Protests

I often follow the developments of riots/protests around the world fairly closely.  This weekend seems to be packed with them as protests have broken out in France, Spain, Taiwan, the United States, and as well as a general protest on the anniversary of the Second Iraq War.  Regarding the student protests in France this weekend, Elaine Sciolino notes that they "lack the spirit of '68."  What does this have to do with South Dakota?  In the heated political atmosphere of 1968, the American Indian Movement was formed in Minneapolis which would later go on to occupy Wounded Knee in 1973.  I often compare the protests of the past and the present to AIM, and that's the reason I follow these events closely.  Anyways, here's an excerpt from Sciolino's article:

Once again, students are on the barricades in France, evoking comparisons to the uprising of May 1968. But this is not a revolt. It is not 1968 revisited.

Certainly, students are taking to the streets and shutting down universities, and tear gas is wafting through the heart of Paris. Hundreds of thousands of protesters, most of them students, filled the streets and marched in cities Thursday throughout France. With teachers, workers, labor union leaders, the jobless, even retirees beginning to join in, an even larger nationwide protest is planned for Saturday.

Forty-six police and riot officers were injured in the demonstrations, according to LCI television. A total of 187 people were detained in Paris, the city police chief, Pierre Mutz, said on RTL radio Friday, while more than 100 demonstrators elsewhere in the country were arrested.

The images a week ago of cheering students occupying the 17th-century Sorbonne, the birthplace of the 1968 revolt, called forth memories of that exhilarating, romantic leftist youth movement.

But the students' goal this time is far more modest. They want the abolition of a new law, the First Employment Contract, which aims to increase hiring by allowing employers to fire new workers without cause in their first two years.

"We're not back there in '68," said Nadjet Boubakeur, a 26-year-old history major at a public university here and a leader of the student movement UNEF. "Our revolt is not to get more. It's to keep what we have."

We're All Polygamists Now

It is amusing to see the recent fulminations over polygamy, as noted by Prof. Blanchard, when this is exactly what Stanley Kurtz predicted two and a half years ago. 

Among the likeliest effects of gay marriage is to take us down a slippery slope to legalized polygamy and "polyamory" (group marriage). Marriage will be transformed into a variety of relationship contracts, linking two, three, or more individuals (however weakly and temporarily) in every conceivable combination of male and female. A scare scenario? Hardly. The bottom of this slope is visible from where we stand. Advocacy of legalized polygamy is growing. A network of grass-roots organizations seeking legal recognition for group marriage already exists. The cause of legalized group marriage is championed by a powerful faction of family law specialists. Influential legal bodies in both the United States and Canada have presented radical programs of marital reform.

Prof. Blanchard notes that legislatures "can limit marriage to persons over a specified age and I suppose they can exclude marriages between first cousins."  But why?  If marriage becomes nothing more than a contract between two people who love each other, not only is it hard to see how limiting it to two people is not arbitrary, but how any exclusion can be defended.  If marriage is a right, why  can we exclude these groups (the young and incestuous)?  Isn't any age of consent arbitrary?  The fact that there are differences among the states just goes to show how arbitrary it is.  It could easily be argued that this arbitrary and irrational limiting of marriage to those over 18 (or 17 or 16, whatever the state law says) is a violation of the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause.  But, you say, marriage must be entered into consensually, and young people don't have the capability to consent.  I could argue against that notion, but lets take it as given.  Then why laws against incestuous marriage (or incest in general)?  If marriage is a contract between two people who love each other, why not a brother and a sister?  Ah, you say, there are problems with thinning the gene pool and the likelihood of birth defects is much higher than with a couple distantly related.  But I though it was a left-wing mantra that people have reproductive freedom?  Are you telling these couples that the state will rule over their wombs?  If the problem with anti-abortion laws is that it tells women they must have their child, aren't these laws telling a brother and sister who love each other that they can't have children together?  How is this not a violation of reproductive freedom?  And after all, we have contraception and legalized abortion, so it is easy to avoid or erase any "mistakes."  I am sure many people respond to this line of argument with, "But marriage between a brother and a sister is yucky."  But the same was once said about same-sex marriage and polygamy.  Look how easy it is to overcome the "yuck factor" with those arrangements.  Katherine Harrison received much acclaim for her book The Kiss which details her affair with her father.  Jerry Springer used to shock us with stories of incestuous relationships, but I bet not one Springer viewer in 100,000 could tell you what was wrong with those relationships other than "they're yucky." 

The best arguments for gay marriage take on these problems.  Jonathan Rauch's excellent book claims that marriage disciplines male behavior, and the problem with polygamy is that it allows some males to be very promiscuous while limiting the chances of marriage of other males (if some men get ten wives, many men get no wives).  I recommend Rauch's book to anyone who cares about this issue, although like Andrew Sullivan's impressive Virtually Normal, Rauch claims to take his opponents seriously, but quickly creates straw men and finally slips into the notion that the only argument against same-sex marriage is bigotry.  Still, I think Rauch gives the best and most thought provoking argument for same-sex marriage.  The problem is, as many have pointed out, Rauch is almost the only one making his essentially conservative argument for gay marriage.  I suspect, as Kurtz claims, that the real impetus behind the same-sex marriage push, which has led to the argument for polygamy, is the desire to eradicate marriage as a social institution. 

Is there a positive argument for "traditional" marriage?  I think Maggie Gallagher has the best one that doesn't resort to "because God said so," although unlike most others I don't immediately reject the "because God said so" argument.  I think doing what God says is good policy, but admittedly finding out what God is saying can be an enterprise in ambiguity. If you want a good Christian account, see Lutheran theologian Gilbert Meilaender's "Homosexuality in Christian Perspective" (pdf alert). 

Spending Comparisons

Hat tip to Instapundit.  Orrin Judd argues that President Bush doesn't deserve the spending label that's been given to him:

At any rate, given that Ms Noonan believes, for some reason, that Ronald Reagan was a conservative and George W. Bush isn't, it's perhaps helpful to just compare the two: when Ronald Reagan left office in 1988 he was dunning us 18.1% of GDP to pay for a federal government that spent 21.2% of GDP. In 2004, the last year for which I could find numbers, George W. Bush had lowered our tax burden to 16.3% of GDP-- a level last reached in 1959--to pay for a government that spent 19.8 of GDP.

There doesn't seem to be any coherent reason why a president's conservatism should be judged by how much he spends, but if you're using that as your yardstick then Mr. Reagan was the most liberal president since FDR during WWII and George W. Bush and Bill Clinton are the most conservative since Nixon.

Thune Wins Telemedicine Award

Who knew there was such an award?  But it goes to John Thune. 

SIOUX FALLS, S.D. - A telemedicine organization has recognized Sen. John Thune for his support of technology that allows health care providers to perform checkups by video.

The Center for Telehealth and E-Health Law named Thune, R-S.D., its 2006 Telehealth Leader of the Year at a recent conference in Washington, D.C.

Thune said telemedicine is transforming the way doctors and nurses treat people in rural areas.

Out-of-State Opponents

SDWC is reporting that the out-of-state abortion group from Wisconsin that wanted to interfere in our state issue of abortion has pulled out before even starting their campaign, partly because their group only had 10 members.

Governor's Race

And now to the governor's race.  The Argus Leader is reporting (as mentioned by CCK yesturday) that Jack Billion is challenging Governor Rounds for his spot:

The theme of South Dakota Democrats' run for the governor's office is already being sounded in early campaigning.

Jack Billion, retired Sioux Falls surgeon, and Dennis Wiese, Flandreau business consultant, want to make the race a referendum on leadership.

Billion announced Friday at the Minnehaha County Democratic Forum that he is seeking the nomination for governor. Wiese and Tyler Smith of Aberdeen are circulating petitions but have not yet decided to run.

"I think it is great we have three out there, and I'm not so convinced we won't have someone else pop in there," said Jason Schulte, the state party's executive director. "It is a good testament to the fact the current governor has failed to show leadership in so many areas."

Billion and Wiese see Gov. Mike Rounds as vulnerable after a legislative session in which the state adopted an abortion ban but could not pass a minimum wage law and made little progress on education funding. Smith was working late Friday at an Aberdeen gas station and could not be reached for comment.

The SF Field is Set

Argus Leader:

The race to be the next mayor of Sioux Falls will be run by 11 people, a field that includes the current occupant of that office, Mayor Dave Munson.

Munson was the last mayoral candidate to turn in his petitions. He walked into the City Clerk's office shortly before 4 p.m. on Friday, one hour before the filing deadline. He was upbeat and said he was ready to run on his achievements.

Munson said Thursday that he would run - nearly a month and a half after he dropped out - if he collected enough signatures to meet the city requirement of 200 to make the ballot. The effort to find those signatures started earlier in the week, and several friends helped.

"We were very fortunate," Munson said. "There were a lot of good people who stepped up to help us out."

Officials in the clerk's office stopped counting his petitions at 261 signatures. On Monday those officials will draw lots to determine ballot placement.

Munson's re-entry into the race led Rick Albrecht to officially withdraw. The retired Army lieutenant colonel walked into the clerk's office at about 3:30 after talking with Munson. And although he had enough petitions filed to run, he honored a commitment not to run if Munson did.

The complete list of candidates are:  Dave Munson; Janoct Ajda; Vernon Brown; Dan Christopherson; Bruce Halverson; Lora Hubbel; Bob Jamison; Casey Murschel.  Reporter Jonathan Ellis outlines each of these candidates in the article.

Advance in France is mainly Happenstance

And a lot of young Gauls would like to keep it that way.  From the BBC:

Large crowds took part in peaceful rallies in Paris, Rennes, Marseilles, Grenoble and Nantes.  Air traffic and transport in 35 cities experienced some disturbances.

The government wants to let firms offer job contracts to people under 26 which would make it easier for them to be fired at short notice.

Speaking in parliament, Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin defended the plan, saying that France must be brave and take steps to keep moving forward in a changing world.  "For 20 years now, insecurity has been the daily reality for many young people in our country. I refuse to do nothing," he said.  Critics warn that the new legislation, which currently only applies to small firms, could be misused by larger employers and make it even harder for young people to find a permanent job.

Villepin is of course correct, and let us hope he sticks to his pistolets.  French labor law is a good example of socialist policies which perpetuate privilege among those who have jobs while harming those who want to get jobs.  If its almost impossible to fire someone, you hire only people you are comfortable with.  Its easy to get a job in France if you are not Arab or Black, and have a dad who is already part of the network.  Otherwise, well, there is always burning cars to occupy your time. You will notice that the complexion of the protesters in the photo is monochrome. 

Unrealistic, maybe . . .

BBC's new television drama Waterloo Road is said to portray teachers as over-sexed and 'unrealistic'.

British Guardian

Polygamy on HBO

Opponents of gay marriage have often argued that legitimizing gay marriage will open the doors to polygamy.  Supporters have scoffed, but have rarely produced any good counter-argument.  The best one I have heard is Andrew Sullivan's "deeper level of consciousness" argument.  Here is Charles Krauthammer's summary and rebuttal:

Blogger and author Andrew Sullivan, who had the courage to advocate gay marriage at a time when it was considered pretty crazy, has called this the ``polygamy diversion,'' arguing that homosexuality and polygamy are categorically different because polygamy is a mere ``activity" while homosexuality is an intrinsic state that ``occupies a deeper level of human consciousness." But this distinction between higher and lower orders of love is precisely what gay rights activists so vigorously protest when the general culture ``privileges'' (as they say in the English departments) heterosexual unions over homosexual ones.

Krauthammer is surely right.  If it is found to be mere prejudice and a violation of fundamental rights to deny the sanction of marriage to two men, polygamists will press their claim with equal vigor and, I expect, the same result.  And in fact the normalization of polygamy is already well under way, with HBO's new series "Big Love" as exhibit A.  But its only the most visible exhibit.  There is this, by Tim Hartford in Slate:

A little over one in 100 American men are in prison—but there are several states where one in five young black men are behind bars. Since most women marry men of a similar age, and of the same race and in the same state, there are some groups of women who face a dramatic shortfall of marriage partners.  . . .

When men are taken out of the marriage market by war or by prison, women suffer. The reverse is probably true, too: When women are taken from the marriage market, men suffer. In China, the policy of one-child families coupled with selective abortion of girls has produced "surplus" males. Such men are called "bare branches," and China could have 30 million of them by 2020. Perhaps polyandry—women with multiple husbands—would be the logical response to the situation in China. What will happen instead is that these lonely, wifeless men will end up sleeping with a relatively small number of women—prostitutes—with severe risks of sexually transmitted disease all around.

Its mostly tongue and cheek, but don't be misled by that.  A push for polygamy is coming, and the legalization of gay marriage under the current terms will make it very hard to resist.

But that doesn't mean that gay marriage necessarily ought to be rejected.  It just means that the current arguments in favor of it ought to be rejected.  The problem is the idea that men have a right to marry men.  This is a typical example of the liberal tendency to try to write all their political preferences into the constitutional rule book, rather than to try and persuade voters and legislators that their proposals represent good policy. 

Under the status quo, states have a limited power to define marriage.  They cannot prohibit interracial marriage, but they can limit marriage to persons over a specified age and I suppose they can exclude marriages between first cousins.  Let us then presume that states can, under the Constitution, limit marriage to two people, one male and one female.  If a state can do that, then it is free to extend marriage to same sex couples but deny it to any larger partnership.  Now you can make your case: persuade us that the arguments against gay marriage are weak, and the arguments for it strong.  That, after all, is what we have elections and legislatures for.

The Lion In Winter

Martin Sabo of Minnesota is retiring from Congress.  It's too bad.  Congress need at least one guy whose middle name is "Olav." The big question now is which left-wing Democrat will replace him. 

How Can They Possibly Learn That in Canada?

Iraqi delegation visits Canada and Switzerland to see how federal countries work.

Forum of Federations

War and Strategy

Cliff May in USA Today:

It is disappointing that the CIA didn't accurately appraise Saddam's capabilities. But even Saddam's generals were shocked to find that no VX nerve gas would be available to them.

We also know that Saddam intended to restock his arsenals. And we know he supported and trained terrorists, at such facilities as Salman Pak — now closed for business thanks to U.S. military forces.

It's easy to say that if we had left Saddam alone, nothing bad would have happened. But how is that different from what was said for years about Osama bin Laden? We knew his intentions. We didn't take pre-emptive action. Don't you wish we had?

If Americans have learned anything, it should be this: When people say they intend to kill you, take them seriously.

HT to Instapundit.

National Journal

John Thune made the cover of National Journal for an article entitled "Reason to Smile."  Excerpt:

It's Election Day 2016, and political handicappers are predicting a close presidential race. Who's facing off? Two senators, Democrat Barack Obama of Illinois and Republican John Thune of South Dakota. Unlike most senators who flame out while pursuing the presidency, they've actually used their perches in the World's Greatest Deliberative Body as effective springboards to the national political stage.

Sound far-fetched? Perhaps not. After serving just over a year in the Senate, Obama and Thune have "rising star" written all over them. Sure, politics is unpredictable. The rapid ascents of "can't-miss" luminaries sometimes veer off track. But these two freshmen have not only avoided serious gaffes since their election in 2004, they've also managed to make a splash on Capitol Hill and are poised to generate even more waves.

Already, the political cognoscenti are buzzing about both men as potential White House contenders. When National Journal polled its Congressional and Political Insiders -- more than 180 lawmakers and operatives -- in November on which political figures have the most potential to be president in 20 years, Obama was the overwhelming favorite on the Democratic side. Among Republicans, Thune was tied for second with U.S. Trade Representative Rob Portman, a former House member from Ohio. They were just a tad behind George P. Bush, President Bush's nephew (although "Don't Know" led the GOP pack).

Such talk is heady stuff for two relatively young men, both born in 1961, even if they did arrive in the Senate amid sky-high expectations. Obama, only the third African-American elected to the chamber since Reconstruction, already was something of a celebrity before he came to Washington. His keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention drew raves and instantly made him a national figure. A few months later, he won his Senate seat in a romp, receiving 70 percent of the vote.

Thune, meanwhile, arrived on the Hill as a "giant killer" after defeating Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, the Democrat whom Republicans derided as the "obstructionist-in-chief." Thune's victory, which made him an icon in GOP circles, was all the more remarkable because it was the first time that a Senate party leader had been toppled in 52 years.

Read the whole thing.

Al Qaeda Chatter

Instapundit:

AL QAEDA CHATTER at pre-9/11 levels.  I'm not sure what that means, but unless they're saying "this whole terror thing sucks, let's quit," it's probably bad news.

UPDATE:  Here's somebody who thinks it might be what I hope.

On the other hand, reader Tom Brosz emails: "March 20th is the anniversary of the invasion of Iraq. That's a date I'd watch closely."

Nonsense. We've been repeatedly assured by antiwar folks that there's no connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda, so why would they care?

What's the Matter With South Dakota?

A lot of people are asking that question following our abortion ban.  Some reactions are downright absurd.  Elizabeth Hovde of the Washington Columbian is looking at it differently: "South Dakota can teach us a few lessons."  Excerpt:

In reading about South Dakota's abortion climate, however, I think that state has a lot to teach us. The state already treats abortion in a way that would have Washingtonians throwing their double mochas at Olympia lawmakers. According to the Guttmacher Institute (www.guttmacher.org), when it comes to abortion Washington and South Dakota are as different as Sturgis and Seattle. In 2000, South Dakota had two abortion providers; Washington had 53. In Washington, no metropolitan area lacked an abortion provider; in South Dakota, one metropolitan area lacked an abortion provider.

Washington does not have any major abortion restrictions. South Dakota has among the most: parental notification; state-directed counseling; 24-hour waiting periods; and public funding for abortions limited to life-threatening cases.

But look at this: In Washington, 126,910 of the 1,294,501 women of reproductive age became pregnant in 1996. Sixty-four percent of these pregnancies resulted in live births and 21 percent in induced abortions. That mirrors national percentages. What about South Dakota? Of the 158,436 women of reproductive age, 13,540 became pregnant in 1996. Seventy-six percent of these pregnancies resulted in live births. Only 8 percent resulted in induced abortions. Eight percent compared to 21 percent. That's dramatic.

If pro-choicers are serious when they say they share the pro-life goal of making abortion rare, they have to admit South Dakota is on to something.

Intriguing Report From IBD

Investor's Business Daily has an intriguing report about what we are finally learning from declassified papers of the Saddam Hussein regime. 

The War On Terror: The government is finally getting around to unloading some of Saddam Hussein's secret documents. A look at just a few pages already leads to some blockbuster revelations.

In the early stages of the war that began three years ago, the U.S. captured thousands of documents from Saddam and his spy agency, the Mukhabarat. It's been widely thought the documents could shed light on why Saddam behaved as he did and how much of a threat his evil regime represented.

Yet, until this week, the documents lay molding in boxes in a government warehouse. Now the first batch is out, and though few in number, they're loaded with information.

Among the enduring myths of those who oppose the war is that Saddam, though murderous when it came to his own people, had no weapons of mass destruction and no terrorist designs outside his own country. Both claims now lie in tatters.

As we've reported several times, a number of former top military officials in Saddam's regime have come forward to admit that, yes, Saddam had WMD, hid them and shipped them out of the country so they couldn't be detected. And he had plans to make more.

Who knows what the quality of this evidence is.  But it certainly should give pause to those who have gone wobbly on overthrowing Saddam (as opposed to those who never supported it, for whom the presence or absence of WMDs does not matter).  Hat tip to Instapundit. 

The CCKave Man Eats Some Demographics

I once again get Chad's dander up:

Ken Blanchard, professor of political science at Northern State University in Aberdeen, really goes out on a limb and embraces a pretty wacky theory: that liberals are essentially going to be overwhelmed with conservatives because conservatives are having more babies.

Huh?

I know we all search for affirmation of our own beliefs, but this seems like a real stretch.

Sure, birth rates may well indidcate that "red" states are experiencing more child births than "blue" states, but I don't see the evidence that this translates into anything of substance.

If you want to look at real demographic trends, one could make the case that partisan and ideological identification has actually steadily declined since WWII. I'd be willing to bet that with a couple short-term exceptions, religious identification has declined as well over the past 50-100 years.

But the biggest flaw in Blanchard's argument is the fact that American society has, over time (albeit slowly), grown more liberal and progressive. The rights of minorities, women, and gays being the prime example. And they will continue to lose these wars despite some small wins on the battlefield in recent years. I can predict without any trepidation that in my lifetime gays will enjoy the right to legally marry anywhere in this country. Conservatives always lose these battles over the long haul.

The only way for Blanchard's arguments to have any real validity you would have to believe that "red state children" would inherit a conservative ideology and not move to the left at all during their lifetime with the rest of society.

That's just plain wacky.

UPDATE
One additional thought: Why in the world does the Aberdeen American News publish this stuff? I can understand the need for differing "opinions", but when an "opinion" or "theory" is so far wacky and makes leaps without facts to back it up, does it really require publication? Seriously.

My reply:

The old phrase "knee-jerk liberal" clearly applied to yourself. Your knee-jerk reaction is to think that any voice that you find discomforting ought to be silenced, and any argument you find "wackey" ought not to be printed.

Why does the American News print my stuff? Well, the article I based my essay on, Philip Longman's piece on "Patriarchy," was printed in Foreign Policy. FP is one of the two most influential journals on world affairs (the other being Foreign Affairs). Longman also produced a simliar piece for USAToday. So the American News is in good company. Too bad all these journals did not come to you for clearance.

I can understand why you don't want to think about demograpics. It is certainly possible that other factors will cancel out demograpic effects, but historically speaking, I wouldn't count on that. One generation does not always mirror the one that came before, but (and this is a bit of political science for you), most people most of the time follow the politics of their parents. This is especially true where a strong religious influence is at work.

Moreover, the next generation is not always more "progressive" that the last. Muslim youths in Europe are, by and large, more extreme than their parents. Are you really sure that the children of present day Bush voters will suddenly turn into loyal Daschle voters any day now?

I myself qualified the argument by these words: "If Longman's argument is right." Maybe he is wrong. But surely its worth thinking about? I did not present this argument because I like it. In case you haven't noticed, I am a Darwinist, professionally speaking. I am not altogether happy with the prospect of fundamentalists inheriting the Earth. But that might be what's about to happen.

You are of course free to reject this argument. But it is striking that you and so many of your readers seem to delight in the prospect that my voice should be silenced. I would have thought that we might be allies on many things: the teaching of evolution in schools, for example. But I confess that I have met few religious conservatives so intolerant as the readers of CCK.

Another Fein Mess for the Democrats

Democratic Senator Russ Feingold is playing a pretty shrewd game right now.  He proposes that the U.S. Senate censure President Bush over the warrantless wiretapping.  He has even been toying with the I word, though only toying.  He backed away from any serious suggestion of impeachment.  As Howard Kurtz notices, what's odd about this is the reaction of the two parties.

One thing is clear about Russ Feingold's move to censure President Bush: Republicans love it and Democrats hate it.

Rarely has a maneuver with as much chance of passing as Barry Bonds hitting 73 homers without steroids sparked such a reaction. Feingold's own party wishes the thing would just go away, while the other party would enjoy talking about it for days on end, which is why Bill Frist tried to call a vote on it, only to be blocked by the Dems.

This, of course, does not reflect the parties' true feelings about the underlying issue. Most Democrats believe Bush probably did break the law in approving warrantless eavesdropping, and most Republicans think the president acted properly. But the proposed censure--a word we haven't heard since some Dems were pushing it as an alternative to impeaching Clinton--is scary to most senators with D after their names, many of whom have been ducking reporters or hemming and hawing as a way to avoid commenting.

Its not hard to see why Congressional Democrats are discomforted.  Right now President Bush's approval ratings are in the low thirties.  But whatever is dragging his popularity toward the floor, it isn't the fact that he eavesdropped on Americans talking to terrorists abroad.  Indeed, the last time that public attention was focused on this subject, Bush gained a good ten points in most polls.  No Democrat with her eyes focused on this November wants to talk about that issue between now and then. 

But of course Feingold is looking ahead to 2008, and there is every reason for him to believe that this will advance his presidential ambitions.  E.J. Dionne has it right. 

Some Democrats want the party to forget the issue of warrantless wiretapping, because engaging it would let Bush claim that he's tougher on terrorists than his partisan enemies. Others share Feingold's frustration with the administration's stonewalling on the program, but they think they need to know more before they can effectively challenge Bush on the issue. Both groups were furious that Feingold grabbed headlines away from those delicious stories about Republican divisions and defections.

But at the grass roots and Web roots, Feingold has become a hero -- again. They already loved him for his courage in opposing the USA Patriot Act and his call for a timetable for troop withdrawals from Iraq. Feingold's latest move only reinforced his image of being "a Dem with a spine," as the left-liberal Web site BuzzFlash.com put it in a comment representative of the acclaim he won across the activist blogs.

The Democrats problem is that the Internet has empowered the activist core of their partisans in an unprecedented way.  But the only coherent idea that activates that core is hatred of Dubya.  They are simply uninterested in generating their own security policy.  Nor are Congressional Democrats any better prepared to say what they would do about international communications among terrorists.  They are as singlemindedly focused on political rather than strategic matters as Feingold and the Daily Kos.  The only difference is which November they are thinking about. 

The Democrat's vacuous foreign policy may not hurt them much in the upcoming Congressional elections.  But in Presidential elections such things matter. The Democrats made foreign policy the focus of the 2004 election.  John Kerry lost to Bush because Bush had a foreign policy and Kerry didn't.  I don't think Feingold is another John Kerry.  Right now he is positioning himself to be another Howard Dean.

Munson

From the mailbag:

Dear SDP:  After saying he won't run for re-election, Sioux Falls mayor Dave Munson will be re-entering the race.  Thought you'd want to know.  Keep the info coming on the Governors race please.

SD Supreme Court

The South Dakota Supreme Court has ruled on another "takings" case involving a truck-stop on Interstate 90:

South Dakota’s Supreme Court told a trial court today to take another look at a case in which the owners of an Interstate 90 truck stop near Rapid City claimed the state owes them money for closing Exit 66 and damaging their business.

The high court said the truck stop and the state rushed the issue. The court record given to them on appeal wasn’t complete enough for the justices to determine whether a property right was taken, the unanimous opinion said.

At issue is the Flying J, a truck stop and convenience store that was located at Exit 66, the I-90 exchange that was once on the main road into Ellsworth Air Force Base. Some years ago, Air Force officials became worried that development around the exit – near the end of a main runway – created what they called an “accident potential zone.”

Some Unconventional Wisdom on Iraq

John Lloyd, in the Lefty British Magazine, the New Statesman:

The death of Slobodan Milosevic, and the occasion it affords to read again details of the malignity of his rule in Serbia - 200,000 casualties and two million people displaced in Bosnia; thousands of deaths and ethnic cleansing in Kosovo; murder, torture and imprisonment of his enemies in Serbia - bring home the cost of leaving mass murderers in power: a cost not borne, at least for now, by the rich and well-defended states of the west, but by those who have neither power nor defence and who find themselves under the dictator's sway.

So it was with Saddam's Iraq. The repeated invasions of contiguous states; the massacres of Kurds and southern Shia; the licence given to torturers, rapists and murderers wearing the uniforms of secret police; the complete arbitrariness of Saddam's kleptocratic rule; the development of chemical and biological weapons and the attempt to develop a nuclear weapon - all of these made Iraq an internal hell and an external danger which, sooner or later, would have to be faced down.

The glad hosannas of those who see in the apologies of some who backed invasion a vindication of their own opposition to it are simply signs of self-delusion. Worse, they are yet another evasion of the central question, which George W Bush and Tony Blair did have the nerve to face: what is to be done about dangerous tyrants, beyond hand-wringing, ineffectual and decaying sanctions and ever-more hollow-sounding resolutions at various international levels?

Malkin / Nordlinger

Michelle Malkin:  An Army of Translators Needed

Also, don't miss this piece by Jay Nordlinger entitled "Telling Saddam what’s what, &c."  Excerpt:

You know I like it when Judge Raouf Abdel-Rahman tells Saddam Hussein what the new facts of life are. Yesterday he told the ex-dictator that he could not use the courtroom to give political speeches. Saddam said, "I am the head of state." The judge said, "You used to be a head of state. You are a defendant now."

Then the judge turned off the defendant's microphone.

When you get terribly down, about the events of the world, think of that, my friends.

Focus South Dakota

Take note of where Focus South Dakota gets their money.

Second Guessing the War

Congress has established a bipartisan panel to study the war in Iraq.  The panel is headed by former Secretary of State James Baker and former Congressman Lee Hamilton--the same Hamilton that co-chaired the 9/11 commission.  The other panelists are former CIA Director Robert Gates; former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani (Republican); former Clinton adviser Vernon Jordan; former Clinton Chief of Staff Leon Panetta; former Clinton administration Defense Secretary William Perry; former Democratic Senator Chuck Robb; and former Republican Senator Alan Simpson.

Hugh Hewitt explains that the problem with the committee is the entire concept:

This is a terrible move, this establishment of a body that will by its very nature be second guessing an army in the field and under fire during a time of intense partisan debate. Voters rendered a verdict on Iraq in 2004 elections. They can modify that verdict in 2006 if they choose. The idea of civilians gathering to second guess the military and its strategy and the president and his leadership reminds of the country's experience with the Commmittee on Reconstruction's adventures from the post-Civil War era, the Church Committee's wonderful effects on intelligence gathering, and most recently the antics of Bob Kerrey and Richard ben Veniste on the 9/11 Commission.

These proceedings inevitably become show trials, and the new concentration of media will guarantee such a debacle unfolding quickly, with Bush's enemies in the MSM using every opportunity to bend every witness and every report into a political weapon.

I don't care who the staff is -- and the staff hasn't been named, which is a very bad sign-- this is a disaster for those who are serious about the war. It is a boon for the Feingolds and KosKids and every other member of the retreat and defeat caucus.

HT to Powerline.

Justice Ginsburg

Powerline:  Justice Ginsburg Throws Down the Gauntlet

UPDATE:  In case you missed it, note this story on Ginsburg.

Contraception Exemption

Excerpt from the Watertown Public Opinion (reg. required):

State ban has contraception exemption

By Bob Mercer, Capitol Bureau

Friday, March 10, 2006 10:34 AM CST

PIERRE - Doctors and pharmacists can continue to prescribe and provide women with emergency contraceptives under South Dakota's new law banning nearly all abortions.

But the drugs or chemicals can be administered only in the first few days after sexual intercourse, during the interval before normal medical tests show whether the woman is pregnant.

After that time, the only circumstance under which an abortion would be legal is to prevent the death of the mother.

State legislators and others who support the abortion ban are pointing to the exemption for emergency contraception as proof that the law isn't as harsh as commonly portrayed.

The law purposely doesn't allow abortions in cases of rape and incest.

Many people in South Dakota and nationally are objecting to the law as too extreme.

There is a common misperception that victims of rape or incest will be denied choice,according to state Rep. Elizabeth Kraus, R-Rapid City.

She said a victim of rape or incest will still be able to obtain a medical abortion through the use of emergency contraception.

Legislators, lawyers and activists on both sides of the abortion rights fight agree the exemption for emergency contraceptives could be used in the event of rape or incest.

According to the law, however, it must happen “prior to the time when a pregnancy could be determined through conventional medical testing.

In other words, a woman can receive emergency contraception but only when it can't be proven yet there is a pregnancy to terminate.

The bill does make a medical-contraceptive abortion available in the case of rape and incest, said Rep. Roger Hunt, R-Brandon. He is prime sponsor of the abortion ban, HB 1215.

The confusion about an exception for rape and incest is due to the fact the language of the bill does not specifically use the words rape and incest, he said.

Cartoons and Free Speech

Instapundit:

DAILY ILLINI EDITOR ACTON GORTON reports that he has been fired for publishing the Muhammad cartoons.

This is, alas, part of a pattern on campuses these days, where free speech is a decidedly one-sided phenomenon.

LATimes Columnist Thinks Its Particularly Bad to be Black

Commenting on the Claude Allen story, the Bush Admnistration official who was caught shoplifting at Target, Erin Aubrey Kaplan has this:

I don't support conservatism in its current iteration, and I support black conservatives even less, but we cannot ignore the racial implications of this latest Republican fall from grace. Here is a decidedly white-collar black man getting clipped for a blue-collar crime associated with economic necessity, one that practically guarantees prison time for most black men in this country. (Even if he's ultimately convicted, it's doubtful that Allen will end up behind bars.)

So Black conservatives are worse that White conservatives, just for being Black, apparently.  I don't think its quite fair to accuse Ms. Kaplan of racism, though that is certainly what she would do if the shoe were on the other foot.  But it certainly is a nasty ad hominem. 

Governor's Race

From an SDP reader following the Governor's race:

The debate over who the Democratic candidate for governor will be keeps getting interesting.  Dennis Weise, who is pushed by Tim Johnson and company, is interested.  Weise is planning to make a final decision soon.  Jack Billion, the candidate of liberals like the Daschlites, is getting in no matter what and was planning to enter the race last week until asked to wait.  If Weise gets in there could be a primary where the candidates focus on sticking it to Rounds.  There should be some big meetings and announcements coming soon from important Democrats so stay tuned.  Democrats excited about this big race.  I'm for Weise, but just want a candidate whose good and hope the Democrats can finally get some power in Pierre.

Film of the Week

This is really good, if you like that sort of thing.  The video of the day.  Hat tip to Michelle Malkin.

Red Diaper Deficit II

Here's my piece from the Aberdeen American News:

Demographics Key to Determining Future

Hannibal of Carthage ranks as one of the most successful generals ever to lose a war. He invaded ancient Rome and by brilliant stratagems destroyed one Roman army after another - all to no avail. The Romans kept producing new armies, and Hannibal was ultimately forced to retreat back to North Africa where, years later, he chose suicide over submission to Rome.

The Romans did not defeat Hannibal on the field. Instead they defeated him in the nursery. The matres and patres of the eternal city begat larger litters than the Carthaginians or Greeks or any other ancient peoples they had to contend with. Demographics turned out to be destiny.

This lesson is not lost on Philip Longman. Writing in Foreign Policy, he argues that developed nations are about to witness a resurgence of patriarchy and religious conservatism. "Patriarchy," he tells us, does not "simply mean that men rule." It means that men select wives according to their status as potential mothers. In such a system men invest loads of time and money in their children, and want a lot of children to invest in.

Human societies have a demographic trajectory that is biologically odd. Precisely at the point that they become most powerful and prosperous, they all but stop making babies. It's just more fun to spend the profits of empire on lavish parties, home improvements and long vacations, than on diapers. This would result in depopulation except that, inevitably, someone among their neighbors will discover the virtues of patriarchy.

This may be a neighboring people, or it may happen in a ghetto three streets over. Either way, those living the high life will sooner or later be overwhelmed by folks who prefer parenthood.

Pagan Rome gave way to Christian Europe not because the Emperor Constantine baptized his soldiers by marching them under rain-laden trees. Christianity won out because its patriarchal followers matched every pagan infant with four or five of their own. It's no coincidence that their religion encouraged them to sacrifice self-fulfillment for the sake of their children.

If Longman's argument is right, then modern liberalism has long been in the business of putting itself out of business. Consider the "Roe Effect." One of the greatest achievements of modern American liberalism occurred when seven members of the Supreme Court scribbled the right to abortion into the margins of the Constitution. But a million and a half abortions a year would have serious demographic consequences.

Black women have a higher abortion rate than Hispanics, who have a higher rate than white women. This means that abortion takes progressively larger cuts out of groups that are more likely to vote Democrat. Women who were never born couldn't punch a chad for Gore or tap a screen for Kerry, nor will their children vote Democrat in 2020.

But even without the Roe Effect, Democrats would be in trouble. A woman who supports gay marriage, who advocates socialized medicine, who is instinctively opposed to the war in Iraq, is likely to have one or no children. A married woman who has four or more children is likely to take the opposite view on each issue.

Do the math. Or let me do it for you. George W. Bush carried 30 states in 2000. In the 1980s, those states commanded 267 electoral votes, not enough to win. In 2000 Bush got 271 electoral votes, one more than he needed. Today those same 30 states command 278 electoral votes.

So far this reflects population shifts more than fertility, but people who move to Republican districts are at least a little more likely to vote GOP later on. Moreover, the fastest growing neighborhoods in the country are in the exurbs, areas detached from city centers but dense enough to support an Olive Garden restaurant and a Barnes and Nobles.

These districts also support a lot of churches and on Sunday mornings bunches of kids are pouring out of scores of minivans. Democrats like to think they are smarter than Republicans, and maybe they are. But Hannibal was smarter than the Romans, and it did him no good at all.

Red Diaper Deficit

I have posted frequently on demographics as it affects the future of the developing nations, and especially of the great democracies.  Philip Longman had a piece in Foreign Policy, "The Return of Patriarchy," that examines the effect of differential birthrates both within and between countries.  He has a piece in USAToday on "The Liberal Baby Bust."  The punchline of both essays is that so called progressives are on a path to extinction. 

What's the difference between Seattle and Salt Lake City? There are many differences, of course, but here's one you might not know. In Seattle, there are nearly 45% more dogs than children. In Salt Lake City, there are nearly 19% more kids than dogs.

This curious fact might at first seem trivial, but it reflects a much broader and little-noticed demographic trend that has deep implications for the future of global culture and politics. It's not that people in a progressive city such as Seattle are so much fonder of dogs than are people in a conservative city such as Salt Lake City. It's that progressives are so much less likely to have children.

This simple fact is one that is bound to have social and political consequences.  The people most likely to hold "progressive views" are those least likely to have more than one child, and very many of them will have no children at all.  The reverse is true for most conservative subcultures, and especially for religious cultures. 

In the USA, for example, 47% of people who attend church weekly say their ideal family size is three or more children. By contrast, 27% of those who seldom attend church want that many kids.

In Utah, where more than two-thirds of residents are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 92 children are born each year for every 1,000 women, the highest fertility rate in the nation. By contrast Vermont — the first to embrace gay unions — has the nation's lowest rate, producing 51 children per 1,000 women.

A fertility rate that is double that of the opposition is an advantage that will accrue very rapidly, in sociological terms. 

A single child replaces one of his or her parents, but not both. Consequently, a segment of society in which single-child families are the norm will decline in population by at least 50% per generation and quite quickly disappear. In the USA, the 17.4% of baby boomer women who had one child account for a mere 9.2% of kids produced by their generation. But among children of the baby boom, nearly a quarter descend from the mere 10% of baby boomer women who had four or more kids.

This dynamic helps explain the gradual drift of American culture toward religious fundamentalism and social conservatism. Among states that voted for President Bush in 2004, the average fertility rate is more than 11% higher than the rate of states for Sen. John Kerry.

I admit to mixed feelings about this.  On the one hand, I am intrigued at the thought of electoral votes dieing off in blue states and being reborn as part of the Republican coalition.  On the other hand, also believe in science and particularly in Darwinism.  It would be an irony of history (and perhaps one of God's jokes) if Darwinism as a theory were to disappear due to Darwinian processes. 

I wrote a column for the American News on Longman's Foreign Policy piece.  I will post it shortly.

Catholic Democrats

South Dakota native Joseph Bottum comments on the statement produced by 55 Catholic Democrats a couple weeks ago. 

The Liberal Quandary: Do I Hate Bush More Than I Love Big Government?

Poor Chad Schuldt.  He's caught in a paradox of his own politics.  Referring to this chart from USA today (which I first saw mentioned by Joe K at NLT), he can't decide whether more people being dependent on the government is a victory for the big government he loves or a sign of failure on the part of the George Bush he hates.  He sides with hating George Bush. 

The chart shows enrollment is up in many entitlement programs.  Chad's conundrum is whether this means that big government is taking care of more people (which Chad likes), or if this is another sign of the bankruptcy of the Bush economy (which Chad likes to hate).  All Chad needed to do was, well, read the chart and he'd have his explanation.  First of all, we can dismiss enrollment numbers for Social Security and Medicare as eligibility for those programs is largely based on demographics, something that I believe George Bush has no control over.  What about the rest of the programs mentioned?  Well, Medicaid, Child Nutrition, the EITC, Unemployment Compensation and Pell Grants have all seen their eligibility expanded through new legislation.  It says so right on the USA Today chart.  In other words, it is now easier to get on these programs.  So of course enrollment is up.  Chad doesn't note the large decrease in those receiving traditional welfare (i.e. TANF).  If the other programs are expanding because of evil Bush, is this program shrinking because of good Bush?  No.  Eligibility for this program has gotten tougher, that's why the decrease in enrollment. 

We here at SDP have pointed out that the rise in the poverty rate has been mild under Bush, especially considering unpredictable economic catastrophes (e.g., September, 11, Hurricane Katrina) and by historical standards the poverty rate is quite reasonable.  It is our position that low taxation and modest regulation makes business more productive.  When businesses are profitable they invest and create wealth in ways that expand opportunities for all Americans.  Nothing efficiently allocates resources like the market.  Those nations that are the most prosperous are those that maximize human freedom and allow ingenuity to reap profit.  The evidence of Europe and of overtly socialist nations is clear: attempts to plan economies and efforts to protect citizens from competition only lead to economic stagnation.  I suspect I am the SDPer who is least enamored with the free market, but one cannot argue with its economic success.  Perhaps Chad can favor us with his alternative explanation as to the nature and causes of the wealth of nations. 

I also want to point out that in contrast to the reported stinginess of the Bush Administration, entitlement spending, not just enrollment, is up since 2000.  Just look at Table 9 of this Congressional Budget Office report (pdf alert).  The increase is about $370 billion and is now at 10.7% of GDP (Table 10), the highest in history.  This Senate Appropriations report shows that over the last 40 years entitlement spending has gone from about 30% of the federal budget to about 64% of the federal budget.  You can't have it both ways.  You can't argue that Bush is pulling the rug out from under the poor, and then when it turns out that his administration has actually approved more money for more people argue that it's a sign of how bad the economy is.  That's a "heads I win, tails you lose" argument.  Remember, it's the conservatives who are supposed to complain about the welfare state, not the liberals. I remember Rush Limbaugh used to say that conservatives measure compassion not by how many people get benefits from the government, but by how many people no longer need the government.  It is touching to see Chad Schuldt and Rush Limbaugh in agreement.

Lust for House

PP posted earlier today on the Celeste Calvitto column in the Rapid City Journal which indicated that Rep. Elizabeth Kraus will not be running for  a third term as a District 34 representative.  The article mentions that David Lust plans to seek the Republican nomination. 

David Lust, a partner in the Rapid City law firm of Gunderson Palmer Goodsell & Nelson, will make a formal announcement of his candidacy this week.

"It is time my generation stepped up and participated in the process," Lust, 37, said Monday, adding that it is sometimes difficult for people to have the time to participate. "I am in a circumstance to do that," he said.

Lust said he has already circulated petitions and is ready to send them in.

David would be an asset to the South Dakota state legislature.  I've had the opportunity to discuss politics with David on occasion and find him to be one of the most well informed and well reasoned individuals I know.  Here's hoping that we see David in Pierre next year. 

Medical Marijuana

Another measure may appear on next year's ballot.  I saw my first petition today seeking a public vote on the legalization of medical marijuana in South Dakota.  When I get more details on the petition drive I'll post more. 

Senator Stabenow

Michelle Malkin: Where Not to Stand...

The Argus Wikitorial

Editor & Publisher:  The Return of the Wikitorial! Can South Dakota Handle It?

Censure: Let's Vote!

Bill Frist strikes back at Senator Feingold's censure proposal:

Yesterday Democrat Senator Russ Feingold called for a censure of President Bush.  The censure reads:

"The United States Senate does hereby censure George W. Bush, President of the United States, and does condemn his unlawful authorization of wiretaps of Americans."

Senator Feingold is flat wrong and irresponsible.

In fact, when I attempted today to bring this censure resolution to the Senate floor for a vote, the Democrats objected. Proving it is just a shameful political stunt.

This is like a repeat of the John Murtha episode: as soon as an actual vote comes up, they back away from it.

Abortion

An out-of-state abortion group is trying to refer the recent abortion law passed in South Dakota and add it to the ballot this fall:

Noah Beck Hahn-Walter, in addition to having a long name, represents the Basic Abortion Rights Network out of Waukesha, Wisconsin. He filed the notification of circulation today. Whomever is circulating it needs 16,728 signatures turned in within 90 days after adjournment of legislature.

Primary Stupidity

Whatever you think of the South Dakota legislature, one thing the State clearly did right was to refuse to move our primary elections to earlier in the year.  Professor Schaff and I both blogged on this, and just now I don't have the energy to go back and find the posts. 

But the Democratic Party is not so sharp.  This from the New Hampshire Union Leader:

IN THE latest effort to make themselves totally unelectable, national Democrats have taken another step toward having their Presidential candidate selected by voters who have never looked him in the eye, never shaken his hand, and never been exposed to more than a television soundbite of his thinking.

Maybe the Democratic National Committee’s Rules and Bylaws Committee, which voted on Saturday to go forward with a plan to surround the New Hampshire primary with several additional primaries and caucuses, eviscerating New Hampshire’s influence, is filled with Republican plants.  Or, alas, maybe the Democrats really are that out of touch.

What's the problem with front loading?  Here is the Union Leader's take:

The GOP candidates will first be tested in the trenches of Iowa and New Hampshire, where they will have to meet and answer questions directly from voters. They will have to spend months honing their messages in country stores, mom and pop restaurants, and town halls — not just in front of, but surrounded by randomly assembled (not hand-picked) groups of flesh-and-blood American voters.

The Democrats, by contrast, will fly in chartered planes from state to state to state and have themselves shuttled so rapidly between so many television stations, radio stations and newspaper offices that they will hardly have time to stop for a bite to eat, much less mingle with the rabble. They will have to cover six or seven states in as many days. The voters can forget about meaningfully interacting with the candidates; they will be lucky to catch a glimpse of them.

 

Darrin Smith

Darrin Smith, candidate for Mayor of Sioux Falls, is starting to run TV ads, according to his recent letter to supporters:

Smith for Mayor - TV ad begins

Dear Friends & Supporters,

Election Day is exactly 4 weeks from today, or just 28 days.....for the past several weeks I have been working hard to collect petition signatures and meet voters.

Now the real campaign begins.....

Over the next 4 weeks, you will begin to see our Smith for Mayor signs all over Sioux Falls, you will find me in neighborhoods knocking on doors every afternoon and evening, you will start to receive our campaign postcards in your mailbox, and beginning tomorrow you will see our Smith for Mayor TV ad.  This is the critical time when we get the chance to introduce ourselves and our families to the voters and communicate our specific ideas for the future of Sioux Falls.  I'm very excited for this to happen!

This first week of TV ads can be found on the major broadcast stations - a variety of mornings, afternoons, evenings, and weekend times.  I wanted to give all of you a sneak preview by posting our TV ad on my website at www.smithformayor.com.  Please take a moment to check it out, and let me know what you think.  Then forward the link to all your friends and co-workers.

Thanks again for all your support.....without your generous support, we could not advertise this early before all the other candidates, and I'm deeply grateful for that.

Sincerely,

Darrin

In related news, Dave Kranz has a piece in the Argus Leader today about Dave Munson's candidacy not being "out of the question."

The New Media

The Guardian:

Internet means end for media barons, says Murdoch    

· Magnate hails second great age of discovery
· Power 'moving from the old elite to bloggers'

Rupert Murdoch last night sounded the death knell for the era of the media baron, comparing today's internet pioneers with explorers such as Christopher Columbus and John Cabot and hailing the arrival of a "second great age of discovery".

The News Corp media magnate nurtures a long-held distaste for "the establishment" but last night confided to one of the few clubs to which he does belong - The Worshipful Company of Stationers and Newspaper Makers - that he may be among the last of a dying breed.

"Power is moving away from the old elite in our industry - the editors, the chief executives and, let's face it, the proprietors," said Mr Murdoch, having flown into London from New York after celebrating his 75th birthday on Saturday.

Far from mourning its passing, he evangelised about a digital future that would put that power in the hands of those already launching a blog every second, sharing photos and music online and downloading television programmes on demand. "A new generation of media consumers has risen demanding content delivered when they want it, how they want it, and very much as they want it," he said. Indicating he had little desire to slow down despite his advancing years, he told the 603-year-old guild that he was looking forward, not back.

"It is difficult, indeed dangerous, to underestimate the huge changes this revolution will bring or the power of developing technologies to build and destroy - not just companies but whole countries."

The owner of Fox News added: "Never has the flow of information and ideas, of hard news and reasoned comment, been more important. The force of our democratic beliefs is a key weapon in the war against religious fanaticism and the terrorism it breeds."

Also see this WSJ Opinion piece entitled "The Future in Black and White: Newspapers discover creative destruction," which argues the opposite:

Good and factual reporting and independent commentary of the kind you can't get elsewhere is where the successful journalistic outlets will create value in the future, as they have in the past. The trick will be adapting old journalism standards to the new opportunities that technology offers.

UPDATE:  BusinessWeek also has an article about the effects of the "net's new age."

Adoption

In this post on liberal intolerance I mentioned the case of Massachusetts forcing Catholic Charities to accept gay adoption.  Joe Knippenberg has more thoughts on this phenomenon.

More Sports

The Minnesota Vikings have traded quarterback Daunte Culpepper to Miami.  If the reports are correct that the Vikings are getting a second round draft pick for 2007, they got robbed.

Update: John Clayton writes at ESPN:

The Vikings can only hope they can be as successful as the Seattle Mariners were when they went through a period in which they lost Ken Griffey Jr. and Alex Rodriguez.

The Mariners won games but no championships after Griffey and Rodriguez left. It's hard to replace franchise players, and the Vikings hardly got value. What are they thinking?

 

Weise & Billion

An SDP reader passes this along:

SDP may be interested in all the discussions going on within the Democratic Party at the moment.  Dennis Weise and Jack Billion are being discussed as candidates against Governor Rounds.  [Edit: See this]  Apparently Billion really wants to be the candidate and they are waiting on Weise to make his final decision on Tuesday.  Some believe that Billion, since he is pro-choice, will be able to travel the country and raise lots of money to go after Rounds.  Also, the Hildebrand/Daschle group is backing Billion so that will give him experienced advisors.  Word has it that Senator Johnson is not that hot on Billion as the candidate and prefers Weise.  Who knows, but thought SDP would want to know there's lots of talk going on.

Daschle

From the Rapid City Journal, quoting our very own Professor Schaff:

Former U.S. Sen. Tom Daschle says he will make a decision whether to run for the Democratic nomination for president within six months.

And right now, he’s not much interested in anything less than the top spot on his party’s ticket.

“My time frame is five or six months,” Daschle said in an e-mail response to questions by the Journal that arrived Sunday evening. “And, no, I’m not interested in vice president or the cabinet.”

Daschle, a former minority and majority leader in the U.S. Senate, has solid national fund-raising connections and strong ties with Democratic officials. But Daschle said his greatest motivation has been the amount of encouragement he gets to make a run for the White House.

“I guess what keeps me going is the amazing number of people who tell me — in airports, restaurants, grocery stores and on the streets — that they hope I will do it, along with the belief that I would be a good candidate and president,” Daschle said in the e-mail.

Daschle also said he is deeply troubled by the Bush administration’s current handling of the war on terror, the state of U.S. military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan and the worsening situation in Iran.

“We are not winning in Iraq,” Daschle said. “I think we need to be very concerned about Afghanistan. We could lose it. And Iran is deeply disconcerting.”

Political-science professors Jon Schaff of Northern State University in Aberdeen and Bob Burns of South Dakota State University in Brookings agreed Monday that even though Daschle says he isn’t interested in the job of vice president, he probably would take it.

“Any serious candidate for the presidency has to say he’s not interested in VP. He’s interested in the top job, not playing second fiddle,” Schaff said. “My suspicion is that if Tom Daschle was asked by the nominee, he would take it.”

Burns agreed that Daschle would likely accept the second spot on the ticket. And Burns said Daschle also might look seriously at the right cabinet position if a Democrat were elected president.

“Something like secretary of defense or state would be hard to turn down,” Burns said. “His greatest quality as a Senate leader was his ability to listen and really hear other people, and that would be a great strength in dealing with other nations.”

Mailbag: DME Expansion

A reader emails this article from the Seattle Times entitled "Railroads back on track for freight, profit."  Excerpt:

After years of retrenchment, railroads across North America are reporting record profits and rolling forward with massive expansion projects of the kind that haven't been seen in decades.

The growth has been fueled by a continuing flood of cargo containers filled with Asian products, which ended the coal industry's 102-year streak as rail's biggest revenue generator in 2003 and has surged farther since then.

Railroads are gaining ground on the rival trucking industry, which is suffering from sharply higher diesel costs and a shortage of long-haul drivers.  But companies that move goods by train are complaining about increasing rates and delays.

"It's a new day dawning for the railroads," said Don Hodges, whose Hodges mutual fund lists railroads as some of its largest investments. "The railroads have been underperformers for so many years that people stopped paying attention to them. I think there is a lot ahead of them even yet."

Check out the whole thing.

Hall of Fame

I just returned from California and hope to begin semi-regular posting again.  While I hope to post on political happenings tomorrow, Professor Schaff has inspired me to post on sports today.

First of all, I too would like to wish my Alma Mater luck in their game against Winona State in the NCAA Division II tournament.  Winona State defeated USD in the first round of the tournament much to the delight of Professor Schaff. 

After reading Professor Schaff's post on the Major League Baseball Hall of Fame, I feel compelled to make a case for a player I think deserves election to the hall, Tom Glavine.  In the juiced ball era, only Roger Clemens, Greg Maddux, Randy Johnson, and Pedro Martinez have been better.  Glavine enters the season with 275 wins, two Cy Youngs, and five 20 win seasons.  He likely will win his 300th game in 2007 which makes his election to the hall a lock. 

I think a compelling case can be made for Ken Griffey Jr. as well.  Despite the injuries Griffey has suffered the last few seasons, he has compiled a Hall of Fame career without any suspicion of steroids (mostly because he is built more like me than Bonds, Sosa, McGuire, etc).  I think that if their statistics should be discounted due to steroid suspicions, the 600 home runs he will have complied over the course of his career will look even more impressive.  Other than that, I can't complain too much with Professor Schaff's analysis.