Greetings from St. Louis

I've been attending the annual meeting of the National Collegiate Honors Council.  Good panels, good jazz, but, unusually, not so good food at the gala.  They did however give us a free ride to the top of the Gateway Arch on its official 40th anniversary.  Its a magnificent monument to . . .  what, I can't exactly say.  Engineering, to be certain.  I think the arch may be the most physically (as opposed to artistically) impressive artificial object I have ever seen.  Its uselessness adds to the effect.

On a more political note, I would point out that the collapse of the Miers nomination was predicted by yours truly in this blog. 

I humbly suggest that Professor Schaff's criticism put the nomination over the edge. 

I have been following Professor Schaff's lead, and have been looking into Michael McConnell as the best candidate for Bush to nominate.  McConnell has been said to be out of the running.  Kausfiles has some good commentary on why.  But the reasons only make McConnell look better.

Hildebrand

Sibby:

The above excerpt mentions Hildebrand is now focused on fighting Congressional Republicans’ budget cutting plan. On September 23, 2005m Schuldt began his index titled "Federal Budget". He has eight posts on that subject with 4 of them posted in the last week. Again we have Chad Schuldt pushing on his web site the Democrat’s propaganda on an issue that Hildebrand Consulting is working on. Again we have the Democrats whining about Thune’s paid bloggers, but they ignore Hildebrand’s paid bloggers."

A Robust Economy

The economy surged in the third quarter, growing at a rate of 3.8%.  If memory serves, average long-term historic growth is about 3.2%, so 3.8% is a tremendous number, especially considering two hurricanes:

Economic activity expanded at an energetic 3.8 percent annual rate in the third quarter, providing vivid evidence of the economy's stamina even as it coped with the destructive forces of hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

The latest snapshot of the country's economic performance, released by the Commerce Department on Friday, even marked an improvement from the solid 3.3 percent pace of growth registered in the second quarter.

Growth in the third quarter was broad-based, reflecting brisk spending by consumers, businesses and government.

"Holy Katrina! The economy weathered two major hurricanes and in spite of that showed accelerated growth," said Ken Mayland, president of ClearView Economics. "I think what this shows is that fundamentally the economy was and is in really good shape."

Another History Lesson

Last week I noted Professor David Gelernter's column on Barbara Boxer's poor understanding of history (or, in John Hinderacker's words, Gelernter warned the Democrats not to "party like its 1974").  This week, he offers another history lesson:  "Americans won't let Democrats lose Iraq."

Compassionate Conservatism vs. Limited Government Conservatism

I must admit I was one of the original "compassionate conservatives."  All the way back in 1999 (what a party!) I was on the George W. Bush bandwagon.  I was in grad school at the time and I remember a buddy of mine and I salivating at the prospect of a Republican presidential candidate who had a philosophy the moved beyond simple-minded anti-government slogans and crude individualism.  Back in those days George Bush used to say "prosperity without purpose is simple materialism."  I believed that then, and still believe it to this day.  I still believe conservatives should have a more noble governing philosophy than "leave me alone."  For one thing, it is hard to make an argument for public morality on issues such as protecting human life and defending marriage when you think government's job is to physically protect us from each other and that's it. 

But here is Charles Kessler arguing that "compassionate conservatism" in practice means unlimited government. I am not sure he's correct, but I do thing it's something to chew on. Kessler argues:

Compassionate conservatism is the President’s self-proclaimed philosophy. This term proves the old admonition that the adjective is the enemy of the noun. Conservatism defends “liberty and justice for all,” meaning that there are limits to what government   can do to, and for, us. But a compassionate government cannot be a limited one. Its swelling sympathy will overwhelm the levees of individualism and consent (“I feel your pain,” whether you want me to or not); and its pity implies that for some unfortunate people, justice is not enough. This inherent indiscipline is why compassion used to be regarded as needing reason’s regulation, and why in any event it was thought better suited to private, not public, life. Compassionate conservatism, therefore, means big government conservatism. And big government conservatism is no conservatism at all.

Miers Questionnaire

The SCOTUSblog is noting a strange occurrence:

When the deadline came and went for Harriet Miers to submit her revised answers to Senators' questions yesterday, many took it as a reliable sign that her nomination was to be withdrawn. They were right about the outcome, but apparently not about cause and effect -- at the very same time that Ms. Miers was asking the President to withdraw her nomination, she was submitting her revised questionnaire to the Judiciary Committee.  The cover letters to Senators Specter and Leahy are dated yesterday; and I'm hearing that the answers were delivered to the Judiciary Committee "very late last night."

A case of completing the historical record? Hedging her bets? Some other explanation?

Hildebrand-Tewes

27 Oct. 2005 Roll Call:

A new power is rising in the Democratic consulting world, and with a high-profile issue campaign under its belt and a few Senate candidates signed up, it looks like Hildebrand Tewes Consulting will be a major player in the midterm elections and beyond.

Steve Hildebrand and Paul Tewes emerged from losing Democratic campaigns last year — Tewes was political director at the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and Hildebrand managed the unsuccessful re-election bid of then-Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) — to found their own firm.

Almost immediately they scored a major coup — a coalition of big labor and liberal groups asked them to spearhead the opposition campaign to President Bush’s Social Security plan.

Tewes assembled a team comprising many former Democratic Senate campaign aides and assumed executive director duties at Americans United to Protect Social Security in Washington. Hildebrand set up shop in Sioux Falls, S.D., where he long has been stationed, and focused on the firm’s Senate and other clients, including Daschle’s still-active leadership political action committee.

Now that Bush has all but scrapped his plan to create private Social Security accounts — and many Democrats are crediting Americans United for its role — the coalition is looking to create a more enduring issue-based organization.

“There’s nothing more gratifying than being a part of the effort that defeated Bush’s No. 1 domestic priority,” said Hildebrand, who was quick to point out Tewes’ and the Democratic Congressional leadership’s leading roles. “We showed Bush’s true colors — the destructive things Bush wants to do to this country.”

The coalition, led by the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, US Action, MoveOn.org, and others, has retained Hildebrand Tewes to organize and run another 501(c)(4), this time to fight Congressional Republicans’ budget cutting plan.

Emergency Campaign for America’s Priorities has grown out of Americans United and features much of the same cast of characters.

Side note:  In response to Jon's post, I'm a Ulysses S. Grant.

Off The Liberal Plantation

Powerline has recently noted a couple stories that may seem unconnected, but they speak to a particular truth that needs illuminating.  The first story was inspired by a column by left-wing editorialist Eugene Robinson about Condoleezza Rice's recent trip to her hometown.  Robinson essentially says that Rice isn't really black, because real blacks aren't Republican (faithful SDP readers will remember that Tom Daschle tacitly endorsed the idea that Hispanic Republicans aren't real Hispanics).  Today Powerline notes that a left-wing blogger posted a racist picture depicting Michael Steele, a black Republican who is running for U.S. Senate in Maryland.  I guess this is how some on the left view African-Americans.  You are good when you are on the liberal plantation.  But try and leave and we'll depict you as an Uncle Tom. 

By the way, as much as I like Condoleezza Rice, I hope she never becomes president, because "Condoleezza" is really hard to spell.  Although not as hard as the last name of that guy who is governor of California.  It's tough on those of us who can barely spell kat. 

Michael McConnell Love Fest

Judge Michael McConnell is getting lots of good press in the wake of the Miers withdrawal.  See Hugh Hewitt, Ramesh Ponnuru,  Eugene Volokh and Orin Kerr.

Update: Speaking of love fests, the Knippenberg/Schaff love fest continues.  Joe gives us a shout out. 

Who Are You?

What historic general are you?  I am George Washington, which makes me feel warm inside.  What worries me is one of my brothers is William Wallace while a history colleague is Edward I.  Let's hope they never get in the same room together. 

Spin Control

Not being as smart as Jason, it took me a while to figure out I could just turn on my television.  Watching Fox News, it looks like the White House will spin the Miers withdrawal as a defense of executive privilege.  The Senate wanted certain documents pertaining to Miers's role as White House Counsel, and the White House didn't want to give them up.  I happen to think the White House is right on those merits, but I also think that the nomination was pulled back for political reasons, not for the stated reason.  That said, no White House can publicly say, "We were going to lose, so we gave up." Let's hope the White House does not repeat its mistakes.  Now let the drum beat begin.  Michael McConnell, Michael McConnell, Michael McConnell! 

News Flash

SDP hears rumor at Harriet Miers has withdrawn.  Should this prove correct, you heard it here first.

Update: A quick check of the usual suspects shows that you might not have heard it here first.  NRO has her letter to the President.

And curse Jason for getting on his computer first! 

And does SDP get quick results. Last night I asked for Miers to withdraw, and presto! 

Whew! After that whole World Series debacle, I needed some good news.  Here's a Peanuts on the subject:

Take heart Houston Astros and George W. Bush.  Tomorrow is another day.   

ALERT: MIERS WITHDRAWS NOMINATION

I just heard on FoxNews that Miers has withdrawn her nomination for the Supreme Court. 

I guess they won't be doing this today.

Check back later as more information become available.

UPDATE I:  Statement from the President (HT to RedState):

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT

Today, I have reluctantly accepted Harriet Miers' decision to withdraw her nomination to the Supreme Court of the United States.

I nominated Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court because of her extraordinary legal experience, her character, and her conservative judicial philosophy.  Throughout her career, she has gained the respect and admiration of her fellow attorneys.  She has earned a reputation for fairness and total integrity.  She has been a leader and a pioneer in the American legal profession. She has worked in important positions in state and local government and in the bar.  And for the last five years, she has served with distinction and honor in critical positions in the Executive Branch.

I understand and share her concern, however, about the current state of the Supreme Court confirmation process.  It is clear that Senators would not be satisfied until they gained access to internal documents concerning advice provided during her tenure at the White House - disclosures that would undermine a President's ability to receive candid counsel. Harriet Miers' decision demonstrates her deep respect for this essential aspect of the Constitutional separation of powers - and confirms my deep respect and admiration for her.

I am grateful for Harriet Miers' friendship and devotion to our country.  And I am honored that she will continue to serve our Nation as White House Counsel.

My responsibility to fill this vacancy remains.  I will do so in a timely manner.

UPDATE II:  News here, here, and here.

Iraq

CNN has a story about the 3rd Armored Cavalry Division in Iraq.  This is my buddy's unit in Iraq, except he's in Tiger Squadron rather than Thunder.  In any event, I hope he is doing all right.

NORTHERN BABIL PROVINCE, Iraq (CNN) -- It's dubbed the "meat grinder." And the toll taken on U.S. forces on these roads patrolled by the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment in the northern Babil province explains why.
...
When you walk into squadron headquarters, the first thing you see is the Wall of Fallen Heroes. The wall's 14 pictures and biographies of men killed from the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment stand out like a massive scar. It's impossible to do justice to each story on the wall with a photo and a brief bio.

Thune On Miers

From MSNBC:

Sen. John Thune, R-S.D. told reporters he had not read the 1993 speech, but that the self-determination versus constitutional amendment clash was “a conflict which she is going to have to explain.”

President Bush said the day after he nominated Miers to replace Justice Sandra Day O’Connor that, “I know her well enough to be able to say that she's not going to change, that 20 years from now she'll be the same person with the same philosophy that she is today…. I don't want to put somebody on the bench who is this way today, and changes.”

But the 1989 questionnaire and the 1993 speech provide evidence that her views did change in a significant way in the space of only four years.

Both verbally and in their tone, some GOP senators conveyed their continued uneasiness with the Miers nomination. Thune said, “So much is riding on her performance in front of the committee. The stakes are so large, this is a generational decision.”

Alluding to the fact that Miers, if confirmed, would replace O’Connor, who has voted in support of gay rights, the right to get an abortion, and racial preferences in college admissions, Thune said, “This is the fifth vote on all those major issues.”

The South Dakota Republican seemed to ratchet up the expectation of how well Miers’ will need to do in the public hearing in order to win Senate confirmation.

“There are going to be expectations set around here as to how she should perform, and I think she is going to have to meet or exceed those expectations,” Thune said. “I hope when she comes to the committee, she brings her ‘A’ game.”

Just say "No," Senator. 

A History Lesson

Victor Davis Hanson gives a history lesson on war and casualties in today's New York Times.  Here is sample:

Television and the global news media have changed the perception of combat fatalities as well. CNN would have shown a very different Iwo Jima - bodies rotting on the beach, and probably no coverage of the flag-raising from Mount Suribachi. It is conventional wisdom now to praise the amazing accomplishment of June 6, 1944. But a few ex tempore editorial comments from Geraldo Rivera or Ted Koppel, reporting live from the bloody hedgerows where the Allied advance stalled not far from the D-Day beaches - a situation rife with intelligence failures, poor equipment and complete surprise at German tactics - might have forced a public outcry to withdraw the forces from the Normandy "debacle" before it became a "quagmire."

Someone - perhaps Gens. Omar Bradley, Dwight Eisenhower or George Marshall himself - would have been fired as responsible for sending hundred of poorly protected armored vehicles down the narrow wooded lanes of the Bocage to be torched by well-concealed Germans. Subsequent press conferences over underarmored Sherman tanks would have made the present furor over Humvees in Iraq seem minor.

As they say, read the whole thing. 

Nebraska

Ryne is noting a Yale history graduate student running for Congress in Western Nebraska.  Excerpt:

Speaking of Nebraska's 3rd District, Scott Kleeb, the sacrificial lamb Democratic candidate for Osborne's seat, has a new finance chair.

Former U.S. Sen. Bob Kerrey has joined the 3rd District congressional campaign of Democrat Scott Kleeb. Kerrey will serve as chairman of the Kleeb for Congress campaign finance committee.

“I am deeply impressed with Scott’s commitment to thinking deeply about the issues facing central and western Nebraska,” Kerrey said in a statement. “He envisions a Nebraska with jobs and people flowing in instead of out. If that vision is to be realized, we need leaders with the energy and intelligence to promote fresh ideas. And Scott is such a leader.”

Here's more on Kleeb, a Yale grad who is currently working on a ranch near Dunning.

Handsome, 6'3 and clad in jeans, cowboy boots and a purple dress shirt, Scott Kleeb GRD '01 '03 strode onto Yale's campus last week to talk about his congressional campaign.

In his six years as a graduate student, Kleeb, 30, inspired admiration from students and professors alike. He won a prize for his overall performance as a teaching assistant for classes such as history professor John Gaddis' Cold War lecture. He won a spot on the Rumpus' list of the 50 most beautiful people at Yale. And he won praise from history professor John Mack Faragher for his dissertation on cattle ranching, which he plans to submit this spring.

But whether Kleeb, a Democrat, will win a congressional seat in Nebraska's heavily Republican third district next year is uncertain.

It's an interesting read. Check it out for the scoop on the 3rd's only Democratic candidate so far. But there's no doubt about it. Mr. Kleeb is going to be a tough sell in the District.

Check it out.

You Hear No Griping From The Plains

Here's a fun email someone forwarded to me today:

For those of you who are not aware, North Dakota and southwestern Montana got hit with their first blizzard of the season a couple of weeks ago.

The following text is from county emergency manager out in the western part of North Dakota state after the storm.

  WEATHER BULLETIN

Up here in the Northern Plains we just recovered from a Historic event --- may I even say a "Weather Event" of "Biblical Proportions" --- with a historic blizzard of up to 24" inches of snow and winds to 50 MPH that broke trees in half, stranded hundreds of motorists  in lethal snow banks, closed all roads, isolated scores of communities and cut power to 10's of thousands.


George Bush did not come....

FEMA staged nothing....

No one howled for the government...

No one even uttered an expletive on TV...

Nobody demanded $2,000 debit cards....
.
No one asked for a FEMA Trailer House....

No news anchors moved in.


We just melted snow for water, sent out caravans to pluck people out of snow engulfed cars, fired up wood stoves, broke out coal oil lanterns or Aladdin lamps and put on an extra layer of clothes.

Even though a Category "5" blizzard of this scale has never fallen this early...we know it can happen and how to deal with it ourselves.

Everybody is fine.

Contra Miers

I have waited until I saw the whites of her eyes, but I can keep the powder dry no longer (forgive the mixed metaphor).  The Bush administration must withdraw from consideration the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.  Today's New York Times reports on Miers's sinking fortunes in the US Senate.  Note the Thune reference:

Emerging from a weekly luncheon of Republican senators in which they discussed the nomination, several lawmakers suggested that as Ms. Miers continued her visits on Capitol Hill, she was not winning over Republican lawmakers.

"I am uneasy about where we are," said Senator Jeff Sessions, an Alabama Republican on the Judiciary Committee who had so far expressed only support for the president's choice. "Some conservative people are concerned. That is pretty obvious."

Senator John Thune, Republican of South Dakota, called Republican sentiment toward Ms. Miers's nomination "a question mark."

"There is an awful lot of Republican senators who are saying we are going to wait and see," he said.

The fact that she has only tepid support in the Senate only speaks to the politics of the situation, although "mere" politics cannot be safely ignored.  But today's Washington Post reports on two speeches Miers gave in 1993 (Hat tip to Joe Knippenberg at No Left Turns).  You can read transcripts of those speeches here and here.  After reading these speeches I come away convinced that Harriet Miers is no conservative and, just as bad, she is a mediocre mind.  I realize these are speeches, not papers, but if I were grading these as papers I would give them a low B.  Her syntax is tortured at times.  Her organization is sloppy.  Her arguments are pedestrian and not well articulated.  It's better than average work, but not excellent.  What I am saying is that a good undergraduate student at Northern State University is more articulate than Harriet Miers, who wants a seat on the Supreme Court.  This is unacceptable. 

I have often argued in this space that the U.S. Senate should not look at politics as it proceeds to confirm federal judges.  If a nominee has no ethical issues and is competent for the job, the Senate should defer to the President's choice.  Unfortunately I have come to the conclusion that Harriet Miers is not competent for a seat on the United States Supreme Court.  Her name should be withdrawn and the name of a sound conservative with solid credentials, such as Michael McConnell, should be put in her stead.  As White House counsel Harriet Miers was in charge of the selection process for judicial nominations.  Her own nomination to the Court shows her incompetence.  Pity.

Update: Like me, these 1993 speeches have caused Paul Mirengoff at Powerline and Ed Whelan at NRO to call for Meirs's withdrawal (ok, Whelan just says the speeches "call seriously into question her fitness for the Supreme Court.").  After noting Whelan's description of her writing as "opaque" I am starting to think that my B- grade might reflect grade inflation. 
 

South Dakota '06

Former South Dakota GOP Chairman Joel Rosenthal weighs in on the Democrats' candidate for governor in 2006.  Excerpt:

No Surprise! With his pre announcement announcement this past week Ron Volesky announced yet again he would announce his candidacy for Governor. His announcement will come on November 4^th to capitalize on any newsworthiness of the “one year out” syndrome. Ron is a mediahound and his greatest ability is to cultivate the media and “get press.”

A Few Things

I'm taking some advice and spreading the word.

USA TODAY (owned by Gannet who also owns the Argus Leader) is playing with Photoshop again.

Tom Maguire is speculating on the outcome of the CIA leak case.

Ever wondered about the economic history of world agriculture?  Well, here you go.

Here's the story of Rosa Parks.

I'm Off Blog for a few days

I'll be in Saint Louis.  I'm taking three honors students to the National Collegiate Honors Council annual meeting.  In the meantime you will have to make do with Master Heppler and Professor Schaff, when he is not busy with trivial things like his "job."  While I'm gone, any readers who who follow my posts (assuming that such persons exist) may want to check out these pieces.  Robert Kagan, writing in the Washington Post, has an excellent piece on the New York Times.  It turns out that the Times was a major cheerleader for the view that Saddam Hussein had WMD.  On a deeper and more poignant note, look at George Packer's review in the New Yorker, about the writers Hemingway and Don Passos in the Spanish Civil War. 

History Lesson

Jonathan Last offers this interesting précis:

WHAT DOES MODERN HISTORY have to teach us about the age of American empire? The final chapters of the British Empire offer lessons and parallels aplenty. Empires don't last forever, and the combination of martial victory, popular ennui, and liberal anti-patriotism is a dangerous mix for a superpower.

AL

Dave Kranz is noting Daschle's presidential rumblings:

Calling on supporters

Sometimes, the wording of the message speaks volumes. A recent e-mail sent to supporters of former Sen. Tom Daschle by Steve Hildebrand, head of Daschle's new leadership PAC, encouraged them to attend the Jefferson Jackson Day Dinner on Nov. 5 in Des Moines.

Iowa's presidential caucus is the first presidential test in the nation, and the opportunity to keynote that event is significant for anyone thinking of running in 2008.

Daschle and Hildebrand played down the significance of the speech, but both have said politicians generally say, "Never say never."

Now, the e-mail: "The Iowa JJ Dinner keynote address has typically been given by a major presidential candidate. This is a truly important event and one that I encourage you to attend in support of Tom."

You decide.

Poopy Pants Replies on Homosexual Adoptions

Professor Schaff gives me the last word on homosexual adoption.  Here goes:

1) I agree with him that a married couple is, all things being equal, preferable to any other sort of arrangements when deciding who gets to adopt a child.  So when it is a matter of deciding between parties, a court might well prefer a married, heterosexual couple over either a homosexual couple or a single parent.  As this is a judgment call, a sufficient argument is that the sexual balance is blessed both by tradition and nature.  As far as I can see, almost all Professor's Schaff's arguments are addressed to this point, and it is one on which we do not disagree.

2) This doesn't mean however that a single parent or a homosexual couple may be simply simply prohibited from adopting a child.  Nor does it mean, as a shrewd reader pointed out in an e-mail, that any heterosexual couple is always to be preferred over any homosexual couple.   Judgments have to be made on a case by case basis.  This is what I was speaking to in the original post. 

3)  So, preferring married, heterosexual couples over other kinds of householders in a case where two households want to adopt the same child is surely constitutionally permissible.  Considering someone to be legally unfit to be a parent or adopt a child solely on the basis that that person is a homosexual is not constitutionally permissible.  Or that is what Mr. Justice Poopy Pants would say.

Daschle's White House Bid

Taegan Goddard's Political Wire:

In an interview with The Fix, former Sen. Tom Daschle (D-SD) "gave every indication that he has been thinking long and hard about a run for the White House." He even claims to have raised $700,000 through his political action committee so far this year.

Said Daschle: "It interests me. I don't have any plans to run, but I am going to keep my options open."

Interesting fact: "Daschle seemed to signal that he was essentially in the 2004 presidential race until Democrats lost control of the Senate in the 2002 election."

Challenger to Herseth

SD War College is reporting on the first confirmed challenger to US Representative Stephanie Herseth. 

A Mixed Bag

I have long opposed such gimmicks as term-limits and balanced budget amendments because they try to take the politics out of politics.  In general, if we have a systematic problem within our government (out of touch politicians or deficit spending) why not let the voters take care of it?  But I must say, after reading this piece and this piece, I might be moving in favor of a Balanced Budget Amendment to the US Constitution.  The trouble is that once you draw the conclusion only a BBA can solve the big spending ways of Washington, you've pretty much admitted that our democratic system is horribly broken.  Lacking any discipline itself, the public has to ask mommy to hide the candy. 

Only a brief response to Prof. Blanchard on same-sex adoption.  Like many advocates of same-sex adoption and marriage, he clouds the issue by brining in analogies to race and ethnicity.  The question is one of nature and genetics.  Our race and ethnicity surely carry some genetic baggage (a black man is more likely to get sickle cell anemia than I am), but the question is whether race/ethnicity is relevant to parenting.  I would argue that it clearly is not, while our sexual nature is, and thus it is appropriate for the state to make distinctions.  Being black or white has nothing to do with one's character as a parent, but being a man or woman does.  Striking down miscegenation laws in Loving v. Virginia, the U.S. Supreme Court did not rework society's fundamental definition of family and marriage, which allowing same-sex couples to adopt or marry surely will.  If one wants to see experiments in "family diversity," go to inner-city America. When I was coaching youth baseball in inner-city Chicago, at best 1 in 5 kids had a father in the household, and even at ages 9-12 it was clear that no good was coming of it.  That said, I'll let Prof. Blanchard have the last word if he'd like.  I will point out to the rest of the blogosphere that this is how polite people argue civilly.  Also, Prof. Blanchard has poopy pants. 

Rosa Parks.

I wish to second Jason Heppler's post.  Ms. Parks was a hero if ever there was one. 

Et tu Brute?

With an enemy behind every URL, one cannot be too careful in his choice of friends.  Professor Schaff beards me for the following comment:

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.

Well, at least it got his blog fingers tapping.  Professor Schaff's first argument goes like this:

The social science evidence at this point is nearly unanimous: children fair better when they are raised by a father and a mother who are married.  Children fair best when raised by their married biological parents, but in the case of most adoptions the non-biological parental alternative is usually better than the reality presented by the biological parents.  . . .  The nurturing of motherhood and the protection of fatherhood are things from which every child can benefit. For example, are there reasons for the state to prefer to put young boys in a family that can provide a strong male figure rather than in a household with only two "mothers"?

I cut out some good stuff, but that is the gist of it.  I reply that here Professor Schaff is addressing an entirely different question.  When a court has to decide which of two contesting parties ought to be awarded custody of a child, then the court is entitled and required to make all sorts of judgment calls.  Is one set of would-be parents better able to provide for the child?  Mr. Justice Blanchard would, all things being equal, award custody to a couple who were married over a couple who were not, or to a couple over a single man or woman.  But that doesn't mean that he would deny adoption to a single man if he were the only contender, and obviously cherished the child.

On the other hand, a court is not allowed to discriminate against a couple because they are of mixed race.  That is settled law, and rightly so.  The point is that one cannot consider someone unfit to be a parent because he or she or they are Black.  Unfortunately this principle has not be adopted in reverse.  I think it is one of the great tragedies and injustices of adoption policy in the U.S. that white couples are often prevented from adopting Black children.  In some cases Black children have been taken from white parents who obviously loved and nurtured them, and given to parents whose only qualification is that they were Black. 

This leads me to Jon's second argument:

Prof. Blanchard himself has reported on the continued promiscuity in the homosexual community as evidenced by the still high incidence of AIDS in that community.  Does it not seem rational that the state should avoid putting children in that milieu?  Shouldn't we prefer to put children in homes that are stable and where this is a strong commitment between the parents?

I am very suspicious of using sociological generalizations to judge the fitness of individuals standing in court.  Some racial and ethnic groups are, statistically speaking, more prone to crime and other sorts of social dysfunction than others.  I don't believe that we can judge individual persons on those grounds.  Suppose that the Irish are more prone to alcoholism.  Does that mean that a court can discriminate against me in an adoption case because my not yet sainted mother's maiden name was Daugherty?  No. So even if male homosexuals are prone to certain dysfunctional behavior, this is not warrant for judging the fitness of an individual who stands before the state.

The case is obviously different if the individual himself or herself is guilty of some criminalized behavior, for example, if he is a pederast.  Likewise if he is subject to some dangerous psychosis, like schizophrenia.  But short of that, he is innocent until proven guilty.

I admit that Mr. Justice Blanchard, if he had to decide whether to award custody to a married heterosexual couple or a gay couple would opt in favor of the former.  But that was not the point I spoke to.  The question is whether we can deny outright an adoption petition by a person or a couple just because he or she or they are homosexual and live in an homosexual partnership.  Perhaps such a household is less than ideal.  Many children are raised well in less than ideal homes.  At any rate, I don't think there is any constitutional grounds for denying someone the right to adopt a child merely because he or she is homosexual. 

Rosa Parks

A hero died today.

"It was not pre-arranged. It just happened that the driver made a demand and I just didn't feel like obeying his demand . . . I was quite tired after spending a full day working."  - Rosa Parks

Plame Off.

I haven't blog on the Plame affair, at least as far as I can remember.  It has always seemed to me to be a silly business.  It is clear that there was an insurrection in the CIA, and that Plame and her husband, Joseph Wilson, were part of an anti-Administration cabal.  Someone in the Administration, maybe Karl Rove, let the Press know about this.  All that looks like pretty ordinary politics to me.  The only questionable thing was that they did, in effect, leak to the press the identity of a CIA officer, Ms. Plame.

Now I will be the first to admit that, if the tables were turned, and it appeared that the Gore Administration had outed a CIA agent because she was a critic of its foreign policy, conservatives would be screaming bloody murder.  But that doesn't mean that they would be right to do so.

Michael Barone has a fine summary of the affair at RealClearPolitics.  First, is there any likelihood that someone in the Administration broke the law by revealing Valerie Plame's role in her husband's mischief?  No.

It is almost certainly true that neither of the statutes that might cover the situation   -- the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 and the Espionage Act   of 1917 -- was violated, at least by anyone in the administration.

Consider the Intelligence   Identities Protection Act. To violate it, you must disclose the name of a covert agent who has served abroad within the last five years, while knowing that that person was a covert agent. It does not appear that Plame was a covert agent who had served abroad within five years of the disclosure of her name to reporters. She was a desk officer at CIA headquarters at Langley at that time. This law   was narrowly drafted and intended only to apply to people who purposefully endangered covert agents abroad. That is clearly not the case here.

The Espionage Act is less   narrowly drafted. But it does set out specific things that cannot be disclosed--"information concerning any vessel, aircraft, work of defense, navy   yard," etc. The list does not include identity of CIA agents--there weren't   any in 1917--which is why the drafters of the 1982 IIPA felt the need for a new law to protect a very limited class of covert operatives.

There is obviously a need to protect the identities of covert CIA operatives, as both their lives and their operations would be at risk otherwise.  But such protections must be construed very narrowly, or else they can have a chilling effect on the press. 

In the absence of a violation of the underlying espionage acts, any indictment here arising from the course of the investigation would be, in my view, unjust and an abuse of prosecutorial discretion. It would also be, as the liberal commentator Jacob Weisberg has pointed out, a long step toward something like the British Official Secrets Act--a precedent that would staunch the flow of information from the government to the press and the people.

In other words, a broad interpretation of the espionage acts would be a weapon that any administration could use against the press.  Reveal one of our special secrets in the course of criticizing us, and you'll end up the slammer.  This is the kind of thing that the liberals used to care about.

Adoption Options

I've been busy with other matters (like my job), but would not want to let this nugget from Prof. Blanchard go unanswered.  Contained in a post on another matter, Prof. Blanchard argues:

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.

Let me suggest some grounds for the constitutionality of banning homosexuals from adoption.  Is there a "rational basis" for such discrimination?  The social science evidence at this point is nearly unanimous: children fare better when they are raised by a father and a mother who are married.  Children fair best when raised by their married biological parents, but in the case of most adoptions the non-biological parental alternative is usually better than the reality presented by the biological parents. As Maggie Gallagher has recently written, with most adoptions, "[a]doption is thus a happy end to a tragedy or a crime." If one believes gender matters, as someone as steeped in social-biology as Prof. Blanchard surely does, then the state has reasons to prefer a family that can provide both a mother and father over one that can only provide generic "parenthood."  The nurturing of motherhood and the protection of fatherhood are things from which every child can benefit. For example, are there reasons for the state to prefer to put young boys in a family that can provide a strong male figure rather than in a household with only two "mothers"?  Or might a father prove useful in a particular way to a 16 year-old girl who is just beginning to date? For a dramatic depiction of a young girl without a father, see the disturbing film "Thirteen."

Further, Prof. Blanchard himself has reported on the continued promiscuity in the homosexual community as evidenced by the still high incidence of AIDS in that community.  Does it not seem rational that the state should avoid putting children in that milieu?  Shouldn't we prefer to put children in homes that are stable and where this is a strong commitment between the parents? 

I suspect these reasons might even pass a "compelling state interest" test, but they surely pass a rational basis test of constitutional scrutiny.  Allowing gay couples to adopt makes sense if our primary concern is with the rights of adults.  It makes little to no sense if our primary concern is with raising the next generation of citizens.  I say limiting adoption to same-sex couples (with a preference for married couples) is both good policy and Constitutionally defensible. 

The Permanent Campaign

Recall the Rapid City Journal's article about the permanent campaign:

John Thune's victory over Tom Daschle last November shook up the power structure of the U.S. Senate and ended the 26-year career of one of the nation's most prominent politicians.

But it didn't really end the 2004 campaign — at least, not for some former members of Daschle's staff.

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.

Remember scorched earth? 

Also, Jeremy "F--- John Thune" Funk has found new employment:

Congressional Quarterly Today
Oct. 21, 2005 – 9:45 p.m.

People on the Move
By Cheyenne Hopkins, CQ Staff

Jeremy Funk has been named deputy director of media relations for Media Matters for America, a research center that monitors conservative media coverage. Funk previously worked as deputy press secretary f or Americans United to Protect Social Security.

SD Farmers

A reader commented on the recent votes of Tim Johnson and Stephanie Herseth, both of which regarded the high cost of gasoline.  Johnson's refusal to open up ANWR for drilling and Herseth's nay vote on the establishment of new refineries only hurts South Dakota's farmers and ranchers.

The results of the HR 3893 vote looks horrible for the Democrats.  Not a single one voted in favor of the bill, and for a select few (the red state Democrats, like Herseth) it very well could end some careers.

Johnson's vote on ANWR appears to be a vote from his conscience--which is left of most South Dakotans.  Johnson is a prisoner of the environmental lobby.  It does no good for Johnson to vote against something that would help South Dakota and the country in general.

The final shot comes from our reader to Herseth:  "She purports to be looking out for farmers, I guess she looked the other way today…"

Indeed.  If those two won't vote for ANWR or HR 3893, what to they propose to shore up the high fuel cost problems facing our farmers and ranchers?

AL

Argus Leader:

Commercial red meat production in South Dakota during September was up 1 percent from a year ago, according to the state Agricultural Statistics Service.

Production in South Dakota totaled 87.3 million pounds for September, an increase of 5 percent from the previous month.

Commercial hog slaughter for South Dakota totaled 423,000 head during September, compared to 417,600 last year. The average live weight was 257 pounds, down 2 pounds from the same period last year, the Statistics Service said.

I would like to believe there is a God

Evidence to the contrary:

Category Four Pooch Screw II

I have not taken the conservative split over the Miers nomination very seriously hitherto.  While I think it does reveal some of the fault lines in the Republican party, it doesn't seem to me that there is any serious divergence of interests and opinions involved.  I suspect that the rank and file religious right voter is inclined to support Miers.  But this is as much due to their loyalty to George Bush as to Miers own identification as a born again Christian.  I suspect that much the same is true of movement conservatives who support Miers.  Conservative opponents of Miers are largely motivated by their desire to see a strong intellectual conservative put on the court.  Thus the issue is largely one of strategy rather than principle.  But arguments over strategy split the radical left many times, so there is no reason to be complacent. 

The split has to be taken seriously now.  George Will's column, to which my colleague Dr. Schaff refers, has drawn acrimonious response from conservative bloggers.  Will does not attack Miers here.  He attacks Miers's defenders. 

Such is the perfect perversity of the nomination of Harriet Miers, it discredits, and even degrades, all who toil at justifying it. Many of their justifications cannot be dignified as arguments.  Of those that can be, some reveal a deficit of constitutional      understanding commensurate with that which it is, unfortunately,  reasonable to impute to Miers. Other arguments betray a gross misunderstanding of conservatism on the part of persons masquerading as its defenders.

George Will is not happy.  Nor is Powerline, my favorite blog, happy with Will.   John Hinderaker:

Far be it from me to slight George Will's contributions to the conservative movement, but it's time to recognize, I think, that the torch has passed to a new generation. Tonight, somewhat ironically, it's Dafydd ab Hugh's Big Lizards that commits Will's latest polemic to the trash heap of history. (Somehow, a lot of these phrases are sounding familiar). It's ironic, in that Big Lizards is dedicated to extinct saurases, while in fact it's Dafydd's adversary who is perilously close to extinction. The topic of the debate is George Bush, Harriet Miers, and the Supreme Court.

Consider this bit from Big Lizards:

No longer can Will discriminate between one charge (sexism) and another (snobbery), or even between one man and another.  Would collectivism be one of those new understandings of conservatism of which Will rises in defense? Alas, in George Will's case, this may not represent degeneracy: a man who calls himself a "Tory" can hardly claim the mantle of Ronald Reagan, or any other American conservative, can he? He rises and falls with the collectivist nature of Europeanism, where even parties on the right see people only as ordinals, never cardinals.

Any minute now someone from the Daily KOS is going to tell us that he feels our pain.

Cecelia Fire Thunder

Last week my colleague here at SDP Jason mentioned an article from the Argus Leader which detailed some of the complaints levied against Pine Ridge Tribal Chairman Cecelia Fire Thunder.  Friday's Rapid City Journal has another article which allows Fire Thunder to defend herself against these criticisms.  It is only fair that both sides of the story get posted here at SDP. 

Fire Thunder said that a small group of people continue a campaign to remove her but that their complaints don’t have anything to do with her leadership or administration.

“They’re a very loud handful of people,” she said.

Although it doesn’t affect her day-to-day administration of duties, she said the group needs to stop its agitating.

She also recommends that the tribe examine the suspension process.

Fire Thunder said if an executive were doing something that hurt the tribe, she would be the first to file a complaint. But the complaints without merit should be handled differently, she said.

“We need to create a process so that these types of complaints don’t come as far as it has,” she said.

When asked about the current complaint, specifically risking the tribe’s sovereignty and land assets, she said the tribal council approved a $38 million loan that used profits from the land leases and casino as collateral.

The tribe owns 705,000 acres of land, which generates about $2.3 million annual income for the tribe through leases. From that, $850,000 would be paid annually to Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community to repay the $18 million borrowed by the tribe for debt reduction. Profits from Prairie Wind Casino would pay for the $20 million borrowed for expansion and improvements at its casino.

“We don’t touch individual allotted land leases,” Fire Thunder said.

On Thursday, Fire Thunder released to reporters documents of the tribe’s approval the $38 million loan with the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community, an OST treasurer’s report that has been presented to the reservation’s nine districts leadership concerning the loan and her enrollment certificate, which contains Fire Thunder’s degree of Indian blood, enrollment number and birth date.

In the 10 months that Fire Thunder has been in office, the OST Council and executive office has been working diligently to control the financial crisis that they inherited from previous administrations, she said.

“We are addressing debt that goes back to 1997,” she said.

And she contends that the tribe has been on a constructive course.

A new $2.2 million mass transit system will begin services by summer, four road construction projects are in progress and more are scheduled to come.

Fire Thunder and Gov. Mike Rounds are negotiating an extradition compact. Rounds had not gotten back to Fire Thunder, but if approved, non-Indian criminals who have committed crimes on the reservation could be extradited to the reservation to appear in tribal court.

The tribe also brought in consultants to examine its accounting systems. Recommendations were made, and within 30 days, the tribe will move to a new accounting system.

Fire Thunder said she understood there would be challenges being the tribe’s president.

“It’s part of the job. I can’t take it personally,” she said. “But getting rid of people isn’t the answer.”

Though I haven't heard have all of the evidence in this dispute, at this moment my sympathies lie with Fire Thunder.  I grew up on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation and consequently I have taken a handful of Indian Law courses out of interest.  A few weeks ago in one of these courses I had the opportunity to hear from Lance Morgan CEO of HoChunk Inc.  Ho Chunk Inc. has been enormously successful in creating prosperity for the Winnebago tribe of Nebraska.

In his discussion Mr. Morgan stressed the importance of continuity in tribal leadership.  Without continuity any progress made on tribal economic development projects can be erased with each tribal election.  Based on Ms. Fire Thunder's comments in the Rapid City Journal it would appear she believes many of the accusations against her center around a loan from the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community for economic development purposes.  Fire Thunder is correct when she says "getting rid of people is not the answer."  Though impeachment should always be an option, it should not be used with great frequency.  Without more information it would appear that this dispute would be better solved through the political process in the next election cycle rather than any removal proceeding. 

I think it is also interesting to note that Ho Chunk Inc. is a separate entity from the Winnebago tribe of Nebraska.  Because terms for tribal council members and chairmen are staggered (unlike a number of tribes throughout the U.S.) there is less likelihood that the entire council will turn over in one election cycle.  This provides more protection for board members of Ho Chunk Inc. which allows them to engage in long term economic development.    

Daschle on Presidential Run: "It interests me."

The Washington Post is writing about Daschle's interest in running for President in 2008:

President Warner, President Daschle

Speaking of Virginia, Democratic Gov. Mark R. Warner's fly-around the Old Dominion last week on behalf of would-be successor Timothy M. Kaine was trailed by speculation about his own ambitions.

"Warner '08!" shouted a bystander at Java J's coffee shop in Bristol; a man at a Martinsville Chamber of Commerce meeting told Warner matter-of-factly, "Good luck with the presidential" -- taking it as a given that Warner will seek the White House in 2008.

Most Washington operatives assume the same thing. But separate interviews with Warner and former senator Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.) highlighted different approaches to a familiar political ritual: Would-be candidates profess that it is much too early to be thinking about a presidential campaign while simultaneously dropping hints about a possible bid to keep the interest of donors, party operatives and the media.

Both men denied they had any plans at the moment to run for the Democratic presidential nomination while noting ( insert wink here; nod optional) that predicting the future is impossible.

Daschle, who lost his bid for a fourth term at the hands of Republican John Thune last November, was the more direct of the two. The "honest answer is 'I don't know,' " he said when asked Friday whether a presidential race was in his future. "It interests me."

In late 2002, Daschle was so close to joining the 2004 race rather than seek reelection that his hometown newspaper ran a banner headline, "He's Running." Daschle will travel to Des Moines on Nov. 5 to address the Iowa Democratic Party's Jefferson-Jackson Dinner -- a coveted spot for a candidate seeking exposure to the state's influential voters. Two days earlier Daschle will be at Northwestern University to deliver a foreign policy speech.

News/Sports Round-Up

There's a few Sunday morning posts below.

Dave Kranz is discussing George McGovern's fight against hunger in his Sunday column.

Tim Johnson is seeking intern applicants if anybody is interested.

My Broncos go into their game 5-1--five consecutive wins--against the Giants today.   

The SDSU Jackrabbits walked all over Missouri-Rolla yesturday, winning their homecoming game 64 to 28.  Despite the snow and cold, the 92nd Hobo Day game drew 14,503 fans. 

I hope everybody has a great Sunday.  I'll see everyone after I'm done hunting.

The New Senate

Taking Back North Dakota, via PoliPundit, has noted some of the things that are getting done in the new Senate:

If you pay attention to anything the Pravda (mainstream media) says, you probably wouldn't know that the Republican-controlled Congress is getting many good things done. What's that I say? There are things going on besides Tom Delay and Karl Rove being convicted before their trials (if there even will be trials, which I doubt)?

Polipundit has put together a good roundup of what has happened this year in Congress.

Among the things that have passed are

-Pro-gun liability reform
-a budget was passed that slowed the rate of growth of some budget-busting programs
-CAFTA was passed
-immigration reform measures have been taken (though more are needed)
-class action lawsuit reforms have passed
-bankruptcy reform
-an energy bill has passed (though pork-laden)
-a transportation bill has passed (though pork-laden)

Partying Because Their Dead

LGF:

The American Friends Service Committee is planning to hold a series of parties all across the country when the 2000th US soldier is killed in Iraq: Not One More Death. Not One More Dollar. (Hat tip: Politics and Religion.)

Here’s the current list of locations.

UPDATE at 10/22/05 7:36:15 am:

This group of phony pacifists has previously been featured at LGF for an exhibit that callously uses the names of soldiers killed in Iraq, without asking permission from their families.

Gun Lawsuits

Argus Leader:

With pheasant season in full swing, South Dakota's burgeoning gun industry applauds passage of federal legislation to shield gun manufacturers and dealers from lawsuits.
...
Rep. Stephanie Herseth, D-S.D., voted for the House bill that passed Thursday by a vote of 279-143. She said the measure will help the state's gun industry.

"This is a good development for South Dakota, for those who are gun owners, hunters and sportsmen and also for the developing industry," she said.

Sens. Tim Johnson, a Democrat, and John Thune co-sponsored the Senate bill.

"It's a Bill of Rights issue," said Thune, a Republican who boasted of hunting for pheasants while in South Dakota last week. "Law-abiding citizens have a right to keep and bear arms."

There are 22 firearms companies based in South Dakota, providing more than 500 jobs in the state. At H-S Precision in Rapid City, a lawsuit would put the company out of business, said Todd Houghton, vice president of sales and marketing.

The company employs about 75 people and sells about $6 million to $8 million in rifles yearly, he said. Although the company does not make handguns, he said he saw his insurance rates go up virtually overnight when crime victims began suing gun manufacturers and dealers.