South Dakota Politics

Congressional Democrats and the Iraqi Prime Minister

Peter Beinart, on staff at the New Republic, has been struggling to persuade his fellow Democrats to adopt a more coherent and muscular foreign policy.  In this piece in the Washington Post, he calls Congressional Democrats out for their disgraceful behavior when the Iraqi Prime Minister came to address Congress.

After years of struggling to define their own approach to post-Sept. 11 foreign policy, Democrats seem finally to have hit on one. It's called pandering. In those rare cases when George W. Bush shows genuine sensitivity to America's allies and propounds a broader, more enlightened view of the national interest, Democrats will make him pay. It's jingoism with a liberal face.

The latest example came this week when Democratic senators and House members demanded that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki either retract his criticisms of Israel or forfeit his chance to address Congress. Great idea. Maliki -- who runs a government propped up by U.S. troops -- is desperate to show Iraqis that he is not Washington's puppet. And the United States desperately needs him to succeed because, unless he gains political credibility at home, his government will have no hope of surviving on its own.

. . .

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid demanded that Maliki eat his words or be disinvited from addressing Congress. "Your failure to condemn Hezbollah's aggression and recognize Israel's right to defend itself raise serious questions about whether Iraq under your leadership can play a constructive role in resolving the current crisis and bringing stability to the Middle East," wrote Reid and fellow Democratic Sens. Richard J. Durbin and Charles E. Schumer on July 24.

How, exactly, publicly humiliating Maliki and making him look like an American and Israeli stooge would enhance his "leadership" was never explained in the missive. But of course Reid's letter wasn't really about strengthening the Iraqi government at all; that's George W. Bush's problem. It was about appearing more pro-Israel than the White House and thus pandering to Jewish voters.

Surely disengagement from Iraq, let alone a successful disengagement, depends on the success of the Iraqi government.  And surely, given the forces churning inside his country, he cannot afford to be seen as a puppet of the U.S., or as pro-Israel.  Democrats who have complained frequently that we should not impose our values on Iraqis now want to impose them all the more.  This is the worst sort of partisanship.  Of course the Democrats don't want the insurgents to win in Iraq.  But they don't care about that nearly as much as they care about pandering to voters at home and humiliating Republicans in the next election. 

Shooting at Jewish Center in Seattle

The conservative blogosphere (see Powerline) is paying a lot of attention to this story, from Fox:

SEATTLE — A man walked into a Jewish organization Friday afternoon and opened fire, killing one person and injuring at least five others before he was arrested, officials said.

The gunman, who employees said claimed to be a Muslim angry at Israel, forced his way through the security door at the Jewish Federation after an employee had punched in her security code, said Marla Meislin-Dietrich, a co-worker who was not at the building at the time.

Staff members said they overheard him saying "'I am a Muslim American, angry at Israel,' before opening fire on everyone," Meislin-Dietrich said. "He was randomly shooting at everyone."

Police would not confirm the account.

David Gomez, an FBI assistant special agent in charge of counterterrorism, said investigators believe the gunman targeted the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle.

That last remark looks pretty safe, as the gunman seems to have done his shooting there.  All the victims, apparently, were women. 

It's early, but this doesn't seem to be connected to any organized terrorist activity.  The United States has rarely proved fertile ground for organized political violence.  The Ku Klux Klan standing, of course, as a conspicuous exception, most assassinations, bombings, sniper attacks, etc., tend to be one or a few misfits whose personal pathologies latched onto some political issue.  Timothy McVeigh is a good example.  John Wilkes Booth is another.  I expect that this incident will fit the profile. 

For that reason it doesn't mean anything, in any important sense, except of course that human beings can be very dangerous animals.  To the extent that there is a larger issue than one crazy individual, it is that Jews are more frequently cast as the villains in such paranoid fantasies than members of any other ethnic group. 

Kerry v. Bolton

Want some good clean fun?  Go here and scroll down to the Nomination Hearing on John Bolton, etc.  Skip to hour three, minute twenty.  See Bolton and John Kerry go at it.  This Bolton is one sharp cookie, although making Senators look bad is not going to help his confirmation. HT Instapundit.

Update: This story explains that the Democrats might filibuster Bolton, since they don't have the votes to actually defeat him.  Alan Dershowitz has come out in favor of Bolton.  Perhaps Kerry's desperate attempt to make Bolton look bad is illustrative of a Democratic foreign policy gone haywire.  Bolton points out that Japan, Britain, and France join the US in a certain interpretation of a UN Security Council resolution regarding North Korea.  But Kerry is unhappy because the Russians have a different interpretation.  What kind of "global test" is it that says that the opinion of the authoritarian Russians trumps the views of Japan, Britain, France and, for goodness sakes, the United States? 

The essential Democratic argument against Bolton seems to be that he is too big a cheerleader for US interests as opposed to the interests of some make-believe "world community."  John Bolton just doesn't play well with dictatorships, the way Bill Clinton used to.  We'll have to see if Senator Johnson joins his colleagues in filibustering John Bolton. 

Bruce Whalen on Drought

From a Whalen Press release:

BRUCE WHALEN FOR U. S. CONGRESS ISSUES A THREE POINT FEDERAL DISASTER RELIEF PLAN

• Farmers      and ranchers in disaster areas will be sheltered from Federal Income Tax      on revenue with the reinvestment of that income in their land and future      drought protection. This      relief will help South Dakota      farmers and ranchers survive this historic drought and further develop South        Dakota’s own ethanol and biodiesel production. 
• The Federal      Government will provide diesel fuel to the farmers and ranchers in      disaster areas at a $1.00 per gallon less than market price. This will lower per ton hay      costs and help feed South Dakota’s      livestock. 
• Provide      for a permanent solution to South Dakota’s struggling rural water system. On Wednesday in Belvidere,       SD, the water pressure was so low that      the state had to shut down the rest stop. If we as a state cannot provide      enough water pressure to flush a toilet then how will we fill our fire      trucks to protect our local communities or to send brush trucks to fight      the wild land fires burning in South Dakota      this week? This has evolved      beyond the need for water for our state’s Ag land into a real life public      safety issue. We must provide      this basic safety infrastructure to all rural communities. 

Is Floyd Innocent

I happened to catch Floyd Landis on ESPN this afternoon.  He seems serious about fighting the charges against him.  Pat Reusse in the Star Tribune points out that Landis passed various tests during the Tour and only had an unusually high amount of testosterone in one test.  It happened to be the day of Landis's remarkable recovery in the mountains.  Of course steroids would only aid someone over the long run, not just for one day.  We'll have to wait and see how this story develops.

Update: Todd Zywicki at Volokh has an interesting post on performance enhancing drugs, especially reagarding Barry Bons. 

Is Abortion Murder?

Chad at CCK may have the unfortunate habit of calling everyone who ever disagrees with him wacky, but that doesn't stop him from posing a good question now and then. 

I think the wacky right needs to decide whether abortion is murder or it isn't. They want to use the rhetoric to motivate people to go to the polls and cast ballots for the John Thunes of the world, but they won't actually put it into action and attempt to prosecute women or doctors who have abortions.

Chad quotes Kevin Drum of the Washington Monthly to this effect:

If your position is that fetuses are persons and abortion should be outlawed, then intentionally destroying a fetus is murder and should be punished like murder. If your position is that fetuses aren't persons, then there's no compelling reason that destroying them should be a crime at all.  Fish or cut bait.

That's a good point.  I reply as follows: 

First, the ambiguity regarding abortion is shared by both sides and by the public generally.  President Clinton wants abortion to be safe, legal, and rare.  But if the fetus is not a person, and abortion is as safe as pro-choice advocates keep telling us, then why should it be rare?  Can't women decide for themselves how frequently they should use it, without the President trying to butt in?  Many states allow double murder charges when a pregnant women is killed.  How does that make sense, if there is only one person dead?  Support for abortion falls off precipitously when the reasons for abortion are that the parents wanted a boy, or it was an inconvenient moment in one's career.  Why is there such discomfort about abortion, if the fetus is no more than unwanted tissue? 

Second, in politics the perfect is often the enemy of the obtainable good.  Abraham Lincoln thought slavery was wrong in all circumstances, but in 1860 he did not campaign on immediate abolition.  If he had done so, he would have lost.  He sought the best obtainable compromise.  As Kevin Drum and Chad recognize, calling abortion murder won't help the pro-life cause.  Assume for a moment that some but not all abortions are in fact murder.  If ending the cause of the former is advanced by not using the word murder at all, well, I'm with Lincoln.  Moreover, despite what Drum says, we do treat one homicide differently from another.  Everyone recognizes that abortion is a sui generis problem, and that may be a legitimate reason for treating it very differently.

Third, the trimester regime in Roe, though it denied personhood to the unborn at every point, clearly recognized that abortion is more problematic as the fetus develops.  Daniel Patrick Moynihan (a Democrat in good standing if ever there was one) said that certain late term abortions amounted to infanticide.  I ask Chad and Drum, in the unlikely event he is reading this, whether this is not obviously true?  If a child is killed minutes after birth, is this murder or not?  I assume Chad will agree that it is.  If so, then what if that same "organism" is killed a few hours or days earlier, by crushing her skull with forceps just before it leaves the birth canal?  Maybe Chad is alright with that.  I'm with Pat Moynihan.  But just because that's true, it doesn't necessarily follow that abortion is murder at any point in the pregnancy.  There might be an earlier point at which it makes sense to draw the line.  Many pro-choice advocates reflexively mention the point at which the unborn becomes viable outside the womb.  Until we get that straight, it is difficult to talk in terms of murder. 

I have blogged on this topic recently, and suggested a compromise.  I am not hopeful that it will be achieved.  As long as Roe stands, the issue is frozen.  If it were put back in the hands of legislatures, I suspect that eventually a compromise would be reached that would protect both reproductive rights and the inalienable rights of all existing human beings.

On Enemy Ground

Last night I gave a talk on globalization and American foreign policy to these folks.  The event took place in Vermillion on the campus of USD.  I kept the USD ribbing to a minimum.  The students were a delightful bunch and a good time as had by all, or at least most. 

I can also testify that judging from the drive between Aberdeen and Vermillion, South Dakota is certainly adding to its infrastructure.  On a political note, I saw many Mike Rounds billboards and signs and even a couple bumper stickers.  Zippo for Jack Billion.  Get on the stick, Epp. 

Lovin' John Thune

Perhaps you've already seen it elsewhere, but The Hill stands by it's "distance yourself from Bush" story regarding John Thune.  They also give praise to the Senator for being an independent voice.  Here's a snippet:

Thune, who is likely the next chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC), has shown himself to be an effective legislator. His most significant accomplishment was getting Ellsworth off the Pentagon’s chopping block during its base-realignment process.

So, clearly, Thune is no rookie when it comes to politics.

Still, when lawmakers talk about Iraq so close to the midterms, their comments are going to be scrutinized.

Thune is an independent-minded senator who will likely be in the Senate for some time. Because he has previously made frank comments about the administration, Thune’s opinions carry more weight than senators who repeat the party mantra again and again.

Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act

The Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act passed the Senate 65-34 with both South Dakota Senators voting for the bill.  The bill makes it a crime to transport a minor across state lines in order to circumvent parental notification laws.  Stephanie Herseth voted against the bill last year.  I blogged about it here (scroll down).   

Floyd, We Hardly New Ya

Tour de France champion Floyd Landis has failed a drug test.  His victory hangs in limbo until a second test is done to confirm the results.

Update: Landis denies. 

Twins Sweep White Sox!

In Chicago.  There might be a God after all. 

Manager Ron Gardenhire says that you can't call the way the Twins are playing a streak anymore after their hot start to the second half, including handing the White Sox their first home sweep with Wednesday's 7-4 victory.

"I don't know if it's a streak anymore; we're just playing really good baseball, Gardenhire said. "People keep talking about the streak we're on, but streaks don't last two months or a month and a half. We're just playing solid baseball."

The Twins have won 11 of their last 12, but it's where they're doing it that has Gardenhire and the rest of the clubhouse fired up. After losing 10 road series in the first half, including getting swept four times, the Twins have won the first two series of the second half. A 22-30 road record still is not excellent, but they're moving in the right direction.

Duh! on Doha

It was easy to miss it, what with rockets slamming into hatch-backs in Haifa, but the Doha round of international trade talks has collapsed.  From the Washington Post:

IN THE AFTERMATH of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the United States and its allies launched the Doha round of global trade talks. The aim was to reduce trade barriers that particularly harm developing countries, with the hope of spreading prosperity and dimming the appeal of terrorists who assert that the global system is unjust. Five years later, the struggle against Islamic radicalism is hardly going swimmingly. But the world's leaders are tired and complacent. On Monday they allowed the Doha round to collapse.

Free trade is like a sensible diet.  Everyone knows its what one ought to do.  But it hurts. 

The main players lost no time in pointing fingers at each other. The truth is that both the United States and the European Union made political decisions not to confront their farm lobbies, even though agricultural liberalization is at the heart of the Doha round. European timidity owed something to the diminished status of Britain's prime minister, Tony Blair, who is beset by poor poll ratings and a whiff of scandal, and much to the wimpy French government, which retreats from pro-market reform when bullied by demonstrators. Meanwhile, the Bush administration faces tough midterm elections and has no stomach for alienating farmers. The leading developing countries, for their part, offered only minimal market opening.

Economic development is no guarantee against militant ideologies and terrorism.  The folks who fly airplanes into office buildings are generally middle class men who have benefited from development.  But development is necessary to create classes in impoverished nations that will have a stake in world order.  It is in the interest of the United States and the world that we continue opening markets.

Hub City, On The Move

This story explains that there are so many jobs being created in Aberdeen that the city has to go recruit workers to come here.  Aberdeen has a peculiar problem: it's unemployment rate is too low.  There just aren't enough unemployed people to take the jobs that are being created. 

Twins Beat Sox Again

Last April, Professor Schaff and I had occasion to watch the Twins play the White Sox in Comisky, ah, pardon me, Cellular One Field.  Jon summed the situation up pretty well.  The White Sox looked like they were coming off a World Series win, and the Twins looked mediocre at best.  What a difference at this end of the summer!  The Twins are 32-8 in their last 40 games.  They beat the White Sox last night and again tonight, which puts them one game behind a tie for second place in the Central Division, and for the wild card spot. 

Tonight's game was magnificent baseball, as I predicted it would be last month.  Jason Bartlett hit a three run homer in the top of the 7th to put the Twins up 4 to 1.  In the bottom Joe Crede hits out for two to make it 4 to 3.  Joe Nathan gets the save with two Sox on board.  Oh, and Nick Punto extended his hitting streak to 17 games.  Great baseball.  Better for Twins fans than South Siders. 

David Newquist and False Accusations

The Northern Valley Beacon got its feelings hurt and its dander up.  What did it this time was Jason Heppler's post of June 25th.  Mr. Heppler quotes from a comment that Newquist posted on the Clean Cut Kid website.  Here is Mr. Heppler's original post:

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?

This a portion of Dr. Newquist's reply of July 24th.  I have not quoted it all, so please go to his site and read it. 

You can tell that the 2006 election campaign is underway. The Ministry of Truth (as Orwell called it) is out in full force to demolish the language by misrepresenting words and to exterminate any thoughts and ideas that do not conform to its party line.

Some comments I made recently concerning what the U.S. flag symbolizes became grist for the Ministry of Truth processes of distortion, fraud, and malicious misrepresentation that has become the official mantra of elements of the Republican Party. The blog South Dakota War College joined forces with with South Dakota Politics, an established leader in the business of defamation, to make some crude forgeries of language, which they attributed to me.

I am a candidate for the state legislature. That is the apparent motive behind the falsification of the comments I made in response to a posting on Clean Cut Kid’s blog. I can envision the would-be character assassins slobbering over their keyboards at the thought of taking a real, live candidate out with their dishonest little missives. After making some points about the fact that a symbol, like the flag, is not the thing it symbolizes, I ended with what is an obvious rhetorical question to those literate and educated enough to read it:

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

The Ministry of Truth’s puppet at South Dakota Politics transformed that question into this post.

“Newquist: Our Flag Isn’t Worth Saluting,” read the headline.

The comment, which did provide a link to my original comment, was: “David Newquist, Democratic candidate for the state legislature, questions whether the American flag is even worth saluting any more.”

While the comment provided a link, the false paraphrase was made under the assumption that a goodly number of the dupes who feed on degraded language and acts of verbal vandalism would not have the interest or integrity or the ability to read the original words in their full context.

South Dakota War College endorsed the false paraphrase.

My comment addressed the matter of whether the Bush administration has upheld the standards of liberty, equality, justice, and integrity that the flag is supposed to stand for. Deliberately misconstruing the question into the statement that I am advocating disrespect to the flag is a dishonest and grossly incompetent paraphrase. The basic rule of the paraphrase, no matter what venue it appears in, is that it must restate the original facts or ideas fully and correctly. Falsification through misquotation is a standard practice at the Ministry of Truth.

Now consider what happened here.  Dr. Newquist made a comment that he says was intended rhetorically.  Jason read it more literally than that, and commented accordingly.  Dr. Newquist surely knows that rhetorical questions, metaphors, satire, and other such devices are frequently taken literally even in ages where rhetoric is taught. 

It is one thing for Dr. Newquist to say that he was misinterpreted, and he has every right to make that point.  It is another to say that this was deliberate.  Dr. Newquist acknowledges as much by his phrase "an obvious rhetorical question to those literate and educated enough to read it."  The implication is that Mr. Heppler might not have been "literate" enough to catch the rhetorical nature of the question.  In fact Mr Heppler's reading was a fair one, and Newquist produces not a shread of evidence of deliberate misrepresentation; he just asserts it, and on that basis he accuses us of being liars.  He says near the end that "Misquotation and taking words out of context are forms of lying."  Pretending you have proved that someone was guilty of something when you have not done any such thing, well that can be a form of lying as well.

Dr. Newquist hurls his accusations at SDP bloggers collectively, without mentioning Mr. Heppler by name.  Here it is Newquist who is being either dishonest, or incompetent, or both, for he fails to mention that I came to his defense a few days later on this very matter.  Here is my post of June 30th.

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.  [emphasis added to last paragraph]. 

So Newquist himself clearly misrepresents what South Dakota Politics did and said regarding his now infamous flag line.  "We," collectively, disagreed about what he meant. I myself read his comment exactly as he now says he meant it, and came to his defense.  Surely no one would know that from reading his July 24th post.  Leaving out key facts that contradict your case, that also can be a form of lying.

And while we are at it, consider this paragraph of Newquist's:

South Dakota Politics and South Dakota War College are symptoms of the degradation of American politics. Issues cannot be examined and discussed. They can only demonstrate a vicious disrespect and a seething hatred for people who do not subscribe to their party line. They always meet opposing viewpoints with a rolling of the eyes and a defamation of personhood and personality. This is the politics of the lower order creatures clawing and pecking their way to a higher status within the dog pack or the chicken flock. It is the politics of the reptilian cortex. They stand for the opposite of the freedom, equality, and justice that are the driving principles of American democracy. I fought against these kind of political tactics in the military service. I fight against them now.

Now I suppose all this is just rhetorical, but isn't it a bit contradictory to accuse someone of "a vicious disrespect and a seething hatred for people who do not subscribe to their party line," and then a moment later compare that person to a "lower order creatures,"  with a "reptilian cortex."  Now I know Newquist will shout that I am misrepresenting him, that he was speaking only of our political behavior, as he sees it, and not us as persons.  I will say in advance that it doesn't matter.  It would be no defense against a charge of bigotry if someone said that Jews behaved like vermin, but did not go on to say that they actually were vermin.  Using language like "lower order" and "reptilian" to describe persons who have done no more than interpret his writing in an unfavorable way, that is extreme to the point of hysteria. 

The fact is that South Dakota Politics has taken Dr. Newquist seriously as a voice in our state, and we did so long before he became a candidate for office.  We have read him carefully, interpreted him as honestly and fairly as anyone could, and replied to him when we thought it fit to do so. On such occasions we quote him liberally, and have always provided links so that anyone could retrieve and review the original of his words.  That comes close to the standards of professional scholarship, which is more than journalism, amateur or professional, demands.  To say otherwise is dishonest.

Terry Wooster on the Governor's Race

Today in the Argus Leader. 

Electronic Duck Stamp

You will soon be able to purchase your federal Duck Stamp online, thanks to legislation passed by Congress yesterday.  I note that Stephanie Herseth was not present for the vote, although neither were 70 of her colleagues.  From what I can find it appears this legislation passed the Senate in December by unanimous consent.  Kathryn Jean Lopez at NRO seems to note the passage of this legislation with some irony, as if this were a bit of legislative silliness.  I suggest she get out of Manhattan more often. 

Headlines Worth Noting

Well, if dead people can vote in Arkansas . . .

Prehistoric Indian Village to host archaeology event

I'm not a baseball purest, but I do think the sport should be limited to mammals.

Birds win pitcher's dual

I am not sure what a "plower plant" is or what soil it grows in, but apparently even flora are now eligible to take the mound. 

Plower plant pitch: Proposal could use coal in a new way

Maybe this guy didn't like the Ump's last call.

Man in chicken suit cries foul over abuse

Moving to other topics, I suggest the best plan is putting them out.

State's Plan For Fighting Fires

Wasn't this more or less what one would expect?

Hundreds of bass found dead following La Crosse fishing tournament

People were dieing to be a part of it.

'Zombie dancers' spend their weekend in lockup

Well, its international and its been in business for centuries now.  Surely it has had time to line up a good law firm?

Global Warming on Trial

Stem Cells and Jewish Theology

My approach to such issues as stem cell research is decidedly non-theological.  This is not because I reject religious arguments, but rather because I have been influenced by a range of religious traditions, including Buddhism, all of them interpreted philosophically.  I think religion and philosophy (which includes the sciences) have been very helpful to one another, and that dialogue should continue.  A very interesting example of such dialogue may be found at Tech Central Station.  Michael Rosen begins with this:

On Wednesday, President Bush deployed his veto pen for the first time in his presidency. His decision to reject Congress's passage of a bill providing federal financing for embryonic stem-cell (ESC) research was thoughtful, painful, and reflective of the president's trademark conviction and consistency.  It was also unfortunate.

I note that this is how to begin a civilized argument.  Then he suggests that both sides give up some of the conceits that make honest conversation impossible.

First, dedicated proponents of ESC research must respect, acknowledge, and engage the arguments posed by their opponents. Depicting critics of techniques that destroy embryos as anti-science boors does nothing to advance the debate.

Second, foes of the research should move away from their focus on "alternative" avenues such as adult and cord-blood stem-cell research. This isn't to say that such modes of research won't be fruitful -- on the contrary: they already are quite productive -- but rather that there's no reason to consider them an alternative to ESC research simply because they share the word "stem-cell." Just as the government funds cancer research as well as AIDS research, so too can it easily sustain funding for both embryonic and non-embryonic stem-cell work.

I think he is right on both counts.  Then, after acknowledging that there is a debate within the Jewish community about these matters, he presents his understanding of Jewish thought as it applies to the issue.  Here is a sample:

As I argued in October, traditional Judaism takes what might be described as a pragmatic approach to issues involving pre-birth life. This entails a recognition that while embryos and fetuses are worthy of respect and mustn't be discarded at will, they are ontologically different from babies who have emerged from the womb.

Thus, abortion-on-demand and in other circumstances is strictly prohibited. But destroying an embryo for legitimate purposes -- including the potential for healing the terminally ill -- is permissible according to the vast majority of Jewish religio-legal authorities.

You can read the rest for yourself, and I strongly encourage you to do so.  In accord with the school of thought in which I was trained, I regard religious traditions as authoritative.  This doesn't mean that I have to take what any or all of them say as true.  It means that I take seriously what each says because of who said it. 

This is so for two reasons.  First, well established religious traditions represent long histories of engagement with issues that science and philosophy are concerned with.  One can be certain that there are things to be learned by consulting them.  Second, all religions begin with the proposition that human life is somehow screwed up (according to the Biblical tradition, man is fallen; according to Buddha, life is suffering), and each claims a revealed truth about how to un-screw it.  Those claims are not refutable by science, so I think they stand as philosophically exciting. 

You can read the first part of Rosen's argument here, and the second here.  Hat tip to RealClearPolitics. 

Theocracy, Part Deux

Yesterday I mentioned the First Things piece on "theocrats" by Ross Douthat.  Joe Knippenberg is on the prowl and lifts a more illustrative quote from Douthat than did I.  This Douthat passage ably captures the intellectual slight of hand by those who shout "Theocracy!" from the roof tops.

[T]he rise of the Religious Right, and the growing “religion gap” that Phillips describes but fails to understand, aren’t new things in American history but a reaction to a new thing: to an old political party newly dependent on a bloc of voters who reject the role that religion has traditionally played in American political life. The hysteria over theocracy, in turn, represents an attempt to rewrite the history of the United States to suit these voters’ prejudices, by setting a year zero somewhere around 1970 and casting everything that’s happened since as a battle between progress and atavism, reason and fundamentalism, the Enlightenment and the medieval dark.

Governor's Race

Rapid City Journal:

Most South Dakotans have never heard of Tom Gerber, but the retired management consultant from Sturgis hopes to change that. As the Libertarian Party's candidate for governor, he will travel throughout the state introducing himself and his ideas. Gerber said his backgrounds as a teacher, business manager and consultant give him the experience to change South Dakota's economy, education system, tax structure and health-care system.

"I think in a very practical way, but I also try to tie it in with ethical and humanitarian aspects," Gerber said.

Gerber, 81, said he decided to run because he believes the state needs someone with his outlook. He said he has always admired Ben Franklin, who took an active part in the American Revolution and helped build the nation's government.

"I felt if he could do it at an advanced age, I certainly shouldn't shirk that," Gerber said.

Theocracy!

Ross Douthat has a must read for anyone interested in the coming "theocracy" promoted by the "theocons." Douthat convincely shows that the argument that there is a theocratic conspiracy is based largely (if not entirely) on paranoia, innuendo, and wild conjecture.  As they say, read the whole thing, but here is a snippet:

Sometimes it’s argued that what sets the contemporary Christian Right apart from previous iterations of politically active religion isn’t its Christianity per se but its unwillingness to couch argument in terms that nonbelievers can accept—to use “public reason,” in the Rawlsian phrase, to make a political case that doesn’t rely on Bible-thumping. As a prudential matter, the case for public reason makes a great deal of sense. But one searches American history in vain—from abolitionist polemics down to Martin Luther King’s Scripture-saturated speeches—for any evidence of this supposedly ironclad rule being rigorously applied, or applied at all.

And besides, religious conservatives do, frequently and loudly, make arguments for their positions on non-theological grounds. Perhaps not as often as they should, to judge by the movement’s repeated political and cultural defeats (defeats that the anti-theocrats gloss over, since it would complicate their portrait of an all-powerful Christofascism on the march). But the evils of abortion, the value of heterosexual monogamy, the costs of promiscuity and pornography—all these issues are constantly being raised by social conservatives without appeals to the divine inspiration of the Bible. Tellingly, when a professor at Patrick Henry College explains to Goldberg how he teaches students to “use terms and facts that the other side accepts as reasonable,” she calls it a “rhetorical two-step” and casts it as yet another example of the devious Christianist project of political infiltration: Heads you’re a theocrat, tails you’re a theocrat.

 

Life Is Good In Aberdeen

The Argus Leader notes the many attempts to build the economy and quality of life in Aberdeen.  The article centers around the proposed beef processing plant.  One thing they neglect to mention in this piece is the excellent new YMCA/Fitness Center.  Prof. Blanchard praised the facility here. I can also confirm that the Target in Aberdeen is expanding.  They are, in my terminology, expanding from a "small" Target to a "regular" Target, which I understand is a difference of about 25,000 square feet. 

Pedaling In Paris

Prof. Blanchard asks whether anyone is paying attention to the Tour de France now that Lance Armstrong has retired.  I cannot claim to have followed as closely as in recent years, but I did pay significant attention to this year's race.  Granted, it was tainted from the beginning when three of the top contenders were suspended due to serious allegations of a blood doping scandal.  But nonetheless this year provided great drama and yet another victory for an American, in this case Floyd Landis. 

Landis will never get the attention Armstrong did, although the reasons why are part of the compelling story.  Landis is suffering from an arthritic condition in his hip that will require surgery.  It is not clear he will ever race again.  So his chance at a repeat vicotry is questionable.  Landis did show great courage in this win.  After collapsing in Stage 16 in the Alps, seemingly costing him any chance of winning, he then made a monumental recovery the next day in Stage 17, also a brutal mountain stage, winning the stage and leaping from 11th to 3rd, only 30 seconds behind.  That 30 seconds was eliminated yesterday in  Stage 19, an individual time trial, with Landis finishing third in that stage, well ahead of his major competitors.  Landis overcame seeming defeat to launch an almost unprecedented come back and ultimate victory.  Congrats to Floyd Landis, America's eighth straight victor in the Tour de France.

The Great Blog Silence of 2006

I will be on sabbatical between July 25 and August 3 as I will be camping at Yellowstone National Park, so blogging will cease from me between that time. 

Life vs. Personhood in the Abortion Debate

Let me suggest a a point of clarification regarding language in the abortion debate.  People often frame the central moral question in terms of when "life" begins.  This language comes to us from Justice Blackman's opinion in Roe v. Wade, where he speaks, among other things, of "potential life," when describing the fetus in the third trimester of pregnancy. 

This is clearly the wrong language.  A fetus (or foetus) receives nourishment from the umbilical cord.  It uses that nourishment to build and maintain its organic form, and in doing so produces waste that is carried away.  Now there are many problems in the philosophy of biology that are difficult, but the question of whether a fetus represents actual or potential life is not one of them.  If it eats and goes potty, it's alive.  In fact, from the moment of conception we are dealing with a living human organism.  To pretend otherwise is a sign of bad faith. 

The question with regard to abortion is not when life begins, but when personhood begins.  Here one must distinguish between legal (or constitutional) and moral (or metaphysical) personhood.  The Supreme Court in Dred Scott, a pre-civil war case, solemnly declared that freed Africans were not constitutional persons.  This means that they could not be recognized as parties in any case before a federal court.  Even if the Court had been right about the constitutional question (it was atrociously wrong), it would still be the case that freed Africans were in fact moral persons, entitled to the same rights as every human being.  The Court in Roe concluded, on no visible constitutional grounds, that the unborn is not entitled to legal personhood at any point in the pregnancy.  That is what it meant when using such obviously fallacious language as "potential life."

I am pro-life because I think that the point of moral personhood clearly begins prior to birth.  There is no possible moral distinction between a human brain that has left the birth canal, and one that is just about to.  I think it clear that moral personhood begins fairly early in pregnancy.  But I concede, in contrast to most who are pro-life, that the issue is more complicated in the very early stages.  Is a blastocyst, the mass of cells at the moment of implantation in the uterine wall, a person?  Unlike pro-choice folks, I think that is a serious question.  Unlike most pro-lifers, I do not think it is easy to answer in the affirmative. 

A serious attempt to resolve the abortion question would depend on this kind of analysis.  I think that a compromise is possible, one that would both protect the woman's reproductive choices and protect the person that comes to be well before birth.  But to reach such a compromise, both sides would have to surrender their fondest conceit: that the other side consists of nothing but devils.