South Dakota Politics

The Blogosphere and Jazz

Nate Chinen writes in the New York Times:

But over the last six months, a far-flung contingent of musicians and aficionados has made an effort to upend that prevailing notion, armed with stacks of vinyl, high-speed Internet and a shared conviction that things back then were really far from moribund. Along the way, they touched off the year’s most animated public discourse on jazz, a democratic exchange that culminated last weekend in the debut of behearer.com, an interactive database devoted to the music’s most conflicted period.

Multiculturalism v. Assimilation

Professor Bainbridge:

Everett Ladd argues that "America is an idea -- a set of beliefs about people and their relationships and the kind of society which holds the best hope of satisfying the needs each of us brings as an individual." One hopes that America will remain open to anyone who embraces the "American idea," regardless of race or creed, while also striving to ensure assimilation to that idea.

In the UK, British Prime Minister Tony Blair recently addressed this issue in a brilliant speech that deserves wide reading in this country as well:

... we need - in the face of the challenge to our values - to re-assert also the duty to integrate, to stress what we hold in common and to say: these are the shared boundaries within which we all are obliged to live, precisely in order to preserve our right to our own different faiths, races and creeds. ....

So: how do we do this? ... Partly the answer lies in precisely defining our common values and making it clear that we expect all our citizens to conform to them. Obedience to the rule of law, to democratic decision-making about who governs us, to freedom from violence and discrimination are not optional for British citizens. They are what being British is about. Being British carries rights. It also carries duties. And those duties take clear precedence over any cultural or religious practice.

Blair paid close attention to the role of education in inculcating national values:

we have a very established set of rights that constitute our citizenship. We should not be shy to teach them. That is why citizenship became part of the statutory national curriculum in secondary schools in 2002.  The national curriculum needs to stress integration rather than separation.

Frankly, this is an area in which I suspect our schools are doing a lousy job.

He concludes:

Our tolerance is part of what makes Britain, Britain. So conform to it; or don't come here. We don't want the hate-mongers, whatever their race, religion or creed. If you come here lawfully, we welcome you. If you are permitted to stay here permanently, you become an equal member of our community and become one of us. Then you, and all of us, who want to, can worship God in our own way, take pride in our different cultures after our own fashion, respect our distinctive histories according to our own traditions; but do so within a shared space of shared values in which we take no less pride and show no less respect.

The right to be different. The duty to integrate. That is what being British means. And neither racists nor extremists should be allowed to destroy it.

Outstanding.

As always, I have a book to recommend: historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr.'s The Disuniting of America.  There are dangers of taking multiculturalism too far (as happens on the Left) and taking monoculturalism too far (as happens on the Right) and Schlesinger does an excellent job of explaining this.

Everett Ladd argues that "America is an idea -- a set of beliefs about people and their relationships and the kind of society which holds the best hope of satisfying the needs each of us brings as an individual." One hopes that America will remain open to anyone who embraces the "American idea," regardless of race or creed, while also striving to ensure assimilation to that idea.

In the UK, British Prime Minister Tony Blair recently addressed this issue in a brilliant speech that deserves wide reading in this country as well:

... we need - in the face of the challenge to our values - to re-assert also the duty to integrate, to stress what we hold in common and to say: these are the shared boundaries within which we all are obliged to live, precisely in order to preserve our right to our own different faiths, races and creeds. ....

So: how do we do this? ... Partly the answer lies in precisely defining our common values and making it clear that we expect all our citizens to conform to them. Obedience to the rule of law, to democratic decision-making about who governs us, to freedom from violence and discrimination are not optional for British citizens. They are what being British is about. Being British carries rights. It also carries duties. And those duties take clear precedence over any cultural or religious practice.

Blair paid close attention to the role of education in inculcating national values:

we have a very established set of rights that constitute our citizenship. We should not be shy to teach them. That is why citizenship became part of the statutory national curriculum in secondary schools in 2002.  The national curriculum needs to stress integration rather than separation.

Frankly, this is an area in which I suspect our schools are doing a lousy job.

He concludes:

Our tolerance is part of what makes Britain, Britain. So conform to it; or don't come here. We don't want the hate-mongers, whatever their race, religion or creed. If you come here lawfully, we welcome you. If you are permitted to stay here permanently, you become an equal member of our community and become one of us. Then you, and all of us, who want to, can worship God in our own way, take pride in our different cultures after our own fashion, respect our distinctive histories according to our own traditions; but do so within a shared space of shared values in which we take no less pride and show no less respect.

The right to be different. The duty to integrate. That is what being British means. And neither racists nor extremists should be allowed to destroy it.

Outstanding.

As always, I have a book to recommend: historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr.'s The Disuniting of America.  There are dangers of taking multiculturalism too far (as happens on the Left) and taking monoculturalism too far (as happens on the Right) and Schlesinger does an excellent job of explaining this.

Has It Gotten This Bad?

Ahmadinejad is already measuring the Oval Office for drapes.

Wages! Jobs Up! Unemployment Up!

Call it the Viagra Economy.  Unemployment and job creation up at the same time looks like a contradiction, but it isn't.  It just means that as jobs are added, a lot of people start looking for jobs who weren't, and thus get added to the unemployment stats.  What is the most encouraging news is that wages are finally rising significantly.  From the New York Times:

After four years in which pay failed to keep pace with price increases, wages for most American workers have begun rising significantly faster than inflation.  . . .

The average hourly wage for workers below management level — everyone from school bus drivers to stockbrokers — rose 2.8 percent from October 2005 to October of this year, after being adjusted for inflation, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Only a year ago, it was falling by 1.5 percent.  . . .

The fall in unemployment to 4.4 percent and the recent surge in wages, however, raise the prospect that the job market could be on the brink of another strong run, much like the one that lifted incomes in the late 1990s.

Mickey Kaus points out that this is bad news.  For Democratic populists, at least. 

Just when Democratic populists have yelled themselves hoarse about how the growing economy isn't raising wages at the bottom, the growing economy starts raising wages at the bottom. It takes a while!** The point for worker-friendly Democrats should be to keep the tight labor market going. ...**--As the graphs accompanying the NYT's story makes clear, Clinton's economic boom didn't begin to produce significant wage growth for about three years, until Clinton's second term.

Here is the graph:

 

As you can see, wage growth is statistically flat from the end of Bush 41 until the beginning of Clinton's second term.  The only thing different about Bush's economy is that the lag was a little longer.  Bush would probably like to take credit for the current good news, but the truth is that it is probably just the business cycle doing what it is supposed to do: cycle.   

Clinton v. Obama

Washington Post:

Neither Clinton nor Obama has formally declared a candidacy, but their rivalry is already the talk of the chamber, an amusing sideshow for Democrats and Republicans -- at least the handful who aren't weighing their own White House bids.

[Sen. Edward] Kennedy (Mass.) tried not to play favorites on Wednesday, seating the two superstars on his right and left at dinner. But the dais of his committee will be another matter next year, after Obama joins the panel in January: According to seniority rules, the two are likely to be seated next to each other, toward the end. There they will vie for prominence on major issues such as stem cell research, the minimum wage and college tuition subsidies.

...

Colleagues say Clinton and Obama appear to genuinely admire each other. So far, they claim to see zero evidence of public rancor. "Everybody gets along just fine," Harkin said. Kennedy described the pair as "extra-dimensional individuals" and asserted in an interview: "There's no sort of pettiness or jealousy that I see. They understand the momentous nature of what the search for the presidency is all about."

Behind the scenes, of course, it's a slightly different story. "Don't tell Mama, I'm for Obama" has become the Obama campaign's unofficial motto. It's a reference to Clinton's nickname as first lady and an example of the conflicted loyalties of many Democratic political aides. Some are talking to both camps about possible jobs in the presidential campaigns. Meanwhile, Democratic senators who are not considering presidential bids of their own are remaining neutral.

Thune

The Argus Leader reports on the leadership possibilities offered to Senator Thune after his appointment as chief deputy whip:

In his new job as Senate Republicans’ chief deputy whip, South Dakota’s John Thune will get a chance to hone his leadership skills and prove he’s got what it takes to move up the party ranks.

GOP Whip Trent Lott chose Thune recently to be his right-hand man after the South Dakota freshman campaigned for the Mississippi lawmaker’s comeback bid. Lott won the whip job by just one vote last month. Four years ago, he was forced to give up his majority leader post after making racially insensitive remarks.

Lott’s win could eventually boost Thune’s own career if the two – working with the new Minority Leader Mitch McConnell – successfully unite Senate Republicans behind the party’s agenda, political pundits say. Thune will head Lott’s eight-member whip team, whose players must round up votes, make sure those votes stand fast and cut deals, if necessary, to bring reluctant senators on board.

Read the whole story.

Consumers of the World Unite!

You have nothing to lose but your chains.  Chain stores that is.  The Atlantic Online has a piece by Virginia Postrel "In Praise of Chain Stores."  I admit to strong feelings on this subject.  There is nothing that liberals profess to despise (apart from Dubya) so much as chain stores.  Starbucks leads the list.  Of course if the roof collapsed on any random Starbucks, odds are it wouldn't kill a single Bush voter.  But never mind that.  Liberals hate Wal Mart, and loath Barnes and Noble.  With regard to the latter, there's many a Kerry voter who will tell you about some small bookstore he used to hang out in, with a bearded socialist behind the counter and lots of used Noam Chomsky on the new offerings shelf. 

Allow me to tell you another story.  When I left my home town to go away to college, there was not a single bookstore in town, unless you counted the Bible Bookstore.  That was Jonesboro, Arkansas, one of the largest communities in the home state of William Jefferson Clinton and yours truly.  Until the day I left, I bought my paperbacks in a card store called "Pettys".  To visit a real bookstore I had to drive a hour south and over the Big Muddy to Memphis.  Over the last decade, Jonesboro acquired a Hastings and a Books-A-Million.  Now it has a Barnes and Noble.  I am sorry if Meg Ryan's charming bookstore is driven out of business by Tom Hanks, but the chain bookstores have brought more books to more people than the small shop ever did. 

Jazz Noise Here

For those who like jazz, but have no idea what's out there, there is an excellent website now available with the bluntly descriptive title: All About Jazz.  It's rich with interviews and articles, and a lot of colorful ads that might wet your appetite.  At the upper right hand cornor there is a free download.  Today it's Wycliffe Gordon playing Greensleves.  Since there are no words, call it "What Child Is This," and add it to your Christmas music. 

But the star of the show is a series of pages under the heading "Building a Jazz Library."  It lists about ten cds a piece under headings like "Tenor Saxaphone," or "Bill Evans."  It is a great resource to check out as you make out your Christmas list.

Jean Kirkpatrick Dies

The first woman to represent the United States before the United Nations, under President Reagan, passed away at age 80. 

Live Lawyers and Dead Republicans

Todd Epp has a reply to Newquist, Schaff, and myself on Lincoln and the 1862 Lakota uprising.  Here is some of it.

I also take issue that only academics can muck around in history and literature.  I went off on a rant a month or two ago on Ken Blanchard and Jon Schaff at S.D. Politics about this and don’t care to go down that path again.  I do have one observation, however. Interestingly, Drs. Schaff and Blanchard are on the Right and Dr. Newquist is on the Left, what they have in common are lots of letters after their names and teaching or former teaching at NSU.

I’ve been published in a number of scholarly publications, including South Dakota History and Kansas History.  Fine.  But some of the best historians I have met were lay people who were inquisitive, dogged in their research, passionate about their subjects, and had great gobs of common sense.  Some only had a high school degree or may a little college or a bachelors degree.  Other things made them good historians.

Here was my reply:

      Todd:

I tried to make it clear that, in praising Professor Newquist's post, I was making no comment on your original note. As I said, you merely raised a question. That question emerges from time to time, and was entirely appropriate on this occasion. I just happen to think that Newquist's reply was altogether right. Like Professor N, I may be a bit guilty of "hero worship" where Lincoln comes in.

And that, an admiration of Lincoln that may or may not be excessive, is what Professors Schaff, Newquist, and I have in common in this matter; not any objection to your voice on the subject. I have never seriously believed or suggested that "only academics can muck around in history and literature." I don't believe that for a moment, nor, I think, do any of my colleagues. So if anyone has their nickers in a twist, it isn't me.

 

Justices Scalia and Breyer Debate

Dahlia Lithwick at Slate has a summary of the recent debate between Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Stephen Breyer.  Just right now the Court is about as balanced as it as ever been.  Or at least that is the way it appears.  We haven't had time yet to measure the jurisprudence of the Court's newest members. 

But to all appearances, the Court's conservative wing includes Scalia along with Chief Justice John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito. 

The liberal wing includes Breyer, along with John Paul Stevens, David Souter, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg (whom one of my friends once called Darth Vader Ginsburg). 

That leaves Anthony Kennedy, once a staunch conservative, as the swing vote.  A swing vote on the Court is like a quantum particle in physics: you cannot predict which way he will swing when exposed to the magnetism of constitutional uncertainty. 

Scalia and Breyer thus represent the two opposed wings of the Court.  Here is Lithwick's description of the difference:

Scalia bristles when Crawford Greenburg quotes back a line about the "living Constitution" being "idiotic." "You are misquoting me," he says. "I was describing the argument in favor of the living Constitution—that it's a living organism that must grow or become brittle and snap." And he can't resist adding, "That is idiotic." He observes that there is a difference between applying the Constitution to a changing world—to television and the Internet, say—and to "morphing" old ideas to mean precisely their opposite. How could a Constitution that clearly allowed for the death penalty now explicitly prohibit it? "That's the living Constitution I am talking about, and it's the one I wish would die."

Breyer points out that the constitutional language of "cruel and unusual" is not clear, before chuckling, "I was making a lot more progress before." Breyer describes the job of justices as patrolling the boundaries—making certain the legislature doesn't "go too far" at the margins. The words of the Constitution "don't explain themselves," he says. Scalia retorts that the Bill of Rights itself sets out the limitations on legislatures and that a majority set out these limitations when it ratified the Constitution. Those are the real boundaries, not the boundaries invented by each new generation of jurists.

The argument is frequently mischaracterized.  It is not a question of whether the Constitution should be interpreted or adapted to new circumstances.  Both sides agree that it must be so interpreted and adapted.  Madison was brilliant, but he did not anticipate the Internet.  The question is whether the Court should feel free to invent new constitutional principles, like the right to abortion (Roe), or the right to carry slaves into federal territories (Dred Scott).  Scalia believes it should not, and clearly says so.  Breyer believes it should, when it really, dearly, wants to.  But he is not willing to say that. 

In Praise of Newquist, in Praise of Linclon

I post to join my colleague, Professor Schaff, in praise of Professor David Newquist's post on Abraham Lincoln.   The occasion of Professor Newquist's post was Todd Epp's comment on the execution of 38 Lakota men in 1963, which Lincoln personally approved.  I note that Todd merely raised the question in his post (Great Emancipator or Executioner?), and did not explicitly answer it. 

Professor Newquist's post is the best thing I have read on this particular event.  I wish I had written it.  But I take the liberty of quoting the heart of it.

In response to the [1862 Lakota] uprising, Lincoln sent Gen. Pope to Minnesota to handle the matter militarily. This account is from David Herbert Donald's Lincoln. Pope did not like Lincoln, but switched his animosity from the President to the Sioux. He said, "It is my purpose utterly to exterminate the Sioux..." He arrested 1,500 Sioux men, women, and children and covened a military commission to try them. Lincoln sent a Dept. of Interior official (who later became Secretary) to Minnesota to investigate the problems and he consulted with Episcopal Bishop Henry B. Whipple. He soon learned that the Sioux were responding to fraud and embezzlement by the Indian agents. Pope's commissions came up with a list of 303 Sioux who were found guilty and to be executed. Lincoln ordered Pope not to stage any executions without the President's express order.

After consulting with his cabinet agencies on how to proceed, Lincoln ordered the records of the 303 Sioux to be sent to him. He went through the record of each condemned Sioux to sort out those who were guilty of the crimes of murder and rape from those who participated in the uprising. He ended up with the list of 39 men, which he wrote out in his own hand.

Pope said that if the entire list of 303 were not executed, the people of Minnesota would massacre all the Indians in the territory in revenge. Governor Ramsey also threatened that if they were not all executed, the people would extract private revenge. The resentment against Lincoln and his cabinet among the people of Minnesota cost the Republicans votes in the election of 1864 and Ramsey told him he could have won with a larger majority if he had hanged more Indians. Lincoln replied, "I could not afford to hang men for votes."

There is a lot more, and all of it is good.  I urge our readers to follow the link above and read all of it. 

Professor Newquist notes Lincoln's literary talents, and I emphatically agree with his opinion that Lincoln's letters represent a great body of literary achievement.  He is right that they should be mined by professors of literature as well as historians and biographers.  To the list of sources mentioned in these various books, I add Crisis of the House Divided, by my teacher, Harry Jaffa.  Professor Jaffa analyzed Lincoln's speeches, and especially the Lincoln-Douglas debates, from the point of view of Platonic political philosophy.  I suppose that it is only in light of that treatment that Lincoln's genius becomes fully visible. 

The Shape Of Things To Come?

At a Canadian university the student government is discriminating against a pro-life group because, in the opinion of the student government, being pro-life is tantamount to discrimination against women.  So much for the academic commitment to diversity.

Good News About The Courts

We conservatives are often put to task for our denunciations of the federal courts.  Therefore it behooves us to take note when they do something right.  Three cheers for the current Supreme Court term.   Why?  They are doing what the Court should do: very little.  If I may draw on Philip Shaw Paludan's The Presidency of Abraham Lincoln (in discussing the Merryman decision):

There was too much at stake to leave the meaning of the Constitution and the polity it defined to nine justices.  After the Civil War the Supreme Court would become the final authority on the fundamental law.  But at the beginning of that war Lincoln held to an older view--the Constitution was too important to be left to judges...

The Broken Clock Is Right Again

I was going to comment on Todd Epp's post regarding Abraham Lincoln's role in the execution of 38 Lakota Sioux in 1863.  David Newquist has already ably and eloquently come to Lincoln's defense.  Professor Newquist might be interested in these recent books on Lincoln's Rhetoric: Lincoln's Sword: The Presidency and the Power of Words, by Douglas Wilson and The Eloquent President: A Portrait of Lincoln in His Own Words by Ronald C. White (I notice Prof. Newquist mention another of White's books that I have not read.  I will purchase it.).  There is a cadre of Lincoln haters out there (I don't mean to include Todd in their numbers) so it is always good to see the Great Emancipator defended.

Historian Resigns from Carter Center

Former President Jimmy Carter recently wrote the book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, for which law professor Alan Dershowitz wrote a scathing review and took Carter to task for playing fast and loose with history.  Now, Dr. Kenneth Stein, Professor of Contemporary Middle Eastern History, Political Science, and Israeli Studies at Emory as well as director of the Middle East Research Program and Emory Institute for the Study of Modern Israel has resigned as a Middle East Fellow of the Carter Center at Emory:

This ends my 23 year association with an institution that in some small way I helped shape and develop. My joint academic position in Emory College in the History and Political Science Departments, and, as Director of the Emory Institute for the Study of Modern Israel remains unchanged.

Many still believe that I have an active association with the Center and, act as an adviser to President Carter, neither is the case. President Carter has intermittently continued to come to the Arab-Israeli Conflict class I teach in Emory College. He gives undergraduate students a fine first hand recollection of the Begin-Sadat negotiations of the late 1970s. Since I left the Center physically thirteen years ago, the Middle East program of the Center has waned as has my status as a Carter Center Fellow. For the record, I had nothing to do with the research, preparation, writing, or review of President Carter's recent publication. Any material which he used from the book we did together in 1984, The Blood of Abraham, he used unilaterally.

President Carter's book on the Middle East, a title too inflammatory to even print, is not based on unvarnished analyses; it is replete with factual errors, copied materials not cited, superficialities, glaring omissions, and simply invented segments. Aside from the one-sided nature of the book, meant to provoke, there are recollections cited from meetings where I was the third person in the room, and my notes of those meetings show little similarity to points claimed in the book. Being a former President does not give one a unique privilege to invent information or to unpack it with cuts, deftly slanted to provide a particular outlook. Having little access to Arabic and Hebrew sources, I believe, clearly handicapped his understanding and analyses of how history has unfolded over the last decade. Falsehoods, if repeated often enough become meta-truths, and they then can become the erroneous baseline for shaping and reinforcing attitudes and for policy-making. The history and interpretation of the Arab-Israeli conflict is already drowning in half-truths, suppositions, and self-serving myths; more are not necessary. In due course, I shall detail these points and reflect on their origins.

Democracy and Greatness

Harvard Professor of Government Harvey Mansfield writes about "Democracy and Greatness" in the next issue of the Weekly Standard.  Excerpts:

For positive self-assurance you need the picture of greatness for inspiration, if not emulation. "Self-esteem" is the byword of educational theory today. Self-esteem is fine if it is earned individually but harmful if it is awarded automatically because the recipient belongs to a class or category of the needy. True, we all need self-esteem but we do not need complacency or self-satisfaction. Mutual toleration is far from enough to fulfill our human dignity, for which we need something to admire. Indeed it is impossible for human beings to live without admiring other human beings. We all have already the picture of greatness willy-nilly, as we have our heroes from childhood. It needs to be nourished and coaxed into improvement rather than created from nothing.

Two obstacles to education in greatness loom before us, modern science and modern democracy. These two powerful forces are in alliance. Modern science is progressive and always on the advance; it doesn't like to look back. Today's scientific findings rob yesterday's of any significance other than antiquarian. Thus the greatness of past scientists like Galileo, Kepler, and Newton is diminished by their obsolescence. As human beings, scientists are of course not uninterested in who gets a Nobel prize, but this is apart from and at odds with their science, which is a collective enterprise that frowns on self-promoters if not heroes.

...

Modern democracy is envious of great men insofar as it is egalitarian. Even if great men have humble origins, they still belong to the few rather than the many. But to a surprising degree, by virtue of the now almost universal constitutional structure that incorporates executive power, modern democracy depends on one-person rule. American democracy especially welcomes great presidents when they appear and honors them after they die. To Americans, such presidents validate the wisdom of the Founders in endowing them with an office that permits them, calls them forth, to be great. Great presidents remind us Americans of the greatness of our Founders. Any American education in greatness could begin by appealing to the admiration most of us already have for those who initiated the society we now enjoy. I know, of course, that such an appeal is not as easy as it ought to be. It must overcome or bypass the denigration of the Founders by the social scientists, today's version of the democratic historians, enemies of greatness, that Tocqueville warned against.

Be sure to read the whole thing.

POTUS

New Mexico governor Bill Richardson has announced he will run for the oval office in 2008:

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson will be making a run for the White House in 2008, the Democrat confirmed to FOX News on Thursday.

"I've dealt with the issues that are very important today — national security, immigration and energy," said Richardson, who was Secretary of Energy and later UN Ambassador during the Clinton administration.

In addition to his previous experience in the Clinton White House, Richardson believes that his Hispanic heritage will be an advantage in his campaign for the presidency.

"I am Hispanic, which I believe is an asset," Richardson said. "But I'm not running as an Hispanic, I am running as an American who is proud to be Hispanic."

Richardson said that he does not intend to form a presidential exploratory committee until January. He has, however, begun hiring national campaign staff, and plans a visit to early primary state New Hampshire in mid-January.

UPDATE:  Reports are filtering in that Governor Richardson actually hasn't declared he's running.  More updates later.

UPDATE II:  Fox News jumped the gun.  Bill Richardson is not running for president.

Senator Thune

The Argus Leader looks at the opportunities that await Senator Thune after his appointment as chief deputy whip under Senator Lott:

As chief deputy whip "he will certainly be in a position to be heard at the table a little more loudly than a person who is not holding that position," Bill Richardson, chairman of the University of South Dakota political science department, said of Thune.

That could bode well for South Dakota issues such as a $2.3 billion federal loan for a DM&E railroad project, money for the Lewis & Clark rural water system and safeguarding the Ellsworth Air Force base.

"Any time you have the opportunity to weigh in on issues like Ellsworth Air Force Base or the water projects, it's a good opportunity to use the leverage for South Dakota's benefit," Thune said.

He also pointed out he could help shape new farm legislation. Thune said Lott had approached him about the position before the November election, and Lott was especially interested in appointing deputies adept at forging relationships both within the party and across the aisle. Because Republicans will be in the minority next year, "there is more heavy lifting in counting the votes, getting the votes, trying to shape policy in ways that constructively solve problems and reflect our priorities," Thune said.

Income Tax

SD War College:  "In 19 years of watching the South Dakota legislature, his [Senator Tom Katus (D-Rapid City)] idea ranks up there as one of the truly stupidest things I can recall ever hearing."

December 7, 1941

Let's Remember Pearl Harbor

History in ev'ry century
Records and act that lives forever more
We'll recall, as into line we fall
The thing that happened on Hawaii's shore

Let's remember Pearl Harbor
As we go to meet the foe
Let's remember Pearl Harbor
As we did the Alamo

We will always remember
How they died for Liberty
Let's remember Pearl Harbor
And go on to victory

Let's remember Pearl Harbor
As we go to meet the foe
Let's remember Pearl Harbor
As we did the Alamo

We will always remember
How they died for Liberty
Let's remember Pearl Harbor
And go on to victory

Seminoles Purchasing Hard Rock Cafe

Financial Times:

Hard Rock Café, one of the most recognisable brands in the world, is to be sold to a Native American tribe in a deal that values the restaurant chain owned by Rank at about $960m.

Seminole Hard Rock Hotels and Casinos, a collaboration between the Seminole tribe of Florida and Hard Rock International, has been in exclusive negotiations with Rank for more than two weeks.

I'd love to see more business opportunities like this open up for Indian tribes.  The reservations, as we know all to well around here, could use the economic jump-start, whether that means acquiring existing businesses or establishing new ones.

Thune and DM&E

Last month, John Thune was named Porker of the Month by Citizens Against Government Waste because of his efforts to secure a $2.3 billion loan for Dakota, Minnesota, & Eastern Railroad.  My hometown newspaper, the Mitchell Daily Republic, explains why this distinction is silly:

U.S. Sen. John Thune received some criticism recently from a group ostensibly watching out for taxpayers.

Citizens Again Government Waste said Thune’s work for a government loan for the Dakota, Minnesota and Eastern Railroad won him the “Porker of the Month” award.

Further, the organization said the senator’s efforts to save Ellsworth Air Force Base also qualified him for some sort of “porker” recognition.

The criticism, in our view, is not only unwarranted but silly and unfair.

Trust us, there are plenty of projects pushed by U.S. senators and others in Congress that genuinely would qualify for the “Porker of the Month” award. The “bridge to nowhere” in Alaska immediately springs to mind. Spending $231 million for a bridge that will connect Anchorage to a rural area where no one lives is but one example in a long and embarrassing list that also includes $3.27 million for the Capitol Visitor Center; $100,000 for the Tiger Woods Foundation; and $75,000 for the Greater Syracuse Sports Hall of Fame. Hardly the best use of hard-earned taxpayer dollars.

Then there is the $1.5 million for a new communications system for the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department. And what about the $1 million to study and defend us from brown tree snakes, found only in Guam. The snake is not a threat to humans.

The list is a long one and a national embarrassment.

However, Thune’s lobbying for a federal loan for the DM&E project is sensible for its economic impact. The plan not only will move needed coal from Wyoming to population centers further east, but many new jobs will be created in the process. Moreover, what Thune supported was not a grant or a gift from the government, but a loan, which would be paid back.

That’s not “pork” by any definition.

Regarding Ellsworth, there was honest disagreement over whether that base should continue to be part of this nation’s defense system. In the end, the decision was that it was indeed critical, and as of this week, Ellsworth will be home for an enlarged air traffic control program.

In the past, we have applauded so-called watchdog groups that have monitored foolish government spending and we will do so again. In the recent instances, however, Citizens Against Government failed to do its homework.

It, not Sen. Thune, ended up looking silly.

Thune Named Chief Deputy Whip

Aberdeen American News:

Incoming Senate Republican Whip Trent Lott has chosen Sen. John Thune of South Dakota as his chief deputy whip.

Lott, R-Miss., on Wednesday announced the members of the Senate who will make up the Senate Republican Whip organization for the 110th Congress.

"In his first term in the Senate, John has demonstrated outstanding leadership skills, and I want to put his clout to work in developing the whip strategy to get the votes for our priorities," Lott said in a release. "John will be actively engaged in our leadership team."

The other deputy whips serving regions of the country are: Sen. John Sununu of New Hampshire, Sen. Richard Burr of North Carolina, Sen. Larry Craig of Idaho, Sen. Norm Coleman of Minnesota, Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma, Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine, and Sen. David Vitter of Louisiana.

Tribal Standoff

Rapid City Journal:

Leaders of the two separate groups claiming to be the rightful government of the Oglala Sioux Tribe could come face to face today. One group, headed by President John Yellow Bird Steele, was selected in the tribal general election Nov. 7 and was sworn into office Tuesday morning at the Oglala Lakota College administration building near Kyle. Steele, newly elected Vice President William “Shorty” Brewer and others say the administration of President Alex White Plume ended Tuesday.

Steele said he and others in his administration plan to move into their offices in the tribal building today.

The other group is led by White Plume, tribal president since June. He remained in his office at the tribal building in Pine Ridge on Tuesday afternoon, with private security guards highly visible.

White Plume said the swearing in at Kyle was illegal because he had declared the Nov. 7 election null and void and called for new elections, to be held early next year. He said he was carrying out the order of the tribal court of election appeals, which twice called for new elections.

White Plume said he, vice president Eileen Janis and the council members elected in 2004 would continue in office until new primary and general elections can be held early next year.

In another development Tuesday morning, tribal judge Steve Emery of Kyle issued a restraining order prohibiting White Plume from interfering with the swearing in, which went off without incident. Judge Emery also ordered White Plume to halt plans for a new election. But White Plume, on the advice of tribal attorneys, said the judge’s order was invalid because it did not follow proper procedure.

“Our court system can’t serve orders like this to a sitting president,” White Plume said Tuesday afternoon. He said tribal attorneys will attempt to get Emery’s injunction overturned.

Tribal attorney Tom Ballanco, who is advising White Plume, said Emery’s ruling stopped short of ordering the White Plume administration to vacate the tribal offices.

The tribal elections have been roiled with controversy, beginning with irregularities in the Oct. 3 primary, when some ballots were marked incorrectly. (See timeline below).

The tribal council proceeded with the Nov. 7 general election, but the tribal election board removed White Plume’s name from the ballot only four days before the election, citing a federal assault conviction in the early 1980s.

Since then, both sides have argued about the validity of the election and White Plume’s power to call a new one.

Late Tuesday morning, tribal judge Sidney Witt swore in Steele, Brewer and 16 members of the council elected Nov. 7. Five of them were re-elected from the council elected in 2004.

About 75 people watched the swearing-in ceremony and applauded at its conclusion.

Two more council members were being elected Tuesday from the Wakpamni District, although White Plume said that election, too, was invalid and must go through a new petition, primary and general-election process.

Steele said the new council needed to investigate what happened in the fall elections.

But Steele, who served previously as tribal president, said the new government needed to take office to provide stability for the tribe.

He said an administration and tribal council, according to the constitution, can serve only two years unless they are re-elected. He said the Fire Thunder-White Plume administration was sworn in Dec. 5, 2004. “Their two years is up,” Steele said Tuesday. “No democratic government can extend its own terms.”

Steele said Phil Hogen, an OST member and head of the National Indian Gaming Commission, had reportedly called the tribal office and said that if the tribe had no government, he would close the tribe’s casino west of Oglala.

Steele said other government agencies could shut down other programs if a valid tribal government was not in place.

Ultimately, the Bureau of Indian Affairs may have to decide which of the competing governments it will recognize as having responsibility for handling the millions of dollars of program contracts. Acting BIA superintendent Cleve Her Many Horses referred questions to BIA headquarters in Washington, D.C., but the Journal was unable to reach those officials by news deadline.

Iowa

Washington Post:

Clinton advisers are also beginning to prepare for her first travels to states such as Iowa and New Hampshire as a prospective candidate, although there is no timetable for such appearances.

Jerry Crawford, a prominent Iowa Democrat and Vilsack supporter, said yesterday that he and Clinton traded voice-mail messages during the past two days. He said that she and her staff have been "very respectful" toward Vilsack and his candidacy. But he added: "It's clear she's looking to come to Iowa, and it seems clear she's giving serious consideration competing in Iowa."

The High Court and Racial Discrimination in School Placement

The United States Supreme Court heard arguments this week on cases arising from two urban school desegregation policies.  Since my earlier posts went over the heads of some of my critics, let me state my position at the outset.  I think that the Court was correct, in Brown v. Board of Education (1954) to find that racial segregation was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.  In fact, the decision was long overdue.  By a good half century at least.  But I think that the Court's remedy, while understandable in light of segregationist resistance, was nonetheless wrong.  It should have established the principle that no child could be denied admission to a school because of his or her race.  Instead, it engineered a half century of racial placement in order to achieve some never quite defined ideal of racial balance. 

There is now some reason to believe that the Court is about to swing around to my way of thinking.  Here is Linda Greenhouse's take on the Court's mood, from the New York Times:

By the time the Supreme Court finished hearing arguments on Monday on the student-assignment plans that two urban school systems use to maintain racial integration, the only question was how far the court would go in ruling such plans unconstitutional.

There seemed little prospect that either the Louisville, Ky., or Seattle plans would survive the hostile scrutiny of the court’s new majority. In each system, students are offered a choice of schools but can be denied admission based on their race if enrolling at a particular school would upset the racial balance.

At its most profound, the debate among the justices was over whether measures designed to maintain or achieve integration should be subjected to the same harsh scrutiny to which Brown v. Board of Education subjected the regime of official segregation. In the view of the conservative majority, the answer was yes.

The question is this: should we consider race-based admission policies solely in light of the purposes at which those policies aim, or in light of the rights of individual students.  If the former, then policies that aim at segregation are struck down, while policies that aim at "racial balance" are upheld, or even required.  If the latter, then any barrier to a student enrolling in a given school simply because of his or her race becomes constitutionally suspect.  I fervently hope that Ms. Greenhouse is right, and that the Court is poised to go the latter way. 

What makes for the possibility of change are George W. Bush's appointments to the Court. 

The Supreme Court had declined to review a similar voluntary integration plan in Massachusetts last year, shortly before the retirement of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor and the arrival of Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. But in June, after weeks of internal debate, the justices accepted these two appeals.

One was filed by a white woman in Louisville whose son was denied a transfer to attend kindergarten in a school that needed black rather than white students in order to keep its black population at the district’s required minimum of 15 percent.

The other was filed by parents in Seattle who organized as a corporation to oppose the plan there, which applies only to the city’s 10 high schools. A racial “tiebreaker,” used when a high school attracts more students than there are places, intends to keep the schools within 15 percent of the district’s overall makeup, which is 60 percent nonwhite.

If you want to hear the actual arguments before the Supreme Court, they are available in RealPlayer format from NPR. 

Boltin' Bolton

A lot of conservative writers are blasting the Democrats for forcing the resignation of John Bolton as U.S. Representative before the United Nations.  Jack Kelly, at Real Clear Politics, is typical. 

Now more than ever we need a strong voice at the United Nations. But petty partisan politics has deprived us of one of the strongest ever.  . . .

Ostensibly, Democrats opposed Mr. Bolton because he'd been an outspoken critic of the UN, and because he'd been said by some to be a difficult person to work with...a criterion which, if universally applied, would sharply circumscribe Hillary Clinton's opportunities in public service. But I suspect much of the Democratic pique was derived from Mr. Bolton's role in the Florida recount in 2000. When it comes to politics, Democrats have long memories, and hold grudges.  It's appalling to me that Democrats would let partisan pique deprive America of as able a public servant as John Bolton at this critical time.

Well, yeah.  Senate Democrats opposed Bolton for three reasons.  The most honorable is the idea that he was opposed to the very idea of the U.N.  His tenure as representative did nothing to confirm that fear.  The other two concerned his roll in the 2000 election debacle, and the very fact that Bush put him in as an interim appointment.  That is indeed partisan politics.

But political parties are partisan by definition, and non-petty partisanship is a little like honest graft: it doesn't really exist.  Bolton was, after all, an interim appointment because of soon to be former Republican Senator Lincoln Chafee.  And now the Democrats get to block Bolton on their own because they won the election, and that is what winning means. 

The real issue here is not whether this person or that gets the U.N. job, but whether the United States is willing to push for significant reform of the U.N., and whether the U.S. is willing to use the world assembly as a real instrument to protect the world order against the likes of Iran.  There is little question that Bolton was remarkably effective in his short tenure.  What matters now is replacing him with someone who will act just as he did.  Precisely because the Democrat's opposition was more partisan than principled, there is some hope that they will allow that to happen.

Full Email

Because some might be interested, here is the full text of the email I recieved that prompted the post below.  I apologize for the length and the strange formatting. 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE    
 

ISRAEL's RELATION TO THE U.S.:  TAIL OR DOG?

Breaching the Wall of Silence on Israeli Power in the United States   

No one would deny that there is an inordinately strong relationship between the two sovereign states of Israel and the United States, reflected most strongly in the near-unanimous support for Israel by the American Congress and Executive, irrespective of Israeli actions or policy.  In seeking to explain such support, many, including luminary progressive voices, have viewed Israel as simply a tool of United States imperial policy, and protector of its interests in the Middle East region. But is this truly the case?  The following comments from former Senator James Abourezk are reprinted here with his permission:

"I had never paid much attention to Chomsky's writings, as I had all along assumed that he was correct and proper in his position on the Arab-Israeli conflict.  But now, upon learning that his first assumption is that Israel is simply doing what the imperial leaders in the U.S. wants them to do, I concur with you that this assumption is completely wrong.  I can tell you from personal experience that, at least in the Congress, the support israel has in that body is based completely on political fear -- fear of defeat by anyone who does not do what Israel wants done...

Secondly, the Lobby is quite clear in its efforts to suppress any congressional dissent from the policy of complete support for Israel which might hurt annual appropriations.  Even one voice is attacked, as I was, on grounds that if Congress is completely silent on the issue, the press will have no one to quote, which effectively silences the press as well.  Any journalists or editors who step out of line are quickly brought under control by well organized economic pressure against the newspaper caught sinning...

I do not recall a single instance where any administration saw the need for Israel's military power to advance U.S. Imperial intersts.  In fact, as we saw in the Gulf War, Israel's involvement was detrimental to what Bush, Sr. wanted to accomlish in that war.  They had, as you might remember, to suppress any Israeli assistance so that the coalition would not be destroyed by their involvement.

So far as the argument that we need to use Israel as a base for U.S. operations, I'm not aware of any U .S. bases there of any kind.  The U.S. has enough military bases and fleets in the area to be able to handle any kind of military needs without using Israel.  In fact I can't think of an instance where the U.S. would want to involve Israel militarily for fear of upsetting the current allies the U.S. has, i.e. Saudi Arabia and the Emirates."

FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION OF THIS ISSUE: check out the  chapter on Noam Chomsky's 15 Erroneous Theses in The Power of Israel in the United States by James Petras.

 

The Power of Israel in the United States is a chapter-by-chapter rigorous analysis and documentation of the power of Israel via the Israeli, Jewish or Pro-Zionist Lobby on US Middle East policy. It raises serious questions as to the primary beneficiary of US policy, and its destructive results for the United States. The extraordinary extent of US political, economic, military and diplomatic support for the state of Israel is explored, along with the means whereby such support is generated and consolidated. Contending that Zionist power in America ensured unconditional US backing for Israeli colonization of Palestine and its massive uprooting of Palestinians, it views the interests of Israel rather than those of Big Oil as the primary cause of the disastrous US wars against Iraq and threats of war against Iran and Syria. It demonstrates and condemns US imitation of Israeli practice as it relates to conduct of the war on terrorism and torture. It sheds light on the AIPAC spying scandal and other Israeli espionage against America; the fraudulent and complicit role of America's academic "terrorist experts" in furthering criminal government policies, and the orchestration of the Danish cartoons to foment antipathy between Muslims and the West. It questions the inability in America to sustain or even formulate a discourse related to the subject of Israeli influence on the United States. It calls for a review of American Middle East policy with a view to reclaiming US independence of action based upon enlightened self-interest and progressive principles.

 

Winner of a Career of Distinguished Service Award from the American Sociological Association's Marxist Sociology Section, James Petras is a Bartle Professor (Emeritus) of Sociology at Binghamton University, New York. He is the author of 62 books published in 29 languages, and over 560 articles in professional journals, including the American Sociological Review, British Journal of Sociology, Social Research, and Journal of Peasant Studies. He has published over 2000 articles in nonprofessional journals such as the New York Times, Guardian, Nation, Christian Science Monitor, Foreign Policy, New Left Review, Partisan Review, Temps Moderne, Le Monde Diplomatique, and his commentary is widely carried on the internet. He has eminent standing in the progressive/left community, with long involvement in social justice struggles. 

  

Public interest in Israeli influence on the US is immense.  Yet there are surprisingly few scholarly works addressing the extent of Israeli influence upon American decision-making, and the means and processes whereby this occurs—in testimony to the point at issue.

The catastrophic Israeli assault on Lebanon, the war in Iraq, and threat of deepening US descent into the quagmire by an attack on Iran—with all that this portends for the well being of Americans and the American infrastructure—has heightened public concern at the costs and benefits of US Middle East policy, and its readiness to question received norms. The time is ripe for a re-assessment of American Middle East policy since, as the Financial Times reiterates: "Nothing is more damaging to US interests than the inability to have a proper debate about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict".   James Petras' The Power of Israel in the United States sets the full parameters.

"James Petras takes us on a fearless truth trip—with lucid style, tough factual blows, commanding research and compelling analysis. This is an eye-opening, must-read book for every advocate of democracy."
Michael Parenti, author of The Culture Wars and Superpatriotism 

"An outstanding analysis of the political machinery responsible for so much suffering in the Middle East: the social science equivalent of John Adam´s opera 'Klinghoffer'. Brilliant and substantive."
John Saxe-Fernandez
Professor of Political Science
National Autonomous University of Mexico
and leading world authority on US foreign policy and the oil industry 

For additional reviews and Table of Contents, go to http://www.bookmasters.com/clarity/b0030.htm.

 

Abourezk and Anti-Israel Conspiracy Theories

I received an email today from one Clarity Press (never heard of it) trying to get me to buy a book called The Power of Israel In The United States written by James Petras, who, among his other claims to fame, is the former winner of the Distinguished Service Award from the American Sociological Association's Marxist Sociology section.  The book appears to be an argument for a conspiracy theory that the "Zionist power" controls American foreign policy, manipulating it to the benefit of Israel.  The Zionist power, apparently in league with its minions in Big Oil, forced America into Iraq and is pushing us towards war with Syria and Iran.  The blurb also claims that the Danish cartoon controversy was manufactured by the Zionist power to "foment antipathy between Muslims and the West."  The publisher's web page (linked above) contains the table of contents of the book which contains a chapter called "Unanswered Questions: September 11 and the Israelis," so it is evidently pedaling that conspiracy, too.  Endorsing the book:  former United States Senator from South Dakota James Abourezk.  I print in entirety Abourezk's endorsement (this is from the email):

The following comments from former Senator James Abourezk are reprinted here with his permission:

"I had never paid much attention to Chomsky's writings, as I had all along assumed that he was correct and proper in his position on the Arab-Israeli conflict.  But now, upon learning that his first assumption is that Israel is simply doing what the imperial leaders in the U.S. wants them to do, I concur with you that this assumption is completely wrong.  I can tell you from personal experience that, at least in the Congress, the support israel has in that body is based completely on political fear -- fear of defeat by anyone who does not do what Israel wants done...

Secondly, the Lobby is quite clear in its efforts to suppress any congressional dissent from the policy of complete support for Israel which might hurt annual appropriations.  Even one voice is attacked, as I was, on grounds that if Congress is completely silent on the issue, the press will have no one to quote, which effectively silences the press as well.  Any journalists or editors who step out of line are quickly brought under control by well organized economic pressure against the newspaper caught sinning...

I do not recall a single instance where any administration saw the need for Israel's military power to advance U.S. Imperial intersts.  In fact, as we saw in the Gulf
War, Israel's involvement was detrimental to what Bush, Sr. wanted to accomlish in that war.  They had, as you might remember, to suppress any Israeli assistance so that the coalition would not be destroyed by their involvement.

So far as the argument that we need to use Israel as a base for U.S. operations, I'm not aware of any U .S. bases there of any kind.  The U.S. has enough military bases and fleets in the area to be able to handle any kind of military needs without using
Israel. In fact I can't think of an instance where the U.S. would want to involve Israel militarily for fear of upsetting the current allies the U.S. has, i.e. Saudi Arabia and the Emirates."

Update: Just doing some googling of Abourezk I found this old interview about Paul Wolfowitz's assent to the World Bank and the Bolton nomination to the UN.  If you go to the main page (http://www.irib.ir/) you find that Abourezk is bashing George Bush, Wolfowitz, Bolton and Israel to the state broadcast agency of the Islamic Republic of Iran. 

Update II:  I guess it could be said that nowhere does Abourezk explicitly endorse the book, but one assumes if he gave permission for his words to be used in conjunction with an ad campaign that he endorses this book.  Opinions to the contrary are welcome. 

Meet The New Bosses

Here's a news story on District Three's new representatives, Senator Al Hoerth and Representative David Novstrup.  Quote of the day:

"I'm not a politician," Hoerth said. "And I hope when I leave (the Legislature) people will say, 'He's no politician.'"

Daschle Updates

Most observers don't seem surprised that former Senator Tom Daschle has decided not to run for president.  Then again, as SDWC asked, "was this the biggest 'no kidding' story of the year?"  Scared Monkeys comments:

Tom Daschle Will Not Seek Presidency in 2008 ... We Can All Sleep More Comfortable Now

Last week it was Republican TN Senator Bill Frist who stated he would not seek the nomination for the presidency in 2008. Today, Tom Daschle (WHO??) has stated he will not seek a run at the Presidency. File this one under the category of no one cares and basically Daschle and his political career are in the “Where are they now Files.”

Tom Daschle taking a pointer from the play-book of … if you can’t win your own State in politics, most likely that Presidency thing is a bit of a stretch. That an no one wants to give you money for your campaign.

More, from the Political Pit Bull: "Meanwhile, on the other side of the aisle, former minority leader and Senator Tom Daschle has decided, after visiting "Iowa and New Hampshire this summer to gauge support," that he has no support from anyone and won't run he enjoys private life too much to run."  More from Jay Reding and The Influence Peddler.  Dotty Lynch of the Political Wire also has this interesting note about Daschle staffers helping Barack Obama:

The "news" that Tom Daschle was not going to run in'08 was hardly news to campaign insiders -- or to anyone who reads Garrett Graf in the Washingtonian who reported this in the November issue. But, former Daschle Senate chief of staff, Pete Rouse, who now runs Barack Obama's staff has spent a lot of time thinking about Presidential politics. A former Daschle advisor says that the joke around the office is that the Obama campaign is "Pete's fantasy campaign for Daschle."

Obama already has a number of experienced campaign operatives working for him including media advisor David Axelrod who did John Edwards campaign in 2004 and communications director Robert Gibbs who worked for John Kerry. And Democratic sources say that Obama can probably have the pick of the litter of most other seasoned campaign operatives if he decides to go.

Remember that Steve Hildebrand, Daschle's former campaign manager, is also helping out Obama's campaign.

UPDATE: Much more here.  Denise Ross also has a roundup of media reactions.

Kranz Gets Facts Wrong

Dave Kranz has a column in today's Argus Leader entitled "Parties' choice of leaders will decide direction" and examines the issues of leadership in the South Dakota political parties.  However, Kranz got a number of facts wrong, as Sibby notes.

Gannett and Newspaper Redesigns

Gannett Corporation, which owns the Argus Leader, is featured in the Washington Post this morning for redesigning its newspapers:

A Newspaper Chain Sees Its Future, And It's Online and Hyper-Local

Darkness falls on a chilly Winn-Dixie parking lot in a dodgy part of North Fort Myers just before Thanksgiving. Chuck Myron sits in his little gray Nissan and types on an IBM ThinkPad laptop plugged into the car's cigarette lighter. The glow of the screen illuminates his face.

Myron, 27, is a reporter for the Fort Myers News-Press and one of its fleet of mobile journalists, or "mojos." The mojos have high-tech tools -- ThinkPads, digital audio recorders, digital still and video cameras -- but no desk, no chair, no nameplate, no land line, no office. They spend their time on the road looking for stories, filing several a day for the newspaper's Web site, and often for the print edition, too. Their guiding principle: A constantly updated stream of intensely local, fresh Web content -- regardless of its traditional news value -- is key to building online and newspaper readership.

Myron and his colleagues are part of a great experiment being conducted by their corporate parent, McLean-based newspaper giant Gannett, which is trying to remake the very definition of a newspaper. Losing readers and revenue to the Internet and other media, newspapers are struggling to stay relevant and even afloat. Gannett's answer is radical.

The chain's papers are redirecting their newsrooms to focus on the Web first, paper second. Papers are slashing national and foreign coverage and beefing up "hyper-local," street-by-street news. They are creating reader-searchable databases on traffic flows and school class sizes. Web sites are fed with reader-generated content, such as pictures of their kids with Santa. In short, Gannett -- at its 90 papers, including USA Today -- is trying everything it can think of to create Web sites that will attract more readers.

"Whatever you spend your time and money doing," said News-Press managing editor Mackenzie Warren, "is news."

Unfortunately for Gannett, many Argus readers haven't liked the redesign.

John Bolton

An unconfirmed rumor has it that UN Ambassador John Bolton has resigned.  Though no reason has been given, I suspect he realized that he would now probably never get confirmed and threw in the towel.  I currently do not have a confirmable source, but return later for updates.

UPDATE:  Confirmed.

From Reuters

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Facing opposition from key senators, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton will leave office in a matter of days, the White House announced on Monday.

Here's the whole thing.

SCOOP: Denise Ross to Start Blogging

Former Rapid City Journal reporter Denise Ross has started / is going to start blogging.  See her blog Hog House here.  As many readers may recall, Denise was a long-time reporter for the Journal, a blogger at Mount Blogmore, and is known for her affection for liberal causes.  But it's good to have another blogger in the South Dakota blogosphere.  Welcome back!

AP

Jules Crittenden: "Say no to AP's shoddy work"