South Dakota Politics

Speaking Of Assaults On Reason

Time magazine excerpts Al Gore's book The Assault on Reason today.  In this blurb from his book, Al Gore looks at the American people and he doesn't like what he sees.  We are too busy distracting ourselves with games, gadgets and mind numbing television and not spending enough time being active citizens.  I, with some reservations, think Gore is onto something.  Here are some point by point critiques of Gore's article.

While American television watchers were collectively devoting 100 million hours of their lives each week to [tabloid stories], our nation was in the process of more quietly making what future historians will certainly describe as a series of catastrophically mistaken decisions on issues of war and peace, the global climate and human survival, freedom and barbarity, justice and fairness. For example, hardly anyone now disagrees that the choice to invade Iraq was a grievous mistake. Yet, incredibly, all of the evidence and arguments necessary to have made the right decision were available at the time and in hindsight are glaringly obvious.

How convenient, one might say, that reason, cold calculating reason, should inevitably confirm every one of Al Gore's policy views.  Perhaps those who disagree with Mr. Gore, say on the war in Iraq, also had reasons, sound and defensible reasons.  Even if the war in Iraq was a "grievous mistake," was that as easily foreseeable as Mr. Gore believes?  And perhaps, sometimes, reason errs.  Gore continues:

Radio, the Internet, movies, cell phones, iPods, computers, instant messaging, video games and personal digital assistants all now vie for our attention—but it is television that still dominates the flow of information. According to an authoritative global study, Americans now watch television an average of 4 hours and 35 minutes every day—90 minutes more than the world average. When you assume eight hours of work a day, six to eight hours of sleep and a couple of hours to bathe, dress, eat and commute, that is almost three-quarters of all the discretionary time the average American has.

In the world of television, the massive flows of information are largely in only one direction, which makes it virtually impossible for individuals to take part in what passes for a national conversation. Individuals receive, but they cannot send. They hear, but they do not speak. The "well-informed citizenry" is in danger of becoming the "well-amused audience."

Are we in danger of being an "Idiocracy"?  Gore may be on to something, although how he intends to combat this problem is not clear.  Gore sees the American populace as distracted, addled, and easily manipulated.  To combat this, Gore suggests a rule of reason:

In order to reclaim our birthright, we Americans must resolve to repair the systemic decay of the public forum. We must create new ways to engage in a genuine and not manipulative conversation about our future. We must stop tolerating the rejection and distortion of science. We must insist on an end to the cynical use of pseudo-studies known to be false for the purpose of intentionally clouding the public's ability to discern the truth. Americans in both parties should insist on the re-establishment of respect for the rule of reason.

No objection here, as far as it goes, although one can already anticipate how reason will once again endorse Al Gore's policy preferences.  Does Gore realize that reason is clouded by prejudice and self-interest, and also reason does not speak with one clear voice?

What is the solution?  Not education, civic or otherwise; Gore rejects both as inadequate:

So the remedy for what ails our democracy is not simply better education (as important as that is) or civic education (as important as that can be)...

The solution is open discourse, especially that on the Internet.  And that requires...more government regulation:

But the Internet must be developed and protected, in the same way we develop and protect markets—through the establishment of fair rules of engagement and the exercise of the rule of law. The same ferocity that our Founders devoted to protect the freedom and independence of the press is now appropriate for our defense of the freedom of the Internet. The stakes are the same: the survival of our Republic. We must ensure that the Internet remains open and accessible to all citizens without any limitation on the ability of individuals to choose the content they wish regardless of the Internet service provider they use to connect to the Web.

How odd that the future of the Republic depends on government regulation of the Internet.  Am I missing something?  Are websites being shut down by their greedy corporate service providers, thus requiring government intervention and regulation?  The only websites I know of that are being shut down are the ones shut down by the government because the sites' political speech do not conform to the dictates of our federal campaign finance law.

I commend Gore for his defense of human reason.  I hope he recognizes that the assault on reason today exists mostly in the left-wing dominated academy where post-modernism says reason means nothing while perspective and narrative mean everything (thus the multiculturalism fetish).  There is a right-wing assault on reason, to be sure, from some quarters of the religious right, but one should not confuse questioning the moral limits of science with the questioning of the scientific method itself.  If one is interested in left-wing assaults on science and reason, check out these posts from a recent discussion on NRO, here, here, here, and here.

More Gas

Don't miss George Will on the feckless Nancy Pelosi making an assault on reason when it comes to gas prices.  Isn't this typical?  Government helps to create a problem through its own policies and then must create more policy to make up for those problems.  Also see this Star-Tribune piece on how some are pleased with higher gas prices, including environmentalists. 

For Jim Erkel, land use and transportation director for the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, the rising cost of tanking up could ultimately change the direction of community growth. At some point the prices will start to dampen enthusiasm for driving, Erkel said. Fewer car trips mean less air pollution and may discourage people from chewing up green space by moving ever farther from the metro core, he said.

Dobrila Stancevic, 52, recently moved from Eagan to Minneapolis so she wouldn't have to drive as much. For the past two weeks, she has ridden a bicycle to her substitute teaching jobs in Mendota Heights, and has tried to persuade many of her colleagues to do the same, for the sake of fitness, the environment and other reasons.

As far as rising gas prices, Stancevic said, "To be honest with you, I hope they keep going up, because I think people are driving too much."

Many on the environmental left, including Al Gore, used to call for higher taxes on gas to dissuade people from driving and persuade them to use mass transit. It's nice to hear some of them saying so publicly, while their leaders demagogue the issue. 

Bloomberg For Pres?

Dave Kranz wants to believe that maybe liberal Republican Michael Bloomberg, mayor of New York, will make an independent run for president, spoiling the day for Republicans.  How about we hear the opinion of someone who actually lives in New York, John Podhoretz:

[The silly story of the day] is that Michael Bloomberg is supposedly ready to spend $1 billion to get himself some presidential votes. It's silly because there's really no reason to believe it's true. And it's silly because the whole idea of a presidential run for him makes no sense. It's very clear why it would help Bloomberg for people (especially in New York, where he is now in his lame-duck second term as mayor) to think he might run — because it gives him even more standing. But that doesn't mean he's actually taking the whole thing so seriously.

Look, there's a reason Michael Bloomberg is the richest man in New York. It's because he's not the type to blow a billion dollars on a fantasy. When he spent $76 million to win the mayoralty and another comparable amount to get reelected, he did so with a very specific and workable game plan for the money. Here he would just be lighting a match to the cash.

When Ross Perot ran in 1992, he had two very specific aims in mind: He wanted to talk about the budget deficit, and he wanted to screw George Bush the Elder, who he had convinced himself had done something to disrupt his daughter's wedding. He had nothing of moment to say about the budget deficit except that it was bad, and he quit the race when he thought Clinton had it in the bag, only to reenter it when Clinton appeared to stumble a bit in September.

Bloomberg has no such passion driving him. He has very little passion at all, which is why he has been a workmanlike mayor of New York City who has succeeded because he kept in place the policies of his predecessor.

Why can't Bloomberg win? First, because independents can't win. Second, because he's a Jew.Third, because he's too short. Fourth, becasue he's way, way, way too rich. Fifth, because, I mean, come on. Sixth, because, I mean, really.

Note this quote from Joel Rosenthal:

"The No. 1 issue on voters minds, though they do not often express it, is that the government does not work. Consequently, Republicans face a very high bar to win the presidential election," he said.

If the government doesn't work, does that hurt the Democrats, the party of government, rather than the Republicans, the party of small government? 

Hub City Rules

I notice that Sioux Falls had 15% turn out for its school election Tuesday.  If you'll recall, Brown County turned out 45% for its beef plant vote about a month ago.  What I am trying to say is that the people of Brown County are better than the people of Minnehaha County.   

Argus Leader

SD Straight Talk:  "I have learned in life and in especially in politics that there are those people who get ahead by being for something and improvement and there are those who seek to get ahead by being against.  The Argus Leader generally but not exclusively is against something or someone."

GOP Debate

I have now watched last night's Republican presidential debate.  First thing to note, as many of the participants did, the FOX performance was far superior to the atrocious Chris Matthews and MSNBC.  Thus it is disappointing that for stupid political reasons the Democrats will not appear on FOX, although FOX is clearly the superior cable news outlet.  It is hard to imagine a more professional team than Britt Hume, Chris Wallace, and Wendell Goler. 

On substance I'd say that Giuliani had a good night.  McCain still is a little too much like your crazy uncle, and every time I see Mitt Romney I find myself waiting for him to say, "Rod, tell us who the next contestant is on The Price Is Right."  I also continue to be impressed by Mike Huckabee and Duncan Hunter.  On the other hand, Jim Gilmore, Tommy Thompson and Tom Tancredo really have no business being in this race.

Ron Paul is another matter. He is getting beat up over his statement last night that US bombing of Iraq inspired the 9/11 attacks.  Giuliani reacted strongly, as Paul seemed to be blaming the US for the 9/11 attacks.  There is a problem with the protestation against Paul: he happens to be right, in a certain manner of speaking.  If you watch the debate (and FOX has a link off of this news story)  Paul is clearly referencing Osama Bin Laden's own statements about 9/11 which point to US intervention in Iraq in the 1990s  as justification for terrorist attacks against America.  So Paul is factually correct.  But he does draw the wrong lesson from this fact.  He argues that America should withdraw from the world and thus will be on friendlier terms with rival powers.  He indicates that the Islamic terrorists attack us because of what we did in the 1990s, not who we are.  Bernard Lewis disputes this notion in today's Wall Street Journal.  If we follow Ron Paul's foreign policy, we allow other weaker and less benign nations to set our policy and to define justice for the world.  His policy of non-intervention turns a blind eye to injustice and threats to American interests until they are a direct threat to the American mainland.  That suggests a complacency toward evil that does not become a great power and an ignorance of the fact that catching evil before it metastasizes is often key to eradicating it (classic case: the appeasement of Hitler only made him more aggressive).   The problem with Ron Paul is not that he is "blaming America first," but that he does not understand the nature of evil nor, in what would require another long blog post, the US Constitution.   

Iraq War Funding Update

The New York Times:

Congressional Democratic leaders signaled today that they were ready to give ground to end an impasse with President Bush over war spending after the Senate soundly rejected a Democratic plan to block money for major combat operations in Iraq beginning next spring.

The 67-to-29 vote against the proposal demonstrated that a significant majority of senators remained unwilling to demand a withdrawal of forces despite their own misgivings and public unease over the war.

Forty-seven Republicans, one independent and 19 Democrats opposed the plan drafted by Senator Russell D. Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin, which would have limited spending mainly to counterterrorism and the training of Iraqi troops after March 31, 2008.

The margin also illustrated the divide among Democrats over how far to go in challenging Mr. Bush over the war. All four Democratic senators seeking the presidential nomination, including Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, were among the 29 who backed the proposal. Among those opposed were Democratic leaders on military policy like Carl Levin of Michigan, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, and Jack Reed of Rhode Island, a former Army officer.

Idol Chat

I have nothing to say about the GOP debate.  I only caught the last half hour because, well, I was watching American Idol and then took the dog for a walk.  So let's talk about the most important issue facing American:  who is going to win American Idol. 

Jordin had a tough night.  If I were selecting someone to go to a conservatory for voice lessons, it'd be Jordin.  But despite her great pipes, she is not a great performer.  Anyone who can't knock "She Works Hard For Her Money" out of the park should not win American Idol.

Blake is annoying, so it kills me to say that he has what it takes to win.  His voice is good enough.  Unlike Jordin, he knows how to sell a song.  As Simon noted last night, Blake actually looks like he is having fun. Sure he is a poseur.  Sure he mugs to the camera.  Sure he performs the same dance moves over and over.  Sure that move where he looks back and then snaps his head to look at the camera is enough to want to throw a brick through the TV.  Sure, the beat boxing has become a joke.  But at least he is interesting to watch and listen to.

Melinda. If there is justice it won't even be close.  Watch out America, Melinda Doolittle is your next star.  She has guts.  She's got a killer voice.  She can be both sassy and soft.  No other Idol contestant could pull off a Whitney Houston ballad and a Tina Turner funk number in the same show.  She is a professional amongst really good amateurs.  Go Melinda, our next American Idol.

Oh, and I have the debate recorded, so I will watch it later.  For now, let me just say that Ron Paul is the Sanjaya of the GOP field.   

Update: Melinda got voted off tonight, proving once again that I am right: democracy sucks. 

Gas Hell

Yes, it looks like we are at record highs for gas prices and those prices while rise even higher into the summer.  Some are now demanding action:

"It is time for Congress and the administration to do their part to help alleviate the pain consumers are feeling at the pump," said Mark Cooper, director of research for the federation. At Wednesday's hearing, he plans to call on the federal government to provide greater oversight over oil industry market practices, create strategic refinery and product reserves, and enact policies that promote reduced oil consumption.

What, precisely, does "greater oversight over oil industry market practices" mean?  I take it to mean regulation and price controls.  This once again sets up a bogeyman to blame for what is a perfectly natural phenomena best explained by the rules of supply and demand you learned in high school economics.  We also already have strategic reserves and the president already outlined proposals to reduce demand in his State of the Union speech.

This very same article once again points out that refinery capacity is largely to blame for the price spike:

Consumers may suspect that oil refiners are colluding in the recent price spike, but analysts say the real culprit is an unprecedented number of refinery accidents and maintenance outages this spring _ combined with drivers' rising demand for fuel. Most prominent of the outages was a February fire that shut down Valero Energy Corp.'s 170,000 barrel-per-day McKee refinery in Sunray, Texas, for months.

"If you just count incidents, there are more this year than there have been in previous years," said Mike Conner, a specialist on refinery operations at the EIA.

As a result, gasoline inventories fell by more than half, to 93.5 million barrels in the week ended May 4, from 205.1 million barrels in the same week in 2006 and 214.7 million barrels in 2005, according to government figures.

Shocking.  High demand plus low supply equals higher prices.  If the government wants to do something about oil prices, it seems to me there are three policies that would have a significant impact.  First, the Congress could cut gasoline taxes (as opposed to Minnesota, which would be increasing gas taxes were it not for Gov. Pawlenty's veto pen).  But it should be recognized that a cut in gas taxes likely means a reduction in highway money, one of Congress's favorite funds for pork dispersal.  Second, Congress could ease regulations on refineries to allow them to more easily expand.  But these regulations are environmental in nature and in the days of global warming frenzy, Congress is unlikely to want to appear as if they are going easy on polluters.  Lastly, Congress could offer subsidies for hybrid vehicles to encourage consumers to by more fuel efficient vehicles.  Many people I talk to (including myself!) are considering a hybrid for their next automobile purchase.  Perhaps a little monetary incentive from the government would tip them even stronger in that direction.  This is the only option that carries no political cost. 

It is easy to demonize the oil companies, especially when the policies that might actually make an impact are so politically unpalatable.  So create a bogeyman to distract the people from the fact that you are doing nothing. 

Canadian Style Health Care: an idea with a great future behind it

Universal health care is one of the big ideas that swell the sails of liberal democrats in Congress.  It's easy to forget that they failed to institute it when last they had a President and a Congress under their control.  Things have not gone better at the state level, as the Wall Street Journal notes. 

"Universal" government health care has once again returned as a political cause, with many Democrats believing it's the key to White House victory in 2008. They might want to study last week's news from Illinois, where Democratic Governor Rod Blagojevich's tax increase to finance health care became the political rout of the year.

The Democratic House in Springfield killed the proposal, 107-0, after Mr. Blagojevich came out against his own idea when it became clear he was going to be humiliated. Only a month earlier he had said he was prepared to wage "the fight of the century" in defense of his plan to impose a $7.6 billion "gross receipts tax" on Illinois businesses.

Never mind how Canadian style health care plays in Peoria.  If it can't make it in Illinois, where will it succeed?

A funny thing happened on this road to Canadian health care. The state's more rational Democrats revolted, arguing it would drive businesses out of Illinois. Chicago Mayor Richard Daley was an early opponent, and Democratic Lieutenant Governor Patrick Quinn was cool to it. House Speaker Michael Madigan very publicly withheld his support and last week came out against the tax hike.

The Tax Foundation estimated that Mr. Blagojevich's proposal would have been the largest state tax hike in the last decade, as a share of state general fund revenue--at 27% nearly double the next closest, which was Nevada's 14% increase in 2004. In per capita terms, the tax hike would average about $550 per Illinois resident.

This, of course, is exactly what happened with Hillary Care.  Everyone was in favor of it, until they saw the bill. 

One lesson here is that it is far easier to talk about "progressive" political causes than to pay for them without doing larger economic harm. In today's global economy, the margin for policy mistakes is smaller, even for individual states. Mr. Daley may appreciate this better than Mr. Blagojevich because he knows the consequences of bad policy will harm Chicago long after the Governor retires to private equity, or some other "fat cat" job.

As for national Democrats, Presidential candidate John Edwards has already proposed a huge tax increase to pay for national health care. At least he's honest about what such promises require, but we doubt it will help his Presidential prospects. Illinois Senator Barack Obama has been silent on his Governor's tax implosion, but someone should get him on the record. And Hillary Clinton, well, we can't wait to see how "universal" her promises will be.

The current Congress is a do-nothing Congress for several reasons.  One of them is that they have no idea what to do.  Or to put it more precisely, they have an idea, but it never ever works.  They learn nothing, and forget nothing. 

Fairwell to Falwell

Jerry Falwell passed away today, at 73, and if his view of the afterlife was sound, and he was indeed the "giant of faith" that his supporters claim, then he now knows more than you or I know about the mysteries of the universe. 

Falwell was an ambiguous sort of person.  I first saw him, many years ago, in a talk show interview on TV.  He was speaking for the Moral Majority, and he spoke very reasonably.  I remember thinking that if this was the Christian Right, then America was in good shape indeed.  Sometime later I saw him on his religious show, and he was wearing quite a different hat.  He was wild-eyed and apocalyptic, and left me feeling like I should throw some coins into a guitar case or something.  Falwell was a bridge between evangelical Protestant faith, and secular politics, but it was clear that the traffic didn't flow evenly in both directions.

The last time I remember seeing him was in a film on Creation Science vs. Evolution.  Wearing his preacher hat, he said: "If man evolved, then God can't have created him.  If man did not fall, then Christ cannot have redeemed him."  I am going from memory on that quote, but I am sure I am close.  I think Falwell was wrong on both counts.  Evolution is as much a part of creation as gravity, and redemption is about getting from where we are to where we want to be, regardless of how we got here in the first place. 

Falwell had a tremendous impact on American politics.  He brought socially conservative Christians out of political apathy to swell the ranks of the Republican electorate.  The late Republican majorities in Congress, as well as the Presidency of George W. Bush, would not have happened without that voting block.  Those who think that more Americans should participate in politics should give him his due.  They won't. 

Falwell was an old school Baptist to be certain, but he was more reasonable and charitable than his enemies would allow.  Some years ago he made peace with a former follower and preacher who had come out of the closet.  That was an act of Christian charity which ought to count for something. 

E3BioFuels

The E3 BioFuels firm out of Kansas is considering two construction sites for a plant in South Dakota, which has the ability to create as many as two-hundred new jobs.  The company combines livestock and ethanol production, using the biogas to run the ethanol plant and the ethanol byproduct is fed to the livestock:

A Kansas firm that combines livestock and ethanol to produce renewable energy is considering two sites in eastern South Dakota for a future plant, its CEO said Monday.

The company, E3 BioFuels, operates such a plant just west of Omaha, which is the first of its kind in the nation.

E3's Genesis plant uses waste from its 28,000-head cattle feedlot to produce biogas, which powers the ethanol plant.

In turn, a byproduct from the ethanol is fed to the livestock.

The plant produces about 25 million gallons of ethanol per year.

The South Dakota plant would produce about twice the amount of ethanol as Genesis, E3's CEO Dennis Langley said.

Both South Dakota sites under consideration are in the eastern half of the state, but Langley is not able to say exactly where because of confidentiality agreements.

"I'm certain some time in the near future, there will be a facility in South Dakota," Langley said. "We hope it would be one of our next ones."

The operation could mean 180 to 200 jobs, but that number could vary depending on whether the livestock component is a cattle feedlot such as the Genesis plant or a dairy operation, Langley said.

Poll Blogging

A new Gallup poll shows the Congress approval rating is down to 29%, while President Bush's approval rating remains at a steady 33%.

NYT: Johnson "should be back at work before long"

The New York Times:

Senator Tim Johnson of South Dakota is preparing for a return to the Senate after a brain hemorrhage in December, and fellow Democrats say they fully expect Mr. Johnson to be a candidate for a third term next year.

Colleagues said that Mr. Johnson, who left a rehabilitation facility late last month and is now at home, should be back at work before long. Making sure his campaign did not fall behind financially while he was recovering, dozens of Senate Democrats have held fundraising events on his behalf and tapped their own supporters. His campaign reported raising $633,000 the first three months of the year, leaving him $1.2 million in the bank as of March 31.

The political delicacy of Mr. Johnson’s condition has also chilled potential Republican opposition in the state that turned the Democratic leader Tom Daschle out of the Senate in 2004. Gov. Mike Rounds, considered the most formidable Republican challenger, has shown little interest to date and other potential Republican candidates have had to tread lightly as well.

Jerry Falwell, RIP

Jerry Falwell, dead at 73. 

Abortion, Giuliani, and GOP Politics

Multiple articles today discuss Rudy Giuliani and the role of abortion in GOP presidential politics. This New Republic piece (free registration required), suggests that Giuliani hearkens a new age of post social conservative Republicanism:
 

Many observers believe Giuliani's early success is the result of his calculated move rightward--a savvy effort to trick conservative voters into believing he is really one of them. But there is another possibility, one that assumes a bit more intelligence on the part of conservative voters like DePass: What if we are witnessing not Rudy moving toward the rest of the Republican Party, but rather the Republican Party moving toward Rudy? What if the salience of a certain kind of social conservatism is now in decline among GOP voters and a new set of conservative principles are emerging to take its place? What if Giuilianism represents the future of the Republican Party?

iuliani is the beneficiary of an upheaval within the Republican electorate--an upheaval that was catalyzed by September 11 but is becoming apparent only now, as the GOP hosts its first primary battle since the terrorist attacks. In brief, among Republican voters, the litmus test issues of abortion and gay marriage have been losing traction, subordinated to the Iraq war and terrorism. According to the Pew Research Center, 31 percent of GOP voters name Iraq as their top priority, and 17 percent choose terrorism and security. Just 7 percent name abortion and 1 percent name gay marriage.

E.J. Dionne asks whether pro-lifers will be as hard on Giuliani as they were on Kerry.  Joe Knippenberg has a response.  Jack Kelly suggests that the war on terror will drive his voting more than abortion will. 

I suppose much of the attention paid to this issue and this man has to do with whether the GOP really is a "big tent" and can accept a man as "progressive" as is Giuliani on social issues.  One detects, though, a bit too much protestation.  Notice the attention paid to Mitt Romney as to whether he is really pro-life (to which Romney has a great response).  Did anyone ever question whether former pro-life politicians like Al Gore, Dick Durbin, Dick Gephardt and Jesse Jackson were sincere in their support for legalized abortion? 

The attention paid to Giuliani, abortion and GOP voters is yet another attempt by the media to harp on the GOP and social conservatives as intolerant on social issues.  Should Giuliani fail to gain the nomination, the story is already written: it was those darn theocrats and their intolerance on abortion and homosexuality.  But let me ask you a question: if there was a highly competent Democratic candidate who had a solid progressive record except he was staunchly pro-life and supported the Federal Marriage Amendment, where do you think he'd be polling among Democratic primary voters?  How many delegates do you think that candidate would get?  In fact, what are the chances of that candidate even getting the chance to speak at the Democratic National Convention?  If the past is prologue, the answers to those questions are zero, zero, and damn near zero.  Which party is closed minded on social issues? 

 

Life At Pine Ridge

Did you catch this depressing story about Pine Ridge Reservation?  Are there any other kind of stories about the Reservations? 

With a 10-year, $20 million grant from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, officials in empowerment zones were supposed to use those dollars as seed money to leverage other government and private money to create jobs, build safe and affordable housing, improve education standards, address drug and alcohol abuse, and meet the basic needs of families.

There were successes, empowerment zone executive director David "Tally" Plume says. Money from the empowerment zone helped to pay for fire equipment on the reservation. It bought computers for youth programs, and software for schools. It helped to build a shelter for homeless veterans, a new jail, and the SuAnne Big Crow Boys and Girls Club.

Still, unemployment is 75 percent, the same as during Clinton's visit. Seven out of 10 students drop out of high school, as they have for years.

It's almost enough to make you think that throwing money at the problem won't help much. Perhaps there are some problems that are not of monetary nature. 

Disaster Aid

Gov. Rounds has asked the federal government for disaster aid for the northeast part of the state, hard hit by floods a little over a week ago. 

PIERRE, S.D. (AP) -- The governor has asked for a presidential disaster declaration for homes and businesses in a dozen South Dakota counties hit by storms and flooding May 4-5.

If approved, it would free up programs that include Federal Emergency Management Agency grants for basic needs and emergency assistance, Small Business Administration disaster loans, crisis counseling, disaster unemployment assistance and disaster legal services.

It would help get people back on their feet, Gov. Mike Rounds said.

"However, any assistance provided by the federal government is not designed to make people whole again," he said.

The storms included some tornadoes and heavy rain. Brown County and Aberdeen were especially hard hit by flooding after getting nearly 8 inches of rain.

Counties in the governor's request are Aurora, Beadle, Brown, Clark, Davison, Hanson, Hutchinson, Jerauld, Miner, Sanborn, Spink and Yankton.

Rounds said he may follow up with another disaster request for damage to roads, bridges and other public facilities.

Rant III: Free Speech is Okay, Unless You Favor Gun Rights

Whenever I am in the Twin Cities, I look for a copy of City Pages.  You can almost always find a pile of them when you walk into any brew pub or Indian restaurant.  It contains a lot of information about events in the cities, as well as cartoons and some interesting journalism.  The politics is hard urban left, and always a bit nutty.  But now and again you find a surprise.  This piece, by Ward Rubrecht, is a surprise.  It concerns the case of Troy Scheffler, a Hamline University grad student. 

A gun-toting concealed carry permit holder, he rarely leaves home without his sidearm. He feels safer in the rough areas of town when he's armed, though he knows not everyone feels safe around him. A couple of days ago, he got pulled over for speeding. When the cop noticed the concealed carry permit, he ordered Scheffler out of the car, patted him down, and searched his car.

Apparently the exercise of legal rights in the cities is probable cause for Minneapolis's finest.  But it was Mr. Scheffler's views on the Virginia Tech tragedy that got him in trouble with Hamline's administration.

In the aftermath, officials at Hamline University sought to comfort their 4,000 students. David Stern, the vice president for academic and student affairs, sent a campus-wide email offering extra counseling sessions for those who needed help coping.

Scheffler had a different opinion of how the university should react. Using the email handle "Tough Guy Scheffler," Troy fired off his response: Counseling wouldn't make students feel safer, he argued. They needed protection. And the best way to provide it would be for the university to lift its recently implemented prohibition against concealed weapons.

"Ironically, according to a few VA Tech forums, there are plenty of students complaining that this wouldn't have happened if the school wouldn't have banned their permits a few months ago," Scheffler wrote. "I just don't understand why leftists don't understand that criminals don't care about laws; that is why they're criminals. Maybe this school will reconsider its repression of law-abiding citizens' rights."

I don't happen to share Mr. Scheffler's view that right to carry laws are the best way to protect students against random acts of violence.  But I do think he has a right to express such views, and to petition authorities on this matter.  Hamline University does not agree with me.

Hamline officials took swift action. On April 23, Scheffler received a letter informing him he'd been placed on interim suspension. To be considered for readmittance, he'd have to pay for a psychological evaluation and undergo any treatment deemed necessary, then meet with the dean of students, who would ultimately decide whether Scheffler was fit to return to the university.

The consequences were severe. Scheffler wasn't allowed to participate in a final group project in his course on Human Resources Management, which will have a big impact on his final grade. Even if he's reinstated, the suspension will go on his permanent record, which could hurt the aspiring law student.

This is a flagrant violation of freedom of speech and freedom of petition.  But freedom is not what the modern university is about, is it? 

More Limits on Political Speech

While I am in rant mode, let me get this one in.  The Democratic majority in Congress has been devoting so much time and energy to embarrassing President Bush over Iraq (though no time at all, so far as one can see, to forging a policy of their own) that they are in danger of not passing anything at all.  So now they are trying to rush through a bill to restrict lobbying.  In matters of legislation, speed conceals things that ought to be thoroughly discussed.  Here is John Fund, of the Wall Street Journal:

The legislation may be amended on the floor to restrict grassroots groups that encourage citizens to contact members of Congress. The amendment, pushed by Rep. Marty Meehan of Massachusetts, would require groups that organize such grassroots campaigns to register as "lobbyists" and file detailed quarterly reports on their donors and activities. The law would apply to any group that took in at least $100,000 in any given quarter for "paid communications campaigns" aimed at mobilizing the public.

So groups that encourage citizen participation would be required to "register" with the government, and name names.  There is nothing wrong with this except that it is clearly unconstitutional.

The First Amendment specifically prohibits Congress from abridging "the right of the people . . . to petition the Government for redress of grievances." The Supreme Court twice ruled in the 1950s that grassroots communication isn't "lobbying activity," and is fully protected by the First Amendment. Among the groups that believe the Meehan proposal would trample on the First Amendment are the National Right to Life Committee and the American Civil Liberties Union. The idea goes too far even for Sen. John McCain, who voted to strip a similar provision from a Senate lobbying reform bill last January.

There is good news and bad news here.  The good news is that, in the United States, attempts to control political speech by such means always fail.  Trying to keep money out of politics is like trying to keep water out of your basement in Aberdeen: the sump pump is a way to live with failure.  Set the limit at $100,000?  A group that reaches the threshold will simply break into two fifty grand a piece grass roots organizations. 

The bad news is that this creates a Byzantine system where it is ever more difficult to tell who is doing what.

Neo-Puritanism Triumphs in Minnesota

It has been a busy weekend.  I was in the Twin Cities Saturday and Sunday, to see my daughter walk across the stage at the UofM.  Monday morning I arrived at Chamberlain, SD, to attend to a meeting of profs as part of the Yellowstone Institute.  Later this summer I will spend a week in Yellowstone. I promise to post some photos.  We get to see wolves. 

The big story in the St. Paul Pioneer Press is the soon to be enacted "Freedom to Breathe" law in Minnesota. 

Minnesota is on the verge of outlawing smoking in bars, restaurants and other establishments after the Legislature approved a statewide smoking ban.

The "Freedom to Breathe Act" survived its toughest test, a vote in the House where a majority had previously supported limited smoking in bars. It now heads to Gov. Tim Pawlenty, who intends to sign it.

Minnesota will become the 20th state to prohibit smoking in bars and restaurants. Violations will carry fines of up to $300 for smokers and permissive proprietors. The ban would start Oct. 1.

The bill passed the House 81-48 early Saturday, about 12 hours after the Senate approved it 43-21.

The ministers of public morals are going to make all of us more righteous whether we like it or not.  But bear in mind that it isn't smoking they are opposed to.  Most of the legislators who support such bans would be all too happy to legalize marijuana, and in fact have been about the business of creating legal marijuana bars under the color of medical use.  It is only smoking they disapprove of that is to be banned. 

Cigarette smoking is a judgment call.  I think people should be allowed to frequent or work at  places where alcohol is served and cigarettes are smoked.  The neo-Puritans don't care what the less righteous think.  Cigarette smokers are an unprotected class of sinners, and the righteous are free to smite them.  No doubt we shall all be better people for it. 

 

Top Taliban Commander Killed

The New York Times reports that Mullah Dadullah, a top field commander in the Taliban, reached room temperature after fighting NATO forces in Helmand:

Afghan government officials showed the body of Mullah Dadullah, the top operational commander for the Taliban insurgency, to reporters here Sunday morning, saying he had been killed in a joint operation of Afghan and coalition forces.

Mr. Dadullah, an amputee, was recognizable in part from his missing leg and black beard. He had been shot in the head and in the stomach.

He was one of the most wanted Taliban leaders, responsible for numerous assassinations, beheadings and terrorist campaigns, and was thought to be behind many of the suicide bombings that have killed or wounded hundreds of Afghans in the last year and a half.

He was seen as probably the most important operational commander, organizing groups of fighters, weapons supplies and finances across much of the south and southeast of Afghanistan.

Huh?

This is what I call cryptic.  Wait and see. 

What's The Matter With Kansas

A close look at this Powerline post and this one indicates that the supposed call from Howard Dean to Kansas governor Kathleen Sebelius never happened.  Scott Johnson of Powerline suggests that the idea of the DNC suing people over this matter is an abuse of the law and thus constitutes thuggery on behalf of the Democratic National Committee.  On the matter of the law I am not competent to judge, but it does seem a bit of an extreme reaction by a political group. 

Politicizing the Kansas Tornado

Power Line:  "Howard Dean called Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius early one morning after the tornado had destroyed the town of Greensburg, Kansas. According to Quinn, DNC Chairman Howard Dean discussed with Governor Seblius what to say about the tornado and how to blame the war in Iraq and the Bush administration for a slow response to the aftermath."

Political Pressure and Historical Writing

This Washington Post story is a good example of how political pressure affects history writing:

Filmmaker Ken Burns reached an agreement yesterday with two advocacy organizations that have pressured him to amend his World War II documentary to include more material about Latinos' contribution to the American war effort.

The agreement between Burns's production company, Florentine Films, and the two Latino groups appears crafted to enable both sides to declare victory in the long-running war over "The War," which is scheduled to air on PBS in September.

...

Burns had faced mounting pressure from activist groups, elected officials and several corporate underwriters over the lack of Latino representation in the film, which focuses on the wartime experiences of people in four U.S. towns.

Burns yesterday called the new content "an additional layer of storytelling" that does not tamper with "my vision" for telling the story of the war. But he offered no new details about how it would be used.

Several advocates who met with Burns this week said they were pleased that their concerns were finally being addressed. In an interview, Antonio Gil Morales, national commander of the American GI Forum, a Latino veterans group formed just after World War II, called it "a win-win situation for Ken Burns and our members."

Burns repeatedly insisted that "The War" was finished and that he would not reedit his work, characterizing it as an issue of practicality and artistic integrity. But he acknowledged last month that his film had overlooked the estimated half-million people of Latino descent who served in the U.S. military during the war. To address that, he agreed last month to shoot new footage and hired a Latino filmmaker to help him produce interviews and other material from the Latino perspective.

Poll: Congress Approval Rating Same as Bush

UK Guardian:

People think the Democratic-led Congress is doing just as dreary a job as President Bush, following four months of bitter political standoffs that have seen little progress on Iraq and a host of domestic issues.

An AP-Ipsos poll also found that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is a more popular figure than the president and her colleagues on Capitol Hill, though she faces a gender gap in which significantly more women than men support her.

The survey found only 35 percent approve of how Congress is handling its job, down 5 percentage points in a month. That gives lawmakers the same bleak approval rating as Bush, who has been mired at about that level since last fall, including his dip to a record low for the AP-Ipsos poll of 32 percent last January.

"It's mostly Iraq'' plus a lack of progress in other areas, said Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla., who heads the House GOP's campaign committee. "These are not good numbers for an incumbent, and it doesn't matter if you have an R or a D next to your name."

SDP Jazz Note: Tommy Flanagan

Tommy Flanagan is one of those unsung Jazz heroes I like to blog about.  He turns up on a lot of my favorite albums, behind such greats as John Coltrane and Kenny Burrell.  At least one of the recordings where he was the leader got repackaged under the name of the former, more famous jazzemen.  But Flanagan was the real thing, right down to the bones.  Here is a clip from DailyMotion of Flangan with Ella Fiztgerald, singing How High the Moon.  It's short and sweet enough to make your day. 

Talkin' bout my generation

If you haven't seen this YouTube clip, watch it now. 

Sarko and Dakota Women II

Anna at Dakota Women and I have been exchanging posts on the topic of conservative enthusiasm for the election of Nicolas Sarkozy as President of Les Francais.  In my most recent post, I defended Sarkozy against the charge of racism, which Anna among many other critics have been quick to put forth.  Here is her response:

Once again, Sarkozy either sympathizes with far-right racists of the National Front, or he cynically woos them for their votes. Either way, Sarkozy's not someone I'm personally super excited about.

I think Anna has the question right: Sarkozy either likes the National Front or he is used the National Front to get elected.  I object only to the adverb "cynically."  Anna and I agree on one thing: Jean-Marie Le Pen is a bad egg.  As it happens, I lectured on Le Pen in one of my first classes at U.C. San Bernardino, and then I called him a fascist.  Looking back, I think that was a bit strong, but only a bit. 

Every nation has its pernicious factions, as James Madison pointed out.  There are really only two ways to deal with them: isolate and exclude, or assimilate and dilute.  In most cases (excluding Nazis and Stalinist) the latter is better.  Le Pen no doubt has a lot of racists behind him, but he also attracted some folks who were reasonably concerned about the effects of illegal immigration on French society.  Without attracting the latter, Le Pen had no chance. 

Sarkozy addressed the concerns of the more reasonable and larger part of Le Pen's coalition.  The result was that Le Pen was crushed.  There is not enough left of him right now to bury in a snail shell. That is no small contribution to progress.   Those blocks that left Le Pen and joined Sarkozy's constituents will have to learn how to be civil, even if they are not so inclined.  To these eyes, that is what good democratic politics looks like.  So yes: I am enthusiastic about Sarkozy's victory. 

On a minor note, Anna mentions that Sarkozy flirted with the idea of proportional representation, which would give extremist like Le Pen at least a few seats in the French government.  I note that it would do the same for far left parties.  I confidently predict that Sarkozy will not carry through on this. 

Waugh On Education

My previous post does reminds me of a story by Evelyn Waugh. In Waugh's short novel Modern Europe, one of those Englishmen with a hyphenated last name, Mr. Scott-King, serves as a classics instructor at a finer public school.  After an adventure in continental Europe, he arrives back at his school only to be informed that, once again, his school will be teaching fewer of the classics.  The headmaster who delivers this news to Scott-King says, "As you know I'm an old Greats man myself.  I deplore it as much as you do.  But what are we to do?  Parents are not interested in producing the 'complete man' anymore.  They want to qualify their boys for jobs in the modern world.  You can hardly blame them, can you?"   To which Scott-King replies, "Oh yes.  I can and do."  The headmaster suggests Scott-King teach some more popular subjects along side the classics, and Scott-King responds, "If you approve, headmaster, I will stay as I am here as long as any boy wants to read the classics.  I think it would be very wicked to do anything to fit a boy for the modern world."   

More Laptops

Madville Times links to this Mitchell Daily Republic (free registration required) story indicating the South Dakota Board of Regents is considering turning all six campuses into "laptop-table environments." 

The South Dakota Board of Regents is considering converting all six of the state’s public college campuses to “laptop-tablet environments,” according to regents Executive Director Tad Perry.

Only Dakota State University in Madison already is at that point, although the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, in Rapid City, is in the process of converting to what Perry calls a more “contemporary” computer environment.

The idea behind the proposal stems in part from the push for more laptops in the hands of K-12 students in South Dakota. Perry said that with more and more elementary and high school students having access to laptops, it dawned on the regents that the state’s colleges may not be preparing its education students in the same fashion.

Without a change in policy, Perry said it’s possible that South Dakota colleges could be setting the stage for a rather awkward classroom scenario: Teachers who were educated at state colleges not having the same experience and background on laptops as the students they are hired to teach.

Jason recently posted on a New York Times article which reported on yet another set of findings that laptop classrooms do nothing to increase student learning.  I have posted on similar results from various jurisdictions, which you can find summed up here.  I think my opinion on expanding the use of laptops at our universities can be inferred from my earlier posts.  We could learn a lot from these guys (hat tip to Joe K). 

This post represents my own opinion, not that of my employer.  I have a personal policy of not commenting on BOR issues so this will be my last post on this particular matter. 

Fides et Ratio

I don't want to join the "dog pile on Schuldt" brigade, since as proof that miracles do occur, some of Chad's critics have actually made Chad look down right reasonable (seriously, whatever bad policies progressives have advocated in the name of "social justice," using the term "social justice" does not necessarily mean you are a communist).  But here's an easy one.  Chad prints, apparently with approval, this quote from Janna Goodrich:

I sometimes wonder what an alien from outer space would think about a religion where a celibate, never-married man is the one to make statements about the importance of family and about abortion. Or perhaps more to the point, what would the alien think about the fact that people take these statements very seriously?

Ms. Goodrich's point is sound if one buys a view of human knowledge that is based solely on experience (as some forms of radical empiricism do).  But her point is less sound if human beings have the capacity for reason and the ability to both learn from the experience of others and also to abstract from those experiences and our own experiences.  Are we really able to form credible opinions only on those things about which we have direct experience?  Are we not able to learn from others and to use our capacity of reason to think about what is human life, what do we duties do we have toward human life, what is marriage, what is it for, why do people have children, what purpose does the family serve, etc?  If one wants to argue based on experience, though, one could just as easily argue that a celibate, unmarried man is just the person to give guidance on matters of sexuality and family as he has the vantage point of objectivity. 

Juggling Primaries

The New York Times reported last week about the influence the California primary elections are having after they moved their primary date from June to the first week of February.  Before the move, candidates went to California to collect money to fund their campaigns in Iowa and New Hampshire.  Now they must address the concerns of Californians, and its a move that other states may follow:

In the months since California moved its presidential primary to Feb. 5 from June, the major presidential campaigns have sought to measure how the early nominating contests being held here and in about 20 other states that day will shape their tactical calculations: where to travel, whom to hire, how to spend money.

The primary calendar — and, potentially, the relative influence of the states — is still very much in flux. Just this week, Florida voted to move its primary up to Jan. 29 in an effort to ensure that it would play a vital role in the nominating process and that the candidates would pay attention to the issues its residents deem important. Other states with important early roles, like Nevada and South Carolina, are also hoping to draw attention to issues rooted in their regions or in the makeup of their populations.

But its sheer size, its concentrations of both liberals and conservatives, its status as a money tree for candidates and its role as fertile ground for policy innovation make California especially likely to wield additional clout this time around. The result is not just a change in tactics; it is altering the dialogue of the presidential contest in substantive ways. It is forcing candidates to turn their attention to issues, debates and controversies that have historically drawn little attention on the early playing fields of Iowa and New Hampshire.

The most striking example is global warming, an issue that was rarely raised in the past two presidential campaigns. Mike Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas, was reminded of this on Thursday night when he was asked on national television at the first Republican presidential candidates’ debate, in Simi Valley, if he thought global warming existed. (Yes, Mr. Huckabee said, though he skirted the issue of whether humans were primarily responsible for it.)

Readers will recall our roundtable discussions between myself and my colleagues about South Dakota moving its primary, which the South Dakota legislature considered last year.  It can be frustrating being from a small, populous-scarce state near the end of the primary schedule and have little impact on presidential nominations.  It wasn't always the case with South Dakota.  In 1952, several presidential candidates visited South Dakota when it was near the front of the primary schedule.  The battle between Senator Robert Taft of Ohio and General Dwight Eisenhower was close.  Before South Dakota, Taft had won Nebraska, Illinois, Wisconsin, and West Virginia, while Eisenhower picked up New Hampshire, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts and Oregon.  Taft won South Dakota 50.3% to Eisenhower's 49.7%.  See the South Dakota History article by Philip K. Grant entitled "The 1952 Republican Presidential Primary" in the Winter 1977 edition for more information.  Similarly tight races occurred in 1980 and 1988.

However, the benefit of moving the primary forward to Californians is lost when all the other states decide to do the same.  The jockeying for power and influence in national politics, contrary to my earlier support of moving the primary forward, is harmful to the nation, as Dr. Schaff has explained on several occasions.  It would be exciting to have South Dakota as a key player in the presidential nomination process.  For a political junkie like myself, I would love to have presidential candidates touring the state, and Fox News and CNN putting us front-and-center.  Plus, the candidates would visit South Dakota and address our concerns, something that isn't done very often since most of their money and influence comes from coastal states.  Yet, the leapfrogging that will result from state after state moving their primary forward as they auction themselves off to political pandering is detrimental overall.  In this scenario, state's aren't moving their primaries forward so citizens can hear the platforms of politicians.  All voters receive is a generic platform in which they have little influence, because there's no time for candidates to express their ideas clearly.  We can see it today: the frontrunners on the Democratic ticket are Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama -- not so much because they have good ideas, but because one has name recognition and the other is a fresh face.  The same can be said for Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson on the GOP side.

So, how do we solve this?  There are several ideas out there.  One is Congress should set up a rotating panel of primaries, where four or five Super Tuesdays settle the question and the order rotates each presidential cycle.  A federalist perspective would argue for allowing states to set their own primary dates, but for Federal office, shouldn't Congress be allowed to control the time frame?  How else can we learn about candidates, and how can candidates develop themselves?  The races today are all about name and money, not issues and concerns.  If we keep at the current rate, primaries my extend a full year or more before the general election, forcing more fundraising for both primary races and the general election.  This makes it impossible for a dark horse candidate to compete.

I recommend giving a read Dr. Blanchard's modest proposal for primary reform, and a reader response to his idea.  Also see his Aberdeen American News article on the issue.  Also see this Wikipedia entry on reform proposals.  It seems that the biggest areas of concern for most when they talk of moving the primary forward is the greater voice it gives the state and the economic benefits the state receives from hosting the primary.  The solution, I think, is Dr. Blanchard's idea:

If you really want reform, the way to do it is divide the states into five groups, each including large and small states from every region of the country. Each group would be assigned the first Tuesday of some month from February to June. In subsequent elections the order would be rotated, so everyone gets to go first sooner or later. The purpose would not be to benefit one party or another, or any state over the others, but to do what is best for the Republic.

This would settle the concerns.  It may not be perfect and may not tease out certain details and complexities, but I don't think that's the issue right now.  We need to find a solution to the front-loading, and Dr. Blanchard's idea is a step in the right direction.  First and foremost, we eliminate the problems of front-loading the primary schedule.  Second, each state in Blanchard's proposed groups would reap economic benefits at some point in the Presidential nomination cycle by hosting the regional primary.  Finally, by having the populations of states determine the group, the presidential nominees will have to address the similar issues they all face.  South Dakota certainly faces similar issues as North Dakota, Iowa, and Wyoming, for instance.  The solution to primary reform isn't to thrust several states to the front, but to revamp the entire process.

Do we want a scenario where we vote in midterm elections, and then prepare for the first primaries within ninety days?  Do we want to see the perpetual campaign, or do we want to see issues addressed and settled with significant time to hear from all who are willing to go after the highest office in the country?  If we don't act soon, we may find we have created a situation where no political party can afford to act outside its own partisan electoral interests.

Darwinian Conservatism II

Professor Schaff directs out attention to some posts on No Left Turns concerning the question of Darwinian conservatism.  I posted on this topic here.  The question is whether Darwinian theory, and especially sociobiology, is consistent with conservative thought.  Peter Lawler thinks not. 

I also can’t figure out how any libertarian could be a Darwinian conservative. THE libertarian or at least classical liberal philosopher is John Locke. And didn’t Locke say something like the human being is the animal with the singular liberty to conquer nature?

I don't know remember reading anything like that in Locke, though my knowledge is hardly exhaustive.  But Locke was a natural right theorist, and natural right means that political and moral institutions should be in harmony with nature, not at war with it.  If human institutions are to be in harmony with human nature, we have to know something about the latter.  Darwinism represents the greatest advance in knowledge of human nature since Aristotle.  I would argue that it largely confirms Aristotle's views.

Can sociobiology really account for the individual’s insistent demand for personal significance? Can sociobiology really account for either the heights of human greatness or the depths of human misery?

Yes.  Human individuals, like this or that Chimpanzee, depend on the groups they belong to. Most people get their sense of significance from the recognition of family and friends.  Likewise, those who strive for greatness mostly or always want recognition from some community.  A heartbeat ago in evolutionary history, group acceptance and status meant everything in terms of survival and reproductive opportunity.  These are easy questions. 

The main reason Darwinian conservatism ain’t conservative is that it gives us in the biotechnological age little incentive to conserve the nature we have been given. The effectual truth of the perception of its truth is to heighten the frenzied activity to replace impersonal natural evolution with conscious and volition evolution, techno-evolution with ME in mind.

Lawler is dead wrong about this.  The great conservative Edmund Burke defended traditional institutions against revolutionary re-engineering on the grounds that they were the product of a long history of trial and error.  According to Darwinian theory, human nature is the product of a much longer process.  To attempt to apply radical technologies to the genetic foundation of human nature itself (as opposed to specific treatments for particular diseases) is almost certain to lead to disaster.  Darwinism views human nature as the work of millions of years.  Such a thing is incalculably precious.  We change it at our peril. 

Al Sharpton: Bigot

Have you heard Al Sharpton dismissing Mormon presidential candidate Mitt Romney as, apparently, someone who "doesn't really believe in God"?  And now he is trying to weasel his way out of it.  No matter how you cut it, if Sharpton were white and/or conservative he'd be denounced, rightly, as a hate filled bigot.  As it is, he gets courted by the Democratic presidential contenders. 

Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee

PlayBill:

Screen actor Aidan Quinn, who played Stanley Kowalski in the 1988 revival of A Streetcar Named Desire, stars in the new HBO Films production "Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee."

Based on Dee Alexander Brown's book of the same name, the film will make its debut on the cable network May 27 at 9 PM ET. Joining Quinn in the cast are Broadway's J. K. Simmons (Laughter on the 23rd Floor, Guys and Dolls, Peter Pan) and Colm Feore (Julius Caesar) as well as Adam Beach, August Schellenberg, Eric Schweig, Wes Studi, Gordon Tootoosis, Fred Thompson and Anna Paquin.

Check out the whole thing.  See also this New York Times story.  Dee Brown's book made a big impact when it was published in 1971, quickly becoming a national bestseller.  It still remains in print today and in fifteen different languages.  Historians have assessed his book as "polemical and thinly researched," but it was "immensely popular" and made a big impact on a society awash in self-criticism over Vietnam, the civil rights movement, and the environment [1].  I'm working on a paper about the intellectual origins of Brown's book and the impact it had, and this film seems to be another part of the book's aftermath and how it still influences our view of the nineteenth century American West.  HBO is good at creating westerns, such as the Deadwood series, as historically flawed as it may be, so I'm looking forward to see how they portray Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee.

[1] Rodman W. Paul and Michael P. Malone, "Tradition and Challenge in Western Historiography," Western Historical Quarterly vol. 16, no. 1 (January 1985), 41.  See also Francis Paul Prucha, review of Dee Brown, Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee: An Indian History of the American West, American Historical Review vol. 77 no. 2 (April 1972): 589-590.

The New Media v. Old Media Debate

LA Times:  "Before we ask Willie Nelson and Sir Bob Geldof to do a telethon fundraiser for Gannett and Dean Singleton, let's take a look at their situation.  It may be true newspapers are no longer as profitable as they once were, but that is like saying Shaquille O'Neal is no longer the best player in the NBA."  Read the whole thing.

Can One Question Darwin Without Being A Wacko

Those interested in Prof. Blanchard's post below should read Andrew Ferguson's account about the recent AEI debate on Darwinism and conservatism.  It includes one of my all time favorite quotes about about one of my least favorite American presidents, Woodrow Wilson:

John Dewey argued for Darwin's relevance to social and political arrangements, and so did most of his fellow Progressives: Woodrow Wilson, for instance, who said that "living constitutions must be Darwinian in structure and in practice." Traces of Social Darwinism can be found too in Hitler and Stalin, both of whom were even worse than Woodrow Wilson.

I wonder how many liberals realize how much their progressive politics flows from the ideas of Social Darwinism?  I also urge readers to jump to this post by Peter Lawler and click on the comments.  Very illuminating.  I'll point out that many modern libertarians tend to dump the idea of natural rights as too constraining on human freedom.  In my graduate student experience at a libertarian nesting ground, i.e. a summer institute sponsored by the Institute for Humane Studies, most participants rejected natural right in favor of consequentialism, i.e., certain rights are good because they lead to good consequences, not because they are founded in the natural order. 

Politicizing Natural Disasters

Paul Mirengoff:

The Democrats and their left-wing pals never miss a chance to blame misfortune on the Bush administration and, if possible, the war in Iraq, even if that means making up facts. Thus, Kathleen Sibelius, the Democratic Governor of Kansas, claimed that Kansas is missing 60 percent of its National Guard equipment because of the war, and has thus been hampered in dealing with the damage caused by the tornedo. Barack Obama made the same claim, while somehow managing to state that the death toll was 10,000, not 12. And of course lefty bloggers tried to hammer the point home. Here, for example, is the post of Think Progress on the subject.

In fact, it's not true that Kansas was missing 60 percent of its National Guard equipment, or that the National Guard was ill-prepared to deal with the aftermath of the tornado. The Democrats' claim is pure invention. According to Randal Noller, public affairs officer for the National Guard Bureau, the Kansas National Guard has 88 percent of its forces available, and 60 percent of its Army Guard dual-use equipment on hand, along with more than 85 percent of its Air Guard equipment. If the Kansas National Guard were short-handed in any way, it could have asked for assistance from other states under a national sharing agreement. It did not do so.

Gov. Sibelius has backed off of her comments. Her spokesperson says, "We are doing absolutely fine right now; what the governor is talking about is down the road." In reality, the governor and chorus were simply making things up in order to convert a natural disaster into a political opportunity.

Star Tribune Shakeup

Minneapolis Star Tribune:

Bowing to the pressures of declining circulation and falling revenue, the Star Tribune on Monday announced a plan to cut 145 employees through buyouts or, if enough people don’t volunteer, layoffs.

The cuts represent 7 percent of the company’s 2,100 positions and include 50 positions out of 383 people in the news and editorial departments.

Power Line has more on the shakeup at the Star Tribune.

UPDATE:  In related news, see this story entitled "Old media turns combative against new media."  Excerpt:

Leading media executives took a combative tone against Internet companies on Tuesday, suggesting that Big Media increasingly considers new content distributors like Google Inc. to be more foe than friend.    

At a panel discussion on the second day of the 56th annual National Cable & Telecommunications Association conference, top executives said talk of the demise of traditional media in the digital age was overblown.

While new distribution technologies like the Internet and mobile phones are siphoning television audiences, media companies argued that the Web also brings new revenue streams.

But the discussion quickly moved to criticism of the perception that traditional media businesses are dead, and to the rampant copyright offenses enabled by new digital technologies.

"The Googles of the world, they are the Custer of the modern world. We are the Sioux nation," Time Warner Inc. Chief Executive Richard Parsons said, referring to the Civil War American general George Custer who was defeated by Native Americans in a battle dubbed "Custer's Last Stand".

"They will lose this war if they go to war," Parsons added, "The notion that the new kids on the block have taken over is a false notion."

Time Warner defended its discussions on copyright protection with Internet search leader Google Inc., which another panel member, Viacom Inc., has sued.

Sarko and Dakota Women

My pal Anna at Dakota Women thinks ill of me and other conservatives in the regional blogosphere because we are enthusiastic about the election of Nicolas Sarkozy as President of France. 

Lots   of conservatives are very excited about center-right candidate Nicolas Sarkozy's election victory in France this past weekend. And I'm thinking, really? That racist?  Or, at the very least, that politician who panders to racists.

I confess that I am pleased that Sarkozy, the most pro-American of European politicians, is now leader of the French nation.  I am pleased also that Sarkozy wants to revive the paralyzed French economy by moving it in a conservative direction, though I am not overly optimistic about his chances. 

As for racism, Anna herself feels the need to qualify the charge, after she has made it.  Maybe he only "panders to racists."  In fact, France has the same problem as most developed nations: assimilating immigrants from less developed places.  But in France the immigrant population has recently been fond of burning thousands of cars and buildings a night, whenever they are displeased. It's not exactly racism to want to bring lawless adolescents under the control of law.  Sarkozy wants to solve the problem not only with the police but with economic reforms that will bring jobs to a population that suffers 40% unemployment.  That looks like reasonable democratic politics to me. 

Darwinists, Conservatives, and Republicans

My friend Chad at CCK directs my attention to this article on Republican candidate Mitt Romney and the theory of evolution.  David Brody, at Christian Broadcasting Network has this:

Kevin Madden, Mitt Romney's spokesman has responded to The Brody File question on whether Mitt Romney believes in Evolution. I wanted to know his thoughts about it because at the debate the other night only three candidates raised their hand expressing doubt about Evolution. Romney was not one of those candidates. Here's the Romney campaign response:

"Governor Romney believes both science and faith can help inform us about the origins of life in this world."

With all due respect, what does that mean exactly?

It means that Romney doesn't want to take a stand, and this is probably the right strategy. This is one controversy in which a President doesn't need to take sides.   

Chad seems to think that anyone who rejects or questions Darwinian evolution is a "wacko."  On this topic I have some expertise, as I have taught a course on sociobiology for several years now.  I am a firm believer in Darwin's theory, but I know that Chad's approach does more damage to science than any creation science nut ever can. 

Darwinian theory is the only scientifically viable approach to the origin of the various species that live on earth, including the human species.  This is so not because the Darwinian account has no significant problems; it does.  It is so because there is simply no viable scientific alternative.  When doing research into the history of any organism, it is Darwin or nothing. 

But this is only true when we are talking about the level of science where theories are turned into research programs.  When we ascend to the philosophy of science, which questions the general theories and their fundamental assumptions, it is perfectly reasonable to question Darwinism, or the theory of relativity, or any other theory. When we ascend further to the level at which religion and science confront one another, each side has to make up its mind.  Darwinian evangelists such as Daniel Dennett or Richard Dawkins are free to reject religion.  The Pope and the Dali Lama have made their peace with Darwin, but only because they were confident enough in their own positions to rationally weigh the alternatives.   

What is interesting is that it is only on the right that reasonable debate on this question is going on.  On the left, anyone who questions evolution is a "wacko," while anyone who applies Darwinism to, say, the distribution of sexes in the sciences has to resign as president of Harvard.  Meanwhile, at the American Enterprise Institute, conservatives have had a lively debate on whether Darwinism supports or undermines conservative principles.  The New York Times has the story:

“I do indeed believe conservatives need Charles Darwin,” said Larry Arnhart, a professor of political science at Northern Illinois University in DeKalb, who has spearheaded the cause. “The intellectual vitality of conservatism in the 21st century will depend on the success of conservatives in appealing to advances in the biology of human nature as confirming conservative thought.”

The arguments have played out in recent books, magazine articles and blogs, as well as at a conference on Thursday at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington. There Mr. Arnhart was grouped with John Derbyshire, a contributing editor at National Review, against John G. West and George Gilder, who both are associated with the Discovery Institute, which advocates intelligent design.

A note of disclosure: Larry Arnhart is a friend of mine, and I organized and chaired a panel on his previous book, Darwinian Natural Right, at a meeting of the Association of Politics and Life Sciences.  I think Arnhart is right: Darwinism supports conservative principles.  But it is only on the right that one can have such debates today.  Somehow we don't regard anyone who disagrees with us as a wacko. 

Fatherless America

Kay Hymowitz, author of the outstanding Marriage and Caste In America writes in City Journal of the "incredible shrinking father."  Her article follows the trajectory of artificial insemination (AI) from an aid to couples who had difficulty conceiving to what it is today, a tool for women to have children without having to bother with fathers.  This mirrors the remarkable transition in our society of viewing the family as an instrument through which society passes on its mores and ideals to a new generation to simply a contractual relationship among atomistic individuals, existing simply to fulfill the desires of individuals rather the needs of society. 

One wonders if this is not related to this piece by Katherine Kersten, who one hopes survived the Star-Tribune's budget cuts.  Funny enough, young people see family breakdown as the biggest problem facing the nation.  Perhaps because they are the one's who bear the brunt of such breakdown. 

What does this generation of baggy pants-wearers and body piercers view as "the most pressing issue facing your generation in the world today"? Racism, environmental problems, the war in Iraq?

An answer closer to home tops the list: family breakdown. Pundits may find it fashionable to sneer at Ozzie and Harriet, but kids are longing for a harmonious home with mom and dad at the dinner table. Almost 90 percent of survey respondents expect to get married or enter into a life partnership and have children themselves. (snip)

Do Minnesota's young people share these yearnings? Absolutely, says the Rev. Efrem Smith of the Sanctuary Covenant Church, a multiethnic congregation in north Minneapolis. Smith has spent his life working with youth, and speaks nationally on the subject.

"This generation is deeply marred by family breakdown," he told me. Many young people are victims of our society's epidemic of out-of-wedlock childbearing and divorce, he says. Even children from intact families often feel neglected by busy or preoccupied parents.

Funny enough, I went to college with Rev. Smith.  This answers the question of, "Whatever happened to that guy?" 

E.J. Dionne on the Decline of the "Moderate" Left

Dionne is disturbed. 

Is Europe moving right? Is the democratic left in trouble? The decisive victory of Nicolas Sarkozy over Socialist Segolene Royal in France's presidential elections on Sunday was the most recent example of the battering that moderate left parties are taking from the forces of globalization and discontent over immigration.

A few days earlier, Britain delivered a rebuke to outgoing Prime Minister Tony Blair's Labor Party in local elections. Last September, Sweden's Social Democrats were voted out of power, a blow to the ,progressive spirit in light of the country's standing as a model egalitarian society.

It's funny how in the vocabulary of most American journalist, the left is always the "moderate left," and the right is always "the extreme right." 

Demographic Redistribution

Michael Barone, writing in the Wall Street Journal about demographic shifts in the nation, concludes this on the political consequences:

What's now in store is a shifting of political weight from a small Rust Belt which leans Democratic and from the much larger Coastal Megalopolises, where both secular top earners and immigrant low earners vote heavily Democratic, toward the Interior Megalopolises, where most voters are private-sector religious Republicans but where significant immigrant populations lean to the Democrats. House seats and electoral votes will shift from New York, New Jersey and Illinois to Texas, Florida, Georgia, Arizona and Nevada; within California, House seats will shift from the Democratic coast to the Republican Inland Empire and Central Valley.

Demography is destiny. When I was in kindergarten in 1950, Detroit was the nation's fifth largest metro area, with 3,170,000 people. Now it ranks 11th and is soon to be overtaken by Phoenix, which had 331,000 people in 1950. In the close 1960 election, in which electoral votes were based on the 1950 Census, Michigan cast 20 votes for John Kennedy and Arizona cast four votes for Richard Nixon; New York cast 45 votes for Kennedy and Florida cast 10 votes for Nixon. In 2012, Michigan will likely have 16 electoral votes and Arizona 12; New York will have 29 votes and Florida 29. That's the kind of political change demographics makes over the years.

Spiderman 3

The reviews of Spiderman 3 have been pretty awful.  The reviewers were nuts.  It's too soon for a sound comparison, but my spot judgment is that it was the best of the three.  They do try to cram a lot of stuff into one movie: three separate villans, new characters, Mary Jane Watson's career on stage.  But it seemed to me that they got it all in with all the pieces fitting nicely up against one another.  The superhero battles are magnificent.  There is one scene that should have been cut from the movie; it was just too over the top.  Note to Schaff: you'll know it when you see it.  But I thought it was a fine superhero movie. 

Senator Johnson

The situation created by Senator Tim Johnson's illness puts obvious strains on political decorum.  We here at SDP have born up reasonable well under those strains.  We have wished Senator Johnson well, and we have sincerely hoped for his full recovery.  In my case, this is in no small part because I have met Tim Johnson and I like him.  He is genuinely decent person, and he has served our state and these United States well, as he saw fit. 

The strain comes of course from the fact that Johnson's exit from the Senate would offer opportunities for Republicans.  Surely the state Republican party is wondering what to do if Johnson does not run again.  That is what a party is for, and it is nothing to be ashamed of.  Democrats are surely just as focused on keeping the seat in the short run and planning for replacing Johnson with one of their own if he bows out of the coming race. 

The question of whether Johnson should remain in office if he is in no condition to serve is more delicate.  Randy E. Amundson has a letter in the Argus Leader that raises this question. 

My problem is the almost total disconnect between the senator and his constituents since the aneurism. In the position of trust that the people of South Dakota have placed him, he doesn't have the privilege to neglect his constitutional duties to his state and his country. He, rather, has the duty to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution.He hasn't been protecting anything but his privacy since his malady.

We have been assured that things are on the mend with Johnson. If that is the case, the senator might consider a news conference or an occasional press release to assure those of us who are represented by him that he is in fact on the road back to productivity.

Pat Powers at SouthDakotaWarCollege thinks the letter was harsh, but made some valid points.

The Senator is very ill, and has a long road ahead of him. That's generally accepted. But there's also the view that continues to gain momentum that we're not getting the full story. The senator's staff ekes out bits and pieces here and there regarding his condition, but otherwise there is this huge void of information that people will seek to fill with rumor and conjecture.

My friend Chad at CCK thinks the worst of those who voice such thoughts.

Johnson deserves all the time he needs to get well and all the privacy he desires in what is a sensitive situation.  Pressure on his family and staff for something else is nothing more than political games. 

Film at eleven.  In fact Chad is playing the same political game.  I am sure his concerns for Senator Johnson and his family are as sincere as mine, but is he altogether uninterested in the future of that Senate seat?  Probably his defense of Senator Johnson's privacy just happens to coincide with his party's interest in holding it.  A mere coincidence.   

Chad makes a lot of the comments on  the SDWC post. 

If you want a sample of some of the crap going on in Republican circles, I encourage you to take a look at the commenting going on at the War College weblog the last couple of days.

But when I looked at those comments I saw people on both sides of the question, all of them trying to jockey for advantage. 

My former colleague, Professor David Newquist is typically delicate in his description of those who insist on knowing more about Senator Johnson's condition. 

If the busy-bodies who whined about not getting immediate and intimate information about his progress had bothered to check with ethical medical personnel, they would have been informed that a climate of disparagement and doom is the last thing anybody recovering from a serious episode needs. For the Senator's health and the political health within the state, family and staff took the responsible route and concentrated on getting the job done, not catering to idle gossipers.

Professor Newquist is all for open government, except when he's not. 

As for my view, the citizens of South Dakota have every right to ask whether their senior senator is capable of discharging his duties, the Johnson family's privacy notwithstanding.  Johnson and his family have every right not to tell them.  So long as Johnson and his organization choose to keep him from the public, I see no reasonable alternative to waiting to the end of his term.  Sooner or later he will announce that he is or is not running for another.  That will be the moment of truth. 

Flood Bloggin, III

If you want some news on the flooding here in Aberdeen, see this general story and this one about disaster response. Here are some more pics.  The first two are from the end of my street.

 
Here is a car by the Walmart:

And my friend, Mr. Sump Hole, who kept our basement from being a total disaster.

The Dance in France at a Glance

As yours truly predicted, the winner of the French Presidential election was Nicolas Sarkozy 53 to 47% for Ségolène Royal.  From the British Guardian:

Nicolas Sarkozy was last night handed a decisive mandate to change France, winning the presidential election by 6% after a big turnout in one of the most divisive campaigns in recent history.

Thousands of his flag-waving supporters prepared to gather at Paris's Place de La Concorde, where heads rolled in the first French revolution . . .   .  Instead of calling for the end of the monarchy, they had rallied round his cry to "liquidate the legacy of May 1968", end the nanny state, loosen the grip of "political correctness", lessen the power of unions and break the 35-hour week in the name of a nation that wanted to "work more to earn more".

Wow.  The French elected Newt Gingrich.  What Sarkozy's  victory will amount to is hard to say.  The defeat of Ms. Royal was nothing short of stunning.  Royal tried running as a socialist.  When it became clear that that wasn't working, she tried running as a woman.  She had Sarko there.  However, as the London Times put it:

It emerged that Royal was being let down at the ballot box not by centrists, Socialists or any other political bloc but by the one sector of the electorate that might have been expected to rally to her cause in droves: women.  . . . In the first round of voting on April 22, more women voted for him (32%) than for her (28%). So much for what the pundits had been calling the “gender effect”.

And then there are Ms. Royal's socialists.  From the Financial Times:

Let the finger-pointing begin. Ségolène Royal’s defeat on Sunday night left the French Socialist party in disarray and searching for someone to blame. There is hardly a shortage of scapegoats.

It is the party’s third consecutive presidential defeat. The Socialists now face the question of whether they can ever regain power without ditching their anti-capitalist rhetoric, as the mainstream left has done across almost all of Europe.

”The left is not credible on so many issues, from the 35-hour working week to immigration and law and order,” says Dominique Reynié, professor at Sciences Po university.

“It is the fault of the left collectively. Ever since their [parliamentary election] defeat in 1983 they have never questioned their fundamental ideology, only thinking they needed to change tactics,” he says.