South Dakota Politics

Patriotism and Remodeling

I will be gone this weekend, and am unlikely to post.  I am taking my daughter for an excursion in the wild woods of Northern Minnesota.  So no one will forget me, I am leaving as much as I can for contemplation.  Here is a piece sent to me by my better half.  It is from Slate's Dear Prudie column. 

Dear Prudie,
My partner and I are having our condominium remodeled. We have worked well with one company and asked them to bid a second phase of the job. The person who showed up to bid the job wore a cap with an angry bald eagle on the front with multiple American flags sewn onto the rest of the cap. When I was obviously startled at the hat, he acknowledged, "Guess I should have worn my company hat." I replied, "I would be more comfortable if you had because I can't support much of what the country is doing right now." This led to his reply, "Just so we all support America." My partner and I are gay and feel assaulted by the right wing. We are also horrified by the war in Iraq and so many other issues that our patriotism is very low. That hat was a sickening reminder of my childhood in rural America. I feel that perhaps my money should be spent in a more socially conscious fashion, but I don't relish starting my own campaign of reverse discrimination. Am I making too much of this incident? The company has done a good job for us so far.

—Uneasy Remodeler

Dear Uneasy,
When did an American flag come to mean, "I want to assault gay people"? You know nothing about this man's views except that he feels patriotic. Since you are the one who provoked the discussion, do you really want to require that the person building your breakfast nook pass your political litmus test? (And yes, if I were to get a letter saying, "I went to a potential construction job this morning and the owners of the condo were obviously gay. I think homosexuality is abnormal and I hate the idea of gay marriage. I don't know whether I should go ahead and submit a bid," I would find that letter just as objectionable.) We are lucky to live in a society in which one doesn't have to belong to a government-sanctioned party or avow a list of beliefs in order to make a living. I know too many people who say they could never be friends with people who have different political views from theirs, and that's unfortunate. But the economy will crash if every service person is required to agree with their client's world view. Do you know how lucky you are to find a remodeling company that does a good job? Let the guy with the American flag cap get to work.

—Prudie

Global Warming Expertise at CCK

I am having fun with Chad at CCK, but I would note that this does not mean that I dislike him.  Chad has been more than civil with me in the past, and I am not inclined to forget that.  If we engage each other in strong language, well, that is what the blogosphere is for.  That having been said, I could not resist commenting on Chad's recent global warming post.  Chad recently questioned whether I should be writing on global warming, as if I were some kind of expert.  Now he has this, in reply to Dakota Voice:

The current global warming cycle is completely unrelated to any past periods of "warming" or "cooling" of the earth's atmosphere.

Unlike previous periods of warming, the current period is irreversable because of the destruction of the Earth's ozone layer brought about by human activity.

Now I admit that I am no gen-you-wine climatelogocial scientist, like Chad or Al Gore.  But I do read about it in gen-you-wine scientific journals like New Scientist, Nature, and Science.  I can't imagine anyone remotely familiar with the scholarship saying that past periods of climate are "completely unrelated" to the "current global warming cycle."  If the earth is currently in a natural warming trend (it is), then the effects of global warming have to be teased apart from that.  It is precisely the possibility that human activity is amplifying a natural process that makes global warming alarming.  Besides, how can one talk about "the current global warming cycle" without relating the current situation to past trends?

Second, it strikes me as silly to speak of "irreversible" warming.  I think what Chad has in mind is the "tipping point" argument: past a certain tipping point, warming will create a cycle that man can no longer do anything about, with disastrous consequences.  But this argument rests on the evidence for tipping points in the past.  Somehow the old girl recovered from past tipping points, which means that they are hardly irreversible.  So there is nothing special about the present case, except that it is happening to us.  That is reason enough to be concerned about global warming.

Thirdly, Chad confuses the ozone layer problem with global warming.  I don't think they are related.  Global warming is increased, according to the theory, by an increase in greenhouse gases, not by anything that is happening to the ozone layer.  If the ozone layer is destined to thin further due to man-made release of chlorofluorocarbons, this will be a problem, as more harmful radiation will get from the sun to our sensitive skins.  But that, as my Arkansas relatives would say, is a whole nuther issue.

Finally, Chad says this:

I pray to God every day thanking him for creating science.

Forgive me if I am skeptical.  I too treasure science.  I certainly regard science as a better authority on questions such as we are discussing here than the Bible, wonderful as that book is.  I regard Charles Darwin as one of the two greatest scientists who ever lived (the other being Newton), and Darwin is one of my heroes.  But maybe if God did create science, it behooves us to approach it with less bluster than Chad exhibits. 

Anti-Semitism at Moveon.Org II

It's a day of Eppic battles, apparently.  My friend and fellow Knight of the Regional Blogosphere, Chad the Indignant, takes exception with my post concerning Moveon.Org and anti-Semitism. 

When you have to use some random comment from a random fringe member of a group to suggest a trait is prevalent throughout the entire group, you have pretty much proven the opposite.

As usual, Chad does not bother to read all the words, so let me point out what he ignores and highlight it, so he is less likely to miss it.  I do not know how many hits Moveon.org's Action Forum gets in a day, but I am pretty sure it's a lot more than CCK or SDP get.  The number of viewers who read a given post will be larger still, and probably represent a significant portion of Moveon's membership. 

My post relied on Robert Goldberg's piece in the Washington Times.  Goldberg did more than pick out "random comment from a random fringe member of a group."  He noted that the Moveon members could record their approval or disapproval of any given post.  This has the precise effect of distinguishing "random fringe members" from the rank and file.  I repost here the relevant examples, with the key elements highlighted.

After Sen. Joe Lieberman lost the Democratic primary in Connecticut, one Moveon member stated: "Jew Lieberman first step. Corporate Clinton will be next. Impeachment of BushCo will be third." This one came in with 95 percent of Moveon members responding approving the "Jew Lieberman" post.

So 95% of the Moveon members who read that post approved of it.  That would be just shy of 100%.  That, Chad, is a pretty big fringe Moveon has ! 

"Christian Zionists are ultimately responsible for whatever Israel does, whether they realize it or not! Of course they're going to play dumb and say they're powerless over Israel! We're supposed to fall for that. The US Gov. could stomp Israel like a bug, if we had to! That's where the Christian Zionist "beliefs" mix with US laws and Foreign Policy. They are favoring Israel because of their Zionist belief system." Ninety agreed with this post.

Again we have all fringe and no carpet. 

    Why the Jews? Or as one post quipped, "Why are the Jews so Jew-y?" According to the mind of Moveon, "(I)t's those GREEDY PIGS who own our mainstream media who are placing RELIGION/POLITICS (ISRAEL) and CORPORATE GREED above the best interests of the American people (peace, democracy, clean air, healthcare, etc.). As we've already agreed, most of these GREEDY PIGS are Jewish." Fifty percent approved of this post.

So fifty percent of Moveon members approve of a post identifying most greedy pigs behind the media as Jewish.  I suppose that represents moderation on their part, but one out of two is hardly random. 

If the tables were turned, and large numbers of anti-Semites were posting at a cite that gave millions to Republicans, Chad would be all over it.  He would use it to embarrass all Republicans, and especially those who took money from such an organization.  It is reasonable to expect us to do the same with the above. 

Epp Responds

Here's Todd Epp's response to my post below.  Here's a counter response.
1. I never wrote that Todd Epp called George Bush a fascist.  Indeed, one point of my post was to give Todd the opportunity to reject such a notion.  I did write Keith Olbermann insinuated the Bush administration was fascistic.  I did write that Todd Epp endorsed the screed in which Olberman said this.  Here, again, is what Olbermann said:

And about Mr. Rumsfeld‘s other main assertion of that this country faces a new type of fascism as he was correct to remind us that a government that knew everything could get everything wrong.  So too was he right when he said that.  Though probably not in the way he thought he meant.  This country faces a new type of fascism, indeed.

I take Olbermann to be saying the Bushies are fascists.  (This Brett Bozell column suggests that this is not the first time Olbermann has made this allusion.)  I believe this to be a fair interpretation.  If Todd disputes this interpretation let him say so and why. 
2. Todd makes no caveat about endorsing only part of what Olbermann says.  He does say, "You need to read or watch this."  He concludes the original post by writing, ""Thank you, Keith Olbermann, for daring to speak the truth about our troubled country." 
3. If Keith Olbermann, in the midst of the diatribe, accuses the Bushies of incipient fascism, and Todd Epp endorses the diatribe without caveat, what are we to conclude?  I charitably suggest Todd was sloppy.  Perhaps he could confirm this suspicion.  I should have included this charitable interpretation of Todd's post in my original post.  I ask his forgiveness for not doing so. 
4. If Mike Rounds's campaign press secretary penned a piece endorsing Sibby's accusation that Jack Billion was a communist, would Todd Epp and the Billion campaign not use this to question the judgment of Mike Rounds?  If Jack Billion's press secretary endorses Keith Olbermann's screed in which Olbermann insinuates that there is a creeping fascism emanating from the Bush Administration, does that not reflect on Jack Billion? Shouldn't be that hard for a veteran campaigner like Todd Epp to understand.  Sheesh.  Sure, SD Watch is Todd's site, not a campaign site, but Todd, as a high level campaign employee, would have to be naive beyond imagination to think that what he says on his personal site would not reflect on the Billion campaign.  It'd be like if Tony Snow had a personal blog and then got upset when it was used against George Bush. 
5. I don't think Todd Epp is like Dave Newquist or Chad Schuldt in the use of vituperative language, but in his response he shares one of their vices.  He accuses without linking.  I ask him to at least link to my original post so his readers can decide for themselves whether I have characterized this situation accurately or not.
6. Todd has always struck me as a stand up guy.  I am sorry to be in a pissing match with him.  Yup.  I know.  I started it.  I will let him end it. 

Are Our Freedoms At Risk?

Building on the last post, let me make another comment, prefacing it with a story.  I was on a panel at a political science meeting this past Spring. It was not political in the partisan sense.  I was presenting on Lincoln's "Lectures on Discoveries and Inventions."  Not exactly hot stuff.  But one of the panelists, in the process of delivering his paper, made some comments about how freedom of speech is at risk in the United States and the ability to dissent was being threatened.  The blame was placed at the feet of the evil Bush Administration.  My response was this: the proof that this scholar was wrong in his assessment of the status of freedom in the United States is that he could sit there and publicly upbraid the Bush Administration with absolutely no fear that anything would happen to him.  The same goes for fools like Keith Olbermann.  If there really was incipient fascism in the nation, Keith Olbermann would be off the air.  But his show will be on tonight and no one in the government has given one thought to shutting him up.  If Donald Rumsfeld says, "I think opponents of the war in Iraq are wrong," that is not fascism, that is a politician trying to influence public opinion.  People argue against any administration, and then the administration argues back.  That's democracy, not fascism.  On matters of national security, if a Secretary of Defense says, "I think your policy views are wrong because they make us weaker," it doesn't mean he thinks you are not a patriot, it just means he thinks you are wrong.  After all, not everybody is right.  And don't the administration's critics believe that the administration's policies are wrong, and thus have made us actually less secure.  This does not mean that the administration thus becomes the enemy of American freedom.  It just makes them wrong.  Is it not enough to argue against our opponents' policies, give reasons why they are wrong, and then offer a better solution?  Must we attack their motivations at every turn?  Some on the right do this.  Shame on them.  Keith Olbermann and some on the left do the same.  Shame on them.

Yes, there is a kind of comfort that comes from believing ourselves morally superior to those who disagree with us.  He who is without sin cast the first stone (Ouch!!  Who just hit me?).  And no one likes being told that they are in serious error.  So we comfort ourselves that those who accuse us of error must be doing so out of bad motives.  But self-righteousness and smug superiority are a failing whether coming from the left or right. 

The Billion Campaign Thinks George Bush Is a Fascist?

Jack Billion press secretary Todd Epp supports the statements of Keith Olbermann last night idiotically comparing the Bush Administration to both fascists and Neville Chamberlain.  You can see the video here.  This is part of Olbermann's commentary on a speech by Donald Rumsfeld. Mr. Epp, and the campaign for which he works, need to be made aware Olbermann was apparently relying on wildly inaccurate reports on the Rumsfeld speech, as is demonstrated here.  So Olbermann was going into apoplexy over things Rumsfeld never said.  Read the Rumsfeld speech here.

Please watch the video at about minute 5:30.  Here is where Olberman not so subtly implies that George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld are fascists.  Here it is from the transcript:

And about Mr. Rumsfeld‘s other main assertion of that this country faces a new type of fascism as he was correct to remind us that a government that knew everything could get everything wrong.  So too was he right when he said that.  Though probably not in the way he thought he meant.  This country faces a new type of fascism, indeed.

Does Jack Billion agree with Keith Olbermann that our nation is facing new fascists, George Bush and/or Donald Rumsfeld?  If not, will he denounce his press secretary for endorsing the notion that it is? 

Everything Olbermann says about the Bush administration (namely that they are convinced of their own moral and intellectual superiority and belittle the morality and intelligence of their opponents) could easily be directed at Olbermann and his puerile hatred of the President (from what I understand, Olbermann refuses to say "President Bush," instead calling the President simply "Mr. Bush").  Is it not those like Olbermann who claim that Bush is a dunce manipulated by an evil cabal of immoral "neo-conservatives" and oil interests (indeed, Olbermann claims that Bush, Cheney and their "cronies" are profiting, monetarily presumably, from their actions)?  Finally, does it not seem odd that Olbermann should compare Bush to the great appeaser, Neville Chamberlain, when is it Bush who seeks to fight the modern fascists (or whatever you want to call them) while many (not all) of those who share Olbermann's views believe that military confrontation with our enemies only encourages them. 

If this is the kind of political discourse favored by those in the Billion campaign, they deserve a serious and embarrassing defeat; not because of anyone's position on the war, but because Olbermann is clearly an angry extremist who seeks to lower, not elevate, the political discourse.  He appeals to anger and resentment, with a willingness to compare his political opponents to the worst figures in modern history.  I am saddened and deeply disappointed that Todd Epp should endorse such vile.  There is an honorable and decent opposition to Bush and the war.  It is not represented by haters like Keith Olbermann. 

At a minimum, I would ask Mr. Epp to realize that Olbermann was totally inaccurate in his description of Rumsfeld's speech.  As such his is an unreliable voice.  Epp should retract his praise of Olberman's rant.

Update: Oh! Sweet irony.  Todd correctly whacks Mr. Sibson for calling Jack Billion a communist, but George Bush a fascist?  Well everyone knows that's true. 

Habemus Episcopam

The Diocese of Sioux Falls has a new bishop, Paul Swain.  Here is the bishop's resume. 

Reverend Monsignor Paul J. Swain, Vicar General, Diocese of Madison
Date of birth:  September 12, 1943
Place of birth:  Newark, New York
Father:  William Swain (deceased)
Mother:  Gertrude Mohr
Siblings:  two brothers, three sisters, one sister deceased
Military:  United States Air Force Intelligence Officer, 1967-72, Vietnam Veteran
Practicing Attorney, Madison, Wisconsin, 1974 - 78, 1983-84
Legal Counsel and Director of Policy, Governor Lee Sherman Dreyfus, Governor of Wisconsin, 1979-83

Education
Elementary and High School:  Newark, New York Public Schools
Bachelor of Arts in History, Ohio Northern University, Ada Ohio, 1965
Master of Arts in Political Science, University of Wisconsin- Madison, 1967
Juris Doctor, University of Wisconsin Law School, 1974
Master of Divinity, Blessed John XXIII National Seminary, Weston, Massachusetts, 1988

Ordination
Received into the Roman Catholic Church by Profession of Faith, March 1983
Ordained May 27, 1988, St. Raphael Cathedral, Madison, Wisconsin, by Most Reverend Cletus F. O'Donnell, Bishop of Madison

Parish Assignments
Associate Pastor, Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary, Sun Prairie
Pastor, St. Mary of Pine Bluff, Cross Plains
Pastor, St. Bernard Parish, Middleton
Currently Rector/Pastor, St. Raphael Cathedral, St. Patrick Parish, Holy Redeemer Parish, Madison

Diocesan Appointments
Assistant to the Bishop, Vice Chancellor, Moderator of the Curia. Vocations Director
Appointed Vicar General by Most Reverend William H. Bullock, October 1996
Appointed Vicar General by Most Reverend Robert C. Morlino, August 2003

Honors
Prelate of Honor

Memberships
Equestrian Order of the Holy Sepulchre of Jerusalem
Knights of Columbus (Chaplain, University of Wisconsin Council)
Diocesan Consultors, Finance Council and Presbyteral Council
St. Raphael Priest Retirement Fund Board
Priest Personnel Board
Diocesan Cemetery Board
Past Member, Blessed John XXIII National Seminary Board of Directors

Economy

John Wixted:  Americans Hate their Fabulous Economy

Blogs

Lorie Byrd writes in the Examiner:

As much as the Internet and blogs have changed journalism and politics, many candidates have yet to fully utilize the new medium. That, however, is quickly changing. With every election comes the realization by more candidates that engaging the blogosphere is smart politics.

RCJ

See this from the Rapid City Journal:

What we lack in quantity, we make up for in quality: two of South Dakota's three Congressional delegates are the hottest on Capitol Hill, based on a poll by Washingtonian magazine.

South Dakota Rep. Stephanie Herseth was named "hottest babe" in the U.S. House in a recent survey of legislative aides by Washingtonian, according to a story in the Palm Springs, Calif., Desert Sun newspaper. Herseth, a Democrat, got nearly twice as many votes as runner-up Mary Bono, R-Calif.

Hill staffers also named Republican Sen. John Thune the most attractive man in the U.S. Senate, according to the Desert News story.

This isn't the first time South Dakota's members of Congress have received attention for their good looks. As a freshman representative in 1997, Thune was "Mr. January" in a calendar created by former Rep. Susan Molinari, R-N.Y. Washingtonian magazine also named Thune one of five "hunks" of the freshman class that year, and he was later included in Hill News' "50 Most Beautiful People on Capitol Hill."

Herseth was Politics1.com's "Hottest Woman in U.S. Politics" in 2004, finishing second in this year's reader poll to Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn.

UPDATE:  Denise Ross reports that Herseth's boyfriend won the award for "No Altar Boy" in the House.

Eternal Plame

I thought I was clever with the post title, but I see Cliff May came up with the same thing.  Let's let Christopher Hitchens sum up the sad Plame/Wilson mess and then let's usher the story gently into that good night.  Here's Hitchens on former CIA chief George Tenent:

But then, rather late in the day, at the end of September 2003, then-CIA Director George Tenet himself sent a letter demanding to know whether the law had been broken.

The answer to that question, as Patrick Fitzgerald has since determined, is "no." But there were plenty of senior people who had known that all along. And can one imagine anybody with a stronger motive to change the subject from CIA incompetence and to present a widely discredited agency as, instead, a victim, than Tenet himself? The man who kept the knowledge of the Minnesota flight schools to himself and who was facing every kind of investigation and obloquy finally saw a chance to change the subject. If there is any "irony" in the absurd and expensive and pointless brouhaha that followed, it is that he was abetted in this by so many who consider themselves "radical."

I have long argued here that the Plame/Wilson story was a whole lot of noise about a whole lot of nothing.  Now that we know who the "leaker" was (Richard Armitage) the whole mess seems to have been a big waste of time and money.  James Taranto sums it up well:

Of course, much as this seemed like a sitcom, it had consequences in real life.   Because Armitage did not come clean right away, many people suffered:
 

Millions of taxpayer dollars were wasted investigating a nonexistent crime.    

 

Innocent White House officials were distracted from serving the country in order to participate in the investigation, which was in full swing a year ago when Hurricane Katrina struck.    

 

Scooter Libby lost his job and was indicted for actions that never would     have occurred but for the investigation.    

 

The Democratic left, putting its faith in scandal to bring down the Bush     administration, became even more fatuous and ineffective.

The only winner in this whole deal is Joe Wilson's ego--and think of the toll   it's taken on his poor little superego.

Rigid Economies

Bloomberg:

Thomas Koerber, an engineering technician from Viernheim, Germany, was looking for a new job. He found it -- 4,700 miles away, in Canada.

"I looked around, found a job I liked in Canada, and left Germany within two months,'' Koerber, 39, said in a telephone interview from Calgary. "If I can get a better job abroad, and if I'm being treated better, I'm gone.''

Koerber is one of 145,000 Germans who fled the fatherland last year amid record postwar unemployment, pushing emigration to its highest level since 1954, Federal Statistics Office figures show. Last year was also the first since the late 1960s that emigrants outnumbered Germans returning home from living abroad, the statistics office said.

...

Unemployment reached 5.2 million, the highest level since World War II, in February 2005. Joblessness has declined since Chancellor Angela Merkel's coalition government of Christian Democrats and Social Democrats took office last November. Still, the unemployment rate stood at 8.2 percent in June, according to internationally comparable figures published by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. By the OECD's reckoning, the jobless rates in neighboring Austria and Switzerland were 4.9 percent and 4.3 percent, respectively.

Hatchet Job

As long as we're on the topic of media deception, the QandO blog observes a hatchet job by the Associated Press regarding statements made by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to the American Legion.  The author writes:

I'm not sure why I felt compelled to compare the speech with the story, but for some reason the story just didn't sound right. And, as you can see, it wasn't. "Infer" does not mean the same as "accuse" especially when the inference wasn't really at all evident. When you say someone accuses another, it means something to most of us. I defy anyone to find an accusation within that speech which fits the descriptions found in Mr. Burns' article.

UPDATE: CNN repeats the story unedited and obviously, unchecked. Forbes as well. Ditto for ABC and Fox. And you wonder how myths and memes get started?

HT to Instapundit.

UPDATE:  Glenn Reynolds also writes on fake news in "FX May Soon Be Short for Faux."

CBS Photoshop Follies

Who knew weight loss could be so easy? 

Schwangate Reconsidered

I've been reconsidering the Schwangate story recently.  I stated earlier I thought the outrage at Munson was overblown and unwarranted, but I've been reconsidering some of the arguments out there, especially by Belfrage.  He stated earlier that I had "entirely missed the point" in Randell Beck's column on Schwangate: 

Beck's complaint is that the Munson Kool-aid Krowd (those who steadfastly support Munson in the face of overwhelming proof of mismanagement) are among those complaining the most loudly over Schwan's appointment. They seem to be surprised by the whole fiasco. Beck is not defending the appointment, nor does he say the story has been blown out of proportion.

After rethinking what has happened (I know I'm waffling here), I'm finding myself in agreement with Belfrage.  What stood out to me in Beck's column, and thus generated my comment, was his argument that Schwan was receiving a salary below what your average CEO would make.  To me this suggested that the outrage of $98,000 a year for her position was hardly worth the animosity towards the mayor. 

But, Belfrage's earlier post also argued something I hadn't considered: that Schwan's qualifications didn't warrent her chief of staff appointment or salary.  Excerpt:

Munson has said the city cannot draw good people without paying an adequate salary. No argument there. However, Schwan was already in the market and working for considerably less. Broadcasters with Schwan's level of experience generally make about $30,000. There just wasn't a compelling need for Munson to offer her such a high salary. Her experience certainly doesn't warrant it. Unfortunately, Schwan wouldn't have merited the position even had she been offered the base minimum of $72,000.

I had been thinking about this fiasco in the entirely wrong way.  I had felt that, on the basis of comparative salaries, Munson had a "compelling need" to offer Schwan $98K a year.  Unfortunately for myself, I hadn't considered all the angles of Schwangate before I voiced an opinion on it.  As an outside observer to this story, I don't have to live with Munson's decisions; the people of Sioux Falls do.  If I were in their position, with Munson's past track record and this current controversy, I would certainly see reason enough to criticize Munson's decision.

Belfrage

Greg Belfrage:

The Rapid City Journal reporting that the state never discovered the problem with its lethal injection laws.  It was Mark F. Marshall, the attorney for convicted Donald Moeller, who filed a legal argument pointing out the problem.

Read the Journal article here

This is going to be a huge embarassment for Rounds and his administration.  That is especially ironic since Rounds was hours away from a successful execution and a political victory (since most South Dakotans support the death penalty).  It now appears Rounds will be answering questions through November about how he botched this execution.

The Argus Leader is already condeming Rounds (big surprise) in today's editorial... and they weren't aware yet of Marshall's role in bringing the problem to light.  They credited the Attorney General with spotting the problem in state law.  Once they learn that it was Marshall who brought the information forward...they will be foaming at the mouth.

The criticism will be deserved.  This appears to be a huge failure on the part of Governor Rounds and Attorney General Larry Long.

Execution

I have yet to express my thoughts on whether or not the death penalty is a proper punishment.  However, I offer some thoughts for others to consider on the issue.

There are essentially three very distinct aspects of the execution debate, including morality, legality and equality (in the class sense). The legality of execution is debated in light of the 8th Amendment, and strong arguments are made that execution is cruel punishment.  (I would contend, however, that those who wrote the Bill of Rights were not opposed to execution.)  Also, there is a societal problem with punishment in that data does show that specific groups of people are more commonly executed, and this idea runs throughout criminal punishment.  Often, it seems, the morality arguments shape the debate.

Does holding someone in prison for the remainder of their life make the punishment less cruel?  It can certainly be argued that it is less cruel, and it is easy to see why - you are still alive.  Yet, I might suggest that I'd rather die than live out my life in prison.  In my opinion, life in prison would be almost no life at all.  However, there are some examples of people who have done good things while in prison.  Some argued that Tookie Williams became a better person while in prison, and I think of Nelson Mandela as someone who was able to live in prison and arguably became a stronger and more merciful person because of his experience.  I would never compare these two men, and their respective situations of imprisonment are far different.  However, I think they illustrate the other side of my belief that life in prison is really no life at all.

Next, it is essential to consider human dignity.  The abortion-death penalty debate is often waged here, and for good reason.  Many opponents of the death penalty argue that even the worst humans maintain some dignity.  But if they disrespect life enough to kill another, then they lack the human dignity to understand morality and mercy.  The argument that protecting an unborn, untainted life while executing another is hypocritical forgets to consider that one life is yet to have a chance to show their morality, while the other has shown they are so vile that they lack the morality to appreciate another's life.  If a criminal's act of killing another shows their lack of moral responsibility, the execution allows society to make them morally responsible.

In South Dakota's current case, some have asked for a commutation of Page's sentence, including others on this blog.  What interests me in this case is that Page has asked for execution, and has been so inclined that he waived a jury trial, released his attorney, and has not appealed.  Is he somehow saying, "I want to be responsible?"  If this is the case, is it society's role to make him responsible.  Obviously this up to society, and in South Dakota it appears society would make him responsible.  The problem is, does the state then act properly by taking his life, and essentially helping him commit suicide because he wants to be morally responsible?  And if it is deemed proper, then why is no one else allowed the right to have assisted suicide for their own reasons (remember Kevorkian)?

Dr. Schaff said before that Page deserves to die, but we can let him live.  This is certainly merciful and full of merit.  If the Governor, acting for the people, decides we ought to let him live, do we then hope he does something good or becomes a moral person even though he must remain incarcerated?  Or do we spare him to be merciful, because we feel it is right and it allows us to show that we can be merciful?  Are either of these things right?  In many ways execution seems just to me, but mercy is a powerful option.  The question of execution is a tough one.  I agree with those who argue that human dignity is lost when we do not hold those that kill responsible for their lack of morality in the ultimate sense.

Anti-Semitism at Moveon.Org

Robert Goldberg at the Washington Times notes that those who were appalled at apparently racists comments by Virginia Senator George Allen don't seem much concerned by openly anti-Jewish opinions expressed by members of "a political organization that donates millions to Democratic candidates and uses the Web to whip up support for its policies." 

I am referring to Moveon.org; an entity that claims it is merely the vehicle of "real Americans — from carpenters to stay-at-home moms to business leaders — we work together to realize the progressive vision of our country's founders." To the extent that Moveon.org is a reflection of its membership, it is also a reflection of the opinions and sentiments it shares about its fellow Americans and citizens of the world. And boy do the Moveon folks hate Jews.

The neat thing about such cites as Moveon is that members can register their approval or disapproval of posted comments, and the results are recorded.  Consider this one:

After Sen. Joe Lieberman lost the Democratic primary in Connecticut, one Moveon member stated: "Jew Lieberman first step. Corporate Clinton will be next. Impeachment of BushCo will be third." This one came in with 95 percent of Moveon members responding approving the "Jew Lieberman" post.

It gets better.

"Christian Zionists are ultimately responsible for whatever Israel does, whether they realize it or not! Of course they're going to play dumb and say they're powerless over Israel! We're supposed to fall for that. The US Gov. could stomp Israel like a bug, if we had to! That's where the Christian Zionist "beliefs" mix with US laws and Foreign Policy. They are favoring Israel because of their Zionist belief system." Ninety agreed with this post.
    Why the Jews? Or as one post quipped, "Why are the Jews so Jew-y?" According to the mind of Moveon, "(I)t's those GREEDY PIGS who own our mainstream media who are placing RELIGION/POLITICS (ISRAEL) and CORPORATE GREED above the best interests of the American people (peace, democracy, clean air, healthcare, etc.). As we've already agreed, most of these GREEDY PIGS are Jewish." Fifty percent approved of this post.

It was a terrible thing when Mel Gibson said that the Jews were behind all the wars.  Wasn't it?  Apparently, half of Moveon.Org participants think most GREEDY PIGS are Jews.  So that's why we don't have Canadian style health care: it's the elders of Zion! 

To be sure, some conservatives have their dark, racist side.  It's perfectly appropriate for the left to point this out.  It's just as reasonable for the right to do the same when such ugliness surfaces on the left.  No responsible Democrat ought to have anything to do with Moveon until it manages to disavow this kind of language.  Its millions are tainted with a very old evil. 

 

Stay of Execution

I cannot judge the legal reasons for the Governor's stay of execution, but it's safe to say that something is wrong with the law if we cannot execute a legally convicted, legally condemned, and obviously guilty prisoner because of an uncertainty regarding how many lethal drugs are to be used.  As I understand it, the three-drug method has been devised to guarantee that the procedure is painless.  If that is inconsistent with state law then we obviously ought either to update the law or do away with capital punishment altogether.  If I were (God forbid) a member of the state legislature, I would probably vote for the latter.  I would do so largely because these kind of legal tangles are almost unavoidable under current Supreme Court jurisprudence. 

I do not hold with those who regard the death penalty as unjust in itself.  Consider this description of Elijah Page's crime, from the American News. 

The crime: After planning to steal items from Poage's house, Page, Piper and Hoadley killed Poage so there wasn't a witness to the theft, according to court testimony.

The trio took Poage to Higgins Gulch west of Spearfish, and as he begged for his life, made him remove most of his clothing and forced him into the snow and an icy creek.

Piper stabbed Poage three times in the head and neck, and Page kicked Poage 30 to 40 times in the head, tearing his ears off. The attackers then dropped large rocks on Poage's head.

The torture lasted two to three hours.

I just don't think that a painless death is an unjust penalty for this kind of evil. 

I also have a problem with the fact that the will of the people of South Dakota, and their representatives in the legislature and on the juries, is being frustrated here.  This is itself a form of contempt for constitutional procedure and democracy. 

I have no doubt that the Governor is acting in good faith, and that he had good reasons to issue the stay.  But that just shows what a mess this business has become.  I am sympathetic to my colleague's call for mercy, recently endorsed by Mr. Heppler.  Mercy means precisely to choose not to do something that would be harsh but legal and just.  But if mercy it is to be, let it be done by the Governor for that reason, as the laws permit. 

Execution Halted

Regarding Prof. Schaff's report below, the Argus Leader has this expanded version of the story:

South Dakota Gov. Mike Rounds said he will stay the execution of Elijah Page because of a problem with state law.

At issue: The state planned to execute Page with three drugs, but state law outlines only two.

"I will not have the individuals responsible for carrying out the execution be placed in a position of being in violation of state law," Rounds said.

The governor said he asked for a review of the law and the results came back today, only hours before Page's planned 10 p.m. execution.

The reprieve will delay the execution until after July 1, 2007.

For the record, I agree with my colleague Prof. Schaff that Page's sentence should be commuted.

The Belfrage Blog

I'd like to extend a warm welcome to my favorite local radio talk show host, Greg Belfrage.  He has recently joined the South Dakota blogosphere, and his opening post deals with Schwangate.  Welcome aboard!

Rounds Stays Execution

I just received an email notifying me that Sacred Heart Parish in Aberdeen will hold a prayer service tonight at 9:30 to pray for Elijah Page, his family, and his victim's family.  Page, as you all know by now, was scheduled to die at 10:00.  In looking for a link to give some basic facts on the case, I see that Gov. Rounds has stayed the execution.  I am on record advocating for the commutation of Page's sentence.  I hope and pray that this is the governor's intention. 

But the thought I was about to blog on is as follows.  The governor has been getting great amounts of grief from the left over this issue of the death penalty.  One assumes this is out of a sincere opposition to the death penalty.  Yet, this is the same crowd that chides conservative Christians over seeking to "impose their values on the rest of us."  Is that not what the anti-capital punishment advocates seek to do?  After all, public opinion is against them.  Do they not seek to "impose" a regime in which their values that say capital punishment is unjust are enshrined in law, as against those who view capital punishment as appropriate justice for heinous crimes?  No, there is no imposition by anyone.  Those opposed to the death penalty impose nothing.  They are simply proposing a view of justice to their fellow citizens in the hope that they can persuade those citizens to revoke the death penalty in our state.  I suspect they are sincerely trying to persuade their fellow citizens to adopt policies they believe are in conformity with justice.  If only they could see that this is also the sincere desire of conservative Christians. 

Politics is, to a significant degree, about values.  Politics exists because there is disagreement over what our values should be.  The law, no matter what it does, even if it is silent, endorses some values over others.  The law is one very important way in which we express who we are and who we want to be as a people.  These are values questions.  Political talk is values talk.  There is no way to avoid it.  So let's stop the silly talk about who is imposing values on whom. 

Drought Relief

The Rapid City Journal reports that the Bush administration will provide $800 million in drought aid.  Maybe Mike Rounds's prayers have been answered.  Here are some details:

The Bush administration will give nearly $800 million to farmers and ranchers devastated by drought, The Associated Press has learned. Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns planned to announce the aid Tuesday afternoon in South Dakota.

The drought aid includes:

--$50 million in block grants for hard-hit states.

--$18 million from emergency conservation funds.

--$11 million from a grassland conservation program.

--The department would accelerate $700 million in planned payments to cotton, grain, sorghum and peanut farmers.

Execution

New York Times:

For the first time in 59 years, the State of South Dakota plans to execute a man this evening, authorities from the state’s department of corrections have announced.

Barring a last minute granting of clemency, Elijah Page, 24, who pleaded guilty to the torture killing of a 19-year-old man whose house he was burglarizing in 2000, is scheduled to die by lethal injection at 10 p.m. Tuesday, the department of corrections announced on Sunday.

Although capital punishment has been allowed in South Dakota for decades, it is one of a handful of states, including New Jersey and New Hampshire, that have carried out no executions since they most recently enacted such laws. In South Dakota, the most recent law allowing death sentences was enacted in 1979 after the United States Supreme Court restored capital punishment in 1976.

Since then, the state has had no executions, and has only four people, including Mr. Page, on death row. The state’s low population, relatively low crime rate and, some advocacy groups suggest, a culture not inclined toward capital punishment help explain the lack of executions.

Blanchard On South Dakota Public Radio

Yours truly will be live on South Dakota Forum tomorrow, with three other panelists.  This is espisode 2 of a panel on foreign policy.  You can listen to it online by clicking the Live Radio Webcast at the left of this page. 

What's Really Wrong with Anarchists

This is from Overheard in New York, a site where New Yorkers can post conversations they have overheard.  Hat Tip to my wife.

Girl 1: Anarchists are so dumb.

Girl 2: Yeah, totally.

Girl 3: I mean, just 'cause you hate the government doesn't mean you have to dress badly.

Coming soon! Sacco&Vanzetti Sportswear. 

Zero Tolerance for Religion

Nat Hentoff is one of the rarest things: a political activist who is genuinely surprising.  On occasion, at least.  He leans, for example, to the pro-life side on abortion.  On freedom of speech, he is strictly libertarian.  Hence this story, from USAToday.

Every year, the Frenchtown Elementary School in New Jersey presents an after-school talent show, open to kids from kindergarten through eighth grade. The performers can choose to play an instrument, dance, create a skit or select a song.

This past school year, a second-grader decided to sing Awesome God. But during rehearsal, the teacher in charge, on hearing the title and lyrics, told the child that principal Joyce Brennan would have to approve that song. Brennan contacted the attorney for the school district.

Brennan then explained in a letter to the child's mother that the song was "inappropriate for a school-run event with a captive audience of, in many cases, quite young children because of its religious content."

Accordingly, a lawsuit has been filed in the chronic civil war in our public schools between the First Amendment's Establishment Clause and its Free Exercise of Religion requirement. The case landed in U.S. District Court in New Jersey.

In the Frenchtown Elementary School's case, the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey is supporting the child plaintiff. Attorney Jennifer Klear, who took the case on behalf of the ACLU, filed a brief to the court. In it, she made the essential — and to me, obvious — point that it was the child who chose the song, not the school.

Now I will try to be genuinely surprising.  First, it is clear, as Hentoff says elsewhere in the article, there is no First Amendment violation in letting a student sing a religious song that she or he chose as part of a general program.  This is in no sense a state-sponsored religious activity. 

Second, I disagree that the student has a First Amendment right to choose the song.  School officials should have a broad discretion in deciding what categories of content are appropriate for such programs.  Only if the school were to discriminate in a partisan fashion would there be a legal problem.  If they allowed Jewish songs but not Muslim ones, or vice versa, that would cross the line.  Excluding religious songs in general is permissible under the Constitution.

Third, what is constitutionally permissible may nonetheless be stupid.  Excluding religion means literally excluding whole centuries of Western Art and Music.  One of the first musical presentations I enjoyed on the Northern State University campus was a Native American drum ceremony.  I thought it was marvelous.  Excluding religion categorically makes education poorer.  I say open the doors to all comers. 

The Importance of the Railroads

Washington Post:

The long trains that seem to be everywhere in this sparsely populated stretch of land haul nearly 1 million tons of Powder River Basin coal to power plants daily, but that's simply not enough.

Utilities are clamoring for more of this fuel, which has become a popular alternative to costly natural gas. The mines in this region, dubbed the "Saudi Arabia of coal," say they are able to increase production.

The bottleneck lies in the railroads.

Like the miners that unearth the coal, railroads must move mountains over the next few years to match the demand, said Andy Schroder, logistics director at Union Pacific Corp. <UNP.N>

Omaha, Nebraska-based Union Pacific, the largest U.S. railroad, and second-ranked rival Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp. <BNI.N> own a joint 100-mile (160 kilometer) section of line here and are hauling record amounts of coal from the 10 mines in the area.

Both railroads are laying new track and are seeking ways to haul more coal, including using longer trains.

"We are adding capacity and are exploring ways to use that track more efficiently," Burlington Northern spokesman Patrick Hiatte said.

But U.S. utilities are unimpressed.

Trade group Edison Electric Institute spokesman Ed Legge said that while coal deliveries were up, many utilities were getting less than they had agreed upon -- and not enough to meet demand.

Wadhams and Jarding

The Virginia Daily Press profiles two campaign mangers in the Virginia Senate race who have South Dakota connections: Dick Wadhams, of course, was Senator Thune's campaign manager during the 2004 race and Steve Jarding (who recently wrote this book) is a native of Mitchell.  Excerpt:

In the Virginia U.S. Senate race, two central figures have dished out the juiciest, nastiest quotes of a campaign that has already taken voters from Mysterious Craney Island to the Land of Macaca.

Voters won't find them anywhere on the ballot.

Meet Dick Wadhams, 50, who is managing the re-election bid of Republican Sen. George Allen, and Steve Jarding, 48, a strategist for Democrat James Webb.

Although diametrically opposed, they might have more in common than either would admit. Both scored notable election wins a few years ago. Both like to mix it up.

After all, Wadhams has been described as "the best pit bull out there." Jarding writes this in a recent book he co-authored: "When someone attacks your character with a bazooka, you attack his with a nuclear weapon."

They are not the only behind-the-scenes players in this campaign by any stretch, but they've been almost as visible as the candidates themselves at times. Expect to hear more from these two, with no punches pulled, when the pace picks up after Labor Day.

Jarding is a South Dakota native who has a 16-year-old daughter and twin 14-year-old boys. He has adopted Virginia as his home state, and that makes him look at campaigns in the Old Dominion differently, he said.

"For me, this is personal," he said in a recent interview. "There are people out there whose lives are absolutely affected by people we put into office."

Wadhams got his start in Republican politics in the early 1970s when the party was in its darkest days, during the Watergate scandal. But he saw something in the GOP back then, he said. It was the party of opportunity and limited government while the Democrats, he said, depended on government intrusion.

"The two parties really do stand for something," he said. "I have many, many Democratic friends. They have a different view of the world than I do."

Check out the whole article.

Washington Post on SD Abortion Ban

Peter Slevin:

Those Evil Oil Companies

I recently spoke to someone who repeated a common mantra: our gas prices are high because the oil companies are gouging us and since they own the government they can get away with it.  I previously commented on price gouging here and here.  Also, as I pointed out in this editorial, roughly 80% of gas price comes from the world crude oil market, which the people of OPEC control far more than American oil companies.  Next, when oil companies are profitable, it is not just the fat cats that benefit.  Here's an example.  When I lived in Wyoming in the mid-1990s, there were a fair number of older students at the University of Wyoming because they were unemployed oil field workers.  Oil prices were low and the companies had shut down the more marginal operations in Wyoming.  I understand those fields are now up and running because they are now profitable.  I further understand that lots of people are going to work in those fields and making good money.  If you attack oil company revenues, I guarantee that the fat cats will remain fat.  The people you are hurting are those Average Joe's in Wyoming who depend on oil profitability for their jobs. 

Do the oil companies control the government?  Let's look at the numbers.  You can find them at Opensecrets, one of the great political websites.  Looking at the 2004 election cycle, the energy industry gave $52,699,564 to candidates, 75% of which went to Republicans.  Wow.  $52 million.  That's a lot of money, isn't it?  And most to Republicans.  Well, agribusiness gave $52,927,826, 71% to Republicans.  Do the farmers control the government?  I think not, but they gave as much as the energy industry.  Lawyers gave $210,187,147, 71% to Democrats.  If the nation and the Republican party are owned by the energy industry, then I guess it is about 4x the case with the lawyers (substitute Democrats for Republicans).  The biggest number I could find was for the Finance/Insurance/Real Estate sector.  They gave $334,786,787, 59% to Republicans.  But the largest chunk of that, about $92 million, came from the "securities and investment" sub-sector and was split almost in two: 52% Republican, 47% Democrat (I assume rounding is involved).  My point is that there is so much money in politics from so many sources that nobody "owns" anybody.  This subject is too complex for a blog post, so I am painting a prettier picture than meets reality, but the larger point is the the energy industry is just one of countless numbers of interests giving money to influence policy. If the oil companies are breaking law, they will be held accountable.  If the government will go after Bill Gates, they'll go after anybody.  Oh, and the Computer/Internet sector gave $29 million in 2004, 54% to Democrats.

War On Wal-Mart

Recently Ken Blanchard posted on the Democrat's plan to run against Wal-Mart and provided some very helpful statistics to show the positive economic impact of Wal-Mart since the early 90s.  Now there is this piece by Sebastian Mallaby in the Washington Post.  Mallaby attempts to show the strength of the Democratic left and weakness of moderates by illustrating the moderates' shift from being Wal-Mart supporters to Wal-Mart bashers.  He concludes:

For a party that needs the votes of Wal-Mart's customers, this is a questionable strategy. But there is more than politics at stake. According to a paper for the National Bureau of Economic Research by Jerry Hausman and Ephraim Leibtag, neither of whom received funding from Wal-Mart, big-box stores led by Wal-Mart reduce families' food bills by one-fourth. Because Wal-Mart's price-cutting also has a big impact on the non-food stuff it peddles, it saves U.S. consumers upward of $200 billion a year, making it a larger booster of family welfare than the federal government's $33 billion food-stamp program.

How can centrist Democrats respond to that? By beating up Wal-Mart and forcing it to focus on public relations rather than opening new stores, Democrats are harming the poor Americans they claim to speak for.

Wal-Mart seems to be particularly popular among people of modest income.  Perhaps those people are ignorant of their own interests, but I doubt it. I suspect they shop at Wal-Mart because it's what is best for their family budget.  The new Super Wal-Mart apparently opens in Aberdeen around mid-September.  Good.

SD Democrats Under Investigation

From the Argus Leader this morning:

The secretary of state's office has forwarded possible evidence to Attorney General Larry Long that at least two Democratic political action committees failed to report $55,000 in contributions from an out-of-state donor.

"We have turned all of that over to the AG," Secretary of State Chris Nelson said.

Long said last week he can't confirm or deny the existence of an investigation.

But Nelson said his office forwarded items to the attorney general indicating that South Dakota PACs might have violated the state's campaign-finance law by not reporting the contributions.

Nelson didn't name the PACs, but he did say they are related to a controversy surrounding contributions made by the wife of a prominent Democratic politician in Minnesota.

Nelson's office began looking into the matter in July after news reports in Minnesota linked the political contributions of Lois Quam, a wealthy businesswoman there, to at least two Democratic-controlled political action committees in South Dakota.

The contributions, made in 2003, were allegedly funneled through the PACs to the South Dakota Democratic Party. The state party then sent most of the money back to the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party in Minnesota. Documents faxed anonymously to Minnesota reporters purportedly show that the money ended up in a DFL campaign committee controlled by Matt Entenza, Quam's husband.

Entenza is the minority leader in the Minnesota House. Last month, he withdrew from the Minnesota attorney general's race after admitting to hiring a firm to research Mike Hatch, Minnesota's current attorney general and a DFL candidate in this year's governor's race.

The South Dakota inquiry focuses on what happened to the checks allegedly written by Quam. Nelson said the checks aren't reflected on the finance reports that PACs are required to file with the state.

Nelson declined to say how many PACs were involved.

Quam reportedly wrote a check for $30,000 to a PAC controlled by Bret Healy, the former executive director of the South Dakota Democratic Party. Another check for $25,000 allegedly was written days later to a PAC controlled by Debra Elofson.

Elofson currently serves as the legislative director for state Democrats.

The PACs didn't report the checks in their year-end reports. Elofson did not return a call left at the party's office in Sioux Falls on Wednesday.

Healy said the checks were deposited into a separate account and reported on another PAC report.

"It's much ado about nothing," he said.

When asked how checks written to two PACs ended up in the account of a third PAC, Healy said, "The reality is, if you go deposit something at a bank, it processes pretty easily."

Healy identified the third PAC as the South Dakota Legislative Leadership PAC. A review of secretary of state records found a similar PAC called the South Dakota Leadership PAC, but no reports exist for the entity before 2004.

The South Dakota Democratic State House Fund, another PAC, did report $45,000 in contributions from Quam in 2003. But it isn't clear if that $45,000 was a separate contribution.

Quam could not be reached for comment.

Jason Schulte, the current executive director of the South Dakota Democrats, said the contribution predates his arrival at the party.

State political parties "routinely transfer different types of money to each other to maximize resources," Schulte said.

"This is a question as to whether or not those two PACs accurately reported income," he said. "To the best of my knowledge, the state Democratic Party reported all of its activity accurately."

In Minnesota, campaign-finance complaints are handled by the Minnesota Campaign Finance and Disclosure Board, a six-member board that has the power to investigate and punish violators.

Executive Director Jeanne Olson said Tuesday that she's barred from confirming or denying the existence of a complaint. She did say all complaints are investigated and that the board issues a public decision about each complaint.

"When a complaint is filed, we have to issue findings concerning probable cause," Olson said.

Decisions aren't available until 24 hours after they're issued, she said.

Earlier this month, the board fined Entenza $28,105 for violating Minnesota campaign-finance limits last year.

Both Entenza and Quam have ties to South Dakota. Entenza attended Augustana College, and the two have contributed thousands of dollars to South Dakota Democrats during the past few years, according to federal campaign reports.

The story by Jonathan Ellis can be found here.

UPDATE

I imagine this group will have more to say about this story.

Democrats Split Over Iraq

In spite of what some local blogs claim, the Democratic party is not in fact united over Iraq policy.  From the Washington Post:

Of the 59 Democrats in hotly contested House and Senate races, a majority agree with the Bush administration that it would be unwise to set a specific schedule for troop withdrawal, and only a few are calling for substantial troop reductions to begin this year, according to a Washington Post survey of the campaigns.

The large number of Democrats opposed to a strict timeline for ending the military operations runs contrary to the assertion by President Bush and top Republicans that Democrats want to "cut and run" amid mounting casualties and signs of civil war. At the same time, the decision by many Democrats to refrain from advocating a specific plan for withdrawal complicates their leaders' efforts to convince voters that they offer a clear new direction for the increasingly unpopular war.

Ethanol

From the Lansing State Journal:

In an effort to boost consumers' use of alternative fuels, members of Michigan's congressional delegation have introduced legislation, written to President Bush, and held news conferences at gas stations and an ethanol plant.

The House passed one such bill last month. Sponsored by Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Brighton, the proposal would encourage more filling stations to sell E85, a blend of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline. Ethanol is an alcohol made mainly from corn.

There are about 5 million to 7 million flexible-fuel vehicles, which run on alternative fuels or gasoline, on U.S. roads today, said Rogers spokeswoman Sylvia Warner. U.S. automakers project production of at least 2 million more each year.

But only about 600 gas stations nationwide - and only 15 to 18 in Michigan - sell E85, Warner said.

Rogers' bill would provide cash grants of up to $30,000 to independent stations to install special E85 pumps. The money would come from the roughly $20 million annually that automakers - mainly foreign ones - pay in fines for failing to meet federal fuel economy standards.

Rogers said that as E85 pumps begin attracting customers, other stations will want to provide the same service.

"Once there are multiple E85 pumps in any area, it makes economic sense for gas stations to install them on their own and for producers and distributors to spread their network across the country," Rogers said.

Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., has introduced a similar bill in the Senate. But at least one Senate Democrat has put a hold on the bill, Thune spokeswoman Jessica Ferguson said.

Ethanol isn't the only substitute for the 140 billion gallons of gasoline that Americans put in their cars and light trucks each year - but it can be one of them, said Paul Resnik, who tracks ethanol producers for the equity research firm Dutton Associates.

Read it all here.

Baghdad Violence

Real Clear Politics columnist David Ignatius has a column over at RCP about the decrease in violence in Baghdad.  In it he describes the impact that American forces are having on murder and crime in Baghdad outside of the Green Zone.  In the constant debate over the War in Iraq, it is good to see that our efforts are making an impact here.  Here is an excerpt from the column:

We stopped a few minutes later at Abbas Mosque, a small Sunni shrine. Sheik Khaled Mohammed al-Ubaidi, dressed in a knitted white prayer cap and a long white robe, came out to greet Abizaid. The general asked if security had improved and the sheik answered: "Thank God, yes!" Now that U.S. forces are going after Shiite death squads, he said, Sunnis here "understand the Americans are serious about the rule of law." (In the past three weeks, the U.S. military has killed about 25 death squad leaders and captured more than 200, according to Thurman.)

The cleanup has brought a similar respite to Doura, the second neighborhood we visited. You can still see the pieces of red tape on the front gates of each of the homes that were swept. The murder rate has fallen by 83 percent in August, compared with the 30 days before the crackdown began. For Baghdad overall, the murder rate has dropped 41 percent this month.

What does the new battle of Baghdad tell us? I'm still mulling the answer, but my sense is that it's something we already knew: With enough troops and aggressive tactics, American forces can bring order to even the meanest streets. But it's only the Iraqis themselves who can stabilize these neighborhoods permanently. I'm sure about one thing: Iraqi leaders need to do what Abizaid did yesterday -- escape the artificial world of the Green Zone and get back on these streets, where they can begin to lead by example.

527 Media

Jed Babbin publishes a letter to Ken Mehlman on what the Republicans need to be doing.  Excerpt:

Americans knew they'd heard something important last year when Washington Post editor Marie Arana said, "The elephant in the newsroom is our narrowness ... If you work here, you must be one of us. You must be liberal, progressive, a Democrat. I've been in communal gatherings at the Post, watching election returns, and have been flabbergasted to see my colleagues cheer unabashedly for the Democratic candidates." Tell America that it's a media culture, not a conspiracy.

The last truth is the lesson of the John Thune senate race. Media involvement in the Dems' campaigns is something Americans sense but can't pin down. It's a fact of life that, if exposed, works wonders for Republican candidates.

Lawyers and consultants will tell you that free advice is worth what you pay for it. But they would, wouldn't they? Here are a few suggestions on how you can find the pony in this pile of macaca:

· Renounce any idea of using the power of the government against the press. The New York Times should be publicly ridiculed, not prosecuted. Remember the best lesson we can learn from Rush Limbaugh: You can do much more political damage with humor than with insults.

· Produce a series of television ads going after the "527 Media." Expose who they are and show how the typical newsroom is more like a dysfunctional, liberal family than a business run by adults.

· It's time for the Vice President to give a speech taking the press to task. He should name names. If Pinch Sulzberger wants to be a political activist instead of a publisher, why not call him on it?

· Organize a group called the Swift Veteran Reporters for the Truth. Every time one of those contrived stories comes out, make sure your team, experienced reporters all, can access the facts and get them out -- fast -- on blogs, talk radio and everywhere else.

· Get Republican congressmen and senators to write letters to their local papers and local network TV affiliates. Ask how they can pretend to be fair if they have nothing but liberals in the newsroom? Why did Clinton crony George Stephanopoulos get a big show on ABC? Culture, not conspiracy.

· Establish a media hotline for disgruntled reporters to call in about the contrived stories, connivance with the Dems and the bias they face in their newsrooms. Hire a couple of old-time conservative journalists to run it, guarantee anonymity, and then publish what the whistleblowers say.

· Get your best joke writers to study everything they can about the worst of the 527 Media and let 'em rip. I can just hear Mr. Cheney tut-tutting about the New York Times' stock collapse and comparing it to the dividends of, say, Halliburton.

All of this can (and will) be great fun for most of us but not for you. It's the most serious challenge you'll face this year and in 2008. Americans are aching for someone to take on the media and do it in a way that will relieve some of the daily stress we all feel. So Katie Couric and Brian Williams walk into a bar, and the bartender says...

Schwangate Lives

In today's Argus Leader, executive editor Randell Beck writes about Mayor Munson's decision to pay his new chief of staff, Jodi Schwan, $98,000 a year.  I agree with Beck on this one, that the story is overblown and the outrage at Munson is unreasonable.  Excerpt:

But the real reason Dave Munson was able to rise from the ashes was that voters still viewed him as a good and decent man - a fellow who, if he were your neighbor, would keep his lawn trimmed and collect your mail when you're on vacation. In the constellation of dumb reasons we elect people to public office, I suppose that's good enough.

But why, after all that's occurred at City Hall over the past couple of years, turn on the guy now over this silly little thing?

One of the ways Munson regained critical support from the business community during the election was to pledge he'd hire a chief of staff to oversee the increasingly complex operations at City Hall. And to be fair, the mayor has tried to find the South Dakota version of Alexander Haig so that he could do what he does best - act as a round-the-clock ambassador for the city he loves deeply.

He even offered a job to someone who was qualified to be a true chief of staff. Not enough money.

Fact is, in the real world, a chief executive officer for a company of 1,000 employees - that's about how many work for the city - can easily command $150,000 to $200,000. You may have read last week that former Sioux Falls schools superintendent Jack Keegan's been hired to manage an Iowa school district about half the size of this one. His salary: $15,000 a month, plus housing. And that's not unusually high.

Twins Beat Sox Again, again.

From CBS Sportsline:

      CHICAGO -- Jermaine Dye's two-run,       ninth-inning homer off stellar closer Joe Nathan tied the game and sent the crowd at U.S. Cellular Field into a frenzy.    

   

      What it didn't do was deflate the Minnesota Twins.    

   

      Nick Punto singled in the go-ahead run with two outs in the       11th and Minnesota pushed its wild card lead over Chicago to 1½ games Saturday night by beating the       White Sox 8-7.    

   

      "We just keep fighting. We don't get down," Punto said after the Twins       won for the ninth time in 12 games and moved within four games of AL       Central leader Detroit.    

   

      "Super Joe Nathan blew a save," Punto said. "He never does that. Some       teams might get down. We didn't."

It wasn't the prettiest game I ever saw, what with three errors.  But it was great baseball nonetheless. 

Of Chimps and Church-State Separation

I blogged last night in response to a Doug Wiken post (Dakota Today) on evolution.  In a nut shell I argued that students who have religious objections to evolution don't have to believe in the latter; all they have to do is be able to use the theory.  I explained a provisional stance with respect to Darwinian theory that I sometimes offer such students.  I wrote:

For those who do see a contradiction [between the Bible and Darwin] and therefore find evolution unpalatable, there is an alternative way of looking at it.  It is that the Creator, like an auto designer, did not start from scratch when he produced Chimpanzee and Human prototypes.  Rather, he modified a common blueprint.

Doug responded thoughtfully, and I take the liberty of reproducing some of his comment here. 

Ken,
It appears your position on evolution is moderate compared to some of the theocrats in the GOP.  Without going into detail, I tend to disagree that there is no danger in assuming that there is a grand designer running "micro evolution".  This requires faith with no observable or testable possibility. That kind of faith is part of religion, but it is not part of science even though it is possible to find scientists who have such faith.

We are not really at odds here.  My point was not that a faith in the designer can be used in interpreting biology.  I agree that articles of faith cannot be used to generate a hypothesis, let alone a theory or a research program.  Faith may be a greater or a lesser thing than science, depending on who you ask, but it is not science. 

But if I am going to teach biopolitics and sociobiology, I have to find ways of making the theory assessable to all the students.  Some persons of traditional faith have no trouble with Darwinism. In fact, I have found that Christians are often far more open minded about these questions than many Darwinists. 

Other students, however, see their own Biblical faith and Darwinian theory to be mutually exclusive.  The position I summarize above is intended to get around that problem at the outset, so we can then proceed to examine the arguments and evidence within the confines of scientific reasoning.  I have to show them first and most importantly that I do not think they are stupid for believing what they believe.  Many biologists go out of their way to give the opposite impression.  Second, I try to show them that they don't have to believe anything to use evolution as a tool of analysis.  Science is not about faith and belief, it is about propositions. 

The other danger of the attitude in relation to schools and education relates to separation of church and state. Churches and religions have benefited greatly in the US because of the separation. Attempting to blur the lines in biology classes and require government intervention to force perspectives based on faith do damage both to education/government and also endanger religion and churches.

I certainly agree with Doug in general regarding the separation of Church and state.  I'm for it.  In the classroom, my sole responsibility is present the arguments and evidence.  I am on record as opposing the teaching of Creation Science and Intelligent Design, though I believe the latter deserves some respect.  But that doesn't mean that religiously motivated ideas can or should be banished from the classroom.  The dialog (and frequently, the quarrel) between piety and philosophy, revelation and reason, has been turning the pistons of intellectual progress since well before Socrates was indicted.  Both religion and science are stronger for it. 

Let me suggest an example.  A student will frequently say in Philosophy 100 or my Human Nature course that she believes in a literal reading of the Bible.  I sometimes invite the student to consider the opening words of the Text.

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

Now, what does the word "spirit" here literally mean?  If "literal" implies a very strict or narrow construction, the word spirit means breath (as in the word respiration).  Does God really breathe?  If you held his head under water (I wouldn't try that), would he drown?  I don't think that Genesis intends this meaning any more than Blake (see above illustration) intends to say that God has boney knees.  It turns out to be very difficult not to conclude that the word spirit is a metaphor, capturing the force of God's presence on whatever stuff preceded creation.  I find this kind of analysis very engaging, and I find that my students usually do as well.  It does sometimes make someone uncomfortable, but comfort is not what higher education is about.

I never tell my students what to believe.  I do try to convert them.  I would convert them to the practice of asking questions, proposing answers, and testing those answers in broad daylight.

Toriiiiii Hunterrrrrr!

Twins beat White Sox, to take the wild card lead. 

The Twins' offense looked like it may be unable to overcome the rough start by Radke -- that is, until the sixth inning. A four-run inning by the club would quickly swing the momentum.

Nick Punto started the scoring by delivering his first home run of the year, a solo shot off White Sox starter Javier Vazquez. True to his form, Vazquez seemed to fall apart a bit in the sixth, as he gave up a two-out single to Michael Cuddyer before he was pulled.

Justin Morneau then singled off Neal Cotts before the Sox brought in David Riske to face Torii Hunter with two outs and two runners on base. And on the first pitch, Hunter delivered for the Twins as he belted his 20th home run of the year over the right-field wall to put the Twins up, 4-3. It was Hunter's fifth home run in his past seven games.

Jason Bartlett delivered a two-out RBI single in the ninth to score the winning run for the Twins in a 5-4 victory over the White Sox on Friday night before a crowd of 35,931 at U.S. Cellular Field.

I note that the Sox attendance was considerably smaller than the crowd that showed up in the Metrodome last Sunday, when I and my family were there.  Twins fans are better people than Sox fans.  That's my story, and I'm stickin' to it. 

Chimps and Republicans

Doug Wiken at Dakota Today has this gem:

Aug 23, 2006

**Despite example Republicans to the contrary, scientists find human-chimp differences.  Scientific American site reports Nature findings indicating significant differences between humans and Chimps. 

That's a good joke.  I found nothing objectionable in this post.  Indeed, I take it that Wiken and I agree about Darwinian evolution.  I would note however that the biggest obstacle to teaching evolutionary theory is the fact that so many Darwinists, not to mention political liberals, go out of their way to make people feel stupid for not believing in it.  I think this is unnecessary and counter-productive.

I teach a course on the political and social implications of Darwinian theory.  To students who are reluctant (or who simply refuse) to believe in the theory, I point out that scientific theories are instruments to be used rather than articles of faith.  It is true that human beings and chimpanzees share about 98% of their genes.  The most elegant explanation for this is that Doug and I are distant cousins of every chimpanzee alive today.  Somewhere in the past we and the chimp have a common ancestor.  That's good enough for me.  I see no contradiction between that idea and Biblical faith. 

But for those who do see a contradiction and therefore find evolution unpalatable, there is an alternative way of looking at it.  It is that the Creator, like an auto designer, did not start from scratch when he produced Chimpanzee and Human prototypes.  Rather, he modified a common blueprint.  Once that idea is accepted, at least as a working model, then one can focus on micro-evolution, which concerns modifications within an existing species.  . Since Macro-evolution (the emergence of new species) is micro-evolution across longer spans of time, one loses nothing by adopting that point of view. 

French Kiss-Off Reconsidered

Perhaps realizing that you can't surrender unless you first field an army, the French have decided to deploy 2,000 soldiers to Southern Lebanon after all.  The L.A. Times describes the appalling behavior of our "allies." 

REACTING TO UNIVERSAL DISMAY at his irresponsibility, French President Jacques Chirac on Thursday belatedly pledged a total of 2,000 soldiers for the expanded United Nations peacekeeping force in southern Lebanon authorized by the Security Council on Aug. 11. It's still a stingy commitment, but the hope is that it may galvanize other European nations to follow suit after two tense weeks in which French dithering threatened to turn the deployment of peacekeepers into a march of folly.

What was so exasperating about France's initial offer of only 200 new peacekeepers (engineers, at that) was that it was France, in an unusual entente with the U.S., that spearheaded the adoption of Security Council Resolution 1701, calling for deployment of a 15,000-member United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon to help that nation's army police the cease-fire between Israel and Hezbollah fighters.

We're not sure how to say "bait and switch" in French, but that is the only way to describe a sequence of events in which France's foreign ministry promoted Resolution 1701 as an adequate mandate for French and other international forces, only to have the French defense minister publicly criticize the mandate as "fuzzy." In a televised speech, Chirac suggested that he was dramatically increasing France's commitment because the U.N. had clarified the rules of engagement for the force, which, according to a document circulated last week, would allow peacekeepers to use deadly force in self-defense, to protect Lebanese civilians or to help the Lebanese army block weapons from coming into the country.

This sounds like an attempt to paper over differences within the French government. Resolution 1701 already said that the expanded U.N. force could "take all necessary action … to ensure that its area of operations is not utilized for hostile activities of any kind."

Because of its authorship of the resolution and its historical ties to the region, France was the presumptive leader of the peacekeeping force, but Italy now has a stronger claim to that responsibility. In any event, European foreign ministers meeting today in Brussels need to make up for lost time in assembling and dispatching the peacekeepers. Europeans love to complain about the United States acting unilaterally in the world, but those complaints will ring awfully hollow if they can't step up and do their part.

Progress in Iraq

Daily Dispatch:  "In a recent poll, more Iraqis, who live in Iraq, say Iraq is headed the right direction than Americans who merely watch TV reports about Iraq or read newspaper reports about Iraq."

Woster Weighs In

Kevin Woster of the Rapid City Journal weighs in on Schwangate:

Did you see the news out of Sioux Falls earlier this week? Mayor Dave Munson has a new chief of staff - at $98,000 a year.

Actually, it’s $98,758.40. But who’s counting? (Sniff. Sniff.)

Well, me for one. Bill Harlan for another.

See, the new chief of staff for the state’s largest city is Jodi Schwan, a 26-year-old reporter for KELO-TV.

I don’t know Jodi, but people tell me she is a solid TV reporter, a bright and likable young woman expected to be good for the mayor’s office and its communication with the outside world.

Based what I know about news reporters’ salaries (sniff, sniff), I’d guess Jodi will be enjoying about a tripling in salary to go to City Hall. That puts her in the same salary neighborhood as Harlan and me - if you either add our salaries together (with a bit of Denise’s thrown in), or simply define “neighborhood” as roughly the size of the North American Continent.

I’m not saying Harlan and I are jealous. We’re seasoned journalism pros - if you define “seasoned” as old enough to be useful in carbon dating. (Kranz, you know what we’re talking about…)

Anyway, Bill and I aren’t about to get upset about little things like unfavorable salary comparisons.

Besides, we don’t have time to be jealous. We’re too busy sprucing up our resumes to send to Jim Shaw.

Meanwhile, Back in Baghdad

When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plain,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains,
And go to your Gawd like a soldier

Or so wrote Kipling, about earlier Middle Eastern adventures. That's what I call poetry.  Maybe Bush should be reading Kipling instead of Camus.  Or maybe not.  A few hours spent in Rudyard's company gives a hint of how much the balance of power has shifted in favor of modern, Western armies.  In Kipling's day the British people learned of the annihilation of whole armies weeks after the fact.  These days we learn of the death of three soldiers within the hour. 

It looks as though the threat to security in Iraq has shifted from the insurgency, which has been increasingly marginalized, to the Shiite death squads which are supported by Iran.  David Ignatius, in RealClearPolitics, has an eyewitness report on the struggle to neutralize this menace. 

Gen. John Abizaid made headlines three weeks ago when he told Congress that civil war was a possibility in Iraq. Yesterday he went into two of Baghdad's most dangerous neighborhoods to see whether a new U.S.-led offensive against the death squads and insurgents is making any progress.  Abizaid invited me and a CBS reporter to join him on this journey into the heart of the Baghdad battle zone. In what follows, I want to draw a picture of what we saw.  ...

Even Abizaid, who as head of U.S. Central Command has overall responsibility for the troops here, had to admit in his congressional testimony that the trends were going the wrong way. Baghdad was being terrorized by Sunni insurgents and Shiite death squads. More than 1,500 people were murdered in Baghdad in July, a daily average of 52 victims a day. The level of sectarian violence was so high that many wondered whether Iraq wasn't already in a civil war.  . . .

In response to sectarian violence, the U.S. redeployed forces to Baghdad, which it could easily do since the rest of the country is quiet.  Ignatius describes the result.

As we entered Amiriyah in the late afternoon of a 115-degree August day, the streets were almost deserted. When the cleanup began, the area was cordoned off and then searched house to house by U.S. and Iraqi troops. People live behind their gates; through the metal fences, you can see well-tended gardens, despite the trash in the alleys. Surprisingly, perhaps, there was little resistance. People were fed up. In the two weeks since the crackdown began, there has been a 44 percent decline in violent attacks compared with the previous month and an 83 percent drop in murders.  . . .

We stopped a few minutes later at Abbas Mosque, a small Sunni shrine. Sheik Khaled Mohammed al-Ubaidi, dressed in a knitted white prayer cap and a long white robe, came out to greet Abizaid. The general asked if security had improved and the sheik answered: "Thank God, yes!" Now that U.S. forces are going after Shiite death squads, he said, Sunnis here "understand the Americans are serious about the rule of law." (In the past three weeks, the U.S. military has killed about 25 death squad leaders and captured more than 200, according to Thurman.)

The cleanup has brought a similar respite to Doura, the second neighborhood we visited. You can still see the pieces of red tape on the front gates of each of the homes that were swept. The murder rate has fallen by 83 percent in August, compared with the 30 days before the crackdown began. For Baghdad overall, the murder rate has dropped 41 percent this month.

What does the new battle of Baghdad tell us? I'm still mulling the answer, but my sense is that it's something we already knew: With enough troops and aggressive tactics, American forces can bring order to even the meanest streets. But it's only the Iraqis themselves who can stabilize these neighborhoods permanently.

Ignatius is concerned that the Iraqi government is not in fact or in appearance involved enough in bringing order to the capital. 

As was not the case during the Vietnam war, the current anti-war movement is largely innocent of any sympathy with the hostile regime, or the insurgents, let alone with the death squads.  There are exceptions on the radical left, but pretty much no one I know on the anti-war side really wants the insurgents to win.  But being anti-war does put you in the awkward position that any bad news bolsters your case, and any good news has to be qualified.  "Yeah it's great that so many men and women voted, but . . ."   

I have never endorsed the Bush administration's decision to invade Iraq, but I have been persistently optimistic about the chances of democracy in Iraq.  This may well make me look like a fool in the long run, but just right now it allows me to give a hearty cheer to a small victory. 

College kids get brains, no soul

This essay by philosopher Thomas Hibbs is about as accurate a description of university life as I have seen.  I recommend it especially to those of you who have kids just entering college or about to enter. What does it profit a nation to gain the world, yet lose its soul?  HT to Joe K.

Keep Digging, TNR

I subscribe to The New Republic, a venerable liberal magazine.  It's generally smart and informative and puts the best foot forward for the liberal cause.  I don't agree with them much, but it is good to keep one's self intellectually honest.  A vice many political observers have is that they believe their own side's press.  As is amply displayed by all sides of the South Dakota blogophere, some folks have the tendency to blithely repeat the talking points coming from their side's various spokesmen.  Our side is always right and their side is always wrong; portray your side in the best possible light, and the opposition in the worst light.  One cure for that is to read the smart people on the other side, and The New Republic qualifies for the left. 

That's why it is so disappointing to get the recent email update from TNR editor Franklin Foer.  What's in this week's TNR?  A scandal mongering article (registration required) on Duke Cunningham's wife by sleaze author Kitty Kelly.  Oh, and an important piece about poker in Washington.  These articles go well with a recent TNR piece on Washington's "first wives club." This from a magazine founded by Herbert Croly and Walter Lippmann? What's next?  A dating column from Ted Kennedy?  How about Hillary Clinton on this Fall's fashions?  Which hand bag is carried by progressives who are "in the know"?  Really TNR, where's your dignity?

McGovern

Eleanor Clift of Newsweek sat down for a Q&A session with George McGovern, where the discussion was primarily about the war in Iraq.  Be sure to give it a read.

Also, don't forget the grand opening of the McGovern Library in Mitchell, which will be held between October 5th to the 7th.  I drove past the library a few days ago and progress is coming along swimmingly.

Lieberman/Pluto in "08!

From the Washington Post:

The solar system now has only eight planets, an international group of astronomers announced today, after taking a vote to demote Pluto from planetary status.

The move came after years of scientific and public debate, and three quarters of a century after scientists first announced they had found a ninth planet at the outer edges of the solar system.

The Man from Planet X is going to be unhappy with us.