Say Anything Blog

That's what Conrad cheerleader Dr. Gerald Groenewald (Director of Energy & Enviromental Research at UND) seems to think:

A commentary in the May 7 Forum by Republican U.S. Senate candidate Dwight Grotberg unfairly criticized Sen. Kent Conrad’s, D-N.D., BOLD Energy bill and the senator’s support for pressuring OPEC to increase oil production. This letter was a misguided attempt to distract from the many positive parts of the bill. Sen. Conrad’s bill will benefit farmers and ranchers in North Dakota and help put the United States on a track toward energy independence.

Grotberg seems to be confusing short-term and long-term energy issues. In the short-term, U.S. officials should be doing everything possible to bring down prices. Pressuring OPEC to produce more oil would mean lower worldwide prices, because countries would be competing for a greater pool of oil. Lower prices would bring much needed relief to drivers, farmers, small business owners, and many others in North Dakota.

Sen. Conrad has been dedicated to energy policy for our nation’s long-term and short-term future. I know because I hosted an energy security summit with Sen. Conrad last year, almost 14 months ago, before $3 per gallon gasoline and Grotberg came onto the scene. At the summit we had a genuine, substantive discussion of the issues with a host of national energy experts.

Dr. Groenewald may be a good scientist, but he obviously doesn't know bupkiss about the economic issues surrouding the energy issue. Or, at least, his fawning over Conrad precludes him from talking about them.

For one thing, there is no "short term" solution for high gas prices. Any attempt to immediately lower gas prices is only going to result in more fuel being consumed (that's what people do when something gets cheaper), which in turn will drive up prices again.

There is also the question of why OPEC would choose to cooperate with Conrad's plan when his goal is to make America less dependent on foreign oil. Conrad is aiming having America buy less of OPEC's product. The Senator's expectation of cooperation from the sounds like a pipe dream to me.

The only solutions to the energy problem are long-term solutions, yet even there Conrad has it all wrong. If Conrad wants to make this country less dependent on foreign oil, why not allow for expanded production of domestic oil? Alternative energy sources are nice to talk about and all, but the truth is that we do not have one single alternative that can replace gasoline. All of them are either more expensive produce than gasoline at current prices or cannot be produced in quantities sufficient enough to supply America with the energy it needs.

I'd like to see America move to a cleaner, cheap fuel source as much as the next guy...but the truth of the matter is that such an alternative just doesn't exist right now. Until one comes to light, we need oil. And if Conrad wants us to stop using foreign oil he should support us using our own oil.

Dwight Grotberg, whose response to Conrad's BOLD plan can be seen here, has the right ideas on the energy issue. With Conrad all we're going to get is more of the same: Unfulfillable promises and research on alternatives that may or may not be viable replacements for gasoline in the future.

Scott Hennen has the details on the controversy surrounding the North Dakota Democrat state convention I posted about earlier this weekend.

My favorite part is when State Director Jim Fuglie pretends to lose cell connectivity with Scott during his radio broadcast.

Here's a summary for those of you coming late to the party. North Dakota Democrats have had to return tens of thousands of dollars from corporate contributors because state law does not allow those sort of contributions to be used for political conventions. State Director Fuglie isn't admitting fault at this point, saying that the funds were returned to avoid the appearance of impropriety. He further states that the corporations used the money to purchase, at "fair market value," admittance to a dinner and meet-and-greet with the headline speakers at the convention: Max Cleland and Wesley Clark, a sort of transaction that is allowed under state law.

Of course, as Mr. Hennen points out, these contributions were made in 2005. The speakers at the ND Democrat state convention weren't announced until March of 2006. Sort of hard for Mr. Fuglie to explain all this away as corporations purchasing a "fair market value service" from a political party by way of admission to an exclusive event when the event itself didn't even exist at the time of the contribution.

On a related note, this is sort of interesting:

BISMARCK, N.D. - Corporate money from Archer Daniels Midland Co. and four companies that treat kidney diseases helped finance North Dakota's Democratic state convention last month, records show. Secretary of State Al Jaeger is questioning whether the $44,000 in donations were properly used.

What's with all the donations from the kidney disease companies? I don't get it. Brett Narloch and I were talking about it earlier this evening and we can't figure out what interest these companies have in North Dakota Democrats.

This is really cool.

Fargo made #23 and Bismarck made #28.

A lot of people complain that North Dakota wages are too low, that we're too rural and that there aren't enough opportunities here for younger generations. I'm just not sure how true those things are. Wages may be low compared to other places, but it doesn't cost near as much money to live here either. Rural living may be an acquired taste, but our bigger cities (like Bismarck, Fargo and Grand Forks) are fairly metropolitan. And as for a lack of opportunities, we aren't exactly the silicon valley out here...but unemployment is under 3% state wide. If you want to work and earn a decent living there is no reason why ND won't work.

I have posted in the past following the struggle between the University of North Dakota and the NCAA over the latter's "Fighting Sioux" mascot.

Here's a picture of that logo for those of you not familiar with it.



The NCAA's position is that the use of the above logo and the "Fighting Sioux" slogan is abusive to Native Americans, particularly those of Sioux descent. Now, most reasonable people (especially those of us who are of Scandanavian descent who have no beef with the Minnesota Vikings) don't see what the problem is. Others do. To each their own, I guess.

But what is interesting is this: Will the North Dakota Highway Patrol be the next to come under fire for using an abusive logo? Here is a photo of the logo which appears on every NDHP squad car courtesey of Clint at the Bismarck-Mandan Blog:



It is also worth noting that all state highways in North Dakota are also marked with a Indian chief logo very similar to the one above. Throughout all this controversy about the UND nickname I have not heard one person complain about these examples of Indian imagery.

While we're on the subject, if UND loses its fight with the NCAA will cities like Sioux Falls, SD and Sioux City, IA have to change their names in order to avoid being offensive? I guess so, if the logic from critics of UND's nickname is to be followed.

But I think you're catching my drift. The "Fighting Sioux" logo and nickname are no more offensive than the NFL's "Vikings" or even Notre Dame's "Fighting Irish."

Hmm...

BISMARCK, N.D. - The University of North Dakota should raise private funds for any legal fight against the NCAA over the use of the school's Fighting Sioux nickname, Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem says.

Stenehjem said he will provide school officials an outline of the legal grounds they could use to attack the NCAA's conclusion that the nickname is hostile and abusive to American Indians. However, UND's nickname argument shouldn't be paid for by taxpayer funds or student tuition, he said.

"Any lawsuit should be funded by voluntary contributions, and we should find a way to make that happen, if there's a lawsuit at all," he said. A legal fight should cost well under $1 million, the attorney general said.

I'm a bit torn on this.

On one hand, I see the logic behind using only private funds. Public funds and tuition money are provided to the school for one single purpose: Providing higher education. Using those funds for a lawsuit against the NCAA would only detract from that goal.

On the other hand, one must remember that Fighting Sioux Hockey is a significant source of revenue for UND, not to mention something that makes the school attractive to potential students. While changing the hockey teams logo/nickname won't make UND hockey disappear the loss of a regional icon could have a significant impact on interest among fans and students, and the resulting loss of revenue would have serious repercussions for the university.

Let's not forget that UND sports brings in a lot of money to the school in general. Protecting that revenue stream would seem to be a valid expenditure of the university's allocated public funds and tuition funds.

I'm a little behind on this, but apparently Brad Mills, chairman of South Central Citizen's Coalition which is in turn an off-shoot of the North Dakota Progressive Coalition, thinks North Dakota culture "is racist, bigoted, repressive, backwards and ultraconservative to the point to where it makes most moderate and liberal people just want to get the hell out of here as soon as they possibly can."

One can only hope that Mr. Mills will be one of the people who "get the hell out" pretty soon.

This reminds me of the time Ryan Gustafson, Democrat state legislative candidate for District 35 and erstwhile communications director for the North Dakota Progressive Coalition, compared being pro-life (which the vast majority of North Dakotans are) to being a member of the Taliban.

No wonder North Dakota Democrats can't do anything but remain in the minority.

I picked up on this editorial in the Dakota Student by departing college graduate John Edison through Voice of Dakota and Flickertail Journal. It is a complaint about the way North Dakota treats its students and the lack of opportunities for college graduates in the state. To quickly summarize, Mr. Edison believes that North Dakota "owes" its college graduates more.

I guess I can agree with that, but not in the way Mr. Edison would probably want someone like me to agree.

See, Edison (like a lot of people in the state) think the government needs to "do something" about the number of college students who leave North Dakota after graduating. He feels that the state needs to "throw" he and his fellow students "a bone." He turns up his nose at North Dakota's current job market and, like a lot of recent college graduates, seems to feel that his degree somehow entitles him a job which will start him at the top of the employment ladder.

It doesn't. And the only thing North Dakota owes its college graduates is a strong and growing economic environment for them to live and work in, and this is where Edison's diatribe goes off the tracks.

Edison would like to have the state spend all, or at least part, of its $300 million budget surplus on "incentives" or other initiatives to help keep students in the state. I believe that is counter-productive. If we want to keep students in the state our goal should be to keep the state's economy growing. We don't do that by continuing to tax citizens at a rate where the government is left with more money than it needs. We do that by giving North Dakotans more of their money back, which they will in turn spend on goods and services that will create more jobs in the state.

We need a pro-growth atmosphere in North Dakota if we want to maintain the economic prosperity we've seen in recent years. A pro-growth atmosphere does not include using extra tax dollars to try and artificially create a job market that does not exist. If Mr. Edison and students like him can't find the opportunities in North Dakota they want let them go to where they can find them. This state has no obligation to make sure every sort of job is available for every kind of career. People majoring in things like computer engineering probably aren't going to find a lot of jobs in this state as our computer industry here is somewhat limited. This doesn't mean that North Dakota should try to manufacture a computer industry just to employ these students, it means that these students (if they truly want to stay in North Dakota) should be a little more realistic in their career studies.

Ultimately, I don't think I or anyone else in this state owe students like Edison a thing. He made the decision to attend college here. He chose his courses. He graduated with a degree of his choice. That he can't find a job to his liking or that his degree is applicable to here in North Dakota is, frankly, not my problem. Nor is it good enough reason to keep more of my money in the government rather than give it back to me so I can spend it further my life goals and the goals of my family.

Sigh...

KFYR - The Senate approved an emergency appropriations bill including $4 billion in agriculture disaster relief.

But it wasn`t easy. North Dakota Senators say the ag disaster amendment survived some threats on the Senate floor.

If the entire bill passes, it will bring an estimated $170 million to North Dakota farmers, which Senators say will be good for the state`s economy. . . .

"This is an exciting victory for us here in the Senate," says Senator Byron Dorgan. "The Senate passed the farm disaster aid today, passed it as part of a larger bill."

Senator Kent Conrad says, "I have had three farmers in my last trip home, three farmers at two different meetings, tell me this was their last year. Anybody who doesn`t understand the emergency nature of what`s happened, not only in North Dakota but in other states outside the Gulf states as well just hasn`t been paying much attention."

The next step is for the bill to go to conference committee in the U.S. House of Representatives.

President Bush recently issued a veto threat against the bill, saying the primary funds of the bill are for the war in Iraq and Hurricane Katrina relief.

A few things worth noting here:

Back when Congress was wrangling over the national budget Kent "Budget Hawk" Conrad accused the President/Republicans of creating a budget "only a debt lover could love." After making that statement the Senator went on to propose or support an additional $144 billion in appropriations, and here he is again getting all giddy about being able to sneak in another $4 billion in spending into legislation that is supposed to be about funding Katrina relief and the war in Iraq.

Apparently, Senator Conrad is only a "budget hawk" when he can don that mantle to bash Republicans. The rest of the time he's just a big-government, big-taxing, free-spending liberal.

As for $177 million North Dakota farmers will be getting, is it good for our economy? Probably. But you know what would be better? If big-government people like Kent Conrad and Byron Dorgan would stop taxing the hell out of us only to redistribute our own money back to us.

Steve Cates, publisher of the Dakota Beacon was in town today and invited me to lunch.

We chatted a bit about the magazine (which I write for, if you didn't know) and politics in general. He has some wonderful ideas for the publication going forward and I'm really happy to be involved with it.

If you're in North Dakota or the surrounding area and aren't a subscriber, you should be.

What follows is a guest editorial submitted by North Dakota Senate Candidate Dwight Grotberg

In order to truly break our dependency on foreign oil, we must be able to secure our ability and stability to supply our nation’s energy demand. OPEC leaders have already stated that when our bio-fuels begin to capture significant market share they have a plan to boost production of oil to drive the bio-fuel industry out of business.

In the first part of April, Senator Conrad introduced an energy initiative which he calls BOLD. It is an attempt to reduce our dependency on foreign oil as well as increase demand for domestic energy. Recently, however, he also asked President Bush to urge OPEC to increase production to lower the cost of oil. North Dakota is in a position to produce many forms of energy, and asking OPEC to boost production does not wean us off of foreign oil but makes us even more dependent.

I was in Washington D.C. last week meeting with several legislators. I shared with them how our state was poised to be a major energy supplier through ethanol, bio-diesel, wind, coal, and oil. We agreed that domestic petroleum and alternative energy suppliers can work together to provide more affordable energy for our nation.

The BOLD initiative calls for “responsible domestic oil production.” The problem here is “responsible” according to whom? Extreme environmentalism is keeping us from drilling for oil in ANWR and developing our national energy production infrastructure. My opponent consistently votes against tapping into this valuable resource (sited at ontheissues.org: S Amdt. 2358 to S 1932, S Amdt. 168 to S Con. Res. 18, S Con. Res. 23, S.517, S. Con. Res. 101).

The bill cites Brazil’s energy independence as a model to follow. I was in Brazil 20 years ago working on a grain farm. That country was well on its way to energy independence then with many cars burning 100 % ethanol. Imagine where we could be today if we could have had the ball rolling for the last 20 years. Our nation should be leading the world in energy independence. Because of the lack of long-term planning, we are in the biggest energy crisis since the 1970’s.

We can’t expect affordable energy if we are unwilling to do what is necessary to free-up our own energy reserves. We can’t secure the bio-fuel industry’s future if we remain vulnerable to price manipulation by foreign oil. Our current energy crisis is now a matter of national security.

North Dakota meet your congressional campaign issue for 2006 courtesey of Mr. E. O'Brien Murray writing in the Grand Forks Herald:

WASHINGTON - North Dakota's farmers and ranchers want the death tax repealed. Most Americans agree, which long has confounded the class warriors and so-called experts who support the tax. Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., recently accused our organization of acting against the interests of North Dakotans. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Poll after poll, from Gallup to Bloomberg to CBS/New York Times to Pew to Rasmussen to Zogby, show that strong majorities of Americans continue to support repeal of the death tax. Last year, a Pollock-Luntz poll of voters in North Dakota and five other states found a stunning 85 percent support for completely eliminating or significantly reducing the tax.

With a very tight Senate vote expected next month, now is the time for North Dakota voters to make clear to Conrad and his colleague, Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., that they should side with the state's family farms and businesses. To do so, Conrad will have to stand up to the big money out-of-state interests who bankroll his campaigns: 94 percent of his funding comes from out of state, and his largest sources of PAC funding - having each contributed more than $1.3 million dollars - are labor unions and finance and insurance companies.

Read the whole thing.

Kent Conrad and Earl Pomeroy are both up for re-election this year. Both have been staunch opponents against efforts to repeal the estate tax.

Conrad, as Mr. Murray points out in his column, is heavily funded by out-of-state interests who favor the estate tax. Pomeroy himself, as his opponent for ND's House seat (Matt Mechtel) pointed out in an interview with me, heavily funded by New York Life Insurance:

Why is New York Life [Earl Pomeroy's] number one contributor? I can tell you exactly why New York Life Insurance Company is his number one contributor. The number one single contributor to Earl Pomeroy, their vested interest, is saying that the estate tax stays in place. The reason that is, is and I’ve had first hand experience in this, if you start a small business or have a farm here in North Dakota and you accumulate a certain amount of money and accumulate a certain net worth and you have family you want to pass it on to, especially in the case of a farmer, how are you going to pass it on. Say you’re that southeastern North Dakota farmer with 1500 acres that’s worth $2,000 an acre. So you have $3 million in land and you have two sons that want to farm and you’re going to die and the estate tax is going to come in and they’re going to want $1.5 million in taxes from you after you figure equipment and everything else. You’re going to have to sell the land to pay it unless you go out and you buy life insurance or you have your sons go purchase life insurance on you so at the time of your death the life insurance pays this out and basically that’s what, that’s why insurance companies are contributing to guys like Earl Pomeroy. They’ll fight to keep the estate tax to keep these places in business and it’s just wrong

Clearly, the estate tax issue puts both Conrad and Pomeroy between a rock and a hard place. North Dakotans want to see the tax repealed and they aren't having any of this "it would be a tax cut for the rich" nonsense. Conrad and Pomeroy's big-money, out-of-state sugardaddys want to keep the estate tax as is. So what are these guys going to do? Go with what their constituents want or what their out-of-state backers want?

I suspect that they'll try to find some middle ground. They'll advocate for "reform" (which is something they've done in the past) while leaving the basic structure of the estate tax in tact to please their money people.

Which is total nonsense. North Dakota's politicians are supposed to represent North Dakotans, not companies like New York Life.

Expect candidates Matt Mechtel and Dwight Grotberg (who is taking on Conrad this election cycle) to make a big issue out of the estate tax. As well they should.

(via Taking Back ND)

An estimate of the amount of easily-exploitable oil in North Dakota has been upgraded by several hundred million barrels.

BISMARCK, N.D. -- North Dakota's easily recoverable oil reserves have jumped 41 percent, which state regulators hope will strengthen the case for long-term industry investment in the state's oil patch.

A new analysis by the state Industrial Commission's oil and gas division estimated the state's proven reserves at 550 million barrels. Geologists say there is a 90 percent probability that amount of oil can be pumped from western North Dakota, given current economic conditions.

The division's director, Lynn Helms, said the agency continuing to work on other estimates of probable oil reserves that are less likely to be produced.

The U.S. Department of Energy, acting through its Energy Information Administration, had the amount of proven reserves in ND at 389 million barrels, so this is a significant increase over that. The Department of Energy number was for 2004, but a spokesmen for the group said that their estimate for reserves in North Dakota is likely to come up in their 2005 assessment as well.

Gary Long, a petroleum engineer in the Energy Information Administration's division office in Dallas, said the federal agency's numbers are updated annually. Its report on 2005 reserves is to be published this fall, and he expects its North Dakota estimate on proven reserves will rise.

State Democrats, always eager to find a way around the economic boom North Dakota has enjoyed under the leadership of Gov. John Hoeven and other Republicans, have said that high gas prices have propped up the state economy and that the boom will only last as long as the high prices do. They have used this as an excuse to avoid tax cuts in the face of high state tax receipts and massive budget surplus. Unfortunately for them (but good for North Dakota as a whole), it appears as though gas prices will have little impact on the exploitability of North Dakota oil reserves.

Helms said the reserve estimate was nudged upward by rising oil prices. But even if prices crash, he does not expect the 550-million-barrel proven reserve estimate to drop more than 5 to 10 percent, he said.

Going forward North Dakota should have a policy of being highly cooperative with the oil industry. Increased domestic production of oil in places like North Dakota will help make this country less reliant upon foreign oil, not to mention the economic benefits North Dakota communities will enjoy as a consequence.

Another story I missed over the weekend.

The NCAA Executive Committee today denied the appeals of the University of North Dakota and two other universities to retain their use of Native American nicknames, mascots and imagery at NCAA-sanctioned postseason events.

According to an NCAA release, the panel determined that Native American references used by North Dakota, the University of Illinois and Indiana University of Pennsylvania "create hostile or abusive environments inconsistent with the NCAA constitution and inconsistent with the NCAA commitment to diversity, respect and sportsmanship." The decision doesn't force North Dakota, the University of Illinois and Indiana University of Pennsylvania to change its nicknames, but the schools won't be allowed to participate in NCAA championships if Native American references appear on the team's uniforms or other items associated with the university.

North Dakota and Indiana are also prohibited from hosting NCAA championship events -- Illinois was spared this sanction after successfully lobbying in November that its "Illini" and "Fighting Illini" referred to the state of Illinois and not a Native American group. North Dakota hosted this year's NCAA hockey West Regional at Ralph Engelstad Arena, attracting 22,654 fans to Grand Forks, a two-day attendance record for regional play.

This part was interesting.

According to Friday's Grand Forks Herald, UND president Charles Kupchella sent a letter to the NCAA this week stating the university had the support of the state's Sioux tribes to continue using the nickname. However, the chairman of one of the tribes refuted that claim and told the newspaper his band was behind the NCAA's effort.

I had posted earlier about UND receiving support from the Standing Rock tribe. This reporting from the St. Paul Pioneer Press helps clear up some of the confusion.

North Dakota President Charles Kupchella was surprised by the rejection after the university included a letter from Archie Fool Bear, chairman of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe's judicial committee, in its documentation.

The problem, committee chair Walter Harrison said, was that Standing Rock chairman Ron His Horse Is Thunder also sent a letter — opposing North Dakota's nickname.

This may surprise you, but the mixed messages from North Dakota's Indian tribes is consistent with the views they've expressed all along in that they've been consistently inconsistent. The Spirit Lake tribe, for instance, expressed support for UND's nickname/logo back in 2000 but recanted that in August of last year. This back-and-forth among the Indians over this controversy leads this cynical observer to believe that the Indians are divided into two camps: Those who don't mind the logo/nickname and those who would like to see their tribe get some sort of licensing agreement from the school.

I am firmly convinced that most of the concern over "hostile environments" and "racial bigotry" comes from collegiate, elitist liberals...most of whom have probably never set foot on an Indian reservation.

The latest issue of The Dakota Beacon is out. If you're subscribed it should have hit your mailbox already. If you're not, you can pick up a free copy at many area businesses around Fargo, Bismarck/Mandan and Minot.

My column this month is called "A Crisis In The Absence Of Fathers: The Case For Shared Parenting." It will be familiar to SA readers as it was previously published here, but pick up the magazine anyway and check out some of the other articles and columns.

If you want to subscribe or peruse past issues click here.

Grand Forks Herald - The controversy over the UND Fighting Sioux nickname and logo takes its next step Friday when the NCAA executive committee discusses the matter.

The NCAA will meet Friday morning to discuss UND's appeal and possibly make its final decision about the retirement of the nickname and logo, according to NCAA representatives.

The NCAA has listed UND among schools with nicknames or mascots deemed "hostile or abusive," barring those colleges from holding postseason games unless they get rid of the Indian imagery. Some schools, including Florida State, have won appeals.

The NCAA is scheduled to rule on the appeals of four schools on Friday. It's the second and final appeal for UND.

"We believe the NCAA is completely out of bounds in having promulgated its ill-conceived policy on nicknames in the first place," UND President Charles Kupchella said.

UND likely will go to court if it loses this round, school President Charles Kupchella has said.

Meanwhile radio host Dakota Huseby has up on her blog a press release from Kupchella indicating that the Standing Rock Sioux have written a letter to UND expressing support for the logo and nickname.

Of course, in August of last year the Spirit Lake Sioux voted against the logo and nickname. But then again, back in 2000 that same tribe voted in favor of the logo/nickname, so support among Indians has been largely inconsistent. This is due mostly, I think, to the fact that tribal government tends to have high turn over in its leadership.

For the most part, North Dakota Indians have seemed largely apathetic to the nickname controversy, with most of the outrage coming from PC, do-gooder zealots who have probably never stepped foot on a reservation.

Regardless, let's hope that tomorrow the NCAA comes to its senses and recognizes the fact that there is nothing deraugatory