Football Recap

Two good college games today, Nebraska (20) vs. Wake Forest (17) and Michigan (7) vs. Oregon (39).  The Nebraska game was pretty good save one thing: Quarterback Sam Keller.  Overthrowing was a problem, and when that wasn't plaguing them, the receivers couldn't hold onto the ball.  For Nebraska to have a good chance against USC next week, Keller needs to improve quickly, or Bill Callahan needs to be willing to swap out quarterbacks (in this case, the primary backup is Joe Ganz).  Then again, it's USC, and might be a lost cause either way.  Wake Forest had an excellent running game and misdirection game, which threw the Nebraska defense for a loop.  Nevertheless, it was still an exciting game, and the close finish only made things better.

Michigan suffered its second straight loss in a week at their home turf, falling to Oregon.   South Dakota expatriate and fellow Husker, Dan of tdaxp, said it best:  "With all apologies to the greatness of the Pac 10, the public immolation of Michigan -- and with her the Big 10 generally -- has a very ritual-sacrifice feel to  it."

A Boy Named Hsu

Clinton Administration fund raising scandals are either lingering late or beginning early, to judge by the arrest of Norman Hsu.  Here is the Washington Post:

Last week, before his world came crashing down, Norman Hsu helped organize a breakfast meeting in San Francisco with prospective donors. The featured attraction was Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean. ...

In the past four years, Hsu raised more than $1.2 million for Democratic causes and candidates, including the DNC and the campaign of New York Gov. Eliot L. Spitzer. And in the past six months, Hsu became a leading fundraiser for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.). A person familiar with Clinton's fundraising, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said Hsu had raised "in the hundreds of thousands of dollars" since January for Clinton's presidential bid.

Now I don't want to cast aspersions on anyone, but where exactly was this money coming from? The Los Angeles Times has this:

In addition to making his own contributions, Hsu has honed the practice of assembling packets of checks from contributors who bear little resemblance to the usual Democratic deep pockets: A self-described apparel executive with a variety of business interests, Hsu has focused on delivering hefty contributions from citizens who live modest lives and are neophytes in the world of campaign giving.

Did you get that?  He delivered  "hefty contributions from citizens who live modest lives"?  People like, say, Buddhist monks?  No wait, that was Al Gore. 

In addition to filing for bankruptcy, Mr. Hsu  also has a habit of skipping town when out on bail. A lot of bail.   Again  from the WaPo:

His association with Clinton cast an unwanted national spotlight on Hsu, leading to the discovery last week that there was an outstanding warrant for his arrest stemming from a 15-year-old felony theft conviction.

Now, instead of finalizing plans to headline a Sept. 30 Clinton fundraiser in Woodside, Calif., where Quincy Jones is scheduled to perform, Hsu is under arrest, after being captured as a fugitive. FBI agents took him into custody last night at St. Mary's Hospital in Grand Junction, Colo., the Associated Press learned from FBI spokesman Joseph Schadler.

On Wednesday, he failed to appear at a court hearing related to the warrant, forfeiting $2 million in bail. Hsu's attorney James Brosnahan told a San Mateo County judge he did not know where Hsu had gone. The office of California's attorney general said it had not expected Hsu to flee and had not collected his passport.

California has been looking of this guy since he skipped town 15 years ago.  For three of them, he has been a national figure.  But no, California's attorney general didn't expect him to flee!  Tell me guys, what would raise such expectations?  Hsu's butt in a plane headed for Macao?  This election is going to be more fun than a barrel of monkeys.   

Chuck Hagel Retiring

The Omaha World-Herald reports this morning that Senator Chuck Hagel is retiring from the U.S. Senate and will not be running for president:

Chuck Hagel will announce Monday that he is retiring from the U.S. Senate and will not run for president next year, people close to the Nebraska Republican said Friday.

Hagel plans to announce that "he will not run for re-election and that he does not intend to be a candidate for any office in 2008," said one person, who asked not to be named.

Hagel has scheduled a press conference for 10 a.m. Monday at the Omaha Press Club.

According to one person interviewed, Hagel told Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky on Friday morning that he had decided to retire. Hagel's staff learned of his decision that afternoon.

Some of the names being thrown around right now to replace Hagel on the Republican side include former governor and current U.S. agriculture secretary Mike Johanns, former Omaha Mayer Hal Dubb, a Columbus businessman named Tony Raimondo, and Attorney General Jon Bruning.  On the Democratic side, former Senator Bob Kerrey has voiced interest in returning to the Senate, Omaha Mayer Mike Fahey, and Scott Kleeb, who ran an unsuccessful campaign against Republican Adrian Smith in the 3rd Congressional District in 2006.

UPDATE:  Chris Cillizza comments that this  "creates a potentially competitive open seat, with former Sen. Bob Kerrey (D) and former Gov. Mike Johanns (R) -- two titans of Cornhusker politics -- mentioned prominently as his replacement." Johanns currently is the Secretary of Agriculture. Kerrey is President of the New School in New York.

Dialogue On the Causes of Homosexuality

I recently posted a critique of a skit on the Daily Show.  I said this:

I am in favor of gay marriage as policy, and I think the evidence is good that male homosexuality, at least, is the result of a genetic predisposition.  But unlike Stewart, I don't think that anyone who disagrees with me is an ignoramus. Consider the second proposition: we certainly do not know what causes homosexuality.  It is very difficult to establish a genetic cause for any complex human behavior, and it is entirely possible that homosexuality is partly or even wholly due to environmental factors.  It might have to do with physical influences in the womb, or more likely with psychological and social influences. These are the sorts of things about which reasonable people may disagree.  The homosexual community is deeply committed to the biological view.  But enforcing a political orthodoxy is not the best use of satire.

I got a comment from a reader, Z-Tek, on my Keloland blog.  I responded, and he responded in turn.  You can read the exchanges at the above link. I am grateful for the comments, and here respond in detail to the last one.  I said this in a comment to my own post:

Dear Z-Tek: I agree with you that the "latest scientific research" supports the biological view, but the latest research is often wrong; hence the need for subsequent research and testing.

Z-Tek replies:

Your argument concerning the latest research being wrong is lame. The biological evidence has been there for years and has recently been bolstered.

I reply that scientific claims are always subject to critique, no matter how long or how well they have been accepted.  And important scientific ideas like relativity continue to be challenged by dissenters.  This makes science and the challenged ideas stronger, and so one should not brand as heretics someone who challenges a scientific idea, no matter how dear it is. Bear in  mind that I agree with Z-Tek on the matter at hand. Z-Tek goes on:

The alternative to the biological model is that it is not nature but nurture. This reduces homosexuality to a choice (and why would anyone choose it--especially in this society).

Z-Tek is confused here.  Nature and nurture are both influences on us; choice is what happens when we respond to and from those influences.  It is conceivable that homosexuality is caused by environmental influences: perhaps chemical agents present in the womb, or more likely, social and psychological influences operative in childhood.  The great playwright Tennessee Williams obviously thought that his homosexuality had something to do with an overbearing mother.   That would hardly make homosexuality a choice: we don't choose when we are born or how our parents will treat us.

I think it very unlikely that homosexuality is a choice, but even if that were what the evidence showed, it is not clear to me that it would matter.  Religion is obviously a choice, but I think it is a choice that should be respected.  Z-Tek thinks that anything but the biological view plays into the hands of religious bigots.

[The view that homosexuality is not biological] allows for institutionalized bigotry on religious/moral grounds. The argument being that God opposes homosexuality therefore he would not make anyone a homosexual. Therefore it is a choice and consciously sinful.

This is an ad hominem fallacy: because Jerry Falwell believed it, it must be false.  It won't do.  Darwinism is not false because it offends some believers; alternatives to the biological explanation for homosexuality are not false because they gratify some believers.  Z-Tek finishes this way:

The fact remains that the pervasiveness of the behavior is due to biological factors. Calling it "political orthodoxy" is obnoxious and bigoted.

Here Z-Tek confuses the issue.  I have made it clear on the question of causation: I am strongly inclined to believe that homosexuality has biological causes.  To say that is not political orthodoxy, it is merely taking sides on a scientific question.  To say that anyone who questions that view is an ignoramus, that it is "obnoxious and bigoted" even to acknowledge the validity of an opposition, that is political orthodoxy.  Z-Tek and I agree on the scientific question.  But he wants to close off any honest debate.  That is where we part company. 

Thune Advocates Infrastructure Spending

John Thune, along with Oregon's Ron Wyden, has a bill to raise $50 billion for transportation infrastructure:

Senator John Thune, along with Oregon senator Ron Wyden, has introduced a bill to fund repairs in aging roads and bridges and rail lines across the United States.

The “Build America Bonds” Act would provide $50 billion in additional Federal transportation funding, and would empower states across the country to complete critical infrastructure projects.

Build America Bonds would raise $50 billion for transportation infrastructure through a one-time bonding program. This amount would be spent on various transportation projects across all modes of transportation including roads, bridges, transit, rail, and waterways. In lieu of interest, bond holders would receive tax credits.

Thune says, “The Build America Bonds Act is about generating economic growth, improving transportation infrastructure, and ultimately saving lives through enhanced transportation safety without a tax increase.”

Legal Help For Larry Craig?

The US Constitution says (Art 1, Sec 5, Clause 5):

They shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same;

Was Larry Craig "going to" or "returning from" "attendance at the session" of the Senate when he played footsie with the cop in Minneapolis?  Also, was he "detained" or "arrested"?  Is there a difference?  Lawyers of the world help me!  Anyone with answers to any of these questions please email me at schaffsdp at gmail.com. 

I note that even if Larry Craig beats the legal rap, politically he is swimming with Luca Brasi.

Update: Reader Victor helpfully sends along this Find Law link (scroll down):

Privilege From Arrest This clause is practically obsolete. It applies only to arrests in civil suits, which were still common in this country at the time the Constitution was adopted. 376 It does not apply to service of process in either civil 377 or criminal cases. 378 Nor does it apply to arrest in any criminal case. The phrase ''treason, felony or breach of the peace'' is interpreted to withdraw all criminal offenses from the operation of the privilege. 379

 

Lincoln on Immigration

Poking through the Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln yesterday, I came across this entry from 1844.   There had been riots in Philadelphia against immigrants, apparently directed particularly against Catholics so one assumes Germans and Irishmen were particular targets.  At a Whig meeting in Springfield, IL Lincoln joined his fellow Whigs in voting for the following resolutions:

Resolved, That in admitting the foreigner to the rights of citizenship, he should be put to some reasonable test of his fidelity to our country and its institutions; and that he should first dwell among us a reasonable time to become generally acquainted with the nature of those institutions; and that, consistent with these requisites, naturalization laws, should be so framed, as to render admission to citizenship under them, as convenient, cheap, and expeditious as possible.

Resolved, That we will now, and at all times, oppose as best we may, all attempts to either destroy the naturalization laws or to so alter them, as to render admission under them, less convenient, less cheap, or less expeditious than it now is.

Resolved, That the guarantee of the rights of conscience, as found in our Constitution, is most sacred and inviolable, and one that belongs no less to the Catholic, than to the Protestant; and that all attempts to abridge or interfere with these rights, either of Catholic or Protestant, directly or indirectly, have our decided disapprobation, and shall ever have our most effective opposition.

Does this not sound like a fine approach to immigration?  We welcome all comers, but we want to make sure you accept certain basic tenets of our regime.  Naturalization should make certain demands of those seeking to become citizens, but those demands should be reasonable and naturalization should be expeditious.

Whigs had to go out of their way to show their concern for immigrants as to the extent there was anti-immigrant feelings in the population in the 1840s, it was housed in the Whig party.  Desiring immigrant votes, Whigs had to soften their image as anti-immigrant.  Republicans today have a similar problem.  Although the party is split on immigration (libertarian conservatives tend to be positively giddy about immigration while other conservatives worry about illegal immigration and assimilation even of legals), to the extent there is a nativism alive in America today, it largely exists in the Republican party.  These Whig resolutions from Illinois seem like a sound policy that Republicans should advocate as it sets up definite standards for naturalization while recognizing the rights of the immigrant. 

Horror Show

Ted Kennedy singing "We Are The World."  Happily, no audio is available.  The mental image of Ted Kennedy singing one of the worst songs ever written will haunt me for weeks. 

The mentality of the naive and solipsistic "We Are The World" explains the actions of Democratic Representative and Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich meeting with Syrian dictator Bashar Assad.  Kucinch had nothing but praise for the murderous Assad who is currently sending terrorists to Iraq to Americans, but found the time to bash George Bush on foreign soil. 

Kucinich, who accused the Bush administration of policies that have destabilized the Mideast, met with Syrian President Bashar Assad during his visit to Damascus. He said Assad was receptive to his ideas of "strength through peace."

Democrats serious about defense of America should denounce the foolish Kucinich.   The fact that Kucinich is so naive as to actually believe that Bashar Assad, who heads one of the most repressive governments of the world, might adopt Kucinich's "strength through peace" idea demonstrates that Kucinich's view of the world is so hopelessly infantile that he is not fit for high office.

Here is an example, from Freedom House, of the policies of the government Dennis Kucinich praises (for more follow the link above):

A husband may request that the Interior Ministry block his wife from traveling abroad, and women are generally barred from leaving the country with their children unless they can prove that the father has granted permission. Violence against women is common, particularly in rural areas. Syrian law stipulates that an accused rapist can be acquitted if he marries his victim, and the law provides for reduced sentences in cases of “honor crimes” committed by men against female relatives for alleged sexual misconduct. Personal status law for Muslim women is governed by Sharia (Islamic law) and is discriminatory in marriage, divorce, and inheritance matters.   

FEC Applies Media Exemption to Political Blogs

Good news for blogs and free speech:

The Federal Election Commission announced today that it has unanimously resolved two complaints alleging that Internet blog activity is subject to Commission regulation, finding that the activity is exempt from regulation under the media or volunteer exemption.

In Matter Under Review (MUR) 5928, the Commission determined that Kos Media, L.L.C., which operates the website DailyKos, did not violate the Federal Election Campaign Act.  The Commission rejected allegations that the site should be regulated as a political committee because it charges a fee to place advertising on its website and it provides “a gift of free advertising and candidate media services” by posting blog entries that support candidates.  The Commission determined that the website falls squarely within the media exemption and is therefore not subject to federal regulation under the Act.

Since 1974, media activity has been explicitly exempted from federal campaign finance regulation.   In March 2006, the Commission made clear that this exemption extends to online media publications and that “costs incurred in covering or carrying a news story, commentary, or editorial by any broadcasting station. . . , Web site, newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication, including any Internet or electronic publication,” are not a contribution or expenditure unless the facility is owned by a political party, committee, or candidate.  With respect to MUR 5928, the FEC found that Kos Media meets the definition of a media entity and that the activity described in the complaint falls within the media exemption.   

Thus, activity on the DailyKos website does not constitute a contribution or expenditure that would trigger political committee status.  The Commission therefore found no reason to believe Kos Media, DailyKos.com, or Markos Moulitsas Zuniga violated federal campaign finance law.

"And thus passes a tremendous milestone in the history of our species."

For the first time in 10,000 years, farming is not the dominate industry.

Importing Poverty Over the Southern Border

Robert Samuelson is one of the most honest and sharply intelligent economists writing for public consumption.  I don't always agree with him but I find it very hard ever to get around him.  In his recent column he parses the government's annual report on poverty and household income.

The standard story is that poverty is stuck; superficially, the statistics support that. The poverty rate measures the share of Americans below the official poverty line, which in 2006 was $20,614 for a four-person household. Last year, the poverty rate was 12.3 percent, down slightly from 12.6 percent in 2005 but higher than the 11.3 percent in 2000, the recent low. It was also higher than the 11.8 percent average for the 1970s. So the conventional wisdom seems amply corroborated.

These statistics are usually relied on to show that we (or more commonly George W.) are making no progress against poverty, presumably because we (and especially he) don't really care about our poorer citizens.  Whether we care or not, Samuelson show that we have made a lot of progress against poverty. 

From 1990 to 2006, the number of poor Hispanics increased 3.2 million, from 6 million to 9.2 million. Meanwhile, the number of non-Hispanic whites in poverty fell from 16.6 million (poverty rate: 8.8 percent) in 1990 to 16 million (8.2 percent) in 2006. Among blacks, there was a decline from 9.8 million in 1990 (poverty rate: 31.9 percent) to 9 million (24.3 percent) in 2006. White and black poverty has risen somewhat since 2000, but is down over longer periods.

Samuelson is right to complain that this story is almost completely ignored by the press.  I think that the left is at odds with itself here: it doesn't want to talk about progress because that might reduce the case for more efforts; but it fails to give credit for the efforts we have made.  And in fact, most forms of government assistance are ignored in these figures, so the real situation of a lot of low income families is better than represented.

I am not sure that the facts about immigration that he reports are as bad as he makes them sound.  Marxists have long argued that capitalism generates a persistent poverty at some level in order to supply the economy with cheap workers.  It may well be that when the number of domestic entry level workers falls below a certain threshold (perhaps  around 12%), the economy becomes magnetized and draws in workers from where ever there is a surplus.  There are winners and losers to be sure, but it gives a lot of people in other places a chance they would not otherwise have.  And immigrants to the U.S. use that chance. 

Paradoxically, many Hispanics are advancing quite rapidly. But assimilation -- which should be our goal -- will be frustrated if we keep adding to the pool of poor. Newcomers will compete with earlier arrivals. In my view, though some economists disagree, competition from low-skilled Hispanics also hurts low-skilled blacks.

There is some confusion here.  It's true that importing large numbers of uneducated, unskilled workers who can't speak English keeps the poverty rate up, and puts pressure on the least competitive domestic workers.  But that has no necessary effect on assimilation.  I suspect that Hispanic immigrants are acquiring skills, education, and English about as fast as immigrants tend to do.  It's just that we keep replacing the stock. 

Samuelson thinks we should favor skilled immigrants over unskilled immigrants, a position with which I agree (except in the case of college professors). We don't want more competition there, for heaven's sake.   I think that bringing the border under control would clearly relieve a lot of social, economic, and political problems, including lifting the wages of unskilled domestic workers.  But that's not to say we should cut off the flow of unskilled workers altogether.  My own ancestors came here, I suspect, with nothing more than a will to do better.  America ought always to be offering that chance to someone. 

SD Representatives Noted

Reid Wilson writes of Sen. Johnson and the rest of our congressional delegation today:

Also today, continuing the bipartisan cooperation around Senator Tim Johnson's (D-SD) return from a congenital arteriovenous malformation, Senator John Thune (R-SD) and Rep. Stephanie Herseth (D-SD) each held open the doors of Johnson's office as the South Dakota's senior Senator returns to work today for the first time.

Republicans have had trouble starting a race against Thune [sic] because of his illness. In any other year, and with a strong opponent like Gov. Mike Rounds, Johnson would face a difficult, possibly uphill race. Johnson beat Thune by just over 500 votes in 2002, and beat Sen. Larry Pressler by 2% in 1996. Thune, of course, came back to beat Sen. Tom Daschle two years later.

Chris Cillizza also writes about Johnson's return to work, and the political implications of his return for any Republicans that stand up to challenge Johnson for his seat. 

Embezzlement Story Update

From South Dakota Moderate:

It has now been over a month since the Argus broke the $100,000 embezzlement scandal at Hildebrand Tewes (and hasn’t mentioned it since) and almost as long since Steve Hildebrand confirmed the theft and named the person responsible but what has happened since then? Last week I asked someone in the MSM if they had heard anything and as of then they confirmed that nothing had even been forwarded for possible criminal charges.

When asked last month by Kevin Woster from the RCJ, Steve Hildebrand wasn’t sure if he would be pressing charges and apparently he hasn’t but why has nothing come yet from state or federal (IRS payments were involved) law enforcement? I wonder if someone from the casino on the corner was found to have embezzled a few thousand, and all but admitted the theft, if the results would be the same? And is Hildebrand not pressing charges in an effort to shield some of his new high profile clients (Presidential hopeful Barack Obama being one) from unfavorable publicity?

The silence is still deafening…

Herseth-Sandlin For Senate? Governor?

Dave Kranz considers Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin's political possibilities.  Herseth-Sandlin may want to consider running for governor before running for Senate, should she chose to run for anything except her current House seat.  There is a Democratic wave that might sweep the nation next fall.  But the worst thing that could happen to Stephanie HS is for Democrats to control all of Washington.  It is easy now to set herself between her left-wing leadership and President Bush.  She can go one way sometimes, and sometimes the other.  But Herseth-Sandlin's quest for seniority, expressed in the Kranz article, will only hurt her if she ends up having to carry water for a President Hillary Clinton, a president who will no doubt be highly unpopular in this state.  South Dakota Democrats are better served in Washington if they have some Republican to triangulate against or remain a backbencher.  If Herseth is ambitious, she should seek the South Dakota governorship while her party is in ascendancy and then go back to Washington as a junior Senator, possibly with Republicans regaining power.

All this advice is free and worth every penny. 

Senator Craig Reconsidering Resignation

Senator Larry Craig says he's reconsidering his resignation, urged on by Arlen Specter who doubts Craig committed the crime.  Interestingly, Craig hired the same lawyer who represents Michael Vick in his dog-fighting charges.  If Craig had taken his case to trial, I think it's a real possibility that he would not have been convicted, although his reputation was ruined by the circumstances surrounding his arrest.  That might be why Craig chose to plead guilty to disorderly conduct, hoping it wouldn't be released to the press, as the arresting officer promised. 

That strategy won't work now.  Yet, with nothing left to lose, Craig might be attempting to reopen the case to achieve some sort of vindication.  I'm not a lawyer, so I could be completely wrong in this analysis.  I look forward to see if our family blogosphere lawyer, Todd Epp, has any analysis of Craig's thought process.  In any case, there's nothing noble about Craig's reversal.  He made the right decision by resigning, and even if he made a 2008 run, the voters of Idaho would probably be more anxious than Arlen Specter in keeping a fellow like Craig in office.

Harry Potter and Severus Snape

Well, I may have been wrong about Tim Johnson, but I was right about Snape.  The final Harry Potter novel was very good. 

Al Qaeda Plot in Denmark Foiled

Ed Morrissey:  "Police report that the men had been under surveillance for quite some time. They had begun producing an "unstable explosive" in a densely-populated area in preparation for an attack. They had lived in immigrant neighborhoods, but six of the eight have Danish citizenship."

The Illiberal University

In 2004 a businessman from Silicon Valley made history: for the first time in 24 years, Cypress Semiconductor CEO T. J. Rodgers ran for election to the Dartmouth board against three candidates selected by the alumni council.  Rodgers, a libertarian who opposes the Iraq War and supports gay marriage, shuns the liberal-conservative divide over university debates and explains he was motivated to run by "the degradation of freedom of speech and the freedom of assembly . . . at [Dartmouth] today."

Following Rodger's election, petitions of trustees Peter Robinson, Todd Zywicki, and Stephen Smith followed.  Furthermore, the board recently rejected a new alumni constitution that would have changed election procedures, and the Dartmouth elite, not pleased with the outcome of the elections, have gone on the attack.  Joseph Rago of the Wall Street Journal interviewed Rodgers regarding his experience on the board:

[A]fter losing four consecutive democratic contests, the Dartmouth administration has evidently decided to do away with democracy altogether. "Now I'm working on the existence question," Mr. Rodgers notes mordantly.

Though he cannot say for sure--"I'll be kept in the dark until a couple of days before the meeting on what they're planning on doing"--a five-member subcommittee, which conducts its business in secret and includes the chair and the president, has embarked on a "governance review" that will consolidate power. "It looks like they're just going to abandon, or make ineffectual, the ability of alumni to elect half the trustees at Dartmouth," Mr. Rodgers says.

He believes that the model is the Harvard Corporation, where a small group "makes all the decisions. They elect themselves in secret. They elect themselves in secret for a life term. How's that for democracy?"

Be sure to read the whole article.  The Wall Street Journal editorial board had a companion piece entitled "The Illiberal College," in which they wrote: "Their [the alumni] presence has proven to be a tremendous offense to Dartmouth's inner circles. Like administrators at most universities, these academic elites expect only money -- not opinion and oversight -- from their alumni donors. A year ago, the administration worked with a small committee of alumni to alter the petition process to make it less likely that outsiders could win. They lost in a rout in an alumni referendum."

In 1951, Yale graduate William F. Buckley achieved notoriety with the publication of God and Man at Yale, assaulting the undergraduate education as hostile to Christianity and its support of collectivism and sought to rally Yale alumni to their supervisory role of university governance.  Unfortunately, nothing has changed in the elite universities, and in fact have grown worse.  The examples of Ward Churchill and Lawrence Summers are two telling examples.  As long-time readers of this blog know, Churchill was the tenured "ethnic studies" professor at the University of Colorado-Boulder who was recently fired by the university for violations of academic ethics (another basis for his firing should have been an enthusiasm for violence, but academics stood idly by under the banner of academic freedom).   The case of Harvard President Lawrence Summers points to the power of taboo in the Ivory Tower, when he offered informed speculation about gender-based differences in scientific professions. Anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism are just fine, it seems, but suggesting a taboo concept doesn't bode well.

Readers may wonder why we devote so much attention to university "politics," like this situation at Dartmouth or other events like Ward Churchill.  Part of the answer is that all of us on this blog are involved in the university in some way, either by teaching or entering the higher levels of graduate education.  The other part of the answer is that what happens in major universities today is important for the future of education in America.  Dartmouth alumni have shaken up the complacent, left-wing administrations, and it's a trend that may continue across the country.  Unlike for-profit corporations in America, universities don't share the same transparency and self-governance, which leaves the job to others to confront.  Academics gripe about the problems of the separation of ownership and control in modern corporations and the power of managers rather than shareholders, yet they actively promote a governance model that puts power in a small elite while disenfranchising the university's stakeholders.  If Dartmouth politics silence the alumni challenge, the entrenched illiberal governance will continue.

Good News (And Bad News) For Hunters

The good news: pheasant numbers are approaching historic highs this year.  The bad news: the Conservation Reserve Program is on shaky legs in the current farm bill being debated in Washington. Read all about it here. 

On the good side, last year's drought coupled with excessive heat killed off many of the chicks.  But we have seen relatively pheasant friendly weather this year:

The survey indicates South Dakota will have a terrific pheasant season, Hansen said.

“It looks like it could be a really good year for pheasants,” Hansen said. “When we last saw numbers like this, it was in the early 60s.”

The annual survey is done by driving 110 routes of 30 miles each in parts of the state where pheasants are found in sufficient numbers to count. The number of broods that were seen increased 15 percent from last year, and the average number of chicks per brood increased 11 percent.

South Dakota's estimated pheasant population was 8.4 million last year and 9.5 million in 2005, which marked the highest population since the 1960s. In 1961, the state had an estimated 11 million pheasants, according to Game, Fish and Parks records.

But the push to put more land into production, especially corn production, is working against conservation programs:

The increase is due to good weather and habitat, and the habitat is provided by the federal Conservation Reserve Program, which idles about 1.4 million acres of South Dakota farm land, Hansen said. The state is due to lose about 296,000 acres of CRP in the next year in the current program, he said.

“That doesn't bode well for pheasants,” Hansen said.

Congress is working on a new Farm Bill, and hunters should encourage inclusion of strong conservation provisions that keep CRP acres at the level needed to support pheasants, Hansen said.

“When you've got a large number of acres left undisturbed in permanent cover, you've got (a lot) of pheasants,” he said.

The wildlife director encourages hunters to take advantage of this fall's expected good season. “We may not see anything like this again in the future, depending on how the farm program goes.”

Theory of Labor Day

There used to be a spot in Berlin known as Checkpoint Charlie.  It was a crossing point between West and East Berlin, a portal through the Iron Curtain.  I like to think of it as a time machine.  There you could go from the seventeenth/eighteenth century to the nineteenth century.  Our side was the former; the Soviet side was the latter.  I say this because the United States, which controlled the Western side of Checkpoint Charlie, was and remains an eighteenth century adaptation of the work of a seventeenth century philosopher, John Locke.  Soviet East Germany was based on the work of a nineteenth century Hegelian hack, Karl Marx.  Well, that division series is well over, and we know how it came out. 

It is interesting on Labor Day to reflect on the theories of labor that were held by Marx and Locke, respectively.  Both thinkers began from the simple observation that some things are worth more than others.  A field of wheat is worth more than a barren field; a loaf of bread is worth more than a bag of grain.  But where does the increased value come from? Where do we find the goose that lays the golden eggs?

Marx thought it came from the elbow grease of the workers.  Upper body strength and thigh muscles were the source of all true value.  He was a materialist, and they like tangible, bulging things.  When Marxists think of labor they think of huff and sweat.  John Locke also thought that wealth came from human labor, but his understanding of labor was much more flexible than that of Karl Marx.  A man who swings a cycle to cut grain adds labor to nature's bounty, but a man who organizes a more efficient farm or bakery can produces far larger increases in the value of the available resources. Mental input, manipulating  information rather than materials,   has made the modern world rich beyond the imagination of seventeenth century men (Locke, perhaps, excepted). 

Locke was right and Marx was wrong.  Software giants like Bill Gates or those charming folks at Google, add tremendously more value to the human store than I ever did when I hammered nails into plywood roofing as a teenage construction worker.  That's a good reason why they are rich and I am not.  That is not to say that we can do without elbow grease. 

On Labor Day it is good to celebrate that simple worker who pours tar onto a roof, or chops a chicken into McNuggets, or  puts the chips into the motherboard of a laptop.  But the word "labor" should be an inclusive rather than a divisive term.  All those who turn an input into a more valuable output are laborers.  And that is pretty much all of us.  Happy Labor Day!

Primary Follies

My colleague Prof. Blanchard records some thoughts on the now ridiculous attempt by states to move their presidential primaries to the front of the parade.  Why not get it over with and have all primaries the first Wednesday after the first Tuesday in November four years before the presidential election in question.  We can then literally have constant campaigning for president.  In my previous post I mentioned James Ceaser.  Ceaser's first book was Presidential Selection.  Granted, it is now almost 30 years old, but it still speaks to our present conundrum (in fact, Ceaser predicted it).  As we think about candidate selection, Ceaser asks us to consider what we want out of an electoral mechanism in addition to recording the preferences of the people.  The recording of preferences is the easy part; even the Iraqis can do that.  But as Iraq shows us, just holding elections is not enough to constitute a sound democracy.  Ceaser suggests four additional criteria for an electoral mechanism:
1. Minimize the harmful effects of ambition.  In short, this means avoid demagoguery. Demagogues make promises they cannot keep, playing to the people's greed and short-term interests, and also play on the people's fears, appealing to our worst instincts rather than our best.
2. Promote proper leadership.  The art of governing is the art of compromise.  A system that promotes good compromisers over combativeness is a better system. We also have to recognize that getting votes and governing are two different talents.  Just because someone is good at getting public attention (like a rock star) doesn't mean he or she will be an effective governor.
3. Secure able leaders.  Obviously we want people competent to do the job to which they have been elected.
4. Enable legitimate accession to power, i.e., the people must see the system as basically legitimate.  Those who end up winning are the people who actually won. 

We should ask whether the current system works to these ends.  I would argue that it does not, especially as regards to points #1 and #2.  For one thing, the frontloading of primaries causes a "permanent campaign."  I have posted on the permanent campaign before.  Here are Joseph Pika and John Anthony Maltese on the problem posed by the permanent campaign:

The problem with such tactics is that campaigning--by its very nature--is adversarial, while governing is--or at lest should be--largely collaborative.  As [Hugh] Heclo puts it, "campaigning is self-centered, and governing is group-centered."  When the permanent campaign becomes the predominant governing style, however, collaboration becomes difficult.  Not surprisingly, recent years have seen a breakdown of the elite bargaining community that used to collaborate to produce policy.

I am less concerned about the "breakdown of the elite bargaining community" (although it something to be concerned about) than I am about the kind of appeals candidates make to the electorate and how they shape the electorate's opinions.  In a post a few weeks ago, Prof. Blanchard eloquently wrote, "Eloquent language not only communicates and persuades, it fashions new architecture in the souls of those who appreciate it."  What architecture is being formed by the demagogic rhetoric of the permanent campaign? 

What Is A Progressive?

Democratic candidates (Hillary Clinton for example) these days are packaging themselves as "progressives," an attempt to describe their politics without resorting to the now dirty word "liberal."  In that light, I strongly commend to you Scott Johnson's ruminations over at Powerline on the political thought of Woodrow Wilson.  Part I and Part II are available for your consideration.  Wilson is an exemplar of the Progressive mindset of the early 20th Century that strongly influences the Democratic party today.  I would argue there are three major components of the Progressive political philosophy, all of which, Johnson demonstrates, were shared by Woodrow Wilson. 
1. A commitment to historicism.  To put it briefly, and therefore somewhat crudely, historicism is the belief that truth is historically determined.  Those who live later in history know more than those who lived earlier, thus the current opinions trump those of the forebearers. This gives us two hallmarks of Progressivism of which Americans should be highly skeptical.  First, the rejection of natural right as the basis of our politics.  In Progressivism there is no Nature, only History (See this work by James Ceaser for an excellent discussion of this subject).  Thus there are no "self-evident truths" or "Laws of Nature and Nature's God."  The Declaration of Independence is rejected.  Second, constitutionalism is rejected.  Why bind yourself to a document that is historically determined?  Again, we who live later know more than those who lived before, therefore we should envision a "living constitution" that changes with the times. 
2. Related to the rejection of constitutionalism and natural rights is the rejection of limited government.  Progressives were highly influenced by the Pragmatist movement typified by William James and later John Dewey.  A progressive society requires constant experimentation to figure out which polices work and which do not.   Anything that limits experimentation should be rejected.  Thus natural rights and constitutions are dumped as they set up artificial roadblocks to progress.
3. A commitment to scientific government.  Woodrow Wilson is one of the founders of the field of public administration.  Wilson and other progressives, highly influenced by Max Weber, believed that bureaucracy staffed by those schooled in social science could govern a society better than elected officials.  Progressives tended to see elected legislators as corrupted by special interests and the need for re-election.  Thus we need to liberate ourselves from legislatures.  This was to be done in two ways.  First, put the people in direct control of their government via direct democracy (recall, initiative, referendum, etc).   Second, give more power to bureaucrats.   Just as the "hard sciences" were ever increasing their ability to master the physical world, social science was believed to be capable of mastering the social world, building up a progressive society managed by the scientific principles of public administration and ruled by objective disinterested social scientist bureaucrats.

As Johnson explains, Woodrow Wilson rejected the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the ideas of separation of powers and limited government.  If this is what current Democratic candidates mean by "Progressive," they should be rejected by the the American polity.      

The Party of No Ideas

My Dad once said that the difference between the two parties was simple: the Republicans are stupid, while the Democrats are just plain dumb.  Not bad for a Republican.  Lewis Black, a professional comic, said that the Democrats are the party of no ideas; the Republicans are the party of bad ideas.  Not bad for a non-Republican.  With all due respect to filial piety, Black is closer to the mark.  Nick Gillespie has this, from the New York Times:

To be sure, these are giddy times for the Dems. Since last year’s elections, they’re back in control of the Congress they’ve dominated most of the time since Franklin D. Roosevelt’s first term. According to a July 27-30 poll conducted for NBC News and The Wall Street Journal, the general public thinks Democrats will do a much better job than Republicans not just on global warming, health care and education but also on traditional Republican bailiwicks like controlling federal spending, dealing with taxes and protecting America’s interest in trade. The front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, Hillary Rodham Clinton, continues to lead her Republican counterpart, Rudy Giuliani, in most polls, and a generic Democrat beats a generic Republican in 2008 too.

But as John Kerry might tell you, never write off the Democrats’ ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. The recent farm bill passed by the House — and pushed by Speaker Nancy Pelosi — maintains subsidies to already prospering farmers, angering not just conservative budget cutters but liberal environmentalists. House and Senate Democrats allowed a revision of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that broadens the scope of warrantless wiretaps just after holding hearings denouncing the man who would issue them, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, for routinely abusing his power. Although the misconceived and misprosecuted war in Iraq was the issue most responsible for their return to power, Congressional Democrats have yet to put forth a coherent or convincing program to end American military involvement there.

Well, yeah, that's about it.  I have observed many times at SDP and in my American News Columns that the Democrats seem incapable of coming up with a coherent policy on Iraq.  I think that this is largely why John Kerry lost the 2004 election: bad ideas have to be very bad before they lose to no ideas.  The Democrats blast the Bush Administration for violation civil liberties in the war on terrorism.  Fine.  But how would they prosecute that war, so as to protect civil liberties while protecting America against international terrorism?  Well, by giving the Bush Administration legal authority to do all the things it was doing.  As for the environment, I would remind readers that President Clinton did not even submit the Kyoto treaty to the Senate. 

Maybe the Republicans have such bad ideas that no ideas can beat them.  Gillespie has his doubts. 

Little wonder, then, that the NBC/Wall Street Journal poll found that only 24 percent of American adults approve of the job the Democratic Congress is doing. That’s a decline of seven points from March. There are longer-lived trends that should worry the Democrats. In 1970, according to the Harris Poll, 49 percent of Americans considered themselves Democrats (31 percent considered themselves Republicans). In 2006, the last year for which full data are available, affiliation with the Democrats stood at 36 percent (the silver lining is that the Republicans pulled just 27 percent). If the Democrats are in fact the party of Great Society liberals, the problems run even deeper. The percentage of Americans who define their political philosophy as “liberal” has been consistently stuck around 18 percent since the 1970s, and the Democratic presidential candidate has failed to crack 50 percent of the popular vote in each of the past seven elections.

Kerry ran as not-Bush.  The Democrats are running as not-Republicans.  I am doubtful that this will work for long. 

Headlines Worth Noting

It's still mostly round, but now with a lot of dimples.

Round Lake Pounded By Rain

Not content with eviscerating the Constitution, Bush now violates laws of physics. 

Iraq War Slows Flow Of Bullets

Yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!

Hurricane Dean Moves Toward Jamaica

Hello Mother.  Hello Fatah.   

Lebanese Army Crushes Militants at Camp

But encouraging wildlife!

Number of U.S. hunters declines, worrying wildlife agencies

He should have tried hiding under the pot.

Police ID man arrested over 100 lbs. of pot

 

 

 

Presidential Nomination Train Wreck

SDP has long opposed the move by our home state and others to move their presidential primaries forward in the election year.  Among our considerations are these: that concentrating primaries increases the advantage of candidates who start with name recognition and large war chests, and that it gives the voters less time to know the candidates and see them tested.  What is happening right now adds additional reasons for concern.  From the Washington Post:

The Democratic National Committee sought to seize control of its unraveling nominating process yesterday, rejecting pleas from state party leaders and cracking down on Florida for scheduling a Jan. 29 presidential primary.

The DNC's rules and bylaws committee, which enforces party rules, voted yesterday morning to strip Florida of all its delegates to the 2008 Democratic National Convention in Denver -- the harshest penalty at its disposal.

This looks like a major breakdown in national party organization.  Political parties have been essential parts of the Presidential election process since the beginning of the Republic, and if they indeed are collapsing as organizing forces, it means that we have no idea how the next election will work.  To be sure, many folks think the party system is dysfunctional, but jumping into a dark hole because you find the ledge you are on not to your liking is not a good strategy for reform. 

Donna Brazile, with whom I do not often agree, makes an admirable defense of the DNC, also in the Washington Post:

Florida's plan to move its primary forward represented a unilateral move that would completely disrupt the system on which everyone had agreed. The rules and bylaws committee had no choice but to enforce the rules. Our recommendation is not the end of the line for Florida. Indeed, the state has 30 days to bring its plan into compliance.

The Wall Street Journal has a good commentary on the overall situation.  I especially liked this bit:

Sixty years ago, Presidential nominees were chosen largely by delegates to conventions held in late summer, between 60 to 90 days before the actual vote. That system gave us FDR, Truman and Ike, to name three better than average Presidents. It also gave us Warren Harding--but then no system is perfect.

Now I happen to think that the older system, in which nominees were chosen by party activists deeply involved in the system at all levels, was better than a system in which nominees are chosen on the basis of the performance on TV.  But I am under no illusion that we could go back to that system.  Ms. Brazile is clearly on the right track:

Our nominating process is supposed to yield the best possible candidates for the most powerful position in the world. Unfortunately for all of us, it is a deeply flawed system in desperate need of reform. Recent proposals to create a regional rotation system in 2012, or the "Delaware Plan" to allow smaller states to go first, should be on the table for discussion starting this fall.

I discussed the Delaware Plan in a previous post.  Here is a brief description:

Under the Delaware Plan, the states would be put into four groups  according to population. The smallest 12 states, plus federal territories, would vote first, followed by the next smallest 13 states, then the 13 medium-sized states, and finally the 12 largest states. These four consolidated primaries would occur on the first Tuesday of each month, beginning in March and ending in June. Although having valuable benefits, the main disadvantage to this plan is candidates having to compete in 12 states in the very first primary, which makes retail politicking harder, and the fact the states are always in the same order.

Something like this is clearly in order.  I do not think it should be imposed by Congress, and indeed I suspect that would require a constitutional amendment. But it will require national party discipline, and Ms. Brazile is right to stand up for that.