South Dakota Politics

The Nifong Case as the Canary in the Coal Mine

David Feige has a very alarming piece in Slate on the Duke Lacrosse story.  Feige says that prosecutorial misconduct of the kind that has now destroyed Michael Nifong is in fact routine, and that only a "perfect storm" of special circumstances ("powerful defendants, a rapt public, and demonstrable factual innocence") produced a just outcome. 

There are, of course, a few particularly egregious cases that leave visible traces in appellate records. A 2003 study by the Center for Public Integrity found nearly 11,500 such cases. Of them, four out of five were shrugged off as harmless errors. And as previously noted in Slate, of the 2,012 cases since 1970 in which appeals judges actually threw out an indictment, conviction, or sentence because of prosecutorial malfeasance, in only 44 did prosecutors even appear before state ethics boards to answer for their actions. Another indicator: A Chicago Tribune investigation found 381 Illinois murder convictions that were reversed because prosecutors withheld evidence or prompted witnesses to lie. The number of those prosecutors publicly sanctioned or disbarred as a result? Zero.

In other words, a lot of prosecutors behave just like Nifong, and get away with it.  This calls out for reform if anything does.  But I note the peculiar politics of rape accusations. 

Mike Nifong did what prosecutors almost always do when a complainant comes to them alleging a sexual assault: He took his complainant at her word and went full speed ahead with a prosecution. The fact is that few if any prosecutors wait for corroborating evidence or insist on more than one person's say so before initiating a sexual assault prosecution. Indeed, they'd be vilified if they did. The cardinal rule of sexual assault complaints is "believe the victim," and since anyone who complains is deemed a victim, even a semi-credible complainant can generate an arrest and prosecution in the absence of physical evidence, additional witnesses, or even a prompt accusation. This isn't just the case in Durham; it's true almost everywhere. The widespread support for this questionable practice is such that if the Duke case had gone to a jury and the defendants had been convicted, Nifong would not only still have his law license—he'd have been lionized for his dogged pursuit of rich white kids.

This is not an institutional problem, it is a political problem.  Rich kids like the Lacrosse players have some remedy.  God help those without such resources. 

Bloomberg Leaves the GOP

Associated Press:  "New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg on Tuesday switched his party status from Republican to unaffiliated, a stunning move certain to be seen as a prelude to an independent presidential bid that would upend the 2008 race."

Thune Pushes Wind Energy Incentives

From the Associated Press:

Senator John Thune is pushing provisions that would promote the development of wind energy as the Senate debates a new energy bill.

The Senate today passed a Thune amendment that would promote the development of energy transmission infrastructure. It would promote the creation of "energy corridors" that would make it easier to transfer wind energy to high-demand areas.

Thune says South Dakota already has the wind energy and that the missing link is the way to deliver the energy.

Also today, the Senate Finance Committee passed energy legislation that would extend a production tax credit for wind energy.

That bill will be added to the energy legislation being considered by the full Senate.

SDP Jazz Note: The Low Down in the Low Countries

I just watched Art Blakey and the Jazz Messengers Live in '58, a DVD I got from Netflicks.  It includes a complete concert in Belgium.  Apparently a lot of jazz was filmed in Europe in the late 50's/early 60's.  I posted some time ago on a Dexter Gordon number filmed in Holland.  The JM DVD is 55 minutes of excellent jazz, featuring  (heads up, Jason!) Lee Morgan on trumpet; Benny Golson on tenor; Bobby Timmons on piano, and Jymie Merritt on bass.  The finale is devoted to Dizzy Gillespie's standard, "A Night in Tunisia," but I think the performance of "Moanin," written and arranged by Timmons, is by far the best thing on the disk.  You can hear most of the material on the CD Moanin', along with several numbers by Golson.  It is very good jazz. 

Fiscal Responsibility

A novel idea:  "President Bush has decided to try fiscal responsibility in his last two years in office."

Intelligent Design Theory Fails Again

Michael Behe is one of the few working scientists among the Intelligent Design crowd.  In his first book, Darwin's Black Box, he argued that certain biochemical pathways in organisms displayed "irreducible complexity"; that is, they could not have evolved by a series of simple steps. Almost no biologists were persuaded by this argument.  Now he has a new book, The Edge of Evolution.  There is a devastating review at the New Republic by Jerry Coyne. 

I note only how much ground Behe is willing to concede to evolutionary theory. From Coyne:

For a start, let us be clear about what Behe now accepts about evolutionary theory. He has no problem with a 4.5-billion-year-old Earth, nor with evolutionary change over time, nor apparently with its ample documentation through the fossil record -- the geographical distribution of organisms, the existence of vestigial traits testifying to ancient ancestry, and the finding of fossil "missing links" that show common ancestry among major groups of organisms. Behe admits that most evolution is caused by natural selection, and that all species share common ancestors. He even accepts the one fact that most other IDers would rather die than admit: that humans shared a common ancestor with chimpanzees and other apes.

This is how much ground you have to concede if you wish to maintain some scientifically legitimate ground from which to challenge evolutionary theory. 

One of Todd Epp's Conservative Friends Replies

S.D. Watch directs our attention to this U.S. Supreme Court decision, summarized by the Sacramento Bee. 

Passengers, like drivers, have a constitutional right to challenge the legality of police decisions to stop cars in which they are traveling, the Supreme Court said Monday.

Bruce Brendlin was convicted of drug possession after a sheriff's deputy stopped a car in which he was a passenger in Yuba City, Calif., in 2001.

Brendlin was wanted for a parole violation, although the deputy who ordered the car to pull over didn't know beforehand that Brendlin was in the vehicle.  Brendlin appealed his conviction, arguing that the drug evidence should be suppressed because it was found as the result of an illegal stop. l

Todd adds this comment:

Note, my conservative friends—the vote was unanimous by the Supremes. Probable cause may be on life support but it’s not dead yet.

To which I add: yes.  Scalia and Thomas and Roberts and Alito joined swinger Kennedy and the Court's still weighty left wing.  Contrary to the implicaton of my friend Epp's comment, conservatives are just as eager to limit police powers as liberals.  Apparently Bush's appointments have not destroyed the Constitution.  I now have Epp's evidence on this.

The original point of the fourth amendment search and seizure language is to prevent government from using its police powers to annoy innocent persons whom the government dislikes.  Here the government of California wants to profit from an illegitimate search by arguing that only the driver of the car is protected.  The Court reasonably concluded that fourth amendment protections extend also to someone who is riding shotgun.  It looks like an easy call to me. 

On the other hand, the passenger in question had an outstanding warrant that would have justified his arrest if the police had otherwise known he was in the car.  What if he were part of a terrorist cell about to blow up Reno Airport?  I humbly submit that the Court would have reache another conclusion. 

Monkish Intolerance II: Nifong Disbarred

Powerline has the story.  Former Durham County DA Michael Nifong, whose resignation I commented on earlier, has been disbarred by the North Carolina bar.  It is altogether proper that Nifong lose his law license and his office.  I am inclined to think that he ought to be prosecuted and serve time, if that is possible under the law.  Nifong set out to deliberately railroad several young men.  He did so originally to secure an election victory and later, I think, to cover up his own misconduct.  He clearly attempted to circumvent the most basic rights of the accused in keeping DNA evidence from the defense.  If he had been successful, he would have sent innocent persons to prison.  For that, he deserves a spell in the slammer himself. 

Powerline also reminds us of the role that 88 Duke University professors played in the travesty.  Before the facts had come out and without the benefit of a trial, the 88 issued wanted posters of the lacrosse players.  Erasmus would have recognized these robe and tassel scoundrels. 

The Monkish Intolerance of the Academic Left

I am blogging from the Reno airport this afternoon.  I spent the last three days discussing Erasmus, the Christian humanist who was a contemporary of Machiavelli and Martin Luther.  Erasmus was famous for not taking sides in the schism that was about to blossom into the Protestant Reformation.  He was at first supportive and later critical of Luther, but he refused to endorse the creation of a new church, independent of Rome.  He was committed first and foremost to the liberal arts and the freedom of the mind. The most frequent targets of his wit were the monks and theologians of his time, for whom learning was nothing less and never anything more than a slavish obedience to whatever dogma was current among them at the time.

I thought of this when I noticed this piece by Michael Goldfarb in The New York Times.  It is about the closing of Antioch College, which was established 155 years ago by a free-thinking Christian group.  What killed it?  The main cause was that after the 1960's it was gradually transformed into a vast left-wing propoganda machine, with branches all across the country. The administration no longer gave much thought to the ancient institution it was responsible for.  Worse was what happened at Antioch College itself.   

Antioch College became a rump where the most illiberal trends in education became entrenched. Since it is always easier to impose a conformist ethos on a small group than a large one, as the student body dwindled, free expression and freedom of thought were crushed under the weight of ultraliberal orthodoxy. By the 1990s the breadth of challenging ideas a student might encounter at Antioch had narrowed, and the college became a place not for education, but for indoctrination. Everyone was on the same page, a little to the left of The Nation in worldview.

Much of this conformist thinking focused on gender politics, and it culminated in the notorious sexual offense prevention policy. Enacted in 1993, the policy dictated that a person needed express permission for each stage in seduction. (“May I touch your breast?” “May I remove your bra?” And so on.) In two decades students went from being practitioners of free love to prisoners of gender. Antioch became like one of those Essene communities in the Judean desert in the first century after Christ that, convinced of their own purity, died out while waiting for a golden age that never came.

These are the people with whom Erasmus struggled.  The world will never see the end of them.

Nifong Resigns

As I predicted he would, back some time ago.  From the New York Post:

June 16, 2007 -- With tears in his eyes, Mike Nifong yesterday announced that he is resigning as the district attorney of Durham County, N.C., over the now-dismissed rape charges he brought against three Duke students.

What took him so long?

Nifong made the dramatic disclosure while testifying at an ethics trial that could - and should - result in the loss of his law license.

According to Nifong, his "community has suffered enough."

Well, that goes without saying.

But why did he never appreciate the suffering of the three players - who became the focus of national attention, thanks to Nifong's prosecutorial zealotry over an unfounded allegation that they'd raped a stripper?

Indeed, Nifong refused to back down, even when it was abundantly clear to everyone else that the entire case had been hopelessly discredited by a complaining witness whose story was a bundle of contradictions and lies.

Why did he refuse to drop the case?

It's clear why: Because he was in the midst of a tight re-election battle - and could gain votes by inciting racial tensions in an already charged case. To the point where he deliberately withheld exculpatory evidence from the defense, and then lied about it to the judge.

More Tahoe Pics

AL Criticism

A War College reader responds to today's Argus Leader editorial:

My point, is how dare the Argus accuse Dan Scott of tarnishing the image of Sioux Falls, when they do it every single day.

In my opinion, there is nothing, NOTHING that creates a more negative attitude and image of Sioux Falls than the Argus Liar.

They, more than any other person, place, or thing create the division between Sioux Falls and the rest of the state.

Sadly, their far too arrogant to admit that....even though they are aware of it.

Sell papers at the expense of your own community. That's the Gannett way.

The GOP Identity Crisis?

Over the next sixteen months leading up to the 2008 elections, Republicans face the daunting challenge of determining their identity.  With the base of the party frustrated over the immigration bill, the nation frustrated with the war in Iraq, among a whole host of issues, the challenge seems daunting.  E.J. Dionne of the Washington Post, who always writes a thought-provoking column, wonders if the Republican party can recapture the optimism of the Reagan years:

The great drama in American politics today revolves around the question: What is the Republican Party?

We think we know. Republicans are the party of business and of evangelical Christians, of better-off voters and people who hate taxes, the party of conservatism and the South, the party that wants to be aggressive in the battle against terrorism.

But the instability in the Republican presidential campaign, the longing for a Fred Thompson candidacy and the sharp split over immigration all point to an identity crisis at the end of the Bush era.

The last great redefinition of Republicanism, kicked off in 1964 with Barry Goldwater’s nomination, was resolved with Ronald Reagan’s election in 1980. Republicans bled liberals and embraced conservatism.

In mapping the contours of the party's identity problem, Dionne says the party has moved away from its federalist impulses by supporting Rudy Giuliani, saying that he would not be the likely frontrunner without a national security "imprint."  In Dionne's reasoning, the GOP has lost its identity outside of national security.   

I wouldn't say that this is necessarily the problem.  Security has been at the root of conservatism since the Goldwater-Reagan impluse, when Goldwater and Reagan wanted to aggressively engage the Soviet Union, and later argued for law and order at home, as Michael Flamm demonstrates in his recent book.  The candidates for the GOP nomination have not swayed from the message of international strength and reduced government, as Dionne suggests.

The problem, in my view, has nothing to do with a Republican identity, but rather we simply don't trust our candidates to follow through on their promises.  Republicans had the opportunity to push through their programs, with the advantage of a Republican Congress and Republican White House, yet we saw tremendous increases in discretionary federal spending, massive pork projects, government intrusion into areas like education, and incompetence in issues like border control.  The problem isn't the Republican ideology or identity, but Republican politicians who failed to enact the Republican agenda.  We want Republicans who mean what they say -- at that point, we'll have optimism.

Reid and American Generals

Michael Goldfarb on Harry Reid, The Politico, and the Netroots:

Another interesting undercurrent to this is the contempt of the left-wing bloggers for the Politico, and the Drudge Report, which often links to the site. The story was "based on unsubstantiated, third-party recollection," says Geiger, under the headline "The Politico Fails Journalism 101." "Politico, the online soul-mate to the Drudge Report, has gotten into the habit of creating news stories through innuendo, omission, outright error, and now today, out of thin air," was the line from Kos blogger BarbinMD (is that a professional opinion, doctor?). And the grand wizard of Politico haters once complained that Drudge and the Politico are "poisonously joined at the hip."

Well, for all that griping, it seems the Politico nailed this story, and Drudge just did what he always does--amplify it. Dr. Barbin still contends this is a non-story--though, apparently factually accurate despite protestations to the contrary--because it was just "a throw away line...that Harry Reid said to the unable-to-be-reconfirmed Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff's face." And Geiger puts off the outrageous statement Reid claims to have made to the senator's "tendency to speak like the straight-talking, former boxer that he is." If it's all true, then Reid's a brave man, but a jerk nonetheless. The other possibility, of course, is that he's full of it and never said any such thing to Pace--in which case, he's still a jerk, but not so stupid as to question the integrity of this nation's highest ranking officer to his face.

The lefty bloggers, for their part, have shown themselves to be totally inept. They failed to report the comments, then they denied Reid ever made them while making their own unsubstantiated allegations, and now they defend the comments as irrelevant--and without even the slightest doubt as to their validity. Which is worse?

Here's some background info on the controversy.

Media Malaise

Thomas Lifson:  "The business model he established for the New York Times Company continues to collapse under the feet of Pinch Sulzberger. The very latest revenue figures of the company released just minutes ago show that advertising revenue and gross revenue are declining at a rate that cannot be matched by growth in revenues from the expensive internet properties purchased by Sulzberger."

Immigration Bill Returns to Senate

After some deal making between Harry Reid, Mitch McConnell, and the White House, the immigration bill will be returning to the Senate floor next week.  Excerpt:

Senate leaders agreed Thursday to a list of amendments to be considered, clearing the way for debate to resume. The decision followed President Bush's announcement that he supports a move to immediately set aside more than $4 billion to beef up enforcement of immigration laws.

The two actions significantly improve the chances that the Senate will pass the comprehensive bill, which would provide a path to citizenship for many of the nation's estimated 12 million illegal immigrants. "We believe that there are enough votes," White House spokesman Tony Snow said Thursday.

A senior Democratic aide said that Senate leaders agreed to specific amendments, with 11 for each side, but did not describe them.

One will certainly be the amendment drafted by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) to guarantee that the federal government spends billions of dollars to improve border security and crack down on businesses that hire illegal workers. The measure is intended as an answer to conservatives who doubt the administration's commitment to enforcement. ...

Snow suggested that the president and other backers of the bill wanted the funding to be a part of the immigration package, not a separate measure. "All the pieces have to work together," he said. "If you disaggregate, things fall apart."

The bill claims to address the visa system and border security, but Congress has already passed mandates on both subjects.  Last year, legislation was passed to authorize the construction of a fence along the southern border, and Congress also demanded the replacement of the visa system by 2005.  Can we expect Congress or the White House to follow through on this legislation when they haven't complied with the previous?

UPDATE:  Paul Mirengoff: 

The administration's latest effort to induce Congress to grant amnesty to more than 12 million illegal immigrants is an offer of "confidence building" measures to overcome the fear that the government will not seriously enforce the law. It's sad that the administration can't rely on its past performance in this regard. Michael Chertoff seems to regard ordinary border enforcement as beneath him (chasing cooks and gardeners, is how he characterizes it), and President Bush craves a grander legacy. Presumably, he considered enforcing the immigration laws "small ball," the term he uses to belittle mere competent performance of his job. If the Bush adminstration wasn't willing to do its job when it comes to securing our border even after 9/11, are we to be confident that, say, Hillary Clinton will take on this task with any seriousness?

Regime Change In Gaza II

From the Telegraph, hat tip to Powerline:

In the past 48 hours 19 Palestinians have been killed, tossed from rooftops, executed at point-blank range, and shot in hospital wards. That number seems certain to rise. More than 80 Palestinians have now been killed since mid May.

Among yesterday's dead was a 14-year-old boy and three women, all killed in a Hamas attack on a Fatah security officer's home.

"They're firing at us, firing RPGs, firing mortars. We're not Jews," the brother of Jamal Abu Jediyan, a Fatah commander, pleaded during a live telephone conversation with a Palestinian radio station.

Minutes later both men were dragged into the streets and riddled with bullets.

It's wrong to kill us because we're not Jews. A very costly act of self-parody. 

Incline Village

Here are some shots from Incline Village, on the north shore of Lake Tahoe.

One Thing I have Figured Out

There are a lot of unusual ingredients that can make for interesting and delicious beer.  Cherries.  Molasses.  Citrus fruit is not one of them.  I had an IPA yesterday in a Reno brewpub (airport extension) that would have been fine without the subtle citrus overtones that I did not notice being warned about in advance.  We report.  You decide.

Warning:Light Blogging Ahead

I am off to Lake Tahoe for a colloquium, which is kinda like a conference only smaller.  Schaff's on vacation and Jason is busy with other things, so posting may be light for the next few days.  Or maybe not.  I will try to post from the road, with some pictures. 

Regime Change in Gaza

I have frequently commented on the wisdom of Ariel Sharon's last foreign policy: give up trying to make peace with the Palestinians, for the latter are incapable of generating the kind of leadership who could or ever would make a deal.  Instead, withdraw from the territories and isolate them in so far as possible.  Here is the latest obstacle on the road map to peace, from Time:

Hamas and Fatah may have passed the point of no return: The unprecedented viciousness of the renewed fighting between the rival Palestinian factions in Gaza makes any new cease-fire difficult to envisage; this time, it may be a fight to the death.

Since the new clashes erupted on Sunday, gangs have tossed their enemies alive off 15-story buildings, shot down one another's children, and burst into hospitals to finish off wounded foes lying helplessly in bed. The revenge motive alone could now be enough to sustain the civil war.

Gaza right now makes the world of the Road Warrior look like a retirement community.  The only thing wrong with Sharon's policy was that building a wall around Gaza wasn't enough.  He should have installed bleachers. 

Hamas is going to win.  In this environment, the prize goes to the most single-minded and ruthless.  For all those who think that politics is boring, this is what it looks like when it's really exciting.

Al Gore, Chicken Hypnotist

Al Gore has more in common with Dan Quayle than is commonly acknowledged.  Both were Vice Presidents who never graduated to the next level, and both had a knack for self-parody that can only be explained as a kind of reverse genius.  Michael Moynihan at the Libertarian Reason has this beautiful  example of Gore's talent, from his recent book. 

Gore argues that the average American is in an advanced state of political torpor, induced by a profit-mad mass media. By way of illustration, he offers this folksy—if bizarre—anecdote: “When I was a boy growing up on our family farm in the summers,” he writes, off-handedly acknowledging that he wasn’t, in fact, a year-round farm boy, “I learned how to hypnotize chickens.” The former Vice President would render the birds “entranced and completely immobile” by forcing his quarry to follow the path of his finger. “It turns out that the immobility response in animals is an area that has received some scholarly attention, and here is one thing that scientists have found: the immobility response is strongly influenced by fear.”  The American news consumer, therefore, is something akin to a frightened chicken.

Now I don't think that Gore is really planning to run for anything ever again.  He is having way too much fun and getting his famous man jones satisfied by all the media attention.  But he will always be Mr. Vice President, and hence a politician, even if out of office.  There is no politician alive or dead who would not risk damnation by telling that story on himself.

If he were in office, think how the pundits would run with it.  "Well, I don't know about the chickens, Mr. President, but you sure put us to sleep."  Or a more cutting: "Here is young Al Gore, already so addicted to being the center of attention that he took to mesmerizing barnyard fowl." If you don't believe me, ask Jimmy Carter about his rabbit. 

But Moynihan is right about the more disturbing aspect of Gore's argument.  He thinks the American people are as stupid as a bunch of poultry.  That, at least, would explain eight years of George W.  Worse, he thinks the people have been immobilized by fear, but is spending all this waking energy trying to scare us about global warming.  This suggests that he has no idea what he himself is doing. 

It was once said of George W. Bush that he was born on third base and thought he hit a triple.  Gore was born on third base, and thought he invented baseball.  There is no coming back from that. 

Crime and Punishment III

Anna responds this morning to last night's post:

I suppose part of the problem here is an issue of semantics. I am confused why Ken equates a report of a crime to the police with someone in jail. ("But exactly the same kind of injuries are inflicted on a man falsely accused of rape, along with the years of prison. It's important for both of us to think about both things.") I mean, it's not like I could call the police this morning before work, accuse Ken of stealing the plastic pink flamingos from my front lawn, and assume he would be serving two years for larceny by the end of the day. One would hope that we have police officers, defense attorneys, and prosecutors in order to investigate crime reports and weed out as many of the false ones as we imperfect humans possibly can.

Anna is quite correct: one false accusation in four doesn't translate into one innocent in four going to prison.  But the article began by describing a study of cases where it did translate. 

The study documents 28 cases which, "with the exception of one young man of limited mental capacity who pleaded guilty," consist of individuals who were convicted by juries and, then, later exonerated by DNA tests.  At the time of release, they had each served an average of 7 years in prison.

The information in the article gives us a reasonable estimate of how many rape reports include false accusations, but not how many result in convictions.  One thing that weighs in the favor of the falsely accused is DNA tests, which have given us a pretty good idea of how unreliable other kinds of evidence can be.  What happens in the roughly 20% of cases where DNA evidence is inconclusive?  I still think this adds up to a lot of innocent guys in jail. 

One final note: there is a bit of jaundice in Anna's post title: "A final point on all these lying women."  False accusations in case of rape or any crime have many causes: trauma, confusion, simple mistakes.  I don't know but I would guess that outright lying is not the most prevalent one. This was something the original article (by that terrible Fox Network) was at pains to point out. 

Johnson Update

From this morning's Argus Leader:

South Dakota Sen. Tim Johnson's doctors are saying he soon will be able to fully resume his senatorial duties.

They could not say, however, when Johnson would return to Capitol Hill.

Johnson, who suffered a brain hemorrhage six months ago, has been working from home for several months while he undergoes physical, speech and occupational therapy several hours a day, five days a week.

"He's on a great track, he's doing well, but he has to keep doing therapy," Johnson's spokeswoman Julianne Fisher said Monday. "It's like looking at an athlete and saying: 'There won't be a problem. You'll be able to come back to work, but you'll miss a few more games.' "

The 60-year-old Democrat is able to speak clearly, and his mental capacity is fine, the doctors said in a statement released Monday. Last week, Johnson visited both his attending physician at the National Rehabilitation Hospital, Dr. Michael Yochelson, and the neurosurgeon who performed emergency surgery Dec. 13 at George Washington University Hospital, Dr. Vivek Deshmukh.

Harry Potter and the Most Important Question: Is Snape Evil?

One of my favorite students is now working for the Clinton campaign, and she and I have fundamental disagreement: she thinks Severus Snape is indeed a loyal servant of the Dark Lord Voldemort (forgive me for mentioning the name in print, but Dumbledore said it was alright). She certainly has  the weight of evidence on her side at the moment.  Snape killed Dumbledore.  He was once a Death Eater, and has the throbbing tattoo thingy on his arm.  He has been an insufferable burden to Harry.  Case closed, right? 

Here I take my stand.  Snape is a son of a bitch.  He is not evil.  Just before he used the killing curse against Dumbledore, the one that gave Harry his famous scar, Dumbledore pleaded with him.  There is no way Dumbledore pleads for his life.  No way.  He was pleading with Snape to do what he was supposed to do. 

The final Harry Potter book comes out next month, and we shall see.  I began reading the Harry Potter novels to my son when he was a wee little thing.  I have kept it up, and I expect that we will finish the business in the usual way, with the boy in my lap.  Only now his legs stretch into another zip code.  Keep the faith, ye supporters of Snape.  Maybe it's not to late to get him into the Republican race.

Rape and False Accusations II

Anna at Dakota Women bites back in response to my earlier post. I quoted an article in Fox News about the more or less high percentage of false accusations behind rape convictions.  I agree with a lot of what she says, and I admire the measured way that she approaches the evidence.  But here are some responses.  Anna says:

1. Linking to Fox News means you automatically lose this debate.  Try an unbiased source please.

I hate to break this to you, Anna, but you and I are biased sources.  Does that mean that nothing we write is worthy of consideration?  I hope not, because in fact there are no unbiased sources.  The American media in general is biased in favor of democracy, human rights, racial equality and the rights of women.  I think this is a good thing.  The New York Times is vehemently biased by hatred of George Bush.  That doesn't mean that anything printed in the Times is "automatically" discredited.  Perhaps you would like a media uniformly biased in favor of your own views, and that would be one without Fox News.  I prefer a media biased in a lot of different directions, because that is what intellectual conversation is all about.

Anna says:

3. I think it's also important for Ken and others to think about the effect this kind of thing has on survivors of rape who are contemplating whether or not to report the crime to the police.

Yes.  False accusations of rape make it harder to prosecute genuine cases.  But surely the answer to this is not to be quiet about the former.  Feminists have been very good at emphasizing what is so terrible about rape: the assault against the dignity of a human person, and the life long emotional damage it can cause.  But exactly the same kind of injuries are inflicted on a man falsely accused of rape, along with the years of prison.  It's important for both of us to think about both things.

Lastly, Anna says:

It is pretty clear that reports of rape are false at a higher rate than other crimes. But making a point of exaggerating those numbers, as McElroy does (and making a point of reporting those exaggerations, as Ken does), is a truly harmful disservice to women.

I think Anna is rather unfair to Ms. McElroy.  The latter is doing exactly what Anna does, quite reasonably, in this remark:

2. This article (which is fairly old) seems to indicate that the number of false reports is higher than 2%, probably higher than the 8% statistic reported by the FBI, and less than the 20-40% statistic Ken is floating.

Both Anna and McElroy are trying to get a fix on where the truth lies, and it probably lies between the more extreme estimates.  Contrary to the above, I "float" no statistics other than those advanced in the article.  And here is Ms. McElroy's best estimate:

If the foregoing results can be extrapolated, then the rate of false reports is roughly between 20 (if DNA excludes an accused) to 40 percent (if inconclusive DNA is added). The relatively low estimate of 25 to 26 percent is probably accurate, especially since it is supported by other sources.

This estimate of false accusation, one in four, is higher than the vaguely greater than 8% that Anna proposes.  But even if it is, say, 10%, that is a lot of innocent guys in the slammer.

We have here a classic conundrum of criminal justice: a system that convicts too many innocent people while providing insufficient protection to the victims.  I hope we can do better, but we surely have to recognize both sides of the problem, even if one side presents itself at that terrible Fox News.

 

Senator Thune's Opinions About Evolution

My friend Chad at CCK has produced evidence that Senator Thune does not believe in evolution.  From Newsweek:

Thune, 43, 6 feet 4 and tan, with the good looks of a television anchor, doesn't drink, smoke or swear. An evangelical Christian, he does not believe in evolution.

As Chad acknowledges, it is a pretty small piece of evidence: one sentence buried in a story about Thune's views of marriage.  But I am inclined to think that the Newsweek reporter had something to back it up, so I will take Chad's claim in an earlier post as provisionally confirmed.  Chad is responding to my post on intelligent design. 

I do not think it surprising that Senator Thune doesn't believe in evolution.  That is the default position for evangelical Christians.  As I have said, I think this rejection is wrong as a matter of science.  I also think it is wrong theologically and a bad strategy politically. 

Herseth Sandlin Flip Flops on Kyoto

From the Pierre Capital Journal:

PIERRE - U.S. Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin is clarifying comments made last week about her recent four-nation trip where she toured with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to see the effects of global warming.

The Democratic congresswoman from South Dakota said last week that she does recognize the need for the U.S. to be involved in international climate negotiations in a post-Kyoto world. However, she still thinks it was the right decision for the U.S. to not join the Kyoto Treaty when it was signed.

"I agreed at the time that we shouldn't sign on to the Kyoto because China and India were not even made part of the framework, but I do think that so long as the United States doesn't participate in the multi-lateral negotiations, that it makes it too easy for China and India to go ahead and say 'Why should we participate when the United States isn't participating,'" Herseth said last Friday.

Rape and False Accusations

Rape is one of the most terrible things that can happen to a person.  A false accusation of rape is another.  Fox News has this story by Wendy McElroy:

Politically correct feminists claim false rape accusations are rare and account for only 2 percent of all reports. Men's rights sites point to research that places the rate as high as 41 percent. These are wildly disparate figures that cannot be reconciled.

This week I stumbled over a passage in a 1996 study published by the U.S. Department of Justice: Convicted by Juries, Exonerated by Science: Case Studies in the Use of DNA Evidence to Establish Innocence After Trial.

The study documents 28 cases which, "with the exception of one young man of limited mental capacity who pleaded guilty," consist of individuals who were convicted by juries and, then, later exonerated by DNA tests.

At the time of release, they had each served an average of 7 years in prison.

The passage that riveted my attention was a quote from Peter Neufeld and Barry C. Scheck, prominent criminal attorneys and co-founders of the Innocence Project that seeks to release those falsely imprisoned.

They stated, "Every year since 1989, in about 25 percent of the sexual assault cases referred to the FBI where results could be obtained, the primary suspect has been excluded by forensic DNA testing. Specifically, FBI officials report that out of roughly 10,000 sexual assault cases since 1989, about 2,000 tests have been inconclusive, about 2,000 tests have excluded the primary suspect, and about 6,000 have "matched" or included the primary suspect."

The authors continued, "these percentages have remained constant for 7 years, and the National Institute of Justice's informal survey of private laboratories reveals a strikingly similar 26 percent exclusion rate."

If the foregoing results can be extrapolated, then the rate of false reports is roughly between 20 (if DNA excludes an accused) to 40 percent (if inconclusive DNA is added). The relatively low estimate of 25 to 26 percent is probably accurate, especially since it is supported by other sources.

Note to Stupid: It is not the Economy Anymore

"It's the economy, stupid," was the mantra of the Clinton campaign in 1992.  George Will (Real Clear Politics) shows us much the political environment had changed.

Last Sunday, eight Democratic presidential candidates debated for two hours, saying about the economy . . . next to nothing. You must slog to Page 43 in the 51-page transcript before Barack Obama laments that "the burdens and benefits of this new global economy are not being spread evenly across the board" and promises to "institute some fairness in the system."

I noticed this deafening silence recently, when I reflected that my friend Chad at CCK hasn't been running his usual "George Bush is despicable because of the economy" posts.  This used to be a regular feature of our conversations.  Chad would point out that income growth was sluggish (due no doubt to Bush's glee at starving orphans), and I would point out that we were recovering from a recession and that Bush would leave office with pretty much everyone better off than when he came in.  George Will notices the same thing.

Early in George W. Bush's presidency, liberal critics said: The economy is not growing. Which was true. He inherited the debris of the 1990s' irrational exuberances. A brief (eight months) and mild (the mildest since World War II) recession began in March 2001, before any of his policies were implemented. It ended in November 2001.

In 2002, when his tax cuts kicked in and the economy began 65 months -- so far -- of uninterrupted growth, critics said: But it is a "jobless recovery." When the unemployment rate steadily declined -- today it is 4.5 percent; time was, 6 percent was considered full employment -- critics said: Well, all right, the economy is growing and creating jobs and wealth, but the wealth is not being distributed in accordance with the laws of God or Nature or liberalism or something.

It is obvious that the economic news is very good.  If it weren't, the Democrats wouldn't be ignoring it.

Is Barak Obama the Anti-Christ?

Well, no.  I say this only because we all know that Karl Rove is the Anti-Christ. Think about it.  Christ was slender, had long hair, and was strikingly handsome.  I know this because his portrait was on my Sainted Grandmother's parlor wall, and his eyes followed you about the room.  Karl Rove is portly, balding, and something other than handsome.  I have never seen his picture on a wall, so I don't know if his eyes follow you, but I am guessing that his eyes are too busy looking for opportunities to bring down the Kingdom of Heaven. 

But Anna at Dakota Woman directs our attention to a Wonkett post on Obama.  Apparently a lot of "evangelicals" believe that Obama is or maybe the "AC."   Now I 'm with Anna.  These folk seem to be a bit tetched, as we say in Arkansas. Obama is a handsome, intelligent and articulate, if relatively unexperienced politician, who refused to give up cigarettes because they make his voice smooth and sexy.  I am not sure that  qualifies him to be president.  Surely Anti-Christ is a somewhat more demanding office.  When do the primaries begin for that?  But considering the forces pushing him to his presidential run, who knows what other ambitions he may have inspired in his admirers. 

It is nutty to cast Obama as the Anti-Christ.  Even more nutty than to compare George W. Bush to Hitler. 

Unsuccessful Arguments for Intelligent Design

My friend Chad at CCK has this comment:

Robbinsdale Radical reminds us that John Thune doesn't believe in evolution.

I went to robbinsdale radical and found the post that Chad has in mind, but the only evidence of John Thune's opinion on evolution that I found was a link to one of my own posts in which I explicitly confirm my own belief in evolution.  I don't happen to know what Senator Thune thinks about evolution, and I am guessing that RR and CCK don't know either. 

But RR and CCK put us on to an interesting argument.  Here is the Radical's take:

One of the arguments against evolutionary theory is that complex parts that work together could not have developed independently and certainly not placed in their complex structure without divine intervention. It's a very tempting argument, especially if you are inclined to the geological time scale and are amazed (you should be) at structure like the human eye and also in the marvelous interdependence of entire ecosystems.

You may have heard this   as the "wristwatch on the beach" argument. It's a very old and weak line of reasoning that dates back before Christianity, and was a popular criticism of Darwin in the 19th century.

In fact, I think that RR has misidentified the "irreducible complexity" argument.  It is not an example of the argument from design (designed things like the human eye imply a designer), but of the argument from causation.  See St. Thomas Aquinas Five Ways, numbers 2 and 5.  Here is an example of the latter:

1)  The only natural way to get a chicken is from a chicken egg;
2)  The only natural way to get a chicken egg is from a chicken;
3)  There was a time in the past when there were no chickens. 
4)  Therefore: chickens can only have come into being through some supernatural force. 

That looks like a valid argument to me, in so far as the conclusion 4 follows from premises 1-3.  Of course Darwinian theory decisively undermines premise 1: you can get chickens by natural speciation from some proto-chicken species. 

Intelligent Design Theory attempts to repair the argument by showing that Darwinian mechanics is insufficient.  The latter can explain the evolution of complex organic structures from simple ones only if the structure confers some reproductive advantage at every stage of its history.  But some organic structures (the current favorites are complex molecular devices) function only if they are complete and not at all in simpler, partial versions.  Hence they are irreducibly complex.  So you still need chickens to get chicken eggs. 

That is not a stupid argument. It is very sophisticated biologically and philosophically, which is evident from the fact that its failure illuminates and strengthens Darwinian theory.  RR and CCK direct us to an excellent blog post by Sharon Begley that shows why the argument fails.

[The irreducible-complexity crowd] makes a fatal error: they assume that whatever the function of a biological component (gene, protein, biochemical pathway . . . ) today must have been its function in the past. Maybe you noticed that my mouse trap example above wasn’t very persuasive; even without a base and a bar, a spring can be a useful little device. So it goes with biological systems. For instance, of the 42 proteins known to make up the bacterial flagellum, 40 have been found to serve as ion channels or something else in bacteria. It is therefore perfectly plausible that they really were hanging around—serving some function that would have allowed evolution and natural selection to keep them around generation after generation—until they all got together and formed a flagellum.

This seems to me to be dead spot on. The flagellum, basically a fin that bacteria use to swim, has been used as an example of irreducible complexity.  It is in fact the result of simpler machinery turned to new uses by natural selection.  Ms. Begley focuses on a study that found genes for producing synapses (the cellular structures allow that our brain cells to form a network) in sponges, which presumably have no brains. 

Evolutionary theory wins every one of these many battles.  That is why I believe in it.  But it is made stronger by the argument, and that is why Darwinism benefits from an honorable opposition.  I differ from the Robbinsdale Radical and the Clean Cut Kid only in this: I think that evolution is a way to explore and understand the wonders of the world, and not just a weapon with which to belittle persons of faith. 

SD Gorilla Project

Argus Leader excerpt:

The group behind the Gorilla project fears rivals could buy up land in the Elk Point area, which is partly why secrecy is needed, Gov. Mike Rounds says.

Meanwhile, a University of South Dakota professor said Thursday that he and others at the school have been contacted by a Houston firm requesting help with research.

David Carr, an assistant professor of economics in the Beacom School of Business, said he and others at USD were contacted in April by an economic consulting firm in Houston "and asked if we were interested in doing an economic and social impact study for what is known as the Gorilla project."

"The Department of Economics bid jointly with the Business Research Bureau," Carr said. "We didn't get it. And they didn't tell us what it was for."

Other local residents have done work connected to the project. A lawyer at one of Sioux Falls' largest law firms, for instance, drafted the real estate documents landowners near Elk Point have been asked to sign.

Rounds, in Sioux Falls on Thursday to announce increased state funding for the Lewis & Clark water project, would not say when a Gorilla announcement might be made.

But the governor did say the secrecy was partly to prevent others from buying land in the area.

"It's because there is a very competitive industry that this particular organization's going to be competing in," he said.

Speculation about the project has ranged from a large manufacturing plant to a refinery. It reportedly would create as many as 2,000 jobs, and up to 5,000 acres of South Dakota farmland would be used.

Global Warming Dissent: Here Comes the Sun!

There are four really interesting questions about global warming: 1) is it happening? 2) Is it caused in large part by human activity? 3) Is it bad? and 4) Can we do anything about it?  I have written frequently on this topic and I have been mostly persuaded that the answer to the first two questions is yes.  I have argued that the answer to the last question is no.  As for the third question, I think that we have no idea except to say that change always presents challenges. 

Discover magazine has a fascinating interview with a genuine climate scientist who clearly and cautiously skeptical about question number 2.  I haven't been able to find an on line version, but here is the abstract:

This article presents an interview with Henrik Svensmark, director of the Center of Sun-Climate Research at the Danish National Space Center. Svensmark has become a controversial figure for proposing solar activity is responsible for global warming. He says cosmic rays suppress cloud formation, which, in turn, affects temperatures on Earth.

The caution with which Svensmark answers questions in the interview indicates the political pressure that honest scientists are under if their research has implications for this matter.  I gather that it is a very bad thing if the Bush Administration pressures scientists to conform to the party line, but global warming activists don't mind at all bringing all sorts of pressure on scientists who don't follow their line.  But Svensmark is man enough to acknowledge the bottom line: to the extent that global warming is due to solar activity, it isn't due to human activity. 

This came to mind tonight as I watched a Nature show on Ireland.  13,000 years ago, if I remember it right, the Emerald Isle was snow white with ice, and dead as a frozen leg of lamb.  Since then it has thawed out and greened, allowing all sorts of flora and fauna to flourish, along with the Irish Republican Army and the Guinness brewery.  So global warming has been going on for a long time without our help, and for the most part it has been a very good thing.  Of course there have been winners and losers.  Why are there stoats in Ireland, but no weasels or snakes?  Because as Ireland thawed, the seas receded, eventually submerging the land bridge between England and Ireland.  The stoats made it across in time.  The snakes didn't.  The Protestants had to use boats.

That is the history of Ireland and everywhere else.  I note that the people of Greenland are delighted with global warming, as their charming chunk of earth is becoming green once again.  Sitting on my deck in June with a jacket on, I am with them. 

SDP Jazz Note: The Red Garland Quintet

Building a jazz library is a challenge because so many different kinds of music are published under that genre title. A lot of stuff gets in that doesn't belong there, and rare is the jazz fan whose tastes are wide enough to encompass everything that does.  I make a lot of use of jazz guides, such as the "building a jazz library" articles at All About Jazz.  I have recently discovered an invaluable resource: the Jazz Discography Project.  This is a very thorough catalog of recordings by major jazz artists listing songs, albums, session dates and recording locations.  It is the single most useful on line jazz page that I have found. 

I blogged earlier about the four great recordings made by the Miles Davis Quintet in 1956. Using the Jazz Discography, I discovered  a similar session recorded in November and December of 1957 by The Red Garland Quintet.  Garland played piano for Davis's Quintet, and he brought John Coltrane along with him.  Donald Bird replaced Davis on trumpet, with George Joyner on bass, and Art Taylor on drums.  It is not really a "quintet" in so far as the group did not travel and do live shows like the Miles Davis Quintet. But the session recorded by Rudy Van Gelder in Hackensack, New Jersey, spawned three albums: All Morning Long, Soul Junction, and High Pressure.

I have listened to the first two and they are marvelous.  They sit quite comfortably next to the Davis Quintet's Cookin' and Workin' on my CD shelf, with the same bluesy energy and deep heart.  High pressure was a little harder to reel in.  Barnes and Noble ran out, but I await a copy from some outfit in the Smoky Mountains, by way of Amazon.  This was a delicious find for a certified jazz nerd.  I at least had never heard of this session, and I am guess that a lot of folks with the Miles Davis Quintet on their iPods haven't heard it either.  If nothing else, this is a bit of undiscovered Coltrane, whose genius is on full display as a sideman.  Check it out. 

Immigration Bill

A cloture vote on the immigration bill has failed on a 45-50 vote.  A majority of Republicans voted against cloture, which permits more debate and additional amendments.   Obviously Congress needs to take measures to improve immigration, but the comprehensive compromise is not the way to go.  With this defeat, perhaps Congress can move on to more serious measures.  Perhaps they'll secure the border, in part by building the fence that Congress authorized and funded last year, and by bolstering the Border Patrol.  Perhaps they'll fix the visa program, which Congress wanted done by 2005, and take measures to punish businesses who hire illegal immigrants.  Congress has a lot of work ahead of itself to rebuild its credibility.

On another note, Harry Reid is telling reporters that he gave the bill plenty of time for debate, but Republicans are wanting too many amendments and are asking for too much time in their legislative schedule.  This from a political party that took 108 days to pass a spending bill for our troops in Iraq?  He's willing to have fifteen weeks of debate over spending, seven times longer than he's allowing for an overhaul of our immigration system.  He's blaming the defeat on the GOP, despite the fact that ten Democrats voted against cloture.

Herseth Sandlin Now Supports Kyoto

The Capitol Journal reports that Representative Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin has thrown her support behind the Kyoto Protocol, saying that her European tour on climate change with Speaker Pelosi has opened her eyes:

U.S. Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, D-S.D., said she thinks global warming is real and President George Bush needs to do more to acknowledge the problem.

Herseth Sandlin recently completed a tour of four nations with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and said the evidence is easy to see.

"From the scientific evidence that's been presented in Washington, from the observations and experiences of the native people, as well as witnessing first hand the melting and what's happened, it confirms even more in my mind that global warming is happening," she said.

Herseth Sandlin said some fishermen were saying they were catching foreign species of fish because of the warmer water temperatures. Also, she said they told her that certain areas of snow and ice are melting, which is affecting their dog-sledding industry.

"When we're out in the harbor and we're seeing the icebergs melting and we're seeing the glaciers and where you can see on a daily basis the breaking off from the glacier, when you can see in an aerial view this sort of river coming out it's dramatic," she said.

The international trip was over the Memorial Day weekend and included members of both parties. Herseth Sandlin said the Republican president made an important step when he announced a proposal to reduce the U.S.'s greenhouse gasses, but there is still more to be done.

"We've got to fill in the detail and keep sort of the pressure on to move forward with the immediacy that I think this deserves," she said.

Herseth Sandlin originally was against the Kyoto Treaty - which assigns emissions limits to reduce greenhouse gasses - because China and India were not a part of the framework. However, now she recognizes the need for the U.S. to join.

"I do think that so long as the United States doesn't participate in the multilateral negotiations, that it makes it too easy for China and India to go ahead and say 'Why should we participate when the United States isn't participating,' she said.

The congresswoman's trip has been the target of attack ads from a group called Common Sense for the 21st Century. The ads accuse her of not caring about her home state because she went on the trip soon after the Aberdeen flooding occurred.

"I think the criticism is unfortunate and really ill-informed," she said. "My family and friends in Brown County and that area know that I've been responsive, as has the entire delegation working with the governor, so out-of-state partisan attacks don't worry me much."

However, one of the unintended consequences of signing Kyoto, according to one study, is that it ends up cutting farm incomes by fifty percent:

Kyoto Treaty could cut US farm income by 50 percent

(19 February 1999)

US farmers and ranchers could see their income drop to 50 percent less than 1998 levels if global warming guidelines set out in the Kyoto Treaty and agreed to by the US government are fully implemented, a study released on February 16 1999 claims.

"The impact of the treaty would be a financial last straw for many family farmers," said American Farm Bureau Federation President Dean Kleckner. "The Clinton administration has committed to a flawed treaty without releasing its own analysis of the impact the protocol would have on US agriculture. Meanwhile, agriculture has completed three studies -- all of which show devastating financial consequences for farmers and ranchers."
The study by the agricultural consulting firm Sparks Companies, Inc., states that agricultural production costs could increase by $16.2 billion or 8.8 percent. Because farmers and ranchers do not set the prices for their commodities, recapture of these higher costs would be difficult. Increased costs for processing, storing transporting and handling commodities and food would be forwarded to the consumer and would have the greatest negative impact on low-income families, who already spend a high percentage of their income on food.

"The administration is touting the treaty as a potential source of income for farmers because agricultural crops absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere," said Kleckner. "Yet, that is nowhere to be found in the treaty, and there is little promise that it will be added."

Last year, a group of agricultural interests, including the American Farm Bureau Federation, American Corn Growers Association, National Cattlemen's Beef Association, National Grange and United Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Association, asked Sparks to analyse Clinton administration proposals regarding the Global Climate Change Treaty. The study is based on the final Kyoto Treaty that the US administration signed in November 1998. The study claims the treaty would also force US farmers to compete with more than 100 countries, such as China and Brazil, which do not have to comply with the treaty and its emission constraints.

"This treaty only drives production agriculture to the countries that have environmental problems but don't have to participate in the United Nations' protocol on global climate change," said Kleckner.

Has our Representative considered the Kyoto Protocol carefully? 

Left-Wing Bloggers

In a theme similar to the post below, Joe Klein writing in Time discusses the "free-range lunacy" of left-wing bloggers.  Excerpt:

A strange thing happened to me the day the House of Representatives voted to pass the Iraq-war-funding bill. Congresswoman Jane Harman of California called as the debate was taking place. "Look, I would love to have cast a vote against Bush on this," she told me. "We need a new strategy, and I hope we can force one in September. But I flew into Baghdad [with 150 young soldiers recently]. To vote against this bill was to vote against giving them the equipment... they need. I couldn't do that." I posted what Harman said on Swampland, the political blog at Time.com, along with my opinion that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama had changed their positions and voted against the funding for the worst possible reason: presidential politics.

And then Harman changed her position. After we spoke, she voted against the funding. The next day, I was blasted by a number of left-wing bloggers: Klein screwed up! I had quoted Harman in the past tense—common usage for politicians who know their words will appear after a vote takes place. That was sloppy and... suspicious! Proof that you just can't trust the mainstream media. On Eschaton, a blog that specializes in media bashing, I was given the coveted "Wanker of the Day" award. Eventually, Harman got wind of this and called, unbidden, to apologize for misleading me, saying I had quoted her correctly but she had changed her mind to reflect the sentiments of her constituents. I published her statement and still got hammered by bloggers and Swampland commenters for "stalking" Harman into an apology, for not checking her vote in the Congressional Record, for being a "water boy for the right wing" and many other riffs unfit to print.

This is not the first time this kind of free-range lunacy has been visited upon me. Indeed, it happens, oh, once a week to each of us who post on Swampland (Karen Tumulty, Jay Carney and Ana Marie Cox are the others). A reasonable reader might ask, Why are the left-wing bloggers attacking you? Aren't you pretty tough on the Bush Administration? Didn't you write a few months ago that George W. Bush would be remembered as one of the worst Presidents in history? And why on earth does any of this matter?

First, let me say that I really enjoy blogging. It's a brilliant format for keeping readers up to date on the things I care about—and for exchanging information with them. I recently asked Swampland readers with military experience to comment on whether it was General David Petraeus' "duty" to tell the unvarnished truth about Iraq when he testifies on Capitol Hill in September. About a dozen readers responded with links to treatises about "duty" in various military journals. Furthermore, I've found that some great reporting takes place in the blogosphere: Juan Cole's Iraq updates are invaluable, Joshua Micah Marshall's Talking Points Memo did serious muckraking about the U.S. attorneys scandal, and Ezra Klein (no relation) is excellent on health care. I love linking to smart work by others, something you just can't do in a print column.

But the smart stuff is being drowned out by a fierce, bullying, often witless tone of intolerance that has overtaken the left-wing sector of the blogosphere. Anyone who doesn't move in lockstep with the most extreme voices is savaged and ridiculed—especially people like me who often agree with the liberal position but sometimes disagree and are therefore considered traitorously unreliable. Some of this is understandable: the left-liberals in the blogosphere are merely aping the odious, disdainful—and politically successful—tone that right-wing radio talk-show hosts like Rush Limbaugh pioneered. They are also justifiably furious at a Bush White House that has specialized in big lies and smear tactics.

The Left

Nashville Files:  "[W]hen the left attacks, it's much more full of hate and fanaticism than any other group...things that those same people claim to fight against. Yet, they themselves are the complete embodiment of it in their actions."

Could Daschle Run to Replace Senator Johnson?

SDWC:

Denise Ross is over at the Hog House Blog noting that when asked about returning to public service, former Senator Tom Daschle noted that

“you never say never but I have no plans at this time,” line and then emphasized how much he enjoys public service. And, "I’ll be looking at options as they present themselves."

Read it here.

There is a whisper out there that some of "his people" want him to consider taking over Johnson's slot if it becomes available. Hmmmm.....

Iowa Straw Poll

New York Times:  "Bucking a ritual for Republican presidential candidates, Rudolph W. Giuliani and Senator John McCain announced Wednesday that they would skip participation in what has been a significant early test of candidate strength, the straw poll in Ames, Iowa, this summer."

Immigration Bill Survives Killer Amendment

This from Powerline:

Sen. John Cornyn's amendment to the Senate immigration bill, which would have prevented felons from obtaining legal status, was defeated today on a 51-46 vote. My understanding is that most observers considered Cornyn's challenge to the compromise to be the most likely to derail it.

Bob Novak writes that there are only around 30 conservative Senators opposing the bill, with Jon Kyl, Johnny Isakson, Trent Lott and Saxby Chambliss, all of whom opposed last year's bill, supporting the current version.

Meanwhile, Rasmussen reports that public support for the compromise package is slipping. Currently, only 23% support the bill, with 50% opposed. When given the alternatives of enacting the present bill and doing nothing, 49% prefer to do nothing, compared to 32% who favor passage of McCain-Kennedy.

And this from Yahoo News:

The underlying bill would legalize an estimated 12 million unlawful immigrants, tighten border security and institute new enforcement measures to prevent employers from hiring illegal workers.

After his defeat, Cornyn said those who voted against the proposal "failed to take an opportunity to help restore public confidence that we're actually serious about passing an immigration law that could actually work."

Many Americans will conclude instead that the bill's enforcement provisions will not be rigorously enforced, a problem that deeply undermined a 1986 immigration overhaul, he added.

That is indeed the problem. 

Arizona Wildcats Win Women's College World Series

The Lady Vols came closer than any Tennessee team had come before.  And they loaded the bases twice in the third and final game.  But they just couldn't bring anyone home.  Wildcat pitcher Taryne Mowatt never lost her composure.  If anything, she got more devastating the longer the game went on and the more difficult a fix she was in..  The Wildcats broke it open in the fifth inning with five runs, took their eighth title.

Wildcats Win 2nd Game of World Series!

One place that women are not discriminated against is college softball.  Tonight the University of Arizona Wildcats won the second game of the Women's College World Series against the Tennessee Lady Vols, 1-0. The play was maginficient.   Arizona starter Taryne Mowatt (41-12) did what the Vols' Monica Abbott couldn't quite do: shut down the other team.  In the tenth inning (a regular game in Woman's softball is seven), Danielle Rodriguez came in to pinch run for Sam Banister, who had been sacrificed to second.  Ms. Rodriquez reached third on an error, and charged for home on a grounder to the short stop.  She swiped the corner of the plate just ahead of the tag.  Today was Danielle's birthday. 

There is good reason to favor Tennessee.  They have never made it this far before.  Arizona is after their eighth title.  But I graduated from the University of Arizona just before Ronald Reagan graduated to the Presidency.  A couple of years ago I got back to my old alma mater, and one evening in April I sat in the bleachers and watched the softball team work out.  Go Wildcats!  And happy birthday, Danielle. 

Why Can't a Woman Earn More Like a Man II

Anna at Dakota Women responds to my post on gender disparity in income.  I noted the Washington Post article by Linda Hirshman, which summarizes a recent study by the American Association of University Women.  Here is a key passage from Hirshman:

The conventional wisdom assumes that employers are discriminating against young women, despite the laws against it. And some of the disparity -- about 5 percent -- does appear to be at least partly discrimination. But most of it isn't. . . .  In fact, what the AAUW report reveals is that, at almost every step of the way, women could make decisions that would keep them even with their male classmates. But they don't.

Here is some of Anna's reply:

It surprises me that Ken Blanchard would try to minimize the real issue of pay discrimination with a discussion about the types of work men and women choose to do. That's entirely beside the point. Real pay discrimination does exist and needs to be addressed. It obviously doesn't "punish itself," as Ken put it, because this discrimination has existed for as long as women have engaged in the same paid work as men, and it still exists today.   One-quarter of the wage gap is due to discrimination on the basis of gender.

Hirshman puts the influence of discrimination at 5%.  I couldn't find any confirmation of Anna's 25% figure at the link she provides.  And I am quite sure the influence of discrimination here is not a positive finding; it is calculated from what is left over when other factors have been controlled for.  That doesn't mean that it isn't real, or that we shouldn't try to do anything about it, as I acknowledged in my post. 

In American politics everyone wants to play the victim card.  This is just as true of conservative and gender traditionalists as it is of liberals and feminists.  Conservatives love to point out that the Press and the Universities are heavily biased toward the left, and that is of course true.  They also love to believe that without the influence of this bias their cause would dramatically advanced, that conservative principles would reign supreme in an unbiased marketplace of ideas.  That is very unlikely, because such discrimination just isn't that powerful a force.  At best the conservative position would be marginally more successful in an unbiased environment.

The same is true of the kind of income disparities described in the AAUW study. Invidious discrimination can have a major influence only when powerful social and/or legal sanctions prevent markets from working at all.  That was the case when African Americans were systematically excluded from many universities and professions.  A major league baseball team could not afford to take on Jackie Robinson, so long as the manager could be sure no one else would field him.  It is surely not the case that discrimination came to an end with the collapse of segregation.  It just became a marginal influence. 

If Ms. Hirshman's interpretation of the AAUW study is correct, that 5% of the gender pay gap is due to discrimination, that proves my point.  Get rid of discrimination altogether (and I am for that, if anyone knows how to do it), and the outcome would be only marginally different from the current situation.  If you don't like the current situation, you would be well advised to give up playing the victim card and instead try to persuade people to make different choices. 
 

Democrats Lose Their Edge

ABC News:

The Democrats in Congress have lost much of the leadership edge they carried out of the 2006 midterm election, with the lack of progress in Iraq being the leading cause. Their only solace: President Bush and the Republicans aren't doing any better.

Six weeks ago the Democrats held a 24-point lead over Bush as the stronger leadership force in Washington; today that's collapsed to a dead heat. The Democrats' overall job approval rating likewise has dropped, from a 54 percent majority to 44 percent now -- with the decline occurring almost exclusively among strong opponents of the Iraq War.

Pelosi and Jefferson

Don Surber:

When Republican House leader Tom DeLay was indicted by a state grand jury in Texas, Nancy Pelosi wasted no time denouncing him.

On Sept. 28, 2005, Pelosi said:

“The criminal indictment of Majority Leader Tom Delay is the latest example that Republicans in Congress are plagued by a culture of corruption at the expense of the American people.”

That followed a remark she made in on November 2004 about a Republican rule that would bench its leaders if they were indicted. Said Pelosi:

“There’s not even a question in our Caucus about allowing leaders who are indicted to continue to serve.”

Yes, no question at all: Indicted Democrats continue to be hailed by the Democratic Party.

Democrats have never, ever had a strip-the-leader rule.

That became crystal clear today. Pelosi said:

“If these charges are proven true, they constitute an egregious and unacceptable abuse of public trust and power. Democrats are committed to upholding a high ethical standard and eliminating corruption and unethical behavior from the Congress.”

If?

If?

They found $90,000 in cold cash in his freezer.

I said this when they indicted Duke Cunningham and Bob Ney, and when the Mark Foley scandal broke: Guilty, guilty, guilty. Throw the bum out.

Elected officials are entitled only to the presumption of guilt because it is so hard to indict them.

She wants to give Jefferson the benefit of the doubt she never afforded DeLay.

Attention: Anna at Dakota Women

Jeremy Moser at KELOLAND.com is trying to get in touch with you.  Unfortunately, Dakota Women doesn't seem to have any e-mail links.  Anyway, what's up is kinda cool, and I recommended that you be included.  After all, we're pals. 

Here is the e-mail address: [email protected]

Hillary Care Again

Jonathan Cohn in the New Republic has this unintentional joke in his discussion of Hillary Clinton's 1990's health care proposal. 

Clinton had embraced a model of reform known by the clunky moniker "managed competition." Its premise was that it made sense to rely on private insurance as the primary source of coverage for working Americans, just as had always been the case in this country. But, in order to make coverage affordable to everybody, government had to restructure the insurance business.

Okay, now I get it. Private health insurance that is managed by the government!  In fact that was exactly the genius of Ms. Clinton's proposal: it would look like private insurance, but would in fact be managed from above.  That way, whenever the premiums needed to be raised (and that would be often), and the benefits cut (almost as often), greedy bankers would get the blame.  Congress would then come riding to the rescue.  It might work, if Congress were disciplined enough.  It wouldn't be.  Riding to the rescue would just be too much fun, and the system would soon join social security as the next big disaster on the horizon.  Still, you have to admit the stroke of genius. 

The Northern Valley Beacon Turns Its Sputtering Beam on SDP

The NVB is always entertaining reading, and on occasion we have praised its commentary.  I for one read it religiously, and it is clear that the NVB reads SDP, though for some reason Professor Newquist nearly always forgets to mention our blog or ourselves by name.  I will comment on one post, with the title:

And them microbes just keep a-festering away

What got the good professor's dander up, apparently, was that yours truly was quoted in an Argus Leader column by Dave Kranz.  I notice this interesting paragraph:

As one might notice from some of the discussion on the Ouija boards, sometimes called blogs, the regressives think that the data indicating that human activity is contributing significantly to climate change is a vast left-wing conspiracy. They also think that the theory of evolution is a vast left-wing conspiracy, and that the God who rained that shit down upon us created geological strata and the progressive development of fossils in it to play a trick on the vast left-wing conspiracists and make them think that earth is more than 6,000 years old. Iktomi ensnared them bleeding-heart suckers but good.

I note two things that are important in evaluating this paragraph.  First, SDP was earlier identified by Professor Newquist as one of the "regressive blogs."  That is to say, the term "regressive blog" was linked directly to one of my posts.  Second, the rest of the post quoted above is devoted to a criticism of my comments as included in the Kranz article.  One might therefore infer that the views in the paragraph above are the views of SDP, since we are one of the "regressives."  Professor Newquist likes to huff and puff with righteous indignation about how we misrepresent his writing.  Apparently he thinks he has license to misrepresent us. 

No one at SDP believes that "the data indicating that human activity is contributing significantly to climate change is a vast left-wing conspiracy."  I have posted frequently on global warming, and I have expressed my opinion that global warming is very likely happening and very likely is influenced by human activity.  Likewise with the comment that we regressives "think that the theory of evolution is a vast left-wing conspiracy."  I have posted frequently in favor of the theory of evolution, and I have published pieces in the American News to the same effect.

In fact Professor Newquist knows this very well.  In an earlier post he listed some of the "basic rules of the [regressive] blogosphere."  The following was one of those rules:

Argue about whether the world is 6,000 or 6 billion-billion years old, as if no one actually knows.

That was a reference to a post of mine in which I agreed with Chad at CCK that the young earth theory was scientifically absurd.  In that same "How to Write a Blog" post, Professor Newquist says this:

The "straw man" tactic involves making representations about what other people believe or profess and then tearing their beliefs and statements to shreds, even though what they are attacking is not an accurate representation of the other people's positions or statments. . . . A cardinal rule among South Dakota political blogs, especially among the regressives, is to never accurately portray what a person of a differing viewpoint says.

The NVB is the blog that the NVB warns us about.  And by the way, Professor, microbes do not fester.  Wounds fester.  One would have thought a retired professor of English would notice that.