A Look Ahead To 2019

Few of the comments that follow count as predictions; rather, they are events that bear watching.

On the national level, I have a few things I am keeping an eye on.

Will Lindsey Graham, the man who has yet to find a war he didn't love, devolve into a a 21st Century version of Joseph McCarthy? It seems obvious that the late John McCain had a far greater moderating influence on Graham's worst instincts than was previously known. Trump seems to have the superpower of making people debase themselves, so Graham, who seems to vying for the role of Trump's chief apologist,  may well sink to new depths

How will House Democrats play the game of chicken that Donald Trump has set up? It's clear that Trump is ginning up his base into a berserker rage to fight an impeachment battle. It's unclear if the Democrats have a coherent strategy to both pass legislation and deal with an angry old man full of sound and fury and capable of little to nothing positive.

Will the Democrats move beyond Warren, Sanders, or Biden and avoid the shining star of the moment like O'Rourke? In any election for national office, I will refuse to vote for anyone older than I am. The digital age demands someone who isn't old enough to remember sticking a quarter in a machine to play Pong. Likewise, I would prefer a candidate who has more of a record than raising a crap ton of money and losing to Ted Cruz.

Finally, the nation hasn't faced a major crisis since 2008, and we are likely overdue. Are there any adults in Washington capable of dealing with one when it occurs?

At the state level, there are are also three things.

Will Kristi Noem govern as a Trumpist? Governor Daugaard, for all his faults, was able to keep the worst elements of the Republican populist right fringe at bay. Noem seems much more willing to give that faction free rein.

The second question is related: what will Noem do? Her political raison d'être has been ending the estate tax. South Dakota Republicans take perverse pride in the state's low taxes and Noem's campaign promises about transparency and ethics were both vague and vapid, so it's unclear if she wants to accomplish anything other than be elected the state's first woman governor.

Finally, can the state's Democrats finally realize that Will Rogers wasn't praising them when he said, "I am not a member of any organized party — I am a Democrat"? I'll stipulate that demographics, including the urban/rural divide are against them, so they will not be the majority party, but adding a few seats shouldn't be too much to ask. Also, I fear they will continue the practice of eating their young and force some of the rising stars into statewide races prematurely.

Finally, I see that I averaged 111 words per comment in 2018 on the Dakota Free Press. I have to work to become more concise. That too will have to be a work in progress.

A Post Wherein I Ask Random Questions

This first question needs a bit of a set-up

Kevin Woster profiles Steve Hildebrand's and Rev. Steve Hickey's efforts to take on South Dakota's usurers. These paragraphs illustrate the importance the issue has for Hildebrand:

“In my 30 years of political activity I’ve never done anything this important before,” he said.

But wait, that job as an upper-level campaign official for Barack Obama in 2008 was kind of important, wasn’t it?

“I love the president and I think he’s phenomenal,” Hildebrand says. “But in those candidate campaigns you end up putting your faith in the candidate to do it. In this instance, I’m doing it. ”

Given that Hickey plans to leave South Dakota for Scotland and that President Obama's popularity with South Dakota's dominant Republican party is likely near -20%, an obvious question arises: How many mass mailing and other media soundbites will include the phrase "the same people who brought you the socialist Muslim Obama now bring you more assaults on free enterprise"?

Second, Cory takes umbrage at the idea that incumbent Republican U.S. Senator John Thune is unbeatable. While I concur that Democrats cannot give Thune a second free pass, I am still left with a simple question: Do the Democrats have a viable candidate?

On the national level, this Ezra Klein tweet prompts a simple question: Is Klein right?

I just don't believe Donald Trump is 100% serious. I honestly think he's the greatest performance artist of our age.

— Ezra Klein (@ezraklein) July 13, 2015

Finally, Pat Powers posts that "Daugaard says he doesn’t think there is a consensus on any approach to education funding. . ." Does this mean that South Dakota's Republican leaders' repeated and likely future decisions to do nothing about education funding do not represent a consensus?

I Seriously Want An Answer To These Questions

The Second Amendment absolutists are out in full force at Dakota War College. I have asked these questions in other forums but never got a direct answer so I hope some Second Amendment absolutists will give me an answer here.

1. Why are so many gun rights advocates willing to go after Hollywood and the manufacturers of violent video games? Is the Second Amendment absolute but the First Amendment is not?

2. I find stands against government tyranny commendable. Where were all of the gun groups when the Patriot Act was passed? That act has done more to endanger freedom than any gun law.

3. In the same vein, where is the outcry over warrentless wiretaps of cell phone conversations? The 4th Amendment still requires a warrant doesn't it?

4. I have heard some Libertarians scream about the fact that we are engaged in two armed conflicts without a formal Declaration of War, but where's the broader conservative outrage? In fact, where's the outrage over the standing army that the Founders expressly wanted to avoid?

5. Why do gun rights folks think people like me unpatriotic when we ask questions about the Patriot Act, warrantlesswiretaps, undeclared wars, or standing armies but want to avoid leaving a world where everyone can conceal carry?

Plains Pops: Asking Some Random Questions About Recent South Dakota Blog Posts

I have not been able to keep up on posting or reading posts, so these may not be timely, but no one has asked or answered any of the questions.

MC at the Dakota War College posted the following paragraphs about proposed federal regulations banning all cell phone use for truck drivers.

A professional knows their limits. A doctor, knows when a problem is beyond them and asks for help. A quarterback knows when to pass, hand-off, or sit out the game. A professional driver knows when stop and take a break, when they can turn on the radio listen to some noise, and when to turn it off and pay attention to the traffic around them. . . .

As a former professional truck driver I can speak with some authority on this. I have seen some people do some things while driving, that are totaly insane; and make using a cell phone seem minor.  There are some drivers, of trucks, cars, motorcycles, and even bicycles, that should not be on the road. The operators can be too distracted to operate that equipment safely.

I don't have any knowledge about long haul trucking, and I agree with most of the above quotation.  My question is a little off topic.  Why I'm supposed trust professional drivers, accountants, business people, lawyers, or doctors when they announce they have expertise in their area, but no one wants consults or trusts a teacher when he or she claims to know something about education?  I would guess  that there are no more bad teachers per capita than there are bad lawyers or doctors or truck drivers.

Denise Ross posts about possible career trajectories of John Thune and Brendan Johnson, son of Senator Tim Johnson.  Bob Mercer muses about the possibility that Thune will suffer the same fate as Senators McGovern, Pressler, and Daschle who lost re-election bids after they moved into Senate leadership roles.  Both posts ignore a question I've had for a long time: what has Thune ever done to earn to a leadership spot?

The Madville Times discusses a potential South Dakota impact to the discovery that neutrinos move faster than the speed of light.  Meanwhile, A Progressive on the Prairie links to this Diatribe Media post with the following quotations:

Because we can. As Bucky Fuller pointed out, we have the technology and capability to feed, clothe, house and provide for every human being on the planet our most basic needs. But instead of doing so, we buy into a belief of scarcity, of hoarding, of fear of losing what little we have. . . .

To quote the words of one of the 20th century’s greatest philosophers, Bill Hicks:

“…it doesn’t matter, because it’s just a ride. And we can change it any time we want. It’s only a choice. No effort, no work, no job, no savings of money. Just a simple choice, right now, between fear and love. The eyes of fear want you to put bigger locks on your doors, buy guns, close yourself off. The eyes of love instead see all of us as one.

Here’s what we can do to change the world, right now, to a better ride. Take all that money we spend on weapons and defenses each year and instead spend it feeding and clothing and educating the poor of the world, which it would pay for many times over, not one human being excluded, and we could explore space, together, both inner and outer, forever, in peace.” (italics in original)

I hope we really do feed the world and go into space, but don't I have enough policy debate counterplans to worry about this season without adding ban the military to the list?  (Yes, high school debate does dominate debate coaches' every waking moment.)

Although this question doesn't fit the "South Dakota" part of this post's title, I am left wondering the following:  Is there any good news coming?  Congress is deadlocked over billions when the problem is trillions, and Greece, Italy, and the whole of Europe seem to be pushing the world into another financial crisis.

Political Question Of The Day

From the New York Times Caucus Blog:

For the next several months, the Republican contest may shape up as a fundamental question for Republican voters as they seek a candidate to challenge Mr. Obama for the right to occupy the Oval Office:

Do they want a Texas Republican or a Massachusetts one?

At least this question will get answered.  Mine never do.

Why Ask Only One Kind of Question?

Rod Dreher, a blogging Crunchy Conservative, writes about Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think by Elaine Howard Ecklund.  Dreher mines one quotation that really caught my eye; many scientists apparently believe " [i]f the answer to a question [can] not be found through science, then why ask it at all?"

That attitude scares me. First, it carries the science fiction attitude illustrated by The Six Million Dollar Man to its conclusion.  The television program's intro begins, "We have the technology; we can rebuild him . . . .to be better than he was before, bigger, stronger, faster. . ."  That opening conveniently ignores the fact that failed technology caused the damage that necessitated turning Steve Austin into a cyborg.  Second, it assumes that being "better" is limited to physical attributes not intellectual or spiritual characteristics.

Likewise, believing that one shouldn't seek answers to questions that science can't answer ignores the fact that questions are necessary for all human endeavors.  Asking why Hamlet acts the way he does or asking what one can learn from that answer has little scientific relevance, but that doesn't mean one shouldn't ask those questions.  To the best of my knowledge, there's no scientific way to create art, but that doesn't make art whether concrete or abstract unworthy of study.  It also doesn't obviate the need to question the processes that allow one to create art.  Even at the scientific level, one may accept that the universe operates on mathematical principles but that acceptance shouldn't stop one from asking why the numbers work.

Arguing that questions that can't answer shouldn't be pursued seems to indicate a lack of curiosity, the same curiosity that enabled many of the world's greatest scientific discoveries.  In short it's a self defeating attitude.

Unfortunately, its a view that students express with alarming regularity.  If they're not curious now, there's little hope that they'll develop it in the future.  Many economists predict that the current generation of high school students will be the first American generation to be less well off then their parents.  The best way to avoid that fate seems to be to ask questions both scientific and philosophical.  If scientists don't want to ask those questions, it's doubtful these students will be willing to.