DakotaWire

Liberty University bans College Democrats

2009-05-23T00:25:00.004-05:00

Liberty University, the ultra-conservative university founded by the late Reverend Jerry Falwell (the guy who pointed out that one of the Teletubbies was gay), has drawn a lot of ire in their recent decision to ban the College Democrats on campus as CNN reports.

According to the Lynchburg News & Advance, the school decided a week ago the organization "stood against the moral principles" held by the school and therefore could no longer be sanctioned.

Maria Childress, the staff adviser to the club, told the paper the school — which opposes abortion rights and gay marriage — had issues with the Democratic Party platform.

Childress says she was told by Mark Hine, the vice president of student affairs, that "'You can't be a Democrat and be a Christian and be a university representative.'"

In a conference call with reporters Friday, Terry McAuliffe — the former chairman of the Democratic National Committee who is running for governor of Virginia — sharply criticized the move.

While I want to be outraged, the thing to remember is that Liberty is a private university, and they're well within their rights to ban groups that stand in stark opposition to the school's principles. If it were a public university, this would be unacceptable. But it isn't. It's a privately-funded institution.

And while I applaud the Liberty Dems for fighting it, I just can't agree with those claiming that this is unfair or unjust. The right to free speech is not guaranteed at a private university.

McGovern Day back on, SDDP gears up

2009-05-21T18:33:00.002-05:00

In my inbox today

Have you made your reservations for McGovern Day yet?

Not only are good things happening in the Sioux Empire for Democrats - GREAT things are happening at the South Dakota State Party. Join us May 30th, at the Aberdeen Ramada Convention Center to find out what all is 'New' for the New South Dakota Democratic Party. This years McGovern Day is a chance for us to showcase our support and determination to WIN the Governor's seat in 2010. Make plans to attend today!

McGovern Day 2009
May 30, 2009
Lunch at Noon: $25.00
Dinner at 7pm: $50.00

Ramada Convention Center
2727 6th Ave SE
Aberdeen, SD 57401 US
Phone: 605-225-3600
http://www.ramada-aberdeen.com/

RSVP to erinmccarrick at gmail.com, 605-393-7658. Pay at the door with check, credit card or cash

I'm glad to know that the party at least has the appearance of having it's feet under it again. With a round of lay offs, a few departures, and a talented but young new Executive Director, I was a little nervous. Sadly, I'm working and won't be able to attend.

America is not a Christian nation

2009-05-20T11:34:00.004-05:00

My friend Sibby posted a delightful rant on how Christians are such an abused minority in this country. Yes, all those poor white folks - such a plight they have. I know that as a white male who grew up in a religious, middle class household, I had it so rough. Damn the man. The world is so hard on white men.

Anyhow, Sibby goes on to link this clip of President Obama in Turkey explaining that we are not a Christian nation:

But what he fails to note is Obama's actual, full quote: "Although as I mentioned, we have a very large Christian population, we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation, or a Jewish nation, or a Muslim nation. We consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values."

And that's worth noting. This is not a theocracy. We are not a Christian nation - never have been and hopefully never will be. The First Amendment explicitly states that "Congress shall make no act respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." In that, it's important to further note that though we are a nation that is predominately Christian, we are also a nation that is predominantly white. Are we then to assume by Steve's logic that whites in America should have more rights than others? Democratically speaking, that makes sense - and a lot of neocons and regressive conservatives probably wouldn't mind that.

But thankfully, we have the Bill of Rights. As I've noted previously, the Bill of Rights is one of the most undemocratic documents in the world. It's a list of things the majority cannot do. And it keeps us safe from fascist ideologues like Sibby, like Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, and the rest of the zealots who would like to see this become a "Christian nation." Should that ever happen, it would be an insult to the Founding Fathers - who knew the danger of religion, who explicitly outlined a wall of separation between church and state - and it would be antithetical to the principles of freedom that America was founded upon.

If you really love America, embrace the fact that our government is secular. Celebrate the diversity that has and always will make this country great. If you truly love and understand this country, you'd easily understand that we are, as President Obama put it, not a Christian nation. But I guess that's just lost on some people. Don't listen to me, though. Let the Founders explain it to you:

"Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon, than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness, that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind." - Thomas Paine (The Age of Reason, 1794-1795.)

Every man "ought to be protected in worshipping the Deity according to the dictates of his own conscience." - George Washington (Letter to the United Baptist Churches in Virginia in May, 1789)

"Question with boldness even the existence of a god." - Thomas Jefferson (letter to Peter Carr, 10 August 1787)

"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of... Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all."- Thomas Paine (The Age of Reason, 1794-1795.)

"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution." - James Madison (Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments, 1785.)

"As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." - (Treaty of Tripoli, 1797 - signed by President John Adams.)

All this talk about Communism...

2009-05-14T09:42:00.003-05:00

It's gotten me thinking, thinking about people who were wrongly killed because of misguided political ideology.

Archbishop Oscar Romero, one of the great advocates for human rights in Latin America, said it best:

"When I give the poor food, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a Communist."

Taken by an assassin's bullet while leading Mass, his death is a chilling example of how reactionaries will do anything to keep power and silence strong voices for progress and change. I really think the time has come in America for an honest discussion about improving our nation and lifting our people up.

It's not about socialism, it's not about Communism, and it certainly has nothing to do with fascism. This is America. The country that was founded upon principles of equality, egalitarianism, and most of all - free will and the ability to believe as you should. It's time to retire antiquated Cold War ideologies and open our minds to greater possibilities. The marketplace of ideas, as Mill put it, will allow free societies the opportunity for open forums and civil discourses and naturally, the best ideas will evolve out of that marketplace and take hold.

Sibby's almost got it!

2009-05-13T09:44:00.003-05:00

Steve Sibson got a little bit closer to understanding the difference between fascism and socialism today. In referencing a recent Rush Limbaugh tirade (oh, boy!) he notes

I need to correct Rush Limbaugh. What he calls fascism (indirect government control over the private sector) may in fact be socialism (direct government control over the private sector)

I'm so proud of him. Maybe my ranting and raging are starting to have an effect. It was, however, a tragic case of close, but no cigar. I'll break this down just one more time in hopes that our dear friend might understand.

Socialism - the workers control the means of production and profits are distributed equally, government oversight and regulation are inherent, but the government does not control the private sector. While it may influence and indirectly control aspects of a society, the workers and the proletariat still control the means of production.

Fascism - the government controls absolutely everything. Everything. Direct control.

Steve was so close, he just had the two confused. I'll give him an A for effort, though. Perhaps now that he's got an understanding of basic governmental philosophies, we can have an enlightened, intelligent debate and stop all this spooky conservative rhetoric.

Why we need a national moratorium on the death penalty

2009-05-13T01:35:00.003-05:00

In yet another astonishing case of how flawed the death penalty is, a man was cleared of all of the charges against him after spending 22 years on death row.

CNN reported that Paul House who was convicted of murder in 1985 and sentenced to death was recently exonerated after repeated doubts from the Supreme Court about his guilt and new DNA evidence was introduced.

What I want to make clear is that this is not a partisan issue. Being anti-death penalty doesn't mean you're soft on crime or that you don't believe in punishing criminals. What it does mean is that you understand that a human judicial system is run by humans who are liable to make a mistake every now and then. Nobody is perfect. That's all you have to admit and you'll easily understand that the death penalty is too flawed to fix.

Paul House was wrongly convicted by 12 honest people. Because people make mistakes. And with the advances in DNA technology, over 100 people have been exonerated and released from death row for crimes they didn't commit. Our tax dollars should be spent wisely, and murdering 100 innocent people would have been an abomination - a sin against justice, and ultimately, anti-American to the core.

But that's just in recent history. Who's to say how many innocent people have been murdered by our government in the name of justice?

Furthermore, if anything, life in prison is a much harsher sentence than death. In a way, the guilty are still condemned to die. The costly appeals process would be removed and taxpayers would save money. The guilty would be forced to contemplate their crimes, deprived of their freedom. And if evidence was introduced at a later date, innocent people could be freed. While it is unfortunate that House was robbed of 22 years of his life, at least he wasn't robbed of his life.

We are the only Western nation that still inflicts a barbaric, outdated system of false justice. Until recently, we were one of only three countries in the world that executed juveniles - Iran and the Democratic Republic of the Congo being the other two. That's terrific company to keep, no? Somalia and the United States are also the only two nations in the world that have refused to ratify the United Nation's Declaration on the Rights of the Child, which prohibits capital punishment for juveniles - Somalia because they don't have a central government, and the United States because of pressure from right-of-center "family" organizations against certain provisions in the Declaration.

If anything, though, House's case should serve as a prime example as to why we need a national moratorium on the death penalty. How many more innocent people have to die as we barbarically pursue justice? How many more innocent people have to be killed in our name before we realize that we're not infallible?

Sibby confuses fascism with crippled people

2009-05-12T08:08:00.003-05:00

In a beautiful example of how common sense is not a conservative value, Steve Sibson saw this news story that I had thought about posting over the weekend, but decided not too because well, there's really nothing there, and went on a delightfully deluded tirade about socialism and fascism again. And we all know how well those turn out.

Anyhow, the story reports

The Justice Department has filed a civil lawsuit against the developers of six multifamily housing developments in Sioux Falls, claiming housing discrimination.

According to the complaint, defendants include Equity Homes Inc., PBR LLC, BBR LLC, Shane Hartung, Scott Snoozy, Myron Van Buskirk, Wayne Hansen, Martin McGee and Sertoma Hills Villas Association Inc.

The six complexes are East Briar Apartments, West Briar Apartments, Kensington Apartments, Beverly Gardens Apartments, Sertoma Hills Apartments and Sertoma Hills Villas.

The lawsuit alleges that the developers violated the Fair Housing Act by designing and building units that didn't accommodate the special needs of elderly and disabled tenants.

You see, not a whole lot there? Just some landlords who didn't feel like accommodating for elderly people and people with disabilities. This, and I'm assuming here, probably has a lot to do with staircases and those cool automatic door buttons. Not a big deal, nothing too hard to fix.

But Steve automatically sees this as the gigantic Federal government coming in and taking ownership of these buildings I guess. He called it "Communism." I think dear Steve is just very confused. A lawsuit is different than a bailout or a buyout.

He then goes on to cite this story from the Argus about how local developers are having a difficult time getting lines of credit for projects. Well, who isn't? Times are tough. And though we are on the road to recovery, we're not there yet. This isn't the 1990's, Steve. Remember those days? Clinton was in office and times were good.

Anyhow, Steve's rant doesn't include much analysis - just a lot of copying and pasting and misguided political understanding of governmental systems. If he had gone on to read the rest of the story, he might have heard William Baker, President of First National Bank explain

For a typical residential development loan, that can be tough these days, even in Sioux Falls. Such loans are commonly structured with a developer borrowing money to buy a piece of land and a credit line to build houses. The developer pays off the credit line and original loan as he sells houses.
If houses aren't selling, the bank doesn't get paid back.
"They want to see projects that are capable of servicing the related debt," Baker said. "I just think that's good banking."

If anything, the article talks about how capitalism has failed and left us with things the way they are and how banks are doing what they can with what they have.

Nothing about fascism, nothing about Communism or socialism. Just an article about how times are tough and banks have trouble lending to anyone, even developers, because there's no guarantee that they'll sell the houses or fill the apartments and have the money to pay the bank back. Steve claims that government intervention is the problem here, but without government intervention, these banks would have gone under and wouldn't have been able to offer credit to well, anyone. Steve should be thanking Barack Obama if anything.

This is just one example of the logically-unsound scare tactics the Republicans have had to resort to as they see their grasp on power (and reality it would seem) slip away.

By the way, Steve, if you'd be so kind as to send me your address, I have a few Political Science textbooks from college I'd be more than happy to send you. That should help clear up the confusion between capitalism and socialism for you. I know it's a toughy.

Vandel Johnson, Senator Johnson's father, passes away

2009-05-08T11:59:00.003-05:00

Kelo reported this morning that Senator Tim Johnson's father, Vandel Charles Johnson, passed away at his home in Michigan. He was 95.

Vandel Charles Johnson was a Naval officer in the Pacific during World War II.

He began his career as a teacher and coach at Centerville, and went on to be principal in Canton, and superintendent in Flandreau.

Van Johnson then became the dean of students at the University of South Dakota in Vermillion, and retired in 1982 as chairman of the program for higher education administration at Michigan State University in Lansing, Michigan.

A memorial service will be held in South Dakota at a later date.

Senator Johnson said he was at his father's side when he died. His mother, Ruth Johnson, died in February at age 88.

Deepest sympathies and best wishes to Senator Johnson and his family at this time.

Kelo: Assuaging my swine flu fears

2009-05-07T21:58:00.002-05:00

Kelo ran a story on the swine flu noting that health officials for the State of South Dakota are telling us not to worry.

It's about friggin' time.

As I noted in an earlier post, perhaps much of this paranoia was media-created. After all, the regular flu still kills more people each year in America than swine flu ever will - 36,000 in total. For you math geeks out there, that's 100 people per day dying of the flu. I don't see a media frenzy over that factoid, so perhaps we can admit now that we blew things out of proportion?

And what's more, like a good liberal, I was watching Bill Maher the other night. Bill had some great thoughts on swine flu, people who don't believe in evolution, and faith-based initiatives:

And finally, New Rule: Since viruses, like swine flu, get to be potentially deadly because they "evolved," if you don't believe in evolution and you get it, you have to pray it away.

You can't crap all over Darwin and stem cell research and global warming and then come crawling back to science when you want Tamiflu. That's for us sinners.

Sibby and Pat Powers: Republican paranoia at it's finest

2009-05-05T10:29:00.003-05:00

In what might be two of the funniest things I read this morning, Sibby goes off on a rant titled "Obama's Marxist religion of fascism" and Pat Powers went on an anti-drug logic-free tirade about medicinal marijuana.

I won't get into any more of Sibby's post than the title - because that's about all I could stomach to read (it was rather painful and devoid of coherent, logical understanding of basic philosophy). I'ma break this down real slow:

1. Marxism and fascism are not religions.
2. Marxism and fascism are separate, opposing political ideologies.
3. Marxism holds that class struggle is the primary catalyst for social change.
4. Fascism holds that complete state control is the best course of action.
4.1 I understand how this may be confused with socialism, but in socialism (which is different than Marxism altogether, but is the base philosophy), the workers control the means of production. In a fascist state, the government controls all means of production - not the workers. Thus, fascism is effectively not socialism.
5. Fascists hate Marxists philosophically for exploiting the state.
6. Marxists hate fascists for exploiting the proletariat.

I could go on, but it just goes to show how jingoism and talking points can strip away any sense of logical, rational argumentation and allow ignorant, fact-devoid, fear-based rhetoric to become acceptable. Maybe turn off the Fox News, put Rush on mute, and go pick up a high school philosophy text book before you rant.

Meanwhile, on the other end of the conservative teeter-totter, Pat Powers goes on to lament the potential passage of new medical marijuana legislation and would simply contend that if this passes, well, all Hell will break loose. Pat must have missed the word "medical" the numerous times it was repeated and confuses "addicts" with cancer patients and "drug dealers" with doctors.

He goes on:

Grade school teachers who teach kids during the day could legally be growing and distributing pot by night - now that’s an example to set for the kiddies

Growing marijuana would still be illegal for personal use. The sheer level of paranoia and avoidance of factual argumentation is appalling. Meanwhile, in the comments of the post, Republican State Senator Lee Schoenbeck shows why serious, educated discussions on this subject escape us - one of our senior statesmen and a potential gubernatorial candidate are content to make jokes on par with a Beavis and Butthead episode while a legitimate, medically prescribed solution for cancer patients, people suffering from debilitating arthritis, glaucoma, AIDs, and many other degenerative diseases and disorders is on the table.

It's a shame to see otherwise intelligent people be so ignorant about a topic. I could go on and on about why marijuana shouldn't be classified as a level one narcotic or why the war on drugs has allowed stigmatization of a plant that's as natural as potatoes and could have serious medical implications. I could go on about the hypocrisy of a society that celebrates alcohol and tacitly condones alcoholism while simultaneously shunning a plant that's safer, less habit forming, and ultimately not as dangerous as the Ward Cleavers of our society would have you believe.

I could, but then again, I'm just a left-wing hack who doesn't know anything.

Limbaugh lets the rift in the GOP grow

2009-05-04T20:08:00.002-05:00

CNN ran a delightful article on Sarah Palin's effort to aid the GOP "rebranding" effort. At which Rush Limbaugh was quick to point out:

Something else you have to understand is these people hate Palin too. They despise Sarah Palin, they fear Sarah Palin, they don't like her either. She's, according to them she's embarrassing.

Which just makes me about as giddy as anything.

My expert political scientist opinion foresees a growing rift in the Republican party - a rift between evangelical Christians and true conservatives. The party is divided and will continue to be, regardless of whatever they hope this "rebranding" will do. I think they saw some success with an appeal to populism regarding the hypocritical tax day protests, but for the most part, they're a bankrupted party.

No real leaders, no real power, no real ideas. There are those that want this nation to go against everything the Founding Fathers set forth and for us to become a "Christian nation" and there are those who, though they may be Christians, keep their politics separate and would rather we just get back to the good old fashioned Republican party - the party of racism, sexism, classism, cronyism, nepotism, and despotism.

Either way they decide to go, polls show that the vast majority of Americans think they're on the wrong track, and with all of the in-fighting amongst would-be GOP leaders, it's a bright, beautiful day in America.

Herseth Sandlin votes for equal rights, equal protection before the law - Sibby has a fit

2009-05-02T12:21:00.005-05:00

Steve Sibson had a conniption fit this morning over news that Stephanie Herseth Sandlin voted in favor of the new hate crimes legislation, known as the Matthew Shepard Act. Steve explains the legislation:

This week, the House of Representatives passed The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act (HR 1913), which adds gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, and disability to the list of protected categories under federal hate crimes law.

But goes on to whine

Hate crimes laws’ main purpose is to appease the homosexual rights lobby.

Explaining that

Some have called such bills "Pastor Gag Laws." According to a recent report in the Washington Post, "[F]aith organizations and individuals who view homosexuality as sinful and refuse to provide services to gay people are losing a growing number of legal battles that they say are costing them their religious freedom."

So here's the deal. While I understand Steve's concerns with knowing the specific intent of a crime (aren't all crimes hate crimes, or at the very least a crime of indifference) and the ability to classify and define it, this act goes to protect citizens already victimized and jeopardized. Steve claims that this is a violation of the Bill of Rights, but the Bill of Rights is the most un-democratic document in all of American history. Indeed, it is a list of things the majority simply CANNOT do. So, taking Steve's argument, this legislation is perfectly in tune with the Bill of Rights.

Steve's tinfoil-hat paranoaia about First Amendment rights being breached is hilarious, too. Only if you consider violence and crime an expression of the First Amendment does Steve's logic make any sense. Churches can decide what they will or will not do - it's the reason I can't get married in a mosque or a Catholic church as I'm neither Muslim nor Catholic. For that protection, churches don't have to pay taxes. But when they step into the civil arena and the political debate regarding homosexuality and try to legislate their morality - they give up that right and should be exposed to criticism like the rest of us. Churches should be able to decide if they want to allow gay marriage, and indeed, some have. But what they don't have is the right to decide who has what legal rights and legal protections before the law. And nobody is talking about infringing upon free speech, nobody but Sibby and other regressive neo-conservatives.

I applaud Congresswoman Herseth Sandlin and all those who voted in favor of this legislation. It's good to know that our country is taking a step toward tolerance, equal protection, and justice before the law. It's just such a shame that so many conservatives are so blinded by their ignorance that they would rather support the rights of violent criminals than those of innocent victims already jeopardized by ignorance and intolerance in our society.

Mmm...xenophobia and the swine flu

2009-05-01T02:19:00.003-05:00

The Centers for Disease Control report than an average of 36,000 people die from influenza and influenza-related complications each year. That's 100 people per day, dying from the flu.

So why all the attention now? I think it's a convenient way to bring up the topic of illegal immigration again (as many regressive conservatives have started doing). The Dallas Morning News reports that there has been increased pressure to limit border crossings and conceivably close the border between the US and Mexico as a result of the outbreak.

Perhaps we stir the illegal immigration bogeyman up every so often because it allows us to vent our xenophobic and racist fears in a manner that's more publicly acceptable. If the situation were reversed - if Canadians were crossing the border illegally at an alarming rate - would we care? I have to think not because Canadians aren't as easy to profile racially. They look a lot like the majority of Americans. This is a problem that isn't as large as it's made out to be and that nobody is really trying to stop. It's a good scare tactic to drum up votes and support for the base - nothing more. Go read your history, we've been here before.

Don't let the mainstream media scare you. This flu won't kill you. And illegal immigrants aren't destroying the nation. If anything, they improve and enrich our culture and shape our country. My great great grandparents were illegal immigrants, and as a result, my family and I live freely and happily in a country that my ancestors were willing to risk their lives to enter.

Ann Coulter: "Yes, I am an attention whore."

2009-04-30T13:21:00.002-05:00

Ann Coulter, true to her nature, made something about someone else about her. In her brilliantly penned synopsis of Alaska Governess Sarah Palin for Time Magazine's 100 issue, Ann writes:

The only thing I have against her is that she threatens to surpass me in attracting the left's hatred.

I have a few thoughts on that:

There are some noticeable differences between the two.
1. Ann Coulter is a fascist party doll who spews vile hate speech like Shakespeare did poetry.
2. Sarah Palin is a vapid, party-line hack who tows the line and was an unfortunate victim of circumstances.

That being said, we, the collect left, dislike you both for entirely different reasons. While you've both managed to set back the cause of women about 50 years or so, one of you we despise because you anger us. You may have facts, incorrect as they usually are, and refuse to concede to even the most logical, rational, level-headed arguments.

Governor Palin, on the other hand, we just...well, Mr. T said it the best about Rocky - and I paraphrase, "I don't hate Sarah Palin, I pity the fool." McCain choosing her was the worst thing that could have happened. It was embarassing and it was a shallow, shameless pander, you betcha. And gosh, you know, it was just jingoism and hokey colloquialisms abound as she utterly neglected substance, answers, and genuine solutions to problems all the while skirting seemingly any knowledge of the Constitution of the way our government fuctons.

The Aryan posterchild goes on to opine that Sarah Palin got a bum rap because

she wasn't influential enough to overcome the deficits of her running mate and win the election.

Oh, contraire. John McCain would have had a much bettter shot at winning had he stuck to his moderate roots and chosen someone less...reactionary, and more intelligent. Sarah Palin was an embarassment not just to John McCain, but to Alaska, to women, and to America. H.L. Mencken was proved correct in his assumption that in America, we would eventually elect a genuine idiot to the White House in 2004 (I neglect 2000 because Bush was not elected in this year, rather he was appointed), and Mencken was almost proven right again with the baffling popularity of Sarah Palin in 2008.

Person of the year? Maybe in a political sideshow. But thanks for the laugh, Ann. I needed it today.

With age comes wisdom: Sen. Arlen Specter switches parties

2009-04-28T14:45:00.002-05:00

Longtime Republican stalwart Arlen Specter, the senior Senator from Pennsylvania announced today that he is switching parties and will henceforth be affiliated with the Democratic Party.

He said:

"As the Republican Party has moved farther and farther to the right, I have found myself increasingly at odds with the Republican philosophy and more in line with the philosophy of the Democratic Party."

There's few things I love more than seeing a party hijacked by neoconservative, regressive ideologues alienating their own senior statesmen. Now, as soon as Al Franken is seated as the Senator from Minnesota, we'll have that magical number of 60 seats.

And as Republicans try to tap into populism with their messaging, it would appear that even after the election, the majority of Americans, and a Republican Senator, are seeing the light and making the change to the party that has the future of America in mind - not the past.

The First 100 Days: Bipartisanship? Of course not.

2009-04-27T12:08:00.004-05:00

CNN ran a story today on Obama's first 100 days in office, and most notably commented on his failed efforts at promoting bipartisanship. While I think that the notion or the spirit of bipartisanship is a good idea, at this point in American politics, I don't think it's a viable campaign promise. There is so much intense, emotionally-driven rhetoric (on both sides of the aisle), that any effort to foster more bipartisanship is moot from the get go.

That is not to say that Americans don't pull together when necessary, or that we don't have the same goals - we all want what's best for the country, we just disagree on how to get it. And in that, we have the beauty of our republic.

But I don't think it should be Obama's job to promote bipartisanship. He won the election, he sets the rules.

Think back to eight years ago - Bush had been appointed President. There was no effort to promote bipartisanship. The GOP ran the show, ran it into the ground, and left liberals with nothing but a big shit sandwich to eat. When we questioned the President, we were called un-American and unpatriotic. We were told that questioning or dissenting against a war-time President would "embolden the enemy."

But somehow - that's changed now? Somehow, now it's okay to denegrate the President because it's pro-American to do so? It's kosh to talk about seccession? Hardly. Conservatives and regressives in this country need to understand that when the man they didn't like wins an election, he's probably going to do a few things they don't like. The shoe is on the other foot now, and after eight years of GOP use and abuse, it's starting to stink.

The Democrats pushed through a lot of quality items in the first 100 days, reversed a lot of regressive and backwards Bush-era errors, and made some great progressive strides - the S-CHIP improvements, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, and the stimulus package to name a few.

I don't think that the measure of Obama''s first 100 days will be how bipartisan it was - the country is in an unprecedented, extremely dire state. Conventional politics are not applicable. And as we teeter on the precipace of disaster, I'm glad we've got a President who's thinking forward, not backward. History will judge the effectiveness of his reactions to this crisis. Let's remember - the New Deal wasn't the most popular project at it's inception either.

Busy and infirm - posting to resume soon

2009-04-25T12:08:00.001-05:00

I've been battling with some nasty cold for about a week, my daughter has an ear infection, I've been busy at work, and the nice weather has afforded a few opportunities to get out of the house and enjoy mother nature. All apologies for the hiatus in posting, but rest assured, some fresh content is baking in the oven and should be ready to serve up piping hot in a day or two.

Ignorance is strength

2009-04-17T13:24:00.003-05:00

hy-poc-ri-sy
–noun, plural -sies.

1.	a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.

2.	a pretense of having some desirable or publicly approved attitude.

3.	an act or instance of hypocrisy.

Thune in 2010: Untouchable?

2009-04-17T01:51:00.004-05:00

The Argus Leader reported today in their print edition (it doesn't appear on their website), that Senator John Thune has over $4 million cash on hand for his upcoming re-election campaign in 2010.

Does this make him the proverbial 800 pound gorilla? While I think Congresswoman Stephanie Herseth Sandlin could mount a formidable challenge to the seat, she may not have the political capital left in South Dakota (although her approval rating remains very high, we're all well aware of the malicious smear tactics the Thune camp and their friends are more than willing to use) after the stimulus packages and various bailouts of the Obama administration to take on Thune and be victorious. If she decided to run for governor against Dennis Daugaard or Lee Schoenbeck (one of my favorite DakotaWarCollege commenters), I think she'd have a large hill to climb, but a more likely chance of success.

With that said, who will the Democrats pick to take on Senator Thune in 2010? Is there a dark horse waiting in the wings or will they have to pony up some sacrificial lamb? $4 million is a substantial war chest, and I just have doubts about any Democratic candidate other than Herseth Sandlin being able to raise that kind of cash.

On top of all that, it looks like the Democrats in South Dakota have some serious organizing to do. Todd Epp over at South Dakota Watch reports that this year's state convention, the annual McGovern Days, has been postponed. While it might be a great time to be a Democrat in America - what with Obama in office and a majority in both houses of Congress - in South Dakota, it looks like business as usual.

You oughtta be teabagged: An activist's take

2009-04-16T00:28:00.002-05:00

While I try to figure out whether I ought to be astonished at the display of ignorance or just more amused at the spectacle, I figured I should offer my take on the Tea Party that occurred in Sioux Falls - my take on it as a dangerous, radical, liberal activist that is.

1. You really need to familiarize yourselves with popular euphemisms. This is a not safe for work link that will describe tea bagging in it's more popular, connotative meaning. Next year, I don't want to hear about tea bagging, Cincinnati bow ties, rusty trombones, or anything of the sort in connection with a political protest.

2. I'm going to give you some credit. From almost all accounts, this event was well-attended. That's the hardest part about organizing any event - getting people there. And hey, even though you probably don't have a populist bone in your body, you certainly tapped a nerve and figured out how to scare/agitate/rile/motivate people into doing...well, into getting out of their house and holding pre-made signs. (Activist note: if you plan on using more than one sign, don't have one person make them all - we can recognize handwriting. It detracts from the effectiveness of the message.)

3. If you're going to hold a partisan rally, call it one. Now, I'm sure you're touting that you had Republicans, Libertarians, and some Independents out - that's hardly non-partisan. It's not even bi-partisan. It's biased. And when I see Ted Nugent on Fox News, any hope of calling it anything other than a right-wing propaganda orgy of jingoism, scare tactics, talking points, and old white dudes is out of the question. Besides, http://teaparty.gop.com kind of gives it away.

4. Learn what socialism is. If government monies go to prop up a capitalist system, it's not socialism. If corporations have the opportunity to buy back the shares purchased by the Federal government, it's not socialism. This is a link to an article explaining to you what socialism is. It's similar to what's going on, but it ain't it. And secondly, what about this sounds like a bad idea? I know that many Americans were raised in the Cold War era and were inherently indoctrinated against socialism because our enemy, Russia, was a socialist nation. The Cold War was not fought over economic ideology, it was fought over geopolitical gain and empirical control of land, resources, and goods.

5. Stay true to the original idea. The real Boston Tea Party was caused by taxation without representation. Not only has President Obama and the Democratic Congress cut taxes for 95% of Americans, nobody - not even the richest 1% of Americans - will see any changes to their taxes until 2011. So chill. You have representation, you just lost - that's all. And hey, when the guy you don't like wins, he's probably going to do things you don't like. Believe me, I know. The Founders would shake their heads at your misguided re-enactment.

6. Finally, stop your whining. Taxes pay for essential services like roads, public hospitals, schools, police services, fire services, 911 emergency and first responder services, the military, and all sorts of wonderful things. Oh, and libraries and the mail. If you don't use any of these services and don't ever plan on it, you are free to criticize and complain. If not, you're a gigantic hypocrite who needs a lesson in public administration. Paying taxes is patriotic. It's your duty. It's part of the social contract. You say "Support Our Troops"? I say, pay your taxes so our troops can be paid and supported.

And I mean, come on...tea bagging? I thought you were joking at first...then I thought it was just...sad.

Allen Unruh: Gigantic hyprocrite

2009-04-15T01:44:00.003-05:00

Happy Tax Day. Or Tea Party Day.

Kelo ran a delightful story on "Dr." Allen Unruh (funny how he's not going by "Dr." anymore) in regards to the Tea Party he's apparently helped organize this year. Which is great. Because if I was in South Dakota organizing an event, he's the first person I'd call.

Anyhow, the good "doctor" said:

"We've got a big banner for everybody to sign, that’s gonna be there, which we'll take to Washington, D.C.,” Unruh said.
He hopes the government hears their message loud and clear and says this protest is just the beginning.
"If they ignore us this time, they’re gonna see a revolution by next year, I feel,” Unruh said.

So, apart from threatening a revolt against the government, Unruh goes on to say that government spending is wasteful and bad. Which just makes me laugh. How many Federal dollars did he and his lovely wife receive through the Alpha Center and their various anti-choice campaigns? I'm guessing it was a substantial amount.

So, "doc", for taking gobs of Federal money and then hypocritically protesting higher taxes, I applaud you.
And for your enjoyment, here's Mr. Unruh giving an Oscar-deserving performance of Patrick Henry's infamous "give me liberty..." speech. Funny, all this talk about liberty from a guy who thinks women should have none.

Texas Republican says Asians should change their names, make it easier for Americans

2009-04-13T12:45:00.002-05:00

In perhaps the most bizarre and racially insensitive thing I've ever heard, The Telegraph reported on Texas State Rep. Betty Brown, a Republican who said that Asian Americans should change their names to something a little easier for Americans to deal with:

The comments from Republican Rep Betty Brown came on Tuesday, when the state legislature heard testimony from a Chinese-American group on voting difficulties. Asian voters' names are often spelled differently on different documents.
"Rather than everyone here having to learn Chinese," Mrs Brown said to a representative from the group, "do you think that it would behoove you and your citizens to adopt a name that we could deal with more readily here?"

It never ceases to amaze me that these regressive conservatives continually forget what makes America great, what makes us unique and sets us apart from any other nation in the world - our diversity. E Pluribus Unim. From many, one.

But to be fair, I'm sure the first Americans, you know, the ones who lived here for thousands of years before we white folks showed up, had trouble pronouncing Smith, Hawthorne, Proctor and other ridiculous names like that. We should have heeded Betty's advice and our forefathers should have all adopted native tongues and native names. After all, they were the majority at the time. And they were here first.

Big swing and a miss by DakotaWarCollege

2009-04-12T21:46:00.002-05:00

Pat Powers is not a progressive. In that, he's apparently reaffirming his objection to progress with his latest scare-tactic post trying to convince us of the evils of the Obama administration's proposed cap-and-trade program.

In which he asserts:

Good gosh - are people thinking they’re getting a bargain by electing Congresswoman Herseth Sandlin? Because in this instance, it seems as if she’s doing little else but to slobber over the Democratic President at the expense of South Dakotans

Thank God we have John Thune to at least raise a voice of dissention that during tough economic times, South Dakotans really aren’t interested in our elected representatives in Washington raising our utility rates just because somebody is “committed to passing a bill.”

So my first qualm (apart from the fact that he misspelled dissension), is that Pat is heralding objection to the President. First and foremost, this smacks of hypocrisy when we champion a man's dissent against the administration who, just a few short years ago, said that dissent and "obstruction" of the President and his agenda would "embolden the enemy."

But secondly, cap-and-trade is a smart, solid plan on which to move our country away from a deadly, dangerous addiction of fossil fuels and is a brave step towards changing the way this country views energy and environmental policy. The ultimate goal of cap-and-trade is to reduce greenhouse emissions and ease us away from the dangerous precipice of the scientifically-proven, immanent climate change.

While Pat and other regressive conservatives will try to scare you into believing that your taxes will skyrocket and you'll be bankrupted if we dare to move forward, the good folks at the Center for American Progress assure us that:

"Initial estimates by the Congressional Budget Office project that an economy-wide cap-and-trade program would generate at least $50 billion per year, but could reach up to $300 billion. Approximately 10 percent of this revenue should be allocated to help offset costs to businesses and shareholders of affected industries. Of the remaining revenue, approximately half should be devoted to help offset any energy price increases for low- and middle-income Americans that may occur as a result of the transition to more efficient energy sources."

The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office's research shows us that this transition to a more environmentally-friendly energy policy won't be as painful as Pat might lead you to believe. And Pat Powers? Let's just say that if this was the turn of the last century and Henry Ford was trying to sell you on this newfangled "automobile", Pat would be the one telling you that horses were the way to go. Progress isn't always easy. And I understand that it can be scary, but we ought not let fear of change dim the future of this country.

We need to take environmental policy seriously. We only have one planet. Once it's gone, it's gone.

I applaud Congresswoman Herseth Sandlin for her bold support of such a practical, progressive, and common sense policy.

Ending torture to make America safer

2009-04-09T18:35:00.002-05:00

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- CIA Director Leon Panetta has carried through on his pledge to prohibit independent contractors from conducting interrogations of terror suspects.
In a message to agency employees on Thursday, Panetta said he had notified the congressional oversight committees about the current CIA policy regarding interrogations.
Besides discontinuing the use of contractors, the director outlined in the message other steps taken in response to executive orders issued by President Obama in January.
The harsh interrogation techniques authorized by the Bush administration will no longer be used. Panetta said questioning of suspected terrorists will follow the approaches authorized in the Army Field Manual.
He said that included suspects held by Americans or those who might have been transferred to other countries.
The secret prisons used to detain terror suspects have been closed, Panetta said.

This single action alone will make America ten times safer than any Bush-era policy. When America can ethically and morally conduct business and follow the guidelines set forth in not just the Geneva Conventions, but the Bill of Rights, and the Army's own field manual, we will be more respected, have more authority on which to dictate to other nation's, and can rest assured that we are not lowering ourselves to the level of our enemy.

America doesn't torture. We don't outsource torture. We don't use "harsh negotiation tactics". We don't torture - period. Not only does torture yield inaccurate results, it's illegal, immoral, and un-Christian. This is a decision all Americans can be proud of.

No longer will this abominable practice be carried out in our name.

Gingrich calls former Methodist pastor "anti-religious"

2009-04-08T15:11:00.003-05:00

(CNN) — Newt Gingrich said Tuesday the Obama administration is "intensely secular" and "anti-religious," the former House Speaker's second hard-hitting criticism of the new administration this week.

In an interview with FOX News, Gingrich said he strongly disagreed with Obama's choice of Harry Knox — an outspoken activist for gay rights — to the White House advisory council on faith-based initiatives.

"I think their goal is to have a very secular America in which government dominates everything," he said. "Why wouldn't you put an anti-religious, left-wing zealot on a faith-based group? It's a perfect pattern for this administration."

Since 2005, Knox has served as the director of the Human Rights Campaign, a national organization that advocates on behalf of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals. He is also a former Methodist pastor.

So let me get this straight. What Obama did is deplorable, but putting an anti-science, right-wing zealot in charge of an organization like say...Health and Human Services is alright? Has Newt forgotten the Bush policy of cronyism that led to such wonderful appointments as Eric Keroack - the man put in charge of the Federal family planning programs who doesn't believe in birth control?

Or maybe taking Michael Brown away from organizing horse shows to head up FEMA. That worked well.

Now, suddenly placing an ordained minister in charge of the White House advisory council on faith-based initiatives is an outrage. Really? Come on, Newt.

Or could it just be that maybe, just maybe we have an administration that finally understands the intention of the separation of church and state? This administration isn't anti-religious, they just understand that America is not a theocracy to be governed by cronies and unqualified campaign donors.