American Mozart

I just finished watching Independent Lens, an award-winning documentary show on PBS.  The topic of the Feb. 6th show, which I recorded, was the life and work of Billy Strayhorn, the creative genius behind many of the achievements of Duke Ellington.  From the time he was 16, Strayhorn was writing complex and haunting melodies, and unforgetable lyrics.  His story makes a good tragedy in so far as he lived his whole creative life completely eclipsed by Ellington.  If you get a chance to see this show, don't miss it.  For some samples of Strayhorn's genius, see Straight No Chaser. 

Hildebrand on Obama's Payroll

Note the role of former Daschle campaign manager Steve Hildebrand in Barack Obama's presidential campaign in this Chicago-Sun Times article:  "$3,214.95 [of PAC and lobbying funds] on Dec. 20 [went] to the political consulting firm of Hildebrand Tewes. Steve Hildebrand starting helping Obama last year in Iowa, the state with the crucial leadoff presidential vote. Paul Tewes is now Obama's Iowa campaign manager and Hildebrand will be an important adviser."

SDP Jazz Note

Recently I posted on some classic jazz videos on Youtube.  I have discovered another site that has a great many jazz concert videos available.  The website is Dailymotion.com.  Here is a link with a long list of jazz concerts.  You might start out with this one, which includes Ben Webster, Charlie Parker, Ella Fitzgerald, Dr. Newquist's favorite: Lester Young, Ray Brown, Buddy Rich, and a few others I can't remember now.  It covers several numbers.  Charlie Parker is amazing to watch, but I must say that I preferred Ben Webster's solos.  You can easily switch the view to full screen, and it still looks pretty good.  The audio is uneven, as you would expect. Here's one last recommendation: my personal favorite piano player, Bill Evans with one of his trios.  The sound is quite deep and bassy.  You get to see a lot of Evans and his bass player's fingering.  The number is Someday My Prince Will Come. 

Primary Reform

Reader Don asks how should we reform our system of presidential primaries.  He is no doubt inspired by this post and this post in which I criticized primary front-loading.  First, primaries are largely creatures of the states.  The U.S. Congress has next to nothing to say about them and national parties only have limited power over the format and timing of primaries.  So any kind of national change is unlikely to occur.  It will have to happen state by state over time, not unlike how we got into this mess.  But if I could wave a magic wand, I would make these changes:
1. Return to caucuses rather than primaries.  Primaries have their place, but a presidential nomination is a serious party event and the most dedicated party activists should have the biggest say. 
2. Regardless of whether #1 is adopted (an unlikely event, to be sure), spreading out presidential selection over 4-5 months is a wise move.  This has many virtues.  A dark horse candidate has time to gain notoriety and raise money from primary to primary.  This keeps more options available to voters should the front runner stumble.  Further, this gives candidates time to meet with actual voters and do actual campaigning, rather than simply running a media campaign.  This decreases the power of the media in selecting front runners.  Also, ending the primary season later means we do not have a annoyingly long general election.  As Larry Sabato notes, there is a real possibility that both parties may have their 2008 nominee by the middle of February.  That makes for one long general election campaign. 
3. Have no primary or caucus before February. 
4. Reduce polling.  OK, this isn't going to happen, and to make it happen would require the elimination of press freedom, but the preoccupation with polls takes away the deliberation involved in the political choice of president.  Candidates should not have to worry about immediate perceptions but instead be able to make their case over a number of weeks and months.  The poll we take on election day will tell us how it has gone over.  Also, reducing polling would make our reporters (especially TV reporters) actually have to think about and report on real information instead of taking the easy route of reporting on the polling horse race. 

Those are some ideas on a cold February morning. It is now time to get ready for the exciting Aberdeen Area Cracker Barrel.

Pre-School On Its Way

The State Senate passed SB 115 this week.   This bill allows the Board (Bored?) of Education to set "standards for the classification and accreditation" of pre-schools and their personnel.  Some believe that this is a step towards mandatory pre-school. 

Johnson

Argus Leader:

Two months after he was rushed to the hospital with a brain hemorrhage, U.S. Sen. Tim Johnson of South Dakota is easing back into his legislative work, an aide said Friday.

The Democratic senator has been asking that work be sent to him at George Washington University Hospital, where he is undergoing physical, speech and occupational therapy six days a week, spokeswoman Julianne Fisher said.

Johnson has been watching CNN, and for several weeks now, his staff has been sending him a daily packet of news clips from South Dakota newspapers and TV stations, Fisher said.

It's good to see Senator Johnson is recovering so well.  We continue to hope and pray for the best.

Oranges, Tangerines, & Poll Numbers

My friend Chad takes SDP to task on a couple of issues.  As usual he does not have sufficient confidence in his own arguments to let them speak for themselves.  He has to tell the reader we are "the Thune Blog," and accuse of us "right wing hackery."  Actually, I happen to agree with Chad on one point: the Republican fluff over Nancy Pelosi's choice of jet airplanes was much ado about nothing.  Moreover, his reply to me is cleverly written and he has a point. 

It's pretty rich of Ol' Perfesser Blanchard to compare the poll numbers of President Bush with those of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

He knows we're dealing with two completely different sets of name-id involving a much broader and deeper identification of the President with a much narrower and shallower identification of Nancy Pelosi among the electorate.

I think I read not long ago that Pelosi's name id is actually higher among Republicans than among Democrats because of the GOP's efforts to demonize her in the last election cycle.

It is a fair point that polls about a House Speaker reflect less information than polls about a President.  But that doesn't mean that bad poll numbers for Pelosi and Reid don't count.  Be honest Chad, if their approval ratings had been high, wouldn't you be comparing them with the President's numbers? 

Beyond that, the name identification argument is political spin.  The poll allowed a respondent to reply "not sure" whenever they did not know enough about a candidate.  Pelosi and Reid have been getting a lot of press attention lately, and a lot of magazine covers.  The positive/negative impressions are real. 

The truth is that all the Federal leadership, including the White House and both parties on Capitol Hill, are not very popular right now. 

Global Warming & The Holocaust II

Professor Schaff mentions Jonah Goldberg's devastating reply to Ellen Goodman's comparison of "global warming deniers" with Holocaust deniers.  Here is Goodman's offensive passage:

I would like to say we're at a point where global warming is impossible to deny. Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future.

James Tarranto of the Wall Street Journal goes further. 

Imagine if someone in 1937 had foreknowledge   of the Holocaust and began sounding the alarms, describing in detail what was   going to happen just a few years later. Most people probably wouldn't believe   him. They would be, to use Goodman's phrase, denying the future. But would they   be "on par" with people who deny the Holocaust after it has happened?

That seems a stretch. There's an enormous difference between doubting an outlandish   prediction (even one that comes true) and denying the grotesque facts of history.   Because we are ignorant of the future, we can innocently misjudge it. Holocaust   deniers are neither ignorant nor innocent (though extremely ignorant people   may innocently accept their claims). They are falsifying history for evil purposes.

What is fundamentally wrong with Goodman and others who have made the same sort of comparison is that they are trying to turn dissent into heresy. 

I would add a couple of things.  Science is never about consensus and authority.  Most great achievements in science have had to come by breaking free of the dominant consensus among scientists.  Moreover, the authority being appealed to right now is an explicitly political statement.  One of our intrepid readers, Dan O'Neill, makes this argument:

Since the inception of the IPCC, International Panel on Climate Change, the technical reports issued by the IPCC have been used to further political posturing and promoting of the Koyto Protocol. Usually at the expense of the technical integrity of the actual science used to generate the reports. The culprit for the misleading information is typically the SPM, Summary for Policy Makers. Since the actual scientific studies are too large and complex the UN IPCC's voice to the public regarding climate science is the politically approved SPM. The 1996 SPM included the phrase "the balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human influence on global climate." This claim was based on simulations of global climate called general circulation models which used only a portion of the available atmospheric temperature data. A claim that was later refuted and received absolutely to reporting from the ever diligent press. The 2001 SPM included, "Most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gasses". It is important to note the political nature of the SPMs which in this case was released before the Bush-Gore election cycle. The true conclusion of "Climate Change 2001" read as follows:

"The fact that the global mean temperature has increased since the late 19^th century and that other trends have been observed does not necessarily mean that an anthropogenic effect on the climate system has been identified. Climate has always varied on all time-scales, so the observed change may be natural."

In fact some of the lead authors of the scientific reports have stated that the SPM have a strong tendency to disguise uncertainty, and conjures up some scary scenarios for which there is no evidence. The process used to produce the SPM is far from ideal and may be distorting the real messages from the available science.

I heard one of the scientists responsible for the final IPCC report say that some of the conclusions in the current Summary for Policy Makers will be toned down in the more scientific and longer version, just as Mr. O'Neill says happened with the past reports. 

Dissent on both science and politics should not be stigmatized. 

GOP Candidates and the "Conservatism Gap"

Watertown native John Hinderaker:  "The current crop of candidates is not perfect; what crop ever was? But they are strong leaders of extraordinary ability. And Giuliani, McCain and Romney are united on the key issue of our time, victory in the war against Islamic extremism. If a purer conservative wants to get into the race, fine, and I might well back him. (And, no, I'm not talking about Mike Huckabee or Sam Brownback.) But conservatives need to get over any fantasies they may harbor about the Gingrich administration that never will be and the Reagan administration that never was, and get on with the business of electing the best possible--and I do mean 'possible'--candidate in 2008."

Prewar Intelligence

Captain's Quarters:  "They Were For Dissent And Alternative Analysis Before They Were Against It"

Global Warming=Holocaust

Ken Blanchard blogged on the use of the word "denial" in association with those who are skeptical about global warming claims.  Jonah Goldberg provides more evidence via Ellen Goodman, a syndicated columnist of note:

I would like to say we're at a point where global warming is impossible to deny. Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future.

Goldberg retorts:

Denying that the industrialized mass-murder of millions actually happened isn't really quite the same thing as refusing to believe global warming is real. I believe global warming is real, by the way. But people who "deny" — a bad word to begin with — that global warming is real are unpersuaded by media hype and the constantly moving goal posts of a funding-hungry scientific community. People who deny the Holocaust happened tend to be the kinds of people who are actually sympathetic with the perpetrators of the Holocaust. They tend to enjoy poking Jews in the eye with taunts and smirks. I know people who don't believe global warming is happening and let me just say they aren't the same people and to equate them with Holocaust deniers is a reprehensible attempt to dehumanize opponents in an argument. Goodman should be ashamed, as should Al Gore who at least had the good taste to soften his insinuations with literary boilerplate rather than thumblessly shove the analogy down peoples' throats.

Bush vs. Pelosi

My friend Chad at CCK celebrates President Bush's low approval rating.  Well he should.  That's what I will do when Clinton 44 is in office.  But it is worth noting that third in line for Airforce One, Nancy Pelosi, and her Senate counterpart Harry Reid, are not exactly darlings of the people.  From the Wall Street Journal poll:

Nancy Pelosi drew low marks for her new role as House Speaker, according to the poll: 45% rated her negatively versus 38% who gave her positive ratings. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid received negative ratings from 47% of those polled, while 23% gave him positive ratings and 30% said they weren't sure of his performance.

Pelosi's positive ratings are only little better than Bushs's.  Reid's are worse.  Perhaps Chad will get around to calling them "worst congressional leadership evuh," to keep his street cred. 

Leave It Alone

Here's an unoriginal thought: if ain't broke, don't fix it.  Is there really a groundswell for 10-year-olds to hunt?  I doubt it.  Until someone convinces me that significant public harm is caused by having the minimum age set at 12, I see no reason to change the law.  Is our current method of giving out big game licenses broken?  Not really, although I think we could give out more deer tags (not like there is a shortage of deer). So why change the system in a way likely to reduce the number of residents who can hunt?  Beats me.  It ain't broke, don't fix it.

Update: Here's more on the effort to lower the minimum hunting age.

Primary Colors

The legislature has rejected a bid to move up South Dakota's presidential primary date.  Larry Sabato explains some of the problems associated with our front loaded primary system.  I suppose at some point this system will self-destruct and then, and perhaps only then, will get get necessary reform. 

GOP Polls

The Economist:  "Perhaps someone who knows polls can explain why Mr Giuliani and John McCain continue to dominate every poll of Republicans? The Fox, Time, CNN, ABC/Washington Post, Gallup and Zogby polls all say the exact same thing: these two, both famous for not exactly cuddling up to the evangelical base, are leagues ahead of the likes of Sam Brownback and Mitt Romney in the minds of Republican voters."

Some Serious Blunders

By Time, according to Media Matters:

In a February 7 Time.com article by Massimo Calabresi on the controversy surrounding two bloggers hired by the presidential campaign of former Sen. John Edwards (D-NC), Time.com reported that Patrick Hynes, a conservative blogger working for Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), "bounced back" from an earlier controversy in which he failed to disclose his relationship to the McCain campaign. However, Time.com's claim that Hynes "bounced back" gave the false impression that the media gave significant coverage to Hynes' earlier controversy. The article was also rife with basic factual errors -- including, claiming that, in "2005, John Thune" was "the Democratic candidate for Senate in South Dakota" and that he ran against "then Senate majority leader Tom Daschle." The year was 2004 and, during that time, the Democrats, whom Daschle led in the Senate, were in the minority; Thune was -- and is -- a Republican.

Time.com has since posted a correction to the article, noting that the "original version of this story incorrectly stated that Senatorial candidate John Thune of South Dakota was a Democrat" and that "Thune was and is a Republican Senator." The correction does not address the article's incorrect claims that Thune ran against Daschle in 2005, and that Daschle was the Senate majority leader when he lost.

Air America

The Smoking Gun:

Bankrupt and about to lose Al Franken, its marquee star, Air America Radio is set to change hands for the bargain price of $4.25 million, according to new court documents. The sales figure was disclosed in a purchase agreement filed yesterday in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in New York. According to the agreement, the deal between Air America's owner, Piquant LLC, and a firm controlled by Stephen L. Green, a New York realtor, calls for Green's firm to repay up to $3.25 million in loans provided to Air America after the liberal radio network filed for Chapter 11 protection last October (the company listed debts of $20.2 million).

Iraq

Good news from Iraq: "Coalition forces in Iraq have delivered a series of stunning blows to al Qaeda in Iraq in the last 48 hours."

Orthodoxy and Heresy on Global Warming

As I have made clear in many posts on global warming, I think it is true that the earth is in a warming period and that human activity is at the very least accelerating that trend.  But because I question some of parts of the political consensus that has attached itself to the science (such as the wisdom of the Kyoto Protocol), I have been treated as if I were an all-out global warming denier. 

I was therefore impressed by this article in Spiked, by Frank Furedi.  Furedi points out the the word "denial," is the modern equivalent of heresy.  A denier is someone who dissents from some article of the truth faith.

[I]n the early years of the twenty-first century, Western societies have become prey to powerful illiberal, intolerant and anti-democratic influences. Those who question prevailing cultural orthodoxies are often treated as immoral, evil people and their arguments depicted as a form of secular heresy.

Many influential figures have a cavalier attitude to free speech, believing that ‘dangerous’ ideas should be repressed. Disbelief in today’s received wisdom is described as ‘Denial’, which is branded by some as a crime that must be punished. It began with Holocaust denial, before moving on to the denial of other genocides. Then came the condemnation of ‘AIDS denial’, followed by accusations of ‘climate change denial’.

Furedi is particularly good on the way global warming dissenters are treated. 

Once denial has been stigmatised, there are demands for it to be censored. Consider the current attempts to stifle anyone who questions predictions of catastrophic climate change. Such sceptics are frequently branded ‘global warming deniers’, and their behaviour compared to that of anti-Semitic Holocaust deniers. Some advocate a policy of zero tolerance towards the climate change deniers. ‘I have very limited patience with those who deny human responsibility for upper-atmosphere pollution and ozone depletion’, says one moral crusader, before declaring: ‘There is no intellectual difference between the Lomborgians [those who adhere to the arguments of the sceptic Bjorn Lomborg] who steadfastly refuse to accept the overwhelming evidence of human-caused global warming from scientists of unquestioned reputation, and the neo-Nazi Holocaust deniers’ (8). The heretic is condemned because he has dared to question an authority that must never be questioned.

Furedi shows how modern orthodoxies begin not from some transcendent standard of the good, but from some unambiguous evil.  The Holocaust is almost always first choice.  Then anything they wish to condemn becomes "another Holocaust."  And just as Holocaust denial has been made a crime in many European countries, why not global warming denial. 

One Australian journalist wrote last year that, as ‘David Irving is under arrest in Austria for Holocaust denial’, perhaps ‘there is a case for making climate change denial an offence’. Why? Because it is a ‘crime against humanity, after all’ (13). David Roberts, a journalist for the online magazine Grist, would like to see global warming deniers prosecuted like Nazi war criminals. In a vitriolic tone characteristic of dogmatic inquisitors he argued: ‘We should have war crimes trials for these bastards…some sort of climate Nuremberg.’ (14)

Here are the references:

(8) See David Pollard, Global Warming And The Crime Of Denial, 7 March 2004

(13) Margo Kingston,  ‘Himalayan lakes disaster’, DailyBriefing, 21 November 2005.

(14) David Roberts The Denial Industry, Gristmill, 19 September, 2006,

 

US Troops May Prevent Civil War in Iraq?

According to some in Iraq, the potential US Troop surge signals to them an opportunity to co-exist peacefully in their country.  In fact, they fear the delay tactics from Congress may cost them their lives.  Here's a link to an audio segment from the NPR about Sunnis and Shiites who both want to see an increase in the troops.

Pelosi Seeks Jumbo Jet, at Taxpayer Expense

House Speaker Pelosi has requested regular access to an Air Force passenger jet.  However, she is not requesting the same one offered to the last Speaker, Mr. Hastert.  Pelosi wants a big one!Apparently flying in a small commuter jet from DC to her home district is not good enough for the Speaker, who reportedly wore a $35,000 pearl necklace to the State of the Union address. 

There is clearly a need for a Representative to return to his or her home district on a regular basis.  Ask any of our delegation and I'm sure they would tell you that their regular trips home are vital to maintaining a connection to the state they proudly represent.  However, if you ask them how they get between DC and home, I suspect the answer would be on a commercial airliner.

There is an argument to be made that since she is in line to be President if anything should happen to the President or Vice-President, she might be entitled to some form of added security.  However, there appears to be no need for a jet any bigger than the one that was previously used by the Speaker.  If this is any indication, the new Speaker appears to be moving toward an enlarged government by the people and for "The Pelosi."

ADDITION:  A reader and friend sent me this link which outlines Pelosi's position on her airplane.  I can appreciate the need for security for the Speaker of the House.  The article says that the military suggested a larger airplane to avoid the need for refueling.  This is probably a good idea, however, the Washington Times is reporting that the Department of Defense sent the Speaker a letter which says she will be limited a plane like Hastert's old one which will require refueling. 

Death Penalty In The Legislature

At the height of the Elijah Page controversy last year, I wrote that the death penalty is just punishment but unwise policy.  See the link for my reasoning.  It looks like the legislature has shot down an attempt to revoke South Dakota's capital punishment provision.  While I do not buy into the lazy reasoning that one must be against the death penalty to be authentically pro-life, I do suggest that a legislature that repealed the death penalty and greatly restricted abortion would send a strong message in favor of the right to human life.

For more on the legislature and the death penalty, see this story. 

Ethanol And CRP

As this article suggests, two federal programs may be working against each other and competing South Dakota interests.  As the subsidies for ethanol rise, driving up corn prices, land used for corn growth rises while land put into the Conservation Reserve Program decreases.  If the Bush administration gets its way, we'll have more corn but fewer pheasants.  Our farmers will be happy (maybe), but the hunters and the tourism board will not. 

To help meet rising ethanol demand, an agriculture program that pays farmers to set aside land for conservation would be put on hold under President Bush's proposed budget.

While the proposal might help lessen the country's dependence on oil, a pheasant hunting and conservation group was quick to criticize the tradeoff and a state biologist said the loss of the program - which protects some 35 million acres across the country - could put some farmers in a financial bind.

Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns said his agency would offer no new Conservation Reserve Program enrollments in 2007 and 2008 because in order to boost the country's ethanol output, an increase in corn production is also needed.

There's a lot of pressure to act because "the price of corn is very, very high," putting upward pressure on ethanol prices, Johanns said Monday during a news conference in Washington.

Dave Nomsen, vice president of governmental affairs for Pheasants Forever, said he understands that $4-a-bushel corn is a cause for concern, but he argued that putting to use land that would otherwise be set aside for conservation is not the answer.

"Clearly, we're taking a step backward if all of the sudden we start to produce corn on very marginal acreage," Nomsen said. "Because then you are talking about increased soil erosion, increased water quality problems and diminished wildlife. There's been a balance here that I'm really concerned about right now."

The Inconvenient Truth About Global Warming

As we look up the south side of zero, here in God's own Dakotas, we might consider Robert Samuelson's hard truths about global warming: we can't do an damn thing about it.  This is not something Nancy Pelosi will tell you.  But it's true. 

The dirty secret about global warming is this: We have no solution. About 80 percent of the world's energy comes from fossil fuels (coal, oil, natural gas), the main sources of man-made greenhouse gases. Energy use sustains economic growth, which -- in all modern societies -- buttresses political and social stability. Until we can replace fossil fuels, or find practical ways to capture their emissions, governments will not sanction the deep energy cuts that would truly affect global warming.

Considering this reality, you should treat the pious exhortations to "do something'' with skepticism, disbelief or contempt. These pronouncements are (take your pick) naive, self-interested, misinformed, stupid or dishonest. Politicians mainly want to be seen as reducing global warming when they're not.

Homosexual Marriage on the American News Forum

My recent column on Gay Marriage in Massachusetts sparked a lot of combustion on the American News forum.  One reader, Henryj, addressed to me a rather lengthy epistle.  Here is my reply, which may be of interest to our readers. 

Dear Henry:

Your long post (ten pages, single spaced, in Microsoft Word) is too flattering to ignore. I am sorry I cannot reply in kind, but I do want to make a few points.

First, I think it was a bad idea to begin by insulting your readers and perhaps me. That approach may be proper in some cases, but one would have to be very sure of his footwork to use it. You say this:

For those on this forum who are lazy readers, go ahead and skip this post, as I do not appreciate your lazy arguments in favor of shorter posts. If you did your homework elsewhere before making such ignorant comments on the subject of gay marriage I would not feel obliged to bother with these long posts, but you don’t do your own homework. So, I need to at least provide you the information you are too lazy to seek out elsewhere. And if you disagree with my arguments, search out the truth on your own. But, please don’t come back to me with prejudicial arguments that have no basis in fact.

I am not sure whether those words are directed at me, or just at “lazy readers.” But the following is directly addressed to me.

In the future, I suggest you do a bit more historical homework on the subject. The same kind of ignorance and lack of historical perspective also comes out in your argument about the 14th Amendment I partly discussed above. Again you need to look at the history of the 14th Amendment and the cases in which it was utilized for personal rights and freedoms in America. In particular it was used against the role states played in the development of expanding business enterprises in the U.S. and the rights (and property) certain states allowed businesses to take away from certain parts of its citizenry.

Another one of its early roles was in the Dred Scot decision which mandated states to treat all their citizens the same. At the time of Dred Scot it specifically addressed blacks that did not have the same rights as U.S.citizens or residents of particular states that whites had been given by the states. For a particular state to codify or practice a different set of rights and benefits for one set of citizens that was contrary and different than it provided for a different privileged set of its citizens, the 14th Amendment said was unconstitutional.

I would point out that the case you cite is Dred Scott v. Sandford (not Dred Scot), and it certainly does not incorporate the 14^th Amendment, as the case was decided in 1857, before the Civil War, and the 14^th Amendment comes after the war. The Dred Scott case declared that freed men could not be citizens of the United States. I think you may have been thinking of Brown v. Board of Education, or maybe Plessy v.Ferguson, though I cannot be sure. Moreover, you use the term “activistic,” where I think you want to say “activist.”

These are minor points, to be sure, and they do not determine the substance of your case, but someone who neglected to check materials readily available by Google might want to avoid accusing others of ignorance and laziness.

As to issues of substance, you write:

You continue to use the rhetoric and tone perpetuated by the religious right in their arguments against same-sex civil marriages. Why would you use planks of their arguments against same-sex marriage if you were in favor? It makes no sense. For instance, you say same-gender marriage is not required under the Constitution. Here’s a newsflash for you. NEITHER is heterosexual marriage.

I reply that when I agree with you, that gay marriage is the right policy, I say so. When I agree with someone else, that gay marriage is not required by the Constitution, I say that. To say that an argument is invalid because of who uses it, that would be a classic ad hominem, a logical fallacy. As for your “newsflash,” I scooped you. I note in my column that the definition of marriage is not contained in the Constitution, but is sensibly left to the states. Maybe you missed that.

The heart of our disagreement is indicated in this paragraph of yours:

Despite your statement, the constitutional right to same sex marriage was not invented by Massachusetts. That is a statement that has no basis in fact and is solely an opinion. If you believe that statement, you do not believe gays anywhere have any right to marriage. Surely there are far better arguments for same-gender marriage than it being invented by Massachusetts

To the contrary, my statement has every basis in fact. Constitutions mean in the first place what they explicitly say. In the second place, we look to the tradition of interpretation in the courts and legislatures, and lastly comb the record of the persons who enacted the constitution. There are no grounds in any of these sources for a right to gay marriage, either on the Federal level or in any state. By contrast, it is clear from the language and legislative history of the Civil War amendments (13-15), that freed persons were to be given the full rights of citizenship.

I think you recognize this in your insistence on judicial activism.

The courts also need to be activistic in that they bring to the forefront those issues of injustice that have failed to be remediated in line with the Constitution by the other two branches. Since neither the Legislative Branch, nor the Administrative Branch at the state or federal levels are seeking to remediate injustices done to GLBT citizens, it becomes the rightful place of the courts to do so.

You want the courts to override the more democratic branches and write your political preferences into the text of fundamental law. I think this is short sighted. Imagine a court where five or six of nine believe that abortion is a violation of human rights. Should they declare abortion to be illegal in all the states, since “neither the Legislative Branch nor the Administrative Branch at the state or federal levels are seeking to remediate injustices”? Though I vehemently believe abortion to be wrong, I don’t believe that unelected judges should try to do any such thing.

The substance of your argument, and it does have substance, is that gay marriage is analogous to civil rights issues. I think this is flat wrong. Segregation divided citizens into discrete and insular groups. It inequitably distributed rights among them, and sought to keep them apart. Traditional marriage laws apply equally to all persons. No man can marry another man, whether he be black, white, heterosexual, or homosexual, just as no man can marry his sister, or any two men some third person. Moreover, bans on gay marriage certainly do not attempt to segregate homosexuals, since homosexual marriage does not involve “commingling,” as it was put in Plessy, between homosexuals and heterosexuals.

Your arguments, passionate and detailed to be sure, only add up to the fact that you want the courts to override the political branches, much as if a Cubs fan wanted the umpires to fix it so that their team could finally win.

Homosexual marriage would be a novelty. I think we should extend the institution of marriage to homosexuals because it would be good policy and, I suppose, good for the institution of marriage. But I think we should achieve that goal the old fashioned way, by earning it. I think such a process would be better for the public as a whole, and perhaps better for the homosexual community.

Bob Marley's Birthday

And I almost missed it.  I like Reggae a lot, though I don't know it very well.  My knowledge of Bob Marley's music is mostly limited to the Legends collection.  But his fame did a lot to promote a very solid musical tradition.  I would add that No, Woman, No Cry, and Zion Train are among my favorite songs.  Marley's Rastafarian religion, combining what looks to be a very loose old testament mythology with a whole lot of marijuana smoke, doesn't make much sense to me; but it provides a powerful context for much of the music.  Happy Birthday Bob. 

Primary Blogging

From the Argus Leader blog:

The early presidential primary

I say we do it.

I was in college in 1988 when we had an early primary. It was cool and good for the state. One of the things that happens is that when a presidential candidate comes through it elicits debate and discussion about what they’re saying, about the topics of the day. That’s a good thing.

Yes, it’s going to cost $500,000 but it will bring in money too. Think of it as tourism and it’s not so hard to swallow.

Actually, I can’t believe Shantel Krebs bill made it out of committee. I figured the legislative curmudgeons will kill that faster than an open meetings law.

We’ll see how far it actually gets but I’m behind it.

John Edwards, the War, and Shifting Blame

Captain's Quarters:  "Now John Edwards, years later, claims that Clinton administration officials gave him essentially the same analysis about WMD in Iraq [as the Bush administration] -- exposing the Democrats as liars and smear artists themselves."

NSIC Expansion

Here is an excellent rundown of the proposed expansion of the Northern Sun Intercollegiate Conference, which includes Northern State.  Augustana, St. Cloud State, Mankato State, and Minnesota-Duluth have all applied for entry into the conference. 

As long as I have brought up my employer and sports, perhaps this weekend you saw Remember the Titans on TV.  The real coach from that movie, Herman Boone, will speak at NSU on March 15.  Also, since I bring up my employer, it bears stating that anything on this site reflects the opinions of the authors, not my employer.  It says as much at the bottom of this page. 

Ending Debate

Ed Morrissey weighs in on the Associated Press story spin about the GOP "blocking" a Senate debate on Iraq:

Reid and the Democrats insisted on blocking any consideration of alternatives and demanded an end to debate -- which makes Reid's complaint that the GOP would not allow debate on the issue somewhat mystifying. Cloture is an end to debate on the floor, a limitation to allow a vote on the question before the Senate. The filibuster provides for unlimited debate, which the Republicans appear ready to provide. Dick Durbin accused Republicans of running from the debate, but in truth the Democrats tried to shove Warner-Levin down the GOP's throat in order to demand that the US run from Iraq. It's a strange accusation to make that a political party exercises cowardice in not allowing the other to demand retreat -- a position that some Democrats clearly want to make.

POTUS '08 Watch: Giuliani

The Associated Press:

Rudy Giuliani, the former New York City mayor whose popularity soared after his response to the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, moved closer to a full-fledged campaign for the Republican presidential nomination on Monday.

In a sign that he's serious about running for the White House, the two-term mayor was filing a so-called "statement of candidacy" with the Federal Election Commission. In the process, he was eliminating the phrase "testing the waters" from earlier paperwork establishing his exploratory committee, said an official close to Giuliani's campaign.

Primaries

Terry Woster in the Argus Leader reports that a legislative panel has endorsed having an early presidential primary in South Dakota.  Excerpt:

An early presidential primary would bring national candidates and exposure to South Dakota and give the state a chance to present its unique issues to potential White House occupants, a Sioux Falls lawmaker says.

Republican Rep. Shantel Krebs persuaded the House State Affairs Committee to endorse her bill to return to an early presidential vote in the state. The panel voted 13-0 to send the measure to the House floor for debate.

A companion bill, appropriating $500,000 to pay the costs of the separate primary, was sent to the Appropriations Committee.

Krebs noted that South Dakota had an early primary in 1988, 1992 and 1996. That drew many presidential candidates and gave state residents a chance to talk with them about issues, she said.

“They need to know what kind of issues we’re facing in South Dakota,’’ she said.
Legislators after 1996 repealed the early primary, questioning the cost-benefit ratio, since the candidates tended to go only to the largest cities and fewer candidates seemed to be targeting the state.

Without that early draw, though, “the presidential campaigns totally ignore South Dakota,’’ Republican Sen. David Knudson of Sioux Falls said.

This kind of exposure would be good for South Dakota as candidates would hear what issues face our state.  Unfortunately, that also means we have to deal with the issue of frontloading.

Iowa Polls

Hillary Clinton leads Barack Obama and John Edwards in the latest Iowa poll .

Nebraskan Fills in for Johnson

From the Omaha World Herald:

Drey Samuelson, a studious and soft-spoken Nebraska native, doesn't act like a high-powered politician. But an unusual turn of events has made him a kind of surrogate U.S. senator.

Lawmakers on Capitol Hill seek him out. He's in charge of a Senate staff of 46. He's closely tracking legislation.

And he recently signed his name to an autopen device so he can send out letters on official Senate stationery.

But he doesn't vote on Senate issues and is eager to turn all those responsibilities back to his boss, Sen. Tim Johnson, D-S.D.

Naturally, read the whole article.

NYT Numbskullery

Leave it to the New York Times to find a link between Super Bowl ads and politics: "Super Bowl Ads of Cartoonish Violence, Perhaps Reflecting Toll of War."

UPDATE:  Speaking of the Times, the New York Post takes a good whack at them today:

Question: When is a U.S. military victory not a victory?

Answer: When it's reported by The New York Times.

Read the account from Baghdad in the Jan. 30 Times about a battle the previous weekend in the city of Najaf - one of the biggest engagements of the war - and you'd think that U.S. and Iraqi forces had suffered a terrible defeat at the hands of what was described as "an obscure renegade militia."

"Iraqi forces were surprised and nearly overwhelmed by the ferocity" of the fighters arrayed against them, read the piece by correspondent Marc Santora, who added, "They needed far more help from American forces than previously disclosed."

Not until the article's sixth paragraph - 200 words into the 1,100-word piece - did this sentence appear: "The Iraqis and Americans eventually prevailed in the battle."

Or, as Wellington said after defeating Napoleon at Waterloo, "It was a damned close-run thing" - but the good guys won.

So why wasn't this the lead of the Times' story? Given the way things have been going, it would seem to be an unusual enough development to warrant prominent attention.

Maybe because the Times doesn't want America to win in Iraq.

Ouch.

Northern Route

Here's an article about the "Northern Route" tourism push that I discussed here. Apparently I confused this proposal with one I had heard of before, making a more direct road from Aberdeen to Rapid City.  Here's the gist:

There currently are four regional associations that receive $55,000 each in state assistance for marketing and promotion. They aren't set in state law, however.

The purpose for re-dividing and creating a new fifth region would be to place more emphasis on recruiting vacation travelers from metropolitan markets east of South Dakota to drive through the northern tier of counties on their way to the Black Hills.

Novstrup, R-Aberdeen, is the legislation's prime sponsor. Hundstad, D-Bath, is the lead sponsor in the Senate. They recently met with Tourism and State Development Secretary Richard Benda.

"The idea is to bring more attention to that part of the state. There's a lot of places between Watertown and Aberdeen and Pierre and Rapid City," Novstrup said.

Schaff Makes Second Correct Prediction. Pig Poop found on Roof.

After correctly calling tyhe last election (he said the Republicans were going to lose, but that's what he always says), Professor Nostradamus Schaff predicted a score of Colts 31, Bears 17.  He was off two points on the Bears; it was 29-17.  That's close enough for government work.   

My son and I spent Superbowl Sunday trying to watch all three Lord of the Rings movies.  We got two thirds of the way through.  I just hope when I close my eyes tonight I see Arwen Evenstar and not Gollum. 

"South Dakota's Economic Renaissance"

From a New York Times article entitled "Hopes Soar After Record Hospital Gift of $400 Million":

SIOUX FALLS, S.D., Feb. 3 — South Dakota’s economic renaissance has gone largely unnoticed, eclipsed by things like the state’s strong opposition to same-sex marriage, its raucous debates over abortion and the stroke suffered by one of its senators, Tim Johnson, that could tip control of the Senate back to the Republicans.

But in the 1990s, its long stagnant population began to grow, especially here and in Rapid City, and its economy began to diversify. Its lack of personal and corporate income taxes made it attractive to companies and their employees, and while other states tightened their usury laws, South Dakota relaxed its, attracting numerous credit card companies. Citibank continues to be one of the state’s largest employers, with 3,200 employees, and call centers line the highways around Sioux Falls.

Now, T. Denny Sanford, a low-key billionaire who made his home and fortune here, will help sustain the state’s economic boom with a $400 million gift to the Sioux Valley Hospitals and Health System, the state’s largest employer. Hospital officials hope the gift — the largest ever to a hospital, according to the Center for Philanthropy at Indiana University — will help transform Sioux Valley Hospitals, which will change its name to Sanford Health, into a national institution that will eclipse Johns Hopkins and the Mayo Clinic.

“He told me he doesn’t want this to be just another Mayo,” said Kelby K. Krabbenhoft, Sioux Valley’s chief executive.

It has four stated goals: to build five pediatric clinics around the country; to expand research, especially in pediatrics; to build a health care campus with more than 20 separate facilities, and to identify a promising line of medical research and follow it to a cure, much the same way John D. Rockefeller’s money found a cure for yellow fever and Bill Gates is searching for a cure for H.I.V./AIDS.

“If I could put my name on a project in my lifetime and see a major medical breakthrough because of it, that’s what I would love to do,” said Mr. Sanford in an interview from Scottsdale, Ariz.

“The idea that we could really put Sioux Falls and South Dakota so much more on the map, that we could create additional employment and attract people from around the country and around the world, that was really a hot button for me,” Mr. Sanford said.

The whole article is really good, so be sure to give it a read.

Super Bowl History

Here's a Super Bowl tidbit about a local player from the Mitchell Daily Republic:

Thirty-eight years later, Ordell Braase still hasn’t put to rest memories of Super Bowl III, one of the most storied games in NFL history.

Braase, a 1950 Mitchell High School graduate who played 12 seasons as a defensive end with the Baltimore Colts, often thinks about the game, saying “it was what it was.”

“I don’t think I have really put it totally behind me,” Braase said Friday via telephone from Bradenton, Fla. “You can’t go back and replay it or redo it. We gave it our best shot, they gave it their best shot and they came out the winner.”

Aberdeen Area Cracker Barrel

Here are some items of note from the Aberdeen Area Cracker Barrel.  This includes Districts 2 and 3.  That means Representatives Dennert, Elliot, Dave Novstrup, Al Novstrup and Senators Hundstad and Hoerth. 

A couple folks mentioned that if you email them, make sure you write your name and where you are from.  They respond to emails from the district first, so it's useful to put your location. 

Paul Dennert, who sits on Appropriations, noted that only 1/3rd of the state's revenue comes from state taxes we pay.  About $1.6 billion comes from the federal government.  So much for that South Dakota rugged individualism. 

Rep. Al Novstrup seems keen on a "Northern Route to the Black Hills."  Folks want to build a road directly from Aberdeen to the Hills (making a hypotenuse rather than a right angle at I-90 to get to Rapid City, you might say).  This will increase traffic and tourism in the Northeast part of the state.

There was concern expressed over a bill to gut the Governor's House program (did not get the bill number).  Everyone seemed in favor of the program and thus against this bill.  Al Novstrup noted that for every $34,000 of investment in this program, there is another $100,000 economic impact generated as people improve their homes.  I would tell my fellow Republicans that this is a good lesson: sometimes government investment is necessary to spur private economic activity. 

There seems to be a consensus that the state's minimum wage will be tied to the federal wage.  In effect that means we can look forward to a $7.25 minimum wage before the year is out.  Al Novstrup, again, mentioned that a local fast foot restaurant owner told him that a 16 year-old with no experience will start at $8.00 at this particular restaurant.  When Al asked how many people in the room know someone who works for the minimum wage, one hand went up out of (roughly) 100 people.  That's instructive. 

Who knew that licensing massage therapists could be so controversial. 

Education Funding: There is consensus that education will be funding over and above what it usually is, but there is no agreement as to how much that will be and where the money will come from.

Abortion: A predictable split.  Rep. Elliot made some interesting comments.  Last year he opposed the HB 1215 because it did not include rape and incest exceptions.  This year the bill includes those exceptions.  Yet he is still opposing the bill.  It isn't clear why.  I think I have some idea.  Mr. Elliot also pointed out the inconsistency of those who oppose abortion but support capital punishment.  He did not elaborate on his position that is for abortion but against capital punishment. 

Other matters were talked about, but not in detail.  We did find out that the Novstrups sometimes vote against each other and, in this author's opinion, Al Hoerth sounds remarkably like Jack Nicholson.  Also, lobbyists,  if you want Senator Hoerth to pay attention to you, pronounce his name right.  Hoerth rhymes with "birth."

It's a Kyoto World

Ever wonder what the world would look like under the Kyoto Protocal (John Kerry was against it before he was for it)?  Here's a preview. 

Europe is finally realizing it cannot meet even current Kyoto Protocol commitments to cut greenhouse gas emissions 5 percent below 1990 levels, by 2012. Economic ministers are worried Kyoto will impact living standards, and send facilities and jobs to China and India, which aren't required to cut emissions.

    Spain is some 20 percent above its target, Italy 15 percent -- Austria 25 percent. Germany is "just" 7 percent above its target but faces a future with no nuclear power (by law it must shut down all reactors by 2020), no coal-fired generators (greenhouse gases), little hydroelectric (4 percent of its total electricity), unreliable natural gas (Russia controls the spigots), and forests of gigantic, undependable wind turbines.

    But the European Commission wants still more draconian reductions by 2020, since even perfect compliance with Kyoto would keep global temperatures from rising only 0.2 degrees Fahrenheit by 2050. That's why alarmists now say we must slash total global emissions by 60 percent to 80 percent by 2050, to keep CO2 at a "safe" level and "stabilize" a climate that has never been stable.

    If poor developing nations remain exempt (as they should), developed countries will have to go virtually carbon-free to reach this goal. How will Americans slash their energy use and emissions 40, 60 or 95 percent?

Super Blogging

Today is the big day.  See this Dave Barry column.  Today is the day to drink beer, watch commericals, and enjoy (if that's the right word) a mini-Prince concert (or I should say a Prince mini-concert, although both he and the concert are quite short).  George Will uses the day to discuss character.  Well done. 

There will be a game, too.  OK, here's the dang prediction.  Colts 31, Bears 17.  Sorry Quentin. 

Sanford Health

Argus Leader:

One of the largest ever donations to a medical center may enable Sioux Valley Hospitals and Health System to transform itself into a world-class research institution aimed at curing diseases and treating patients across the country.

T. Denny Sanford’s $400 million gift, formally announced today in Sioux Falls, provides what will now become Sanford Health the ammunition to reach targets in the stratosphere of health care and medical research, according to Sanford Health CEO Kelby Krabbenhoft.

“We would like to be in a league with them. We use them as markers,” he says of renowned institutions like the Mayo Clinic. Sanford’s donation will be delivered in installments of $50 million over eight years or in larger amounts if Sanford chooses to accelerate the transfer of funds.

It will be used as seed money to leverage as much as $1 billion by the time it is complete. Sanford, who owns First Premier Bank and Premier Bankcard Inc, has a long history of giving to South Dakota institutions.

He has already contributed $20 million to Sioux Valley to expand its projects with the University of South Dakota’s medical school and $16 million for Sanford Children’s Hospital, which will be built in Sioux Falls and operating within 18 months.

He has also given $70 million to the Homestake Mine project, and other gifts to the Children’s Home Society and the United Way. He calls his enormous gift “the most substantial thing that I’ve done philanthropically in my life. ... We have some very special projects that we would like to accomplish.’ ” The investment in Sanford Health will be focused in four areas.

This is great news for Sioux Falls and South Dakota in terms of both helping humanity and economic development.  Not to mention this could make Sioux Falls a major player nationwide as healthcare is concerned.  You can find Sanford Health's new website here.

Concealed Weapons

Glenn Reynolds talks up this bill (pdf alert) sponsored by John Thune and Democratic Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska.  If you have a concealed weapon permit that permit should be recognized by other states.  This is a use of the full faith and credit clause of Article IV Section 1 (see epublius).

Herseth Weakens South Dakota's Power in the House

Joel Rosenthal:

The so called reformist Democrats in the U S House of Representatives in an extreme parliamentary procedure have given themselves four more votes on most matters that come before the U S House of Representatives for consideration.

What is especially troublesome is that this procedure further dilutes South Dakota’s lone voice in the House. Why did our Congresswoman support this?

Certainly She was not being an independent voice for South Dakota. The vote was on an almost perfect party line vote.

The Constitution states - "The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states...'' -- Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 2.

However there are Delegates to the Congress from the District of Columbia, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands and Guam, and the Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico. These Delegates have here to fore been members of Committees and been able to vote on Committees, however they have not had a say in House debate, in consideration of amendments on the House floor or in final consideration of bills. Apparently HR Res 78 changes the Constitution.

HR Res 78 provides that the 5 non-member Delegates, four of whom are Democrats may now vote when the House is a Committee of the Whole. This means on all House of Representatives business and actions other than final passage. It is most often the case that it is in the amendments where bills are debated and shaped and in many cases the final vote is perfunctory.

It looks to me like Speaker Nancy in the name of democracy has turned our Constitution on it’s head and our Independent Voice has diluted our say.