A Pope on the Ropes

I am hardly qualified to pass judgment on this or any other Pope's interpretation of Catholic doctrine.  I was raised a Methodist, which means that I approach such topics from an initial state of confusion, and usually exit in the same condition.  The current Methodist Church strikes me as a gate standing alone in a field.  You can never be quite sure whether you are inside or out, something the Church hierarchy bizarrely understands as 'inclusion.' 

But as a trained Straussian, I know a few things about the relation between rational inquiry and politics that Pope Benedict, perhaps, neglected to give enough attention to.  Melanie McDonagh of the British Telegraph elegantly describes how the Pope got into a bit of trouble.

There is, I am afraid, such a thing as being too clever by half. Pope Benedict is a case in point. He is a former academic and this week he addressed a gathering of other academics at a university in Regensburg. In this congenial environment, he let himself go and delivered a nuanced address on the subject of faith and reason, snappily titled "Three Stages in the Programme of De-Hellenisation". The gist, to spare you the trouble of looking it up, is that belief in God is entirely consistent with human reason and the Greek spirit of philosophical inquiry. By using the reason God gave us, we become, in a way, more like him. Fair enough, you might think. No harm in that.

But there was, of course. If the Pope had stuck to quoting Plato (which he did) to illustrate his point, he wouldn't now be in the position of, as the Muslim News put it, alienating a billion Muslims. His mistake was to cite a series of dialogues between a learned Byzantine emperor and a scholarly Persian Muslim about the truth of their respective religions, which was probably written while Constantinople was being besieged by the Turks. The emperor in question, Manuel II Paleologus, referred during the seventh dialogue to the Koran's teachings about spreading the faith by the sword. And this, said the emperor, could not come from God because violence was the opposite of reason, and God himself cannot act contrary to reason.

What interested the Pope was the emperor's insistence that God's nature meant that he cannot act irrationally. Unfortunately, Benedict quoted verbatim from the emperor's words: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." And this remark, which the Pope described as "rather marginal to the dialogue itself", was what almost every prominent Muslim has seized on.

One reason I went into academics, as opposed to seeking public office or maybe the Papal Chair, was precisely to avoid this kind of situation.  What the Pope said looks to me to be perfectly reasonable, and worth considering whether you agree with him or not.  But one has to consider the effect of one's words on people who are in no mood for reason.  This from the Assyrian International News Agency (about which I know nothing):

(AINA) -- According to the website Islam Memo, one Christian was killed in Baghdad after the Pope's speech two days ago. The speech created a wave of anger throughout the Islamic world, including Iraq. A poster has been placed in many Baghdad mosques for the previously unknown group, "Kataab Ashbal Al Islam Al Salafi," (Islamic Salafist Boy Scout Battalions). This group threatens to kill all Christians in Iraq if the Pope does not apologize in three days in front of the whole world to Mohammed.

If this story is accurate, it is curious that the MSM is not covering it.  Apparently four Churches in Gaza have been attacked.  In a world in which there are Islamic boy scouts, one has to carefully weigh one's words.   

Novak on Obama

Bob Novak today writes about the presidential bid of Senator Obama, who is being helped by long-time Daschle campaign manager Steve Hildebrand:

OBAMA FOR PRESIDENT?

Prominent Illinois Democrats are advising Sen. Barack Obama, now finishing his second year in the Senate, to consider making a run for the 2008 presidential nomination.

One such Democratic stalwart is telling the 45-year-old Obama to run only if prospective front-runner Sen. Hillary Clinton does not. But others are advising the popular freshman senator to go for it even if Clinton is a candidate.

These boosters calculate that Obama, the son of a black father and a white mother, could break the Republican presidential hold on the South by maximizing the African-American vote in states such as South Carolina, Georgia and Mississippi.

South Dakota Legislative Races

A commentator at SD War College has a list of the hottest South Dakota legislative races this fall: 

Giebink is important, but here's the pantheon of South Dakota legislative races for this year:

1) Dick Kelly-Scott Heidepriem Senate race in Sioux Falls (Kelly is an established figure, but Heidepriem has money and is getting help from old Daschle/Janklow machine and wants to run against Thune in 2010 but needs a platform; watch for lots of money to be spent even on tv)

2) Schweisow-Katus Senate race in Rapid City (this is big because of the ideological fireworks and because Senator Adelstein is helping strongly and could tip this GOP seat to Dems)

3) Dennis Arnold-Nancy Turbak Senate race in Watertown(Arnold is playing up his long-time residency and NRA, DU and Turkey Federation connections and Turbak's lawyer feminism, which should be enough to win it for him; also lots of spending in this race)

4) Mary Giebink-Roger Hunt House race in Sioux Falls (Democrats like Tom Daschle and Tim Johnson are raising lots of money because they are tired of getting whacked on the abortion issue by Hunt and his evangelical buddies; Dems feel confident about knocking off Hunt)

5) Sandy Jerstad-Bill Earley Senate race in Sioux Falls (the latest KELO-Land poll shows this race to be a dead-heat; Rounds not willing to help out Earley very much so he's handicapped that way).

Prediction: Heidepriem-Giebink beat their Republican opponents but Arnold-Earley-Scheisow win and so does Governor Rounds so Pierre doesn't really change at all.

Election Heat 2: House Keeping

I noted in an earlier blog that I am always looking for some Ouija board, some magic device, that will allow me to predict election results well in advance.  One possible crystal ball is my colleague, Professor Schaff.  I discovered, when traveling with Jon in Washington D.C., that he has an unfailing sense of direction.  If he thinks you should turn left, it is almost certain that where you want to go is to your right.  Likewise, he predicted a Kerry victory and a Thune defeat in the last election.  So when he tells me that he expects the Republicans to lose the U.S. House in November, the Republican in me breathes a sigh of relief. 

But maybe we ought to pay attention to more traditional indicators.  Patrick O'Connor in The Hill has this to say:

While Democrats and many independent analysts say that the field of competitive races in the House is growing, Republican officials yesterday claimed that some GOP lawmakers can rest easy.

Seizing on recent news reports, the Republican National Committee (RNC) distributed a list yesterday declaring that 14 once-competitive House GOP seats are no longer endangered.

The RNC and the Republican campaign chief in the House both point to the decision by national Democrats not to fund Democratic candidates in seats throughout the country.

We are now getting close to crunch time, and if the number of competitive seats is really shrinking, as is indicated here, then the Republican's chance of holding the House looks much better. I expect the Republicans to lose seats in both houses, but control of neither.  Fortunately, current spin will make that look like a moral victory.

History Carnival

The latest History Carnival is up at HNN's Cliopatra blog.

More on Hildebrand/Obama

Washington Post blogger Chris Cilizza:

Obama Watch: Another Hint of '08 Intent?

After yesterday's post on Barack Obama's visit to Iowa this weekend, another tidbit of information came to The Fix's attention that will certainly fuel even more chatter that the Illinois senator is seriously pondering a 2008 presidential bid.

Obama will be accompanied on the trip by Steve Hildebrand, considered one of the major "gets" for candidates eyeing the 2008 race due to his expertise as a field organizer and campaign manager. In 2000, Hildebrand managed Vice President Al Gore's Iowa caucus victory over New Jersey Sen. Bill Bradley. Four years earlier he ran the Midwest for the Clinton-Gore reelection effort.

Hildebrand also has considerable experience in Senate races. In 1986 he was the state finance director for Tom Daschle's first successful run for the Senate. In 1990 Hildebrand was deputy campaign manager for Ted Muenster's (D) unsuccessful bid against South Dakota Sen. Larry Pressler (R).

By 1998 Hildebrand was serving as political director at the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. In 2002 and 2004 he managed Senate races in South Dakota -- winning in 2002 with Tim Johnson and losing in 2004 with Daschle. Hildebrand now runs a political consulting company with fellow Senate operative Paul Tewes.

"I'm honored to be joining Senator Obama in Iowa at the Harkin Steak Fry," said Hildebrand. "With a record crowd in attendance, the more than 2,000 Iowa Democrats will get a real treat when they hear from the biggest star in American politics."

It's important to remember that Hildebrand is not signed on with Obama in any formal capacity. In fact, Hildebrand has been helping Daschle as he moves around the country exploring a White House bid of his own -- a longshot prospect at best.

But the presence of Hildebrand at Obama's side this weekend means that Obama will meet all the right movers and shakers in the state. As we have said before, although Obama is extremely inexperienced politically, a compelling case exists that he should run for president in 2008. The smart money is still on him waiting until 2012 or 2016, but this latest development has to give even those most pessimistic about an Obama '08 bid some pause.

Hildebrand courting Obama?

As per the Chicago Tribune, Steve Hildebrand will be in Iowa on Sunday for Sen. Tom Harkin's Steak Fry.  Interestingly enough, he'll be with potential presidential candidate Barack Obama rather than potential presidential candidate Daschle.  Does Daschle's right-hand-man entering Presidential Primary sacred ground with another potential candidate suggest that maybe the Ex-Senator from South Dakota has lost hope?   Here's the story (registration required), and a clip.

Obama's scheduled appearance Sunday at a high-profile Iowa Democratic event--Sen. Tom Harkin's steak fry--is sure to increase speculation about his intentions. And he is doing little to dampen that chatter, particularly considering that he has asked one of the state's most influential political operatives to accompany him.

Steve Hildebrand, who ran Al Gore's Iowa campaign in 2000, will join Obama and introduce him to state Democratic activists.

Election Heat: Rhode Island Follow Up

Prepare yourself for a shock.  My friend Chad at CCK had something nice to say about me. 

I think a lot of what Blanchard says about Chafee and Lieberman is correct. This is where Blanchard excels - solid political analysis instead of partisan hackery that tends to enter Michelle Malkin territory.

As to the "partisan hackery" note, well, I think my partisan hackery is better written and better argued than his partisan hackery.  But I like the part about "solid political analysis," so I won't spoil the moment.  I agree with Chad that Lieberman faces problems in the primary.  He has to run against the nominated Democrat without alienating Democratic voters.  But I think that enough Republicans and Independents will vote for him to give him the edge.  That is certainly what it looks like now. 

I disagree that the Republicans will look foolish for investing heavily in Chafee.  Frankly, the RNC can afford it.  This from Jim VandeHei and Chris Cillizza at the Washington Post. 

While Democrats are confident they are on track to capture the House and possibly the Senate, top party leaders are privately expressing concerns about the RNC's $30 million financial advantage over the Democratic National Committee and how the money will be used to maximize turnout in pivotal races.

Events this week put the GOP edge in sharp relief. While the RNC was fine-tuning its "microtargeting" program in Rhode Island, Democrats were announcing they had finally resolved a months-long dispute between Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.) over a budget for mobilizing voters.

The DNC will spend $12 million to help Democrats up and down the ballot this fall. Some party leaders privately acknowledge that House Democrats in particular are only beginning to put in place an operation to turn out voters and that Republicans are many months ahead in planning.

It won't look stupid to have invested a lot of dollars in turning no chance at a senate seat into a 50/50 chance, even if they lose.  And I am guessing the same strategy that worked in the primary will work in November. 

But the WaPo article focuses on a more important Republican asset, its advantage in "get out the vote" operations. 

The Republican National Committee, convinced that Chafee is the party's only chance of keeping a seat in a Democratic-leaning state, spent $400,000 to ship 86 out-of-state volunteers and several paid staff members to Rhode Island. They targeted not just Republicans but also independent voters during the final days of the campaign, following a blueprint developed months ago by the National Republican Senatorial Committee and the Chafee campaign.

The effort helped Chafee survive a spirited challenge from Cranston Mayor Stephen Laffey by boosting primary turnout to an all-time high. In June, GOP leaders used a similar turnout program to help lobbyist Brian Bilbray win a special California election for the House seat vacated by indicted GOP Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham.

There were several factors behind Chafee's 54 percent to 46 percent win, including his popularity among independents and his decision to attack Laffey in television ads during the final weeks of the campaign. But it was the repeat success of the GOP voter-mobilization program that had Democrats anxiously examining returns.

"Their turnout operation is exquisite," a senior Democratic strategist said. "We are not going to match them."

I noted in analyzing the 2004 election that the Democratic advantage in mobilizing voter turnout had shifted to the Republicans that year, and that largely determined the outcome.  As the WaPo has it, the Republicans continue to enjoy better organization on this score.  In close elections, this will matter. 

Herseth's Potential Power

Over at SoDa PlainsPolitics, TC links to a story about Rep. Herseth where Peter Harriman from the Argus Leader touts the promise of her power in the House if the Democrats win a majority there in November.  Here's a bit:

Eight weeks before the general election, Rep. Stephanie Herseth not only enjoys an incumbent’s advantage over challenger Bruce Whalen but growing speculation that her Democratic party will take control of the House in November.

If that happens, many think the House Democrat’s current political power will grow substantially.

The last bit of that made me wonder...  If the House is taken by the Democrats, as my SDP colleage Dr. Schaff believes, how much power does either majority in either chamber gain?  I'm sure the Democrats will gain some power and force more compromises.  Yet I can't help but believe that the current political climate will just create a gridlock with bills passing through the House or Senate that can't pass in the other chamber.  And if this does in fact occur, are we better off with deadlock?  Well, I guess we'll have to wait and see.

Daschle's Opposition to Railroad Does Not Hold Water

A Huronite writing at Plains Politics is not buying Tom Daschle's arguments about his opposition to the DME railroad, the biggest project in South Dakota history.  He reviews lots of evidence and history on the subject:

Tom Daschle is being completely disingenuous when he says the Mayo Clinic, which he works for, “just” wants a bypass. He knows this will kill the railroad project. There are two things your readers need to study. The Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) issued by the Surface Transportation Board in November 2001 addressed the Rochester bypass in chapter 9 in GREAT detail. The FEIS concluded that continuing DM&E’s existing route through Rochester was the “environmentally preferable route.” The FEIS said of the bypass: “there are substantial numbers of hidden subsurface voids that will collapse to form sinkholes in this area and that, therefore, construction and operation of the proposed bypass would entail a significant risk. Although the construction and operation of the bypass is theoretically possible, the mitigation and monitoring that could be necessary would be prohibitively expensive.” Despite the detailed and hugely expensive analysis in the FEIS, the Mayo Clinic and the Sierra Club still sued to stop the project. The 8th Circuit federal court of appeals handled the lawsuit and came to the same conclusion as the FEIS and STB about a bypass: “it would entail considerable cost and significant environmental risk.” The court held that “the risk of encountering sinkholes along the existing route was unlikely since surveys had identified only four sinkholes near or within DM & E's right of way and since the existing route had been in operation for over a century without incident. We think that this provides a reasoned basis upon which to conclude that the existing route presented fewer topographical challenges and risks than the proposed bypass.” The court decision also said there was “more than ample evidence to support SEA's conclusion that construction of a bypass would be considerably more expensive than reconstruction of the existing route.”

Your readers should read this FEIS and the court decision:

http://www.stb.dot.gov/stb/docs/Ch09.pdf

Mid States Coalition v. Surface Transportation Board, 345 f.3d 520 (2003)

I Hope I Am Wrong

I wrote in the Aberdeen American News that the days of sub-$2.00 per gallon gas are over.  Now at least one analyst is predicting gas prices as low as $1.15.  I hope he is right and I am wrong.  Still, policy proposals to lessen our use of oil are to be encouraged.  We are one Middle East war away from a massive shock to the world's oil supply.

On related note, low gas prices cannot help but buoy Republican chances in November, although I still believe Democrats will capture the House.  I have long believed the president's approval rating tracks gas prices more than they track events in Iraq.  Thus it is no accident that his approval has crept into the mid-40s.  Nothing to crow about, but better than the mid-30s. 

DM&E

From today's Minneapolis Star-Tribune:

WASHINGTON - An eight-year wait for an answer to whether the Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern Railroad (DM&E) will be allowed to expand in southern Minnesota is almost over.

The Federal Rail Administration is collecting public comments on environmental impact statements for the project until Oct. 10. After the comments are reviewed and the administrator signs off, the agency has 90 days to approve or deny the $2.5 billion loan for the DM&E. As soon as the clock begins, the administration can decide at any point, spokesman Steve Kulm said.

Farm and city leaders from throughout Minnesota went to Washington on Wednesday to ask the state's congressional delegation for its support during the review's final days.

"This is so important to agriculture that we get a rail line that we can rely on," said Kevin Paap, president of the Minnesota Farm Bureau Federation.

Leaders contend that an improved and expanded rail line would be an economic boon for small communities. It would help lower the cost of coal, transport crops and bring jobs, they said.

"You've all heard of a ripple effect. This is not a ripple effect," said Robert Gervais, director of the Economic Devolopment Authority in Tracy, Minn. "This is a splash. This is like dropping a rock in a 5-gallon pail of water."

Lincoln Chafee, Joe Lieberman, and Franco

U.S. Senator Lincoln Chafee reminds me of General Francisco Franco.  Not that Chafee has ordered a henchman to arrest and garrote someone.  Rhode Island is so small you could scarcely garrote someone without falling backwards across state lines.  Chafee seems to be an altogether amiable fellow, who wouldn't harm a hair on anyone's head.

He reminds me of Franco because both were placeholders for people who didn't much care for them.  Because Franco was, at least nominally, the Spanish edition of Der Fuhrer, the German edition felt obliged not to invade and occupy Spain.  Keeping Spain out of German hands was an invaluable gift to the Allies.  The old cutthroat also kept Spain out of communist hands.  That earned him a hug from Eisenhower.  That doesn't mean that we liked or admired him.

Chafee is the perfect RINO (Republican in Name Only).  He sides with Democrats on nearly every issue that Republicans care about.   There is little love lost among Republicans for Chafee.  But if he wins (and that is still an big if), he keeps that Senate seat out of Democratic hands.  Chafee will support the Republican candidate for leader come January.  This explains why Republicans pulled out all the stops to secure Chafee's primary victory over a more conservative opponent.  Call it a victory for pragmatism.

It's interesting to compare this with Joe Lieberman's primary defeat.  The Democratic establishment did try to get Lieberman over the bar, though half-heartedly and with diminishing enthusiasm as his lead evaporated.  But they couldn't bring their activist base around.  At present, Lieberman enjoys an RCP average of 7.3 points in the polls.  If this holds, Connecticut Democrats have nominally forfeited a U.S. Senate seat.  Of course, Lieberman is unlikely to join the Republican caucus.  He has after all persistently campaigned as a good Democrat.  But he is the reverse image of Chafee: a DINO, if you will.  Once back in the Senate, he will owe nothing to the Democratic party.  Neither he nor the activist Democratic base or likely to forgive one another. 

In politics, pragmatism should serve principle, otherwise what is the point?  But it should serve it in a leadership post.  In these two races, the Republicans managed this better than the Democrats.

Planned Parenthood, It's Mmmmm Good

Perhaps you've seen the Planned Parenthood advertisement asking for folks to host potlucks for legalized abortion.  If not, the War College has the goods.  I wonder who is bringing the hot dish? 

I thought this part was interesting:

Detailed Description of Prizes:

Grand Prize - awarded to host that raises the most money at his/her house party: one round-trip coach-class plane or train ticket to New York City area airport; one night stay in a NY area hotel (standard room; double occupancy); a Newmans Own Organics gift box; and an opportunity to meet PPFA President Cecile Richards, subject to availability. If the winner lives within 50 miles of NYC, the grand prize will be one night in a NY area hotel, dinner for two at a restaurant in New York City, a Newmans Own Organics gift box, and an opportunity to meet PPFA President Cecile Richards, subject to availability.

They go on to tell you the components of Newmans Own gift box, which includes such items as "Fig Newmans" and "Newman O's-Hint 'O Mint." 

The pro-choice crowd has sometimes spoken of abortion as a "tragedy" and it should be "safe, legal, and rare."  The giddy delight over legalized abortion suggested in this Planned Parenthood stunt belies the public long face the the pro-choicers often have about abortion. 

BTW, yesterday I saw T-shirts being handed out by Planned Parenthood on campus that said "Vote As If Your Life Depended On It."  That's an ironic pro-abortion political slogan. 

ABC, 9/11, and Historians

David Greenberg:

For my part, I think it's an abuse of history to place much blame on either the Clinton or the Bush administration for "not doing more to prevent September 11" (as both teams are often alleged to have done, or not to have done). Anyone can second-guess others' actions with the benefit of hindsight. But historians are supposed to try get into the minds of the actors of a bygone era--and the time before September 11, 2001, does represent, in the matter of counterterrorism, a bygone era. Everybody thought about terrorism differently back then, and it's a historical fallacy to blame Sandy Berger or Condi Rice for not having a post-9/11 mindset.

Update: Judge Rules in Favor of SDSU Newspaper

Argus Leader:

A Brookings judge this afternoon ruled in favor of the student newspaper at South Dakota State University, which had gone to court so it could report on interviews with finalists for the school president's job.

An emergency meeting has been called for tonight by the South Dakota Board of Regents to discuss their next step.

Jeremy Fugleberg, editor of the student-run Collegian newspaper, said they obtained an order that prevents the regents from keeping reporters out of the interviews.

Judge Rodney Steele issued the order after a telephone conference this afternoon.

"It overturns about 35 years of how we've done things," Regents President Harvey Jewett said.

He said the regents intend to comply with the judge's ruling.

"We hope we won't lose any candidates as a result of it," Jewett said.

Fugleberg was elated.

“This is everything that we’d asked for,” he said. “The judge was incredibly fair. He listened very clearly to both sides. He made a decision based on the law.”

At issue are the on-campus interviews with the four finalists, which are scheduled for Thursday and Friday.

One of the four men will replace SDSU President Peggy Miller, who plans to retire in December.

They are:

§ David Chicoine, 59, who is vice president of technology and economic development at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

§ William Marcy, 62, who is provost and senior vice president for academic affairs at Texas Tech University in Lubbock.

§ Norval Pohl, 64, who was president of the University of North Texas in Denton until stepping down last month. He decided not to extend his contract with the university, according to media accounts.

§ Colin Scanes, 59, a vice president for research and economic development at Mississippi State University in Starkville, Miss.

Two of the men have ties to the region: Chicoine, an Elk Point native, is a 1969 graduate of SDSU. And Scanes worked at Iowa State University in Ames from 1995 to 2004.

Before Wednesday’s ruling, a lawyer who researched whether state regents would be violating the open meetings law concluded that he can’t guarantee what would happen if an investigation took place.

Regents Executive Director Robert Tad Perry had asked for the legal opinion.

“I can only offer you opinions of what I believe the South Dakota Open Meetings Commission, if called upon, may do in determining whether the Presidential Search Process and the activities undertaken by the Search Committee violate the South Dakota Open Meetings Law,” attorney Jay Shultz wrote to Perry in a letter dated Tuesday.

“However, I can offer no guarantees as to what the Commission would do under these circumstances.”

The South Dakota Open Meetings Commission, created by the state legislature in 2004, investigates complaints of government secrecy.

For more on this story, see Thursday's Argus Leader.

SDSU May Be Violating Open Meetings Law

The Argus Leader has more this morning about SDSU's ban on the press and public from taking part in the search for a new university president.  Excerpt:

A lawyer who researched whether state regents would be violating the open meetings law in their search for a university president concluded that he can’t guarantee what would happen if an investigation took place.

Regents Executive Director Robert Tad Perry had asked for the legal opinion.

“I can only offer you opinions of what I believe the South Dakota Open Meetings Commission, if called upon, may do in determining whether the Presidential Search Process and the activities undertaken by the Search Committee violate the South Dakota Open Meetings Law,” attorney Jay Shultz wrote to Perry in a letter dated Tuesday.

“However, I can offer no guarantees as to what the Commission would do under these circumstances.”

The South Dakota Open Meetings Commission, created by the state legislature in 2004, investigates complaints of government secrecy.

Shultz’ letter, recently obtained by the Argus Leader, also outlines several arguments that could be used to support keeping the search process private. Among them: The search process could be considered a personnel matter.

The state regents’ plan to ban the press and public from interviews with the finalists in the search for South Dakota State University’s next president could soon be headed for a courtroom showdown between the student newspaper and the state.

Wyoming

New York Times:

Labor-starved Wyoming, with its energy boom in coal, oil and natural gas, is vigorously courting the workers of the Rust Belt — in particular, those in Michigan’s struggling auto industry. And the workers are responding, and adjusting to a very different life in the West.

Wyoming economic development officials and company representatives are planning their third recruiting trip this year, visiting job fairs next month in Flint, Lansing and Grand Rapids. A billboard depicting a lush Wyoming will go up on the highway outside Flint later this month and be seen by an estimated 65,000 people a day.

“Michigan has been very good for us,” said Ruth Benson, the director of the Campbell County Economic Development Corporation, who has twice led recruiting expeditions to depressed cities in Michigan.

So far, about 1,500 Michigan residents have signed up to receive job postings through the Wyoming work force Web site, and at least several hundred, employers and recruiters say, have moved to the state.

The Conspiracy Fringe

My SDP colleague Mr. Heppler posts below on the 9/11 conspiracy believers, and provides a good photo.  Jason writes:

Note, however, that these folks are not "the left," as Malkin writes. Using that term to describe the protesters is as unfair as saying that the pro-life Right is equally guilty as those on the far Right that hurl insults like "baby killer" and "murderer" (I condemn such language, but that's the subject of another post).

Jason is bending over pretty far to be reasonable, and I certainly agree that the 9/11 tin foil hat people are not representative of the responsible left, let alone of responsible liberals.  On the other hand, the conspiracy fringe seems rather large in proportion to more sensible public opinion.  The San Francisco Chronicle, not exactly a conservative rag, points out how large it is.

According to a poll by Ohio University and Scripps Howard News Service, 36 percent of Americans believe that government officials "either assisted in the 9/ 11 attacks or took no action to stop the attacks because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East." Twelve percent of Americans believe a cruise missile fired by the U.S. military  --  not an American Airlines jet hijacked by Arab terrorists  --  slammed into the Pentagon. Sixteen percent of Americans, the survey indicates, believe that "secret explosives"  --  not two planes and the resulting damage  --  brought down the World Trade Center towers.

I admit to being slightly disturbed by the 36% figure.  But conspiracy theories are of course nothing new.  Americans love them and have always loved them.  The republic was boiling with them in the days of Jefferson.  And in fact, it has been much worse on other occasions.  This from Fox in 2004:

On the 40th anniversary of JFK’s assassination, a recent FOX News poll shows most Americans disagree with the government’s conclusions about the killing. The Warren Commission (search) found that Lee Harvey Oswald (search) acted alone when he shot Kennedy, but 66 percent of the public today think the assassination was “part of a larger conspiracy” while only 25 percent think it was the “act of one individual.”

So I suppose the fact that only a third of Americans believe the 9/11 fantasy represents progress over the two thirds that swallow the Oliver Stone line on JFK.  Of course, in the former case one has to swallow the mysterious disappearance of four airliners and their passengers. 

As for the 12% who believe the missile story, or the 16% who believe in secret explosives, I suspect that's about three parts radical leftists and two parts right wing populists, if only because there are more of the former than the latter.  There is no reason either the right or the left need take responsibility for such clowns. 

Popular Mechanics has a book and a web page devoted to debunking the conspiracy arguments.  But believing in the full tilt conspiracy theory is not only loony and generally stupid, it's morally reprehensible.  Consider this case, from the Chronicle article listed above:

Dylan Avery has a theory that he says casts doubts on Mark Bingham's actions on Sept. 11, 2001. According to Avery, the San Francisco public relations executive never called his mom on a cell phone from the cabin of Flight 93, and never told her that "some of us here are going to try to do something." Instead, says Avery, someone using a voice synthesizer  --  possibly a government official  --  called Alice Hoglan on the morning that Flight 93  --  and Bingham  --  became part of Sept. 11 lore.

Mr. Avery no doubt has a lot of time on his hands, and doesn't find his own life or the larger world around him interesting enough.  He entertains himself by trying to erase the heroic act of the passengers of Flight 93.  It is impressive that such a large imagination can fit within the compass of such a very small man. 

South Dakotans (and conservatives?) Are Generous

Joe Knippenberg alerts me to a snippet from the book Who Really Cares by Arthur C. Brooks.  It turns out the the backwards religious nuts of South Dakota give more (percentage-wise) than the progressive beautiful people of San Fransisco.  Here is a snippet:

Here is a curious fact: Families in San Francisco give, on average, almost exactly the same amount to charity each year as families in South Dakota: about $1,300.  This may seem counterintuitive, because in every other respect, the two communities--1,500 miles apart--could not be much more different.  South Dakota spreads the same population as San Francisco County's over an area that is 1,615 times larger.  A South Dakotan is half as likely to hold a college degree as a San Franciscan.
 
In fact, the $1,300 to charity represents a significant difference as well, because the average San Francisco family enjoys 78 percent more personal income than a family in South Dakota.  $1,300 represents a much larger sacrifice for a family making $45,364 (the South Dakota state average) than for one making $80,822 (the San Francisco County average).  So the real difference between the communities is this: The average South Dakotan family gives away 75% more of its household income each year than the average family from San Francisco County does.
 
What explains this huge charity difference between the two communities?  I asked an executive at the South Dakota Community Foundation why South Dakotans donate so much of their incomes to charity.  Her response was immediate: religion.  "We are all taught to tithe here," she told me....  Further, she explained, even those who do not attend church regularly donate a lot, because they were taught to do so by their parents, who probably did attend.  In other words, people in South Dakota learn charity from religious practice.  Does a lack of religion explain low charity levels in San Francisco?  That is the question I took to the director of a major San Francisco foundation.  Yes, she told me, "This is a pretty godless place.  People don't feel very obligated to give."

I haven't read this book, but the blurb in the link above says the Brooks shows conservatives are more likely to give time and treasure to charitable causes.  I happen to think that arguments from moral superiority are weak and usually a sign of self-righteousness, so I do not conclude that conservatives are somehow better people.  But I will suggest that this puts lie to the idea the conservatives are just a bunch of greedy selfish jerks.

SDM on Daschle and Janklow

South Dakota Moderate: "How the might have fallen..."

UPDATE: SD Moderate is arguing with Daschle employee Clean Cut Kid about why Daschle and Janklow are undermining the railroad project.  A commentator at Plains Politics takes the side of SD Moderate and adds this about the Daschle situation:

Now you're being attacked by Daschle's hit man "Clean Cut Hildy Boy," who is being paid by Daschle and Steve Hildebrand to attack the biggest project in South Dakota history. You have to give to the Dumped Daschle Disciples, they never give up. They fail to see the problem with discussing where contributions are coming from. When Daschle was in office and taking big checks from the DME, he was for the project. But now that he got dumped and is getting much bigger checks from the Mayo Clinic, he wants to kill the railroad project. I'm glad they are calling it "Thune's Railroad" because he's the one fighting for the project and its 6,000 jobs and $6 billion in spending and increased farm markets and lower energy prices. It's too bad that Daschle and Janklow are so filled with hatred and bitterness for being dumped by South Dakota voters that they have to undermine all the good things that could happen for our state.

Real Teamwork / Credit where it is due

Several days ago I expressed my disappointment that it appeared Congresswoman Herseth was blaming partisanship for the lack of a vote on drought relief.  I felt that Miss Herseth should do something rather than complain she and others couldn't get anything done.  Today, I see that Herseth and others in the House are circulating a petition to get the issue to the floor.  Their petition requires a majority to bring it to the floor, so they'll need Republican and Democratic supporters to move it.  I'm posting a clip of a story from Agriculture Online, which also includes a quick synopsis of Secretary Johanns and the Admistration's objections to the bill.  I think the objections are interesting, and perhaps need to be considered by both chambers to ensure that money is disbursed in the most effective ways possible.  Here's the clip:

The petition, which is likely to be circulated next week, requires just a simple majority to bring the issue to the floor of the House, said Rep. Stephanie Herseth, a Democrat from South Dakota.

Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns spoke to Farmers Union members gathered at USDA Monday. He outlined several administration objections to the bill, including the fact that farmers who don't raise program crops would not be aided by a provision that would raise direct payments by 30%. And they would go to producers in the Corn Belt who are likely to harvest a record corn crop, he said.

Tom Buis, president of National Farmers Union, said the 30% increase in direct payments is intended to help offset high fuel and production expenses that affected farms last year this year.

It is good to see our elected officials working on this effort.  It passed in the Senate, and hopefully it will pass in the House.  Note also that Senator Thune and Senator Johnson are both supporting this effort.  Perhaps it needs some tweaking, but I think producers in South Dakota would love to see some progress on this.

Yet, for real progress, perhaps America should move away from a response based method for dealing with droughts and other natural disasters.  Perhaps educating and preparing producers for these periods of drought would mitigate costs in the long term and help create stability.  Yet, it is probably impossible for any member of Congress to get real action on such an idea for two reasons.  First, constituents demand immediate response to problems.  And second, dealing with natural disasters such as a drought when there isn't one does not seem important to voters.  I guess this is the struggle with the political system.

UPDATE...Check out this article from the Duluth Superior.  It looks like we're seeing a great team effort here by South Dakota's delegation and the Governor.

Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., and Sen. Conrad Burns, R-Mont., each has introduced new versions of the disaster relief legislation. While several Democrats blamed the White House for the opposition, Burns said the key to passage is the House.

"If they get the message there we can pass this piece of legislation," he said.

Several lawmakers spoke angrily as members of farm groups stood behind them.

"We are not asking for the moon," said Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D. "This is one and a half weeks of spending in Iraq."

Members of Congress from the Dakotas, Montana, Missouri, Nebraska, Colorado, Arkansas and Minnesota spoke in support of the legislation. Four Republican senators attended the rally - Burns, South Dakota Sen. John Thune, Missouri Sen. Jim Talent and Minnesota Sen. Norm Coleman.

...

Rep. Stephanie Herseth, D-S.D., also signed on to the letter. She said past discharge petitions had not been successful in breaking party unity, but stressed her colleagues would try to be "as persuasive as possible."

Hoeven and South Dakota Gov. Mike Rounds, another Republican, have traveled to Washington this week to talk to administration officials about the drought.

"We are combining our efforts," Hoeven said.

With all the support from each side, its clear that both Republicans and Democrats want to see progress.  Props to South Dakota's team for their hard work.

The Other Side of 9/11

Not all of us were on the same page yesterday. For example, the anti-Bush conspiracy theorist crowd was out in full force as well:

Note, however, that these folks are not "the left," as Malkin writes.  Using that term to describe the protesters is as unfair as saying that the pro-life Right is equally guilty as those on the far Right that hurl insults like "baby killer" and "murderer" (I condemn such language, but that's the subject of another post).  These protesters are anti-Bush and don't agree with anything that comes out of his administration to the point of absurdity.  Perhaps they should catch up on some reading.

Schwangate

See this editorial in the Argus Leader:

As a Sioux Falls taxpayer, I wish to express my outrage at the $98,758 salary offered to the new chief of staff by Mayor Dave Munson.

I thought my indignation was out of line with my fellow Sioux Falls residents until I read in the Aug. 23, Argus Leader the results of an online poll. The question for that day was: Is $98,000 a reasonable salary to pay the new chief of staff to mayor Dave Munson? The results were 3-to-1 no.

The salary for Jodi Schwan, the new chief of staff, is right up there with city department heads. In fact, she is making more than the mayor.

In the past, I have read about the money crunch the city experiences at budget time. The money for salaries, infrastructure and maintenance comes from the same pot. It is the responsibility of the mayor and others in city government to use city funds wisely.

The Problem with the Mayo "Bypass"

A commentator at SoDa Plains Politics discusses Daschle's opposition to the DME railroad project and reviews the 8th Circuit Federal Court's ruling on the DME.  Despite what Daschle is telling the Huron Daily Plainsman, which is upset with Daschle, the idea of a Mayo "bypass" doesn't make any sense:

I can't believe Daschle, who was dumped by voters in his state, is now working for Mayo to kill the railroad. I like how he says that he used to support the railroad when its executives were giving him money. But now he works for Mayo and so he wants to undermine the railroad. Look, we've been down this road already, many, many times. Daschle's ridiculous proposal of a "bypass" has already been litigated to the nth degree and found to be crazy. I remember it well. Here is the important language from the 8th circuit of appeals case, where the court rejects the bypass idea and specifically says that a Rochester bypass “would entail considerable cost and significant environmental risk.” The court also found that Daschle's big idea of a "bypass" would not work because there were too many sinkholes in the surrounding area, but the existing line worked fine. The court held that "the risk of encountering sinkholes along the existing route was unlikely since surveys had identified only four sinkholes near or within DM & E's right of way and since the existing route had been in operation for over a century without incident. We think that this provides a reasoned basis upon which to conclude that the existing route presented fewer topographical challenges and risks than the proposed bypass." Also, a bypass is hugely expensive. The court decision, which is a few years old, said there was "more than ample evidence to support SEA's conclusion that construction of a bypass would be considerably more expensive than reconstruction of the existing route." By constantly bringing up the bypass, Daschle knows full well he is working to kill this project. If this project is opened up again, it will be another 10 years of litigation and the whole time farmers and energy consumers will suffer.

Mayo Lobbying Against DM&E

Associated Press:

The Mayo Clinic has tapped a former top aide to Vice President Dick Cheney and a former Democratic congressional leadership staffer to help it lobby against an expansion plan by the Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern Railroad, federal reports show.

According to Mayo's most recent lobbying report, covering activity through June 30 of this year, the clinic has spent $60,000 in lobbying against DM&E as of that date.

Mayo has enlisted the Washington law firm of Manatt Phelps & Phillips, which lists among its lobbyists on DM&E Dean McGrath, who worked as Cheney's deputy chief of staff; and James Datri, the former executive director of the House Democratic Caucus.

The clinic is lobbying against a $2.3 billion federal loan application that DM&E has pending with the Federal Railroad Administration to help pay for the expansion. Mayo argues that the increased flow of higher-speed trains through Rochester, where the clinic is based, would increase the risk of accidents and put its patients in danger.

"We've said from the outset we were going to do what we felt was appropriate to protect our patients and our staff and our community," said Mayo spokesman Chris Gade. "On the lobbying front, there's a variety of perspectives that we're using to make those points."

Stephen M. Ryan, a partner with Manatt Phelps & Phillips and Mayo's chief lobbyist on the DM&E issue, said it was no coincidence that the firm enlisted a Republican and Democrat to lobby.

"There's never a project where we're not 'D' and 'R,'" he said. "It's a Republican government, so you have to have a Republican on it. And certainly the Democrats are important."

Mayo also has other former government officials in its corner in non-lobbying capacities. Former Sen. Tom Daschle, D-S.D., joined the clinic's board of directors earlier this year, and has called on DM&E to find a route that goes around Rochester.

Also, Bill Janklow, a former South Dakota congressman and governor, is providing advice to the Mayo Clinic on the DM&E issue.

No lobbying reports for DM&E are yet on file for this year, although a complete list is not yet available. The railroad, based in Sioux Falls, S.D., did not respond to requests seeking its most recent lobby filing.

In an e-mail, DM&E spokesman Jafar Karim said the railroad "has relied primarily on our broad support from agriculture organizations, economic development groups and the 55 of 56 communities on the line supporting the project."

Before joining the Senate at the beginning of last year, John Thune earned $220,000 as DM&E's chief lobbyist over an 18-month period. After winning his Senate seat, the South Dakota Republican inserted language into a transportation bill that helped the railroad apply for the loan.

The DM&E wants to add track to the Powder River Basin coal fields in Wyoming and upgrade its existing system in South Dakota and Minnesota. The project would involve building about 280 miles of new track and upgrading 600 miles of existing track.

9-11 Photo Essay

This is worth the time. HT Jonah Goldberg.

Protecting Ourselves

On the five-year anniversary of the awful attacks on the United States by terrorist groups, there is much discussion about whether or not we are truly safe.  The fact is we are not absolutely safe.  However, there is much evidence to prove that the steps the Bush Administration have taken to protect us have been successful.  The best evidence is the fact that there has not been another attack.

There is currently an important debate about US interrogation tactics and trials of suspected terrorists.  Since the Hamdan v. Rumsfeld decision, this debate his picked up and is now being discussed in Congress.  Michael Barone discusses the War in Iraq, terrorism and other related issues today in a column titled "A New Narrative Emerges."  I urge you all to read it, and here is his introduction.

Narratives matter -- stories that make sense of the messy realities of the world, that connect cause with effect, that have a beginning, middle and end. We seek to understand the struggle in Iraq by constructing narratives and fitting events into them. But sometimes a narrative is undercut and rendered inoperative by emerging facts. And sometimes a new narrative emerges when facts previously unknown come to light. Both happened in the past two weeks.

Its a great article available at Real Clear Politics.

Daschle Defends Effort to Undermine the Biggest Project in South Dakota History

Former Senator Tom Daschle responded to the Huron Daily Plainsman, which recently hammered Daschle for helping Minnesota to kill the DME railroad project, which would be the biggest project in the history of South Dakota.  Even though he supported the project for many years, he is now undermining a project which would means tons of jobs to towns like Huron.  But now Daschle is being paid by the Mayo Clinic so has changed his tune:

Huron Plainsman

Saturday, September 9, 2006

DM&E should agree to route around Rochester

For many years, I enjoyed a close relationship with the people of Huron and with the staff of the Huron Plainsman.

We fought together on many battles to keep Huron and the rural communities in the area from losing jobs and population.  I’m proud of the work we did together and for the friendships I still hold in the area.

For these reasons, I was shocked to read your Sunday editorial in which you stated I no longer cared about my home state.  Nothing could be further from the truth.

You also stated that because I serve on the Mayo Clinic board, that I want the Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern Railroad project to fail.  That’s not true, either.

For the record, I support an effort to encourage the railroad to find an alternative route that doesn’t put the Mayo Clinic in harm’s way by going around the city of Rochester (Minn.).  The threat to the safety of patients being treated at one of the world’s best hospitals is very real.  This is far more than an inconvenience.

That effort does not in any way indicate that I support killing the project.  Local issues and safety concerns need to be addressed, not just in Rochester, but in communities like Pierre, Huron and Brookings.  This is not a choice between the Mayo Clinic and South Dakota.

Frankly, Mayo is a treasure for South Dakota too.  I can name many South Dakotans who have been treated there and many South Dakota doctors who were trained there.

As Senator, I supported the expansion of the railroad and know today of the importance it has to the future of South Dakota.

DM&E President Kevin Schieffer, a well-known Republican, even gave generously to my re-election in 2004 because of our mutual desire to get this project completed.

If DM&E would agree to an alternative route around Rochester, the opposition from Mayo Clinic would likely go away.

There is no reason that these matters can’t be resolved.  This doesn’t have to be a win-lose situation.  We should all be seeking a win-win situation.

Tom Daschle
Former U.S. Senator from South Dakota

SDSU

Argus Leader:

Here is the official word, as the state Board of Regents prepares to hire a new president – at possibly $300,000 a year – for South Dakota State University.

“There is no role for the media or public at large to provide input to the board,” says Robert “Tad” Perry, the regents’ executive director. “There is no value added as part of the deliberations.”

No value in public comment or involvement? No value?

The four finalists to replace President Peggy Miller, who will retire in December, will be at SDSU this Thursday and Friday, meeting with regents and groups that include administration, support staff, faculty, students and alumni.

But not the public.

Nor will the public have any idea what was discussed at those meetings, because the media also are banned.

Why? No value to public involvement, according to Perry and the regents.

What appalling arrogance!

Scanlon Thesis

Some things are just too interesting...  Michael Scanlon, former DeLay Press Secretary, has recently written and defended a thesis.  His work, "Ethics, Politics and Partisanship: An
Evaluative History of The House Ethics Process from 1789 to 1967," apparently highlights several incidents of scandal throughout the history of the United States.  The report from the Washington Post states that Scanlon intends to continue studying this topic during his doctorate studies.  I wonder what influence his personal experience will have on the work.

Here is an excerpt from the article, however, I recommend you check out the story here for more.

While it is true that politics is clearly present in the current ethics process, the suggestions that politics and partisanship have recently been injected into the system are flatly untrue; these false claims lead the public to believe that some new political effort is unfolding in Washington D.C. that undermines, or may undermine the "integrity" of an otherwise apolitical system. The House ethics process has always been a partisan, political process and, historically, has been used as a tool for political combat. . . .

In the period under review (1789-1967), as is the case in today's House of Representatives, some truly ugly behavior was afoot. There were brawls, duels that ended in death, members openly taking bribes and, of course, ever-popular sex scandals. . . .

...

On his future: Through doctoral research the author intends to conduct more detailed research on congressional ethics matters of the 18th and 19th centuries, develop a comprehensive model and hopefully publish the results of the research.

I'm going to try an have more on this for you later.  I think it could be especially interesting to determine what impacts his research could have on current legislation and current legislators.  With research like this, authors have to obtain certain approvals when their research can impact the lives of others.  If Scanlon discusses modern situations, or even reveals things he's personally aware of, research like this could certainly have an effect on the lives of many people.  Through he maintains that he'll continue studying 18th and 18th century occurences, the work could prove quite interesting for today's political landscape.

Mitchell Daily Republic Supprts DM&E

The Mitchell Daily Republic, Mitchell's paper, supports the work of the DM&E Railroad and their proposed expansion.  Mitchell, a town named for a railroad tycoon, has historically been influenced by the railroads, much like many other South Dakota cities.  Here's the editorial:

Our View: DM&E project a winner for S.D.

The Daily Republic

Published Friday, September 08, 2006

The proposal to build a new 600-mile rail line from the Powder River coal
fields of Wyoming to deliver products to points east is closer than ever to
reality but obstacles remain.

The $6 billion Dakota, Minnesota and Eastern project, which we have
supported because of its economic benefits to South Dakota — Huron in
particular — is also positive because it would provide clean coal to places
that need it. Not to mention the new jobs — 10,000 direct and indirect by
DM&E’s estimates.

Construction would be funded by DM&E and a loan from the Federal Railroad
Administration.

If it comes to pass, actual site work on the project would begin next year
and the trains would begin running by 2010.

There has been opposition, the most vocal from the Mayo Clinic in Rochester,
Minn., which has argued that the route would be disruptive to its hospital
and patients. The clinic has enlisted the support of former Sen. Tom Daschle
as a board member, and former Gov. Bill Janklow as a consultant on the
matter.

The DM&E is fighting back and recently released a survey that said by a
7-to-1 margin, Minnesotans favor the plan. Most respondents said they
favored it because it would improve rail safety and benefit farmers by
increasing ethanol production and generating dollars and jobs to Minnesota.

“The DM&E upgrade project will help strengthen the region’s farm economy and
the well-being of Minnesota’s overall economy,” said Randy Rieke of the
Southern Grainbelt Shippers Association, who is Minnesota chairman of
GOTRAC, a coalition of communities, agriculture and economic development
organizations supporting the rail upgrade. “It will increase production of
ethanol and, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, could add up
to 20 cents a bushel to the price of corn and other grains.”

Those direct economic benefits aside, we have long believed that our country
must redevelop its rail system. Rail could reduce the pressure on the
interstate highways that are enormously expensive to maintain and add a
transportation option for certain kinds of materials that would be cost
effective. In fact, just such rail systems are operating efficiently in
other parts of the nation and world. There’s no reason why the DM&E project
couldn’t be a sensible addition to expanded rail service in the U.S.

But what about the opposition? We can’t say with certainty why Daschle and
Janklow have sided with the Mayo Clinic on this matter. We can say that the
state’s present delegation — Sens. Johnson and Thune, as well as Rep.
Stephanie Herseth — are on board and have been vocally supportive.

This project is not without its flaws, but overall it’s a clear winner for
this state, transportation, farmers and the general economy. We urge our
readers to write letters of support to the Federal Railroad Administration
and do so before Oct. 10, the deadline for public comment on the pending
loan.

Here's the link.

Janklow's Former Support of DM&E

Plains Politics:  Blatant Hypocrisy (Part I)

A New Low in Bush Hatred

Boston Globe:

SIX YEARS into the Bush administration, are there any new lows to which the Bush-haters can sink?

George W. Bush has been smeared by the left with every insult imaginable. He has been called a segregationist who yearns to revive Jim Crow and compared ad nauseam to Adolf Hitler. His detractors have accused him of being financially entwined with Osama bin Laden. Of presiding over an American gulag. Of being a latter-day Mussolini. Howard Dean has proffered the ``interesting theory" that the Saudis tipped off Bush in advance about 9/11. One US senator (Ted Kennedy) has called the war in Iraq a ``fraud" that Bush ``cooked up in Texas" for political gain; another ( Vermont independent James Jeffords) has charged him with planning a war in Iran as a strategy to put his brother in the White House. Cindy Sheehan has called him a ``lying bastard," a ``filth spewer," an ``evil maniac," a ``fuehrer," and a ``terrorist" guilty of ``blatant genocide" -- and been rewarded for her invective with oceans of media attention.

What else can they say about Bush? That they want him killed?

They already say it.

On Air America, talk show host Randi Rhodes recommended doing to Bush what Michael Corleone, in ``The Godfather, Part II," does to his brother. ``Like Fredo," she said, ``somebody ought to take him out fishing and phuw!" -- then imitated the sound of a gunshot. In the Guardian, a leading British daily, columnist Charlie Brooker issued a plea: ``John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr. -- where are you now that we need you?"

For the more literary Bush-hater, there is ``Checkpoint," a novel by Nicholson Baker in which two characters discuss the wisdom of shooting the president. ``I'm going to kill that bastard," one character fumes. Some Bush-hatred masquerades as art: At Chicago's Columbia College, a curated exhibit included a sheet of mock postage stamps bearing the words ``Patriot Act" and depicting President Bush with a gun to his head. There are even Bush-assassination fashion statements, such as the ``KILL BUSH" T-shirts that were on offer last year at CafePress, an online retailer.

Lurid political libels have a long history in American life. The lies told about John Adams in the campaign of 1800 were vile enough, his wife Abigail lamented, ``to ruin and corrupt the minds and morals of the best people in the world." But has there ever been a president so hated by his enemies that they lusted openly for his death? Or tried to gratify that lust with such political pornography?

As with other kinds of porn, even the most graphic expressions of Bush-hatred tend to jade those who gorge on it, so that they crave ever more explicit material to achieve the same effect.

Which brings us to ``Death of a President," a new movie about the assassination of George W. Bush.

Written and directed by British filmmaker Gabriel Range, the movie premieres today at the Toronto Film Festival and will air next month on Britain's Channel 4. Shot in the style of a documentary, the movie opens with what looks like actual footage of Bush being gunned down by a sniper as he leaves a Chicago hotel in October 2007. Through the use of digital special effects, the film superimposes the president's face onto the body of the actor playing him, so that the mortally wounded man collapsing on the screen will seem, all too vividly, to be Bush himself.

This is Bush-hatred as a snuff film. The fantasies it feeds are grotesque and obscene; to pander to such fantasies is to rip at boundary-markers that are indispensable to civilized society. That such a movie could not only be made but lionized at an international film festival is a mark not of sophistication, but of a sickness in modern life that should alarm conservatives and liberals alike.

Naturally that's not how the film's promoters see it. Noah Cowan, one of the Toronto festival's codirectors, high-mindedly describes ``Death of a President" as ``a classic cautionary tale." Well, yes, Bush's assassination is ``harrowing," he says, but what the film is really about is ``how the Patriot Act, especially, and how Bush's divisive partisanship and race-baiting has forever altered America."

I can't help wondering, though, whether some of those who see this film will take away rather a different message. John Hinckley, in his derangement, had the idea that shooting the president was the way to impress a movie star. After seeing ``Death of a President," the next Hinckley may get a more grandiose idea: Shooting the president is the way to become a movie star.

Voter Guide

Secretary of State Chris Nelson has published a twelve-page pamphlet containing information on all of the amendments and initiative measures on November's ballot.  You can download the pamphlet here (pdf alert).