South Dakota Politics

Kneip

Black Hills Pioneer:

Former Gov. Dick Kneip actually hosted "Saturday Night Live" during his term as governor. During the show's first season, SNL ran a contest called "Anyone Can Host."

Fans were asked to submit nominations and four finalists were picked to appear on a show with John Belushi, Chevy Chase and the gang. I was a senior in high school and remember watching an old lady, an unemployed guy, a young woman and the governor of South Dakota appear.

Kneip was game for it and participated in skits. His sons had sent in a letter urging the show to hire him or he would have to return to being a dairy implement salesman after his political career was over.

But at the end of the live episode, as the four finalists were to make their plea to the viewers and voters, Kneip asked not to be chosen. Doing the show was trouble enough for him, he said with a smile.

A.N.S.W.E.R. and Israel

The far left organization A.N.S.W.E.R., which organizes the major anti-war rallies, shows again that any enemy of the U.S. is a friend of theirs. 

Democratic Money Funnel?

Is the South Dakota Democratic Party a money funnel?  Reports are saying that Matt Entenza, who recently withdrew from the Minnesota Attorney General's race after disclosing he was digging up dirt on a fellow DFL member and the current Attorney General Mike Hatch, may be guilty of money laundering.  It appears that Entenza and his wife sent money to South Dakota Democrats in order to shuffle it back into Minnesota to get past donation limits and financial disclosures (it should be noted he's violated election law before when he donated $300,000 to 527s which laundered it back to the Minnesota DFL campaigns).  The documents claim that money "went through the PACs to the South Dakota Democratic Party then to the Minnesota DFL Party and eventually to the Minnesota House DFL campaign committee."  The "$45,000 to a South Dakota Democratic House campaign committee" mentioned must mean a donation to Representative Stephanie Herseth.  Anyways, some of the documents causing this political storm in Minnesota can be seen here (pdf alert), which again claims that Entenza gave huge amounts of money to the South Dakota Democratic Party which funneled it back into his organizations.  The big question is this: if this is true, who in the Democratic Party coordinated all the money shuffling?

UPDATE:  According to this (pdf), the South Dakota Capitol Committee PAC is embroiled in this controversy (see page one).  The person filing the report for the Capitol Committee PAC is Debra Elofson (pdf), who is now legislative director of the South Dakota Democratic Party.

UPDATE:  The documents (pdf) also discuss the South Dakota Wanalain PAC.  Former South Dakota Democratic Party Executive Director Bret Healy, brother of the Democratic School and Public Lands Commissioner Bryce Healy, filed the reports for Wanalain PAC.  Bret Healy was also the one who claimed in 2004 that South Dakota voters were "intimidated" because they had to show an ID when voting and was involved in a voter fraud case in 2002. 

UPDATE:  See this report from the Center for Public Integrity:

Democrats in South Dakota needed every dollar they could find in 2002 to help U.S. Sen. Tim Johnson defend his seat against a challenge from then-Rep. John Thune. Five state Democratic Party committees sent valuable "hard dollars" to South Dakota's Democratic Party during the 2001-2002 cycle, and four of those states got non-federal money from South Dakota, often more than they gave.

"We were concerned that we would run short on hard money, so we were actively seeking it out," said Bret Healy, a political consultant who served as executive director of the state Democratic Party in 2002.

Healy found willing partners in California, Florida, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, New York and Virginia where state party committees combined to send a total of $1,101,800 in hard money to South Dakota between June 2001 and August 2002. In return, those committees received a total of $1,178,750 in soft money from South Dakota.

The generosity of other state parties was such that Healy was able to dole out hard money to other states as the election approached. Party committees in Massachusetts, Montana and Louisiana got a total of $204,667 from South Dakota between Sept. 25 and Oct. 31, 2002.

UPDATE:  SDWC asks:   

Why are the checks written out to these political action committees, when neither one can be found anywhere in any of their PAC Reports?  Because the next time you see any evidence of this money is not in either of these committees.

UPDATE:  To clarify, I remain somewhat skeptical that anything illegal happened and, until we have more information, I defer any judgment on the legality of this (I've offered the same opinion to Tom DeLay, who was also accused of laundering campaign money, so it's only fair that the other side is treated the same way.)  The purpose of this post is to offer some observations and connect faces (Elofson and Healy) to the PACs involved.  As the Pioneer Press reported:  "But it appeared, at least initially, that while the donations were unusual there was nothing illegal about them or the route the money allegedly took to the House Democratic campaign."

One last note: it's odd that no South Dakota media outlet has covered this story.

UPDATE:  A reader at Captain's Quarters has more questions:

This could get even more interesting. It is unlikely that Entenza & spouse carried out that (apparent) laundering operation themselves. Who among the South Dakota Democrats knew about it and was involved? Who else in the MN DFL knew about it?

Did all of the well-washed money come back to the Entenza campaign, or did some of it go to other DFL candidates?

I'm sure that the Star Tribune will rush to investigate.

Presidential Frontrunners

A new Gallup poll measures the viability of potential presidential candidates in 2008:

A recent Gallup Panel poll asked Republicans and Democrats whether they would find each of several possible contenders for their party's 2008 presidential nomination to be "acceptable" nominees. Unlike other nomination ballot questions that measure respondents' first choice from among a list of possible candidates, this question paints a broader picture of the level of potential support and opposition for each candidate.

Hillary Clinton is the clear front-runner among Democrats when voters are asked to choose which one candidate they would prefer for the Democratic nomination for president, but the current poll finds Democrats are about equally likely to rate Clinton, John Edwards, and Al Gore as acceptable nominees. Rudy Giuliani and Sen. John McCain typically vie for the lead in Republican preference polls, but a greater percentage of Republicans say they would find Giuliani acceptable than say this about McCain (73% to 55%). Four in 10 Republicans say they would not find McCain to be an acceptable GOP presidential nominee. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is also widely considered by Republicans to be an acceptable nominee.

Gallup's June 26-29 poll tested Democrats' (and Democrat-leaning independents') reactions to 13 potential candidates and Republicans' (and Republican leaning independents') reactions to 12 potential candidates. While none of the politicians evaluated in the poll have officially announced their candidacies for president, many have laid the groundwork for a run by visiting early primary and caucus states like Iowa or New Hampshire or by setting up political action committees to raise money for themselves and other candidates. Others have been talked about as potential candidates, even though some (like Rice and Florida Gov. Jeb Bush) have stated they do not intend to run.

Tom Daschle fared with 35% acceptable, 50% not acceptable, and 15% having no opinion.

A Challenge

Here is Jonathan Adler at Volokh:

I have been at a conference in Montana the past several days. While here I learned some interesting facts about the state. Approximately 30 percent of Montana's 700,000 residents purchase fishing licenses, and nearly 25 percent purchase hunting permits. I would be surprised to see higher numbers in any of the lower 48 states. Perhaps more surprising, according to a presentation I attended yesterday, approximately one in four Montana hunters is female.

I wonder what the percentages are of South Dakotans who have fishing and hunting licenses.  If anyone has an answer let us know at southdakotapolitics at hotmail.com.

The Inconvenient Truth on Global warming III

In an earlier post, The Inconvenient Truth, I laid out the following propositions on global warming.

My position is basically this: 1) we know a whole lot, but none of it is enough to tell us what to do unless we indulge in a great deal of groundless speculation; and 2) there is very little that we can possibly do about global warming in the short term.

These were not, I thought, very demanding propositions, though one could certainly disagree with both.  I backed-up my assertions with arguments and evidence taken from a very respectable economist, Robert Samuelson.  Chad at CCK responded by calling my argument "wacky," without addressing any of the arguments.  He clearly suggested that the American News shouldn't print my articles.  I responded by making the argument again, with more detail, and I pointed out the left-wing Archie Bunkerish nature of his rhetoric.  Chad responded with this:

The fact of the matter is what we are seeing on the Thune/Heppler/Lauck/VanBeek blog is the result of a couple of professors who are profoundly influenced by wacky ideas forwarded by extremists on the conservative fringe and no one else. The only media that promotes these ideas are the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Michelle Malkin, Powerlineblog, and their ilk. No one with serious credibility on environmental science have forwarded the kinds of arguments that Blanchard has written about on the Thune blog or in the Aberdeen American News.  [emphasis mine]

Well, it turns out that Chad's grasp of the scientific consensus is as stunted as his grasp of American history.  I found the following quote in the June 15th  issue of Nature [Vol. 441, No. 7095].  It's from an article by Gabrielle Walker, described as "a writer who specializes in Earth science and cold places."  Nature, I would point out, is among the two or three most prestigious journals in the general sciences. It is highly competitive, and every single item is refereed by experts in the relevant field.  Such journals represent the only authoritative statement of what scientists do and do not take seriously.  Here's what Ms. Walker says on page 803, after summarizing studies of global warming in the Arctic and elsewhere. 

What insights do these three examples provide into tipping-points more generally?  One is that they are hard to predict, because they often depend on phenomena too subtle or small to be captured in climate models . . .   .  As a result, few researchers are prepared to put a number on how much warmer we could allow the climate to get without endangering humans. 

That was my first point, that we don't know what we really need to know before we spend hundreds of billions of dollars that might otherwise be spent on improving the lives of people in the developing world, including the necessity to adapt to global warming.  Ms. Walker also says this:

[T]he question of whether sea ice would continue to shrink without global warming is academic.  The current level of greenhouse gases ensures that the world will continue to warm over the next decades, and the current structure of the world economy ensures that, over that time, there will be further increases in the greenhouse-gas level.  The question is what will be done about it, and how soon  [my emphasis].

That was my second and primary point.  We just aren't going to arrest global warming in the near term.  So when Chad wrote that my argument was wacky, that "No one with serious credibility on environmental science have forwarded the kinds of arguments that Blanchard has written about on the Thune blog or in the Aberdeen American News,"  he demonstrated only his own flamboyant ignorance. 

Some Spitballs from CCK

Like I said, whatever shortcomings the Clean Cut Kid may have, at least they pay attention to us.  Chad took exception to my  piece on anti-war Nazis.

It's the Ward Churchill syndrome -- find some obscure story and talk like it's representative of the entire "left" (whatever "the left" is).

Seriously. Is that the best they can come up with to counter criticism from "the left" of the biggest fuck-up in the history of the Republic?

In my post immediately preceeding the one Chad responds to, I said this about the proposed University of Wisconsin course that will present 9/11 as a hoax. 

Both sides have their nut cases, and while each does comfort the other side, no one but the nuts are really responsible.

So I thought it obvious that I agree with Chad.  Apparently it wasn't. 

I also thought that the picture of George Clooney with the dubious look on his face (from Oh Brother Where Art Thou?) would have tipped any reasonable reader to the fact that I didn't intend that as serious commentary.  Of course it doesn't discredit the anti-war movement in any way that 50 Nazis oppose the Iraq war.  It's just funny, that's all.  But one thing CCK definitely doesn't have is a sense of humor.

Or a sense of history.  Is the Iraq war really "the biggest fuck-up in the history of the Republic?"  Bigger than waiting until the Russian monarchy was collapsing to enter WWI?  Bigger than the isolation that helped encourage the rise of Nazism in Europe and the Japanese Empire in the pacific?  Bigger than secession, a move that ultimately cost about a half a million American lives?  No serious person could say such a thing.

DM&E

Dave Kranz, the star political reporter for the Argus Leader, has more today about Tom Daschle and Bill Janklow's efforts to destroy the biggest project in South Dakota history:

The battle between the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and the Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern Railroad is about big names and big bucks.

At the center of the disagreement is the effect of the anticipated extension of the DM&E rail line running near clinic property. The clinic is resisting the plan because of patient health concerns.

Mayo has placed former Sen. Tom Daschle on their board of directors and former U.S. Rep. Bill Janklow was hired as a consultant.

Now, clinic officials have hired an influential Washington, D.C., firm. The mission of lobbyists with Manatt, Phelps & Phillips is to stop the railroad's $2.5 billion federal loan application, says Stephen Ryan, a Manatt lawyer.

Keep Your Eye On The Tribal President

Anyone who can accurately follow the travails of Cecelia Fire Thunder deserves a prize.  She was in, then out, then in, and now apparently out as tribal president of Oglala Sioux. 

Herseth Votes For Marriage Amendment

An amendment to define marriage as between one man and one woman has failed to gain the necessary 2/3rds vote needed for passage in the House of Representatives.  If my count is correct, thirty-three Democrats voted for the amendment, including South Dakota's Stephanie Herseth.  Most of those Democrats voting for the amendment are from the South, including Black Caucus members Sanford Bishop, Arthur Davis, Harold Ford, William "how'd that money get in my freezer" Jefferson, David Scott, and Bennie Thompson. Whatever the merits of same-sex marriage or a constitutional amendment on the same, those liberal Democrats who claim that opposition to same-sex marriage is morally reprehensible will have to deal with the fact that many in their party voted to protect traditional marriage via amendment.  One wonders how the left-wing South Dakota blogosphere, which has consistently attacked supporters of traditional marriage in a most illiberal manner, will deal with the fact that Rep. Herseth voted for this amendment.  Given the caricature of marriage defenders as mouth breathing religion crazed cro-magnons, how will they explain the votes of Rep. Herseth and, for example, Rep. Ford, one of the most respected men in Congress?

Ku Klux Klan joins Anti-War Movement

Some time ago I blogged about the role of ultra-leftist groups in organizing anti-war rallies.  Now a group even more odious (though considerably less colorful, in their starched sheets) is moving into line behind Cindy Sheehan.  From the Jerusalem Post.

The National Park Service granted a request by the Ku Klux Klan to rally and protest near the spot where a failed offensive by the Confederacy turned the tide of the Battle of Gettysburg.

Gordon Young of the World Knights of the Ku Klux Klan obtained the permit Wednesday for about 100 people to participate in a Sept. 2 event on the lawn of the Cyclorama Center at Gettysburg National Military Park, near the site of Pickett's Charge. The purpose, according to the permit, will be to oppose the Iraq war and speak on "white unity between the North and South."

The Great 9/11 Hoax II

It's wonderful to live in a time when a college course can become national news, even if it usually involves an idiot professor risking his job.  Kathy Young at The Boston Globe weighs in on the 9/11 hoax course, about to be taught at the University of Wisconsin by one Kevin Barrett.

The latest in the academic follies comes from the University of Wisconsin at Madison, where the administration has cleared the way for an instructor to teach his belief that the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were plotted by the US government to create an excuse for war.

There's nothing new or surprising about Sept. 11 conspiracy theories. E-mails with ``conclusive proof" that the attacks were an inside job land regularly in my mailbox. They are subject to automatic deletion, right along with ``proof positive that evolution is a fraud" and invitations to collect $150 million from a Nigerian bank.

As a rule of thumb, conspiracy theories are bunk. People are not smart enough to carry out their scenarios, and not discreet enough to keep their secrets. It is particularly a stretch to believe that the Bush administration, given its track record in managing things like the Iraq War and the Hurricane Katrina response, could have pulled off a conspiracy so immense.

On the question of why no serious person would take the hoax story seriously, Young is right on target.  I would add that an administration resourceful enough to stage a murderous magic act in downtown Manhattan in front of millions of witnesses would surely not have come up empty when it went to look for a chemical weapons industry in Iraq.  Which is harder: rigging 9/11 or arranging some photo opps with Arabic looking men standing around wearing "WMD Division" jump suits? 

The tougher question is whether the professor ought to be allowed to teach such a course.  This one looks to me to be over the line, in the same way as a physics course that took astrology seriously.  Perhaps a better example would be a course that presented Creation Science as if it had anything to do with science.  I am certain that the UofW would not allow the latter. 

Ms. Young of the Globe thinks that the issue here is liberals behaving badly, and thus discrediting their own cause.  That strikes me as wrong.  Both sides have their nut cases, and while each does comfort the other side, no one but the nuts are really responsible.  What the story really shows is that left wing nuts have a little more protection (but only a little) than right wing nuts. 

Hildebrand: "We're watching what you say on HB 1215"

The inimitable SDWC is covering a statement by Steve Hildebrand, Tom Daschle's former campaign manager, who has told churches that "we're watching what you say on HB 1215."  The Alliance Defense Fund has responded to Hildebrand's challenge and will be holding a luncheon for pastors to direct them on what can and cannot be said from the pulpit.  A heated discussion has resulted, so be sure to give that a read.  I defer any opinion for now, except this obvious one: you can bet this discussion will only become more intense as fall draws closer.

The New Media

HiWired Blog:

There are two unique angles to this war [between Israel and Hezbollah] involving technology, the first is this:

The internet coverage is more interesting, more informative and more up-to-date than any mainstream source. This is for two reasons:

1.  The internet can draw the reports of many mainstream sources together in a single place

2.  You have first hand reporting from Israel, Gaza, Egypt, Iraq and Lebanon.

This are first hand reports of people actually seeing what is going on they are providing a human perspective to what is happening, but this is NOT the most unique thing that technology has done vis a vis a war.

The second and the most amazing part is the role of blogs and bloggers.

You basically have bloggers on both sides of the conflict telling their stories and making their case to the world.

The Pajamas Media and The Truth Laid Bear blog sites are providing and collecting coverage from blogs in the area. At a single click you can see what people in Lebanon, Gaza and Israel are saying. Not only that because of the nature of blogging both sides have access to the others blogs and can comment back and forth as we can. 

Think about it. Rather than going through diplomatic channels the actual people under attack can converse comment and argue their respective sides to each other with only the ability to post (electrical power) as the limitation. This is unheard of in the history of the world. In addition they can debate and discuss the situation with the entire world either to justify, appeal, condemn or cajole the reader to act.

This is history being made by the people making it. Of course if you are dodging rockets or bombs the idea of making history online doesn't seem all that important, yet it is important all the same, both for people involved and not involved to understand what is going on.

Personally I'd just as soon everybody have a quiet life and not have to make history in this fashion, but as this is not the reality on the ground we can only be amazed as ordinary people do extrodinary reporting thanks to modern technology.

May they all live to appreciate what they are doing and may all of us fortunate enough to be far away from the dangers and horrors of war be be grateful for their efforts.

[Edit: all emphasis original]

Keeping The World Safe From Prairie Dogs

This weekend was the second annual trip to friendly Lemmon, SD to shoot prairie dogs.  As one resident told us, Lemmon may not be the end of the earth, but you can see it from there.  Plenty of the little rodents were sent to prairie dog heaven, and Lemmon pretty much felt like Hell by noon time Saturday.  We were out in 110-115 degree weather, but not for long.  We went back into town and had ice cream.   Yes, it was a dry heat, and no, that is not funny. 

We saw the damage caused by a prairie fire just east of Mobridge.  When we got out to Lemmon the folks at the Grand River National Grasslands ranger station told us another fire was blazing north of Lemmon.  Luckily the wind was blowing it away from town.  Another fire had occurred the day before, and we drove through that carnage to get to one of our shooting spots.  Saturday afternoon the federal land was posted with "extreme fire danger" signs. 

The damage done by drought in almost awe inspiring.  We travelled Highway 12 from Aberdeen to Lemmon.  It is safe to say that from Roscoe and all points west drought damage was obvious to the naked eye. The Lemmon area aparently hasn't had a lick of moisture in a couple months.  Many ranchers are selling cattle since water and hay are in such shortage.  There will be no crops coming from the area.  The wheat is no more than ankle high and the corn is about knee high and shriveled.  This must be recognized as a natural disaster, and one hopes federal money will be released to ease the damage done by this extreme drought. 

The Great 9/11 Hoax

We received this stern e-reprimand from alert reader MJW. 

Please do your research on the other side of a story, no matter how distasteful you may consider it to be, before you automatically dismiss it and criticize its supporters. Do you have the courage simply to sit back and watch undeniable evidence presented in stark terms? I like to think I'm a courageous South Dakotan. I would like to think you are one too. I certainly didn't believe any of this stuff at first, but I reluctantly had to change my mind when I saw the overwhelming evidence that things didn't happen the way the 9/11 Commission (run by dedicated Bush supporter Philip Zelikow) says they did. So please, set aside your doubts, your biases and your distaste for a while (I certainly felt a lot of distaste at first) and take a look:

Free online video documentary: Loose Change, 2nd Edition (20 million to 40 million viewings; read about it in August 2006, Vanity Fair Magazine)

Free online video documentary: 9/11: In Plane Site (Dave vonKleist of "The Power Hour")

  Free online video documentary: What's the Truth? (after the intro, nothing but the facts -- from firefighters on the scene, mainstream news broadcasts, etc.)

Scholarly web site: Scholars for 9/11 Truth Several hundred people with academic backgrounds (please note that there are also conservatives in this movement, including Robert Bowman, the former head of the Strategic Defense Initiative ("Star Wars") in the 1970s; he also flew 101 combat missions; Morgan Reynolds, a former member of the George W. Bush Administration during the first term). These people are a far cry from partisan political hacks, such as Rush Limbaugh and Gerry Falwell, who were calling for investigations of President Clinton.  Research web site: 9-11 Research

I confess that I haven't consulted the record that MJW brings to our attention here.  I have been too busy studying the communication from one Jay North, who promises me I can "Vibrate Emanate the Life I Want!" Unfortunately, this did not reach Professor Schaff in time for him to incoporate it into this lectures on the emanation theory in Griswold v. Connecticut.  But I will confess my opinions on a few similar issues.

Pearl Harbor. 

The Japanese did it.

Alligators in New York City Sewers.

Nope.

Bigfoot filmed walking.

A guy in a Planet of the Apes Suit.

TWA Flight 800.

Planes are large flying cylinders full of flammable material.  This one just blew the heck up.

The Assassination of  JFK.

Lee Harvey Oswald.  Out the book depository window, through the Governor, nothing but neck.

Professor Schaff's recent haircut.

Like Pedro in Napoleon Dynamite, he "just got hot." 

NYT

Jeff Goldstein: Sleeping with the Enemy

UPDATE:  Tim Blair has more.

Radical Republicans

Hiram Hover compares and contrasts the radical Republicans of the 1860s and the Republicans of today and how we will remember both and the wars they fought.  It's a good comparison that I recommend checking out.  For more history reading, check out the latest history carnival.

Steyn

Mark Steyn:

During all the time the Great Men were shuttling back and forth, a kind of toxic globalization occurred: The Palestinian "movement" (insofar as there ever was a genuine nationalist movement) became infected and eventually annexed by hard-core Islamism and the Palestinians' most depraved terror techniques were exported to every corner of the world. You can build a "security fence" in the region, but what we might call Palestinianism has leapt the psychological fence and incubated in radicalized Muslim communities worldwide: It's not just Palestinians but also Yorkshiremen who now blow themselves up on public transit. What's happened in Gaza, in Lebanon, in Syria and elsewhere is that the weaknesses of those polities were exploited by Iran and others through various client groups and a potent ideology that's really a virus.

That's a much more cunning and effective strategy than sending a fellow in a suit to concoct a plan in his name. We need to learn from the Iranians. We need to wage war on the ideology, because until we do, the reality is that the Middle East's fetid "stability," its demography, its remorseless nuclearization and proxy militarization all favor Israel's and our enemies.

DCCC Ad Pulled

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee withdrew the advertisement that was released last week after a torrent of criticism from both sides of the aisle.  I wrote last week that I didn't see anything wrong with the pictures of flag-draped coffins as a form of political debate, but that the ad suffered because it provided no argument about how the Democrats would improve America.  The critics of the ad have done the Democrats a favor.

In somewhat topical interest, check out "A Historical Look at Campaign Commercials."

Les Francais En Dismay

Well, when on the French one is on a roll.  From the London Economist, the headline of which reads "Jacques Chirac has wasted his eleven years in office," comes this:

AS JACQUES CHIRAC opens the Elysée Palace on July 14th, for his annual garden party, it is surely clear that this Bastille Day will be his last as president. Although the 73-year-old veteran has said he will decide whether to run again for next spring's presidential election only early in 2007, it now looks all but impossible. His government is paralysed, his prime minister, Dominique de Villepin, is unloved, and the French have had enough.

A sense of fin de règne was confirmed last weekend on the football pitch. Zinédine Zidane, the captain of the French team, was sent off during the World Cup final, which Italy won on a penalty shoot-out. It was a painfully fitting metaphor for the country's general malaise. The victorious multi-ethnic French champions of 1998 appeared, in those heady days of economic growth and new dynamism, to embody a fresh national spirit. This time, hopes of recapturing that glory were vested in Mr Zidane, the working-class son of Algerian immigrants. De Gaulle-like, he came out of retirement to lead the team. In the end, provoked by an insult, he got a red card for head-butting an Italian player, leaving the field in disgrace and the French without their promised saviour.

A similar yearning for somebody to rescue France from its melancholy hangs in the political air. After 11 years in the presidency, Mr Chirac has come to embody the country's political inability to renew itself. In politics for 41 years, he is the only serving politician who has belonged to governments under every fifth-republic president since de Gaulle. His popularity has collapsed. According to TNS Sofrès, a pollster, Mr Chirac is now the most unpopular French president since its polling began in 1978. Libération put it well this week: “For a month, France has been dreaming with Zidane. This morning, it wakes up to Chirac.”

If you haven't seen the disgraceful behavior by France's star, Zidane, you can watch it here at break.com.

Ted Nugent Quote of the Month

Nugent may be an idiot, as Professor Schaff has plausibly declared.  But here he meets someone who is no match for him.

Ted Nugent was being interviewed by a British journalist.

The journalist asked: "What do you think the last thought is in the mind of a deer before you  shoot it ?  Is it, `Are you my friend?` or is it `Are you the one who killed my  brother?'"

Nugent replied:  "Deer aren't capable of that kind of thinking.  All they care about is, 'What am I going to eat next, who am I going to screw next, and can I run fast enough to get away.  They are very much like the French."

Happy Bastile Day!

Hot Podcast Update for Hot Weekend

Three hundred fourteen items.  Eight point three days.  Seven point four gigebytes.  According to the iTunes program on my main computer, that's how much free and legal audio I have gotten from podcasts.  In case you don't know, podcasts are free downloads that usually include music, though they can include other audio or video files.  If you have iTunes, downloaded free here, you can subscribe to a podcast.  Then iTunes will look for and automatically download the most recent version of that podcast.  But you don't need an iPod or iTunes to dowload or listen to the files.  If you have audio at all on your computer you can listen to it that way, or you can burn the files onto a cd.  If you do have an iPod, which I strongly recommend, you can download the podcasts as well as all other audio files on your computer and listen that way.  Podcasts are legal because they operate in much the same way as a radio station, and many are in fact radio stations.  Much of the music from the venues linked below is from classic cd's with labels, but a lot of it is produced by independent muscians.  In each case the music is available in the hopes that listening will be a step toward buying.  But it allows me to expand my permanent collection of jazz much faster than I could afford to do otherwise.

Since I bought my pod I have been listening both to a lot of music that sat buried in my cd cabinet for ages, as well as a lot of new music.  iTunes is very good at organizing the music files by song title, artist, album, and genre. 

Anyway, I thought it is only fitting that I return the favor of the radio stations and other parties who podcast music by mentioning their sites.  Following are my favorite Jazz podcasts.  I will devote future posts to other genres.   

My heads above all favorite is In the Groove, Jazz and Beyond.  DJ Ken Laster at WHUS (Radio for the People!  Man.)  spins a lot of classical and contemporary jazz, with a special fondness for Cannon Ball Aderley.  You can get downloads at the website that don't come by way of the podcast, and you can download from there without using iTunes if you want to. 

Straight No Chaser is another marvelous jazz show that focuses on themes.  One of my favorite shows consisted on nothing but different versions of Charlie Mingus's great number, "Goodbye, Pork Pie Hat." 

Another nice site, but much less frequently updated, is Red Jazz, which is tilted more toward smooth jazz. 

Finally, Legends of Jazz has a series of interviews with muscians.  The podcast belongs to the TV show of that name, hosted by Ramsey Lewis.  The interview with Dave Brubeck would be worth $15 on its own, if it weren't free. 

Adelstein Won't Switch

Associated Press:

Tom Katus will remain the Democratic candidate for a state Senate seat after Republican State Sen. Stan Adelstein announced Friday he won't switch political parties and was endorsing Katus.

Elli Schwiesow defeated Adelstein by 174 votes in the June Republican primary in the District 22 race in Rapid City.

A week ago, Katus offered to resign as the Democratic candidate and let Adelstein replace him if polls showed Adelstein had a better chance of defeating Schiesow in November. Adelstein would have to switch his political registration and be endorsed by the Democratic Party to replace Katus.

At a joint appearance Friday, Adelstein endorsed Katus. The two men said they are both moderates who oppose the conservative turn the state Republican Party has taken.

Sober Advice

If you have not read Michael Oren's Six Days of War, get the book today and read it.  It is a brilliant piece of military history.   In the Washington Post today Oren gives his assessment of Israel's current options.  It is a must read. 

Liberté, Egalité, Fraternity

Happy Bastille Day.  It's too bad they no longer live up to their revolutionary slogan (if they ever did).  If I do the math from this story, the US vetoed an anti-Israel resolution in the UN Security Council, with Britain, Denmark, Peru and Slovakia being profiles in courage by abstaining.  France, being a permanent member of the Security Council, must have voted against the democracy of Israel and in favor of terrorist organizations and the nations that sponsor and harbor them. 

Scary Video of the Day

Here's a portable bathroom moment, from the folks at break.com. 

Israel's Next War II

I would like to agree with my colleague, Professor Schaff, and in point of fact with myself, for I have argued the following as well.  Jon writes the following:

For many years I have suggested that Israel capitulate to a Palestinian state.  Then the Palestinians would have the rights and responsibilities of a nation state.  When events such as those in the last few days take place Israel would then be in the position of taking legitimate action against a sovereign state and not have the public relations problem (however unjustified) of attacking an "occupied people."

I have expressed hopes that the realistic possibility of a their own State might force the Palestinians to act more responsibly. 

But hasn't that idea been tested?  First, it is far from clear that the Palestinians are capable of forming anything like a state, or that Hamas or any other party could possibly begin acting responsibly.  The various groups are being armed and to some extent orchestrated by Syria and Iran.  If Hamas really tried to make peace, the weapons would simply flow to others into their own party or to other parties.  At that point Hamas would have no more control over them than Jimmy Carter does.  A responsible Palestinian state is, for the short run, all but impossible in such circumstances as the Arab states have themselves created.

As for the public relations question, the Palestinian parties will always be given credit (in the court of world opinion, or Jimmy Carter, whichever comes first) for what they promise to do.  Israel will never get the credit for what it has already done, but only blame for what it has yet to do.  Allowing for the creation of a Palestinian state will win them no friends at all.

I agree that Israel should not launch a war against Syria or Iran, though she would be well within her rights to do so.  What she is doing right now, striking directly at the direct sources of attack, is what she will be doing for the next several decades, at least.  I hope I am wrong. 

Explaining the War

Historian Victor Davis Hanson:

The Bush administration should stop repeating that it is fighting the war on terror for truth, justice and the American way. Instead, the president and his staff should be blunt and explain that, since Sept. 11, it has had to choose between options that are bad or far worse.

By all means, the administration should invite critics to suggest constructive alternatives to the way it's handled this war. But it should also point out that those who have honed in on flaws in current U.S. anti-terror policies have so far been bereft of other workable ideas.

...

The Bush administration can also use history to show that, despite what detractors say, its techniques aren't so unreasonable. It's worth reminding the American public that Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and shut down newspapers; that Woodrow Wilson imprisoned prominent dissenters like Eugene Debs; and that Franklin Roosevelt ordered the internment of Japanese-American citizens and secret military tribunals for German saboteurs (six of whom were executed) and allowed for the cover-up of military catastrophes (such as the hundreds killed during training exercises for the Normandy landings).

In other words, there's an advantage to providing historical perspective by engaging one's critics and answering their charges. The public, for example, should be informed that the accusation that the U.S. went into Iraq for oil ("no blood for oil," as the slogan goes) is not merely inaccurate, but crazy. For starters, gas prices skyrocketed once we induced risky change in the Middle East. How does that benefit the American people? Meanwhile, because of the fall of Saddam Hussein, Iraq's energy sector has been purged of corruption (such as the U.N.'s scandal-plagued oil-for-food program).

Read it all.

Israel

Some articles of note.  The Jerusalem Post reports that captured Israeli soldiers are being moved to Iran by Hezbollah.  The US has vetoed a UN resolution condemning Israel for strikes in Gaza.  Ken McCraken comments on the Syria connection to terror, but in my opinion he is in error to suggest that Israel use the latest crisis as pretext for an assault on the Syrian regime.  Powerline reports that Israel has no intention of widening the scope of its operations.  Tom Bevan suggests that Lebanon has committed an act of war against Israel. 

For many years I have suggested that Israel capitulate to a Palestinian state.  Then the Palestinians would have the rights and responsibilities of a nation state.  When events such as those in the last few days take place Israel would then be in the position of taking legitimate action against a sovereign state and not have the public relations problem (however unjustified) of attacking an "occupied people."

Even More Religion And Politics

Yesterday I blogged on Mark Tooley's piece on the religious left's modestly named "Pentecost 2006" event.  No word on whether anyone at the event spoke in tongues.  Evidently TypePad had a hiccup yesterday and the post was lost.  Thanks to my infallible memory I will now re-type it word for word.  If you believe that, let me tell you another. 

I had previously commented on Barak Obama's speech on the role of religion in political life.  See Joe Knippenberg for some wise words on the same subject.  Obama was apparently at "Pentecost 2006," but his fellow speakers did not exactly meet Obama's standard of coherent thought.  Some snippets:

Here's Howard Dean:

"We're here [today], back in the '50s in the McCarthy era," Mr. Dean complained, "In the time when there wasn't [sic] civil rights, at a time when there was an authoritarian government that felt they deserved everything and that nobody needed to know anything."

First, is Howard Dean unaware of the fact that a civil rights revolution did indeed occur?  Also, the evidence that we are not actually living in under an authoritarian government is that Howard Dean can call the government authoritarian firm in the knowledge that he will face no reprisal.  Dean's rhetoric is reckless and needlessly inflammatory. This language is unbecoming of a man in Dean's position of responsibility. 

How about Hillary?

Jim Wallis enthusiastically introduced [Sen. Clinton] as "someone who quotes Matthew 25 often, and she quotes it right!" By this reference, of course, Mr. Wallis meant that Ms. Clinton rightly understands Christ's supposed commands about enlarging federal welfare programs.

"I missed the Sunday school lesson about how we help the poor by giving tax cuts to the rich," Ms. Clinton observed sarcastically. "The budget is a moral document!" Ms. Clinton insisted, repeating an old religious left refrain. "Behind those numbers are decisions. How are we going to give a boost up the economic ladder when too many tools have been removed to make that happen."

Like others at the Mr. Wallis event, Ms. Clinton warned against the seductive allure of the religious right. "Don't let people get away with nice words," she implored. "Don't let them quote scripture to you."

I am confused.  Jim Wallis praises Sen. Clinton for quoting often and accurately Matthew 25, but then Mrs. Clinton says we shouldn't let people quote scripture to us.  Should I not let Mrs. Clinton get away with her "nice words"?  Also, I thought the left was opposed to "imposing morality."  Now it turns out that Sen. Clinton thinks the federal budget is $2.7 trillion of moral imposition, and apparently she wants more!  See the previous post for thoughts about "imposing morals." 

The real winner is Marian Wright Edelman:

More bizarrely, Ms. Edelman adopted the persona of abolitionist Sojourner Truth and began to speak in an attempted slave accent. Ostensibly the old escaped slave woman spoke of social problems as "weasels." Channeling the spirit of the Underground Railroad's most celebrated conductor, Ms. Edelman named today's "big weasels" that are, she believes, embedded in the U.S. Constitution. These constitutional weasels include the "Special Interest Weasel," the "Greedy Military Weasel," the "Robin Hood in Reverse Weasel," and the "Only Right Way to God Weasel."

As Ms. Edelman explained, the "Special Interest Weasel" robs poor children of government funding. The "Greedy Military Weasel" steals from the hungry by demanding money for arms. The "Robin Hood in Reverse Weasel" justifies taking from the poor to give to the rich.

In her description of the "Only Right Way to God Weasel," Ms. Edelman claimed, without further explanation, that the Constitution has permitted religious conservatives to control American religion.

Imagine a meeting of the religious right that used this kind of language? What would we read about them? The claims to moral superiority. The belief that their policy preferences have been endorsed by God. The depiction of their opponents as "weasels."

It seems the honest way to have these debates is as follows. The left can claim accurately that Christ wants us to care for the poor. They can then claim that in their opinion a large welfare state is the best way to obey that commandment. That is different from saying Christ wants a large welfare state. Christ tells us to care for the poor, but he is agnostic on how to go about it. Likewise, all agree that Christ wants us to care for the weakest among us. Religious conservatives believe that includes the unborn. So let’s have a debate about what we owe, if anything, to the unborn.

Thank goodness Joe K. had posted that last bit over at NLT.  It saved me from overly taxing my infallible memory. 

Code Talkers

Rapid City Journal:

South Dakota’s two senators on Wednesday honored Clarence Wolf Guts, one of the last living Lakota “code talkers” who helped confound Japanese troops during World War II by transmitting messages in his native language.

Sens. Tim Johnson, D-S.D., and John Thune, R-S.D., presented Wolf Guts, 83, with an honorary quilt on Capitol Hill.

“By their willingness to serve our country, they empowered the allies in World War II with strong communication that was secure and secret from our enemies,” Johnson said of the code talkers.

The senators wrapped Wolf Guts in the quilt as Ryan Wilson, the president of the National Indian Education Association, sang a Lakota honor song. Wolf Guts was emotional as he thanked the lawmakers and the crowd.

“In my lifetime, I never thought I’d be standing here, but now that I’m here I’m very happy,” he said.

Thune said at the ceremony that the use of the Lakota language, along with other Indian languages, helped save many lives.

“We are enormously grateful,” Thune said.

Wolf Guts testified at a September 2004 hearing on the contributions of code talkers. He said that he used all three of South Dakota’s main Indian dialects — Lakota, Dakota and Nakota — in helping the military.

“With my fellow comrades overseas, I was sitting there in the foxhole with a radio, trying to give the orders that were given to us to pass on to the chief-of-staff,” he said at the hearing. “You do whatever you can to confuse the enemy. ... I am a full-blood Indian, and we do whatever we can to protect the United States because we love America.”

Another Lakota code talker, Charles I. Whitepipe, Sr., died last month.

Israel's Next War

It is no longer possible to be hopeful about peace between Israel and her enemies.  Critics of Israel continue to insist, as they will always do, that if only she conceded something more, her enemies would be satisfied.  It is now demonstrable beyond any reasonable doubt that this is not true.  Any piece of territory Israel gives up will just be a new place to put a rocket launcher. 

There are some who would argue that, in order to make friends among the Muslim nations, we must stop supporting Israel.  That way lies damnation.  We cannot vanquish monsters by feeding them with the bloody limbs of democracies. 

The news from the Levant is grave, indeed.  See Yossi Klein Halevi, in the New Republic:

The next Middle East war--Israel against genocidal Islamism--has begun. The first stage of the war started two weeks ago, with the Israeli incursion into Gaza in response to the kidnapping of an Israeli soldier and the ongoing shelling of Israeli towns and kibbutzim; now, with Hezbollah's latest attack, the war has spread to southern Lebanon. Ultimately, though, Israel's antagonists won't be Hamas and Hezbollah but their patrons, Iran and Syria. The war will go on for months, perhaps several years. There may be lulls in the fighting, perhaps even temporary agreements and prisoner exchanges. But those periods of calm will be mere respites.

Teaching Evolution in Schools

Ring the bell!  Chad and I agree on something again.  Well, mostly.  Here is Chad's most recent post, as I write.

Catch this logic from an anonymous commentor on a post over at the War College:

pay attention here. The THEORY of evolution is being taught as FACT in most South Dakota schools.

A theory is just that, a theory, and as such it cannot be proven and should not be taught as if it could.

Creation can't be proven either, but using the same criteria, it should be taught as fact right along side evolution.

Fair is fair. How would you like that?

I'm always curious to know if people who "don't believe in evolution" (including our own Senator John Thune) have actually had a class in the subject beyond high school biology.

And this whole "theory" thing as an argument is total bunk. Theories are proven and disproven. Evolution has been proven through the fossil record. It is fact. It is universally accepted by the scientific community.

How about the "theory" of relativity?  Or the "theory" of gravity?  Are these "just theories?"

Jeebus H.  It doesn't seem like you should have to explain this stuff to adults.

Anyone who has read my posts and columns on this subject (assuming some hominid meets that description) knows that I believe in the theory of evolution.  I therefore agree with Chad on his main point: to say that we shouldn't teach evolution because it is an unproven theory would, in principle, wipe out the teaching of science.  Darwinian evolution is no more nor less a proven theory than the molecular theory of heat. 

On the same grounds I must dissent from Chad's statement that "Evolution has been proven through the fossil record."  Scientific theories are not in fact conclusions to prove or disprove; they are working models that either work or don't.  Evolution works.  Modern biology cannot be correctly interpreted without it.

I do not think Chad is correct that evolution has "universal" acceptance among scientists.  From time to time individuals with impeccable credentials challenge it.  One example is the cladists, who argued all we really know is that various species are related to one another in various ways, and that the theory of common descent adds nothing to our knowledge.  The dissidents have never made their case, but then I am fonder of dissent than Chad is.  But again, that doesn't detract from Chad's main point, which is sound. 

I do think that Chad's "look at the idiots" approach to political rhetoric is profoundly damaging in this issue.  To be sure, we have to firmly insist on the teaching of science in science classes.  But in dealing with opposition I have found, as Lincoln put it, that an ounce of honey catches more flies than a pound of gall.  I have lectured on evolution before Methodists, and I found that when you acknowledge their concerns, they are usually ready to listen.  I argue that Darwin's theory poses challenges to the Biblical story in some regards, but confirms that story in other ways.  I think the Judeo-Christian tradition is big enough to deal with the challenge. 

Unfortunately, many people of faith have been convinced that anyone who accepts the theory necessarily thinks that believers are idiots.  This view, that evolutionary theory and Darwinists are enemies of religion, underlies the opposition to the teaching of evolution.  It doesn't help to treat everyone who dissents from the theory as an idiot.  But reconciliation here is probably not possible.  The two sides enjoy attacking each other too much. 

ps.  I couldn't find the comment at South Dakota War College that Chad quotes.  What is presented above relies entirely on CCK's accuracy.

Kranz Hearts Herseth

David Kranz, the dean of South Dakota political reporters, gets around to reporting on the National Journal article about Stephanie Herseth.  More importantly, note that the first half of the article is dedicated to Herseth's "vocal champion" status on ethanol.   The Argus doesn't seem to understand the difference between saying you support ethanol and actually accomplishing something.  Our colleague Quentin Riggins noted this last year during the energy bill debate:

Where does that leave us?  Since Daschle's ouster, an energy bill has now passed and will soon become the law of the land.  Before Daschle's ouster, an energy bill could not get passed, even one that did not contain the controversial MTBE and ANWR provisions.  Despite the tendentious claims and outright falsehoods by the embittered former Daschle staffers, the energy bill, with its ethanol provisions so important for South Dakota, could not have become law without the critical support, hard work, and effectiveness of Senator John Thune.

It will be some time yet before we ever see Kranz devote a column to Senator Thune taking charge on ethanol.  Apparently a strong voice is more important than delivering results.

Hmmmm

If you are coming here from No Left Turns and you are wondering where my post on Mark Tooley's piece in the Wall Street Journal is, that makes two of us.  I have no idea where that post escaped to. I am looking into it.  I may just re-type it tomorrow.

Update: I have reposted above. 

Democratic Ad Campaign

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has released a new ad, which some people find offensive.  The offense in question is a brief shot of American flag-draped coffins of dead servicemen to assert the country has "taken a turn for the worse."  I tend to agree with Ed Morrissey and Tom Bevan on this, who say it's an "excess of outrage."  However, Morrissey does point to a number of other problems with the ad.  And what's with the number on Tom DeLay's mug shot?  Any comments are welcome.

Adelstein News

State Senator Stan Adelstein will be holding a press conference on Friday to announce whehter he will change parties.

The Party of One Idea 2

I argued in my previous post that the Democrats were better off not presenting a coherent alternative to the Republicans.  The best chance the opposition party has of winning is if the voters don't have to think much about who would replace the Republicans.  It probably isn't helping that some Democrats have decided to purge Joe Lieberman from the ranks of their elected officials.  Lieberman, once a handful of pregnant chads away from the office of Vice President is facing a serious primary challenge from one Ned Lamont.  Lamont is Howard Dean without the scream.  Lieberman's sin is that he continues to support the Gulf War.  Rich Lowery at National Review notes how unusual Joe's steadfastness is. 

As the poet once said, you don’t have to be a weatherman to tell which way the wind is blowing. You only have to be a weather-vane politician sticking his (or her) finger in the wind. John Edwards has repudiated the war and lurched left since his 2004 vice-presidential run. He leads in presidential polls in Iowa. John Kerry regrets his prior support of the war and wants a deadline, any deadline, for exiting Iraq. Even the cautious Hillary Clinton just turned her back on Lieberman by saying she would support Lamont if he wins the primary.

It's possible, of course, that voters unhappy with the war (that would be most of them) will vote for anyone who opposes it, regardless of what his or her position was in the past, or who muddled it has been.  But a shift in time still makes one look, well, rather shifty.  Lowery points out the difficulties if the moderates in the Democratic Party collapse.

After the 2004 election, then-New Republic editor Peter Beinart wrote an influential article calling on liberal hawks basically to purge the antiwar zealots from the party. Instead, the antiwar zealots are conducting a purge of the liberal hawks, and why not? They are a majority within the party, and events have done more to vindicate than to discredit their opposition to the Iraq war — so much so that even erstwhile purger Beinart has called his support for it a mistake.  . . .

[But] if Lieberman does lose, it will be a sign that Clinton herself is vulnerable to a challenge from the left in the 2008 presidential primaries. Then, she will be under enormous pressure to walk away from her support of the war, too.

If she does so, she will look like another weather-vane, and her party will come more to resemble the party of Cindy Sheehan. It will also mean the defeat of what her husband's presidency once stood for.  Lowery comments on the implications of a Lamont win:

Lamont is a straight Deaniac, not just in his opposition to the war, but in his demographic profile: white, well-off and highly educated. These are the same people who backed the successful peacenik insurrection of George McGovern in 1972, and now they are bidding to make their control of their party all the more complete. Democratic commentator Marshall Wittmann calls the left-wing bloggers “McGovernites with modems.”

Their main issue is the war, but they also represent a general repudiation of the one hiccup in the post-1972 McGovernite dominance of the party, the Clinton administration circa 1994-1998. Clinton was pro-growth, pro-free trade, tonally moderate and willing to use force abroad. Al Gore spurned this winning centrist formula in 2000, but he felt compelled to make a bow to it by picking the moderate Lieberman as his running mate. Now, the Democratic party is on the verge of saying a Lieberman-style hawkish-centrism is utterly anathema.

Maybe McGovern's time has finally come.  But if so, it will be the first time. 

Kevin Barrett

Anne Althouse: The UW 9/11 denialist appears on "Hannity and Colmes."

Attacks in India

A series of explosions across India today, similar to the London metro attacks, killed at least 163 citizens.  The Associated Press reports:

Eight bombs exploded in first-class compartments of packed Bombay commuter trains Tuesday, killing 147 people and wounding hundreds in a well-coordinated terror attack on the heart of a city that embodies India's global ambitions.

...

Security was tightened in cities around the world from New Delhi to New York after the eight blasts, which struck seven trains within minutes of each other during the early evening rush hour. The bombings appeared timed to inflict maximum carnage in this bustling Arabian Sea port of 16 million, more than 6 million of whom ride the crowded rail network daily.

...

The first bombing hit a train at Bandra station at 6:20 p.m. The blasts followed down the line of the Western Railway at or near stations at Khar, Jogeshwari, Mahim, Mira Road, Matunga and finally Borivili, which was struck by two blasts at 6:35 p.m., according to the Star News channel. However, other reports gave different timelines.

The ever informative Counterterrorism Blog has more details of the attack.  Amit Varma has much more.  Ed Morrissey:  "It looks like India will have a 7/11 to match Madrid's 3/11 and our 9/11." 

Netroots Civil War

The American Thinker:  Netroots Civil War: Is the Bloom off the Kos?

DM&E

Here's an odd story about Janklow and Daschle's fight against DM&E:

Bill Janklow says he has a unique perspective on accidents these days, which is why he's helping lead the fight against a plan to run a railroad line through downtown Rochester, Minn.

Janklow, the former Republican governor and congressman from South Dakota, said an accident could be catastrophic, making it impossible for ambulances, fire trucks and law-enforcement vehicles to move.

"I clearly understand what it's like when someone gets injured or killed in an accident and the immense tragedy that comes from that," said Janklow, who was convicted of manslaughter in 2003 in connection with an accident that killed a Minnesota motorcyclist. The clinic is working with Janklow, now a Mayo consultant, and another South Dakotan, former Democratic Sen. Tom Daschle, a board member.

Kevin Schieffer, president of Dakota, Minnesota and Eastern Railroad, seems to relish the fight: "I've always said this project is going to create a lot of South Dakota jobs _ I'm glad we've got a couple of them."

Schieffer's opponents are focused on two points: They say the company lacks the financial wherewithal to pay back a $2.5 billion loan if it's approved by the Federal Railroad Administration, and they say DM&E has one of the worst safety records in the nation.

In the past six years, 17 people have been killed and 93 people have been injured in 227 DM&E accidents at public and private rail crossings, according to the Rochester Coalition, a group of opponents that includes the Mayo Clinic.

Schieffer said the Mayo Clinic is advancing old arguments that have been rejected by outside professionals.

Haying To Take Place on CRP Land

Due to drought conditions the federal government has lifted haying and grazing restrictions on Conservation Reserve Program lands.  This is disappointing on two levels.  First, of course, that conditions for farmers are so bad that this move is necessary.  Second, if haying actually takes place untold numbers of pheasants will be killed and their habitat reduced.  From the AAN:

The restrictions will be lifted in 20 South Dakota counties and land west of U.S. Highway 281 in Brown County, said Dawn Brandt, executive director of the Brown County Farm Service Agency office. It wasn't believed restrictions would be eased on any Brown County land when politicians announced the news Friday morning. But, Brandt said, the Farm Service Agency ultimately learned that western Brown County was included.

The other counties covered by the USDA's Friday announcement are Beadle, Campbell, Corson, Dewey, Edmunds, Faulk, Hand, Hughes, Hyde, Jerald, Jones, Lyman, McPherson, Perkins, Potter, Sanborn, Stanley, Sully, Walworth and Ziebach.

More Global Warming

No one knew how far it has gone.  Check this out at the ecoEnquirer.  Hat tip to Arts&Letters Daily.

Abortion Ballot Initiative

The Attorney General has come out with his explanation of the initiative to repeal HB 1215.

The Party of One Idea

Let's begin by conceding a few obvious facts.  The Republicans as a national party have had a rough couple of years.  Bush's approval ratings fell into the low thirties, clearly a danger zone, and remained there for a good stretch.  It's a sign of how bad things were that numbers in the low forties were cause for celebration in the White House.  Bush's only real problem is the Iraq war.  If gas prices were depressing people, that hasn't stopped them from hitting the road over the summer.  Otherwise, the economy is doing remarkably well by all the fair measures that are applied to administrations.  But Iraq is a big problem, as most Americans have no confidence in it.  This hurts Bush and the Republican Party in general.

Such a situation creates obvious opportunities for the Democrats in an election year.  But opportunities have to be exploited, and you would think that the Democrats need to do more than remind people of how much an ass the President is.  They need to show that they represent a viable alternative, right?  Wrong.

The 2004 election shows what happens when the Democrats try to present a viable alternative.  They fail.  Given a choice between Bush and the Hamlet on the Hudson, Bush wins.  It reminds me of a scene in Patton.  George C Scott wakes up a sleeping soldier in the barracks in North Africa and asks him loudly what he is doing.  "I'm trying to take a knap, Sir."  Patton replies "get back down there son," or something to this effect, "he's the only one in this damn army that knows what he is trying to do."  Even if you think that Bush is sleeping on the job, at least he knows what he is trying to do.  That's more than Kerry has ever figured out.  Bush's approval rating still beats Kerry's. 

The Democrat's best strategy is to be as invisible as possible.  Keep the public eye focused squarely on Bush as his problems.  Let them forget who would be taking over if Congress is handed to the opposition party.  That, at least, seems to be the strategy illustrated in a fund-raising letter sent to Steve Lopez, writing in the Los Angeles Times. 

It's not often that I reach into my mailbox at home and find a letter from Ted Kennedy, so I was eager to see what was on the mind of the saber-rattling senator from the great state of Massachusetts.

The letter began "Dear Friend," which is a little impersonal, if you ask me. When my friends at the Republican National Committee wrote to ask me to sign President Bush's birthday card — and send along a few bucks — they began their letter, "Dear Steve."

Kennedy, you'll be shocked to know, was also hitting me up for money, in this case for the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee.

"Yes, Senator Kennedy," said the contribution form I was supposed to check off and return, "I share your concern over the arrogance and incompetence of the Bush Administration."

In anticipation of my generosity, Kennedy enclosed a complimentary bumper sticker:

HAD ENOUGH?   Vote Democrat in '06

As a matter of fact, I do share Kennedy's concern about the Bush administration, and so I was eager to read the four-page letter and other enclosed materials to find out more about the alternative vision being offered up by the Democratic Party.

Page 1, however, contained no such clues. It just fired more bazooka shots at the president and his "extreme right-wing allies," so I figured the fresh ideas from the Dems had to be on Page 2.

Wrong again. Page 2 was nothing but groveling for money for contested races in Missouri, Montana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Maryland and Minnesota. ("It's urgent for each of us to do as much as possible as soon as possible!")

Page 3 suggested the Republicans will burn in hell for sins against humanity ("They've poisoned our air and water"), and Page 4 warned, "They'll never stop unless we stop them. They're shameless!"

That's quite a cavalry call, but it seems to me the Democrats are once again rushing to the front lines with empty muskets.

I'm not asking for the Democratic equivalent of a 10-point Contract With America, having lowered my expectations while on the campaign trail with Al Gore and bearing witness to his nationally televised identity crisis.

I'd settle for a five-point "Contract With Western Blue States." Heck, I'd be happy with a warmed-over crumb of an idea or two.

Instead all we get from the Democrats is the reminder that they stand for … wait, let's see, where was that platform draft?

Oh, yeah. They're anti-Iraq war, or at least they are now that it's turned out so miserably.

And they're passionately … hold on a second. What else was there?

Anti-Republican. That's it.

Lopez seems to think that the Democrats ought to offer alternative policies of their own.  But that's not what the Democrats think, and they're right.  The party is torn between Kossacks, who may have a coherent leftist agenda (though it's not quite clear what it is), and pragmatists who are certain that such an agenda is a losing hand.  Anything the two sides can agree on will make the party look like it doesn't know what it is trying to do.  I think the fund raising letter got it just right.  They're Bush.  We're not Bush.  If they can keep that focus they might do well in November.

ps.  Its not that there aren't coherent thinkers in the Democratic Party.  See Professor Schaff's excellent post below on Barak Obama. 

Mayo Clinic

Here's an example of the Mayo Clinic actually doing something that might help South Dakota. 

Paul Giamatti

Girlfriday comments on one of our favorite actors, Paul Giamatti.  Coincidently I recently watched Sideways again.  GF will be disappointed to hear that I liked it even better this time.  GF also reports that Giamatti will star in a prequel to one of SDP's favorite movies, Bubba Hotep. 

Thoughts on Barak Obama

Sen. Barak Obama (D-IL) recently gave a speech on the role of religion in public life.  It has been much heralded as a strong defense from the political left of religion in public square. 

Obama is right that Alan Keyes, and anyone else for that matter, is a fool for suggesting that Jesus would or would not vote for this or that particular candidate.  The prudent course is to be measured yet confident in the mixing of one's religious convictions with public affairs. 

Obama says:

At worst, there are some liberals who dismiss religion in the public square as inherently irrational or intolerant, insisting on a caricature of religious Americans that paints them as fanatical, or thinking that the very word "Christian" describes one's political opponents, not people of faith.

Political scientists Bolce and De Maio point out that this isn't just "some liberals."  The research suggests that a large and growing contingent of the Democratic activists have an active hatred towards religious people in general, and evangelical Christians in particular.  This is a trend Obama is courageously trying to stem, it seems. 

Obama speaks with some eloquence on the need of faith in our lives, especially since to modern world tempts us with so many false, and thus ultimately unfulfilling, gods. 

Each day, it seems, thousands of Americans are going about their daily rounds - dropping off the kids at school, driving to the office, flying to a business meeting, shopping at the mall, trying to stay on their diets - and they're coming to the realization that something is missing. They are deciding that their work, their possessions, their diversions, their sheer busyness, is not enough.

They want a sense of purpose, a narrative arc to their lives. They're looking to relieve a chronic loneliness, a feeling supported by a recent study that shows Americans have fewer close friends and confidants than ever before. And so they need an assurance that somebody out there cares about them, is listening to them - that they are not just destined to travel down that long highway towards nothingness.

Obama defends the role of religious appeals in our political discourse:

[I]f we scrub language of all religious content, we forfeit the imagery and terminology through which millions of Americans understand both their personal morality and social justice.

Imagine Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address without reference to "the judgments of the Lord." Or King's I Have a Dream speech without references to "all of God's children." Their summoning of a higher truth helped inspire what had seemed impossible, and move the nation to embrace a common destiny.

The Senator makes a point I have made ad nauseum on this blog: most (if not all) major reform movements in our nation's history have had a profoundly religious character:

Frederick Douglas, Abraham Lincoln, Williams Jennings Bryant, Dorothy Day, Martin Luther King - indeed, the majority of great reformers in American history - were not only motivated by faith, but repeatedly used religious language to argue for their cause.

I find the Senator in error here:

Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason.I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.

The Senator assumes a conflict between faith and reason.  The entire field of Theology suggests the opposite.  For example, the whole project of Thomas Aquinas was to find the harmony between his Christian faith and Aristotelian philosophy.  If you have a couple hours on your hands, see John Paul II on the subject.  I think it is enough for people of faith to air their various religious opinions with humility.  The people at-large can then decide who makes a more convincing case.  While it is always wise to have additional secular arguments on one's side, society does itself a disservice when it holds religious opinions to be "second-class" opinions. 

We could all gain from reading the Obama's concluding story about the role of abortion in his Senate race. 

Liberals need to answer this argument: if liberals can reject religious conservative arguments against abortion and homosexuality as "imposing your values on me," why isn't the religious left's argument in favor of greater public spending on anti-poverty (or anti-AIDS, etc.) programs subject to the same attack?  Liberals might say, "if you don't like abortion, don't have one."  Why couldn't conservatives say "If you want to give money to the poor, do it.  Why force me to do what you say is my Christian duty?  Quit imposing your religion on me."  If it is wrong for conservative Christians to "impose" their beliefs on abortion and homosexuality, it is equally wrong for liberal Christians to "impose" their religious beliefs on social justice issues.  Just for the record, I think both the conservative and liberal religious arguments in favor of their policy preferences are totally legitimate, but I am not the one who complains about "imposing your religion on me."  In my view both sides do a lot of proposing. I don't really see much imposing, unless it is from liberal courts.

See Joe Knippenberg for more thoughts.