ICT

Indian Country Today:  South Dakota's Republican senator discusses issues

The Argus Monopoly

A reader responds to my previous post on the Argus monopoly and provides some more information:

I read your post about the Argus Leaders attempt to undermine competitive
publications in the Sioux Falls area.   I would like to also may  notice that
the Argus owns most of the small town weeklys around the city  also.  They went
on a buying spree a couple years ago and bought-out  all the news in the Sioux
Falls area.

Gannett owns these weeklys

Tea Harrisburg Champion
Baltic Beacon
Brandon Valley Challenger
Dell Rapids Tribune
Garretson Weekly

This Southeastern part of the wonderful state of South Dakota is a virtual
hostage of this Gannett/Argus monstrosity.

SDWC also notes the KSFY the story.

Rounds v. Johnson in 2008?

Roll Call:

Johnson Blasts Abortion Ban

March 8, 2006, Roll Call

By John Stanton,
Roll Call Staff

Sen. Tim Johnson (D-S.D.) called a near-total abortion ban in his home state “extreme and radical” Tuesday, clearly signaling that he will put up a fight to protect his seat in two years.
Johnson — a moderate who kept his red-state seat by a mere 524 votes against then-Rep. John Thune (R) in 2002 — is expected to face GOP Gov. Mike Rounds, who is up for a second term in 2006 but is considered a strong potential challenger to Johnson two years later.

Rounds gained national attention this week when he signed the abortion bill, which its sponsors intend as a vehicle that could be used to overturn the Supreme Court’s landmark Roe v. Wade ruling that required all states to allow abortions.

The new South Dakota law bans abortions in the state, including in cases of rape or incest, allowing them only to save the life of the mother — a position that even some abortion opponents worry could stall the incremental progress the movement has made with moderate voters in recent years.

Johnson, in a statement released Tuesday by his office, made clear his opposition to an anti-abortion law that goes as far as the one signed by Rounds.

In language nearly identical to that used by former Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) in 1994 to paint Democrats as out of touch with America, Johnson denounced the law as an “extreme and radical approach” that would “deny individual women, even under the most extreme circumstances, their current right to prayerfully determine for themselves whether to have an abortion.”

Johnson’s clear and firm opposition appeared to take Republicans off guard. Earlier Tuesday, a GOP lobbyist in the state had predicted that the delegation would sit out the fight.

“Our Congressional delegation will sit this one out. No winners or good ink here,” one GOP lobbyist in the state had predicted.

Democrats agreed that Rounds had overreached and that his action could breathe life back into a state party apparatus crushed by lingering bitterness over the defeat of former Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D) in 2004.

“Yesterday, there wasn’t a viable challenger to Rounds. Today, I’m not so sure,” one Democrat noted.

Todd Epp, a Sioux Falls activist who has worked for Democrats in recent elections, added that “just a week ago it looked like Rounds would cake walk back to the governorship. Now, I believe Democrats and moderate, pro-choice Republicans will rally behind whomever finally runs against Rounds as a Democrat.”

Although aides to Johnson officially said his statement was merely a response to the new law and was in no way aimed at Rounds, Democrats involved in South Dakota politics acknowledged that Johnson was taking a not-so-subtle shot at the man he is expected to face in 2008.

“They made a strategic mistake and Tim seized on it,” one Democratic operative said, adding that Johnson can be expected to mount a vigorous defense of his seat.

“Is Tim going to be ideologically pure? No. But that doesn’t mean he isn’t going to fight” for his seat and his beliefs, the operative added.

Although Johnson is known more for his mild manner and moderate political positions, he also has displayed a strong populist streak. Johnson has also run afoul of his party’s vocal liberal base on a number of issues, including his support for Chief Justice John Roberts last year.

But after becoming the delegation’s senior member following the 2004 defeat of his old friend Daschle, Johnson has been forced into the spotlight more than ever before and, to the surprise of some, has been a reliable backer of Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) in a Senate increasingly polarized by party and ideology.

For instance, Johnson regularly participated in Caucus events and press conferences during last year’s successful fight against President Bush’s plan to overhaul Social Security, even making impassioned attacks on the administration’s plan on several occasions.

Johnson, whose son has served in Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq with the Army, has also taken the White House to task for its handling of the war in Iraq.

With Thune expected to be in charge of the National Republican Senatorial Committee operation in 2008, and with an open-seat presidential contest on tap, Johnson’s re-election campaign has already drawn interest from Democratic loyalists concerned about losing the seat.

But with women’s groups planning a legal challenge that could culminate in a Supreme Court decision amid the Congressional and presidential election season, Johnson could find himself at the epicenter of a bruising cultural and political war in a state with solidly conservative impulses on many national issues.

Feingold and Hildebrand/Tewes

Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post "The Fix":

Posted at 04:24 PM ET, 03/8/2006

Feingold Makes an Iowa Move

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.) has recruited veteran party operative Paul Tewes to help him begin the long process of courting Iowa voters.

Tewes, who served as the political director at the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee during the 2004 cycle, is on a trip to the Hawkeye state right now as he seeks to develop a plan for Feingold to help candidates in the upcoming 2006 election. He is working on a volunteer basis for Feingold, according to an informed Democrat.

Feingold is beloved by many on the party's ideological left for his lonely opposition to the Patriot Act and his 2002 vote against the Iraq war. He is hoping to tap into the fundraising and organizational energy that former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean used to catapult himself from obscurity to the top of the 2004 presidential field.

Tewes is an experienced Democratic strategist with ties to Iowa -- he ran Al Gore's field operations in the state during the 2000 presidential caucus. He also has close connections to Feingold, having run the 1998 Wisconsin coordinated campaign when the senator narrowly won reelection over then-Rep. Mark Neumann (R).

Tewes is currently a partner in Hildebrand Tewes -- a Democratic consulting firm. Partner Steve Hildebrand is helping usher former Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (S.D.) around the country as the senator weighs a national race of his own in 2008.

Hildebrand: Rounds is a "chicken governor"

Mount Blogmore:

Chicken governor?

Filed under: Mount Blogmore— Mount Blogmores @ 8:22 pm

By Denise Ross

Steve Hildebrand, political operative and longtime top aide to Tom Daschle, sent this e-mail — with the subject line “Chicken Governor” — Monday afternoon to Mark Johnston, press secretary to Gov. Mike Rounds:

It’s really sad that Governor Rounds went into a dark closet to sign the abortion ban. Does he really think the voters of South Dakota won’t know about it? What’s he afraid of? And now he’s refusing to do interviews about the signing of the abortion ban? If this is such a great think for the people of South Dakota – WHAT’S HE HIDING FROM???

FYI: I’ve Bcc’d South Dakota and National reporters on this.

Steve Hildebrand

Common Sense South Dakota

www.commonsensesd.org


(Common Sense South Dakota is yet another of Hilde’s groups, this one formed specifically to combat HB1215.)

Hilde is correct that Rounds made a crystal clear statement this morning that he would not grant media requests for interviews. That was likely a pragmatic decision, given the time-consuming nature of such interviews. However, it’s not terribly politically astute.

I don’t think it’s fair to say Rounds went into a dark closet to sign HB1215. He allowed still photos to be taken and issued a written statement and issued a press release with the subject line “Gov. Rounds signs HB1215.” (They could have easily tucked the news into one of the stream of press releases they issue this time of year with the subject line “Gov. Rounds signs bills into law” and kept the cameras away.) At the same time, he could have announced it ahead of time and let the cameras in. With that thought comes the thoughts of the potential for mayhem there.

Common Sense SD has other political ramifications, from revisiting the abortion issue in Daschle’s 2004 election loss to the possibility that a Democratic Rounds challenger waits in the wings.

Permanent Campaign

I'm back from Big Bend.  It was nice to get away for a while but feels good to be blogging again.  You an expect a photo blogging opportunity of Big Bend tomorrow when I arrive back at school.  Anyways, forgive me for the dating on some of these news items above.  See this from the South Dakota GOP, who is responding to Daschle's 'permanent campaign':

Press Release, 3-3-06

South Dakotans reject ‘permanent campaign’

Dems need to tell Daschle to quit his endless attacks

PIERRE – The Boston Globe reported this week that former Senator Tom Daschle is planning to “strike back” at Republicans by waging a “permanent campaign” against his former GOP colleagues.

Daschle wants to institutionalize his bitter and negative attacks through a new “527” organization, according to the Globe, and the South Dakota Republican Party is calling for an end to these wasteful and detestable plans.

“Daschle and his attack dogs have been refining their ‘permanent campaign’ ever since his defeat in 2004,” said South Dakota Republican Party Chairman Randy Frederick. “These constant attacks go against everything we South Dakotans believe in and I am calling on Rep. Herseth to reject this angry and hateful new tactic. Herseth has been trying to sell herself as a Blue Dog Democrat since going to Congress. It is time she delivers some proof.”

Daschle has been raising money to continue his constant campaign against Republicans, according to the Globe. Daschle’s new group hopes to raise millions of dollars and has been given a start from liberal labor unions and trial lawyers.

“This brand of politics isn’t what South Dakotans expect or deserve,” said Frederick . “Stephanie Herseth owes the citizens of this state better than that.”

Daschle continues to fund his long-time political operative, Steve Hildebrand who constantly attack the GOP in general and Sen. John Thune in particular.

“Daschle is becoming known as the sorest loser in American politics,” said Frederick . “Daschle should end his permanent campaign and try to do something productive. The recent attack by Sen. Mark Dayton on South Dakota and Sen. Thune appears to be more sour-grapes politics and the beginning of the permanent campaign.”

Daschle’s new “permanent campaign” organization is headed by Jim Jordan, who has been active in South Dakota politics in the past and is a well-known Daschle operative.  “Jim Jordan is remembered in South Dakota for one of the nastiest campaigns in the state’s history.  It’s too bad that Tom Daschle is providing more money to Jordan to satisfy his need for revenge,” Frederick said. “I don’t know how long it will take, but some day Daschle will realize the campaign is over. He needs to get over it and stop providing a bad example of politics for our young people.”

Good News on Deadwood

Contract talks on a fourth season of HBO's wonderful show are nearing completion.  The third season is in the can, and I believe they intend to run it this summer.  Meanwhile some of us are just waiting for the second season to come out on DVD. 

See a very interesting interview with Gerald McRaney, who portrayed George Hurst in season two. 

The experience has also left McRaney a bit spoiled.

"I have to tell you," he says, "pilot scripts got submitted to me this season, and I haven't been able to bring myself to accept anything, because the writing, I'm sorry, it doesn't measure up. It's not there. To be able to do 'Deadwood,' it's almost like doing today's version of Shakespeare."

Argus and Abortion

What does the Argus Leader do when confronted with the biggest story of the legislative session?  Punt. 

Although the biggest abortion rights story in 33 years is taking place in its own backyard, South Dakota's largest newspaper will not editorialize on the controversial statewide abortion ban just recently approved by its legislature.
 
"Part of it was that we wouldn't change people's minds, and part of it, regardless of which side we came down on this, is that people would read into it things that are not true," Chuck Baldwin, editorial page editor of the Argus Leader in Sioux Falls, S.D., told E&P. "People would think our coverage is tainted, and not just on abortion but on everything."
 
When asked if such a view could preclude editorials on virtually any controversial issue, Baldwin disagreed. "Abortion is different from other issues," he replied. "It is a hot-button issue at the core of everyone's soul. It will not change no matter what."

Must See Film

If you have yet to see Walk the Line, I urge you to do so.  I caught the film on the big screen earlier this week when I was out in Boise.  I went out the next day and bought the DVD.  And not just the movie.  I paid extra for the "deluxe" edition.  Mind you, I hate DVD extras.  Just give me the movie and I'll take care of the rest.  I don't need the director to give away all the movie magic secrets, and I certainly don't want to be told what the movie "means."  But I liked Walk the Line so much that I want to know more.  Great film.  Even if you don't like Johnny Cash's music you'll love this story of redemption. But the music is superb too.

Statecraft is Soulcraft.

Joe Knippenberg on one small example of what happens when we stop caring about shaping character. 

The Intolerance of Tolerance

The left is often proud to pat itself on the back because it cares ever so much more than those nasty buggers on the right.  The left is made up of the tolerant ones.  The problem with this picture is that they get the definition of tolerance wrong, and even on it's own terms the left is not that tolerant.  First, the definition.  Tolerance means to put up with something bad, such as this morning many South Dakotans are putting up with cold and snow.  We tolerate bad weather or noisy children or symptoms of a cold.  What the left wants us to do when it calls for us to be more tolerant is to give up on judgment and except things as positive goods.  For example, the left does not want us to tolerate homosexuality.  They want us to accept it as equal to heterosexuality, therefore as a good thing.  Thus the argument for same-sex marriage. 

But even on its own terms the left is less than tolerant.  Hiding behind the guise of neutrality, the left seeks to use the laws to reshape society in its own image, thus no non-left institutions need apply.  I am not suggesting that no one else tries to do this, but the left is disingenuous in that it claims to be neutral and simply in favor of "choice."  Then why can't Wal-Mart choose not to stock the "morning after" pill?  Now two states (Massachusetts and Illinois) have passed laws forcing pharmacists to sell this pill to which many have moral objections.  And why do churches have to be forced to grant children to homosexual couples who want to adopt, in violation of the church's faith?  And when a Catholic university attempts to actually live by its faith, why do the leftist professors raise such a stink?  Why does the left work so hard to include its agenda in public school curriculum and then work doubly harder to make sure parents cannot opt out of the public school regime?  The left is not interested in deviations from left-wing orthodoxy.  You will be forced to be free.  Modern liberalism claims it is not promoting some concept of "the good."  Well, not only is radical cultural  individualism a concept of the good, but the left is willing to use the force of the law to attack those institutions that are insufficiently liberal.  Again, the left is not unique in this feature, but it does give lie to the idea that the left is tolerant and interested in diversity.  Left-wing tolerance cannot tolerate anything that is not left-wing.

More Bad News on the Economy

From the Bureau of Labor Statistics:

Nonfarm payroll employment grew by 243,000 in February, and the unemploy-
ment rate was little changed at 4.8 percent, the Bureau of Labor Statistics
of the U.S. Department of Labor reported today.  Job gains occurred in con-
struction, financial activities, health care, and several other industries.

Dubious, Dubya, and Dubai

Well, if Americans have learned nothing from the port-ownership flap, at least they know that there is a place called Dubai.  Most of us, I imagine, still have no clear idea where it is.  So here's a map.

If you watch Fox channel, you will know that the UAE has been our stanchest ally in the Middle East.  The same company that would have taken over a number of towers at America's ports are regularly servicing our warships in the Gulf.  No bad thing has ever resulted from this.  David Ignatius, at the WaPo, brings back this report.

The ports deal was part of the UAE's embrace of things Western. Wednesday night, I traveled with the minister of higher education, Sheik Nahayan bin Mubarak, to the dusty city of Al Ain to attend a Mozart festival at which the Vienna Chamber Orchestra performed. And I visited the American University of Sharjah, created nine years ago as a beacon of liberal arts education. On a wall next to the chancellor's office is a photo of the twin towers in New York, taken by one of the students on June 8, 2001. "There are no words strong enough to express how we feel today," reads a statement signed by UAE students.

It's hard to imagine an Arab more pro-American than Sulayem. He earned a degree in economics from Temple University in 1981, and he's still a fanatic about Philadelphia cheese steaks. He described a pilgrimage last New Year's Eve from New York to Pat's King of Steaks in South Philly, only to find the place closed. Before the deal collapsed, Sulayem had a free-trader's conviction that good business judgment would prevail over political rhetoric. "We are businessmen -- we don't understand politics -- but it is a surprise to us. We have been cooperating with the U.S. We are their best friends."

Well, if you want a friend in Washington, they say, buy a dog.  Certainly you can't rely on Congress in an election year, which is to say, in every other year.  The Democrat's conniving embrace of racial profiling in foreign policy, and the Republican's craven collapse lets progressive Muslim nations know how much our friendship may be relied on.  Sorry, Sulayem, but you fit the profile.

David Broder, liberal in good standing, has this from the Houston Chronicle:

Democrats were understandably gleeful at the spectacle of the Republicans fighting among themselves — especially over what purports to be a national security issue. Partisan Democrats such as Sen. Charles Schumer of New York, the head of his party's Senate campaign committee, jumped on the ports issue quickly — hardly expecting that the Republicans would be grabbing for space aboard the bandwagon.

Now the Democrats are broadening the argument, claiming that the Dubai deal is another example of the White House being unaware of, or incapable of anticipating, serious problems — whether they involve the insurgency in Iraq or the levees in New Orleans.

But before the Democrats get too gleeful, they ought to ponder the nativist sentiment that was also fueling this populist rebellion. Some portion of the antagonism stemmed directly from the fact that this is an Arab-based company.

Another Post poll this week reported that more than two out of five of those surveyed said they had recently heard negative comments about Arabs. Attitudes toward Muslims, the survey said, are even more negative now than immediately after the 9/11 attacks.

The same nativist spirit poisons the current debate about immigration. Talking to public officials recently from states such as Minnesota and Illinois — far from the southern border — I heard blunt expressions of the negative public reaction to the changing demographics of rural and suburban communities that have received many new immigrants.

Liberals like Schumer ought to reflect that they are playing with fire when they help stoke this fever.

The SD Abortion Ban as Political Strategy

Professor Schaff blogs below on the political implications of South Dakota's abortion ban.  He agrees with the National Review that the legislation is useless, since it will almost inevitably be struck down.  A stronger argument would be that it makes pro-lifers look like extremists, and thus damages the pro-life cause generally.  That is certainly the line that our regional left blogosphere is pushing. 

This critique of House 1215 must be reasonable, since I made it myself on radio this morning.  But having a few hours to reflect, I am not so sure.  You win in American politics not by capturing the moral high ground, but by seizing the middle.  Under the current regime, one of abortion on demand at any stage of pregnancy, almost any restriction on abortion looks like the far right.  This is the situation the pro-life movement has labored under for a long time.  The result is that America has a higher rate of abortion than any Western European nation, whose abortion laws are generally more restrictive than ours. 

Does America have too many abortions?  The pro-choice side doesn't think so.  William Saletan of Slate has this report: 

Friday morning, leaders of pro-choice and feminist groups gathered at the Center for American Progress to debate the movement's future. One of the panelists reported that the latest annual tally of abortions in this country was 1.295 million. The most recent comparative numbers, detailed in an article I brought to the meeting, indicated that our abortion rate exceeds that of every Western European nation. "Raise your hand if you think that number is too high," the conference moderator told the 50 people in the room.  I saw one hand go up. The woman next to me said she saw another. The two hand-raisers used to work for pro-choice groups but no longer do.

I'm guessing this view does not have majority support.  Here's the utility of House 1215: it posits a legitimate pro-life extreme.  An absolute ban on all abortions not necessary to save the life of the pregnant woman, that's now the right wing extreme.  That means that a piece of legislation that banned all such abortions in the third trimester could be presented as a moderate compromise.  If you are strongly pro-life, that wouldn't seem very satisfying.  But it would represent significant progress.  And it would focus public attention on the key question: when does a developing human being become a constitutional person, with all the rights available to folks who wear clothes? 

I think the South Dakota Abortion ban may well be strategic victory, even if it is struck down. 

Blanchard on KHND Radio II

I was interviewed this morning on "Get It Off Your Chest," on KHND radio out of Harvey, North Dakota.  They graciously plugged this blog, so I want to return the favor.  They run a snappy and interesting radio show.  You can find it at 1470 on the dial.  If you call in, and you should, tell 'em SDP sent you. 

For the record, I was using a performance enhancing drug, caffeine. 

A concurring opinion on the Hall of Fame

Professor Schaff and I are both baseball fans and Twins fans, which in recent years has not always been a contradiction.  The difference between us is that he pretty much always knows what he is talking about, and I usually don't.  But that never stopped me before, so as to excluding Bonds, McGwire, and Sosa from the Hall of Fame, I concur in the judgment.  If, as seems certain, they violated the rules of baseball by using banned drugs, that probably ought to negate their records.  Rules is rules, and precisely defining and enforcing the rules is the most important part of the integrity of any sport.

But there is some foggy thinking going on about performance enhancing drugs.  Many of these drugs are banned because they have dangerous side effects.  But training and playing major league sports without drugs has plenty of dangerous side effects.  Lots of football players will be in pain for the rest of their lives.  Still, this is a valid reason to ban a substance from use.

There is, however, a more questionable premise underlying much of the debate: that using performance enhancing drugs is somehow cheating.  We can't compare the records of these substance abusers with previous players because it was the drugs walking the walk instead of natural ability.  The trouble with that argument is that there is no such thing as natural ability in the case of baseball or any other sport.  Baseball is an altogether artificial activity.  Training of any kind aims precisely to alter nature in order to produce more runs, better fielding, ect.  So do weight-lifting (ask Carlton Fisk), scientific diets, and vitamins.  Such things as these, along with better equipment and other changes, help explain why records continue to be broken. 

Suppose we discover that eating a lot of unpasteurized cheese helps batters pick up the ball quicker, and produces a pronounced improvement in hitting.  Apart from the fact that this would benefit the French, would there be any reason to ban les fromages europeen from the diet of players, or think that the records of cheese-eating short stops do not bear comparison with earlier baseball gods?  Now suppose that some enterprising American scientist (who was probably born in Bombay), isolates the compound responsible.  Lets call it cheesewhizfactorone.  If eating cheese to get cwf1 is okay, what's wrong with taking caplets of cwf1 with orange juice?  That is, in fact, how performance enhancing pharmacy works.  Its just so much processed cheese. 

Of course, pharmacy might genuinely diminish a sport.  If batting averages came to reflect the drug cocktails each player was using more than any natural difference between them, baseball could get boring very quickly.  But that is the kind of problem that is faced in many sports.  Superior equipment allows modern mountain climbers to quickly move up faces that would once have defeated the most brilliant of climbers.  Climbing deals with this by applying the best equipment to new and hitherto impossible challenges, and by introducing styles of climbing that restrict the use of various methods, such as free climbing (which, by the way, is nuts). 

From the ancient Greek gymnasium, to modern steroids, the science of gymnastics has steadily incorporated performance enhancing technologies.  This is overwhelmingly a good thing for sports fans, as we get to watch people climb what could not be climbed before.  To regulated biotechnology in baseball, we need more and better principles than "drugs, bad." 

Hepped Up On Goofballs

In light of new allegations of steroid use by Barry Bonds, ESPN asks an interesting question: Which players from the "steroids era" do you think deserve entry into Cooperstown?   If  the Hall of Fame voters follow the will of the people (or at least ESPN voters), and there is no reason why they need to, then some players with prodigious numbers will never be enshrined in Cooperstown.  Fewer then 32% think Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire, or Sammy Sosa deserve Hall of Fame status.  I agree with those sentiments.  For the record, I believe the following players deserve to be in Cooperstown: Craig Biggio, Roger Clemens, Greg Maddux, Randy Johnson, Mariano Rivera, Pedro Martinez, Ivan Rodriguez, and Frank Thomas. I am in agreement with the ESPN voters on all of those except Biggio and Thomas and I would admit that they are the most marginal of my choices. I also think Derek Jeter and Mike Piazza deserve serious consideration.  This much can be said: the last ten years or so of baseball are tainted.  All statistics from that era, especially home run statistics, should be looked at with much skepticism. 

National Review on South Dakota Abortion Law

National Review editorializes against the South Dakota abortion law.  Yes, that's right.  Against.  It is a question of tactics, not principle.  I find myself largely in agreement with them. 

Since these statutes are extremely unlikely to result in the end of Roe, they will not succeed in making the law just. And since the courts will probably quickly strike down these laws, they will not stop a single abortion either.

That's 0 for 3. On the plus side of the ledger, the states will have communicated that resistance to the Roe regime is stronger than the conventional wisdom about its popularity would suggest. But that is not a sufficiently valuable benefit to make up for the damage these laws are likely to do to the pro-life cause.

Biting the Hand that Feeds 'em

While I am on the subject of nature, a pack of four wolves has committed a serious political error.

While hiking in remote Northern Saskatchewan in early November, 22-year-old geology student Kenton Joel Carnegie was apparently killed by a pack of four wolves. If an ongoing investigation confirms that wolves were the cause of death, it will be the first recorded instance of healthy, wild wolves killing a human in North America. The Canadian wildlife biologist conducting the investigation has found evidence that residents in the area may have been feeding the wolves thought to be responsible for Carnegie’s death.

This is very bad.  I support the reintroduction of wolves into America's national parks because, well, I don't own livestock and wolves are, frankly, really cool.  This won't help the cause.  Now we can't say that wolves have never killed a person in North America.  Maybe the gang of four thought they could get away with eating a Canadian. 

I love backpacking, but there are obvious risks.  This reminds us that mother nature is not so gentle as we would like to believe. 

Abominable Snow Lobster

Red Lobster restaurants may soon have to reconsider their trademark.  Radioactive Chief, whose blog is always a delightful read, directs our attention to this day's alarming news, from News Day:

PARIS -- A team of American-led divers has discovered a new crustacean in the South Pacific that resembles a lobster and is covered with what looks like silky, blond fur, French researchers said Tuesday.

Scientists said the animal, which they named Kiwa hirsuta, was so distinct from other species that they created a new family and genus for it.

The divers found the animal in waters 7,540 feet deep at a site 900 miles south of Easter Island last year, according to Michel Segonzac of the French Institute for Sea Exploration.

Give us a break, Lord.  Didn't this thing chase around Rudolph the Red Nosed Caribou in that puppet show they trot out every Christmas?  I love the phrase "American led divers."  How many Frenchmen do you really bump into at 7500 feet below Calypso's hull? 

But look at the bright side.  Maybe Les Francais can figure out how to make a fur coat out of these things.  "Yes," the glitterati at the next Oscars can purr, "its pure lobster."

Abortion and Compromise

Chad at Clean Cut Kid has this reply to my recent post:

Ken:

Thank for the response.

I think what is missing from the debate about Roe is the key underpinning. I'm no constitutional scholar, and I'm sure you have much more schooling on matters such as these, but the way a lot of people see Roe is not so much as a "right to an abortion" as a constitutional right, but rather the right of individuals to have the government stay out of personal decisions such as an abortion.

The one thing that has always bothered me in the right's approach to this issue is that they (generally) believe the decision to terminate pregnancy is one that is come to easily. Nothing could be further from the truth. Obviously there are no statistics or research on matters such as these, but I would venture to say that the number of women who contemplate terminating their pregnancy and reach a different conclusion is a number much much greater than the number of abortions performed in the state.

I would like to point out, and I think you misinterpreted what I was saying, that I don't believe disagreeing with Roe is wingnuttery in and of itself. Obviously we are a diverse enough society to allow disagreement on such matters. But to say there is no constitutional underpinning to the Roe decision is to say there is no right to privacy. Certainly there is a faction on the right that believes this, but this faction is, shall we say, knee-deep in wingnuttery. If the right wants to take this approach to the overturning the Roe decision, I think we are headed down a slipperly slope.

I would add that as this case winds its way across the federal courts system, if the wacky right is going to use the "due process" clause to protect the "lives" of the unborn, they are also headed down a slipperly slope. The question becomes: where do the rights of the unborn start and begin? I think once you start applying the due process clause there is another set of ramifications. I'm not sure this is specifically what you refer to when you say you think it would be wrong for the Supreme Court to "amend" the constitution in favor of the rights of the unborn, but I think we're generally on the same page in this regard.

Bottom line for most Americans, I believe: the "state" needs to stay out of these personal decisions, and we have a right to keep the "state" out. The only way to trump this argument is to say the "unborn" have "rights" and as I've argued above, this is not a good road for our country to head down.

--Chad.

P.S. when are you guys going to open up comments on your site? And that's not a jab -- I think it would be a great thing for you guys to do.

To which I responded:

Thanks for the note. I agree with your first statement about "personal decisions," but would add a couple of things. Abortion is so divisive because two fundamental moral principles against one another: liberty and the right to life. When such collisions occur, a few of us try to find a balance, but most of the folk who are really interested end up going all one way or all the other.

Which way you go determines whether you think abortion is a "personal decision" or not. Almost 100% of Americans agree that the decision to have consensual intercourse (between adults) is a personal decision. We would also agree that child abuse or murder is not a personal decision. It is a matter in which government must insert itself to protect the child. At some point, then, terminating the life of a developing human being ceases to be a personal decision. When that happens is the whole of the practical question.

Tom Daschle used to be pro-life, and Tim Johnson recently professed to be opposed to partial birth abortion. So I take it as resolved that decent and reasonable people can believe that personhood begins sometime prior to birth.

I think that Senator Johnson points the way toward a compromise that might be stable. New York Democrat Daniel Patrick Moynihan said that partial birth abortion was infanticide. He was certainly correct. I think that all, or almost all third trimester abortions should be prohibited. Legislation that really achieved that would be, in my opinion, a great improvement over the present regime.

Such a compromise might have been reached by now had the court not tried to resolve the issue by judical fiat. Were it not for Roe, I think the air would have gone out of this question a long time ago. That is one reason I think Roe was a very bad decision.

Blanchard on KHND Radio

There is a chance I will be appearing tomorrow on "Get it Off Your Chest," a Harvey, North Dakota radio program.  The host is Rick Jensen.  The show runs between 10 and Noon.  KHND is 1470 on the dial. 

A Conservative Argument on Gays in the Military

A top shelf conservative blog, Captain's Quarters, advocates removing the ban on gays in the military.

As Barry Goldwater remarked in his later years, the only requirement for soldiers should be whether they shoot straight. It seems like a foolish and irrational burden for the armed services to carry, one perhaps understandable when homosexuality was considered a mental disorder but hard to justify now. The costs really aren't the issue as much as the disruption caused when someone gets outed. I'm sure a few of those ten thousand may have claimed a gay orientation as a quick way out of the service, but most appear to have wanted to serve their country honorably. Without a doubt, many more remain closeted in the military now, doing their jobs without causing a problem but unable to provide the testimony to prove it.

I'm still thinking this one over, but I am inclined to agree with the captain. 

SDP mentioned on Kelo Land

Keloland has an online article with this title:

The World Is Blogging About SD Abortion Ban

One of my posts gets this mention:

On a website dedicated to South Dakota Politics, one blogger doesn't pick a side but evaluates the situation. He says there are no grounds in the Constitution for the Roe decision. He writes quote, "It was a clear case of the Supreme Court writing its own preferences into the founding document." He goes on, saying "Reasonable compromises on abortion could be reached if legislatures were allowed to reach for them."

This seems to me a fair evaluation of my post.  For an unfair one, see my encounter with Chad at CCK below.   

Roe V. Wade and Reasonable Discourse

My excitable friend at CCK has this to say about my recent post on Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court case that established the right to an abortion. 

It all comes down to ignoring the truth.  They learn this stuff from the likes of Limbaugh and O'Reilly. And keep in mind this comes from a professor of political science:

There are no grounds in the Constitution or in the tradition of Constitutional jurisprudence, for the Roe decision.

What the heck?

There is a long line of precedence leading up to the Roe decision based on the right to privacy. Blanchard knows this. He may disagree, but he should at least be writing the truth about it.

I would strongly advise people to not attend the University in Aberdeen. There are fine political science departments at USD and SDSU with professors that, while I often disagree with them, they can be reasonable.

On the other hand, if you want to learn all about the fine arts of wingnuttery, then by all means.

I posted a comment to this effect:

It seems to me that the soundness of a supreme court decision is one of the things that reasonable people ought to be allowed to disagree about, without accusing one another of right or left-wingnuttery at the outset.

You say there is "a long line of precedence leading up to the Roe decision based on the right to privacy." Perhaps you meant "precedents"? If so, you might have bothered to mention one or two. There are indeed precedents prior to Roe that establish a right to privacy, going all the way back to, well, 1965, eight years prior to Roe.

But Griswold v. Connecticut, cited in almost any Constitutional Law textbook at the key precedent, does not help answer the fundamental question: whether abortion is one of the rights protected under the constitution. Blackmun's right to an abortion was a novelty in the American Constitutional tradition. Nor is there anything in the Constitution that tells us whether or not the fetus is a constitutional person, or whether the rights available to a woman in the first trimester of pregnancy differ somehow from those available in the second or third trimester.

I think it is wrong for seven out of nine judges to amend the constitution. I think it is wrong for the Court to do so in favor of abortion rights, just as it would be wrong for them to do so in favor of the rights of the unborn. You are entitled to disagree without being called a nut for it.

I note here that the Court in Roe agrees with me, and not Chad, concerning the effect of the precedents.  Blackmun writing for the Court, in Roe v. Wade:

The pregnant woman cannot be isolated in her privacy. She carries an embryo and, later, a fetus, if one accepts the medical definitions of the developing young in the human uterus. See Dorland's Illustrated Medical Dictionary 478-479, 547 (24th ed.1965). The situation therefore is inherently different from marital intimacy, or bedroom possession of obscene material, or marriage, or procreation, or education, with which Eisenstadt and Griswold, Stanley, Loving, Skinner, and Pierce and Meyer were respectively concerned.

In other words, the situation in Roe is different from previous cases involving privacy because of the involvement of the unborn.  So the Court knew it was staking out new ground. My view is reasonable and in accord with the record.  That Chad says otherwise, I charitably ascribe to ignorance amplified by passion, rather than dishonesty. 

Chad's standard of reasonableness is simple: it includes opinions with which he does not agree, but none that offend or irritate him.  We patiently await a list of orthodox positions, so that we can get right with his lordship. 

It is the very essence of constitutional law to disagree about Supreme Court decisions.  Indeed, published opinions are designed that way, to incorporate dissent as well as concurrence.  But Chad would punish all the professors at a college, as well as the students who depend on it, and the town that hosts it, because he does not like the fact that one professor here sides with the dissenters on Roe.  The subtext here is obvious: if only the college in Aberdeen would purge a few heretics, it would get his approval.  Don't get me wrong, I'm sure that Chad is all for free speech.  Its free speakers he cannot abide.

 

Memories Of Kirby

It was often commented that Kirby Puckett had a special connection with children.  The reason is obvious.  In addition to his infectious personality, Kirby wasn't much bigger than many children.  Kirby Puckett made it to the majors when I was 13 years old and I was already as tall as Kirby.  One of the things that makes baseball an inherently interesting game is that you don't have to be a freak of nature to play it.  It's a sport that can be played well by perfectly normal sized people, or in Kirby's case, by someone whose body brought to mind a bowling ball. 

Growing up in Minnesota allowed a front row seat for the state's love affair with this goofy looking guy from the Chicago projects.  When I was in high school a bunch of us went to one of the Twins winter tour meetings that was being held in our hometown of Rochester.  We were very excited because our favorite Twin, Randy Bush, was going to be the player that spoke.  Well, something came up and Bush couldn't be there, so we had to settle for Kirby Puckett.  Tough break, huh?  Before the event I went to the card shop and bought a Kirby Puckett rookie card.  That night I got to meet Kirby Puckett, shake his hand, and he signed that baseball card.  I still have that card hidden away under lock and key.  You keep your treasures.  I'll keep mine. 

Why Can't This Happen In Real Life?

Dennis Prager writes an Oscar speech he'd like to see.  I found this part particularly humorous:

My fellow actors, we walk around feeling that we are very important. But we do so only because we confuse fame with significance. We do have more fame than any other human beings in history. Far more people have heard of any actor here tonight than of any of the discoverers of any medication saving billions of lives, of any teacher of the disabled, of any nurse tending the aged, of almost any national leader.

But the truth is that, as noble a calling as acting can be, all we do is make-believe: We portray other people, and we speak words written by other people. Everyone knows our names, but almost no one knows us. All they know are the characters we play.

Thank you again. I hope I haven't ruined your evening.

Powerline on Kirby Puckett

Powerline has a nice post on number 34.  One of the things that can make me cry is Christmas movies.  Miracle on Thirty Fourth Street ironically comes to mind.  Another is the passing of baseball heroes.  My dad told me about Micky Mantle when I was a little boy, and I cried when TV reported his death.  Today is another sad day.  Here is a great picture from Powerline.

The sixth game of the 91 World Series was easily the best baseball game I ever saw.  When Puckett crossed himself as he came to the plate, I did not hear angels singing.  I heard the thunder on Mount Olympus.  My father, watching that eleventh-inning home run in Jonesboro, Arkansas, turned to my mom and said: "your son just leaped out of his chair."  He wasn't wrong. 

Supreme Court Sides with Military Recruiters

I take it as resolved that the Left wants to win the war in Iraq.  They just don't want us to have an army to fight it with.  Many college campuses have tried to ban military recruiters out of objections to various policies such as the "Don't ask, don't tell" ban on homosexuals in the armed forces.  Congress responded with the Solomon Amendment, which requires institutions that receive federal money to admit recruiters.  The Ivy-Leagers responded in turn that this violates their freedoms of speech and assembly.  Whether it does or not was the question before the Court. 

Today in RUMSFELD v. FORUM FOR ACADEMIC AND INSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, INC., the Court sided with the brass buttons.  Congress is fully within its constitutional prerogatives to make open access to military recruiters a condition of the receipt of federal funds.  As James Tarranto has pointed out in his Wall Street Journal Online blog, two things are striking about the decision.  One is that the decision gave the government more than it was asking for.  Chief Justice Roberts writing for the Court:

Although Congress has broad authority to legislate on matters of military recruiting, it nonetheless chose to secure campus access for military recruiters indirectly, through its Spending Clause power. The Solomon Amendment gives universities a choice: Either allow military recruiters the same access to students afforded any other recruiter or forgo certain federal funds. Congress’ decision to proceed indirectly does not reduce the deference given to Congress in the area of military affairs. Congress’ choice to promote its goal by creating a funding condition deserves at least as deferential treatment as if Congress had imposed a mandate on universities.  . . .

   This case does not require us to determine when a condition placed on university funding goes beyond the “reasonable” choice offered in Grove City and becomes an unconstitutional condition. It is clear that a funding condition cannot be unconstitutional if it could be constitutionally imposed directly. See Speiser v. Randall, 357 U. S. 513, 526 (1958) . Because the First Amendment would not prevent Congress from directly imposing the Solomon Amendment’s access requirement, the statute does not place an unconstitutional condition on the receipt of federal funds.

All the government was asking for was that it could insist on campus access to military recruiters as a condition of federal funding, under its constitutional spending powers.  That way, a college would have the choice, theoretically, of giving up federal funding if it wanted to evade the Solomon Amendment. 

The Court here clearly says that it Congress could have required universities to grant access to recruiters (or at least the same access the institution grants to, say, business recruiters) whether they receive federal funds or not.  This comes under their powers to "provide for the common defense." If Congress had done so, a college would have to comply even if it receives no federal funds.  That is a much more sweeping power.

The second striking thing is that it was an 8-0 decision (Alito did not hear the arguments).  It is surprising that Justice Stevens went along with the reasoning above.  Maybe Justice Ginsburg was still asleep.  Its way too early to tell, but this may indicate that Justice Roberts has that power to mold majorities that is the mark of great Supreme Court judges. 

Governor Rounds Signs Anti-Abortion Bill

South Dakota has received more than its share of attention since I have been living here, at least if you measure its share by dividing its population into the national total.  MSNBC has this striking picture of the Governor, presumably signing House 1215. 

MSNBC has this:

The bill would make it a crime for doctors to perform an abortion unless the procedure was necessary to save the woman’s life. It would make no exception for cases of rape or incest.

As I point out below, this is misleading.  The bill would not prohibit emergency contraception such as the "morning-after" pill. 

I think it very unlikely that this law will ever come into effect.  Unless Anthony Kennedy switches sides again, Roe will be upheld no matter what the two newest members of the High Court do.  And I am not at all certain that, at this point, they will vote to overturn Roe. 

I do think Roe should be overturned, but for reasons that are constitutional rather than political.  There are no grounds in the Constitution or in the tradition of Constitutional jurisprudence, for the Roe decision.  It was a clear case of the Supreme Court writing its own preferences into the founding document.  This is just as wrong as it would be if a Republican appointed majority suddenly decided that the Constitution prohibits all abortions. 

I also think that reasonable compromises on abortion could be reached if legislatures were allowed to reach for them.  In a democracy, that is the way that things are supposed to be done.  Of course some things are off-limits to legislatures: they cannot charter a State or National Church, or interfere with free exercise of religion. But that's because these limits are clearly stated in the Constitution. 

Kirby Puckett Dies

From complications following a massive stroke yesterday.  Puckett was 45.

Greeting Cards for Men

From the "Bud Light Institute,"- DownloaCards.wmv  I really hope that something like this exists. 

Abortion Ban and Rape Exception

One of the most common criticisms of House 1215 is that it contains no exceptions for pregnancies caused by rape and incest.  This is not in fact the case, as the following excerpt from the legislative record shows.

South Dakota Legislature: HB1215 (2006)

Excerpt from Senate Floor Debate: 22 February 2006

Senator Broderick:            Thank you Mr. President.  I have a question
concerning statements made by the two Senators from Sioux Falls that incest
and rape are not covered in House Bill 1215.  And, I have been told, that it
is covered under the use of emergency contraceptives.  And I have a question
of the sponsor, if I might.

President Daugaard:         State your question.

Senator Broderick:            On page 2, section 3 (of HB1215) it says
“Nothing in Section 2 of this Act may be construed to prohibit the sale,
use, prescription, or administration of a contraceptive measure, drug or
chemical, if it is administered prior to the time when a pregnancy could be
determined through conventional medical testing and if the contraceptive
measure is sold, used, prescribed, or administered in accordance with
manufacturer instructions.”  Does that mean, that an emergency
contraceptive, may be administered in the case of rape or incest?

President Daugaard:         Senator Bartling do you wish to respond?

Senator Bartling:                Thank you, Mr. President. Yes, Mr.
President.  Thank you.  Senator Broderick, it is my understanding that the
emergency contraceptive may be administered prior to a time when a pregnancy
could be determined. So it (emergency contraceptives) could be issued in the
event of a rape or incest, if a pregnancy has not been determined.

President Daugaard:         Thank you Senator. Senator Broderick you have
the floor.

Senator Broderick:            Thank you Senator (Bartling).

In other words, as I read it, this would have no impact on the "morning after" type of contraceptives, which would be available to a rape victim for some time after the crime had occurred.  Whether this is adequate  or not is of course another question.  But it is not true that the law leaves such women without any opportunity to end or avoid pregnancy.

Rounds signs abortion ban

This afternoon, Governor Mike Rounds signed House bill 1215, the bill to ban nearly all abortions here in the state, unless the health of the mother is at risk. He put out a statement today, saying that:

"the truest test of a civilization is how well people treat the most vulnerable and most helpless in their society. The sponsors and supporters of this bill believe that abortion is wrong because unborn children are the most vulnerable and most helpless persons in our society. I agree with them."

He went on to say that he expects this bill to be prevented from going into effect on July 1st, but wants to give the US Supreme Court a chance to reconsider Roe v. Wade

"Because this new law is a direct challenge to the Roe versus Wade interpretation of the Constitution, I expect this law will be taken to court and prevented from going into effect this July. That challenge will likely take years to be settled and it may ultimately be decided by the United States Supreme Court. Our existing laws regulating abortions will remain in effect.

The reversal of a Supreme Court opinion is possible. For example, in 1896, the United States Supreme Court ruled in the Plessy versus Fergusoncasethat a state could require racial segregation in public facilities if the facilities offered to different races were equal. However, fifty-eight years later, the Supreme Court reconsidered that opinion and reversed itself in Brown versus Board of Education. It proclaimed that separate could not produce equal. The 1954 Court realized that the earlier interpretation of our Constitution was wrong.

HB 1215 will give the United States Supreme Court a similar opportunity to reconsider an earlier opinion."

Planned Parenthood, which operates the only clinic providing abortions in the state of South Dakota, located in Sioux Falls, has said that they will challenge the measure in court, but has so far issued no statement on their intentions.

Oscar Moments, II

I also took note of the montage introduced by Samuel L. Jackson about how Hollywood has been a force for social change and we should give it its due honor.  They did the same thing about 10 years ago when they wheeled out Christopher Reeve to make the same argument.  I find it interesting that the Oscar show was very defensive about Hollywood's place in the culture.  First, there were multiple attempts to encourage people to go to the movies instead of watching them at home on DVD.  Hollywood knows that its industry is losing out to other forms of entertainment.  Also, there were a couple of attempts to apologize for Hollywood's liberalism, namely the montage I mentioned with Samuel L. Jackson and also George Clooney's self-satisfied claim that he's proud to be outside the mainstream.  Apparently he is on the side of angels, unlike you and I who are a bunch of ignorant yokels who need to be instructed by our betters in Hollywood. 

There are a couple conclusions to draw here.  First, Hollywood in specific and the artistic community in general really believes that because they care more they have the right to tell us what to do.  This idea is born in the notion of Percy Shelly that "The poets are the unacknowledged legislators of the world."  The poet, or the artist in general, is more sensitive to society's needs.  He simply feels and cares more than others, thus his opinions are more authoratative than the opinions of those of us who care no more than we have to. (BTW, I am stealing this line of thought from P.J. O'Rourke.)  This is a Romantic notion that politics is a passionate enterprise and the passions that are most important are empathy and caring.  Thus what is important is not to make arguments to people's brains but to make passionate appeals to their hearts, and that is what the poets do. 

Second, there is the notion that Hollywood only causes change for the better.  Let's grant that Hollywood can create greater compassion for the marginalized, whether it be the racial minority, the AIDS sufferer, the poor, or what have you.  But does that not also mean that Hollywood can coarsen us?  Let's just do some math.  How many people have seen Crash, a movie about racial intolerance, versus, say, the American Pie movies about a bunch of vulgar and horny teenagers trying desperately to get laid?  The same people who say that Hollywood is a major instrument of social justice are the same people who say about overly sexualized or violent movies, "Hey, it's just a movie." You can't have it both ways. If we can praise Hollywood for the good it does, we can also condemn it for the coarsening of the culture that it has caused. 

By the way, a nice piece on Hollywood's dishonesty can be found here, as Terry Teachout tells us about the fabrication of history that is George Clooney's Good Night, And Good Luck.   

Oscar Moments

I was as surprised as the next guy that Crash won the Oscar for Best Picture.  Like everyone else, I suspect, I assumed Brokeback Mountain would walk away with the award.  Not having seen Brokeback, I cannot comment about which is the better movie.  I will say that whatever Crash's virtues I found it to be preachy and overwrought.  One thing you can say about the characters in Crash, they're all racists (or at least have their moments).  At the same time the film is bold in that it does not posit that the sum of America's racial problems are "oppression by the white man," but that we all struggle to overcome race. 

The Muted Voice of Feminism on Islamism

In my early days of teaching at Cal State, San Bernardino, I had a long and fascinating conversation with a young man who described himself as an animal rights activist.  He was very interested in my lectures on the Declaration of Independence, but was understandably offended by the idea that human equality is defined by distinguishing between human beings and other animals.  Its okay for a man to own and butcher a pig, I suggested, but not for one man to own another.  My student wanted to get pigs included in the moral census. 

Out of curiosity, I asked him what he thought about abortion.  This rather brought him up short.  Here was someone who thought that not only pigs but salamanders had rights.  Surely, then, a fetus six months along should have the same protections as a Pacific salmon?  But he couldn't quite say that.  The reason of course is that the animal rights movement fits more or less comfortably on the left.  That comfort would disappear were they to apply the same logic to abortion as to animal testing.  Few of us has a set of political ideas that is perfectly consistent.  But the inconsistencies may matter the most.

Phyliss Chesler, writing in the Chronicles of Higher Education, notes a similar ambiguity on the part of feminists considering or failing to consider the plight of women under Islamic rule.

Today the cause of justice for women around the world is as urgent as it has ever been. The plight of both women and men in the Islamic world (and increasingly in Europe) requires a sober analysis of reality and a heroic response. World events have made feminism more important — yet at the same time, feminism has lost much of its power.

To my horror, most Western academic and mainstream feminists have not focused on what I call gender apartheid in the Islamic world, or on its steady penetration of Europe. Such feminists have also failed to adequately wrestle with the complex realities of freedom, tyranny, patriotism, and self-defense, and with the concept of a Just War.

Islamic terrorists have declared jihad against the "infidel West" and against all of us who yearn for freedom. Women in the Islamic world are treated as subhumans. Although some feminists have sounded the alarm about this, a much larger number have remained silent. Why is it that many have misguidedly romanticized terrorists as freedom fighters and condemned both America and Israel as the real terrorists or as the root cause of terrorism? In the name of multicultural correctness (all cultures are equal, formerly colonized cultures are more equal), the feminist academy and media appear to have all but abandoned vulnerable people Muslims, as well as Christians, Jews, and Hindus to the forces of reactionary Islamism.

Because feminist academics and journalists are now so heavily influenced by left ways of thinking, many now believe that speaking out against head scarves, face veils, the chador, arranged marriages, polygamy, forced pregnancies, or female genital mutilation is either "imperialist" or "crusade-ist." Postmodernist ways of thinking have also led feminists to believe that confronting narratives on the academic page is as important and world-shattering as confronting jihadists in the flesh and rescuing living beings from captivity.

The problem for academic feminists is that most of them are not only on the left but on the extreme left: their bread and butter is a radical critique of Western civilization.  So what are they to do about another radical critique of the West, but one that is viscerally hostile to feminist ideals?  Now you have to choose: what do you care more about, radical criticism or women's rights?  If the feminists attack misogynist Islamists, that would reveal Western civilization as a bastion of progress.  According to Ms. Chesler, the academic feminists would rather side with the jihadists. 

What If They Held a Civil War and Nobody Came

I posted earlier about the collapse of the Iraqi government, an event that the New York Times reported without bothering to mention later that it never happened.  The newspaper of record has more reason to be disappointed.  The civil war they were all but selling shares in seems to have fizzled out.  Ralph Peters, reporting from the streets of Baghdad for the New York Post, has this:

I'M trying. I've been trying all week. The other day, I drove another 30 miles or so on the streets and alleys of Baghdad. I'm looking for the civil war that The New York Times declared. And I just can't find it.

Maybe actually being on the ground in Iraq prevents me from seeing it. Perhaps the view's clearer from Manhattan. It could be that my background as an intelligence officer didn't give me the right skills.

And riding around with the U.S. Army, looking at things first-hand, is certainly a technique to which The New York Times wouldn't stoop in such an hour of crisis.

Let me tell you what I saw anyway. Rolling with the "instant Infantry" gunners of the 1st Platoon of Bravo Battery, 4-320 Field Artillery, I saw children and teenagers in a Shia slum jumping up and down and cheering our troops as they drove by. Cheering our troops.

All day - and it was a long day - we drove through Shia and Sunni neighborhoods. Everywhere, the reception was warm. No violence. None.  And no hostility toward our troops. Iraqis went out of their way to tell us we were welcome.

Instead of a civil war, something very different happened because of the bombing of the Golden Mosque in Samarra. The fanatic attempt to stir up Sunni-vs.-Shia strife, and the subsequent spate of violent attacks, caused popular support for the U.S. presence to spike upward.  Think Abu Musab al-Zarqawi intended that?

A reasonable person might certainly wonder whether the U.S., with its current troop commitment, can ever root out the insurgency.  He might well note the continued presence of armed militias in Iraq.  He may think that a civil war is coming, and he may be right.  But that's no reason to imagine that civil war has yet happened.  It hasn't.  Nor is it any reason to radically inflate reports about the violence that is happening.  Last week the Washington Post reported that there were 1300 bodies in Iraq's morgue as a result of sectarian violence after the Golden Mosque bombing.  This higher than other estimates by a factor of four or five.  From Editor and Publisher:

Sectarian violence that followed last week's bombing of a Shiite shrine have killed more than 1,300 Iraqis in the past few days, many times the figure previously reported by the U.S. media and the military, The Washington Post reported early Tuesday.  Later, however, Iraq Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari called such high death totals "inaccurate and exaggerated," without mentioning the Post.

In comparison, The New York Times reported Monday that the recent violence "brought the country to the brink of civil war and left at least 200 dead." Others had produced similar figures. On Tuesday, the Times increased that number to "379 dead and 458 wounded, the nation's Council of Ministers said today. At least 246 people in Baghdad alone were killed, the top two city morgue officials said."

It's unclear why these numbers remain so much below those cited by The Washington Post.  The Associated Press carried this on Tuesday: "The Post cited figures from the Baghdad central morgue, but an official there told The Associated Press that as of Sunday night they had received only 249 bodies tied to the violence. The Post figure appeared high based on police and hospital reports from the major population centers at the time of the attacks."

The figure of 250 dead is obviously deplorable and frightening.  But not frightening enough, apparently.  So the Post decided to report information that it could not confirm.  Instead, it had to make do with innuendo.

Officials overseeing Baghdad's morgue have come under pressure not to investigate the soaring number of apparent cases of execution and torture in the country, the former U.N. human rights chief for Iraq said Tuesday.

So what is happening on the streets of Baghdad, now?  Back to Ralph Peters: 

In place of the civil war that elements in our media declared, I saw full streets, open shops, traffic jams, donkey carts, Muslim holiday flags - and children everywhere, waving as our Humvees passed. Even the clouds of dust we stirred up didn't deter them. And the presence of children in the streets is the best possible indicator of a low threat level.

Southeast Baghdad, at least, was happy to see our troops.

And we didn't just drive past them. First Lt. Clenn Frost, the platoon leader, took every opportunity to dismount and mingle with the people. Women brought their children out of their compound gates to say hello. A local sheik spontaneously invited us into his garden for colas and sesame biscuits.

It wasn't the Age of Aquarius. The people had serious concerns. And security was No. 1. They wanted the Americans to crack down harder on the foreign terrorists and to disarm the local militias. Iraqis don't like and don't support the militias, Shia or Sunni, which are nothing more than armed gangs.

Help's on the way, if slowly. The Iraqi Army has confounded its Western critics, performing extremely well last week. And the people trust their new army to an encouraging degree. The Iraqi police aren't all the way there yet, and the population doesn't yet have much confidence in them. But all of this takes time.

And even the police are making progress. We took a team of them with us so they could train beside our troops. We visited a Public Order Battalion - a gendarmerie outfit - that reeked of sloth and carelessness. But the regular Iraqi Police outfit down the road proved surprisingly enthusiastic and professional. It's just an uneven, difficult, frustrating process.

So what did I learn from a day in the dust and muck of Baghdad's less-desirable boroughs? As the long winter twilight faded into haze and the fires of the busy shawarma stands blazed in the fresh night, I felt that Iraq was headed, however awkwardly, in the right direction.

Let us note that the New York Times has to have mixed emotions about success in Iraq, rather like the man who watches his mother in law drive off a cliff in his new sports car.  I don't think for a moment that the NYTs has any sympathy for the insurgents or militias.  But disaster in Iraq will undermine the presidency of George W. Bush, and may well help the Democrats in the next two elections.  Frankly, the NYTs just cares more about the latter than about anything happening in the Middle East. 

Apologies for Light Blogging

Readers of this blog will know that most of the posts come from three persons, myself, Professor Schaff, and Jason Heppler.  Mr. Heppler is now camping in Big Bend Natonal Park (I much envy him), and Jon has flown West.  That leaves me alone at the helm.  I will try to keep the ship afloat.