Powers Seeks Judicial Activism, Claims Journalist's Shield to Dodge Subpoena

Dan Willard goes to court in Lake County tomorrow for making Russ Olson feel bad with some critical anonymous robocalls last year. It is worth noting that the statute under which the state is prosecuting Willard no longer exists, and Olson will no longer be a Senator by the end of next month. But no matter: as our Oglala Sioux neighbors can attest, when you make the South Dakota GOP mad, they will come after you.

In response, Dan Willard is coming after SDGOP mouthpiece-blogger Pat Powers, subpoenaing him to testify at his trial this week. What Willard thinks he can learn from Powers in court is a mystery (one could say the same about what anyone thinks they can learn from Powers on his blog).

Whatever Willard's intent, Powers doesn't want to talk. In an affidavit submitted yesterday, Powers asks the judge to quash the subpoena, issue a protection order, and sanction Willard for being mean.

Perhaps of interest to readers of the South Dakota blogosphere is Powers's appeal to the journalistic shield principle. South Dakota has no shield law for journalists, but Powers angles for some legislation from the Lake County bench. Here are the relevant points from his affidavit [along with some editing we would expect of a journalist]:

7. Your affiant considers himself a journalist who competes with other journalists for news stories primarily focused on South Dakota state government, politics, and news stories. [News stories focused on... news stories.]

...9. Your affiant has cultivated relationships with confidential sources that provide me [sic: shift from third person to first person] information on the basis of their anonymity.

...20. If your affiant is forced to reveal any privileged information gathered as a result of my [sic] reporting and journalistic efforts, it will chill the relationship between myself [sic] and confidential news sources and critically impede the ability to report news.

21. Your affiant believes that Daniel Willard has subpoenaed me [sic] in this case in order to gather information protected by the Reporter's First Amendment Privilege [Pat Powers, affidavit, State of South Dakota vs. Daniel Willard, 2013.08.24].

Keep in mind, this is the same Pat Powers who has made false and defamatory hay of wanting to know the sources for my information. But hey, if the judge wants to extend journalist's shield protection to South Dakota bloggers, I'm game!

Bosworth Needs Reporter to Tell Her Challenger's Name

Pat Powers promotes Annette Bosworth for two reasons:

1. Giving Bosworth any positive attention fosters the notion that she is a serious, viable candidate, further divides the anti-Mike Rounds vote, and boosts the chances that Pat's guy Mike wins the primary.
2. The tips he gets from Bosworth's scheming husband Chad Haber give Pat an excuse to accuse me of going Mission Impossible on an imaginary desk.

But wait: let me take a deep breath of this fresh Black Hills air. Aaaaahhh. Let me gaze out on the inspiring Spearfish landscape, houses giving way to the Canyon and Spearfish Peak. Aaaaahhh... 

All is right with the world! I see the good in my fellow man! Pat isn't a first-class ass. He's simply keeping his promise as an honest Republican journalist (I beat down the snarky urge to cry double oxymoron!) not to take sides in the GOP Senate primary. He's presenting campaign news as is. But because he thrives on the synergy of good blogs, he's secretly teeing up the ball for me to swing away at Bosworth...

[Shakes head, comes to senses...]

The latest Powers Bosworth flogging further reveals Bosworth's cluelessness. Bosworth's "scoop" is taking a picture of Mark Venner at a Siouxland Republican Taliban Women's meeting. But the unmentioned scoop is that in her original tweet, Bosworth said the speaker was Larry Venner, Sr. Intrepid reporter David Montgomery needed to correct her (Pat's next headline: Montgomery Scolds Bosworth, Proves He's Shilling for Weiland).

Why does this matter? Only because Mark Venner has said publicly he may challenge Bosworth and the serious candidates for the GOP Senate nomination. Only because any serious candidate would be briefing Venner out, figuring out who his donors and voters are, developing strategies to steal his supporters. 

But the ever-politically clueless Bosworth doesn't even know the name of her potential rival.

I suppose Team Venner could take that as a sign that their name recognition stinks. Maybe Bosworth was deliberately misnaming him as a snide insult. 

Hang on: let me take an other breath of that Black Hills air... aaaahhh... thoughts cleared.

Nope. There's no deliberation on Team Bosworth. She's just clueless.

Adelstein: Powers Not Fit for Sec. State Flunky

Senator Adelstein gets double attention this morning. On Mount Blogmore, the Rapid City Republican raises some grave concerns about the patronage that has killed Dakota War College and elevated Pat Powers to director of operations for the Secretary of State.

The employment of a patently dishonest person in an office requiring absolute objective fairness is outrageous. One example, that comes to mind—that I copied before he tried erasing his multiple calumnies—is the false charge against my company—not just me personally—of giving “80,000 to Democratic candidates.” This on it's [sic] face was untrue, since he knew, or should have known that this would be illegal. The CORPORATE dollars were given on a BALLOT issue—else they would have been illegal. They were used successfully to defeat the “no exception” abortion on the ballot.

There are a number of other cases of total untruthfulness. This was not just the case with me, but others as well. Ragging on me for years, month after month—even when I was out of office—indicates a public hatred that renders Mr Powers unfit to occupy an office that requires impartial treatment of citizens. Treatment that we have come to regard as only natural in that office with the last three occupants, all whom I knew well both politically and as an active operator of a large complex corporation, many “not for profits”, numerous LLCs and Rapid City Enterprise funds [State Senator Stan Adelstein, blog comment, submitted 2010.12.14, under Kevin Woster's "From War College to SOS, in a cloud of nuked archives," Mount Blogmore, 2010.12.13].

Such is the risk we bloggers run. Mr. Powers has made a number of enemies with his political blogging. Now elevated by political chum Jason Gant to a particularly sensitive public office, Powers himself will now face harsh scrutiny to see if he can go beyond stepping away from the blog mic and develop the reputation for strict adherence to the law and fairness that were the hallmark of outgoing Secretary Chris Nelson and his staff (far too many of whom are clearing the decks to make way for Gant's appointees).

----------------------
Bonus Blog Snark: Mr. Kurtz says the delete-fest continues at Dakota War College, as he says a comment he submitted linking to Adelstein's charges was deleted by DWC committee-blogger Tyler Crissman. Mr. Crissman replies that "Forces beyond our control made it necessary for us to take that story down." Evading responsibility, hiding behind vague, unnamed forces—sounds like dark Powers at work. (I also can't link to Crissman's response directly, since their new new theme omits comment permalinks. Sigh.)

Dakota War College Epitaph?

Pat Powers has deleted all of his old blog content, leaving a fairly big hole in the hyperlinked, multivocal social narrative known as the South Dakota Blogosphere. I may have a broader post-mortem later.

For the moment, though, let us heed the dearly departed's words on Yankton Media Inc's deletion of some online commentary:

Nothing like standing behind your words of hate, eh?

How completely chickensh*t.

—Pat Powers, "Sounds like the Vermillion newspaper hates Republicans. And Kristi Noem. And possibly most South Dakotans," Dakota War College, 2010.11.09

Matt McGovern. Yeah, McGovern. What's It to Ya?

What is Pat Powers's problem with Matt McGovern? Sure, McGovern is working to convince the public that we need to get off our addiction to fossil fuels and invest in clean energy, which of course we know is just a Marxist plot to take away Pat's freedom to rev his engine. Yes, Matt McGovern is the grandson of George McGovern, which in Pat's world can only mean the younger McGovern is just another über-liberal who loves Fidel Castro and wants to turn South Dakota into Lib-a-palooza.

PP is entitled to go ape over McGovern's liberal politics and pedigree. He's entitled to fret over McGovern's actual and potential political activities and launch some flak to give his nervous Republican readers some cover.

But PP's obsession with Matt McGovern's name is an overblown distraction from real issues. More than once, PP has made a fuss of the fact that Matt McGovern's folks hyphenated his last name when he was born. Matt McGovern-Rowen.

After discussing how his work for clean energy is a natural result of his South Dakota family values, McGovern takes time to discuss his family name with Tom Lawrence at the Mitchell Daily Republic. He said he's been known simply as "Matt McGovern" since he was a kid. He said he formally switched the order, putting his dad's name in the middle and his mom's name at the end, for the perfectly logical reasons that "Matt McGovern" sounds better (alliteration is a good thing), is more convenient than the hyphenated form, and helps build his "brand" as a practicing lawyer.

Is a man not entitled to do what he wants with his name? Can a man not change or shorten his name for convenience or even to help business? I don't see Pat Powers going by "Patrick" or "Patrocles" or whatever his full given name may be. Is he hiding something? No: he probably just likes the sound of "Pat" better. One short syllable followed by a cool last name, both alliterating—that's good branding! And that's exactly what Matt McGovern is doing.

There is no deception in Matt McGovern's legal name. He didn't change his last name to Mickelson or Reagan or Christ or some other moniker with high recognition. He chose his maternal grandfather's name, a name that's on his birth certificate. We wouldn't even notice his choice if we didn't live in a patriarchal society that favors father's names.

Ah. Could that be the real source of PP's angst? Is he just upset to see a man favor his mother's name over his father's and thus threaten male headship? PP suggests South Dakota's "collective psyche" might have issues with a man picking his mom's name... but that sounds like projection of PP's psyche.

Russ Janklow gets to boost his attorney's brand with his famous last name. His kids will have an easier time using Grandpa Bill's big name as well, if they so choose, just by the luck of their dad's chromosomal draw and patriarchal tradition. If Shonna Janklow Haugen's kids decide to boost their brand in South Dakota and pick mom's name over dad's, it will be perfectly practical and understandable. Of course, if the judgment of history swings the other way, Shonna's kids might want to stick with Haugen. And that's fine, too.

I have my political disagreements with PP, but I don't try to win those disagreements by pointing out that he has a girl's name or that his initials sound like the second or third thing I do each morning. When Orly Taitz was in the news, I didn't have to make an issue of her name (and oh, the punnery possible!) to pound her nutty beliefs. Such name games are just silly, not to mention intellectually lazy.

Matt McGovern is Matt McGovern. That's his name. Cranky Republicans and fossil-fuel addicts can and will call him all sorts of other names... but none of that has anything to do with the real issues of building a sustainable energy economy.

End South Dakota Investment in Terrorism

Pat Powers is right: this is an issue where we strip off the party labels and talk about doing the right thing.

Dakota War College spotlights a gross injustice in South Dakota's state investments. According to Powers, of the money we use to fund pensions for our state employees, 29% is invested with companies connected to terrorist states. Of 55 companies where we invest our money, 44 deal with Iran, 18 deal with Syria, 16 with Sudan, and 10 with Libya.

If you think President Obama is a menace for suggesting we talk with Iran, how do you feel about Pierre investing your money there?

Powers notes that the honchos of the state investment council and retirement system are pushing legislation to keep the Legislature from interfering with their investment decisions, even if those decisions are socially unsavory. He says State Rep. Dan Lederman is leading a group of legislators who will fight to get our money out of Iran.

Powers makes a clear call to all South Dakotans to get on board with terror-free investment of state dollars. I can't argue with that. Yes, social investing would create some more hassle for state investment officer Matt Clark. But he gets paid big bucks to do hard work like that. He also gets paid big bucks to do the will of the people of South Dakota. I suspect South Dakotans will agree that no marginal growth of our state investment fund is worth funding roadside bombs, political oppression, or genocide.

Keep an eye out for Lederman's bill... and morality in state investments.

Wind Experts Focus on Solutions, See Better Opportunity Without Big Stone II

Badlands Blue does a fine job of dissecting the continuing pro-coal smokescreen at Dakota War College. On a day when the new about wind power is nothing but optimistic, DWC's Pat Powers can only seethe and whine about "enviro-nuts and the Obama administration" killing the coal-fired Big Stone II power plant and thus destroying the chance to build the transmission lines we supposedly need to build wind power in South Dakota.

PP may be addicted to that narrative, but that's not the story any of the experts were telling yesterday. At a meeting of the South Dakota Wind Energy Association in Pierre yesterday, SDWEA board president Jeff Nelson (a Madison guy!) said the group is studying the possible development of 1000 megawatts of wind power in eastern South Dakota to sell to Minnesota. Larry Flowers of the National Wind Technology Center told the meeting that South Dakota could "reasonably" develop 8000 megawatts of wind power, producing an economic impact of $9 billion and 4000 new jobs.

Nine billion dollars, 4000 jobs—holy cow! No wonder the SDWEA isn't moaning about the death of Big Stone II the way the naysaying Republican spinmeisters are. The folks who really want wind are focused on going for the gold, not scoring political points with a false narrative.

Big Stone II promised only 600 megawatts of power. If that was enough to entice developers to build transmission lines, 8000 megawatts of clean wind power ought to have the line-builders salivating. Lisa Daniels, executive director of the Minnesota wind power grop Windustry, says that the demise of Big Stone II actually boosts wind power development:

...She pointed out that the lines were to be built primarily to carry power from the coal-fired plant.

There were questions about how much capacity would actually be available for wind power on the lines, she said. Many also wondered if the “synergy’’ promised in a partnership between a base-load, coal plant and wind farms would be as beneficial as promised, Daniels said. She believes that wind energy will have more opportunity to grow by serving the market that Big Stone II would have supplied [Tom Cheverny, "Big Stone power plant plans go down, but will the lines still go up?" West Central Tribune, 2009.11.12].

The GOP narrative that environmentalists and Obama killed Big Stone II and hurt wind power is not just false; it's useless. Wind energy experts and promoters aren't writhing on the floor agonizing over this supposed setback. They're recognizing the opportunities to build their industry, boost America's energy security, and help the environment.

---------------------
Flowers also noted that wind makes the utilities nervous because wind is a valuable resource they can't control. Why does that not surprise me? Contrary to Steve Sibson's unquestioning faith in the free market, an unfettered market does not always seek the best solutions. Sometimes big businesses manipulate the market to prevent the positive innovations that would put them out of business.

Dakota War College Seeing Double; "Singular" Now Equals "Plural"

E unibus plurum?

Note to Pat Powers's optometrist: dial back the bifocal adjustment. Evidently Dakota War College reserves the right to inflate his reporting to portray a single voice as the entirety of a group:

1. Headline: "Dems advocating no money, and no volunteers for Stephanie." Content: quote from one Democrat, Todd Epp.
   
2. Headline: "The Media's take on Congresswoman Herseth's vote." Content: quote from one retired TV anchor, Steve Hemmingsen, (who does, by the way, write a darn good column on SHS's singing harmony with John Thune).
   

Synecdoche? Sloppy headlining? Psychological projection of DWC monomania? I leave that for you to decide. I just know that I have to remind novice debaters of this regularly: don't tag your evidence with titles that exaggerate your evidence.

Dakota War College: All "War", No "College"...

...and not much defense of "Dakota"...

Some days Pat Powers is just so full of bull, I don't know where to start. Fortunately, others do. Here are today's big three proofs that Dakota War College will say anything, regardless of the truth, just to cheer the right-wing rah-rah section and avoid discussing actual issues:

1. Where Pat Powers manufactures mewling over Democrats having the integrity to question business dealing involving another Democrat and then resorts to the usual mindless ad hominem, David Newquist tears into the real reasons for the controversy surrounding SDSU President David Chicoine's appointment to the Monsanto corporate board:

The professors who work under President Chicoine must abide by a policy in regard to their outside work and consultation. It is:

Professional employees should avoid entering into outside employments, occupations or endeavors for profit of any kind that may reasonably be thought to influence the decisions that they make in their capacity as Board employees, the degree of thought and effort that they devote to their responsibilities as Board employees or, in any other manner, the loyalty and diligence with which they pursue the best interests of the Board and of the students and citizens who rely upon the Board and its employees. [South Dakota Board of Regents Policy 4:35.B]

State Representative Bernie Hunhof and State Senator Frank Kloucek have raised the issue stated in this policy in regard to President Chicoine. The policy is based upon the fact that academic work and corporate interests are often in conflict. The conflict is that academic research and teaching when conducted with full academic freedom and integrity does not always produce results that will serve corporate interests [David Newquist, "Monsanto State University and the Sacrosanct State of Sanford," Northern Valley Beacon, 2009.10.26].

Dr. Newquist asks honest questions here, as do legislators Hunhoff and Kloucek, about the consistent application of Regental policy and the academic integrity of South Dakota's biggest university. Mr. Powers spreads political gossip.

2. Mr. Powers doesn't mind corporations eroding SDSU's academic autonomy, but boy, let a SDSU president and some Democrats meander onto the campus green to call for a little social justice, and he's ready to call out the shock troops (all three who showed up, with signs). Mr. Powers manufactured all manner of sturm und drang over the mostly Democrat-organized health care rally on SDSU's Sylvan Green last week. Badlands Blue dissects Dakota War College's selective memory and backpedaling sophistry... not to mention narcissism, as the moral of the story in DWC's world is that he's a special little blogger for obviously getting under the Dems' skin. Never mind that he wins this glorious victory by getting the story wrong.

3. I'll tackle today's pièce de resistance: Mr. Powers joins purported journalist Bob Mercer in misrepresenting the legal efforts of Dakota Rural Action to challenge TransCanada's Keystone XL pipeline before the PUC next week. Mr. Mercer continues to portray Dakota Rural Action as failing to meet deadlines and, today, refusing to answer official questions. Mr. Powers happily piles on, spinning a fantastic yarn (more like a meager thread) about Dakota Rural Action running away from answering questions under oath. (Let's not forget, it's TransCanada that has questions to answer, as it's TransCanada that wants to dig another giant trench across our state, wreck more farmland and roads, and create another giant environmental hazard that they will make us pay to clean up someday.)

Messrs. Mercer and Powers both ignore the unconstitutional nature of the fishing-expedition questions with which the PUC attempted to sandbag DRA. Funny that neither professional journalist Mercer nor defender of liberty Powers have taken the time to address those questions. Must not fit with the narrative they want to peddle.

Mercer and Powers also ignore the dilatory tactics adopted by TransCanada to make discovery an enormous challenge for Dakota Rural Action's lawyers. Instead, Mr. Powers invests his sizable journalistic talent in throwing out a couple cheap, unsubstantiated ha-ha lines about DRA somehow rejecting science. Funny: on the Keystone XL docket, the only folks who appear to be rejecting science are TransCanada, who say the state's own experts on pipelines, wildlife, soil, and water quality are wrong.

I know, the above two links come from Plains Justice, where DRA's lawyer Paul Blackburn works, but that is an important side of the story. And heaven knows you won't hear it from Mr. Powers.

Mr. Powers ends with this claim about a reality of his own making, saying Dakota Rural Action is "more than happy to show up to complain, but they won’t go under oath. Amazing."

Mr. Powers characterizes Dakota Rural Action as cowardly complainers. Dakota Rural Action has stood up to defend South Dakotans' property rights and ag productivity from the predations of a foreign corporation. Even Steve Sibson could drop his partisanship and find common cause with Frank Kloucek and the South Dakota Democrats in standing for South Dakota property rights and environmental concerns over corporate profits. Mr. Powers and his Republican party have lifted one finger to those landowners... and it wasn't a helpful finger.

Mr. Powers seems to be sinking ever further into the "help me! my right-wing worldview has fallen and it can't get up!" crowd. His language appears calculated to further fuel the fires of faux patriots wallowing in the delusion that they fighting to "Take this country back!" from those darned Commies and greenies and fellas in old suits and whoever else they're characterizing as the enemy today.

And while Mr. Powers gossips and gripes, fellow citizens like Bernie and Frank, Peggy and Amanda, and Paul and Kelly ignore the insults and focus on the issues, trying to make South Dakota and America a little better.

Munsterman Campaign Manager Thumps Knudson for Supporting Tax Increases

Munsterman for Governor campaign manager Pat Powers uses his blog to take more digs at gubernatorial opponent Dave Knudson, this time criticizing Knudson's support for increasing gas taxes and vehicle registration fees to address South Dakota's budget shortfall.

Never mind that Knudson may be the only fiscal realist among a field of GOP fantasists who think $150 million shortfall will go away with wishful thinking coupled with continued quiet acceptance of federal money. What I find interesting is that of all the members of the Long-term Highway Needs and Department of Transportation Agency Review committee who Knudson predicts will vote today in favor of those increases, Powers leaps at the chance to single out his boss's political opponent for criticism.

But Powers assures us his site is his opinion only, not a campaign website.

To his credit, Powers follows up with a list of committee members (after I send him the link in a comment). He pre-emptively blames any vote for an increase on "Liberal Republicans on the panel" and those darn minority Democrats.

Still absent from his criticism: Dakota War College favorite Shantel Krebs, who is the chair of the committee Powers puts on the hotseat. Krebs was on the SDPB news breaks yesterday thumping the drum for tax increases. She said that South Dakota could jack up road taxes and still have the lowest taxes in the nation.

I assume Powers be cheering Krebs’s “former” status as well and calling for her to resign her vice chairship of the state GOP. After all, she must be one of those fake Liberal Republicans.

Powers Has Nothing on Heidepriem, Sticks with Absurd Ad Hominem

Munsterman for Governor campaign manager Pat Powers continues to look too far in the future by concentrating his fire on Democrat Scott Heidepriem instead of Munsterman's three immediate Republican primary challengers. And it's not even good fire. In what promises to be standard GOP procedure in 2010, Powers avoids policy and instead attacks Heidepriem for the endorsements he gets from George McGovern and Jim Abourezk.

Heidepriem's hanging out with liberals! shouts Powers. He's Castro! (Yes, Powers really did make the former association.) Powers tells us nothing about what actual policies Heidepriem will advocate that will drag us into liberal Sodom and Gomorrah; he simply provides a bogus verbal template on which his sheep can transpose their favorite irrational fears.

It's not like Heidepriem is hanging out with some fringe radical like me (although he did chat with me once at a debate tournament—uh oh! Lib-a-palooza II!). Heidepriem's receiving the support of two former United States Senators, fellow South Dakotans elected by us. Heidepriem is receiving the support of McGovern, a decorated World War II veteran and U.N. Ambassador on World Hunger, and Abourezk, an Arab-American civil rights leader. So if there's guilt by association, we can expect Heidepriem to support courage under fire, fight hunger, and defend civil rights—oh! the horrors of the liberal agenda!

Powers also fails to explain why, if McGovern and Abourzek are such nefarious liberals, they're choosing pragmatic Heidepriem over his real wild-eyed liberal challenger, my man Ron Volesky. (And indeed, I'd like to know, George and Jim, what's up with that? Where's the love? Run hard, Ron!)

Oh well. The Republicans know they have an executive and legislative history that have left us with a structural deficit and shaky budget unable to withstand an economic downturn. They know the policy choices they have to make in the 2010 will not be pretty and will not make for cheery campaign slogans. So Pat Powers, like Lucas Lentsch and the state GOP, are turning early to distraction and slime. It's Obama-Ayers all over again... but the South Dakota Republicans can't even find an Ayers.

Up next from the Munsterman campaign (when they remember "primary" means first): attacks on Knudson's association with liberals at Harvard, Daugaard's association with liberal Chicago lawyers, and Knuppe's liberal facial hair.

Madville Times Beating Dakota War College

Right now, PP is thinking, "Small victories for small minds...."

We all know the Madville Times beats Dakota War College on policy and logic (Heidepriem = Castro? Come on, Pat!). My humble blog also just happens to beat the dean of conservative South Dakota blogging on RSS subscriptions. On Google Reader. Just barely:

PP's Google Reader subscribers

My Google Reader subscribers:

Tee hee!

If I ever catch PP on actual site hits, I'll really be insufferable.

Nanny State Done Wrong: Food Safety Act Bad for Small South Dakota Farmers

Unlike Pat Powers, I don't use "nanny state" as a simplistic label to oppose any and all government action. Sometimes government action to protect citizens is perfectly appropriate. Sometimes government action does more harm than good. Principle is all well and good, but you have to look at the outcomes.

But given Dakota War College's frequently expressed loathing for the "nanny state," I find it odd that South Dakota's loudest conservative blog hasn't thrown the nanny state flag at the Food Safety Enhancement Act, H.R. 2749. This bill exemplifies nanny-state legislation, plus it would put small independent producers and farmers markets out of business. Such anti-family-farming legislation should set off all the alarm bells on South Dakota's conservative anti-nanny-state radar... yet DWC hasn't said "boo" in defense of our true small farmers (at least no "boo" that I can recall or Google). DWC is too busy carrying Big Tobacco's water, I guess....

Flying Tomato to the rescue! Even with her liberal/progressive/socialist leanings, this organic gardener can recognize a bad government plan when she sees it. Here's a big chunk of her explanation:

...The bill essentially sets up one-size-fits-all federal oversight for ALL producers, even those selling only direct to consumers in local markets.

The oversight includes FDA standards for growing, sorting, packing, transporting, and holding of raw agricultural products no matter the size of the producer or the locale of the market, registration (with fees) and inspection of premises engaged in processing food no matter their size, and mandatory recordkeeping and electronic filing for all those producing agricultural goods to be eaten by people.

The bill, as it stands, is a big, elaborate, and expensive mound of red tape for producers to wade through, which once again benefits large producers who can afford to pay fees and hire staff while eliminating competition from the little guys (and gals) who don’t have the time or the profit margins to add one more thing to their plates.

The reason for the Food Safety Enhancement Act is obvious–there have been way too many outbreaks of food-borne illness in this country, and they have been vexing to trace with the elaborate supply lines used by large-scale food producers. But the Bill doesn’t discriminate between those who have been responsible for the outbreaks and those who are selling good, clean food to local markets on a small scale.

I reject this level of government oversight, and I’ll bet there are a lot of other small producers who feel the same way. The people who buy food from me know where it comes from, and the USDA and the IRS both know I’m farming, too–I fill out the Census of Ag, and I report my farm earnings on my taxes. I also remit state and local sales tax on what I sell [Rebecca Terk, "Food Safety Bill Will Shutter Farmers Markets," Flying Tomato Farms, 2009.07.01].

Even we greenies can recognize that the best solution for a lot of problems is found at the local level. Buy your food locally, from people you know, grown on land you live on and water you drink every day, and you don't need the FDA or USDA to guarantee that your food is safe. It's only when your food comes from giant, faraway corporations who (a) don't you from Adam or Eve and (b) don't give a good gosh darn about anything but maximum profit that you need some government protection to check that avaricious corporate power.

Flying Tomato is right: it's time to get on the horn to Congress and tell them to axe the Food Safety Enhancement Act.

Dakota War College Nixes Libel in Comment Section

Someone in Madison has an axe to grind: Dakota War College chief Pat Powers had to delete some malicious and defamatory rumor-mongering from his comment section. He even went so far as to shut off the comments for that particular post.

Powers reports that the libel came from IP 216.16.104.240, an iw.net Prairie Wave/Knology subscriber address.

IP address? What's that? As Powers explains, "you're never as anonymous as you think on the Internet":

You know, that same address that your Internet Service provider will have full and complete records of who has that internet address at that instant in time if someone ever got mad enough to file a lawsuit for libel.

In case you're wondering, I get my Internet from Sioux Valley.

As an interesting side note, 216.16.104.240 is also the IP of the first person who commented when I announced my run for the Madison school board last year... and that first comment broght up my firing from MHS in 2001 and suggested I just had an ax to grind.

My site meter puts that IP in Madison. It would thus appear that one of our neighbors loves to stir the pot.

Funny: people say I spend too much time on negative muckraking. I do indeed offer plenty of criticism. The difference is, when I criticize folks in Madison or South Dakota or anywhere else, I put my name to it, and I back it up with facts and documents.

Babes and Pigs for Munsterman? Campaign Manager Considers...

A Dakota War College commenter asks Pat Powers if the Munsterman for Governor campaign, which Pat Powers manages, will add babes to the campaign blog. In a twist on the daughter test for sexism, I wonder if Powers will get Munsterman's daughters and wife to pose in bikinis on Munsterman campaign literature. After all, there's nothing wrong with finding the opposite sex attractive... and if it drives traffic to the campaign website, it's all good... right?

2010 could bring one hot campaign....

GOP Big Tent Folding in South Dakota, Too

Mr. Powers gleefully misportrays speculation from Roll Call on the chances for the GOP to take Stephanie Herseth Sandlin's House seat if she chooses to run for governor. No one in the article "calls her seat for the GOP" as PP puts it. The only person saying anything close to that is a yakkity-yak from the National Republican Congressional Committee, the GOP propaganda wing PP has become all-too-fond of quoting extensively.

PP's twisting of reality to suit his wishes is indicative of the wound-licking woe-is-us whining of a struggling party. But better proof that the GOP doesn't have a lock on anything in 2010 is the immediately preceding PP post. The Brookings County Republican party appears to be banishing Brookings's best blogger from its hallowed hierarchical halls:

It seems as if the local Republican organization has finally had enough of me and my little red wagon as well.

I was informed that if I show up to meetings, a couple of certain others won’t because they’re still pissy that I had the gall to run for office and fall short this past year. (And, I doubt my blogging helps my situation much.) Imagine the uproar if I’d won!

So, it looks like I’m not invited to show up to the local executive board meetings anymore.

This has got to be worth a long-winded and self-righteous post at some point [Pat Powers, "I'm Not Sure If I Was Excommunicated This Afternoon, or Simply Shunned," Dakota War College, 2009.05.05].

Pat, your petty party (pity party?) bosses deserve all the wind and right you care to whump 'em with. Sounds like the Brookings Republicans are acting like national chair Michael Steele and running a dinner party, not a political party. Exclude people who have the gall to disagree with you. Shut out a vocal advocate just because he also manages to be a sensible (well, some of the time) critic. Doesn't sound like the big tent where all those independent voters will feel at home.

So Pat, feel like starting that third party? You have a better chance of winning than if you keep hanging with those fratricidal Republicans.

House Bill 1094: Don't Trust Realtors?

So if I'm reading House Bill 1094 correctly, is Senator Russell Olson (R-8) saying his pal Pat Powers needs to submit to a criminal background check?

That appears to be the gist of HB 1094, legislation promoted by more than a few Republicans (Hunt, Krebs, Tom Hansen, Knudson...) to increase regulation of the real estate industry. Fingerprinting, state and federal background checks... wow, PP isn't getting much satisfaction from his Republican friends this week.

Now real estate agents and the other folks listed in HB 1094 do hold some degree of public trust, so perhaps we have an interest in investigating their backgrounds. But I wonder the sponsors of HB 1094 will also support an amendment extending criminal background checks to other important public figures, like, oh, say, state legislators?

But not to worry: even if Senator Olson wants PP to go through more red tape to carry out his chosen profession, he supports letting Pat buy a handgun without any delay.

HB 1004 on Mountain Lions: Shoot 'Em and Stuff 'Em!

The Game Fish and Parks Agency Review Committee gets the early bird prize: they have filed the first five House bills for the 2009 session of the South Dakota Legislature. One measure sure to warm the cockles of PP's anti-feline heart: HB 1004, a measure to provide for the killing and dispostion of mountain lions. HB 1004 says if a mountain lion threatens you, any other person, or your livestock or pets, you can shoot it, no questions asked. You can also then keep the dead cat, stuff and mount it over your fireplace. No selling, trading, or bartering lion parts, though!

Susan Pisani, Initiated Measure 10 Campaigner, Pretends She's the Godfather

What is it this week about right-wing nutbars from Southern California spouting off in e-mails to South Dakota bloggers?

I've been letting Pat Powers carry the water on Initiated Measure 10 (the Madville Times 2008 Voters Guide on all the issues and candidates is coming later this month). He's been doing a fine job covering the numerous problems with this proposed law since summer. There are some good aspects to the law, so I'm not quite ready to cast a final decision...

...but the feeble intimidation tactics of Susan Pisani, travel agent, Orange County transplant to Spearfish, and now West River IM10 campaign coordinator, are making me think I'll shed no tears if IM10 disappears in November. Powers posts this afternoon an e-mail he received from Pisani. In response to a post in which he questioned her loyalty to the state GOP, Pisani wrote the following:

I have all the local and state candidates’ signs on my front lawn as well as their bumper stickers on my car. On another note, why don’t you have a Dykstra or Lien bumper sticker next to your McCain stickers? And, why don’t you have any yard signs? I guess that is a personal choice and not how the State and Local Republican parties encourage members to participate. So we all have freedom of choice, which is why we all fight the fight. By the way, cute Corgi.

As Powers notes, Pisani is not a next-door neighbor with easy access to this information about Powers's yard, vehicle, and dog. It's not exactly the sort of public record one can Google. Powers draws the conclusion that Pisani must have sources paying particularly close attention to his house, and that Pisani's text is intended to intimidate.

More importantly, Powers makes this observation about the connection between such campaign tactics and the intent of the law those campaigners wish to pass:

The thing is, we should not be shocked. Initiated Measure 10 is all about intimidation. If passed, it will use threats of legal action to prevent the expression of free speech. If the AG won't prosecute, it uses threats of bypassing him in the process [Pat Powers, "Yes on 10 Campaign Uses Stalker Tactics to Try to Intimidate Opponent!" South Dakota War College, 2009.10.01].

Powers is referring to Section 8 of IM10: read it for yourself, see what you think.

Oh well. At best, Pisani is just playing tough, fantasizing she's a big-city mafiosa, come to show us small-towners who they do things downtown. But her words also demonstrate a lack of judgment that reflects poorly on the ballot measure she's trying to support.

p.s.: Pisani also thinks that's she's "following in Sarah Palin's footsteps." Yeah, have fun walking toward that cliff, Susan. (And memo to Susan: "blazed the trail" with that online government checkbook idea? Palin got the idea from Obama.)