South Dakota Politics

Let Me Gaze Into My Crystal Ball

Jason links to some predictions from NRO.  Let me join the game by making my own predictions for 2006.

• 2006 will have approximately 365 days.
• Anna Nicole Smith wins her Supreme Court case.  In another attempt to gain inheritance from a nearly dead rich guy, she marries Ted Kennedy's liver.  She offends the nation's sensibilities by wearing white and the couple honeymoons in a vodka bottle.
• South Dakota Governor Mike Rounds creates a scandal when he flies the state airplane to Acapulco for Spring Break.  A photo emerges showing him taking a jello shot from a co-ed's belly button.  Rounds still goes on to win re-election with 103% of the vote.  Analysts disagree as to how his Democratic opponent exceeded expectations.
• At the end of the year I am still taller than Ken Blanchard.  Prof. Blanchard must wait another year to achieve his lifelong dream: sitting at the "big kids" table at Thanksgiving. 
• The biggest news coming out of the 2006 South Dakota legislative session is the disappearance of the entire Democratic caucus.  After weeks of feverish searching it turns out they were at the Capitol the whole time. 
• In other legislative news, Sen. Bill Napoli proposes a bill eliminating public funding for education stating, "It's time for the little buggers to learn they can't live off the government teat." 
• Trying to further moderate her image, Stephanie Herseth changes her name to John Thune.  For no apparent reason, Tim Johnson changes his name to Ben Cartwright. 
• Prof. Blanchard and David Newquist decide to settle their differences the old fashioned way: stare contest.  Newquist is crushed when he finds out that Blanchard has not blinked since the third grade due to an unfortunate Crazy Glue accident.  The nickname Ken "Krazee Eyez" Blanchard ain't for nuthin'. 
• Sen. Rick Santorum finds himself in the middle of controversy when he off-handedly remarks that Barbara Boxer is "dead above the neck."  Michael Schiavo then volunteers to pull the plug on Sen. Boxer. 
• George Bush's poor diction strikes again.  In his State Of The Union address, while attempting to say "defense appropriations" he actually says, "Nancy Pelosi is a hideous bitch goddess."  Washington tongues wag as Steny Hoyer is seen nodding in agreement.
• And finally, the planet Earth creeps one year closer to being ruled by bionic monkeys.  In an attempt to make our lives easier, American scientists will create a race of robot helper monkeys.  They're half robot, half monkey.  But there is one thing scientists don't count on: the insane monkey desire for power. 

The State of the National Economy

Chad at CCK and I exchanged a couple of strategic posts over the state of the economy.  In a recent post he has this comment:

As I've stated on this weblog before, the President and conservatives like to trot out big macroeconomic numbers like GDP growth and job growth to the cameras as an illustration as to why people should be happy with the economic state of the country. The problem, of course, is that the economy may be growing ever so slightly since early 2002, but the growth hasn't benefited average Americans. Median wages are actually down in this country. Health care costs -- insurance premiums, prescription drugs, and bills -- have eaten into our earnings. GOP economic policy focuses on cutting taxes for high earners, and those dollars aren't "trickling down".

Chad doesn't seem to like being confused with big facts about GDP growth and job growth.  But I can't help thinking that job growth does in fact benefit average Americans, most of whom need jobs.  So forgive me for pointing out that the economy has been creating about 200,000 jobs a month this year.  Maybe there are more rich job seekers out there than I imagine, but I still think that a lot of those 200,000 workers are in fact pretty average.  I would also point out that far more Americans are working than ever before.  Under President Clinton's last year, 2000, 137 million Americans had jobs.  The number declined for the next two years (after all, Bush is the enemy of the American worker) but then mysterious rose to 138 million in 2003.  It stands at 142 million now.  I suspect that those 5 million new job holders include a lot of average Americans.  Now one might point out that the population is growing.  I do not know that these figures are adjusted for that.  But if not, isn't that the most important function of an economy: to provide new jobs for whatever population it will have?

As for hourly wages, Chad seems to be referring to the Economic Policy Institute (Research and Ideas for Working People!) numbers.  They make a lot of the fact that in 2003 inflation outpaced wage growth, resulting in a net loss in real hourly wages.  It would nasty of me to point out that the same thing happened in 1996, during an economic recovery!  I believe a Democrat was in the White House back then.  So I won't point that out.  I will note that real hourly wages have grown since then.  The Secretary of the Treasury sums it up:

Real hourly wages are up 1.1 percent versus the previous business cycle peak in early 2001.  That means workers are today earning more per hour in real terms than they did at the height of the 1990s expansion.  By comparison, at the same point in the business cycle of the 1990s, real hourly wages were down 2.1 percent.

So real hourly wages (apparently this isn't one of those "big macroeconomic numbers" that Chad dislikes) are in fact rising, and are higher than in the 1990's (under that Democratic President).  We note that real personal expenditures have also been growing, as the recent Christmas season confirms.  Ok, so this is an economic disaster.  But surely it could have been worse.

Chad graciously acknowledges that the economy is growing "ever so slightly."  Well, 4.5% this year is hardly slight growth.  Its better, for example, than more enlightened Europe.  Over the years of the Bush administration, GDP growth averages 3%.  It was 2.7% in Canada, 2.4 in Great Britain.  France managed 1.4%.  I have blogged on some of the consequences of this for the average French worker.  Germany and Italy achieve an anemic .5%.  So it could be worse.

Chad does not want to hear that the economy is doing well.  He doesn't want to hear it because it would reflect well on George Bush.  I do want to hear it, for the same reason.  I think that makes Chad and I pretty average.  I would like to give Bush all the credit for this economy, but that would not be sound thinking.  Presidents can do relatively little about the economies they inherit.  Their policies will have their real effect long after the policy maker leaves office.  I think Clinton gets a lot for the current economic boom, as Reagan did for the 1990's economic expansion.  But if we want to think clearly about this, we have to recognize the reality before us.  Just right now, the economy is doing very well. 
 

Primary Scheduling II

Thoughtful reader Blaine Wilson responded to my proposal for primary scheduling reform with a counter proposal.  My proposal was as follows:

South Dakota should call a national convention of state party organizations. The convention will design a rational primary schedule.  States will be sorted into groups each of which contains large and small states, and represents all the major regions. Beginning in January or February, one of these groups of states will hold their primaries and/or caucuses on each first Tuesday of the following months, ending just before the national conventions.  A lottery will determine which states get which month the first time round, and after that the groups will rotate.

Here is Blaine's proposal:

What I propose is a single national presidential primary.  I know states bundle other primaries and races with their presidential primaries, but I feel this is the way to inject some life back into the process.  I would think that possibly an April or May time frame would be sufficient.  It would also add some life to the national party conventions.  I, for one, am absolutely sick and tired of the made-for-TV event that those conventions have become.  Imagine 3 or 4 candidates rolling into town with 22-27% of the delegates needed for nomination, and a process requiring multiple ballots. It is my opinion that this scenario features the American political process at its best, not this "elected by March" nonsense that we've had to endure recently.

I think the idea of a holding all primaries and caucuses on the same day is certainly interesting, but it rests on a different assumption than mine does.  Blaine thinks that the national conventions might be restored to their former function, as bodies that deliberate and actually choose the nominee.  Now I have to admit that I find that a very attractive proposition.  I think that in many ways we were better off when party activists, who live and breathe politics, selected nominees for the rest of us to ultimately choose among.  But I am not sure that a national primary day would do the trick.  It might mean that only candidates who had the money to organize and advertise nationally would have a chance, and that relatively unknown candidates would find it impossible to compete.  Also, candidates would probably be forced concentrate their resources in large states and pretty much neglect the others. 

More importantly, the idea of deliberative conventions is probably inconsistent with the very idea of primaries.  Today the national conventions serve two functions.  One mirrors the electoral college: they translate popular votes into delegates.  This allows the party organizations to have a roll only as tie breakers.  The second function is to allow the parties to make a one week presentation to the American public.  I do not share Blaine's distaste for these events.  Its  the only chance for the people to get a good look at the Republicans and Democrats assembled.  I think that the last party conventions played a decisive roll in the election, as they revealed that the former had a foreign policy and the latter did not. 

As long as we are keeping primaries, and I think that is not open to question, I prefer a gradual season such as we have now.  A long primary season provides an occasion for arguments to arise, and for candidates to stake out their positions and respond to one another's challenges.  More states would get more visits, and the electorate gets a pretty good picture of each candidate as he or she works to form a national coalition.

But Blaine's proposal is certainly worth thinking about, and I am grateful for this submission. 

Mike Miller

Some hometown news:

Los Angeles Lakers star Kobe Bryant was suspended for two games without pay today for elbowing Mike Miller of the Memphis Grizzlies in the throat.

Bryant was called for a flagrant foul for elbowing Miller with 8:24 remaining in the fourth quarter in Wednesday night's 100-99 overtime loss to the Grizzlies. He is scheduled to serve his suspension Sunday, when the Lakers host Utah, and Tuesday, when Los Angeles plays at the Jazz.

For those that don't know, Mike Miller played incredible basketball for the Mitchell Kernels, where he was named Player-of-the-Year in South Dakota as both a junior and senior. 

NRO '06 Predictions

NRO has a symposium on 2006 predictions.  Ned Rice, a staff writer on the CBS talk show The Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson, provides this amusing list:

• Brokeback Mountain becomes the first winner of a new Academy Award category, "Gayest Movie." Winners note that it's fabulous just to be nominated, girlfriend.
• George and Laura Bush file their 2005 income-tax returns, listing Cindy Sheehan as a dependent.
• In a speech announcing his bid for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, Joe Biden accidentally plagiarizes a speech he gave several years ago.
• John Kerry announces that he's running for president. Puzzled, a reporter shouts out, "Of what?"
• Barbara Boxer says something incredibly stupid.
• Federal government scraps Witness Protection Program, starts giving witnesses in need of anonymity their own shows on Air America Radio.
• Louisiana governor Kathleen Blanco orders the mandatory evacuation of the city of New Orleans.
• With strong bipartisan support Congress calls for a three-month embargo on Angelina Jolie adopting any more kids from the third world.
• Americans cheer as Martha Stewart and Robert Blake announce their engagement.
• In lieu of lapel ribbons, Hollywood conservatives begin attending awards ceremonies with their fingertips dyed purple.
• Elton John's new husband David Furnish announces that he is pregnant.
• Barbara Boxer fails to grasp an elementary concept of representative democracy.
• European Union members vote to reject a new Iraqi constitution.
• Massachusetts amends their state constitution to ban heterosexual marriage.
• Mayor Ray Nagin orders the mandatory evacuation of the city of New Orleans.
• Lyndon LaRouche issues a statement from prison publicly distancing himself from Air America Radio co-founder Sheldon Drobny.
• Astronomers discover a tenth planet, which is immediately declared "non-smoking" by the FDA.
• Howard Dean announces, "The idea that the New England Patriots are going to repeat as Super Bowl champions this year is just plain wrong."
• Hoping to regain her anonymity, Valerie Plame announces plans to host a prime-time TV show on MSNBC.
• Tookie Williams' final children's book — OK, So I Shot Those Four Mo-Fos — is published posthumously and gets a glowing review in the New York Times.
• More gloomy economic news for President Bush as thousands of unemployment offices are forced to close.
• A grim milestone in Paris as the 100,000th car is torched since the current unrest began. On a positive note, French automakers begin hiring assembly line workers again.
• Environmental artist Christo announces plans to wrap colorful nylon panels around Cindy Sheehan.

 The best prediction comes from the incomparable Mark Steyn:

Hollywood will have another bad year following the failure of its latest critically-acclaimed masterpiece. In Broke Bank Mountin', the entire movie industry is flying in a jet to New York when a terrorist stewardess announces she's crushing their dissent by crashing the plane into the Empire State Building. Fortunately, an unemployed giant gorilla from Animal Equity is rampaging around at the top of the tower after his film career tanked when he agreed to take a challenging role in which he played the world's first gay giant gorilla and answers a personal ad in the Village Voice from a plus-sized bear. The enraged ape reaches into the sky and picks up the plane, sending the terrorist stewardess tumbling to the back of coach, where her wig falls off and she's revealed to be Dick Cheney. Industry insiders will be taken aback by the $300-million multi-Oscar-nominated flop but have high hopes for the new Spielberg movie Cycle Of Violence starring Nicole Kidman and Kate Winslet as Israeli and Palestinian unicyclists who elope after the Cirque du Soleil opening ceremony at the Italian Olympics.

DM&E Railroad

John Thune's project moves ahead:

The federal Surface Transportation Board Friday reaffirmed its approval for the Dakota Minnesota and Eastern Railroad’s Powder River Basin Project.

The STB released its final supplemental environmental impact statement on the project. In it, the STB lays out only one new condition for the railroad. It requires the DM&E to do community liaison work to help towns through which the railroad’s coal trains pass to establish quiet zones if those communities choose to have them.

The DM&E’s Powder River Basin plans call for the largest new railroad construction in more than 100 years.

In addition to renovating its entire line across Minnesota and South Dakota, the DM&E plans to build more than 200 miles of new rail line south around the Black Hills, then north to Wyoming’s Powder River Basin coalfields.

Productivity Surges Under Bush!

Powerline directs us to this fundamental story about the economy, by Arnold Kling, at Tech Central Station.  Productivity means output per worker-hour (non-farm).  If a worker building four computers a hour changes some routine or uses new equipment, and thereby manages to build five computers an hour, his productivity has increased by 25%.  If American workers produce more goods per hour this year than last, that is a national increase in productivity.

Productivity is the single most important measure of economic strength, for everything else relies on it.  See Tech Central's interview with William Lewis, author of The Power of Productivity.  Liberals tend to measure economic progress by distribution: who gets what out of the economy.  That's indeed a very important question.  Conservatives tend to point out that questions of distribution can only be asked if there is something to distribute.  Only productivity can supply the food, shelter, and PlayStation's that the vox populi cries out for. 

Says William Lewis:

 Productivity is the best single measure of what leads to differences in economic performance. Even though GDP per capita is the all-encompassing measure, GDP per capita is determined primarily, almost entirely, by productivity. People basically work in order to have a place to sleep and something to eat and so on and so forth. The huge differences around the world are the efficiencies with which they work -- their productivity. So it is the power of productivity that determines what the global economic landscape looks like and because there are such differences, we have quite a number of severe issues that face us today.

Consider that the number of workers who support each retiree has dropped steadily over the last century, from about 50 to 1, to 3 to 1 today.  Yet both retirees and workers have seen their standard of living increase.  How so?  Only because today's workers are vastly more productive.  By the middle of the next century, it will take two workers churning out golf clubs to support one octogenarian playing golf.  Only productivity growth will make that possible. 

So how are we doing?  Here is Kling's chart. 

Five-year average annual productivity growth, first quarter to first quarter:

Period	Average Productivity Growth
1955-1960	2.03
1960-1965	2.79
1965-1970	2.09
1970-1975	2.31
1975-1980	1.55
1980-1985	1.38
1985-1990	1.65
1990-1995	1.59
1995-2000	2.28
2000-2005	3.39

What the table says is that the economy today is in great shape. The average productivity growth rate in the last five years is the highest over the past half century.

Productivity growth under President Bush has been higher than  under any president over the last half century.  It is well better than Clinton's record, and  more than twice as strong as the Carter to Bush 41 years.

Now I would love to tell you that Bush 43 was responsible for this boom.  But I don't believe that.  Kling explains why.

What does this outstanding productivity performance say about economic policy under President Bush? Nothing. Let me repeat. Nothing. There is no political point-scoring to be made out of the news on productivity.

First of all, it is important to understand that, for the most part, productivity growth is the economy's gift to policymakers, not the other way around. It would be foolish to attribute to tax cuts that which ought to be attributed to Moore's Law.

Second, even when economic policy affects productivity growth, the effect comes with a long lag. We do not know how much of today's productivity growth reflects Clinton-era policies or Reagan-era policies or even the deregulation that began under President Carter.

It is easier to argue that  Reagan, or Clinton is responsible for today's astounding figures.  But it is ludicrous to argue that the current economy is not amazingly strong.  Measured by more traditional standards like jobs and output, the economy roars along.  This in spite of a  hurricane that took a big bite out of our economic capacity, and soaring gas prices.  If you really want workers and retirees to prosper, the question is what we have been doing and are doing that is producing these numbers.

Battlestar Galactica Tops Times 2005 TV Review

Jay Redding notes that Time Magazine critic James Poniewozik picks BSG as the number one show of 2005.

Most of you probably think this entry has got to be a joke. The rest of you have actually watched the show. Adapted from a cheesy '70s Star Wars clone of the same name, Galactica (returning in January) is a ripping sci-fi allegory of the war on terror, complete with religious fundamentalists (here, genocidal robots called Cylons), sleeper cells, civil-liberties crackdowns and even a prisoner-torture scandal. The basic-cable budget sometimes shows in the production, but the writing and performances are first-class, especially Edward James Olmos as the noble but authoritarian commander in charge of saving the last remnants of humanity. Laugh if you want, but this story of enemies within is dead serious, and seriously good.

Now I have one big gripe with this.  I don't watch enough TV to produce any such ranking, but HBO's Deadwood is almost certainly the best thing I have ever seen on TV.  In the three most important features of film, storytelling, dialog, and texture, it is heads and tails above Battlestar Galactica and almost any other contender.  I have lent out my first season DVD collection of Deadwood to a couple of my colleagues, Professor Schaff and Dean of Arts and Sciences Dave Grettler.  The latter came back looking and talking like a  religious convert. The show is that good.

But BSG is certainly excellent TV.  I hadn't thought of it as a metaphor for the war on terror.  Come to think of it, Col. Saul Tigh (played by Canadian Michael Hogan), does look a little like Dick Cheney.  I think that Poniewozik is quite right to point out the religious theme in the show.  Science fiction is, oddly enough, one of the best contexts in which to tell new religious stories.  Season Three starts on January 6th.

ENDNOTE: Jay Reding's blog has one of the best layouts and visually compelling designs in the Dakota Blog Alliance. 

Elsworth vs. Jumpin' Jack Frost

Mr. Heppler posts below on the Rapid City Journal and its assertion that Elsworth, not the blizzard, was the most important South Dakota story of 2005.  Now Jason is master of the "we report, you decide" style of internet journalism.  He often posts a story without stating any judgment though in most cases readers can guess where he stands.  The title of Jason's post "RCJ: Elsworth should top list" merely identifies the Journal's position. 

Reader Jeff Meyer dissents, in a compelling letter.

I disagree with you about the Ellsworth vs ice storm story.  We were without power or water for 9 days in sub 0 temps.  Try keeping your house from freezing, your livestock watered, and your toilet flushed for 9 days without electricity.  To say nothing about no TV or video games.  I even had to resort to talking to the wife and kids for several evenings.

 

I have served on a local volunteer ambulance service for 17 years.  During the storm, we had a call to a residence for a carbon monoxide poisoning.  I went to the ambulance building and was unable to open the door because it is electronically operated.  I pulled the emergency lever, and tried to open it manually.  It was covered with 2" of ice, and was far too heavy to open.  We finally chipped enough ice off so we could open it by hand, and then it was an adventure getting to the scene because of the ice and snow in the yard.  We had 2 such calls like this because of generators and propane heaters being improperly used in houses.

 

Now, remember, cars, trucks, tractors, etc. are dependent on electric engine heaters in order to start during cold weather.  Many farmers were unable to start their engines for lack of electricity.  Our town was without water after the first 24 hours.  The fire department had water in their trucks, but they were afraid that they would freeze up.  The nursing home had a generator, but ran out of water quickly.  Every store in our town was quickly 'bought out" of supplies.  The local gasoline stations were unable to pump gas for generators because their pumps would not work without electricity.  Suppliers were unable to get supplies into town because of blocked streets.  The only things able to move were snowmobiles, and it was very hazardous to ride them because of downed power lines, poles and trees.

 

After 4 days, we drove nearly 200 miles to purchase a generator so we could water our cattle, and then were able to keep heat in our house.  We then took several elderly people into our home for the duration of the outage. 

 

The power companies did a tremendous job of restoring power as quickly as they did.  But---in many cases the repairs were temporary, and we have had several outages since the restoration of the power.  In reality, we are just one big wind from another disastrous outage again.

 

Now, this is just one small community, but I read somewhere that there were over 100 communities affected by this storm.  Over 56,000 homes and businesses were affected.  If you estimate that there were 3 people in each home, you would come up with 168,000 people without power for days.

 

It wasn't the snow, it was the ice that did the damage.  The snow afterward was the icing on the cake.

I have two comments.  On the one hand, I think that the rescue of Elsworth was, by ordinary standards of journalism, the bigger story.  The closure of the base would have permanently ended thousands of jobs, and left the state looking for a long-term replacement for millions of dollars in revenue.  It would also have had a deep impact on the politics of the state.  I very much hope that the impact of the blizzard is short term story.

On the other hand, Mr. Meyer's excellent letter convinces me that the blizzard of 2005 (lets hope that was the blizzard of this winter) was one of the most under reported stories of the year.  It should have been a national story, and would have been, if it weren't for the fact that blizzards are harder to blame on global warming than hurricanes. 

But in all fairness, it was under-reported in the state as well.  We are still remarkably isolated from one another.  Living in Aberdeen, which was lightly hit and better able to deal with such an emergency, most folk didn't feel like anything that big was happening.  I think our local media is generally pretty good, given its resources.  But it didn't communicate the scale or personal impact of this event nearly so well as Jeff's letter.

Top Politicians of '05

SD War College has compiled a list of the top 10 political personalities of 2005.  Number three on the list was John Thune:

3. U.S. Senator John Thune

The man. John Thune is the man.

After a loss to South Dakota’s Junior Senator, he came back and made the decision to take on a tougher battle. And he beat the Senate Minority Leader. He’s largely credited with saving Ellsworth, because if it hadn’t been saved, he would have gotten the lion's share of the blame.

Sure, he’s taken his lumps from those he defeated. It’s expected. And its not going to let up. But 2005 was without a doubt, his year.

Among the power elite in Washington, after beating Daschle, for a short time he was the BMOC - a status he gave up when he fought the administration on Ellsworth. Almost overnight, he went from favored son, to fallen idol. But now, just a few short months later, they’re looking at him to take over the Senatorial Campaign Committee. From favored son, to wayward son… and now back to favored son again.

Others can look on in envy, but John is the man. And there’s no doubt about that.

PP's assessment of Stephanie Herseth (who ranked fourth) is entertaining as well.  I recommend reading the whole thing.  PP also provides 2006 predictions. 

RCJ: Ellsworth Should Top the List

The Rapid City Journal Editorial Board responds to the AP's list of the top 10 South Dakota news stories for 2005:

Associated Press editors and broadcasters voted the Nov. 27-28 blizzard in central and eastern South Dakota as the top story in South Dakota in 2005. A blizzard??

No. 2 in the list of the state's top stories was Ellsworth Air Force Base's possible closure.

Granted that the Top 10 list was chosen by a vote of journalists - who tend to make a mountain out of a snowdrift anyway - but how is a blizzard more important than Ellsworth?

The East River blizzard story melted away after about two weeks, but the fate of Ellsworth was a front-page story from May, when the base was put on the Pentagon's base closure list, until August, when it was taken off. During that four-month period, South Dakota was facing the loss of its second-largest employer. We were plenty worried, even if the rest of the state apparently was not.

Look at this way: Which story had more long-term consequences for the state? Losing Ellsworth for good? Or losing power for several days? When the Defense Department was contemplating turning the power off at Ellsworth, they weren't planning on turning it back on.

If both events happened on the same day, here's how we would headline it: "ELLSWORTH OFF CLOSURE LIST; Snow falls in East River."

The majority of votes for the AP's Top 10 list came from East River journalists, illustrating once again the differences between East and West River: "If it doesn't happen East River, it's not important."

Politics

NRO:  The Best and Worst: A look back at the political news of 2005 

Quote of the Day

Telegraph:  "You see, the real reason I became a communist was to impress girls. Back then, all the pretty ones were revolutionaries. One of the things that's gone wrong for the Left is that their girls just aren't cute any more." - P.J. O'Rourke

Blogs

Blogs:  "are more popular than pizza, college football, guns, the National Football League, the mainstream media (no surprise), President Bush (ditto) and online poker combined."

HT to Instapundit.

Never Say No To A State Fair

The Strib has picked up on the proposal to shut down the South Dakota State Fair. 

Warrentless Searches IV: the Democrat's Conundrum

I have said before that the Democrats ought to get credit for defending civil liberties against perceived threats from Bush's security policy.  That, after all, is one of the reasons we keep Democrats around.  But that doesn't mean they will get credit.  If you set up the question so that the public has to choose one of two important policy aims over the other, then someone has to lose.  And that is precisely what they have been doing on the warrantless search question.  This is not lost on the more sober of Democratic strategists.  From the Washington Times:

Some centrist Democrats say attacks by their party leaders on the Bush administration's eavesdropping on suspected terrorist conversations will further weaken the party's credibility on national security.  . . .

    "I think when you suggest that civil liberties are just as much at risk today as the country is from terrorism, you've gone too far if you leave that impression. I don't believe that's true," said Michael O'Hanlon, a national-security analyst at the Brookings Institution who advises Democrats on defense issues.

The Democrat's problems on national security are well defined in polls.

"The Republicans still hold the advantage on every national-security issue we tested," said Mark Penn, a Democratic pollster and former adviser to President Clinton, who co-authored a Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) memo on the party's national-security weaknesses.  . . .
    Recent polls say 56 percent of Americans approve of the job Mr. Bush is doing to protect the country from another terrorist attack.  . . .    Republicans led the Democrats by 40 percent to 36 percent on questions about which party can keep the country safe, 45 percent to 40 percent on which party can be trusted on national security and 48 percent to 38 percent on "which party can be trusted more to fight terrorism," the DLC said.

(Hat tip to Real Clear Politics).

But the problem for Democrats goes beyond their political image.  It is already creating dangerous divisions within the party.  From the New York Sun:

Liberal challengers of Senator Clinton's re-election bid said yesterday that the grants and contracts she secured earlier this month for contributors to her political action committee will help their efforts at casting the former first lady as an ally of big corporations and a politician for hire.

A former union leader, Jonathan Tasini, who recently decided to challenge Mrs. Clinton, largely because of her support for the Iraq war, said he is not surprised Mrs. Clinton secured federal money for individuals and businesses that have donated to her campaign committees. The New York Sun reported yesterday that Mrs. Clinton and Senator Schumer directed $123 million from the Department of Defense budget to New York projects that were not specifically requested by the Pentagon. The practice is common among lawmakers in Washington.

"We know where much of her money comes from - from large corporations who clearly anticipate something," Mr. Tasini said. "Whether it be Wal-Mart or Citigroup or law firms like Skadden Arps, these people don't contribute because of good will toward mankind. They expect something. And the denials about this just don't meet the smell test. I think all Americans know that corporate contributions are directly related to the help they get."

Whether Hillary Clinton is a viable Presidential candidate remains to be seen.  But she is surely an asset for the Democratic Party, if only for the sake of her fame and that Senate seat.  Tasini's challenge is very unlikely to do real damage to Ms. Clinton, whose seat is probably safe in perpetuity.  The question is: does he know this, or does he just not care?  If the latter, it means that the Democratic hard left is willing to kamakaze its own over the war question.  Michael Crowley, writing in The New Republic, has a more disturbing analysis, at least for Democrats.

Superficially, House Democrats have stood fairly united since the 2004 election. But under the surface lie deep fissures between the caucus's liberal Pelosi faction and its moderate Hoyer faction--particularly over the Iraq war. Until recently, however, Pelosi had kept a low profile on the war--presumably aware that her Bay Area-liberal image goes over in rural swing districts about as well as erotic performance art. "She has been personally very skeptical of Iraq from the get-go and I think in the interest of the broader caucus has put aside her own strong views and tried to keep the caucus unified," says Adam Schiff, a moderate Democrat from California. That's why some Democrats were stunned that she so conspicuously embraced Murtha's withdrawal plan earlier this month. To some Democrats, Pelosi should have let Murtha remain in the lead. "Murtha was clearly the key messenger on this," says a former House Democratic leadership aide. Now the Murtha plan can also be called the Pelosi plan, with all the culturo-political baggage that entails.

But the dynamics of Pelosi's world made keeping mum impossible--even if it meant alienating moderates like Hoyer. For months, she has faced rising pressure on several fronts. Within the caucus, there is her emboldened liberal base, including the 70 members of the House's Out of Iraq Caucus, who increasingly believe they speak for the public. "They stand up in meetings saying the American people want to get out," says a senior House Democratic aide. (Never mind that polls show the public still values success over withdrawal.) When she ran for leader in 2002, Pelosi promised to draw clearer distinctions with Republicans, and that's what her liberal allies expect. "The American people are thirsty for Democrats to offer an alternative on Iraq, and I would argue that it's a dereliction of our responsibility not to provide one," says Florida Representative Robert Wexler. Pelosi is also strongly influenced by her highly liberal inner circle. In addition to her top confidant, the combative Miller, others with Pelosi's ear include Rosa DeLauro of New Haven; Anna Eshoo of Palo Alto; and Jan Schakowsky, a fiery crusader from Chicago's upscale Lakefront area. All are critical of the war.

Perhaps even more relevant is what Pelosi hears outside of Washington. Liberal donors on the fund-raising circuit constantly tell her that Democrats are timid on Iraq. "She's been catching a lot of heat on the road," says the senior House aide. Pelosi has even been taking flak in her district for her relatively low profile on Iraq. "Pelosi has played it safe, placing politics and fund-raising over policy and conscience," charged a May 2005 letter in The San Francisco Chronicle. Another fumed that "Pelosi does accept our illegal invasion and our continued occupation of a country whose people want us out. I find it difficult to accept that she speaks for San Francisco to the world." Last month, one vituperative antiwar blogger declared her the "Shame of San Francisco." Says a House Democratic leadership aide, "You've got our base saying, 'Where the hell have you been? You've got no spine.'"

It is worth remembering that Democratic spine was represented in 2004 by Howard Dean.  Instead of backbone, the Democrats went with a wish bone, and almost won.  My guess is that this will make it hard for the Dems to unite behind a viable candidate next time round.

Warrentless Searches III: the Politics

I have argued recently (Warrentless Searches II) that, whatever the legal or constitutional merits may be, the politics of the "domestic spying" question favors the Bush Administration.  Kausfiles explains why.

Charlie Cook (in his weekly email) has identified the person responsible for Bush's bounceback. It's the same figure credited by J.Po a few weeks ago. But Cook puts the case with exceptional clarity:

While few, if any, would question the right of Rep. John Murtha ... to call for a withdrawal of troops from Iraq, or say he was acting for reasons of political expediency rather than principle, in retrospect, his move might have been strategically helpful to the president.

Prior to Murtha's well-publicized speech advocating an early withdrawal, the spotlight had been on the Bush administration's use of intelligence that led to the decision to go to war, with some questioning whether the administration either lied, fabricated or exaggerated evidence used to justify the United States' action.

Murtha's speech changed the debate, away from whether we should have invaded Iraq and whether the use of intelligence to make that decision was flawed toward the more problematic issue of "what do we do now?" [Emph. added]

Mickey Kaus's blog reads like a Hollywood chat sheet, treating politics as if it were one more entertainment medium.  The result of this appallingly frivolous approach is a continuous flow of insights into how and what is actually happening in the political world.  The above hits the nail on the head.  Bush clearly gained back about ten points in the polls, depending on which poll you pay attention to.  More from Kaus:

So that's what he's been doing: One reason the warrantless eavesdropping controversy may help, rather than hurt, Bush in the polls has more to do with the character of his administration than popular support for eavesdropping. In particular, Bush's tendency to hide behind a carapace of formal, not-completely-apposite justifications (e.g. "we must recognize Iraq as the central front in our war on terror") leads voters to ask what is really going on behind the facade. The Katrina botch suggested not much--maybe Bush, as the left-wing caricatures always suggested, really was out to lunch, playing computer golf in the Oval Office while various Michael Brownian cronies held meetings to plan their wardrobes. That's why, if the Bushies have really had the energy to secretly do all sorts of illegal spying against terrorists, it's almost reassuring. At least they've been on the case, doing their job as they see it. The more thorough and secret the eavesdropping, the more reassuring on this score. ... 1:05 P.M. link

UPDATE:

Powerline has some info on how this issue is playing in Peoria. 

Sixty-four percent (64%) of Americans believe the National Security Agency (NSA) should be allowed to intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the United States. A Rasmussen Reports survey found that just 23% disagree.

Bubba Ho-Tep Bags Deer

If you saw Bubba Ho Tep, you will appreciate this story even more.

By JOHN PAPENDICK

Aberdeen American News

IPSWICH, S.D. (AP) -- Who could have blamed archery deer hunter Dave Myers
if he had lost his head when his chance to bag a trophy buck arose?

He and others had been tracking the animal the past few years near Roscoe.
To his credit, the rural Ipswich veterinarian kept his cool and bagged the
8x7 buck estimated to be 6 years old and 290 pounds with a 32-inch neck.

The trouble was, Myers almost lost his leg while dragging the massive animal
from the field. Myers, with two artificial legs below his knees, has a
medical history as long as the 56-year-old's hunting log.

"He finally fell in some tall grass," Myers said about his buck. "I marked
where he was, and went back to grab my walker and some rope. I tied the rope
to him and then put it around my shoulders and started dragging him back. I
am fine walking on a smooth floor, but I don't do so good on rough ground.
Plus it was drizzling.

"Well after I took off dragging him, I tripped, fell and my leg twisted
around the other direction. So I had to take off most of my clothes like my
coat and coveralls to get everything straightened around. I was soaking wet
by the time I got done.

"But I tell you what, my adrenaline was really going. I could have drug an
elephant out of there if I had to. I had to drag him about 50 yards to get
him to a clearing. I knew there was a big coyote around and I didn't want
the buck to get chewed up. It took me about 25 minutes to drag him out with
my walker - I was inching him a little bit at a time. But I paid for it
because my legs and back were stiff and sore for days."

How Myers got his biggest buck ever is the making of a great hunting story.
He almost didn't go hunting this fall after recovering from a broken hip
after falling while ice fishing with his grandchildren in January. In 1993,
he lost his left leg after stepping on a nail which led to infection in the
bone. In 2004, he lost his right leg due to vascular problems in his joints.

"I was just starting to feel better from losing my leg when I broke my left
hip," Myers said. His doctors weren't happy with their patient when he told
them "his deer dragging story."

Before the "dragging part," Myers had to draw in his prey. He had his
pop-up, ground blind set up near some hay bales for about a week and had
spent about 30 hours in it during that time planning his strategy and
calling in bucks.

Myers recalls the events of Nov. 4. "I had seen him earlier in the day about
400 yards away from me. There are some other nice bucks living on that same
land, but they knew to stay away from this buck. Before I got him, he had
spent a couple of hours running around making sure everyone knew he was the
boss. Then he heard the commotion that I was making, and it upset him."

Myers said he didn't have time to get nervous when he was drawing the big
buck closer to him. He was blowing on a grunt tube and rattling antlers
together to draw him, and checking his range finder to find out how far the
buck was away from his blind.

"I eventually lost track of him," said Myers. "Finally, he appeared about
150 yards away from me in a little draw with another buck that wasn't as
big, but he was really pretty.

"I grunted at him again, and he just stood at attention. He came in at about
75 yards away and just stood there and stared right at me. Of course, he
couldn't see a deer because there was no deer to see. I had those antlers so
I beat and rattled them just like they do on TV. All those hours of watching
those outdoor shows finally paid off.

"Then I grunted again at him, he came closer. He was about 30 yards away and
was really staring at me. I was very comfortable shooting at that distance
because I have been using a bow since I was 16, but I just couldn't get him
to turn the right way. About that time to my left, a little old 4x4 appeared
about 50 yards away from us. After he saw that other buck, he swelled up his
old shoulders and turned broadside and pinned his ears back and just stared
at that buck."

Myers said he was used to shooting at a little target with his bow. "But
this guy's chest looked like the size of a refrigerator to me."

One could hear the respect Myers had for the animal in his voice. "I have
been hunting all of my life, and this guy was so impressive. He had been
hunted hard for the last few years and I don't think he even came within
rifle range of anyone before. A lot of luck goes into getting a buck like
this, and I was very fortunate."

Safe, Legal, And As Many As Possible

The Washington Post article on abortion in South Dakota has made it above the fold in the Aberdeen American News.  As Tim Graham noted, this article seems to think it's a problem that abortion is rare in South Dakota.  The article also implies that giving abundant information to women is problematic.  This one always confuses me.  I had invasive surgery about twenty months ago and I got all sorts of information.  The doctor told me why I needed this procedure and both the costs and benefits of having or not having the surgery.  Before I went into the operating room I had to sign various consent forms allowing them to put me under anesthetic and to cut me open.  This is called informed consent and everyone sees it as protecting the patient's rights when it comes to non-emergency surgery.  But somehow when it involves abortion it's "restricting a woman's right to choose." 

Here's a real whopper, from South Dakota  Planned Parenthood state director. 

"Women in the western side of the state don't think about abortion until they need to," said Kate Looby, Planned Parenthood's state director, "and then they're completely shocked that there's no way to receive that care unless they go to Sioux Falls."

I ask, in what sense is having an abortion medical "care"?  What is wrong with these women that they must seek medical "care"?  Is pregnancy now a disease that abortion "cures"?  If someone has a wart and they need it taken off, I guess we call that medical care.  Is that what is going on in abortion?  Is it the moral equivalent of having a wart removed?  I would think medical care under the circumstance of pregnancy would entail making sure that both mother and baby are healthy, not sucking the baby out of the womb to be thrown in a dumpster. 

Presidential Primaries

Our roundtable discussion on moving the presidential primaries continues here at SDP.  In line with that, Dan Balz of the Washington Post has an article today about the presidential primary process:

For much of the past year, a Democratic Party commission labored to build a better mousetrap. The goal is to create a 2008 presidential nominating calendar that reduces the outsized influence of Iowa and New Hampshire and stretches the process into the spring to give a better chance to potentially strong candidates even if they do not win early contests.

Now that the commission has made its proposal and the Democratic National Committee is deciding what to do, the reviews from outsiders are a mixed bag. New Hampshire politicians are nearly uniform in deploring the proposed changes. Political scientists, meanwhile, disagree over whether the recommendations would diminish or add to the problems they were designed to solve.

Elaine C. Kamarck, a Harvard professor, a longtime Democratic activist and one of the first witnesses before the commission, calls the proposals inadequate and fears they will only add to the problem of stacking early events on top of one another, a phenomenon known as "front-loading."

The risk of a front-loaded primary calendar is that it produces a nominee long before many voters have begun to pay attention, or seriously weigh who would be the party's most effective contender in a general election. "Let me just say that this does not seem to solve the problem," Kamarck said.

But Thomas E. Mann, a Brookings Institution scholar who appeared with Kamarck to offer expert testimony, praised the panel for smartly navigating a thicket of conflicting interests, arguing that the proposed schedule will not contribute further to front-loading. "My view is they squeezed the most they possibly could out of it," he said.

Read the whole thing.

Alito

Argus Leader:

State senator proposes resolution backing Alito
S.D. vote would do nothing, Democrat says

South Dakota state senators may lack the power to confirm U.S. Supreme Court justices, but a Watertown lawmaker wants his colleagues to go on record supporting Samuel Alito.

Republican Sen. Lee Schoenbeck is prime sponsor of a state Senate resolution of support for Alito, whose confirmation hearings are scheduled to begin in January in the U.S. Senate.

Schoenbeck’s proposed resolution, prefiled for consideration in the 2006 Legislature, says Alito is “exceptionally well-qualified and has proven on the bench that he possesses the temperament, integrity, impartiality and sound legal judgment necessary for a Supreme Court justice.’’
...
Schoenbeck’s resolution is co-sponsored by 24 other Republican state senators. It says Alito “has a history of ruling based upon the established rule of law and the specific facts of the cases before him,” and it encourages Democratic Sen. Tim Johnson and Republican Sen. John Thune to support Alito.

“The protracted political battles over qualified candidates and attacks on candidates based on misleading allegations need to be controlled, as they demean the federal judiciary and deter otherwise qualified candidates from participating,’’ the resolution says.

South Dakota’s Legislature opens Jan. 10. Some reports from Washington, D.C., say the U.S. Senate hopes to have a vote on Alito’s nomination by Jan. 20.

Bush Didn't Lie

Chicago Tribune:

On Nov. 20, the Tribune began an inquest: We set out to assess the Bush administration's arguments for war in Iraq. We have weighed each of those nine arguments against the findings of subsequent official investigations by the 9/11 Commission, the Senate Intelligence Committee and others. . . . After reassessing the administration's nine arguments for war, we do not see the conspiracy to mislead that many critics allege.

Read the whole thing.  HT to Instapundit.

An immodest proposal on Primary Scheduling

My colleague, Mr. Heppler posts on the scheme to move the South Dakota Primaries up, so that more attention will be given to the state.  Also, more candidates will visit, and more news people will buy lunch.  Jason notes Professor Schaff's scathing comments on this trend.  I am of two minds about this. 

On the one hand, the sober and responsible Dr. Blanchard believes that Professor Schaff is altogether correct about the damaging effects of front-loading the primary season.  A long, slowly building primary season is obviously better.  It gives the electorate time to weigh the various candidates, and dilutes the effect of early funding and fame.  How else to weed out the Howard Deans from the almost successful John Kerrys. 

The less responsible Dr. Blanchard would love to have Fox News and CNN calling him for comments.  If this is bad for the Republic, well, as Sally says about Santa Claus in Merry Christmas Charlie Brown, "all I want is what I have coming to me.  All I want is my fair share." 

I hereby propose a reform of national institutions designed to reconcile the two parts of my own personality.  South Dakota should call a national convention of state party organizations.  If we could get Tom Daschle and John Thune on board, we would have some clout. The convention will design a rational primary schedule.  States will be sorted according to region and population.  Out of respect for tradition, the earliest three or four slots (say, in January) will go to small states.  After that, a wave of states will hold their primaries and/or caucuses on each first Tuesday of the following months, ending just before the national conventions.  Each wave will include big and small states, and states from every section of the country.  Saint Kipling notwithstanding, the twain shall meet. 

A lottery will determine which states get which month the first time round, and after that the states will rotate.  Sooner or later South Dakota will get the coveted January slot.  California will move around, and sometimes will be decisive.  Campaign organizations will of course have the schedule well in advance, and can use it for planning.  Dr. Schaff will be comforted, I think, by the slow pace of the schedule.  We could call the system the Deadwood Protocol. 

Of course, many states will be hesitant to give up scheduling to such a scheme.  But if enough states joined on to begin with, others would follow as it became clear that this is the responsible thing to do.  Frankly, almost all attempts to re-engineer the primary schedule of many states (consider Super Tuesday) have been disasters.  But this one has the advantage (or disadvantage) that it aims for a sensible system and not for party triumph.

This scheme strikes me as altogether too practical and sensible to be enacted.  But if by some divine influence it should be enacted, remember that you heard it here first.

King of Kings and Kong of Kongs

I spent one night of Christmas vacation watching Peter Jackson's King Kong with my wife and teenage son.  I offer a mixed review.  Some parts of the movie were nothing short of magnificent.  The computer generated Kong was about as good as Kong could ever be.  He looked real, and had a greater range of facial expressions than this kid who used to sit behind me in fourth grade math.  Loften was his name, and he was about the same shoe size as Kong.  But I digress. 

The sub-magnificent parts of the movie ranged from good to bloody awful.  As my college-aged daughter put it, the relationship between Ann Darrow and the Beast was not exactly healthy.  The scene where Ann and Kong find one another in New York (I suppose it would be easier to find your boyfriend in a crowd if he large enough to shot-put a bread truck) is altogether ludicrous.  The editing was poor in places.  My wife observed that way to much time was spent on giant bugs at the bottom of a canyon. She was dead spot on.  And some of the special effects were just not good enough for the overall picture. 

There are some political angles worth mentioning.  Some have said that the new Kong has racist overtones.  That was certainly true of Willis O'Brien's original masterpiece.  The 1930's Kong, in closeup shots of his face, looks like he fell out of the Jazz Singer.  But I think the current Kong is largely innocent of the charges.  The villagers on Skull Island are dark enough, but they don't look African.  In fact, they look they escaped from Saruman's army in the second Lord of the Rings movie.   

Instead, I think the most significant political point is the reinterpretation of the character of Karl Denham, played in 1933 by Robert Armstrong.  In that version, Denham, the director of adventure films, is reckless way past the point of good sense, but he is heroic for just that reason.  No reasonable person would want to be like him, but most of us (at least, most of us males) would have liked to have been like him when we were younger, with all the stories to tell.  This is in keeping with a more Victorian view of the role of European and American adventurers.  Kong was a movie that was secure in its view of civilization, progress, and exploration.  One is sad, at the end, that Kong died.  But one knew that his time was long over.

In the new version, Denham (Jack Black was a very good choice) is revealed as a scoundrel at the end.  His passion is greed rather than courage, and he ruthlessly spends lives for footage.  The movie properly lampoons era racism in the dancing black actors that portray the islanders at Kong's New York debut.  But all sense of heroic adventure is tainted by suspect motives.  The wise old sea captain of the 1933 ship, the Venture, is given a vague European accent, and is in the business of stealing animals from exotic places.  He and his crew are one step above the level of pirates.  In short, civilization is an altogether questionable business in this new Kong.  I think that is rather a shame.  It would have been much more daring and I think more interesting to have kept the heroic tone of the original.  But Peter Jackson, who brought Middle Earth so vividly to life, didn't have the imagination for that. 

Daschle

Captain's Quarters:  Daschle: Democrats Clueless On 9/12, Too

SD Primaries

In two weeks from today, the South Dakota legislature will begin its work.  One of the issues will be whether to move South Dakota's 2008 presidential primary to an earlier date so that many of the candidates will visit the state and South Dakota's voice can be heard.  In 2008, both parties will be picking a candidate.  In addition to the fun politics involved, the campaigns will surely spend lots of money at South Dakota businesses.  Let's remember how the New York Times thought the last early primary in South Dakota was a success:

February 23, 1988

HEADLINE: DAKOTA STRATEGY PROVES A SUCCESS

By WILLIAM E. SCHMIDT, Special to the New York Times

When the South Dakota Legislature shifted the state's Presidential primary to February from June, political leaders hoped to make the state an important - and more widely noticed - arena for Republican and Democratic contenders.

Now, on the eve of South Dakota's first such early primary, the strategy has borne fruit, at least among the Democrats.

Two Democrats, Gov. Michael S. Dukakis of Massachusetts and Representative Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri, have entered the final hours of the campaign apparently locked in a close contest for first place. Both men have invested heavily in South Dakota, expecting that a victory here Tuesday would give their campaigns momentum for next month's 20 contests on Super Tuesday.

Indeed, the primary here has attracted the entire Democratic field in recent days, including a big advertising push by Senator Albert Gore Jr. of Tennessee, whose commercials are blanketing the state, and a last-ditch blitz by Senator Paul Simon of Illinois, who needs a victory somewhere if he is to keep his flagging Presidential campaign alive.

Among Republicans, however, the battle for South Dakota ended early. Last week Vice President Bush canceled his remaining television spots and all but conceded victory in the party's primary to Senator Bob Dole of Kansas, who had been expected to win here anyway.

That decision angered some of the Vice President's supporters in the state, and Mr. Dole, who defeated Mr. Bush in the Iowa caucuses early this month, used the occasion to accuse the Vice President of turning his back on the Middle West.
...
Last Wednesday, Mr. Gephardt received the endorsement of Senator Tom Daschle, one of the state's most popular politicians. At the same time, his campaign began a blitz of television advertising, including a spot that, in purporting to compare Mr. Gephardt and Mr. Dukakis, ridicules the Massachusetts' Governor's knowledge of farming.

Specifically, the spot recalls a remark made by Mr. Dukakis nearly a year ago, when he suggested that farmers in the Midwestern grain belt might do like some farmers in the Northeast and consider growing blueberries, flowers and Belgian endive as alternative crops.

For Mr. Simon, a lot is riding on his finish in South Dakota and Minnesota. Last week, after a third-place finish in New Hampshire, he said he needed to win one of Tuesday's contests if he were going to keep his campaign alive.

Although he later withdrew that statement, his campaign officials here say the state is important. ''There is a lot at stake for him,'' said George Cunningham, Mr. Simon's campaign manager here. ''You've got to win somewhere.''

My esteemed colleague Dr. Schaff has an opposite view, expressing concerns about frontloading the primaries.  Like Fox News, we report, you decide.

The Internet and Local Politics

The Interent is having an impact on local politics:

Frustrated by government and empowered by technology, Americans are filling needs and fighting causes through grass-roots organizations they built themselves - some sophisticated, others quaintly ad hoc. This is the era of people-driven politics.

From a homemaker-turned-kingmaker in Pittsburgh to dog owners in New York to a "gym rat" here in southwest Florida, people are using the Internet to do what politicians can't - or won't - do.

This is their story, but it's also an American story because ordinary folks are doing the extraordinary to find people with similar interests, organize them and create causes and connection.

The article focuses on the rise of liberal activists (like MoveOn.org), but it is still an interesting read.  Check it out.

NRO on South Dakota

From The Corner:

The Washington Post travels to South Dakota today for a front-page abortion report by Evelyn Nieves, a one-time writer for Mother Jones. Once again, we learn that there are backward red states that actually only have one abortion provider, and only on one day each week. (So much for the notion that liberal media outlets endorse making abortion "safe, legal, and rare." Apparently rare abortion is a social problem worthy of the front page.) South Dakota is so backward that they're actually trying to make abortion providers tell patients that they're carrying a human life. How mean-spirited. (They have so much sympathy for the women driving in for abortions, and none for those humans about to die.) When I talk to college students, I cite this kind of an article to explain that reporting isn't "pro-choice," it's pro-abortion. When you think something like this is a social good, you complain that it's not more readily available, cheaper, and easier. When you want more doctors to choose the specialty of abortion "providing," and want abortions provided in every small town, you're not just for "choice," you're for making that choice as leisurely as possible. If someone argued that smoking should be available in every bar and public office building, they wouldn't be called "pro-choice," but "pro-smoking." The same logic applies to these stories. The point of the article comes in paragraphs 7 and 8, where they explain that this could be Samuel Alito's America if he's allowed on the Supreme Court, and Nancy Keenan of NARAL appears to warn against that horror.

Little Big Horn

From the Aberdeen American News:

A documentary about the Battle of the Little Bighorn could include scenes from western South Dakota, according to a Rapid City man involved in the project.

A television crew from the British Broadcasting Corp. plans to be in the state for about 12 days in late May or early June to shoot footage along the Cheyenne River on a ranch near Wasta.

The documentary focuses new information about where Lt. Col. George Custer tried to cross the Little Bighorn River in the 7th Cavalry's 1876 defeat, said Jim Hatzell, a cavalry re-enactor and the film's technical adviser.

BBC director Dave Stewart and Hatzell picked the location this fall.

Hatzell said the National Park Service doesn't allow reenactment film projects nor the firing of blank ammunition inside the battlefield boundaries.

But when Stewart saw the Cheyenne River location, he thought it would be perfect for the documentary, said Hatzell.

Blue Angels

MSNBC:

The city of Sioux Falls will turn 150, and South Dakota Air National Guard will be sixty. To help kick off the festivities, the Blue Angels will perform an air show.          

They're one of the most famous aerial performance groups around.

Today two of the pilots were in Sioux Falls; both say being members of the Blue Angels is a great honor.

The air show will be on July 22nd and 23rd and is free to the public.

Politics on Campus

New York Times:  Professors' Politics Draw Lawmakers into the Fray

For more on the predominance of the left university, see this article from the Weekly Standard.  More examples lie in the cases of Ward Churchill, William C. Bradford, and John Daley.

There is no doubt that many professors lean to the left and far-left.  Is this bad?  Not entirely.  I may not agree with what Churchill and Daley say and there is no reason they cannot say these things.  However, political views should never be an issue in the classroom.  I believe that any good academic should be able to play both sides of the fence--as my esteemed colleague Dr. Blanchard pointed out: "Arguments that offend the status quo or refused to follow the party line, whether it is left or right, are and should be sacrosanct in universities."  If Churchill loses his job it won't be in account of his political views but rather a reaction to his academics, which include plagarism, historical fabrication, and misleading the CU administration about his background.  Similarly, Daley lost is job not on account of what he said but because he threatened a student.  I quote and agree with Voltaire: "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."  Our freedom of speech is an amazing liberty, which allows some to make comments that others may freely deem foolish.

Despite the prevailence of liberal professors, I would not suggest this is entirely bad.  The academic arena is a place to voice opinions and debate ideas.  What is bad is professors that manipulate the classroom to encourage their political views and supress the views of others.

The Princess

Joel Rosenthal:  "Do Republicans in South Dakota have hope of retaking the congressional seat from the South Dakota Princess?"  He ponders this question and lists four potential challengers to Representative Stephanie Herseth.

Abortion and South Dakota

The Washington Post put out an interesting article in Tuesday's early edition about abortion here in Siouth Dakota, complete with analysis of what would happen if a new Court should happen to overturn Roe v. Wade

Animal Liberation Front

The Animal Liberation Front is active in South Dakota:

WATERTOWN, S.D. - A man convicted in federal court in Wisconsin for releasing mink from farms in three states now faces state charges in Watertown.

Peter Daniel Young is charged in the release of hundreds of mink from the Turbak Mink Ranch near Kranzburg in 1997, said Codington County State's Attorney Vince Foley.

Young was indicted in 1998 on federal charges for releasing mink at farms in South Dakota, Iowa and Wisconsin. After being a fugitive for several years, he pleaded guilty in a plea bargain to federal charges of animal enterprise terrorism and was sentenced to two years in prison.

Federal investigators said they believe Young is connected with the Animal Liberation Front, a radical group that has attempted to destroy animal-related industries it considers inhumane.

Foley said the state charges of third degree burglary, intentional damage to property and animal enterprise trespass were filed against Young after discussions with the state attorney general's office and the owners of the now-defunct mink ranch.

Top SD News Stories for 2005

From Mount Blogmore:

1. An ice storm and blizzard paralyzes about a third of South Dakota.
2. Ellsworth Air Force Base survives the latest round of base closures.
3. Legislature approves $20 million for an interim lab at the old Homestake mine.
4. South Dakota holds its first-ever mountain lion hunting season.
5. Six South Dakotans die in Iraq and Kuwait in 2005.
6. Nineteen people get Legionnaire’s disease in the state.
7. State and local officials quickly prepare shelters for Hurricane Katrina victims.
8. The Dakota, Minnesota and Eastern Railroad says it’s applying for a $2.5 billion loan.
9. South Dakota’s new abortion law is temporarily blocked by a judge.
10. An investigation shows the governor took personal trips while using state airplanes.

Civil Liberties Hoax Exposed

The Patriot Act is so dangerous that its critics have to invent stories of how big brother is trampling on our civil liberties.  The latest story involved a Dartmouth student who alleged that he was visited in his home by agents of Homeland Security because he had requested Mao Tse Tung's Little Red Book over inter-library loan.  Hugh Hewitt has the story on his site.  He directs us to the Boston Globe. 

It rocketed across the Internet a week ago, a startling newspaper report that agents from the US Department of Homeland Security had visited a student at the University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth at his New Bedford home simply because he had tried to borrow Mao Tse-Tung's ''Little Red Book" for a history seminar on totalitarian goverments.

The story, first reported in last Saturday's New Bedford Standard-Times, was picked up by other news organizations, prompted diatribes on left-wing and right-wing blogs, and even turned up in an op-ed piece written by Senator Edward M. Kennedy in the Globe.

Well, there you have it.  The government is investigating anyone who might be reading subversive literature!  We are a totalitarian nation after all. 

The only thing wrong with this story of intrusive government snooping is that it never happened. 

But yesterday, the student confessed that he had made it up after being confronted by the professor who had repeated the story to a Standard-Times reporter.  The professor, Brian Glyn Williams, said he went to his former student's house and asked about inconsistencies in his story. The 22-year-old student admitted it was a hoax, Williams said.

Hewitt directs us to Anonymous Source, which has this:

OK, if the Boston Globe is right, the story about the student at U-Mass Dartmouth is wrong. Understand that it angers me. Many of us who have opposed the Patriot Act since its genesis were waiting for the day that something like this would happen; this is a major setback. But understand that the story that the student lied about is definitely within the realm of possibility; the Patriot Act allows for such a thing to happen. We must still remain vigilant so our freedom to information, however vulgar it may be, does not become a freedom from information.

I direct your attention to the portion of the post that I have colored.  If you are waiting for something to happen and it doesn't; if indeed, some of those waiting got impatient enough to make it up, perhaps, just perhaps, you were wrong about the substance of the question.  This is pretty good evidence that whatever the Administration has been doing with its powers of investigation, it isn't what anonymous source was waiting for. 

SDP Mind of Mystery Competition Winners

I announced a competition on December 23rd: play the Flash Mind Reader, and then e-mail us with explanations. 

Our readers being unusually shrewd, we like to think, it took only a few days for three winning submissions to arrive.  Mike Buus expressed a hope that we would keep the answer to ourselves, but SDP is far too chatty for that.  Besides, I like to think that nature has mystery enough in it without using fraudulent means to create new ones.  This is not to say there was anything wrong with the mind reader.  Its fun, and to the mathematically primitive (like myself), it is at first pleasantly mystifying.  But it is based on trickery.

In the game you choose a number between 10 and 99, and add the two digits together and then subtract from the original number (for example, with 99, 9 + 9 = 18; and 99-18 = 81.  Then you find the last number on a chart and are told to "concentrate on the symbol, and when you have it clearly in your mind" click on the crystal ball.  Invariably (if you did the math right) the symbol in your mind will appear on the crystal ball.  As I said, for many folk, it feels like magic the first time through.  But without the benefit of much math, I noticed that although there were a lot of different symbols, the mathematical formula produced only a handful of answers.  For example, 99 yields 81, but so does 98 and the next seven numbers down.  89-80 all produce 72.   The machine makes sure that all the possible  resulting answers have the same symbol, and that is the one it produces. 

Aside from Mr. Buus, Joel Arends, and Gene Johansen submitted solutions.  Mr. Johansen has the most thorough explanation of the math. 

Any two digit number can be expressed in this form:
10x + y

Then, subtracting the sum of the two digits gives:

10x + y -(x + y)
= 10x + y - x - y
= 9x

So, following the instructions will always give 
you a number divisible by 9.

Look at all the symbols next to numbers divisible by 9 
(except for 90 and 99,
which can't be hit).  
They are all the same, and will match the symbol that
shows up in the crystal ball.

The symbols are scrambled each time so it's harder 
to see the pattern.

And if that didn't make any sense then it's done with Voodoo.

Mr. Johansen shrewdly points out that the symbols are changed with each play, which makes it look much more mysterious.  Well done.

Poll Blogging

President Bush's approval rating is breaking 50%, and investor confidence is at a 17-month high.  However, investors have lost confidence in the MSM.