It’s been awhile since Lois Lane has put in her two cents, and she’s thinking she should try to do so on a more regular basis. Her excuse is that she sleeps about 21 hours each day. Of course Lois Lane is my cat — I’m not sure if I’ve mentioned that before, but I have a VERY opinionated cat … when she’s awake.
Anyway, I’ll break you (my solo reader – hi, mom!) in easy. This will be a fairly short one.
***
First off a bit of a belated “Congrats” to the fifth place girls basketball team. It was a lot of fun keeping up with you throughout the season and I think most of the county thanks you as well, for allowing them to have the “State Tourney Experience.”
***
It seems there’s been a lot of bad news in the news lately. Makes one wonder what the blankety-blank brought our society to this sad state? Bad news is expected nationally, but locally, it’s not. Seems like it’s commonplace anymore to learn of so-called parents abusing and too often ultimately killing their children or their step-children or live-in’s children. I can’t begin to understand what is wrong with these people. And don’t try to blame drugs — “I was so messed up on meth I didn’t notice my kid was dead.” — this is not an excuse. It’s just disgusting.
These murderers should be at the very least locked in a very small cell for the rest of their miserable lives, I don’t even think we need to waste public money giving them a trial. Whether they “directly” were responsible for a death or not, they are still guilty — they were supposed to be responsible for the protection of that child. And what about the others involved? There’s always someone who “should have known” after the fact. Parent or not, as an adult, YOU have the responsibility to report bad situations in which children are forced to reside.
I swear, the ability to decipher right from wrong has gone the way of the rotary phone.
***
On the other side of the spectrum, you have those few instances of true sacrifice for another human as in the case with the heroes who gave their lives to the Big Sioux so that a child may live. Whether or not these two actually were responsible for saving this boy is irrelevant in my eyes. They both died tragically, but they died heroically and deserve to be remembered as such.
Emergency responders’ advice is to never enter the water in a situation like that, and from a practical standpoint, this is true. One is supposed to throw the victim a flotation device or reach something in toward them to grab onto. Yet, in a life-or-death, split second decision, where life preservers or 10-foot poles are not readily available, the selfless will almost always jump in. While marking the spot of entry and calling 911, may lessen the body count, in freezing water, that kind of time isn’t usually available.
***
Well, Lois is out of practice at this and has decided she’s been awake long enough. Here is a little something we borrowed and found entertaining:
These are from a book called, “Disorder in the American Courts,” and are things people actually said in court, word for word, taken down and now published by court reporters, who had the torment of staying calm while these exchanges were actually taking place.
ATTORNEY: “What was the first thing your husband said to you that morning?”
WITNESS: “He said, ‘Where am I, Cathy?’”
ATTORNEY: “And why did that upset you?”
WITNESS: “My name is Susan!”

ATTORNEY: “What gear were you in at the moment of the impact?”
WITNESS: “Gucci sweats and Reeboks.”

ATTORNEY: “Are you sexually active?”
WITNESS: “No, I just lie there.”

ATTORNEY: “This myasthenia gravis… does it affect your memory at all?”
WITNESS: “Yes.”
ATTORNEY: “And in what ways does it affect your memory?”
WITNESS: “I forget.”
ATTORNEY: “You forget? Can you give us an example of something you forgot?”

ATTORNEY: “Do you know if your daughter has ever been involved in voodoo?”
WITNESS: “We both do.”
ATTORNEY: “Voodoo?”
WITNESS: “We do.”
ATTORNEY: “You do?”
WITNESS: “Yes, voodoo!”

ATTORNEY: “Now doctor, isn’t it true that when a person dies in his sleep, he doesn’t know about it until the next morning?”
WITNESS: “Did you actually pass the bar exam?”

ATTORNEY: “The younger son, the 20-year-old, how old is he?”
WITNESS: “He’s 20, much like your IQ.”

ATTORNEY: “Were you present when your picture was taken?”
WITNESS: “Are you ****ing me?”

ATTORNEY: “She had three children, right?”
WITNESS: “Yes.”
ATTORNEY: “How many were boys?”
WITNESS: “None.”
ATTORNEY: “Were there any girls?”
WITNESS: “Your Honor, I think I need a different attorney. Can I get a new attorney?”

ATTORNEY: “How was your first marriage terminated?”
WITNESS: “By death!”
ATTORNEY: “And by whose death was it terminated?”
WITNESS: “Take a guess!”

ATTORNEY: “Can you describe the individual?”
WITNESS: “He was about medium height and had a beard.”
ATTORNEY: “Was this a male or a female?”
WITNESS: “Unless the Circus was in town, I’m going with male.”

ATTORNEY: “Doctor, how many of your autopsies have you performed on dead people?”
WITNESS: “All of them! The live ones put up too much of a fight.”

ATTORNEY: “ALL your responses MUST be oral, OK? What school did you go to?”
WITNESS: “Oral!”

ATTORNEY: “Do you recall the time that you examined the body?”
WITNESS: “The autopsy started around 8:30 PM.”
ATTORNEY: “And Mr. Denton was dead at the time?”
WITNESS: “If not, he was by the time I finished.”

ATTORNEY: “Are you qualified to give a urine sample?”
WITNESS: “Are you qualified to ask that question?”

ATTORNEY: “Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check for a pulse?”
WITNESS: “No.”
ATTORNEY: “Did you check for blood pressure?”
WITNESS: “No.”
ATTORNEY: “Did you check for breathing?”
WITNESS: “No.”
ATTORNEY: “So, then it is possible that the patient was alive when you began the autopsy?”
WITNESS: “No.”
ATTORNEY: “How can you be so sure, Doctor?”
WITNESS: “Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar.”
ATTORNEY: “I see, but could the patient have still been alive, nevertheless?”
WITNESS: “Yes, it is possible that he could have been alive and practicing law!”

By Dee Baysinger
Not too long ago I was asked the question by Sioux Falls Janet if I considered myself to be spontaneous? Definitely, yes, but I may have dropped down a couple of levels. (I no doubt would still hop on the back of a complete stranger’s Harley as I did a few years ago in Minnesota.)
Decidedly there are two separate divisions of people – those who will go when asked at the drop of a hat and those who have to think of their obligations and the possible consequences of their actions. Janet has always put the label of “fun-haters” on the latter. I have steered clear of that dreary label my entire life. Of course I have often times been a victim of what I refer to as “spontaneous combustion” which if an equation would read: alcohol + fun = trouble.
As age progresses I find it to be very appealing to stay home with a glass of wine, a good book and my thoughts. So I was very proud of myself on Monday, Feb. 25. Country Claude and my favorite ex-brother-in-law, Tim Sandness, share the same birth date. This year was special because Tim was hitting the landmark of 60! I called my greeting and found Tim on the road home from Yankton. (No, he hadn’t been in the mental hospital.)
As I was leaving the post office I spied brother Soop and Janet tooling down main street. Blame it on the bright sunshine, but I halted them and said, “Do you want to go to Mitchell and have a beer with Tim for his 60th?” They didn’t bat an eye before they said, “We’ll go home and change.” Now that’s what I love about spontaneous people.
Next, I arrived home to find two T-bone steaks laid out on the counter. I called Claude going by on the tractor and said,  “Get out of the tractor, we’re going to Mitchell.” Much to my amazement he did, without pitching a battle about the awaiting steaks.
I gave Tim the option to choose where to meet but I nixed the Kongo from the list. I have no ill-will against strippers. (I gleefully call the regular attendees “flesh-mongers.”) We settled on Chef Louie’s. Tim has a special-level status since I even gave up watching Antique Roadshow. Our group of six partied until the unheard of hour of 9:15 p.m. I was so pleased with Claude’s participation that I even let him wear his farm hat through the lovely meal.
One of my favorite spontaneous stories is when Charlie Knigge stopped me on main street on a Sunday morning and asked if I wanted to ride along in the motor home with him and Myrna to see the river flooding. (I was mad at a current boyfriend and instantly agreed to the day’s diversion.) Charlie went home and told Myrna they were going and Dee too.
We proceeded to randomly pick up friends along the way. We found Randee Beigh folding her underwear and her hubby, Gary, pulled off the road and hopped in. We had a full camper by the time we toured Wessington Springs, Alpena and Forestburg’s water levels. We had to make a few adult beverage stops along the way. We were almost back to our starting point at Woony when Myrna asked Charlie what was wrong with the motor home’s engine that she had to drive in D-2. He said, “I meant Dee was along, too, not D-2!”
In hindsight I regret very few of my spontaneous adventures which I refer to as, “Off on a Lark!” Georgia has maintained for years that, “You can’t tell Dee a darn thing, but you can talk her into doing anything.”
Cheers to my spontaneous friends.
Dee Baby
P.S. Does anyone know who the announcer was at the State B’s who mentioned me?

By Rep. Scott Parsley, Dist. 8
The main run of the first year of the 88th session of the South Dakota Legislature came to an end late on Friday evening, March 8.
This year’s legislative session had two very significant accomplishments, but we could have done better in some areas.
The two pillars of the session were the passage of the “Criminal Reform Act,” SB 70 and the “Building South Dakota” economic development plan for the future, SB 235.
SB 70, the Criminal Reform Act, will provide resources for the establishments of Drug Courts and Alcohol Courts. Both of these courts will allow judges to sentence those who committed non-violent crimes where alcohol or drugs are involved to one of these two alternatives rather than jail. Today the law requires jail sentences for any crime, violent or non-violent, even when it is plain to see that alcohol or drugs played a major role in the crime.
These courts have been used with great success in many other states. The results elsewhere have been reduced recidivism as well as significant reductions in criminal court costs and reduced need for new prisons.
The second pillar of this year’s legislative session was SB 235, the Building South Dakota Act, which was passed the last day of the session. SB 235 is a very unique approach to economic development incentives for large business while providing resources for developing South Dakota.
In order for a large business to receive an incentive it must be determined that the business would not come to South Dakota without the incentive. If the business is awarded an incentive, the form of the incentive will be a forgiveness of one to four percent of the sales tax paid during construction. All of the contractors excise tax paid by this business during construction along with a portion of the Unclaimed Bank Property will fund the Building South Dakota Fund. This fund will be used for five different purposes, 25 percent for the South Dakota Housing Trust fund, 25 percent for infrastructure development, 15 percent for grants to local economic development efforts, five percent REDI reinvestment and 30 percent to K-12 workforce education.
This is a very unique approach to economic development by using resources from big projects to fund other economic development efforts in the state. In particular this is unique in its funding of K-12 education, one of the most important aspects of economic development, outside of the education funding formula.
While some very positive things were accomplished in this session, there were things that we could have done better. In funding education and Medicaid, two areas of the budget that had significant cuts in 2011, received minor increases in the 2014 budget.
The Governor’s budget proposal for 2014 called for a three percent increase in funding to education and Medicaid, both of which were approved in the 2014 budget. However these were not real three percent increases as both education and Medicaid received one time monies in 2013 which was included when the calculations were made. Effectively this means that education received a real increase of about 1.8 percent and Medicaid received an increase of slightly under one percent. With this increase we are funding education at $7 per student less than five years ago.
All in all, the 88th session of the South Dakota Legislature had some very significant accomplishments as well as leaving funding for education and Medicaid not yet fully resolved.
I would like to thank the voters of District 8 for trusting me to represent you in Pierre. I enjoyed hearing from you during the session and ask that you would stay in touch with me and share ideas you may have for the upcoming legislative session. Thank you for your confidence and support.