More Court Stuff

First of all, Randy Barnett over at Volokh Conspiracy has some useful lessons for those watching the coming debate over a new Supreme Court Justice.

Sen. Cornyn (who would also make a good Supreme) has introduced a bill overturning the recent Kelo v. New London decision about taking private property for "public use".  I understand Sen. Thune is co-sponsoring the bill.   Prof. Blanchard and I discussed this case while in Boise, and I think it's fair to say that I am more disturbed by the broad definition of "public use" than is Prof. Blanchard.  I will let him describe his opinion, which I do have some sympathy with.  My own take is that "public use" means something that is owned and/or operated by the public.  The Supreme Court's allowance of taking private property for private companies renders "public use" operationally meaningless.  This is problematic, to say the least.  The primary effect of taking private property for use as, say, a public park, is to benefit the public, although no doubt private benefits accrue.  The primary effect of taking private property to give to private business is to profit private business, although no doubt public benefits accrue such as the increase in tax revenue.   I favor these efforts on the part of Senators Cornyn and Thune.  To see the text of the bill, go to this site and search for S. 1313.

Ward Churchill: the Gift that Keeps on Giving

It would appear that Ward Churchill is trying to get the University of Colorado to give him the boot.  This from the Denver Post:

University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill's latest toxic remarks, this time condoning - if not encouraging - attacks on military officers, are beyond outrageous. 

"Conscientious objection removes a given piece of cannon fodder from the fray," Churchill said at an anti-military forum last week in Portland, Ore. "Fragging an officer has a much more impactful effect."

Fragging is the killing or injuring of a military officer by a subordinate.

I wrote early in the controversey that I did not believe Churchill ought to fired because of his incendiary remarks about 9/11, though he might be fired for impersonating a Native American and other things.  But the remarks above are another matter.  He was apparently recommending that soldiers opposed to the war wound or kill their officers.  He ought to be fired immediately.  The Denver Post thinks so too.

Churchill has the right to free expression, but he doesn't have the right to a tenured University of Colorado teaching position. CU needs to take away his disguise as a scholar and let Churchill make his way as a political activist.

Well said.  Churchill is probably now famous enough that he will be wined and dined by Michael Moore types for the rest of his days.  Let him be.  His presence at a State University is a sign of decadence.

Time To Change The Court

After two weeks in Boise, it's good to be back.  For those interested in what Prof. Blanchard and I were up to, go here and more specifically here. I must say, though, spending the two weeks with excellent scholars discussing the nation's founding and then the origins of the Civil War, it's tough to lower one's sights back to the very important question of whether John Thune and Tom Daschle are poopy heads or jerk faces.  So let's ignore that and turn to the Supreme Court vacancy.   

The fact that Justice O'Connor was no conservative is attested by the fact that she is being praised by lefties like E.J. Dionne and Charles Ogletree.  Everything wrong with the left on this subject is summed up in a couple statements.  The first is by Mr. Dionne:

That's why, to liberals, O'Connor now looks so good. She was sometimes wrong from their point of view, but she was not always wrong and she was not predictable. She was not a pioneer looking for some lost Constitution and she was not trying to make history by starting a new era of one sort or another.

This "lost Constitution" of which Mr. Dionne speaks is the a constitution that has any meaning beyond one made up by judges.  Dionne, like most on the left, is looking for a "hip" Constitution that changes with the times.  This is often referred to as a "living Constitution."  The problem with O'Connor is just the thing for which many on the left are now praising her.  Justice O'Connor was indeed a pragmatist on the bench.  But that was not her job.  One is not on the Court to make rulings that will be politically palatable, but to judge the law.  O'Connor consistently mangled the language of the Constitution in the name of finding some imagined middle ground.  Can anyone honestly make a textual defense of that legal abomination "undue burden" that sprang from O'Connor's pen in Planned Parenthood v. Casey?  Justice O'Connor once served in the Arizona legislature.  The problem is that as a judge she never stopped acting like a legislator.  The art of the legislator is the art of compromise; the art of the judge is, well, judgment.  O'Connor was the former, not the latter. 

The second statement is this from Ralph Neas:

"This is one of those moments in American history," said Ralph G. Neas, president of the liberal People for the American Way. "No matter what side you're on, everything you've believed in, everything you've cared about, everything you've fought for is at stake. It's such a closely divided court."

The fact that some people think that the Supreme Court is the ultimate defender of "everything you've believed in, everything you've cared about" shows the abuse of judicial power that conservatives despise.  The Court is not the institution to settle our most important debates.  To bring this contentious questions such as abortion, marriage, public morality to the Court and to rely on unelected activist judges to settle them stands in direct contradiction to the intentions of the Founders.  I quote Mr. Hamilton from Federalist #78:

Whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must perceive, that, in a government in which they are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them.

Hamilton continues:

To avoid an arbitrary discretion in the courts, it is indispensable that they should be bound down by strict rules and precedents, which serve to define and point out their duty in every particular case that comes before them

Hamilton says that the judiciary is only dangerous if wedded with the powers of one of the other branches, such as if the Court became the super-legislature that it is today.  I hope that President Bush nominates a strong believer in judicial restraint who decides based on the Constitution's text, not based on politics.  I suggest Judge Michael McConnell.  When nominated for the federal courts a couple years ago McConnell was unanimously rated as well qualified by the ABA and earned the support of dozens of liberal legal scholars who, while disagreeing with McConnell in many matters, praised his fairness and seriousness. A dark horse?  Idaho Senator Mike Crapo.  While spending most of his adult life as a politician, Crapo graduated first in his class from Harvard Law School.  Let's not forget that many member of the Warren Court, including Chief Justice Warren himself, were politicians, not experienced jurists. 

How Will Johnson Vote?

Today's New York Times features an article about the difficult weeks ahead for the Senate during the Supreme Court nominee confirmation fight:

The Senate braced on Friday for a Supreme Court confirmation fight that threatens to strain a tenuous new agreement on handling court nominations and plunge the chamber back into partisan strife.

Even though President Bush has not announced a nominee, some leading Democrats made clear that they would oppose any candidate whom they judged too conservative, particularly because the candidate would replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, a moderate.

"If the president abuses his power and nominates someone who threatens to roll back the rights and freedoms of the American people, then the American people will insist that we oppose that nominee, and we intend to do so," Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, said on the Senate floor.

Will South Dakota Senator Tim Johnson vote for President Bush's nominee or join the opposition forces led by Kennedy?

p.s. welcome back to our jet-setting profs!

The Missing Poll

CQ:

The Poll That No One Reported (Updated)

Gallup announced yesterday that it had taken a snap poll after the speech given by George Bush on the war in Iraq from Fort Bragg. The poll showed some movement bolstering support for the war. In fact, it showed Bush picking up ten points on whether we are winning in Iraq (up to 54%), twelve points on keeping troops in Iraq until the situation improves as opposed to setting an exit date for their evacuation (now at 70%/25%), and seven points on whether Bush has a clear plan for handling the war in Iraq (up to 63%/35%).

All of these gains were made, Gallup points out, despite the fact that the speech had the lowest ratings of any prime-time presidential address in Bush's terms of office. Only 23 million people watched the speech, and Gallup notes that most of them consisted of Bush supporters.

We're baaack!

The "Northern Professors" have been away from this blog for a bit.  I myself spent much of the merry month of June on my native soil of Arkansas, and a bit exploring the surreal estate of Disney World with my family.  And no sooner had I set foot back in the territories than Professor Schaff and I were called away to Boise to spend a couple of weeks with Idaho teachers, discussing the Civil War.  Update: the cause was slavery, and Lincoln was the hero.

Hopefully, for those who like our brand of blogging, we are back in front of our respective screens and will be posting again.  For those who don't like it, sorry.

One quick note: I attended a meeting in Pierre last week, and was able to ask our Secretary of State an important question.  Rumours had it that South Dakota would be installing touch screen voting machines, replacing the paper ballots that all of us are used to.  I thought this to be a very disburbing rumour, but thankfully it is false.  We will keep our paper ballots.  Touch screen machines will be available to disabled voters, but those machines will merely record the voter's preference on paper.  I am of the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" school, and the number two lead pencil strikes me as a dependable tool of democracy.  At least a good ole fashioned paper ballot can be recounted, with no hanging chads to contend with. 

And by the way, Disney World is really fun. 

Redrawing Voting Districts

Argus Leader:

South Dakota lawmakers have a duty to redraw district boundaries ruled illegal in a federal voting-rights case, the state Supreme Court said Thursday in a decision that probably means a special legislative session.

The state court said the legislative duty in redistricting continues until the job is done legally. A plan ruled invalid by a court, as the South Dakota Legislature's 2001 redistricting was in U.S. District Court last fall, isn't a finished product, the opinion said.

That ruling, sought in a federal case involving Lakota voters in legislative districts that encompass the Pine Ridge and Rosebud reservations, almost surely means a special session, Attorney General Larry Long said.

CAFTA Passes Senate

The Central America Free Trade Agreement has passed the Senate, 54-45, and it now moves into the House:

Fresh off a victory in the Senate, the Bush administration turned to the House in the drive to conclude a free trade agreement it says will promote democracy in Central America while opening new markets to American businesses. ...

CAFTA would further open a market of 44 million people by eliminating trade barriers to U.S. manufactured and farm goods, protecting trademarks and other intellectual property and establishing legal frameworks for U.S. investment. Last year the region purchased about $15 billion worth of U.S. goods. ...

The United States signed CAFTA a year ago with the five Central American countries of Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua and the Caribbean nation, the Dominican Republic.

It won't go into effect until approved by Congress, and from the start that has been a far more difficult task than the bilateral agreements the administration has concluded with Singapore, Chile, Australia and Morocco.

Both Johnson and Thune voted "nay" on  CAFTA.  Was it the right choice?  I've heard arguments from both sides of the political spectrum and read anaylsis by a number of economists and economic institutions.  These range from drastically helping South Dakota (and, generally, Midwestern) agriculture and the ethanol industry to drastically hurting those industries.  The potential is there that Central America's purchasing power will increase demand and drive up prices, which drives the economy and increases the standard of living for everyone overall. 

A report by the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy on the impact on the ethanol industry does have me concerned on the passing of this agreement (and manifests my greatest apprehension with the agreement).  IATA president Mark Ritchie has warned that CAFTA could hurt the ethanol industry:

Under CAFTA, if Central American countries convert Brazilian ethanol into fuel for the United States, 240 million gallons of ethanol could be exported into the United States tariff-free in 2005.

"If ethanol feedstock produced in Central America is part of a 50 percent blend with Brazilian ethanol, unlimited amounts could be exported into the U.S. tariff-free. ... It doesn't make any sense to give away our ethanol market, something farmers and rural communities have spent 20 years building, to a bad trade agreement," Ritchie said. "Ethanol has the potential to create jobs in struggling rural communities while establishing a stable, local, renewable source of energy. Why would we agree to a trade deal that undercuts this growing market?"

Strong local support has come from Senator Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), the American Farm Bureau Federation, and the National Corn Growers Association.  However, if the report by the IATA proves correct for the industry, then I applaud Thune and Johnson for their vote (and hope Herseth votes the same).  Conversely, economic forecasting can be as accurate as weather forecasting, and the IATA report can be viewed skeptically.

If it passes through the House, only time may tell us whether CAFTA was worth it.

UPDATE: Thune opposes another Bush priority

O'CONNOR RETIRES!

Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor has retired.  From Senator Thune:

Senator John Thune (R-SD) made the following statement today regarding the Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s retirement:

“Sandra Day O’Connor was not only a pioneer as the first woman on the Supreme Court, but she was also a fair and thoughtful judge who helped America grapple with some of the most complex and divisive constitutional issues in our nation’s history. As a Supreme Court justice, O’Connor never forgot that the courts should interpret laws and not legislate. We thank Justice O’Connor for her service to America and her commitment to justice. Whomever the President nominates will have big shoes to fill. I expect the Senate to give the President’s nominee a rigorous and fair hearing followed by an up-or-down confirmation vote.”

Eminent Domain

The recent ruling by the US Supreme Court allowing the government seize private property did not go down well with a couple of South Dakota legislators:

In response to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling, two state lawmakers plan to introduce a bill that would prevent South Dakota government agencies from condemning land for economic development.

House Republican Leader Larry Rhoden of Union Center and Sen. Jim Lintz, R-Hermosa, said they have asked legislative staff to research the issue and write a bill for consideration when the 2006 legislative session opens in January.

The measure would define the kinds of public uses that would justify government's condemnation of private property, Lintz said.

State government, counties and cities should be allowed to take property through eminent domain only for public purposes such as roadways, not for use by private businesses for economic development, Lintz said.

The New York Times has more today on federal efforts to limit the recent Supreme Court decision:

Hours after he spoke, the House voted 231 to 189 to approve a measure that would prohibit federal financing for property seizures. Speaker J. Dennis Hastert of Illinois praised the move, an amendment to a spending bill covering transportation and housing, as "an important first step" to protecting private property, though it was not clear if the measure would survive in the Senate.

Illustrating the broad discontent in the House over the court ruling on property rights, House members voted 365 to 33 late Thursday night in support of a resolution expressing "grave disapproval" at the court decision.

Courts

A federal judge in South Dakota appointed during the Clinton years has found a new South Dakota abortion law unconstitutional:

A federal judge Thursday blocked a South Dakota abortion law from taking effect today, tentatively ruling that the measure is an unconstitutional violation of free speech.

The legislation would have required doctors to inform women that abortion ends the lives of "human beings" and poses various medical and psychological risks. Failure to give the informed-consent warning could have resulted in 30 days in jail and a $200 fine.

U.S. District Judge Karen Schreier of Rapid City ruled that Planned Parenthood of Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota, which sued the state, has shown it has a fair chance of winning on its claim that the proposed law infringes on the First Amendment rights of doctors.

A hearing is set for October on Planned Parenthood's request for a permanent order barring the state from enacting the law.

A "dim, war-mongering Texas cowboy"

The Times (via InstaPundit):

In person Mr Bush is so far removed from the caricature of the dim, war-mongering Texas cowboy of global popular repute that it shakes one’s faith in the reliability of the modern media.

I'm glad we've gotten that cleared up. 

Short Memories

John Hinderacker -- September 11 and Iraq:  Short Memories

New Poll on Democrats in the Age of Dean

From the Washington Times:

A poll on the political mood in the United States conducted by the Democratic Party has alarmed the party at its own loss of popularity.
      Conducted by the party-affiliated Democracy Corps, the poll indicated 43 percent of voters favored the Republican Party, while 38 percent had positive feelings about Democrats.
      "Republicans weakened in this poll ... but it shows Democrats weakening more," said Stanley Greenberg, who served as President Clinton's pollster.
      Greenberg told the Christian Science Monitor he attributes the slippage to voters' perceptions that Democrats have "no core set of convictions or point of view."

Maybe if the Democrats had an actual agenda besides trashing the GOP it would help.

Blog Review

Joel Rosenthal at South Dakota Straight Talk is advancing possibilities for the Supreme Court, including a home-grown South Dakotan, Roger Wollman, who is currently serving on the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.  The South Dakota War College is contemplating the situation of the Democrats in South Dakota:

It seems like some of the Democrat faithful base is saying, we're in dire straits. Then I read in the past few days how you're getting money from the National Democratic Party, and talking about how you need people for your office. Clearly, you are in a rebuilding cycle.

My advice? If you want to rebuild yourselves, it happens from the bottom up, not the top down. We've known that for years. And our ability to field candidates in nearly every race is a sign of that strength.

And to me, that's your problem. We're winning by attrition. Yeah, you got Stephanie on us. But we got John Thune and Dusty Johnson on you. We lost one, but we took 2. You're certainly not gaining any ground in the state offices or the legislature. And why are we taking you two for one? We have the numbers coming up through the ranks. In 2006, it will continue to be pretty hard for you to field 7 or 8 constitutional candidates this next time out simply because your talent pool keeps shrinking. And ours keeps growing.

Your lack of candidates at the legislative level is killing you.

Ryne McClaren is tired of the constant claims of "McCarthyism" coming from Democrats.  The anonymous Blog Watch Man is on vacation.  Meanwhile, the Thune-bashing of the various former Daschle staffers who are now running anti-Thune blogs, the former Daschle staffers who are "consulting" for national groups and running anti-Thune blogs, and the anonymous people running anti-Thune blogs are becoming manic in their attempts undermine the state's new Senator.  The permanent campaign continues...

Is Public Radio Biased?

Rapid City Journal reporter Kevin Woster is wondering Public Radio bias on Mt. Blogmore:

[D]uring a local news break, a South Dakota public radio reporter did a piece on the lawsuit filed in federal court by Planned Parenthood challenging a law passed by the state Legislature requiring abortion providers to give specific information to their patients prior to the procedure about the effects of the abortion.

The public-radio report had some live quotes from Planned Parenthood spokeswoman Kate Looby saying she was confident the federal judge would see the problems in the law and rule in favor of Planned Parenthood. She also said the law requires abortion providers to give information that is clearly erroneous.

No problem so far. I was waiting for the live quotes from one of the legislators who sponsored or voted for the bill or a state lawyer, arguing, of course, that the required information was not erroneous and touting the new law and its chances in court. That never came. Instead, the public-radio reporter virtually ignored the other side and very briefly summarized what an unnamed lawyer representing the state said about the law.

Not good enough, by a long shot.

By the way - if my 53-year-old memory serves me - this is the second time in the last few weeks that I’ve heard a report on public radio that gave Kate Looby and Planned Parenthood live quotes on this issue without anything close to a fair and equal response from the opposition.

You’d like to hope this is just a coincidence of a rushed reporter not taking the time necessary to balance a story. That happens. We make mistakes.

But the fact that it happened twice on the same story certainly raises larger questions.

News Review

The current Chief Justice of the South Dakota Supreme Court was re-elected to another term as Chief.  Dave Kranz in the Argus Leader: "Local man takes office once held by Karl Rove."  A federal judge in Rapid City will rule today on the abortion law passed during the last legislative session in South Dakota. 

Hildebrand's Attack Group Saved by Cash Infusion

After the last election, in addition to remaining on Senator Daschle's payroll, former Daschle campaign manager Steve Hildebrand took charge of Americans United to Protest Social Security and hired anti-Thune blogger Jeremy Funk to help him.  According to liberal blogger Joshua Micah Marshall, the organization was running out of money and about to lay off staffers until it received a cash infusion from the labor union which endorsed Howard Dean for President.  From Marshall:

Here's a story that is both distressing in the particular and telling as a general weakness of progressive politics in this country.

You may know that Americans United to Protect Social Security is the main umbrella group mobilizing opposition to President Bush's plan to phase-out Social Security. According to an article in today's Roll Call, they were getting set to scale back their field operations and start laying off staff. Those plans have now been called because AFSCME has pledged a new contribution to keep the organization afloat for the time being.

AUPSS has been criticizing Thune for several months and even staging protests in front of Thune's office.  AUPSS-employee Jeremy Funk and other former Daschle staffers and anti-Thune bloggers have been promising yet more jabs at Thune in coming days.  The permanent campaign continues. 

Update: Sibby keeps putting a question to the former Daschle staffer/current anti-Thune blogger: "who is paying you for your consulting work?"  Perhaps it is AUPSS. 

Update: From the 6/27/05 edition of Roll Call:

Facing serious financial woes, Americans United to Protect Social Security received a promise of a critical infusion of funding last week from a powerful labor organization - ensuring that the advocacy group will continue operating in 33 states for the foreseeable future.

The liberal-leaning Americans United was considering recalibrating its political plan by trimming down its field operations and laying off staff in the wake of the group's continued struggle to raise money. But the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees pledged a donation in "excess of six figures," sources said, to keep the organization's grass-roots infrastructure intact.

Chuck Loveless, AFSCME's director of legislation, said he was unable to provide a specific dollar amount because it was not finalized, but noted it could be signed off on as early as today.

GANNETT EDITOR PROMISES TO BURN FLAG IF AMENDMENT PASSES

An editor from Gannett (which owns the Argus Leader) has promised that "[i]f the U.S. Senate follows its silly siblings in the House of Representatives and votes for a ban on burning the American flag, I'm going to burn one."

The top editor at a newspaper owned by Gannett, which publishes USA Today, promised in a Sunday column to burn an American flag if the Senate passes an anti-flag burning amendment. Linda Grist Cunningham, Executive Editor of the Rockford Register Star in Illinois, pledged: "If the U.S. Senate follows its silly siblings in the House of Representatives and votes for a ban on burning the American flag, I'm going to burn one. It never occurred to me to burn a flag -- except in some flag-retiring ceremony -- but just the idea that Congress has nothing better to do than spend time on this nutty issue makes me want to burn one." She also displayed her disgust with critics of Senator Dick Durbin, complaining that people "with an ax to grind" took "a couple of lines out of context."

There are conservatives on both sides of the debate over whether flag-burning should be banned via a constitutional amendment, but I don't think any of the conservative opponents of such an amendment would burn a flag just out of pique for coming out on the losing side.

GAO: Mt. Rushmore vulnerable to terrorism

Via the Counterterrorism Blog is an interesting Government Accountability Office (GAO) report issued this month entitled "Homeland Security: Actions Needed to Better Protect National Icons and Federal Office Buildings from Terrorism."  The report notes that Mt. Rushmore "could be targeted for symbolic reasons and for the purpose of harming people" and that "Information from Interior shows that these and other assets are vulnerable to attack in a variety of ways."  The report discusses Mt. Rushmore at length on pages 24-27 and a pdf copy can be accessed here.

Eminent Domained

In case you're wondering, here's the definition of irony:

Could a hotel be built on the land owned by Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter? A new ruling by the Supreme Court which was supported by Justice Souter himself itself might allow it. A private developer is seeking to use this very law to build a hotel on Souter's land.

Justice Souter's vote in the "Kelo vs. City of New London" decision allows city governments to take land from one private owner and give it to another if the government will generate greater tax revenue or other economic benefits when the land is developed by the new owner. ...

"This is not a prank" said [Logan Darrow] Clements, "The Towne of Weare has five people on the Board of Selectmen. If three of them vote to use the power of eminent domain to take this land from Mr. Souter we can begin our hotel development."

The Dean Machine

From the AP Wire:

National Democratic Party funneling money to South Dakota

YANKTON, S.D. (AP) _ The South Dakota Democratic Party will be better funded -- thanks to the new national Democratic Party chairman, Howard Dean.

He's sending money to all 50 state parties.

State Executive Director Jason Schulte says it will allow the South Dakota party to hire three full-time positions – a legislative director, field director and communications director.

He says the state party has been badly understaffed and has had to rely on volunteers and activists.

Schulte says the money will help the party restart its grassroots organizing efforts.

North Dakota Democrats indicated they're getting 84-thousand dollars. Schulte says he expects South Dakota will get a similar amount.

Flag Burning

Flag burning anarchists:

SARASOTA, Fla. -- Two Sarasota teens accused of burning six  American flags have been charged with arson and manufacturing a  firebomb.

Scott A. Baber and Brian A. Richard III, both 18, told deputies they burned the flags because they are anarchists and disagree with the war in Iraq and other U.S. government policies.

They set fire to six flags Sunday and tried to firebomb a car,  the Sarasota County Sheriff's Office said.

Richard remained in jail Tuesday on $402,120 bail. Baber was  released Monday on $101,120 bail.

The pair were charged with arson, manufacture of a fire bomb and  criminal mischief.

Baber and Richard burned about five flags at homes in the Bent Tree subdivision, where they live with Baber's parents, then set fire to a flag at its clubhouse, said Lt. Chuck Lesaltato, a spokesman for the Sarasota County Sheriff's Office.   

"Our deputies came up on them as they were returning to their  car," he said.    

The arrest of his son surprised Brian Richard II. 

"His grandfather was a decorated military man. The whole thing really stunned me. I was really sad that they made that choice," the elder Richard said.   

Residents of the golf course community were also upset. 

"How stupid," Pat Davidson said, straightening the stones surrounding her blackened flagpole. "What kind of thrill would you get burning an American flag?"

Herseth and ... Drinking Water?

6/28/2005 Roll Call:

When the discovery of high levels of lead in the drinking water prompted the Architect of the Capitol to undertake a comprehensive study of the Congressional water supply earlier this year, reaction on Capitol Hill was, for the most part, muted.

Given the more than 20,000 Congressional employees on the Hill, one might expect outrage from those exposed to lead contamination. But an examination of Congressional spending records, as well as interviews with dozens of House and Senate employees, suggest that very few Members or their staffs actually drink from the Hill’s water supply.

An analysis of disbursement records for the first quarter of 2005 found House Members’ personal offices spent approximately $127,000 on bottled water, a figure that suggests the chamber’s annual spending on water exceeds a half-million dollars. And adding in leadership and committee offices, the total is likely quite higher. ...

Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.) recorded the largest total water expenditure at more than $1,600, although it should be noted that the Golden State lawmaker’s tab includes an annual $1,500 payment to Mountain Valley Water of Maryland.

Also topping the list are Reps. Stephanie Herseth (D-S.D.) and Fred Upton (R-Mich.), who each spent significant funds to stock their offices with drinking water, paying out $1,270 and $1,055, respectively.

Energy Bill Passes the New Senate

From Senator Thune's office:

June 28, 2005                                                                                            

John Thune statement on Energy Bill

“Today’s vote is a major step towards a national energy policy that promotes ethanol and creates jobs. The Senate bill makes ethanol a cornerstone of our energy policy and creates jobs in America’s heartland. Since the Senate version includes the Domenici-Thune ethanol amendment for an 8 billion gallon Renewable Fuels Standard, we are in a strong position to dramatically increase ethanol use. Today’s high gas prices reflect Congress’s failure to pass an energy bill in recent years. Passing a national energy plan is long overdue. I hope Congress moves quickly to send a final energy bill to the President.” – Senator John Thune

Help! I'm Being Held Captive in Todd Epp's Basement!

Evidently people are wondering where the Northern profs have taken off to.  For all who care (both of you) Prof. Blanchard was on vacation and is now with me in Boise, ID where we are doing a week long seminar on the origins of the Civil War.  I have been here over a week doing administrativ things and am now teaching.  I have just finished a lecture on Lincoln's Lyceum Speech, Temperance Address, and Peoria speech against Kansas Nebraska.  Prof. Blanchard is about to talk on the Dred Scott case.  He's against it, I think.

Faking It

Here's another example of a prominent newspaper columnist just making up sources.

South Dakota Church Tax

This sure seems like a lawsuit waiting to happen.

Watertown Mayor Defeated in Bid for 6th Term

Democrat Brenda Barger lost her bid for a sixth term as mayor of Watertown to Paul Fox 54% to 27% (other candidates captured the remaining votes).  Anyone want to speculate on the reasons for her defeat?  Dave Kranz is speculating in today's newspaper.

Ward Churchill: "How do you feel about Adolf Eichmann's family?"

From Michelle Malkin:

He just doesn't shut up. Fortunately, the vigilant bloggers at Pirate Ballerina continue to track the nutty professor's bloviations. At a forum on "conscientious objection and resistance to military recruiters" in Portland on Friday, Churchill seemed to suggest support for fragging--troops murdering their own on the battlefield--as an effective anti-war tactic.

The article by PB is here:

Ward Churchill, harsh and scolding, at a forum on Conscientious Objection and resistance to military recruiters in Portland, Oregon Friday:

For those of you who do, as a matter of principle, oppose war in any form, the idea of supporting a conscientious objector who's already been inducted [and] in his combat service in Iraq might have a certain appeal.

But let me ask you this: Would you render the same support to someone who hadn't conscientiously objected, but rather instead rolled a grenade under their line officer in order to neutralize the combat capacity of their unit?

After discussing the effectiveness of fragging officers in Vietnam, Churchill says (26:48):

You cannot maintain a military projection of force in the field when your own troops are taking out the line officers who are directing them in combat. It is as simple as that. Conscientious objection removes a given piece of the cannon fodder from the fray; fragging an officer has a much more impactful effect.

Later, during the Q&A (:1:13:31):

Questioner: I think it's important when you're getting into a discussion of violence and appropriate violence and self-defense, of starting to look at what you're trying to build there, what you're trying to create—for example, fragging an officer, which you were talking about before, at the beginning of your talk, the sort of trauma that that inflicts on that officer's family back home is I feel like an important thing to take into account when you try to think about what your action is trying to accomplish in the first place. I really feel like I can articulate [my question] properly, but that's the general direction I'm heading with it.

Churchill: How do you feel about Adolf Eichmann's family?

Also, from PB, Churchill is also trying to weasle his way out of his "little Eichmann's" statement, citing a "faulty grammar-checker."

Embattled ethnic studies professor Ward Churchill is blaming the debacle of the last five months on a faulty grammar-checker, saying that his infamous "roosting chickens" essay about the 9/11 terrorist attacks wasn't taken out of context, it was just not well-edited.

"I'm surprised nobody noticed this before," a red-faced Churchill said at a hastily-called press conference Friday, "but I have to admit that even I didn't notice it until just this morning. ..."

Churchill told the estimated crowd of 200 local and national journalists that a recently-installed freeware grammar-checker, "Gramma-Cheka", had changed what he typed—"little Entenmann's" (referring to the popular brand of donuts and pastries)—to "little Eichmanns." The change went unnoticed despite widespread internet distribution as well as an expansion into a book-length work. ...

"I mean, really," Churchill said, "what kind of idiot would liken 3,000 innocent victims to Adolf Eichmann?"

I would also recommend the numerous previous posts done by Ms. Malkin (see this link).  Historical fabrication isn't the only thing Churchill is guilty of.  He's also been guilty of selling fake art, advocating terrorism, and plagarism. 

Reagan: The Greatest American

From GOP and the City:

America has spoken (3 votes at a time) and named Ronald Reagan the Greatest American in the show put on by The Discovery Channel.  The show listed the Top 100 and worked down from there, sadly Michael Moore did not make the top 25.

Top 10 Greatest Americans
1. Ronald Reagan
2. Abe Lincoln
3. Martin Luther King Jr.
4. George Washington
5. Ben Franklin
6. George W. Bush
7. Bill Clinton
8. Elvis
9. Oprah Winfrey
10. FDR

Some notables that not make the Top 25, but should have: Theodore Roosevelt, Thomas Edison, Dwight Eisenhower, Alexander Graham Bell, George Washington Carver, and Patton. Are there any you think should have made the Top 100? Top 25?

Views on the MSM

International Herald Tribune (HT to ¡No Pasarán!):

The latest survey by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press has found overwhelming American dissatisfaction with the news media, with a rising number of people saying that the press is "too critical of America."

And while Democrats have generally been more supportive of the press than Republicans, the survey found a marked increase in the number of Democrats who say reporters are too soft on the Bush administration. ...

"Republicans increasingly express the view that the press is excessively critical of the United States," the survey said, with 67 percent agreeing with that statement, compared with 42 percent in July 2002.

About one-quarter of Democrats say the press is too critical, the same level as three years ago.

Any good will that the press earned after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, appears to have eroded.

In November 2001, 69 percent of all respondents said that the press stood up for America. Only 17 percent found it too critical. At the same time, 60 percent said the press did a good job of protecting democracy while only 19 percent said it was hurting democracy.

Now, only 47 percent say the press protects democracy and 33 percent say it hurts.

I recommend reading the whole article.

AIDS Aid

From U2's Bono on Meet the Press (HT Power Line):

Well, I think [President Bush has] done an incredible job, his administration, on AIDS. And 250,000 Africans are on antiviral drugs. They literally owe their lives to America. In one year that's being done. … Yes, there's a lot of pressure on President Bush. If he, though, in his second term, is as bold in his commitments to Africa as he was in the first term, he indeed deserves a place in history in turning the fate of that continent around.

And then there's this from Bob Geldof, the founder of live aid (via Time):

America doesn't have a lack of empathy; they just don't know the issues as well. Actually, today I had to defend the Bush Administration in France again. They refuse to accept, because of their political ideology, that he has actually done more than any American President for Africa. But it's empirically so.

Also from Power Line:  Blog the Live 8 Concerts! . 

SCOTUS

There should be some news from the Supreme Court of the US this morning--which can be followed here.

Coler & Williams

In line with my post yesturday, SD War College has this:

On June 26th 1975, Special Agents Jack R. Coler and Ronald A. Williams of the FBI were killed in the line of duty while attempting to serve arrest warrants for robbery and assault with a dangerous weapon on the Oglala Sioux Indian Reservation in Pine Ridge, South Dakota.

For all the commemeration of the event, you are hearing a lot more about the person convicted for killing them, then the men themselves. I think that truly dishonors their memory. They were husbands and fathers who left loved ones behind. And it was because they were doing their job.

I feel pretty strongly about this, because as I may have mentioned in a previous post, my dad is a retired agent who just as easily could have been in their place.

It's not a glamorous job. In fact, I think it's kind of thankless, crappy work. There were many weekends where my dad would get home at 2 in the afternoon and go to bed after spending all evening and morning on the reservation attending to the corpse of a victim of violence, or someone who had the bad luck of being involved in a fatal accident. This is not the kind of work that people aspire to. But it must be done.

Take a moment to read about the case for yourself, and take a moment to thank god that there's people out there who are willing to lay down their lives to uphold the law. They don't take a position on whether a law is good or bad. But it's their job to enforce it.

So please remember the agents. Not the man convicted of murdering them.

Rove is Right

Sioux Falls blogger Jay Reding: 

Erick Erickson notes Karl Rove’s brilliant political jujitsu with his recent comments at the New York Conservative Party dinner. Here’s what Rove said:

Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers. Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war. Conservatives saw what happened to us on 9/11 and said we will defeat our enemies. Liberals saw what happened to us and said we must understand our enemies.

Note what Rove didn’t say. The word “Democrat” isn’t in that statement. By responding so vociferously, the Democratic Party is admitting that they are the party of the liberal left. Not a particularly shocking revelation, but critical nonetheless.

The other facet of this is that the Democrats have been saying much worse about the Republicans for years. And there’s a wealth of evidence to attest to it.

I recommend reading the entire post.

When McGovern Sneezes, Kranz Catches the Cold

Dave Kranz in today's Argus Leader:

It was a day for justice served. Shovels dug into the soil Thursday on the Dakota Wesleyan University campus in a ceremonial gesture starting the construction of the George and Eleanor McGovern Library and Center for Public Service. ...

Yet it was a long time coming. Ever since it became obvious that George McGovern would hold a place in South Dakota’s history – and the nation’s history – there has been a curiosity why Mitchell never did much to recognize the prominence of a man who was educated here and taught in the community. ...

[Former DWU president Donald] Messer put the day in perspective Thursday, saying this was recognition for “a giant who walked in our midst.”

Kranz is once again shilling for McGovern.  Note this SDP post concerning Kranz's "coverage" of a meeting in Mitchell:

The text of the memo details how David Kranz overheard a conversation in the Mitchell Holiday Inn between two priests discussing strategy on McGovern and abortion, subsequently approached Bishop Dudley (the bishop of the Sioux Falls diocese at that time) about it, and then passed the information gleaned on to the McGovern staff. Kranz then wrote a story for the M[itchell] D[aily] R[epublic] which included a purported quote from the Bishop asking people "not to involve themselves with politics and personalities" regarding the abortion issue. The story was then picked up by the AP wire. You can read the pdf copy of the memo as well as the attached background story on why the priests were at the Mitchell Holiday Inn by clicking HERE. Excerpt from the memo:

While removing his coat, [David Kranz] overheard two priests talking, one of whom he recognized as Father James Wolf, Holy Name Church, Watertown. The other one was younger with a beard. They mentioned McGovern and the pro-life people and the younger one told Wolf they have to sit back and take stock of the situation before they do anything as a unit. At that point, my brother pretended to make a phone call to overhear the rest. It sounded as though they had discussed the situation in some committee meeting and finally the younger priest convinced Wolf that they shouldn't be too hasty about their plans.

With a chuckle, I commented to Dave that I should have "worked the meeting." He said he finished it for me. He talked to Bishop Dudley about the conversation and Dudley was just shocked and wanted to know who the priests were, but my brother kept his sources. Dudley said that the subject has never come up in this meeting or any committee meetings. He said he has written letters to the priests about pro-life, but is upset because the church is being misunderstood-by its own people, also. He says their goal is to advance life and not to mention or endorse any candidates toward that end. Although he said he cannot control what individual priests do on the altar, he will not issue any memo or mention any names when it comes down to elections. And, he will not encourage any such actions. [emphasis the original authors] ...

This memo indicates that Kranz was working as a McGovern operative, gathering and passing along intelligence to the McGovern campaign. He even tells the McGovern campaign who his sources are, but refuses to tell Bishop Dudley. As the memo states, the McGovern staffer wanted to "work the meeting" but David Kranz told the staffer that "he finished it for me."

Four months later, Kranz wrote a story for the Mitchell Daily Republic covering the issue of abortion and McGovern.  As is noted, "Kranz was inaccurately quoting organizations and priests in his zeal to protect McGovern's political vulnerability on the issue of abortion."  The same observation the SDP post makes can be made again today concerning Kranz's latest article:

...Kranz was making efforts to undermine conservative politicians and enhance the prospects of liberal politicians twenty years ago, and continues to do much the same thing today. [emphasis mine]

UPDATE I: Sibby adds his two cents.

New Blog

Some readers said the link to the new SD blog wasn't working, so here it is again.