South Dakota Politics

Bin Laden Dead?

A leak from French intelligence wires last night has reported that Osama bin Laden died of typhoid last month.  However, there has been no confirmation of his death:

France said a report that Osama bin Laden died this month of typhoid was unconfirmed, and launched an inquiry into how a preliminary intelligence brief detailing the assertion was leaked.

President Jacques Chirac stressed to journalists that "this information is in no way confirmed."

He added Saturday that he was "surprised" that the French newspaper l'Est Republicain had published an excerpt from a French secret service note relaying information from Saudi Arabia's intelligence service. ...

The note by the DGSE service, dated September 21 and published Saturday by l'Est Republicain, stated that Saudi intelligence officials "are now convinced that Osama bin Laden is dead."

It said that "information gathered by the Saudis" from a source they considered reliable indicates that bin Laden "might have succumbed to a very serious case of typhoid fever resulting in partial paralysis of his lower limbs while in Pakistan on August 23, 2006.

"His geographic isolation provoked by constant fleeing is believed to have made medical assistance impossible (and) on September 4, 2006, the Saudi security services received preliminary information of his death."

Gateway Pundit has a good roundup.  I remain skeptical (we've been down this road before) until AQ announces he's gone on to visit his 72 virgins.

More Jazz Geekery

Prof. Blanchard is surely correct in his praise of John Coltrane, who is one of the greatest jazz saxophone players of the twentieth century.  For the readers looking for a good introduction to Coltrane, I recommend Blue Train recorded for Blue Note Records.  This album straddles the boundary between hard bop and "post bop."  It's a good example of Coltrane's early technique he would later become famous for -- approaching a solo that created "sheets of sound" rather than holding to a linear melody.  Like the best jazz albums, Blue Train is full blues and never stops swinging.

By far my favorite jazz musician is Lee Morgan, especially his Blue Note album The Sidewinder.  Basically any Blue Note album with Morgan on trumpet is a good buy.  Also be sure to explore his larger body of work (something I'm just beginning to do).

I recently bought an album by another trumpet player, Miles Davis's Kind of Blue.  You'll usually discover this album at the top of nearly every list of Greatest Jazz Albums Ever (something I won't quibble with).  The album was the first widely successful use of "modal jazz" and was also a shift way from bebop that was different from "hard bop." Kind of Blue is an early example of "post-bop," which structures the rhythms and harmonies of swing and bebop differently than hard bop did.

Happy listening!

John Coltrane 1926-1967

Today John Coltrane would have turned eighty, if he had not died at the absurd age of 41.  Coltrane was, in the words of Ken Laster, the greatest jazz sax player of the second half of the twentieth century.  Laster is, of course, being pious with respect to Charlie Parker, who clearly towers over the first half of the last century.  But the comparison isn't fair.  Parker, like Trane, died young; but not before he virtually invented modern jazz.  Trane did not have that continent to discover, but he explored it with a genius that saves human history. 

Ken Laster's wonderful site In the Grove, Jazz and Beyond, has a link to a video clip of Coltrane and Miles Davis.  Click on the tv screen and watch the clip, and you will know what jazz is.  My favorite moment comes as Miles lights a cigarette in the background, while Trane does his stuff.  If you go to this You Tube site, you can view more clips of Coltrane. 

Laster will do a two hour show on Coltrane tonight.  You can download the show in two parts on the site linked above, and get the first part by podcast if you use iTunes or a similar client.  But there is no reason to wait.  Go to Jeffery Siegel's site Straight No Chaser for September 2005, podcast 16.  Siegel did two shows on Coltrane as a side man.  You will have to look for the link to the files, but it's there and it's as good a sample of Trane's genius as you are likely to find.  I happen to think that this is the most perfect music ever composed. 

Voter Identification

It is safe to say that some registered voters have been prevented from voting in recent elections due to bureaucratic obstacles, though I am sure the number of prevented votes is very small.  It is also safe to say that some persons have cast votes that they were not legally eligible to cast, and I am sure the number of such votes is a lot larger.  A requirement that voters establish their eligibility, perhaps with a picture ID, would very probably result in some increase in the former number, and some decrease in the latter.  There is surely at least one Republican strategist who thinks that the excluded voters would probably have voted Democrat, and who is therefore less distressed than he otherwise might be.  He ought to be ashamed of himself.  You can be just is sure that there is one or more Democratic strategists who assumes that illegally cast votes are mostly Democratic votes, and for that reason doesn't want to suppress them.  Shame on him. 

We clearly need a voter identification system as part of a larger policy to make sure that all eligible voters but only eligible voters have their votes properly recorded.  Voting is a basic civil right.  It is not a human right.  We are entitled to restrict the franchise to citizens of a certain age and exclude, if we choose, such persons as convicted felons.  We may also require would-be voters to exercise some measure of responsibility, as when we add to the conditions of eligibility that they register in advance and know their polling place.  There is no doubt that if we require eligible voters to do anything more than just show up and ask for a ballot, there will be some folks who show up and don't get a ballot.  Since I believe that voting should be restricted to grown-ups, I view this as less than a miscarriage of justice.  If it turns out that the pool of would be voters who are not capable of this level of responsibility includes more Democrats than Republicans, I would be less than surprised. 

My friend Chad at CCK endorses a voter ID system recommended by Kevin Drum, at the Washington Monthly.  Drum is concerned.

Now, as near as I can tell, the evidence is pretty overwhelming that requiring photo ID to vote would stop a very, very tiny amount of actual fraud, but would disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of poor, non-white, elderly, and disabled citizens. So: no actual serious problem solved, but lots of Democratic-leaning voters kept at home. Hard to believe that Democrats oppose this, isn't it?

This is largely non-sense.  Are the elderly and disabled really less likely not to have some form of ID?  If it is true that hundreds of thousands of poor and non-white citizens have no picture ID, then that is a problem to be solved regardless of the voting question. Here is Drum's proposal, endorsed by Chad.

Implement a national ID and give one to everybody, free of charge. You get it when you turn 18 (or whatever), and you get a free update every five years (or whatever). Roving mobile vans would trek through rural areas periodically to make sure everyone has easy access to whichever federal agency is tasked with providing the cards. Instead of simply requiring people to have picture IDs, the federal government would do everything it could to make sure everyone actually has a picture ID, with as little hassle as possible.

I am not sure about the mobile vans part, but overall this is a reasonable proposal.  I don't think we really need a national ID card, because we already have one that is, as Madison would put it, "partly federal, and partly national."  Almost everyone has a driver's license, and it is already the standard form of picture identification.  Adding another card just means one more thing to lose, and you'd be more likely to lose it if it is only good every other year.  States that do not do so already should be encouraged by Congress to invite every driver's license applicant to register to vote. 

I believe it is true that most states provide something equivalent to a driver's license to people who for one reason or another aren't going to drive.  It is a reasonable proposal that all eligible voters be provided with this kind of ID.  On the other hand, if a state issues driver's licenses to persons who cannot demonstrate citizenship, which is probably a good idea, the card must be disabled for use at the polling place. 

In the not too distant future identification will turn not on plastic but flesh.  We already have good finger print readers and will soon have reliable and instantaneous DNA readers.  Then every documented set of chromosomes will get one and only one chance to vote.

Just In Time For The New Season

Ducks Unlimited has 10 tips for better shooting.

Pro-Life News

Evangelicals and Catholic Coming Together has a statement entitled "That They May Have Life" in the new First Things.  I highly recommend the statement which makes religious and secular arguments in favor of protecting the life of the unborn, the sick and the elderly.  A snippet:

We are sadly aware that many who identify themselves as Christians do not share our understanding of a culture of life. It is not the case that we wish to “impose” our moral convictions on our fellow citizens or, as some recklessly charge, to establish a “theocracy.” Our intention is not to impose but to propose, educate, and persuade, in the hope that, through free deliberation and decision, our society will be turned toward a more consistent respect for the inestimable gift that is human life.
(snip)
Those most in need of defense are those who cannot defend themselves. We are called to speak on behalf of those who cannot speak for themselves. Among the most defenseless are the unborn child, the severely disabled, and the dependent elderly. There are today legal protections of the disabled and elderly, but the unborn are totally dependent and totally vulnerable to the will of others. Once fully born, they are deemed to have rights that are protected in law, even though they are at that point no more human beings and no less dependent than they were hours, weeks, or months before. Yet before birth, and even in the very process of being born, they are now deemed not to have rights that society is obliged to respect. This perverse view of human rights is irrational and incoherent. Its result is the unjust killing of many millions of those who are indisputably human beings and the undoing of the very concept of human rights.

In the same First Things, Richard John Neuhaus reproduces a quote from Dietrich Bonhoeffer, which reads in part (this is not online yet):

The destruction of the life of another may be undertaken only on the basis of an unconditional necessity; when this necessity is present, then the killing must be performed, no matter how numerous or how good the reasons weighing against it.  But the taking of the life of another must never  be merely one possibility among others possibilities, even though it may be an extremely well-founded possibility.  If there is even the slightest responsible possibility of allowing others to remain alive, then the destruction of their lives would be arbitrary killing, murder. 

Joe Knippenberg has some news about competing abortion bills being supported by Democrats.  One is a product of Democrats for Life, the other by pro-choice Democrats, including, apparently, Stephanie Herseth.  As Joe points out, the Dems for Life are focused on caring for pregnant women, while the pro-choice bill seems to amount to little more than preventing pregnancy by giving more money to Planned Parenthood.  Joe makes another good point.  The pro-choicers make a lot of noise about how abortion is a tragedy and we should work together to reduce abortions.  Why?  If there is nothing morally wrong with abortion (indeed many pro-choicers see it as a positive good) why would we want to have fewer of them?  Joe has their number:

Everyone regrets or deplores abortion, but then talks about choice and conscience.  They don't say why abortion might be wrong (because then we probably shouldn't choose it and should seek to prevent it, or at least make it harder to come by).  In other words, if it's something we can choose, then why is it wrong?  And if it's wrong, why should we be permitted to choose it?  I say this recognizing, of course, that not everything that's immoral should necessarily be illegal and that there might be any number of ways to discourage immoral acts other than prohibiting them outright.  But these Democratic speakers studiously avoid actually saying that abortion is wrong for this, that, or the other reason, which leaves their reasons for wanting to reduce its frequency officially mysterious.  Of course, there's no mystery: if they actually explicitly said that abortion is wrong, they'd alienate their pro-choice allies and pave the way for some modest limitations, which they clearly don't want to do.  So they try to appeal to pro-life people without actually explicitly conceding the ground on which the pro-lifers stand.

I have often argued that the pro-choice argument is similar (but not the same) as Stephen Douglas's "popular sovereignty" argument for neutrality on slavery.  Joe's argument is yet more evidence that my suspicions are correct.  Many (most?) pro-lifers, on the other hand, sound like anti-slavery abolitionists, which is not a compliment coming from me.  It'd take too long to explain why, but if you have a lot of time on your hands, read this book and you'll figure it out.

Senator Thune and Alt Fuel

Senator John Thune spoke on the floor of the Senate today urging bipartisan legislation to expand alternative fuel production.  Thune, along with Senators Ken Salazar (D-CO), Jim Talent (R-MO), Chuck Hagel (R-NE), and Kent Conrad (D-ND) has introduced legislation that would help the United States develop alternative sources of fuel and separate us from our dependence on foreign oil.  His mention of Hugo Chavez is an important point considering his recent actions.  Excerpt:

"Americans are increasingly concerned with our nation's overdependence on foreign sources of energy-much of which comes from countries rife with political unrest and anti-American sentiment. We've heard recent hostile statements from leaders like Hugo Chavez of Venezuela who has suggested the United States was behind the September 11th attacks, has discussed combining several of South America's largest armies to counter U.S. influence and has called the United States the `greatest threat' to the world," Thune said. "In light of the fact that America currently imports 1 million barrels of oil a day from Venezuela, the comments of Mr. Chavez are yet again another reminder of our nation's dangerous overdependence on foreign sources of energy.

"Because of instabilities in countries such as Venezuela, we must speed up our effort in this country to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and make a shift to home-grown renewable fuels like E-85 ethanol and bio-diesel. The Alternative Fuel Grant Program Senator Salazar and I have proposed would greatly increase the availability of alternative fuels, such as E-85, compressed natural gas, and bio-diesel, allowing more American consumers to fill up using cleaner, more cost-effective fuels that are better for the environment and made here in America. However, for some unknown reason some of my Democrat colleagues have placed secret holds on this non-controversial bill.

"In light of the clear message from the American public that they want Congress to do more to increase the availability of alternative fuels, I hope my Democrat colleagues will drop any objections so this measure can be passed by the Senate and sent to the President for his signature." 

Odd Bedfellows

Iowa Senator Tom Harkin says he understands Hugo Chavez:

The Democrats had a little harder time than the terrorists deciding what to make of Chavez. His weird tirade split their caucus. Some Democrats, like Charles Rangel and Nancy Pelosi, denounced the dictator. Senator Tom Harkin, on the other hand, supported Chavez:

Iowa Senator Tom Harkin, a democrat, today defended Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez's United Nations speech in which Chavez called President George Bush the devil. Harkin said the comments were "incendiary", then went on to say, "Let me put it this way, I can understand the frustration, ah, and the anger of certain people around the world because of George Bush's policies." Harkin continued what has been frequent criticism of the president's foreign policy.

One might have hoped that Hugo Chavez would be too visibly nuts to be embraced by even the most liberal of Democrats. Apparently not.

Chomsky Lives

New York Times:

At a news conference after his spirited address to the United Nations on Wednesday, President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela expressed one regret: not having met that icon of the American left, the linguist Noam Chomsky, before his death.

Yesterday, a call to Mr. Chomsky’s house found him very much alive. In fact, he was struggling through “10,000 e-mails” he had received since the remarks by Mr. Chávez, who urged Americans to read one of Mr. Chomsky’s books instead of watching Superman and Batman movies, which he said “make people stupid.”

At 77, Mr. Chomsky has joined the exclusive club of luminaries, like the actor Abe Vigoda and Mark Twain, who were reported dead before their time, only to contradict the reports by continuing to breathe.

“I continue to work and write,” he said, speaking from his house in Lexington, Mass.

Mr. Chávez, while addressing world leaders at the United Nations, flagged “Hegemony or Survival: America’s Quest for Global Dominance,” which Mr. Chomsky published in 2003, as a must-read. Mr. Chomsky said he was glad that Mr. Chávez liked his book, but he would not describe himself as flattered.

“We should look at ourselves through our own eyes and not other people’s eyes,” he said.

Mr. Chomsky said he had taken no offense at Mr. Chávez’s remarks about his being dead. In fact, Mr. Chávez’s promotion of the book propelled it yesterday into Amazon’s top 10 best sellers.

Super Wal-Mart Carries Aberdeen

The people, as Lenin once remarked, often vote with their feet.  Despite the frowns of those who know better what is good for us, the residents of Aberdeen have been voting for the new Wal-Mart in two waves.  One flows in the back doors in sharp blue sports shirts (my wife likes them a lot more than the old blue vests), and the second, larger wave, through the three main entrances.  Mrs. and Mr. B. visited the grocery section today, on its second day of operation.  Super WM is kinda like the Smithsonian: you need more than a day to view it all.

Here is my report: twice the items available at other venues at roughly two thirds of the price.  Milk, red bell peppers, and Feta cheese were ours for about a dollar each below what we are accustomed to paying.  At House Blanchard we keep a fairly eclectic kitchen.  SWM had South Western style mustard and chipotle chilies in adobo sauce, items we have had to import ourselves from the Twin Cities. 

The voters have spoken.  Vox Populai has pronounced. 

Disturbing News Items: Very Bad Marriages Edition

Federalist Fischer Aims deplored the sensational stories that were circulating in the newspapers of the young American Republic.  Sympathetic though I am to Aims and his Federalism, I think it the duty of SDP to bring to your attention all the news at which it is fit to squint. 

The BBC reports that a man in Sudan has been forced to marry his goat. 

A Sudanese man has been forced to take a goat as his "wife", after he was caught having sex with the animal.    

The goat's owner, Mr Alifi, said he surprised the man with his goat and took him to a council of elders. They ordered the man, Mr Tombe, to pay a dowry of 15,000 Sudanese dinars ($50) to Mr Alifi.  "We have given him the goat, and as far as we know they are still together," Mr Alifi said.   

The goat, no doubt, is busy redecorating Mr. Tombe's apartment.  More news of marital bliss was reported by the British Telegraph.

A man who had the world's first successful penis transplant had to have the organ removed two weeks later because of a problem with his wife.

The 44-year-old father of three children was left with a 0.4in stump and was unable to urinate or have intercourse after being involved in a car accident.  Surgeons at Guangzhou General Hospital, in China, spent 15 hours attaching a 4in organ taken from a brain-dead 22-year-old man after his parents agreed.

However, in next month's issue of the journal European Urology, they report that they had to remove the organ because of "a severe psychological problem of the recipient and his wife".

Lorena Bobbit just moved to second chair. 

Diebold(ly) Voting Machine Menace

Professor Schaff invites me to post again on the use of Diebold touch screen voting machines.  Short of nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists, this might be the most alarming story of the day.  The 2000 election debacle in Florida triggered a wave of election reform bills in many states.  There is no doubt that the butterfly ballet used in many Florida counties was a bad piece of work.  It required voters to physically poke out a small paper rectangle (the infamous chad).  Chads piled up, resulting in a lot of ballots that recorded no vote.  In addition, the booklet style ballot had to be properly aligned, or you could end up voting for people you never intended to vote for.  How else did Pat Buchanan carry a largely Jewish county?

But reformers in many states decided that we needed a brand new voting technology, and moved to adopt touch screen computer voting machines.  According to the manufacturer Diebold

Over 130,000 Diebold electronic voting stations are being used in locations across the United States to assist voters in exercising their most fundamental constitutional right: the right to vote.

This is a classic case of bright idea reform: replacing a bad system with one that is absolutely horrific.  I don't often agree with Lou Dobbs, but he hits this nail right on the head. 

Across the nation, eight out of every 10 voters will be casting their ballots this November on electronic voting machines. And these machines time and again have been demonstrated to be extremely vulnerable to tampering and error, and many of them have no voter-verified paper trail.

There is simply no way in which election officials and their staffs of thousands of volunteers with limited experience and often poor training can possibly carry out reliable recounts.

In fact, it's much worse than that.  The Princeton University Center for Information Technology Policy has issued a study of the Diebold machines.  Here is the abstract:

This paper presents a fully independent security study of a Diebold AccuVote-TS voting machine, including its hardware and software. We obtained the machine from a private party. Analysis of the machine, in light of real election procedures, shows that it is vulnerable to extremely serious attacks. For example, an attacker who gets physical access to a machine or its removable memory card for as little as one minute could install malicious code; malicious code on a machine could steal votes undetectably, modifying all records, logs, and counters to be consistent with the fraudulent vote count it creates. An attacker could also create malicious code that spreads automatically and silently from machine to machine during normal election activities — a voting-machine virus. We have constructed working demonstrations of these attacks in our lab. Mitigating these threats will require changes to the voting machine's hardware and software and the adoption of more rigorous election procedures.

In another investigation, it was revealed that the diebold machine could be opened with the key to a hotel room liquor cabinet. 

The most terrifying feature of this system is that it produces no paper record.  If the voting record from one or more machines was suspect, there would be no way to go back and find out how people actually voted.  That information would be lost forever.  In any close election, and maybe in any election at all, there will be no reason for public confidence in election results.  This is a recipe for a disaster that will make Florida 2000 look like a stubbed toe. 

The only good news is that the Diebold system seems to be breaking down where ever it has been tried, faster than the results can be questioned.  Again from Dobbs:

The May primary election in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, was nothing less than a complete debacle. A report from the Election Science Institute found the electronic voting machines' four sources of vote totals -- individual ballots, paper trail summary, election archives and memory cards -- didn't even match up. The totals were all different, and the report concluded that relying on the current system for Cuyahoga County's more than 1.3 million people should be viewed as "a calculated risk." Are we really willing to risk our democracy?

This problem is obviously not limited to Ohio. During Illinois' March primary, Cook County delayed the results of its crucial county board elections for a week as a result of human and mechanical problems at hundreds of sites with the new voting machines.

The recent primary elections in Montgomery County, Maryland, also highlighted just how unprepared many polling places are for the midterms. The state election administrator is demanding to know what went wrong after election workers did not receive access cards to operate the Diebold voting machines for the county's 238 precincts on time, forcing as many as 12,000 voters to use provisional paper ballots that ran out quickly. Some were simply told to come back later and vote.

Diebold executives Dr. Moe, Dr. Larry, and Dr. Curly could not be reached for comment.  For there is no excuse for this situation.  The flaws in computer-only voting machines have been evident for years. 

And in fact, we already have perfectly reliable voting systems.  South Dakota uses a paper ballot which voters mark by blackening a circle with a lead pencil.  The ballots can then be read by computers.  The ballot is difficult to screw up.  The orginal vote is recorded on a piece of paper that cannot be subsequently modified by the machine.  If there is any doubt about the machine that does the counting, the ballots can easily be examined and recorded by hand.  In my view, all elections should use such ballots.  Why was it so hard for legislators across the country to recognize this?  Perhaps because they cannot resist spending a lot of money on new toys. 

Due to a lot of bright idea reformers, we are positioned for the perfect electoral storm this November. 

As Charlie Brown Would Say, "Good Grief."

What is sillier, Schuldt's attacks on Belfrage or the pro-lifers threatening TV stations?  If you disagree with Belfrage's views, then counter it with your own speech.  If pro-choicers are misrepresenting the facts in their ad, then make your own ad pointing out such falsehoods.  But it is so much easier to bully one's opponents than to engage in messy and frustrating democratic politics.

Voter ID

Jason has a thoughtful post on federal legislation requiring a photo ID to vote.  Let me respectfully disagree.  Jason has a good point, which is that all things being equal it'd be best to leave election regulations up to states.  I submit that the validity of federal elections is a matter well within federal purview.  If there seems to be a problem with ineligible voters voting in federal elections it seems reasonable for the federal government to set up regulations to correct the problem.  I believe it was in San Fransisco not long ago when they discussed allowing non-citizens to vote.  The federal government certainly has the right to thwart such actions if it feels it is not in the nation's best interest.  I note that the bill I discussed here that requires a photo ID in order to vote applies only to federal elections.  Of course many important state elections are tied to federal election, but many (such as city and county elections) are not.

I am waiting for Prof. Blanchard to weigh in once again on the voting machine controversy.  I believe he has posted on this before, but I cannot find it.  My own view is if it is not broken, don't fix it.  I see no reason why we should dump the "fill-in-the-dot" ballots.  Was there ever any problem with those ballots? 

Herseth

A Democrat disappointed with Stephanie Herseth writes to the Argus Leader that they "need a Democratic candidate in the congressional race":

Stephanie Herseth has no issue stance on the budget and economy.

On civil rights, she voted "yes" to make the PATRIOT Act permanent (December 2005). She voted "yes" on a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage (September 2004). She voted "yes" on protecting the Pledge of Allegiance (September 2004).

On education, she voted to improve education through the No Child Left Behind Act (June 2002).

She voted "yes" on passage of the Bush administration national energy policy (June 2004).

It just goes on and on. We need a Democratic candidate in the congressional race.

Governor Mike Rounds

Governor Rounds is at a 65% approval rating according to this new poll.

The Attack on Belfrage

Chad Schuldt of CCK is trying to silence Greg Belfrage by going after his advertisers, just like he tries to silence Professors Schaff and Blanchard by urging attacks on Northern State University. 

Herseth Votes Against Proof of Citizenship to Vote

Associated Press:

The U.S. House on Wednesday passed legislation that would make Americans show proof of citizenship in order to vote, but Rep. Stephanie Herseth says it could hurt the elderly and American Indians and predicted the bill won't get far in the Senate.

The measure, which passed 228-196 mostly along party lines, would require voters to present photo identification at polling places, starting in 2008. And in 2010, they would have to provide IDs proving they are U.S. citizens.

Herseth, who pointed out that South Dakota's Republican secretary of state, Chris Nelson, also opposed the bill, said some South Dakotans might not get to vote if the bill becomes law.

I'm with Rep. Herseth on this one.  I think that states, not the federal government, should be the ones establishing a voter identification program, thus allowing them to be more flexible in what is considered identification while still maintaining the integrity of elections.  Fundamentally, I absolutely agree with using photo ID to verify that a voter is who they say they are.  South Dakota already has those practices in place, which also allows the use of tribal photo identification and school photo identification, both of which are legal verifications.  Do we really need the federal government to establish an identification program?

Obama in Iowa

Here's more on Senator Barack Obama's visit to neighboring Iowa:

There are lots of reasons why activists seemed to like Obama, but they all came down to this: Hope. Hope for their party — this guy looks like a winner. And hope for the country. A lot of Democrats are tired and angry at what's been happening. Before Sunday's event, one activist told me privately that she wants Obama to run for president because electing him would be one way for the United States to repair the damage done to its reputation around the world during the Bush presidency. She cited as evidence the warm reception Obama got on his recent trip to Africa.

Obama offers them a promise of something fresh, uplifting and different. Most of the other candidates can't do that.

His warm reception in Iowa reminded me of the frenzied one he got at the Democratic National Convention in 2004. John S. Jackson, a visiting professor at the Paul Simon Public Policy Institute at Southern Illinois University, wrote in a paper recently that the address was well received because "Americans in general are attracted to candidate images more than the candidate's specific issues. They want someone they feel they can relate to and that they can trust and who seems to have the ability to understand people like them and the lives they live. Obama seemed to project those qualities."

Something else was noteworthy about this crowd. There will be around 100,000 Iowa Democrats show up on caucus night. If divided among a dozen potential candidates, one of them could win the thing with 20,000 votes. If 3,500 people are willing to show up for him now, Obama's already part way there.

There were also a lot of folks from Illinois here Sunday, who came over to see their guy. Neighboring-state candidates tend to do well in Iowa caucuses. They know the lingo spoken here and can import precinct workers. (Obama's home-state door knockers could easily work heavily Democratic counties in eastern Iowa.)

There were also a lot of people I'd never seen at a Democratic event. Young people. People of color. Most old pros will tell you that attracting new people to your campaign is one sign of a winner.

Thune & McCain

Straight Talk Iowa Style:

Look for Thune to play a part in helping McCain become President and win Iowa. One rock star helping another could be a potent combination for success. (Yes that is a prediction that Thune will endorse McCain should McCain run.)

Here's the Straight Talk Iowa Style tie-in:

Northwest Iowa is bombarded by the Sioux Falls, South Dakota media market and NW Iowa caucus goers are comfortable with Thune. He's on their televisions nightly and during election season. (This bleed over is similiar to what happens in Sioux City to NE and the QC to IL markets) We know this because we see him all the time.

Straight Talk Iowa Style remembers when John Thune came to several counties during the caucuses on behalf of George W. Bush, the crowds loved his surrogacy speech. In particular there were several appearances made by then-Cong. Thune and Cong. J.C. Watts on caucus night in Lyon and Sioux counties. With Thune's expanded role in the national GOP election and fundraising operations look for Thune to be courted heavily by 08 contenders.

The Monopoly Problem

Argus Leader:

Smithfield Foods, the parent of John Morrell & Co. in Sioux Falls, is rushing the consolidation of the pork industry and hastening the demise of small hog producers, agriculture groups and several farm-state senators say.

Lawmakers from South Dakota, Iowa and Nebraska worry that Smithfield, the nation's largest pork producer and processor, will squeeze out small farmers when it completes its acquisition of Premium Standard Farms, the nation's No. 2 hog producer and No. 6 pork processor.

Smithfield announced this week it would buy its rival for about $650 million in cash and stock. The deal is expected to close in the first quarter of 2007. If it does, Smithfield will own one-fifth of the nation's hogs. That could limit independent producers' options and ability to get good prices for their meat, some critics say.

National Farmers Union President Tom Buis said the "deal perpetuates the consolidation and concentration of the meat industry" and "all but guarantees independent producers will be left without a market."

Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., said Wednesday the deal deserves "careful scrutiny" by federal regulators because it "presents some real risks for our producers."

Analysts correctly predicted the move would raise antitrust concerns because it punctuates a trend among big meat companies to vertically integrate by slaughtering their own hogs rather than buying from independent farmers.

. . .

Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, and Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, asked the U.S. Department of Justice to investigate the proposed merger. They worry about too much concentration of power within the meat industry, which could hurt independent farmers by reducing the number of places they can sell their hogs and eventually raising food prices for consumers.

All of that should trigger antitrust concerns, they say.

. . .

South Dakota Democrat Tim Johnson and Nebraska Democrat Ben Nelson, along with Thune, say they share those worries.

"Agricultural producers in our state are best served by robust competition for their products," Johnson said Wednesday.

For more on the monopoly problem in the Midwest and independent farmer's attempts to fight monopolies, see former SDP contributor Jon Lauck's book, American Agriculture and the Problem of Monopoly.

Scandal in Minnesota Senate Race

This is entertaining!  From John Hinderaker at Powerline:

One of this year's key Senate races is in Minnesota, where Mark Dayton's retirement leaves an open seat. Republican Congressman Mark Kennedy is running against Democrat Amy Klobuchar, an untested candidate who currently serves as Hennepin County Attorney, but has run only one contested race in her life.

Klobuchar is sensitive to crime issues, as violent crime is skyrocketing on her watch in Hennepin County. So she may have been chagrined to learn that a left-wing blogger had hacked into Mark Kennedy's secure server and viewed a prospective Kennedy commercial; that the blogger had passed the illegally-obtained login information on to Klobuchar's campaign spokeswoman, Tara McGuinness, last Saturday; that McGuinness watched the illegally-obtained commercial, and then recruited other Klobuchar staffers to view it.

Then again, perhaps Klobuchar wasn't so chagrined. Her office has reported the apparent federal crime to the FBI, and has hung the unnamed blogger and McGuinness out to dry--but only today, four days later, after Klobuchar had completed her scheduled debate with Kennedy, and after the Minneapolis Star Tribune had published a poll that showed her with a big lead.

The Associated Press story on the scandal assures us that, while Klobuchar's most trusted staffers may have committed federal crimes, the candidate herself is innocent. But how do we know that? There are a number of obvious questions that have yet to be answered:

Why did Amy Klobuchar--who now holds herself out as an exemplar of effective law enforcement--wait for four days to report the apparent commission of a federal crime by persons associated with her campaign to the FBI?

The Democrats and the Baltimore Orioles

This gem from Jordan Ellenberg in Slate:

It's easy to see why Republicans are nervous. In the latest Rothenberg Political Report, 24 seats are listed as "tossups"—10 "pure tossups" and seven each "tilting R" and "tilting D." Every one of these tossup seats is held by a Republican. Democrats currently control 203 of the House's 435 seats. To reach a majority of 218, they need to gain 15 seats. Given so many opportunities to flip seats, it's easy to see that happening.

But before Democrats get too optimistic, they should think about the Baltimore Orioles. Like the Democratic congressional delegation, the Orioles have put up losing records for many years. And Orioles fans, like Democratic voters, can see a path to victory—if a few starting pitchers improve, if a promising rookie develops, if the scrappy second baseman regains his slugging form. ... None of these hopes are unreasonable. But it's too much to expect that they'll all come to pass. More likely, some things will go the O's way and some won't; they may end up improved, but they probably won't end up on top.

Ellenberg analyzes the Dem's chances by using mathematical models and the law of large numbers. Here is his conclusion:

If you're a Democrat, you've got every right to be hopeful this fall. But if somebody gives you the chance to bet on the GOP, get your wallet out.

Twins Beat Boston, Tie Tigers

Another come back victory for the Twin City road warriors.  The Tigers are leading.  If they win, they will have a half game over Minnesota.  White Soxs will be five games behind the Twins.  This is getting kinda exciting. 

Is It A Cuddly Universe?

Many years ago the late Richard Grenier wrote an essay asking the question, "Is it a cuddly Universe?"  The subject of his essay were the films E.T. (cuddly) and Blade Runner (not cuddly).  Is there any doubt that after the speeches by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Hugo Chavez before the United Nations that our corner of the universe is not cuddly? 

Some Americans have a view of the world that is similar to "battered woman syndrome."  This is the syndrome in which a battered woman blames herself for her beatings and is sure that if she just loves her man more or better then he'll stop hitting her.  Surely, some argue, we have done things to make the Iranians and Venezuelans angry, and if we are just a little nicer to the world then people will stop trying to kill us.  But, as Bernard Lewis suggests once again, the problem is not what we do, but who we are.  Ahamdinejad and Chavez, proving that politics does make strange bedfellows (an Islamic radical and a Castroist Socialist), have one thing in common: they hate Western style liberal democracy.  A necessary step to getting these men to stop hating us (and thus the Iranians from killing us in Iraq) is to give up liberal democracy.  Any takers? 

These men are also united by a quest for power, thus Ahmadinejad's anger at the arrangement of the UN.  He doesn't care that China, France, and Russia have vetoes on the Security Council.  They don't thwart his plans.  That is why he singles out the US and the UK for abuse.  We do thwart his designs for power.  Ahmadinejad and Chavez are not angry that some have power and some don't; they are angry that some have power and they don't. 

Men of this kind understand one thing: power.  The failure of the McGovern/Carter foreign policy is that it believes that one can negotiate with such men and convince them that it is in their interest to come to terms.  But what could you give Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that would make him stop supporting terrorism?  Nothing.  At least nothing short of outright capitualtion.  And one is a fool to think otherwise.  So perhaps Glenn Reynolds is right that events of the last couple days will strengthen Republican political prospects by reminding people how real the threat is (I suspect Reynolds is wrong).  Ahamadinejad and Chavez threaten America and insult her because they know they can do so without consequences.  That is a sign of our weakness.  Ahmadinejad knows he can support terrorism with impunity and get away with it.  That is also a sign of weakness.  Until there is a sign of strength these men understand they will continue to insult us, threaten our interests and kill our soldiers.

Thought Police

Andrew Sullivan:  The Left's Thought Police

Herseth Against Proof Of Citizenship For Voting

Stephanie Herseth, along with most of the House Democratic Caucus, has voted against this bill that would require proof of citizenship in order to vote in federal elections.  It appears to me that a government issued photo identification is all this bill requires in order to register or vote.  Someone correct me if I am reading the bill wrong. 

All You Need To Know

In the last two weeks former Iranian President Mohammad Khatami, current President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez have all come to America.  These three are heads (or former head) of corrupt and evil regimes that are personified by their anti-Americanism.  Indeed, Ahmadinejad heads a government which currently sponsors terrorists killing Americans in Iraq.  Yet none of these men feared for their lives as they traveled in New York and Boston. Meanwhile, Pope Benedict is being warned not to go to Turkey because he is a target of assassination plots.

On a related note, George Weigel provides useful lessons for the war on terrorism from Pope Benedict's controversial lecture. 

SD: Land of Beautiful People

Minneapolis Star Tribune:

South Dakota: Home of the hunks and babes

Turns out the beautiful people live in South Dakota: Republican John Thune is the biggest "hunk" in the Senate, while Democrat Stephanie Herseth is the No. 1 "babe" in the House, according to Washingtonian magazine, which just released its annual "Best and Worst of Congress" edition.

"Thune's farm-boy looks plus his win over Democratic leader Tom Daschle equals hubba-hubba for the GOP," the magazine said. He edged out Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., for top honors.

Last year, Rep. Mary Bono, R-Calif., was named top "babe," but this time "the Midwestern farm girl gets nearly double the votes," the magazine said.

The Minnesota delegation is nowhere to be found in this year's picks, which are based on votes by nearly 1,700 Capitol Hill staffers.

Iowa

From the National Journal's Hotline blog:

IA Sec/State and GOV candidate Chet Culver (D) looks to boost his warchest at a $1K per-person funder tonight at the Georgetown home of Jim Johnson, the Dem who ran Walter Mondale's campaign in '84 and headed up John Kerry's VP search in '04. Rep./Gov candidate Jim Nussle's (R-01) camp is, of course, making much hay out of the son-of-a-Senator returning to DC to raise some Beltway bucks (and in an apartment at the Ritz, no less!). But putting aside Nussle's own ties to the 202 for the moment, we got a kick out of the many big-name Dems who probably like Culver more than just because he's a nice fella who played a pretty decent Tight End for VA Tech a few years back.

Event sponsors include: Sen's Joe Biden, Chris Dodd and John Kerry, ex-Sen. Tom Daschle and ex-VA Gov. Mark Warner. Oh, and DC uberlawyer/FOB Vernon Jordan. Anybody seen Vernon in Des Moines recently?

Headlines Worth Noting

No!  Ya think?

Oil Company Blames Equipment Malfunction for Early Morning Accident.

Okay, but what are the French supposed to contribute?

Europe offers 'backbone' of Peacekeepers.

Did the dog have AAA?

Woman crashes when teaching dog to drive.

Five Finger Discount.

Doctor accused of stealing cadaver hand. 

File under really bad coffee.

Ohio man sentenced in coffee urine case.

No!  Ya think?

Shooting at party furthers violence.

The Pope, the Press, and the Beacon

First Chad at CCK praises a post of mine, and now Professor Schaff praises a post by Professor Newquist at the Northern Valley Beacon.  This is altogether more mutual respect than one might anticipate in these parts.  As it happens, I second my colleague's post.  Professor Newquist's piece was quite good on the Pope.  I had not noticed, for example, that the Byzantine Emperor whom Pope Benedict XVI quoted was named Paleologos.  And I think these paragraphs are especially strong.

The Pope obliquely presented an issue that sends political and religious leaders into the bunkers. He brought up the three laws at issue: the Koran, the Old Testament, and the New Testament. He did so because there are issues that need resolution in order to end the violence that grips the world. The New Law, as the New Testament is referred to, militates against hatred and violence. The history of Christians battling each other, such as in North Ireland, is not escapable, but neither is the theological basis for good will and peace. The Pope spent a great deal of his lecture outlining how that theological call for peace is formed through the Greek tradition of intellect and how it has been regarded in theology through time. His point is that reason and faith together lead to respect and peace.

The problem facing religious leaders, particularly Christians and leaders of other peace-promoting religions, is that Islam has no overtly stated theological constraints against violence. That is why the face of Islam to much of the world is one of vicious atrocity.

I don't know enough about Islam to know if that last part is true, but it does seem to me to be asking exactly the right questions. 

I would dissent on two points.  I still think the Pope should have anticipated the consequences of the quote and either should not have used it, or should at least have taken more care to distance himself from the remark in advance.  Der Spiegel has this:

That so many in the Muslim world joined the protests against the pope merely show just how influential Islamist extremist groups have become. The political goal of the Islamists is clear: any dispute between Christianity and Islam must obey the rules handed down by political Islamism.

There is nothing fair about this; it is a simple fact.  Being responsible for Christian communities in Muslim lands, the Pope is no mere Doctor of Theology.  It's one thing to urge reasonableness; it is another to expect it. 

On a second point, I do not think it is quite fair to say that

The press presents only those words that might inflame those looking for some reason to posture their outrage. It omits the next part of the quotation, which the Pope included.

"The press" is a pretty big and diverse population.  Fox News Channel, much maligned by the left, put the context around the words from the beginning of the story.  The British Press has been particularly good on this score.  See the Guardian, and the Times, where William Rees-Mogg says this:

The question is not whether the quotation from the Byzantine emperor Manuel II Palaeologus is offensive: it is.

The question is whether the emperor is justified in what he said. His main thrust was at least partly justified. There is a real problem about the teaching of the Koran on violence against the infidel. That existed in the 14th century, and was demonstrated on 9/11, 2001. There is every reason to discuss it. I am more afraid of silence than offence.

Anyone paying attention to the news had more than enough information to evaluate this story.

Finally, when you write or speak for public consumption, on whatever forum, it is neither reasonable nor prudent to expect that everyone will interpret your words in the way you think they should have been interpreted.  What is wrong with the militant Islamic reaction to the Pope's words is not that they took him out of context.  That sort of thing is inevitable, and it is precisely what dialog is for.  Each interlocutor replies in turn until some understanding is reached, or the two agree to disagree.  What is wrong is that the militants presume the right to control the Pope's interpretation, to restrain him a priori from advancing certain opinions, or to punish him and his flock after the fact.  The instinct to shut the Pope down, because he is the Pope, or because he is a Professor, and thus that his words may be taken as representative of certain institutions, that instinct is a threat to honest dialog. 

Obama's Presidential Aspirations

After some speculation on this blog about Obama in '08, the Illinois Senator says he's currently focused on seeking a Democratic majority in the Senate.  While I hope this doesn't happen, here's a link to the Fox News Article.  In it he says he's not currently planning on making a bid for President.  Here's a clip:

In an interview with FOX News, the Illinois Democrat sidestepped questions about a possible campaign for the office in 2008 even as he acknowledged that many voters have already questioned him on a possible run.

Obama, who just returned from a tour of Africa, including Kenya where his father was born, spoke only vaguely about his plans for the future. Asked if he would be running for the presidency in 2008, he instead chose to talk about the current election year, in which he is helping Democrats on the campaign trail.

"I'm just focused on November 2006 and trying to make sure we get a majority in the Senate," said the freshman senator elected in 2004. "The day after I was elected for Senate, somebody asked me the same question. I said I wasn't running at the time, and so far there's been nothing to change my mind."

Of course, this is the response from most of the frontrunners in both parties.  I wonder what happens if he changes his mind in the future.  We know Hildebrand is continuing to support Daschle.  Yet we saw the Daschle supporter go to Iowa with Obama.  I wonder what happens if the Senator from Illinois decides to throw his hat in the ring.  It would be very tricky supporting to candidates for the same post (probably impossible, right?).

Newquist On The Money (Almost)

Dave Newquist chimes in on the Pope Controversy.  He is right on the money, although one suspects he has this blog in mind when he talks about being "Newquisted."  David thinks we twist his words.  We think not.  But on this matter (Pope Benedict) Newquist is right on. Shocking.  Newquist and I are in agreement.  I suppose about here in this post David is cleaning up the coffee he just spit all over his computer.  Here's some Newquist eloquence:

The press is fully implicated in the lie. News organizations are more about trying to get an audience than about giving carefully checked news stories. Watching the Muslims burn effigies of the Pope is far more arresting to the people out there than is a carefully presented summation of the Pope’s lecture at his old university. News organizations do not serve higher intelligences, and so the personnel doing the reporting can find potentially inflammatory sound bites but they cannot comprehend or report an act of communication that speaks to a complex issue. Instead of opening a dialogue on the sectarian violence that grips the world, the reporting of the Pope’s words inflamed the violent.

More Pictures From SDP

A little late, here are a couple pictures taken at the Bob Dylan concert in Fargo on the 9th.  Cameras were not allowed inside, so these are some sketches that I did with crayons.

This first one was taken during "Like A Rolling Stone," which was a the first song of the encore. Bob is in white.  And obviously we did not bother getting "floor" seats, not wanting to stand for the four hours of music provided that evening.

This is from the concert's end.  Do not ask me what Bob was doing with his hands. 

Making Distinctions

Some people make a habit of referring to conservatives, especially religious conservatives, as the "Taliban."  You might remember Tim Johnson did, and this habit is de rigeur on the left-wing SD blogosphere (for example here and here).   I will leave it readers to decide to what extent conservative Christians are similar to the Taliban, a group that was virtually indistinguishable from Al Qaeda.  One might also question whether such rhetoric is an example of the startling meanness of our political dialog that Sen. Daschle once denounced.  Perhaps what Sen. Daschle meant by that was that it is wrong to be mean, unless someone is mean to you first, then it is OK to be as mean as you want.  As Jesus once said, it's nice to be nice to nice people and even better to be mean to mean people.  An eye for an eye, as he used to say. 

I submit for your consideration certain current affairs.  Pope Benedict is in hot water for some comments about Islam (see my commentary here). Some Muslims are advocating assassination of the pope, and one nun has already been murdered. For a nice round-up of reaction to the "Benedict-Islam" affair, see The Anchoress.  Also recall the reaction among radical Muslims to the Danish cartoon.  On the other hand, I see that NBC is going to air Madonna's controversial crucifixion act during a sweeps week concert.  I have no doubt that NBC will be denounced, probably by the Catholic League, for one, who has already gone after Madonna on this one.  Let's wait to see if there are any death threats or actual assassinations.  Let's see if the Catholic League or similar groups demand government action to jail those who espouse unliked religious views. Perhaps they will move to destroy all art that does not conform to their religious dictates. 

For more on this subject, taking the inane Rosie O'Donnell as her foil, see The Anchoress here.

Update: The Pope is also being burned in effigy (see pic to the right).  Will the same occur to Madonna or NBC chief Bob Wright?   

SDPP

Plains Politics offers some thoughts on the Sunday Argus Leader story about business leaders bashing Daschle and Janklow for undermining the DME railroad project:

This article offers a great perspective for everyone to see. People who have literally shaped this state's economy (Hustead and Everist) are shocked by the stances of our former elected officials. More and more people need to see the betrayal that is going on here.

Tom Daschle's agenda has not been aligned with that of South Dakota's for 26 years, but he always seems to make an attempt at justifying it. STOP it Tom, stay in D.C., live off of your wife's lobbying money, and leave South Dakota alone. We will do fine without you here. Don't speak out against the greatest economic tool since the railroad first came to SD in the late 1800s. This will bring millions of dollars into OUR state, so let it be.

As for Janklow, it is no surprise that he is going to go after the money first. He will take hundreds of grudges to his grave, and in this instance it is unfortunate that his grudges got in the way of the betterment of South Dakota. Thanks Wild Bill for putting your own personal matters ahead of South Dakota's economic well-being.

Hildebrand & Obama

New York Times:

The trip, which had been hyped for weeks, took on greater significance when news leaked that Mr. Obama had invited along Steve Hildebrand, a political strategist who ran Vice President Al Gore’s campaign in Iowa in 2000. (Advisers to Mr. Obama insisted he merely wanted an old Iowa hand at his side.) In a frenetic question-and-answer session in front of dozens of camera crews before his speech, Mr. Obama got nearly a dozen questions about the presidential campaign and only one about national security.

UPDATE:   The Des Moines Register says Hildebrand is still loyal to Daschle:

Obama is not among the half-dozen Democrats who have begun visiting Iowa regularly and laying the foundations of potential Iowa caucus campaigns. A fact that amplified the speculation recently was the decision by former Vice President Al Gore's Iowa caucus campaign manager, Steve Hildebrand, to accompany Obama on Sunday.

Hildebrand, a top adviser to former Sen. Tom Daschle of South Dakota, has said he remains loyal to Daschle, who is also weighing a 2008 run.

Pictures from the Great North Woods, NE of Ely

Me and My Favorite Journalist

Below is Birch Lake (I think!)  No, sorry, it was Bass Lake.  Bass lake used to be a lot bigger and higher than Low Lake, but loggers cut a hole in the natural dam between the two and it gave way in 1925.  Today you can hike through a sandy pine forest that used to be lake bed. 

Below is Blackstone Lake. 

RCJ Weighs in on Daschle and Janklow Opposition

In addition to the Huron Daily Plainsman, the Mitchell Daily Republic, and prominent businessmen ripping on Daschle and Janklow for working against the biggest project in SD history, now the Rapid City Journal is weighing in:

One of the largest construction projects in United States history is nearing a critical point in its approval process next month - the Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern Railroad's plan to upgrade its rail network and expand into Wyoming's Powder River Basin to haul coal to power plants in the Midwest. The deadline for public comment on the proposal is Oct. 10, and we believe the project deserves our support and that of our readers.

Pending before the Federal Railroad Administration is a $2.4 billion loan to supplement an additional $3.6 billion in private investment for the $6 billion project. DM&E's expansion plan is one of the largest construction projects in history. In today's dollars, it dwarfs Mount Rushmore, which cost $13.1 million to carve and the Hoover Dam, which cost $2.5 billion.

DM&E wants to rebuild 600 miles of existing rail and add 260 miles of new rail to reach Wyoming's coal fields. The majority of the rail renovation and about half the new construction will take place in South Dakota. That will bring 10,000 jobs during the construction period and an economic boost across the state. In addition, a new operations center near Huron will bring as many as 500 permanent jobs. South Dakota farmers and industries will benefit from new and safer rail lines running through the state to Midwest and East Coast markets.

Every community along the route is supporting the project except Rochester, Minn., and its world-renowned Mayo Clinic. What are we to make of Rochester and the Mayo Clinic hiring former South Dakota Gov. Bill Janklow to lobby against the project and adding former Sen. Tom Daschle to the Mayo's board of directors?

Both Janklow and Daschle supported and praised the DM&E project when it was first announced and when they both represented South Dakota's interests as elected state officials. Now they are being paid to oppose a project that so clearly benefits South Dakota. Pardon us for noticing the political cynicism behind these maneuvers.

The state's current congressional delegation - Sens. John Thune and Tim Johnson and Rep. Stephanie Herseth - all support DM&E's project, as does Gov. Mike Rounds. We are more inclined to trust and believe their statements in support than those of the opposition's hired political gunslingers.

The Mayo hospital, which once depended on the railroad to bring patients to its facility, opposes the railroad's expansion now that it's no longer of use to them. The Mayo says increased rail traffic will disrupt its operations. But DM&E's tracks are six blocks from the hospital's main building and the closest building is 1,200 feet away. If patient care will be affected, as the hospital claims, why isn't it a problem now with trains that pass nearby? A rail upgrade will make the present rail line even safer.

Rochester is the only community on the DM&E system that opposes the railroad's expansion plan because it alone doesn't have a use for it. The world does not revolve around the Mayo Clinic, and forgive us if we don't agree with Sen. Mark Dayton, D-Minn., who once said the Mayo Clinic "is worth a hell of a lot more than the whole state of South Dakota."

DM&E's expansion project will be good for South Dakota. It will boost the state's economy and improve transportation. We urge readers to write letters of support for the project to the Federal Railroad Administration before the Oct. 10 deadline.

Schwangate

From Jason Folkerts:

Governor Rounds' TV Commercials

Former GOP Chairman Joel Rosenthal discusses Governor Rounds' new commercials:

Governor Rounds' campaign is running what has been in South Dakota unusual, a one minute campaign advertisement. Also on his campaign website there is a trailer of Lieutenant Governor Dennis Daugaard speaking about a Great Leader – The Real Deal that is also a one minute message. Will the one minute message as opposed to the traditional thirty second spot become the norm?

What is fascinating is the television advertisement talks about how the Governor has spent so much time during his term out and about around South Dakota listening to South Dakotans and bringing their government to them.

In his term as Governor Mike Rounds has done good. His biggest accomplishments have been in the area of increased investment in human capital. He has been instrumental in establishing educational anchors both with the creation of the DUSEL laboratory in Lead and the New higher education campus in Sioux Falls.

What is hard to understand is why the Governor’s campaign feels a need to address listening to South Dakotans. The people of South Dakota expect no less. Why take credit for doing something that is expected of your office. Why not talk about your Results?

Billion Campaign Shakeup

Sibby reports on an interesting development in the Jack Billion campaign.  I agree with PP's comments, as well.  I don't know Epp personally, but I do read his blog every day and find him to be an honest man.  It's surely a loss for the Billion campaign.  Hopefully more details will follow soon.

Keep an Eye On Your Elected Officials Online

From Georgetown University's The Hoya:

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) is a vehement fiscal conservative and has used his short tenure in the Senate to fight pork-barrel spending. Coburn is the leader behind the fight to stop Sen. Ted Stevens’ (R-Ala.) “Bridge to Nowhere,” a bridge connecting the Alaskan town Ketchikan with its airport on the sparsely populated Island of Gravina, and has bipartisanly teamed up with Sen. Barak Obama (D-Ill.), Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.) and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) to introduce S.2590 — the “Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006.”
                   
This bill directs the Office of Management and Budget to “ensure the existence and operation” of a Web site that will display every dollar the federal government spends and has spent since 1995. The only expenditures not specifically itemized  are those concerning individual citizens (including federal employees) and items that could compromise national security — much to the disappointment of The New York Times.

Read the whole thing.

Democrats and Demographics

Some months ago I wrote a column on a Foreign Policy article by Philip Longman.  A certain local blogger called my column wackey when I reprinted it on this blog.  Since then a lot of folks on both sides of the tennis court have agreed with Longman and me.  This from Vicki Haddock in the San Francisco Chronicle.

If you're a liberal, here's what you can do to make Karl Rove a very happy man: Get yourself a labradoodle. Or any other kind of dog, for that matter. Even a cat will do.

Just don't have children. 

That way you'll maintain a fertility gap that already is invisibly working to guarantee the political right will outnumber the left by an ever-growing margin.

Over the past three decades, conservatives have been procreating more than liberals  --  continuing to seed the future with their genes by filling bassinets coast to coast with tiny Future Republicans of America.

Take a randomly selected sample of 100 liberal adults and 100 conservative adults. According to an analysis of the 2004 General Social Survey  --  a bible of data for social scientists  --  the liberals would have had 147 kids, while the conservatives would have had 208. That's a fertility gap of 41 percent. Even adjusting for other variables like age and income, there is a gap of 19 percent.

Now superimpose this on a map of the United States. The highest fertility rate is found in the most Republican state, Utah, home to the Mormon Church. The lowest fertility belongs to Vermont, a state liberal enough to be the first to sanction gay unions. 

The states with the next highest fertility rates, according to the latest National Center for Health Statistics survey, are Arizona, Alaska and Texas, otherwise known as "red states." States with the next lowest fertility rates are Maine, Massachusetts and Rhode Island, all "blue states."

I think it pretty obvious that, without this effect, Democrats would be in control now.  What it means for the future is of course more murkey.  One of the wild cards is the Latino immigrant population.  Undocumented Latinas have the most kids, one would guess, of any Democratic voting block.  But of course they do not vote most of the time.  Their children will..  But this immigrant group is mostly likely to become more conservative as they prosper and set down roots.

 

Business Leaders Rip on Daschle/Janklow

South Dakota business leaders feel betrayed by Tom Daschle and Bill Janklow, who are opposing a new railroad expansion, which is the biggest project in South Dakota history.  Some of these comments are even more negative than the recent Huron Daily Plainsman editorial criticizing Daschle and Janklow:

Former Gov. Bill Janklow and former Sen. Tom Daschle are coming under fire from state business leaders for their roles in the Dakota Minnesota & Eastern Railroad project.

Both Janklow and Daschle have lined up with the Mayo Clinic, which doesn't want DM&E coal trains passing within blocks of the Rochester, Minn., medical facility. Key business leaders in South Dakota say the former lawmakers have put themselves behind an effort that would do serious harm to the state's economic future.

. . .

South Dakota business leaders say the project is one of the biggest economic development opportunities in state history. Officials estimate that it would bring hundreds of jobs to the state, including 300 in Sioux Falls, where the railroad is based.

"An economic opportunity like this comes along once in a generation," said Ted Hustead, president of Wall Drug.

But when it comes to Janklow's and Daschle's involvement, Hustead joins others in saying the two have turned their backs on South Dakota. Daschle joined the Mayo board earlier this year, and weeks later, the hospital hired Janklow as a consultant.

"Why would they go to work for an entity that is opposed to the biggest economic opportunity in the state's history?" Hustead said.

Reputation marred

Frank Brost, a former chief of staff for Gov. George Mickelson and longtime political enemy of Janklow's, called Janklow's involvement with Mayo "unfortunate."

"It doesn't do anything to enhance his reputation in the state of South Dakota," he said. "I think it further deteriorates his image."

Brost thinks Janklow has several reasons for joining with Mayo. Janklow received medical treatment there, for one. But Brost said it's also a well-known fact that he and DM&E chief executive officer Kevin Schieffer don't get along.

"I think it's personal," Brost said. "I'm sure they're paying him well. He's always been a man who likes power and money, and he's trying to get more of both."

Janklow declined to be interviewed for this story.

"I don't talk to the Argus Leader," he said.

'Makes no sense'

Tom Everist, chairman of Forward Sioux Falls and a former railroad owner, said it "makes no sense" for Janklow to line up against DM&E.

Everist was a political ally of Janklow's, and he said Janklow always fought for the state's economic well-being.

"I consider him a good friend. On this issue he's dead wrong," Everist said.

Everist said Janklow's decision to work for Mayo surprised him. He was less surprised when Daschle entered the fray.

"He's working for a lobbying firm," Everist said. "He's got greater ambitions than the state of South Dakota. It's sad."

. . .

[Corn Growers President Reid] Jensen and Scott VanderWal, president of the South Dakota Farm Bureau, say that DM&E will be a huge benefit to the agriculture community.

"If they were looking after the best interests of South Dakota, they wouldn't be opposing this," VanderWal said.

Vietnam Memorial

Argus Leader:

South Dakota's Vietnam War veterans got their welcome home Saturday.

Helicopter and fixed-wing aircraft flyovers, plumes of green smoke, fireworks that lit the overcast sky like tracer rounds, a personal appearance by country act Big and Rich, and even a videotaped message from Air Force veteran and country music legend Kris Kristofferson highlighted the formal unveiling and dedication of a sculpture representing South Dakotans who served in Southeast Asia.

"This statue is not about a war,'' Gov. Mike Rounds told a crowd estimated at 32,000 that crowded the shore of Capitol Lake and spilled across the Capitol lawns and into the nearby streets. "It is not about the politics of war. It is not about the history of a war. It is about you, our veterans of the Vietnam Era, to show our honor for your service and your sacrifice. It is also about your families and their sacrifice.''

A two-hour long parade past the state Capitol filled much of the morning for the veterans and families who made the trip to Pierre for the two-day event. Some veterans came early and planned to stay late.

Unfortunately I couldn't make it to Pierre, but I was in Sioux Falls for the Spirit of the West Festival where the held their own small salute to Vietnam veterans.  If any veterans of any war are reading our blog, I wish to say thank you for your service.  I have nothing but the utmost respect for those who chose to fight for our country.

De-Hellenisation Becomes Controversial

Prodded by Ken Blanchard's post below about the recent controversy regarding the mention of Islam in a recent talk by Pope Benedict, I have taken the time to actually read the pontiff's speech.  You can read it too, right here.  I doubt you will because, frankly, it is not light reading.  I agree with David Warren; the Pope has said nothing for which he needs to apologize.  But the reaction is illustrative. The Pope says something innocuous about Islam (and likely theologically true), some Muslims get incensed and burn churches, and it is the Pope who is supposed to apologize. 

The theological point the Pope wishes to make is that the Christian conception of God, influenced by Greek philosophy, suggests that God is reasonable (thus the Pope's invocation of logos), while the Muslim conception of Allah is that he is a capricious god who governs by will, not reason.  The grand point of the talk by Benedict is that faith and reason are not at war.  It is an error of modern times to see them as such.  Prof. Blanchard alluded to Leo Strauss in his post.  One of Strauss's critiques of late modernity is that it buys into what Strauss called the "fact-value" distinction.  The modern mind thinks that facts are those things which can be proven mathematically or through the scientific method.  Only these things can be said to be "true."  Everything else, including the religious experience, lives in the realm of "values" about which we can know nothing; the category "values" contains only opinions, not facts.  Thus, we cannot know anything besides that which is comprehensible through science.  Strauss rejected this view (thus his critique of modern behaviorist political science), and so does Benedict (likely for different or additional reasons than Strauss).  The Christian God is a reasonable god, thus is comprehensible through reason.  Not fully, to be sure, for God is also a mystery.  Here is Benedict on the "fact-value distinction":

This gives rise to two principles which are crucial for the issue we have raised. First, only the kind of certainty resulting from the interplay of mathematical and empirical elements can be considered scientific. Anything that would claim to be science must be measured against this criterion. Hence the human sciences, such as history, psychology, sociology, and philosophy, attempt to conform themselves to this canon of scientificity. A second point, which is important for our reflections, is that by its very nature this method excludes the question of God, making it appear an unscientific or pre-scientific question. Consequently, we are faced with a reduction of the radius of science and reason, one which needs to be questioned.

This, one could say, is part of the problem with the "Intelligent Design" or "Creation Science" movements.  While falling under the mantle of religious thought, they actually buy the superiority of scientific thinking.  They feel the need to prove scientifically that which cannot be proven through science, namely that the the world was created by a benevolent God with a certain design and for a certain purpose.  The fact that this cannot be proven scientifically does not mean that it is not true or is unreasonable.  If one believes that only scientific knowledge is true knowledge, then one must throw out the Biblical creation story (and, indeed, all supernatural religion), but if one believes that reason is the handmaiden of faith, one does not have such difficulties.

Update: A nun in Somalia has been killed after the gunman heard a sermon by a Muslim cleric denouncing Benedict.  I wait patiently for the apology. 

A Pope on the Ropes

I am hardly qualified to pass judgment on this or any other Pope's interpretation of Catholic doctrine.  I was raised a Methodist, which means that I approach such topics from an initial state of confusion, and usually exit in the same condition.  The current Methodist Church strikes me as a gate standing alone in a field.  You can never be quite sure whether you are inside or out, something the Church hierarchy bizarrely understands as 'inclusion.' 

But as a trained Straussian, I know a few things about the relation between rational inquiry and politics that Pope Benedict, perhaps, neglected to give enough attention to.  Melanie McDonagh of the British Telegraph elegantly describes how the Pope got into a bit of trouble.

There is, I am afraid, such a thing as being too clever by half. Pope Benedict is a case in point. He is a former academic and this week he addressed a gathering of other academics at a university in Regensburg. In this congenial environment, he let himself go and delivered a nuanced address on the subject of faith and reason, snappily titled "Three Stages in the Programme of De-Hellenisation". The gist, to spare you the trouble of looking it up, is that belief in God is entirely consistent with human reason and the Greek spirit of philosophical inquiry. By using the reason God gave us, we become, in a way, more like him. Fair enough, you might think. No harm in that.

But there was, of course. If the Pope had stuck to quoting Plato (which he did) to illustrate his point, he wouldn't now be in the position of, as the Muslim News put it, alienating a billion Muslims. His mistake was to cite a series of dialogues between a learned Byzantine emperor and a scholarly Persian Muslim about the truth of their respective religions, which was probably written while Constantinople was being besieged by the Turks. The emperor in question, Manuel II Paleologus, referred during the seventh dialogue to the Koran's teachings about spreading the faith by the sword. And this, said the emperor, could not come from God because violence was the opposite of reason, and God himself cannot act contrary to reason.

What interested the Pope was the emperor's insistence that God's nature meant that he cannot act irrationally. Unfortunately, Benedict quoted verbatim from the emperor's words: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." And this remark, which the Pope described as "rather marginal to the dialogue itself", was what almost every prominent Muslim has seized on.

One reason I went into academics, as opposed to seeking public office or maybe the Papal Chair, was precisely to avoid this kind of situation.  What the Pope said looks to me to be perfectly reasonable, and worth considering whether you agree with him or not.  But one has to consider the effect of one's words on people who are in no mood for reason.  This from the Assyrian International News Agency (about which I know nothing):

(AINA) -- According to the website Islam Memo, one Christian was killed in Baghdad after the Pope's speech two days ago. The speech created a wave of anger throughout the Islamic world, including Iraq. A poster has been placed in many Baghdad mosques for the previously unknown group, "Kataab Ashbal Al Islam Al Salafi," (Islamic Salafist Boy Scout Battalions). This group threatens to kill all Christians in Iraq if the Pope does not apologize in three days in front of the whole world to Mohammed.

If this story is accurate, it is curious that the MSM is not covering it.  Apparently four Churches in Gaza have been attacked.  In a world in which there are Islamic boy scouts, one has to carefully weigh one's words.   

Novak on Obama

Bob Novak today writes about the presidential bid of Senator Obama, who is being helped by long-time Daschle campaign manager Steve Hildebrand:

OBAMA FOR PRESIDENT?

Prominent Illinois Democrats are advising Sen. Barack Obama, now finishing his second year in the Senate, to consider making a run for the 2008 presidential nomination.

One such Democratic stalwart is telling the 45-year-old Obama to run only if prospective front-runner Sen. Hillary Clinton does not. But others are advising the popular freshman senator to go for it even if Clinton is a candidate.

These boosters calculate that Obama, the son of a black father and a white mother, could break the Republican presidential hold on the South by maximizing the African-American vote in states such as South Carolina, Georgia and Mississippi.