South Dakota Politics

AL

The Argus Leader pats itself on the back for winning an award for its series about "diversity."

Argus Leader reporter Steve Young was named a finalist Friday by the American Society of Newspaper Editors for Outstanding Writing on Diversity.

The award, co-sponsored by the Freedom Forum, recognized Young's work on series published in December that followed two Sioux Falls students - one white, one black - as they made the transition from elementary to middle school.

The eight-part serial - titled "Different Cultures: Best of Friends" - was part of package of stories examining race relations in Sioux Falls.

The Argus could not be bothered, of course, to write about the intellectual diversity bill in Pierre this session.

Thanks Tom!

The biggest opponent of the DM&E Railroad expansion, which is the biggest project in South Dakota history, is the Mayo Clinic:

Rochester and Mayo Clinic have unsuccessfully sought to block the DM&E from running coal trains through downtown Rochester. Final approval for the project from the federal Surface Transportation Board is expected soon, and once any additional environmental reviews are completed, the Federal Railroad Administration must approve or deny the loan within 90 days.

Now the Mayo Clinic has signed up a major political ally for its fight against the railroad.  According to the Rochester Post-Bulletin, the Mayo Clinic has added former Senator Tom Daschle to its Board of Directors to aid its fight against a railroad expansion project which would greatly benefit South Dakota. 

Thanks Tom!

"Are you nervous?" "Nope!"

Don Knotts is dead at 81.  I will remember him as the nervous guy on the Steve Allen "man on the street" bit.  We had a comedy album of that bit that was seminal to my youth. 

Port Blogging

Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit has an op-ed in today's WSJ on blogs and the port story:

When the story first appeared, bloggers were overwhelmingly negative. My own reaction, on Feb. 12, was "color me unimpressed." Other bloggers were more pungent, but the story got little attention in the national media, which were mostly preoccupied with the Cheney quail-hunting story. . . . Some bloggers, meanwhile, were having second thoughts. One of them was me: Although my initial reaction was negative, I started getting emails from readers -- some of them longtime correspondents -- who had experience with the UAE. One had served alongside troops from the Emirates in Afghanistan; another had spent time in Dubai. Some had worked with UAE ports officials. All were positive. . . . As I write this, it's not clear where the rest of the debate is headed, but there are already some useful lessons for the White House. First, blogs make an excellent early warning system. The White House, unaccountably, seems to have been blindsided by the furor over this deal, though most people's gut reaction was negative. As with the many bloggers like me who changed their minds, gut reactions can be overcome by evidence -- but the White House should have taken advantage of this early warning to have its arguments in order. It didn't. That's the second lesson: The White House should not only have read blogs, but responded to them with information and arguments, rather than waiting for blog readers to weigh in.

More Port Deal

Here is Robert Kaplan being interviewed by Hugh Hewitt on the UAE and the port deal.  Hat Tip to No Left Turns.

HH: Now with that background, does the control of the ports issue, the sale of these ports operations, not security,  to United World Ports of Dubai, does it concern you?             

RK: I mean, to the degree that the U.S. can still be in control of personnel working there, and security,I have no problem with Dubai's competence at running a port as well or better than we do. And it's part of the process of globalization, and at this point, if you tell them no, simply because they're Arabs, you're going to lose a lot more in the Arab world than you'd ever gain by a marginal improvement in security. And I think the security issue can probably be gotten around without tearing up the contract.             

HH: What is that security issue in your mind, Robert Kaplan?             

RK: It's about control of who the personnel are who have access to the port, and to the security procedures that govern the port, and have access to the people who control who goes in and out of the secure areas.             

HH: So there is a security issue. You just view the cost of killing the deal as too high?             

RK: Yes. Absolutely.

Bill Kristol Fights Back

Bill Kristol offers a brief rejoinded to Francis Fukuyama and also the mushy left.  A taste:

Does that make Bush-supporting, liberal-democracy-promoting, Iraq-war-defending neoconservative "Leninists," as Francis Fukuyama has recently charged? No. Does it mean we believe--as Fukuyama defines Leninism--that "history can be pushed along with the right application of power and will"? Does it mean that history does not automatically move in the right direction, that justice does not necessarily or easily prevail? Yes.

It would be nice to believe, as Fukuyama does, that "a long-term process of social evolution" is under way that will inevitably produce liberal democracy. It would be nice to enjoy the comfortable complacency of a historical determinism that suggests--as Fukuyama has it--that what we most need to do is to embrace a "good governance agenda" on behalf of a long-term process of "democracy promotion" that "has to await the gradual ripening of political and economic conditions to be effective."

Indeed, it would be nice if we lived in a world in which we didn't have to take the enemies of liberal democracy seriously--a world without jihadists who want to kill and clerics who want to intimidate and tyrants who want to terrorize. It would be nice to wait until we were certain conditions were ripe before we had to act, a world in which the obstacles are trivial and the enemies fold up. Unfortunately, that is not the world we live in.

Hate Mail Bag

We got this thorny epistle from one DRose. 

Congratulations you idiots, you have set the country back at least 50 years by your stupidity in passing an anti abortion bill.  I guess thats the way farmers think.

Its hard to know how to respond to such soaring rhetoric as that.  I can only note that I am not now, nor have I ever been, a farmer, unless you count the tomatoes and habenero peppers I put in every spring.  But my dad grew up on a farm in Northeast Arkansas, and maybe the idiocy is congenital.  Most farmers that I have met strike me as altogether reasonable and well-informed people.  Most of them, for example know that the contraction for "that is" requires an apostrophe.

I doubt very much that the abortion bill, if it is signed into law, will survive a Supreme Court challenge.  South Dakota Politics rarely takes stands on individual pieces of legislation, preferring instead to comment generally on the issues involved.  My ancient faith tells me, however, that all human beings are created equal, male or female, rich or poor, black or white, born or somewhat shy of being born.  I am not ashamed of South Dakota and its farmers for taking a stand on that principle. 

Rob Reiner Saves California's Kids and Only Charges 800 Million!

File under Meathead and the Pork barrel, with kudos to Kausfiles for directing our attention to Dan Morain's story in the LATimes.

Rob Reiner (Meathead, Spinal Tap) sponsored California Proposition 10, which slapped a 50 cent tax on each pack of cigarettes in order to fund various programs for children under five.   The new tax collects about $700 million a year from the state's most unpopular minority, smokers.  Eighty percent of that is distributed to county commissions for use in local programs.  The other 20% goes to a "First Five Commission," in order to fund public education campaigns.  Since Prop 10 was passed, the First Five Commission has been funded to the tune of about $800 million. 

The head of the First Five is, you guessed it, Rob Reiner.  In that position, Reiner has:

•  Given $230 million in advertising and public relations contracts — including the preschool ad blitz — to firms that helped Reiner create the First 5 commission. As companies competed for the business, Reiner wrote a letter recommending one firm, which won.

•  Paid $206,000 of the tax money to three political consultants, though they had no contract. One of them — Benjamin Austin, a former Los Angeles deputy mayor — said they helped coordinate the government activities of Reiner, the First 5 commission and the media consultants.

Maybe that's public money well spent, and maybe it's not.  What is very disturbing is that Reiner seems to be using the commission to fund political activities, including the passing of new propositions.  Reiner's next political project is proposition 82.

Police sirens wail as a scruffy teenager, clutching a bag, runs frantically through the streets. Entering a schoolyard, he reaches into the bag. Out comes … a graduation gown, which he dons to receive a diploma.

The scene is from a television ad, paid for with tax money and made by consultants close to Hollywood producer Rob Reiner. It aired across California this winter, touting the benefits of preschool. "When kids go," the narrator says, "we all benefit."

The release of the ad, and two others, by a state commission Reiner heads coincided with his launch of a ballot initiative that would tax the rich to fund preschool for all California 4-year-olds.

Reiner's commission has spend $23 million on the preschool ads, "making it one of the largest state-funded advertising campaigns ever in California."  The three consultants mentioned above are now working openly on the campaign, though that is almost certainly what they have been doing with the 200 grand in tax money that Reigner paid them.  One of them, Benjamin Austin, is the Prop 82 campaign manager. 

In fact, Reiner managed to pass an initiative that taxes people in order to fund the passage of more initiatives.  No doubt Prop 82 will contain a similar provision, and soon billions of public dollars will be funneled to a political machine consisting of Reiner and his friends. Any independent political organizations that oppose Reinerism will be overwhelmed on TV and Radio. 

California is such a dysfunctional state that anything is possible, and worse is directly proportional to more likely.  But this seems so egregiously abusive that there is some hope it will spark reform. The power to tax, John Marshall observed, is the power to destroy.  Here it seems to be in the business of destroying fairness in elections. 

Dick Cheney: Evil Genius

What could possibly have been going through the Bush Administration's mind when it ok'd this Dubai ports deal? My brother has it figured out.  What does the Bush Administration want to do more than anything?  Reward its fat cat oil buddies.  How can it do this in a publicly acceptable fashion? Give this contract to run a bunch of ports to a United Arab Emirates company.  That will make people so mad that even Chuck Schumer will call for awarding the contract to possibly the only American company capable of handling this job: Halliburton.  Genius.  Pure genius. 

The Naked Truth

An interesting discussion of public nudity over at girlfriday (see here and here) stemming from the cover of Vanity Fair featuring Keira Knightley and Scarlett Johansson in the buff.   

First, let us recognize that air brushing really can perform amazing feats.  Second, the question at hand is when is public nudity simply exhibitionism and when it is art.  Those who defend this kind of public display of nudity do so on the grounds of art.  Surely there is a gray area between what is true art and what is simply vulgarity.  Let me suggest a standard.  Some would say that nude art shows us the beauty of the human form.  I would suggest that for a nude body to become art it should point beyond the human body to something higher.  Simply showing the beauty of the human body is not enough.  Here is a brief list of characteristics that an artistic depiction of nudity might point towards: grace, innocence, modesty (ironically), power, strength, dignity, gentleness, affection, etc.  Nudity that simply titillates and nothing more is not art but exhibitionism.

I am quite sure that what is going on with Vanity Fair is not an attempt to say something about the human condition. Rather it is the use of naked bodies in an attempt to increase magazine sales.  That strikes me as a less than noble artistic goal.  In most cases taking off one's clothes simply to provoke and make a buck is not considered admirable.  They have words for women who do this sort of thing for money, but I wouldn't want to use such language in public. 

Intellectual Diversity Lives

An amended version of the intellectual diversity bill has passed the Senate State Affairs Committee.  Judging from the news story, the bill has been amended precisely in the way it should have been, in this one man's opinion. 

Truer Words

Christopher Hitchens: "Solidarity with Denmark.  Death to fascism." 

Abortion Bill

Argus Leader:

The state House of Representatives voted this afternoon to give final legislative approval to a bill that would ban nearly all abortions in South Dakota and sent the bill to Gov. Mike Rounds.

Earlier in the day, Rounds said he’s inclined to sign the bill, which is likely to create a U.S. Supreme Court challenge to the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision.

That will happen if he determines that it can save lives, he said at a press conference.

The governor did say, though, that “Personally, I think we will save more lives by continuing to chip away at Roe versus Wade’’ than by what he called a frontal assault as envisioned in the South Dakota Legislature’s bill.

Blond Antelope

A little fun for your Friday afternoon.

BlondeAntelope.wmv

Schoenbeck

Senator Lee Schoenbeck of Watertown, on the intellectual diversity bill, said "It's an embarrassing thing for a university system to oppose."  But a Democratic state Senator, who has the University of South Dakota in his district, opposed the bill.  Here's more from the AP:

The state Senate killed a bill Thursday that would have required South Dakota's public universities to file annual reports showing how they are ensuring academic freedom and promoting differing points of view.

Supporters of HB1222 said the reports would assure students that they will be exposed to a wide range of ideas and that state universities will respect those students' ideas.

"This is responsible legislation in light of our investment in our higher education system," said Sen. Lee Schoenbeck, R-Watertown.

He noted that there has been heavy lobbying against the measure. University system officials have argued against the bill.

"There must be a powerful lot of fear behind the idea of intellectual diversity," Schoenbeck said.

"It's an embarrassing thing for a university system to oppose," he added.

An opponent of HB1222, which failed 15-18, said no need has been shown for the measure.

"You're insinuating there's a problem that simply doesn't exist," said Sen. Ben Nesselhuf, D-Vermillion.

Nesselhuf said the bill is backed by an out-of-state group that seeks to promote conservative ideas on college campuses.

Similar measures have been offered in other states by those who feel there is an overwhelming liberal bias among university faculties.

Conservative Country

Clinton Taylor of The American Spectator notes 15 country music songs which he thinks are politically conservative and includes Johnny Horton's "Sink the Bismarck."  Excerpt:

It's no secret that many of those thoughts in country music are, at the least, pro-family, religious, populist, and patriotic. And often amid the twangy lyrics and sad steel guitars one detects a genuinely conservative sentiment expressed with poetic economy and authentic grace.

Shrine Attack

Publius Pundit: The Politics of Iraq's Shrine Attack

Censorship in Minnesota

Power Line is following a very interesting story out of Minnesota.  And don't forget about this, which I mentioned yesturday.

Dem Voters Low on Enthusiasm

This Washington Times report on a Zogby poll suggests Democratic voters aren't happy with their Congressional leadership: "Democrat voters low on enthusiasm":

By objecting to virtually every initiative and proposal of the Bush administration and congressional Republican majority, Democrats are undermining their party's chances of regaining the majority this fall, the John Zogby poll of 1,039 likely voters suggests.

While House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and other visible Democrats in Washington pick fights with Republicans, the poll shows that 58 percent of rank-and-file Democratic voters say their leaders should "accept their lower position in Congress and work together with Republicans to craft the best legislation possible."

Only 6 percent of Democratic respondents say the No. 1 goal for their party's lawmakers in Congress should be to bury Republican bills.

The poll suggests that many Democratic voters accept their party's minority status. Nearly a quarter of Democrats -- 23 percent -- say Republicans do a better job running Congress.

"Democrats nationwide now seem to be adopting this minority-status mind-set," says Fritz Wenzel, Zogby International spokesman. "Democrats are tired of the warring and bitter partisanship that goes on inside the Washington Beltway."

Dems and Dubai

Here's an interesting tidbit, from the American Thinker:

Democrat officials' firm helped Dubai purchase ports

Little noticed in the kerfuffle over the takeover of major US ports by Dubai Ports is the key role being played by former Democratic Party leaders. Lobbying firms associated with ex-Democratic Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle and Madeleine Albright (Clinton’s Secretary of State) have been working (paid subscription only link) to secure approval of the purchase by Dubai.

One would think that our leaders, even when out of office, would care more about their nation than their bank accounts.This hopefully will give impetus to a bill (drafted by Republican Congressman Mike Rogers of Michigan) working its slow way through Congress that would bar federal employees from representing foreign governments for four years after they leave public service.

A sad statement: we need a law that  restricts  former government leaders, who presumably would have America’s interest at heart, from going on the payroll of foreign regimes, even those with connections to terror activities.

I was going to write how I felt about this deal, but my colleague Prof. Blanchard has written a fine piece that tends to reflect what I was thinking.  As they say, go check it out.

UPDATE:  More from the Wall Street Journal:

Bush, Congress Head For Clash Over Ports Deal President Promises a Veto, As Republican Leaders Move To Block Dubai Acquisition

By GREG HITT, DENNIS K. BERMAN and DANIEL MACHALABA
Staff Reporters of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

February 22, 2006; Page A1

***

Dubai Ports World executives plan to visit Washington this week to brief congressional leaders and staffers and administration officials on the deal. Girding for a battle, the company is tapping well-connected consulting firms for help: Downey-McGrath Group, founded by former congressmen from both parties, and Alston & Bird LLC, whose advisers include former Senate Democratic Leader Thomas Daschle of South Dakota.

In the background is Albright Group, a firm founded by former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. The Albright Group doesn't lobby but has provided strategic advice to Dubai Ports World, specifically on expanding the company's presence in China.

Nutzo Politicians

I think it is Michael Ledeen who says that there is no award for getting it wrong first.  Unfortunately, he's wrong.  The award is the ability to shape public opinion, for good or for ill.  Our founders told us that the problem of democracy is seldom that it acts too slowly, but that it acts too quickly.  As Hamilton famously put it in Federalist #1:

It has been frequently remarked that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force.

This is a problem for democracies as much as for any other type of regime.  Daniel Henninger makes much the same point in his column today in the WSJ.  Our representatives, with a willing media, are all too eager to jump in front of cameras to say inflammatory and inaccurate things and then turn the public discussion of very serious matters into just another attempt to grandstand.  As Henninger points out, we are sure to get congressional hearings on the Dubai/ports issue, and there is almost zero chance that anything useful or informative will come from those hearings.  Much like the hearings on Katrina, the purpose of this dog-and-pony-show will not be to educate the public or Congress itself, but simply for congressmen to preen in front of the camera about how much they care about our homeland security.  I expect a lot of finger wagging at Bush officials and variations on the theme of "For shame!"  Henninger writes:

Yes, there are matters of substance in the ports decision about which serious people could disagree, but there's not much chance of that now, not after the politicos have poisoned the well. On Sunday Rep. Peter King of Long Island, chairman of the homeland security committee, was virtually the first pol to light up the ports issue: "How are they going to guard against things like infiltration by al Qaeda or someone else?" Three days later Mr. King announced: "Lawmakers are responding to incredible local pressure." But it was the remarks of Mr. King and his colleagues that drove the torrent of calls to the talk shows. Hold hearings to learn more? Sure, why not. But what chance is there that the Dubai Ports World hearings, like those just held on the NSA antiterror wiretap program, would result in other than more hyperbolic grandstanding?

What ever happened to the habit of political judiciousness in public life? One expects on occasion that Washington will march en masse through the swamps of overstatement. But it is now the habit to be intemperate. Rep. Sue Myrick in a letter to the President: "Dear Mr. President, not just NO but HELL NO!" This is a member of Congress?

Holocaust Denier Gets Three Years in the Slammer

Holocaust denier and professional ass David Irving gets three years in prison in Austria, for being a Holocaust denier.  Being an ass is apparently not illegal, as it is the official position of the Austrian legal system.  What is most lamentable about this is that the Austrians have made Irving a heroic martyr for free speech, when he shouldn't be a hero for anything.  The Austrian position seems to be that free speech is fine, except for really offensive speech.  But if that were the rule, then surely the Danish cartoonists would also be in the slammer.  Well, at least they would be relatively safer there.  Instead they have to go into hiding, and look around every corner.  Congratulations are in order to Austria for for endorsing the principles of extremists everywhere. 

Vote Early, Vote Often

CCK has surged ahead of SDP in the Epp poll.  If you like our blog, or heck, if you love to hate it, vote for us. 

Dubious Thoughts on Dubai

Like Jonah Goldberg, writing in the LATimes, nothing makes me quite so nervous as bipartisan consensus.  I assume it means that everybody is missing something.  Goldberg notes that both parties have swung around like weather vanes in a cyclone. 

For five years, Republicans have chanted "trust the president" on national security. They even won elections on the issue. For nearly five years, Democrats have said President Bush should use more carrots and fewer sticks in his diplomacy in the Muslim world. They argued that we need to reward our allies with trade and trust (except when we actually did it in places such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia). Liberals lectured that equating "Muslim" or "Arab" and "terrorist" is not only bigoted but counterproductive, in that it will feed the "root causes" of terrorism.

But suddenly, virtually all leading Republicans and Democrats — with the laudable exception of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) — now argue that Bush can't be trusted on national security, that our Arab ally the UAE should go suck eggs and that racial profiling of foreign firms is just fine. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) now even thinks Halliburton should run the ports. And Jimmy Carter is backing the White House. At this rate, Barbra Streisand will soon be holding benefit concerts for Pennsylvania's conservative Sen. Rick Santorum.

Both parties have suddenly discovered that the U.S. is part of a global economy, and that foreigners with strange names are actually doing business on the sacred soil of the homeland.  Its not that the critics don't have a point.  James Pinkerton in Newsday, has this:

Let's begin by noting that the United Kingdom and the United Arab Emirates are different countries, with different histories.  . . . [I]n the past century the U.S. and U.K. were shoulder to shoulder in two hot wars and one cold war. Few Americans can forget the oratory of Winston Churchill, who rallied English speakers against Nazism.  . . .

Now to the United Arab Emirates. First and most obviously, it's Arab. That's not a statement of racism; that's an observation about ethnicity and the culture that comes with it. Virtually all UAE-ers are Arab Muslims, and many probably watch Al-Jazeera TV, which serves up a steady diet of anti-American "newsaganda." That's the reality of multiculturalism on a planetary scale: People in different countries are different, see things differently, react to things differently. That's why consumers in the UAE eagerly joined in the boycott of Danish goods in the wake of the Muhammad cartoon controversy; The Associated Press reports that Denmark's exports to the UAE are down 95 percent.

I'll see one Jim and raise another, James Glassman writing at Tech Central Station: 

Dubai -- I don't have to tell you -- is an Arab nation. Yes, two of the 9/11 hijackers were citizens of the UAE, but, then again, as Ivan Eland of the Independent Institute notes, Richard Reid, the attempted "shoe bomber," was a British citizen, and Jose Padilla, among others, is an American citizen (as was Timothy McVeigh). The UAE has been a staunch ally in the war on terror, training security forces in Iraq and helping to cut off the flow of money to al Qaeda.

Isn't this precisely what the United States preaches? Don't we want places like Dubai to fight terror and to grow, to invest, to buy, to trade, to adopt Western commercial practices, to expose themselves to the rest of the world and thus become tolerant and moderate?

Like Tevye, in Fiddler on the Roof, I think everyone is right.  There are obvious reasons to be nervous about an Arab firm controling some of America's ports.  But killing the deal now, simply because the firm is Arab, beards a valuable ally and sends the message that Arab countries can't really be our friends. 

Congress should hold hearings-that's its job.  But the questions are complicated.  Congress might require that only American owned firms control the ports.  But defining ownership will not be easy.  Today's multinationals are mongrels, and you would want to know if a U.S. based firm is not merely contracting work out to foreign controlled enterprises.  Riskier still would be a rule that only firms from trustworthy nations should be allowed to move containers.  That would seem to be Pinkerton's position.  But how English does the firm have to be?  Will we count investors from the UAE, or southeast Asia, as signs of cultural impurity?  It also makes me nervous that the "America-only" rule would certainly be, among other things, a form of protectionism for union workers.  Glassman is right about one thing.  We don't want to discourage world trade, which is the goose that lays a ton of golden eggs daily.

The real issue is not who moves containers, but who controls security.  That would continue to be the Department of Homeland Security.  The real question is how comprehensive that control is.  Clark Kent Ervin, former Inspector General of Homeland Security, comes out of the phone booth to raise doubts, in the New York Times:

It is true that at the ports run by the Dubai company, Customs officers would continue to do any inspection of cargo containers and the Coast Guard would remain "in charge" of port security. But, again, very few cargo inspections are conducted. And the Coast Guard merely sets standards that ports are to follow and reviews their security plans. Meeting those standards each day is the job of the port operators: they are responsible for hiring security officers, guarding the cargo and overseeing its unloading.

The problem here has nothing to do with ownership of the towers that direct cargo on and off ships.  It is a matter of how thoroughly we can or ought to control shipping into the U.S.  A city like Washington D.C. employs thousands of people to inspect the bags of people entering public buildings.  Thousands are employed screening passengers boarding airplanes. Maybe Homeland Security should employ thousands more than they do now to inspect cargo at our ports.  But that is an awesome task, and I am not sure that the ports can ever be adequately inspected.

End of Summers

Alert Reader Rick Richman notes these comments on the Jewish Current Issue blog. 

The Omen of Larry Summers

Scott at Powerline says of Larry Summers being booted that "his leadership of Harvard seemed to me an omen of a kind of Prague spring among the elite univerities. By the same token, his defeat is an omen of another kind. . . . What can we learn from the spectacle of Summers's humiliation by the jackals and loons among the Faculty of Arts and Sciences?"

Mailbag

From a reader in Pierre:

Just wanted to let SDP's readers know that very late today the intellectual diversity bill died in the Senate 15-18.  It was the last day to consider bills and many legislators wanted to get done and were worn out by battles over issues such as abortion so the bill didn't get much time.  But I observed several of the proceedings about the bill and wanted to pass along what I heard.  Not surprisingly, the bill became partisan, with the Democrats almost unanimously opposing it, mostly at the behest of the teachers' unions, but some also listend to the ACLU, which also opposed it.  The Democrats also know that the universities are their political allies, so it was no surprise they wanted to protect them from even the most minimal legislative oversight.  The executive director of the Board of Regents, Tad Perry, was also hysterical in his attacks on the bill, even though he said he was happy to provide reports to the legislature (which he clearly is not).  Several Republican legislators were furious with Perry for his grandstanding and he burned a lot of bridges.  The universities also put a huge amount of pressure on the legislators who had universities in their districts to vote against the bill.  The universities also hired all-star lobbyist Bob Riter, who is president of the state bar association, to lobby against the bill.  Despite the tenacious opposition, as your readers know, the bill passed with strong majorities, almost all Republicans, in the House Education Committee, the House, and the Senate State Affairs Committee.  On the Senate floor, with time running out, it failed by a few votes.  All the conservative Republicans voted for it, but all the Democrats voted no, along with the "moderate" Republicans in the "Mainstream Coalition," so the bill didn't have quite enough votes.  What was amazing was all the buzz which started in Republican circles about what the universities are hiding.  Some legislators made it very clear that in the future they will really dig into what goes on at the Board of Regents and at the universities.  Some Republicans said Perry should have just let the bill pass and handed in a report and it all would have been forgotten, but now he has created some permanent enemies and some legislators have vowed to doggedly pursue intellectual diversity on South Dakota campuses.  In other words, Perry may have lucked out by a few votes in the Senate, but he has created an organized network of critics who will be analyzing his every move for years.  Without question, at least in the power circles in Pierre, the biggest loser in this whole deal was Perry and the regents, who look like they are hiding the absence of intellectual diversity on campus.  Some legislators have vowed to seek all the information that the legislation was asking for anyway, so Perry burned several bridges for very little gain.  Other legislators apparently have copies of several racial and gender diversity reports that the universities have done and they are planning to demand the same kind of report on the intellectual diversity front and they want to know how much the universities spend on racial and gender diversity programs.  Anyway, that's the news from Pierre.  You guys did a good job of tracking the issue.  As you've said before, what's most revealing is who opposed this bill: the ACLU, the unions, the Argus Leader, the universities, and the Democrats.  You guys should stay tuned because there seems to be more brewing on the intellectual diversity front and this is just the opening bid on this issue.

Kranz on Volesky

Dave Kranz is reporting that some Democrats hoped Ron Volesky would run for Governor so he would at least soften up Governor Rounds prior to 2008, when Rounds might challenge U.S. Senator Tim Johnson, who doesn't have Tom Daschle's support anymore:

Influential players in the Democratic Party didn't have great hope to topple Rounds anyway, but their mission was different from Volesky's.

This wasn't about winning.

What Democrats need more than anything is a candidate who can ruffle Rounds a bit, remove the polish from his political exterior so that he will be less-inclined to challenge Sen. Tim Johnson in 2008. That was Volesky - the perfect candidate.

Summers Bummer

Peter Beinart at the New Republic, with whom I do not often agree, has an excellent piece on the Summers resignation.  Here's the core of it.

In explaining the coup, conservatives will cite political correctness. . . . But that gives the faculty too much credit. It lets them pretend they were defending some abstract ideal, some principle larger than their own self-interest. The truth is far shabbier: The Harvard faculty deposed Lawrence Summers because he wanted them to care about something beyond themselves.

First, Summers wanted tenured professors to teach. And not just that; he wanted them to teach large undergraduate survey courses. Summers noticed what people have been noticing for a long time: Students at Harvard--and at other prestigious universities--often graduate without the kind of core knowledge that you'd expect from a good high school student. Instead, they meet Harvard's curricular requirements with a hodgepodge of arbitrary, esoteric classes that cohere into nothing at all. Summers wanted to change that, perhaps by making students take overview courses that gave them a general introduction to different disciplines. The problem is that those are exactly the kinds of courses Harvard professors don't want to teach. Most professors are specialists. They want to delve ever more deeply into their particular research areas. The more their teaching tracks that research, the easier their lives are. So they offer classes on obscure micro-topics. The last thing they want is to bone up on introductory material they forgot in graduate school. Summers, who made a point of teaching a freshman seminar himself, thought perhaps they should. And, for that, he was accused of not respecting the faculty. When he mentioned reviving Harvard's introductory art history survey to one top professor in the department, she responded that no self-respecting scholar would want to teach such a course. "Are we citizens or employees?" asked another professor, pretentiously. How naïve of Lawrence Summers: He actually thought they might be teachers.

Summers certainly wasn't opposed to research. But he was impolitic enough to ask various departments to explain why their research mattered. He evidently believed that, as president of the world's premier university, asking probing questions about the direction of academic disciplines was part of his job. The poor fool. He even had the temerity to ask [Cornel] West, one of only 19 "university professors," a rank supposedly reserved for the greatest scholars in the world, what he was doing. . . . And, for many faculty, the really offensive part wasn't that Summers confronted a black faculty member. It's that he asked any tenured faculty member to justify how they spent their time.

Finally, Summers thought it was a problem that roughly 90 percent of Harvard seniors were graduating with honors. The Ivy League considers itself a bastion of meritocracy. But, as Summers understood, Harvard's shameless grade inflation mocks that pretense. . . . But, for professors, giving everyone absurdly high grades is the path of least resistance. The last thing an academic wants is angry students showing up at her office door, trying to appeal their grades. Far easier to preemptively capitulate, which seems to be what the Harvard faculty thought Summers would do as well.

Since I teach at an institution that demands that teachers . . .ah, teach, I find the Harvard attitude deplorable.  Of course, Harvard could test me by hiring me.  I have to say that I do think there is something wrong with professors who want never to teach survey courses.  It suggests not just an estrangement from the outside world, but an estrangement from the very history of the disciplines they pretend to represent.   

Replacing Larry Summers

James Miller is applying to be President of Harvard and sets forth his goals regarding intellectual diversity:

The social science and humanities departments at Harvard, similar to most other U.S. colleges, lack intellectual diversity. The controversy over Summers' remarks shows that the multicultural left has a strong dislike of even considering ideas contrary to their world view. We certainly couldn't expect them actually to hire faculty who hold anti-multiculturalist views. As president of Harvard I would strive to increase diversity even though doing so will anger members of the academic left. Under my presidency, any department at Harvard that is not ideologically diverse will lose the right to make hiring decisions. A department that, for example, has systematically excluded Republicans, conservatives and libertarians shouldn't be trusted with the power to make new hires.

Free Speech

You would think the ACLU would be speaking out about this Minnesota professor's free speech rights.  Or perhaps protect this student's right to free speech in a Chicago school newspaper.

Instead, they're opposing intellectual diveristy in Pierre.

Volesky

Ron Volesky dropped out the race for Governor, causing this response from a Democrat over at the War College:

Volesky did his party a favor. Either Wiese or Sutton would contrast well with the Governor. A fresh new face will certainly attract attention and with the current state of affairs of the administration in Pierre, could be very competitive. Whomever the democrats pick should steer clear of the liberal dogma and appear to be independent of the ACLU, NOW, tax increases, income taxes, environmental wackos, homosexual activists and unions. Running on a platform of openness and eliminating cronyism and nepotism should be the main focus. That may very well be a recipe for the first democratic victory for governor in over two decades.

Intellectual Diversity Bill Moves Ahead

Celeste Calvitto of the Rapid City Journal is reporting on the intellectual diversity bill.  The biggest conservative/libertarian blogger in the country has also linked to the story.  Also, see my previous post from yesturday.

Any Port In A Storm

The Council on Foreign Relations has a useful fact sheet on the United Arab Emerites port deal that has been so much in the news.  I find myself drifting in the direction of Glenn Reynolds, who thinks this is all much ado about next to nothing.  The Wall Street Journal also editorializes in favor of the port deal.   My own mind is not settled on the issue, but the reaction against the deal seems for now to be more the reaction of a mob, not of reasoned disagreement. 

Strange Bedfellows

Alan Dershowitz and Bill Bennett team up to denounce the media and their abdication of responsibility on the infamous cartoons.  I must say, the longer this story goes on, the more the spirited part of me thinks the tolerant part of me is crazy. 

Favorite SD Blog?

Todd Epp is running a poll entitled "What are your favorite SD Blogs?"  Head over and vote!

X-Files Meets 9/11

Jarrett Murphey writing in the Villiage Voice on the 9/11 Truth Movement.

It's dark in the basement of St. Mark's Church and dark outside on a mid-December Sunday night, but inside they have seen the light. Among the 100 or so people in the room, many wear buttons that read "9/11 Was An Inside Job." Others grip the vital texts in their hands—Crossing the Rubicon, The New Pearl Harbor, or 9/11 Synthetic Terror. Most in the largely (but not exclusively) white and male crowd can quote you the important passages from "Rebuilding America's Defenses" or The 9/11 Commission Report. A few can guide you through the details of concepts like "peak oil" and pyroclastic flow. All of them suspect—and a few simply know—that their government was somehow complicit in the attacks that killed nearly 3,000 Americans four Septembers ago.

Abortion Ban Passes SD Senate

From the Star Tribune:

The South Dakota Senate today approved a near total ban on abortion by a vote of 23-12.

The House approved the ban two weeks ago, but the bill must go back to the House to reconcile a small change the Senate made. The House is expected to agree and the bill then would go to Gov. Mike Rounds, who has not said whether he will sign it. He's an abortion foe, but he vetoed a similar measure two years ago because he had some technical problems with it.

The bill was passed after a series of amendments. All were rejected, including provisions that would have allowed exceptions in the cases of rape or incest or to protect the health of the mother.

The only exception in the bill would allow an abortion to save the life of the mother.

I think it very likely that the Supreme Court will strike this law down, even if the two Bush appointees vote to sustain it.  Anthony Kennedy is too invested in saving Roe. 

Intellectual Diversity Bill Passes SD Senate Committee

After passing a House committee 10-5 and the House 42-26, the South Dakota intellectual diversity reporting bill passed the Senate State Affairs Committee today 6-3.  The ACLU, the teachers' unions, and the higher education bureaucrats opposed the bill.  The six votes in favor of the bill all came from Republicans.  The ACLU continued to say that there would be a "chilling effect" on speech if South Dakota asked universities to file a report on how intellectual diversity on campus is promoted.

This 50-page report on ethnic diversity at the University of South Dakota became the subject of a contentious exchange this morning in the SD Senate's State Affairs Committee.

Apparently, USD does tons of work writing reports on ethnic and gender diversity, but it's too much to ask for universities to write an intellectual diversity report.  See this exchange below where Senator Lee Schoenbeck of Watertown gets the head of the SD Board of Regents to basically concede that the intellectual diversity reporting bill would not be a problem:

February 22, 2006, South Dakota Senate State Affairs Committee

Hearing on HB 1222, Intellectual Diversity Bill

Exchange between Senator Lee Schoenbeck and Tad Perry, Executive Director of the South Dakota Board of Regents:

Schoenbeck:  And do you agree that currently at least one of our universities has a need to make considerable improvement in its diversity?

Perry:  Not necessarily.

Schoenbeck:  I’m just reading from one of these reports.  Would you agree “that diversity is an area that needs considerably greater attention because of the richness it provides to every aspect of university life and because The University of South Dakota has the responsibility for leadership in the area of diversity”?  Do you agree with that statement?

Perry:  Probably.

Schoenbeck:  Did you see the report that some of us have had an opportunity to see on diversity produced by the University of South Dakota?  It’s on your website.

Perry:  That’s fine.  I haven’t had read it word for word at least in the last 24 hours so I can’t recite it to you.

Shoenbeck:  You know that the university currently produces some diversity reports, don’t you?

Perry:  Certainly.

Shoenbeck: And what South Dakota group requires them to do that?

Perry:  I don’t know.

Schoenbeck:  Is the North Central Association a South Dakota group?

Perry:  No it’s not.

Schoenbeck:  And they are the ones that require you to do these diversity reports aren’t they?

Perry:  The diversity report that is included in the accreditation report I think is a little different report than one that you were citing, that is the substance of this piece of legislation.

Schoenbeck:  I am a little curious about why some diversity reports are ok with Mr. Perry and some aren’t.  And if I might, maybe you could explain what’s different about the one that’s on their website and what’s so dangerous about the two sentences in the bill.

Perry:  Senator Schoenbeck, when North Central does its diversity reports as part of its accreditation process it is looking largely at ethnicity, issues of diversity, both student and faculty populations, and that is basically the sole part of the diversity look from North Central.  The substance of this bill is more a political/ideological diversity statement.

Schoenbeck: Has studying ethnic diversity had a chilling effect on your attempts to have an ethnically diverse campus at USD?

Perry:  When you say studying are you making a reference to an academic study or an administrative study of where we stand?

Schoenbeck:  We’ve heard here that looking at diversity reporting has a chilling effect.  You’ve said you’re doing a report on ethnic diversity and so would we be right then to understand that you’re having a chilling effect on ethnic diversity at our universities?

Perry:  Absolutely not.  We do everything we can to encourage ethnicity diversity as we recruit both students and faculty.  I have an ongoing diaologue with the people in the accrediting world because they have to put that in context in South Dakota.  They can’t be too critical of South Dakota institutions for not having enough black students or Hispanic students or whatever classification you want to use when we don’t have those kinds of populations within our market pool from which to draw our students in.  Generally, when we get into those reports and we get into those accreditation reviews it is exactly that.  We don’t have enough members of any specific ethnicity group in terms of national standards and we say fine we understand that.  It’s not that we resist doing it, it’s just the reality of the world that we live in.

Schoenbeck:  What I want to understand is has studying diversity by this out of state group had a damaging effect on our regental system.

Perry:  No, because that is a standard within the higher education community which is accepted.

Schoenbeck:  Tad, do you have a copy of the bill handy?

Perry:  Yes.

Schoenbeck:  I’d like to ask you a couple of questions about just what exactly this bill requires.  If you ignore section two, I think it only requires three things and I want to see if I’m reading this right.  On line 6 it requires you do an annual report to the legislature.  Do you see that?

Perry:  Yes.

Schoenbeck:  Do you agree, on line 7 and 8 it says that the report shows you’re taking steps to insure intellectual diversity and the free exchange of ideas.

Perry:  I see that.

Schoenbeck:  And that lines 8 through 10 give you a definition of intellectual diversity.  Do you see that?

Perry:  I do.

Schoenbeck:  Is it a bad thing to do a report to the legislature?

Perry:  Absolutely not.

Schoenbeck:  Is it a bad thing to take steps to insure intellectual diversity and the free exchange of ideas.

Perry:  Absolutely not.

Schoenbeck:  And do you agree that intellectual diversity is the foundation of a learning environment that exposes students to a variety of political, ideological, and other perspectives.

Perry:  I agree.

Schoenbeck:  I don’t have any other questions.

South Dakota Veteran Speaks

Joel Arends is a South Dakotan and a veteran of Iraqi Freedom.  You can read what he has to say about his deployment in the Yankton Press here (free registration required).  Here's a tidbit:

Arends said he also saw improvements in Iraq's infrastructure during his stay.

"Baghdad has 7-8 million people, it is about the size of New York City," he said. "When we got there, it was like going to a New York that had no police force, no firefighters and no garbage men. There were 57 garbage trucks in Baghdad; New York has 15,000 garbage trucks. People would just throw their trash outside the door, and the dogs and cats and other animals would drag it off. When someone got tired of it, they would scoop it up and dump in the vacant lot down the street.

"American and coalition forces are now purifying water, taking care of garbage, updating sewage plants. American cops are training Iraqi police and American soldiers are training Iraqi forces. That's our exit strategy. We will train them to take care of themselves and then gradually scale down."

Arends said he wants to spread the message that Iraq is not an out-of-control mission.

"In the media, if it bleeds it leads," he said. "Iraq is portrayed as a blood bath. You have to remember that is some guy's career to decide what you see on the evening news. The mainstream media will have you believe we are in a quagmire, but reality is 14 out of 18 provinces in Iraq are considered peaceful -- they police themselves. The media commits errors of omission. Sometimes it's not what they say but what they don't say."

Interesting Take On Port Controversy

Can anyone confirm or deny this:

Democrat officials' firm helped Dubai purchase ports

Little noticed in the kerfuffle over the takeover of major US ports by Dubai Ports is the key role being played by former Democratic Party leaders. Lobbying firms associated with ex-Democratic Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle and Madeleine Albright (Clinton’s Secretary of State) have been working (paid subscription only link) to secure approval of the purchase by Dubai.

One would think that our leaders, even when out of office, would care more about their nation than their bank accounts.This hopefully will give impetus to a bill (drafted by Republican Congressman Mike Rogers of Michigan) working its slow way through Congress that would bar federal employees from representing foreign governments for four years after they leave public service. 

A sad statement: we need a law that  restricts  former government leaders, who presumably would have America’s interest at heart, from going on the payroll of foreign regimes, even those with connections to terror activities.

Powerball

In principle I am opposed to state run lotteries, but if someone has to win, I want it to be meat packers from Nebraska.  Now, can we discuss a small gift to my favorite charity, me? 

Thune On Ellsworth

Sen. Thune has some ideas for the long term viability of Ellsworth Air Force Base:

During a visit to Rapid City on Tuesday, Sen. John Thune said he has a plan that could help ensure Ellsworth Air Force Base's future.

It envisions a big expansion of the airspace available for training at the Powder River Range and other training areas. Under Thune's plan, the "sky area" would double from the current 1.5 million acres, eclipsing what's available at Nellis Air Force Base's Red Flag exercise area.

The goal is to show the Pentagon that the expanded training area would offer significant savings as compared to having Ellsworth's B-1 bombers fly to Utah or Nevada for training, said Thune, R-S.D.

According to Thune, Nellis' training area is so busy that crews often have to stand in line until an opening becomes available.

He said he also wants to create a versatile training environment so the base could host aircraft and crews from other military bases as well as foreign allies that might want to train in the United States.

Much coordination still needs to be done with the Air Force and other agencies on the idea, Thune said.

MidwestHeroes.Com

Powerline is hot on the trail of an interesting story.  An outfit called MidwestHeroes.Com has produced two pro-Iraq War ads for TV.  You can view them at the previous link, and I recommend that you do so.  The first ad presents the voices of soldiers who fought in Iraq and believe they were doing the right thing.  The second presents the testimony of those who lost loved ones to this war.  Both ads make the case that the people we are now fighting in Iraq are the same terrorists responsible for the 9/11 atrocity and other terrorist attacks around the world. 

The argument is certainly open to challenge.  A reasonable and well-informed person might argue that Saddam had minimal dealings with Al Qaeda, and that it was the American invasion that brought Al Qaeda to Iraq.  But it is also reasonable to reply that Al Qaeda is now in Iraq, and its better to fight them there than in New York. 

What makes the story is that Democrats in Minnesota are trying to shut the commercials down.  From Powerline, linked above:

The Democratic Party has undertaken a campaign to suppress two television advertisements giving voice to the sentiments of Iraq war veterans and Gold Star Families who support the war.

Brian Melendez is the chairman of the Minnesota Democratic Party. This past Thursday Melendez called a press conference and condemned the first of the two advertisements -- the one featuring the veterans -- as "un-American, untruthful and a lie."

Its one thing to take issue with the ads.  Its altogether another thing to question the patriotism of those who who are proud of fighting the war, and those who are equally proud of their son's sacrifice.  See the credo of Sgt. Michael C. Carlson, 22, who died when his " his Bradley fighting vehicle overturned in Mohammed Sacran".

Surely such men as Sgt. Carlson, and his mother, are entitled to have their say.  Surely it is despicable to call  them "un-American" for doing so.   Surely it is disgraceful for Minnesota's Democratic party and some of its media to try to silence them. 

The Closing of the American Mind, at Harvard

Harvard President Lawrence Summers is resigning.  In all fairness, there were a lot of local Harvard issues involved in his demise, and there may well have been good reasons why he should go.  What is fairly clear is that these reasons had little to do with his going.  What brought Summers to national notoriety, and encouraged the faculty to move against him, was a speech he gave on the biological differences between men and women.  It was intellectual heresy, more than anything else, that brought Summers down.  He piously stated that "Harvard's greatest days are in the future."  I would put it differently.  Harvard is an institution with a great future behind it. I recently posted a column of mine from the American News on this speech.  You can find it here in our archives.

Blanchard on KELO

NSU Professor and SDP contributor Ken Blanchard was on KELO discussing his interview with Aberdeen Police Chief Don Lanpher regarding the Morgan Lewis case. 

Amber Alert From Watertown

South Dakota AMBER ALERT
(Issued 6:15 pm (CDT), Tuesday, February 21, 2006)

Child Description:
§       White male, 5-7 years old, 3 ft. to 3 ft 6 inches tall, average build, brown hair
§       Wearing blue pants, red shirt, blue coat and carrying a lime green backpack

Suspect Description:
§       White male, about 50 years old, average height and build, gray hair, clean shaven
§       Wearing blue pants, blue waist length coat and carrying a red bandana

Suspect Vehicle Description:
§       Older red four door sedan with a 6 inch gold star on the driver's side rear quarter panel.  Possible rust on the vehicle. Vehicle is square shaped in back.
§       Unknown license plates.

Here's the news story. 

Look Out Gov. Rounds

It is dangerous to be a Republican governor these days. 

The ABA and the Intellectual Diversity Debate

David Bernstein has an op-ed in the WSJ Opinion Journal entitled "Affirmative Blackmail."  He writes that proposed changes in the American Bar Association's accreditation standards are forcing law schools to engage in racial preferences in admissions and hiring, even if it means breaking the law.

Check out the comments over at the TaxProf Blog.

The Liberal University

My colleague Art Marmorstein comes out in favor of H.B. 1222.  I made my thoughts known here and here.