South Dakota Politics

Zarqawi

Powerline: Sticking Up For Zarqawi

Democracy

Nicolas Tenzer:

For Tocqueville, democracy’s systemic effects could lead citizens to deprive themselves of reasoned thought. They could pretend to judge events and values on their own while in reality they would merely copy the rough and simplified opinions of the masses. Indeed, what Tocqueville called the hold of “social power” on opinion is probably strongest in democratic regimes — a view that foretells the growth of modern-day demagogy and media manipulation.

Tocqueville believed that there are no effective long-term constraints on this tendency. Neither local democracy nor small societies, neither governmental checks and balances nor civil rights, can prevent the decline of critical thought that democracy seems to cause. Schools have the power to be little more than enclaves from the corrosive strength of social influences on how the mind works. Similarly, while Tocqueville thought that pursuing virtue as the ancients did, or having a religious faith, could sometimes elevate the soul, both conflict with the democratic ideal if they become officially prescribed in public life.

In this sense, Tocqueville’s intellectual heirs include the neo-Marxist theorists of the Frankfurt school, as well as Hannah Arendt, all of whom feared above all the disintegration of reason in modern societies. Indeed, the French philosopher Marcel Gauchet named a recent book Democracy Against Itself. The democratic way of life, these writers argue, tends to destroy original thought and to suppress “high” culture, yielding a mediocrity that leaves citizens vulnerable to democracy’s enemies.

But, while history is replete with murderous regimes applauded by cowed and deceived masses, the greater risk for democratic nations is that their citizens withdraw into apathy and short-term thinking for immediate gratification. The past — despite rituals that seek to commemorate historic moments — is obliterated by an addiction to the now and the new. Even the supposedly well-educated ruling class is subject to this bewitchment. The essential problem of the democratic mind is its lack of historical consciousness.

Do the defects of democracy really mean, as Tocqueville claimed, that resigned pessimism is the only — realistic but unsustainable — path open to us? I don’t think so. There are means to fight against what might be called today’s growing “democratic stupidity”.

The first defence is to push for an educational system that really forms critical minds, namely through the (nowadays) largely neglected subjects of literature, history, and philosophy. If an informed and critical citizenry, that democracy requires, is to be formed, our schools must stop pandering to the latest popular fads and begin to sharpen the analytical capacities of students.

The biggest impediment to such an education is the mass media, with its tendency to cultivate superficiality and amusement. Many people nowadays spend more of their lives watching television than they do in classrooms. The passivity that mass media encourages is the polar opposite of the active engagement that democratic citizens need.

When In Doubt, Another Bureaucracy

The WSJ has a fine summary of factors going into the resignation (removal?) of Porter Goss as Director of Central Intelligence.  One thing of note in this piece is the discussion of bureaucratic structure.  Washington has an addiction to bureaucracy, as we all know.  The problem is that once a bureaucracy is created it creates constituencies and defenders that make it immune to serious reform, much less elimination, should it be called for.  So what we do is layer one bureaucracy on top of another, creating a mish mash of incomprehensible and unworkable government. 

Example: In the late 80s we got all excited about drugs.  The federal government had numerous agencies involved in the "War on drugs."  I play this game with my students: name every federal agency that might have anything to do with fighting drugs. They can usually name fifteen without much effort.  So what is Washington's (more accurately, George H.W. Bush's) brainstorm?  Create an Office of National Drug Control Policy with a director nicknamed "the drug czar" (or tsar, if you are old school) to coordinate our drug fighting efforts.  So what happened?  The Office of National Drug Control Policy became just another part of the bureaucratic duplication in the effort to combat drugs.  The same has happened with the Directorate of National Intelligence, as the WSJ notes.  No actual coordination of intelligence.  Just another bureaucracy. 

Imagine a Wal-Mart or Kmart or Target that could order new product lines but could never get rid of old ones.  If, say, Hoover comes up with a new vacuum cleaner, Target must carry the old model along with the new.  Imagine this goes on for a decade or three?  Won't your Target be a mess of products, a chaotic mess with useless products along side the few really quality new ones?  At a certain point won't it be difficult for Target to do anything new and big, because they have to take care of the old?  That is the state of our federal government.

Nappaquiddick

I wish I could claim that title, but I stole it from William Saletan at Slate.  In case it got by you, U.S. Representative Patrick Kennedy followed in his father's footsteps by smashing his car up under suspicious circumstances, though with somewhat fewer fatalities involved.  Just add water.

His explanation at present is: "Hey, I was using drugs.  But at least I wasn't drinking."  He now claims he was "sleep driving" under the influence of sleeping pills.  But drinking was almost certainly what he was doing before he started his car but forgot to turn the lights on.  Capital Police report smelling alcohol, but a superior officer intervened and Kennedy was not given a breathalyzer test.  Being a Kennedy doesn't mean never having to say you're sorry, but it does mean never having to say it in court.  See Michelle Malkin for more. 

I don't blame PK for taking advantage of his family immunity to the laws (I wish my dad had that kind of clout), or for having one too many before he hit the road.  There but for the grace of God and my wife . . .   But I am offended by his heroic struggle with disease act.  Here's my transcript of his public remarks:

Over my fifteen years in public life I felt a responsibility to speak honestly and openly about the challenges I have with addiction and depression.  I have been fighting this chronic disease since I was a young man and have aggressively and periodically sought treatment so that I can live a full and productive life.  I struggle everyday with this disease, as do millions of Americans.  I have dedicated my public service to raising awareness about the chronic disease of addiction and have fought to increase access to care and recovery supports for the many Americans forced to struggle on their own. 

Well, what we have here ladies and gentlemen is a true Achilles of substance abuse.  What an admirable fellow!  But there is nothing heroic about changing your story by the hour, and then taking refuge from reporters in the Mayo Clinic.  But look at the bright side, Pat.  At least for now the DME railroad won't disturb your recovery process. 

Jay Reding

Congratulations to Sioux Falls blogger Jay Reding, who has been named "The Official Best Blog in the Upper Midwest."  Aside from being an excellent blog for commentary and analysis, Jay has the most visually appealing blog I've seen.  Congrats!

Mystic Dwarfs and Judicial Review

At last we have an explanation for one of the great mysteries of American constitutional law.  From MSN.com:

MANILA, The Philippines - A Philippine judge who claimed he could see into the future and admitted consulting imaginary mystic dwarfs has asked for his job back after being sacked by the country’s Supreme Court.

“They should not have dismissed me for what I believed,” Florentino Floro, a trial judge in the capital’s Malabon northern suburb, told reporters after filing his appeal.

Floro was sacked last month and fined $780 (40,000 pesos) after a three-year investigation found he was incompetent, had shown bias in a case he was trying and had criticized court procedure, a ruling showed.

He told investigators that three mystic dwarfs -- Armand, Luis and Angel -- helped him carry out healing sessions during breaks in his chambers.

The Supreme Court said it was not within its expertise to conclude that Floro was insane, but agreed with the court clinic’s finding that he was suffering from psychosis.

Now consider the following language from Griswold v. Connecticut:

Specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance. See Poe     v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497,   516-522 (dissenting opinion). Various guarantees create zones of privacy.

Penumbras?  Emanations?  Life and Substance?  Twilight Zones of privacy?  For a long time I thought that this was point at which the drugs took affect.  Surely such terms can have no meaning in constitutional reasoning.  Now the scales fall from my eyes.  Mr. Justice Douglas was channeling for mystic dwarfs.  Justices Armand, Luis, and Angel co-wrote the opinion.

Socialism

Lee Harris:  Why Isn't Socialism Dead?

Okay with Communism 5: wrap up.

I called Jack Reed a Stalinist in my recent post.  Intrepid and fortunately friendly reader, Nathan Carter Wood, points out that this was an elementary error. 

A quibble: Bolshevik sympathizer, romantic revolutionary and all around dupe for evil, sure, but Jack Reed died in 1920. Lenin was alive, Trotsky still a force in the civil war, and Stalin a decade or so away from consolidating his tyranny. Reed lionized Trotsky and barely mentions Stalin in 10 Days.

To my mind, Stalinist in the American sense refers to those who defended the regime in the 1930s and refused to break with him after the show trials of 1938 and the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.

Pete Seeger, now there was a Stalinist.

To which my first instinct was to reply: "I knew that!"  But in fact it was a careless mistake.  I suspect Reed would have made a fine Stalinist if only he had had the chance.  Lets call him a mere communist instead. 

Faithful reader Casey McEnelly would add this:

I would add the book/movie/musical “Ragtime” which does its best to beatify Emma Goldman. You may also add the 1999 film “Cradle Will Rock” which examines the controversy surrounding the Federal Theatre Program during the Great Depression. For such a little-known film, it is particularly star-studded. And how about Hollywood’s fascination with the “innocence” of the Rosenbergs? How many feature films and made for TV movies have been made of that?

Consider these items added to the list.  They add further grist to my mill.  But I note what grain I am grinding.  I said in my now infamous post:

Do Hollywood leftists applaud mass murder?  No.  They just seem inordinately fond of people who did applaud mass murderers.

This is a qualified point.  I do not apologize for making it. 

 

Okay with Communism 4: further debate

Surprisingly enough, Seth at CCK has come up with an argument. 

When I see people displaying Confederate flags, do I say that the right is not morally opposed to slavery? When I see right-wing nuts proposing that we kill homosexuals, so I say that Republicans are in favor of killing homosexuals? When people on the far right wear swastikas, do I call this proof that conservatives need to distance themselves more from Hilter's regime?

That's fair enough.  Likewise I said this:

I do not "equate American liberals" with communist tyranny.  I say explicitly that "the modern left is largely free from communism."  I would point out that many of the most fervent anti-communists were liberals in good standing.  It remains the case that many of the left have a romantic view of American communists.  I think this is an embarrassment for the left.

Seth's relaxed view of confederate flags is not generally shared by liberal critics.  Note Ryan Lizza of the New Republic and his current campaign to torpedo George Allen for wearing confederate flag pins in college.  But Seth and I agree on something: both parties and both sides are diverse.  A hammer and sickle on one newsperson's tee shirt does not discredit everyone to the left of center, just as a few Southern conservatives with confederate decals do not discredit the right.  I acknowledge Seth's point here. 

But Jeff Jacoby was right to point out in the Boston Globe that there is a double standard. 

N JANUARY 2005, Britain's Prince Harry attended a birthday party dressed as a Nazi. When the London Sun published a picture of the prince in his German desert uniform and swastika armband, it triggered widespread outrage and disgust. In scathing editorials, Harry was condemned as an ignorant and insensitive clod; months later, he was still apologizing for his tasteless costume. ''It was a very stupid thing to do," he said in September. ''I've learnt my lesson."

For a more recent example of totalitarian fashion, consider Tim Vincent, the New York correspondent for NBC's entertainment newsmagazine, ''Access Hollywood." Twice in the last few weeks, Vincent has introduced stories about upcoming movies while sporting an open jacket over a bright red T-shirt -- on which, clearly outlined in gold, was a large red star and a hammer-and-sickle: the international emblems of totalitarian communism.

I do not apologize for pointing out that a romantic view of communists is common among some very important constituencies of the American left.  Hollywood is a major financial and cultural backer of the Democratic party in particular and the left in general.  I pointed out that they have produced a steady stream of movies making heroes out of communists.  Harvard surely represents the intellectual elite of the American left, and they see fit to sponsor a visit to the most vicious communist regime left in the world, and to instruct their delegates on how to bow to its monster-in-chief. Harvard and Hollywood are not small potatoes.  If Seth is really offended by communism, he would acknowledge that there is a problem.  Instead he labors strenuously to make sure they are defended from any criticism.

Of course Seth is not offended by communism.  He insists on separating it out as a mere "economic system," untainted by all the bad stuff (universal tyranny, mass murder, etc.).  I called this ignorant, and perhaps that was unfair.  It would be better to call it dangerously naive.  Apart from a few communes, the economic system has always been part of the package along with the guns and dungeons.  And even the communes have frequently tended toward authoritarianism under some charismatic leader. 

I know that it hurts, but it is sometimes necessary to criticize one's own side.  While the conservative movement nationally has been altogether free of any sympathy with slavery, this has not always been true of southern conservatives.  Our southern brethren are all too comfortable with a romantic view of the old South, and that is mostly a bad thing. Many on the left have pointed this out, and I think they were right to do so. 

I would point out, finally, that the Clean Cut Kids are an odd bunch.  They persistently describe people they disagree with as despicable, as "chickenhawks," as [expletive deleted].  I have no problem with this, though I do not imitate them.  Its what the blogosphere is all about.  Yet they also persistently insist that contrary voices be sanctioned if not shut down.  This is one difference between their blog and ours.  We have never argued that anyone ought to be shut down because their ideas offend us. 

Profiles in Courage

So the House has passed a bill outlawing price gouging.  The problem is they don't bother defining it.  They leave that to the Federal Trade Commission.  First, price fixing (which could be deemed separate from price gouging) is already illegal.  More importantly, if you are going to make something illegal, don't you think you should be able to define what it is?  Also, suggesting that current gas prices are too high suggests that we know what the "correct" price of gas should be.  How would one even begin to determine the "proper" price of anything?  Usually we leave that up to the free market.  I note that Stephanie Herseth voted for this exercise in futility. 

Corporate Farming

Agriculture Online:

Farmers' Legal Action Group (FLAG) today filed an Amicus, or Friend of the Court brief asking the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals to reverse a December 2005 decision of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska which struck down Initiative 300, Nebraska's constitutional amendment that restricts non-family-owned corporations from engaging in farming and ranching.

FLAG wants states to have the authority to enact laws that promote family farming by restricting the ability of corporations to own farmland or engage in farming.

The U.S. District Court held that the Nebraska corporate farming law violates the U.S. Constitution because it discriminates against out-of-state economic interests. The farm organizations argue that Initiative 300, like other state laws restricting corporate farming, fosters family farming and healthy rural communities, and is a legitimate regulation of a state's agricultural system.

I've previously blogged on the issue of corporate farming.  See the background information here, and more here.

DM&E

KELOLAND:  "The list of people associated with both sides of the DM&E expansion controversy reads like a Who's Who of South Dakota politics."

Porkbusters

We don't talk about Porkbusters often on this blog, but this morning they've issued a report card on senators' votes on the Coborn anti-pork amendments.  Excerpt:

As we have been tracking the Coburn anti-pork "clay pigeon" amendments, it's time for a quick scorecard on the votes that have occurred to date. Listed below are Senators, grouped by how many times they voted to support one the three Coburn anti-pork amendments that have come to a vote: the CSX Railroad relocation in Mississippi (Coburn lost 47-50); the "seafood promotion strategies package" (Coburn won 51-44), and the Northrup Grumman bailout (Coburn lost 48-51).

Here's where our senators ended up:

Anti-Pork Heroes (3 out of 3 votes anti-pork)
10 Democrats, 17 Republicans

Bayh (D-IN) Bingaman (D-NM) Bunning (R-KY) Burr (R-NC) Carper (D-DE) Chafee (R-RI) Coburn (R-OK) Conrad (D-ND) DeMint (R-SC) Ensign (R-NV) Enzi (R-WY) Feingold (D-WI) Graham (R-SC) Hagel (R-NE)

Inhofe (R-OK) Kohl (D-WI) Kyl (R-AZ) Lieberman (D-CT) Lugar (R-IN) McCain (R-AZ) Nelson (D-NE) Obama (D-IL) Stabenow (D-MI) Sununu (R-NH) Thomas (R-WY) Thune (R-SD) Voinovich (R-OH)

...

Not Impressive (1 of 3 votes anti-pork)
8 Democrats, 9 Republicans

Byrd (D-WV) Dole (R-NC) Feinstein (D-CA) Gregg (R-NH) Hatch (R-UT) Hutchison (R-TX) Isakson (R-GA)* Jeffords (I-VT) Johnson (D-SD)

Martinez (R-FL) McConnell (R-KY) Menendez (D-NJ) Murray (D-WA) Nelson (D-FL) Reid (D-NV) Roberts (R-KS) Warner (R-VA)

UPDATE:  Mark Tapscott has some thoughts on Senator Tom Coburn, among other things.  The New Senate at work!

Congress

Howard Kurtz:

But seriously, folks, has Congress become something of a joke?

Are these toothless lawmakers no longer capable of passing anything with bite?

Consider:

Folks on the Hill were desperate to demonstrate their deep concern about gas prices. So Republicans-- Republicans !--said maybe they'd pop the oil industry with a new tax. Then the industry howled. Never mind.

And how 'bout giving each taxpayer 100 bucks so they can fill 'er up two or three times? That was the GOP plan. John Boehner called it "stupid." Never mind.

Democrats want to investigate oil company price-gouging. Great. Will that produce another barrel of oil?

So the House cooks up some thin gruel just to show that it's doing something. (Not that there's much the Hill can do to get prices down in the short term, but everyone has to maintain the fiction that government can fix this problem, preferably by November.)

Read the whole thing.

Governor's Race

The Democratic candidates for governor are coordinating their attacks with the Argus Leader:

The two Democratic candidates for governor said Tuesday that Republican Gov. Mike Rounds is letting his dispute with the Sioux Falls Argus Leader affect public policy in ways that could be harmful to state citizens facing a mumps outbreak.

Jack Billion of Sioux Falls and Dennis Wiese of Flandreau also argued that the incident is further proof that the Rounds administration prefers secrecy in government to full disclosure of public business, charges that Rounds denied.

The Democrats criticized Rounds for a state policy that limits the release of information to the Argus Leader because of the newspaper’s lawsuit earlier this year seeking to acquire a list of people invited to the Governor’s Pheasant Hunt. Under advice from a lawyer, Rounds directed state employees not to talk to Argus Leader employees without consulting a state lawyer.

The Argus Leader contended Sunday in an editorial that the governor’s order has gone beyond that individual legal issue and resulted last week in state epidemiologist Lon Kightlinger’s refusal to answer questions posed by an Argus Leader reporter about a recent outbreak of mumps.

...

Rounds said the Argus Leader and his political critics were mischaracterizing both his policy and the situation involving Kightlinger. An Argus reporter called Kightlinger at home for an interview after hours, and Kightlinger “simply declined to be the press person for the department,” Rounds said.

Although Circuit Court Judge Max Gors of Pierre recently ruled in favor of the state in the Argus suit, Rounds said an appeal by the newspaper is still possible. Until that is settled, state officials are being advised to consult with a lawyer or have one present before granting individual interviews with the Argus Leader, Rounds said.

Such rules don’t apply to reporters from other news outlets not involved in the Argus suit, he said.

“We simply followed our attorney’s advice, which is: As long as litigation is in effect, individuals should refrain from contact on a private basis with individuals from the Argus Leader, until such time as they can have an attorney present or the issue is resolved,” Rounds said.

The Argus Leader has access to any information released at general news conferences, through public news releases or on state Web sites. And reports on the mumps cases detected so far in South Dakota and related information is regularly updated on the state Health Department Web site, Rounds said.

“We have put out a huge amount of information on mumps,” Rounds said.

Read the whole thing.

Oil

Max Boot in the Los Angeles Times:

Of the top 14 oil exporters, only one is a well-established liberal democracy — Norway. Two others have recently made a transition to democracy — Mexico and Nigeria. Iraq is trying to follow in their footsteps. That's it. Every other major oil exporter is a dictatorship — and the run-up in oil prices has been a tremendous boon to them.

My associate at the Council on Foreign Relations, Ian Cornwall, calculates that if oil averages $71 a barrel this year, 10 autocracies stand to make about $500 billion more than in 2003, when oil was at $27. This windfall helps to squelch liberal forces and entrench noxious dictators in such oil producers as Russia (which stands to make $115 billion more this year than in 2003) and Venezuela ($36 billion). Vladimir Putin and Hugo Chavez can buy off their publics with generous subsidies and ignore Western pressure while sabotaging democratic developments from Central America to Central Asia.

The "dictatorship dividend" also subsidizes Sudan's ethnic cleansing (it stands to earn $4.7 billion more this year than in 2003), Iran's development of nuclear weapons ($45 billion) and Saudi Arabia's proselytization for Wahhabi fundamentalism ($149 billion). Even in such close American allies as Kuwait ($35 billion) and the United Arab Emirates ($36 billion), odds are that some of the extra lucre will find its way into the pockets of terrorists.

More Grist For The Mill

Adding to Prof. Blanchard's list of films celebrating communists, I add Frida, a bio-pic about Frida Kahlo and Diego Rivera, both of whom were fervent communists.  If the Wikipedia article is accurate, Frida was a defender of Stalin and Mao.  And then Hollywood gave Salma Hayek an Academy Award nomination for her sympathetic portrayal of this defender of mass murderers. 

It might also be noted that Mao's "Little Red Book" was a "must read" among student radicals of the 1960s. 

Those interested in an account of communist atrocities, I recommend the Black Book of Communism.

By the way, a sign that there is a God is that Reds lost out to Chariots of Fire for Best Picture back in 1982. 

Okay with Communism 3: some debate

Seth at CCK has responded to my pieces on Communist Chic.  Seth enjoys exploding in righteous offense.  I enjoy offending Seth.  Both of us are apparently good at what we enjoy.  Consider it one of nature's symbiotic relationships. 

Seth opens his screed with this:

Let's get a few things straight. To say that liberals in America are somehow unoffended by the literally millions of lives taken during the Soviet regime is absurd even for you. You have made a completely irresponsible argument with that and you should apologize.

Seth ignores the evidence I presented, as well as the much more ample evidence provided by Jeff Jacoby.  Allow me to suggest that the folk who cloth their babes in Che Guevara infant wear are not conservatives, and if the Harvard luminaries who instructed their alumni on how to kowtow to the murderous dictator Kim Il Sung felt indignation at the "literally millions of lives" he snuffed out, well, they managed to suppress it. 

I would point out the stream of movies produced by Hollywood leftist and liberals (not the same thing) that make heroes out of communists.  In Reds, Warren Beatty turns Jack Reed into Jesus.  In Julia, Jane Fonda gives us a heroic Lillian Hellman.  Both Reed and Hellman were Stalinists.  A few years ago we got Il Postino, a very good movie that left one feeling good about Pablo Neruda, a Stalinist poet.  More recently we have movies like The Bicycle Diaries, a subtle and sensitive portrait of Che, who, after putting aside his scout, would be in charge of executing political opponents of the Castro regime.  Do Hollywood leftists applaud mass murder?  No.  They just seem inordinately fond of people who did applaud mass murderers.  I humbly suggest that if a conservative director (assuming such a creature exists) produced a subtle and sensitive portrait of an American Nazi, Seth would find something wrong with that.  He would probably think that it said something important about the conservative movement. 

Seth has more to say:

Second, it was not so much communism--which is purely a system for economic order--that killed millions of people as it was the suspension of civil rights, the repression of a free press and a brutal and heartless leader that killed people. Again, so equate that with American liberals is something that would be irresponsible for a high school debater to do, and is unacceptable for a person supposedly educated in political thought.

This is flamboyantly ignorant.  "Communism" was much more than an "economic order" or doctrine.  It was a systematic means of seizing power and holding power in order to achieve an end proposed by theory.  Everywhere communists achieved power, they did the same horrific things.  The toll was not "literally millions of lives," it was literally hundreds of millions of lives. 

I do not "equate American liberals" with communist tyranny.  I say explicitly that "the modern left is largely free from communism."  I would point out that many of the most fervent anti-communists were liberals in good standing.  It remains the case that many of the left have a romantic view of American communists.  I think this is an embarrassment for the left.

Both liberals and conservatives have their flaws.  Its the job of those on each side to point out flaws on the other.  Sometimes the best strategy is not righteous indignation, but acknowledgment.  For example, in the eighties liberals favored sanctions against South Africa, while conservatives mostly opposed them.  Conservatives like myself did so not because of any sympathy for apartheid.  We did so because we thought that the alternative to the South African government was a communist regime.  The liberals were right, and we were wrong.  Sanctions in fact forced the South African government to finally end its reprehensible regime.  For that we have Nelson Mandela to thank.  Now imagine that contemporary American conservatives were clothing their infants with jumpsuits adorned with images of the founders of apartheid.  What would Seth make of that? 

Latin American Relapse

After several decades of progress, much of Latin America is suffering a relapse of Castroism.  The thugish government of Chavez in Venuzuala is now being followed by that of Evo Morales in Bolivia.  Morales represents the worst instincts of Latin populism.  He has sent soldiers to seize Bolivia's oil fields, thus appropriating billions of dollars of foreign investments.  Well, its their oil you might say.  But the dollars that developed the fields came from outside, and it bodes very ill for Bolivia to cut off foreign investment.  Bolivia cannot be developed without help, and that help isn't going to come from Castro. 

Alvaro Vargas Llosa has an excellent analysis of the situation.  Vargas Llosa is one of my new favorite writers.  He is the son of the Peruvian novelist Mario Vargas Llosa, who is in fact my favorite living novelist.  If you want a rocking good book, read The Storyteller, my favorite Latin American novel. 

AVL points out that Bolivia is cutting the economic branch it is sitting on.

His latest brawl with moderate neighbors saw him call Peru's president, "a traitor to indigenous people" for signing a Free Trade Agreement with Washington. Morales did so immediately after Venezuela announced it was abandoning the Andean Community of Nations (a regional trading bloc) because Colombia had signed its own Free Trade Agreement with the U.S. Since Toledo, like Morales, is indigenous, this sounded like an attempt to appeal to ethnicity in order to drive the Andean population away from globalization.

The Bolivian government caused Brazil's Petrobras energy giant to call off a $5 billion investment last month and has now ordered the Bolivian subsidiary of EBX, a Brazilian steelmaker, to stop building a pig-iron plant on Bolivia's south-eastern border (more than $80 million have already been invested and about 1,000 jobs are on the line.) Morales was right at the beginning of his presidency to ask Brazil and Argentina to pay higher prices for their imports of natural gas because they had been getting it at highly subsidized prices. But Morales reached an understanding with Argentina and kept the fight with Brazil. Argentina is closer to the Cuba-Venezuela axis than Brazil, a country that, despite maintaining reservations about Washington's hopes for a Free Trade Area of the Americas, is keeping a clear distance from Castro and Chávez.

Other Bolivian investors are facing problems too. Spain's Repsol has recently announced a big decline in its oil reserves because of a reduction in investment due to Morales' threats to nationalize oil and a law passed by the previous government raising taxes to over 50 percent. Now, Morales has announced his government will take control of the energy prices and the export volumes of foreign companies.

Latin American governments are right to insist on the best trade terms for their countries, and for wanting to insure that indigenous populations get their fair share; but they cannot prosper by cutting themselves off from the most lucrative sources of foreign investment. 

Worst still are the domestic political implications of Morales' program.  He is flooding his country with Cuban advisers, and taking steps to rig the country's electoral institutions in his favor. 

The most important step he has taken to undermine the system's independence is the new electoral register. The overall objective is to pack his constituent assembly, which will be elected this summer, with his supporters and then re-write the constitution to fit his political needs, "a la Chávez." For that, he needs even more votes than he got in his presidential election. He has given the police control of the process by fusing two separate operations -- the creation of a new identity census and a new electoral register -- with the result that the electoral register, which used to be solely controlled by the National Electoral Court, is now handled by the police. It is not surprising that 650,000 new voters have now been added to the electoral register. Venezuelan advisors are also helping Morales with this process.

As if this were not enough to send the wrong kinds of signals, Morales seems happy to stir up trouble in Santa Cruz, the separatist region that has been at political war with La Paz and which is heavily inclined toward globalization because of its strong business community. The government has stopped the tender process for the development of Mutun, a big iron reserve waiting to be exploited. The Bolivian government recently said it is considering a joint venture with a Venezuelan government-owned company to develop iron. Protests have already begun.

Washington of course will take a dim view of all this.  The cold war is over, and without the problem of Soviet influence, the U.S. will not intervene.  But we can and should make sure that Bolivia is not protected against the consequences of such idiotic policies.  Bolivia is heavily dependent upon foreign aid.  If Morales is really determined to cut his nation off from globalization, donor nations should get with the program and help him realize his ambition.

 

Farming Costs

The price of gasoline is hitting our farmers hard:

Farmers are facing rising expenses this year, and fuel is not the only culprit.

"Fuel costs are a big deal, but it's not so much about what we put in the tractor, it's the cost of fertilizer, the cost of seed, the cost of transportation and everything that comes with high fuel prices," Westport farmer Darren Engelhardt said. "The cost of everything has probably gone up 30 percent from last year to this year."

Allan May, an Extension agricultural economist, said fertilizer prices have been especially troublesome and that some farmers have started changing crops.

"In the prospective planning report issued in March, it showed a very huge decline in what farmers are planting for corn this year," May said. "The reason for that is the cost of nitrogen fertilizer is very high. The estimate is a 100,000-acre switch in South Dakota from corn to soybeans. That's a real direct response to energy costs."

He said experts expected farmers to plant fewer acres of corn, "but not this much."

Fuel prices have soared, May said. "It stretches beyond just the fuel farmers use. Farmers and others in the agriculture industry are going to start paying, if they aren't already, more for all the goods and services. Right now, we're kind of in (a) position where we'll be dealing with higher fuel costs for an indefinite amount of time."

Engelhardt bought his fuel in bulk and is storing it in a tank.

"There's really nothing else you can do," he said. "As expensive as the land is now, you can't not put a crop in. For farmers, it doesn't make much difference. If I need to go to town to get a part, I go to town and get a part."

Engelhardt believes gasoline could hit $3.50 a gallon by July.

Petitions

David Kranz:

Start counting

At the end of the day, you will have a better idea of how many  initiated measures you will get to vote on in November.

Today is the deadline for initiative petitions to be turned in to the state. Among those still out is the controversial measure being petitioned by a group opposed to confined livestock operations.

The abortion referendum petition drive still has time. Its deadline is June 19.

Alt Fuel

Associated Press:

VOLGA, S.D. (AP) -- Plans have been announced to build one of the nation's largest biodiesel refineries at Volga, according to South Dakota Soybean Processors.

The 40-million-gallon High Plains Biofuels refinery would be next to the group's soybean processing plant on the east side of town. SDSP is working with Transocean Group Holdings Propriety Ltd., of a Sydney, Australia, on the refinery project.

Backers say the refinery could be up and running by the first half of 2008 if the permit process and construction don't encounter major snags.

The Australian firm will provide money and strategic advice, while SDSP will provide the project management and the work force, said Rodney Christianson of Brookings, chief executive officer for SDSP.

UPDATE:  Speaking of biofuels, former Senator Tom Daschle authored a piece for the Des Moines Register about the subject.

Communism

Catallarchy held a day of remembrance for the victims of communism.

Okay with Communism 2

Harvard tries to show just how far communist chic really goes by arranging an alumni trip to a really interesting location.  Deborah Orin, writing in the New York Post:

May 1, 2006 -- HARVARD University has a bizarre idea of how to advance the education of its grads: Instruct them to bow down to North Korea's paranoid dictators and show proper "respect" for the Axis of Evil.

It's the ultimate in radical Stalinist chic - the Harvard Alumni Association's $636-a-night totalitarian luxury tour of a rogue nation where thousands are deliberately starved to death.

"Demonstrations of respect for the country's late leader, Kim Il Sung, and for the current leader, Kim Jong Il, are important," instructs the Harvard Alumni Association's tour memo.

"You will be expected to bow as a gesture of respect at the statue of Kim Il Sung and at his mausoleum."

Harvard even tries to pretend that bowing down to thugs is perfectly normal - explaining that it's because "North Korea, like every country, has its own unique protocols."

Well, yes, that certainly is a charming use of euphemism to cover up an ugly and unique reality - since North Korea is not "like every country."

North Korea's "protocols" feature massive human-rights abuses, deliberate famine, concentration camps, religious persecution, gas chambers, likely genocide and trafficking in women and children.

I wonder if the Harvard Alums are also advised  not to notice the mountains of corpses.  After all, different countries have their own protocols.

Aren't these Harvard Admin types the same folks who were appalled when Bush gave a speech at Bob Jones University?  Was it this left, or some other that urged the boycott of South Africa?  There is a moral blindness here that is breathtaking to behold.

 

Ms. Justice O'Connor on Chief Justice John Roberts

I can't remember anything quite like this before.  Sandra Day O'Connor writes a piece in Time on the man who replaced her on the Supreme Court.  It is altogether a positive assessment. 

As Justice Byron White used to say, the arrival of a new Justice creates an entirely new court. This is particularly true when the new Justice is also the new Chief Justice. The new Chief can bring tremendous changes in the operations of the court, from the way cases are discussed and opinions written to the very guiding ethos and atmosphere. Few have made the transition as seamlessly and effectively as Roberts. He knew our traditions well, as he had clerked in 1980 for then Associate Justice Rehnquist. His sense of humor and articulate nature and calm demeanor combine to make him a very effective Chief. I'm certain he will serve a long tenure in the role and be an effective leader not only for the Supreme Court but for all the federal courts in the nation.

This sounds well and good, but of course it doesn't go to judicial philosophy or the ideological direction of the Court.  Ms. O'Connor comes from a tradition in which decorum was a conspicuous feature and so she would be unlikely to write about such things.  But that makes one wonder why she wrote the piece at all. 

Vine Deloria

Rapid City Journal:

Famed author and philosopher Vine Deloria Jr.'s greatest gift to the American Indian community was providing a way for the American Indian community to articulate outside their community, according to a former friend and co-editor.

"Vine gave us a way to talk to our white relatives," said George Tinker, a featured speaker Sunday at "Vine Deloria, Jr. and the Great Mystery: A Legacy of Analysis and Vision," the first in a series of three events to commemorate the late South Dakota author. The event at the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology was open to the public.

Deloria, who died Nov. 13, is best-known for his books such as "Custer Died for Your Sins," "God Is Red" and "Red Earth, White Lies."

Tinker, co-editor of the 30th edition of "God is Red," is a professor of American Indian cultures and religious traditions at the Iliff School of Theology in Denver.

Tinker said that although there are many people who wished that Deloria could have written "at least 20 more books," the resonance of his body of work stands as a testament to the man he considered a mentor and a friend.

Al Qaeda

Strategypage reports that al Qaeda is being defeated by the Internet.

Capitalism

Check out the Carnival of the Capitalists -- what better way to celebrate May Day?

Okay with Communism

For an intense if brief expression of unambigous evil, there is no beatting the Nazis.  The immoral purity of the holocaust, the eradication of a people as a grand ideal, so clearly evident in the final solution, is unmatched anywhere else in human history.  Still, communism murdered and enslaved far more human beings over a much longer stretch of time than national socialism ever did.  So it's something that a responsible left ought to worry about that communism has so little opprobrium attached to it.  Jeff Jacoby at the Boston Globe addresses the double standard:

The glamorization of communism is widespread. On West 4th Street in Manhattan, the popular KGB Bar is known for its literary readings and Soviet propaganda posters. In Los Angeles, the La La Ling boutique sells baby clothing emblazoned with the face of Che Guevara, Fidel Castro's notorious henchman. At the House of Mao, a popular eatery in Singapore, waiters in Chinese army uniforms serve Long March Chicken, and a giant picture of Mao Zedong dominates one wall.

What can explain such ''communist chic?" How can people who wouldn't dream of drinking in a pub called Gestapo cheerfully hang out at the KGB Bar? If the swastika is an undisputed symbol of unspeakable evil, can the hammer-and-sickle and other emblems of communism be anything less?

Between 1933 and 1945, Adolf Hitler's Nazis slaughtered some 21 million people, but the communist nightmare has lasted far longer and its death toll is far, far higher. Since 1917, communist regimes have sent more than 100 million victims to their graves -- and in places like North Korea, the deaths continue to this day. The historian R.J. Rummel, an expert on genocide and government mass murder, estimates that the Soviet Union alone annihilated nearly 62 million people: ''Old and young, healthy and sick, men and women, even infants and the infirm, were killed in cold blood. They were not combatants in civil war or rebellions; they were not criminals. Indeed, nearly all were guilty of . . . nothing."

Now I confess to owning a copy of the KGB Bar Reader, a collection of short stories first presented at that location.  I suppose I would have purchased a Gestapo Bar Reader if the fiction were as good.  But its hard to imagine anyone, let alone a conservative, giving the latter name to any enterprise.  Don't get me wrong: the modern left is largely free from communism.  But it is not yet offended by communism, and that strikes this reader as a moral problem for the left.   

A Pox on Both Houses and Both Parties

At least when it comes to gas prices.  Someone pointed out in my Sunday School class this morning that the same people who complain about three dollar a gallon gasoline think nothing of spending half that on a bottle of tap water.  Intrepid reader Dennis Thurman sends us a piece by Thomas Sowell, which opens with these fine words:

If there is anything worse than partisan demagoguery, it is bipartisan demagoguery. Republican leaders have now joined the Democrats in blaming the oil companies for the fact that prices rise when demand expands more than supply.

Prices have been rising under these conditions for thousands of years, long before there were any oil companies. This has happened with everything from food to furs and it has happened among people in every part of the world.

What has also happened in recent times has been that higher gasoline prices bring outraged charges of "gouging" by Big Oil. Some of the most emotionally powerful political words and phrases are wholly undefined -- "exploitation," "greed," "social justice" and the perennial favorite, "gouging."

Are the oil companies charging all that the traffic will bear? No doubt. But they were probably charging all that the traffic would bear when the price of gasoline was half of what it is today.

I remember a few years ago there was a popular bumper sticker that said something like: "Complaining about Farmers?  Don't talk with your mouth full."  Not bad for a slogan.  So how about this: "Oil companies driving you crazy?   Well, at least you're driving!"   Of  course it doesn't work, does it?  We don't expect farmers to charge less than the market will bear for corn on the cob, but somehow think that oil companies are greedy when they do the same. 

Nick Shulz, at Tech Central Station (a very good site), notes this:

AP reports that "surveys indicate drivers won't be easing off on their mileage, using even more gas than a year ago." Now why is that? If prices are rising, one would expect consumers would use less.

The answer might be in some of the long-term trends that the short-term media lens is too cramped to see. While energy prices may be rising, energy itself is much less important to consumers and to the overall economy than it once was.

According to the Bureau of Economic Affairs (see chart here), American consumer spending on energy as a fraction of total personal consumption has declined considerably since 1980. Whereas 25 years ago, one in every ten consumer dollars was spent on energy, today it's one in every sixteen bucks. In other words, what it takes to heat and cool our homes and drive to and from our jobs and vacation destinations is relatively less costly than it once was.

This goes a long way to explaining why even while gas prices rise this summer, and while they will be higher than they were through the 1990s, people will still be driving more -- it's much more of a value than it was a generation ago.

In short gas is cheaper than it used to be, unlike water for those who prefer it in ruffled plastic bottles with french sounding names.  What has made it cheaper, relative to the rest of the things we buy?  Shulz has part of the answer:

So-called energy intensity is declining rapidly. That means we produce more with less energy. According to Economy.com, "The U.S. economy has undergone major structural changes over the last two decades, becoming more energy efficient, thus reducing its overall dependence on energy... The energy intensity of the U.S. economy has declined by roughly 40% since the first oil crisis" (as of 2001). (See Economy.com graph here.)

These trends are healthy ones for the economy. They also put the lie to President Bush's recent unwise rhetoric about America's oil "addiction." The nature of addiction typically is that it becomes all-consuming, eating up a greater share of one's life and livelihood. But the long term trends of American consumer spending reflect something different -- energy is becoming less important over time to the overall economy.

Its hard to blame the President for jumping on the "oil addiction" bandwagon.  Oil producers are one of the few minorities one can safely scapegoat in this era of political correctness (fortunately for me there is still the French).   But it might be worth his while to present a responsible account of what is actually happening on the energy front.  And while he is at it, the Press might try a little responsible reporting of its own. 

Chad Greenway

South Dakotan and linebacker of my beloved Iowa Hawkeyes Chad Greenway has been named a first-round draft choice of the Minnesota Vikings.  Excerpt from the Argus Leader:

Chad Greenway proved once again that being small-town has nothing to do with being small-time.

The former Mount Vernon star athlete and Iowa linebacker did his loved ones a huge favor Saturday by becoming the first-round draft choice of the Minnesota Vikings, the only NFL team within a reasonable driving distance for this town of 470 people.

Greenway, the 17th overall pick, spent a low-key if somewhat maddening afternoon at the family farm watching ESPN while waiting for the biggest phone call of his life. After he got it, he did what a lot of folks do when they get some good news - he went to town.

The Argus v. Governor Rounds

SD War College notes the governor is freezing out the Argus Leader:

At the end of the year in 2005, I offered my opinion that the #6 story of 2005 was the Argus Leader's assault on the Governor. Let's take a look at this little blast from the past:

6. Argus Leader’s Assault on the Governor

The Associated Press considered the Argus Leader’s series of stories of the use of the State Airplane by the Governor as one of its top ten stories. Should that be one of the top ten political stories? Some would argue, yes. But there’s something that has come up since that blurs the focus of that issue for me.

After that series of stories, there have been editorials from the Argus Leader’s editor, Randall Beck. (here, here and here) A story is a story, and that’s fine. But in those editorials from the editor, it’s at least apparent to me that he doesn’t care for our state’s chief executive.

One editorial from Mr. Beck blasted a local group for giving the Governor an award. Another took an additional swipe at him. The tone of these editorials comes off as… well, it certainly seems that he has an ax to grind.

And it takes those stories that they consider serious journalism and places them in a light that some would characterize as partisan.

And it hasn't let up. The personalized and mean-spirited assaults have contined since. If anything, it's intensified even further.

Hardly a Sunday goes by without a swipe at our State's chief executive by the State's largest newspaper, either in Randall Beck's column or as part of an editorial. The biggest salvo in the war came when the Argus sued the Governor for information on Governor's hunt invitees. And after Judge Max Gors (a Democrat, no less) recently shot the Argus' arguments down, they've continued unbowed.

I look at it this way. If I knew someone was going to walk up to me on a weekly basis and punch me in the nose, why would I go out of my way to talk to them?

As far as I understand it, open records and similar public information are available according to law. Don't think records are open or available enough? It's easy - change the laws. But in reference to interviews, I don't know that a state or federal law that exists that says "You must make yourself available to reporters as they see fit."

So nobody wants to talk to the Argus because they're tired of getting punched in the nose. Why should they be suprised? There are many old sayings about how one shall reap what they sow.

Rehabilitation of Cold War Liberals

Check out this lengthy article by The New Republic editor Peter Beinart entitled "The Rehabilitation of the Cold-War Liberal."

Economics News

Despite all the turbulence our country has faced in the past year (hurricanes, oil prices, etc.), the economy continues to chug along.  New York Times excerpt:

Propelled by a burst of consumer spending and vigorous business investment, the gross domestic product surged at a 4.8 percent rate in the first quarter of the year, the Commerce Department reported yesterday, the fastest pace of growth since the summer of 2003.
...
Businesses and consumers started 2006 with remarkable vigor. Consumer spending expanded at an annualized rate of 5.5 percent compared with the last quarter of 2005. Business investment jumped 14.3 percent, the biggest increase since the second quarter of 2000. Even the government contributed to growth, powered by a 10 percent increase in military spending.

In related news, liberal economist John Kenneth Galbraith has passed away.

Oil Profiteering

Via Instapundit, Thomas Bray takes a look at oil profiteering:

"From 1986 to 2003, using 2004 dollars, the real national annual average price for gasoline, including taxes, generally has been below $2 per gallon," noted the Federal Trade Commission in a 2005 report absolving the industry of collusion. "By contrast, between 1919 and 1985, real national annual average retail gasoline prices were above $2 per gallon more often than not."

In other words, gasoline prices were lower than at anytime since 1919 for much of recent history. Some conspiracy! Maybe somebody should have been investigating consumers for "gouging" the oil companies.

And just who is the profiteer here? While the average profit on the sale of a gallon of gasoline is nine cents, the average state and federal tax on that same gallon of gasoline is about 45 cents (and 52 cents in Michigan). And if we must have an investigation, how about investigating the extent to which government regulations drive up prices and block new production?

Management guru Peter Drucker once remarked, with his usual drollery, that profit is "whatever government lets a company keep." But most folks have a vastly inflated view of corporate profits. One regular survey of Americans found that the majority believes the average corporate profit is between 30 percent and 40 percent of sales, while the real figure is closer to 4 percent.

Washington should cool its carburetors. The pursuit of profit is one of the main engines of Western progress and prosperity. And as people in my neck of the woods are fast learning, it is only out of profit that we can afford to pay for a comfortable retirement. As profits in the steel, airline and auto industries erode or even vanish, so do pensions and health care benefits, not to mention jobs.

If oil really is running out -- of which there is little sign, since world reserves keep increasing -- profit provides the surest possible motive for finding or inventing new sources of energy.

Double Oh Eight Preview: George Allen and Race

A few years back I gave a talk on Ronald Reagan to The Exchange Club in Jonesboro, Arkansas.  I was preceded by a couple of civil war reenactors, one of whom solemnly declared that "the civil war was not about slavery."  Every head in the room, mine excepted, nodded in agreement.  Of course the civil war was about nothing else, but it says something about the South that it should dearly want to deny the ugly truth about the "late unpleasantness" between the states.  There is no sentiment in the South anymore to defend either slavery or segregation, but there is surely a desire to defend Southern heritage. 

Ryan Lizza of the New Republic has stirred up a lot of sediment by launching an early blow against former Virginia Governor George Allen's bid for the presidency.   Lizza's piece is a very interesting, if jaundiced, political biography.  Most notably, he makes the case that Allen was interested in the Confederacy long before he was in any sense a southerner.  In high school in Palos Verdes, California, Ryan drove around listening to Johnny Cash's Folsum Prison tape in a red mustang with a confederate flag plate on the front.  Lizza's article reproduces a picture of Allen with a confederate flag pin on his jacket. 

Lizza knows what to make of this. 

As a child, Allen tells me, before he even moved to California, he learned about the painful history of the South when his dad would take the kids on long drives from Chicago to New Orleans and other Southern cities for football bowl games. There was one searing memory from those trips he shares with me. "I remember," Allen says, "driving through--somehow, my father was on some back road in Mississippi one time--and we had Illinois license plates. And it was a time when some of the freedom riders had been killed, and somehow we're on this road. And you see a cross burning way off in the fields. I was young at the time. I just remember the sense of urgency as we were driving through the night, a carload of people with Illinois license plates--that this is not necessarily a safe place to be."

Now the pin seemed even worse. Why would a young man with such a sensitive understanding of Southern racial conflict and no Southern heritage wear a Confederate flag in his formal yearbook photo?

Now I have to admit that when a politician tells a tale like this, it sounds a lot like a re-edit of the past.  We would all like to think we were savvy and well-meaning when we were in high school.  And it puts him on the right side of history.  But the assumption that a confederate flag is itself a symbol of racism is simply not true. 

I do not now nor have I ever sported a confederate flag on my car or my person.  Abraham Lincoln is one of my heroes, something that might get me kicked out of the exchange club were it generally known (and were I a member).  But I knew a lot of people who did sport the flag, and I can report that it was not evidence of racism.  Among genuine southerners, it was most frequently a simple assertion of pride in a heritage that was frequently trampled upon in the media.  More generally it became the flag of people who listened to country music and drove pick up trucks more than red mustangs.  That, I think, explains its attraction to the young Allen.

Lizza is quite right to ask questions about the meaning of the flag to a man who wants to be President.  Sometimes it does mean racism.  But what he in fact reveals is that Allen carries considerably less baggage than, say Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, who largely escapes scrutiny owing to the fact that he is a Democrat.  Allen's record as governor is nothing to be ashamed of, and that counts more than a flag pin and a bad hair cut when he was in high school.