Colbert defends Condi

Also in today's WaPo, Colbert I King defends Condi Rice against the ludicrous charge that she is a mere parrot.  Its worth reading all the way through.

Run Over by the Mommy Truck

My colleague Jon Schaff mentions the Summers affair, and an article on the same in today's WaPo.  Lawrence Summers, President of Harvard, was forced to publicly apologize, both in print and in person, for daring to suggest that the disproportionately small number of women in the sciences might be in part due to natural differences between men and women.

I think Professor Schaff is a bit hard on Ruth Marcus whose piece, "Summers Storm," pretty much exonerates Summers.  The problematic fact is that women represent only  sliver of PhDs in the sciences.  Marcus gives lip service to the orthodox explanation: that female participation in science is suppressed by more or less conscious gender stereotyping.  But she goes on to ask:

    

Is it so heretical, though, so irredeemably oafish, to consider whether gender differences also play some role? As the daughter of two scientists and the mother of two daughters, I think not. After all, scientists are reporting day by day about their breakthroughs in understanding the genetic basis of diseases or personality traits. Brain studies of men and women show that the two genders use different parts of their brain to process language. (Men tend to be left-siders, women both-lobers.)

    

Summers drew fire for relating the story of how he bought a set of trucks for his daughter, only to find her naming them "Daddy Truck" and "Baby Truck." A clumsy and ill-advised anecdote perhaps, but one that resonated with legions of would-be gender-neutral parents of girls. I, for one, have a basement full of Brio train tracks, as pristine as they were pricey. We use the train table to fold our laundry.

    

Biology may not be destiny, but as we Brio-buyers and truck-swaddlers have discovered, its effects also can't be discounted.

I certainly agree with Professor Schaff's conclusion.  What MIT biologist Nancy Hopkins demonstrated is that the feminist left cannot stomach any deviation from the party line.  Summers had given voice to a forbidden idea, and now he has been made to publicly confess his political crimes before his comrades. 

Marcus notices something else in all this that is very important: that those who castigate Summers are in the habit of cherry-picking when it comes to the underlying principles. 

Many of the same people denouncing Summers, I'd venture, believe fervently that homosexuality, for example, is a matter of biology rather than of choice or childhood experience. Many would demand that medical studies be structured to consider differences between men and women in metabolizing drugs, say, or responding to a particular disease. And many who find Summers's remarks offensive seem perfectly happy to trumpet the supposed attributes that women bring to the workplace -- that they are more intuitive, or more empathetic or some such. If that is so -- and I've always rather cringed at such assertions -- why is it impermissible to suggest that there might be some downside differences as well?

That's right on target.  The problem is not that Summer's critics have the wrong principles.  Its that they have no principles at all other than win at any cost.   I very much wish that Summers had had the courage to denounce his critics for what they are: authoritarians pretending to be liberals.  But he is a college President, and I suppose such courage is not something he can afford.

 

TNR

The new issue of The New Republic includes an article (not online) entitled "Learning from Newt" about how the Democrats could use the Gingrich model to overturn the GOP Congress.  From page 22:

Democrats also fear, understandably, that militant tactics will get them branded as obstructionists.  The defeat of Senator Tom Daschle, who was savaged for blocking the Bush agenda, suggests that red-state Democrats could pay dearly.

North Dakota Legislators are Blogging

Associated Press:

Senators trying new communications tool: Blogs

JAMES WARDEN

Associated Press

BISMARCK, N.D. - Sen. Tim Mathern is keeping a personal diary about the Legislature, only anyone can read it.

"My son Zach is ill. Josh is working. And my dear wife Lorene washed my clothes!" the Fargo Democrat wrote just after the Legislature began its 2005 session on Jan. 4.

Mathern is one of six senators who are writing blogs, an abbreviated term for Web log, as a way of describing life in the Legislature this winter.

Some of the Senate's bloggers incorporate personal details into their short postings. Mathern has mentioned a weekly morning prayer meeting that lawmakers hold in the Capitol. Last Friday, Sen. Tom Seymour, D-Minot, posted a description of driving home in a snowstorm after the Senate adjourned early that afternoon.

Sen. Tom Trenbeath, R-Cavalier, discussed his former aversion to technology.

"I am a reforming Luddite. Five years ago I would proudly have proclaimed that fact, and eschewed technology as a tool of the devil," he wrote. "Now, I have three e-mail addresses and just enough knowledge of the Web to get myself in trouble."

Blogs have become more influential within interest groups, professions and the political world in recent years, although blogs on North Dakota subjects are still uncommon.

Rep. Earl Pomeroy, D-N.D., used a widely read liberal blog, The Daily Kos, to solicit contributions for his re-election campaign last year. A handful of bloggers were given press credentials to cover the Democratic and Republican national conventions.

In South Dakota's U.S. Senate race last year, a group of political bloggers who supported Republican John Thune are credited with helping him defeat incumbent Tom Daschle, the Democratic minority leader.

The whole thing is quite interesting.  I guess I have to take back what I was saying about North Dakota being a blog wasteland.

Iraq

Austin Bay:

As the Jan. 30 election approaches, the holdouts' violence is intensifying -- a vicious crescendo of attacks designed to break Iraqi will and shatter American nerve. The Baath fascist reactionaries and Musab al-Zarqawi's Islamo-fascist religious zealots seek to deny the Iraqi people the chance to build a nation where the consent of the governed creates legitimacy.

But these thugs are going to fail. The Iraqi people are going to deal the Middle East's ancien regime of tyrant and terrorist a devastating political and psychological defeat. Despite the campaign of chaos and intimidation, a recent poll in Baghdad found 60 to 70 percent of the capital's voters intend to vote. Kurdish and Iraqi Shia leaders predict a good turnout in their regions. Americans can barely manage a 50 percent voter turnout, and here, nobody lobs mortar rounds at the electorate.

I hope he's right.

Tud Nugent, Kerry, Moore, and Daschle

From an alert reader of the Omaha World-Herald:

With military rifles, hunting nets and pro-war rhetoric, Toby Keith and Ted Nugent gave a concert Friday night that was unapologetically patriotic.

Country star Toby Keith, right, and rock guitarist Ted Nugent

The two acts, who performed together during a USO tour last summer, played to a sold-out crowd of 15,000 at the Omaha Qwest Center Arena. The show was part of a 20-city tour that was launched in Tulsa, Okla., Thursday - the same day as President Bush's inauguration.

Besides their patriotism, the self-proclaimed "rednecks" have another commonality: Both are terrific entertainers.

The talent served them well, since each had to appeal to the other's fans, though the boot-stomping audience clearly leaned country.

The Motor City Madman launched the assault, reciting the Pledge of Allegiance and sporting a shirt resembling the American flag as he took the stage.

Nugent showed a pro-hunting video during "Fred Bear" and ripped on John Kerry, filmmaker Michael Moore and former Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle in a song whose name can't be printed in a family newspaper.

The reader said he would send along the mysterious song referred to above.

UPDATE:  From that reader:

Stan...
The song is KISS MY ASS & its on the SPIRIT OF THE WILD album.  Get it at amazon.com
God bless Blood brother,
Nuge

The Minnesota Front

Novak:

First term Sen. Mark Dayton of Minnesota, who depleted his fortune as Dayton-Hudson department store heir by spending $25 million in four statewide political campaigns, is being targeted by Republicans as the most vulnerable Senate Democrat in 2006.

Dayton spent $12 million of his own money to provide nearly all funding for his election in 2000, and his net worth is now officially disclosed as $5 million to $15 million. Facing the need to raise money for the first time, he recently fired his top fund-raisers after he finished the third quarter of 2004 with just $271,000 cash on hand.

In addition to money problems, Dayton slumped in the polls after he alone among U.S. senators closed his Washington offices because of an alleged terrorist threat. Former Rep. Bill Luther is considering a Democratic primary challenge against Dayton. The senator's Republican opponent is expected to be a well-funded Rep. Mark Kennedy.

Weighing in on Summers

Harvard President Larry Summers is in hot water for suggesting that, gasp!, men and women might be different.  Ruth Marcus tackles this issue in the Washington Post today.  She ponders why there is a paucity of women in the hard sciences:

Why this is happening seems to be a complex stew whose precise ingredients are unknown. The likely culprits include the absence of female role models and mentors among the tenured faculty; persistent cultural stereotyping; discrimination, perhaps more subtle and unconscious than in the past but nonetheless taking a pernicious toll; and an unwillingness, perhaps in contrast to competing private-sector employers, to adopt flexible, family-friendly policies.

Marcus does not want to consider a more obvious explanation: women are not interested in the hard sciences to the same degree men are.  Anyone with modest powers of observation will draw the general conclusion that men like to figure out how things work while women like to take care of people. (Notice how I said "generalization"; I don't need to be informed of all the exceptions).  She can't believe that is a result of honest to goodness choices that people make with relatively full knowledge of their options. Also, the idea that there is discrimination against women in academia, however subtle, must come from someone who knows next to nothing about hiring practices in higher ed.  Believe me, any institution of higher education would fall over itself to hire a female physicist.  A female college friend of mine who got a PhD in math was being recruited like a high school basketball star.  I couldn't believe that she was actually negotiating with various schools for the best deal and could restrict her job search to a narrow geographic area, unlike most of us who are just happy to get a job offer.

Let me relate a story that I think explains what is going on here.  A few years ago at a regional political science meeting I went to a panel on the teaching of Women's Studies.  One of the panelists said something like this.  "People who study social biology and how evolution explains some of the differences between men and women are doing ground breaking work.  They have fascinating theories that attempt to explain much of the difference between men and women.  The evidence they compile is often quite convincing.  We have to make sure our students never see this information."  I have paraphrased what this person said, but the upshot was the evolutionary biology was making credible arguments against the feminist ideology and we must make sure that students don't figure this out. Why?  The goal is to turn out ideologues, not scholars.  It is stunning how many academics cannot handle anything which questions their preconceptions about the world, and further how many academics are more interested in turning out automatons rather than truly educated students.

Dayton vs ?

Over in Minnesota, Senator Mark Dayton is described by the Minneapolis Star-Tribune as the most vulnerable Senator up for re-election in 2006.  There are some great candidates lining up to run against him.  One is my fellow St. John's alum Mark Kennedy, who currently represents the Sixth District, and another is Rep. Gil Gutknecht who is from my hometown of Rochester.  Either of these would be formidable candidates for Dayton, who has no campaign money (except his personal wealth), has a low profile in the state, and is a bit of a nut.  All these things also happen to describe the man Dayton beat, Rod Grams.  The wild card seems to be Gov. Pawlenty, who everyone seems to think has a big future in Republican politics.  Dayton is already grousing about how he thinks he might get the Daschle treatment.  I guess that means he's concerned that people might actually pay attention to his record and not let him cruise to re-election without a fight.  If Dayton is already coming up with excuses for losing, then some Republican from Minnesota better start looking for a home in DC.  By the way, you can follow this race at Dayton v. Kennedy, a blog modeled on Prof. Lauck's ground breaking site from the Daschle-Thune race.  While they might be presumptuous naming their website after Mark Kennedy, they do yeoman’s work over there keeping tabs on Dayton.

Donkeys without a Clue

Mitch Frank has a piece, Dokeys in Denial, in Time, that will provide a few moments of amusement.  He contrasts the bold initiatives proposed by the Bush Administration with the unbearable emptiness of the Democratic response.  Consider this:

When Congress convened earlier this month to certify presidential electors and confirm Bush's reelection, House Democrats and California Senator Barbara Boxer challenged Ohio's electoral ballots, forcing a few hours' debate on election reform. They had the noblest intentions, attempting to call attention to election day breakdowns in Ohio and the sad state of election reform since 2000. But as one Republican aide told ABC News, "This is a golden opportunity to remind people that President Bush won and John Kerry lost." Most Americans outside the beltway got the impression that the Democrats couldn't accept the election results. It sounded like whining.

It sounded like whining because it was whining, and for that reason it is silly to ascribe noble motives to the whiners.  The Boxer Rebellion is only a pathetic attempt to hold onto a very comforting complaint: that Bush isn't really the legitimate President.  That complaint has some foundation last time round, but it was still more of a character flaw than an asset.  That they still cling to it is not a good sign for the party of Jefferson.

Frank argues that the Democrats cannot  rely on the obstructionist policy so well practiced by Tom Daschle. 

What should the Democrats be doing now? Proposing ambitious alternatives to the President's agenda, plans that demonstrate the party's principles and vision for the country. Bush has spent weeks sowing the seeds for his Social Security reform plan by telling Americans that the popular entitlement program is on the brink of insolvency and that private investment accounts are the only solution. Democrats have responded by accusing the President of distorting the facts. They may have a point—Economists disagree on whether or not the system is in any real danger. But most voters like Social Security and at the same time feel insecure about its future. The Dems can't just reject Bush's agenda—they need to present their own proposal for guaranteeing its long-term survival.

But that's the problem.  The Democrats have no alternatives, ambitious or otherwise.  The current party line that Social Security ain't broke and don't need fixin is only a wall errected against change.  We need an honest opposition party, but just right now we don't have one.

WSJ

From today's Wall Street Journal article on blogs:

Like reporters, bloggers can be sued for libel or defamation charges, and they are also protected by the First Amendment. In one case, former U.S. Sen. James G. Abourezk is suing a pair of Web writers in their 20s for libel in U.S. District Court in Sioux Falls, S.D. The writers, Michael Marino and Ben Marino Jr. of Pennsylvania, posted Mr. Abourezk's name in a list of traitors on their ProBush.com Web site. A spokesman for the writers said the list is a parody and thus protected by the First Amendment.

Also, note these statistics:

The audience for such alternative media is growing rapidly. The number of Americans reading blogs jumped 58% in 2004 to an estimated 32 million people, according to a Pew Internet and American Life Project, with about 11 million looking to political blogs for news during the presidential campaign.

Strange Women Lying in Ponds

is the best blog title I have yet seen.  An explanation of the title can be found along with an audio link to the Monty Python routine from which it derives.  It is worth reading.

Daschleism

Captain Ed:

Get The Nuclear Option Ready

The Democrats in the Senate have signaled their intent on turning up the obstructionism that cost them their party leader last election, and the New York Times reports that the signal did not go unrecognized by Republicans:

Republicans in Congress seethed Thursday over Democrats' refusal to allow a quick vote on Condoleezza Rice's confirmation as secretary of state, a dispute that provided a quick reality check about the partisan divide on Capitol Hill just hours after President Bush was sworn in.

"If this is the kind of comity we can expect for the rest of the session, we are not getting off to a good start," said Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona, a member of the Republican leadership. "It is churlish."

Senator John W. Warner, Republican of Virginia, said, "You want continuity in this country, and this is a senior cabinet minister." He added, "This didn't win them any merit badges." ... "I think we ought to put the pedal to the metal," said Senator George Allen, Republican of Virginia, saying Republicans should be aggressive about using their greater numbers to overcome Democratic opposition.

The GOP knew that Harry Reid had talked about bipartisanship but remained skeptical of his true purposes. The first indication of Daschlism came during the Electoral College count, when Barbara Boxer signed onto Rep. Stephanie Tubbs' challenge to Ohio's slate, forcing a two-hour tearfest from the sensitive Californian. Reid declined to stop Boxer from issuing the first challenge in 36 years and only the second in American history, over the non-issue of Ohio's election procedures.

Now Reid has moved his chess pieces again, allowing ex-Klansman Robert Byrd, of all people, to hold up the confirmation of the first black woman to serve as Secretary of State. Byrd claims that the nomination needs further debate (sheets optional), but that's traditionally what the confirmation hearings are intended to provide. A 16-2 endorsement hardly requires further debate. It's political grandstanding of the most pathetic nature, since Rice's confirmation is assured regardless, and most Democrats will probably vote for her.

It's reminiscent of the line from Animal House, when Otter says, "I think that this situation absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody's part." Bluto answers, "We're just the guys to do it."

The new Senate

Will the new Senate be more collegial?  One author is skeptical.  I think if the Democrats know what is good for them, they will avoid getting "Daschled" and learn to be at least a little accomodationist.  The slash and burn tactics of the Daschle Democrats will not gain them the majority they seek as long as there is a Republican in the White House.   As I have posted before, the fact that the Democratic Party has no position on the two biggest issues of the day (terrorism and Social Security) other than "whatever Bush wants we oppose" is a sign of a party intellectually moribund. 

Not Wilsonian

There are many interesting responses to President Bush's speech yesterday.  I think people are starting to understand what a neo-conservative foreign policy looks like.  You can see this in comments by Safire and Barnes. For many, the term "neo-conservative" means, "conservative I don't like," which in practice usually means "a conservative who is in power."  It has become a term of derision, and used to describe those who don't come out of the neo-con tradition, people like Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Condi Rice.  Caught in the dichotomy between realism and liberal internationalism, people have difficulty figuring Bush out. Many call his foreign policy Wilsonian, yet this if false.  Bush's foreign policy has none of the naive faith in international institutions and treaties or the blind faith in the power of mere talk to shame tyrannies into justice that so characterizes liberal internationalism.  This is best exemplified, in the infantile politics of Jimmy Carter, who once actually said:

In the life of the human spirit, words are action, much more so than many of us may realize who live in countries where freedom of expression is taken for granted. The leaders of totalitarian nations understand this very well. The proof is that words are precisely the action for which dissidents in those countries are being persecuted.

This foolish belief in the power of pretty words to bring down tyranny ultimately brought down the presidency of Jimmy Carter.  The fact is that what can be called "neo-conservativism" is a marriage between idealism and realism.  I think it can best be described as idealist ends by realist means.  The neo-cons believe that US foreign policy cannot simply be guided by self-interest, but must also be used for the promotion of our democratic values.  As in Spiderman, with great power comes great responsibility, and ours is to make the world more free.  This will have the additional virtue of making us safer, as democracies rarely go to war against one another.  But neo-cons reject the idealist faith in treaties, the UN, and mere verbal suasion to actually achieve these ends.  It takes the confident use of American power and recognizing that conflict is not simply the result of misunderstanding (as the liberal believes) but a real conflict of visions of what is good.  The neo-con wishes to make the work a better place, but is not naive about the root of conflict or how to actually put tyranny on the run.  There are problems with neo-conservativism, to be sure.  The basic one is the assumption that in the hearts of all people beats the yearning for freedom.  I am skeptical about this, although for practical reasons I don't see many alternatives to Bush's foreign policy. For the best articulation of this neo-con theory, I would read this piece by Charles Krauthammer.

The Festivities

Washington Post:

The arrival of Vice President and Lynne Cheney livened up the decidedly low-key ball, where guests were doing more eating than dancing and indulged in more casual conversation than any raucous celebration.

Acknowledging the various states at the multi-state event, Cheney thanked South Dakotans for "beating Larry Pressler."

"No!" the crowd roared. Pressler was a Republican senator.

Cheney then started laughing at himself.

"No, that was four years ago, "he said. "I totally blew it. Oh, what's his name?"

He paused for a moment.

"Tom Daschle! He's no longer with us and we appreciate it."

Elections

Washington Post:

BAGHDAD, Jan. 20 -- An overwhelming majority of Iraqis continue to say they intend to vote on Jan. 30 even as insurgents press attacks aimed at rendering the elections a failure, according to a new public opinion survey.

The poll, conducted in late December and early January for the International Republican Institute, found 80 percent of respondents saying they were likely to vote, a rate that has held roughly steady for months.

Peacock

If you've ever been in Western South Dakota hunting pheasants, you've probably heard of the Peacock in Winner.  Well, this is SD politics writ small, but it appears the former owner of the Peacock can't get a liquor license now so he can't open a new steakhouse.  The city council voted down his request for a license.  But a new Supreme Court ruling notes that one of the city council members who voted against it is a waitress at a competing steakhouse!  Her boss urged her to vote against the license.

Don't Throw Stones Watch

Captain Ed:

ACLU Silences Its Internal Critics

In a move that normally would have the ACLU filing lawsuits on behalf of whistleblowers in any other organization, the whistleblowers find themselves at war with the ACLU's Board of Directors, according to the New York Times:

The American Civil Liberties Union, which since its inception has fought to protect free speech rights, is scheduled to begin a debate today over whether to discipline - or potentially move to oust - two board members for speaking to reporters.

Bush and Wilson

Last fall, a student of mine did a compelling presentation comparing Wilson and WWI and Bush and Iraq.  This line of thought has now become conventional wisdom based on my review of the talking heads tonight.  Wilson made WWI a fight to make "the world safe for democracy" and went to Europe a champion after American troops blunted the German offensives of 1918 and talked the Europeans into a League of Nations which could police future international disputes and prevent another Great War.  The famous book When the Cheering Stopped chronicles how Wilson's hopes were dashed.  European cynicism trumped Wilsonian idealism and the US Senate rejected US membership in the League and Wilson died bitter and defeated.  Will Bush do better or similarly meet a tragic end?  Who knows.  But one thing that helps Bush is that the center of global power is no longer in Europe and his Congress is more friendly.  Check back in 5 years and we'll talk about how all this turns out.  If you want more about Wilson, check out the following book from a friend of mine who teaches at Southern Methodist University (who is also working on a book about George McGovern's foreign policy): Thomas Knock, To End All Wars: Woodrow Wilson and the Quest for a New World Order.  And if you're really into the topic, see the famous book by one of my doctoral directors about the American planning for the post-WWI peace conference:  Lawrence Gelfand, The Inquiry: American Preparations for Peace, 1917-1919.  Anyway, nobody can say these weren't historic years. 

Dean

Associated Press: 

Howard Dean's hard-charging race to head the Democratic National Committee is gaining early momentum that recalls the streaking start of his 2004 presidential campaign.

On Tuesday, the former Vermont governor announced he had the unanimous backing of the Florida delegation to the DNC and also the support of Democratic chairs in Mississippi, Utah, Oklahoma, Washington state and Vermont. He plans house parties around the nation later this week, like the ones he used while trying to gain the Democratic presidential nomination.

I still don't believe he'll win.  The establishment fixers will certainly help undermine him like they did pre-Iowa caucuses.  Won't they?

Mailbag

From a reader:

Just conjecture here, Prof. Lauck, but my belief on election eve and now was that Daschle's internal numbers in the runup foresaw his impending doom. Note he capitulated and let in the national groups to advertise on his
behalf and tossed aside the "nice guy" routine in the weeks before the
election.  I don't believe there was a question of whether or not the suit
was a good idea, but rather a last ditch effort, a "what's it going to
hurt?" if you will.  I imagine the thought was, with close defeat looming,
Daschle tried to besmirch Thune's name in an attempt to persuade fence
riders to fall his way and to rile up the reservation vote.  I, for one,
would be interested in the results of a poll that gauged voter reaction to
the suit as either no effect; had been undecided, but leaned Daschle, or
leaned Thune following, etc.  It would be interesting to see what effect, if any such a political ploy had on the electorate; whether it caused the race to be closer, or whether it backfired and made the margin of error larger. Lastly, to add to your "gestating" comment:  what's interesting is where the "evidence" came from and the choice of venue for this nuclear option.  I'm not entirely sure, but I believe the Sioux Falls division of the District of SD has the smallest population of Indians of the four.  Certainly the Daschle folks scraped bottom here to find their "proof" in Lake Andes.  Why not look in more populous Indian areas such as the NE, along the river or Pine Ridge, and bring the case in the courthouses in Pierre, Aberdeen, or R.C.?  I would imagine bringing suit in SF offered a friendly bench in Daschle friend and nominee Piersol, as well as the added benefit of immediate and blanketed media coverage.  Just my thoughts...

Daschle v. Thune: The Lawsuit

Here it is, compliments of a reader--the full transcript of Daschle's midnight lawsuit (in PDF): Download transcriptfortemporaryrestrainingorderhearing110104.pdf  Again, when Daschle personally sued Thune the night before the election he relied on the testimony of one witness who had flown in from Virginia with other Daschle lawyers the weekend before the election and had only arrived at the polling place in question the night before these allegations were made.  This witness also worked for Howard Dean during the Iowa caucuses.  If you read the transcript, you'll note his claims about poll watchers who were "taking notes" and who "would make faces."  While the lawsuit was brought the night before the election and was not resolved until 5 hours before the polls opened, the complaint in the case was 35 pages long, so the lawsuit had been gestating for quite a while.  Whoever made the call to drop this lawsuit decided to do it at the eleventh hour.  As I've interviewed dozens of people for the book, nobody has said this lawsuit was a good idea.  Some people are still livid that it was filed.  One of the continuing mysteries of the campaign is who thought the lawsuit was wise at the time?

Marching Wolves

I hope everyone watches the inaugural parade today and looks for the Northern State University Marching Wolves.  Go Wolves!! 

Wadhams

The rumor I hear is that George Allen is thinking of running for president and Dick Wadhams will run that effort.  My problem with George Allen is he gives me George Burns/Gracie Allen confusion. 

No Smoking

According to the Sioux Falls Argus Leader this morning, the South Dakota legislature is considering a comprehensive ban on smoking in public places.  I am sorry to see that two legislators from up here in Aberdeen are promoting the ban.  Now, I am not pro-smoking, but I must say that I am anti-anti-smoking.  I think it is a smelly and unhealthy habit, but I don't think the public has any business telling private people in private places how they should deal with their own health.  By and large smoking is a private, not a public, vice (unlike most every "hard" drug).  If someone can give me evidence that people who smoke are actually dangerous or make society worse off, then pass it along.  Are people who smoke less capable of governing themselves when on a nicotine high?  This is a difference between cigarettes and pot. I've never known anyone who made an ass of himself because he was getting a nicotine buzz.  Pot, on the other hand...  There is this cult of the body that suggests that anything we do that is unhealthy is not only imprudent, but immoral.  Anyone who thinks Americans are no longer puritanical should consider the rhetoric surrounding smoking and fast food.  One the sponsors of the bill says this: "I'm serious about this. Tobacco is killing our kids.''  This is humorous because the picture that is included with the story is of a guy who looks to be older than spit smoking a cigarette in a bar.  This elderly gentleman indicates that he is against the ban.  I guess it depends what your definition of "kid" is.

Superfund

Rapid City Journal:

Cleanup of the troubled Brohm gold mining site southeast of Lead has slowed because of a shortage of federal Superfund money, South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources Secretary Steve Pirner said Wednesday.

"Brohm has been a problem for years and continues to be a problem," Pirner told the Legislature's Joint Appropriations Committee. "It's going to be a long time before this site is ultimately reclaimed and closed."

The mine site, which includes 260 acres near Strawberry Hill, became a problem for state officials when the state took it over in July 1999 after Brohm Corp. officials had declared bankruptcy and abandoned the site, called Gilt Edge Mine. The site had become contaminated with acid mine drainage, and other chemicals were being discharged into Strawberry Creek. The state had to step in and treat acidic water being stored in nearly full pits to prevent that water from overflowing and spilling into the creek.

It's funny the article doesn't mention the new chairman of the Senate's Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on the Superfund: John Thune.

Judges

From Paul Gigot, editorial page editor of the Wall Street Journal:

A second big test will be judges, which is again largely a matter of political unity and determination. The Democratic filibuster of Mr. Bush's appellate-court nominees is both unprecedented (see the 2002 Congressional Research Service report by Richard Beth) and anti-constitutional because it denies them an up-or-down "advice and consent" Senate vote. The issue was litigated in the recent election, notably with the defeat of obstructionist-in-chief Tom Daschle. And Republicans have a ready procedural remedy at their disposal to force a simple majority vote.

Yet even with a 55-seat majority, some Republicans don't want to take this clearly reasonable step. Presidential wannabes John McCain and Chuck Hagel are two of the holdouts, suggesting how little they understand the Republican coalition. The confirmation of conservative judges is the highest priority of millions of those who voted last November. If Democrats are again able to stymie the nomination of a Janice Brown or Miguel Estrada to the appellate bench, much less to the Supreme Court, those voters will be seriously disillusioned.

Wadhams

More talk of Dick Wadhams and Senator Allen's ambitions:

Allen has the advantage of running for Senate re-election in 2006, so a campaign team may already be in place. One critical addition was the announcement that GOP strategist, Dick Wadhams, he of the thrilling Sen. John Thune election, is now serving as Allen's Senate chief of staff.

Allen's now former chief of staff, Jay Timmons, who served with Allen during his time as Virginia governor, quietly this week joined the lobbying shop of Tew Cardenas. One of its two name partners, Al Cardenas, was a key adviser to Sen. Mel Martinez, and served as the Republican chairman in Florida.

Another Harvard Sex Scandal

Lawrence Summers, Harvard's President, is in deep doo doo for stating something that is very likely true: that men and woman are innately different and that some of these differences have an impact on the distribution of women in the sciences.  See CNN, and NPR.  The NPR essay is pretty good.

Article

Here's an article I wrote a few years ago entitled "'The Silent Artillery of Time': Understanding Social Change in the Rural Midwest," Great Plains Quarterly (Fall 1999) (click the following for a PDF file): Download SilentArtilleryOfTime.pdf  It fits into the debate over that Washington Post story from last weekend about "Red America" and Thomas Frank's book What's the Matter with Kansas? by discussing another aspect of America's ongoing "culture war."  If you read it over, please send in your comments.

Trial

According to this AP story, there's a murder trial going on in Pierre and it appears that the defendant is using some sort of Iraq defense:

In his opening statement, Gregg's lawyer, Tim Rensch of Rapid City, told the jury that Gregg's time in Iraq shaped his thinking.

"You're going to find this is a tale of two places" — an area east of Pierre known as "the pocket," where Gregg grew up on a ranch, and Iraq, where he served his country, Rensch said.

"I am not using, nor is Jim using, Iraq as an excuse, because he killed James Fallis in self-defense. But you have to understand Iraq and what happened over there to understand his thinking and his desperation, in the end," the defense lawyer said.

Gregg will testify about "some terrible things" that he saw during the war and images that linger, he said.

Panel

South Dakota is becoming more "diverse," as they say, so organizations such as the Sioux Falls-based "Community Race Concerns Task Force" have popped up.  They've issued a new report, according to an Argus Leader story entitled "Race panel devises strategy."  A friend of mine from a small town in Nebraska who went to Harvard Law School used to tell me how much more "diversity" he thought there was in his small Nebraska town than in the supposedly enlightened and diverse confines of Cambridge.  In Nebraska, he said, everyone was lumped in together and spent time together and knew each other.  In Cambridge, it was all elites, although perhaps of different colors, but all elites nonetheless. 

How The New York Times covers blogging

Insty:

POWER LINE:

Last month, in response to a piece by Thomas Friedman, Rocket Man wrote that there is a serious national debate going on but "the New York Times just isn't part of it, because it operates at too low a level of information to be useful to knowledgeable news consumers." This piece by the Times' Sarah Boxer about the Iraq the Model bloggers confirms Rocket Man's judgment. It also demonstrates both the bias and the stunning irresponsibility of the author.

Let's start with the Times' "low level of information" (commonly known as ignorance). As Jeff Jarvis notes, two of the Iraq the Model bloggers were in this country last month. They met with President Bush and even made it to New York where they were interviewed on WNYC. The visit was reported by Howard Kurtz in the Washington Post and Dan Henninger in the Wall Street Journal, as well as by many major centrist and conservative blogs. Yet, Boxer treats the bloggers existence as a "mystery" that she discovered by searching the internet and selecting a blog that "promised three blogging brothers in one."

A miserable performance across the board.

UPDATE: Gerard van der Leun looks at Sarah Boxer's history and observes:

It isn't a mystery to me how Boxer was assigned to, or pumped for, this "Blogging" article in the Times. Having been in and around the editorial types at New York newspapers and magazines for decades, I can well imagine the editor's mindset when confronted with either Boxer's desire to write about this or the need of the Times' "Arts" section to get with it on 'the blogging thing.' Boxer is young, Boxer is "hip," Boxer must "get it." Except, of course, she doesn't, but the editors at the Times have no way of knowing that, because they get it even less.

Kerry's Vietnam Problem

Why is George Bush about to celebrate his inauguration instead of John Kerry?  Errol Morris, writing in the New York Times has a surprisingly good answer.  I say surprising because Morris is identified as a filmmaker who produced political commercials for MoveOn.org.  Whatever one expects from MoveOn, it isn't thoughtfulness.  Morris thinks that Kerry was doubly heroic, and that his campaign failed because he presented only half the story.

To me, John Kerry's heroism encompassed both his actions in combat and his willingness to change his mind and stand up for what he thought was right. He realized that soldiers and civilians were dying in a war that wasn't accomplishing its objectives. Yet he never tied this crucial piece of his biography into his campaign for the presidency. And in failing to do so, he left a blank space in his personal story - a blank space that made it possible for the criticisms of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth to be alarmingly effective.

This left the voters with the impression that Kerry was hiding something.  Worse still, perhaps, it lead him to emphasize his heroism in ways that were self-defeating.

By implying that his real heroism was fighting in Vietnam, Mr. Kerry also left himself open to the charge that he was somehow inauthentic. Americans have a complicated relationship with their military heroes: we expect them not to talk about their heroism. War heroes, in real life and in the movies, rarely speak about their courage in battle. Eisenhower didn't. Nor did Kennedy, Bob Dole, or the president's father.

I am sure this is correct because I said much the same thing myself in a column for the Aberdeen American News.  And last but not least, it allowed Bush to turn his own modest story into an asset.

Though George W. Bush's military record was arguably less impressive than his opponent's, the Republicans never misrepresented who he was. Mr. Bush never pretended to be a war hero. He never pretended to be anything but a ne'er-do-well who turned his life around when he became a born-again Christian. His life story made sense; it was recognizable and easy to understand. There was no point in attacking him about his war record (or lack of one): he had already conceded the point. He had never claimed to be a hero. John Kerry had.

This strikes me as pretty sound so far as it goes.  But it conceals a deeper problem in the contemporary American left.  They regard the anti-war movement of the Vietnam era as one of their greatest achievements.  It is constantly mentioned along with the civil rights movement.  But even if Kerry's switch to the anti-war side was an act of heroic independence at the time, the left has done almost no thinking about Vietnam since the war ended.

Using his anti-war activities to bolster Kerry would have opened up a lot of nasty questions about the war.  The U.S. defeat allowed an extremely nasty communist regime to establish itself in Southeast Asia.  That regime murdered its opponents, sent thousands into concentration camps, and practiced ethnic cleansing against its indigenous Chinese population.  The American defeat also contributed to the rise of a genocidal regime in neighboring Cambodia.  There is no doubt that some of those who opposed the Vietnam war also thought that the communist were the real heroes, and looked forward to their victory.  If at any point the veterans of the anti-war movement have acknowledged that this was a mistake, I missed it.

If Kerry really wanted to get credit for his anti-war activities, he also as to take responsibility for these outcomes.  But that part of the liberal mind is altogether calcified.  That, I think, is why Kerry shied away from being completely open about his record.   It will remain a problem for the generation  that lived through that war until it either takes responsibility, or lives long enough to fade from the scene. 

Karl Mundt

In his new column about the incoming Senate Paul Weyrich says this:

Will the current crop live up to the likes of Senators Carl Curtis of Nebraska, Gordon Allott of Colorado, Bob Griffin of Michigan and Karl Mundt of South Dakota? ...  Karl Mundt became an expert on pornography. Before he was stricken with a terrible stroke which disabled him midway though his last term in office he was on the verge of helping to revise all of our laws on porn. Indeed, to the extent that there are any controls on porn at all we can thank Mundt.

Um, I'm rather sure Karl would prefer to be remembered differently.  He's from my hometown of Madison and I'm on the Karl Mundt Foundation BOD and I'm here to say there's much more to him than that.  He used to run GOP politics in the state like McGovern ran Democratic politics and it's a shame this is how he is remembered.

A Party with a Great Future Behind It.

What is remarkable about the post election landscape is the degree to which the left has turned itself into a parody of conservatives.  What's the stereotypical conservative like?  Nothing is as good as it used to be.  This is what Ruth Coniff says about Wisconsin in her blog for the Progressive:

The longest-serving member of the Assembly in Wisconsin history--Marlin Schneider, Democrat of Wisconsin Rapids--likes to remind people of the state's nearly forgotten progressive history. He sometimes grabs passers-by at random and gives them tours of the Capitol building, complete with a free lecture. "They don't know that more Wisconsin troops died in the Civil War than World War I, World War II, Korea, and Vietnam combined," he says. "They don't know that this was the birthplace of Social Security, worker's comp and disability comp laws, veterans' hospitals. . . ." The list goes on . . .

And on, and on.  These Wisconsin progressives dream about the sixties.  The Eighteen Sixties.  Likewise with Amitabh Pal's blog.  There is no trace of any new solutions to contemporary problems.  Instead there is only a tenacious desire to protect the ancient order from any exposure to change. 

The Bush folks are aiming at nothing less than the destruction of the New Deal.
Among the pillars the New Deal rested on were Social Security and the right to organize. The Bush Administration is busy trying to knock both down.  President Bush has been vocal about his agenda to radically revamp Social Security and is attempting to do this by prophesizing doom for FDR's crowning legislative achievement unless it is completely reworked. The Chicken Little alarmism is an ideologically driven ploy to dismantle a key government program.

The Democrats are now strongly committed to the line that Social Security is in no danger.  Anyone who says otherwise, apparently, is a "Chicken Little alarmists."  There is no hint here of an alternative to Bush's Social Security reform.  There is only the notion that any change whatsoever is a plot to dismantile a key government program.  Horrors.

Who Cares?

Reading my favorite NRO writer, Jay Nordlinger, today, responding to a Peter Beinart column, I was struck by this passage about who really cares most about the world outside the US:

Perhaps conservatives aren't credited with caring because they blather about it less; they are less self-congratulatory about it. Beinart, in his column, writes that President Bush "tries to see as little as possible of the countries he visits. (When Bill Clinton went to Africa, in 1998, he visited six countries in 11 days; when Bush went in 2003, he visited five countries in five days.)" So we're counting countries and days.

Maybe the lesson is that conservatives aren't so good at biting their lips and tearing up and otherwise emoting. Maybe conservatives are better at deeds than at words and emotions. But consider the millions whom Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush have liberated. (I speak broadly — too broadly — but not inaccurately.) Isn't that a little better than biting your lip and tearing up? A little?

There are many things to say about this, but here's one.  What struck me about this is that it is increasingly apparent that the Democratic Party has no foreign policy (Beinart's own efforts to the contrary not withstanding).  John Kerry's foreign policy seemed to be, "I'll do what Bush did, but smarter," which is less than revelatory.  There was the infamous "Plan" that no one ever really saw, so as far as we know it was dependent on a division of super strong robot warrior monkeys.  I often said that Kerry ran the Seinfeld campaign, i.e. the campaign about nothing.  Kerry's message (particularly at his convention) was, "I was in Vietnam, 30 years passed, now elect me president."  He seemed to depend on a dislike of Bush to elect him to office, never bothering to actually come up with an intelligent and coherent message about the central question of our time: how to fight terror.  Bush is quite clear on this: spread democracy and economic opportunity and they won't kill us any more.  This is an arguable proposition, but the Democrats have nothing to say in response short of calling Bush names.  They have no positive foreign policy agenda.  "Work with our allies, blah, blah, win over the international community, blah, blah."  This is an intellectually bankrupt party (demonstrated by former Senator Daschle who could come up with no better campaign strategy  than "Vote for me or South Dakota will disappear").  It probably is not good for the country to have the major opposition party entirely bereft of ideas.

$$$

From today's issue of Roll Call:

The 2004 contest in which Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D) was ousted by former Rep. John Thune (R) was the most expensive contest in the nation, with the candidates together spending a total of nearly $34 million. In a lightly populated state, that worked out to $59.52 per voter.

The Alaska Senate race between Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R) and former Democratic Gov. Tony Knowles was the second-most expensive, with expenditures totalling about $10.9 million, or $23.84 per voter.

By comparison, one of the cheapest Senate contests was in the Peach State. Rep. Denise Majette (D-Ga.) spent $1.7 million — or approximately 27 cents per voter — in a losing cause against her GOP opponent, Johnny Isakson, who spent almost $7.9 million, or $1.23 per voter.

Judicial Activism

Charles Kesler writes today about the independence of the judiciary and the statements made recently by Chief Justice Rehnquist in his annual report to Congress regarding the matter of judicial impeachment.  The CJ objects to the idea that judges should be impeached for their rulings, rather than for incompetence or corruption, and the limiting of the federal judiciary's jurisdiction by Congress.  Both have been proposals by some Republicans as a way to fight judicial activism.  While it seems to me imprudent for Republicans to take these actions (particularly impeaching judges based on disfavored rulings), this would constitute no breach of the separation of powers.  In fact it represents separation of powers at its finest.  It seems the error Justice Rehnquist and many others fall into is the idea that the Court is the final arbiter of what the Constitution means.  This would seem odd, considering the rather meager estimation of the courts by Hamilton and Madison in the Federalist Papers.  Hamilton calls the judiciary the least dangerous branch specifically because its power is simply to judge, not the power to exert its will.  But if the Court is the ultimate arbiter of what the Constitution means, then it would seem that they are the most, rather than least, powerful branch.  This judicial supremacy was discussed by Larry Kramer some time ago and has little historical (not to say Constitutional) backing.  The ultimate arbiters of the Constitution's meaning are the people, since it is their document, and thus the political branches have power to curb and tame the judiciary, such as impeachment or removal of jurisdiction.  This does mean that ultimately democracy trumps the rule of law, since after all is said and done the people get what they want.  But this is all the more reason to defend a moderate and deliberate Congress so that the will of the people is reasonable, rather than capricious (separation of powers actually helps us to this end; see Federalist #'s 48 and 51).  In Federalist #44 Madison himself suggests that the final remedy for the invasion of rights by the government is an appeal to the people.  Any democracy ultimately depends upon the vigilance of the people in protecting their rights, not on the wisdom of judges.

Lemmings off a cliff

I have no idea where I saw it over the weekend, but early reporting shows Howard Dean to be the favorite for new Democratic National Committee chair.  While Dean has some good ideas about party building (it happens from the ground up, not top down), his style is far too abrasive to appeal to the average American voter.  As David Brooks points out in today's NYT, unlike the Republicans the Democrats cannot simply be true to their (liberal) ideals and win elections.  There just aren't enough committed liberals in the country to allow this.  They must moderate themselves to have a chance to win.  Howard Dean represents the faction of his party that foolishly believes Americans are really with the Democrats and all they need is new wrapping on the old present.  I suspect Republicans are giddy at the thought of Chairman Dean. 

"Daschled"

From the Montgomery Alabama newspaper:

The 109th Congress has now convened and it did so without Tom Daschle, one of the most visible symbols of obstructionism in recent memory.

Daschle, the former senator from South Dakota, has become the poster child for a number of groups that rallied together in order to defeat him. Very few people anywhere in the country thought Daschle could be defeated, yet a convergence of issues led to his political demise and resulted in a new addition to the Washington political lexicon.

"Getting Daschled" is now a real concern for many liberal members of Congress in both political parties, but especially for Democrats. Yet, because their base is so left-wing, liberal Democrats also fear getting "primaried," that is, losing to another liberal in their party's primary.

Such is the political quandary that many liberal Democrats find themselves in as they prepare to address a series of issues that took down Daschle.

WaPo on Red America

I see Professors Schaff and Blanchard have taken an interest in that Washington Post story about "Red America" that everyone is talking about it.  We should spend some more time on it.  Note this passage, for example:

The sameness of a place like Waco [Nebraska] is not limited to race and ethnicity. Religious diversity consists largely in the difference between Wisconsin Synod Lutherans and Missouri Synod Lutherans. Most people you see appear to be of roughly the same economic class. Homes are all modestly scaled; on a random day near Christmas, of 62 houses for sale in the nearby city of York, only one cost more than $200,000. The stories Nebraskans hear of members of Congress struggling to live on $150,000 a year in Washington simply astound them. "I'd own this whole town with that kind of money!" Kern marveled. "I could live like a king."

Economic egalitarianism is largely a fact of life on the Plains.  There are not yawning gaps between rich and poor out here, which is why Democratic class warfare appeals are perhaps less effective than they think.  Von Drehle goes on to note that all 77 counties in Oklahoma voted for Bush and also invokes Thomas Frank's book about how insane we are on the High Plains:

Before the trip, I heard a lot about a book that claimed to explain how people like Joyce Smith and Bruce Owen and Paul Kern and those ECU students have been tricked by the moneyed class into voting against their own best interests. I found a copy of What's the Matter With Kansas? at a bookstore in Ada and began reading it as we resumed our southward journey.

The author, Thomas Frank, grew up in a wealthy suburb of Kansas City and received a Ph.D. in cultural criticism from the University of Chicago. His book is a lament for the lost prairie Populism of years gone by -- not the Ku Klux Klan aspect, which he never mentions, but the capitalist-scourging aspect of William Jennings Bryan and the Farmer's Alliance.

In Frank's view, if Red Sea residents knew what was good for them, they would vote for capitalist-scourging Populists today. But they don't know what's good for them, Frank explains, because of "a species of derangement." The deranged people of the Midwest are no longer able to make "certain mental connections about the world," because those once-"reliable leftists" have been deluded into caring about moral issues.

If members of the American left continue to believe that those who think different from them are "deranged" they will continue to lose, it seems to me.  Anyway, let's look at Frank's book in coming days (it's still under a pile of papers here somewhere).  And perhaps tomorrow you can tune in to the discussion with the author:

David Von Drehle is a staff writer for the Magazine. He will be fielding questions and comments about this article Tuesday at 1 p.m. at washingtonpost.com/liveonline.

UPDATE: Mitch Berg: "Have you ever noticed that the Blue media only decide to portray the Red states as humans, rather than facile stereotypes, after the election?"

Red Sea, Beige Journalism.

Everyone, including me, has been blogging about the Red Sea article in Sunday's WaPo.  Overall it wasn't nearly as bad as one would expect.  A bit condescending here and there, but not without a few flickers of enlightenment.  He does notice the enormous edge that Bush has among married couples and does a little reflexive dance about how non-married households need government more.  But he seems to be scrupulously refusing to form any opinions.  I suspect this is because he knows full well that those he forms would just be those he already had.  Instead we get this, at the end of the piece:

    

After a campaign in which the Democrat made very little effort to seek their votes, the Red Sea folks decided to cast their ballots in large numbers for George W. Bush. Something he said or did struck a chord with some note of their own political music. Maybe it was the feeling that bureaucrats just don't get it. Or the idea that elitists hold the heartland in contempt. Maybe it was the worry that traditions are under attack. Maybe it was the view that coastal culture is an enemy, not a friend, in the effort to raise children. For some, it was the feeling of authenticity and apparent horse sense. The attitude toward land and resources that comes from living amid an abundance of both. The significance of personal faith.

 

    

After a campaign in which the Democrat made very little effort to seek their votes, the Red Sea folks decided to cast their ballots in large numbers for George W. Bush. Something he said or did struck a chord with some note of their own political music. Maybe it was the feeling that bureaucrats just don't get it. Or the idea that elitists hold the heartland in contempt. Maybe it was the worry that traditions are under attack. Maybe it was the view that coastal culture is an enemy, not a friend, in the effort to raise children. For some, it was the feeling of authenticity and apparent horse sense. The attitude toward land and resources that comes from living amid an abundance of both. The significance of personal faith.

    

In short, I found ordinary people with various motivations, sundry stories, personal beliefs, custom-made decisions.

He seems to think that he's somehow being cutting edge by refusing to say anything. 

I imagine this might disappoint those people who seek a large and unified explanation of something as important as a presidential election.

But what is left is about as insipid an ending as journalism is capable of. 

 

 

brrr

Associated Press: "Minnesota Town Hits 54 Below Zero"

Red America

First of all, let me say thanks to Messers Lauck and Van Beek for inviting me to join this blog. After being away on business I am ready to get down to some serious crankiness. So let the games begin.

In today's Washington Post David Von Drehle tries to write a sympathetic account of so called "Red America." Yet he can't help holding his subject in contempt. Here's an example from the article:

"She was too polite to say, in so many words, that she felt John Kerry was a man of bad morals. Instead, she put it this way: 'When Kerry said he was for abortion and one-sex marriages, I just couldn't see our country being led by someone like that.'  Later, I double-checked what Kerry had said on those subjects. During his campaign, he opposed same-sex marriage and said that abortion was a private matter. But Joyce Smith heard it the way she heard it, and voted the way she voted."

I don't want to split hairs, but given Kerry's voting record and public statements, is it not fair to say John Kerry is in favor of legalized abortion? In fact is there a single restriction on abortion John Kerry favors? And if John Kerry opposes same-sex marriage, why did he vote against the DOMA, which would have defined marriage as between a man a woman for the purposed of federal law? Again, if one is concerned about protecting traditional marriage, the record and statements of Kerry certainly would not give one much confidence. Further, I seriously doubt Von Drehle had to look up Kerry's record on these things. This is just one example from this story of a contempt for "middle America." While he tries to be fair, Von Drehle still writes about Red America as if he were in Botswana trying to figure out how the natives think. I was in Cabella's today in beautiful Mitchell, SD, and I found myself thinking while amongst the guns, the ammo, and the sea of camouflage, that this really is a different kind of place than, say, Chicago, where I lived for five years. The comfort with nature, the easy going atmosphere, and the kindness of the people are something special here. It makes one proud to live in Red America.

Ryne

A Portland newspaper carries an article entitled "Screw you, America;
Sometimes the fish in the barrel deserve to die" and Ryne isn't impressed:

Sure, this is just some yutz wanking away at an alternative newspaper in Portland. But do you want to know something? The Democratic party -- particularly the Internet wing of the party -- is loaded with people just like this.

Instead of ideas as to what John Kerry should have told the American voters, they offer him a "Screw you." Instead of telling people why they should have voted for Tom Daschle, they offer South Dakotans a "He was powerful, y'know!" before the obligatory "Screw you." What a sad spectacle it is to see nearly one half of America's democracy in action slowly rotting from the inside-out.

Red America

James Lileks lives in Minnesota and writes for the Minneapolis Star-Tribune and is a favorite of the blogosphere.  His thoughts on WaPo's Red State piece:

Much sport has been had with this piece from the WaPo about the Red Sea. Short version: Three Beltway citizens loaded up their pouches with Elvish bread and headed out to find why people voted for Sauron. Tim Blair applied his usual cruel pith; Insty has more, with links to other comments. Maybe I'm just in a warm happy mood, but I tend to side with those who cut Von Drehle much slack here – he’s a smart guy; he’s from the Big Empty and obviously has some affinity for it. What may seem to some like condescension or confusion strikes me as someone gently explaining to the Inner Party the curious songs of the proles, and why they sing in the first place.

In the Meaningless Awards Folder

This morning's Washington Post displays a bit of grace with this paragraph:

One of the 43rd president's achievements in winning reelection, according to Bush family friends and historians, is to ease the sting of the 41st president's failure to do so a dozen years earlier. The president's victory also establishes firmly a fact that earlier was open to dispute: The Bushes now belong in the top tier of political families in U.S. history.  . . . By any objective measure, political scholars say, Bush is a name that belongs next to Adams, Kennedy and Roosevelt as a force whose influence spans decades [my emphasis].

Its nice enough of the WaPo to point this out, but calling the Bushes "place in the top tier of political families" a fact, is an abuse of language.  As is the phrase "by any objective measure."  For consider the weird construction of the rest of the sentence:  A name "belongs as a force."  What the Hell does that mean?

Its kinda cool that Bush is President and his Dad was too.   Doesn't happen too often.  But it would have happened anyway even if Bush 43 had been defeated for reelection, right?  No, says  "Robert Dallek, author of a recent book on JFK." 

Bush's victory vaults father and son to a new historical plane.      With a defeat last November, the Bush family legacy would have had a certain accidental quality: a father who reached the Oval Office via the vice presidency but could not win a second term, and a son who became president despite losing the popular vote. Instead, the president's close but unmistakable victory shines a new light on the family's formidable accomplishments.

So this is the objective standard being applied here: if your father was President and so are you, and your first term doesn't have a "certain accidental quality," then your vault is measured in terms of "historical planes." 

This is pure crap.   But it shows you how close to the bottom of the barrel the WaPo has to scrape to say something nice about Bush. 

Bush and the Black Hills

From the Rapid City Journal:

A year-old federal law to expedite logging and thinning in national forests is being applied to a project in the Black Hills for the first time.

"This is going to reveal, in very practical terms, how much help on the ground the Healthy Forest Restoration Act is actually going to be," Black Hills National Forest spokes-man Frank Carroll said.

President Bush signed the Healthy Forest Restoration Act in December 2003. Congress enacted it in response to several summers of disastrous wildfires and ongoing complaints from Western states that the nation's forests were overgrown and too susceptible to insects and fire.