South Dakota Politics

Krauthammer

Charles Krauthammer cuts to the heart of the immigration issue in a column entitled "First A Wall -- Then Amnesty."  Excerpt:

Every sensible immigration policy has two objectives: (1) to regain control of our borders so that it is we who decide who enters and (2) to find a way to normalize and legalize the situation of the 11 million illegals among us.
...

If the government can demonstrate that it can control future immigration, there will be infinitely less resistance to dealing generously with the residual population of past immigration. And, as Mickey Kaus and others have suggested, that may require that the two provisions be sequenced. First, radical border control by physical means. Then, shortly thereafter, radical legalization of those already here. To achieve national consensus on legalization, we will need a short lag time between the two provisions, perhaps a year or two, to demonstrate to the skeptics that the current wave of illegals is indeed the last.

This is no time for mushy compromise. A solution requires two acts of national will: the ugly act of putting up a fence and the supremely generous act of absorbing as ultimately full citizens those who broke our laws to come to America.

This position is consistent with the position taken by my colleagues and myself.  The immediate concern is the security of the border followed by some method of legalization for the immigrants that are here.  Is it fair that we legalize the illegal immigrants that are already here?  No, not for the immigrants that are legally trying to get in.  In this option, the illegals have the prerogative to work while awaiting legalization while those legally trying to come have to wait in their own country.  However, something must be done about those who are currently here, and sending them back south isn't a viable option.  Furthermore, any legislative reform is pointless unless we stop illegals from crossing the border.  As Captain Ed noted, "It does no good to create new bureaucracies to handle a flood of amnesty applications when the course of least resistance remains wide open to those who cross the border to make a few bucks."

Then again, there's always this option.

Cartoons and the Argus

The Argus Leader has found a cartoon that it will publish.  A cartoon harrassing Senator Bill Napoli for his position on abortion contained his office and home telephone numbers; this was sold on eBay to a resident of Rapid City:

A cartoon lampooning state Sen. Bill Napoli, R-Rapid City, was just too amusing to pass up on eBay for one woman opposed to South Dakota's abortion ban.

Sharon Ludwick Warner of Rapid City was the winning bidder on the cartoon drawn by a Florida artist that sold for $2,201 on Wednesday.

The proceeds from the cartoon sale were earmarked for abortion-rights causes.

This seems to go squarely against their decision to not publish the Muhammed cartoons.  Apparently if it is for the purpose of encouraging and enabling the harrassment of Napoli at his home, they have no qualms about it.

Comabating Elitists II

Perhaps we can use this debate on direct democracy as a teaching moment.  Some people argue in favor of what political scientist Herbert Storing once called "simplistic democracy," i.e., that democracy is good only to the extent that it responds to the demands of the people.  The Framers rejected this view.  In their view democracy is good to the extent that it protects the peoples' rights.  As Madison stated in Federalist #51, "A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions."  In other words, democracy is necessary for good government (defined as protecting rights), but it is not sufficient. 

In Federalist #9 Madison points out the shortcomings of ancient republics, some of which, as Prof. Blanchard notes, were direct democracies.  Madison laments "the rapid succession of revolutions by which they were kept in a state of perpetual vibration between the extremes of tyranny and anarchy."  It should be noted that Madison is talking about republics, thus we can see that even government dependent in some way on the people can by tyrannous. Indeed, Madison argues that the failures of ancient republics has tarnished the good name of republican government.  Opponents of democracy can rightly say that democracy is "inconsistent with the order of society," because in the past it has been.  Thus in Federalist #10, where Madison famously discusses the problem of faction, he remarks:

From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting in a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischief of faction...Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.

Madison goes on to say that the two cures for faction are the invention representation and the "extended republic."  Regarding representation Madison argues:

The effect of the first difference is, on the one hand, to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation, it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the purpose.

I would argue that the "auxiliary precautions" stated by Madison in #51 are representation, the extended republic, and the separation of powers (Madison, knowing that representatives can be corrupted too, seems to think the separation of powers is the greatest protector of rights in the Constitution).  I also think political parties are an important protector of rights, especially as characterized in the two-party system.  Progressives impatient with the machinations of governments reliant on representation, separation of powers, and broad-based non-ideological parties promoted reforms such as the referendum and initiative, i.e., direct democracy, in the early 20th Century.  But Madison teaches that the vice of democracy is not that it acts too slowly, but that it acts too quickly.  He argues for the institutional protections that help ensure that not just the sense of the people governs, but the deliberate sense. 

The problem of direct democracy is that it teaches us that these important protections of our rights (representation, separation of powers, and a strong two-party system) are superfluous to good government; indeed direct democracy may even teach that these institutions are a threat to democracy as they sometimes thwart the will of the people.  Americans tend to take democracy for granted and become impatient with the messiness of our system.  The Framers, more aware of the failures of democracy throughout history, could not be so nonchalant.  

Brookings Mayor's Race

SDSU political science Professor Gary Aguiar and candidate for mayor of Brookings is getting hammered for using students to allegedly organize his campaign.  Head over to SD War College and get in on the debate.  I like Prof. Aguair both professionally and personally.  Unfortunately, this decision may come back to haunt him. 

UPDATE:  The Argus Leader and the Rapid City Journal have more.

Governor's Race Update

The race is beginning to heat up as Dennis Wiese makes his first campaign appearance:

Democratic gubernatorial candidate Dennis Wiese made his first official campaign stop in Rapid City Thursday, marking the event by criticizing Republican Gov. Mike Rounds for failures in leadership, a lack of government openness and taking an extremist position by signing a near-total ban on abortions.

Wiese, a 45-year-old farmer and former South Dakota Farmers Union president, said Rounds had failed to find money and support for major education initiatives and couldn’t even win approval for a modest increase in the minimum wage — from $5.15 an hour to $6 an hour — in a Legislature dominated by his own party members.

Combating the Elitists, Part One

I fear this might get lengthy.  Prof. Blanchard kindly backed me up when I was attacked by Seth at CCK for being an elitist.  His evidence of my elitism?  I have strong skepticism regarding direct democracy.  Let me return the favor as Seth now turns his guns on Prof. Blanchard.  I am afraid, though, that Seth is shooting blanks. 

1. Seth's first argument is not an argument but rather a pout.  And a vulgar one at that.  It does not bear consideration.
2. Seth's second argument, about people getting paid for blogging, is a red herring as no one currently on this blog, least of all Prof. Blanchard, has ever been paid for blogging.  So that argument is presented by Seth merely to distract.  It also does not bear consideration.
3. Seth claims that in his original post he never took a position on direct democracy.  Perhaps not (dare I say it) directly, but by clear inference Seth was arguing in favor of direct democracy.  Let's work some logic.  If I express opinions against direct democracy and then Seth condemns me based on those opinions, does it not follow that Seth sees considerable merit in direct democracy?  Why else am I condemned as an elitist for opposing direct democracy if Seth does not see direct democracy as a great virtue?  So there is an unstated yet clearly implied opinion on Seth's part in favor of direct democracy.  Whew!  That was ponderous. But wait, there's more! 
4. Finally, Seth takes umbrage at Prof. Blanchard's invocation of James Madison against Seth.  Let's follow a syllogism.  All people who oppose direct democracy are elitists (this is a major premise Seth seems to buy, for why else does he attack me in his original post?).  James Madison opposed direct democracy.  Therefore Madison was an elitist.  As I stated in my original post, there are good arguments in favor of direct democracy. Seth capably states one of them: to guard against entrenched interests in the legislature.  But James Madison and most Framers reject Seth's argument.  Now, James Madison is not God.  Therefore to oppose him is not to oppose God.  It is possible Madison is wrong and many democratic theorists, e.g. John Calhoun or Lani Guinier, have felt free to say so.  But it is certainly not unreasonable for Prof. Blanchard to point out that the "Father of the Constitution" had biting criticisms of the vices of direct democracy and thus Seth finds himself opposing Mr. Madison in this debate.  It is not up to us to refrain from arguments that Seth finds inconvenient to his purposes. 

For The Record

I shall not bother directly commenting on the Seth post at CCK noted by Prof. Blanchard.  Prof. Blanchard ably addresses the argument of the post.  I do want to point out that I am not "formerly of the Thune campaign."  I have never worked for John Thune, or any other candidate for that matter, on either a hired or volunteer basis.  I have done very minimal work with the Republican Party, but not any candidate.  I don't know where Seth gets the idea that I am "formerly of the Thune campaign."  I am not and ask that he generously issue a correction.

Update: Seth nicely corrects.  I just wish I was confused for Jon Lauck on payday. 

Direct Democracy En Francais

While I preferr representative democracy to direct democracy, I will readily admit that there are worse things than the initiative process.  Direct democracy in France apparently means large numbers of spoiled brats breaking windows and burning cars.  Boris Johnson of the British Telegraph explains what sacred cause the protestors are defending.

It was when Air France told us that our bags were still in Paris, rather than Peking, that I suddenly understood why the French national carrier is, in my opinion - an opinion I am wholly prepared to defend in the libel courts of any European nation - the single worst airline in the world. My understanding of the problem had been slowly forming over the past 24 hours.

It began as I stared at the back of the pockmarked neck of the bus driver at Charles de Gaulle, his iPod wires dangling insolently from his ears, and I watched the passengers beg him to get his panting machine into gear and take them to the departure gate, and I observed his shrugs of dismissal as no one went, and no one came, and the bus stood still and the minutes ticked by.

My insight grew steadily clearer when we reached the gate, and the five shoulder-padded Air France women and three Air France men refused to let us on the Peking aircraft, even though the thing lay berthed before us for at least another 25 minutes, and even though we were late in making the connection from London only because our first Air France flight had been half an hour late in landing in Paris.

And so when the French national airline flew us five hours later to the wrong Chinese city, and then told us on landing that our bags would not arrive until the following day - even then, monsieur - I did not pop with rage. I did not allow myself to swear, even in French.

I laughed, with the weary indulgence of one who comprehends it all too well.

What is the salient fact about the 71,600 employees of Air France? It is that they are all, in one way or another, controlled by the French state because, in spite of the 2003 amalgamation with KLM, the French government is still the largest shareholder in this flock of dodos, and that means that the "workers" are all virtually unsackable. Why should he show the slightest consideration for his customers, this dilatory bus driver, when he knows there is no sanction his employers could use?

It makes no difference to the ground staff whether or not you or I get on the plane, even when we have arrived at the gate five minutes before it is meant to close, because their pensions and their benefits roll in regardless.

They can afford to laugh up their tailored sleeves at a bunch of despairing Anglo-Saxons, because they work to a different rhythm, and they have acquired disastrous habits that poor Dominique de Villepin is now desperately trying to cure.

More than 3,000 people were arrested yesterday in demonstrations against the French premier's attempt to free up the labour market, the contrat de première embauche. As far as I am concerned, every one of them deserves to spend a night in the Bastille. Every one of the 800,000 demonstrators is supporting a piece of Luddite lunacy that has caused chronic and worsening chaos in France, and is now dragging down the rest of the Eurozone.

As anyone who has dealt with French baggage handlers can testify, the French devote less time to their work, when they work, than any other European country. They manage 39.1 hours per week, compared with 42.2 hours in Britain and 42.6 hours in Poland; and then there are the growing numbers of French who do not work at all.

Seth Insults James Madison.

Seth at CCK has this cute barb against my colleague. 

The next time you hear a Republican whining about how "elitist" the Democrats are and how Democrats are anti-democratic, tell them that Jon Schaff, formerly of the Thune campaign, says "I am not a big fan of direct democracy because it too often means bad democracy" and "There are good arguments for direct democracy, but I ultimately find them unconvincing."

One can only infer from this that Seth, Democrat and Daschle supporter, thinks that the Constitution is a fundamentally elitist and anti-democratic document, since it contains no elements of direct democracy at all.  He must think very poorly of Madison, Hamilton, and Washington, since they all favored such a system. 

In fact Seth's comment is based on an elementary confusion.  Elitism is not the opposite of direct democracy.  Classical Athens was as direct a democracy as anyone could ever see.  The people voted directly on such matters as war and peace.   Yet its politics were dominated by a small elite of the brilliant and/or beautiful, like Pericles, Alcibiades, and Nicias.  Likewise California, which has a lot of direct democracy, is dominated by people like Rob Reiner, and elitist if ever there was one.  The opposite of elitism is populism.  Maybe Seth would roll up his shirt sleeves and bring Ross Perot back on stage? 

The alternative to direct democracy is representative democracy, which describes most of the political institutions in the United States.  It is, to be fair, marginally less democratic than direct democracy.  Madison preferred it not because he thought ill of the people, but because he disliked concentrations of power in any single body, whether it be one person, a few, or the majority.  Representation allows power to be divided first between the people and the government, and then again when the government is separated into its various branches.  I side with Schaff, Madison, and Washington, and not with Seth on this one.

The chief problem with direct democracy on the state level is that it is at odds with representative institutions.  The legislature is supposed to be responsible for producing coherent policies with the resources available.  The initiative process ties the hands of the legislature by mandating any number of policies, some of them mutually inconsistent with one another.  The state of California has become all but dysfunctional because of the web of initiative generated legislation.  Maybe Seth thinks this is good government.  I do not.

ps.  I for one have not been whining about how elitist and anti-democratic the Democrats are.  Well, not since the last elections when the chattering classes kept chattering about the untutored red-state yokels who reelected Bush.  The Jesus-Land map prominently displayed on leftwing blogs was, I think, a bit elitist in its implications.  As for anti-democratic, well, the strenuous efforts to keep abortion policy in the courts and out of the hands of state legislatures and ordinary voters is not all that democratic.  It is rather Madisonian in so far as it makes use of the structure that Madison planned out, so I can hardly complain. 

History

Patahistory is hosting History Carnival 28, for those interested.  A few of the blogs caught my attention, the first being from Spinning Clio:

There is nothing wrong with first introducing a positive history to little kids who in today's day and age seem to not hear enough positive stories. In the grand sweep of our nation's history--although many things have "gone wrong"--I think most would admit that the U.S. has historically been heading in the right direction (I'm generalizing, not being deterministic). Recognizing this, we should establish a positive historical baseline from which older students can venture. When they get older, when they reach those teenage years when so many believe history is boring and their minds are looking for something new and exciting, that's when we should introduce them with "well, did you know this part of the story about such and such."

And the other comes from World History Blog (in response to Charlie Sheen):

I find a striking similarity between 9/11 revisionist and Holocaust deniers. Many of the claims of Holocaust revisionism is that the Holocaust was a fabricated event created by the West to justify the creation of Israel. The 9/11 revisionists are claiming that the event was contrived by Israel or other western power to create a backlash against Arabs which also benefits Israel. I find it ironic that educated individuals who may even realize the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is fake and is not proof of a worldwide Jewish conspiracy also at the same time believe that many of the major historical events of the last 70 years are proof of a worldwide Jewish conspiracy.

Go check out the whole thing.

SDSU

Great news for my school:

South Dakota State University is now ranked as the number one research institution in South Dakota. The rankings were just released by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching and reflect a revised system of classifying research conducted at universities across the nation.

Under the Carnegie classification, SDSU’s peer research institutions now include Georgetown, West Virginia University, Marquette, Oklahoma State University, the University of Oklahoma, North Dakota State University, the University of Nevada at Las Vegas, Auburn University and many others. These institutions are all classified in the high research activity category.

Dr. Kevin Kephart, SDSU vice president for research and dean of the Graduate School, said the new Carnegie classification system is the uniform standard for classifying all universities in the nation. It reflects the number of Ph.D. programs, the breadth of institutional research programs, and funding generated in support of research.

“For Carnegie to place SDSU in the high research category means we are gaining recognition for the quality of our research and for our ability to conduct research,” Kephart said.

Saddam-Terrorism Connection

Captain Ed: Saddam Targeted American Assets For Terrorism (Update)

Sioux Falls Mayor Race

The Sioux Falls mayor's race is heating up.  Todd Epp is taking on candidate Vernon Brown:

Everytime Sioux Falls mayoral candidate Vernon Brown opens his pie hole, out comes the words, "When I was a reporter" or "When I was with KELOLAND."

Give me a break.

Don't believe me?  KELOLAND TV has the proof:

Vernon Brown says, "I've gone through the Citizens' Academy and was in the police department every day as a reporter and still have close ties to the police department and will continue to do that as mayor."

For God's sake already, Vernon, we know you were a reporter and you worked for KELO-TV.  And that basically qualifies you to be a flack for some non-profit charity or maybe a for-profit business.   If that's the best you can do in the resume department, then that is just plain sad.  But, to use your words, I guess "It makes sense." 

Meanwhile, the big discussion about the candidacy of Darin Smith continues at Straight Talk.

The Daily Show Goes Mainstream

Perhaps it's a sign of a warped soul to have any opinion on Katie Couric becoming anchor of the CBS Evening News, but I find myself largely in agreement with Jonah Goldberg.  Can we get over the idea that news anchors are journalists in any meaningful sense?  They are actors who read the news.  As Goldberg points out, it is no small talent to do that well, but hard-hitting journalism it isn't.  Let be honest.  Katie Couric is essentially a less interesting Kelly Ripa. 

Can You Feel The Love Tonight

The Argus has a nice story touting the recent success of the Harvard of Brown County, Northern State University.   

SDP Scoops Robert Samuelson

Robert Samuelson, the Groucho Marx of economics, has his solution to the immigration problem.  I have relied on his analysis of the effects of labor so cheap its illegal. His solution is the one I have since been advocating. 

     -- Strengthen border and employer enforcement: Unless it's stopped, the present illegal immigration of an estimated 500,000 people annually will overwhelm any system. The main lure is jobs. That's why it's essential to adopt a mandatory requirement for employers to verify new workers -- electronic checking of documents. Companies that hire illegal immigrants should be penalized heavily. But it's also essential to dry up the supply. Construction of fences or walls, 20 feet to 30 feet high, along the Mexican border would significantly reduce the flow.

     -- Grant amnesty to existing illegal immigrants: President Bush and many Republicans oppose this, but it's essential. We can't run an immigration system that condones mass illegality. Most illegal immigrants deserve legal standing -- and a path to citizenship. Although they ``broke the law,'' we (meaning American society) encouraged them by inadequately policing the border and employers. Most won't voluntarily return home, where typical wages are 80 percent lower. Trying to force them back would create a huge backlash. We'd have stories of parents being torn from their American-born children. Companies would complain that government was destroying their firms by removing long-time, diligent workers.

Of course neither of us can take much credit.  Despite his unkind words about the House bill ("mean-spirited and delusional") and the Senate Bill ("delusional and undesirable"), his solution is really a combination of the two approaches. 

Blog of the Year

The Week Magazine has named Captain's Quarters the blog of the year.  Frankly, no one is more deserving than Ed Morrissey for this award, especially when you consider his work on the Gomery/Adscam inquiry that was more exemplary than anything the MSM could pull off.

Last year's winner, Powerline, has more.

Biologist Eric Pianka Advocates Genocide! Or Not.

James Taranto has a blood chilling tale of a biologist who advocates genocide on a massive scale.  The source of the story is a website called The Citizen Scientist.  It is based on the account of one Forest Mims who was present at a meeting of the Texas Academy of Science. 

Professor [Eric] Pianka said the Earth as we know it will not survive without drastic measures. Then, and without presenting any data to justify this number, he asserted that the only feasible solution to saving the Earth is to reduce the population to 10 percent of the present number.

He then showed solutions for reducing the world's population in the form of a slide depicting the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. War and famine would not do, he explained. Instead, disease offered the most efficient and fastest way to kill the billions that must soon die if the population crisis is to be solved.  . . .

AIDS is not an efficient killer, he explained, because it is too slow. His favorite candidate for eliminating 90 percent of the world's population is airborne Ebola (Ebola Reston ), because it is both highly lethal and it kills in days, instead of years. However, Professor Pianka did not mention that Ebola victims die a slow and torturous death as the virus initiates a cascade of biological calamities inside the victim that eventually liquefy the internal organs.

After praising the Ebola virus for its efficiency at killing, Pianka paused, leaned over the lectern, looked at us and carefully said, “We've got airborne 90 percent mortality in humans. Killing humans. Think about that.”

Now frankly, I'm opposed to eliminating 90% of humanity by means of ebola, a disease that causes its victims to puke up their own stomach linings.  I'm guessing you are too.  If Professor Pianka really advocated such a thing, he is a monster on a scale that would make Hitler a moderate. 

But it seems very unlikely that he was advocating anything of the sort.  Forest Mimms is an expert in a range of technologies, and the author of many books, including the "Engineers Mini-Notebook" series sold at Radio Shack.  He is also a fervent creation scientist, and so he has a fondness for telling scandalous tales about biologists.

Apparently, Professor Pianka was merely describing what he thought likely to happen.  Here is his account of his argument.

I have two grandchildren and I want them to inherit a stable Earth. But I fear for them. Humans have overpopulated the Earth and in the process have created an ideal nutritional substrate on which bacteria and viruses (microbes) will grow and prosper. We are behaving like bacteria growing on an agar plate, flourishing until natural limits are reached or until another microbe colonizes and takes over, using them as their resource. In addition to our extremely high population density, we are social and mobile, exactly the conditions that favor growth and spread of pathogenic (disease-causing) microbes. I believe it is only a matter of time until microbes once again assert control over our population, since we are unwilling to control it ourselves. This idea has been espoused by ecologists for at least four decades and is nothing new. People just don't want to hear it.  [hat tip to Wikipedia]

Now I think that there are all sorts of legitimate objections to this view.  I do not believe that the Earth is over-populated.  But it seems clear here that in his view of pandemics he is merely stating what he thinks will happen due to natural processes.  I don't know the truth about his Texas Academy speech because I wasn't there and there are no transcripts.  But Mims account smells like a jaundiced distortion. 

Responsible conservatives should beware of giving support to the loony right, just as Hispanic advocates should beware of being associated with the ANSWER coalition.

ps. I read in Wikipedia that, at age 13, Pianka was injured in a bazooka blast.  A bazooka blast!  They let 13 year olds drive tanks?  The story is here.

And He Could Have Created the First Frozen Cocktail at the Same Time!

This from LiveScience:

Jesus Could Have Walked on Ice, Scientist Says

Rare conditions could have conspired to create hard-to-see ice on the Sea of Galilee that a person could have walked on back when Jesus is said to have walked on water, a scientist said today.

The study, which examines a combination of favorable water and environmental conditions, proposes that Jesus could have walked on an isolated patch of floating ice on what is now known as Lake Kinneret in northern Israel.

In Plato's Phaedrus, Socrates observed that similar explanations for sacred stories were common in his time.  What about the one where the maiden was snatched off a hillside by winged demi-gods?  Well, maybe it was just a strong gust of wind that blew her into the channel.  Maybe.  But how would you ever get closer to knowing the truth than this mere speculation can take you?  Speculation of this sort is only science when it generates a hypothesis that can be tested, or at least further questions that might be meaningfully answered.  Socrates had no time for it, and probably neither should we.  But he did admit that this sort of thing is diverting, for those who crave diversion. 

 

Fear of Confrontation

More from Insty:

ARNOLD KLING ON fear of confrontation: "Unfortunately, large segments of American society no longer have the ability to confront real evil. People lack the confidence and moral clarity to stand up to intimidation. . . . One can view Islamic militants as armed versions of unruly teenagers. We should not feel guilty toward them. We should demand reasonable and decent behavior from them, rather than excuse their tantrums or their crimes."

That would require thinking of ourselves as adults, which is unacceptable to many.

NASCAR

Instapundit is noting an interesting story regarding NASCAR, which is a sport I happen to enjoy immensely, and it's coverage on NBC.  Go read the whole thing.

UPDATE:  Michelle Malkin has more.

I Am Afraid I Have To Dissent

PP at the War College points to this little nugget:

A special commission that is studying the legislative branch of state government will continue meeting this year on such things as the petition process that South Dakotans may use to force a statewide vote on controversial issues.

The Constitutional Revision Commission has tentatively embraced the idea of doubling the number of signatures needed before measures qualify for the ballot. It takes the signatures of five percent of registered voters to qualify proposed laws for ballot placement or second-guess legislation approved by state lawmakers.

The current threshold for placing grassroots constitutional changes on the ballot is ten percent.

PP thinks this is a mistake:

The initiative process is ingrained in the South Dakota political psyche. We like to think that if we believe an issue is too hot for the legislature, we can handle it ourselves, and we often do. And then the issue is voted on and settled. (At least with Video Lottery, it's settled for a couple of years.)

I am not a big fan of direct democracy because it too often means bad democracy.  I prefer legislation that is submitted to the system of checks and balances and is made by political parties representing a decent cross-section of voters.  Across the nation direct democracy has tended to create bad legislation and made the task of governing harder (California is the best example).  And given that the initiative process is often manipulated by well financed special interests, it is not clear it is really all that democratic.  Before my South Dakota blogosphere compatriots go screaming about my lack of commitment to democracy, let me point out that I am not unaware of the virtues of ballot initiatives or the vices of legislatures.  There are good arguments for direct democracy,  but I ultimately find them unconvincing.  Also, lest folks think this is some crazy opinion only held by nuts like me, it happens to be the exact position of the "Dean of Washington Reporters," Mr. David Broder, whose book on the subject influenced me greatly.  So chalk me up as in favor of making the ballot initiative process more difficult. 

Janklow

Here's an odd story via the Argus Leader:

Former Gov. Bill Janklow indicated Tuesday he plans to contest a bill from the county where he was found guilty of second-degree manslaughter.

“The easy thing would be to write them a check so there’s no news, but no, that’s not me,” Janklow said.

Moody County has filed a $1,636 lien against property owned by the former governor in Minnehaha County. A lien prevents the selling of real estate until the payment is resolved.

Moody County Auditor Jean Larson said she couldn’t release information about the lien because of federal health privacy regulations.

Janklow said he assumes the lien relates to medical expenses during his 100 days in jail following his conviction, but said his insurance should have covered those costs.

“They’re entitled to punish me for what I’ve done, but I’m not going to be jerked around,” Janklow said.

Useless Information

Tomorrow (Wednesday) morning, at two minutes and three seconds after 1:00 in the morning, the time and date will be 01:02:03 04/05/06.  The next time this occurs won't be until the year 3006.

Goofy Republicans

I have long thought that campaign finance reform was a threat to freedom of speech.  It is distressing, then, to see the Republicans pressing their own version of it now.  From the National Review:

We’re old enough to remember when the Republican mainstream was against restricting campaign finance. That was about four years ago. Way back then, House leaders were decrying McCain-Feingold as damaging to the GOP’s electoral fortunes and probably unconstitutional. How times change. The current crop of House leaders, acting with the White House’s blessing, is set to introduce legislation this week that would restrict the ability of so-called 527s — nonprofit groups named for the section of the tax code under which they operate — to raise money for political causes. Quite apart from the unseemliness of this about-face, the legislation deserves to be defeated. It is both politically unwise and, more important, an objectionable restriction on speech.

NBC

Michelle Malkin:  NBC: Staging the News Again?

Darin Smith Cont.

Over at South Dakota Straight Talk, there's a big exchange going on between Joel Rosenthal, Steve Hildebrand, Chad Schuldt, Brett Healy, Todd Epp, Sioux Falls city commissioners, and others regarding the mayoral candidacy of Darin Smith, who, as I noted yesturday, Joel doesn't think highly of.

NSU Runs For Office

Lot's of people with recent connections to NSU are running for office in this neck of the woods.  Many people know that current NSU student David Novstrup, or, as I like to call him, the taller Novstrup, is running as a Republican in House District 3.  Of course David's father, Al, already represents the district in the House.  I know David well.  He is a hard working and very intelligent young man.  He would serve our area well in the House.  David is graduating NSU in December.  Interestingly, one of David's opponents is David Newquist of the Northern Valley Beacon.  Dr. Newquist is a retired English professor at NSU.  Despite the fact that we at SDP have had more than our share of verbal run-ins with David Newquist, it's good to see that he is walking the walk in addition to talking the talk.  Also in the 3rd District, recent grad Isaac Latterell is challenging Duane Sutton for the Republican nomination for the Senate seat.   Isaac just completed a stint in Pierre as a legislative intern.  He's a good guy and I wish him luck.  In the 2nd District Jim Lorenz, who graduated out of our History program last May, is running as a Republican for the House seat along with Scott Layman, who was a candidate two years ago.  Jim was one of those "non-traditional students," which is a fancy way of saying he was old enough to be most students' father. Jim is one of the best students I've ever had. One thing all the current and recent students mentioned so far have in common is they were all legislative interns.  I happen to run that program at NSU and can brag that in this most recent session NSU had ten of the twenty-two interns in Pierre. 

I can also report that Tyler Smith will not be running for governor.  Or so he told me in class today.  Like Icarus, perhaps Tyler flew too close to the sun. 

It Was Good While It Lasted

By now everyone has heard about Tom Delay leaving Congress.  I can't tell you what a tragedy this is.  Not for the country, but for my American Government classes.  I had a whole routine built around Tom "The Hammer" Delay.  You have to pronounce "The Hammer" in that gritty "come the to truck pull on Sunday" voice.  Also, there was a day, not long ago, that the party leaders of the House were Dick Armey and Dick Gephardt.  It's not often you can say that the leaders of the House are a couple of Dicks and get away with it.  At the same time Tom Delay was House Majority Whip and Tom Daschle was Senate Democratic leader (both Majority and Minority).  Daschle's Whip was Harry Reid.  So the leaders of Congress were a bunch of Toms, Dicks, and Harrys.  Now all I've got to make fun of is John Boehner's last name.  Oh, and let's not forget Steny Hoyer.  With a name like Steny, you can bet he spent his entire junior high school career with his underwear pulled over his head.  Thank God there are plenty more comedic congressional names than Tom "The Hammer" Delay.  Here's hoping Mike Crapo and Daniel Akaka never leave the U.S. Senate. 

Steyn

Mark Steyn:

But, while Charlie Sheen is undoubtedly a valiant leader, you couldn't help noticing it was followers the anti-war crowd seemed to be short of on the third anniversary. The next weekend half a million illegal immigrants -- whoops, sorry, half a million fine upstanding members of the Undocumented-American community-- took to the streets, and you suddenly realized what a big-time demonstration is supposed to look like. These guys aren't even meant to be in the country and they can organize a better public protest movement than an anti-war crowd that's promoted 24/7 by the media and Hollywood.

Well, OK, half the anti-war crowd aren't meant to be in the country either, if they'd kept their promise to move to Canada after the last election. But my point is there's no mass anti-war movement. Some commentators claimed to be puzzled by the low turnout at a time when the polls show Iraq increasingly unpopular. But there are two kinds of persons objecting to the war: There's a shriveled Sheehan-Sheen left that's in effect urging on American failure in Iraq, and there's a potentially far larger group to their right that's increasingly wary of the official conception of the war. The latter don't want America to lose, they want to win -- decisively. And on the day's headlines -- on everything from the Danish cartoon jihad to the Afghan facing death for apostasy -- the fainthearted response of "public diplomacy" is in danger of sounding only marginally less nutty than Charlie Sheen.
...

To win a war, you don't spin a war. Millions of ordinary citizens are not going to stick with a "long war" (as the administration now calls it) if they feel they're being dissembled to about its nature. One reason we regard Churchill as a great man is that his speeches about the nature of the enemy don't require unspinning or detriangulating.

Hat tip to Instapundit, who has much more that I recommend reading.

McGovern

Rapid City Journal:

Former U.S. Sen. George McGovern, in a speech last week at Chadron State College, was sharply critical of the war in Iraq, the Bush administration and the recent decision to ban nearly all abortions in his home state of South Dakota.

The 83-year-old McGovern spoke and answered questions for about 90 minutes, then, for about 30 minutes, autographed copies of several of the 10 books he has written.

Speaking on the abortion issue in South Dakota, McGovern said he has about the same disrespect for "a male-dominated Legislature that passes a law banning abortions as he does for a congress dominated by old men who dream up wars in which young men do the dying."

He noted that the legislators who passed the anti-abortion law in South Dakota seem to have little compassion for those who are put to death for their crimes or the fact that a human being dies of starvation every 3.5 seconds in the world. (Since 2001, McGovern has been the United Nations' global ambassador for world hunger.)

McGovern was attending the opening session of the Mari Sandoz Heritage Society's annual conference, where he spoke Thursday night about his 1968 book "A Time of War, a Time of Peace." He said he is proud to have served as a bomber pilot in World War II, noting that it was "absolutely essential" that Hitler was stopped.

"Hitler was an inhumane monster who killed 6 million Jews - most of them his own citizens - and was gobbling up one country after another," said McGovern, who was the pilot on 35 bombing missions. "I believed in that effort. We had no alternative."

But he said he has not been enthusiastic about any of the wars since World War II and, in particular, spoke against the Vietnam War and the current war in Iraq.

McGovern said he gets tears in his eyes every time he visits the Vietnam Memorial in Washington, D.C., which bears the names of 58,000 American troops killed in the war.

McGovern called the Bush administration "the most dangerous and incompetent in the history of the United States" and said several times he would rather have Richard Nixon in the White House than George W. Bush.

"This administration is so much more incompetent than the Nixon administration that there's no comparison," he said.

Just to note, the charge of incompetence seems to come up often and, frankly, it's a rather strange refrain.  What exactly is incompetent?  We haven't had another 9/11, we freed fifty million people, and we've established democracies in the most unlikely of places following the Taliban and Saddam Hussein.  There's hardly anything incompetent about that.

Yale

John Fund of the Wall Street Journal notes more on Yale's Taliban problem: "A 9/11 survivor asks Yale to explain why it admitted the Taliban Man."

NYT

The New York Times makes yet another error.

Red River Rising

New York Times:

Volunteers filled and stacked sandbags Saturday to protect homes in North Dakota and Minnesota from the rising Red River and its tributaries, swollen by a combination of melting snow and heavy rain.

Mayor Bruce Furness said Fargo was preparing for a flood crest next week of 37 to 38 feet, well above the official flood stage of 18 feet. However, he has said that would threaten only about 30 homes -- compared with about 130 flooded in 1997.

Along with the sandbagging, the mayor said Saturday there were signs the river's rise is slowing.

''We're feeling better today than we did yesterday,'' Furness said.

On the Minnesota side of the Red River valley, the Buffalo River went over its banks and the Rev. Brad Lewis had to use a canoe to get around his five-acre farmstead, about 15 miles south of Fargo near Sabin, Minn.

Darin Smith

Joel Rosenthal:  Darin Smith – Tom Daschle Wanna Be

Where Are The Populists?

What Prof. Blanchard reports below suggests an opportunity for economic populists of the right and left to unite against the elites of each party.  Or is it that the elites should unite against the populists?  Either way, the class dynamic of the immigration debate is fascinating.  Given that organized labor has traditionally been skittish about new immigration (since it tends to lower wages and cost jobs to union members), how the Democratic Party combats immigration will tell us much about the strength of the labor movement. 

Mr. Moussaoui, Meet Mr. Zappy

I am not in favor of the death penalty, but if they decide to execute Zacarias Moussaoui, I am going to have a tough time feeling sorry for him. 

The Old Switchero!

This is what I call taking the bull by the horns. 

Split Differences On Immigration

That the Republican Party is split over immigration reform is celebrated widely across the MSM. See USAToday.  That the GOP is the party that favors Draconian reform measures is part of that stock story.  What has not been noticed is that the differences between Republicans and Democrats on the issue are less significant that the differences between groups of voters within each party.  While the Democrats are indeed less likely to support any "get tough" legislation, Democratic voters are just as split as the Republicans.  Peter Brown has this, from Real Clear Politics. 

The more educated and affluent people are, regardless of whether they are a Democrat, Republican or independent, the less they are inclined to see the need for immigration reform solely to toughen laws and beef up security.

That's the message from a Quinnipiac University poll of almost 2,000 U.S. voters released in March. The size of the sample - almost double the typical 1,000 person national sample -- allows analysis of differences along socioeconomic and political lines.

On virtually every immigration question, Democrats are less likely than Republicans or independents to back "get-tough" measures. But on most questions the differences along party lines are smaller than they are within members of the same party.

When asked if legal immigration should be kept steady, increased or decreased, 32 percent of Republicans and independents and 35 percent of Democrats favor the status quo.

But analyzing the numbers by party and education shows a different story. Among Republicans with a high school degree or less, 30 percent want to keep immigration at its present level, as do 34 percent of similarly educated Democrats. Yet, 41 percent of both Republican and Democratic college grads feel that way.

Overall, 21 percent of Republicans and 26 percent of Democrats want an increase in immigration. But that 5 point split is less than half the 13-point gap between Democrats with high school educations (18 percent) and those with college degrees (31 percent). The Republican intra-party split is 5 points - 17 percent among the least educated and 22 percent among the most educated.

Asked whether Congress should change the law to make it easier for illegal immigrants to become legal workers, the same pattern appears.

There is a 7 point difference in support between Democrats and Republicans - 44 percent to 37 percent. But among Republicans the gap in support between those with a high-school diploma or less and a college degree or more is 12 points - 30 percent to 42 percent. Among Democrats, the difference is 22 points - 36 percent among those with high school education compared to 58 percent among those with college degrees.

CCK Inuendo

I would like to think that the regional blogosphere could be a reasonably civil arena.  Accordingly, when one of my SDP colleagues called Chad Shulte a liar, over what seemed to me to be a question of interpretation, I took him to task on this blog.  Likewise I have never been interested in the political connections of those who participate in CCK (though some of my colleagues have explored that question).  I am just more interested in their arguments.

Now Chad has alleged a very nasty thing about one of my colleagues, Jason Heppler.  He has a faux poll on his site addressed to this question:

Who do you believe is posting on South Dakota Politcs [sic] under then [sic] name "Jason Heppler"?:

SDP is a very open blog.  Everyone knows who we are, a fact that Chad has relentlessly exploited whenever he gets mad, and he gets mad a lot.  No one ever posts here under anyone else's name.  To say otherwise, or suggest it by innuendo, that would make someone a liar.   In this case, it would also make him a very careless speller.   

Can You Tell a Serial Killer from a Computer Programmer?

This is not to imply that there is a moral distinction to be made.  Though bear in mind, Chad Shulte, that I am not speaking here of all serial killers, many of whom may be moderate Democrats and innocent of any hatred of America.  Donna Marmorstein sends us this intriguing test:

http://www.malevole.com/mv/misc/killerquiz/

Demonstrations Are Not A Civil Rights Movement

Joe Hicks, former director of the West Coast contingent of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (Martin Luther King's organization), writes in the Los Angeles Times that the demonstrations this week are in no way related to the American civil-rights movement.  Mr. Hicks has spent his life working for civil rights but illustrates that those who cross the border illegally are criminals by definition:

THE DEBATE over illegal immigration has reached a vigorous boil, with contrasting bills in the House and Senate and hundreds of thousands of protesters demonstrating nationwide. The complexities of this debate seem lost on many of the protesters. Many claim that what lies beneath reform efforts is raw racism, leading to the view that the recent protests signal a new civil rights movement.

It's simply not true. This nation's civil rights movement of the 1960s broke the back of white supremacy that prevented black Americans (who were citizens) from enjoying the rights guaranteed to them under the Constitution. Undeniably, the freedoms codified by civil rights-era legislation have made life better for all Americans — regardless of skin color, gender or national origin.

Now, many Latino immigrant-rights organizers and their sympathizers seem to be saying that there is some inherent right being expressed when people sneak into the country, thumb their noses at the law and make fools out of those who wait patiently in foreign lands for visas to come to the United States.

It is quite clear that many of those participating in the demonstrations have adopted the stance of the beleaguered victim, perceiving frustration about illegal immigration as racism. Some comments have been painfully ignorant. One protester said: "I'm here to make sure that Mexicans get their freedom, their rights."

During the student protests, the American flag was only occasionally on display, while the Mexican flag was omnipresent. A student said he was waving the latter in support of La Raza (the race), while another asked why illegal immigrants were "treated like criminals." Perhaps he wasn't aware that crossing the U.S. border without the required visa is now, and always has been, against the law.

Hicks' basic argument is that the protests are about entitlement, not civil rights.  Entitlement to violate border laws, to use government services without paying income taxes, and to ignore American law in general.  Hicks continues to write that the flood of illegal immigrants generates depressing pressure on wages at all entry-level areas of the market.  He writes about the cluelessness of teenagers who protest in their lack of understanding of the issue.  It may be true that America was built upon the "backs of immigrants," as Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa said, but to erase the distinction between legal and illegal immigrants is a mockery of the law.  He also notes the irony of demonstrations being held on the day that honors labor leader Cesar Chavez, who fought against the use of illegals by agribusiness since "illegal immigration was antithetical to the wage interests of the migrant workers he represented."

I'm in agreement with my colleagues when it comes to this issue.  Out first resolution must be the security of the southern border and once that happens we can debate how to handle the people who have already crossed.  The best solution for that may be some method of legalization for the immigrants that are already here.  I have no problem with people wanting to come here and partake in the American dream, but it must be done legally and in the interest of U.S. national security.

Happy Birthday Emmylou

Scott Johnson has a nice post on one of my favorites, Emmylou Harris, on the occasion of her birthday. 

For What It's Worth

I suspect this fooled virtually nobody, especially since I ripped off the idea from here (read #6).  I should have had Janklow running for dog catcher. 

Bush

Stephen Green:

President Bush isn’t a fascist, and I can prove it.

We’ve seen what American bookstores and publications and universities do when confronted with real fascists: they knuckle under. You might not be able to find those Danish cartoons anyplace respectable, but you’ll sure find lots of anti-Bush stuff.

Ipso facto, America is doing just fine, thankyouverymuch.

Indeed.