South Dakota Politics

Fire Thunder

Oglala tribal president Cecilia Fire Thunder is under fire again.  Kevin Woster:

Apparently, I’m not the only one being ignored by Cecelia Fire Thunder.

The president of the Oglala Tribe stood up an assembly of 8th-graders Wednesday at North Middle School. She just didn’t show up for a scheduled meeting with the group, which included lots of American Indian kids.

No call or notice, according to the Journal reporter assigned to cover the event, which left lots of disappointed students and staff.

Do you think she doesn’t like them, either?

Where's the outrage from the Democrats?  They've been all over Governor Rounds for his silence towards the Argus Leader.  Why not to Fire Thunder as well?

Johnson Votes Against ANWR

New York Times:

With gasoline prices around $3 a gallon as the Memorial Day weekend approaches, the House again voted Thursday to approve drilling for oil and gas in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

It was at least the 12th time that the House had voted to allow energy exploration in a small piece of the preserve's 19 million acres along the northern coastal plain of Alaska. The final tally was 225 to 201, with 27 Democrats joining the majority and 30 Republicans voting against.

But given the Senate's recent disposition toward drilling in the Arctic, the vote may be little more than symbolic.

Since 1995, when Congress passed an arctic drilling bill and President Bill Clinton vetoed it, Senate proponents of drilling have failed to gather the 60 votes needed to end a filibuster against it. The outcome is expected to be no different this year.

Tim Johnson voted against it.

Synthetic Worlds

We economists' contributions to society usually involve taking interesting topics and make them either boring or incomprehensible. Edward Castronova, associate professor of telecommunications at Indiana University, does neither in his book "Synthetic Worlds: The Business and Culture of Online Games."

Castronova devotes his book almost entirely to the genre known as "Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Games" — "MMORPGs" for 'short'. EverQuest and World of Warcraft are probably the two most popular of these games, which involve creating a character that interacts in a fantasy universe with hundreds of thousands of other people. Gamers in MMORPGs chat, fight battles, trade items, learn crafts and skills, etc., perhaps as if they were an extra in a "Lord of the Rings" or "Star Wars" type movie who got to swing a sword or pilot a starcruiser, but also sat around a tavern sometimes and worried about what color shirt he was wearing.

In his introduction, Castronova describes the growing number of people playing these games (I am not one of them, but many of my friends — and a few of their parents — are):

If we indeed experience a gradual migration of human consciousness into the synthetic universe, we will have a growing need for economic, political, social, and cultural expertise to deal with the difficult issues that arise.

Fulfillment of this need, however, is hampered by the opinions of many intellectuals, who won't believe that whatever is happening in video games could be of any importance.

An aspiring doctoral student forwarded me a thesis proposal in which the main research question was simply, "What are MMORPGs?" Since such a descriptive question seemed, to me, subpar for PhD-level work ("What are automobiles?"), I pressed for an explanation and was told that the student's major professor had required it.

But these fantasy games have been rapidly breaking out into the "real world," carrying significant implications:

Each synthetic world has a play-money currency inside to facilitate player-to-player transactions. These currencies have begun to trade against the dollar in eBay's Category 1654, Internet Games. Many of them now trade at rates higher than those of real Earth currencies, including the yen and the Korean won.

The commerce flow generated by people buying and selling money and other virtual items (that is, magic wands, spaceships, armor) amounts to at least $30 million annually in the United States, and $100 million globally.

As the technology continues to improve, a new generation of people will swell the ranks of online gamers, and policy makers must be aware how this will affect society. Should these online transactions be monitored or taxed somehow? What would stop a money launderer from buying thousands of gold pieces on eBay, using them to buy a rare sword in a game, and then turning around to sell the sword for cash? 

Castronova gives an example of a computer hacker who facilitates the theft of an in-game item that can be sold on eBay for $1,000 or more. Clearly, someone has been unjustly deprived of an object carrying significant value. But what if that same item was lifted by an in-game thief, who chose to train and develop his "pickpocket" skill subject entirely to the rules set by the game's developers? Should the "real world" get involved to ensure justice is served? Cases like these are not unusual in Korean courts, but how will our legal system react?

"Synthetic Worlds" is a fascinating insight into a phenomenon most people are only vaguely aware of. By seeking to understand these games, society will not be caught off guard by the wide-ranging effects of this important technological advance.

Congress Passes Funeral Protest Ban

Prepare yourself for a shock, Seth.  We are in agreement again. Seth at CCK alerts us to this bit of news, from CNN:

Demonstrators would be barred from disrupting military funerals at national cemeteries under legislation approved by Congress and sent to the White House.

The measure, passed by voice vote in the House Wednesday hours after the Senate passed an amended version, specifically targets a Kansas church group that has staged protests at military funerals around the country, claiming that the deaths were a sign of God's anger at U.S. tolerance of homosexuals.

The act "will protect the sanctity of all 122 of our national cemeteries as shrines to their gallant dead," Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tennessee, said prior to the Senate vote.

"It's a sad but necessary measure to protect what should be recognized by all reasonable people as a solemn, private and deeply sacred occasion," he said.

Under the Senate bill, approved without objection by the House with no recorded vote, the "Respect for America's Fallen Heroes Act" would bar protests within 300 feet of the entrance of a cemetery and within 150 feet of a road into the cemetery from 60 minutes before to 60 minutes after a funeral. Those violating the act would face up to a $100,000 fine and up to a year in prison.

I am not altogether sure that national legislation was necessary on this point, as the bill clearly targets a very small gaggle of noxious numbskulls.  But its a perfectly reasonable application of the "public forum" doctrine of constitutional law.  Free speech is limited by context: a public park where demonstrations of any kind are allowed is clearly a public forum; funerals are not. 

Danesqueapades Award Goes to: ABC!

I wish to announce the Second Danesquepades Award.  Don't bother looking for the first award, for I am also announcing it now retroactively.  The award is in honor, so to speak, of Dan Rather, and in memory of the false Sixty Minutes II story that brought his career to an ignominious close.  To qualify, some media source has to 1) publish a story of some political scandal, which story 2) turns out to be without foundation. 

The First Award goes to USAToday, for its story about telecom giants turning their records over to the NSA.  Not that there's anything wrong with that, but all the telecom businesses mentioned have now categorically denied that any such exchange took place.  The award is shared with TIME magazine, which celebrated the story on a recent cover without bothering to confirm it.  I have posted on this, and if our permalinks ever start working, you can find it here. 

The Second Danesquepade Award goes to ABC, for its claim that Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert was a target of the FBI's Congressional bribery investigation.  Michelle Malkin has the original language of the ABC story, which has apparently been modified. 

The Speaker of the House of Representatives, Dennis Hastert, is under investigation by the FBI, which is seeking to determine his role in an ongoing public corruption probe into members of Congress, ABC News has learned from senior U.S. law enforcement officials.

Federal officials say the information implicating Hastert was developed from convicted lobbyists who are now cooperating with the government.

But it turns out that Hastert isn't a target.  Here is the Reuters report:

The U.S. Justice Department on Wednesday denied a report that the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Dennis Hastert, is under investigation by the FBI in connection with a corruption probe.

ABC News, citing high level Justice Department sources, said information implicating Hastert had been developed from convicted lobbyists who are now cooperating with the government.

But department officials, who asked to not be identified, said the story was not accurate and that Hastert was not under investigation. "The story is wrong. Hastert is not under investigation," one official said.

ABC turned out its pockets, with nothing to show for it.  The Second Danesquepade is theirs.

Galloway

Independent Online:

The Respect MP George Galloway has said it would be morally justified for a suicide bomber to murder Tony Blair.

In an interview with GQ magazine, the reporter asked him: "Would the assassination of, say, Tony Blair by a suicide bomber - if there were no other casualties - be justified as revenge for the war on Iraq?"

Mr Galloway replied: "Yes, it would be morally justified. I am not calling for it - but if it happened it would be of a wholly different moral order to the events of 7/7. It would be entirely logical and explicable. And morally equivalent to ordering the deaths of thousands of innocent people in Iraq - as Blair did."

We have this sort of thing in America, but it's absent from our elected leaders.

French Whine

The European social model, version Francais, received another humiliating blow this week.   From the San Francisco Chronicle.

California smoked France Wednesday in a cross-continental tasting of wines that have matured in cellars for three decades. The California Cabernet Sauvignon-based wines placed first through fifth, followed by four wines from France's hallowed Bordeaux region and then another California Cab.

Sacre bleu!

Make that red, white and blue.

The occasion marked the 30th anniversary of "The Judgment of Paris," a tasting by French and British judges that pitted California against Bordeaux Cabernet Sauvignons on May 24, 1976.

In that slosh heard round the world, the 1973 Stag's Leap Wine Cellars S.L.V. Napa Valley Cabernet Sauvignon scored higher than its French counterparts. At the same time, a taste-off of California Chardonnays and Chardonnay-based white Burgundies from France resulted in another stunner when the 1973 Chateau Montelena Napa Valley Chardonnay won.

When writer George M. Taber reported the outcome in Time magazine, California gained instant recognition as a world-class wine region. The French saved face by saying, "Our wines will improve with time. But these California wines will not age well. They will tire quickly, lose their character, lose their balance."

"Phooey" was the answer from Wednesday's tastings. Two panels of wine professionals -- one in Napa at Copia: The American Center for Wine, Food & the Arts, the other at wine merchant Berry Bros. & Rudd in London -- simultaneously evaluated the same 10 wines tasted in the 1976 Paris event.

When the results were combined, the 1971 Ridge Monte Bello Cabernet Sauvignon from the Santa Cruz Mountains finished first, followed by the 1973 Stag's Leap Wine Cellars S.L.V. Cabernet Sauvignon; a tie between the 1970 Heitz Martha's Vineyard Napa Valley Cabernet Sauvignon and 1971 Mayacamas Vineyards Cabernet Sauvignon; and the 1972 Clos du Val Napa Valley Cabernet Sauvignon.

Bordeaux took the next four slots -- 1970 Chateau Mouton-Rothschild, 1970 Chateau Montrose, 1970 Chateau Haut-Brion and 1971 Chateau Leoville-Las-Cases. The 1969 Freemark Abbey Napa Valley Cabernet Sauvignon was 10th.

Organizers of the event were quick to say the re-enactment was a "celebration" of the historic Paris tasting and not meant to be a competition -- a bit like the Special Olympics, where everyone is a winner.

But it became a competition nonetheless, and California vintners reveled in the outcome.

Typepad Issues

Apparently we are having problems with the permalinks on the site.  They are not taking you to the actual post, but just to that week's archive.  We are on the case and apologize for the inconvenience. 

Just One More Time

One more reply to Chad, and then we'll let this horse die.  If Valarie Plame was "undercover" or "covert" then why is Scooter Libby not being charged with the crime of outing a covert agent (and it is a crime to do so)?  Valarie Plame's status was classified (it is not clear Libby knew that), but she was not covert.  See more information at Powerline as to Plame's status.  Revealing her status might have been foolish, and I said so in this post, but it wasn't illegal.  When Patrick Fitzgerald charges someone with a crime specifically for revealing Valarie Plame's  status, then Chad can let me know and I will recant.  Obstructing justice is illegal, and if anyone in the White House was involved in such a scheme then there will and should be hell to pay.  And, as I have argued, Plame's status had virtually nothing to do with national security, unlike the leaks about Bush administration national security operations.  There is a difference in degree of leaks here wide enough so as to create a difference in kind.

I have things to say about "Secret prisons, torture, warrantless wiretapping, massive databases of citizens phone records" but won't take the time.

Chad is correct in his point 4, namely that the question hinges on whether it is justifiable to leak information if you think you are in the right.  In some ways that is a matter between a government employee and his conscience.  But we are talking legality here.  Revealing covert operations to the press strikes at the heart of our national security apparatus.  If we allow this to occur with no penalty than the whole concept of "covert" goes out the window.  I think Chad's arguments reveal no principled opposition to the revealing of covert operations.  Thus even if we accept Chad's claim that Valarie Plame was a covert agent, he has no principled opposition to revealing her status.  He just thinks the political reasons were not good enough.  And to be clear, I agree with Chad that it was wrong to reveal Plame's status; I just don't think it was illegal (and here Chad and I simply have a factual dispute over whether Plame was "covert" or not).  The costs should be political, not legal.  Chad would be on firmer ground arguing for a kind of civil disobedience, i.e., that it is illegal to reveal the Bush administration's covert programs, but the immorality of them gives moral justification for their revelation.  That is a more defensible position than the one Chad is making. 

Finally, if I am a lap dog to "dear leader" why did I just come out against the immigration bill he is supporting.   I think this is an interesting and enlightening debate Chad and I are having.   It is shame that Chad resorts to the ad hominem.  I think Chad is a vigorous and able defender of liberal opinion, and I would enjoy debating him much more (and would read his blog more) if he could avoid impugning his opponents' motives at every turn. 

Just Like A Woman

In an upcoming bio-pic, Bob Dylan will be played by...Cate Blanchett?  Let's see what Chad Schuldt thinks of that!

Economic Growth Surges

More economic good news:

The U.S. economy shot forward at an upwardly revised 5.3 percent annual rate in the first quarter, the fastest growth in 2-1/2 years, as companies built up inventories and exports strengthened, a Commerce Department report on Thursday showed.

First-quarter growth in gross domestic product was more than triple the 1.7 percent annual rate recorded in last year's fourth quarter, though still slightly below Wall Street economists' forecasts for a 5.7 percent pace.

Prices remained in check, with the core personal consumption expenditures price index that the Federal Reserve favors rising at a 2 percent rate compared with 2.4 percent in the fourth quarter.

Immigration

For reasons supplied by John O'Sullivan and Sen. Chuck Grassley, a vote against the immigration bill seems warranted.  That is disappointing, as I used to be one of those open border libertarians Victor Davis Hanson derides.

Political Science

One of the most popular ideas in science back in the eighties concerned an explanation for the extinction of the dinosaurs.  They were wiped out, it was said,  when some massive object (a meteor or asteroid) crashed into the earth.  The plausibility of this explanation was thought to be confirmed by the fact that it was dramatically depicted in every single animated film about dinosaurs, and there were more of those than there ever were dinosaurs.  I was always skeptical of this story line, and I think that science has swung around to my view.  Current explanations involve volcanic activity, bubbling frozen methane on the ocean floor, and too much fast food in the dinosaur's diets.  If indeed I proved to be right, it was not, I assure you, because of any expertise on my part.  It was because I applied  Blanchard's First Law of Explanations.  Drum roll please.

Excitement is inversely proportional to probability.

This is how one speaks if one wishes to appear more learned than one is.  It just means that the more exciting a story is, the less likely that it will turn out to be true.  Its converse, of course, is

Boring is proportional to probability. 

So, applying this law to the assassination of JFK, it is more probable that Lee Harvey Oswald, acting alone, killed Kennedy than the CIA, or Castro, or the Illuminati.  Likewise, any explanation of the dinosaur's demise that allows a cartoonist to draw fireballs scorching the sky, the earth cracking and flowing with molten rock, all resulting in an near-instantaneous apocalypse, well, that's just too sexy to be real.  This leads to corollary one, which may be usefully applied to The Day After.

The better an explanation looks when Hollywood does it, the more suspect it is.

But something interesting was attached to the arguments in the eighties: politics.  Some of those who criticized the celestial impact argument were accused of being militarists.  How so?  Because the dinosaur story line cross bred with the "nuclear winter" argument.  According to the latter, a nuclear war would be followed by a nuclear winter, as the clouds of dust produced by the detonation of doomsday weapons blocked the sun's rays.  Anyone who dismissed the asteroid theory weakened the nuclear winter argument, at least rhetorically, and so that person was a closet Reagan voter.  Hence corollary two:

The more that an explanation flatters the political opinions of the explainer, the more suspect the explanation is.

I really don't care for that one.  I can see it being used against myself.  So let me add the following first teleological suspension of the logical:

Neither the first law nor any of its implications applies to any conclusions favored by Dr. Blanchard

For everyone else, logic is logic.

Currently global warming has become the ersatz religion of the left, and nothing cries out for application of corollary two than this.  This does not mean that global warming is not happening just because it flatters the political opinions of Al Gore.  It just means that one ought to be suspicious to the degree that the interpretation of scientific theory is presented in a politically significant way. 

For a solid critique of Al Gore's recent bid for an academy award, this piece by Dr. Robert C. Balling, Jr., kindly sent to us by the folks at Tech Central Station.  Of course you may note that Balling's interpretation of the issue rather flatters the political opinions of the folks at TCS.  That's one of the advantages of my first law and its corollaries: it makes it hard to trust anyone, especially oneself. 

The trick is to watch how each side uses the science.  Critics of global warming politics do not challenge the general validity of the science itself.  They challenge its selective use.  And the best of them have been much better at distinguishing scientific from political arguments than ever Al Gore was.

It's OK To Break The Law If You Have A Good Reason

Chad at CCK has responded to my post on what should be done about those who leak classified information.  I will respond point by point.
1. On Valarie Plame, the point is exactly that she was not an undercover agent.  Virtually everyone is in agreement that there was no crime committed in leaking her name to the press.  That doesn't mean it wasn't dumb or even wrong, but it was not illegal.  Scooter Libby has been indicted for obstructing justice, not for leaking a name. 
2. If Valarie Plame's husband, Joe Wilson, willfully distorted the truth on the op-ed page of the New York Times, and he did, what is the Bush administration supposed to do?  Yes, they tried to undermine his credibility and they did so in a way tried and true in Washington.  Read Howard Kurtz's Spin Cycle if you think behind the scenes manipulation of the press is phenomenon unique to the present administration.  If I may quote John McCain, politics ain't bean bag. 
3. It seems unwise to allow employees of the federal government to leak national security information because the program involved appears "suspect."  There is great discussion over whether the NSA surveillance of overseas calls to the US was legal, although the lack of action by both Congress and the Courts is telling.  I would argue that the preponderance of legal opinion (but not without strong dispute) is that the controversial surveillance methods the Bush administration has used to fight Al Qaeda are legal (see this piece by Judge Richard Posner, for example). Again, that which is legal may also be unwise. 
4. The sum of Chad's argument appears to be that it is OK to leak classified information if you think you have a good reason.  Well, who decides if there is good reason?  Whose judgment defines which programs are just fine and which are "suspect"?  Evidently, an administration leaking benign information for political purposes is not a good enough reason to leak, and therefore, despite the fact that no crime was committed, people should go to jail.  But if you leak classified national security information that would be useful to the enemy, that is a good leak, because the national security programs are "suspect" in some minds.  I suspect most people would find this to be dubious reasoning. 

There is no doubt that the government must maintain the ability to act covertly in the name of national security.  There is also no doubt that Al Qaeda has benefited from these leaks.  I would argue that if there is truly something untoward going on in intelligence gathering the appropriate tactic by an intelligence employee is to notify the congressional Intelligence Committees as they have appropriate safeguards for secrecy and can hold the executive accountable.  You don't reveal classified national security operations to the New York Times.

The Word We Dare Not Speak

The Michigan Department of Education is trying to make its curriculum "international friendly":

Censoring the word "America" from our own schools is something Josef Stalin, Adolf Hitler and Osama bin Laden would never have thought possible. Michigan has done it without a whimper.

In perhaps a well-intentioned, but pernicious example of political correctness, the Michigan Department of Education is attempting to ban the "America" and "American" from our public schools. Even though the word "America" appears in the department's own civics and government benchmarks, the department's style protocol for the Michigan Education Assessment Program requires that "America" and "Americans" be expunged from our testing and grade level expectations. Last week, the department ordered that our hard-working teachers not utter the words.

...

The state's edict would be laughable if it were not so disgraceful. Instead of focusing on better teaching methods and educational resources to help our hard-working teachers and parents, the Department of Education spends its energy on confusing, misleading, historically inaccurate and counterproductive wordplay.

Read the whole thing.

"The Confusion on Campus"

Vincent J. Cannato has an interesting piece in today's Wall Street Journal about "Excellence Without a Soul," written by Harry R. Lewis, a former dean of Harvard College. Lewis is very critical of the higher education offered at his alma mater:

So how does Harvard define an educated person? A Harvard education, the university states, "must provide a broad introduction to the knowledge needed in an increasingly global and connected, yet simultaneously diverse and fragmented world." Mr. Lewis, rightfully dismissive, notes that the school never actually says what kind of knowledge is "needed." The words are meaningless blather, he says, proving that "Harvard no longer knows what a good education is."

Quote of the Day

Kevin Woster:  "I felt like an Argus Leader reporter trying to get through to the governor."

Donations

According to a new report, former Senator Daschle is the top recipient of lobbyist donations since 1998:

Lobbyists have given more than $103 million to members of Congress since 1998, according to a new report released yesterday by Public Citizen.
   The $103.1 million total is "nearly double" the previous estimates, according to Joan Claybrook, president of Public Citizen, a consumer group founded by Ralph Nader.
   Ms. Claybrook said the $103 million total was "more than enough money to publicly finance campaigns," a political position that her group advocates.
   The report shows that the top 10 lobbyists represented private interests in the financial, defense and education sectors.
   The group's report, "Bankrollers: Lobbyists' Payments to the Lawmakers They Court, 1998-2006," ranks the top-contributing lobbyists and those lawmakers receiving the most campaign cash.
   Former Sen. Tom Daschle, South Dakota Democrat, received the most individual and political action committee (PAC) contributions in the Senate, totaling $1,687,721 since 1998.

POTUS Daschle

From the weekly political magazine National Journal:

Tom Daschle: As potential 2008 candidacies go, this is one that actually feels four years too late. We wonder if Daschle is kicking himself secretly for passing up the shot in 2004, a year that was bereft of a big-time front-runner. There was a moment for Daschle, but it probably was a few years ago. That said, if the presidential desire is really in the South Dakotan's gut (and again, we wonder if it's there, because if it were, then we're convinced he would have run in 2004), then 2008 is Daschle's last shot. By 2016, he would be closing in on 70 and would likely be overtaken by a new generation of leaders.

Huron Mayor: Janklow Betraying State

Argus Leader:

The $2 billion DM&E rail rebuilding project would create thousands of jobs for South Dakota and a solid transportation base to grow from. It's important to farmers and workers alike. It's the best opportunity this state has going right now. Gov. Mike Rounds and our whole congressional delegation support it.

When John Thune served in the House, he said he supported the project. When he went into the private sector, he helped push the project. He did what he said he was committed to in public life.

Former Gov. Bill Janklow, as a lobbyist-lawyer for the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., has joined forces with Minnesota Sen. Mark Dayton to fight against South Dakota's DM&E railroad project because Rochester doesn't like it.

When Bill Janklow served in the House, he said he supported the project. I am very disappointed in Mr. Janklow for working with the only town from Minnesota that opposes progress for the state of South Dakota.

It is hard to believe former Gov. Janklow would turn his back on South Dakota. I'm thankful our current governor has a lot more integrity than our last.

Mayor Mary A. Pearson
City of Huron

Be Careful What You Wish For

Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez  is coming under some criticism for suggesting that journalists who reveal leaked classified national security information may face prosecution.  But as Jack Kelly points out, isn't this the natural outgrowth of what the Left demanded in the Valarie Plame incident?  If revealing her name was a crime (which, as Kelly also notes, it most certainly wasn't), isn't the leaking of highly sensitive national security operations even worse.  What do you think Al Qadea was more interested in: finding out who suggested sending Lyin' Joe Wilson to Africa, or finding out that the NSA is surveilling phone conversations from overseas? 

Kelly argues, correctly, that the chances of reporters actually getting charged with espionage are slim, but, as with Judith Miller in the Plame case, they may be held in contempt of court if they withhold the names of those who are leaking classified information.  The government classifies lots of information that really isn't sensitive, but some of it is.  Doesn't it defeat the whole concept of "classified information" if it can be revealed to the public with no consequences? 

Everyone, even Al Gonzalez, has great respect for the First Amendment.  But as much as some on either side would like to simplify the issue, this is a difficult controversy.  Everyone agrees that some speech is not protected (e.g. libelous speech or fraudulent advertising).  Is reporting that reveals state secrets and undermines our national security protected speech/press under our First Amendment?  Which is a more fundamental value: national security or freedom of the press?  That is not a no-brainer, and Gonzalez's position is a respectable one.

More Katrina Myths

Prof. Blanchard notes some of the mythology that has grown up around Katrina.  Here is more from Jonah Goldberg:

As I've written before, virtually all of the gripping stories from Katrina were untrue. All of those stories about, in Paula Zahn's words, "bands of rapists, going block to block"? Not true. The tales of snipers firing on medevac helicopters? Bogus. The yarns, peddled on "Oprah" by New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin and the New Orleans police chief, that "little babies" were getting raped in the Superdome and that the bodies of the murdered were piling up? Completely false. The stories about poor blacks dying in comparatively huge numbers because American society "left them behind"? Nah-ah. While most outlets took Nagin's estimate of 10,000 dead at face value, Editor and Publisher - the watchdog of the media - ran the headline, "Mortuary Director Tells Local Paper 40,000 Could Be Lost in Hurricane."

District 3 Senate Primary

Duane Sutton, incumbant Senator from the 3rd District, has picked up a Republican primary opponent in the person of Isaac Latterell.   Some Latterel signs have sprung up around Aberdeen, although obviously it will take a lot more than a few signs to unseat an incumbant.  Sutton is one of the members of the "Mainstream Coalition," and as can be seen from the South Dakota Family Policy Council questionaire (ht to pp), Latterel is certainly the conservative choice in the race. 

Celebrate Diversity

Joe Knippenberg points out that those on campus who are loudest in preaching "diversity" are probably the ones on campus the least interested in real diversity: the diversity of ideas.  In my experience, when academics talk about students "overcoming their prejudices" what they really mean is "students should give up what they used to believe and learn to think just like me." 

At NSU we were honored to have Gov. Rounds speak at our commencement ceremony this year.  The governor certainly has the support of only a minority of faculty, but when he was introduced the crowd proceeded to give him a standing ovation in which (from what I could see) all faculty participated.  They may not have actually applauded, but they stood respectfully.  That is the appropriate way to act when listening to a speaker with whom you are in deep political disagreement.  I can also report that Gov. Rounds understands the chief virtue of a commencement speech: keep it short.  I like my governors short, and my commencement speeches shorter.

The Press vs. Reality: Katrinia Edition

From Lou Dolinar at Real Clear Politics:

Remember the dozens, maybe hundreds, of rapes, murders, stabbings and deaths resulting from official neglect at the Superdome after Hurricane Katrina? The ones that never happened, as even the national media later admitted?

Sure, we all remember the original reporting, if not the back-pedaling.

Here's another one: Do you remember the dramatic TV footage of National Guard helicopters landing at the Superdome as soon as Katrina passed, dropping off tens of thousands saved from certain death? The corpsmen running with stretchers, in an echo of M*A*S*H, carrying the survivors to ambulances and the medical center? About how the operation, which also included the Coast Guard, regular military units, and local first responders, continued for more than a week?

Me neither. Except that it did happen, and got at best an occasional, parenthetical mention in the national media. The National Guard had its headquarters for Katrina, not just a few peacekeeping troops, in what the media portrayed as the pit of Hell. Hell was one of the safest places to be in New Orleans, smelly as it was. The situation was always under control, not surprisingly because the people in control were always there.

Why Do They Hate Us?

Evan Coyne Maloney: Why Do They Hate Us?

Revisionist History

Peter Wehner examines the myths about the Iraq war:

Iraqis can participate in three historic elections, pass the most liberal constitution in the Arab world, and form a unity government despite terrorist attacks and provocations. Yet for some critics of the president, these are minor matters. Like swallows to Capistrano, they keep returning to the same allegations--the president misled the country in order to justify the Iraq war; his administration pressured intelligence agencies to bias their judgments; Saddam Hussein turned out to be no threat since he didn't possess weapons of mass destruction; and helping democracy take root in the Middle East was a postwar rationalization. The problem with these charges is that they are false and can be shown to be so--and yet people continue to believe, and spread, them.

Read the whole thing.

McGovern

Michael Barone:

Former senator and 1972 Democratic presidential nominee George McGovern has written an interesting column for the Los Angeles Times on unions.

He argues that the traditional labor union strategy of always seeking, in John L. Lewis's word, "more," is self-defeating. He points to the Delphi bankruptcy, the woes of automakers General Motors and Ford, and the plight of the unionized airlines:

"'More' has, unfortunately, become 'too much' in a global and far more competitive economy."

He also defends Wal-Mart and points out that if the $27 million compensation of Wal-Mart's CEO were distributed to employees, each would receive less than $20. What are his public policy solutions? He calls for government-provided universal healthcare, which of course would relieve the burden of that cost for employers like GM and Ford, which have agreed to union demands for ultragenerous health insurance. But of course that solution has other problems and is not likely to be adopted anytime soon. He also calls for expansion of the earned income tax credit, which was in fact expanded during the Clinton administration, to supplement the earnings of low-income workers.

Whatever you think of his analysis or his proposals, McGovern shows here that he is an independent thinker who has come by his positions honestly and with good intentions. I have a soft spot for him because, near as he and I can figure out, I lived next door to him in Diamond Lake, Ill., in 1947. McGovern then was a practicing minister in a nearby church while he was attending divinity school at Northwestern University; my father was a doctor at Fort Sheridan. My parents, like many young parents in the years after World War II, had a hard time finding housing and eventually found an old farmhouse to rent amid the cornfields of interior Lake County, Ill. The McGoverns also had a young family, and I suspect the house came with the practicing-minister provision. My parents have only vague memories of the McGoverns. We went back to visit Diamond Lake in 1992, and the site of our house, as near as we could figure, was by then a shopping center parking lot. The cornfields had become suburbia.

I supported McGovern for president in 1972 and continue to admire him, even though I disagree now with many of the positions I took then. I think he did an admirable job as ambassador to the Food and Agricultural Organization in Rome; he was appointed by President Clinton and was asked to remain on the job for a year by President Bush, who then appointed Ohio Democratic Rep. Tony Hall to fill the position. Hall, whose interest in feeding the hungry arises out of strong religious conviction, was admired by members of both parties in the House. It's interesting that Bush does not seem to have gotten much credit for appointing these idealistic Democrats.

Speaking of McGovern, the McGovern Library being constructed on the campus of Dakota Wesleyan University here in Mitchell is coming along nicely.  I'll try to get some pictures up sometime.  In the meantime, you can view some of the construction photos here.

Hillary vs. Who?

A FOX News poll released yesterday shows Hillary Clinton losing to both John McCain and Rudy Giuliani in a hypothetical presidential election for 2008:

In the latest FOX News national registered voter poll, McCain bests Clinton by a slim 4-percentage point margin — 46 percent to 42 percent — in a hypothetical matchup. Given the poll’s 3-point margin of error, that means this race could go either way.

The Republican edge widens outside the error margin when the choices are between Clinton (40 percent) and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (49 percent).

Both Republicans led by a larger margin against Al Gore, who was the second favorite nominee behind Hillary Clinton among New Jersey Democrats in a Strategic Vision poll released last week.

Guiliani's approval ratings were the highest in the poll; 64% favorable and 15% unfavorable. Hillary Clinton's numbers came in at 50% favorable and 42% unfavorable, with John McCain at 49% favorable and 25% unfavorable. 

Silencing Debate

We at SDP are used to being called names (see a recent kerfuffle here and here).  Dennis Prager argues that the Left uses words like "bigoted" and "racist" as a way of silencing debate and also to convince themselves of their own moral superiority ("if my opponents are bigots, that puts me on the side of the angels").  Some examples:

Harry Reid, as noted above, supplied a classic one. Instead of grappling with the enormously significant question of how to maintain American identity and values with tens of millions of non-Americans coming into America, the Democratic leader and others on the Left simply label attempts to keep English as a unifying language as "racist."...

..."Phobic" is the current one-word favorite among liberal dismissals of ideological opponents. It combines instant moral dismissal with instant psychological analysis. If you do not support society redefining marriage to include members of the same sex you are "homophobic" -- and further thought is unnecessary.

Prager's tone is a bit over-heated, but he is essentially on the money.  It's amazing how intolerant the "tolerant" can be. 

Assimilation

John Moser posts some stats suggesting that Hispanics are assimilating at a healthy rate. 

The Low Country

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, an "author and a politician who has made the transition from early Islamic fanaticism (she initially endorsed the fatwa against Salman Rushdie) to a full-out acceptance and advocacy of secularism and of Enlightenment ideals," has been evicted from her home, placed under house arrest, and now is about to be stripped of her citizenship.  This is in:

a.    Iraq;
b.    Iran;
c.    Cuba;
d.    North Korea;
e.    Holland. 

You guessed it from the build-up.  The Somali-born member of the Dutch parliament is about to be kicked out of the land of wind mills and wooden shoes.  Christopher Hitchens has the story.  Fortunately for Ms. Hirsi Ali, there is still a place in the world where her kind of courage is not punished.  She will take up a post in Washington D.C., at the conservative American Enterprize Institute. 

TD

John Fund of the Wall Street Journal, and author of Stealing Elections that includes a chapter on South Dakota, notes Tom Daschle's "preposterous" attack of the amendment proposed that would require a photo ID for voting in federal elections.  Excerpt:

Amid all the disputes over immigration in Congress, one amendment is being proposed that in theory should unite people in both parties. How about requiring that everyone show some form of identification before voting in federal elections? Polls show overwhelming support for the idea, and there is increasing concern that more illegal aliens are showing up on voter registration rolls. But the fact that photo ID isn't likely to pass shows both how deeply emotional the immigration issue has become and how bitter congressional politics have become with elections only 5 1/2 months away.

...

But the biggest surprise was that 18 of 21 commissioners backed a requirement that voters show some form of photo identification. They argued that with Congress passing the Real ID Act to standardize security protections for drivers' licenses in all 50 states, the time had come to standardize voter ID requirements. Former Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle joined two other commissioners in complaining that the ID requirements would be akin to a Jim Crow-era "poll tax" and would restrict voting among the poor or elderly who might lack such an ID.

Mr. Daschle's racially charged analogy is preposterous. Almost everyone needs photo ID in today's modern world. Andrew Young, the former Atlanta mayor and U.N. ambassador, believes that in an era when people have to show ID to rent a video or cash a check, "requiring ID can help poor people" who otherwise might be even more marginalized by not having one.

Daschle Redux?

This article argues that Harry Reid, as Senate Minority Leader, has had to position himself far to the left of his Nevada constituency, risking his own seat in the Senate.  The good news for Reid is that he is not up for re-election until 2010. 

Update: When I first wrote this I was thinking Reid was up for re-election in 2008, but an intrepid reader reminds me that Reid was just re-elected in 2004. I was thinking it was 2002.  That's what I get for not cross checking. 

"Thank you, President Bush"

For those who think we here at SDP are mere shills for sinister Republican interests, let me make a confession.  Our mailbox regular fills up with "White House Communications," which apparently come directly from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.  I think this comes under the heading of "using the blogosphere," or something like that.  Anyway, I rarely read them.  Its just much more fun reading CCK.  But I caught this one. 

Remarks By New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin

May 20, 2006

MAYOR NAGIN: "I want to thank you, Mr. President.  You and I have probably been the most vilified politicians in the country.  But I want to thank you for moving that promise that you made in Jackson Square forward.  We now have $3 billion for levees.  We have $8 billion for incentives.  We have $10 billion for housing.  You are delivering on your promise, and I want to thank you for all the citizens of the City of New Orleans."

I happened to visit New Orleans three times before Katrina did, and I have a very sense of how wonderful a place it is, or was.  Mayor Nagin was recently re-elected, which suggests that there is hope for anyone, even Dubya. 

William Shawcross on Iraq

William Shawcross is, as Powerline puts it, "England's most notable journalist."  He is the author of a number of influential books on American policy in the Middle and Far East, including Sideshow, and The Shah's Last Ride.  He is also, as John Miller points out in National Review, now regarded as a traitor to the left.  Shawcross's earlier books included scathing critiques of Henry Kissinger's policy in Cambodia, but his most recent book, Allies: The U.S., Britain, and Europe, and the War in Iraq,  is passionately pro-war.  His recent piece in the London Times reports from Basra on the training of the Iraqi army.

First Lieutenant Yasser Ahmed Rassol is another young Iraqi army officer in training. He was sent in a group of 40 students on a 13-week course at the Infantry Battle School at Brecon, in Powys. His English is good. “We learnt to fight in built-up areas,” he said. He will soon graduate as a company commander.

The academy was built by the British Army in 1924 and has now been restored by Britain. When I visited it in 2004 it was just a building site. Now it is the best training school in Iraq and is known among the British officers as Sandhurst in the Sand. It has begun to produce 600 young officers a year. Some 250 have already graduated and are out in the field commanding platoons.

Shawcross note the success that the coalition forces and the Iraqis are having in building a new army.

The coalition plan is to create an army of 137,000 men and a police force of 190,000. So far the army has grown to about 115,000 and the police to 138,000.

He also notes the slow but steady political success that the Iraqis alone must be responsible for.

This weekend a new government was very belatedly being formed. It will be vital for this government, under Nouri Maliki, the prime minister, to drag politics off the streets and back into the constitutional process.  . . .

However, if the government is seen as broadly representative of the Shi’ite, Sunni and Kurdish populations and is seen to be effective, it will be much harder for the insurgents.

Shawcross thinks that we are winning in Iraq.  The only question is whether we will stick around long enough for the umpire to call it. 

Even those who were opposed to the invasion of Iraq should recognise that this is a whole new battle — between the values of a liberal civil society and nihilism, sometimes Islamic but always nihilism.

The coalition training of the Iraqi armed forces is proceeding well. The Iraqi army already has the lead in about 60% of the country. We can soon begin to draw down our troops and turn over more power to provincial authorities.

To do so too fast, just because the war is unpopular at home, would be to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. As Jackson said at the end of his trip, our success in Iraq should not be measured by numbers of troops brought home.

It is much more complex than that. The goal is an independent Iraq with a representative government. Part of that goal is to prevent the most bloody and reactionary gangs of killers from destroying the country — and the future of the Middle East.

We can do this and we should be proud of doing it.

I have always thought that this is right.  I think it very likely that the U.S. and Britain will stick around for the finish.  I think we are going to see a republic take root in Iraq.  I do not know, nor do I think we will ever know whether it was worth the sacrifices.  I do not know how to weigh lives against policy goals.  But if Shawcross and I are correct, and the millions of Iraqis who risked their own lives to vote get a permanent stake in their own country, if a moderate democracy is established in the fertile triangle and Arab Muslims can see that self-government and Islam are not mutually exclusive, then we will in fact have won a great victory in Iraq.  Reasonable people will still be able to argue that our soldiers should not have fought and died there.  But no reasonable person will be able to say that they died in vain.

 

History

Kenneth Walsh takes an historical look at three presidents that mirror George W. Bush in a US News & World Report article entitled "What History Has to Say."  He concludes:

President Bush has combined Wilson's evangelical fervor for spreading democracy with Truman's resolve to make tough decisions and bear the opprobrium of critics, and he has emulated Reagan's determination to steer a conservative course with sunny optimism. All these presidents "had significant foreign policy accomplishments in their second terms that were not realized at the time," says Frank Donatelli, who was Reagan's second-term political director. Bush believes he and his deeds will eventually be placed in that category.

What is unclear is whether Bush can be flexible enough to change when he has to and whether there will be any more historic moments for him to seize, as Reagan did. These could be the key factors determining whether Bush's presidency rebounds over the next 2 1/2 years and, more broadly, whether he is judged a success in the history books.

Tom Daschle v. DME

In February it was disclosed that Tom Daschle was appointed to the Mayo Clinic board of directors.  Since then, he has repeatedly made assurances that his appointment has nothing to do with the Dakota, Minnesota, and Eastern railroad project, which Mayo opposes.  Steve Hildebrand, Daschle's former campaign manager, said about his appointment, "I would say it is overstating Mayo Clinic's concern about the DM&E Railroad."  Daschle also told Kevin Woster, "I am not working against it and have nothing to do with the DM&E project now."  But earlier this week Daschle bashed the railroad, the "largest construction project in South Dakota history,"  on the behalf of the Mayo Clinic.  So much for having "nothing to do" with the railroad project. 

Don't forget Daschle's long-time buddy in the Senate, Mark Dayton, and his pretentious remark that "[t]he Mayo Clinic is worth a hell of a lot more than the whole state of South Dakota."  Dayton, like Daschle, stands as a roadblock to a project that would reap enormous economic benefits, preferring to side with Mayo than stand up for their respective states.  Dennis Wiese said the project would "have a lasting and profoundly positive impact on agriculture throughout South Dakota and Minnesota."  Minnesota Public Radio also outlined the benefits of the project for the two states.  The well-being of the state is not the ultimate goal of Tom Daschle and Mark Dayton.

Conservative Speakers Unwelcome

John Leo of Real Clear Politics:

Sen. John McCain had a rough week in New York City, facing protesters who resented his speeches at Columbia University's Class Day and the New School for Social Research commencement ceremony.

The New York Daily News quoted a graduating senior who didn't want him at Columbia. "He encouraged us to speak up, but we still resent that our graduation day was used as a political platform," she said. She has a point, but it is a very small one and not very relevant to McCain's remarks. Yes, he seems to be on track to run for president, but candidates and potential candidates give commencement talks all the time. As long as they seem to be addressing the graduates, rather than their own partisan nostrums and ambitions, that's fine.

The only New York newspaper that gave us any clear idea of what McCain said at Columbia was the conservative New York Sun. A Sun editorial said, "It's hard to remember a more moving moment in college oratory" than the one the senator gave. He talked of his anger, as he sat in a Hanoi prison during the Vietnam War, hearing the piped-in voice of an antiwar American activist. The activist was the late David Ifshin, who had traveled to North Vietnam to denounce the United States. McCain said he and Ifshin later reached out to each other, and by the time Ifshin died of cancer at age 47, they had become friends who worked together toward shared ideals. Tales of political healing and the ability of political adversaries to work together are obviously important these days. McCain also spoke for civility in debate and respect between political adversaries. This is over the line?

Read the whole thing.

Lessons for the Left

This George Will review looks at Peter Beinart's new book, The Good Fight: Why Liberals -- and Only Liberals -- Can Win the War on Terror and Make America Great Again.  Excerpt:

Peter Beinart is an advocate of liberal -- not ``progressive'' -- nostalgia. He wants to turn the clock back to 1947 at Washington's Willard Hotel.

Beinart, who was born in 1971, is editor at large of the liberal New Republic magazine and disdains the label ``progressive'' as a rejection of liberalism's useable past of anti-totalitarianism. An intellectual archaeologist, he excavates that vanished intellectual tradition and sends it into battle in his new book, ``The Good Fight: Why Liberals -- and Only Liberals -- Can Win the War on Terror and Make America Great Again.'' It expresses Beinart's understanding of liberalism in 1948, 1968 and, he hopes, 2008.

...

Liberalism's civil war seemed won after Henry Wallace's Progressive Party candidacy failed to prevent President Truman's 1948 election. But the war broke out again in the Democratic Party's crack-up over Vietnam in 1968. Then, Beinart says, a ``new liberalism'' emerged that ``questioned whether America had much to offer the world.'' Four years later the party nominated George McGovern, who had been a delegate to the 1948 Progressive Party convention that nominated Wallace. McGovern's trumpet sounded retreat: ``Come home, America.''

Since then, Beinart argues, liberals have lacked a narrative of national greatness that links America's missions at home and abroad. It has been said that whereas the right-wing isolationists in the 1930s believed that America was too good for the world, left-wing isolationists in the 1960s believed that the world was too good for America. After Vietnam, Beinart says, liberal foreign policy was ``defined more by fear of American imperialism than fear of totalitarianism.''

...

Beinart worries that ``the elections of 2006 and 2008 could resemble the elections of 1974 and 1976, when foreign policy exhaustion, and Republican scandal, propelled Democrats to big gains.'' If so, those gains will be ``a false dawn.'' The country will eventually turn right because, ``whatever its failings, the right at least knows that America's enemies need to be fought.''

Ronald Reagan said he did not want to return to the past but to the past's way of facing the future. As does Beinart, who locates the pertinent past in 1947.

Progress in Iraq

After three years, Iraq has initiated its first democratically elected government after the National Assembly swore in Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's cabinet.  The United States spent seven years trying to establish a permanent form of government, so historically this is amazing progress.  Iraq has now established permanent democratic institutions for the first time:

Iraq's new government of national unity was sworn in before a special session of parliament on Saturday, three years after the fall of Saddam Hussein. The new ministers took the oath of office after parliament approved the Cabinet presented by incoming Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

...

The session began more than two hours late because of last-minute haggling, finally opening with readings from the Quran.

The 37-member Cabinet is made up of members from all of Iraq's religious, sectarian and ethnic groups. It took months of negotiations to form after the Dec. 15 elections and is Iraq's first constitutional government since the U.S. invasion toppled Saddam.

"This is a historic day for Iraq and all its people," deputy parliament speaker Khalid al-Attiyah said in a nationally televised news conference before the session. "This government represents all Iraqis."

This doesn't necessarily mean all is well; it's very possible that everything could collapse.  Critics will point to continuing violence as a signal of an imminent civil war, a position that cannot be dismissed.  However, we have seen insurgents trying to provoke such a war and have been unsuccessful.  The terrorists are losing and we are winning.  Today's progress is evidence of that.

UPDATE:  Pejman Yousefzadeh:

No one should pretend that the creation of a new government in Iraq means that the reconstruction efforts in Iraq are over. This is not the end, nor is it the beginning of the end, and who knows whether it is the end of the beginning. But it is progress–progress that was inconceivable a little over three years ago. On such steps is further progress achieved until the final tipping point is reached and stability in Iraq becomes the norm rather than the exception.

Celebrate in modest fashion if so you wish. But celebrate nonetheless. This is important and will be remembered as important in years to come.

POTUS Daschle III

Here are some observations from Marc Ambinder of The Hotline:

Leaving aside the plausibility question, is the former maj./min. leader, who heads to IA, NH and MI beginning June 9, a Gingrich-esque book-deal flirter? A Gore-esque monocausual promotion whiz?

Or is he soberly considering a bid for the presidency?

Based on what he's told his close friends, he's clenched-jaw serious.

And Daschle's decision will be guided, in part, on the results of the contested '06 primaries that Daschle, unlike most would-be '08ers, has waded into.

Daschle's PAC has contributed to candidates including VA's Webb (even Mark Warner won't back him yet), MT's Morrison, MN's Klobuchar, RI's Whitehouse, Gifford in AZ 08, Duckworth in IL 06 and Wilson in OH 06.

These nods could mean Daschle, having decided against '08, feels free taking risks. But if his candidates they win, Daschle's in chit city.

Dem funders, including Peter Buttenweiser and Ben Barnes are among the A-list names Daschle has consulted about a run.

Others more firmly in Daschle's corner -- should he decide to do something -- include Leo Hindery, who ran for DNC chair against Howard Dean, and Daschle's longtime finance guru, Cappy McGarr.  He's also very close to ex-9/11 commiss/NE Sen. Bob Kerrey, currently the pres. of New School U.

As we've noted elsewhere, a large detachment of Daschle's political kitchen cabinet, including longtime communications aide Dan Pfeiffer and political strategist Anita Dunn, have decamped to other presidential teams.

His long-time chief of staff, Pete Rouse, serves in the same capacity for Sen. Barack Obama. And his former trusted spokesman Jay Carson now serves as Bill Clinton's comm. director.

So how will he run?

Based on the speeches he's given recently, a buzzword will probably be "security," broadly incorporating energy independence, national security interdependence, and health care.

More Immigration Votes

John Ensign (R-NV) proposed an amendment that says, essentially, you have to have a valid Social Security number to gain credit toward Social Security benefits. Here is a summation from Ensign's website:

An amendment offered today by Senator John Ensign would prevent Social Security benefits from being awarded for illegal labor in the United States. Under current law, an individual who has entered this country illegally and worked for a number of years can, after obtaining legal status, apply for and receive Social Security benefits relating to the work done while that person was in the country illegally... The Ensign amendment would allow immigrants to accumulate credit to qualify for Social Security only after they have been assigned a valid Social Security Number.

The argument in favor of the measure, I suppose, is that we should not reward illegal behavior and  it only serves as an incentive to illegal immigration to extend the promise of generous public benefits to those who come here illegally.  The argument against probably has something to do with compassion for the elderly person who spent considerable time in this country illegally.  Do we simply hang that person out to dry?  Both arguments have their merits, although the former seems to be the better public policy. 

Here is the vote on the measure.  You'll see that it was defeated (the vote was on whether to table the amendment, so a "yes" vote is a vote against the amendment).  John Thune supported Ensign's amendment, while Tim Johnson voted to defeat it. 
 

Amen

After playing tennis in a swarm of mosquitoes this week, I whole heartedly endorse this proposal for the city of Aberdeen. 

Not An Ounce Of Charity

I recall my own college graduation.  May 23, 1993.  It rained.  Really hard.  Our speaker was writer and peace activist Colman McCarthy.  I didn't agree with much he said, but we all listened respectfully and were honored to have an important man speak at our graduation.

Not so at the New School.  Here is Rich Lowry's summation of John McCain's commencement speach at that fine school:

...a beautiful prose poem to America, national service, and civil debate (congrats Mark Salter, as ever), and gets derided for it, of course. 

“I supported the war in Iraq.” Boos. Explains the war was not for cheap oil. A little heckling: “You're full of it!” Says he thought the “country's interest and values demanded” the war. Someone shouts: “Wrongly!” Someone else: “More poetry!” (A reference to lines from Yeats McCain had quoted earlier.)

 

He says “whether [the war] was necessary or not...we all should shed a tear” for those who have sacrificed in it. Some hissing.

Shouting.

 

He eventually enters into a Bushian rift: “All people share the desire to be free”; “human rights are above the state and beyond history”; we are “insisting that all people have the right to be free.” Someone shouts: “We're graduating, not voting!” Lots of derisive shouts and laughter and applause.

 

As McCain continues with a personal story, a student shouts: “It's about my life, not yours.” McCain:

“When I was a young man, I thought glory was the highest value...” Groans from the students. “It's not about you!” “Sit down!”

 

McCain circles back around to the theme of civility: “We are not enemies, we are compatriots...” Boos, shouts. McCain: It “should remain an argument among friends”; we should be “respectful of the goodness in each other.” Literally one person applauds.

 

McCain goes on to tell his story about his reconciliation with an opponent of the Vietnam War: “I had a friend once...” Groans, boos.

He talks about forgiving his friend who dissented from the war. Hostile rumblings from the students.

 

He says after the reconciliation, he and his friend “worked together for shared ideals.” A shout: “We don't share your ideals!” As McCain closes there is a mix of boos and applause, and a few people even stand to clap.

With that attitude it looks like the recent graduates of the New School are perfectly suited for writing for left-wing South Dakota blogs.

Update: Here is the New York Times version.  And Joe Knippenberg comments here. 

NSA Surveillance Story Evaporates II.

Its looking like the USAToday story about the NSA gaining the phone records of "millions of Americans" is dwindling away to nothingness.  Bell South has written to USAToday to demand a retraction, according to Jim Duffy of Network World.  USAToday appears to have been infected by Dan Ratherism.  If it discredits Bush, it must be true!  Powerline has the story. 

What He Said

Prof. Blanchard beat me to the punch as I was out listening to Bob Dylan music at a local coffee house.  So, yeah, I endorse what he said, except I am on record as opposing same-sex marriage.  Just to add three items. 
1. As Prof. Blanchard notes, I never used my "four items in favor of marriage as a public matter" to argue against same-sex marriage.  It just so happens that Jon Rauch supports three of my four points in his book in favor of gay marriage.  Rauch argues (unpersuasively, I contend) that marriage has little or nothing to do with children, but largely accepts the other three. So yes, the points I make (even the one concerning children) can and have been made to support gay marriage.  The point on which supporters and detractors of same-sex marriage agree is that marriage is a public matter.  The important question then is what public good is served by marriage. 
2. Not only is the notion that males are more aggressive backed up by sociobiology, it is backed up by key supporters of gay marriage.  Both Jon Rauch and Andrew Sullivan argue for same-sex marriage on the grounds that it will domesticate male sexuality.  They are up front with their position that aggresive male sexual behavior is a special problem for marriage to solve.  Here is a difference of opinion, however.  Rauch and Sullivan think it is marriage that domesticates men, while others, myself included, think it is women. 
3. I am against same-sex marriage. I guess that automatically makes me a bigot in some eyes,  although I again note that I said nothing about same-sex marriage in the post that instigated so much vile on the part of some.  I do think that those who believe that there are no defensible reasons to oppose same-sex marriage and only bigotry explains such a position are living in invincible ignorance.  Finally, whatever the merits of the accusation that only bigots oppose same-sex marriage, and those merits are few, I want to point out that, however they may vote on the upcoming ballot initiative, most South Dakotans (and most Americans) favor traditional marriage over same-sex marriage. It is an odd tactic by those who wish to win elections and change public policy to call a solid majority of their fellow citizens ignorant bigots. Those who carelessly throw around charges of "hater" and "bigot" ought to take a hard look in the mirror. 

The Vatican has an astronomer?

I criticized the Coat Hangers at Dawn website in my last post, but despite its vehement hostility to Christianity, it is an interesting read.  I was struck by a post refering to this article from Scotsman.Com:

BELIEVING that God created the universe in six days is a form of superstitious paganism, the Vatican astronomer Guy Consolmagno claimed yesterday.

Brother Consolmagno, who works in a Vatican observatory in Arizonaand as curator of the Vatican meteorite collection in Italy, said a "destructive myth" had developed in modern society that religion and science were competing ideologies.

He described creationism, whose supporters want it taught in schools alongside evolution, as a "kind of paganism" because it harked back to the days of "nature gods" who were responsible for natural events.

Brother Consolmagno argued that the Christian God was a supernatural one, a belief that had led the clergy in the past to become involved in science to seek natural reasons for phenomena such as thunder and lightning, which had been previously attributed to vengeful gods. "Knowledge is dangerous, but so is ignorance. That's why science and religion need to talk to each other," he said.

"Religion needs science to keep it away from superstition and keep it close to reality, to protect it from creationism, which at the end of the day is a kind of paganism - it's turning God into a nature god. And science needs religion in order to have a conscience, to know that, just because something is possible, it may not be a good thing to do."

Brother Consolmagno, who was due to give a speech at the Glasgow Science Centre last night, entitled "Why the Pope has an Astronomer", said the idea of papal infallibility had been a "PR disaster". What it actually meant was that, on matters of faith, followers should accept "somebody has got to be the boss, the final authority".

"It's not like he has a magic power, that God whispers the truth in his ear," he said.

I'll leave it to my colleague to parse the papal infallibility question.  I have posted criticisms of creationism and intelligent design theory on this blog, and I have written critically about both in my American News columns.  I am professionally and personally a Darwinist.  But it seems to me utterly ridiculous to accuse the creationists of paganism.  The key Biblical idea is that God exists outside the created universe, for how else could He have created it?  The pagan idea is that the gods exist as part of the universe, living in trees, ponds, kitchens, and at the Game, Fish and Parks Office for all I know.  Creationists are bad interpreters of science, to be sure.  But they are squarely within the Biblical tradition.  Surely if God created the world, our understanding of the world might be informed by the fact.  Brother Consolmagno doesn't see it that way.

Puritans in Pink

My colleague Professor Schaff has been accused of bigotry by my friend Chad at CCK.  Chad does not present a case  himself, but refers us to a colorfully named website: Coat Hangers At Dawn.  I can't help but notice that the acronym for the site would be CHAD, but no, I am not suggesting that Chad is the author.  Colorful Chad is not.  Here is what CHAD had to say:

All four of his points made to attempt to justify banning same sex unions could be equally applied to a same sex marriage as it could to a heterosexual marriage.
If a same sex marriage "domesticates aggressive male sexuality", provides an outlet for sex, provides stability for society and kids, and being a vehicle for "self-giving", all of those attributes would equally apply to a same sex marriage.

The assumption that males are aggressively sexual and need to be controlled is quite the slap in the face to the gender as a whole. Only a portion of the male population seems to have issues controlling their behavior. Painting the entire male population as out of control and needing domestication is demeaning and insulting. It is no more accurate than the misguided attempts to paint women as weak willed, ignorant and in need of being submissive.

So lets be honest about it please. Banning gay marriage is simple hate and bigotry.
It has nothing to do with gay people and everything to do with a handful of homophobic hate mongers, who do not want to lose one of their last bastions of "socially acceptable" hate and discrimination.

Now I note that Schaff's four points were not part of "an attempt to justify banning same sex unions," they were produced as evidence that marriage is a public concern.  This was a reply to a remark by Jack Billion, who is seeking the Democratic nomination for governor. " Billion said he would allow same-sex marriages," according to the American News. 

"I think that's a private matter between individuals," Billion said.

P. Schaff is obviously correct as a matter of fact, because if it were a private matter we wouldn't be arguing about it.  The question is whether to extend a very public institution, marriage with all of its benefits and obligations, to a new class of partnerships.  That is a public question.

I also note that P. Schaff's comment about male sexuality, to which Mr. or Ms. Coat Hangers took such offense, is strongly supported by the intertwined fields of sociobiology and biopolitics.  Human males are more sexually aggressive than females, by and large, in this and every other human society, past and present.  Men are more prone to sexual violence as well as to violence of almost every other kind.  That this is nature and not nurture is also indicated by the fact that it is true of almost all mammalian species, and especially of our closest relative, the chimpanzee. 

Now I happen to agree with Professor Schaff on all these things, but I am not opposed to same sex marriage.  I do think that this would be a novel extension of a traditional institution, and that a full public discussion is in order.  I also think that the issues that P. Schaff raises ought to be part of that discussion.

Coat hangers is in no mood for discussion.  Coat Hangers regards everyone who disagrees with his/her position on gay marriage is guilty of "hate and bigotry."  Coat Hangers is a Puritan of the left.  Anyone who does not mouth the orthodox opinion on gay marriage is a bad, bad, person.  That includes, by the way, persons who feel compelled by their own understanding of public and private morality to oppose gay marriage.  Coat Hangers implicitly passes judgment on a wide spectrum of persons of Catholic and Protestant faith.  They are automatically "homophobic hate mongers," if they do not share his/her view on the issue.  Hatred and bigotry are no more beautiful on the left than on the right.  Puritans are just as annoying when dressed in pink as in black. 

The Left v. Lieberman

New York Times:

"George Bush's favorite Democrat," they call him. "Republican Lite," they sneer. But liberals are no longer just venting on Internet blogs and talk radio programs about their centrist nemesis: Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut.

Now, from across the nation, a determined alliance of antiwar activists is working overtime online and on doorsteps to defeat Mr. Lieberman, whose political moderation helped him earn the Democratic nomination for vice president six years ago. Their goal is not only to punish Mr. Lieberman for staunchly supporting the war in Iraq but also to protest what the activists consider the Democratic Party's willingness to accommodate President Bush.

...

A growing cast of prominent activists is backing [Democratic challenger Ned] Lamont. Markos Moulitsas, who advised the presidential campaign of Howard Dean in 2004 and founded the blog Daily Kos, is appearing in a campaign commercial for Mr. Lamont.

...

"A very simple thing happened that changed Democratic politics dramatically, and that was that the war turned bad," [said Al From, founder and chief executive of the Democratic Leadership Council], adding of the senator's critics: "There's a group in our party that makes a lot of noise and I don't think they've ever won an election. They're trying to take out one of the great statesmen our party has and that's wrong."