SDP Jazz Note: YouTube Edition

My son is a big fan of Break.com, one of those sites where members can post short video clips.  There is some very funny stuff there, but be warned that some of it is racy.  More attention has been lavished on YouTube, and that includes, I gather, a billion plus buyout by Google.  Anyway, YouTube has a wealth of clips that jazz finds will find wonderful.  The images are fuzzy and the audio is all over the board, but that gives them a vintage, bootleg film sort of feel. 

In this one, from the Steve Allen Show (1964), the Miles Davis Quintet plays "So What?", the first cut from Kind of Blue.  My personal favorite jazzman, Wayne Shorter, replaces John Coltrane on sax, and Herbie Hancock replaces my other favorite jazzman, Bill Evans, on piano. 

In this one, Shorter is still playing for Art Blakey and the Jazz Messengers.  He was musical director for that famous group, and composed many of their numbers.  On trumpet is Jason's favorite jazzman, Lee Morgan.  This is 1965, about the time that Shorter jumped ship to join the aforementioned Miles Davis group.  Unfortunately, only a little later Davis sailed that ship over the falls, and Shorter was on board when it crashed.  Needless to say, I am no fan of the fusion period that would waste a couple decades of their tremendous talent.

ps.  I have a long standing affection for Steve Allen.  I saw him on TV a lot when I was a child.  I listened to his public radio show on Jazz when I was in graduate school.  I still remember him describing how vibraphone players sound when they play the piano, with one finger of each hand like some people type.  He also had a show on public TV called "Meeting of Minds" where actors would present different persons from very different periods and circumstances, and he would engage them in conversation.  On one show he hosted Oliver Cromwell and Leonardo Da Vinci.  Cromwell was the more difficult of the two. 

Seven Minute Stretch

Dana Milbank at the Washington Post has a piece entitled "Democrats Control the Hill, but Not Themselves."  This is sharply written political journalism. 

Yesterday was the first cattle call of the Democratic presidential campaign and -- holy cow! -- these candidates can moo.

"Each candidate has been given seven minutes to speak," announced Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean before the first of six Democratic candidates took the stage at the Hilton Washington. He further announced that an "official timekeeper" will hold up warning and "time's up" signs. "After 10 minutes, wild gesticulations will take place," he threatened.

This quaint exercise in Democratic Party discipline lasted about, well, seven minutes. The first candidate, Sen. Chris Dodd (Conn.), took the floor for 20 minutes and 15 seconds, ignoring Dean's hovering, the removal of Dodd's image from the projection screens, and the fact that he drew applause for saying "Let me conclude." Former senator John Edwards (17:40) wasn't far behind, trailed by Sens. Hillary Clinton (16:12) and Barack Obama (15:30).

The closest to the limit was Rep. Dennis Kucinich (12:38), but this was probably because the audience treated his appearance as a chance to start conversations or to visit the restrooms. "Can you hear me in the back?" Kucinich called above the din. "Because I can hear you."

WaPo on Media Monopoly

The Washington Post today has more on media monopolies and the ownership rules that Gannett/Argus are lobbying to change:

Senate Democrats pressed the Republican-controlled Federal Communications Commission this week to slap tighter controls on media ownership, public-interest broadcasting and television violence. But after a sometimes contentious two-hour hearing Thursday, some lawmakers expressed little hope of meaningful change.

Several Democrats on the Senate Commerce Committee warned the agency not to try to relax limits on the number of media outlets one company can own, as the FCC did in 2003 only to have a federal court stay the action. Recent FCC policies on media ownership, said Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (D-N.D.), have been "a spectacular failure."

He railed against rules that allow one entity to own eight radio stations in a large city and against proposals to allow one owner to have three TV stations in a city. "More concentration means less competition," Dorgan said. "The public-interest standards have been nearly completely emasculated."

But FCC Chairman Kevin J. Martin, who has close ties to the Bush White House, defended the agency's policies.

"The commission has tried to make decisions based on a fundamental belief that a robust, competitive marketplace, not regulation, is ultimately the greatest protector of the public interest," Martin said. He told Dorgan, "I'm not convinced yet we need to have the kind of requirements" for local TV and radio programming that some advocates have championed.

Flexing their muscles at Congress's first oversight hearing of the FCC since taking control of the House and Senate last month, Democrats lectured and sometimes scolded FCC members, saying the agency needs more teeth in its regulation of broadcast outlets, telephones, the Internet and other services.

Read the whole story.  As I wrote elsewhere, democracy is best practiced when citizens have access to multiple and varying sources of information.  Media concentration puts reliable political information in peril.  Too much power in the hands of a few people in charge of editorial decisions limits the information available to civic-minded citizens, and the Senate Democrats are right to pressure the FCC to ensure that doesn't happen.

UPDATE:  Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America includes a chapter on the press in America, whose "influence in America is immense," he says.   He also says that "it is an axiom of political science in [America], that the only way to neutralize the effect of the public journals is to multiply their number."  In other words, when there are few newspapers, or only one, in an area they have immense power.  This is the problem in South Dakota given the dominance and omnipresence of the Argus Leader, which would only get worse if given the opportunity to pursue the purchase of television stations. 

Tangled Web

Bob Mercer writing in today's Watertown Public Opinion:

What went around, later came around at Sutton hearing

Bob Mercer

February 3, 2007

Watertown Public Opinion

PIERRE -- The lawyers for the sexual misconduct hearing against state Sen. Dan Sutton didn't get to pick a jury. Because the proceeding was legislative rather than judicial, it was at its heart political.

What a tangled web of politics it was, stretching back years, connecting in ways the participants perhaps understood, but lost for many outsiders.

The lawyers for and against Sutton, D-Flandreau, presented their evidence to a panel of nine senators who were appointed by the Republican and Democratic leadership of the South Dakota Senate.

Among those on the panel, officially known as the Select Committee on Discipline and Expulsion, was Sen. Gene Abdallah, R-Sioux Falls.

He knows first-hand what political machinations can do to a person's career.

He saw his son Scott Abdallah forced to withdraw from the front-runner's spot for a prestigious federal appointment as U.S. attorney for South Dakota.

No one has ever suggested Gene Abdallah, a former head of the South Dakota Highway Patrol and a former U.S. marshal, can't cut through conflicting information to make up his own mind on the facts of a situation.

But having Sen. Abdallah and Jim McMahon in key roles at the hearing was an odd convergence.

McMahon was selected as the U.S. attorney for South Dakota when Scott Abdallah withdrew. McMahon, now in private practice again, was hired in November by the Legislature's Executive Board to serve as its special counsel to investigate the allegation against Sutton.

McMahon essentially served as the Senate's prosecutor against Sutton.

Likewise, had this been in a courtroom, it would have been unusual to have on the jury Senate Democratic minority leader Scott Heidepriem of Sioux Falls. He was vice chairman of the Sutton committee. A very successful attorney in private practice, Heidepriem is a law partner of Scott Abdallah.

Another partner in the Heidepriem-Abdallah law firm is Russ Janklow, the son of former Gov. Bill Janklow. The elder Janklow served on McMahon's side as the personal attorney at the Senate hearing for Sutton's accuser, 19-year-old Austin Wiese of Flandreau.

This web gets much more tangled.

Bill Janklow was the No. 1 supporter in South Dakota for McMahon's appointment as U.S. attorney. Still, it's doubly intriguing that Janklow would help the Wiese family.

The accuser's father, Dennis Wiese, is a former president of South Dakota Farmers Union. Bill Janklow truly, strongly dislikes Dennis Wiese for things Janklow says were done against him politically by Wiese in the past.

Janklow made clear at the hearing that he believed Austin Wiese's story.

On the flip side, Sutton was one of a handful of Democratic legislators to whom Janklow in his last term as governor repeatedly reached out, through his senior staff, for help on key votes, when too many of Janklow's fellow Republicans were digging in their heels against one of his ideas.

Two of the biggest legislative fights in 2000, the sale of the state cement plant and the tobacco- settlement plan, come to mind as examples when Sutton backed Janklow while most Democratic lawmakers didn't.

Janklow, Sutton and the Wieses all grew up in the same hometown of Flandreau. Janklow was leaving there, after stopping to visit his mother, on the Saturday afternoon three summers ago when he drove through a stop sign.

The crash instantly killed motorcyclist Randy Scott, forced Janklow's resignation from the U.S. House of Representatives and sent him to jail for 100 days.

The person who replaced Janklow in the U.S. House was Democrat Stephanie Herseth, whom Janklow had beaten in the 2002 election. Prior to running for the House, Rep. Herseth served as executive director for the South Dakota Farmers Union Foundation, where she worked closely with SDFU's then-president Dennis Wiese.

When Janklow drove from Brandon to Pierre for the Sutton hearing, he had just received his driver license again. Janklow also has just recently resumed practicing law. One of the lawyers who served on the disciplinary review committee that temporarily took away Janklow's law license was Nancy Turbak.

Turbak, D-Watertown, is now a state senator. She served on the Sutton hearing committee, too. She was recruited by Heidepriem to run for the Legislature long before the Sutton matter spilled into public light. She ran because Sen. Lee Schoenbeck, R Watertown, chose to not seek reelection.

It was Dennis Wiese who went to Schoenbeck in October demanding action from the Senate against Sutton, because Attorney General Larry Long hadn't taken criminal action.

Schoenbeck then wrote the infamous letter to Sutton in mid- October, threatening Sutton with an investigation and possible expulsion or impeachment if he didn't resign.

This gets even more tangled.

Schoenbeck is a brother-in-law of the Catholic priest in Flandreau, Father Richard Fox. The Suttons and Wieses belong to the Catholic parish in Flandreau.

Sutton had asked Austin Wiese last February to meet with Father Fox about Wiese's allegations Sutton sexually touched Wiese.

That meeting never took place.

Sutton was alerted that a criminal case was being built against him when he was asked to meet with a DCI agent, the day after Wiese called him to make the allegations. The DCI was recording that telephone conversation.

The priest, after learning about the allegations, immediately removed Sutton from teaching the parish's confirmation class for teen-agers.

Schoenbeck said he didn't learn about the criminal investigation against Sutton in about May. Schoenbeck, the Senate president pro tempore, took no action and didn't inform the Legislature's Executive Board until Wiese contacted him a month before the Nov. 7 election.

When Sutton wouldn't quit, Schoenbeck and other legislative leaders proceeded against him. Among the people with whom Schoenbeck conferred was Jeremiah Murphy, the longest serving lobbyist at the Legislature, and throughout the course of his decades at the Capitol, perhaps the most powerful.

Murphy handles sexual-abuse legal cases for the Sioux Falls Catholic diocese. McMahon, while not a partner officially, shares the same office suite and administrative staff with Murphy. That allows them to refer cases to one another when there is a possible conflict.

Schoenbeck said he wrote the letter to Sutton because suddenly felt pressured politically by Wiese because of a sex scandal unfolding in Congress.

But Schoenbeck, who made no secret of his ambition to run for governor in 2010, was on the rocks politically in October, as Republicans faced the increasing possibility of losing their majority in the state Senate.

Schoenbeck and other antiabortion conservatives had engineered a purge in the June primaries of Republican senators who voted against the 2006 abortion ban.

The strategy ousted Republican incumbents such as Duane Sutton of Aberdeen, Stan Adelstein of Rapid City and Clarence Kooistra of Garretson. The effort also defeated other Republican primary candidates who were not strongly against legalized abortion.

The lack of incumbents helped Democrats pick up five seats in November, including Turbak's victory over Schoenbeck's candidate to succeed him, Dennis Arnold of Watertown.

Republicans went from 25 to 20 senators, while Democrats rose from 10 to 15. The change in proportion meant Democrats also earned at least one more slot on the Sutton hearing committee.

The committee voted 6-3 a week ago to recommend the Senate censure Sutton rather than expel him. The six were four Democrats: Heidepriem, Turbak, Sen. Gary Hanson of Sisseton and Sen. Ben Nesselhuf of Vermillion.

The two Republicans were Abdallah and Sen. Ed Olson of Mitchell, who led the push for the Sutton investigation in his role as the Executive Board chairman.

The full Senate voted against expulsion 20-14. The 20 were all 14 present Democrats (Sutton left the floor during the voting) and six Re

It's impossible to predict what might have happened in the Sutton matter if the Republican abortion purge hadn't taken place last June, and if Heidepriem and Sandy Jerstad of Sioux Falls hadn't taken out two more Republican incumbents in the Nov. 7 elections.

But it's clear the dynamics would have been different and Sutton would have faced a politically more hostile Senate.

Sutton's temporary resignation after the election avoided the hearing set for the Nov. 28 special session, when the Senate membership was still 25 Republicans and 10 Democrats. Expulsion required 24 votes.

The connections and motivations are many in the Sutton matter. We likely can never know how all the pieces came together. But what's now obvious is none of this was as simple as it first sounded.

McMahon handled a sketchy set of sometimes-conflicting evidence and witnesses professionally and skillfully, and perhaps as best someone could. The Senate hearing, if nothing else, showed why a criminal charge wasn't brought against the senator by the attorney general.

Questions will always remain, especially the most important one of all: What really happened in that motel room where Dennis Wiese let his son stay with their former family friend and political rival?

Nothing? Accidental touching? An unwanted sexual advance? The devious start of political blackmail?

The answer probably will take a death-bed confession. Until then, South Dakota can only speculate about who lied.

Just in case you are feeling proud of yourself, read this

From the Rocky Mountain News.  HT to Hew Hewitt.  Here is a shot of Diane Van Deren. 

Abortion Politics...Again

Whether the South Dakota Legislature should once again take up the abortion issue is a matter of some ambivalence.  Yes, we might be experiencing abortion law fatigue.  On the other hand, the dang laws keep passing the legislature, so there must be some support out there. 

The opposition to the latest law restricting abortion does seem a bit disingenuous.  During the Referred Law 6 campaign what we heard was the "no exceptions" mantra.  We were told this law was too extreme because it did not have exceptions for rape and incest.  Well, now we have a bill that includes those exceptions.  The usual abortion-rights suspects (see here,  here, here, and CHAD seems to be down, but go here and see if the site is back up), rail against it.  I take it back.  The opposition to the new law is not disingenuous.  It was the reasoning behind the opposition to Referred Law 6 that was disingenuous.  The abortion rights advocates weren't opposed to that law because it didn't have the right exceptions.  That was mere rhetoric.  They opposed because they want to make abortion as easy as possible.  It wasn't Referred Law 6 that was too extreme.  It is any bill that restricts access to abortion in any way that is too extreme.  The opposition to the new bill shows us that they will oppose any bill that does not allow abortion on demand.  Remember the Clinton mantra of "safe, legal and rare"?  Well, the abortion rights advocates in South Dakota are sure they want abortion legal.  I assume they also want it safe, although legal and safe often seems to mean the same thing to them.  But rare?  Not a chance.

Does it not seem odd that we take it as a matter of course that adults inhaling tobacco smoke into their lungs is an important public question about which we need more and more regulations and taxation, but the matter of when human life begins and what protection we should give to it is a considered simply a matter of personal preference of no public significance? 

Global Warming Round Up

The world is getting warmer, on account of we keep piling on the down blankets.  This is how the Washington Post puts it:

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, made up of hundreds of scientists from 113 countries, said that based on new research over the last six years, it is 90 percent certain that human-generated greenhouse gases account for most of the global rise in temperatures over the past half-century.

Although I regard the WaPo as a very respectable paper, I am not inclined to believe something just because they said it.  I am more inclined to believe something because Ron Bailey says it.  In addition to being a friend of mine, Ron is the science correspondent at Reason magazine.  He is a libertarian, and those folks tend to be pretty scrupulous when it comes to arguments and evidence.  Here is how Ron puts it:

Details like sea level rise will continue to be debated by researchers, but if the debate over whether or not humanity is contributing to global warming wasn't over before, it is now. The question of what to do about it will be front and center in policy debates for the next couple of decades. How strongly humanity may want to mitigate future climate change and at what cost depends on how likely the worst case projections turn out to be.

If Ron says the debate is over, I figure it's probably over.  But then, I thought the debate, like your average super bowl game, wasn't much of a contest anyway.  The world is getting warmer, and, mea culpa, we are in large part responsible. 

The question is what we can do about it, and the answer to that is: sell your beach front property.  I have been listening to so many discussions of global warming solutions on NPR that every time I close my eyes I see carbon scrubbers and wind farms.  So far I haven't heard anyone propose anything that is likely to make a difference.  Back to the WaPo:

Declaring that "warming of the climate system is unequivocal," the authors said in their "Summary for Policymakers" that even in the best-case scenario, temperatures are on track to cross a threshold to an unsustainable level. A rise of more than 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit above pre-industrial levels would cause global effects -- such as massive species extinctions and melting of ice sheets -- that could be irreversible within a human lifetime. Under the most conservative IPCC scenario, the increase will be 4.5 degrees by 2100.

Richard Somerville, a distinguished professor at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography and one of the lead authors, said the world would have to undertake "a really massive reduction in emissions," on the scale of 70 to 80 percent, to avert severe global warming.

I think that makes my case.  To "avert severe global warming" we would have to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 70 to 80 percent.  As my one time friend Terry McDonald said, about going straight and flying right, "we ain't gonna."  The greatest increases in green house emissions are going to come from India and China.  India is a Democracy.  No government that tries to put a lid on its economic growth will survive.  China is not a democracy.  But its totalitarian state is always like a lid on a boiling pot.  If it tried to seriously arrest its own economic growth, the pot would blow the lid off. 

Maybe there is some technological magic dust out there that can be sprinkled about to absorb all the excess carbon.  But even if there were such a wonder, and there isn't, the world would still keep warming through the next century or so.  The right question is not how to stop global warming, but how to deal with it.  The only way out of the problems of technological development is through technological development.  Only if we continue to grow in technological power can we adjust to the changing environment and eventually bring it under control. 

Johnson Making Progress

Some good news from the Argus Leader:

Sen. Tim Johnson, the South Dakota Democrat who was rushed speechless to a hospital after suffering a brain injury in December, now is initiating conversations with friends and family. He's also reading letters and cards, a sign that his mental sharpness is steadily improving, his doctors say.

"Simply put, he is reading. The test showed that he is comprehending written material and successfully following written commands," Dr. Philip Marion said.

Marion is medical director at George Washington University Hospital's Department of Rehabilitative Medicine, where Johnson is in the midst of physical and speech rehabilitation.

"One of his doctors described his progress to date as miraculous,"Johnson's wife, Barbara, said Thursday. "There is no doubt in my mind that the many prayers that have been offered for his recovery are being answered."

Where's the Clout?

Argus Leader:

The House passed a long-overdue 2007 spending bill Wednesday that will leave dozens of South Dakota programs and special-interest projects short of money.

The Lewis & Clark Rural Water System will probably get what it got last year - $17.5 million - under the tardy spending bill and not the $21 million that President Bush had asked for or the $23.5 million that South Dakota Sen. Tim Johnson, a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, had sought.

Other South Dakota projects won't get money they sought, such as $2 million to help build a new medical building at the University of South Dakota in Vermillion and $650,000 to help enlarge the South Dakota Children's Home Society in Sioux Falls.

Meanwhile, Representative Herseth has blamed "last year’s governing majority in the House" for losing the funding for the Lewis and Clark water project.  Sorry, but last time I checked the Democrats had taken control of the Congress.  Spending bills like these originate in the House, and since Herseth is our only voice in that chamber, she should have spoken up.  She's in charge.  She cannot keep blaming the GOP.

Hat tip to Joel Rosenthal, who comments:

What is as interesting to me as what happened to L & C funding is the lack of comment.

The Argus Leader story is the only story I have seen to date. I have not seen comments by Mayor Munson, Senator Thune, nor any comments by Republican Party officials. Nothing in the SD Political Blogosphere either.

Why is there no comment? Is not this remarkable?

Blanchard is Right on Global Warming!

From the Aberdeen American News:

PARIS - The world's leading climate scientists said global warming has begun, is "very likely" caused by man, and will be unstoppable for centuries, according to a report obtained Friday by The Associated Press.

The scientists - using their strongest language yet on the issue - said now that world has begun to warm, hotter temperatures and rises in sea level "would continue for centuries" no matter how much humans control their pollution. The report also linked the warming to the recent increase in stronger hurricanes.

That is precisely what I have argued in my posts on the subject.  But then, a stopped clock is right twice a day. 

The Bush Economy

For a long time critics of the Bush Administration were constantly complaining about the economy.  It wasn't that it wasn't growing (it was), or that it didn't produce enough jobs (it produced a lot), but that wage growth lagged behind all the other positive indicators.  Such critics have been noticeably silent about this of late, as the economy is doing pretty much what it always does at about this point in the business cycle.  As this blog hosts a gaggle of conservatives, it's our job to defend the Bush economic record, while it's my friend Chad's job to argue that all the good news doesn't mean *&%$ to the American worker.  Right now our job is easier than his. 

The Economic Policy Institute, a left wing think tank, has this to say:

The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today that employers added 167,000 jobs in the last month of 2006, the strongest month for payroll growth since September, and well above analysts' expectations. Unemployment was unchanged at 4.5%.

With the exception of the usual laggards in recent months—manufacturing and construction—most industries expanded, with strong gains in business services, health care, and restaurants. Wage growth was particularly strong, up 0.5% over the month, and 4.2% over the past year, well ahead of recent inflation readings.

These stats are about as good as economic statistics ever get.  The White House toots its own horn on this matter in a recent report.  Here is the chart for job creation:

Clinton had one big advantage over Bush regarding the economic record: when the former took office the economy was going into recovery; when the latter took up residence at 1600 Penn. Ave., a recession was under way.  Thanks to Bush's reelection, his record will rise far above that of President Clinton.  Here's the next chart:

During the 90's business cycle, wage growth declined slightly.  During this cycle it has so far seen a robust increase.  Bush wins.  Consider this one:

Both Presidents can crow that home ownership dramatically increased on their watch.  The outcome favors Bush.  But the best way to judge an economy's performance is to compare it with other economies, since all are struggling in the same global economic environment. 

Only Japan has a lower unemployment rate than the U.S.  But its GDP growth is about half that of Bush's America.  Only Germany and the U.K. have GDP growth that almost equals that of the U.S., but Britain's unemployment rate is a full percent higher, and Germany's is almost twice that of the U.S. 

Its tempting to attribute all this good news to Bush's economic wisdom, but the truth is that President's have only marginal control over the business cycle.  I think that, given very different circumstances, both Clinton and Bush pursued sound economic policies.  Moreover, the rules of the game allow both to take credit for pretty good records.  But both benefited from the fact  that, regarding the facts measured above, the U.S. economic model is simply better than any of its competitors.

At any rate, in the past I argued that Bush would leave office with better jobs and wages statistics than Clinton did.  I hold to that prediction. 

Jarding

Today's edition of Roll Call mentions Mitchell native and new Johnson staffer Steve Jarding:

The Webbs They Weave. A trio of longtime Democratic operatives who worked together on Sen. Jim Webb’s (D-Va.) upstart Senate campaign have joined forces to launch Maverick Strategies and Mail, focusing on producing direct-mail political pieces and general consulting.

The Alexandria, Va.-based firm is anchored by Steve Jarding, who most recently served as senior adviser on Webb’s campaign; Kristian Denny Todd, who served as a senior communications strategist for Webb; and Jessica Vanden Berg, who was Webb’s campaign manager.

How They Voted

Here are the roll calls on the Dan Sutton votes. 

Surge

Washington Times:  "[A]t least a dozen Democratic senators who in the past [once] called for more troops in Iraq . . . now support a resolution condemning President Bush's plan to do just that."  It was once conventional wisdom in Democratic circles that the Bush administration blew it by not placing enough troops in Iraq.  They were for the surge until a Republican proposed it.

Newspaper Blogs

John Hinderaker: "The peril of newspaper blogs is that a reporter might say what he actually thinks before an editor catches up with him and makes him stop."  You have to read it to believe it.

Sutton Censured

Argus Leader excerpt:

State senators voted moments ago to censure Sen. Dan Sutton for his behavior with a teenager who served as a legislative page last year.

The vote was 32-2 in favor of the censure. Voting against censure were Sens. Jerry Apa, R-Lead, and Bill Napoli, R-Rapid City.

"It's a relief," Sutton said shortly after the vote.

An earlier vote to expel him from the Legislature needed 24 votes to pass, but failed when only 14 senators voted for expulsion.

Sutton, a Democrat from Flandreau, was the subject of an investigation by a nine-member Senate committee last week.

The censure is an official reprimand. Sutton will not lose any of his privileges as a senator.

Readers of the Argus Leader are almost evenly split regarding Dan Sutton:

(screen shot taken at 4:30 p.m., 1/31/07)

Mitchell Historian to Discuss Work

My former high school history teacher will be giving a talk about his recent essay about the Grand Army of the Republic in South Dakota:

A Mitchell historian will discuss his research about the history of the Grand Army of the Republic in South Dakota at 7 p.m. Thursday at Dakota Discovery Museum in Mitchell.

Steve Morgan’s work, “Fellow Comrades: The Grand Army of the Republic in South Dakota,” was published in last fall’s issue of “South Dakota History,” a South Dakota State Historical Society publication. Morgan teaches American and world history at Mitchell High School.

Formed in 1866 and based on the values of fraternity, charity and loyalty, the GAR also allowed veterans to share their experiences and shaped the nation and state politically.

The essay can be found in South Dakota History, vol. 36 no. 3 (Fall 2006).

Gov. Rounds Appoints Krebs as Press Secretary

From a press release:

PIERRE, S.D. – Gov. Mike Rounds announced today the selection of Mitch Krebs, Sioux Falls, as his new Press Secretary.

“I am very pleased that Mitch Krebs has agreed to serve as Press Secretary,” said Gov. Rounds.  “He has a strong background in journalism and broadcasting and is a great addition to our team.  I look forward to working with Mitch.”

Krebs is currently news director at KSFY-TV in Sioux Falls and co-anchor of the KSFY News at 6 p.m. and 10 p.m.  He has been with KSFY-TV since 1996.

“I’ve been covering the great things that happen in our state for more than a decade and now I’m extremely fortunate and excited to be part of that process into the future by joining Gov. Rounds’ staff,” said Mitch Krebs.

KSFY General Manager Kelly Manning added, “If there’s a job to be done, you want a guy like Mitch Krebs on your team.  He really was an important part of our station’s growth and atmosphere over the past 11 years.  I’m personally excited for Mitch and know only great things await him in the future.”

Krebs was born in Fort Doge, Iowa, and raised in Austin, Minnesota.  He attended the University of Minnesota.   He and his wife, Shantel, live in Sioux Falls. 

Krebs will begin his duties on February 12, 2007. 

Conservative Film Critic

I found this excellent film site via Powerline.  Note this critique of what passed for art at the Sundance Film Festival.  A snippet:

Not always, but for the most part, a dark, cynical take on things is the easy way out for an artist. Politics aside, the glut of these kinds of films reflects a dearth of talent in contemporary filmmaking. Successful art makes its audience feel something. So, a piece of art in the form of a film that makes the viewer feel ugly, dirty, depressed, or ill is in itself successful, but it’s much more difficult to uplift an audience.

A shot of a rancid maggot covered piece of meat can make an audience feel something. And any pretentious moron in a beret can call it a metaphor for anything. But if you want to make an audience feel good it takes more than a shot of a flower. It takes music and lighting and mood. It takes talent.

I do not desire a return to the regime of the Hays Code, which was surely too restrictive, but one could argue that better films were made under its restrictions than under the open regime starting in the early 60s.  Indeed, in my opinion the worst era of Hollywood film is from the mid-60s through the 1970s as Hollywood drank deeply from the draught of new found freedom, all the way down to the dreck at the bottom of the cup.  Hollywood (and entertainment in general) now too often goes for the cheap thrill of coarse language, blood and guts, crude sexual innuendo and vulgar humor.  This is not talent but cheap gimmicks.  Film noir flourished under the production code, even a film like The Big Sleep that had a subplot involving pornography.  Hitchcock could make tremendous films of thrills and eroticism without resorting to vulgarity.  For example, in To Catch A Thief, Grace Kelly and Cary Grant go on a picnic.  Kelly offers chicken to Grant and, with a mischievous look in her eye, inquires, "Would you like a thigh or a breast."  Now that's clever film making.

NYT

Associated Press:

The New York Times Co. posted a $648 million loss for the fourth quarter on Wednesday as it absorbed an $814.4 million charge to write down the value of its struggling New England properties, The Boston Globe and the Worcester Telegram & Gazette.

The company said the non-cash charge reflected declines in current and projected results at the newspapers, which have been hit hard by the consolidations of key advertisers in the New England area as well as greater competition from online media.

The company originally paid $1.1 billion for the Globe in 1993 and $296 million for the Worcester paper in 2000.

The Times reported a loss amounting to $4.50 a share for the October- December period. It earned $63.1 million, or 43 cents a share, a year ago.

Results at the Times' Boston-area properties have been slumping badly in the past year, amid a tough economic climate there and the consolidation of key advertisers including the retailers Macy's, part of Federated Department Stores Inc., and Retail Ventures Inc.'s Filene's.

Advertising revenues at the New England properties declined again in the fourth quarter, falling 6.1 percent in the period and 9 percent for all of 2006.

Gay Marriage III: the Constitutional Question

Todd Epp's praise for my position on gay marriage included some counterarguments on the constitutional questions involved, which were the primary focus of my American News piece.  I want to respond to them here.

Todd says this:

I think marriage is a fundamental right and there is no compelling state interest to ban gay couples from marriage.

The "compelling state interest" language begs the question.  Under Supreme Court doctrine, a state needs a compelling interest only if it is violating an otherwise recognized constitutional right.  To say that marriage is a fundamental right is very unclear.  Does this mean a right of anyone to marry anyone else?  Here is how I put the matter:

All marriage laws discriminate. A man cannot marry his sister or his mother, or a 10-year-old girl. A man can't marry a horse (though some have tried), nor can any two persons marry a third. Sometimes this involves judgment calls. Can first cousins marry? If not, what about second or third cousins? And what is the proper age of consent? The Constitution provides no clues, and this is sensibly left to the good sense of the people of each state.

I think that Todd means that marriage is a fundamental right for such couples as he is willing to recognize.  I think that confuses a preference for a principle. 

Todd goes on:

If, as the fundies say, marriage is only for pro-creation, that reason for marriage went out the window a long time ago. People decide to have kids out of wedlock and couples with no intention of having kids get married. People typically get married because they are in—prepare for this—LOVE.

Let me work backwards.  Since people can obviously be in love, and in some cases have children, out of wedlock, what do they need wedlock for?  If people don't need it to form partnerships, have sex, etc., then in denying marriage to some kinds of couples, we aren't depriving them of anything.

The "fundies," i.e., religious fundamentalists, are clearly right about the origins of marriage.  It exists in all cultures because it solves a fundamental biological problem.  Men don't know who their children are.  Marriage is a familial contract: the woman promises fidelity, so that the man can have some confidence that these children are his children; in return, he promises to support them.  That is why marriage exists in the first place.

Of course some husbands and wives cannot or do not wish to have children.  In that case marriage has functioned to protect women by securing for them a share of property in the case of divorce.  Legal tradition also extends certain benefits from one spouse to another, as in the case of a public heath care plan.  More happily, it functions to give each partner certain kinds of access and medical consent.  These are secondary functions of marriage.  They evolve because marriage already exists for the aforementioned purpose; but they serve good purposes and that is enough reason to keep them. 

Homosexual marriage would extend the institution to cover a new case.  I am on record as favoring this.  But unlike Todd, I do not think there is any constitutional reason why any state should be compelled to accept my policy preference.  Love clearly won't do it.  I love my brother, Dave.  I love my best friend of more than thirty years Kenny Shelton (he's way too ugly for any sexual interest on my part, I might add).  I don't suppose that this is any reason why the State of South Dakota should responsible for their medical care. 

Todd hopes that "people on my side of the political divide" will consider what I have written.  Those are generous words.  I would hope, though not expect, that people on his side of the political divide would stop trying to get courts to write their policy preferences into the margins of the Constitution, and instead do the hard work of persuading legislatures to enact good policy.

Gay Marriage II

Todd Epp heaps such lavish praise on me for my position on gay marriage that I am suddenly uncertain about it.  I stated the following in a post early Monday:

I had a piece published in the Aberdeen American News this morning on the Gay Marriage controversy in Massachusetts.  I argue that no American constitution requires extending marriage rights to homosexual couples, but I end by coming down in favor of gay marriage.

Here are my reasons for favoring it:

First, as I stated in my American News piece, "If a man is lying unconscious in a hospital bed, should his male partner for the last 30 years not have the same rights of access and legal consent that a wife would have? I say yes." 

Second, I think that some form of gay marriage is coming in most places anyway, and I think that creating alternative forms of marriage will further dilute the institution and hasten its decline. 

Third, advocates of homosexual marriage have argued that it will encourage exclusive partnerships among gay men, and discourage promiscuity. I am not confident about this, but it reinforces the idea that marriage is about mutual obligations, long term fidelity, and exclusivity in sexual relationships.  Again, I think that this strengthens marriage.  Marriage is weak enough everywhere; if the homosexual community is really prepared to defend the institution I think this should be encouraged.  Moreover, it might work and if it does, that would be a very good thing for the general welfare.

These arguments are not compelling.  They are judgment calls, but I calls 'em like I sees 'em. Todd calls me brave for taking this position.  As warm as that makes me feel, I don't think courage is yet required.  I have no one to fear in taking such positions.  At most it requires enough nerve on my part to risk offending some of my friends. 

I will reply on the other side of the issue in my next post.

Ding Dong

The "open fields" bill is dead.  Let us hope it does not have zombie-like powers.   

Troops Respond to Criticism of War

Don't miss this video at Instapundit.

Good Grief

This is the worst news of the year.  The Mall of America is replacing the Peanuts characters at the mall's amusement park with Nickelodeon characters like Sponge Bob and (I am now choking on my own bile) Dora the Explorer.  Why? Well, Peanuts just isn't cool anymore.

Six months from now, many shoppers who frequent the Mall of America will probably forget that Snoopy was a prominent draw at the megamall for nearly 15 years, Pollak said. "Peanuts and the Gang just aren't relevant to the current generation of young children," he said. "They stayed the same, and their marketing strategy never progressed. They were of a time and that time has passed."

Damn Peanuts and its unprogressive marketing strategy!  What a shame that Chuck, Linus, Snoopy, Lucy and the gang are not "relevant to the current generation."   I guess they will have to settle for being funny for 50 years. 

Al Franken for Senate

Minneapolis Star Tribune:

Al Franken announced Monday that he will end his radio talk show on Feb. 14, increasing speculation that he is preparing to run for Minnesota's U.S. Senate seat in 2008.

"I'm definitely giving it serious consideration, and I plan to make a decision soon and announce that, hopefully not on the same day that Barack Obama makes his decision and announces that," Franken said on his liberal Air America radio show.

Franken disclosed his plans on the same day that Air America, which filed for bankruptcy protection last year, announced that it will be sold to Stephen Green, the founder of a New York area real estate company. Franken will be replaced on air by Thom Hartmann, a talk show host based in Portland, Ore.

Presidential Primary

Much to Professor Schaff's disappointment, the South Dakota legislature is considering a bill that would move the presidential primary forward:

Several South Dakota legislators want to revive an early presidential primary in the state.

A bill offered in the Legislature would require a presidential vote in the state every four years on the last Tuesday in January. That would be one of the earliest presidential primaries in the nation.

The measure calling for the early primary, HB1272, is a companion bill to HB1271, which would give counties $500,000 for expenses of the special winter elections.

South Dakota held February presidential primaries in 1988, 1992, and 1996, and those early contests attracted several presidential candidates.

But the Legislature got rid of the early primary in 1997, restoring South Dakota's presidential primary to June so it's held at the same time as primaries for state offices.

The February primary was eliminated because lawmakers felt South Dakota was not getting enough attention from presidential candidates. Opponents also said the only people who got to rub elbows with the candidates were political party officials.

The cost of the early primary was part of its downfall, too.

There's a lot of validity in Professor Schaff's arguments against frontloading.  I've been a supporter of moving the primary forward, but the evidence and arguments compiled by my colleague has begun to convince me I may be wrong.  In any event, consider the arguments on both sides and debate amongst yourselves.

KOTA Cant Spel

Oops:

Thune Is COOL

The Aberdeen American News praises John Thune and others for introducing County Of Origin Labeling (COOL) for meat products.

Hurrah for the senators - led by Sens. Max Baucus, D-Mont., Craig Thomas, R-Wyo. and our own John Thune - who are sponsoring legislation to move the deadline for implementing country-of-origin labeling to Sept. 30 - one year ahead of the current deadline.

Sen. Thune said in a release, "This delay hurts South Dakota's cattle producers and treats consumers with disdain. I will continue to work with my colleagues who support mandatory COOL to fight this delay and secure an earlier implementation date."

As well they should.

Energy And Economy

There has been some significant reaction to President Bush's energy policy proposals from last week's State of the Union speech.  For example, Kevin Hassett argues in favor of a tax on carbon emissions and against ethanol subsidies.  Greg Easterbrook praises Bush for calling for a raise in fuel efficiency standards in automobiles.  Both of these solutions to energy strike me as statist and thus, to one extent or another, wrong headed. 

Hassett's proposal is the worst.  This site points out the harmful economic impact of carbon caps, which would have a similar effect as a carbon tax (Hassett wants to tax carbon so as to create an economic disincentive for the use of oil and coal).  Carbon caps or taxes amount to a huge blow to the average household's budget.  Hassett says that his proposal is the "text book" economic solution.  But isn't the "text book" solution to allow the market to set the price?  If people really wanted to lower their carbon output, wouldn't they do it by changing their habits?  Or is that the more enlightened have the right to compel change through the taxing power of the state?  It seems to me that people will show their preferences through their purchasing power.  Sioux Falls Mayor Dave Munson seems to have a realistic view of the economic impact of carbon control.

Sioux Falls Mayor Dave Munson said he heard about the agreement only recently and is not sure South Dakota's largest city should sign on [to CO2 reduction plans].

"I think there is some worry about what it might do to the economy," he said. "Before you could commit to it, you would have to study what you'd have to do to get to that level."

Raising fuel efficiency standards seems less pernicious to me. Easterbrook points out that if Bush's proposals are followed, the average auto fuel efficiency will rise from 21 MPG to 31 MPG, a significant gain that might drop oil consumption as much as 20%.  I just wonder what compromises in auto safety are required to make such a leap in fuel efficiency. 

President Bush also suggested last week that we raise the amount in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.  This has the effect of taking large amount of oil off the consumer market, possibly raising price.  It seems to me that the market has done its job so far.  When price sky rocketed last year, production went up as well, along with the search for new oil fields.  The result is a lowering of oil prices by about $20 a barrel from last summer.  Also, SUV sales have plummeted as people search for more fuel efficient automobiles.  As far as global warming, I tend to buy into the Blanchard thesis: there is nothing we can do to significantly lower the human component of global warming that will not destroy our economy.  Technology is the solution to global warming, not economy destroying regulations.  When the economy goes in the tank (so to speak), it won't be the rich oil "fat cats" that pay the price.  It will be the hard working guys on the oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico who will be out of job.

BREAKING NEWS: Daschle Returning to the Senate?

From Wonkette:

A source close to the Johnson family told us this little tale last night.

Senator Tim Johnson, still recovering from the thing that Nate had in Six Feet Under, is sick of being a Senator. Johnson is planning on retiring from Congress at the soonest possible opportunity, but there’s one catch. If Johnson leaves the Senate, it’s the responsibility of South Dakota’s governor to choose his replacement for the next couple years. Governor Michael Rounds is, of course, a Republican. And while the Democrats were smart enough to ensure control of Senate committees even if they lose the majority, Johnson doesn’t want to be the guy who lost them the majority.

So — Johnson’s retirement is predicated on Gov. Rounds’ appointment of Johnson’s personal choice of replacements. That choice, currently, is Tom Daschle. In other words, it’s a complete stalemate.

The ’90s are BACK!

Media Monopoly

Regarding the issue of media monopoly and the Argus Leader, I read this USA Today story with great interest.  Gannett Corporation, the owner of the Argus Leader, is lobbying to change federal rules so it can buy TV stations:

When members of the Federal Communications Commission look at TV stations these days, they aren't just kicking back to watch American Idol or Heroes.

Regulators are about to reassess their rules on who can own stations and how many — a review they are legally bound to do every four years. And to rule on the most controversial proposals, they must determine how much damage — if any — the Internet and other new media are inflicting on local stations, which collectively had an estimated $26 billion in ad sales last year.

If officials conclude that competition from the digital world threatens local TV, they might decide it's OK to ease the rules and let companies own multiple stations in a market, or let a newspaper buy a station in its town.

Broadcasters and newspaper companies (including USA TODAY parent Gannett, the largest newspaper publisher and a major owner of TV stations) are lobbying for that.

"If you get rid of the newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership rule, it maximizes the chance for better local news in a community," says Newspaper Association of America CEO John Sturm.

But the case for change becomes weaker if, as many consumer advocates say, stations still generate healthy cash flows and dominate local news.

"A small handful of giants determine what the American people see, hear and read," Sen. Bernard Sanders, I-Vt., said this month at the National Conference for Media Reform, a gathering in Memphis of 3,500 activists.

They fear that once the rules are relaxed, big companies will consolidate even more. "I think that we need greater diversification in the media," Sanders says. "I think we've got to stop media deregulation, big time."

While the issues are important, some can't help but look at this year's debate with skepticism.

"The term 'media monopoly' has meaning, it's had meaning for 60 years, but I think the content of the term is changing," former FCC chairman Reed Hundt says.

" 'Media monopoly' seems now to be about whether you can use the Internet for free or whether there's any limit on what you can send over the Internet," he adds. "The issues of the last 10 years don't have that much resonance anymore."

Read the whole thing.

Democratic Surge Out West? No.

Stuart Rothenberg surveys the numbers from the last election, and finds nothing unusual.  Here are the first and last paragraphs.

More than a few journalists and political pontificators have noted recent Democratic gains in the Mountain West, which includes Wyoming, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, Arizona and New Mexico. Some see those gains in 2004 and 2006 as shattering a reliable Republican region, while others argue recent wins are only the beginning of a Democratic rally that will continue in 2008 and beyond.

The Mountain West is not the South. It's less reliable than Dixie for Republicans, and it's less conservative on social/religious issues. Moreover, Democrats have had considerable success in the region over the past three decades, and the party's nominee could carry a few Mountain West states in the '08 presidential race, particularly if there is a nationwide trend toward their party. But the evidence strongly demonstrates that there has been no Democratic surge in the region, even if the hyperbole makes for a better news story.

John Edwards

Jim Geraghty:  "There Are Two Americas; John Edwards' New House Takes Up Almost All of One Of Them"

The Constitutional Politics of Gay Marriage

I had a piece published in the Aberdeen American News this morning on the Gay Marriage controversy in Massachusetts.  I argue that no American constitution requires extending marriage rights to homosexual couples, but I end by coming down in favor of gay marriage.  Not surprisingly, I got a lot of grief from the American News Forum folk, who do not seem to be able to read. 

Will We Love Huckabee?

Among the various routs to the Presidency-senator, Vice President, etc.-one of them, Governor of Arkansas, is about to be tried again.  I take proprietary interest in this case, as I was born and raised in Jonesboro, Arkansas.  From CNN:

Republican Mike Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor and a favorite of conservatives, will take the first step in a 2008 presidential bid, an official told The Associated Press on Friday.

Huckabee, 51, plans to file papers on Monday establishing an exploratory committee that will allow him to raise money and hire campaign staff, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid pre-empting a formal announcement.

So far Gov. Huckabee's candidacy should be filed under "amusing."  This is especially so as as he was born in Hope, Arkansas, the same town that saw William Jefferson Clinton squeeze into moonlight.  Someone is going to have to do a test of the water in that town.  By all accounts, Mike Huckabee was a stand up guy and a good Governor.  I know a lot of folk who knew him.  What other cards he has hidden in his vest, I can only guess.  But it looks like a very long shot. 

Still, he lost a load of weight and is in trim fighting condition.  If he is indeed another man from Hope, well, ya'll are in for real show. 

Who Is "Responsible" For Iraq

Ken Blanchard recently penned a post on whether the Democratic Congress or President Bush is responsible for U.S. policy towards Iraq. Robert Kagan has some thoughts:

The most popular resolutions simply oppose the troop increase without offering much useful guidance on what to do instead, other than perhaps go back to the Baker-Hamilton commission's vague plan for a gradual withdrawal. Sen. Hillary Clinton wants to cap the number of troops in Iraq at 137,500. No one explains why this is the right number, why it shouldn't be 20,000 troops lower or higher. But that's not really the point, is it?

Other critics claim that these are political cop-outs, which they are. These supposedly braver critics demand a cutoff of funds for the war and the start of a withdrawal within months. But they're not honest either, since they refuse to answer the most obvious and necessary questions: What do they propose the United States do when, as a result of withdrawal, Iraq explodes and ethnic cleansing on a truly horrific scale begins? What do they propose our response should be when the entire region becomes a war zone, when al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations establish bases in Iraq from which to attack neighboring states as well as the United States? Even the Iraq Study Group acknowledged that these are likely consequences of precipitate withdrawal.

Those who call for an "end to the war" don't want to talk about the fact that the war in Iraq and in the region will not end but will only grow more dangerous. Do they recommend that we then do nothing, regardless of the consequences? Or are they willing to say publicly, right now, that they would favor sending U.S. troops back into Iraq to confront those new dangers? Answering those questions really would be honest and brave.

Of course, most of the discussion of Iraq isn't about Iraq at all. The war has become a political abstraction, a means of positioning oneself at home.

Certainly those who argue in a simple minded fashion that this is "Bush's war" (unintentionally?) play into the idea that the president has total war power and Congress can only stand on the sideline and watch.  Yet, most in Congress voted for the war in Iraq.  Even larger majorities continue to vote for funding for the war.  They are responsible, too.  Those who propose cutting off funding owe it to the public to explain what they think the outcome, short term and long term, will be for both the United States and the Middle East.  They need to tell us how that future is better than the one proposed by President Bush.  That's what statesmen would do.  We, unfortunately, are plagued with mere politicians (what position will Senator Clinton hold this week?) and the hacks who support them. 

2007 Farm Bill

Argus Leader:  "Congress is considering how to respond to all the change with a new farm bill, the massive legislation that sets ag subsidy levels. Lawmakers face a welter of proposals, from permanent disaster aid to more conservation dollars to payment limits on the largest farmers.  But most important for South Dakota might be a proposal to elevate support for ethanol, especially cellulosic ethanol made from grass and crop residues. That could reshape farms, rural economies and landscapes across the Great Plains."  Read the whole story.

Johnson

The Washington Post has a lengthy article today entitled "At Roll Call, an Uneasy Silence," which discusses Senator Johnson's absence from the Senate and his recovery.

Hitch Skewers Rich

One of the very best (and most vicious)  book reviews I have read.  Christopher Hitchens tears into the vapid Frank Rich of the New York Times.  HT Joe K.

Frontloading: Bad

A wise piece from the LA Times about how California's possible movement of their primary from June to February might upset the whole primary apple cart.    On this page we have debated whether South Dakota should join the race to the front of primary season, a notion I have consistently rejected.  This piece about California shows why.  As the author points out, if California moves to a February primary, an enormous number delegates will be selected by the middle of that month.  This means that it is likely that the parties will have essentially selected their nominees about eight months before the election.  Only candidates with big money can possibly run in what will essentially be a national primary.  Candidates will have to garner media attention in order to be viable.  This gives enormous power to the media.  Candidate will not run the personal hands-on campaigns of Iowa and New Hampshire.  They will run vapid big media campaigns long on platitudes and empty promises, but short on any personal connection to the voters.  We will end up with nominees who are essentially untested, since you just need a couple big days to gain the nomination.  Outsider candidates will be a thing of the past, as the ability to start slowly and gain momentum will be lost.  We can already see how candidates must announce ridiculously early in order to compete in our front loaded primary system.  For the 1972 election, George McGovern announced for president in January 1971.  At the time that was considered extremely early for an announcement.  As you can see here, as we approach the end of January 2007, we already have 20 announced candidates (of various levels of seriousness), with possibly more to come (e.g. Newt Gingrich and/or Chuck Hagel).  It is almost as if our presidential races never end.  There is never a time for governing, just campaigning. 

I suppose this bird has flown, so perhaps South Dakota should just look to its self-interest and join everyone else in the front of the bus.  But it'd be nice if at least one state held out for electoral sanity.

Keep It Closed

Here's a little nugget about Rep. Larry Lucas from Mission who wants to change our primary from closed to open.  In closed primaries, as South Dakota has currently, the voter must be registered with a political party to vote. Not true in open primaries, where independent registrants are allowed to cast votes. 

What is the purpose of a primary?  Is it not for the parties to select their nominees?  Then does it not make sense that a voter should be in a political party?  Why would you let people who don't bother joining a party take part in what is essentially a party event?  I did not vote in the 2006 primary in South Dakota because I was not registered with a party at the time.  I changed my registration shortly thereafter precisely so I would not find myself in that situation again.  Parties are the engine of change in American politics. If you want change, than join a party.