Now That's Tough Algae

While Lake Herman remains relatively clear (coliform bacteria aren't green), Pelican Lake up by Watertown apparently has some really mean algae. KJAM reports on mysteriously calm water up north. Residents reported that even on a day with wind gusts up to 35 miles per hour, where whitecaps should have roiled across the water, there was very little wave action on Pelican Lake. State DENR specialist Ken Madison says a big diatom bloom, fed by high nitrate and phosphorous levels in the lake (that's usually farm fertilizer and waste run-off).

Now wind and water can move boulders and eat away shorelines on our lakes. Algae that can stave off 35-mph winds and keep the lake smooth is mighty tough algae. We joke about our summer algae blooms being so thick you can walk on them. If that Pelican Lake algae keeps up, we may not be joking.

Corn Power? Try Beer Power!

As we turn our cornfields into gas stations (and as gas prices still climb), the Australians offer a novel solution to clean energy: beer power. Scientists at the University of Queensland announced yesterday plans to install a microbial fuel cell at the Foster's brewery near Brisbane. Our friends the microbes will eat brewery wastewater containing sugar, starch, and alcohol (I know some locals who'd like that job) and turn it into clean water and two kilowatts of electricity.

Now the Madville Times proudly declares itself a secular adjunct to the Women's Christian Temperance Union ("Touch not the cup!"). However, in the usual Madville Times spirit of tolerance and open-mindedness, this writer acknowledges that some feel it's a darn shame to waste perfectly good alcohol on a car engine. Perhaps we could produce an even happier population by building some breweries next to our ethanol plants. Let the ethanol plants produce energy as their main product with distiller's grain for cattle feed as a by-product, but also promote some crop diversification by producing South Dakota cold barley soup and getting some clean electricity on the side. More jobs, more farm profits, more power, and, well, more beer. Sounds like real energy synergy to me!

Lake Herman -- Mom Always Told Me Not to Drink It...

The Madville Times is participating in a water-quality monitoring project administered by the East Dakota Water Development District. At least once a month through October I'll step away from the keyboard for an hour or two to venture upon the wild waters of Lake Herman to take water samples, which will be analyzed for coliform bacteria. I'm monitoring the west side of Lake Herman; other volunteers will take samples elsewhere on Herman as well as on Madison, Brandt, and Round, giving us a good spread of data about the entire local watershed.

Project coordinator Jeanne Fromm braved the waters with me in my trusty canoe on my first sampling adventure a couple weeks ago. Fromm reports the following readings for the samples we took:

1. "field blank" (distilled water): NO coliform, including E. coli, bacteria. (That means nothing fishy in our kitchen or on my hands!)
   
2. Lake Herman Sample #1 (from a small run-off inlet a hundred meters NW of the Game Fish & Parks boat ramp on Cottonwood Cove Trail): No coliform/E. coli bacteria.
3. Lake Herman Sample #2 (from a larger, active run-off inlet just NW of Camp Lakodia): 300 colony forming units (CFU)/100 ml of E. coli and 500 CFU total coliform/100 ml.

The EPA recommended standard for E.coli is 126 CFU/100 ml (average) and 235 CFU/100 ml (single-sample max). Let's hope this single reading from our second sample site is an anomaly. For now, the Madville Times encourages folks to come enjoy the fishing, boating, and swimming here, but remember: fish, pelicans, and cows do poop in this water, so you take a swig of Herman at your own peril.

Drawing Business by Empowering Shareholders

This month North Dakota Governor John Hoeven signed a new law granting shareholders greater power over companies that incorporate in the state after July 1. Among other things, the measure gives shareholders an advisory vote on executive pay.

I note with mild dismay that the author of the new law is William Clark, a Philadelphia lawyer who represents activist investors interested in creating such laws [Martha Graybow, "Delaware Beware: North Dakota Wants Your Business," Reuters online, 2007.04.25]. As I have mentioned elsewhere, I prefer to see the citizens of a community (town, county, state) coming up with their own laws with a minimum of outside influence.

Nonetheless, North Dakota's legislature and executive have looked this proposal over and decided it makes good policy. The Economist agrees the move could boost North Dakota's economy, although many corporations may resist efforts by shareholders to win more power by reincorporating in America's favorite tundra, and if the plan starts to work, Delaware will surely fight to retain as much its corner on the legal incorporation market as it can ["Anywhere but Delaware," Economist.com, 2007.04.17].

Whether it will work or not, this effort by North Dakota to draw business and bucks is notable because it seeks to promote economic development by empowering not the businesses but the people -- at least some of the people -- the business serves. I'm not ready to characterize the law as a sign of popoluism run rampant among our neighbors to the north, but it does spread power, at least a little, from the board room to the stockholders and open an avenue for greater corporate accountability. If the corporate executives and the majority of stockholders are all greedy and contemptuous of the public (like the Enron bosses), then employees and customers are still up a creek. But long-term shareholders interested in seeing their company grow sustainably and honestly will have a better shot at keeping their CEOs from raiding the company coffers and violating the public trust inherent in every corporate charter.

Wherein Everyone Else Comments at Length on Abortion

For those of you who are interested, I am posting all outside comments on the discussion David and I are having about abortion here. If you are spectating, feel free to add your comments to this post. Just to keep things neat (so I can focus entirely on David's arguments -- and don't ask me why he rates such special attention), I will transfer any non-David comments from that post to this one.

Anonymous Comments -- a Policy Update

Readers may note with interest an update to the Madville Times comment moderation policy (linked permanently in the sidebar under "MT Editorial Links"). I have been thinking for some time about following the common practice of Jon Hunter and other newspaper publishers and disallowing anonymous comments. The policy update does not announce a change -- I will still accept anonymous comments -- but it does offer the official Madville Times viewpoint on anonymous comments and criteria for commenters to consider in moderating their own comments. Please file any comments under that post, not this one.

Wherein David and Cory Argue at Length About Abortion

Hear ye, hear ye, the court of the would-be philosopher kings is now in session....

My friend David has pressed me in comments to numerous posts to lay out my moral position on abortion. Often, though not always, he has done so on posts where I have wanted to look at just one portion of the debate about abortion and women's rights as it is playing out in South Dakota. I have avoided a general debate about abortion because, frankly, I maintain that there are other more immediate bread-and-butter concerns that our state politicians ought to be addressing.

However, in the interest of at the very least keeping David on topic on my other posts, I offer this post as the place where David and I will wage our personal debate over this issue of abortion in general. Loyal readers, you are welcome to read my exchange with David, but I will ask that you refrain from commenting here; your comments remain welcome on other posts, but I ask that you permit David and me to conduct our debate one-on-one here. This editor will redirect comments from other readers to this separate post.

Now, to the point, though surely not so satisfactorily to the point as my friend David would have it: I hesitate to lay out my complete position on abortion because I'm not sure I'm at my final position. My political position rests in large part on that hesitance to declare a final personal philosophical position and a recognition of a severe lack of consensus on the issue throughout society. I enter this discussion with David not so much to defend a finished philosophical position but to test where I think I am philosophically and politically and determine whether I want to remain there. As this discussion evolves, you may well find later posts completely contradicting earlier posts, either in appearance or in actuality. No prooftexting, please -- read everything in context, and permit both David and me the opportunity to explain ourselves. The issue is important enough to deserve to be treated carefully and at length. I do not feel obligated to finally resolve any aspect of this issue in one sitting (especially not when David and I still have to get up in the morning to pay the bills and do nice things for our beautiful wives).

All that said, I offer a brief opening position that I expect will lead to lengthy discussion:

1. I agree with David that sex conducted wantonly, without mature emotional commitment or consideration of and willingness to be responsible for consequences, is unhealthy for individuals and society.
2. I agree with David that abortion used as a method to facilitate such unhealthy sexual behavior is wrong.
3. I agree with Justice Ginsberg in her dissent to Gonzales v. Carhart that moral positions do not always justify legal positions:

   Ultimately, the Court admits that "moral concerns" are at work, concerns that could yield prohibitions on any abortion. See ante, at 28 ("Congress could . . . conclude that the type of abortion proscribed by the Act requires specific regulation because it implicates additional ethical and moral concerns that justify a special prohibition."). Notably, the concerns expressed are untethered to any ground genuinely serving the Government's interest in preserving life. By allowing such concerns to carry the day and case, overriding fundamental rights, the Court dishonors our precedent. See, e.g., Casey, 505 U. S., at 850
   ("Some of us as individuals find abortion offensive to our most basic principles of morality, but that cannot control our decision. Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code."); Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U. S. 558, 571 (2003) (Though "[f]or many persons [objections to homosexual conduct] are not trivial concerns but profound and deep convictions accepted as ethical and moral principles," the power of the State may not be used "to enforce these views on the whole society through operation of the criminal law." (citing Casey, 505 U. S., at 850)).

4. I will argue that the relationship between a woman and a fetus developing inside her is unlike any other human relationship and that moral and legal analogies to murder, child abuse and neglect, euthanasia, or other criminal actions are invalid.
   
5. I will stake out the political position that, much as I wish I could make every one of my students and neighbors behave morally, there are some issues where trying to do so through legislation will achieve little to no social good while doing too much damage to fundamental constitutional and human rights.

Updating the 2005 SD Abortion Task Force Study

South Dakota's last two abortion ban attempts have based their findings statements on the December 2005 report of the South Dakota Task Force to Study Abortion. That document, branded by even some members of the task force as a biased presentation of sloppy science by a committee stacked with anti-abortion zealots, included the following statement on the connection between abortion and breast cancer:

The question concerning whether abortion causes an increased risk for breast cancer cannot be answered by this Task Force based on the record. However, the subject is of vital importance and the reasons to suspect such a connection sufficiently sound. We conclude that further study of this topic is justified and needed. Sorting out the science and truth of this matter is of the utmost importance so that relevant informed consent information can be provided towomen considering an abortion.

I agree. Interestingly, when Dr. Maria Bell, the only gynecologist who served on the task force, tried to include evidence in the report that would answer that question in the negative, the task force voted her down. [Nancy Hatch Woodward, freelance writer, "Abortion in South Dakota," Planned Parenthood, published 2005.12.22, updated 2006.02.27].

In the spirit of sorting out the truth, I direct the attention of South Dakota's legislators and voters to "U.S. Study Shows No Breast Cancer/Abortion Link" [Maggie Fox, health and science editor, Reuters, 2007.04.24]:

A study of more than 100,000 U.S. nurses found that those who had an abortion or miscarriage were no more likely to have breast cancer than any other woman in the study.

The findings fit with a 2003 report from an international expert panel put together by the U.S. National Cancer Institute.

As long as the anti-choice, anti-science, anti-woman crowd continue to follow the strategy put forward by pseudo-scientific sophist* David Reardon of repeating their scientifically disproven claims just to confuse the issue. As long as they keep shouting their rhetoric, those interested in protecting women's rights need to keep shouting the science.

*My use of the term sophist is a nod to my friend DB, whose chortles and accusations of hypocrisy I eagerly await.

Our Man Hunter Eyes Blogs with Suspicion

The estimable Mr. Jon Hunter, MDL publisher, continues his resurgent and very welcome opining. In his Tuesday editorial praising the high standards and "attention to detail" of journalist David Halberstam, Hunter takes a poke a blogs:

Unedited internet blogs often get posted with mistakes, mistruths and bias. In fact, it's almost a definition of today's blogs that they must be slanted and presumptuous. Regrettably, some readers believe everything they read, and the reputation of journalism as an industry suffers. [Jon M. Hunter, "Halberstam's Attention to Detail Could Be Used Today," MDL, 2007.04.24, p. 3]

This blogger agrees wholeheartedly with most of Hunter's comment. Internet blogs have a higher baloney content than my summertime lunches. Blogs are obviously and unashamedly slanted, this one included. Any reader who believes everything written in the Madville Times, just because the Madville Times says it, is thanked graciously but urged to check with other sources nonetheless.

But presumptuous? Let me take issue with just that word. This blog -- and I welcome readers' observations about other blogs -- does not presume to be anything other than what it is: one young curmudgeon-activist-teacher dad offering his commentary on life on the lake and the prairie. Nor does this blog presume to be the only voice worthy of consideration or publication. This blog certainly does not presume to decide whose opinions will be published and whose won't.

And ultimately, this blog does not presume to be a replacement for Mr. Hunter's great local paper. This blog, with an official staff of one and a half (I ask resident eco-theological powerhouse Mrs. Madville Times a question every now and then and translate her wisdom into blog fodder), picks a handful of seemingly important issues, offers some facts and comments, and opens the door for immediate public discussion. What this blogger may lack in knowledge and editorial skill is compensated at least somewhat by the diligent efforts of you loyal readers, who can quickly offer corrections, counter-evidence, and straight-up raspberries.

To emphasize, the Madville Times does not presume blogging to be journalism. Blogging here is something else, something fun and perhaps (oh, careful, maybe we are a bit presumptuous after all!) just as vital to our small community as a good daily newspaper.

Madison -- Even Prettier!

Tuesday's print MDL reports that the Madison City Commission is the proud recipient of 8.3 acres donated by John Maloney for the purpose of establishing the Gerry Maloney Nature Area. Maloney has donated the land on the north side of town and will kick in another $100,000 to fund improvements "including a bridge, pond, grass walking trails, parking lot, fences, gazebo and benches" (Chuck Clement, "Commission Reviews Electric Rate Hike," MDL, 2007.04.24, p. 1).

8.3 acres -- that's a lot of municipal park! It sounds like an excellent addition to Madison's recreational opportunities. (And if I may suggest, we probably don't need a big parking lot. Keep all the green we can, and let people get a few more steps of exercise.) I can't wait to take Baby Madville Times for a stroll through it.

One fiscal note: for $100,000 and nice stretch of land from one private donor, plus maybe an $80,000 grant from SD Game, Fish and Parks, we get a beautiful new outdoor public park every citizen can actively use and enjoy year-round (yes, some of us even hit the parks in winter). Compare that to the recently defeated $10-million gym, where a few dozen athletes would play in front of a lot of spectators. This park sounds like a much better investment for the greater good of the community. Besides, a lush green park will look a lot nicer on our promotional materials than another big windowless brick building.

Counting Chickens Before the Rates Increase

Monday night the Madison City Commission gave first reading to an ordinance to raise city electric rates 5%. Naturally, when I first read about this in MDL (print edition only, alas), I had to ask, what happened to the $100,000 surplus the city had in its electric fund that the city wanted to donate to the school district? Those seemed some logical dots to connect, but MDL didn't follow up.

Enter KJAM Radio, dot-connector of the day:

The 100-thousand dollars that was not transferred from the city to the school for electrical upgrades during the April 10th elections, will be used to help counteract the rate increase that is being passed down from Heartland in lieu of the cost of rebuilding from the storms that that downed portions of Heartland’s systems.

Tonight's moral -- take your pick!

1. Hang onto your unexpected surpluses (surpli?) to cushion yourself for unexpected expenses. Or--
2. Spend your extra money now, before some contingency gobbles it up!
   

TV Turn-off Week Strikes the Heartland

Props to KJAM Radio for promoting TV Turn-Off Week. The Madville Times does not suspect KJAM Radio of any sort of self-interest in this social activism. None at all. (Funny -- no mention of the event on KELO-TV.)

Mrs. Madville Times's pastor also mentioned that the Madison Middle School is also promoting the week. Let's hope the teachers are encouraging the kids to read blogs instead. Heck, let's hope the kids are writing blogs!

By the way, the TV in the Madville Times headquarters remains off tonight. Just the clickety-chickety of laptop keys shouting out into the cybernight....