The Constitution & the Right to Bear Arms

In  District of Columbia v. Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court will decide, in the words of the petition for certiorari:

Whether the Second Amendment forbids the District of Columbia from banning private possession of handguns while allowing possession of rifles and shotguns.

Here, just in case it becomes relevant, is the actual text of the Second Amendment, from ePublius!:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

As the Wall Street Journal points out, it is only the first four words that admit to any measure of ambiguity.  Gun-Control advocates, like the New York Times, have argued that the Second Amendment creates no right whatsoever that is not directly connected to membership in an organized state militia or the national guard. 

A lot has changed since the nation’s founding, when people kept muskets to be ready for militia service. What has not changed is the actual language of the Constitution. To get past the first limiting clauses of the Second Amendment to find an unalienable individual right to bear arms seems to require creative editing.

Beyond grappling with fairly esoteric arguments about the Second Amendment, the justices need to responsibly confront modern-day reality. A decision that upends needed gun controls currently in place around the country would imperil the lives of Americans.

The dishonesty in those two paragraphs is breathtaking.  The Times is firmly in favor of "creatively editing" the Constitution when and where ever it may be necessary in order to write its own political opinions into the text.  Besides, as the second paragraph suggests, what is really important is not the "fairly esoteric argument" about the meaning of the constitutional text, it is "modern-day reality" as the Times sees it.  It is clear that the Times would have the Court uphold the gun ban regardless of what the Constitution says or what anyone intended it to say.

In fact, the first thirteen words of the Second Amendment are not limiting in any logical sense.  They explain why the right to bear arms is a good idea and how it is related to security and liberty.   But they put no conditions upon the right that follows. 

Consider an analogy. If you found a clause in a will that read: "my nephew Charlie, being a good egg, is to inherit my entire estate."  The part about Charlie being a "good egg" explains his uncle's motive; it has no effect either way on the fact that Charlie gets all the money.  It would not help to argue that, since his uncle died, Charlie has revealed himself to be a lout. 

Likewise, these words-"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"-are less than mysterious.    If you find them opaque, here is a clue:  they mean that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  Any limitations on the gun rights must be based on these words alone.  Now, "bear," here, means to carry.  It might plausibly be argued that it means to bear arms for military purpose.  That would be convenient, as it would allow government to prohibit arms in many or most places: schools, airplanes, etc. 

By contrast, the right to "keep" arms clearly and unambiguously protects the ownership and possession of firearms.   The only question here is how broadly to interpret the term "arms."  Presumably, there is no constitutional right to possess nerve gas or weapons grade anthrax.  But to have any meaning at all, it has to apply to something. 

When there is a question about the meaning of such terms, the most sensible and honest way to resolve it is to look at the way that the terms have been used in the Constitutional tradition.  For example: does Congress have the power of subpoena?  The Constitution doesn't say so.  But the colonial legislatures, the state legislatures, and Congress itself from the very beginning all exercised that power.  It is reasonable to assume that it is implicit in the Constitution. 

Eugene Volokh has collected a considerable number of articles from state constitutions respecting the right to bear arms.  You can find them in his Texas Review of Law and Politics article. Many of these regulations go back to the  founding era.  Here is my favorite:

Connecticut 1818: “Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.”

This regulation, written when Madison and Jefferson were still alive, makes it clear that the right to bear arms was a right possessed by individuals, and that it is active for self-defense as well as for service in a militia. Kentucky has a similar provision from 1799:

That the rights of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

On the other hand, many of the state regulations allowed for the "regulation" of the right to bear arms.  A good example is this from the Constitution of Missouri (1875):

That the right of no citizen to keep and bear arms in defence of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power, when thereto legally summoned, shall be called into question; but nothing herein contained is intended to justify the practice of wearing concealed weapons.

Now I suppose that this provides a reasonable template for interpreting the Second Amendment according to long-standing legal and legislative tradition.  First: here is clearly a constitutional right, belonging to individual citizens, to possess firearms.  That right applies to such weapons as might be used in self-defense, or for hunting and sporting purposes.  Under such a reading, it is not permissible for the Federal Government (and this includes D.C.) to ban private ownership of handguns.  It would be an unusual departure from recent constitutional jurisprudence to allow the states to do so. 

Secondly, the various governments should be allowed to enact time, place and manner restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms, just as they are with regard to public expressions of free speech.  You can shout your opinions in a public park on Saturday afternoon, but not in a public hospital at midnight.  Only those who want an outright ban on handguns or all guns would chafe at this reading of the Founding Document.  But constitutional government means that you can't always do what you really want to do. 

Praise for Sen. Thune's Alternative Energy Promotion

See this Black Hills Pioneer editorial on Sen. John Thune's promotion of alternative energy.  Excerpt:

Thune is working to lessen our dependence on foreign oil while also helping to clean up the environment. He is a leader here at home, in the Senate and in his party on these issues deserves credit for promoting these forms of energy and for working to get the approval and the funding needed to covert them from ideas to national policies.

But Thune is no one-trick pony. He knows that there is no magic bullet to solve our nation's - and the world's - energy needs. His support for legacy energy industries remains strong.
Few thoughtful people doubt the country will one day soon enact policies that will reduce carbon emissions. There are many ways to accomplish this and we expect to see Sen. Thune playing a leadership role in the crafting of sensible, balanced solutions.

All The Money In The World

The National Endowment for the Arts has released a report on America's reading habits.  The results are not surprising.  Americans read less and less and to the extent they do read they read less and less proficiently.  A summary:

Americans are reading less - teens and young adults read less often and for shorter amounts of time compared with other age groups and with Americans of previous years.

• Less than one-third of 13-year-olds are daily readers, a 14 percent decline from 20 years earlier. Among 17-year-olds, the percentage of non-readers doubled over a 20-year period, from nine percent in 1984 to 19 percent in 2004.¹
• On average, Americans ages 15 to 24 spend almost two hours a day watching TV, and only seven minutes of their daily leisure time on reading.²

        Americans are reading less well – reading scores continue to worsen, especially among teenagers and young males. By contrast, the average reading score of 9-year-olds has improved.

• Reading scores for 12th-grade readers fell significantly from 1992 to 2005, with the sharpest declines among lower-level readers.³
• 2005 reading scores for male 12th-graders are 13 points lower than for female 12th-graders, and that gender gap has widened since 1992.⁴
• Reading scores for American adults of almost all education levels have deteriorated, notably among the best-educated groups. From 1992 to 2003, the percentage of adults with graduate school experience who were rated proficient in prose reading dropped by 10 points, a 20 percent rate of decline.

The report airs a concern that the deficiency in reading may have civic repercussions.  It is hard to be a diligent or productive citizen when one has difficulty communicating through the written word. 

These results suggest that our schools continue to do a poor job inspiring our students to read.  As I have reported numerous times on this blog, the vocabulary of the typical American has dropped considerably over the last couple generation.  It is hard to inspire people to read (certainly to read anything worth reading) when they don't know the meaning of many of the words.  Perhaps it is time to consider how we teach reading and what we have our students read.  I suspect (with no evidence other than my own observations and suspicions) that we ask little of our students, and they are happy to meet our expectations. 

But we cannot stop at the schools.  If teenagers (and younger) are spending their free time in front of the television rather than reading, then it is hardly surprising that they don't read at a high level.   Perhaps the best present for a kid this Christmas is not a new DVD or video game but a book.

I have been an advocate on this blog for greater spending on education in our state, specifically for teacher salaries.  But all the money in the world will not change the curriculum or make responsible parents.   

Update: It just so happens that E.D. Hirsh has some ideas (pdf alert) about what schools do wrong when it comes to reading and what they could do to improve reading performance by students.

Looking At the Word of God in 248 Dimensions

Among the things we have to be thankful for is, well, us, along with the cosmos enough to move around in.  Some folks are happier with the thought that we cannot understand this cosmos.  Others, myself included, want to understand everything, or at least believe we can understand everything.  So I give you E_8.

E₈ is a complex geometrical structure.  The Economist Science and Technology page gives a bit of the history.

E₈... was first recognised in 1887 by Sophus Lie, a Norwegian mathematician. E₈ is a monster. It has 248 dimensions and its structure took 120 years to solve. It was finally tamed earlier this year, when a group of mathematicians managed to construct a map that describes it completely.

The above, I gather, is only a two-dimensional representation. I am fascinated by the very idea that such a structure can be discovered.  Where was it hiding? But here is the thing: it appears possible that the structure can be used as the template for a theory that would explain all known laws of physics. 

Dr [Garrett] Lisi had been tinkering with some smaller geometries. Soon after reading about this map, however, he realised that the structure of E₈ could be used to describe fully the laws of physics. He placed a particle (including different versions of the same entities, and using particles that describe matter and those that describe forces) on most of the 248 points of E₈. Using computer simulations to manipulate the structure, he was able mathematically to generate interactions that correspond to what is seen in reality.

Better yet, Dr. Lisi's theory, unlike the more infamous string theory, generates testable predictions.  It will soon be possible to look for massive particles that should exist if the theory is correct.  Physics may come together after all.

If this does pan-out, then one thing is for sure.  Plato was right.  The foundation of being lies in mathematical ideas. 

Just One Addition

Reading Ken Blanchard's post below, I noted this quote he culled from the Chicago Tribune:

Those who opposed use of human embryos for research credit Bush's refusal to lift restrictions for spurring the breakthrough. Bush's critics argue that his restrictions slowed progress in the field and likely discouraged some researchers from entering it.

In fact, I believe that one of the research breakthroughs on adult stem cells that was announced this week was funded by the Bush Administration via the National Institutes of Health. I know I read that somewhere, but it's been a long Turkey Day and I am not going to bother looking it up. So indeed the Bush policy, far from slowing progress, actually sped up the process.   

Bush Administration Science Policy Scores a Victory

Professor Schaff expresses gratitude over the recent discovery on stem cells. See the Chicago Tribune.  For anyone who doesn't know, stem cells are cells that are not yet specialized for some particular bodily function.  There is hope that they can be used to repair injuries that human bodies cannot repair on their own. 

One source of stem cells for research is a human embryo.  Destroying the latter raised serious ethical questions, and set the Bush administration against both the pro-choice activists and scientists eager to do the research. 

Contrary to what Bush's critics often say, he did not ban stem-cell research.  He was in fact the first President to fund such research.  But he opposed the destruction of embryos for that purpose, on the grounds that it comes too close to harvesting human beings. I think the President's position was more ethically responsible than that of his critics.  For one reason why, see this post from last year:

Healthy new-born babies may have been killed in Ukraine to feed a flourishing international trade in stem cells, evidence obtained by the BBC suggests.

Disturbing video footage of post-mortem examinations on dismembered tiny bodies raises serious questions about what happened to them.

Ukraine has become the self-styled stem cell capital of the world.

What is ironic is that the President's position turned out to be more scientifically productive.  From the LA Times.   

Scientists in Japan and the United States announced Tuesday that they have successfully reprogrammed human skin cells to act like embryonic stem cells. The new techniques bypass the need to create and destroy human embryos. Research using these techniques would be fully fundable under current U.S. federal government policy. It can be supported by liberal, pro-choice Democrats and socially conservative, pro-life Republicans alike.

The new method of producing stem cells from skin cells is apparently much simpler, requiring many fewer and less technical steps.  It can be used in many more labs, and thus will supply much more research than the old method.  The discovery in the U.S. came largely because the Administration was funding a search for alternative sources of stem cells. The Chicago Trib:

Those who opposed use of human embryos for research credit Bush's refusal to lift restrictions for spurring the breakthrough. Bush's critics argue that his restrictions slowed progress in the field and likely discouraged some researchers from entering it.

So Bush policy has led to a potentially tremendous advance in medical science, one that the approach favored by his critics would have missed. Don't look for that story on the New York Times.

Give Thanks For Stem Cell Breakthrough

It may be that the days of controversy over embryonic stem cell research are in the past.  Breakthroughs using adult tissue have perhaps rendered moot the use of human embryos for this research. For reaction, see Ross Douthat, also commenting on the Will Saletan pieces on intelligence discussed earlier this week. Here is the reaction from South Dakota's own Joseph Bottum:

The people who turn out actually to have believed in the power of science are the pro-lifers—the ones who said that a moral roadblock is not, in point of fact, an outrageous hindrance, for scientists will always find another, less-objectionable way to achieve their goals. President Bush’s refusal of federal funding for new embryonic stem cell lines didn’t halt major stem-cell advances, any more than the prohibition against life-threatening research on human subjects, such as the infamous Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male, stopped the advance of medical treatments.

For those who attacked the pro-lifers in the name of science, however, things look a little different. As Maureen L. Condic explained to First Things readers this year in her careful survey, “What We Know About Embryonic Stem Cells,” the promises of medical breakthroughs were massively overblown by the media.

But there were reasons for all the hype. I have long suspected that science, in the context of the editorial page of the New York Times, was simply a stalking-horse for something else. In fact, for two something-elses: a chance to discredit America’s religious believers and an opportunity to put yet another hedge around the legalization of abortion. After all, if our very health depends on the death of embryos, and we live in a culture that routinely destroys early human life in the laboratory, no grounds could exist for objecting to abortion.

David Freddoso has a run down of the various ways in which facts about embryonic research were exaggerated or invented to fit a particular political purpose.  See both here and here.  And sample from the second link:

You may remember John Edwards's famous and stupid claim that embryonic stem-cells could make Christopher Reeve "rise and walk." Sen. Charles Schumer actually told a constituent this spring that he had met two people who had been cured by embryonic stem-cells — which would be difficult, because no such person exists on earth today.

Returning to Harkin's home state of Iowa, former Gov. Tom Vilsack actually said, in his state of the state address in 2006, that embryonic stem-cell cures had already been developed:

Well, they have been [developed], and as a result we should revisit our ban on nuclear cell transplants. We should remove the restrictions and allow life-saving treatments to be administered to Iowans here in Iowa rather than forcing them to leave our state.

Needless to say, no such cures existed.

Happy Thanksgiving

A Chuck Norris Endorsement?

It looks like the former Arkansas Governor picked up an important endorsement in his road to the White House:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDUQW8LUMs8

Supreme Court set to Rule on DC Handgun Ban

Recently, the Supreme Court granted certiorari to hear a case that will test the limits of the Second Amendment's right to bear arms.  The Court may hear arguments as early as March with a decision coming in the summer months. 

At issue is a DC gun law banning private possession of hand guns.  The law has been on the books for 31 years now, and was recently deemed unconstitutional by a U.S. appeals court.  DC has appealed the ruling, and seeks to have the lower court's decision overturned.  Advocates favoring DC's law will no doubt argue that the Second Amendment's protection of the right to bear arms only protects that right in connection with service in a state regulated militia.  Strong supporters of the Second Amendment, such as the NRA, believe the right to bear arms extends to private ownership of handguns.  Even one professed liberal, Jonathan Turley of the George Washington University Law School, "lamented" that the Second Amendment protects the rights of gun owners.

The case was brought by Anthony Heller, who would like a handgun for self-protection in DC.  Though he believes the court's decision to hear the case is a victory, a better one for the NRA and citizens like him would have been if the Supreme Court had let the lower court's decision stand.  Yet, it is likely that the Supreme Court is taking this opportunity to set a precedent on Second Amendment rights.

The outcome of this case could be an interesting one for gun owners and constitutional scholars alike.  If the court decides that the right to gun possession and ownership is a fundamental right, DC must prove that its law serves a compelling state interest and is well tailored such that it employs the least restrictive means to achieve its goal.  Their best argument is likely that the right to bear arms is not a fundamental right reserved for the individual - rather it was reserved "for a well regulated militia."  However, as Turley notes, there are no militias as intended by the Framers.  Therefore, it is likely that the Court will interpret the right to be an individual one.

Further, Heller makes a good argument.  Though DC and gun control proponents will argue that banning hand guns is a compelling state interest (because it may cut down on gun related crimes, accidents, etc.), banning all hand guns may not be the least restrictive means to satisfy that interest.  Heller makes an important argument that his possession of a handgun is for self-protection.  He may  argue that the outright ban on hand guns goes too far and prevents him from protecting himself.  Additionally, the city's attorney has argued that because possession of shotguns and rifles is allowed, the ban is not too broad.  However, Heller may counter and say that the law is under inclusive because gun crimes can still be committed with these types of weapons.  If the court agrees with this, or any of Heller's arguments, the means used by the City may be not be properly drawn and thus unconstitutional.  Following this case will be very interesting, and important, for South Dakotans who have great hunting and firearms industries.

Email Dump

I am behind on some email.  Let's discuss.

A week ago I wrote on dress as a way of showing how seriously we take a given situation.  In that post I mentioned specifically dress for church.  Reader Blaine wrote (I edit only slightly):

Today, [where I attend church], it is not uncommon for my pastor to preach during the summer in sandals, khaki shorts and a golf shirt.  Our congregation is merely happy that you are there.  We have made 1 comment to a parishoner in the 8 years I have belonged to my church:  A pregnant lady who couldn't bring herself to integrate some
maternity tops into her wardrobe.  Approximately 55% of our congregation had
not attended church for at least a year before joining ours, and in speaking
with them, about half mentioned dress as one of the factors they no longer
attended before finding us.

The respect that is shown in worship is in the mere presence.  Unless and
until you can show me Scripture that lays out the proper attire for worship,
I must respectfully but strongly disagree with you.

Let me suggest, as I did to Blaine, that someone who stopped going to church because they wanted to dress casually is not all that serious about his or her faith.  But Blaine reminds us on either side of this issue that charity is the key Christian virtue.  To turn someone away or to judge someone's faith based on dress would be to commit the sin of the Pharisee. Still, one can suggest a thing out of prudence without establishing a law.  This past weekend someone at my church wore a sweatshirt with "F---ing Freezing" emblazoned on the back. How ever accurate a description that was of our meteorological situation, I think we can all agree that this is inappropriate for church.  There is plenty of scripture about modesty and scandal.  People at least should keep those principles in mind as they dress for Sunday worship. 

I also wrote recently about Barry Bonds.  Reader William writes:

Just read your post re:  Bonds.  You say:  "If the evidence becomes
indisputable that Bonds used steroids to set these records..."

It already is undisputed.  He's admitted to using "the cream and the
clear," which as we now know were steroids.  Bonds does not dispute taking
the cream/clear.  What he does dispute is that he knew they were 'roids.
But that's beside the point.  The point is, he took steroids, and there is
no doubt about that.  So I think the evidence already is indisputable...

Point well taken. 

Finally, I don't know if you knew this, but Jon Lauck has a book out.  He'd like for you to buy it.

This Saturday (November 24, 2007) the author Jon Lauck will sign copies of his new book “Daschle vs. Thune: Anatomy of a High Plains Senate Race” in his hometown of Madison. Lauck was born in Madison, attended St. Thomas Aquinas Grade School and graduated from Madison High School in 1989. Lauck's signing will take place at "Books & More" from 1:00-2:00 PM. "Books & More" is located at 117 North Egan Avenue.

Teacher Pay And Teacher Recruitment

See this story in the American News about local schools struggling to recruit people to the teaching profession.  Not surprisingly, pay is identified as a key variable:

Officials attribute the shortage problem to teacher salaries that are at or near the bottom in the U.S., and not as many people choosing to go into the profession.

"We're losing some good people who are leaving the state because of higher salaries elsewhere," said Britton-Hecla Superintendent Don Kirkegaard. "And there's not nearly as many people in the teacher programs to begin with. There's just a real shortage of people into the profession. There might be a variety of reasons, but certainly some of them are for economic reasons. There's more money with different jobs."

Election 2008: A Narrative

Let's discuss the 2008 election even though we still have about six weeks of 2007 to go.  Here are the big stories of the week.  For the Dems, Barak Obama has pulled ahead of Hillary Clinton in Iowa.  On the GOP side, Mike Huckabee has pulled even with Mitt Romney in Iowa.  So the political discussion concerns the weakening of front runners and the ascent of previously dismissed candidates. 

Let me suggest this is all bunk.  In recent elections the media has looked for a narrative.  Let us not forget two factors about the press.  First, there is a large amount of group think.  Second, they get bored.  Take a look at New York Times reporter Frank Bruni's book Ambling Into History, his story of covering George Bush during the 2000 campaign.  He writes that reporters began concentrating on Bush's verbal gaffes not because they were really newsworthy, but because the reporters were bored.  They had heard the same speech a million times, and the only new thing to them was the words Bush flubbed.  They would talk to each other on the press bus and then report that chatter to the people as "sources close to the campaign." 

The press needs a narrative to each election and once one is created the lemmings will follow.  Part of that narrative is playing out before our eyes.  Hillary Clinton has been the Democratic front runner for some time.  Early this year we had an Obama boomlet when he was new and fresh, but that got old so it became all about Sen. Clinton.  After all, she is ahead in the polls.  But it gets boring talking about front runner Clinton every day.  So we have seen stories about her weaknesses, the gaffes she has made, the surge in the polls of her opponents.  Let me predict that just as people in Iowa and New Hampshire are getting ready to vote, this "Hillary is on the slide" story will be old and the new story will be "Hillary on the comeback."  A shiny new donkey to the first reporter to relate Hillary's odyssey to Bill's "comeback kid" performance in New Hampshire in 1992.

The same goes for the GOP.  The "Mitt, Rudy, and John" show got boring.  So it became the "Mitt, Rudy, John, and will Fred run show."  For a while it was "Mitt, Rudy and Fred."  That got boring, and so did Fred Thompson, so now the story is the comeback of John McCain and the "fresh face" of Mike Huckabee.  But it will come down to Mitt, Rudy and John, just like it was nine months ago.

The Democratic contest really is no contest, which is why the media has to fabricate tension.  I'll bet Ken Blanchard's house that Hillary has the nomination sewn up by mid-February (when candidates used to get away with announcing for president!). I suspect she will not lose a primary where there is no favorite son candidate.  The Republican contest is messier, so it generates its own story lines a little more naturally.  Romney is ahead in the early states, but behind nationally.  Giuliani is ahead nationally, but behind in early states.  McCain is waiting in the wings for someone to falter.  Now that might actually be interesting.   In the end Mick Huckabee will also become boring.  But thanks for the story, Mike. 

BTW, given that both parties will have their nominations sewn up by early March, look for the longest and most annoying presidential race in US history.  There will be about eight months for the media to create lots of phony narratives. 

The Strategy that Beat Al Qaeda

Fox has a facinating story on the strategy the U.S. military used to flush out and destroy Al Qaeda in Iraq.  The way Fox tells it, the whole thing may have turned on the discovery of a hand-drawn map made by Abu Musab al-Zarkawi.  This may have been the most useful find since Union forces found a couple of Robert E. Lee's cigars, wrapped in his battle plans.  Using the map, the U.S. cut off all avenues of resupply to al Qaeda forces in Baghdad.  They were forced to flee to Baquba, where they were easier to surround.  And by then the tribes were turning against Al Qaeda, which made them easier to find.  Once the fighters were flushed out into the desert, they had no cover. 

Whatever else comes of this war, the U.S. military is learning a lot about desert warfare.  One can only hope that the good news keeps coming.  Naturally the story is so far only on Fox.  See here for Zarqawi's map:  Download Baghdad_Belt.pdf .

Go Jacks!

For the SDSU Jackrabbit fans out there, here's the video of the Jacks beating the undefeated NDSU Bison and taking the Great West Conference title:

Cory Responds

Mr. Heidelberger (it's like I'm one of his students!) responds to yesterday's post on teacher pay.  I don't have time to respond in full, but for now let me just say that our differences are clearly about rhetoric and tactics rather than on policy.  I point out to him that one way to increase teacher pay is through a merit pay system, something the teacher's unions have long opposed. 

Dangerous Ideas

Will Saletan in Slate has been discussing some dangerous ideas regarding intelligence and genetics.  He argues in this piece that the evidence is now clear that intelligence is highly inherited and that there are racial differences in intelligence.  Here's part of that argument:

How could genes cause an IQ advantage? The simplest pathway is head size. I thought head measurement had been discredited as Eurocentric pseudoscience. I was wrong. In fact, it's been bolstered by MRI. On average, Asian-American kids have bigger brains than white American kids, who in turn have bigger brains than black American kids. This is true even though the order of body size and weight runs in the other direction. The pattern holds true throughout the world and persists at death, as measured by brain weight.

According to twin studies, 50 percent to 90 percent of variation in head size and brain volume is genetic. And when it comes to IQ, size matters. The old science of head measurements found a 20 percent correlation of head size with IQ. The new science of MRI finds at least a 40 percent correlation of brain size with IQ. One analysis calculates that brain size could easily account for five points of the black-white IQ gap.

I know, it sounds crazy. But if you approach the data from other directions, you get the same results. The more black and white scores differ on a test, the more performance on that test correlates with head size and "g," a measure of the test's emphasis on general intelligence. You can debate the reality of g, but you can't debate the reality of head size. And when you compare black and white kids who score the same on IQ tests, their average difference in head circumference is zero.

But in a separate piece Saletan argues, "So what."   Here he articulates why these findings about the genetic component of intelligence does not undermine liberalism's dedication to equality.  To summarize Saletan's argument, despite genetic differences in intelligence, these are only generalizations.  Individuals of any race may defy generalizations so we should judge people as individuals, not as members of groups. Second, even those who buy strong genetic influence on intelligence say that 40%-50% of intelligence in environmentally based.  Thus how we raise children is as important as genetic predispositions.  Next, intelligence is not a determiner of human worth.  As Lincoln argued, even if there are physical (i.e., genetic) differences between white and Negro, that does not mean the Negro is not a man without rights derived from nature.  Fourth, there are abilities beyond intelligence.  For example, good judgment and intelligence do not always co-exist in individuals.  These are two different abilities.  This why, for example, George Washington was a better president than John Adams even though Adams probably had a higher I.Q.  Lastly, and related to the environmental factors in intelligence, improvements in health and education can increase the intelligence of those various groups that might have generally lower intelligence.

Saletan has made a significant contribution.  He has told us something we don't want to believe, and then given us the way to reason back to our best principles.

Update: Readers should take in this response to Saletan that is quite damning of Saletan's sourcing. 

Well, There Goes Christmas

Oh no!  Broadway is on strike!  How will America go on? 

New Business In Aberdeen

Here's the news story regarding the new wind turbine blade plant being built in Aberdeen.  This will ultimately create 750 jobs.  Here's part of the report:

Molded Fiber Glass Cos., a family-owned, Ohio-based company, could employ up to 750 workers within three years. It plans to open by May 2008 in a 332,700-square-foot facility on a 54-acre site north of old Swisher Field at 1401 N. County Road 19.

MFG will manufacture wind blades to be bought by GE Energy, one of the world's leading producers of wind energy turbines.

The Aberdeen Development Corp. will own the $21 million facility, which will be leased by MFG. In all, it will be a $40 million project. The manufacturing company will be among the largest in Aberdeen. In comparison, 3M, another manufacturing plant in Aberdeen, is 416,000 square feet and employs 640 people on site.

“In our viewpoint, the way you attract business is to make it easy for them to locate and to make them feel welcome,” said Richard Morrison, MFG president and chief executive officer. “We felt wanted. I can't tell you how important that is for a company looking to go somewhere.”

The announcement came at a gathering Monday in Aberdeen. Gov. Mike Rounds, Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., and a representative from the office of Sen. Tim Johnson, D-S.D., attended. About 400 people, including a number of state and community leaders, also turned out to hear the announcement.

Sci-Fi TV: Heroes and Torchwood

While I wait for the return of Lost and Battlestar Galatica, two shows that thought so much of themselves that they could disappear for the better part of a terrestrial year, I have been enjoying Heroes and Torchwood.  The former is a fine piece of work, about which I have blogged often.  Good characters developed by fine actors, and a strong story arch.  The story arch is something that TV has been experimenting with for a long time.  A miniseries like Lonesome Dove is a good example. But it was incorporated into more conventional shows like Babylon 5, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and Angel. 

It has its drawbacks, for it makes it difficult for viewers to come in in the middle of a season.  But I suspect that the money generated by sales of DVD boxes is making up for that.  Heroes is based on the X-MEN, but it lends itself more to the dream that any one of us might wake up one day with extraordinary powers, and a quest. It also plays with time-loops, something that wakes up the religious self in me.  I highly recommend it.

Torchwood has been a very pleasant surprise.  It's a spin-off from the Dr. Who series, which my colleague Dr. Schaff calls the best show on TV. I concur.  Captain Jack is not as compelling a character as the Time Lord in Dr. Who, but he is getting there.  He leads Torchwood, a secret agency that deals with extraterrestrial intrusions into contemporary Britain. He first appeared as a character in the Dr. Who series.  He cannot die, which sounds great if you are worried about your cholesterol numbers.  But it's not all roses.  His team encounters an old women who recognizes him.  "You look just like your father," she tells him.  In fact, she is looking into the face of her former lover.  She has aged.  He has not.  That is good writing. 

Both Torchwood and Heroes are approaching the end of their respective seasons.  Catch 'em, if you must, on DVD. 

Local Bloggers Sing Their Favorite Hits!

Not Sold In Stores! 

Jon Schaff 

Mothers, Don't Let Your Babies Go Out And Use Laptops.

David Newquist

Were You There When They Crucified My Tom.

I am open to suggestions for more songs to include on the CD.  I can't wait to hear what I will be singing.

"Money is a good soldier, sir, and will on"

The debate over education funding is heating up and it is still two months before the legislative session begins.  Mr. Powers suggests the lawsuit by some school districts challenging whether the state has met its constitutional mandate of "adequately" funding education will only motivate the legislature to inaction. Meanwhile, Mr. Heidelberger suggests even having a lawsuit is enough to shame us into increasing teacher salaries.   

That, of course, assumes that the lawsuit is legitimate.  Instead, this lawsuit seems an attempt by a minority to gain power over the majority.  By definition those who are bringing this suit are admitting that they are unable to influence to state's elected representatives to support their policy preferences.  Thus they aim to achieve by lawsuit what they cannot achieve via election.  If one supports increased spending on education (and this author does), then one should attempt to gain political victory through the front door of elections rather than through the back door of a lawsuit.  In addition, this lawsuit is bound to fail and thus wastes precious state resources that could be spent more productively. 

Further, Mr. Heidelberger's quick leap from "more funding for education" to "higher pay for teachers" is suspicious. Let me suggest alternative rhetoric.  The purpose of higher spending on education is to better that education, not to increase teacher pay.  Teacher pay is merely a means to an end. Readers should recall that I am in favor of increased pay for teachers.  But Mr. Heidelberger would aid his cause by discussing how increased teacher pay is good for education, rather than speaking of increased pay as an end in itself.  Further, Mr. Heidelberger calls for "adequate" pay for teachers.  "Adequate" is an ambiguous term open to much interpretation by both friend and foe.  Let me suggest that rather than advocating for "adequate pay" we should aim at something more concrete, namely pay that is equitable to our neighboring states.  I blogged about that here, and here is a report that gives us more data with comparisons for cost of living (go to page 62 of the pdf, which is page 54 of the document). 

In other education news, see this story about attempts by the Board of Regents to advocate for funding for university science lab improvements.  And here's a story about the pressures faced by small school districts as the inevitability of consolidation looms large.      

The Adlai Problem

Historian David Greenberg over at Slate wonders if Barack Obama is "just another high-toned liberal doomed to failure?"  Excerpt:

No one would deny the admirable side of the Mugwump inheritance: the policies it helped to implement, the idealism it represents, the commitment to principles like clean campaigning and good government that lie at its core. Yet the failures of Stevenson and his heirs pose a warning as well to those like Obama who would adopt this ideology, rhetoric, and style. For it was no coincidence that Stevenson and others failed as campaigners; his failure was rooted in his attitude toward politics. In 1952 and again in 1956, Stevenson tried to avoid negative campaigning at first, considering it undignified and an insult to voters. (He felt the same way about TV ads.) And so when he finally, of necessity, resorted to attacking Eisenhower—mainly by going after his running mate, Richard Nixon—Stevenson came off as desperate and hypocritical. The same was true for Tsongas and Bradley when they flailed haplessly at Bill Clinton and Al Gore.

Today, Barack Obama finds himself in a similar bind to those men. If he continues to heed the advice of friendly pundits to attack Hillary Clinton more forcefully, he risks undermining the very premise of his campaign, tainting his image as a new kind of politician while failing to land his punches, because in the end he's not really a street fighter. What he doesn't seem to understand—as Stevenson did not—is that democratic politics fairly demands a measure of thrust and parry, of appeals to self-interest, and of playing the political game. And so does being a good president.

Be sure to read the whole thing.  Speaking of Adlai Stevenson, I've been reading (off and on when time permits) Arthur Schlesinger Jr's Journals, a collection of some 6,000 pages of diary entries from 1952 to 2000 edited by his two sons into an 894-page book.  Schlesinger worked as a speech writer for Stevenson's two campaign runs in 1952 and 1956 before joining with the John Kennedy campaign.  It's very interesting to view politics from a diarists view, rather than Schlesinger's nuanced historical monographs.  He has this ability to pick apart campaigns like an anthropologist that is something to behold.  Certainly, being a participant in the very politics he wrote about in books on Andrew Jackson or Franklin Roosevelt improved his scholarship.  Finally, on the subject of books, check out the Kindle, Amazon.com's new "electronic-paper" reading device.  Is that cool or what?

Rapid City Journal Criticizes Daschle Earmark

From the Rapid City Journal:

In theory, everyone is opposed to “pork” in spending bills by Congress.

In practice, few people object when federal dollars are earmarked for specific projects in their congressional district.

That’s why, here in South Dakota, many people won’t complain about a $1 million earmark in an appropriations bill for the Labor, Education and Health and Human Services departments that would fund the Daschle Center for Public Service and Representative Democracy. The center, to be located at South Dakota State University in Brookings, would be an archive for former Sen. Tom Daschle’s political career.

Neither would many of us try to return a $100,000 appropriation for the Black Hills Symphony and the South Dakota Symphony contained in that same bill.

That money was aimed at an educational outreach program designed to expose South Dakotans to Native American music though educational events and cultural exchanges between symphony members and Native American musicians. (Think Black Hills Symphony concert master Carol Knowles jams with Native flautist Kevin Locke.)

But does SDSU need a Daschle Center for Public Service to honor the man who is, arguably, its most famous political science graduate? Maybe. If so, we think it should be financed through the university’s budget, not slapped onto a federal bill as a last-minute earmark.

Can’t symphony music lovers in South Dakota accomplish intercultural musical exchanges for less than $100,000 in public funds?

We think if symphony musicians around the state want to play, hear or expose schoolchildren to Native American music, taxpayers should not be expected to foot the bill for it.

Both of those questions are moot, at the moment, because President Bush vetoed the $606 billion appropriations bill for labor, education and HHS programs. It is, he says, larded with pork and at least $10 billion over budget.

With 14 months to go in his presidency, it seems President Bush has discovered his veto pen, using it to do battle with a Congress controlled by what he sees as tax-and-spend Democrats.

Given the huge budget deficits the Bush administration has created over the past seven years, we aren’t buying the premise that President Bush has suddenly become a fiscal conservative, either.

But we agree that appropriation bills shouldn’t have special, undebated earmarks inserted into them.

And every member of Congress should be concerned about wasteful spending, even in their home districts.

Barry Bonds: Record Breaker

As many know, baseball star Barry Bonds was indicted this week for perjury and obstruction of justice in a federal court case surrounding the distribution and use of steroids and other "performance enhancing drugs."  The reason he has been indicted is that prosecutors and a grand jury seem to believe that when Bonds said he did not knowingly use steroids he was lying through his teeth.  See ESPN's Gene Wojeciechowski (known as Gene W to his friends, one hopes) on the case.   

This indictment creates as many problems for baseball as it solves. Gene W points out that this indictment makes MLB commissioner Bud Selig's day as it absolves him from having to do anything about Bonds.  Bonds will likely just go away on his own.  On the other hand, Bonds still has a history which baseball, as the most historically minded of professional sports, must deal with.

Bonds holds two of baseball's most coveted records: most home runs in a season and most home runs in a career.  If the evidence becomes indisputable that Bonds used steroids to set these records, can baseball still recognize them as records?  This creates particular problems with the single season record, for if Bonds' record is struck, the next highest total is by Mark McGuire, who is also rumored to have been a steroid user.  And after that it is Sammy Sosa.  Same thing.  Is it time to reinstate Babe Ruth and Roger Maris (asterisks and all) as baseball's single season home run champs?  One thing we can be sure of, the Babe and Roger (picture on left) never took steroids.