Doing the right thing when it's not the convenient thing isn't always easy. You can have sympathy for someone in a situation like that. What's hard to understand is people who don't do the right thing even when it is easy. Take, for example, people that don't recycle. For the most part, students at this University don't just drop their garbage at their feet when they're done with it. We've figured out that littering isn't acceptable, so we hold on to the refuse until we find a garbage can. And yet, people seem to have a problem holding on to that same plastic bottle for a few more feet to put it in a recycling bin. The EPA estimates that 75 percent of what Americans throw away could actually be recycled and these people are obviously part of the problem. Maybe they hate the earth, maybe they haven't thought about the fact that they will be the generation that will have to deal with overflowing landfills – I don't know. But it's really lame.

I have yet to hear a good excuse for not recycling on campus, but I have a little more sympathy for people who aren't great recyclers off campus. Right now, it isn't that easy. You have to have bins that you can store your recyclables in, then load them up in your car when they're full and take them to one of the conveniently placed trailers throughout town or out to the recycling center. Actually, now that I think of it, I'm having less an less sympathy for people who don't recycle now. What's wrong with you? But that's beside the point, because it's about to get MUCH EASIER.

This November 4, we have the opportunity to vote and approve curbside recycling. Surveys showed that Vermillionites wanted it and the City Council heard our pleas. It's actually hard for me to put into words how awesome this is going to be. For less than a dollar a week, the city is going to come to your house and pick up your recyclables. Paper, plastic, cans, cardboard – the works. And the benefits to citizens aren't just limited to the fact that you won't have to deal with me harping on you any more. Recycling creates more jobs than other waste disposal methods and it reduces our dependence on foreign oil (McCain and Obama both think that's a good idea). Extending the life of our landfills saves taxpayers money. Aberdeen estimates that curbside recycling saved their city $17,675 in one year.

Despite the overwhelming support for curbside recycling from the Vermillion community, there are tiny pockets of resistance against this initiative. As hard as it is to believe, there are people that are anti-recycling. True story: I once had a co-worker who wouldn't walk the literally three feet to recycle his newspapers. When I chided him about it (as is my nature), he said, “You wouldn't like the way I vote.” I said, “Friend – recycling is not a partisan activity.” And it's not, any more than not pooping on other people's lawns is a partisan activity. But honestly, I believe such people are in the minority. Most of the opposition seems to be centered around small details in the program that they don't care for. Luckily, like me, most people I talk to are so desperate for curbside recycling that they'd be willing to lure bums to Vermillion just so there would be someone to make off with their cans. We want the damn thing started.

It's been argued that South Dakota's initiative and referendum system is about as close to direct democracy as we get in this country. I suppose that's right. Who needs a legislature? You just come up with a law, get a few thousand like minded people to sign your petition, and it's on the ballot for the whole of South Dakota to vote on before you know it. Sounds pretty sweet. Here's the thing, though: as much as I rag on the legislature for the crazy things they come up with, there are some built in safeguards against completely nutzo stuff. These safeguards are easily circumvented in the initiated measure process. There's no need to compromise or convince, no fear of a governor's veto – just whatever wild there-outta-be-a-law concept your imagination can create.

Look at the J.A.I.L. Amendment of 2006, for example. This thing was transparently goofy, supported almost exclusively by anti-government whackjobs (and a few sane but mischievous middle aged women I know who just dig anarchy), and ultimately, a gigantic failure. When it came down to it, most South Dakotans didn't really like the idea of criminals being able to personally sue judges and they were even more turned off by the law's California architects who seemed a little too eager to use our state as their personal sketchy law incubator.

I'm pretty sure it took me several hours to fill out my ballot in 2006. The thing was like a Tolstoy novel. This year, our ballot is blessedly short in comparison, but certainly not without some kooky initiatives to keep things interesting. Initiated Measure 9 would ban “short selling” of stocks and other securities. I'll be honest with you, folks: I have no idea what that means. I've read the Attorney General's explanation and the arguments for and against this measure and I still don't know what it means. All I've figured out is that whatever this is, it's already covered by federal law. If I can't figure out what a proposed law does or why we need it, I'm inclined to vote no.

Speaking of things you can't figure out, have you seen this Initiated Measure 10? It's a doozy. Basically, it's trying to restrict the political involvement of the people who get public money and the use of public money to facilitate political involvement. A nice idea in theory, I guess, but in practice...well, just try to read it. I was at a presentation on the initiative the other day and as the proponent attempted to explain this 2000-plus-word monstrosity, you could actually see people deciding not to vote for it. The more she talked about, the more hostile the crowd got. The more reasons she gave to vote for it, the more obvious arguments against it appeared. Not a good sign. Almost every conceivable group has lined up against this measure: the state Democratic Party, the state Republican Party, firefighters, teachers, dogs, clowns. I'm sure if we had astronauts, they'd be against it, too. Much like J.A.I.L., Initiated Measure 10 has captured that all important one-room-shack militia constituency, but they don't seem to have quite the political influence here that they do in, say, Montana or Idaho.

Chances are that both of these voter initiated measures are going to go down in flames. As much as I squirm when the initiative process allows people to put pointless, idiotic, and loony things on the ballot, it's also sort of heartening to see the (intermittently) rational behavior of the South Dakota voters. It almost makes me think that a direct democracy wouldn't be that bad. But ask me again on November 5th.

Finals is probably the worst time to think to hard about what you're doing with your life. Inevitably, if you ask yourself, "Is this really worth it?" the answer is probably going to be no. Unfortunately, it's also probably the time when you're most likely to ask yourself such a question.

A young woman I went to high school with died of cancer last week. She was mother to a two year old, married to her high school sweetheart, and a kindergarten teacher. Both her loss and the complete unfairness of it all has hit the community hard. You can't keep the old clichés from running through your head: she was too young, she had her whole life a head of her, the world, and especially her family, was robbed of all the great things she was destined to do.

It tends brings back memories of all of the other losses we've experienced. I doubt Vermillion has lost more young people than your average town, but as those of you who grew up in smaller places know, it hits a little closer to home in a place where everyone knows everyone else. Every time I've lost a schoolmate, whether by disease, suicide, car accident, or, in one horrible case, police brutality, I find myself going to a selfish place and thinking, "What if it had been me?" There's nothing like death to make us reassess the way we're living our lives. And while there's no reason to spend all of your time morbidly contemplating your own death, it's never a bad idea to take stock and ask yourself whether you'd be spending today the way you are if you knew it would all be over tomorrow.

Now, the fact is, you can't actually go around living each day like it might be your last. No one's final day would include going to work or paying bills, and it certainly wouldn't include studying for or taking finals. Even if you didn't count those things you had to do, your final day probably wouldn't include making new friends, taking a nap with a person you love, or having a child you might not get to see grow up. And yet assuming that every day isn't going to be your last, those all seem like things very much worth doing -- things, in fact, that make life worth living.

So the trick becomes drawing the line between those things that are really worth it and those that aren't, and I suppose that's something everyone has to figure out for themselves. It's not easy. Arguing with stupid people who will never listen to you? Definitely not worth it. Staying at a job you hate that takes you away from your family? Probably not worth it, either. Eating right and saving for retirement? Probably worth it. Law school? Questionable. (Obviously, I'm still in the figuring it out stage.)

Not to get too "Everybody's Free (To Wear Sunscreen)" on you here, but as the school year winds down and you're either looking at the freedom of summer or the terrifying prospect of being booted out into the real world after graduation, it might not be a bad time to ask yourself some of those difficult (no doubt depressing) questions about what you're doing with your short time on this planet. But wait until after finals to do it.

I sometimes wonder if there was a time before this country was in constant, 24/7/365 campaign mode. Did people ever get a rest? Did they ever say, "Gee, I wonder who the candidate for whatever office might be? Oh well, I'll have to wait until campaign season starts." Because I don't feel like we have that anymore. There's rarely a respite from political ads on TV, glossy mail pieces, or critical letters to the editor. Now don't get me wrong, it's not like I'm exactly anti-politics or something (see, for example, my frequent critical letters to the editor), but I'm sort of worried at the way these campaigns are starting to run together in my mind. I constantly find myself thinking, "Didn't we just do this?"

You know who isn't helping my confusion? The VoteYesForCrazyCrapWeAlreadyVotedOn.com campaign has pushed through another abortion ban, this time straight to ballot. Not to press the point here, but didn't we already vote on this crazy crap? I know, I know, they added some stuff. A rape "exception" that stops just short of bringing the police into the exam room and asking the victim to apprehend her own rapist, and a health exception that seeks to find that elusive point between really, really, really sick and actually dying. Swell. These so-called exceptions might actually be worse than that completely non-existent exceptions that anti-choicers claimed were in Referred Law 6.

I mean, honestly, if they don't win this time, are they going to go back and adjust it every two years, a word at a time, until they get the perfect magic language that makes South Dakota voters say, "Yes! We want to spend a million dollars to unsuccessfully challenge Roe v. Wade. Where do we sign up?" Or do they believe that people will get so tired of being hounded by gory abortion fetus trucks, clubbed over the head with the anti-abortion message like baby seals, that they'll give up? Seriously, the next time one of you makes me out to be a nag because I suggest you recycle a can or quit shopping at Wal-Mart, just remember that I've never tried to use the ballot initiative process to make you a criminal.

Unlike shopping at Wal-Mart, which people apparently love to do, South Dakotans don't want to ban abortion. They proved that pretty solidly two years ago. The only way you could support the current ballot measure over the last one is if you truly believe that having a child should be punishment for engaging in sex. In this day in age, where 90% of people have premarital sex, when half of all pregnancies are unplanned, can someone really defend that kind of attitude?

Here's the deal, folks: you make think you don't know a woman who's had an abortion, but you do. You know lots of them. We all do. For the most part, they're not out-of-control teens or women living in the margins of society. They are (primarily) mothers, (often) sisters, aunts, (always) daughters and friends, and they have many unique reasons for why they choose not to carry a pregnancy to term. I know when I think about those people in my life, I'm pretty confident that they know their circumstances a hell of a lot better than I do.

I know you're feeling the weariness, too. They've even come up with a term for it: abortion fatigue. Isn't that sad? Do we really have to go through this again? For Pete & Pete's sake, can we just say "ENOUGH ALEADY!"?

I have no idea what time it is. I have no idea what time it is because my watch is broken and I haven't gotten a new one. I haven't gotten a new one because I go through watches like kleenex and generally get them for like $10 at Pamida. Perhaps you've caught on to my dilemma here. Pamida, my cheap incidentals retailer of choice for most of my life suddenly closed at the end of January. This is a real bummer. I'm almost as upset as when W.C. Franks – the most awesome arcade ever – was torn down and replaced by Burger King.

There was a time in Vermillion that if you needed something weird like hobby paint, you could go anywhere from Ben Franklin to Choice Pharmacy to Pamida. Now, I guess you would be able to go to Wal-Mart or get in your car and drive out of town, at which point your hobby looks like more trouble than it's worth. Or maybe you decide to take up a hobby like graffiti art, where the paint is easier to acquire. So much for competition and consumer choice.

Any discussion of my loyalty to Pamida inevitably leads to the question of why I don't shop at Wal-Mart. Obviously, the class action lawsuit by 2 million past and present female employees accusing them of discrimination doesn't help. Nor do the litany of labor, environmental, and economic problems that come up in any Wal-Mart debate. But when it comes down to it, no one ever felt the need to come up with some great political declaration to explain why they chose not to shop at Pamida, so why should I have to make one? I don't eat olives either and I'd be just as crabby if they were suddenly the only thing to eat in Vermillion.

I know that some will say that Pamida didn't have anything that they needed. I hear this especially from people who never shopped there because they decided that Pamida didn't have everything they needed. I know I generally have trouble finding the products I want at stores I never check, so I can totally see the logic in this. Much like the hyperactive effects of sugar and creationism, the supposed contents of Pamida's inventory is one of those myths that you will never dissuade some people of, regardless of how much evidence you have. I bought everything from a counter top dishwasher to really unattractive fake nails to the first Elastica CD there – you won't even find that kind of variety at Wall Drug!

There's something about feeling like we deserve to have everything right at our fingertips – not just in one town, but in one building – that's kind of messed up. Instant gratification, whether in retail or in other areas of our lives, really isn't attainable and leads to unnecessary disappointment over trivial frustrations. The Rolling Stones probably weren't the first to point out that you can't always get what you want, but they deserve credit for saying it in the most hum-able way. I question whether Mick and Keith have really taken that lesson to heart, but hopefully we can learn from their words if not from their personal examples.

So what are my options? I'm not going to leave town every time I need something I would normally pick up at Pamida and if I can wait until the next time I happen to be in one of our neighboring urban centers, it's probably not something I needed in the first place. Ordering stuff from the internet would be great if it weren't for all the excessive packaging that ends up making your living room look like some kind of cardboard shantytown for rats. Plus, I feel like when you're getting a lot of plain, brown packages, your neighbors start to assume you're ordering adult novelties (which is totally unfair; I doubt that accounts for more than 40% of my packages).

There's nothing else for it – I'm just going to have to buy less crap. Maybe the closing of Pamida will help me lead a less complicated and cluttered life, like the Amish or the people I see in Real Simple magazine. This could be the start of a completely new life! But since I have no idea what time it is, I'm going to be running late for a while.

You know what I hate? Cancer. From everything I've heard, it really sucks. I'm 100% against it. That's why I thought it was so swell when Governor Rounds announced that the state of South Dakota would be providing vaccinations against HPV (human papilloma virus) free of charge to girls between 11 and 18. The strains of HPV that the vaccine targets cause 70% of cervical cancers (bonus: it also takes care of 90% of genital warts). About half of all sexually active people will have HPV at some point in their lives and nearly 4000 women die from cervical cancer every year, so this would seem to be really, really good news. Isn't "a cure for cancer" the stereotypical totally awesome discovery? This is a pretty huge step in that direction. And it's free! Who wouldn't support the HPV vaccine? Who doesn't hate cancer?

I'll tell you who: Leslee Unruh. Leslee Unruh loves cancer. Unruh, founder of the Abstinence Clearinghouse objects to vaccinating children against a disease that she claims is, "one hundred percent preventable with proper sexual behavior. Premarital sex is dangerous, even deadly. Let's not encourage it by vaccinating ten-year-olds so they think they're safe.'' Now, I know whenever I get my tetanus booster, I run around barefoot in fields of rusty nails because I assume I'm safe, but I have a feeling I’m in the minority there. And while it might mean that every ten-year-old who has been abstaining from sex up to the point purely because they're afraid of cervical cancer will become sexually active, I think saving thousands of women from the agony of a possibly deadly diagnosis is worth the risk.

There are some logical flaws with her argument as well, of course. If you save yourself for marriage but have a partner who doesn't, you could still end up with HPV. But even ignoring that, is she really suggesting that, in the name of (theoretically) preventing teen sex, we should allow girls to be punished for a single sexual experience with CANCER? It's friggin' cancer! If we had a vaccine for lung cancer, would you want to withhold it from kids because it might encourage teen smoking? Of course not, because you hate cancer as much as I do.

I don't know why Leslee Unruh is so cool with cancer. Maybe she doesn't know how much it sucks. Maybe an unreliable source told her it's actually really grand. But since I hate cancer, I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with Leslee on this one. Let's get these kids vaccinated. If you're still 18, head over to the community health nurse and get yourself vaccinated while it's still free. If you're over 18, see if your insurance will cover the vaccination or if a kindly family member will spot you $400 (I know it sounds steep, but remind them it could save you from CANCER). There's no point in walking for the cure and wearing shirts for the cure and eating yogurt for the cure if you don't actually take advantage of the cure when we finally get it.

Get more info at http://www.state.sd.us/doh/HPV.

Campus has been buzzing about HB1261, a bill introduced in the South Dakota Legislator that would have prohibited college campuses from banning guns or “penaliz[ing] any person who carries or possesses a firearm in accordance with state law.” It sailed through the House of Representatives 63-3 last week and before being killed by Senate State Affairs by a vote of 7-1 on Monday. Whether the bill will be brought back from the dead or revived next session remains to be seen, but with the increasing amount of legislation on the “right to carry” nationwide, it's likely we haven't seen the last of this proposal.

Where exactly did this bill come from? Was there an grassroots movement of second amendment supporting undergrads who demanded that something be done about a grave injustice on our campuses? Well, no. This is a classic case of certain members of the state legislature expending a lot of time and energy to address a problem that doesn't really exist. Like so many bills that end up in statehouses around the country, it was probably picked up at a state legislators convention where special interests groups (conservative and liberal) peddle model legislation to politicians eager to get their name in the paper, or perhaps insure that 'A' rating from the NRA come next election season. Either that, or the sponsors of this bill have some kind of psychic mind-meld with lawmakers in Idaho, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and Washington, where similar measures have been introduced (Tennessee also has a couple of sweet bills that guarantee the “right to carry” to formerly committed mental patients and ban private landowners from prohibiting guns on their own property).

Proponents of the bill have come up with all kinds of reasons why this legislation was desperately needed, the most popular being that it will protect us all from a Virginia Tech-like mass shooting. I love some good fear-mongering, but come on. Certainly, gun bans won't deter or encourage some totally whacked-out mass shooter – people like that don't really care whether they get expelled or killed in the process. But does having armed students and staff make us safer from such an attack? Is some paranoid, trigger-happy, hero wannabe going to have the clear mind and steady hand to take down a would-be mass murderer? Or is he more likely to shoot up some innocent international student whose only mistake was to reach a little too quickly into his laptop case?

As it stands, there haven't exactly been a rash of mass shootings in South Dakota. Or even one. But every year, people are shot accidentally, shot in domestic disputes, or use guns to commit suicide. And in those cases, a rule that prohibited guns on campus might make a difference. Especially when alcohol is involved - and on campus it often is - accidents can happen (just ask my friend who drunkenly maced herself after hearing a non-existent attacker in some bushes).

The thing that bothered me the most about this bill is that it didn't simply give campuses the discretion to allow firearms, or just deal with the issue of students in the dorms having better access to their guns during hunting season (arguably an actual concern among some sportsmen). It went so far as to absolutely prohibit a university or the Board of Regents from making their own policy on this issue. I guess all that clucking about local control doesn't amount to a hill of beans if guns are involved.

Most people who oppose campus “right to carry” legislation aren't interested in taking away anyone's guns. But I can't bring my pet monkey to the law school (okay, I don't have a pet monkey...yet), smoke a pipe in the library, or listen to loud music in class, no matter how sweet the jams are. Some things just aren't appropriate for the school setting. If nothing else, perhaps if we keep our ban on firearms on campus, fewer of our legislators will visit us. That alone should make any card-carrying NRA member take pause.

It's really starting to feel like an election year. There are the debates on TV, the pleas for money in the mail...and look, Ralph Nader has emerged from whatever crypt he spends the years between campaigns in!

Seriously, why?? No doubt, Nader has every right to run for president. Heck, we all do. I think I have just as much to say as Ralph Nader, but instead of wasting crap loads time and money running for president, I keep my incoherent ramblings to the USD Volante. Maybe Ralph Nader need a blog. Can we get him one?

I'm really curious what he hopes to accomplish with this candidacy. Does he think that this time around, he's going to develop a viable third party? Hopefully the Greens learned their lesson after their association with Nader basically turned their up-and-coming party into huge joke / cautionary tale. A political force they are not. That ship has sailed, my friends, and it left you at the dock.

Some have suggested a candidate like Nader forces the mainstream candidates to talk about issues that they might otherwise avoid, and pulls them further left. This is a nice idea in theory, but I have yet to see a shred of evidence that this has ever actually happened. First of all, Nader assumes that any issue he focuses on is more important than any other issue out there. He's been especially dismissive of those pesky 'social' issues, which I suppose it pretty easy to do when none of them affect you. But let's just assume that he's right and something like corporate corruption is the most important issue to your average American. Instead of talking about corporate corruption, guess what Obama and Clinton have been talking about since Nader entered the race? Ralph Nader and what a whackjob he is. I'm glad it's given them someone to beat up on besides each other, but I don't think that's what Ralph had in mind, either.

Obviously, he has no chance of actually winning, and considering his poor performance in 2004, he probably won't even have a spoiler affect. In fact, his his only purpose in this race seems to be to provide a candidate for racist or misogynist progressives who really need an old white dude to vote for, and disaffected youth looking for an anti-establishment candidate after Ron Paul drops out.

It's sort of sad that a man that once had such a sterling reputation has basically turned into a punchline. There was like a month in 2000 (due primarily to some high pressure tactics from my grandma and the fact he was mentioned in a Tom Robbins book) that I actually thought about voting for Nader. But I came to the realization then that many former Nader supporters are coming to now: this isn't how change is made.

Ralph Nader is a cult of personality (and one gets the feeling that he's his own biggest worshiper). It's not about positive change, it's just anti-status quo. I don't find that particularly impressive; it's shallow and it's easy. In fact, as much as the holier-than-though Nader lovers of 2000 tried to make the rest of us feel like we just didn't 'get it' and that they had a much more nuanced view of politics. What a bunch of bull. There's nothing nuanced about throwing a tantrum and refusing to engage in meaningful discourse with your fellow citizens. Nader could probably sue Bush for “if you're not with us, you're against us” copyright infringement.

In the end, this latest Nader run is more of an annoyance than anything. I don't think he's going to siphon any votes or get to take credit for a McCain administration. But much like this winter, I'm sick of him, I think he's gross, and I just wish he would go away.

I don't think there's any question at this point that the U.S. (and perhaps global) economy is in the toilet. A $700 billion bail out bill has been passed and signed but a quick fix looks unlikely. The Dow hit a 5 year low today and the media is warning of more bad news and bank failures. What do I do in frightening times like these? (If you're thinking “drinking and crying,” you're only half right.) Mostly, I seek comfort in the stern advice of Suzi Orman and I try to think of ways to be even more tight fisted than I already am.

Here's the thing, you can't force the government or big business or your deadbeat brother to be more fiscally responsible. All you can do is look out for yourself and make sure you're making good decisions that will decrease the likelihood that you'll be moving out of the dorms and into a ditch or a gutter somewhere (although if you can't find any kind of shelter, a low lying area such as a ditch or a gutter is probably your best bet). But who do you look to to help you make those good decision? What model is there to follow? Here's my suggestion: you probably know someone who is a child of the depression – perhaps a grandma or a great uncle or a crotchety neighbor. In the past, you may have laughed at their refusal to get a credit card because they didn't want to be “controlled by the government.” You may have scoffed at their habit of buying underwear in bulk. You may have been puzzled by the fact they kept their savings in jars buried randomly in their yard. But who's laughing now? Doesn't seem so crazy, huh? Those jars of money may not be keeping up with inflation, but with underwear prices these days, they're probably coming out even.

Seriously, though, there are some “old fashioned” financial habits that we could all do well to adopt. First, we need to stop buying things we can't afford. That includes TVs, houses, and educations. Debt destroys wealth and it inhibits independence. Obviously, most people don't have the option of buying a home or a PhD in cash, but a two bedroom bungalow and diploma from good old USD are a lot less likely to give you financial meltdown night terrors in a few years. And you'll probably be pretty competitive against those Ivy League graduates in the job market after they've had to burn their only suit for warmth.

Second, despite what Dr. Phil will tell you, saving and hording isn't all that bad. Whenever you find out about some secret 'millionaire next door,' it always turns out they live in a house filled with cats and old newspapers or something. That may not be the way you want to go, but there's a lot to be said for hanging on to stuff in this disposable society. We're so convinced that we have to have the newest stuff that we spend tons of money on new crap that will inevitably disappoint us by being obsolete as soon as we get it. At least with our old crap, we know what we're getting. I have a broken chair in my living room that no one can sit on. It's a no-sitting chair. But one of these days, I'm going to fix it, then – BOOM – it's like having a new chair for no money. A chair you can sit on.

Finally, (and Ms. Orman would back me up on this one), we need to do a better job of planning for the long term. Anyone whose watched television sitcoms has to have figured out that get rich quick schemes always fail. Hilariously. While there may be such a thing as a free lunch (and if you have one, I'll definitely be there) there really isn't such a thing as a quick buck, except maybe in prostitution. It appears that the stability of our economy has been built on some pretty shaky get rich quick schemes and it's the people who have been investing for the long term that are going to come out on top. That elderly neighbor of yours is probably enjoying green beans she canned 30 or 40 years ago. She didn't worry about whether she'd still like green beans in 30 years or if we'd have a pill that tasted like green beans – she just got to canning. And when we're living in the Beyond Thunderdome nightmare world that is probably just around the corner, eating nothing but Ramen and mud pies, those 30 year old beans are going to sound mighty tasty.

I'm generally a Christmas purist. Any mention of Christmas prior to Thanksgiving really rankles me. I'm intense about my celebrating (I listen to Christmas music almost exclusively), but there's a time and a place. Despite my anal retentiveness about yuletide rules, I do think there are some reasonable exceptions. It seems that organized people (translation: not me) generally don't wait until the season is in full swing before they start their Christmas shopping. This probably enables them to find better deals and more unique presents for their friends and family. And if you're my mom, it gives you an opportunity to buy things and completely forget about them by the time Christmas rolls around, only to find them in your closet in mid-April (no complaints – second Christmas!).

But if you're like me and for reasons of disorganization or Christmas season purism, you haven't done your holiday shopping yet, might I make a small suggestion? Try keeping your dollars local. I know it's a popular college student pastime to whine about how there's nothing in Vermillion, but it's actually pretty easy to find great gifts (or mediocre gifts if your family hasn't earned great ones) at local retailers. Downtown Vermillion has an especially wide variety of retailers within a small geographical area. It's like a mall, but with fresh air and fewer loitering teens.

The fair trade organization Global Exchange has declared December Buy Local month, which excites me not only because it gives me another holiday to celebrate in a month already jam-packed with celebratory goodness, but also because it gives me an excuse to preach the virtues of buying local to you, my dear readers. According to Global Exchange, local businesses produce more income, jobs, and tax receipts for local communities, are more likely to utilize local ads, banks and other services, donate more money to nonprofits and are more accountable to their local communities than chain stores. Local businesses also preserves the unique character of a town, so you don't get creepy suburbja vu every time you encounter the same strip mall configuration in multiple cities. (This can cause a lot of anxiety: “Oh man, I thought I took the turn off for Omaha...did I accidentally go to Lincoln?”) I also had a great argument about how shopping locally saves gas, but with gas prices momentarily plummeting, I'm guessing that isn't going to get me very far. Luckily, if gas prices spike up to like $4 a gallon again and your options for getting to are Sioux Falls are roller skates or stealing a horse, my nagging probably won't be necessary.

Admittedly, I have a real advantage being a native Vermillionite. Since I've actually experienced downtown before dark on several occasions, I might have inside knowledge of the gift opportunities that some of you aren't privy to. Thus, I've got a totally sweet offer for Volante readers. Because of my complete belief in what Vermillion has to offer and to save you the embarrassment of buying all of your presents at The Bump, I am offering my gift consultant services until the end of finals. Here's how it works: you send me an email telling me about your gift needs without being a turd and asking for something ridiculous like a Sharper Image-style virtual reality chair or a signed picture of Henry Winkler. In turn, I will give you the inside scoop on what your local buying options are or humbly admit that you might have to go elsewhere (full disclosure: if you're looking for something that can't be found in Vermillion, I'll probably just criticize your gift choice and suggest something you can buy here; also, I reserve the right to talk about you in future columns).

And in case the idea of interaction with me is holding you back, you can just skip the email and go straight to the downtown Vermillion website: http://www.downtownvermillion.com/. It lists all the downtown businesses, their locations, and has pictures to help you visually identify where you're going. Now you have no excuse. Happy Holidays!

Halloween is here so it only makes sense that there's some spooky stuff going on in South Dakota (and no, I'm not talking about the latest accusation that former legislator Ted Klaudt lured a woman to his hotel room with promises of a modeling contract – although that is indeed terrifying). I don't know what comes to mind when you think of things that go bump in the night, but my nightmares usually feature Leslee Unruh, Roger Hunt, or a combination of the two. And after laying low for the past year, they're back (is it just me or does that phrase remind anyone else of Poltergeist II?).

Even though Attorney General Larry Long has announced State of South Dakota will appeal a judge's ruling that anti-choice legislator Roger Hunt doesn't have to reveal the $750,000 donor to last year's campaign to ban abortion, Hunt is undeterred. The representative has said on numerous occasions that in all likelihood, an abortion ban will be back and it will end up on the ballot in 2008. That kind of talk is scarier than anything you'll see in Saw XV or whatever they're on now.

The anti-choice movement in South Dakota kind of reminds me of werewolf or a vampire or something – it can't be killed by normal means! Despite being defeated last November, despite the Republican Attorney General and Secretary of State's vows to continue to pursue the campaign finance issue the radical right has no plans to give up their extreme agenda. In fact, word around the blogosphere is that a large group of anti-choice movers and shakers recently met in Pierre to start strategizing their next attack on reproductive rights (think of how much more damage Godzilla and Mothra could have done to Tokyo if they had been this organized). While some organizations like South Dakota Right to Life aren't on board with the strategy, Roger Hunt and Leslee Unruh have plenty of support from big name and big money out-of-state players like The Thomas More Law Center and Operation Rescue who want to see South Dakota challenge Roe v. Wade head on. In a letter recently published on the their website, Operation Rescue president Troy Newman asks South Dakota anti-choicers to “swing for the fences” to outlaw abortion because “the people of South Dakota are best positioned” to take on Roe.

Isn’t this exciting? Thanks to some out-of-state wackjob's idea about our 'position,' we all get to look forward to another round of crazy evangelists invading our state and our community, lining the streets with their gruesome, inaccurate photos, and telling us how we're all going to hell while we try to get to class. I cannot wait!

It's obvious the garlic we've been using isn't working – we're going to need the equivalent of a silver bullet or a stake through the heart to take down this monster. Whether another ban ends up on the ballot through the legislature or through the initiative process, it's time to send the message that we are sick of ridiculous, insulting, and unconstitutional legislation, whether it has zero exceptions or twenty. Perhaps if Roger, Leslee and their ilk see the futility of this legislative agenda, we can prevent South Dakota Abortion Ban: Part III, Part IV, The Return of the South Dakota Abortion Ban, Bride of the South Dakota Abortion Ban ad infinitum and they can move on to something more productive like improving access to prenatal care.

The truth is our greatest weapon. This Halloween, let's use it to clear the monsters out of the closets and the sweep the bogeymen from underneath the bed. And remember, if Roger Hunt shows up at your door, he can't come in if you don't invite him!

One thing you have got to love about our smarty-pants state legislators: when they encounter a problem, they don’t hesitate to address it. And by “address it,” I mean, “come up with an irrational and pointless solution that really doesn’t solve anything.” The recent proposal to make legislative pages wear uniforms is a case in point. I’m not exactly sure what the idea behind this plan is, although I am certain it is really dumb. Obviously, some of our state lawmakers have poor boundaries, some are serial rapists (I realize Ted Klaudt pled not guilty, but come on, the guy had a briefcase full of speculums), and some are just plain dirty old horndogs. I believe I’ve already expounded at length on the “Interns + Long Branch = Grab-Ass” equation that’s so common in our capital city, so this revelation shouldn’t be news to anyone.

But how exactly is this related to what the pages wear? Perhaps you’ve seen these kids on Statehouse or something. You know, the pimply-faced pubescent ones who are always falling asleep during Joint Appropriations. Has the influence of crotch-flashing pop stars turned the halls of the capitol into an adolescent meat market? Um, no. I only made it up to Pierre once last session, but most of the kids I saw looked like they were dressed more for a band concert than to seduce a latter-day Humbert Humbert committee chair. There were no tube tops or hot pants in sight, and if the young men were wearing cabana boy-style Speedos, they kept them well hidden under their khakis. In fact, not only do pages generally dress much more appropriately than they ever would for school, they dress more appropriately than plenty of adults do for the office (the destructive concept of ‘business casual’ is another topic for another time, but seriously, it’s out of control).

To be fair, some former pages are actually supporting this proposal, claiming that the current dress code is just too vague and confusing (Assless chaps – in or out? Who knows! It’s not in the dress code!). And maybe that is the sincere basis for all of this uniform talk. However, all over the news, this idea is being linked to the ‘sex scandals’ that have dogged the legislature this year. Reeks a little of victim-blaming, don’t you think? It’s the adults that can’t behave themselves, but instead of expecting them to exercise some self-control, the first ‘solution’ anyone can think of is to cover up the teenage temptation. You know, state-issued burqas would probably be a lot cheaper to produce than some of the uniform possibilities that have been suggested. That would solve all of our problems, right?

I suppose this all makes sense in the context of the South Dakota State Legislature’s hypocritical and obsessive hysteria over anything sex related. I’m actually surprised they haven’t passed resolutions against freak dancing and Elvis’ hips yet (this is not a suggestion, Roger Hunt – but feel free to start drafting a constitutional amendment banning “My Humps”). Year after year at every level of government, we see the same sad pattern: public puritanism and private debauchery. Bill after bill that fails to solve the issue it purports to address. Rape is endemic in this state, but don’t worry – mooners and public urinators will be required to register as sex offenders for the rest of their lives. Teen pregnancy rages like wildfire, but mandated abstinence-only education will make sure little Susie stays celibate during her third trimester. And even if a few perverts make it into positions of power in our government, fear not: our civic-minded kids will have matching sports coats to protect them. All this courtesy of the benevolent Ayatollahs in Pierre. Feeling safer?

Compared to a lot of college towns, I think Vermillion actually has a pretty positive “town and gown” relationship. For the most part, townies and the University community live in relative peace. But there is an underlying tension. I don't want to make you feel bad, dear readers, but you should know the truth: there's a collective groan from the citizens of Vermillion when the students come back at the end of the summer. Sure, we appreciate surge in the economy, but being in a college town can be a really mixed blessing. Some of our reasons are pretty petty. It's harder to find a parking spot, everything is more crowded, somebody is always pushing the walk buttons on the Cherry Street stop lights, etc. But it really comes down to a small subset of the student population that act like complete jackasses and ruin it for everyone else.

Some of you may be able to relate to this exasperation already, in which case the following role playing exercise won't be necessary. But for everyone else, try to put yourself in the shoes of an older person you respect, like your parents or your grandmother. Imagine that for nine months out of every year, this person has to deal with people peeing on their house or throwing up in their back yard. Despite living in a small town with a low crime rate, they have to lock their doors so a drunk that can't find their house doesn't wander in and crash on the couch. They can't let their kids run around barefoot outside because of the broken glass and rusty beer cans littering local sidewalks. Bike locks and ear plugs become major household expenses. Can you see where this would start to wear on you a little? Can you see how you might start looking at anyone under twenty-two as a drain on your community?

If you're one of the d-bags that engages in this kind of behavior, you're probably too self-involved to recognize yourself as part of the problem. I'll actually go out on a limb here and assume you probably don't read the Volante (or anything else) at all. So I'll direct this to your more enlightened friends who get a kick out of your crazy antics, but have always have an uneasy knot in their stomach on an evening out with you: don't encourage your obnoxious friends. I assume you have some concept right and wrong, so when your buddy makes the transition from simply abusing their own body and property to taking it out on someone else's, you can recognize that something uncool is going on. Say something. Distract them, like you would a small child or a disobedient dog. Refuse to provide an audience. Go back in the morning and return that garden gnome to the nice old lady it belongs to.

Not every student sees Vermillion as their home, but like it or not, while you live here, you're part of this community. Please be a good neighbor.

In a forum like the Volante, writing a pro-gay marriage column feels a little pointless. By and large, young Americans are just not hung up on sexual orientation. They've seen enough people they know come out of the closet to wonder why their favorite teacher or favorite singer or that talk show host that even great-grandma loves shouldn't have the same rights as everybody else. Regardless of what courts and legislatures do in the near future, there's a good chance that legal discrimination against same sex partnerships is going to be a non-issue before we know it.

But despite my optimism, it's been a little frustrating waiting for the future to happen. When a greater percentage of people in California vote for a constitutional ban on gay marriage than did in South Dakota, you have to wonder if the world you've been envisioning is really going to come to fruition. So it's obviously impossible for me not to be excited about the Iowa Supreme Court's unanimous decision to strike down the state's ban on gay marriage.

I'm hoping this isn't just the intense law school brainwashing talking, but the decision is actually pretty beautiful. I even got a little misty reading it (which, I think I've mentioned before, is pretty meaningless – I routinely tear up reading the plaques national monuments). It opens with a description of the plaintiffs in the case, six couples from around Iowa. “Like most Iowans, they are responsible, caring, and productive individuals. . . . They include a nurse, business manager, insurance analyst, bank agent, stay-at-home parent, church organist and piano teacher, museum director, federal employee, social worker, teacher, and two retired teachers. Like many Iowans, some have children and others hope to have children. Some are foster parents. . . . Each maintains a hope of getting married one day, an aspiration shared by many throughout Iowa.” Perfect, right? It's like the Supreme Court is saying, “Don't freak out straight Iowa – these gay people are just as boring as you are!”

The court then goes on to trace Iowa's history of being at the forefront of ensuring equal protection, challenging slavery, segregation, and sexism long before similar decisions were made at the federal level. This weekend, my Facebook feed has been inundated with sort of snarky, backhanded compliments of Iowa (usually along the lines of something like, “Now there's something good in Iowa!”), which I think are pretty unwarranted. I've never spent more than a couple of weeks in Iowa, but overall, I think there's a lot of evidence that Iowa is pretty cool, and was pretty cool even before last week. Iowa has given us everything from the famous Butter Cow to Norman Borlaug, founder of the World Food Prize to former Vice-President and progressive leader Henry Wallace. I guess Iowa gave us Slipknot, too – I'll leave the value of that one up to your individual discretion. But overall, pretty cool.

I think that as Midwesterners, we tend to buy into the elitist coastal view that we're a bunch of backwoods bumpkins living in flyover country and we have nothing to offer to the rest the country. Let's finally lay the myth to rest. While the Northeast is certainly leading the movement to recognize same sex partnerships (Massachusetts and Connecticut recognize same sex marriage, while New Jersey, New Hampshire, and Vermont recognize civil unions), Iowa's beautifully rendered decision should put the nation on notice: loving corn and embracing social justice are not mutually exclusive.

What will you be doing on April 15? You might be feverishly finishing up your taxes. Since it's a Wednesday, most of will be in class or at work. But if you're a disaffected conservative without much to do, you've got another option: throw some tea bags into a local body of water to protest “wasteful spending” by the Obama administration.

In what has to be the most head scratching protest since twelve rich kids took over a lunch room at NYU, the American Family Association has been organizing National TEA (Taxed Enough Already) Day demonstrations all over the country wherein angry citizens reenact The Boston Tea Party and then have a picnic or something. South Dakota's own Tea Party is taking place at noon in Sioux Falls at Covell Lake (haven't those poor geese gone through enough?) and, according the event's webpage, is organized by none other than local chiropractor and anti-abortion demagogue 'Dr.' Allen Unruh.

This event brings up all kinds of questions, like, “Where were these crusaders for liberty and financial responsibilities over the last eight years of out-of-control spending and skyrocketing deficits?” or perhaps, “How much income tax is someone who's free to attend something like this on a Wednesday afternoon actually paying?” and most importantly, “Will the free lunch they're providing include a vegetarian option?”

One thing that probably won't come up at the big outrage and tea fest is the fact that when it comes to federal “pork,” angry tight-fisted South Dakotans are some of the biggest hypocrites of them all. For every dollar of federal tax collected, South Dakota citizens get approximately $1.53 back. We love to believe that we're a state of rugged individualists, pulling ourselves up by our bootstraps, but in reality South Dakota is the welfare queen of the republic and it's unlikely we're going to start paying our own way any time soon.

The group behind the South Dakota stunt (they call themselves The Sons and Daughters of Liberty – how PC!) are no exceptions to the 'pork for me but not for thee' posture. Allen Unruh's wife Leslee has been the recipient of wheelbarrow-fuls of federal abstinence only money and last I heard, she had no plans of giving it back. I suppose it's easier to bite the hand that's been feeding you when there's a good chance the feedings are going to get cut off. But you don't have to be an infamous anti-sex crusader to benefit from public money. Without tax funded public parks, where would the Sons and Daughters and Grandchildren and Second Cousins of Liberty hold these little fetes? Was the privately funded Unruh back yard not available or did it just not have a lake to throw stuff into?

Obviously, being aware and critical of government spending is an important part of being an informed citizen. But if this kind of goofiness is what we have to look forward to from conservative critics over the next four years, I question if they're going to get very far. Will members of South Dakota Right to Life mount horses and go riding through our small towns, Paul Revere-style, to protest Obama's Supreme Court nominee? Will three corner hats make a sudden comeback at county GOP meetings? That would actually be awesome. I would totally support that. Whatever direction this neo-revolutionary movement takes, I think we can rest assured that it won't actually accomplish anything...which is fine with me.

Following the dust up around the apparent 'preemptive strike' by Sen. Tim Johnson's campaign against possible opponent Steve Kirby, many in the South Dakota political community were shocked (shocked!) to find out that political campaigns might not be all sunshine and lollipops. The development of this story involves a long and tedious recap of the happenings on our fine state's blogosphere which I will spare you, dear readers, because I am not a sadist (I also rejected my husband's suggestion that I write a column about the recently discovered hibernating antarctic cod species; no need to thank me). Here's the short and sweet version: former Lieutenant Governor Kirby might be running against Johnson for the Senate this fall. He announced that he was considering it, but as of my writing has not actually announced that he's going through with it. There were a number of 'attacks' on liberal blogs, a mean website, a fundraising email pointing out that Kirby is insanely rich -- that kind of thing. Oh, they also revealed that he hires a dog grooming service. People had apparently never seen anything like this kind of political maneuvering before and started decrying the Democrats' behavior on blogs and newspaper editorial pages across the state.

From all the hand-wringing going on, you'd think that it was the end of political discourse as we know it. "They've gone too far! This is the worst kind of politics! How dare they pick on someone who hasn't even entered the race yet!"

Man, I'd like to step into whatever time machine these folks have been hanging out in. Not to be a total cynic here, but a certain level of attack politics is pretty standard these days, and most of it is a lot worse than anything that's been thrown at Kirby (see, eg: 2008 Democratic primary, swiftboating, "A vote for Daschle is a vote for sodomy"). Obviously, lying or completely misrepresenting your opponent is one thing, as is attacking her family or dwelling on his physical appearance, and I think it's totally reasonable to demand that candidates avoid that kind of viscousness. But as long as critics stick to the truth, a politician is pretty much fair game when they put themselves out as a possible candidate.

Steve Kirby is indeed a ridiculously rich dude. That's a fact, and it's perfectly legitimate for voters to consider whether someone with that kind of money really has a concept of what life is like for average South Dakotans. It's also the whole reason the Democrats are going after him so early in the game: who wants an opponent who could basically bankroll an army of robots to do door-to-door canvassing for him? Sadly, elections in this country are heavily influenced by whose wallet is the fattest. Who would you rather be up against: Richie Rich or Joe Schmoe from Canton? Yeah, me too.

To be totally honest, I'd probably feel a lot sorrier for Steve Kirby if he weren't such an easy target for criticism. I have a much harder time mustering up empathy for a super anti-choice millionaire who was widely rumored to be the secret $750,000 donor to the Yes on Six campaign, and has been taken to task in the media for his investments in a creepy biotech company that turns the skin of cadavers into material for plastic surgery procedures (this should make you think twice about cosmetic enhancement -- that's ground up dead-people flesh they're injecting into you). His own run in the 2002 gubernatorial primary was practically An Idiots Guide to Negative Campaigning.

While life would be a little more pleasant if everyone was nice to each other, that's not the reality of elections today. Steve Kirby is no babe in the political woods. Neither he nor any of the up-in-arms commentators should be surprised that the Democrats haven't been sending him valentines.

If you know me or have read my past columns, you probably have a pretty good idea of what kind of November 4th I had. With the sad exceptions of my personal hero Al Franken (there's still a chance!) and horrible anti-gay ballot measures across the country, it was a pretty sweet night for me. My dearest Vermillion made me especially proud; if some progressive from one of the coasts asks me again why I live in South Dakota, I think I can just show them a print off of the election results from the Clay County auditors office.

As much as I'd love to just sit back and bask in the awesomeness, I'm not ready to stop pushing forward. The opportunities on the state and national level are too great to stop now. I'm aware that nothing is going to change overnight, but why not shoot for the moon and see where we get?

It sounds like President-elect Obama is already on the right track. His transition team is reviewing hundreds of President Bush's executive orders and there's talk of reversals on environmental policy, reproductive rights, and other regulations happening almost immediately after Obama takes office. His legal team is also working on a plan to either try prisoners languishing in Guantanamo Bay or release them if there isn't enough evidence to bring them to trial. That's right – we might actually start treating the constitution like it means something again!

We didn't have the same overwhelming democratic victory on the state level that we saw nationwide (not that I expected one – I haven't completely lost my mind), but the sound defeat of a second abortion ban should have sent a clear message to Leslee Unruh and her ilk: enough. I have no illusions that they'll stop, but while they're regrouping, there's a golden opportunity for the pro-choice movement to get off the defensive and start pushing pro-active agenda. Once again, I say shoot for the moon. Comprehensive sex ed. EC in the ER. Contraceptive equity. Licensing for Certified Professional Midwives. Hey, and why not repeal some of those ridiculous restrictions like the 24 hour waiting period that we've been stuck with for so long? Now that the focus is off the “pre-born,” maybe we could even work on making life a little better for the post-born kids in this state by adequately funding education or repealing the food tax?

Maybe I'm getting a little ahead of myself. As much as it seemed like a new world when I woke up on November 5th, perhaps not that much has actually changed. I know the country isn't going to just turn all sunshine and lollipops over night. Still, as corny as it sounds, this election has given me a lot of hope. I don't know how far hope is going to get me, but it's definitely a tool I haven't gotten to work with a lot thus far. Why stop when you're ahead?

One of the weirdest things that's happened since John McCain chose Sarah Palin as his Vice-Presidential candidate has got to be the right-wing's sudden embrace of feminism. After years of deriding “radical feminazis,” the Republicans have turned into the Girl Power party over night. Fundamentalist bloggers are claiming that Palin represents 'real' feminists and conservative commentators are talking about double standards and sexism like they actually consider them problems. A long time self-identified feminist like myself can't help but feel like she's stepped into Bizarro World.

Of course, the whole thing reeks of some pretty insincere pandering. You can't rant about man-haters with hairy armpits one minute then laud Sarah Palin for cracking the glass ceiling the next and expect to be taken seriously. But honestly, it's kind of nice to be pandered to. If Bill O'Reilly feels like he needs to appear angry about the fact that female politicians are held to different expectations than males, that's gotta be worth something, right? It means he thinks that the public is angry about it, and if they are, that means the message of feminism is getting through. Even if Palin's nomination is complete tokenism, it still means that McCain feels like he has to seem like he values women – because that's what the public expects.

Did we win? Is feminism the mainstream now? Is it totally cool for girls to be politically ambitious and engage in manly activities like hunting and fishing and pocketing oil profits? Or does the creepy manipulation of feminist rhetoric signal that the movement has officially jumped the shark?The benefits of Palin-brand feminism seems to be contingent on proving your über-femininity through activities like motherhood and beauty pageants. She may be a pitbull, but she still wears lipstick, for goodness sake!

Obviously, I don't think McCain or Palin or O'Reilly or anyone else who's spent their career up to about two minutes ago working AGAINST the women's movement a feminist. I don't appreciate their co-opting of feminist language and I don't think for a second that they'll do anything to help women after this election is over. But even lip service from an Ann Coulter-in-Tina-Fey-clothing seems like a tiny step forward.

I think I'm going to save the following paragraph on my computer, so I can use it for a column next year:

Despite all the empty talk about the importance of education, the South Dakota legislature put off the issue until the last minute and once again failed to actually address the problems with funding and teacher pay. Obviously, I'm not surprised. Just disappointed.

A crapload of education bills were introduced this session (my favorite simply read, "Education in South Dakota is hereby enhanced." Who knew it was that easy?), a few that would've actually addressed some of the shortages in state aid to education, and a few that probably would have just made life for teachers and school districts a whole lot harder. In the end, our lawmakers went with a plan that will give $3 million to school districts next year, only 0.5% more than what was recommended by Gov. Rounds. It also requires some studies be done on making math and science more 'relevant,' because God knows what our education system really needs is more paperwork.

Of course, there's only so much money to go around, right? Well actually, no, there's plenty to go around. We have what's called an Education Enhancement Trust Fund, started with cash from the huge settlement between states and Big Tobacco, which has about $400 million just sitting in it. Four percent of the interest it earns goes into the state's general fund and the rest gets reinvested. Those of you who are concerned about 'big government' should be wary -- the state is just hoarding all this money. Maybe they're saving it for a rainy day (like, so rainy that we have to build an ark big enough to hold all of our citizens, livestock, and prairie dogs), maybe we've got some Scrooge McDucks up in Pierre that like to have a big vault of gold and treasure to swim around in; it's hard to say. Here's what I do know: if we suddenly become the #1 ranked state for stockpiling money, it's only going to make the fact that we're ranked #51 in teacher pay look even worse.

Full disclosure here: I take this a little personally because I'm currently living off of a teacher, and, thus, a teacher's salary. They do indeed make very little. We have to make some sacrifices (like cable TV and ever turning the heat up over 55), but I can live with that. The thing that really ticks me off is the ridiculous hypocrisy of so many politicians at the state and national level. They talk a good game about how children are our future, teaching is a noble profession, blah blah blah, but if they meant it, they'd do something about it. And obviously they haven't.

The fact is, a lot of people don't really respect teachers. Instead of professionals providing a valuable service, they see them as glorified babysitters (which might not be all bad; if you figure for number of hours and number of children, teachers would have significantly higher take home pay if they charged my high school babysitting rate). No one is truly pushing to elevate elementary and secondary teachers to the status of doctors or lawyers. Heck, they can't even hope to get close to what a college professor with equivalent education makes, despite the disparity in the number of classes taught, and the fact that college professors don't have to deal with nearly as much vomit (outside of D-Days).

Year after year, voters rank education as one of their top priorities. No wonder politicians love to talk about it so much! But just as lawmakers need to put their money where their mouths are, we as their constituents need to start holding them accountable. If we don't punish legislators, they're never going to learn. They need to hear what we want, loud and clear. We want to retain quality teachers, before they figure out that Minnesota and Iowa are within driving distance. We want to maintain school buildings so they don't crumble around the students. And we want to ensure our kids get the education they need to stay employed, or at least out of jail. These are worthwhile uses of government money. At the very least, they're no worse than just letting it collect dust.

(Longer title: While Nothing Says Christmas Like an Unplanned Teenage Pregnancy, Enough is Enough)

I know, I know, it's the reason for the season. But I think we can all agree that teenage pregnancy isn't the coolest. It's automatically bad, either. Teens can totally be great mothers. They can be great at a lot of things – have you seen this Doogie Howser, M.D.? He's a teenage doctor! It's crazy! Overall, though, having a baby in high school seems like a real drag.

That's why it's so distressing to hear that last year, the rate of teenage pregnancy went up for the first time in 15 years. For the math impaired, that's circa 1991 (those of you who got the Doogie Howser reference might remember it). We're also talking a three percent jump, which isn't exactly insubstantial. So what's happening? What's changed? Can we blame the critical buzz surrounding the upcoming indie comedy “Juno”? Probably not, but there are some theories out there.

Some people have suggested that perhaps the $176 million our government spends on abstinence-only education isn't really helping matters. And considering that recently released studies indicate that abstinence-only has no effect on delaying sexual activity and may actually increase pregnancy rates by failing to provide information about contraception, they might be on to something. Add this to statistics that show that teen sex rates have risen in the last five years while condom usage has dropped – does this sound like a program that's working to you? Our libertarian friends love to suggest that we adopt a market model for government programs. I think it's pretty obvious that a business with a performance record like that of abstinence-only education would likely tank on the open market. And yet, much like another unsuccessful, heavy casualty government program I could name, our current administration's solution is to simply throw more money at it, hoping that no one will notice what a failure it is.

Some people apparently have other theories. Robert Rector, a senior research fellow with the Heritage Foundation claims that most pregnant teens are actually highly educated about contraception, but had little other education, and just wanted to have babies. Really?? Are there schools out there that are providing dynamite sex education but really falling down when it comes to math and science? Or is he suggesting that somehow these girls are picking up highly accurate information on the streets? When I was a teen, the word on the street was generally something to the effect of, “As long as you drink a coke afterward, you'll be fine!” or “You totally can't get pregnant if you do it in a hot tub.” But hey, maybe kids have gotten smarter. Except they haven't. Because when I was a teen, pregnancy rates were 3 percent lower.

Mr. Recter's solution is not only emphasizing abstinence, but marriage as well, since unmarried birthrates have also gone up. “We should be telling them that for the well-being of any child, it’s critically important that you be over the age of 20 and that you be married.” Now, I'm all for the well-being of children. And from that perspective, it seems like a child born to someone who's 20 and married isn't all that much better off than one born to someone who's 19 and unmarried. I know when I got married, I didn't feel any better prepared to be a parent than the day before. And honestly, that was five years ago and I STILL don't feel prepared to be a parent.

It seems to me that a more sensible thing to tell teens is, number one, how to actually prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place and number two, that for the well-being of any child, it's critically important to actually have the resources, both financial and emotional, to support it (personally, I also find that the overwhelming fear that my own neuroticism and selfishness will screw up an innocent baby is a pretty effective deterrent, but the overall of effectiveness of that message hasn't been tested yet). Hopefully, we as a nation can wake up and reverse this trend before it gets any worse. God knows, when I am ready to procreate, I don't want to have to go to Lamaze classes with a bunch 16-year-olds.

Dear South Dakota State Legislature:

Considering this year is a short, 35 day session, the abortion issue has effective been taken out of legislative hands, and the you've limited yourself to a tough four day work week, I assumed you'd be forced to focus on only the most pressing issues facing South Dakota. But I think we may have different ideas about what you guys should be working on. You've decided to take on issues like authorizing senior citizens to hunt deer with crossbows, prohibiting the branding of minors, and banning anyone from requiring another person be implanted with a microchip. Important stuff. I'm sure, despite all of these distractions, you allotting enough time to really give education, economic development, and state infrastructure and careful and considered deliberation. Yeah right.

Yours truly,

Kelsey

—-

OMG, guys, did you see President Bush's 2009 budget? He eliminated all federal funding to the Lewis & Clark Rural Water System. I'm totally astounded! Except I'm not. I mean, come on. Is anyone actually surprised by any crap the Bush administration pulls these days?

The system's executive director was “flabbergasted” at the “stunning” announcement. Seriously? There's nothing 'flabbergasting' about Bush cutting domestic programs to shreds while continuing to dump millions of dollars every hour into his overseas adventures. That's been the way he rolls since just about day one.

And yet, this douche maintains around a 30% approval rating. Who are you people? Can I be friends with you? I'd love to have as many chances to mess up as you've decided to give this administration. Call me. We can make some plans that I won't show up for and I can make some promises I don't plan on keeping. It'll be a riot.

—-

Guns n' Roses – In a Nutshell

Apparently, there are people in college now that weren't even born when Appetite for Destruction was release. In case you don't have time to read Slash's recently release autobiography (aptly titled Slash), here's the skinny on one of the greatest bands in rock n' roll history. Bill Bailey and Saul Hudson start making awesome music together in L.A., but realize they won't get anywhere with such lame names – thus Axl and Slash are born. Appetite for Destruction is release and rocks socks off nationwide. Axl snake-dances his way into America's heart, Slash buys a lot of hats. Everybody dances with Mr. Brownstone. Fans pay top dollar for concerts that consist primarily Axl's temper tantrums and general rioting. Tensions run high as rest of the band fails to understand Axl's tortured genius. Despite the drama, they still manage to pull off the completely mind-blowing double album Use Your Illusion I & II. More rioting follows. Gn'R releases The Spaghetti Incident – a cover album that's basically hated by everyone but me. The band breaks up, Axl spends over a decade randomly kidnapping musicians and forcing them to work on the never-to-be-released Chinese Democracy. He occasionally appears in public, looking like a mutant cross between Dexter Holland and Carrot Top. Slash and rest of the guys reform as Velvet Revolver and make everyone wonder if Axl had much to offer in the first place. Fast-forward to 2027: Axl is vindicated when his estate issues the Chinese Democracy boxed set which is so awesome, it brings listeners to tears.

(UPDATE: This is not how it went down.)