|
|
Why do I so often have to chortle at things Rep. Stephanie Herseth says? Today’s local daily gives another prime example.
According to the daily: “In both Iraq and in Lebanon, Congress has abdicated its oversight responsibility and has not forced President Bush to account for policies or a lack of policy, Herseth said. An accumulation of administration mistakes that Congress allowed to go unchallenged have closed off options to resolving conflicts in those places now, she said.”
Seems Herseth forgets she is among those who did not challenge the Bush policies. In fact, it was just eight weeks ago that she was one of only 42 Democrats voting for a Republican resolution backing the Bush Administration’s Iraq policies. This is nothing new. A year earlier she supported another resolution backing the Bush Administration line on Iraq. And, in May 2004, the local daily’s editorial board asked, “Knowing what we know now, would you support the Iraq war?” Herseth’s response? “Yes, I still would have supported taking this action.”
Hopefully, we can take Herseth’s comments, if accurately reported, as showing a change of position on Iraq rather than merely following the political winds. And it is rather interesting that an incumbent lambasts Congress for something for which she is in part responsible.
It’s okay. I’m a leaf on the wind!
“Hoban ‘Wash’ Washburn” (Alan Tudyk), Serenity
Isn’t it interesting how the J.A.I.L.ers are driven to fits when someone shines a light on them? Bill Stegmeier did so when his political views were revealed and the same was true of Jake Hanes. J.A.I.L. “publicist” Bonnie Russell is the latest to get a little sensitive when someone shines a light on what she’s up to.
Following posts at South Dakota War College and here about Russell trying to make money via her Amendment E site and potential failure to comply with South Dakota’s campaign finance laws, she revised the pages on that site. Among other things, it now says: “Ask bloggers against Amendment E which PACs created either from State Bar meetings or big business co-ops is [sic] paying for their blogging product.”
Be more than happy to answer that for you and anyone else, Bonnie. I don’t get a cent from anybody for anything I write on this blog.
Okay, I do have links to Amazon and get a little “spiff” if somebody buys something. Little is an understatement. My earnings this year total the princely sum of $3.64. Guess it will be a while before I can get that condo near Kona.
The only other potential “payment” is that some of the books and other material I review I get free from the publisher, PR firm or what have you. As some authors and publishers are aware, there’s certainly no quid pro quo.
I can unequivocally state that not one cent ever has or will come from any PAC, organization, person, entity or anything associated with the opposition to Amendment E, the State Bar, any big bad corporation, trade or industry association or any political campaign or candidate. It was true 19 months ago and remains true today. In fact, Amendment E opponents got money from me. If you look at the campaign finance report filed by the No on E Committee (you know, the required report Russell’s “South Dakotan’s [sic] for Amendment E” hasn’t filed), you’ll find my $200 contribution. And, for what it’s worth, I hold no position with that or any other political or campaign organization or the State Bar, other than my required membership in the latter.
Maybe Russell also hasn’t noticed this blog is on Blogger and was for more than two years before J.A.I.L. even filed its petitions. Why? Because Blogger is free and this blog had nothing to do with J.A.I.L. until it invaded this state. This blog also has no ads. Some of us hold and express our opinions because we truly believe them, not because we’re paid by someone to do so. In contrast, we can’t tell how much Russell has been paid by the South Dakota J.A.I.L.ers or anyone else for her “support” of Amendment E.
And just ’cause it’s the kind of guy I am, I’m going to give Russell a bonus and answer one more of her new questions. “Ask why Bloggers [sic] don’t mention school boards, city councils and others aren’t an issues [sic] as all are Routinely [sic] sued, both in South Dakota and throughout the nation,” she says. I’m sorry she missed my posts nearly three months ago where I addressed this canard. Once again, Russell is too busy blowing smoke and talking about everything but the issues to concern herself with the truth.
UPDATE: That light must really hurt.
Nothing is more terrible than ignorance in action.
Wolfgang von Goethe
A reader raises an interesting question. Who or what is the official organization behind J.A.I.L. in South Dakota?
As previously noted, the South Dakota J.A.I.L. web site now carries a disclaimer stating that it is “the only official website for South Dakota Amendment E.” But, if you go to another web site, you will find that it is the “Official site for South Dakotan’s [sic] for Amendment E.” The web site is also now a source of Google ads and links to private, money-making sites.
And the Amendment E site at MySpace.com isn’t of great help. The two entries for “Who I’d like to meet” are “The official site of South Dakotans for Amendment E” (which links to the Amendment E site) and “Visit the ‘Official Site’ for the South Dakota Judicial Accountability Committee at SDJA.net” (which is one of URLs for the South Dakota J.A.I.L.ers web site). So, do the quotes around official site in the latter mean that site is “more official” than the other?
In a comment to a related post at South Dakota War College, erstwhile Bonnie Russell says there’s “no competition” between the sites. It is interesting, though, that Russell, who lives in California, is running a web site purportedly expressing the views of a group of South Dakotans. Yet all this may be of more than just abstract interest.
According to the Secretary of State’s web site, only the South Dakota Judicial Accountability group has filed a campaign finance report. State law requires any “ballot question committee” to file campaign finance reports. That term is defined as “any two or more people who cooperate for the purpose of raising, collecting, or disbursing money for the adoption or defeat of any question submitted to the voters at any election.” As the Amendment E site advocates adoption of the measure and provides a link to raise funds, perhaps it’s time for Bonnie and friends to explain why South Dakotans (or Dakotan’s) for Amendment E have not filed a report.
Yet I suppose what seems to us confusion
Is not confusion, but the form of forms,
The serpent’s tail stuck down the serpent’s throat.
Robert Frost, A Masque of Reason
As promised, I wanted to follow up on the complaints South Dakota J.A.I.L.er-in-Chief Bill Stegmeier makes in his letter to Attorney General Larry Long about the AG’s ballot explanation of Amendment E. As detailed before, the first criticism is the goofy claim that Long somehow concocted the idea that J.A.I.L. applies to more than judges and that the proposal doesn’t do so.
The other criticisms deal largely with word choice and language. Thus, criticism two is that, “most perversely,” the ballot explanation doesn’t say J.A.I.L. would create a “special grand jury” or use language from the preamble to the proposal. (Emphasis in original.) Stegmeier claims that means the explanation violates the statutory requirement that it be objective and state the “purpose” of the proposed amendment. As a result, he writes, the explanation is intended to “distort and misrepresent the facts and the plain meaning of words, and [deceive] the voters of South Dakota.”
It seems to defy logic that not using the phrase “special grand jury” somehow makes the explanation lack objectivity, let alone deceive anyone. As for the purpose of the amendment, the thrust of J.A.I.L. is to create a mechanism by which to strip persons of judicial immunity. Whether that mechanism is called a special grand jury, the traveling extremist minstrel show or the anti-government clique does not go to the purpose of the amendment. While the preamble sets out the purpose as J.A.I.L. sees it, the governing statute says the explanation cannot exceed 200 words. To include the preamble would take nearly one-third of that limit, leaving very little by which the AG could explain the purpose and effect of a 23-section proposal.
This complaint is also interesting given the fact that in a fundraising letter sent out this summer, Stegmeier never used the term “special grand jury.” Instead, he said that “what Amendment E will do is create a ‘citizens oversight committee[.]'” To accept Stegmeier’s current argument means that his fundraising letter “deceived the voters of South Dakota.”
Next, Stegmeier complains the ballot explanation uses the term “volunteers” to describe the members of the special grand jury. This one may push the envelope a bit because the grand jury would be made up from people selected from the registered voter lists and any citizen submitting their name. At the same time, the ballot explanation specifically states: “Volunteers are drawn from those who submit their names and registered voters.” Moreover, Long does not mention the broad classes of citizens who are excluded from serving on the grand jury (elected and appointed officials, members of the State Bar, active or retired judges, and judicial, prosecutorial and law enforcement personnel).
Stegmeier then complains that Long says the grand jury could “expose” decision makers to fines and “strip” them of public insurance coverage. According to Stegmeier, these terms are too loaded. Long should have said “hold accountable” instead of “expose” or “forfeit” or “lose” instead of “strip.” Notably, while Stegmeier claims the word choice shows bias, he doesn’t assert that any of the words used are inaccurate or wrong.
Stegmeier’s last complaint about the language of the ballot explanation is that Long says only that if challenged J.A.I.L. might violate the U.S. Constitution. He asks whether that means Long is conceding that J.A.I.L. would not be challenged in a South Dakota court or, if it were, that it would accord with the state constitution. Maybe Stegmeier should read the last two sections of the initiative he claims to have “authored.”
Section 22 provides: “No judge under the jurisdiction of the Special Grand Jury, or potentially affected by the outcome of a challenge hereto, shall have any jurisdiction to sit in judgment of such challenge. Such pretended adjudication shall be null and void for all purposes and a complaint for such misconduct may be brought at any time, without charge, before the Special Grand Jury by class action, or by any adversely affected person.” Thus, the “author” has already answered his first question —? the amendment itself precludes it from being challenged in a state court.
Then, Section 23 provides in part, “Preeminence shall be given to this Amendment in any case of conflicts with statute, case law, common law, or constitutional provision.” As a result, even if Section 22 didn’t make it “unconstitutional” for a South Dakota court to hear a challenge to its constitutionality, J.A.I.L. elevates itself over every other provision of the state Constitution. In other words, J.A.I.L. and its continually changing group of 13 people chosen at random are the ultimate arbiters of the rights of every South Dakota resident.
Finally, Stegmeier spends about the last half of the letter addressing the “biggest problem” with the ballot explanation —? it doesn’t accept J.A.I.L.’s arguments that judicial immunity “itself is unconstitutional.” (Emphasis in original.) The fact is judicial immunity is the law of the land, whether J.A.I.L.ers like it or not. The ballot explanation has to be couched in terms of governing law. This would be like having a ballot explanation on the referral of the state’s abortion legislation containing the supporters’ arguments that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided.
This points up what I noted in a recent post. If the J.A.I.L.ers —? or any group or individuals — have a problem with particular laws, methods exist to address them other than creating a group of 13 omnipotent potentates. The abortion and medical marijuana issues are prime examples. Regardless of where you stand on the issue, proponents of those measures used the electoral and legislative process to attempt to make the changes they desire. The fact the abortion measure will ultimately be decided by way of referendum or that medical marijuana comes as an initiated measure doesn’t undercut the concept of using the system, rather than seeking to obliterate it.
In the theater of confusion, knowing the location of the exits is what counts.
Mason Cooley, City Aphorisms
Why do they hate us?
That’s a question many Americans have asked, particularly since Sept. 11, 2001. There is no simple answer. And while John Tirman’s 100 Ways America is Screwing Up the World may not be specifically intended to address that question, it certainly is a step toward some comprehension of America’s current stature in the court of world opinion.
The book is meant to be a liberal response to similarly titled books attacking the left. Tirman’s intent, however, was to address issues and events, not personalities, be they celebrities or critics. Tirman covers everything from politics to health issues to religion to economics to pop culture. It may, however, serve best as an introduction to America’s path to its problems on the global stage.
With a foreword by Howard Zinn (whose People’s History of the United States is almost indispensable in understanding that path), Tirman easily blends history with current events in assessing America’s impact on the world. The problem with the book is one that is perhaps inherent. There is a great deal of overlap and repetition among the 100 Ways. For example, the military-industrial complex predicted by President Eisenhower, America’s prior interventions in foreign countries, support of foreign dictators and the desire that economic policy in developing nations follow our model are just a few of the elements appearing in many of the 100 Ways.
As would be expected, many of the issues arise from the political and foreign policy. As for the former, Tirman is highly critical of Republicans, particularly the Reagan Administration and what he terms “the failed presidency of George W. Bush.” Religion is also the subject of criticism, both politically and from its proselytism. Too often, Tirman believes, it produces too narrow a focus and gives rise to levels of hypocrisy. As such, our “Puritanical Ethic” leads Tirman to note “how much more energy is put into blocking the sight of a breast on television than drawing attention to poverty, environmental destruction, war, or racism.”
Still, Tirman says he is attempting to be “rigorously nonpartisan.” Granted, he does also take on Democrats, as well as the New Age and self-help movements. Yet there is no doubt his views find their source in traditional liberal thought. This may be seen best in his evaluation of Bill Clinton. Tirman refers to “the ‘wise men’ of the Roosevelt and Truman presidencies,” who helped produce the UN, the World Bank and the Marshall Plan. He then condemns Clinton and the Democrats for moving toward the center or even right of center and squandering eight years in the White House. “It is difficult to recall a single phrase, a single initiative, a moment of inspiration in global affairs that was of Clinton’s making,” he writes.
As the executive director of the MIT Center for International Studies,Tirman is particularly qualified to evaluate the impact of America’s policies and actions in foreign relations. As noted, he often touches on America’s past foreign interventions and support for dictatorial regimes. In this area, 100 Ways tend to explore the animosity toward America. Among other things, he notes that the problem isn’t that other countries and people don’t understand us. Instead, Tirman believes we are the ones who tend to lack understanding.
We know so little of the developing world in particular that we could not possibly grasp that hatred could mount to such a point that a 9/11 attack could not only happen, but that it would be treated with outright glee or a nod of “they finally got theirs” in many quarters of the global south. And that hatred, or disgust or disappointment, is based on misunderstandings, necessarily, but on the sometimes accurate perception of an America that cares only about itself, enriches the wealthy at the expense of the world’s poor, and belittles their aspirations, their cultural preferences and religions, and their politics.
This is one of the myriad ways in which Tirman’s 100 Ways encompasses far more than formal policy decisions. Another underlying theme is that many of the ways actually stem from America’s stature itself. Both the good and bad of our culture spreads throughout the world, leading to efforts to imitate America. Tirman also tries to help the reader understand the impact of our own actions both locally and globally. He labels “Consumerism” as one of the ways, saying:
It can be argued that consumption is normal desire and that a successful economy has made it possible. Why the bitching? We don’t need all this stuff, not even close. Consumer desires are fabricated, not natural. The only reason to relentlessly stimulate these consumption habits is to make a buck, not to make people better or happier or safer. Ordinary folks are going into debt and leaving little for their communities or children. . . . . The mountains of waste increase. The imports of cheap stuff are hurting our long-term economic stability as a country and not doing enough for third world development. It’s circular bad behavior, seemingly innocuous, but in the end enormously harmful.
Many will reject 100 Ways out of hand as a liberal diatribe that shows Tirman is among those who hate America. Yet Tirman continually suggests methods of potentially reducing or eliminating the problems he sees. Similarly, the book concludes with a list of 10 broad virtues that imbue America, such as fairness, belief in the rule of law and being a secular state while still being strongly religious.
Instead of considering 100 Ways “an anti-American rant,” Tirman suggests in his introduction that it is something else — “simply truth telling inside a family that needs to hear it.” Tirman may have that right. Ultimately, it may be that it takes books like his for many Americans to learn the myriad, often interrelated, ways that have brought us to the point that we need to ask why hatred for America exists.
America’s aspirations and self-image are not matched by its actual achievements or intentions.
John Tirman, 100 Ways America is Screwing Up the World
|
Disclaimer 
Additionally, some links on this blog go to Amazon.com. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. There is no additional cost to you. Contact me You can e-mail me at prairieprogressive at gmaildotcom.
|
