Governor Rounds Gives Felons a Break

According to the conservative bloggasariat, my moral compass is irretrievably broken for voting for Clark Schmidtke, a man with a felony theft conviction, instead of Russell Olson, a man with a longer yet less grave criminal record.

So how big of a jerk is Governor M. Michael Rounds for granting executive clemency to ten individuals the day after the election? Grand theft, assualt, DUI... all excused by Governor Rounds. Criminals all told by Governor Rounds, "Let's put your record behind you. Go on with your lives. Serve the common good. And don't screw up again."

Note that the governor doesn't excuse all lawbreakers. He picks and chooses, just like the Board of Pardons and Paroles. He listens to their stories, assesses their apologies, their character, and their sincerity. He grants it to some and not to others.

But of course, he's a Republican governor, not a Democratic blogger, so he's entitled to make such moral judgment calls... right?

Displaced Plainsman: Different Accountability for Teachers and Republicans?

Far be it from me to tell Republicans how to spend their free time and money. If Republicans want to go to topless lesbian bondage clubs, well, as long as the lesbians don't mind, let 'em. I'm sure this week's little brouhaha isn't the first time politicians have enjoyed some adult entertainment. (Anyone care to take names at the Hop Scotch in Fort Pierre?)

But new online pal Displaced Plainsman offers this observation on double standards for accountability (I quote in full, as DP is brief but effective):

Michael Steele, head of the RNC, apparently isn't responsible for the staffer who took people to a lesbian/bondage themed club. High school teachers, however, are responsible for how their students perform on NCLB tests.

Most stats say that kids are away from school 91% of the time. I have contact with my students about 55 minutes a day. I'm willing to bet that Steele has more contact with his staffers than I have with my students. Isn't there a double standard here? [Displaced Plainsman, 2010.03.30]

Anyone who has watched Star Trek knows the captain is always responsible for the actions of his crew. Kirk up, Mr. Steele!

Donald Moeller Shows Death Penalty Costs Too Much

...So Does Risk to Innocents

A couple weeks ago, I posted on the American Law Institute's withdrawal of the death penalty from its model penal code. KELO's Don Jorgensen follows up with a conversation with State Senator Sandy Jerstad and lawyer Scott Abdallah about the cost of the death penalty.

Senator Jerstad agrees with me that capital punishment is bad budget policy as well as bad moral policy. Jorgensen reports that Donald Moeller, who's been on South Dakota's death row for nearly two decades, has cost us $1.5 million. Mr. Abdallah, who prosecuted Moeller at his second trial and defends the death penalty, says housing inmates can cost $20K to $30K. Hmmm... by those numbers, if we'd just skipped the death penalty and thrown Moeller in the deepest hole in the pen... 20 years, $30K... that would be $600,000. By Abdallah's numbers, Donald Moeller would have to live for 50 years to rack up the imprisonment costs that we've spent in 20 years trying to kill him.

But Abdallah is ready to concede the cost argument and still argue for capital punishment: "If the death penalty deters one, just one innocent human life in South Dakota, the value of that certainly out weighs the cost," he tells Jorgensen.

I'm not sure my Republican friends would like that "spare no expense for innocent life" argument applied to the health care debate (we don't care if people die from lack of insurance; we can't raise taxes!).

The follow-up question Don Jorgensen should have asked was, "But what if capital punishment kills just one innocent person?" We will likely never have evidence that the death penalty stopped a particular crime. We may find evidence that a prisoner we have killed is innocent. However, even if Abdallah were right about deterrence and I (and the American Law Institute) were right about flawed death sentences, which would you rather have on your hands: a sin of omission (Joe Criminal kills an innocent man because the state didn't threaten execution) or a sin of commission (the state executes an innocent man)?

The death penalty has financial and moral costs that we should not bear. Perhaps Senator Jerstad will favor us with a bill to repeal SDCL Chapter 23A-27A.

Pastor Wallis Applies Christian Values to Economic Recovery

Oh, those darn preachers, always talking about Christian values instead of practical issues like the econ—oh, my.... What's that Reverend Jim Wallis said about greed and how our economic recovery depends on our moral recovery?

...I want to not go back to where we were. I want to say, where can we chart a different course here? For example, to move to a clean energy economy is more than rewiring the energy grid, it's rewiring ourselves -- our habits, our choices, our expectations. On the banks, a number of us are deciding to move our money to local banks that have really behaved much more responsibly and still serve our communities. So I think there could be a real mini movement here, a citizen movement of people trying to look at their own family, lifestyle, choices, and accountability on Wall Street and in Washington. I think we have to rebalance -- we've lost our balance here, how do we regain our balance and then go forward? [Rev. Jim Wallis, interview with Bill Radke, "Values Can Shape Economic Recovery," Marketplace Morning Edition, 2010.01.15]

Bad morals don't cause earthquakes, but they do have social impacts, like recessions. I humbly suggest Rev. Wallis shows us how his Christian values can point us toward healthy local economies.

Munsterman to Medicaid Patients: Drop Dead

Where is George W. Bush's compassionate conservatism when we need it?

Governor Rounds says increased enrollment in Medicaid may set the state back another $40 million. Candidate Scott Munsterman's solution: kick people off Medicaid.

Munsterman said the state should scale back Medicaid eligibility and provide vouchers to purchase health insurance for catastrophic events.

He also called for more personal responsibility on the part of Medicaid recipients.

“We have a higher rate of medical care within our Medicaid system than other people do who have their own insurance,” he said. “We need to look at deductibles, we need to look at co-pays. We need to have a program that they can engage in, and become responsible, too” [David Montgomery, "Munsterman Says Medicaid Eligibility Must be Scaled Back in SD," Pierre Capitol Journal, 2009.10.27].

More personal responsibility—that's conservative code for not my problem.

Sure, we can probably find folks who take advantage of Medicaid (just like we can find insurance execs who take advantage of their clients... but I don't hear Munsterman calling for dropping the hammer on that system). But the problem the state faces in funding Medicaid is not a sudden surge of goldbrickers. The problem is thousands of responsible South Dakotans who have lost their jobs or/and their health insurance and have nowhere else to turn to get their families decent medical care. They don't want charity; they don't want to face the stigma of irresponsibility that conservatives like Munsterman keep piling onto folks who need help through no fault of their own. But the recession is hammering them, the flu is coming, and they just want to be healthy and not bankrupt.

The proper response from society is to say to these neighbors, "All right, we'll get you through." Candidate Munsterman's response is plain old class warfare—if folks need help, it must be their fault, and they should pay for their irresponsibility.

Practically, his proposal makes about as much sense as cutting unemployment benefits during a recession. It continues the long, sad history of Republican "leaders" unwilling to take the lead on getting South Dakota as a community to recognize our common obligations to each other in tough times. Blame the poor, demand nothing of the well-off: typical GOP.

Update 2009.10.29 07:10 CDT: A reader forwards this breakdown of South Dakota's Medicaid enrollment and spending. The data come from 2006 through 2008, so they don't capture the recession-related surge in Medicaid enrollment. But in FY2006, here's who was on Medicaid in South Dakota:

Medicaid Enrollment	SD	US	SD	US
Total Enrollment, FY2006	118,500	58,714,800	-	-	% of total residents
Children	70,100	29,182,400	59.2	49.7	% of Medicaid enrollees
Adults	20,100	14,879,700	17.0	25.3	% of Medicaid enrollees
Elderly	12,400	6,116,200	10.5	10.4	% of Medicaid enrollees
Disabled	15,900	8,536,500	13.4	14.5	% of Medicaid enrollees

source: State Medicaid Fact Sheet, StateHealthFacts.org, Kaiser Family Foundation, downloaded 2009.10.29

83% of the people Dr. Munsterman thinks need to take more personal responsibility for their health care are children, disabled, or elderly. Evidently the Republican philosophy is to balance the state budget on the backs of those who can't fight back.

Premier Bank Credit Card: 79.9% Interest

Photo Credit:

Bob Hansen, NBC San Diego

There's usury, and then there's usury:

[South Dakota] doesn't have any limits on the interest banks and credit card issuers are allowed to charge. Which gets you things like this: A card offered by Premier Bank, based in Sioux Falls, carrying an annual interest rate of 79.9 percent. Perfectly legal [Kai Ryssdal, final note, Marketplace, 2009.10.15].

Ah, nothing like a moral basis for the South Dakota economy...

Domestic Abuse = Pre-Existing Condition in South Dakota

A Kevin Bacon hat tip to my wife, who read this on Pandagon, who got this from the SEIU:

Loyal readers, you know I love South Dakota. That's why I live here. That's why my daughter will grow up here. But some news makes me want to take my state by the scruff of the neck and say "South Dakota! What on earth is wrong with you?!"

To wit: South Dakota is one of nine states that allows health insurance companies to reject applications from victims of domestic abuse. South Dakota women, if your husband beats you, he may render you uninsurable.

I can't sort out all the levels on which South Dakota's policy here is disgusting. Domestic abuse is all about power, usually some desperate, inadequate, pathetic man using fists and fear to force a woman into submission. Wifebeaters cut their victims off from avenues of social and financial support. Taking away a woman's ability to buy her own health insurance can cripple her financially and reinforce her dependence on her abuser. By making it possible for some brute to take away a woman's insurability with one drunken wallop, we, the state of South Dakota, become accomplices in domestic abuse.

Somewhere, some insurance company employee (any bets on whether it was a man?) had to reason out the following: "Gee, women whose husbands beat them might incur more medical costs. Women whose husbands beat them might reduce our profits. Therefore, we should not do business with women whose husbands beat them."

Our private health insurance system not only allows but embraces such appalling thinking. The state of South Dakota facilitates such evil, favoring profits over people. South Dakota considers wife-beating, like pregnancy, a pre-existing condition. I keep hearing we're a pro-life state, but our leaders keep providing evidence to the contrary.

We may not be able to legislate or educate every man into showing every woman the proper love and respect the Bible demands. But we can act to change an immoral system that perpetuates the powerlessness abusers inflict on their victims. Mitch, Gerry, Russ—fix this.

Domestic abuse is not a pre-existing condition. It is a crime for which the abuser, not the abused, should be punished. No man should be allowed to take away a woman's right, if not to receive health care, then to participate in the free market and buy with her own money the health insurance that is necessary to get care.

Courage in the Streets of Tehran

Sometimes in the face of danger and violence, regular folks know immediately what they must do:

Supporters of Iranian presidential candidate Mir-Hossein Mousavi rush to the aid of another Mousavi supporter being beaten by Iranian government security agents. Tehran, Sunday, June 14, 2009.
Photo AP via Boston Globe's "The Big Picture"

A Mousavi supporter helps an injured riot policeman. Tehran, Saturday, June 13, 2009.
Photo AP via Boston Globe's "The Big Picture"

Check out the entire photo essay at Boston.com. Gritty, stirring journalism.

See also the Twitter-storm at #iranelection, where folks are heeding this call from Mr. Mousavi's own Twitter channel, mousavi1388: "We have no national press coverage in Iran, everyone should help spread Mousavi's message. One Person = One Broadcaster."

Dr. Tiller's Murderer Is Not Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Speaking of rigorous German theologians, an eager reader sends me this article about abortion violence, moral reasoning, and Dietrich Bonhoeffer. The writer, R. Albert Mohler, Jr., president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, confronts questions he's been getting about a possible analogy between the murder of Dr. George Tiller and the violent resistance Bonhoeffer ultimately advocated and conspired in against the Nazi regime.

I find any analogy between Bonhoeffer and a whining, perhaps mentally unbalanced domestic Christian terrorist repugnant. Bonhoeffer is one of my favorite Lutherans. For one thing, he bears a striking resemblance to my Brookings college pal Erik Johnson, not just in looks but, more importantly, in brains. Bonhoeffer took his theology seriously. He had to: he entered his career as a theologian and pastor in the gravest economic and political conditions. He denounced Hitler in a radio address two days after Hitler took the chancellorship. (The radio broadcast was cut off mid-sentence.) His resistance to the Nazi regime never flagged, until the Nazis executed him in April 1945. Even in prison, against seemingly overwhelming power, he fought to keep hope alive with words and big ideas. He is a fascinating historical character, at least as worthy of study (and celebration) as King and Gandhi.

Dr. Mohler agrees with me that Scott Roeder is no Dietrich Bonhoeffer:

So many readers are familiar with Dietrich Bonhoeffer's decision to take action against Hitler. Fewer are familiar with the moral and theological reasoning that led Bonhoeffer, quite reluctantly, to this conclusion. Even then, Bonhoeffer was not certain he was acting rightly. He felt that this decision, made under extreme moral conditions, was the best he could understand.

Other readers have seen the film "Valkyrie," and jump to some of the same conclusions. We must realize that Bonhoeffer did not come to his decision to resort to violence against the regime out of a moral vacuum. He and his brothers and sisters in the Confessing Church had long before come to the conclusion that they must oppose the Nazi regime in totality, risking imprisonment and far worse. It is nothing less than embarrassing to see American Christians make arguments citing Bonhoeffer while they fail to engage his moral and theological reasoning -- and when arguments are based in sloppy analogies from a position of cultural comfort [R. Albert Mohler, Jr., "Moral Reasoning in Light of Wichita," originally published in the Chicago Tribune, 2009.06.07].

Cultural comfort: opponents of legal abortion have numerous avenues to pursue their agenda well short of violence. The ballot box, the press, and the blogosphere are open to their efforts (and mine). We still have free and fair elections, not to mention an active (if blubbering) opposition party.

Mohler notes that Bonhoeffer himself opposed abortion. But Mohler also makes crystal clear that the murder of Dr. George Tiller (and any of the future violence Tiller's suspected murderer says is planned) is wrong:

America is not Nazi Germany. George Tiller, though bearing the blood of thousands of unborn children on his hands, was not Adolf Hitler. The murderer of Dr. George Tiller is no Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Dr. Tiller’s murderer did not serve the cause of life; he assaulted that cause at its moral core.

Ohio blogger and Operation Rescue veteran Julie Bogart further fleshes out that America–Nazi Germany distinction:

First of all, Bonhoeffer's mission to overthrow the Fuhrer was philosophically supported by the similar objectives of a concert of nations in the war effort. Bonhoeffer didn't act as a lone agent of justice, but rather cooperated with a consensus of justice-seeking governments, individuals and organizations bent on ending the evil plot of the Third Reich (a mission created by one individual leading a nation and abusing his power to coerce the extermination of entire races, as well as taking over sovereign nations through acts of war).

Though erroneously called "the culture wars," the debate about abortion is not a war! It isn't even war-like. The right to an abortion is rooted in respect for the individual's ability to exercise choice at the deepest level of personal conviction. The choice to have an abortion is not coerced by a tyrant, but is made within the privacy of an individual woman's heart, in concert with her beliefs, her physician's recommendations and her spiritual/ethical values. To prevent this "choice" is to coerce. Certainly the baby (or fetus - you choose) has no choice and is coerced into birth or death based on that choice (the crux of the debate is really - does the fetus/baby have rights? Not, is it a baby or is it alive?). Still, the question isn't about the abortionist. It's about what individuals believe about conception and pregnancy (which is nothing like the death camps of Nazi Germany!) [Julie Bogart, "Tiller, 'Operation Rescue,' and Bonhoeffer," Julie Unplugged, 2009.06.02].

We should all take heed of Bogart's distinction between our petty cultural bickering and the real war Bonhoeffer had to fight. Dietrich Bonhoeffer engaged in a moral and theological struggle that took enormous courage and ultimately took his life. Scott Roeder took a break from whining about having to buy license plates to walk into an unguarded church and shoot an unarmed man.

Scott Roeder is not Dietrich Bonhoeffer.

Charitable Giving: More from the Poor?

Remember the hubbub over the President's proposal to reduce the deduction folks in the top tax bracket get for charitable giving? Our Senator John Thune proposed an amendment to protect that tax break for the wealthy: first it failed (and Senator Tim Johnson caught heck for voting against it), then it passed (and Senator Johnson got no credit for backing it), and then it got axed by conference committee (and the Senate vote was 94–3, so whom can you blame there?).

One estimate says the proposed deduction reduction would result in only a 2.1% decrease in giving—an encouraging figure that indicates there aren't that many false givers out there.

Not that any of this matters much to folks at the other end of the tax-bracket spectrum. If you're making under $30K, deductions don't do much for your bottom line. And even without big deduction incentives, the lowest fifth of wage earners in America hand out a larger percentage of their income than do the members of any other income bracket:


Yes, yes, these are relative figures, no absolute. 2.1% of $159K is a lot more than 4.3% of $11K. But the rich guy giving 2% also has a lot more cash left in his pocket after his charitable deed than the poor guy giving 4%. And remember, the poor guy probably isn't bothering to itemize (or to have his accountant itemize) every nickel-dimey Sunday tithe to get 36% back from the IRS.

American Enterprise Institute president Arthur Brooks says the poor probably give more because more of them go to church. (Brooks does have a book to sell.) Others suggest that poor folks just hang around with more folks who need help.

Or maybe...

Pastor Coletta Jones, who ministers to a largely low-income tithing congregation in southeast Washington, The Rock Christian Church, thinks that poor people give more because they ask for less for themselves.

"When you have just a little, you're thankful for what you have," Jones said, "but with every step you take up the ladder of success, the money clouds your mind and gets you into a state of never being satisfied" [Frank Greve, "America's Poor Are Its Most Generous Givers," McClatchy Newspapers, 2009.05.19].

Just something to think about as you head to the office today.

Waterboarding Is Torture: Shut Up and Watch

Hat tip to SD Humanist:

Chicago radio host Erich "Mancow" Muller said waterboarding wasn't torture. He agreed to have a U.S. Marine waterboard him live on air to prove it. Six seconds in, he changed his mind.



Waterboarding is torture.

New Credit Card Rules: The Personal Perspective

So what do the new credit card rules mean for me? I like to think of myself as a "good" credit cardholder. I've carried a balance once, for two months. For the last ten years, I've paid the full bill every month, with maybe two late payments due to sheer forgetfulness. Of course, "good" is in the eye of the beholder. Credit card companies call cardholders like me deadbeats, because I don't generate profits for them. Heck, with rebates and no annual fees, I'm costing Citigroup and Chase money. Who wants a customer like that?

There have been some suggestions in the news that credit card companies may nuke those cashback awards and other perks and impose more annual fees in order to recoup what they'll lose now that they'll be forced to play fair with borrowers. And if Citi does hit me with an annual fee, then I face the choice of eating that cost or cutting up my card and dinging my credit score. Ouch.

But you know, I've been having a free lunch for years. Citi has been providing me a service and losing money. Worse, I've been making money, in the form of cashback rebates, on the backs of folks carrying more debt and suffering from the very predatory, usurious practices of which I've been so critical. There's a bigger ouch.

Ezra Klein reminds us that there is no such thing as "good" and "bad" credit cardholders. Each of us is just a layoff or a car wreck or one lost envelope away from finding ourselves on the wrong end of the credit card companies' big guns. Why should I profit from folks just like me whose abuse at the hands of credit card corporations is triggered by nothing more than bad luck?

The new credit card regulations will give Citi a convenient excuse to jack up fees and cut benefits (but wait a minute: even before these new regs, was anyone getting letters from Citi et al. announcing lower rates and fees?). If Citi decides it can no longer afford to pay me for using its card, I won't like it. But I can live with it. Nobody should profit from deceptive business practices... not even me.

Objectification of Women (Carrie Prejean) Worse Than Gay Marriage

Tuesday I highlighted the rank hypocrisy of the Christian Right that will embrace a topless model as their spokesmodel. (It could be the repressed fundagelicals just like the excuse to look up "Carrie Prejean" on Google Images.) My point is that the objectification of women (complete with fake breasts) does much more harm to our national moral fiber than any two guys holding hands and trading wedding rings.

Bob Ellis finds this point to be "Cory's teenage spin."

Fine. Try this:

You can find racy photos in many popular magazines. While the ads may look like they're made for adults, a sexual exploitation expert says they target children, making them think it's OK to be provocative.

You can find ads like these in magazines at just about any grocery store or gas station and national expert Cordelia Anderson [not a teenager, not a spin doctor] says they're sending the wrong message.

"For girls it's you're supposed to be sex objects and to be used. And for boys, you're supposed to be exploiters, the users, the takers and pornography makers and it's not healthy for our girls or boys," sexual exploitation expert Cordelia Anderson said.

Anderson shared that message at a Child Abuse Conference today in Sioux Falls. She says on average, children see about 30,000 of these ads per year [Courtney Zieller, "Expert Speaks out about Racy Magazine Photos," KELOLand.com, 2009.05.14].

Racy magazine photos: you know, the kind the Christian Right's darling Miss California posed for... and the kind that can be made out of the bikini parades beauty pageants present. It doesn't matter what politics you espouse: objectifying women is bad, and Carrie Prejean buys 100% into objectifying herself.

That discussion will be part of our home school curriculum. Better make sure it's part of yours, too, Bob.

-----------------------------
Update 2009.05.16: For another Christian perspective, see Father Fountain at Northern Plains Anglican, who says to his fellow believers, "Our iconography sucks these days."

Dakota Voice Celebrates Lying Topless Model

I'm sorry: when the Christian Right will exalt as a role model a beauty queen who poses for topless photos (she says she was a minor when she did it—parents?—but some question that assertion), accepts breast implants paid for by the pageant to win a beauty contest, and violates her contract, I can't pass up the headline.

I guess as long as you stand up against Satan and those darn homina-homina-sexuals, all is forgiven. All hail Miss California, Carrie Prejean, icon of a movement that is all image and fading substance.

But hey: at least Bob Ellis took a break from reprinting Star Parker and the Christian Post so we can actually hear a Dakota Voice on this pressing issue. Hmmm, which fake bikini model gets to promote unhealthy body image as well as unhealthy politics? That's the pro-woman spirit we've come to expect from our fundamentalist friends.

Everyone please note: it's the Christian fundamentalists holding this topless model up as a role model, while the atheist dad in the room vows never to encourage his daughter to grow up and be like Carrie Prejean.

Leslee Unruh out of Ideas, Plagiarizing Leadership Coach?

So is it still plagiarism if all you're copying are the empty platitudes of life coaches?

A second consecutive defeat at the ballot box must really have taken the wind out of the Abstinence Clearinghouse's sails. Perhaps in anticipation of the end of the federal gravy train, Leslee Unruh appears to be looking into a new career as a life/leadership coach. In a departure from the usual stream of abstinence and abortion propaganda, Unruh has been busy posting little self-help nuggets on the Abstinence Clearinghouse blog.

Now Kelsey at DakotaWomen first drew our attention to these "Nuggets of Leadership from Leslee Unruh." I can't find the link, but I think the DakotaWomen or someone else in the blogosphere might have commented on Leslee's ironic and uncharacteristic emphasis of the word choice.

Uncharacteristic indeed: They weren't her words in the first place.

Here's a little free career coaching: if you're trying to break into the self-help industry, at least try to come up with your own material. Leslee appears to be quoting extensively (i.e., cutting and pasting) from Dr. Lee J. Colan, "high-energy executive advisor, author and leadership expert."

Sometimes Unruh remembers (here and here) to include an incomplete and linkless citation to Dr. Colan's book Orchestrating Attitude; more often, though, she just plops Dr. Colan's text on her website and claims it as her own (as seen March 24^th, March 27^th, and April 3^rd entries).

To avoid a stern lecture about the ills of plagiarism, Leslee, feel free to copy the following citations:

• March 24 ("Some people measure their success by financial security, career growth.... Tomorrow you will become what you choose today."): Lee J. Colan, "Orchestrating Attitude: Getting the Best from Yourself and Others," The Letter: Official Report of the L Group, 2005. Excerpted from book of same name.
  
• March 27 ("Remember, your mind is your ultimate personal computer.... Seek positive input and you will improve your chances of producting positive output."): Lee J. Colan, "Control Your Inputs," The Letter: Official Report of the L Group, 2008.
• April 3 ("Life’s rewards — loving relationships, meaningful work.... the rewards go to those who let their actions rise above their excuses."): Lee J. Colan, "A Moment to Act," The Letter: Official Report of the L Group, 2008. Excerpted from 7 Moments That Define Excellent Leaders.

There I go again, helping my neighbors. Darned socialist mentality.

------------
Update 2009.04.06 07:52 CDT: By the way, Dave Munger offers a fine explanation of why it is more accurate to refer to the Unruhs as "anti-sex" rather than "pro-life."

Repeal Death Penalty: Money Louder Than Morals

Irony of the morning: In this "Christian nation," it takes a fiscal argument to get states moving on repealing the death penalty.

Mr. Epp alerts us to a movement afoot in Kansas to save money by ending capital punishment. The NY Times cites six other states where that debate is taking place, including Maryland, where one study estimated that carrying a capital punishment case to its grim conclusion costs $1.9 million more than imprisoning a convict for life.

$1.9 million? With savings like that, it is surprising (as Mr. Epp observes) that Governor Rounds didn't include a death-penalty repeal in his cost-cutting budget for South Dakota. Evidently, the way Governor Rounds read it in January, South Dakota just didn't have the money to support the State Fair, the South Dakota Arts Council, the Birth to 3 Connections program, or cost-of-living increases for state workers, but it can afford to spend two decades wrangling with Donald Moeller in court instead of just locking his cell door and throwing away the key.

You may read something unseemly in the fact that a fiscal argument about money might produce results where moral arguments fall on deaf ears. But such is the nature of politics in a pluralistic society. When we approach policy questions from different religious and moral perspectives, we often must find common ground with pragmatic policy answers. On health care, I like to argue that we have a moral (Christian?) obligation to take care of each other, but the more compelling argument in the legislative arena for universal health care is that it saves lives and money. On abortion, I recognize some abortions are carried out for reasons I would find morally questionable, but I recognize that the abortion bans South Dakota has considered are poorly written policy that wouldn't produce the desired results.

So has our prosecution of Donald Moeller, now entering its twentieth year, produced the intended results? Has it made South Dakota a less violent state than states with no death penalty?

Attorney General Long, do your part to balance South Dakota's budget: call Moeller's lawyers, make a deal, and let Moeller rot in jail for the rest of his natural life.

How to Beat an Abortion Ban (Pay Attention, North Dakota)

Every now and then I check back in on Pastor Steve Hickey hoping for a few laughs. I should know better.

This afternoon we get the standard misuse of language (nobody is pro-abortion), Bob and Steve talking to themselves, and then someone goes off the rails, commenting that "Witchcraft, paganism, and the goddesses doomed the fate and destiny of babies and women in South Dakota in November."

What twists their righteous knickers today is an article in Politics Magazine by Connie Lewis and Nathan Peterson explaining how they built the coalition and campaign that beat South Dakota's retread abortion ban in 2008. They lay out the key points of their winning campaign:

1. Focus on the law's consequences.
2. Exercise extreme message discipline.
3. Develop a broad coalition.
4. Use grassroots communications to fill in the gaps.

Not exactly profound or revolutionary campaign strategy. Pastor Hickey thinks he has hay to make out of Lewis and Peterson's statement (admission, Hickey would call it, wishing he could play Inquisitor) that "avoiding debate over the morality of abortion" to focus instead on the specific consequences of Initiated Measure 11 was part of their successful strategy.

But the campaign strategy is nothing folks couldn't figure out, and Hickey's response is nothing Lewis, Peterson, and the rest of us haven't heard before. Reading this article, one can almost hear Lewis and Peterson saying, "Bring it. We know how Hickey and Unruh will respond, and we don't care. We won, and we can win again. This strategy works, and this message makes sense."

"Avoiding debate over the morality of abortion" was exactly the right strategy. South Dakotans weren't being asked to vote on a declaration of morality. They were being asked to vote on a poorly written, impractical law that would not achieve its purported aims. People voted the ban down because, even if they don't like abortion (and again, nobody likes abortion), they recognized that the law on the ballot was bad public policy. Sometimes a childishly simple morality isn't enough to formulate practical, effective laws.

Alas, our neighbors in North Dakota are now refighting this battle. Defenders of women's rights in ND, take your cues from Lewis and Peterson. We don't get to dress up our crusade in Morality and Scripture. We have to settle for rationality and plain old practical government.

Fortunately, as Lewis, Peterson, and the 2008 South Dakota election prove, that sometimes complicated but always rational message does indeed resonate with a healthy majority.

----------------------
For a view from the other side, read the admission explanation from public affairs consultants Frank Schubert and Jeff Flint that fundraising, message control, and focus on consequences were just as important to the success of California's Prop 8.

Opt-In vs. Opt-Out: Change in Madison Round-Up Program Clear Money Grab

My Wednesday post on the proposed change to Madison's electric bill round-up (officially "Step-Up") program has generated some good discussion from all sides. (It's also generated cries of "B.S." and "socialism." :-D ). The poll on the City of Madison website has also drawn attention, with 458 people voting so far. After some remarkable swings, the vote currently (9/19 08:24) stands at 48% for, 52% against. (And that poll is still open, so if you haven't voted, go do it!)

To review the proposal: in 2003, the Madison Central School Educational Foundation got the City of Madison to offer municipal electric customers the option to round up their monthly electric bills to the nearest dollar. The city transfers that round-up amount to the MCSEF, which uses the money to give scholarships to MHS grads who go to DSU.

That scholarship program is a good plan. Youth are key to economic development. As you've read here previously, we'll get a lot better return on our economic development dollar by investing in our own youth, kids with real ties to this community, than in outside companies that flit about the country and world looking for the lowest taxes and cheapest labor.

Unfortunately, after five years, the city and MCSEF have only been able to get 15% of Madison's electric customers to opt into the program and fork over their four bits (average) a month, or about $2500 a year.

So MCSEF proposes one simple change: change participation from opt-in to opt-out. Have the city round everyone's electric bill up to the nearest dollar unless customers call and say otherwise. Sioux Valley Electric's round-up program is opt-out, and it has 70% participation. That level of participation in Madison's Step-Up program would generate over $11,000 annually.

The problem is, that revenue boost would comes not from convincing customers that the money is going to a good cause or even creating a new, better program. Rather, the boost comes from two sources: inattention and guilt. Suppose 25% of electric customers don't even pay attention to the pennies on their electric bill. Switching to opt-out takes money out of their pockets without their noticing. For those who do pay attention, opt-out still counts on guilt to keep people from saying "No."

Think of it this way: I come over to your house. I see some change sitting on your shelf. I pocket the money. (I'll use the money for a really good public project, like developing more features for RealMadison.org!) To suggest that I have a rightful claim to your money until you tell me I can't take it doesn't seem right.

We pay taxes for public functions. The city has decided that supporting the marketing campaigns of the Chamber and LAIC are valuable enough that we all should pay for them with sales tax dollars, with no option to opt-out. I might argue that scholarships to keep good students at DSU would be a better investment of tax dollars than banners and slogans.

If the city feels the effort to keep MHS grads in town is worth public dollars, the city should bite the leadership bullet and declare a tax that everyone will pay for that purpose on all electric bills (or just draw straight from the general fund and let the electric bill be a straight electric bill). If the city feels the MSCEF's scholarship program is worthwhile but should remain a voluntary donation, then the city should keep it as an honest donation, one that does not rely on inattention or guilt to swell to coffers.

Houston Rescue Workers Take No Conscience Pause

NPR's All Things Considered interviewed Houston Fire Department Rescue Chief Richard Cole yesterday about the rescue efforts he was managing following Hurricane Ike. Melissa Block asked him whether he and his rescue crews had any qualms about rescuing folks who find themselves in trouble because of the arguably bad choice they made by not evacuating the city. Chief Cole said something quite instructive about duty and public service:

Jacki Lyden, NPR: What is it like to rescue people who were supposed to leave and then not leave?

Richard Cole, HFD: Well, the forecasters had predicted this storm to go someplace else, and obviously for a city as large as we are, it takes a lot of time to move this many people. I think that the people in our evacuation zones that were set up... we had a large amount of those people that were able to get out. We did have part of the population that decided to stay, but it's not our job as rescuers to figure out why they stayed or whatnot. It's our job to try to make sure that we get them out.

Lyden: But if someone stays and you have to rescue them, does that create any sort of fatigue or resentment on the part of the rescue worker?

Cole: No. Our job is to come in and do what's needed. People have different reasons for why they stayed: no place to go, no family, no transportation; this is the first hurricane that they've been in, they see other people ride it out, "well, I think I can do it too;" they might not be familiar with the topography of their neighborhoods and know that it floods. So there's a lot of reasons. We don't hold resentment. It's our job to come in and save people.

["Rescue Efforts Under Way in Houston," All Things Considered, 2008.09.13]

Maybe pharmacists and other medical workers agitating for "conscience clause" exceptions should take their cues from the brave men and women of the Houston Fire Department: following your conscience means doing the job you've agreed to do. And for the brave men and women of the Houston Fire Department, doing the job means helping people, not judging them.

Blogger Weeds out White House Plagiarist

Plagiarism is lying, cheating, and stealing, and the Bush Administration, bless their hearts, will have none of it. The New York Times reports that blogger Nancy Nall caught White House aide Tim Goeglein plagiarizing essays for his hometown paper, the Fort Wayne News-Sentinel. Nall found Goeglein's column in Thursday's paper to be plagiarized from a 1998 Dartmouth Review article. The News-Sentinel investigated and found Goeglein had plagiarized 20 of 38 columns since 2000. By Friday evening, the Bush Administration had declared Goeglein's plagiarism "not acceptable", and Goeglein's resignation was on the President's desk.

Note that Goeglein had served as a good Christian soldier for evangelical Gary Bauer's presidential campaign in 2000, then became a top aide to Karl Rove. NY Times describes Goeglein as a "liaison to the social and religious conservatives" for the Bush Administration. The describes Goeglein as "instrumental in establishing the Bush faith-based community initiative" [Ashley Smith, "Bush Aide Goeglein Resigns," Fort Wayne News-Sentinel, 2008.03.01].

Gogelien's religious background has at least led him to take responsibility for his sins: he has been issuing apologies at a vigorous pace:

“It is true,” Mr. Goeglein wrote in an e-mail message to another Fort Wayne newspaper, The Journal-Gazette. “I am entirely at fault. It was wrong of me. There are no excuses.”

He said he had apologized to the author of The Dartmouth Review article.

[Sheryl Gay Stolberg, "Bush Aide Resigns After Admitting Plagiarism," New York Times, 2008.03.01].

Goeglein is right about having no excuses. He double-majored in journalism and political science at Indiana University Bloomington. He wasn't writing under deadline or for pay for the News-Sentinel. He had all the knowledge to avoid plagiarism and none of the pressure that might cause some writers to slip.

Even one plagiarized article is unacceptable. But 20? How'd that many slip by the editors?

News-Sentinel Editorial Page Editor Leo Morris said writers of guest columns are given a certain level of trust to ensure the information they supply is correct and not plagiarized.

“You don't have the time or the manpower to check everything that comes in,” he said.

“If you can't trust the faith-based assistant to the president, who can you trust?” [Smith 2008.03.01]

Thank goodness we have bloggers to help check the media. There's one more positive contribution bloggers make to the general welfare!

So here's your small miracle for Sunday: The Bush Administration and the Madville Times agree. Plagiarism is wrong, and you can expect to lose your job for it.