SOUTH DAKOTA STRAIGHT TALK

This week Israel celebrates her 60th birthday as a modern Nation.

Little of her modern history has she been at real peace. There have been the Wars, the Infitadas (radical Islamic rebellion), and the ongoing yet never successful efforts to find peace. Today we find another American President in the Middle East searching for an elusive reconciliation.

The core of the problem is that Israel’s enemies Do Not Want Peace. They refuse to acknowledge that Israel has a right to exist. Occasionally enemies mouth the words but there is never any action to back up their empty declarations. Without REAL acknowledgement (backed by deeds) of Israel’s right to exist, there will never be any lasting peace.

WaPo syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer articulates this thought perfectly.

The Miracle, at 60

By Charles Krauthammer

The Washington Post

May 16, 2008

Before sending Lewis and Clark west, Thomas Jefferson dispatched Meriwether Lewis to Philadelphia to see Benjamin Rush. The eminent doctor prepared a series of scientific questions for the expedition to answer. Among them, writes Stephen Ambrose: "What Affinity between their [the Indians'] religious Ceremonies & those of the Jews?" Jefferson and Lewis, like many of their day and ours, were fascinated by the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel and thought they might be out there on the Great Plains.

They weren't. They aren't anywhere. Their disappearance into the mists of history since their exile from Israel in 722 B.C. is no mystery. It is the norm, the rule for every ancient people defeated, destroyed, scattered and exiled.

With one exception, a miraculous story of redemption and return, after not a century or two, but 2,000 years. Remarkably, that miracle occurred in our time. This week marks its 60th anniversary: the return and restoration of the remaining two tribes of Israel -- Judah and Benjamin, later known as the Jews -- to their ancient homeland.

Besides restoring Jewish sovereignty, the establishment of the State of Israel embodied many subsidiary miracles, from the creation of the first Jewish army since Roman times to the only recorded instance of the resurrection of a dead language -- Hebrew, now the daily tongue of a vibrant nation of 7 million. As historian Barbara Tuchman once wrote, Israel is "the only nation in the world that is governing itself in the same territory, under the same name, and with the same religion and same language as it did 3,000 years ago."

During its early years, Israel was often spoken of in such romantic terms. Today, such talk is considered naive, anachronistic, even insensitive, nothing more than Zionist myth designed to hide the true story, i.e., the Palestinian narrative of dispossession.

Not so. Palestinian suffering is, of course, real and heart-wrenching, but what the Arab narrative deliberately distorts is the cause of its own tragedy: the folly of its own fanatical leadership -- from Haj Amin al-Husseini, the grand mufti of Jerusalem (Nazi collaborator, who spent World War II in Berlin), to Egypt's Gamal Abdel Nasser to Yasser Arafat to Hamas of today -- that repeatedly chose war rather than compromise and conciliation.

Palestinian dispossession is a direct result of the Arab rejection, then and now, of a Jewish state of any size on any part of the vast lands the Arabs claim as their exclusive patrimony. That was the cause of the war 60 years ago that, in turn, caused the refugee problem. And it remains the cause of war today.

Six months before Israel's birth, the United Nations had decided by a two-thirds majority that the only just solution to the British departure from Palestine would be the establishment of a Jewish state and an Arab state side by side. The undeniable fact remains: The Jews accepted that compromise; the Arabs rejected it.

With a vengeance. On the day the British pulled down their flag, Israel was invaded by Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Transjordan and Iraq -- 650,000 Jews against 40 million Arabs.

Israel prevailed, another miracle. But at a very high cost -- not just to the Palestinians displaced as a result of a war designed to extinguish Israel at birth, but also to the Israelis, whose war losses were staggering: 6,373 dead. One percent of the population. In American terms, it would take 35 Vietnam memorials to encompass such a monumental loss of life.

You rarely hear about Israel's terrible suffering in that 1948-49 war. You hear only the Palestinian side. Today, in the same vein, you hear that Israeli settlements and checkpoints and occupation are the continuing root causes of terrorism and instability in the region.

But in 1948, there were no "occupied territories." Nor in 1967 when Egypt, Syria and Jordan joined together in a second war of annihilation against Israel.

Look at Gaza today. No Israeli occupation, no settlements, not a single Jew left. The Palestinian response? Unremitting rocket fire killing and maiming Israeli civilians. The declared casus belli of the Palestinian government in Gaza behind these rockets? The very existence of a Jewish state.

One constantly hears about the disabling complexity of the Arab-Israeli dispute. Complex it is, but the root cause is not. Israel's crime is not its policies but its insistence on living. On the day the Arabs -- and the Palestinians in particular -- make a collective decision to accept the Jewish state, there will be peace, as Israel proved with its treaties with Egypt and Jordan. Until that day, there will be nothing but war. And every "peace process," however cynical or well meaning, will come to nothing.

Straight Talk Commentary – Karl Rove has an interesting piece in “Newsweek”. Whatever else you think about Karl Rove, he is a brilliant political tactician.

Barack Obama appears to have the Democrat nomination almost in hand. It has been a Yogi Berra election (it’s not over till it’s over) and Hillary Clinton not only is going to the mat but is running till they literally throw her out of the ring.

It baffles me that those super delegates (the political professionals) appear ready to anoint Obama. As Rove and others have stated, Obama essentially has reestablished the McGovern coalition (African Americans, Students, and Limousine Liberals.) Hillary Clinton’s coalition is made up of Women of all ages, Blue Collar Workers, and White Voters. Clinton also captured the all important Catholic Democrat vote.

Additionally Hillary defeated Obama in the large states – Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, California, and Texas. She also won in Florida and Michigan though under a cloud. She also appears to be a stronger candidate than Obama against McCain in the important contested Sates – particularly Florida and Ohio.

Political professionals know (as recent polls bear out) she is the better candidate (at this point) against Senator John McCain. I marvel that the Democrats seem so committed to this process of apportioning the votes in these primary elections. Perhaps it is their idea of democracy and equality that they are so wedded to quotas. It is not serving them well.

Hillary Clinton’s principal challenge is to persuade Super Delegates to veto the pledged delegates. The question is will blind loyalty be won over by political pragmatism?

A word about Obama – Barack Obama gives a great speech. People are desperate for Change and Obama is physically attractive. We know he has been in the Senate three years (for two years running for President) and has no legislative accomplishment. We know in the Senate he voted with fellow Democrats in excess of 90% of the time. A look at his Senate website reveals his most touted accomplishment is increased funding for the Fermi Laboratory in Illinois. We know little of his core beliefs and specifically what he would do (change) to make Washington Work, though he talks about it a lot.

We have learned about his views of Americans that are bitter and cling to God and guns. We have learned about his relationship with his Minister and his Church and how he deals with them when the political spotlight is turned on them.

Barack Obama is on the brink of receiving the Democrat Party nomination yet he remains un vetted and many Americans are unsure what he believes and who he is.

Dear Senator Obama

Newsweek

By: Karl Rove

May 5, 2008

Four months ago, you took the political world by storm in Iowa. The media were agog. They called your words "gorgeous," your victory "a message to the world." You "made history" and Americans could "look at ourselves with pride" in "a moment to marvel."

Times change. The six weeks leading into Pennsylvania were difficult. You excelled at raising money and gaining endorsements, but got weaker as big problems emerged. Before you can fix them, you must understand them. In Pennsylvania, you won only 30 percent among Catholics and 29 percent among white working-class voters. Defections like this elect Republicans.

Even liberal commentators who adore you warn you can't win with a McGovern coalition of college students and white-wine sippers from the party's left wing. Saying small-town voters cling to guns, faith and xenophobia because of economic bitterness hurt you; it reinforced the growing sense you don't share Middle America's values. So did asking about the price of arugula in Iowa, dismissing the "true" patriotism of people who wear a flag lapel pin, being "friendly" (as your chief strategist, David Axelrod, put it) with a violent, unrepentant '60s radical and having a close relationship with an angry pastor who expressed anti-American sentiments.

You argue the son of a single working mom can't be an elitist. But it's not where you start in life; it's where you end up. After a prestigious prep school, Columbia and Harvard, you've ended up with the values of Cambridge, San Francisco and Hyde Park. So you're doing badly in Scranton, Youngstown and Erie, where ordinary Americans live.

HERE ARE SIX SUGGESTIONS FOR WHAT TO DO.

1. Your stump speech is sounding old and out of touch. You made a mistake by not giving the bored press (and voters) something new last Tuesday when you lost Pennsylvania. Come up with something fresh that's focused on the general election. Recapture the optimistic tone of your start and discard the weary, prickly and distracted tone you've taken on.

2. When you get into trouble, pick one, simple explanation. And stay with it. Take the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. You said you weren't sitting in church when he said those ugly things. Two days later, you excused him, saying his comments didn't give "a well-rounded portrait" of him. Two days after that, you condemned his statements as "not only wrong but divisive" but still couldn't "disavow him" any more than you could your grandmother. Ten days later, you implied if Wright hadn't retired, you might have left his church. It would have been better to say from the start that Wright's words were wrong and offensive and you should have spoken out earlier. The applause would have been deafening.

3. Your lack of achievements undercuts your core themes. It's powerful when you say America is not "Red States or Blue States but the United States." The problem is, you don't have a long Senate record of working across party lines. So build one. In the coming months, say that you'll appoint Republicans to your cabinet and get a couple to say they'd serve. Highlight initiatives Republicans can agree on. Most importantly, push for a bipartisan issue now before Congress.

4. You speak of the "fierce urgency of now" that calls leaders to confront important challenges. Sounds good, but people are asking, what urgent issues have drawn your enormous talents? It's counterintuitive, but spend less time campaigning and more time working the Senate. Pick a big issue and fight hard for it. Win or lose, you'll give your argument substance.

5. Stop the attacks. They undermine your claim to a post-partisan new politics. You soared when you seemed above politics, lost altitude when you did what you criticize. Attacks are momentarily satisfying but ultimately corrode your appeal.

6. To answer growing questions about your inexperience, people need to know, in concrete and credible ways, what they can expect from you as president. That's missing now. And don't think those position papers written by academics and posted on the Web do the job. They have a check-the-box quality to them. Americans want to see your passion and commitment to things they care about, in ways that give them confidence you're up to the job. They can smell when something is poll-tested and focus-grouped, not from the heart. Also, you can't bluff anymore like you did on "Meet the Press" in October 2006. (You weren't officially running for president yet, but it's still telling.) Tim Russert pointed to the passage in "The Audacity of Hope" that says "no small number of government programs don't work as advertised," and he asked for an example. You cited Medicaid and Medicare, saying: "I think that there's no doubt that we could squeeze more efficiencies out of those systems there. Simple example, we don't use electronic billing for Medicare and Medicaid providers. Now there's no other business on earth that still has people filling out paper forms to get reimbursed, especially for a system that large. We could drastically reduce the costs of those systems."

The only problem is, the Bush administration, building on the good work of the Clinton administration, already put in place in 2003 a regulation that requires electronic billing of Medicaid and Medicare. Since then, all but a handful have been electronic. You won't get a pass on bluffing anymore. You'll have to do both your homework and occasionally something that's difficult for you (and most other politicians): admit you don't know.

You have talent, intelligence and tapped into something powerful early in your campaign. But running for president is unlike anything you've ever done. You're making mistakes and making people worry that you're an elitist. So while you'll almost certainly win the nomination, Democrats are nervous about the fall. You've given them reasons to be.

If you enjoy political theatre, you do not want to miss watching last Monday’s City Council Informational when the Council discussed the recent snafu regarding the project estimates and funding of the Windows at the Washington Pavilion.

You can watch it at: http://siouxfalls.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view_id=2 and then clicking on “video” to the right of Informational City Council Meetings – April 28, 2008.

There is something in this political melodrama for everyone without regard to your position of feelings about the snafu or the merits of the Windows Project. The mistake on the windows basically was an underestimate on the project’s cost of about $300,000 because the cost of the installation labor was not included in the project estimate. When the project was approved by the City Council last year it was one that received some public attention and though approved the Council was divided on.

At the Informational last Monday, All the Council members that were present spoke up and some more than once. (Vernon Brown was absent out of town on business, Gerald Beninga was absent but I do not know the reason, and Mayor Munson was not in attendance.)

Kicking off the show was Sandra Pay the Chairwoman of the Washington Pavilion Board of Trustees. Mrs. Pay stated that we are sorry to be here and sorry for the “miscalculation” on the estimate. She said it was a careless oversight and that the Pavilion’s management had taken steps to provide additional oversight of future work. Mrs. Pay further stated that they were truly sorry for this any embarrassment that it has caused. She also pointed out that the “Argus Leader” was inaccurate when they editorialized that the money for the project had been spent.

While Mrs. Pay characterized the mistake as the Pavilions, she also I thought very carefully and craftily attempted to leave the distinct impression that while it was the City’s building and ultimately their responsibility for upkeep, in no way should this “careless oversight” impact the fact that the Pavilion’s management should not be left in full control of management of the Pavilion’s operations. Further the impression was left (at least with me) that the Window’s Project should move forward this year even though it would not be entirely completed. Finally while it was unsaid, I thought it was hanging in the air that in no way should this mistake in any way cause the City to further question the Pavilion management’s ability or the Cities ongoing financial commitment to subsidize the Pavilion’s operation. The current annual subsidy amounts to over $1 million,

Mrs. Pay was followed by John Loos, Director of Operations for the Washington Pavilion. Loos accepted responsibility for the error and basically explained it away saying that it was not a big deal, was his first major mistake in 9 years on the job, that the money had not been spent, that a Representative of the City Planning Office had been present at a February meeting when the mistake was reported, and then he reiterated that he was sorry.

What followed next were questions and answers from the Council Members. The questions fell into several broad categories where Members expressed their opinion and in some cases frustration. The exchange between Kermit Staggers and Pat Costello was particularly pointed.

The outspoken supporters – These included Council Chairwoman De Knudson and Councilman Bob Litz. Litz felt that a mistake was made, the Council needed to put it behind them and move on.

The question was raised why does not the Mayor’s Administration inform the Council about significant events and problems. This gets back to control and the continuing power tension between the Council and the City Administration. The three councilmen that were generally in this Camp, included Bob Jamison, Kevin Kavanaugh, and Kermit Staggers. Jamison and Kavanaugh are both retiring in two weeks and in some ways were venting their long standing frustration of the Councils not being informed and lack of information. (In bureaucracies information is power.)

Kermit Staggers used this controversy as an opportunity to again challenge the Windows Project. Kermit also suggested that the lack of communication might have been an attempt to silence this fiscal error before the recent election. He was thus creating doubt I thought, that the Theresa Stehly - Vernon Brown election might had turned out differently had the Pavilion snafu been public. Given Brown’s popularity, the margin of Brown’s victory, and the fact that Brown had absolutely nothing to do with the mistake and the lack of communication – Stagger’s suggestion is off base.

Finally Staggers suggested that the Project should be delayed to discipline City bureaucrats and the beneficiaries of City money that mistakes have consequences (another opportunity to reverse the Window’s project.) It was at this point that Pat Costello suggested it would not be the Pavilion that would be punished but Citizens and Taxpayers.

Communications Problem, Bob Jamison specifically spoke to the breakdown in communication between the Administration and the Council. Kevin Kavanaugh seemed frustrated with not knowing about the mistake for several months and finally asked why the Council did not know and that he demanded an answer. Chair Knudson whose only remark was that she looked forward to the day that the Pavilion had its windows, said that an answer would be gotten from the Mayor. At this point the obvious unasked question was where was the Mayor?

This was fine theatre where passion, feelings and frustrations surfaced. The video is worth watching.

As a follow up on who knew what when KELO news reports that the mistake was known by the Planning Department. Mike Cooper, City Planning Director, notes that they probably should have told the Mayor but in their daily routine back and forth on so many projects did not.

Quick Straight Talk Commentary – Jamison made his point about communication without any hint of rancor and I thought with determined sincerity but Cool Hand Luke was Pat Costello who was reasoned an unemotional.

Disclosure – I previously posted on the Windows Project. This is a worthwhile project but because of recent changes in the economic landscape and other needs that have come to the forefront, the Windows should be put on hold.

Following the discussion on the Windows is an interesting report and update by the Lewis and Clark Water System on the current state of the Project. It too is worth watching but much drier stuff than the political theatre of the Windows Project. Quick synopsis – The L & C Project has been reconfigured to move forward by rearranging priorities and funding thus bridging timelines and putting the necessary federal dollars in as a last dollars received scenario. For the short term Sioux Falls will receive its short term water needs in the next 4 to 5 years.

Final Comment – There is more Theatre to come. On the May 5th City Council agenda are the first reading of ordinances to raise the City Sales Tax to a full 2% and to remove the suggest employment ratios for Police and Firefighters respectfully. I hope to post on this shortly.

In commenting on the post Carter Go Home a reader sent me the an email that included a missive from the rather liberal, Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz.

Ex-President For Sale

By Alan M. Dershowitz

Jimmy Carter is making more money selling integrity than peanuts. I have known Jimmy Carter for more than 30 years. I first met him in the spring of 1976 when, as a relatively unknown candidate for president,he sent me a handwritten letter asking for my help in his campaign on issues of crime and justice.

I had just published an article in The New York Times Magazine on sentencing reform, and he expressed interest in my ideas and asked me to come up with additional ones for his campaign.

Shortly thereafter, my former student Stuart Eisenstadt, brought Carter to Harvard to meet with some faculty members, me among them. I immediately liked Jimmy Carter and saw him as a man of integrity and principle. I signed on to his campaign and worked very hard for his election.

When Newsweek magazine asked his campaign for the names of people on whom Carter relied for advice, my name was among those given out. I continued to work for Carter over the years, most recently I met him in Jerusalem a year ago, and we briefly discussed the Mid- East.

Though I disagreed with some of his points, I continued to believe that he was making them out of a deep commitment to principle and to human rights.

Recent disclosures of Carter's extensive financial connections to Arab oil money, particularly from Saudi Arabia , had deeply shaken my belief in his integrity. When I was first told that he received a monetary reward in the name of Shiekh Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahayan, and kept the money, even after Harvard returned money from the same source because of its anti-Semitic history, I simply did not believe it. How could a man of
such apparent integrity enrich himself with dirty money from so dirty a source?

And let there be no mistake about how dirty the Zayed Foundation is. I know because I was involved, in a small way, in helping to persuade Harvard University to return more than $2 million that the financially strapped Divinity  School received from this source.

Initially I was reluctant to put pressure on Harvard to turn back money for the Divinity School, but then a student at the Divinity School -Rachael Lea Fish -- showed me the facts.

They were staggering. I was amazed that in the 21st century there were still foundations that espoused these views. The Zayed Centre for Coordination and Follow-up - a think-tank funded by the Shiekh and run by his son - hosted speakers who called Jews "the enemies of all nations," attributed the assassination of John Kennedy to Israel and the 
Mossad and the 9/11 attacks to the United States' own military, and stated that the
Holocaust was a "fable." (They also hosted a speech by Jimmy Carter.) To its credit, Harvard turned the money back. To his discredit, Carter did not.

Jimmy Carter was, of course, aware of Harvard's decision, since it was highly publicized. Yet he kept the money . Indeed, this is what he said in accepting the funds: "This award has special significance for me because it is named for my personal friend, Sheik Zayed bin Sultan al-Nahyan." Carter's personal friend, it turns out, was an unredeemable anti-Semite and all-around bigot.

In reading Carter's statements, I was reminded of the bad old Harvard of the 1930s, which continued to honor Nazi academics after the anti-Semitic policies of Hitler's government became clear. Harvard of the 1930s was complicit in evil. I sadly concluded that Jimmy Carter of the 21st century has become complicit in evil. The extent of Carter's financial support from, and even dependence on, dirty money is still not fully
known.

What we do know is deeply troubling. Carter and his Center have accepted millions of dollars from suspect sources, beginning with the bail-out of the Carter family peanut business in the late 1970s by B CCI, a now-defunct and virulently anti-Israeli bank indirectly controlled by the Saudi Royal family, and among whose principal investors is Carter's friend, Sheikh Zayed. Agha Hasan Abedi, the founder of the bank, gave
Carter "$500,000 to help the former president establish his center...[and] more than $10 million to Mr. Carter's different projects."

Carter gladly accepted the money, though Abedi had called his bank-ostensibly the source of his funding-"the best way to fight the evil influence of the Zionists."

BCC isn't the only source: Saudi King Fahd contributed millions to the Carter Center- "in 1993 alone...$7.6 million" as have other members of the Saudi Royal Family. Carter also received a million dollar pledge from the Saudi-based bin Laden family, as well as a personal $500,000 environmental award named for Sheikh Zayed, and paid for by the 
Prime Minister of the United Arab Emirates.

It's worth noting that, despite the influx of Saudi money funding the Carter Center, and despite the Saudi Arabian government's myriad human rights abuses, the Carter Center's Human Rights program has no activity whatever in Saudi Arabia. The Saudis have apparently bought his silence for a steep price.

The bought quality of the Center's activities becomes even more clear, however, when reviewing the Center's human rights activities in other countries: essentially no human rights activities in China or in North Korea, or in Iran, Iraq,the Sudan, or Syria, but activity regarding Israel and its alleged abuses, according to the Center's website.

The Carter Center's mission statement claims that "The Center is nonpartisan and acts as a neutral party in dispute resolution activities." How can that be, given that its coffers are full of Arab money, and that its focus is away from significant Arab abuses and on Israel's far less serious ones?

No reasonable person can dispute therefore that Jimmy Carter has been and remains dependent on Arab oil money, particularly from Saudi Arabia.

Does this mean that Carter has necessarily been influenced in his thinking about the Middle East by receipt of such enormous amounts of money? Ask Carter. The entire premise of his criticism of Jewish influence on American foreign policy is that money talks.

It is Carter-not me-who has made the point that if politicians receive money from Jewish sources, then they are not free to decide issues regarding the Middle East for themselves.

It is Carter, not me, who has argued that distinguished reporters cannot honestly report on the Middle East because they are being paid by Jewish money. So, by Carter's own standards, it would be almost economically "suicidal" for Carter "to espouse a balanced position between Israel and Palestine."

By Carter's own standards, therefore, his views on the Middle East must be discounted. It is certainly possible that he now believes them. Money, particularly large amounts of money, has a way of persuading people to a particular position.

It would not surprise me if Carter, having received so much Arab money, is now honestly committed to their cause. But his failure to disclose the extent of his financial dependence on Arab money, and the absence of any self reflection on whether the receipt of this money has unduly influenced his views, is a form of deception bordering on corruption.

I have met cigarette lobbyists, who are supported by the cigarette industry, and who have come to believe honestly that cigarettes are merely a safe form of adult recreation, that cigarettes are not addicting and that the cigarette industry is really trying to persuade children not to smoke. These people are fooling themselves (or fooling us into believing that they are fooling themselves) just as Jimmy Carter is fooling himself (or persuading us to believe that he is fooling himself).

If money determines political and public views-as Carter insists "Jewishmoney" does-then Carter's views on the Middle East must be deemed to have been influenced by the vast sums of Arab money he has received. If he who pays the piper calls the tune, then Carter's off-key tunes have been called by his Saudi Arabian paymasters. It pains me to say this, but I now believe that there is no person in American public life today who has a lower ratio of real [in tegrity] to apparent integrity than Jimmy Carter.

The public perception of his integrity is extraordinarily high. His real integrity, it now turns out, is extraordinarily low. He is no better than so many former American politicians who, after leaving public life, sell themselves to the highest bidder and become lobbyists for despicable causes.

That is now Jimmy Carter's sad legacy.

On Wednesday America’s On The Road Again Troubadour – Country Outlaw Willie Nelson celebrates his 75th Birthday. Nelson was born on April 30, 1933 in Fort Worth, Texas.

I posted on the uniqueness of the Redhead and his music last September. I do not generally agree with Willie’s politics but I admire his grit and his strong belief that political differences are more important than political indifference.

Nelson’s Music clearly is what bonds me to him. I share the genesis of his Music both geographically and culturally.

Concurrently with his diamond birthday is the release of the new Joe NicK Patoski biography of Willie Nelson, “An Epic Life.” Publisher’s Weekly review puts this bio on my night stand.

Willie Nelson: An Epic Life
Joe Nick Patoski. Little Brown, $27.99 (576p) ISBN 9780316017787
This impressive, entertaining chronicle of Willie Nelson’s life is replete with exactly what you’d expect—honky-tonk, long nights on the open road, whiskey, womanizing and weed—but Texas writer Patoski ( Stevie Ray Vaughan: Caught in the Crossfire , Texas Mountains ) looks beyond country music trappings to find the funny, talented, determined man who became an unlikely icon. Raised in Abbott, Texas, by impoverished grandparents, Nelson was writing songs about “love, betrayal and cheating” by the age of seven, but was told throughout his life that he couldn’t sing, play or keep a beat. As an adult, Nelson worked odd jobs—encyclopedia salesman among them—while selling songs in Nashville; he had an early hit in 1961 with Patsy Cline’s “Crazy,” and soon began recording for RCA. Fourteen albums later, “with not much to show,” Nelson fled to Austin, Texas, a move many viewed as career suicide; instead, it was a launching pad to stardom, propelled by the up-and-coming hippie movement and the strength of his groundbreaking album Red Headed Stranger . Patoski conducted over a hundred interviews for this thorough, well-noted “epic,” peopling it with “pickers, gypsies, pirates, vagabonds, wanderers and carneys,” including fellow performers like Kris Kristofferson, Kinky Friedman and Leona Williams. Writing with an affectionate country twang, Patoski gives his subject the consideration he deserves in a fine, fluid piece of storytelling that any Nelson fan will appreciate. 8 pages b&w photos. (Apr.

Happy Birthday Bubba – stay sober long enough and let’s party on your 100th.

Straight Talk Commentary – While I am not in complete agreement with the following Editorial from a very liberal source other than the comment about governance from the far right there is little with the following Editorial I disagree with. Jimmy Carter is more than an eyesore and more than an embarrassment for American diplomacy – he has become a problem.

Hamas wants to bury Americ, they are not friends. Carter should use his position to help America (as he has done in this championing Habitat for Humanity) not give credence to the enemies of America and Freedom.

Diplomacy, Carter-Style

The Jewish Daily Forward

Editorial

April 17, 2008

Amateur historians like to say that Jimmy Carter is much better as an ex-president than he was as president. That gets his presidency about right; he’s usually ranked near the bottom, slightly ahead of Millard Fillmore but trailing Herbert Hoover.

The assessment, however, is too kind to the Carter ex-presidency. During nearly three decades as a freelance apostle of peace, the man from Plains has built a record marked by grand gestures, modest accomplishments and a few big goofs that somehow fail to pierce his halo. In office and out, his actions have been driven by a desperate desire to do good and a misplaced confidence that his radiant good intentions could bring out the hidden good in others.

Seen in that light, Carter’s misguided visit to Israel and the Palestinian territories this month begins to make sense. It’s not an anomalous misstep, but the latest in a decades-long series of foreign-policy bungles punctuated by a handful of very big successes. When Carter this month visited Yasser Arafat’s grave, embraced leaders of Hamas and all but forced the Israeli government to snub him and embarrass itself, he wasn’t guided mainly by malice or bigotry (though his record leaves room for question). It was, rather, a clumsiness that’s plagued him persistently where the Middle East was concerned.

Carter’s White House years are rarely recalled with nostalgia. He presided over a dismal economy, the highest interest rates in American history, a continuing oil crisis and a national mood of malaise. It’s no exaggeration to say that he left Americans so soured on their government that the door was opened to a generation of rule by the far right. He also bungled America’s response to the fall of the Iranian shah and the rise of the Islamic Republic, ushering in three decades of bitterness. In Afghanistan, he responded to a Soviet invasion by helping to midwife the Mujahedeen guerrilla army, which evolved into today’s Taliban and Al Qaeda.

Out of office, Carter has been transformed into an icon of peace, a worldwide symbol of hope. That’s certainly an improvement over malaise. He has traveled into danger zones and cooled tensions by his very presence, winning mass acclaim. His Carter Center in Atlanta has done good work in fighting African disease and monitoring elections.

And, as before, he’s had some big gaffes. He volunteered to step in during an American-North Korean nuclear crisis in 1994 and ended up embarrassing the Clinton administration — before he successfully secured an agreement from the North Koreans to freeze nuclear weapons work, which seemed like a good thing at the time. In 2004, he organized monitoring of a Venezuelan election and certified it as fair, confirming the democratic mandate of that country’s military strongman, Hugo Chavez.

This month’s powwow with Hamas is of a piece with this record. By reaching out to an international pariah, the ex-president unintentionally transmitted the message that extremists need not moderate their positions, because the world will eventually come around, starting with a former American president. He has embarrassed his own government — his successor in the Oval Office — and humiliated a friendly government that should be his ally.

What was he trying to accomplish? Carter said he wanted to offer himself as a mediator between Israel and the Islamist party, because Hamas must be acknowledged as an essential party to any peace agreement. But a peace agreement is precisely what Hamas doesn’t want, as it has said repeatedly. It wants to see Israel destroyed. Once it drops that demand, it can talk to anyone it wants.

As for mediators, Israel and Hamas already have all the mediators they need, beginning with the Egyptian and Saudi governments, which have been trying to bring Hamas into the circle of coexistence for three years. The Egyptians believe the problem isn’t Israel but Hamas, which refuses to recognize Israel and participate in a real peace process. What could Carter add?

What he adds, in fact, are some important lessons in informal politics. We learned that you can’t bring peace between two sides if you are overly identified with one side and utterly mistrusted by the other. We learned that thinking of yourself as a friend to others doesn’t make you a friend in their eyes.

Good intentions, we’ve learned, do indeed pave roads, but they don’t necessarily lead to Jerusalem.

The political environment has looked a little bleak for the GOP as we move toward the 2008 elections.

Reasonable analysis suggests this should not be a good year for Republicans. We have a Republican President with a very low approval rating. On two of the biggest issues, the Economy and the Conduct of the War in Iraq public opinion is not happy with the GOP.

The Republican Party in past months has seemed to be in a funk. Fundraising has been poor by historical benchmarks and party activists have been down about our chances from the White House to Congress and even the Statehouse. Even in South Dakota we have been down about our chances with the Federal seats and the low level of party activity.

Particularly among the GOP activists this changed since shortly after John Mc Cain became our “presumptive nominee.” John Mc Cain became the catalyst that has reignited our party and caused us to wake up and unite behind our common causes.

First came the Presidential Caucuses that established common ground between various factions within the party. With the filling of all (excepting the Dempster SNAFU) the Legislative contests, the Party under the direction of Karl Adam demonstrated they were functioning at a successful level. Besides the quantity, the caliber of candidates is outstanding.

Last Nights Minnehaha County Lincoln Dinner demonstrated that the GOP is again firing on all eight cylinders. The party has been laconic of late but with the assertion of Drake Olson as the new County Chairman replacing Dick Kelly (who resigned to run for the County Commission) everyone is upbeat and ready to work together to get Republicans elected.

The re energized Party had nearly 400 persons in attendance at last night’s dinner. People were upbeat. The Star of the Show was Congressional candidate Chris Lien who continues to impress the faithful as our best challenge candidate in memory. His speech was gritty and our Congresswoman is in for the campaign of her political life. Our Senate candidates both did well. Joel Dykstra showed he is ready for prime time and Sam Kephart made his best presentation (I have seen) of the campaign.

Senator John Thune capped off the night talking about the importance of this year’s election. He continues (as he did at the Republican State Dinner last November) to stress the clear differences between the Parties.

Democrat solutions = Government, Republican solutions = Freedom.

John Mc Cain though he is fait acompli appears to be the very best candidate the Republicans could chosen. Because of his call them like he see’s them Independence, his ability and willingness to work with Democrats, appeal to Independents, Reagan Democrats, and swing voters - Mc Cain has a real chance to hold the White House for Republicans. It also improves his chances that the current (those will certainly changed) Democrat campaign is in disarray

2008 is proving out to be a watershed year and the GOP is back in the game.

The high profile Window Renovation Project at the Washington Pavilion found its way into the news again this week.

It was revealed the project’s cost was underestimated by $300,000. Apparently the flub-a-dub was done by one of the Pavilion administrators who forgot to include the cost of labor into the estimate. The Mayor correctly called on the Pavilion’s management to take responsibility for the mistake. A spokesperson for the Pavilion did so, but very meekly calling it “an oversight.”

When the Windows Project was approved, it was a close call and the Council was of differing opinion on whether to include it into the Capital Improvements Budget. I narrowly supported the project, if the funds were available. It made sense to me that a) the Pavilion is a City owned facility b) the Pavilion is one of the cultural centers for the City and the building is used by many (including many out of town guests and school children) and c. the windows would provide for some payback because the resultant energy savings were estimated to be between 5 and 6 percent.

Today I feel differently – not about whether this is a worthy project but about the timing and the added costs. Since the project was approved last year the civic and political landscape has changed. Since last August, the federal subsidy for the Lewis & Clark Water Project has been eliminated from the budget proposed by the Bush Administration, the Army Corps of Engineers has altered the City’s flood plain map, a very unusual, tough and prolonged winter has caused unexpected breakup in our streets. Since last August Citizens have been confronted with much higher energy and gasoline prices and because of their concerns about the direction of the economy they are reluctant to make discretionary expenditures perhaps thus causing the City a slowdown in sales tax revenue growth.

Two things should happen. The Mayor and the City Council should take a breather and re prioritize. Put the windows on hold.

1. Fix the streets, which in part the City Council did recently when extra money was found and they diverted money from the Mayor’s plan for land acquisition.

Sidebar – While on the issue of streets, the local developers have proposed a funding arrangement to help development of streets in new areas. After taking care of these first necessities, the Mayor and Council should find a way to implement this program.

2. The City Government should accept the responsibility to immediately begin construction on the dike / levee system that is needed to protect the City from flooding. In the event of a flood this will prevent possibly the loss of human life but also property damage to homeowners and businesses. Taking care of this problem now will save thousands if not millions of dollars in flood insurance premiums to real property owners. The City could issue general obligation bonds or some kind of hybrid bond if help is available from the State of South Dakota. The promised Federal help would be welcome, but the feds truly are broke and the City should not wait.

3. Find some way to assure that the Missouri River water gets to Sioux Falls via the Lewis & Clark Project. Sioux Falls has become the ward of an unreliable Federal (and again broke) government. We need to make sure this happens. Sioux Falls’ future depends on it.

The windows project and many others in the Capital Improvements Plan are extras – things that would be nice to have but they are not among the government’s first responsibility to help provide for the health and safety of its citizens.

Endbar – The cost estimate fiasco again raises questions about how the Pavilion is managed. The Pavilion receives in excess of $1 million annually as an operations subsidy from the City. The Pavilion has a new CEO, Gary Wood. The cost estimate fiasco gives Wood the opportunity and the public relations cover to make changes if necessary to insure that these kinds of “oversights” don’t happen. It also would provide assurance to the Council that money it entrusts to the Washington Pavilion is being properly managed.

Patrick Byrne was in Sioux Falls on Thursday talking to Civic and Business Leaders about Initiated Measure 9 – South Dakota Small Investors Protection Act (I will post on this later) and I had the opportunity to speak with him. Byrne is a dynamic individual, very engaging and is a big thinker. One thought that impressed me is that that most of America’s problems can be solved by reforming our Education System and the Capital Markets. His ideas embrace competition and are in the Spirit of America – they worth considering.

Patrick M. Byrne is Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Internet retailer Overstock.com. In 2002 he was named to Business Week’s list of the 25 most influential people in e-business. In the public policy arena he has campaigned against the practice of naked short selling of securities and is a strong advocate of Education Reform. Byrne is a graduate of Dartmouth College, Cambridge University, and holds a Ph.D. in philosophy from Stanford University. Byrne serves as the Chairman of First Class Education, an organization that advocates that 65% of all education monies be spent in the Classroom.

Q. Why do you believe the 65% Solution is the most important reform of Public education?

A. I actually believe that vouchers or school choice is the most important issue. Society has to have a deep conversation about how to deal with the public education system. While that is going on we have to keep things from getting any worse. The 65% Solution is a tourniquet to keep things from getting worse. In many states and many cities the share of the funding that is going to the educrats is getting bigger and bigger and the share that is going to the kids in the classroom is getting smaller and smaller. It (money to the classroom) is basically shrinking every year. That basically is the nature of bureaucracies. They expand. Jefferson said liberty contracts and as I would say now education contracts. We have got to stop that while we have an adult conversation about the way education is organized. I think the right solution at that point is to do some sort of school choice, whether it charter schools, vouchers, tax credits, scholarship grants, etc.

Q. Many educators believe that our culture and lack of parental involvement is the prime cause of the decline of education excellence in America, do you agree?

A. Well there is some statistics and data that supports the view that parental involvement is important. But that really is a way for people who are selling an inferior product for a higher price, mainly our public school system to blame the parents. They don’t want to have to reason how they are doing things so they are just blaming the parents.

Q. Is testing alone the key to educational accountability?

A. My answer to that is I don’t know, and I respectfully say you don’t know and none of your readers know, nobody really knows what is going to fix it. The only thing that is in my view to find out what is going to fix it is to have a system where there can be innovation. Where you can have one hundred flowers bloom, where you can have competition and people testing out different theories. Maybe it’s more mandatory parental involvement, maybe it’s more focus on math, maybe it’s more focus on whole language learning, maybe it’s more focus on cultural studies. I don’t pretend to know the answer. You need a school system that permits there to be a wide variety of experimentation and not a one size fits all. And then the better solutions will float to the top.

Q. Higher education costs have skyrocketed. What can be done to get them under control?

A. I actually think that we are getting good value for our money. The U. S. higher education system is the envy of the world. It is our K-12 that is a disaster. We actually do pretty well up through the 4th grade. By the time kids are sixteen years old, we are at the bottom of the heap as a nation. We are at 25th out of 30 industrial countries. Our primary and secondary is at the bottom of the heap. Our higher education is the envy of the world. Now the reason for that is that the higher education system allows competition. The G I Bill, Pell Grants, etc. – people get to choose their school. So the providers have to be responsive. Higher education is getting more expensive and it is getting more expensive at a higher rate but I think it is still probably and underpriced good. The K-12 system is a terribly overpriced system and an over priced good, probably overpriced by a factor of two or three times. The higher education system is still a good value for the money.

Q. In South Dakota we have our 4% state sales tax that generates about $700 million annually. Our elected officials and politicians estimate that we lose as much as $75 to $100 million annually to Internet Sales along with hundreds of Main Street jobs. Why should Internet Sales of goods not be taxed?

A. Internet sales do not put the same load on local infrastructure as say having a local Walmart does. To shop at Walmart you have people driving on the roads to get there, you’ve got kids going to schools, you’ve got power plants and water utilities infrastructure that has to be paid for. That isn’t the case when you order through the Internet that is showing up through the Post Office.

Q. You have been a reformer in the economic arena working to reform the practice of Naked Short Selling of securities. As a former CEO for a Berkshire Hathaway company, do you agree in principle that corporate compensation is excessive and the Boardrooms need reforming?

A. Yes. I think Buffet right on there. That young fellow is going to go places.

Q. What do you think are the best and worst things about living in America?

A. I am sort of a Jeffersonian Libertarian and old school. I am as about blue blood patriotic as you can get. I do feel at the risk of sound a little old that we are nearing the end of a 230 year old experiment. I feel very badly about it and I have been doing everything I could to try to do something about it. But I am feeling bad especially since the financial meltdown that has started that I think is going to continue and the sad part is we are fast on our way to becoming Britain 1961. It is not going to be like the recession of 79-82. This is going to be a generational thing. It is going to take us half a generation to get out of this and get back.

Sioux Falls’ voters went to the polls on April 8th and reelected the two Incumbents (Litz and Brown) and two new Councilors whom are legacies to their Fathers who previously served on the Sioux Falls City Council or Commission, Greg Jamison and Kenny Anderson, Jr.

Voters sent the message they are on balance satisfied with the direction of City Government. Bob Litz was appointed to the Council to replace Darin Smith who quit after coming in fourth in the Mayor’s election two years ago. Litz received about 54% (with the runner up getting 37%) of the vote. Vernon Brown won by a large margin in the City Wide At Large seat receiving over 61%.

Post election coverage and analysis in the Argus Leader centered on (as did the public that was paying attention) the At Large election between Brown and Theresa Stehly. This is highlighted by the fact that this was the only race that all City voters participated in and thus give a sense of what the entire City is thinking. Particularly the Argus’ commenter’s believed Brown won because of his superior name identification.

Name identification is important and gives a candidate who have it an advantage, but name identification alone does not produce 22% victories.

As noted in the election recap story the At Large race was about more than the marquis election between Brown and Stehly. Stehly was widely seen as a surrogate for Councilman Kermit Staggers. Staggers and Brown have distinctly different views on government (or non-government in the case of Staggers) and their vision for Sioux Falls.

The Staggers Stehly affiliation stems from the Drake Springs pool election last year. Stehly was the lead sponsor and spokeswoman for the Outdoor option. Staggers who was the only Councilor to oppose the more expensive Indoor pool used the pool issue to highlight his beliefs. When the Outdoor Pool won, Staggers proclaimed a victory not only for the Outdoor Pool but for his view of less government.

Stehly who found the pool election empowering and encouraged no doubt by Staggers decided to make a run against Brown for a Council seat.

Staggers and Stehly believed and postulated that since the Council had supported the indoor pool and the voters wanted an outdoor pool that the Council was out of touch with Citizens. (the corollary of course is that because Staggers often is the one vote in many 7-1 Council votes – voters in the pool election thus proves Staggers is right and is the Man Of The People on all other issues as well.)

The election on April 8th proved this not to be the case. The pool vote was about the voters wanting an outdoor pool and as the April 8th election demonstrates not an approval rating of City government.