Dakota Today

** GOP Elves at work on a new "Guantanamo Willy Horton" in Illinois TV ad

John Thune is fretting and stewing that some prisoners in Guantanamo might end up in an Illinois prison "only about 450 miles east of Sioux Falls". Thune should have a flashing light with his own talking points terror ball colors.

"Moving dangerous terrorists from a secure location in Cuba into the heartland of the United States is an irresponsible move that could endanger American lives," Thune said in a statement. "Instead of holding the terrorists outside the United States, President Obama has decided to move the Guantanamo detainees to a location only 450 miles from Sioux Falls, South Dakota."
Terror suspects' new home: Illinois | argusleader.com | Argus Leader (17 December 2009)
 http://www.argusleader.com/article/20091216/NEWS/912160337/1001/news
 http://snipurl.com/tqk6q

Of course, Thune has also said that the Democratic Health plan won't help anybody for at least 1800 days from date of passage.

Robbinsdale Radical has an embedded video of US Senator from Minnesota Al Franken suggesting that Thune is entitled to his own opinions, but not to his own facts.  Have a look at Thune getting skewered.

Embedded Video at Robbinsdale Radical

After hearing Thune fretting, I saw the handwriting on the wall, some GOP elves, operatives, co-conspirators, and trolls are in a basement room filled with bags of cash twisting their brains into a knot trying to figure out a way to get people convinced that Willy Horton was in Guantanamo and will be soon escaping from the Illinois prison to get into a new revolving door commercial.

The Revolving door Video (requires Java, Flash)

Will there be parole and weekend passes for Guantanamo inmates once they get moved to Illinois?  Can Guantanamo prisoners be persuaded to walk around in a circle? Do any of them have faces more fear inducing than that of Black William Horton?  What are the inmates family values?  Will the question of why Will Horton was moved from a Maryland prison to Guantanamo ever be asked or answered by anybody besides Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck?  The work of GOP operatives is tough, but somebody has the big money to pay for it.it.  They will have to resurrect Talon News.

** Stay tuned for news that isn't..at least not yet ---- Doug Wiken

 

**Sibby and Republicans in South Dakota back supporting rapist rights again.

In case you might wonder why South Dakota often seems closer to the dark ages than some other areas of the country, you won't find anything reassuring about the post in Steve Sibson's blog and the comments he found from Republican legislators Sen. Lee Schoenbeck, R-Watertown  and Sen. Tom Hansen, R-Huron.

Read Steve's post here

Sibson Online attacks Adelstein and defends Rapist Rights

[[ Note:  I found the link above when Dakota Today got a hit from Sibson's Blog.  The date of a post on his blog is in faint blue type, and I did not notice it was from 2006, so it is really old news.  Steve is complaining that he is not for rapist rights, but implicit in every kind of anti-abortion, anti- information,  anti-women's rights attack is support for rapist rights.  Steve and others in that camp elevate a few parasitic cells above the rights of the raped woman and elevate the rapist's rights to use a woman's body as a tool to maintain the rapist's gene in the gene pool.  They chose to use terms like "Pro-Life"  and "unborn child" and have attacked those who support pro-choice groups as "butchers" which I find inflamatory, dishonest  or misleading and I choose to label their dark ages humbug as a form of "Rapist Rights".  Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. I do apologize if any readers were mislead by my failure to see the date of his original post ---- Doug Wiken ]]]

Just what the world needs more of--: women forced to bear and raise the child of a rapist. I don't know why for sure, but there seems to be something in common with these Republicans perspective and that of the Islamicists who insist that women should be stoned for adultery or mutilated or murdered in the name of "honor" if they refuse to marry in an arranged marriage.

Here is a link to a discussion by girls and women who have been raped only to find out that the rapist has parental rights and the anguish that causes them. Rogue Pundit

And, I do wonder what these South Dakota Republicans convinced they are on God's side think about the GOP national organization having insurance for its employees that pays for abortions.

It is too cold too and I just found out locally that 10 gallons of kerosene for a space heater cost me $84.

*** Stay tuned for less serious information from Ole and Lena to follow --- Doug Wiken

**Herseth-Sandlin and Blue Dogs make Blug Dog Crap

Rep. Herseth-Sandlin again demonstrates that the primary work product of Blue Dog Democrats is blue dog shit. 

Rep. Herseth-Sandlin talks like she represents people when she campaigns here in South Dakota, but when she gets to DC, she isn’t Democratic or Republican, she is 100% opportunist. She claims voting against the Health "Reform" Bill because of the budget impact, but did not consider that for the Iraq war and the other Bush loads of crap she supported. Her explanations for votes here in SD are convenient even if likely totally false responses suitable only for plausible denial

She forgets South Dakota real people in DC and remembers only corporations which dump money by the truckload into politics. In a way she is worse than a Republican since she portrays herself as something better. Her motormouth blithering blather is camouflage for a totally empty political perspective that is overwhelmed by reptilian brained  political survival. Her voting and explanations are an insult to any thinking Democrat or Republican.

The real problem with "Democratic" political hacks like Herseth-Sandlin is that they add credibility to the regressives of the right wing in the GOP party and implicitly support the manure spreader load of policy myths that have never worked and will never work.  By appealing to the lowest most ignorant wing of the GOP she makes the work of real Democrats in South Dakota even harder than it would be without her.  She has had a great opportunity to help educate South Dakotans on the failure of GOP policies and the workability of liberal alternatives and failed completely.

I fully understand that politicians have to get elected to do anything, but when they do get elected and then act as if the only thing important is to get re-elected, they demonstrate only opportunistic cowardice.   They fail to do a good part of the job that actual statesmen labor on educating and informing and they and she also make that honorable task even harder.

Obama has fallen victim to the idea that the current "middle" of the political spectrum in Washington actually stands for something besides the current muddle of a status quo  that works like a fascist combination of government and corporations.  The GOP now is skewed so far to the regressive backward right that they have made themselves as irrelevant as 17th century Tories in the US.  The Blue Dog Democrats are about an inch to the left of that GOP regression now and then and should be made irrelevant by a hard-nosed Obama driving for something better than mere but expensive patches on the current muddle.

Obama wasn't elected to further change of the small kind that rattles around in your pocket with car keys.  Washington is fundamentally screwed up and utterly corrupted by corporate money.  Herseth-Sandlin is making herself part of the problem instead of part of the solution.

If she opposed the cobbled-together 1900-page health care bill because it is a fraud designed only to bankroll a legacy insurance industry no more viable than a buggy whip plant, she might make some sense.  Supporting the McGovern "Make Medicare available to every citizen plan"  would make her into another prairie statesman instead of just another teat on the boar pig gluttony represented by the congressional status quo.

*** Stay tuned for more on the crying need for political campaign financing --- Doug Wiken

** Obama will lose all credibility unless he shows he can't be rolled

President Obama has recognized the need to correct the growing problems with health care in the US.  He has pleaded with Republicans, Democrats, Blue Dog Democrats, et al to put together a compromise of some kind.  Obama put out a hand in compromise and got it slapped by a bunch of petty opportunists.

It is time for Obama to tell boneheaded blue dog Democrats, Liberal corporate lapdogs, corporate fascist conservative Republicans that it is time they decided all American people deserve a fair deal for medical care without regard to the greed heads on Wall Street and in the corporate over-reachers in health care insurance industry.

Obama must say to these bought-and-paid-for congress critters who have defended corporate greed in the hopes of getting contributions from the medical industry and huge insurance conglomerates  that he tried for a compromise, but they have failed the real people of America and that now means the only option is the single-payer system.  Time for their little games has run out.

  Unless President Obama says enough of this same old GOP double-talk crap and blue dog dog shit  is too much, he will have demonstrated to the worst political, partisan interests that he can be rolled.  If he cares a whit about his real legacy, he can not let that happen.  He cannot let the world see a pack of whining Blue Dog "Democrats" and some whacko wingnut hypocritical conservatives roll him or he will lose all credibility with average American citizens and with every tinpot dictator in the world.

Democrats who want a future life in politics must bite the bullet and leave the Republicans crying  in the wilderness for the next 40 years.  Give the real people of the US a fair deal on health care that works (they can do it) and Democrats won't need campaign funds to defeat the GOP stalking dogs of corporate fascism for years and elections to come

• Do you love your family?
• Do you love your insurance company?
• Take your pick.

[[ NOTE: In a comment below, "duggersd" fusses about "fascism". He should also read the Northern Valley Beacon on Fascist Corporatism -- Doug Wiken August 21, 2009 ]]]

** Stay tuned for weather photos which are not even slightly controversial--- Doug Wiken

** Take Seriously that voice crying in the Northern Political Wilderness

You won't find much better writing on any other blog and you won't find quite as many ideas expressed with similar vitality and creativity in terms of making the often less obvious plain as day.  Check Northern Valley Beacon if you have been missing it lately.

Northern Valley Beacon

The rabid right and the connections to the Bush-Cheney political disaster machine has skewed the political spectrum to the point that blogs like Northern Valley Beacon have become middle of the road. The right-wing has moved so far to the right in the last few years as the GOP has shed its more moderate members that the wingnuts of the right are barely clinging to the right end of the realistic US political spectrum.

**Stay tuned for the loud crash as the screamers of the right fall off into the abyss of dead political parties and perspectives and join the pool of the mentally ill-- Doug Wiken

**Economist "Engineer" Robert Shiller finds danger in growing US wealth inequality

Recently, economist Robert Shiller was interviewed on the Charlie Rose show. It was an interesting hour based loosely on his new book "Animal Spirits" which is not quite what you might expect from the title. Robert Shiller correctly predicted the economic meltdown. He is an astute observer and listening to him, I really could not say if he particularly liberal or conservative. He considers himself an "economic engineer" who is not interested in destroying capitalism nor in destroying government, but in making them work better and in protecting them from future catastrophe.

I ordered his book "Animal Spirits" and a couple others on the economy. Hopefully, they can be the basis of some somewhat more informed posts here and elsewhere.

Shiller views the current economic meltdown as serious, but views the increasing concentration of more and more wealth in fewer and fewer hands as being even more serious in the long term. The inequality of wealth distribution has increased to historical highs. Shiller, I think, implies that such inequality and the government policies generating it breeds resentment and also a decline in effort on the part of those unable to accumulate wealth and finding that effort more and more difficult.. in short weakening of the "work ethic".

My question at this time for those conservatives and very rich and of politicians protecting the inequality of wealth and who often label any improvement proposals as "class warfare" or "economic war" follows.

At what point will conservatives be satisfied that the very rich have gotten control of enough of the wealth to satisfy them? 

This Tax Policy group, probably at Brookings Institution indicates the top marginal tax rates by year from 1919 to 2009.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=213

This link provides multiple forms of information on personal wealth. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/listdocs.cfm?topic2id=49

Wealth estimates from 2001 estate tax filings. May not relate directly to current situation. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=556&Topic2id=49

Download a complex pdf from the federal reserve. Charts and graphs with lots of data manipulation aimed at providing a better picture of true wealth. http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/feds/2006/200613/200613pap.pdf

Easier to understand compilation from the federal reserve info above http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2006/04/change_in_the_d.html

More analysis of some of the data contained in above with additional info and perspective. http://www.wealthandwant.com/

This is a perhaps shaky source, but suspect the income data on the "Fortunate 400" if not the interpretation is correct anyway.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/mar2008/rich-m07.shtml

Some information on actual control of wealth: http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

This from census data may be unbiased if you have time to download and dig through it

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/wealth/wealth.html

This may indicate the problems with large family size and wealth accumulation and may thus suggest that the mal-distribution of wealth is related to family..I read only the abstract.

http://ideas.repec.org/p/wpa/wuwpma/0004051.html

This might have the most interesting and useful information.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/4Inequality.htm

You may choose to be ignorant of income disparity if you wish, but the information is available and sticking your head in the conservative wingnut sand pile does not change anything for the better or even change the information. We may however disagree on the future impact of continued worsening of wealth disparity based on our ideology. 

[[Note: Most of the above post was apparently viewed as too controversial to be posted at Mt. Blogmore for reasons I don't understand. ]]

**Stay tuned, paw through the data, and please report back with comments-- Doug Wiken

**About that C Street "Churchish" Group that has John Thune as a member

It is rare that Salon Premium stories mention South Dakota even in passing. That is sort of the case here, but the passing reference is to US Senator John Thune and his membership in a group that has helped cover up some of the transgressions of GOP hypocrites currently in the news for cheating on their wives or other assorted bits of hypocrisy.

Salon Online Magazine about C-Street House

Most likely if you are not a Salon Premium member, you will have to endure some ads in order to read the story. A letter following the story notes that at some time, Hillary Clinton was also a member of this group. Politics makes strange bedfellows in more ways than one.

**Stay tuned even if you think that money given to churches and religious groups should not end up providing places for GOP politicians to cover up their sexual trysts--- Doug Wiken

**Some thoughts on the Sotomayor hearings

The GOP senators at the confirmation hearings for Sonia Sotomayor as a nominee to the US Supreme Court have been trying to make hay with Sotomayor's "I hope an Hispanic woman....." comment in a speech or speeches.  They have been beating on one or two dead elephants ever since the second GOP senator had his face on TV.

While she hasn’t stated it in the hearings, her statement was prefaced with “I hope….” No matter what the GOP politicians say, they could get away with a statement of the kind, “I hope my experience as a White male ….etc….”

I am not at all impressed with identity politics and certainly Obama nominating an Hispanic women kills two birds with one stone in the identity politics area. That said, it seems more obvious to me every day that this woman is VERY, VERY intelligent, informed, thoughtful, hardworking, and prepared…. and she has remarkable tolerance for fools.

Her statement was unfortunate in that it could be so easily pulled out of context and made to appear as if it is the basis of a monstrous issue by political hacks more interested in scoring points with the NRA and the anti-abortion dark ages groups than in actually learning anything relevant to the approval process.

That the GOP is using something pulled from a speech and not from something like 3,000 judicial decisions is an indication of the poverty of their unified talking points. Marcia Coyle of the National Law Journal on PBS noted something to the effect that “Sonia Sotomayor has made clear the distinction between diversity factors in understanding versus in interpreting or applying the law.” [NOT an exact quote.]

That pretty well explains why the GOP attacks have been irrelevant from day 1.

The GOP has also been trying to make hay with one of Obama’s obvious political puffery points regarding the nomination. They know better than to pretend this is an actual issue relevant to the nominating process they are engaged in.

Democrat Senators have fawned a bit too much, but they have also asked some interesting questions. Republican Senators have all asked essentially the same questions over and over again apparently all expecting to get a different result or answer. That kind of behavior has been labeled as a kind of insanity.

The GOP Senator’s problem with the confirmation hearings is not so much an actual perception Sotomayor has, as it is with their intentional or ignorant misconception or illegitimate presentation of Sotomayor's perspectives and/or the context of her remarks.

They have been left exposed as attempting to build mountains out of molehill pseudo-issues and creating strawman arguments.

When they start resorting to attacks in the form implying she is some kind of a pointy-headed intellectual lawyer markedly different than the general public when they start saying stuff like, “Fine legal minds might accept that, but the American People (as if these clowns represent all the American people) want this explained in terms they can understand”, you have another measure of their desperation and the poverty of their arguments.

While the GOP Senators have been mostly hammering on Sotomayor's expressed preferences as if she has let them influence her judicial decisions despite no evidence for that, their own positions appear as if they could all be predicted by the contribution reports of their major special interest supporters and business interests.

**Stay tuned for the soon to appear "full-court" press coverage--- Doug Wiken

**Gov. Sarah Palin (Gov. Moose Drool) set to resign

In the less than earth-shaking news, I heard yesterday that Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin announced she will resign in July.  Kind of a surprise what with all the GOP rhetoric about personal responsibility, etc.  All kinds of guesses trying to interpret her convoluted language, but a few of mine below which may be about as good as all the other speculation.

• 1. She is in deep doo-doo.
• 2. She has a job coming up with the RNC replacing whomever is there.
• 3. She is returning to sports "journalism" and will be local color on some networks sports show.
• 4. She will be spokesperson for some line of glasses, clothes, sports equipment or hair product, etc.
• 5. She will be another vacuous face on Fox News.
• and least likely guess:
• 6. She and Mark Sanford are setting up a political advertising and consultancy group ..or are eloping to Mexico.

Take your pick. We may find out soon how quickly we forget a political meteoric rise and fall.

 *** Stay tuned but watch for fireworks elsewhere..perhaps at 321Fireworks. Have a happy, fun, safe, and sober Fourth of July--- Doug Wiken

**There he (Bill O'Reilly) goes again..shoddy analysis

Today, Monday June 29,2009, the Mitchell Daily Republic has a Bill O'Reilly column titled "Do not be deceived by shoddy polls".  It ostensibly concerns a NYT poll on health insurance. The message here about O'Reilly is do not be deceived by shoddy analysis of a shoddy columnist.

I will be a bit generous and assume that O'Reilly cannot be so ignorant he unknowingly deceives, and suggest he knows and chooses to ignore some obvious facts about the data he presents.

In short, O'Reilly alledges that the NYT and CBS and others intentionally deceive when they report that there poll shows 57% of the respondents say they are willing to pay extra taxes so that all Americans will have health insurance.  He notes the data below from the poll results.

57% say yes, they will pay more taxes
37% say no, the will not pay more taxes to provide universal health care
  6% claim they have no opinion. (That totals 100% of respondents apparently).

O'Reilly claims this must be a carefully selected sample because when asked whom they voted for in the 2008 presidential election, the respondents:

48% said they voted for Obama
25% said they voted for McCain
19% said they did not vote  (that totals only 92%, so not sure what was left out)

Then O'Reilly notes that the actual election results were more like

53% for Obama
47% for McCain.

He then leaps to the conclusion that the poll sample is hugely skewed to Obama voters and that directly relates to the 57% support for increased taxes to pay for health insurance.

Without having access to all the information, two things immediately jump out.  A sample of voters in which 19% did not vote may represent the general population.  A "sample" of all the voters does not include the people who did not vote.

O'Reilly is comparing apples and oranges.  To further muddy his "analysis", is the generally accepted fact that some part of the population will claim they voted for the winner in a previously held election whether or not they actually did.

In short, it does not take a sinister eastern liberal elite plot to have a poll turn up with support for increased taxes to pay for universal health care.  It does however take either a columnist who fails to understand polls or understands them and intentionally distorts results to generate his claim that a poll is "shoddy".

In reality, Bill O'Reilly is a shoddy columnist who never lets facts stand in the way of his favorite myths in support of Republican policies or positions of the very rich executives in the insurance industry.

** Stay tuned for more on the attempts to generate FUD..fear, uncertainy, and doubt among voters who would actually benefit if the private health insurance industry disappeared--- Doug Wiken