South Dakota Politics

Twins Take Second Game against Tigers

A couple of days of beautiful baseball.  After dropping the first game against Detroit, Minnesota took the next two, moving to three games out of the ALC lead.  Boof Bonser looked impressive. 

A Little British Wit

One of my favorite jokes goes this way: In Heaven, the Administration is German, the police force is English; and the French cook.  In Hell, the Administration is French, the police force is German, and the English cook.  That is a good way of reminding one that different nations have different talents.

From the First Continental Congress up to the current anti-war movement, Americans have always shown a genius for self-organizing.  But when it comes to elegantly acerbic political wit, the English are still the masters of the language.  Consider this traditional story.  An English lord was arguing with a journalist in a pub (where else?).  The lord let this slip: "The only question, sir, is whether you will end up perishing by the pox, or on the gallows."  After the briefest pause, he journalist replied: "that will depend on whether I embrace your lordship's mistress, or your lordship's principles."  There wasn't enough left of the good lord to bury in a spoon. 

So allow me to introduce a few paragraphs from a recent Telegraph piece, by Charles Moore, on the impending resignation of Tony Blair.  The target of the wit in this case is not Blair, but one Tom Watson, serving in the labor government.

'My pride in what our Government has achieved under your leadership is beyond expression," wrote Tom Watson, parliamentary under secretary at the Ministry of Defence, to the Prime Minister this week.

You or I might find words such as these quite flattering, but Tony Blair is a politician, so he will have seen at a glance that what his very, very junior minister meant was: "I want to kill you." Sure enough, by the second paragraph, Mr Watson had got to the point: "I no longer believe that your remaining in office is in the interest of either the party or the country."

Now that is just the rhetorical equivalent of putting the ball on the tee.  Political rhetoric most often means the opposite of what it seems to be saying when the speaker is forced to look up to his audience.  When a resigning official says he wants to spend more time with his family, what he means is: "I am being dragged kicking and screaming away from the only source of self-esteem I am ever likely to enjoy."  Mr. Moore now takes a swing with the wood. 

Mr Watson began his letter by explaining his qualifications, as he saw them, for writing it: "The Labour Party," he said, "has been my life since I was 15 years old."

Inspection of Who's Who confirms Mr Watson's sad story. He was born in 1967. Apart from being a fundraiser from 1988-89 for Save the Children, he appears not to have done anything that anyone outside politics would call a job.

With the sound of a swish and the tell-tale chit of club meeting ball, Mr. Watson's claim to person-hood is now sailing far down the fairway, toward the green.  Now lets see what Mr. Moore does with his irons.

The key to Tony Blair's career has been that he always understood that people such as Mr Watson should, wherever possible, be ignored. So in the tragicomedy that is politics, it is fitting that such people are now pulling him down.

But in his struggle against the Tom Watsons, he has always been on the side of us, the voters. Although we mostly want rid of him now, we shall therefore miss him.

No political party should ever be anyone's life. Its value is only instrumental – that it can mobilise enough people, ideas, money and interests to run things that need running and get things done that need doing.

Of course in polemical rhetoric, unlike golf, the more you swing the club the higher the score.  At any rate, the ball is in the cup at the end of this round. 

Sleeper Legislative Race?

SDWC:

This Mary Giebink-Roger Hunt legislative race in District 10 is the sleeper of the season. Giebink is mounting a major challenge to the author of the ban on all abortions in South Dakota. You can see all the interest in the race from all the comments to this post. Tom Daschle is raising money for Giebink and she'll have lots of money. Hunt, on the other hand, has been elected many times in South Dakota and is well-known for his opposition to abortion. I imagine he'll be well-financed too. In a way, this is a classic battle between a religious conservative and feminist liberal. It's like James Dobson v. Barbara Boxer on the prairie. Other things will happen in the race which will also cause much public interest.

And the American Taliban Prize goes to . . .

In a recent post, Clean Cut Kid suggested an ominous comparison:

Disturbingly, the modern-day Republican Party seems to have a lot in common with fundamentalist Islam.

Interesting though, the link provided does not mention Republicans.  It mentions only Iran.  But I will concede the point.  Conservatives have campaigned for the dismissal of some leftist professors for saying outrageous things.  I have written in defense of a couple of such professors, on the grounds that saying outrageous things is sometimes part of a professor's job.  I would also note that a lot of folk who comment on CCK would like to dismiss certain local professors because the commenters object to things those professors have published here or elsewhere.  Its silly, of course, to make a serious comparison between Republicans and Democrats, on the one hand, and Iran, on the other.  But out of charity I will assume that Chad is having fun here.

On that note, I introduce this recent post from CCK.

Schaff asks this question today.

I have no patience for calls of "reasonableness" from a crowd that has regularly hurled insults like "baby killer" and "murderer."

Doesn't the word "crowd" rope a lot of people together in collective guilt?  I don't believe that Professor Schaff has ever referred to anyone on the pro-choice side as a "baby killer" or "murderer."  I know that I have not.  I have condemned such language.  But apparently everyone who is pro-life is equally guilty in the eyes of the Pro-choice faithful.  And apparently, there is no need to be "reasonable" with pro-life infidels.  Only war against such persons is permissible under the faith. 

Now I humbly suggest that this kind of reasoning is a bit Jihadist.  So I concede the American Taliban award to CCK.

Bill Clinton and Osama bin Ladin

Any honest supporter of President Bush ought to admit that anti-terrorism efforts in the first year of his presidency were weak and ineffective, and that this contributed to our vulnerability on 9/11.  Any honest Democrat would have to admit that in that first year Bush was continuing President Clinton's policy, and that Bush's predecessor had done very little to make life difficult for Al Qaeda.  This is what the Democrat's hissy fit over the ABC 9/11 drama is all about.  By reminding people of the facts that I have just mentioned, it probably can't hurt Republicans.  Dennis Byrne at Real Clear Politics has a summary of Clinton's missed opportunities, from the 9/11 Commission Report. 

A good place to look is the report's "Chapter 4: Responses to Al Qaeda's initial assaults," Section 4.5, "Searching for Fresh Options." There you have details of how Bin Laden was ready to be plucked, but someone in the administration either ignored or nixed it. Or put it on an endless "you-decide, not-me" merry-go-round.

For example, the report said the CIA was receiving "reliable" reports that Bin Laden would be in the Sheikh Ali hunting camp in the Afghan desert south of Kandahar until at least midmorning of Feb. 11, 1999. The military was targeting him for a hit with cruise missiles, and only needed a green light. Yet, no missiles were launched, to the disappointment of field agents and the CIA's "Bin Laden" unit. By Feb. 12, Bin Laden had moved on, and the golden opportunity passed.

Still, the CIA hoped that Bin Laden would return to the popular camp, but Richard Clarke, the nation's counterterrorism chief, may have blown it by calling the United Arab Emirate to express his concern about the their officials associating with Bin Laden at the hunting camp. Being no fools, the terrorists within a week had "hurriedly dismantled" and deserted the camp, the report said.

In May, 1999, the report said, the administration may have missed the best and last opportunity to hit Bin Laden with cruise missiles as he was moving in and around Kandahar. "It was a fat pitch, a home run," a senior military official told the commission, confident of the intelligence and the possibility of minimal "collateral damage." The report picks up the story:

"He expected the missiles to fly. When the decision came back that they should stand down, not shoot, the officer said, 'We all just slumped.' He told [the commission] he knew of no one at the Pentagon or the CIA who thought it was a bad game. Bin Laden 'should have been a dead man' that night, he said."

Now it's only fair to note that the Clinton administration didn't know that Bin Laden was about to launch the first serious assault on mainland America since the War of 1812.   Still the fact that they were thinking about taking OBL out means that they had some idea of the danger he represented, and did nothing. 

More serious in my view was the Clinton/Admin's lame response to the embassy bombings in Africa.  As I have pointed out in connection with Jimmy Carter, an attack on an embassy is an attack on American soil.  In response Clinton took out an unoccupied terrorist camp in Afghanistan and flattened an aspirin factory in Sudan.  Of course by then he had more serious things like stained dresses to worry about. 

No wonder the Democrats don't want the half of America that voted Bush twice to be thinking about all this just now. 

ps.  I haven't read the Miniter book shown above, nor would I endorse the subtitle.  It just kinda went with the theme. 

Weapons to Fight the Spam Wars

From Georgetown University's The Hoya:

The government’s first attempt at national e-mail legislation, the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003, is fundamentally flawed because it merely defines criteria that, if followed, make sending spam legal. Some critics of the law have therefore dubbed it “You CAN SPAM.”

The state of Washington was the first to prosecute a violation of an anti-spam law, which was passed back in 1998. The concise statute simply forbids “[containing] false or misleading information in the subject line” and “using a third-party’s Internet domain name” to send e-mail without their permission.
                   
The Washington state law provides an excellent framework for making spam illegal, and the national government should seriously consider passing similar legislation that prohibits spam from being sent.

Unfortunately, spammers have become unbelievably advanced in their trade. Prosecuting cases here and there under a national law will be helpful and necessary, but doing so will not come  close to actually ending spam.
                   
According to FTC reports to Congress, proposed common-sense solutions like a “Do Not Spam Registry” and mandatory labeling of commercial e-mail would actually end up resulting in an increase of junk e-mail. Because spamming techniques make it extraordinarily hard to actually track down individual scammers, a “do not spam” list would essentially end up as a directory of millions of e-mail addresses confirmed as active.

Read the whole thing.

Fifty Years From Now

Scrappleface has the goods on how ABC will recognize the 50th anniversary of 9-11.  HT, Instapundit. 

DME Opposition and the Impact on Beadle County

A reader at SDPP writes:

Daschle and Janklow are killing Beadle County. This railroad means 600 jobs and a new $80 million railroad operations center for Huron and Beadle County. I bet Beadle County voted for Daschle and Janklow every time they ran for political office (I'm very sure that's true of Daschle). And now when the county's entire future is on the line they side with the railroad's biggest enemy, who is paying them lots of money. The word "betrayal" has been making its way around the internet and it's a very strong word. But I can't think of a better description of what has happened. This could be the biggest betrayal since Judas. How much are the anti-railroad forces paying Daschle and Janklow anyway?? How much is betrayal worth these days?

Wolsey Boy

9/11

New York Times:

Under growing pressure from Democrats and aides to former President Bill Clinton, ABC is re-evaluating and in some cases re-editing crucial scenes in its new mini-series “The Path to 9/11” to soften its portrait of the Clinton administration’s pursuit of Osama bin Laden, according to people involved in the project.

Among the changes, ABC is altering one scene in which an actor playing Samuel R. Berger, the former national security adviser, abruptly hangs up on a C.I.A. officer during a critical moment in a military operation, according to Thomas H. Kean, a consultant on the ABC project and co-chairman of the federal Sept. 11 commission.

Mr. Berger has said that the scene is a fiction, and Mr. Kean, in an interview, said that he believed Mr. Berger was correct and that ABC was making appropriate changes.

...

Democrats and allies of Mr. Clinton unleashed full-throated appeals to ABC yesterday to cancel the broadcast, which is scheduled for Sunday and Monday nights. The Senate Democratic leadership sent a letter to Robert A. Iger, the chief executive of the Walt Disney Company, ABC’s parent, saying that broadcasting the film “would be a gross miscarriage of your corporate and civic responsibility.”

I'm a little concerned that we have people trying to airbrush Clinton's legacy.  Much of the outrage has come from the Clinton camp, while others on the left have jumped on board to defend the last Democratic president.  Obviously they're sensative to someone questioning their actions, but it must be too much to question the motives of the Clintons and their aides.  As Glenn Reynolds noted: "Call me crazy, but I don't regard Sandy Berger as trustworthy on the historical record here, as given his document-removal activity I think he had something to hide."

Be sure to read the post over at Spinning Clio entitled "Debate Over 'Path to 9/11' is a Path We've Been Down Before."  Unfortunately some historians have already jumped to conclusions, who should've reserved judgment and avoided the partisan debate.  Also see Ed Morrissey's reaction to the Democrat's issuing a threat to ABC: "Snatching Defeat from the Jaws of Victory."

UPDATE:  The Beltway Blogroll has a short roundup of blog reactions to the film.

UPDATE:  Glenn Reynolds has more roundups and observations that are worth checking out.

Janklow Continues to Betray SD

As noted by PlainsPolitics, Janklow is trying to stop the DM&E Project he once supported.  Here's a recent AP article from the Aberdeen American News:

PIERRE, S.D. - A former Bill Janklow staff member is coordinating an effort to get video comments from people who live and work along the Dakota, Minnesota and Eastern Railroad, which wants to upgrade track and build a new line to haul Wyoming coal across South Dakota and southern Minnesota.

Janklow, a former congressman and South Dakota governor, is working with consultants brought in by Rochester, Minn., and the Mayo Clinic, which oppose the Sioux Falls-based railroad's plans.

The video will be part of testimony to the Federal Railroad Administration, said Marshall Damgaard, whose crew was in Pierre on Wednesday.

Damgaard said some concerns are legitimate, although many people also realize there are benefits to DM&E's proposal. He said the video should be ready next week.

The Federal Railroad Administration is taking testimony through Oct. 10. The railroad has applied for a $2.3 billion federal loan.

Post-Labor Day Prognostication

It is the habit of both parties, when they lose an election, to try to spin the result.  We didn't really lose because we beat the point spread.  We didn't really lose because the other side cheated and ran perfidious campaign commercials, or used witchcraft to manipulate the voting machines.  You won't see this kind of cowardice at SDP, or at least not from this blogger.  I don't expect either party to be more scrupulous than is customary, nor would I rule out electoral shenanigans by either side.  I just don't think that such things will matter much.  What really matters is larger shifts of voters, and that is the way it is supposed to be.  So let me bite the bullet in advance: if the Democrats capture the House or, more dramatically, both Houses of Congress, it will be because the people, just now, love their party more than they love the Republicans.  If the Democrats win, then I say they won fair and square. 

I am always looking for my own Ouija board: some magically device that is really reliable in predicting the outcome.  For a long time I relied on the Weekly Reader poll, which accurately predicted the winner in every Presidential election.  Until 1992, that is.  Bush 41 won the kids, but lost the adults.  Another Ouija board that has a good record is Tradesports.com.  Here people bet on the outcome, and right now it doesn't look good for the GOP.  Larry Kudlow in Real Clear Politics:

The Senate still looks secure with the Senate GOP 2006 contract at 78 bid (think 78 percent), but that is down about 5 percentage points in the past week or so. Meanwhile the House GOP 2006 contract has fallen four points to 38 bid. This suggests only a 38 percent chance of a Republican hold in the House.

That should depress any Republican who takes his witchcraft seriously.  On the other hand, there is this from Jed Babbin (deputy undersecretary of defense in the George H.W. Bush administration) also in RCP. 

It may be that the Republicans get whacked in sixty-one days, but if momentum shifts mean anything, the past few weeks haven't been kind to the Dems. The Israeli war against Hizballah terrorists in Lebanon drove home the reality of the war to every American. But the Ned Lamont moment energized the Republicans' base, and combined with the arrests of the London plotters measurably increased Republican energy. There was no good news for the Dems.

About two weeks ago, a Gallup poll showed that the Dems' lead (more than a dozen points) in national polls had disappeared. This was a poll of 1,000 adults, not likely voters. If only likely voters had been polled, the Dem advantage would probably have morphed into a small Republican lead. This, despite bad news from Iraq, high gasoline prices and voter disgust with Congress. Why? Because world and national news is trumping small issues the Dems want to campaign on.

This, of course, is not divination, but a counter-spell to ward off evil.  Babbin invokes history and the name of Ronald Reagan.  Of course this may work, if the Republicans take Babbin's advice.  Or maybe even if they don't.  One thing a political scientist knows is that he doesn't know what will happen, even if . . .   .  Having positioned myself courageously to lose, I am in a splendid position to crow if my party wins.  Of course, if it doesn't, I reserve the right to disown this post, whine about how the other side conducted themselves, and make all sorts of excuses. 

Can We Be Reasonable About Abortion

If you read one opinion piece today, make it Martin Albl's in the Aberdeen American News.  Martin teaches Religious Studies at Presentation College here in Aberdeen and I know him to be a gentle and sincere fellow.  Martin makes a plea for reasonableness regarding South Dakota's upcoming vote on abortion.  I could speak about what I like in his piece, but that'd be everything.  Here's a snippet.

As we draw near to the November referendum on HB1215, the Women's Life and Human Health Protection Act (Referred Law 6) that would ban virtually all abortions, we South Dakotans have a unique opportunity to discuss this highly emotional issue in a reasoned, civil manner. My hope is that all sides will refrain from name-calling and simplistic rhetoric and that we can use this time to honestly and openly debate the issues.

I would hope that all sides recognize that their opponents have a legitimate point of view. My Christian faith and my reason have led me to be unreservedly pro-life on this issue, but I realize that many decent, honest and moral people have reached different conclusions. So I'm obligated to listen carefully to their views, especially on complex issues involving cases of rape and incest, and not to dismiss them lightly.

At the same time, I expect that various pro-choice proponents would afford me the same respect. Don't dismiss me as a religious fanatic just because, based on my faith and my own rational thinking, I have reached the conclusion that life begins at conception and should therefore receive legal protection from that point. If you disagree, then let's engage in a reasoned argument about when life and its legal protection should begin.

Read the whole thing.  I have little doubt that Prof. Albl's article is the most intelligent piece on this subject you will read in the coming months.  I say that because I am convinced, sadly, that his plea for honest and civil discussion will fall on deaf ears. Why be reasonable when demagoguery is so much more effective? 

An Apology To Karl Rove?

David Broder is often called the "Dean of Washington reporters."  A look at his PBS bio tells you why.  Broder has been around forever and has a well deserved reputation for objectivity.  So one must listen when Broder says today that the Joe Wilson/Valerie Plame controversy was "silly" and those who went after Karl Rove owe him an apology.  Here's Broder:

In fact, the prosecutor concluded that there was no crime; hence, no indictment. And we now know that the original "leak," in casual conversations with reporters Novak and Bob Woodward, came not from the conspiracy theorists' target in the White House but from the deputy secretary of state at the time, Richard Armitage, an esteemed member of the Washington establishment and no pal of Rove or President Bush.

Blumenthal's example is far from unique. Newsweek, in a July 25, 2005, cover story on Rove, after dutifully noting that Rove's lawyer said the prosecutor had told him that Rove was not a target of the investigation, added: "But this isn't just about the Facts, it's about what Rove's foes regard as a higher Truth: That he is a one-man epicenter of a narrative of Evil."

And in the American Prospect's cover story for August 2005, Joe Conason wrote that Rove "is a powerful bully. Fear of retribution has stifled those who might have revealed his secrets. He has enjoyed the impunity of a malefactor who could always claim, however implausibly, deniability -- until now."

These and other publications owe Karl Rove an apology. And all of journalism needs to relearn the lesson: Can the conspiracy theories and stick to the facts.

Broder may be wrong, but one cannot simply dismiss him as a partisan apologist for the Bush administration.  One should take him seriously, but I seriously doubt that those with much invested in "Rove is the devil" conspiracy theories will do so. 

Call Them Spies

Arnold Kling has an intelligent piece on how we should identify terrorists in the "war on terrorism."  Kling is correct that the terrorist defies normal categorizations: he is not a soldier but also he is clearly a combatant.  Kling suggests labeling them spies and labeling those who collaborate with terrorists as traitors.  I am not sure if I agree with the latter, but the former seems wise to me.  I would point out that in the canons of just war theory the spy has virtually no rights because he hides among the civilian population.  The soldier gets rights because he fights for a sovereign and he clearly identifies himself as a combatant.  The terrorist fights for a private cause and seeks to blur the line between combatant and non-combatant.  That's why international conventions demand soldiers where identifying markers; it helps protect the civilian population from being confused with armed combatants. 

Newt Gingrich also has a surprisingly insightful piece on terrorism in the Wall Street Journal.  I don't endorse everything he says, but he provides some useful historical context and gives some reasonable suggestions for improving the prosecution of the war against terrorism.  This article illustrates the virtues and vices of Gingrich.  He is clearly smart and intellectually curious.  He has a lively mind that is fun to watch at play.  He also has the vices of the intellectual.  Gingrich is a bit too enamored with the management mentality.  He tends to believe that if you just put smart people in place and allow them to tinker with policy problems the way your mechanic tinkers with your car, then all our problems will go away.  He is also prone to intellectual fad-ism.  Reading the WSJ piece makes it clear that Gingrich has recently read a management book that is big on "metrics."  Memo to Newt: The world is complex.  It defies formulaic solutions found in Peter Drucker books.  If Gingrich had half as much common sense as he does basic intelligence, he'd still be Speaker of the House and maybe president.  As it is, Gingrich's lack of power shows why intelligence is often overrated in politics.

Herseth gets Jiggy with It

I had to post this story so I could use that title.  Here's the story from Fox News:

Kelly Clarkson Legislates

Congress got jiggy with "American Idol" winner Kelly Clarkson yesterday in Washington. It was all part of a daylong program called Grammys on the Hill or Recordings Day in Washington.

Neil Portnow, head of the National Academy of Recordings Arts and Sciences — that’s NARAS — hosted a terrifically interesting day in D.C. for the industry to meet legislators and talk about piracy, downloading, music education in the schools and all the other “dry” stuff so important to the music biz.

But you had to see about eight congressmen on stage when Kelly agreed to show how a recording is produced.

In front of a couple hundred visitors on Capitol Hill, she performed a new song called "Maybe" with Mary Bono, Connie Mack, Charles Gonzales, Stennie Hoyer, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, Joe Crowley, Stephanie Herseth and Marsha Blackburn joining in on background vocals and percussion.

Picture via Yahoo News.

I guess when the music gets you going, you just can't help yourself.  I wonder if we can expect the rest of our delegation to join for a musical collaboartion anytime soon?

Drought Relief

This post has been delayed because it seems I've been busy, but the drought is a dire issue that won't leave the minds of South Dakotans for a while.  After Secretary Johanns' announcement of a drought relief package that falls far short of the needs of our state, each member of the delegation noted it was merely a start.  It was good to see both Senators noting the need for more significant funding, which they supported and helped pass through the Senate.  However, it is disappointing that Representative Herseth is blaming the House's lack of action on politics and the Republican leadership in that chamber.  Here's part of her press release from August 29:

Herseth said, "I am very disappointed. This package does not adequately reflect the severity of the drought. I'm glad that the Secretary took the time to see the devastation firsthand, but this package does not do enough to help producers who are suffering through one of the worst droughts in a generation. This is a major natural disaster that requires significant relief."

Herseth continued, "I hope this visit by the Agriculture Secretary is a small first step towards a better appreciation of the severity of the drought from the administration. House Republican leadership and the White House need to step up their support for the disaster relief package found in the Senate Ag Appropriations Bill. We have many pressing needs abroad, but we also have an obligation to take care of farm and ranch families here at home."

Represenative Herseth is absolutely right that the package Johanns announced does not do enough.  However, instead of blaming the Republican leadership, our Congresswoman should follow the example of our Senators and get to work pushing the issue in the House.  On her behalf, she has asked for the bill to be scheduled for the floor.  I hope she keeps this issue on the top of her agenda because it is vital for South Dakota's producers to have effective relief, and with her position on the Agriculture committee, it will give us a chance to see her efficacy as a leader for South Dakota.

Religion and Politics

Joe Knippenberg has a very useful post on efforts by Democrats to reach out to religious voters.  Of particular interest is the article by Peter Steinfels to which Joe links.  Steinfels used to be religion editor at the New York Times, and for all I know he still is.  His wife, Margaret Steinfels, was editor of the liberal Catholic journal Commonweal (again, she still is as far as I know).  Like Joe, I take issue with some of Steinfels conclusions, but all in all he has a pretty sober take on the impact of conservative evangelicals on American politics. 

One thing of note, I happen to discuss the issue of "Christian Reconstructionism" last night with a friend who is very much in tune with evangelical currents.  My question was essentially whether there are evangelicals who think their actions can bring on the Second Coming of Christ and thus the "end times."  The answer was that there are some, but these are an extremely small number.  Evangelicals generally fall into two camps.  The pre-millenialists  (the "Left Behind" crowd) believe that things will get much worse before the Second Coming and there is nothing we can do about it.  The post-millenialists believe things will get better and indivuduals may have some role to play in fulfilling God's plan of creating a "Heaven on Earth" before Christ comes to judge.  But all in all, they don't actually think their actions will bring about the Second Coming.   The question occurred to me because of this article (subscription may be necessary) in the New Republic about Iranian President Ahmadinejad who apparently believes that the 12th Imam will reveal himself when believers irradicate all the evil doers.  Now that's dangerous theocratic thinking.  Here's the important part of the New Republic article:

The Basiji's cult of self-destruction would be chilling in any country. In the context of the Iranian nuclear program, however, its obsession with martyrdom amounts to a lit fuse. Nowadays, Basiji are sent not into the desert, but rather into the laboratory. Basij students are encouraged to enroll in technical and scientific disciplines. According to a spokesperson for the Revolutionary Guard, the aim is to use the "technical factor" in order to augment "national security."

What exactly does that mean? Consider that, in December 2001, former Iranian President Hashemi Rafsanjani explained that "the use of even one nuclear bomb inside Israel will destroy everything." On the other hand, if Israel responded with its own nuclear weapons, it "will only harm the Islamic world. It is not irrational to contemplate such an eventuality." Rafsanjani thus spelled out a macabre cost-benefit analysis. It might not be possible to destroy Israel without suffering retaliation. But, for Islam, the level of damage Israel could inflict is bearable--only 100,000 or so additional martyrs for Islam.

And Rafsanjani is a member of the moderate, pragmatic wing of the Iranian Revolution; he believes that any conflict ought to have a "worthwhile" outcome. Ahmadinejad, by contrast, is predisposed toward apocalyptic thinking. In one of his first TV interviews after being elected president, he enthused: "Is there an art that is more beautiful, more divine, more eternal than the art of the martyr's death?" In September 2005, he concluded his first speech before the United Nations by imploring God to bring about the return of the Twelfth Imam. He finances a research institute in Tehran whose sole purpose is to study, and, if possible, accelerate the coming of the imam. And, at a theology conference in November 2005, he stressed, "The most important task of our Revolution is to prepare the way for the return of the Twelfth Imam."

Geneva Rights

It isn't clear from this story exactly what the Bush administration policy now is regarding terrorists and rights under the Geneva Accords.  It looks like Bush is asking Congress to clarify the statutes on this issue (read the whole speech here).  Theadministration appears to be granting Geneva protections to al Qaeda in response to the Hamdan decision.  While it may be prudent to extend these rights to al Qaeda, here are some reasons they don't deserve them.
1. Al Qaeda is not a signatory to Geneva Accords.  Ordinarily contractual rights do not extend to parties who are not part of the contract.
2. Al Qaeda is not a nation state, so it therefore cannot be a party to the Accords.  It should be noted that having no sovereign authority, al Qaeda does not have the rightful authority to wage war under standard just war theory.  For more, see George Weigel on the difference between bellum versus duellum.
3. The purpose of the Accords are to guarantee humane treatment of soldiers.  Signatories essentially say, "We promise not to mistreat your people, and thus we expect you not to mistreat ours."  A kind of "do unto others" bargain.  Granting protections to al Qaeda makes the Accords worthless.  If one can get Geneva protections without being a signatory to the Accords, what is the point of anyone signing?  Al Qaeda, of course, violates the Accords right and left.  Al Qaeda mocks the whole logic of the Accords.  They get the all the rights without any of the duties.  What's the point in that? 

Granting Geneva protection to al Qaeda grants them a legitimacy they do not deserve.  I would suggest that Congress pass legislation making it explicit that those who fight for sub-national and supra-national groups do not have a right to Geneva protections.  That does not mean we don't grant it to members of such groups as a matter of prudence, but the US would be under no legal requirement to grant such status.

Scoop: Liberal Group to Run Attack Ads

A reader sends an email saying that sources are indicating a liberal group opposed to Governor Mike Rounds is planning to start running television attack ads today.  Keep an eye out for the ads.

Healy and Moral Relativism

Greg Belfrage:

Check out this hilarious excerpt:

Healy said both political parties use the system to their benefit.

"We were doing exactly the same thing the other side does," he said.

He also speculated that somebody in the Democratic Party made the information public in a fit of infighting.

"Somebody has had an ax to grind, and they were grinding it," he said.

How's that for moral relativism? Everyone does it, therefore it is okay. Nice.

I must admit to a fit of laughter upon seeing this information was leaked from inside the Democratic Party. Healy says someone has an ax to grind. Perhaps someone simply has a conscience... which would explain why Healy is so confused about the entire affair.

Ouch.

Huron Newspaper Slams Daschle and Janklow

The editors of the Huron Daily Plainsman took off the gloves and hammered Tom Daschle and Bill Janklow for turning against the DME railroad, which they once supported, and questions their motives in a Sunday editorial:

There's no question the Mayo Clinic is a gem in the medical profession. But someone needs to remind the rich, self-centered folks at Mayo Clinic that they don't walk on water, and that the sun doesn't rise and set around them.
Besides arrogance, a closer look at the opponents reveals two more reasons why they are against the project - political and personal.
Former South Dakota Democratic Sen. Tom Daschle told The Associate Press in 2003: "This (DM&E) project would provide important benefits to many South Dakota communities and industries."
In 2001, former South Dakota congressman and Gov. Bill Janklow told the Plainsman: "I think no matter how you look at it (DM&E project), it is a good deal. The spin-off to South Dakota from the DM&E project is huge."
The key word motioned above is "former," because now, neither Daschle nor Janklow have any interest in what's best for South Dakota.
In April, Janklow said, "I feel the (DM&E) project is immoral." In May, Daschle told The AP he is backing efforts to stop the DM&E project.
Keep in mind, Daschle is a current member of the Mayo Clinic's board of directors and lost a heavily publicized Senate race to pro-DM&E Thune in 2004. And with his thoughts of running for president, it appears Daschle isn't thinking about South Dakota anymore.
As for Janklow, he quickly became the subject of ridicule after serving what many felt was too light of a sentence - 100 days in jail for driving and killing a motorcyclist - and then getting back his law license. It seemed many South Dakotans turned against him.
Simply, the anti-DM&E campaign is being fueled by egos, politics and personal grudges.

It's ridiculous.
We need to fight back.
Write a letter of support for the DM&E project. It's our future.

DM&E

Holman Jenkins in today's Wall Street Journal discusses how energy companies and shippers desperately need additional rail capacity such as the DM&E:

"Train in Vain?" September 6, 2006; Page A21

...

But utilities would rather lobby Washington for trivial rebates of transport fees than make a proactive investment in increasing rail capacity, as offered by the DM&E project. Indeed, if there's one defense for Mr. Schieffer's loan request, it's that without federal skin in the game, markets might conclude that Nimby lawsuits, eminent domain battles, environmental opposition and shipper campaigns to restore railroad regulation are reasons enough to steer clear of anybody's dream of a new railroad.

Meanwhile, some 124 new coal-fired power plants are on drawing boards around the country, and a new generation of container superships are starting to call at U.S. ports stuffed to the gunwales with consumer goods from Asia. Until recently, Mayo (and everyone else) didn't have to trouble themselves about how all this stuff would get delivered -- because the long-suffering railroad industry still had excess capacity.

That's no longer true, posing a bigger challenge than many yet realize to the economy's ability to keep growing.

AL Headlines

Kristi Golden:  "Now...first from my past experience with the Argus -- no one wrote this headline. There is some mystical force that *poof* creates the headlines. Seriously...try some time to pin down someone at the Argus responsible for headlines. Good luck."

Another SD Blog

South Dakota's Playbook is the "one-stop shop for all the information you'll ever need to know about high school athletes and teams in South Dakota."  Check it out!

Free Speech

Just in time for my rant on campaign finance regulations comes Ryan Sager pointing out that inconvenient speech is still protected by the First Amendment. 

But the years since McCain-Feingold's passage have shown that, whatever supposed risk of corruption may lie in allowing issue ads to run unfettered, there's simply no way to regulate unwanted speech without restricting perfectly legitimate speech.

Plus, there's a tremendous arrogance in the idea of even trying to determine what speech is legitimate and what is unwanted. Who gets to decide? The answer is simple: Incumbents (a k a congressmen) do. And their only agenda is to hold onto what they've got: their incumbency.

Meanwhile, for two elections now (2004 and 2006), grass-roots groups will have gone without their basic constitutional right to criticize their government.

It's time for this farce to end, but, for now, there's no end in sight.

Hugh Laurie in House

Hugh Laurie is one of my favorite actors.  I loved him as Bertie Wooster in the BBC Jeeves and Wooster series.  So I watched the medical series House from its beginning.  Laurie plays a sort of Socratic character, only viciously acerbic rather than genial.  House plays a doctor who heads a medical team whose job it is to solve mysterious cases.  Like Socrates, his nose is always sniffing for the difficult problem.  More like Sherlock Holmes, House is easily bored and lives only for the apparently unsolvable problem.  His art is a distraction from the otherwise meaningless flow of life.

But House is interesting because it does present us with an unfashionable idea: that happiness and excellence might be mutually exclusive.  House does his job with marvelous effect precisely because he is, psychologically speaking, damaged goods.  At one point, due to a near death experience, one of his team becomes suddenly happly.  House has to wreck this happiness because, as he puts it, "I need you to be insecure, second-guessing yourself.  Otherwise you are no good to me."  That is not a direct quote, but it gets the drift.  All this flies in the face of the self-esteem movement.  For that reason alone, it is good televison. 

An Exchange on Immigration and National Security

I recently had an essay published in the American News regarding immigration and national security.  It is posted on this blog.  I received this interesting note in reply. 

Mr. Blanchard,

Sounds like you would like societies to be harmonious, stable and undivided.

Given that our species is predatory, by nature -- that we are tribalistic and territorial, by nature -- then societies that have the highest potential for being harmonious, stable and undivided are mono-ethnic, mono-religious societies.

Multi-racial, multi-ethnic, multi-religious societies are the recipe for creating societies that are unstable, divided and discordant.

Sincerely,

Jill Henrie
www.amren.com

I am replying to Ms. Henrie here. 

First, I would not like societies to be "harmonious, stable and undivided."  A harmonious and stable society is inevitably a declining society, unable to adapt to changing circumstances.  A vital, vigorous society is always turbulent, for the same reason that an organic body or a lawn mower is turbulent: dynamism is impossible without vibration and friction.  As for the ideal of an "undivided society", no such thing ever existed.  Even the human body and mind is divided, and often divided against itself.  My brain does not always want what is good for my liver. 

Second, the idea that "societies that have the highest potential for being harmonious, stable and undivided are mono-ethnic, mono-religious societies" is, historically speaking, flatly false.  Japanese society was all those monisms in Medieval times, yet it was a platform for constant wars between Samurai lords.  Ancient Greek societies consisted of people who spoke the same language, had a common racial descent, and belonged all to the same religious cult.  Yet, as Thucydides tells it, they murdered each other with reckless abandon.  I happen to agree with Ms. Henrie that our species is predatory, tribalistic, and territorial by nature."  But I can follow that to its logical conclusion: that no human society will ever be free from faction.  James Madison taught me that. 

Third, the history of the United States shows that a "multi-racial, multi-ethnic, multi-religious society" can work better than any alternative.  E. M. Forester wrote: "we are all of us mongrels; the trick is to learn not to bite one another."  I pointed out that, despite the disharmony, instability, and division of America's multiplicity of factions, we have maintained the most prosperous and most free society the world has known, and have always stood together against our foreign enemies. 

Besides, finally, the dream of a "mono-ethnic, mono-religious society" is a delusion.  My paternal Grandfather had a French name.  My maternal grandfather, an Irish name.  My grandmothers both had German names.  Who am I going to kick out? 

Sincerely,
Ken Blanchard

Immigration and National Security

Here is my immigration piece, recently published in the American News.

Immigrants don't pose security threats

Do you have to be a racist or some other sort of bigot to believe that certain groups of immigrants pose a threat to national security? No, but it surely helps.

If you nurture a deep and irrational loathing for left-handed Lithuanian Lutherans, it won't take much to convince you that they represent an insidious, slow-motion invasion by hostile powers abroad. That, after all, was the basic message of Hitler's Mien Kampf, that the Jews were an infection in the body of the German Volk. But even my sainted grandmother, no Nazi by any stretch of the imagination, worried that a Catholic president would be more loyal to the Pope than to the Constitution.

In the past, and especially in America, reasonable people could always see that this was nonsense. German-Americans were no more likely to support the Kaiser or Hitler than the Bostonians over in little Italy were to back Mussolini. Of course, we have not always been reasonable about this, as the incarceration of a 120,000 Japanese-Americans in WWII demonstrates.

But even as that nasty business was going on, Nisei men in U.S. uniforms were fighting in Europe. In April 1945 in Italy, Tech Sgt. Yukio Okutsu took out three machine gun emplacements that had pinned down his platoon. He crawled through heavy fire to silence the first two with hand grenades. He flushed out the third by charging with his submachine gun, after he was momentarily stunned by a bullet glancing off his helmet. If Sgt. Okutsu isn't an American, well, I ain't neither.

Of course having a lot of German or Japanese immigrants made it easier for the odd spy to move around unnoticed, but trying to quarantine these groups for that reason would be like draining your rice fields because they hide the occasional snake. For every bad egg, our Germantowns and Chinatowns produced a thousand pairs of industrious elbows and more than a handful of heroes.

One odd case confirms the rule. Irish-Americans, representing one quarter of my pedigree, provided a lot of support to the Irish Republican Army. But this had the paradoxical effect of protecting the U.S. from IRA mischief. Our lads could afford to contribute to "the cause" precisely because they were so profitably invested in America. An act of IRA terrorism in New York or Chicago would have shut off the tap immediately and permanently.

What is true of the Italians and the Irish will turn out to be true of our Muslim immigrants. What matters is not who is stepping off the boat, but what they are stepping onto. Unlike Europe and pretty much everywhere else, American patriotism isn't attached to land, or language or lineage. It's attached to ink on parchment.

The Constitution and the Declaration of Independence are all the fatherland we have or ever will have. However odd the syllables in your last name, sign it somewhere after John Hancock and you're in. Being in means that you and your children and your brother's children have a fair stake in America's liberty and prosperity. Why blow that by blowing something up? It's no accident that the dark souls behind 9/11 weren't from around here. No immigrant group in America has yet presented a demographic challenge to our security.

Unfortunately, this just isn't true for England. The 24 suspects arrested for plotting to blow up 10 jumbo jetliners were British born, as were the murderous clowns who last year planted bombs on London's subway trains. More than 80 percent of Britain's Islamic population consider themselves Muslim first and British second, if at all. The Guardian points out that this is higher than in "Jordan, Egypt or Turkey." It isn't just England that's in trouble. All over Europe, Muslim populations have been fertile breeding grounds for the noxious knuckleheads of radical Islam.

Of course some Americans have committed acts of terrorism, while others sympathize more with Hezbollah or the Iraqi insurgents than they do with the U.S. But they are about as likely to have a great-grandfather buried in American soil as to be recent immigrants. It has always been easier and more attractive to switch than to fight.

---

Kenneth C. Blanchard Jr., is a professor of political science at Northern State University. His columns appears occasionally in the American News. Write to him at the American News, P.O. Box 4430, Aberdeen, SD 57402, or e-mail [email protected]. The views presented are those of the author and do not represent those of Northern State University.

Campaign Finance

"...PAC's are being used as vehicles to get around campaign finance laws."  Some call it a way to "get around campaign finance laws."  Others call it free speech.  Limits on contributions to candidates and parties are foolish.  Limits on contributions of political action committees are downright pernicious.  In fact PACs would not be so powerful if we made it easier to contribute to candidates and parties.  Limits on contributions fail in their futile goal of ridding politics of special interest influence.  Sorry, but in democracies people organize to try to get the government to respond to their interests.  In fact that's part of what democracy is. But the political Puritans imagine a fantasy golden age when we settled political questions objectively, with wise old men arguing high mindedly on reasonable merits only.  That golden age, like most golden ages, never existed.  James Madison rejected the notion that rights are protected by "parchment barriers" (i.e., barriers written on paper). Instead he suggested, among other things, that the multiplicity of interest and separation of powers are the greatest protections of rights and the surest way to good government. 

Campaign finance laws that limit contributions make it harder for people to organize.  They invariably favor incumbents.  Most dangerously they limit the ability of the people to engage in political speech by putting their money behind candidates, parties, and causes of their choice.  On the federal level, George Will has often suggested scrapping the entire campaign finance regulatory system and replacing it with two laws: no foreign money and full disclosure.  Now that's campaign finance reform I can get behind.

Plains Politics and DM&E

A friend of mine has just started a blog, and begins with a great analysis of the DM&E Story.  Check it out here, and here's an excerpt.

While the project has been met with wide support, that wide support has been
overshadowed by the opposition of the richest community the train is and
will travel through. Rochester, MN opposes this plan because they believe it
will disrupt their crown jewel: Mayo Clinic. Presidents, dignitaries, and
various other famous people have been treated to the worlds-best care at
Mayo Clinic, and this train project will disrupt that, according to Mayo
Clinic. Where do the politics come into this? Former-Senator from SD, Tom
Daschle, was appointed to the Mayo Board of Directors in early 2006, and has
voiced opposition to the plan. Former-governor of SD, William Janklow, was
hired as a consultant by Mayo. Ironically, Janklow has shown wide support
for this project when he was in elected office. So, it seems these two are
opposing something that could clearly benefit the economy of South Dakota
immensely. Kevin Schieffer, CEO of DM&E, used to be Former-Senator from SD,
Larry Pressler's chief of staff. The politics in this fight even run deeper
and wider than that though. It is quite unfortunate that this amazing level
of politics and anger can get in the way of something that could truly push
the SD economy to the next level.

Great Danes!

The Danes have foiled a terror plot in their homeland.  You don't mess with the land of the Steadfast Tin Soldier. 

More on Anti-Semitism and the Left

Ken Blanchard took some heat for pointing out that some anti-Semitic statements are proving disturbingly popular at the left-wing Moveon.org.  Marshall Wittmann notes that the Anti-Defamation League has sent a letter of protest to Moveon.  Here is ADL President Abe Foxman, as reported in the New York Post:

"We recognize that Action Forum is an open forum intended to foster the free flow of ideas," ADL head Abraham Foxman said in a letter dated Aug. 31 to MoveOn, which supported Lamont in the Democratic primary against Lieberman.

"Nevertheless, since such profoundly offensive content is appearing on a board clearly linked to MoveOn.org, we believe you should assume some responsibility to respond to this hateful content," Foxman wrote in the letter, which was forwarded by Lieberman's campaign.

Rounds Execution Stay

Sioux City Journal:

Oklahoma has executed 83 people since 1990 using three drugs, despite having a law that has the same two-drug requirement as South Dakota.

The latest execution in Oklahoma was Tuesday -- the same day Gov. Mike Rounds delayed the lethal injection death of Elijah Page, saying the conflict between law and practice created liability concerns.

"No one's raised that issue here," Oklahoma Department of Corrections spokesman Jerry Massie told the Rapid City Journal.

North Carolina also has a two-drug law. But in 2003 the North Carolina Supreme Court upheld executions using three drugs, ruling the Legislature did not intend to limit the number of drugs used.

Scoop: Argus Leader Format Changes Imminent

A reader informs us of the following:

The Sioux Falls Argus Leader will soon be announcing some sweeping format changes.  One of the biggest changes will be a much smaller reliance on national/international news from other news sources and a much greater focus on local and regional news.  The corporate big-wigs at Gannett which owns the Argus Leader and more than one-hundred newspapers are hoping to stem falling subscriptions.  If they really wanted to improvement their newspaper, maybe they could hire some real political columnists instead of relying on one old and boring McGovern/Daschle liberal.

Palisades

One of my favorite local campgrounds has been doing very well this summer, despite high gas prices.

Campaign Finance

The Argus Leader reports this morning that Bret Healy has admitted to "bookkeeping errors" after shuffling $55,000 to Lois Quam, wife of Minnesota politician Matt Entenza.  Excerpt:

The former executive director of the South Dakota Democratic Party has amended two campaign finance reports after admitting to "bookkeeping errors" by misreporting two contributions from a wealthy Minnesota activist.

Bret Healy, who served as the party's executive director three years ago, filed amended finance reports for two political action committees he oversaw in 2003. An amended report is also being prepared for a third Democratic PAC.

Healy filed the reports last week with the secretary of state's office after questions arose about what happened to two checks written in early 2003 by Lois Quam, the wife of a prominent Minnesota politician.

The checks totaled $55,000, and were not included on the finance reports of the two PACs.

Secretary of State Chris Nelson reviewed the matter after Quam's contributions became public in July in Minnesota. Copies of Quam's checks were among documents faxed anonymously to Minnesota reporters after an uproar ensued about Matt Entenza, Quam's husband and the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party candidate for Minnesota attorney general.

Crikey!

I remember watching Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom in the dorm common room when I was attending the University of Arizona.  Marlin Perkins, the show's narrator, was narrating while in the back ground Jim, his younger and stouter second, was being flung into the air by some animal.  When the show cut to commercial Perkins said: "The secret of life is to have Mutual of Omaha Insurance."  Someone in the room piped up and said: "the secret of life is to have Marlin's job and not Jim's." 

Steven Irwin, the Crocodile Hunter, was no Marlin Perkins.  He was the star and he got right up close to the most dangerous critters that God in his dark moments ever imagined.  The news just came over that one of them killed him.  From Fox:

CAIRNS, Australia — Steve Irwin died doing what he loved best, getting too close to one of the dangerous animals he dedicated his life to protecting with an irrepressible, effervescent personality that propelled him to global fame as television's "Crocodile Hunter."

The 44-year-old Irwin's heart was pierced by the serrated, poisonous spine of a stingray as he swam with the creature Monday while shooting a new TV show on the Great Barrier Reef, his manager and producer John Stainton said.

News of Irwin's death reverberated around the world, where he won popularity with millions as the man who regularly leaped on the back of huge crocodiles and grabbed deadly snakes by the tail.

I admire Irwin.  He follows in a long line of English speaking adventures, marching into the mouth of danger and telling the tale.  But I am still glad I have Marlin's job, and not Jim's. 

Another Inconvenient Truth About Global Warming

Yesterday I witnessed a fine example of what scientists call a "tipping-point."  This is a point in a process of change where the change becomes radical and difficult to reverse.   My daughter and I took a six  mile hike around Bass Lake, just north of Ely (pronounce it eelee) Minnesota.  The trail winds around the Lake and crosses the run off between Bass and Low Lakes.  On the north side of Bass Lake we walked across a soft, sandy plane overgrown with pine trees.  It was in fact the old lake bed.  Bass lake used to be much higher than Low Lake (hence the name), separate from the latter by a natural dam.  Loggers opened up a sluice in the dam to facilitate the movement of, well, logs.  Eventually, the dam collapsed causing a tremendous release of water from the higher lake, and a new place for pine trees to do their business.  The dam's collapse was a tipping point.

Its reasonable to worry about a tipping point with regard to global warming, but that doesn't mean we can assume that one is coming.  Gen-you-wine climate expert Al Gore has his new movie out to scare us about rising tides drowning all coastal cities.  But a major part of that argument has just been cut out from under him.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which is the authority that all the global warming folks cite, has now revised its projections from warming in this century.  From Mathew Warren in the Australian:

THE world's top climate scientists have cut their worst-case forecast for global warming over the next 100 years.

A draft report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, obtained exclusively by The Weekend Australian, offers a more certain projection of climate change than the body's forecasts five years ago.

For the first time, scientists are confident enough to project a 3C rise on the average global daily temperature by the end of this century if no action is taken to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

The Draft Fourth Assessment Report says the temperature increase could be contained to 2C by 2100 if greenhouse gas emissions are held at current levels.

In 2001, the scientists predicted temperature rises of between 1.4C and 5.8C on current levels by 2100, but better science has led them to adjust this to a narrower band of between 2C and 4.5C.

The new projections put paid to some of the more alarmist scenarios raised by previous modelling, which have suggested that sea levels could rise by almost 1m over the same period.

The report projects a rise in sea levels by century's end of between 14cm and 43cm, with further rises expected in following centuries caused by melting polar ice.

Now, a 43cm rise in sea level is not nothing.  It just isn't the water world that Al Gore needs to make his point.  Anyone who has been following the IPCC's progress will know that the upper bound of global warming projections has been constantly revised downward.  Global warming is a cause for concern.  We should monitor it and try to make projections, which is what the IPCC is obviously doing.  But in fact the world is going to get warmer even if we all moved to Mars, and if we stay here and keep on as we have been going, the results will probably be mixed. 

Global economic development is the only hope for bringing such problems under control.  I am cautiously optimistic. 

Leonard Levy, RIP

I am grateful to my colleague, Professor Schaff, for his memorial post on my old teacher, Leonard Levy.  I only had Dr. Levy for one course, Historical Foundations of the American Constitution, but there was no one more qualified to teach that course in the world.  We read well over a hundred pages a day, and there was no written work.  Our grade was solely determined by our answers in class.  We started out with about 12 students, three from the Government Department.  One was Steven Hayward, who has recently written books on Reagan and Churchill.  The rest of the students were from the History Department.

Levy was magnificent and terrifying in the classroom.  If he asked you a question, you had better have an answer; and you had better be ready to defend your answer.  If you ever said anything slightly wobbly like, "I think . . . " Levy would shout "I don't want to know what you think.  I want to know what the answer is!"  By the end of the course, half the history students switched to the Education Department. The Government students, I am happy to report, stood our ground.

Levy was one of the great historians, and was also one of great principled civil libertarians.  As Claremont Graduate School began to change in the 1980's, Levy became increasingly marginalized.  The new regime at Claremont was vehemently hostile to the conservatives on campus, and regarded any liberal who did not share that hostility as a traitor.  As it turned out, Levy had far more support from the conservatives than he did from the campus left. 

We received this kind note from Cary Cady:

Jon Schaff:

Thanks for you post on Leonard Levy's death. His book "Original Intent and The Framers Constitution" ranks as one of my favorite books. I am a proud owner of a first edition that I purchased from a Half Price Books store while stranded in Madison, WI three years ago. Best damn $10 ever spent. I had never heard of the man, but was attracted by the title and was not disappointed. I believe I read half the book that night in my hotel room.
    Your post made me pull my copy off of my bookshelf and I found 6 book marks in favorite passages.
The spine is starting to come apart from my constantly referring to it. What a great read! Tell Ken Blanchard that I'm am truly envious of him for having Levy as a professor. What a loss. RIP.

I will always remember Professor Levy fondly. 

New Blog

Jason Folkerts, whose political cartoons are featured in the Argus Leader, now has a blog.  Head over and check it out.  Welcome aboard, Jason!