South Dakota Politics

WaPo: A Democratic Meltdown

A year of leadership under Howard Dean has fragmented the DNC.  The Washington Post reported a few days ago that various party leaders are working behind Dean's back to circumvent his authority in order to "mobiliz[e] Democratic partisans."  His leadership is hurting the party more than its helping, especially in terms of funding.  He's raised a little over half of the funds the RNC has raised, which isn't good with mid-term elections looming just 90 days away:

At a meeting last week, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) criticized Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean for not spending enough party resources on get-out-the-vote efforts in the most competitive House and Senate races, according to congressional aides who were briefed on the exchange. Pelosi -- echoing a complaint common among Democratic lawmakers and operatives -- has warned privately that Democrats are at risk of going into the November midterm elections with a voter-mobilization plan that is underfunded and inferior to the proven turnout machine run by national Republicans.

The Senate and House campaign committees are creating their own get-out-the-vote operations instead, using money that otherwise would fund television advertising and other election-year efforts. Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.) -- who no longer speaks to Dean because of their strategic differences -- is planning to ask lawmakers and donors to help fund a new turnout program run by House Democrats. He recruited Michael Whouley, a specialist in Democratic turnout, to help oversee it.

...

Many Democrats said that despite a favorable political climate and record-setting fundraising, the campaign to recapture the House and Senate could fall short if the organizational problems persist. "What the party really needs is to get serious about local, volunteer-based" operations, said Jack Corrigan, a longtime Democratic operative. "The last-minute, throw-money-at-it approach . . . does not really solve the fundamental failure to organize that is there. The DNC is moving in the right direction, but needs to do more, fast," he said.

Clinton Coming to Mitchell

Mitchell Daily Republic:

Former President Bill Clinton will attend the dedication of the George and Eleanor McGovern Library and Center for Leadership and Public Service, at Dakota Wesleyan University, Oct. 7 in Mitchell.

George McGovern said he and his wife were “thrilled” to hear of Clinton’s inclusion in the event.

“His attendance will certainly be the highlight for us on this special day,” McGovern said in a press release.

DWU also confirmed the attendance of other dignitaries at the weekend celebration, which will run from Thursday, Oct. 5, to Saturday, Oct. 7.

Former U.S. Sen. Bob Dole, R-Kan., will receive an award at a Friday banquet for donors who contributed to the library; former U.S. Sen. Tom Daschle, D-S.D., will attend events Friday and Saturday; USA Today founder and Alpena native Al Neuharth will attend events Saturday; and Sander Vanocur, former news correspondent for ABC and NBC television, will serve as master of ceremonies at the Saturday dedication.

Homosexuality and Promiscuity at Kausfiles

At kausfiles, the man and the medium have met.  The man is Mickey Kaus, and the medium is the sponsored blog.  Kausfiles is tucked into a corner of Slate, one of the best online political/cultural journals.  The blog and the journal draw readers to one another in a very effective way.  Kaus is well suited to this role as has taken to the new media as a termite to quartersawn oak, and is as good at exposing the pretensions of the Illuminati as he is at finding new ways to look at whatever everyone is chattering about.

In a recent post, Kaus drew attention to an exchange between Ann Coulter, the infant terrible of the right, and Peter Beinart, a very reasonable liberal journalist, on CNBC's Kudlow & Co.  A question that emerged was whether homosexuals are more promiscuous than heterosexuals, as Coulter suggested.  Beinart dismissed the idea as bigotry:

It's a statement of a bigot. Pure and simple. To suggest that gay people are somehow inherently more promiscuous than straight people and that straight people who are promiscuous are--therefore have latent homosexuality tendencies, and, look, Larry, I'll--let me throw it to you. It's not enough for people like me, for liberals, to say that when Ann says that, she's being a bigot. You need to say it.

Now this strikes me as an empirical question: are homosexuals on average more promiscuous, or less, or about the same, as heterosexuals?  As a matter of fact, it's this way or that way, or the other.  Fortunately, Andrew Sullivan enters the fray.  Sullivan, a gay conservative who spends his time bashing conservatives, has a unique position from which to comment. 

The claim that Coulter is making and Kaus is seconding - that same-sex love is inherently more promiscuous than heterosexuality - has a simple, logical rejoinder: lesbians. Where are the lesbian bath-houses, Ann? Where's the rampant lesbian promiscuity? Aren't lesbians homosexual? Or do we just deploy these terms broadly, whenever they can be used to stigmatize an entire minority?

If I follow Sullivan's argument, it is that homosexuality as such as no essential connection to promiscuity because there is no such thing as homosexuality as such.  Male homosexuality and female homosexuality are two entirely different phenomena.  There are in fact bath-houses, bookstores, and bars, where men regularly meet for sex with men they haven't met.  Nothing like this, he is telling us, exists for lesbians. 

The question may then be refined: are male homosexuals more promiscuous, on average, than heterosexuals.  Sullivan agrees that they are, and his explanation is, in my view, dead spot on. 

The phenomenon Kaus and Coulter are pretending to deal with is called testosterone. It's called men - gay or straight. . . . The truth is that many gay men are acting like Bill Clinton, because, like Bill Clinton, they are full of testosterone, and, like Bill Clinton, they can get sex when they want. Clinton gets it and has gotten it because of his charm and his power (which he regularly abused for sexual harassment purposes). Many straight men would do the same if they could get away with it. Can you imagine the lines for straight bathhouses if women were as eager to get it on with strangers as men are?

Gay men get it because their emotional and sexual universe is all-male and so twice as testosterone-laden as the straight male sexual universe. There are no straight women to direct and restrain their sexual drives and, in forty-nine states, no social institutions strong enough to support their relationships. Coulter's real issue is with men, not gays.

Sullivan's point is that male homosexuals are radically promiscuous not so much because they are homosexual as because they are male.  Gay male sex life is what heterosexual sex life would be if women's inclinations were the same as that of the average male. 

There is a perfectly natural explanation for this.  In almost all species, the more females a male can mate with, the more off-spring he will have.  The same is not true for a female animal, who will have the same number of progeny regardless of how many males she entertains.  A harem of males will do a doe no good, but it does a lot of good for the buck.  Thus among elk as among we human beings, males are eager, females are choosy.  Human homosexuality (there are other examples in nature) is biologically puzzling.  But whatever the explanation, males are still males.

Sullivan is right.  I note, however, that this weakens one of his arguments for gay marriage.  He hopes that marriage will curb promiscuity among gay males, as it clearly does for heterosexuals.  But precisely by his logic, this may work for heterosexuals only because it harnesses male drives to female choice.  Will two males have the same effect on one another?  This does not, of course, mean that gay marriage is a bad idea.  It just means we have to think about it some more.  That is what kausfiles is all about. 

Big Government

One of my critiques of the Bush Administration and the ruling Republicans in general has been the divergence from conservatism in the form of expanding government (for instance, Homeland Security is a joke), soaring debts, and encroachment of states' rights.  I can now add powder-coating fiscal numbers to the list.  Andrew Sullivan writes about this USA Today report:

The federal government keeps two sets of books.

The set the government promotes to the public has a healthier bottom line: a $318 billion deficit in 2005.

The set the government doesn't talk about is the audited financial statement produced by the government's accountants following standard accounting rules. It reports a more ominous financial picture: a $760 billion deficit for 2005. If Social Security and Medicare were included — as the board that sets accounting rules is considering — the federal deficit would have been $3.5 trillion.

For more on the problems facing the Right in America, read Ryan Sager's piece entitled "The End of the Right?"

History

Michael Barone: Who ended the slave trade?

A Nasty Trick Played on Congresswoman Herseth

There is bang-up piece of blogging at South Dakota War College exposing a very nasty piece of work that someone did on Wikipedia, at the expense of Stephanie Herseth.  For any reader who does not know, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia constantly composed and edited by its readers.  It can be a very valuable source of information (When was Washington born?  How about Keith Richards?).  But it is not professionally refereed, and it is easy for unscrupulous folks to pad their own resumes or commit sabotage against others. 

The latter is apparently what happened to Representative Herseth yesterday.  We received a note by e-mail late last night asking for clarification.  I didn't read it until this morning. From what I gather, Ms. Herseth's "biography" temporarily included the following information:

....In both elections, Herseth campaigned as an "independent voice" and is generally considered to be a moderate Democrat. She opposes abortion rights, citing her new found change of heart after announcing her pregnancy with fiancee Ajay Bruno's baby. (my emphasis added)

I got the quotation from SDWC.   By this morning the cited passage had been removed.  I have no interest whatsoever in Representative Herseth's private life, but I assumed and continue to assume that the information is false.  Someone out there is up to some very dirty tricks. 

Precious Youth

Young Michelle Wie had a problem at the Women's British Open today.  It seems she touched a piece of moss behind her ball while it lay in a sand trap.  This is a two stroke penalty.  I assume this counts as grounding your club in the trap, which is a no-no.  The funny part is Wie's explanation of what happened.

   "There was a piece of moss right behind my ball," she said. "I knew I hit it but I didn't think it would result in a penalty of two strokes. I thought if you hit dirt it would be OK but I guess I knew the rule wrong."

"I guess I knew the rule wrong."  I think, Michelle, this means you didn't know the rule.  I'll try this next time I get a speeding ticket.  "Gee officer, I guess I knew the rule wrong." 

Pray for Cuba

With Comrade Fidel's status uncertain, and the where abouts of crown prince Raul similarly opaque, there is some reason to hope that Cuba will finally enjoy the thaw that has come to other cold war communist regimes.  When I was in graduate school I used to read Soviet Life, and Korean Life, two communist regime periodicals modeled on Life Magazine.  I think I have the titles right.  What both magazine suggested was that communist regimes were stuck in the 1950's.  If not the 1040's.  They looked like the post war Life Magazine. 

Contemporary Cuba would be a great place to film a movie set in the 1950's.  The cars are still the same, so you could film traffic without editing.  Castro is, or was, a tyrant.  But communism, a quasi-religion, a mutated form of Christianity, allowed tyrants to freeze their nations in time.  That such a thing is possible is terrifying, for the Cubans are the same critters as the rest of us.  If it can happen there, it can happen anywhere.  Let us pray that the morning will restore hope where hope was once forgotten, to quote Iron and Wine.

Our Friends at the Beacon

The Northern Valley Beacon is a curious site.  I read it religiously, but I sometimes wonder if Professor Newquist reads it.  Consider the following disclaimer, added by Professor Newquist to a very entertaining post by Roland Walter. 

The NVB has had  long-held policy not to engage in exchanges with other blogs.

This disclaimer occurs in the fifth straight post devoted to a response to something written on this blog and/or the South Dakota War College.  Good heavens.  How much attention would Professor Newquist and his friends be paying us if they did engage in exchanges with other blogs? 

Mr. Walter has two posts now, both sharp in their criticism, but quite civil by the standards of the Beacon.  There is none of the reptilian cortex stuff.  It is, in my biased view, a perfectly reasonable blogosphere exchange.  I think he deserves a reply

When Professor Newquist thought Mr. Heppler had distorted his words in one of our posts, he attacked us in the strongest language.  I thought his reaction was characteristically over the top, but that may only be my own bias.  But surely, if he is entitled to react thusly, we are entitled to object when someone (CCK), using quotation marks, attributes to us something that we did not say.  The opening of Mr. Walter's second epistle proves my point.

I started to write an in-your-face snarky post entitled Shorter Ken Blanchard. Then my opening line was going to be: “Mel Gibson is a bigot but I still like some of his movies and Roland Walter is full of crap because Chad Shulte did lie.” That was Ken’s basic response to my previous post on this site, but just to be clear, I am not quoting him directly. I included the quotation marks to indicate I was writing kind of a mocking parody of what he really said—that being the snarky part. And so you know, I’m offering all these explanations of my true intent in case Ken reads this, as I wouldn’t want to be accused of deliberately misquoting him (lying) as happened when Chad employed what was likely a similar rhetorical technique.

The use of quotation marks in the above paragraph crosses no line because Mr. Walter explicitly tells us that this is not a genuine quote.  In the original post at Clean Cut Kid, there was no such indication that Professor Schaff hadn't actually said what was between the quotation marks.  Mr. Walter somehow seems to imagine that the word "shorter" in the title should tip any reader off, but the first commenter on the post wanted a link to the actual words.  That person didn't get it, and I am guessing most readers wouldn't get it.  The whole point of quotation marks is to distinguish "rhetorical technique" from actual quotation. 

Just for the record, Mr. Walter, I do not think you are "full of crap."  I understand that you were not really attributing that sentiment to me.  I just happen to disagree with you concerning the CCK post. 
 

Blogs

The great British magazine The Economist writes about economists and blogs:

Like millions of others, economists from circles of academia and public policy spend hours each day writing for nothing. The concept seems at odds with the notion of economists as intellectual instruments trained in the maximisation of utility or profit. Yet the demand is there: some of their blogs get thousands of visitors daily, often from people at influential institutions like the IMF and the Federal Reserve.

...

With professors spending so much time blogging for no payment, universities might wonder whether this detracts from their value. Although there is no evidence of a direct link between blogging and publishing productivity, a new study* by E. Han Kim and Adair Morse, of the University of Michigan, and Luigi Zingales, of the University of Chicago, shows that the internet's ability to spread knowledge beyond university classrooms has diminished the competitive edge that elite schools once held.

Top universities once benefited from having clusters of star professors. The study showed that during the 1970s, an economics professor from a random university, outside the top 25 programmes, would double his research productivity by moving to Harvard. The strong relationship between individual output and that of one's colleagues weakened in the 1980s, and vanished by the end of the 1990s.

The faster flow of information and the waning importance of location—which blogs exemplify—have made it easier for economists from any university to have access to the best brains in their field. That anyone with an internet connection can sit in on a virtual lecture from Mr DeLong means that his ideas move freely beyond the boundaries of Berkeley, creating a welfare gain for professors and the public.

Universities can also benefit in this part of the equation. Although communications technology may have made a dent in the productivity edge of elite schools, productivity is hardly the only measure of success for a university. Prominent professors with popular blogs are good publicity, and distance in academia is not dead: the best students will still seek proximity to the best minds. When a top university hires academics, it enhances the reputations of the professors, too. That is likely to make their blogs more popular.

Government Documents with Unfortunate Titles

From a list serve for Government Documents librarians, the following are actual government document titles, with my commentary.

If you are looking for the perfect gift for a Friend on the FBI's terrorist watch list, try the title depicted on the right. 

A thoughtful bureaucrat apparently realized that the supply of some comodities might actually increase at the outset of a terrorist attack:

Fertilizers in a national emergency

So long as I am in the realm of scatological humor, this from the Department of Disturbing Allusions:

The golden age of bathing

From the Department of Setting the Right Tone:

ALONE: Facts about Mental Health and Mental Illness

This was later revised to the more thoughtful:

YOU ARE NOT ALONE: Facts about Mental Health and Mental Illness

For our Buddhist readers, a meditation on boundless emptiness:

Index of blank forms

By the state of my kitchen, you'd think I wrote this next one:

Cooking Up Solutions: Cleaning Up with Lasagna

If you can't actually afford to vacation in Hell, this is second best:

Dante Home Reading Course

Maybe Chad Shulte and I can buy a copy of this one for each other:

Do you know Oatmeal?

And for those who think we should always be doing more:

Elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation : are we doing enough?

Media Whore Update

I will be on KELO radio tomorrow morning at 9:10ish to talk about energy policy.  I can't wait to publicly defend Exxon's right to kill puppies.

Update: I thought the interview went well, although I fear I sounded too negative towards Senator Johnson regarding the minimum wage bill.  Still, I think Senator Johnson is wrong when he says the GOP attaching a minimum wage hike to and estate tax cut is "the worst kind of political manipulation," I must disagree.  This tactic by Senate Republicans is more politics as usual than unusually politically cynical.  But of course it's part of the Democrats' job to denounce the partisan manoeuvrings of their opponents. 

The Family Business

The Rounds family is opening a vodka distillery in Pierre. 

PIERRE, S.D. - What's believed to be the first distillery in South Dakota should be in operation by Oct. 1 in Pierre.

Tom Rounds and Jamie Rounds, who are the brothers of Gov. Mike Rounds, have purchased a building near the airport for the distillery.

Half of the building will be used to make vodka, and the other half will harbor a tent-rental business.

Tom Rounds said small bottles of vodka will be sold at the distillery, and bulk vodka sales will be made to liquor stores and bars.

A law that took effect last month allows distilleries in South Dakota that produce up to 50,000 gallons of liquor each year, he said.

Isn't this distillery a little too close to the capitol for comfort? 

Minimum Wage Follies, Part II

The Wall Street Journal editorializes on the minimum wage increase opposed by Senate Democrats because the bill also cuts taxes.  I had previously mentioned the bill here. 

Wonder Twin Powers, Activate!

Tim Johnson and John Thune will tour drought ridden South Dakota counties together.  Look for rollicking games of "name that tune" and "20 Questions" as they drive about the state.  "How was I supposed to guess 'Bulgaria?'" 

South Dakota’s U.S. senators plan to embark on a joint tour of the state’s drought-plagued areas to assess damage and draw attention to the dire conditions.

Sens. Tim Johnson, a Democrat, and Republican John Thune said they want to talk to affected farmers and ranchers and convey those views back in Washington. The lawmakers also hope to generate more national focus on the drought, which Johnson said is as much a natural disaster as a tornado or a hurricane.

“It has significant impacts on our rural communities and damaging long-term impacts on our ag economy,” Johnson said during a conference call with reporters today.

SD Economy

Argus Leader:

The South Dakota economy continues at a strong pace, despite high fuel prices and drought, according to a monthly analysis of business conditions in the Midwest.

For the second consecutive month, South Dakota's business climate was brightened in July by higher inventories, employment and order levels, according to the Business Conditions Index for Mid-America states, assembled by economists at Creighton University in Omaha.

The index ranges between zero and 100 and is based on a monthly survey of supply managers in nine states. An index greater than 50 indicates a growing economy during the next three to six months.

The nine-state Mid-America index grew for the first time since April, rising to 60.2 in July from 57.9 in June. An economist who oversees the study pointed to the effect interest-rate hikes have had on inflation.

"We are seeing the first signs that the Fed rate hikes may be bringing the economy in for a soft landing," said Ernie Goss, Creighton University economics professor. "However, our July prices-paid index at 82.2, along with comments from survey participants, point to real concerns regarding inflationary pressures at the wholesale level."

Employment had a slight decrease from June, but overall the region added more than 120,000 jobs during the first half of this year. Goss predicts job growth will continue to slow for the rest of this year as export orders and imports both declined in July.

In South Dakota, manufacturing continued strongly, particularly in food processing.

"South Dakota has had a very big 2006," Goss said. "It's been above trend."

Ralph Brown, a professor of economics at the University of South Dakota, said both the South Dakota and Sioux Falls economies are the strongest they've been since the recession hit in the early 2000s.

Rounds Leads

Here's the story:

A telephone survey of 800 registered voters last week found that 56 percent would vote for Republican Gov. Mike Rounds if the general election were held now and 27 percent would vote for Billion, the Democratic candidate. Seventeen percent were undecided.

Mason-Dixon Polling & Research conducted the poll July 24-26 for the Argus Leader and KELO-TV of Sioux Falls. All those interviewed said they were likely to vote in the Nov. 7 general election.

The poll's margin of sampling error was plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.

The results of this poll are suspect in that Jack Billion's name recognition is far below that of Mike Rounds.  As a political scientist I can tell you that we've scientifically proven that people tend to support candidates they have heard of over those they haven't (ah, a great a nobel profession, political science).  Still, Mike Rounds will win this election because Jack Billion, whatever his virtues, will not be able to offer a compelling reason why we should remove Mike Rounds from office.  The poll also contains this nugget:

Respondents were asked to list the most important issue in the governor's race. Nineteen percent said the abortion ban, 18 percent said education and school issues, 11 percent said economic development and jobs, and 9 percent said taxes and government spending.

On the abortion issue, 66 percent of those polled said the position that candidates for governor take on the referendum will influence their voting decision.

Given the state's likely rejection of the abortion ban, I suspect Billion supporters will play up Rounds's role in its passage.  This might be the "compelling issue" they use against the governor.  Denouncing of single-issue abortion voting and What's The Matter With Kansas arguments that we shouldn't pay attention to social issues will be conspicuous by their absence. 

Mike Rounds

Argus Leader:

A new poll giving Republican Gov. Mike Rounds a commanding 2-to-1 lead over Democrat Jack Billion shows what a daunting task it is to challenge an incumbent, political analysts say.

The Argus Leader-KELO-TV poll contains a bright spot or two for Billion, but it also shows how popular Rounds is among voters as he nears the end of his first term, Elizabeth Theiss Smith, a University of South Dakota political scientist, said Tuesday.

"It really is a daunting set of numbers,'' Smith said "It shows a very popular governor who doesn't have any high negatives.''

Rounds seems well aware of that. He said he simply intends to keep working hard at the job he won four years ago.

Mel Gibson is a Bigot

There.  I am now weighing in on Mel Gibson, about whom I have had little interest.  I liked Brave Heart (except that I was rooting for the English), but didn't care much for The Patriot (though I was rooting against the English).  I liked the Lethal Weapon movies, and especially The Road Warrior, in both of which cases I was rooting for Mel.  I thought that The Passion of the Christ was a magnificent piece of cinema, but for altogether cinematic reasons.  The muscular, snake-stomping, Christ that Gibson offers us in that film reminded me of Ezra Pound's "Ballad of the Goodly Fere."  It is an historically important interpretation, but I don't think it's an authentic rendering of the Gospels and it is certainly not my interpretation of Jesus.  As for anti-Semitism, I thought that Gibson's Passion was no more or less guilty of that than the Gospels.  But I acknowledge that that is a judgment call.  See Lee Siegel at The New Republic Online.

None of that has anything to do with Mel Gibson as a person.  When someone gets snonkered and something vile comes pouring out of his mouth, it's reasonable to suppose that we have caught a glimpse of the inner person, the one that the sober personality had hitherto suppressed.  I conclude that Gibson really does hate the Jews, and that is a very bad thing.  It has already cost him, and like Professor Schaff, I think that is well deserved.  I would go so far as to say that the damage to his reputation is probably irreparable, and I see more than a little justice in that.  I doubt that Gibson's anti-Semitism is unconnected to his view of Catholicism, but I am given to understand that this view is extreme by the standards of the contemporary Church. 

Such a distinction as I have just made, between the movies and the man, is part of responsible thinking.  Professor Schaff makes a similar distinction, between the man and his faith.  This triggered a considerable level of energy among this blog's critics.  Our neighbors on the left wing of the regional blogosphere do not seem to have much patience for distinctions.  Chad, at CCK, went so far as to fabricate a quotation, and attach Professor Schaff's name to it. 

"A drunk Mel Gibson can make all the racial slurs he wants because he made a great movie about Christ."

I pointed out that Professor Schaff said nothing of the kind, and that his post said the very opposite of what the fabrication implied (see link above). Roland Walter has responded in a post at the Northern Valley Beacon.  I note this paragraph:

Chad didn’t lie, he simply interpreted Jon’s post and summarized it in one simple line. To my mind, he pretty much got it right. Ken may, of course, disagree and he has every right to offer a rebuttal. But going off on a rant about lies, well, not so much.

Mr. Walter is wrong.  Chad didn't "simply" summarize his interpretation of Jon's post.  He put quotation marks around his summary.  The quotation mark is a formal device which carries a specific meaning: that the material enclosed represents the exact words of the person you are quoting.  To deliberately put such marks around something a person never said amounts to telling a lie.  Now I still suppose that Chad did this carelessly.  But he had his chance to set the record straight, and neglected to do so.   To point that out is not a "rant".  It is part of defending the distinctions and arguments we have made.  If we are going to argue, for heaven's sake let's argue about things we disagree on.  That Mel Gibson is a bigot is not one of them. 

Disaster Relief

The Department of Agriculture has designated 24 South Dakota counties as disaster areas. 

If You Could Read My Mind

I rarely listen to talk radio outside of Dennis Prager (you can hear Prager from 11-2 at KRLA Los Angeles), and I don't listen to Prager that much.  But on a whim this morning I put on Bill Bennett (also available at KRLA).  And hot damn his guest is Gordon Lightfoot.  The interview just ended.  And yes, Lightfoot thinks Wreck of The Edmund Fitzgerald is his masterpiece. 

District 3

The full Aberdeen American News story on the candidate change in District 3 is now up. 

Compassion and Temperance in Contemporary Politics

Professor Schaff shames me, quite properly, in his recent post.  My language in my own post contra CCK's "Mel Gibson" post was perhaps intemperate, as he gently suggests.  Moreover, he presents a model of reasonableness with respect to which my passions sometimes fall short.  Chad Shulte fabricated a quotation and attached Professor Schaff's name, and that of Northern State University, to the fabrication.  It no doubt pleased Chad to see that I was a bit irritated. 

Now Chad has explained himself in rather amazing terms. 

   

Schaff asks for a retraction of my previous post about his Mel Gibson comments.

He also suggests we all need to be a little more compassionate toward our political enemies.

I've often thought about that.  I'm pretty hard on the wacky right and their elected officials.

And I'm generally a pretty compassionate person.

But for what has gone in U.S. and South Dakota politics over the past couple of decades as the GOP has moved further and further to the right, I think this is a pretty rich suggestion from Schaff.

Democrats have had their values and morality questioned for years on end by Republicans and specifically those in the extreme right of their party. There is no bigger insult than to put into question someone's values or morality.

I, for one, have had enough of it.

Democrats who want to roll over and play nice in response to these charges are doing an extreme disservice to progressive causes.

I've had enough of it.

We either fight these fundamentalists who have grossly misrepresented Christianity or we cease to exist and our state suffers.

I am through playing nice with a group who has been hurling the worst of insults at me and my beliefs for decades.

 

If I understand this correctly, and granted my view is biased, Chad is saying that because the other side has been "hurling the worst of insults at him", it follows that he need not try to understand what they are saying, that in fact, he need respect no rules of propriety at all in responding to them.  Above all, compassion towards one's "enemies" is a sign of weakness, and he will have none of it.  It's a rather polemical morality that Chad champions.  Is this really what the left has become?

I confess that I do not share Chad's sense of righteousness.  I can find lots of examples where the left in general, and Democrats in particular, have questioned the values and morality of everyone on the left.  This doesn't stop me from attending a dinner part at Jim Seeber's house, or being friends with my colleague Bill Wieland, with whom I argued about the Iraq war long before it began to look like he might be right.  I also don't share Chad's fondness for the notion of collective guilt. 

Perhaps I shouldn't have said the following about Chad, after he fabricated a nasty quotation and attributed it to one of us:

I can interpret this only in one of three ways: Chad is too stupid to read; Chad is too lazy to read before shooting his mouth off; Chad is a liar.  Just right now I can't tell in which direction charity would point.

I had assumed that Chad did a sloppy job of reading the post, and honestly if careless expressed what he thought Professor Schaff had said.  But I can't help noticing that he failed to acknowledge this in the post above.  So I might have been a bit rude when I wrote what I wrote.  But I wasn't wrong, was I?

The Old Switcharoo

The Democratic Party has gone to the bench and re-drawn its line up.  Dave Newquist is out and Al Hoerth is in.  Here's the story:

Local Democrats are making some changes to the November ballot.

Al Hoerth, a retired Aberdeen teacher, is the party's new District 3 state Senate candidate. He takes the spot of Ted Kneebone of Aberdeen, who is now seeking one of two District 3 House seats.

Hoerth and Republican opponent Isaac Latterell of Aberdeen are both political newcomers. Latterell defeated veteran Sen. Duane Sutton, R-Aberdeen, in the June primary.

Kneebone and Tom Black of Aberdeen are now the Democratic candidates for District 3 House of Representatives. They face incumbent Rep. Al Novstrup, R-Aberdeen, and his son, David Novstrup, also an Aberdeen Republican. Incumbent Rep. Larry Frost, R-Aberdeen, is not seeking re-election.

Abortion Poll

Here is a story on the abortion poll that has hit the news.  Not surprisingly, South Dakota's abortion ban looks set to be repealed this fall.  But a solid majority, 59%, would uphold the ban if it included exceptions for rape and incest.  This would still be a pro-life victory.  The South Dakota legislature clearly went beyond public opinion, and they are fixin' to get smacked over it.  Next year pro-lifers should come back with a more moderate bill, which they should have done the first time.  As it is, they have managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. 

Peace In Our Time?

These are my comments on the Mel Gibson Episode:
1. I second the general point of Prof. Blanchard's post, while noting I would have chosen different language.  Chad's invented quote was a clear misreading of my post on Mel Gibson.  It was irresponsible for Chad to invent a quote, making it appear I had written something that I had not written.   I am sorry he did that.  I ask he remove the offending quote as my name is prominently displayed next to it, creating a false impression.  At least he could provide a link so his readers would know I didn't actually say what is in that quotation. 
2. Chad responds that his point was that the "wacky right" is only compassionate toward its own.  First, I wonder if Mel Gibson is unworthy of compassion.  Second, if my writings on this blog have contributed to the impression that conservative Christians are only compassionate to their own, then I ask forgiveness from readers, including Chad, and I will try to do better.  To base our love of neighbor on the political leanings of our neighbor would be a failing indeed.  I know for a fact that Chad is wrong about conservative Christians, but it is a reminder that in the heat of political battle one must watch one's language.  I simply ask that Chad do the same. 

In all the Mel Gibson follies, perhaps David Frum should have the last word:

If a drunken Mel Gibson did indeed call out, "Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world," then there can be only one possible place for a man who believes such things: as the next Secretary General of the United Nations.

College Costs

This story has good and bad news for South Dakota higher education.  On the downside, the number of high school graduates in the region is in decline (see chart below).  On the plus side, the article notes that the Dakotas offer very offordable education, possibly making it attractive to out of state residents. The article makes special note of North Dakota.   I would urge the state to expand its reciprocity agreements to give in-state tuition to all of our neighbors and at least hold the line on out-of-state tuition.  These opinions are my own, not my employer's. 

Thune For Leadership Post

The Argus discusses John Thune's possible run for National Republican Senatorial Committee chair.  One thing I had not considered is the fact that Thune would have the post while Tim Johnson is running for re-election.  Thune must decide whether added power in the Republican Party helps South Dakota enough to counteract the fact that he'll become a bigger target. 

CCK and Gross Verbal Inexactitudes

Chad at CCK posts this piece today:

"A drunk Mel Gibson can make all the racial slurs he wants because he made a great movie about Christ."

It's amazing how they can make excuses for themselves but they love to point the finger at everyone else.

Northern State University:  Where hypocrisy is not only welcome, but encouraged.

This is apparently in reaction to Jon Schaff's post here.  The only problem is that the material that  is enclosed in quotation marks does not appear anywhere in Professor Schaff's post.   This looks a lot like lying; however, the post is so characteristically sloppy that one does not know whether it rises to the level of conscious action.  Who, for example, does "they" in the second paragraph, refer to?  SDP?  Catholics?  Conservative Catholics?  People other than Chad? 

In addition to the blatantly false implications of the quotation marks, the quote itself bears no resemblance to anything that Professor Schaff wrote.  Consider only this first paragraph:

As you probably know by now, on Friday night Mel Gibson was picked up by police, charged with DUI, and went on a drunken rampage that contained various vulgarities, including racial slurs.  Gibson works in a field in which image is everything.  Certainly in the short run his career will suffer, and rightly so.  One watches to see how his latest directed work, Apocolypto, does at the box office, although films in ancient Mayan have a history of doing poorly.  One also hopes that he will be punished by the law as other similarly situated people are punished.

Professor Schaff clearly states that Gibson's career ought to suffer, and hopes that Gibson will be punished in court, exactly the opposite of what Chad implies in his post.

I can interpret this only in one of three ways: Chad is too stupid to read; Chad is too lazy to read before shooting his mouth off; Chad is a liar.  Just right now I can't tell in which direction charity would point.

Minimum Wage Follies

As a senior in college I did an internship that took me many times to the Minnesota State Legislature.  One of my academic tasks was to write a summary of my activity each week for the internship director.  I later learned that this professor had read my first entry to his Introduction to Politics class.  I had expressed amazement that legislators sometimes say one thing and do another, that they make deals behind closed doors, that they engage in a lot of public posturing.  In short, I was surprised to find politics going on among politicians.  Well, I was in college, and I did receive an education. 

Now Democrats are squawking because Republicans are attaching a minimum wage hike to a bill that also cuts the estate tax (sometimes called the "death tax"). 

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., pledged to kill the hybrid bill. "The Senate has rejected fiscally irresponsible estate tax giveaways before and will reject them again," he said. "Blackmailing working families will not change that outcome."
(snip)
"It's so cynical on the part of Republicans because they know that the minimum wage with these poison pills is dead on arrival in the United States Senate," said Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

Me thinks the Democrats protest too much.  First, are we to imagine that the Democrats make a big deal out of the minimum wage every even year simply out of a love of the American working man?  If so, their love has a regular cycle to rival Old Faithful.  Certainly part of their support for a higher minimum wage is principle, and some of it is politics.  They hope to make Republicans look bad by forcing them to oppose a popular minimum wage increase. 

Here is the rub.  As I have stated before, "playing politics" has two meanings.  First is what we can call a "higher meaning."  Playing politics simply means an honest expression of a party's priorities.  Republicans think A, B and C are the most important priorities, and Democrats say D, E and F are.  That's politics: arguing over priorities.  We also play politics in a lower sense: we attempt to portray our priorities in such a way as to gain partisan advantage.  We sometimes call this "partisanship."  Well, that's politics, too.  To illustrate, let's look at both the 2002 and 2004 elections.  Republicans wanted the nation to focus on the war on terror, and Democrats wanted us to focus on domestic issues.  That is politics in both senses. Both sides would agree that fighting terrorism and,say, health care, are important issues, but they differed as what their ultimate priorities were.  And surely both tried to emphasize issues that would best help them on election day.  Both played politics in both senses I have described.

Almost every issue of any importance will be a mixture of both kinds of politics, and this minimum wage issue is no different.  All Republicans are doing is forcing Democrats to make a choice about priorities.  Democrats want to raise the minimum wage and keep the estate tax as it is.  Democrats are being forced to decide: do they love the minimum wage more than the estate tax?  They must make a choice about priorities.  That's politics, and Democrats would act no differently if they were in power. 

On a side note, I happen to agree with the Democrats on the policy preferences here.  The economy is strong enough that it can likely withstand an increase in labor costs, and the estate tax is a useful mechanism to break up large conglomerations of wealth.  That said, Democrats should be aware that in times of high fuel prices adding another large burden to business is risky, and there is a sensible argument to be made that it is unjust, after taxing a man's wealth his whole life, to then take a final extra chunk after he is dead.

The Passion Of Mel Gibson

As you probably know by now, on Friday night Mel Gibson was picked up by police, charged with DUI, and went on a drunken rampage that contained various vulgarities, including racial slurs.  Gibson works in a field in which image is everything.  Certainly in the short run his career will suffer, and rightly so.  One watches to see how his latest directed work, Apocolypto, does at the box office, although films in ancient Mayan have a history of doing poorly.  One also hopes that he will be punished by the law as other similarly situated people are punished. 

There is a temptation to dump on Gibson because of the rather public piety of The Passion Of The Christ.  Many moons ago I posted some ruminations on the subject of hypocrisy. I stand by what I said.  Among Mel Gibson's many sins is the sin of hypocrisy.  It is a bad sin, but I know a worse one.  To avoid the error of hypocrisy one must believe in nothing.  That Gibson is a hypocrite is axiomatic: we are all hypocrites in that we all fail to live up to our own standards.  Gibson's sins no more discredit his religious convictions than, say, the likelihood that Martin Luther King was unfaithful to his wife destroys his moral authority (not to compare Mel Gibson to MLK).  One should note, however, that in The Passion, Gibson made a point of filming his own hand as the first to put a nail into Christ.  That suggests some level of self-knowledge about one's sinful nature.

I suppose some annoyed by Gibson's public profession of faith will revel in his fall.  C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity is helpful on this account:

Suppose one reads a story of filthy atrocities in the paper.  Then suppose that something turns up suggesting that the story might not be quite true, or not quite as bad as it was made out.  Is one's first feeling, "Thank God, even they aren't quite so bad as that," or is it a feeling of disappointment, and even determination to cling to the first story for the sheer pleasure of thinking your enemies as bad as possible?  If it is the second then it is, I am afraid, the first step in a process which, if followed to the end, will make us into devils.  You see, one is beginning to wish that black was a little blacker,  If we give that wish its head, later we shall wish to see gray as black, and then to see white itself as black.  Finally, we shall insist on seeing everything--God and our friends and ourselves included--as bad, and not be able to stop doing it: we shall be fixed for ever in a  universe of pure hatred.

Update: I see the guys at Powerline came up with the same headline I did.  Great minds, blah, blah, blah. 

 

Saturday Joke

I found this on the American News forum:

Dan Rather, Jesse Jackson, Cokie Roberts, and an American Marine were hiking through the jungle one day when they were captured by cannibals. They were tied up, led to the village and brought before the chief. The chief said, "I am familiar with your western custom of granting the condemned a last wish. Before we kill and eat you, do you have any last requests?"

Dan Rather said, "Well, I'm a Texan; so I'd like one last bowl full of hot, spicy chili."

The chief nodded to an underling, who left and returned with the chili. Rather ate it all and said, "Now I can die content."

Jesse Jackson said, "You know, the thing in this life I am proudest of is my work on behalf of the poor and oppressed. So before I go, I want to sing "We Shall Overcome" one last time."

The chief said, "Go right ahead, we're listening.

"Jackson sang the song, and then said, "Now I can die in peace."

Cokie Roberts said, "I'm a reporter to the end. I want to take out my tape recorder and describe the scene here and what's about to happen. Maybe someday someone will hear it and know that I was on the job 'til the end."

The chief directed an aide to hand over the tape recorder, and Roberts dictated some comments. She then said, "Now I can die happy."

The chief turned and said, "And now, Mr. Marine, what is your final wish?"

"Kick me in the ass," said the Marine.

"What?" said the chief. "Will you mock us in your last hour?"

"No, I'm not kidding. I want you to kick me in the ass," insisted the Marine. So the chief shoved him into the open, and kicked him in the ass. The Marine went sprawling, but rolled to his knees, pulled a 9mm pistol from his waistband, and shot the chief dead. In the resulting confusion, he grabbed his knapsack, pulled out his M4 carbine, and sprayed the cannibals with gunfire. In a flash, the cannibals were dead or fleeing for their lives.

As the Marine was untying the others, they asked him,"Why didn't you just shoot them? Why did you ask them to kick you in the ass?"

"What!?" said the Marine, "And have you liberal Assholes call ME the aggressor?"

We report.  You decide.

Conservative Crack-Up Over Immigration

On Saturday night, when our blog reaches its lowest volume of traffic, it is perhaps safe to admit that the immigration issue is indeed splitting the conservative movement.  Kausfiles actually has a list dividing conservatives into an Enforcement First Group (kick out the illegals, close the borders, and then decide what to do next), and the Comprehensive Group (clamp down on illegal immigration, but offer some kind deal for illegals already in the country).  Here is Kaus's list.

Enforcement First: William Bennett, Robert Bork, William F. Buckley, Ward Connerly, John Fonte, David Frum, Frank Gaffney, Newt Gingrich, Jonah Goldberg, Victor Davis Hanson, David Horowitz, David Keene, Roger Kimball, Mark Krikorian, Michael Ledeen, John Leo, Kathryn Jean Lopez, Rich Lowry, Heather Mac Donald, John O'Sullivan, Daniel Pipes, Phyllis Schlafly, Thomas Sowell, Shelby Steele.

Comprehensive: Jack Kemp, George Shultz, Jean Kirkpatrick, Tamar Jacoby, Grover Norquist, Jeff Bell, Bill Kristol Arthur Laffer, Linda Chavez, Lawrence Kudlow, John Podhoretz, John McWhorter, Max Boot, Vin Weber, Richard Gilder, Ed Goeas, Martin Anderson, J.C. Watts, Ed Gillespie, Clint Bolick, Steve Forbes.

Kaus pronounces himself surprised at the location of many conservatives on that list.  I am less surprised, because I think this is in fact a new shift but along an old fault line.

Many years ago I attended a meeting of the Federalist Society in San Francisco.  This is another thing I risk mentioning on a Saturday night, as it may cause me a world of trouble if ever I am nominated to the United States Supreme Court.  One thing I noticed there was that the "conservative movement" consisted of two very different sensibilities.  One was straight conservatism: a strong preference for economic liberty combined with a traditionalist approach to most social questions and, at the time, a vehement anti-communism.  The other was libertarian: a very strong emphasis on individual liberty not only in economic questions but in all questions, and more or less isolationist inclinations on foreign policy.  Now here was the thing: so long as you could keep everyone's attention on economic questions, you'd never know there was a difference.  But when someone mentioned abortion, it was like Moses parting the waters. 

I suspect that most movement conservatives fall mostly but not perfectly into one group or the other.  A die hard conservative may suddenly surprise us by taking a libertarian position in favor of legalizing drugs.  Someone who is a strong supporter of free trade may decide that the free exchange of labor across borders is something the U.S. can no longer afford. 

Far from being a harbinger of disaster, such divides are a sign of the strength of the conservative movement.  Conservatives can't stop arguing among themselves, and in doing so can't help genuine thinking about the problems they encounter.