South Dakota Politics

The Politics of the Alito Confirmation

Puzzle me this, oh spirits in the myst, what would good Senator Johnson have done if the confirmation of Samuel Alito today had come down to his vote?  The WSJ OpinionJournal has breakdown of Democratic votes, and notes that all four Democratic Senators who voted for Alito's confirmation came from states that Bush carried.  But notice that North Dakota's delegation split, with Conrad who is coming up to bat in this year's election voting yes.  The fact that the Republicans had a clean 54 vote majority made it relatively painless for Johnson to cross the floor on this one.  Of course Johnson may have genuinely believed that Alito should be confirmed.  But its harder to imagine him voting that way if Daschle were still leader of the Senate, and the Democrats had had a chance of defeating Alito in a floor vote.

There is good news and bad news in the two votes this week.  The 72/25 vote for cloture indicates that the filibuster has collapsed as a Democratic instrument for judges.  This may have something to do with the filibuster issue in the Thune/Daschle race, but more directly it is a result of the gang of 14 deal on the filibuster.  That deal is now confirmed to be what I said it was, a near term victory for Republicans.  But it is a long term victory for the Constitution.  If the filibuster had succeeded, the confirmation process might well have ground to a halt. 

Unfortunately, the fact that all but four Democrats voted against Alito today might mean the same thing the next time that a President has to send up a nominee to a Senate dominated by the opposite party.  I noted this very interesting chart from the Washington Post in an earlier blog.  It indicates that, on a number of issues, Republican and Democratic appointees dependably come down on opposite sides.  There were really no grounds for opposing Alito that would not apply to any Republican appointee.  Its difficult to see how a Republican President and a Democratic Senate could reach a compromise on a nominee.  The same would apply to a Democrat in the White House if the Republicans begin voting in the same partisan way as the Democrats just did.

The obvious solution to this problem is the sort of decorum that the Republicans observed when they largely supported Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Bryer.  I had the chance to talk to Senator Orin Hatch about the Bryer nomination.  He knew of course that Bryer would be a vote to uphold Roe, and that Bryer would side with the liberals on the court on most issues.  But he thought that, absent something obviously disqualifying in a nominee, the President should get who he wants.  Given the Democrats partisanship on Alito, I think it will be hard for the Republicans to keep that same decorum in the future.  They would run the risk of endorsing the rule that any President is entitled to appointees that the Democrats approve of.  This does not bode well for the future of the appointment process.

"The DNA of Politics"

This is for the political junkies out there like myself.  I don't know how I missed this post back in November, but my good friend over at the tdaxp blog has a post entitled "The DNA of Politics."  Dr. John Hibbing of the University of Nebraska at Lincoln published a fascinating report entitled “Are Political Orientations Genetically Transmitted?”  Check out the full blog post here, and you can view Dr. Hibbing's full academic report here (PDF alert).  Comments (either via our email or through tdaxp's blog) are always welcome.

UPDATE:  Dan of tdaxp informs me of another interesting presentation by Dr. Robert Kurzban, Professor of Psychology at the University of Pennsylvania.

Levy

Regarding my previous post on the new book American Vertigo, Paul Mirengoff over at Power Line has more:

If you happen to surf over to C-SPAN when it is replaying the debate between Bernard-Henri Levy and Bill Kristol, you should keep the dial there. Levy is a leading French intellectual and he plays one to the hilt on tv. A reformed Marxist, Levy remains a man of the left in some ways, but he is also perhaps the leading French anti-anti-American. Most of all, he is an intellectual performance artist, if not a rock star.

Levy has written a book called American Vertigo in which he purports to follow in the footsteps of the great Alexis de Tocqueville in an attempt (in the words of his publisher) to "begin a new conversation about the meaning of America." Levy sampled a wide variety of Americana, ranging from an interview with Bill Kristol to a visit to a lap dance establishment. It is the former experience that led to his appearance with Kristol and Francis Fukuyama at Johns Hopkins University, where he presented his take on American neo-conservatism.

Check out the whole thing.

Intellectual Diversity

Another blog is noting the South Dakota legislature's efforts at intellectual diversity:

The South Dakota legislature is proposing that public universities there report regularly on the intellectual diversity present at each campus. Here's the story.

The most important diversity on a college campus, it seems to me, is diversity of ideas. After all, the entire justification of a university is that it is a place where people come to learn and exchange ideas. And that's something that most of the modern, hyper-p.c. academic institutions of higher learning just don't do very well. We need our universities to be more than an echo-chamber for the Left, we need them to be places where ideas (whether left/liberal or conservative) may be openly discussed and critiqued without fear of reprisal from politically correct zealots inhabiting privilged positions within the university hierarchy.

NSA

I also liked this from Bush:

BUSH:  It is said that prior to the attacks of September the 11th, our government failed to connect the dots of the conspiracy. We now know that two of the hijackers in the United States placed telephone calls to Al Qaida operatives overseas. But we did not know about their plans until it was too late.

So to prevent another attack -- based on authority given to me by the Constitution and by statute -- I have authorized a terrorist surveillance program to aggressively pursue the international communications of suspected Al Qaida operatives and affiliates to and from America.

Previous presidents have used the same constitutional authority I have and federal courts have approved the use of that authority. Appropriate members of Congress have been kept informed.

The terrorist surveillance program has helped prevent terrorist attacks. It remains essential to the security of America. If there are people inside our country who are talking with Al Qaida, we want to know about it, because we will not sit back and wait to be hit again.

Competitiveness

I am with Mark Steyn:

I dunno, guys, an "American Competitiveness Initiative"? Isn't there something a little ridiculous about the government, which has no competition, running a competitiveness initiative? It's like the old gag about the British Government's equivalent to the anti-trust guys: Why is there only one Monopolies Commission? It also sounds a lot like Gerhard Schroder's "Year of Innovation" when he inaugurated a German "Innovation Council", even though the first sign of a genuinely innovative culture is that it's too busy innovating to sit around at meetings of a government innovation council.

SOTU

Some random thoughts on the State Of The Union speech delivered tonight by President Bush. 

• President Bush said, "As we make progress on the ground and Iraqi forces increasingly take the lead, we should be able to further decrease our troop levels. But those decisions will be made by our military commanders, not by politicians in Washington, D.C."  We still have a civilian run military, right?  Aren't these exactly the decisions politicians, not generals, should be making.  Clearly President Bush is not reading his Elliot Cohen. 
• When you look at John Roberts and Samuel Alito from behind, they both look like Franciscan Friars with their cute little bald spots.  That should stir discussion of the coming theocracy. 
• Iran is run by "a small clerical elite."  Who knew that those devils running Iran were actually very short and snobbish file clerks.  Kidding aside, Iran should have gotten more and firmer discussion. 
• The first half of this speech was excellent.  Bush once again articulated the Bush Doctrine: America has the duty to expand liberty, both for our own security and for the good of the world.  Both of those propositions can be questioned, but it is a powerful argument that speaks to our finest principles. 
• Now to the dreck.  The laundry list of domestic proposals.  Take me now Lord!  Bush proposes eliminating 140 "non-essential" programs, saving a whopping $14 billion.  Yes, that sounds like a lot, but for a government that spends $2.6 trillion a year, it's chump change.
• The real money is in entitlements.  Give Bush kudos for talking about it.  Since his Social Security proposal went nowhere, he is doing what we expect politicians to do: propose a commission.  I hate to tell you, but we already had an entitlement commission in the 90s.  It was headed by Senators Al Simpson of Wyoming and Bob Kerrey of Nebraska.  It made very sane proposals.  Those proposals were eviscerated by the interest groups (i.e., the AARP), and nothing came of that commission.  Expect more of the same.
• What will Bush's oil buddies think of his energy proposals? 
• I think Americans can all rest easy knowing the American Competitiveness Initiative is on the horizon. 
• Blah, blah, blah.  More itty bitty proposals designed to make the President look good.  Come on. Does anyone oppose the Ryan White Act?
• And finally, did you ever notice that almost everytime Bush gives a big speech, he wears a blue tie? 

The second half of this speech was Clintonian in style, substance, and its interminable length.  It seems we have not elected a president, but a national governor who thinks it is his job to solve every problem we face.  I can't wait for the program to fight the ketchup crud that forms on the nozzle of my ketchup bottle.  That's a problem John Kerry was born (actually, married) to fight.  It is all enough to yearn for the days before Woodrow Wilson when presidents just sent Congress a letter on the State of the Union and did not burden us with tedious acts of political pandering masked as constitutional duty.  Yet another reason to hate Woodrow Wilson. 

Lessons of Alito

MSNBC has this article on why Bush won the Alito battle.  It is worth a read.  One slice from this piece:

Meanwhile, Democrats in states that Bush carried in the 2004 election, such as North Dakota, Nebraska and Tennessee, learned from what had happened to former Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, who lost his seat to Republican John Thune, partly on the filibuster issue.

Lesson: elections matter.  Also note this section about the halcyon days of Democratic obstructionism:

“Our campaign to stop Bush's extremist nominees has been extraordinarily successful so far,” boasted a Nov. 12, 2003 e-mail from Moveon.org, the left-leaning Democratic group. “Miguel Estrada, who was widely thought to be President Bush's top pick for the Supreme Court, withdrew his name from consideration after Senators filibustered his nomination, supported by more than 40,000 phone calls from MoveOn members.”

Faithful readers might remember that one of the ways that left-wing groups undermined Miguel Estrada was through the racial attack of questioning whether this Honduran immigrant was really Hispanic. 

Alito Bandito Confirmation Edition

Now that its too late to do anything about it, you might want to take a look at  how Alito's votes on the U.S. Court of Appeals measure against other Republican appointees and Democratic appointees.  The Washington Post has a very valuable chart.  In a nutshell, Republican and Democratic appointees have very different voting records.  For example, in prisoner rights cases, Republican appointees went against the prisoner 79% of the time.  Democrat appointees went for the prisoner 64% of the time.  Alito's record was against the prisoner 71% of the time.  He is in fact a pretty typical Republican appointee. 

Alito Confirmed

Former federal appellate judge Samuel Alito Jr. has become the nation's 110th Supreme Court justice in a 58-42 Senate vote to confirm him.  Senator Thune was the 51st senator to vote for Alito.

UPDATE:  Iowa Voice notes a few left-wing reactions ("yeah, we lost, BUT....").  My favorite quote comes from Kos:

So what are we going to do? I'm tempted to say "did we give up when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?", but that may be too glib for some in this serious moment. But I do like the sentiment. Are we going to lay down on our backs, or are we going to organize and take over the Democratic party?

Kos is so worked up that he got his facts wrong.  And how can Pearl Harbor compare to a court confirmation?

UPDATE II:  It turns out that the joke's on me.  The line about Germany comes from the movie Animal House.

Herseth

Here's a funny story from my hometown paper about Stephanie Herseth, which makes clear her ambitions to run for the Senate:

A panel of 600 fearless interviewers grilled Stephanie Herseth for nearly an hour Friday morning.

She stood exposed by the onslaught, fielding questions about her ideology, her political aspirations and even her personal life.

“How much money do you make?”

“Would you ever run for president?”

“What’s the difference between Democrats and Republicans?”

They were the kind of blunt, plain-spoken queries that Herseth doesn’t usually expect, especially from an audience like the one she faced Friday: the student body at Mitchell Middle School.

“That’s the nice thing, that all their questions were very respectful, but perhaps missing the tone of subtlety or diplomacy that you get from the adult audiences,” she said afterward. “It’s actually very refreshing. They’re very direct, but very honest.”

Herseth, the 35-year-old Democrat who occupies South Dakota’s lone seat in the U.S. House of Representatives, never declined a question but appeared to struggle with a few answers. Seventh-grader Andrew Rozum put her on politically dangerous ground with his curiosity about the differences between the two major political parties.

Herseth, a former college instructor, responded with a cautious but revealing five-minute discourse on the politics of moderation.

She said the perceived differences between Democrats and Republicans are traditional ones that may not apply to the parties’ modern realities. Democrats have been derided for years as the party of big government, large spending and high taxes, she said, but she added that Republicans haven’t done much in recent years to earn their opposite reputation as the party of smaller government and lower spending.

After pausing to think several times during her carefully worded answer, she seemed to realize that she hadn’t matched the candor displayed by her audience.

“I’m making it sound like I’m maybe not answering the question correctly,” she said, “but I sort of feel like I can’t answer it fully without taking a lot more time, because Democrats and Republicans, even amongst themselves, differ a lot … it’s hard to pigeonhole each Democrat and each Republican.”

She rallied, though, with some standard-sounding rhetoric about the dangers of extreme partisanship. It’s her hope, she said, that members of both parties will “work together” and “put the politics aside” like she and other South Dakota leaders did when they helped save Ellsworth Air Force Base from the Pentagon’s closure list last year.

The next question came from eighth-grader Sarah Magnuson, who wanted to know if Herseth aspires to the nation’s highest political office. Herseth turned the question around, asking Magnuson if she herself would ever consider running for president. Magnuson said she would, and Herseth said “Great! Then I would, too.”

Actually, Herseth said, she does not foresee herself running for anything except “the Congress” until “2010, 2014 or 2020.” Interestingly, those last two dates are separated by the same number of years as a term in the U.S. Senate.

Another member of the audience, sixth-grader Casey Talaga, wanted to know about congressional salaries. Herseth, who stood with a handheld microphone on the floor of the school gymnasium, said she makes $155,000.

The statement sent a shiver through the mass of students, seated in the bleachers on one side of the gym.

Herseth acknowledged that her salary is far higher than that of most South Dakotans.

“But you know, I’ve got to tell you I’m really glad that I can put some of my extra earnings toward paying back my student loans,” said Herseth, referring to her Georgetown education.

Herseth delved further into her personal life when she responded to a question about her childhood goals, posed by seventh-grader Brooke Mathey.

Herseth said she took naturally to politics, having grown up in a family that included a grandmother who was secretary of state, a grandfather who was governor, and a father who was a legislator. As Herseth progressed through her junior year of college, she thought of returning to South Dakota to practice law and run for the Legislature or even attorney general.

“And then my parents got divorced, and I was not much into politics anymore, and I wanted to get fluent in Spanish,” she said. “So I went down to Ecuador for a summer, turned my back on politics and thought, ‘I’m just going to get my law degree, I’m going to practice law and I’m going to teach.’ ”

Later, her passion for politics was re-ignited when she was invited to a Democratic retreat in the Black Hills by former U.S. Sen. Tom Daschle. It was there that people began encouraging her to run for the state’s open U.S. House seat, which she eventually lost to former Gov. Bill Janklow.

After Janklow resigned the seat following his involvement in a fatal traffic accident, Herseth won a special election and served the remainder of Janklow’s term. She won a full term in the next election and is seeking re-election this year.

After the assembly ended, Herseth took a tour of the school. In one of the two classrooms she visited, a student asked Herseth about her marital and family status.

Herseth, who has never married and has no children, said she is dating a man from Texas who has children from a previous marriage. She was apparently speaking of former U.S. Rep. Max Sandlin, D-Texas, with whom she has been linked in numerous Washington gossip articles and political Internet blogs.

Herseth’s appearance was the result of an invitation she received from Mitchell seventh-grader Marissa Tubbs. The school visit lasted almost two hours, until Herseth left for an appearance at the local hospital. She was on the last leg of a whirlwind travel schedule that took her recently to Iraq, the state capitol in Pierre and numerous other locations in South Dakota.

Her many travels and speeches have been contrasted by silence from the Republican Party, from which nobody has stepped forward as a November opponent.

“I’ll eventually have one,” she said as she left the school. “It may not be until after the state Legislature, but I hope that it’s taken them this long to recruit someone because many people, even Republicans, feel that I’m doing a good job representing South Dakota.”

Argus

State Senator Lee Schoenbeck, in an article on campaign finance reform, states that the Argus Leader is a politcal force and it should disclose how it is spending its money:

Republican Sen. Lee Schoenbeck of Watertown disagreed.

"It would seem to me that the largest source of funds for political purposes in influencing politics these days would be the Argus Leader checkbook,'' Schoenbeck said.

"We don't get any report to see what they're expending on the Governor's Club litigation or pursuit of Mayor (Dave) Munson, so this isn't actually catching all the political funds out there and certainly not the most effective one in South Dakota.''

The Economist

From the great British weekly, The Economist (subscript. required):

On red alert

Jan 26th 2006 | LOS ANGELES
From The Economist print edition

How to prevent the warping of impressionable minds

FANCY being a student mercenary in the culture wars? Go to the University of California's giant Los Angeles campus and take notes—or, better still, tape recordings—of any professor who “just can't stop talking about President Bush, about Howard Dean, about the war in Iraq. If you can help UCLAProfs.com collect information about abusive, one-sided, or off-topic classroom behaviour, we'll pay you for your work.”

This offer—rates as high as $100 with a tape recorder supplied—was made earlier this month by Andrew Jones, a 24-year-old UCLA graduate who once headed the campus's student Republicans and who believes that far too many of UCLA's 3,300 teaching staff are left-wing radicals intent on warping the impressionable minds of their 35,600 students. This week, amid howls of protest from the university, Mr Jones abruptly withdrew the cash incentive, saying he wanted to protect his spies from possible legal action. But he still wants ammunition on Bolshie teachers, and his website, which names some 31 professors who deserve special scrutiny, accuses one of raging about “a Bush Reich” and others of being anti-Israel.

The professors point out that UCLA already lets its students give anonymous evaluations of their teachers. They say Mr Jones, the sole employee and founder of his Bruin Alumni Association, is the real zealot.

The cash-for-tapes ploy may be unsubtle, but it reflects the keenness on the right to tackle what many see as the American left's last redoubt. Mr Jones persuaded a score of well-known local conservatives to serve on his advisory group (though at least three have now resigned). Others on the right want state legislatures to pass “an academic bill of rights” forcing universities to have more politically diverse faculties. Given conservatives' success in changing Congress, the judiciary and the press, pinkish academics have every reason to be scared.

ACTA

The American Council of Trustees and Alumni has released a new study entitled "Intellecutal Diversity: Time for Action" (PDF alert).  You can read the accompanying press release here, which reads in part:

In spite of a statement by 30 higher education organizations recognizing the importance of intellectual diversity, a recent survey by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni shows that not a single institution has taken concrete steps to further that goal.

On June 23, 2005, the American Council on Education and 29 other institutions of higher education issued a “Statement on Academic Rights and Responsibilities” affirming support for “intellectual pluralism and academic freedom.”  The statement responded to growing national concern, underlined by a number of studies, about the one-sided political and ideological tilt of many college and university campuses.  The groups hoped to head off legislative intervention by pledging that the universities would fix the problem themselves.

Vote of Cloture on Alito Nominaton Passes Senate

MSNBC:

The Senate all but guaranteed Samuel Alito’s confirmation as the nation’s 110th Supreme Court justice Monday, shutting down a last-minute attempt by liberals to block the conservative judge’s nomination with a filibuster.

Republican and Democratic senators on a 72-25 vote agreed to end their debate, setting up a Tuesday morning vote on his confirmation to replace retiring moderate Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.

The 75-25 vote is a very healthy sign for the Senate as a whole.  Lincoln Chafee became the first Republican to announce that he would vote against Alito.  But he voted for cloture. 

Chafee, a self-described “pro-choice, pro-environment, pro-Bill of Rights Republican,” was the only member of the Republican Party to announce he would vote against the conservative judge.  Chafee refused to support the Democrats’ filibuster attempt, however. “How are we going to get anything done if we can’t work together?” Chafee asked.

 

Wal-Mart Rules

Our girlfriday has picked up on our Wal-Mart posts (here and here) of some time ago.  Now we have this story about 25,000 residents in the Chicago area applying for 325 positions at the local Wal-Mart.  The irony is that Chicago would not let Wal-Mart build, so the store built just across the city line in an adjacent suburb.  While Prof. Blanchard may have little experience of inner-city poverty, I do, in that very same Windy City of Chicago.  For five years I lived in Chicago's Rogers Park neighborhood and for three of those years I coached 9-12 year-olds in baseball (league champs in year three, btw).  I saw boys with horrible home lives being recruited by gangs at the ages of eleven and twelve.  I saw drug deals go down and lived in a neighborhood with two dozen places to buy booze, but only two banks.  What that neighborhood needed, among other things, was hope, hope brought on by jobs.  Wal-Mart provides people who have few skills the opportunity to get a job and work their way up.  Wal-Mart is no different from any other business in that way.  I worked at a local Target one summer in Chicago, and I saw it happen there.  What's the difference between Wal-Mart and Target?  Wal-Mart is more successful.  Few of us were getting rich at Target and few of us got health insurance, but for some Target was a way out of a bad situation in the inner city.  I wish Wal-Mart of Evergreen Park all the success in the world. 

Paranoia On the Left

Some persons associated with SDP have recently been accused of paranoia because SDP went after David Kranz during the 2004 election.  This blog made a case that he was biased, and that may have been a factor when he was taken off the story.  Here is Chad at CCK.

The Kranz saga, in particular, is disheartening because I know firsthand the guy is committed to upholding high standards of journalism. The fact that the black helicoptors the right swears are closing in on them took him off the beat of the biggest race of his career is a travesty. He worked his ass off for 30+ years and earned the right to cover that race. If Jon Lauck, Jason Van Beek, the hillbilly, and John Thune are proud of that accomplishment, then I think that speaks volumes about their character.

Now, this story has never been part of my portfolio here at SDP, and I have no strong opinions on it.  Chad may be right that the Argus Leader panicked when they took Kranz off the story  But I don't think that accusing a reporter of bias amounts to paranoia.  Its the nature of blogs to exaggerate the one thing and ignore the other, but with so many of them out there, everything gets out eventually.  Kranz's 30+ years of hard work do not isolate him from criticism.

If you want to see what real paranoia looks like, try this piece by Peter Daou.  Tom Bevin, at Real Clear Politics has the scoop. 

THE TRIANGLE: Matthews, Moore, Murtha, and the Media: What's the common thread running through the past half-decade of Bush's presidency? What's the nexus between the Swift-boating of Kerry, the Swift-boating of Murtha, and the guilt-by-association between Democrats and terrorists? Why has a seemingly endless string of administration scandals faded into oblivion? Why do Democrats keep losing elections? It's this: the traditional media, the trusted media, the "neutral" media, have become the chief delivery mechanism of potent anti-Democratic and pro-Bush storylines. And the Democratic establishment appears to be either ignorant of this political quandary or unwilling to fight it.There's a critical distinction to be made here: individual reporters may lean left, isolated news stories may be slanted against the administration. What I'm describing is the wholesale peddling by the "neutral" press of deep-seated narratives, memes, and soundbites: simple, targeted talking points that paint a picture of reality for the American public that favors the right and tarnishes the left.

Now this is a full-tilt conspiracy theory.  Yes, of course 98% of everyone who works in network news has never voted Republican in their lives.  But follow the common thread, oh you who grope in the darkness, and the invisible forces will be made visible to you.  And if you don't want to look for it yourself, there is a chart:

There's a good reason why Daou needs to believe in a conspiracy.  He "directed online rapid response and blog outreach for the Kerry-Edwards campaign."  It just can't be that he lost fair and square.  The contest must have been rigged!  Of course.  The scales fall from his eyes.

"Flip-flop" took hold as an anti-Kerry theme because it was repeated ad nauseum in the press. And mind you, reporters are far too sophisticated to simply deliver the meme as an accusation; they frame it as a question, they toss it in as an offhanded remark, they run a caption that says it for them, they use the language of Democratic duality and Republican unity, they use polls for cover, they play false equivalency games, they allow Republicans to repeat the narrative unhindered, and so on. This despite the fact that Bush contradicted himself on major policy issues and was a master ‘flip-flopper’ himself. Had the media fact-checked the assertion every time it popped up and had they called Bush a flip-flopper with the same brutal, methodical intensity, the race might have ended differently. One of the few chances Americans got to test the flip-flop meme was the debates, and we all know how those turned out.

Diabological reporters, those, careful crafting each word to favor the Bushies.  That, Chad, is paranoia.

Conrad is a "Yes" On Alito.

Kent Conrad of North Dakota will vote for Samuel Alito's confirmation to the Supreme Court.  Like Robert Byrd and Ben Nelson, two other Demcrats committed to voting Alito in, Conrad is up for re-election this year.  The fourth Democrat, South Dakota's Tim Johnson, is up for re-election in 2008. 

Hamas

Here's a cartoon which fits with this previous post on Hamas:

Intellectual Diversity

Our Intellectual Diversity bill is getting some national attention.  Both Power Line (who linked to us) and Instapundit have taken note, and both approve of the bill.

Cutting Off the Flow of Cash to Palestine

From the Washington Post:

Israeli officials sought support for an international boycott of a Palestinian government that includes Hamas, as leaders of the radical Islamic group said Sunday they did not expect the Bush administration to end funding once they form a cabinet in the coming weeks. Doing so would conflict with the democratic values the administration promotes in the region, they said.

"We don't have any fears," said Saed Siyam, a Hamas candidate elected to parliament last week who frequently serves as the group's emissary to the outside world. "The American and the Europeans have an interest in this also. They will be embarrassed in this part of the world if they punish a people simply for expressing their democratic wishes."

This is nonsense of course.  We wouldn't be cutting off aid because Hamas was elected.  We would be cutting off aid because of how Hamas speaks and acts once its status is official.  I have expressed skepticism that we, let alone Europe, would really do anything that might force Hamas to moderate its behavior.  But maybe I was wrong. 

German Chancellor Angela Merkel, in Jerusalem with acting Israeli Premier Ehud Olmert, said the European Union would not fund the Palestinian Authority if Hamas does not renounce violence and recognize Israel.

If she sticks to that, and (big if) she can bring the rest of Europe with her, then progress might be possible. 

Why the Hamas Victory was a Good Thing

Lets call it the lean, green, mean machine, the Hamas party that has now assumed leadership of the Palestinian people.  I think the victory of Hamas in the recent elections was a good thing.  The Fatah party, on whom the Oslo Accords and the Road map to Peace depended, was the political version of a potato sorter in a french fry factory.  Only instead of sorting large potatoes from small ones, it sorted out large and small bundles of cash floating in from Europe and the U.S.  Small bundles went to buy loyalty from small fry.  If you knew someone who knew someone who was high enough in Fatah to get Arafat's ear, you could get your daughters cleft palate operated on.  Large bundles went to pay off bigger fry, and of course to pad nest eggs in foreign countries.  Whatever the virtues of that system, it had no mechanisms or culture suitable for building a Palestinian state with which one could actually negotiate.  Besides, Fatah is in fact no less committed to terror and the destruction of Israel than Hamas is. 

What about Hamas?  Mark Steyn, writing in the Chciago Sun-Times, has this delicious example:

Mariam Farahat, a mother of three, was elected in Gaza. She used to be a mother of six but three of her sons self-detonated on suicide missions against Israel. She's a household name to Palestinians, known as Um Nidal -- Mother of the Struggle -- and, at the rate she's getting through her kids, the Struggle's all she'll be Mother of. She's famous for a Hamas recruitment video in which she shows her 17-year-old son how to kill Israelis and then tells him not to come back. It's the Hamas version of 42nd Street: You're going out there a youngster but you've got to come back in small pieces.

Well, isn't that worse than mere corruption?  No.  Steyn explains why.

So what happens now? Either Hamas forms a government and decides that operating highway departments and sewer systems is what it really wants to do with itself. Or, like Arafat, it figures that it has no interest in government except as a useful front for terrorist operations. If it's the former, all well and good: Many first-rate terror organizations have managed to convert themselves to third-rate national-liberation governments. But, if it's the latter, that too is useful: Hamas is the honest expression of the will of the Palestinian electorate, and the cold hard truth of that is something Europeans and Americans will find hard to avoid.

In fact it might be both.  Hamas might be really effective in building a real government in Gaza, and still regard that government primarily as a vehicle for terrorism.  But at least one knows with whom one is dealing, or who one is lobbing missiles at.  States are easier to get at than shadowy factions.  And Hamas may suddenly discover that it has something to loose.  That's a basis for negotiations.

One small sign of promise, though I wouldn't put much stock in it, is that there is suddenly a lot of talk about cutting off the flow of money to the Palestinian leadership.  Up until now we have been paying the Palestinians to do exactly what we don't want them to do: make war.  The more bombers then sent into Israel, the more people said: we have got to cure the underlying poverty by sending them more cash.  But all we were buying was the pretense of partnership.  Maybe someone will seriously contemplate cutting off the milk of kindness until Hamas reciprocates.  But I wouldn't hold my breath for that.  If the Palestinians are caught up in a cycle of violence and corruption, the West is caught up in a cycle of cash payments for empty words.  Perhaps a twelve step program is in order.

Historical Musings

I wish I had discovered this earlier.  This year's annual meeting of the American Historical Association in Philadelphia had a round table session entitled "Were All the World a Blog: History Bloggers and History Blogging."  Blogging is still a very fresh medium that has a long way to go before any major readership develops.  However, it appears that academic history blogs (and, I would assume, many other academic disciplines) are embracing the new medium as a research tool (i.e., allowing the free flow of ideas and opinions, organizing information for books, etc.).  You can read an introduction to academic history blogs here, and an article on the virtues of blogging here by blogger Rebecca Goetz.

Keillor on the "New Tocqueville"

Garrison Keillor, host and writer of "A Prairie Home Companion," has a hilarious review of the book American Vertigo: Traveling America in the Footsteps of Tocqueville by the so-called "new Tocqueville" Bernard-Henri Lévy in today's New York Times. 

Johnson & Alito

Dave Kranz states the obvious today when he notes in his Argus Leader column that some Democrats are not happy about Senator Johnson's vote in favor of Judge Alito:

When Democratic Sen. Tim Johnson said last week that he would vote to confirm Judge Samuel Alito for a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court, Clark Butler of Sioux Falls, a World War II veteran and staunch Democrat, went to his computer and rifled off a brief e-mail message to his long list of contacts.

“For a very short time, South Dakota had three Democrats in D.C. We now have three Republicans.”

Johnson’s political army takes differing attitudes on his Alito vote.

It was either the safe way out, further cushioning himself from a tough re-election battle in 2008, or it was doing what he believed was the right thing.

Johnson explained his support this way: “... I must conclude that Judge Alito possesses a high level of legal skill, is a man of solid personal integrity, and that his views fall within the mainstream of contemporary conservative jurisprudential thinking. At the conclusion of Senate floor debate, I will oppose any effort to filibuster his nomination, and I will vote to confirm Judge Alito’s nomination to the Supreme Court.”

Jennifer Duffy, Senate analyst with the Cook Political Report, says Johnson is smart – he understands the implications and risks that come with being a Democratic senator from South Dakota in this political environment.

“It’s hard to think of a reason for him not to vote for Alito. He is qualified. He did well in the hearings, and a vote against him simply looks partisan,” Duffy said.

Everything Johnson does is viewed through 2008 model glasses now.

“Every vote he makes is relevant. This is a high-stakes vote. Every vote plays into the re-election,” she said.

Funeral Protests

Rapid City Journal:

Legislation that would make it illegal to protest funerals in South Dakota flew through its first hearing Friday.

SB156, offered by Sen. Tom Hansen, R-Huron, was unanimously passed by the state Senate Judiciary Committee, setting the bill up for a vote on the Senate floor as early as Tuesday.

If it wins full legislative approval and is signed by Gov. Mike Rounds, the measure would become law immediately. The bill was spurred by protests in recent months at funerals in Huron, Rapid City and Yankton for servicemen who died in Iraq.

“They were young people that gave their lives in the service of our country,” Hansen said. “Some would say they gave their lives defending our freedoms so that even the inconsiderate and disrespectful could be allowed to express themselves,” Hansen said.

Hansen said he believes in free speech, but there is a time and place for it. It is not proper to demonstrate when people are burying their loved ones, he said.

SD Economy

Here's some great news from the Rapid City Journal:

Booming cattle market ripples through region’s economy

Cary and Codi Reese and Cary’s mother, Colleen Popham, went home happy from the Jan. 19 sale at the Belle Fourche Livestock Exchange.

The Upton, Wyo., area ranch family had sold 50 older butcher cows for an average of 65 cents a pound, about double similar types of cows were bringing three or four years ago.

“I’ve been ranching 50 years,” Popham said. “These are the highest prices I’ve ever seen.”

The higher prices mean more profits to spend.

Dean Strong, owner of Belle Fourche Livestock, said calf and cattle prices have been at record levels over the past year. Last fall, calves were generally selling from $1.25 to $1.50 a pound on the hoof, depending on weight and other factors. “That amounted to $30 to $40 more a head than last year, and last year was pretty good,” Strong said.

The improved market has been a welcome turnaround from the low prices that had persisted for the previous 15 years or so. Three or four years ago, calves were bringing 70 to 80 cents a pound.

For a 600-pound calf, at even $1.25 a pound today, that’s a difference of $300. If a rancher sells 100 calves in the fall, that’s a $30,000 bigger paycheck.

Anti-Americanism Defeated in Canada, Says WaPo!

I have in recent years relied much on the Washington Post.  I often put its photo page and editorials on display when I begin my American Government class.  This is because, unlike the New York Times, see Powerline, it is an honest paper.  And it has been thoroughly liberal, and therefore likely to check my own biases. 

But lately I am getting a bit worried.  Last Summer I blogged about John Roberts, and suggested reasonable standards by which both parties ought to judge court nominees.  In short order the Washington Post endorsed Roberts, and defended its decision on the grounds that I included in my blog.  Could it be that the WaPo is taking its cue from SDP?  Well, probably not.  But then  I posted a couple of entries just before the Canadian elections, Anti-Americanism (or Anti-Bushism) Fades in Canada I and II.  In the former I pointed out how anti-Americanism was failing parties in Europe and was about to disappoint the liberal party in Canada.  And now the WaPo again follows in step:

ACCORDING TO his opponent, Canadian Conservative Party Leader Stephen Harper exposed "an agenda really drawn from the extreme right in the United States." He favored the Iraq war, opposed the Kyoto treaty on global warming, and is a social conservative to boot. He might just become -- heaven forbid -- "the most pro-American leader in the Western world." His victory would -- O, Canada! -- "put a smile on George W. Bush's face." Despite all those scary warnings, Mr. Harper and his party won Canada's election on Monday. That put an end to 12 years of increasingly incoherent and corrupt rule by the Liberal Party -- as well as the cynical and irresponsible attempt of its leader, outgoing Prime Minister Paul Martin, to use anti-Americanism.

Mr. Martin becomes the second G-8 leader in four months to exit from office after discovering that anti-U.S. demagoguery is no longer enough to win an election. Gerhard Schroeder, the former German chancellor, also tried to rescue his political career last fall by parading his differences with Mr. Bush; the result was the victory of Angela Merkel, who has moved swiftly to repair relations with Washington. Interestingly, both Mr. Schroeder and Mr. Martin won previous campaigns by playing anti-American cards, in 2002 and 2004 respectively. While it's not clear that the level of ill feeling toward the United States or its president has changed much in Germany or Canada, it's obviously not the foremost concern of voters fed up with domestic mismanagement -- or, perhaps, political venality.

Is the WaPo lining up behind SDP?  Hardly.  But it does suggest that, for all the acrimony between conservatives and liberals, convergence of honest minds is sometimes possible.  It certainly seems to me that the Post is no knee-jerk publication.

Mr. Harper [the new Prime Minister] can be expected to stop the self-defeating flow of bile, to offer more cooperation on defense, and to seek to be heard on trade and border issues. If he is wise, Mr. Bush will make an effort to listen, and find compromises, as he did this month with Ms. Merkel. Foreign political leaders who stick to a platform of friendship and cooperation with the United States in the teeth of anti-American mudslinging ought to be visibly rewarded. As for Mr. Martin, perhaps he will be tempted again by the example of Mr. Schroeder, who has taken a job as an agent for Russian President Vladimir Putin. Does Hugo Chavez need another lobbyist?

Some Steins Support Our Troops

Jason Heppler has blogged on Joel Stein's infamous piece, "Warriors and Wusses," in the LATimes., which opened with the words "I do not support our troops."    I think this Stein deserves some credit.  He has the backbone to say what he really thinks, and denounce pieties he does not feel.  I suspect he is right that some of the critics of the war are "wusses," who only mouth support for the troops because they are afraid of what people will think about them if they are more honest. 

I'm not for the war. And being against the war and saying you support the troops is one of the wussiest positions the pacifists have ever taken — and they're wussy by definition. It's as if the one lesson they took away from Vietnam wasn't to avoid foreign conflicts with no pressing national interest but to remember to throw a parade afterward.

On the other hand, I think this position does a disservice to those on the left (or right!) who oppose the war but nonetheless admire the bravery and patriotism of American soldiers.  The yellow ribbon was devised precisely to allow the expression of the latter sentiment apart from any position on this war or any other.  This make sense if you believe, as I do, that soldiers as such are not responsible for policy.  Nor does that responsibility ultimately lie with the President or Congress; it lies with all of us who vote and participate in politics at any level.  Joel Stein rejects that idea.

Blaming the president is a little too easy. The truth is that people who pull triggers are ultimately responsible, whether they're following orders or not. An army of people making individual moral choices may be inefficient, but an army of people ignoring their morality is horrifying.  . . . [W]hen you volunteer for the U.S. military, you pretty much know you're not going to be fending off invasions from Mexico and Canada. So you're willingly signing up to be a fighting tool of American imperialism, for better or worse. Sometimes you get lucky and get to fight ethnic genocide in Kosovo, but other times it's Vietnam.

The logical extension of the morality Stein advocates would then be that the U.S. would have no military.  But there is something worse.  It strikes at the very idea of civilian control over the military.  An army that exercised its morality by refusing to fight when called upon might just as well exercise it by removing insufficiently moral presidents and Congresses from office.  When Bill Clinton was elected a student of mine, fresh from military service, said he did not think that the army would willingly serve such a man.  I confess I was a bit sharp in my reply.  The President is captain of the Republic, I said, and the armed forces of the Republic will do what they are told. 

Of course there are limits to what orders a soldier should obey.  If he is called upon to commit and atrocity, he should refuse.  But short of that, policy is not his responsibility.  From Private First Class to the Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, it is the soldiers responsibility to carry out policy made by civilians.  For that reason, if we don't like the policy, blame the policy makers not the soldiers. 

There is another Stein, Ben, who has a different take on how to view our fighting men and women.

The most heroic, ethically courageous, morally resolute men and women in the world today are the Americans, British, and other forces fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are fighting the most evil men and women currently on the world scene. The American Army soldier, Marine, Navy sailor, Air Force warrior, and Coast Guardsman fighting in Ramadi or Mosul is fighting men and women who kill children and old people for sport. The men and women of the United States military are fighting the remnants of a regime so evil that it pioneered the use of torture against children -- just for the amusement of Saddam and his family. The men and women whom Joel despises rid the world of a dictator so twisted and murderous that he openly admired Stalin and Hitler and sought to match their level of atrocities. The men and women who wear the uniform fought, bled, and died to rid the world of the most dangerous man on the planet in the most flammable place on the planet. They died to save a slave people from the genocidal control of a mad killer who thought nothing of gassing his own people, of wiping out entire regions, of setting up special rape rooms to allow his henchmen and his sons to rape women at will, who amused himself by pouring gasoline down the throats of totally innocent people and setting them on fire.

I like Stein 2 a lot better than Stein 1.  But I will confess one thing.  It is just easier to admire our soldiers, sailors, and airmen if you have some sympathy for the policy they are serving.  Its also easier to admire them if you think that there is honor in fighting for one's country. 

Herseth

Here's an excerpt from the Rapid City Journal:

Back in South Dakota from a trip to Afghanistan and Iraq, Rep. Stephanie Herseth, D-S.D., said Monday that significant progress is being made in rebuilding both countries though challenges remain.

“It’s clear to me from my briefings and meetings with some of the troops and commanders on the ground that the military objective of training Iraqi security forces, of training the Afghan national army, of raising the police forces in both countries, that significant progress has been made,” she said.

Kranz

I don't normally challenge fellow South Dakota bloggers, but Daschle/Hildebrand employee/blogger Chad Schuldt has come to the defense of Dave Kranz and says it's a "travesty" he was pulled from covering the 2004 Daschle-Thune race. 

Of course, Schuldt doesn't discuss Kranz's long association with Daschle and his association with Democrats, which Kranz has never disclosed.  It is one thing for blogs to be biased, since they never claim to be objective.  It's another to have the state's largest newspaper and the so-called dean of South Dakota politics doing the same.  As lieutenant governor Lowell Hansen wrote of Kranz in 1986, "Everybody is entitled to have a preference.  But, when that someone has access to thousands of readers, the public deserves to know where he's coming from."

Maybe Schuldt should actually address the facts and evidence that have been uncovered.

Filibuster Watch

First John Kerry, now Hillary Clinton is appealing to the hard-line Democrats:

Sen. Hillary Clinton yesterday backed a rebel band of Senate Dems seeking to filibuster a vote on the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Samuel Alito.

Democratic leaders had warned that filibuster efforts were going nowhere and would let President Bush score easy political points, but Clinton said, "I oppose his nomination and support efforts to block his confirmation."

"I do not think Judge Alito would advance the principles Americans hold most dear," she said, adding she would vote against a move to cut off a filibuster should one occur.

Liberal Academics

Rapid City Journal reporter Kevin Woster, when commenting on the new intellectual diversity bill in Pierre, honestly admits that professors in South Dakota are liberals:

I have a number of friends and some relatives teaching at South Dakota colleges and universities. All good, smart, caring people, and fine teachers. And, virtually without exception, liberal. K.W.

Filibluster III

Kent Conrad (Sen-ND) in opposition to the Kerry, Kennedy filibuster.

Among the rank and file, there was opposition to a filibuster from several lawmakers, including liberal Barbara Mikulski of Maryland and North Dakota's Kent Conrad, a moderate who is on the ballot this fall in a Republican state.

Democratic officials said Mikulski had said during this week's closed-door caucus that the 2006 and 2008 elections were more important than a symbolic last stand that would fail to prevent Alito's confirmation. Her spokesman declined comment.

The officials who described the comments did so on condition of anonymity, citing the private nature of the discussions.

In an interview, Conrad said that in remarks to fellow Democrats at the caucus, he outlined several factors. These included Alito's strong backing from the American Bar Association, his uncontested confirmation 15 years ago to the appeals court, public opinion polls and the fact that Republicans had voted overwhelmingly to confirm Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer when President Clinton nominated them. "So I put that all together and I find it makes it hard to justify a filibuster," he said.

That was a thorough and honest list.

 

Filibluster II

From CNN:

Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry took to the Senate floor Friday to rally his Democratic colleagues behind a filibuster of Judge Samuel Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court.

But senators from both parties -- including Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid -- described Kerry's efforts as an uphill battle, at best.  "Everyone knows there are not enough votes to support a filibuster," Reid told Reuters.

Kerry was in Davos, Switzerland, attending the World Economic Forum Thursday when he called for the filibuster. Democratic sources tell CNN that Kerry called fellow Democratic senators Thursday to rally support.

Truth on the Market

One of the great things about the blogosphere is its ability to correct half-truths or hold people accountable.  Case in point, Russell Roberts looks at a supposed "income gap" story by the Associated Press.

Construction Crane Collapses, Downtown Aberdeen

As far as I know no one was hurt.  I was there about ten minutes (around three o'clock) during which time they cut the operator out.  He was walking around on his own.  It looks like the boom buckled and broke while he was manipulating a three story tall concrete slab.  I suspect that the part of the boom that fell on his cab may have saved his life.  You can see below the space he was in.

Too Disturbing For Words

A colleague and I were discussing popular depictions of angels.  So I google imaged the word "angels."  I found the picture below at this site. This creeps me out and I like Dick Cheney. 

Hamas resolution

Senator John Thune acts in response to the Hamas victory:

A nonbinding resolution introduced by Sen. John Thune, R-SD, on Thursday called for the ending of U.S. aid to the Palestinian government if the party controlling the Palestinian parliament advocates the destruction of Israel, as Hamas does.

Stuck on 1968

Arnold Kling:

If 1968 were an influential thinker, it would have many disciples who share its folk beliefs. Those folk beliefs are the mental security blanket still being clutched by my liberal friends, even those who are not old enough to remember 1968.

I want to contrast the way the world might have appeared to a reasonable liberal in 1968 with the way events have unfolded since then. Afterwards, if you still prefer the folk beliefs of 1968 to my views today, so be it. But at least you have an opportunity to reconsider.

Read the whole thing.  HT to Instapundit.

The Kerry Filibluster

Jason notes this story below.  I say its all show, and Alito will be confirmed next week.  John McIntyre at the RCP blog dissects the story. 

Kerry’s push for a filibuster is all about internal Democratic politics and the ’08 election. And it is smart politics for Kerry.

Sen. Kerry in all likelihood is finished at the national level in terms of another presidential run. But Kerry certainly doesn’t believe that, and this is all about trying to put his name out there as the leader who represents the nominating base of the party.

While Kerry has zero chances of beating Hillary in a fight for the nomination, say the unlikely happens and Sen. Clinton doesn’t run, then suddenly Kerry is back in the game and he has probably made a lot of hard core Democrats happy this afternoon.

The Party of John Wayne

Richard Cohen has a delicious piece on John Wayne as a cultural/political icon.  But bear in mind that Cohen is a liberal and is not celebrating.  Well, not much.  He can't resist bragging about meeting the Duke.

The latest poll is not good for the Democrats. I am not talking here of the one showing George Bush's approval rating inching up nor the one showing immense if dangerously ignorant support for domestic spying. I'm talking about the recently released Harris Poll showing John Wayne one of the most popular movie stars of 2005. The one thing he and the Democratic Party have in common is that they are both dead.

That's about as good a first paragraph as ordinary punditry produces.  Then try this one:

You can scan the length and breadth of the Democratic Party and not find any breadth, and no Wayne figure either. It is certainly not Hillary Clinton or Al Gore or John Kerry or Mark Warner. None of them seem to have what it takes to appeal to white, male voters. But if you should happen to be in room 241 of the Russell Senate Office Building, you'll find Wayne galore: pictures of John McCain in various Arizona settings. He's a two-fer -- a military hero and a Westerner. Democrats beware.

What, Those? They're Just WMDs.

Strange that this hasn't received more press coverage.  Or this, which would have killed 80,000 Jordanians. 

By the way, check out the latest book on Hussein's regime in Saddam's Secrets: How an Iraqi General Defied and Survived Saddam Hussein by Georges Sada.

HT to Gateway Pundit.

Kerry

Here we go:

Kerry will try Alito filibuster

Sen. John Kerry will attempt a filibuster to block the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court, CNN has learned.

Kerry, in Davos, Switzerland, to attend the World Economic Forum, was marshaling support in phone calls during the day, Democratic sources told CNN.

Sources say Kerry talked to a group of Democratic senators Wednesday, and urged that they join him. He also has the support of fellow Massachusetts Sen. Edward Kennedy.

Some senior Democrats told CNN they are worried that the move could backfire.

Intellectual Diversity Press Release

From the American Council of Trustees & Alumni:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                         CONTACT:  Anne D. Neal, 202-467-6787

LEGISLATION REQUIRES COLLEGES

TO FILE ANNUAL REPORTS ON INTELLECTUAL DIVERSITY

UNIVERSITIES MUST OUTLINE STEPS TAKEN

TO ENSURE FREE EXCHANGE OF IDEAS

Washington, DC (Jan. 26, 2006)—A bill has been introduced in South Dakota which will require higher education institutions to report annually on concrete steps taken to ensure the free exchange of ideas on their campuses.

House Bill 1222 was filed by Rep. Phyllis M. Heineman, chairman of the South Dakota House Committee on Education, mandating that the South Dakota Board of Regents require institutions they govern to report on specific steps taken “to ensure and promote intellectual diversity and academic freedom.”  The bill suggests a variety of measures institutions can take, but leaves the contents of the report—which will be made public—up to each reporting institution.

More than thirty legislators have co-sponsored the bill, including both Democrats and Republicans.

The bill comes in the wake of a national initiative, launched by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, to ensure the free exchange of ideas on college and university campuses.  In a report released last month, Intellectual Diversity: Time for Action, ACTA outlined steps universities could take to encourage a mix of ideas on campus and to respond to the growing public concern about the lack of intellectual diversity.

“As legislators we have many good reasons to request a report that assures taxpayers, parents, students and faculty that South Dakota’s public campuses are committed to intellectual diversity and a free exchange of ideas,” said Rep. Heineman (R-Dist. 13), who introduced the bill.  “$528,538,576 of them are our dollars invested (2007 budget request); 30,000 of them are our students enrolled; and 5424 of them are our faculty and staff employed.”

“This has become a nationwide topic with some troublesome situations in some campuses across the country.  Reacting to this growing concern, the American Council on Education, in which virtually all of our South Dakota higher ed institutions are members, issued a statement on Academic Rights & Responsibilities.  It acknowledged the importance of intellectual diversity and noted that this statement could be a resource for policymakers,” said Heineman.  “Accordingly, we are asking for a report on measures taken on each campus to assure this environment.  We suggest some contents, but leave it to the university to create its unique format making it a readable and useful public document.”

Rep. Gerald Lange (D-Dist. 8), who co-sponsored the bill, believes that providing an open forum for diverse points of view is rooted in the Bill of Rights itself.  “It's a no brainer,” said the retired  professor.  “It's in the Constitution.”

“Intellectual diversity and the opportunity to be exposed to a full range of ideas and philosophies is the heart and soul of a college education,” said co-sponsor Senator Lee Schoenbeck (R-Dist. 5).  “College is about learning and maturing and developing through exposure to all of the ideas that unite and divide us as a society.  This legislation is about self-examination by the system to ensure that no part of the college experience is lost to our students.”

Ryan Brunner, President, South Dakota State University Students’ Association, welcomed the proposed legislation.  “Intellectual diversity promotes critical thinking that is an integral part of a college education.  A report on intellectual diversity at universities would help identify areas of improvement, as well as praise the steps the Board of Regents has already taken.  South Dakota universities have taken steps to promote intellectual diversity and a report will give us a chance to highlight those steps.”

“The legislators deserve our praise for emphasizing the importance of intellectual diversity and doing so in a way that is sensitive to the concerns of the academy,” said ACTA president Anne D. Neal.  “By giving a mandate to the board of trustees who already are legally responsible, the legislature has properly placed the burden on the institutions themselves, rather than inserting itself in an inappropriate way.”

The American Council of Trustees and Alumni is a national education nonprofit dedicated to academic freedom, academic excellence, and accountability.  A copy of ACTA’s report, Intellectual Diversity: Time for Action, is available on the ACTA website, www.goacta.org.


To contact:

Anne Neal, ACTA, 202-467-6787

Rep. Phyllis Heineman, [email protected]

Ryan Brunner, South Dakota State University Students’ Association, 605-688-5181

Johnson

Kos isn't happy with Johnson's decision:

Johnson, Tim (SD)* (following the Daschle "winning" formula of going along to, erm, get along. "Smart" move Tim.)

Some of their reader's aren't happy either.  Be sure to note some of those wacky comments.

How I Learned To Start Loving Hamas

Like Prof. Blanchard I actually find some consolation in the victory of Hamas in the Palestinian elections.  Let's see what the Palestinian people think of Hamas when Hamas is responsible for "making the trains run on time."  Now Hamas has actual responsibility for running a quasi-state.  This might be the worst thing that could have happened to them. 

Johnson On Alito

I was interviewed by a local paper whose name rhymes with Bargus Fleader about Tim Johnson's decision to back Judge Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court.  I essentially said that Johnson's decision was likely equal parts politics and principle.  This is undoubtedly the smart political move in the state if Sen. Johnson intends to run for re-election in 2008, and it is also the principled decision.  Sen. Johnson has seen through his political disagreements with Judge Alito and recognized that Alito is a superb legal mind and a man of high integrity.  Well done, Senator. 

Hamas Wins Palestinian Elections

By a big margin, the terrorist group, Hamas, has won the Palestinian elections.  From the London Times:

In the end it was a landslide. Hamas, the Islamic militant group, won 76 votes in the Palestinian parliamentary elections, compared to 43 for President Mahmoud Abbas's Fatah movement.

The conventional wisdom, predictably is that this is a disaster.  Richard Chesnoff, of the New York Daily News, is right about what gave Hamas the victory.

Yasser Arafat's chickens have come home to roost. After decades of dictatorial and corrupt control by the late Fatah leader and his cohorts, vast numbers of voters in both the West Bank and Gaza have angrily turned their backs on Arafat's heirs and given their support to rival Hamas, the radical Islamic party.

He is wrong, I think, about the consequences of Hamas' victory.

Hamas remains the same terrorist party it's always been, a heavily armed, blood-drenched gang that boasts of suicide bombings and doesn't even pretend to want peace with Israel. Its goals are crystal clear: the total annihilation of the Jewish state in favor of an Islamic state throughout the entire Holy Land. Its presence in a Palestinian government is hardly incentive for Israel to follow up on its recent withdrawal from Gaza and move ahead on the U.S.-sponsored road map to Mideast peace.

The danger is that there are already some in Israel - and a growing flock outside - who talk about the need for Israel to launch a dialogue with Hamas leaders - as though talking to this band of religious fanatics who hate Jews and Christians would be any more successful than trading land for peace was with the Arafat gang.

Israel had already largely abandoned the idea of negotiations with the Palestinians in favor of building a concrete toddler gate to keep the terrorists out of Israel.  I don't think they will be more friendly to Hamas. 

Yet there are those who argue that if Hamas gains political responsibility, it will find itself forced to weed out its militants, eventually turn from terror and moderate its policies.  You mean like the mad mullahs in Iran moderated their policies after they took power?

But the Mad Mullahs did not come to power in an election, and have never submitted their authority to the voters.  Iran has a functioning democracy, of sorts, but the control of the security forces in firmly in the hands of the clerics.  And the latter can decide who is eligible to run for office.  You can't expect democracy to have a beneficial effect on those who are never required to submit to it. 

Hamas has come to power for the first time by means of an election, and that may well prove decisive in shaping the future.  The conventional wisdom that favored Fatah was based on the theory that Fatah was willing and had the power to eventually make peace, which it wasn't and it didn't.  Hamas is only worse in the sense that they actually say what they think.  But Hamas is also a more efficient organization, having experience in building networks of charities, clinics, and schools.  They may actually be capable of building a functioning government, something Yasser Arafat's Kleptocrats were altogether uninterested in.  And having tasted electoral power, they now have something to lose.  I think that will, eventually, make them more responsible. 

I think this is in fact progress.  But if I was in Israel, I would think the Lord for Sharon and his wall.   

Tim Johnson to Vote for Alito

Washington (AP):

South Dakota Sen. Tim Johnson said Thursday that he will vote for Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito, making him the second Democrat to support the judge.

``It does appear his legal skills are excellent and he is a person of integrity, and I do believe it can't be said that his legal viewpoint is outside the mainstream of contemporary jurisprudence,'' Johnson told the Associated Press. ``It was somewhat of a close call for me.''

Still, he said the conservative federal appeals court judge would not have been his pick for the Supreme Court, adding that his deliberation over Alito was more difficult than his decision to support Chief Justice John Roberts last fall.

``I am troubled by Judge Alitos apparent views on matters such as executive power, his past opposition to the principle of one person, one vote, and his narrow interpretation of certain civil rights laws,'' Johnson said. ``Even so, I cannot accept an argument that his views are so radical that the Senate is justified in denying his confirmation.''

He said he would fight any effort by Democrats to filibuster Alito's nomination.