South Dakota Politics

Abortion Polling

Associated Press:

An expert on the politics of abortion says public opinion polling likely will start soon on South Dakota's abortion ban.

Paul Freedman of the University of Virginia, whose expertise includes voting behaviors, said the referral of the ban to a statewide vote in November will be one of the most closely watched ballot issues in the nation.

"I think all eyes are going to be on South Dakota leading up to it," he said.

Freedman said it's not clear from past abortion questions just where South Dakotans stand on the matter.

"My expectation is we'll begin to see some statewide polling on this referendum per se," he said. "It's not clear to me that we can infer from past abortion questions about where South Dakota stands - the majority of South Dakota. It's not clear that we can map that onto voting in this particular referendum."

Bigotry

Via Instapundit, Tom Elia of The New Editor looks at changing conceptions of "bigotry" on the left.

Can The Left Be Trusted To Fight Terror?

Republicans want you to answer the above question in the negative.  People like Peter Beinart want you to answer in the affirmative.  Beinart's case is not helped by the likes of Ted Rall.  Here's an excerpt from a Rall column entitled Americans Don't, And Shouldn't, Care About The War On Terror:

Beinart was wrong about Iraq in 2003; he supported a preemptive strike just in case Saddam had WMDs. He's wrong again now. Contrary to the counsel proffered by his DLC-influenced militant moderates, Democrats would be smarter to recognize the war on terror as a distraction from the real issues--such as jobs, inflation and healthcare--that most Americans worry about. Let the GOP have the terrorism "issue." It reinforces how out of touch the Republicans are with the everyday concerns of the American people.

The responsible left should disown Rall and his argument.  One wonders if such a reasonable left still exists? 

The Strength of American Manufacturing

Here is an interesting piece from the Economist (HT to Real Clear Politics).

huge cuts in an industry at the heart of American manufacturing have fed a popular belief that anyone who makes things in the United States is struggling against an onslaught of foreign competition. Whether American firms are building plants overseas as a way to exploit cheap labour, or closing down factories because they cannot compete any more, the widespread assumption is that the country's entire industrial base is being “hollowed out”. “Our media act as if American manufacturing is going to grind to a halt at around two o'clock this afternoon,” says Cliff Ransom, an independent analyst who scours America for the most assiduous metal-bashers.

But someone forgot to tell American manufacturers the bad news. Most of them have enjoyed roaring success of late. Net profits have risen by nearly 9% a year since the recession in 2001 and productivity has been growing even more rapidly than is usual during economic expansions (see chart). The country's various widget-makers, moreover, show no sign of losing their innovative edge.

Technomage Report

I can't resist blogging from the Boise airport (or BOI), because, well, I can.  The airport has free WiFi, courtesy of Micron, which is headquartered here. I predict that universal, free WiFi is coming.  Almost all Colleges, Libraries, and public buildings now have it.  A lot of private businesses like hotels are already ahead of the curve.  I haven't stayed in a single hotel over the last two years that didn't offer it.  It is a great equalizer, and so will be an easy sale in legislatures.  And best of all, it is probably reasonably cheap. 

Obviously, there will be some losers.  Companies that make their main dime off of Internet connections will be out of business.  But if everyone can hook into the net for free, the number of people on the demand side, and the number of services on the supply side, will explode. There will be fun enough for everyone.

MSM

Michael Barone has a job for future historians:

Historians may regard it as a curious thing that the left and the press have been so determined to fit current events into templates based on events that occurred 30 to 40 years ago. The people who effectively framed the issues raised by Vietnam and Watergate did something like the opposite; they insisted that Vietnam was not a reprise of World War II or Korea and that Watergate was something different from the operations J. Edgar Hoover conducted for Franklin Roosevelt or John Kennedy. Journalists in the 1940s, '50s and early '60s tended to believe they had a duty to buttress Americans' faith in their leaders and their government. Journalists since Vietnam and Watergate have tended to believe that they have a duty to undermine such faith, especially when the wrong party is in office.

Green Eggs and Hamden

Like Professor Schaff, I have not had time to review the Supreme Court decision Hamden v. Rumsfeld.  Having had my nose pointed at classic constitutional law cases for several weeks now, its more than I can bring myself to do.  But it does seem that the MSM spin machine has been working at full throttle on this one.  A piece in the Washington Post put it this way:

The Supreme Court has struck at the core of his presidency and dismissed the notion that the president alone can determine how to defend the country.

That core stuff was a bit over the top.  David B. Rivkin, Jr., and Lee A. Casey, writing in the Wall Street Journal, have a thorough and clear analysis.  The Court ruled that military commissions cannot be used, as things presently stand, to try Hamden (Osama's driver).  On the other hand,

all the justices agreed that military commissions are a legitimate part of American legal tradition that can, in appropriate circumstances, be used to punish individuals captured in the war on terror. 

Moreover the Court leaves the President two options.  First, he can, in line with the Uniform Code of Military Justice, determine that it would be impractical to hold a conventional court martial.  If the President does so, and his justification is convincing, the commissions we wants would be permissible.  Second, he could go to Congress for additional authority.  Since the Court was largely reading federal statutes (it's not clear how or if the Constitution affords Hamden any protection), it would be unlikely to challenge an act of Congress in this matter. 

The President has suffered a setback, but if he takes either of the above avenues, his position will likely be strengthened. 

Twins go 19-7 in June!

And they are still 11 games out of first place.  They won their eighth game in a row tonight against the Brewers. 

Headlines Worth Noting: Boise Edition

Well, apparently Time wasn't on her side.  From the Idaho Statesman.

Time pleads not guilty to murder in ex-wife's death

Fountain of Youth replaced by barbeque pit.  Idaho Statesman.

Life begins again after Sawtooths fire

Miracle Man

One of my boyhood heroes, the late Herb Brooks, has been elected to the Hockey Hall of Fame.

Community Development

Here is a piece in the AAN on rural development. 

Criticizing Bush

If I were a Democrat running for federal office, I'd be making the same points Randy Barnett does.  These are spot on criticisms of the Bush administration's approach to the War on Terrorism.  While any reasonable person could understand why the Bushies chose the avenue for which Barnett criticizes them, the errors Barnett identifies are perhaps the biggest by this administration on this front.

Hamden

I have only perused the Hamdan decision (it is 185 pages long), but this piece by Andy McCarthy seems to get it right.  An excerpt:

Alien combatants have no constitutional rights; therefore, they have no constitutional right to be present at trial.  On the other hand, protecting the security of the American people — which is what classified information is all about — is the number one obligation of government.  So by what law does an al Qaeda killer's purported right to be present outweigh the American people's unquestioned right to have the government protect them (by, for example, not providing the enemy with sensitive intelligence)? 

It could only conceivably be Geneva's Common Article 3 — an international law provision the court had to twist beyond recognition to give the enemy its benefit.  That fuzzy language talks about providing "judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized people."  OK, but who says all "civilized people" would opt to elevate a homicidal maniac's right of access to the government's most sensitive information over the government's obligation to protect its citizens by withholding intelligence that may help those trying to kill them do just that? 

Many people are opining that Democrats, some of whom are celebrating the Hamdan decision, may rue the day this decision came down.  See this from Jonah Goldberg:

Well, here you have Nancy Pelosi saying the decision was not only a "triumph" but that “Today’s Supreme Court decision reaffirms the American ideal that all are entitled to the basic guarantees of our justice system."

If you were running for Congress as a Republican, wouldn't you be tempted to run that quote over pictures of the 9/11 hijackers and the World Trade Center crashing down? Hamdan makes national security and terrorism a central issue of the Congressional elections, again.That's good news for the GOP, I think.

Time will tell whether Goldberg's analysis is accurate.  The Court has essentially thrown this question to Congress.  Now over the next few months expect a debate on what powers Congress should give the president in this arena.  I suspect that Congress will essentially give the president everything he wants.  Are the Democrats willing to oppose this at price of appearing soft on terrorists?  I suspect not.  Giving the president wide latitude in prosecuting foreign terrorists is both good policy and good politics. 

Easter Bunny's Coming And He's Gonna Kick Your Ass

The Easter Bunny saw this, and now he is really po'd.  HT Jonah Goldberg. 

Now Showing: Flamboyant Daschlistas!

While Professor Schaff and I have been busy talking about judicial review, our friends at CCK have been attracting attention to themselves.  David Newquist posted a note on the site that is reprinted by Mr. Heppler below.  I  reproduce here two of four paragraphs.

In totalitarian societies, it is a practice to criminalize those who protest by committing acts against cherished symbols. The state rages against the desecraters, while it desecrates the values of freedom, equality, justice.

And if the flag in fact represents what this nation has become under George W. Bush, well do you really want to salute it?

Now I think Professor Newquist gets totalitarianism wrong.  Totalitarian symbols are not to be "cherished," they are to be feared.  And it is absurd to compare what would happen to someone who defied such a symbol in such a country, and what would happen to a flag-burner in the U.S.

On the other hand, I agree with Professor Schaff (and I assume with Newquist and all the folks at CCK) that an anti-flag burning amendment is a bad idea.  I note that both Senator Thune and Senator Johnson voted for the amendment. I do not think that either should be held in contempt for that vote, much less the millions of ordinary Americans who wish to see the flag defended because they love it.

With regard to David's ultimate paragraph, it does strike me as a rhetorical question and as such cannot be taken for a clear statement of his opinion about "what this nation has become."  So I think the criticism of him in this and other blogs is a bit unfair.

South Dakota War College quotes Chad at CCK on Catholics:

I don't have a problem with Catholics.

I have a problem with the guys who wear the collar and the fancy robes.

I have absolutely no respect for an organization that looks the other way to sexual molestation for decades and then decides they are going to tell their members to vote "values" or they are going to hell.

One anonymous commentator at SDWC makes this shrewd retort:

I don't have a problem with Jews. I have a problem with the guys who wear the funny prayer shawls and the fancy yarmulkes.

Had Chad said the above, he would be swiftly condemned as an anti-semite. And rightly so. But say the same of Catholics, and it is ok.

Anti-Catholic bigotry is the last acceptable form of religious discrimination. No one would make a movie about evil homosexuals, evil blacks, evil Jews, or evil Muslims, but it is okay to make a movie about evil Catholics (hello, Divinci Code).

Anonymous is surely right about what would happen if the tables were turned, but again I think that this is somewhat unfair.  Chad does seem to be directing his criticisms against the Church rather than against Catholics as such, and that is fair game even if his criticism is off the mark. 

I am unaccustomed to defending the Daschlistas, so I will relieve the stress by making this comment.  I have no problem with any of them as people.  I am sure they are fine and patriotic fellows.  I do not say the contrary.  I do object to their persistent tendency to call virtually anyone who disagrees with them idiots, or scoundrels, or both.  And in fact, it is not necessary to disagree with them to get the brush.  Here is Chad on yours truly. 

One item of note, I see Ken Blanchard -- college professor -- still doesn't know if guaranteed access to pre-school education is a good thing.

Northern State University in Aberdeen must be proud.

Any wavering, any sign of doubt, any insufficient cheering of the party line, that is something to be ashamed of.  Can one believe that a college professor actually questions whether an extraordinarily expensive social program is really worth the cost?  It is an interesting view of higher education that the Daschlistas apparently hold.  No doubt when they are in charge all public university professors will hold exactly the right views.  Tom Daschle must be proud. 

 

BREAKING NEWS: Fire Thunder Impeached

Opposition to the abortion ban has gotten Pine Ridge tribal chair Cecelia Fire Thunder impeached. Rapid City Journal reports:

The Oglala Sioux Tribal Council voted 9-5 Thursday to impeach the tribal president for proposing an abortion clinic on Pine Ridge Indian Reservation.

Cecelia Fire Thunder survived two earlier attempts to remove her from office since she was elected in November 2004 as the tribe's first female president.

This time, the issue was over South Dakota's new abortion ban that does not include exceptions for rape or incest.

After Gov. Mike Rounds signed the bill, Fire Thunder vowed to work to open a Planned Parenthood clinic on the reservation, beyond the reach of state law.

Will Peters, a tribal council member who filed the impeachment complaint, said Fire Thunder didn't have the tribal council's approval to pursue the project.

"The bottom line is the Lakota people were adamantly opposed to abortion on our homelands. The president was involved in unauthorized political actions," he said after the vote, which came after two hours of private deliberation.

For a full story, see Friday's Rapid City Journal

Newquist and the Flag

SD War College has more to say about Democratic legislative candidate David Newquist's doubts about saluting the flag on the eve of the Fourth of July weekend.

Newquist has also commented that the "Republicans need a fuehrer to lead their party," along with other odd statements.

Clowns in ND

From the Minot Daily News:

Three nuclear protesters arrested Tuesday at a Minuteman III missile launch facility west of Garrison when they unlawfully entered the area, remain in the McLean County Jail in Washburn Wednesday.

The three, Greg Boertje-Obed, 51, and Michael Walli, 57, both military veterans from Duluth, Minn., and Carl Kabat, 72, a retired priest from St. Louis, made their initial appearance in Washburn Wednesday afternoon before South Central District Judge Bruce Romanick.

McLean County Sheriff Don Charging said the three are being charged with criminal trespass and criminal mischief, both Class A misdemeanors, and bond was set at $500 each. He said the FBI is involved in the case and federal charges are pending.

On Wednesday, Col. Sandra Finan, commander of the 91st Space Wing at Minot AFB held a news conference for local media regarding the incident at the missile site.

The space wing operates, maintains and controls 150 Minuteman III missiles in underground launch facilities in northwest and north-central North Dakota.

The missile site that the three men entered is located about 30 miles west of Garrison and just northwest of the White Shield community in McLean County. The site is about 75 miles southwest of Minot AFB.

Finan said the three individuals unlawfully entered the Echo-9 missile launch facility at about 10 a.m. Tuesday.

“The individuals used bolt cutters (to cut the lock) to gain access to the site. Once inside, they attempted to destroy government property using hammers and by posting graffiti,” Finan said. More specifically, she said they “took a hammer and beat on some of the external components, then they sprayed graffiti in several different locations and hung some signs.”

Michelle Malkin has more.

Sioux Falls City Council

After the resignation of Sioux Falls city councilor Darrin Smith, the city council must choose a person to take his place.  Joel Rosenthal is advocating Tam Baker.

Also, a reader has sent this analysis of the city council situation:

The Argus Leader reported today (6-27-06) that Michelle Erpenbach is being considered for appointment to the Sioux Falls City Council recently vacated.  She is the wife of long-time Daschle operative and state director Steve Erpenbach, who also used to be an Argus Leader reporter.  Erpenbach is being supported by Councilor Vernon Brown, who was supported for Mayor by Steve Erpenbach, according to the April 2nd Argus Leader.  The same day, the Argus reported that Steve Erpenbach was a donor to Vernon Brown, who is now promoting Michelle Erpenbach be appointed to the city council.  Now that the council is rid of Daschle operatives like Darrin Smith and Howes, why they'd want to bring back more partisanship seems crazy.

Catholicism

SD War College is discussing Chad Schuldt's bashing of Catholic priests.

Confederacy of Morons: Art Edition

Here is one of those stories that confirms what you always suspected.  From the Wall Street Journal:

In this year's summer show at London's Royal Academy of Arts, "Exhibit 1201" is a large rectangular tablet of slate with a tiny barbell-shaped bit of boxwood on top. Its creator, David Hensel, must be pleased to have been selected from among some 9,000 applicants for the world's largest open-submission exhibit of contemporary art. Nevertheless, he was bemused to discover that in transit his sculpture had gotten separated from its base. Judging the two components as different submissions, the Royal Academy had rejected his artwork proper--a finely wrought laughing head in jesmonite--and selected the plinth. "It says something about the state of visual arts today," said Mr. Hensel. He didn't say what. He didn't need to.

In other words, a sculpture produces a "finely wrought laughing head," and puts it on a wooden base.  In transit to the judges, the sculpture is separated from the base.  The judges think they are looking at two works of art, reject the actual scupture and award the base it was supposed to rest on. 

Anyone belonging to London's Royal Academy of Arts is entitled to citizenship in the Confederacy of Morons.

The Great Pretenders

SD War College is making the point that some "Republicans" who are changing party were never really Republicans to begin with, but only pretended they were so they could get elected in Republican-leaning South Dakota:

They're choosing to leave the tent because they know there's no way they could have gotten elected by running as a Democrat. So, they simply discarded that "D" letter behind their names which rendered them unelectable and ran as an "R" (while still holding the same views) only while it suited their need to be in office. Now that the election is lost, they can quit pretending.

History Blogging

Josh Trevino explores the historical parallel between the "netroots" and the John Birchers.

The American left today is not quite in the position of the American right circa 1960. But it is suffering nonetheless, having been in slow decline for the past quarter-century. Even when it wins the Presidency, it loses the Congress: and even when the President is the inept, uncommunicative George W. Bush, it still cannot make a dent in the ascendancy of its enemies. The end result of this is a group of Americans, identifying as members of the left, that is strikingly similar to the conservative movement of a generation past: inchoate, angry, and prone to “irritable mental gestures which seek to resemble ideas.”

Be sure to give the whole thing a read.

Putin

Russia is getting serious on terrorism:  "President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday ordered Russia's special services to hunt down and 'destroy' the killers of four Russian diplomats in Iraq, the Kremlin said."

Daschle-itis

Human Events:

Rep. John Murtha (D.-Pa.) appears to be suffering "Daschle-itis," a figurative disease which makes entrenched incumbents become national celebrities and, in the process, risk alienating the voters that put them in office.

Since seizing his party's anti-war mantle, Murtha has become a great draw for Democratic fundraisers, helping his party boost its prospects for a congressional takeover. Naturally, this helps his party-leadership bid as well.

But at the same time, his outspokenness made him a huge target for the Internet right. His district went for John Kerry with only 51% in 2004. What originally seemed like a long-shot bid by Diana Irey (R.) to unseat Murtha has taken on new credibility as she raises money from the Internet and as Murtha makes more and more outrageous statements.

Newquist: Our Flag Isn't Worth Saluting

David Newquist, Democratic candidate for the state legislature, questions whether the American flag is even worth saluting anymore:

A flag is a symbol. It symbolizes our history, our aspirations, our values. Of course it is upsetting to see someone desecrate our national symbol. But the Bush administration would like to get the nation in a raging furor, while it quietly erodes, undermines, and desecrates our Constitutional rights and protections.

When the New York Times published a story on tapping into international financial transactions, the Bushites railed that the newspaper was endangering the nation and that the 3,000 people killed during 9/11 were being violated. Of course, they never mention the 2,500 of our finest troops sent to slaughter in a war that the Bush administration cannot find a reason for.

In totalitarian societies, it is a practice to criminalize those who protest by committing acts against cherished symbols. The state rages against the desecraters, while it desecrates the values of freedom, equality, justice.

And if the flag in fact represents what this nation has become under George W. Bush, well do you really want to salute it?

Flag Amendment

Both South Dakota Senators voted for the flag amendment yesterday.  The Supreme Court of course some years ago ruled that burning the U.S. flag is protected under the First Amendment.  There is the adolescent "who are you to tell me what to do" argument against the amendment by folks such as Ryan Sager over at RCP.  But of course we have all sorts of limitations on speech rights (e.g., defamation, "fighting words," time, place and manner restrictions, etc.).  It is not nuts to say that a nation has the right to protect its sacred symbols from desecration.  At the same time I think the First Amendment gives very broad protections to political expression.  So, I find myself agnostic as to whether flag burning is protected by the Constitution.  I see solid arguments on both sides.  But until there is a rash of flag burnings that undermine public order, I don't see a need to amend to Constitution. 

Superman Soars

Prof. Blanchard and I took advantage of a special offer here in Boise, and if the theater manager was correct, we were among the first people in the nation to see Superman Returns tonight.  I can give it an enthusiastic thumbs up, and I believe Prof. Blanchard agrees with me.  The characters are by and large well developed (certainly the Man of Steel is) and the story line, while having some holes, is quite compelling.  The film has a nice blend of character, action, and humor.  It is a surprisingly funny movie.  I have my quibbles with the film (e.g., it could have used one more round of editing) overall it is a fine superhero film, perhaps just one notch down from the Spiderman films.  Go see Superman Returns. 

Update: PP has seen Superman.  I also saw Cars last week and give it a hardy endorsement.

The AP and Global Warming

The Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works says the Associated Press report of Al Gore's new movie "raises some serious questions about AP's bias and methodology" and takes them to task for claiming that scientists have applauded Gore's movie.  Excerpt:

The June 27, 2006 Associated Press (AP) article titled “Scientists OK Gore’s Movie for Accuracy” by Seth Borenstein raises some serious questions about AP’s bias and methodology.

AP chose to ignore the scores of scientists who have harshly criticized the science presented in former Vice President Al Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth.”

In the interest of full disclosure, the AP should release the names of the “more than 100 top climate researchers” they attempted to contact to review “An Inconvenient Truth.” AP should also name all 19 scientists who gave Gore “five stars for accuracy.” AP claims 19 scientists viewed Gore’s movie, but it only quotes five of them in its article. AP should also release the names of the so-called scientific “skeptics” they claim to have contacted.

The AP article quotes Robert Correll, the chairman of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment group. It appears from the article that Correll has a personal relationship with Gore, having viewed the film at a private screening at the invitation of the former Vice President. In addition, Correll’s reported links as an “affiliate” of a Washington, D.C.-based consulting firm that provides “expert testimony” in trials and his reported sponsorship by the left-leaning Packard Foundation, were not disclosed by AP. See http://www.junkscience.com/feb06.htm

The AP also chose to ignore Gore’s reliance on the now-discredited “hockey stick” by Dr. Michael Mann, which claims that temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere remained relatively stable over 900 years, then spiked upward in the 20th century, and that the 1990’s were the warmest decade in at least 1000 years. Last week’s National Academy of Sciences report dispelled Mann’s often cited claims by reaffirming the existence of both the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. See Senator Inhofe’s statement on the broken “Hockey Stick.”

Gore’s claim that global warming is causing the snows of Mt. Kilimanjaro to disappear has also been debunked by scientific reports. For example, a 2004 study in the journal Nature makes clear that Kilimanjaro is experiencing less snowfall because there’s less moisture in the air due to deforestation around Kilimanjaro.

Mitchell Daily Republic

From today's edition of my hometown paper:

With both South Dakota political conventions now in the book, voters can step back and seriously begin taking stock before casting their ballots in November.

One of the biggest surprises, and disappointments, of the weekend was the Democratic Party’s failure to come up with candidates for major constitutional offices. The party of Herseth and Kneip (the last two elected Democratic governors) failed to nominate candidates for state treasurer, state auditor and secretary of state. That’s simply unacceptable.

The Democratic nominee for governor, Jack Billion, is likely the strongest the party could put forward. He’s smart, experienced and personable. But he’s a long shot, at best. His choice of a virtual unknown as his running mate, Eric Abrahamson of Rapid City, was questionable, as was his premise that Gov. Mike Rounds has taken the state in the wrong direction.

Billion also has cited “family values” as a campaign topic and if that includes the abortion issue, our view is that it cuts both ways. As local delegate Dave Mitchell said to his fellow Democrats over the weekend in Huron: “There is no consensus in our party on this issue. We’re divided right down the middle.”

Still, Billion could resonate with voters if he offers some practical solutions to low pay, not only for teachers, but for employees in general, and provides a plan that would foster economic development in out-state South Dakota, which largely has been left behind as the Black Hills and I-29 corridors prosper.

Republicans have their own problems. Pro-abortion advocates are doing their best to tag the GOP with an “extremist” label, and PUC Commissioner Bob Sahr’s decision to not seek re-election because of unspecified and unproven accusations left a bad taste all around. Sahr insisted he could refute the rumors. He should have — and stayed on the ticket.

With July 4 coming up fast, voters will have four months to get up to speed. Given that the ballot will be laden with all sorts of issues, in addition to the candidates, we all will have to pay close attention.

Ward Churchill and an Academic Happy Ending

It looks like Ward Churchill is being fired, very slowly, by Colorado U.  From the Denver Post:

Churchill's half-baked opinions gave him national notoriety and sent local politicians into fits. But it was academic misconduct, not unpopular speech, that did him in at CU. It's important to note, as DiStefano did Monday, that Churchill is not being dismissed for his contempt for the Sept. 11 victims, whom he compared to little Eichmanns.

CU officials understood from the beginning that Churchill should not be punished for challenging public opinion, no matter how tempting it may have been.

"Faculty members from this institution and others across the country enjoy the freedom of expression that is the foundation of what they do in their scholarly pursuits," DiStefano said. "A university is a marketplace of ideas - a place where controversy is no stranger and opinionated discourse is applauded." Significantly he noted that the right to academic freedom was not in question in Churchill's case.

Earlier this month, a majority of CU's research misconduct committee called for Churchill's dismissal, agreeing with an investigatory group that concluded the ethnic studies professor intentionally falsified research, plagiarized and ghost-wrote articles that he used as references to prop up his own shoddy research. The review panels wisely separated unpopular speech, a protected right, from academic malfeasance, which isn't protected.

And that is exactly what ought to happen.  One wonders when the Daschlistas over at CCK will catch up with the Denver Post.

Where's the Beef

A few years back there was talk of brining a turkey processing plant to Aberdeen.  For lots of reasons the plant went to Huron.  Now there is talk of a beef processing plant in town.  That would go along witht he Super Wal-Mart and, I understand, an expanded Target.  Some voices in Aberdeen once again are complaining about the price of progress.  The same people probably complain about the exodus of young people from our area.  I say bring on the new businesses and opportunities.  A solid economy is built on a firm foundtion.  No one thinks these kinds of ventures are where an economy should end, but they might be where an economy starts. 

As If You Needed Another Reason

Why support Joe Lieberman for Senate?  Because Barbara Streisand is supporting the other guy. It is clear that Ned Lamont is a true man of the people:

Lieberman is facing the toughest challenge he's had since wining his Senate seat in 1988, a Greenwich millionaire cable company executive named Ned Lamont who is tapping into an anger from both local and national Democrats at Lieberman for taking positions at odds with the Democrat orthodoxy. The liberal blogosphere has made defeating Lieberman one of its chief causes of 2006, poring in thousands of dollars to Lamont's campaign and constantly bashing Lieberman, especially for his fervent support of the Iraq War and standing as the strongest Democratic supporter of President Bush's policies there. Even celebrity Democratic supporters, like George Soros and Barbra Streisand, have donated to Lamont's campaign.

Libertarian To Challenge Herseth

Brookings Register:

Rural Bruce resident Larry Rudebusch, 45, said today that he is campaigning as the Libertarian Party's candidate for South Dakota's at-large seat in the U. S. House of Representatives.

In a news release this morning, the family farm operator announced his campaign theme: "It's Time to Work the Problem." Explaining further, Rudebusch said his campaign "will focus on the single factor which has been identified from history to be the root cause of the serious problems facing South Dakota and this nation. That single factor is this nation's monetary system."

Putting the nation's public and private debt at more than $26 trillion total, Rudebusch cited the need for "monetary reform to restore public control over the nation's money supply," adding that "it is imperative that this nation stop using bank debt in place of real money. History teaches that this is the only way to reduce our debt and tax burdens and end financial dependence on government."

He also noted that through public control over the nation's money supply, "the six-decades long farm crisis can be brought to an end."

HT to SD War College.

Fascism Watch

Did you know that South Dakota Republicans are a "bunch of Nazis" and "facist" [sic]?  That according to a Democrat reader of Clean Cut Kid.  For more on the left's constant use and abuse of comparisons to fascism, see this which notes how the editor of Harper's compared Trent Lott to "Reichsmarshall Hermann Goring" and thinks the war in Iraq was a "test market for a reconfigured American political idea matched to Benito Mussolini's definition of fascism."  Of course, you cannot forget this comment from the editor of South Dakota's biggest newspaper:

"If Hitler were alive today, he'd have his own blog."

Dem Convention

A delegate to the South Dakota Democratic convention says that Todd Epp, press secretary to Governor candidate Jack Billion, was "browbeating and pressuring delegates" last weekend at the Democratic convention in Huron:

I would like to remind Mr Epp that after it approved the "Unity Resolution," the Democratic Convention also approved stronger language regarding the same issue. And this happened even after Mr Epp and other political operatives had spent the better part of two days browbeating and pressuring delegates to vote his way.

What Mr Epp mischaracterizes as "a few Democrats" was in fact the majority. Regarding a vote on the issue, Mr Epp challenged us to bring it on, if we had the votes. Guess what: We did, and we got a stronger resolution to accompany the "Unity Resolution"--although it would have been preferable to have debated the issue more openly and honestly, instead of being treated like a rubber-stamp Duma for the party elite. And while it wasn't as forceful a statement as many of us would have liked, it was much stronger than Mr Epp would have endorsed--so perhaps he ought to be less smug when taunting us lowly rank and file members of the party. From his lofty perch we may appear to be merely the Great Unwashed, but we're the dedicated workers his candidate needs in order to win. He might win a few more people to his cause if he avoided flipping us the rhetorical bird at every opportunity.

Churchill To Be Dismissed

CU Interim Chancellor Phil DiStefano has announced his decision to dismiss Ward Churchill after an investigation exposing academic fraud:

I have carefully reviewed the Report of the Investigative Committee, Professor Churchill’s responses to the Committee, and the Recommendations of the Standing Committee on Research Misconduct. I have met with and obtained the separate input of Provost Susan Avery and Todd Gleeson, the Dean of the College of Arts & Sciences. I met with Professor Churchill and his attorney, David Lane. After conducting the due diligence I felt was necessary, I have come to a decision regarding the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Research Misconduct pertaining to Professor Ward Churchill. Today, I issued to Professor Churchill a notice of intent to dismiss him from his faculty position at the University of Colorado, Boulder.

The Ward Churchill case as been interesting to follow.  I've agreed with Steve Bainbridge and Glenn Reynolds who both think he shouldn't be canned but rather rigorously criticized because of his screed praising the deaths of the 9/11 victims (This line applauds the deaths: "If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I'd really be interested in hearing about it").  Bainbridge wrote:

This is one of those occasions when those of us on the right need to suck it up and echo the line famously attributed to Voltaire: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." We do not remain true to our values if we are willing to say "free speech for me, but not for thee," even if that is what Churchill likely would say if the shoe were on the other foot.

He's right.  If we start firing the Ward Churchill's of the academic sphere for speech, than there is nothing holding the left-wing faculties back from firing right-wing professors for much less offensive statements.  Protecting Churchill from termination for his speech is good principle and good practice.

But this all speaks to his views and comments about September 11.  The charges of academic fraud (pdf alert) and falsifying his ethnic background take this discussion of termination to a new realm.  He lied about his scholarship and his racial affiliation in an attempt to build credibility as a scholar and public intellectual speaking on the behalf of American Indians.  With this being the case, he ought to be disciplined or fired.  A lot of this reminds many historians, including myself, about the Joseph Ellis affair a few years ago at Mount Holyoke.  Ellis is the author of several books about the Founders, but fabricated the fact that he was a high school football hero, a paratrooper in Vietnam, and embellished his role in the civil rights and antiwar movements.  He was suspended from Mount Holyoke for a year without pay and stripped of his endowed chair.  Check out Peter Hoffer's Past Imperfect which covers the controversy.  Of course, none of this really misinformed his students on important historical events, but he was rightly disciplined for reprehensible behavior in a scholar. 

The same standard must apply to Ward Churchill, which DiStefano has decided is the correct path.  It would seem to me that the charges against Churchill are much more serious than those brought against Ellis (Ellis is a Pulitzer Prize winner and a first-rate historian, with no charges of plagiarism on his record but does share a fabricated background).  As I stated above, this standard must apply across the board regardless of a professor's viewpoints since academic dishonesty is culpable whether it's done by left-wing or right-wing ideologues.

NYT

Glenn Reynolds:

BILL KELLER ISN'T VERY BRIGHT, or else he thinks you aren't.  How else to explain this passage in his apologia for the Times' publication of classified information about the terrorist financial surveillance program:

Some of the incoming mail quotes the angry words of conservative bloggers and TV or radio pundits who say that drawing attention to the government's anti-terror measures is unpatriotic and dangerous. (I could ask, if that's the case, why they are drawing so much attention to the story themselves by yelling about it on the airwaves and the Internet.)

I realize that the Times' circulation is falling at an alarming rate, but it hasn't yet reached such a pass that its stories are only noticed when Rush Limbaugh mentions them.

A deeper error is Keller's characterization of freedom of the press as an institutional privilege, an error that is a manifestation of the hubris that has marked the NYT of late. Keller writes: "It's an unusual and powerful thing, this freedom that our founders gave to the press. . . . The power that has been given us is not something to be taken lightly."

The founders gave freedom of the press to the people, they didn't give freedom to the press. Keller positions himself as some sort of Constitutional High Priest, when in fact the "freedom of the press" the Framers described was also called "freedom in the use of the press." It's the freedom to publish, a freedom that belongs to everyone in equal portions, not a special privilege for the media industry. (A bit more on this topic can be found here.)

Characterizing the freedom this way, of course, makes much of Keller's piece look like, well, just what it is -- arrogant and self-justificatory posturing. To quote Keller: "Forgive me, I know this is pretty elementary stuff — but it's the kind of elementary context that sometimes gets lost in the heat of strong disagreements."

Or institutional self-importance.  As Hugh Hewitt observes, at the conclusion to a much lengthier critique: "He doesn't have any defense other than his position as editor of a once great newspaper."

And the Constitution does not permit titles of nobility.

UPDATE:  Austin Bay comments:  "The Times, apparently, told the story because it could and because it thinks it can get away with it."

Whalen

Following the Republican convention in Watertown this weekend, Bruce Whalen is busy looking for more money and greater name recognition.  Rapid City Journal excerpt:

Fresh from a feel-good weekend at the South Dakota Republican state convention in Watertown, U.S. House candidate Bruce Whalen of Pine Ridge is hunting for more than a pat on the back from party faithful this week.

He needs money, too.

The GOP challenger to incumbent Democratic Rep. Stephanie Herseth is trying to reach a $75,000 fund-raising target set a month ago by U.S. Rep. Tom Reynolds of New York, chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee.

Reynolds told Whalen and his campaign manager Lee Breard to raise $75,000 by June 30 and to expect some matching money from the NRCC if they did. As of Sunday, the campaign had reached $55,000, Breard said.

Ethanol

Argus Leader:

Even as the venerable Wall Street Journal indicts ethanol for contributing to $3 gasoline, South Dakota's senators have joined Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa in sponsoring an amendment to the Clean Air Act that would require the country to use more of it.

...

South Dakota Sens. Tim Johnson and John Thune, along with Herseth, are backing federal efforts to prod the nation to continue to ramp up use of ethanol and other renewable fuels.

Johnson, a Democrat, and Thune, a Republican, are among four co-sponsors of Grassley's Clean Air Act amendment, labeled the 10 By 10 Act.

Introduced in the Senate last week, it would require 10 percent of the nation's fuel to come from renewable sources by 2010.

Herseth co-sponsored similar legislation in the House last year.

Such a requirement would demand about 15 billion gallons of ethanol annually, according to Johnson. By the end of next year, domestic production should reach about 7 billion gallons.

South Dakota's share of that will be between 800 and 900 million gallons per year, Broin said. Yet this year, the state will have 13 ethanol plants capable of producing about 670 million gallons, and additional construction and plant expansion is planned.

SD Dems

SD War College:

I cannot help but feel a sense of irony when [Stephanie Herseth] says that "Republican officeholders have run roughshod for too long in Washington and Pierre" in an election where they failed to field candidates for half of the constitutional offices. In fact, in an observation noted to me yesterday, South Dakota Democrats have to be coming off of this convention feeling pretty bad. Because with they've now been consigned to third party status after the Libertarians fielded more constitutional office candidates than they did.

Isn't it just like a Democrat to blame everyone but themselves for their woes?

Stingy Republicans vs. Racist Democrats

A very broad tip of the hat to James Taranto of Wall Street Journal's Best of the Web.  Taranto cites this report by Richard Morin of the Washington Post. 

Are Republicans stingy but principled while Democrats are generous but racist?

"I wouldn't put it quite so starkly," said Stanford University professor Shanto Iyengar. He would prefer to call Democrats "less principled" rather than bigoted, based on his analysis of data collected in a recent online experiment that he conducted with The Washington Post and washingtonpost.com.

As reported in this column a few weeks ago, the study found that people were less likely to give extended aid to black Hurricane Katrina victims than to white ones. The race penalty, on average, totaled about $1,000 per black victim.

As Iyengar and his colleagues subsequently dug deeper into these data, another finding emerged: Republicans consistently gave less aid, and gave over a shorter period of time, to victims regardless of race.

Democrats and independents were far more generous; on average, they gave Katrina victims on average more than $1,500 a month, compared with $1,200 for Republicans, and for 13 months instead of nine.

But for Democrats, race mattered -- and in a disturbing way. Overall, Democrats were willing to give whites about $1,500 more than they chose to give to a black or other minority. (Even with this race penalty, Democrats still were willing to give more to blacks than those principled Republicans.) "Republicans are likely to be more stringent, both in terms of money and time, Iyengar said. "However, their position is 'principled' in the sense that it stems from a strong belief in individualism (as opposed to handouts). Thus their responses to the assistance questions are relatively invariant across the different media conditions. Independents and Democrats, on the other hand, are more likely to be affected by racial cues."

To test the effects of race, participants in the study were asked to read a news article about Katrina victims. Some read a story featuring a white person. Some read identical stories -- except the victim was black, Asian or Hispanic. Then they were asked how much assistance they think the government should give to help hurricane victims. Approximately 2,300 people participated in the study.

Iyengar said he's not surprised by the latest findings: "This pattern of results matches perfectly an earlier study I did on race and crime" with Franklin D. Gilliam Jr. of UCLA. "Republicans supported tough treatment of criminals no matter what they encountered in the news. Others were more elastic in their position, coming to support more harsh measures when the criminal suspect they encountered was non-white."

Maybe there is one advantage in being stingy: the only color that makes a difference is green.  There's not enough here to put much weight on, but it should not be ignored.

Greetings from Boise

The Twins are eleven and one in their last twelve games.  Boof Bonser pitched 61/3 innings against the Cubs tonight, and all three Minnesota runs were driven in by the bottom of the order.  Stick pins in the knees and elbows of some voodoo dolls wearing Chicago and Detroit uniforms, and hope.

I beat Schaff to this one.