Natural Rights and Iraq

My teacher, Harry Jaffa, has a piece in today's OpinionJournal (Wall Street Journal Online).  Jaffa is a tireless advocate of the idea of natural rights.  He believes, rightly, that such rights are the only secure and reasonable foundation for self-government. Here is his sharp and clear expression of this teaching:

According to Abraham Lincoln, public opinion always has a central idea from which all its minor thoughts radiate. The central idea of the American Founding--and indeed of constitutional government and the rule of law--was the equality of mankind. This thought is central to all of Lincoln's speeches and writings, from 1854 until his election as president in 1860. It is immortalized in the Gettysburg Address.

The equality of mankind is best understood in light of a two-fold inequality. The first is the inequality of mankind and of the other, nonhuman, classes of living beings that comprise the order of nature. Dogs and horses, for example, are naturally subservient to man. But no human being is naturally subservient to another human being. The second is the inequality of man and God. As God's creatures, we owe unconditional obedience to His will. By that very fact however we do not owe such obedience to anyone else.

The power of this account is that it presents a committment to individual rights as the flip-side of piety.  To rule others without their consent is tantamount to claiming the authority of God, which ought to horrify one to the degree that he or she takes God seriously.  How does this help us in Iraq? 

The great difficulty in forming legitimate governments is in persuading those forming the governments that those who are to be their fellow citizens are equal to them in the rights, which their common government is to protect. Catholics and Protestants in 16th-century Europe looked upon each other as less than human, and slaughtered each other without pity and without compunction. It was impossible for there to be a common citizenship of those who did not look upon each other as possessing the same right of conscience. How one ought to worship God cannot be settled by majority rule. A majority of one faith cannot ask a minority of another faith to submit their differences to a vote.  . . .

The United States is engaged today in a great mission to spread democracy to the Middle East, beginning with Afghanistan, and continuing with Iraq. The inhabitants of Iraq are divided into many groups and factions that hate and distrust each other. The attitude of Sunni and Shia Muslims toward each other resembles that of Catholic and Protestant Christians in the 16th century (which persist today in northern Ireland), each regarding the other as heretics. Under the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, the minority of Sunnis persecuted the majority Shias. It is understandable that the minority Sunnis are today resisting majority rule, while the majority Shia favor it. The Sunnis clearly believe that majority rule by Shia will be used as a means of retribution and revenge. The Sunnis look upon majority rule by the Shia the way the South looked upon the election of Lincoln in 1860. It is inconceivable to the Sunnis that the rule of the Shia majority will be anything other than tyranny.

It is unclear whether natural rights can take root in Islamic soil, but it surely necessary that we believe in them if there is any hope for that. 

Our difficulty in pursuing a rational foreign policy in the Middle East--or anywhere else--is compounded by the fact that we ourselves, as a nation, seem to be as confused as the Iraqis concerning the possibility of non-tyrannical majority rule. We continue to enjoy the practical benefits of political institutions founded upon the convictions of our Founding Fathers and Lincoln, but there is little belief in God-given natural rights, which are antecedent to government, and which define and limit the purpose of government. Virtually no one prominent today, in the academy, in law, or in government, subscribes to such beliefs. Indeed, the climate of opinion of our intellectual elites is one of violent hostility to any notion of a rational foundation for political morality. We, in short, engaged in telling others to accept the forms of our own political institutions, without reference to the principles or convictions that give rise to those institutions.

As always, Jaffa is right.

That's One Sorry Senator You've Got There

Minnesota's Democratic Senator Mark Dayton has apologized for saying "[t]he Mayo Clinic is worth a hell of a lot more than the whole state of South Dakota."  Now dollar-wise he might be on to something, but disparaging an entire state is not exactly the gentlemanly thing to do.  Senator Thune responds:

February 28th, 2006 - Washington, DC - Senator John Thune made the following comments today after Senator Mark Dayton (D-MN) issued Thune an apology for his disparaging remarks about South Dakota:

"For months now, Senator Dayton has been attacking me personally. Just this morning in one of our nation's largest newspapers, Senator Dayton went so far as to characterize my efforts to create jobs in South Dakota and improve our economy as unethical. I let these attacks go because of their absurd nature. However, I felt it appropriate to demand an apology from Senator Dayton when he directly criticized the state of South Dakota.

"Senator Dayton has since issued an apology for his inappropriate remark about South Dakota. I accept Senator Dayton's apology and hope that he will now join me, and the rest of the South Dakota and Minnesota delegations, as we work to improve our region's economy. There is widespread support for the DM&E rail project in both South Dakota and Minnesota because it will create thousands of jobs."

Please find a PDF copy of Senator Dayton's letter of apology.

Mayo is located in my hometown of Rochester.  As a medical facility I have the utmost respect for them.  Rochester is the best place in the world to get sick.  Mayo's beef with DM&E is that they don't want more trains running through downtown Rochester causing a traffic problem for the clinic's patients and employees.  There was some talk a while back of making a bypass around town, but I think that got defeated.  Anyone have any information on that?  Anyhow, that's Mayo's position and they are entitled to it.  South Dakota is also entitled to defend its own interests.  And Senator Dayton proves once again why it's a good thing he's quitting the US Senate after one term.

Update: I stand corrected.  South Dakota is worth five Mayo Clinics.
 

Derbyshire on I.D.

John Derbyshire comments on South Dakota's intellectual diversity bill in National Review Online: 

South Dakota.

The South Dakota legislature has passed a law banning most abortions. This has got my Right-to-Life colleagues very excited, and no doubt will generate a lot of heat and fuss in the months to come. Those are news items I'll be skipping, since I couldn't care less about RtL issues, as my RUDY-ARNOLD '08 bumper sticker illustrates. (Yes, yes, I know Ahnuld will need a constitutional amendment — we'll get one from somewhere.) Every man to his own enthusiasms.

Here's one of mine: The liberating of our universities from the iron grip of totalitarian leftism. In this, too, South Dakota is at the forefront. A bill has passed the lower house of that state's legislature, requiring the six universities which receive state funding to annually report what steps are being taken to insure "intellectual diversity." Paul Weyrich waxes eloquent on the issue here.

People who aren't connected with college campuses don't realize how far things have gone. I have another math book coming out soon, and my publisher wants me to go off on a promotional tour around campuses. I am bracing myself to do so, in the expectation of getting yelled at as a fascist hyena, getting pies thrown at me, and so on. I shall bear it all manfully, in the interest of, well, making a bit of money, but it's awful that things have gone this far. Good luck to South Dakota state congressperson Phyllis Heineman (R., Sioux Falls) and her bill. Add her to your list of Women Who Make a Difference.

Where Does Daschle Stand?

Regarding Senator Dayton's recent comments on DM&E, the South Dakota GOP wants to know "Where does Tom Daschle stand?"

Where does Tom Daschle stand?

PIERRE – As South Dakota comes under attack from an out-of-state politician aiming to derail a project that could generate a massive economic boom in the region and create thousands of jobs, Tom Daschle finds himself caught at the crossing.

Senator Mark Dayton of Minnesota has attacked a railroad expansion project benefiting South Dakota , the biggest building project in South Dakota history, on behalf of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester , Minnesota .  Not only is Dayton standing in the way of a project that could have a massive economic impact in the region and create thousands of jobs, Dayton also insulted the people, heritage and pride of the entire state of South Dakota.  Dayton told Fortune magazine that "The railroad will enter Rochester over my dead body" and that "The Mayo Clinic is worth a hell of a lot more than the whole state of South Dakota ."

This begs the question: Where does Dayton ’s close friend and recently-appointed Mayo Clinic Board Member Tom Daschle stand?  The recent silence from Daschle’s office has been deafening.

“Daschle should tell his friend Mark Dayton to put a sock in it,” said Randy Frederick , Chairman of the South Dakota GOP.  “Daschle should stand up for his state and condemn Dayton ’s insulting remarks,” he added.

In addition to being friends with Mark Dayton, Daschle has also joined the board of the Mayo Clinic, the most powerful opponent to the railroad expansion.  “It would be nice if Tom Daschle would stand up for his state instead of his buddies at the Mayo Clinic,” Frederick said.  “I’d like to know if Daschle thinks the Mayo Clinic is ‘worth a hell of a lot more’ than his home state of South Dakota like Senator Dayton has said,” Frederick questioned.

“Daschle’s chief political consultant also pays bloggers who constantly attack the railroad expansion project and Daschle should tell them to start helping South Dakota by supporting the biggest project in South Dakota history.  Why Daschle stands silent while his close friends, business associates, and consultants constantly attack a project that is critical to the economic health of South Dakota I can’t understand,” said Frederick.

Dubai and Boeing

From the New Republic:

One obvious reason for Bush's intransigence is that Dubai has been an important ally in the troubled Middle East. But there's another possibility: Rescinding the deal could offend a country that has been a very important customer for American exports.

In November, Dubai's government airline, Emirates, agreed to purchase 42 Boeing 777s for $9.7 billion, with an option for 20 more planes. That is one of the largest purchases of commercial aircraft ever, and it may have been the most important foreign sale made by an American company last year.

Aircraft and aircraft parts are one of America's largest exports. Last year they accounted for $66 billion in exports. By contrast, telecommunications exports totaled $25 billion, pharmaceuticals $25 billion, computers and computer accessories $43 billion. The largest single component of aircraft exports was civilian aircraft, which totaled $23 billion. Boeing, which absorbed aircraft manufacturer McDonnell-Douglas in 1997, and which has over 150,000 employees, is the American aircraft industry. If Boeing is in trouble, the American aircraft industry--and by extension American manufacturing--is in trouble. And until very recently, it has been in trouble.

In selling civilian aircraft, Boeing has had only one competitor: Europe's government-subsidized consortium, Airbus. In the mid-1990s, Boeing was outselling Airbus by two-to-one; but since 2003, Airbus has sold and produced more planes, while Boeing has suffered from scandal

Meathead Strikes Again

A couple days ago Prof. Blanchard noted the use and abuse of public money by Rob Reiner.  Now the Wall Street Journal is on the story.  I fail to see why anyone in his right mind would live in California.  Oh, the weather.  Yeah.  Still, California is quickly becoming the America's Western Europe: large welfare state, high taxes, declining native population, dependent on foreign workers.

The latest Census Bureau data indicate that, in 2005, 239,416 more native-born Americans left the state than moved in. California is also on pace to lose domestic population (not counting immigrants) this year. The outmigration is such that the cost to rent a U-Haul trailer to move from Los Angeles to Boise, Idaho, is $2,090--or some eight times more than the cost of moving in the opposite direction.

What's gone wrong? A big part of the story is a tax and regulatory culture that treats the most productive businesses and workers as if they were ATMs. The cost to businesses of complying with California's rules, regulations and paperwork is more than twice as high as in other Western states.

But the worst growth killer may well be California's tax system. The business tax rate of 8.8% is the highest in the West, and its steeply "progressive" personal income tax has an effective top marginal rate of 10.3%, or second highest in the nation. CalTax, the state's taxpayer advocacy group, reports that the richest 10% of earners pay almost 75% of the entire income-tax revenue in the state, and most of these are small0business owners, i.e., the people who create jobs.

And things may soon get worse, thanks to Rob Reiner, who played the liberal "Meathead" on the "All in the Family" sitcom in the 1970s and now plays the same part in real life. He and his rich Hollywood friends have put an initiative on the state's June ballot that would add a 1.7-percentage-point income-tax surcharge on "millionaires" with income over $400,000, with the proceeds earmarked for universal pre-school.

Senator Dayton

Senator Mark Dayton of Minnesota, Tom Daschle's close friend in the Senate, is now attacking the DME railroad project on behalf of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota and insulting South Dakota.  He says in Fortune that "The railroad will enter Rochester over my dead body" and that "The Mayo Clinic is worth a hell of a lot more than the whole state of South Dakota."

Will the Mayo Clinic's new board member, Tom Daschle, speak out against Dayton's attack on South Dakota, the largest project in South Dakota's history, or side with his new friends at the Mayo Clinic?  Does Daschle think Mayo is "worth a hell of a lot more" than his state of South Dakota like Senator Dayton does?

UPDATE:  Powerline doesn't think much of Senator Dayton:

Over those five years, Dayton used his Christmas cards to discuss the dissolution of his two marriages, his entry into rehabilitation for alcoholism, and related therapy issues. He does not appear to be a fellow who is dealing from a full deck.

He himself has never worked in the private sector and has spent most of his adult life in politics. As a subject, Dayton is Minnesota's contribution to the psychiatric profession.

On Wednesday Dayton held a telephone press conference to announce that he would boycot Iraqi Prime Minister Allawi's speech to Congress yesterday: "Dayton will boycott Iraqi premier's speech."

Also, the Washington Post discusses Dayton in this article entitled "The Rev. Moon Honored at Hill Reception": 

More than a dozen lawmakers attended a congressional reception this year honoring the Rev. Sun Myung Moon in which Moon declared himself the Messiah and said his teachings have helped Hitler and Stalin be "reborn as new persons."

Among the more than 300 people who attended all or part of the March ceremony was Sen. Mark Dayton (D-Minn.), who now says he simply was honoring a constituent receiving a peace award and did not know Moon would be there. "We fell victim to it; we were duped," Dayton spokeswoman Chris Lisi said yesterday.

But a key organizer -- Archbishop George A. Stallings Jr., pastor of the Imani Temple, an independent African American Catholic congregation in Northeast Washington -- said Moon's prominent role should have surprised no one.

Abortion Vote

According to today's Roll Call, nobody is "angrier" about the SD abortion vote than Steve Hildebrand:

ROLL CALL 2/27/06

Speaking of Which ... Of all the (largely predictable) reactions in the political community to last week’s vote by the South Dakota Legislature to ban abortion in the state, none was swifter or angrier than that of Hildebrand.

The South Dakota-based consultant who is associated with several national Democratic candidates and causes set up a political action committee called Common Sense South Dakota designed to defeat the state lawmakers responsible for the legislation. The PAC’s first order of business: put up billboards throughout the district of the abortion ban’s lead sponsor, Republican Roger Hunt, blasting the legislation.

“I can’t sit by and watch these bad actors anymore,” Hildebrand wrote in a fundraising appeal to friends. “They are out-of-step with mainstream South Dakotans. And their legislation will cost South Dakota taxpayers millions in legal fees as they defend this through the courts.”

Hildebrand noted that PACs can spend unlimited amounts of money on legislative campaigns. “You can count on me using this money judiciously — targeting the right races — spending it wisely,” he assured potential donors.

RC: President Daschle?

Great scoop from this morning's Roll Call.  Daschle apparently wants to run for President:

Daschle, Looking at ’08. An antsy former-Sen. Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) is said to be seriously mulling a 2008 White House bid, though his powerhouse lobbyist wife, Linda Daschle, isn’t at all keen on the idea, sources say.

One personal friend of the Daschles told HOH that the Senator is “flattered” that several of his supporters have encouraged him to run and is “thinking about it.” The wife, however, is “not particularly happy about it.”

Another longtime Daschle friend went further to say that Mrs. Daschle is “steadfastly opposed” to her husband running for president, although “lots of people want him to do this.” The friend said he thought it would be “a huge mistake” for Daschle to run but said he believes the former Senate Minority and Majority Leader will do it anyway.

“Hillary will run the table,” the source said, pointing out the millions upon millions of dollars that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) has in her 2006 Senate campaign coffers, a ready war chest for ’08, which Daschle, who was toppled in 2004, simply doesn’t — and won’t — have.

Both Daschle loyalists said they doubted Linda would be eager to kick her successful lobbying gig to the curb to slog through an uphill battle of a presidential primary with her husband. Family is another reason. The Daschles’ fourth grandchild, Truman Daschle, was born on Friday.

Steve Hildebrand, a longtime political advisor to Mr. Daschle, told HOH Mrs. Daschle is supportive of whatever her husband wants to do. “The family has said, ‘We’ll support you in any decision,’” he said, adding, “The chance of him running isn’t even great, so I don’t know why this is much of a topic.”

SD Constitution

The commission which is recommending changes in the South Dakota constitution is promising to promote some controversial ideas:

Among topics the commission plans to tackle this summer are legislators' conflicts of interest, the legislative oath and impeachment procedures, legislative redistricting, term limits, pay for lawmakers and requirements for citizen initiatives and referendums.

Those topics, commission member Gene Lebrun of Rapid City said, "are going to very contentious and very difficult to deal with."

The Murder of Ilan Halimi

I am a big fan of horror movies, and have been since I was about six years old.  But the most frightening movie I ever saw had nary a werewolf, or vampire, or ghost hovering about.  It was Naming the Names, in which a young women involved in the Irish Republican Army lures her lover, the son of an English judge, to his death.  This vision of fanaticism, bordering on, if not over the line of, psychosis, was so chilling it raises the hair on the back of my neck just to think about it. 

I thought about it again when I noticed the story of Ilan Halimi, whose death is all over the blogosphere, but has been on the back burner of the world press.  Halimi, a French Jew, who sold mobil phones from a shop in Northeast Paris, was lured from his shop on January 21st by an attractive women.  He was kidnapped, tortured for three weeks, and then murdered.  Think about what you were doing for those three weeks, while Ilan suffered.  From the Washington Post:

One day last month, a young woman entered the Paris mobile phone shop where Ilan Halimi worked. She had no interest in a new phone, according to Paris police. She wanted to flirt with the 23-year-old salesman. She left the shop with Halimi's cell phone number, and soon after, the two arranged a date.

Last week, French police found Halimi -- the son of Jewish Moroccan immigrants -- near a railroad track in a southern Parisian suburb. His naked body was covered with cigarette burns and he was handcuffed. He died in an ambulance on the way to the hospital.

The WaPo article is entitled "French Suspect Anti-Semitism."  No!  Ya think?  Halimi was murdered by a group calling themselves "the gang of barbarians."  Well, I suppose you have to mark that down as a bit of honesty.  But its clear that barbarians in this case were motivated by Muslim ideology.  Again from the WaPo:

French police initially described the brutal kidnapping and killing as a crime-for-cash perpetrated by a gang calling itself "The Barbarians." It routinely used young women to lure unsuspecting victims.

But in ensuing days, family members, Jewish organizations and a French magistrate labeled the killing a hate crime, directed against Halimi because of his religion. Many have cited the torture and reports that the gang's suspected leader was later arrested in a Muslim neighborhood in Ivory Coast, in West Africa.

It wasn't the first such crime, though it has taken the French police some time to face the facts.  Mark Steyn reports:

In five years' time, how many Jews will be living in France? Two years ago, a 23-year-old Paris disc jockey called Sebastien Selam was heading off to work from his parents' apartment when he was jumped in the parking garage by his Muslim neighbor Adel. Selam's throat was slit twice, to the point of near-decapitation; his face was ripped off with a fork; and his eyes were gouged out. Adel climbed the stairs of the apartment house dripping blood and yelling, "I have killed my Jew. I will go to heaven."

Is that an gripping story? You'd think so. Particularly when, in the same city, on the same night, a Jewish woman was brutally murdered in the presence of her daughter by another Muslim. You've got the making of a mini-trend there, and the media love trends.

Yet no major French newspaper carried the story.

Houston, we have a problem.  A considerable minority of Muslim immigrants in Western nations are prone to actions that would have made Hitler smile.  I don't know quite what to do about this.  But surely the first step is to recognize what is happening.  Apparently France is waking up.  Belatedly.  33,000 Parisans came into the streets today to demonstrate against anti-Semitism.  Powerline has the story:

Its one thing when Danish cartoonists have to hide.  Its another when merely being a Jew is a death sentence. 

Novak, Thune, and Dubai

If Tom Daschle were alive (as a living Senator in office, that is), his opinion on the Dubai port control issue would certainly be newsworthy.  It is curious that John Thune's opinion is in fact in the news.  Bob Novak writes a column the politics of the port issue, and notes Thune's discomfort.

It is not merely New Yorkers King and Fossella and other lawmakers with ports in their districts who have spoken out. In South Dakota, far from saltwater, freshman Sen. John Thune said Arab management of the ports gave him "heartburn." With Congress in recess, Thune typified lawmakers encountering massive public resistance back home. That mood was generated by the feeding frenzy on cable television and the Internet that, in turn, was triggered by bipartisan Congressional attacks.

Thune is, of course, doing his job, which is to represent the people of South Dakota.  But another part of his job as Senator is to advise and consent (or not) to the President's foreign policy.  A coherent policy on this matter must take into account the fact that the UAE has been one of the most reliably allies in our Mideast foreign policy.  It looks like we will get full Senate hearings on the Dubai question.  One can only hope that the loyalty of our allies is taken seriously in that process.

Arkansas Supports South Dakota on Abortion Ban

The governor of my native state, Arkansas, comes out in support of my now home state South Dakota's sweeping ban on abortions.   From the Arkansas Democrat:

Mike Huckabee said Friday evening that he supports the kind of sweeping anti-abortion bill that South Dakota legislators approved this week.  . . .  “I’ve always felt Roe v. Wade was illegitimate,” Huckabee said.

Huckabee, speaking at a dinner with representatives of national and regional news media, said it would be inconsistent with his history of opposing unrestricted abortion to not support laws like the South Dakota statute.  The proposed South Dakota law matches a provision of the Arkansas Constitution that isn’t enforced because of Roe v. Wade, Huckabee said.

At the same time, Huckabee, a Republican like Rounds, said he recognizes that some states might want additional exceptions for cases of rape and incest.  When asked if he supported those, he said, “Accept is a better word than support.”  Only about 1 percent of abortions involve such extreme circumstances, he said.

Huckabee attracts more attention than is normal for an Arkansas governor, for the same reason that the last important Arkansan did.

Huckabee, considered a possible 2008 presidential candidate, hosted the dinner at The Caucus Room, a downtown Washington restaurant.

In the image above, it surely looks like he's getting ready to run.  Notice his security detail. The dog's right front paw is fitting with a com device, in case back up is necessary. 

"You used up all the glue on purpose!"

Darrin McGavin has died. 

Intellectual Diversity

This Bozeman, Montana newspaper discusses SD's intellectual diversity bill and an upcoming conference on academic freedom at Montana State University:

Are universities too liberal? Do professors scorn conservative ideas, hire only those who share their left-leaning views and try to indoctrinate students?

Or have conservative politicians launched an assault on academic freedom that's the most serious since the McCarthy era?

Montana State University will join that national debate next month by holding a conference called, "Without Interference -- Academic Freedom in the 21st Century."

NYT

New York Times: "Sizing Up the Opposing Armies in the Coming Abortion Battle." 

Religious Geography of South Dakota

Here's a fascinating story in the Rapid City Journal:

Sense of community, relevance fuels growth of evangelical churches

By Mary Garrigan, Journal Staff Writer

When the Rev. Jim Olson first studied the religious geography of South Dakota almost 20 years ago, evangelical Protestants were still such a small part of the picture that they hardly registered on his statewide denominational map.

“Evangelical Christianity was a tiny percentage in South Dakota, so small I basically ignored it,” recalled Olson, a Lutheran minister who wrote “The Religious Geography of South Dakota” as part of his graduate studies in theology at the University of Chicago in the late 1980s.

Fast forward to 2006, and it would be hard for Olson or anyone else to ignore the hundreds of enthusiastic Christians at Countryside Community Church who gathered for worship on a recent Sunday at the athletic center at Black Hills State University — the only facility in Spearfish large enough to hold this growing evangelical church.

The majority of South Dakotans still call themselves mainline Protestants or Roman Catholics, according to the American Religion Data Archive. More than 50 percent of the state’s population describe themselves as affiliated with those two religious groups.

But in a state long dominated by mainline Protestant denominations — Lutheran, Episcopal, Methodist, Presbyterian and Congregational — the fastest-growing segments of the religious marketplace are evangelical and nondenominational Christian churches, according to self-reported statistics from the 2000 Religious Congregations and Membership Study done by the Association of Statisticians of American Religious Bodies and collected by ARDA.

Rounds

The Argus Leader analyzes Governor Rounds' difficulty with some issues during this year's legislative session in Pierre.  The Argus seems to miss the Janklow Era, when legislators were more docile:

Rounds also stepped into the governor's office at a time when legislators are intent on establishing themselves as a separate and equal branch of government. Asked if part of the tension involves legislative attempts to move out of the shadow of the governor's office, Schoenbeck replied, "Oh, unquestionably.''

Former Gov. Bill Janklow was "aggressive and able to use all the tools at his disposal'' in his dealings with legislators, Schoenbeck said, adding that Rounds has been less aggressive in inter-branch dealings.

"Governors don't necessarily like that equal relationship (with legislators)," Schoenbeck said. "The challenge for Gov. Rounds in the next four years may be to become more accepting of the Legislature's role in the process."

Rep. Pat Haley, D-Huron, served when Janklow was in office. Haley worked closely with the Republican governor on a number of issues but the two men split over juvenile corrections and had some bitter clashes. Haley agrees Rounds hasn't been as direct and aggressive as his predecessor.

Is Tom Daschle Against the DM&E Project?

The Daschle-paid Hildebrand bloggers are always bashing  the project, so it's a fair question.  Daschle's long-time booster Dave Kranz discusses in today's Argus Leader:

The appointment of former Sen. Tom Daschle to the Mayo Clinic Board of Trustees raised some eyebrows in South Dakota, with the first thought that it would mean a renewal of a Daschle vs. Thune battle.

The reason: Mayo Clinic has been one of the most vocal opponents of the DM&E railroad expansion, and having Daschle on the board could be seen as a move to attract an influential former senator to offer it assistance in that cause.

DM&E counts Sen. John Thune as its strongest political supporter. He led the effort in the Senate resulting in changes to the Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing Program in the 2005 transportation bill that enables the DM&E to qualify for a low-interest loan to fund the Powder River basin expansion.

See my previous post on the topic here.

 

Governor

Earlier this week, Argus Leader political reporter David Kranz reported that South Dakota Democrats needed Ron Volesky to "ruffle Rounds a bit."   Now they've changed their minds.  Today Kranz reports the SD Democrats are saying it will hurt Rounds not to have an opponent this year:

Post-Volesky strategy

It didn’t take some Democrats in the state Capitol long to come up with a strategy for their party after Ron Volesky withdrew from the governor’s race.

Even though it is virtually unprecedented to leave a candidate uncontested, they say it would be Rounds’ worst nightmare to have no one run against him. They offer that he would not be able to get people to contribute to his war chest. He would not be able to point to another huge victory as evidence of his popularity. There would be no victory speeches. The governor simply would declare victory early and go back to governing for another four years.

UPDATE:  A comment at SD War College indicates that some Democrats, despite what Kranz reported, are still considering running against Rounds for Governor:

I haven’t heard this rumor or anything like it. Since Ron dropped out I have been contacted by two different potential candidates who were considering the race. Either would be great. This will be a contested race and I believe it will be closer then the Congressional contest.

RCJ

Here is today's editorial in the Rapid City Journal:

Journal editorial, 2-26: Second mission for Ellsworth

By The Journal Editorial Board

Last week, Sen. Thune outlined another proposal to enhance Ellsworth's military value by expanding the nearby Powder River training area and making the air base a vital training center on a par with Nevada's Nellis Air Force Base. Thune said he has met with Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Michael Moseley to discuss his proposal.

Thune's initiative would:

-- Increase the size of the dedicated airspace for the Powder River Military Operating Area in Eastern Wyoming from 1 million acres to 4.5 million acres.

-- Establish a portion of the expanded Powder River MOA for testing unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs).

-- Upgrade the MOA with more advanced electronic equipment to evaluate and test aircrews.

-- Establish a fixed-site target area and mobile targets to provide more realistic training.

-- Upgrade communications links with the training areas near Nellis and in Utah to allow integrated training exercises.

-- Locate a suitable bombing range closer to Ellsworth for use of live ordnance.

Thune said training areas at Nellis and elsewhere are heavily used and overcrowded. Expanding the Powder River MOA and enhancing Ellsworth's operational capability will help the Air Force to train all types of aircraft, save millions of dollars in training costs and make Ellsworth one of the elite air bases in the country. "Ultimately, the goal of this initiative is to transform Ellsworth into a world class training base, not only for B-1s, but air squadrons of all types, from bases all over the country, and even allied countries," he said.

Thune said his initiative, if adopted, would take many years to complete and would be in competition with other Air Force plans.

Sen. Johnson said he supported Thune's initiative and was prepared to use his position on the Senate Appropriations Committee to help secure funding. It's good to see this level of cooperation from all the members of our congressional delegation.

Thune's initiative is an idea that's well worth pursuing. Getting the Air Force financial services center located at Ellsworth also would be a big deal.

If Ellsworth is to survive future base-closure rounds, it needs to have additional missions. Thune's proposal could position the air base to become one of the Air Force's indispensable bases that the Pentagon would never consider closing.

The Boycott of South Dakota

Mount Blogmore:

By Bill Harlan

The Daily Kos, maybe the flagship liberal blog, has this headline: “ACTION ALERT: South Dakota Boycott is working!” The boycott is over South Dakota’s impending ban an almost all abortions. The source for the headline RCJ reporter Dan Daly’s story in today’s paper. The Kos even reprints the entire store. One glitch: Dan’s story does NOT report the boycott is “working.” Ah well.

Does any Blogmorite on any side of this issue think a boycott of South Dakota would have any affect whatsoever on the South Dakota Legislature?

Dress For Success

A writer for the Aberdeen American News hits a homerun today.  Elaine Babcock writes that the world would be much better if people showed more respect for each other.  By respect she means watching your language and dressing appropriately. 

A few years ago I took some college classes in Spearfish. I had expected some changes in education since I got my degree years ago, but I was surprised at the changes I saw.

The biggest changes were in respect, dress and language. In college FTA (First Time Around) students dressed up, not down. Students used polite, proper language. STA (Second Time Around) the attire was not just casual, it was sloppy, and in my opinion, inappropriate in the academic world.

But she doesn't just have it in for students:

Somehow it seems that respect began to erode when school and office dress codes were abolished in the name of freedom and personal rights. At one time, teachers were required to dress up every day. They looked different from their students. Then as styles changed women were allowed to wear pantsuits. Pants were a good idea, especially on recess duty on cold days. But soon the dress code deteriorated so that many faculty members, male and female, were wearing bedraggled blue jeans, T-shirts and jogging shoes, which, by the way may cost more than dress clothes.

In offices, casual Friday attire became everyday attire and casual Friday became slob Friday.

As for the freedom to choose, no one is taking away anyone's freedoms by requiring professional dress in public workplaces. We can wear whatever we choose on our own time.

My students tire of my ragging on their style of dress (invariably t-shirt or sweatshirt and jeans or sweatpants).  I remind them of this excellent documentary I saw once about Jewish intellectuals at CCNY in the 1930s and how the young men of that time wore a jacket and tie to class (by the way, those of you for whom "neo-conservative" simply means a conservative you don't like really need to see this film).  Or I point them towards this Joseph Epstein piece on perpetual adolescence that begins thusly:

WHENEVER ANYONE under the age of 50 sees old newsreel film of Joe DiMaggio's 56-game hitting streak of 1941, he is almost certain to be brought up by the fact that nearly everyone in the male-dominated crowds--in New York, Boston, Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland--seems to be wearing a suit and a fedora or other serious adult hat. The people in those earlier baseball crowds, though watching a boyish game, nonetheless had a radically different conception of themselves than most Americans do now. A major depression was ending, a world war was on. Even though they were watching an entertainment that took most of them back to their boyhoods, they thought of themselves as adults, no longer kids, but grown-ups, adults, men.

How different from today, when a good part of the crowd at any ballgame, no matter what the age, is wearing jeans and team caps and T-shirts; and let us not neglect those (one hopes) benign maniacs who paint their faces in home-team colors or spell out, on their bare chests, the letters of the names of star players: S-O-S-A.

I like to point out that Joe DiMaggio never went out in public without a jacket and tie.  Joltin' Joe may have been extreme, but so are we in the other direction.  How we dress says something about how seriously we take what we are doing.  So what does it say when we go to school or church dressed in much the same way we do when we mow our lawn?  One of my favorite episodes of Curb Your Enthusiam has an older man (played by Ed Asner) who goes to a lawyer to get his will re-written.  It happens to be "casual Friday" at the law office. The older man gets angry that the lawyer that is going to help decide the fate of his estate is dressed so casually.  To him it's a sign of a, well, casual attitude.  The lawyer tries to explain. "No, it's just today.  It's casual Friday."  The older man screams, "Are you going to be that casual about my estate!"  and storms out of the office.  If only that kind of thing happened in real life.  In years past as a student I dressed like a slob, too.  Eventually when I got to grad school I finally met some people who cared enough to say, "You really need to start dressing better."  I wish someone would have told me to straighten myself up a lot earlier. 

AL

The Argus Leader pats itself on the back for winning an award for its series about "diversity."

Argus Leader reporter Steve Young was named a finalist Friday by the American Society of Newspaper Editors for Outstanding Writing on Diversity.

The award, co-sponsored by the Freedom Forum, recognized Young's work on series published in December that followed two Sioux Falls students - one white, one black - as they made the transition from elementary to middle school.

The eight-part serial - titled "Different Cultures: Best of Friends" - was part of package of stories examining race relations in Sioux Falls.

The Argus could not be bothered, of course, to write about the intellectual diversity bill in Pierre this session.

Thanks Tom!

The biggest opponent of the DM&E Railroad expansion, which is the biggest project in South Dakota history, is the Mayo Clinic:

Rochester and Mayo Clinic have unsuccessfully sought to block the DM&E from running coal trains through downtown Rochester. Final approval for the project from the federal Surface Transportation Board is expected soon, and once any additional environmental reviews are completed, the Federal Railroad Administration must approve or deny the loan within 90 days.

Now the Mayo Clinic has signed up a major political ally for its fight against the railroad.  According to the Rochester Post-Bulletin, the Mayo Clinic has added former Senator Tom Daschle to its Board of Directors to aid its fight against a railroad expansion project which would greatly benefit South Dakota. 

Thanks Tom!

"Are you nervous?" "Nope!"

Don Knotts is dead at 81.  I will remember him as the nervous guy on the Steve Allen "man on the street" bit.  We had a comedy album of that bit that was seminal to my youth. 

Port Blogging

Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit has an op-ed in today's WSJ on blogs and the port story:

When the story first appeared, bloggers were overwhelmingly negative. My own reaction, on Feb. 12, was "color me unimpressed." Other bloggers were more pungent, but the story got little attention in the national media, which were mostly preoccupied with the Cheney quail-hunting story. . . . Some bloggers, meanwhile, were having second thoughts. One of them was me: Although my initial reaction was negative, I started getting emails from readers -- some of them longtime correspondents -- who had experience with the UAE. One had served alongside troops from the Emirates in Afghanistan; another had spent time in Dubai. Some had worked with UAE ports officials. All were positive. . . . As I write this, it's not clear where the rest of the debate is headed, but there are already some useful lessons for the White House. First, blogs make an excellent early warning system. The White House, unaccountably, seems to have been blindsided by the furor over this deal, though most people's gut reaction was negative. As with the many bloggers like me who changed their minds, gut reactions can be overcome by evidence -- but the White House should have taken advantage of this early warning to have its arguments in order. It didn't. That's the second lesson: The White House should not only have read blogs, but responded to them with information and arguments, rather than waiting for blog readers to weigh in.

More Port Deal

Here is Robert Kaplan being interviewed by Hugh Hewitt on the UAE and the port deal.  Hat Tip to No Left Turns.

HH: Now with that background, does the control of the ports issue, the sale of these ports operations, not security,  to United World Ports of Dubai, does it concern you?             

RK: I mean, to the degree that the U.S. can still be in control of personnel working there, and security,I have no problem with Dubai's competence at running a port as well or better than we do. And it's part of the process of globalization, and at this point, if you tell them no, simply because they're Arabs, you're going to lose a lot more in the Arab world than you'd ever gain by a marginal improvement in security. And I think the security issue can probably be gotten around without tearing up the contract.             

HH: What is that security issue in your mind, Robert Kaplan?             

RK: It's about control of who the personnel are who have access to the port, and to the security procedures that govern the port, and have access to the people who control who goes in and out of the secure areas.             

HH: So there is a security issue. You just view the cost of killing the deal as too high?             

RK: Yes. Absolutely.

Bill Kristol Fights Back

Bill Kristol offers a brief rejoinded to Francis Fukuyama and also the mushy left.  A taste:

Does that make Bush-supporting, liberal-democracy-promoting, Iraq-war-defending neoconservative "Leninists," as Francis Fukuyama has recently charged? No. Does it mean we believe--as Fukuyama defines Leninism--that "history can be pushed along with the right application of power and will"? Does it mean that history does not automatically move in the right direction, that justice does not necessarily or easily prevail? Yes.

It would be nice to believe, as Fukuyama does, that "a long-term process of social evolution" is under way that will inevitably produce liberal democracy. It would be nice to enjoy the comfortable complacency of a historical determinism that suggests--as Fukuyama has it--that what we most need to do is to embrace a "good governance agenda" on behalf of a long-term process of "democracy promotion" that "has to await the gradual ripening of political and economic conditions to be effective."

Indeed, it would be nice if we lived in a world in which we didn't have to take the enemies of liberal democracy seriously--a world without jihadists who want to kill and clerics who want to intimidate and tyrants who want to terrorize. It would be nice to wait until we were certain conditions were ripe before we had to act, a world in which the obstacles are trivial and the enemies fold up. Unfortunately, that is not the world we live in.

Hate Mail Bag

We got this thorny epistle from one DRose. 

Congratulations you idiots, you have set the country back at least 50 years by your stupidity in passing an anti abortion bill.  I guess thats the way farmers think.

Its hard to know how to respond to such soaring rhetoric as that.  I can only note that I am not now, nor have I ever been, a farmer, unless you count the tomatoes and habenero peppers I put in every spring.  But my dad grew up on a farm in Northeast Arkansas, and maybe the idiocy is congenital.  Most farmers that I have met strike me as altogether reasonable and well-informed people.  Most of them, for example know that the contraction for "that is" requires an apostrophe.

I doubt very much that the abortion bill, if it is signed into law, will survive a Supreme Court challenge.  South Dakota Politics rarely takes stands on individual pieces of legislation, preferring instead to comment generally on the issues involved.  My ancient faith tells me, however, that all human beings are created equal, male or female, rich or poor, black or white, born or somewhat shy of being born.  I am not ashamed of South Dakota and its farmers for taking a stand on that principle. 

Rob Reiner Saves California's Kids and Only Charges 800 Million!

File under Meathead and the Pork barrel, with kudos to Kausfiles for directing our attention to Dan Morain's story in the LATimes.

Rob Reiner (Meathead, Spinal Tap) sponsored California Proposition 10, which slapped a 50 cent tax on each pack of cigarettes in order to fund various programs for children under five.   The new tax collects about $700 million a year from the state's most unpopular minority, smokers.  Eighty percent of that is distributed to county commissions for use in local programs.  The other 20% goes to a "First Five Commission," in order to fund public education campaigns.  Since Prop 10 was passed, the First Five Commission has been funded to the tune of about $800 million. 

The head of the First Five is, you guessed it, Rob Reiner.  In that position, Reiner has:

•  Given $230 million in advertising and public relations contracts — including the preschool ad blitz — to firms that helped Reiner create the First 5 commission. As companies competed for the business, Reiner wrote a letter recommending one firm, which won.

•  Paid $206,000 of the tax money to three political consultants, though they had no contract. One of them — Benjamin Austin, a former Los Angeles deputy mayor — said they helped coordinate the government activities of Reiner, the First 5 commission and the media consultants.

Maybe that's public money well spent, and maybe it's not.  What is very disturbing is that Reiner seems to be using the commission to fund political activities, including the passing of new propositions.  Reiner's next political project is proposition 82.

Police sirens wail as a scruffy teenager, clutching a bag, runs frantically through the streets. Entering a schoolyard, he reaches into the bag. Out comes … a graduation gown, which he dons to receive a diploma.

The scene is from a television ad, paid for with tax money and made by consultants close to Hollywood producer Rob Reiner. It aired across California this winter, touting the benefits of preschool. "When kids go," the narrator says, "we all benefit."

The release of the ad, and two others, by a state commission Reiner heads coincided with his launch of a ballot initiative that would tax the rich to fund preschool for all California 4-year-olds.

Reiner's commission has spend $23 million on the preschool ads, "making it one of the largest state-funded advertising campaigns ever in California."  The three consultants mentioned above are now working openly on the campaign, though that is almost certainly what they have been doing with the 200 grand in tax money that Reigner paid them.  One of them, Benjamin Austin, is the Prop 82 campaign manager. 

In fact, Reiner managed to pass an initiative that taxes people in order to fund the passage of more initiatives.  No doubt Prop 82 will contain a similar provision, and soon billions of public dollars will be funneled to a political machine consisting of Reiner and his friends. Any independent political organizations that oppose Reinerism will be overwhelmed on TV and Radio. 

California is such a dysfunctional state that anything is possible, and worse is directly proportional to more likely.  But this seems so egregiously abusive that there is some hope it will spark reform. The power to tax, John Marshall observed, is the power to destroy.  Here it seems to be in the business of destroying fairness in elections. 

Dick Cheney: Evil Genius

What could possibly have been going through the Bush Administration's mind when it ok'd this Dubai ports deal? My brother has it figured out.  What does the Bush Administration want to do more than anything?  Reward its fat cat oil buddies.  How can it do this in a publicly acceptable fashion? Give this contract to run a bunch of ports to a United Arab Emirates company.  That will make people so mad that even Chuck Schumer will call for awarding the contract to possibly the only American company capable of handling this job: Halliburton.  Genius.  Pure genius. 

The Naked Truth

An interesting discussion of public nudity over at girlfriday (see here and here) stemming from the cover of Vanity Fair featuring Keira Knightley and Scarlett Johansson in the buff.   

First, let us recognize that air brushing really can perform amazing feats.  Second, the question at hand is when is public nudity simply exhibitionism and when it is art.  Those who defend this kind of public display of nudity do so on the grounds of art.  Surely there is a gray area between what is true art and what is simply vulgarity.  Let me suggest a standard.  Some would say that nude art shows us the beauty of the human form.  I would suggest that for a nude body to become art it should point beyond the human body to something higher.  Simply showing the beauty of the human body is not enough.  Here is a brief list of characteristics that an artistic depiction of nudity might point towards: grace, innocence, modesty (ironically), power, strength, dignity, gentleness, affection, etc.  Nudity that simply titillates and nothing more is not art but exhibitionism.

I am quite sure that what is going on with Vanity Fair is not an attempt to say something about the human condition. Rather it is the use of naked bodies in an attempt to increase magazine sales.  That strikes me as a less than noble artistic goal.  In most cases taking off one's clothes simply to provoke and make a buck is not considered admirable.  They have words for women who do this sort of thing for money, but I wouldn't want to use such language in public. 

Intellectual Diversity Lives

An amended version of the intellectual diversity bill has passed the Senate State Affairs Committee.  Judging from the news story, the bill has been amended precisely in the way it should have been, in this one man's opinion. 

Truer Words

Christopher Hitchens: "Solidarity with Denmark.  Death to fascism." 

Abortion Bill

Argus Leader:

The state House of Representatives voted this afternoon to give final legislative approval to a bill that would ban nearly all abortions in South Dakota and sent the bill to Gov. Mike Rounds.

Earlier in the day, Rounds said he’s inclined to sign the bill, which is likely to create a U.S. Supreme Court challenge to the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision.

That will happen if he determines that it can save lives, he said at a press conference.

The governor did say, though, that “Personally, I think we will save more lives by continuing to chip away at Roe versus Wade’’ than by what he called a frontal assault as envisioned in the South Dakota Legislature’s bill.

Blond Antelope

A little fun for your Friday afternoon.

BlondeAntelope.wmv

Schoenbeck

Senator Lee Schoenbeck of Watertown, on the intellectual diversity bill, said "It's an embarrassing thing for a university system to oppose."  But a Democratic state Senator, who has the University of South Dakota in his district, opposed the bill.  Here's more from the AP:

The state Senate killed a bill Thursday that would have required South Dakota's public universities to file annual reports showing how they are ensuring academic freedom and promoting differing points of view.

Supporters of HB1222 said the reports would assure students that they will be exposed to a wide range of ideas and that state universities will respect those students' ideas.

"This is responsible legislation in light of our investment in our higher education system," said Sen. Lee Schoenbeck, R-Watertown.

He noted that there has been heavy lobbying against the measure. University system officials have argued against the bill.

"There must be a powerful lot of fear behind the idea of intellectual diversity," Schoenbeck said.

"It's an embarrassing thing for a university system to oppose," he added.

An opponent of HB1222, which failed 15-18, said no need has been shown for the measure.

"You're insinuating there's a problem that simply doesn't exist," said Sen. Ben Nesselhuf, D-Vermillion.

Nesselhuf said the bill is backed by an out-of-state group that seeks to promote conservative ideas on college campuses.

Similar measures have been offered in other states by those who feel there is an overwhelming liberal bias among university faculties.

Conservative Country

Clinton Taylor of The American Spectator notes 15 country music songs which he thinks are politically conservative and includes Johnny Horton's "Sink the Bismarck."  Excerpt:

It's no secret that many of those thoughts in country music are, at the least, pro-family, religious, populist, and patriotic. And often amid the twangy lyrics and sad steel guitars one detects a genuinely conservative sentiment expressed with poetic economy and authentic grace.

Shrine Attack

Publius Pundit: The Politics of Iraq's Shrine Attack

Censorship in Minnesota

Power Line is following a very interesting story out of Minnesota.  And don't forget about this, which I mentioned yesturday.

Dem Voters Low on Enthusiasm

This Washington Times report on a Zogby poll suggests Democratic voters aren't happy with their Congressional leadership: "Democrat voters low on enthusiasm":

By objecting to virtually every initiative and proposal of the Bush administration and congressional Republican majority, Democrats are undermining their party's chances of regaining the majority this fall, the John Zogby poll of 1,039 likely voters suggests.

While House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and other visible Democrats in Washington pick fights with Republicans, the poll shows that 58 percent of rank-and-file Democratic voters say their leaders should "accept their lower position in Congress and work together with Republicans to craft the best legislation possible."

Only 6 percent of Democratic respondents say the No. 1 goal for their party's lawmakers in Congress should be to bury Republican bills.

The poll suggests that many Democratic voters accept their party's minority status. Nearly a quarter of Democrats -- 23 percent -- say Republicans do a better job running Congress.

"Democrats nationwide now seem to be adopting this minority-status mind-set," says Fritz Wenzel, Zogby International spokesman. "Democrats are tired of the warring and bitter partisanship that goes on inside the Washington Beltway."

Dems and Dubai

Here's an interesting tidbit, from the American Thinker:

Democrat officials' firm helped Dubai purchase ports

Little noticed in the kerfuffle over the takeover of major US ports by Dubai Ports is the key role being played by former Democratic Party leaders. Lobbying firms associated with ex-Democratic Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle and Madeleine Albright (Clinton’s Secretary of State) have been working (paid subscription only link) to secure approval of the purchase by Dubai.

One would think that our leaders, even when out of office, would care more about their nation than their bank accounts.This hopefully will give impetus to a bill (drafted by Republican Congressman Mike Rogers of Michigan) working its slow way through Congress that would bar federal employees from representing foreign governments for four years after they leave public service.

A sad statement: we need a law that  restricts  former government leaders, who presumably would have America’s interest at heart, from going on the payroll of foreign regimes, even those with connections to terror activities.

I was going to write how I felt about this deal, but my colleague Prof. Blanchard has written a fine piece that tends to reflect what I was thinking.  As they say, go check it out.

UPDATE:  More from the Wall Street Journal:

Bush, Congress Head For Clash Over Ports Deal President Promises a Veto, As Republican Leaders Move To Block Dubai Acquisition

By GREG HITT, DENNIS K. BERMAN and DANIEL MACHALABA
Staff Reporters of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

February 22, 2006; Page A1

***

Dubai Ports World executives plan to visit Washington this week to brief congressional leaders and staffers and administration officials on the deal. Girding for a battle, the company is tapping well-connected consulting firms for help: Downey-McGrath Group, founded by former congressmen from both parties, and Alston & Bird LLC, whose advisers include former Senate Democratic Leader Thomas Daschle of South Dakota.

In the background is Albright Group, a firm founded by former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. The Albright Group doesn't lobby but has provided strategic advice to Dubai Ports World, specifically on expanding the company's presence in China.

Nutzo Politicians

I think it is Michael Ledeen who says that there is no award for getting it wrong first.  Unfortunately, he's wrong.  The award is the ability to shape public opinion, for good or for ill.  Our founders told us that the problem of democracy is seldom that it acts too slowly, but that it acts too quickly.  As Hamilton famously put it in Federalist #1:

It has been frequently remarked that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force.

This is a problem for democracies as much as for any other type of regime.  Daniel Henninger makes much the same point in his column today in the WSJ.  Our representatives, with a willing media, are all too eager to jump in front of cameras to say inflammatory and inaccurate things and then turn the public discussion of very serious matters into just another attempt to grandstand.  As Henninger points out, we are sure to get congressional hearings on the Dubai/ports issue, and there is almost zero chance that anything useful or informative will come from those hearings.  Much like the hearings on Katrina, the purpose of this dog-and-pony-show will not be to educate the public or Congress itself, but simply for congressmen to preen in front of the camera about how much they care about our homeland security.  I expect a lot of finger wagging at Bush officials and variations on the theme of "For shame!"  Henninger writes:

Yes, there are matters of substance in the ports decision about which serious people could disagree, but there's not much chance of that now, not after the politicos have poisoned the well. On Sunday Rep. Peter King of Long Island, chairman of the homeland security committee, was virtually the first pol to light up the ports issue: "How are they going to guard against things like infiltration by al Qaeda or someone else?" Three days later Mr. King announced: "Lawmakers are responding to incredible local pressure." But it was the remarks of Mr. King and his colleagues that drove the torrent of calls to the talk shows. Hold hearings to learn more? Sure, why not. But what chance is there that the Dubai Ports World hearings, like those just held on the NSA antiterror wiretap program, would result in other than more hyperbolic grandstanding?

What ever happened to the habit of political judiciousness in public life? One expects on occasion that Washington will march en masse through the swamps of overstatement. But it is now the habit to be intemperate. Rep. Sue Myrick in a letter to the President: "Dear Mr. President, not just NO but HELL NO!" This is a member of Congress?

Holocaust Denier Gets Three Years in the Slammer

Holocaust denier and professional ass David Irving gets three years in prison in Austria, for being a Holocaust denier.  Being an ass is apparently not illegal, as it is the official position of the Austrian legal system.  What is most lamentable about this is that the Austrians have made Irving a heroic martyr for free speech, when he shouldn't be a hero for anything.  The Austrian position seems to be that free speech is fine, except for really offensive speech.  But if that were the rule, then surely the Danish cartoonists would also be in the slammer.  Well, at least they would be relatively safer there.  Instead they have to go into hiding, and look around every corner.  Congratulations are in order to Austria for for endorsing the principles of extremists everywhere. 

Vote Early, Vote Often

CCK has surged ahead of SDP in the Epp poll.  If you like our blog, or heck, if you love to hate it, vote for us. 

Dubious Thoughts on Dubai

Like Jonah Goldberg, writing in the LATimes, nothing makes me quite so nervous as bipartisan consensus.  I assume it means that everybody is missing something.  Goldberg notes that both parties have swung around like weather vanes in a cyclone. 

For five years, Republicans have chanted "trust the president" on national security. They even won elections on the issue. For nearly five years, Democrats have said President Bush should use more carrots and fewer sticks in his diplomacy in the Muslim world. They argued that we need to reward our allies with trade and trust (except when we actually did it in places such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia). Liberals lectured that equating "Muslim" or "Arab" and "terrorist" is not only bigoted but counterproductive, in that it will feed the "root causes" of terrorism.

But suddenly, virtually all leading Republicans and Democrats — with the laudable exception of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) — now argue that Bush can't be trusted on national security, that our Arab ally the UAE should go suck eggs and that racial profiling of foreign firms is just fine. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) now even thinks Halliburton should run the ports. And Jimmy Carter is backing the White House. At this rate, Barbra Streisand will soon be holding benefit concerts for Pennsylvania's conservative Sen. Rick Santorum.

Both parties have suddenly discovered that the U.S. is part of a global economy, and that foreigners with strange names are actually doing business on the sacred soil of the homeland.  Its not that the critics don't have a point.  James Pinkerton in Newsday, has this:

Let's begin by noting that the United Kingdom and the United Arab Emirates are different countries, with different histories.  . . . [I]n the past century the U.S. and U.K. were shoulder to shoulder in two hot wars and one cold war. Few Americans can forget the oratory of Winston Churchill, who rallied English speakers against Nazism.  . . .

Now to the United Arab Emirates. First and most obviously, it's Arab. That's not a statement of racism; that's an observation about ethnicity and the culture that comes with it. Virtually all UAE-ers are Arab Muslims, and many probably watch Al-Jazeera TV, which serves up a steady diet of anti-American "newsaganda." That's the reality of multiculturalism on a planetary scale: People in different countries are different, see things differently, react to things differently. That's why consumers in the UAE eagerly joined in the boycott of Danish goods in the wake of the Muhammad cartoon controversy; The Associated Press reports that Denmark's exports to the UAE are down 95 percent.

I'll see one Jim and raise another, James Glassman writing at Tech Central Station: 

Dubai -- I don't have to tell you -- is an Arab nation. Yes, two of the 9/11 hijackers were citizens of the UAE, but, then again, as Ivan Eland of the Independent Institute notes, Richard Reid, the attempted "shoe bomber," was a British citizen, and Jose Padilla, among others, is an American citizen (as was Timothy McVeigh). The UAE has been a staunch ally in the war on terror, training security forces in Iraq and helping to cut off the flow of money to al Qaeda.

Isn't this precisely what the United States preaches? Don't we want places like Dubai to fight terror and to grow, to invest, to buy, to trade, to adopt Western commercial practices, to expose themselves to the rest of the world and thus become tolerant and moderate?

Like Tevye, in Fiddler on the Roof, I think everyone is right.  There are obvious reasons to be nervous about an Arab firm controling some of America's ports.  But killing the deal now, simply because the firm is Arab, beards a valuable ally and sends the message that Arab countries can't really be our friends. 

Congress should hold hearings-that's its job.  But the questions are complicated.  Congress might require that only American owned firms control the ports.  But defining ownership will not be easy.  Today's multinationals are mongrels, and you would want to know if a U.S. based firm is not merely contracting work out to foreign controlled enterprises.  Riskier still would be a rule that only firms from trustworthy nations should be allowed to move containers.  That would seem to be Pinkerton's position.  But how English does the firm have to be?  Will we count investors from the UAE, or southeast Asia, as signs of cultural impurity?  It also makes me nervous that the "America-only" rule would certainly be, among other things, a form of protectionism for union workers.  Glassman is right about one thing.  We don't want to discourage world trade, which is the goose that lays a ton of golden eggs daily.

The real issue is not who moves containers, but who controls security.  That would continue to be the Department of Homeland Security.  The real question is how comprehensive that control is.  Clark Kent Ervin, former Inspector General of Homeland Security, comes out of the phone booth to raise doubts, in the New York Times:

It is true that at the ports run by the Dubai company, Customs officers would continue to do any inspection of cargo containers and the Coast Guard would remain "in charge" of port security. But, again, very few cargo inspections are conducted. And the Coast Guard merely sets standards that ports are to follow and reviews their security plans. Meeting those standards each day is the job of the port operators: they are responsible for hiring security officers, guarding the cargo and overseeing its unloading.

The problem here has nothing to do with ownership of the towers that direct cargo on and off ships.  It is a matter of how thoroughly we can or ought to control shipping into the U.S.  A city like Washington D.C. employs thousands of people to inspect the bags of people entering public buildings.  Thousands are employed screening passengers boarding airplanes. Maybe Homeland Security should employ thousands more than they do now to inspect cargo at our ports.  But that is an awesome task, and I am not sure that the ports can ever be adequately inspected.

End of Summers

Alert Reader Rick Richman notes these comments on the Jewish Current Issue blog. 

The Omen of Larry Summers

Scott at Powerline says of Larry Summers being booted that "his leadership of Harvard seemed to me an omen of a kind of Prague spring among the elite univerities. By the same token, his defeat is an omen of another kind. . . . What can we learn from the spectacle of Summers's humiliation by the jackals and loons among the Faculty of Arts and Sciences?"

Mailbag

From a reader in Pierre:

Just wanted to let SDP's readers know that very late today the intellectual diversity bill died in the Senate 15-18.  It was the last day to consider bills and many legislators wanted to get done and were worn out by battles over issues such as abortion so the bill didn't get much time.  But I observed several of the proceedings about the bill and wanted to pass along what I heard.  Not surprisingly, the bill became partisan, with the Democrats almost unanimously opposing it, mostly at the behest of the teachers' unions, but some also listend to the ACLU, which also opposed it.  The Democrats also know that the universities are their political allies, so it was no surprise they wanted to protect them from even the most minimal legislative oversight.  The executive director of the Board of Regents, Tad Perry, was also hysterical in his attacks on the bill, even though he said he was happy to provide reports to the legislature (which he clearly is not).  Several Republican legislators were furious with Perry for his grandstanding and he burned a lot of bridges.  The universities also put a huge amount of pressure on the legislators who had universities in their districts to vote against the bill.  The universities also hired all-star lobbyist Bob Riter, who is president of the state bar association, to lobby against the bill.  Despite the tenacious opposition, as your readers know, the bill passed with strong majorities, almost all Republicans, in the House Education Committee, the House, and the Senate State Affairs Committee.  On the Senate floor, with time running out, it failed by a few votes.  All the conservative Republicans voted for it, but all the Democrats voted no, along with the "moderate" Republicans in the "Mainstream Coalition," so the bill didn't have quite enough votes.  What was amazing was all the buzz which started in Republican circles about what the universities are hiding.  Some legislators made it very clear that in the future they will really dig into what goes on at the Board of Regents and at the universities.  Some Republicans said Perry should have just let the bill pass and handed in a report and it all would have been forgotten, but now he has created some permanent enemies and some legislators have vowed to doggedly pursue intellectual diversity on South Dakota campuses.  In other words, Perry may have lucked out by a few votes in the Senate, but he has created an organized network of critics who will be analyzing his every move for years.  Without question, at least in the power circles in Pierre, the biggest loser in this whole deal was Perry and the regents, who look like they are hiding the absence of intellectual diversity on campus.  Some legislators have vowed to seek all the information that the legislation was asking for anyway, so Perry burned several bridges for very little gain.  Other legislators apparently have copies of several racial and gender diversity reports that the universities have done and they are planning to demand the same kind of report on the intellectual diversity front and they want to know how much the universities spend on racial and gender diversity programs.  Anyway, that's the news from Pierre.  You guys did a good job of tracking the issue.  As you've said before, what's most revealing is who opposed this bill: the ACLU, the unions, the Argus Leader, the universities, and the Democrats.  You guys should stay tuned because there seems to be more brewing on the intellectual diversity front and this is just the opening bid on this issue.