South Dakota Politics

Tim Johnson's Campaign

Some time ago, and more than one time, I predicted that Tim Johnson would not run for reelection.  My prediction was based on all available evidence, sound reasoning, and common sense.  Apparently, it was also wrong.

As my colleague, Dr. Schaff was quick to announce, ABC News reports that Tim Johnson will run again. I am indeed surprised by this decision, but it puts his recent press dealings in an interesting light.  Johnson has been criticized by many bloggers, including my Keloland colleague, Pat Powers, for keeping the local media in the dark while secretly talking to ABC.  Now, if I were a real journalist in the region, like the folks at the Argus and Keloland, I would feel a little bit miffed.  But I don't think there is much of a case here.  Allowing ABC to follow his recovery, while otherwise maintaining his privacy, is reasonably justified on grounds of educating the public about this type of brain injury. 

I would just add that Johnson and his staff are also practicing politics at the same time, which is their job seeing as how Johnson is a politician.  If he really is running again, his condition is both a potential liability (if people come to doubt his competence), and a source of unparalleled power.  If Johnson continues to look able, he has probably turn his strong chances of reelection into a near certainty. 

Senator Johnson's admirers see that they have a good shot at having it both ways: Tim is perfectly fit to serve again, and anyone who criticizes him is kicking a wounded man.  If I were managing his campaign, I'd be tempted to play it that way.  But its not really the best thing for an honest campaign. If the Senator says he is fit to serve, I am ready to take him at his word.  Those who suggest that any criticism of the Senator, that any demand for more information about his condition is somehow vicious, are merely exploiting his troubles for their own agendas.   

Bear Story

I am going to try to make this my last blog about my Yellowstone trip.  I solemnly swear: no home movies. But two days ago a bunch of us from the Dakotas got a good look at a bear. 

The picture above is a little fuzzy: I was backing up and reaching for my bear spray when I snapped it.  It is also on high magnification: I was about ten to fifteen yards away.  But the bear came down onto the trail and turned in our direction, forcing us to abandon any hope of reaching Washburn summit that day.  When we reported the event at the ranger station, they closed the trail. 

It turns out that there is a good story attached to this bear.  You can see one cub in the picture.  I saw at least three, which I thought was a lot, and I saw what looked like a fourth cub moving in some brush.  One of our students confirmed that there were four cubs in all.  The rangers filled us in.  Earlier in the year, two cubs were abandoned by their mother.  The momma bear in the picture above adopted them, which is to say that she nursed them.  This is apparently very rare ursine behavior.  I call it family values. 

Here is a last shot of Yellowstone.  The scene is Trout Lake.

Johnson and Reporter Access

Greg Belfrage: 

There's a big lesson here for Imperial Editor Randell Beck and the stormtroopers over at the Argus Leader. As you may recall, Beck was incredibly dismissive of those calling for more information about the Senator's condition. Some of us were critical of the state's media, especially the Argus, for not providing enough aggressive coverage. They must have been greatly surprised to learn we weren't getting full disclosure. Who looks silly now?

The Argus tried to sweep this story under the rug as quickly as possible. That comes as a bit of surprise. You'd think the Argus would be used to having egg on its face.

Comments and Opinions in a Week of Missed News

As noted previously, I've been in the process of moving to Lincoln, Nebraska, where I'm enrolled as a graduate student in the history department, so blogging (and a current lack of Internet at the apartment) has kept me from writing on South Dakota Politics.  My graduate reading load is fairly intense, so I expect that blogging will remain light for some time.  But, here are thoughts and opinions on a week's worth of news that I haven't had the opportunity to comment on.

Tim Johnson to Run Again

So says ABC News.

ABC News' Bob Woodruff Reports: Senator Tim Johnson, the South Dakota Democrat who suffered a near fatal brain hemorrhage last December, will seek reelection in 2008.

In his first television interview since his brush with death, Johnson will discuss his road to recovery and impending return to the Senate with ABC News' Bob Woodruff on ABC News "World News with Charles Gibson" at 6:30pm ET and then on "Nightline" at 11:35pm ET.

Poverty

Early in the Bush Administration there was much lamenting over a slight increase in the poverty rate.  I wonder if Bush will get praise from those same quarters with the news that the poverty rate is down and median income is up.  The story does contain more bad news on health care, which I might comment on when I get home and have more time. 

Custer Stuff

Reader Gary sent me an email about George Custer.  Read my post here.  Here is Gary's email, edited a bit for length, but I think you get the jist:

I’ve been fascinated by General Custer’s story since I was a small boy. I
know, I know, Custer’s General’s rank was only brevet and that he was busted
to Lt. Colonel by the time the Little Big Horn happened, but he will always
be a General in my world. One of my favorite movies as a boy was Disney’s
“Tonka”(1958), a movie about Captain Myles Keogh’s horse Comanche, which was
said to be the only survivor of the battle. Of course we have to forget
about Reno and Benteen’s commands, but I was only a kid and didn’t care
about all the details.

As a junior in high school in 1970, I was placed in an independent study
program in history class where I had to research, write a paper and give a
presentation on two historical events of my choosing. Naturally, The Battle
of the Little Bighorn was my first choice.

The Custer Battlefield (politically incorrect) was my first tour of what
would be many battlefields that I’ve since visited. I know, I know it’s the
Little Bighorn Battlefield now, but when I visited in the mid 90’s it was
politically incorrect named The Custer Battlefield. My park handbook says so
on the cover! How times have changed. Ironically, it was Crow scouts that
led Custer to fight the Sioux (more politically incorrect) at The Battle of
Greasy Grass Creek (which is Indian (even more politically incorrect)
politically correct speak for the battle. Whew!)

My one regret after visiting the Gettysburg Battlefield was the lack of time
to visit the East Gettysburg Battlefield where Custer, a newly made General,
Brev, went toe to toe with General J.E.B. Stuart and prevented the
late-comer Stuart from flanking and attacking the rear of the Union Lines as
Pickett’s Charge was happening (what if Stuart had succeeded?). Custer later
help chase Lee to Appomattox and was present at the signing, receiving the
table on which the terms were signed from his commander, General Sheridan.

(snip)

I’ve always been intrigued with the “what ifs” of the battle and I’m
convinced that if had Custer had only rested the troops and horses some time
before the battle, that Major Reno’s charge would have succeeded and that
would have placed Reno in the heart of the village of women and children.
Gall then would have been hard pressed to attack Custer, electing to defend
the village. In addition Captain Benteen very well could have been arriving
to support Reno’s rear or attacking the village from the west and provide
additional pressure on Gall. This would have left Crazy Horse alone to
either attack Custer head on or to retreat to defend the village. Either
way, there would have been no fatal flanking action from Crazy Horse. I
believe Crazy Horse would have retreated to defend and in the process once
again become disorganized and fall apart under the crush of the 7th’s pincer
move.

The mocking of Custer today is a trend among the politically correct who
have very little time or inclination to research the history behind an
event, and are looking for a “feel good” experience in tune with today’s
politically correct beliefs. I call them “accidental historians”, and they
usually end up getting it wrong. Thanks for a reason to dig out all my
Custer books for a walk down memory lane.

Sen. Craig Has A Potty Problem

The news out here in Idaho centers around Sen. Larry Craig's arrest in a Minneapolis Airport toilet for "lewd conduct."  You can read a lengthy Idaho Statesman report here, as well as details of the policeman's report here.  I must say, whatever else one may conclude from these reports, it does appear that Craig was essentially arrested for tapping his toe and slipping his hand under a stall wall.  While it appear he was making advances on the undercover cop, it's surprising to learn that this reaches the level of "lewd conduct."  Perhaps some lawyer can help me out. 

Some are suggesting Craig resign.  At a minimum, it seems Craig, who is up for re-election next year, has ruined his political career. 

Reporting from Yellowstone.

I spent a magnificent couple of days watching wolves and listening to people who do and do not like wolves.  I have been attending a week's course by the Yellowstone Institute on the Park and Public Policy.  We have focused on three general issues: snowmobiles in Yellowstone; the Re-introduction Restoration of Wolves to Yellowstone; and Buffalo Bison in and out of the Park.  Word choice turns out to be important. 

The first issue has in fact reached a point where a settlement is possible, but probably won't be realized.  In the 1970's Yellowstone was literally overrun with snowmobiles every winter.  The air quality was so bad, they had to issue gas masks to the rangers at the entrances.  Today the park is open only to a limited number of snowmobiles with four stroke engines, which are as clean as car engines and much quieter.  Most of the snowmobiles must travel in parties, with a guide.  I think this is a very reasonable compromise between the pure wilderness and the tear up the back country tribes.  Yellowstone is a unique park, and tourism is a big part of its history.  A lot of people have their lives and their family history invested in the snowmobile tourism.  There is no good evidence that the limited traffic, which is confined to roads, is bad for the park ecology.

But the extremists at both ends will sue to block any settlement that doesn't give them their hearts desire.  And  both sides can cherry pick sympathetic courts.  I don't think much will change, but a settlement will not be easy.

The wolf question is, I think, largely settled.  Wolves are back in Yellowstone to stay.  This presents a real problem for ranchers on the border of the park.  We spoke to two such stakeholders today.  One of them has lost several calves to wolves.  As it is now, wolves that prey on livestock are hunted and killed by rangers.  Soon the wolf will be de-listed, and ranchers will have more license to shoot wolves who threaten or prey on their animals. Though they won't say so, I think the ranchers will settle on this.

The hardest issue involves bison and the threat to cattle from the brucellosis that the former carry.  I think, from what I have heard, that bison are not really a threat.  The main route of infection is from elk.  But the ranchers don't see it that way.  They want bison numbers reduced.  The animal people want the range of the bison to be extended.  This one is going to be hard to settle.

Gonzales Resigns

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has resigned, with a replacement expected to be named soon.  Just imagine what that confirmation hearing will be like.  The New York Times leads:

Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, whose tenure has been marred by controversy and accusations of perjury before Congress, has resigned.

That's false accusations of perjury, done largely by the Times itself.  An administration official commented:

The official said that the decision was Mr. Gonzales's and that the president accepted it grudgingly. At the same time, the official acknowledged that the turmoil over his tenure as Attorney General had made continuing difficult.

"The unfair treatment that he's been on the receiving end of has been a distraction for the department," the official said.

Ed Morrissey says its "far past time for Gonzales to go," not because of any illegal activity, of which there was none in terminating federal prosecutors, but because they botched their explanation for the terminations and became nothing but an embarrassment.  Who will be his replacement?  US News reported over the weekend that the rumor is it may be Michael Chertoff.  I would go for someone less associated with the administration, but either way, the confirmation hearings will be bruising.

UPDATE:  RCP has some other speculative candidates for the position.

Quck Hello from Yellowstone

I was expecting to keep blogging regularly from my hotel at Mammoth Hot Springs, in the North of Yellowstone Park.  I was told there would be internet connections somewhere in that little village.  I was misinformed.  Tonight I snuck out of Wyoming and found an internet connection in Gardiner, Montana, not to mention a lovely little Chinese restaurant.

I will agree with one thing that Professor Schaff says.  The West is the most beautiful place I have ever seen.  Yesterday our instructors took us to Yellowstone's Grand Canyon.  I didn't know Yellowstone had a Grand Canyon.  It has the most magnificent waterfall I ever got a glimpse of.  I haven't seen Old Faithful, but I have seen a lot of holes that steam, smoke, bubble, boil, burst, and smell a lot Jon Schaff's dog. 

I also so wolves this morning.  We watched as four or five pups tried to play with a grizzly cub, much to momma bear's dismay.  I also saw one of the males return from a hunt and regurgitate for the pups.  Now that's what I call entertainment.  We have been learning a lot about the wolf "restoration policy", as one of the wolf watchers calls it.  On the one side are ranchers, who don't want very smart predators killing their livestock.  On the other side are a lot of people who think wolves are really, really cool.  I am in the second group, but I have to say that our motives are rather impressionistic.  Pro-wolf people like to say that the wolves are good for the park, but no one has yet explained to me exactly what that means.  More wolves equals more bears minus a lot of elk and coyote.  I just don't know how to solve that equation. 

I'll post some pictures when I get the time. 

Anguished English

Out here in Idaho (Garden Valley, to be exact) we passed a housing development that had a phone number for "perspective buyers."  I guess that's who you call if you needed added perspective.  I'll give them a call. 

Updates

Just to give everyone a heads up, I'm in the process of moving to Lincoln, Nebraska, where I'm enrolled in the history graduate program at UNL, so posting will be infrequent until things settle down (which explains why I haven't written anything on KELO blog yet).

I should also note that we have a new way to contact us.  We're phasing out the SDP Hotmail address due to massive levels of political junk and spam mail.  You can now contact each of us individually, and can find the new addresses in the "E-Mail SDP" section on the right side of the blog. 

Little Big PC

I am off traveling and am currently writing from my home away from home, Boise, ID.  Every time I drive across the western United States I am reminded of two things: the American West is the most beautiful place I have ever been and that those who believe in overpopulation are full of crap.  There is plenty of room in Wyoming, although they may not want you moving in. 

We stopped off at Little Big Horn battlefield outside of Hardin, MT.  This is a return visit for me.  The first time was in 2001.  In anticipation of the visit I read an account of the battle by Stephen Ambrose (it must have been in this book) and also the book Son of the Morning Star, which focuses on Custer.  I found both to be quite helpful.  The topography of the battlefield is such that armed with some knowledge of the battle you can easily envision how things went down.  Both of my visits have also included excellent presentations by the Park Service guides who give you the background of the battle. 

This time we stopped off at the "general store" near the battlefield.  This is not a government store, I presume.  One thing struck me about the store.  Of course it sells the typical tourist items: shot glasses, magnets, t-shirts, etc.  Many items, especially the t-shirts, had images mocking George Custer.  One, for example, has Custer running away from Indians with arrows almost embedded in him.  He is on a cell phone and is screaming "Can you hear me now?"  Clever.  Another has Custer next to a brave who has cut off a swath of Custer's hair.  I forget the caption, but it was something about giving Custer a haircut.  There were other items making fun of Custer that I can't recall in enough detail to note them. 

It struck me how the worm of political acceptability has turned.  I suspect that, say, 40 year ago one would still have heard what a great hero Custer was and the t-shirts would have sung his praises and noted the bravery of his men.  Now the "general store" is mostly filled with Indian themed goods (the store might be run by the Crow reservation, which would explain the items in the store) and there are few items solely commemorating the 7th Calvary.  And while in decades past it may have been acceptable to mock the Indian braves (probably with stereotypes of "ignorant savages") now they make fun of George Custer. 

This is a big change.  I am not sure whether it is a change for the worse, a change for the better, or simply a change (to be clear, the end of Indian mocking is a good change).  It did bother me to see Custer mocked as a fool and buffoon whose death is now a subject of humor.  George Custer was many things.  He was arrogant.  He was brash.  His arrogance led to the deaths of many men at Little Bighorn.  But Custer was other things, for example a Civil War hero.  It was just that arrogance and brashness that made him such an effective calvary officer during the war.  This man was at Gettysburg fighting for the Union.  Under Phil Sheridan, Custer helped destroy Confederate calvary during the last year of the war.  Granted, he blundered greatly at Little Bighorn, but should we make fun of this American soldier and by extension ridicule those who served under him?  It bothers me to see the deaths of American soldiers being turned into the object of humor.   

It is possible that I am overreacting.  Perhaps I should have more of a sense of humor about this matter.  Often conservatives tell the political correctness police to lighten up and not take every slight so seriously.  Perhaps it is time Prof. Schaff take a dose of that medicine. 

I'd appreciate thoughts.  Email me at schaffsdp at gmail.com.  I will post thoughtful responses.  Just note that I am out of town and have limited access to computers, so it might be a while before I get to this. 

Update: I just noticed Jason's post above.  Look to the right and you'll see links you can click on to email any of us on the site.  Oh, and GO BIG RED!

Energy Stuff

The Mitchell Daily Republic (free registration required) has published a piece I wrote on energy policy.  The main thing you will learn if you follow the link is that I really need a new publicity photo.

Primary Mischief & Primary Reform

I keep hearing rumors that South Dakota will try to move its primary forward in the next presidential election year, "so that we will matter."  I think that in our case this is a vain strategy.  If every state has its primary while there is still ice on the lake, how many politicians or pundits will paying attention to the Rushmore State, and how many to California?  That is the situation we are headed for, and it is bad news for the Republic.

South Dakota Politics is split on this, two to one.  I believe that our colleague, Mr. Heppler, is in favor of an earlier Dakota Primary, for reasons I sympathize with.  I would love to be interviewed on Fox Report.  Professor Schaff and I are strongly opposed to "front-loading" the primary process.  We need a chance to get to know the candidates, and the series of primaries and caucuses strung out along the election year is an invaluable tool for that.  What happens if the next Dean screams just after he has won a whole boomin' bunch of state primaries? 

Another problem is that the front loading pushes the real winnowing process into the year before the election.  That is already happening now, largely in anticipation of front-loading. 

I am on record in favor of a system of primaries that would balance large states and small states, and keep the process from coming to too early a close. Here is my proposal in brief, from my column in the Aberdeen American News. 

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.

Apparently, I am not the only one thinking along these lines.  Here is the "Delaware Plan." 

Under the Delaware Plan, the states would be put into four groups  according to population. The smallest 12 states, plus federal territories, would vote first, followed by the next smallest 13 states, then the 13 medium-sized states, and finally the 12 largest states. These four consolidated primaries would occur on the first Tuesday of each month, beginning in March and ending in June. Although having valuable benefits, the main disadvantage to this plan is candidates having to compete in 12 states in the very first primary, which makes retail politicking harder, and the fact the states are always in the same order. 

My proposal alleviates, somewhat, the problem mentioned above, by beginning a month earlier.  One could just as well go into July.  I think rotating would look more attractive to more states than a simply progressive system.  But I think that any system along these lines would be a remarkable improvement. 
If South Dakota really wants to be important, let both parties climb on this bandwagon.

JASON ADDS:  I should note that I have changed my stance on the subject, and agree with my colleagues that moving the primary forward begets greater problems nationally as we front-load the primaries.  I know I wrote about it somewhere, but I can't seem to locate the exact post.  Edit:  Here's the post, where I commented on California's decision to move their primaries forward.

The Right to Reincarnate

Todd Epp and I have in the past expressed an interest in Buddhism.  I should mention that this was in this life.  So I take some pleasure in scooping him on this story, from the London Times:

Tibet’s living Buddhas have been banned from reincarnation without permission from China’s atheist leaders. The ban is included in new rules intended to assert Beijing’s authority over Tibet’s restive and deeply Buddhist people.

“The so-called reincarnated living Buddha without government approval is illegal and invalid,” according to the order, which comes into effect on September 1.

My reaction?  Thank God, or Amita Buddha, or someone, that we live in a country where living Buddhas like Todd and myself can reincarnate as anyone we darn well please without permission from the Immigration and Naturalization Service or the Department of Homeland Security.  Heck, so far a I know you don't even have pay a tax on it, though I haven't yet consulted my accountant on that.  Of course, I wouldn't put it past the Democratic Congress (approval rating negative 18 points) to lay a hazardous waste disposal fee on my next incarnation on account of leaving behind this old body.   The price of liberty really is eternal vigilance. 

Gender Theory and An Assault on Academic Liberty

For a lot of persons in academia these days, the proper response to an unorthodox idea is to utterly destroy the career of the person who suggested it.  Case in Point: one J. Michael Bailey.  Benedict Carey has the story in the New York Times. 

Dr. Bailey is a psychologist at Northwestern University.  Here is his sin against the true faith:

In his book [The Man Who Would Be Queen], he argued that some people born male who want to cross genders are driven primarily by an erotic fascination with themselves as women. This idea runs counter to the belief, held by many men who decide to live as women, that they are the victims of a biological mistake — in essence, women trapped in men’s bodies. Dr. Bailey described the alternate theory, which is based on Canadian studies done in the 1980s and 1990s. 

Note that Dr. Bailey was not suggesting that there was anything wrong with persons who want to cross genders; he merely suggested an alternative theory about the psychology behind the desire.  Here was the response:

[D]ays after the book appeared, Lynn Conway, a prominent computer scientist at the University of Michigan, sent out an e-mail message comparing Dr. Bailey’s views to Nazi propaganda. She and other transgender women found the tone of the book abusive, and the theory of motivation it presented to be a recipe for further discrimination... 

Dr. Ben Barres, a neurobiologist at Stanford, said in reference to Dr. Bailey’s thesis in the book, “Bailey seems to make a living by claiming that the things people hold most deeply true are not true.”...

Bailey interviewed four transgendered persons and referred to them in his book under pseudonyms.  He was accused of using them as research subjects without consent.  One person wrote that "she" was one of his interview subjects, and that he had had sex with her. But wait, it gets better.

Andrea James, a Los Angeles-based transgender advocate and consultant, ... downloaded images from Dr. Bailey’s Web site of his children, taken when they were in middle and elementary school, and posted them on her own site, with sexually explicit captions that she provided. (Dr. Bailey is a divorced father of two.) Ms. James said in an e-mail message that Dr. Bailey’s work exploited vulnerable people, especially children, and that her response echoed his disrespect.

Now I should state at this point that I can take no position on the merits of Dr. Bailey's book.  I do not know whether cross-gender personalities are the result of biologically male desires focused on atypical objects, as I gather he argues, or whether they are the result of a genuinely female personalty, or perhaps a third sexual persona, that naturally develops within some male bodies (and likewise for crossing in the other direction).  Given that sex is grounded in genetics, whereas gender is not, either hypothesis seems plausible.  But the reaction described above is utterly hysterical. 

Fortunately for Dr. Bailey, Alice Dreger, an ethics scholar, is about to release her findings on the case. 

Dr. Dreger...  is a longtime advocate for people born with ambiguous sexuality and has been strongly critical of sex researchers in the past. She said she had presumed that Dr. Bailey was guilty and, after meeting him through a mutual friend, had decided to investigate for herself.

But in her just-completed account, due to be published next year in The Archives of Sexual Behavior, the field’s premier journal, she concluded that the accusations against the psychologist were essentially groundless.

For example, Dr. Dreger found that two of the four women who complained to Northwestern of research violations were not portrayed in the book at all. The two others did know their stories would be used, as they themselves said in their letters to Northwestern.

The accusation of sexual misconduct came five years after the fact, and was not possible to refute or confirm, Dr. Dreger said. It specified a date in 1998 when Dr. Bailey was at his ex-wife’s house, looking after their children, according to dated e-mail messages between the psychologist and his ex-wife, Dr. Dreger found.

I should note, finally, that the viciousness of Dr. Bailey's enemies has nothing to do with their gender assignment or sexual orientation.  It is purely a political phenomena, but it is illiberal and fanatical.  It is radically dangerous to scientific inquiry  and freedom of thought.  Anyone who is liberal in any sense out to strenuously denounce it. 

SDP Jazz Note: Chet

My friend Ken Laster, DJ at In The Groove: Jazz and Beyond, turned me on to emusic, a site where you can download tons of classic jazz for about 35 cents a song.  For ten bucks a month you get 30 mp3 downloads. 

Today I download Chet, by the trumpet player Chet Baker.  I chose the collection mostly because it was listed as an example of piano player Bill Evans as a "sublime sideman".  Evans was my first love among jazzmen, when my old English teacher, Mead Harwell, played him for me along with Italian wine;  I was barely twenty.  But the album also includes an all star list of jazzmen.  Pepper Adams plays baritone sax; Philly Joe Jones, a Miles Davis favorite, plays drums along with Connie Kay.  Herbie Mann plays flute on one track.  One of my favorite jazz guitar players, Kenny Burrell is included. 

With that kind of all star band, you expect a jam session, with each  hero hogging his own space.  What you get instead is a series of penetrating ballads, with everyone acting as if the music is more important than their own egos. 

At 35 cents a song, Chet is diamonds on the cheap. 

Keloland Lunch

Here is a shot from a recent lunch I enjoyed with some of my Keloland colleagues, at Minervas in Sioux Falls. 

From left to right: Bob Schwartz (South Dakota Moderate); Todd Epp (My apology;  I couldn't quite get him out of the picture); Joel Rosenthal (South Dakota Moderate), Beth (Keloland News), Anna (Dakota Woman) and Jeremy (our Keloland Obi Wan). 

Diversity 2: A Correction

My friend and Keloland Colleague, Todd Epp, has this:

If you're not white, male, and Christian, the South Dakota Blogosphere can be a pretty ugly place.  Read these recent "gems" of anti-diversity blogging (I really hate to give traffic to these sites, but you need to read them to believe them):

• The racism of multiculturalism (Sibby Online)
• This Is Why I don't Like Going To The Grocery Store (SD Potty Break)

• What Public 'Charity' Really Breeds (Dakota Voice

• The Downside of Diversity? (SD Politics)

Now I will let the other bloggers speak for themselves, but I do have to wonder if Todd read my post at all, or whether it simply went over his head.  For anyone who did read it, were he of sound mind and unclouded judgment, would surely recognize that I came down on the side of diversity.  I did begin by acknowledging a study that showed the downside of living in diverse neighborhoods. I then tried to show that this didn't mean what racial and ethnic isolationists like Pat Buchanan think it means. 

The odd thing is that I seem to be saying exactly what Todd himself is saying.  Here is Todd:

Are [there] sometimes problems dealing with diversity?  Absolutely.  But diversity is what makes us unique--and strong--as a nation and state and city.  America picks the best from many cultures and makes it its own.

Here is what I said:

It's easy to imagine that the United States could be like South Dakota: comfortable and homogeneous.  All you have to do is forget how all the Norwegians and German Russians and Irish got here and what the adjustment was like.  And you have to forget how empty many places were until these immigrants arrived, and how empty they will become if we try to lock the doors and seal the windows.  And you have to believe the unbelievable: that we can lock out diversity.  It's coming, whether we like it or not.  Our ability to manage it, like we did in the past, will determine our future.

Now I am a bit more honest, I think, about the challenges of diversity. But only a bit.  Besides that, Todd and I seem to be saying exactly the same things.  I knew it was a challenge to disagree with Todd. Agreeing with him is damn near impossible. 

Abortion Politics & Abortion Logic

As usual South Dakota War College alerts us to two pieces of potential legislation on abortion.  My guess on this is that the failure of the last attempt at pro-life legislation has probably poisoned the well.  It may be that the chance for some moderate limitations on abortion, which I am certainly for, is gone for the time being.

Anna, now my Keloland colleague, has a lot of interesting things to say.  I comment here on the logic. 

We have a bunch of legislators who believe they're doctors, scientists, and God, all rolled into one.

The question whether the law should protect a woman's right to an abortion, or the right of the unborn to life, is a human rights question and as such a public question.  Courts and legislatures will decide it.  No one needs any special sort of expertise, let alone Divinity, to have an opinion on that. 

Abortion has existed through virtually all of recorded history, through virtually all societies.

Yes, as have infanticide and other forms of child abuse.  This tells us nothing about whether such things ought to be opposed or not.  I agree with Anna that it is not a matter of whether abortions will occur.  It might be a matter of how often they occur. 

UNFPA states that 68,000 women die every year in developing nations as a result of unsafe, illegal abortions.

I have no idea whether those numbers are accurate or not.  But for those who believe that abortion is infanticide, about a million and a half children die every year in the U.S. alone from safe, legal abortions. 

Anna's arguments are plausible if, and only if, her underlying assumption is true: that the unborn (I am being very careful about the language here) is neither a moral nor a legal person.   But that is precisely the point of contention.  For those who see it otherwise, opposition to abortion is not a character flaw.

The Downside of Diversity?

You can add this to the list of things that everyone knows but that just aren't true.  Diversity is prized social goal across academia, governments, and the business world.  The general idea is that the more we come into content with people of different ethnic, religious, and racial backgrounds, the more tolerant, open-minded, and trusting we will be.  Once we discover for ourselves that "those people" are just people, like ourselves, prejudices will slowly but inevitably melt away.  And then along comes Harvard Political Scientist Robert Putnam to burst the happy, multi-cultured bubble.  Rubin Navarette has this, at Real Clear Politics. 

Putnam has surveyed about 30,000 residents of 41 different communities in the United States -- which he divides up into whites, blacks, Hispanics and Asians. The objective was to gauge how much faith these people have in their institutions, how much they trust their neighbors, how often they vote, and how much community involvement they have. The more diverse a community, Putnam reports, the fewer people vote or volunteer and the less they give to charity, contribute to civic projects, trust local government or believe the media. In fact, the more diverse their surroundings, the more likely people are -- in Putnam's words -- to "hunker down" and "pull in like a turtle."

Putnam's findings arrive at a rather unfortunate time, when the U.S. and Europe are struggling with immigration.  His study was immediately seized upon by cultural and racial isolationists as proof that immigration is a mortal threat to America.  "Robert Putnam: Diversity is Our Destruction!" is how Pat Buchanan put it, which is not at all how Robert Putnam put it.  But you get the drift.  There goes the neighborhood.

But in fact Putnam isn't telling us anything we didn't already know.  Immigration is never the cuddly cozy kind of thing you see on public TV, with a motley group of faces smiling up at a purple dinosaur.  I recently enjoyed a marvelous dinner in Boston's North End, which was once English, and then became Irish, and was later overwhelmed by Italians.  The food became progressively better, but not without a lot of heat both in and outside of the kitchens.  It's not easy to adjust to change.  You have to learn to pronounce a whole new set of names, recognize a new set of gestures, and survive a new wave of competitors. 

It's easy to imagine that the United States could be like South Dakota: comfortable and homogeneous.  All you have to do is forget how all the Norwegians and German Russians and Irish got here and what the adjustment was like.  And you have to forget how empty many places were until these immigrants arrived, and how empty they will become if we try to lock the doors and seal the windows.  And you have to believe the unbelievable: that we can lock out diversity.  It's coming, whether we like it or not.  Our ability to manage it, like we did in the past, will determine our future. 

On a more positive note, I heard more different languages during my recent visit to Boston than I have heard anywhere else.  But the people of Boston were astonishingly friendly.  Everywhere we went, perfect strangers would volunteer to help us with directions, or to explain how to navigate the various forms of public transport.  If you want to know how to manage diversity, don't read mutlicultural literature.  Instead, go eat some lobster. 

Lincoln's Statesmanship

See this piece by Allen Guelzo entitled "Prudence, Politics, and the Proclamation" about the statesmanship of Abraham Lincoln.  HT to Peter Schramm, who recommends it's "worth a slow read."

Another Dem Supports The Mission

Another Congressional Democrat has shifted his views on Iraq.  Rep. Brian Baird, one of the Democrats who voted against the authorization to use military force in 2002, has returned from Iraq convinced that General David Petraeus needs more time:

U.S. Rep. Brian Baird said Thursday that his recent trip to Iraq convinced him the military needs more time in the region, and that a hasty pullout would cause chaos that helps Iran and harms U.S. security.

"I believe that the decision to invade Iraq and the post-invasion management of that country were among the largest foreign-policy mistakes in the history of our nation. I voted against them, and I still think they were the right votes," Baird said in a telephone interview from Washington, D.C.

"But we're on the ground now. We have a responsibility to the Iraqi people and a strategic interest in making this work."

Baird, a five-term Democrat, voted against President Bush ordering the Iraq invasion — at a time when he was in a minority in Congress and at risk of alienating voters. He returned late Tuesday from a trip that included stops in Israel, Jordan and Iraq, where he met troops, U.S. advisers and Iraqis, whose stories have convinced him that U.S. troops must stay longer.

Baird clearly states there are two criteria that changed his views.  One, a withdrawal would devastate Iraq and be devastating to the region and our national interest.  Second, Baird believes Petraeus has made real progress, and does not want to leave while success can sill be achieved.

This forces Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats into a tough spot.  They had hoped to upend the administration's support on the Hill when Petraeus gives his report in September, but now they must worry about corralling the Blue Dogs and even some original war opponents.  What happens if a significant number of Congressional Democrats say they're willing to stay long to ensure the job is completed properly, while presidential candidates are pressing for an immediate withdrawal?

Manipulative Journalism

Mudville Gazette notes this abuse of power by The Nation, including this quote from Paul Rieckhoff of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America:

The Nation violated the trust of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America and many of the service members interviewed. Reporters told our members that the focus of this piece was their experience in Iraq generally, not civilian casualties specifically. Many of the veterans involved spent hours talking to Ms. Al-Arian and shared deeply personal recollections on a variety of subjects, only to have their experiences misrepresented and/or isolated. The most graphic recollections were removed from context and used to bolster a preconceived conclusion by the authors about the patterns and frequency of civilian deaths. Critical facts were obscured or omitted entirely. This entire piece is a glaring example of the type of low-quality journalism that has been all too common in the coverage of the war in Iraq since it began.

Will We Love Huckabee?

It is a sign of how much politics has come to resemble show business in the U.S. that former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee is suddenly on the charts, having placed second in the meaningless Iowa straw poll.  Brian Karney has this, in the Wall Street Journal:

A week ago, Mike Huckabee was having trouble getting potential donors to return his calls. But after coming in a surprise second in the Iowa straw poll last weekend, the former Arkansas governor is on a media and fund-raising blitz. The man who greets me, with a firm handshake and a warm smile, is physically unassuming and seems slightly too small for the suit he's wearing--which he may be, having famously lost more than 100 pounds after being diagnosed with Type II diabetes a few years back.

I have taken some interest in Huckabee's campaign, if only because we're homeboys: he was born in central Arkansas, yours truly in the Northeast corner of that bastion of the Confederacy.  You can see one of my posts here, which focuses on the disturbing parallels between the once and future Arkansans turned Presidential contenders.  If anything, Huckabee's famous weight loss might be his most compelling qualification for the Presidency.  I remember with a vague feeling of horror a picture of President Clinton in swim trunks. 

It might be Huckabee's only qualification.  Karney's interview is subtly devastating.  Here is a sample:

One central theme of Mr. Huckabee's campaign that he hasn't mentioned yet is his support for the Fair Tax, a proposal to replace the federal income tax with a sales tax of either 23% or 30%, depending on how you count. So I ask him if he really expects the repeal of the 16th Amendment, the one that granted the federal government the authority to levy income taxes in the first place. "I hope we would [repeal it]. That's the whole point." But hope, of course, is not a plan. Does he have one? "I'd go directly to the people, sell it to them, and then ask them to sell it to Congress."

It goes on at some length: vast proposals tottering on half-vast thinking.  But of course Presidential campaigns are not fought or won on concrete proposals.  They turn on the "vision thing," as Bush 41 called it: contrasting packages of images and rhetorical flourishes.  We punch the chad out for the candidate who gives us the most attractive impression of who he is and what the country ought to be or do. 

Huckabee's offering so far is a standard image straddle.  On the one hand, he is the real thing for Republicans:

"If the Republicans have a chance next year," Mr. Huckabee says, "the criteria are:

No. 1, someone who can communicate our message to the people of our country and win them back, because we've lost a lot of them. 

"No. 2, it's someone who has consistency on the principles and the core values that have caused people to be Republican. That includes the sanctity of life, it includes fiscal conservativism. It certainly includes an adherence to the traditional concept of marriage. It means respect for the Second Amendment. Those are issues that caused a lot of middle America and the South to go Republican."

But if he is the true conservative, he is no ideologue:

"We have to show that we are also problem-solvers, not just ideologues. People are not going to tolerate a government that just is led by people who just believe something. They want a government that is led by people who can do something. And all the beliefs in the world don't change the dynamics if we're unable to function and function effectively."

That, as Mark Twain said of Wagner's music, "is not as bad as it sounds."  It is a plausible recipe for winning the nomination, and then winning the election.  His strategy is the same as Bill Clinton's when he began his run in the early 90's: hope that the big boys take themselves out, and then emerge as the best second-tier choice. 

But it's probably too late for that.  It is unlikely that Giuliani, McCain, Thompson, and Romney will all collapse.  And unlike Bill Clinton, Huckabee has no national image to bank on.  Besides, he's from Arkansas.  Are we really going to try that again?  Ms. Clinton knew better than to try it. 

Tim Johnson, Compassion, and Politics

From the Argus Leader:

U.S. Sen. Tim Johnson and his wife Barbara will be at a public event in Sioux Falls in the evening on Tuesday, Aug. 28, according to a release issued from his Washington office moments ago.

Johnson, who has been recovering from a December brain surgery, will personally thank the people of South Dakota for their support, the release said.

Johnson has yet to make any public statements or appearances since his surgery.

As I have said many times, I have met Senator Johnson and I think very highly of him.  I am encouraged by news of his progress.  I believe that most or all folks in South Dakota, regardless of their party affiliation, feel the same. On the other hand, Senator Johnson is a public servant and the public has a right to inquire as to his fitness for duty.  Senator Johnson's planned appearance is a reasonable response to these concerns. 

But some of my esteemed blogosphere colleagues see Senator Johnson's condition as a partisan issue.   Todd Epp has this:

Hey, GOP Wolf Packers!  Sen. Tim Johnson is going to meet South Dakotans August 28th. Maybe you can get your pack ready to try and trip his walker then blame him for falling.

So far as I can tell, the "GOP Wolf Pack" is entirely a figment of Todd's imagination.  He has yet to provide a single piece of evidence for its existence.  And my colleague David Newquist has this:

Shortly after Sen. Johnson's "episode,"  the vultures gathered around his bed, cyberly speaking, and pronounced his demise and said he should resign from life and the U.S. Senate.  Then at news of his recovery, they insisted that he put himself on display so they could see if he had any speech defects or spastic movements.

Vultures occupy space and leave droppings.  Can Professor Newquist show us any evidence of the one or the other?  My impression is that Republicans in South Dakota, and elsewhere, have been more than civil and compassionate throughout Senator Johnson's illness.  But there is, after all, and election approaching.  Does the Senator's illness forbid the Republicans from fielding an opposing campaign? 

That, I think, is what my Democratic colleagues are hoping.  But hiding behind a wounded man is no more noble than kicking him.  Let Senator Johnson tell us when he can return to duty, and whether he intends to run again.  That is enough for me. 

SDP on Keloland

Most or all SDP posts will now be appearing simultaneously on the Keloland website.  You can view our posts, along with those of several other regional bloggers at Keloland Political Blogs.  Any longtime readers of this blog (and there are some!) will be amused at the collection of bloggers there.  You can read my introductory post here. 

Language and Natural Right

Anna responded promptly and vigorously to my second post on gender-neutral language and eloquence.  I offered this famous sentence as an example of the latter:

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Anna has this comment on Lincoln's opening:

I think it's important first of all to point out the fact that Ken's example, while eloquent and a nice idea, was in fact a total lie for anyone who wasn't white, male, and of a certain class.

I think Anna is indeed confused, as she playfully says, but it is over the meaning of the word "dedicated".  If Lincoln were saying that all men (i.e., all human beings) were in fact treated equally, or that everyone's rights were secure in the Republic from the time of its founding, he would indeed have been telling a "total lie."  But that would have been a very strange thing for Lincoln to say, as his rise to the presidency was launched by his opposition to the extension of slavery.

Lincoln's argument was that the new nation was "conceived in liberty", which means that the founders did what they did because they, at least, enjoyed liberty.  And he argued that the new nation was dedicated to the proposition that "all men are created equal." A person or persons can be dedicated to something without having yet achieved it, as a Doctor may be dedicated to curing an as yet incurable disease.  Stephen Douglas, by contrast, argued that "all men" just meant all white men, and maybe not even that.  The founders had no belief in any logic that would be more inclusive.  I think Lincoln was clearly right.  Anna seems to side with Douglas on the point.

It is easy to judge the founders harshly.  They were not so open-minded, perhaps, as Anna and I.  Maybe we are better people.  But of course it is easy for us to be so open-minded: two hundred years of politics have brought about a society where it is very easy to advocate a complete equality.  That is precisely what Lincoln was hoping for.  What Anna and I would believe if we had been alive in 1776, or 1858, is anyone's guess. 

But the best that one can say for the Republic in its early days is that it was more inclusive than any other regime anywhere at that time or any previous time.  More ordinary people participated in the constitutional ratification process than could have been imagined before that moment.   And contrary to what Anna says, class was no barrier for the simple reason that America has no class system.  Property was indeed a barrier to voting in some states, but any person, no matter how low his birth in class terms, could participate if he owned property.  Moreover, property qualifications varied among the states, and again, many people of very modest means participated in most places.   

The founders justified the separation from Britain and thus the birth of the the new nation on precisely the principle that "all men are created equal".  This is in the founding document, the Declaration of Independence.  Lincoln used that fact to defeat Douglas's principle of neutrality with regard to slavery.  Martin Luther King, Jr., used it to argue that American apartheid was un-American.  The same logic is obviously a cornerstone of the feminist movement.  I think Anna is to quick to undermine it.

Back on the original question, Anna makes this point:

Secondly, there are all kinds of words that we once used and don't anymore (at least in polite company) because we as a society decided those words weren't appropriate. While I am not convinced that words like 'manning' should be drummed out of our vocabulary, I don't think we've lost much of import through that process.

This is a point worth making.  The purging of certain specific words that have no function other than the expression of racism or other forms of prejudice is certainly necessary. The purging of a common and very basic root word because it has certain associations in certain contexts, that is quite another.  But I do not see that Anna and I have a quarrel here.

Finally on the case of women firefighters, I was not scoffing at the idea.  I have no doubt that many women do this job as well or better than their male colleagues.  Interestingly enough, I read today that a disturbingly large proportion of firefighters are disturbingly large, and that on the job heart attacks are the leading cause of fatalities among them.  I hope that the 6,200 women working in that field are not typical.  I still don't know what the proportion of women firefighters is, but I respectfully yield this point to Anna. 

MSM: Factually Impaired

Randall Hoven at American Thinker has compiled a list of sixty-two instances where major media outlets have gotten in trouble in recent years for reporting false information or just outright fabricating information.  Before we jump on "the MSM is a bunch of liars" bus, note that Hoven's tentative thesis is that competition from the online world has pushed mainstream news sources to sensationalize their coverage and to run with stories before they have all the information.  There may be some validity to that, but in the market for news one would think that telling the truth would be a pretty big selling point. 

BREAKING: Dan Scott Filing Suit Against Beck, AL

Breaking news from SDWC:

This is breaking news JUST in.

I’m on break from class, but I had to jump out to break it. Based on the Argus Leader’s editorial from Randall Beck, Dan Scott has filed a lawsuit against the Argus Leader and Randall Beck for Libel.

More to come tonight!!

MySiouxFalls is leading with the story of the defamation lawsuit against the Argus Leader.  SDWC has more information, and KELOLand is covering the story now.

UPDATE:  In a somewhat related story, see this Slate piece entitled "Reign of Error."

Laptops: The God That Failed

South Dakota universities are looking to increase their use of laptops as a pedagogical tool.  As I have argued before, this is nothing but a race toward the bottom.  By all means, let us turn out yet another generation of trousered apes.

Johnson Appearing In Public

Tim Johnson will appear in public on August 28 in Sioux Falls.  Other details as yet unknown. 

Herseth-Sandlin

Wonkett on Herseth-Sandlin:  "She’s like the Angelina Jolie of the great plains."

New SD Political Blog

A shout out goes to South Dakota Potty Break, the newest addition to the South Dakota political blogosphere.  Welcome!

Gender Neutral Language 2

Anna at Dakota Women responds to my post on this topic.  It occurs to me that while Anna and I have the opposite political instincts, we tend to move toward a common position once we have thought about it.  Anna says this:

I think that the language puritans are kind of a minority among feminists.  I, at any rate, am not one.

I don't know whether Anna is right about the proportion of language puritans among feminists, but language puritanism in academia and publishing is pervasive.  Anyone who frequently submits work for editing will have felt its influence.  And that influence is generally bad for language.

Why is it shocking and awful and the way to "evisceration of language and reason" to say "mail carrier" or "fire fighter" or "police officer"? Maybe I'm missing the point, here...it's happened before with me and my pal Ken.

My comment about the "evisceration of language and reason" referred solely to the idea that someone's personal sense of being offended was good reason to purge the language of certain terms.  Anna didn't so much miss the point as confuse one point with another. 

The most basic functions of language are communication and persuasion.  A set of words that gets a point across and convinces a reader or an audience is well composed.  The higher function of language is eloquence: using words as a painter uses color and texture.  Eloquent language not only communicates and persuades, it fashions new architecture in the souls of those who appreciate it.  Consider the following example:

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

I humbly submit that it is impossible to appreciate the grandeur of that sentence without carving out a new space in one's own soul.  Now it might be possible to replace the chauvinist  "fathers" with some gender neutral equivalent.  But at that point the perfect becomes the enemy of the good.

With regard to ordinary speech, Anna's examples are very good.  "Mail carrier" reflects the obvious truth that the person who drops the letters into the letterbox might as well be a man or a woman or transgendered. It is nonetheless more awkward and washed out than the traditional "mailman."  By contrast, "firefighter" has more punch and information than "fireman".  I just think that rhetorical strategies ought to trump the socially conscious manipulation of language. 

And besides: how many firewomen are there, really?  It is a corruption of reason to believe that we can manipulate reality by manipulating language. 

SDP joins Keloland Blogzilla!

Very soon now (once the bugs are worked out)  SDP posts will be appearing on the Keloland blogsite, along with several other regional bloggers on the right and left.  We hope that this will increase the number of our readers, and encourage conversation among the most notorious regional bloggers.  We here at SDP are determined to maintain this site as it is, but our readers will now have two places to go for our insightful commentary, as well as our dull and dim-witted commentary. 

Thune In Aberdeen

Here's the American News report about John Thune's appearance in Aberdeen yesterday.  I went to this event and think the AAN pretty much captures it.  I will say I always remain impressed by Thune's ability to speak to an audience and his command of vast amounts of information. Here's a snippet from the AAN:

Thune spoke to a group of about 70 mostly agricultural producers on Tuesday afternoon at Hub City Livestock in Aberdeen. He said having a disaster title in the farm bill would make more sense than having to somehow appropriate funding to cover natural disasters every year or two.

The last disaster title in the farm bill was in 1996, Thune said.

Congress is authoring the next farm bill. The House has passed its version. The Senate will take up the issue after it returns from the August recess.

The current farm bill expires at the end of September. Thune said work on the next version won't be done by then, so that farm bill will have to be extended. He hopes the next farm bill will be finished by the end of the year, estimating there's a better than 50-50 chance of that happening.

Thune said that, as far as commodity and conservation payments go, the House farm bill looks good. But, he said, it doesn't have a disaster title, something he will work for in the Senate version.

Asked where the funding would come from to cover the increased cost, Thune said he thinks there is between $4 billion and $5 billion to get the provision started. That's not enough, he said, but simply having a disaster clause in the legislation would be a step in the right direction.

"It'll be a tough balance to strike, but I still have some hope that we can get something," Thune said.

Minnesota Likes Pawlenty

Contrary to the blame heaped on Gov. Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota after the Minneapolis bridge collapse, the people of Minnesota have never been more favorable toward their governor. 

In the wake of the Minneapolis bridge collapse, Gov. Tim Pawlenty’s approval rating has climbed to its highest level recorded during his tenure in office, a new poll shows.The poll, conducted by SurveyUSA over the last weekend, found that 59 percent of Minnesotans approve of the job Pawlenty is doing at a time when the aftermath of the collapse has thrust him into the national spotlight.

Perhaps the people of Minnesota have a more sophisticated view of the tragedy in Minneapolis than the "Pawlenty opposed a tax increase and therefore a bridge collapsed" view one read in some quarters. 

Grim Milestones

A mere 15% of Americans polled approve of the job Congress is doing:  "The dismal ratings for Congress have worsened since Democrats won power in the 2006 elections. Fifteen percent rate the performance of Congress as excellent or good, worse than the 23 percent who gave the Republican-led Congress positive marks in its final days last October."

Language Lynched by Gender Neutral Puritanism

One of the things I brought back from Boston (including a lot of ounces around my waist from lobster) is this letter to the Boston Globe, by one Margie Lynch.

Watch your language

August 11, 2007

IN THE advanced year of 2007, I'm always stunned to hear or read language that isn't gender neutral. And it's all the more stunning when I see it in an article written by a woman in a publication as progressive as the Globe ("Democrats court labor backing," Page A6, Aug. 8).

The worst offender is the word "manning," by which is undoubtedly meant "to supply with people (as for service)" (Merriam-Webster). Yet to the my eye and ear, the word explicitly excludes me along with the majority of the US population. There are many gender-neutral alternatives, such as "staffing." I hope the Globe's editorial staff will be more mindful of using them, and will impress upon its reporters the importance of doing so.

Ms. Lynch's last name is proof, if any be needed, that there is a God and that She/He has a sense of humor. 

Two things strike me as obvious from the epistle.  First, Ms. Lynch hasn't thought much about the meaning of the words she finds offensive.  The word man apparently derives from a very old root, present across a geographically wide range of languages (e.g., German and Sanskrit), that is ambiguous: it means either human being or male human being.  The ancient Greek word anthropos involves the same ambiguity.  But it has a second derivation, almost as old, from the Latin root for hand, as in the words manual and manipulate.  So to man a ship, for example, may mean to supply the boat with a number of Y Chromosomes, or simply with a number of deck hands (chromosome neutral).  Trying to eradicate the three letters man from the English language cuts modern language off from its etymological roots, which does serious damage to our self-understanding.  And if we take Ms. Lynch's puritanism seriously, we would have to strip the language of all the man = hand words, which would be a loss of a lot of verbal resources.

The second problem is suggested by this language:

Yet to the my eye and ear, the word explicitly excludes me along with the majority of the US population.

The implication here is that anything offensive to Ms. Lynch's "eyes and ears" out to be stricken from the dictionary.  That way lies the evisceration of   language and reason.  The fundamentalists don't want to hear about evolution.  The Muslims don't like the word terrorist.  Pretty soon a lawyer won't be able to use the word rape on behalf of a woman in a rape trial. 

Maybe we should quit trying to purge the language of offensive words and instead focus on the concepts and objects that words try to capture. 

 

Obama

Ed Morrissey:  "Obama started this primary campaign looking like a man with a future in the Democratic Party. His asinine pronouncements on military affairs and foreign policy now make him look like someone drowning in two feet of water."

Academic Donations Go Overwhelmingly to Democrats

A dog-bites-man story, but interesting nonetheless:  "Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama received about $1.5 million in contributions this year from college professors and others in the education field, outpacing the party's front-runner, Sen. Hillary Clinton, who got $940,000 from academics.  Still, Clinton's near-$1-million second-place finish was almost as much as academia's total combined donations to leading Republican candidates Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani and John McCain."

Thune in Aberdeen Today

What: Community Forum with U.S. Senator John Thune
When: Tuesday, August 14th, at 4p.m.
Where: Hub City Livestock Auction, 2502 South Fifth Street, Aberdeen, SD
Who: This event is open to the general public

**Please join United States Senator John Thune on Tuesday, August 14th, at
4 p.m. for an important community forum on energy and agriculture
issues. Discussion will focus on energy legislation in the United States
Senate and the upcoming debate on the 2007 Farm Bill.

The meeting will be held at the Hub City Livestock Auction, located at 2502 South Fifth
Street, Aberdeen.

More Boston Stuff

Below is half a torpedo: all drive and no charge.  I believe the technical name for this is an "Epp."

And this speaks for itself:

And here is a metal sign with two dents in it.  The upper right dent wasn't there when we arrived at the park.  Dave Ortiz was responsible.  His double scored the Red Sox's first run. 

Herseth-Sandlin & Kos

Markos Moulitsas, founder of the far left Daily Kos, says in the last election cycle they supported Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin:  "In fact, one of the first people we, we supported was Stephanie Herseth in South Dakota..." 

The Nation

Even The Nation is criticizing the Democrats:

Led by Democrats since the start of this year, Congress now has a "confidence" rating of 14 percent, the lowest since Gallup started asking the question in 1973 and five points lower than Republicans scored last year.

The voters put the Democrats in to end the war, and it's escalating. The Democrats voted the money for the surge and the money for the next $459.6 billion military budget. Their latest achievement was to provide enough votes in support of Bush to legalize warrantless wiretapping for "foreign suspects whose communications pass through the United States." Enough Democrats joined Republicans to make this a 227-183 victory for Bush. The Democrats control the House. Speaker Nancy Pelosi could have stopped the bill in its tracks if she'd wanted to. But she didn't. The Democrats' game is to go along with the White House agenda while stirring up dust storms to blind the base to their failure to bring the troops home or restore constitutional government.

Gannett For Sale?

From Forbes:

Gannett Co. Inc., the nation's largest newspaper publisher, changed agreements with its top two executives that would accelerate payment of retirement and deferred compensation if the company is sold, according to a regulatory filing.

The company, which publishes USA Today, also changed the threshold at which an employee buyout constitutes a change in control that would trigger the executive payments. A spokeswoman for the company said she could not immediately confirm whether the change involved lifting the threshold.

Gannet said it made the change to comply with tax codes and the move did not indicate it was entertaining any offers.

"A change in control of Gannett is not in the works or even anticipated," Chief Executive Craig Dubow wrote in a note circulated to employees Friday. He said the plan that was amended has been in place since 1990.

"We were mandated to make these changes by the IRS," said spokeswoman Tara Connell.

The newspaper industry has been in turmoil for the past year, as several prominent - and previously thought to be untouchable - properties have changed hands. The sector has struggled with a persistent decline in revenue as advertisers shift spending online.

Here's another story about Gannett.

Not So Hot News on Global Warming

The Global Warming movement is very fond of saying that the 1990's were the warmest decade in the last century, or even in the last millennium.  A story circulating in the blogosphere has it that these estimates were heavily biased by a computer error.  From Coyote Blog:

Climate scientist Michael Mann (famous for the hockey stick chart) once made the statement that  the 1990's were the warmest decade in a millennia and that "there is a 95 to 99% certainty that 1998 was the hottest year in the last one thousand years." (By the way, Mann now denies he ever made this claim, though you can watch him say these exact words in the CBC documentary Global Warming:  Doomsday Called Off).

Well, it turns out, according to the NASA GISS database, that 1998 was not even the hottest year of the last century.  This is because many temperatures from recent decades that appeared to show substantial warming have been revised downwards.

If this is true, it doesn't mean that global warming isn't happening, or that human beings have no effect on it.  It would mean that we are not anywhere near having a good view of what is really happening.