Clinton, Romney Win Nevada

Media outlets are calling the Nevada caucuses, giving Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney victory.  With about twenty percent of precincts left to report in, Hillary edged out Obama and Edwards 50-45-3%.  Romney won with 52% of the vote.  Battles over second and third are still ongoing.  Ron Paul is leading John McCain, 12.95-12.69%, and Huckabee leads over Thompson, 7.7-7.53%. 

There seems to be some voting machine problems in South Carolina.  John McCain is seeking a court order to allow voters in Horry County an extra hour to vote because of the problems.  They're also fighting wintery weather in the state, which is expected to depress voter turnout.

Sister Toldjah is liveblogging Nevada and South Carolina.  You can also follow the results as they come in at this SC link [edit: link fixed].  Polls close tonight at 7.

UPDATE:  Duncan Hunter is calling it quits.  Current SC numbers have McCain leading Huckabee, Thompson, and Romney, 35-29-16-14% with 60% of precincts reporting.

UPDATE:  They've just called South Carolina for John McCain.  With 93% of precincts reporting, McCain leads Huckabee, Thompson, and Romney, 33-29-15-15%.  Good for Fred, as third place will help keep him alive until Super Tuesday.  Bad for Huckabee, who loses a Southern state.  He didn't do well among evangelicals either.

VDH & McCain

Victor Davis Hanson:  "After reading most of the McCain animus on conservative blogs, I’m a little worried that some of it goes over the top. . . . McCain’s past support for the flawed immigration bill, McCain-Feingold, and opposition to tax cuts, as well as temper flare-ups at those who questioned his conservative fides are legitimate concerns. But many believe that the two key issues right now are winning, in conservative fashion, the war in all its theaters, and controlling out-of-control spending. He seems in the forefront there. Moreover it seems odd to fault him for telling the truth—however politically unwise—that all the jobs in the automotive industry simply aren’t coming back as before." (Via Instapundit)

We're All Keynesians Now

I must say I can't disagree with Prof. Schaff's diagnosis of what's wrong with the idea of a stimulus package.  The Republican Study Committee also offers criticism of the stimulus plan.  In addition, basic economics tells us that economies run in fluctuations and there will be boom times and low points.  Economic news coverage tends to exaggerate changes in the economy and blow them out of proportion, creating an atmosphere that demands government action for the supposed gigantic changes that occur.  There are limits about what you can do with recessions, and trying too hard to halt one might cause more problems than letting it run its course.

 

Stimulating Thoughts

South Dakota lawmakers are in agreement that some sort of "stimulus package" is desirable to help the economy avoid recession.  There seems to be consensus that the government should inject money into the system through some combination of tax rebates, interest rate cuts, and government spending.  I guess we are all Keynesians now. 

These policy prescriptions, in my opinion, are folly.  First, they ignore the surge in inflation.  Every policy suggested above has the result of increasing inflation.  Second, all these policies are predicated on false assumptions about the cause of the economic downturn.  Like good Keynesians, they assume that the problem is lack of consumer spending thus we need to "prime the pump" by putting more money into consumer pockets and encouraging them to spend it.

As Dr. Pat notes, heaven forbid we should actually encourage people to save money.  It's always spend, spend, spend.  We are so concerned about short term recession that we perpetuate bad habits that got us in this position in the first place.  We should be encouraging people to save and invest, not spend more money on things they don't need.  This means reducing or removing taxation on savings.  This means at least holding interest rates where they are.  If we really want to stimulate the economy we should be cutting back on corporate tax rates to encourage business creation and expansion, not simply asking people to buy more stuff with their increasingly worthless dollars.  We can also expand incentives for business to invest in expansion.  I fear the policies coming out of Washington will not only fail to curb a recession but will exacerbate the problem by further devaluing our currency.   They are, at best, stopgap measures. 

I don't share Dr. Pat's gloomy view of the US economy (or his protectionism), but the American people must learn some lesson in austerity. It is clear that we can no longer satiate ourselves with massive consumer spending predicated on cheap energy and funded by debt. 

Money In Reserve

The Aberdeen American News reports on the amount and percentage various school districts have in reserve.  This, of course, is controversial as the governor has criticized school districts for baying for more money while have plentiful reserves.  Aberdeen district has about $5 million in reserve, about 25% of its budget.  Sioux Falls has about 19% of it's budget in reserve while Rapid City is just below 15%.  Here are some other schools from the northern part of the state:

Bowdle: $1.009 million; $294,422; 29.18 percent.

Britton-Hecla: $3.215 million; $1.437 million; 44.7 percent.

Conde: $967,966; $742,142; 76.67 percent.

Doland: $1.273 million; $644,523; 50.62 percent.

Edmunds Central: $950,205; $865,621; 91.1 percent.

Eureka: $1.534 million; $915,681; 59.67 percent.

Faulkton: $2.252 million; $1.155 million; 51.32 percent.

Frederick Area: $1.39 million; $639,904; 46.02 percent.

Gettysburg: $1.842 million, $597,729, 32.44 percent.

Groton: $3.577 million; $1.272 million; 35.58 percent.

Herreid: $1.018 million; $135,203; 13.28 percent.

Hitchcock-Tulare: $1.655 million; $511,121; 30.87 percent.

Hoven: $1.219 million; $650,997; 53.4 percent.

Ipswich: $2.374 million; $613,649; 25.84 percent.

Langford: $1.391 million; $334,832; 24.06 percent.

Leola: $1.651 million; $411,988; 24.95 percent.

Mobridge: $3.65 million; $669,953; 18.35 percent.

Northwestern (Mellette): $1.628 million; $927,463; 56.94 percent.

Pollock: $800,900; $26,266; 3.28 percent.

Redfield: $3.47 million, $1.545 million, 44.52 percent.

Roslyn: $1.028 million; $319,422; 31.05 percent.

Selby Area: $1.57 million; $1.959 million; 124.77 percent.

Warner: $1.716 million; $642,510; 37.44 percent.

Waubay: $1.64 million; $131,810; 8.03 percent.

Webster: $2.575 million; $721,753; 28.02 percent.

Minor Correction

Prof. Blanchard and I seem to agree on the constitutional issues regarding apportionment of South Dakota's legislative districts.  I just offer one minor correction to Prof. Blanchard's post.  He writes:

I disagree with Professor Schaff only in so far as I think a constitutional amendment would a very bad idea.  That would create a fourth branch of government with its own constitutional authority, however circumscribed, that would be uncorrectable by the legislature and governor.  Or uncorrectable for at least ten years.  The better course would be to amend the proposal to make it more like the system in Iowa.

This is an honest misunderstanding.  My point is that if Rep. Thompson wants his method as the law of South Dakota it would require a constitutional amendment.  If the state wanted to go the way of Iowa, which is what I prefer, that would take a simple piece of legislation in my opinion. 

SDP Jazz Note: Brad Mehldau & The Art of the Trio

Anyone who is honestly trying to assemble a respectable jazz library, as I am, will be torn, with each selection, between the classics (works recorded more than, lets say, thirty years ago) and contemporary jazz.  The former have one distinct advantage.  It is pretty easy to see what stands out at a distance of three or more decades.  It is much harder to guess which jazz recordings produced in the last ten years will be, or should be on the list in 2040.   On the other hand, contemporary jazz is for the most part much better recorded than earlier jazz.  The technology allows for more life with every note. 

One of the contemporary jazzmen I am collecting is the pianist Brad Mehldau.  He is often compared to Bill Evans, for the unfortunate reason that he is white and a jazz piano player.  But Mehldau is no Evans, just as Evans was no Mehldau.  I first heard Mehldau on Alone Together, when I was looking up some Lee Konitz discs.  But then I picked up Mehldau's The Art of the Trio, vol 1.  Then Vols. 2. and 4.  I have little doubt that these recordings will be part of the Penguin Guide twenty years from now.  Mehldau does what anyone working in an established tradition should do: he preserves the line intact, but makes it fresh, as if it just happened for the first time tonight.  If you want to get a taste of Mehldau with single click of the mouse, hit this link, from Daily Motion. You can hear the Trio (Jorge Rossy on drums, Larry Grenadier on bass) painting several canvases with gorgeous notes over a forty minute concert.  His playing is perfect.  It helps that he plays Moon River.  I always cry at the end of Breakfast at Tiffany's.   

brad mehldau exit music

The South Dakota Constitution & Redistricting

I write in support of my colleague, Professor Schaff's  recent post on this topic. A bill has apparently been introduced that would create an independent commission to redraw South Dakota's election districts after every census.  I agree with Professors Newquist and Schaff that legislatures may indeed delegate certain powers to independent bodies, powers that the legislature itself would otherwise exercise.   I agree with Pat Powers and Professor Schaff that there are constitutional problems with Rep. Bill Thompson's proposal, as I understand it.  I should add that I could not find that bill on the legislature's page, and I am relying on Pat Powers' documents. 

The bill would apparently provide for the creation of a bipartisan commission of seven citizens to do the job of redistricting.  The procedure by which the commission would be appointed seems fair enough.  The redistricting plan that the commission drafts would be submitted to the legislature, and the legislature would be allowed to make "recommendations."  But as I read it, the legislature would have no power to alter the plan, or to prevent it from becoming law.

I agree with Profess Schaff that this is inconsistent with the plain words of the SD Constitution, which states that "The Legislature shall apportion its membership by dividing the state into as many single-member, legislative districts as there are state senators ...[my italics]"  If the bipartisan commission has the final say, then the legislature is no longer apportioning its membership or dividing the states into legislative districts. 

Professor Schaff directs our attention to the state of Iowa, where a similar plan is in place.  But in the Iowa scheme,

The legislature has the final             responsibility for enacting both congressional and state legislative             district plans, but the nonpartisan Legislative Services Bureau has             initial responsibility.

In other words, the independent body produces a plan (or three plans, to be precise), and the legislature must approve one of them.  That procedure would pass constitutional muster in South Dakota. 

Gerrymandering is a very old practice in American politics, as is indicated by the image produced above.  As soon as the first political party system emerged (and it emerged very quickly), it was discovered that districts could be drawn so as to benefit one party at the expense of the other.  As state legislatures draw district lines, this has the effect of artificially increasing the power of the party that controls the state legislature.   Contrary to Professor Newquist's comments, there is nothing obscene about this.  Winners enjoy a lot of unfair advantages in any democratic system.   But it is at least an ugly distortion of the will of the electorate, and there is nothing to recommend it.  It has lasted these two centuries because its vices are always more readily apparent to the party that suffers from it, and the power to change it lies always in the hands of the party that benefits.  If Professor Newquist wants to see something really ugly, look to the campaign waged against a similar reform proposal by Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in California.  It will not be easy to get reform here, either.  But if Iowa can do it ...

I would like to see something similar to the Iowa system put in place in South Dakota, and I applaud Rep. Thompson for suggesting it.  I think it would be better government.  I disagree with Professor Schaff only in so far as I think a constitutional amendment would a very bad idea.  That would create a fourth branch of government with its own constitutional authority, however circumscribed, that would be uncorrectable by the legislature and governor.  Or uncorrectable for at least ten years.  The better course would be to amend the proposal to make it more like the system in Iowa.

The legislature must have the final say about which redistricting plan is adopted.   Of course, the majority party will be tempted to veto any plan that does not  preserve its advantage.  But the state constitution wisely provides for that.  If the independent commission proposes three plans, and the legislature cannot agree on any of them, the State Supreme Court will choose one.  I am guessing that the majority will rather act than let the Court act for it.

Mike Huckabee Is the Campbell's Sea Salt Chef. Not.

But he darn sure looks like him. Back in December I pointed out that the actor who plays the chef on  Campbell's sea salt commercials looks astoundingly like Mike Huckabee.  I just found a blog from South Carolina (what a coincidence!) SC6, that makes the same point.  SC6 managed to identify the actor as Matt Servitto.  I still can't find a better picture than this of the Chef from the commercial.

Apparently there are some folks out there who think the Campbell's Sea Salt Chef really is Mike Huckabee.  That would explain how he is funding his campaign. 

The South Dakota Constitution And Apportionment

How's that for a sexy title?  Pat Powers takes Rep. Bill Thompson to task for submitting a bill (pdf alert) that requires South Dakota legislative districts be drawn by an independent commission rather than by the Legislature.  Pat thinks this is patently unconstitutional.  Why? He argues the South Dakota Constitution gives the apportionment power to the Legislature.  Read the whole section here, but here is the operative part:

The Legislature shall apportion its membership by dividing the state into as many single-member, legislative districts as there are state senators....If any Legislature whose duty it is to make an apportionment shall fail to make the same as herein provided, it shall be the duty of the Supreme Court within ninety days to make such apportionment.

Dave Newquist dissents from the Powers interpretation:

In the Thompson bill, the Legislature has full oversight in the composition of the redistricting commission and authoritiy to review the plans and make recommendations. It also has the authority to delegate its tasks. All the Thompson bill does is remove the process from the coils of any partisan bull snake.

Let me suggest an third alternative, one the splits the difference perhaps between these two constitutional interpretations.  Dave Newquist is certainly correct that legislatures have the power to delegate authority.  For example at the federal level Congress delegates regulatory power to the Food and Drug Administration and even to independent regulatory commissions such as the Federal Communications Commission.  It just happens that Iowa actually has an independent commission draw the district lines for both federal and state legislative districts (see here).  I happen to like the Iowa process and wish all states would adopt it. 

But one will quickly note that in the Iowa system the Legislature and governor have final say.  The commission provides three plans.  The legislature votes on those three plans.  As in the South Dakota system, if the legislature cannot come to a decision the state Supreme Court steps in.  The governor retains veto power over both types of plans (legislative and judicial). 

This is a significant departure from the Thompson bill.  That bill only allows for the legislature to give recommendations, but the legislature retains no actual decision making authority in the process.  As Pat Powers notes, under the Thompson bill the commission's apportionment plan becomes law.  This is a law that was never voted on by the legislature or signed by the governor. This does strike me as a violation of both the letter and spirit of the Constitution.  Rep. Thompson suggests the legislature create an independent entity which has little oversight from the people or their representatives.  The Constitution clearly anticipates the legislature being the decision maker in the apportionment process.

Rep. Thompson is to be commended for submitting a bill that has good intentions, but I am afraid I must agree with Mr. Powers that the bill cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny.  If he truly believes in his bill's content Rep. Thompson should submit it as a constitutional amendment. 

Obama's Minister Of Hate

As I wrote here, Barack Obama's Chicago church has some beliefs that are not, how shall we put it, mainstream.  It is not clear precisely what the "Disavowal of the Pursuit of Middleclassness" means, but in the context of the Pastor Jeremiah Wright's man crush on Louis Farrakhan and and the promotion of a "Black Value System," one gets some ideas. 

Richard Cohen asks, or rather demands, that Obama denounce Farrakhan and his pastor's support for Farrakhan in no uncertain terms. After cataloging Farrakhan's long string of racist vitriol and Pastor Wright's glowing words for Farrakhan, Cohen writes:

I don't for a moment think that Obama shares Wright's views on Farrakhan. But the rap on Obama is that he is a fog of a man. We know little about him, and, for all my admiration of him, I wonder about his mettle. The New York Times recently reported on Obama's penchant while serving in the Illinois legislature for merely voting "present" when faced with some tough issues. Farrakhan, in a strictly political sense, may be a tough issue for him. This time, though, "present" will not do.

Pastor Wright is now turning irascible tongue on the Clintons.  Here is a report from this past Sunday's service:

Man should not put limits on what God can do, but that's what people always do, [Wright] told the crowd. Just as God made five loaves and two fishes feed thousands, God has provided liberators for blacks in the past - from Nat Turner to the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., and now Barack Obama. But, Wright said, there were always reasons not to follow them.

Some argue that blacks should vote for Clinton "because her husband was good to us," he continued.

"That's not true," he thundered. "He did the same thing to us that he did to Monica Lewinsky."

First, can you imagine the outcry if the "spiritual mentor" (Obama's characterization of his relationship with Wright) of a Republican candidate supported outright racists and used the pulpit to denounce the candidate's political opponents in the most vile manner? Second, it needs pointing out that this is presumably a tax exempt church that is clearly being used to advocate on behalf of a candidate.  The IRS may want to look into that.  This is in addition to the apparent confusion in this church between the Gospel of Christ and the gospel of political action. 

What is Obama's reaction?

In a statement released by his campaign last night, Obama responded to questions about Wright's comments on Sunday.

"As I've told Reverend Wright, personal attacks such as this have no place in this campaign or our politics, whether they're offered from a platform at a rally or the pulpit of a church," he said. "I don't think of the pastor of my church in political terms.

"Like a member of my own family, there are things he says at times with which I deeply disagree," he said. "But as he prepares to retire, that doesn't detract from my affection for Reverend Wright or appreciation for the good works he has done."

Maybe the Senator doesn't think of his pastor in political terms, but clearly his pastor sees himself in those terms.  Obama's reaction is the rhetorical equivalent of voting "present."  As Cohen suggests, he'll have to do better.

As I say, any Republican whose minister engaged in this kind of rhetoric would certainly be facing charges of spreading hate.  And with good reason.  Just recall the rightful denunciations of George W. Bush in 2000 after visiting Bob Jones University, which, until recently, did not allow interracial dating.  We'll see if Obama is held to the same standard.  But perhaps some things are just too audacious to hope for.   

Update: Reader Anthony wants me to remind readers that the Rev. Wright did not give Louis Farrakhan any awards.  I want to point out that I never said that he did.  The award was given by the church's magazine which is run by Rev. Wright's daughters.  Anthony says:

So...a magazine, edited by the daughter of Jeremiah Wright Jr, gave an award to Louis Farrakahn (sic).  Jeremiah Wright Jr did NOT give the award, and does not have anything to do with the day to day operation of the magazine.

I don't know how Anthony knows Rev. Wright "does not have anything to do with the day to day operation of the magazine."  If it is his church and they are his daughters, does it not stand to reason that Rev. Wright should be held responsible for that magazine's content?  But even if it is true that he doesn't have "day to day" control of the magazine, if you are a pastor of a church and your church publishes a magazine run by your daughters and that magazine gives an award to Louis Farrakhan, does that not reflect on you?   

Abortions Down 25%

Today's LA Times reports on a study concluding that fewer women are choosing abortions, and those that do are increasingly turning to morning-after medication to accomplish it.  The rate of all abortions continues to decline, reaching its lowest level since a peak in 1990.  According to the study, the drop does not come from any increase in restrictions on access to abortion, but from a change in "socio-cultural mores" that reject abortion as an option:

A comprehensive study of abortion in America underscores a striking change in the landscape, with ever-fewer pregnant women choosing abortion and those who do increasingly opting to avoid surgical clinics.

The number of abortions has plunged to 1.2 million a year, down 25% since peaking in 1990, according to a report released today -- days before the 35th anniversary of Roe vs. Wade, the Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion.

In the early 1980s, nearly 1 in 3 pregnant women chose abortion. The most recent data show that proportion is closer to 1 in 5.

"That's a significant drop, and it's encouraging," said Randall K. O'Bannon, director of education and research for the antiabortion group National Right to Life.

...

Some of the biggest drops in the abortion rate, however, have come in states that do not impose tight restrictions.

Oregon, for instance, was rated this week by Americans United for Life as the nation's "least pro-life state," yet its abortion rate dropped 25% from 2000 to 2005 -- more than any state except Wyoming.

California also was ranked hostile territory by Americans United for Life, but its abortion rate fell 13%, significantly more than the national average. "Abortion rate" refers to the number of abortions per 1,000 women of reproductive age.

The data suggest that the decline in abortions may be due not to legal restrictions, but to a shift in "socio-cultural mores" -- in other words, women's attitudes, said John Seery, a professor at Pomona College who studies the politics of abortion.

"Right-to-lifers should take heart that abortion rates have been dropping, despite the movement's failure to reverse Roe vs. Wade," he said. To build upon that, Seery added, the antiabortion movement should focus on continuing to "change hearts and minds."

Beltway Insight From David Broder

In the Washington Post today, David Broder discovers what the rest of us have already been talking about: none of the leading Democratic candidates for President have executive experience, putting them at a serious disadvantage to their Republican counterparts:

It was fascinating to watch the three top contenders for the Democratic nomination discuss their concept of the presidency during Tuesday night’s MSNBC debate in Las Vegas. But it was also stunning to realize that the three current and former senators who have survived the shakeout process — Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards — have not a day of chief executive experience among them.

By contrast, the Republican field is loaded with people who are accustomed to being in charge of large organizations. Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee were governors of their states of Massachusetts and Arkansas, Rudy Giuliani served as the mayor of New York, and John McCain, as he likes to remind audiences, commanded the largest squadron in the Navy air wing.

...

All of this places an unusually heavy burden on the three Democrats to show they can do more than talk a good game of leadership — and actually lead.

Its not only executive experience, but experience in general that the Democratic frontrunners lack.  Add together the time they've all spent in national office and they still don't equal John McCain's time in the Senate.  Can the Democrats convince American voters that seven years or less of legislative experience at the national level is enough preparation to occupy the Oval Office? (via Capt. Ed)

The Villany You Teach Me, I Will Execute

In Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice, Shylock the Jew, in his famous "If you prick us do we not bleed" speech, asserts that the Jew is the same as the Christian: when wronged he will seek his revenge. 

With this in mind, consider Floyd Flake's suggestion that the problem of the Democrats is not with African-Americans and women, but with white men.  His advice: tone down the rhetoric:

So, for the sake of the Democratic Party's electoral chances and its two historic candidates, two things must occur immediately. One, the racial and gender pitch of the last week must be ratcheted down. No Democrat can win a "racialized" or "genderized" general election. Identity obsession might work in the primaries, but it is off-putting in the general election.

At the same time, of course, race is real in America. So is gender. Racism and gender bias are serious problems. Democrats have to find a way to talk about these issues in honest language - without either mouthing platitudes or breaking out in hives. To his credit, Obama has transcended typical discussions of race in this campaign so far.

Rev. Flake may want to make explicit that which is implicit in his article, namely that identity politics has as its logical end conflict between various identities.  The modern Democratic party built itself on what was once called "interest group liberalism."  The Democrats of the 60s and 70s, then firmly in control of the federal government, used their power to reward various interest groups to give those groups a stake in the Democratic party's electoral success.  This edifice began cracking when the financial reckoning of this gambit came due as well as when various groups (e.g., Reagan Democrats) began to see their interests diverging from other groups in the coalition. 

The contemporary Democrats are left less with interest group liberalism than identity politics liberalism.  The success of the party lies largely (but not solely) on appealing to women as women, blacks as blacks, Hispanics as Hispanics, etc.  Essentially they are saying, "It's in your interest as a member of your race or sex to vote for the Democratic party."  Investing so hard in identity politics makes it inevitable that two or more of these groups will fall into conflict as they vie for power within the party.  The groups begin to assert their power, leading to political fights such as we see now within the Democratic party.  These fights, by nature of the appeals of the Democratic party, must be vicious as they are so tied to voters' very identity.

When you build a coalition based on race and sex it shouldn't be surprising when racial and sexual politics come to the fore.  We have learned the script of identity politics and now we see it performed on the world's biggest stage. 

Militants Overrun Pakistan Fort

Some bad news in Pakistan.

Sigh

Ron Paul got more votes in New Hampshire and Michigan than did Fred Thompson.  That only makes this more embarrassing. 

Michigan: The Election Without Meaning

The results last night in Michigan, a Romeny win over McCain and a Clinton victory over no one, mean this: almost nothing.  On the GOP side it means Romney is not dropping out, but other than that the candidates continue to tread water.  For other commentary see here and here. 

On the Democrat side, we didn't learn much that we didn't already know.  Thanks to shenanigans by the Michigan Democratic Party, of the major contenders only Hillary Clinton was on the ballot. Hers is a victory worthy of Pyrrhus, although it will not undo her.  She beat "uncommitted" 55%-40%.  As she was the only candidate who campaigned in the state, her 55% means little to nothing.  What the results do show is that there is a solid block of Democratic voters, around 40%, who do not want her as a nominee.  The question is whether Barack Obama can take that 40%, woo it to his cause, and add to it when this inevitably becomes a two person race. 

Sen. Johnson In Aberdeen

Sen Johnson, touring the "hot spots" of development in South Dakota made a stop in Aberdeen yesterday:

“The community is bursting with progress,” he said. “I congratulate Aberdeen. The town is very impressive.”

The bus stopped at construction sites for Molded Fiber Glass Cos., Northern Beef Packers, Heartland Grain Fuels expanded ethanol production facility and several housing developments.

Business leaders hopped on and off the bus at some stops to share the latest developments with Johnson.

The Ides of Michigan

This just in, from correspondent Casca:

Are not you moved, when all the sway of earth
Shakes like a thing unfirm? O Cicero,
I have seen tempests, when the scolding winds
Have rived the knotty oaks, and I have seen
The ambitious ocean swell and rage and foam,
To be exalted with the threatening clouds:
But never till to-night, never till now,
Did I go through a tempest dropping fire.
Either there is a civil strife in heaven,
Or else the world, too saucy with the gods,
Incenses them to send destruction.

The State of Michigan was so saucy with the gods, it held its primary before the pious time.  As result Ms. Clinton was running only against Dennis Kucinich, which is to say, unopposed.  Nonetheless, she received a mere 55% of the vote.   A full 40% were cast for "uncommitted". Never till tonight, never till now, did I see 236,234 voters go to the polls, in a primary election that doesn't count, to vote resolutely for nobody.  Or more accurately, for somebody, if not anybody else.  This is the sort of victory that Ms. C. can ill-afford. 

And then there is the Republican Primary, brought to us by correspondent Calpurnia: 

A lioness hath whelped in the streets;
And graves have yawn'd, and yielded up their dead;
Fierce fiery warriors fought upon the clouds,
In ranks and squadrons and right form of war,
Which drizzled blood upon the Capitol;
The noise of battle hurtled in the air,
Horses did neigh, and dying men did groan,
And ghosts did shriek and squeal about the streets.
 

Mitt Romney, that Mormon Cicero, finally has his triumph.  He won with 39% of the vote, against John McCain's 30%.   And so did the graves yawn and the candidacy of Romney was yielded up from the dead.  Pundits will neigh and Fred Thompson groan.  Mike Huckabee, a distant third, will continue looking to the Southern provinces. 

Let us apply some judgment.  The Democratic electorate is divided against itself.  Ms. Clinton got the lion's share of White men and the lioness's share of White women (54% & 71%).  "Uncommitted" received 54% of the non-White men and 64% of the non-White women.  This is no doubt a consequence of the race question that is now drizzling blood on the Democrats.  Professor Schaff and I have commented on it.

The Republicans, by contrast, are divided among three candidates.  While McCain won among voters who never go to church, Huckabee lost to Romney among those who show up every Sunday.  The Michigan results leave us with three viable candidates. 

I think this means that the Democrats are in better shape.  There is more passion there, and sooner or later they will decide on one candidate.  But there is an obvious caveat.  If Ms. Clinton turns out to be the nominee, and that is hard to call right now, she may well alienate large portions of the electorate, including Black voters.  The Republicans right now look headed toward a brokered convention, where the winner will be "whatever."  Unless one of the three can start energizing the base, the Republicans win only if the Democrats implode. 

Defending The Nanny (Sort Of)

Pat Powers goes on a rant against Sen. Sandy Jerstad for a bill to require those who "sell, distribute, or use obscene material or provide obscene material" to be licensed by the state.  I have not considered the full implications of all of the language in this bill, but I do want to point out a couple things that maybe should cause people to lower their blood pressure.  First, obscene material is not covered by the First Amendment.  Granted, what qualifies as "obscene" is the subject of much debate, but the Supreme Court has been consistent in saying it is not protected speech.  Second, this kind of activity falls squarely into what is known as the police power, which is the state's power to regulate public safety, health and morality.  In American law this has been considered one of the powers reserved to the states.  So far from being an abuse of the state's power, this is exactly the kind of thing that states have traditionally regulated. 

I might suggest that the wording of the bill is sloppy.  Words like "use" and "provide" are over broad. If Sen. Jerstad is serious about this becoming law she should restrict it to those who sell this material and be more precise in her definition of obscene so as to overcome Mr. Powers' legitimate worry that this bill places a burden on regular bookstores and libraries.

Update: This is a much better bill.  Simply note the clear definitions and its limitation to those business for whom selling so-called "adult" materials is their main source of income.  This does not implicate your average bookstore or gas station. 

When Did the History Channel Stop Doing History?

Tune your television to the History Channel for about fifteen minutes and you'll see advertisements for shows on Big Foot, conspiracy theories and 9/11, some show on the universe, life after people, and their new show, Monster Quest, and the search for mythical creatures.  I thought we already had a SciFi channel?

Minneapolis Bridge Collapse Caused by Design Flaw

USA Today reports that the collapse of the St. Anthony Bridge in Minneapolis resulted from a design flaw in the gusset plates, ending speculation that poor maintenance caused the deaths of thirteen people last August:

Federal investigators have concluded that steel plates on the interstate bridge that collapsed last summer in Minneapolis were inadequate to hold the structure together and appear to have been what allowed it to fail, killing 13 people, two officials familiar with the investigation said Monday.

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) plans to call Tuesday for states to perform safety assessments on the so-called gusset plates in steel girder bridges any time they add weight to a bridge, the sources said. Design changes in 1977 and 1998 added additional pavement and concrete barriers that increased the weight of the Interstate 35W bridge in downtown Minneapolis.

...

In the wreckage of the I-35W bridge, investigators found 16 gusset plates that were fractured, said one of the officials. Eight of the plates were in the location on the south side of the bridge where the collapse began, according to that official.

The fractures prompted engineers to calculate whether the plates were adequate to hold the bridge together. What they found was that the half-inch thick plates should have been an inch thick — double the size.

The New York Times' Jaundiced Reporting on Veterans

Once again Powerline is on the beat.  The Old Lady of American journalism celebrates Iraq and Afghanistan soldiers in its own way: not with a yellow ribbon but with yellowed journalism.  It has run a story about a crime wave committed by returning veterans, by Deborah Sontag and Lizette Alvarez. 

Town by town across the country, headlines have been telling similar stories. Lakewood, Wash.: “Family Blames Iraq After Son Kills Wife.” Pierre, S.D.: “Soldier Charged With Murder Testifies About Postwar Stress.” Colorado Springs: “Iraq War Vets Suspected in Two Slayings, Crime Ring.”

Individually, these are stories of local crimes, gut-wrenching postscripts to the war for the military men, their victims and their communities. Taken together, they paint the patchwork picture of a quiet phenomenon, tracing a cross-country trail of death and heartbreak.

The New York Times found 121 cases in which veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan committed a killing in this country, or were charged with one, after their return from war. In many of those cases, combat trauma and the stress of deployment — along with alcohol abuse, family discord and other attendant problems — appear to have set the stage for a tragedy that was part destruction, part self-destruction.

Now the above paints a pretty sad picture.  But on its own, it doesn't tell us anything. Is this a high or a low murder rate for this carefully defined population?  One hundred twenty one murders would represent about one third of the murders in Detroit, Michigan, in 2003.  And how did the the authors arrive at these numbers?

The Pentagon does not keep track of such killings, most of which are prosecuted not by the military justice system but by civilian courts in state after state. Neither does the Justice Department.

To compile and analyze its list, The Times conducted a search of local news reports, examined police, court and military records and interviewed the defendants, their lawyers and families, the victims’ families and military and law enforcement officials.

This reporting most likely uncovered only the minimum number of such cases, given that not all killings, especially in big cities and on military bases, are reported publicly or in detail. Also, it was often not possible to determine the deployment history of other service members arrested on homicide charges.

The Times used the same methods to research homicides involving all active-duty military personnel and new veterans for the six years before and after the present wartime period began with the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001.

This showed an 89 percent increase during the present wartime period, to 349 cases from 184, about three-quarters of which involved Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans. The increase occurred even though there have been fewer troops stationed in the United States in the last six years and the American homicide rate has been, on average, lower.

So the only comparison Sontag and Alvarez can make is between murders by military personnel before and during the "present war-time period."  And while they admit that neither number is reliable, they draw the conclusion that the real numbers must be higher and therefore that their case is really stronger than it looks.  Proof by optimistic supposition. 

Powerline points out that, if you are going to introduce such numbers, you might at least compare them to data that is reliable. 

I'm pretty sure your first question will be: "How does the murder rate among veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan compare to the murder rate for young American men generally?" Remarkably, this is a question the New York Times did not think to ask. Or, if the Times asked the question and figured out the answer, the paper preferred not to report it.

As of 2005, the homicide rate for Americans aged 18-24, the cohort into which most soldiers fall, was around 27 per 100,000. (The rate for men in that age range would be much higher, of course, since men commit around 88% of homicides. But since most soldiers are also men, I gave civilians the benefit of the doubt and considered gender a wash.)

Next we need to know how many servicemen have returned from Iraq or Afghanistan. A definitive number is no doubt available, but the only hard figure I've seen is that as of last October, moe than 500,000 U.S. Army personnel had served in either Iraq or Afghanistan. Other sources peg the total number of personnel from all branches of the military who have served in the two theaters much higher, e.g. 750,000, 650,000 as of February 2007, or 1,280,000. For the sake of argument, let's say that 700,000 soldiers, Marines, airmen and sailors have returned to the U.S. from service in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Do the math: the 121 alleged instances of homicide identified by the Times, out of a population of 700,000, works out to a rate of 17 per 100,000--quite a bit lower than the overall national rate of around 27.

But wait!  The national rate of 27 homicides per 100,000 is an annual rate, whereas the Times' 121 alleged crimes were committed over a period of six years. Which means that, as far as the Times' research shows, the rate of homicides committed by military personnel who have returned from Iraq or Afghanistan is only a fraction of the homicide rate for other Americans aged 18 to 24. Somehow, the Times managed to publish nine pages of anecdotes about the violence wreaked by returning servicemen without ever mentioning this salient fact [my italics].

The real murder rate for returning Iraq and Afghanistan veterans would be difficult to determine, as Sontag and Alvarez admit. But it is almost certainly much lower than the rate for their cohort (males,  18-24) as a whole.  This is a more effective argument for a universal draft than it is for the horrors of war.

All the Times really has is this: the murder rate appears to have gone up among military personnel since the invasion of Afghanistan.  This might have been prevented by better mental health screening, though the article can present no reliable estimates of how many servicemen get should screening or whether it is adequate.  Nor do we know how much good, if any, such screening does. 

But even the claim of increase is highly suspect.  The authors acknowledge that they rely heavily on local news reports that identify the perpetrator of a crime as a serviceman.  James Tarranto of the Wall Street Journal points out the obvious flaw in that.

What the Times has discovered, then, is a dramatic increase in the number of news reports in which homicide defendants are identified as servicemen or recent veterans. Does this mean that those who've served their country are more crime-prone now than they were in peacetime? Or does it mean that reporters are more prone to perpetuate the wacko-vet myth than they were during peacetime?

The Times article is very shoddy journalism.  It contributes to the myth of the crazed veteran, which is no service to our men and woman at arms.  Only a little extra effort would have made it a much more responsible piece, but at the cost of its obviously intended political effect. 

Yet Another Call For Entitlement Reform

In the past few days we have seen the Financial Times and Robert Samuelson in the Washington Post arguing that unless the United States makes significant reforms to entitlement programs it faces economically devastating deficits.  The amount of money spent on these entitlements will push aside all other necessary spending. 

The government is now making the same argument.  At least the comptrollers office of the Government Accountability Office is.  See this report (pdf alert).  Read the report for yourself, but here are some highlights.  In 1966, mandatory spending made up only 26% of the budget.  In 1986 it was 42%. It is now 53% of the federal budget.  What does that mean?  Before we build one bridge, hire one social worker, pay one soldier, buy one bullet for that soldier, before one Pell Grant is provided we have already spent over half of the budget, or roughly $1.5 trillion.  That's before Congress makes one appropriation.  Over the next 25 years, the GAO estimates a 77% growth in our economy, yet Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare will grow 127%, 224%, and 235% respectively.  Even if they underestimate economic growth (and this is usually the case) it is hard to see how our economic growth keeps up with the pace of entitlements. 

The GAO makes various suggestions for correcting the problem, such as a line item veto, adjusting the Social Security COLA, increasing the age of normal retirement, and having supplemental investment accounts for individuals. 

The GAO notes four deficits we face as a people: Budget, Balance of Payments, Savings, and...Leadership.  The latter three reforms mentioned just above will have various constituencies screaming about lack of compassion for the elderly.  These cries for compassion mask the fact that we are burdening our children and grandchildren with either crushing debt or crushing taxation, all so we can keep supporting ourselves on "free" government money.  It will indeed take leadership to make any meaningful changes. 

The New Masterpiece

A revamped Masterpiece Theater (now simply Masterpiece) debuted last night with a production of Jane Austen's Persuasion.  This film represents the first installment of Masterpiece's promised "complete Jane Austen." 

Unfortunately, I was disappointed in the production.  First, they shoved the novel into an hour and a half film, which led to a rushed feeling.  Second, they make the heroine, Anne Elliot, into a mouse, when in the novel she is the strong backbone of an otherwise self-indulgent family.  Lastly, they bastardized one of the most important passages in Austen.  Early in the story the male protagonist, Capt. Wentworth, informs his sister Sophia of his intent to find a wife.  In the novel this is in private, in the Masterpiece film it is in front of everybody at a dinner party.  In the book and film, Wentworth jokes about marrying the first pretty girl he can find.  Then he turns serious.  In the film he prattles on about finding a woman who cannot be "persuaded" easily, someone not easily influenced by others.  The implication of the film is that this is a jab at Anne Elliot.  But the novel says, "Anne Elliot was not out of his thoughts, when he more than seriously described the woman he wished to meet with. ‘A strong mind, with sweetness of manner’, made the first and last of the description."  This is important because it not only tells us that from the beginning Wentworth thinks highly of Anne, but I happen to think this is the sum of Austen's view of the best woman: "strong of mind, with sweetness of manner." The film eliminates this line, substituting dialog that obscures both meanings. 

Not that I have strong feelings on any of this, mind you. 

I do face paint very well, thank you.

Was this about the headphones joke?  Geese.  Ouch.  I surrender. 

And it's just the Claremont Institute for Clowns now.  The other circus programs lost their academic standing. 

So I call Lifeline and my call gets directed to an operator in Pakistan.  I told the guy on the other end that I was feeling suicidal.  He says: "Yes sire, you did the right thing to call, Sir.  Now: can you drive a truck?"

Bills Before The Legislature

Bill Napoli thinks he made a mistake when pushing for legislative term limits.  Now he wants them repealed.  Legislators will tell you that the legislature is suffering from a lack of institutional memory and experience.  Sen. Moore is almost certainly correct that term limits give power to the lobbyists and the executive branch.  Whether a drive to repeal terms limits can succeed remains to be seen.

On another matter, it seems they are on to Prof. Blanchard.  A proposed bill makes it a Class 1 misdemeanor to use a fraudulent degree to get a job in South Dakota.  Unfortunately for Prof. Blanchard, his doctorate from The Claremont Institute For Clowns and Circus Performers is not worth the paper its printed on. 

The Sacred Fire Of Liberty

Todd thinks James Madison, warning us of the effect of war on the polity, was predicting George Bush.  One wonders why Todd doesn't pick more obvious examples such as Woodrow Wilson or Franklin Roosevelt.  During war both of these presidents and those in their administration explicitly questioned the patriotism of those  who differed with their policies.  Wilson used the Post Office to shut down periodicals that did not support WWI.  He started a propaganda board that put out advertisements and messages in films to whip up support for his war policies.  People were jailed for expressing dissent.  He openly questioned the loyalty of those who are "hyphenated Americans," namely those of German descent.  Both FDR and Wilson used the war to justify great increases in executive power.  FDR, as we all know, used executive power to jail 100,000 Americans strictly for their racial background. 

What has George Bush done?  Has anyone been jailed for their political beliefs?  Has his administration shut down any publications?  For example, when the New York Times published classified information about surveillance techniques used by the government, the Administration denounced the Times, but has one move been made to actually harm the Times? 

No doubt the Bush administration has defended executive power.  I have said that while the Bush administration is likely right on the law, it has been imprudent in its defense of executive prerogative. 

Do you want to see the abuse of power?  Watch the video of the year, coming from sweet and progressive Canada.  Here an Albertan, Ezra Levant, who runs a periodical that published the infamous "Danish cartoons" must defend himself from prosecution by the Canadian Human Rights Commission.  I note that this same commission is going after columnist Mark Steyn for his book America Alone. In progressive Canada dissent is punished. The government holds trials for those who commit ideological offenses.  It threatens with prosecution those who dare to question the progressive orthodoxy of "diversity."  But this is ok, because it is in the name of progress.  Here's that remarkable video:

Dems Battle It Out Over Race

This story chronicles the combat between Hillary Clinton over the issue of race.  Let me suggest that this works for the short term benefit of Hillary Clinton in a general election she might have exposed herself to criticism.  Clinton is trying to argue that it took LBJ's experience to make MLK's rhetoric into reality. This of course is a way of saying that Obama's poetry can make you feel good, but it takes the guile of Hillary Clinton to get the job done.  To the extent race is an issue this hurts Obama's position as what Shelby Steele calls a "bargainer."  Instead of his blackness being something that is almost invisible, it has come to the forefront which mitigates one of Obama's greatest strengths, the ability to transcend race.  And perhaps Mickey Kaus is correct that at some point America will take a look at Barack Obama's black nationalist church, and it will not like what it sees. 

While the race discussion helps Sen. Clinton capture the nomination, one cannot help but notice she is basically diminishing the role of Martin Luther King in favor of Lyndon Johnson. She may be alienating black voters in the process.  Those black voters are unlikely to vote Republican, but they may stay home. 

The Democrats, Race, & Honest Talk

Up until now, Senator Obama's race, like Senator Clinton's gender, has played only a marginal role in the campaign.  There is no doubt that race was always part of Obama's resume, but as Black Americans originally seemed incline to stick with Ms. Clinton as the establishment Democratic candidate, it seemed unlikely to be a divisive issue.  That may be about to change as the campaign moves south.  From The State (Columbia, South Carolina):

Sharp criticism of Barack Obama and other comments about Martin Luther King Jr. — all from people associated with Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign — have generated resentment among some black S.C. voters.  The furor comes just two weeks before those voters will have a significant say in who wins the Jan. 26 primary here.

The Clinton-Obama battle has the potential to become a wrenching divide for black voters. Historically those voters have been strong backers of Bill and Hillary Clinton. But many black voters now are drawn to the prospect of a black man winning the presidency.

It was perhaps inevitable that the Obama campaign would play the race card.  But the Clinton's made an unforced error that invited it.  From Forbes:

Both New York Sen. Clinton and her husband, the former president, have engaged in damage control this week after black leaders criticized their comments shortly before the New Hampshire primary last Tuesday.

The senator was quoted as saying King's dream of racial equality was realized only when President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, while Bill Clinton said Illinois Sen. Obama was telling a "fairy tale" about his opposition to the Iraq war.

Now, one can criticize the Clinton's remarks on both substantive and tactical grounds.  Was not Martin Luther King Jr.'s leadership of the Civil Rights Movement the foundation upon which President Johnson acted?  And is this the right moment for the non-Black candidate to be asking that question?  But Senator Clinton's point, that the President's and Congress (along with Courts) actually make law, as opposed to just demanding it, was perfectly reasonable.  And President Bill was entitled to argue that Obama was not being completely honest about his own record, whether you agree with Bill or not.  This is what politics ought to be about, and the pieties of the Civil Rights Movement should not be used by Obama as a shield against criticism, if he wants to be taken seriously by the whole electorate. 

This is not good for the Democrats. From the New Republic blog, by Noam Scheiber:

The mini-uproar may help Obama win South Carolina--especially since native son John Edwards should siphon white votes from Hillary if he stays in the race. But I think racial tension beyond South Carolina probably hurts Obama--both in narrow tactical ways (he's going to need a chunk of white independents on February 5; it could also create a backlash among Hispanics), and in broad, thematic ways (his candidacy is so attractive to many voters because they see it as an opportunity for racial healing).

That said, all this really just hurts the party. If you were cynical, you could argue that the Clintons have an interest in keeping this going beyond South Carolina, for the reasons just mentioned. But any benefit Hillary would reap from racial division in the primaries could be pretty costly in the general.

Ugh. I wish we could just shove all this toothpaste back in the tube, but something tells me that's wishful thinking.

 

The toothpaste has been out of the tube for a long time.  The Democrats are fond of complaining that anyone who takes issue with them on foreign policy is criticizing their patriotism.  Some declare that anyone who writes favorably about Bush's surge strategy in Iraq is a "war monger."  The tendency to view any idea you oppose as a sign of bad character is tempting to use against your enemies.  It will inevitably divide you from your allies. 

One Missed Call: More J-Horror Translated

Beginning in the 90's, a number of horror films were produced in Asia that would have a big impact on American cinema.  The most important of these were Ringu (98), Ju-on (03), Kairo (01), Uzumaki (00), and Jian gui (02).  Each one is a masterpiece.  The first three have seen new American versions under the titles The Ring, The Grudge, and Pulse.  Uzumaki, or Spiral, might be the most powerful of them all, but it is perhaps too far off the weirdness scale to get an Americanized remake.  I think The Ring was slightly better than its Japanese original, which was certainly unusual.  Most A-Horror fans do not agree.  All but the last were made in Japan.  Jian giu was made in Hong Kong, and it is by far the most beautiful of the films.  An American version, The Eye, is about to open. 

Chakushin Ari (03), or One Missed Call, now has its American version playing at our local theater. It has been awhile since I saw the Japanese version, so I can't rely too much no memory.  It was at least second tier, and had a plot that was more coherent and well-developed than most A-horror tends to be. It is my impression that the American version is slightly better.   It is very faithful to the original plot, which is good, and it limits the number of A-horror cliches, which is better.  I don't think there is a single Asian woman with long, wet, hair crawling out of anything, and that might be a first since The Ring.  It does have a lot of the ghost walking toward you in time-spaced jerks; but that is a very useful, if cheap, cinematic device.  It lets you know that the ghost is not quite moving in ordinary space-time. Finally, the ghost in OMC follows the trend of her siblings in the creative use of new technologies.  Ghosts have to talk to us somehow, if they talk at all.  Cell phones and computers are great substitutes for the traditional Ouija board.

One Missed Call is a reasonably good example of the basic model that underlies almost all good horror.  It begins with some real human problematic (in this case, child abuse), and translates it into the ghost world.  Every culture, even the most secular, modern, one, has its ghost world.  The above-mentioned movies are all interesting because they pull out aspects of the shadow realm that differ between Asian and American culture.  In Judeo-Christian culture, the demons nearly always get in because of some moral transgression on the part of the protagonists.  In A-horror this is not usually the case.  It's just that the ghost world occasionally leaks into the waking world.  Think of it as more of an ecological than a moral crisis.  One Missed Call fits perfectly within the Western model.  But it has a nicely surprising story, and is sharply observant of human psychology. Go see it at night.  A fuller theater, with people shouting "Oh My God!" and "Wow!" adds to the experience. 

I saw another Japanese movie this weekend (with subtitles: I don't know Japanese): Prisoner #701 Scorpion: Beast Stable.  It's not what it sounds like.  It is not a chicks-behind-bars movie, nor was it horror.  It falls straight into the Yakuza (or gangster) genre, but it is really a female revenge movie.  It includes dozens of ruthless gangsters and brutal cops, and one very resourceful young women who knows how to use a knife to pick a lock and then avenge the helpless.  By the end, she has killed nearly every single one of the bad guys.  Note to self: if you ever meet the Scorpion, don't do anything to make her mad!  Finally, unlike an American action film, there are a lot of scenes that are so artful and impressionistic that they would be right at home in a French art movie.

Why do I watch such bizarre movies, let alone post on them?  Answer one: I was dropped on my head as a boy.  Answer two: so you don't have to.  Answer three: because I can if I want to.  Answer four: because nothing better delivers the dark heart of a foreign culture, with all its anxieties, than a low-budget gangster film.  What is interesting is this story is the dysfunctional role that pregnancy plays in it.  One character is a prostitute, working to support her brother, who suffered brain damage in a factory accident.  She wants to keep the baby, but to the Scorpion's great dismay, she gets an abortion.  Another prostitute is subject to a forced, and very late term abortion, performed by an inebriated doctor.   That atrocity triggers the greatest part of the carnage by the avenging hero.  In the part of the movie that does occur in prison, an inmate fashions an ersatz baby out of strips of cloth, cradles it, and clearly believes that she has her child back. 

It is an old cliche that the rich get richer while the poor get children.  This film presents us with a world in which the poorest and most down trodden women are denied even that.  The hero can avenge these women, but she can do nothing to save their babies.  This tells us something else about the ghost world of Japan.  Japan is far away.  It is not on another planet. 

NYT: Returning Troops are Murderers

This week the New York Times started a series called "War Torn: Across America, Deadly Echoes of Foreign Battles."  Their first 6,253 word installment creates a negative impression of Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans and, by extension, the mission they served.  Excerpt:

Town by town across the country, headlines have been telling similar stories. Lakewood, Wash.: "Family Blames Iraq After Son Kills Wife." Pierre, S.D.: "Soldier Charged With Murder Testifies About Postwar Stress." Colorado Springs: "Iraq War Vets Suspected in Two Slayings, Crime Ring."

Individually, these are stories of local crimes, gut-wrenching postscripts to the war for the military men, their victims and their communities. Taken together, they paint the patchwork picture of a quiet phenomenon, tracing a cross-country trail of death and heartbreak.

The New York Times found 121 cases in which veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan committed a killing in this country, or were charged with one, after their return from war. In many of those cases, combat trauma and the stress of deployment - along with alcohol abuse, family discord and other attendant problems - appear to have set the stage for a tragedy that was part destruction, part self-destruction.

On and on the article goes (it's nine pages on the web, so printing in the paper took a considerable amount of ink) filled with anecdotes about the 121 alleged crimes.  Yet, the Times' approach is astonishingly unsystematic and filled with little useful information for the reader.  The stories are sad and no doubt some returning soldiers and veterans suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder, but where's the context for this story?  How does this report of a "cross-country trail of death and heartbreak" compare overall to the general United States and the murder rate of young men in this age group?  Apparently, the Times didn't bother to ask themselves that question or refused to print the numbers.  Marc Danziger checks the math and spots an obvious problem.  Among returning soldiers, Danziger finds that the Times' 121 murders represent about a 7.08/100,000 rate.  Turning to Department of Justice statistics, the US offender rate for homicide in the 18-24 year old range is 26.5/110,000 and for 25-24 its 13.5/100,000.  Antimedia likewise crunches some numbers and finds that the rate is smaller than among the civilian population.

Note also that the national rate of 27 homicides per 100,000 is an annual rate, but the Times' 121 alleged crimes occurred over a six year period.  So based on the Times' numbers, the rate of homicides by military personnel is only a fraction of the homicide rate for other Americans between 18 and 24.  The Times' nine pages neglects that fact.  We can see now that the anecdotes have little context and, in fact, the 121 cases of physical violence by vets are a small fraction of a percent of hundreds of thousands of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans.  The Times' clumsy effort to disparage our veterans and discredit the war is stunning.

UPDATE:  More from John Hinderaker and Bruce Kesler.  Plus, the Army responds.

UPDATE:  Phillip Carter isn't happy with the New York Times vets-as-murders story:  "So, basically, the reporters went trolling on Lexis-Nexis and other databases to find 'murder' within the same paragraph as 'veteran' or 'soldier,' and built a front-page story around that research. They compared the pre-war numbers to the post-war numbers and found that, voila!, there's a difference. And then it looks like they cherry-picked the best anecdotes out of that research (including the ones where they could get interviews and photos) to craft a narrative which fit the data."

Progress in Iraq

The Iraqi National Assembly passed one of the two most critical benchmarks that the American government had pressed for Baghdad to adopt, the de-Baathification reform that will allow Sunnis to enter government jobs and take Iraq forward in national reconciliation:

Iraq's parliament adopted legislation Saturday on the reinstatement of former Baath party supporters to government jobs, a benchmark sought by the United States as a key step toward national reconciliation.

The voting was carried out by a show of hands on each of the law's 30 clauses. The bill, officially called the "Accountability and Justice" law, seeks to relax restrictions on the right of members of Saddam Hussein's now-dissolved Baath party to fill government posts. It is also designed to reinstate thousands of Baathists in government jobs from which they had been dismissed because of their ties to the party.

UPDATE:  More progress that's not being reported by the Washington Post or New York Times.  The Iraqi government security services say they've penetrated AQI and are on the verge of taking out the entire structure:

The Interior Ministry announced Friday that al-Qaeda in Iraq has been successfully penetrated by means of a recently formed government security apparatus and is virtually an "open book," confirming that the sectarian sedition in the country was at the end of its rope.

Major General Abdul Karim Khalaf, director of operations at the Interior Ministry, told KUNA here "we have succeeded in establishing a capable intelligence apparatus to penetrate the al-Qaeda organization in Iraq and all armed groups targeting Iraqi national security." He said emphatically that the sectarian sedition in Iraq has virtually ended, adding that the new intelligence apparatus is able to achieve its objectives regarding all armed groups operating in Iraq.

He went on to say that "al-Qaeda is now an open book for us, now that we have succeeded in penetrating it." Khalaf did not reveal the extent of al-Qaeda's reach in Iraq but asserted that trained Iraqi security elements currently operate under cover within this terrorist organization which he said will be dismantled soon.

Iraqi security forces had announced during the past 48 hours the arrest of the mastermind behind the second Samarra explosions and the killing of Abu Qataadah al-Saudi (who was one of the most prominent leaders of al-Qaeda in Iraq) in a military operation in south-west Samarra.

The joint military operations in Iraq this week confirm the Interior Ministry's statement that AQI has become "an open book."  It appears the Iraqi government is gaining the ability to fight terror and stand on their own.  A free and stable Iraq is the victory we've awaited, and it appears we're coming close to achieving just that. 

Soros Funded Lancet "Study"

Sunday Times:

A STUDY that claimed 650,000 people were killed as a result of the invasion of Iraq was partly funded by the antiwar billionaire George Soros.

Soros, 77, provided almost half the £50,000 cost of the research, which appeared in The Lancet, the medical journal. Its claim was 10 times higher than consensus estimates of the number of war dead.

The study, published in 2006, was hailed by antiwar campaigners as evidence of the scale of the disaster caused by the invasion, but Downing Street and President George Bush challenged its methodology.

New research published by The New England Journal of Medicine estimates that 151,000 people - less than a quarter of The Lancet estimate - have died since the invasion in 2003.

“The authors should have disclosed the [Soros] donation and for many people that would have been a disqualifying factor in terms of publishing the research,” said Michael Spagat, economics professor at Royal Holloway, University of London.

The Lancet study was commissioned by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and led by Les Roberts, an associate professor and epidemiologist at Columbia University. He reportedly opposed the war from the outset.

TigerHawk writes: "This is an academic scandal, insofar as these institutions have lent their brand equity to what is essentially a fraud on the public. Fortunately, they are all so well-established that they can afford for George Soros to dissipate a tiny bit of their reputation. But -- and this is important -- let us not hear complaints from any of these institutions about 'anti-intellectualism in American life.' Americans do not trust our pointy-headed institutions of higher learning in matters of public policy for very good reason."