South Dakota Politics

Progress in Iraq

After three years, Iraq has initiated its first democratically elected government after the National Assembly swore in Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's cabinet.  The United States spent seven years trying to establish a permanent form of government, so historically this is amazing progress.  Iraq has now established permanent democratic institutions for the first time:

Iraq's new government of national unity was sworn in before a special session of parliament on Saturday, three years after the fall of Saddam Hussein. The new ministers took the oath of office after parliament approved the Cabinet presented by incoming Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

...

The session began more than two hours late because of last-minute haggling, finally opening with readings from the Quran.

The 37-member Cabinet is made up of members from all of Iraq's religious, sectarian and ethnic groups. It took months of negotiations to form after the Dec. 15 elections and is Iraq's first constitutional government since the U.S. invasion toppled Saddam.

"This is a historic day for Iraq and all its people," deputy parliament speaker Khalid al-Attiyah said in a nationally televised news conference before the session. "This government represents all Iraqis."

This doesn't necessarily mean all is well; it's very possible that everything could collapse.  Critics will point to continuing violence as a signal of an imminent civil war, a position that cannot be dismissed.  However, we have seen insurgents trying to provoke such a war and have been unsuccessful.  The terrorists are losing and we are winning.  Today's progress is evidence of that.

UPDATE:  Pejman Yousefzadeh:

No one should pretend that the creation of a new government in Iraq means that the reconstruction efforts in Iraq are over. This is not the end, nor is it the beginning of the end, and who knows whether it is the end of the beginning. But it is progress–progress that was inconceivable a little over three years ago. On such steps is further progress achieved until the final tipping point is reached and stability in Iraq becomes the norm rather than the exception.

Celebrate in modest fashion if so you wish. But celebrate nonetheless. This is important and will be remembered as important in years to come.

POTUS Daschle III

Here are some observations from Marc Ambinder of The Hotline:

Leaving aside the plausibility question, is the former maj./min. leader, who heads to IA, NH and MI beginning June 9, a Gingrich-esque book-deal flirter? A Gore-esque monocausual promotion whiz?

Or is he soberly considering a bid for the presidency?

Based on what he's told his close friends, he's clenched-jaw serious.

And Daschle's decision will be guided, in part, on the results of the contested '06 primaries that Daschle, unlike most would-be '08ers, has waded into.

Daschle's PAC has contributed to candidates including VA's Webb (even Mark Warner won't back him yet), MT's Morrison, MN's Klobuchar, RI's Whitehouse, Gifford in AZ 08, Duckworth in IL 06 and Wilson in OH 06.

These nods could mean Daschle, having decided against '08, feels free taking risks. But if his candidates they win, Daschle's in chit city.

Dem funders, including Peter Buttenweiser and Ben Barnes are among the A-list names Daschle has consulted about a run.

Others more firmly in Daschle's corner -- should he decide to do something -- include Leo Hindery, who ran for DNC chair against Howard Dean, and Daschle's longtime finance guru, Cappy McGarr.  He's also very close to ex-9/11 commiss/NE Sen. Bob Kerrey, currently the pres. of New School U.

As we've noted elsewhere, a large detachment of Daschle's political kitchen cabinet, including longtime communications aide Dan Pfeiffer and political strategist Anita Dunn, have decamped to other presidential teams.

His long-time chief of staff, Pete Rouse, serves in the same capacity for Sen. Barack Obama. And his former trusted spokesman Jay Carson now serves as Bill Clinton's comm. director.

So how will he run?

Based on the speeches he's given recently, a buzzword will probably be "security," broadly incorporating energy independence, national security interdependence, and health care.

More Immigration Votes

John Ensign (R-NV) proposed an amendment that says, essentially, you have to have a valid Social Security number to gain credit toward Social Security benefits. Here is a summation from Ensign's website:

An amendment offered today by Senator John Ensign would prevent Social Security benefits from being awarded for illegal labor in the United States. Under current law, an individual who has entered this country illegally and worked for a number of years can, after obtaining legal status, apply for and receive Social Security benefits relating to the work done while that person was in the country illegally... The Ensign amendment would allow immigrants to accumulate credit to qualify for Social Security only after they have been assigned a valid Social Security Number.

The argument in favor of the measure, I suppose, is that we should not reward illegal behavior and  it only serves as an incentive to illegal immigration to extend the promise of generous public benefits to those who come here illegally.  The argument against probably has something to do with compassion for the elderly person who spent considerable time in this country illegally.  Do we simply hang that person out to dry?  Both arguments have their merits, although the former seems to be the better public policy. 

Here is the vote on the measure.  You'll see that it was defeated (the vote was on whether to table the amendment, so a "yes" vote is a vote against the amendment).  John Thune supported Ensign's amendment, while Tim Johnson voted to defeat it. 
 

Amen

After playing tennis in a swarm of mosquitoes this week, I whole heartedly endorse this proposal for the city of Aberdeen. 

Not An Ounce Of Charity

I recall my own college graduation.  May 23, 1993.  It rained.  Really hard.  Our speaker was writer and peace activist Colman McCarthy.  I didn't agree with much he said, but we all listened respectfully and were honored to have an important man speak at our graduation.

Not so at the New School.  Here is Rich Lowry's summation of John McCain's commencement speach at that fine school:

...a beautiful prose poem to America, national service, and civil debate (congrats Mark Salter, as ever), and gets derided for it, of course. 

“I supported the war in Iraq.” Boos. Explains the war was not for cheap oil. A little heckling: “You're full of it!” Says he thought the “country's interest and values demanded” the war. Someone shouts: “Wrongly!” Someone else: “More poetry!” (A reference to lines from Yeats McCain had quoted earlier.)

 

He says “whether [the war] was necessary or not...we all should shed a tear” for those who have sacrificed in it. Some hissing.

Shouting.

 

He eventually enters into a Bushian rift: “All people share the desire to be free”; “human rights are above the state and beyond history”; we are “insisting that all people have the right to be free.” Someone shouts: “We're graduating, not voting!” Lots of derisive shouts and laughter and applause.

 

As McCain continues with a personal story, a student shouts: “It's about my life, not yours.” McCain:

“When I was a young man, I thought glory was the highest value...” Groans from the students. “It's not about you!” “Sit down!”

 

McCain circles back around to the theme of civility: “We are not enemies, we are compatriots...” Boos, shouts. McCain: It “should remain an argument among friends”; we should be “respectful of the goodness in each other.” Literally one person applauds.

 

McCain goes on to tell his story about his reconciliation with an opponent of the Vietnam War: “I had a friend once...” Groans, boos.

He talks about forgiving his friend who dissented from the war. Hostile rumblings from the students.

 

He says after the reconciliation, he and his friend “worked together for shared ideals.” A shout: “We don't share your ideals!” As McCain closes there is a mix of boos and applause, and a few people even stand to clap.

With that attitude it looks like the recent graduates of the New School are perfectly suited for writing for left-wing South Dakota blogs.

Update: Here is the New York Times version.  And Joe Knippenberg comments here. 

NSA Surveillance Story Evaporates II.

Its looking like the USAToday story about the NSA gaining the phone records of "millions of Americans" is dwindling away to nothingness.  Bell South has written to USAToday to demand a retraction, according to Jim Duffy of Network World.  USAToday appears to have been infected by Dan Ratherism.  If it discredits Bush, it must be true!  Powerline has the story. 

What He Said

Prof. Blanchard beat me to the punch as I was out listening to Bob Dylan music at a local coffee house.  So, yeah, I endorse what he said, except I am on record as opposing same-sex marriage.  Just to add three items. 
1. As Prof. Blanchard notes, I never used my "four items in favor of marriage as a public matter" to argue against same-sex marriage.  It just so happens that Jon Rauch supports three of my four points in his book in favor of gay marriage.  Rauch argues (unpersuasively, I contend) that marriage has little or nothing to do with children, but largely accepts the other three. So yes, the points I make (even the one concerning children) can and have been made to support gay marriage.  The point on which supporters and detractors of same-sex marriage agree is that marriage is a public matter.  The important question then is what public good is served by marriage. 
2. Not only is the notion that males are more aggressive backed up by sociobiology, it is backed up by key supporters of gay marriage.  Both Jon Rauch and Andrew Sullivan argue for same-sex marriage on the grounds that it will domesticate male sexuality.  They are up front with their position that aggresive male sexual behavior is a special problem for marriage to solve.  Here is a difference of opinion, however.  Rauch and Sullivan think it is marriage that domesticates men, while others, myself included, think it is women. 
3. I am against same-sex marriage. I guess that automatically makes me a bigot in some eyes,  although I again note that I said nothing about same-sex marriage in the post that instigated so much vile on the part of some.  I do think that those who believe that there are no defensible reasons to oppose same-sex marriage and only bigotry explains such a position are living in invincible ignorance.  Finally, whatever the merits of the accusation that only bigots oppose same-sex marriage, and those merits are few, I want to point out that, however they may vote on the upcoming ballot initiative, most South Dakotans (and most Americans) favor traditional marriage over same-sex marriage. It is an odd tactic by those who wish to win elections and change public policy to call a solid majority of their fellow citizens ignorant bigots. Those who carelessly throw around charges of "hater" and "bigot" ought to take a hard look in the mirror. 

The Vatican has an astronomer?

I criticized the Coat Hangers at Dawn website in my last post, but despite its vehement hostility to Christianity, it is an interesting read.  I was struck by a post refering to this article from Scotsman.Com:

BELIEVING that God created the universe in six days is a form of superstitious paganism, the Vatican astronomer Guy Consolmagno claimed yesterday.

Brother Consolmagno, who works in a Vatican observatory in Arizonaand as curator of the Vatican meteorite collection in Italy, said a "destructive myth" had developed in modern society that religion and science were competing ideologies.

He described creationism, whose supporters want it taught in schools alongside evolution, as a "kind of paganism" because it harked back to the days of "nature gods" who were responsible for natural events.

Brother Consolmagno argued that the Christian God was a supernatural one, a belief that had led the clergy in the past to become involved in science to seek natural reasons for phenomena such as thunder and lightning, which had been previously attributed to vengeful gods. "Knowledge is dangerous, but so is ignorance. That's why science and religion need to talk to each other," he said.

"Religion needs science to keep it away from superstition and keep it close to reality, to protect it from creationism, which at the end of the day is a kind of paganism - it's turning God into a nature god. And science needs religion in order to have a conscience, to know that, just because something is possible, it may not be a good thing to do."

Brother Consolmagno, who was due to give a speech at the Glasgow Science Centre last night, entitled "Why the Pope has an Astronomer", said the idea of papal infallibility had been a "PR disaster". What it actually meant was that, on matters of faith, followers should accept "somebody has got to be the boss, the final authority".

"It's not like he has a magic power, that God whispers the truth in his ear," he said.

I'll leave it to my colleague to parse the papal infallibility question.  I have posted criticisms of creationism and intelligent design theory on this blog, and I have written critically about both in my American News columns.  I am professionally and personally a Darwinist.  But it seems to me utterly ridiculous to accuse the creationists of paganism.  The key Biblical idea is that God exists outside the created universe, for how else could He have created it?  The pagan idea is that the gods exist as part of the universe, living in trees, ponds, kitchens, and at the Game, Fish and Parks Office for all I know.  Creationists are bad interpreters of science, to be sure.  But they are squarely within the Biblical tradition.  Surely if God created the world, our understanding of the world might be informed by the fact.  Brother Consolmagno doesn't see it that way.

Puritans in Pink

My colleague Professor Schaff has been accused of bigotry by my friend Chad at CCK.  Chad does not present a case  himself, but refers us to a colorfully named website: Coat Hangers At Dawn.  I can't help but notice that the acronym for the site would be CHAD, but no, I am not suggesting that Chad is the author.  Colorful Chad is not.  Here is what CHAD had to say:

All four of his points made to attempt to justify banning same sex unions could be equally applied to a same sex marriage as it could to a heterosexual marriage.
If a same sex marriage "domesticates aggressive male sexuality", provides an outlet for sex, provides stability for society and kids, and being a vehicle for "self-giving", all of those attributes would equally apply to a same sex marriage.

The assumption that males are aggressively sexual and need to be controlled is quite the slap in the face to the gender as a whole. Only a portion of the male population seems to have issues controlling their behavior. Painting the entire male population as out of control and needing domestication is demeaning and insulting. It is no more accurate than the misguided attempts to paint women as weak willed, ignorant and in need of being submissive.

So lets be honest about it please. Banning gay marriage is simple hate and bigotry.
It has nothing to do with gay people and everything to do with a handful of homophobic hate mongers, who do not want to lose one of their last bastions of "socially acceptable" hate and discrimination.

Now I note that Schaff's four points were not part of "an attempt to justify banning same sex unions," they were produced as evidence that marriage is a public concern.  This was a reply to a remark by Jack Billion, who is seeking the Democratic nomination for governor. " Billion said he would allow same-sex marriages," according to the American News. 

"I think that's a private matter between individuals," Billion said.

P. Schaff is obviously correct as a matter of fact, because if it were a private matter we wouldn't be arguing about it.  The question is whether to extend a very public institution, marriage with all of its benefits and obligations, to a new class of partnerships.  That is a public question.

I also note that P. Schaff's comment about male sexuality, to which Mr. or Ms. Coat Hangers took such offense, is strongly supported by the intertwined fields of sociobiology and biopolitics.  Human males are more sexually aggressive than females, by and large, in this and every other human society, past and present.  Men are more prone to sexual violence as well as to violence of almost every other kind.  That this is nature and not nurture is also indicated by the fact that it is true of almost all mammalian species, and especially of our closest relative, the chimpanzee. 

Now I happen to agree with Professor Schaff on all these things, but I am not opposed to same sex marriage.  I do think that this would be a novel extension of a traditional institution, and that a full public discussion is in order.  I also think that the issues that P. Schaff raises ought to be part of that discussion.

Coat hangers is in no mood for discussion.  Coat Hangers regards everyone who disagrees with his/her position on gay marriage is guilty of "hate and bigotry."  Coat Hangers is a Puritan of the left.  Anyone who does not mouth the orthodox opinion on gay marriage is a bad, bad, person.  That includes, by the way, persons who feel compelled by their own understanding of public and private morality to oppose gay marriage.  Coat Hangers implicitly passes judgment on a wide spectrum of persons of Catholic and Protestant faith.  They are automatically "homophobic hate mongers," if they do not share his/her view on the issue.  Hatred and bigotry are no more beautiful on the left than on the right.  Puritans are just as annoying when dressed in pink as in black. 

The Left v. Lieberman

New York Times:

"George Bush's favorite Democrat," they call him. "Republican Lite," they sneer. But liberals are no longer just venting on Internet blogs and talk radio programs about their centrist nemesis: Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut.

Now, from across the nation, a determined alliance of antiwar activists is working overtime online and on doorsteps to defeat Mr. Lieberman, whose political moderation helped him earn the Democratic nomination for vice president six years ago. Their goal is not only to punish Mr. Lieberman for staunchly supporting the war in Iraq but also to protest what the activists consider the Democratic Party's willingness to accommodate President Bush.

...

A growing cast of prominent activists is backing [Democratic challenger Ned] Lamont. Markos Moulitsas, who advised the presidential campaign of Howard Dean in 2004 and founded the blog Daily Kos, is appearing in a campaign commercial for Mr. Lamont.

...

"A very simple thing happened that changed Democratic politics dramatically, and that was that the war turned bad," [said Al From, founder and chief executive of the Democratic Leadership Council], adding of the senator's critics: "There's a group in our party that makes a lot of noise and I don't think they've ever won an election. They're trying to take out one of the great statesmen our party has and that's wrong."

The Gipper

Check out the Ronald Reagan archive, which tells the story of Reagan's life as an actor, to his governorship in California, and his presidency through the pages of 45,000 newspaper articles.

Castro

What's his secret?  Eating oatmeal every morning?  Walking for two hours every day?  Maybe it was his cutback on cigars.

Cuban President Fidel Castro, who turns 80 this year, enjoys vibrant health and will live to 140, his chief doctor said.

Doctor Eugenio Selman-Housein, who heads Castro's medical team, denied that the longtime leader has Parkinson's disease, as the CIA reportedly believes.

"Every day they invent a new one," Selman-Housein said. "He will live 140 years."

Castro's health, once a taboo subject in the communist-led island, has become a topic of discussion since he fainted in public in 2001 and slipped and fell before television cameras in October 2004.

Castro, who quit smoking his trademark cigars in 1986, has led Cuba since 1959. He turns 80 on August 13.

Heaven and Hell

This is too funny not to watch. 

A Legal Matter?

I also note the American News story on the Democrat candidates for governor.  This is an interesting passage:

When the candidates were asked if they support a proposed constitutional amendment on the November ballot that would ban same-sex marriages, Billion said he would allow same-sex marriages.

"I think that's a private matter between individuals," Billion said.

Does Mr. Billion (what a name) really think marriage is simply a private matter?  If that is the case, why exclude anyone (e.g., the incestuous, the polygamous, the very young)?  Why have laws about marriage at all?  Indeed, why even have marriage licenses if there is no public benefit to marriage?  I do not mean to ascribe these ideas to Mr. Billion; I suspect this was a throw away line.  But it does show the pernicious effects of rampant moral individualism where the only harm we care about is physical harm (see today's Wall Street Journal for more on this notion).  Here are some possible public interests in marriage:
1. It domesticates aggressive male sexuality.
2. In general it provides an outlet for human sexuality that promotes social stability over chaos (see Shakespeare's Measure for Measure).
3. It provides a stable atmosphere for the raising of children.
4. It promotes the virtue of self-giving, as you must now live your life for someone else, not just yourself. 
Those are just four off the top of my head.  I also want to point out that one could describe this fall's ballot initiative as "banning same-sex marraige."  But, given the language, it could just as easily be described more positively as an initiative that defines marriage as between a man and a woman. 

The Kids Are Alright?

The other day Glenn Reynolds penned a piece well worth reading on the decline of parenthood, both in terms of numbers and in prestige.  I think he taps into two different, albeit related, phenomenon.  First is the idea that the world must be arranged to protect children.  Reynolds, referring to one Caitlin Flannigan, writes:

Likewise, Flanagan notes the pressure to take children for a seemingly endless array of after-school activities, most of which require parental chauffering. Add to this the increasing amount of parental responsibility for things their children do wrong, coupled with steady legal diminution of parental authority (Flanagan mentions an incident in which Caroline Kennedy was spanked for running off and notes that today it might result in jail time -- an exaggeration, perhaps, but not by much.) You're responsible for your kids in ways previous generations weren't, but your ability to discipline them is much reduced, and as my wife (a forensic psychologist) notes, the bad kids know that they can cow most adults by threatening to call 911 and make a bogus abuse charge. And forget disciplining your child, even with a harsh word, in a public place: At the very least, if you do you'll be looked on not as a virtuous parent helping to preserve the social fabric, but as that worst of all sinners in contemporary American culture: a meanie. And schools, anxious for parental "involvement," place far more demands on parents than they did when I was a kid.

The idea here, expanded upon by Reynolds, is that in working so hard to protect our children we increase the anxiety involved in being a parent, making it a less attractive alternative, while at the same time making kids think that they are the center of the universe, which they are not.  This idea is captured by the Baby Whisperer (shhh, children are sleeping), who suggests that catering to your child's desires is problematic in that early on we must learn that the world does not exist to satisfy our wills.  A lesson to be learned as children is that obedience to proper authority is a good thing, and we often have to put our own desires to the side for the sake of others. 

This leads to the second obstacle to parenting, namely perpetual adolescence.  As Reynolds points out, having children was once the gateway to social respectability: you aren't a full member of society until you've had children.  The life of the parent is now demeaned, since we all know that what is important is self-gratification and maximizing our freedom.  Children tie us down, reduce our options, and, of course, cost us money.  A brief look at the culture will tell you it is dominated by youth and the freedom from responsibility associated with it.  One my favorite essays is called "The Perpetual Adolescent," written by Joseph  Epstein.   He writes:

The ideal almost everywhere is to seem young for as long as possible. The health clubs and endemic workout clothes, the enormous increase in cosmetic surgery (for women and men), the special youth-oriented television programming and moviemaking, all these are merely the more obvious signs of the triumph of youth culture. When I say youth culture, I do not mean merely that the young today are transcendent, the group most admired among the various age groups in American society, but that youth is no longer viewed as a transitory state, through which one passes on the way from childhood to adulthood, but an aspiration, a vaunted condition in which, if one can only arrange it, to settle in perpetuity.

Our nation would improve if we took childhood a little less seriously (but not without seriousness) and adulthood a little more seriously (but that suggests the capacity to be serious about adult things).  Oh, adults need to stop wearing blue jeans all the time like teenagers.  But that is a post for another day. 

Someone Check The Water In The Senate

As this story indicates, the Senate voted yesterday to make English the nation's "national language."  Not the official language, mind you.  And then it passed another amendment ratifying English as the "common unifying language of the United States."  Neither of these bills apparently does anything to actually promote the speaking of English.  That didn't stop Harry Reid from calling the first measure "racist."  Let's do some math.  The other day Tim Johnson voted for a bill that Democratic Whip Dick Durbin called "a victory for the right-wing."  Yesterday Tim Johnson voted for a bill that the Democratic Minority Leader calls "racist."  I would like to think of these votes as signs of Tim Johnson's level headed moderation.  But I guess his leaders think he is a right-wing racist.  Either I am wrong and Tim Johnson really is a right-wing racist, or Durbin and Reid are wrong, in which case they are engaging in demagoguery of the cheapest type.  We report; you decide. 

Wiese/Billion Debate

The Democratic campaign for the nomination to be the candidate for governor between Jack Billion and Dennis Wiese heated up last night.  Billion favors gay marriage, while Wiese opposes it.  Billion is pro-choice, while Wiese is pro-life with exceptions.  Associated Press excerpt:

The two Democratic candidates for governor differed sharply Thursday night on gay marriage, abortion and their plans for boosting state spending on education.

As they answered questions on South Dakota Public Television, retired surgeon Jack Billion of Sioux Falls and former South Dakota Farmers Union President Dennis Wiese of Flandreau had some of their sharpest exchanges of the primary campaign.

Be sure to check out the rest of the article.  It's sad this race hasn't gotten more attention by the media.

Economic Mobility in the U.S.

Sociologists like to talk about class stratification in America, which is one reason that no one pays much attention to sociologists.  Americans have almost no consciousness of class, never having had an hereditary aristocracy nor a titled nobility.  It's not that class doesn't exist, but it's remarkably subtle and messy and, more importantly, it is often decoupled from income.  The guy working the big crane on the new Northern Technology Center (or whatever they are calling it) may make a lot more than the newly hired professor holding up his seven year old son to watch the action.  But there is a real sense in which the one belongs to a "lower" class than the other. 

The clue comes when the crane operator has to sit there while his heavy bundle is unloaded fifty feet over his head.  What does he do with his time?  He fishes a cigarette out of his pocket.  Inevitably.  And when he goes to lunch with the crew, everyone in the truck lites up.  The new professor doesn't smoke, nor does his wife or anyone else in his department.  He may be able to think of one or two colleagues in other departments who sneak outside for a smoke, but he would have to think hard.  Such fine distinctions are the stuff of class in America. 

One of the reasons that this doesn't correlate well with income is that distinctions in income are not nearly so durable as such cultural distinctions as mentioned above.  Economic mobility in the U.S. is far greater than in most other countries, or than anywhere ever before.  Consider the following chart:

This table presents the results of a study that has tracked over six thousand American families over more than thirty years.  The study (I believe it is called the Panel Study on Income Dynamics) divides Americans into five "quintiles" according to economic standing.  It answers some very important questions.  How much influence does a parent's economic standing have on his child's future?  Answer: a lot, but not nearly as much as one would expect.

The left side of the chart examines where children born in the top quintile end up, economically speaking.  38% stay in the top, which is not surprising.  After all, they eventually inherit their parent's wealth, and on the way take advantage of the networking.  But most move down.  Another 27% end up in the second highest quintile,which tells you, if you needed to hear it, that the best way to end up wealthy is to start out that way.  On the other hand, a substantial chunk of rich kids fall further down, and a small portion, 6%, fall all the way from the penthouse to the trailer park. 

The right side of the diagram tracks the children of the poorest cohort.  42% stay put, which is the bad news.  Fully sixty six percent end up in the bottom two quintiles.  Climbing out of poverty is a game that favors the house.  But a good third manage it, and 7% make it all the way to the grand prize.  In short, the chances of someone going from the very bottom to the top are same as someone going from the top to the bottom. 

What are we to make of this?  I suspect that this degree of income fluidity is unprecedented in human history, and probably not achieved anywhere else on the contemporary globe.  In Peru, if you were born in a shanty on the city dump, your children will probably die there.  If your Algerian parents raised you in a French suburb, well, get used to it.  In America you have a seven percent chance of going all the way to the top.  Imagine buying a lottery ticket with those odds.

More Hot Headlines

Intrepid reader Miranda Lynn offers these Hot Headlines:

But the one recommended for White House Officials is not.

"Cervical Cancer Vaccine Recommended for FDA OK"

Finally! A place you can go to learn about all
the great Ex-Nazis Removed from Space.

"Ex-Nazi Removed From Space Hall of Fame"

Here are some more:

Rubber gloves story 1:

Court OKs Cops' Use of Laxative to Retrieve Swallowed Heroin

Rubber gloves story 2:

Catholic University Probes Women's Initiation Party That Included Stripper

I'm still convinced he's under all the empty Burger King cups in my son's room:

FBI searches Michigan horse farm for Hoffa's remains

Jimmy Hoffa

Fox News:

In one of the most intensive searches for Jimmy Hoffa in decades, the FBI summoned archaeologists and anthropologists and brought in heavy equipment to scour a horse farm Thursday for the body of the former Teamsters boss who vanished in 1975.

Daniel Roberts, agent in charge of the Detroit FBI field office, would not disclose what led agents to the farm, but said: "This is probably a fairly credible lead. You can gather that from the number of people out here."

No trace of Hoffa has ever been found, and no one has ever been charged in the case. But investigators have long suspected that he was killed by the mob to keep him from reclaiming the Teamsters presidency after he got out of prison for corruption.

First Post

Hello, everyone.

My name is Eric Rodawig, and the good folks here have been kind enough to link to a couple of my columns written for The Hoya, Georgetown University's student newspaper. I am now a senior there, back home in South Dakota for summer break, and looking forward to being part of the SDP team.

POTUS Daschle II

Today's edition of The Hotline notes Daschle and the presidency:

'08 Yard Dasch(le)

First, Al Gore. Now, Tom Daschle's making new noise about a WH '08 bid. Like Gore, Daschle opted to forgo '04 (perhaps, these days, to his chagrin). What appeal would he have in '08?
-- He'll get clues next month in IA, NH and MI, where he'll "take the next step to a more thoughtful consideration of a presidential campaign," he told AP. He said he wants to "get a sense of what kind of a reception I might be getting."
-- That "reception" will be decided, in part, by contested '06 primaries Daschle, unlike most would-be '08ers, has waded into. DASHPAC's friends (many of whom, ironically, are also clients of Steve Hildebrand) include VA's Webb (even Mark Warner won't back him yet), MT's Morrison, MN's Klobuchar, RI's Whitehouse, Gibbons in AZ 08, Duckworth in IL 06 and Wilson in OH 06. These nods could mean Daschle, having decided against '08, feels free taking risks. But if they win, Daschle's in chit city.
-- Is that where he wants to be? Some big Dem funders, including Peter Buttenweiser and Ben Barnes, hope so. We'll learn more late this year, Daschle said, "or sooner." (#15)

DASCHLE: Hey, Aren't You That Guy From...?

     Ex-Senate Maj. Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD) will travel to IA, NH, and MI next month as he weighs a WH '08 run. Daschle "said he can offer the country fresh ideas." Daschle: "This is a rare opportunity for the country to consider its future and consider moving in a different direction."
     While Daschle "brings key assets" in that he's a good fundraiser and "enjoys the personal side of politics," he also has some "serious liabilities" including that his '04 SEN loss is the "last memory" rank-and-file Dems have of him. IA State Univ. James McCormick: "He's got a real uphill climb after being defeated in that election. Voters obviously are going to look at somebody who can win. Daschle is going to be tarnished with that."
     Daschle on '04: "I'd love to replay the South Dakota race this year. But you don't look back. You look forward. As you look forward, there's ample reason for Democrats to feel encouraged and very confident about the reception we're going to get from American voters" (Marrero/Walker, Sioux Falls Argus Leader, 5/18).

An Avid Fan Of Earl Grey Tea, And Other Things That Set Him Apart

     Northern State Univ Jon Schaff "said the immediate question for Daschle is whether to position himself as more liberal or more moderate" than Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY). Schaff, on Daschle: "He's a very good listener in a small crowd and very generous with his time. This is something Hillary Clinton is not necessarily known for" (Sioux Falls Argus Leader, 5/18).
     For his part, Daschle said he believes HRC is the frontrunner. Daschle: "She's in a class by herself. In many cases she's like an incumbent. But I've learned after all these years in politics that what looks like a certainty one day could be complete turnabout the next" (Jalonick, AP, 5/17).

Daschle & DME

This Associated Press story reports on Tom Daschle's efforts to help the Mayo Clinic kill the expansion plans of the South Dakota railroad DME.  Both Tim Johnson and Stephanie Herseth are supporting the railroad's plans, which will amount to the biggest project in South Dakota's history.  But Daschle is being paid to serve on the Mayo Clinic's board, so the benefits to South Dakota do not matter to him.  He has a Presidential campaign to plan.

Congrats

We have been remiss in not mentioning that last Saturday our sometime colleague Quentin Riggins graduated from the University of South Dakota School of Law.  Congrats, Q. 

The Senate Moves On Immigration

Somewhat surprisingly, the US Senate has passed some "get tough" amendments to the immigration bill.  The first would add 370 miles of security fence to our southern border and the second  apparently requires employers to look for American workers before turning to non-citizens (this is my reading of the Amendment, which I cannot find on the Senate site and so I am relying on this summary from NRO).  The security fence amendment passed easily, with both South Dakota senators voting in favor.  Sen. Durbin of Illinois calls this a "victory for the right-wing," which now presumably includes John Kerry and Hillary Clinton, both of whom voted for the fence.  Call it the incredibly shrinking left.  On the employment matter, the amendment passed by a slim 50-48 margin, with Thune voting for and Johnson voting against.  It was not just your typical liberal Republicans who sided with the Democrats against this amendment.  Sure, there was Arlen Specter, but Sam Brownback of Kansas and Larry Craig of Idaho opposed this amendment.  These guys are not liberal Republicans. 

Get Your Scorecards

It is difficult to keep up with the sports stadium shenanigans in the Minnesota Legislature.  It does look like the Twins are getting their stadium, although I must say it is a powerful mistake to not have a retractable roof on the building.  They need to remember that some people (for instance, from South Dakota) drive long distances to see the Twins.  They don't want to drive for hours on end only to find the game has been called due to whether.

Daschle For President?

Two pieces out today, one in the American News and the other in the Argus Leader, the latter quoting yours truly.  The more I ponder this question (should Daschle run) the more I like Daschle's chances. He is by no means the favorite, but among the "dark horses" his is a bit of a lighter shade. 

Headlines Worth Noting

You'd think that the Lord would know for sure.

Robertson: God Told Me Tsunami May Strike U.S. in 2006

I guess this explains my Uncle Roy.

Study: Ancestral Human, Chimp Populations Split Twice

Which, all things considered, favors the alligators.

Florida Alligator Hotline Swamped

A tale of two divorces.

Paul McCartney Faces Expensive Divorce.

DNA Study: Human-Chimp Split was Messy

Well, it works for Cynthia McKinney!

Do you really have to be mean and stupid to win an election?

 

NSA Surveillance Story Evaporates

Seth at CCK has an interesting post on the data mining that the NSA is supposedly playing at "with the phone records of millions of Americans," to quote USAToday.  Seth's source presents an argument that this data mining cannot be useful.  I don't know how to evaluate the argument, and I am guessing that neither does Seth.  I have posted on this topic myself.  But it now appears that Seth and I may have been hot on the trail of a snipe.  From USAToday:

Last Thursday, USA TODAY reported that the NSA has been secretly collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans, using data provided by AT&T, BellSouth and Verizon, people with direct knowledge of the program said. One of the nation's major telecommunication companies, Qwest, declined to participate, the story said, a fact confirmed Friday by Herbert Stern, the lawyer for former Qwest CEO Joe Nacchio.

That's the original story.  Now this:

BellSouth said in a statement that it doesn't contract with the National Security Agency to supply customer calling information.

"As a result of media reports that BellSouth provided massive amounts of customer calling information under a contract with the NSA," it said Monday, "the company conducted an internal review to determine the facts. Based on our review to date, we have confirmed no such contract exists and we have not provided bulk customer calling records to the NSA."

I believe it is true that a third carrier originally named by USAToday has announced that it did not, in fact, give any data to the NSA.  So at this point we don't know whether the NSA really did obtain the phone data described in the original story, let alone what they did with that data. 

Let me make a few comments on the general story:

1.  The data that the NSA supposedly obtained consists of massive records of phone calls: which numbers connected with which numbers.  This data is already collected and mined by the carriers.  It is shared with a number of affiliates, including overseas firms.  It is probably not only legal for the carriers to share it with the government, it is probably obligatory under law. 

2.  Warrants are required in principle only where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.  At present there can be no such expectation regarding this data.  So unless some statute explicitly requires the government to get a warrant for this type of information, it doesn't look like there can be any legal problem for the NSA. Moreover, monitoring the global communications net for terrorist activity doesn't seem to be the kind of thing for which warrants are either necessary or possible.  It would be like asking for probable cause before turning on a radar device. 

3.   The NSA clearly monitors international communications for signs of terrorist activity.  We know this and so do the terrorists, thanks to the Washington Post.  No one seems to think that a warrant is required when listening to one Al Qaeda boss in Iraq calling another in Iran (if he has any minutes left in his account).  Suppose one of them hangs up and calls a number in Jersey.  That's a legitimate constitutional question, but I think that a warrant requirement in such a case is silly.  I say listen in.  Now what happens if the Jersey number reconnects to a number in Saint Paul?  Is a warrant now required?  I think so, but only after the fact.  The trouble is, I can't imagine any President (with the obvious exception of Jimmy Carter) actually backing off if the warrant were denied.    The President is not going to let the next terrorist attack proceed if he can find it and stop it. 

4.  When a known terrorist does call a number in the U.S., it might be nice to know what other numbers regularly connect with the domestic target.  I see nothing wrong with the NSA having access to that data.  When the NSA wants to begin tapping the phones of those other numbers, just on the off chance that one of them is part of the terrorist network, at that point judicial oversight is in order.  I'm guessing that legislation hasn't caught up with this stuff yet, and Congress ought to get busy. 

Hildebrand Cont.

Regarding David Kranz's story yesturday on South Dakota Democrats that were turning on Steve Hildebrand, one commenter at SD War College wrote:

PP: I enjoy your site, because I can learn a few things that might actually help my party [dem]. On the topic, I'm OUTRAGED that Hildebrand and his Boyz have been extorting money from the state Dem Party so we can have the 'privilege' of using the voter list. As if the party has hardly any money to spare! And then these Hildebrand Boys think they need to squeeze even more blood out of the party turnip, it's crazy. These are the same geniuses who blew $30 million on the Daschle re-election, which shouldn't have been that difficult, and they LOST! And we still give them money--and they spend it on attacking our good pro-life Democratic legislators! I'm so tired of Hildebrand's left wing craziness and his abusiveness that I might just leave the Democrats behind. I don't want to be in the same party as that guy, who is an angry nut who Tom, for some crazy reason, gave so much power to.

UPDATE:  In fact, continue reading the comments.  There's a big discussion going on about Steve Hildebrand's relationship to the South Dakota Democrats and what their future should be.

President Daschle Update

Argus Leader:

Former Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle will gauge potential support for a 2008 presidential bid with stops in Iowa, New Hampshire and Michigan next month.

Daschle, the three-term South Dakota senator who lost a re-election bid in 2004, said Wednesday that the trip is a logical progression as he weighs a White House run.

“It’s just taking the next step to a more thoughtful consideration of a presidential campaign,” Daschle said in an interview with The Associated Press.

Iowa and New Hampshire are the traditional early voting states and numerous potential candidates have visited there in recent months.

Michigan could be one of two states shoehorned in between Iowa and New Hampshire if the Democratic Party decides to change its primary calendar.

Daschle said he will be traveling to states to “sound out presidential themes, talk to voters and get a sense of what kind of a reception I might be getting.”

UPDATE:  Kevin Woster has started a thread on Daschle's presidential run on Mt. Blogmore.

Voter Intimidation?

In today's Argus Leader, there's a story about former senator Tom Daschle's claims of voter "intimidation" in South Dakota.  Of course, Daschle is famous for filing a 2004 election-eve lawsuit in front of the judge he appointed claiming voter "intimidation."  His evidence was the claim of one Howard Dean supporter who saw aggressive "eye-rolling" and people "making faces."

It should also be noted that Daschle's "expert" he's relying on for his claims, Janine Pease, is active in Democratic circles and in filing lawsuits:

American Indian voting rights have concerned Dr. Pease since the 1980’s. She was the lead plaintiff in the historic and precedent setting voting rights litigation, Windy Boy v. Big Horn County, et. al. The Billings federal district court ruled for the plaintiffs, and ordered the redesign of school board and county commissioner districts; providing Indian majority districts based on population. In 1999, the Montana Supreme Court unanimously appointed Dr. Pease to a four-year term as Presiding Officer of the Montana Districting and Apportionment Commission. In this role, Dr. Pease lent leadership to the redistricting of the Montana legislative districts. From 1983 - 1988, Janine served as chairman of the Big Horn County Democratic Central Committee, and was elected Lodge Grass Precinct #9 Democratic Committee woman for eight years. She assisted in the campaigns for former State Senator Bill Yellowtail, former State Legislator Angela Russell, current County Commissioners Doyle and Pretty on Top, and many School Board campaigns in Hardin and Lodge Grass.

The Immigration Question: CCK and SDP

My friend Chad at CCK has an interesting post.  Prepare yourself for a shock, Chad.  I am largely in agreement. 

Despite his symbolic call to put the National Guard on the Mexican border, Bush pretty much reiterated the immigration policy he has been wanting for five and a half years -- a guest worker program with a path to citizenship for illegals.

The one result of this speech is that we are going to see who really runs the Republican Party in Washington: those who would throw anyone who looks like they might be illegal out of the country and build a large fence around the border or those who want to take a sensible approach to this issue.

I think we all know who is going to win that battle.

At SDP we try to give credit where credit is due, even where that means praising our opponents or criticizing our allies and comrades.  This is not the MO of CCK, and so Chad cannot quite bring himself to point out his own conclusion: that President Bush in this case is taking the "sensible approach."   Bush is trying to defend the sensible approach, and he is doing so at considerable political cost.  Both of us have reason to criticize the Administration, but maybe it wouldn't hurt too much to give Bush explicit credit on this one.

I agree with you, Chad, that the assignment of the National Guard to border patrol is largely "symbolic."  This is to say it is done for political reasons, and not because it has suddenly become good policy.   But that is precisely because the sensible approach won't sell unless it is accompanied by some policy for securing the southern border.  If reasonable immigration reform is possible, and that's a big "if", it will happen only if both sides of the question are addressed. 

I disagree with you in so far as I think your characterization of the "less sensible" side is simple minded.  No doubt some of those concerned about illegal immigration are motivated by xenophobia.  But there are also those who take the law seriously.  I know someone who is trying to become an American citizen.  He has spent years going through the maze of regulations.  He has nothing but contempt for those who crept across the border by night.  I ask you Chad, do you have no sympathy for him? 

There are those also who worry about a large population along our southern borders, oh and Chicago and New York, who fly Mexican flags and claim the Southwest for Mexico.  I ask you, Chad, whether this sentiment is welcome as part of the Democratic coalition? 

We think alike that "throwing anyone who looks like they might be illegal out of the country and build a large fence around the border" is not the right policy.  But maybe the way to get sensible policy is to be at least as generous toward those who disagree with us, not to mention those who agree but belong to the other party, as we are to those  who labor in America without the benefit of documents or law. 

Minnesota GOP

It appears our neighbors to the east have turned into a hue of purple, favoring red.  A Star-Tribune poll showed the GOP surpassed the Democrats in party affiliation by standing firm while voters abandon the DFL.  The poll showed that 29% of all Minnesota adults identified themselves as Republicans, while the Democrats lost six points last year, dropping to 25%:

A new Minnesota Poll shows that Minnesota's political landscape is almost equally divided between Republican and Democratic voters.

In the poll, conducted last week, 29 percent identified themselves as Republicans, exactly the same percentage as a year ago, despite President Bush's record-low approval ratings and the conventional wisdom that Republicans are likely to suffer net losses in this fall's election.

Those who identified themselves as Democrats stood at 25 percent, close enough to be considered even, given the margin of sampling error, but down from 31 percent a year ago.

Minnesota is known historically for its liberal leanings, so this is an interesting development for the state.  It may or may not reflect a changing political culture.  The real test will come in November, where it appears Mark Kennedy will face Amy Klobuchar, while the popular Tim Pawlenty runs for re-election as governor.  If the Republicans capture both races and make gains in the state legislature, this poll may be reflecting a moment in history where the state will be painted red.

Immigration

It's hard to disagree with these observations by Sioux Falls blogger Jay Reding regarding the president's address last night. 

Hildebrand

Argus Leader political reporter David Kranz reports that some South Dakota Democrats are starting to turn on Tom Daschle's former campaign manager, Steve Hildebrand:

Some South Dakota Democrats think recent legislative action making most abortions illegal in the state is a catalyst for success in the 2006 elections, but supporters of House Bill 1215 see a potential clash that could divide the party.

At issue is the state Democratic Party's contract with Steve Hildebrand, former campaign manager for former Sen. Tom Daschle. Hildebrand's backers say he provided a valuable voter registration file from that campaign to assist Democratic Party candidates.

Several Democrats who voted for the abortion ban don't dispute the value of the list, but are concerned that Hildebrand is helping defeat their pro-life candidates in the June 6 primaries or in the November election.

Letters are circulating from three players in the issue, but none of the authors made them public. They are state Sen. Julie Bartling, D-Burke, and former state Sen. James Hutmacher, D-Chamberlain, anti-abortion supporters; and pro-abotion rights state Rep. Elaine Roberts, D-Sioux Falls.

Also objectionable to anti-abortion lawmakers is Hildebrand's presence on the Legacy Fund that was formed with money left over from Daschle's campaign and is used to help legislative candidates.

Hutmacher wants Hildebrand removed from the Legacy Fund.

"In private business, if I had an employee who undermined the business, I would fire the guy. Bottom line, if I had the option, he wouldn't be doing the voter file," Hutmacher said.

If the voter list from Hildebrand is so important, Hutmacher reluctantly says he would be OK with them using it yet this year.

"But I want something done about it in the future. Do something different. People employed by the state party shouldn't be recruiting candidates to run against (Democratic) incumbents," Hutmacher said.

Gas Prices

Jonathan Adler looks at the affordability of gasoline and concludes that it's more affordable than ever.

Churchill Update

Ward Churchill has been cited for misconduct:

An investigation of a professor who likened some of the Sept. 11 victims to a Nazi found serious cases of misconduct in his academic research, including plagiarism and fabrications, a University of Colorado spokesman said Tuesday.

One member of the five-person investigative committee recommended that ethnic studies professor Ward Churchill be fired, and four recommended he be suspended, university spokesman Barrie Hartman said.

Pirate Ballerina has much more on the topic. Eugene Volokh also has several observations.

Fooling Yourself

The other night I caught a program on National Geographic Channel entitled "In The Womb."  The program has a website here.  Interesting to note that while the narrator consistently used the term "fetus," the doctors routinely talked to parents about "your baby" while viewing ultrasounds.  Apparently, a definable emotional bond is created between parents and their child simply through seeing the child (or should I say "fetus") on the viewing screen.  I urge readers to investigate the "In The Womb" site.  It baffles me that we can see images like the ones on that program and learn so much about the sophistication of the child in utero and then eagerly support abortion on demand, or even worse.

Even worse?  I direct you to a story previously noted by Jonah Goldberg and Peter Schramm.

SUFFOLK — A judge dismissed on Monday charges against a 22-year-old pregnant Suffolk woman who shot herself in the stomach to abort her unborn child.

If the case had gone forward, it would have been the first time that a woman would have been tried in Virginia for aborting her own baby.

Tammy Skinner - scheduled to give birth to her third daughter on the day of the shooting - called 911 early Feb. 23 from a downtown parking lot and told the dispatcher that someone shot her.

Police later charged her with illegally inducing her own abortion, filing a false police report and using a firearm in the commission of a felony. On Monday, Judge James D. Moore sentenced Skinner to 30 days in jail for filing a false police report then suspended all her jail time. Prosecutors asked Moore to drop the firearms charge because it doesn't apply to inducing an abortion.

On July 10, Moore will decide whether Skinner has to pay between $750 and $1,500 for the cost of the investigation.

Skinner, unemployed and living on welfare, initially told police she couldn't remember the last name of the man who picked her up, shot her and then pushed her out of a car Feb. 23. Later, she told police that the unborn child's father shot her. Skinner is the mother of two girls, 1 and 4.

The bold face is by Jonah Goldberg's post at NRO.  Think about this.  A woman shoots her baby and the law does nothing.  Perhaps a matter of hours and certainly days later this is "murder one."  But the "fetus" is inside the mother, so, as we all know, this is simply a "fetus" not a "human being."   

History

Historian Diane Ravitch takes a look at political correctness in history textbooks.  LA Times excerpt:

TWENTY YEARS AGO, I was invited by then-State Superintendent of Public Instruction Bill Honig to join a committee to revise California's history curriculum. Over 18 months, we produced a document that added more time for the study of American and world history and called for the teaching of the dramatic controversies that make historical study engaging and honest.

Immediately, however, a wide variety of religious, racial and ethnic groups demanded changes in the document to recognize and honor their history. Blacks, Jews, Native Americans, conservative Christians, Arabs, atheists, Armenians, Poles and others lined up to complain at public hearings about references to their groups.

What made their complaints powerful is that California, unlike any other state, has mandated by law since 1976 that instructional materials used in the schools must provide positive portrayals of specified groups.

...

Telling publishers that their books must instill pride only guarantees a phony version of feel-good history. Publishers, as a result, bend over backward to be positive, whether writing about the genocidal reign of Mao Tse-tung (presumably to avoid offending his admirers) or the unequal treatment of women in Islamic societies (to avoid offending Muslims).

Certainly, textbooks should accurately portray society in all its complexity. But to impose contemporary political requirements on how the events are portrayed only ensures that the history we teach our students is inaccurate and dishonest. History books have already grown larger and duller to accommodate every group's demands.

Read the whole thing.

Bush's speech

Powerline takes a dim view of President Bush's speech.  I am withholding judgment.  Here is Hinderaker's comment:

As soon as he started talking about guest worker programs and the impossibility of deporting 11 million illegals, it was all over. President Bush keeps trying to find the middle ground, on this and many other issues. But sometimes, there isn't a viable middle ground. This is one of those instances.

President Bush is being destroyed by vicious people who hate him. So far, he hasn't seemed to notice. Apparently, he doesn't think he needs any allies. He certainly didn't win any with tonight's speech. I rode home from the airport in a taxi a few minutes ago. My driver, as is almost always the case in Minnesota, was an African immigrant. No sooner had I gotten into the cab than he began talking about the speech and railing against Bush on the theory that the President is anti-immigrant. I patiently tried to explain that President Bush is in trouble because he is not just pro-immigrant, but pro-illegal immigrant. I explained that he has argued for a guest worker program and a path to citizenship, and has said repeatedly that it would be impossible to deport all the illegals.

My cab driver was completely disoriented by this. I could tell he didn't believe it. Like nearly all African cab drivers, he listens to public radio all day long. Twenty minutes with me wasn't enough to overcome years of liberal indoctrination. He simply wasn't able to absorb the idea that President Bush might not be a racist who hates immigrants. I'm sure he'd forgotten everything I said by the time he left my driveway.

President Bush doesn't have many chances left to salvage his second term.  After tonight, he might not have any.

Immigration Speech

If you missed President Bush's speech tonight on immigration, you can read it here.  Ian Schwartz also has a video of the speech here.  I haven't had the chance to read/watch it yet (I didn't get off work until 8), but you can probably expect analysis from one of us (or all of us) to come forth at some point tonight.

Judging from early blogosphere reaction, it seems that the speech went over fairly well.  Pajamas Media has a big round-up.  Jeff Goldstein has some thoughts.  Lou Dobbs gave the speech a thumbs-up.  Joe Malchow notes: "This is the best offer American sovereigntists—which is to say almost everyone, whether they realize it or not—will have for a long time."  Jonah Goldberg observes:  "My guess is he sounded pretty reasonable to most Americans not already deeply committed on the issue of immigration. That means he didn't lose may base conservatives not already lost and he didn't lose many Democrats not already passionately opposed to him (if there were any left in the first place)."  California Conservative offers a rebuttal to the President's address.

UPDATE:  Hugh Hewitt calls the speech "a very good start."

UPDATE:  More reactions.  Kathryn Jean Lopez:  "Delivery feels a bit more Mr. Rogers than commander-in-chief. I mean we have an emergency—our borders are out of control and during a time of war. You don’t get that sense.  Get me Jack Bauer."  Glenn Reynolds: "Bush is right to stress assimilation.  That should have been the cornerstone of the speech."  Echoing Hewitt, Bill O'Reilly observed "it's a start."  Michelle Malkin, however, says it was "too little, too late."  RedState has a long discussion taking place.

UPDATE:  Ed Morrissey has some thoughts, as well as some more reactions.  The guys at Powerline are also weighing in.

UPDATE:  The AP is reporting on our lawmakers' reactions.  Excerpt:

Both of South Dakota's senators say they approve of the White House plan to temporarily send National Guard troops to the nation's borders.
...
"I applaud the president for taking steps to stop the flow of unidentified individuals who are coming across our border illegally," Republican Sen. John Thune said in a statement Monday. "The temporary deployment of our National Guard is a good first step as we work to permanently secure our border."

The state's other senator, Democrat Tim Johnson, was slightly less enthusiastic.

"I am open to it," he said. "But I think it needs to be a short-term stopgap and not a long-term strategy."

A spokesman for Democratic Rep. Stephanie Herseth, South Dakota's only House member, said Monday that she looks forward to hearing more about the proposal but is wary of using the Guard for more missions.
...

South Dakota Gov. Mike Rounds said he hasn't seen the president's plan and is not aware of the details.

"If the president calls the Guard up on a federal basis, there's nothing we can do about it. We would hope it would be only for a short period of time as part of an overall strategy with more than one agency involved," he said.

If South Dakota Guard members are needed, Rounds said those just back from Iraq should not be used.

National Guard troops from South Dakota patrolled the U.S-Mexico border in 1916 when Pancho Villa "was out and about," Rounds said.

"So it wouldn't be unprecedented to do it," he said.

Governor's Race Update

Argus Leader:

Democratic candidates for governor are directing their political venom at Republican Gov. Mike Rounds, separately faulting the incumbent's inability to generate revenue for public eduction, among other shortcomings, in an effort to draw attention to the campaign.

But three weeks from primary day, Jack Billion of Sioux Falls and Dennis Wiese of Flandreau also are trying to convince Democratic voters they have ideas of their own. They are competing for the party's nomination June 6.

Wiese would tap budget reserves and trust funds to boost spending on education in a state where rural school districts are struggling to make ends meet and where teachers are consistently among the lowest paid in the nation. Billion would draw more on interest money from a special trust fund to do the same.

Neither will give serious consideration to a state income tax - long-forbidden territory in South Dakota politics - so each must advance creative ways to pay for their ideas.

Iraqi Docs

Ed Morrissey has the latest translation of an Iraqi document by Joseph Shahda that indicates the Iraqi military was ordering new mobile laboratories as late as 2002.  Morrissey and his readers have interesting observations on the new document.

John Kenneth Galbraith, Revisited

Clive Crook:

The respect and even reverence that the modern American Left has accorded to [John Kenneth] Galbraith -- regarding him not just as a brilliantly effective writer, which he was, but also as a deep thinker about capitalism and society, which he was not -- is telling. It reflects a tenacious reluctance to concede the ethical and material superiority of the capitalist system. For an intelligent and pragmatic liberal (in the American sense of that word) this surely ought to be a minimal, painless concession, barely any concession at all. Obviously, a radical, ambitious, and productive agenda of social and economic reforms could still be spread out before voters -- reforms addressed to genuine failures of the market (which are numerous) and to legitimate egalitarian purposes of many kinds. But for some reason that does not quite satisfy.

Much of the Left still longs to sneer at the very idea of capitalism, especially at the claim that it has real ethical foundations (all the more so, in comparison with the attempted alternatives). There is still a wish to regard the whole thing as a scam: gulled and witless consumers; scheming and rapacious businesses; phony markets and bogus "competition"; politicians, media hacks, and other assorted apologists for "the system," all cozily in the pockets of the people in charge. It is a comprehensively false diagnosis. From a narrower political point of view, it is also, most likely, a self-defeating sentiment, because in America (though not in Europe) this mind-set makes it harder to win elections, not easier.

Galbraith dignified that self-defeating sentiment, dressed it in professorial robes, and expressed it with wonderful wit and elegance. He did his followers, who loved him for it, no favors.

Deadwood is Dead?

A score or so years ago I watched the last episode of MASH with a bunch of fellow grad students, along with the original movie which was shown afterward.  Everyone in the room seemed to agree that movies were, for the most part, much better than tv shows, and that when a movie became a tv show it was always dumbed down.  That certainly seemed to be true at the moment.

But over the last ten years or so the opposite has clearly been true.  Shows like Star Trek Next Generation (at its height), Babylon 5, Buffey the Vampire Slayer, its spinoff, Angel, were far better than anything showing at Carmike.  But I think that HBO's Deadwood may well be the best piece of film making I have ever seen.  In dialog and plotting, it achieved a perfection not expected from human art.  Maybe the gods are jealous, for Deadwood appears to be over.  From Townhall.com:

It may be high noon for "Deadwood," HBO's gritty Western drama.

HBO has allowed options on the cast to lapse, freeing the actors of their obligations to the show. But a spokeswoman for the premium cable channel said Friday the door hasn't been shut on the possibility of another season.

The series, about life in the infamous 19th-century mining town, returns for its third season June 11. The ensemble cast includes Ian McShane, Timothy Olyphant, William Sanderson and Molly Parker.

David Milch, the creator and executive producer of "Deadwood," is focusing on another series in development for HBO. "John From Cincinnati," its working title, is a surfer drama that Milch is creating in collaboration with author Kemm Nun ("Tijuana Straits").

Last month, Milch told the Boston Globe that he expected his involvement with "Deadwood" to go four years and no more.

"If a series is successful, the commercial interest is in keeping it on, even after the creative interest is in ending it," Milch told the Globe. "With `Deadwood,' my intention is to end at the end of the fourth season. I can't speak for anyone else, but that's where I'm getting off the bus."

This seems to leave faint hopes for a fourth season.  Actually I think that would be about right.  It would be hard to keep the sharp edge of the series much longer than that.  Moreover, the theme of Deadwood is the creation of civilization out of chaos.  It is a very Machiavellian interpretation of that theme.  But it ought obviously to end when the goal has been achieved, and law and order more or less takes over and road agent ruffians join the Kiwanis club.  My big fear now is that the third season will be the last, and it will leave the story unfinished.  Okay, Lord, I know I should have been more diligent in attending Sunday School.  But please give me one more good season of Deadwood.

Dictator Chic

Ian Buruma, an Anglo-Dutch writer, is one of the most powerful minds among contemporary political journalists.  It is a sign of his good standing on the left that the New York Review of Books will still publish him.  That observation notwithstanding, he is an independent thinker.  He has a piece in the London Times Online on the left's persistent infatuation with anti-Western dictators. 

When the Cuban novelist Reinaldo Arenas managed to escape to the US in 1980, after years of persecution by the Cuban government for being openly homosexual and a dissident, he said: “The difference between the communist and capitalist systems is that, although both give you a kick in the ass, in the communist system you have to applaud, while in the capitalist system you can scream. And I came here to scream.”

One of the most vexing things for artists and intellectuals who live under the compulsion to applaud dictators is the spectacle of colleagues from more open societies applauding of their own free will. It adds a peculiarly nasty insult to injury.

Stalin was applauded by Sidney and Beatrice Webb. Mao was visited by a constant stream of worshippers from the West, some of whose names can still produce winces of disgust in China. Castro has basked for years in the adulation of such literary stars as Jose Saramago and Gabriel Garcia Marquez. Even Pol Pot found favour among several well-known journalists and academics.

Last year a number of journalists, writers and showbiz figures, including Harold Pinter, Nadine Gordimer, Harry Belafonte and Tariq Ali, signed a letter claiming that in Cuba “there has not been a single case of disappearance, torture or extra-judicial execution since 1959 . . .”

Arenas was arrested in 1973 for “ideological deviation”. He was tortured and locked up in prison cells filled with floodwater and excrement, and threatened with death if he didn’t renounce his own writing. Imagine what it must be like to be treated like this and then read about your fellow writers in the West standing up for your oppressors.

Buruma points out what I have been arguing in posts on this subject: that much of the intellectual leadership of the contemporary left has a fondness for communists dictators, and especially for the "third world" variety.  I do not think that this fondness is widely shared by liberals, and certainly not by rank and file Democrats.  But it is pervasive among leftist academics (that's not quite redundant) as well as writers, artist, etc. 

Some have responded to this criticism of communists chic by wondering what the fuss is about.  Communism is largely a thing of the past, no?  Why dwell in the past?  Buruma has an answer.

None of this is news, and would hardly be worth dredging up if the same thing were not happening once more. Hugo Chavez, the elected strongman of Venezuela, is the latest object of adulation by western “progressives” who return from jaunts in Caracas with stars in their eyes.  . . .

As [Tariq] Ali, the ubiquitous applauder of Third World blowhards, put it: “Democracy in Venezuela, under the banner of the Bolivarian revolutionaries, has broken through the corrupt two-party system favoured by the oligarchy and its friends in the West.” But whether the corrupt two-party system will be replaced by a functioning democracy is the question.

Ali was lavish in his praise of Venezuela’s new constitution, which allows people to recall the president before he has completed his term of office. “A triumph of the poor against the rich,” he called it. In 2004 Venezuelans exercised their right to do just that by circulating a petition for a referendum. Chavez survived, but soon the names of the petitioners were made public, and anti-Chavistas were denied passports, public welfare and government contracts.

In 2004 a law was passed that would ban broadcasting stations on the grounds of security and public order. Chavez, as well as his cabinet ministers, appears on television to denounce journalists who dare to criticise the revolution. Most ominous, though, is the way Chavez has expanded the 20-seat supreme court by adding 12 sympathetic judges.

To Buruma's list of cheerleaders I would add Ramsey Clark,  Attorney General of the United States under LBJ, who currently serves on Saddam Hussein's defense team.  To be fair, it is not quite communism that turns Clark on.  It is hostility to the United States in particular, and Western Civilization in general.  Any enemy of ours, no matter how murderous or repressive, is a friend of his. 

Blogs

Pat Flannery takes a look at political blogs and their impact:

Unless you're a political junkie or an Internet geek, a pair of political uproars in the blogosphere probably flew under your radar this past spring.

Ben Domenech, a former Bush administration intern who launched the conservative RedState.com, was dumped in late March as a blogger at Washingtonpost.com after liberal rivals unearthed plagiarism in his work, triggering a flurry of Internet commentary, known as a "swarm."

Then late last month, the Los Angeles Times suspended columnist Michael Hiltzik's blog after a conservative critic exposed Hiltzik's practice of using pseudonyms to post provocative comments on other blogs.

The frays are instructive to those unfamiliar with blogging because they signal how and where a growing share of political discourse is taking place these days. It is a more personalized, polarized and contentious dialogue in which the public's business and a broad array of private opinions are blended in an edgy, fast-moving political medium.

It has become part of the political landscape, with Democrat Howard Dean setting the early standard by using blogs to raise money, spread his message and build a grass-roots network in the 2004 presidential race.

What's different now is the ubiquity of blogs. Recent episodes dramatize how swiftly and powerfully they may react, sometimes rivaling mainstream media in their ability to track events and connect the dots in real time, and influencing traditional news coverage. Consider:

• Blogs applied the pressure that led to Trent Lott's 2002 resignation from the U.S. Senate after making what some construed as racist remarks.

• It was a blogger dubbed "Buckhead" who in 2004 exposed forged documents used by CBS News and Dan Rather in stories about President Bush's National Guard service.

• Former Sen. Tom Daschle, D-S.D., was unseated two years ago after conservative bloggers attacked him and forced the state's largest newspaper to modify its coverage of the race.

• Blogs raised early questions about the Bush administration's handling of the Hurricane Katrina crisis. A study by Loyola University Chicago sociologist Lauren Langman concludes that the blogs forced critical mainstream news coverage that weakened support for the president.

• Last year's U.S. Supreme Court nomination of Harriet Miers was withdrawn after conservative blogs derided her qualifications. Bush took the unprecedented step of holding a conference call with the bloggers in an unsuccessful attempt to quell criticism.

As their numbers and influence grow, it is clear that blogs are not just a national medium.

More than a dozen independent Arizona political blogs now exist along with those of media outlets and campaigns. Readership is minuscule compared with many national blogs, but they sometimes scoop local media and influence their coverage.

Read the whole thing.

Approval Rating

So much for USA Today's scare-mongering:  "President Bush's job approval rating has jumped six points in the wake of a media barrage of criticism over his administration's telephone records collection program."

Maybe there is a God after all!

The Twins took the first two games against the White Sox, for their fourth straight victory.

Not long ago Professor Schaff and I watched the ChiSox crush the Twins in Chicago.  The last two days the Twins fielded a different ball club.  There are a lot of encouraging signs.  The Minnesota bats are no longer afraid.  If I were pregnant, I'd name the child Michael Cuddyer Blanchard.  Even if the baby were a girl.  But the most impressive show was Francisco Liriano's middle relief.  There is an arm to invest in.