South Dakota Politics

Les Francais En Dismay

Well, when on the French one is on a roll.  From the London Economist, the headline of which reads "Jacques Chirac has wasted his eleven years in office," comes this:

AS JACQUES CHIRAC opens the Elysée Palace on July 14th, for his annual garden party, it is surely clear that this Bastille Day will be his last as president. Although the 73-year-old veteran has said he will decide whether to run again for next spring's presidential election only early in 2007, it now looks all but impossible. His government is paralysed, his prime minister, Dominique de Villepin, is unloved, and the French have had enough.

A sense of fin de règne was confirmed last weekend on the football pitch. Zinédine Zidane, the captain of the French team, was sent off during the World Cup final, which Italy won on a penalty shoot-out. It was a painfully fitting metaphor for the country's general malaise. The victorious multi-ethnic French champions of 1998 appeared, in those heady days of economic growth and new dynamism, to embody a fresh national spirit. This time, hopes of recapturing that glory were vested in Mr Zidane, the working-class son of Algerian immigrants. De Gaulle-like, he came out of retirement to lead the team. In the end, provoked by an insult, he got a red card for head-butting an Italian player, leaving the field in disgrace and the French without their promised saviour.

A similar yearning for somebody to rescue France from its melancholy hangs in the political air. After 11 years in the presidency, Mr Chirac has come to embody the country's political inability to renew itself. In politics for 41 years, he is the only serving politician who has belonged to governments under every fifth-republic president since de Gaulle. His popularity has collapsed. According to TNS Sofrès, a pollster, Mr Chirac is now the most unpopular French president since its polling began in 1978. Libération put it well this week: “For a month, France has been dreaming with Zidane. This morning, it wakes up to Chirac.”

If you haven't seen the disgraceful behavior by France's star, Zidane, you can watch it here at break.com.

Ted Nugent Quote of the Month

Nugent may be an idiot, as Professor Schaff has plausibly declared.  But here he meets someone who is no match for him.

Ted Nugent was being interviewed by a British journalist.

The journalist asked: "What do you think the last thought is in the mind of a deer before you  shoot it ?  Is it, `Are you my friend?` or is it `Are you the one who killed my  brother?'"

Nugent replied:  "Deer aren't capable of that kind of thinking.  All they care about is, 'What am I going to eat next, who am I going to screw next, and can I run fast enough to get away.  They are very much like the French."

Happy Bastile Day!

Hot Podcast Update for Hot Weekend

Three hundred fourteen items.  Eight point three days.  Seven point four gigebytes.  According to the iTunes program on my main computer, that's how much free and legal audio I have gotten from podcasts.  In case you don't know, podcasts are free downloads that usually include music, though they can include other audio or video files.  If you have iTunes, downloaded free here, you can subscribe to a podcast.  Then iTunes will look for and automatically download the most recent version of that podcast.  But you don't need an iPod or iTunes to dowload or listen to the files.  If you have audio at all on your computer you can listen to it that way, or you can burn the files onto a cd.  If you do have an iPod, which I strongly recommend, you can download the podcasts as well as all other audio files on your computer and listen that way.  Podcasts are legal because they operate in much the same way as a radio station, and many are in fact radio stations.  Much of the music from the venues linked below is from classic cd's with labels, but a lot of it is produced by independent muscians.  In each case the music is available in the hopes that listening will be a step toward buying.  But it allows me to expand my permanent collection of jazz much faster than I could afford to do otherwise.

Since I bought my pod I have been listening both to a lot of music that sat buried in my cd cabinet for ages, as well as a lot of new music.  iTunes is very good at organizing the music files by song title, artist, album, and genre. 

Anyway, I thought it is only fitting that I return the favor of the radio stations and other parties who podcast music by mentioning their sites.  Following are my favorite Jazz podcasts.  I will devote future posts to other genres.   

My heads above all favorite is In the Groove, Jazz and Beyond.  DJ Ken Laster at WHUS (Radio for the People!  Man.)  spins a lot of classical and contemporary jazz, with a special fondness for Cannon Ball Aderley.  You can get downloads at the website that don't come by way of the podcast, and you can download from there without using iTunes if you want to. 

Straight No Chaser is another marvelous jazz show that focuses on themes.  One of my favorite shows consisted on nothing but different versions of Charlie Mingus's great number, "Goodbye, Pork Pie Hat." 

Another nice site, but much less frequently updated, is Red Jazz, which is tilted more toward smooth jazz. 

Finally, Legends of Jazz has a series of interviews with muscians.  The podcast belongs to the TV show of that name, hosted by Ramsey Lewis.  The interview with Dave Brubeck would be worth $15 on its own, if it weren't free. 

Adelstein Won't Switch

Associated Press:

Tom Katus will remain the Democratic candidate for a state Senate seat after Republican State Sen. Stan Adelstein announced Friday he won't switch political parties and was endorsing Katus.

Elli Schwiesow defeated Adelstein by 174 votes in the June Republican primary in the District 22 race in Rapid City.

A week ago, Katus offered to resign as the Democratic candidate and let Adelstein replace him if polls showed Adelstein had a better chance of defeating Schiesow in November. Adelstein would have to switch his political registration and be endorsed by the Democratic Party to replace Katus.

At a joint appearance Friday, Adelstein endorsed Katus. The two men said they are both moderates who oppose the conservative turn the state Republican Party has taken.

Sober Advice

If you have not read Michael Oren's Six Days of War, get the book today and read it.  It is a brilliant piece of military history.   In the Washington Post today Oren gives his assessment of Israel's current options.  It is a must read. 

Liberté, Egalité, Fraternity

Happy Bastille Day.  It's too bad they no longer live up to their revolutionary slogan (if they ever did).  If I do the math from this story, the US vetoed an anti-Israel resolution in the UN Security Council, with Britain, Denmark, Peru and Slovakia being profiles in courage by abstaining.  France, being a permanent member of the Security Council, must have voted against the democracy of Israel and in favor of terrorist organizations and the nations that sponsor and harbor them. 

Scary Video of the Day

Here's a portable bathroom moment, from the folks at break.com. 

Israel's Next War II

I would like to agree with my colleague, Professor Schaff, and in point of fact with myself, for I have argued the following as well.  Jon writes the following:

For many years I have suggested that Israel capitulate to a Palestinian state.  Then the Palestinians would have the rights and responsibilities of a nation state.  When events such as those in the last few days take place Israel would then be in the position of taking legitimate action against a sovereign state and not have the public relations problem (however unjustified) of attacking an "occupied people."

I have expressed hopes that the realistic possibility of a their own State might force the Palestinians to act more responsibly. 

But hasn't that idea been tested?  First, it is far from clear that the Palestinians are capable of forming anything like a state, or that Hamas or any other party could possibly begin acting responsibly.  The various groups are being armed and to some extent orchestrated by Syria and Iran.  If Hamas really tried to make peace, the weapons would simply flow to others into their own party or to other parties.  At that point Hamas would have no more control over them than Jimmy Carter does.  A responsible Palestinian state is, for the short run, all but impossible in such circumstances as the Arab states have themselves created.

As for the public relations question, the Palestinian parties will always be given credit (in the court of world opinion, or Jimmy Carter, whichever comes first) for what they promise to do.  Israel will never get the credit for what it has already done, but only blame for what it has yet to do.  Allowing for the creation of a Palestinian state will win them no friends at all.

I agree that Israel should not launch a war against Syria or Iran, though she would be well within her rights to do so.  What she is doing right now, striking directly at the direct sources of attack, is what she will be doing for the next several decades, at least.  I hope I am wrong. 

Explaining the War

Historian Victor Davis Hanson:

The Bush administration should stop repeating that it is fighting the war on terror for truth, justice and the American way. Instead, the president and his staff should be blunt and explain that, since Sept. 11, it has had to choose between options that are bad or far worse.

By all means, the administration should invite critics to suggest constructive alternatives to the way it's handled this war. But it should also point out that those who have honed in on flaws in current U.S. anti-terror policies have so far been bereft of other workable ideas.

...

The Bush administration can also use history to show that, despite what detractors say, its techniques aren't so unreasonable. It's worth reminding the American public that Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and shut down newspapers; that Woodrow Wilson imprisoned prominent dissenters like Eugene Debs; and that Franklin Roosevelt ordered the internment of Japanese-American citizens and secret military tribunals for German saboteurs (six of whom were executed) and allowed for the cover-up of military catastrophes (such as the hundreds killed during training exercises for the Normandy landings).

In other words, there's an advantage to providing historical perspective by engaging one's critics and answering their charges. The public, for example, should be informed that the accusation that the U.S. went into Iraq for oil ("no blood for oil," as the slogan goes) is not merely inaccurate, but crazy. For starters, gas prices skyrocketed once we induced risky change in the Middle East. How does that benefit the American people? Meanwhile, because of the fall of Saddam Hussein, Iraq's energy sector has been purged of corruption (such as the U.N.'s scandal-plagued oil-for-food program).

Read it all.

Israel

Some articles of note.  The Jerusalem Post reports that captured Israeli soldiers are being moved to Iran by Hezbollah.  The US has vetoed a UN resolution condemning Israel for strikes in Gaza.  Ken McCraken comments on the Syria connection to terror, but in my opinion he is in error to suggest that Israel use the latest crisis as pretext for an assault on the Syrian regime.  Powerline reports that Israel has no intention of widening the scope of its operations.  Tom Bevan suggests that Lebanon has committed an act of war against Israel. 

For many years I have suggested that Israel capitulate to a Palestinian state.  Then the Palestinians would have the rights and responsibilities of a nation state.  When events such as those in the last few days take place Israel would then be in the position of taking legitimate action against a sovereign state and not have the public relations problem (however unjustified) of attacking an "occupied people."

Even More Religion And Politics

Yesterday I blogged on Mark Tooley's piece on the religious left's modestly named "Pentecost 2006" event.  No word on whether anyone at the event spoke in tongues.  Evidently TypePad had a hiccup yesterday and the post was lost.  Thanks to my infallible memory I will now re-type it word for word.  If you believe that, let me tell you another. 

I had previously commented on Barak Obama's speech on the role of religion in political life.  See Joe Knippenberg for some wise words on the same subject.  Obama was apparently at "Pentecost 2006," but his fellow speakers did not exactly meet Obama's standard of coherent thought.  Some snippets:

Here's Howard Dean:

"We're here [today], back in the '50s in the McCarthy era," Mr. Dean complained, "In the time when there wasn't [sic] civil rights, at a time when there was an authoritarian government that felt they deserved everything and that nobody needed to know anything."

First, is Howard Dean unaware of the fact that a civil rights revolution did indeed occur?  Also, the evidence that we are not actually living in under an authoritarian government is that Howard Dean can call the government authoritarian firm in the knowledge that he will face no reprisal.  Dean's rhetoric is reckless and needlessly inflammatory. This language is unbecoming of a man in Dean's position of responsibility. 

How about Hillary?

Jim Wallis enthusiastically introduced [Sen. Clinton] as "someone who quotes Matthew 25 often, and she quotes it right!" By this reference, of course, Mr. Wallis meant that Ms. Clinton rightly understands Christ's supposed commands about enlarging federal welfare programs.

"I missed the Sunday school lesson about how we help the poor by giving tax cuts to the rich," Ms. Clinton observed sarcastically. "The budget is a moral document!" Ms. Clinton insisted, repeating an old religious left refrain. "Behind those numbers are decisions. How are we going to give a boost up the economic ladder when too many tools have been removed to make that happen."

Like others at the Mr. Wallis event, Ms. Clinton warned against the seductive allure of the religious right. "Don't let people get away with nice words," she implored. "Don't let them quote scripture to you."

I am confused.  Jim Wallis praises Sen. Clinton for quoting often and accurately Matthew 25, but then Mrs. Clinton says we shouldn't let people quote scripture to us.  Should I not let Mrs. Clinton get away with her "nice words"?  Also, I thought the left was opposed to "imposing morality."  Now it turns out that Sen. Clinton thinks the federal budget is $2.7 trillion of moral imposition, and apparently she wants more!  See the previous post for thoughts about "imposing morals." 

The real winner is Marian Wright Edelman:

More bizarrely, Ms. Edelman adopted the persona of abolitionist Sojourner Truth and began to speak in an attempted slave accent. Ostensibly the old escaped slave woman spoke of social problems as "weasels." Channeling the spirit of the Underground Railroad's most celebrated conductor, Ms. Edelman named today's "big weasels" that are, she believes, embedded in the U.S. Constitution. These constitutional weasels include the "Special Interest Weasel," the "Greedy Military Weasel," the "Robin Hood in Reverse Weasel," and the "Only Right Way to God Weasel."

As Ms. Edelman explained, the "Special Interest Weasel" robs poor children of government funding. The "Greedy Military Weasel" steals from the hungry by demanding money for arms. The "Robin Hood in Reverse Weasel" justifies taking from the poor to give to the rich.

In her description of the "Only Right Way to God Weasel," Ms. Edelman claimed, without further explanation, that the Constitution has permitted religious conservatives to control American religion.

Imagine a meeting of the religious right that used this kind of language? What would we read about them? The claims to moral superiority. The belief that their policy preferences have been endorsed by God. The depiction of their opponents as "weasels."

It seems the honest way to have these debates is as follows. The left can claim accurately that Christ wants us to care for the poor. They can then claim that in their opinion a large welfare state is the best way to obey that commandment. That is different from saying Christ wants a large welfare state. Christ tells us to care for the poor, but he is agnostic on how to go about it. Likewise, all agree that Christ wants us to care for the weakest among us. Religious conservatives believe that includes the unborn. So let’s have a debate about what we owe, if anything, to the unborn.

Thank goodness Joe K. had posted that last bit over at NLT.  It saved me from overly taxing my infallible memory. 

Code Talkers

Rapid City Journal:

South Dakota’s two senators on Wednesday honored Clarence Wolf Guts, one of the last living Lakota “code talkers” who helped confound Japanese troops during World War II by transmitting messages in his native language.

Sens. Tim Johnson, D-S.D., and John Thune, R-S.D., presented Wolf Guts, 83, with an honorary quilt on Capitol Hill.

“By their willingness to serve our country, they empowered the allies in World War II with strong communication that was secure and secret from our enemies,” Johnson said of the code talkers.

The senators wrapped Wolf Guts in the quilt as Ryan Wilson, the president of the National Indian Education Association, sang a Lakota honor song. Wolf Guts was emotional as he thanked the lawmakers and the crowd.

“In my lifetime, I never thought I’d be standing here, but now that I’m here I’m very happy,” he said.

Thune said at the ceremony that the use of the Lakota language, along with other Indian languages, helped save many lives.

“We are enormously grateful,” Thune said.

Wolf Guts testified at a September 2004 hearing on the contributions of code talkers. He said that he used all three of South Dakota’s main Indian dialects — Lakota, Dakota and Nakota — in helping the military.

“With my fellow comrades overseas, I was sitting there in the foxhole with a radio, trying to give the orders that were given to us to pass on to the chief-of-staff,” he said at the hearing. “You do whatever you can to confuse the enemy. ... I am a full-blood Indian, and we do whatever we can to protect the United States because we love America.”

Another Lakota code talker, Charles I. Whitepipe, Sr., died last month.

Israel's Next War

It is no longer possible to be hopeful about peace between Israel and her enemies.  Critics of Israel continue to insist, as they will always do, that if only she conceded something more, her enemies would be satisfied.  It is now demonstrable beyond any reasonable doubt that this is not true.  Any piece of territory Israel gives up will just be a new place to put a rocket launcher. 

There are some who would argue that, in order to make friends among the Muslim nations, we must stop supporting Israel.  That way lies damnation.  We cannot vanquish monsters by feeding them with the bloody limbs of democracies. 

The news from the Levant is grave, indeed.  See Yossi Klein Halevi, in the New Republic:

The next Middle East war--Israel against genocidal Islamism--has begun. The first stage of the war started two weeks ago, with the Israeli incursion into Gaza in response to the kidnapping of an Israeli soldier and the ongoing shelling of Israeli towns and kibbutzim; now, with Hezbollah's latest attack, the war has spread to southern Lebanon. Ultimately, though, Israel's antagonists won't be Hamas and Hezbollah but their patrons, Iran and Syria. The war will go on for months, perhaps several years. There may be lulls in the fighting, perhaps even temporary agreements and prisoner exchanges. But those periods of calm will be mere respites.

Teaching Evolution in Schools

Ring the bell!  Chad and I agree on something again.  Well, mostly.  Here is Chad's most recent post, as I write.

Catch this logic from an anonymous commentor on a post over at the War College:

pay attention here. The THEORY of evolution is being taught as FACT in most South Dakota schools.

A theory is just that, a theory, and as such it cannot be proven and should not be taught as if it could.

Creation can't be proven either, but using the same criteria, it should be taught as fact right along side evolution.

Fair is fair. How would you like that?

I'm always curious to know if people who "don't believe in evolution" (including our own Senator John Thune) have actually had a class in the subject beyond high school biology.

And this whole "theory" thing as an argument is total bunk. Theories are proven and disproven. Evolution has been proven through the fossil record. It is fact. It is universally accepted by the scientific community.

How about the "theory" of relativity?  Or the "theory" of gravity?  Are these "just theories?"

Jeebus H.  It doesn't seem like you should have to explain this stuff to adults.

Anyone who has read my posts and columns on this subject (assuming some hominid meets that description) knows that I believe in the theory of evolution.  I therefore agree with Chad on his main point: to say that we shouldn't teach evolution because it is an unproven theory would, in principle, wipe out the teaching of science.  Darwinian evolution is no more nor less a proven theory than the molecular theory of heat. 

On the same grounds I must dissent from Chad's statement that "Evolution has been proven through the fossil record."  Scientific theories are not in fact conclusions to prove or disprove; they are working models that either work or don't.  Evolution works.  Modern biology cannot be correctly interpreted without it.

I do not think Chad is correct that evolution has "universal" acceptance among scientists.  From time to time individuals with impeccable credentials challenge it.  One example is the cladists, who argued all we really know is that various species are related to one another in various ways, and that the theory of common descent adds nothing to our knowledge.  The dissidents have never made their case, but then I am fonder of dissent than Chad is.  But again, that doesn't detract from Chad's main point, which is sound. 

I do think that Chad's "look at the idiots" approach to political rhetoric is profoundly damaging in this issue.  To be sure, we have to firmly insist on the teaching of science in science classes.  But in dealing with opposition I have found, as Lincoln put it, that an ounce of honey catches more flies than a pound of gall.  I have lectured on evolution before Methodists, and I found that when you acknowledge their concerns, they are usually ready to listen.  I argue that Darwin's theory poses challenges to the Biblical story in some regards, but confirms that story in other ways.  I think the Judeo-Christian tradition is big enough to deal with the challenge. 

Unfortunately, many people of faith have been convinced that anyone who accepts the theory necessarily thinks that believers are idiots.  This view, that evolutionary theory and Darwinists are enemies of religion, underlies the opposition to the teaching of evolution.  It doesn't help to treat everyone who dissents from the theory as an idiot.  But reconciliation here is probably not possible.  The two sides enjoy attacking each other too much. 

ps.  I couldn't find the comment at South Dakota War College that Chad quotes.  What is presented above relies entirely on CCK's accuracy.

Kranz Hearts Herseth

David Kranz, the dean of South Dakota political reporters, gets around to reporting on the National Journal article about Stephanie Herseth.  More importantly, note that the first half of the article is dedicated to Herseth's "vocal champion" status on ethanol.   The Argus doesn't seem to understand the difference between saying you support ethanol and actually accomplishing something.  Our colleague Quentin Riggins noted this last year during the energy bill debate:

Where does that leave us?  Since Daschle's ouster, an energy bill has now passed and will soon become the law of the land.  Before Daschle's ouster, an energy bill could not get passed, even one that did not contain the controversial MTBE and ANWR provisions.  Despite the tendentious claims and outright falsehoods by the embittered former Daschle staffers, the energy bill, with its ethanol provisions so important for South Dakota, could not have become law without the critical support, hard work, and effectiveness of Senator John Thune.

It will be some time yet before we ever see Kranz devote a column to Senator Thune taking charge on ethanol.  Apparently a strong voice is more important than delivering results.

Hmmmm

If you are coming here from No Left Turns and you are wondering where my post on Mark Tooley's piece in the Wall Street Journal is, that makes two of us.  I have no idea where that post escaped to. I am looking into it.  I may just re-type it tomorrow.

Update: I have reposted above. 

Democratic Ad Campaign

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has released a new ad, which some people find offensive.  The offense in question is a brief shot of American flag-draped coffins of dead servicemen to assert the country has "taken a turn for the worse."  I tend to agree with Ed Morrissey and Tom Bevan on this, who say it's an "excess of outrage."  However, Morrissey does point to a number of other problems with the ad.  And what's with the number on Tom DeLay's mug shot?  Any comments are welcome.

Adelstein News

State Senator Stan Adelstein will be holding a press conference on Friday to announce whehter he will change parties.

The Party of One Idea 2

I argued in my previous post that the Democrats were better off not presenting a coherent alternative to the Republicans.  The best chance the opposition party has of winning is if the voters don't have to think much about who would replace the Republicans.  It probably isn't helping that some Democrats have decided to purge Joe Lieberman from the ranks of their elected officials.  Lieberman, once a handful of pregnant chads away from the office of Vice President is facing a serious primary challenge from one Ned Lamont.  Lamont is Howard Dean without the scream.  Lieberman's sin is that he continues to support the Gulf War.  Rich Lowery at National Review notes how unusual Joe's steadfastness is. 

As the poet once said, you don’t have to be a weatherman to tell which way the wind is blowing. You only have to be a weather-vane politician sticking his (or her) finger in the wind. John Edwards has repudiated the war and lurched left since his 2004 vice-presidential run. He leads in presidential polls in Iowa. John Kerry regrets his prior support of the war and wants a deadline, any deadline, for exiting Iraq. Even the cautious Hillary Clinton just turned her back on Lieberman by saying she would support Lamont if he wins the primary.

It's possible, of course, that voters unhappy with the war (that would be most of them) will vote for anyone who opposes it, regardless of what his or her position was in the past, or who muddled it has been.  But a shift in time still makes one look, well, rather shifty.  Lowery points out the difficulties if the moderates in the Democratic Party collapse.

After the 2004 election, then-New Republic editor Peter Beinart wrote an influential article calling on liberal hawks basically to purge the antiwar zealots from the party. Instead, the antiwar zealots are conducting a purge of the liberal hawks, and why not? They are a majority within the party, and events have done more to vindicate than to discredit their opposition to the Iraq war — so much so that even erstwhile purger Beinart has called his support for it a mistake.  . . .

[But] if Lieberman does lose, it will be a sign that Clinton herself is vulnerable to a challenge from the left in the 2008 presidential primaries. Then, she will be under enormous pressure to walk away from her support of the war, too.

If she does so, she will look like another weather-vane, and her party will come more to resemble the party of Cindy Sheehan. It will also mean the defeat of what her husband's presidency once stood for.  Lowery comments on the implications of a Lamont win:

Lamont is a straight Deaniac, not just in his opposition to the war, but in his demographic profile: white, well-off and highly educated. These are the same people who backed the successful peacenik insurrection of George McGovern in 1972, and now they are bidding to make their control of their party all the more complete. Democratic commentator Marshall Wittmann calls the left-wing bloggers “McGovernites with modems.”

Their main issue is the war, but they also represent a general repudiation of the one hiccup in the post-1972 McGovernite dominance of the party, the Clinton administration circa 1994-1998. Clinton was pro-growth, pro-free trade, tonally moderate and willing to use force abroad. Al Gore spurned this winning centrist formula in 2000, but he felt compelled to make a bow to it by picking the moderate Lieberman as his running mate. Now, the Democratic party is on the verge of saying a Lieberman-style hawkish-centrism is utterly anathema.

Maybe McGovern's time has finally come.  But if so, it will be the first time. 

Kevin Barrett

Anne Althouse: The UW 9/11 denialist appears on "Hannity and Colmes."

Attacks in India

A series of explosions across India today, similar to the London metro attacks, killed at least 163 citizens.  The Associated Press reports:

Eight bombs exploded in first-class compartments of packed Bombay commuter trains Tuesday, killing 147 people and wounding hundreds in a well-coordinated terror attack on the heart of a city that embodies India's global ambitions.

...

Security was tightened in cities around the world from New Delhi to New York after the eight blasts, which struck seven trains within minutes of each other during the early evening rush hour. The bombings appeared timed to inflict maximum carnage in this bustling Arabian Sea port of 16 million, more than 6 million of whom ride the crowded rail network daily.

...

The first bombing hit a train at Bandra station at 6:20 p.m. The blasts followed down the line of the Western Railway at or near stations at Khar, Jogeshwari, Mahim, Mira Road, Matunga and finally Borivili, which was struck by two blasts at 6:35 p.m., according to the Star News channel. However, other reports gave different timelines.

The ever informative Counterterrorism Blog has more details of the attack.  Amit Varma has much more.  Ed Morrissey:  "It looks like India will have a 7/11 to match Madrid's 3/11 and our 9/11." 

Netroots Civil War

The American Thinker:  Netroots Civil War: Is the Bloom off the Kos?

DM&E

Here's an odd story about Janklow and Daschle's fight against DM&E:

Bill Janklow says he has a unique perspective on accidents these days, which is why he's helping lead the fight against a plan to run a railroad line through downtown Rochester, Minn.

Janklow, the former Republican governor and congressman from South Dakota, said an accident could be catastrophic, making it impossible for ambulances, fire trucks and law-enforcement vehicles to move.

"I clearly understand what it's like when someone gets injured or killed in an accident and the immense tragedy that comes from that," said Janklow, who was convicted of manslaughter in 2003 in connection with an accident that killed a Minnesota motorcyclist. The clinic is working with Janklow, now a Mayo consultant, and another South Dakotan, former Democratic Sen. Tom Daschle, a board member.

Kevin Schieffer, president of Dakota, Minnesota and Eastern Railroad, seems to relish the fight: "I've always said this project is going to create a lot of South Dakota jobs _ I'm glad we've got a couple of them."

Schieffer's opponents are focused on two points: They say the company lacks the financial wherewithal to pay back a $2.5 billion loan if it's approved by the Federal Railroad Administration, and they say DM&E has one of the worst safety records in the nation.

In the past six years, 17 people have been killed and 93 people have been injured in 227 DM&E accidents at public and private rail crossings, according to the Rochester Coalition, a group of opponents that includes the Mayo Clinic.

Schieffer said the Mayo Clinic is advancing old arguments that have been rejected by outside professionals.

Haying To Take Place on CRP Land

Due to drought conditions the federal government has lifted haying and grazing restrictions on Conservation Reserve Program lands.  This is disappointing on two levels.  First, of course, that conditions for farmers are so bad that this move is necessary.  Second, if haying actually takes place untold numbers of pheasants will be killed and their habitat reduced.  From the AAN:

The restrictions will be lifted in 20 South Dakota counties and land west of U.S. Highway 281 in Brown County, said Dawn Brandt, executive director of the Brown County Farm Service Agency office. It wasn't believed restrictions would be eased on any Brown County land when politicians announced the news Friday morning. But, Brandt said, the Farm Service Agency ultimately learned that western Brown County was included.

The other counties covered by the USDA's Friday announcement are Beadle, Campbell, Corson, Dewey, Edmunds, Faulk, Hand, Hughes, Hyde, Jerald, Jones, Lyman, McPherson, Perkins, Potter, Sanborn, Stanley, Sully, Walworth and Ziebach.

More Global Warming

No one knew how far it has gone.  Check this out at the ecoEnquirer.  Hat tip to Arts&Letters Daily.

Abortion Ballot Initiative

The Attorney General has come out with his explanation of the initiative to repeal HB 1215.

The Party of One Idea

Let's begin by conceding a few obvious facts.  The Republicans as a national party have had a rough couple of years.  Bush's approval ratings fell into the low thirties, clearly a danger zone, and remained there for a good stretch.  It's a sign of how bad things were that numbers in the low forties were cause for celebration in the White House.  Bush's only real problem is the Iraq war.  If gas prices were depressing people, that hasn't stopped them from hitting the road over the summer.  Otherwise, the economy is doing remarkably well by all the fair measures that are applied to administrations.  But Iraq is a big problem, as most Americans have no confidence in it.  This hurts Bush and the Republican Party in general.

Such a situation creates obvious opportunities for the Democrats in an election year.  But opportunities have to be exploited, and you would think that the Democrats need to do more than remind people of how much an ass the President is.  They need to show that they represent a viable alternative, right?  Wrong.

The 2004 election shows what happens when the Democrats try to present a viable alternative.  They fail.  Given a choice between Bush and the Hamlet on the Hudson, Bush wins.  It reminds me of a scene in Patton.  George C Scott wakes up a sleeping soldier in the barracks in North Africa and asks him loudly what he is doing.  "I'm trying to take a knap, Sir."  Patton replies "get back down there son," or something to this effect, "he's the only one in this damn army that knows what he is trying to do."  Even if you think that Bush is sleeping on the job, at least he knows what he is trying to do.  That's more than Kerry has ever figured out.  Bush's approval rating still beats Kerry's. 

The Democrat's best strategy is to be as invisible as possible.  Keep the public eye focused squarely on Bush as his problems.  Let them forget who would be taking over if Congress is handed to the opposition party.  That, at least, seems to be the strategy illustrated in a fund-raising letter sent to Steve Lopez, writing in the Los Angeles Times. 

It's not often that I reach into my mailbox at home and find a letter from Ted Kennedy, so I was eager to see what was on the mind of the saber-rattling senator from the great state of Massachusetts.

The letter began "Dear Friend," which is a little impersonal, if you ask me. When my friends at the Republican National Committee wrote to ask me to sign President Bush's birthday card — and send along a few bucks — they began their letter, "Dear Steve."

Kennedy, you'll be shocked to know, was also hitting me up for money, in this case for the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee.

"Yes, Senator Kennedy," said the contribution form I was supposed to check off and return, "I share your concern over the arrogance and incompetence of the Bush Administration."

In anticipation of my generosity, Kennedy enclosed a complimentary bumper sticker:

HAD ENOUGH?   Vote Democrat in '06

As a matter of fact, I do share Kennedy's concern about the Bush administration, and so I was eager to read the four-page letter and other enclosed materials to find out more about the alternative vision being offered up by the Democratic Party.

Page 1, however, contained no such clues. It just fired more bazooka shots at the president and his "extreme right-wing allies," so I figured the fresh ideas from the Dems had to be on Page 2.

Wrong again. Page 2 was nothing but groveling for money for contested races in Missouri, Montana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Maryland and Minnesota. ("It's urgent for each of us to do as much as possible as soon as possible!")

Page 3 suggested the Republicans will burn in hell for sins against humanity ("They've poisoned our air and water"), and Page 4 warned, "They'll never stop unless we stop them. They're shameless!"

That's quite a cavalry call, but it seems to me the Democrats are once again rushing to the front lines with empty muskets.

I'm not asking for the Democratic equivalent of a 10-point Contract With America, having lowered my expectations while on the campaign trail with Al Gore and bearing witness to his nationally televised identity crisis.

I'd settle for a five-point "Contract With Western Blue States." Heck, I'd be happy with a warmed-over crumb of an idea or two.

Instead all we get from the Democrats is the reminder that they stand for … wait, let's see, where was that platform draft?

Oh, yeah. They're anti-Iraq war, or at least they are now that it's turned out so miserably.

And they're passionately … hold on a second. What else was there?

Anti-Republican. That's it.

Lopez seems to think that the Democrats ought to offer alternative policies of their own.  But that's not what the Democrats think, and they're right.  The party is torn between Kossacks, who may have a coherent leftist agenda (though it's not quite clear what it is), and pragmatists who are certain that such an agenda is a losing hand.  Anything the two sides can agree on will make the party look like it doesn't know what it is trying to do.  I think the fund raising letter got it just right.  They're Bush.  We're not Bush.  If they can keep that focus they might do well in November.

ps.  Its not that there aren't coherent thinkers in the Democratic Party.  See Professor Schaff's excellent post below on Barak Obama. 

Mayo Clinic

Here's an example of the Mayo Clinic actually doing something that might help South Dakota. 

Paul Giamatti

Girlfriday comments on one of our favorite actors, Paul Giamatti.  Coincidently I recently watched Sideways again.  GF will be disappointed to hear that I liked it even better this time.  GF also reports that Giamatti will star in a prequel to one of SDP's favorite movies, Bubba Hotep. 

Thoughts on Barak Obama

Sen. Barak Obama (D-IL) recently gave a speech on the role of religion in public life.  It has been much heralded as a strong defense from the political left of religion in public square. 

Obama is right that Alan Keyes, and anyone else for that matter, is a fool for suggesting that Jesus would or would not vote for this or that particular candidate.  The prudent course is to be measured yet confident in the mixing of one's religious convictions with public affairs. 

Obama says:

At worst, there are some liberals who dismiss religion in the public square as inherently irrational or intolerant, insisting on a caricature of religious Americans that paints them as fanatical, or thinking that the very word "Christian" describes one's political opponents, not people of faith.

Political scientists Bolce and De Maio point out that this isn't just "some liberals."  The research suggests that a large and growing contingent of the Democratic activists have an active hatred towards religious people in general, and evangelical Christians in particular.  This is a trend Obama is courageously trying to stem, it seems. 

Obama speaks with some eloquence on the need of faith in our lives, especially since to modern world tempts us with so many false, and thus ultimately unfulfilling, gods. 

Each day, it seems, thousands of Americans are going about their daily rounds - dropping off the kids at school, driving to the office, flying to a business meeting, shopping at the mall, trying to stay on their diets - and they're coming to the realization that something is missing. They are deciding that their work, their possessions, their diversions, their sheer busyness, is not enough.

They want a sense of purpose, a narrative arc to their lives. They're looking to relieve a chronic loneliness, a feeling supported by a recent study that shows Americans have fewer close friends and confidants than ever before. And so they need an assurance that somebody out there cares about them, is listening to them - that they are not just destined to travel down that long highway towards nothingness.

Obama defends the role of religious appeals in our political discourse:

[I]f we scrub language of all religious content, we forfeit the imagery and terminology through which millions of Americans understand both their personal morality and social justice.

Imagine Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address without reference to "the judgments of the Lord." Or King's I Have a Dream speech without references to "all of God's children." Their summoning of a higher truth helped inspire what had seemed impossible, and move the nation to embrace a common destiny.

The Senator makes a point I have made ad nauseum on this blog: most (if not all) major reform movements in our nation's history have had a profoundly religious character:

Frederick Douglas, Abraham Lincoln, Williams Jennings Bryant, Dorothy Day, Martin Luther King - indeed, the majority of great reformers in American history - were not only motivated by faith, but repeatedly used religious language to argue for their cause.

I find the Senator in error here:

Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason.I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.

The Senator assumes a conflict between faith and reason.  The entire field of Theology suggests the opposite.  For example, the whole project of Thomas Aquinas was to find the harmony between his Christian faith and Aristotelian philosophy.  If you have a couple hours on your hands, see John Paul II on the subject.  I think it is enough for people of faith to air their various religious opinions with humility.  The people at-large can then decide who makes a more convincing case.  While it is always wise to have additional secular arguments on one's side, society does itself a disservice when it holds religious opinions to be "second-class" opinions. 

We could all gain from reading the Obama's concluding story about the role of abortion in his Senate race. 

Liberals need to answer this argument: if liberals can reject religious conservative arguments against abortion and homosexuality as "imposing your values on me," why isn't the religious left's argument in favor of greater public spending on anti-poverty (or anti-AIDS, etc.) programs subject to the same attack?  Liberals might say, "if you don't like abortion, don't have one."  Why couldn't conservatives say "If you want to give money to the poor, do it.  Why force me to do what you say is my Christian duty?  Quit imposing your religion on me."  If it is wrong for conservative Christians to "impose" their beliefs on abortion and homosexuality, it is equally wrong for liberal Christians to "impose" their religious beliefs on social justice issues.  Just for the record, I think both the conservative and liberal religious arguments in favor of their policy preferences are totally legitimate, but I am not the one who complains about "imposing your religion on me."  In my view both sides do a lot of proposing. I don't really see much imposing, unless it is from liberal courts.

See Joe Knippenberg for more thoughts.

Same-Sex Marriage In New York

In traveling around the country I have been a bit remiss in reporting on the New York case (pdf alert) in which the New York Supreme Court, by a vote of 4-2, ruled that the state was within its legitimate power to define marriage as between a man and a woman.  The court says there is nothing in the New York or United States constitutions that grants a right to marry someone of the same sex.  I have only skimmed the case, but essentially the majority says that there is no fundamental right to marry someone of the same sex and the the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman meets the "rational basis" test. 

The court offers two possible rationales for limiting marriage to its current man-woman character.  First, a legislature could rationally conclude that marriage exists to promote stability and opposite sex relationships are inherently more stable.  Second, a legislature could rationally conclude that it is better for children to grow up with both male and female parents in the home and in a committed relationship, thus it is in the state's interest to encourage opposite sex marriage but not marriage of same-sex couples.  The court stresses that these are not exhaustive rationales for traditional marriage.  Also, the court stresses that the individual members of the court may or may not accept these rationales, but these are rationales that reasonable people may hold and that absent clear constitutional language this is a matter best left to the prudence of legislators, not to the rulings judges. 

The dissenters essentially offer an historical analysis of the definition of marriage suggesting that the current definition is not deeply rooted in the nation's history. There is also a disagreement with the majority about whether a fundamental constitutional right is at stake.  The dissenters say yes; the majority says no. 

Eugene Volkh, a proponent of same-sex marriage, points out that the response by Howard Dean, Chair of the Democratic National Committee, is a bit odd.  Dean denounces the majority as holding bigoted views on marriage and family, yet goes on to say that debate over gay marriage should "proceed without...rancor and divisiveness..."  How can debate proceed without rancor and divisiveness when one side sees the other as composed of nothing but bigots? One also wonders if the official possition of the Democratic Party now favors same-sex marriage and that those who are opposed to same-sex marriage are simply bigots.  That possition would find some favor in the South Dakota left-wing blogosphere. 

John Graham Extradited

One of the most enduring mysteries of the American Indian Movement and the aftermath of the Wounded Knee occupation is the murder of Anna Mae Aquash.  Aquash was a Mi'kmaq from Nova Scotia, Canada, who came to South Dakota in 1973 to join AIM in the Wounded Knee occupation and stayed to fight for American Indian rights on the reservations.  On February 24, 1976, her body was found by a rancher on the side of Highway 73 near Wanblee, South Dakota.  An autopsy conducted by the BIA's medical practitioner, W. O. Brown, concluded "she had died of exposure."  A subsequent autopsy conducted by Dr. Garry Peterson of Minneapolis revealed she had been shot by a .32 caliber bullet in the back of the head, which Brown somehow missed.  Two main theories exist to explain who murdered Aquash.  One story asserts that AIM killed her because they suspected she was working with federal agents.  The other story suggests the FBI was complicit in her death.  The story ended there until very recently.

Two years ago, the trial of Arlo Looking Cloud, a former AIM activist, ruled that he was complicit in her murder.  A second man, John Graham, was also charged with first-degree murder and has been fighting extradition from Canada.  Two weeks ago he was ordered to return to the United States to stand trial.  The Mitchell Daily Republic reports:

A Canadian man has lost two rulings in his attempt to avoid extradition to the United States to stand trial for the 1975 slaying of fellow American Indian Movement member Anna Mae Pictou Aquash.

...

Graham, a native of the Yukon, has been free on bail in Vancouver, British Columbia, under house arrest.

In March 2005, a judge ordered him committed for extradition. Last month, Canadian Minister of Justice Vic Toews affirmed that decision.

After both rulings, Graham was allowed free on bail, with several conditions.

If Graham’s request for judicial review, or appeal, is accepted, the British Columbia Court of Appeal would consider the rulings from the judge and the minister of justice. If Graham loses there, the only other option is the Canadian Supreme Court, said Christian Girouard, spokesman for the Canadian Department of Justice in Ottawa.

....

Aquash’s death came amid clashes in the mid-1970s between federal agents and AIM. Aquash was among the AIM members who occupied Wounded Knee, S.D., for 71 days in 1973.

U.S. prosecutors have said AIM leaders ordered Aquash’s killing because they suspected she was a government informant. AIM leaders denied the accusation and blamed the government for her death.

Another man, Arlo Looking Cloud, was convicted in 2004 in the slaying. In a videotaped interview, he said he helped drive Aquash from Denver to Rapid City and eventually to the Badlands. Looking Cloud and others have said that’s where Graham shot her.

Graham has acknowledged he was with Aquash before she was killed but has denied having anything to do with the murder. He has said he’s the victim of a witch hunt.

It will be interesting to see what his trial reveals about this case. 

2008 Senate Races

Daily Kos says this about the 2008 Senate races (which indicates why the Democrats bash Governor Rounds so much):

South Dakota
Johnson (D) will likely be the GOP's top and only serious target.

DM&E

The Chicago Tribune reports on Tom Daschle's efforts to kill the DM&E Railroad project in South Dakota, the biggest project in our state's history:

There is clout on both sides. Sen. John Thune, the South Dakota Republican who was a lobbyist for DM&E before his election to the Senate in 2004, is championing the railroad's cause in Washington. Former Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.), whom Thune defeated in that election, is opposing the expansion. Daschle, who has considered running for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008, now sits on the Mayo board of directors.

The fight became personal during the spring when Dayton said the Mayo Clinic is worth more than the entire state of South Dakota. If Rochester's concerns are not addressed, said members of the Minnesota congressional delegation, they will lobby against the loan.

The private and much quieter backdrop to this battle is in Washington, where bureaucrats ultimately will decide whether DM&E will obtain financing to expand and upgrade the rail line. The issue before the Federal Railroad Administration, a close-to-the-vest agency that operates a loan program for railroads, is whether DM&E should receive a $2.5 billion loan.

The railroad plans to use part of the money to build about 260 miles of new track from the Powder River Basin, separate from those currently used by Union Pacific and BNSF. The new track would extend to the western border of South Dakota, where it would connect with existing DM&E rails, heading east to Chicago. The remainder of the money would be used to improve other track, including in Rochester.

"There is an enormous amount of demand for coal today, and two carriers can't take it out fast enough," said Keith Hartwell, a Washington lobbyist for the American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association and a supporter of the DM&E plan.

Pointing to what amount to traffic jams on the lines, Hartwell argued that new tracks are needed to satisfy booming demand from utility companies. "As a matter of national policy, the more coal they can haul out of there, the better off we are," he said.

Chad and Me on Global Warming

Chad at CCK has responded to my most recent post.  I note only that his primary response is 1) to declare the existence of a scientific consensus (without any hint of what that consensus is or where we might look for evidence of it), 2) to declare that I am outside that consensus, and 3) on that basis call me wacky.  Same old Archy Bunker, different side of the isle.  In addition he alleges, without evidence, that I am influenced by a lot of conservatives whom he apparently considers to be very wrong.  On the basis of that unfounded and in fact false allegation, he concludes an ad hominem fallacy: because I believe what Rush believes, therefore I am wrong. 

In fact I do not know what Rush says because I do not read him.  Off hand, I have no idea what Powerline, or Michelle Malkin think about global warming.  As far as a scientific consensus, I do believe that one largely exists regarding two facts: 1) the world is in a warming period; and 2) human emissions of greenhouses gases have something to do with.  Some scientists do question both ideas, but I do not.  On the basis of what I can gather from Science, Nature, New Scientist, and the science reporting in such places as the New York Times and the Washington Post, I think both of the ideas above are well-established.  So what have I said that is so wacky?  Here is my argument:

1)  In the near future, the human population will continue to increase and at the same time become more affluent (especially in the largest two nations, India and China). 
2)  Population growth and increasing affluence will result in higher energy use, and therefore in greater green house emissions over the next several decades.
3)   In the short term, the only way to reduce greenhouse emissions would be to radically restrict or even reverse economic growth in both developed and developing nations. 
4)  The Kyoto treaty aimed at modest decreases in greenhouses emissions in developed nations alone; Europe and Japan have far exceeded the Kyoto targets.
5)  Developing nations are far less likely to retard their own economic growth, that is why they were not covered by Kyoto in the first placed. 
6) Therefore, (based on the current situation) green house gases are going to keep growing and contributing whatever they contribute to global warming over the next several decades.

Now I fully admit that this argument is open to challenge.  But its hardly wacky, and I defy Chad to show that any one of the 6 steps in that argument is outside some scientific consensus.  I have read a great deal by advocates of Kyoto, and many of them insist that Kyoto did not go near far enough: we need to cut back much more to have any real chance of   cutting back on global warming.  That is in fact what I am arguing.  I just think that is no real chance that we are going to do that.  Maybe that is a great human tragedy in the making.  But just because an idea is inconvenient doesn't mean its not true.

Would that Chad could find the time respond to my argument, instead of just making himself feel better by calling me wacky.  So far, he has not come close to making any arguments of his own.

Adelstein

A reader raises a good point in the ongoing debate over at SDWC about what Adelstein will do:

RiverRoader said...

People are missing a central point in this debate: convenience and opportunism. The fact is that Senator Adelstein lives in Republican-heavy Rapid City so he ran as a "Republican." Despite his support for tax increases, his great affinity for AIM, his love of Tom Daschle, and his pro-choice politics as recognized by Planned Parenthood with an award, he decided to run as a "Republican," throw around his millions, and he won. Nobody should be surprised that some people aren't happy that he's not really working for Republican causes in Pierre and financing attacks on his fellow Republicans. How arrogant does Adelstein think he is that he can simply use the Republican Party like that? Instead of being thankful for years of support from Republicans who were probably naive about his real priorities and going out with dignity, he just bashes his party and complains like, well, a spoiled arrogant rich guy. The point is this: Adelstein was an opportunist and it's finally coming back to bite him.

UPDATE:  State Senator Lee Schoenbeck comments on the Adelstein flap:

Two comments:
First - the RCJ article's comments by Dave Knudsen are outstanding, and under-reported and under-accounted for in the comments above. Dave brings a varied and valuable (and very analytical) perspective to the GOP senate caucus.
Second - Tom Dempster has been a good Republican since Moby Dick was a guppy, and I have been lucky to count him as one of my best friends these past four years (and a person I can regularly whip on the golf course).
Both of these fine senators serve as committee chairs, do a great job, and are valued members of the GOP. I have a sense that some of your readers struggle with the idea that they serve as such. While they and I differ on some aspects of the abortion debate, there has NEVER been a caucus position where they didn't do their part for carrying forward the work that goes with being in the majority --- balancing the budget, increasing aid to education over the state formula,or doing the not-at-all-glanorous work of reading legislation to find those ways that somebody is trying to sneak a little government expansion in on us one paragraph at a time.

All the way from Abdalah and Albers and Apa --- through Dempster and Knudsen,to Schoenbeck and Smidt - the GOP is alive and well in the SOuth Dakota Senate.

PS -- like the attack ads directed at Chris Nelson that are too embarassed to disclose their name or source, I laugh to myself at those cowards that hide behind annonymous personal attacks -- and I am impressed with those of you with the courage to claim what you write - it ads to the debate that makes good policy. Lee

Lance Armstrong And The Right To Privacy

Powerline notes a hit piece on one of my heroes, Lance Armstrong.  In addition to their comments, I think it is useful to point out that when Louis Brandeis and Samuel Warren first penned their famous Harvard Law Review article arguing for a constitutional right to privacy, they were specifically addressing the way the media published private information that served no purpose but to ruin someone's reputation.  And I quote:

Of the desirability -- indeed of the necessity -- of some such protection, there can, it is believed, be no doubt.  The press is overstepping in every direction the obvious bounds of propriety and of decency.  Gossip is no longer the resource of the idle and of the vicious, but has become a trade, which is pursued with industry as well as effrontery.  To satisfy a prurient taste the details of sexual relations are spread broadcast in the columns of the daily papers.  To occupy the indolent, column upon column is filled with idle gossip, which can only be procured by intrusion upon the domestic circle.  The intensity and complexity of life, attendant upon advancing civilization, have rendered necessary some retreat from the world, and man, under the refining influence of culture, has become more sensitive to publicity, so that solitude and privacy have become more essential to the individual; but modern enterprise and invention have, through invasions upon his privacy, subjected him to mental pain and distress, far greater than could be inflicted by mere bodily injury. Nor is the harm wrought by such invasions confined to the suffering of those who may be the subjects of journalistic or other enterprise.  In this, as in other branches of commerce, the supply creates the demand.  Each crop of unseemly gossip, thus harvested, becomes the seed of more, and, in direct proportion to its circulation, results in the lowering of social standards and of morality. 

To The Contrary

I know nothing special about the Duane Sutton situation (see here and here) but PP at SDWC may be jumping to conclusions.  The RCJ quotes Sutton as saying the state Democrats contacted him.  Dave Newquist has stated that Sutton contacted the Brown County Democrats.  Those are not mutually exclusive stories.  It is possible that Sutton was contacted by the state Dems and then on his own contacted county Democrats such as Prof. Newquist.  Sutton and Newquist could be telling different parts of the same story.  Not to sound naive, but I have no reason to think either Sen. Sutton or Dave Newquist gain anything by fudging this story. 

On this crazy professor story, I respectfully disagree with Jay Reding and agree with the Captain.  If it is unfair to tarnish the conservative blogosphere with the worst elements on the right (e.g., Ann Coulter), then it is unfair to do the same to the left.  Mama always used to say, "Two wrongs don't make a right."  Whatever its other vices, the left-wing blogosphere bears no responsibility for this vicious attack.

On a totally unrelated note, I just noticed that Typepad's spell checker does not recognize the word "blogosphere."  That's funny. 

Sutton

SDWC: "Who is being truthful? Dave Newquist or Duane Sutton?"

McGovern in NYT

New York Times: McGovern Praises Canada on Vietnam Draft Dodgers