Latest news with #Ismay
Yahoo
a day ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Lawmakers disagree over medical marijuana picks
PIERRE, S.D. (KELO) — There was friction aplenty on Monday about should be on the latest version of the South Dakota Legislature's Medical Marijuana Oversight Committee. Just three of panel's 11 members will be returning from last year's group — medical doctor Francine Arneson of Sioux Falls, addiction counselor Kristi Palmer of Sturgis and Sioux Falls police chief Jon Thum. Teen sentenced to 20 years for fentanyl death The Legislature's Executive Board makes the appointments. Lawmakers voted 15-0 for the first nominee, Republican Sen. Lauren Nelson with no discussion. But after that, there was a lot of disagreement. The appointment of Republican Sen. John Carley went through 9-6, with nays from Republican Rep. Mellissa Heermann, Republican Rep. Brian Mulder, Republican Sen. Randy Deibert, Republican Sen. Steve Kolbeck, Democratic Sen. Liz Larson and Democratic Rep. Erin Healy. The dissension further surfaced when Healy nominated Republican Rep. Terri Jorgenson. Republican Rep. Scott Odenbach called for Republican Rep. Josephine Garcia instead. Odenbach, the House Republican leader, said he had conversed by text with several applicants from the House and they eventually settled on Garcia and Republican Rep. Travis Ismay as those applicants' preferences. Garcia went through on a 9-6 vote, drawing nays from the same lawmakers as Carley had. Odenbach next nominated Ismay, who has repeatedly tried to derail South Dakota's medical marijuana program, after nearly 70% of voters approved it in the 2020 election. 'There's no doubt Representative Ismay is a passionate person on this issue,' Odenbach said. Healy said she didn't want to appoint someone opposed to medical marijuana. Emmett Reistroffer, representing Genesis Farms, a medical marijuana producer with retail outlets in various communities, spoke against Ismay's appointment. Reistroffer claimed that Ismay has used profanity at times in describing the medical marijuana industry and wouldn't meet with its lobbyists. 'We just feel this nomination is not appropriate,' Reistroffer said. Healy reminded other Executive Board members that it was up to the board to make the appointments. 'Ultimately, we are here for a reason and we need to make the best decision that we can,' she said. Kolbeck noted that the Legislature a few years ago came up with the current slots for the committee when some lawmakers were trying repeal the program altogether. 'It's how it should run,' Kolbeck argued, saying the board shouldn't appoint someone who isn't willing to respect the voters' wishes. Mulder then nominated Republican Rep. Bobbi Andera instead. Republican Sen. Tom Pischke said Andera was very busy with other things in her life and questioned whether she didn't apply because 'she doesn't have the bandwidth to serve' on the panel. Both Mulder and Republican Rep. Aaron Aylward said they had texted with Andera last week and she confirmed her interest. Reistroffer, representing Genesis Farms, told the lawmakers he was 'relieved' to hear Andera's name, describing her as 'fair' and said she 'listens.' He added that she was the only legislator to attend the medical marijuana industry's briefing earlier this year and said she sometimes voted yes and sometimes voted no on their proposals. Odenbach said he thinks well of Andera but she didn't apply and he said that was why he would vote against her. The board's chair, Republican Rep. Jon Hansen, the House speaker, said he had promised to support Ismay's nomination but also thought that Andera would make a great member. Republican Sen. Ernie Otten also said he couldn't support Andera. 'Without any application no,' he said. Andera nonetheless was appointed 10-5, with nays from Republican Rep. Spencer Gosch, Odenbach, Republican Sen. Jim Mehlhaff, Otten and Hansen. The board voted 11-4 for Dr. Arneson, with nays from Gosch, Hansen, Mehlhaff and Republican Sen. Chris Karr, the Senate's top member. The skirmishing seemed to have ended with 15-0 votes for physician assistant Andrew Schock of Hill City, certified nurse practitioner Julie Bostic of Hartford, police chief Thum, Meade County Sheriff Pat West and counselor Palmer. But the board split again on who should serve as the committee's qualifying patient — someone who is a current cardholder. Karey Entwisle of rural Canistota drove to the meeting at the Capitol accompanied by her father, a U.S. Marine who served two tours in Vietnam a half-century ago and now suffers from kidney disease. She wanted the qualifying patient seat. Mehlhaff questioned whether Entwisle had a conflict of interest because her husband operates Pitbull Acres, a state-licensed cultivator of medical marijuana. Entwisle minimized her role there. 'I'm strictly by the books providing facts,' she said. However, research after the meeting by KELOLAND News of public records on file with the South Dakota Secretary of State office found only her name listed as organizer for Pitbull Acres. Entwisle spoke of her father, who was in a wheelchair. 'This plant has been healing him,' she said. Mehlhaff asked her again how she would compartmentalize the roles of qualifying patient and spouse of a licensed cultivator. 'I am focused on the facts and the situation,' she replied. Karr wanted someone else. He offered Nicholas Cardova instead, saying, 'I just think it's cleaner to avoid any potential conflicts.' The majority of board members disagreed, splitting six for and nine against Cardova. Reistroffer, from Genesis Farms, was invited to the witness mic to address the board a third time. He said he'd gotten to know Entwisle during the past year. 'Clearly she supports the relief her father is finding,' he said. Then Reistroffer spoke from a broader perspective. 'This entire (medical marijuana) committee is stacked from top to bottom. She's the only one we've got,' he said. Mehlhaff said it was important that Entwisle had addressed the conflict question. 'I think she would be a good candidate,' he said. He had served on the panel the past two years and clearly wasn't a supporter of some of the ways that the medical marijuana industry conducts business in South Dakota. Mehlhaff said it was easy for medical marijuana to bleed over to recreational marijuana and he was 'comfortable' that Entwisle would try to minimize that as much as possible. With that, the board voted 14-1 — with only Karr saying nay — for her appointment. In other appointments on Monday, the board chose: Circuit Judge David Wheeler, a former senator from Huron, to fill an opening on the state Code Commission; Brett Koenecke, from the May Adam law firm in Pierre, and Thomas Geu, a former dean at the University of South Dakota law school, to continue serving on the national Uniform Law Commission; and Michael Anderson of Watertown to the state Investment Council. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Otago Daily Times
18-05-2025
- Politics
- Otago Daily Times
How many Nato bottles left sitting on the wall?
General The Right Honourable The Lord Ismay, KG GCB etc, the first secretary-general of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, was probably holding a glass of port after an excellent dinner when he growled his famous remark: "Nato was designed to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down." How well did that work out? Not all that badly. The alliance certainly kept the Russians out of Western Europe (if they ever hoped to advance any farther). It persuaded the Americans to keep their army in Europe throughout the Cold War. Indeed, there are still bits of it in Europe today. And Germany never threatened any country again, although Nato played only a small role in that. But after only four months of Trump 2.0, Nato is effectively dead. It gradually lost its sense of purpose after the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, and by 2019 French President Emmanuel Macron said it was "brain-dead". Its prospects rose a bit after Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, but it was a false alarm. The United States really has joined the other side. Not only does Trump see Russian President Vladimir Putin as a trusted friend and role model, but he has comprehensively trashed the European delusion that the US would come to its defence if Russia invaded. You cannot find anyone in the European Union's defence ministries who believes Washington would risk a nuclear war to defend European cities. It was always hard to believe, actually, but the American nuclear guarantee was the foundational doctrine of Nato's deterrence strategy and an article of faith for all Nato members for three generations. Now it's gone. Here's Germany's new Chancellor, Friedrich Merz, speaking on the night he won the election last February: "My absolute priority will be to strengthen Europe as quickly as possible so that, step by step, we can really achieve independence from the USA. I never thought I would have to say something like this ... But it is clear that the Americans ... are largely indifferent to the fate of Europe." Europe is putting its money where its mouth is, with a €150 billion ($NZ285b) scheme for arms purchases by EU members. The idea is to create a "Nato-minus" (everybody except the US) which functions in much the same way and serves much the same purposes — but everybody knows it cannot be achieved overnight. The Nato-minus countries (not an official designation) have enough money, technical expertise and sheer numbers of people to defend themselves without US help, but they cannot do it right away, for two reasons. One is that they spent less than the US on defence during the long years of peace because America's imperial mindset let them get away with it. The other reason is that the division of labour among the Nato members left them short of specific items like surveillance aircraft and nuclear weapons. So now they are scrambling to fill the holes, and it will take a while. As Hans Kundnani, author of The Paradox of German Power , put it: "Up to the point when the US says the security guarantee is over, you have to do everything you can to hold it together. When there is no short-term alternative, it would be reckless and irresponsible to say screw the US. I don't think (Chancellor) Merz is going to do that." No, he won't. For now, American military power remains indispensable for Europe even though it is unreliable. The emerging European consensus is that this very awkward situation will persist, gradually declining in scale, until around 2030. That is a very long time to hold your breath, hoping desperately that nothing goes bang in the meantime. Nothing lasts forever, and when old alliances start to shift the changes can go very fast and very far. For example, the collapse of the guarantees provided by the old alliances will probably lead to a rash of new nuclear weapons powers in Europe (Germany, Poland?), the Far East (Japan, South Korea?) and maybe the Middle East as well. Everybody deplores this trend, but finds reasons why they have to play their allotted parts in this tragedy anyway. Few admit that this is the default outcome on any planet where a highly territorial species that has lived in small groups that were perpetually at war with one another for most of its evolutionary history develops intelligence and then a technological civilisation. The 80-year-old ban on territorial conquest has served us well, but it is being ignored by the current generation of leaders in Russia, China and the US. We are carrying a huge amount of unacknowledged and unnecessary cultural baggage from our long past, and until we recognise it for what it is we can't get rid of it. (But it can get rid of us.) • Gwynne Dyer is an independent London journalist.
Yahoo
25-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Be optimistic about Merz, but the spectre of the 1930s remains
When Germany surrendered unconditionally in 1945, almost everyone assumed that the Nazis would be a threat for many years to come. Even in 1949, the first Secretary General of Nato, Lord Ismay, summed up its purpose as 'to keep the Soviet Union out, the Americans in, and the Germans down'. But the Nazi revival never happened. For 75 years the Federal Republic was conspicuous as Europe's most successful economy and an exemplary civil society, giving the lie to Spenglerian prophecies of doom. Until now, that is. Sunday's election saw the first serious threat to German democracy emerge since the defeat of the Third Reich. That threat goes by the name of the Alternative for Germany (AfD). Despite the fact that it echoes Putin's propaganda and is classified as an extremist party by the German equivalent of MI5, the AfD has just become the official opposition, with 10.3 million votes, more than a fifth of the electorate. In the new Bundestag, 152 seats out of 630 will be AfD: not quite enough to take over parliamentary committees, but enough to sabotage the system. Since the invasion of Ukraine three years ago, the AfD have been the dominant party in the former East Germany, but now they are the most popular choice for younger voters right across the country. For now, the oldies have saved German democracy. Still: if this trend continues, the AfD could be the largest party by the next election in 2029. This is a party that tells Germans they have been enslaved since 1945 by a 'guilt cult' imposed by the Allies. They quibble over how many of the SS should be seen as war criminals, or whether the Holocaust was just a 'speck of birdshit' on their nation's otherwise spotless history. The AfD is so openly pro-Russian, anti-Ukrainian and authoritarian that even Marine Le Pen and Giorgia Meloni will have nothing to do with them. The AfD's leader Alice Weidel is not just a Leni Riefenstahl fantasy version of Nigel Farage. To anyone who has followed the outer fringes of German politics, this is all familiar. Surely, though, the AfD is a legitimate party? In deepest Thuringia, its mob-orator Björn Höcke is unrepentant, despite prosecutions for using banned Hitlerian slogans. But at national level Alice Weidel disdains dog whistles and gestures of dubious legality: no Sieg Heils or swastikas for her. But sticking to the letter of the law may be just a tactic. Nearly a century ago, though, the original Nazis made their breakthrough in 1930 with an election campaign that secured 107 seats. Hitler then appeared as a witness in a Leipzig court, where three army officers were accused of disobeying orders by fraternising with the Nazis, to declare that he and his party stood 'hard as granite' on the foundation of legality. The judges agreed and an exuberant Joseph Goebbels told one of the defendants: 'What can they do to us now? Now we're strictly legit – and that's it.' Now, as in the 1930s, the AfD's reassurances about the law are hollow. Once in power, these Putinversteher (Putin apologists) would follow their Tsar. Friedrich Merz, the new Chancellor, certainly doesn't trust them an inch. Quite rightly, he prefers to form a coalition with the Social Democrats, despite them having experienced the worst defeat in their history. The latter must waste no time in replacing Olaf Scholz, the most terrible Chancellor in postwar German history, with Boris Pistorius, the highly capable defence minister. It seems likely that Pistorius will become vice chancellor in the new coalition, perhaps charged with rebuilding the military and the arms industry. At his press conference yesterday, Merz said that for Europe, it is 'five minutes to midnight'. He understands that the transatlantic relationship is now on a knife-edge. Unlike some of his predecessors at home and allies abroad, though, this staunch Atlanticist loathes Putin. Though the reckless wooing of Alice Weidel by vice president Vance and Elon Musk had little impact, Merz has no choice but to take their meddling seriously. Yesterday he told the press that Ms Weidel had no policies on the economy or migration, only false or exaggerated criticisms. But he also conceded that the established parties are in the last chance saloon. His own Christian Democrat Union failed to win a single seat in the former Communist East. The Social Democrats, whose working-class vote has just been cannibalised by the AfD, were a key part of the German democratic system, he said. 'I have no interest in seeing [them] destroyed.' Yet Merz now has a chance to restore the kind of resolute, reasonable and responsible leadership that made the Federal Republic of the postwar era so much admired. Helmut Schmidt (1974-82) and Helmut Kohl (1982-98) were bitter rivals, but seen from London, Washington or Moscow, it hardly mattered that one was centre-Left, the other centre-Right. Both Chancellors worked with Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan to win the Cold War and bring down the Iron Curtain. Having covered Germany during part of that period for this newspaper and played a walk-on part in the fall of the Berlin Wall, I am confident that Merz and Pistorius are cut from the same cloth as Kohl and Schmidt. But Alice Weidel and the other AfD demagogues, like their far-Left counterparts Sahra Wagenknecht and Heidi Reichinnek, are unfit to hold high office. The crisis that the West faces today is at least as serious as that of 1989. Then we faced Gorbachev and Deng Xiaoping; now we face Putin and Xi Jinping. Germany, at least, has chosen leaders of real calibre, not charlatans who would betray Western civilisation to its enemies. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Telegraph
25-02-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
Be optimistic about Merz, but the spectre of the 1930s remains
When Germany surrendered unconditionally in 1945, almost everyone assumed that the Nazis would be a threat for many years to come. Even in 1949, the first Secretary General of Nato, Lord Ismay, summed up its purpose as 'to keep the Soviet Union out, the Americans in, and the Germans down'. But the Nazi revival never happened. For 75 years the Federal Republic was conspicuous as Europe's most successful economy and an exemplary civil society, giving the lie to Spenglerian prophecies of doom. Until now, that is. Sunday's election saw the first serious threat to German democracy emerge since the defeat of the Third Reich. That threat goes by the name of the Alternative for Germany (AfD). Despite the fact that it echoes Putin's propaganda and is classified as an extremist party by the German equivalent of MI5, the AfD has just become the official opposition, with 10.3 million votes, more than a fifth of the electorate. In the new Bundestag, 152 seats out of 630 will be AfD: not quite enough to take over parliamentary committees, but enough to sabotage the system. Since the invasion of Ukraine three years ago, the AfD have been the dominant party in the former East Germany, but now they are the most popular choice for younger voters right across the country. For now, the oldies have saved German democracy. Still: if this trend continues, the AfD could be the largest party by the next election in 2029. This is a party that tells Germans they have been enslaved since 1945 by a 'guilt cult' imposed by the Allies. They quibble over how many of the SS should be seen as war criminals, or whether the Holocaust was just a 'speck of birdshit' on their nation's otherwise spotless history. The AfD is so openly pro-Russian, anti-Ukrainian and authoritarian that even Marine Le Pen and Giorgia Meloni will have nothing to do with them. The AfD's leader Alice Weidel is not just a Leni Riefenstahl fantasy version of Nigel Farage. To anyone who has followed the outer fringes of German politics, this is all familiar. Surely, though, the AfD is a legitimate party? In deepest Thuringia, its mob-orator Björn Höcke is unrepentant, despite prosecutions for using banned Hitlerian slogans. But at national level Alice Weidel disdains dog whistles and gestures of dubious legality: no Sieg Heils or swastikas for her. But sticking to the letter of the law may be just a tactic. Nearly a century ago, though, the original Nazis made their breakthrough in 1930 with an election campaign that secured 107 seats. Hitler then appeared as a witness in a Leipzig court, where three army officers were accused of disobeying orders by fraternising with the Nazis, to declare that he and his party stood 'hard as granite' on the foundation of legality. The judges agreed and an exuberant Joseph Goebbels told one of the defendants: 'What can they do to us now? Now we're strictly legit – and that's it.' Now, as in the 1930s, the AfD's reassurances about the law are hollow. Once in power, these Putinversteher (Putin apologists) would follow their Tsar. Friedrich Merz, the new Chancellor, certainly doesn't trust them an inch. Quite rightly, he prefers to form a coalition with the Social Democrats, despite them having experienced the worst defeat in their history. The latter must waste no time in replacing Olaf Scholz, the most terrible Chancellor in postwar German history, with Boris Pistorius, the highly capable defence minister. It seems likely that Pistorius will become vice chancellor in the new coalition, perhaps charged with rebuilding the military and the arms industry. At his press conference yesterday, Merz said that for Europe, it is 'five minutes to midnight'. He understands that the transatlantic relationship is now on a knife-edge. Unlike some of his predecessors at home and allies abroad, though, this staunch Atlanticist loathes Putin. Though the reckless wooing of Alice Weidel by vice president Vance and Elon Musk had little impact, Merz has no choice but to take their meddling seriously. Yesterday he told the press that Ms Weidel had no policies on the economy or migration, only false or exaggerated criticisms. But he also conceded that the established parties are in the last chance saloon. His own Christian Democrat Union failed to win a single seat in the former Communist East. The Social Democrats, whose working-class vote has just been cannibalised by the AfD, were a key part of the German democratic system, he said. 'I have no interest in seeing [them] destroyed.' Yet Merz now has a chance to restore the kind of resolute, reasonable and responsible leadership that made the Federal Republic of the postwar era so much admired. Helmut Schmidt (1974-82) and Helmut Kohl (1982-98) were bitter rivals, but seen from London, Washington or Moscow, it hardly mattered that one was centre-Left, the other centre-Right. Both Chancellors worked with Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan to win the Cold War and bring down the Iron Curtain. Having covered Germany during part of that period for this newspaper and played a walk-on part in the fall of the Berlin Wall, I am confident that Merz and Pistorius are cut from the same cloth as Kohl and Schmidt. But Alice Weidel and the other AfD demagogues, like their far-Left counterparts Sahra Wagenknecht and Heidi Reichinnek, are unfit to hold high office. The crisis that the West faces today is at least as serious as that of 1989. Then we faced Gorbachev and Deng Xiaoping; now we face Putin and Xi Jinping. Germany, at least, has chosen leaders of real calibre, not charlatans who would betray Western civilisation to its enemies.
Yahoo
20-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
South Dakota considers bill to criminalize librarians who provide ‘obscene' materials
South Dakota Rep. Bethany Soye, R-Sioux Falls, testifies to a legislative committee on Jan. 17, 2025, at the Capitol in Pierre. Soye is the sponsor of a bill that would criminalize schools, universities, museums, libraries and their employees for allowing children to view material defined in state law as obscene or harmful to minors. (Joshua Haiar/South Dakota Searchlight) A South Dakota legislative committee advanced a bill Wednesday at the Capitol in Pierre that would subject schools, universities, museums, libraries and their employees to criminal prosecution and jail time for allowing children to view material defined in state law as obscene or harmful to minors. An opponent of the bill said it would put 'librarians in handcuffs' for lending a book to a child that some adults might consider inappropriate. One member of the House Education Committee who voted in favor of the legislation, Rep. Travis Ismay, R-Newell, suggested an arrest might be insufficient punishment. 'If a librarian rented this out to my son or daughter, you'd be lucky if you got hauled out of there in handcuffs,' Ismay said. 'So, yes, if they're breaking the law anyway, why would we have any problem with librarians getting hauled out of the library in handcuffs?' Ismay and other committee members who voted for the bill focused some of their comments on the book 'Tricks,' which is marketed as a young adult novel from author Ellen Hopkins about five troubled teenagers who work as prostitutes. Several supporters of the bill criticized the book in their testimony as inappropriate for children and said it's available in many high school libraries in the state. They said parents have had difficulty convincing local school administrators and school boards to remove such books from school library shelves. … If they're breaking the law anyway, why would we have any problem with librarians getting hauled out of the library in handcuffs? – South Dakota Rep. Travis Ismay, R-Newell Opponents of the bill said criminalizing the lending of a book with a class one misdemeanor is an out-of-proportion response to concerns about a book's content. Eric E. Erickson, a lobbyist for the South Dakota Library Association, said that's the same class of punishment applied to hiring a prostitute and committing simple assault, with a maximum penalty of one year in jail and a $2,000 fine. 'Locking up our librarians, our professors, our teachers, our museum curators is not the answer,' Erickson said. Other bill opponents said some parents may not like the local procedures available to request the removal of a book from a school library, but those procedures are the appropriate venue for complaints. Rep. Mike Stevens, R-Yankton, who voted against the bill, said parents unhappy with the outcome of those procedures already have the ability to file a lawsuit. Stevens sponsored a bill adopted by the Legislature last year that requires public schools and libraries to publish their policies for restricting minors from accessing obscene materials. He said that requirement, which took effect on Jan. 1 this year, is a better approach to the problem than the bill endorsed Wednesday by the committee. The sponsor of the new bill, Rep. Bethany Soye, R-Sioux Falls, said last year's bill is ineffective because of the existence of another state law. That law exempts schools, colleges, universities, museums, public libraries and their employees from prosecution for disseminating material harmful to minors and related offenses. Soye's bill would repeal that exemption. State law defines material harmful to minors as any description or representation of nudity, sexual conduct, sexual excitement or 'sado-masochistic abuse' if it predominantly appeals to a 'prurient, shameful or morbid interest,' is patently offensive to prevailing standards about suitable material for children, and is without 'serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.' Soye said the protection for material with 'literary, artistic, political, or scientific value' is sufficient. 'This is not a ban on any books,' she said. 'If, specifically, we're talking about a public library, you can still have the books. Adults, obviously, can read anything they want. We're just saying this is material that's harmful to minors, so you can't check it out to a minor.' Opponents of the bill said it would infringe on free speech and subject employees of the targeted institutions to prosecution for making subjective decisions. 'Many people will have a fundamental disagreement on what is defined as obscene,' said Sandra Waltman, of the South Dakota Education Association. 'Often it comes down to a difference in values — something that should not be criminalized.' The committee voted 10-5 to send House Bill 1239 to the full House of Representatives. This story was originally produced by the South Dakota Searchlight which is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network, including the Daily Montanan, supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity.
