Apparently, Laboratory SD is open for business again.

The Argus is reporting tonight that another California group is looking at South Dakota to be it's ballot initiative laboratory:
A national group that spearheaded successful ballot initiatives in three states to end racial preferences in hiring and other areas may soon target South Dakota.

and...

“South Dakota has been on our list since day one,” said Diane Schachterle, a spokeswoman for the group.
Read it here. And read about the organization here.

Unlike the J.A.I.L. lunatics who preceded them, ending affirmative action type programs might not necessarily be a bad thing. But by the same token, I don't know if I could support it without (#1) reviewing it in depth, and (#2) it was actually initiated by South Dakotans because of abuses of the system we were having here.

I mean, when was the last time this was a problem in South Dakota? Is this going to affect anyone's employment practices? Is it going to affect University enrollment preferences? Who knows?

And until the time they can give us some real world South Dakota examples, I think they can keep "the initiated measure chemistry set" home in California.

Comments

Anonymous said…
This is one that could very well affect many South Dakotans. As a prime contractor seeking sub-contractors on any government funded program, you must hire a certain number of minority or women-owned business, or give good proof that you tried.
I would think the best society would be color-blind, and each person or company should be judged on their own character. Affirmative Action type programs would actually seem to promote racial discrimination.
Anonymous said…
Well said 7:33.
Anonymous said…
7:33, your problem is with federal law upon which a state initiated statute will have no effect. So your philosophy may have been "well said" but your concept of being able to do anything about it wasn't.
Anonymous said…
Bah, I say we just tell them all to go to blazes! PP for benevolent dictator!!!!!
Anonymous said…
pp - This is another example of how SD will continue to be used as a testing ground for newly conceived initiated measures. I don't understand why you are opposed to making it a little more difficult to initiate measures, especially constitutional amendments.
shaky jake said…
This is Ward Connerly's organization to end institutionalized racism. Mr. Connerly, for those of you in Rio-Brookings, was a University of California Regent when he started his campaign to end racial quotas in public contracting, employment and education. Back in the 90's he inspired voters in California and Washington to pass initiatives to do just that. The movement has caused judges to increasingly limit the government's use of racial preferences in hiring and in academe.

His latest triumph over multi-cultural institutionalized racism was this last November in Michigan. A great article about the Mich. success, by John Miller, appeared in the (no, not the rapid city journal, no, not in the Mitchell daily republic and no, not the Argus or Watertown public opinion) Jan. 7th 07 edition of National Review. Or look it up and read it at nro.com.

pp, I cannot believe you are this uninformed, especially for a pol. Or is this one of those pp-tongue-in-cheek tricks to tweek the blogging public and get a reaction.
Anonymous said…
pp - If you're going to refer to yourself as the professor, you may want to learn the difference between "its" and "it's".
Anonymous said…
So what if the guy's a former Regent, Napoli's a Senator, isn't he?
Anonymous said…
I frankly do not see what is wrong with South Dakota being a pioneer for intitiated legislation. What is the fear? That our citizens are too dumb and will pass something terrible by mistake? Given the 11% yes vote on the absurd Jail amendment, I think we can be confident in our neigbhors to get it right. And, the by-product of those campaigns is that it encourages dialogue about important issues. South Dakota would do well to have a six-month dialogue about what racial preferences are and what they say about our society.

Quite frankly, I think the initiated measure process should be left alone. It is the closest thing we have to a statewide town hall meeting. The more debate and free speech, the better.
mhs said…
I'm about as staunch a Barry Goldwater / John McCain libertarian as there is left in the Republican Party, but, there's no way I would support an effort like this. IT'S (happy 7:16?) simply for the reason pp alludes to, namely, "I agree with your cause, but, take all your California crusades someplace else".
jack said…
The out-of-staters wishing to push their wacky agendas on South Dakotans would be well served to look at what happened to JAIL and to HB1215.

We don't need weirdos from California telling us how to run our judicial system, trial lawyers from New Jersey to draft our abortion laws, or affirmative action activists from California to create solutions for problems that don't exist in our state.

Ward Connerly was a regent - and he gave $70,000 to Pete Wilson's campaigns for that appointment. He told Wolf Blitzer on CNN that he supports segregation. And this is what he had to say about the Klu Klux Klan - “If the Ku Klux Klan thinks that equality is right, God bless them!" He makes Bill Steigmeier seem pretty mainstream.

shaky jake, I guess we know where the adjective in front of your name comes from...
Anonymous said…
Harold Cassidy, the New Jersey lawyer you try to link to this racist guy from California, is not like these other out of staters. He cares passionately about the unborn, and he came here to help those of us who agree with him. He wrote the legislation to ban abortions to help those of us who care about the unborn. There's a difference betwen coming from out-of-state to help on an issue as important as abortion, and using South Dakota as a test state for JAIL and affirmative action. It's not fair to compare him to these guys from California.
Anonymous said…
I don't think we he should say that Connerly is a racist just because he support segregation. I know its not pc to say it, but most people would secretly admit that there were a lot of things better when people lived in their own communities. Give your friends a few beers and bring up segregation and listen to what they say. Whenever I bring up race to my friends, after they loosen up, they admit they agree.

My friends are white, of course, but lot's of blacks only want to live around other blacks (look at the innercities for example), and lots of mexicans like to live near each other where they can speak the same language and eat the same food. They even want to be near the mexican border because the weather and geography are like their home in mexico. And look at all the indians that live on the reservations even though theres no jobs there. Why wouldn't they move to somewhere where they can get a job? Because they want to be segregated. So blacks and mexicans and indians are infavor of segregation, so what?

Also, I'm a big fan of Ward Connerly. And I'll bet Jack and the other liberals here don't realize that Ward Connerly is a black. That's right, he's in favor of segregation and he's a black. If the blacks want segregation, why is it the white liberals that want to stand in the way?
shaky jake said…
Ha Haaa..Looks like I've torqued Jack off as well as a few establishment and media pc liberals.

Anon 10:35, Interesting how white liberals think they know what's best for minorities isn't it. They apparently would still support busing. They're the biggest racists of all and they don't even know it.

OOOOOOOO...their all shookup!!

Popular posts from this blog

Breaking News: After the television commercial salvo fired at them, Vote Yes For Life Fires back.

Heidepreim: Republicans are the party of hate

The Day in politics - October 24th