Lest We Forget

I will be on the road this weekend, so let me comment on Armistice Day two days early.  Of course, we don't celebrate Armistice Day anymore.  I think that is a shame.  This is not to say the the current holiday, Veterans Day, is a bad one (quite the contrary), but remembering the First World War in a separate event would aid our historical memory. 

Winston Churchill opens his history of the Second World War thusly:

I must regard these volumes as a continuation of the story of the first World War which I set out in The World Crisis, The Eastern Front, and The Aftermath.  Together, if the present work is completed, they will cover an account of another Thirty Years War. 

Churchill saw the the two wars an inextricably linked, indeed, almost seamless.  It is fair to say that the First World War, with its contribution to the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia and its hand in the rise of Hitler in Germany, set the tone for the entire 20th Century.  The horror of the war explains much, in my opinion, of present day European politics.  The war decimated a continent and, it can be argued, destroyed in Europe faith in what we call Western Civilization.  I think it is no coincidence that Churchill ultimately saw the United States as the great defender of that civilization. 

What was the cost in lives of the First World War?  According to John Keegan, by war's end two million Frenchman had died, leaving 630,000 war widows.  The conscript classes of 1912-1915, the youngest French soldiers, lost between 27 and 30 percent.  A similar number of Germans died in the war.  Keegan points out that as a percentage, no nation lost more than Serbia.  Out of a pre-war population of five million, 125,000 died in combat, but another 650,000 civilians died of starvation and privation, for a total of about 15% of the population. Roughly one million British soldiers died in the war.  In my trip to the UK this past summer it was noticed that in every village there is a WWI memorial.   The United States, a late entry into the war, suffered just over 100,000 deaths.   

Keegan sums up the war's effect:

[I]t damaged a civilisation, the rational and liberal civilisation of the European enlightenment, permanently for the worse and, through the damage done, world civilisation also.  Pre-war Europe, imperial though it was in its relation with most of the world beyond the continent, offered respect to the principles of constitutionalism, the rule of law and representative government.  Post-war Europe rapidly relinquished confidence in such principles.  They were lost altogether in Russia after 1917, in Italy after 1922, in Germany in 1933, in Spain after 1936...Within fifteen years of the war's end, totalitarianism, a new word for a system that rejected the liberalism and constitutionalism which had inspired European politics since the eclipse of monarchy in 1789, was almost everywhere on the rise.

One of the grieving British parents was Rudyard Kipling, whose son died in the war.  He penned the poem Recessional years before the war, but it has become part of British Remembrance Day celebrations.   It used to be on the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month, bells would ring out.  It is still the case in some places. In America, where I suspect we will hear few bells, we could do worse than remember Kipling's words:

Recessional June 22, 1897

GOD of our fathers, known of old—
Lord of our far-flung battle-line—
Beneath whose awful Hand we hold
Dominion over palm and pine—
Lord God of Hosts, be with us yet,	5
Lest we forget, lest we forget!
The tumult and the shouting dies—
The captains and the kings depart—
Still stands Thine ancient sacrifice,
An humble and a contrite heart.	10
Lord God of Hosts, be with us yet,
Lest we forget, lest we forget!
Far-call'd our navies melt away—
On dune and headland sinks the fire—
Lo, all our pomp of yesterday	15
Is one with Nineveh and Tyre!
Judge of the Nations, spare us yet,
Lest we forget, lest we forget!
If, drunk with sight of power, we loose
Wild tongues that have not Thee in awe—	20
Such boasting as the Gentiles use
Or lesser breeds without the Law—
Lord God of Hosts, be with us yet,
Lest we forget, lest we forget!
For heathen heart that puts her trust	25
In reeking tube and iron shard—
All valiant dust that builds on dust,
And guarding calls not Thee to guard—
For frantic boast and foolish word,
Thy Mercy on Thy People, Lord!	30

Blog Dump

There are various items I've been meaning to get to but haven't found the time. 

Read Cory on conservation measures, or lack thereof, in the Farm Bill. 

Patrick Deneen ponders why we talk about "the environment" rather than "nature."  He concludes:

It's worth reflecting on why we have so readily embraced the term "environment" but utterly eschew the word "nature." Nature, of course, is the "normative" term of Aristotelianism: it is a standard and represents a limitation. Humans are creatures of and in nature. We are subject to its laws and to its strictures. Nature is not separate from us; we are natural creatures (special ones - political animals - but animals nonetheless). To employ the word "nature" would mean a fundamental reconceptualization of the relationship of humans to the world with which we live. Rather than either extending human mastery over our "environment" or attempting to stamp out the contagion of humanity, to re-claim the language of nature would require us to change our fundamental conception of a proper way of living well.

Finally, David Innes thinks about the role of Evangelical Christians in politics.  He summarizes:

• If Christians are obedient to the wisdom of God, we will be a godly influence.
• If Christians are confident in the sovereignty of God, we will be a humble influence.
• If Christians are confident in the goodness of God, we will be an effective influence.

Hope In Iraq

My excellent SDP colleague Jason Heppler posted this image earlier.  I think it is worth posting again.

Several Muslims and Christians are working to mount a cross on a church.  If that ain't progress, I don't know what is.  One nice thing about not being on the anti-war left is you can take some pleasure in that photo. Michelle Malkin posts this article from the Herald Tribune, back in April, when things were much worse in Iraq. 

A new wave of explosions and shootings killed or wounded dozens of Iraqis on Easter Sunday as the Christian minority celebrated the holy day, praying that this would be the last year they live through the violence and terrorism gripping their country.

Early Sunday, thousands of Christians throughout Iraq went to Easter Mass and some churches were uncommonly full. In recent years, after attacks on dozens of churches, attendance had fallen off dramatically.

St. Joseph Chaldean Church in central Baghdad was jammed with more than 1,000 people. Many had to stand through the service.

Security was tight outside the church. Every man entering the church was searched. Police cars blocked both ends of the street to prevent car bombs.

During the mass, Shiite Muslim leader Ammar al-Hakim, son of the head of Iraq's most powerful Shiite political organization, walked into the church. Father Louis al-Shabi, the chief priest at St. Joseph, escorted al-Hakim to a seat near the alter.

"Sheik al-Hakim came to join us in our celebrations as we mark this feast," al-Shabi told the worshippers. "We welcome this visit as a display of unity among the Iraqi people."

Al-Hakim responded, "We are all the sons of Iraq, and we should put our hands together to build this country. We are confident that the Iraqi people will come out of this crisis and our pain will end."

Maybe, just maybe, Sheik al-Hakim's moment has arrived.  God bless him. 

Democrats "Emotionally Invested In Defeat"

Senator and 2000 candidate for Vice President Joe Lieberman is in a unique position in Congress.  A nation-wide coalition of anti-war Democrats successfully engineered his defeat in last year's Connecticut primary.  He won re-election anyway, as an independent, and he ran on the very thing that cost him the primary: his support for the Iraq war and Bush's anti-terrorism strategy.  So he has a rather unique authority to point out the obvious.

"For many Democrats, the guiding conviction in foreign policy isn't pacifism or isolationism, it is distrust and disdain of Republicans in general, and President Bush in particular," Lieberman said at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies.

"In this regard, the Democratic foreign policy worldview has become defined by the same reflexive, blind opposition to the President that defined Republicans in the 1990s — even when it means repudiating the very principles and policies that Democrats as a party have stood for, at our best and strongest," Lieberman continued.

That hits the nail on the head.  There were lots of good reasons for Republicans to dislike Bill Clinton, but their loathing for him frequently exceeded all reason.  Likewise, a reasonable Democrat who thinks that the war was terrible mistake is entitled to be furious with George W.  But it is hard to see that anything other than that fury is driving the thought and actions of the Congressional majority on foreign policy. More Joe:

"Even as evidence has mounted that General Petraeus' new counterinsurgency strategy is succeeding, Democrats have remained emotionally invested in a narrative of defeat and retreat in Iraq, reluctant to acknowledge the progress we are now achieving, or even that that progress has enabled us to begin drawing down our troops there," he added.

Just as Lieberman was speaking, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced that the House will take up a temporary Iraq spending bill which will curb the war in Iraq. The plan, known as the "bridge," provides $50 billion for four months in Iraq and starts a withdrawal of troops to be completed by next December.

"This (war strategy) is not working. There is no light at the end of the tunnel. We must reverse it. We will again make a distinction ... to show a new direction in Iraq. The goal is ending it within a year and leave behind just a small force," she said.

Not so long ago, the Democrats were demanding that the Bush Administration "change course" on Iraq, though what change they had in mind, other than leaving Iraq to its fate, was never clear.  Well, the Administration did change course and, lo and behold, the new strategy produced immediate and almost miraculous results.  Now some caution is in order.  See Powerline for how sober conservatives treat the news from the Fertile Crescent. But the news certainly does look good.  The New York Times reports that al Qaeda has been eradicated in Baghdad. 

American forces have routed Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, the Iraqi militant network, from every neighborhood of Baghdad, a top American general said today, allowing American troops involved in the “surge” to depart as planned.

Isn't the defeat of al Qaeda in Iraq kinda a good thing? And if so, what does it mean that the Speaker of the House is incapable of noticing it? No one thinks that Pelosi, Reid, and company are rooting for the other side, or that they aren't serving their country as they see fit.  The problem is that they don't seem to be even slightly interested in Iraq, or even to notice that it exists, except as an albatross to hang around the President's neck.  Joe got it right.  They are emotionally invested in defeat.

The Incredible Lightness Of John Kerry

Joe K. comments on this talk by John Kerry to the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life.  I am in large agreement with Joe, although I give kudos to Kerry for trying to articulate common ground.  But Joe is right, that common ground he seeks seems to justify the liberal approach at every turn.  Kerry has a lot to say about how the public, in the form of government power, can fulfill certain religious imperatives, but he says nothing about how civil society can do the same or how those in public life, such as John Kerry, might encourage people to act on their own in spite of any action by the state. Perhaps Kerry has missed the reports on who gives to charity, noting that those who are religious and who don't look to the state to solve our social problems actually put their money where their mouths are. 

Kerry's talk also included one of the year's silliest statements:

But I’ll just summarize it by saying there was a recent headline in Time magazine that said, “How Do You Prevent the Next Darfur? Step One: Get Serious About Global Climate Change.” So confronting manmade climate change is in the long run one of the greatest challenges we face, and I think there are religious implications in it that are very serious: stewardship and so forth.

If John Kerry, and Time magazine for that matter, really believe that there is a link between global warming and genocide in Darfur, then they are truly deluded.  Let me suggest that the human evil implicated in that or any genocide goes far deeper into the darkness of the human soul than the sin of driving an SUV. 

Laptops And Learning

A reader passes on a link to a university law professor commenting on the use of laptops in his classes.  Apparently, many law school professors are banning laptops in their classes as they distract from actual learning.  One of these professors explains why.  You'll note that even the students think less learning takes place with laptops.

Note-taking on a laptop encourages verbatim transcription. The note-taker tends to go into stenographic mode and no longer processes information in a way that is conducive to the give and take of classroom discussion. Because taking notes the old-fashioned way, by hand, is so much slower, one actually has to listen, think and prioritize the most important themes.

In addition, laptops create temptation to surf the Web, check e-mail, shop for shoes or instant-message friends. That's not only distracting to the student who is checking Red Sox statistics but for all those who see him, and many others, doing something besides being involved in class. Together, the stenographic mode and Web surfing make for a much less engaged classroom, and that affects all students (not to mention me). ...

How does banning laptops work in practice? My own sense has been that my class is much more engaged than recent past classes. I'm biased, I know. So I conducted an anonymous survey of my students after about six weeks — by computer, of course. The results were striking. About 80% reported that they are more engaged in class discussion when they are laptop-free. Seventy percent said that, on balance, they liked the no-laptop policy. And perhaps most surprising, 95% admitted that they use their laptops in class for "purposes other than taking notes, such as surfing the Web, checking e-mail, instant messaging and the like." Ninety-eight percent reported seeing fellow students do the same.

South Dakotans Respond to Daschle Earmarks

People speaking out in the Argus Leader today aren't very supportive of the million-dollar Daschle earmark:

Kayelwynne White Man 42, Sioux Falls, certified nurses aide
"No, I don't support that.  It's way too much money for something like that.  You have so much homelessness here and not enough is done to help Native Americans.  That's why Native Americans don't vote."

Nancy Gunner, 66, Sioux Falls, volunteer
"No.  It's not like the guy was president.  He never came back to South Dakota, so that's another reason.  I don't think he's set foot in South Dakota since he lost.  I don't think he did one single thing for South Dakota - except maybe for the reservations."

Pat Cannon, 59, Sioux Falls, engineer
"I like Tom, but I'm not sure this is going to advance the cuses he would like to advance. ... And earmarks avoid a decision-making process on them.  The alternative is that you might not spend the money, and that would be OK."

Maria Barraza, 43, Sioux Falls, baby sitter
"I don't know much politics when I came here, but I am learning. ... Sure, it is good if it helps people.  (I) don't know if I use, though, but a million dollars (is) too much."

Matthew Dekam, 19, Sioux Falls, lot attendant
"They don't need to spend that much money.  They can spend it on hospitals.  It's fine they spend the money on the library but not that much."

Greg Hintgen, 32, Sioux Falls, account executive
"One million dollars doesn't by anything now-days.  It's $1 million out of $215 billion.  My main point is that any time we get federal dollars funneled into state universities, I'm for it."

Steve Milligan, 56, Sioux Falls, Dakota Minnesota & Eastern Railroad
"I'm against earmarks, (and) our house isn't very sympathetic to Mr. Daschle."

Senate Debates Earmarks

From the Argus Leader:

One of those earmarks would send $1 million to South Dakota State University for the Thomas Daschle Center for Public Service and Representative Democracy.

That earmark was singled out yesterday by fiscal conservatives as an example of the bill’s excesses.

The earmark for the Daschle center was added in a conference committee on Monday night. It did not go through the appropriations process and Senate Republicans say they’ll mount an attempt to strip that earmark and others from the bill.

It’s not uncommon for Congress to appropriate money to the libraries of former members who held prominent positions. Daschle is a former majority and minority leader who lost his seat in 2004 to Sen. John Thune.

However, Senate Republicans say the Daschle earmark and others added during the conference committee are barred by new rules that were put in place by Democrats earlier this year to stop the practice of larding appropriations bills with earmarks that didn’t go through the regular appropriations process in either the House or Senate.

Although the more than 850-page bill came out of conference late Monday, House Democrats forced a vote on the measure Tuesday. The bill passed 269-142, but it was a defeat for Democrats because it fell short of the number needed to override a presidential veto.

The bill that came out of committee was an amalgamation of appropriations for veterans and military construction with health and human services and labor funding.

Senate Republicans are expected to try and split the bill, sending the veterans portion to the president. President Bush has threatened to veto the human services bill, which includes more than $151 billion of discretionary spending, more than what Bush sought.

Also, South Dakota Moderate is calling out Tim Johnson.  See our original post for some further updates.

Hope in Iraq

Christians and Muslims alike gather to place a cross back on top of a Christian church in Baghdad:

Via Michael Yon, the Ernie Pyle of our generation, who always has excellent reporting from Iraq.  Along with the news that al Qaeda might be finished in Iraq and that Iraqis are beginning to return to the capital city, things are starting to look very good.

On His 250th Birthday, Lafayette Returns

In June, 1917, the First World War turned against the Germans.  General John Pershing arrived in France with the first contingent of American soldiers.  The French army was in a terrible state, as were the French people.  On the Fourth of July, Pershing led a battalion of the 16th Infantry through the streets of Paris to the tomb of the Marquis de Lafayette.  In case anyone doesn't know, Lafayette befriended General Washington during the Revolutionary War, and was responsible for bringing the French navy in on the American side.  It is altogether possible that the Revolution could not have succeeded without this alliance.  With his soldiers at attention, and the Parisians looking on, Pershing solemnly addressed the tomb: "Nous voilà, Lafayette!"  Lafayette, we are here. 

Circumstances were hardly so dire when the new French President, Nicholas Sarkozy (Sar-koh-ZEE), addressed a joint session of Congress today.  But President Sarkozy did not fail to remember the memorable past. 

The United States and France remain true to the memory of their common history, true to the blood spilled by their children in common battles. But they are not true merely to the memory of what they accomplished together in the past. They remain true, first and foremost, to the same ideal, the same principles, the same values that have always united them.

The deliberations of your Congress are conducted under the double gaze of Washington and Lafayette. Lafayette, whose 250th birthday we are celebrating this year and who was the first foreign dignitary, in 1824, to address a joint session of Congress. What was it that brought these two men--so far apart in age and background--together, if not their faith in common values, the heritage of the Enlightenment, the same love for freedom and justice?

Upon first meeting Washington, Lafayette told him: "I have come here to learn, not to teach." It was this new spirit and youth of the Old World seeking out the wisdom of the New World that opened a new era for all of humanity.  From the very beginning, the American dream meant putting into practice the dreams of the Old World.

There's a touch of the poet in that one.  But he was just getting warmed up.

America did not tell the millions of men and women who came from every country in the world and who--with their hands, their intelligence and their heart--built the greatest nation in the world: "Come, and everything will be given to you." She said: "Come, and the only limits to what you'll be able to achieve will be your own courage and your own talent." America embodies this extraordinary ability to grant each and every person a second chance.

Here, both the humblest and most illustrious citizens alike know that nothing is owed to them and that everything has to be earned. That's what constitutes the moral value of America. America did not teach men the idea of freedom; she taught them how to practice it. And she fought for this freedom whenever she felt it to be threatened somewhere in the world. It was by watching America grow that men and women understood that freedom was possible.

To hear a French President say that America is the greatest country in the world, well, it makes one wonder what planet one is living on.  I am pretty certain that Sarkozy is right, but the thought fills me not with pride but with unease.  In the last century America kept world civilization together, defending it against enemies of such power as men of the past could scarcely have imagined.  So far, no one has stepped up to do second watch.  Are we up to what is to come?

George W's critics have frequently accused him of wrecking our relations with our allies.  In fact, with Sarkozy in France and Angela Merkel in Germany,  we have better friends in Europe than we have had since Ronald Reagan walked abreast with Helmut Kohl, Francois Mitterand, and Margret Thatcher. Whether the Europeans have inherited the backbone of those giants remains to be seen.  But they are at least trying to come around. 

I had a tussle with my pal Anna over Sarkozy, when he was campaigning for the French Presidency.  This, Anna, is what I was hoping for. 

Anna and I on Gender, Rape, and Justice

Anna, who quit her Keloland Post because she doesn't have time to blog, is still the most frequent contributor to Dakota Women.  I wish she had stayed on at the former.  I think our exchanges are worth looking at, and besides, with Chad gone there is no one else to keep an eye on me.  Anna aims this rather oblique post at us.

And to give this post some tiny amount of substance, I'd like to direct the guys at South Dakota Politics here and here and here and also, what the hell, here in preparation for the next time they post about how men accused of sexual assault are tarred and feathered - treated so unfairly! - by the justice system. I like to be prepared.

All four of Anna's posts concern rape.  In three of the four cases, she will get no argument from us guys at SDP.  Rape is a terrible crime, and should be punished to the full extent of the law.  I note however, that the third link is more revealing for what it says about male victims.

Since 2002, the VA has screened all discharged military personnel for MST, asking them if they have been the recipients of uninvited sexual attention, or the victims of assault. In total, more men than women — 63,467 men versus 62,448 women — have reported sexual trauma, but that figure represents just 1 percent of all men surveyed, compared to 29 percent of women, according to the VA.

Women in the armed services would appear to be far more vulnerable to various kinds of sexual aggression than men (that unfortunate fact is hardly surprising).  I am guessing that in almost all these cases, the aggressors are male. But sexual aggression is problem for both men and women. More attention to this fact might raise public awareness and concern.

Only the first article presents anything remotely problematic. It concerns a prostitute who alleges that she was raped.

The sex worker had agreed to have protected sex with the defendant and another man for a prearranged fee, but was instead forced - at gunpoint - to have unprotected intercourse with four men.  But [Municipal Judge Teresa Carr ] Deni dropped the rape and sexual assault charges against the defendant, and held him instead on armed robbery charges for "theft of services" from the prostitute. "She consented and she didn't get paid," Deni explained to me later. "I thought it was a robbery."

...Judge Deni's belief that because the victim had originally intended to have sex for money and decided not to because she didn't get paid posits that a woman cannot change her mind about having sex, or withdraw her consent to do so, regardless of the circumstances.

Judge Deni apparently read this as a contract dispute.  But that seems clearly wrong.  It is not the business of a court of law to enforce the terms of illegal contracts.  More importantly, private parties to contracts, whether legal or not, are not entitled to use force or threat of injury to get their way in a dispute over terms.  The fact that the victim was a prostitute is utterly irrelevant: she is entitled to the full protection of the laws.  If the "sex worker" was indeed forced to have sex when she had decided against it, that looks like rape to me.  So again, this guy and his pal Anna are, I am sure, on the same page.

But the logic of Anna's post is curious.  Rape is a very terrible crime.  So is being falsely accused of rape.  Anna seems to think that our occasional attention to the latter somehow indicates a lack of concern for the former.  That would be so obvious a fallacy that someone as intelligent as Anna could hardly propose it, unless there is an unstated assumption.  Perhaps justice requires that men accused of rape should be judged guilty until proven innocent?  That was surely the position of a lot of Duke University professors, its administration, and its prosecutors during the Nifong debacle. 

The fact is that the justice system often fails both genuine victims of rape and men falsely accused.  Perhaps it would be better to make common cause against both types of injustice than to count those who are concerned with either as accomplices to the other. 

Victory in Iraq

I have been cautious in my posts on the recent good news from Iraq.  It's way too early to conclude that the insurgency has been defeated, and the insurgency is not the only problem looming for Iraq.  But it is entirely possible that Al Qaeda and pals are in fact done in, and I can't resist enjoying the thought.  Here is Blackfive, ex-soldier who blogs on Iraq.  He is responding to a piece in the Daily KOS that was trying to explain away the recent gains. 

The Surge is not our strategy and he is correct that it is not responsible for the tremendous success in Baghdad, the surrounding belts, Al Anbar, Diyala and now even in some of the Shia tribal areas as well. Our strategy is Counter-Insurgency (COIN) and the additional troops, known as the Surge, are simply part of that effort along with every other military member and civilian over there. Read LTC Kilcullen for an elegant primer on COIN in the Small Wars Journal.

COIN is completely different than the nation-building and national institution-building that we had been doing since toppling Saddam and up until the beginning of this year. We had hunkered down on the FOBs heading out on patrols and then back inside the wire. Now we cleared areas and then stayed and lived side by side with the Iraqis, and once they saw that we were staying they "awakened" and determined that al Qaeda brought death and destruction and the Americans brought electricity and water, not to mention security.

Herseth on Daschle Earmark

As the SDWC points out, Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin attacked earmarks when running for Congress:

Earmark Reform
The use and abuse of the Congressional "earmark" has shaken the public's trust in government to make wise decisions about spending taxpayer dollars. ... I am supporting proposals that would amend the House Ethics Code to make it an offense for a Member to (1) condition funding for earmarks or limited tax benefits requested by another Member on how the requesting Member votes on legislation; or (2) advocate an earmark unless that Member discloses to the relevant committee the intended recipient and whether he or she either has a financial interest in the entity or exercises any control over it, such as appointing members of the organization's board. I also support a proposal to ensure transparency in the process by requiring written justification for each earmark requested.

In today's Rapid City Journal, however, Stephanie is loving earmarks:

Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, D-S.D., has reservations about the number of projects that were inserted into the spending measure during conference committee, but she supports the funding for the Daschle center, spokesman Russ Levsen said.

Levsen said Herseth Sandlin is confident that funds will be used wisely to benefit SDSU and the entire state.

"She is very supportive of the project, which will enhance the educational experience for our state's students and improve the course offerings of one of our state's premier universities," Levsen said. "As a South Dakota State graduate, it's fitting that Sen. Daschle's papers be archived in Brookings."

UPDATE:  The Politico explains how Senate rules were violated: 

Republicans weren't big fans of Tom Daschle when he was the Democratic leader in the Senate, so it's no surprise they would take particular delight in highlighting a $1 million earmark for the Thomas Daschle Center for Public Service.

Conservative Republicans in both chambers have seized on the money to argue that Democrats are breaking their own rules by "air-dropping" projects into spending bills without first clearing them with House and Senate negotiators.

The money goes to South Dakota State University, and the former senator-turned-lobbyist told the Associated Press that the center would create opportunities for young people to get involved in public service. It would be the home for all his papers in the Senate.

"To corrupt a bill intended to fund veterans' services with entities like the 'Thomas Daschle Center for Public Services' is an insult to those who have worn our nation's uniform," said Texas Rep. Jeb Hensarling, who chairs the conservative Republican Study Committee. "I would hope that Senator Daschle would respectfully request that funding for his center be removed from this bill."

Daschle's former homestate colleague, Sen. Tim Johnson (D), sponsored the measure with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), Daschle's former number two.

Senate rules state that House-Senate negotiators "shall not insert in their report matter not committed to them by either House, nor shall they strike from the bill matter agreed to by both Houses" before introducing final packages in either chamber.

UPDATE:  More blogs are picking up the story.  The American Pundit notes the story here. 

Daschle Earmark Will Be Challenged

The Argus Leader reports that the Daschle earmark will be challenged:

Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., probably will try to strip the Daschle earmark and others from the bill when it reaches the Senate, said Coburn spokesman John Hart. Coburn is considered one of the staunchest fiscal conservatives in the Senate.

Hart said the move to add earmarks during conference committee violated Senate rules.
"Naming a pork project for representative democracy after Thomas Daschle through an illegal process is insulting to taxpayers," Hart said. "Plus, every dollar directed to this dubious tribute to Daschle is a dollar that isn't available to fund the health and education programs in the underlying bill."

When asked about the propriety of the Dole earmark, Hart said: "That was stupid then, and it's stupid now. That's what caused Republicans to lose their majority."

Thomas Schatz, president of Citizens Against Government Waste, said there should be a rule barring the federal government from using taxpayer money to pay for a program named after a politician unless that politician has been dead for at least 20 years.

"All of those projects that are named after members are simply evidence of how they're wasting our money," he said.

Life (And Political) Lessons From Lincoln

Reading Philip Shaw Paludan's history of the Lincoln presidency, these passages struck me:

His modest and fundamentally decent personal style abided throughout the war.  He continued to favor "short statutes of limitations in politics."  Although it struck Lincoln as "singular" that, not personally vindictive himself, he should be involved in campaigns where there was much bitterness, his own political speeches and official acts never included personal attacks....Lincoln's policies where at stake in elections, but not Lincoln the man.  For him the personal and the political were best separated.  He seldom spoke of "my policy"....The president stayed personally friendly with Charles Sumner even in the midst of a bitter clash over reconstruction policy.  Sumner escorted Mrs. Lincoln into the inaugural ball on 6 March 1865, less than a week after he had stalemated the president's most important measure.

In another passage I cannot now find, Paludan indicates that Lincoln had a policy of not "making enemies of friends."  A good policy, don't you think? 

Education in South Dakota, Part II

A couple of emailers have asked about yesterday's post regarding education.  Specifically, they want to know how South Dakota teachers salaries compare to other states when one takes into account the cost of living, and they also want to know how South Dakota teacher salaries compare to the average South Dakota salary.

Taking the first concern first.  I went to this site to do some cost of living comparisons.  You can play around with it, but let me summarize what I found.  By and large, South Dakota's cost of living is roughly the same as our neighboring states.  I used my hometown, Aberdeen, as the standard South Dakota city.  It compares well with almost everywhere, but it does depend where you live in each state. The biggest gap was with Minneapolis where you would have to earn $44,000 a year to have the same lifestyle as earning $35,000 (the average teacher salary in South Dakota) in Aberdeen.  But, note that the average teacher salary in Minnesota is 47,000, and I suspect it is even higher in Minneapolis.  I think it is fair to say that in most neighboring places the cost of living is similar to South Dakota, and where the cost of living is greater than in our state the higher teacher salary makes up for or exceeds the difference in cost of living.  So it is inaccurate to say that teachers make less in our state but it is made up in a lower cost of living. 

If you go to the Bureau of Labor Statistics site I mentioned yesterday, you see that the average yearly wage in South Dakota is $30,460.  So one can say that teachers in South Dakota make more than the average South Dakotan.  So the question is whether prospective teachers compare their wages to what they could make in another profession in our state or whether they compare their wages with what they could make teaching in other states.  My experience with teacher education students tells me that more prospective teachers look at the latter than the former.  I have had untold number of students tell me that they are willing to leave the state to teach so they can make more money, or they will look to Sioux Falls as it pays the best in the state.

Our state needs to pay our teachers more to remain competitive for the best teachers.

Update: I forgot to mention that Sibby responded here.  Here's what he says about my suggestion that vouchers will do little to help small towns:

And in response to the small towns being a limiting factor in South Dakota’s ability to benefit from a voucher system…technology and the Internet should allow smaller schools to offer a greater diversity of subjects than we could of in past years through distance learning opportunities. Plus small communities can use their churches and other community buildings as places to form small schools. And vouchers would protect small schools from the larger ones using forced consolidation on them.

Sibby, I will comment on SDCAC in the future. 

Ted Klaudt Found Guilty

Argus Leader:

The jury has found former state Rep.Ted Klaudt guilty on all four counts of second-degree rape.

A Hughes County jury began its deliberations in the second-degree rape trial of Klaudt on allegations involving two foster daughters early this evening. Word came that they had reached a verdict just after 8 p.m.

Klaudt still faces another trial next week against the same two victims at his home in Corson County.  He will face another 180 years in prison if convicted.

Breaking: Daschle Library Added To Appropriations Bill

Argus Leader:

A massive federal appropriations bill that includes a $1 million earmark to create a center for former Sen. Tom Daschle is drawing heavy fire in Washington, D.C. today.

The earmark would fund the Thomas Daschle Center for Public Service and Representative Democracy at South Dakota State University. It’s among 150 pages of earmarks in a combined bill that would fund education, health and human services, veterans programs, and other areas of federal government.

The total piece of legislation is more than 850 pages and emerged last night out of a joint House/Senate conference committee. Within those pages is more than $215 billion of discretionary spending.

And although it was just made available last night, the House is scheduled to vote on it today. That has outraged fiscal conservatives who argue the bill if overloaded with pork. Congressional staffers and grassroots organizations were sifting through the bill today trying to make sense of the spending.

The earmark surrounding the Daschle center was outed this morning as an example of the bill’s excesses. Rep. Jeff Flake, a Republican from Arizona and a leading crusader against government spending, denounced the bill because it contains “airdropped” earmarks, including the one for the Daschle center. Airdropped earmarks are ones that were added to the bill during conference committee, which means they did not go through the normal appropriations process in either the House or Senate.

Under House rules, the bill can’t be amended once it comes out of a conference committee: It only gets an up or down vote.

“We’re violating our own rules to do this,” Flake said. “A million dollars for the Thomas Daschle Center for Public Service and Representative Democracy. We’re spending a million dollars on this bill, airdropped into this bill, with no opportunity to amend it out.”

Daschle’s former colleague, South Dakota Sen. Tim Johnson sponsored the earmark along with three other Democratic senators: Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada; Robert Byrd of West Virginia and Iowa’s Tom Harkin.

UPDATE:  SDWC doesn't think too highly of the project.  I didn't have time to comment earlier as I was on my way out the door to a meeting, but I'd agree with him that we didn't ask for it, and it will be South Dakotans who foot the bill and upkeep.

UPDATE II:  See this for the House Republican Study Committee's criticism of the Daschle Library.

UPDATE III:  The Associated Press reports that Daschle doesn't mind his Democratic colleagues forking over $1 million in earmarks to fund the Daschle Library.  Ya think?  Club for Growth is "examining the dark corners of an ugly bill."  Rep. Jeb Hensarling over at the RSC Blog remarks: "I don’t know about you, but I’m not sure what the Thomas Daschle Center for Public Service has to do with either Labor, or Health or Human Services. Far worse, to corrupt a bill intended to fund veterans’ services with entities like the Thomas Daschle Center for Public Service is an insult to those who have worn our nation’s uniform.  I would hope that Senator Daschle would respectfully request that funding for his center be removed from this bill."  Amy Ridenour over at the National Center Blog is also noting the story.  Remember Harry Reid's promise to stop earmark funding and to implement more transparency in Congress?

UPDATE IV:  The Say Anything Blog, has picked up the story and graciously provided a link to this post.  Welcome!  Note also that the Argus Leader is reporting the earmark will be challenged, and that Rep. Herseth-Sandlin campaigned against earmarks but now she supports them.

Education In South Dakota

As last week was a bit busy, I have not gotten around to commenting on Mr. Heppler's post that mentions Ed Olson's remarks concerning education spending in South Dakota.  Mr. Sibson responded here.  Contrary to Mr. Sibson's mixed "smoking the Kool-Aid" metaphor, I do not think that advocating higher spending on education necessarily means one is buying into the "far-left agenda."  But let me mend fences by saying both Mr. Heppler and Mr. Sibson are right. 

Sibby says I have a conflict of interest regarding education as I am on the state's payroll as an educator.  Well, let me confine my remarks to K-12 education, where I have no individual interest outside of being a fellow citizen. First, let us look at some data.  Regarding National Assessment of Educational Performance (NAEP) data, South Dakota does well compared to other states (see an old post of mine here).  More data on math and reading scores can be found here, here, here, and here, for the curious and the bored.  A one sentence summary is that South Dakota is average at the 4th grade level and does quite well at the 8th grade.  But even still, about 1 in 5 of our students do not even make basic proficiency in math and reading, only about 30% are actually proficient, and only about 2% are advanced.  Compared to other states we do OK, but that only tells you how poorly other states perform. 

Like Sibby, I support school choice.  But Sibby must realize that in most South Dakota communities there is no choice other than the public school.  School choice does not help the parents in Lemmon.  By all means, let us pass a school choice bill.  Let us give greater support to home schoolers and set up charter schools like this one.  But let us go beyond that.

We need to increase teacher pay to keep our best teachers in state.  You can find state by state teacher pay data through the Bureau of Labor Statistics.  Here's the average salary our neighbor states pay and what we pay secondary school teachers, as one example:

NE: $41,700
WY: $43,100
ND: $37, 490
MT: $37,810
IA: $36,150
MN: $47,400
SD: $35,340

As one can see, we are the lowest paying state in the area. 

Here are some proposed reforms.  First, as Sibby suggests, school choice.  Give vouchers to parents to chose whatever schooling they want, even if it is home schooling.  Second, increase teacher pay. We need to keep our best teachers in state, especially for the good of our smaller school districts.   One way to do this is to give a hefty increase in spending on education but demand that that increase go into the classroom rather than to bureaucracy. Next, change our system of teacher education.  At least with prospective high school teachers, education students should get a degree in a subject area and then take one year for teacher training.  For example, a high school English teacher would spend four years getting an English degree and one year learning how to teach (yes, that means a five year degree).  This is as opposed to the present degree in English Education, which is lighter on content and heavier on pedagogy.  And finally, as I have stated before, until our students know what the Declaration of Independence says, let's eliminate sex ed.   

It is in the interest of our state to gain a reputation for educational excellence.  Education is a fundamental responsibility of the states.  Funding, as my suggestions indicate, is only one part of reform.  To increase funding for education without purpose is a waste of money.  And concentrating on spending without looking at how and what we teach will bring, at best, limited results.  But Jason quotes me accurately.  On the state level, government on the cheap gets you cheap government.    

South Dakota Legislators And Pork

The Club For Growth has ranked members of Congress based on their votes against pork barrel spending.  You can see the Senate rankings here, and the House rankings here.  How did our legislators do? 

John Thune did best, voting against pork spending on 11 of 15 bills (73%) identified by the CFG.  Tim Johnson, on the other hand, got the worst ranking in the U.S. Senate, 0%, going 0 for 10 on the bills on which he voted.  In the House, Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin was tied with many for next to last, with only one vote out of fifty, or 2%, against pork barrel spending. 

The Petraeus Curve in Iraq

MoveOn.Org will be sorely disappointed, but the London Times is declaring the surge a success.

Is no news good news or bad news? In Iraq, it seems good news is deemed no news. There has been striking success in the past few months in the attempt to improve security, defeat al-Qaeda sympathisers and create the political conditions in which a settlement between the Shia and the Sunni communities can be reached. This has not been an accident but the consequence of a strategy overseen by General David Petraeus in the past several months. While summarised by the single word “surge” his efforts have not just been about putting more troops on the ground but also employing them in a more sophisticated manner. This drive has effectively broken whatever alliances might have been struck in the past by terrorist factions and aggrieved Sunnis. Cities such as Fallujah, once notorious centres of slaughter, have been transformed in a remarkable time.

Indeed, on every relevant measure, the shape of the Petraeus curve is profoundly encouraging. It is not only the number of coalition deaths and injuries that has fallen sharply (October was the best month for 18 months and the second-best in almost four years), but the number of fatalities among Iraqi civilians has also tumbled similarly. This process started outside Baghdad but now even the capital itself has a sense of being much less violent and more viable. As we report today, something akin to a normal nightlife is beginning to re-emerge in the city. As the pace of reconstruction quickens, the prospects for economic recovery will be enhanced yet further. With oil at record high prices, Iraq should be an extremely prosperous nation and in a position to start planning for its future with confidence.

Hat Tip to my old friend Peter Schramm at No Left Turns.

Lame Duck Beats Addled Ass

The decision by Chuck Schumer and Dianne Feinstein to support Bush's nominees for Attorney General signals yet another issue on which the Democrats have talked tough only to retreat and give way to President Bush.  I confess that I do not know exactly why, and that bothers me.  But it is remarkable.  Evan Perez and Jackie Calmes have the story, at the Wall Street Journal.  Here is a chart summarizing key national security issues on which the Democrats have been out maneuvered by the Administration.

Perez and Calmes say this:

The difficulties faced by Democrats on these issues look certain to complicate the party's bid to expand House and Senate majorities and regain the White House in 2008, a wartime election in which national security will be a major issue.

I think that this is way too strong.  It may indeed hurt the Democrats that they kept making asses of themselves before that infamous shrub of a President, but that is far from certain.  It's true that Congresses approval rating is even lower than Bush's, but so far, most voters don't seem to identifying Congress with its Democratic majority. 

On the other hand, a party that cannot make headway against a lame duck president with an approval rating in the 30's is not an inspiring sight. 

Education and Nobility

Last week Julie Ponzi linked to this amazing discourse on nobility and education by Jeffrey Sikkenga to students at Ashland University.  Give it a read and then think about the extent to which our schools educate our student in nobility.  A snippet:

Life, Aristotle says, is divided into three kinds of activity: work, recreation, and leisure. Work he describes as serious but unpleasant (think of those exams a couple days ago). Recreation, in contrast, is pleasant but unserious (think of those nights spent hanging out at the local watering hole or at the movies). Modern Americans—you and me—we know all about work and recreation. Our culture’s motto is "work hard, and play hard." Some people emphasize the first and others emphasize the second. That is, some people work in order to play, and some play in order to work . But whatever we do, it seems like it is always connected to working or playing hard.
(snip)
So where can we find leisure today? According to Aristotle, we should look in the same place people have always looked—in beauty. The core of leisure is experiencing things that are beautiful; those things that are the only enduring and truly serious and pleasant objects for our contemplation. Aristotle’s Greek word for beauty—Kalon—means more than just good looks. It encompasses all of the aspects of beauty: physical, moral, and intellectual. A smile is beautiful not just when it shows straight white teeth, but also when it shows us the goodwill and joy of a person. In particular, moral beauty is found in what the Scripture describes: whatever is just, pure, and especially whatever is noble.

Dictatorship!

The previous post leads naturally into Todd's argument that Pakistani President Musharaff's suspension of his country's constitution is George Bush's and Dick Cheney's dream.  I care not whether Todd is serious or not.  It does give food for thought, though. 

During the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln was denounced by some of his political opponents as a dictator.  That charge has lasted into modern scholarship in various ways I will not bother documenting here.  But let's look at some of Lincoln's actions.  Lincoln suspended habeas corpus without approval from Congress.  Thus people accused of supporting the Confederacy and/or working against the government were thrown into prison without any legal recourse.  When Chief Justice Taney attempted to thwart this in Ex Parte Merryman, Lincoln simply ignored the Chief Justice.  Lincoln raised troops and spent money out of the Treasury without congressional authorization.  Both of these violated the letter of the Constitution.  In extreme circumstances the Lincoln administration temporarily shut down newspapers that strenuously opposed the war effort, and in one case banished a member of Congress, Clement Vanlandingham, for speaking out against the draft.  All of this sounds dictatorial.  Was Lincoln a dictator?

A good definition of dictatorship (I steal from Herman Belz) is "a single leader acting without limits."  What were the limits on Lincoln?  First, Congress.  At any time Congress could have annulled Lincoln's actions, refused to fund any activities of which it disapproved, and, at the extreme, impeached and removed Lincoln.   Congress, of course, did none of these things, although it did set up a special Committee on the Conduct of the War to put pressure on the administration.  Another limit on Lincoln was public opinion.  This most directly limited Lincoln through elections.  The public expressed disapproval of Lincoln by giving his party a defeat in the 1862 mid-term elections.  In 1864 Lincoln assumed well into the summer that he would lose his re-election. Indeed, members of his own party sought to have him removed from the ticket.  Of course he stayed on the ticket and was re-elected, but it is a strange dictator who allows himself even the chance of being voted out of office.  Lastly, there are the courts.  Granted, Lincoln defied Taney in the Merryman case.  But in Ex Parte Milligan, decided shortly after the war, the Supreme Court struck down the use of military courts over civilian courts when the civilian courts were open for operation for the trial of civilians.

Let's look at George Bush.  Impeachment proceedings have gone no where.  Congress, as the post below suggests, has not acted much to curb his use (or abuse) of executive power.  Indeed, when it has acted it has largely supported him.  Public opinion, through elections, rewarded Bush in 2002 and 2004, but whacked him in 2006.  If Bush were eligible for election in 2008 there is no doubt he would be unelectable.  And, of course, the Bush administration has not used the force of law to silence its critics.  Finally, the courts, in various cases, have acted to limit the administration's anti-terrorism activities, especially as it regards the detention of enemy combatants.

The best piece of evidence that Bush is not a dictator is that no one doubts that in January 2009 he will cease to be president.  Any talk of a Bush "dictatorship" is either a joke or straight from the fever swamps.

Update: As fate would have it, Mackubin T. Owens has just posted a piece on civil liberties during the Civil War. 

Presidential War Powers

George Will calls on Congress to reassert itself in the use of the war power. 

While legislators try to leash a president by tinkering with a weapon, a sufficient leash -- the Constitution -- is being ignored by them. They are derelict in their sworn duty to uphold it. Regarding the most momentous thing government does, make war, the constitutional system of checks and balances is broken.

Congress can, however, put the Constitution's bridle back on the presidency. Congress can end unfettered executive warmaking by deciding to.

I have taken a similar position. I wrote a couple months ago:

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.

Lauck Signing in Madison Nov. 24th

Madison/Lake Herman blogger Cory Heidelberger alerts the blogopshere that Jon Lauck will be in his hometown of Madison signing copies of Daschle vs. Thune: Anatomy of a High Plains Senate Race.  Books and More will host the signing Saturday, November 24th, from 1 to 2 p.m.