More Argus / Hildygate Criticism

Dakota Voice:

Why the Argus Leader is Most Derelict in Hildygate

The South Dakota Moderate raises the question: why is the Argus Leader catching the most heat for the absence of reporting on the alleged theft of monies from Hildebrand Tewes.

It's a valid question, but I believe I know why (at least why I think so).

Many of the points SDM brings up are valid for consideration.

However, many news outlets name names without criminal charges actually being filed, the Dan Sutton affair being one of those. So while I understand the need and reason for restraint, it's not at all without precedent to name a suspect before the suspect has actually been charged. Especially when the victim is naming the alleged perpetrator.

Also I believe the Argus Leader, as the state's largest newspaper, has the primary obligation to go after the story.

The Argus Leader is also the hometown newspaper where this incident occurred.

The Argus Leader is also about six blocks or 6/10 of a mile from Hildebrand Tewes--yet Roll Call, over 1000 miles away, has given us more information in the last week than the Argus Leader has.

Another consideration: if no criminal charges have been filed, why not? If Hildebrand Tewes is naming names, I would expect charges to be filed. Or at least an investigation underway? If these are not happening, then the absence of those activities is a story the Argus should be investigating and reporting on, at the very least.

When you couple all these factors together with the multitude of past incidents of blatant bias on the part of the Argus, I think the charges of burying the story are very well founded. That may not be the case, but I think such a possibility would do more than just cross the mind of a reasonable person who weighed all the evidence.

UPDATE:  See this Rapid City Journal story for new details.

Novak on Daschle

Here's Robert Novak discussing a Tom Daschle comeback:

TIM JOHNSON'S RETURN

Solicitations for a Sept. 12 fund-raising reception in Washington on behalf of ailing Sen. Tim Johnson give the impression he will be present at the event, but in fact there are no such plans.

Sources close to Johnson say he will not decide his schedule until he is back in the Senate, and there is no firm schedule yet for that. Johnson has not been seen publicly since suffering a brain hemorrhage last Dec. 13, but his staff has been raising funds for his re-election campaign in South Dakota. His campaign has $1.75 million cash on hand.

The $1,000-to-$2,300-a-ticket reception will be held at the home of Johnson's fellow South Dakotan, former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, and his wife, transportation industry lobbyist Linda Daschle, on Foxhall Road millionaire's row in Washington. It has been speculated that if Johnson cannot run, Daschle could attempt a political comeback.

Just Because the New York Times Said It . . .

That doesn't mean it's wrong! 

Trade has been getting an unfair beating from Democrats. Party leaders backpedaled from their agreement with the White House to approve free trade pacts with Peru and Panama and are opposing the agreement with South Korea. They also refused to extend so-called fast track authority, which guarantees a simple up or down vote on trade deals. And Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama — playing to the campaign crowds — are backing legislation that would punish China for manipulating its currency and, not incidentally, could trigger an ugly trade war.

      

Yet for all their concern about globalization’s impact on American workers, Democrats are going after the wrong targets. It is true that wages for most workers are going nowhere. Many fear for their jobs. But, as many centrist Democrats have argued for years, throttling trade would end up hurting a lot more people than it helped.

The Sound of Silence

Greg Belfrage:

The Chad Schuldt story is starting to generate national attention -- including this notice at NRO.

However, as PP notes today at Dakota War College, there has been nothing yet from the Argus Leader. Nope. The self-appointed guardians of truth haven't given any coverage to yesterday's revelation about Schudt. You can't find anything on the website, the online blog or in the newspaper. They're probably too busy working on another Dan Scott hit-piece...

Don't you find it ironic that those of us with other full-time employment still managed to get this information online -- but the Argus Leader's paid reporters couldn't do the same?

Many of the left-wing bloggers are also pretty quiet. Where's Jeremy Funk on these accusations against his pal?

Indeed.  The state's largest newspaper has missed/ignored a big story once again.

Dear Anna: You are second to none.

Anna popped into her blog, Dakota Women, and has this:

I also came back to discover that Ken Blanchard considers me a second-rate Chad Schuldt substitute, at best.  Sigh.

What I said was this:

I think it obvious that Chad went a bit off the rails; but even if that were true, he still served a valuable function in the local conversation.  No one took us to task so often over so many things we wrote here.  Responding was good for us and good for our readers. These days I have to rely on Anna, but though she is easily as sharp and considerably more eloquent, her interests are more narrow than Chad's were.

Anna was joking, but let me be clear anyway.  She is brighter and more reasonable than Chad ever was.  But it was very easy to get a rise out of Chad. I just had to say something like "Bush is still President and the weather today was good," and Chad would charge in and say "Bush hates good weather!"  To get a response from Anna, I actually have to make a point that is substantial and provocative. 

Anna also says this:

I also find myself agreeing with Jon Schaff quite a bit recently, which is really messing with my head.

Now that is indeed troubling, and if I were her, I would seek professional help.

Edwards Moving Leftward

Note this about Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin's choice for president:  "Edwards has taken many of the basic ideas of his 2004 campaign - that the federal government caters to wealth, not work, and that the United States must restore its integrity internationally - and amplified them, shifting himself from somewhere in the middle of the Democratic field of 2004 to arguably the most liberal of the top-polling candidates today."  Here's some more weirdness from his visit to Creston, Iowa.   

Dangerous Questions: Blanchard Gets The Last Word

Professor Schaff has staked his personal reputation on the fact that his last post on this subject was his last post. 

Last post by me on this topic.  Honest.  Ken Blanchard responds to my response to his post on "dangerous questions" posed by science.

I am not sure why he is so insistent on closing off the topic, as this seemed to me to be an interesting exchange; but I suppose I can now reply without fear that any deficiencies in my reasoning will be revealed by him.

Professor Schaff wants to draw a sharper line between questions that science can answer, and those that it cannot answer, than I do.  I differ in so far as I don't think that scientific inquiry is all that different from other forms of rational investigation like history or political science.  Professor Schaff says this:

One of the foundations of the scientific method is that scientific investigation must begin with a hypothesis that is falsifiable.  For example, if I argue that in a vacuum a ton of lead falls faster than a ton of feathers, that hypothesis can be proven false by experimentation.  If, however, I argue that if Stonewall Jackson had not died at Chancellorsville the Confederates would have defeated the Federals at Gettysburg, this is not a falsifiable hypothesis, thus is not a scientific question.  We cannot go back in time, resurrect Jackson, send him to Gettysburg and see what happens.

I think this gets it wrong.  Lots of historical propositions are falsifiable. If one says that person X, and not John Wilkes Booth, killed Lincoln, that might be falsified by showing that person X was somewhere else, or dead.   If one argues that a better designed ironclad ship would have won the war for the South, one might falsify that by showing that the South did not have the industrial capacity to produce such ships in sufficient numbers. 

Likewise, a lot of scientific propositions are not falsifiable when they are made.  Relativity theory stood for a long time before it was confirmed by experiment.  It is only necessary that the proposition be falsifiable in principle.  To the degree that the suggested historical thesis above, that Stonewall Jackson would have turned the tide at Gettysburg, is not falsifiable, then it isn't really a legitimate historical question either.  It is mere child's play. 

The difference between history and science is analogous to the difference between physics and biology.  Physics has lots of firm laws.  Biology has almost none.  The reason is that the subject matter of each presents different problems.  The kind of precision physics can achieve is not possible in biology; even less precision and decisiveness is possible in history or political science or ethics. But I suppose that this is because the subject matters differ in their degree of complexity and access, rather than because there is some sharp division between scientific and non-scientific questions. 

I confess to a certain suspicion here: that Professor Schaff's insistence on limiting the reach of science belongs to what I call the "Olympian strategy."  Take what you want to protect (the Olympian gods, certain ethical principles, aesthetic judgments), and put it behind a toddler gate that the scientists can't cross.  I do not say that this is never warranted.  As Professor Schaff notes, I was trained as a Straussian.  But I think that in the contemporary world, the device should be used very sparingly.  Anyway, the point of Pinker's article was to protect those who ask dangerous questions, not to encourage such questions for their own sake. 

There.  That'll teach my colleague to declare that he has had the last word. 

 

Belfrage on Schuldt

Here's Greg Belfrage on Chad Schuldt being fingered in Hildygate:

Rollcall.com is reporting that Chad Schuldt was fired by the Democratic consulting firm Hildebrand Tewes. Schuldt is suspected of embezzling over $100,000 from the firm.

Those who frequent the state's blogs know Schuldt as the leftwinger behind a site titled, Clean Cut Kid. I have been a regular object of his ridicule, bile and hateful rhetoric. Chad has distorted my views, tried to boycott KELO AM advertisers and mocked my religion.

Click HERE for a compilation of Chad and company's anti-Belfrage ravings and judge for yourself.

You'll probably find it entertaining, but this kind of stuff is tough for me and my family. My kids have seen this crud and I have to try and explain it to them. Real fun. Admittedly, it comes with the territory when you chose to enter the arena of public debate. And especially when you have a public platform, as I do.

I must tell you there is a part of me that would delight in trashing Chad. However, any pleasure would be short-lived and hollow because it would be the wrong thing to do.

Chad is innocent until proved guilty. And I've chosen to respond to Chad's nastiness by doing something which he NEVER did for me -- I'll show some kindness and give him the benefit of the doubt.

Indeed.

UPDATE:  Here's more from NRO.

UPDATE II:  More from Political Vindication, Uncorrelated, and Red Alerts.

Chad Schuldt and the Use and Abuse of Blogs

Our regional blogosphere siblings, Todd Epp and David Newquist recently commented on the flaws of blogs.  Todd thinks blogs have a "watch-dog" role to play, but cautions that blogging is not journalism. 

They can speak truth to power, even to journalistic institutions.  But blogs are more provocateur than journalist.   

I would take issue with this only a modest point.  Bloggers are amateur journalists.  Amateur journalism has played a great in the history of this republic.  Self-publishers of pamphlets, tracts, and newspapers, under their own names and the occasional nom de guerre, have generated some of our most interesting and influential political rhetoric.  I agree with Todd that blogs are no substitute for professional journalism, but add the point that blogs are very useful source of information that the professionals are not ready to release.

Hildygate is an excellent example.  If to other purposes, Professor Newquist illustrates the point this way:

[T]he unraveling of this story, however, much is said about the kind of community that South Dakota is by observing how it broke. The confirming story was not published in the local news media that serves the area where Chad Schuldt worked and lived. It broke in the D.C. Capitol newspaper Roll Call with Steve Hildebrand cited as the confirming source.

Precisely.  Someone reading the South Dakota blogs who does not regularly consult Roll Call now knows that it was indeed Chad Schuldt who was fired from the Hildebrand-Tewes firm. He knows it before it was revealed on any local media outlet, at least as far as I know. 

Professor Newquist takes a typical cut at this blog, against which he has a long standing grudge. 

And for folks like Doug Wiken who think I generalize too much about blogs, I will point as examples the constant accusations of moral deficiency posted by Sibson and some of the dreadful lapses into peevish defamation at South Dakota Politics.

Perhaps in his long and distinguished career, our colleague missed some basic facts about discourse.  A nasty accusation, unsupported by a single piece of evidence or citation, no matter how well adorned with colorful adjectives like "dreadful" and "peevish", does not count as an example of anything other than the accuser's intellectual laziness and jaundice. 

In fact, SDP has been more than fair on this story.  And I, for one, have no sense of elation at Chad's situation.  I participated once in a phone interview, along with Chad, on South Dakota Public Radio.  Though I have never met him in person, I liked the sound of his voice and the way he defended his role as a blogger.  I am genuinely sorry to see this happen to him.

I don't think that this crime, if indeed Chad is guilty of it, discredits Hildebrand Tewes, or the Daschle people, or the Democratic Party, or liberals, or anyone but Chad. It does discredit the manner of blogging that Chad adopted over time.  He was very fond of calling politicians he disliked "despicable."  Now I think there is a place for that kind of rhetoric in political speech, but if you are going to make that your MO, you need to be very sure that you do not show yourself to be the kind of person that reasonable people can despise. 

You Heard It Here Last

Chad Schuldt is named by Steve Hildebrand as the employee fired for stealing over $100,000 from the Hildebrand-Tewes firm.  Epp's thoughts here.  I see many of the commenters at the War College enjoy kicking a man when he is down.  Not a totally inhuman reaction, although not necessarily a Christian one. 

Dangerous Questions, Again

Last post by me on this topic.  Honest.  Ken Blanchard responds to my response to his post on "dangerous questions" posed by science.  Ken and I agree that some of Steven Pinker's original "dangerous questions generated by science" are not very strong questions.   Ken argues that I am too limited in my view of what science can answer.  Ken takes as his jumping off point my analysis of how one would go about figuring out whether religion or Nazism killed more people (one of Pinker's questions).  I questioned how one would know what people's motivations are for killing others, using the example of Elizabeth I killing her sister Mary.  Ken responds:

Just because a question is hard to answer, or requires a lot of work to define, doesn't mean it can't be answered by science or at least by a scientifically rigorous historical examination. Would Mary have represented a threat to Elizabeth or vice versa if not for the religious difference?  I see no reason by argument and evidence cannot be employed against the question.

I think the error Ken makes is to say that every argument from evidence and reason is therefore a scientific argument.  I disagree.  One of the foundations of the scientific method is that scientific investigation must begin with a hypothesis that is falsifiable.  For example, if I argue that in a vacuum a ton of lead falls faster than a ton of feathers, that hypothesis can be proven false by experimentation. 

If, however, I argue that if Stonewall Jackson had not died at Chancellorsville the Confederates would have defeated the Federals at Gettysburg, this is not a falsifiable hypothesis, thus is not a scientific question.  We cannot go back in time, resurrect Jackson, send him to Gettysburg and see what happens.   This does not mean we cannot gather evidence, reason through the evidence, and come to a conclusion.  This is historical reasoning, not scientific reasoning, strictly speaking.  The problem with many (most?) historical and political questions is that the "data" that is gathered to answer the question is often uncertain.  Take my Elizabeth I example.  How would we prove that she killed Mary for religious reasons?  The evidence will be murky.  We will have to depend on the recollections of observers, which are often inaccurate and/or contradictory.  Even if we have a diary from Elizabeth stating, "I killed Mary because I hate Catholics," can we trust her?  Ken, being a good Straussian, knows that people sometimes cover up the truth because saying the truth might be dangerous. As one of our colleagues notes, in History, as in Political Science, some argue that "the only History that counts is the History that counts," meaning History working off of statistical data.  This is an attempt to make History a scientific discipline in the same manner as, say, physics.  And I say the study of history is not a scientific enterprise, which is not to say it can learn nothing from science or its method.   

Which brings me to my final point, whether it is always good to know and to tell the truth.  Again, Ken knows there are such things as noble lies.   Every regime has them.  And let's consider Aristotle on friendship.  Friends are those who hold things in common.  The kind of friendship one has with another depends on what the friends hold in common (is it self-interest, or love of virtue).  Aristotle uses the discussion of friendship as a jumping off point for his discussion of politics.  Regimes, it seems, are a society of friends (of some sort) who hold something in common.  That "thing held in common" is a particular way of life.  Certain questions are simply regarded as settled.  For example, do we really want to fight, generation after generation, over whether men are really created equal?  As individuals in certain circumstances we may want to hold that notion up to consideration, but as a society it is best to leave our consensus as it is.  Tocqueville argues that every regime, as every individual, has and must have its dogmas.  I am not worried about any particular item on Mr. Pinker's list outside of seriously considering whether killing babies is a good idea if it makes the rest of us feel better and we deem it is "for their own good." But I do caution against asking dangerous questions simply for the sake of asking dangerous questions.   No doubt being "dangerous" makes us feel important, and who doesn't like to feel important, but as I said in my previous post, this is the mark of the adolescent not the responsible scientist.

This is my last word on the topic. 

More on Gannett's Challenges and the New Media

Joel Rosenthal has found an article on "how Gannett Newspapers are dealing with the Internet, declining readership, and falling advertising revenues. Gannett of course is the owner of our own Argus Leader."

Johnson Update

The Politico writes about an interview with Senator Tim Johnson's wife, Barbara, and specifically looked at the question of his return:

Two weeks ago, a South Dakota aide told a group of local politicians in Pierre that Johnson would return to the Capitol sometime after Labor Day. The next day, another aide told The Associated Press that "there is no timeline. There will be a plan, but there's not one yet."

Then last week the congressional newspaper Roll Call reported that Johnson had spoken to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) about returning to work even earlier, but both lawmakers decided he should continue to recover away from the bright lights and fast pace of the Hill.

His former South Dakota colleague Tom Daschle followed that up by suggesting to the Rapid City Journal that Johnson would return to the Senate sometime in September.

But the official line remains: There is no official line.

As Greg Belfrage noted, the whole "no timeline" deal wasn't how things were reported last week.  I continue to hope for Senator Johnson's full recovery, and hope he can return to his duties.

Gannett Newspaper Print-Ad Revenues Fall

Wall Street Journal excerpt:

New York Times, Tribune Report Weak Print-Ad Revenue

By SARA LEITCH and JUDY LAM

WALL STREET JOURNAL, July 25, 2007 9:59 a.m.

New York Times Co.'s second-quarter net income nearly doubled, as a $94 million gain on the sale of its Broadcast Media Group offset weakness in print advertising.

The company also said it expects to cut costs by $65 million to $75 million in 2007, excluding inflation and one-time costs, and by a further $230 million in the next two years, including $130 million in 2008.

...

New York Times's results came after Gannett Co., the largest U.S. newspaper company by circulation, and Dow Jones & Co., the publisher of the Wall Street Journal, both reported declines in newspaper ad sales in the second quarter. A yearlong falloff in print-advertising dollars has steepened in the past few months -- according to the Newspaper Association of America, U.S. newspaper advertising fell 4.8% in the first quarter, compared with its full-year decline in 2006 of 0.3%.

Belfrage

Greg Belfrage, responding to Argus Leader editor Randell Beck's latest column, lets him have it:

Randell, my friend, you are a hypocrite.

YOU whipped everyone into a lather. Your newspaper did what it always does. You ran several stories, an editorial, AND a column all devoted to a few piddling comments made by Dan Scott. Only after you printed ALL that -- and only after Dan Scott showed up, hands shaking, at our studios with a copy of his original speech -- did I invite him on the air to share his side of the story.

YOU wanted to make Dan Scott's comments an issue. Well, you got your wish, your Eminence. Now you blame me because it blew up in your face. Nice try.

I can't help but notice that you never take me to task when I'm working over Governor Rounds or Mayor Munson on the air. The only time you seem to have a problem is when I'm challenging your newspaper.

Let me ask a question, Randell. Why is it that when you champion an issue you call it "leadership" -- but when I take on an issue you call it "feeding frenzy"?

That smug hypocrisy, Randell, is what earned you the "Imperial Editor" moniker.

Dangerous Questions II

Well, Pinker's list of questions from my recent post certainly got Professor Schaff thinking, something that, as any reader of this blog knows, can be a disturbing event.   

First, there are some questions on that list that cannot be answered by science.  Has religion killed more people than Nazism?  Well, how do we know what people's motivations are?  A small example.  Did Elizabeth I kill her sister Mary because Mary was a Catholic, or because Mary represented a threat to her power?  Or are those the same thing?  And how many people's deaths are the Nazis responsible for?  How do we quantify the moral notion of "responsibility"?  In this case, do we just count those who died in the Holocaust?  How about every one who died in the European theater of war?  Does that mean both soldiers and civilians, German and non-German?   

Just because a question is hard to answer, or requires a lot of work to define, doesn't mean it can't be answered by science or at least by a scientifically rigorous historical examination. Would Mary have represented a threat to Elizabeth or vice versa if not for the religious difference?  I see no reason by argument and evidence cannot be employed against the question.

I think this is one of the weaker questions in the list because it not very interesting.  Comparing such a broad and historically ubiquitous thing as religion with a tightly transient evil like the Third Reich doesn't reveal much about either. Almost all of the other questions are essentially empirical in nature. 

I agree with Dr. Schaff that a utilitarian moral analysis alone can lead to very bad results and, sometimes, to evil; but that only means that utilitarian analysis is not enough, not that asking empirical questions with utilitarian  implications is morally suspect.  I don't know if I would be in favor of a baby market or not, but knowing whether or not it would save the lives of more children is something I would like to know before I am forced to decide.  Knowing that abortion has reduced the crime rate will not change my view on abortion.  In fact, I would find that a very inconvenient truth.  I still want to know the truth. 

Disney Bans Smoking In Its Films

PP (that's Proud Papa) is on the rampage against Disney, which has decided to ban smoking in its family films and to "discourage" the depiction of smoking in Touchstone and Miramax films.  If Disney really cares about the viewing public then it will do everything in its power to stop Miramax from making Scary Movie 5. 

DM&E: Not Dead Yet

Sen. Thune is still optimistic about the DM&E railroad expansion:

The Dakota, Minnesota and Eastern Railroad's proposed coal train project has run into a bit of trouble, including rejection of a $2.3 billion Federal Railroad Administration loan request, opposition from some landowners and cities along the route and a legal problem with eminent domain.

But South Dakota Senator John Thune, a longtime supporter of the $6 billion project, says he thinks it will be built.

"And the reason I think it will is because the economics of it are so compelling," Thune told The Associated Press in an interview

The Use And Abuse Of Science

The list reproduced by Prof. Blanchard certainly is thought provoking.  Give it a look.  Let me also suggest it is flawed and shortsighted. 

First, there are some questions on that list that cannot be answered by science.  Has religion killed more people than Nazism?  Well, how do we know what people's motivations are?  A small example.  Did Elizabeth I kill her sister Mary because Mary was a Catholic, or because Mary represented a threat to her power?  Or are those the same thing?  And how many people's deaths are the Nazis responsible for?  How do we quantify the moral notion of "responsibility"?  In this case, do we just count those who died in the Holocaust?  How about every one who died in the European theater of war?  Does that mean both soldiers and civilians, German and non-German?   Would the Japanese have been aggressive without prodding from the Nazi regime?  If not, are the Nazis responsible for the deaths at Hiroshima?  These question suggest some judgment making prior to the scientific exercise, as we have to decide which data is in and which is out.  For some of the questions posed in Ken's post that requires moral reasoning that is pre-scientific.  Would society be better off if heroin and cocaine were legalized?  This question cannot be answered by science, as "better off" is not a scientific category.  Science can give us data, but only a moral creature can decide what "better off" means.

Finally, many of the questions posed by Mr. Pinker are based, it seems, on a utilitarian calculus (which, I point out, is a value laden position).  "Would it be consistent with our moral principles to give parents the option of euthanizing newborns with birth defects that would consign them to a life of pain and disability?"  First, one notices the euphemism of  "euthanizing."  What he means is killing newborn babies.  Second, we notice that once again science can only help us so much here.  How defective can  a baby be before it is "too defective"? So much of what Pinker poses, about drugs, and prostitution, selling children, killing children, etc.  is based on the notion that it is acceptable for some to be dehumanized (through drugs or the selling of human bodies or simply calling them "defective") as long as it makes the lives of the rest of us "better off."  It is all for the greater good.  Let me refer you again to my Harry Potter review, which directed you to this piece by Thomas Hibbs.  Let me quote again his summation of J.K. Rowling's teaching on utilitarianism:

If it were not clear from the previous books, it is made palpable here — utilitarianism, which is subject to the self-interest and self-delusions of those who wield power and who thus determine what is the “greater good,” is a source of great evil.

It turns out that the powerful get to decide what "better off" means.  Mr. Pinker at least hints that it is the scientists who should have that power.  I dissent.  I also suspect Mr. Pinker is being provocative for the the sake of being provocative.  This strikes more as acting as an adolescent rather than acting as a scientist. 

I agree with Prof. Blanchard that these questions are worth considering, although whether society as a whole should open up every question to debate is itself a question we might want to open up for debate.  Maybe some questions should be regarded as settled by society, even if they are not by the philosophers.  Let me suggest that a society in which it is an open question whether we should kill babies because we find them "defective" is not a healthy society.   

One Impeachment Thought

Given the talk of impeachment, I remind readers that the one semi-successful presidential impeachment in American history, that of Andrew Johnson, was successful because the Republicans who opposed him had such an overwhelming majority (40th Congress, I believe). Impeachment proceedings really only work if you have at least some of the other party with you or you have a substantial majority. The Democrats have neither of these.  Richard Nixon resigned because it was clear that significant numbers of Republicans had abandoned him.  I suspect that no Republicans will vote for articles of impeachment against George Bush.  The being the case, impeachment is unnecessarily divisive, and as Prof. Blanchard suggests, will likely be perceived as such by the populace. 

Churchill Fired

Ward Churchill has been fired:  "University president Hank Brown, in a news conference, said 'the decision was really pretty basic' based on the board's findings. Churchill was accused of plagiarism, falsification and other infractions."  Gateway Pundit has a good roundup, and of course lots more can be found at Pirate Ballerina.

UPDATE:  Remember that this firing is not about his "little Eichmann's" essay as several AP headlines assert, but, as the Rocky Mountain News writes, charges related to his scholarship:

• Historical facts: Churchill manufactured events in which European Americans intentionally spread smallpox to kill Indians. In one such event, the Army is said to have distributed tainted blankets to Mandan Indians. But no evidence backs the claim.

Elsewhere, Churchill claimed the United States adopted a formal racial code to identify Indians, similar to the code used by the Nazis to identify Jews. U.S. law includes no such code, legal scholars say.

• Plagiarism: Churchill published an essay on water issues in Canada that closely resembles a pamphlet by a Canadian environmental group. He also borrowed a work on fishing rights originally published by Canadian scholar Fay Cohen.

• Falsifying sources: Churchill wrote essays under the names of other people, which he then cited as independent sources in his footnotes.

UPDATE II:  More thoughts on the Churchill firing.

UPDATE III:  This morning's Wall Street Journal includes a piece by Hank Brown and the university's decision to fire Churchill.

Dangerous Ideas Generated by Science

Steven Pinker, best selling author of books on the philosophy of mind, has a list of questions that, he thinks, are likely to get some readers' blood boiling.  From the Chicago Tribune:

Do women, on average, have a different profile of aptitudes and emotions than men?

Were the events in the Bible fictitious -- not just the miracles, but those involving kings and empires?

Has the state of the environment improved in the last 50 years?

Do most victims of sexual abuse suffer no lifelong damage?

Did Native Americans engage in genocide and despoil the landscape?

Do men have an innate tendency to rape?

Did the crime rate go down in the 1990s because two decades earlier poor women aborted children who would have been prone to violence?

Are suicide terrorists well-educated, mentally healthy and morally driven?

Would the incidence of rape go down if prostitution were legalized?

Do African-American men have higher levels of testosterone, on average, than white men?

Is morality just a product of the evolution of our brains, with no inherent reality?

Would society be better off if heroin and cocaine were legalized?

Is homosexuality the symptom of an infectious disease?

Would it be consistent with our moral principles to give parents the option of euthanizing newborns with birth defects that would consign them to a life of pain and disability?

Do parents have any effect on the character or intelligence of their children?

Have religions killed a greater proportion of people than Nazism?

Would damage from terrorism be reduced if the police could torture suspects in special circumstances?

Would Africa have a better chance of rising out of poverty if it hosted more polluting industries or accepted Europe's nuclear waste?

Is the average intelligence of Western nations declining because duller people are having more children than smarter people?

Would unwanted children be better off if there were a market in adoption rights, with babies going to the highest bidder?

Would lives be saved if we instituted a free market in organs for transplantation?

Should people have the right to clone themselves, or enhance the genetic traits of their children?

I have to confess that none of these got my blood boiling.  Some of them are disturbing, but I have some notion of the science behind each one.  Pinker makes a plea for open engagement with and exploration of such dangerous ideas.  I am with him on that.  But the list is a good litmus test.  What would you think of a research program committed to each one of them?  Would you endorse it, even if grudgingly?  Or would you recommend that the people involved be fired?  Would your curiosity as to what such a study might find outweigh your indignation, or would you assume that such people are merely trying to use science to confirm their prejudices? 

The SD Blogosphere Family, Part II

More thoughts on the "South Dakota Blogosphere Family":

By missing a few days, I missed the discussion of the South Dakota blogosphere family tree. But I’ve caught up. Father Ken still seems a bit worried about The Wild One. Ken is like the father that the Thurston Howell guy plays in “Rebel Without A Cause,” worried that his attempts to engage his crazed and dazed and frenzied son Chad with steet reason have failed. But Ken fears that Chad has gone much further off the grid than James Dean.
This is not just a case of rebellion and slapping around the authorities and starting knife fights. This is a full-on, off-the-deep end, worry-about-where-the-guns-are, watch-the-obits break with rationality and any sense of sanity. While Ken worries about Chad having snapped despite all his attempt at reason, the more level-headed or hard-bitten think or unforgiving in the family think Chad has made his final leap toward his True Mission: Chad has finally joined Jeremy Funk in a cabin in Lemmon where Funk has been stock-piling ammunition and TNT for the return of SDS and the Weathermen. Funk has traded in his “F—k John Thune” t-shirts for “F—k Amerika: Revolution Now!” t-shirts. With some lucre from Hugo C., Funk and Chad are ready to reboot the country. And then there’s Sibby, obsessive Sibby, with an obsession that would put “Ethan Edwards” in “The Searchers” to shame. Sibby/Ethan is on a quest. He’s going to get Chad for trying to get him fired at Toshiba. Most people think it will be Sibby who brings Chad in, alive or whatever. And many of these people will secretly applaud, but nobody will want to give Sibby credit for it, which is wise. The big South Dakota blogosphere house feels a little empty without Chad, certainly much quieter, less yelling, fewer plates thrown into the walls and chairs thrown out the front window. Some of the family is quietly relieved that the insane sibling has finally been taken away, that the yelling and threats foot-stomping is over. They enjoy the quiet. They are glad all the screaming from the house isn’t attracting the villagers with their torches anymore and making everyone in the house seem odd. But they still worry. Uncle Epp is counseling Chad to shut-up and lawyer-up, but everyone seems to know the news will come at some point. Sibby is on the trail with a big head-start and fresh horses and hell-bent for leather and, any time, everyone seems to know, the news could come.

The Impeachment Fantasy

There is still time to save the Bush presidency, but the Democrats will have to act fast.  Having achieved a Congressional approval rating that ranks about even with a swollen prostate gland might not be enough.  But do not underestimate their genius. My colleague, Master Heppler, recounts below a local call for impeachment of President Bush.  Rush Limbaugh (yeah, he is still out there, tanned and ready and out of rehab) has this:

There's a full court press on now to wear down the public into believing that impeachment is proper of the president, and as I reminded you in the first hour of the program, I predicted back before the elections of 2004, if Bush were to win, the Democrats would head down this road, at least talking about impeachment and censure and so forth.

Rush is making a full court press to convince us that the Democrats are really moving toward impeachment.  Why?  Because, of course, he wants it to be true. 

I think it very unlikely that articles of impeachment will be introduced on the floor of the House, and even less likely that they will be passed.  Regardless of whether a particular Democrat were acting out of principle or out of political passion, it would require a kind of courage that is in short supply among them.  And it would be a disaster for the Democratic Party.

When the Republicans impeached President Clinton, they did themselves a great deal of political damage.  The reason is that most Americans did not think the occasion called for it, and thought the Republicans were acting out of partisan anger.  But nobody doubted that the facts were true, or that President Clinton had got himself into trouble out of the most sordid of motives.

Now consider the present case. A deeply unpopular Congressional majority, without the courage to use its power to actually block the President's policy, having wasted tens of thousands of man hours on on hearings that were obviously fishing expeditions, and having caught no fish, with no court decisions threatening the President to piggy-back on, can one imagine such a Congress launching an impeachment without it looking like a partisan circus? 

And what will they be impeaching President Bush for?  Not going to war in Iraq, since after all many Democrats voted to give him permission for that.  Not for claiming false grounds for going to war, since the previous, Democratic Administration frequently asserted the same beliefs about Saddam's weapons programs.  All they will have is the claim that the Administration has been overzealous in trying (successfully, so far) to protect America against another terrorist attack. If you believe the congressional Democrats are really going to put themselves in that position, I got a bridge in Brooklyn for you. 

Sorry, Rush.  The impeachment talk is just the wild-eyed wing of the Democratic party stroking itself. 

New Blog

Check out this new blog run by the South Dakota ethanol company, Poet.

SOUTH DAKOTA DEMOCRATIC FORUM CALLS ON CONGRESS TO BEGIN IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS

From a reader, sorry for the format issues:

SIOUX FALLS - Members of the Minnehaha Couny Democratic Forum recently passed a resolution calling on Congress to begin impeachment proceedings against Pres. George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney for undermining constitutional protections of Anerican citizens..--------Clark Butler , the organizations publicity chairman said Bush and  Cheney have used the war on terror as an excuse  to remove citizens' rights  and to grab power away from other branches of Government.---------"The war on terror hasn't stopped its' primary target Osama Bin Laden, but it has been exploited  as a phony excuse to invade and occupy Iraq,  to remove fundamental   rights of American citizens and to shove aside the authority  of the U..S. Congress  and the justice system." Butler said. " Bush and Cheney have been working diligently to destroy the system of checks and balances by exploiting the tragedy of 9/11 to justify their deeds and to question the patriotism of Americans who want to protect our nation from a growing tyranny."----------"The original patriots of 1776 didn't separate from King George III  to build another tyranny.  They built this nations' government on the premise of three independant branches of government to prevent the abuse of its citizens from one branch overreaching its authority.  It's time modern American patriots work to use the process of impeachment to end the abuse of power by  Bush and Cheney".---------Butler said members of the Forum were inspired by journalist / author Bill Moyer whose recent Public Broadcasting Systems' program on impeachment described the history and use of the impeachment process to control  the abuse of the executive branch of government.
Butler said  that if congress fails to use its' powers  to impeach Bush and Cheney ,  their silence will imply consent to further erosions of protections against the abuse of power by future presidents.---------Tyrranny is tyranny, and many of us fought in WWII to prevent a tyranny from usurping  our Democracy from the outside Butler said..  "This time , the threat is from within and it is coming from the president and vice president of our nation.  They have exploited the  single geatest attack on American   soil to invade and occupy a nation that had nothing to do with that attack and they are working against fundamental protections of liberty to expedite their political agenda to grab power and expand their control.--- --------"The U.S. Congress  has one major tool to restore the checks and
balances that are being overun by this administration, and we believe it
is time they did their job accordingly''----------------   

CLARK BUTLER,
2904 W. 33RD ST.
57105---605-332-8574

----------------------------------------------------
---------------------------
DEMOCRAT  FORUM RESOLUTION-------------------------------------

We the members  of the Minnehaha Democratic Forum in regular meeting this July 20 , 2007 .-------(1) Have become alarmed and fearful by the usurption of power  by the executive branch of our government.----(2) That we recognize a threat to take from the people of our Republic  the precious rights embedded  in our constitution.----(3) That we are reminded that the founding fathers had experienced the evils of tyranny.----(4) That
they recognized the human temptation to place one individual or a small group in control of all other citizens.----(5)  That they were successful in creating a system of checks and balances by dividing power into three branches with the ability and the duty to prevent the rise of kings and monarchs and their inevitable tyranny.----(6) That the checks on executive power include the ability and duty of he legislature  to impeach a president and vice president who have demonstrated  contempt for limitations and the division of powers and the rights of the citizens.----(7) That unchecked power will carry over to suceeding presidents and eventually destroy our government.-----------------------
-----------Wherefore we join in urging congress to charge George W. Bush and Dick Cheney and to commence their impeachment and to pursue  these efforts until a balance has been restored  and they change their ways or they are ousted.------------THIS RESOLUTION PASSED BY A UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THE MEMBERS PRESENT.      

Not Ready For Primetime

The worry about Barak Obama has been that he has an abundance of pithy sayings (the "audacity of hope" and whatnot) but there isn't much substance behind his catchphrases.  Obama gave evidence to this charge last night when apparently he agreed that as president he would meet with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Bashar al-Assad, Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, and Kim Jong Il while taking the current administration to task for not doing the same.  It must be said that you know a candidate has made a mistake when his spokesman has to spend time after a debate explaining what the senator "really meant." 

How, then, is this a mistake?  This reflects a profound naiveity.   Does Obama really think that there is something he could say to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that would turn the Iranian president from an enemy to a friend?  Obama apparently believes that the root of world conflict is lack of understanding, so if you just get someone with a charming personality (read: Obama) to reason with your enemies, they will see the error of their ways.  It doesn't matter how many times Iran spits in the Western eye, or how many American hostages it currently holds, or how many  terrorist acts Iran sponsors, or how many conferences it holds denying the Holocaust.  If we just talk to them as friends, then it will all work out.  Obama seems to think there are no harmful ideologies that a little dose of Dr. Phil can't cure.  Perhaps Bashar Assad sponsors terrorism because of unresolved conflicts with his father. 

This does answer one question.  A couple days ago I questioned how Barak Obama would go about fighting evil around the world, given that he doesn't think military force is the answer.  Now we have it.  The charm offensive.  I am sure our enemies are quaking in their boots. 

Harry Potter: A Review

Note: This post discusses some of the details of the last Harry Potter book.  If you don't want to know them, stop reading. 

I have now finished Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows.  It is a book, not surprisingly, greatly concerned with the fact of death and how we approach our own mortality.  Those interested how J.K. Rowling handles these themes should go to Thomas Hibbs.  I am sure I cannot improve on his essay.  Here is the heart of his argument:

In the final book, Rowling makes explicit some of the most important philosophical and theological themes from the entire series. There is, for example, the project of controlling nature and overcoming death. As Alan Jacobs noted in his early essay on the Potter series, magic is not so much an attempt to seduce readers to the occult as it is an invitation to reflect on technology and the modern project of rendering humanity masters and possessors of nature — the goal, Descartes famously boasted, of his scientific method. From the very first book, in which the sorcerer’s, er, philosopher’s stone promises immortality and power, Rowling reflects on the dark arts and on the question of whether the pursuit of desirable ends justifies the use of any means whatsoever. In so doing, the books address both a) the uses and abuses of mere technique or technology and b) the ethical theory called utilitarianism, the calculation of means by reference to the “greater good.” If it were not clear from the previous books, it is made palpable here — utilitarianism, which is subject to the self-interest and self-delusions of those who wield power and who thus determine what is the “greater good,” is a source of great evil.

That out of the way, I will simply discuss the book in terms of its storytelling.  Like all the Harry Potter books, it is a ripping good read.  There is more action in this novel than the previous six, since there is now all out war with Voldemort.  Rowling has made her main characters, Harry, Ron, and Hermione, into adults, and this is satisfying.  Like the previous two books, the story bogs down a little in the middle.  The "three amigos" are on the run from Voldemort, and the story slows down as they simply run from place to place attempting to avoid detection.  As much as this bogs down the story, it should be noted that it actually creates a development in the plot as one character becomes frustrated at their lack of action. 

The story develops another mystery, the Deathly Hallows.  As there are plenty of twists and turns in the Potter stories already, it isn't clear to me one more mystery needed to be added.  But she deals with it well, and this new mystery helps in tying up some loose ends. 

The climax is thrilling and satisfying.  We get the "final battle" between Voldemort and the "white hats."  We finally see the faculty of Hogwarts showing us exactly how powerful they are.  Rowling uses this battle to hammer home many of her themes, particularly the dangers of bigotry and prejudice.  Just about the whole wizarding world gets in on this fight.  There is great heroism, and even some minor redemptions. 

I was largely pleased with how she dealt with many Potter mysteries (is Dumbledore really dead, is Snape really bad, what really happened when Voldemort tried to kill baby Harry, etc.).  One could quibble here and there, but I think Potter aficionados will find their questions answered in a credible manner, and in such a way as adds to the grand themes of the series.   

J.K. Rowling is not a great writer.  Her characterization is limited.  Characters tend to be one dimensional (although this final book improves upon that), and she simply tells us about characters rather than letting their actions speak for themselves.  She is also not the master of mood.  One might say she does not "set the scene" as well as a stronger writer would.  But she does tell a damn good adventure story, and an edifying one at that.  The question on everybody's mind has been, "Does Harry Potter die?"  I won't answer that for you.  But I will say this.  Drawing on the themes Rowling has developed, especially over the last four books,  it shouldn't really matter.  There are worse things than death.  For those who have experienced life and love, death is nothing to fear.  Only those who have not lived a full life fear death.  And as we all know, Harry Potter is The Boy Who Lived. 

Eat The Rich

Jumping off from Ken Blanchard's post below, I note this post by William Voegeli over at NLT.  The Democratic candidates for president want to raise taxes on the rich, but they can't decide what "rich" means.  But, as Voegeli notes, even their low end of "rich," i.e., and annual income of $200,000, only encompasses 1% of the American population.  First, the top 1% of income earners are already responsible for over 30% of all individual income tax revenues going into Treasury coffers.  Second, given the ambitions of most of those candidates (namely some form of government health insurance) there is simply not enough money among the wealthy to pay the bills.  One concludes that either the Democratic candidates for president are unaware of these facts, or they are purposefully attempting to stoke the fires of class resentment.   

The Dance in France & The Laffer Curve

This blogger has paid some attention to the recent change of power in France.  I view it as about as promising as anything is French politics can be.  My attitude is reflected in this, from American.com. 

dvocates of economic reform in France often resemble Fox Mulder, the fictive FBI agent investigating mysterious phenomena in the TV series “The X-Files.” On Mulder’s office wall hangs a large poster with the words “I want to believe.” Those with an interest in reforming European welfare states tend to feel the same way when they hear European political leaders speak of reform. Well aware that so many attempts at reform have fizzled in Europe—and in France in particular—they often let hope triumph over experience.

But Nicolas Sarkozy, the new President of France, may be different. So far, all indications are that at least one key component of his promises—a significant package of tax cuts—will be passed into law. Other measures, particularly proposals designed to crack down on massive strikes—the favored pressure tool by unions to stop reforms—are in store as well.

Tax cuts in France.  Incroyable.  What is evident in this issue is the truth of the Laffer curve, one of the most successful pieces of economic analysis ever drawn out on a restaurant napkin. 

The theory goes like this: at a certain point, taxation rates will produce diminishing returns.  Suppose the tax rate is zero.  How much of the national wealth will the government rake in?  Presumably zero. That is the beginning point in the curve.  Now suppose that the tax rate is one hundred percent.  What will the government rake in then?  Here the answer is not so obvious, but it is equally certain: zero.  Why?  No wealth will be left over for investment or to pay workers, and no one works for nothing.  As the tax rate rises from zero, the government takes in more and more money.  But at some point the line tax rates and receipts will curve back toward zero, as investment money dries up and everyone tries to hide their profits.  France is one of those countries that have been living for a long time on the unfortunate side of the curve.  Sometimes, to generate more wealth, one has to cut taxes.  A lot of nations have realized this.  It is still a mystery to the Democrats. 

On Point of Clarification on My Friend Chad's Absence

I posted below that I would like to hear from Chad, and Todd Epp posted this:

Some of my Righty pals are either wanting those of us in the Left Blogosphere to investigate the Hildebrand Tewes embezzlement rather than the IRS or to see if we can get Chad Schuldt to talk about it...

And while it would be great to hear from Chad, if I were his lawyer and if he were under suspicion, I would tell him to say nothing to no one except to perhaps the IRS in the presence of counsel.  If he wants to contact me on or off the record, that’s fine and I’ll follow up on it, but I wouldn’t bet on that happening.  So, I doubt very serenely that we’ll be hearing from Chad anytime soon until this thing is resolved, for better or for worse.   

As a point of clarification:  Todd writes as if it's clear that Chad is somehow involved in Hildygate.  This is more than I know and true or not, I hardly expect Chad to S.D. Watch or SDP an exclusive interview on the matter. 

Chad's disappearance from the South Dakota Blogosphere family table is another issue.  As the flattering comment I reproduced below lays it out, the conversation of bloggers in the state is, if not exactly an eccentric family, at least an eccentric community; and Chad was a conspicuous part of it for a long time.  Anyone who read the many exchanges between myself and The Clean Cut Kid may have noted that I almost always referred to its author as "my friend Chad." 

The reasons for this go way back to the Elsworth Airbase crisis.  At that point Chad and I maintained very cordial manners in our exchanges with one another.  And for a long time thereafter, both of us took pains to maintain at least an attitude of respect.  Eventually that largely broke down.  It is my view that Chad became increasingly shrill and intolerant, while I strove heroically to maintain the original decorum.  But of course that is how I would see it. 

I think it obvious that Chad went a bit off the rails; but even if that were true, he still served a valuable function in the local conversation.  No one took us to task so often over so many things we wrote here.  Responding was good for us and good for our readers.  These days I have to rely on Anna, but though she is easily as sharp and considerably more eloquent, her interests are more narrow than Chad's were. 

So I honestly do miss Chad, and I hope for his return. 

The South Dakota Blogosphere Family.

This appear in the comments at South Dakota War College.  It is too accurate to be excusable, so without excuse I reproduce it. 

"Even though I’m too lazy and whimpy to join, I love the South Dakota blogosphere family: Todd Epp, the mercurial uncle always going off in some weird direction but often with posts with humanity and common sense; the father, Blanchard, who is intellectual and patient with the crazy kids but also has his idiosyncratic interests like Clark Griswold; the mother, Mt. Blogmore, who is far too tolerant of her children raising h–l run beneath her; PP, the oldest son, the most successful, the one who sets the example and sticks to his mission, covering and uncovering aspects of SD politics; Schaff, the solid and intellectual second oldest, who needs more focus and work ethic but has flashes of brilliance; Heppler, the up-and-comer, learning the ropes and finding diamonds in the rough; the Argus bloggers, pretenders mostly, afraid of taking any chances; Newquist, the insane uncle long-ago locked away in the attic but whose shouts and screams can sometimes be heard; and then Clean Cut Kid, with the ironic name, the rebel hell-raiser who breaks all the codes of etiquette and starts fights and needs his meds to moderate his anger and his AJ Soprano-like distaste for the world; plus various comers and goers to the big SD blogospheric house, which the neighbors think is too loud and messy and lets its lawn grow to long and they want the authorities to shut down."

Second on the Horses

By coincidence I posted on Chad Shuldt's blogosphere disappearance just before I noticed the Hildegate story.  While there is some superficial and mostly second hand information linking the two stories, we have no information yet on the identity of the person fired from the Hildebrand-Tewes consulting firm in connection with missing funds. 

Whatever his connection to the second story, it would surely be nice to hear from Chad.  Love him or hate him, he was a big personality in the regional blogosphere.  If he cannot use CCK anymore, a note to this blog or to Todd Epp would surely be posted.  If he can't talk for some reason, he could at least say that.  This is not to say that Chad has any obligation to tell us anything about anything.  The ugly fact is that, with Chad gone a month now, I kinda miss him. 

Hold Them Horses

When Tim Johnson had his stroke, I am proud to say that this website held off on making any bold pronouncements about the political ramifications until we knew the facts about Sen. Johnson's condition.  That strikes me as the wise course with the Hildebrand-Tewes theft story.  While one would be a fool not to notice certain facts, before one makes public accusations it is best to have all the facts and the ability to tie them together. 

Hildygate Roundup

From a commentator at SDWC:

There is a lot of commentary on this story so let me see if I have this correct. Steve Hildebrand is a big-time Democratic consultant who ran Daschle’s and Johnson’s campaigns and is now running the Obama campaign. His consulting firm has an office in Sioux Falls and DC. One of the employees in his Sioux Falls office, who was fired, stole more than $100,000 apparently. Hildebrand was informed by the IRS of this. This has become known as “Hildygate.” Nobody has said officially who the culprit is, but the primary suspect is Chad Schuldt, who ran the “Clean Cut Kid” blog (which apparently
gets its name from Bob Dylan or something). Schuldt is not well liked because he is well-known for slashing attacks on other people for, among other things, their corruption and unethical behavior. Stealing $100,000 from the business you work for is a class 4 felony in South Dakota which could bring 10 years in prison. Conservatives in general seem elated about this aha! moment because they didn’t care for Chad’s abuse, while others are contrite, while some progressives are calling for more facts and warning about rushing to judgment. The Argus apparently broke the story in the MSM, so they are getting credit for that, but are also under criticism for not giving the story the depth that some think it deserves (there’s also discussion about Schuldt have worked at the Argus, which adds an interesting wrinkle). This story feels like it is in its beginning stages with more to come. The primary focus now seems to be Whodunnit? My prediction: the intensity of this story on the blogs will eventually lead to a blog solving the Whodunnit? All in all, a very fascinating matter involving MSM-blogosphere collaboration, personal betrayal, partisan passions, big-time political consulting, lots of money, con games, intrigue, suspense, skullduggery, unanswered questions, broken laws, and even Presidential politics. Much better story than what I read at the lake today. What parts am I missing? How big could this story get?

The Two Iraqs

This from Peter Beaumont in the British Guardian:

There are two Iraqs in evidence these days: not just the one where weddings are bombed and young women murdered in reply. The other Iraq is harder to dramatise but it is equally real. It is a place where boring, ordinary things take place. And in taking place become extraordinary in the context of conflict.

Last week it was the opening of a new $20 million government centre next to Tal Afar's ancient ruined fort. The day before Jamil detonated his explosives' belt, the sheiks and dignitaries came in and crowded through the building's corridors, muttering approvingly as they examined its new painted walls, the photocopiers, printers and computers - some of them still wrapped in plastic - sitting on the brand new desks.

Last week the debate over whether to pull out of Iraq took on an urgent new intensity as the struggle between the Democrat-led Congress and the White House of President George W Bush finally reached a head.

Driven by a presidential election cycle, six years of building animosity in US politics has finally been focused on the lightning rod that is Iraq. After four years of war, perhaps more than 650,000 Iraqi dead, it has finally come to a single question of accounting: which of the two Iraqs is winning, the Iraq of death or an Iraq that looks to peace?

It is a false dichotomy. For the two Iraqs - for now at least - are co-existent. It is a dangerous one too. For the expectation that America may be crumbling over Iraq - and may leave soon - has acted as an accelerant where the violence is worst, leading General David Petraeus, US commander in Iraq, to warn that in the worst areas the summer may see a mini-Tet offensive designed to push US politics over the brink. . .

n Mosul, which once hosted 21,000 US soldiers in the city, now only a single battalion, in the mid-hundreds, remains inside the city, matched by an equivalent drop in attacks. And it is not only in Mosul that security is improving. The sense that things are getting better is reflected in Nineveh Province. In two years US troop levels around Tal Afar, once the heartland of al-Qaeda, have been reduced from 6,000 to 1,200.

The general trend for acts of violence - despite some spikes - also has been steadily decreasing. Indeed, until Jamil Salem Jamil detonated his human bomb there had not been a suicide vest attack in Tal Afar since 14 January.

And there are other striking indicators. The last time that I flew across this area, two years ago, what agriculture there was was sporadic. Now it has turned golden with a vast expanse of freshly cut wheat fields that have turned the flat plains that touch the Kurdish foothills into a vast prairie, using almost every patch of viable land.

Radio Active Chief Comments on "Waterboarding"

RAC kindly sent me this link:

http://www.radioactivechief.com/?p=1345

Holy Cash Bag, Batman!

Hildebrand Tewes screws up big time. 

Exploiting Multiple Personality Disorder for Fun and Profit

Now here is a story:

A therapist has been accused of taking advantage of a patient with a split personality - using one of her alter egos for sex, another to be his cleaner and a third to lend him cash for holidays.  When confronted by his alleged victim he refused to comment, saying he had a duty of confidentiality to her other personalities.

The German woman, Monika Mirte, 44, had gone to qualified psychotherapist Peter Blaeker, 43, after she was diagnosed with multiple personality disorder. Much of the time Miss Mirte was in control, but sometimes she became her other personalities, "Kathrin", "Finja" and "Leonie".

This woman is like a Swiss Army Knife! 

Another View of the Iraq War

Mowaffak Rubaie, Iraq's National Security Chief, has this in the Los Angeles Times. 

N THE AMERICAN media, Iraq's steady progress toward security is frequently overshadowed by news of the latest act of mass terrorism. Yet for those of us who actually live here, progress is visible to all but the most irreconcilable skeptics. Just this week, Ashraf Jehangir Qazi, the United Nations' special representative for Iraq, announced at a news conference in Baghdad that Iraq had achieved, or at least started to achieve, 75% of the benchmarks it set for itself in the U.N.-led International Compact with Iraq.

The military force increase by the United States called "the surge" is only one element in the Iraqi and coalition strategy. The other elements are the political/diplomatic initiatives and economic progress — and the reality is that the strategy is working in spite of the monumental obstacles presented by international terrorists and difficult conditions inside Iraq.

Iraqi and coalition security forces are having major success against Al Qaeda and some of the other groups that are the principal sources of the violence that aims to overthrow our young democracy. From Al Anbar to Diyala, from Nineveh to Basra, the atrocities of the terrorists against our people are backfiring, and our citizens are coming forward to offer themselves to counter them.

Now it is Mr. Rubaie's job to put the best case for his government's efforts.  But to judge that case, you would have to pay some attention to what is really going on in Iraq.  So far as one can tell, the Democrats aren't the least bit interested.  When a group of Democrats at a press conference were asked how many troops they proposed to leave in Iraq, after the pullout that they advocate, they refused to say.  And I refer the reader to Mr. Heppler's post below. Here is the quote from the Washington Post:

The decision of Democrats led by Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) to deny rather than nourish a bipartisan agreement is, of course, irresponsible. But so was Mr. Reid's answer when he was asked by the Los Angeles Times how the United States should manage the explosion of violence that the U.S. intelligence community agrees would follow a rapid pullout. "That's a hypothetical. I'm not going to get into it," the paper quoted the Democratic leader as saying.

The Democrats, and some Republicans, are very interested in the effect that their policy proposals will have on the next election.  They are not the least bit interested in actually forming a policy, or in what effect that policy might have on the Iraqi people or on the security interests of the United States.  What might it mean to let a nation with a third of the world's crude oil supply fall into the hands of Al Qaeda or an Iranian controlled militia?  Don't ask Harry Reid.  He hasn't thought about it. 

SDP Jazz Note: Lance Armstrong and Thelonious Monk

In bicycle racing legend it is now known as "the look."  Lance Armstrong had been showing signs of fatigue for days when he and his rival Jan Ullrich fought out the tenth stage of the 2001 Tour de France. Ulrich had reacted to those signs by putting relentless pressure on Armstrong, and thus fatiguing himself. But no mortal and precious few Olympian deities could match Armstrong in an Alpine climb. 

As the road began a steep rise toward the 21 switchback turns on the monstrous ascent of L'Alpe d'Huez, the rivals were no more than a half-wheel apart after two earlier climbs and hours in the saddle. Suddenly, Armstrong accelerated, opening a gap of about 10 yards.

Out of the saddle, his toes pointed down as he danced on the pedals, Armstrong suddenly slowed and looked over his left shoulder, his eyes fixed on Ullrich's face for four or five seconds, seemingly challenging his chief rival to match the bold move.

The German rider's eyes were shielded by sunglasses, but everything else about his expression showed despair. He jerked at his radio earpiece and grimaced as Armstrong lit the afterburners, roaring alone toward the peak.

Eight miles later, Armstrong had gained two huge minutes on the 1997 champion, sealing his third Tour victory before the three-week race was half over.

Sports Illustrated columnist Austin Murphy declared afterward that Armstrong's audacious stare "was exactly when cycling officially lost its status as a fringe sport in this country."

Armstrong's "fatigue" was, of course, partly strategy and all showmanship.  It captures all that is great about a sport like cycling. 

Ok, it's a stretch, but I thought of this when reading about and listening to a legendary recording session at the Rudy Van Gelder studio in Hackensack, New Jersey, on Christmas Eve, 1954.  Miles Davis was the leader, as usual.  The band consisted of Thelonious Monk on piano, Milt Jackson on vibes, Percy Heath on bass, and Kenny Clark on drums.  Miles was never an easy person to like, and he didn't make it any easier on Monk when he insisted that Monk not play behind his solos.  It was rumored that Davis actually punched Monk, but that seems not to be true.  Monk later said "Miles'd got killed if he had hit me." 

Monk did as he was instructed, but during his solo on "The Man I Love," he played a brilliant joke on Miles.  He was playing at a slower tempo, but in sync with the band, when he suddenly seemed to get lost.  Here is how Loren Schoenberg puts it in The NPR Curious Listener's Guide to Jazz. 

Monk feigns confusion with the double meter and then miraculously finds his place precisely at the point during the bridge where the lyrics refer to someone finding someone (Monk was known for his ironic and powerful sense of humor).  He then proceeds to pile it on like gangbusters, without a spec of the "difficulty" he had before. 

That is the jazz nerd's version of Armstrong's look. Of course, it may be that Monk was really confused, just as Armstrong may have really been close to collapse when he miraculously revived.  But I hold, along with Aristotle, that poetry is truer than history, and I have given you the poetic versions of the two events.  Both stories tell you more about genius and manly virtue than any demythologized version ever could.