committee meetings identified a lack of applicants for teaching positions. Sen. Chuck Welke, also a committee member, echoed the statement.

“We heard story after story from schools of all sizes…struggling to find teachers,” Sen. Welke said.

Some of the Republican Senators that voted for the resolution and sound reasoning and evidence were Begalka, Hunhoff (Jean), Rampelberg, Rhoden, Soholt, Solano, Tieszen, and Van Gerpen.  

UPDATE:  As promised, here is Mr. Ernie Otten's response to my question.

Ernie Otten for South Dakota I'm supportive of the Governor's proposed 3% going into education. School boards at the local level set the wages for educators & staff, not the legislature.

Isaac Latterell Ignores the Real Issues Facing District 6 and South Dakota

We all know that Isaac Latterell chooses to ignore the evidence that getting and keeping teachers in South Dakota is a serious problem.  It seems that his main driving force for serving District 6 is to take on the federal government.  

Mr. Latterell posts on his website about what he took from the State of the State address from Governor Daugaard.  To summarize he concludes that the economy is great, but we need to watch out what the Federal Reserve and the Federal Government is doing.

But there is another constraint that reality places on South Dakota, and rightly so: we can’t print money. Or to put it another way, diluting money–your money. Even the word used to describe the result (“inflation”) is deceptive, because it implies that the products and services are becoming more valuable, when in fact it’s your paycheck and your savings becoming less valuable. 

The primary beneficiaries of inflation are the Federal Reserve Banks. The Fed is a non-governmental organization of banks authorized by congress with no audit level oversight by anyone, including congress. That’s why inflation is referred to as the “hidden tax” which actually hurts the poor and lower income the most, and keeps them from achieving economic security. That’s why I co-sponsored a resolution this year calling for an audit of the Fed....

He continues about the evils of the Federal Reserve and leads into joining the Convention of States because that is what everyone in District 6 is worried about.

While I may not agree with Ernie Otten and Herman Otten on much in politics, at least they try to focus on some issues directly impacting the citizens that voted them to office.  Maybe Mr. Latterell should focus on trying to help Tea High School with more funding and ways to get out of stick buildings...

More space is badly needed, district officials said, because enrollment has steadily climbed and buildings are reaching capacity. Several “stick buildings,” which don’t have running water, are being used to manage growing class sizes. 

Maybe pushing for a resolution to get the needed funding for the Lewis and Clark water system.  How about better funding for our districts to help them with increasing costs of road construction, infrastructure development, and to fight crime.  I won't go into the working poor in his district that would benefit from expansion of Medicaid or all the people in our district connected with medical services and schools that would benefit from an increase in funding for education or healthcare.  

I hope Mr. Latterell can figure what really matters to District 6 and focus on that and not Tea Party issues.

Isaac Latterell Must Think He Is a Teacher, But That Will Not Deal With the Teacher Shortage

Isaac Latterell, Representative of District 6, was one of 18 house Representatives to vote against a resolution that recognizes the teacher shortage that is hitting South Dakota.  Cory Heidelberger does a nice job of going into details about the vote.  Mr. Latterell chooses to vote with BFF Jenna Haggar instead of listening to the facts of a bi-partisan panel that investigated the problem.  

The reason he might not think there is a shortage is that he feels he is an accomplished "teacher" of government.  Back in October Mr. Latterell with Jenna Haggar shares this video about the basic structure of the republic form of government.  

(I WOULD POST THE VIDEO, BUT A 49 MINUTE VIDEO IS A LITTLE TO MUCH FOR ANYONE AND I AM HAVING TROUBLE WITH VIMEO)

Here are a few friendly teacher tips:

1. Don't lecture for 49 minutes.  You should have a variety of activities to help keep the class engaged.

2. Teaching is about encouraging students to develop his or her own thoughts, not to make political statements.  

3. Avoid words like "peons" (around 9 minutes in).  This just makes the students giggle.

4. Avoid comparing other forms of government to slavery.  (9:30 minutes in) You may like drawing chains, but it is a poor analogy that may offend members in your school district and students you are teaching.

5. I wouldn't take stands on the government shut down.  (20 minutes in) Your statement and the way you just shrug it off might be a problem for a student whose mom or dad work with EROS datacenter, a FDA inspector, a member of the National Guard in Sioux Falls, or a rancher that could not get assistance after a horrible, horrible blizzard.

6. By the way, Tim Johnson is also a Senator from South Dakota.  You just mention John Thune.

7. Never a good idea to start lecturing about the teachings of the God or the Bible when teaching a government class in a public school setting.  You may offend the atheist in the class room, the Buddhists, the practitioners of Hinduism, (you get the point).  You are also violating the concept of Separation of church and state.  

I could go on, but hopefully you will take this opportunity to reflect about how you did using the Danielson model and redevelop a new lesson plan explaining how you are meeting the state standards and teaching to all of your student learning styles.  I also expect that you will get this done while attending multiple committee meetings, coaching an activity, staying around to help a student improve from the last unit or make up work missed while on vacation, and working another job to help make your family bills.