Monkey Business and Modernity

Those who complain about religion in American politics do not appreciate how simple it is to appease believers whose God generally demands no sacrifice other than a change of heart, or the occasional ingestion of a little wine with one's wafer.  Apparently polytheism is a little like campus politics: the smaller the spirits on the committee, the more in blood and guts they demand.  Or so it would seem from the case of Nepal. 

KATHMANDU (Reuters) - Officials at Nepal's state-run airline have sacrificed two goats to appease Akash Bhairab, the Hindu sky god, following technical problems with one of its Boeing 757 aircraft, the carrier said Tuesday.  ... The goats were sacrificed in front of the troublesome aircraft Sunday at Nepal's only international airport in Kathmandu in accordance with Hindu traditions, an official said.  It is common in Nepal to sacrifice animals like goats and buffaloes to appease different Hindu deities.

How many goats and buffaloes would Northwest need, say, per plane?  And while we are at it, does the sky god cover airport security, or would that fall in some other deity's portfolio?

And then there is this BBC story from India, where Hindu hardliners forced the government to withdraw a report on a canal project because it questioned the existence of the God Ram:

Scientists and archaeologists say the Ram Setu (Lord Ram's bridge) - or Adam's Bridge as it is sometimes called - is a natural formation of sand and stones.

In their report submitted to the court, the government and the Archaeological Survey of India questioned the belief, saying it was solely based on the Hindu mythological epic Ramayana. They said there was no scientific evidence to prove that the events described in Ramayana ever took place or that the characters depicted in the epic were real.

Hindu activists say the bridge was built by Lord Ram's monkey army to travel to Sri Lanka  and has religious significance.

It's too bad that Lord Ram's monkey army didn't have an air force, like the monkey army commanded by the Wicked Witch of the West.  Instead Lord Ram was forced to rely on his monkey corp of engineers. 

It is easy to make fun of religious stories like this, and modern Christianity has its share.  I remember seeing an add in the Sunday paper back in Arkansas about a book that explains how the Grand Canyon was carved out in a few days as the Biblical flood drained back into the ocean.  But it's also worth noting that Christianity has been making its peace with science for about eight hundred years.  Both faith and reason have benefited, I would argue.  By contrast, Lord Ram's monkey army and geology are only now squaring off.  That is one of the problems of the twenty-first century. 

Headlines

Well, there are a lot of sensitive places in between:

Foot and Mouth: is worse to come?

How long do the real ones live?

Imaginary Gods are Really Immortal. 

Just how many carnivorous reptiles will be on the jury?

T-Rex Trial Date Set.

Movie Bloggin'

If Prof. Blanchard can do a TV update, let me discuss some movies, although not without seconding Ken's endorsement of Dr. Who, which is now the best thing on television in my opinion.  While that's not a high bar to get over, in the case of Dr. Who we have some truly excellent writing and acting.  And isn't the previous Dr. Who, Christopher Eccleston, now on Heroes? 

We really wanted to go to 3:10 to Yuma last night, but wouldn't you know that the film is not in Aberdeen.  Curses!  So we rented a couple films.  One is Prestige, which I can recommend.  It has a gripping story and fine performances by Hugh Jackman and Michael Caine.  Christian Bales is also in the film, but I must say his lower class English accent comes and goes.  The film has a superb build-up  while the payoff is a bit weak. It tries to have a Sixth Sense kind of twist ending, but it doesn't quite work.  Still, worth recommending.  We also took in The Queen. A fine commentary on the decline of nobility in the modern age.  The film does a fine job of getting you angry at Queen Elizabeth only to slowly get you to see the soundness of her point of view and lament the indignities she is forced to endure. Is this the fate of the modern age, that it must pull down and destroy in the name of equality and fashion all that is noble and lasting?  I want to point out that there was nary a curse word in either film.  Yet both were still gritty and real.  A lesson, perhaps.  On the other hand, there is Hot Fuzz, which we've recently seen, and which is extremely vulgar and extremely funny.  If you can take harsh language and a bit of gore at the end, you will like this film.  Laugh out loud funny from the guys who gave us Shaun of the Dead.

I noticed at the video store that they had many copies of Shooter and most had been rented. That's disappointing.  We saw this film on the way back from the U.K. in June.  It has made my anti-Pantheon of all-time bad films.  I started laughing at the movie it was so cliched and poorly written.  Shortly after seeing the film I happened to hear a radio interview with Stephen Hunter, film critic of the Washington Post and, coincidently, the author of the novel on which Shooter is based.  You know you've got a bad movie when a man who is both a film critic and the author of the novel on which the movie is based lambastes your movie.   Hunter hated what they did to his novel.  And if you have any taste, so will you.

Also note Denise Ross's account of Into The Wild, and you should check out Julie's old post on the same subject.  I recently asked a friend from Alaska what people up there think of Chris McCandless, and he said, "Everyone up there thinks he was an idiot."  There is a fine line between courageous and foolhardy.  The first is a virtue, the second a vice.  Whatever one ultimately thinks of Chris McCandless, his story, much like The Queen, does provoke us to ask whether modern life fully fills the human soul. 

NYT, Daschle, and Wakpa Sica

The New York Times had a story a few days ago lamenting the effect losing Tom Daschle had on Wakpa Sica, a project that has succumbed to the criticism of government earmarks.  SDWC asks "Aren't there more stakeholders in this than the federal government?": 

I think Wapka Sica is important. So important that the stakeholders shouldn’t wait around for the federal government to “make it happen.” Even with the “vaunted” Tom Daschle’s help, I don’t think the tribes can point to much good that’s ever come from the federal government’s promises of economic development help.

Indeed.

TV Roundup

Despite some big disappointments in recent months, like the news that Deadwood is really dead wood, there is some good TV showing up on the DVR.  I have blogged before on the BBC production, Dr. Who.  This is a revival of the old BBC series, but it is incomparably better than the original.  David Tennet (Barty Crouch Jr. in Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire) is the most recent incarnation of our favorite Time Lord.  I was a big fan of Tom Baker in the old series, but Tennet runs rings around him.  The acting is altogether better, and the writing is superb.  Who cares if the villains seem to have transmigrated from old episodes of the Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers. 

Another series worth watching is Burn Notice.  Jeffrey Donovan plays Michael Weston, a spy who has been burned, that is, canned for suspicion of betrayal.  He is stuck in Miami, earning his keep by solving problems for ordinary people who are being pushed around by thugs.  His partners are a former girl friend and former IRA terrorist, Fionna (Gabrielle Anwar), and Sam, an alcoholic ex-spy played by Bruce Campbell.  As Campbell cut his teeth on cheap Zombie movies in the 80's, I have a natural soft spot.  Again, good writing and excellent acting.  Give it a try.

Last, but not least, is Heroes.  I am pretty sure this series is inspired by the X Men movies.  Various characters in the show discover that they have extraordinary powers: one can fly, one can paint the future, another can hear the thoughts of others.  All of them are bound together to stop a terrible event (the destruction of New York), but sinister forces are out to stop them.  What's not to like?  Good if not great acting; engaging writing; brilliantly textured camera work.  My son and I are watching it on DVD.  Second season starts on the 24th.  And you gotta love Super Hiro!  A fat Japanese man who has the power to stop time and teleport himself across space. 
 

Islam, Terrorism, and Snide Reasoning

My Keloland colleague Dr. David Newquist has two recent posts with which I am largely in agreement.  His September 11 post begins this way:

If you list the identifying values of America as expressed in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, you will list the very qualities of  life that the Islamists want to eradicate: life, liberty, freedom of and from religion, equality, justice for all, and the basic right to an individual identity.  As we can recall from the Cold War, our country would never allow any organization to operate in America with the expressed purpose of destroying America.  But mosques have been established in this country for exactly that purpose.

I disagree with Professor Newquist's second sentence as a matter of fact: the U.S. Supreme Court has long extended full First Amendment protection to communists, Nazis, and others with "the express purpose of destroying America."  But I note that that was largely because we judged those parties to be no threat.  David makes a plausible case that militant Islam is different. 

I also note a piece in the Washington Post that tries to deny some obvious facts about terrorism.  Alan B. Krueger, Bendheim Professor of economics and public policy at Princeton, does some fast but clumsy footwork in his "5 myths about Terrorism." The kicker is Myth #4, which is a tour de force of snide rhetoric.

Terrorism is mainly perpetrated by Muslims.  Wrong. No religion has a monopoly on terrorism. Every major religious faith has had followers involved in terrorism.

Notice the fallacious reasoning there: because there are some non-Muslim terrorists, terrorism isn't mainly perpetrated by Muslims.  Yeah, and because there is the occasional black sheep, sheep aren't mainly white.  Close your eyes whenever passing a ranch or watching the news, and you can believe both things.  And consider this gem:

Although radical Islamic terrorists are the worry du jour because of 9/11 and Iraq, the data show pretty clearly that the predominant religion of a country is not a good predictor of whether its people will become involved in terrorism.

Well, yeah, England isn't yet a Muslim country, but that isn't the point is it?  The big terrorist acts of recent years and months in England were committed by Muslims, weren't they?

It's true as he notes that Hinduism has produced a small but significant number of terrorists, but those tend to be theater-specific: they operate in war zones like Sri Lanka and Kashmir.  It is also true that  America has produced some homegrown terrorists like Timothy McVeigh.  But those are blessedly few, and they tend to be isolated clusters of nut cases without an ideology to draw others to them or organizations to continue their awful work.  Moreover, apart from Ireland, it's hard to find Christian terrorists, and the terrorists there were clearly motivated by nationalism rather than religion (as is the case in Sri Lanka).  And when was the last time a Buddhist blew anyone out of his socks in the name of Jizo (depicted above)?

The obvious truth, obvious to anyone who is not trying to deceive himself or others, is that contemporary terrorism about the world is not just "mainly" but overwhelming a phenomenon of militant Islam.  Were Muslims world wide to suddenly behave like Buddhists, terrorism would all but disappear from the news.  If Professor Krueger really believes what he is writing, and if he is typical of Princeton faculty, their students should all decamp and enroll at Northern.  They would save tens of thousands, and even get a good education. 

 

Daschle v. Thune

Our former blogging colleague and my good friend Jon Lauck continues to gain traction with is book, Daschle Vs. Thune: Anatomy of a High-Plains Senate Race.  The latest is a radio interview with John J. Miller at the National Review (still no mention from the Argus Leader).  I've recently received a copy of the book from Amazon.com that I've paged through, but won't have time to read it for a while since I'm swamped with readings for graduate school.  Pick up your own copy today -- it's an important story.

UPDATE:  I now see my colleague beat me to the punch.  Drats!

Jon Lauk and John Miller: Between the Covers

No, not another scandal.  Our former colleague Jon Lauck discusses his new book on the Thune-Daschle race with John Miller at NRO. 

Give Me A Higher Education

Those who care about higher education and are in some position to affect change in that beast would do well to read Peter Berkowitz's piece published yesterday in the Wall Street Journal.  Berkowitz shares a concern I aired here, mainly a concern over whether we are educating a citizenry fit for freedom.  Berkowitz offers a curriculum that at least is a start to that end:

Crafting a core consistent with the imperatives of a liberal education will involve both a substantial break with today's university curriculum and a long overdue alignment of higher education with common sense. Such a core would, for example, require all students to take semester courses surveying Greek and Roman history, European history, and American history. It would require all students to take a semester course in classic works of European literature, and one in classic works of American literature. It would require all students to take a semester course in biology and one in physics. It would require all students to take a semester course in the principles of American government; one in economics; and one in the history of political philosophy. It would require all students to take a semester course comparing Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. It would require all students to take a semester course of their choice in the history, literature or religion of a non-Western civilization. And it would require all students to demonstrate proficiency in a foreign language of their choice by carrying on a casual conversation and accurately reading a newspaper in the language, a level of proficiency usually obtainable after two years of college study, or four semester courses.

This strikes me as a good start to producing a liberally educated citizen, that is a citizen educated in what it is to be free.  This stands in start contrast to the modern university, which is better at producing specialists without spirit, voluptuaries without heart. 

Cut Taxes, Increase Revenue

A report out from the feds yesterday once again revises the federal budget deficit down.  The budget is coming into balance even faster than President Bush originally planned.  Why?  Not because anyone is doing much to hold down spending, but because revenues are skyrocketing. What?  You mean you can cut tax rates and increase revenue?  Well, we've done it again.  Time and time again it is proven that tax revenue, within certain parameters, has more to do with economic growth than it does the actual tax rates.  Thus if one's goal is to increase revenue, it is actually better to keep rates relatively low and allow the economy to produce wealth.  Here are a couple snippets from the article:

The federal deficit is running sharply lower than last year even though spending in August set an all-time high, the government reported Thursday.

The Treasury Department said that the deficit through the first 11 months of this budget year totaled $274.4 billion, down 9.8 percent from the same period a year ago.

Analysts believe the deficit for all of 2007 will actually be even lower because they are forecasting a sizable surplus in the final month, reflecting in part timing issues that caused about $44 billion in Social Security and Medicare payments that normally would have been made in September to be shifted into August.

The Congressional Budget Office is forecasting that when this budget year wraps up on Sept. 30, the deficit will total $158 billion, down by 36.2 percent from last year's $248.2 billion deficit.

(snip)

For August, the deficit totaled $116.9 billion. However, about $44 billion of that figure reflected payments for Social Security and Medicare that were mailed in August because Sept. 1 fell on a Saturday and Labor Day came on Sept. 3.

Through the first 11 months of the current budget year, receipts total a record $2.282 trillion, up 7.5 percent from last year, while outlays totaled a record $2.557 trillion, up 5.3 percent from last year.

SDP Jazz Note: Sonny Rollins on 9/11

Jeffery Siegel's fine jazz podcast, Straight No Chaser, has a clip from Without a Song: the 9/11 Concert, featuring Jazz giant Sonny Rollins.  The clip has Rollins playing the title number, a piece of jazz he recorded in 1962 for his album, The Bridge.  I have only heard the cut on Siegel's podcast, but it is magnificent.  Go to Straight No Chaser to download it.  Here is the brief review on the Barnes & Noble site:

When the disasters on 9/11 occurred, the great tenor saxophonist Sonny Rollins was in his New York apartment, only blocks away from the World Trade Center. He survived a night without electricity and was of course deeply affected by the catastrophe. At the urging of his wife and manager, Lucille, he fulfilled an engagement to play in Boston four days later, and the concert recording was released four years later. Rollins is quite emotional in his playing and can be heard throughout in peak creative form.

I couldn't help noticing that the second cut on the CD is "Global Warming." 

Ethanol Battles

Had a good time on KWAT this morning.  We went over a lot regarding energy.  Ethanol seemed to be on everybody's mind, and so more time was spent on it than any other matter.  I took some grief for questioning the logic of ethanol subsidies.  A nice pro/con on the subject is by BusinessWeek and can be found here. 

Some of the grief I took comes from those who don't want to admit that for all of the benefits of ethanol, we in South Dakota like it because it is pork barrel for our state.  That doesn't mean that ethanol subsidies are bad policy, but I suspect many (if not most) people support ethanol for the money first and only secondarily for the energy independence and environmental benefits.  Let's not pretend that we are not self-interested.

By the way, a new record in oil prices today. 

Global Warming Canceled?

There is a good global warming dissent piece by Paul Driessen at the Washington Times. 

My general take on the global warming issue has been as follows: 1) I have accepted that global temperatures are indeed rising; 2) I accepted that human activity is a significant cause of current warming trends; 3) I don't think we can know much about how severe the consequences will be or even whether they will be bad; and 4) short of the collapse of the Chinese and Indian economies, I am sure we can't do anything to significantly modify the human influences. 

A story has broken very quietly that brings into question the first two opinions.  Here is Lorne Gunter writing in the Canadian National Post:

Last week, NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies -- whose temperature records are a key component of the global-warming claim (and whose director, James Hansen, is a sort of godfather of global-warming alarmism) -- quietly corrected an error in its data set that had made recent temperatures seem warmer than they really were...

What, exactly, does the adjusted data tell us?  It tells us that a lot of the claims about recent warming trends are wrong, at least with regard to temperatures in the US. 

The hottest year since 1880 becomes 1934 instead of 1998, which is now just second; 1921 is third.

Four of the 10 hottest years were in the 1930s, only three in the past decade. Claiming that man-made carbon dioxide has caused the natural disasters of recent years makes as much sense as claiming fossil-fuel burning caused the Great Depression.

The 15 hottest years since 1880 are spread over seven decades. Eight occurred before atmospheric carbon dioxide began its recent rise; seven occurred afterwards.

In other words, there is no discernible trend, no obvious warming of late.

Now, I would like to see a revised chart, but so far I haven't found one. You can find the corrected raw data by year at the NASA website.  The summary above is correct.  So far, US temperatures are not significantly warmer than they have been over the past century.  It is true that every year between 1997 and 2006 has seen temperatures above the annual mean for the 1880-2006 period.  But every  year between 1938 and 1947, except 1945 was also above the annual mean. 

Is the world experiencing an accelerated warming trend?  Probably.  The last ten years show robust warming according to the corrected numbers.  But the overall numbers don't suggest anything alarming yet.  It would be nice if the MSM would flesh this out for us, but global warming politics always trumps global warming science.  In the meantime you have to rely on blogs like this one. 

Media Whore Alert

I will be on the "What's Up" show on KWAT 950 AM out of Watertown tomorrow (Thursday) at about 8:10am.  The subject, once again, is energy policy.  I will advocate tapping the natural gas coming from Dave Newquist. 

Kranz

Note today that Argus Leader political columnist David Kranz is again talking about a new book that discusses Tom Daschle (this is the second time he's mentioned it), yet has not said a word about Daschle Vs. Thune, which is completely about South Dakota politics.

Eppster, You Protest Too Much

I don't have a lot of passion about the fact that Lodgenet pipes pornography into their hotel rooms.  I'd rather they didn't, but I can't say it preys upon my mind.  But Todd Epp makes some arguments against the Family Policy Council types who are all worked up about this.  I must say Todd, pretty weak arguments.  And that does prey on my mind!  Let's look at those arguments.
1. The old "if you don't like it turn it off." 

My Republican friends always like to lecture people about "personal responsibility."  And renting a grinder flick from Lodgenet is the ultimate in personal responsibility.  I'm in my own room.  I'm not in the public.  I'm paying for the service.

This is a classic case of question begging.  Todd's argument assumes that pornography in hotel rooms (or elsewhere perhaps) is benign and therefore a matter of indifference to the public.  If Lodgenet was piping in films of children getting raped, Todd, I think, would object.  By why is that not a matter of personal preference?  There are things that are done in private (drugs for example) that are harmful to the public.  Maybe viewing pornography is one of them.  And maybe not.  But Todd assumes a benign nature to pornography without proof.

By the way, in civil rights law, isn't a hotel a "pubic accommodation," not a private abode?

2. The first amendment:

It is legal (though the wackos at Truth About Lodgenet say otherwise).  You know, there's that little thing called the First Amendment.

Perhaps the "Truth About Lodgenet wackos" are trying to use the law against Lodgenet, but it seems more so they are trying to use publicity and shame.  Perhaps their energies are misdirected, but Lodgenet has no First Amendment right to be free from shame and ridicule for being a purveyor of pornography. 

3. If you are going to stop porn in hotel rooms you must ban...

I think the bigger issue is where will groups like SDFPC stop?

Ban drinking?  Drinking probably harms far more people than porn.

Ban cigarettes?  They too are legal and bad for you.  The health costs to our society are enormous.

Ban adult stores like Olivias and Anna Belles?  What, they have something against rubber goods and low cut French maid outfits?

Ban dancing?  It can lead to sex or at least blisters on your feet.

Ban couples who marry but can't procreate?  Isn't that why you're supposed to marry, to be fruit fly and multiply?

This is the old "slippery slope," which is still a fallacy, if I am not mistaken. Of course the "wackos" want to ban none of these things and Todd knows it.  But it serves his purpose to to say, "If you want to ban this, you must ban all of these things," thereby treating all sorts of apples as if they are oranges.

As I say, I don't really have a lot of passion about Lodgenet.  But I can't stand by and let Todd get away with lazy thinking.  I suspect that Todd's real arguments are A) he can't stand these right-wing Christian types, so their enemies are his friends, and B) he doesn't really see anything wrong with pornography.  If I am wrong, I am sure Todd will correct me.  Either way, watch your back Todd. You might get Chuck Norris going Biblical on your ass, you godless anti-American Communist.   

Update: Crap. Now I see that Todd has been throwing me kudos.  I take back all the bad stuff, Todd! 

Six Years Ago

Biology and Homosexuality 3: Mailbag

I hadn't expected this topic to draw as much response as it has, but we here at SDP and at Keloland are all about serving our public so I feel some obligation to respond to the items in my mail. 

Intrepid reader William A. Williams alerts me to an article in the New York Magazine by David France, "The Science of Gaydar,"  that neatly summarizes some of the research on homosexuality.  I knew that homosexual men were more likely than heterosexual men to have a ring finger that is longer than their index fingers.  I did not know that homosexual men are more likely to have a counterclockwise "whorl" in their hair pattern.  The Irish have a phrase: "Protestant hair."  I forget what that means.  Apparently there is also gay hair. 

I would note that a lot of this research is very tenuous, and suggests differences that are marginal at best.  The finger thing is present in 8% of the general population, and 23% of homosexuals.  That may indicate a genetic factor, but it cannot be a gene generally responsible for homosexuality.  I do not share Mr. France's preference for the term "third-sexer."  Sex is clearly the wrong word, as it implies a connection to the biological process of reproduction.  If homosexuals could breed with either males or females, as in some science fiction, that would be a third sex.  Homosexuality is about gender and behavior. 

Intrepid reader and friend of SDP, Gene Kocmich shares this amusing story about a sexually disinterested boar. 

Many years ago on the farm in SD my Dad bought a boar hog that had the physical traits he though would improve the quality of offspring we bred for market.  He paid $350 in 1959 for this young boar and expected great things.  Well the boar would have nothing to do with the guilts and sows when they were in heat.  He just wasn’t interested. My Dad returned the “queer boar” and got another from the breeder. I don’t believe pigs are affected by their environment so it was probably biological.  Did this boar take a liking to other boar pigs?  We never tested that outcome.

I don't suppose Gene's dad examined the direction in which the hog's tail whorled?

IR Victor Ulmer advances the conversation. 

In your response, you said, in part:

I know of at least two explanations for the genetic persistence of   genetic homosexuality. One is that homosexual males made very good warriors:   pairs of lovers sacrificed their own reproductive opportunities, but promoted   the reproductive success of their heterosexual brothers and sisters. Those   siblings carried the same genes that, in the proper mixture, would produce   more homosexual warriors. That is a niche theory. Another explanation   is that some of  the genes that code for adaptive traits such as sexual   attraction to the opposite sex and desire for friendship with the same sex   will inevitably, on occasion, combine in such a way as to produce   homosexuality. That seems more plausible, but we can hardly know yet.

But do homosexual males make better warriors, than do heterosexual males?  If they do, that explanation seems to be plausible, but whether they do, to me, seems to be totally speculative.

It is speculative either way, but the question is not whether they are better warriors, but whether they might have filled a niche that contributed to the genes that produced their dispositions. Perhaps a pair of homosexual soldiers were more likely to sacrifice themselves together, and thus made good last ditch guards of narrow passes and bridges and such.  I am speculating freely here, but this much I know: even very small fitness advantages can result in a big genetic payoff over time.  In a lot of species, individuals sacrifice their own reproduction for their near kin.  Maybe, in the environment of evolutionary adaptation, homosexuality had such a marginal payoff.  In that case, the selection pressure for it would have outweighed the obvious pressure against it. 

Secondly, Vic wonders why homosexuality should be more common  than other mutations that adversely affect reproductive fitness, such as impaired male genitalia.  I answer that it all depends on the balance of selection pressures.  Consider the fitness not of individuals but of genes (as your reference to Dawkin's Selfish Gene indicates).  If a given gene or complex array of genes adversely affects its own reproductive success by a factor of .01 (one less replication per hundred individuals), but has a secondary effect that increases its fitness by a factor of .011 (eleven successful replications per thousand individuals), the gene will be selected for.  Its representation in a population will be determined by this kind of equilibrium.  My guess is that any gene that is simple disadvantageous would rapidly disappear.  Any that was simply advantageous would become universal.  Between the two is a spectrum that accounts for the difference between 90 pound weaklings and line backers. 

Lastly Vic asks:

Might not some homosexuality be related largely to "genetic predisposition"; and might not some homosexuality be related largely to social and cultural factors; and might not some homosexuality be related to several or all of those factors?  Why would this issue not be similar to other nature versus nurture controversies?

Of course.  Homosexuality is probably an expression of a complex range of genes expressed in a complex range of social situations.  Some persons with no biological inclination will engage in homosexual behavior for social reasons.  If Caesar likes you, well, you just can't squander some opportunities.  Likewise genetic dispositions may be expressed or not depending on the balance between the intrinsic strength in the individual and the social consequences. Life is more complex than checkers. 

Kudos to my readers for a dialog that has kept me, at least, interested.    

Viking Blogging

So, did you watch the game yesterday?  Pretty ugly stuff, don't you think?  Tarvaris Jackson does not exactly instill me with confidence.  The fact that the defense outscored the offense is not a good sign, and the one offensive touchdown was one big play rather than a sustained drive.  I suspect the Vikings will struggle mightily when they play a non-Joey Harrington led team. Still, a win is a win.

Today's SDP opinion question: Speaking of Joey Harrington.  Is Joey Harrington the worst starting quarterback in, say, the last 20 years?  Let's set our parameters.  I am not talking about one loser who got a few starts when there was no one else to go to (think Moses Moreno for the Bears a few years back).  I am talking about someone who started, say, 20 or more games in his career and at least one full season.  Can anyone think of anyone worse?  Immediately coming to mind as contenders are Rex Grossman and Ryan Leaf.  Any thoughts?  Email at schaffsdp at gmail.com.  Or hit my email link to the right.  Same thing. 

Legal Help For Larry Craig, Part II

Regarding whether Larry Craig can use senatorial privilege to beat his toilet rap, reader Gary chimes in:

While I’m not a lawyer, Akhil Reed Amar, a member of the Yale Law School
faculty, is. His excellent book, “America’s Constitution-A Biography” has
this to say on your questions. First of all, the relevant portion is in
Article I, Section 6.

         “Article I, section 6 “privileged” senators and representatives
from certain kinds of “Arrest during their Attendance” in Congress. The
privilege applied only to various civil cases, still prevalent in the
eighteenth century, in which a litigant sought the physical arrest of a
defendant. (No congressional privilege would exist in cases of “Treason,
Felony and Breach of the Peace” – a catchall English-law term of art
effectively covering all crimes.) Without the privilege, a single private
civil litigant, perhaps by design, might undo the voters’ verdict by keeping
their man off the floor. As Jefferson explained in his famed “Manual of
Parliamentary Practice”, “When a representative is withdrawn from his seat
by summons, the 30,000 people whom he represents lose their voice in debate
and vote.”  The private privilege thus served a public purpose. In the name
of democracy, a sitting congressman could claim temporary immunity and
oblige his would-be civil arrester to wait until the legislative session had
ended.  If a lawmaker abused this privilege, the voters could punish him at
the next election.  To put legislators from distant states on equal footing
with those living near the national seat, the privilege would apply to
lawmakers traveling to and from Congress.”

It appears the operative word here is “civil” as Craig would have appeared
to commit a “breach of the peace”. Hope this helps.

"What I now ask of you is military success, and I will risk the dictatorship."

So wrote Abraham Lincoln to Joseph Hooker as he assigned Hooker to command the Army of the Potomac.  As it happened, Hooker gave Lincoln neither military success nor dictatorship.  This letter is an example of the war leadership provided by Lincoln, who did not see political interference in military affairs as a vice.  War is a political act, and in a democracy the political leaders who are responsible to the people should set policy.  This is a theme of Eliot Cohen's Supreme Command, a book I have recommended before and do so again.  For related discussion, see this post by Andrew McCarthy over at NRO.

Thus it is disappointing that the American people put far more trust in our military than our president or Congress when it comes to victory in Iraq.  This is understandable, for of course generals are largely immune to political attack and they don't have to take any position on abortion.  But this is also the result of poor leadership by both branches.  On the eve of the anniversary of 9-11, we should recall that one of George Bush's first reactions to that event was to tell the American people to go shopping.  One understands why he did so; he did not want the terrorists to think they can alter our way of life.  But it set the tone for a kind of lack of seriousness regarding the war on terrorism.  Bush has led us into war while at the same time asking little of the American people.  Oh, he speaks often and eloquently about the sacrifices of the American military, but very little about the sacrifices of the American people in general.  At the same time, his administration pursued a policy unnecessarily hostile to Congress, claiming executive power at every turn and pushing Congress aside.  The administration has usually been right on the law, in my opinion, but politically foolish, alienating Congress and making it difficult to build consensus.   Congress, on the other hand, has largely been willing to do nothing.  When Republicans were in charge they deferred far too much to their president, giving up institutional prerogatives, to say nothing of leadership, in the name of protecting the popularity of their party's president.   The Democrats are the mirror image, largely opposing the president at every turn in order to gain political advantage, while at the same ceding all responsibility out of fear that actually taking responsibility might hurt them politically.  One can say this about George Bush: he has not let the fear of political failure stop him from doing what he thought best regarding American security. Failure he may get, but with more honor than his opponents in Congress will ever have.   

One sees today that the same mistakes are being made.  McCain and Lieberman urge us to do pretty much do whatever Gen. Petraeus tells us to do.  The Democratic leadership tries to discredit Petraeus, not because he deserves discredit, but because what he is saying might hurt them politically.  So now Petraeus must be weakened in public opinion so the Democrats can gain seats in Congress?   

Obviously prudence dictates that politically leaders take seriously the advice of the generals.  But it must be clear: generals do not set policy, political leaders do.  McCain and Lieberman are certainly closer to the truth in that it is unwise to dismiss Gen. Petraeus, certainly not before one has even heard him.  But the general's report today should be seen as purely informational, not policy setting.   

Lincoln-Douglas?

Ed Morrissey reports that Mike Huckabee has challenged Fred Thompson to a Lincoln-Douglas style debate. 

Dialogue on the Biology of Homosexuality 2

I have blogged recently on the question of whether homosexuality has biological causes, and whether dissent from the view that it does should be allowed.  I believe the answer to both questions is yes.  You can read the posts here and here, along with comments from intrepid reader Z-Tek.  Intrepid reader Vic Ulmer sent me this question by Gmail:

Isn't homosexuality inconsistent with and counter to the fundamental biological concept of reproductive success?  Thus, why would there be a "genetic predisposition" to homosexuality?

This is a very good question, and to answer it I must put on my professor hat.  First, one must distinguish the question whether some trait H has a biological cause from the question of what that cause is and how it works.  Biological causation may be indicated by many things: for example if the trait is universal (all people grow old and die, regardless of where or when they are born or what culture they are exposed to); or if it shows signs of heritability (hair color and eye color). Homosexuality seems to indicated by both criteria: it exists in all significant populations, regardless of culture, and as I understand it, shows at least some signs of heritability.    

Of traits that are biological, some are selected for, some against, and some are not exposed to selection pressure.  Good eyesight, congenital blindness, brown rather than green eyes are, respectively, examples. As you indicate , homosexuality would seem to be subject to negative selection pressure, as homosexuals typically invest most or all of their sexual behavior in ways that cannot lead to successful reproduction.  That is consistent with the fact that homosexuals constitute a relatively small portion of every general population (probably less than 2 or 3%).

However, a trait that is maladaptive in a general population can be adaptive for a small portion of the population if it finds some niche within that population where it is favored.  Unusual boldness probably killed off most people who ever inherited it, but sometimes it leads to unprecedented reproductive success, as in the case of certain sports stars or the hero who saves the people against Goliath.  Likewise, a generally maladaptive trait may be preserved if it is rare but unavoidable consequence of genes that are otherwise adaptive.  There are two genes that code for resistance to malaria and that's adaptive; but if you have both, you get sickle cell anemia. 

I know of at least two explanations for the genetic persistence of genetic homosexuality. One is that homosexual males made very good warriors: pairs of lovers sacrificed their own reproductive opportunities, but promoted the reproductive success of their heterosexual brothers and sisters. Those siblings carried the same genes that, in the proper mixture, would produce more homosexual warriors. That is a niche theory. Another explanation is that some of  the genes that code for adaptive traits such as sexual attraction to the opposite sex and desire for friendship with the same sex will inevitably, on occasion, combine in such a way as to produce homosexuality. That seems more plausible, but we can hardly know yet.

All I can say now is that it is a good bet that there is a biological basis for homosexuality.  That is a long winded answer to your question, but as I said, it is a good question.    

Book Blogging

The Weekly Standard has a review of Jon Lauck's new book, Daschle Vs. Thune: Anatomy of a High-Plains Senate Race.  Here it is in full:

It seemed almost a miracle. Tom Daschle, the South Dakotan who rose to lead the Democrats in the Senate, performed perhaps his greatest political feat in 2002, when he worked and schemed, cajoled and threatened, and eventually dragged to victory Tim Johnson, the Democrat running for South Dakota's second Senate seat.

That 2002 race had almost everything a political junkie could want. A razor-thin finish of 524 votes. A lead for the Republican, John Thune, that disappeared hours after the polls closed in a flurry of questionable ballots from the Indian reservations. A threat of lawsuits, a roar of outrage from the Republicans, a smug victory announcement from the Democrats--and presiding over it all, the elfin figure of Tom Daschle, smiling like a mischievous sprite as he coerced donations, manipulated the political machines on the reservations, and pulled his candidate home.

Funny thing: Tom Daschle's worst political error came during that same campaign, for it was on Election Day in 2002, as he celebrated his friend's victory, that Daschle began the campaign that would end with the loss of his own Senate seat two years later. He saved Tim Johnson, but along the way, he infuriated voters in a Republican-majority state, created a subculture of bloggers determined to bring him down, and freed to run against himself the hungriest, most-attractive young Republican candidate in the state. If Thune had beaten Johnson, Tom Daschle would still be a senator today, for the Republicans had no one else with much chance against him. Instead, Thune lost to Johnson in 2002--and then sent Daschle down to defeat in 2004.

Not that it looked likely at the time. The Daschle-Thune race was routinely cited as the most important Senate campaign of 2004, second only to the presidential race in national significance. And the question of those days was simple: If John Thune couldn't beat the weaker candidate in Johnson, how was he supposed to beat the stronger candidate in Daschle? For how he managed it, there's no better account than Daschle vs. Thune: Anatomy of a High-Plains Senate Race, the new study from the Sioux Falls political activist Jon K. Lauck.

Every analyst tends to push the part of the answer he knows best. Bob Mercer, for example--a reporter in Pierre and one of the state's most astute political writers--had worked as a press secretary for the four-term Republican governor Bill Janklow. And during that 2004 election, Mercer insisted on the role played by Janklow, particularly Janklow's friendship with Daschle and the ancient rivalries between Janklow and Thune's mentor, James Abdnor (the Republican senator defeated by Daschle after Janklow had weakened him with a 1986 primary challenge).

So, for another example, David Krantz, the longtime political analyst for the state's largest paper, the Sioux Falls Argus Leader, repeatedly leaned toward the explanation from history and state psychology: South Dakota's unwillingness (evidenced by George McGovern's defeat by Jim Abdnor in 1980) to reelect a senator whose national importance suggests he's become more of a Washingtonian than a Dakotan.

Jon Lauck was a blogger--perhaps the state's key blogger--during the 2004 campaign, and so in Daschle vs. Thune he emphasizes the blogging explanation: The web provided, for the first time, a statewide source of news and commentary besides the local television stations, which did little serious reporting, and the Sioux Falls Argus Leader, which was widely perceived to be in Daschle's corner, both on its editorial pages and in its news coverage.

Lauck's thesis is right, and yet, it isn't. With a near monopoly as the state's only paper of record, the Argus Leader was unused to criticism. Much of that criticism was well deserved, and when the attacks from local blogs were picked up by national bloggers (and then began appearing in such national publications as the Wall Street Journal and National Review), the paper reacted badly, snarling, as Lauck remarks, that blogs are "places where the views of the 'pinheaded' on the 'political fringes' with 'nutty opinions' can 'spew forth.'" Indeed, the Argus Leader's editor added, "If Hitler were alive today, he'd have his own blog." It all made for great Internet theater, and though they mostly spoke to readers who were already Thune supporters, the blogs certainly cost Tom Daschle some votes.

But only some. In truth, Daschle lost not because of any large factor but because each small factor cost him a handful of voters, and when they all totaled up, they amounted to a 4,508-vote win for Thune.

Daschle filed for a homestead tax credit on his $1.9 million house in Washington (which required declaring himself a permanent resident of the District of Columbia) and a few South Dakota voters decided the time had come to vote for Thune. The Republicans recaptured control of the Senate in 2002, and another small set of voters decided that Daschle's leadership wasn't needed any more. The Republican's get-out-the-vote effort failed Thune in the practice run of 2002, but worked for him in 2004. Daschle's two-faced stand on legalized abortion--for it in Washington and against it in South Dakota--burned away some votes. The Democrats' failed lawsuit to ban Republican poll-watchers on the reservations alienated a few more.

And bit by bit, county by county, Daschle's margin of victory dribbled away. The details of Thune's election are all present here, down to the exact length (29 seconds) of Daschle's 3:00 A.M. telephone call conceding defeat. Through the central chapters of the book, Jon Lauck has written what should be required reading for anyone interested in how to win--and how to lose--a modern senatorial campaign.

Apart from that, however, who gives a hoot any more about Tom Daschle's lost chances? We're almost three years past the election, John Thune is now an accepted figure in the Republican party, and without a Senate majority leader from the state, national interest in South Dakota politics has dropped to its usual level: somewhere between nearly nonexistent and completely nonexistent.

Lauck clearly recognizes the why-bother aspect of his work, and he devotes a concluding chapter to what he calls "Daschle versus Thune as Synecdoche," a big-think attempt to tie the campaign to the struggle between the 1970s left and the 1980s right--the decades-long battle between the followers of George McGovern and the forces of Ronald Reagan. In the end, Daschle's attempts to pose himself as a Reagan Democrat at home and a McGovern Democrat in Washington were doomed--in part, Lauck argues--because there is no peace to be made between the two camps. In the long tide of American political history, one side must lose.

That's right, and yet, again, it isn't. Thune won the election, after all, and if his victory is a synecdoche for a general trend in American politics, then we have no explanation for the results of the next national election, in 2006, when McGovernism came roaring back. Lauck adds an epilogue that admits the point, but can't quite bring himself to see that it requires a complete rethinking of his thesis.

Still, Daschle vs. Thune is a model for tight, detailed election coverage--even if so many of the figures it details are fading with astonishing speed. Tim Johnson has suffered a stroke and remains too ill for his full Senate duties. Bill Janklow, driving at his usual reckless rate, plowed a borrowed car into a motorcyclist and resigned his House seat when manslaughter charges were filed. Tom Daschle seems to have settled back on the comfortable income he and his wife make as Washington lobbyists. Where are the politicians of yesteryear?

Tom Daschle is one of the figures who dominated politics in South Dakota for a generation. But hunted down at last by Hubris, the avenging spirit that waits hungrily to punish arrogance, they are all gone now, victims of the very things that made them so successful. To read Daschle vs. Thune is to understand why the best response is: Good riddance.

Russia and the Neo-KGB

I tend to think of our blog, broadly defined, as dedicated to the nuts and bolts of the practice of democracy, not only in the world's oldest republic but around the world.  We're observing the mechanics and meaning behind political events, backdropped by a bold attempt to bring democracy to one of the most undemocratic regions in the world.  And so it's depressing to read stories like this from The Economist about the situation in Russia where democracy is being subverted (H/T Peter Schramm):

ON THE evening of August 22nd 1991—16 years ago this week—Alexei Kondaurov, a KGB general, stood by the darkened window of his Moscow office and watched a jubilant crowd moving towards the KGB headquarters in Lubyanka Square. A coup against Mikhail Gorbachev had just been defeated. The head of the KGB who had helped to orchestrate it had been arrested, and Mr Kondaurov was now one of the most senior officers left in the fast-emptying building. For a moment the thronged masses seemed to be heading straight towards him.

Then their anger was diverted to the statue of Felix Dzerzhinsky, the KGB's founding father. A couple of men climbed up and slipped a rope round his neck. Then he was yanked up by a crane. Watching “Iron Felix” sway in mid-air, Mr Kondaurov, who had served in the KGB since 1972, felt betrayed “by Gorbachev, by Yeltsin, by the impotent coup leaders”. He remembers thinking, “I will prove to you that your victory will be short-lived.”

Those feelings of betrayal and humiliation were shared by 500,000 KGB operatives across Russia and beyond, including Vladimir Putin, whose resignation as a lieutenant-colonel in the service had been accepted only the day before. Eight years later, though, the KGB men seemed poised for revenge. Just before he became president, Mr Putin told his ex-colleagues at the Federal Security Service (FSB), the KGB's successor, “A group of FSB operatives, dispatched under cover to work in the government of the Russian federation, is successfully fulfilling its task.” He was only half joking.

Over the two terms of Mr Putin's presidency, that “group of FSB operatives” has consolidated its political power and built a new sort of corporate state in the process. Men from the FSB and its sister organisations control the Kremlin, the government, the media and large parts of the economy—as well as the military and security forces. According to research by Olga Kryshtanovskaya, a sociologist at the Russian Academy of Sciences, a quarter of the country's senior bureaucrats are siloviki—a Russian word meaning, roughly, “power guys”, which includes members of the armed forces and other security services, not just the FSB. The proportion rises to three-quarters if people simply affiliated to the security services are included. These people represent a psychologically homogeneous group, loyal to roots that go back to the Bolsheviks' first political police, the Cheka. As Mr Putin says repeatedly, “There is no such thing as a former Chekist.”