Time Magazine Catches Up With SDP on '08 Election!

I know it's hard to believe, but Time/CNN Online blurted out the truth about the current presidential campaign almost as soon as I did.  Plagiarism?  We report, you decide.  Jay Carney announces "A Surprising G.O.P. Edge for '08:

Could things be any worse for George W. Bush and his beleaguered party? In the new TIME poll, the President's job approval rating continues to wallow near his all-time lows, at 33%, while his disapproval rating breaks the 60% barrier for the third consecutive survey. . . . And then there's the burgeoning scandal stemming from the Justice Department's dismissal last year of eight U.S. attorneys.

So it's taken almost as a given among the professional political class that the 2008 Presidential election is the Democrats' to lose.  . . . So why, in poll after poll, including the new TIME poll, does that advantage seem to disappear whenever voters are asked to pick a President in hypothetical head-to-head matchups among front-runners with solid name recognition. In our poll, Hillary Clinton loses to John McCain, 42%-48%, and to Rudy Giuliani 41%-50%. Even though Clinton maintains a 7% edge over Obama among Democratic respondents, Obama fares better in the general election matchups. It's so close that it's a statistical dead heat, but Obama still loses: 43%-45% to McCain, 44%-45% to Giuliani.

Yeah, that's what I pointed out last night.  Oops.  Carney's piece is dated a day earlier than mine. 

Anna and I on Gender Equity

Anna at DakotaWomen responds thoughtfully to my post of yesterday.  The topic was a study of Swedish municipalities that found a positive correlation between higher levels of gender equity and poorer health for both men and women.  Anna begins with a couple of good questions:

My problem is the fact that I question, as do the researchers themselves, and as do you, the validity of the study. What's the point of reporting on it? Would you have mentioned it if it was a study that showed women and men live longer and families are better off with higher degrees of gender equity? Probably not.

I believe I explained why I reported on this study.  I thought it would draw a response from DW, and I was right.  Besides, it was an interesting study.  Why should gender equity correlate with worse health for both men and women?  And if there is a cost to gender equity, shouldn't we take it into account?  I think honesty is the best policy when thinking about policy. 

As to the second question, one can try to be fair.  I pointed out that I was skeptical concerning this study, as was Anna.  Anna is no doubt right that I would have been less likely to report on this study if it had reached the opposite conclusion.  It amused me precisely because it seemed inconvenient to folks at the opposite end of the political spectrum.  For the same reason, Anna would have taken more notice if it had confirmed her biases.  That is why it's a good idea to have two political parties and a range of perspectives: each of us can point out what is invisible to the other. 

Anna's central paragraph is a marvelous piece of blogging.  From the dates on grave stones she evokes a relationship between childbirth and mortality in the past.  She did what any good piece of journalism does: she made me want to know more.  I recommend it to our readers.

Her last paragraph was more personal:

If we're going to discuss the study, though, it seems the researchers are placing the responsibility on men to change their roles in response to the changing roles of women. I eagerly await your return to homemaking, Prof. Blanchard. Public health depends on it.

On this score I am way ahead of you, Anna.  I have changed more diapers than the rest of my male line going back to Adam.  In the case of my first child, I changed more diapers than my wife.  As for homemaking, I cook half the meals and do my share of the housework.  That you assume otherwise because I am male, or because I am conservative, is the same kind of prejudice that leads a racist to assume that any Native American is a drunkard. 

Oddly enough, this is one of the things Anna and I seem to agree about.  The rigid division of child-rearing labor that held until my generation was not so good a thing.  I got a lot more time with my infant children than my father ever did, and I wouldn't trade that for anything.  So far as I can tell, this hasn't negatively affected my health or that of my wife.  But maybe we need to hear more from the Swedes. 

SDP Jazz Note: Great Tenors

Tonight I watched Legends of Jazz with Ramsey Lewis, about which I have blogged before.  It's a superb show for jazz fans.  This episode features three tenor sax players who span the history of modern jazz.  Benny Golson played with John Coltrane when they were teenagers.  He tells a delicious story about meeting Charlie Parker.  Coltrane carried Parker's sax after the show, and asked him all sorts of questions about reeds and mouth pieces and such.  Both of them went home and put the new information to use.  After a couple of weeks, Coltrane called Golson: "did you notice any difference?"  When Golson said no, Trane replied: "well, neither did I."  Maybe genius isn't in the choice of reeds. 

The show also featured Chris Potter, who has played with Steely Dan, and Marcus Strickland, a young rising star.  All three played a set with Lewis's fine band, and together joined Lewis at the end.  With some dismay I admit that the younger player clearly had the edge.  I am starting to suspect that it's too late for me to "learn to work the saxophone." 

Jazz suffers more what all musical genres suffer a little: the burden of hero worship.  Jazz suffered a collapse after 1965, and though it has recovered, no figure past that point has achieved the fame of the jazz gods like Miles Davis, John Coltrane, etc.  A lot of older players suffered for this.  I faintly recognized Benny Golson, but couldn't place him.  A little research on line filled the gap.  He played on Art Blakey's album Moanin'.  I have been collecting Blakey cds, but I have chosen ones with Wayne Shorter playing sax.  I am going to have to get the ones with Golson on them. 

This hero worship is something of a tragedy for fine players like Potter and Strickland.  But make no mistake: jazz is alive. 

Dakota Women Goes for the Lure, Hook, Line, and Sinker!

I posted today on a Swedish study that found that "gender equity was generally correlated with poorer health for both men and women."  I now confess to a pernicious motive.  I guessed that this might draw out my admirers at Dakota Women, who have been somewhat embarrassed to admit that they would talk to a Neanderthal like me.  They took the bait.  Lucretia Love has this:

Sorry, Ken, I don't think even this will send any
women into your, uh, friendly neanderthal arms.

My arms are full, Lucretia.  But thank you for the concern.  Ms. L. does not bother to respond to the post.  She instead talks about Phyllis Schafly, of whom I am no admirer.  But I got a second bite from Anna, who has this:

You  have to give Ken Blanchard credit. He supports gender equity - except, of course, for the fact that it is throwing everyone in Sweden into an early grave. I mean, the reearchers are questioning their own conclusions and suddenly Blanchard is saying this needs to be "figured into any debates on that score." I am surprised SDP isn't blaming declining health in Sweden on the eeeeevilllls of socialized medicine! All of Scandinavia is practically Communist, after all.

It is not only the researchers who are questioning their own conclusions, I questioned them as well.  I made it clear that I had doubts about the conclusions of the study, and that even if the results are confirmed this doesn't mean we should reject gender equity.  As I anticipated, my cautions were ignored by DW. 

Good social policy seldom comes without costs.  This doesn't mean we should reject progress.  It does mean that we should recognize the costs and take steps to deal with them.  The Swedish study was an honest attempt to measure some of those costs.  Dakota Women, apparently, isn't interested in honest measures.  They only want to hear what they want to hear. 
 

The UnFantastic Four

My friend Chad at CCK thinks that "the Republican presidential field is abysmal."   Correct for the usual Clean Cut hyperbole, and maybe he's right.  It's scarcely abysmal but it isn't anything to cheer about.  On the other hand, the Republican field is polling a lot better than the Democratic field.  The recent Times poll and the Rasmussen poll have Giuliani beating Clinton by 9% and 8% respectively.  See RealClearPolitics.  The Times poll has McCain beating Ms. Clinton by 6%.  Giuliani beats Obama in several polls by 4 or 5%, though only by one point in the Times poll.  McCain is is barely ahead of Obama in the polls. 

Now no one thinks that these polls, more than a year and a half out, predict anything.  They only tell us something about how things stand now.  But the Republican Party is, by all indications, in a very weak state.  So what does it tell us that their "abysmal" field is running well ahead of the Democratic front runner, and a little ahead of the Democratic second?  It is unlikely, despite the pretensions of Congressional Democrats, that American troops will be out of Iraq before November 2008.  That fact may continue to be a drag on Republican contenders.  On the other hand, the Democrats won't be able to run against Bush anymore.  It would be wishful thinking on the Democrat's part to imagine that the Republican position is going to get worse than it is now. 

Of the four front runners, only two, Ms. Clinton and Mr. McCain, have impressive credentials.  McCain has been a major figure in national politics and in the Republican Senatorial Caucus for decades.  Ms. Clinton was a figure of national stature before she ran for Senate in New York, a fact that is obviously both her greatest strength and her greatest, perhaps fatal, weakness.  I suppose that, by putting her name recognition where her mouth was and securing a Senate seat she has earned her current position. 

Rudy Giuliani is more of a stretch.  If Hilliary Clinton made the most of marrying a very entertaining guy, Rudy made the most of being mayor of New York City when it hosted America's worst terrorist attack.  By all accounts he did a bang up job in that crisis.  That is not small potatoes.  By all accounts he did a bang up job governing an all but ungovernable city, and one that has stood for America in a lot of common culture.  Again, that is significant; but does it suggest fitness for the Presidency? 

Barack Obama has nothing.  Well, nothing other than a handsome face, a voice rendered smooth and sexy by cigarettes, and a better promise to be America's first Black President than Bill Clinton had, despite Toni Morrison's award.  Yet Obama, who runs second to Ms. Clinton among Democrats, runs better against Republicans than she does. 

If you ask me, as a political scientist, what all this means, I would adopt a thoughtful pose, pause for a bit, and then say: "beats me."  But to put it mildly, Democrats have as much reason to be disturbed by the current Presidential race as Republicans. 

Is Feminism Bad For Public Health?

Probably not.  But this study from Sweden does suggest as much:

This study examines associations between indicators of gender equality and public health. We compare Swedish municipalities on nine indicators in both the private and public sphere, and an additive index, and study the correlations with indicators of morbidity and mortality. The hypothesis that a higher level of gender equality is associated with a convergence of health outcomes (life expectancy, sickness absence) between men and women was supported for equality of part-time employment, managerial positions and economic resources for morbidity, and for temporary parental leave for mortality. Our main finding is that gender equality was generally correlated with poorer health for both men and women. Our conclusions are tentative due to the methodological uncertainties.

However, the results suggest an unfortunate trade-off between gender equality as we know it and public health. Sweden may have reached a critical point where further one-sided expansion by women into traditionally male roles, spheres and activities will not lead to positive health effects unless men also significantly alter their behaviour. Negative effects of this unfinished equality might be found both for women, who have become more burdened, and men, who as a group have lost many of their old privileges. We propose that this contention be confronted and discussed by policymakers, researchers and others. Further studies are also needed to corroborate or dispute these findings.

If I get this right, a higher level of gender equality does correlate with a "convergence of health outcomes" among the sexes.  But it achieves this at the cost of worse heath for both men and women.  I am skeptical that this will hold up, but from one point of view it is unsurprising.  Women are healthier and less likely to die from a number of causes than men.  If the lifestyle of women in general becomes more like that of men, you would expect overall female health to decline a bit.  None of this is an argument against gender equity.  But it should be figured into any debates on that score.  Hat tip of William Saletan at Slate. 

 

Surge

Ed Morrissey: "You can never win. First critics said the surge would never work. Now that US and Iraqi forces have started rounding up terror suspects by the hundreds as a result of the improved security plan, the critics now complain that we've captured too many."

On Leave

Tomorrow I'm leaving for Minneapolis for the 2007 OAH Annual Meeting and will be gone until Sunday, so expect posting from me to be light or nonexistent for the next few days.

They Don't Make Blog Wars Like They Used To

Julie is unimpressed with our recent skirmishes with the DakotaWomen. Maybe Julie can start mixing it up with the DW's and show us how it is done.  Show us some of them karate moves. 

Aberdeen Beef Plant Update

If Aberdeen gets the proposed beef plant, it looks like even more jobs will come to town.  And these aren't just low paying jobs. 

A blood research/development firm shared some of the spotlight Tuesday at more meetings on tax increment financing sought by a company that wants to build a beef processing plant near Aberdeen.

San Francisco-based IKOR has committed to buying all the blood from the plant and would build its own plant in Aberdeen with 200 to 400 workers to process that blood, officials said. IKOR already has a small presence in Aberdeen, with offices in the east wing of what used to be the high school complex in downtown Aberdeen.

Will IKOR still process blood in Aberdeen if Brown County voters deny Northern Beef Packers the $8.6 million TIF it seeks and builds its plant elsewhere in the state? That was a question Tuesday morning from an audience of about 40 gathered in Hecla to talk about the TIF.

"I believe IKOR will move with the packing plant if the plant goes elsewhere," said Doyle Brasher of Northern Beef.

Average annual pay at IKOR is expected to be $60,000, he said. At the low-end projection of 200 workers, that's a payroll of about $12 million per year. Northern Beef Packers expects an annual payroll of about $18 million for 600 or so workers, Brasher said.

IKOR will use the blood to make pharmaceutical products for the veterinary industry, he said.

Update: Even more businesses plan to locate to Aberdeen following the beef plant.   

Dear Leader Worship Update

The cover article in the paper edition of National Review is by Rich Lowery and seeks to explain the incompetence of the Bush Administration.  Available online is the editors of National Review calling for Alberto Gonzales to resign.  Wow, these conservatives have a funny way of worshiping George W. Bush. 

Herseth's Third Option

See this editorial in the Mitchell Daily Republic:

Headlines recently trumpeted Rep. Stephanie Herseth’s vote for bill that set a deadline to end the Iraq war but unfortunately, her vote and the measure itself was a major misstep by the U.S. House of Representatives.

The vote strongly resonates as a political statement rather than one designed to solve a serious problem.

How flawed was the measure?

For starters, this $124 billion spending bill included not only funding for the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, it contained $4 billion in agricultural disaster payments for farmers. Because of this “shotgun marriage” that contained unrelated issues in one piece of legislation, House members were forced to vote on a bill that presented conflicting objectives. Herseth apparently viewed a “no” vote as one against farm disaster payments and an abandonment of her ag constituency. However, a “yes” vote could be perceived as undermining a commitment the United States has made to Iraq.

It is this kind of legislation that ought to turn lawmakers’ hair gray because the dilemma it presents does not serve well the voters or the political process.

If this is the “new leadership” promised by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, then she shamelessly misled the public by promising to end partisan politics.

While we believe Herseth erred in voting for the bill, we don’t doubt her sincerity when she said she believed the measure was a compromise between those who demand an immediate withdrawal for Iraq and those who want no timetable at all.

A better course for Herseth lay in a third option. She should have opposed the measure and explained to her constituents that while she continues to support agriculture — which no one doubts — she could not endorse a measure that forced lawmakers to choose between two equally unattractive positions. By taking this path, she would have demonstrated that the measure was flawed because it included only two options, neither of them acceptable.

It is a fact that the war in Iraqi, now four years old, has not gone well. No one, certainly not President Bush, denies this. The impatience of the American people is understandable. But much of the politically charged rhetoric that accompanied the House bill passed last week only undermines the commitment the United States made to the Iraqi people and in a larger sense, the entire Middle East.

At this point, we do not know if the “surge” strategy outlined by President Bush will be successful. There are some positive indications, however, and the U.S. military leadership in place in Iraq understands perfectly that time is running out for a successful conclusion to this war.

What we wish for in Congress is legislation that allows lawmakers to vote up or down on key issues and not meld them with other issues that are unrelated but politically motivated.

The American people deserve no less.

Ethanol

Argus Leader:

Nationwide demand for corn to fuel the booming ethanol industry could mean more cornfields planted in South Dakota this spring.

And grain marketing experts say the price of corn should stay at or near record highs as well, allowing farmers to cash in on the opportunity.

Farmers should see a cash corn price of $3.40 to $3.60 a bushel this fall, said Alan May, extension grain marketing specialist at South Dakota State University. The last time corn for delivery brought $3 or more was late January through early March 2004, and before that for just a month in 1996, he said.

"This is a much more prolonged type of rally that we rarely, if ever, see," May said. "These are historically high prices, which has an awful lot to do with ethanol and the massive growth of that industry."

The U.S. Department of Agriculture projects that by fall, the nation will need 2.1 billion bushels of corn to make ethanol, a 34 percent increase in demand over a year ago, May said. In response, farmers are expected to plant from 8 million to 12 million more acres of corn this year.

South Dakota typically sees 4 million acres of corn planted each year, but signs suggest that number will grow here as well.

Check out the whole article.

Good Advice

HNN:

Just as it fought the spread of Communism during the Cold War, the United States must do more to develop and support networks of moderate Muslims who are too often silenced by violent radical Islamists, according to a RAND Corporation report issued today.

"The struggle in much of the Muslim world today is a war of ideas," said Angel Rabasa, a RAND senior policy analyst and the lead author of the report. "This is not a war of civilizations; it's not Islam versus the West. It's a struggle within Islam to define the character of Islam."

"We cannot come in as outsiders, as a non-Muslim country, and discredit the radicals' ideology," Rabasa said. "Muslims have to do that themselves. What we can do is level the playing field by empowering the moderates."

Pat Buchanan

For anyone that will be in the Brookings area in two weeks, Pat Buchanan will be speaking at the Performing Arts Center on the campus of South Dakota State University on April 4 at 8 pm.  It's free and open to the public, so stop on by if you're in the area.  The title of his presentation is "The State of the Bush Presidency in 2008."

Tangled Webb

The new Virginia Senator had some splainin to do.   From the Washington Post:

A top aide to Sen. James Webb was charged yesterday with trying to carry a loaded pistol and extra ammunition into a Senate office building, U.S. Capitol Police said.

The staffer, Phillip Thompson, told police that the gun belonged to Webb (D-Va.), authorities said. Thompson also said he forgot that the gun was in a briefcase and meant no harm, they said.

Now this was surely a mistake, and it seems obvious that Thompson's explanation was genuine.  It looks to me a bit harsh, that is correct, for Thompson to have to spend the night in the slammer. 

But Webb is a bit eccentric.  When questioned about the incident, on camera, he would not say whether it was his gun or not.  And then began weaving a flag and giving a NRA speech.  From Fox:

"I believe that it's important — it's important for me, personally, and for a lot of people in the situation that I'm in, to be able to defend myself and my family," Webb said. "Since 9/11 for people who are in government I think in general there has been an agreement that it's a more dangerous time. Again, I'm not going to comment, again, with great specificity about how I defend myself, but I do feel that I have that right."

Handguns are illegal in Washington, D.C., but nearby Virginia allows residents to carry concealed handguns. Capitol Police rules allow members and their employees to bring a weapon onto Capitol grounds if it is unloaded and securely wrapped. In this case, it was allegedly neither.

Senator Webb has a right to carry a gun in Virginia.  I am happy with that.  But does he really need it because of 9/11?  And isn't it one of the chief responsibilities of gun owners that they handled their weapons carefully and properly as the law requires?  Might that not include knowing where your gun is?

Random Thought

PowerPoint is the death of the imagination. 

Where's The Beef?

An informational meeting was held last night in Aberdeen regarding the upcoming vote on giving a tax break to a beef plant looking to locate in Aberdeen.  A "yes" vote is a vote for the beef plant.  A "no" vote is vote for the beef plant to look somewhere else.  In most cities, the prospect of a business bringing 600 or so jobs to the community would be a no brainer.  Of course cities want new jobs.  But in Aberdeen, this is a real question.  After all, if something new occurs, that might mean we have to change.  Yikes. 

The population of this part of the state is in decline.  While there is no doubt that a beef plant will bring certain challenges, this area needs jobs more than anything to bring in new people to our communities.  Sure, managing growth can be painful, but not nearly as painful as managing decline. 

Farber

This morning's Yankton Press & Dakota has an excellent write-up about "Doc" Farber and those who remember him the most.  Free registration is required to see the story, but here are some excerpts:

From September 1960 to June 1966, former Gov. William Janklow attended USD and took two classes taught by Farber.

Unlike NBC News anchor Tom Brokaw, television personality Pat O'Brien and scores of other people who studied political science at USD, Janklow doesn't consider himself one of "Farber's Boys."

"I was an F.O.F. I was a Friend of Farber, and I really got to know him after I left the university when I was in public life," Janklow said. "He was a -- and I really mean this -- a very often, very useful, very valuable private advisor to me. He knew everything about the South Dakota government and its history."

Janklow is certain that Farber's influence eventually led to a constitutional reorganization of governments in South Dakota.

"He used to have a chart that showed we had more government units in South Dakota than the state of California, because we had a government for everything, and he pushed constantly for government to change as society changed," Janklow said.

Al Neuharth, who enrolled in classes at USD in 1946 right after the end of World War II, was a student in one of Farber's classes. Neuharth said the political science professor strongest influence was felt outside of the classroom.

"He taught me what was right and what was wrong," said Neuharth, who rose from being editor of the Volante on the USD campus to, decades later, launch USA TODAY.

"When I was editor of the Volante, I endorsed a good friend of mine who was running for student office, and he won the election," Neuharth said. "Doc Farber and I met in passing on the campus the next day and he asked me how I felt, and said, TPretty darned good. Democracy was in action.'

"The Volante is the only paper on the USD campus," Farber replied to Neuharth, "and you endorsed your friend. You should ask yourself if that was fair."

It's a lesson that the famed newspaper publisher has never forgotten.

"It's the reason that USA TODAY has never endorsed a political candidate," Neuharth said. "Farber taught me that newspapers should debate, not dictate."

...

Former U.S. Sen. Larry Pressler (R-S.D.) began taking classes at USD the fall after he graduated from Humboldt High School. He found himself in a world completely different from the small farm where he was raised and small school he attended.

Pressler admitted that, at first, he felt inferior to many of USD's students who came from bigger schools in South Dakota and surrounding states.

"I was a rather weak student at first; one easily forgets how, as you become more self-reliant, there was a time when you needed some help," Pressler said. "(Farber) reached out his hand to me, and he told me I better stick around, and he me get a summer job."

The former senator thought of potentially pursuing a career in agribusiness or school administration.

...

Farber drew praise from U.S. Sens. John Thune and Tim Johnson of South Dakota, both USD graduates.

"Dr. Farber was truly a one of a kind," Thune said. "He was passionate about learning and passionate about his students' futures. Fortunately for us, he leaves behind a rich legacy that will continue to inspire future generations."

Johnson said he considered Farber a friend.

"The University of South Dakota is a better place because of the dedication of his life to the university and its students," Johnson said. "His legacy remains a powerful force for students from Farber Hall to the Farber Fund."

Herseth to Wed on Saturday

From KELOLand:

South Dakota's lone member of the US House will be taking a new name on Saturday: Stephanie Herseth Sandlin.

The 36-year-old Herseth will wed former Texas Congressman Max Sandlin during a small ceremony in Brookings.

Sandlin served in the House from 1997 to 2005. He currently works as a lawyer in a government relations firm in Washington DC.

Sandlin, who is 18 years older than Herseth, is a divorced father of four. It's his second marriage, Herseth's first.

The couple will make their home in Brookings. A Caribbean honeymoon is planned.

Herseth and Sandlin first met in 2002 during Herseth's unsuccessful first bid for Congress.

W$J: Shariah Law in Minnesota?

In a story that has regional interest, Katherine Kersten writes in the Wall Street Journal Opinion Journal a column entitled "Shariah in Minnesota?"  The good folks over at Power Line, who have done an excellent job following the six imam's story, provides some new tidbits.

NYT Gets Facts Wrong Again

Iowa Voice:

But of course, they’re not pushing an agenda, right? Riiiiiight.

On March 18, the New York Times published this story about female soldiers who served in Iraq and are now having problems as a result.

One of the women mentioned in the story claims to have been sexually assaulted twice in the last few years and that she suffers severe mental problems as a result of being deployed to, and injured in, Iraq. Her story is gripping because of the vivid details given.

One problem though: she never was sent to Iraq. She was in Guam the whole time.

The NYTimes did insert a correction in the online edition today, a full week after they published this story (anyone know about the print edition at all?), but knew full well when they went to print with this article that portions of it may have been inaccurate. Where have I seen that before?

The Times contacted the Navy just three days before this story went to print, not exactly giving them time to look into it. Nevertheless, the Navy DID provide enough info to the Times to where they should have questioned this woman’s story, at least to the point of leaving her out entirely.

Of course there’s NO agenda at work here, folks. None at all.

As I said in the opening: riiiiiight.

For the record, nobody (so far) is questioning the veracity of the other women’s claims in this article. But it shows that in pursuit of a story that fits the agenda, the press is willing to believe anything a person says, as long as it advances the agenda.

Dude...This Sucks

Jonah Goldberg links to this story from the Times of London. 

By the end of the decade one in four new cases of schizophrenia could be  triggered by smoking cannabis, scientists say.

Research has suggested that regular users of the drug are up to six times more likely to develop schizophrenia, although whether the drug is the direct cause remains disputed.

The Department of Health says it is now generally agreed among doctors that cannabis is an “important causal factor” in mental illness.

A study published in the journal Addiction predicts that, if the causal link between cannabis use and schizophrenia is accepted, rates of the illness will increase substantially by 2010, especially among young men.

The use of cannabis grew fourfold over the 30 years to 2002, and eighteenfold  among under18s, the researchers say.

Such a boom in cannabis use could lead to increases in the number of new cases of schizophrenia of 29 per cent between 1990 and 2010.

Bjorn Again Wisdom on Global Warming

No, this is not another "How many carbon credits would Jesus take out" post.  Bjorn Lomborg has suffered a torrent of abuse for trying to be thoughtful about environmental issues.  Here is an example from his New York Post article about Al Gore:

Global warming is indeed real, as has been pointed out several times by the U.N. Climate Panel (the so-called IPCC). Over the coming century, temperatures will likely increase about 5ºF. The total cost of global warming is anything but trivial, about $15 trillion. Yet it is only about one-half of 1 percent of the total net worth of the 21st century, about $3,000 trillion.

Yes, the media often carry far more dire descriptions of warming's consequences. Gore, for example: "We have just 10 years to avert a major catastrophe that could send our entire planet into a tail-spin of epic destruction involving extreme weather, floods, droughts, epidemics and killer heat waves beyond anything we have ever experienced." A fine phrase for such talk is "climate porn": This kind of language makes any sensible policy dialogue about our global choices impossible.

If Gore's rhetoric was sound, the only alternative to global catastrophe would be for all of us to gird up our loin cloths and go back to herding sheep.  Lomborg's analysis, by contrast, gives us a way to think about reasonable alternatives.  Can we halt global warming for less than the half percent of the world's economy that global warming is estimated to cost?  No one is offering a solution for that kind of price tag. 

While we are trying to balance the ledger on dollars, what about lives?

W E often hear about global warming causing more heat deaths - but very little about cold deaths. It is true that, for example, the temperature rise from global warming will probably cause 2,000 more heat deaths in the United Kingdom by 2080. Yet studies indicate that the same temperature increase will also decrease cold deaths - 20,000 fewer U.K. cold deaths by 2080. Mentioning 2,000 more deaths, but not the 20,000 fewer cold deaths that go with them, is no basis for sound policy.

For the United States, the net lower death count from global warming in 2050 is estimated at 174,000 per year.

More people die of heat exhaustion due to global warming.  That is bad.  A lot fewer people freeze their nuts off.  That is good.  And what about those rising sea levels? 

The 2007 U.N. report on the issue esti mated that sea levels will rise a little over a foot during the rest of the century. This is not a trivial amount - but it is also not outside historical experience. Since 1850, we have experienced a sea level rise of about one foot, yet this has clearly not caused major disruptions.

Ask a very old person about the most important issues that took place in the 20th century. She will likely mention two world wars, the Cold War, the internal combustion engine and perhaps the IT revolution. But it is very unlikely that she will add: Oh, and sea levels rose.

Gore wants to scare us.  Lomborg wants to inform us.  Only the latter is of any use in forming policy.

Mr. Ellis Responds

Mr. Ellis has a respectful reply to and disagreement with this post of mine.  I have defended the role of religion in public life multiple times on this site, so Mr. Ellis and I have no argument on that.  See my post here, for example.  Where Scripture is relatively clear (e.g., protecting human life and marriage), people of faith should speak equally clearly. It is right to bring biblical principles into the discussion about how to provide health care to our society, thus my quotes from John Paul II and the reference to subsidiarity.  But I think it is presumptuous to label reasonable proposals such as single payer health care systems as "unbiblical." My argument is simply that while Scripture tells us to love our fellow man and to care for the poor, it does not anticipate modern health care systems.  Socialized medicine, usually operating through something like a single payer insurance system, actually can be a response to certain biblical imperatives, such as loving one's neighbor and giving a preferential option to the poor and the sick.  And, yes, there are certain biblical principles undermined by socialized medicine, thus my references to John Paul II and subsidiarity.  In the end, though, we do better not to disparage the motives of our fellow citizens, but to help them see the improvident nature of socialized medicine, i.e., socialized medicine in practice is actually worse for the poor and the sick.  As I say, on some things Scripture is clear (e.g., marriage is between a man and a woman) and views to the contrary cannot be reconciled with God's word.  On most political matters, though, Scripture gives certain principles and then leaves it to prudence to figure out how to best bring those principles to practice.  I'd rather say that socialized medicine is an imprudent attempt to secure certain biblical values rather than simply labeling it "unbiblical" and calling into question the good faith of that policy's advocates, which include, no doubt, many honest and good hearted Christians.  I will let Mr. Ellis have the last word, should he so choose.      

Hinderaker

Watertown native John Hinderaker, commenting on Florida's refusal to grant Jeb Bush an honorary degree: "In an age when left-wing 'poets,' unreconstructed Communists and, needless to say, Democratic politicians routinely deliver commencement speeches and receive honorary degrees, universities are increasingly declaring themselves to be one-party states."

The Radical Antiwar Left

Pajamas Media:  "From the 'We No Longer Question Their Patriotism' File"

Herseth's Short Leash

Jason Folkerts:

The Politics of Anger

George Will writes in the Washington Post today about the nature of anger in American life and its effect on politics.  Excerpt:

Wood notes that there is a "vagueness and elasticity of the grievances" that supposedly justify today's almost exuberant anger. And anger is more pervasive than merely political grievances would explain. Today's anger is a coping device for everyday life. It also is the defining attribute of an increasingly common personality type: the person who "unless he is angry, feels he is nothing at all."

That type, infatuated with anger, uses it to express identity. Anger as an expression of selfhood is its own vindication. Wood argues, however, that as anger becomes a gas polluting the social atmosphere, it becomes not a sign of personal uniqueness but of a herd impulse. ...

Today, many people preen about their anger as a badge of authenticity: I snarl, therefore I am. Such people make one's blood boil.

Historian Richard Hofstadter once wrote that "American politics has often been an arena for angry minds."  No doubt this remains true today.  Will notes that anger serves as an identity for some people -- even to the point that it creates a shared identity based solely on anger and the object of that anger.  In short, it's a form of tribalism that purges compromise and reason from politics.

The tribalism of anger creates an atmosphere where all standards of decent behavior and compromise disappear.  When Howard Dean announces that he hates Republicans and everything they stand for or Ann Coulter makes lewd remarks about John Edwards, this isn't reasoned politics.  In such a world view facts make little difference, and it's something I think both sides of the political aisle need to be aware of.

One off-shoot to the politics of anger is the nature of scapegoating.  As Mary Eberstadt explains:

. . . a flight from political reality has indeed been underway on both the left and the right in America in the years since that event, as well as accelerating into more advanced forms in much of Europe. To switch metaphors, in the wake of the 9/11 attack -- and later, related Islamist attacks on civilians, most notably in Spain and Britain -- many Western observers have responded not by absorbing what we now know to be true about our world, but rather by transposing those brute facts into other, safer, more familiar keys.

Yes, instead of facing the force of radical Islam, many are turning to familiar scapegoats to explain away the problems.   To be sure, both sides of the political spectrum are guilty of this.  As Eberstadt explains, some on the Right have turned to blaming immigrants for all of America's ills, while some on the Left have adopted the view that "Christianists" are converting America into a theocracy.   The most popular scapegoat, by far, is President Bush, which many in the general public and intellectual class find appealing.  The problem with this is it tries to explain too much, ignoring the complexities of reality.  Simply, people are more comfortable with scapegoats because they can understand them.  They are solvable "problems."  Toss out the illegals, demonize the motives of religious people, blame Bush or America for everything, or bury our head in the sand.  All are easier than dealing with reality, especially an entity like Muslim radicalism that doesn't view life and society the way the West does.

The anonymity that the world of the New Media offers has only served to amplify this anger.  As much as I love the blogosphere, it certainly has its issues.  One source of this invective discourse is the nature of the online community.  The lack of civility in debate stems from the remoteness of the keyboard and monitor that provides insulation that doesn't exist when debating face-to-face.  That remoteness often results in uncharacteristic boldness and rudeness.  Much of our political discourse and intelligent debate today has been supplanted by ideological quarrels, name-calling, and ad hominem attacks.  This isn't to suggest I'm opposed to rigorous debate and questioning of facts and theories, but we should give each other the benefit of the doubt and accept the sincerity of those involved in a dialog.  The point of politics is not to scream at one another but to find the best policies for our nation, our states, and our communities.  Anger should not be allowed to define our politics and ethics.

UPDATE:  For the South Dakota connection, remember Tom Daschle and his decrying of "startling meanness" in American politics?  Unfortunately, Daschle's political legacy has been cemented in the permanent campaign and scorched earth.

What's God's View On Booster Seats?

There are many things God is against.  Universal health care is not one of them.  Here's a good rule: if you don't need to invoke God's justice to defeat an idea, then don't.  Government run health care is bad enough in its own right.  We don't need to invoke the almighty.  As a rule, it is a bad idea to assert biblical sanction or injunction when a.) Scripture does not speak directly to the subject, and b.) there are good secular arguments to be made.  The argument against government run health care is not an argument about God's justice, but an argument about what is the best way to create a health care system that works for all, including the poor.  From this perspective the argument against statist solutions is prudential, not Scriptural. 

For a discussion of the role of the state from a religious perspective, see John Paul II's Centesimus Annus, which has some negative things to say about Socialism (by which I think he largely, but not exclusively, means Communism) and unfettered free markets. For example, here is the late Pontiff quoting Leo XIII in part on Liberalism (i.e., capitalism):

The State cannot limit itself to "favouring one portion of the citizens", namely the rich and prosperous, nor can it "neglect the other", which clearly represents the majority of society. Otherwise, there would be a violation of that law of justice which ordains that every person should receive his due. "When there is question of defending the rights of individuals, the defenceless and the poor have a claim to special consideration. The richer class has many ways of shielding itself, and stands less in need of help from the State; whereas the mass of the poor have no resources of their own to fall back on, and must chiefly depend on the assistance of the State. It is for this reason that wage-earners, since they mostly belong to the latter class, should be specially cared for and protected by the Government".

The Pope later on critiques the problem of commercialism in capitalism.  And here is JPII on Socialism:

Socialism considers the individual person simply as an element, a molecule within the social organism, so that the good of the individual is completely subordinated to the functioning of the socio-economic mechanism. Socialism likewise maintains that the good of the individual can be realized without reference to his free choice, to the unique and exclusive responsibility which he exercises in the face of good or evil. Man is thus reduced to a series of social relationships, and the concept of the person as the autonomous subject of moral decision disappears, the very subject whose decisions build the social order.

Private property has its rights, although the public does as well.  But by reducing man's ingenuity to a thing to be manipulated by the state for the good of all, human freedom is destroyed.  Also, humanity needs something in addition to the state to solve its social problems. This is one reason why God ordained the family and friendship, to give humans a ready way to be charitable and to create bonds of love.  Thus the concept of subsidiarity, which is violated at great peril.  From the Catholic Catechism:

Socialization also presents dangers. Excessive intervention by the state can threaten personal freedom and initiative. The teaching of the Church has elaborated the principle of subsidiarity, according to which "a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to co-ordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good."

For more on subsidiarity, go here.

And Then I'll Let It Rest

Dear Chad.  It is not voter intimidation I find funny, it is your post on it. Perhaps you (and most of the South Dakota Blogosphere) need a good dose of Dr. Will's medicine this morning, especially this part:

The blogosphere often is, as one blogger joyfully says, "an electronic primal scream." And everywhere there is the histrionic fury of ordinary people venting in everyday conversations.

Many people who loathe George W. Bush have adopted what Peter Wood describes as "ecstatic anger as a mode of political action." Anger often is, Wood says, "a spectacle to be witnessed by an appreciative audience, not an attempt to win over the uncommitted."

Wind Energy

Rapid City Journal:

WESSINGTON SPRINGS, — Heartland Consumers Power District has partnered with the Australian firm that is buying NorthWestern Corp. and has agreed to buy electricity produced by turbines at what will be one of the state’s largest wind farms.

The wind farm will spread over about 3,000 acres south of Wessington Springs.

Jim Burg, Wessington Springs mayor and former state Public Utilities Commission member, said preparation for construction could start soon.

“I think you’ll see a lot of activity this year as far as testing soils and surveying and all those types of things,” he said.

The project includes 34 large wind turbines, each 262 feet tall with a rotor diameter of 253 feet.

The largest wind farm in the state now, near Highmore, has 27 turbines. Other projects already in the works could end up being larger.

Doc Farber

Argus Leader:

South Dakota lost an influential citizen early Saturday when William O. "Doc" Farber died at age 96.

Farber, professor emeritus of political science at the University of South Dakota, is well-known to many in the state as a mentor to students and a pillar of the state's political history.

"It is difficult to exaggerate the extent to which Doc Farber advanced the cause of better government through his encouragement of public service, to contribute something in a meaningful way, whether on the highest levels of the state and national governments or in the smallest South Dakota communities," wrote Dick Brown, former state legislator and friend of Farber, in the late professor's obituary.

Born and reared in Illinois, Farber began his career at USD in 1935 and was chairman of the university's political science department for 38 years. He always encouraged students to enter public service.

"He was a catalyst for our lives," Brown said.

Brown and other notable South Dakota natives Tom Brokaw, Pat O'Brien and former U.S. Sen. Larry Pressler were some of the professor's protégés, known as the "Farber Boys."

His influence helped produce six Rhodes scholars who studied under him, including Pressler. Pressler on Saturday shared a recent letter he wrote to Farber thanking him for his guidance.

Be sure to read the whole thing.  It seems like it would be hard to overstate Farber's positive impact on South Dakota.  Our thoughts and prayers are with his family.

Black Hills National Forest

From the Rapid City Journal, dateline Hill City:

Once in a while, it’s nice to see where the money goes.

That’s what brought U.S. Sen. John Thune -- all dressed up with someplace to go -- into the forest above Mitchell Lake in the Black Hills for a brief outdoor break squeezed in between an afternoon aviation meeting and an evening political bash.

The South Dakota Republican, who recently helped extract an extra $1.4 million from the U.S. Department of Agriculture for Black Hills National Forest logging projects, made himself -- and his wife, Kimberley -- late for an evening GOP dinner in order to tromp around the woods in his senatorial suit and Western-style dress boots for a half hour or so.

He was in good company, including forest supervisor Craig Bobzien -- who was only too happen to give the senator a close-up look at the next target in the U.S. Forest Service war against wildfires and pine beetles.

Bobzien said he was still celebrating the news from Thune’s office this week about a funding boost that will bring the forest’s timber-harvest budget up to $11 million for the year. It will also help increase the logging total this year to 85 million board feet, a 6 million board foot increase from last year.

And Bobzien said the Mitchell project is just the kind of work the additional money can and should buy.

“This Mitchell project is exactly what this forest needs,” he said, after giving Thune a quick briefing on the 15,500-acre project aimed at benefiting both commercial loggers and forest management plans. “We’re just really happy that the extra money came in. It’s critical.”