We should all be as lucky as David Hasselhoff's wife.
In other celebrity news, it is not everyday that the words "talent" and "Randy Quaid" are used in the same sentence.
« March 12, 2006 - March 18, 2006 | Main | March 26, 2006 - April 1, 2006 »
We should all be as lucky as David Hasselhoff's wife.
In other celebrity news, it is not everyday that the words "talent" and "Randy Quaid" are used in the same sentence.
Posted by Jon Schaff on Saturday, March 25, 2006 at 07:26 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Reblog
(0)
| |
The New York Sun:
A former Democratic senator and 9/11 commissioner says a recently declassified Iraqi account of a 1995 meeting between Osama bin Laden and a senior Iraqi envoy presents a "significant set of facts," and shows a more detailed collaboration between Iraq and Al Qaeda.
In an interview yesterday, the current president of the New School University, Bob Kerrey, was careful to say that new documents translated last night by ABC News did not prove Saddam Hussein played a role in any way in plotting the attacks of September 11, 2001.
Nonetheless, the former senator from Nebraska said that the new document shows that "Saddam was a significant enemy of the United States." Mr. Kerrey said he believed America's understanding of the deposed tyrant's relationship with Al Qaeda would become much deeper as more captured Iraqi documents and audiotapes are disclosed.
Posted by Jason Heppler on Saturday, March 25, 2006 at 04:10 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Reblog
(0)
| |
Charlie Sheen is somewhat infamous for mistaking one of the Guinea Pig films for a real snuff film (one in which the actress is really murdered on camera). Well, now he's an expert on terrorists incidents. From the Guardian:
Pay attention, civilians. Actor Charlie Sheen has been focusing his mind on the official explanation for 9/11. And you know what? He's not buying it. "It just didn't look like any commercial jetliner I've flown on any time in my life," the Hotshots Part Deux star told a US radio station this week, "and then when the buildings came down later on that day, I said to my brother 'call me insane', but did it sorta look like those buildings came down in a controlled demolition?"
The Guardian thinks Sheen is crazy. I think he's just stupid. So I propose the ASACS award: "almost as stupid as Charilie Sheen. The Guardian suggests some nominees.
It's hard to be sure who's in his circles, but you'd have to think there'd be a seat in the Sheen kitchen cabinet for Spike Lee, who last year told CNN he suspected the Bush administration had blown up the levees in New Orleans.
"Remember the film Chinatown?" he began promisingly, "where they flooded the LA basin ... I believe that it's not too far-fetched to think that, look, we got a bunch of poor black people here. We got to save these other neighbourhoods. What we got to do, dump this in this ward, boom. I believe it. I don't put anything past the US government."
Also taking a position round the table comes this column's beloved Tom Cruise, who famously dismisses psychiatry as a big conspiracy. Which is a little like a dehydrated man claiming water is a conspiracy. And completing the quartet is Michael Jackson, who not only claims all his recent legal bother was a vast plot against him, but was taped espousing the oldest conspiracy of all: it's the Jews! And they're targeting people in the, um, entertainment industry. "They [the Jews] suck them like leeches," he whined in a telephone call played to a courtroom last year. "I'm so tired of it. They start out the most popular person in the world, make a lot of money, big house, cars and everything and end up penniless. It's a conspiracy. The Jews do it on purpose."
Posted by K. Blanchard on Saturday, March 25, 2006 at 08:28 AM | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Reblog
(0)
| |
John Thune, John McCain, and Russ Feingold are traveling to Iraq:
Sen. Russ Feingold, who has called for a timetable for U.S. troops to withdraw from Iraq, is traveling to the country with a congressional delegation.
"I am looking forward to observing our country's mission in Iraq once again, and talking to our military commanders, Iraqi officials, and the men and women of our armed forces, who are serving our country so bravely in Iraq," Feingold, D-Wis., said in a statement.
"This is a critical opportunity to assess the mission in Iraq as I work with my colleagues to protect our national security and strengthen our global fight against terrorism."
Feingold will join Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., John Thune, R-S.D., along with several House members and governors, including Republican Gov. Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota.
This is Feingold's second trip to Iraq. He also visited last year.
Feingold's office declined to release additional details.
UPDATE: Here's an AP story on Thune entitled "Thune makes another trip to Iraq."
A delegation that includes U.S. Sen. John Thune is telling leaders in Iraq that the country needs to get its unity government in place, Thune, R-S.D., said Saturday.
"We've stressed to them that patience is wearing thin in the United States and we need so see some progress. That's been part of our mission, to deliver that message," he said in a phone interview with The Associated Press.
Because of security concerns, Thune said he couldn't discuss details of the trip, but said the group includes two other senators, three members of the House, and three governors.
"We've been visiting locations primarily to get an assessment of how things are going here and to convey to the Iraqi leaders the sense of urgency, the importance of getting this national unity government formed in a timely way," he said.
Thune, who's a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, visited Iraq in February 2005.
He said a noticeable change since then is the progress Iraq has made in providing its own military, police and border security.
"I think 15 of the 18 provinces have fewer than six incidents of violence per day, and that includes all violence," Thune said. "There's a big part of the country that is very much secure. The issues of concern are very concentrated (in area)."
The group has met with U.S. troops and commanders, and likely will meet with Iraqi troops before the trip ends, he said.
Others on the trip are Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Russell Feingold, D-Wis.; Reps. Tom Udall, D-N.M., Joe Schwarz, R-Mich., and Mark Kirk, R-Ill.; and Govs. Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota, Bob Riley of Alabama, and Jon Huntsman of Utah.
Posted by Jason Heppler on Friday, March 24, 2006 at 11:54 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Reblog
(0)
| |
When I was living in California, I used to watch Dr. Who on PBS. Tom Baker was the perfect scifi hero, galavanting about time and space from one crisis to another. No matter what planet he was on or when, he always knew exactly what to do about it.
The Sci Fi Channel has resurrected the Doctor, and the new series is marvelous. The writing has gotten better with each of the first three shows. Check it out on Friday Nights.
Posted by K. Blanchard on Friday, March 24, 2006 at 10:31 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Reblog
(0)
| |
Don't you hate it when those religious right theocrats try to impose their religion on all of us? For example:
"It is certainly not in keeping with my understanding of the Scriptures," Clinton said, "because this bill would literally criminalize the Good Samaritan and probably even Jesus himself."
Woops! It's not a member of the religious right at all. That's Hillary Clinton saying Jesus is against the House version of an immigration bill. Lest anyone be confused, I have no problem with the fact that Hillary Clinton looks to her faith as a guide on immigration policy. I also have no doubt that if it was a religious conservative using this kind of language (i.e., a vote against my policy view is a vote against Jesus) we'd be hearing howls of rage from the left-wing blogosphere and the mainstream media about "theocracy" and the end of democracy as we know it. I do wonder where in Scripture Hillary Clinton picked up that Jesus wants illegal entry into a nation to simply constitute a civil offense rather than a felony.
Posted by Jon Schaff on Friday, March 24, 2006 at 08:08 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Reblog
(0)
| |
Here is a brief article on NSU student Tyler Smith and his attempt to secure the Democratic nomination for governor. I know Tyler well and I hope enough Democrats sign his petition to at least get his name on a primary ballot. He's got some interesting things to say, especially on taxes.
Posted by Jon Schaff on Friday, March 24, 2006 at 07:59 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Reblog
(0)
| |
Here's an interesting development in the realm of tribal sovereignty:
The president of the Oglala Sioux Tribe has floated the idea of opening a Planned Parenthood clinic on tribal land and performing abortions there despite a state law banning most abortions.
“Nobody has a right to tell a woman what to do with her body,” Cecilia Fire Thunder said Tuesday. “That’s between a woman and her God. A woman could go there and get services not available elsewhere.”
Placing the clinic on tribal land would mean it would not be under the jurisdiction of the state of South Dakota, she said.
“To me, it is now a question of sovereignty,” Fire Thunder said last week. “I will personally establish a Planned Parenthood clinic on my own land which is within the boundaries of the Pine Ridge Reservation where the state of South Dakota has absolutely no jurisdiction.”
UPDATE: The Rapid City Journal has more.
Posted by Jason Heppler on Friday, March 24, 2006 at 04:04 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Reblog
(0)
| |
Union Leader: "The Senate Majority Project, a brainchild “527” of former Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle, wonders why Tobin called the White House so often. Tobin at the time worked for the Republican National Committee and the affiliated National Republican Senatorial Committee — and a hot race that year was the New Hampshire Senate contest between Republican John Sununu and Democrat Jeanne Shaheen."
Posted by Jason Heppler on Friday, March 24, 2006 at 11:22 AM | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Reblog
(0)
| |
The battle begins:
SIOUX FALLS, South Dakota (Reuters) - Abortion rights supporters planned to launch an attack on Friday on a new South Dakota abortion law designed as a direct challenge to the U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion 33 years ago.
South Dakota Gov. Mike Rounds, a Republican, signed the law, widely considered the most restrictive in the nation, about two weeks ago. The measure bans nearly all abortions, even in cases of incest and rape, and says that if a woman's life is in jeopardy, doctors must try to save the life of the fetus as well as the woman.
An abortion rights coalition, South Dakota Campaign for Healthy Families, said it would lay out its strategy to take down the law in mid-morning news conferences in Sioux Falls and Rapid City.
Abortion opponents have been counting on a legal challenge to the law and hope that the case could eventually take the intensely divisive issue all the way back to the U.S. Supreme Court.
My prediction: the law will be overturned. Will it hit the Supreme Court? Perhaps. And that's the point. I can't decide where to stand on the issue. While such laws may reduce the number of abortions, I fear the possibility of a substantial black market side effect. The only advantage to cut back on this possibility is you can leave the state and get an abortion somewhere else (which appears to be the case anyways since it's extremely hard to get an abortion in this state anyways).
However, we tend to be stuck with absolutist arguments which doesn't contribute to any sort of democratic solution to the problem. Roe v. Wade basically shrugged the issue aside and, for the three-plus decades it has been around, we've polarized the debate on this issue. Our law, if it makes it to the Supreme Court, could certainly challenge this polarization since a responsible solution must be found. A major public debate would be a healthy consequence.
Ultimately, however, I think the decision should be left to the states to decide whether or not to allow abortions. For me, life begins at conception and that's why I stand against abortion. However, if abortions are to be carried out I'd prefer it be done safely by a medical professional. Perhaps the best solution is to simply make it hard (or harder) to get an abortion without actually outlawing it.
More thoughts may come later as I ponder this. What do you think?
UPDATE: I'm not one to usually do this, but dare I recommend a European model? This seems like a fair compromise:
The [German] legislature implemented a system of mandatory counseling which has as one of its goals to present the case that the developing unborn child is an independent human life. However, no legal sanction is applied in the first 3 months of pregnancy if the counseling is completed and the abortion is performed.... Some abortions are therefore de facto legal. A significant number still occur, but the incidence per capita is about one-fifth that of the United States.
HT to Instapundit.
Posted by Jason Heppler on Friday, March 24, 2006 at 09:08 AM | Permalink | TrackBack (1)
Reblog
(0)
| |
From our neighbors to our east:
St. Paul City Office Boots Easter Bunny
The Associated Press
Thursday, March 23, 2006; 9:31 AMST. PAUL, Minn. -- The Easter Bunny has been sent packing at St. Paul City Hall.
A toy rabbit, pastel-colored eggs and a sign with the words "Happy Easter" were removed from the lobby of the City Council offices, because of concerns they might offend non-Christians.
A council secretary had put up the decorations. They were not bought with city money.
St. Paul's human rights director, Tyrone Terrill, asked that the decorations be removed, saying they could be offensive to non-Christians.
But City Council member Dave Thune says removing the decorations went too far, and he wonders why they can't celebrate spring with "bunnies and fake grass."
UPDATE: Powerline has more.
Posted by Jason Heppler on Friday, March 24, 2006 at 07:43 AM | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Reblog
(0)
| |
Instapundit notes Yale is suffering a "PR quagmire":
A statement from Yale University, defending its decision to admit former Taliban spokesman Ramatullah Hashemi, explained that he had "escaped the wreckage of Afghanistan." To anyone who is aware of the Taliban's barbaric treatment of the Afghan people, such words are offensive--as if Mr. Hashemi were not himself part of the wrecking crew. It is even more disturbing to learn that, while Mr. Hashemi sailed through Yale's admissions process, the school turned down the opportunity to enroll women who really did escape the wreckage of Afghanistan.
In 2002, Yale received a letter from Paula Nirschel, the founder of the Initiative to Educate Afghan Women. The purpose of the organization, begun in that year, was to match young women in post-Taliban Afghanistan to U.S. colleges, where they could pursue a degree. Ms. Nirschel asked Yale if it wanted to award a spot in its next entering class to an Afghan woman. Yale declined.
Posted by Jason Heppler on Friday, March 24, 2006 at 07:32 AM | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Reblog
(0)
| |
Atlantic Review: "Why is Abu Ghraib a cover story again [on Der Spiegel], but not Darfur? . . . Why is the German media reporting again about the horrible Abu Ghraib pictures taken by dishonorable US soldiers, but not about the even more horrible Darfur pictures taken by an honorable former U.S. Marine?"
Posted by Jason Heppler on Friday, March 24, 2006 at 07:24 AM | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Reblog
(0)
| |
The strategy adopted by Saddam Hussein for his trial on crimes against humanity that stem from his decades-long tyranny over Iraq has always been clear -- he planned on diverting attention from the crimes and the evidence and focus the world on his political rants from the dock. He's playing out the Goering strategy, unmindful of Goering's failure with it. Unfortunately for us, the media has played into Saddam's strategy, according to a study performed by the Media Research Center. After reviewing the coverage provided by the three American broadcast networks, MRC calculated that less than twenty percent of the news coverage reported on evidence, testimony, and the case background ... when they could be bothered to cover the trial at all.
The Goering comparison is good, I had never thought to do so. I had normally compared the trial to the "coutroom as theater" tactics used by the activists of the 1960s and 1970s (ie, the Chicago 7, the American Indian Movement).
Posted by Jason Heppler on Friday, March 24, 2006 at 07:22 AM | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Reblog
(0)
| |
Having struck a blow against the Northern Valley Beacon (I have to say, that's a cool blog name), I now stand to praise them for mentioning the campaign of Tyler Smith. Tyler is a candidate for Governor of South Dakota. I think he has a snowball's chance in Florida, but I admire him for throwing his hat in the ring. I suggested this campaign slogan:
Tyler Smith!
Because accidents do happen.
I would note that Tyler is a student of mine and of Professor Schaff. Whatever his chances in the race, I would recommend his testimony if you want to know what our classrooms are like.
Posted by K. Blanchard on Friday, March 24, 2006 at 02:25 AM | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Reblog
(0)
| |
Long time readers of this blog will well remember the fisticuffs between us and the Northern Valley Beacon. The quarrel began when we noticed that the Beacon had said "Republicans need a Fuhrer." As I recall, I responded by asking whether the Beacon was saying that we were Nazis for disagreeing with them, and they responded by vehemently denying the charge. Now I find this on the Beacon:
You will notice the Republican logo replacing the swastika on the armband. I infer from this one of two things: either they aren't honest about what they think, or they don't know what they think. Because they obviously do think we are Nazis.
I have never imagined that my leftist counterparts at the Beacon or CCK or anywhere else are really Stalinists or totalitarians of any stripe. That is one of the differences between ourselves and the Beacon.
Posted by K. Blanchard on Friday, March 24, 2006 at 02:13 AM | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Reblog
(0)
| |
Our liberal colleagues over at CCK were commenting on this story yesturday. However, Michelle Malkin is noting a very key piece of information that was not reported.
Posted by Jason Heppler on Thursday, March 23, 2006 at 10:27 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Reblog
(0)
| |
Michael Totten is noting some more evidence of Saddam terror links.
UPDATE: Powerline has more here and here.
UPDATE II: There's more in this ABC News report, describing how Osama bin Laden sought an "operational" relationship with Hussein for attacks on U.S. troops.
Posted by Jason Heppler on Thursday, March 23, 2006 at 08:57 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Reblog
(0)
| |
From the 23 March edition of The Hotline:
SOUTH DAKOTA: From Zero To Three, Just Like That?
"After months of being unable to filed a candidate," the SD Dems have found 3 possible candidates: Minnehaha Co. Dem Chair/ex-state Rep. Jack Billion (D), business consultant Dennis Wiese (D) and National Guard member Tyler Smith (D). Although Gov. Mike Rounds (R) has not yet filed, SD GOP exec. dir. Max Wetz said he expects Rounds to do so. Wetz: "He wanted to wait until after the legislative session before he made a formal announcement" (Hayworth, Sioux City Journal, 3/23). Smith confirmed that he will actively seek the Dem nomination. He intends to formally announce his candidacy after his petitions are filed (release, 3/22).
Posted by Jason Heppler on Thursday, March 23, 2006 at 07:45 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Reblog
(0)
| |
Mt. Blogmore is discussing what it means to be "Kranzed" after complaints from former/current Daschle/Hildebrand staffer Chad Schuldt:
By Bill Harlan
The God’s of Mount Blogmore are pathetic cowards, according to the liberal blog Clean Cut Kid. Chad Shuldt, a former Tom Daschle staffer who posts on Clean Cut Kid, claims right-wing “bullies” have made us so afraid of being “Kranzed”* we uncritically post conservative Steve Sibson’s rants – most recently his assertions about the financing of the liberal outfit Focus South Dakota.
For those who don’t know it, here’s the dictionary version of the verb “to kranz”:
*kranz, v.t. ; kranzed, p.t.; kranzing, pr. part. [from Sioux Falls Argus-Leader reporter and columnist Dave Kranz, who has been criticized by conservatives for alleged bias relating to his association/friendship with Tom Daschle and other known Democrats and for his political activities in the 1960s.] to put pressure on a reporter by alleging a liberal bias. See also “reverse-kranz,” (to pressure reporters by alleging conservative bias) and “fakey-kranz,” (to pressure reporters by alleging bias towards “balance.”)
If Chad had checked with us, however, he’d know that Denise did check the links offered by “Sibby.” The numbers were correct.
If Chad had called me he’d also know that I’d like nothing better than to be “kranzed,” as long as someone buys me dinner first. In fact, I’m ripe for a good old-fashioned kranzing. Jody Severson of Focus South Dakota is a long-time friend of mine, since before my reporting days. So is Bill Fleming, a frequent contributor to Mount Blogmore, and Bill has worked with Jody on political campaigns, including at least one Daschle campaign. Even worse, Daschle once saved my life.* And yet, pathetic coward that I am, I have posted Sibby’s comments hammering Jody, Bill and Tom. Thus I am vulnerable to kranzing from all directions. (The technical term is “omnikranzable.”)
One of Chad’s criticisms is that Mount Blogmore didn’t point out that conservative Republicans also get money from out-of-state contributors, work as paid political consultants and offer comments to online discussions. I’d guess most Blogmorites already have figured that out.
Particularly interesting to me was Chad’s assertion that Mount Blogmore has been fakey-kranzed. (See the definition above.) Chad writes: “Now, to be sure, ‘balance’ at a media organization might — I say might — be a worthy goal. ” You think?
* A long story I often exaggerate for dramatic effect.
Posted by Jason Heppler on Thursday, March 23, 2006 at 01:54 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Reblog
(0)
| |
Let's talk about some actual violations of human rights:
Three years after the harshest crackdown on dissent in decades, human-rights conditions in Cuba have deteriorated as authorities intensify a campaign to disrupt and intimidate the island's small opposition movement, according to dissidents, diplomats and political analysts.
...The attacks intensified after a speech by Castro last July in which he denounced opposition activists as U.S. government lackeys and praised supporters who two weeks earlier disrupted a dissident protest in Havana.
"The people, angrier than before over such shameless acts of treason, intervened with patriotic fervor and didn't allow a single mercenary to move," Castro said. "This is what will happen however many times as necessary when traitors and mercenaries go a millimeter beyond the point that our revolutionary people ... are prepared to permit."
But Sanchez and other activists say Cuban state security agents direct the pro-government attacks, which often occur in front of the homes or meeting places of dissidents, and participants include police dressed in civilian clothes.
Sanchez said the aim of the attacks is to "increase the political repression" without significantly increasing the number of political prisoners. "Why don't they want to increase the number of political prisoners?" he asked. "Because outside, in other countries, there has been a lot of criticism."
Surprisingly, there's little press coverage on this. If there's criticism to be made of "violations" at Guantanamo, why not this too? There seems to be a romantic fascination with Cuba's leaders for some reason. One doesn't have to look hard to note the popularity of Che Guevara; his likeness adornes mugs, hoodies, lighters, key chains, wallets, baseball caps, toques, bandannas, tank tops, club shirts, couture bags, denim jeans, herbal tea, and, of course, T-shirts with the photograph taken by Alberto Korda of the socialist in his beret during the early years of the revolution (dubbed "the most famous photograph in the world and a symbol of the 20th century" [1]). Yet many would reject Guevara if they knew his actual past.
Guevara was entranced with other people's deaths: "hatred as an element of struggle; unbending hatred for the enemy, which pushes a human being beyond his natural limitations, making him into an effective, violent, selective, and cold-blooded killing machine." This hatred and ideological violence was a corner stone for Guevara following the revolution. While merciless during the revolution, the "cold-blooded killing machine" would show the full extent of his rigor after the collapse of the Batista regime when Castro put Guevara in charge of La Cabaña prison. In what was eerily reminiscint of Lavrenty Beria, Guevara would oversee the darkest days of the revolution. It is unknown how many people were killed at La Cabaña. Some figures range from 200, to 400, to over 500. At Guevara's capture, he was confronted by a CIA agent about "the two thousand or so" executions he had been a part of during his lifetime.[2]
In the closing decades of the nineteenth century, Argentina had the second-highest growth rate in the world. By the 1890s, the real income of Argentine workers was more than that of Swiss, German, and French workers. By 1928, that country was ranked twelfth of nations with the highest per-capita GDP. This achievement would be ruined by later generations, but all took place in part because of Juan Bautista Alberdi. Like Guevara, he liked to travel, opposed a tyrant, got the chance to influence a revolutionary leader in power (Justo José de Urquiza), and represented the new government on world tours and died abroad. However, Alberdi never killed a fly. His book became the foundation of the Constitution of 1853 that limited government, opened trade, encouraged immigration, and secured property rights. He didn't involve himself in the affairs of other nations and opposed Argentina's war against Paraguay. His likeness doesn't adorn Mike Tyson's abdomen. [3]
Che Guevara, who did so much (or so little?) to destroy capitalism is now a capitalist brand (see Joseph Heath and Andrew Potter's Nation of Rebels). It often seems that followers of a cult tend to not know the historical truth of the one they follow. Many of the post-communist admirers of Guevara don't know the past but cling to a myth, except some young Argentines who have come up with the best expression: "Tengo una remera del Che y no sé por qué," or "I have a Che T-shirt and I don't know why."
What does all this talk of Che have to do with the story noted above? The point is that people overlook things, sometimes for a political reason. If one is going to ridicule America for supposed abuses then one must also denounce Castro for violations that are much more serious. The political implications of not doing so would be disasterous. Christina Aguilera may be bad to listen to, but not a single person has died at the hands of our soldiers at Guantanamo Bay. The same cannot be said of the Castro regime.
[1] Maryland Institute of Art, referenced at BBC News,"Che Guevara photographer dies", 26 May 2001.
[2] Alvaro Vargas Llosa, "The Killing Machine," in The New Republic, July 11 & 18 2005, pp. 25-30.
[3] Alvaro Vargas Llosa, "The Killing Machine," in The New Republic, July 11 & 18 2005, pp. 25-30.
Posted by Jason Heppler on Thursday, March 23, 2006 at 10:56 AM | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Reblog
(0)
| |
ABC News' "The Note" examines the 2008 presidential candidates' abilities in several categories, including former Senator Tom Daschle. Go check it out.
Posted by Jason Heppler on Thursday, March 23, 2006 at 10:48 AM | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Reblog
(0)
| |
Another South Dakota lawsuit:
A student organization is suing the United States Education Department over a law that denies federal financial aid to 35,000 students a year because they were convicted of drug offenses while receiving the aid.
The class-action suit, which the American Civil Liberties Union is to file on Wednesday in federal court in South Dakota on behalf of an organization called Students for Sensible Drug Policy, names the secretary of education, Margaret Spellings, as a defendant.
The named plaintiffs are three students who lost financial aid after misdemeanor drug convictions. They represent 200,000 students with drug records who also lost financial help since the first version of the law was passed in 1998.
Valerie Smith, a spokeswoman for the Department of Education, said she could not comment on pending litigation.
The suit contends that the law is unconstitutional because it amounts to double jeopardy, further penalizing students who were already punished by the courts.
The suit also argues that the law violates the students' right to due process, and disproportionately hurts African-Americans, who are more frequently convicted of drug offenses than whites.
Kraig Selken, a plaintiff and a senior at Northern State University in Aberdeen, S.D., was convicted of misdemeanor drug possession last year, and has lost state aid as a consequence of losing federal aid. The assistance covered nearly his entire tuition bill of $3,000 a year.
Posted by Jason Heppler on Wednesday, March 22, 2006 at 09:58 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Reblog
(0)
| |
I happened to be speaking to a student from Germany today and I asked him about the threat of violence at the World Cup in Germany this coming summer. In short, he said that the German government has excellent police and intelligent service so he thought the chance of violence was small.
Posted by Jon Schaff on Wednesday, March 22, 2006 at 04:11 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (1)
Reblog
(0)
| |
I'd love to attend this debate:
On April 6-7, 2006, Students for Academic Freedom will host its First National Academic Freedom Conference featuring a debate between Students for Academic Freedom Chairman David Horowitz and University of Colorado-Boulder Professor Ward Churchill. The topic for debate will be: “Can Politics Be Taken Out Of The Classroom, and Should It Be?”
The debate will be held Thursday evening on the campus of George Washington University in Washington, DC. Young America’s Foundation and the Center for the Study of Popular Culture are the co-hosts of the debate.
Posted by Jason Heppler on Wednesday, March 22, 2006 at 09:12 AM | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Reblog
(0)
| |
The blogfather Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit (and author of the new book An Army of Davids) has an article in TCS Daily entitled "Newspapers in Trouble?"
Unlike, I suppose, a few bloggers I'm not cheering the demise of newspapers. I do think that the newspaper industry has dug its own grave through bias, disrespect for its audience, and simpleminded costcutting efforts that have seriously damaged its core competency (and killer app) -- actual gathering and reporting of truthful, accurate, hard news. But I don't think it's too late for imaginative newspapers to save themselves.
Meanwhile, it appears that the New York Times has once again dropped the ball.
Posted by Jason Heppler on Wednesday, March 22, 2006 at 08:02 AM | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Reblog
(0)
| |
. . . I've heard international law fans urge that U.S. constitutional decisionmaking should be informed not just by express statements in treaties that the U.S. has signed and ratified, but also by international practice outside treaties, by statements in treaties that the U.S. hasn't signed or hasn't ratified, and by actions of international bodies established pursuant to treaties that the U.S. has ratified. What U.N. commissions say and do may thus ultimately affect not just international politics, but the constitutional rights of Danes, Americans, and anyone else who has a broader view of free speech than the U.N. seems to endorse. Not a pretty prospect, it seems to me.
Posted by Jason Heppler on Wednesday, March 22, 2006 at 07:57 AM | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Reblog
(0)
| |
I generally have libertarian sentiments when it comes to economics, so I have mostly been in favor of open immigration. We are, it is frequently observed, a nation of immigrants. My name is French. I think it means "whitey." My mother's maiden name was Daugherty, a good Irish Catholic line. We even have a family crest that looks disturbingly like a deer-crossing sign. On one side of the family there are Shooks, and on the other side Martins, both German names. How can I be opposed to immigration?
Robert Samuelson has led me to rethink my position, though I dare say I am not ready to switch sides yet. But he is one of my favorite economists because his arguments are usually disturbing, yet always well-reasoned and hard to get around. In his Real Clear Politics piece, Samuelson takes issue with the "guest worker" proposal.
Guest workers would mainly legalize today's vast inflows of illegal immigrants, with the same consequence: we'd be importing poverty. This isn't because these immigrants aren't hardworking; many are. Nor is it because they don't assimilate; many do. But they generally don't go home, assimilation is slow and the ranks of the poor are constantly replenished. Since 1980, the number of Hispanics with incomes below the government's poverty line (about $19,300 in 2004 for a family of four) has risen 162 percent. Over the same period, the number of non-Hispanic whites in poverty rose 3 percent and the number of blacks, 9.5 percent.
What we have now -- and would with guest workers -- is a conscious policy of creating poverty in the United States while relieving it in Mexico. By and large, this is a bad bargain for the United States. It puts stresses on local schools, hospitals and housing; it feeds social tensions (witness the Minutemen).
I have to say that I find that evidence hard to ignore. One caveat is that I am pretty sure that Mexican immigrants escape from poverty gradually, and if the original generation does no, their children probably do. But Samuelson's point is that we are relentlessly replacing those who make it out with new poor. That's not a recipe for victory over poverty.
What would be the result of really enforcing immigration laws? Samuelson has a story:
Economist Philip Martin of the University of California likes to tell a story about the state's tomato industry. In the early 1960s, growers relied on seasonal Mexican laborers, brought in under the government's ``bracero'' program. The Mexicans picked the tomatoes that were then processed into ketchup and other products. In 1964, Congress killed the program despite growers' warnings that its abolition would doom their industry. What happened? Well, plant scientists developed oblong tomatoes that could be harvested by machine. Since then, California's tomato output has risen five times.
Now that looks like success to me. Some of my best friends are libertarians, but they are reflexively hostile to any legal restraints on trade. It looks to me, though, as if some restraints are merely market conditions to which American enterprise is more than capable of adapting.
In the long run, oblong tomatoes are the solution to all our economic woes. Technological increases in productivity make it possible to raise the incomes of all workers. And that is surely what would occur if we really enforced our immigration laws.
Hardly anyone thinks that most existing illegal immigrants will leave. But what would happen if, magically, new illegal immigration stopped and wasn't replaced by guest workers? Well, some employers would raise wages to attract U.S. workers. Facing greater labor costs, some industries would -- like the tomato growers in the 1960s -- find ways to minimize those costs. As to the rest, what's wrong with higher wages for the poorest workers? From 1994 to 2004, the wages of high-school dropouts rose only 2.3 percent (after inflation) compared to 11.9 percent for college graduates.
Of course, real immigration enforcement faces two daunting obstacles: Democrats and Republicans. The former side with Mexican-American activist groups who, naturally, want to continue the swelling of their constituency. Republicans side with businesses that would rather rely on cheap labor than learn how to grow oblong tomatoes.
Posted by K. Blanchard on Wednesday, March 22, 2006 at 12:43 AM | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Reblog
(0)
| |
The closest I ever came to being a soccer fan was when my son played on an Aberdeen team called the Ravens. He was in the third grade or so and was just learning the game. He scored at least one goal, causing me to throw my hat into the air. But the Ravens had three strong players and were phenomenal. They lost only their first and last games, and that put them one game short of going onto state championships. I will remember that season as long as I remember anything.
Aberdeen soccer was blissfully free of Nazi gangs. Professor Schaff's posts below on the very disturbing prospect of racist European Soccer fans (which is not quite redundant) killing Muslims. Probably the police will shut this down, but it is a sign of how bad things are in Europe.
Posted by K. Blanchard on Tuesday, March 21, 2006 at 11:57 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Reblog
(0)
| |
Eric Rodawig, writing for Georgetown University's The Hoya, tackles South Dakota's ban of abortion. Excerpt:
Everyone celebrating or bemoaning the ban first needs to realize that HB1215 will have little practical effect on South Dakota.
There is only one abortion clinic in the state, and it is only open once a week. A rotating set of Minnesotan doctors fly in to service the clinic, since no doctor in the state will perform abortions due to personal beliefs and/or fear of stigma. Over a million abortions are performed in America each year, but only about 800 of them happen in South Dakota.
The abortion ban will, however, have three more abstract effects. Obviously, it is a shot across the bow of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion nationwide. Also, regardless of the outcome of any legal challenges, the new law will have a tremendous effect on framing future debate about abortion. Finally, it will clearly illustrate that there are no longer two sides to the abortion debate — there are three.
Read the whole thing.
Posted by Jason Heppler on Tuesday, March 21, 2006 at 11:02 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Reblog
(0)
| |
Some time ago Prof. Blanchard noted the use of soccer matches in Europe as recruiting sites for ultra-right political groups. The nastiness may reach its peak this summer at the World Cup in Germany.
"We will all be in Germany and there will be Turks, Algerians and Tunisians. The Turks, we can't stand them. In our country (Italy) there are not many, but in Germany, there are many of those guys there. They are Islamic terrorists.
"We will attack them. They are all enemies that need to be eliminated, just like the police. If we make the Roman greeting (the fascist salute) they put us in prison. We will be tens of thousands. Nothing but the English are feared."
We do live in interesting times.
Posted by Jon Schaff on Tuesday, March 21, 2006 at 10:11 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Reblog
(0)
| |
Dennis Wiese, a former president of the South Dakota Farmers Union, said Tuesday that he plans to seek the Democratic nomination for governor.
Wiese, of Flandreau, said he began circulating petitions a week ago and will soon formally announce his candidacy.
"We have sufficient petitions in hand and we have finished the details for our announcement tour," Wiese said in a news release. He said he plans to start the tour in Flandreau, his hometown.
Other Democratic candidates circulating petitions for the nomination are Jack Billion, a former state lawmaker from Sioux Falls, and Tyler Smith of Aberdeen.
Former legislator Ron Volesky of Huron earlier planned to run as a Democrat but pulled out of the race because of a lack of funding.
No Republicans have announced plans to challenge incumbent Gov. Mike Rounds.
Posted by Jason Heppler on Tuesday, March 21, 2006 at 09:02 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Reblog
(0)
| |
Next Tuesday USD Law Student Joel Arends will be speaking on the NSU campus about his experience in Iraq. The public is invited. There is no charge, but if you want to contribute to the Jon Schaff "I Need To Fix My Windshield" Fund, I do accept cash. Here is the press release:
Iraq war vet and bronze star recipient to speak at NSU
Aberdeen, sd, March 28, 2006: Joel Arends, a former Army Infantry Platoon Leader and recipient of the Bronze Star, presents a first hand boots-on-the-ground account of the fight to defend freedom and keeping the peace in Iraq through a speech entitled: Where the River Bends: How the Next Greatest Generation is Defending Liberty and Freedom on the campus of the Northern State University Tuesday, March 28 at 7:00 p.m. in Thunder’s Lair in the Student Center.
Arends graduated from the University of South Dakota and went on to become an Infantry officer and paratrooper. While attending law school at the University of South Dakota, Joel was called to active duty in support of the Global War on Terror. From late 2003 through early 2005, as an Infantry Platoon Leader, he fought in Iraq with the 1st Calvary Division. Joel was awarded several decorations for bravery, including the Bronze Star, which is the military’s 4th highest award for heroism and valorous action in combat, and the Combat Infantryman Badge. After serving two tours on active duty in the Global War on Terror, including 13 months in Iraq, he rejoined the United States Army Reserve and is currently attending the USD School of Law.
Posted by Jon Schaff on Tuesday, March 21, 2006 at 07:58 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (1)
Reblog
(0)
| |
Note this great post over at Instapundit.
Posted by Jason Heppler on Tuesday, March 21, 2006 at 04:48 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Reblog
(0)
| |
Intellectual diversity forum at USD:
PSL Intellectual Diversity Forum
Thursday, March 23, 4:00 p.m. in Farber HallPresenters are:
Dr. Robert Hilderbrand (History)
Dr. Doug Peterson (Psychology/Honors)
Dr. Istvan Gombocz (German)
Prof. Jamie Rounds (Political Science)
Andrea Peterson (Student)
Kevin Mellem (Student)
Jake Mortenson (Student)
Terah Yaroch (Student)The presenters will take part in a panel discussion over the recently defeated SD House Bill 1222 that would have required SD public universities to report annually on intellectual diversity. The panelists will discuss intellectual diversity here at USD and what implications the bill would have had on our campus had it passed. They will also discuss their views on intellectual diversity and whether or not they feel we accurately represent the demographics of the state here on campus. Hope to see you all there!
Posted by Jason Heppler on Tuesday, March 21, 2006 at 03:21 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Reblog
(0)
| |
Sibby reports:
From Mount Blogmore via Kevin Woster:
Jim Robinson did something unusual in the world of politics this weekend: He admitted he was wrong.
Sibby should be happy about this. Our regular conservative researcher-commentator here on the mountain said Robinson lied when he told the Associated Press last week that his organization, Focus: South Dakota, had not taken donations from Planned Parenthood or the National Abortion Rights Action League.
Actually, during the 2004 campaign, Focus got $5,000 from NARAL and $25,000 from Planned Parenthood.
Focus South Dakota did get lots of money from Planned Parenthood and NARAL and they helped fund the Focus South Dakota poll. And they receive lots of outside money, as you can see here.
Posted by Jason Heppler on Tuesday, March 21, 2006 at 07:27 AM | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Reblog
(0)
| |
The first one I have ever seen, during the World Baseball Classic. As the narrator describes the many health risks associated with steriod use, a basketball, football, baseball, and some other ball, all leak out air and shrivel up. The narrator ends by alluding to "one final thing that steroids do to men." I think most of our readers are swuft enough to get this one (as we would say down South), but if you are still foggy from sleep: steriods shrivel up your balls. A punchline that you couldn't deliver in plain language is made conspicuous by its absence.
Posted by K. Blanchard on Monday, March 20, 2006 at 11:34 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Reblog
(0)
| |
More economic good news:
U.S. college graduates are facing the best job market since 2001, with business, computer, engineering, education and health care grads in highest demand, a report by an employment consulting firm showed on Monday.
"We are approaching full employment and some employers are already dreaming up perks to attract the best talent," said John Challenger, chief executive of Challenger, Gray & Christmas.
In its annual outlook of entry-level jobs, Challenger, Gray & Christmas said strong job growth and falling unemployment makes this spring the hottest job market for America's 1.4 million college graduates since the dot-com collapse in 2001.
Posted by Jon Schaff on Monday, March 20, 2006 at 05:53 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Reblog
(0)
| |
From today's Roll Call, U.S. Senators denounce Daschle's "permanent campaign":
GOPers Chide Daschle, March 20, 2006, Roll Call
A pair of senior Senate Republicans lashed out at former Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) because of his association with a liberal 527 group that is trying to mount a permanent campaign against GOP Senators not currently facing re-election.
Two GOP chairmen, Sens. Ted Stevens (Alaska) and Saxby Chambliss (Ga.), expressed their displeasure with Daschle because he was helping raise money for the Senate Majority Project, a 527 founded by Democratic operatives who have put both Stevens and Chambliss, as well as most of the Republican Conference, in its crosshairs in recent months.
Stevens, who first voiced his outrage to his GOP colleagues at their weekly luncheon, said in an interview that he considered sending a letter to Daschle to share his discontent — but ultimately opted against following through on the effort.
“I did draft one and I tore it up. I didn’t want to sink to that level,” the chairman of the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee said.
...
Its Web site contains many accusations of corruption against GOP Senators, including a shot at Bo Chambliss, the Georgian’s son. Bo Chambliss lobbies for the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, an entity with issues before the Senate Agriculture Committee, which is chaired by Sen. Chambliss.
Sen. Chambliss blasted Daschle for having “had the gall” to criticize him because his son is a lobbyist, when Daschle’s wife, Linda, is a lobbyist as well.
“It was a pretty cheap shot,” Chambliss said. “But, that’s what you expect from Daschle.”
But Gehrke noted that he was responsible for the attacks on Chambliss and other Senators, not Daschle and indicated that his group would continue this line of attack in the future.
“When you shine a light on the Republican Senate and the lobbyists that seem to run it, you’re bound to strike a nerve,” he said. “But their response was bizarre, irrational and wrong. Sometimes the truth hurts, so maybe they should get used to it.”
Daschle, who has tried to maintain an unusually high profile for a recently departed Congressional leader, is openly considering running for president in 2008 and his top political operatives maintain a strong sense of loyalty to their former boss.
Of the many races Senate Democrats have lost in the past two election cycles, none were as difficult for the party to stomach as Daschle’s in 2004 and former Sen. Max Cleland’s (D-Ga.) 2002 defeat at the hands of Chambliss.
In a fundraising pitch sent to 100 to 200 high-dollar donors last month, Jordan cited the defeats of Daschle and Cleland as examples of losses that were driven in part by Republicans’ decision to attack the two “with a long-term, below-the-radar negative campaign.”
“And they’re still at it today with ugly attacks on Sens. Harry Reid (Nev.), Dick Durbin (Ill.) and Hillary [Rodham] Clinton (N.Y.),” Jordan wrote. “We need to think beyond the next election and we need to go on the offensive now.”
Daschle wrote what amounts to a cover letter for Jordan’s pitch, introducing him to the party’s biggest donors, who can give unlimited amounts to the group. While he never openly attacks any of his former colleagues, Daschle did adopt the permanent offensive strategy that Jordan called for.
The Senate Majority Project was formed, Daschle wrote, “because it was time to stop playing defense all the time and start holding every Republican accountable for what they do in Washington.”
Daschle remains active in Washington, D.C., in a number of ways, including maintaining an office at the law firm Alston and Bird while also working on policy issues at the Center for American Progress, the liberal leaning think tank founded by former Clinton White House Chief of Staff John Podesta.
Steve Hildebrand, the former campaign manager for Daschle, echoed the idea that complaints from GOP Senators regarding the former Leader’s role with Senate Majority Project are “misplaced” because he is not in charge of the organization. Regardless, Hildebrand said every Senator should be prepared to defend his or her record.
“Anyone who serves in public office has a public record that is open for discussion. What are they afraid of?” asked Hildebrand, who remains Daschle’s top political adviser.
Posted by Jason Heppler on Monday, March 20, 2006 at 07:56 AM | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Reblog
(0)
| |
The National Organization for Women is setting its sights on South Dakota, according to this press release:
Women's Rights Organizations Take On South Dakota Abortion Ban
by NOW Saturday, Mar. 18, 2006 at 12:18 AM
The March 21 press conference will include a major announcement by women's organizations in response to the ban, which is expected to be used by anti-choice activists to force the U.S. Supreme Court to reconsider Roe v Wade.
For Immediate Release
Contact: Lisa Bennett, 202-628-8669, ext. 123; cell 202-641-1906
Women's Rights Organizations Take On South Dakota Abortion Ban
March 17, 2006
On March 6, South Dakota Governor Mike Rounds signed into law a statewide ban on abortion. The ban, which will go into effect in July, provides for exceptions only to save the life of a pregnant woman.
The March 21 press conference will include a major announcement by women's organizations in response to the ban, which is expected to be used by anti-choice activists to force the U.S. Supreme Court to reconsider Roe v Wade.
The National Organization for Women, the Feminist Majority, the Black Women's Health Imperative, the National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum, the National Congress of Black Women, the National Women's Health Organization, the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health, and the National Council of Women's Organizations will respond to the ban on behalf of a large coalition of women's rights groups and millions of women across the country.
Who: Kim Gandy, President, National Organization for Women
Eleanor Smeal, President, Feminist Majority
E. Faye Williams, President, National Congress of Black Women
Terry O'Neill, Executive Director, National Council of Women's Organizations and representatives of other participating groups
What: Women's rights press conference in response to South Dakota abortion ban
When: Tuesday, March 21, 2006 at 10:00 a.m.
Where: National Press Club, 529 14th Street NW, Washington, D.C.
First Amendment Room
Posted by Jason Heppler on Monday, March 20, 2006 at 07:50 AM | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Reblog
(0)
| |
Can I be Sean Cassidy?
Posted by Jon Schaff on Monday, March 20, 2006 at 07:48 AM | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Reblog
(0)
| |
South Dakota's history of populism, which generated the initiative and referendum process, could cause a hot election this fall:
South Dakota voters should plan to spend extra time at the polls in November if the ballot is as huge as elections officials believe it will be.
In addition to contests for statewide and legislative offices, the state’s 38 circuit judges, who are elected for eight-year terms, will be on the ballot.
But it’s a slew of controversial proposed constitutional amendments, a yet-unknown number of initiated measures and the possibility of a referendum on controversial abortion-ban legislation that could lead to a larger-than-usual voter turnout for an off-year, non-presidential election.
“South Dakota has a long tradition of popular initiative and referendum,” Secretary of State Chris Nelson said. In 1898 — less than a decade after statehood — South Dakota became the first state to provide for a way for voters to enact and reject legislation.
In 1972, the state constitution was amended to allow constitutional changes by initiative, and in 1988, the voters changed the state constitution so that initiatives did not have to be approved by the Legislature before getting on the ballot.
Posted by Jason Heppler on Monday, March 20, 2006 at 07:34 AM | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Reblog
(0)
| |
RCJ:
William Farber, 95, longtime University of South Dakota political-science professor, has finished his autobiography.
The book is titled "Footprints on the Prairie: The Life and Times of W.O. Farber."
The book starts when Farber first arrived at USD in 1935. Among the accomplishments mentioned in the book, is his work to help establish South Dakota's Legislative Research Council.
Posted by Jason Heppler on Monday, March 20, 2006 at 07:33 AM | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Reblog
(0)
| |
South Dakota could execute its first person in 60 years:
A handwritten note, penned by a 24-year-old death-row inmate has set South Dakota on course for its first execution in nearly 60 years.
Elijah Page, on death row for killing a friend six years ago in the Black Hills, wrote the note saying he wants to drop the rest of his appeals and let the state kill him.
Last month, a judge in Deadwood obliged Page's request, setting an Aug. 28 execution date. While his lawyer and others scramble to keep the appeals active in spite of Page's note, corrections officials, death penalty opponents and others are mobilizing for the historic event.
Posted by Jason Heppler on Monday, March 20, 2006 at 07:29 AM | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Reblog
(0)
| |
Professor Schaff below notes Todd Epp's very good commentary on the advantages of regional blogs over the traditional political journalist like Dave Kranz. I think it deserves more attention, in fact, it is worth stealing.
Kranz now gets scooped on a regular basis by me (S.D. Watch). By Chad Schuldt at Clean Cut Kid. By PP at S.D. War College. By others. Love or hate our politics, we're right just about all the time (ok, a good chunk of the time). Our batting averages are pretty darn good.
In fact, I'd argue we are right more often than Dave is. And here's why: we actually work in or are heavily involved in politics. Our sources are are friends or the friends of friends. We can usually trust our sources because we'll give them hell the next time we see them if they mislead us. And other people contact us. Our readers contact us. They even break news in our comment sections. And we can get the information out almost immediately. You know our biases and agendas up front, so you can take it all with a grain of salt.
But you also know the quality of our information. Tell me that any newspaper column has done a better job of keeping track of candidates for S.D. office and ballot issues than SDWC? You can't.
And if I want thoughtful and intelligent political analysis? I don't have to wait for Kranz's column. I can get it on a daily basis (and frankly, get a more intellectual and knowledgeable discussion) from David Newquist (former journalism professor) at The Northern Valley Beacon, Tim Gebhart (attorney) at A Progressive on the Prairie, the NSU Hardy Boy and Company (political science professors) at S.D. Politics, Joel Rosenthal (former GOP chairman) at S.D. Straight Talk, (Democrat operative) S.D. Progressive, and hell, even (right to bear arms expert) Sibby sometimes. That's quite a diverse collection of experience and brain power. No journalist can compete with that array of expertise.
I think Todd has put his finger right on the spot. Its not that any one of our blogs is better than a Kranz column. Like Todd, I like Dave Kranz. After all, he has interviewed me, which in my opinion shows his good judgment. He surely has resources that this blog cannot match. But collectively the blogosphere wields a range of resources and expertise that no political journalist can match.
As a footnote, I rather like the comparison of Professor Schaff and myself to the Hardy Boys. Its not quite Buffy the Vampire Slayer, but hey, we did get a TV show.
Posted by K. Blanchard on Monday, March 20, 2006 at 01:09 AM | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Reblog
(0)
| |
Political scientists have known for a long time that the relative size and behavior of demographic subgroups, like African Americans or evangelical Christians, has a lot more to do with who wins elections than candidates and campaign strategies. Peter Brown of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute has some interesting things to say in Real Clear Politics about the Democrats current demographic strategy.
Republicans have won seven of the past 10 presidential elections. They have held control of Congress for most of the past decade.
Every four years, it seems, the Democratic establishment finds another way to explain why they have lost without conceding the obvious. They are unable to win enough votes from the largest demographic group -- white, mostly middle-class, voters to get over the top. John Kerry won about 41 percent of white votes in 2004, broke even among voters with family incomes of $30,000-$50,000 and got just 44 percent of those with incomes of $50,000-$100,000.
This is a 40-year pattern, which has led Democrats to seek a way around, rather than to confront, their problem with Middle America. In the 1970's, the Democrats courted the counter-culture. In the 1980s the push was among African-Americans. Jesse Jackson's two runs for the White House, Democrats hoped, would spur an outpouring of black voters. In the 1990s, the gender gap was the rage, and in fact Bill Clinton's presidencies were fueled disproportionately by women voters.
In 2004, their focus was on young voters who would be so put off by the Iraq war they would turn out in droves to throw W out of office. It didn't happen. Bush was re-elected, even though more young people voted. But the Democratic turnout effort created a climate in which the Republicans energized even more of their troops.
Now, Democratic strategists have settled on unmarried voters for 2006 and 2008.
I think he is being a bit unfair to the Democrats. It is almost always easy to increase turnout among voters already inclined to vote for you, than to swing previously hostile groups to your side. To be sure, groups do sometimes change sides, as African Americans went from being loyal Republicans to become the most thoroughly Democratic group in America. But that results from deep structural changes in society, and is not easily accessible to campaign strategies.
Nonetheless, it is a good idea for Republicans to wonder how they can attract more Black voters. Even a small increase in Republican support among African Americans would make a big difference in elections, all the way down to dog catcher. Likewise, Democrats should wonder how they can get more votes from "married, with children."
Women's Voices has produced an 80-plus page report being embraced throughout the party that correctly notes that unmarried people are less likely to vote than their married counterparts. In 2004, Bush carried the 63 percent of voters who were married by a 57-42 percent margin. He lost among the 37 percent who were single by 58-40 percent. . . .
No Democratic presidential candidate since Lyndon Johnson has won a majority of white voters. Yet even in an increasingly diverse America, and despite increasing voting participation by minorities, whites were still 77 percent of 2004 voters.
Posted by K. Blanchard on Monday, March 20, 2006 at 12:46 AM | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Reblog
(0)
| |
The slim chance, that is, that the French government will show some backbone. From the BBC:
In an interview for a French youth magazine, Dominique de Villepin said the law should be given a chance to work, but added it could be improved. Trade unions have given the government until Monday night to withdraw the law.
More than 160 people were arrested on Saturday after clashes following a largely peaceful day of protests.
Trades unions say the law will allow employers to exploit young people. But the government says it will cut youth unemployment by making the labour market more flexible.
Posted by K. Blanchard on Monday, March 20, 2006 at 12:09 AM | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Reblog
(0)
| |
Some observations, from Tim Hanes in The London Times:
FOR SOME REASON, and for a number of years, I have been on the e-mail list for the Stop the War coalition. This is bizarre, though in fairness to them each newsletter explains how I could “unsubscribe” should I wish to. Having never subscribed in the first place, and finding these manic missives entertaining in a macabre sort of way, I have never removed myself from their records. . . .
Anyway, the latest call to (non) arms . . . contained rhetoric that has become familiar, though fatuous. It railed against “lies about weapons of mass destruction”, an “illegal war”, “Abu Ghraib” and the “expropriation of Iraqi resources”. All the words so often employed about Iraq were there, except, of course, “Saddam” and “Hussein”. In any case, the entire episode started in March 2003 was condemned as an “occupation” that has “brought nothing to the Iraqi people except ever increasing death and destruction”.
I suppose it depends on how you define “nothing”. If two elections, one constitutional referendum, a free press, an independent judiciary, greater religious liberty, the lifting of economic sanctions, reintegration into the region and the wider international community count for “nothing”, then nothing is a reasonable assessment. As many leaders of the anti-war movement have nothing but contempt for “bourgeois democracy” and hate capitalism and its manifestations, then, for them, “nothing” is entirely accurate.
The rest of us, however, might reach a more rounded conclusion. When told that Iraq has been a “tragedy”, we might agree but not in the way that those who use that term take it. The tragedy is not that troops went into that land in 2003 but that they did not arrive earlier or in larger numbers. For the first tragedy of Iraq is that this is the third and not the seventh anniversary of its liberation. I am not one of those who thinks that it would have been possible for the US to have pressed on to Baghdad in 1991 after expelling Saddam’s conscripts from Kuwait. The older President Bush opted to take the “UN route” and was thus shackled by its limited mandate.
This strikes me as sound. If we had achieved regime change in 1991, Saddam would not have had twelve years to plan for an American invasion. He wouldn't even have had a chance to watch "Black Hawk Down," except maybe while court was in recess.
Posted by K. Blanchard on Sunday, March 19, 2006 at 11:42 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Reblog
(0)
| |
Funny, I wouldn't have thought pirates were into hip-hop. After all, not many things rhyme with "arrgg!"
Posted by Jon Schaff on Sunday, March 19, 2006 at 07:53 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Reblog
(0)
| |
The New York Times has a story today on prairie fires:
The Texas Panhandle was ablaze last week, with three large wildfires consuming more than 800,000 acres of rangeland. Wet weather at week's end helped firefighters get the major fires under control, but the damage had been done: at least 11 people dead, an estimated 10,000 cattle and horses lost, homes and other property destroyed.
For the land itself, though, the fires were business as usual. The Great Plains have lived by fire for thousands of years.
"One of the important things to understand about prairie fires is they're just a natural part of the ecosystem," said James Stubbendieck, a professor of grassland ecology at the University of Nebraska. Among other things, he said, fires help control mesquite and other woody vegetation that compete for space and water with the grasses that livestock graze upon.
The problem is not so much that there are fires, but that the recent blazes were large and out of control, driven by winds gusting above 40 miles an hour. Ranchers often use smaller controlled fires as a range management tool, said Charles A. Taylor, a professor of rangeland ecology at Texas A&M's Agricultural Research Station in Sonora.
Prescribed fires are beneficial. Grass is the main fuel, he said, but brush is burned as well. "If you're not doing something to manage that brush, it's going to dominate the grass production and reduce biodiversity and the quality of wildlife habitat."
Prescribed burning was practiced by Native Americans long before white people arrived. "They were magnificent users of fire on the Plains," Mr. Stubbendieck said. They discovered that bison would graze on sites that had been burned the previous year, he said, "because there was nothing but new green luscious growth."
Posted by Jason Heppler on Sunday, March 19, 2006 at 02:23 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Reblog
(0)
| |
Recent Comments