Short Column on Short People and short changed justice

For myself and I expect for Professor Schaff. I will be attending to family matters, and the two of us will be teaching a course on Judicial Review.  I will blog when I can, but it will be sporadic at best.

Meanwhile, here is my latest column from the Aberdeen American News.  The left wing archies out there will perhaps note the disclaimer attached at the end.

Political Judgment not bigger than law
 

Victimological classification made a giant leap forward recently with the discovery of a group that has been long overlooked and downtrodden. According to the National Organization of Short Statured Adults, this group consists of men 5 feet 7 inches or shorter and women no taller than 5 feet 2 inches.

It does occur to me that this runs afoul of equal opportunity laws, since it makes it harder for women to join up. Anyway, being somewhat shy of 5 and a half feet tall myself, I can pass under the men's line without stooping.

This means I am now in the position of writers like Leonard Pitts, who are offended when their own group identity is associated with, or worse, used as an excuse for criminal behavior. That's what all the altitudinally challenged suffered when Richard Thompson (5-foot-1) was sentenced by Judge Kristine Cecava (stature unknown) to 10 years probation instead of 10 years in the slammer for sexually assaulting a child.

Judge Cecava's injudicious reasoning was that Thompson was too short to survive in prison. This scarcely measures up to an argument. Short persons are more likely to survive in brutal environments, for the simple reason that they are less tempted to fight and can more easily find a place to hide.

More disturbing than her explicit reasoning is the unspoken assumption: that a man who commits a heinous crime should be given a pass merely because he can somehow be defined as a victim.

That should not have caught us by surprise. Earlier this year, in Howard Dean's own Vermont wonderland, Judge Edward Cashman sentenced a child rapist to a mere 60 days in prison. Mark Hulett, an adult of unspecified stature, abused a girl from the time she was 6 until she was 10 years old. The minimum sentence for this sort of thing, even in Vermont, is three years. But he refused to follow the law because the state does not guarantee "quick and effective treatment" for such offenders.

His reasoning is as stunted as Cecava's. In the first place, it is not at all clear that any effective treatment exists for pederasty. Secondly, it is perverse to claim that Hulett qualifies for special state benefits precisely because he raped a child. It reminds one of the fellow who was convicted of murdering his parents, and then begged the judge: "Be merciful to me, your honor, on account of I'm an orphan."

Both judges display a deep confusion about legal and moral responsibility. Some persons commit crimes of violence in part due to behavioral inclinations for which they are not responsible.

It is entirely possible that many, or even most, drunk drivers were born with biological susceptibility to alcoholism. The same may be true of pederasts. Perhaps a strong sexual attraction to children developed in some persons as naturally as cystic fibrosis does in others. But so long as a person is capable of distinguishing right from wrong, he is as accountable for his actions as any sane person. This should be true no matter how tall the offender or how stingy the state.

The bigger problem with our two judicial luminaries is that they presume to legislate social policy from the bench.

Judge Cecava thinks that the more vulnerable inmates should be housed apart. She has a right to that opinion, though if we take it seriously we would have to segregate prisons into wings of equal sparring partners. Perhaps psychology would also have to be taken into account. Maybe the size of the dog in the fight matters less in prison than the size of the fight in the dog. And maybe Judge Cecava made such a stupid decision not because she is stupid, but because Legislatures and not judges are qualified to address such issues.

Judge Cashman believes in rehabilitation rather than punishment. But Congress and the state Legislatures have had that out, and they decided to treat criminals as responsible adults rather than as patients in a clinic. Perhaps Cashman looks like a moron not because he is one, but because he thought that his own political judgment was bigger than the law.

---

Kenneth C. Blanchard Jr., is a professor of political science at Northern State University. His columns appears occasionally in the American News. Write to him at the American News, P.O. Box 4430, Aberdeen, SD 57402, or e-mail americannews@aberdeennews.com. The views presented are those of the author and do not represent those of Northern State University.

McGovern

Robert Novak:

Former Sen. George McGovern, the liberal 1972 nominee for president who was avoided by South Dakota Democrats running for Congress in 2004, returns to center stage in a Washington fund-raiser for the state party this week.

Sen. Tim Johnson and Rep. Stephanie Herseth have sent an invitation to Washington lobbyists asking them to contribute up to $5,000 apiece "to attend a reception to honor" McGovern. The event will be held Tuesday at Democratic National Committee headquarters on Capitol Hill.

Johnson was narrowly re-elected in 2002 with just over 50 percent in heavily Republican South Dakota. Herseth won in 2004 with 53 percent.

Typepad Issue Resolved

Thanks to the excellent Typepad support desk, we've fixed our permalinks issue.

Iraq Syndrom

Daniel Henninger in the Wall Street Journal:

The Vietnam Syndrome, a loss of confidence in the efficacy of American military engagement, was mainly a failure of U.S. elites. But it's different this time. This presidency has been steadfast in war. No matter. In a piece this week on the White House's efforts to rally the nation to the idea of defeating terrorism abroad to thwart another attack on the U.S., the AP's Nedra Pickler wrote: "But that hasn't kept the violence and unrest out of the headlines every day." This time the despondency looks to be penetrating the general population. And the issue isn't just body counts; it's more than that.

The missions in Iraq and Afghanistan grew from the moral outrage of September 11. U.S. troops, the best this country has yet produced, went overseas to defend us against repeating that day. Now it isn't just that the war on terror has proven hard; the men and women fighting for us, the magnificent 99%, are being soiled in a repetitive, public way that is unbearable.

The greatest danger at this moment is that the American public will decide it wants to pull back because it has concluded that when the U.S. goes in, it always gets hung out to dry.

Two major military reports will come out soon on the Haditha incident, and no one will gainsay justice if that is required. But the atmosphere around this event is going to get uncontrollably manic, and that will feed the dark, inward-turning sentiments already poisoning the country's mood over issues like the immigration debate.

Good for Democrats? Don't count on it. After this, the public appetite for a Democratic president's "humanitarian" military intervention in a Darfur or East Timor will be close to zero.

One suspects that U.S. troops were party to some awful events in the Pacific and European theaters of World War II, all gone in the mists of history and the enemy's defeat. Not now. Gen. Chiarelli's magnificent "99.9%" notwithstanding, it's the phenomenon of the so-very-public 0.01%--at Abu Ghraib, on an Afghan street, at Haditha--that is breaking America's will this time.

Ed Morrissey writes:

Other nations, notably Australia, has repeatedly warned of this dynamic. They have argued that the world needs an engaged US, simply because no one else has the resources necessary to handle nuclear proliferators and out-of-control despots. The UN has already abandoned the US once in this war, and the question will be, as Henninger points out, whether we will be inclined to assist them when they call the next time. Will we bother to go to Darfur or East Timor when no one would recognize the effort anyway, and would probably look for ways to discredit it? Would we trust ourselves to do it right when the press seems hell-bent on magnifying the actions of the few who may or may not have committed war crimes?

Hopefully, the answer would be yes, regardless of the anklebiters on the world stage. However, as we slowly lose the will to fight for ourselves, fighting for others will certainly not rejuvenate it. Through a continual focus on what less than 0.01% of our troops have done wrong, the nation appears ready to give up on the 99.9% of our men and women who perform magnificently in their country's service. That confidence will take another generation to recover, and when we do, we may find our enemies have multiplied -- as they did the last time.

Indeed.

Left Wing Archie Bunkers at CCK

Chad at CCK and I have had generally cordial, though occasionally very bumpy, relations.  For the most part we have paid each other some degree of respect.  I used to recommend CCK as a good and responsible Democratic blog.  Its getting harder and harder to do that.  I find this note recently:

Does anyone really believe that anyone other than the Thune office is in charge of that South Dakota Politics blog?

You'd think they would at least make it less obvious.

South Dakota Politics is produced by a number of independent bloggers.  All of us, I dare say, are conservative Republicans.  We are obviously fond of expressing our opinions, and we freely do so on all occasions without asking leave of anyone.  No one, and certainly no office, is in charge here.  No one tells me what to post or what not to post.  Apart from the occasional e-mail from Lauck, which I  always ignore, I have no contact of any kind with the Thune organization. 

I would note that, unlike the folks at CCK, we here at SDP actually think for ourselves.  As a consequence, our blog represents some degree of diversity.  I am in favor of hate crimes legislation, and I am not opposed to gay marriage.  Professor Schaff, I believe, disagrees.  But he presents measured and thoughtful arguments on behalf of positions that many if not most American believe in.  CCK is entitled, and indeed we have always invited them to disagree.  But they apparently believe that such voices should be shut down. Again from Chad:

It's amazing we have people like this teaching our kids at what is otherwise a respected institution.

Chad believes that persons who agree with most Americans on the issue of gay marriage should not be allowed to teach at public universities.  He has become a left-wing Archie Bunker. 

Blanco to Sign Abortion Ban

It seems to be catching on.  From the New York Times:

Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco, a Democrat, said that she would sign a near-total ban on abortion — without exceptions for rape or incest victims — that is nearing final legislative passage. The measure awaits one final approval by the Senate to changes by the House before it reaches Ms. Blanco's desk. It would allow abortion only in cases where the woman's life is in danger or when childbirth would permanently harm her health. The bill could only go into effect if the United States Supreme Court overturns its Roe v. Wade decision.

Herseth Supports Pelosi

The Hill:

When asked, Democratic Reps. Sanford Bishop (Ga.), Darlene Hooley (Ore.), Dennis Cardoza (Calif.), Mike Ross (Ark.), Tim Bishop (N.Y.), Henry Cuellar (Texas), Bob Etheridge (N.C.), John Spratt (S.C.), Stephanie Herseth (S.D.), Alan Mollohan (W. Va.), Nick Rahall (W.Va.) and Rick Boucher (Va.) all said they would support Pelosi for Speaker.

POTUS Daschle Watch

Iowa Politics:

The former U.S. Senate Democratic leader may have lost the last election he ran in 2004, but he may not be ready to throw in his political towel.

Tom Daschle of South Dakota has made several visits to Iowa in the past year, and is scheduling another visit in June. He is also planning a trip next month to New Hampshire.

Daschle was defeated in November 2004 by John Thune. The three-term senator wants to gauge the presidential waters in the coming weeks by campaigning for state legislators.

Putting the Democrats on the Couch

Michael Hirsh, writing for MSNBC has some self-help pep talk for the Democrats.  You'd think they wouldn't need it, Bush being about as popular as a moldy sour cream at the back of the refrigerator.  Well, that's Hirsh's point.

A good therapist, we know, can sometimes help a person who’s lost his confidence or mental balance. But what do you do when an entire party needs therapy?

You’d think the Republicans would be the ones in need of professional help. This is a party burdened with a president so unpopular he barely has a base to stand on—Bush seems to be bypassing the lame-duck stage and heading straight for dead duck—a Vietnam-scale quagmire in Iraq and a post-Katrina rot of incompetence and corruption that is infecting the very foundations of the presidency and the GOP’s control of Congress. Not surprisingly, the Republicans are at each others' throats over this loss of prestige and popularity. Neoconservatives and traditionalists are fighting bitterly over foreign policy. Moderates and conservatives are battling over immigration and deficits. And when the maverick John McCain declares his candidacy for 2008 sometime in the next year, the Republicans will be shrieking at each other in public over abortion and other social issues.

But at least the GOP is engaged in a war over real policy choices. It is an emotional debate, often a hysterical and ill-informed one, but it is a fight among adults who know what they believe in and who have the guts to battle for it. By contrast the Democrats, ostensibly the party poised to exploit this GOP civil war, don't seem to remember what it is like to behave as adults. They resemble nothing so much as ill-adjusted adolescents, afraid of their own shadows, much less the presidency. What are they afraid of? Themselves, essentially: their past, their own left, the populist rhetoric of their leaders (Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Howard Dean, Al Gore), the left-wing loony stigma represented by “Fahrenheit 9/11” filmmaker Michael Moore (every Dem’s favorite bugaboo). Above all they fear seeming and looking soft. They are all afflicted with varying degrees of megalophobia, a fear of assuming power. Even Dr. Melfi of “The Sopranos” wouldn’t take this case.

When a party has been out of power for a spell, there will always be a debate over whether the party has been too loyal to its basic principles, or now loyal enough.  Hirsh, who claims to belong to neither party, urges the Democrats toward the former position. If only the Democrats were more bold! 

But what if the problem lies deeper.  Harry Truman once said that if you laid all the economists in the world end to end, they still wouldn't reach a conclusion.  Maybe if you laid all the contents of the Democratic heart in piles, sorted according to issues, you be able to assemble a single policy.  The Democrats think it deplorable that so many Americans lack health insurance.  Fine.  But does anyone really believe that we are about to institute Canadian style health care in America?  Ask Hillary Clinton.  And if not that, then what is the solution?  If the party of the Ass has been working on that, its a big secret. 

The closest thing to policy that the Democrats have been capable of generating for the last several decades is to preserve the achievements of the sixties and seventies.  That's not a very forward looking perspective for a progressive party.

Rural Life

Slate:  Grunt and Grumble: Why do men in the country talk that way?

Argus Poll

The Argus Leader was running a poll on their website asking "Should the abortion ban be repealed?" that generated interesting results.  As of 6:47 this morning, the results have 44.3% saying yes, 55.7% saying no, after 15,713 votes.

Crazy Horse

More on historical memory, this time from the Rapid City Journal who reports on the Crazy Horse Ride meant to honor the war leader.  Excerpt:

About 200 horses and riders are expected to participate in the ninth annual Crazy Horse Ride from Fort Robinson, Neb., to Pine Ridge from June 5-8.

The ride is to honor veterans, according to organizer Charles “Bamm” Brewer.

The ride begins on Monday, June 5, at Fort Robinson, Neb., where Lakota leader Crazy Horse was killed in 1877, and ends Thursday, June 8, at the powwow grounds in Pine Ridge for the start of the Veterans Powwow. The powwow will run through Sunday, June 11.

The ride begins at Fort Robinson, Brewer said, in honor of Crazy Horse. “Crazy Horse rode into Fort Robinson; he never got to ride out of there,” he said. “We’re going to ride out of there for Crazy Horse in honor of all veterans, the only warriors who come close to Crazy Horse.”

The same thing happened with Wounded Knee in the 1980s with the beginning of the Big Foot Memorial Ride, which followed the path Chief Big Foot and his band of Minneconjou took to Wounded Knee in 1890.

Medal of Honor

Rapid City Journal:

Secretary of the Army Francis Harvey is recommending that the nation’s highest commendation be given to North Dakota’s most decorated veteran.

If the medal of honor is awarded to the late Woodrow Wilson Keeble, he would be the first Sioux Indian to receive it, his family says.

Keeble was born in Waubay, S.D., and was a member of the Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribe.

Harvey said in a letter to Sen. Tim Johnson, D-S.D., Wednesday that he will recommend the medal be awarded to Keeble, who died in 1982.

“After giving this request my careful and personal consideration, it is my recommendation that the award of the Medal of Honor is the appropriate award to recognize Master Sergeant Woodrow W. Keeble’s gallant acts,” Harvey said in the letter. “This brave soldier clearly distinguished himself though his courageous actions.”

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and President Bush still must approve the medal.

“What we’ve seen in the past is when the secretary (of the Army) makes a recommendation, that it then flows quite smoothly,” said Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D.

Numbskullery by John Stossel

Whom I usually agree with.  But he makes this tired complaint against the Congressional Record:

Every night that Congress is in session, stenographers take down every historic word and ship them off to the Government Printing Office. The printing office stays open all night to be sure the official record will be on every member's desk by the following morning. That sounds important.

But the Record isn't a record of what was said in Congress -- the politicians wouldn't subject themselves to that. The Record is a record of what the members want you to think they said.

That's fraud, twice over. It's a fraud on the public, which believes the millions Congress spends on the Record are spent to document what actually happens in Congress. And it's a fraud on those of you who think your congressman talked about you.

This is a very old and familiar indictment.  Both the left and the right frequently trot it out.  But its unfair and irrelevant.  When a  person's words are recorded and then set to print, he is usually allowed the opportunity to correct them.  This is perfectly reasonable.  When someone is typing out an article, he has plenty of time to proof and edit. When he is speaking live he may easily say something that does not reflect his actual opinions on the subject.  So it is in accord with nearly universal practice that Senators and Representatives can correct their remarks. 

Of course one may argue that Congress abuses the priviledge, adding massive amounts of material that was never spoken there.  This is true.  It is also true that much is entered with no pretense that it was spoken (documents and articles for example).  What is important is that anyone who is reasonably informed (and who else ever reads the Congressional Record?) knows this in advance.  Its like buying a two-by-four: you need to know that the board is not really two by four inches in dimension. 

The Congressional Record is a very rich source of material.  It tells you exactly what your Congressman thinks you want to hear, and what he thinks might persuade you.  If you want to know exactly what was said, sit in the gallery.

Iraq

John Hinderacker: How Bad Is Iraq?

Michael Moore

New York Post:

A double-amputee Iraq-war vet is suing Michael Moore for $85 million, claiming the portly peacenik recycled an old interview and used it out of context to make him appear anti-war in "Fahrenheit 9/11."

Sgt. Peter Damon, 33, who strongly supports America's invasion of Iraq, said he never agreed to be in the 2004 movie, which trashes President Bush.

In the 2003 interview, which he did at Walter Reed Army Hospital for NBC News, he discussed only a new painkiller the military was using on wounded vets.

"They took the clip because it was a gut-wrenching scene," Damon said yesterday. "They sandwiched it in. [Moore] was using me as ammunition."

Herseth

The Hill:

Rep. Herseth: ‘From bookworm to bombshell’

From the moment she arrived on Capitol Hill, Rep. Stephanie Herseth (D-S.D.) turned heads, but in the past two weeks she has gone from a first lady Laura Bush librarian type to a glam Hollywood starlet with reddish blond highlights and choppy layers that frame her face.

“You can’t even recognize her,” a Capitol employee noted.

Uh oh. Does this mean she’s going to pull a Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-Ga.) and go unrecognized by Capitol Police? Well, not really. But the employee explained, “She has a new look. I think it’s a great change, from bookworm to bombshell.”

More Abortion News

Updating Jason's post (sorry, I see our permalinks are still not working) the Oglala Sioux tribal council has voted to ban all abortions and suspend President Cecilia Fire Thunder. 

The Oglala Sioux tribal council banned all abortions on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation and suspended President Cecelia Fire Thunder on Tuesday, charging that she solicited donations on behalf of the tribe for a proposed abortion clinic without the council's approval.

"It was unauthorized political activity," said Will Peters, a tribal council representative from the Pine Ridge district. "It's just a matter of failing to communicate not only with the governing body but with the people that she was elected to serve."

Safe, Legal and Rare?

Here is a myth that abortion supporters continue to perpetuate: Abortion is a necessary tool for poor and/or disadvantaged women who are not capable of taking care of the children that they carry inside them.  The truth is that most abortions are by older (between 30-40) middle-class white women.  So contrary to popular belief, abortions are rarely the domain of scared 15 year-olds for whom this is the only "good" option (ignoring, of course, the option of adoption, which is an even better option because it rhymes).  The vast majority of abortions are by older middle-class white women for the purpose of birth control.  And as we see in this depressing story, in the UK babies are routinely aborted for the most minor birth defects. 

Late terminations have been performed in recent years because the babies had club feet, official figures show.

Other babies were destroyed  because they had webbed fingers or extra digits.

Such defects can often be corrected with a simple operation or physiotherapy.

The revelation sparked fears that abortion is increasingly being used to satisfy couples' desire for the 'perfect' baby.

A leading doctor said people were right to be 'totally shocked' that abortions were being carried out for such conditions.

Campaigners warned we are turning into a society that can no longer tolerate imperfection. Doctors were recently told they can now screen IVF embryos to try to weed out inherited cancers.

This is the result when we adopt (forgive the language) the disturbing innovation that private individuals have the right to use lethal force under the right circumstances.  Where do we go from here? 

 

Deep Thoughts

In a remarkable piece on immigration, Harvard law professor Mary Ann Glendon has this nugget for those whose only standard of morality is "consensual adults."

Those same years, to be sure, saw impressive advances for many women and members of minority groups. But not all the innovations represented progress. Some tended to undermine the cultural foundations on which free, just, and egalitarian societies depend. For example, the notion gained wide acceptance that behavior in the highly personal areas of sex and marriage is of no concern to anyone other than the "consenting adults" involved. With the passage of time, however, it has become obvious that the actions of private individuals in the aggregate exert a profound influence on other individuals and on society as a whole. In fact, when enough individuals behave primarily with regard to their own self-fulfillment, the entire culture is transformed. Affluent Western nations have been engaged in a massive social experiment--an experiment that brought new opportunities and liberties to many adults but that has put mothers, children, and dependents generally at considerable risk.

The family breakdown has had ripple effects on all the social structures that traditionally depended on families for their support and that in turn served as resources for families in times of stress from schools, neighborhoods, and religious groups to local governments and workplace associations. The law has changed rapidly too, becoming less an element of stability and more of an arena for struggles among competing ideas about individual liberty, equality between men and women, human sexuality, marriage, and family life.

As they say, read the whole thing. 

Joe K On Marriage

Joe Knippenberg has wise words for anyone interested in South Dakota's Amendment C or the federal Marriage Protection Amendment.  In related news, Howard Dean would fit right in with the South Dakota left-wing blogosphere. 

Fire Thunder

The Oglala Sioux tribal council is taking action against tribal president Cecelia Fire Thunder for proposing abortion clinics on Pine Ridge.  Argus Leader excerpt:

The Oglala Sioux tribal council banned all abortions on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation and suspended President Cecelia Fire Thunder on Tuesday, charging that she solicited donations on behalf of the tribe for a proposed abortion clinic without the council's approval.

"It was unauthorized political activity," said Will Peters, a tribal council representative from the Pine Ridge district. "It's just a matter of failing to communicate not only with the governing body but with the people that she was elected to serve."

Peters made a motion to suspend Fire Thunder indefinitely, and when that failed, voted to suspend her for 20 days until an impeachment hearing could take place. That motion passed.

UPDATE:  I am told the vote was 16-0.

Vote for the Great American Novel

Powerline is having a ballot for the best American novel.  I voted for All The King's Men, by Robert Penn Warren, for the simple reason that I have read the novel and it left an indellible impression on me.  So far, 3.2% of the voters have agreed with me.  Go here to vote: Powerline News . 

Immigration Politics and the Failure of the Republican Majority

I have argued that the solution to the problem of illegal immigration ought to include two things: 1) the borders must be brought under control, not so that immigration should be halted, but so that it should be reduced to manageable levels; and 2) that the illegal population in the U.S. should be put on a reasonable path to legalization.  I submit that, were both these things accomplished, almost all the problems connected with illegal immigration would be remedied. 

Its becoming increasingly clear that the Senate bill would do too little of the former, and would be far too generous with regard to the latter.  Robert Samuelson has this, from Real Clear Politics:

The Senate last week passed legislation that Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., hailed as ``the most far-reaching immigration reform in our history.'' You might think that the first question anyone would ask is how much it would actually increase or decrease legal immigration. But no. After the Senate approved the bill by 62 to 36, you could not find the answer in the news columns of The Washington Post, New York Times or Wall Street Journal. Yet, the estimates do exist and are fairly startling. By rough projections, the Senate bill would double the legal immigration that would occur during the next two decades from about 20 million (under present law) to about 40 million. 

Samuelson notes the political weight of this estimate:

It is interesting to contrast these immigration projections with a recent opinion survey done by the Pew Research Center. The poll asked whether the present level of legal immigration should be changed. The response: 40 percent favored a decrease, 37 would hold it steady and 17 percent wanted an increase. There seems to be scant support for a doubling. If the large immigration projections had been in the news, would the Senate have done what it did? Possibly, though I doubt it.

Samuelson does not note other provisions of the bill, such as providing for immigrants to be paid union wages, thus putting them in a position better than many native born workers.  Such was necessary to secure Democratic support.

It seems very unlikely that anything like the Senate bill will pass the House.  Perhaps in conference there will be some sensible compromise, but at this stage I wouldn't count on it.   

The Democrats hold very good cards.  The swelling illegal population promises future Democratic voters, and a failed attempt by the Republicans to control immigration is likely to alienate Hispanic voters while at the same time discouraging the Republican base.  If the Republicans can't solve the immigration problem, then it can't be solved.  Right now, it looks like they can't. 

If I've Said It Once I've Said It A Thousand Times

Don't do heroin in Detroit. 

Immigration Debate

Real Clear Politics writer John McIntyre:

There is a quiet rage building among average middle class folks on the illegal immigration issue, and if the Republican leadership doesn't take control of the problem very soon they will allow the more extremist wings of the anti-immigration debate to become the face of the Republican party on immigration. That would be a disaster for GOP hopes to grow their new found majority in the years to come.

The surprise that is building politically is how strongly illegal immigration will manifest itself in the fall elections. Contrary to the early conventional wisdom that the huge immigration rallies would galvanize Congress to pass some kind of "comprehensive reform" along the lines of the Senate bill, the reality is that House Republicans with their enforcement-first approach are poised to reap substantial benefits by killing the Senate's reprise of Simpson-Mazzoli.

...

Republicans should understand that if there is a signing ceremony with President Bush, John McCain and Ted Kennedy on a compromise immigration bill that the Washington Post and New York Times praise, the GOP can kiss control of Congress good-bye.

The inimitable John Fund also has some observations: "So far, the White House and Republican National Committee are behind the curve."

Harry Reid: Following the Path of Daschle

Chuck Todd of The Hotline:

Meet Harry Daschle?

It was only a matter of time that the perils of being in the nat'l party leadership would starting taking its toll on Harry Reid back home in NV. His job rating is under 50%, according to a new Research 2000 poll, conducted for the Reno Gazette Journal and KRNV-TV. Some more highlights:

-- 48% of Nevadans approve of the job Reid's doing compared to 41% disapprove. OK, not horrible. But these are the best numbers in this poll.
-- The pollster added this question: "Do the Democrats under Harry Reid's leadership have a workable agenda, or not?" 35% of state voters answered "yes" and 43% said "no," including 40% of indies. This means there are a chunk of NV voters who approve of the job Reid's doing as a senator but don't think he's helped the party develop a "workable agenda."
-- And then there's this question: "Does Harry Reid possess the leadership qualities to guide the Democrats to gain control of the Senate in 2006." 36% said "yes" and 46% said "no," including 20% of Dems and 44% of indies. Now, it's possible some of these Dems who don't view Reid as having the right "leadership qualities" could be simply pessimistic about the nat'l party's chances. Still, it's a result that has to be somewhat depressing to Reid partisans.

Poll numbers like this put Reid in a box. While he may be doing things that the nat'l party desperately needs done (i.e., make Senate GOPers look like they can't govern), his reputation with home-state voters as a middle-of-the-road Red-state Dem is eroding. If this storyline seems familiar, it is. It's exactly what happened to Tom Daschle. There's no perfect answer. For Reid, becoming majority leader might actually help change the minds of some NV voters who will start enjoying the fruits of Reid's power. It's not easy being a party leader who represents a swing state because by nature of the leadership position, you look partisan. And in some of these states, partisanship doesn't sit well with swing voters. If Reid's tenure as Senate Dem leader ends the same way Daschle's tenure does, it could mean that a "red state" Dem won't be picked as leader for a long time. Being personally safe politically may become a necessary job requirement.

Dem Group Approves of Abortion Ban

Dakota Voice:

Democrats For Life of America (DFLA) commended the South Dakota legislature today for recently approving a bill that will prohibit abortion in their state.

DFLA noted that support from pro-life Democrats was critical to the ultimate passage of the bill.

The legislation would not have passed without the support of pro-life Democrats. There were as many Democrats voting for the bill as Republicans voting against.

“Pro-life Democrats in South Dakota saved the day on this bill. There were just as many Democrats who voted for this legislation as there were Republicans voting against it. So when it comes to protecting the unborn, pro-life Democrats stepped in and gave the voiceless, a voice in South Dakota” said Kristen Day, Executive Director of Democrats For Life.

While the ground breaking legislation passed both chambers of the South Dakota legislature, it was a pro-life Democratic Senator, Julie Bartling, who introduced the legislation in the Senate. On the House side, one-third of House Democrats, including 3 Democratic women, sponsored the House version.

Dayton

This AP story discusses Senator Mark Dayton of Minnesota:

Asked to describe his attitude in his last few months in office, Sen. Mark Dayton cited a line from the 1960s song "Me and Bobby McGee." "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose," he says.

The first-term Minnesota Democrat is not seeking re-election and, these days, sounds very much like a politician with little to lose.

In February, upset about a plan by a South Dakota railroad to run coal trains close to the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Dayton said the clinic "is worth a hell of a lot more than the whole state of South Dakota."

He later apologized for the remark.

The following month, he called fellow Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold's proposal to censure President Bush over a warrantless surveillance program "an overreaching step by someone who is grandstanding and running for president at the expense of his own party and his own country."

Dayton did not apologize for that.

He even told a Minnesota high school group he'd give himself an "F" if he had to grade his accomplishments in the Senate.

Herseth

Poll Monkey:

"Politics1 Poll: PICK THE HOTTEST WOMAN IN POLITICS": #1: Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn, 28%; #2: Congresswoman Stephanie Herseth, 22%

Indian Voting

Last week some national liberal group released a report attacking South Dakota as hostile to Indian voting, making the state sound like 1950s Mississippi.  Today's Argus Leader editorial calls that "hogwash."  Excerpt:

A civil rights report released last week blasts South Dakota for a climate of discrimination, racial hostility and unfair treatment of Native Americans. It calls the state a "hotbed of voting rights litigation."

We have problems, but that's just over the top.

The report, commissioned by the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights in Washington, D.C., a national coalition of civil rights organizations, was timed to coincide with congressional review of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. One provision requires federal approval of state laws and regulations governing voting in areas with a history of discrimination. Shannon and Todd counties of the Pine Ridge reservation are on the list. South Dakota ignored this provision from 1975 to 2003.

South Dakota's record has been checkered. After all, we're home to Wounded Knee. And it wasn't until 1951 that South Dakota allowed Native Americans to vote.

But to paint South Dakota as a place of widespread racism today, where county auditors and poll workers look for ways to discriminate against Native Americans, where lawmakers secretly connive methods to make it more difficult for Native people to vote, is hogwash.

Amazingly, what they do not mention is that Tom Daschle was pushing the report that attacked his home state.  Argus Leader excerpt:

Former Sen. Tom Daschle is scheduled to help unveil a report today criticizing enforcement of Native American voting rights in South Dakota, prompting political opponents and observers to speculate about his motives.

The report, "Voting Rights in South Dakota 1982-2006," documents the state's "rocky voting rights record," according to a news release from the Washington-based Leadership Conference on Civil Rights. The release did not detail Daschle's role in the report, and attempts to contact him Tuesday were unsuccessful.

Another Brick For The Wall

From the Rocky Mountain News:

Sometimes, mail call hits Congress like a ton of bricks - literally.

One by one, opponents of illegal immigration have been sending lawmakers real, red bricks with angry messages written on the side: "Build a wall. Deport them all."

While hundreds of thousands of activists took to the streets Monday, lawmakers in Washington dealt with an increase in mail from supporters of a get-tough approach to illegal immigration.

One letter, which was wrapped around a brick and mailed to [Senator Wayne Allard (R-Co.)], says: "I can't take a day off from work to go stand in the street and protest all day long like an illegal immigrant. But I did have time to send you this brick so that you could get started building a wall between the U.S. and Mexico."

Is this the opposite of making your point with a sledgehammer?

Governor News

A brief article on Wiese and Billion, and then another piece on Wiese's plans for education.  I note that Wiese disapproves of Gov. Rounds's plan to give laptops to students. 

Good Hands on SF Steering Wheels

From the Fort Worth Star-Telegram:

Sioux Falls, S.D., is the safest city for driving in America, according to an Allstate survey of 200 cities. Residents there crash an average of once every 14.3 years.

Of course, it helps that Sioux Falls is home to only about 123,000 people. North Texas has freeways that carry that many people before lunch.

Tarrant County cities didn't fare well in the survey. Fort Worth ranked 130th, with an average of one crash every 8.6 years, and Arlington was even worse, in 169th place with a crash every 7.9 years.

So, if you're tired of fearing for your life every time you get behind the wheel, or paying through the nose for car insurance, take comfort in knowing that there's always Sioux Falls. But let's not all move up there at once, lest the city tumble from the top of the list.

Here Come the TV Ads on Abortion

Sibby on Mount Blogmore's disclosure of new abortion ads:

Looks like Focus South Dakota has decided to continue the distort[ions] they have become well known for. They claim to be a South Dakota organization, but I have already disclosed their out of state funding. Now they have the DC based Kossack [and Dean supporter] representing Focus South Dakota as they paint others as extremists promoting ads that most found extreme and over the top.

Literature

Power Line:  "I don't know about you, but we need a break from poltics [sic]. So, in anticipation of time at the beach, in the hammock or on the dock, we thought it would be fun to see what our readers consider to be the best American novels ever written."  You can find the poll at Power Line News.  Head over and vote!

Memorial Day

Bill Harlan over at Mount Blogmore has a collection of photos from the wreath laying at the Black Hills National Cemetary.

Memory and Memorials

I'm very interested in memory and remembrance, specifically as it applies to history and the formation of an historical consciousness.  In April, I presented a paper at the Dakota History Conference at Augustana analyzing the memory behind the massacre at Wounded Knee and the use of that memory by the Indian activists of the American Indian Movement.  That presentation is being expanded into an article I will publish in South Dakota History.  Anyways, generally speaking, "historical memory" refers to the ways in which a society or people collectively remembers its past, reflecting the "understanding that a specific group of people shares about past events which this group perceives as having shaped its current economic, cultural, social, and political status and identity."[1]  Depictions of the past play a crucial role in our contemporary world through public memorials, films, museums, theme parks, and memorialization practices.  On this day of remembrance, Paul Richard of the Washington Post has an article entitled "Now, Memory Fails Us," which examines the rise and fall of memorials in Washington, D.C.  Excerpt:

Remember, tomorrow's Memorial Day. That's what it's for, remembering.

The holiday's gone blurry. Now it's mostly fun (ballgames, setting up the barbecue, another day off work), but it used to be for focused recollections of the dead.

Not the dead in general, the dead in sharp particular. Half a million soldiers had died in the Civil War. When the rites were first observed in 1866, there were plenty to recall.

Each spring at the end of May, their graves were strewn with flowers, their faces brought to mind. This was deeply serious business. The fallen mustn't be forgotten. We used words like "the fallen" then. That seriousness bred art. That art would shape the country's look, and Washington's especially. Vast amounts of money, artistry and effort would be expended on its making. The beauty of the art would illumine its high purpose -- to immortalize remembrance. Strewn flowers weren't enough. The fallen would be given stone-and-metal monuments impervious to time.

Washington is filled with them. If you want to get Memorial Day, look around at the memorials. They're victors' monuments. They put generals on pedestals, and dead presidents above them. Washington's memorials share a certain style. Their statues aren't just portraits, though they're often that, as well; they're personified ideals. Their bronze laurel wreaths and eagles, and Greco-Roman lions, say: The past approves of us. They're insistently high-minded, august.

They represent an art movement, now dead. For a long time their architects and artists, their stone-carvers and bronze-founders got better and better. For a long time their elevated style got nobler and nobler. Then, suddenly, it died.

It died a poignant death -- at the peak of its accomplishment, just when it got great. We know the date exactly. Memorial sculpture's greatness left Washington forever on the 30th of May, Memorial Day, 1922.

Check out the whole article.

[1] Eric Davis, "The New Iraq: The Uses of Historical Memory" Journal of Democracy, 16:3 (July 2005): 54-68. 

Harold Thune Remembers

A nice story in the Rapid City Journal.

Memorial Day Thoughts

Good ones from Ben Stein and Chris Hitchens.  I think this one is the most relevant to our current situation.  Joe Knippenberg links to this music from We Were Soldiers. 

Yesterday in church the pastor spoke on the subject of memory.  One of the worst things that can happen to a person is to lose memory, as in an older person struck with Alzheimer's or some other form of dementia.  We say that that person is "lost" or "isn't the same person" anymore as they cannot relate to anyone around them and they have lost the memory of who they are.  The same thing can happen to a people.  For example, we as Americans can forget who we are and where we came from.  We can forget how we came by all these riches and comforts.  A nation that cannot remember is a nation that has lost its identity [side note, see David McCullough on the subject of history and remembering].  Memorial Day, as the name suggests, is a day to remember those who came before us, especially those who gave their lives so that "government of the people by the people and for the people, shall not perish from this earth."  Naturally, our pastor concluded by saying the most important thing to remember is that Jesus Christ died for our sins, winning the greatest victory ever won; the victory over death.  Now that's something worth remembering.  In fact Christ asks us to do so ("do this in memory of me"). 

Memorial Day Post

For Memorial Day I reprint this piece of mine from the Aberdeen American News.  I lost the date, but it appeared in 2005.

It was an altogether happy day when my neighbor, a South Dakota National Guardsman, returned safely from Iraq. Whatever worries I had while he was away surely can’t compare with those of his wife and family. But I did worry about him, almost every day. My wife and I gave him some heavy duty backpacking socks for Christmas, and he later reported that they made his military boots comfortable for the first time. That was one small gesture of gratitude. This column is another.

The success of the recent elections in Iraq put critics of the war in an uncomfortable position. The Minneapolis Star Tribune put it this way: the Iraqis should be congratulated for their election; nonetheless, “American troops should be called upon to lay down their lives for the defense of the nation, not to bring democracy to anyone.”

This is a reasonable opinion, to be sure, but I believe it does our servicemen and women a disservice. My father served in the Pacific during WWII, and my Uncle Bill was killed by a sniper’s bullet on Okinawa. They did not sail west in order to revenge the drowned sailors on the Arizona, or because the Japanese had any designs on northeast Arkansas. The Japanese attacked us because they thought it necessary to preserve their Pacific Rim Empire. My uncle and my Dad went to war in Asia because that empire ultimately threatened everyone, everywhere.

Our fighting men in WWII deserve honor not only because they were defending American interests, which surely they were. They are also to be honored precisely because they brought democracy back to Western Europe, and introduced it to Japan. They liberated millions of human beings from the most brutal despotisms. They laid the foundations of postwar peace and prosperity because they fought for something nobler than the mere national interest that is all the Trib will allow.

The U.S. is much stronger today than in 1941, and Saddam Hussein was, at worst, a small scale replica of Hitler. Nonetheless I insist that my friend next door deserves the same measure of honor and gratitude as Dad and Uncle Bud.

The Iraqi election stands as the most promising event in the Middle East since Jimmy Carter brokered peace between Egypt and Israel. Al Jezeera and Al Arabiya, the most important Arab news services, faced a choice on January 30th. Should they concentrate coverage on the long lines of Iraqis waiting to vote, or on the various attempts to kill them? They recognized early in the day that the courage rather than the carnage was the real story. A sense of wonder and optimism was consequently palpable in coffee houses on both sides of the Fertile Crescent.

Critics are wrong to say that this election was only a step towards democracy. Democracy is not a goal, it is a process. Eight million people queuing up to vote is as much democracy as you will ever see, anywhere. Whether the Iraqis will achieve a stable republic remains to be seen. But they have already achieved a remarkably balanced government, in which the Shiite majority must negotiate with Kurdish and Sunni representatives to build a new constitution. That is exactly what a republic looks like.

The most durable symbols of Iraqi self-government are the many images of veiled women holding up ink-stained fingers, in defiance of the insurgents who promised to murder them if they voted. And then there’s Abdul Amir. This Iraqi policeman was blown to bits when he wrestled a suicide bomber to the ground, preventing the man from reaching a line of voters.

Many sensible people will still insist that the 2003 invasion was a mistake, and whoever thinks so should say so. They may yet be proven correct. But just right now siding with the veiled women and Abdul Amir against their murderous enemies is in the interest of the United States, the region, and the world. It is also a noble thing in itself. Our men and women at arms deserve the full measure of honor for it.

Debra Saunders

Debra Saunders:  "Still, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi rails against the GOP 'culture of corruption.'  And in the most boneheaded political move of 2006, House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., just handed her extra rope." 

More on Churchill

Bob Pasnau, chairman of the Department of Philosophy at CU, has published this op-ed entitled "Churchill isn't tip of iceberg" in Boulder's Daily Camera regarding the Ward Churchill scandal.  Excerpt:

The fact that this disparate group of highly distinguished scholars could reach its verdict with complete unanimity — save for the final, delicate question of what sanction to impose — should give one a great deal of confidence in their verdict. No such confidence can be taken from Churchill's own statement (available on the Camera's Web site). A careful reading of the original report, next to his response, shows him to have misstated and ignored the committee's findings at every stage. Indeed, one might almost laugh at the way his slipshod responses re-enact the very sorts of intellectual failings that the report originally highlighted.

One might laugh, that is, if the whole affair were not so depressing. Perhaps its most unfortunate aspect, beyond the immediate and very serious damage to CU, is the impression it seems to have left in some quarters that this is just the tip of the iceberg.

...

Happily, it does not fall upon me to decide what sort of penalty is appropriate in this case. But were such misconduct discovered among my own faculty, or in my own field at large, I would be the first to seek that person's dismissal.

Be sure to read the whole thing.  Diana Hsieh of the CU philosophy department offers some thoughts.

Rock 'n' Roll

Some time ago I noted Clinton Taylor of The American Spectator who created a list of country music songs he thought were politically conservative.  John Miller at the National Review has done the same, this time compiling 50 rock and roll songs with a conservative flavor.

For conservatives who enjoy rock, it isn’t hard to agree with the opinion Johnny Cash expressed in “The One on the Right Is on the Left”: “Don’t go mixin’ politics with the folk songs of our land / Just work on harmony and diction / Play your banjo well / And if you have political convictions, keep them to yourself.” In other words: Shut up and sing.

But some rock songs really are conservative — and there are more of them than you might think.

Argus Pushes Quotas

David Kranz, political analyst for the Argus Leader, called for racial/gender quotas on the Sioux Falls city council a few days ago:

It's time for another woman, or a minority, on the Sioux Falls City Council.

Council members already have started casting about for a replacement, after Darrin Smith announced last week that he'd resign after six years on the council.

Kermit Staggers, for instance, has suggested that one candidate ought to be former Minnehaha County Commissioner Jerry Noonan - a white man - who lost a race last month against incumbent De Knudson, the council's only woman.

But we need to be more imaginative than that. It's time all government bodies, especially the council, began to reflect the community - half women and increasingly minority. 

Argus chief editor Randell Beck does the same thing in today's paper.  What's wrong with picking the best qualified person, instead of basing the selection on a person's skin color or gender?  That said, watch for the left to silence this debate.

Indian Activism

Argus Leader:

The 66th annual motorcycle rally is being ushered in by controversy about two new entertainment venues rising from grasslands north and south of Bear Butte State Park.

Native Americans who consider the butte sacred are joined by area ranchers who have seen livestock sicken and die from inhaling dust continually kicked up by motorcycles cruising gravel roads.

Their coalition also includes townspeople who contend their community is being strip-mined by rally vendors who make millions of dollars from hundreds of thousands of rallygoers but leave little of that money in Sturgis and Meade County, where municipal services are strained to host all the bikers every August.

Memorial Day

Victor Davis Hanson has some thoughts on Memorial Day and the Iraq War.

Also, don't forget to tune into the 90th annual Indanapolis 500 today, then jump over to the NASCAR Coca-Cola 600 this afternoon.