Blanchard and Seeber on Morgan Lewis Case

Keep an eye out for Sunday's American News.  A colleague (Jim Seeber,  who also writes columns for the American News) and I interviewed Aberdeen Police Chief Don Lanpher.  He described in some detail the evidence that led investigators to conclude that Lewis's death was a suicide.  We describe this evidence in our article, which should appear in Sunday's Viewpoints page.

UPDATE: Chad at CCK notes this heads up and gives us a plug.  I am grateful.  His concerns are widely shared, for which reason Jim Seeber and I took the steps that we did. 

One reader posted this early comment to Chad's blog:

It is peculiar how the Chief of police in Aberdeen refused to answer the public's questions about the mysterious death (that he labeled as a suicide) of this gay professor in his 'press conference' last week, but now he is going to answer the questions of two NSU professors, at least one of whom has written columns in the local paper decrying gay marriage.

In turn I posted this comment:

I very much doubt whether Jim Seeber has written a column or columns "decrying gay marriage." I have not. I have written a column about the nature of marriage and raised doubts about some of the arguments made in favor of gay marriage. The point of the column was that marriage is not a goody to be distributed by the state to all who demand it loudly enough, but a set of obligations to be enforced by the state. "So long as that is kept in mind," I wrote, "gay marriage is worth thinking about." That is hardly "decrying" the proposal.

I am not shy about saying what I think, and if I was opposed to gay marriage I would say it. I am not, with the reservations noted above.

The column in question was published on March 14, 2004, in the American News.

 

Intellectual Diversity

Paul Weyrich in an article entitled "South Dakota legislature seeks intellectual diversity at state universities."  In full:

When the issue of political correctness (cultural Marxism) arose on college campuses a few years back, my colleague William S. Lind thought he had a solution. After some discussion with crack legislative attorney Mike Hammond we had a bill drafted which very simply would have cut off all Federal aid to any school which adopted a so-called speech code. This would apply to all Federal funding, including grants for basic research.

Lind reasoned that currently most faculty senates usually have an overbalance of participation from social sciences, political science and newer programs, such as feminist studies and studies of various minorities. Engineering, chemistry and other practical sciences seldom participate. They are too busy with real-world activities. Lind felt that when word went out that their grants also were in peril they would begin to participate and would help overturn these speech coaches.

We shopped this bill around for a time. Only one Senator went so far as to threaten to introduce the bill. When word circulated in this Senator's very conservative state, with an all conservative Republican delegation, the academic community came out of the woodwork and screamed bloody murder. Eventually even this Senator backed off.

Perhaps having learned how academia will stick together on such legislation we can recognize the effort was a bit of an overreach. Yet presently a far softer bill is making its way through the South Dakota Legislature. This bill, too, is eliciting howls from academia, which is telling the Legislature that, although even in this small State, a half a billion dollars annually is provided for higher education, the Legislature should have no say as to how the institutions of higher learning conduct themselves. This bill very simply requires the six South Dakota State universities which receive State funding to annually report what steps are being taken to insure "intellectual diversity."

By the reaction of the academic community one would think that the Legislature had demanded that these institutions hire conservatives for half the incoming faculty. The bill does no such thing. In fact, it does not tell these institutions what they must do to encourage intellectual diversity. All it does is require them to report annually about their efforts to assure that there is more of a balance in academia.

The chief sponsor of the bill, Representative Phyllis Heineman (R-Sioux Falls), says the legislation is a matter of accountability. She told the RAPID CITY JOURNAL "We are looking at a 2007 higher education budget of over half a billion dollars. It is just good governance that we ask questions and seek answers in a lot of areas." She pointed out that in the Legislature both sides of an issue are treated with respect. Each side gets equal time, Heineman said. "We should expect nothing less from our universities."

She did get support from the American Council of Trustees and Alumni ("ACTA"). Anne Neal of ACTA told the Legislature "evidence has been mounting that many, if not most of our colleges and universities, are increasingly hostile to the free exchange of ideas." According to Celeste Calvitto, staff reporter for the RAPID CITY JOURNAL, ACTA has released a report outlining steps which universities could take to "encourage a mix of ideas on campus and to respond to the growing public concern about the lack of intellectual diversity."

Representative Heineman said, "We are simply asking for a report. We are saying to universities 'tell us your story.'" The usual suspects — such as the ACLU, the South Dakota Education Association and the State Board of Regents all vehemently oppose the bill.

Tad Perry, Executive Director of the Board of Regents, termed the bill "legislative intrusion." He claimed, as South Dakota was developing a good reputation in the field of academic research, that the bill could create "a national reputation that is negative to higher education."

Ron Utecht, State President of the Faculty Union, said that during his 18 years as a Professor at South Dakota State he never has heard of any student or faculty member who, in his words, "have been taken to task for their religious or political beliefs." He claimed that poor performing students might use "perceived political bias" as an excuse.

Guess which organization claimed the legislation would have "a chilling effect on both faculty and students?" The ACLU, of course. That is a standard line from the ACLU playbook concerning any rule or regulation encouraging a balance in diversity to include conservatives.

After listening to testimony that the bill amounts to micromanaging the universities, Representative Thomas Brunner (R-Nisland) told the JOURNAL, "I don't think asking for a report is micromanaging. It is just good governance."

The bill passed out of committee by a 2 to1 margin and passed the Full House by a party-line vote of 42 to 26. Now the bill proceeds to the State Senate, in which it may face a tougher vote. Also the Governor has yet to indicate how he will come down on the legislation if sent to his desk, although some proponents of the bill are hopeful.

This is a very small step and yet academia is behaving as if this bill were a complete threat to academic freedom. It is a typical liberal tactic. Scream bloody murder at a tiny step requiring that examination of a problem. By screaming to high heaven now, liberals believe they will cause the State Legislature to back off more stringent measures if and when they don't comply with this small step. It always has worked for them elsewhere.

Perhaps in South Dakota, with its strongly Republican Legislature and a conservative Republican Governor, things will be different. Readers should note that last session of the Legislature South Dakota came within a whisker of outlawing all abortions despite the fact that Roe v Wade is supposed to be settled law.

Often states are laboratories where experiments can take places which will serve as models for other states. Soon there is a national movement. Tax limitation came about that way, for example. In South Dakota this is one small step in the right direction. What is attractive about the bill is that it turns the code word "diversity" against the very people who have used it to shove their version of political correctness down the throats of unsuspecting students and even some faculty. "Diversity? They want diversity?" one supporter of the bill said. "Fine. Let's have at it."

Also see this op-ed in today's Washington Times.  Excerpt:

For all the agony and lawsuits about diversity among student enrollments, there has been a shameful silence about the lack of intellectual diversity within college faculties. Consider a 2001 Frank Luntz Research/Center for the Study of Popular Culture (CSPC) survey of Ivy League professors, which found that 0 percent identified themselves as conservative. At Harvard, Democratic professors outnumbered Republican professors in economics, political science and sociology departments by 50-2, according to a 2001 American Enterprise Institute survey. At Stanford, it was 151-17; at Davidson College in North Carolina, 10-1. This lack of diversity has real consequences on quality education, academic discourse and academic freedom itself.
    A course description at the University of California Berkeley (100 Democrats, 9 Republicans, according to a CSPC study) stated that "conservative thinkers are encouraged to seek other sections." When a student at a Colorado school wrote an essay on why Saddam Hussein was a war criminal, instead of why George W. Bush was, as her professor asked, she received a failing grade. Of course, most students would simply accept the status quo in fear of the opprobrium they could face. After all, when the chairman of Duke's philosophy department says that his university (95 Democrats, 15 Republicans) doesn't hire more conservative professors because, "as John Stuart Mill said, stupid people are generally conservative," why shouldn't a student stay quiet?

SCSU Scholars also takes note:

The South Dakota House of Representatives passed an intellectual diversity bill yesterday on a 42-26 vote. The bill is a reporting requirement only, to wit:

The Board of Regents shall require each institution under its control to annually report to the Legislature detailing the steps the institution is taking to ensure intellectual diversity and the free exchange of ideas. For purposes of this chapter, intellectual diversity is defined as the foundation of a learning environment that exposes students to a variety of political, ideological, and other perspectives.

It then asks for information on steps taken "to ensure and promote intellectual diversity and academic freedom". The claim of South Dakota academicians is that political bias on campuses is a problem elsewhere, but not South Dakota. One legislator, Joel Dykstra, responded:

Here in South Dakota, we may be able to avoid the national trend, but our academic community should not be afraid of intellectual diversity. We should recognize it as an introduction of alternative ideas.

Excellent point. What are they afraid of? I think mostly that they don't want to be the first state that has it. From the Chronicle of Higher Education this morning (subscribers link):

"Unfortunately, it sends the message to the higher-education community that there are problems in South Dakota that need political intrusion to solve," said Robert T. (Tad) Perry, executive director of the South Dakota Board of Regents. "Nothing could be farther from the truth."

The South Dakota Senate should vote later this month on the bill. Passage seems likely. If the Board of Regents wishes to avoid HB 1222 becoming law, it could follow Colorado's example of voluntarily adopting the Student Bill of Rights into its student handbooks and provide for their enforcement. They could then report this to the Legislature once, in return for which you could void the law.

South Dakota Politics has followed the story, and also reports on an action at the University of Iowa. Its president, David Skorton, has recently accepted the presidency of Cornell University, and his first mention of diversity in his acceptance speech was intellectual diversity. I will see what more I can learn about the Iowa story.

For more on David Skorton and intellectual diversity at Cornell University, see this excellent article by Jamie Weinstein, a senior at Cornell University.

Quote of the Week

After witnessing anti-Denmark riots in Lebanon, Andrew Lee Butters has this to say.  From the New Republic:

Katherine begins filing her story, but, since I don't have anything to show for the day, I return home to work on an assignment I owe Men's Journal, a one-page guide to Lebanon for adventure travelers. What the hell am I going to write? Great food, stylish women, and rampaging mobs of young Muslim men burning cars: Yes, Beirut is once again the Paris of the Middle East!

John Fund on Intellectual Diversity

From John Fund over at the Wall Street Journal Political Diary:

Reparations for Campus Conservatives?

A lot of people complain about liberal bias among university faculty but few
do anything about it. That may change if a proposal that just passed the
South Dakota House of Representatives gains national momentum.

Approved by a vote of 42 to 26, it would require the state's public colleges
and universities to report annually on the steps they have taken to protect
academic freedom and intellectual diversity -- the latter defined as "the
foundation of a learning environment that exposes students to a variety of
political, ideological, and other perspectives."

Naturally the proposal is opposed by both university presidents and the
ACLU, which contend the professional ethics of professors keep them from
letting their politics dominate the classroom and smothering alternative
views. That claim just doesn't pass muster, however. A study by Stanley
Rothman of Smith College looked at 183 institutions of higher learning and
found that across all faculty departments, including business and
engineering, academics were five times as likely to be liberals as
conservatives. Another national study by Swedish sociologist Charlotta Stern
and Santa Clara University economist Daniel Klein found that Democratic
professors outnumber Republicans three to one in economics, 28 to one in
sociology and 30 to one in anthropology. And since many of the Republicans
were full professors close to retirement, Mr. Klein concluded: "In the
coming decade the lopsidedness must become even more extreme. At Berkeley
and Stanford, the Republican is an endangered species."

Though efforts to promote academic diversity are welcome, it might be better
in the long run to employ market forces. Colorado has a new law showing how
higher education can be made more accountable to students and taxpayers who
foot the bills. The state has shifted its higher-ed dollars from direct
payments to universities to vouchers that will go directly to students. The
idea is hardly radical -- it's taken from the GI Bill of Rights, which won
universal acclaim by allowing returning veterans to go to the universities
of their choice.

Richard Vedder, an economist at Ohio University, says the Colorado plan will
help force universities to compete for students as paying customers. Not
only would that help curb punishing tuition hikes, but universities would
likely become more receptive to different points of view as they seek to
attract students and their parents.

UPDATE:  Sioux Falls blogger Jay Reding weighs in.

Abortion Ban Passes House

South Dakota just hit the national headlines: the South Dakota House just passed a ban on abortion.  From KELO, via Matt Drudge:

SD House Approves Abortion Ban

The South Dakota House has passed a bill that would nearly ban all abortions in the state, ushering the issue to the state Senate.

Supporters are pushing the measure in hopes of drawing a legal challenge that will cause the US Supreme Court to reverse its 1973 decision legalizing abortion.

The bill banning all abortions in South Dakotawas passed 47-to-22 in the House.

Amendments aimed at carving out exemptions for rape, incest and the health of women were rejected.

The bill does contain a loophole that allows abortions if women are in danger of dying. Doctors who do those abortions could not be prosecuted.

Lame Duck Scores Another Goal

Shortly after the 2004 election, a friend of mine was complaining about how dumb George W. Bush was. "Dumb, dumb, dumb!"  Rather than argue the point, I conceded it.  "Okay, Dubya is a dunce. But Walter, he has cleaned your party's clock in three straight elections.  Imagine what a smart Republican woulda done!" 

Well, now we keep getting articles about how Bush's power is fading, and he's a lame duck and all.  But on the heals of two Supreme Court confirmations, the Patriot Act is going to be renewed. From  USAToday.   

A band of Senate Republican holdouts reached agreement Thursday with the White House on changes in the Patriot Act designed to clear the way for passage of anti-terror legislation stalled in a dispute over civil liberties.

Sen. John Sununu (news, bio, voting record), R-N.H. said the changes, quickly endorsed by at least two Democrats, would better "protect civil liberties even as we give law enforcement important tools to conduct terrorism investigations."

The White House embraced the deal even before Sununu and a few other senators outlined it.

Its the Democrats who keep backing down.  Jonah Goldberg in the LATimes, describes the Democrats as "One Sorry Mess of a Party."  Read this one.  Bush's ace in the hole turns out to be the viceral disgust the Democrats have for him.  That, or the fact that this is all that they have. 

[Nancy] Pelosi has become enamored with the idea that one needn't be for anything, as long as one is opposed to Bush. No doubt that's the feedback she's getting in her echo chamber.

In the Senate, Minority Leader Harry Reid has infuriated Republican moderates such as Arlen Specter more than GOP conservatives by obstructing legislation and hurling partisan insults. This is exactly the opposite strategy required for clawing out of the hole the Democrats are in. But anti-Republicanism trumps everything. And that's a roadmap for the Democrats to go ever deeper into the wilderness.

So Bush is a lame duck.  Imagine what a tanned, rested, and ready Duck, just of the DL would do.

Intellectual Diversity and Harvard

On the recent topic I offer this column of mine from the Aberdeen American News, quoted in full. 

“Run Over By the Mommy Truck”

You might think that the faculty at America’s most prestigious colleges would be a pretty open-minded bunch. After all, they are supposed to be dedicated to exploring and testing new ideas. They claim, moreover, to value such things as ethnic and racial diversity precisely on the grounds that different kinds of people will bring new ideas and challenge the status quo.

Lawrence Summers, president of Harvard, has just discovered that the very opposite is true. When he was asked to speak at MIT on the progress of women in academia, he was explicitly invited to be provocative. He managed to rise to the occasion. Summers cited research showing that men tend to get most of the high scores on standardized tests in math and science, whereas women tend to get higher scores in languages. This, he dared to suggest, might not be entirely due to social conditioning. Indeed, behavioral differences between the sexes may be partially resistant to such conditioning. Summers described how he gave his young daughter toy trucks to avoid gender stereotyping. She soon started calling one truck “the mommy truck,” and the other “the baby truck.”

Now this idea, that men and woman have, on average, different inclinations from birth, and that this might have an impact on the distribution of the sexes among professions, is certainly open to challenge. But it is supported by a large body of research not to mention the universal experience of humankind. If true, it doesn’t mean that women are less capable of excellence in science, or that we can’t increase the proportion of women in physics or chemical engineering. Indeed, some studies suggest that the capacity for various subjects matures at different times in boys than in girls. A curriculum that took these natural biases into account might benefit both sexes.

But by saying so, Summers had sinned against the orthodoxy of the academic elite. Biologist Nancy Hopkins said she “felt like she was going to be sick.” In the days following, a number of professors circulated letters of protest, and various donors threatened to withdraw support. There were calls for his resignation. To be fair, Harvard’s president did have defenders, mostly among journalists. He was nonetheless compelled to write a lengthy public confession, rather in the style of a communist show trial. So much for open-mindedness in academia.

Contrast all this with the travels of one modern day Gulliver, David Von Drehle, To his credit Drehle left his Washington Post office and took a trip through “the red sea,” that vast portion of American real estate that was colored red on election night. He wanted to see just what kind of Lilliputians had returned George W. Bush to office.

What he found there was diversity of thought. Many folk he talked to were leery of reporters, believing, with good reason as Drehle admits, that people like themselves were rarely portrayed favorably in the media. But they did open their doors and minds to him, and he found it hard to pin them down. He met some who voted for Kerry, but more, obviously who voted for Bush. Of the latter, some were enthusiastic while others had grave misgivings, especially about Iraq. Several were contemptuous of both candidates.

Some voted on moral and religious grounds. For others national security was most important. Most of those who voted for Bush felt a kinship with him that they could never feel toward John Kerry. Almost all, Drehle thinks, were voting against change. But they seemed to realize that what they believed in and cared about was due in large part to where they were raised and the people around them. And they knew full well that their views were not shared by all Americans, let alone the rest of the world.

As topsy-turvy as it may seem, if you want to find a place where most folk are thoughtful and open-minded, check out a roadside grill in red state America. If you want to find someone who cannot stomach the mere mention of a contrary idea, try Harvard.

Intellectual Diversity II

Much to the chagrin of some of our readers, Professor Schaff and I have been a little skeptical about House 1222, the Intellectual Diversity Bill.  I hasten to point out that neither of us has called for the bill's defeat.  Jon wants it amended.  I am just concerned that it might turn into affirmative action for conservatives.  But I did point out that I like a lot of what was in the bill.  I think the bill may be a good thing indeed if it is interpreted to protect faculty and candidates for faculty positions, as well as students, from viewpoint discrimination. 

Almost universally, faculty and college administrations do not like the bill.  Inside Higher Ed has a piece on the South Dakota bill. 

The Council of Higher Education, the National Education Association union for professors at public colleges in the state, analyzed the bill and noted a number of objections. The council said that it shared the bill supporters’ “desire to protect free speech,” but found numerous problems with their approach to doing so.

Requiring the reports, the analysis said, would “take a great deal of time and money.” In addition, it said that many terms in the bill are vague, potentially opening the door to all kinds of debates and controversies. “What is ‘balance’? What events, activities and free speech scenarios are supposed to be evaluated?” the faculty members asked.

And the faculty members ended up having a similar reaction to this bill as many have had to the Academic Bill of Rights — seeing the legislation as a tool to subject professors to second guessing or unfair attacks. “How do faculty members protect themselves from biased attacks from students who may use faulty claims to challenge professors?” the analysis asked. “For example, could a student claim that biology teachers who do not spend half of their time covering intelligent design are limiting the ‘free exchange of ideas?’ And, could faculty members feel pressured to cover outdated or peer-rejected theories out of a concern that they will be sanctioned? This opens the door to all sorts of claims on faculty.”

While I think there is some merit to some of these concerns, I have to say that the American academy is in a poor position to protest.  Since at least the Regents of California v. Bakke case in 1978, universities have claimed the right to discriminate on the basis of race precisely in order to ensure a diversity of viewpoints among their faculties and student bodies.  If that is a valid enough concern to admit a Black or Hispanic male applicant in favor of a white female who is otherwise more qualified (and that is in fact how affirmative action works), then surely the legislatures that fund our state universities might be concerned to see that genuine diversity is being promoted.  Be careful what you wish for.  You might get it.

There is no question that university administrations nationally have been hostile to conservative student organizations and activities.  I take the liberty of quoting myself, from an April 2004 column in the Aberdeen American News, on the topic of "Affirmative Action Bake sales":

Conservative students on several campuses had set up cookie stands where the prices vary according to the race and sex of the customer: $1 for white males, 75 cents for females, and 25 cents for African Americans.  The price scheme is obviously a satire on affirmative action programs, which many conservatives oppose.  And they are direct imitations of many similar kinds of protest theater practiced by left-wing provocteurs.  But on at least five campuses, administrations have moved to shut the cookie sales down.  In some of these cases this action was motivated by individual complaints that the bake sales created “hostile environments” for persons of color.  In other cases, action came after students running an AABS were physically assaulted by other students who were offended by their message.  Shutting down a demonstration because of violence directed against the demonstrators has been a favorite excuse for suppressing protest since the civil rights movement.

If the left wing administrations and faculty of American Universities had been more responsible in respecting free speech and genuine diversity, such legislation as House 1222 would neither be possible nor necessary. 

I agree with some critics this problem is not evident in South Dakota.  This state has more respect for freedom of speech and thought than any place I have ever lived, and that emphatically includes California.  But for precisely that reason we have the responsibility to stand up for the principles we cherish.  If that is how this legislation is used, then I'm all for it.

Reid & Abramoff

Note this Associated Press story entitled "Reid Aided Abramoff Clients, Records Show."  Excerpt:

 Reid himself, along his Senate counsel Jim Ryan, met with Abramoff deputy Ronald Platt on June 5, 2001, “to discuss timing on minimum wage bill” that affected the Marianas, according to a bill that Greenberg Traurig, Abramoff’s firm, sent the Marianas. Three weeks before the meeting, Greenberg Traurig’s political action committee donated $1,000 to Reid’s Senate re-election committee. Three weeks after the meeting, Platt himself donated $1,000 to Reid.

Manley said Reid’s official calendar doesn’t list a meeting on June 5, with Platt, but he also said he couldn’t say for sure the contact didn’t occur. Manley confirmed Platt had regular contacts with Reid’s office, calling them part of the “routine checking in” by lobbyists who work Capitol Hill. As for the timing of donations, Manley said, “There is no connection. This is just a typical part of lawful fundraising.”
...
On Nov. 8, 2002, the Nevada Democrat signed a letter with California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein urging Interior Secretary Gale Norton to reject a proposal by the Cuyapaipe Band of Mission Indians to convert land for a health clinic into a casino in southern California. The casino would have competed with the Palm Springs gambling establishment run by the Agua Caliente, one of Abramoff’s tribes. Two weeks later, Reid went to the Senate floor to oppose fellow Democratic Sen. Debbie Stabenow’s effort to win congressional approval for a Michigan casino for the Bay Mills Indians, which would have rivaled one already operating by the Saginaw Chippewa represented by Abramoff. “The legislation is fundamentally flawed,” Reid argued, successfully leading the opposition to Stabenow’s proposal.

Reid's attempt to paint the Abramoff scandal as a purely Republican scandal isn't working.  It may be true that Reid never received money directly from Abramoff, but not many people will differentiate between Abramoff and one of his clients. 

More on Intellectual Diversity

The Rapid City Journal this morning has a full report of the bill's passage:

PIERRE -- The South Dakota House of Representatives on Wednesday approved a measure that sponsors say is intended to promote a balance of ideas on college campuses.

HB1222, passed by a vote of 42-26, asks the Board of Regents to report annually on what the state’s six universities are doing to promote “intellectual diversity,” defined as “a learning environment that exposes students to a variety of political, ideological and other perspectives.”

...

Rep. Tom Hills, R-Spearfish, a retired Black Hills State University professor and dean, said the bill would “micromanage” tasks that should be left up to administrators.

But Rep. Thomas Brunner, R-Nisland, disagreed. He said the criteria are merely suggestions and that an annual report is not a hardship.

“If the Board of Regents spent as much time doing a report as it has fighting this bill, we would be OK,” he said.

The Argus Leader still has yet to run a story on this bill.

In a related story, the American Daily is covering the discrimination of students at the University of Iowa in an op-ed entitled "University of Iowa Accused of Discrimination Against Students."  Excerpt:

University of Iowa, Roy J. and Lucille A. Carver College of Medicine students and family members are speaking out against the school's faculty and administration officials, charging a pattern of intimidation and personal attacks against conservative and religious students who attend school there. Those making the charges contend that an aggressive and hostile environment has been created that restricts the free flow of ideas and is inappropriate for an institution that purports to be dedicated to diversity.

According to sources, Professors at the University regularly and openly deride students who do not share their political or social beliefs. In a number of instances, professors' openly ridiculed religion in general and Christian based faiths in particular. Students also cite the appearance of anti - (President) Bush cartoons and slogans being flashed on the projector screen before class, frequent and regular anti - (Bush) administration comments during class and even tests containing ideologically oriented questions on them with right and wrong answers. Because of this, students claim that they are afraid to express their views openly in class out of fear that they will face further humiliation and potentially other forms of retribution.

Students also point out that these incidents regularly occurred in medical, not political or social science classes.

More Bad News on the Economy

This from Michael Darda at National Review:

The January jobs report further buttressed the pro-growth case. It showed that the unemployment rate dropped to 4.7 percent while weekly earnings rose at the fastest pace since the year 2000. Moreover, non-supervisory production worker wages (i.e., “low-end wages”) rose 0.4 percent month-over-month in January and have risen at faster than a 4 percent annualized rate during the last four months. That’s faster than inflation any way it’s measured.

Of course Chad at CCK will soon inform us that a very low unemployment rate and rising low-end wages don't mean [expletive deleted] to the average worker, but the January jobs report was awfully good looking for bad news.  Here's Larry Kudlow:

Including revisions, January employment is a huge 317,000 above the initial December level. In fact, over the past three months, non-farm payrolls have increased an average 229,000 per month. That’s explosive. We’re on pace for another 2 million jobs in 2006, following gains of 2 million in 2004 and 2005. Wages are also picking up steam, and with gasoline prices falling, consumer purchasing power and retail sales are climbing.

Doesn't that sound terrible?  You can almost hear the depression era harmonica moaning in the background.  And there is this:

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, average weekly earnings are up 3.6 percent year-on-year. That’s the best since 2000. Then there’s the personal-income proxy derived from hours worked multiplied by wages. This measure registered a 6 percent gain in the year ending January, way up from 4.5 percent last October. With retail gasoline prices coming down 23 percent last fall, from $3.07 to $2.36, real wages are on the rise.

CCK has called Bush "the enemy of the American worker."  If that's true, then Bush is a lot more incompetent than his critics imagine. 

Diversity Bill Passes House

Earlier today, ACTA released a press statement that read, in part:

“INTELLECTUAL DIVERSITY” BILL PASSES

SOUTH DAKOTA EDUCATION COMMITTEE

FULL VOTE TO TAKE PLACE TODAY

ACTA PRESIDENT TESTIFIES IN FAVOR

PIERRE, SOUTH DAKOTA, (February 8, 2006) — The South Dakota House of Representatives is expected to vote today on HB 1222, a bill co-sponsored by both Democrats and Republicans, which requires higher education institutions to report annually on concrete steps taken to ensure the free exchange of ideas on their campuses. The House Committee on Education yesterday approved the bill.

I've just been informed that the bill passed the state House 42-26.  It was almost entirely a party-line vote, with the Democrats siding with the ACLU and the teachers' union.

A Deficit of Optimism at the DNC

From  ADAM NAGOURNEY, at the New York Times:

WASHINGTON, Feb. 7 — Democrats are heading into this year's elections in a position weaker than they had hoped for, party leaders say, stirring concern that they are letting pass an opportunity to exploit what they see as widespread Republican vulnerabilities.

In interviews, senior Democrats said they were optimistic about significant gains in Congressional elections this fall, calling this the best political environment they have faced since President Bush took office.

But Democrats described a growing sense that they had failed to take full advantage of the troubles that have plagued Mr. Bush and his party since the middle of last year, driving down the president's approval ratings, opening divisions among Republicans in Congress over policy and potentially putting control of the House and Senate into play in November.

Asked to describe the health of the Democratic Party, Senator Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut, the former chairman of the Democratic National Committee, said: "A lot worse than it should be. This has not been a very good two months."

"We seem to be losing our voice when it comes to the basic things people worry about," Mr. Dodd said.

Democrats said they had not yet figured out how to counter the White House's long assault on their national security credentials. And they said their opportunities to break through to voters with a coherent message on domestic and foreign policy — should they settle on one — were restricted by the lack of an established, nationally known leader to carry their message this fall.

As a result, some Democrats said, their party could lose its chance to do to Republicans this year what the Republicans did to them in 1994: make the midterm election, normally dominated by regional and local concerns, a national referendum on the party in power.

Challenger to Herseth

From the Rapid City Journal:

An American Indian who is the Shannon County Republican Party chairman says he plans to seek the GOP nomination for U.S. House and challenge U.S. Rep. Stephanie Herseth, D-S.D.

Bruce Whalen of Pine Ridge said Tuesday he is in the early stages of the campaign and believes it is what he should do.

“We’re going to see how this is going to look, and then, we’re going to get about the work to win,” he said.

Whalen, 43, grew up in Pine Ridge, moved to Utah as a teen and returned to South Dakota in 1999 to raise his family. He works for the Oglala Sioux Tribe as coordinator of its judiciary committee.

Whalen said that when he lived in Utah, he realized the Republican Party closely mirrored his traditional Lakota values with its emphasis on respect for life, limited government, sovereignty and local control.

“There’s a lot more people around here that are seeing that point of view,” he said.

Whalen lost a bid in 2002 for tribal council and was unsuccessful in 2004 in his campaign for the state House of Representatives. Whalen rallied Indian support for Republican John Thune in his 2004 victory over former Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle.

Read the whole thing.

More on Intellectual Diversity

Here are the minutes of the bill, which notes the ACLU and the teachers' union opposed the bill.  This Rapid City Journal report also notes the ACLU's opposition.  Front Page Magazine is reporting:

Yesterday, the House Education Committee of the South Dakota legislature passed HB 1222, a bill that would require South Dakota’s public colleges and universities to report annually on the steps they have taken to protect intellectual diversity and academic freedom, by a decisive 10-5 vote.

...

If the bill wins passage before the full legislature, South Dakota’s public colleges and universities will be required to submit annual reports addressing the “specific measures taken by the institution to ensure and promote intellectual diversity and academic freedom.” Intellectual diversity is defined in the bill as “the foundation of a learning environment that exposes students to a variety of political, ideological, and other perspectives.”

Oddly enough, even though many people have taken an interest in this bill, the Argus Leader hasn't covered it.

Also, be sure to check out the comments of my colleagues Dr. Schaff and Dr. Blanchard, who both bring up some excellent points in opposition.  Like Fox News, "We report, you decide."

Funerals and Political Rallies

As Jason observes below, a couple speakers at the state funeral of Coretta Scott King threatened to turn that event into a political rally .  One of the deep voices of the Civil Rights Movement, Rev. Joseph Lowery dug into George W. Bush's side on "weapons of mass destruction," and Jimmy Carter, couldn't help using the event to confirm his opinion of Bush's NSA surveillance program.  These displays of partisan pique strike me as altogether inappropriate for a funeral.  Mrs. King is herself an icon of the Civil Rights Movement, and surely her funeral is a moment to focus on what we agree on rather than our partisan battles. 

Democrats clearly have a problem with funeral decorum.  One of the reasons Norm Coleman defeated Walter Mondale for the Senate in 2002 was the appalling behavior of Democrats at the funeral of Paul Wellstone.  Several Republican Senators, including Trent Lott, attended that funeral out of genuine respect for Wellstone.  They were booed loudly by the audience when they entered the room.  After that, the funeral degenerated into a political rally for Mondale.  Christopher Dodd and Tom Daschle shared a plane back to Washington that day, and Dodd woefully said that the Democrats had just lost a Senate seat.  He was right.

Nothing that happened at Mrs. King's funeral was as bad as that.  Chris Matthews made a lot of Bill Clinton's performance.  When President Clinton spoke of "my President, and my former Presidents," the crowd cheered and he gestured to his wife, and maybe future president, who was at his side.  But the faux pas there, if there was one, was the crowd's and not Bill's.

Republicans are still better at decorum.  President Bush and his father were well-received, and rose to the occasion.  Bush 41 was especially good, displaying a command of the audience that he never seemed to have as President. 

God Bless Mrs. King.  Though she and I would not agree on much, politically, maybe we would agree on ever thing that's really important.

Intellectual Diversity Bill

It feels a bit odd, but like Professor Schaff I am uneasy about House Bill 1222, which has just passed the House Education Committee of the South Dakota Legislature.  I certainly agree that intellectual diversity (meaning a wide range of perspectives) is something worth promoting at our state universities.  And I agree that such diversity is woefully lacking at many institutions of higher learning around the country.  I have attended three Universities: Arkansas State, The University of Arizona, and Claremont Graduate School.  I have taught at California State University, San Bernardino, and at Northern.  I am pretty sure that at all those institutions, Democrats out numbered Republicans by at least two to one.  Conservatives were invisible at the U of A, assuming there were any, and constituted only a small group at CGS.  Apart from explicitly religious schools, there are less than a handful of colleges where conservatives are a majority. 

But the reason for this is that most persons with degrees in higher education are on left.  Because of a conservative resurgence since the 1980's, conservatives are now a more significant force than they ever were before, but they are still a small minority.  There is nothing unfair about this.  Its just part of the cultural demographics of modern America.  It is also a result of the fact that conservatives have found it easier (and more lucrative) to get jobs in the media than teaching positions at universities. 

Academic bureaucracies are not well-equipped to promote diversity.  The history of affirmative action is very telling in this regard.  I once attended the annual meeting of the National Association of Ethnic Studies.  It was a gas.  One panel was devoted to diverse perspectives in academia.  The panelists were indeed diverse in a sociological sense.  Distinct races, ethnicities, and of course women were well-represented.  So I listened as each one told exactly the same story about his or her ancestors, and expressed identical opinions about nearly every interesting question.  The problem, of course, was that affirmative action tried to achieve diversity by using markers of race and ethnicity.  But such markers just aren't reliable.  The teacher to whom I personally closest at graduate school was Bill Allen, who was Black.  His perspective was pretty much my own, as far as intellectual opinions were concerned.  One of my U.S. Senators was Alan Cranston, who was even whiter than I am.  He and I rarely agreed on the time of day. 

I am just not sure how to recognize genuine intellectual diversity when recruiting instructors.  Affirmative action depends largely on how applicants assign themselves.  If you say you are Black or Hispanic, you get AA credit.  If intellectual diversity rules force colleges to look for certain kinds of candidates, well, job seekers will suddenly discover that they occupy the desired categories.  Its probably best to let faculty hiring committees chose by professional achievement and fit, as they have always done. 

But  there are a lot of good things in House Bill 1222.  I note the following:

5 (3) Encourage a balanced variety of campus-wide panels and speakers and annually
6 publish the names of panelists and speakers;
7 (4) Establish clear campus policies that ensure that hecklers or threats of violence do not
8 prevent speakers from speaking;

and this:

13 (8) Establish clear campus policies to ensure freedom of the press for students and report
14 any incidents of student newspaper thefts or destruction;
15 (9) Establish clear campus policies to prohibit political bias in student-funded
16 organizations;
17 (10) Eliminate any speech codes that restrict the freedom of speech;

Intellectual diversity cannot be achieved by mandate from above.  It has to be the result of cultural and political evolution from below.  However, protecting students and faculty from view-point discrimination is an altogether worthy goal.  I am hopeful that this will be the effect of House 1222 if it becomes law.  It will then protect liberals and conservatives, libertarians and populists, persons who cherish the traditional cannon of texts and learning, and radicals who want to bring new voices into the conversation.  That is what the university is about.

Me And All The Other Neanderthals

Despite the actions of the South Dakota Legislature I still think the "intellectual diversity" bill is deeply flawed and should be amended.  I suppose that puts me in the damnable company of the ACLU and the teachers unions.  It is true, then, that politics makes strange bedfellows. 

It should be noted that one can be in favor of intellectual diversity on campus and opposed to this particular bill. It remains to be explained exactly what the legislature will do with the "intellectual diversity reports" mandated by the bill.  If a university does not have sufficient intellectual diversity, whatever "sufficient" would mean in this context, what happens?  Perhaps I am the only conservative concerned that the government will start monitoring the political views on campus so as to ensure we have the "right" amount of intellectual diversity.  It was also my belief that conservatives were for small unobtrusive government.  So why do we want to create another layer of bureaucracy to correct a problem that, to my knowledge, doesn't even exist in our state?  Finally, the bill is flawed in technical matters, especially concerning student evaluation of instruction, that are too complex to go into here.  Let's just say the legislators should talk to the Board of Regents about what kind of evaluation instrument is going to be used.  I think the legislature will find that the BOR has some definite opinions on the matter. 

Let me reiterate that I am not opposed to an intellectual diversity bill; I just think this one is flawed.  Also, once again, my views on this matter are my own and don't represent those of my employer. 

*Updates* Intellectual Diversity Passes

The House Education Committee of the South Dakota legislature today passed the intellectual diversity bill 10-5.  The opponents of the bill included the ACLU, the South Dakota Education Association (the teachers' union), and the union which represents professors.  Note who is on record opposing an analysis of intellectual diversity on campus! 

Also, this CBS News story about Stanford students says that one of the problems on campus is the liberal "hegemony" which undermines political debate and makes it dull:

Never mind participating in sit-in's, protests and campaigns – the free editions of The New York Times stacked in dorms and dining rooms go unread (hopefully, all the students are getting their news online!). Political arguments at meals are rare; political topics seem not to be considered intellectually interesting or, despite a war where people their ages are being killed, urgent. They all felt the political ethos – perhaps hegemony – on campus is a somewhat insipid liberalism that has more to do with political correctness, not political passion or fascination. In short, politics are so lame.

For background, see these links:
Power Line:  South Dakotans Advocate Diversity
Instapundit:  Well, diversity is a good thing, right?
SDP: Intellectual Diversity; Liberal Academics; Intellectual Diversity; ACTA
RCJ: Bill seeks ‘intellectual diversity’
Liberty, Order, and Tradition:  Intellectual Diversity at Colleges in South Dakota

UPDATE:  Guns and Butter Blog weighs in.

UPDATE:  The Associated Press has picked up the story:

PIERRE, S.D. - South Dakota's public universities should be required to file annual reports to show how they are ensuring academic freedom and promoting differing points of view on their campuses, a state House Committee decided Tuesday.

The Education Committee voted 10-5 to approve a measure that requires the six state universities to file reports to the Legislature on what they are doing to ensure intellectual diversity.

Read the whole thing.  Also note the story doesn't say anything about the opposition from the ACLU or the teachers' union.

UPDATE:  Instapundit notes the AP's story on the intellectual diverisity bill.  Plus, you can see the roll call vote here.

Also, see this press release from ACTA:

SOUTH DAKOTA EDUCATION COMMITTEE APPROVES LEGISLATION REQUIRING ANNUAL REPORTS ON INTELLECTUAL DIVERSITY

ACTA President Testifies, Calling HB 1222 a National Model for Ensuring a Free Exchange of Ideas on Campus

PIERRE, SOUTH DAKOTA, (February 7, 2006) -- The South Dakota House Committee on Education today approved House Bill 1222, a bill which requires higher education institutions to report annually on concrete steps taken to ensure the free exchange of ideas on their campuses. The vote came after testimony by ACTA president Anne Neal, who called the bill a national model. "By passing HB 1222, legislators will fulfill their responsibility to make certain that students receive the best education possible through an open and free exchange of ideas, and do so in a way that fully protects academic freedom, shared governance, and academic standards," Neal told the legislators.

"This bill is a national model," Neal continued, "since it understands that issues concerning intellectual diversity should be addressed first and foremost by colleges and universities themselves and that governing boards have the ultimate obligation to address those concerns."

HB 1222 was filed by Rep. Phyllis M. Heineman, chairman of the House Committee on Education, and mandates that the South Dakota Board of Regents require institutions they govern to report on specific steps taken "to ensure and promote intellectual diversity and academic freedom." The bill suggests a variety of measures institutions can take, but leaves the contents of the report--which will be made public--up to each reporting institution.

More than 30 legislators co-sponsored the bill, including both Democrats and Republicans. Full floor consideration is expected later this week.

The bill comes in the wake of a national initiative, launched by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, to ensure the free exchange of ideas on college and university campuses. In a report released last month, Intellectual Diversity: Time for Action, ACTA outlined steps universities could take to encourage a mix of ideas on campus and to respond to the growing public concern about the lack of intellectual diversity. These suggestions are incorporated into the text of the South Dakota bill.

Neal addressed the committee at the request of bill sponsor Heineman, who publicly thanked the American Council of Trustees and Alumni for providing her advice and counsel after a constituent raised concerns.

Framing the Issue

Yesturday, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales went before the Senate Judiciary Committee to answer questions on the legality of the NSA program.  His concluding statement was excellent:

I have highlighted the legal authority for the terrorist surveillance program. And I look forward to our discussion, and know that you appreciate there remain serious constraints of what I can say about operational details. Our enemy is listening. And I cannot help but wonder if they aren't shaking their heads in amazement at the thought that anyone would imperil such a sensitive program by leaking its existence in the first place, and smiling at the prospect that we might now disclose even more or perhaps even unilaterally disarm ourselves of a key tool in the War on Terror.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

King Funeral Politicized

This is uncalled for and disgusting:

Today's memorial service for civil rights activist Coretta Scott King -- billed as a "celebration" of her life -- turned suddenly political as one former president took a swipe at the current president, who was also lashed by an outspoken black pastor!

The outspoken Rev. Joseph Lowery, co-founder of Southern Christian Leadership Conference, ripped into President Bush during his short speech, ostensibly about the wife of Martin Luther King Jr.

"She extended Martin's message against poverty, racism and war. She deplored the terror inflicted by our smart bombs on missions way afar. We know now that there were no weapons of mass destruction over there," Lowery said.

The mostly black crowd applauded, then rose to its feet and cheered in a two-minute-long standing ovation.

A closed-circuit television in the mega-church outside Atlanta showed the president smiling uncomfortably.

"But Coretta knew, and we know," Lowery continued, "That there are weapons of misdirection right down here," he said, nodding his head toward the row of presidents past and present. "For war, billions more, but no more for the poor!" The crowd again cheered wildly.

Former President Jimmy Carter later swung at Bush as well, not once but twice. As he talked about the Kings, he said: "It was difficult for them then personally with the civil liberties of both husband and wife violated as they became the target of secret government wiretaps." The crowd cheered as Bush, under fire for a secret wiretapping program he ordered after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, again smiled weakly.

Later, Carter said Hurricane Katrina showed that all are not yet equal in America. Some black leaders have blamed Bush for the poor federal response, and rapper Kayne West said that Bush "hates" black people.

Saddam & WMDs: Case Reopened

Here's an interesting article from the New York Sun:

The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence is studying 12 hours of audio recordings between Saddam Hussein and his top advisers that may provide clues to the whereabouts of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

The committee has already confirmed through the intelligence community that the recordings of Saddam's voice are authentic, according to its chairman, Rep. Peter Hoekstra of Michigan, who would not go into detail about the nature of the conversations or their context. They were provided to his committee by a former federal prosecutor, John Loftus, who says he received them from a former American military intelligence analyst.

Mr. Loftus will make the recordings available to the public on February 17 at the annual meeting of the Intelligence Summit, of which he is president. On the organization's Web site, Mr. Loftus is quoted as promising that the recordings "will be able to provide a few definitive answers to some very important - and controversial - weapons of mass destruction questions." Contacted yesterday by The New York Sun, Mr. Loftus would only say that he delivered a CD of the recordings to a representative of the committee, and the following week the committee announced that it was reopening the investigation into weapons of mass destruction.

Read the whole thing.

Herseth

From The Hill:

Carol Pitts, the Republican Party's top recruit to challenge Rep. Stephanie Herseth (D) in South Dakota, announced yesterday that she will not run.

Instead, Bruce Whalen, the Republican chairman of Shannon County, will make a bid to unseat Herseth, said South Dakota Republican Party Executive Director Max Wetz.

Whalen is now considered the front-runner to win the GOP nomination. Thomas Bixler of Yankton is also vying to challenge Herseth.

The decision by Pitts, a dietitian from Brookings, to forgo a run despite strong encouragement indicates that Herseth - also a Brookings native - is considered a formidable opponent, despite winning a full House term with only 53 percent of the vote and hailing from a state that Bush carried by 22 percentage points.

Russ Levsen, Herseth's press secretary, said several Republican recruits have declined to run. "There's a general consensus that she's done a great job."

Herseth has steadily increased her base of support in the state. She beat state Sen. Larry Diedrich with 51 percent in a 2004 special election and won the general-election rematch five months later.
- Alexander Bolton

The New Media

Power Line's Paul Mirengoff was at a news conference earlier today and began asking some hard questions of Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) about the NSA's anti-terrorist "eavesdropping" program.  Check out Mirengoff's telling of the experience here.  Find more here and here.

Chris Muir:

Sioux Falls

Three more candidates announced their intent to run for mayor of Sioux Falls today.  City council member Bob Jamison and former Augustana College president Bruce Halverson both filed today.  As first mentioned by Dave Kranz yesterday, city council member Vernon Brown also filed his intent to run today as well.  Other announced candidates include Lora Hubbel, Casey Murschel, Mitch Richter, and Darrin Smith.

SD Legislature

Sibby is advocating the new self-defense bill in the South Dakota legislature, which will have a hearing tomorrow.  There is also a hearing on the intellectual diversity bill tomorrow.

Ouch

This letter from John McCain to Barak Obama (known to Ted Kennedy as Osama Bin Laden) is so bitter that I almost can't believe it is real.  Hat tip Instapundit. 

Jarrod Johnson

Here's the Republican running this fall for School and Public Lands Commissioner.

Academic Freedom

From FrontPage Magazine:

South Dakota legislators have introduced a bill that would require public colleges and universities to report annually on the steps they have taken to protect intellectual diversity and the free exchange of ideas on campus.

Inspired by the academic freedom campaign launched by Students for Academic Freedom, the bill, HB 1222 was introduced by Rep. Phyllis Heineman, the chairman of the House Education Committee for the South Dakota legislature. Over thirty additional legislators from both sides of the aisle have signed onto the legislation as co-sponsors.

The annual reports must address the “specific measures taken by the institution to ensure and promote intellectual diversity and academic freedom.” Intellectual diversity is defined in the bill as “the foundation of a learning environment that exposes students to a variety of political, ideological, and other perspectives.”

Additional aspects of intellectual diversity which these annual reports may address include any actions taken by the institutions to: 

 

• Establish clear campus policies that ensure that hecklers or threats of violence do not prevent speakers from speaking  
• Include intellectual diversity concerns in the institution's guidelines on teaching
• Include intellectual diversity issues in student course evaluations 
• Develop hiring, tenure, and promotion policies that protect individuals against political viewpoint discrimination and track any reported grievances in that regard 
• Establish clear campus policies to ensure freedom of the press for students and report any incidents of student newspaper thefts or destruction 

“This legislation is a major step toward achieving true academic freedom for South Dakota’s students,” commented David Horowitz, chairman of Students for Academic Freedom. “I thank Rep. Heineman and her fellow legislators who have had the courage to address these crucial issues.”

Students for Academic Freedom is a national movement to promote intellectual diversity and to restore educational values to America’s institutions of higher learning. The organization recommends that colleges and universities adopt an Academic Bill of Rights to ensure that these principles are respected. The Academic Bill of Rights is available on the organization’s website at www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org.

Handicapping 2008

National Journal provides some early handicapping of the 2008 presidential race.  The periodical asked 100 political insiders from each party to rank potential candidates' chances of winning their party's nomination.

The GOP Top Ten

1.    George Allen
2.    John McCain
3.    Mitt Romney   
4.    Rudy Giuliani
5.    Bill Frist
6.    Haley Barbour
7.    Condoleezza Rice
8.    George Pataki
9.    Newt Gingrich
10.    Chuck Hagel

And on the Democratic side:

1.    Hillary Rodham Clinton
2.    Mark Warner
3.    John Edwards
4.    Evan Bayh
5.    Tom Vilsack
6.    Joe Biden
7.    Bill Richardson
8.    John Kerry
9.    Al Gore
10. Wesley Clark

Some random thoughts -- a little surprised to see former lobbyist extraordinare Haley Barbour, even though he has done a superb job handling the Katrina disaster in Mississippi, on this list in the Era of Abramoff.   Wouldn't the Democrats have a field day with that opposition research?

Rudy Giuliani was king of the political hill in the 9/11 aftermath.  Now, among GOP insiders, he's regarded as a less likely bet than a one-term governor from Massachusetts.

John Edwards at #3?  Did the Democrats somehow forget his less than stellar performance in 2004, or is the bench behind Hillary just that weak?

Where have you gone, Joe Lieberman?

Super Boring

This was one of the most boring Super Bowls in memory, right up there With Ravens vs. Giants and Buccaneers vs. Raiders.  I found myself from time to time switching over to the Monk marathon on USA and poker on Fox Sports.  The Steelers couldn't move the ball except for three very key plays, and the Seahawks could move the ball up and down the field, but kept managing to stay off the scoreboard.  In one sense my prediction was right: Seattle moved the ball much better (Pittsburgh gained 155 yards on those three plays and 184 yards on all other plays; otherwise Seattle dominated statistically).  In another more important sense my prediction was thankfully wrong: Steelers win. 

Blanchard On Warrantless Searches

For lack of anything other to post, here is my last column for the Aberdeen American News.

Balancing Act: Liberty versus Protection

Consider this scenario: the National Security Agency, monitoring global communications for terrorist activity, intercepts a phone call including the words bomb, next strike, Chicago, and September. The call originates in Beirut, and connects to someone in Rome. I say listen in, and you probably do too. 

Now suppose the Italian end hangs up and then dials someone in Milwaukee. The recipient is identified as an American citizen of Saudi descent. This one is a little harder. Citizens enjoy the full protection of the Constitution. Should the NSA agents wait for a warrant? No way. The next five words may hold the key to saving thousands of lives. Should they seek a warrant after the fact, as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act allows? That will soon be an issue before Congress. In the meantime, keep listening. 

Now for the hard one. Suppose the unlikely, that the request for a warrant is denied. Whatever you think the President should do, I am sure about what he would do. He would order the NSA to keep listening. Frowning judges are just not going to trump the prospect of thousands of body bags. I cannot imagine any President from either party acting differently. 

Does this mean that the President is above the law? Of course not. But the law in this case is the Constitution, and its important to understand how it works. The Constitution is not just a list of rules, like Deuteronomy, that office holders are expected to observe. It includes a system of checks and balances to make sure that they have little choice. If the President ignores the requirement for a warrant, he runs the risk that the courts will exclude vital evidence from trial, and that indicted terrorists will walk. That’s how the judicial branch checks the executive.  Soon now the President will have to justify his warrantless searches before Congress. The House and Senate hold the purse strings, and the President will have to satisfy both of them if he wants to continue doing his business. That system of checks and balances is the Constitution, and the President cannot escape its grasp whether he wants to or not. 

If the President can show that the NSA surveillance program was scrupulously operated in the interests of national security, if in fact he can show that some terrorist plot was discovered and foiled, neither Congress nor the Courts will dare to punish him for it. At most they will force him to compromise and operate in a way more comfortable to civil liberties. If it turns out that turns out that he used his powers to spy on domestic critics, that, say, he listened in on phone conversations between Nancy Pelosi and John Kerry, then the President is in deep doodoo. 

Of course Congress has one ultimate weapon to deploy against the President, and Barbara Boxer has been talking about impeachment. But absent a clear case of Nixonian mischief, this is cloud cuckoo land. Maybe Bush broke the law. But so did William Jefferson Clinton. The voters nonetheless saw his impeachment as a partisan act, and punished the Republicans for it in Congressional elections. What was Clinton’s motive for lawbreaking? To conceal an act of oral sex in the Oval Office. What was Bush’s motive? To stop terrorists from blowing more Americans out of their socks. When Karl Rove hears rapid Democrats talk impeachment, he must be thinking: “lets roll the bones and see how this one comes out.”

The President’s critics are right to be concerned about civil liberties. But if a President has to choose between privacy rights and stopping the next terrorist attack, strong majorities would have him err in favor of the latter. We are not afraid yet, not really. September 11^th, 2001 was something that happened on TV. After the next terrorist attack, we may be willing to surrender two centuries of legal protections to feel safe again. If you want to protect civil liberties, you need to make sure the next attack never happens. 

Super Sunday

When Professor Schaff predicted a Seattle victory in tonight's Superbowl, I shoulda called my bookie and put everything I had on the Steelers.  Granted, of course, he was attempting (successfully, it would seem) to manipulate fate by predicting the opposite of what he wished to see.  This does not quite close the book on an interesting logical question: does the future always turn out to be the opposite of what Dr. Schaff says it will be, or what he thinks it will be?  Either way the Kosmos is in trouble.  If it is the former, he now has a means of controlling the future.  If the latter, what happens if he comes to believe that the outcome will always be the opposite of what he thinks it will be?  That sort of paradox might collapse the structure of time and space.  Be afraid.

I watched the Superbowl only because a dear friend invited me to join a small gathering at his house.  It was the only football game I watched this year, and although I enjoyed it, it reminded of why it was the only game I watched this year.  I'm sorry but its a stupid game.  The outcome was largely determined by dubious referee decisions, and by dubious I don't mean bad or wrong, but opaque.  No one will ever know what really happened.  Worse, the game was effectively over in what would be, in baseball, the bottom of the seventh inning.  To make the Superbowl reliably interesting you have to 1) employ the point spread and bet on it; and 2) put a Rolling Stones concert in the middle of it.  I'll stick with baseball.

Young Chuck Norris

Evidently a Chuck Norris cult is sweeping the nation.  Here is some rather humorous evidence. 

Sex Ed

The South Dakota Legislature struggles with sex education guidelines.

The bill would apply to school districts that teach students about sex. Teachers would have to tell students that abstaining from intercourse until marriage is responsible behavior and cuts the risk of pregnancy and sexual diseases to zero.

Students also would have to be taught about the possible emotional, economic and legal consequences of sex out of wedlock. Material would have to be age-appropriate, and use of contraceptives could not be encouraged as a means of reducing the risks of having sex.

This reminds me of Allan Bloom's advice that a better sexual education would be as concerned about the development of taste as the prevention of pregancy and disease.  I realize this is an the difficulties given the current state of public education, but isn't sex as much a matter of educating the soul as it is about which parts go where? 

Super Prediction

Given my well know talents of prognostication, you can take this one to the bank: Seahawks 27, Steelers 17.  Seattle's team speed and offensive firepower prove too much for Pittsburgh's workman-like offense and tough as nails defense.  I am rooting for the Steelers, which is why I predict a Seahawks win. 

Prof. Lewis

Our left-of-center colleague David Newquist of Northern Valley Beacon is noting the very odd case of Prof. Morgan Lewis, who was found shot to death on the campus of Northern State University in November of 2004.  The case was recently ruled a suicide, but Newquist notes a number of details that are cause for skepticism on that ruling.  Check out his whole post.

Road Hunting

Kevin Woster of the Rapid City Journal tackles road hunting:

In truth, road hunting is a lousy way to spend an autumn afternoon.

I've done my share of it, although in recent years, it has become a desperate last resort for putting a pheasant breast or two in the Crock Pot.

Of course, there's more than pheasant hunting involved in the fuss over road hunting. Each fall, hunters hide in dusty road ditches in various parts of the state - especially along the Missouri River - to rise from the weeds and blast ducks and geese as they fly over public rights of way. But mostly, the conflict revolves around the fabled pheasant and a method of hunting our official state bird that hardly qualifies for Sports Afield.

Road hunting is a sad, demeaning exercise, really. It qualifies as "hunting" only in the loosest, lowest sense of the term.

Go read the whole thing.

Corporate Farming

Richard Dooling has an op-ed in today's New York Times entitled "Nebraska's Nostalgia Trap" that mentions the corporate farming debate.  Excerpt:

Farms double in size with a regularity that rivals the seasons, while, almost in tandem, the number of farming families falls by half. The costs for schools, roads and police and fire departments remain relatively constant, but the bodies paying taxes, buying goods and developing land keep disappearing. County officials call it rural flight, brain drain or even mass migration, but despite the alarums, nobody has found a way to stop the excursions.

States like Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, North Dakota, Oklahoma and Wisconsin have tried to fight the trend by restricting the corporate consolidation of farms: Keep the farmers on their land by stopping vast corporations from buying 10 farms and consolidating them into one, which is basically what keeps happening.

In 1982, Nebraska went even farther and embedded a ban on corporations owning and operating farms — Initiative 300 — in its Constitution. Last December, a federal judge in Omaha ruled that the ban violates the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution and the Americans with Disabilities Act (because the ban also requires that the person owning most of the farmland also supply most of the daily labor). [Edit: See this story on the judge's ruling] Some Nebraskans hope the ruling will be overturned, but that seems unlikely.

Check out the whole thing.  I mentioned the Nebraska ruling and the corporate farming debate back in January, which I recommend reading for more background.

Daschle's Iowa Trip

The Ames Tribune reports on Daschle's swing through Iowa last week:

While most of the speech focused on the direction of the country's debate, Daschle said he would not comment on the direction of his political career. This is the second time he's been in the state in three months.

In 2004, he considered running for the Democratic nod for president before deciding against it at the last minute.

He said it's also too early to tell who the potential nominees for 2008 will be.

Johnson's Alito Vote

Tim Johnson voted for Alito out of "pure survival" says the Washington Times:

Yes, yes, Sens. Robert Byrd (W.Va.), Kent Conrad (N.D.), Tim Johnson (S.D.) and Ben Nelson (Neb.) probably bucked their party on the Alito confirmation out of pure survival. Messrs. Byrd, Conrad and Nelson are all from states that voted for President Bush in 2004 and all are up for re-election this year. And Mr. Johnson, from deep-red South Dakota, narrowly defeated now Sen. John Thune in the 2002 midterm election.

Beck

Argus Leader Editor Randell Beck defends the Argus for its role in taking down Sioux Falls Mayor Dave Munson this week.  What Beck doesn't say is that there is a pattern to all the people the Argus attacks including Dave Munson, Mike Rounds, John Thune, and Bill Janklow.  The pattern is that they are all Republicans.  Here's Beck:

Among the calls I received Friday – the day our main front page headline said: “Munson won’t run’’ – was one from a woman who grew up with Dave Munson on the city’s north end and considered him a good citizen and a good mayor.

She blamed this newspaper for his decision not to seek a second term. “It is disgraceful to take a good man like that and do what you did,’’ she said. “These are terrible things you have said about Dave Munson. You should be ashamed.’’

...

As good a place as South Dakota is, it’s not without blemish. Neither are those who would seek to represent us in the halls of government. And it’s a newspaper’s duty to hold them accountable, to report without fear or favor, to shine a light in the dark and secret places where ignorance and suspicion grow. It is a newspaper’s responsibility to ask why – and why not, however uncomfortable those questions may be.

...

Whether you’re a Munson supporter or not, few of us would disagree that campaign finance laws are built on the notion of bringing transparency to how politicians collect money – and from whom. If we allow them to keep that process secret, how can we know who is seeking their favor, and to what extent?

It was Dave Munson’s initial refusal to follow that basic principle – and even his final, grudging acceptance of it – that brought us to this point.

We asked why – and why not. That is what we do.

Beck says that good papers must hold officials accountable.  Agreed, but accountability needs to be issued to both sides of the political isle.  When was the last time the Argus held Tim Johnson or Stephanie Herseth accountable for issues?

Islam and South Park

Various pieces today bring up the Danish cartoon conflagration (which only seems to be worsening).  Mark Steyn, in his usually pithy manner, argues against the errors of multi-culturalism:

One day, years from now, as archaeologists sift through the ruins of an ancient civilization for clues to its downfall, they'll marvel at how easy it all was. You don't need to fly jets into skyscrapers and kill thousands of people. As a matter of fact, that's a bad strategy, because even the wimpiest state will feel obliged to respond. But if you frame the issue in terms of multicultural "sensitivity," the wimp state will bend over backward to give you everything you want -- including, eventually, the keys to those skyscrapers. Thus, Jack Straw, the British foreign secretary, hailed the "sensitivity" of Fleet Street in not reprinting the offending cartoons.

Eugene Volokh, as Prof. Blanchard notes, chides the Boston Globe for its inconsistencies on religious intolerance.  Volokh seems to think the Globe now has it right, needlessly offending religious groups is wrong, but his point is that the Globe does not hold the same standard when non-Muslims are being offended.  Volokh writes:

There's actually much that I agree with here; that one is and should be legally free to say something doesn't mean that it's right to say it. And while religious ideas, like all ideas, should be open to vigorous debate, needless emotional provocation generally doesn't much advance the debate.

Then there is the mischievous Christopher Hitchens, who supports the cartoonists because Hitchens hates religion.  In that sense he is equal opportunity.

It is revolting to me to breathe the same air as wafts from the exhalations of the madrasahs, or the reeking fumes of the suicide-murderers, or the sermons of Billy Graham and Joseph Ratzinger.

You know, suicide bombers, Billy Graham, they're all the same thing.  Hitchens expresses an opinion that I suspect is secretly shared by many.  The zeitgeist of our times, at least in the West, seems not to be that we give too much deference to religion, but that we are irreverent.  Take the popular and witty cartoon South Park.  Many herald this show for its ability to make fun of "all sides."  And as far as I can tell, being only a part-time viewer, it's true.  The problem with the show is that when you are irreverent toward everything you are reverent toward nothing.  The pose of detached irony can only get you so far, and sooner or later you are wondering why there is no meaning in your life, so why not go out and buy an ipod because the commercials tell you that you'll be happy if you have one. 

There does seem to be a "clash of civilizations":  a modern West versus certain strains of pre-modern Islam (see the article by Bernard Lewis that coined the "clash of civilizations" language, later popularized by Samuel Huntington).  And as Steyn notes, at least when one considers the European part of the West, one side seems to be doing all the fighting and the other side all the surrendering.  Perhaps James Burnham was right all those years ago.  If the West is going to die it will not be a murder, it will be a suicide.  If the Danish cartoons serve any purpose it is to remind us that not all manifestations of Islam are peaceful, at least not as the West defines peace, and deserve to be opposed vigorously.  For peace might mean me and you getting along together.  Peace might also mean me killing you, in which case I am left alone in peace while you, of course, rest in peace.  Certain elements of Islam seem to have bought into the second definition of peace. 

George Weigel and others have noted that central to Europe's unwillingness to defends its institutions is its lost of religious faith, in particular its loss of Christian faith.  I suppose Weigel, like Hugh Hewitt on the cartoon business, might just be making such arguments because he is a religious conservative, thus he can easily be dismissed as defending a position out of lame parochialism rather than out of sound reason.  Or, perhaps there is something to the argument that a continent that believes in nothing has no response to those be believe in something very strongly.  I recall a graduate school professor of mine who said, only half in jest, that he'd have an easier time teaching political philosophy to Islamic radicals than to Americans, because the Muslims at least think there is something to argue about, while the American student believes in "whatever floats your boat."  The American pathology manifests itself in two way.  One is the Hitchens position (although he, of course, is British by birth), apparently shared by parts of the entertainment culture, that religion is something to be attacked because he supposes that it limits his ability to worship himself.  This "we'll believe in nothing" easily morphs into "we'll believe in anything."  The other manifestation is a kind of uber-latitudinarianism in which it doesn't really matter what you believe, as long as you believe in something.  This kind of shallow faith is easily undermined and we quickly find ourselves back in the position of believing in nothing.  That is the similarity.  Both anti-religious antagonism and soft-headed religious relativism are a product of a people that don't really believe in anything.  These two positions, and others, tend to see religion merely as a political problem to be solved (which is true) rather than as a something essential to the human experience which can offer political solutions as well (also true).

While I can read certain necessary arguments into the Danish cartoons, one wonders if the cartoons aren't a product of a general European distaste for religion.  Irreverence ultimately gets you nowhere.  Perhaps the same point could have been made in another manner, perhaps pointing to the gap between Islam's stated goals and the actions of too many of its adherents.  The same kind of lampoon is effective against all religious groups, and the distance between our ideals and our behavior is at the heart of good satire.