Update on the Kambon Incident

Dr. Kamon Kambon spoke at Howard University when he advocated genocide against white people, but he was not a professor there as my post erroneously indicated.  Apparently he had been a faculty member at the African Studies Department at North Carolina State, but is no longer on staff there.  This information comes from Silas, in comments at CCK.  I cannot vouch for its accuracy, but assuming it is accurate, hat tip to Silas.

According to Silas, both NCSU and Howard have issued statements repudiating Dr. Kambon's remarks.  I would point out that Howard has nothing to be embarrassed about.  NCSU does.  My point is even stronger now.  If Dr. Kambon were teaching at NCSU, this would surely create a hostile environment for his white students. 

I admit that the "hostile environment" concept involves a certain risk.  Anyone who does not like the political, religious, or even scientific ideas of one of his colleagues might try to argue that this creates a hostile environment for certain students.  The only way to avoid this risk is to insist that the standard be very exacting.  Kambon's unambiguous remarks appear to have met such a standard.

UPDATE: Kambon was apparently teaching at NCSU as late as Spring 2005.  I note that this is a story carried almost exclusively on the blogosphere.  When I googled "Kambon genocide", the fourth hit was my own post of last night.  This is what blogging is for. 

Quaq-Miers

Faithful readers will recall that, regarding the Harriet Miers nomination, I recently argued that conservatives must decide whether it is enough that Miers would "vote right."  George Will has an answer:

In their unseemly eagerness to assure Miers's conservative detractors that she will reach the "right" results, her advocates betray complete incomprehension of this: Thoughtful conservatives' highest aim is not to achieve this or that particular outcome concerning this or that controversy. Rather, their aim for the Supreme Court is to replace semi-legislative reasoning with genuine constitutional reasoning about the Constitution's meaning as derived from close consideration of its text and structure. Such conservatives understand that how you get to a result is as important as the result. Indeed, in an important sense, the path that the Supreme Court takes to the result often is the result.

I agree with all of this except the notion that there has been anything "semi" in the legislative reasoning by left-wing judicial activists. 

United Nations

It just keeps looking worse and worse for these guys.

The scandal engulfing the United Nations Procurement Department now appears to be bottomless. It also shows signs of growing more sinister, especially where it involves a mysterious private company called IHC Services, which did big business with the procurement department until it was removed from U.N. rosters in June.        

New details of how dark the scandal could prove to be have emerged from the private sale of IHC on June 3, 2005, just as the procurement scandal was about to break. It now appears that while doing business with the U.N., IHC had links both to Saddam Hussein’s old sanctions-busting networks, and to a Liechtenstein-based businessman, Engelbert Schreiber, Jr., known among other things for his ties to a figure designated by the U.N. itself as a financier of Al Qaeda.

College Professor Advocates Genocide

In an earlier post on free speech, I suggested on possible case in which a university might be justified in interfering with a Professor's expression of his or her opinions.  The case was a professor who openly advocated genocide.  Well, what do you know, such a case just popped up.  I will have to make an offering to the god of bloggers.  Townhall.com describes the remarks of one Dr. Kamau Kambon, who, at the ""Black Media Forum on the Image of Black Americans in Mainstream Media," . . . presented on October 14th at Howard University," made these remarks:

And then finally I want to say that we need one idea, and we're not thinking about a solution to the problem. We're thinking about all these other things, but we're not dealing with a solution to the problem. And we have to start to think about a solution to the problem so that these young brothers and sisters who are here now, who are 15, 16 or 17, are not here 25 years later talking about these same problems.

Now how do I know that the white people know that we are going to come up with a solution to the problem? I know it because they have retina scans, they have what they call racial profiling, DNA banks, and they’re monitoring our people to try to prevent the one person from coming up with the one idea. And the one idea is, how we are going to exterminate white people because that in my estimation is the only conclusion I have come to. We have to exterminate white people off the face of the planet to solve this problem.  Now I don’t care whether you clap or not, but I’m saying to you that we need to solve this problem because they are going to kill us. And I will leave on that. So we just have to just set up our own system and stop playing and get very serious and not be diverted from coming up with a solution to the problem and the problem on the planet is white people.

Wow.  Professor Kambon has advocated genocide alright, and identified himself as a 24 karat racist.  Do these words entitled the university to force Dr. Kambon to shut up, or recant and apologize, as the peril of his job?  Maybe.

He has certainly said things that reflect badly on his institution.  Howard University should be mortified that it employs him.  But that, I think, is a very bad argument for threatening him.  Any college worth its admission price will employ people whose ideas seem crazy or objectionable to the public at large.  Almost all will include persons who irritate most of their colleagues, like Harvey Mansfield at Harvard.  It is an imperative for higher education that such persons be protected.

But that same imperative requires that the university be open to all voices.  Dr. Kambon surely works to close the minds of his students if he tells them that all white people are their enemies.  How could they take seriously any scholarship or literature written by the cursed white race?  Besides, racial purity is a hard thing to come by in America.  Howard University is an historically important Black university, but many of its students, I suspect, have white ancestors.  What would a student in one of his classes think of this message if she had a white mother or father?  Surely, by Kambon's reasoning, she would be suspect?  That kind of message is very pernicious to the climate of a university classroom.

So I think that Howard University has a problem.  I am not sure that Kambon ought to be fired.  Having such folk around is useful, if only to make everyone else look more reasonable.  But surely Kambon's colleagues and the Howard Administration are free to distance themselves from his views.  If they do not, that would indeed reflect badly on the institution.

Hat tip to Michelle Malkin.
 

A Category Four Pooch Screw

That, I say with considerable reluctance, is my judgment on the Harriet Miers nomination.  Part of my reluctance comes from the fact that Powerline and Hugh Hewitt have been defending Miers.  Hewitt is an authoritative voice in the conservative blogosphere, and I almost never disagree with Powerline.  Like HH, I am inclined to trust Bush's personal evaluation of Miers as a solid vote to back up the judicial restraint wing of the court.  But that inclination is not all that strong, and therein lies the problem.

Bush has clearly alienated large parts of his political base, and that is a very costly thing to do when your approval ratings are in the high thirties.  Moreover he has reinforced the view left over from the Katrina mess that he appoints unqualified cronies to positions of power.  That view may be unfair, but just right now that doesn't matter.  Miers may be the next John Marshall for all I know, but she certainly doesn't look well-qualified to set on the high court.  Worst of all, perhaps, Bush has squandered the political capital gained from the Roberts nomination.  Many liberal voices had had to praise that nomination, and a consensus was forming that a conservative political perspective and judicial philosophy were not grounds for rejected a nominee.  Bush was in an excellent position to nominate a strong judicial conservative.

Now consider the position that Bush has put his Senate allies in.  The Democrats are observing a remarkably disciplined silence right now, and who can blame them?  Let the Conservatives tear at their leader.  But I suspect that they will inevitably try to defeat the nomination.  They can't be any more sure about Miers than the Republicans are, and handing George Bush a defeat is always attractive.  If Senate Republicans are to come to Bush's aid, they must do so without any conviction that they are doing the right thing by the court.  Asking them to spend political capital in such a business is intolerable. 

If I had to guess, I'd guess that the Miers nomination is going down.  Whatever kind of judge she would make, she is showing no signs of being a strong candidate.  She is said to be cramming full time for the Senate hearings, but this apparently means learning constitutional law from scratch in a matter of weeks.  This is nuts. 

It will be against his every instinct, but Bush should withdraw the nomination.  Then he can go back to the drawing board.  There are lots of good candidates.  But he will be in a weaker position next time round.

Memory

Joseph Bottum discussed good 'ol South Dakota, America, and the "Fall of Memory: American Childhood and the American Memory."  Excerpt:

WHEN I LONG FOR ESCAPE, I dream of the prairie. The last time I was out west, visiting my childhood home in Pierre, South Dakota, I drove up to one of the river hills on the edge of town. Why is the sun so much bigger out on those plains than it is back east? Sitting on the warm hood of the car to watch the huge orange sunset beyond the Missouri, I thought: Here is where I ought to be, here is where I should stay.

Back east, out west, up north, down south: Our geographical prepositions have come adrift. Some memory of their grandparents' arrival in the Dakotas, some last lingering sense of the westward course of history since Columbus, made my parents insist we say "back east" and "out west." Back was civilization, the old country, the origin. Out was the frontier, the undiscovered country, the goal.

History Lesson

LA Times:

THIS WEEK should have been a time of rejoicing in America. On Wednesday, Saddam Hussein went on trial — the ex-master butcher of Iraq, reeking of blood. And last Saturday, the newly freed Iraqi people pulled off a referendum right under the noses of terrorists whose hearts' desire is to blow democracy to bits. The United States — the armed forces especially, and the Bush administration's leadership — is largely responsible for both these amazing developments. Obviously Iraq is still in deadly danger. But if these two events don't call for congratulations, what kind of world events would?

Yet up on Capitol Hill, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had been called before a Senate committee. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) was one of those who questioned her. Boxer was obnoxious and frightening.

She made reference to the Holocaust, offensively. More important, she demonstrated that she doesn't know U.S. history, and she implied that the American people don't either. And she raised an alarming question about contemporary politics. We often hear from Democrats that President Bush's policy in Iraq makes no sense. But how can it make sense to the Barbara Boxers of Congress if they can't understand the explanation?
...
The administration, Boxer noted (correctly), has changed focus on Iraq. . . . What kind of bait-and-switch is the administration playing with the American people?

Rice answered that this is the way the world works. For example, we did not go into World War II to build a democratic Germany…. Here Boxer interrupted. World War II, she told Rice curtly, has nothing to do with Iraq. Boxer had lost relatives in the Holocaust. No one had to tell her about World War II.

But Rice's analogy was exactly right. And by the way, using the Holocaust as a bat to beat political enemies over the head is demeaning to Jews and to human dignity. Having lost relatives in the Holocaust does not, in any case, confer expertise in U.S. history.

Read the whole piece.

Making the Smurfs Look like Shakespeare

An intrepid reader sent this link, to Citizens for Global Solutions.  Once you get there, hit the link for "Watch My Funny Video."  You will see a short cartoon about a character called U.N. Man. It is so astonishingly goofy, it defies description.

Ring Them Bells

Porky from "The Little Rascals" has died. 

Mailbag

If true, this is very odd:

A friend in the newspaper business informed me that the Argus Leader is putting up newspaper racks in the SF-area convenience stores and such to help the stores supposedly better organize the free newspapers being distributed there. The catch is … the Argus is then charging the newspapers $5 per issue to be put in the racks. And the only way they can be distributed in the stores is if they put them in the racks.

Has anybody heard anything about this?

Gun Lawsuits

Washington Post:

The House yesterday voted to shield companies that make and sell firearms from lawsuits by the victims of shootings, sending the legislation to the White House and handing the nation's gun lobby a paramount victory it has sought for years.

...

The legislation is intended to cut off an avenue that gun-control advocates have used in recent years to exert leverage on the firearms industry, trying to curb the sale of weapons to criminals by holding it financially responsible for crimes. The National Rifle Association and other gun enthusiasts have complained that the expense of fighting lawsuits put manufacturers and gun stores on shaky financial ground, regardless of who wins the cases.

...

Similar legislation was first introduced in the House four years ago and provoked bitter disagreement among lawmakers. Yesterday marked the second time the bill has passed the House, but the Senate has resisted in previous years. In late July, however, the Senate approved the legislation, in part because of support from Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) and other Democrats from GOP-leaning states in the West and the South. Last year, the NRA worked successfully to defeat Reid's predecessor, Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.), who had opposed the measure.

There are a large number of gun companies in South Dakota, so this bill is great news for our state.  Last year, Tom Daschle helped undermined the bill by attaching various riders and, thus, halted the passage.  The Hill focused on Daschle's refusal to allow the passage of the gun legislation bill.  Guns rights groups ripped into him for allowing "poison pill" amendments and the NRA kept a close tally on who voted which way:

NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre wrote to lawmakers following passage of the amendments, saying his group opposed final passage. LaPierre made it clear that the vote would “be used in our future evaluations and endorsements of candidates” for the Senate.

The collapse of the legislation was utterly unexpected. Even yesterday afternoon, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) and Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) were indicating that the bill would pass, and Frist planned to get it to conference quickly.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said she had secured a “commitment” from Daschle not to go to conference unless he received assurance that the assault-weapons ban would remain in the final bill.

All of this hurt Daschle's credibility back home.  The AP quoted Daschle on June 8, 1990: "Daschle issued a statement telling South Dakotans that 'as a hunter and gun owner, I am against gun control, period.'"  Unfortunately for him, his actions were different from his words.

In today's Wall Street Journal, on page A6, runs the article "Congress Clears Long-Stalled Gun-Liability Bill." 

The firearms bill has been a longstanding goal for the NRA and it follows enactment this year of business-backed class-action and bankruptcy legislation.  All three previously had been blocked by Senate Democrats, but Republican gains in the 2004 elections broke what had been years of stalemate.

In other words, it's the New Senate in action.  Daschle was blocking all this legislation and now Thune, one of the "Republican gains," is helping things get done.

SD Mentioned

ABC News:

Dr./Leader/Sen. Bill Frist is expected to tout his work on judges when he speaks at the Reagan dinner in Iowa. Here is an advance look at what he'll say according to remarks prepared for delivery obtained by ABC News:

"I went out to South Dakota in 2004. I went out to campaign for John Thune and to unseat the Democrats' chief obstructionist. Believe me & I was criticized. The Washington punditry said it was something that had never been done before by a Majority Leader. Well . . . neither was denying a qualified nominee a fair up or down vote . . . neither was subjecting these gifted jurists — and their families — to a gauntlet of character assassination. The Democratic leader lost. We won."

"I made it clear — abundantly clear — that obstruction would not be tolerated. We were going to stand on principle . . . the principle of fair up-or-down votes. We were going to restore 214 years of senate tradition. And I made it clear that I'd use the nuclear option to do it. The result: 6 of the President's nominees — each filibustered in the last Congress — are now proudly serving this nation as federal judges."

Speech Control by NCATE

I've been writing about free speech of late because some of SDP's critics are so obviously hostile to the idea.  Fortunately these would-be bullies are about as threatening as the Smurfs discussed in my last post.  NCATE is another matter.  As Northern has a strong teacher training program, this is of great interest to me.  Here is John Leo from U. S. News:

The cultural left has a new tool for enforcing political conformity in schools of education. It is called dispositions theory, and it was set forth five years ago by the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education: Future teachers should be judged by their "knowledge, skills, and dispositions." What are "dispositions"? NCATE's prose made clear that they are the beliefs and attitudes that guide a teacher toward a moral stance. That sounds harmless enough, but it opened a door to reject teaching candidates on the basis of thoughts and beliefs. In 2002, NCATE said that an education school may require a commitment to social justice.

Now that sounds suspiciously like enforcing the party line.  And there is no doubt about which party's line would be enforced. 

The ed schools, essentially a liberal monoculture, use dispositions theory to require support for diversity and a culturally left agenda, including opposition to what the schools sometimes call "institutional racism, classism, and heterosexism." Predictably, some students concluded that thought control would make classroom dissent dangerous.

A few students rebelled when a teacher at Brooklyn College School of Education showed Michael Moore's movie Fahrenheit 9/11 in class and dismissed "white English" as "the language of oppressors." Five students filed written complaints and received no formal reply from the college. One was told to leave the school and take an equivalent course at a community college. Two of the complaining students were then accused of plagiarism and marked down one letter grade. The two were refused permission to bring a witness, a tape recorder, or a lawyer to meet with a dean to discuss the matter.

K. C. Johnson, a history professor at the school who defended the dissenting students, became a target himself. After writing an article in Inside Higher Ed attacking dispositions theory as a form of mind control, Johnson faced a possible investigation by a faculty Integrity Committee. 

Apparently defending the student's right of petition and expressing his opinions in an article were thought to reflect badly on the University.  Another example of what happens to students who are not dispositionally correct comes from Washington State University's College of Education. 

The college threatened to terminate a student, Edward Swan, 42, for failing four "professional disposition evaluations." Swan, a religious man of working-class background, has expressed conservative opinions in class. He opposes affirmative action and doesn't believe gays should adopt children. His grades are good, and even his critics say he is highly intelligent. One teacher gave Swan a failing PDE after spotting the statement "diversity is perversity" in Swan's copy of a textbook.

Now I wish to point out that I do not share Mr. Swan's views on this matter.  I do not think that there are any constitutionally permissible grounds for preventing homosexuals from adopting children.  The state cannot assume that someone is guilty of something because he or she is homosexual.  But neither can the state penalize someone for holding what are, presumably, religiously grounded beliefs. 

What is encouraging is how fast these proto-authoritarians back off when challenged. 

At the start of the current semester, Swan was offered a choice: Sign a contract with the college or be expelled. The contract included mandatory diversity training, completing various projects at the faculty's direction, and the possibility of above-normal scrutiny during Swan's student teaching this fall. Instead of signing, Swan contacted FIRE [the Philadelphia-based Foundation for Individual Rights in Education]. "Almost immediately, Swan's situation changed," said an article in the local newspaper, the Moscow-Pullman Daily News. The faculty told Swan he did not have to sign the contract and would not be expelled.

What has become of the left?  It used to believe in free speech.  Now it believes in forcing people to choose between their professions and their opinions.  It used to be opposed to enforcing partisan standards of morality.  Now it is committed to punishing those who do not have the right dispositions.

Nature Alert! Crack-Addicted Squirrels and Smurf Atrocities.

This piece from the intrepid Sam Leith at the London Telegraph alerts us to a threat to public safety.

The latest menace in my corner of south London, I read this week, is the emergence of a community of crack-addicted squirrels. We're invited to imagine these little furry emanations of nature, jonesing in the corners of flowerbeds, red-eyed and jittery in the terrible dawn, scratching hopelessly at the earth in the hope of turning up another rock.

I must say, it seems unlikely to me. The outward symptoms of crack addiction - looking unhealthy, being kind of jittery - are rather close to the outward symptoms of Brixton squirrelhood. The explanation that they have been digging up rocks of crack stashed in gardens convinces even less.

Still, there is something melancholy about the very idea. Despite their atrocious press - "tree rats", carriers of disease - I find it hard to dislike squirrels. They are prudent with their nuts. They keep themselves largely to themselves. They are pretty in motion, their backs seeming to follow an invisible sine wave.

Even on crack, they aren't really a menace to us. The worst addict would find it difficult to steal your car radio, and harder still to fence it afterwards. "Psst. Car stereo? Tenner, no questions asked?" "Get lost. You're a squirrel. That could have been anywhere."

If you are yet sufficiently appalled by the injustice in the world, consider his comments a short film which features the ruthless bombing of a colony of Smurfs.  By Smurf I don't mean unarmed U.N. Soldiers wearing uniforms the color of aquarium walls and tied to a tree by Serbian troops.  I mean the original Smurfs, the cartoon characters that were among the more annoying samples of programing aimed at my children's brains.

Says Leith:

A short film from Unicef shows the Smurf Village being destroyed by aerial bombardment, its bright blue inhabitants strewn dead or dying amid the wreckage, and Baby Smurf howling as his home burns. This demonstrates that war is a bad thing.

News footage of burning houses, dead children, ululating human widows, columns of refugees and burnt-out tanks has lost its impact. We have compassion fatigue. We need images of these innocent little blue creatures, just three apples high, being wiped out by area bombing to make us face reality. The Smurfs caused untold suffering with their squeaky pop singing, you might think, but they did not deserve this.

I wonder. It seems more likely that the 25-second film will become no less a collector's item among cynics than Bambi Meets Godzilla. Anyone who ever rooted for the Smurfs' nemesis Gargamel will draw immense satisfaction from the idea that he finally stopped faffing around with magic potions and got in touch with Lockheed Martin.

G.A.S.

Stephanie Herseth voted against House Resolution 3893, Gasoline for America's Security Act of 2005:  "To expedite the construction of new refining capacity in the United States, to provide reliable and affordable energy for the American people, and for other purposes."

The bill passed the House, with 94% of Republicans supporting the bill and 100% of the Democrats opposing, and will now move on to the Senate.

ANWR

New York Times:

The Senate Energy and Commerce Committee approved a measure on Wednesday to open the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas production, moving it an important step closer to becoming official.

The committee voted 13 to 9 to add the measure to the budget reconciliation legislation, which under Senate rules cannot be filibustered. The House has already approved a similar measure.

Tim Johnson, who sits on the energy committee, voted against it.

Sheehan v. Clinton

Cindy Sheehan is back in the news:

Cindy Sheehan, the so-called "peace mom" on a crusade to end U.S. involvement in the Iraq war, is publicly blasting Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., for her continued support of the ongoing conflict.

"I think she is a political animal who believes she has to be a war hawk to keep up with the big boys," Sheehan writes in an open letter posted on anti-Bush filmmaker Michael Moore's website. "I would love to support Hillary for president if she would come out against the travesty in Iraq. But I don't think she can speak out against the occupation, because she supports it. I will not make the mistake of supporting another pro-war Democrat for president again: As I won't support a pro-war Republican."

"I believe that the intelligent thing for Democrats to do for 2006 and 2008 would be to come out strongly and correctly against the botched, bungled, illegal, and immoral occupation of Iraq," Sheehan added.

The Saddam Trial

The AP has an incredible story about the televised Saddam trial in Iraq.  It's striking the different ways people choose to remember Hussein:

The moment Saddam Hussein appeared, a Shiite housewife spat on the screen and then sat gnawing her fingers, seething, as her family crowded around the television. When the judge addressed the ousted dictator as "Mr. Saddam," she burst: "The beast Saddam, you mean!"

Across the Tigris River in the mostly Sunni Arab district of Azamiyah, some Iraqis were also riveted to their sets. Namir Sharif, a 46-year- old former army officer, was on the verge of tears of pride as a defiant Saddam argued with the judge.

"He turned the trial upside down, this is a heroic act," Sharif said.

...

One thing united them: Baghdad's fragile power grid, always rickety but even worse since a major insurgent attack Friday knocked out almost the entire system. Workers were still trying to get it back up to speed, and power blinked in and out several times in the two neighborhoods while the trial was being televised.

Shiite housewife Sabiha Hassan's entire family leaped up and rushed to their private generator when the screen went dead half an hour into the trial. "Thank God, I brought extra fuel today just for the occasion," said her husband, Salman Zaboun Shanan, as he filled the generator's tank.

Otherwise, the couple and their two sons didn't move from the concrete floor where they sat within a yard of the screen for the length of the three-hour session. Shanan, a construction worker, stayed home from work to watch. One son, Hadi, a cleric, missed a seminary exam.

South Dakota and National NAEP Results

New results are in from the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP).  Results are mixed.  You can look at state results here, and then gain more details at the offical NAEP site here.  First, let's look at South Dakota.  That's the good news.  The NAEP tested reading and math skills in the both the 4th and 8th grades.  In 4th grade reading 18 states did better than South Dakota, but at the 8th grade level only 8 states scored higher.  In math, at the 4th grade level 13 states rated better, while at the 8th grade level only 3 scored better than South Dakota.  That said, these rankings are based on what percentage of students showed at least "basic" skills in the discipline.  It'd be nice to see more rating "proficient" or "advanced."  Nationwide only about a third of the students fell into these latter two categories at any grade level and subject.  I do want to point out that South Dakota scored quite well while spending $6,675 per pupil, while Washington, DC once again embarrassed itself while spending $11,968.  Indeed, except for New York, no one spends more money than DC, but they easily attained the worst results.  I also point out that South Dakota scored roughly the same as New York while spending almost half the money per pupil.  I don't think that means South Dakota should pat itself on the back for spending so little on education, but it does show the correlation between spending and educational achievement is weak, at best. 

The bad news is that nationwide roughly a third of all students are below basic in both subjects at both grade levels.  The NAEP only tests public school students, and this shows that our public schools are failing us miserably.  One-third is a very high minority of students who don't even have basic skills.  I would argue that a system that fails so many students is a system that is not in need of reform.  It's a system in need of liberation, by which I mean liberation of students from schools that deny them basic education.  Let's take the dollars away from those schools, give the dollars to parents, and let them send their children to a school, public or private, that will benefit their children.  And if parents want to use that money to home school, I am all for it granted they meet all the educational standards. 

Houston 5 to 2 over St. Louis.

I was a Cards fan as a boy, but I have to say that a Houston trip to the Fall Classic would be marvelous.  Its official.  Houston is in its first World Series.

My opinions on baseball are my own and do not reflect those of Northern State University. 

Free Speech for Professors

Critics of Professor Schaff and myself have been making a rather amazing argument: that a college professor can be forced to choose between his job and the free expression of his political opinions, should his colleagues or the administration conclude that those opinions reflect badly on his institution.  As this is an important issue for bloggers, I think it worthy of further comment.

All over the United States college professors routinely engage in partisan political activity, speaking at anti-war rallies, writing op-ed pieces, taping political posters to their office doors.  When I recently visited the political science department at the University of Arizona, the hall looked like it housed a socialist newspaper.  I dare say that in many cases the political speech of a state university professor will offend her colleagues and the administration, not to mention the state legislature and the majority of voters.  But nowhere is it acceptable to force such a professor to choose between job security and free speech.  Even in extreme cases-a Ward Churchill calling the victims of 9/11 "little Eichmanns"-it is virtually impossible to penalize the offending prof.  I think this is altogether a good idea.  No institution is as dependent on the free exchange of ideas as a university.  Arguments that offend the status quo or refused to follow the party line, whether it is left or right, are and should be sacrosanct in universities. 

Now there may be extremes beyond which a professor is no longer protected.  If he advocates genocide or violence against law abiding citizens, maybe the administration should come down on him.  But even then the case would involve specific threats of action, and such a threshold is almost never met. 

I acknowledge that there is a distinction between private and professional speech.  When someone is speaking as a representative of an institution, the institution will often have every right to control what he or she says.  But to keep that distinction from being used as a weapon against unpopular opinions, the burden of proof is on the institution.  It must be unambiguous that he is speaking on the school's behalf.  And even then the burden of proof must be high.  When I am introduced as the Director of the Honors Program at the annual honors breakfast, what I say is professional speech.  When I speak on some political subject at a noon forum, that I think is protected speech.  The worst that can happen to me if I offend other professors or the students is that I will not be invited back.

Blogs are emphatically protected speech.  The whole point of the blogosphere is that virtually any opinion can be put forth in any sort of language.  It is the freest and largest market place of ideas ever to exceed the imagination.  The very idea that college administrations are to begin trolling it for heretics is anathema to free speech. 

Some critics of SDP show how important these protections are.  To call SDP partisan is fair.  To say that we are extreme is ignorant.  We are clearly within the mainstream of American political thought.  We have frequently stated that our opinions in no way represent those of Northern State University, the State of South Dakota, or anyone but ourselves.  Yet they would shut us down, or better yet make us suffer, because we have offended them.  These are the people that our founding fathers warned us against.

Democrat Professors

A friend sent me a story from the Chronicle for Higher Education (subscription required) which features a study  indicating  the overwhelming majority of all politically active professors at top law schools are Democrats.  The survey is part of a paper that will be published this fall in The Georgetown Law Journal. 

The study, which covers the faculties of the top 21 law schools listed in the 2002  U.S. News & World  Report graduate-school rankings, finds that just under a third of the professors at those  institutions contributed at least  $200 to a federal political campaign  in the past 11 years.  Of that politically active group, 81 percent contributed "wholly or predominantly" to Democratic campaigns, while just 15 percent did the same for Republicans.   

The study then sets out to show the effect of those political affiliations on professors' contributions to debates on legal issues. To do that, it cross-references data on political contributions with lists of signatures attached to various "open letters" on legal matters -- from missives supporting President Bill Clinton's impeachment to ones opposing the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Bush v. Gore after the 2000 presidential election.

The result: "People signed according to their partisan leanings," said John O. McGinnis, a law professor at  Northwestern University and the lead author of the study.   

Mr. McGinnis said that institutions that are dedicated to campus diversity should feel a "logical compulsion to be very worried" about the imbalance he found in political leanings.

"This paper doesn't at all take a position," he said. "It doesn't say that schools should go out and look for conservatives. But if they're interested in diversity, that's what they should do."

The key component of the study is whether a professor's political leanings affect their ability to present material in a neutral manner.  Like many of the top schools, the School of Law at USD features far more Democrat than Republican faculty members.  What separates USD from many of the universities mentioned in the study is that most of the professors here do an excellent job keeping their political leanings out of discussions.   On many occasions the professors play devil's advocate and argue positions inconsistent with their own personal political beliefs for the sake of furthering discussion. 

While I have professors here in law school who are good at separating their personal opinions from their in class message, learning in such an environment is not new to me.  As I have mentioned on previous occasions while at Northern State University I had the opportunity to take classes taught by two of my colleagues at SDP Professors Blanchard and Schaff.  They are excellent at furthering in class discussion by encouraging discussion from both sides of the political spectrum. They also make a conscious effort to take positions inconsistent with their own personal political beliefs if it leads to a more constructive class discussion. 

Before insinuating that either professor is inundating students at Northern with their own personal political opinions I would encourage critics to sit in on one of their in class discussions.  While both participate in writing for this blog, the opinions in their posts are not manifested in either professor's lectures on a daily basis. 

SD Blogosphere

SDP would like to welcome aboard Madison blogger Coralhei!

Dang Nabbit!!

Many months ago I suggested that if I were casting Deadwood with South Dakota blogosphere characters, I'd cast Todd Epp as Al Swearengen and Ken Blanchard as Mr. Wu.  After reading the post by Chad at CCK referred to by Ken Blanchard, I nominate Chad for Calamity Jane.  Not because I see him playing a woman, but because that guy can curse like an old prospector.  Whew!  For a while there I thought my hard drive might melt. 

The Miers Choice

I have held off on denouncing Harriet Miers and calling for her withdrawal, as so many conservative bloggers have been willing to do.  The reason is simple. As Michael Ledeen says over at National Review, there is no award for being wrong first.  Like most conservatives, I am not thrilled with the Miers choice.  Yet the reason I am not thrilled ties into why I have kept the proverbial powder dry: we just don't know much about her.  But then there is this post from John Podhoretz over at NRO:

Having read through the Miers questionnaire supplied to the Senate Judiciary Committee, I note with shock that in a legal career that lasted more than 25 years, she argued 8 cases before juries: "I have identified eight cases that were tried to verdict. I was lead counsel or sole counsel in four, lead local counsel in one, and associate counsel in three." That number again: 8. Eight. E-I-G-H-T. Turns out that the number is pretty important in Miers's career, since it's exactly the same number of cases she dealt with at the appellate level as well. 

Her entire combined courtroom experience in the course of her long career: 16 cases. Thus does the last prong in the Miers defense -- that she will bring real-world lawyering experience to the bench -- collapse like a house of cards.
 
I feel like George Jetson: Jane, won't somebody stop this crazy thing?

I am reminded of the banter between Clint Eastwood and Tyne Daley in the Dirty Harry film The Enforcer.  Harry, serving on the board that promotes people to inspector, has a young police officer played by Tyne Daley come before him.  He says, "Tell me about your best felony arrest."  She says, "I've never made a felony arrest."  He responds, "Well how about your best misdemeanor arrest."  And she must admit, "I've never made a misdemeanor arrest." 

Conservatives have a choice.  Let's assume that Harriet Miers is everything the Bush administration says she is.  Should conservatives support someone who "votes right" even if it means giving up some integrity?  One of the problems with the Bush folk's argument for Miers is that they tell us that we shouldn't care that she has no judicial philosophy, after all she'll vote right.  But conservatives have been saying for four decades that it isn't the results that count, it's the philosophy behind them (although it's true that philosophy and results cannot be perfectly separated).  Conservatives want someone who can defend strongly originalism or textualism as the appropriate way to read the Constitution.  However Miers might vote, she seems likely incapable of mounting a vigorous defense of sound jurisprudence.  You don't pick a nominee because she'll "vote right."  If you pick one with the right philosophy, the votes will follow.  In picking Miers, the Bush team gives up the argument that it's about philosophy, not results.  So do you support the nominee who might give you all the results you want (including overturning Roe v. Wade) but does so based not on sound judicial philosophy but based on personal policy views? 

The Saddam Trial

ssAnne Applebaum, author of Gulag, has a great piece in the Washington Post contrasting the trial of Saddam Hussein with the Nuremburg trials in Germany following World War II.  Excerpt:

Yet Nuremberg was, in retrospect, a huge success, and as the trial of Saddam Hussein begins today in Baghdad, it is worth remembering why. If it achieved nothing else, Nuremberg laid out for the German people, and for the world, the true nature of the Nazi system. Auschwitz survivors and SS officers presented testimony. Senior Nazis were subjected to cross-examination. The prosecutors produced documents, newsreels of liberated concentration camps and films of atrocities made by the Nazis themselves. There were hangings at the end, as well as acquittals. But it mattered more that the story of the Third Reich had been told, memorably and eloquently.

Now Here is a Photo!

From Gateway Pundit, posted on Powerline:

Blogosphere and Loathing

My SDP colleague and former student, Quentin Riggins, appears to have irritated my friend at CCK, Chad Shuldt.  Though I am not sure that Chad's intemperate language strengthens his case, he has every right to deploy profanity when he sees fit.  I recall the wonderful words from one of my favorite movies, A Christmas Story, based on the story "In God We Trust, All Others Pay Cash": "my father worked in profanity the way other men work in clay or oils."

Moreover, I can sympathize with Chad here.  Having  been subject to countless attacks by anonymous individuals in the comments attached to his blogs, I know that every now and then it is possible to one's dander up. 

I have never had much interest in the political connections or stratagems of the local Democratic blogosphere.  I assume that many Democratic bloggers have political connections.  Surely that's altogether appropriate.  Nor am I much concerned with questions of disclosure.  One of the virtues of the blogosphere is that it allows one to freely comment and to reveal whatever one wishes to reveal. For these reasons, and because Chad has always been fair to me, I have taken no part in the blogs that Chad objects to.

On the other hand, it surely allows anyone to raise any questions they may wish to raise.  Critics of SDP have celebrated past and present connections between some of our bloggers and certain Republican organizations.  I don't see why they should complain when Masters Riggins and Heppler return the favor.  One of the major virtues of the blogosphere is the light it shines into hitherto dark corners at both ends of the street.

Jon and I, like Chad, choose to blog in our own names rather than hide behind some nom de guerre.  So I will bother to address some matters raised in the comments at CCK.  So far as I can recall, I have never been paid a penny by any party organization.  I have certainly never been paid for blogging.  Nor have I been told what to post or what not to post.  I do not coordinate my blogging with any other person or persons.  I post only such opinions as I wish to express. 

As such, my blogging activity is free speech, protected from any interference by any government body, including the one that employs me.  Such protection flows not only from the First Amendment, but from my contract. 

Some of my critics find free speech inconvenient.  Consider this bit of innuendo:

The fact that some of these bloggers contribute often multiple times daily to their highly partisan blog while on the state of South Dakota's payroll is a fact that is not being overlooked either. What does the president of NSU think of this? Does he condone it? Has anyone asked him lately?

This is nod and wink calumny.   An anonymous accuser implies that I have been doing something unethical, without quite specifying the charge or providing any credible evidence.  It reveals only that the writer is a person without honor, and a bully I should add.  My activities are "not being overlooked" he says.  Translation: we are watching you.  We will report you to the authorities.  This is a sneaky little tattletale. 

And there is this:

Professors have freedom of speech, but they are cautioned that what they say reflects on their institution and their profession. And freedom of speech does not prohibit other members of their profession and the public, who in effect hires them, from examining what they say to determine if they are fit to represent their institution and profession [commas added for clarity, free of charge].

In other words, professors like myself have freedom of speech so long as their speech does not offend "other members of their profession and the public."  And who is to judge what speech is acceptable and what not?  In the unlikely event of a referendum, the public's view will not be known.  Perhaps a star chamber composed of the right sort of folk?  This of course is no freedom of speech at all.  We've heard all this before.  All of us are equal, but some are more equal than others.  Free speech is fine, so long as you say the right things.  If offensive speech is evidence of incompetence, the monitors of offense will control the voices of all professors. 

Fortunately, such bullies as this are without power in a republic.  In my blogs I have defended the right even of a Ward Churchill to say what he wants about the victims of 9/11 without fear for his job.  Surely I enjoy at least as much protection.  No one believes in free speech if he or she is not willing to extend it to the persons that seem most offensive.  I believe in it.  My critic does not.*

-----------------
*I wish to note here that Chad is in no way responsible for the opinions of those who comment on his blog.

 

Aborting the Disabled

This Washington Post article is worth reading. 

What's In Your Garage?

Piggy backing on Jason's post regarding what's in Karl Rove's garage, I'd like to note a few things I found in Ken Blanchard's garage the other day:

• a hammer
• a measuring tape
• Jimmy Hoffa
• an oil stain
• Zuzu's petals
• a lawn mower
• a bag of charcoal
• Ray Donovan's reputation

I know what you're all thinking: How'd that oil stain get there? 

RC

Roll Call:

Democratic Think Tank Mixes Ideas With Bush-Bashing

October 17, 2005, ROLL CALL
By Morton M. Kondracke,
Roll Call Executive Editor

Behind a sulfurous fog of anti-Bush diatribes, there is a Democratic new-idea factory operating at the Center for American Progress.

It’s ridiculous that CAP labels itself a “nonpartisan” think tank. It’s manned almost exclusively by Democrats. It was created and is headed by Bill Clinton’s high-energy former White House chief of staff, John Podesta.

And practically every pronouncement it makes, even on the ideas front, is couched in anti-Bush vituperation.

For instance, a thoughtful CAP report proposing a new U.S. national security strategy called “Integrated Power” says in its executive summary that because of President Bush, “our military is weaker, many of our historic alliances are frayed, our Treasury is depleted, Osama Bin Laden remains at large and our tarnished reputation abroad has diminished our capacity to exercise moral leadership.”

That could have been said by Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) in 2004 or on any afternoon by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). In fact, it was written by Lawrence Korb, a Defense Department official in the first Reagan administration and the CAP’s main claim to bipartisanship, and former Clinton White House aide Bob Boorstin.

You might recall hearing about the Center for American Progress in the news.  This "think tank" is Tom Daschle's current employer.

MSM

Is there a point to this story?

The Best Class I Ever Had

I offer my most recent column in the Aberdeen American News.

The best class I ever had was the result of a series of accidents compounded by mistakes. It was an accident that the old Jonesboro High School, a classical building with red brick and tall white pillars, was gutted by a tornado a few hours past my sixteenth birthday. It was probably a mistake for the Arkansas state legislature to replace the traditional three years of English with a set of half-year electives. That was a very 70’s thing to do: choice, man!. But it fragmented the curriculum, and allowed too many students to choose the least challenging classes. 

It was also mistake to try to sneak a little religion into the school house by creating a course called Biblical Literature. A few years later the Solons in Little Rock tried to mandate the teaching of creation science along side evolution, and the federal courts gave them a good hard rap across the knuckles.

Bible Lit was a safer proposition. Students were supposed to study the Old Testament the same way they would Shakespeare’s Macbeth in English Lit, but I’m sure that Little Rock was hoping for something a little closer to Sunday school. What actually happened depended on one final accident. We had a perfect teacher. Ms. J. was a person of strict, Protestant faith. You could talk about such things back then. She was also fiercely committed to freedom of thought. Everyone had a right to declare what he or she believed. Finally, she had imagination. 

The year after the tornado we went to school in the main building at the county fair grounds. Our classrooms were windowless rectangles, bounded by heavy curtains. Ms. J. took advantage of this. She divided the room into two sections, each three rows deep, and facing one another. She set up her podium in the middle. When I first saw an English parliamentary debate, the set up of the House of Commons had a familiar look to it.

Exactly as Ms. J. had planned, the two sides of the room came to seat opposing parties. On the one side were the traditionalists. They were fond of familiar readings, and they defended the coherence of the Biblical story with fortitude and intelligence. A slender blonde named Joan served as unofficial majority leader. Those of us on the other side delighted in surprises and contradictions. We tried to read every verse in a way that would offend our grandmothers. 

At that time I looked ironically like my Grandmother’s picture of Jesus: bearded, with hair down to my waist, only with an earring dangling against my left jaw. I don’t think I had ever been leader of anything before, but in Bible Lit I was captain of the radicals. 

When we arrived for class, everyone had read the assignment. We struggled for control of Genesis and Judges like legislators over a budget. The quoted passages provided the only ammunition we were allowed to use. When Joan or I stood to make a point, we commanded every ear inside the curtains. Should you want to know what education looks like, that would be it.

When I hear people argue about the teaching of evolution, I think back to Bible Lit. I believe that Darwin’s theory is spot on as far as science goes. I am opposed to the teaching of creation science or intelligent design in public schools. But I think it’s a bad mistake for the Bible to be shut out. As Socrates and Ms. J. realized, the way to get folk’s attention is to engage them in arguments they care about. People care about this one. 

Biology texts could easily present the Biblical account along side passages from the Origin of the Species. Darwin himself constantly invites us to do just that. Of course some teachers will interject religion and others atheism, but we ultimately have to trust the classroom to those who meet in it. If we want biology to come alive, we should imitate Ms. J. She was a person of perfect faith. Faith in the Deity, and faith in dialogue.

SD War College

SD War College is featuring video now!  SDWC is also taking on the Argus Leader here: "I'm not sure whether to be irritated with Randall Beck and the Argus, or to pity them."  SDWC also doesn't like the "number of times that I've read things in the Argus that come from blog sources." 

"ThuneWatch" Works for Hildebrand/Daschle

Denise Ross of the Rapid City Journal did an interview with Steve Hildebrand which is posted on Mt. Blogmore.  As many suspected, we now know that Theron McChesney of "ThuneWatch" is an employee of Steve Hildebrand, who is paid by former Senator Tom Daschle.  McChesney is a veteran Daschle campaign staffer.  Hildebrand's consulting business, according to the interview, has 3 employees in Sioux Falls and 2 in Washington.  Who are his other employees?  Maybe "Clean Cut Kid"/Chad Schuldt?  Will CCK say who is paying him?  If you want an update on the former Daschle staffers who continue to run the permanent campaign against Senator Thune, see this article in the Rapid City Journal.  Here's part of it:

Led by public statements from former Daschle campaign manager Steve Hildebrand and the pointed and sometimes profane Internet sniping from other former staffers, the Daschle team continues to wage political war against Thune. ...

It some cases, it can also be profane. Former Daschle staff member Jeremy Funk, who works with Hildebrand, uses a personal Web log, or blog, to promote "F... Thune" T-shirts. ...

HildebrandTewes Consulting — the "Tewes" is Paul Tewes, Hildebrand's partner — receives $2,000 a month from Daschle's campaign fund and another $4,000 a month from DASHPAC. Hildebrand, who manages both funds for Daschle, said the payments his firm receives were to maintain and manage the political action committee and to wrap things up from the campaign.

Funk and another former Daschle staff member, Chad Schuldt, run personal Internet blogs critical of Thune. And some of that criticism is shaped in language that many South Dakotans would consider offensive.

So who was/is paying Funk and Schuldt?

The DeLay Affair

From Strategic Forcasting (reg. required):

There are three rules concerning political scandal in the United States. First, every administration has scandals. Second, the party in opposition will always claim that there has never been an administration as corrupt as the one currently occupying the White House. Three, two is almost never true. It is going to be tough for any government to live up to the Grant or Harding administrations for financial corruption, or the Nixon and Lincoln administrations for political corruption -- for instance, was Lincoln's secretary of war really preparing a coup d'etat before the president's assassination? And sex scandals -- Clinton is not the gold standard. Harding was having sex with his mistress in the Oval Office -- and no discussion was possible over whether it was actually sex. Andrew Jackson's wife was unfairly accused of being a prostitute. Grover Cleveland had an illegitimate child. Let's not start on John F. Kennedy.

Political scandal is the national sport -- the only unchanging spectator activity where a fine time is had by all, save the turkey who got caught this time. That is the fourth rule: Americans love a good scandal, and politicians usually manage to give them one. Thus, the Tom DeLay story is the epitome of national delight. Whether DeLay broke the law or the Texas prosecutor who claims he did is a Democratic hack out to make a name for himself matters little. A good time will be had by all, and in a few years no one will remember it. Does anyone remember Bert Lance or Richard Secord?

More Advice For Democrats

Joe Knippenberg parses an analysis of the Democratic Party's ailments as penned by two scholarly Democrats, William Galston and Elaine Kamarck.  As usual Prof. Knippenberg seems to get it largely right.  Some highlights from Knippenberg's piece:

In sum, Galston and Kamarck write as if there is no, or need be no, global war on terror. If seriousness on national security matters is supposed to be a sine qua non for Democratic success at the polls, they haven’t shown it.

This is major problem in the Democratic Party for the near future.  September 11, 2001 reminded Americans that they live in a dangerous world, and the Democratic party seems utterly unaware of the fact.  Passing prettily worded resolutions at the UN only gets you so far. 

To the extent that the "upscale professionals" who populate the leadership ranks in the Democratic Party "lead lives that are different from those of average families" and "tend to think and speak differently," they have a hard time connecting with and inspiring confidence in ordinary voters. The real challenge is empathy: Democratic candidates have to act and sound democratic.

It doesn't help when your party's chairman is talking about how you are the "Merlot Democrats."  As Joe K. points out, the elite of the Democratic Party are simply out of touch with the values of most Americans.  Associating yourself with abortion on demand, same-sex marriage, and Hollywood is not the way to win the heart and mind of the typical American mom. 

Here's one where I think Joe is off a bit:

Having supported a major expansion of the government’s power for the sake of national security, through (for example) the USA Patriot Act, Republicans will be hard-pressed to distinguish their support of big government in one arena from their opposition to it in another. Similarly, the Democrats who oppose the national security state may have a hard time explaining why "intrusive" government programs for health security are good, while "intrusive" programs for national security are not.

I think it is quite easy to show that securing us against those who want us all dead is a fundamental job of government, while a cradle to grave nanny state is an intrusion on our lives and our duties to be responsible for our own lives.  If only Republicans were better messengers.

I think Joe's central point is quite sound.  What Galston and Kamarck offer is little more than another attempt by Democrats to figure out how they can be the liberal party without anyone noticing they are the liberal party. 

Iraq Reality Check

In the constant drumbeat of negativity regarding Iraq (halted briefly by the recent vote on the Iraqi Constitution), it might be wise to put the situation in some historical context.  This is not to excuse any mistakes or to paint a rosy scenario, but in the wake of the 1991 war and the relatively swift success in Afghanistan perhaps expectations were unrealistic in Iraq.

Let's take the prosecution of the war first.  While perhaps being too rosy in his scenario, Todd Bevan makes some good points that there is a growing myth of incompetence surrounding the Bush administration's handling of Iraq.  The virtue of Bevan's piece is that it reminds us that there are always alternatives, and there is no indication that alternative courses by the Bushies would have turned out any better than things are now.  The main point I stress to my American Foreign Policy students is that foreign policy is hard.  One should never say, "Well, obviously this course was wrong and this course was right."  It's only obvious in hindsight, and maybe not even then.  As things stand now, Joe Lieberman and Jon Kyl (who spells his first name correctly) are optimistic about Iraq, Larry Diamond less so, and this WSJ article points to a growing professionalization of the Iraqi police.  Americans should be reminded that wars always contain mistakes and profound blunders.  In the Civil War, the Union Army showed amazing incompetence at battles such as Second Manassas and Fredricksburg.  In WWI, the British invasion of Gallipoli, dreamed up by Winston Churchill, was such a spectacular failure that they made a movie out of it.  In WWII the first time the Americans encountered the Germans, at Kasserine Pass in North Africa, they were soundly defeated and discovered that much of their equipment was wholly inadequate.  The British would lose the island of Cyprus to the Germans despite having nearly perfect intelligence.  On the ground incompetence cost them the island.  I think the greatest mistake the Bushies have made regarding Iraq is to stay with failures such as George Tenent and Paul Bremer long after they had proven ineffective.  But I caution against attacking the Bush administration simply because they have made mistakes.  Who wouldn't have?  Those mistakes should be measured against the difficulty of the goal and success toward the goal. 

What about the Iraqi Constitution vote?  As Prof. Blanchard notes, the results were not unanimous.  It turns out that a strong segment of Sunni Iraqis oppose this Constitution.  But, of course, a stronger majority of the rest of the country supports it.  And so what if there is a strong minority opposed?  Was the American experience any different?  The thoughts of those opposed to the U.S. Constitution, the Anti-Federalists, are still being studied.  In fact, my beau ideal of a political scientist, Herbert Storing, wrote a book called What the Anti-Federalists Were For (since we all know what they were against) and edited a seven volume edition of Anti-Federalist writings.  Those opposed to the Constitution nearly carried the day in important states such as New York and Virginia.  In Virginia, leading lights such as George Mason and Patrick Henry led the argument against the U.S. Constitution.  And as with Iraqi Constitution, support of many would be gained only by promising to amend the document once it was ratified.  Those amendments, of course, became the Bill of Rights. 

Again, nothing here is meant to white wash mistakes or to ignore the difficulty of the task.  My purpose is to show that the goal in Iraq is ambitious and will inevitably encounter serious setbacks.  History tells us that many outcomes only seem obvious in retrospect.  It was not obvious in 1788 that the U.S. Constitution would be ratified or in 1862 that the Union would win the Civil War.  It was not clear in early 1943 that the Allies could defeat the Axis, and certainly no one would have dreamed that the anchors of the Axis, Germany and Japan, would be, within a decade or so,  transformed into thriving democracies.  Just a reminder. 

Happy Hunting

This Looks Suspiciously Like Democracy II

Political scientists, like myself and my esteemed colleague Dr. Schaff, tend to chuckle sometimes when we read that the Sunnis oppose the constitution while the Kurds faver it.  Groups as large as the Sunni and Kurdish populations of Iraq are never monolithic.  Talking about Sunnis as if they were all alike is like talking about Christians in the U.S. as if there were no difference between Methodists and Mormons. 

Powerline has this facinating analysis of election results.:

It has been widely stated, as in this USA Today article, that Iraq's Sunnis tried hard to stop the constitution:

Iraq's constitution seemed assured of passage Sunday despite strong opposition from Sunni Arabs, who voted in surprisingly high numbers in an effort to stop it.

The results we've seen so far, however, don't support that characterization. There were, indeed, two heavily Sunni provinces, Anbar and Salaheddin, where voters rejected the constitution; in Salaheddin, 78% voted against it.

But in the other two Sunni-majority provinces, Diyala and Ninevah, it appears that most Sunnis supported the new constitution. In Diyala, 70% supported the referendum, with only 20% opposed. In Ninevah, with more than 80% of polling places reporting, 79% had voted in favor. There is no way to get those numbers unless most Sunnis voted "yes."

So it appears that there is a split among Iraqi Sunnis that is largely geographic, and that a great many Sunnis do support the constitution and Iraq's fledgling democracy, even though it will mean that they lose their historic dominance over the country.

This Looks Suspiciously Like Democracy

It appears that the new constitution has been ratified by the Iraqi people.  See Fox. 

From the Washington Post, this by Ellen Knickmeyer and Omar Fekeiki:

BAGHDAD, Oct. 15 -- Sunni Arab voters turned out in force for Iraq's constitutional referendum Saturday as insurgents largely suspended attacks, granting Sunnis a chance to try to defeat the U.S.-backed charter and giving much of the country a rare day of peace that belied the deep fractures exposed by the vote. Voting en masse for the first time since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, Sunni Arabs cast ballots in large numbers, according to electoral officials and witnesses. Turnout in areas populated by the country's Shiite majority and ethnic Kurds, whose political leaders drafted the proposed constitution, was described by officials as low.

Turnout in Kurdish and Shiite areas was low, presumably, because the constitution looked like a sure bet in those areas. 

Turnout reached 93 percent in the heavily Sunni western city of Fallujah after clerics and others went door-to-door telling residents it was safe to venture out of their homes, election officials said.

But in some other western cities, fear crushed the potential that had been suggested by heavy Sunni voter registration. In Ramadi, election day opened with automatic-weapons fire around at least one polling site. There were sporadic explosions as U.S. Marines patrolled the streets. Turnout there was 10 percent. "People are terrified and don't want to risk their lives," said an electoral official, Nadhum Ali.

Fallujah, of course, was the site of a small war within a war between American troops and insurgents.  Fallujah has now joined the political process.  One thing that this indicates is that the insurgency might collapse altogether the moment the Sunni clerics turn against it.  The task now for the founding fathers and mothers of a democratic Iraq is to convince them that their interests are better pursued by the ballot than the car bomb. 

 

Fire Thunder

Argus Leader:

Oglala Sioux Tribe President Cecilia Fire Thunder will face the second call for her impeachment Tuesday when the tribal council hears a complaint filed by William Birdnecklace Tate of Manderson.

Tate, who was the tribe's utilities financial manager from 2001-03 and is now practicing tribal law, says he began investigating Fire Thunder's administration in early June, shortly after the original complaint against the president from the tribe's former Head Start director, Alberta Iron Cloud Miller, was dismissed.
...
While his complaint alleges, among other things, Fire Thunder was not legally enrolled in the Oglala Sioux Tribe when she ran for president, and that she intimidated tribal elders, Tate insists the complaint is not so much a personal indictment of Fire Thunder as it is a call to reform a tribal executive system that blurs the line between setting tribal policy and managing tribal institutions.

Iraqi Constitution

New York Times:  "I voted then, for Saddam, of course, because I was afraid. But this time, I came here by my own choice. I am not afraid any more. I am a free man."  - Jabar Ahmed Ismail, 75

Trouble In Russia

Mark Steyn notes the troubling confluence of a declining Russia along with a rising population of militant Muslims in the Russian Federation. 

The Russians couldn't hold on to Eastern Europe. They couldn't hold on to Central Asia. Why would they fare any better with the present so-called Russian "Federation"? The country is literally dying. It's had a net population loss every year since 1992, one of the lowest fertility rates in the world -- 1.2 children born per woman -- and one of the highest abortion rates: some 70 percent of pregnancies are terminated. Russian men now have a lower life expectancy than Bangladeshis -- not because Bangladesh is brimming with actuarial advantages but because, if he had four legs and hung from a tree in a rain forest, the Russian male would be on the endangered species list.

But, as Steyn notes, the growing parts of Russia are the Muslim parts.

If you're an energy-rich Muslim republic, what's the point of going down the express garbage chute of history with the Russian Federation? The Islamification of significant parts of present-day Russia is going to be a critical factor in its death spiral.

I'm aware the very concept of "the enemy" is alien to the non-judgment multicultural mind: There are no enemies, just friends whose grievances we haven't yet accommodated. But the media's sensitivity police apparently want this to be the first war we lose without even knowing who it is we've lost to. C'mon, guys, next time something happens in the Caucasus, why not blame the "Caucasians"? At least that way, we'll figure it must have been right-wing buddies of Timothy McVeigh.

SD 2006

SD War College is noting the 2006 South Dakota Political Candidate Wiki is up and running:

Anyone can update it with information and tidbits they come across in their travels on the people who are going to be running for office in 2006. Please keep it to the format as established (unconfirmed reports in italics) and note your source if it is a public document.

This is all done with the understanding that nothing is official until after the filing deadlines or party conventions - but it's a good place to start discussions and speculation.

Definitely check it out.

Isn't That Odd?

An odd coincidence on the Aberdeen American News homepage.  There is this AP story about a riot in Toledo when Nazis tried to stage a rally.  It's not clear exactly who did the rioting, but it appears it was by the Nazis themselves. 

At the same time, the American News picks up a seperate story on Louis Farrakhan and the 10th Anniversary of the so-called "Million Man March," which in its original inception a decade ago fell well short of a million men.  Isn't it odd that we see one story about racial supremacists rioting in Toldeo, but then we are treated to a puff piece about another racial supremacist, Louis Farrakhan?

What is the basis for this charge against Farrahkan?   What would you call a man who believes that his race is the Deity's chosen race, and that a second race is the creation of a mad scientist and is "the devil"?  What if this man also wallowed in anti-Semitic language?  What if this person questioned the humanity of other races? And finally, what if this person enjoyed parading around with an array of bodyguards who dress in paramilitary fashion?  Sounds a lot like the Nazi's who were marching in Toledo. But this is also Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam (which, by the way, has little if anything to do with authentic Islam).  You could pick up much of this simply by reading the Autobiography of Malcolm X or reading the Wikipedia article on the Nation, which includes this quote from Farrakhan: "Louis Farrakhan has stated that 'White people are potential humans…they haven’t evolved yet.' (Philadelphia Inquirer, 3/18/00)."  And loe and behold, Democratic luminaries such as Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Congressman Mel Watts spoke at Saturday's rally.  OK Democratic Party.  Here are prominent members of your party associating with racial supremacists and purveyors of hate.  Farrakhan is a real live fascist, not a pretend one.  If these men aren't malicious for associating with Farrakhan, they are surely criminally foolish.  I await your condemnation of Jackson, Sharpton, and Watts and your shaming them out of polite company.    I await the calls for Mel Watts to resign his seat from Congress for associating with a man as disgusting as Farrakhan.  I have a feeling I'll be a-waiting a long time.

Update: This news story says it was the anti-Nazi crowd that rioted in Toledo.  I am reminded of this exchange from Woody Allen's Manhattan. 

Isaac Davis: Has anybody read that Nazis are gonna march in New Jersey? Y'know, I read this in the newspaper. We should go down there, get some guys together, y'know, get some bricks and baseball bats and really explain things to them.
Party Guest: There is this devastating satirical piece on that on the Op Ed page of the Times, it is devastating.
Isaac Davis: Well, a satirical piece in the Times is one thing, but bricks and baseball bats really get right to the point.

Soccer Balls and Constitutions

Michael Hastings, writing in Newsweek, has this:

Oct. 15, 2005 - Cruising through the Al Wahdi neighborhood in eastern Mosul, Iraq, Lt. Colonel John Norris ducks down from his command hatch in the heavily armored Stryker vehicle. "Look at all the people on the streets, in the lines at the polls," he tells his fellow American soldiers. "That's a good thing to see." For the 4-23 Battalion, aka the Tomahawks, Oct. 15 was starting to look like one of the most peaceful days of the war. Sunny weather, about 85 degrees, and not too humid. "It's a great day to be a Tomahawk," grins the 42-year-old Kentucky native.

Here is a shot of Lt. Colonel Norris handing out soccer balls to Iraqi children, on the eve of Saturday's vote. 

We here at SDPolitics are on the side of hope in this affair. Its a little difficult to tell what our esteemed colleagues on the other side of the regional blogosphere think, since they seem to have no interest in the event whatsoever.  On the other hand, a genuine debate is going on at the flagship liberal blog, the Daily KOS.

The proposed Iraqi constitution has flaws, to be sure.  And whether it is ratified or not, the violence will not suddenly and permanently end.  But upwards to eleven million people voted.  The largest Sunni political party endorsed the constitution.  The Sunni population is now part of the political process.  That is more political progress than this region has ever seen before.  Surely it is reason for some optimism.