KELO notes Google's claim that the search giant helped generate $55.6 million in economic activity in South Dakota in 2013. According to Google's nationwide economic report, that's the third-lowest amount of Googly economic activity, behind only Alaska and North Dakota.

A low raw-dollar figure is to be expected, since we have the fifth-lowest state population. But compare the per-capita economic impact Google has in our region:

  Google EconActiv (millions) Biz/Orgs using Google Ads population (2013) Google EconActiv per capita
SD $55.6 2,300 844,877 $65.81
MN $1,900.0 24,000 5,420,380 $350.53
IA $147.0 8,900 3,090,416 $47.57
ND $52.7 1,600 723,393 $72.85
MT $64.0 4,000 1,015,165 $63.04
NE $1,400.0 6,000 1,868,516 $749.26
WY $70.2 1,800 582,658 $120.48

Google stirred up $65.81 in economic activity per South Dakotan in 2013. Google thus rang the relative till harder here than in Iowa or Montana. But in Wyoming, Google generated almost twice as much business per person. In Minnesota, there was over five times as much Google economic juice per person, and in Nebraska, over eleven times.

The national per-capita figure for Google economic activity was $353.65. Here's a list of all states (plus DC) with population and Google economic impact per capita:

Rank State population (2013) Google Econ/Activ Google Econ/Activ per capita
1 District of Columbia 646,449 882 $1,392.43
 2 New York 19,651,127 18300 $934.81
3 Massachusetts 6,692,824 5800 $872.80
4 Vermont 626,630 522 $833.93
5 Nebraska 1,868,516 1400 $754.57
6 California 38,332,521 25400 $668.42
7 Illinois 12,882,135 8100 $629.46
8 Utah 2,900,872 1760 $616.49
9 Washington 6,971,406 4200 $609.11
10 Nevada 2,790,136 1280 $464.72
11 Connecticut 3,596,080 1520 $423.19
12 Minnesota 5,420,380 1900 $353.18
13 Colorado 5,268,367 1800 $346.86
14 Florida 19,552,860 6500 $336.43
15 Arizona 6,626,624 2100 $320.55
16 Delaware 925,749 283 $308.60
17 New Jersey 8,899,339 2200 $248.09
18 Georgia 9,992,167 2400 $242.04
19 Pennsylvania 12,773,801 2800 $219.36
20 Maine 1,328,302 286 $215.28
21 Texas 26,448,193 5600 $214.88
 22 Kansas 2,893,957 611 $211.76
23 Virginia 8,260,405 1700 $207.66
24 Maryland 5,928,814 1200 $203.91
25 Oregon 3,930,065 780 $200.01
26 Missouri 6,044,171 1200 $199.19
27 Michigan 9,895,622 1700 $172.02
28 Rhode Island 1,051,511 173 $164.71
29 New Hampshire 1,323,459 206 $155.87
30 Ohio 11,570,808 1800 $155.80
31 Wisconsin 5,742,713 862 $150.58
 32 South Carolina 4,774,839 650 $137.61
 33 Tennessee 6,495,978 815 $126.26
34 Wyoming 582,658 70.2 $121.74
35 Indiana 6,570,902 762 $116.55
36 North Carolina 9,848,060 1100 $112.84
37 Idaho 1,612,136 164 $102.78
38 West Virginia 1,854,304 174 $93.72
39 North Dakota 723,393 52.7 $75.14
40 Arkansas 2,959,373 201 $68.14
41 South Dakota 844,877 55.6 $66.66
42 Montana 1,015,165 64 $63.65
43 Hawaii 1,404,054 82.3 $59.20
44 Kentucky 4,395,295 255 $58.22
45 Oklahoma 3,850,568 199 $52.15
46 Iowa 3,090,416 147 $47.80
47 Alabama 4,833,722 203 $42.14
48 Alaska 735,132 27.3 $37.38
49 Louisiana 4,625,470 170 $36.94
50 New Mexico 2,085,287 75.5 $36.24
 51 Mississippi 2,991,207 60.2 $20.16

Notice that the top ten are an interesting mix of urban centers and rural places, while the bottom ten have are more uniformly large, rural states. If we take Google economic impact as a sign of overall online economic activity, these data suggest that rural states can exploit online tools (not just search, but online ads, YouTube, and analytics) to generate revenue as effectively as urban places like New York and Massachusetts.

These numbers may also suggest something about interstate trade. It is possible that the states with lower Google economic impact per capita have more insular markets, with more businesses relying on local sales and word of mouth. I am really curious, though, what difference has Nebraskans spending so much more time and money on Google tools than we South Dakotans next door.


Here's a low ranking in which South Dakota can find relief: South Dakota is among states with low participation in the white-supremacist hate forum Stromfront.

Stormfront participation by state, 2014. Source: Analysis of Stormfront U.S. user profiles by Seth Stephens-Davidowitz

New York Times graphic, 2014.07.12 based on analysis of Stormfront U.S. user profiles by Seth Stephens-Davidowitz

Stephens-Davidowitz found 12 South Dakotans participating in Stormfront's particularly vile community of loathing of "the other." According to his data, South Dakota ranks 34th per capita, below the national average, on this metric. Nebraska has the lowest per-capita Stormfrontery in the area, with a ranking of 44th for the 18 profiles Stephens-Davidowitz found.

Stephens-Davidowitz, who writes for the New York Times and wields a Ph.D. in economics from Harvard, offers one other bit of hopeful data about South Dakota's online racism. In a 2013 paper, Stephens-Davidowitz found that South Dakota ranked 40th among states for Google searches including the n-word. Wyomingians, Minnesotans, and, interestingly, Stormfront-avid Montanans searched that term even less than South Dakotans.

I wonder: is casual Googling among the broader population a stronger indicator of racial animus than active participation in an online hate group? If we're feeling hopeful, let's interpret the Montana data as a demonstration that Stormfront is a fringe element with little impact on overall statewide characteristics, kind of like South Dakota's Constitution Party.


“[W]e might hope to see the finances of the Union as clear and intelligible as a merchant’s books, so that every member of Congress, and every man of any mind in the Union, should be able to comprehend them, to investigate abuses, and consequently to control them” [Thomas Jefferson to Secretary of the Treasury Albert Gallatin, 1802.04.01].

We're not that great at running elections (how'd your great-idea voting centers do on poll wait times in Sioux Falls yesterday, Secretary Gant?), but South Dakota gets good marks for online budget transparency. The U.S. Public Interest Research Group has scored states on offering online access to government spending data. South Dakota gets a B+, tying with North Carolina in the "Advancing" category, and just missing joining eight "Leading" states. Our only neighbor in the Leading category is Iowa, scoring 90 compared to our 89.5 (so close!). Minnesota and North Dakota both get D's.

South Dakota was among the top ten improvers, boosting its public finance website score from 70 to 89.5 in just one year. The big improvement was adding searchable datat on "Tax Expenditures," the tax revenue that South Dakota could collect under uniform application of existing laws but which it gives up in the form of sales tax exemptions, preferential rates, and other special favors. (The total listed this morning for all tax expenditures: $632,450,622.00. That's enough money to raise our teachers' pay to the highest in the nation and still have $304 million left. Or we could pay the $510 million it would cost to send all 36,000+ plus students in our Regental universities for free.)

Of course, since our EB-5 program went private, I can't find the checks Joop Bollen, Richard Benda, and friends were able to cash under his contract with the state. Open.SD.Gov allows us to follow the money... just not all of it.


We also get special mention for auditing our state checkbook each year. The online checkbook is fun: it allows to discover fun information like the fact that so far in the current fiscal year, the state of South Dakota has paid Lawrence & Schiller, the ad firm founded by state GOP chair Craig Lawrence, $3,039,006.20. It also lets us itemize state payouts to Northern Beef Packers over its unproductive five years for a total of $2,327,815.47. What fun!



...says unquestionable authority Google Maps.

There's an odd kerfuffle going on with the fake Senate campaign of Annette Bosworth. Team Bosworth and her mouthpieces claim that I have somehow tied the names of various political figures and her own son to my Lake Herman address. A Saturday press release paid for by the Bosworth Senate campaign alleges that I have thus stolen a minor child's identity and committed mail fraud.

These allegations are false and defamatory. I have e-mailed the Bosworth campaign and requested  a formal retraction and an apology from Bosworth personally. Bosworth has not responded.

But if we're going to play this game (yes, we're giving in, walking into the trap Chad and Annette like to set, talking about anything other than the fake campaign, the petition fraud, the direct-mail scam, the raffle scam, the unpaid employees, the violation of non-profit and campaign finance laws), then let's play.

Go to Sioux Falls on Google Maps. Punch in "Annette Bosworth." What comes up this morning?

Annette Bosworth on Google maps, screen cap, 2014.04.07

Annette Bosworth on Google maps, screen cap, 2014.04.07

"Annette Bosworth... Permanently closed."

Boy, if only that were true. But you just can't believe everything you read on the Web, can you?


An eager reader notes an odd Google quirk. Search "Celebrate Church," he suggests. I do, and here's what I get:

Google search results for "Celebrate Church" 2014.02.22

(Google screen cap, 2014.02.22; click to enlarge)

Celebrate Church in Sioux Falls tops the search results. To the right, we get the church's Google+ information: map, address, phone number, and a picture a nice couple, probably the lead pastor and her husband...

...wait a minute. That's not Pastor Loy. That's featured church singer Annette Bosworth and her committed if marginally employed husband Chad Haber. How nice! The church demonstrates its inviting, community-oriented, non-hierarchical structure by featuring photos of parishioners in its social media channels. Who else from the congregation do we find among their Google+ photos?

Celebrate Church Google+ photos, screen cap, 2014.02.22

Celebrate Church Google+ photos, screen cap, 2014.02.22 (click to enlarge)

Huh. Whoever was in charge of creating this strand of Celebrate Church's Web presence must have gotten tired or distracted or something, because who would ever create a church web page and post just one photo of one couple from the church, as if that one couple is somehow the face of the entire church?

This bit of unfinished Web business will surely make the humble Chad and Annette blush. Not wanting to create the false impression that they are the brand for Celebrate, I suspect the couple will chat with their church's social media guru tomorrow and remind her or him to finish up that project and populate that Google+ page with photos of all the Celebrate parishioners they can find. Quite the photo hound himself, Chad will probably volunteer to upload a bunch of pix of his fellow congregants straight from his iPhone.

Update 2014.02.24 12:01 CST: Within 36 hours of my posting on this topic, whoever controls Celebrate's Google+ account added another logo image to the church's photo page, thus supplanting the Haber-Bosworth photo as the lead image on Google search results. However, the Haber-Bosworth photo remains the only personal image on the Celebrate Google+ page.


A Bosworthy exercise in logical syllogism:

  1. Fake Senate candidate Annette Bosworth paid Facebook 19 disbursements totaling $1,635.40 in 2013 Q4.
  2. Facebook is run by Mark Zuckerberg.
  3. Zuckerberg donated 18 million shares of Facebook stock in 2013 to the Silicon Valley Community Foundation. That stock is worth $992 million.
  4. SVCF gives money to Planned Parenthood.
  5. SVCF has Planned Parenthood members among its directors and index advisors.
  6. Planned Parenthood, according to Bosworth supporters, murders babies and manipulates women.
  7. Ergo, Annette Bosworth murders babies and manipulates women.

But seriously, candidates vying for the title of true conservative alternative to Marion Michael Rounds must now boycott Faceboo, right?


How nice! Pope Francis wrote a new Madville Times mission statement:

....[M]edia can help us to feel closer to one another, creating a sense of the unity of the human family which can in turn inspire solidarity and serious efforts to ensure a more dignified life for all.  Good communication helps us to grow closer, to know one another better, and ultimately, to grow in unity.  The walls which divide us can be broken down only if we are prepared to listen and learn from one another.  We need to resolve our differences through forms of dialogue which help us grow in understanding and mutual respect.  A culture of encounter demands that we be ready not only to give, but also to receive.  Media can help us greatly in this, especially nowadays, when the networks of human communication have made unprecedented advances.  The internet, in particular, offers immense possibilities for encounter and solidarity.  This is something truly good, a gift from God [Pope Francis, "Communication at the Service of an Authentic Culture of Encounter," Pope's Message for the 48th World Communications Day, 2014.01.24].

So if my blog is part of a gift from God, I can declare 501(c)3 status, right?

The Pope says some more useful words about communication (translate: the act of building common understanding), neighbors, and networks:

Whenever communication is primarily aimed at promoting consumption or manipulating others, we are dealing with a form of violent aggression like that suffered by the man in the parable, who was beaten by robbers and left abandoned on the road.  The Levite and the priest do not regard him as a neighbour, but as a stranger to be kept at a distance.  In those days, it was rules of ritual purity which conditioned their response.  Nowadays there is a danger that certain media so condition our responses that we fail to see our real neighbour.

It is not enough to be passersby on the digital highways, simply “connected”; connections need to grow into true encounters.  We cannot live apart, closed in on ourselves.  We need to love and to be loved.  We need tenderness.  Media strategies do not ensure beauty, goodness and truth in communication.  The world of media also has to be concerned with humanity, it too is called to show tenderness.  The digital world can be an environment rich in humanity; a network not of wires but of people.  The impartiality of media is merely an appearance; only those who go out of themselves in their communication can become a true point of reference for others.  Personal engagement is the basis of the trustworthiness of a communicator.  Christian witness, thanks to the internet, can thereby reach the peripheries of human existence [Pope Francis, 2014.01.24].

Pope Francis is speaking to Catholics and Christians, but I've got to think he's got something to say to the rest of us, too:

We are challenged to be people of depth, attentive to what is happening around us and spiritually alert.  To dialogue means to believe that the “other” has something worthwhile to say, and to entertain his or her point of view and perspective.  Engaging in dialogue does not mean renouncing our own ideas and traditions, but the claim that they alone are valid or absolute [Pope Francis, 2014.01.24].

Attentive, alert, neighborly dialogue. Keep your comments coming—Pope Francis says so!


Are you having trouble accessing  old bills on the Legislature's website? I've got the fix, straight from Pierre.

Since the Legislative Research Council's revamp of the Legislature's website, I've been having a little trouble linking to bills from previous Legislative sessions. For instance, this morning I wrote about Senate Bill 171, the animal cruelty bill, from the 2013 session. From the LRC's home page, I click on Legislative Session>>2013, then on Bills, then scroll down and click on SB 171. Up comes 2013 SB 171's main page, with its sponsors, purpose, actions, and links to text and PDF versions. Those links all work.

But check out the URL that appears in the browser address bar when I view the main page for 2013 SB 171:

Compare that to the URL that appears when I access a bill from the current, 2014, session, like this year's Senate Bill 6:

See the similarity... and the problem? The only difference between the URL displayed for a 2013 bill and a 2014 bill is the bill number at the end. When I copy the URL for the 2013 bill and add it as a hyperlink in a blog post or share it in an e-mail, the person who clicks on that shared hyperlink will get the current 2014 version of SB 171, which has not yet been filed but which when filed will be an entirely different bill. The same happens if I try to share the link for 2012's House Bill 1234 (Gov. Daugaard's referred and defeated school reform bill) or 2010's HCR 1009 (Don Kopp's infamous climate-astrology resolution).

The Legislative Research Council took a moment this morning to explain the problem and help me fix it. The new website accesses sessions back to 2008 through a new query system. When you click on the 2013 session, the system stores "2013" as a variable and assumes your subsequent queries apply to that session. If you leave the LRC website and come back later, or if you pass the URL on to someone who hasn't been on the LRC website today, the system defaults to interpreting any bill URL as a request for the bill from the current session.

Here's how to fix that problem: if you have a URL for a bill from a previous session and want to share the link, add a session variable to the end of the URL:

LRC indicated that they will look for a way to remove this problem to make it easier for citizens to share links to bills. How's that for responsive government?


Recent Comments

  • grudznick on "Big Democratic Forum...": I do like young Ms. Wismer's outfit today, but not...
  • bearcreekbat on "DOJ, Brendan Johnson...": Roger, from what I recall your description of the ...
  • Pam on "Madville Times in Si...": Great job on KSOO this afternoon! Even though the ...
  • larry kurtz on "Madville Times in Si...": omg commercial radio is so insufferable!...
  • SDBlue on "Madville Times in Si...": Great interview on KSOO this afternoon Cory!...
  • Lynn on "Mercer and Myers Dri...": Roger clear your memory on your computer and you w...
  • Ellee Spawn on "Madville Times in Si...": Cory, it great to hear you speak today at forum. ...
  • Jessie on "Mercer and Myers Dri...": watched the video, was impressed, glad that that S...
  • mike fro iowa on "Mercer and Myers Dri...": According to wingnuts,waterboarding was effective ...
  • larry kurtz on "Mercer and Myers Dri...": Mercer might get canonized for his coverage of Ben...

Support Your Local Blogger!

  • Click the Tip Jar to send your donation to the Madville Times via PayPal, and support local alternative news and commentary!

Hot off the Press


Enter your email to subscribe to future updates

South Dakota Political Blogs

Greater SD Blogosphere

Visit These Sponsors

Conversation and Lunch with Democrats!
Join Stan Adelstein's conversation about South Dakota's past and future
Mike Myers, Independent Candidate for South Dakota Governor

SD Mostly Political Blogroll

South Dakota Media

Madville Monthly