South Dakota Politics

Now It's Bing vs. Sinatra

I promise that this is the last music post for a while.  Reader Joe from Pierre opines:

Guys I suggest you go up one notch in your singer pecking order, as it were, to the top. Sinatra is the most important and influential entertainer of the 20th century. May I suggest
"Why Sinatra Matters" by Pete Hammel, as a good place to start.

I share Joe's high opinion of Sinatra.  One thing Sinatra had over Crosby is better taste.  Sinatra simply recorded better songs.  He had his own stable of great writers (e.g. Sammy Cahn) who consistently turned out great material for Sinatra to record.  But before we crown him the real king, I do want to point out that Crosby influenced a whole generation of singers, including Sinatra himself, and others like Dean Martin and Perry Como who self-consciously mimicked Crosby's smooth delivery.  Crosby was the first singer to appreciate that the new technology of the microphone meant that the singer could, and should, sing more softly.  Indeed, he must learn to croon.  But I don't want to claim too much.  After all is said and done, Sinatra is likely Crosby's superior.  Sinatra and Sextet Live In Paris is a revelation.  I highly recommend it. 

One more point and I swear I'll let this string of music posts go for a while.  If I were going to pick the best singer of that era (1930s-1950s) I would go with Ella Fitzgerald.  While often associated with jazz, Fitzgerald herself rejected the notion that she was a "jazz singer" in favor of the appellation "popular singer."  There are few recordings better than her series of "Songbooks" of the great American songwriters (e.g. Cole Porter, Irving Berlin, Rogers and Hart).  The three CD collection of Ella Fitzgerald Sings The George And Ira Gershwin Songbook is perhaps the finest set of recordings I own.  She takes my favorite songwriters, the Gershwins, and interprets them beautifully.  I recommend this and the other "Songbooks" as well as this breathtaking recording.   I see that, horror of horrors, according to Amazon the complete Gershwin Songbook is not available new (you can get it used). You now can only get a "Best of the Gershwin Songbook."  Someone shame Verve records into re-releasing this best of recordings.

Iraq Election

In honor of the event now unfolding, I submit this column that was published in the Aberdeen American News. It was written in honor of my next door neighbor.  I note something he told me.  When he went to Iraq he thought that the war had been a mistake.  When he saw the reaction of Iraqi children to American troops, he thought otherwise.  Here is the column I wrote for Ryan.

It was an altogether happy day when my neighbor, a South Dakota National Guardsman, returned safely from Iraq. Whatever worries I had while he was away surely can’t compare with those of his wife and family. But I did worry about him, almost every day. My wife and I gave him some heavy duty backpacking socks for Christmas, and he later reported that they made his military boots comfortable for the first time. That was one small gesture of gratitude. This column is another.

The success of the recent elections in Iraq put critics of the war in an uncomfortable position. The Minneapolis Star Tribune put it this way: the Iraqis should be congratulated for their election; nonetheless, “American troops should be called upon to lay down their lives for the defense of the nation, not to bring democracy to anyone.”

This is a reasonable opinion, to be sure, but I believe it does our servicemen and women a disservice. My father served in the Pacific during WWII, and my Uncle Bud was killed by a sniper’s bullet on Okinawa. They did not sail west in order to revenge the drowned sailors on the Arizona, or because the Japanese had any designs on northeast Arkansas. The Japanese attacked us because they thought it necessary to preserve their Pacific Rim Empire. My uncle and my Dad went to war in Asia because that empire ultimately threatened everyone, everywhere.

Our fighting men in WWII deserve honor not only because they were defending American interests, which surely they were. They are also to be honored precisely because they brought democracy back to Western Europe, and introduced it to Japan. They liberated millions of human beings from the most brutal despotisms. They laid the foundations of postwar peace and prosperity because they fought for something nobler than the mere national interest that is all the Trib will allow. 

The U.S. is much stronger today than in 1941, and Saddam Hussein was, at worst, a small scale replica of Hitler. Nonetheless I insist that my friend next door deserves the same measure of honor and gratitude as Dad and Uncle Bud.

The Iraqi election stands as the most promising event in the Middle East since Jimmy Carter brokered peace between Egypt and Israel. Al Jezeera and Al Arabiya, the most important Arab news services, faced a choice on January 30^th.  Should they concentrate coverage on the long lines of Iraqis waiting to vote, or on the various attempts to kill them? They recognized early in the day that the courage rather than the carnage was the real story. A sense of wonder and optimism was consequently palpable in coffee houses on both sides of the Fertile Crescent.

Critics are wrong to say that this election was only a step towards democracy. Democracy is not a goal, it is a process. Eight million people queuing up to vote is as much democracy as you will ever see, anywhere. Whether the Iraqis will achieve a stable republic remains to be seen. But they have already achieved a remarkably balanced government, in which the Shiite majority must negotiate with Kurdish and Sunni representatives to build a new constitution. That is exactly what a republic looks like.

The most durable symbols of Iraqi self-government are the many images of veiled women holding up ink-stained fingers, in defiance of the insurgents who promised to murder them if they voted. And then there’s Abdul Amir. This Iraqi policeman was blown to bits when he wrestled a suicide bomber to the ground, preventing the man from reaching a line of voters. 

Many sensible people will still insist that the 2003 invasion was a mistake, and whoever thinks so should say so. They may yet be proven correct. But just right now siding with the veiled women and Abdul Amir against their murderous enemies is in the interest of the United States, the region, and the world. It is also a noble thing in itself. Our men and women at arms deserve the full measure of honor for it.

Iraqi Election Guide.

Allow me to interupt the string of light-hearted posts that preceed this one, and note that the Iraqis are going to the polls for the third time this year.  What should we look for to judge the success of the election?  As in the previous cases, it is people voting with their feet, by walking to the polls to vote, that is crucial. See the Washington Post graphic on the election.  Here's what I would look for.

1. Security for polling places.  The two previous elections were astonishingly free from carnage.  Let us fondly hope and fervently pray that this trend continues.
2. Overall Turnout.  It would be good to see the turnout beat both of the previous elections, especially since this one will actually produce the first democratic government in the Arab world. 
3. Turnout in Sunni regions.  While the Sunnis participated in impressive numbers in the last election, it will important to see increased turnout in this one.  Incorporating the Sunni Arab population into the new government is probably the single most important step in establishing an Iraqi republic.
4. Turnout in Rahmadi and Fallujah.  This will indicate that the breeding grounds of the indigenous insurgency have decided to join the new Iraq.

Elvis vs. Bing, Arbitration.

Todd Epp and Professor Schaff have a difference of opinion on "who was the more successful entertainer, the King or the Crooner?  Someone with shrewder judgment and a cooler head now needs to step in and settle the matter.  Until that person shows up, I'll have to do.

1.  In spite of preferring Bing to the King, Professor Schaff is not 94 years old, as Epp alleges.  Even if he does dress like Ralphy in A Christmas Story, intentionally, he is too young to have come by his affection for Crosby honestly.  I suspect the cause may be radiation from his glow in the dark golf sweaters.

2.  As for who made better music, the answer is almost certainly Bing.  I say this only because his generation of entertainers took their craft much more seriously than did Elvis and those who followed him.  Moreover Bing has a sense of propriety about his whole persona that Elvis, to put it delicately, never possessed about anything.  I take no position on their relative body of songs.

3.  As for who was the more successful entertainer, here one needs a standard.  Epp's is this: "Women desired him.  Men wanted to be him". This strikes me as a flawed standard.  It means that to be successful, you not only have to be preeminent in your art, you also have to be sexy. 

4.  The proper standard is who had the greatest impact on the culture of the nation and the world?  Here I think the matter clearly favors Elvis, but for no fault of his own.  Elvis was clearly a powerful entertainer, but his greatness was supplied by a unique historical context.  The US changed profoundly after and largely as a result of the Second World War.  When I was a teenager I didn't like any of the music my father liked.  By contrast, I like a lot of the music my daughter likes, and my teenage son is now listening to the Rolling Stones and the soundtrack to Easy Rider.  The fifties through the seventies represent a fault line in the history of the American soul.

Elvis more than anyone else personified the first wave of cultural change, as did James Dean, for example, in film.  Likewise Bob Dylan and the Beatles personified the second wave (the one on acid).  Both of the latter wrote and produced bodies of music that were wonderful in their own right, but their unique power came from the moment.  Bing just didn't have such a moment to work with. 

One final note about Elvis.  I see no reason women shouldn't have desired him, at least before the drug and processed sugar stage of his career.  But if men wanted to be him, that's just a sign that men have no idea what to want.  I visited Graceland with my daughter this last summer.  In spite of growing up a mere hour away, I had never been there.  The place was appalling.  Gaudy to a degree that would make a lawn gnome look like a Donnatello, it was a monument to an utterly empty soul.  Elvis had the bad fortune to get everything he wanted early in life.  He spent the rest of his life looking vainly for something that might keep his interest.  Karate?  Golf car pollo on his lawn?  No wonder he ended up chasing Twinkies with sedatives.  I know nothing about Bing Crosby's personal life, which is more than I want to know, but sure it can't have been half that bad.

Epp Update

It just occurred to me that Todd Epp is right about something, namely fantasy football.  He certainly kicked my butt this year.  I had no running backs.  None.  My running backs were so slow their time in the 40 could be kept with a sun dial.  My running backs were so bad that the defense let them get to the line of scrimmage out of pity.  My running backs were so bad...well, you get the point.  And Epp wins. 

Elvis vs. Bing

Bing=Quality 

I have been remiss in commenting on this.  Todd Epp takes me to task for preferring Bing Crosby to Elvis Presley.  Todd, do you ever get tired of being wrong all the time?  Let's take it point by point.  First, as I pointed out before, this website shows that by record sales and box office receipts Crosby was more successful than Presley.  Second, Crosby's movies are more memorable than Presley's.  First, Holiday Inn and White Christmas are seasonal favorites.  Second, films like Going My Way, Bells of St. Mary's and Country Girl stand up far better than any of the shlock Presley was in.  I want to point out that the Road movies with Bob Hope were on cable just this weekend, along with Presley movies on another channel.  I own five of the Road movies (Singapore, Morocco, Rio, Zanzibar and Utopia) and I think these movies are still funny 60 years later.  Presley movies are just embarrassing. 

True, Crosby's music, outside of the Christmas music, is not heard much anymore.  But he did record classics like Pistol Packing Mamma and Accentuate the Positive with the Andrews Sisters, along with songs like Moonlight Becomes You, Where The Blue Of the Night, I've Got A Pocket Full Of Dreams, Swinging On A Star, and Too-Ra-Loo-Ra-Loo-Ral that still hold up.  And he sang Blue Hawaii thirty years before Elvis. 

The fact that there is no Cult of Bing only shows his quality.  Crosby fans are far to well adjusted to let their lives be defined by someone who, let's face it, isn't exactly reciting Keats.  The Elvis Culters are pathetic losers, not people to be admired. 

Bing was status quo?  Crosby recorded popular music, country music, Hawiian music, jazz music, religious/gospel music.  Todd's objection here is that in his persona Crosby was not a "rebel."  Sure, but was Elvis?  Not really.  Just phony mass marketed rebellion made to order for an easy audience, teenagers.  Elvis pursued "cool" as opposed to "good."  See Nation of Rebels for a take on this phenomena. Elvis started a sad and lamentable trend: the idea that there is music for kids and music for adults.  And the kids began defining was it means to make "good" music.  Only those caught up in a different cult, a cult of youth, would see that as a good thing.   Let's face it.  That's a key difference in their music and personas.  Elvis is for kids, Crosby for adults. This is a modern perversion that obsesses on youth as an ideal with nary a concern of growing up and acting like a grown up.  Let me alter something George Will once said about baseball.  Bing Crosby is boring to boring people.  So there! 

And by the way, I dress like Crosby's era, too. It's all argyle for me!! 

I have run down Elvis more than I like, but the facts are the facts.  I like rock music and Elvis rocks.  But Crosby rules. 

I listen to just about everything, but these days I am listening to this and this.  And if I am listening to 50s rock, I am going to listen to the best, which is Mr. Holly.

Quotable Dr. B.

All the following statements have been attributed to me.  They were recorded over the course of the last semester by a student in Phil 100, Introduction to Philosophy.  Let the reader decide for himself what the context may have been.

1. “Lick someone’s brain and you won’t taste chocolate.”
2. “A mosquito is just a flying syringe, isn’t it?”
3. “It’s very hard to scratch an imaginary foot.”
4. “. . . the whole flippin’ cosmos . . . ”
5. “There’s an itch on my butt.”
6. “People got their pee wees whacked for that.”
7. “I hate to keep using this lettuce analogy, but it’s working like gangbusters.”
8. “If God stopped thinking of us, maybe we’d cease to exist.”
9. “I hope when I get to Heaven, Jesus isn’t watching Trading Spaces.”

Having A Tough Day?

Visit here for a pick me up. 

Hildebrand v. Alito

Steve Hildebrand, Tom Daschle's former campaign manager, has entered the foray of liberal groups opposing the nomination of Judge Sam Alito.  From the 12/8 Roll Call:

According to several aides on Capitol Hill and strategists off the Hill, the main coordinator of the growing roster of consultants is Ricki Seidman, now a public relations executive but who worked for Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) during the nomination battle of Robert Bork and eventually became a deputy attorney general in the Clinton Justice Department. Seidman has been a PFAW [People For the American Way] consultant in the past.

Jenny Backus, a former communications director for the Democratic National Committee and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and Jim Jordan, former executive director of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, are advising the coalition. Steve Hildebrand of Hildebrand and Tewes and several of his staff also are working to defeat the nomination.

The field operation for the coalition has been bolstered by Kim Molstre, who was most recently in charge of grass-roots activities for Americans United to Protect Social Security, the group that led opposition in the states to Bush’s Social Security plans.

The Truth On the Ground

 The Washington Post published this op-ed piece by Marine Major Ben Connable, who is about to head back to Iraq:

The Truth On the Ground

When I told people that I was getting ready to head back to Iraq for my third tour, the usual response was a frown, a somber head shake and even the occasional "I'm sorry." When I told them that I was glad to be going back, the response was awkward disbelief, a fake smile and a change of subject. The common wisdom seems to be that Iraq is an unwinnable war and a quagmire and that the only thing left to decide is how quickly we withdraw. Depending on which poll you believe, about 60 percent of Americans think it's time to pull out of Iraq.

How is it, then, that 64 percent of U.S. military officers think we will succeed if we are allowed to continue our work? Why is there such a dramatic divergence between American public opinion and the upbeat assessment of the men and women doing the fighting?
...

We can fail only if the false imagery of quagmire takes hold and our national political will is broken. In that event, both the Iraqi people and the American troops will pay a long-term price for our shortsighted delusion.

Read the whole thing.

Dorgan Returning Abramoff Funds

New York Times:

The ranking Democrat on the Senate committee investigating the Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff announced on Tuesday that he was returning $67,000 in political contributions from Mr. Abramoff's former partners and Indian tribe clients.

The lawmaker, Senator Byron L. Dorgan of North Dakota, has been accused of hypocrisy by Republicans for having not acknowledged the contributions from Mr. Abramoff's clients while at the same time sharply criticizing him in hearings of the Senate panel, the Indian Affairs Committee.

"Even though those contributions were legal and fully reported as required by law, I will not knowingly keep even one dollar in contributions if there is even a remote possibility that they could have been the result of any action Mr. Abramoff might have taken," Mr. Dorgan said in a statement emphasizing that he had never received a direct contribution from Mr. Abramoff himself.

Taking Back North Dakota has more here.  Will Tom Daschle, one of the largest beneficiaries, return his money?

Pres. Daschle?

From the front page of the Argus Leader today:

Despite his noncommittal stance, Daschle clearly appears to be putting his toe in the presidential sweepstakes, said Bill Richardson, a political science professor at the University of South Dakota.

"Apart from Sen. (Hillary) Clinton, there isn't an obvious person who is a front-runner," Richardson said. "I don't see why he couldn't be a serious candidate."

Once one of the most powerful politicians in Washington, Daschle seemed just as comfortable recently addressing a group of college students as he had been on the Senate floor.
...
"I think he would be a good president," McGovern said. "He has a good background, he has got a good, even temperament. If he decides to do it, I will support him. But I don't have the slightest indication he will do it."

Critics say the former senator has not let go of the past, pointing to Daschle sympathizers who continue to bash Thune in political blogs. Republicans also argue Thune has become an effective voice for South Dakota - a sign the state is fine without Daschle in office.

It is a pretty good article.  Check it out.

Herseth

Rapid City Journal:

Rep. Stephanie Herseth, D-S.D., will have a rare opportunity to offer her opinion to President Bush this week.

Bush invited Herseth and other House Democrats to a White House briefing on Iraq this morning. Along with Bush, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Zalmay Khalilzad, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, are scheduled to attend.

"I am pleased that the president is reaching out to me and other members of Congress," Herseth said. "We owe it to the American people and especially to the troops to have an honest and bipartisan discussion about our goals and progress in Iraq."

Herseth said last month that she shares the president's view that training of Iraqi troops is paramount before U.S. troops withdraw from the war-torn country.

Also, the RCJ has an interesting article about a rift in the South Dakota Association of County Commissioners.

Congratulations!

Congratulations Ken!

Johnson, Alito and the bloggers on the Left

Looks like South Dakota Progressive and the other Dakota bloggers on the left don't exactly want Senator Johnson to vote for Judge Alito

Mixed Messages from Mahmoud Abbas

Captain's Quarters has the news that the Palestinian Authority, under its new leader Mahmoud Abbas, has been arresting  members of Islamic Jihad in response to attacks against Israelis.  Is this a sign that the Palestinian leader is not only interested in but capable of moving his people toward peace?  The Captain is doubtful, and the Yahoo News article he links to doesn't encourage the reader. 

The biggest crackdown on militants since Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas took office a year ago has netted only low-level operatives, and some suspect the goal is to appease the United States and Israel rather than crush the militant group.

At the same time, analysts and Israeli security officials said the arrests have sent an important message to the Palestinians — and Israelis — that militant groups can no longer operate with impunity.

The latter looks like State Department Speak: when someone doesn't really do anything promising, he is always nonetheless sending promising messages.  Except in this case its coming from the Israelis. 

Further evidence that Abbas is unserious, or what amounts to the same thing, that his hands are tied by political realities, comes from this piece in Little Green Footballs.  LGF links to Arutz Sheva, which has the story:

The head of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, has approved a new law, providing monetary grants to the families of suicide bombers. Abbas gave his approval just six days ago, a day before a suicide bomber struck the HaSharon Mall in Netanya, killing five Israelis and wounding scores of others.

The legislation refers to the suicide terrorists as shahids (martyrs), a term generally applied to a person who dies in an operation fighting against Israel. Under the new law, the terrorist’s family will be paid a base sum of $250 per month. The law takes into account extended family arrangements commonplace in Arab societies. The families of married terrorists are entitled to an additional $50 per month, and $15 are added for each child, $25 for each parent, and $15 for each brother who lived with the terrorist prior to his death.

Exactly what kind of message does that send?  And then there is this from the Washington Post:

RAMALLAH, West Bank -- The Palestinian central election commission shut its doors Tuesday in protest after masked gunmen burst into its West Bank and Gaza offices, firing in the air and hauling off computers _ jeopardizing next month's parliamentary election, the first in a decade.

Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas ordered his security forces to protect election workers, but officials privately conceded that violence could endanger the Jan. 25 vote _ seen as a key to establishing a credible government that could conduct peace talks with Israel.

The sad truth of the matter is that the Palestinian leadership at all levels is so thoroughly corrupt that almost nothing good can be expected from it.  It has been corrupted most of all by decades of Arafat's gangsterism.  But that gangsterism would scarcely have been possible without the millions constantly poured into PLO coffers from the concerned nations of the world.  When you keep giving these folks dough in spite of the worst kinds of behavior, well that sends a pretty clear message too.  Only if we were willing to cut off all the money would there be a real chance for peace.  But the international community would be horrified by the very suggestion.   

Abortion Follies

Jason notes the AP story on the Abortion Task Force (forgive my parochialism, but let me link to the Aberdeen American News version).  I want to note the rhetoric of Sen. Adelstein, who seems to have missed a biology class or two when in school. Here is what the AP says about Sen. Adelstein.

In addition, [Sen. Adelstein claimed] the report is mistaken when it asserts that it cannot be doubted that an unborn child is a whole human being from the time of conception, Adelstein said. He tried unsuccessfully to amend that statement to reflect that the idea is held only by those of some religious beliefs.

''That's a religious belief,'' Adelstein said. ''I said on the record that as a Jew, I not only doubt but I do not believe it to be true. This is a religious belief and nothing more.''

If it is not human life, pray what is it, Senator?  Is the belief that it is human life merely a religious belief?  First, one could look to the NRO postings of Robert George here, here, and here in which the discussion turns on what biologically happens at conception. The context of the postings are regarding an argument with John Pohoretz over the origins of human life.  In the first post, George asks the question of where we should go to answer the question of "When does the life of a human begin?" The answer is not to religous texts, but:

[W]e go to the standard texts of modern human embryology and developmental biology---for example, the texts by Keith Moore and T.V.N. Persaud; Bruce M. Carlson; Ronan O'Rahilly and Fabiola Mueller; and William J. Larsen. When we consult these works, we find little or nothing in the way of scientific mystery or dispute. The texts tell the same story and answer the key question in the same way. Anyone who wishes to know when he or she as a distinct living member of the species Homo sapiens came into existence need only open any of these books and look up the answer.

The answer these texts give is that we all became biologically distinct human beings at conception.  A breathtaking approach to this topic is by Walker Percy, trained as a medical doctor and who later became a National Book Award winning novelist.  In 1981 he penned this definitive piece about the denial of the "pro-choice" movement of an obvious fact: human life begins at conception (take note, by the way, of his pointed and mostly accurate jabs at the religious right).  Here is Percy:

I further submit that it is a commonplace of modern biology, known to every high school student and no doubt to you the reader as well, that the life of every individual organism, human or not, begins when the chromosomes of the sperm fuse with the chromosomes of the ovum to form a new DNA complex that thenceforth directs the ontogenesis of the organism.

Such vexed subjects as the soul, God, and the nature of man are not at issue.  What we are talking about and what nobody I know would deny is the clear continuum that exists in the life of every individual from the moment of fertilization of a single cell.

There is a wonderful irony here.  It is this:  The onset of individual life is not a dogma of the church but a fact of science.  How much more convenient if we lived in the 13th century, when no one knew anything about microbiology and arguments about the onset of life were legitimate.  Compared to a modern textbook of embryology, Thomas Aquinas sounds like an American Civil Liberties Union member.  Nowadays it is not some misguided ecclesiastics who are trying to suppress an embarrassing scientific fact.  It is the secular juridical-journalistic establishment.

It is not, Sen. Adelstein, a holding of "some religions" that life begins at conception; it is a holding of science to which some religions happen concur. Perhaps Sen. Adelstein can retreat to the John Kerry position that it is not humans who have rights, but "persons," and not every human is a person.  That has the virtue of being consistent, although it has the vice of attacking the idea of human dignity that is at the heart of natural rights thinking. 

There is another point to be made here.  Sen. Adelstein contends that as a Jew he does not believe that life begins at conception.  Fine, although as I have just indicated this means that if anyone is imposing non-scientific religiousity on the people it is Sen. Adelstein.  But this is beside the point.  Let's imagine the question of when life begins is still at issue as a matter of medical science and the question can only be answered based on religious belief.  Why does Sen. Adelstein's religious belief that life does not begin at conception get to trump the religious belief of others that life does begin at conception?  Why do skeptics automatically trump believers?  Given the immense import of what is at stake, namely the definition of human life, why should the public have to remain silent simply because the question is not totally settled?  I have said it before and I bet I will say it again: the origins of life are at the heart of the natural rights thinking of the Declaration of Independence (which by the way, bases some of it's important conclusions on religious notions).  As such, the question of when human life begins is justly a public question.  It would be narrow minded to say that religious answers to this all important question are automatically ruled out of order.  Must I point out again that the movements against slavery, for worker's rights, and for civil rights were religiously motivated?  Perhaps Sen. Adelstein thinks those religious people should have shut up.  Or is it that only religious people with whom he disagrees should shut up? If so, how illiberal of him. 

Sen. Adelstein simply argues that religious arguments to which he assents (life does not begin at conception) are legitimate, while religious arguments from which he dissents (life does begin at conception) are not.  I think the shallowness of his argument is transparent, even though it took me multiple paragraphs to make the point. 

Abortion Task Force

The Rapid City Journal is reporting that the abortion task force has recommended a legal ban on abortion to overturn the Supreme Court ruling that legalized the practice:

PIERRE - After a contentious final meeting, a state task force has recommended that the Legislature take further steps to restrict abortions in South Dakota.

The majority of the task force supported a report that says the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that upheld a woman's right to an abortion was flawed because scientific and other advances have since demonstrated that life begins at conception.

The 72-page draft report calls for a ban on abortion by overturning the Roe v. Wade ruling. In the meantime, it recommends that South Dakota should put further restrictions on abortion, such as requiring that women get additional information and counseling before having abortions.

But several task force members, including those who support abortion rights, walked out of a meeting Friday before the final vote. They said the majority, who oppose abortion, rejected proposals that would have helped reduce the number of abortions by reducing the number of unintended pregnancies in South Dakota.

This whole deal is a big event.  I think you can expect this to become a national story soon.

The Kranz/McCarthy Connection

As Dr. Schaff reported a few days ago, Eugene McCarthy has died.  Strangely enough, the Argus's main political reporter, David Kranz, failed to note his death in his column today.  A strange occurrence since Kranz had worked with McCarthy in the past.  From the South Dakota Politics archives:

Kranz’s December 13, 1987 Argus column is completely dedicated to reviewing how he worked for the McCarthy campaign in the crucial presidential primary in Wisconsin 20 years before:

It was the McCarthy campaign that pushed my “politically active” button for the first time. … By March of 1968, we, the residents of 1107 4^th St., decided to go into action. … So five of us gathered one morning in March to make our contribution—a few days in Wisconsin ringing doorbells and making phone calls—spreading the word. … I didn’t get a grade for that mission in Marshfield[where the McCarthy campaign sent Kranz], but the Sunday night we arrive back in Brookings, President Johnson went on National television. At the close of his address he told the world: “I shall not seek, nor will I accept the nomination of my party for president of the United States.” We five cheered this announcement, hoping this would mean the end of the war. We gave ourselves A’s for forcing the hand of this powerful man.

Well, good for Kranz. He was part of the historic McCarthy insurgency of 1968. But bad for Beck, who maintained in his recent column attacking blogs for making up “facts” that Kranz had nothing to do with the McCarthy campaign.

Read the whole thing.

Hildebrand / Americans United

More funding for Hildebrand's group.  From the 12/13/2005 Roll Call:

A coalition of labor leaders, progressive activists and top Congressional Democrats have reached a final agreement on transforming the nonprofit group that helped lead the fight against President Bush’s Social Security overhaul into a permanent, multimillion-dollar entity pushing a broader liberal agenda in the 2006 midterms.

The new group, a 501(c)(4), will shorten its name to Americans United and is expected to get an immediate cash infusion of $1 million in the coming weeks to ensure it will be fully operational by early next year, according to labor leaders and Congressional aides.

While the group will not have to disclose any of its donors because of its nonprofit status, the primary funders for Americans United will include MoveOn.org and a host of big unions, particularly the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.

Americans United will be run on a day-to-day basis by a pair of aides with strong ties to Senate and House Democrats: Karen Olick, the outgoing chief of staff for Sen. Barbara Boxer (Calif.), and Kim Molstre, who worked for both Rep. Rosa DeLauro (Conn.) and former Minority Leader Richard Gephardt (Mo.). Most recently, Molstre has been running field operations for the group’s precursor, Americans United to Protect Social Security.

Power Line

Scott Johnson over at Power Line is writing about Jim Boyd, the Star Tribune's version of David Kranz.

UPDATE:  Scott has more.

Historical Musings

The American Thinker:  What would President Lincoln do today?

Narnia

I've been down with a stomach bug the last two days, too bloated to blog.  But just before I got sick I went to see the Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe.  Its definitely a kid's movie, unlike Lord of the Rings or even Harry Potter.  But its a good one.  Here's an interesting note from the New York Times.

Rounds flight plans

SD Dem legislators are still keeping up their fight to see what Governor Rounds was doing with the state plane

Chris Muir

See my post below.

SD Legislature Preview

SD War College and The Rapid City Journal have a good preview of this year's issues that will most likely be facing the SD Legislature when it convenes early next year, such as:

Education funding
Sex offenders
GFP & Open Fields laws
Drunk driving/implied consent
Uninsured drivers
Crime victim notification
Eminent domain

SF Events Center

Jonathan Ellis, a new reporter at the Argus Leader, is noting a lot of politics surrounding the proposed Sioux Falls rec center:

[W]ith voters thoroughly stomping a proposed recreation center Tuesday, the events center might remain a dream.

The rec center's defeat could signal an erosion of public trust in such projects, political analysts say.

And that, observers say, could turn dreams of an events center and other large-scale city projects toward a new reality: Gaining support from distrustful voters could be a daunting task.
...
Political analyst Jim Meader said the rec center outcome will probably force city officials to mothball the event center.

"I don't see it in the near future," he said.

City Councilor Bob Jamison said that city leaders must address public skepticism before moving forward with a big project like the event center.

He believes the city has too many other issues to deal with - including storm drains and water supplies.

Brown said he believes the rec center failed in part because residents are concerned by overspending, flooding and the long-term availability of water.

It's a pretty interesting article.  Read the whole thing.

SD & the Power of Blogs

Robert Crowley wrote this piece about the influence of conservative v. liberal blogs for the NY Times Magazine (Michelle Malkin wasn't impressed with Crowley's assertions.)  What's notable is his conclusion:

Earlier this year, John Thune, the newly elected South Dakota senator, briefed his Republican colleagues on the role of blogs in his victory over Tom Daschle, the former Democratic minority leader. The message seems to be catching on. In Arkansas, the campaign manager for the gubernatorial candidate Asa Hutchinson sent a mass e-mail message to supporters in May promoting the establishment of blogs ''to comment on Arkansas politics as a counter to liberal media.'' With the 2006 elections coming, Democrats have begun trying to use blogs more strategically. But given their head start, Stoller says, conservatives ''will certainly have an upper hand.'' Again.

Worst Analogies Ever

HT to MM.  I'm not sure if this is real, but they're so bad they're good:

He spoke with the wisdom that can only come from experience, like   a guy who went blind because he looked at a solar eclipse without   one of those boxes with a pinhole in it and now goes around the   country speaking at high schools about the dangers of looking at   a solar eclipse without one of those boxes with a pinhole in it.  
Joseph Romm, Washington

She caught your eye like one of those pointy hook latches that   used to dangle from screen doors and would fly up whenever you   banged the door open again.
Rich Murphy, Fairfax Station

The little boat gently drifted across the pond exactly the way a   bowling ball wouldn't.
Russell Beland, Springfield

McBride fell 12 stories, hitting the pavement like a Hefty Bag   filled with vegetable soup.
Paul Sabourin, Silver Spring

From the attic came an unearthly howl. The whole scene had an   eerie, surreal quality, like when you're on vacation in another   city and "Jeopardy" comes on at 7 p.m. instead of 7:30.
Roy   Ashley, Washington

Her hair glistened in the rain like nose hair after a sneeze.  
Chuck Smith, Woodbridge

Her eyes were like two brown circles with big black dots in the center.
Russell Beland, Springfield

This reminds me of this book.  My personal favorites:

The Parthenonon was Pericles' greatest erection.

World War I broke out around 1912-1914.  The deception of countries to have war and those who didn't want one led the countries of Europe and the world to an unthinkable war which became thinkable.

[In World War II] Germany invaded Poland, France invaded Belgium, and Russia invaded everybody.

The Germans took the by-pass around France's Marginal Line.  This was known as the "Blintz Krieg."  The French huddled up and threw sneers at the Germans.  Japan boomed Pearl Harbor, the main U.S. base in southern California.  American sailors watched in shock as the sky filled with Japanese zebras.

Hitler's attack on Russia was secretly called "Operation Barbarella."  The German invaders were popular for a while in Russia, but their habit of slaughtering innocent civilians tended to give them an image problem.  The Russians defended Stalingrad feercely, as the city was named after Lenin.

The Berlin Wall was built somewhere in Europe.  President Kennedy soothed the masses, however, with his story about "Itch Ben the Berliner."

Mentally speaking, Russia had to reinvent itself.  After Stalin died there was an interogation that lasted three years as Krushev criticized Stalin for indiscretions like slaughtering the kulaks.  This introduced many western policies to Russia, such as the use of strippers at clubs.

It is now the age of now.  This concept grinds our critical, seething minds to a halt.

And there you have it.

Average Americans

Just one quick addition to Prof. Blanchard's fine exegesis on economics below. I have made this point several times, so one more won't hurt.  Anyone who has a pension, and that's a lot of average Americans, should care about business investment.  Those pensions are invested in the stock market, which, as Prof. Blanchard notes, is a measure of business investment.  If you want a healthy pension, pray for a growing stock market.  Also, half of all Americans have some direct investment in stock, either in buying stock or through mutual funds or their like.  The evidence that the average Joe cares about the stock market is that you don't see ads for investment companies just on golf programs anymore; they are also shown during NFL football games. 

Where do people think business investment comes from anyway?  Elves who live in trees and in their spare time bake delicious cookies?

By the way, I share Prof. Blanchard's assessment of the Clinton/Bush economies, but I would just add that Bill Clinton was a fortunate beneficiary of a revolution in technology, which, I might add, produced profits that in many cases just existed on paper, and when (metaphor alert) chickens came home to roost in 2000-2001, those profits were gone with the wind.  Still, Clinton obeyed the first rule of economics: first, do no harm. 

More Steyn Wisdom

Today Mark Steyn instructs us on the foolishness of treating abominable regimes as if they are just like huggable Kiwis.   

There has always been a slightly post-modern quality to sovereignty in the transnational age: We pretend the Syrian foreign minister is no different from the New Zealand foreign minister, and in so doing we vastly inflate the status of the former at the expense of the latter. But with [Iranian president] Ahmadinejad we're going way beyond that. If a genocidal fantasist is acceptable in polite society, we'll soon find ourselves dealing with a genocidal realist.

As they say, read the whole thing.

Rhett Butler on Tax Cuts

One of my favorite scenes from Gone with the Wind (a wonderful, but nonetheless overrated movie), is when Clark Gable's Rhett Butler is in a room with a lot of fire eaters who at that moment were celebrating the start of the Civil War.  Butler had the cheek to point out that "there isn't a single canon factory in the entire South."  One fair faced hot head exclaims "what does that matter to gentlemen!"  Butler coolly replies: "it will make a great deal of difference to a great many gentlemen," or something close to that.  I'm working from distant memory.

I thought of that shot when I got this one from Democratic activist and Daschle foot soldier Chad Schuldt at CCK.  Chad may be happy to hear that we are winning the war in Iraq, but he is certainly not happy to hear that the economic is very strong. 

Ken Blanchard, professor of political science at Northern State University in Aberdeen, writes last night about the great shape of the U.S. economy.  He points out how the stock market is swell, the great state of business investment, and the like.  Unfortunately that kind of stuff doesn't mean jack-shit to average Americans. Unless you buy into voodoo-trickle-down economic crap.

Chad apparently doesn't think that business investment is important, or that an increase in business investment matters to average Americans.  I wonder if that view is shared by Tom Dachle in particular, or the Democratic Party in general?  One might sometimes think that it is.  I reply, casting myself as Rhett, that it makes a great deal of difference to a great many average Americans.  Business investment (which, Chad, is what the stock market is about) is the financial oxygen that ignites economic growth.  You can't get job growth or wage growth without it. 

Nor, I submit, can you hope to fund the Federal Government without it.  The Investor's Business Daily has a fine piece on this. 

For Democrats opposed to the cuts, no argument has been more potent than that tax cuts somehow "cost" the government money — and thus make deficits worse. [Treasury Secretary John] Snow's chart, shown below, puts the lie to that argument.

In fact, the supply-siders are right: Revenues rise after tax rates are reduced. Federal revenues bottomed at $1.8 trillion just as Bush signed his bill; since then, they've risen 19.4% to $2.15 trillion, an all-time high.

This chart from the same article illustrates the result of Bush's tax cuts.

• 

In short, due to the tax cuts, more money is flowing into the treasury than ever before.  This seems counter-intuitive, a fact that Democrats ceaselessly exploit.  But it is a simple fact, and it is not hard to explain.

When top personal rates are high, the rich find ways to pay less. That's why our tax code is 55,000 pages thick. When rates are lower and flatter, such behavior disappears.

This also explains why the richest Americans' share of all income taxes paid has soared to 34.27% from 19.05% in 1980 even though their average income-tax rate has fallen by roughly a third — from 34.47% to 24.31% in 2003.

So the rich are shouldering a larger percentage of the tax burden now than before, precisely because their tax rates have fallen.  Instead of hiding their money in unproductive dodges (which Congressmen in both parties delight in creating), they bring it out and invest it in taxable enterprises.  This gives the Federal Government more money to spend on all those social programs that Democrats hold dear.  I also noted the Wall Street Journal's observation that state government budgets, which were in very bad shape not long ago, are in good shape now.  That's also something that might matter to average Americans who, after all, live mostly in states.  You might think that a Democrat would care about that too.  Apparently not.

Chad belongs to the "everything Bush does is by definition stupid and despicable" school of thought.  God knows that there are plenty of counterparts on my side of the isle.  To which I say a pox on both your houses.  And prepare yourself for a shock.

I think that Bill Clinton's Presidency was, economically speaking, a much greater success than is generally recognized by either party.  Clinton balanced the budget, saw NAFTA through to ratification (almost exclusively with Republican support), and reformed welfare.  All three were dramatic successes. 

By contrast, Bush has a much more mixed record.  The Federal Government under Bush has spent money in a way that makes a drunken sailor look like a Scottish Presbyterian.  That, along with a recession, a war, and a hurricane, is why the budget is in a mess.  I suspect that Bush will leave behind him a much less impressive economic policy than Clinton.  But however many mistakes Bush made, the tax cuts weren't one of them. 

Pentagon Sitting on Documents

Stephen Hayes:

FOR THE SECOND TIME IN recent weeks the Department of Defense has denied a request from The Weekly Standard to release unclassified documents recovered in postwar Iraq. These documents apparently reveal, in some detail, activities of Saddam Hussein's regime in the years before the war. This second denial could also be the final one: According to two Pentagon sources, the program designed to review, translate, and analyze data from the old Iraqi regime may be shuttered at the end of December, not just placing the documents beyond the reach of journalists, but also making them inaccessible to policymakers.

As a consequence, the ongoing debate over the Iraq war and its origins is taking place without crucial information about the former Iraqi regime and its relationships with presumed U.S. allies and known U.S. enemies.

Stephen Hayes concludes with a mystified "Why?"  Check out the whole thing.

UPDATE:  Comments by Power Line and Captain's Quarters.

Eugene McCarthy, RIP

Fellow St. John's grad Eugene McCarthy, dead at 89. 

Richard Pryor, RIP

Richard Pryor has died. 

Powerline vs. Sen. Inouye

Ouch.

Johnson Cont.

RedState:  South Dakota Press onto Senator Johnson Planned Parenthood Campaign

This story has been covered in the Aberdeen American News and the Rapid City Journal but, of course, has been missing from the Argus Leader.

Anonymous Jerks

Julie Neidlinger excoriates those who like to argue anonymously, especially those who leave comments on weblogs anonymously.  She holds particular contempt for those who like to throw around the charge "Hitler" and "fascist" while cowardly hiding behind a pseudonym or simply post under the name "Anonymous."  She also does a good job parsing the level of argumentation of those who use the "Hitler" and "fascist" charge. 

I believe I have just violated some rule about how many times you can use the word "anonymous" in one post. 

And girlfriday, I found this link on my own.  I just chalk it up to great minds thinking alike. 

When Choice Becomes God

Many years ago (1990 to be precise) Pepperdine law professor F. Largard Smith wrote a book called When Choice Becomes God that argues against the idea that maximizing individual choice is the supreme good, absent any thought about how our choices might effect our fellow man. The worship of choice ultimately is just the worship of ourselves. 

Now girlfriday brings our attention to the Planned Parenthood "Holiday Card" which asks us to celebrate "Choice on Earth."  One can only laugh.  Imagine the mentality that finds the deepest meaning of the Christmas, oops!, I mean "Holiday" season in "Choice on Earth." 

By the way, the kernel of truth in the PP worship of "choice" is that most of us dislike being told what to do.  Generally speaking, we all like to be "free to choose."  Don't conservatives who, dare I say it, worship the market believe in the value of choice?  The error is when we believe that a choice is good only to the extent it is chosen freely, rather than evaluating a choice based on what is actually chosen.  Also, people disagree on what it means to be free.  To make a generalization, and thus ignore the nuance, some think that freedom is nothing more than the absence of external constraint.  Others believe, "If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."

The Sound You Hear is Millions of Evangelicals Gasping

Andrew Greeley is a sociologist and a Catholic priest, as frightening a combination as there ever was.  Today he argues that the popularity of Mel Gibson's The Passion and the Narnia film in evangelical circles are indications that evangelical Christians are seeing the worth of, yikes!, Catholic imagery. 

There are certainly risks in this Catholic imagination, superstition and idolatry among others -- though it does make the world a warmer and a more human place.

Gibson's imagination is certainly Catholic, though perhaps with a certain masochistic twist. In his retelling of the Gospel in allegorical form, C.S. Lewis goes back to the miracle and morality plays of the Middle Ages, in a sense as if the Reformation never happened.

However, I think someone should warn the evangelicals that they are playing with, one should excuse the expression, fire. They are drifting into an imaginative world where the Whore of Babylon lives and dominates. They had better beware. They are sliding towards oblivion on the day of the Rapture.

Hat tip to Amy Welborn.  You know, I used to read Amy Welborn faithfully, by which I mean regularly, and then I stopped for a couple years for no particular reason.  I just recently started reading her blog again.  I now apologize for having skipped out for those couple years.  Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa, which is Latin for "my bad, my bad, it's really my bad."   

Whither (or wither?) The Democrats

Where are the Democrats heading?  Victor Davis Hanson thinks the Dean-Pelosi-Kerry-Murtha position is the heart and soul of the Democratic Party.  Here's a taste.

Howard Dean, John Kerry, and Congressman Murtha represent the Democratic mainstream. And that’s the problem. None of them can be characterized as embracing the Michael Moore/Cindy Sheehan fringe, and none are even prone to the wacky grandstanding of Jimmy Carter or Barbara Boxer.

Yet what we get from the national chairman, the former presidential candidate, and the new popular icon — on the verge of the third and final election in Iraq — is a de facto admission that we are losing and must leave.

In the background, old Vietnam-era themes provide the chorus for the growing antiwar sentiment: apparent disdain for the Iraqis, mirroring the way that liberals pooh-poohed anti-Communist Eastern Europeans, Cubans, and Vietnamese; endemic pessimism that does not match the rapidly evolving events on the ground; and political opportunity that an American embarrassment abroad might reverse a long-term and ongoing unfavorable political realignment at home.

And it looks like the Moveon crowd wants to read Joe Lieberman out of the Democratic Party. 

That Was A Close One

I am glad Prof. Blanchard chose to pronounce UNFCCC "unfunk" because I was going to go with a different pronunciation.  I still don't know where he gets the n in "funk." 

Gloom and Global Warming in Montreal

There's something odd about holding a conference in Montreal in December.  But that's where the Global Warming crowd is gathering.  Stand by for a flurry of acronyms:

The conference is an historic event.  Not only are the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) meeting for the 11th time, but 2005 also marks the entry into force of the Kyoto Protocol. At Montreal, the first ever meeting of the Parties to the Protocol (MOP) is running parallel to the Conference of the Parties to the Convention (COP).  The United Nations Climate Change Conference is set to be the largest intergovernmental climate conference since the Kyoto Protocol was adopted in 1997.  Some 10,000 participants are expected.

I suggest that we pronounced UNFCCC as "Unfunk."  The purpose of the three simultaneous conventions (you need three so you can pay the way for more delegates to attend) is to review the progress made under the Kyoto treaty, which has recently come into effect.  Unfortunately no progress has been made, resulting in an atmosphere of gloom settling in over the Palais des Congrès de Montréal.  The National Journal explains the situation bluntly:

Most of the governments taking part had been advocates of the Kyoto approach. Many are now being forced to admit that the policy is failing -- so embarrassingly that nothing similar is likely to take its place. As usual on such occasions, some face-saving scapegoating formula (you can guess which country is going be blamed) may emerge before the meeting wraps up. But the truth is that unless a new scheme is designed, there simply won't be an ongoing, effective, internationally coordinated effort to curb emissions of carbon to replace the failed Kyoto plan.

A friend of mine, Ronald Bailey, is reporting on the convention for Reason Magazine and Tech Central Station.  Ron describes the Kyoto Protocol as follows:

The Kyoto Protocol attempts to lower the temperature by setting limits on the emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) for  37 signatory countries, known as Annex 1 countries. The goal is to reduce emissions by 5.2 percent below the levels emitted in 1990.  Annex 1 countries include most developed countries and many former Soviet states. The main exceptions are Australia and the United States, which have refused to ratify the treaty. Significantly, developing countries like China, India, Brazil and Indonesia do not have to make any reductions in their emissions of greenhouse gases under the Kyoto Protocol.

So what is the problem? 

Many Kyoto signatories are emitting much more than they did in 1990. For example, Canada is putting out 24.2 percent more GHG [green house gas emissions]; Japan 12.8 percent; and Spain 41.7 percent.  For the most part the countries that are emitting substantially less than they did in 1990 are those that emerged from the wreckage of the Soviet Union.  For example, Russia is emitting 38.5 percent less; Lithuania 66.2 percent less; and the Czech Republic 24.2 percent less. Germany is emitting 18.2 percent less largely because of it closed down so many inefficient East German facilities after unification. The United Kingdom achieved its 13.0 percent reduction by switching from coal to North Sea natural gas to produce electricity. As Richard Kinley, the acting head of the UNFCCC secretariat, warned, "These data confirm that, after some emission decrease in the 1990s, emissions are increasing again in many Annex 1 countries."

In short, nations which tore down large parts of their economies (for the very good reason that communist policies had rendered those parts untenable) were able to meet their targets.  Its easy to reduce green house gas emissions if your economies are shrinking.  Nations with more rational (= capitalist) economies have experienced growth, and growth has led to an increase in greenhouse gas emissions.  The special case was Britain, which was able to switch from coal to natural gas. 

Given that most nations do not have large untapped reserves of natural gas, is there any hope of reducing GHG without crippling the world economy?  In the short run, no.  As Ronald Bailey shows, at Tech Central Station, even the most outlandish scenarios aim only at the stabilization of green house emissions at much higher levels than at present, and that after 30 years or more.  And such scenarios rely on very implausible proposals.  For example, are we really going to devote one sixth of the world's cropland to the production of bio-fuels? 

If its true that human activities are accelerating global warming, and it almost certainly is, the only realistic response is to prepare to deal with the effects of that warming while encouraging technologies that will eventually bring green house emissions under control.  But that means unleashing the free market  to develop such technologies, as well as investing in proved but unpopular things like nuclear power.  And the environmentalists hate markets and reactors even more than they hate global warming. 

 

Johnson Flooded With Calls

Aberdeen American News:  Johnson's office flooded with calls from abortion groups

Abortion groups are battling over Democratic Sen. Tim Johnson's vote on the next Supreme Court justice.

Fidelis, a Michigan-based Catholic organization that opposes abortion, is criticizing Planned Parenthood for encouraging citizens to call Johnson's office in opposition to nominee Samuel Alito.

"Planned Parenthood is engaged in very risky politics by bringing their extreme position on abortion into South Dakota, a well known pro-life state," said Fidelis President Joseph Cella in a news release this week.

Representatives for Planned Parenthood said they are simply allowing the state's citizens to have a voice.

I previously cited Planned Parenthood's pressuring of Senator Johnson  here.  Also, there's a lot of Johnson / Alito posts going up at Mt. Blogmore.  Denise Ross doesn't seem to get the point that Johnson has refused to say he won't filibuster Alito.  Johnson can decide if he wants to vote for or against Alito later.  The issue is that Johnson has refused to state whether he'd at least support giving Alito a vote.

"The Butcher" Captured

Al Qaeda's number three man has been captured:

Iraqi citizens turned over a high-ranking Al Qaeda member known as "the Butcher" to U.S. forces in Ramadi Friday a military statement said.

Amir Khalaf Fanus was No. 3 on the 28th Infantry Division's High Value Individual list for Ramadi, wanted for murder and kidnapping in connection with his affiliation with Al Qaeda in Iraq.

"He is the highest ranking Al Qaeda in Iraq member to be turned into Iraqi and U.S. officials by local citizens," Capt. Jeffrey S. Pool said in a statement released from Camp Blue Diamond in Ramadi. "His capture is another indication that the local citizens tire of the insurgents' presence within their community."

Twins Trade Romero

From the Strib:

Saying he felt "disrespected'' during his last few seasons with the Minnesota Twins, Romero wanted to be traded. The Twins accommodated him on Friday, dealing the left-handed reliever to the Los Angeles Angels for minor league infielder Alexi Casilla.  . . .

The 29-year-old Romero was 4-3 with a 3.47 ERA and had 48 strikeouts in 57 innings last season, but clashed with manager Ron Gardenhire and struggled to keep inherited runners from scoring.

Dominant at times earlier in his career but inconsistent since then, Romero has been the subject of trade rumors for the much of two seasons. He was drafted in 1997 and had his best season in 2002, when he went 9-2 with a 1.89 ERA in 81 appearances to help the Twins reach the AL championship series, where they were eliminated by the Angels

Three Hanky Commercial

Watch it here:

Download BestCommercial.asf

Dakota Dem Hammers Dean

The Bismarck Tribune: "Pomeroy to Howard Dean: Shut up"

North Dakota Rep. Earl Pomeroy is accusing Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean of overstepping his bounds, saying the former presidential candidate should not give up on the war in Iraq.

On Monday, Dean likened the war in Iraq to Vietnam and said, "The idea that the United States is going to win the war in Iraq is just plain wrong."

"My words to Howard Dean are simple - shut up," Pomeroy told WDAY Radio in North Dakota on Thursday.

Pomeroy later told the Associated Press that he is tired "of the overblown rhetoric on both sides."

"We have young men and women with their lives on the line," he added. "The debate has fallen far short of what they deserve."

Pomeroy said Dean wasn't representing Democrats like him when he discussed the war.

Maybe Stephanie Herseth will join her Democratic counterpart in North Dakota in criticizing Dean.

Herseth

Sibby:  "Herseth playing politics on tax cuts"

House votes to continue Economic Growth

From Yahoo News:

The House voted Thursday to preserve tax cuts for investors through the rest of the decade, safeguarding the centerpiece of the Republican tax agenda in a $56 billion package of tax breaks.  The bill, passed 234-197 along mostly party lines, would keep the 15 percent top tax rate for capital gains and dividends in place in 2009 and 2010, two years after their scheduled disappearance at the end of 2008.

Republicans said tax cuts championed by President Bush have revved up a sluggish economy, and Treasury Secretary John Snow praised the bill's passage, saying, "It would encourage investment and innovation — the lifeblood of the American economy."  Democrats disagreed and said the tax cuts for investment income, and much of the GOP's economic agenda, exacerbated budget deficits and ignored average workers.

We here at SDP are committed to holding Bush responsible for the consequence of his policies, so I note the following.  The Wall Street Journal points out what Bush's tax cuts have achieved so far:

The 2003 tax cut is about as clear a policy success as has come out of Washington in many years:

• The stock market has risen by about $4 trillion in value, and an estimated 40% of that gain is directly attributable to increases in the after-tax return on equities, thanks to the tax cut. (If the tax cut expires, the market will instantly give back those gains.) Housing values have soared so rapidly that the fear is we now face a bubble. Household net wealth has climbed by $10 trillion.

• Business investment--which had sunk into the abyss during the recession, falling by 21% between 2000 and 2002--has roared back to life. Spending is up nearly 25% over the past 30 months.

• Dividend payments to shareholders have doubled in two years, according to data gathered by the American Shareholders Association. The cumulative impact of the tax cut and the higher dividend payments has put $100 billion into the pockets of America's burgeoning investor class.

• The macro-economic signs all point to a solid, sustainable expansion. Employment is up 4.4 million and real GDP growth has averaged 4%--or twice the OECD average--since 2003. Today's unemployment rate of 5% means there are now roughly one million more Americans working than were projected before the tax cut.

• Oh, and yes, there was a $120 billion reduction in the budget deficit in 2005. That's because tax receipts rose by more than in any previous year in U.S. history, even adjusting for inflation. Receipts were up by $55 billion above projections in 2004; $122 billion above projections in 2005; and are already running well ahead of projections so far in fiscal 2006 (which began in October).

• Finally, we wonder if any of the faux debt-hawks in Congress noticed that thanks to the sizzling economy, states and localities are now running hefty budget surpluses, reversing years of red ink and painful service cutbacks. Even New York City--which for years looked like the U.S. version of debt-plagued Argentina--is back in the black.

This would be remarkable economic growth even in the best of circumstances.  We note that the circumstances have not been the best.  Katrina shaved away hundreds of thousands of jobs, and energy prices soared.  My guess is that Bush's second term will achieve more job creation than France has known over the last ten years. 

It is perfectly fair of Democrats to note that the benefits of this economic expansion are not shared equally by all Americans.  That is more or less their job.  But its only fair for us to point out that their favor solution to the problem is to make the economy of the U.S. more like that of France.  That's our job.

Job creation should be the single most important social policy aim.  Nothing improves the lives of ordinary people more than a regular paycheck.  And job creation follows from investment.  So far we are surely on the right track.