South Dakota Politics

What is Your High School Stereotype?

To all who ever doubted that I am a geek, the proof is the result of this test.  I am furthest away from "stoner".  By the way, didn't Bill Murray used to sing a song called "Blog Wars" on SNL? 

Blog Wars and ANWR

Today has seen a vigorous exchange of notes between Chad Shuldt at CCK and Quentin Riggens here at SDPolitics.  In the course of this exchange, Quentin declared in one blog title that "CCK is a Liar."  I won't enter in the merits of the question other than to note that in his last entry Chad drops the topic of ANWR in connection with this and last year's energy bills, which was the very item that Quentin (and Sibby) were insisting on.  So it looks as though Quentin was right on the point.  But that may only mean that what the two sides thought they were arguing about was not the same thing. 

And for that reason I think it is best not call one another liars when we are debating matters of policy. Now I note that Chad and I have been on reasonably good terms in our few exchanges on his blog and on this one.  We met, virtually speaking, when we were interviewed together on SDPR, and I found him to be a moderate and respectful interlocutor.  I am willing to assume the best about him whenever I can.  Quentin is a former student of mine, and a very good one he was.  He is a good friend and now a colleague on this blog, and his contributions have been indispensable.  I note that he is in no respect obligated to accept my view of blogging etiquette.  Since I am now blogging about blogging, I will drop this subject.  Otherwise I risk motivating Professor Schaff, and who would want to be guilty of that?

I will return to the merits of this question more generally in my next entry.

Daschle Staffers Dismiss Energy Bill

Former Daschle Staffer Chad Schuldt is saying this to dismiss the great Senate victory on the energy bill after years of Daschle blocking the bill:

Last year’s version included a provision that would have released manufacturers of the harmful fuel additive MTBE from liability of any damage the product they produced may have done to water and other serious environmental effects. The Senate couldn’t pass last year’s version because it included a multibillion dollar handout to chemical manufacturers. Last year’s version was also held up over oil drilling in ANWR.

This is not true.  The Senate energy bill last year that Daschle screwed up did NOT include the MTBE provision and Daschle's Democrats still killed it.  Sibby has more on the ANWR claim:

CCK is a liar

Chad Schuldt makes this claim:

Last year’s version was also held up over oil drilling in ANWR. This year’s version of the Senate bill doesn’t include any provision for such drilling.

That is absolutely false. Last year's bill did not include drilling in ANWR. Here is a report that proves Schuldt lied:

The bill does not open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to drilling, nor does it authorize an inventory of gas reserves along the Outer Continental Shelf — two key provisions opposed by Democrats and their environmental allies.

Lying is just another tactic of the Desperate Delusional Dumped Daschle Disciples.

Chad Schuldt still hasn't said who is "consulting" for. 

More: Schuldt is still ignoring the facts--MTBE and ANWR were NOT in last year's bill either and Daschle's Democrats blocked it.  Daschle got beat by Thune, who hammered Daschle for messing up the energy bill.  Now the bill passes in a Daschle-less Senate.  Schuldt still refuses to admit who he "consults" for. 

Again:  Schuldt STILL doesn't get it.  Last year, Daschle's Democratic pals in the Senate filibustered and killed the energy bill even though IT DID NOT INCLUDE MTBE PROVISIONS OR ANWR PROVISIONS, which they had been using as excuses.  After Daschle was dumped by Thune and the Republicans gained in the Senate, the Democrats couldn't filibuster anymore and the energy bill passed.  Apparently Schuldt won't let facts get in the way of his attempts to glorify Daschle and trash Thune.  Schuldt still hasn't said who he is "consulting" for.  Why not, Mr. Schuldt?  Everyone else is outing themselves.

Chad Schuldt makes this claim:

Last year’s version was also held up over oil drilling in ANWR. This year’s version of the Senate bill doesn’t include any provision for such drilling.

That is absolutely false. Last year's bill did not include drilling in ANWR. Here is a report that proves Schuldt lied:

The bill does not open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to drilling, nor does it authorize an inventory of gas reserves along the Outer Continental Shelf — two key provisions opposed by Democrats and their environmental allies.

Lying is just another tactic of the Desperate Delusional Dumped Daschle Disciples.

PBS on Gun Bill

The bill banning gun companies from dumb lawsuits finally passed the Senate yesterday.  Here's an exchange from the News Hour on PBS which discusses Tom Daschle and what happened to the last bill:

MARK SHIELDS: The votes were there, Jim. I don't think there's any question that the combination of the political clout of the gun owners and the gun manufacturers was very much in evidence.

There was the -- that fear or at least an apprehension among some Democrats and others that Tom Daschle, who lost his Senate seat last year when George Bush carried the state by 21 percent, he lost by only two, but the reason that tipped him out of office was the fact that as majority leader, Senate Democratic leader, he had held up a vote on a final passage of this by loading up amendments that the gun owners and gun manufacturers felt unacceptable.

So I think with Harry Reid backing it, there was no question it was going to sail.

JIM LEHRER: That's the big change, of course, the man who replaced Tom Daschle, Harry Reid, supported this bill.

RAMESH PONNURU: That's right, and it's not just that Daschle lost his race. Democrats have gotten burned multiple times by going too far in the direction of gun control --1994 the assault weapons ban Bill Clinton said it was part of the reason why the Democrats lost the House; 2000, there were a lot of people who say Al Gore could have picked up three states that he ended up losing but for the gun control issue.

So I think a lot of Democrats have been pulling back on this issue, and when you talk about these lawsuits against gun manufacturers, which is what, that is an issue.

In the Thune Senate, bills are finally passing.  Here is the Argus Leader story:

Sens. Tim Johnson and John Thune voted for the measure and are original co-sponsors of the bill introduced by Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, early this year.

"This critical legislation will protect South Dakota gun manufacturers against predatory lawsuits that seek to undermine legitimate businesses," Thune said. "By curbing irresponsible lawsuits that harm gunmakers and drive up their cost of doing business, this bill serves the interests of hundreds of thousands of South Dakota sportsmen and hunters."

Joyeux Anniversaire!

Alexis de Tocqueville.  He's 200 years old today. And doesn't look a day over 180.  Hat tip, Skeptic's Eye.

Twins Trade Rumors

Find the rumors here. 

What Do Academics Think Of Conservatives?

Given the flak that members of this blog have recently taken from some retired academics, I found this piece to be of particular interest.  The person who wrote this is not an academic, but I can tell she knows academia quite well. 

Was Bombing Hiroshima Just? Discuss Amongst Yourselves

The Guardian of London has an intriguing piece on the justice of dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki (discriminating readers will notice I have found a gold mine at Real Clear today).  The author, Max Hastings, wishes to give a qualified defense of the bombing.  I wish to present a qualified counterargument.  Hastings concludes:

Those who today find it easy to condemn the architects of Hiroshima sometimes seem to lack humility in recognising the frailties of the decision-makers, mortal men grappling with dilemmas of a magnitude our own generation has been spared.

In August 1945, amid a world sick of death in the cause of defeating evil, allied lives seemed very precious, while the enemy appeared to value neither his own nor those of the innocent. Truman's Hiroshima judgment may seem wrong in the eyes of posterity, but it is easy to understand why it seemed right to most of his contemporaries.

One should start by recognizing the difficulty of the moral question and the agony that must have characterized the decision making process.  Harry Truman famously said he never lost one night's sleep over the decision to bomb these cities.  If that's true, Truman was a beast.  And I don't think he was a beast, so I conclude he made that statement purely for public consumption.  I don't blame him. 

What factors go into our analysis?  I draw on Michael Walzer's flawed by helpful Just and Unjust Wars.  First, there is the general rule that one should not target civilians.  In war, the participants must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants.  It is enough to say that in war not all lives are equal.  Non-combatant life, whether a civilian, a POW, or what have you, cannot be justly taken.  There is, though, the concept of "double effect."  One may target military targets even if one knows that civillian life will be lost.  The easy example is the munitions factory.  But here is the moral calculation: the purpose of bombing the munitions factory must be military in nature.  You can never intend the deaths of non-combatants even if that is the effect.  There is also the notion of "supreme emergency" that Walzer uses to justify British bombing of German cities during the "Battle of Britain."  Walzer argues that even though the British were targeting civilian centers with hopelessly inaccurate bombs (at that time, of course, there were no precision bombs), this was justified. Why?  Because the Nazis represented unique evil, and for most of 1940-1941 the only option left to the British was the bombing of cities.  It could not have hoped to wage land war against the Nazis in Germany.  Naval war was of limited value.   With their backs against the wall the British were left with attacking civilians. 

The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki meets none of these standards.  First, despite some claims from the US government, these clearly were, at most, second best military targets.  We targeted civilian centers that represented little military value.  Second, we were not in a "supreme emergency."  The Japanese military was clearly defeated by 1945.  We were going to win the war, the only question was when (and I don't deny that that's no small question).  One thing that suggested prolonged war was our insistence on unconditional surrender.  I think this was sound policy by the US, but it wasn't a necessary policy to defeating the Japanese.  Finally, it cannot be denied that a prolonged war and the likely necessity of invading the Japanese mainland would have cost untold life.  Here's where we once again return to the distinction between combatant and non-combatant.  Taking the lives of non-combatants to spare your own combatants is not just.  While we all know (or should know) that all life is intrinsically equal, we do not treat it as such in war.  Soldiers give up some of their rights when they put on the uniform.  But this, of course, is the strongest argument for dropping the bomb.  In total, it might have actually saved lives given that US and Japanese soldiers did not have to die by the tens of thousands in a US invasion.  But, getting over faster a war that you've largely won and sparing your own soldiers lives (and those of the enemy in this case) is not a justification for direct targeting of civilians. 

This is not an easy moral question.  Thoughtful responses welcome. 

Novak On SD Bloggers

The Bob Novak column that Epp has been discussing ran today.  Readers might be interested in its contents:

S.D.'S ENDLESS CAMPAIGN

The 2004 Senate victory in South Dakota of Republican John Thune over then Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle did not end the bitter election campaign. Since the election, at least five South Dakota blogs have appeared with the only apparent purpose of attacking Thune.

Former Daschle staffers openly run two of the blogs, and two others are anonymous. A fifth is run by Todd Epp, who did part-time legal work for Daschle's campaign. Epp told this column that Steve Hildebrand, Daschle's campaign manager, learned from Thune's use of paid bloggers in 2004 and now "is kind of behind some of this."

A footnote: In its July quarterly report, the Daschle campaign reported more than $1 million in post-election spending, including a $2,000-a-month salary for Hildebrand and thousands more for his consulting firm. The campaign still has $545,000. Because Daschle has exceeded $5,000 in spending, the Federal Election Commission under its rules asked him if he is a candidate against Thune in 2010. Daschle replied officially that he is not.

Personally, I find blogging about blogging and bloggers a bit tedious.  It is about as interesting is media coverage about media coverage.  It ends up in a feedback loop that can border on narcissism, i.e., "there is nothing more interesting to talk about than ourselves."  This is not to say that any form of media should be unaccountable, I am simply suggesting that I find the subject uninteresting.  Like many things, watchdogging (is that a word?) blogs must be done, so I am glad there are people who are interested in doing it, and I am equally glad I am not one of them. 

 

                          

Pro-life Flip Flops

No, I have not become monomaniacal on pro-life issues; they just happens to be in the news alot.  When they cease being in the news, I'll cease talking about them.  Here's a piece on Dick Durbin's "conversion" from pro-lifer to pro-abortion, and one on Bill Frist's argument that it's OK to kill human beings as long as the rest of us derive medical benefit from it.  Why can't politicians just say, "I changed my mind"? 

Attempt To Assasinate Bush

John Hinderaker reports on a story I hadn't heard about.  Have I been cut out of the vast right-wing conspiracy loop?

His name is Vladimir Arutyunyan; he was captured by Georgian police after a shootout in which he killed a policeman and was himself wounded. On May 10, when President Bush was giving a speech in Tbilisi, he threw a hand grenade at the stage. It landed within 25 yards or so, but failed to go off. After Arutyunyan was arrested, police found more hand grenades and unspecified chemicals in his apartment.

What I find rather weird about this is the almost total lack of coverage of his assassination attempt and subsequent capture in the American press. As best I can tell from a Google Search, the Washington Times is the only American newspaper that has even noted Arutyunyan's arrest. How is it possible that American journalists have so little interest in an attempt to assassinate our President?

The only parallel I can think of is the ho-hum attitude that journalists showed toward Saddam Hussein's attempt to assassinate former President George H. W. Bush--which was, in my view, more than ample reason to oust Saddam from power. Coverage of the disclosure of that attempt was so sparse that I would guess many Americans have no idea that Saddam tried to murder the former President.

Maybe the current political climate is making me paranoid, but I cannot imagine that our news services would be equally indifferent to an attempt to assassinate a Democratic President.

I share Hinderaker's concern about his paranioa, but it is odd that this story would receive so little coverage.   

Thune Passing Bills Daschle Couldn't

Sibby is talking about some bills passing thanks to our new Senator:

Thune getting it done

Highway bill, Energy bill and now the gun liability protection bill are getting done. Tom Daschle failed on all three, but what a difference a Senator makes:

The U.S. Senate today approved legislation shielding gun makers, including Smith & Wesson Holding Corp. and Sturm, Ruger & Co., from lawsuits after Republicans succeeded in blocking most Democratic amendments to the measure. Shares of gun makers rose more than 10 percent.

``We cannot allow this industry to be bankrupted by unfounded lawsuits,'' said Senator John Thune, a South Dakota Republican.

Similar legislation was defeated in the Senate last year after approval of an amendment to ban military-style weapons, a change opposed by the National Rifle Association. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee used a procedural tactic to limit amendments to the measure this year. A similar measure was passed in the House last year and approved by the House Judiciary Committee this year. President George W. Bush supports the legislation.

The report noted why this bill gone done:

Republicans were aided in their efforts to block amendments to the bill by the 2004 elections, which increased their numbers in the 100 member body by three to 54. ``The obvious difference is the change in Senate membership,'' said Rhode Island Democrat Jack Reed, one of the bill's primary opponents.

After John Thune and the people of South Dakota got rid of the Daschle Dead Zone, things are now getting done in the US Senate.

Highway bill, Energy bill and now the gun liability protection bill are getting done. Tom Daschle failed on all three, but what a difference a Senator makes:

The U.S. Senate today approved legislation shielding gun makers, including Smith & Wesson Holding Corp. and Sturm, Ruger & Co., from lawsuits after Republicans succeeded in blocking most Democratic amendments to the measure. Shares of gun makers rose more than 10 percent.

``We cannot allow this industry to be bankrupted by unfounded lawsuits,'' said Senator John Thune, a South Dakota Republican.

Similar legislation was defeated in the Senate last year after approval of an amendment to ban military-style weapons, a change opposed by the National Rifle Association. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee used a procedural tactic to limit amendments to the measure this year. A similar measure was passed in the House last year and approved by the House Judiciary Committee this year. President George W. Bush supports the legislation.

The report noted why this bill gone done:

Republicans were aided in their efforts to block amendments to the bill by the 2004 elections, which increased their numbers in the 100 member body by three to 54. ``The obvious difference is the change in Senate membership,'' said Rhode Island Democrat Jack Reed, one of the bill's primary opponents.

After John Thune and the people of South Dakota got rid of the Daschle Dead Zone, things are now getting done in the US Senate.

A Very Satisfying Headline

From the British Tabloid, The Sun:

Don't you just love how the Brits say "nicked"?

Highway Bill Bounty

From the Rapid City Journal:

South Dakota will receive $1.3 billion over five years under the federal transportation bill, which is expected to pass the House and Senate soon.  Of that, $250 million — a record level of funding — will go toward specific projects earmarked by Sen. Tim Johnson, D-S.D., Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., and Rep. Stephanie Herseth, D-S.D., the members of the state's Congressional delegation said Thursday.       

The $1.3 billion will be used by the state and local governments and is part of the $286.4 billion program known as SAFE-TEA — the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005. The legislation, approved by a conference committee, re-authorizes the nation's surface transportation program through 2009. The House and Senate are expected to act on it before the August recess.

South Dakota's share represents a 30 percent increase for the state over the previous transportation bill, passed in 1998. That bill expired in 2003. The current bill has been stalled for more than two years.

Death of an Innocent

This is a strange story that some may be familiar with.  I find it haunting, disturbing, and inspiring at the same time.  Hat tip to Lone Prairie. 

Thune and Delegation Deliver on Highway Bill

Here's a story in today's Rapid City Journal, which mentions the record level of funding for South Dakota in the just adopted highway bill:

South Dakota's share represents a 30 percent increase for the state over the previous transportation bill, passed in 1998. That bill expired in 2003. The current bill has been stalled for more than two years. ...

Thune secured $150 million in earmarks, Johnson secured $75 million and Herseth, $25 million, for specific projects.

Wasn't former/current Daschle campaign manager Steve Hildebrand just complaining in the newspaper about how Thune had messed up the state's transportation money??

Another Blogger Exposed

Sibby has outed another blogger or he has outed himself or something.  Is he yet another former Daschle staffer?  First Blog Watch Man quits because PP and Sibby were on his tail and now this person is known, all in one week.  Sibby has asked for more information on the person -- Theron McChesney -- anybody know him or about him? 

The NYTs Discovers John Roberts to be Dan Quayle!

I have written below on the pettiness of current attempts to discredit John Roberts, the President's nominee to replace Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court.  The New York Times is at it again.  Consider this scoop:

In a proposed response to a letter from Gov. Bob Graham of Florida about the disposition of Cuban refugees from the Mariel boatlift of 1980, he repeatedly misspelled Marielitos (writing "Marielitoes") and rendered the capital of Cuba three times as "Havanna."

Another Dan Quayle!  I would like to make merry with this, but it is already done all too well at Powerline.  Check it out.

Just in Case it Needs Being Said

The NSU Faculty Handbook tells us that we have every right to engage in political activity and to make our opinions public.  I had not seen the NVB post Ken Blanchard alludes to below.  I will not take the time to search through the SDP archives, but I suggest Prof. Blanchard and I seldom refer to our professional affiliation with NSU.  The Faculty Handbook goes on to say that those publicly expressing their opinions should make an effort to make clear that their opinions do not reflect those of the university.  Prof. Blanchard's newspaper column states this explicitly.  I would have thought that the fact that we rarely mention our employer would be sufficient.  I should think it's obvious that our employer does not endorse our personal views, but in case it needed to be said, I am now saying it. 

The notion that we attempt to align our employer with our views is ridiculous.  Prof. Blanchard and I are well published in our field.  Only a fool would think that our employer endorses Ken's views on Darwin or Socrates or my views on Abraham Lincoln or the Electoral College.  I do heartily endorse everything in Ken's post.  I shall chose to ignore the reborn NVB, and I encourage others to do the same.  I now am going back to watching the Sound of Music on DVD. Yeah, you read that right.  The Sound of Music.  I get teary eyed when they sing Edelweiss at the end.  Northern State University does not endorse my fondness for Julie Andrews. 

The Northern Valley Beacon Discovered Hiding

Just last night I was, I swear, fondly remembering the Northern Valley Beacon.  I mean, its lots of fun to exchange barbs with The Clean Cut Kid and Todd Epp at SDWatch.  But they are so reasonable, and what is more, willing to respect people who disagree with them and able to take criticism without falling into hysterics.  On occasion they even praise us for things we have written.  It helps that Todd and I have almost identical tastes in TV shows.  I argue that the conduct of our blog and theirs with respect to one another speaks well of all three. 

On the other hand, arguing with reasonable people lacks a certain flair that comes from confronting someone who is always calling you scurrilous and malignant, and that sort of thing.  So I missed the Northern Valley Beacon during the months it was successfully hiding under a new blog address.

Now that I have found it again, I notice that a few things have changed.  The NVB no longer sports an affiliation with Brown County Democrats.  This must surely come as a relief to the latter. It also seems more moderate in tone, at least over all.  A casual glance at the May-July archives suggests a pretty strong blog.

But I did notice that Professor Schaff and I, as well as Northern State University, are attacked in one June entry.  No doubt he will reach into his bag of nasty adjectives and adverbs if he should reply to this post, but I think that when I have been personally attacked and subject to all manner of innuendo, I have the right to defend myself.  Here is the passage relating to us. 

Professors Ken Blanchard and Jon Schaff joined the blog and quickly demonstrated that personal attack , insult, and abuse would take precedence over any analysis and discussion of issues. Blanchard and Schaff discovered the Brown County Democrats' web log, the Northern Valley Beacon, and took it upon themselves to systematically misrepresent and falsify the posts. For a period of time, they did this to almost every post. They used partial quotations for which they supplied false contexts, habitually impugned the mental health and competence of the Beacon authors, and degenerated political discussion to a level of scurrility and petty malevolence that was offensive to Democrats and most people who became witness to it. The Northern Valley Beacon was ended to stop the degradation of politics by the bloggers, even though it was a passive target and had no intention of engaging South Dakota Politics or having anything to do with it.

Blanchard and Schaff did not make any attempt to keep their blogging posts on a professional level. They often alluded to the fact that they were Northern professors, which suggested that their efforts had the sanction of the University. Students of theirs who had occasion to visit their offices reported that they seemed to be doing their posting from their University offices at times. When Blanchard used a newspaper column to attack the Northern Valley Beacon and falsified quotations by changing words and putting partial quotations into false contexts, many Democrats complained. A letter pointing out the falsifications was submitted to the newspaper, but the editors declined to offer corrections other than for one of the minor fabrications by Blanchard.

The efforts by the two bloggers carried over into what may well be legitimate and proper political activity by others on the campus. Their failures to observe the standards of discourse required by policy and the general rules of valid debate tainted all political activity on the campus, particularly that in behalf of the Republican Party.

Now I trust that even the most careless reader will notice that Newquist accuses us of engaging in "personal attacks" in the middle of a personal attack on us.  Do you wonder why I missed him?  As for the substance of the rant-that we systematically  misrepresented and falsified their posts, that we used partial quotes and supplied false contexts-here Newquist is simply telling lies.  We quoted generously and always supplied a link to the original, so that anyone who chose could look at it and see if we were being fair.  And we were posting on a well known blog, so that whatever we wrote could easily be noted and responded to.  Newquist slanders us in June from his new and hitherto secret site, and we don't find out about until now.  When it comes to responsible blogging, he is utterly clueless.

Finally, he engages in the art of innuendo. 

They often alluded to the fact that they were Northern professors, which suggested that their efforts had the sanction of the University. Students of theirs who had occasion to visit their offices reported that they seemed to be doing their posting from their University offices at times.

Note the weasel words suggested, and seemed.    This is crude innuendo.  And it is an attack that goes well beyond anything we have written to unsubstantiated allegations of misconduct.  In all our dealings with the NVB I do not believe we ever alleged that their behavior was suspect.  We criticized only what they wrote about us and others. 

I don't expect to pay much attention to the NVB.  No longer sporting a party affiliation, and virtually ignored by other democratic blogs, it is not much of a target.  But from time to time  I will look in.  Good to find you again, Professor, its been too long.

 

Just Shoot Me

The unfair and unbalanced queen of the White House press corps, Helen Thomas, has said she will kill herself if Dick Cheney runs for president.  As we said when we were kids, "Is that a treat or a promise?"  In similar news, I will kill myself if Joe Theisman gets the Monday Night Football gig with Al Michaels.  Oh...crap.     Can we get Lawrence Taylor to snap another one of Theisman's bones?  Listening to Theisman call a game always reminds me of one of Troy McClure's lines: "Ha, ha, ha!!  That's too funny!  I can't remember when I've heard a funnier anecdote!  OK, now you tell one." 

I'm Not With These People

Why is it everytime South Dakota is in the New York Times, we look like a bunch of morons?  I notice my hometown of Rochester, MN gets a mention.  You gotta be proud. 

Please, Please, Please

On the most important matter now facing the nation, i.e., the future of the Minnesota Twins, here is  a blurb from Sid Hartman today:

There is no doubt the Twins have talked with Texas about a trade for second baseman Alfonso Soriano, who without a doubt is the best candidate to help the Twins.

A year ago, Soriano, 29, hit .280 with 28 home runs and 91 RBI. Entering Wednesday night, he was batting .281 with 25 homers and 68 RBI.

Make the Brett Boone nightmare end.  Bring us Alfonso! 

Media Coverage of Iraq

Are the media ignoring good news out of Iraq?  Perhaps.  That's the theme of a some recent columns, one of which evidently has gotten a St. Paul Pioneer Press assistant editor in big trouble.  You can read about that story here (hat tip to Powerline), and then one of our excellent Northern students who in an Iraq vet wrote a piece for the American News recently.  This theme also comes up in Karl Zinmeister's excellent Dawn Over Baghdad.  Zinmeister suggests a few reasons why we get so little good news from Iraq.  I think the basic reason is that the reporters aren't willing to really hunt down stories.  Reporters rarely leave their hotel to do any reporting.  All they do is sit around, wait until something blows up, run over there and take a body count, and then "Whammy!" you have a story.  But to report on the opening of schools and hospitals or the connection of towns to clean water and electricity requires leaving Baghdad, doing scores of interviews, and lots of time.  The body count stories are just so much easier.  I don't mean to dismiss the deaths occurring in Iraq, of course, but simply wish more good news was reported.  Another student here who spent a year in Iraq was asked if he follows the news from Iraq since he's been back, and he said he doesn't because it bears so little similarity to what he experienced.  I think his exact words were, "There is so much good happening there."  How about letting us back home learn about the good that is going on "over there"?

No Rational Policy without Just Compensation

Due to the Supreme Court's recent decision on the matter, a great deal of attention has been focused recently on the "taking clause" of the Fifth Amendment. 

"nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

I have argued that the phrase "for public use" is not very helpful, because there are not clear constitutional principles that can be applied across the board for deciding what is and what is not public use.  But "just compensation is another matter.  My friend Ronald Bailey, writing in Reason, explains why. 

[Consider] the case of Ben Cone, a tree farmer in North Carolina. Cone owns 7,200 acres on which he raises southern pines in an 80 to 100 year rotation—that is, once he harvests an area, he allows new trees to grow for 80 to 100 years before harvesting them. This kind of forest management is very favorable to wildlife and his woods attracted and sustained a wide variety of animals, including 29 red cockaded woodpeckers. The woodpeckers were listed as endangered in 1970, three years before the ESA was enacted. Red cockaded woodpeckers prefer to make nesting holes in pine trees that are about 80 years old.

Suspecting that Cone's woods might be home to the woodpecker, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) which administers the ESA, required Cone to pay a biologist $8,000 to find woodpeckers in his forests. In 1991, once the woodpeckers had been identified, the FWS prohibited Cone from harvesting timber on 1,560 acres of his land in order to protect woodpecker habitat. The cost to Cone: $1.8 million. Note that the Fish and Wildlife Service paid nothing and the taxpayers in whose names the woodpecker was being protected paid nothing; the only person out any money was Ben Cone. Between 1983 and 1991, Cone had been harvesting 919 tons of timber annually.

Cone, trying not to lose more money and control over his land, increased his rate of harvest on the land he could still access more than 10-fold. His goal was to prevent his pine trees from maturing into trees suitable for nesting woodpeckers. Obviously, this was not good for the woodpeckers the FWS was supposedly trying to help. Later researchers found that as Cone's problems became widely known among North Carolina foresters, many also feared that the feds would some day prohibit them from harvesting their timber. They began to cut their trees on a faster 30 to 40 year rotation in order to prevent woodpeckers from inhabiting their woods. Ultimately, Cone had enough money to hire lawyers to sue the Fish and Wildlife Service for compensation. Afraid that they would lose the case, the feds eventually settled with Cone.

In this case, the Fish and Wildlife Service, by trying to weasel out of the "just compensation" clause, actually compelled landowners to act in ways prejudicial to the very animals they were trying to protect.  I share Ron's view that the Endangered Species Act is a mess.  When its application interferes with sound forest management by private parties, not much more needs to be said.  Just compensation leads to reasonable policy. 

 

Thune against Kelo land stealing

Here's Senator Thune's latest column published in the Dakota Voice headlined "My Land is NOT Your Land."

My Point Entirely

Mr. Clean Cut Kid directs us to this Quinnipiac University survey showing that by a 61-31 margin Americans support upholding Roe v. Wade.  I guess Chad isn't reading this site too closely, because just a few days ago I anticipated just this kind of poll toward the end of this long post.  Chad thinks this poll shows American support for abortion, and then says 57% of Americans support abortion in all or most cases.

Let's parse those numbers.  Chad says 57% support abortion in all or most cases.  The actual numbers show that 20% favor abortion in all cases, 37% in most, 24% say abortion should be illegal in most cases, and then 12% say illegal in all cases.  That 73% who say abortion should be illegal in some cases.  If you know the language of Roe and its companion case Doe v. Bolton, then you see the point I made in my previous post.  Roe v. Wade along with Doe v. Bolton de facto set up a regime of abortion on demand for all nine months of pregnancy.  Thus 61% may say they support Roe, but their own opinions about the legality of abortion tell you that a) they don't know what Roe does, and b) their actual policy views are contradicted by Roe. 

Why do women have abortions?  I draw from this report (pdf alert) from Planned Parenthood's Alan Guttmacher Institute.  3/4ths say that they are having abortions because the baby would "interfere with work school or other responsibilities."  About 2/3rds say they cannot afford a child.  About 1/2 say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband/boyfriend.  The vaunted "rape and incest" exception amounts to 13,000 abortions a year, or 1% of all abortions.  I am trying to find recent data on public opinion about which abortions people say are justified.  I can't find anything just now online (please pass along if you find anything), but here's some data I do have handy from Before The Shooting Begins that is probably 15 years old.  I suspect it is still largely accurate.  I won't bore you with details, but the following reasons get below 30% saying "abortion is acceptable in the first three months":  the family has a very low income/it would create a financial burden; the pregnancy would require a teenager to drop out of school; the pregnancy would interupt a professional woman's career;  abortion is being used as a repeated means of birth control.  I note that this what people think about the first three months of pregnancy when opinion is naturally most permissive.  A summation of a book (scroll down) with a comprehensive look at public opinion on abortion concludes:

But a majority of Americans do want abortion to be restricted. Majorities in the norc surveys consistently opposed abortion for low-income women who couldn’t afford any more children, married women who didn’t want to have any more children, or unmarried women who didn’t want to marry their partners.

The upshot is most people oppose most abortions.  Also, people are ignorant as to the central holdings of Roe v. Wade, since in its effect Roe allows for no proscription of any abortion for any reason for all nine months of pregnancy.  This Quinnipiac poll means next to nothing, and it certainly does not mean what Chad thinks it means. 

But Wait...

What Professor Blanchard fails to recognize is that with a face transplant Yoda could look like this:

Hope for Schaff and Myself

Another tip to NoLeftTurns, this from the New York Times. 

But the career that began in a Helsinki hospital has brought [Dr. Maria Siemionow] and her profession, to an extraordinary moment. A team led by Dr. Siemionow is planning to undertake what may be the most shocking medical procedure to occur in decades: a face transplant.

The mind boggles with possibilities.  Imagine Hilliary Clinton poised to accept the Democratic nomination for President, and just then, Paris Hilton suffers a terrible misfortune and becomes a face donor.  Try stopping that candidate.

I'm Data

The slightly greenish android from Next Generation, shown below in need of some touch-up work.

Yoda may be the greater power in the Universe, but he is a lot uglier.

Japanese Androids

Finally, a soul mate for Al Gore. 

Science Fiction Comedy

Here is a transcript of an email conversation with one of my brothers:

Brother: Which science fiction character are you?  I am Aragorn:  http://www.tk421.net/character/

Me: I already took this.  I am Yoda. It could be worse.  I could be Jar Jar Binks.

Brother: A guy I work with is Anakin Skywalker.  Talk about ambiguous.

By the way, as a Yoda, this is the kind of person I am: A venerated sage with vast power and knowledge, you gently guide forces around you while serving as a champion of the light.

Seems about right to me. 

What Do They Want?

Daniel Pipes makes an argument today about what the Osama Bin Laden's of the world want. 

In nearly all cases, the jihadi terrorists have a patently self-evident ambition: to establish a world dominated by Muslims, Islam, and Islamic law, the Shari'a. Or, again to cite the Daily Telegraph, their "real project is the extension of the Islamic territory across the globe, and the establishment of a worldwide ‘caliphate' founded on Shari'a law."

Terrorists openly declare this goal. The Islamists who assassinated Anwar el-Sadat in 1981 decorated their holding cages with banners proclaiming the "caliphate or death." A biography of one of the most influential Islamist thinkers of recent times and an influence on Osama bin Laden, Abdullah Azzam declares that his life "revolved around a single goal, namely the establishment of Allah's Rule on earth" and restoring the caliphate.

Bin Laden himself spoke of ensuring that "the pious caliphate will start from Afghanistan." His chief deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, also dreamed of re-establishing the caliphate, for then, he wrote, "history would make a new turn, God willing, in the opposite direction against the empire of the United States and the world's Jewish government." Another Al-Qaeda leader, Fazlur Rehman Khalil, publishes a magazine that has declared "Due to the blessings of jihad, America's countdown has begun. It will declare defeat soon," to be followed by the creation of a caliphate.

I think it is important to recognize that the kind of Islam represented by Bin Laden hates us not for what we do, but for who we are.  The only way to placate them is to change the very nature of our regime into one conducive to rule by an Islamic Republic.  Short of that, we must fight. 

Hat tip No Left Turns via NRO.  My mind is awed by the infinite noise of the blogosphere. 

Senate Business

The Des Moines Register is noting that some things are finally getting done in the Senate--this time the ethanol bill.  The Wall Street Journal is also saying that the stalled bill to protect gun companies from lawsuits is making progress.  Senator Frist is also talking about the importance of Ellsworth.

Petty McCarthyism On the Left

It is a sign of how strong a nominee John Roberts is that his membership or non-membership in the Federalist society should have become an issue.  The New York Times  puts it this way:

Last week, the White House denied that Mr. Roberts had ever been a member of the Federalist Society. Mr. Roberts's handlers were no doubt concerned that the society's reputation as an organization of hard-line conservatives could work against him during the confirmation process. ... But The Washington Post reported yesterday that he was listed in a Federalist Society Lawyers' Division Leadership Directory for 1997-1998 as a member of the steering committee of the Washington chapter.

Mr. Roberts still has no recollection of being a member of the society or on the steering committee, according to the White House. It may be that Mr. Roberts was never formally a member of the society, which keeps its membership secret. But at his confirmation hearings, the Senate should make sure that there was no intent to deceive senators or the public.

What exactly is the issue here: the fact that he was a member, or the fact that he isn't sure?  In pondering questions of such importance to the Republic, it suddenly occured to me that I don't know whether I am a member or not.  It took a while for the memory to surface, but while in graduate school in the 1980's I attended a meeting of the Federalist Society in San Francisco. 

As I recall, it was a pretty entertaining weekend, even if we had left out Chinatown.  If the current membership of the FS is anything like it was then, the Times is dead wrong about the "organization of hard-line conservatives" bit.  Most of the attendees were libertarians.  In fact, Milton Friedman was the keynote speaker (he's really short, by the way).  Now as long as we were talking about economics, you couldn't tell the difference.  But when someone mentioned abortion or gay marriage, it was like Moses parting the waters. 

But here's the thing: I'm pretty sure I would have joined the Federalist Society if someone had handed me an application.  These guys were a barrel of laughs.  But I have no idea whether I did join, or would appear on any past or present list of members.  So I can well believe that John Roberts isn't sure either.  The fact that Roberts is listed as a "a member of the steering committee of the Washington chapter" doesn't mean anything.  Organizations such as this want influential people to appear on their rolls, and they are not so dense as to require any actual participation in return.  Someone with Robert's career is probably listed on dozens of such rolls, and I'm sure he couldn't name them all.

The folks at the New York Times, God bless 'em, know this.  They are in fact indulging in behavior that they themselves would recognize as appalling if they observed it on the  right.  Are you now or have you ever been a member of ..., that's petty  McCarthyism.  But Roberts is in good shape if his enemies remain this petty.

“THE LEFT LIED AND LONDONERS DIED!”

Protein Wisdom on "Why Rhetoric Matters":

I hope the next time George Galloway or Ken Livingstone feel compelled to preach about “root causes,’ they’re willing to look at themselves in the mirror.  And by themselves I mean themselves—not some symbolic representative of the phantom white and wealthy capitalist /imperialist oppressor class.

Naturally, read the entire article.

Numbskullery, Another Look

From the Post-Gazette (HT to LGF):

The family of a Marine who was killed in Iraq is furious with Lt. Gov. Catherine Baker Knoll for showing up uninvited at his funeral this week, handing out her business card and then saying “our government” is against the war.

Rhonda Goodrich of Indiana, Pa., said yesterday that a funeral was held Tuesday at a church in Carnegie for her brother-in-law, Staff Sgt. Joseph Goodrich, 32. She said he “died bravely and courageously in Iraq on July 10, serving his country.”

In a phone interview, Goodrich said the funeral service was packed with people “who wanted to tell his family how Joe had impacted their lives.” Then, suddenly, “one uninvited guest made an appearance, Catherine Baker Knoll.”

She sat down next to a Goodrich family member and, during the distribution of communion, said, “Who are you?” Then she handed the family member one of her business cards, which Goodrich said she still has. “Knoll felt this was an appropriate time to campaign and impose her will on us,” Goodrich said. “I am amazed and disgusted Knoll finds a Marine funeral a prime place to campaign.”

Goodrich said she is positive that Knoll was not invited to the funeral, which was jammed with Marines in dress uniform and police officers, because the fallen Marine had been a policeman in McKeesport and Indiana County.

“Our family deserves an apology,” Rhonda Goodrich said. “Here you have a soldier who was killed — dying for his country — in a church full of grieving family members and she shows up uninvited. It made a mockery of Joey’s death.”

What really upset the family, Goodrich said, is that Knoll said, ‘I want you to know our government is against this war.’ [emphasis from the original author]

Daschle & the Pro-Israel PACs

Washington Report:

Pro-Israel political action committees (PACs) added to their loss column in a big way when Tom Daschle (D-SD), beneficiary of a record $129,375 in pro-Israel contributions for a single campaign, became the first sitting Senate minority leader to be defeated in 52 years. His career total of $592,510 enabled Daschle to bump Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA), with $520,450, out of second place behind Michigan Democratic Sen. Carl Levin (who has received a whopping $657,887!) in the pantheon of panderers to Israel. Of course, since the careers of Harkin and Levin presumably are not over—neither was up for re-election in 2004—Daschle’s second place standing may not survive the next Senate contest.

According to former South Dakota Sen. James Abourezk, “AIPAC didn’t play much of a public role in the election out here.” In fact, in areas of the country where Israel is not a major constituent concern, the Jewish state seldom is an issue for debate—but the money is spent, and the candidate knows to whom he is indebted. In the case of Daschle, who already was vulnerable for having purchased a $1.9 million mansion in the nation’s capital—where his wife earns $1.5 million a year as a lobbyist—and declaring it his official residence, the appearance of even more distant loyalties was to be avoided at all costs.

Daschle Mentioned

State 29 blog:

Washington, D.C. - U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa has riled Texans by filing a bill in the Senate that would end commercial flights out of Love Field in Dallas within three years and thus evict the airport's main tenant, low-cost Southwest Airlines.

The effect would aid American Airlines, which operates hundreds of flights daily to domestic and international destinations out of competing Dallas-Fort Worth Airport. That includes 14 direct flights between Des Moines and Dallas on regional carrier American Eagle.

Airports in Cedar Rapids and Moline, Ill., also have direct flights to Dallas; the Moline route started a month ago.

...

A factor that Jane Norman conveniently leaves out in her story is that Harkin's buddy Tom Daschle's wife, Linda, has been a lobbyist for the past couple of decades at Baker, Donelson, Bearman & Caldwell. One of their major clients is... ta-da... American Airlines! Even Tom Daschle's daughter-in-law, Jill Gimmel Daschle, is a lobbyist at another firm and has done work on behalf of Northwest Airlines.

I'm not saying there's a connection (cough, cough - Ed.), but maybe some muckracking reporter ought to check it out.

Disturbing and Uplifing Images

Until googling around for my last post, I had never been to the website of Priest for Life.  I recommend a couple things on their site. These photos of aborted children at all stages of pregnancy are disturbing, and should be.  WARNING: These photos are not for the faint of heart.

On the other hand, there are photos of naturally developing babies in utero. 

John Roberts and Catholicism

I hate to pick on old Clean Cut Kid as he had some nice things to say about my Lance Armstrong post, but today I think he makes an error with comments about John Roberts' Catholicism. 

The impetus behind this story is this article by Jonathon Turley who claims that "unnamed sources" tell him that Sen. Dick Durbin asked Roberts what would Roberts do if the law required a ruling that his church held to be immoral.  According to Turley's sources, Roberts was caught off guard and said he would probably have to recuse himself, which even I would admit is a bad answer.  By bad I mean wrong and imprudent. 

Subsequently, it has turned out that the facts may not be as Turley reports them.  Durbin's office is denying the story.  Turley now says he got the story straight from Durbin.  Who knows?  But let's proceed as if the story were true.   Chad uses this story to launch an age old attack against Catholics in public life: they take orders from the Pope and can't be trusted with power.  Not only is that false, but, it must be said, betrays a profound misunderstanding of the authoritative structure of the Church.  The Pope doesn't write the Catechism, the basic deposit of Church teaching, and just this side of never does the Pope "issue orders" on anything political in nature.  The Pope might remind the faithful of what the Church teaches, but the Pope is not just expressing his own views.  This tactic of questioning the objectivity of religious men and women, used by Chuck Schumer and others to keep devout Catholics like Bill Pryor off the federal bench, amounts to a religious test for office.  What it means is that by default the only acceptable religious points of view are secularism or extreme latitudinarianism.  Or maybe it's just those goofy devout Catholics who worship a foreign prince who should be barred from the bench.   

Here is more reporting on this issue via the New York Times:

Mr. Cornyn called Professor Turley’s account of the discussion "troubling, if true." In his own meeting with Judge Roberts on Monday, Mr. Cornyn recounted, "I said, ’I hate to see somebody going down this road because it really smacks of a religious test for public service.’ "

He added, "I said, ’I hate bringing this up, but since someone else already has and I know it is going to come up, is there anything about your faith or religious views that would prevent you from deciding issues like the death penalty of abortion or the like?’ "

"Absolutely not," Mr. Cornyn recalled Judge Roberts replying.

Mr. Durbin declined to discuss the issue on Monday. A spokesman, Joe Shoemaker, said, "What Judge Roberts did say clearly and repeatedly was that he would follow the rule of law, and beyond that we are going to leave it to Judge Roberts to offer his views."

Let us not forget that Roberts said in his confirmation hearing for the appellate court that he would have no problem upholding Roe v. Wade, which is a funny point of view for a puppet of the man in the funny hat. 

I think judges should keep their personal opinions to themselves and just rule on the law.  While I hope Roberts seeks the help of divine wisdom as he issues rulings, I wouldn't want him to substitute his religious beliefs for the law of the land, even though I suspect that his and my beliefs are quite similar.  But I also don't believe we should sanitize the walls of power of those who have strong religious convictions. 

I suspect many of those who get all bent out of shape about theocracy and the influence of those cursed religious conservatives aren't really concerned with the influence of religion in politics, they are just worried about conservative religion in politics.  Take these words for example:

My faith affects everything that I do, in truth. There's a great passage of the Bible that says, "What does it mean, my brother, to say you have faith if there are no deeds? Faith without works is dead. "

And I think that everything you do in public life has to be guided by your faith, affected by your faith, but without transferring it in any official way to other people.

That's why I fight against poverty. That's why I fight to clean up the environment and protect this earth.

That's why I fight for equality and justice. All of those things come out of that fundamental teaching and belief of faith.

But I know this, that President Kennedy in his inaugural address told all of us that here on Earth, God's work must truly be our own. And that's what we have to -- I think that's the test of public service.

That's John Kerry during the October 13, 2004 presidential debate.  Yet in the same debate when the subject of abortion came up, Kerry said this:

I believe that I can't legislate or transfer to another American citizen my article of faith. What is an article of faith for me is not something that I can legislate on somebody who doesn't share that article of faith.

Wait.  It's ok for Kerry to legislate his religious views on poverty, the environment, and claim "everything you do in public life has to be guided by your faith" but when it comes to this one particular question, he demurs and says he can't impose his views on those who don't share his faith?  I happen to like what Kerry says in the first passage I quoted.  And I bet many on the left do, including perhaps Chad and Seth over at CCK and Epp over at SD Watch.  But you add "abortion" to the list of poverty, environment, equality, etc. and folks squeal about theocracy and imposing your beliefs on other people.  That's why I like Democrats for Life.  They seem entirely consistent to me, if still wrong on some practical matters (e.g, I happen to think statism is bad for the poor).  Some people on the right take their faith into economic matters and foreign policy matters, but not nearly enough. 

For more on the Roberts/Catholic matter, see Joe Knippenberg and he links to Win Meyers.  You can tell I stole from both of them.  For then-Cardinal Ratzinger's letter about abortion and communion, it's posted at Priests for Life.  I would point out that it leaves much room for judgment on the part of individuals and their priests.  I have no desire to pick a fight with Chad, Seth or Todd  E. and would appreciate thoughtful responses.

Update: Because this post wasn't long enough, here's more.  Who is lying?  Durbin or Turley? 

Good Point

A reader chimes in on the prairie dog story:

If they had called prairie dogs "prairie rats" the easterners wouldn't be all upset about anyone shooting them.

I guess we have Lewis and Clark to blame. 

SD Blog Riddle Solved?

PP at SD War College thinks he's solved one of the riddles of SD blogosphere:

At the Bipartisan Blogging Summit luncheon today in Pierre, Todd Epp and I briefly talked about who the Blog Watch Man might be. And, it really piqued my curiosity. Sibby has an APB out on it, others have speculated. Basically, everybody is wondering who SD Blogdom's favorite classroom monitor is. And I think I got it.

More: It seems that Blog Watch Man has quit after being revealed:

SDBWM's identity has been revealed. This is likely my last post here. Thanks to all who have supported me in the past. Blessings to my good friends at South Dakota Watch, S.D. War College, the Holabird Advocate, Black Marks on Wood Pulp, etc. My identity will make it impossible to post regularly and without an impact on my family. I truly loved blogging here but would rather do so in anonymity, which is too difficult for some to understand.

The S.D. Blogosphere is a vibrant place that contributes much to the political and social agenda in the state. There are some fine blogs and some awful blogs. Some blogs that have improved dramatically and some that have slipped in quality. And some that will always be bad. I'll still be around to post comments, etc., but don't want to remain in a blogosphere interested in unmasking my identity.

BWM was funny and posted some interesting things, but he also bashed several people while hiding behind anonymity, which he should have known would cause problems.  Good luck BWM.

Metabank "Story" Losing Steam

As much as the former Daschle staffers wanted to undermine Senator Thune with the MetaBank/Dan Nelson story, it doesn't look like it is panning out for them.  Sunday's Argus Leader story said that Nelson knew politicians other than Thune better: "Nelson is so well connected that his ties to Thune might be only a footnote in the network of South Dakota relationships."  A person with experience said that "He's the only guy I know who was extremely close and a confidante of Senator Abdnor, Senator Pressler and Governor Janklow": "That is a spectrum I don't know too many people can span."  The Democratic Party Chair for South Dakota said of Nelson "We've chopped carrots together in my kitchen" and "I just love the kid" and called him "an all-American, gorgeous young man - absolutely wholesome, clean cut, hardworking."  The Chair then basically retracts her press release of a few weeks ago (did the Daschle staffers write that one?):

Duhamel, the Democratic Party chairwoman, said in a July 7 statement that Americans had grown weary of WorldCom, Enron and other scandals and that Thune owed South Dakotans an explanation for what happened with Nelson. Last week, she said she was trying to raise questions, not make accusations.

"To compare WorldCom and Enron to this is perhaps a stretch. I'll give you that. But I think there's a concern in America today about all kinds of corrupt business deals," she said.

The article also said "Republicans have said it's the Mickelson connection, not Thune, that led Nelson in the 1990s to start borrowing from what now is MetaBank."  The article also didn't think politicians serving on boards was a big deal:

A politician's role on a nonpolitical board would vary case to case. Republican Dave Munson, a longtime legislator and now the Sioux Falls mayor, once was an executive at Citibank. Democrat Stephanie Herseth, after she lost the 2002 congressional election and before she won in 2004, was a board member of a Brookings bank.

"Lots of members of Congress are asked to serve on boards when they're out of office," Baker said. "They're considered to be people who add luster and prestige. It's certainly my experience that boards are fairly passive, not terribly aggressive, that the chief financial officer makes the key decisions. The board has a lunch and they ratify what the CEO says."

The article says this about consumer complaints:

In South Dakota, the consumer complaint tally was lower - 22 in five years directed toward Nelson's business from 2000 to 2005. Another Sioux Falls-based dealer had 40 complaints during the same period.

"We get complaints on every car dealer in South Dakota. Dan's did not stick out on our radar," said Attorney General Larry Long.

The article said that the "Nelson business did $80 million in annual sales," which does not make the $6.4 million Metabank loan look very big.  Sibby also mentions 7 factors which the Argus story didn't include.  Those trying to tar Thune with this story should be remembered.  The Rapid City Journal described those pushing this story: "Led by public statements from former Daschle campaign manager Steve Hildebrand and the pointed and sometimes profane Internet sniping from other former staffers, the Daschle team continues to wage political war against Thune." 

Liberal Crack-Up Watch II

Another sign of unhealthy politics on the left is the current issue of Harper's.  It contains a lead article "None Dare Call It Stolen," about the 2004 presidential election in Ohio, and a forum on the Conyers Report concerning alleged election fraud.  The forum, of which an audio transcript is available at the Harper's site, consists only of liberal Democrats, and pretty wingy ones at that.  I haven't had a chance to listen through it yet, so I can't comment on how it went, but the introduction by Harper's publisher Rick MacArthur is probably a good indication.  More important is the fact that the panel is so obviously biased that it discredits itself.  No one who is not solidly on the left could take it seriously or trust anything that is said there.  Harper's has decided that half the country is not worth talking to anymore. 

What is remarkable is that Harper's used to be an independent voice.  It was slanted left, to be sure, but you could never be sure what was in it.  Until recently, that is.  Now you can be sure that two more articles will be devoted to denouncing Republicans and anything with which they are associated.  Much as the forum may protest that George Bush stole another election, they know full well that he represents about half of the American people, give or take a few million.  And they are utterly contemptuous of that half.  That is not a promising view from which to sustain a national party.

Leonard Peltier

A while ago, I reported Leonard Peltier's lawyer, Barry Bachrach, filed an appeal that said federal laws did not apply to his client because FBI agents Ronald Williams and Jack Coler were killed in Pine Ridge.  A Fargo judge has rejected that appeal:

A federal judge in Fargo has rejected an appeal by imprisoned American Indian activist Leonard Peltier, who said the government did not have right to sentence him for killing two federal agents in 1975. ...

U.S. District Judge Ralph Erickson denied the appeal, saying the government has the right to prosecute people who kill federal agents, no matter where the crimes occur. Williams and Coler were shot in the head at point-blank range after being injured in a shootout on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation.

Ferrets or Ranchers? You Make the Call

It's amazing what the New York Times will find of interest in South Dakota.  There is an endangered ferret that feeds off of prairie dogs, and so ranchers in Canata Basin who want to kill of the pesky prairie dog are limited by attempts to save this ferret.  Isn't there some national park with no ranching that these ferrets could be relocated to?  What struck me most was this part:

Mr. Proctor, with the conservation group, called recreational shooting "enraging" and believes the poisoning to be inhumane.

I might agree with Mr. Proctor on the poisoning, but prairie dog shooting "enraging"?  First, this is obviously a guy who has never shot a prairie dog.  The only thing enraging about it is how small of a target they represent.  Second, how would Mr. Proctor prefer the cute little prairie dog die?  By being eaten alive by a ferret or a snake?  This is a lesson for all who question the morality of hunting: in nearly every case the best way a wild animal is going to die is to be killed by a human being.  Don't these people watch Animal Planet?  I saw a show this weekend on the National Geographic Channel on the various kinds of jaws in the animal kingdom.  Guess what they use those jaws for?  It isn't to talk your ear off, I guarentee you that.

Noxious Numbskullery Cont.

In my previous note on Professor Emeritus Richard Crouter's piece in today's Star Trib, I pointed out the morally shocking premise of his argument: that the insurgents blowing up thousands of their fellow countrymen, including children, were only doing what we would do in their place.  All the fault lies with us and none with them.

Taking a second glance at it, I notice that it is also logically incoherent.  Consider the passage that I quoted below.

If mass killings such as occur daily in Iraq took place in a Western country, and especially if they arose through foreign intervention and an ambition to change our civilization, we also would be radicalized. We, too, would be in the vanguard of a desperate movement to drive the disturbing presence from our midst.

Now consider cause and effect here: what has driven the insurgents into the "vanguard of a desperate movement to drive the disturbing presence from [their] midst"?  It is the mass killings that occur daily in Iraq, which arise "through foreign intervention."  Now by mass killings daily he surely means the persistent bombings.  So the bombings are both the cause and effect of the terrorist campaign.  They are blowing up their fellow citizens because they are offended that so many of their fellow citizens are being blown up.  That's noxious numbskullery. 

What is astounding about this piece is not that someone wrote it.  There are always numb skulls around.  But the Star Tribune is an important metropolitan newspaper, and surely a good editor would notice such a piece of self-refuting logic and suggest that it be rewritten.  That at least is what  happens when my editor at the Aberdeen American News finds a sentence or an argument that she judges to be unclear or misleading.  The editors at the St rib, apparently, don't think that such high minded essays as this my Professor Crouter need any corrections.

Noxious Numbskullery from the Star Tribune

Says the inestimable Richard Crouter, Professor of Religion Emeritus at Carleton College,

I've been stunned these last few days by the juxtaposition of American reactions to the July 7 terrorist attacks in London, where 59 died, and the huge July 17 attack of a single suicide bomber in Musayyib, Iraq, where 71 people died.

Its hard to believe that Mr. Crouter was really stunned by so routine a thing as this.  Folk all over the world tend to take events closer to heart when they are closer to home.  He certainly may have a point that we should care more about the Iraqis who are being murdered. 

But in fact it isn't really our lack of compassion for the dead and maimed that irritates Professor Crouter, it is our lack of outrage at the parties responsible for the bombing.  And those parties are, of course, President Bush and his henchmen. 

If mass killings such as occur daily in Iraq took place in a Western country, and especially if they arose through foreign intervention and an ambition to change our civilization, we also would be radicalized. We, too, would be in the vanguard of a desperate movement to drive the disturbing presence from our midst.

Really?  Would Professor Crouter be blowing up hundreds of innocent civilians in order to make sure that democracy never ever takes root in this country?  He seems to think so.  So the bombers aren't really to blame for blowing children to bits.  Anyone would do the same in their shoes.  This is noxious numbskullery at its worst. 

The Master of the Race

One of my boyhood sports heroes was Joe Montana.  The 1981 NFC Championship game that concluded with "The Catch" by Dwight Clark was a formative moment.  What I enjoyed about Montana was his quiet confidence that he would lead his team to victory.  I recall a story from 49er offensive linemen Harris Barton about the Super Bowl XXIII victory against the Bengals.  As some may recall, the 49ers were down 16-13 late in the game.  As the 49ers got the ball back for their last ditch drive to win the game, the players were standing around during the TV timeout waiting for this do-or-die drive.  The Super Bowl was on the line and everything depended upon a successful drive, and Montana turned to Barton and said, "Hey, isn't that John Candy in the front row?"  Now that's a cool customer.  Oh, last second touchdown pass to John Taylor.  49ers 20, Bengals 16.

Lance Armstrong is much the same.  You just know that he will pull off something amazing sooner or later.  Like athletes such as Joe Montana and Michael Jordan, in Lance Armstrong the will to win and the talent to achieve greatness have met in an almost perfect synthesis.  Last night on the Science Channel (thank God for cable) they did a story on the science of Lance, both his body and his bike.  Much like the great horse Secretariat, whose heart was unusually large, Lance seems to be a freak of nature.  His body's ability to process oxygen is astounding, and his body, for whatever reason, seems not to produce lactic acid at the rate others' do, and he recovers from that acid "burn" faster than usual.  But of course all of this would mean nothing if he was lazy.  I watched Lance win the time trial yesterday, and it was a bitter sweet moment.  It was inspiring to once again see Lance put his body to the test and display his excellence, yet bitter in that we will never see it again.  Yesterday Phil Ligget on OLN hailed Lance as "the master of the race."  Indeed.