Mediaboss Marketing

SIOUX FALLS, S.D. (KELOLAND) The last time South Dakota had a Democrat as governor, the Dallas Cowboys won the Super Bowl with Roger Staubach as quarterback.

South Dakota State University, the University of South Dakota and Augustana football were members of the North Central Conference (NCC).

But Gov. Harvey Wollman was not elected, he replaced Democrat Richard Kneip as governor in 1978 and served until Jan. 1, 1979. Wollman was the lieutenant governor when Kneip resigned to be the ambassador to Singapore.

The last elected Democrat governor was Kneip who took office in 1971.

Democrat candidate Jamie Smith who is running for governor in 2022.

Smith announced today he was running a Democrat for governor of South Dakota. Hes a Democratic lawmaker from Sioux Falls in District 15 and is House Minority Leader.

Since 1889, South Dakota has had only five Democrat governors: William J. Bulow, 1927-1931; Thomas M. Berry, 1933 1937; Ralph Herseth, 1959-1961; Richard Kneip, 1971-1978; and Harvey Wollman, 1978-1979.

According to the South Dakota Secretary of State, there are 5,592 registered Democrats and 5,846 registered Republicans in District 15. There are also 6,543 voters registered as Independent or with no party affiliation.

Statewide voter registrations show how hard it could be for a Democrat to get elected governor in South Dakota.

As of Feb. 1, there were 280,125 registered Republicans in South Dakota. There were 152,482 registered Democrats.

As of Feb. 1, there were 152,482 registered Democrats in South Dakota, according to the Secretary of State.

But there were 140,194 who had registered as Independents or with no political party.

Libertarian registrations totaled 2,617 while other affiliations totaled 1,378.

Those total 576,796 total voters.

The state has 63,475 inactive registrations.

Since 2008, the number of registered Democrats has declined while the number of registered Republicans has increased. The state has almost 40,000 more registered Republicans than it did in 2008. There are about 50,000 fewer registered Democrats.

The number of Independents and no party affiliation registered voters is growing. On Sept. 1, 2014, there were less than 100,000 of these registered voters. About eight years later, there are 40,000 more.

The state had 241,528 registered Republicans in the general election of 2008. It had 204,413 registered Democrats. It had a total of 530,462 registered voters.

But registered voters dont always vote that way when it comes to elections. Or not all the members registered in a party vote on election day.

Gov. Kristi Noem won the 2018 election with 51% of the popular vote or 172,912 votes to 47.6% or 161,454 for Democrat Billie Sutton.

Billie Sutton, the 2018 Democrat candidate for South Dakota governor.

As of Nov. 1, 2018, there were 256,496 registered Republicans and 158,968 registered Democrats, according to the SOS office. There were also 126,656 registered as Independents or with no party affiliation.

The Sutton-Noem race did break a trend. The percentage of victor of Noem was the smallest since 1986, when Republican George S. Mickelson beat Democrat Lars Herseth by 3.6 points.

Races from 1986 to 2018 were not that close.

Republican Dennis Daugaard won in 2010 with 61.1% of the vote or 195,024 votes. Democrat Scott Heidepriem received 122,010 votes or 38.5% The state had 235,906 registered Republicans as of Oct. 1, 2010, and 193,304 registered Democrats.

Although a slim majority of South Dakotans who voted elected a female as governor in 2018, female Democratic candidate Susan Wismer was soundly defeated in 2014 by incumbent Daugaard. Daugaard won with 70.5% of the vote to 25.4% for Wismer.

Former South Dakota Governor Dennis Daugaard. The incumbent Republican won with 70% of the vote in 2014.

Daugaard received 195,477 votes, fewer than the 240,545 number of registered Republicans.

Democrat Gov. Thomas Berry once called a special session to once to legalize 3.2 % alcoholic beer, according to the National Governors Association.

During Gov. Thomas Berrys administration, state property tax was abolished and replaced by a gross income tax. The gross income tax was replaced by the state sales tax.

The Big Bend Dam on the Missouri River was started during Gov. Ralph Herseths time in office. Herseth was also active in developing natural resources in the state.

Kneip consolidated 160 state agencies, boards, and departments into 16 in order to make the executive branch more efficient and responsible, according to the National Governors Association.

Two years after Kneip won the governors race in 1970 with about 55% of the vote, South Dakota voters didnt even choose home-state Democrat candidate George McGovern for president. McGovern received 45.5% of the states vote to winner Republican Richard Nixons 54.2%.

Democrat George McGovern was the partys candidate for president in 1972.

But much like voting for governor, the majority of South Dakotans do not vote for a Democrat for president.

They did in 1964 when the majority voted for Democrat Lyndon B. Johnson over Republican Barry Goldwater.

If there is a Republican candidate, theres more than a good chance South Dakota will vote for that candidate.

South Dakota did vote for Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1932 and 1936 for his first and second of four terms.

View post:
Democrats as governor are rare in South Dakota - KELOLAND.com

A pack of 50 Kimberly-Clark N95 masks cost $2,319 in October 2021. By mid-January, the same box of masks cost $5,715, according to the Groundwork Collaborative, a left-leaning activist group focused on economic issues.

Manufacturers like Kimberly-Clark say the price hikes are a result of supply-chain bottlenecks, worker shortages, and other pandemic-related disruptions.In December, the cost of consumer goods and services rose 7% over the past year.

Lawmakers say its price-gouging. And its not just happening in pandemic-related supplies. The cost of diapers, food and even drugs has skyrocketed dramatically in recent months as corporations have increased prices and maintained healthy profit margins, according to Democrats in Congress who conducted a hearing on pricing on Wednesday.

Corporate greed is motivating large companies to use the pandemic and supply chain issues as an excuse to raise prices simply because they can. And a lot of executives brazenly boast to investors about raising prices on consumers without consequencesand these executives are saying they're going to continue to do so, House Energy and Commerce committee chairman Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) said during Wednesday's hearing.

American consumers have experienced unconscionable price hikes in everyday consumer goods, added Janice Schakowsky (D-Ill.). We are at war with this pandemic, war with this virus. And during World War II, war profiteers were held accountable. The same should be applied here today.

To fight this kind of price-gouging, Pallone, Schakowsky, and several Democrat co-sponsors introduced legislation earlier in the week to hold companies accountable. The COVID19 Price Gouging Prevention Act would give the Federal Trade Commission the ability to seek civil penalties from companies that raise prices to unconscionably excessive levels during the pandemic. The bill also gives states attorneys general the authority to enforce the legislation without losing any of their existing authority under state law.

Story continues

But enforcing this proposed legislation may be impossible, supply-chain expert Glenn Richey said Wednesday. The legislation will have to be quite careful in uncovering what is really a price-gouging situation and what is just a natural need to increase prices, he said.

It is important to remember that prices move with the market and across supply chain transactions, said Richey, a professor and department chair in supply chain management at Auburn Universitys Raymond J. Harbert College of Business.

Among the bills serious flaws is the fact that it fails to define what constitutes an excessive price increase, according to Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.)

On the issue of price-gouging, standing up against those who have profiteered during the pandemic is a bipartisan issue, McMorris Rodgers said Wednesday, chastising Democratic leadership for their go it alone approach and for failing to get Republican input.

Currently, about 39 states have some kind of statute or regulation that defines price-gouging as illegal during a time of disaster or emergency, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. But the specifics of each states rules vary substantially, as do the consequences.

The fact of the matter is there is no federal price gouging work today. While most states do have some kind of authority, those laws are inconsistent, and many failed to address the unique circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic, Pallone said. So Congress has to give the FTC and state authority the enforcement tools they need to go after companies that are gouging consumers.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

Excerpt from:
Top Democrats rip corporations for price gouging. Executives brazenly boast to investors about raising prices - Yahoo Finance

The United Nations says it has received credible allegations that more than 100 members of the ousted Afghan government, its security forces and those who worked with international troops have been killed since the Taliban took over on 15 August.

Secretary general Antonio Guterres said in a report that more than two thirds of the deaths were alleged to have resulted from extrajudicial killings by the Taliban or its affiliates, despite the Talibans announcement of general amnesties for those affiliated with the former government and US-led coalition forces.

The UN political mission in Afghanistan also received credible allegations of extrajudicial killings of at least 50 individuals suspected of affiliation with Isil-KP, the Islamic State extremist group operating in Afghanistan, Guterres said in the report to the UN security council.

In the report, obtained by the Associated Press on Sunday, he added that despite Taliban assurances, the UN political mission had also received credible allegations of enforced disappearances and other violations impacting the right to life and physical integrity of former government and coalition members.

Guterres said human rights defenders and media workers also continue to come under attack, intimidation, harassment, arbitrary arrest, ill-treatment and killings.

Eight civil society activists were killed, including three by the Taliban and three by Islamic State extremists, and 10 were subjected to temporary arrests, beatings and threats by the Taliban, he said. Two journalists were killed one by IS and two were injured by unknown armed men.

The secretary general said the UN missions documented 44 cases of temporary arrests, beatings and threats of intimidation, 42 of them by the Taliban.

The Taliban overran most of Afghanistan as US and Nato forces were in the final stages of their chaotic withdrawal from the country after 20 years. They entered Kabul on 15 August without any resistance from the Afghan army or the countrys president, Ashraf Ghani, who fled.

The Taliban initially promised a general amnesty for those linked to the former government and international forces, and tolerance and inclusiveness towards women and ethnic minorities. However, the Taliban have renewed restrictions on women and appointed an all-male government, which have met with dismay by the international community.

Afghanistans aid-dependent economy was already stumbling when the Taliban seized power, and the international community froze Afghanistans assets abroad and halted economic support, recalling the Talibans reputation for brutality during its 1996-2001 rule and refusal to educate girls and allow women to work.

Guterres said: The situation in Afghanistan remains precarious and uncertain six months after the Taliban takeover as the multiple political, socio-economic and humanitarian shocks reverberate across the country.

He said Afghanistan today faces multiple crises: a growing humanitarian emergency, a massive economic contraction, the crippling of its banking and financial systems, the worst drought in 27 years and the Talibans failure to form an inclusive government and restore the rights of girls to education and women to work.

An estimated 22.8 million people are projected to be in crisis and emergency levels of food insecurity until March 2022, the UN chief said. Almost 9 million of these will be at emergency levels of food insecurity the highest number in the world. Half of all children under five are facing acute malnutrition.

On a positive note, Guterres reported a significant decline in the overall number of conflict-related security incidents as well as civilian casualties since the Taliban takeover. The UN recorded 985 security-related incidents between 19 August and 31 December, a 91% decrease compared with the same period in 2020, he said.

The eastern, central, southern and western regions accounted for 75% of all recorded incidents, he said, with Nangarhar, Kabul, Kunar and Kandahar ranking as the most conflict-affected provinces.

Despite the reduction in violence, Guterres said the Taliban faced several challenges, including rising attacks against their members.

Some are attributed to the National Resistance Front comprising some Afghan opposition figures, and those associated with the former government, he said. These groups have been primarily operating in Panjshir province and Baghlans Andarab district but have not made significant territorial inroads, although armed clashes are regularly documented, along with forced displacement and communication outages.

Guterres said intra-Taliban tensions along ethnic lines and competition over jobs had also resulted in violence, pointing to armed clashes on 4 November between between Taliban forces in Bamyan city.

In the report, the secretary general proposed priorities for the UN political mission in the current environment, urged international support to prevent widespread hunger and the countrys economic collapse, and urged the Taliban to guarantee womens rights and human rights.

Excerpt from:
Afghanistan: more than 100 believed killed despite Taliban ...

Kabul, Afghanistan/Islamabad, Pakistan A week after Taliban and senior US and European officials held talks in the Norwegian capital, Oslo, the main outcome appears to be promises of an increase in humanitarian aid, contingent on demands related to human rights, with some analysts saying the talks imply a de facto recognition of the Talibans government.

No foreign government has yet formally recognised the legitimacy of the Talibans rule over Afghanistan, referred to by the group as the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (IEA), although several world powers have engaged with the government at various levels.

The talks in Oslo were the first official trip by acting Afghan Foreign Minister Amir Khan Muttaqi and his delegation to Europe since the Afghan Taliban captured Kabul and took control of Afghanistan in mid-August.

Following the January 24 talks, diplomats from the United States and Europe said they told Afghan Taliban officials that humanitarian aid would be tied to an improvement in the human rights situation in the country, which international rights groups and Afghan activists have said has worsened considerably since the Taliban took over.

[Participants] urged the Taliban to do more to stop the alarming increase of human rights violations, including arbitrary detentions, forced disappearances, media crackdowns, extrajudicial killings, torture and prohibitions on women and girls education, employment and freedom to travel without a male escort, said a joint US-European statement issued after the talks.

The talks also recognised the urgency in addressing the humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan andhighlighted necessary steps to help alleviate the suffering of Afghans across the country, the statement said.

On Wednesday, United Nations chief Antonio Guterres said Afghanistan was hanging by a thread, as the economy ground to a halt following the Taliban takeover and ensuing international sanctions, including the freezing of more than $9bn in Afghan central bank assets.

He also urged the Taliban to recognise and protect the fundamental human rights that every person shares.

A Taliban official hailed the talks as a gigantic achievement.

Without doubt, the Oslo talks were a gigantic achievement to the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, said Shafi Azam, a foreign ministry official in the Afghan Taliban government.

It was a fruitful opportunity for the Taliban to address the majority of members of the European Union and to hear their worries and share with them [our] achievements and to talk about the challenges and also pass on [our] future plans to Europe, Azam, who took part in the Oslo talks, told Al Jazeera.

Mohsin Amin, a policy analyst and researcher, said the talks, among other actions, were signs of implicit recognition of the Talibans government.

I think it has already been recognised as a de facto government, he told Al Jazeera.

I think [the Oslo talks] can be considered an achievement for the Talibans diplomacy. The Taliban want engagement with the rest of the world, and such meetings facilitated that sort of engagement.

Sulaiman bin Shah, a former deputy minister of industry and commerce in the government of deposed President Ashraf Ghani, agreed that the Oslo talks and other forms of engagement effectively create a situation where the new rule is de-facto recognised.

Shah said the international community was attempting to walk a fine line between addressing the extreme humanitarian crisis while not legitimising the Talibans government.

The attempt to walk a fine line is indeed an illusion that the foreign governments have made to achieve political goals and objectives, Shah told Al Jazeera.

Only the events on August 15 [when the Taliban captured Kabul] were not predictable, but it does not mean that the international community is not accountable for the peace accords signed in Doha [between the US and the Taliban in 2020].

The United Nations has said more than half of the Afghan population is facing extreme hunger.

Earlier in January, UN Secretary-General Guterres launched an appeal for more than $4.4bn to keep the food, education and economic systems from collapsing.

Shah said the crisis following the Afghan Talibans takeover had hit the public sector and its ability to deliver basic services drastically.

While the fiscal and budgetary arrangements have been a daunting task for the [Afghan] ministry of finance, only marginal payments have been made to the public service officials including teachers and health professionals, he said.

International sanctions that have frozen the ability of many Afghans to transfer money or conduct transactions have also stifled the private sector, he said.

Amin, the analyst, said that the crisis could not be addressed solely by humanitarian aid, but that measures taken to isolate Afghanistan following the Taliban takeover needed to be reviewed.

Foreign governments cannot avert the humanitarian crisis solely by humanitarian aid, he said.

To alleviate poverty in Afghanistan, development projects must resume, sanctions on the banking sector of Afghanistan must lifted and central banks assets must [be] unfrozen.

Azam, the Afghan foreign ministry official, said the Taliban had, during the Oslo talks, given assurance of security to [US and European officials] for spreading out their [humanitarian] assistance all over the country.

One topic of debate during the Oslo talks appeared to be the US, European and other governments demand that the Taliban form an inclusive government.

The Talibans previous stint in power in the 1990s was marked by a largely homogenous, Taliban-dominated government that enforced a strict interpretation of Islamic law on the country, with severe restrictions imposed on women in many spheres of life.

[US and European officials] raised the importance of respect for human rights and the strong need for an inclusive and representative political system to ensure stability and a peaceful future for Afghanistan, said the joint US-European statement issued after the Oslo talks.

Since the talks, acting Foreign Minister Muttaqi and other Taliban officials have questioned the definition of an inclusive government, saying foreign governments have failed to provide metrics on the term and claiming the current acting government is diverse.

Azam said there was serious discussion in Oslo on the term, but that the Afghan delegation did not come away with clarity on what the demand meant.

I think there is no comprehensive definition related to the inclusive government, he said, adding that conversations were also held on what the form of Afghanistans government should be.

Finally, the summary is that it is the authority of Afghans to establish a government based on the nature and value of [Afghan] culture, he said.

US and European officials, however, say the term inclusive must be defined in a way that is acceptable to all Afghans.

It is not the task of the international community to define an inclusive Afghan government, said EU Special Envoy on Afghanistan Tomas Niklasson, responding to a statement by Afghan acting Foreign Minister Muttaqi.

It is for all adult Afghan men and women to do so through transparent processes on which they have also had a say and respecting their rights.

Analysts have said some of the key determinants of whether the Afghan government is diverse will include whether the Talibans political opponents, such as members of the previous government, are able to participate in it, as well as the role played by women and ethnic minorities.

The international community must establish an [Afghan government] that respects the values of humanity and will investigate the killings of women, children, minorities and all citizens of Afghanistan, said Rokhsaneh Rezaei, an Afghan rights activist.

[The world must] make a wise decision about the political destiny of Afghanistan.

Amin, the analyst, warned that while both the Afghan Taliban and world powers currently had leverage in talks the Taliban in the form of control of the country and foreign countries in the form of the need for financial and other aid that the current deadlock was harming regular Afghans.

I think both the Taliban and the US are misusing the perceived leverages and punishing the Afghan people, he said.

Stubbornness from both sides is harmful.

Mohsin Khan Momand is Al Jazeeras producer in Kabul, Afghanistan. Asad Hashim is Al Jazeeras digital correspondent in Pakistan.

View original post here:
After Oslo talks, whats next for Afghanistan? | News | Al ...

Recent Developments

In April 2021, President Joe Biden announced that U.S. military forces would leave Afghanistan by September 2021. The Taliban, which had continued to capture and contest territory across the country despite ongoing peace talks with the Afghan government, ramped up attacks on Afghan National Defense and Security Forces (ANDSF) bases and outposts and began to rapidly seize more territory. In May 2021, the U.S. military accelerated the pace of its troop withdrawal. By the end of July 2021, the United States had completed nearly 95 percent of its withdrawal, leaving just 650 troops to protect the U.S. embassy in Kabul.

In the summer of 2021, the Taliban continued its offensive, threatening government-controlled urban areas and seizing several border crossings. In early August, the Taliban began direct assaults on multiple urban areas, including Kandahar in the south and Herat in the west. On August 6, 2021, the Taliban captured the capital of southern Nimruz Province, the first provincial capital to fall. After that, provincial capitals began to fall in rapid succession. Within days, the Taliban captured more than ten other capitals, including Mazar-i-Sharif in the north and Jalalabad in the east, leaving Kabul the only major urban area under government control. On August 15, 2021, Taliban fighters entered the capital, leading Afghan President Ashraf Ghani to flee the country and the Afghan government to collapse. Later that day, the Taliban announced they had entered the presidential palace, taken control of the city, and were establishing checkpoints to maintain security.

The speed of the Talibans territorial gains and collapse of both the ANDSF and Afghan government surprised U.S. officials and alliesas well as, reportedly, the Taliban itselfdespite earlier intelligence assessments of the situation on the ground. The Biden administration authorized the deployment of an additional six thousand troops to assist with the evacuation of U.S. and allied personnel, as well as thousands of Afghans who worked with the United States and were attempting to flee. The speed of the Afghan governments collapse threatens a mass exodus of refugees from Afghanistan and has exacerbated an already dire humanitarian crisis.

Background

After the Taliban government refused to hand over terrorist leader Osama bin Laden in the wake of al-Qaedas September 11, 2001, attacks, the United States invaded Afghanistan. The Taliban leadership quickly lost control of the country and relocated to southern Afghanistan and across the border to Pakistan. From there, they waged an insurgency against the Western-backed government in Kabul, Afghan national security forces, and international coalition troops.

When the U.S.-led coalition formally ended its combat mission in 2014, the ANDSF was put in charge of Afghanistans security. The ANDSF, however, faced significant challenges in holding territory and defending population centers, while the Taliban continued to attack rural districts and carry out suicide attacks in major cities. The war remained largely a stalemate for nearly six years, despite a small U.S. troop increase in 2017, continuing combat missions, and a shift in U.S. military strategy to target Taliban revenue sources, which involved air strikes against drug labs and opium production sites.

The Taliban continued to contest territory, including provincial capitals, across the country. The group briefly seized the capital of Farah Province in May 2018, and in August 2018 it captured the capital of Ghazni Province, holding the city for nearly a week before U.S. and Afghan troops regained control. The ANDSF suffered heavy casualties in recent years.

In February 2020, after more than a year of direct negotiations, the U.S. government and the Taliban signed a peace agreement that set a timeline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan. Under the agreement, the United States pledged to draw down U.S. troops to approximately 8,500 within 135 days and complete a full withdrawal within fourteen months. In return, the Taliban pledged to prevent territory under its control from being used by terrorist groups and enter into negotiations with the Afghan government. However, no official cease-fire was put into place. After a brief reduction in violence, the Taliban quickly resumed attacks on Afghan security forces and civilians. Direct talks between the Afghan government and the Taliban began months after the agreed upon start of March 2020, faced multiple delays, and ultimately made little progress. Violence across Afghanistan continued in 2020 and 2021 as the United States increased air strikes and raids targeting the Taliban. Meanwhile, the Taliban attacked Afghan government and Afghan security forces targets and made territorial gains.

Civilian casualties across Afghanistan have remained high over the past several years. The United Nations documented a thenrecord high of 10,993 civilian casualties in 2018. Although 2019 saw a slight decline, civilian casualties exceeded 10,000 for the sixth year in a row and brought the total UN-documented civilian casualties since 2009 to more than 100,000. Despite another decline in 2020, the first half of 2021 saw a record high number of civilian casualties as the Taliban ramped up their military offensive amid the withdrawal of international troops.

In addition to the Talibans offensive, Afghanistan faces a threat from the Islamic State in Khorasan, which has also expanded its presence in several eastern provinces, attacked Kabul, and targeted civilians with suicide attacks.

Uncertainty surrounding the future of international assistance has strained the Afghan economy. Although the United States and its allies pledged in late 2020 to continue providing support to the Afghan government, they could reduce aid following the Taliban takeover. Such a move could compound Afghanistans deteriorating economic situation.

Concerns

The United States has an interest in attempting to preserve the many political, human rights, and security gains that have been achieved in Afghanistan since 2001. The Taliban takeover of the country could once again turn Afghanistan into a terrorist safe haven, as the group is believed to maintain ties with al-Qaeda. The takeover also threatens to reverse advances made in securing the rights of women and girls. Moreover, increasing internal instability, a mass exodus of refugees, and a growing humanitarian crisis could have regional ramifications as neighboring countries respond. In addition, Pakistan, India, Iran, and Russia are all likely to compete for influence in Kabul and with subnational actors.

Visit link:
War in Afghanistan | Global Conflict Tracker