What's The Matter With South Dakota?

Do you ever wonder why George W. Bush creamed John Kerry in the votes of married people, married people with children, and religious folks?  Some argue that Republicans confuse those folks into voting Republican based on irrelevant moral issues and ignoring the economic issues, on which presumably Democrats are stronger.  But here's a real life example of why voters who are religious and raising kids tend to vote Republican.* 

The other day I happen to have a conversation with a guy I know.  Without going into detail, because I don't want the War College outing him, this fellow is pretty successful in his occupation, mostly because he is super competent and hard working.  He owns a small business, is married and has a large family (I don't know the exact number of kids).  He is not a political person, just a hard working guy, active in his kids' schools, and trying to provide for his family.  I know him well eough to say this is just a plain old decent guy.  We happened to get on the subject of child rearing. I was surprised at his passion on the subject, as he is quite a mild mannered fellow.  He expressed his frustration over how hard it is to raise kids, given all the bad influences.  He wants to have ESPN in his house because he and his son like basketball, but is shocked at how even ESPN is raunchy at times (he blocks many of his cable channels because of the raunch).  He tries to raise his kids well, but if their friends and the friends' parents are not as diligent as he is, his kids get exposed to things he'd rather they not be exposed to.   It's not enough that he take care of his kids; he needs to have support from the community.  Hey, you might even say "it takes a village."  He has taken to buying DVDs of old TV series just to have something the family can watch together.  In general, the vulgarity of the greater culture is pervasive and he can't keep it away from his kids.   I said to him, "Raising kids sounds really difficult."  He said, "I used to think raising kids was difficult.  Now I think it's impossible." 

I don't know how this guy votes, but I bet he votes Republican.  Why?  He's a business owner, and that might have something to do with it.  But I bet it has a lot more to do with the fact that he sees a culture in decay and he feels helpless to stop it from influencing his kids.  The Democratic Party is the home of those who are the purveyors of the vulgarity that upsets this guy so much.  The Republican Party is the home of those who speak out against it.  That's not to say all Democrats are libertines and all Republicans stand for "traditional values" (for lack of a better term), but to the extent those two camps exist, they tend to house in the two parties as I have described. 

* This of course is a generalization, and should be taken as such. My point is that cultural libertines tend to be Democrats, not that all Democrats promote raunch culture. Also, those who speak out for public morality tend to be Republican, not that all Republican's speak out for public morality.   And I am not claiming the Democratic Party doesn't care about families (I think the opposite is true), but there are those who mock people like this acquaintance of mine as an "extremist" and a "religious nut" or "theocrat."  Those people, to the extent they support a party, tend to support the Democrats. 

How Will Laptops Help?

People interested in education should read this piece by Prof. Mark Bauerlein (hat tip Joe K).  This much is clear: at least one generation of Americans has been miseducated, and we should be ashamed of ourselves.  Instead, we propose giving more electronic gizmos to students in the misbegotten notion that somehow "technology" will get them more excited and help them learn.  Just what our students need: another electronic distraction.  The notion that computers will somehow enhance learning likely stems from a false notion.  That notion is that we need to make learning "fun" and "exciting" or kids won't learn.  Are we now hedonists?  Do we do nothing unless it gives us pleasure?  In academia we call our subjects "disciplines" because they require, well, discipline.  It takes work and while work is rewarding, it is not always "fun."   Perhaps you argue that in the age of PS2, ipod, MTV, the O.C., etc., if the schools aren't "hip" and "fun" then students will get bored.  Then shame on us for indulging their passion for mindless distraction.   I believe I have mentioned before that a colleague in English once told me that the average high school graduate today has half the vocabulary of the graduate of one generation ago.  We are losing our ability to communicate in the English language, and our solution is to give our students more toys.  Good grief, Charlie Brown. 

Daschle to Iowa (Again)

The Fix:

Former South Dakota Sen. Tom Daschle (D) just keeps popping up in Iowa.

The ex-Senate minority leader headlined the state Democratic Party's annual Jefferson-Jackson Dinner on Nov. 5, and he will be back in the Hawkeye State on Feb. 1 for a speech at Iowa State University in Ames.

Daschle will keep a busy speaking schedule between now and then. He will be in California for a series of four speeches in four days from Jan. 9-12, and then will be in New York City on Jan. 19 to keynote the spring orientation dinner at Milano The New School for Management and Urban Policy. In both California and New York, Daschle will meet with individual donors to solicit funds for his leadership political action committee -- New Leadership for America.

Daschle's schedule continues to spur speculation that he is planning to run for president in 2008 -- after backing away from a national run in 2004.

Steve Hildebrand, Daschle's lead political adviser, refused to address speculation about the South Dakotan's national intentions. "Tom is continuing to be very aggressive at helping candidates all across the country and is continuing to keep a high profile and using his voice to promote a progressive agenda," said Hildebrand.

So does Daschle have a chance to make an impact in the Iowa caucuses? Maybe.

Daschle has two major assets. First, since South Dakota borders Iowa, he can paint himself as someone who uniquely identifies with Iowa's need and concerns -- especially when it comes to agriculture.

Ed Skinner, an attorney and powerful political player in the state's Democratic politics (and a friend of Daschle's) said that "a number of the issues [Daschle] has worked with were important all over the Midwest." Skinner and Daschle sat down for breakfast on Nov. 6 in Des Moines, though the former senator's potential presidential bid was not broached, Skinner said.

Daschle's other primary asset is Hildebrand, who is considered a top campaign operative in the party and has considerable Iowa experience, having secured a victory for Vice President Al Gore over former New Jersey Sen. Bill Bradley (D) in the state's 2000 caucus.

"Steve Hildebrand is very close to Daschle and has a lot of experience in Iowa and that makes [a Daschle run] a more real possibility," said Iowa Democratic consultant Jeff Link.

Daschle's potential hurdles are relatively clear. When he considered the race in 2004, he was one of the most visible and powerful figures in the Democratic Party. With his loss to Sen. John Thune (R) in 2004, Daschle no longer holds a political office and will have to overcome the perception that he is yesterday's news.

In addition, Daschle must show that he can raise money now that he's out of office using New Leadership as his primary fundraising vehicle. Hildebrand said the PAC gave out $230,000 in 2005 to Democratic candidates. ..

To Dream The Impossible Dream

If only we could get Prince William to marry Lindsey Lohan, then we'd get our monarchy back!  There's nothing America loves more than good looking, young, rich celebrities.  I am pretty sure if we could pull of this love match (as if love matters here) then Americans would accept the couple as King William I of America and his lovely bride Queen Lindsey.  We won't even need to watch the nightly news or read newspapers anymore.  We can just watch Entertainment Tonight and read People magazine and we'll know  everything we need to know about our government. 

Alien Invasion

More reasons to hate cell phones.  Trust me, it is ok if sometimes you're unavailable. 

Hildebrand Finds Corruption in Johnson Organization!

Hats off to Radioactive Chief for a excellent bit of blogging.  Steve Hildebrand announced that Daschle would not return money donated by Abramoff associates and tribal clients.  To do so would "be a suggestion that he accepted the contributions for the wrong reasons and that's not the case."  Fair enough.  But Tim Johnson is returning $8,250 of money. 

"The donations to Johnson's campaign include $6,250 from three of Abramoff's tribal clients and $2,000 from one of Abramoff's colleagues at his lobbying firm...."

Says RC:

OK then, according to Hildebrand's stated standard, Sen. Johnson's returned $8,250 could be interpreted as a sign that he "accepted the contributions for the wrong reason", and that THAT's why the funds had to be returned!  (Of course, as icing on this logical cake, the same point could be made about Thune's $2,000 also.)

Oh what tangled webs we weave, when first when in stressful situations we practice to deceive.

Mixed News for Dr. Schaff

Like Alexander Hamilton, Professor Schaff has occasionally expressed monarchist opinions.  It is not certain whether, or in which case, such opinions are merely strategic gambits.  He is also something of a Papist, so the following headline from the Clarion News (Clarion County, PA) may bring about mixed emotions. 

County appoints King following Pope resignation

Is progress, or regress?  Hat tip to James Taranto's Best of the Web. 

Marriage and Social Progress

Following up on my John McWhorter post, I notice that USAToday has an opinion piece entitled "Marriage is a Great Equalizer for Blacks."  Hat Tip to Real Clear Politics.  The piece is by Ronald Warren, President of the National Fatherhood Initiative.  I know nothing about this outfit beyond what I saw from briefly visiting their webpage.  Warren has this to say:

According to testimony given last fall to a Senate subcommittee by Ron Haskins of The Brookings Institution, from 1970 to 2001, the overall marriage rate declined 17% but 34% for blacks. The overall rate for out-of-wedlock births is 33% compared with 70% for blacks.

These disappointing trends are critical because research has shown that marriage provides significant benefits for men and women. Most important, children who are raised by their married, biological parents do better across every measure of economic, social, health and educational well-being than children raised in other family arrangements. In fact, when comparing families of similar socioeconomic status, these black children have similar outcomes as their white counterparts. Marriage is the great equalizer.

This is one of the most easily documented facts about human societies.  I reproduced the following chart from the Bureau of Labor Statistics in a previous post, in another context.  It bears a second look. 

                                           Number of
                                                    poor        Poverty
 Year                                           families       rate for
                 Number of        Poverty    with female       families
                      poor       rate for          (NSP)    with female
                  families       families    householder    householder
 ______________________________________________________________________
 2004......         7,854            10.2         3,973            28.4
 2003......         7,607            10.0         3,856            28.0
 2002......         7,229             9.6         3,613            26.5
 2001......         6,813             9.2         3,470            26.4
 2000 12/..         6,400             8.7         3,278            25.4
 1999 11/..         6,792             9.3         3,559            27.8
 1998......         7,186            10.0         3,831            29.9
 1997......         7,324            10.3         3,995            31.6
 1996......         7,708            11.0         4,167            32.6
 1995......         7,532            10.8         4,057            32.4
 1994......         8,053            11.6         4,232            34.6
 1993 10/..         8,393            12.3         4,424            35.6

What the chart shows is that the poverty rate for female headed households is about three times higher than for all households.  Its not hard to see why.  Two parents bring more than twice the level of resources to a family over what a single parent can provide.  They allow a dynamic relationship and a division of labor that cannot easily be overestimated.  This is just as true when the division of labor shifts in radical new ways.

When my daughter was an infant, I was the primary "mom."  My wife worked full time to support us while I slogged through graduate school.  I am sure I changed more diapers than the male Blanchard line going back to the Thirty Years War.  At any rate, I have a deep appreciation of what two parents can bring to child rearing.  No doubt that many single moms are great parents, but that doesn't change the impact of the numbers above.  So I think Warren is dead spot on when he sees the state of the Black family as the most serious problem for Black America. 

In 1890, 80% of black families with children were headed by married couples, according to sociologist Andrew Billingsley. That figure has dropped to 39%. In 1950, 64% of black males older than 15 were married compared with 68% of white males. By 1998, only 41% of black males were married. From 1950 to '98, the percentage of never-married black women doubled.

I think there is little doubt that this is the most important cause of the social dysfunction that so disproportionately afflicts Black Americans. 

I would note something that Warren does not.  Marriage is not only good for the children and their mother, though it is certainly that.  The absence of the biological father from the home is the most reliable indicator of child abuse.  But it is also vitally important for the male.  Married males surpass their unmarried counterparts in every measure of physical, psychological, and social hygiene.  They are far less likely to murder or be murdered, less susceptible to substance abuse, less likely to be poor or in prison.  It is surely correct to worry about how tax policy and job growth affects the least fortunate of our citizens.  But if you can figure out how to encourage marriage, that will do much more for the poor than any social program anyone can devise.

Dems Plan to Destroy Alito

Matt Drudge:

THE DRUDGE REPORT has learned from exclusive sources that Senate Democrats have put into place a plan that includes one last push to take down the nomination of Judge Samuel A. Alito as he heads into his confirmation hearing next week.... MORE...

What will our Democratic senator do?  Help take down Alito, or call for decency?

Alito Well Qualified

Just take a look here and you'll see that the American Bar Association has rated Samuel Alito "well qualified" for the Supreme Court. This is the ABA's highest rating and it was a unanimous rating by their board, with the exception of one recusal. 

Alito Ad Buys

South Dakota is starting to get blanketed by new ad's opposing the Alito confirmation.

IndependentCourt.org, a collection of liberal groups opposed to Judge Alito's confirmation, has recently purchased ad spots across the state in order to try and convince people to not support Alito. Groups such as:

American's United for the Separation of Church and State
Greenpeace
Human Right's Campaign
NARAL Pro Choice America
NAACP
The Sierra Club

Have all signed on to IndependentCourt.org. Look for the ad's to appear on the airwaves shortly here in the state.

You can take a look at the full list of groups who have signed on here and check up on what the group is all about.

Appointing Attorneys

It can certainly be said that I am receiving an education on the appointment of United States Attorneys. See here and here for my original posts.  A reader who practices law passes on three cases that are relevent to the appointment of a new US Attorney for South Dakota. I will simply give the citations, and if law geeks want to look them up, they may:  U.S. v. Hilario 218 F.3d 19; In re Grand Jury Proceedings 673 F.Supp. 1138 D.Mass.,1987;   In re Grand Jury Proceedings 671 F.Supp. 5 D.Mass.,1987. 

My emailer, I think, sums it up nicely:

It seems to me that allowing the interim US Attorney to resign prior to the completion of his/her 120 day term, so that the Attorney General and not the district court can appoint the next interim US Attorney, thwarts the intent of the statute.  That situation would allow the AG a perpetual and indefinite ability to appoint interim US Attorneys.  It's almost impossible for me to believe Congress (and the President) intended that when they passed the law.

I agree with you as a philosophical matter that appointments are the domain of the executive, not the judiciary.  Regardless of one's political affiliation, that is an undeniable fact.  I can't say for sure, but my guess is that this statute--which provides an exception to the general rule--is applicable only in a very limited amount of cases.  In an even smaller amount of cases (maybe only one, this one) will this particular issue arise -- i.e., whether or not the interim US Atty can resign prior to the 120 period and consequently allow the AG, not the district court, to appoint his/her successor.

The emailer also says:

This is a pretty fascinating event, though, the fact that Piersol is overtly exerting this potentially obscure statutory power.  The real question, though, is:  why did Tapken resign just a few days short of her 120 day term?  Did the executive branch suggest she take this action?  And if so, why?  Is this an intentional attempt by the executive branch to thwart the statute? 

Any way you slice it, one has to wonder why it has taken so long for a new United States Attorney to be appointed.  For honesty's sake I point out that I am cutting a pasting a little from my emailer but I assure you that this is for simplicity of presentation and is not effecting the gist of what he is trying to say. 

Mid-Morning Roundup from Denver

Hillary Clinton returned her Abramoff money, as did Tim Johnson, but it appears that Tom Daschle and Steve Hildebrand insist on keeping theirs.

SD War College, who outed "Blog Watch Man," has now identified "Sophia" from the Rapid City Journal's Mt. Blogmore.

George Will has an article in the Washington Post entitled "Chief Among the Silliness."  Excerpt:

The University of Illinois must soon decide whether, and if so how, to fight an exceedingly silly edict from the NCAA. That organization's primary function is to require college athletics to be no more crassly exploitative and commercial than is absolutely necessary. But now the NCAA is going to police cultural sensitivity, as it understands that. Hence the decision to declare Chief Illiniwek "hostile and abusive" to Native Americans.

Censorship -- e.g., campus speech codes -- often is academic liberalism's preferred instrument of social improvement, and now the NCAA's censors say: The Chief must go, as must the university's logo of a Native American in feathered headdress. Otherwise the NCAA will not allow the university to host any postseason tournaments or events.
...

The University of North Dakota's Fighting Sioux may have to find another nickname because the various Sioux tribes cannot agree about whether they are insulted. But the only remnant of the Illini confederation, the Peoria tribe, is now in Oklahoma. Under its chief, John Froman, the tribe is too busy running a casino and golf course to care about Chief Illiniwek. The NCAA ethicists probably reason that the Chief must go because no portion of the Illini confederation remains to defend him.

Or to be offended by him, but never mind that, or this: In 1995 the Office of Civil Rights in President Bill Clinton's Education Department, a nest of sensitivity-mongers, rejected the claim that the Chief and the name Fighting Illini created for anyone a "hostile environment" on campus.

In 2002 Sports Illustrated published a poll of 351 Native Americans, 217 living on reservations, 134 living off. Eighty-one percent said high school and college teams should not stop using Indian nicknames.

Lastly, in today's New York Times, Sheryl Gay Stolberg has an article entitled "Lobbyist's Downfall Leads to Charities' Windfall," which mentions South Dakota.  Excerpt: 

The White Buffalo Calf Woman  Society, a shelter for battered women in tiny Mission, S.D., is far removed from the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal that rocked Washington this week. But the society, along with many other charities large and small, is among the latest beneficiaries of Mr. Abramoff's legendary largess.

As panicked lawmakers rush to distance themselves from Mr. Abramoff, the disgraced Republican lobbyist, after his guilty pleas in federal and Florida state courts, tens of thousands of dollars in political donations from him and his Indian tribe clients are being returned or redirected to charities in a vast Robin Hood-like reordering of campaign funds.

Many of these charitable groups - including the White Buffalo Calf Woman Society, which will receive $2,000 from Senator John Thune, Republican of South Dakota - have Native American ties, creating a certain symmetry, albeit an imperfect one, given that Mr. Abramoff has pleaded guilty to bilking the tribes of millions.

Some tribes like the Saginaw Chippewa and the Mississippi band of Choctaw Indians are getting campaign contributions back. But the refunds are not entirely welcome; tribal officials complain of being branded as pariahs and worry that their clout in Washington will be diminished if lawmakers refuse to accept their money.

Yet the Abramoff plea bargain has been a boon to organizations as varied as the Boy Scouts and the Mississippi Hurricane Recovery Fund. President Bush is giving $6,000 to the American Heart Association. Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky, is giving $18,500 to a Christian mission in his home state. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, Democrat of New York, is giving $2,000 to New York charities that have not been publicly identified.

UPDATE:  A few more things.  Daschle is "hoping to save  incumbent Democrats from his own fate" by donating "$230,000 in campaign cash to vulnerable members of his party."

Could Wal-Mart save America's health-care crisis?

The Lion In Winter

Ariel Sharon has died, it appears. It seems mixed reports are coming out of Israel. 

Update: If I may quote Monty Python: "I'm feeling much better."

Sharon, the Lion of Israel II

The Jerusalem Post lead, filed about a half hour ago, has Ariel Sharon in stable condition. 

Sources at Hadassah Hospital said late Thursday night that Prime Minister Ariel Sharon suffered extensive damage to the right lobe of his brain during the hemorrhage which he underwent Wednesday night.

Christopher Hitchens writing in Slate has, as always, an uncompromising look Israel's lion. Sharon was responsible for more than his share of brutality.  But Hitchens points out that it was precisely this that allowed Sharon to move Israel toward the only viable policy. 

There are, and always have been, only four alternatives in the Israeli-Palestinian quadrilateral. The first is the status quo of mingled apartheid and colonization that would eventually see the Israelis ruling without consent over a people as large as or larger than themselves and that is now almost universally seen as intolerable and unsustainable. The second is a state where those under its jurisdiction are equal citizens with the right to vote, which would be the end of Zionism. The third is the destruction or removal of one people by the other or their common ruin in a catastrophic war. The fourth is a partition between two separate states. All have their disadvantages, but the fourth appears to have the fewest and is supported officially by the PLO and endorsed by a probable majority of Israeli and diaspora Jews. For most of his career, Sharon supported the first option and conducted occasional flirtations with the expulsionist supporters of the third option. His conversion to the fourth may have taken unpleasing forms—a wall is a wall is a wall—but it did begin to acknowledge the contours of Palestinian statehood, and this counts as one of the better ironies of history.

Charles Krauthamer, posting on Real Clear Politics, has a similar analysis. 

For a generation, Israeli politics have offered two alternatives. The left said: We have to negotiate peace with the Palestinians. The right said: There's no one to talk to because they don't want to make peace; they want to destroy us, so we stay in the occupied territories and try to integrate them into Israel.

The left was given its chance with the 1993 Oslo peace accords. They proved a fraud and a deception.  The PLO used Israeli concessions to create an armed and militant Palestinian terror apparatus right in the heart of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Israel's offer of an extremely generous peace at Camp David in the summer of 2000 was met with a savage terror campaign, the second intifada, that killed a thousand Jews. (Given Israel's tiny size, the American equivalent would be 50,000 dead.)

With the left then discredited,  Israel turned to the right, electing Sharon in 2001. But the right's idea of hanging onto the territories indefinitely was untenable. Ruling a young, radicalized, growing Arab population committed to Palestinian independence was not only too costly but ultimately futile.

Sharon's genius was to seize upon and begin implementing a third way. With a negotiated peace illusory and a Greater Israel untenable, he argued that the only way to security was a unilateral redrawing of Israel's boundaries by building a fence around  a new Israel and withdrawing Israeli soldiers and settlers from the other side. The other side would become independent Palestine.

Accordingly, Sharon withdrew Israel entirely from Gaza. On the other front, the West Bank, the separation fence now under construction will give the new Palestine about 93 percent of the West Bank. Israel's 7 percent share will encompass a sizable  majority of Israelis who live on the West Bank. The rest, everyone understands, will have to evacuate back to Israel.

The success of this fence-plus-unilateral-withdrawal strategy is easily seen in the collapse of the intifada. Palestinian terror attacks are down 90 percent. Israel's economy has revived. In 2005 it grew at the fastest rate in the entire West. Tourists are back and the country has regained its confidence. The Sharon idea of a smaller but secure and demographically Jewish Israel garnered broad public support, marginalized the old parties of the left and right, and was on the verge of electoral success that would establish a new political center to carry on this strategy.

I believe that the survival of Israel is a matter of no small concern to Western Civilization.  It remains to be seen whether the infant Kadima party can give shape to his last, big idea. 

John McWhorter on Race in America

John McWhorter is one of the most interesting voices on the economic and social problems of black America. He is an iconoclast with regard to the sacred cows of liberal thinkers and especially of Black political leadership.   I listened to an interview with him on NPR a couple days ago.  Arch Puddington has a review of McWhorter's new book, Winning the Race, in the Wall Street Journal. 

Mr. McWhorter examines why the optimism that defined the years of the civil-rights movement has been replaced by defeatism and alienation in the black community--even as America's racial attitudes and policies have changed so dramatically for the better.

Mr. McWhorter's answers are anything but orthodox, and little wonder: He is routinely classified--and, in certain circles, dismissed--as a "black conservative." But his views are not easily labeled. He advocates some drug decriminalization, for instance, and favors affirmative action for those in economic need (but not for middle-class children or the children of immigrants). He didn't even vote for George W. Bush. Still, he argues compellingly that the widely accepted ideas that try to explain the persistence of racial inequality--leftist views, for the most part--stand in the way of black progress.

Like others, Mr. McWhorter blames open-ended welfare and the fashions of the white counterculture--especially its glorification of drug use--for damaging precisely the generation of blacks that should have reaped the benefits of civil-rights change. But he also blames an academic establishment and intellectual elite that seem unwilling to judge the dynamics of black life by the standards that it applies to other groups.

This is how McWhorter himself puts it in a piece for the Times of London. 

An awareness that a tragic disproportion of black Americans are poor has been a hallmark of civic awareness among educated Americans for 40 years now. . . . The civics lesson, we are to think, is that the civil rights revolution left a job undone in an America still hostile to black advancement.

In fact, white America does remain morally culpable — but because white leftists in the late 1960s, in the name of enlightenment and benevolence, encouraged the worst in human nature among blacks and even fostered it in legislation. The hordes of poor blacks stuck in the Superdome last week wound up there not because the White Man barred them from doing better, but because certain tragically influential White Men destroyed the fragile but lasting survival skills poor black communities had maintained since the end of slavery.

Few thinking people regret the flower children’s opposition to the Vietnam war, sexism and racial discrimination. But these advances also spelt the demise of old standards of responsibility.  . . . Behaviour that most of a black community would have condemned as counterproductive started to seem normal. Through the late 1960s blacks burnt down their own neighbourhoods as gestures of being “fed up”. But blacks had been “fed up” for centuries: why were these the first riots initiated by blacks rather than white thugs — when the economy was flush and employment opportunities were opening up as never before? Because the culture had changed, in ways that hindered too many blacks from taking advantage of the civil rights revolution.

It is welfare policy reform in the 1960's that must take much of the blame for the social dysfunction that afflicted so many Black Americans in the 60's and 70's. 

Meanwhile, the most grievous result of the new consensus was black American history’s most under-reported event, the expansion of welfare. Until now, welfare had been a pittance intended for widows, unavailable as long as the father of one’s children was able-bodied and accounted for, and granted for as little time as possible.

In 1966, however, a group of white academics in New York developed a plan to bring as many people onto the welfare rolls as possible. Across the country, poor blacks especially were taught to apply for living on the dole even when they had been working for a living, and by 1970 there were 169% more people on welfare nationwide than in 1960.  This was the first time that whites or blacks had taught black people not to work as a form of civil rights.

I strongly recommend the London Times essay.  Critics of conservatives sometimes call us regressives (or ultra-regressives) because they believe that we stand in the way of progress.  That's fair enough; otherwise, they would be on our side.  But they reflexively assume that because we oppose many of their favorite policies, we consciously prefer regression over progress. 

We do not for the most part doubt that their policies are well-intended.  But we think that it is precisely those liberal policies have been regressive in fact.  We believe this for the simple reason that so many of those policies were implemented, and had the opposite result of what was intended.  Both conservatives and liberals want to see all groups of Americans prosper. They differ in which policies would promote that prosperity.  McWhorter makes a strong case on this aspect of the question.

More On Judges (Not Moron Judges)

A kind reader sends along the statute in question regarding US Attorney appointments.  I post it here:

28 USC 546

(a) Except as provided in subsection (b), the Attorney General may appoint a United States attorney for the district in which the office of United States attorney is vacant.

(b) The Attorney General shall not appoint as United States attorney a person to whose appointment by the President to that office the Senate refused to give advice and consent.

(c) A person appointed as United States attorney under this section may serve until the earlier of—

       (1) the qualification of a United States attorney for such district appointed by the President under section 541 of this title; or

       (2) the expiration of 120 days after appointment by the Attorney General under this section.

(d) If an appointment expires under subsection (c)(2), the district court for such district may appoint a United States attorney to serve until the vacancy is filled. The order of appointment by the court shall be filed with the clerk of the court.

Pay particular attention to that last section.  Now it becomes the question of interpretation.  Technically the 120 days did not run out in this case.  The Justice Department asked Judge Piersol to reappoint the interim US Attorney, Michelle Tapken.  Piersol, for reasons he will not divulge, refused.  To avoid the 120 days running out and giving Piersol the ability to appoint his own person, Tapken resigned two days early allowing another Attorney to be appointed.  So Tapken's appointment did not expire at the end of 120 days.  It ended with her resignation.  But now there is the question of who is the proper US Attorney for South Dakota.

It seems to be a breach of the separation of powers for judges to appoint the attorney's who will practice in front of them.  I question why Piersol would refuse the request of the executive branch to staff this position.  The administration attempted to staff the position and Piersol as yet has not revealed why he refused to honor this attempt.  But I can't say he was flaunting the law, as the law is a bit fuzzy on this, so I have gone back an edited my original post on this matter. 

Swann Running

Former Pittsburgh Steeler Hall of Fame receiver Lynn Swann announced his candidacy for governor of Pennsylvania. 

G. Terry Madonna, a pollster and professor at Franklin & Marshall College in Lancaster, said Swann needs to convince voters that he has ideas and the leadership ability necessary to turn them into policy. He could benefit from disenchantment with the state and national governments, Madonna said.

"Voters are looking for fresh faces," Madonna said. Swann "has a personal story to tell that's compelling." 

I'll be following Swann's run for governor, anxiously awaiting an official campaign website with more information on his political views.  I do think Swann's decision is a better one than the Vikings new pick for head coach.  As a loyal Bears fan, their decision to hire "an offensive coordinator from a mediocre team" doesn't bother me as much as Professor Schaff though.

A Fond Farewell

I learned today of the death of Fred Homer.  His obit is here.  I worked under Prof. Homer while getting a Master of Arts in Political Science at the University of Wyoming.  While Fred and I had little in common politically, he practiced something woefully absent in academia: for Fred Homer the political was not personal. 

Fred Homer gave me one of my favorite stories in an attempt in class once to illustrate an important point.  Fred went to Rutgers on a basketball scholarship, but the team was quite bad.  One of the guys on the team was named Delvecchio.  This Delvecchio character was famous, or infamous, for only one thing.  He had set the conference mark for fouling out in record time.  Well, during one game in which Rutgers was once again getting killed, the team went in at half-time down big.  The team had a rule.  At half-time the starters would eat Hershey bars with almonds while the bench players ate regular Hershey bars. They go into the locker room and Delvecchio, who was definately not a starter, grabs a Hershey's with almonds.  "Delvecchio!"  an assistant coach screams, "Don't you know those are for the starters!"  Fred would deadpan at this point, "Believe me, the reason we were losing by 30 points was not almonds versus no almonds."  His greater point: don't sweat the small stuff.  Just one of many lessons taught me by a good man and a great teacher, Prof. Fred Homer.  RIP. 

And In Other News

The Minnesota Vikings have a new coach.  Take an offensive coordinator from a mediocre team with a mediocre offense.  Good move guys. 

Dependent on Left-Wing Opinion

Is this group going to run ads in South Dakota? Rumor is that they might.  They call themselves "Independentcourt.org."  What they really are is a who's who of left-wing interest groups who would like our laws to be dependent on a willful left-wing Supreme Court.  Let's see whom Tim Johnson and John Thune side with?  Is it with the majority of South Dakotans who would like to rule themselves and not be ruled by unelected Supreme Court justices?  Or will they side with radical groups like Friends of the Earth and the National Abortion Federation who, failing to win the support of the American people, wish to impose their agenda by judicial fiat. 

Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid.

Unitarian Jihad!

Alito supporters visit SD

Yesterday, two former law clerks for Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito paid a visit to the state of South Dakota, to rally support of Alito and to stress that he needs to be confirmed.

Hannah and John Smith, now lawyers in Washington, both clerked for Alito in 2001 and 2002.

The two visited Sioux Falls as part of an 18-state tour by 29 of Alito’s former clerks, organized by Progress For America, a Washington-based advocacy group that describes itself as nonpartisan and conservative.

“He’s just a brilliant judge, and very well-qualified to be the next associate justice of the Supreme Court,” said Hannah Smith, who also clerked for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas in 2003."

The two were also visiting to stress the importance that Senator Johnson, who may hold a crucial swing vote for Judge Alito's confirmation, vote favorably after the hearings of the Senate Judiciary committee, which begin next Monday.

From Denver with Love

Apparently, the Republican governor of Maryland issued an order preventing all members of the executive branch from speaking with Baltimore Sun's political editor and long-time political columnist.  Now the columnist has resigned due to plagiarism charges.  The governor has an interesting way of handling a hostile newspaper.

Also, Ryne notes the SD College Dems/Hildebrand connection.

David Kirkpatrick of the New York Times is noting liberal activists groups who are releasing ads attacking the Supreme Court pick of Samuel Alito.

Michael Mandelbaum of Foreign Policy has an article entitled "David's Friend Goliath."  Excerpt:

The rest of the world complains that American hegemony is reckless, arrogant, and insensitive. Just don’t expect them to do anything about it. The world’s guilty secret is that it enjoys the security and stability the United States provides. The world won’t admit it, but they will miss the American empire when it’s gone.

Judicial Government In South Dakota

Who runs the US Department of Justice anyway?  According to some South Dakota Federal Judges, they do, not the Attorney General of the United States.  Read this story to get the rather bizarre set of facts.  The upshot is this.  The US Attorney's position has been vacant in South Dakota for some time.  According to federal law, the government can appoint an interim US Attorney for 120 days. Federal Judge Larry Piersol doesn't like the people the Bush administration wants in the job, so he is appointing his own US Attorney.  You may remember Larry Piersol as the Daschle buddy who in a last minute Daschle election ploy tried to put the kibosh on Republican poll watchers.  See Joey Botttum's rather humorous take on that situation.  It just so happens that all three federal judges involved in this new case are Daschle/Clinton appointees. 

It is settled law that the appointment power of executive branch officials belongs to the president alone.  The US Attorneys work for the executive branch, not the judicial branch.  Someone enlighten me if there is any precedent for Judge Piersol's actions. 

Update: For what it's worth, Karen Schreier, who will hold the hearing austensibly to inquire into the validity of lawyer Mullins's appointment by the Bush Administration, is former chair of the state Democratic Party. 

Janklow Law License Reinstated

Read about it here. 

Big Government and Corruption

Peggy Noonan takes my position that big government bears some of the blame for what corruption we do have in Washington.  And she beats a "steamroller" analogy to death.

There's a lot of talk among Republicans that since the Abramoff scandal involves politicians and staff on both sides of the aisle, the public will not punish the Republicans. This assertion is countered by the argument that while the public will likely see the story as one of government corruption, Congress and the White House are run by Republicans, so Republicans will pay the price. I think this is true, but I think it misses a larger point: In some rough way the public expects the party that loves big government to be pretty good at finagling government, playing with it, using it for its own ends. That's kind of what they do. They love the steamroller, of course they love the grease that makes it run. But the anti-big-government party isn't supposed to be so good at it, so enmeshed in it. The antigovernment party isn't supposed to be so good at oiling the steamroller's parts and pushing its levers. And so happy doing the oiling and pushing.

Abramoff III

Via Instapundit, here's Anne Marie Cox (log in required) on Abramoff

Sad to admit it, but most of what Jack Abramoff did with politicians (as opposed to his outright fraud with Indian tribes) wasn't criminal so much as extreme. The Hollywood arc would have a chain-gang of Congressmen breaking rocks by the final reel, but we are unlikely to get such satisfaction outside of celluloid...

With his casinos, phony charities and Scottish golfing trips, Jack Abramoff has drawn attention to Washington's fascinatingly filthy underbelly. One can only hope that the melodrama will keep people watching. While we should hesitate before defining corruption still further down ("No chiseler left behind!"), we don't need to pause before throwing the bums out. Ask any lawmaker: the harshest penalty one can receive isn't prison; it's losing.

Abramoff the Amazing

One of my grad school professors explained that his German grandfather had one simple rule of parenting: find out what the children are doing and make them stop.  I'm not sure that that is a good rule for dealing with children, but its dead spot on for dealing with Congress whenever they turn to reforming the political process.  For reasons Dr. Schaff skillfully lays out below, earlier reforms have made the problem much worse.  The only way to get money out of politics is to get politics out of money.  But that would require radically shrinking the Federal Government in size and scope.  That isn't going to happen.  The most enduring legacy of the Abramoff scandal will almost certainly be another round of pernicious reforms, as Republicans move to protect their fannies. 

I doubt that this will do a great deal of damage to Republicans, but it is going to be a Republican scandal.  I have often used the story of the Keating Five as a good example of divided government.  Charles Keating corrupted four important Senators.  John McCain was not really tainted by the scandal, and was only included because met with Keating and because otherwise there wouldn't have been any Republicans involved.  If the Senate had been the lone legislative body, we never would have heard about the scandal.  But Henry Gonzalez, Democrat and Chair of the House Banking Committee, aggressively investigated the scandal.  That's what James Madison had in mind.  Why, I ask my students, did the scandal's damage fall almost exclusively on Democrats?  Not because they are less honest than Republicans, but only because they held the majority. 

The Republicans will suffer now because they hold the majority.  Its no use arguing that this sort of thing happens all the time.  Glen Reynolds of Instapundit was on NPR today, and pointed out that bank robbery happens all the time, but that doesn't mean its okay.  It is also worthy of note that, just as a Democrat exposed his fellows in the Keating Five scandal, so a Republican, John McCain is going after this one.  McCain, I say, is the one to watch.

God Bless Texas

Just as I predicted (scroll down), Longhorns in a nail biter.

The Lion of Israel

Whatever one thinks about Ariel Sharon, and there are a lot of things to think, he certainly ranks among the greatest political figures of our age.  Says Tarik Kafala of BBC News:

Like him or loathe him, the Israeli prime minister is a political colossus for Israelis. He has been at the centre of Israeli political life since the state's creation.

A controversial figure throughout his career, he was once forced from government over the massacres by Christian militiamen of Palestinians in the refugee camps around Beirut in 1982.

But he is also currently the only Middle Eastern leader with anything like a plan that might bring about a peace settlement between the Palestinians and Israelis. 

He was an important Israeli general, and a founder of the Likud party, the (relatively) right of center party in Israel.  He became Prime Minister in 2001 at the head of Likud, and later engineered a radical solution to the Palestinian problem. 

His policy is often misunderstood.  It rested, as I see it, on two principles.  One was that Israel had to withdraw from most of the occupied territories, and allow the Palestinians to make their own way toward a state there.  The second was that the Palestinian leadership, as it now exists, simply could not be a reliable partner in any negotiations.  It is too corrupt and disorganized to make peace, even if it were willing to do so.  Which it isn't.  So Sharon resolved to unilaterally withdraw from most of the West Bank and Gaza, and build a wall between these territories and Israel that would allow the Israelis to isolate those territories from Israel, until such time as a reliable Palestinian government might emerge.  This was a policy of genius and daring, and if anything promises a resolution, this does. 

But Sharon found that his Likud party was not a viable instrument with which to implement his policy.  Two many of its vital coalition partners were committed to a greater Israel.  There was no way he could use Likud to build majority support for withdrawal.  Nor could he turn to Labor, given his history.  So he left Likud and formed a new, centrist party, Kadima.  The Israelis go to the polls in March, and until now Kadima appeared likely to win enough seats in the Knesset for Sharon to form a coalition government. 

With Sharon out of the picture, it is unclear whether he leaves behind anyone who is capable of leading his new party to an electoral victory, or continuing his policy.  This is the sort of accident that leads some people, Machiavelli observed, to believe that fortune legislates everything. 

Sharon Suffers Massive Stroke

From the Jerusalem Post:

Four doctors at Hadassah Ein Karem Hospital in Jerusalem are fighting to save the life of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon after he suffered a massive stroke late Wednesday, which caused extensive cerebral hemorrhaging.

As of 4 a.m., more than four hours after it began, the surgery at Hadassah Ein Karem Hospital in Jerusalem was still in progress. The main part of the operation, in which the blood is drained from the brain, has ended.

According to a medical expert, the procedure is life threatening. Asked what are the chances of surviving this type of surgery, the doctor replied, "Let's be optimistic, some people survive it."

I as write this it is 6:30 am in Jerusalem, so the report is at least two hours old.

UPDATE: When I got back from helping my son with his geometry homework, there was more bad news for Sharon. 

After a six-hour operation for cerebral hemorrhaging that continued for most of Wednesday night, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon was returned to the operating room after a CAT scan revealed additional areas of cerebral bleeding.

If Sharon survives, it is difficult to imagine that Sharon can resume his responsibilities as Prime Minister and as head of the new Kadima party. 

Daschle/Hildebrand and Abramoff Donation

While reviewing the posts below, note this new Associated Press story indicating that SD Senators are giving away Abramoff money but that Daschle/Hildebrand are refusing to and keeping the money.  The South Dakota Democratic Party doesn't know whether it will keep its Abramoff money:

Former Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle, the South Dakotan who was defeated by Thune in 2004, received tens of thousands of dollars in campaign donations from Abramoff's associates and tribal clients. Steve Hildebrand, Daschle's former campaign manager, said Wednesday that he will not return or give away the money because it would be "a big slap in the face to Native Americans across the country."

Hildebrand said that giving the money away would "be a suggestion that he accepted the contributions for the wrong reasons and that's not the case."

He said that Abramoff's associates who donated to Daschle were friends of his campaign before they became involved with the controversial lobbyist.

"These people were helping to raise money for Daschle before Abramoff ever turned up," Hildebrand said.

The South Dakota Democratic party also received thousands of dollars connected to Abramoff, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Party officials would not say Wednesday whether they would return or give away the money.

A few weeks ago the SD Democratic Party and liberal bloggers were attacking Thune regarding Abramoff.

Abramoff II

Part of the scandal of Abramoff is that it lends credence to those who believe that our politics is uniquely dirty and so we need new and better laws to clean up the act.  The actions of both parties lead to the conclusion that everybody is dirty.  In fact few politicians are dirty.  I believe our politics is as free from corruption as any regime in history.  That is not to say it is totally free from corruption.  That would be an obvious falsehood.  But compared to politics world wide and through history, American politics today is relatively free from corruption. It is scandals such as this that lead to a misperception on the part of the public and gives aid and comfort to demagogic politicians who seek to restrict our freedoms through such means as the Federal Election Campaign Act and the Bi-partisan Campaign Reform Act (I am not suggesting that everyone who voted for these bills is a demagogue, although some like John McCain engaged in demagoguery to get BCRA passed).  These hideous pieces of legislation restrict our freedoms while doing nothing about the problem of interest group influence in Washington.  The evidence that they do nothing is that the influence continues, if not grows, leading to calls for more and more pieces of legislation to "clean up the mess" as if making more rules is the answer.  And I find it interesting that people who find the infallibility of the papacy laughable are completely credulous when the Supreme Court says that the government dictating the contents of political advertisements is not a violation of free speech rights (the papal analogy is tongue in cheek, by the way).  I know the Supreme Court has upheld the lion's share of both FECA and BCRA, but using that as an argument is akin to saying something is right "because dad said so."  It's just an appeal to authority.  Don't tell me "the Supreme Court says so."  They aren't infallible, you know.  Give me arguments. 

But isn't DC crawling with lobbyists trying to manipulate government to their own ends?  Yes.  Any why not?  First, it is at the heart of democracy for people to organize in order to influence the government to respond to their interests.  That's kinda what democracy is. We should not be surprised when it happens.  Also, it makes financial sense.  Imagine you run a company whose industry, like all industries, has a professional association that has lobbyists in Washington.  You and your fellows spend $1 million in order to lobby Congress.  Out of this you get one measly little $10 million program.  Given that the government spends almost $5 million a minute, and the total budget is $2.6 trillion, $10 million is chump change.  But you and your compatriots just made 1000% profit on your $1 million contribution.  Who wouldn't play this game?  By the way, I take this argument from Jonathan Rauch's excellent book on the subject.  Why are their so many lobbyists in DC?  Because there is so much money to be made.  When the government spends $2.6 trillion, people will line up to get their share.  If you build it, they will come. 

If you want to reduce the influence of interest groups I suggest two goals.  First, strengthen political parties.  Parties have an interest in broad based coalitions.  Interest groups represent narrow interests.  As long as we are free, people will organize to influence the government to their own ends, and parties are healthier avenues than are interest groups.  Second, contain the size of government.  Here are some specific reforms that have no hope of ever becoming law:
1. Get rid of primary elections and go back to party caucuses (as in Iowa).  Parties must have the power over their own nominations in order to enforce party discipline and primary elections go too far in taking that power away from parties.
2. Allow for unrestricted donations to political parties (excepting foreign donations) and allow the parties to more easily coordinate with candidates.  People will give money to influence politics.  It is better for that money to go to parties and candidates rather than interest groups.  I'd rather have George Soros giving $20 million to the Democratic Party than to Moveon.org.  It seems beyond silly to me that federal election law makes it extremely difficult for parties and candidates to coordinate.  Coordination with candidates is what parties should be for!  We want our candidates to be beholden to parties. This is an institutional check on their behavior instead of devoting our energy to passing new complex rules for campaign financing.  We could avoid the hated "appearance of impropriety" by increasing disclosure requirements for contributions to parties.
3. Hold non-military spending to the rate of inflation.  I hate to say it, but this may require a kind of Balanced Budget Amendment. In general I am opposed to such things because it is an admission that we can't really govern ourselves, so we need gimmicks.  Also, putting public policy into the Constitution is generally a bad idea.  Still, there may be no other way to contain the size of government. 

This said, these proposals have about as much chance of becoming law as Texas does of beating USC tonight. (Note: I am notoriously bad at predictions, be it in politics or sports.  I really want Texas to win, so I figure if I pick USC, that increases Texas's chances).

Update: I now magically envision a Texas win by the score of...ummmmm...41-38. 

Abramoff

I talked to a friend today who worked for a consulting firm in DC a few short years ago.  My friend knows some of the people involved in the Abramoff scandal. It is her opinion that Tom Delay was at least highly imprudent in his dealings with Abramoff, if not necessarily criminally negligent.  This seems also to be the conclusion of National Review.  They suggest Delay stay out of Republican House leadership until the Abramoff cloud passes, even if Delay is exonerated on the charges he now faces in Texas, as he likely will be.  It seems as though Abramoff was starting phony charities to funnel money to those close to Delay so as to gain influence on particular pieces of legislation.  Abramoff was particularly fond of using religious conservatives as fronts for his not-so-Christian activities (see this story, for example).  My guess, and it is just a guess, is that Delay might of been egregiously stupid, but not criminal. Some people struggle with modifiers, so let me be clear that when I call Tom Delay "egregiously stupid" I am not complimenting him. 

As we see below, Republicans, suspecting that one of their leaders is going to end up looking really bad, are trying diversionary tactics.  I guess if I was a Democrat I would try to make hay out of the Delay connection, and if I was a Republican I would try to tar the Democrats with some of this dirt (is that a mixed metaphor?).  President Bush and others are donating money from Abramoff sources to charity, which seems like a wise and decent move.  I suppose others getting money should consider doing the same, but it is merely a publicity gesture.  Does anyone honestly think that Tim Johnson, who raised over $6 million for his 2002 race, was corrupted by the $7,250 he received from Abramoff sources?  I seriously doubt it.  Not anymore than John Thune was corrupted by the $2,000 he received from Abramoff out of $16 million for the 2004 race.  But if it makes us all feel better for them to return the money, then by all means engage in silly and useless public gestures. By the way, you can go here to see a list of all recipients of Abramoff money. 

PRESS RELEASE: Democrats, Daschle and Johnson need to give back Abramoff money

This just out from the South Dakota GOP:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                            CONTACT: Max Wetz

January 4, 2006

                                                                       

Democrats, Daschle and Johnson need to give back Abramoff money

PIERRE– As indicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff pleaded guilty yesterday to several charges, the South Dakota Republican Party is again calling on former Senator Tom Daschle, Senator Tim Johnson and the South Dakota Democrat Party to give back the thousands of dollars in contributions they received from Abramoff clients.

“Sen. Daschle, Sen. Johnson and the Democrat organization need to follow the lead of their counterparts in North Dakota, Montana and elsewhere in giving the funds back or donating them to charity,” said South Dakota Republican Party Chairman Randy Frederick

. “They received thousands of dollars in contributions from Abramoff clients and it is incumbent upon them to do the right thing and return the money.”

In June 2005, the Washington Post reported on the way Abramoff and his team of lobbyists would direct contributions. “According to documents and tribal officials familiar with the Abramoff team’s methods, the lobbyists devised lengthy lists of lawmakers to whom the tribes should donate and then delivered the lists to the tribes. The tribes, in turn, wrote checks to the recommended campaign committees and in the amounts the lobbyists prescribed. The money went to incumbents or selected candidates in open seats,” Post writers Jeffrey H. Birnbaum and Derek Willis reported.

In December, the South Dakota Republican Party called on Daschle, Johnson and the state Democrat Party to examine their contributions and return those from Abramoff’s clients.

Frederick is again renewing that call. “Those contributions were funneled through Jack Abramoff and it is important for propriety’s sake that they be returned or given away,” Frederick said.

According to Washington Post reports, Daschle received more than $40,000 from five tribes that were part of Abramoff's network. Johnson accepted $7,250 in 2002 from three tribes that were Abramoff clients. And the South Dakota Democrat Party lists $8,500 in donations from Abramoff clients from 2000-2004.

Here is the Washington Post story: "Democrats Also Got Tribal Donations: Abramoff Issue's Fallout May Extend Beyond the GOP." 

Remember that the South Dakota Democratic Party sent press releases recently attacking Thune on the Abramoff front.

Argus

The Argus Leader is promoting its own lawsuit against the governor on the front page today:

The Argus Leader filed a lawsuit against the state Tuesday seeking disclosure of the names of people invited to the 2005 Governor's Invitational Pheasant Hunt.

The hunt is an opportunity for Gov. Mike Rounds and other state officials to bring business leaders to South Dakota to promote economic development. Rounds has said that revealing the names of participants could harm business negotiations.

The hunt, held in October, was paid for mostly with private money. But the suit maintains that because it was organized by the Governor's Office of Economic Development, the list of invitees should be public.

They really go after Rounds, Janklow, Munson, and Thune, don't they?  When was the last time they held a Democrat accountable?

New Education Center

Gov. Rounds yesterday annouced the purchase of 263 acres of land to expand the USDSU higher education enterprise.   The American News editorializes on the governor's 2010 Education initiative. 

Suicide Of The West

I pray Mark Steyn is wrong.  I fear he is not. 

Evil Of Castro

Jeff Jacoby has numbers.  It is still shocking that important Americans lend their support to Fidel.. 

Poverty Rates: Bush 41 v. Clinton

We here at SDP have been debating concerning the recent economy.  We have presented overwhelming evidence that the economy is very strong, and is stronger in many important measures than it has been in recent decades.  In some it is stronger than ever before measured.  We have focused on overall economic growth, job creation, and productivity.  Another key indicator is the poverty rate for families.  A lot of attention has been paid to the fact that the poverty rate inched up under the current administration.  Bush's critics would argue that this administration is moving the country in a regressive direction.  But the evidence tells a very different story.  Consider the following chart from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. 

                                             Number of
                                                    poor        Poverty
 Year                                           families       rate for
                 Number of        Poverty    with female       families
                      poor       rate for          (NSP)    with female
                  families       families    householder    householder
 ______________________________________________________________________
 2004......         7,854            10.2         3,973            28.4
 2003......         7,607            10.0         3,856            28.0
 2002......         7,229             9.6         3,613            26.5
 2001......         6,813             9.2         3,470            26.4
 2000 12/..         6,400             8.7         3,278            25.4
 1999 11/..         6,792             9.3         3,559            27.8
 1998......         7,186            10.0         3,831            29.9
 1997......         7,324            10.3         3,995            31.6
 1996......         7,708            11.0         4,167            32.6
 1995......         7,532            10.8         4,057            32.4
 1994......         8,053            11.6         4,232            34.6
 1993 10/..         8,393            12.3         4,424            35.6

Now its perfectly fair to point out the rise in the poverty rate in every year of Bush's first term.  A defender might point out that there was a recession already in progress when Bush entered office, and that he had to deal with the economic effects of 9/11 as well as the bursting of the hi-tech bubble.  But this in no way absolves the President of responsibility.  Presidents are always responsible for the state of the nation on their watch.   

But its just as fair to point out that the poverty rate was higher under the first five years of President Clinton than it was at any point in the Bush 41 presidency.  Now its fairly obvious that these results are tied to the business cycle.  Bill Clinton had the good luck to enter office just as a recovery got under way, and leave just before the next recession hit.  I have argued previously that Clinton's stewardship of the economy was pretty good. 

What you can't argue is that the poverty rate under Bush so far has been worse than that under Clinton as a whole.  Both are clearly within the same general margins.  Much the same is true of families with children. 

Poverty Status Status of Families, by Type of Family, Presence
              of Related Children, Race, and Hispanic Origin: 1959 to 2004
  (Numbers in thousands.  Families as of March of the following year.)
  ____________________________________________________________________________
                          All families              Married-couple families
                  _____________________________  _____________________________
                            Below poverty level            Below poverty level
     Year and               ___________________            ___________________
  characteristic   Total      Number  Percent       Total    Number   Percent
  ____________________________________________________________________________
  ALL RACES -- Continued
  With Children Under 18 Years
  2004......       39,710     5,847       14.7    27,412     1,915        7.0
  2003......       39,029     5,772       14.8    26,959     1,885        7.0
  2002......       38,846     5,397       13.9    27,052     1,831        6.8
  2001......       38,427     5,138       13.4    26,931     1,643        6.1
  2000 12/..       38,190     4,866       12.7    27,121     1,615        6.0
  1999 11/..       37,688     5,210       13.8    26,694     1,711        6.4
  1998......       37,268     5,628       15.1    26,226     1,822        6.9
  1997......       37,427     5,884       15.7    26,430     1,863        7.1
  1996......       37,204     6,131       16.5    26,184     1,964        7.5
  1995......       36,719     5,976       16.3    26,034     1,961        7.5
  1994......       36,782     6,408       17.4    26,367     2,197        8.3
  1993 10/..       36,456     6,751       18.5    26,121     2,363        9.0

Again we see a rise in the poverty rate under Bush as the recession occurs, and again that it is lower than under most of Clinton's presidency. 

Numbers are not yet posted for 2005.  Poverty rates are a lagging indicator of economic fortune.  Given the strong growth and job creation, the rates will begin creeping down over the next several years. I predict that the average poverty rate for families with children under George W. Bush's presidency will be lower than under the two terms of William Jefferson Clinton.  Maybe Bush is the enemy of the poor and the working class, but with enemies like this, who needs friends? 

Blog Housekeeping and Contest Alert

We've made a few small changes and updates to the blog.  First off, we've updated our About page.  Secondly, we've eliminated and updated links in the Blogroll and the DBA, so check those out.  If something isn't working correctly, or you have any suggestions for improving the blog, drop us an email.  Last, we've added the "SDP Library," which will be constantly updated with our recent readings or our favorite books.  You can find that below our "Links of Interest."

CONTEST ALERT
We at SDP love involving our readers in things.  Here is a chance for the graphic designers out there to contribute.  We are looking to update our header logo, and are imploring readers to submit designs for consideration.  The logo must be at least 900 pixels wide for it to fit across the web page correctly, but everything else is open to design as long as it deals with South Dakota.  Go ahead and attach your designs in an email.  We look forward to your submissions!

FOOTNOTE:  I will be leaving for Denver tomorrow, so posting will be light to nonexistant from me for the next week or so.

SMOKING GUN: HILDEBRAND ORCHESTRATING ANTI-THUNE/ROUNDS CAMPAIGN

The permanent campaign continues.  Take note of how the College Democrats explain how the faux letter-to-the-editor operation comes "from Hildebrand's firm."  This is a great look at Hildebrand's effort to orchestrate attacks on Thune and Governor Rounds.  I also enjoyed the use of the phrase "pre-drafted letters."  And this statement: "All we need is a person to sign these letters."  A real grassroots uprising here!

From the SD College Dems website [note that the links are no longer available]:

10.26.05

2. THE LETTER TO THE EDITOR campaign seems to have succeeded quite well. I say this because those tracking the letters are again tapping our organization to send out more letters on different topics. We are receiving letters from the SD Democratic Party and from Hildebrand's firm. Nathan Peterson has suggested a series of letters, on a different topic each week. You will find attached to this e-mail three different e-mails on HR 609, each with a letter to the editor. All we need is a person to sign these letters. I was wondering if you, Chelsea, wouldn't mind taking the first letter. And David, if you'd be willing to take the second, I'd appreciate it. Finally, if you, Matthew, would be willing to take the third, we here at SDSU have drafted our own letter. Kelly, down at USD, is going to be hosting a letter to the editor writing event at their next meeting, where a number of different issues will be written upon. Also, I have attached a sizeable amount of talking points relating to a letter to the editor that the SDDP wants written regarding Gov. Rounds' non-response to State Senator Ben Nesselhuf's entreaty to disclose to the public information regarding the "Governor's Club," a slush fund at the center of the Governor's jet-setting controversy. If each chapter would be willing to take a look at this and write up a letter, we would be doing the state party a huge service. Please reply back to me about any actions taken by your chapters on this--I would really like to know.

11.02.05

2. LETTERS TO THE EDITOR. Great work on this, folks. Like I stated last week, we continue to receive excellent feedback on the amount of coverage we are providing these important issues with our letters. I have attached three new letters regarding Sen. JOHN THUNE and his "obstructionism" in the Senate--a direct counter to the horribly misleading campaign led by Thune and his slime-master Wadhams against Daschle last year. It is about time we get folks galvanized against South Dakota's "other" senator. Kelly, you can take the first letter if you like; and Liz and Matthew, you can take the second. SDSU will take the third. Feel free to change them as much as you like. Nathan Peterson sent me two more letters on Governor Rounds. Kristina, if you and the folks at DWU would like to take the Rounds letter I have listed, feel free to do so. Also, I have attached a listing of all the e-mails to the newspapers for their letters to the editor. If anyone else would like to get a few more pre-drafted letters please e-mail me. Again, feel free to use that listing of newspaper e-mails I sent you as a resource. Also, if you want to stagger out these letters to the editor, feel free. I know we are blitzing the papers with this stuff, so if you want to wait until next week to get this in to the papers, also feel free to do so.

11.09.05

LETTER TO THE EDITOR CAMPAIGN. The South Dakota Democratic Party is again asking us to step up as an organization and continue with the letter writing campaign against John Thune's recent votes and Gov. Rounds' wanton abuse of the state taxpayer in his private travels throughout the country. I have attached to this e-mail the talking points given by the SDDP, along with developing information I've gleaned off the Internet--including the federal investigation now ongoing into this matter. Also, I have attached a prototype letter on Thune which should give you a good template (though I ask that you make your own creative additions to it, as a verbatim copy of mine will be rejected by most papers as being a "copied" letter). Please check out the Thune letter, and the ideas I have posted underneath. I'm especially proud of that one. Next week, I should be able to give you a copy of a letter template on the Rounds issue.

It should also be noted that the anti-GOP bloggers are all Hildebrand employees.  Also, last fall Argus Leader editor Randell Beck said after someone was exposed orchestrating fake letters to the editor that he "shouldn't bother submitting another letter."  Will Beck apply the same standard to the Hildebrand organization?

UPDATE:  The College Democrats respond.

UPDATE II:  Speaking of the College Democrats, they were featured in Calvitto's column in the Rapid City Journal today.

UPDATE III:  Since the links were removed, here are the screenshots of the Google cache of their website (click to enlarge):

 

Its the Stupid Economy!

We here at SDP (otherwise known as the neo-regressive propaganda machine) have been celebrating the extraorinarily good economic news of late.  Our critics on the honorable opposition keep trying to find a cloud around the silver lining, but that is a challenge they have not yet risen to.  When I noted the growth in business investment, our friends at CCK complained that real wages are falling.  I replied that, in fact, they are now rising and are higher than ever before.  When I pointed out the unprecedented growth in productivity, a blog that prefers to remain anonymous complained about the number of jobs being replaced by low paying service jobs.  Well, here is a chart from the Treasury Department.

Of the roughly four million jobs described above, a million more pay above average compesation than below average.  This looks like an almost ideal job record.  Enough starter jobs are created to absorb young and unskilled workers, but most of the jobs are well paying.  There, now we have told you about that part of the economic record.

Frozen in its tracks.

From Jeff Meyer, who wrote us eariler about the blizzard. Says Jeff: "This was taken outside the Cargill facility in Wahpeton, ND.  Gotta love North Dakota weather!"

 

Alito

David Kirkpatrick has an article in today's New York Times entitled "Advocacy Groups Prepare New Ad Campaigns on Alito."  Excerpt:

The advertising campaigns on both sides are the most visible components of a last-minute push by advocacy groups anticipating a potentially close Senate vote. With the hearings set to begin next Monday, both sides are seeking to open new fronts in their lobbying battle. The liberals are adding new issues to commercials about Judge Alito's judicial record that began months ago, while the conservatives are reaching out to groups usually found in the Democratic ranks.

I noted some time ago that Steve Hildebrand, former campaign manager for Tom Daschle in 2004 and Tim Johnson in 2002, is working with other Democrats to defeat Judge Alito's nomination:

Jenny Backus, a former communications director for the Democratic National Committee and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and Jim Jordan, former executive director of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, are advising the coalition. Steve Hildebrand of Hildebrand and Tewes and several of his staff also are working to defeat the nomination.

Since Hildebrand was Tim Johnson's campaign manager in 2002, this may tell us something about how Johnson will vote.  Perhaps more importantly, the question should be whether or not Johnson will filibuster Alito's nomination.  Doing so could place him in the same position as Daschle.

More Inconvenient Macro-Economic Numbers

Michael Barone is main editor of the "bible of American politics," the Almanac of American Politics.  He also writes for US News and World Report.  Today he discusses the overwhelmingly good economic numbers from the last two years. 

The American economy continues to surge ahead, though you won't read much aboutit in the mainstream media. Economic growth in the third quarter was 4.1 percent -- despite Hurricane Katrina! -- the 10th consecutive quarter with growth over 3 percent. Unemployment is 5.0 percent-- lower than the average for the 1970s, 1980s or 1990s.

Since April 2003, the economy has created a net 5.1 million new jobs. Core inflation is only 2.1 percent, and gas prices, which surged above $3 a gallon after Katrina, are now down around $2. Productivity growth for the five-year period of 2000-2005 is 3.4 percent, the highest of any five-year period in 50 years.

And what company is at the heart of this economic good news: Wal-Mart.  Wal-Mart is efficient and provides products people want for a good price.  I continue to say that the argument against Wal-Mart is not economic but aesthetic.  Wal-Mart does essentially the same thing as Target, Shopko, KMart, etc.  So why the vituperative denunciations of Wal-Mart?  I suggest two reasons.  One, Wal-Mart is simply more successful, and some people just can't stand success.  It's the same reason we often hate the sports team that wins all the time, for instance the New York Yankees.  The second reason is that Wal-Mart is simply seen as "low class."  It is consumerism for working stiffs, which seems to be damnable, unlike the consumerism of rich liberals.  Some people are willing to pay more to buy at more "authentic" stores.  But this itself is thinly veiled consumerism, as discussed yesterday by Jonah Goldberg, as NROs "Corner" argues Rod Dreher's "crunchy conservative" thesis. Goldberg says:

I shop at Whole Foods all the time -- because they have better produce and the like than the local Safeway. But let us have no illusions: Whole Foods is the epitome of consumer trendiness not the antithesis. It appeals to the vanity and faddishness of rich babyboomers and bobos. A six dollar bar of soap is in no way a rejection of crass consumer culture, it is the full flower of it.

This, by the way, is essentially the argument of Nation of Rebels: Why Counterculture Became Consumer Culture and David Brooks's Bobos in Paradise. There is a yearning for distinction that corporations market to.  Thus the market niche for "alternative" items, be it music, food, clothes, etc.  I am better than you because I buy the "elite" brand of soap, not just crummy old Irish Spring (my preferred brand, by the way).  I suspect the problem many on the left and right have with Wal-Mart is that it is just too damned common. 

The Unbearable Whiteness of Kong's Girlfriend

Mr. Heppler directs our attention below to the question of whether King Kong 2005 is racist.  I mentioned this topic in my original post on the movie.  I take the liberty of quoting myself:

There are some political angles worth mentioning.  Some have said that the new Kong has racist overtones.  That was certainly true of Willis O'Brien's original masterpiece.  The 1930's Kong, in closeup shots of his face, looks like he fell out of the Jazz Singer.  But I think the current Kong is largely innocent of the charges.  The villagers on Skull Island are dark enough, but they don't look African.  In fact, they look they escaped from Saruman's army in the second Lord of the Rings movie.

It is quite true that the contrast between Kong, as ever the tallest, darkest, leading man in Hollywood, and the optically reflective Ann, communicates some of the racial angst of the original movie.  Jackson could only have expunged that by casting Halle Berry as Ann.  But casting anyone other than a pale blond would have done too much damage to the original template.  And besides, Kong is much more a character, and a much more sympathetic figure, in the new version.  Racism is always undermined when we begin to see the other as human, having passions that we can sympathize with.  Jackson certainly humanizes Kong. 

Moreover, Jackson lampoons racism by depicting the black dancers that entertain the audience just before Kong is revealed.  Whatever is wrong with King Kong 2005, it isn't racism.

The Unbearable Lightness of Parenting

The Edge has long been one of my favorite websites.  It consists mostly of interviews with and essays by some of our most articulate scientists.  Every year the Edge invites a large number of the latter to answer some broad philosophical/scientific question.  This year the question was:

WHAT IS YOUR DANGEROUS IDEA?

The history of science is replete with discoveries that were considered socially, morally, or emotionally dangerous in their time; the Copernican and Darwinian revolutions are the most obvious. What is your dangerous idea? An idea you think about (not necessarily one you originated) that is dangerous not because it is assumed to be false, but because it might be true?

Now I happen to think that the very idea of philosophy falls into that category.  But each respondent has his or her own special candidate.  I haven't had time yet to do more than dip into the results, but one stuck out.  Judith Rich Harris, author of The Nurture Assumption, offers this dangerous idea:

Is it dangerous to claim that parents have no power at all (other than genetic) to shape their child's personality, intelligence, or the way he or she behaves outside the family home? More to the point, is this claim false? Was I wrong when I proposed that parents' power to do these things by environmental means is zero, nada, zilch?

Harris claims, against universal common sense, that the way that parents raise their children has virtually no effect on their children's character and behavior outside the home.  This is indeed an astonishing and offensive proposition.  After all, I read to my children nearly every day during a long, formative period in their lives.  Both of them now love books, though one does more so than the other.  And virtually all of us can think of examples where a child seems to have been spoiled rotten or otherwise permanently damaged by the wrong kind of parenting.  But of course anecdotes tell us nothing.  What we need is evidence of a strong correlation between the style of parenting and the character of children.  We need to show that, all things being equal, children in general are more likely to love reading if their parents read to them.  And so on with other desirable characteristics.  Does such evidence exist?  Well, no.

A confession: When I first made this proposal ten years ago,  I didn't fully believe it myself. I took an extreme position, the null hypothesis of zero parental influence, for the sake of scientific clarity. Making myself an easy target, I invited the establishment — research psychologists in the academic world —  to shoot me down. I didn't think it would be all that difficult for them to do so. It was clear by then that there weren't any big effects of parenting, but I thought there must be modest effects that I would ultimately have to acknowledge.

The establishment's failure to shoot me down has been nothing short of astonishing. One developmental psychologist even admitted, one year ago on this very website, that researchers hadn't yet found proof that "parents do shape their children," but she was still convinced that they will eventually find  it, if they just keep searching long enough.

In short, psychologists and sociologists are very sure that parenting style must have a strong influence on the way children develop, but they have not been able to produce any evidence for this belief.  From what I know about the controversy, it does matter who your parents were.  But a large part of this is certainly genetic.  It also matters what kind of community a child is raised in, and that has a lot to do with who the child's parents were. 

This strikes me as a twenty-four karat dangerous idea.  But it is one we may have to come to terms with.  Science is all about dangerous ideas.  This confirms my view that philosophy, the mother of every science, is the most dangerous idea of all.  The Athenians may have been on to something when they dispatched Socrates by means of lethal ingestion.  That doesn't mean I'm about to give philosophy up.  It just means I, like all of us modern persons, have to get used to the idea of living dangerously.

Journalism Ethics

TigerHawk:  The ethics of journalism: A proposal for reform