South Dakota Politics

Even More Caption Humor

Again from the email, here is the latest entry in the "Write That Caption" contest: "Thune Gives Johnson The Vulcan Neck Pinch!"  Follow the link above to get the joke. 

Live long and prosper?  I think not! 

The Vote

Red State

Redstate.org has picked up on the Ellsworth/Thune story.  Look for the SDP mention.

My own considered opinion is that Thune's position is akin to the football quarterback.  The football team's quarterback tends to get too much credit when the team wins and too much blame when the team loses.  The left-wing blogs, caught up in anti-Thune hatred, dumped all sorts of invective on Thune in post after post that did not even sniff fair political argument.  Thune didn't even remotely deserve all the invective directed his way.  In the process, as Prof. Blanchard notes, by logic the left-wing blogs made Johnson and Herseth out to be irrelevant.  They made Thune the central figure in this soap opera, and now that Ellsworth has been saved Thune will reap the lion's share of the credit.  Oddly enough, the left-wing blogs have ensured that Thune will be the focus of attention today.  Since I like and support Senator Thune, I have no problem with this. 

KELO-Land

KELO-Land Television:

USD Political Science Chair: Thune Big Winner In Ellsworth Battle

Eating Crow

When it comes to a choice between the high road and the low road, I say just make sure there's at least one SOB lower than you are.  Now that the news of Ellsworth's rescue has been splashed across monitors across the region, it is worth remembering how our esteemed colleagues on the left have treated Senator Thune.  Today Chad at CCK is quite gracious. 

Johnson, Thune, Herseth, Rounds, and the Ellsworth Task Force deserve equal credit in making this happen. They built a very strong case over the last 15 weeks or so and the Commission listened.

I appreciate that, and its my sentiment as well.  But its a brand new sentiment, so far as I can see, on that side of the aisle.  Back when Ellsworth was first put on the closure list, it was John Thune's fault and his alone.  Without realizing it, South Dakota Democratic blogs treated Johnson and Herseth like chopped liver.  Daschle alone, it was assumed, could have saved Ellsworth.  That's why it was so darn terrible that we replaced him with Thune.  Well, if that's right, then we now know that Daschle didn't matter either.  The consequence of placing sole responsibility on Thune when Ellsworth was put on the list is that he gets most of the political benefit now.

Chad had this to say on Thursday:

Thune has stated he talked with the President. He has said he talked to Cheney, Rumsfeld, and that he had “dozens of conversations” with the Pentagon prior the the BRAC announcement on May 13. Nothing ever materialized from Thune’s “clout” prior to the May 13 announcement. The conclusion I draw is one of two things:

1.  Thune never had the conversations he said he had.
2.  Or, Thune never had the clout he claimed.

Either way, Thune isn’t exactly telling the truth.  And that has been the basis of everything written here at CCK.

Now I am kinda simple minded about things like this.  The base either closed or it didn't.  It didn't.  If it had closed, that would have been seem as Thune's fault, and would have been taken as proof that he didn't have the clout that he said he did.  Since it didn't close, this has to be greatly to Thune's credit (if not his alone), and proves that he had all the clout he needed.  It was surely harder to save the base once it was put on the list than afterward, and indeed that was the time that Presidential clout would probably be most effective. 

Give it up, Chad.  If Ellsworth had closed that would be weakness for Thune at least until he were reelected.  Since it didn't, the weakness is erased.  In fact, the near scare probably makes Thune look better.  Note this from AP:

WASHINGTON – The federal base-closing commission has voted to keep Ellsworth Air Force Base in South Dakota open, bucking the Pentagon's recommendation to shutter the state's second-largest employer.

The vote is a major political victory for Republican Sen. John Thune, who argued in the state's Senate race last year that his close ties to President Bush would help save the Rapid City base. He defeated Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle, who said he would be better positioned to save it.

 

BTW, I do not think that Chad and his Democratic colleagues wanted Ellsworth to close, just to hurt Thune.  Nor do I think that the contributions of Tim Johnson and Stephanie Herseth, and Governor  Rounds should be discounted.  I have no idea how to rank the various degrees of effort and effectiveness. I do think that SD Democrats enjoyed using the issue against Thune while it lasted, and were hoping to use it against him in the future in the otherwise unfortunate event that Ellsworth did close.  That's what I would have been doing in their shoes.

 

Fun With NYT photo

From the email, here is a contestant in the "Write that caption" contest referenced below: "(Tim Johnson is thinking..) If Thune's hand is on my shoulder, and Rounds' and Herseth's are over there, then WHO IS THAT GOOSING ME?

BTW, here is a good set of "John Thune Helps Save Ellsworth" links.   And here's a brief blurb from NROs Corner. 

NYT on EAFB

Here is the New York Times on the Ellsworth decision.  The news story contains the photo below.  Perhaps we can have a contest to see who can come up with the funniest caption.  The winner gets a full dose of self-satisfaction. My first effort?  "Left to right: Dick Grayson, Barbara Gordon, and Bruce Wayne decide to join forces with Jack Napier."  Batman fans will get the references.  Or how about this: "In a moment of triumph, Sen. Tim Johnson suddenly regrets eating that breakfast taco."  OK, one more: "Rep. Stephanie Herseth shows off her life sized Mike Rounds doll." 

Powerline

Powerline:

Ellsworth survives

John Thune's crusade to save South Dakota's Ellsworth Air Force base has succeeded . The base closing commission has voted to reject the Defense Department's recommendation that the base be closed. Thune unseated then-Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle partly on the strength of his claim that he would be better positioned to help save the base. The Democrats gloated when it looked like Ellsworth would be closed, but now Thune gets the last laugh.

Via Power Line News.

A brief reaction

I agree with the sentiments expressed by the delegation that this was a team victory, not a partisan or personal one.  I would disassociate myself from any attempt to score short-term political points off of this.  That said, we at SDP are Thune partisans and it's a good day for John Thune.  There must be some feeling of vindication. 

The commission's recommendations do have to go to President Bush and ultimately Congress for approval.  It seems unlikely the commission's recommendations will be rejected. 

News Conference

Our delegation, plus Governor Rounds, is holding a news conference.

Sen. Johnson calls it a victory for national security and for the state.  He praises the work of the delegation, Gov. Rounds, and the Ellsworth taks force. 

Sen. Thune: Great day for South Dakota and for America.  Like Johnson he praises commission's judgment.  Like Johnson he congratulates everyone.  Someone asks a stupid question about whether Thune can take personal credit for this.  Thune, not an idiot, says it is a group effort. 

Rep. Herseth: Jack ass reporters want Thune to make news instead of letting Herseth talk.  She is glad that the commission recognized the impact on Rapid by this closing. 

Gov. Rounds: Wow, he is barely taller than Herseth.  Echoes what the others have said.  Praises the delegation for putting aside partisanship and working together. 

Question: What was most important argument?  Johnson says it was the quality of the base.  It was better than Dyess on many points and no cost savings.

Question: Sen. Thune, how did you benefit politically from this: Thune says it was a group effort and had nothing to do with him.  This was on merits, not politics.  This is the right answer.  Guy follows up by asking whether this was Thune keeping a campaign promise.  Thune again demurs and says it was teamwork and politics isn't relevant.

Question: Were you approached by litigants from Texas?  Thune says they talked to those people and worked with them, but they were only looking at the litigation as one factor among many.  Thune and others only took information from litigants. 

Question: What about the bill delaying implementation of BRAC?  Thune says they will consult with co-sponsors as to what to do with that.  Herseth says that this decision being good for the country and the fact that the commission has already taken other bases off the list might change the circumstances.  The national security concerns are not as high as before. Johnson says that BRAC was the real mountain to climb, and so legislation might not be as relevant.

Good Question: Because many of Rumsfeld's biggest changes have been rejected, does that mean Bush might reject the commission's report?  Johnson says Bush won't want to start this process over.  Thune says the process is about savings and many of the claims from various areas of the country are precisely that no savings are to be had by closing various bases. 

Question: Come on Thune, do some political gloating. Thune says this isn't political.  This was the result of teamwork.  There is no political advantage to be gained.  On this it doesn't matter if you are Democrat or Republican.  Rounds says that if politics had been played with this we would not have been successful.  Every member of the delegation made contacts and their staffs worked together.  This was critical to success. 

End of press conference.  This is called live blogging.  I apologize for typos.  Update: I did go back and change some of my more obvious typos and made this post more comprehensible in a couple places. 

ELLSWORTH SAVED!!!

ELLSWORTH SAVED!!!!

Thune a hero; South Dakotans Ecstatic; Daschle Comeback Hopes Die; Hildebrand Boys Depressed

Operating cost, etc.

Commissioner Sam Skinner has just made the point that there will be no cost savings per flight by moving all B-1s to Texas.  In fact cost will go up.  He also makes the point that the litigation at Dyess makes Ellsworth's unrestricted air space favorable.  They pilots cannot train at the optimal level at Dyess. 

Commissioner Gehman seems to be questioning the actual savings coming from closing Ellsworth.  He has just said that we are essentially talking about moving planes from one very good base to another very good base with no $ savings.

Commissioner Newton is asking about air space.  Beauchamp claims air space is comparable at both bases, but the staff gives a slight edge to Ellsworth.  Newton says that if pilots cannot train in the desired way they are not getting the best training. He seems to be saying that if the litigation at Dyess limits us at all, we should favor Ellsworth.  I hope I am reading this correctly. 

Skinner has just said he plans to make a motion to reject the Secratary's recommendation.

Beauchamp has just mentioned "piece of the Little Rock".  I don't think he realizes that was funny. 

Commissioner Coyle: 101% of cost savings from closing Ellsworth are from personnel.  That means closing the base will actually cost the Air Force money.  Again, I hope I am hearing this correctly.

Chairman Principi asks about impact on the community.  Beauchamp says it will cost about 8.5% job loss in the area (Rapid City).  That is a conservative estimate.  The community puts the cost at 10%.  Because it is rural it will be harder to attract other industry. 

SKINNER MAKES MOTION: By 8-1 the motion to strike Ellsworth from the list has passed. 

Just a Question

Who is the guy in the yellow tie in the background who keeps nodding his head?

The Upshot

The case being made is familiar.  On the commission's own standards Ellsworth scored well and just as high or higher than Dyess on various criteria.  Consolidating the B-1 to one base is a bad idea.  Pending lawsuits at Dyess make its use limited. 

BRAC Live

The BRAC hearing on Ellsworth is going on now on CSPAN.  I have it on the computer so if something of deep interest occurs I'll blog it.  Right now BRAC analyst Lt Col Beauchamp is comparing Ellsworth favorably to Dyes.  Someone needs to teach this guy something about public speaking. 

David Brooks on the Iraqi Constitution

The master of kinder, gentler conservativism has a good piece on the Iraqi constitution in the New York Times.  A fervent critic of Bush's policies has this to say (from Baghdad):

"The Bush administration finally did something right in brokering this constitution," Galbraith exclaimed, then added: "This is the only possible deal that can bring stability. ... I do believe it might save the country."

Galbraith's argument is that the constitution reflects the reality of the nation it is meant to serve. There is, he says, no meaningful Iraqi identity. In the north, you've got a pro-Western Kurdish population. In the south, you've got a Shiite majority that wants a "pale version of an Iranian state." And in the center you've got a Sunni population that is nervous about being trapped in a system in which it would be overrun. . . .

This constitution gives each group what it wants. It will create a very loose federation in which only things like fiscal and foreign policy are controlled in the center (even tax policy is decentralized). Oil revenues are supposed to be distributed on a per capita basis, and no group will feel inordinately oppressed by the others.

The Kurds and Shiites understand what a good deal this is. The Sunni leaders selected to attend the convention are howling because they are former Baathists who dream of a return to centralized power. But ordinary Sunnis, Galbraith says, will come to realize this deal protects them, too.

BRAC

BRAC.  No, it's not just the sound you make after eating the onion soup.  It seems as though tomorrow (Friday) is the day.  Sometime in the morning we will know whether Ellsworth Air Force Base will stay open or not.  Prediction: If the news is good the left-wing blogs give kudos to everyone except John Thune.  If the news is bad, more Thune bashing. 

More from the mail bag

Got this email today:

Mr. Schaff,

I read your piece entitled Who's Imposing on southdakotapolitics. I've read many conservative viewpoints on abortion and very very few ever consider the woman who has to carry the fetus to term, or the ramifications for her, if the authors had there way, and abortion was made illegal.  How does that affect the woman's right to life and liberty?   In essense, a woman who doesn't want to give birth is made a slave of the state and is forced to.   The Supreme Court indeed saw a right to privacy in the Constitution and I believe that the Constitution is the document that matters in this case. thank you, [name withheld]

First, let me thank this emailer for a respectful argument.  He is referring to this post from some time ago.  Here's a rebuttal to this email.

If a woman is made a "slave" by carrying her child to term, it is slavery to a child not the state.  Obviously what the woman having an abortion is trying to avoid is bearing that child.  Surely her non-legal liberty will be reduced by carrying to term since kids tend to take time and attention.  But I don't think one has a Constitutional right not to have to burp babies.  It is an odd argument to say, "Kids are a pain in the rear, so if you think that kid is too much of a pain, we give you the option to kill him or her in utero."  Once a child is conceived its right to life trumps the mother's "right" to be free of dirty diapers. If one is uninterested in the liberty curtailment represented by children, I suggest steps be taken to avoid finding one's self in that predicament. 

The Supreme Court once argued that blacks could not possibly be citizens (Dred Scott), that racial segregation was just fine under the 14th Amendment (Plessy vs. Ferguson), and that internment of Japanese citizens was OK during WWII (Korematsu v. US).  In Buck vs. Bell Justice Holmes infamously argued that it was just to forcibly sterilize the mentally retarded because "three generations of imbeciles is enough."  While one must give proper legal respect to the Court, that does not mean their rulings are always and everywhere without error.  A general right to privacy and subsequent right to abortion are not in Constitution and one must torture the language and logic of the document to invent such rights.  I'll give a shiny new donkey to anyone who can find these rights firmly grounded in the text of the Constitution.  (Just in case there is any confusion, I'm not serious about the donkey). 

Is Assassination Defensible?

Eugene Volokh, a highly respected law professor, defends the morality of assassination while questioning its practicality.  I would argue that unless a strong argument can be made otherwise a civilian leader should be treated as a non-combatant, making assassination unjust in addition to its impracticality. 

Sense Of Humor Required

What if Jesus spoke at a Republican fundraiser?  Fodder here for both sides. Hat tip NRO. 

And Now For Something Completely Ridiculous

Here's an alternate take on Ellsworth from Tokola Resistance:

Attention government bureaucraps: some South Dakotans support your plan to shut down domestic military installations. Close Ellsworth. We don't need that terrorist camp in our backyard. It makes me sick to think of South Dakota profiting off a training camp for the butchers invading and occupying Iraq.

I say we shut it down and make it a memorial to the brave Iraqis who lost their lives defending their homes against foreign invasion!

It's a free country and thank goodness that these folks and their small band of supporters have the right to express their views.  And then the rest of us have the right to call them daffy.  Just a heads up guys, calling the people who make these decisions "bureaucraps" is probably not the smartest way to achieve your goal. 

The Thune Model

A letter to the editor from the Rapid City Journal:

During his impeachment for perjury, President Clinton taught us that personal attacks never fed a hungry child. Our good friends on the left have obviously forgotten this lesson.

Recently, there have been a barrage of letters, press releases and profanity-laden Web sites attacking Sen. John Thune. These personal attacks stand on the political tripod of half-truths, innuendo and wishful thinking. They represent twisted logic at best or gutter politics at worst.

Apparently, many of Sen. Daschle's operatives have not yet accepted the results of last fall's election. They claim no first-hand participation in the attacks or the Web sites. Yet news accounts suggest they are partially financed by Sen. Daschle's PAC slush funds. More recently we find that the manner and means of financing them may have violated FEC rules.

Those participating in this effort could learn from the Thune model for losing the 2002 election. This had to be difficult. Yet he responded to Sen. Johnson with grace, not mean-spirited vitriol.

JOHN OSBORN
Rapid City

Daschle

Native Voice, July 29-August 12, 2005:

NATIVE VOICE:  Do you think you will run again?

DASCHLE: I haven't decided what my future political plans are.  These are matters that can only become clearer as time goes on.  Life has a lot of unexpected twists and turns.  I'm fully appreciative of the uncertainty about the future, but I have learned never to say never and to continue to look for ways for which I can contribute, and that's what I will be doing.

I intend to stay politically involved and intend to be active with regard to my views relating to the Native American agenda and, I certainly want to continue to be visible on reservations and throughout the country as future issues are debated.  I am not going away.

Footnote:  Posting will be light from me for a while.  With school starting next week, I'm busy getting things together.  Additionally, I won't have Internet at my apartment until Sept. 14 at the latest.  I will post as time permits. 

Ellsworth

The Rapid City Journal is writing about the upcoming decision by BRAC on Ellsworth, which could be today or tomorrow according to the paper:

Reaction from Ellsworth Air Force Base advocates to the initial votes of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission, or BRAC, on Wednesday became more favorable as the day wore on.

Community after community learned that their bases would close, jobs would be lost, national security might be compromised. But the independent panel's refusal to go along with the Pentagon's recommendations to close a few major installations, such as the New London submarine base in Connecticut and the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in New Hampshire, was a signal that the commissioners are paying attention to possible discrepancies in projected cost savings associated with base closings, supporters said.

And the fairly quick pace at which the commission worked did not appear to be troublesome.

"They are flying low, at high speed," Pat McElgunn, director of the Ellsworth Task Force, said late Wednesday. "But that is not necessarily a bad thing. They have had a long 15 weeks to digest the data, and by the way they are acting, I am encouraged that we will get a hard look."

Vegetarian Battle

Denise Ross of the Rapid City Journal is talking about the twin press releases from the SD state parties regarding the Democrats' new vegetarian spokesperson. 

Intellectual Dishonesty vs. Intellectual Incompetence

Chad at CCK has a piece on ANWR oil and the current rise in gas prices.  I think a lot of the points he makes are valid, but I can't help commenting on this one:

To understand why Republicans are being intellectually dishonest when they use the price of gas to justify drilling in ANWR, first realize that any oil we are able to suck out of the earth there won’t even reach consumers for a decade or more. How is that going to bring down the price of gas when I have to go fill up my pickup next week?

I think that the charge of intellectual dishonesty is very unhelpful in this kind of discussion.  Its enough to argue that the other side is wrong; do we really need to question one another's motives?  I don't need to know whether Chad honestly believes the argument he is making here, so I am willing to assume that he does.  Its enough for me to point out that its very silly.

Lets assume hes correct about the 10 year time lag between opening ANWR to drilling, and the flow of ANWR oil onto the market.  If, then, we had opened ANWR ten years ago, we'd have the oil now, wouldn't we?  And whose fault was it that we didn't?  I imagine it was folk pretty much like Chad, making the same arguments he is making now.  And if we do open ANWR now, then we will have the oil ten years from now, won't we?  And so we won't have to listen to this argument again.  Does Chad suppose that the world demand for oil will decrease in the next decade?  And then there is this argument:

Second, when the oil finally does end up flowing from ANWR — when my kids are on college — do we really believe that OPEC isn’t going to adjust their production accordingly to keep prices higher? That is exactly what happened in 1978 when oil first started flowing from Prudhoe Bay in Alaska. It had exactly zero impact on the price of gasoline that you and I pay at the corner station — in fact, the prices more than doubled in the three years immediately after we began pumping oil from Prudhoe Bay.

Now if this argument is valid, then we might as well not have any domestic oil.  It does us no good at all.  Does Chad really believe this?  Besides, his narrow focus on the three years after Prudhoe Bay oil began flowing seems at odds with his decade-long focus in the preceding paragraph.  Consider the chart he links to:

Yes, gas prices kept rising immediately after 1978.  But a few years later, gas dropped precipitously.  Rising supplies in the U.S. broke the back of OPEC and gave us decades of breathing room.  Now I doubt that ANWR will provide such a boom, but the reason is not the power of OPEC.  Its the demand created by growing economies in China and India. 

In spite of this, I am not sure that opening ANWR right now is a good idea.  I don't believe that the ecological argument is sound, but I do believe that keeping an untapped source of oil in reserve might be better than trying to lower gas prices in the near future.  We don't really know what is going to happen to the world's energy supply in coming decades, and an untapped ANWR is insurance.  But I concede that this is a more speculative argument than the one for opening the reserve.  And I humbly submit that folk who want to open it now, to make sure that the oil is available at some point in the near future, might be at least as intellectually honest and maybe a bit more intellectually competent than the arguments I have quoted above.

Ellsworth Update

From today's Congressional Quarterly:

BRAC Chairman Says Pentagon Might Be Wrong About Some Base Closures

By John M. Donnelly, CQ Staff

With an independent commission poised to vote this week on the list of military bases it will recommend for closure, the chairman of the panel strongly suggested Monday that he remained unconvinced by the Pentagon’s reasons for shuttering several of the facilities.

Speaking just two days before the Base Realignment and Closure Commission (BRAC) begins its final votes, chairman Anthony J. Principi sounded favorably disposed to the arguments against closing the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Maine, the Naval Submarine Base New London in Connecticut and Ellsworth Air Force Base in South Dakota.

In an interview Monday with Congressional Quarterly, Military Times and C-SPAN to be aired Tuesday evening, Principi acknowledged that the administration has made strong arguments in favor of closing the bases on the list that it submitted to the BRAC commission in May. And Principi said he did not know how the commission would vote in every instance when it begins its final voting on Aug. 24.

Still, he was critical of the Pentagon’s rationale for closing several facilities, including its estimate that it could save some $49 billion over 20 years by closing 33 major bases and many smaller ones.

“The cost savings that we find are significantly lower than the Pentagon has reported,” Principi said.

The purported savings from closing Ellsworth Air Force Base exemplified the Pentagon’s overstatements, he said. The Pentagon wants to move the base’s B-1 bombers to Dyess Air Force Base in Texas.

“A significant percentage of the savings at Ellsworth is linked to military personnel,” Principi said. “Those military personnel are not coming off the end strength but they’re being moved. . . . From our accounting perspective, it’s really not a cost savings.”

“If you back out the military personnel from the savings the Defense Department has indicated, it costs you money. . . to move those B-1 bombers to Dyess,” Principi said.

The Pentagon says those resources could be applied to other missions and therefore should be considered savings.

“We don’t see it that way,” Principi said, “and neither does the Government Accountability Office.”

Making It Simple, For Seth's Sake

Seth at CCK says I am defending Pat Robertson.  If calling Pat Robertson dumb is defending him, what would it take to attack him?  Let's see if we can hold more than one thought at a time in our heads.  I'll try to make it simple and use small words so everyone can understand:
1. I think Hugo Chavez is a bad man.   
2. I think Pat Robertson is a dumb man.  Not just dumb in this case, but dumb in general.  Sorry if I didn't call him more names to get the point across.  He's a jerk.  A rat fink.  A poopy head.  There!  Are we happy now? 
3. I think Charlie Rangel's career long defense of Castro is unconscionable (sorry for the five syllables).  If Joe Biden, whom I respect, attacks Pat Robertson, ok.  But when a creep like Rangel lectures us on decency in foreign policy, it's a bit tough to take. 

Was the whole "dumb" versus "bad" distinction too nuanced?  If I had a kid and the gods told me the kid must be very dumb but good or very bad but brilliant, I would choose very dumb but good.  I'd rather have my kid be Forrest Gump than Hannibal Lecter. I am not claiming Pat Robertson is Forrest Gump good.  I have no evidence either way, and neither does Seth.  But Seth knows Robertson is a conservative Christian with some dumb ideas, and to Seth that's the same as being evil.  So I guess I don't hold Robertson to the same level of contempt as Hugo Chavez, but that doesn't mean I don't have contempt for both.  Another example: If someone advocates killing, say, Mother Teresa (pretend she's still alive) we'd say that person is really dumb.  If someone advocates killing a bad man like Hugo Chavez, then they are just garden variety dumb in my book.  But, you see, that still makes them dumb Seth.  And that's not a compliment.   I guess if you don't say Pat Robertson is evil you are now defending him.  OK, now sound it out if you must: I D-O N-O-T D-E-F-E-N-D P-A-T R-O-B-E-R-T-S-O-N.  I T-H-I-N-K H-E I-S A-N I-D-I-O-T.  I can't believe I had to actually take a paragraph to explain to someone that calling a person "dumb" is an insult. 

By the way Seth, when John Kennedy actually attempted to assassinate Castro and actually had President Diem of South Vietnam assassinated, was he as evil as Pat Robertson is for suggesting assassinating Hugo Chavez?  Or was Kennedy just dumb?  Are people who condone assassination always evil, or just when they are Republicans you don't like?    Or maybe Republicans you don't like are by definition "evil". 

For the record, I think assassination is almost always wrong both as policy and morally. I say "almost" only because there's that part of me that says if we had a chance to assassinate Hitler or Stalin it would have been just to do so.  I guess we can call it the "If You Kill Over Six Million Of Your Own Citizens" exception.

Update: At first I attributed the CCK post to Chad Schuldt. Now I see it was Seth, and thus changed my post.  See, it always pays to read Prof. Blanchard at SDP. 

Problems With Gas?

Here's some Lawrence Kudlow, via Instapundit:

Permit me to take a contrarian view on the oil price shock. I say three cheers for higher energy prices. Why? Because I believe in markets. When the price of something goes up, demand falls off (call it conservation) and supply increases (call it new production). We're seeing a tectonic shift.

This take on gas reminded me of when the left wanted high gas prices.  The idea was if the government will raise the price of gas then we will use less of it, thus making our air cleaner.  This was part of the rational for Bill Clinton's ill fated BTU energy tax in the 1993 budget proposal that eventually included a hefty raise in the gas tax instead.  Or, if I look at page 173 of Al Gore's dreadful Earth in the Balance (and I am so looking right now), he writes:

In fact, almost every poll shows Americans decisively rejecting higher taxes on fossil fuels, even though that proposal is one of the first steps in changing our policies in a manner more consistent with a more responsible approach to the environment [emphasis added]

Gore is trying to say in this passage that even though people oppose higher fossil fuel taxes, it should be our policy.  He then notes that when Harry Truman first introduced the Marshall Plan his popularity went down.  You see, good ideas, such as higher fuel taxes, aren't always recognized at first blush. Bottom of 173:

Similarly, there is no doubt that several measures that would be necessary here in the United States in order to meet these threats would be unpopular and carry enormous political risk.  But the American people are, nevertheless, beginning to give their leaders permission to challenge the nation to take bold, visionary, and even difficult steps to confront the environmental crisis forthrightly and responsibly. 

This book was written during the term of Bush I.  Just so we are all together on this, when a Bush is in the White House and gas prices are low, high gas prices are good and Bush I lacks vision in not raising taxes.  When Bush II is in the White House suddenly high gas prices are bad and George Bush should release the strategic oil reserves (remember when Bill Clinton did this in 2000, ironically to help Mr. High Gas Price himself, Al Gore, releasing the oil from the strategic reserves had the effect of lowering the national price of gas by one whole cent).  Perhaps Democrats should be cheering high gas prices as it makes Americans more aware of conservation and drives us away from evil SUVs and into the arms of hybrid vehicles.  That's what they were saying before it became politically expedient to say the opposite.

Here's Steve Chapman's take on why gas prices will come down by year's end and a nice piece by James Glassman on the effect of oil prices on the economy.   

The Clean Cut Kid is Right, and a Little Wrong.

Seth at CCK excoriated conservatives for defending Dobson's comments, so its nice that he has now torn into Pat Robertson and Paul Harvey.  It gives me a chance to join my colleague, Professor Schaff, in not defending Robertson or what he said.  Robertson is a nitwit, at least to judge from his latest famous quote, which is now being celebrated on every platform the chatteriati command.  I have only one issue with which I care to take issue.  Seth says:

The scary thing is that both of these men have large followings among rank-and-file conservatives, and that almost no where in the right wing is anyone seen who denounces this Stalinist approach to foreign relations.

Well, no, they don't.  Surely everyone has some defenders, but there is no sentiment among conservatives for this kind of talk. 

BTW I seem to recall CCK blasting conservatives for being intollerant of dissent in their ranks.  But consider this from the daily KOS, which demonstrably does have a very large following among Democrats. 

this is the modern DLC -- an aider and abettor of Right-wing smear attacks against Democrats. They make the same arguments, use the same language, and revel in their attacks on those elements of the Democratic Party that seem to cause them no small embarrassment.

Two more weeks, folks, before we take them on, head on.  No calls for a truce will be brooked. The DLC has used those pauses in the past to bide their time between offensives. Appeals to party unity will fall on deaf ears (it's summer of a non-election year, the perfect time to sort out internal disagreements).

We need to make the DLC radioactive. And we will. With everyone's help, we really can. Stay tuned.

That's how KOS talks about the folks that backed Bill Clinton.  Now I am tempted to say that we here at SDPolitics and CCK should stop holding each other responsible for the most irresponsible folk on our side of the aisle.  But then where would the fun of blogging be in that?  I say let 'er rip. 

 

A Little Perspective on Combat Fatalities in Iraq.

It would be silly to say that any one blog is the best national blog, because no one has time to read more than a small portion of the blogs out there.  But if I were asked to nominate one for that honor, it would certainly be Powerline.  Powerline consists almost exclusively of original writing on the day's news, and its some of the best commentary available anywhere.  I should disclose that the Powerline folks have a connection with the Claremont Institute, a conservative think tank in Southern California where I used to work. 

An example of what makes it so good is this passage concerning the number of combat deaths in Iraq. 

Even in peacetime. The media's breathless tabulation of casualties in Iraq--now, over 1,800 deaths--is generally devoid of context. Here's some context:  between 1983 and 1996, 18,006 American military personnel died accidentally in the service of their country. That death rate of 1,286 per year exceeds the rate of combat deaths in Iraq by a ratio of nearly two to one.

That's right: all through the years when hardly anyone was paying attention, soldiers, sailors and Marines were dying in accidents, training and otherwise, at nearly twice the rate of combat deaths in Iraq from the start of the war in 2003 to the present. Somehow, though, when there was no political hay to be made, I don't recall any great outcry, or gleeful reporting, or erecting of crosses in the President's home town. In fact, I'll offer a free six-pack to the first person who can find evidence that any liberal expressed concern--any concern--about the 18,006 American service members who died accidentally in service of their country from 1983 to 1996.

This is a point that the President and his Administration could never make.  But someone ought to make it.  Of course every death is a tragedy, and no one should make light of the fallen or their grieving families.  But if the combat fatalities are really lower than the accidental fatalities for the military during that period, this suggests a very effective war machine, and a remarkably ineffective enemy.  The question in Iraq is always whether we are achieving some long term success, and I will readily admit that this is an open question.  But assuming for the moment that we are, if we cannot afford to pay this price for such success, then its silly to have an army at all. 

At any rate, its the servicemen and women themselves who are the best judge of whether the costs are bearable.  With a volunteer army, the judgment of the warriors is relatively easy to gage.  Consider this from the Ralph Peters at the New York Post (again, a tip to Powerline):

Remember last spring, when the Army's recruitment efforts fell short for a few months? The media's glee would have made you confuse the New York Times and Air America.

When the Army attempted to explain that enlistments are cyclical and numbers dip at certain times of the year, the media ignored it. All that mattered was the wonderful news that the Army couldn't find enough soldiers. We were warned, in oh-so-solemn tones, that our military was headed for a train wreck.  Now, as the fiscal year nears an end, the Army's numbers look great. 

How great?  Well,

* Every one of the Army's 10 divisions — its key combat organizations — has exceeded its re-enlistment goal for the year to date. Those with the most intense experience in Iraq have the best rates. The 1st Cavalry Division is at 136 percent of its target, the 3rd Infantry Division at 117 percent.

Among separate combat brigades, the figures are even more startling, with the 2nd Brigade of the 2nd Infantry Division at 178 percent of its goal and the 3rd Brigade of the 4th Mech right behind at 174 percent of its re-enlistment target.

This is unprecedented in wartime. Even in World War II, we needed the draft. Where are the headlines?

* What about first-time enlistment rates, since that was the issue last spring? The Army is running at 108 percent of its needs. Guess not every young American despises his or her country and our president.

* The Army Reserve is a tougher sell, given that it takes men and women away from their families and careers on short notice. Well, Reserve recruitment stands at 102 percent of requirements.

* And then there's the Army National Guard. We've been told for two years that the Guard was in free-fall. Really? Guard recruitment and retention comes out to 106 percent of its requirements as of June 30. (I've even heard a rumor that Al Franken and Tim Robbins signed up — but let's wait for confirmation on that.

Bear in mind that this is during an extraordinarily strong economy.

As you read this, 500,000 soldiers are on active duty because they chose to serve their country. Additionally, hundreds of thousands of Reservists and Guard members have been called into uniform. And they're all behaving as true soldiers do: Running toward the sound of the guns, not away from them.

That's the news that isn't making it into the New York Times.

Roberts

I wouldn't go so far to say that John Roberts's confirmation is assured, but this surely must make those that hope for a good outcome gleeful:

Two weeks before senators begin questioning the Supreme Court nominee, John G. Roberts Jr., the debate over his confirmation is becoming a test of Senate Democrats as well.

The party's liberal base, whose contributions during judicial confirmation fights earlier this year have helped the Senate Democratic campaign fund amass twice as much as its Republican rival, is pressing for another vigorous fight against Judge Roberts as documents from the Reagan administration clarify his conservative credentials.

But as Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts and other liberal stalwarts on the Judiciary Committee step up their criticism of Judge Roberts's record, other Democrats are reluctant to join them.

Numerous splits would only help Roberts but, as a note, I would watch for a Democratic strategy to develop after the hearings.  It only makes sence since the Democrats can't afford any missteps on this issue and chance ruining their image.  As the New York Times article notes, the Dems can't fail to press him on issues and look weak; however, pressing too hard could draw them into "a losing battle on a treacherous turf of abortion, race and religion at a time when Republicans appear vulnerable on other fronts." 

From what I can tell about Roberts, he's cautious and mindful of the role of the legislature and judges.  I can guarantee that Roberts will go left on a few decisions and he certainly should; the interpretation of the constitution does not (and should not) draw ideological lines in the sand.  Thus, I would suspect the confirmations to go smoothly enough.

Take Your Pick

Hugo Chavez is a very bad man.  Pat Robertson is a very dumb man.  It's better to be dumb than bad, but it's best to be neither.  Still, the idea of being preached to on this subject by Charlie Rangel is disgusting.  Rangel, who never met a murderous left-wing dictator he didn't love, probably supports Hugo Chavez, just like his murdering friends in Cuba.  Amazingly, the American Library Association cannot bring itself to condemn Castro's attacks private libraries.  The left likes to imagine fake book burnings by people like Pat Robertson, but when Castro holds real life book burnings?  Silence.  You know, no enemies to the left. 

Churchill

The Ward Churchill investigation is entering the next level.  He is facing seven complains of plagiarism, historical fabrication, and other research misconduct.  Excerpt:

If it proceeds, the investigation could take five months. It could lead to anything from exoneration to dismissal for the professor, who opened a maelstrom of controversy with his view that America - and especially the "little Eichmanns" working in the World Trade Center - deserved the retribution of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Republican Strength

Michael Baronne's Almanac of American Politics is out, and it contains a lead essay that is very happy reading for Republicans, at least if the Washington Times summary is accurate.  I recommend it, but here are a few highlights.

• In the safe Bush states (213 electoral votes) and the safe Kerry states (179 electoral votes), a similar pattern prevailed. In both sets of states, Mr. Bush increased his vote share by more than Mr. Kerry did, prompting Mr. Barone to observe: "The 2004 results showed the red states getting redder and the blue states getting less blue."
    • Religion once again proved to be one of the demographic variables correlating most directly with voter behavior. Mr. Bush received 78 percent of the vote of white evangelical Protestants, who comprised 23 percent of the electorate. Raising his share by 5 percentage points, the president managed to capture 52 percent of the Catholic vote "against the first Catholic nominee since 1960."
    • Mr. Bush also benefited from a huge "marriage gap -- a gap that is far wider than the oft-touted gender gap." Married people, who comprised 63 percent of the electorate, voted 57-42 for Mr. Bush.

Now, I am not among those Republicans who keep telling Democrats how to win elections.  Why should I want them to know?  But if I was a Democrat, I would surely be wondering why my party keeps losing the folks who go to Church and hitched.  It might have a connection with families, and so with babies.  And speaking of babies:

• Mr. Kerry won a 6.5-million majority in the 100 largest counties. More than 6 million of that majority was achieved in the 48 largest counties that had lost population since 2000 or grew by less than 3 percent. Democrats may not be able to increase their turnout by much in slow-growth or population-losing counties. Outside the 100 largest counties, Mr. Kerry lost by nearly 10 million votes. In addition, Mr. Bush won majorities in 97 of the nation's 100 fastest-growing counties, where he achieved a popular-vote margin of 1.8 million, which was more than half of his national vote margin. This 1.8-million margin, while not as large as the one Mr. Kerry achieved in the 100 largest counties, is nonetheless "likely to increase over time, and can easily be increased even more by the kind of organizational effort mounted by the Bush campaign in 2004," Mr. Barone argues. [My italics]

I am not telling Democrats they should concentrate on winning a few growing counties.  Far from it. Keep working on the shrinking ones, I say!  And what does the future hold, if these trends hold?

• In a Senate controlled by a 55-seat GOP majority, there are nine Republicans from among the 19 states won by Mr. Kerry and 16 Democrats among the 31 states won by Mr. Bush. Mr. Barone reveals that in states where their party's nominee received less than 47 percent of the vote, there are 11 Democratic senators and only three Republicans. On the House side, where Republicans control 232 (53 percent) of the chamber's 435 seats, Mr. Bush carried 255 districts (59 percent) compared to Mr. Kerry's 180. Because the Voting Rights Act, by concentrating the minority vote, "tends to elect more blacks and Hispanics and less Democrats," Mr. Kerry won more than 80 percent of the vote in 20 districts, whereas Mr. Bush never achieved such a margin in a single one. A lot of Kerry votes in those minority-reserved districts "could have been put to work electing Democrats in adjacent districts; but thanks to the Voting Rights Act, they were not available for such duty," Mr. Barone noted. "In the long run," he concludes, "Republicans are well positioned to increase their numbers in both Senate and House."

John Roberts opposed the change in the Voting Rights Act that produced these results.  So if I were to tell Democrats what to do, I'd say confirm him as quick as possible.  Instead I say oppose him.  You never know, he might be your savior. 

 

Darwinism and Design: A Brief Reply to Talmage

Talmage Ekander (South Dakota Lawyer) has written a couple of detailed and thoughtful comments on Darwinism in reply to my post below.  They demonstrate that his blog is a valuable addition to the regional blogosphere.  I don't have time to reply to them with the care that they deserve, but I will hazard a few comments.

Talmage says that he quarrels only with atheistic Darwinists, and not necessarily with Darwinists who are also believers.  But he follows the Intelligent Design folk in defining Darwinism in a way that presupposes atheism. 

Of the evolutionary theories, I find pure Darwinian evolution to be the most crass and unlikely. I am defining pure Darwinian evolution as follows:
1.there is no designer;
2.everything is the result of chance;
3.structural changes that last must be improvements;
4.structural changes occur one step at a time;
5.there is a great deal of time between each step in the evolution.

I do not think any evolutionary biologist would define Darwinism in this way.  The question whether there was a designer or not is not a scientific question, in the sense of modern science.  Darwinism no more involves a position with regard to theism/atheism than does paleontology or molecular chemistry.  Like other theories, Darwinism attempts to interpret phenomena in ways that give rise to research programs.  It has been extremely successful in that regard.  Likewise, though chance plays a role it is not the case that "everything is the result of chance."  Nature includes many regular laws that do not change with chance, and those laws are the larger part of evolutionary theory.

Talmage eloquently restates the central argument of ID.  In a nutshell, organisms contain many complex structures that only work if all the parts are there; ergo, they could not have emerged through the evolution of individual steps.  To use his excellent analogy, there would have been no reason for a bicycle to develop a gas tank before it had an engine, or an engine before the gas tank.

This argument has long been used against evolutionary theory, but it doesn't work.  All living organisms already have gas tanks and engines.  Relatively small changes can allow these organs to function in unprecedented ways, and so allow new species to colonize new niches in the environment.  Moreover, an existing capacity may be modified to do some new work, unrelated to its original function.  A cry becomes sonar in a bat.  A second set of wings becomes folding armor in beetles.  If (see Behe) a complex molecule cannot do its present work unless all the parts are present, this doesn't mean that some simpler version of the molecule was useless.  It only means that it had some other use.  That is the way evolutionary theory works.  And it has been instrumental to almost all our understanding of how organisms do their business in this world.

On a more political note, I do not think that ID ought to be taught in schools because it isn't science.  Its arguments are generated for one purpose: to attack Darwinism on the grounds that Darwinism is, as such, exclusive of Biblical faith.  The ID have no research programs to offer us.  They provide no new or useful accounts of biological phenomena.  This is not to say that the Biblical account of evolution ought to be ignored in education. I just don't think ID is a useful vehicle for introducing it.

Finally, I don't agree that an atheist can have no reason to want to preserve the environment.  Many Buddhists have no belief in a designing deity, yet love the environment and want to preserve it merely because they find it beautiful.  This weekend my wife and I camped and hiked in Teddy Roosevelt National Park in North Dakota.  The beauty of the place seems to speak for itself, apart from any religion that one might bring there.  Perhaps this is only because I was sensing the master's hand in that work.  I won't argue with that one.  But I don't think that appreciating that beauty requires any particular theory about how that beauty came to be.  Some things are precious just because of what they are, not because of who made them.

In The Moog

Robert Moog, the inventor of the Moog synthesizer, has died.  Would you believe that the first popular album to use the Moog synthesizer was this album? 

Democracy

The draft Iraqi Constitution has been completed.  The only step left is to submit it to the parliament once more Sunni support is garnered:

Iraqi leaders finished their draft constitution Monday and prepared to submit it to parliament — but withdrew it in the final minutes in order to give time to win over the Sunni Arab community whose support is key to ending the insurgency.

The parliament gathered with just minutes remaining before a midnight deadline to adopt the constitution, which still faced fierce resistance from minority Sunnis over the issue of federalism, which they fear could cut them out of most of the country's vast oil wealth, as well as power relations among the provinces.

The media fails to remember it took five years after the Revolutionary War (1782) before the U.S. Constitution was accepted (1787).  Even then, the Constitution didn't become ratified until March of 1789, and the Bill of Rights were not ratified until 1791.  Washington--like Rome--wasn't built in a day.  Why is the media expecting Iraq to be?

What's fascinating to note is that the Iraqis have finished their draft in remarkable time (far quicker than our experience).   I am proud of the Iraqi people, proud of America's contribution to spread freedom in the world.  We have removed a tyrant and planted democracy in the Middle East.

BRAC

Jay Reding is commenting on a scathing piece by Robert Novak about how John Thune has been treated by George W. Bush.  Excerpt from Reding:

President Bush has no problems with being a big spender, so why in the world is he leaving Senator Thune out in the cold on Ellsworth? A base closing in Connecticut is a blow to the local economy. Losing 6,000 jobs in a state like South Dakota with a population of 700,000 is a major loss. Surely there are other uses for Ellsworth if the B-1 Lancer program isn’t enough reason. However, it appears as though the people of South Dakota and Senator Thune are being left completely in the lurch.

Read both Novak's piece and Reding's comments.

PRESS RELEASE: Democrat Party Still Out of Touch with South Dakota

PIERRE, S.D. – “The South Dakota Democrat Party has continued to show that it is out of touch with most South Dakotans,” South Dakota Republican Party Chairman Randy Frederick said.

Howard Dean, Chairman of the National Democrat Party, has expressed extremist views that many South Dakotans would find offensive. He has stated, “I hate Republicans and everything they stand for.” He also said, “This is a struggle of good and evil and we (The Democrats) are the good.”

In addition to these outlandish comments, it makes one wonder what message will be sent when the new communications director for the South Dakota Democrat Party implies she is an animal activist. (Elesha Peterson Carr, “How to be a South Dakota Vegetarian,” www.byelesha.com/articles, accessed Monday, Aug. 22, 2005)

By contrast our Governor, Mike Rounds, is pushing a pro agriculture initiative - “The South Dakota Certified Beef Program,” which has garnered support from Democrats and Republicans alike. This will add value to South Dakota-grown beef. It will also create jobs for non-farm families.

“All South Dakotans should be standing behind South Dakota's farm and ranch families and vigorously supporting the state's livestock industry,” Frederick said.

To show support for the state's livestock producers, the South Dakota Republican Party will be giving away Beef Bucks and Pork Certificates at the South Dakota State Fair on Monday, Sept. 9, 2005 (Governor’s Day) at the Republican Building at the State Fair. The Bucks will be distributed at 1 p.m.

"This is just our way of expressing our commitment and support to hard working farm and ranch families in South Dakota," Frederick said.

Globalism At Work

The global economy is amazing.  A couple months ago I saw an amazing live performance DVD of Pete Townshend of The Who performing music from the legendary "Lifehouse" project (if you've heard Who's Next, you've heard about half of Lifehouse).  The only way to get a live CD of the concert is off of Townshend's own website.  The downside?  He's English.  But a couple weeks ago I ordered the CD and right now I am listening to it on my computer.  Without leaving my home I can order a CD from England (#4 Friars Lane, Richmond Surrey to be exact) and have it arrive here in middle of nowhere South Dakota in a matter of two weeks or so.  Gotta love the modern global economy.  By the way, the music is outstanding and anyone with even a passing interest in The Who must get the DVD or CD. 

From The Mailbag

Although I'd prefer to let the Cindy Sheehan dog lie, we did get this email that I thought worth sharing with the author's permission. 

The story that is being told by the left and the right is purely a media story--I really think the real story has been missed.  Mrs. Sheehan is merely dealing with her grief.  It is that simple.  During the Viet Namera I was either the enlisted military escort or a pall bearer for 11 servicemen who had been killed, in each case coming through the sobs and tears was the question; Why did my son die?  I was young and usually just stood in silence, since I never knew what to say.  Later in my career 47 of my shipmates died in a tragic accident, it was harder now to not show emotion because I now had children and the grief seemed to engulf me but I was still mostly silent to the same question.  The question "Why did my son die" has no answer but I know that all who grieve ask that question.  Some seek the answers in their faith, some in the bottle but all must work there way through it in one way or another--what Mrs. Sheehan is doing is working her way through her grief.  Interest groups and the media have made this into a story that isn't there.  As a side note I still receive correspondence from some of these servicemen's families 30+ years later--they're still reaching out to touch what has been lost.  Just a thought.

Johnson

Instead of going with the obvious solution and moving along with the ANWR deal, Tim Johnson is suggesting a congressional hearing to understand why prices are rising at the pumps. 

The U.S. Senate Energy Committee will hold a hearing in Washington, D.C. to examine the issue of rising gas prices.

Sen. Tim Johnson, D-S.D., is a member of the Energy Committee. He announced the hearing, which will be on Sept. 8 when Congress reconvenes.

"With gas prices topping $3 per gallon in some parts of the country, paying for gas has become a near painful experience as prices rise higher and higher," Johnson said in a press release. "South Dakota's working families are finding it difficult to dig a little deeper into their pockets to make ends meet."

Johnson said the economic consequences of higher gas prices on South Dakota families and businesses cannot be ignored.

According to reports, 16 billion barrels can be harvested from just 2,000 acres of ANWR, making it the largest oil resource in North America.  Nearly 75% of Alaskan's support the drilling of ANWR.  In a formal recognition of Alaska's dependence on oil development, Alaska's Congressional Delegation, Governor's Office, Alaska Legislature, and numerous city governments have endorsed Arctic Power, a non-profit citizens organization that advocates the development of ANWR.  Also, only 8% (1.5 million acres) of ANWR would be open to oil exploration.  The remaining 17.5 million acres will be off-limits to any sort of development.  Responsible oil development would dramatically impact the prices at the pump without any detrimental impact on the environment. 

The solution to the problem is obvious, but Johnson is a prisoner to the environmental lobby and South Dakota drivers and farmers are suffering for it.

Oil

Donald Luskin offers a compelling argument on why he thinks oil prices will begin falling.  Excerpt:

I've called the top in oil so many times in this column it's getting embarrassing. Yet here I go again. I continue to believe that recent record prices are way overdone, and that we're due for a major and long-lasting retracement, probably all the way back into the 40s in benchmark crude.

Hate Crimes

I meant to second Prof. Blanchard's argument for hate crimes legislation.  A friend and I penned a chapter on hate crimes for this fine volume on moral policy.  While researching and writing this book chapter I found my opinion change.  While recognizing the danger involved in policing people's motivations, I think the protection of discreet minorities is important enough to support this kind of legislation. 

By the way, put me down as thinking people's eating habits are irrelevant to politics.  If someone believes animals have rights like humans do, that's one thing.  So support for PETA is fair game.  If they simply like vegi burgers, who cares. 

Just War

Chad Schuldt's response to my post defending the war in Iraq is up.  My instict is to write a detailed response, but I said I would give Chad the last word, and so I will.  The best thing would be to read my defense and then read Chad's response.  Readers can then decide who makes the better argument. 

Chad taunts me a bit about my military status (or lack thereof) and Jeremy Funk, always the gentleman, sent me an email directing me to the Marine recruiting site.  If you must know, I attempted to enlist in the Army just after my 20th birthday to help pay for college but for various health reasons was turned down.  As my health is worse now than at age 20 I am quite sure they wouldn't take me (indeed, if I understand the Selective Service rules I am only one year short of being too old).  One thing I have recently concluded is that when you're on a first name basis with your pharmacist it probably isn't a good thing.  Thanks for asking though guys. 

Although I notice he didn't respond to my challenge to articulate an American foreign policy on terrorism or the promotion of human rights, I respect Chad for his willingness to take on most of my challenge.  Naturally I think my argument is the better, although I think Chad's response is respectible.  I do think that Chad's argument betrays the now functional pacifism of the left wing of the Democratic Party, as Todd Bevan noted the other day.  Perhaps the anti-war crowd would grace us with their thoughts on when American military force is appropriate and if Haiti, Somlia, Bosnia, Kosovo and various air strikes on Iraq in the 1990s met those conditions.

I note that nary a squeak was heard from the left when Bill Clinton proposed using military power to remove the government of Haiti even though Haiti posed no threat to the US.  I also note that the "chicken hawk" argument came from the right when all sorts of Democrats with no military background or whose kids were not in the military supported the above military ventures.  It was stupid then, and it's stupid now.  Chad and Funk can rest easy knowing that they are now left-wing Rush Limbaughs.  Aim high! 

SD Democratic Party's Vegetarian Spokesperson

Here are some thoughts (in pdf) on being vegetarian in South Dakota from the state Democratic Party's new spokesperson, Elesha Peterson Carr:

Vegetarians are tolerated in South Dakota but let's face it, there is not a lot of love for us bunny lovers.  ...  When I became a vegetarian thirteen years ago it was an easy choice. 

Read the whole thing.

Hiatus in the SD Dems

Quentin noted earlier the South Dakota Democrat's new Communication's Director (hired with money from Howard Dean), Elesha Carr, a self-proclaimed vegetarian and animal activist (which is about as aberrant as transplanting African animals here).  Now, I have no qualms against vegetarians; my other half is one, but she isn't an activist about it (she just doesn't like the taste of meat or seafood, and there are times that she wishes she could eat meat).  But I digressed.  The bigger issue here is that Elesha Carr represents the South Dakota Democrats and, with her predisposition, would lead me to the same conclusion drawn at the SD War College:

How is the South Dakota Democratic Party going to convince voters who can swing one way or the other that they represent mainstream South Dakota when their spokesperson calls herself an animal activist?

A further hiatus, which SDP has been slow to note, is that Todd Epp has left the Democratic party. If Epp is leaving the party, then the Dems really have problems.  From Epp:

Today is my "Independents" Day, August 10, 2005.  My Republican friends will be confounded.  My Democrat friends will no longer be embarrassed about what I say as a Democrat.  Most of the rest of you won't care.  I'm just a liberal now, not a liberal Democrat. . . . I'm applying for some jobs where being a Democrat will be a hindrance to my chances.  . . . Further, I don't think a number of the Democrats i've seen and heard these past months since the 2004 election get it.  Anyway, I'm mad at them.  Yup, sour grapes.  I admit it.. . . I also learned a little late in life that you shouldn't love things that can't or won't love you back.  I'm definitely not feeling the love Democrat-wise.

And, as I noted yesturday, Tim Johnson still doesn't have any solutions for the gas prices (at least Herseth offered the idea of using the strategic oil reserve, and Thune is pushing for Alaskan oil drilling).  With prices nearing $3 a gallon at the pump, a solution is direly needed.  The strategic oil reserve would only alleviate things temporarily.  However, tapping into Alaskan oil could stabilize oil prices (and maybe even lower them).  It's all about supply right now, and Johnson has done nothing to encourage discourse on the subject.

Looking Cloud

Last year in a trial in Rapid City, Arlo Looking Cloud was charged with the execution of AIM activist Anna Mae Pictou Aquash and found guilty.  His appeal was rejected today.  Exerpts:

A federal appeals court on Friday upheld the murder conviction of Arlo Looking Cloud in the 1975 execution-style slaying of American Indian Movement activist Anna Mae Pictou Aquash on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation.

...

He argued that he should get a new trial because the judge let the jury hear irrelevant and prejudicial evidence, his lawyer made mistakes and there was not enough evidence to support his conviction.

However, a three-judge panel of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said there was sufficient evidence for a jury to conclude that he took part in the murder. The court also rejected Looking Cloud's other arguments.

Politicizing the Past

San Francisco has delivered a slap in the face to our nation's past and has refused to commemorate the USS Iowa.  The reason is the usual asinine, lefty response:

. . . [C]ity supervisors voted 8-3 last month to oppose taking in the ship, citing local opposition to the Iraq war and the military's stance on gays, among other things.

"If I was going to commit any kind of money in recognition of war, then it should be toward peace, given what our war is in Iraq right now," Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi said.

Douglass Wilhoit summed it up nicely:

"We're lucky our men and women have sacrificed their lives ... to protect our freedom," Wilhoit said. "Wherever you stand on the war in Iraq ... you shouldn't make a decision based on philosophy."