South Dakota Politics

MSM II

Powerline:

The media would love to help the Democrats with their "culture of corruption" campaign theme; unfortunately, the facts aren't cooperating very well. Which didn't stop CBS News from doing its best, in this story about the Justice Department standing firm on the documents seized from Congressman William Jefferson:

Top law enforcement officials at the Justice Department and the FBI indicated to their counterparts at the White House that they could not, and were unwilling to, return documents to the Louisiana Republican which were seized as part of a bribery investigation.

Jefferson is, of course, a Democrat. It's common for news stories about scandals involving Congressional Democrats to omit any reference to their party, but this really is going too far!

Al Gore Spins his past again.

After all these years Al Gore still manages to amaze me.  He has, perhaps, good reason to be bitter about the 2000 election; but he did manage occupy the office of Vice President for eight years, and has been a national figure since that time.  Yet his self-esteem remains so vulnerable that he still can't resist padding his resume with petty and easily exposeable lies.  That is at least the way it seems from this Real Clear Politics piece by Jonah Goldberg:

In a recent write-up of Gore's visit to the Cannes Film Festival to promote his new film on global warming, which premiered Wednesday in Los Angeles, [Arianna] Huffington hailed the "new Gore" as the "hottest star in town," beating out Bruce Willis and Tom Hanks.

Gore told Huffington that this was his second trip to Cannes. "The first was when I was 15 years old and came here for the summer to study the existentialists - Sartre, Camus. ... We were not allowed to speak anything but French!" This, gushed Huffington, "may explain his pitch-perfect French accent." Perhaps. Though according to David Maraniss' biography of Gore, the former vice president's 15th summer was spent working on the family farm. Remember those stories about how Al Sr. said, "A boy could never be president if he couldn't plow with that damned hillside plow"? That was the same summer.

Apparently, Poppa Gore thought a boy who couldn't both plow a field and parlez French existentialism could never be president either. Then there's the fact that young Al got C's in French at his tony Washington high school, St. Alban's. That's some school if a kid who can intelligently discuss Sartre's "La Nausée" and Camus' "Betwixt and Between" in apparently pitch-perfect French still can't earn a B in French class. Mon dieu!

Doing your best declared offensive in Connecticut

Its hard to believe this one, from ESPN:

HARTFORD, Conn. -- High school football coaches in Connecticut will have to be good sports this fall -- or risk a suspension.

   The football committee of the Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference, which governs high school sports, is adopting a "score management" policy that will suspend coaches whose teams win by more than 50 points.

   A rout is considered an unsportsmanlike infraction and the coach of the offending team will be disqualified from coaching the next game, said Tony Mosa, assistant executive director of the Cheshire, Conn.-based conference.

   "We were concerned with any coach running up the game. There's no need for it," Mosa said. "This is something that we really have been discussing for the last couple of years. There were a number of games that were played where the difference of scores were 60 points or more. It's not focused on any one particular person."

   Some have dubbed it the "Jack Cochran rule," after the New London High football coach, who logged four wins of more than 50 points last year. In New London's 60-0 rout of Tourtelotte/Ellis Tech, Cochran enraged the Tourtelotte bench by calling a timeout just before halftime. Tourtelotte's coach was arrested on breach of peace charges after police say he struck a security guard and an assistant New London coach.

Europe, Victimization, and the Multiculturalism Debate

Flemming Rose writes about "Europe's Politics of Victimology."  Excerpt:

The worldwide furor unleashed by the cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed that I published last September in Jyllands-Posten, the Danish newspaper where I work, was both a surprise and a tragedy, especially for those directly affected by it. Lives were lost, buildings were torched, and people were driven into hiding.

And yet the unbalanced reactions to the not-so-provocative caricatures -- loud denunciations and even death threats toward us, but very little outrage toward the people who attacked two Danish Embassies -- unmasked unpleasant realities about Europe's failed experiment with multiculturalism. It's time for the Old Continent to face facts and make some profound changes in its outlook on immigration, integration, and the coming Muslim demographic surge. After decades of appeasement and political correctness, combined with growing fear of a radical minority prepared to commit serious violence, Europe's moment of truth is here.

Read the whole thing.

MSM

ITM:  "Does the CNN have problems with translation from Arabic to English or is it a case of deliberate twisting of facts?"

Fire Thunder

Argus Leader:

When she announced this spring that she intended to build an abortion clinic on the Pine Ridge reservation in defiance of the South Dakota Legislature's passage of a bill in March banning abortions, Oglala Sioux Tribal President Cecilia Fire Thunder drew her people into a controversy that has taken on national dimensions.

Now tribal members and the tribal council are making it clear they are uncomfortable with that, and that they do not unanimously support Fire Thunder's abortion stand.

On Tuesday, opponents of an abortion clinic at Pine Ridge will gather at the powwow grounds at 10 a.m. and march to a tribal council meeting to demonstrate their opposition.

The council that day will take up two resolutions banning abortions on the reservation, and also might deal with claims that Fire Thunder violated tribal ordinances and should be removed from office.

The Coming Battle Over Homosexuality

It is claimed on some South Dakota blogs that opposition to same-sex marriage and the belief that homosexual sex is sinful are the products of nothing more than bigotry.  In this sense the fight for same-sex marriage and full civil rights for homosexuals qua homosexuals is the same as the fight for civil rights for black Americans (see Shelby Steele for a counter argument).  If this is the case, then those who oppose this agenda are morally equivalent to those who "stood in the schoolhouse door" or whose racist convictions led them to oppose civil rights and desegregation in the American South.  If this is all true, then the full weight of the law should be put behind reshaping people's attitudes regarding homosexuality and certain current public benefits should be denied those organizations who continue to teach that homosexuality is sinful. 

This is the argument of law professor Doug Kmiec (registration required, and HT to Joe Knippenberg). 

While it may be inconceivable for many to imagine America treating churches that oppose gay marriage the same as racists who opposed interracial marriage in the 1960s, just consider the fate of the Boy Scouts. The Scouts have paid dearly for asserting their 1st Amendment right not to be forced to accept gay scoutmasters. In retaliation, the Scouts have been denied access to public parks and boat slips, charitable donation campaigns and other government benefits. The endgame of gay activists is to strip the Boy Scouts (and by extension, any other organization that morally opposes gay marriage) of its tax-exempt status under both federal and state law.

For technical legal reasons, it is difficult to challenge a religious group's non-profit status in federal court, but state court is more open. There, judicial decisions approving same-sex marriage or even state laws barring discrimination can be used to pronounce any opposing moral or religious doctrine to be "contrary to public policy." So declared, it would be short work for a state attorney general's opinion to deny the tax-exempt status of charities and most orthodox Jewish, Christian and Islamic religious bodies. If enough state lawyers do this, expect the IRS to chime in.

There is precedent for denying public funding or tax exemption for organizations that do not conform to our standards of racial equality (see, for example, Bob Jones University vs. US, and to be clear I think the Court reached the correct decision in that case).  Will the government remove public dollars from, say, Christian schools that continue to teach the scriptural view of homosexuality?  Will their tax-except status be removed?  As is already occurring, public schools will likely begin teaching the moral equivalence of same-sex and traditional marriage.  We have also seen the state of Massachusetts strip Catholic Charities of its power to arrange adoptions because Catholic Charities has religious objections to placing children with homosexual parents.  The popular culture is already well on the way to creating a culture where homosexuality is mainstreamed while those who maintain an orthodox opposition to homosexuality are marginalized, if not ostracized. 

I post these thoughts without comment.  I intend them to be an analysis of what is currently happening and what is likely to occur in the future.  Some will take these events to be a sign of a new age of civil rights and justice.  Others will see it as a continued assault on orthodox Christianity and those who hold to biblical sexual morality.  One thing is for sure: the coming of same-sex marriage (which I take to be nearly inevitable) will further a constituency for the use of state power to counter the latent influence of biblical morality on the populace.  The other question is whether I will face any penalty for the overuse of prepositions in the previous sentence.

Fightin' Joe

Here's a nice piece on the attempt by some on the far Left to purge the Democratic Party of one of its most honorable members, Joe Lieberman. 

Just In Case You Needed More Proof

Pat Robertson is nuts.  You owe to yourself to watch the video on this page. And then of course buy a case of Pat Robertson's Age Defying Shake!  I think it is you that ends up defying age, not the shake. 

Short People Got No Jail Time

The victim-hood industry made a huge leap forward with the discovery of yet another class of oppressed and down trodden persons.  They were always here, it turns out, it just that no one bothered to look down when trodding on them.  Intrepid reader Miranda Marmorstein directed me to this story, at Fox News:

A judge's decision to sentence a 5-foot-1 man to probation instead of prison for sexually assaulting a child has angered crime victim advocates who say the punishment sends the wrong message.

But supporters of short people say it's about time someone recognizes the unique challenges they face.

Cheyenne County District Judge Kristine Cecava issued the sentence Tuesday. She told Richard W. Thompson that his crimes deserved a long prison sentence but that he was too small to survive in a state prison.

Though he could have been sentenced to 10 years behind bars, he ended up with 10 years of probation instead. On Thursday, the state's attorney general, Jon Bruning, promised to appeal within two weeks, calling the sentence far too lenient.

"I'm concerned about the message this sends to victims and perpetrators," said Marla Sohl with the Nebraska Domestic Violence Sexual Assault Coalition, adding that it shows more concern is being placed on the criminal and his safety in prison than the victim.

But Joe Mangano, secretary of the National Organization of Short Statured Adults, agreed with the judge's assessment that Thompson would face dangers while in prison because of his height.

Being somewhat shorter than five and a half feet myself, I here provide personal testimony.  Altitudinally Challenged Persons (who you callin' "little man,") are just as capable as anyone else of bearing responsibility for their actions.  We just bear it a wee bit closer to the ground than the altitudinally enabled.  Thompson belongs in the slammer.  What happens to him there will depend much more on the size of the fight in the dog than on the size of the dogs in the fight. 

I note that this is the second such decision this year.  Fox reports on a decision handed down in Howard Dean's wonderland:

Judge Edward Cashman should be the darling of conservatives: a churchgoer, a former prosecutor, a Vietnam vet and a member of the bench known for his hard-line stands: A decade ago he jailed for 41 days the parents of a suspect in a rape case because they refused to cooperate with prosecutors.

In the past few days, though, Cashman has been vilified by conservatives on TV and on blogs. On Fox News, Bill O'Reilly told viewers as video of Cashman rolled: "You may be looking at the worst judge in the USA." And several Vermont Republican lawmakers have demanded he resign or be impeached.

The reason: Cashman sentenced a child molester to just 60 days of jail time — a sentence he said was designed to ensure the man got prompt sex-offender treatment but critics say was too soft.

"As far as we're concerned, Cashman's district can hereby be considered a predator's sanctuary," wrote the Caledonian Record newspaper of St. Johnsbury. "As long as judges like Ed Cashman are allowed to sit on Vermont benches, children cannot be considered safe."

Cashman has been unswayed: "I am aware that the intensity of some public criticism may shorten my judicial career," he wrote in a memorandum this week. "To change my decision now, however, simply because of some negative sentiment, would be wrong."

The firestorm erupted last week when Cashman sentenced Mark Hulett, 34, for having sexual contact with a girl, beginning when she was 6, over a four-year period.

Cashman said he would have imposed more jail time — a three-year minimum — if the state promised treatment while Hulett was jailed.

"The solution to these concerns requires quick and effective treatment," the judge wrote. He also noted that Hulett tested at a borderline intelligence level, has the emotional maturity of a 12- to 14-year-old and did not understand why others were so upset by his actions.

No one seems to have thought to ask how tall Hulett was.  I agree that treatment is in order and suggest that Judge Cashman be cashiered so that he can receive it.  He is laboring under two delusions.  One is that sexual deviance is treatable.  Short of very invasive surgery, it isn't.  The second is that it is the business of a judge both to prescribe therapy for offenders and to legislate his own view of social policy from the bench.  The latter delusion was obviously shared by Cecava.

ps.  I have always been opposed to affirmative action, but if NOOSSA can get short statured adults included as a suspect classification, listed just after Eskimos and Pacific Islanders, well, I'm off to Harvard boys!

Pelosi's Puppies

SD War College has posted a press release from the SD Republican Party with a great zinger from chairman Randy Frederick about Rep. Herseth's vote against drilling in ANWR.

"This was an opportunity for Rep. Herseth to make a real difference for everyone in South Dakota but she chose to side with Nancy Pelosi rather than the citizens of our state," Frederick said. "She is no 'Blue Dog Democrat.' She is one of Nancy Pelosi's puppies and this vote clearly shows that."

"Synthetic Worlds"

We economists' contributions to society usually involve taking interesting topics and make them either boring or incomprehensible. Edward Castronova, associate professor of telecommunications at Indiana University, does neither in his book "Synthetic Worlds: The Business and Culture of Online Games."

Castronova devotes his book almost entirely to the genre known as "Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Games" — "MMORPGs" for 'short'. EverQuest and World of Warcraft are probably the two most popular of these games, which involve creating a character that interacts in a fantasy universe with hundreds of thousands of other people. Gamers in MMORPGs chat, fight battles, trade items, learn crafts and skills, etc., perhaps as if they were an extra in a "Lord of the Rings" or "Star Wars" type movie who got to swing a sword or pilot a starcruiser, but also sat around a tavern sometimes and worried about what color shirt he was wearing.

In his introduction, Castronova describes the growing number of people playing these games (I am not one of them, but many of my friends — and a few of their parents — are):

If we indeed experience a gradual migration of human consciousness into the synthetic universe, we will have a growing need for economic, political, social, and cultural expertise to deal with the difficult issues that arise.

Fulfillment of this need, however, is hampered by the opinions of many intellectuals, who won't believe that whatever is happening in video games could be of any importance.

An aspiring doctoral student forwarded me a thesis proposal in which the main research question was simply, "What are MMORPGs?" Since such a descriptive question seemed, to me, subpar for PhD-level work ("What are automobiles?"), I pressed for an explanation and was told that the student's major professor had required it.

But these fantasy games have been rapidly breaking out into the "real world," carrying significant implications:

Each synthetic world has a play-money currency inside to facilitate player-to-player transactions. These currencies have begun to trade against the dollar in eBay's Category 1654, Internet Games. Many of them now trade at rates higher than those of real Earth currencies, including the yen and the Korean won.

The commerce flow generated by people buying and selling money and other virtual items (that is, magic wands, spaceships, armor) amounts to at least $30 million annually in the United States, and $100 million globally.

As the technology continues to improve, a new generation of people will swell the ranks of online gamers, and policy makers must be aware how this will affect society. Should these online transactions be monitored or taxed somehow? What would stop a money launderer from buying thousands of gold pieces on eBay, using them to buy a rare sword in a game, and then turning around to sell the sword for cash? 

Castronova gives an example of a computer hacker who facilitates the theft of an in-game item that can be sold on eBay for $1,000 or more. Clearly, someone has been unjustly deprived of an object carrying significant value. But what if that same item was lifted by an in-game thief, who chose to train and develop his "pickpocket" skill subject entirely to the rules set by the game's developers? Should the "real world" get involved to ensure justice is served? Cases like these are not unusual in Korean courts, but how will our legal system react?

"Synthetic Worlds" is a fascinating insight into a phenomenon most people are only vaguely aware of. By seeking to understand these games, society will not be caught off guard by the wide-ranging effects of this important technological advance.

More Johnson

As long as we are broadcasting Tim Johnson's votes, note the differences between how Johnson and Thune have voted on immigration matters.  Not surprisingly, I find Thune's voting pattern in favor of strengthening border security more defensible, but there are good arguments in favor of the Johnson position that leans toward amnesty.  The least defensible position is Johnson's opposition to requiring a photo ID to vote:

Johnson and Thune also split on a proposal that will not make it into the final immigration bill. Senate Whip Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., tried to get an amendment in the bill that would have required anyone voting in a federal election to present a photo ID.

"I do support the photo ID. I think it makes a lot of sense," Thune said, and noted South Dakota is among 24 states that already have that requirement.

Johnson, however, said, "If states want to pursue that, it's their prerogative. But I do not think we need a one-size-fits-all demand from the federal government.

"I'm opposed to addressing that issue in the context of immigration. This is a complex-enough bill as it is, and I don't think we ought to be (using immigration legislation) to federalize that aspect of voting."

One would think that the integrity of federal elections is a national concern for which "one-size-fits-all" solution is appropriate.  Clearly it's better to leave matters at the state level when practicable, but this is a relatively unobtrusive and sensible suggestion.  The argument that it is inappropriate to address the issue in the context of immigration makes some sense, but it is not as though the matter is unrelated to immigration. 

Johnson

Despite my two posts below regarding Tim Johnson's voting record, I would like to congratulate our senator for this:

Sen. Tim Johnson is in a three-way tie for first among U.S. senators in home-state popularity, with 72 percent of South Dakotans surveyed earlier this month saying they approve of the incumbent Democrat.

And Johnson stands alone with the lowest disapproval rating in the Senate, at 22 percent.

Johnson is joined at the top of the SurveyUSA poll for May with Maine Republican Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, who also have 72 percent approval ratings. Snowe and Collins had disapproval ratings of 24 percent and 25 percent.

Johnson’s net approval rating of 50 percent — 72 percent approval minus 22 percent disapproval — was the highest in the Senate. The survey was conducted by telephone with 600 registered South Dakota voters ages 18 and older between May 12 and May 14.

Ward Churchill

The American Council of Trustees and Alumni issued this report, released May 12th, asking "How Many Ward Churchills?" (pdf alert).  Excerpt:

[W]e do not mean to suggest that issues of alleged plagiarism, dubious claims of ethnicity, or inadequate credentials—problems specific to Ward Churchill—apply broadly to all academics. What we do mean to suggest is that the extremist rhetoric and tendentious opinion for which Churchill is infamous can be found on campuses across America. In published course descriptions and online course materials, professors are openly and unapologetically declaring that they use their positions to push political agendas in the name of teaching students to think critically.

Given this state of affairs, some will argue—indeed many have already—that Ward Churchill and others like him should be fired. But as we contend in the following pages, the solution is not to fire professors who express extreme views, but to expose them, to compel them to defend their positions, invite them to debate ideas, and, above all, to insist that they do their job of teaching students well and empowering them to make up their own minds.

Kavanaugh

The senate confirmed another federal appeals court judge today. 

White House aide Brett Kavanaugh won Senate confirmation as an appeals judge Friday after a wait of nearly three years, yet another victory in President Bush's drive to place a more conservative stamp on the nation's courts.

Kavanaugh was confirmed on a vote of 57-36, warmly praised by Republicans but widely opposed by Democrats who said he is ill-suited to sit on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

Johnson voted against him.

Fire Thunder

Oglala tribal president Cecilia Fire Thunder is under fire again.  Kevin Woster:

Apparently, I’m not the only one being ignored by Cecelia Fire Thunder.

The president of the Oglala Tribe stood up an assembly of 8th-graders Wednesday at North Middle School. She just didn’t show up for a scheduled meeting with the group, which included lots of American Indian kids.

No call or notice, according to the Journal reporter assigned to cover the event, which left lots of disappointed students and staff.

Do you think she doesn’t like them, either?

Where's the outrage from the Democrats?  They've been all over Governor Rounds for his silence towards the Argus Leader.  Why not to Fire Thunder as well?

Johnson Votes Against ANWR

New York Times:

With gasoline prices around $3 a gallon as the Memorial Day weekend approaches, the House again voted Thursday to approve drilling for oil and gas in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

It was at least the 12th time that the House had voted to allow energy exploration in a small piece of the preserve's 19 million acres along the northern coastal plain of Alaska. The final tally was 225 to 201, with 27 Democrats joining the majority and 30 Republicans voting against.

But given the Senate's recent disposition toward drilling in the Arctic, the vote may be little more than symbolic.

Since 1995, when Congress passed an arctic drilling bill and President Bill Clinton vetoed it, Senate proponents of drilling have failed to gather the 60 votes needed to end a filibuster against it. The outcome is expected to be no different this year.

Tim Johnson voted against it.

Synthetic Worlds

We economists' contributions to society usually involve taking interesting topics and make them either boring or incomprehensible. Edward Castronova, associate professor of telecommunications at Indiana University, does neither in his book "Synthetic Worlds: The Business and Culture of Online Games."

Castronova devotes his book almost entirely to the genre known as "Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Games" — "MMORPGs" for 'short'. EverQuest and World of Warcraft are probably the two most popular of these games, which involve creating a character that interacts in a fantasy universe with hundreds of thousands of other people. Gamers in MMORPGs chat, fight battles, trade items, learn crafts and skills, etc., perhaps as if they were an extra in a "Lord of the Rings" or "Star Wars" type movie who got to swing a sword or pilot a starcruiser, but also sat around a tavern sometimes and worried about what color shirt he was wearing.

In his introduction, Castronova describes the growing number of people playing these games (I am not one of them, but many of my friends — and a few of their parents — are):

If we indeed experience a gradual migration of human consciousness into the synthetic universe, we will have a growing need for economic, political, social, and cultural expertise to deal with the difficult issues that arise.

Fulfillment of this need, however, is hampered by the opinions of many intellectuals, who won't believe that whatever is happening in video games could be of any importance.

An aspiring doctoral student forwarded me a thesis proposal in which the main research question was simply, "What are MMORPGs?" Since such a descriptive question seemed, to me, subpar for PhD-level work ("What are automobiles?"), I pressed for an explanation and was told that the student's major professor had required it.

But these fantasy games have been rapidly breaking out into the "real world," carrying significant implications:

Each synthetic world has a play-money currency inside to facilitate player-to-player transactions. These currencies have begun to trade against the dollar in eBay's Category 1654, Internet Games. Many of them now trade at rates higher than those of real Earth currencies, including the yen and the Korean won.

The commerce flow generated by people buying and selling money and other virtual items (that is, magic wands, spaceships, armor) amounts to at least $30 million annually in the United States, and $100 million globally.

As the technology continues to improve, a new generation of people will swell the ranks of online gamers, and policy makers must be aware how this will affect society. Should these online transactions be monitored or taxed somehow? What would stop a money launderer from buying thousands of gold pieces on eBay, using them to buy a rare sword in a game, and then turning around to sell the sword for cash? 

Castronova gives an example of a computer hacker who facilitates the theft of an in-game item that can be sold on eBay for $1,000 or more. Clearly, someone has been unjustly deprived of an object carrying significant value. But what if that same item was lifted by an in-game thief, who chose to train and develop his "pickpocket" skill subject entirely to the rules set by the game's developers? Should the "real world" get involved to ensure justice is served? Cases like these are not unusual in Korean courts, but how will our legal system react?

"Synthetic Worlds" is a fascinating insight into a phenomenon most people are only vaguely aware of. By seeking to understand these games, society will not be caught off guard by the wide-ranging effects of this important technological advance.

Congress Passes Funeral Protest Ban

Prepare yourself for a shock, Seth.  We are in agreement again. Seth at CCK alerts us to this bit of news, from CNN:

Demonstrators would be barred from disrupting military funerals at national cemeteries under legislation approved by Congress and sent to the White House.

The measure, passed by voice vote in the House Wednesday hours after the Senate passed an amended version, specifically targets a Kansas church group that has staged protests at military funerals around the country, claiming that the deaths were a sign of God's anger at U.S. tolerance of homosexuals.

The act "will protect the sanctity of all 122 of our national cemeteries as shrines to their gallant dead," Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tennessee, said prior to the Senate vote.

"It's a sad but necessary measure to protect what should be recognized by all reasonable people as a solemn, private and deeply sacred occasion," he said.

Under the Senate bill, approved without objection by the House with no recorded vote, the "Respect for America's Fallen Heroes Act" would bar protests within 300 feet of the entrance of a cemetery and within 150 feet of a road into the cemetery from 60 minutes before to 60 minutes after a funeral. Those violating the act would face up to a $100,000 fine and up to a year in prison.

I am not altogether sure that national legislation was necessary on this point, as the bill clearly targets a very small gaggle of noxious numbskulls.  But its a perfectly reasonable application of the "public forum" doctrine of constitutional law.  Free speech is limited by context: a public park where demonstrations of any kind are allowed is clearly a public forum; funerals are not. 

Danesqueapades Award Goes to: ABC!

I wish to announce the Second Danesquepades Award.  Don't bother looking for the first award, for I am also announcing it now retroactively.  The award is in honor, so to speak, of Dan Rather, and in memory of the false Sixty Minutes II story that brought his career to an ignominious close.  To qualify, some media source has to 1) publish a story of some political scandal, which story 2) turns out to be without foundation. 

The First Award goes to USAToday, for its story about telecom giants turning their records over to the NSA.  Not that there's anything wrong with that, but all the telecom businesses mentioned have now categorically denied that any such exchange took place.  The award is shared with TIME magazine, which celebrated the story on a recent cover without bothering to confirm it.  I have posted on this, and if our permalinks ever start working, you can find it here. 

The Second Danesquepade Award goes to ABC, for its claim that Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert was a target of the FBI's Congressional bribery investigation.  Michelle Malkin has the original language of the ABC story, which has apparently been modified. 

The Speaker of the House of Representatives, Dennis Hastert, is under investigation by the FBI, which is seeking to determine his role in an ongoing public corruption probe into members of Congress, ABC News has learned from senior U.S. law enforcement officials.

Federal officials say the information implicating Hastert was developed from convicted lobbyists who are now cooperating with the government.

But it turns out that Hastert isn't a target.  Here is the Reuters report:

The U.S. Justice Department on Wednesday denied a report that the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Dennis Hastert, is under investigation by the FBI in connection with a corruption probe.

ABC News, citing high level Justice Department sources, said information implicating Hastert had been developed from convicted lobbyists who are now cooperating with the government.

But department officials, who asked to not be identified, said the story was not accurate and that Hastert was not under investigation. "The story is wrong. Hastert is not under investigation," one official said.

ABC turned out its pockets, with nothing to show for it.  The Second Danesquepade is theirs.

Galloway

Independent Online:

The Respect MP George Galloway has said it would be morally justified for a suicide bomber to murder Tony Blair.

In an interview with GQ magazine, the reporter asked him: "Would the assassination of, say, Tony Blair by a suicide bomber - if there were no other casualties - be justified as revenge for the war on Iraq?"

Mr Galloway replied: "Yes, it would be morally justified. I am not calling for it - but if it happened it would be of a wholly different moral order to the events of 7/7. It would be entirely logical and explicable. And morally equivalent to ordering the deaths of thousands of innocent people in Iraq - as Blair did."

We have this sort of thing in America, but it's absent from our elected leaders.

French Whine

The European social model, version Francais, received another humiliating blow this week.   From the San Francisco Chronicle.

California smoked France Wednesday in a cross-continental tasting of wines that have matured in cellars for three decades. The California Cabernet Sauvignon-based wines placed first through fifth, followed by four wines from France's hallowed Bordeaux region and then another California Cab.

Sacre bleu!

Make that red, white and blue.

The occasion marked the 30th anniversary of "The Judgment of Paris," a tasting by French and British judges that pitted California against Bordeaux Cabernet Sauvignons on May 24, 1976.

In that slosh heard round the world, the 1973 Stag's Leap Wine Cellars S.L.V. Napa Valley Cabernet Sauvignon scored higher than its French counterparts. At the same time, a taste-off of California Chardonnays and Chardonnay-based white Burgundies from France resulted in another stunner when the 1973 Chateau Montelena Napa Valley Chardonnay won.

When writer George M. Taber reported the outcome in Time magazine, California gained instant recognition as a world-class wine region. The French saved face by saying, "Our wines will improve with time. But these California wines will not age well. They will tire quickly, lose their character, lose their balance."

"Phooey" was the answer from Wednesday's tastings. Two panels of wine professionals -- one in Napa at Copia: The American Center for Wine, Food & the Arts, the other at wine merchant Berry Bros. & Rudd in London -- simultaneously evaluated the same 10 wines tasted in the 1976 Paris event.

When the results were combined, the 1971 Ridge Monte Bello Cabernet Sauvignon from the Santa Cruz Mountains finished first, followed by the 1973 Stag's Leap Wine Cellars S.L.V. Cabernet Sauvignon; a tie between the 1970 Heitz Martha's Vineyard Napa Valley Cabernet Sauvignon and 1971 Mayacamas Vineyards Cabernet Sauvignon; and the 1972 Clos du Val Napa Valley Cabernet Sauvignon.

Bordeaux took the next four slots -- 1970 Chateau Mouton-Rothschild, 1970 Chateau Montrose, 1970 Chateau Haut-Brion and 1971 Chateau Leoville-Las-Cases. The 1969 Freemark Abbey Napa Valley Cabernet Sauvignon was 10th.

Organizers of the event were quick to say the re-enactment was a "celebration" of the historic Paris tasting and not meant to be a competition -- a bit like the Special Olympics, where everyone is a winner.

But it became a competition nonetheless, and California vintners reveled in the outcome.

Typepad Issues

Apparently we are having problems with the permalinks on the site.  They are not taking you to the actual post, but just to that week's archive.  We are on the case and apologize for the inconvenience. 

Just One More Time

One more reply to Chad, and then we'll let this horse die.  If Valarie Plame was "undercover" or "covert" then why is Scooter Libby not being charged with the crime of outing a covert agent (and it is a crime to do so)?  Valarie Plame's status was classified (it is not clear Libby knew that), but she was not covert.  See more information at Powerline as to Plame's status.  Revealing her status might have been foolish, and I said so in this post, but it wasn't illegal.  When Patrick Fitzgerald charges someone with a crime specifically for revealing Valarie Plame's  status, then Chad can let me know and I will recant.  Obstructing justice is illegal, and if anyone in the White House was involved in such a scheme then there will and should be hell to pay.  And, as I have argued, Plame's status had virtually nothing to do with national security, unlike the leaks about Bush administration national security operations.  There is a difference in degree of leaks here wide enough so as to create a difference in kind.

I have things to say about "Secret prisons, torture, warrantless wiretapping, massive databases of citizens phone records" but won't take the time.

Chad is correct in his point 4, namely that the question hinges on whether it is justifiable to leak information if you think you are in the right.  In some ways that is a matter between a government employee and his conscience.  But we are talking legality here.  Revealing covert operations to the press strikes at the heart of our national security apparatus.  If we allow this to occur with no penalty than the whole concept of "covert" goes out the window.  I think Chad's arguments reveal no principled opposition to the revealing of covert operations.  Thus even if we accept Chad's claim that Valarie Plame was a covert agent, he has no principled opposition to revealing her status.  He just thinks the political reasons were not good enough.  And to be clear, I agree with Chad that it was wrong to reveal Plame's status; I just don't think it was illegal (and here Chad and I simply have a factual dispute over whether Plame was "covert" or not).  The costs should be political, not legal.  Chad would be on firmer ground arguing for a kind of civil disobedience, i.e., that it is illegal to reveal the Bush administration's covert programs, but the immorality of them gives moral justification for their revelation.  That is a more defensible position than the one Chad is making. 

Finally, if I am a lap dog to "dear leader" why did I just come out against the immigration bill he is supporting.   I think this is an interesting and enlightening debate Chad and I are having.   It is shame that Chad resorts to the ad hominem.  I think Chad is a vigorous and able defender of liberal opinion, and I would enjoy debating him much more (and would read his blog more) if he could avoid impugning his opponents' motives at every turn. 

Just Like A Woman

In an upcoming bio-pic, Bob Dylan will be played by...Cate Blanchett?  Let's see what Chad Schuldt thinks of that!

Economic Growth Surges

More economic good news:

The U.S. economy shot forward at an upwardly revised 5.3 percent annual rate in the first quarter, the fastest growth in 2-1/2 years, as companies built up inventories and exports strengthened, a Commerce Department report on Thursday showed.

First-quarter growth in gross domestic product was more than triple the 1.7 percent annual rate recorded in last year's fourth quarter, though still slightly below Wall Street economists' forecasts for a 5.7 percent pace.

Prices remained in check, with the core personal consumption expenditures price index that the Federal Reserve favors rising at a 2 percent rate compared with 2.4 percent in the fourth quarter.

Immigration

For reasons supplied by John O'Sullivan and Sen. Chuck Grassley, a vote against the immigration bill seems warranted.  That is disappointing, as I used to be one of those open border libertarians Victor Davis Hanson derides.

Political Science

One of the most popular ideas in science back in the eighties concerned an explanation for the extinction of the dinosaurs.  They were wiped out, it was said,  when some massive object (a meteor or asteroid) crashed into the earth.  The plausibility of this explanation was thought to be confirmed by the fact that it was dramatically depicted in every single animated film about dinosaurs, and there were more of those than there ever were dinosaurs.  I was always skeptical of this story line, and I think that science has swung around to my view.  Current explanations involve volcanic activity, bubbling frozen methane on the ocean floor, and too much fast food in the dinosaur's diets.  If indeed I proved to be right, it was not, I assure you, because of any expertise on my part.  It was because I applied  Blanchard's First Law of Explanations.  Drum roll please.

Excitement is inversely proportional to probability.

This is how one speaks if one wishes to appear more learned than one is.  It just means that the more exciting a story is, the less likely that it will turn out to be true.  Its converse, of course, is

Boring is proportional to probability. 

So, applying this law to the assassination of JFK, it is more probable that Lee Harvey Oswald, acting alone, killed Kennedy than the CIA, or Castro, or the Illuminati.  Likewise, any explanation of the dinosaur's demise that allows a cartoonist to draw fireballs scorching the sky, the earth cracking and flowing with molten rock, all resulting in an near-instantaneous apocalypse, well, that's just too sexy to be real.  This leads to corollary one, which may be usefully applied to The Day After.

The better an explanation looks when Hollywood does it, the more suspect it is.

But something interesting was attached to the arguments in the eighties: politics.  Some of those who criticized the celestial impact argument were accused of being militarists.  How so?  Because the dinosaur story line cross bred with the "nuclear winter" argument.  According to the latter, a nuclear war would be followed by a nuclear winter, as the clouds of dust produced by the detonation of doomsday weapons blocked the sun's rays.  Anyone who dismissed the asteroid theory weakened the nuclear winter argument, at least rhetorically, and so that person was a closet Reagan voter.  Hence corollary two:

The more that an explanation flatters the political opinions of the explainer, the more suspect the explanation is.

I really don't care for that one.  I can see it being used against myself.  So let me add the following first teleological suspension of the logical:

Neither the first law nor any of its implications applies to any conclusions favored by Dr. Blanchard

For everyone else, logic is logic.

Currently global warming has become the ersatz religion of the left, and nothing cries out for application of corollary two than this.  This does not mean that global warming is not happening just because it flatters the political opinions of Al Gore.  It just means that one ought to be suspicious to the degree that the interpretation of scientific theory is presented in a politically significant way. 

For a solid critique of Al Gore's recent bid for an academy award, this piece by Dr. Robert C. Balling, Jr., kindly sent to us by the folks at Tech Central Station.  Of course you may note that Balling's interpretation of the issue rather flatters the political opinions of the folks at TCS.  That's one of the advantages of my first law and its corollaries: it makes it hard to trust anyone, especially oneself. 

The trick is to watch how each side uses the science.  Critics of global warming politics do not challenge the general validity of the science itself.  They challenge its selective use.  And the best of them have been much better at distinguishing scientific from political arguments than ever Al Gore was.

It's OK To Break The Law If You Have A Good Reason

Chad at CCK has responded to my post on what should be done about those who leak classified information.  I will respond point by point.
1. On Valarie Plame, the point is exactly that she was not an undercover agent.  Virtually everyone is in agreement that there was no crime committed in leaking her name to the press.  That doesn't mean it wasn't dumb or even wrong, but it was not illegal.  Scooter Libby has been indicted for obstructing justice, not for leaking a name. 
2. If Valarie Plame's husband, Joe Wilson, willfully distorted the truth on the op-ed page of the New York Times, and he did, what is the Bush administration supposed to do?  Yes, they tried to undermine his credibility and they did so in a way tried and true in Washington.  Read Howard Kurtz's Spin Cycle if you think behind the scenes manipulation of the press is phenomenon unique to the present administration.  If I may quote John McCain, politics ain't bean bag. 
3. It seems unwise to allow employees of the federal government to leak national security information because the program involved appears "suspect."  There is great discussion over whether the NSA surveillance of overseas calls to the US was legal, although the lack of action by both Congress and the Courts is telling.  I would argue that the preponderance of legal opinion (but not without strong dispute) is that the controversial surveillance methods the Bush administration has used to fight Al Qaeda are legal (see this piece by Judge Richard Posner, for example). Again, that which is legal may also be unwise. 
4. The sum of Chad's argument appears to be that it is OK to leak classified information if you think you have a good reason.  Well, who decides if there is good reason?  Whose judgment defines which programs are just fine and which are "suspect"?  Evidently, an administration leaking benign information for political purposes is not a good enough reason to leak, and therefore, despite the fact that no crime was committed, people should go to jail.  But if you leak classified national security information that would be useful to the enemy, that is a good leak, because the national security programs are "suspect" in some minds.  I suspect most people would find this to be dubious reasoning. 

There is no doubt that the government must maintain the ability to act covertly in the name of national security.  There is also no doubt that Al Qaeda has benefited from these leaks.  I would argue that if there is truly something untoward going on in intelligence gathering the appropriate tactic by an intelligence employee is to notify the congressional Intelligence Committees as they have appropriate safeguards for secrecy and can hold the executive accountable.  You don't reveal classified national security operations to the New York Times.

The Word We Dare Not Speak

The Michigan Department of Education is trying to make its curriculum "international friendly":

Censoring the word "America" from our own schools is something Josef Stalin, Adolf Hitler and Osama bin Laden would never have thought possible. Michigan has done it without a whimper.

In perhaps a well-intentioned, but pernicious example of political correctness, the Michigan Department of Education is attempting to ban the "America" and "American" from our public schools. Even though the word "America" appears in the department's own civics and government benchmarks, the department's style protocol for the Michigan Education Assessment Program requires that "America" and "Americans" be expunged from our testing and grade level expectations. Last week, the department ordered that our hard-working teachers not utter the words.

...

The state's edict would be laughable if it were not so disgraceful. Instead of focusing on better teaching methods and educational resources to help our hard-working teachers and parents, the Department of Education spends its energy on confusing, misleading, historically inaccurate and counterproductive wordplay.

Read the whole thing.

"The Confusion on Campus"

Vincent J. Cannato has an interesting piece in today's Wall Street Journal about "Excellence Without a Soul," written by Harry R. Lewis, a former dean of Harvard College. Lewis is very critical of the higher education offered at his alma mater:

So how does Harvard define an educated person? A Harvard education, the university states, "must provide a broad introduction to the knowledge needed in an increasingly global and connected, yet simultaneously diverse and fragmented world." Mr. Lewis, rightfully dismissive, notes that the school never actually says what kind of knowledge is "needed." The words are meaningless blather, he says, proving that "Harvard no longer knows what a good education is."

Quote of the Day

Kevin Woster:  "I felt like an Argus Leader reporter trying to get through to the governor."

Donations

According to a new report, former Senator Daschle is the top recipient of lobbyist donations since 1998:

Lobbyists have given more than $103 million to members of Congress since 1998, according to a new report released yesterday by Public Citizen.
   The $103.1 million total is "nearly double" the previous estimates, according to Joan Claybrook, president of Public Citizen, a consumer group founded by Ralph Nader.
   Ms. Claybrook said the $103 million total was "more than enough money to publicly finance campaigns," a political position that her group advocates.
   The report shows that the top 10 lobbyists represented private interests in the financial, defense and education sectors.
   The group's report, "Bankrollers: Lobbyists' Payments to the Lawmakers They Court, 1998-2006," ranks the top-contributing lobbyists and those lawmakers receiving the most campaign cash.
   Former Sen. Tom Daschle, South Dakota Democrat, received the most individual and political action committee (PAC) contributions in the Senate, totaling $1,687,721 since 1998.

POTUS Daschle

From the weekly political magazine National Journal:

Tom Daschle: As potential 2008 candidacies go, this is one that actually feels four years too late. We wonder if Daschle is kicking himself secretly for passing up the shot in 2004, a year that was bereft of a big-time front-runner. There was a moment for Daschle, but it probably was a few years ago. That said, if the presidential desire is really in the South Dakotan's gut (and again, we wonder if it's there, because if it were, then we're convinced he would have run in 2004), then 2008 is Daschle's last shot. By 2016, he would be closing in on 70 and would likely be overtaken by a new generation of leaders.

Huron Mayor: Janklow Betraying State

Argus Leader:

The $2 billion DM&E rail rebuilding project would create thousands of jobs for South Dakota and a solid transportation base to grow from. It's important to farmers and workers alike. It's the best opportunity this state has going right now. Gov. Mike Rounds and our whole congressional delegation support it.

When John Thune served in the House, he said he supported the project. When he went into the private sector, he helped push the project. He did what he said he was committed to in public life.

Former Gov. Bill Janklow, as a lobbyist-lawyer for the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., has joined forces with Minnesota Sen. Mark Dayton to fight against South Dakota's DM&E railroad project because Rochester doesn't like it.

When Bill Janklow served in the House, he said he supported the project. I am very disappointed in Mr. Janklow for working with the only town from Minnesota that opposes progress for the state of South Dakota.

It is hard to believe former Gov. Janklow would turn his back on South Dakota. I'm thankful our current governor has a lot more integrity than our last.

Mayor Mary A. Pearson
City of Huron

Be Careful What You Wish For

Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez  is coming under some criticism for suggesting that journalists who reveal leaked classified national security information may face prosecution.  But as Jack Kelly points out, isn't this the natural outgrowth of what the Left demanded in the Valarie Plame incident?  If revealing her name was a crime (which, as Kelly also notes, it most certainly wasn't), isn't the leaking of highly sensitive national security operations even worse.  What do you think Al Qadea was more interested in: finding out who suggested sending Lyin' Joe Wilson to Africa, or finding out that the NSA is surveilling phone conversations from overseas? 

Kelly argues, correctly, that the chances of reporters actually getting charged with espionage are slim, but, as with Judith Miller in the Plame case, they may be held in contempt of court if they withhold the names of those who are leaking classified information.  The government classifies lots of information that really isn't sensitive, but some of it is.  Doesn't it defeat the whole concept of "classified information" if it can be revealed to the public with no consequences? 

Everyone, even Al Gonzalez, has great respect for the First Amendment.  But as much as some on either side would like to simplify the issue, this is a difficult controversy.  Everyone agrees that some speech is not protected (e.g. libelous speech or fraudulent advertising).  Is reporting that reveals state secrets and undermines our national security protected speech/press under our First Amendment?  Which is a more fundamental value: national security or freedom of the press?  That is not a no-brainer, and Gonzalez's position is a respectable one.

More Katrina Myths

Prof. Blanchard notes some of the mythology that has grown up around Katrina.  Here is more from Jonah Goldberg:

As I've written before, virtually all of the gripping stories from Katrina were untrue. All of those stories about, in Paula Zahn's words, "bands of rapists, going block to block"? Not true. The tales of snipers firing on medevac helicopters? Bogus. The yarns, peddled on "Oprah" by New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin and the New Orleans police chief, that "little babies" were getting raped in the Superdome and that the bodies of the murdered were piling up? Completely false. The stories about poor blacks dying in comparatively huge numbers because American society "left them behind"? Nah-ah. While most outlets took Nagin's estimate of 10,000 dead at face value, Editor and Publisher - the watchdog of the media - ran the headline, "Mortuary Director Tells Local Paper 40,000 Could Be Lost in Hurricane."

District 3 Senate Primary

Duane Sutton, incumbant Senator from the 3rd District, has picked up a Republican primary opponent in the person of Isaac Latterell.   Some Latterel signs have sprung up around Aberdeen, although obviously it will take a lot more than a few signs to unseat an incumbant.  Sutton is one of the members of the "Mainstream Coalition," and as can be seen from the South Dakota Family Policy Council questionaire (ht to pp), Latterel is certainly the conservative choice in the race. 

Celebrate Diversity

Joe Knippenberg points out that those on campus who are loudest in preaching "diversity" are probably the ones on campus the least interested in real diversity: the diversity of ideas.  In my experience, when academics talk about students "overcoming their prejudices" what they really mean is "students should give up what they used to believe and learn to think just like me." 

At NSU we were honored to have Gov. Rounds speak at our commencement ceremony this year.  The governor certainly has the support of only a minority of faculty, but when he was introduced the crowd proceeded to give him a standing ovation in which (from what I could see) all faculty participated.  They may not have actually applauded, but they stood respectfully.  That is the appropriate way to act when listening to a speaker with whom you are in deep political disagreement.  I can also report that Gov. Rounds understands the chief virtue of a commencement speech: keep it short.  I like my governors short, and my commencement speeches shorter.

The Press vs. Reality: Katrinia Edition

From Lou Dolinar at Real Clear Politics:

Remember the dozens, maybe hundreds, of rapes, murders, stabbings and deaths resulting from official neglect at the Superdome after Hurricane Katrina? The ones that never happened, as even the national media later admitted?

Sure, we all remember the original reporting, if not the back-pedaling.

Here's another one: Do you remember the dramatic TV footage of National Guard helicopters landing at the Superdome as soon as Katrina passed, dropping off tens of thousands saved from certain death? The corpsmen running with stretchers, in an echo of M*A*S*H, carrying the survivors to ambulances and the medical center? About how the operation, which also included the Coast Guard, regular military units, and local first responders, continued for more than a week?

Me neither. Except that it did happen, and got at best an occasional, parenthetical mention in the national media. The National Guard had its headquarters for Katrina, not just a few peacekeeping troops, in what the media portrayed as the pit of Hell. Hell was one of the safest places to be in New Orleans, smelly as it was. The situation was always under control, not surprisingly because the people in control were always there.

Why Do They Hate Us?

Evan Coyne Maloney: Why Do They Hate Us?

Revisionist History

Peter Wehner examines the myths about the Iraq war:

Iraqis can participate in three historic elections, pass the most liberal constitution in the Arab world, and form a unity government despite terrorist attacks and provocations. Yet for some critics of the president, these are minor matters. Like swallows to Capistrano, they keep returning to the same allegations--the president misled the country in order to justify the Iraq war; his administration pressured intelligence agencies to bias their judgments; Saddam Hussein turned out to be no threat since he didn't possess weapons of mass destruction; and helping democracy take root in the Middle East was a postwar rationalization. The problem with these charges is that they are false and can be shown to be so--and yet people continue to believe, and spread, them.

Read the whole thing.

McGovern

Michael Barone:

Former senator and 1972 Democratic presidential nominee George McGovern has written an interesting column for the Los Angeles Times on unions.

He argues that the traditional labor union strategy of always seeking, in John L. Lewis's word, "more," is self-defeating. He points to the Delphi bankruptcy, the woes of automakers General Motors and Ford, and the plight of the unionized airlines:

"'More' has, unfortunately, become 'too much' in a global and far more competitive economy."

He also defends Wal-Mart and points out that if the $27 million compensation of Wal-Mart's CEO were distributed to employees, each would receive less than $20. What are his public policy solutions? He calls for government-provided universal healthcare, which of course would relieve the burden of that cost for employers like GM and Ford, which have agreed to union demands for ultragenerous health insurance. But of course that solution has other problems and is not likely to be adopted anytime soon. He also calls for expansion of the earned income tax credit, which was in fact expanded during the Clinton administration, to supplement the earnings of low-income workers.

Whatever you think of his analysis or his proposals, McGovern shows here that he is an independent thinker who has come by his positions honestly and with good intentions. I have a soft spot for him because, near as he and I can figure out, I lived next door to him in Diamond Lake, Ill., in 1947. McGovern then was a practicing minister in a nearby church while he was attending divinity school at Northwestern University; my father was a doctor at Fort Sheridan. My parents, like many young parents in the years after World War II, had a hard time finding housing and eventually found an old farmhouse to rent amid the cornfields of interior Lake County, Ill. The McGoverns also had a young family, and I suspect the house came with the practicing-minister provision. My parents have only vague memories of the McGoverns. We went back to visit Diamond Lake in 1992, and the site of our house, as near as we could figure, was by then a shopping center parking lot. The cornfields had become suburbia.

I supported McGovern for president in 1972 and continue to admire him, even though I disagree now with many of the positions I took then. I think he did an admirable job as ambassador to the Food and Agricultural Organization in Rome; he was appointed by President Clinton and was asked to remain on the job for a year by President Bush, who then appointed Ohio Democratic Rep. Tony Hall to fill the position. Hall, whose interest in feeding the hungry arises out of strong religious conviction, was admired by members of both parties in the House. It's interesting that Bush does not seem to have gotten much credit for appointing these idealistic Democrats.

Speaking of McGovern, the McGovern Library being constructed on the campus of Dakota Wesleyan University here in Mitchell is coming along nicely.  I'll try to get some pictures up sometime.  In the meantime, you can view some of the construction photos here.

Hillary vs. Who?

A FOX News poll released yesterday shows Hillary Clinton losing to both John McCain and Rudy Giuliani in a hypothetical presidential election for 2008:

In the latest FOX News national registered voter poll, McCain bests Clinton by a slim 4-percentage point margin — 46 percent to 42 percent — in a hypothetical matchup. Given the poll’s 3-point margin of error, that means this race could go either way.

The Republican edge widens outside the error margin when the choices are between Clinton (40 percent) and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (49 percent).

Both Republicans led by a larger margin against Al Gore, who was the second favorite nominee behind Hillary Clinton among New Jersey Democrats in a Strategic Vision poll released last week.

Guiliani's approval ratings were the highest in the poll; 64% favorable and 15% unfavorable. Hillary Clinton's numbers came in at 50% favorable and 42% unfavorable, with John McCain at 49% favorable and 25% unfavorable. 

Silencing Debate

We at SDP are used to being called names (see a recent kerfuffle here and here).  Dennis Prager argues that the Left uses words like "bigoted" and "racist" as a way of silencing debate and also to convince themselves of their own moral superiority ("if my opponents are bigots, that puts me on the side of the angels").  Some examples:

Harry Reid, as noted above, supplied a classic one. Instead of grappling with the enormously significant question of how to maintain American identity and values with tens of millions of non-Americans coming into America, the Democratic leader and others on the Left simply label attempts to keep English as a unifying language as "racist."...

..."Phobic" is the current one-word favorite among liberal dismissals of ideological opponents. It combines instant moral dismissal with instant psychological analysis. If you do not support society redefining marriage to include members of the same sex you are "homophobic" -- and further thought is unnecessary.

Prager's tone is a bit over-heated, but he is essentially on the money.  It's amazing how intolerant the "tolerant" can be. 

Assimilation

John Moser posts some stats suggesting that Hispanics are assimilating at a healthy rate. 

The Low Country

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, an "author and a politician who has made the transition from early Islamic fanaticism (she initially endorsed the fatwa against Salman Rushdie) to a full-out acceptance and advocacy of secularism and of Enlightenment ideals," has been evicted from her home, placed under house arrest, and now is about to be stripped of her citizenship.  This is in:

a.    Iraq;
b.    Iran;
c.    Cuba;
d.    North Korea;
e.    Holland. 

You guessed it from the build-up.  The Somali-born member of the Dutch parliament is about to be kicked out of the land of wind mills and wooden shoes.  Christopher Hitchens has the story.  Fortunately for Ms. Hirsi Ali, there is still a place in the world where her kind of courage is not punished.  She will take up a post in Washington D.C., at the conservative American Enterprize Institute. 

TD

John Fund of the Wall Street Journal, and author of Stealing Elections that includes a chapter on South Dakota, notes Tom Daschle's "preposterous" attack of the amendment proposed that would require a photo ID for voting in federal elections.  Excerpt:

Amid all the disputes over immigration in Congress, one amendment is being proposed that in theory should unite people in both parties. How about requiring that everyone show some form of identification before voting in federal elections? Polls show overwhelming support for the idea, and there is increasing concern that more illegal aliens are showing up on voter registration rolls. But the fact that photo ID isn't likely to pass shows both how deeply emotional the immigration issue has become and how bitter congressional politics have become with elections only 5 1/2 months away.

...

But the biggest surprise was that 18 of 21 commissioners backed a requirement that voters show some form of photo identification. They argued that with Congress passing the Real ID Act to standardize security protections for drivers' licenses in all 50 states, the time had come to standardize voter ID requirements. Former Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle joined two other commissioners in complaining that the ID requirements would be akin to a Jim Crow-era "poll tax" and would restrict voting among the poor or elderly who might lack such an ID.

Mr. Daschle's racially charged analogy is preposterous. Almost everyone needs photo ID in today's modern world. Andrew Young, the former Atlanta mayor and U.N. ambassador, believes that in an era when people have to show ID to rent a video or cash a check, "requiring ID can help poor people" who otherwise might be even more marginalized by not having one.

Daschle Redux?

This article argues that Harry Reid, as Senate Minority Leader, has had to position himself far to the left of his Nevada constituency, risking his own seat in the Senate.  The good news for Reid is that he is not up for re-election until 2010. 

Update: When I first wrote this I was thinking Reid was up for re-election in 2008, but an intrepid reader reminds me that Reid was just re-elected in 2004. I was thinking it was 2002.  That's what I get for not cross checking.