I'm on NPR Tomorrow. Maybe.

By -
Tim Gebhart of A Progressive on the Priarie and I are supposedly going to be on National Public Radio tomorrow morning on the topic of Amendment E:
In South Dakota, anyone who objects to how his court case was handled may soon be able to complain to a grand jury. Voters will decide if the legal protections for judges and juries should be eliminated. The "Jail four Judges" amendment, Wednesday on Morning Edition.
We appeared on it as two people from divergent political views who came together to fight the amendment. If anyone happens to catch it - I'd owe you big if you could tape it for me. (I bet there'd even be a SDWC t-shirt in it for you)

Comments

PP said…
Bonnie, I though you weren't reading me anymore.

So, your comment can go away as rambling nonsense from California.
5:55 PM
Haggs said…
PP, you might be on NPR? Very cool, congrats!

I think they archive interviews and stories they do on their website. So that might be a good place to look for it.
6:04 PM
PP said…
Cool.

You probably won't hear me much. Tim was on his "A" game that morning, and I was pretty nervous.
6:32 PM
Anonymous said…
PP, I don't think you can withdraw from the ballot at this time.
7:54 PM
Anonymous said…
PP -

May I request a thread on the SDPB Congressional Debate tonight?

I'd like to see what other people thought. I was suprised that Larry R. (Libertarian Cand.) seemed more informed than the Republican candidate.

Please consider my request.

Thanks!
9:12 PM
Douglas said…
Heard it this morning. NPR sure made the amendment sound like the tool of the devil.

Noticed however that while NPR identified PP and Tim as bloggers who disagree on just about everything, they neglected to mention that PP is a master grade a number 1 Republican operative and Tim G. is a lawyer.

There are lawyers around who are not making public statements because of the bar and court positions on the issue who are also convinced that there are rotten judges, prosecutors out to make a name for themselves, and clueless juries led astray by judges and prosecutors.

Whatever, the amendment sounds too draconian and possibly loaded with unintented? consequences to actually be good even as a "message sender".
10:10 AM
Haggs said…
You can listen to the interview here:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6288938
11:51 AM
Anonymous said…
pp, thought you did a nice job, too.

"Rule of the Mob" is a good phrase.
1:34 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A note from Benedict Ar... Sorry. A note from Stan Adelstein why he thinks you should vote Democrat this year.

By -
Image
(Click on letter to enlarge) And while it may not be printed at taxpayer expense, I don't see a disclaimer, either. When they hold the special session (supposedly at the end of November) , since he's left them already, I think his colleagues should expel him from the caucus. Sure. At that point it's only going to be symbolic. But since he's already said he's running again in the near future, sometimes symbolism is enough.
Read more

Corson County information on Klaudt Rape Charges

By -
Here's some of the information on the Corson County Charges: COUNT I That on or about December of 2005, in the County of Corson, State of South Dakota, Ted Alvin Klaudt did commit the public offense of SECOND DEGREE RAPE (SDCL 22-22-1(2)) in that he did accomplish an act of sexual penetration with his foster daughter, A.M., through the use of force or coercion; and as to COUNT II That on or about July or August of 2006, in the County of Corson, State of South Dakota, Ted Alvin Klaudt did commit the public offense of SECOND DEGREE RAPE (SDCL 22-22-1(2)) in that he did accomplish an act of sexual penetration with his foster daughter, A.M., through the use of force or coercion; and as to COUNT III That on or about July or August of 2006, in the County of Corson, State of South Dakota, Ted Alvin Klaudt did commit the public offense of SECOND DEGREE RAPE (SDCL 22-22-1(2)) in that he did accomplish an act of sexual penetration, separate and distinct from the act alleged in Count II, with
Read more

It's about health, not potential promiscuity.

By -
As the only South Dakota blogger out with 5 daughters, I feel I need to weigh in on the whole discussion that's occurring with regards to the HPV vaccine, and Governor Rounds' proposal to make it available. My family (including my three oldest girls) watched my mom, their grandmother, succumb slowly and painfully to cancer which spread throughout her body. If a similar fate from a different type of cancer was preventable through a simple shot, why wouldn't anyone advocate for it? At the age most of my kids are going to be getting it, they're still playing with barbies, and negative influences such as most of the programming on MTV, and other assorted trashy television is verboten in my house. All they're going to know about this vaccination is that it's a shot, just like for teatnus or measles. They'll go "Ow, I don't want a shot," and that will be it. Just another mark on their vaccination record. One check box for DPT, one for HPV, and so on
Read more