South Dakota Politics

The Slow-Bleed Democrats

Mark Steyn writing in the Chicago Sun Times:

In the capital city of the most powerful nation on the planet, the political class spent last week trying to craft a bipartisan defeat strategy, and they might yet pull it off. Consider this extraordinary report from the Washington Post:

"Democratic leaders have rallied around a strategy that would fully fund the president's $100 billion request for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but would limit his ability to use the money. . . . The plan is aimed at tamping down calls from the Democrats' liberal wing for Congress to simply end funding for the war.  The Murtha plan, based on existing military guidelines, includes a stipulation that Army troops who have already served in Iraq must be granted two years at home before an additional deployment. . . . The idea is to slowly choke off the war by stopping the deployment of troops from units that have been badly degraded by four years of combat."

So "the Murtha plan" is to deny the president the possibility of victory while making sure Democrats don't have to share the blame for the defeat. But of course he's a great American! He's a patriot! He supports the troops! He doesn't support them in the mission, but he'd like them to continue failing at it for a couple more years. As John Kerry wondered during Vietnam, how do you ask a soldier to be the last man to die for a mistake? By nominally "fully funding" a war you don't believe in but "limiting his ability to use the money." Or as the endearingly honest anti-war group MoveCongress.org put it, in an e-mail preview of an exclusive interview with the wise old Murtha:

"Chairman Murtha will describe his strategy for not only limiting the deployment of troops to Iraq but undermining other aspects of the president's foreign and national security policy."

"Undermining"? Why not? To the Slow-Bleed Democrats, it's the Republicans' war.

UPDATE:  Also see this Investor's Business Daily editorial debunking the notion that the midterm elections were a referendum on the war (HT to Instapundit).  Note this poll data from the article:

Meet the New Majority, Same As the Old Majority

The Washington Post writes about how the more things change the more they stay the same in "In Majority, Democrats Run Hill Much as GOP Did":

Democrats pledged to bring courtesy to the Capitol when they assumed control of Congress last month. But from the start, the new majority used its muscle to force through its agenda in the House and sideline Republicans.

And after an initial burst of lawmaking, the Democratic juggernaut has kept on rolling.

Of nine major bills passed by the House since the 110th Congress began, Republicans have been allowed to make amendments to just one, a measure directing federal research into additives to biofuels. In the arcane world of Capitol Hill, where the majority dictates which legislation comes before the House and which dies on a shelf, the ability to offer amendments from the floor is one of the minority's few tools.

Last week, the strong-arming continued during the most important debate the Congress has faced yet -- the discussion about the Iraq war. Democrats initially said they would allow Republicans to propose one alternative to the resolution denouncing a troop buildup but, days later, they thought better of it.

...

Some say Democrats risk being accused of the same abuse of power that Republicans were charged with when they were running Capitol Hill. Republicans became notorious for tactics such as prolonging a roll call vote for three hours in order to round up enough Republicans to pass a bill or failing to notify Democratic members of committee meetings or negotiating sessions.

"They're on thin ice now," Norman J. Ornstein, a congressional scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, said of the new Democratic leaders. "I'm getting uneasy about this lack of amendments. . . . They're getting to the point where you're past the initial period where you've got an excuse to operate with a firm hand. It's going to be increasingly difficult to rationalize."

In May, months before her party won control of Congress and she became speaker, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said "bills should generally come to the floor under a procedure that allows open, full and fair debate consisting of a full amendment process that grants the minority the right to offer its alternatives, including a substitute." After the election, Pelosi told the Associated Press: "The principle of civility and respect for minority participation in this House is something we promised the American people. It's the right thing to do."

In the first weeks of the new Congress, however, Democrats bypassed the usual legislative committees, refused to allow any amendments and took their agenda straight to the floor for passage. They said they needed a clear path to pass a handful of popular measures that were the basis of their successful November campaign, including expanded money for stem cell research, an increase in the federal minimum wage and implementation of recommendations of the Sept. 11 commission.

Be sure to read the whole story.  Politicians on the national and local level assured us they learned their lesson in November.  But with stories like the one above and with local events (it seems like the entire South Dakota blogosphere has come down on the legislature for it's nanny statism), a simple question must be asked: what has changed?

Aberdeen Area Cracker Barrel, Week III

Some issues that came up at yesterday's Cracker Barrel.

1. The Northern Route to the Black Hills seems dead for now, but there is some indication that the issue will rear its head again next year with greater support from the Legislature.
2. Taxes, Taxes, Taxes.  I will not even try to explain the rather byzantine discussion of the various tax proposals being bantered around in Pierre.  This looks like it might be a big week for taxes, though.  Al Novstrup's HB 1308 is scheduled for discussion and vote in the House on Tuesday and SB 173 later in the week.  I think the quote of the day went to Burt Elliott, who stated that SB 173 might be good for some parts of the state, but "it's crap for Brown County."
3. Education.  The legislators think that k-12 will get 3% and then around $9 million more.  It sounds like there is some discussion as to whether extra money should go into the formula or be treated as one time money. 
4. HPV vaccination.  This isn't that controverial.  Al Novstrup did point out that right now there is only one supplier of the vaccine, but another is one the way.  The cost to the state from the one supplier (Merck) is about $1 million for every life saved.  Novstrup stated that it is uncomfortable to talk in those terms, but a legislator has to decide whether $1 million for one life here is worth it when you might save ten lives spending that money another way.  Still, he did not come out in opposition. 

I will leave it at that.  I am experiencing massive computer problems so I am not linking to the bills.  You can easily find them at the LRC site.  My blogging might be light this week as my hard drive slowly dies. 

WaPo Slams Murtha

The following is from today's Washington Post.  It is entitled "Not the 'Real Vote'":

Mr. Murtha has a different idea. He would stop the surge by crudely hamstringing the ability of military commanders to deploy troops. In an interview carried Thursday by the Web site MoveCongress.org, Mr. Murtha said he would attach language to a war funding bill that would prohibit the redeployment of units that have been at home for less than a year, stop the extension of tours beyond 12 months, and prohibit units from shipping out if they do not train with all of their equipment. His aim, he made clear, is not to improve readiness but to "stop the surge." So why not straightforwardly strip the money out of the appropriations bill -- an action Congress is clearly empowered to take -- rather than try to micromanage the Army in a way that may be unconstitutional? Because, Mr. Murtha said, it will deflect accusations that he is trying to do what he is trying to do. "What we are saying will be very hard to find fault with," he said.

Mr. Murtha's cynicism is matched by an alarming ignorance about conditions in Iraq. He continues to insist that Iraq "would be more stable with us out of there," in spite of the consensus of U.S. intelligence agencies that early withdrawal would produce "massive civilian casualties." He says he wants to force the administration to "bulldoze" the Abu Ghraib prison, even though it was emptied of prisoners and turned over to the Iraqi government last year. He wants to "get our troops out of the Green Zone" because "they are living in Saddam Hussein's palace"; could he be unaware that the zone's primary occupants are the Iraqi government and the U.S. Embassy?

Glenn Reynolds comments:  "Murtha is the face of today's Democratic Party on the war. This is bad for the country, and likely to prove unwise politically."

Why Can't We All Just Get Along?

I am sitting in a twelfth floor of the Bloomington Sheraton, watching the traffic blissfully zip along 494, which passes for the lower intestine of the Minneapolis-St Paul gastrointestinal tract.  I am here for the February Collaboration conference.  "The Collaboration" represents a considerable number of colleges between North Dakota and New Orleans.  Today I heard a lecture on "Becoming Global Souls: Building Inter-cultural Competence."  The lecture handout included this pearl of wisdom, under the heading of "Contact Theory." 

Ethnic intergroup contact typically reduces prejudice. 

That's a nice idea, and the speaker assured us that it was backed up by overwhelming evidence, gathered by a mountain of studies.  The only thing I can see wrong with it is that it isn't true.  Universal experience tells us that real prejudice requires an intimate familiarity with the other.  In my native state of Arkansas, racial prejudice is relatively mild in towns that are mostly white.  It is intense in towns that are racially mixed. 

But in fact the speaker knew this.  She emphasized that contact reduces prejudice only "under certain conditions."  I am not certain that we know what those conditions are.  But The Collaboration is trying to identify them.  That is what a handful of Northern Professors are up to this weekend.  By the way: Northern State University received an award for supporting the efforts of the Collaboration since its beginning. 

Progress in Iraq

Agence France-Presse:  "Iraq's Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki told US President George W. Bush by videolink that the first few days of their countries' joint security plan in Baghdad had been a great success."  It's early yet, and possible that the insurgents are simply lying low until they figure out what we're doing.  In any event, it seems like good news.

Funny, It Doesn't Feel Like San Diego

This is part of an actual phone call I got today in my office.  The caller, who was from North Dakota mind you, was trying to verify my campus address.

Caller: So, um, are you, like, in, like, um, Seymour, like, 344?
Me: No, I have switched offices to Tech Center 356.
Call: (uncomfortable long pause)...What? 
Me: Tech Center 356.  3-5-6.  Everything else on the address should be the same. 
Caller: So, um, you, like, are in Aberdeen...San Diego? 
Me: No, the "SD" stands for South Dakota. 
Caller: Oh.  I was thinking, like, San Diego. 

At this point I hung up in disgust.  If this guy had said "like" one more time my head was going to explode, which would be unfortunate because I use my head almost everyday.  My only regret is that I didn't think to use my "South Dakota is the Dakota just south of North Dakota" line. 

Gutless

How else to explain the vote today in the House of Representatives regarding President Bush's Iraq policy?  Anti-war sentiment is certainly respectable and it is the job of those elements, who now largely control Congress, to challenge the President.  But that is not what the Democrats have chosen to do.  This resolution is non-binding and thus has no practical effect.  If they are so right and this war is so unjust, propose to revoke funding immediately for all efforts in Iraq.  That's a respectable position.  But what the Democrats want is all the benefits of political posturing without any of the responsibilities of actually governing.  When Nancy Pelosi throws her support behind a bill that pulls funding from the "surge" or any significant aspect of the Iraq operation, I will take her and her party seriously.  Until then: gutless.

Update: In this sense I disagree with Powerline and Jason, respectfully.  If one believes that the policy in Iraq cannot succeed, or if one calculates that the number of American lives it might take to make it succeed is not worth the benefit, why wouldn't one be for pulling out?  While that might lead to "defeat," it is not necessarily "defeatism."  Such a person might want to succeed in Iraq, but has calculated that it is impossible.  I do not doubt there are some Democrats who are simply defeatist, but I don't think voting for this resolution necessarily brings that appellation on an individual.  If there is a problem with the Democrats it is not that they are "cutting and running," but that they misdiagnose the importance of Iraq to fighting global Islamist terrorism and protecting the values of Western Civilization. 

Update II: It looks like Rudy Giuliani is making my point (or I am making his).  From Larry King show:

Giuliani: We have a right of free speech in this country and we elect     people to make decisions.
 
Here's what I would prefer to see them do, though, if you ask me what's my     view on that. The non-binding resolution thing gets me more than are you for     it or against it. I have tremendous respect for the people who feel that we     either made a mistake going to war, who voted against the war, who now have     come to the conclusion, changed their minds--they have every right to that--that     it's wrong. You should, in a dynamic situation, keep questioning.

What I don't like is the idea of a non-binding resolution.

King: Because?

Giuliani: Because there's no decision.

King: But it's a--making a--it's a statement.

Giuliani: Yes, but that's what you do. That's what Tim Russert does.     That's what Rush Limbaugh does. That's what you guys do, you make comments.     We pay them to make decisions, not just to make comments. We pay them to decide.     . . . And maybe it's because I, you know, I ran a government     and I tend to be a decisive person. I like decisions. And I think one of the     things wrong with Washington is they don't want to make tough decisions anymore.

Gingrich

The voters who have propelled Newt Gingrich to the lead in our Presidential straw poll will enjoy this Dick Morris article about him.  Hat tip to Iowa Voice.

UPDATE:  Read Prof. Schaff's commentary below about Gingrich and Presidential character.

Presidential Character

A reader writes in, likely in response to this:

So what is wrong with Newt? He is a very smart man. Frankly, I was amazed that he got that many votes in your poll from us backwoods South Dakotans.

First, if being smart was the halmark of presidential success, we'd be singing the praises of Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter and lampooning George Washington and Dwight Eisenhower.  Second, if Newt Gingrich was half as smart as he thinks he is, he'd still be smarter than Einstein.  Gingrich has the vices of the supposed smart man, namely that he thinks that political problems are like the problems with your car: if you put smart people in charge and let them tinker around, they will eventually solve all of your problems.  Sure, smarter is better, but smarter doesn't automatically make one a good leader.  Gingrich thinks that the problem with American politics is the failure of ideas rather than of leadership.  Gingrich is a technocrat, which is worrisome and most unconservative.  And if Gingrich's tenure as Speaker of the House means anything, he is not exactly a natural born leader. 

I once had in my possession a copy of the speech Herbert Hoover gave on the occasion of George Washington's bicentennial in 1932.  Many libraries will have it if they own Hoover's presidential papers (and a surprising number do).  Hoover, by the way, is an example of a smart and decent man who was a poor president as he failed to lead in a time of crisis.  But in this speech Hoover meditated on why the founding generation kept turning to Washington for leadership.  If I had the speech or could find it on-line I'd quote it, but this is essentially it.  Hoover points out, correctly, that among Washington's peers in the founding generation there were smarter men, more accomplished men, men who had more knowledge of government, men of far greater education and erudition, and even better generals.  So why did they keep turning to Washington for leadership?  Because they knew he was incorruptible.  One of my favorite paintings is in the Capitol rotunda in Washington, DC and it is of Washington resigning his commission at the end of the Revolutionary War.  This is the mark of a great leader and a greater man.  Washington could have been King of America, and would have been chosen so with acclimation if he had so desired.  But he preferred to return to Virginia and work on his farm.  That's leadership.  I am afraid Newt Gingrich has more in common with Woodrow Wilson, another great mind who thought that if we just gave him the power to figure things out he could single handedly solve our problems.  I'd prefer someone closer to Washington than to Wilson.

Defeatist Resolution

The House just voted on the non-binding resolution 246-182, with seventeen Republicans voting for the resolution (if you read the media, you'd think the numbers were much higher) and two Democrats breaking ranks to vote against it.  I'm disappointed Representative Stephanie Herseth voted for the resolution.  It's a lack of political courage, and a lack of consistency.

The Victory Caucus has a list of the Democrats who voted against the resolution and the Republicans who voted for it.  Senator Joe Lieberman has related thoughts.

UPDATE:  In somewhat related news, Power Line has a look at postwar planning.  Here's a follow-up post.

UPDATE:  In response to Prof. Schaff's post above, perhaps he's correct that those voting for the resolution opposing the reinforcements are not necessarily defeatists, and I apologize for making that generalized characterization.  What bothers me about this vote is the message they've sent.  Even as the additional troops has had an immediate impact, the House has decided to signal the terrorists that just waiting is a strategy for victory.  I don't mean to imply that those who voted for the resolution are traitors or anything extreme like that, and in fact would strenuously reject anyone who implies that characterization.  But I do think it's a foolish, gutless, and dangerous move.

South Dakota and the Senate Playing Field

Chris Cillizza writing for the Washington Post blog, The Fix:  "South Dakota Democrats are doing everything they can to set the stage for Sen. Tim Johnson (D) to run for reelection in 2008. Seven of his colleagues have committed to hold a series of events to raise money for the senator, who remains hospitalized following brain surgery late last year. If Johnson runs, it's not likely Republicans field a serious candidate against him. If Johnson chooses to forgo a race for a third term, the open-seat contest would likely pit Gov. Mike Rounds (R) against Rep. Stephanie Herseth (D)."

Things Must Be Damn Near Perfect In North Dakota

The North Dakota legislature took time to consider a resolution praising the work of U2 front man Bono.  Things must be even better in NoDak than in SoDak if they have time for this bill.  The sponsor's rationale for the bill?  No state has passed it yet.  Well, for that matter, no state has passed a bill giving me money for my excellent use of sweater vests.  Get right on that Rep. Klesh.

Todd Epp notes that there is an eerie consensus that the South Dakota legislature might be distracting itself with irrelevancies.  I disagree with Todd on the abortion bill (it is an apple while the other matters are oranges), but as for the rest of it, amen Brother Epp.

Update: Is Jonah Goldberg channeling my posts? 

History Carnival

History Carnival XLVIII is posted at Aardvarchaeology, so go give it a read when you get the chance.

Endorsements

From the Hotline blog, which mentions Steve Hildebrand, Daschle's former campaign manager, who is working for Obama:

State Sen. Darrell Jackson (D) is the pastor of the Bible Way Church in Columbia. which has one of the largest congregations in South Carolina. He was the youngest African American ever elected to the legislature. His endorsement is among the few in the state that can change minds and move votes.

Jackson is also a prized political consultant, and, during the past two South Carolina primary campaigns, has been the object of a bidding war between top-tier presidential candidates.

Yesterday, Jackson confirmed that he had decided to endorse Sen. Hillary Clinton, less than six days after his public relations firm, Sunrise Enterprises, agreed to a contract with Clinton's campaign worth at least $10,000 a month through the 2008 elections - a total of $210,000. (The contract has not been signed.)

A few days before that, Jackson was deep in negotiations with Steve Hildebrand, a senior strategist for Sen. Barack Obama's campaign. On the table was a contract worth in excess of $5K a month, beginning on 3/15/07. Separately, Obama was personally soliciitng Jackson's endorsement.

There's no question that the contract and the negotiations are legal. Sunrise is the oldest political consulting firm run by African Americans in the state and its services were in demand: at least five candidates, including Gov. Bill Richardson and Sen. Joe Biden, reached out to Jackson.

But in an interview, Jackson conceded that he should have acknowledged his firm's new business relationship with the Clinton campaign. "This Clinton campaign didn't put this on me, and neither did I. We didn't intend to announce this for a while," he said. "It wasn't me that called a press conference." Jackson's colleague, State Sen. Robert Ford, proudly told a reporter yesterday that he and Jackson had decided to endorse Clinton. Jackson, in subsequent interviews with reporters, confirmed his choice.

Nonbinding Resolutions

Robert Novak: 

The real problem with any non-binding Iraq-surge resolution is that it is a political stunt -- a non-binding vote -- that purports to determine military strategy and tactics rather than a military objective. A vote on partial or complete withdrawal, or a vote setting a timetable for withdrawal, which many on both sides could agree to, would have the virtue of determining policy instead of military tactics. To subject the tactical affairs of the military to the political process is probably in no one's best interests. 

Congress, whose power it is to declare and fund war, is much better off mandating an objective than a strategy. Setting aside all the Republican rhetoric about "the troops," this resolution puts Congress in an improper role and at best mildly interferes with the running of the war.

Yes.  And, as Rudy Giuliani said last night on Larry King Live, the resolution absolves anyone from having to make any actual decisions, which is why we pay these guys to go to Washington, right?   Speaking of Giuliani, have you voted in SDP's Presidential Straw Poll? 

In a related topic, former Al Gore adviser Lawrence Haas says it's a bad idea for Democrats to align with the anti-war left:

Leading Democrats, none more so than their presidential candidates, are disavowing their previous votes or statements for the war and competing for anti-Bush purity. They are demanding that Bush end the war in Iraq before the next (presumably Democratic) president takes office in 2009. Momentum is building to block funding later this year.

But, in playing to their anti-war political base, congressional Democrats are pushing party orthodoxy on foreign policy further to the left. After a two-year campaign, any successful Democratic candidate for president may wind up with little leeway to project U.S. power abroad.

Unfortunately, the world will not likely cooperate with a hemmed-in president. Just as Soviet expansionism in the late 1970s reminded America that the Cold War was still on, so may the aftermath of Iraq remind Americans of the larger struggle at hand. Just as our withdrawal from Vietnam emboldened the Soviets, a withdrawal from Iraq may do likewise for today’s enemies.

UPDATE:  The Wall Street Journal, in an editorial entitled "Awaiting the Dishonor Roll," says: "History is likely to remember the roll as well. A newly confirmed commander is about to lead 20,000 American soldiers on a dangerous and difficult mission to secure Baghdad, risking their lives for their country. And the message their elected Representatives will send them off to battle with is a vote declaring their inevitable defeat."  Indeed.

Things Are Good In South Dakota

Things must be pretty good in South Dakota.  How else to explain the attention the legislature gives to petty and unimportant issues.  Our educational system and state economy must be so good that we can turn our attention to tanning salons, smoking in bars, massage therapy, and whether we should require people to be in child safety seats in cars until they are 42 years old (ok, 8 years old).  Let's just get this over with and pass legislation to envelope the entire state in bubble wrap.  That ought to keep us all safe from our own stupid selves.  Because if we are not capable of figuring out whether to get a fake tan, whether to go to the bar where people might smoke, who is a competent massage therapist, and how to keep our eight-year-olds safe in our cars, then we are not capable of self-government.  Dear South Dakota Legislature, what socks should I wear today?  I can't decide.   

President Gingrich?

Have you voted in our SDP presidential poll?  Do so now.  And seriously people, Newt Gingrich?  NEWT GINGRICH??? 

Surrender Without Responsibility

The Politico reports that the Democrats have chosen defeat as a viable strategy in Iraq:

Top House Democrats, working in concert with anti-war groups, have decided against using congressional power to force a quick end to U.S. involvement in Iraq, and instead will pursue a slow-bleed strategy designed to gradually limit the administration's options.

Led by Rep. John P. Murtha, D-Pa., and supported by several well-funded anti-war groups, the coalition's goal is to limit or sharply reduce the number of U.S. troops available for the Iraq conflict, rather than to openly cut off funding for the war itself.

The legislative strategy will be supplemented by a multimillion-dollar TV ad campaign designed to pressure vulnerable GOP incumbents into breaking with President Bush and forcing the administration to admit that the war is politically unsustainable.

As described by participants, the goal is crafted to circumvent the biggest political vulnerability of the anti-war movement -- the accusation that it is willing to abandon troops in the field.

The Democrats, despite evidence that reinforcements are working, are choosing to undermine the war effort without taking responsibility for that action, and then will try to benefit politically from the defeat.  How brave of them.  Political courage seems to be a lost art.  Also, note where Rep. Herseth stands on the issue.  More thoughts from SD War College, who says, if true, the plan "borders on the sinister."

UPDATE:  More from Captain Ed.  Also, more evidence here and here that the surge is working thus far.  Our enemies are in retreat now that the gloves have come off.  The Mahdis didn't head to another part of Iraq to "regroup," but instead they fled to Iran -- a telling sign, it seems, that they have no safe refuge in Iraq.  With al-Sadr and the Mahdis running from Baghdad, the American reinforcements appear to be running into little to no resistance.  It also seems to be gaining favor and acceptance by the residents of Sadr City.  With the militants gone, the residents of Iraq will enjoy the peace -- and make it harder for Sadr and his ilk to return.

UPDATE:  The Iraqi government confirms that al-Sadr has fled the country.

War on Terrorism

The day after the German government foolishly allowed a member of Baader-Meinhof to receive probation, the Italians have arrested fifteen members of the leftist Red Brigade, which promised to attack a "capitalist" target, the Milan newspaper, in the near future:

It began with the chance discovery in a Milan basement of a very unusual bicycle. Chief Superintendent Giuseppina Suma described how, following a tip off, police had examined the bike and found "a minute camera in the front light and a radio transmitter under the saddle".

It was the start of a three-year investigation that led this week to more than 80 raids in four Italian cities and the arrest of 15 people for alleged offences that seemed like echoes of an anguished past.

Italians opening their newspapers yesterday could be forgiven for thinking they had fallen into a time warp and spiralled back to the days of flared trousers, Zapata moustaches, Bee Gee hits - and murderous far-left terrorism.

One of those arrested declared himself a "political prisoner". The media reported on clandestine newsletters solemnly assessing the "current political condition of the masses". And Italy's interior minister, Giulano Amato, said the combined operation, involving police and officers of the civil intelligence service, SISDE, showed that the last embers of the Red Brigades, founded 37 years ago, had yet to be stamped out.

Radical Leftism has yet to fall out of favor in parts of Europe.  One probable reason for this is that many in European circles were fellow travelers when these groups agitated for socialism during the 1960s and 1970s, and are sympathetic to their original aims.  The Red Brigade and Baader-Meinhof are no different from al Qaeda terrorists except they use a different ideology to justify mass murder.   

In related news, France has rounded up eleven suspected al Qaeda terrorists:

French counterterrorism police arrested 11 suspects as part of efforts aimed at dismantling an alleged al-Qaida-linked recruiting network to send radical Islamic fighters to Iraq, police officials said Wednesday.

Nine suspects were detained in and near the southern city of Toulouse before dawn Wednesday, following the arrest of two others at Orly airport in Paris who had just been sent home by Syrian authorities, police said.

Two of the suspects, mostly aged in their 20s, had sought to enter Iraq through neighboring Syria, but were detained by police there and remanded into French custody, police said. An investigation was continuing.

Regardless of the ideology, groups who use violence to intimidate elected governments are no different from those who commit violence to impose their religious beliefs onto others.  It's all terrorism that requires a strong and unyielding response.

Franken Running for MN Senate Seat

UPDATE:  Here's a video of his announcement.  UPDATE:  Scott Johnson of Power Line comments on Franken's announcement.  UPDATE:  Ed Morrissey, another Minnesota resident, comments on Franken's announcement.

Al Franken is running for the U.S. Senate seat in Minnesota:

Comedian Al Franken said Wednesday he will run for U.S. Senate in 2008, confirming his long-suspected plans to seek the Democratic nomination to challenge Republican Sen. Norm Coleman.

Franken's announcement came on the final day of his radio show on Air America. The former "Saturday Night Live" performer's celebrity instantly makes him a heavyweight contender and brings national attention to the Minnesota race.

The New Media

From the Wall Street Journal:

Nearly a year before the first caucuses and primaries take place, the 2008 presidential campaign advertising war is under way online.

Candidates of both parties are already buying space on search engines, blogs and other Internet sites popular with political junkies and potential donors. With 18 candidates vying for the most open race for the White House in 80 years and front-runners on both sides announcing plans to forgo public financing, the 2008 election promises to be a huge revenue opportunity, not just for TV broadcasters.

"There's a blog primary going on right now," says Henry Copeland, founder of Blogads, a North Carolina-based advertising service which automates the process of placing ads on blogs in exchange for a 30% cut of the revenue.

But this year's campaign Web pioneers are already beginning to run into uncharted zones. Some online activists get offended if they think a candidate is paying for ads on Internet sites of the wrong political stripe. And some smaller, locally influential blogs have gotten miffed at being passed over.

One of the most aggressive online campaigners has been the former Democratic senator from North Carolina John Edwards, who hired several full-time bloggers and began advertising on political blog sites in December.

On the Republican side, Arizona Sen. John McCain has run prominent ads on conservative sites including Townhall.com and National Review's "The Corner" blog. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney took out ads this week on conservative blogs, including "Outside the Beltway" and "Captain's Quarters," directing potential supporters to his Web site. The campaign was part of a promotional effort tied to his formal announcement yesterday in a suburb of Detroit.

As in the 2006 campaign, candidates are also already placing ads on Google, sometimes paying to have their ads appear when a search is done on a competitor's name. A search of "Rudy Giuliani" on Google yesterday returned not only an ad linking to the former New York mayor's official campaign Web site but ads linking to Messrs. Romney and McCain.

This early in a primary season, presidential contenders historically just compete for campaign staff and money. This year, they are competing for online support as well.

Naturally, read the whole story.

Legislative Round-Up

How about some actual South Dakota politics?

Business leaders call for higher teacher pay in South Dakota. In my experience with teacher education students, many of them look outside the state for jobs because they know they can make more money elsewhere.  That's an indication you aren't paying enough.  If you want an educational system that is "good enough," by all means do nothing.  If you want a truly good educational system, you gotta pay for it. 

That money won't be coming out of the tobacco tax we passed last November, or so it seems right now.  I say we ask that Sanford guy for some money. 

Law makers rejected the effort to reduce the minimum hunting age to 10. 

"It's to allow kids to hunt with their friends," said Rep. Mike Buckingham, R-Rapid City, sponsor of the failed bill.

Opponents said the legislation would allow 10-year-olds to hunt without first taking gun safety courses that now are required before 12-year-olds can hunt.

Buckingham said the current course is too advanced for younger children, and gun-safety instructors do not want to make it easier because it may not be as effective.

The proposal would let younger children hunt with adults and get guidance and experience in the field before taking the course, he said.

Opponents were unconvinced.

"You've got to be kidding me. We don't want to dumb the safety course down but we're going to pass a law to put high-powered rifles in their hands? It doesn't make sense to me," said Rep. Larry Rhoden, R-Union Center.

I'm with Rhoden.  How can a 10 year-old be advanced enough to hunt, but not advanced enough to pass a hunter safety course?  Tough to wrap your mind around that concept.

Ahh, abortion legislation.  Like Punxsutawney Phil and freezing our butts off, it is an annual February event.  The attempt to send it directly to the people seems a bit silly, although I understand the motivation.  Why don't we let the legislature act like a legislature and pass the bills it thinks appropriate?  Then we can let the voters act like voters, and if they would like to reconsider the law (assuming it passes) in the form of a referendum, well, we can to that, too.  I got a kick out of this quote:

"Banning abortions doesn't stop them," said Dr. Marvin Buehner of Rapid City. "Banning abortions only makes them unsafe and illegal."

Well, passing a law against a thing does often make it illegal.  And which other humans does Dr. Buehner want to make it safe to kill?  What is the safe and humane way to take innocent life?  This is not to enter into a debate over "when human life begins."  But Dr. Buehner's objections aren't his real objections.  There is a preconceived notion that there is nothing wrong with abortion.  If abortion is taking a human life, then we don't want to make it "safe" to get one and we don't want it to be legal.  If abortion is not taking a human life or if taking an unborn human life is a matter of moral indifference, then Dr. Buehner's objections make sense.  Dr. Buehner's position is a respectable one, but let's call it what it is.  It is an argument not about the safety or legality of abortion, it is an argument that abortion is a matter of moral indifference about which the public should be silent. 

Update: Another possible interpretation of Dr. Buehner's remarks occurs to me.  Maybe he thinks abortion is a matter of some moral weight, but the value of protecting the unborn is trumped by the woman's right to "control her own body."  But again, that carries presumptions. Either the unborn is not human (thus of minor moral significance), or, being human, its right to life is not as important as the woman's right to "control her own body."  But my larger point remains: Dr. Buehner's argument against the abortion bill carries with it some very controversial and, it appears, unexamined preconceptions. 

Young Earther Gets PhD in Geosciences!

I love this story.  From the New York Times:

There is nothing much unusual about the 197-page dissertation Marcus R. Ross submitted in December to complete his doctoral degree in geosciences here at the University of Rhode Island.

His subject was the abundance and spread of mosasaurs, marine reptiles that, as he wrote, vanished at the end of the Cretaceous era about 65 million years ago. The work is “impeccable,” said David E. Fastovsky, a paleontologist and professor of geosciences at the university who was Dr. Ross’s dissertation adviser. “He was working within a strictly scientific framework, a conventional scientific framework.”

But Dr. Ross is hardly a conventional paleontologist. He is a “young earth creationist” — he believes that the Bible is a literally true account of the creation of the universe, and that the earth is at most 10,000 years old.

For him, Dr. Ross said, the methods and theories of paleontology are one “paradigm” for studying the past, and Scripture is another. In the paleontological paradigm, he said, the dates in his dissertation are entirely appropriate. The fact that as a young earth creationist he has a different view just means, he said, “that I am separating the different paradigms.”

A typical reaction to this story is found in a letter to the NYT's, by one John S. Foley:

Marcus R. Ross . . .  is certainly entitled to believe whatever he wants about the origins of the universe.  . . . What I find deeply disturbing, however, is that Mr. Ross could believe that the earth was created 10,000 years ago, but nevertheless write in his dissertation that mosasaurs, or marine reptiles, existed more than 65 million years ago. And the University of Rhode Island condoned this academic sleight-of-hand by conferring an advanced degree on him.

Mr. Foley is all for freedom of thought, he just doesn't think that people who believe what Mr. Ross believes should get a PhD in his field, even if he meets all the requirements.

In fact, Mr. Ross's juggling of "paradigms" goes all the way back to the beginnings of modern science.  When Copernicus published his sun-centered theory of the solar system, he did not present it as the truth, for that would have come into conflict with Church doctrine.  He presented it merely as a useful model.  Mr. Ross is doing much the same thing.  He believes the universe is only 10,000 years old, but he is willing to use the older earth model in his scholarship.

Now I think the "young earth" idea is about as goofy as believing in the Easter Bunny.  But what Mr. Ross believes, as a matter of religious faith, is immaterial to whether his dissertation was acceptable or not.  If we really believe in freedom of thought, and in intellectual diversity, there should be no question that he deserves his PhD. 

Blog if you Hate Bloggers II: John Edwards Edition

Democratic contender John Edwards should have been reading the Northern Valley Beacon.  He might then have been forewarned about the dangers inherent in the blogosphere.  Here is Howard Kurtz (hat tip to Michelle Malkin):

Days after Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards decided against firing two liberal bloggers with a history of inflammatory writing, one resigned last night with a blast at "right wing shills" for driving her out of the campaign.  Amanda Marcotte, whose writings were assailed as anti-Catholic, wrote yesterday on her blog that the Edwards camp had accepted her resignation.

One of the problems with blogging is that you have no editor to forcefully point out when you have crossed the line.  Ms. Marcotte probably crossed it:

Among other things, Marcotte had written: "The Catholic church is not about to let something like compassion for girls get in the way of using the state as an instrument to force women to bear more tithing Catholics." She also questioned, in explicit language, what would have happened if the Virgin Mary had taken the emergency contraceptive called Plan B.

Last month, Marcotte wrote of the Duke University rape case: "Can't a few white boys sexually assault a black woman anymore without people getting all wound up about it? So unfair."

Now this is nasty stuff, but political discourse is a rough business and the history of political letters is full of things as bad or worse.  The problem is that the Edwards campaign just can't be associated with such sentiments.  So candidate Edwards refused to fire the two bloggers.  But the one resigned yesterday, and the other, Melissa McEwan, resigned from the Edward's campaign today.  Both insisted that the weren't fired, but voluntarily stepped down to protect the campaign and to spend time on other things.  That's what you get to say when your boss has decided you must go, but doesn't want to take responsibility for it. 

 

Blog if you Hate Bloggers!

Our fellow blogger Todd Epp amuses himself and his readers over Professor David Newquist's last in a long series of blogs against blogging.  Here is a bit from Newquist's post:

First of all, I blog. I think blogs have a potential. But that potential has been taken over by the base, the malevolent, the devotees of self-fellation, and those who cannot get their words registered in the more sentient and literate forums. Blogs provide anyone who can click a mouse and manipulate a keyboard to express their attitudes and thoughts. And by the same token, they provide evidence of how many people lead lives of ignorance, resentment, and petty malevolence. People who value the best that is thought and said by humans necessarily avoid blogs.

Now I don't think that there is any contradiction in the fact that David blogs about the flaws of blogging, anymore than there would be in an editorialist who writes about the decline of newspaper editorials.  It's just that, like Todd, I think its a bit amusing.  I also think that a comparison of Epp's SDWatch, and the Northern Valley Beacon is instructive.  Both Epp and Newquist obviously care about politics, but Epp's blog falls into a type we might call the Joker.  He is mostly amused by the political scene, and shares the joke with his readers.  The NVB belongs to the tribe of scowlers, and writes to scowl at "the base, the malevolent, the devotees of self-fellation, and those who cannot get their words registered in the more sentient and literate forums."  This is itself a respectable literary form, though I admit that I prefer more humor. 

I do think that David has more than one good point.  Anyone who looks at the list of blogs that appears on almost any major blog will realize that there are far too many to sample and that it can be very hard to tell the excellent from the mediocre or atrocious examples.  I also think it is unfortunate that blogs give voice and provides networks to the worst kind of political activist.  David says:

I have nothing against blogging. I do have a revulsion toward willful ignorance and human malice. Blogging permits people who are driven by those qualities to assert themselves. I prefer to avoid such assertions. And so do many people who want humankind to stay in control of its technology, not be controlled by it.

James Madison, writing in Federalist 10, thought that a chief advantage of a large and diverse republic was that the more extreme elements would be unable to discover and coordinate with one another.  At first glance, blogging seems to have changed that, and I think Professor Newquist is right to express concern. 

On the other hand, the sheer number of blogs in the very large and diverse virtual republic of letters may tend to submerge and even fragment the more extreme elements in the body politic.  Extremist avoid compromise by definition, and so tend to segregate themselves into smaller and smaller groups over time.  While major conservative and liberal blogs with hundreds of thousands of readers, like Powerline and the Daily KOS, seem to be extremists to each other and their respective audiences, I see moderating influences at both.  Maybe Madison was right to be confident. 

Sadr Out

ABC News:

The story tonight in Iraq is not the arrival of more U.S. troops, but the departure of one of the country's most powerful men, Moqtada al Sadr and members of his army.

According to senior military officials al Sadr left Baghdad two to three weeks ago, and fled to Tehran, Iran, where he has family.

Al Sadr commands the Mahdi Army, one of the most formidable insurgent militias in Iraq, and his move coincides with the announced U.S. troop surge in Baghdad.

Sources believe al Sadr is worried about an increase of 20,000 U.S. troops in the Iraqi capital. One official told ABC News' Martha Raddatz, "He is scared he will get a JDAM dropped on his house."

Sources say some of the Mahdi army leadership went with al Sadr.

The Democrat-controlled Congress has been obsessed with trying to draft a resolution claiming what a disaster the surge will be, and before they can vote on it, coalition forces and the Maliki government have sent one of Iraq's worst actors out of Baghdad.  The Democrats are disapproving of a strategy that has demonstrated its power.

UPDATE:  Meanwhile, note where our Congressional delegation stands:

Eight months after she voted to support President Bush’s policies on Iraq, Rep. Stephanie Herseth expects to cast a symbolic vote this week denouncing the president’s decision to send in 21,500 more troops.

...

Instead, she said, the president should embrace the recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, which include negotiating with Iraq’s neighbors to bring peace and stability to the area.

The House Democratic leaders plan to put it to a vote late Thursday or Friday. They have said they will give all 435 members five minutes to speak to the issue on the House floor.

South Dakota Republican Sen. John Thune, meanwhile, supports the troop surge into Iraq. Last week he joined nearly all the Republicans in blocking a Senate nonbinding resolution opposing the troop increase. Seven of those Republicans, including Sen. John Warner, R-Va., who co-authored the resolution, subsequently signaled their intent to break ranks and seek a vote on the measure after all.

Deficit

BizzyBlog: "What Happens If a Deficit Falls and Almost No One Reports It?"

HT to Instapundit.

SDP 2008 Presidential Straw Poll

For the first time ever, you can cast your vote in the South Dakota Politics Presidential Straw Poll.  I thought it would be interesting to gauge where the people of South Dakota put their sympathies in terms of presidential candidates.  Sorry for the list not being exhaustive.  Perhaps later I'll make up a new poll so you can vote exclusively for Democrats and Republicans, but for now it's the mixed poll.  Of course, there's nothing scientific about this.  But it might be an interesting barometer of where our readers stand:

SDP Presidential Straw Poll: Who Would You Vote For?
	Rudy Giuliani
	Mitt Romney
	Hillary Clinton
	John McCain
	Barack Obama
	John Edwards
	Bill Richardson
	Newt Gingrich
pollcode.com free polls

Resolution

Add this to the list of "Reasons Why I Like Rudy Giuliani":

Several potential Republican presidential candidates, including Arizona Sen. John McCain and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney as well as Giuliani, have supported Bush's plan to add more than 20,000 troops to U.S. forces in Iraq.

The major Democratic candidates have opposed the move. Several are senators who have advocated a nonbinding resolution condemning the buildup.

"In the business world, if two weeks were spent on a nonbinding resolution, it would be considered nonproductive," Giuliani told the lunch crowd, setting off a burst of laughter.

He called the concept "a comment without making a decision." America, he added, is "very fortunate to have President Bush."

"Presidents can't do nonbinding resolutions. Presidents have to make decisions and move the country forward, and that's the kind of president that I would like to be, a president who makes decisions."

That is the difference between legislators and leaders.  It's too bad most in Congress don't understand the difference.  HT to Captain Ed.

Johnson

Senator Tim Johnson gets a mention on the New York Times's The Caucus blog in a post entitled "Prepping for a Run From the Hospital Bed."  Be sure to give it a read.

The Inconvenient Truth About Global Warming II

My position on global warming gets more support, this time from Fareed Zakaria, at Newsweek Online:

I'm fully persuaded by the evidence that climate change is real and serious. Of the 12 hottest years on record, 11 have occurred since 1995. Temperatures have risen by 0.74 degrees Celsius over the past century. (If that seems small, keep in mind that the difference in temperature between the ice age and now is about 5 degrees C.) And human activity appears to be one important cause. The concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has risen dramatically since the industrial revolution. Methane has doubled and carbon-dioxide levels are up 30 percent since 1750. The projections going forward are highly plausible scientific estimations. The recent report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicts that by 2100, temperatures will have risen by somewhere between 1.1 and 6.4 degrees, and as a result, sea levels will rise by 18 to 59 centimeters. The trouble is, if you accept all these facts and theories about global warming, it is difficult to see how any human response launched today can avert it.

Department of Confusion

From my favorite magazine, The Atlantic Online, some odd blips on the literary radar. 

Why do women fall off academia’s science track at a faster clip than men? The cause is not innate sex differences, a new study suggests, but neither is it a simple matter of gender discrimination. If a problem exists, the authors conclude, it’s about motherhood, not women in general.

—“Does Science Promote Women? Evidence From Academia 1973–2001,” Donna K. Ginther  (University of Kansas) and Shulamit Kahn (Boston University)

May I point out the obvious?  Motherhood is an "innate sex difference."  And there is this revealing study of poverty and privation about the world:

How do the world’s poorest citizens get by on less than $2 a day?  . . .  Despite variance in living conditions—only 2 out of 100 poor rural Tanzanians had electricity, for example, but only 1 out of 100 equally poor rural Mexicans lacked electricity—poor people around the world reported high rates of sickness and infirmity and low rates of access to the financial infrastructure . . .   .

—“The Economic Lives of the Poor,” Abhijit V. Banerjee and Esther Duflo, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

What this tells you, apart from the obvious fact that poor people don't have a lot of money, is that the phrase "living on $2 a day" is all but meaningless.  If that income turns on everybody's lights in Mexico, and nobody's lights in rural Tanzania, then it isn't really the same income, is it?  A chart on the same page did reveal some very interesting things.  Almost 70% of the folks "living on $2 a day" in rural Panama and Peru own land.  More than 60% of the urban two buckers in both countries have a TV set.  I hope that $2 buys them electricity as well.

And there is this shocking news from the book review section:

Women prefer food to sex with their husbands—and that’s OK.

That might sound disturbing to some husbands out there, but not to me.  You see, I can cook. 
           

Happy Birthday, Mr. Lincoln

Today is Abraham Lincoln's 198th birthday.  I suppose many will celebrate by quoting from Lincoln's vast catalog of inspiring political rhetoric.  How about celebrating Lincoln's humor?  I submit for your reading pleasure Lincoln's April 1, 1838 letter to Mrs. Orville Browning which recalls his ill fated engagement to one Mary Owens.  A sample:

In a few days we had an interview, and although I had seen her before, she did not look as my immagination had pictured her. I knew she was over-size, but she now appeared a fair match for Falstaff; I knew she was called an ``old maid'', and I felt no doubt of the truth of at least half of the appelation; but now, when I beheld her, I could not for my life avoid thinking of my mother; and this, not from withered features, for her skin was too full of fat, to permit its contracting in to wrinkles; but from her want of teeth, weather-beaten appearance in general, and from a kind of notion that ran in my head, that nothing could have commenced at the size of infancy, and reached her present bulk in less than thirtyfive or forty years; and, in short, I was not all pleased with her. But what could I do? I had told her sister that I would take her for better or for worse; and I made a point of honor and conscience in all things, to stick to my word, especially if others had been induced to act on it, which in this case, I doubted not they had, for I was now fairly convinced, that no other man on earth would have her, and hence the conclusion that they were bent on holding me to my bargain. Well, thought I, I have said it, and, be consequences what they may, it shall not be my fault if I fail to do it. At once I determined to consider her my wife; and this done, all my powers of discovery were put to the rack, in search of perfections in her, which might be fairly set-off against her defects. I tried to immagine she was handsome, which, but for her unfortunate corpulency, was actually true. Exclusive of this, no woman that I have seen, has a finer face. I also tried to convince myself, that the mind was much more to be valued than the person; and in this, she was not inferior, as I could discover, to any with whom I had been acquainted.

On a serious note, it is a shame, a damn shame, that we do not celebrate Mr. Lincoln's and Mr. Washington's birthdays as separate holidays.  A nation which cannot, or will not, remember its greatness is not a great nation. 

SB 173 Story

Rapid City Journal reports on SB 173 which aims to dramatically change how South Dakota taxes agricultural property.  I commented on this bill here. 

American Mozart II

When I was in grad school I joined some undergrads and went to a Duke Ellington festival in L.A.  The late Chuck Niles, who was the master DJ at the major jazz radio station, was the MC.  Kicking the thing off, he quoted some jazz muscian to the effect that the Duke was "our commander in chief."  A lot of jazz fans still have the same loyalty to Ellington that civic piety often inspires toward a king or President.  For that reason, it is dangerous to suggest that the Duke might not have been all that he appeared to be. 

I have been thinking about the Independent Lens show on Billy Strayhorn.  When Ken Burns did his series on jazz, Duke Ellington is presented as a great jazz hero, while Billy Strayhorn is mentioned only in passing, as a "collaborator."  But the truth is that Ellington got his name on a lot of music that he did not write.  He was a very busy man, but one of his favorite strategies was to wait until the last minute to finish music for some project, and then to call Strayhorn in to finish it for him.  It wasn't as if Duke himself didn't have any ideas, he was just too busy touring.  But Ellington knew that Strayhorn would always come through. 

Billy Strayhorn was, or could have been, the American Mozart.  Without Duke Ellington, Strayhorn might never have done anything.  But there is no doubt that Ellington kept him caged, as a secret weapon.  A lot of commentators think that Strayhorn's homosexuality kept him back, but I doubt that many people outside of their inner circle knew about it.  Duke was  a master of the public world of music.  Strayhorn was musical genius in itself. 

YouTube and Islamic Terrorists

Associated Press:  "Anyone with an Internet connection can watch videos of bombings and sniper attacks against U.S. forces -- shot and edited by Islamic militants and broadcast on YouTube, the world's largest video-sharing Web site.  With the global spread of high-speed Internet connections and the relative anonymity afforded by the world's biggest and busiest sites, extremists have found a new theater to display violence and anti-American propaganda."

SDP Jazz Note

Don't miss this excellent Podcast by Ken Laster at In The Groove.  He features some great hard bop jazz musicians, including Miles Davis, Cannonball Adderley, Clifford Brown and Max Roach, and Sonny Rollins.  He has a few local artists featured, but some of these songs will march you through the evolution of jazz over time.  For instance, Clifford Brown and Max Roach hit their peak in the 1950s, a transitional era in jazz.  They sort of blur the boundaries between bebop and hard bop, but some of their albums really give a clear example from both sides of the divide.  For instance, pick up this album and listen to "I'll Remember April" (classic bebop pioneered by Charlie Parker and Dizzy Gillespie) and "Powell's Prances" (a look ahead to hard bop groups like Art Blakey and the Messengers) and you'll get a clear idea of what the two styles are like.  Sonny Rollins is similar to these guys, and important because he anticipated Latin Jazz in this album by mixing Caribbean and Afro-Cuban sounds with traditional jazz instrumentation.  The song featured on Laster's Podcast is off his new album.  Of course, Miles Davis is almost invariably mentioned by jazz fans as required listening.  Davis was influential in the move away from bebop to hard bop, and gives a good picture of how jazz changed through the 1960s.  His album Kind of Blue (which features Adderley and, my other favorite outside of Lee Morgan, John Coltrane) is an example of "post-bop," which mixes the influences from hard bop, modal jazz, and avant-garde jazz. 

When I think of jazz music, it's usually this style of music and these bunch of guys that come to mind first.  Of course, everyone's tastes are different, as are individual's introduction to jazz.  I took the plunge in the 1950s and 1960s styles.  I have yet to branch out into more recent artists and more avant-garde music.  It seems to me that many people are introduced to jazz through rock-jazz fusion artists like Weather Report (featuring Joe Zawinul and Wayne Shorter) and then work backwards.  (It should be noted that Miles Davis pioneered jazz fusion in this album, which is another testament to his astounding influence on jazz; he took the genre from bebop to hard bop to fusion).  Others are introduced to Louis Armstrong and the like and work forward.  However, if I were to write up my top ten jazz albums, many of the guys mentioned above would make the list.

Obama Hits Iowa

UPDATE:  Here's more on what Senator Obama had to say about Iraq in Iowa.

From Iowa's WHO TV:

Cedar Rapids, February 11, 2007- Today, Senator Barack Obama is speaking to a crowd at Hilton Coliseum. The rally starts at 12:00pm in Ames.

Cedar Rapids was Obama's first stop here in Iowa.

In a gym packed with Iowans waving signs of support, Obama says it was a wonderful start of a long journey. Obama addressed a long list of issues including healthcare and education. He also promised to lead a new generation to "transform this country."

As for the war in Iraq, Obama says he has a plan to bring troops home by March of next year.

Of course, Cedar Rapids was just his first stop here in Iowa. Obama also went to Waterloo to hold a rally yesterday.

Aberdeen Area Cracker Barrel, Part II

Here is yesterday's discussion of education.  Burt Elliott mentioned HB 1273 that mandates 65% of all education spending go into the classroom.  My ears pricked up at this as I knew I had read a George Will column on this idea some time ago, and by golly I was right.  The Aberdeen School Board member who spoke opposed the bill.  Al Novstrup indicated a preference against the bill as it takes away local control, but mentioned that South Dakota is 51st in teacher pay but 34th (or was it 35th?) in total education spending.  So where is that extra money going? One legislator, I believe Paul Dennert, noted that rural school districts spend a lot on busing so this legislation could hurt them.  I think the idea behind the law is sound.  I am not going to take time to look up the numbers, but I have seen in multiple places that if you graphed spending per pupil in America over the last, say, 40 years, you would see a steep upward line, i.e., our spending per pupil has risen dramatically, even taking into account inflation.  But if you look at the dollars spent in the classroom, the line is essentially flat.  The lion's share of extra spending on education has gone to administration and bureaucracy, not to actually educating kids, unless you think hiring people to fill out paperwork for the federal government is closely related to educating children.  This bill, whatever its flaws, attempts to address this problem.

Someone asked about merit pay for teachers.  Burt Elliott stated that he couldn't think of a way to measure merit and any attempt to do so has failed within four years. Al Novstrup pointed out, quite accurately, that the Board of Regents has had merit pay for some time (I believe it's about 10 years, but perhaps Ken Blanchard, with longer institutional memory, can correct me).  I think merit pay works quite well in higher education.  Granted, k-12 education is not higher education, but Al Novstrup is likely correct that assessing teacher merit is not the arcane science opponents of merit pay suggest it is. 

Finally, someone asked about SB 115, which I blogged about yesterday.  The question is whether this bill, which creates "standards and classifications" for pre-school, is a precursor to state run, and possibly mandated, pre-school.  Those in favor of this bill (namely Senators Hoerth and Hundstad, who both voted for this bill in the Senate last week), suggested that this bill just defines what pre-school means.  They didn't vote for state spending on pre-school or anything of that matter.  Al Novstrup mentioned that there is a logical connection between setting state standards and state funding, so it is logical to assume that those who support SB 115 are setting the stage for state run pre-school.  As Novstrup points out, any spending on pre-school will come out of the k-12 budget.  David Novstrup argued that parents are competent to take care of their four and five year olds and the time to stop state sponsored and/or mandatory pre-school is now by defeating SB 115. 

David Novstrup's comments remind me of a story I read in the Seattle Times a few years back.  I have dug around for the story, but can't find it.  In this story, child "advocates" fretted about a class of untrained and uncertified people who are taking care of kids in Washington.  As parents go off to work, too many of them leave their kids with "caregivers" who do not have specialized training that meets state standards.  This puts these children at a serious risk.  There is a name for these untrained non-professionals to whom we recklessly hand over our children: grandparents.  Let me just say this, to the extent there is an issue with the upbringing of young children, the problem is seldom that children have spent inadequate time in a government facility being cared for by highly trained and state certified early childhood specialists.  When we concede that child care is a professional activity that only those with specialized training can adequately perform, we've conceded a lot.

Aberdeen Area Cracker Barrel, Part I

I think it is fair to say that two issues dominated yesterday's Cracker Barrel in Aberdeen.  More time was spent on SB 173 than any other issue.  As usual, education came up, but this week it was standards and practices in education rather than funding.  I will discuss education in a separate post. 

Denise Ross has some background on SB 173 here.  To give an idea of how important local legislators think SB 173 is, two of them spent their opening remarks on this bill.  Al Novstrup indicated that this is essentially an income tax with no deductions for farmers.  Paul Dennert apparently asked for and got extended time to discuss this issue at length in his opening remarks.  The Aberdeen area legislators, four Democrats and two Republicans, seem united in the idea that this is a terrible piece of legislation.

The audience member who asked the question about the bill prefaced his remarks by admitting that property tax issues are often considered complex and boring, but that is it a pressing matter for the state.  He is certainly right about complexity, so in that spirit I will try to reproduce what was often a technical discussion into something readable and understandable.  The issue is how do you figure the value of agriculture land for the purpose of taxation.  All seem to agree that the so-called "150 rule" is broken.  The effect of this rule is that we use the sale of land to determine the taxable value of the land, but because sales of over 150% of assessed value aren't counted, in many counties there are no sales that count.  I take this to mean that sales of over 150% of assessed value are the norm in agriculture.  SB 173 tries to tax productivity of ag land rather than its assessed value or sale value. 

But how do you measure productivity?  Paul Dennert points out that in a county near the Black Hills (I think he said Fall River), there might be land close to the Hills worth $3000 an acre and land on the other side of the county worth $300 an acre but under SB 173 they could be taxed the same as their productivity is equal.  Doesn't seem fair.  Al Hoerth pointed out that the numbers that will be used to divine the "productive value" are largely fictitious.  It is unlikely, he claimed, that we will get accurate numbers from farmers.  That inaccurate number will then be manipulated by some factor number that is being created out of thin air.  Hoerth, a realtor, likened it to a capitalization rate in real estate, but, he said, that number is created after taking all sorts of factors into account, not beforehand as in SB 173.  So, as Hoerth puts it, SB 173 proposes to take one inaccurate number and divide it by a fictitious number and magically it will produce the "right" productivity value.  Al Novstrup main argument was that this is essentially taxed a farmer's income without deductions, and that's unjust.  He has proposed an alternative bill, HB 1308.  Jim Hundstad took time argue that he had a solution in Constitutional Amendment D in the last election (you can find that proposal here in the 2006 Ballot Questions manual from the Secretary of State). 

The discussion, as I say, was quite complex and technical and I hope I have given the spirit of it and reported accurately.  The main point is that everyone who spoke on the matter was opposed to SB 173.  Al Novstrup, though, said that leadership is on board with the bill and it is going to be tough to stop.

POTUS '08 Watch

The Associated Press:

Barack Obama announced his bid for president Saturday, a black man evoking Abraham Lincoln's ability to unite a nation and a Democrat portraying himself as a fresh face capable of leading a new generation.

"Let us transform this nation," he told thousands shivering in the cold at the campaign's kickoff.

Obama, 45, is the youngest candidate in the Democrats' 2008 primary field dominated by front-runner Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and filled with more experienced lawmakers. In an address from the state capital where he began his elective career 10 years ago, the first-term U.S. senator sought to distinguish himself as a staunch opponent of the Iraq war and a White House hopeful whose lack of political experience is an asset.

"I know I haven't spent a lot of time learning the ways of Washington. But I've been there long enough to know that the ways of Washington must change," Obama said to some of the loudest applause of his 20-minute speech.

Meanwhile, the contender I'm supporting, Rudy Giuliani, is getting praise from the Pittsburgh Tribune:  "As America rushes into the wide-open 2008 presidential primary season, about the only thing that is certain is this: Bush fatigue. Republicans desperately need a new face painted on their party.  Enter center-right Rudy Giuliani. For many, he appears to be holding the right brush."

UPDATE:  Giuliani apparently wowed the GOP in California yesterday.  Later this week I'll do a write-up on why I support Giuliani and why he would be a good choice for the Republican Party.

American Mozart

I just finished watching Independent Lens, an award-winning documentary show on PBS.  The topic of the Feb. 6th show, which I recorded, was the life and work of Billy Strayhorn, the creative genius behind many of the achievements of Duke Ellington.  From the time he was 16, Strayhorn was writing complex and haunting melodies, and unforgetable lyrics.  His story makes a good tragedy in so far as he lived his whole creative life completely eclipsed by Ellington.  If you get a chance to see this show, don't miss it.  For some samples of Strayhorn's genius, see Straight No Chaser. 

Hildebrand on Obama's Payroll

Note the role of former Daschle campaign manager Steve Hildebrand in Barack Obama's presidential campaign in this Chicago-Sun Times article:  "$3,214.95 [of PAC and lobbying funds] on Dec. 20 [went] to the political consulting firm of Hildebrand Tewes. Steve Hildebrand starting helping Obama last year in Iowa, the state with the crucial leadoff presidential vote. Paul Tewes is now Obama's Iowa campaign manager and Hildebrand will be an important adviser."

SDP Jazz Note

Recently I posted on some classic jazz videos on Youtube.  I have discovered another site that has a great many jazz concert videos available.  The website is Dailymotion.com.  Here is a link with a long list of jazz concerts.  You might start out with this one, which includes Ben Webster, Charlie Parker, Ella Fitzgerald, Dr. Newquist's favorite: Lester Young, Ray Brown, Buddy Rich, and a few others I can't remember now.  It covers several numbers.  Charlie Parker is amazing to watch, but I must say that I preferred Ben Webster's solos.  You can easily switch the view to full screen, and it still looks pretty good.  The audio is uneven, as you would expect. Here's one last recommendation: my personal favorite piano player, Bill Evans with one of his trios.  The sound is quite deep and bassy.  You get to see a lot of Evans and his bass player's fingering.  The number is Someday My Prince Will Come. 

Primary Reform

Reader Don asks how should we reform our system of presidential primaries.  He is no doubt inspired by this post and this post in which I criticized primary front-loading.  First, primaries are largely creatures of the states.  The U.S. Congress has next to nothing to say about them and national parties only have limited power over the format and timing of primaries.  So any kind of national change is unlikely to occur.  It will have to happen state by state over time, not unlike how we got into this mess.  But if I could wave a magic wand, I would make these changes:
1. Return to caucuses rather than primaries.  Primaries have their place, but a presidential nomination is a serious party event and the most dedicated party activists should have the biggest say. 
2. Regardless of whether #1 is adopted (an unlikely event, to be sure), spreading out presidential selection over 4-5 months is a wise move.  This has many virtues.  A dark horse candidate has time to gain notoriety and raise money from primary to primary.  This keeps more options available to voters should the front runner stumble.  Further, this gives candidates time to meet with actual voters and do actual campaigning, rather than simply running a media campaign.  This decreases the power of the media in selecting front runners.  Also, ending the primary season later means we do not have a annoyingly long general election.  As Larry Sabato notes, there is a real possibility that both parties may have their 2008 nominee by the middle of February.  That makes for one long general election campaign. 
3. Have no primary or caucus before February. 
4. Reduce polling.  OK, this isn't going to happen, and to make it happen would require the elimination of press freedom, but the preoccupation with polls takes away the deliberation involved in the political choice of president.  Candidates should not have to worry about immediate perceptions but instead be able to make their case over a number of weeks and months.  The poll we take on election day will tell us how it has gone over.  Also, reducing polling would make our reporters (especially TV reporters) actually have to think about and report on real information instead of taking the easy route of reporting on the polling horse race. 

Those are some ideas on a cold February morning. It is now time to get ready for the exciting Aberdeen Area Cracker Barrel.

Pre-School On Its Way

The State Senate passed SB 115 this week.   This bill allows the Board (Bored?) of Education to set "standards for the classification and accreditation" of pre-schools and their personnel.  Some believe that this is a step towards mandatory pre-school. 

Johnson

Argus Leader:

Two months after he was rushed to the hospital with a brain hemorrhage, U.S. Sen. Tim Johnson of South Dakota is easing back into his legislative work, an aide said Friday.

The Democratic senator has been asking that work be sent to him at George Washington University Hospital, where he is undergoing physical, speech and occupational therapy six days a week, spokeswoman Julianne Fisher said.

Johnson has been watching CNN, and for several weeks now, his staff has been sending him a daily packet of news clips from South Dakota newspapers and TV stations, Fisher said.

It's good to see Senator Johnson is recovering so well.  We continue to hope and pray for the best.

Oranges, Tangerines, & Poll Numbers

My friend Chad takes SDP to task on a couple of issues.  As usual he does not have sufficient confidence in his own arguments to let them speak for themselves.  He has to tell the reader we are "the Thune Blog," and accuse of us "right wing hackery."  Actually, I happen to agree with Chad on one point: the Republican fluff over Nancy Pelosi's choice of jet airplanes was much ado about nothing.  Moreover, his reply to me is cleverly written and he has a point. 

It's pretty rich of Ol' Perfesser Blanchard to compare the poll numbers of President Bush with those of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

He knows we're dealing with two completely different sets of name-id involving a much broader and deeper identification of the President with a much narrower and shallower identification of Nancy Pelosi among the electorate.

I think I read not long ago that Pelosi's name id is actually higher among Republicans than among Democrats because of the GOP's efforts to demonize her in the last election cycle.

It is a fair point that polls about a House Speaker reflect less information than polls about a President.  But that doesn't mean that bad poll numbers for Pelosi and Reid don't count.  Be honest Chad, if their approval ratings had been high, wouldn't you be comparing them with the President's numbers? 

Beyond that, the name identification argument is political spin.  The poll allowed a respondent to reply "not sure" whenever they did not know enough about a candidate.  Pelosi and Reid have been getting a lot of press attention lately, and a lot of magazine covers.  The positive/negative impressions are real. 

The truth is that all the Federal leadership, including the White House and both parties on Capitol Hill, are not very popular right now. 

Global Warming & The Holocaust II

Professor Schaff mentions Jonah Goldberg's devastating reply to Ellen Goodman's comparison of "global warming deniers" with Holocaust deniers.  Here is Goodman's offensive passage:

I would like to say we're at a point where global warming is impossible to deny. Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future.

James Tarranto of the Wall Street Journal goes further. 

Imagine if someone in 1937 had foreknowledge   of the Holocaust and began sounding the alarms, describing in detail what was   going to happen just a few years later. Most people probably wouldn't believe   him. They would be, to use Goodman's phrase, denying the future. But would they   be "on par" with people who deny the Holocaust after it has happened?

That seems a stretch. There's an enormous difference between doubting an outlandish   prediction (even one that comes true) and denying the grotesque facts of history.   Because we are ignorant of the future, we can innocently misjudge it. Holocaust   deniers are neither ignorant nor innocent (though extremely ignorant people   may innocently accept their claims). They are falsifying history for evil purposes.

What is fundamentally wrong with Goodman and others who have made the same sort of comparison is that they are trying to turn dissent into heresy. 

I would add a couple of things.  Science is never about consensus and authority.  Most great achievements in science have had to come by breaking free of the dominant consensus among scientists.  Moreover, the authority being appealed to right now is an explicitly political statement.  One of our intrepid readers, Dan O'Neill, makes this argument:

Since the inception of the IPCC, International Panel on Climate Change, the technical reports issued by the IPCC have been used to further political posturing and promoting of the Koyto Protocol. Usually at the expense of the technical integrity of the actual science used to generate the reports. The culprit for the misleading information is typically the SPM, Summary for Policy Makers. Since the actual scientific studies are too large and complex the UN IPCC's voice to the public regarding climate science is the politically approved SPM. The 1996 SPM included the phrase "the balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human influence on global climate." This claim was based on simulations of global climate called general circulation models which used only a portion of the available atmospheric temperature data. A claim that was later refuted and received absolutely to reporting from the ever diligent press. The 2001 SPM included, "Most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gasses". It is important to note the political nature of the SPMs which in this case was released before the Bush-Gore election cycle. The true conclusion of "Climate Change 2001" read as follows:

"The fact that the global mean temperature has increased since the late 19^th century and that other trends have been observed does not necessarily mean that an anthropogenic effect on the climate system has been identified. Climate has always varied on all time-scales, so the observed change may be natural."

In fact some of the lead authors of the scientific reports have stated that the SPM have a strong tendency to disguise uncertainty, and conjures up some scary scenarios for which there is no evidence. The process used to produce the SPM is far from ideal and may be distorting the real messages from the available science.

I heard one of the scientists responsible for the final IPCC report say that some of the conclusions in the current Summary for Policy Makers will be toned down in the more scientific and longer version, just as Mr. O'Neill says happened with the past reports. 

Dissent on both science and politics should not be stigmatized.