South Dakota Politics

Alaskan Oil

Mitchell Daily Republic:

Foolish to not use Alaska oil

As commuters, farmers, truckers and others continue to wince at escalating fuel prices, South Dakota’s congressional delegation offered little hope for relief.

Sens. Tim Johnson and John Thune and Rep. Stephanie Herseth were in town Wednesday for a joint appearance at Dakotafest, where increasing fuel costs were on the minds of many in the audience.

They said not much could be done at the moment about higher prices, but pointed out that the energy bill recently passed contained incentives to expand the nation’s refinery capacity. However, the positive effect of increased refinery capability is 3-5 years away.

We were puzzled and disappointed that Sen. Johnson continues to oppose petroleum development in Alaska’s North Slope. Thune has voted in favor of North Slope drilling, as has Herseth. Johnson is right when he contends that drilling in the National Wildlife Refuge won’t solve our fuel problems, but he is wrong to suggest it wouldn’t have a significant impact.

The environmental questions, which apparently are at the root of his opposition, have been asked and answered in Alaska. Alaska’s congressional delegation favors the development. In short, there’s no reasonable reason to continue to oppose development there, especially in face of budget-busting gasoline prices at the pump.

That said, there also is no question that refinery capacity must grow, as noted before, and that an increased push must be made for more fuel-efficient vehicles. Placing alternative fuel development on the front burner - including ethanol, wind, and electrically powered vehicles - are all part of the formula to keep America humming.

We view the untapped resource in Alaska as a key ingredient in stabilizing, if not lowering, fuel prices for consumers.

I'm just as puzzled as my hometown paper is.  We're reaching $3 a gallon for gas at the pump and Johnson refuses to start drilling in Alaska for senseless reasons.  The best way to alleviate this crisis is to increase the supply to match the demand.  If OPEC can't keep up with it, then what other solutions are there?  I also would support Herseth's idea of tapping into the federal oil reserve for the winter and help alleviate prices also.

The other side of the equasion is the development of new refineries in the U.S.  New refiners, coupled with an increase in supply from Alaska or the strategic oil reserve would definitely have an impact.

Maybe pressure will rise on Johnson and he will change his mind as farmers start buying huge amounts of deisel for the fall harvest.

Voting Districts

The SD War College has a great post on the new Indian voting district plans.  Be sure to check it out.

The Answer My Friend Is A Finger In The Wind

Poor Bill Frist.  After flip-flopping on embryonic stem cell research, thus earning the scorn of the Christian conservatives whose support he will need in order to secure the GOP nomination in 2008, he now is defending Intelligent Design in an attempt to curry Christian favor.  My beef is not with ID, to which happen I not to subscribe, but with the obvious political tactic by Frist.  Frist, who has the reputation of being a poor majority leader, is clearly sticking his finger in the wind in an attempt to be all things to all people.  Listen, we're all schizophrenic on this.  We get angry because our politicians just follow the polls and then we attack them when they do something unpopular. But Frist's move reeks of desperation.  If he runs for president, I predict a short lifespan for Candidate Frist. 

BTW, note the Daschle reference in the Novak column on Frist's poor leadership.  And some say it's not about winning elections.  Elections matter.

SDPR had a show on evolution vs. ID/Creationism which you can listen to here.   While not being as committed to Darwinism as he is, I think Prof. Blanchard is largely right on this.  I also happen to think that Frist is actually correct on merit.  I don't think an opinion on the origins of life or the universe in general should be removed from the public classroom simply because it is religious. If schools want to teach religious explanations they should be allowed.  If they don't want to, that's find with me too.  This should not be construed as a defense of Intelligent Design.  There may be other religious explanations other than ID or creation science. 

Defending The Iraq War

Chad Schuldt asks if anybody can defend the Iraq war.  I would like to take him up on that challenge.  What I post below should not be construed as a defense of the Bush administration.  So I will not accept the rejoinder of "But that's not what Bush said," or "But that's not what Bush is doing."  Chad asked for a defense of the war, not of Bush.  And sorry, this is going to be another long post. 

There are two items.  First, one must defend going to war.  Then one must defend staying deeply involved for some extended period of time. 

Defending going to war, in no particular order:
1. WMDs.  Of course this is a much maligned reason at this point.  But let's consider some facts.  We know that at one point Hussein had chemical weapons and used them on the Kurds and Iranians.  We know that he kicked out UN inspectors in 1998. Despite what you've heard, every major intelligence agency in the world agrees that Iraq was seeking nuclear material in Africa.  Even Joe Wilson's report to the government after his trip to Africa confirmed this. Wilson, it has now been well documented, lied in public about what his report said.  Don't forget that if it were not for an Israeli attack in 1981, Iraq probably would have had nuclear weapons by 2003.  We know there was a will to have nuclear weapons and there was an attempt to obtain nuclear material. Given the events of 9-11, could we afford to wait for a "smoking gun" to prove that Iraq had WMDs?  That smoking gun may have been a smoking city.  Also recall that in late 2002 Hussein refused once again to comply with weapons inspections.  If you know a guy has had WMDs, you know he is seeking material for more dangerous WMDs, and he refuses to let inspectors in to see if he has WMDs, what conclusions do you draw?  You draw the conclusion that he has some WMDs to hide.  What about subsequent to the war?  Of course we have only found extremely small amounts of chemical weapons.  But a couple points.  First, although I would not want to hang my hat on this argument, knowing that Hussein did not have a large stockpile of WMDs is worth knowing.  How do we know he didn't have them?  We went to war.  That knowledge is not without value.  Second, it is clear that there were WMD programs in operation, if not large amounts of WMDs.  In the era of global terrorism it was too much of a gamble to hope that Hussein had no WMDs and if he did have them to hope that he would not use them or sell them to someone who would. Also, North Korea shows that if you wait until a "rogue nation" has nuclear weapons, your options are quickly reduced. 
2. Evils of the regime.  If it was just to go into Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, and Kosovo on humanitarian grounds, then it was just to go into Iraq on humanitarian grounds.  Also, don't forget that President Clinton had to apologize for our inaction in the Rwandan genocide, and I happen to think our inaction in the Sudan is almost as bad.  I don't mean to be flip, but here's a lesson from Spiderman 2: With great power comes great responsibility.  Of course the US cannot operate everywhere there are atrocities,  but a sense of justice suggests US should use its amazing power to defend the defenseless when it prudently can. Because of our history with Hussein and the events of 9-11 turning our attention even more to the state of the Middle East it seemed that the desire to defend human rights met the political opportunity to defend them.  We defended human rights in Kosovo because we could.  We are limited in our actions against China because military action would cause WWIII, and we are limited with North Korea because we don't want to see South Korea nuked.  No, I am not blind to the financial interests involved. Hussein's regime would rape, torture, and murder family members right in front of suspected dissidents.  The secret police were everywhere.  People lived in constant fear.  We have unearthed mass graves.  This was an evil regime.  If we could remove it, we should remove it. 
3. The 1991 war never ended.  A war ends with a peace agreement.  The 1991 war only ended with a cease fire.  The 1990s were a history of a low level war with Iraq.  In 1998 after the expulsion of UN weapons inspectors the US Congress, including Tom Daschle, voted to make it US policy that Saddam Hussein be removed from power.  President Bill Clinton signed that bill and thus it became US policy.  Again, given our history with Iraq and the post 9-11 interest in the Middle East, it seemed the time to execute the policy had arrived in 2003.  Perhaps 12 years of pussy footing and 16 UN resolutions were enough. 
4. Democracy.  For the millionth time I direct you to Thomas Barnett's Pentagon's New Map.  The way to combat terrorism is to integrate its sponsors into the global world.  That means we must encourage democracy and integration into the global economy.  Given greater prosperity, freedom, and education the calls of the terrorist will go unheeded.  In the name of human rights and American security we should promote democracy and economic freedom in the world. I am aware of the shortcomings of this model, yet I cannot think of a better policy. 
5.  Hussein did have ties to international terrorism.  Note that Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas had received safe haven in Iraq. 
For more on the reasons for war, see former Clinton NSC staffer Kenneth Pollack's The Threatening Storm.
Why stay the course? Without defending this or that tactic of the Bush Administration, let's sum up:
1. If all or most of the reasons above are true, then our cause was just and we owe it to the Iraqi people to see this through to the end.  If 1, 3, or especially 4 are true, we owe it to the American people to see this through to the end.  If a free, prosperous and friendly Iraq makes the US safer, then we should do our part to make sure that Iraq is free, prosperous and friendly.   I think Frederick Kagan has some good thoughts on the nuts and bolts of the matter.  I think for the good of Americans and for the good of Iraqis we should stick this one out for the foreseeable future. 
2. While I understand its limitations, the idea that if we just pulled out it would mean victory for the forces of terror does have its validity.  Sure, there is some point at which you say, "This is not going to work.  We need to just cut our losses."  I am not at all convinced we have reached that point.  Of course, the problem is there is no real way to know for sure when that point has been reached.  I think given the costs of leaving early we should err on the side of staying too long rather than leaving too early.  Many in the world have learned a powerful lesson: The Americans are gutless.  If you hit them they run.  They cannot stomach death and if you just wait long enough you will beat them. Take the "Black Hawk Down" episode.  Over two days we killed about 1,000 Somali militia, and they killed 18 American servicemen.  Who won the battle?  They did, because they are still there and we left.  I have seen interviews with Somali militia and they are convinced that they defeated the US military and they are more powerful than the United States.  Given the evidence, are they so wrong to believe that?  What is more provocative? Is it showing weakness or showing strength?  I think it is showing weakness. A lesson has been learned over time that if you militarily confront the US you just need to wait them out.  Can the US operate in a world where Somali militia or Iraqi insurgents do not respect our power?  I think not.  This said, I think reason #1 is a better argument.  If the cause is a good cause, if the policy is the best policy, then we should see it through to its end.      

I make this challenge to Chad.  I have made a point by point argument for the war and the continuation of US military involvement in Iraq.  Can you do the same for your point of view?  And if you can, I challenge you to articulate a counter foreign policy that you think will best defend America from international terrorism and also fulfill America's duty to promote human rights around the world.  Or is Chad like Democratic Senator and presidential hopefull Evan Bayh?

"We can do better than the false bravado of 'bring 'em on' — remember that? We can do better than the illusion of 'mission accomplished,' " Bayh said, throwing the words back at the president, though offering little in the way of a policy alternative.

Conservation, Conservatism, and Evolution

Our new neighbor in the regional blogosphere, Talmage Ekander (South Dakota Lawyer), has interesting piece on evolution and environmentalism.  I concur in part and dissent in part.  Almost all orthodox environmentalist share a common confusion.  They priviledge (ok, its not a conventional verb, but in this case it works quite well) certain environmental states and regard any change from that state, or at least any change involving human influence, as a degredation. 

I happen to hear one of the fellows on public radio (Science Friday) talking about his plan to bring African animals "back" to the Americas.  Apparently we used to have our own elephants and lions.  Now I know something about the political struggle involved in reintroducing wolves to Yellowstone.  I look forward with merriment to the hearings about putting lions on South Dakota's national grassland.  While its a fun idea, it seems based on a very strange conceit.  Maybe we did once have all these great African herds and predators, but that was thousands of years ago.  If we bring them back now, won't we be destroying an environment that is just as natural and stable as any that existed before now? 

Besides: I think there is a basic mistake in the idea that diverse ecosystems are somehow enviornmentally stronger than simpler ones.  North America sports flora and fauna such as ragweed and rabbits, tough enough to roll with almost any ecological punch.  If you don't believe me about rabbits, ask the Australians.  In diverse biohabitats like the Amazon, if environmentalists are to be believed, remove one slime mold, or a snail, and the whole ecosystem files under chapter eleven.

So I'm with Talmage on that point.  But I do not think that evolution and creation are opposed systems, or that both cannot support a rational environmentalism.  Here is a piece of mine that ran in the Aberdeen American News.

The people of Kansas are again debating whether to teach Darwinian evolution in high school biology, which is not really a debatable point. It is like asking whether one should teach molecular theory in chemistry. Evolution by natural selection is so fundamental to contemporary biology that one cannot understand the one without the other.

The real question is the relationship between Darwinian explanations and Biblical faith. Most folks suppose that Darwinism contradicts the account of creation in Genesis. Others will argue that the Bible and biology are perfectly consistent. Both sides are wrong.

According to Biblical tradition, everything that human beings can see or comprehend was created by God. Science attempts to extend our comprehension by asking questions and testing answers. What is heat? Molecular vibration. What is the sun? A cloud of burning hydrogen. Why do bucks have antlers? Males with big antlers get all the does, and so every son of a doe will inherit antlers.

The latter was a Darwinian explanation. Here’s another: blind cave fish. These aquatic curiosities are born perfectly blind, but they do have scars where their eyes ought to be. The simplest and most elegant explanation is that the cave fish had ancestors that swam in sunlit creeks. Outside the caverns, eyes are indispensable for finding prey and avoiding predators. Fish born with defective vision rarely survived long enough to breed. In the subterranean streams such genetic anomalies were no longer weeded out by natural selection, and in time they spread to all the population.

Darwinists suppose that this is more or less how all organisms come into being. One species divides into two, and as each adapts to new ecologies they become estranged. When they loose the ability to interbreed, speciation is complete. Does this account of creation come into conflict with the Bible? I will argue by analogy that it cannot.

With three conspicuous exceptions, every Biblical character arrived in the world the same way I did. If Abraham and Sarah pushed the envelope with regard to age, they otherwise begat Isaac in a way that would offend no biologist. Each of us is here because Ma knew Pa. Persons of faith know this and nonetheless believe that we are all of us children of God. If that clears inspection, then each species can be born the way Darwin says, and still be God’s handiwork.

It would be odd if the Bible and biology were in conflict, as the same Deity is presumed to own both copyrights. But there is another problem. According to Genesis, sin is a consequence of human choice. The Creator bears no responsibility. Yet consider the pied flycatcher. This feathered fellow will, in effect, attract a mate by promising to be a good provider. If he helps her build a nest, maybe he will stick around when there are more hungry mouths to feed. But he sometimes makes the same proposal to a second female, without bothering to mention that he’s already married. When the eggs hatch, mate number two will discover she is a single parent. Of course two can play at that game. While he’s off with his down town babe, some other birdbrain may be servicing his wife.

As this avian soap opera suggests, marital promises and infidelity are common across animal species. The reasons for this apply just as well to mammals that wear pants. A man who cheats will often increase the number of children he sires. A trophy wife who has a rich husband and a sexy gardener can make sure that her attractive daughters are well provided for. Their offspring will inherit the same instincts.

If there is a contradiction between the Bible and evolutionary biology, it is over sin not creation. But even here more is agreed upon than not. The Bible teaches that self-destructive behavior is ubiquitous among human beings, and that moral law is necessary to correct it. No Darwinists would ever doubt that. If the partisans of piety would stop trying to suppress Darwin’s teaching, they would find it largely confirms their own view of the world.

SD Blogosphere

The blogosphere has expanded again.  I'd like to send out a welcome to Talmage Ekanger, who is running the blog South Dakota Lawyer.

Check it out.

What about Casey?

David Gelernter has a terrific article in the Los Angeles Times. Exerpts:

Casey Sheehan's deeds were heroic. By laying down his life for this nation, he delivered the kind of message that is written in blood, that lives forever. Why on Earth would a loving mother choose to refocus the nation's attention onto her words and away from his deeds?

And what was Casey Sheehan's message? It had nothing to do with President Bush. It didn't even have to do with the war, necessarily. It said something much simpler: "I love my country."

...

Did he intend to say, "I love my country?" Or was he tricked into saying it? He volunteered to reenlist with the war underway — as an experienced young man, not a teenager. Then he volunteered again, for a dangerous mission above and beyond the call of duty. And one thing more, from his sister, Carly: "That's all he wanted to do was serve God and his country his whole life." (He was a devout Roman Catholic.) What message emerges? What it sounds like to me is: "I devote my life lovingly to my country and my God."

Also, definitely check out Prof. Schaff's post on Cindy Sheehan.

UPDATE:  Also see Mike Rosen's take on the affair.

UPDATE II:  John Hinderacker adds his two cents.

Al Qaeda

Power Line:

If It Weren't For the Honor...

...a terrorist might prefer not to be al Qaeda's leader in Saudi Arabia.  We noted just six weeks ago that the leader of al Qaeda's Saudi branch had been killed in a shootout with police. That individual, a Moroccan named Younis Mohammed Ibrahim al-Hayari, "had headed al Qaeda's Saudi branch for only a short time, following the death of his predecessor."

Today the Saudis reported that al-Hayari's successor, Saleh Mohammed al-Aoofi, who had been "in office" for less than two months, was one of six terrorists killed in a series of police raids in Medina and Riyadh. One wonders who is left to pick up the mantle. Of the 26 al Qaeda terrorists on the Saudis' most wanted list as of December 2003, 25 have now been captured or killed. I suppose that last guy must be next in line.

Things are not going well for al Qaeda these days.

Is The Left Functionally Pacifist?

A devestating piece by Todd Bevan.  Just a thought:  Where was all the chicken hawk bluster from the left when Bill Clinton, who unlike George W. Bush had zero military experience, took military action in Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo (with neither UN nor congressional approval), and Sudan and expanded missions in Somalia and Iraq?   Another thought: Will all the leftists who complain about the lack of children of "privilege" serving in the military fight to get ROTC and military recruiters back on elite campuses?  When I was an undergrad the voices of the student and faculty left were very loud in trying to expel ROTC from our campus.  As of yet they have been unsuccessful. 

Nice Save

Bouncing back from some diplomatic stupidity regarding Israel, the Vatican does the right thing with Pope Benedict denoucing the rise in anti-semitism in Europe. 

Seen In Aberdeen This Morning

A woman in a car with a cigarette in one hand and a cell phone in the other.  I will not speculate as to how she was steering the vehicle. 

War Rhetoric, Right and Left

I think Jonathon Chait gets it about right. If you are going to take a position, have arguments.  Don't just tell me how much you care. 

An Experiment

Victor Davis Hanson proposes a kind of experiment.  He notes the placating of terrorists and attempts at multilateralism going on in Gaza, Iran and North Korea.  These are in contrast to the muscular American efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq.  Which will turn out better? 

How The Democrats Can Win

I hate to give the left advice, but David Ignatius has some good tips for the Democratic Party.  I note that his argument bears much similiarity to the point I've been making, including in this long post from yesterday.  Ignatius highlights:

Because they lack coherent plans for how to govern the country, the Democrats have become captive of the most shrill voices in the party, who seem motivated these days mainly by visceral dislike of George W. Bush. Sorry, folks, but loathing is not a strategy -- especially when much of the country finds the object of your loathing a likable guy...

America doesn't need more of the angry, embittered shouting matches that take place on talk radio and in the blogosphere. It needs a real opposition party that will lay out new strategies: How to withdraw from Iraq without creating even more instability? How to engage a world that mistrusts and often hates America? How to rebuild global institutions and contain Islamic extremism? How to put the U.S. economy back into balance? A Democratic Party that could begin to answer these questions would deserve a chance to govern.

One beef: since when is the US economy out of balance?

Update: Now Powerline in on the case. 

The Right Army

Don't miss Frederick W. Kagen column in The Washington Post.  Exerpt:

A decision to reduce forces based mainly on the number of Iraqi light infantry available at any moment would be dangerous and unwarranted. It might well put at risk the success of U.S. efforts, and the millions of Iraqis working in perilous conditions to establish democracy in their country.

Did SD Democratic Party Hire a VEGETARIAN as Communications Director?

South Dakota War College:

I was so amused by what one of the new communications people had posted on the internet, I hadn't even delved into the writings of his spouse and co-communcations director Elesha Peterson Carr.

Elesha describes herself as a vegetarian, which is certainly her choice. Far be it from me to throw stones at that. Although I always thought lettuce and it's ilk were what "food" ate, versus being food itself. But then, she just steps a little too far over the line and notes in one of the articles on her website:

I always wonder what the scoop is with that obtuse billboard on I- 90 coming from Sioux Falls stating “South Dakotans Reject Animal Activists”. Say what? Which South Dakotans? I don’t reject myself and my husband’s 80-year-old rancher grandfather doesn’t reject me. So who is it? The millions of tourists (many of them vegetarians) coming to our state each year must be impressed with this warm welcoming statement.

What? What? Did I miss something? From her own comments, it would appear to me that she's labeleing herself as an animal activist. In addition to labeling the people who put up the billboard as obtuse.

Are we to imply by her words that she condones animal activism in South Dakota?

Yes, fellow bloggers on the opposite side of the aisle, I'm sure that's an unfair and extreme example. But when there's statements out on her part like this, it begs the question; How is the South Dakota Democratic Party going to convince voters who can swing one way or the other that they represent mainstream South Dakota when their spokesperson calls herself an animal activist?

A Conservative Argument for Hate Crime Laws

Whatever else you may say about him, Richard Cohen is an independent minded liberal.  In his latest WaPo essay he makes, well, George W. Bush's argument against hate crimes legislation.  He focuses on the case of one  Nicholas Morse. 

He is reportedly a one-man melting pot -- half-Chinese, half-white with a sister who's half-black. . . . Because Morse was allegedly one of a group of men who set upon a black man with baseball bats and iron pipes while uttering racial epithets, he and the others have been charged with a hate crime. That means he can spend even more time in jail than if he merely used sticks and stones to beat someone and failed to call him a name, as we used to say. In 45 states and Washington, D.C., the "name" is now a crime.

Cohen sees this as a problem, because here speech along with action has been criminalized.

I do not find it hard to believe that the accused in both cases may be first-class bigots. I just find it beside the point. Beating someone with baseball bats and iron pipes has long been against the law. Assault is a crime. Battery is a crime. Murder in all its gradations is a crime. What does it matter what words are spoken in the course of the crime? Is the injury to the victim greater?

Ah, but we are told it is not only the injury to the victim that matters but the injury to the community as well. A hate crime affects an entire group. I suppose sometimes it does. But so does ordinary crime. When a rapist is loose in a particular neighborhood, all women are affected. When criminals stalk the park, everyone keeps out. In that sense, hate crimes just affect a different -- or another -- group. I understand. But it is a dangerous concept. It punishes speech. It punishes thought. It punishes on account of the word blurted out in the heat of the moment -- maybe not an indication of bigotry but merely what comes to mind when the mind itself is engulfed with rage.

I have a lot of sympathy for Cohen's argument.  I suspect it would gain almost universal agreement among conservatives.  But I think it misses something.  The psychology of gang assaults is very simple, so simple that we share it with chimpanzees.  Everyone understands the rule: we can beat the snot out of them so long as there are a whole lot of us and only one or a few of them.  Among humans a footnote has to be added: it is important that the victim be perceived as socially isolated, so that future reprisals are less to be feared.  This is why individuals belonging to certain groups make tempting targets for bullies.  Homosexuals, Jews, Blacks, etc., are perceived to more isolated in many social settings.  Rightly or wrongly (and bullies are usually not shrewd calculators) the perpetrators feel that persons belonging to certain groups are less likely to have back-up.  The racist bully may well believe that "most folk" will line up behind him if the situation escalates. 

Hate crime laws can help correct this impression.  They make it clear that the full weight of the law will come down on behalf those who were formerly assumed to have less protection.  Of course everyone, regardless of social type, should have full protection against personal violence.  But one of the most important functions of the law is education, and the Nicholas Morses of the world need some special education.  In the eyes of the law, there is no class set aside for bashing.

This is a conservative argument because it is founded on the root insights of conservatism: that human beings are dangerous animals, and that the force of the state is the only thing that keeps a lot of us in line. 

Shane Osborn

Shane Osborn is eyeing a senate run.  His connection to South Dakota?  He was born in Mitchell.  From the 7/17/05 Mitchell Daily Republic:

A Senate run could be in the future for former Navy aviator Shane Osborn.

Osborn, who now lives in Omaha, said he has been talking with people about possibly joining in as the fourth candidate in the GOP Senate primary.

...

The 31-year-old said he would decide in a few weeks whether to join the race, which over the weekend grew to three candidates with the candidacy announcement of Pete Ricketts, who recently resigned as chief operating officer of online broker Ameritrade.  Previously announced candidates include former Nebraska Attorney General Don Stenberg and former state GOP chairman David Kramer. 

The primary winner likely would face U.S. Sen. Ben Nelson, a Democrat and former governor in his first term.

...

Osborn became a household name in 2001 when his EP-3 spy plane collided with a Chinese fighter jet over the South China Sea.  He landed successfully with 23 crew members and then endured 11 days of captivity and interrogation.

The Lincoln Journal Star also has an article.

Mr. Secretary

Meet the new press secretary for the SD Democratic party, Donald P. Carr.

One Long Post On Cindy Sheehan

I have largely ignored the Cindy Sheehan circus because I take it to be just that: a circus.  I believe that the phenomenon is a product of a lazy media who, as it has been well noted, get bored when they have to go to Crawford and this is a perfect opportunity to make some news.  So for that reason I have avoided the subject: it isn't really news.  Also, even though I think Sheehan is wrong, it's hard to really make a vigorous argument against a woman in her situation.  It's a bit unseemly. 

That said, Chad Schuldt gives a defense of Sheehan today.  I will make one post on this subject in response to Chad, and then I'll let it go.  Chad can feel free to have the last word(s). 

First, for the sake of argument let's just say Cindy Sheehan is nuts.  If she's nuts is it wrong to say she's nuts?  I don't think so.  If one is going to say she's nuts, then one might want to present evidence of nutty statements.  If one is going to argue that she actually presents a sober and insightful argument against the war in Iraq, one should present those arguments. 

Let me post some statements from Cindy Sheehan and the readers can assess the soundness of her judgment:

• As soft-spoken and sincere-sounding as Paul Wolfowitz is, is there yet any sane adult in this country who's skin does not crawl when this murderous liar opens his mouth and speaks? Am I the only person in this room who clearly sees that Paul Wolfowitz is a threat to our nation's security...and to peace on our beloved earth?
• We are not waging a war on terror in this country. We’re waging a war of terror. The biggest terrorist in the world is George W. Bush!
• And you tell me, what the noble cause is that my son     died for." And if he even starts to say freedom and democracy' I'm gonna say,     bulls--t.  

  You tell me the truth. You tell me that my son died for oil. You tell me     that my son died to make your friends rich. You tell me my son died to spread     the cancer of Pax Americana, imperialism in the Middle East. You tell me that,     you don't tell me my son died for freedom and democracy.

   Cuz, we're not freer. You're taking away our freedoms. The Iraqi people aren't     freer, they're much worse off than before you meddled in their country.  

  You get America out of Iraq, you get Israel out of Palestine

• "They’re a bunch of f--king hypocrites! And we need to, we just need to rise up..." Sheehan said of the Bush administration.

"If George Bush believes his rhetoric and his bulls--t, that this is a war for freedom and democracy, that he is spreading freedom and democracy, does he think every person he kills makes Iraq more free?"  (NOTE: I cleaned this up.  The link here contains the foul language in full).

• Their statements echoed the words of Cindy Sheehan herself, who on Monday was asked by MSNBC's Chris Matthews, "If your son had been killed in Afghanistan, would you have a different feeling?" Sheehan answered, "I don't think so, Chris, because I believe that Afghanistan is almost the same thing."

Let's analyze these statements. First, these statements betray a pathology of the left that I have noted before.  To the left, George Bush and Paul Wolfowitz couldn't have just made a well intentioned mistake.  They are evil murderous terrorists.  She attacks their motives instead of analyzing their actions and coming up with her own counter proposal for fighting terrorism. 

Second, if George Bush really started this war simply to enrich is oil friends, then he is an evil man.  He's sending people to their death simply to enrich him and his oil buddies.   But is there any evidence that this is the case?  And isn't this what the morons on the right accused Clinton of?  Clinton bombed a pharmaceutical factory in the Sudan simply to distract us from Lewinsky.  That was the charge.  It was stupid then, and it's stupid now.  It turned out that the factory Clinton thought was making WMDs was doing no such thing.  Does that make Clinton a lying monster?  No, it makes him wrong, with sad results.  To say George Bush and Paul Wolfowitz are murderers and evil thugs is a sign of a mind motivated by pure passion and hate.  If George Bush simply wanted to reward his rich friends, there are far easier ways of going about it.  Perhaps those on the left think Bush is so stupid that he would engage in this "fool's errand" in a mistaken belief it was the best way to enrich his friends. But surely puppet masters Rove, Cheney, and Wolfowitz are not so stupid.  As I've pointed out before, Halliburton stock has gone down since the war started.  The left doesn't want to deal with the possibility that Bush actually believes that what he is doing is good for America and good for Iraq.  They don't want to take the Bush foreign policy seriously because that would require thinking, when being angry is so much more fun. 

Israel out of Palestine?  What does that mean?  If you simply take it at face value it means that Israel ceases to exists because Israel and the area called Palestine are the same place.  Where should they go?  Give it a more generous reading that Sheehan simply thinks America should give less support to Israel. First, for reasons I don't have space for here (this will already be a monster post) Israel is not the cause of terrorism.  Until Bin Laden saw how he could gain friends in the West by verbally attacking Israel, his only beef was with the control of Jerusalem, not with the state of Israel.  Should the US stop supporting one of now three democracies (I include Turkey and Iraq) in the Middle East?  Should America give up it's support of a western style democracy surrounded by hostile regimes?  Why?  Does Sheehan accept the idea that Israel's very existence is provacative and so they deserve to have their children blown up by terrorists? 

Is America really a cancer on the world?  This indicates a malevolence towards America that deserves a firm rebuttal.  No nation in the history of the world has been as generous and beneficent as the United States is today.  No regime in the history of the world, given the amazing superiority of military and economic strength the US possesses, would have used that power as selflessly as does the US.  The US pays the lion's share of the money that keeps the UN, the IMF and the World Bank afloat.  The private wealth that flows out of the US to feed and clothe the poor of the world is staggering.  The number of Americans that have died in the past century so that other peoples could be free is staggering.  US is an imperial power?  The whole point is that the US does not want to rule Iraq. We want them to rule themselves.  If the US is an imperial power, which countries are our colonial holdings?  Again, given the discrepancy in power between the US and every other nation, the amazing thing is how generous we are with it. 

If Cindy Sheehan thinks Iraqis were better off under Hussein, then she is simply ignorant.  No one claims that things are good in Iraq, but things were systematically monstrous under Hussein. 

I'm not sure if Cindy Sheehan is "nuts".  I do think she is terribly mistaken.  She represents the cynicism of the left on the matter of the "war on terror."  What I mean by that is they have nothing constructive to say.  All they can do is deconstruct in the most vile and unhelpful way.  There are smart critiques of the war in Iraq.  For example, here's one by Elliot Cohen.  Here's a mediocre but credible one by John Judis that I assigned in American Foreign Policy class.  But Cindy Sheehan and her defenders are not interested in those arguments.  They are interested in venting pure passion and taking down George Bush, damn the consequences.  Cindy Sheehan would like to talk, again, to George Bush and ask him questions.  Well, I have a question for her and those who support her: If George Bush left office today, what foreign policy would you like to see in place?  The problem with that question is that it is hard.  It requires the kind of thinking and hard decisions that the screamers and complainers are unwilling to do.  The left never bothers thinking about whether Bush's foreign policy, including the war in Iraq, is reasonably defensible. I've linked many times to Thomas Barnett's The Pentagon's New Map, which is essentially an academic's attempt to (by and large) defend the Bush foreign policy.   Cindy Sheehan won't read it and neither will her supporters because it's so much easier to just yell about what a horrible human being George Bush is and then wrap one's self in the comfortable blanket of self-satisfaction. 

I close this long post with a bit from Jonah Goldberg:

Over the last few days dozens upon dozens of Sheehan supporters have made the claim that Sheehan just wants her "questions answered." She wants to know why her son -- who reenlisted if I'm not mistaken -- died in this war. They go on to ask the same sorts of questions themselves. What about the WMDs? Why didn't we discuss this? Etc? 

I am truly flummoxed by all of this. The war has been the most debated issue imaginable for several years now. Nothing has significantly changed since the presidential election where, if I recall correctly, the war came up a couple times. The idea that the rationales for the war are just one giant mystery and Cindy Sheehan has no idea what this war is about is just public relations BS. They may not like the answers or not believe them, but the idea the questions have never been asked is just bunk. 

Also, Hillary Clinton voted for the war and still supports it. Couldn't Cindy Sheehan demand an audience with her? After all she's already met with Bush.

Politics and Religion

Just got done talking on the South Dakota Public Radio show Forum about politics and religion.  The very bright Bob Burns from SDSU was on first and then John Green from the Pew Center on Religion and University of Akron spoke.  The last segment included me and Rich Engles for Grassroots Democrats.  I thought we had a polite and informative conversation.  At some point SDPR will put up an archived version of the show.  Here is the web page for Forum.

Now What's Your Objection?

Scroll to the bottom of this page (pdf alert) and you'll see that the American Bar Association review board has unanimously rated John Roberts "well qualified" for the Supreme Court.  This is the highest rating the ABA gives, and it did so with one loud voice.  Look for Democrats to use unreleased White House memos as their basis for voting against Roberts.  They will claim that they don't have the information they need to make a decision and that the nominee is not being forthcoming.  That's the tactic they used against Miguel Estrada, because they couldn't come out and say "You're not Hispanic enough" or, in William Pryor's case, "You're too Catholic."   

Do we know Tim Johnson's position on John Roberts yet? 

Tim Kaine and NARAL

I am still getting e-mails reminding me that the Raising Kaine! website is an "independent" website, and not the official website of the Kaine campaign.  This has given me a proprietary interest in the Virginia Governor's race that I otherwise would not have had.  So I notice this:

The campaign of Democratic gubernatorial candidate Timothy M. Kaine continues to have confidence in its media consulting firm despite the firm's role in producing a controversial NARAL ad that was pulled last week, a spokeswoman said.

"We feel like the work they have done for us has been really good," campaign spokeswoman Delacey Skinner said. She added that the Kaine campaign has a fact-checking process that would weed out inaccuracies.  "Tim feels strongly" about accuracy, she said.

The Washington-based firm of Struble Eichenbaum Communications produced a television ad for NARAL Pro-Choice America that falsely accused U.S. Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr. of supporting a "convicted clinic bomber" in a legal brief.  Under fire from Democrats and Republicans, NARAL pulled the ad.

So the Kaine for Governor campaign (the official campaign, mind you) is using the same firm that produced the famously discredited ad for NARAL.  That's ok, I suppose, because Jerry Kilgore is a bad, bad man.  No wait, that was the other website!

The White Memo

Check out Deborah Orin's column in the New York Post (subscription):

President Bill Clinton's team ignored dire warnings that its approach to terrorism was "very dangerous" and could have "deadly results," according to a blistering memo just obtained by The Post.

Then-Manhattan U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White wrote the memo as she pleaded in vain with Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick to tear down the wall between intelligence and prosecutors, a wall that went beyond legal requirements.

Scott Johnson and John Hinderacker at Power Line offer some observations.

Looking East, Part II

A reader from Virginia (formerly of SD) offers this observation to my post yesturday:

The lack of an endorsement of NARAL for the Democratic nominee will
probably help him in this conservative border south state.  Kaine has
made no secret of his personal opposition to abortion so this is not
really unexpected.

Mascots

I recently blogged on an NCAA ruling denying schools with "abusive" or "hostile" mascots/nicknames the right to participate in NCAA post-season play.  The NCAA directive seems to be aimed at schools with Native American mascots.  The University of North Dakota has responded with an open letter from its president to the NCAA protesting the directive.  It looks as though UND is planning a lawsuit.  My guess is that UND and other effected schools would lose such a lawsuit.  The NCAA is a private organization and is thus able to set its own rules of membership.  But I find UND's argument here convincing that this is an ill conceived, if well intentioned, rule that deserves far more thought and nuance than the NCAA apparently has given it.  Thanks to the reader to pointed us to the UND statement. 

What Is It To Be President?

Edmund Morris has a fine piece on the emotional strain of being president. 

Media Coverage Of Iraq, Redux

A few weeks ago I questioned the media coverage of the events in Iraq.  Now there is this item noted by Media Blog at NRO:

Mark Finkelstein over at Newsbusters reported this morning that Matt Lauer got a surprise answer from a soldier on a recent trip to Iraq. After asking about morale, a few soldiers told him that morale was good. Like any good morning TV show journalist, Lauer was skeptical:

LAUER: Don't get me wrong, I think you're probably telling the truth, but there might be a lot of people at home wondering how that might be possible with the conditions you're facing and with the insurgent attacks you're facing... What would you say to people who doubt that morale could be that high?

CAPTAIN SHERMAN POWELL: Well sir, I'd tell you, if I got my news from the newspapers I'd be pretty depressed as well.

Powell said that he knows the media have a hard time getting out in Iraq and seeing the improvements, but that he's "satisfied" and "proud" of the work the United States is doing in Iraq.

Don't you also love how Lauer says, "What would you say to people who doubt that morale could be that high?" when he means, "What would you say to Matt Lauer, who doubts that morale could be that high?"

Just Shut Up And Catch The Dang Ball

Since rejoining the civilized world, i.e. getting cable TV, I have been reminded why I hate ESPN so much.  Don't get me wrong.  I love sports, and come college football season ESPN will come in very handy.  What I can't stand is the constant blathering by ex-jocks and never-were-jocks who throw out their half-baked opinions like we should really take coke snorting Michael Irvin's opinions on the NFL seriously.  I don't know which part is worse.  Is it the wannabe jock anchors who seem so eager to bask in the glow of real athletes as if to say, "Look at me!.  Peyton Manning calls me by my first name!"?  Or is it the brain dead ex-jocks who aren't even very good at reciting what other people tell them to say?    One reason I can't watch ESPN baseball broadcasts is that the announcing is so awful that it trumps the game, no matter how good the game is.  ESPN has become the Entertainment Tonight of sports.  Best exhibited in the lame ESPY Awards (good grief, another awards show), ESPN has greatly facilitated the blurring of the lines between sports and celebrity.  I have noticed that in the coverage of the Terrell Owens saga, most of the people on ESPN are content to refer to Owens as "T.O."  In addition to perpetuating modern sports' lame nicknames (remember when athletes had nicknames like Crazy Legs, The Fordham Flash, and The Splendid Splinter), the ESPN anchors talk about Owens as if he is a buddy.  Some might call the ESPN anchors obsequious; others might call them enablers.

This is why I like this piece in the WSJ by Max Boot.  He calls 'em like he sees 'em.  And he sees that Terrell Owens is a jerk and deserves to be called a jerk, not "T.O. is just looking for his props!"  By the way, Boot is also one of the foremost proponents of neo-conservative foreign policy.  I guess that means he's evil and he should stop oppressing Cindy Sheehan. 

While Africa Starves

Via Instapundit.  While self-important rock stars hold silly concerts to "raise consciences," Zimbabwe sinks deeper into brutality. I fail to see how forgiving the debt to the West will stop Robert Mugabe from terrorizing his people. 

Looking East Towards Kaine

RedState has news on the gubernatorial race in Virgina.  They note:

Big, big news tonight in the Virginia gubernatorial race.  The base continues to abandon Tim Kaine, the Democratic nominee.

There is no bigger supporter of the Democratic Party than the pro-abortion crowd. They are the heart of the Democratic base. Well, take a look at this article, fresh off the AP wire:

A leading abortion-rights group said Tuesday that it will not endorse a candidate in Virginia's race for governor.

NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia endorsed Democrats Leslie Byrne for lieutenant governor and Creigh Deeds for attorney general. It also endorsed 35 House of Delegates candidates — one independent, the rest Democrats.

Notice a name missing?  No endorsement for Tim Kaine.

NARAL, anti-Roberts, Daschle, and Johnson

During the 2004 campaign, Daschle couldn't avoid the issue of work he did for NARAL and Emily's List.  He even refused to answer a reporter's question about whether he was pro-choice and, in the process, confirmed the criticism that he was saying one thing in DC and another in SD.  Well, it turns out that campaign money wasn't NARAL's only connection to our former senator:

NARAL’s media company, Struble Eichenbaum Communications, boasts that “Our record defeating Republican incumbents is unmatched,” and has deep connections to prominent liberal Democratic Senators, including Patty Murray, who says, "…they'll help you win."

One of the firm’s founders, Karl Struble, began his career as a Democratic Party operative for Jimmy Carter and was a media consultant to Tom Daschle, who lost his Senate re-election race last year. Struble, who is said to emphasize feelings over issues in his political commercials, has referred to George W. Bush as “the president of the big oil companies” and Dick Cheney as “the Vice President from Halliburton.”

Daschle isn't alone.  His fellow colleague Tim Johnson also has connections to NARAL:

An investigation by Accuracy in Media (AIM) reveals that the Democratic media company behind the controversial NARAL ad attacking Supreme Court nominee Judge John Roberts includes a media guru who handled the three biggest Senate Democratic wins in 2002 – Mark Pryor, Tim Johnson, and Mary Landrieu. The ad, running on CNN despite charges that it is false and deceitful, accuses Roberts of supporting anti-abortion terrorism.

UPDATE:  A reader points out that NARAL was even more generous.  One of Stephanie Herseth's top contributors in 2004 was NARAL and she is already receiving money from them for 2006.

Sun Dance

I was scanning through my stack of articles on my desk and stumbled upon this one that I forgot to post about before I left for Iowa (so please excuse it for being a week old).  From the Aberdeen American News:

At the second annual Timothy Iron Bear Sun Dance, three non-Indians were obvious among the 13 dancers.

They were welcome at this sacred ceremony. But they wouldn't be allowed at all sun dances.

To some tribal members it's racist to bar non-Indians. To others, it's a matter of cultural integrity, preservation and protection. ...

Arvol Looking Horse, a chief of the Rosebud Sioux, opposes attendance by non-Indians:

"I feel pain in my heart because a lot of our own people can't trust our medicine men," he said.  "It's not about being racist . . . [i]t's about protecting our culture." ...

Frank King Jr., a Rosebud Sioux and owner/publisher of the Native Voice newspaper, said the 1990 release of the movie "Dances With Wolves" prompted some people to begin "searching for spirituality, searching for something."

"Indian people milked it for money," King said. "Our people are not as spiritual as the stereotype makes us to be."

Halting the practice of charging non-Indians was discussed at the 2003 protection meeting, Looking Horse said.

But some medicine men broke their words and continued to sell their culture, he said.

Footnote:  As an historical tidbit, the article mentions Leonard Crow Dog.  Crow Dog was the American Indian Movement's spiritual leader.

A Little Judicial Humor

One thing that makes me hopeful about John Roberts is that, unlike most of the black robes, he can write sentences that are both intelligent and elegant.  He also appears to have a sense of humor.  This from one of his infamous memos, reported in the Washington Times:

Judge Roberts said the administration should not allow Reagan family friend Helen F. Boehm to use a quote from Mr. Reagan to advertise a new china pattern that the Boehm Porcelain Co. was selling. Mrs. Boehm had said she designed the pattern after hearing the Reagan quote.
    "This would not only contravene established White House policy concerning endorsement of commercial products, but also, given this particular pattern, call into serious question the president's taste in dinner service," Judge Roberts wrote to White House Counsel Fred F. Fielding. "Of course, only the former point need be made in the reply to Mrs. Boehm."

I can hardly wait to read his first opinion. 

Does Roberts Support Prayer in Public Schools?

I don't know, and most likely neither do you.  One sure can't tell from his position on Wallace v. Jaffree (1985).  But the Associated Press and even the Washington Times have pounced on a memo about that case.  The problem is that prayer in the schools is not what the case is about.

Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr. personally believed that a moment of voluntary silent prayer in public schools is constitutional, according to new documents released yesterday from his time in the Reagan administration. . . .

    "The conclusion in Jaffree v. Wallace that the Constitution prohibits such a moment of silent reflection -- or even silent prayer -- seems indefensible," he wrote in a Nov. 21, 1985, memo.

Now, based on the brief quote from Roberts here, I am inclined to think that Robert's was getting the case wrong.  In so far as Roberts believes that "voluntary silent prayer is public schools is constitutional," he merely in agreement with "settled law."  No one has ever said that an individual cannot pray in school, especially if the prayer is silent and non-disruptive.  Moreover Sandra Day O'Connor, whom Justice Roberts would replace, emphatically believed that in sponsoring a moment of "silent mediation" the state would not be sponsoring prayer, and therefore would not invite an establishment clause challenge. 

What was special about the Alabama law that was challenged in Wallace was the the State legislature, having in 1978 authorized a one-minute period of silence "for meditation", went back in 1981 and amended the language to read "for meditation or silent prayer."  The Court struck this down, O'Connor concurring, on the grounds that the change was religiously motivated. 

Now I think what happened here is simply that the Court got mad.  The change in the language of the law had no consequences for anyone, and it was silly to even hear the case.  But its hard to see any clear constitutional question coming out of this case, and so there is nothing much to add to Robert's record.

 

Dakfest

For those who will be in Mitchell tomorrow, Senator Thune, Senator Johnson, and Representative Herseth will be at Dakotafest tomorrow at 1 p.m. 

I won't be able to attend due to my job, but if any readers out there happen to attend, feel free to email us a summary of the event.

Never Met An Abortion They Didn't Like

South Dakota War College recently had a very reasonable post on the "culture wars."  The essential point, I think, is that as long as parents feel as though their parental authority is under assault from certain parts of the culture they will have some anger about the status of the culture. 

For example, I went back to Planned Parenthood of San Francisco to see if their Superhero For Choice movie was back up.  They are advertising it on their home page, but the link seems to be broken.  But I did find this nugget.  Planned Parenthood wants to make sure minors in California can have abortions without their parents knowing about it.  The extremism of this position can be seen if one reads the proposed law.  The bill proposes, among other things, that parents of minors seeking abortion should be notified that their child is going to get this procedure, but the proposition allows exceptions for medical emergency.  It also allows for judicial bypass in cases where "minor is sufficiently mature to give informed consent" or "if there is evidence of physical or sexual abuse by the parent or guardian (in which case the matter would have to be referred to the county child protection agency); or if notification would not be in the minor’s best interest."  These seem like generous exceptions to me.  What other act do treat this way?  If California is like most states, a fourteen-year-old girl can't get her ears pierced without parental consent.  She can't take a school trip to the circus without the permission slip returned.  Do we allow the cosmologist or school officials to say, "Well, she seems mature enough. Let's let her do this without telling her parents"?  Yet Planned Parenthood wants to make sure that she can get an abortion not only without her parents' approval, but without her parents ever being notified.  Planned Parenthood also supports giving contraception to children without parental knowledge or consent. 

Recall that Stephanie Herseth thinks it's just fine to transport minor girls across state lines so they can get abortions without their parents knowing.  Also recall that two of her biggest contributors are Planned Parenthood and the recently disgraced National Abortion Rights Action League.  By far her biggest contributor is the pro-abortion EMILY's List.  Like Herseth, none of these groups has ever met an abortion they didn't like.  But the issue here is not abortion; it's the idea that certain groups want to isolate children from their parents and keep parents in the dark as this significant moral decision is being considered. 

NEA Versus Wal-Mart

The National Education Association, which claims to care about education, is asking parents to boycott Wal-Mart during this "back to school" purchasing season.  I never cease to be amazed at the left's concerted effort to demonize a company that employees thousands and makes low cost items easily available to low income people.  Wouldn't it be nice to be as arrogant as the NEA and not care how much people pay for school supplies?  The NEA, as the linked article indicates, is a labor union designed to protect the jobs of teachers.  That's all fine and dandy.  But let's not confuse them with a group that is dedicated to quality education. I had a college friend whose father was the superintendent of one of the largest and most successful school districts in Illinois.  In fact President Clinton visited this district to cite it as an example of a model school district.  I asked my friend's father once what made his district so successful and this staunch Democrat said, "Our teachers aren't unionized."  Maybe the NEA should spend less time whining about Wal-Mart and more time pondering why our schools so drasticly underperform (see chart below).

Slow Posting

I'm in the process of moving so posting will be light for the next few days. 

Cindy Sheehan and the Wild, Wild, Left

I have not posted anything on the Cindy Sheehan business, largely on account of being a coward.  Exactly how do you criticize the actions of a mother who lost her son?  But Ms. Sheehan's grief is not a blanket grant of immunity, and she seems to be hanging with some very dubious company.  She spoke at a rally in San Francisco for Lynne Stewart, the lawyer who was convicted in February of aiding Islamic terrorism.  Ms. Stewart apparently acted as a conduit between the Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and his followers.  According to the New York Times:

Ms. Stewart was convicted on two counts of conspiring to provide material aid to terrorists, by making the views and instructions of Mr. Abdel Rahman available to his followers in the Islamic Group, an organization in Egypt with a history of terrorist violence. She was also convicted of three counts of perjury and defrauding the government for flouting federal prison rules that barred Mr. Abdel Rahman, a blind Islamic cleric, from communicating with anyone outside his federal prison in Minnesota except his lawyers and his wife.

Apparently there was no dispute about what Ms. Stewart actually did. 

After Mr. Abdel Rahman was sentenced in 1996 to life in prison, his followers issued a series of threats against the United States demanding his release. Prosecutors imposed rules, known as special administrative measures, that barred the sheik, already held in solitary confinement, from communicating with anyone outside prison but his lawyers and his wife.

Ms. Stewart repeatedly signed documents in which she agreed to uphold the rules.

She brought a letter containing messages from Islamic Group members to a meeting with the sheik in the prison in Rochester, Minn., in May 2000. She received a statement from the sheik and on June 14 called a reporter in Cairo and read him the statement. The sheik said he was withdrawing support for a cease-fire the Islamic Group had observed for three years in Egypt.

As far as I can make out from the NYTs article, her sole defense was that these actions were part of a "legal strategy" and that some kind of "unwritten lawyer's "bubble" in the prison rules" gave her a right to ignore all the agreements that she signed.  There is no doubt whose side she's on.  When she heard that a group of terrorists in the Philipines had taken hostages, she said "good for them."  She also bragged that she should get an academy award for distracting the guards so that her translator could convey messages to the Sheik. 

Well, this is the kind of person Cindy Sheehan is now taking up arms with.  Now there are two possibilities: Ms. Sheehan either does or does not grasp what kind of folks these are.  Looking at the transcript of the speeches, it could go either way.  This is excerpt from Ms. Sheehan's remarks.

I was raised in a country by a public school system that taught us that America was good, that America was just. America has been killing people, like my sister over here says, since we first stepped on this continent, we have been responsible for death and destruction. I passed on that bullshit to my son and my son enlisted. I’m going all over the country telling moms: “This country is not worth dying for. If we’re attacked, we would all go out. We’d all take whatever we had. I’d take my rolling pin and I’d beat the attackers over the head with it. But we were not attacked by Iraq. {applause} We might not even have been attacked by Osama bin Laden if {applause}. 9/11 was their Pearl Harbor to get their neo-con agenda through and, if I would have known that before my son was killed, I would have taken him to Canada. I would never have let him go and try and defend this morally repugnant system we have. The people are good, the system is morally repugnant. {applause}

Now this is pretty incoherent.  Does she or does she not think that America is worth defending?  Apparently,  but only with rolling pins.

None of this is very important.  But if the MSM wants to make a hero of Ms. Sheehan, it needs to know with whom it is dealing.

 

The Power of Forgiveness

The DVD version of To End All Wars includes a "making of" documentary in which a couple of the Japanese actors explain that the wounds of the Second World War will never truly heal until their country comes to grips with the unspeakable horrors that were committed in its name.  Thus it is heartening to see this story relating recent attempts by the Japanese government to recognize and apologize for the atrocities committed in the name of Japan. 

This weekend I read King Rat by James Clavell.  I highly recommend for those interested in life inside a WWII Japanese prison camp.  There is enough intrigue and humor in the novel to make the uglier side of the story more palatable. 

No news is good news if its good for Republicans.

I know its hard to remember back that far, but a year ago a Democratic presidential campaign was talking about how George W. Bush had ruined the economy.  As theme, it was second only to Bush's career in the Air National Guard.  So how does the economy look now?  The Wall Street Journal has a helpful editorial on this. 

We would like to take a moment to pause and marvel at the U.S. economy. Last week's Labor Department report of more than 200,000 new jobs in July, and two million over the past year, provides the latest bullish details. But the larger story of American job creation, and its causes, is even more impressive.

First, more Americans have jobs today than at any other time in history. Second, over the past two decades or so, the U.S. has created more than 40 million jobs--twice as many as Europe and Japan combined. And third, the U.S. has one of the lowest jobless rates of all developed nations.

More jobs created than in Europe and Japan combined.  One wonders if Michael Dukakis has finished that book on Swedish land use planning yet.  Back in 1988 I speculated that it would take about this long to read. 

Of course Bush is responsible only for the end of that period, and must accept responsibility for the recession that occurred as he came on watch.  Still,

The 5% jobless rate today is almost a percentage point below what it was during the same stage of the business cycle during the vaunted "Clinton expansion."  In the past 24 months 3.5 million more Americans have found work, which is the equivalent of a new job for every worker in the entire state of Indiana. Every single job that was lost during the bursting of the technology bubble and stock market collapse of 2000-01 has been matched by a new job, often in a new industry.

One wonders if, perchance, it had anything to do with Bush's tax cut?  Well, the Journal has a chart.

No doubt it is a complete coincidence that Bush's tax cut was followed by a strong economic recovery, just as it was accidental that Ronald Reagan and John F. Kennedy did the same thing and saw the same results follow.  History can be irritating.

The current line coming from the liberal chatterbox is that the low unemployment figures are really bad news. 

Why? Because American workers are allegedly becoming discouraged in their quest to find work, and this surge in dropout workers brings the real jobless rate to between 6% and 8%. The evidence for a surge in discouraged workers is that the percentage of working age Americans in the labor force has fallen from an all-time high of 67.3% to 66.0% today. If this seems worrisome, it isn't. The average labor force participation rate for the post-World War II period is 63%--well below today's rate.

In fact, the relative drop in labor force participation is a sign that some American families are comfortable enough to invest their time in something other than a job. 

With median family income now above $52,000 a year, more families can maintain a comfortable lifestyle with one spouse working rather than two.

I seem to recall that, back in the Reagan era, the complaint was that too many people were working. 

Ironically, for years critics of the U.S. economy have complained that Americans are "overworked" and that "it now takes two incomes to produce the living standard that once required just a working father." To the U.S. bashers, it is a sign of decline if more people are working, and it is just as bad if fewer people are working.

The bad news that seems to follow from Republican policies is the sort of bad news we can handle.