South Dakota Politics

SD Delegates Respond...and More on Iraq

Our senators and representative respond to Bush's Iraq policy.  From the Mercury News:

WASHINGTON - South Dakota's congressional delegation had mixed reactions to President Bush's speech on war policy Wednesday.

Democratic Stephanie Herseth, the state's only representative in the House, said she shares the president's view that training of Iraqi troops is paramount.

"I hope this renewed focus will enable us to begin drawing down our troops in the region at the appropriate time and to continue to turn over a stable democratic Iraq to the Iraqi security forces," Herseth said, echoing many other Democrats.

In his speech at the U.S. Naval Academy, Bush refused to set a timetable for U.S. troop withdrawals and asserted that once-shaky Iraqi troops are proving increasingly capable.

He did not outline a new strategy for the nearly three-year-old war. Rather, the speech was intended as a comprehensive answer to mounting criticism and questions.

"Today's speech sent a clear message of commitment to our troops on the front line and liberated Iraqis, and one of determination and strength to the terrorists who continue to try to shake our resolve," said Republican Sen. John Thune.

"Redoubling our efforts to train Iraqi security forces will help stabilize the country and enable our troops complete their mission," said Democratic Sen. Tim Johnson. "I'm pleased the President recognizes that this goal should be a top priority."

"While I welcome President Bush's comments today, I also look forward to hearing greater detail on what steps the White House will take to bring our soldiers home and secure Iraq," Johnson said.

You can read President Bush's National Strategy for Victory in Iraq here, and the full text of his speech here. 

REACTIONS
Jon Henke:  Iraq:  Do you want a Strategy or Tactics?
Ann Althouse:  "Finish" is an exquisite word choice.
RedState: Strategy for Victory in Iraq
Power Line:  President Outlines Strategy in Iraq, Don't Believe a Word of It!
Jay Reding:  A Strategy for Iraq

RELATED
Times Online:  Bruce Willis comes out fighting for Iraq's forgotten GI heros

Mac Owens on Bush's Speech

Very good.  Read it at National Review.  I'll try to blog on the speech itself tomorrow.  And by the way, those HOSC tunes that Professor Schaff advertises below are pretty good. 

The MoveOn Coverup

WSJ:  The MoveOn Coverup

CNS News:

The liberal political group MoveOn.org has yanked a video ad from its website after being criticized for using images of British soldiers to represent Americans in Iraq.

The 30-second ad, which also began running on CNN and cable stations during the Thanksgiving weekend, stated that "150,000 American men and women are stuck in Iraq" this holiday season.

But the ad showed soldiers who were "not wearing U.S. uniforms," according to a Pentagon spokesman who was interviewed by Cybercast News Service Wednesday, approximately two hours before the Internet version of the ad was pulled from the MoveOn.org website.

HT to Instapundit.

More Snow

It was snowing much of the day today in Aberdeen...again.  I didn't get a chance to get out with my camera, but maybe tomorrow.  Funny enough, I happen to sit in on an event with Aberdeen Mayor Mike Levsen and he made many cracks about the grief he's getting about snow removal. So I kept my strong opinions to myself. 

South Dakota Primary

I suspect my colleagues will disagree with me, but I am disappointed by this article hinting that South Dakota should move up its presidential primary day.  I understand the arguments in favor of the state moving up its primary, but what is good for the state may not be good for the nation.  It is my considered opinion that the frontloading of presidential primaries produces lower quality candidates than a more protracted process.  The frontloaded system rewards front runners at the expense of lesser known candidates, well funded candidates at the expense of those running on a tight budget, and also fails to offer a deliberative selection process.  I think the 1972 Democratic nomination contest is a good example of the virtues of a drawn out nomination contest.  Long shot George McGovern was able to build on some early successes and build momentum, while the front runner, Edmund Muskie, proved to be an ineffective vote getter, and when he stumbled lesser known and lesser funded candidates had the time to make the case for themselves.  Frontloading has also caused the presidential race to start earlier, which is bad for the country as we seldom leave campaign mode to switch to governing mode.  Prospective candidates must constantly maneuver themselves for the presidency, since you need to start your campaign at least 18 months before the general election. John Kerry started his run for the 2004 race in December of 2002, or 23 months before the election.  That's a problem. 

Of course most every state has moved its primary up.  So the argument is "Why shouldn't we, since everyone else does it."  The "everyone else is doing it" argument didn't work when I was ten, and it doesn't work now.  I mean, if every other state jumped off the Empire State Building...

But I recognize reality.  Moving up the primary, especially in conjunction with other states as the linked article suggests, would probably bring more attention and more campaign money into the state.  That logic is hard to resist, and, alas, South Dakota probably won't resist it.

Update: Denise Ross provides perspective. 

Economic Growth

Reuters:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. economic growth was much stronger last quarter than first thought as spending rose more than estimated, while divergent price data on Wednesday left economists puzzled over inflation pressures.

Gross domestic product, a measure of all goods and services produced within U.S. borders, grew at a revised 4.3 percent annual rate in the third quarter, the fastest pace since the first three months of 2004, the Commerce Department said. Growth had initially been reported at 3.8 percent.

The report also showed inflation was milder than first thought. A price gauge favored by the Federal Reserve -- personal consumption expenditures excluding food and energy -- rose just 1.2 percent in the July-to-September period, down from the originally reported 1.3 percent pace.

That was the lowest rate of core inflation in more than two  years. Economists had expected the index to be revised higher.

Here are some numbers on GDP and corporate profits, for those interested in that sort of thing.  Again, this is great news.  Our economy has reacted remarkably well against hurricanes Rita and Katrina.  Also, new home sales continue as they hit a record level in October; however, here in the Midwest, sales fell by 9.5%.

Bush AS Reagan? Or Hamilton?

I recommend the latest Mackubin Thomas Owens piece as he cites one of my favorite Federalist Papers (#71) and also makes some sober points about public opinion, constitutionalism, and demagoguery.  On the other hand, he compares George W. Bush to Reagan and Hamilton, which might be going a bit far. 

Mike Rounds

Despite the Argus Leader's constant attacks on Governor Mike Rounds, his approval rating still stands at 73%--3rd in the nation.

Hot New Band

A buddy of mine has been in the recording studio.  He and his friend call themselves Hang On St. Christopher (HOSC).  You can hear the results here.  Pretty good. 

"The only exit strategy is victory"

Glenn Reynolds:  Lieberman and McCain: Bipartisan consensus on Iraq

By the way, the quote comes from John Kerry.

Johnson Monitoring and Urging

Denise Ross on the Rapid City Journal blog is saying that Senator Johnson is sending out press releases saying he is "monitoring" the winter conditions in South Dakota.  She also says people in the press get a laugh out of Johnson's press releases where he "urges" this or that:

On KELO, you’ve got Rounds giving specifics of how to get help, how to avoid getting your backside in a sling and just what he was going to do about all of it. In the e-mail, you have Johnson monitoring. (Which, in a way, is a step up from his ubiquitous press releases about him urging this or that, which have led to newsroom snickers about Johnson’s urges and his need to announce them.)

We urge Johnson to take a stand against filibustering Judge Alito.

Free Speech for Professors II

No idea is more threatening to the university classroom than this: that it is legitimate to interfere with a professor's management of her course or even threaten her with dismissal if she offends her students, her colleagues, or the public at large.  A few years ago I sat in a room with a group of honors faculty and honors students and discussed this very question.  Several students pointed out that they were offended most frequently by things that their best professors said in their best courses, and that the same professor would offend them by making arguments on both the left and the right of the political spectrum.  I suggested that any student who spent four years in college without once hearing anything offensive should sue for malpractice.  I was only half joking.  Education is necessarily offensive.  It challenges ideas and perspectives that we hold dear.  That, and only that, can encourage thinking.

The Northern Valley Beacon brought to my attention what strikes me as a failure to defend the idea of higher education.  Kansas University announced plans to offer a course with the title  “Special Topics in Religion: Intelligent Design, Creationisms and other Religious Mythologies.”  This course title infuriated conservatives in the Kansas press and state legislature, who brought enough pressure on the Department of Religious Studies to change the title to "Intelligent Design and Creationism.".

Apparently the Beacon sides with the conservatives.  I do not.  In the interest of disclosure I should acknowledge that I am a Darwinist.  I do not think Intelligent Design or Creationism represent serious science.  I would never title a course in the way Professor Mirecki did, for I prefer to invite and engage opinions on both sides of these questions.  But the view that creationism is a mythology, in the sense of a non-rational belief system, is certainly a respectable scholarly view.  Likewise the view, prominent in philosophy of religion, that certain astronomical findings support the idea of a supernatural creator, is also an intellectually respectable view.  Someone who wanted to teach a course called, say, "Physics in Support of God," in a religious studies department, should not be prevented from doing so because the title offends some Darwinists, secularists, and atheists.  I say let both sides spread out their wares on the university sidewalk and open the marketplace of ideas. 

Free speech, in the university, means that Professors and students can make such arguments as they see fit, without fearing for their persons or their positions.  If some of the offerings are offensive, so much the better.  It means that education is working. 

Some of SDP's critics would like to go a step beyond the Kansas conservatives.  They would like to punish two of us because we happen to be public employees.  They would be all to happy to shut us down in this altogether independent forum on the grounds that public university professors ought not to be allowed to express opinions that they find offensive.  They are all for free speech, of course.  Its conservatives freely expressing their opinions that they can't tolerate.  Here, with Socrates, I take my stand.  Men of Athens, I love you and salute you.  But I will not stop making arguments.  Here I am stationed, and I will not desert my post.

Calvitto on Alito

Rapid City Journal excerpt:

Celeste Calvitto: Conservative group lines up Alito support

Progress for America is the conservative organization that has launched an ad campaign to promote the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court and that supports Bush administration proposals such as changes in Social Security.

The group recently organized a media conference call with four South Dakota Republican lawyers and politicians who support Alito. They talked about why they believe Alito should be on the court and urged South Dakota’s U.S. senators, Democrat Tim Johnson and Republican John Thune, to vote to confirm him.

Check it out.

Withdrawal

Christopher Hitchens over at Slate has an outstanding piece on "The Perils of Withdrawal":

The situation is bad and possibly deteriorating. In spite of open elections with wide participation, and in spite of the promulgation of a federal-type constitution that controversially privileges Islam, attacks are on the increase and the number of American soldiers already killed in 2005 is almost double the number for last year. Suicide bombers, often recruited from beyond the borders but also generated internally, demonstrate increasing ruthlessness and sophistication. Kidnapping and hostage-taking suggest an overlap between jihadism and organized crime. Warlordism and sectarianism remain toxic. No obvious end is in sight. The situation in Afghanistan, in other words, is giving rise to mounting concern.

Not enough concern, however, to prompt many calls for a date for withdrawal from Kabul. Is anything to be learned from the difference here? Cindy Sheehan and her co-thinkers do, of course, call for an American retreat from Afghanistan, just as the hard core of the anti-war movement always opposed an intervention there in the first place, but if we take the "withdrawal" argument to have moved to the so-called mainstream since the confused, tear-stained, but stirring speech of Rep. John Murtha, then what are the chief distinctions between the two cases?

Good question.  Check out the whole article.

Noxious Numbskullery at the Daily KOS

Here's a fine piece of left wing rhetoric from a commentator on the most popular blog on the web:

Lieberman is an Orthodox Jew (who are generally very anti-arab and palestinian) and an AIPAC whore.  This war was fought for O.I.L. (Oil Industry, Israel, Logistics of Military - Military Industrial Complex). He's not Connecticut's Senator, he's Ariel Sharon's.

When can we run a fucking primary against this douche-bag?  I'd rather have a Moderate Republican than a Rightwing religious conservative who's alleigance is to other nations.

Now I do not believe that this thinking is representative of the American Left, let alone the Democratic Party.  In fact, many of the interlocutors on this KOS thread took him to task for apparent anti-semitism. 

But I do think it represents a substantial subculture within the left.  Leftist bloggers love to celebrate the stupid things that Pat Robertson says.  I am entitled to point out this one.  Of course, this commentator is not a person of fame or leadership, so far as I can tell.  But that is the point.  He represents a portion of the KOS rank and file.  And he/she is not alone.  Here's Iconoclast:

He[Liberman]'s actually an Israel suck-up. The fact that alot of Bush's foreign policy has been crafted by Republikud's just makes him LOOK like a Bush suck-up.

Republikud.  That's a good one.  Here's Rickpolitic:

I fully agree, Lieberman will never support any initiative that threatens the security of Israel. He will support any action taken against a country that is considered to be an enemy of the Israeli cause.

To put it mildly, folks who consider the Iraq war to be an oil-grab or a Jewish conspiracy probably do not want us to win that war.  Not that I am questioning their patriotism.  Unfortunately, patriotism and anti-semitism are not mutually exclusive.

Marriage, that blessed arrangement, that dream within a dream.

I cribbed the title from Princess Bride.  Here's a neat column from the American News. 

Clark Swisher, RIP

Legenday NSU coach and athletic director Clark Swisher has died.  His name will live on at Clark Swisher Field. 

What About The Dang Blizzard?

Here's an email we received today from a resident of the DC area:

I want some blizzard blogging dammit! It’s 60 in the Nation’s Capital, and you guys get a snow day. Tell us about the ice and snow. I can read WSJ and the Economist on my own.

Ask and you shall receive.  I went out and took some pictures this afternoon.  You'll notice that there isn't a ton of snow.  The problem up here in Aberdeen was not snow, but freezing rain and high winds.  Here is a picture of Central High School.  Because the sun was in and out today, this is the best picture I could get that shows the ice:

And here's one of campus, featuring what I think is our most attractive building, Lincoln Hall:

Here's an American News article on the harsh weather.  Many people here are still without power.  Our secretary, who is one of those without power, said that Menards (a Midwest version of Home Depot, for those not in the know) had 50 generators on Monday morning and they all sold right away.  But still zero hurricanes in South Dakota history. 

The Dewey/Willkie Challenge

Some history from No End But Victory:

Thomas Dewey and Wendell Willkie were two of the best men to never win the Presidency. Thrice, in 1940, 1944 and 1948, the fellow New Yorkers went down to defeat against Democratic Presidents immeasurably bolstered by the perils and successes of war.

Despite this, neither man made an issue of the war. Certainly there was much to critique: Franklin Roosevelt’s strategic vision was profoundly flawed; the Pearl Harbor disaster was ripe for critique; and Harry Truman’s handling of postwar affairs was hardly sterling. And yet, neither Dewey nor Willkie chose to make partisan or campaign issues of any of these things. Indeed, on the signal event of the era, they remained virtually silent. Why?

Read the whole thing to find out.

Do Not Ask For Whom The Bell Tolls

John Podhoretz on GOP scandals, present and future.  I don't think the Republicans will lose Congress next year.  Not because they don't deserve to, but because of gerrymandering.  Still, it might do some good for the party to spend some time in the political wilderness to remind themselves why they are Republicans in the first place.  One of those reasons might be because big government is corrupting, even for Republicans. 

Lieberman on Iraq

A powerful piece in the WSJ by Sen. Joe Lieberman today.  Highlight:

The leaders of Iraq's duly elected government understand this, and they asked me for reassurance about America's commitment. The question is whether the American people and enough of their representatives in Congress from both parties understand this. I am disappointed by Democrats who are more focused on how President Bush took America into the war in Iraq almost three years ago, and by Republicans who are more worried about whether the war will bring them down in next November's elections, than they are concerned about how we continue the progress in Iraq in the months and years ahead.

Here is an ironic finding I brought back from Iraq. While U.S. public opinion polls show serious declines in support for the war and increasing pessimism about how it will end, polls conducted by Iraqis for Iraqi universities show increasing optimism. Two-thirds say they are better off than they were under Saddam, and a resounding 82% are confident their lives in Iraq will be better a year from now than they are today. What a colossal mistake it would be for America's bipartisan political leadership to choose this moment in history to lose its will and, in the famous phrase, to seize defeat from the jaws of the coming victory.

Lieberman provides evidence of progress in Iraq.  I guess it could be said that in Iraq we have "Joe-mentum." 

Staying the Course

 The Economist, a great British magazine, offers an outstanding argument (and justified criticism of the Bush Administration) on why the United States must not withdraw from Iraq.  Excerpts (reg. required):

Why America must stay
...
This newspaper strongly disagrees [with Congressman Murtha's suggested pulling of troops out of Iraq].  In our opinion it would be disastrous for America to retreat hastily from Iraq.  Yet it is also well past time for George Bush to spell out to the American people much more clearly and honestly than he has hitherto done why their sons and daughters fighting in Iraq should remain in harm's way.
...
[T]he catalogue of failures thus far does raise serious questions about the administration's ability to make Iraq work--ever.  Mr Bush's team mis-sold the war, neglected post-invasion planning, has never committed enough troops to the task and has taken a cavalier attitude to human rights.  Abu Ghraib, a place of unspeakable suffering under Mr Hussein, will go into the history books as a symbol of American shame.  The awful irony is that the specious link which the administration claimed existed between Iraq and al-Qaeda in order to justify going to war now exists.
...
Iraq is not Vietnam.  Most Iraqis share America's aims: the Shia Arabs and Kurds make up some 80% of the population, while the insurgents operate mainly in four of Iraq's 18 provinces.  After boycotting the first general election in January, more Sunni Arabs are taking part in peaceful politics.  Many voted in last month's referendum that endorsed a new constitution; more should be drawn into next month's election, enabling a more representative government to emerge. . . . It seems, too, that the Arab world may be turning against the more extreme part of the insurgency--the jihadists led by al-Qaeda's leader in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who blow up mosques around Baghdad and Palestinian wedding parties in Jordan.  Though few Arabs publicly admit it, Mr Bush's efforts to spread democracy in the region are starting to bear fruit.

So America does have something to defend in Iraq.  Which, for Mr Bush's critics, leads into the most temping part of Mr Murtha's argument: that American troops are now a barrier to further progress; that if they left, Mr Zarqawi would lose the one thing that unites the Sunnis and jihadists; and that, in consequence, Iraqis would have to look after their own security.  This has a seductive logic, but flies in the face of the evidence.  Most of the insurgents' victims are Iraqis, not American soldiers.  There are still too few American troops, not too many.  And the Iraqi forces that America is training are not yet ready to stand on their own feet.  By all means, hand over more duties to them, letting American and other coalition troops withdraw from the cities where they are most conspicuous and offensive to patriotic Iraqis.  Over time, American numbers should fall.  But that should happen because the Iraqis are getting stronger, not because the Americans are feeling weaker.  Nor should a fixed timetable be set, for that would embolden the insurgents.

The cost to America of staying in Iraq may be high, but the cost of retreat would be higher.  By fleeing, America would not buy itself peace.  Mr Zarqawi and his fellow fanatics have promised to hound America around the globe.  Driving America out of Iraq would grant militant Islam a huge victory.  Arabs who want to modernise their region would know that they could not count on America to stand by its friends.

If such reasoning sounds negative--America must stay because the consequences of leaving would be too awful--treat that as a sad reflection of how Mr. Bush's vision for the Middle East has soured.  The road ahead looks bloody and costly.  But this is not the time to retreat.

Daschle/Kennedy: Dems Were Pressured By Politics

Denise Ross is writing on Mt. Blogmore about Tom Daschle, who is now telling the LA Times that if the 2002 elections weren't coming Democrats might not have felt so pressured about the Iraq war.  Daschle is implying that Democrats may have behaved differently if they didn't have their fingers in the political wind due to an upcoming election.  Senator Kennedy says that Democrats got "caught up" in the politics.  The LA Times continues:

It is, of course, impossible to say whether more Democrats would have opposed the war resolution — which passed the Senate 77 to 23 on Oct. 11, just hours after the House approved it 296 to 133 — if the vote had occurred after the 2002 election.

Daschle, who voted for the resolution and was not up for reelection that year, said he did not think so, "given the circumstances, the environment, the sense that we were responding to 9/11, and all of the urgency that was created by the rhetoric and cajoling of the administration."

But Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) said recently that a delay might have prompted more Democrats to vote no by increasing the time available to study the evidence for war and by dissipating the political pressures surrounding the decision.

"There was a stampede to vote on this," Kennedy said. "A lot of our people got caught up in it."

Bartlett said that if some Democrats felt "like they would have made a different decision before the election or after, that doesn't speak very well of them, because the facts didn't change in the course of one month."

Rising Tides

Chad at CCK takes me to task for a recent blog on global warming and rising sea levels.  He claims my post made no sense.

Blanchard's argument? Global warming is getting to be such a terrible problem it isn't even worth doing anything about it. In other words, we're doomed, so we might as well rape the rest of God's earth while we still have the chance.

In fact, my post consisted of comments on a piece in the British Guardian.  And it was Kenneth Miller, a scientist who was in charge of a Rutger's study into sea level rise, and who may know more about the subject than even Chad does, who said that there isn't anything we can do about it.  I quote again:

According to Prof Miller, there is little chance of slowing the rising tide caused by global warming. "There's not much one can do about sea level rise. It's clear that even if we strictly obeyed the Kyoto accord, it's still going to continue to warm. Personally, I don't think we're going to affect CO2 emissions enough to make a difference, no matter what we do. The Bush administration should stop asking whether temperatures are globally rising and admit the scientific fact that they are, but then turn the question around politically and say: 'We can't really do anything about this on any kind of cost basis at all'," he said.

Actually I don't think global warming is such a terrible thing at all.  Its serious, and we should prepare for it.  But there is nothing we can do to stop it, but trying to slow it down is probably hopeless. 

1. Even if we extinguished all greenhouse emissions, by abolishing pretty much all human industry, the globe would still warm half as fast as it is now.  That obviously isn't going to happen.
2. Any reforms that would have an appreciable effect on greenhouse emissions would be so expensive that no nation or group of nations could possible afford them.  Consider the Kyoto Treaty.  It would about $150 billion a year.  What would we achieve at that cost?  global temperature rise would be slowed down for six years. 

My conclusion is that, given current technologies, there is simply nothing we can effectively do about global warming.  I'm sorry if Chad finds the evidence and logic inconvenient.  This does not mean, however, that "we might as well rape the rest of God's earth while we have the chance."  I am opposed to rape in all cases, even planets. I think that technological progress and increased prosperity across the globe are the only things that can really help.  Only rich nations can afford to care about the environment. 

Rising Tides

Chad at CCK takes me to task for a recent blog on global warming and rising sea levels.  He claims my post made no sense.

Blanchard's argument? Global warming is getting to be such a terrible problem it isn't even worth doing anything about it. In other words, we're doomed, so we might as well rape the rest of God's earth while we still have the chance.

In fact, my post consisted of comments on a piece in the British Guardian.  And it was Kenneth Miller, a scientist who was in charge of a Rutger's study into sea level rise, and who may know more about the subject than even Chad does, who said that there isn't anything we can do about it.  I quote again:

According to Prof Miller, there is little chance of slowing the rising tide caused by global warming. "There's not much one can do about sea level rise. It's clear that even if we strictly obeyed the Kyoto accord, it's still going to continue to warm. Personally, I don't think we're going to affect CO2 emissions enough to make a difference, no matter what we do. The Bush administration should stop asking whether temperatures are globally rising and admit the scientific fact that they are, but then turn the question around politically and say: 'We can't really do anything about this on any kind of cost basis at all'," he said.

Actually I don't think global warming is such a terrible thing at all.  Its serious, and we should prepare for it.  But there is nothing we can do to stop it, but trying to slow it down is probably hopeless. 

1. Even if we extinguished all greenhouse emissions, by abolishing pretty much all human industry, the globe would still warm half as fast as it is now.  That obviously isn't going to happen.
2. Any reforms that would have an appreciable effect on greenhouse emissions would be so expensive that no nation or group of nations could possible afford them.  Consider the Kyoto Treaty.  It would about $150 billion a year.  What would we achieve at that cost?  global temperature rise would be slowed down for six years. 

My conclusion is that, given current technologies, there is simply nothing we can effectively do about global warming.  I'm sorry if Chad finds the evidence and logic inconvenient.  This does not mean, however, that "we might as well rape the rest of God's earth while we have the chance."  I am opposed to rape in all cases, even planets. I think that technological progress and increased prosperity across the globe are the only things that can really help.  Only rich nations can afford to care about the environment. 

The Vietnamization of Iraq

Don't miss Instapundit's excellent post on the "reverse Vietnam."  Jed Babbin also discusses "The Vietnamization of Iraq" in The American Spectator.

Canada and Its Discontents

Our friends north of the border have ousted the liberal government through a vote of no confidence.  Excerpt from Fox News:

TORONTO — A corruption scandal forced a vote of no-confidence Monday that toppled Prime Minister Paul Martin's minority government, triggering an unusual election campaign during the Christmas holidays.

Canada's three opposition parties, which control a majority in Parliament, voted against Martin's government, claiming his Liberal Party no longer has the moral authority to lead the nation.

Captain's Quarters weighs in:

I'm listening to the aftermath on CPAC, where the Liberal apologist wants to tell Canada that Adscam involved "a few Liberals", but that "no one believes that it involved the party as a whole". That apparently will be the line that the Liberals take in this election, along with a scolding tone about all of the great work that the Commons could be doing instead of holding another election seventeen months after the last one.

Well, that's why elections get held -- so that the Liberals can make that argument now that the country knows about the extent of the corruption. If they want to offer up the notion that just a few Liberals involved themselves in the money-laundering and featherbedding that went on in Adscam, I expect that the Tories and BQ will quote extensively from the Gomery report to remind voters of the extent of the corruption, including all of the money that flowed back into the Liberal Party through the government contracts given to cronies of Jean Chretien.

On To More Important Matters

I stumbled across this very interesting website comparing the careers of Bing Crosby and Elvis Presley.  By almost any measure, Crosby was by far a more successful entertainer than Presley.  And made better music, too. 

Here We Go Again

I've ceased getting into web site pissing matches as they get really tedious really fast.  So let me deal with this briefly as possible.  Chad Schuldt says that I accuse "anyone to the left of the Pope of being 'unpatriotic.'"  It's an odd charge, one filled with historical irony, to suggest that anyone would accuse people of being a bad Americans because they don't agree with the German Pope who lives in Vatican City.  Throughout American history the opposite has been the case, that those who agree with the Pope were considered unpatriotic.  Oh well.

The precipitating event of Mr. Schuldt's accusation seems to be this post.  In it I link to and reproduce in part James Q. Wilson's argument that things are going better in Iraq than many suggest.  I then said, "The idea that we are winning in Iraq will make much of the Left angry."  I was careful in my language; perhaps too careful as Mr. Schuldt seems to have missed the subtlety.  I said "much of the left," not all of it. If Mr. Schuldt does not consider himself angry at reports of success in Iraq, then the passage did not pertain to him.  But there is the "Michael Moore left" that compares the Iraqi terrorists to the American revolutionaries.  Michael Moore did say that he hoped more Americans would die in Iraq so George Bush would look bad.  This same Michael Moore was given a place of honor at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, so one assumes that he and his views have some significant support among those on the left. 

If Mr. Schuldt can produce evidence that I have questioned anyone's patriotism, let him air it.  In this post I reproduced Glenn Reynold's accusation of lack of patriotism, but said that Reynolds was likely going to far.  I did call Reynold's charge "intellectual food to chew on."  Why?  First, Glenn Reynolds is no idiot and so one takes what he says seriously.  Second, one must admit that there is such thing as unpatriotic behavior.  Well, what would that behavior look like?  Reynold's had an opinion, from which I distanced myself.  But it does get one thinking about what might actually characterize "unpatriotic" behavior.  In an update I then favorably posted John Hinderaker saying "I don't recall ever having called anyone unpatriotic, and I don't intend to start now."  In this post I linked to and reproduced a section of a Mark Steyn column challenging the intestinal fortitude of some anti-war critics.  I indicated agreement with the larger point of Steyn's column (that some anti-war critics, Jay Rockefeller to be specific, are unserious about American foreign policy), but at the same time called Steyn's rhetoric "overheated."  In this post I linked to another Instapundit piece that said, in part, "1) Criticism of the war is not by itself unpatriotic 2) Similarly, answering anti-war critics is not challenging their patriotism."   I then challenged the notion that anti-war critics were harming the troops.  I said:

I'm not a big fan of the "it's hurting the troops" argument.  Although, in the abstract, it is possible that verbal arguments can hurt the troops, the argument rings about as hollow to me as "it's for the children."  Whenever you hear "it's for the children" you can almost guarantee it's about something else (and you'd also better hold on to your wallet).  Given that "it's hurting the troops" is the rhetorical big gun, one had better be very discrete in how one throws around that accusation.

I still hold this view, despite this report:

Seventy percent of people surveyed said that criticism of the war by Democratic senators hurts troop morale -- with 44 percent saying morale is hurt "a lot," according to a poll taken by RT Strategies. Even self-identified Democrats agree: 55 percent believe criticism hurts morale, while 21 percent say it helps morale.

Most people think criticism hurts the troops. I think most people are wrong.  I think those who disagree with the war should go on publicly disagreeing and explaining why they think the supporters of the war are wrong.  And then those of us who support the war should go on publicly supporting it and explaining why those who oppose the war are wrong.  The Washington Post story continues:

The results surely will rankle many Democrats, who argue that it is patriotic and supportive of the troops to call attention to what they believe are deep flaws in President Bush's Iraq strategy. But the survey itself cannot be dismissed as a partisan attack. The RTs in RT Strategies are Thomas Riehle, a Democrat, and Lance Tarrance, a veteran GOP pollster.

Their poll also indicates many Americans are skeptical of Democratic complaints about the war. Just three of 10 adults accept that Democrats are leveling criticism because they believe this will help U.S. efforts in Iraq. A majority believes the motive is really to "gain a partisan political advantage."

I agree that many Democrats are challenging the war, and especially President Bush's motives, simply to "gain a partisan advantage."  It is not so surprising that a political party should look for political advantage.  But many Democrats are re-inventing history to explain away their own votes in favor of the war now that they think the political winds are moving in another direction.  I think that is deeply irresponsible, but I have not and will not call it unpatriotic.  If Mr. Schuldt attacks the President and opposes the war out of deep conviction rather than to "gain a partisan advantage," then so be it and he is not the subject of my or anyone else's criticisms on that matter. 

One reason not to respond to blog attacks is that most of them are on the level of "You are wrong, and my evidence that you are wrong is that you make me mad."  This website continues to vigorously support the war and challenge those who oppose it on flimsy grounds.  And until those anti-war folks start actively rooting on the terrorists, we have not and will not challenge their patriotism. 

By the way, Seth, Fred Phelps of "God Hates Fags" infamy is a registered Democrat, not a Republican. 

Just Heard On The Radio

Dude, snow day!  Or in our case up in Aberdeen, freezing rain and winds up to 50 MPH day.  Still no hurricanes, though. 

Wal-Mart Is Good For Low Income Americans

The proof, as they say, is in the pudding. Sebastian Mallaby has the goods:

As Jason Furman of New York University puts it, Wal-Mart is "a progressive success story." Furman advised John "Benedict Arnold" Kerry in the 2004 campaign and has never received any payment from Wal-Mart; he is no corporate apologist. But he points out that Wal-Mart's discounting on food alone boosts the welfare of American shoppers by at least $50 billion a year. The savings are possibly five times that much if you count all of Wal-Mart's products.

These gains are especially important to poor and moderate-income families. The average Wal-Mart customer earns $35,000 a year, compared with $50,000 at Target and $74,000 at Costco. Moreover, Wal-Mart's "every day low prices" make the biggest difference to the poor, since they spend a higher proportion of income on food and other basics. As a force for poverty relief, Wal-Mart's $200 billion-plus assistance to consumers may rival many federal programs. Those programs are better targeted at the needy, but they are dramatically smaller. Food stamps were worth $33 billion in 2005, and the earned-income tax credit was worth $40 billion.

Low income people vote with their feet and pocketbooks.  They shop and continue to seek jobs at Wal-Mart.  Much to the consternation of the elite. 

Abourezk

Former Senator James Abourezk has reached a settlement in the "traitor's list" lawsuit filed back in 2003.  From the Aberdeen American News:

SIOUX FALLS, S.D. - A settlement has been reached in a federal lawsuit that former U.S. Sen. James Abourezk filed against an Internet site that labeled him a traitor, lawyers for both sides said Saturday.

Abourezk, who's of Arab descent, was a Democratic U.S. senator from 1973 to 1979 and now practices law in Sioux Falls. He accused ProBush.com of libel for putting him on a "traitor's list" for criticizing President Bush.

Also named as defendants were Michael Marino, the site's editor and publisher, and Ben Marino, co-owner. ProBush.com is headquartered in West Point, Penn., according to court documents.

Two other people on the list, Jane Fonda and Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz, were added as plaintiffs after the case was filed in 2003. Fonda is an actress and civil activist known for her opposition of the Vietnam War. Dunbar-Ortiz is an author, historian, professor and part of the women's movement.

Specific terms of the settlement were not revealed. But Ronald Parsons Jr., a Sioux Falls lawyer representing ProBush.com, said the financial award to Abourezk was nominal: $1.

Read the whole thing to learn all of the details.

Sheehan

Power Line:

It's Over

Cindy Sheehan's moment of fame, that is.  The Washington Post delivers a surprisingly honest assessment of Sheehan's latest effort in Crawford, Texas:

Unlike [last August], when hundreds came from all over the country for major events at the two campsites named after Sheehan's son, who was killed in Iraq, Sheehan found herself addressing a crowd of only about 100 Saturday afternoon. The large tent where supporters had erected a stage hung with the banner "Speak Truth to Power" was only partially full. In the morning Sheehan signed copies of her new book, being published this week, for an even smaller crowd.

"Even smaller crowd," indeed:

The AP caption reads:

Anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan waits for people to show up at her book signing near President Bush's ranch on Saturday, Nov. 26, 2005 in Crawford, Texas.

If any showed up, it isn't apparent from the photos taken by AP and Reuters.

What Media Bias?

Rich Noyes, director of research for the Media Research Center, compared the nomination of Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Samuel Alito and concluded what we all suspected: that the MSM was liberally biased in their portrayal of Alito.  Excerpt:

New Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito has been a Justice Department lawyer, a U.S. attorney and a federal judge. Bill Clinton's first Supreme Court nominee, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, was a federal judge, too, but she also had been a liberal political activist, most notably as director of the Women's Rights Project for the American Civil Liberties Union.

But in the first hours after each was nominated, network reporters assured viewers Judge Ginsburg was a "moderate" and a "centrist," while journalists characterized Judge Alito as a right-wing extremist.

Indeed, even before President Bush announced Judge Alito's nomination, reporters were in a labeling frenzy. ABC's Charles Gibson called Judge Alito "very conservative" and "the most conservative member" of an otherwise "liberal appellate court." Over on CBS, Gloria Borger dubbed Judge Alito "quite conservative," the same label applied on CNN by early-morning anchor Carol Costello. On ABC's "Good Morning America," a breathless Jessica Yellin labeled Judge Alito as "conservative" five times in 50 seconds.

HT to Power Line.

 

We Are Winning in Iraq

So says James Q. Wilson, with evidence provided.  For example:

And the terrorists have failed. They could not stop free elections. They could not prevent Iraqi leaders from taking office. They could not close the schools or hospitals. They could not prevent the emergence of a vigorous free press that now involves over 170 newspapers that represent every shade of opinion.

Terrorist leaders such as Zarqawi have lost. Most Sunni leaders, whom Zarqawi was hoping to mobilize, have rejected his call to defeat any constitution. The Muslims in his hometown in Jordan have denounced him. Despite his murderous efforts, candidates representing every legitimate point of view and every ethnic background are competing for office in the new Iraqi government.

The progress of democracy and reconstruction has occurred faster in Iraq than it did in Germany 60 years ago, even though we have far fewer troops in the Middle East than we had in Germany after Hitler was defeated.

The idea that we are winning in Iraq will make much of the Left angry.  Think about that for a minute. 

Biden on the War

Captain's Quarters:  "Senator Joe Biden writes an op-ed for today's Washington Post that gets the entire war on terror fundamentally wrong -- and demonstrates why the Democrats have entirely failed to provide any leadership on Iraq and the wider war."

Freedom

Charles Krauthammer:  America's Unique Devotion to Liberty 

The Left University II

In regards to my previous post on Professor Daly, columnist Mike Rosen has a great piece on the professor:

It's not just the University of Colorado at Boulder that harbors wacko, America-hating lefties. Behold, the sequel: "Son of Churchill." At Warren County Community College in rural New Jersey, John Peter Daly, an adjunct English professor, went off the deep end last week in an outrageous e-mail to a student.
...
So you know where Daly sits before you hear where he stands, you should be aware that he's a member of the Marxist Worker's World Party; a regular correspondent to their newspaper, Workers World; a gay activist; and an unsuccessful candidate for Congress in California of the Peace and Freedom Party (self-described as a "socialist and feminist political party" calling for "collective ownership" of industry and "an unconditional end to U.S. military intervention in the affairs of other nations").  None of this is illegal, of course, but it gives you a picture of an angry, self-disenfranchised outcast from mainstream society.                

Read the whole thing.

Schell Shocked.

Jonathan Schell doesn't care for Republicans.  He cares even less for Republican majorities.  Like most of those of the left these days, not caring for something is not enough.  He wants to believe that Republicans are somehow illegitimate, that their very existence, let alone their possession of Congress, somehow violates the laws of nature and of nature's god.  Hence this, from the Nation:

For some time I have been suggesting here that the aim of Republican strategy has been a Republican Party that permanently runs the United States and a United States that permanently runs the world. The two aims have been driven by a common purpose: to steadily and irreversibly increase and consolidate power in GOP hands, leading in the direction of a one-party state at home and a global American empire abroad. The most critical question has been whether American democracy, severely eroded but still breathing, would bring down the Republican machine, or whether the Republican machine--call it the budding one-party global empire--would bring down American democracy. This week, it looks as if democracy, after years of decline, has gained the upper hand.

Consider that first sentence: it combines a platitude with a fantasy.  All political parties in the United States aim to "permanently run the United States," or at least some part of it, like Maryland or Baton Rouge.  "Suggesting" that the Republican Party is somehow sinister because it is in fact a political party is a sign of a mind permanently unable to come into focus. 

As for the second part of the first sentence, the idea that Republicans want to permanently extend American administration over foreign nations is so ludicrous that one is tempted to ask Schell what color the sky is.  Suppose the Iraq insurgency had never shown up, and the U.S. were at this moment, a year ahead of Congressional elections, withdrawing the last of its troops from a stable and modestly Democratic nation.  Could any fool imagine that the Republican administration would regard this as disappointing? 

As far as I can remember, Schell rose to fame back during the Reagan era as an advocate of a "nuclear freeze."  The idea was that if the U.S. simply stopped building or deploying nuclear weapons, then the Soviet Union would see that we were no threat and follow suit.  And anyway, better a Soviet dominated world than one in smoking ruins.  But Schell's rhetoric was new in so far as he worked altogether in impressionistic prose about how terrible nuclear war would be.  "A Republic of Grass and Insects," or something like that.  Here was a sign of the intellectual decline of the left.  No ideas remained.  Only cute slogans and poster captions.  He hasn't gotten any better since.

Will Johnson Vote to Filibuster Alito?

We still don't know if Senator Tim Johnson will vote to filibuster Judge Alito, but he's keeping that option open.  ABC News reported that "Democratic Sen. Tim Johnson of South Dakota refused to rule out supporting a filibuster."  The Alito battle will begin after Christmas, so you'd think reporters would examine what Johnson might do.  Also, Powerline is discussing a new study indicating how much the media favors liberal judicial candidates compared to conservatives like Alito:

Rich Noyes of the Media Research Center compares the network news coverage of the Samuel Alito and Ruth Bader Ginsburg nominations. His overall finding is what you would expect -- outrageous liberal bias. When Alito was nominated, ABC, CNN, and CBS raced to see how many times they could squeeze the word conservative into their stories (NBC was less insistent). When Ginsburg was nominated the MSM networks uniformly pronounced her a moderate.

The contrast in the reporting (if you can call it that) with respect to the issue of abortion is particularly noteworthy. The networks greeted Alito's nomination with much hand-wringing about whether replacing a pro-abortion Justice with a conservative would change the direction of the Court on this issue. Twelve years ago, however, the networks gave no voice to the concerns of conservatives that replacing Byron White with Ginsburg would change the direcion of the Court with respect to such abortion-related issues such as parental consent and government funding. Then, as now, only the concerns of the pro-abortion activists were raised. Indeed, CBS' Paula Zahn pointed out that The National Abortion Rights Action League "is not totally comfortable with this nomination of Judge Ginsburg." At NBC, Katie Couric voiced similar fears.

Thus, at least when it comes to judicial nominations, these major news outlets are simply the mouthpieces of liberal interest groups.

The Aliens Are Coming!

From our friends up north:

Paul Hellyer, Canada’s Defence Minister from 1963-67 under Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Prime Minister Lester Pearson, publicly stated: "UFOs, are as real as the airplanes that fly over your head."

Mr. Hellyer went on to say, "I'm so concerned about what the consequences might be of starting an intergalactic war, that I just think I had to say something."

Hellyer revealed, "The secrecy involved in all matters pertaining to the Roswell incident was unparalled. The classification was, from the outset, above top secret, so the vast majority of U.S. officials and politicians, let alone a mere allied minister of defence, were never in-the-loop."

Hellyer warned, "The United States military are preparing weapons which could be used against the aliens, and they could get us into an intergalactic war without us ever having any warning. He stated, "The Bush administration has finally agreed to let the military build a forward base on the moon, which will put them in a better position to keep track of the goings and comings of the visitors from space, and to shoot at them, if they so decide."

Hellyer’s speech ended with a standing ovation. He said, "The time has come to lift the veil of secrecy, and let the truth emerge, so there can be a real and informed debate, about one of the most important problems facing our planet today."

Indeed.

HT to Power Line.

Does Roe Make Sense?

Orin Kerr at Volokh leads us to this speech (pdf alert) by federal judge Raymond Randolph eviscerating the logic of Roe v. Wade, using a previously unpublished abortion opinion by famed federal judge Henry Friendly.  You might recall that Friendly was mentor to Chief Justice John Roberts. 

And the Good News Is

Due to Global Warming, pretty much every part of California that voted for Al Gore and John Kerry will soon be under water.  The British Guardian reports. 

The oceans will rise nearly half a metre by the end of the century, forcing coastlines back by hundreds of metres, the researchers claim. Scientists believe the acceleration is caused mainly by the surge in greenhouse gas emissions produced by the development of industry and introduction of fossil fuel burning.

Scary news that, especially if you paid a cool two million for a a Bay Area one bedroom, one bath christened with salt spray.  Scary for the rest of us, I suppose, considering all the childless couples that will be packing up their new age CDS, and looking for new real estate out where the Bush voters roam.  But the report puts a lot of things in perspective.

The analysis showed that during the past 5,000 years, sea levels rose at a rate of around 1mm each year, caused largely by the residual melting of icesheets from the previous ice age. But in the past 150 years, data from tide gauges and satellites show sea levels are rising at 2mm a year.

Now I can grasp the fact that 2mm a year is a lot more than 1mm a year.  Twice as much, if my grade school math hasn't deserted me.  On the other hand, if 2mm a year is bad, 1mm a year, or a quarter meter by the time folk start arguing about whether 2100, or 2101 is the first year of the twenty-second century, is pretty bad too.  I mean, how much does it matter if the water in your living room is just above or just below the coffee table with the cute blue tile that you bought only after being assured the artisan was paid according to fair labor rates?  And we are going to get the quarter meter rise even if we stop producing green house gases at all, which is the economic equivalent of not breathing out anymore. The tortoise eventually catches up with the hare. 

What this tells us is that global warming is something that we had better get used to, because not even Michael Moore knows how to stop it. But surely, our Bay Area Bodhisattva says as he spills a drop of Merlot with a quaint smoky aftertaste on his copy of Nation, it is imperative to reduce greenhouse gases at least to slow down the inevitable conquest of real estate by Poseidon, and give him more time to scope out small towns in Montana?  Well, no, according to the analysis. 

According to Prof Miller, there is little chance of slowing the rising tide caused by global warming. "There's not much one can do about sea level rise. It's clear that even if we strictly obeyed the Kyoto accord, it's still going to continue to warm. Personally, I don't think we're going to affect CO2 emissions enough to make a difference, no matter what we do. The Bush administration should stop asking whether temperatures are globally rising and admit the scientific fact that they are, but then turn the question around politically and say: 'We can't really do anything about this on any kind of cost basis at all'," he said.

And there you have it.  Efforts to slow down global warming by reducing human contributions is hopeless.  Why?  Because to be effective, we would have to strangle all economic growth in all nations.  Even that would merely delay the inevitable.  And that ain't going to happen. There's no way that millions of industrious folk in China and India are going to be denied their own cute coffee tables.  So what do we do?

The global warming argument is a canard.  We can't save ourselves or mother earth by reversing the economic development clock.  The only way forward is through.  Only very wealthy societies will be able to control their green houses emissions in the future, and deal with the effects of natural global warming.  The genie of economic development has been out of his bottle for a long time.  We should do everything we can to ensure that all nations become wealthy as rapidly as possible.  Only then will we have any hope of managing the global environment. 

 

See if you're faster than this woman...

100-Pound Woman Wins Turkey-Eating Contest

NEW YORK -- America's Thanksgiving holiday is known for massive feasts that produce bloated bellies. But one group of serious eaters took it a step farther _ engaging in a pre-Thanksgiving turkey-eating contest that challenged all to shove as much bird into their mouths as they could manage in 12 minutes.

This group of America's finest eaters assembled at Artie's Deli in New York on Wednesday to eat 10-pound roast turkeys in a contest sponsored by the gambling site GoldenPalace.com.

The enormous Eric "Badlands" Booker started quickly in the 12-minute contest, ripping through two turkey breasts and establishing an eight-ounce lead after three minutes.

As the contest progressed and the meat became moister in the drumsticks and shoulders, Sonya "The Black Widow" Thomas, Chip Simpson and Tim Janus gained speed.

At the end of 12 minutes, nearly all competitors had stripped their 10-pound bird down to the bones.

The Left University

Everybody knows that most college professors are left of center, and I have no problem with that as long as they're not using the classroom as a pulpit to impress their views on students or attack those that disagree with them.  However, an adjunct English professor at Warren Community College in New Jersey did just that.

Rebecca Beach, a freshman at Warren, received a vicious email in response to her email to the faculty announcing the appearance of decorated Iraq war hero, Lt. Col. Scott Rutter, to speak on campus. 

Professor John Daly emailed her back. Read the whole story and the professor's email in its entirety here.

Here are the gems he wrote to Rebecca:

"Your literature and signs in the entrance lobby look like fascist propaganda and is extremely offensive."

He continues on with a rant about the evils of capitalism, the war in Iraq, Hurricane Katrina, Exxon and racism.  He continues with this treat:

"I will continue to expose your right-wing, anti-people politics until groups like yours won't dare show their face on a college campus."

He concludes:

"Real freedom will come when soldiers in Iraq turn their guns on their superiors and fight for just causes and for people's needs."

Before the school administration could decide how to handle the situation (which I hope was to fire him), he resigned.  This man used his position of authority and power to try an intimidate her.  This is not an issue of academic free speech being suppressed, but outright harrassment of a conservative student.

HT to Ace of Spades and Freedom Folks.

RELATED
Weekly Standard:  The Left University
Pirate Ballerina:  Ward Churchill and "Fragging Officers"

Happy B-Day, WFB

William F. Buckley turns 80 today.  George Will honors him.  I am reading Miles Gone By to celebrate. 

How Am I Supposed To Live Without You

Nick and Jessica have broken up.  America morns.  I am reminded of this scene from Woody Allen's Annie Hall.

ALVY

				(Continuing to walk) 
			Large vibrating egg.  Well, I ask a 
			psychopath, I get that kind of an answer.  
			Jesus, I-I, uh, here ... 
				(He moves up the sidewalk to 
				a young trendy-looking couple, 
				arms wrapped around each other) 
			You-you look like a really happy couple.  
			Uh, uh ... are you?

					YOUNG WOMAN
 			Yeah.

					ALVY
 			Yeah!  So ... so h-h-how do you account 
			for it?

					YOUNG WOMAN 
			Uh, I'm very shallow and empty and I 
			have no ideas and nothing interesting 
			to say.

					YOUNG MAN 
			And I'm exactly the same way.

					ALVY 
			I see.  Well, that's very interesting.  
			So you've managed to work out something, huh?

If trendy, good-looking, airheads can't make it, who can?  

Hey, Me Too

Funny enough, I am also thankful for the steam room at the Aberdeen Fitness Center, because it keeps Prof. Blanchard from complaining about his sinuses. 

I am thankful for all God's creatures.  And the ability to kill them.  I will celebrate Thanksgiving by deer hunting.  Wish me luck, because I need all the luck I can get.  Now which end of the gun is the bangy end? 

I am thankful for Girl Friday.  I say a door that "should remain closed at all times" is not a door.  It's a wall. 

These guys are pretty cool.  Not cool like Mick Jaggar, but they do represent one of the few institutions on this earth that is actually older than Mick Jaggar. 

How about addicting internet games?  I tell you, I cannot play enough Battleship.  As a matter of fact, as long as I am online...

What I'm Thankful For

My good colleague, Dr. Schaff, takes the road of piety in his quick nod to America's November feast.  In doing so, he follows in the ruts of many a journalist, formal or otherwise.

Like Frost, I have decided to take the other fork in the road, and list the things I am really thankful for.  Its not that I don't appreciate spacious skies and amber waves of grain.  I am personally and professionally proud of the degree to which God has confirmed our souls in self control, and liberties in law.  Nor do I take second seat to anyone in my admiration for those heroes prov'd in liberating strife.  However, like most Americans I am just too accustomed to those blessings to really grasp what it would be like not to enjoy them. 

So here, on this November night, is what I really feel thankful for:

1.  High definition television. This comes first on the list only because I just finished watching one of Michael Wood's "In Search of Myths and Heroes," a series in which he takes works of ancient literature as themes in a travelogue.  Shots of a gorgeous raven-haired lass reading passages from Apollonius' Jason and the Argonauts punctuated panoramics of the Mediterranean and Black Sea coasts, the great domed church/mosque in Istanbul, and ancient ruins hidden in the coastal hills.  Take my word for, wide screen HD makes the TV I used to watch look like a faded post card. 

2. Harry Potter.  When I saw the trailer for the new movie it brought tears to my eyes.  House Blanchard is united in mutual affection for the Potter books.  We will be going together to see it Friday.

3.  Google.   My father used to tell a joke the punch line of which was "yeast is yeast and nest is nest and never the mane shall tweet."  I never forgot those words, but I had no idea what the joke was.  My wife, one of the reference library persons at Northern, suggested: "google it."  I did, and now I have the rest of the story.  I found it at, of all places, the Volokh Conspiracy, one of the blogs that we here at SDP regular consult. 

4. Heated car seats.  Further proof that God loves us, and wants us to be happy.

5. Beer.  The original proof. 

6. The Barbecue Bible, by Steve Raichlen.  My favorite cookbook.  I'll take a slab of seasoned meat roasting on hot coals over a tall ship and a star to steer her by any day.  Well, most days. 

7.  My panini maker.  The grilled cheese sandwich is one of Western civilizations most perfect achievements.  Try tossing a little blue cheese in with the cheddar. 

8.  Down.  Goose down, that is.  Especially our down comforter.  I always thought that the dial on a thermostat was there so you could make the room comfortable.  My wife, God bless her, thinks its there so you can turn it down to save energy.  Crawling under that down comforter when the bedroom is roughly the temperature of Carlsbad Caverns makes up for almost all the disappointments of life.  And then there's my new down coat. 

9.  The steam room at the new Fitness Center.  Keeps the sinus passages clear and good Doctor Blanchard feeling like he can face reading another entry by Chad Shuldt at CCK. 

10.  My wife, my daughter, and my son, in order of acquaintance.  With Godspeed, we will be together again in about ten hours.  My cup runneth over.  Praise the Lord and pass the remote.

Thanksgiving and Civic Religion

Joe Knippenberg on Thanksgiving Proclamations through history.