South Dakota Politics

And the New Attorney General is . . .

Michael B. Mukasey looks to be a very good pick.  Here is Ruth Marcus from the Washington Post:

His selection would be an enormous relief to anyone who cares about the Justice Department and wants to see it recover from the multiple injuries sustained during Gonzales's tenure. He has the independence, stature, intellect and experience to help rehabilitate a battered agency.

In case this praise injures Mukasey's prospects, let me hasten to add: He's no lefty squish. He would not be attorney general in the Marcus administration. But if a Michael Mukasey had been attorney general for the past six years, not only would the Justice Department be in far better shape but the war on terrorism would probably be on a stronger and therefore more sustainable legal footing.

It's nice to see Ms. Marcus admit what is true of most of the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary: what they want is a "lefty squish."  But she makes an even handed case.  Here is the National Review:

Questions have also arisen over some of Mukasey’s rulings in areas other than national security — for example, his denial of asylum to Chinese émigrés who had fled forced abortions. It will be important to study the judge’s record. It will be equally important to bear in mind that a conservative jurist is one who shows restraint — it being no more proper for the judiciary to impose a conservative policy than to impose a liberal one. Mukasey’s 1994 decision in a case called Dong v. Slattery appears to indicate appropriate deference to the asylum policies of the U.S., not an endorsement of China’s noxious one-child policy.

That is what conservatives are looking for, and NR seems to think they might find it in Mukasey.  Alberto Gonzales was a disaster.  It can't be a hard act to follow. 

The Governor's Hunt & Hysterical Bloggers

This story has some of my Keloland colleagues' beanie caps twirling.  From Terry Wooster at the Argus Leader:

Gov. Mike Rounds' administration may keep secret the list of people invited to an annual pheasant hunt, a unanimous South Dakota Supreme Court ruled Thursday.

It was a sort of Supreme Court, anyway:

All five Supreme Court justices took themselves off the case. No reason is necessary for such an action. Five circuit judges ... replaced the justices to hear and decide the case. Bastian wrote the decision.

May we infer that the five justices get to bag their quota of birds, from time to time?  This seems to be the basis of the decision:

The Argus Leader first took its case to Hughes County Circuit Court, seeking an order to force Hagen to open the list. Judge Max Gors, ... ruled for Hagen, saying the secretary has discretion not to release the list.  State law generally says if an officer or agency is required to keep a document, the document must be open to the public. Gors said no law specifically requires Hagen to keep the invitation list, so no law requires it to be available for public inspection.

Now I am in favor of open government as a rule, and the arguments offered for keeping the Governor's hunt list secret look weak.  On the other hand, there are many good reasons why the Governor should not be required to name everyone he meets with in his official capacity.  Sometimes people will only speak freely or at all if it is not generally known that they are meeting with you.  In this case it was the role of the courts to decide whether, in fact, South Dakota law requires that this list be turned over to the Argus Leader.  It was not their role to decide whether government in South Dakota ought to be more open or not.

Professor David Newquist doesn't seem to be aware of this distinction. 

[T]he Supreme Court keeps in effect the long tradition of feudalism in the state in which the serfs have no business knowing  what the privileged classes are contriving for them. It is the job of no one in South Dakota to see to it  that those idiot voters out there have a clue as to what transpires in the royal halls of the kingdom.

Now I am not sure what all this had to do with feudalism, a system "having as its basis the relation of lord to vassal with all land held in fee and as chief characteristics homage, the service of tenants under arms and in court, wardship, and forfeiture."  And if you are going to wax poetic, maybe you should aim at more precise poetry.  It's not the "royal halls" but the royal fields where the action is. 

If Professor Newquist's rhetoric is, as usual, full of hyperbole, Todd Epp goes hysterical. 

Fellow Democrat and KELOLAND blogger Dr. David Newquist rightly calls it feudalism.  However, I think it is more akin to the combined might of Nazi Germany statism and its corporate supporters like Krups during the 1930s and 40s.  Throw in a good dose of conservative "Christianity" for good measure and you have people in government and ties to that government who attempt to control the government, industry, and the social agenda of our state.  Basically, they want to try and control every aspect of our lives.

Good heavens, "the combined might of Nazi Germany statism"?  That must be some pheasant hunt!  Can you picture the brown shirts and swastikas, collared clergymen and Supreme Court judges, all out to bag a few ring necks?  Probably this crowd has to hunt at night, as some of them would burst into flame at the first rays of the morning sun. 

And while I am at it, how can the Rushmore State be both Feudal and Nazi, as the one is a decentralized social and political system, and the other a highly centralized totalitarian state?  I like and admire Governor Rounds, but does he have the genius to pull that off?   

A good case can be made that South Dakota's laws ought to be amended in the direction of open government.  If it is, I suspect that what we will find out about the Governor's pheasant hunt will be utterly boring.  It will bear no resemblance to the fevered imagination of our Keloland alarmists. And maybe calling people Nazis is more fun than a barrel of winged monkeys, but isn't always the best way to persuade reasonable people.   

Totten

Michael Totten:

Some in the United States are unconvinced that Al Qaeda was really at the center of the conflict in Anbar. So I asked Colonel John Charlton how the Army knows Al Qaeda is really who they have been dealing with. He was supremely annoyed by the question.

"We know it's Al Qaeda," he said. There is no controversy whatsoever about this in Iraq. My question seemed to him as if it had come from another planet. "They self-identify as Al Qaeda. We didn't give them that name. That's what they call themselves. We have their propaganda CDs which have Al Qaeda written all over them."

UPDATE:  In a related item, one of our goals in our counterinsurgency strategy is to get the local population to support reconstruction efforts and to feel that it has a stake in the success and future of the nation.  The United States may be taking a big step in fulfilling that goal:

American commanders in southern Iraq say Shiite sheiks are showing interest in joining forces with the U.S. military against extremists, in much the same way that Sunni clansmen in the western part of the country have worked with American forces against al-Qaida.

Sheik Majid Tahir al-Magsousi, the leader of the Migasees tribe here in Wasit province, acknowledged tribal leaders have discussed creating a brigade of young men trained by the Americans to bolster local security as well as help patrol the border with Iran.

He also said last week's assassination of Abdul-Sattar Abu Risha, who spearheaded the Sunni uprising against al-Qaida in Anbar province, only made the Shiite tribal leaders more resolute.

"The death of Sheik Abu Risha will not thwart us," he said. "What matters to us is Iraq and its safety."

We'll see what happens, but if the sheikhs keep their word, the effect will be enormously positive.

Giuliani Runs First Online Ad

Rudy Giuliani is going after Hillary Clinton in his first Internet ad:

Note that Giuliani's name never comes up during the ad, which I can't help but think is smart and effective.  Also, it seems as if Rudy is running like a general election candidate and going after the Democrats rather than his fellow Republicans.  That's also smart.

Rudy had a good week.  In Atlanta, he went after critics of the President and General David Petraeus.  He attacked MoveOn.org's advertisement in the New York Times asking "General Petraeus or General Betray Us?" (in a side note, Red State has a spoof of the ad and wonders, "What if MoveOn.org existed 65 years ago?")  Giuliani blasted the Times for giving MoveOn.org a discount rate, and blasted Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton for questioning Petraeus's credibility.  He upped the ante by asking the Times to sell him ad space at MoveOn's discount rate, which would allow him to run an ad of similar size in the paper praising Petraeus's efforts.  In a week that could've been rough for the former New York City mayor, with the media attention thrust upon Fred Thompson's official entry into the nomination, John McCain's resurgent campaign, and new polls showing both candidates gaining ground (PDF alert), things turned out well.  I would suggest the trifecta he aggressively went after -- Hillary Clinton, MoveOn.org, and the New York Times -- should serve as a boost in Rudy's standing among conservatives.

Diversity in Academia

The latest news from the world of academia is the dis-invitation to Lawrence Summers at UC Davis due to the protests of several faculty.  Summers, you might remember, was forced out as president of Harvard because he made some politically incorrect remarks attempting to explain the dearth of women in the hard sciences. 

The decision to dump Summers as the speaker at the dinner was abrupt. His name was on the dinner invitation that went out Aug. 31, along with other information about the three-day meeting at UC Davis, Davis said.

"The dinner is an informal, social occasion, with more of a conversation with the speaker than a formal talk," he added. Blum, who is the husband of California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, made the original decision to invite Summers.

Susan Kennedy, chief of staff for Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, will replace Summers as speaker at the dinner.

While delighted that the regents have decided to replace Summers, [Maureen] Stanton [leader of the petition drive to disinvite Summers] now hopes the dispute will be quickly forgotten.

"Frankly, we'd like to see the story just die at this point," she said.

Citizens, especially parents of college age or soon-to-be college age children, should be aware that all to often this is what passes for diversity in academia.  Despite the constant hymns of praise to "diversity" by academics, a disturbing number of them are like Maureen Stanton, willing to organize and complain to shut down ideas that make them uncomfortable.  Asserting a desire for "diversity" they really are attempting to clear the marketplace of ideas of any idea that threatens the leftist orthodoxy on campus. 

If we really wanted to challenge the assumptions of the typical college student, what we'd do is immerse them in ancient and medieval thought, as nothing challenges modern assumptions like ancient Greek thought or the Thomist Scholastics.   Instead students educated in "diversity" often get nothing but warmed over modernism in the form of cultural Marxism.

Update: See Stanley Kurtz on Allan Bloom's Closing of the American Mind.  Kurtz reproduces this quote from a reader of Bloom's book. 

I love this book because it was the first one that really ever humiliated me the first time I read it, and because it signaled to me just how little I actually knew — but not because I identified with it. I remember reading it and thinking how little I really knew about anything important discussed in the book. All I had to counter Bloom with was a collection of pop-culture platitudes.

And the truth is that I didn't know anything, and that was a good lesson to learn: because there are times in this life that you might have to "press the reset button" for yourself and return to Square One. If you ever have to do that, I can think of a lot of people much worse than Allan Bloom to help you out.

 

Sermon On Church State Relations

By the kind permission of our friend Mark Malcolm, I link to a sermon of Mark's on Romans 13: 1-7. Click on the following link (you will need Real Audio) Download 070610.ra .  The Reverend Malcolm is a minister in the Church of Scotland, and you get to hear what Mark calls his "authentic nasally Glasgow accent."  If you liked Pippen's accent in the Lord of the Rings movies, you'll love Mark's.  I add that Mark's permission to link to his sermon here by no means suggests he endorses anything on this site, certainly not Ken Blanchard's taste in music.  Here are the verses in question from Romans:

Let every person be subordinate to the higher authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been established by God.

 

Therefore, whoever resists authority opposes what God has appointed, and those who oppose it will bring judgment upon themselves.

 

For rulers are not a cause of fear to good conduct, but to evil. Do you wish to have no fear of authority? Then do what is good and you will receive approval from it,

 

for it is a servant of God for your good. But if you do evil, be afraid, for it does not bear the sword without purpose; it is the servant of God to inflict wrath on the evildoer.

 

Therefore, it is necessary to be subject not only because of the wrath but also because of conscience.

 

This is why you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, devoting themselves to this very thing.

 

Pay to all their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, toll to whom toll is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.

 

Monkey Business and Modernity

Those who complain about religion in American politics do not appreciate how simple it is to appease believers whose God generally demands no sacrifice other than a change of heart, or the occasional ingestion of a little wine with one's wafer.  Apparently polytheism is a little like campus politics: the smaller the spirits on the committee, the more in blood and guts they demand.  Or so it would seem from the case of Nepal. 

KATHMANDU (Reuters) - Officials at Nepal's state-run airline have sacrificed two goats to appease Akash Bhairab, the Hindu sky god, following technical problems with one of its Boeing 757 aircraft, the carrier said Tuesday.  ... The goats were sacrificed in front of the troublesome aircraft Sunday at Nepal's only international airport in Kathmandu in accordance with Hindu traditions, an official said.  It is common in Nepal to sacrifice animals like goats and buffaloes to appease different Hindu deities.

How many goats and buffaloes would Northwest need, say, per plane?  And while we are at it, does the sky god cover airport security, or would that fall in some other deity's portfolio?

And then there is this BBC story from India, where Hindu hardliners forced the government to withdraw a report on a canal project because it questioned the existence of the God Ram:

Scientists and archaeologists say the Ram Setu (Lord Ram's bridge) - or Adam's Bridge as it is sometimes called - is a natural formation of sand and stones.

In their report submitted to the court, the government and the Archaeological Survey of India questioned the belief, saying it was solely based on the Hindu mythological epic Ramayana. They said there was no scientific evidence to prove that the events described in Ramayana ever took place or that the characters depicted in the epic were real.

Hindu activists say the bridge was built by Lord Ram's monkey army to travel to Sri Lanka  and has religious significance.

It's too bad that Lord Ram's monkey army didn't have an air force, like the monkey army commanded by the Wicked Witch of the West.  Instead Lord Ram was forced to rely on his monkey corp of engineers. 

It is easy to make fun of religious stories like this, and modern Christianity has its share.  I remember seeing an add in the Sunday paper back in Arkansas about a book that explains how the Grand Canyon was carved out in a few days as the Biblical flood drained back into the ocean.  But it's also worth noting that Christianity has been making its peace with science for about eight hundred years.  Both faith and reason have benefited, I would argue.  By contrast, Lord Ram's monkey army and geology are only now squaring off.  That is one of the problems of the twenty-first century. 

Headlines

Well, there are a lot of sensitive places in between:

Foot and Mouth: is worse to come?

How long do the real ones live?

Imaginary Gods are Really Immortal. 

Just how many carnivorous reptiles will be on the jury?

T-Rex Trial Date Set.

Movie Bloggin'

If Prof. Blanchard can do a TV update, let me discuss some movies, although not without seconding Ken's endorsement of Dr. Who, which is now the best thing on television in my opinion.  While that's not a high bar to get over, in the case of Dr. Who we have some truly excellent writing and acting.  And isn't the previous Dr. Who, Christopher Eccleston, now on Heroes? 

We really wanted to go to 3:10 to Yuma last night, but wouldn't you know that the film is not in Aberdeen.  Curses!  So we rented a couple films.  One is Prestige, which I can recommend.  It has a gripping story and fine performances by Hugh Jackman and Michael Caine.  Christian Bales is also in the film, but I must say his lower class English accent comes and goes.  The film has a superb build-up  while the payoff is a bit weak. It tries to have a Sixth Sense kind of twist ending, but it doesn't quite work.  Still, worth recommending.  We also took in The Queen. A fine commentary on the decline of nobility in the modern age.  The film does a fine job of getting you angry at Queen Elizabeth only to slowly get you to see the soundness of her point of view and lament the indignities she is forced to endure. Is this the fate of the modern age, that it must pull down and destroy in the name of equality and fashion all that is noble and lasting?  I want to point out that there was nary a curse word in either film.  Yet both were still gritty and real.  A lesson, perhaps.  On the other hand, there is Hot Fuzz, which we've recently seen, and which is extremely vulgar and extremely funny.  If you can take harsh language and a bit of gore at the end, you will like this film.  Laugh out loud funny from the guys who gave us Shaun of the Dead.

I noticed at the video store that they had many copies of Shooter and most had been rented. That's disappointing.  We saw this film on the way back from the U.K. in June.  It has made my anti-Pantheon of all-time bad films.  I started laughing at the movie it was so cliched and poorly written.  Shortly after seeing the film I happened to hear a radio interview with Stephen Hunter, film critic of the Washington Post and, coincidently, the author of the novel on which Shooter is based.  You know you've got a bad movie when a man who is both a film critic and the author of the novel on which the movie is based lambastes your movie.   Hunter hated what they did to his novel.  And if you have any taste, so will you.

Also note Denise Ross's account of Into The Wild, and you should check out Julie's old post on the same subject.  I recently asked a friend from Alaska what people up there think of Chris McCandless, and he said, "Everyone up there thinks he was an idiot."  There is a fine line between courageous and foolhardy.  The first is a virtue, the second a vice.  Whatever one ultimately thinks of Chris McCandless, his story, much like The Queen, does provoke us to ask whether modern life fully fills the human soul. 

NYT, Daschle, and Wakpa Sica

The New York Times had a story a few days ago lamenting the effect losing Tom Daschle had on Wakpa Sica, a project that has succumbed to the criticism of government earmarks.  SDWC asks "Aren't there more stakeholders in this than the federal government?": 

I think Wapka Sica is important. So important that the stakeholders shouldn’t wait around for the federal government to “make it happen.” Even with the “vaunted” Tom Daschle’s help, I don’t think the tribes can point to much good that’s ever come from the federal government’s promises of economic development help.

Indeed.

TV Roundup

Despite some big disappointments in recent months, like the news that Deadwood is really dead wood, there is some good TV showing up on the DVR.  I have blogged before on the BBC production, Dr. Who.  This is a revival of the old BBC series, but it is incomparably better than the original.  David Tennet (Barty Crouch Jr. in Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire) is the most recent incarnation of our favorite Time Lord.  I was a big fan of Tom Baker in the old series, but Tennet runs rings around him.  The acting is altogether better, and the writing is superb.  Who cares if the villains seem to have transmigrated from old episodes of the Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers. 

Another series worth watching is Burn Notice.  Jeffrey Donovan plays Michael Weston, a spy who has been burned, that is, canned for suspicion of betrayal.  He is stuck in Miami, earning his keep by solving problems for ordinary people who are being pushed around by thugs.  His partners are a former girl friend and former IRA terrorist, Fionna (Gabrielle Anwar), and Sam, an alcoholic ex-spy played by Bruce Campbell.  As Campbell cut his teeth on cheap Zombie movies in the 80's, I have a natural soft spot.  Again, good writing and excellent acting.  Give it a try.

Last, but not least, is Heroes.  I am pretty sure this series is inspired by the X Men movies.  Various characters in the show discover that they have extraordinary powers: one can fly, one can paint the future, another can hear the thoughts of others.  All of them are bound together to stop a terrible event (the destruction of New York), but sinister forces are out to stop them.  What's not to like?  Good if not great acting; engaging writing; brilliantly textured camera work.  My son and I are watching it on DVD.  Second season starts on the 24th.  And you gotta love Super Hiro!  A fat Japanese man who has the power to stop time and teleport himself across space. 
 

Islam, Terrorism, and Snide Reasoning

My Keloland colleague Dr. David Newquist has two recent posts with which I am largely in agreement.  His September 11 post begins this way:

If you list the identifying values of America as expressed in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, you will list the very qualities of  life that the Islamists want to eradicate: life, liberty, freedom of and from religion, equality, justice for all, and the basic right to an individual identity.  As we can recall from the Cold War, our country would never allow any organization to operate in America with the expressed purpose of destroying America.  But mosques have been established in this country for exactly that purpose.

I disagree with Professor Newquist's second sentence as a matter of fact: the U.S. Supreme Court has long extended full First Amendment protection to communists, Nazis, and others with "the express purpose of destroying America."  But I note that that was largely because we judged those parties to be no threat.  David makes a plausible case that militant Islam is different. 

I also note a piece in the Washington Post that tries to deny some obvious facts about terrorism.  Alan B. Krueger, Bendheim Professor of economics and public policy at Princeton, does some fast but clumsy footwork in his "5 myths about Terrorism." The kicker is Myth #4, which is a tour de force of snide rhetoric.

Terrorism is mainly perpetrated by Muslims.  Wrong. No religion has a monopoly on terrorism. Every major religious faith has had followers involved in terrorism.

Notice the fallacious reasoning there: because there are some non-Muslim terrorists, terrorism isn't mainly perpetrated by Muslims.  Yeah, and because there is the occasional black sheep, sheep aren't mainly white.  Close your eyes whenever passing a ranch or watching the news, and you can believe both things.  And consider this gem:

Although radical Islamic terrorists are the worry du jour because of 9/11 and Iraq, the data show pretty clearly that the predominant religion of a country is not a good predictor of whether its people will become involved in terrorism.

Well, yeah, England isn't yet a Muslim country, but that isn't the point is it?  The big terrorist acts of recent years and months in England were committed by Muslims, weren't they?

It's true as he notes that Hinduism has produced a small but significant number of terrorists, but those tend to be theater-specific: they operate in war zones like Sri Lanka and Kashmir.  It is also true that  America has produced some homegrown terrorists like Timothy McVeigh.  But those are blessedly few, and they tend to be isolated clusters of nut cases without an ideology to draw others to them or organizations to continue their awful work.  Moreover, apart from Ireland, it's hard to find Christian terrorists, and the terrorists there were clearly motivated by nationalism rather than religion (as is the case in Sri Lanka).  And when was the last time a Buddhist blew anyone out of his socks in the name of Jizo (depicted above)?

The obvious truth, obvious to anyone who is not trying to deceive himself or others, is that contemporary terrorism about the world is not just "mainly" but overwhelming a phenomenon of militant Islam.  Were Muslims world wide to suddenly behave like Buddhists, terrorism would all but disappear from the news.  If Professor Krueger really believes what he is writing, and if he is typical of Princeton faculty, their students should all decamp and enroll at Northern.  They would save tens of thousands, and even get a good education. 

 

Daschle v. Thune

Our former blogging colleague and my good friend Jon Lauck continues to gain traction with is book, Daschle Vs. Thune: Anatomy of a High-Plains Senate Race.  The latest is a radio interview with John J. Miller at the National Review (still no mention from the Argus Leader).  I've recently received a copy of the book from Amazon.com that I've paged through, but won't have time to read it for a while since I'm swamped with readings for graduate school.  Pick up your own copy today -- it's an important story.

UPDATE:  I now see my colleague beat me to the punch.  Drats!

Jon Lauk and John Miller: Between the Covers

No, not another scandal.  Our former colleague Jon Lauck discusses his new book on the Thune-Daschle race with John Miller at NRO. 

Give Me A Higher Education

Those who care about higher education and are in some position to affect change in that beast would do well to read Peter Berkowitz's piece published yesterday in the Wall Street Journal.  Berkowitz shares a concern I aired here, mainly a concern over whether we are educating a citizenry fit for freedom.  Berkowitz offers a curriculum that at least is a start to that end:

Crafting a core consistent with the imperatives of a liberal education will involve both a substantial break with today's university curriculum and a long overdue alignment of higher education with common sense. Such a core would, for example, require all students to take semester courses surveying Greek and Roman history, European history, and American history. It would require all students to take a semester course in classic works of European literature, and one in classic works of American literature. It would require all students to take a semester course in biology and one in physics. It would require all students to take a semester course in the principles of American government; one in economics; and one in the history of political philosophy. It would require all students to take a semester course comparing Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. It would require all students to take a semester course of their choice in the history, literature or religion of a non-Western civilization. And it would require all students to demonstrate proficiency in a foreign language of their choice by carrying on a casual conversation and accurately reading a newspaper in the language, a level of proficiency usually obtainable after two years of college study, or four semester courses.

This strikes me as a good start to producing a liberally educated citizen, that is a citizen educated in what it is to be free.  This stands in start contrast to the modern university, which is better at producing specialists without spirit, voluptuaries without heart. 

Cut Taxes, Increase Revenue

A report out from the feds yesterday once again revises the federal budget deficit down.  The budget is coming into balance even faster than President Bush originally planned.  Why?  Not because anyone is doing much to hold down spending, but because revenues are skyrocketing. What?  You mean you can cut tax rates and increase revenue?  Well, we've done it again.  Time and time again it is proven that tax revenue, within certain parameters, has more to do with economic growth than it does the actual tax rates.  Thus if one's goal is to increase revenue, it is actually better to keep rates relatively low and allow the economy to produce wealth.  Here are a couple snippets from the article:

The federal deficit is running sharply lower than last year even though spending in August set an all-time high, the government reported Thursday.

The Treasury Department said that the deficit through the first 11 months of this budget year totaled $274.4 billion, down 9.8 percent from the same period a year ago.

Analysts believe the deficit for all of 2007 will actually be even lower because they are forecasting a sizable surplus in the final month, reflecting in part timing issues that caused about $44 billion in Social Security and Medicare payments that normally would have been made in September to be shifted into August.

The Congressional Budget Office is forecasting that when this budget year wraps up on Sept. 30, the deficit will total $158 billion, down by 36.2 percent from last year's $248.2 billion deficit.

(snip)

For August, the deficit totaled $116.9 billion. However, about $44 billion of that figure reflected payments for Social Security and Medicare that were mailed in August because Sept. 1 fell on a Saturday and Labor Day came on Sept. 3.

Through the first 11 months of the current budget year, receipts total a record $2.282 trillion, up 7.5 percent from last year, while outlays totaled a record $2.557 trillion, up 5.3 percent from last year.

SDP Jazz Note: Sonny Rollins on 9/11

Jeffery Siegel's fine jazz podcast, Straight No Chaser, has a clip from Without a Song: the 9/11 Concert, featuring Jazz giant Sonny Rollins.  The clip has Rollins playing the title number, a piece of jazz he recorded in 1962 for his album, The Bridge.  I have only heard the cut on Siegel's podcast, but it is magnificent.  Go to Straight No Chaser to download it.  Here is the brief review on the Barnes & Noble site:

When the disasters on 9/11 occurred, the great tenor saxophonist Sonny Rollins was in his New York apartment, only blocks away from the World Trade Center. He survived a night without electricity and was of course deeply affected by the catastrophe. At the urging of his wife and manager, Lucille, he fulfilled an engagement to play in Boston four days later, and the concert recording was released four years later. Rollins is quite emotional in his playing and can be heard throughout in peak creative form.

I couldn't help noticing that the second cut on the CD is "Global Warming." 

Ethanol Battles

Had a good time on KWAT this morning.  We went over a lot regarding energy.  Ethanol seemed to be on everybody's mind, and so more time was spent on it than any other matter.  I took some grief for questioning the logic of ethanol subsidies.  A nice pro/con on the subject is by BusinessWeek and can be found here. 

Some of the grief I took comes from those who don't want to admit that for all of the benefits of ethanol, we in South Dakota like it because it is pork barrel for our state.  That doesn't mean that ethanol subsidies are bad policy, but I suspect many (if not most) people support ethanol for the money first and only secondarily for the energy independence and environmental benefits.  Let's not pretend that we are not self-interested.

By the way, a new record in oil prices today. 

Global Warming Canceled?

There is a good global warming dissent piece by Paul Driessen at the Washington Times. 

My general take on the global warming issue has been as follows: 1) I have accepted that global temperatures are indeed rising; 2) I accepted that human activity is a significant cause of current warming trends; 3) I don't think we can know much about how severe the consequences will be or even whether they will be bad; and 4) short of the collapse of the Chinese and Indian economies, I am sure we can't do anything to significantly modify the human influences. 

A story has broken very quietly that brings into question the first two opinions.  Here is Lorne Gunter writing in the Canadian National Post:

Last week, NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies -- whose temperature records are a key component of the global-warming claim (and whose director, James Hansen, is a sort of godfather of global-warming alarmism) -- quietly corrected an error in its data set that had made recent temperatures seem warmer than they really were...

What, exactly, does the adjusted data tell us?  It tells us that a lot of the claims about recent warming trends are wrong, at least with regard to temperatures in the US. 

The hottest year since 1880 becomes 1934 instead of 1998, which is now just second; 1921 is third.

Four of the 10 hottest years were in the 1930s, only three in the past decade. Claiming that man-made carbon dioxide has caused the natural disasters of recent years makes as much sense as claiming fossil-fuel burning caused the Great Depression.

The 15 hottest years since 1880 are spread over seven decades. Eight occurred before atmospheric carbon dioxide began its recent rise; seven occurred afterwards.

In other words, there is no discernible trend, no obvious warming of late.

Now, I would like to see a revised chart, but so far I haven't found one. You can find the corrected raw data by year at the NASA website.  The summary above is correct.  So far, US temperatures are not significantly warmer than they have been over the past century.  It is true that every year between 1997 and 2006 has seen temperatures above the annual mean for the 1880-2006 period.  But every  year between 1938 and 1947, except 1945 was also above the annual mean. 

Is the world experiencing an accelerated warming trend?  Probably.  The last ten years show robust warming according to the corrected numbers.  But the overall numbers don't suggest anything alarming yet.  It would be nice if the MSM would flesh this out for us, but global warming politics always trumps global warming science.  In the meantime you have to rely on blogs like this one. 

Media Whore Alert

I will be on the "What's Up" show on KWAT 950 AM out of Watertown tomorrow (Thursday) at about 8:10am.  The subject, once again, is energy policy.  I will advocate tapping the natural gas coming from Dave Newquist. 

Kranz

Note today that Argus Leader political columnist David Kranz is again talking about a new book that discusses Tom Daschle (this is the second time he's mentioned it), yet has not said a word about Daschle Vs. Thune, which is completely about South Dakota politics.

Eppster, You Protest Too Much

I don't have a lot of passion about the fact that Lodgenet pipes pornography into their hotel rooms.  I'd rather they didn't, but I can't say it preys upon my mind.  But Todd Epp makes some arguments against the Family Policy Council types who are all worked up about this.  I must say Todd, pretty weak arguments.  And that does prey on my mind!  Let's look at those arguments.
1. The old "if you don't like it turn it off." 

My Republican friends always like to lecture people about "personal responsibility."  And renting a grinder flick from Lodgenet is the ultimate in personal responsibility.  I'm in my own room.  I'm not in the public.  I'm paying for the service.

This is a classic case of question begging.  Todd's argument assumes that pornography in hotel rooms (or elsewhere perhaps) is benign and therefore a matter of indifference to the public.  If Lodgenet was piping in films of children getting raped, Todd, I think, would object.  By why is that not a matter of personal preference?  There are things that are done in private (drugs for example) that are harmful to the public.  Maybe viewing pornography is one of them.  And maybe not.  But Todd assumes a benign nature to pornography without proof.

By the way, in civil rights law, isn't a hotel a "pubic accommodation," not a private abode?

2. The first amendment:

It is legal (though the wackos at Truth About Lodgenet say otherwise).  You know, there's that little thing called the First Amendment.

Perhaps the "Truth About Lodgenet wackos" are trying to use the law against Lodgenet, but it seems more so they are trying to use publicity and shame.  Perhaps their energies are misdirected, but Lodgenet has no First Amendment right to be free from shame and ridicule for being a purveyor of pornography. 

3. If you are going to stop porn in hotel rooms you must ban...

I think the bigger issue is where will groups like SDFPC stop?

Ban drinking?  Drinking probably harms far more people than porn.

Ban cigarettes?  They too are legal and bad for you.  The health costs to our society are enormous.

Ban adult stores like Olivias and Anna Belles?  What, they have something against rubber goods and low cut French maid outfits?

Ban dancing?  It can lead to sex or at least blisters on your feet.

Ban couples who marry but can't procreate?  Isn't that why you're supposed to marry, to be fruit fly and multiply?

This is the old "slippery slope," which is still a fallacy, if I am not mistaken. Of course the "wackos" want to ban none of these things and Todd knows it.  But it serves his purpose to to say, "If you want to ban this, you must ban all of these things," thereby treating all sorts of apples as if they are oranges.

As I say, I don't really have a lot of passion about Lodgenet.  But I can't stand by and let Todd get away with lazy thinking.  I suspect that Todd's real arguments are A) he can't stand these right-wing Christian types, so their enemies are his friends, and B) he doesn't really see anything wrong with pornography.  If I am wrong, I am sure Todd will correct me.  Either way, watch your back Todd. You might get Chuck Norris going Biblical on your ass, you godless anti-American Communist.   

Update: Crap. Now I see that Todd has been throwing me kudos.  I take back all the bad stuff, Todd! 

Six Years Ago

Biology and Homosexuality 3: Mailbag

I hadn't expected this topic to draw as much response as it has, but we here at SDP and at Keloland are all about serving our public so I feel some obligation to respond to the items in my mail. 

Intrepid reader William A. Williams alerts me to an article in the New York Magazine by David France, "The Science of Gaydar,"  that neatly summarizes some of the research on homosexuality.  I knew that homosexual men were more likely than heterosexual men to have a ring finger that is longer than their index fingers.  I did not know that homosexual men are more likely to have a counterclockwise "whorl" in their hair pattern.  The Irish have a phrase: "Protestant hair."  I forget what that means.  Apparently there is also gay hair. 

I would note that a lot of this research is very tenuous, and suggests differences that are marginal at best.  The finger thing is present in 8% of the general population, and 23% of homosexuals.  That may indicate a genetic factor, but it cannot be a gene generally responsible for homosexuality.  I do not share Mr. France's preference for the term "third-sexer."  Sex is clearly the wrong word, as it implies a connection to the biological process of reproduction.  If homosexuals could breed with either males or females, as in some science fiction, that would be a third sex.  Homosexuality is about gender and behavior. 

Intrepid reader and friend of SDP, Gene Kocmich shares this amusing story about a sexually disinterested boar. 

Many years ago on the farm in SD my Dad bought a boar hog that had the physical traits he though would improve the quality of offspring we bred for market.  He paid $350 in 1959 for this young boar and expected great things.  Well the boar would have nothing to do with the guilts and sows when they were in heat.  He just wasn’t interested. My Dad returned the “queer boar” and got another from the breeder. I don’t believe pigs are affected by their environment so it was probably biological.  Did this boar take a liking to other boar pigs?  We never tested that outcome.

I don't suppose Gene's dad examined the direction in which the hog's tail whorled?

IR Victor Ulmer advances the conversation. 

In your response, you said, in part:

I know of at least two explanations for the genetic persistence of   genetic homosexuality. One is that homosexual males made very good warriors:   pairs of lovers sacrificed their own reproductive opportunities, but promoted   the reproductive success of their heterosexual brothers and sisters. Those   siblings carried the same genes that, in the proper mixture, would produce   more homosexual warriors. That is a niche theory. Another explanation   is that some of  the genes that code for adaptive traits such as sexual   attraction to the opposite sex and desire for friendship with the same sex   will inevitably, on occasion, combine in such a way as to produce   homosexuality. That seems more plausible, but we can hardly know yet.

But do homosexual males make better warriors, than do heterosexual males?  If they do, that explanation seems to be plausible, but whether they do, to me, seems to be totally speculative.

It is speculative either way, but the question is not whether they are better warriors, but whether they might have filled a niche that contributed to the genes that produced their dispositions. Perhaps a pair of homosexual soldiers were more likely to sacrifice themselves together, and thus made good last ditch guards of narrow passes and bridges and such.  I am speculating freely here, but this much I know: even very small fitness advantages can result in a big genetic payoff over time.  In a lot of species, individuals sacrifice their own reproduction for their near kin.  Maybe, in the environment of evolutionary adaptation, homosexuality had such a marginal payoff.  In that case, the selection pressure for it would have outweighed the obvious pressure against it. 

Secondly, Vic wonders why homosexuality should be more common  than other mutations that adversely affect reproductive fitness, such as impaired male genitalia.  I answer that it all depends on the balance of selection pressures.  Consider the fitness not of individuals but of genes (as your reference to Dawkin's Selfish Gene indicates).  If a given gene or complex array of genes adversely affects its own reproductive success by a factor of .01 (one less replication per hundred individuals), but has a secondary effect that increases its fitness by a factor of .011 (eleven successful replications per thousand individuals), the gene will be selected for.  Its representation in a population will be determined by this kind of equilibrium.  My guess is that any gene that is simple disadvantageous would rapidly disappear.  Any that was simply advantageous would become universal.  Between the two is a spectrum that accounts for the difference between 90 pound weaklings and line backers. 

Lastly Vic asks:

Might not some homosexuality be related largely to "genetic predisposition"; and might not some homosexuality be related largely to social and cultural factors; and might not some homosexuality be related to several or all of those factors?  Why would this issue not be similar to other nature versus nurture controversies?

Of course.  Homosexuality is probably an expression of a complex range of genes expressed in a complex range of social situations.  Some persons with no biological inclination will engage in homosexual behavior for social reasons.  If Caesar likes you, well, you just can't squander some opportunities.  Likewise genetic dispositions may be expressed or not depending on the balance between the intrinsic strength in the individual and the social consequences. Life is more complex than checkers. 

Kudos to my readers for a dialog that has kept me, at least, interested.    

Viking Blogging

So, did you watch the game yesterday?  Pretty ugly stuff, don't you think?  Tarvaris Jackson does not exactly instill me with confidence.  The fact that the defense outscored the offense is not a good sign, and the one offensive touchdown was one big play rather than a sustained drive.  I suspect the Vikings will struggle mightily when they play a non-Joey Harrington led team. Still, a win is a win.

Today's SDP opinion question: Speaking of Joey Harrington.  Is Joey Harrington the worst starting quarterback in, say, the last 20 years?  Let's set our parameters.  I am not talking about one loser who got a few starts when there was no one else to go to (think Moses Moreno for the Bears a few years back).  I am talking about someone who started, say, 20 or more games in his career and at least one full season.  Can anyone think of anyone worse?  Immediately coming to mind as contenders are Rex Grossman and Ryan Leaf.  Any thoughts?  Email at schaffsdp at gmail.com.  Or hit my email link to the right.  Same thing. 

Legal Help For Larry Craig, Part II

Regarding whether Larry Craig can use senatorial privilege to beat his toilet rap, reader Gary chimes in:

While I’m not a lawyer, Akhil Reed Amar, a member of the Yale Law School
faculty, is. His excellent book, “America’s Constitution-A Biography” has
this to say on your questions. First of all, the relevant portion is in
Article I, Section 6.

         “Article I, section 6 “privileged” senators and representatives
from certain kinds of “Arrest during their Attendance” in Congress. The
privilege applied only to various civil cases, still prevalent in the
eighteenth century, in which a litigant sought the physical arrest of a
defendant. (No congressional privilege would exist in cases of “Treason,
Felony and Breach of the Peace” – a catchall English-law term of art
effectively covering all crimes.) Without the privilege, a single private
civil litigant, perhaps by design, might undo the voters’ verdict by keeping
their man off the floor. As Jefferson explained in his famed “Manual of
Parliamentary Practice”, “When a representative is withdrawn from his seat
by summons, the 30,000 people whom he represents lose their voice in debate
and vote.”  The private privilege thus served a public purpose. In the name
of democracy, a sitting congressman could claim temporary immunity and
oblige his would-be civil arrester to wait until the legislative session had
ended.  If a lawmaker abused this privilege, the voters could punish him at
the next election.  To put legislators from distant states on equal footing
with those living near the national seat, the privilege would apply to
lawmakers traveling to and from Congress.”

It appears the operative word here is “civil” as Craig would have appeared
to commit a “breach of the peace”. Hope this helps.

"What I now ask of you is military success, and I will risk the dictatorship."

So wrote Abraham Lincoln to Joseph Hooker as he assigned Hooker to command the Army of the Potomac.  As it happened, Hooker gave Lincoln neither military success nor dictatorship.  This letter is an example of the war leadership provided by Lincoln, who did not see political interference in military affairs as a vice.  War is a political act, and in a democracy the political leaders who are responsible to the people should set policy.  This is a theme of Eliot Cohen's Supreme Command, a book I have recommended before and do so again.  For related discussion, see this post by Andrew McCarthy over at NRO.

Thus it is disappointing that the American people put far more trust in our military than our president or Congress when it comes to victory in Iraq.  This is understandable, for of course generals are largely immune to political attack and they don't have to take any position on abortion.  But this is also the result of poor leadership by both branches.  On the eve of the anniversary of 9-11, we should recall that one of George Bush's first reactions to that event was to tell the American people to go shopping.  One understands why he did so; he did not want the terrorists to think they can alter our way of life.  But it set the tone for a kind of lack of seriousness regarding the war on terrorism.  Bush has led us into war while at the same time asking little of the American people.  Oh, he speaks often and eloquently about the sacrifices of the American military, but very little about the sacrifices of the American people in general.  At the same time, his administration pursued a policy unnecessarily hostile to Congress, claiming executive power at every turn and pushing Congress aside.  The administration has usually been right on the law, in my opinion, but politically foolish, alienating Congress and making it difficult to build consensus.   Congress, on the other hand, has largely been willing to do nothing.  When Republicans were in charge they deferred far too much to their president, giving up institutional prerogatives, to say nothing of leadership, in the name of protecting the popularity of their party's president.   The Democrats are the mirror image, largely opposing the president at every turn in order to gain political advantage, while at the same ceding all responsibility out of fear that actually taking responsibility might hurt them politically.  One can say this about George Bush: he has not let the fear of political failure stop him from doing what he thought best regarding American security. Failure he may get, but with more honor than his opponents in Congress will ever have.   

One sees today that the same mistakes are being made.  McCain and Lieberman urge us to do pretty much do whatever Gen. Petraeus tells us to do.  The Democratic leadership tries to discredit Petraeus, not because he deserves discredit, but because what he is saying might hurt them politically.  So now Petraeus must be weakened in public opinion so the Democrats can gain seats in Congress?   

Obviously prudence dictates that politically leaders take seriously the advice of the generals.  But it must be clear: generals do not set policy, political leaders do.  McCain and Lieberman are certainly closer to the truth in that it is unwise to dismiss Gen. Petraeus, certainly not before one has even heard him.  But the general's report today should be seen as purely informational, not policy setting.   

Lincoln-Douglas?

Ed Morrissey reports that Mike Huckabee has challenged Fred Thompson to a Lincoln-Douglas style debate. 

Dialogue on the Biology of Homosexuality 2

I have blogged recently on the question of whether homosexuality has biological causes, and whether dissent from the view that it does should be allowed.  I believe the answer to both questions is yes.  You can read the posts here and here, along with comments from intrepid reader Z-Tek.  Intrepid reader Vic Ulmer sent me this question by Gmail:

Isn't homosexuality inconsistent with and counter to the fundamental biological concept of reproductive success?  Thus, why would there be a "genetic predisposition" to homosexuality?

This is a very good question, and to answer it I must put on my professor hat.  First, one must distinguish the question whether some trait H has a biological cause from the question of what that cause is and how it works.  Biological causation may be indicated by many things: for example if the trait is universal (all people grow old and die, regardless of where or when they are born or what culture they are exposed to); or if it shows signs of heritability (hair color and eye color). Homosexuality seems to indicated by both criteria: it exists in all significant populations, regardless of culture, and as I understand it, shows at least some signs of heritability.    

Of traits that are biological, some are selected for, some against, and some are not exposed to selection pressure.  Good eyesight, congenital blindness, brown rather than green eyes are, respectively, examples. As you indicate , homosexuality would seem to be subject to negative selection pressure, as homosexuals typically invest most or all of their sexual behavior in ways that cannot lead to successful reproduction.  That is consistent with the fact that homosexuals constitute a relatively small portion of every general population (probably less than 2 or 3%).

However, a trait that is maladaptive in a general population can be adaptive for a small portion of the population if it finds some niche within that population where it is favored.  Unusual boldness probably killed off most people who ever inherited it, but sometimes it leads to unprecedented reproductive success, as in the case of certain sports stars or the hero who saves the people against Goliath.  Likewise, a generally maladaptive trait may be preserved if it is rare but unavoidable consequence of genes that are otherwise adaptive.  There are two genes that code for resistance to malaria and that's adaptive; but if you have both, you get sickle cell anemia. 

I know of at least two explanations for the genetic persistence of genetic homosexuality. One is that homosexual males made very good warriors: pairs of lovers sacrificed their own reproductive opportunities, but promoted the reproductive success of their heterosexual brothers and sisters. Those siblings carried the same genes that, in the proper mixture, would produce more homosexual warriors. That is a niche theory. Another explanation is that some of  the genes that code for adaptive traits such as sexual attraction to the opposite sex and desire for friendship with the same sex will inevitably, on occasion, combine in such a way as to produce homosexuality. That seems more plausible, but we can hardly know yet.

All I can say now is that it is a good bet that there is a biological basis for homosexuality.  That is a long winded answer to your question, but as I said, it is a good question.    

Book Blogging

The Weekly Standard has a review of Jon Lauck's new book, Daschle Vs. Thune: Anatomy of a High-Plains Senate Race.  Here it is in full:

Russia and the Neo-KGB

I tend to think of our blog, broadly defined, as dedicated to the nuts and bolts of the practice of democracy, not only in the world's oldest republic but around the world.  We're observing the mechanics and meaning behind political events, backdropped by a bold attempt to bring democracy to one of the most undemocratic regions in the world.  And so it's depressing to read stories like this from The Economist about the situation in Russia where democracy is being subverted (H/T Peter Schramm):

ON THE evening of August 22nd 1991—16 years ago this week—Alexei Kondaurov, a KGB general, stood by the darkened window of his Moscow office and watched a jubilant crowd moving towards the KGB headquarters in Lubyanka Square. A coup against Mikhail Gorbachev had just been defeated. The head of the KGB who had helped to orchestrate it had been arrested, and Mr Kondaurov was now one of the most senior officers left in the fast-emptying building. For a moment the thronged masses seemed to be heading straight towards him.

Then their anger was diverted to the statue of Felix Dzerzhinsky, the KGB's founding father. A couple of men climbed up and slipped a rope round his neck. Then he was yanked up by a crane. Watching “Iron Felix” sway in mid-air, Mr Kondaurov, who had served in the KGB since 1972, felt betrayed “by Gorbachev, by Yeltsin, by the impotent coup leaders”. He remembers thinking, “I will prove to you that your victory will be short-lived.”

Those feelings of betrayal and humiliation were shared by 500,000 KGB operatives across Russia and beyond, including Vladimir Putin, whose resignation as a lieutenant-colonel in the service had been accepted only the day before. Eight years later, though, the KGB men seemed poised for revenge. Just before he became president, Mr Putin told his ex-colleagues at the Federal Security Service (FSB), the KGB's successor, “A group of FSB operatives, dispatched under cover to work in the government of the Russian federation, is successfully fulfilling its task.” He was only half joking.

Over the two terms of Mr Putin's presidency, that “group of FSB operatives” has consolidated its political power and built a new sort of corporate state in the process. Men from the FSB and its sister organisations control the Kremlin, the government, the media and large parts of the economy—as well as the military and security forces. According to research by Olga Kryshtanovskaya, a sociologist at the Russian Academy of Sciences, a quarter of the country's senior bureaucrats are siloviki—a Russian word meaning, roughly, “power guys”, which includes members of the armed forces and other security services, not just the FSB. The proportion rises to three-quarters if people simply affiliated to the security services are included. These people represent a psychologically homogeneous group, loyal to roots that go back to the Bolsheviks' first political police, the Cheka. As Mr Putin says repeatedly, “There is no such thing as a former Chekist.”

Football Recap

Two good college games today, Nebraska (20) vs. Wake Forest (17) and Michigan (7) vs. Oregon (39).  The Nebraska game was pretty good save one thing: Quarterback Sam Keller.  Overthrowing was a problem, and when that wasn't plaguing them, the receivers couldn't hold onto the ball.  For Nebraska to have a good chance against USC next week, Keller needs to improve quickly, or Bill Callahan needs to be willing to swap out quarterbacks (in this case, the primary backup is Joe Ganz).  Then again, it's USC, and might be a lost cause either way.  Wake Forest had an excellent running game and misdirection game, which threw the Nebraska defense for a loop.  Nevertheless, it was still an exciting game, and the close finish only made things better.

Michigan suffered its second straight loss in a week at their home turf, falling to Oregon.   South Dakota expatriate and fellow Husker, Dan of tdaxp, said it best:  "With all apologies to the greatness of the Pac 10, the public immolation of Michigan -- and with her the Big 10 generally -- has a very ritual-sacrifice feel to  it."

A Boy Named Hsu

Clinton Administration fund raising scandals are either lingering late or beginning early, to judge by the arrest of Norman Hsu.  Here is the Washington Post:

Last week, before his world came crashing down, Norman Hsu helped organize a breakfast meeting in San Francisco with prospective donors. The featured attraction was Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean. ...

In the past four years, Hsu raised more than $1.2 million for Democratic causes and candidates, including the DNC and the campaign of New York Gov. Eliot L. Spitzer. And in the past six months, Hsu became a leading fundraiser for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.). A person familiar with Clinton's fundraising, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said Hsu had raised "in the hundreds of thousands of dollars" since January for Clinton's presidential bid.

Now I don't want to cast aspersions on anyone, but where exactly was this money coming from? The Los Angeles Times has this:

In addition to making his own contributions, Hsu has honed the practice of assembling packets of checks from contributors who bear little resemblance to the usual Democratic deep pockets: A self-described apparel executive with a variety of business interests, Hsu has focused on delivering hefty contributions from citizens who live modest lives and are neophytes in the world of campaign giving.

Did you get that?  He delivered  "hefty contributions from citizens who live modest lives"?  People like, say, Buddhist monks?  No wait, that was Al Gore. 

In addition to filing for bankruptcy, Mr. Hsu  also has a habit of skipping town when out on bail. A lot of bail.   Again  from the WaPo:

His association with Clinton cast an unwanted national spotlight on Hsu, leading to the discovery last week that there was an outstanding warrant for his arrest stemming from a 15-year-old felony theft conviction.

Now, instead of finalizing plans to headline a Sept. 30 Clinton fundraiser in Woodside, Calif., where Quincy Jones is scheduled to perform, Hsu is under arrest, after being captured as a fugitive. FBI agents took him into custody last night at St. Mary's Hospital in Grand Junction, Colo., the Associated Press learned from FBI spokesman Joseph Schadler.

On Wednesday, he failed to appear at a court hearing related to the warrant, forfeiting $2 million in bail. Hsu's attorney James Brosnahan told a San Mateo County judge he did not know where Hsu had gone. The office of California's attorney general said it had not expected Hsu to flee and had not collected his passport.

California has been looking of this guy since he skipped town 15 years ago.  For three of them, he has been a national figure.  But no, California's attorney general didn't expect him to flee!  Tell me guys, what would raise such expectations?  Hsu's butt in a plane headed for Macao?  This election is going to be more fun than a barrel of monkeys.   

Chuck Hagel Retiring

The Omaha World-Herald reports this morning that Senator Chuck Hagel is retiring from the U.S. Senate and will not be running for president:

Chuck Hagel will announce Monday that he is retiring from the U.S. Senate and will not run for president next year, people close to the Nebraska Republican said Friday.

Hagel plans to announce that "he will not run for re-election and that he does not intend to be a candidate for any office in 2008," said one person, who asked not to be named.

Hagel has scheduled a press conference for 10 a.m. Monday at the Omaha Press Club.

According to one person interviewed, Hagel told Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky on Friday morning that he had decided to retire. Hagel's staff learned of his decision that afternoon.

Some of the names being thrown around right now to replace Hagel on the Republican side include former governor and current U.S. agriculture secretary Mike Johanns, former Omaha Mayer Hal Dubb, a Columbus businessman named Tony Raimondo, and Attorney General Jon Bruning.  On the Democratic side, former Senator Bob Kerrey has voiced interest in returning to the Senate, Omaha Mayer Mike Fahey, and Scott Kleeb, who ran an unsuccessful campaign against Republican Adrian Smith in the 3rd Congressional District in 2006.

UPDATE:  Chris Cillizza comments that this  "creates a potentially competitive open seat, with former Sen. Bob Kerrey (D) and former Gov. Mike Johanns (R) -- two titans of Cornhusker politics -- mentioned prominently as his replacement." Johanns currently is the Secretary of Agriculture. Kerrey is President of the New School in New York.

Dialogue On the Causes of Homosexuality

I recently posted a critique of a skit on the Daily Show.  I said this:

I am in favor of gay marriage as policy, and I think the evidence is good that male homosexuality, at least, is the result of a genetic predisposition.  But unlike Stewart, I don't think that anyone who disagrees with me is an ignoramus. Consider the second proposition: we certainly do not know what causes homosexuality.  It is very difficult to establish a genetic cause for any complex human behavior, and it is entirely possible that homosexuality is partly or even wholly due to environmental factors.  It might have to do with physical influences in the womb, or more likely with psychological and social influences. These are the sorts of things about which reasonable people may disagree.  The homosexual community is deeply committed to the biological view.  But enforcing a political orthodoxy is not the best use of satire.

I got a comment from a reader, Z-Tek, on my Keloland blog.  I responded, and he responded in turn.  You can read the exchanges at the above link. I am grateful for the comments, and here respond in detail to the last one.  I said this in a comment to my own post:

Dear Z-Tek: I agree with you that the "latest scientific research" supports the biological view, but the latest research is often wrong; hence the need for subsequent research and testing.

Z-Tek replies:

Your argument concerning the latest research being wrong is lame. The biological evidence has been there for years and has recently been bolstered.

I reply that scientific claims are always subject to critique, no matter how long or how well they have been accepted.  And important scientific ideas like relativity continue to be challenged by dissenters.  This makes science and the challenged ideas stronger, and so one should not brand as heretics someone who challenges a scientific idea, no matter how dear it is. Bear in  mind that I agree with Z-Tek on the matter at hand. Z-Tek goes on:

The alternative to the biological model is that it is not nature but nurture. This reduces homosexuality to a choice (and why would anyone choose it--especially in this society).

Z-Tek is confused here.  Nature and nurture are both influences on us; choice is what happens when we respond to and from those influences.  It is conceivable that homosexuality is caused by environmental influences: perhaps chemical agents present in the womb, or more likely, social and psychological influences operative in childhood.  The great playwright Tennessee Williams obviously thought that his homosexuality had something to do with an overbearing mother.   That would hardly make homosexuality a choice: we don't choose when we are born or how our parents will treat us.

I think it very unlikely that homosexuality is a choice, but even if that were what the evidence showed, it is not clear to me that it would matter.  Religion is obviously a choice, but I think it is a choice that should be respected.  Z-Tek thinks that anything but the biological view plays into the hands of religious bigots.

[The view that homosexuality is not biological] allows for institutionalized bigotry on religious/moral grounds. The argument being that God opposes homosexuality therefore he would not make anyone a homosexual. Therefore it is a choice and consciously sinful.

This is an ad hominem fallacy: because Jerry Falwell believed it, it must be false.  It won't do.  Darwinism is not false because it offends some believers; alternatives to the biological explanation for homosexuality are not false because they gratify some believers.  Z-Tek finishes this way:

The fact remains that the pervasiveness of the behavior is due to biological factors. Calling it "political orthodoxy" is obnoxious and bigoted.

Here Z-Tek confuses the issue.  I have made it clear on the question of causation: I am strongly inclined to believe that homosexuality has biological causes.  To say that is not political orthodoxy, it is merely taking sides on a scientific question.  To say that anyone who questions that view is an ignoramus, that it is "obnoxious and bigoted" even to acknowledge the validity of an opposition, that is political orthodoxy.  Z-Tek and I agree on the scientific question.  But he wants to close off any honest debate.  That is where we part company. 

Thune Advocates Infrastructure Spending

John Thune, along with Oregon's Ron Wyden, has a bill to raise $50 billion for transportation infrastructure:

Senator John Thune, along with Oregon senator Ron Wyden, has introduced a bill to fund repairs in aging roads and bridges and rail lines across the United States.

The “Build America Bonds” Act would provide $50 billion in additional Federal transportation funding, and would empower states across the country to complete critical infrastructure projects.

Build America Bonds would raise $50 billion for transportation infrastructure through a one-time bonding program. This amount would be spent on various transportation projects across all modes of transportation including roads, bridges, transit, rail, and waterways. In lieu of interest, bond holders would receive tax credits.

Thune says, “The Build America Bonds Act is about generating economic growth, improving transportation infrastructure, and ultimately saving lives through enhanced transportation safety without a tax increase.”

Legal Help For Larry Craig?

The US Constitution says (Art 1, Sec 5, Clause 5):

They shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same;

Was Larry Craig "going to" or "returning from" "attendance at the session" of the Senate when he played footsie with the cop in Minneapolis?  Also, was he "detained" or "arrested"?  Is there a difference?  Lawyers of the world help me!  Anyone with answers to any of these questions please email me at schaffsdp at gmail.com. 

I note that even if Larry Craig beats the legal rap, politically he is swimming with Luca Brasi.

Update: Reader Victor helpfully sends along this Find Law link (scroll down):

Privilege From Arrest This clause is practically obsolete. It applies only to arrests in civil suits, which were still common in this country at the time the Constitution was adopted. 376 It does not apply to service of process in either civil 377 or criminal cases. 378 Nor does it apply to arrest in any criminal case. The phrase ''treason, felony or breach of the peace'' is interpreted to withdraw all criminal offenses from the operation of the privilege. 379

 

Lincoln on Immigration

Poking through the Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln yesterday, I came across this entry from 1844.   There had been riots in Philadelphia against immigrants, apparently directed particularly against Catholics so one assumes Germans and Irishmen were particular targets.  At a Whig meeting in Springfield, IL Lincoln joined his fellow Whigs in voting for the following resolutions:

Resolved, That in admitting the foreigner to the rights of citizenship, he should be put to some reasonable test of his fidelity to our country and its institutions; and that he should first dwell among us a reasonable time to become generally acquainted with the nature of those institutions; and that, consistent with these requisites, naturalization laws, should be so framed, as to render admission to citizenship under them, as convenient, cheap, and expeditious as possible.

Resolved, That we will now, and at all times, oppose as best we may, all attempts to either destroy the naturalization laws or to so alter them, as to render admission under them, less convenient, less cheap, or less expeditious than it now is.

Resolved, That the guarantee of the rights of conscience, as found in our Constitution, is most sacred and inviolable, and one that belongs no less to the Catholic, than to the Protestant; and that all attempts to abridge or interfere with these rights, either of Catholic or Protestant, directly or indirectly, have our decided disapprobation, and shall ever have our most effective opposition.

Does this not sound like a fine approach to immigration?  We welcome all comers, but we want to make sure you accept certain basic tenets of our regime.  Naturalization should make certain demands of those seeking to become citizens, but those demands should be reasonable and naturalization should be expeditious.

Whigs had to go out of their way to show their concern for immigrants as to the extent there was anti-immigrant feelings in the population in the 1840s, it was housed in the Whig party.  Desiring immigrant votes, Whigs had to soften their image as anti-immigrant.  Republicans today have a similar problem.  Although the party is split on immigration (libertarian conservatives tend to be positively giddy about immigration while other conservatives worry about illegal immigration and assimilation even of legals), to the extent there is a nativism alive in America today, it largely exists in the Republican party.  These Whig resolutions from Illinois seem like a sound policy that Republicans should advocate as it sets up definite standards for naturalization while recognizing the rights of the immigrant. 

Horror Show

Ted Kennedy singing "We Are The World."  Happily, no audio is available.  The mental image of Ted Kennedy singing one of the worst songs ever written will haunt me for weeks. 

The mentality of the naive and solipsistic "We Are The World" explains the actions of Democratic Representative and Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich meeting with Syrian dictator Bashar Assad.  Kucinch had nothing but praise for the murderous Assad who is currently sending terrorists to Iraq to Americans, but found the time to bash George Bush on foreign soil. 

Kucinich, who accused the Bush administration of policies that have destabilized the Mideast, met with Syrian President Bashar Assad during his visit to Damascus. He said Assad was receptive to his ideas of "strength through peace."

Democrats serious about defense of America should denounce the foolish Kucinich.   The fact that Kucinich is so naive as to actually believe that Bashar Assad, who heads one of the most repressive governments of the world, might adopt Kucinich's "strength through peace" idea demonstrates that Kucinich's view of the world is so hopelessly infantile that he is not fit for high office.

Here is an example, from Freedom House, of the policies of the government Dennis Kucinich praises (for more follow the link above):

A husband may request that the Interior Ministry block his wife from traveling abroad, and women are generally barred from leaving the country with their children unless they can prove that the father has granted permission. Violence against women is common, particularly in rural areas. Syrian law stipulates that an accused rapist can be acquitted if he marries his victim, and the law provides for reduced sentences in cases of “honor crimes” committed by men against female relatives for alleged sexual misconduct. Personal status law for Muslim women is governed by Sharia (Islamic law) and is discriminatory in marriage, divorce, and inheritance matters.   

FEC Applies Media Exemption to Political Blogs

Good news for blogs and free speech:

The Federal Election Commission announced today that it has unanimously resolved two complaints alleging that Internet blog activity is subject to Commission regulation, finding that the activity is exempt from regulation under the media or volunteer exemption.

In Matter Under Review (MUR) 5928, the Commission determined that Kos Media, L.L.C., which operates the website DailyKos, did not violate the Federal Election Campaign Act.  The Commission rejected allegations that the site should be regulated as a political committee because it charges a fee to place advertising on its website and it provides “a gift of free advertising and candidate media services” by posting blog entries that support candidates.  The Commission determined that the website falls squarely within the media exemption and is therefore not subject to federal regulation under the Act.

Since 1974, media activity has been explicitly exempted from federal campaign finance regulation.   In March 2006, the Commission made clear that this exemption extends to online media publications and that “costs incurred in covering or carrying a news story, commentary, or editorial by any broadcasting station. . . , Web site, newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication, including any Internet or electronic publication,” are not a contribution or expenditure unless the facility is owned by a political party, committee, or candidate.  With respect to MUR 5928, the FEC found that Kos Media meets the definition of a media entity and that the activity described in the complaint falls within the media exemption.   

Thus, activity on the DailyKos website does not constitute a contribution or expenditure that would trigger political committee status.  The Commission therefore found no reason to believe Kos Media, DailyKos.com, or Markos Moulitsas Zuniga violated federal campaign finance law.

"And thus passes a tremendous milestone in the history of our species."

For the first time in 10,000 years, farming is not the dominate industry.

Importing Poverty Over the Southern Border

Robert Samuelson is one of the most honest and sharply intelligent economists writing for public consumption.  I don't always agree with him but I find it very hard ever to get around him.  In his recent column he parses the government's annual report on poverty and household income.

The standard story is that poverty is stuck; superficially, the statistics support that. The poverty rate measures the share of Americans below the official poverty line, which in 2006 was $20,614 for a four-person household. Last year, the poverty rate was 12.3 percent, down slightly from 12.6 percent in 2005 but higher than the 11.3 percent in 2000, the recent low. It was also higher than the 11.8 percent average for the 1970s. So the conventional wisdom seems amply corroborated.

These statistics are usually relied on to show that we (or more commonly George W.) are making no progress against poverty, presumably because we (and especially he) don't really care about our poorer citizens.  Whether we care or not, Samuelson show that we have made a lot of progress against poverty. 

From 1990 to 2006, the number of poor Hispanics increased 3.2 million, from 6 million to 9.2 million. Meanwhile, the number of non-Hispanic whites in poverty fell from 16.6 million (poverty rate: 8.8 percent) in 1990 to 16 million (8.2 percent) in 2006. Among blacks, there was a decline from 9.8 million in 1990 (poverty rate: 31.9 percent) to 9 million (24.3 percent) in 2006. White and black poverty has risen somewhat since 2000, but is down over longer periods.

Samuelson is right to complain that this story is almost completely ignored by the press.  I think that the left is at odds with itself here: it doesn't want to talk about progress because that might reduce the case for more efforts; but it fails to give credit for the efforts we have made.  And in fact, most forms of government assistance are ignored in these figures, so the real situation of a lot of low income families is better than represented.

I am not sure that the facts about immigration that he reports are as bad as he makes them sound.  Marxists have long argued that capitalism generates a persistent poverty at some level in order to supply the economy with cheap workers.  It may well be that when the number of domestic entry level workers falls below a certain threshold (perhaps  around 12%), the economy becomes magnetized and draws in workers from where ever there is a surplus.  There are winners and losers to be sure, but it gives a lot of people in other places a chance they would not otherwise have.  And immigrants to the U.S. use that chance. 

Paradoxically, many Hispanics are advancing quite rapidly. But assimilation -- which should be our goal -- will be frustrated if we keep adding to the pool of poor. Newcomers will compete with earlier arrivals. In my view, though some economists disagree, competition from low-skilled Hispanics also hurts low-skilled blacks.

There is some confusion here.  It's true that importing large numbers of uneducated, unskilled workers who can't speak English keeps the poverty rate up, and puts pressure on the least competitive domestic workers.  But that has no necessary effect on assimilation.  I suspect that Hispanic immigrants are acquiring skills, education, and English about as fast as immigrants tend to do.  It's just that we keep replacing the stock. 

Samuelson thinks we should favor skilled immigrants over unskilled immigrants, a position with which I agree (except in the case of college professors). We don't want more competition there, for heaven's sake.   I think that bringing the border under control would clearly relieve a lot of social, economic, and political problems, including lifting the wages of unskilled domestic workers.  But that's not to say we should cut off the flow of unskilled workers altogether.  My own ancestors came here, I suspect, with nothing more than a will to do better.  America ought always to be offering that chance to someone. 

SD Representatives Noted

Reid Wilson writes of Sen. Johnson and the rest of our congressional delegation today:

Also today, continuing the bipartisan cooperation around Senator Tim Johnson's (D-SD) return from a congenital arteriovenous malformation, Senator John Thune (R-SD) and Rep. Stephanie Herseth (D-SD) each held open the doors of Johnson's office as the South Dakota's senior Senator returns to work today for the first time.

Republicans have had trouble starting a race against Thune [sic] because of his illness. In any other year, and with a strong opponent like Gov. Mike Rounds, Johnson would face a difficult, possibly uphill race. Johnson beat Thune by just over 500 votes in 2002, and beat Sen. Larry Pressler by 2% in 1996. Thune, of course, came back to beat Sen. Tom Daschle two years later.

Chris Cillizza also writes about Johnson's return to work, and the political implications of his return for any Republicans that stand up to challenge Johnson for his seat. 

Embezzlement Story Update

From South Dakota Moderate:

It has now been over a month since the Argus broke the $100,000 embezzlement scandal at Hildebrand Tewes (and hasn’t mentioned it since) and almost as long since Steve Hildebrand confirmed the theft and named the person responsible but what has happened since then? Last week I asked someone in the MSM if they had heard anything and as of then they confirmed that nothing had even been forwarded for possible criminal charges.

When asked last month by Kevin Woster from the RCJ, Steve Hildebrand wasn’t sure if he would be pressing charges and apparently he hasn’t but why has nothing come yet from state or federal (IRS payments were involved) law enforcement? I wonder if someone from the casino on the corner was found to have embezzled a few thousand, and all but admitted the theft, if the results would be the same? And is Hildebrand not pressing charges in an effort to shield some of his new high profile clients (Presidential hopeful Barack Obama being one) from unfavorable publicity?

The silence is still deafening…

Herseth-Sandlin For Senate? Governor?

Dave Kranz considers Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin's political possibilities.  Herseth-Sandlin may want to consider running for governor before running for Senate, should she chose to run for anything except her current House seat.  There is a Democratic wave that might sweep the nation next fall.  But the worst thing that could happen to Stephanie HS is for Democrats to control all of Washington.  It is easy now to set herself between her left-wing leadership and President Bush.  She can go one way sometimes, and sometimes the other.  But Herseth-Sandlin's quest for seniority, expressed in the Kranz article, will only hurt her if she ends up having to carry water for a President Hillary Clinton, a president who will no doubt be highly unpopular in this state.  South Dakota Democrats are better served in Washington if they have some Republican to triangulate against or remain a backbencher.  If Herseth is ambitious, she should seek the South Dakota governorship while her party is in ascendancy and then go back to Washington as a junior Senator, possibly with Republicans regaining power.

All this advice is free and worth every penny. 

Senator Craig Reconsidering Resignation

Senator Larry Craig says he's reconsidering his resignation, urged on by Arlen Specter who doubts Craig committed the crime.  Interestingly, Craig hired the same lawyer who represents Michael Vick in his dog-fighting charges.  If Craig had taken his case to trial, I think it's a real possibility that he would not have been convicted, although his reputation was ruined by the circumstances surrounding his arrest.  That might be why Craig chose to plead guilty to disorderly conduct, hoping it wouldn't be released to the press, as the arresting officer promised. 

That strategy won't work now.  Yet, with nothing left to lose, Craig might be attempting to reopen the case to achieve some sort of vindication.  I'm not a lawyer, so I could be completely wrong in this analysis.  I look forward to see if our family blogosphere lawyer, Todd Epp, has any analysis of Craig's thought process.  In any case, there's nothing noble about Craig's reversal.  He made the right decision by resigning, and even if he made a 2008 run, the voters of Idaho would probably be more anxious than Arlen Specter in keeping a fellow like Craig in office.

Harry Potter and Severus Snape

Well, I may have been wrong about Tim Johnson, but I was right about Snape.  The final Harry Potter novel was very good. 

Al Qaeda Plot in Denmark Foiled

Ed Morrissey:  "Police report that the men had been under surveillance for quite some time. They had begun producing an "unstable explosive" in a densely-populated area in preparation for an attack. They had lived in immigrant neighborhoods, but six of the eight have Danish citizenship."

The Illiberal University

In 2004 a businessman from Silicon Valley made history: for the first time in 24 years, Cypress Semiconductor CEO T. J. Rodgers ran for election to the Dartmouth board against three candidates selected by the alumni council.  Rodgers, a libertarian who opposes the Iraq War and supports gay marriage, shuns the liberal-conservative divide over university debates and explains he was motivated to run by "the degradation of freedom of speech and the freedom of assembly . . . at [Dartmouth] today."

Following Rodger's election, petitions of trustees Peter Robinson, Todd Zywicki, and Stephen Smith followed.  Furthermore, the board recently rejected a new alumni constitution that would have changed election procedures, and the Dartmouth elite, not pleased with the outcome of the elections, have gone on the attack.  Joseph Rago of the Wall Street Journal interviewed Rodgers regarding his experience on the board:

[A]fter losing four consecutive democratic contests, the Dartmouth administration has evidently decided to do away with democracy altogether. "Now I'm working on the existence question," Mr. Rodgers notes mordantly.

Though he cannot say for sure--"I'll be kept in the dark until a couple of days before the meeting on what they're planning on doing"--a five-member subcommittee, which conducts its business in secret and includes the chair and the president, has embarked on a "governance review" that will consolidate power. "It looks like they're just going to abandon, or make ineffectual, the ability of alumni to elect half the trustees at Dartmouth," Mr. Rodgers says.

He believes that the model is the Harvard Corporation, where a small group "makes all the decisions. They elect themselves in secret. They elect themselves in secret for a life term. How's that for democracy?"

Be sure to read the whole article.  The Wall Street Journal editorial board had a companion piece entitled "The Illiberal College," in which they wrote: "Their [the alumni] presence has proven to be a tremendous offense to Dartmouth's inner circles. Like administrators at most universities, these academic elites expect only money -- not opinion and oversight -- from their alumni donors. A year ago, the administration worked with a small committee of alumni to alter the petition process to make it less likely that outsiders could win. They lost in a rout in an alumni referendum."

In 1951, Yale graduate William F. Buckley achieved notoriety with the publication of God and Man at Yale, assaulting the undergraduate education as hostile to Christianity and its support of collectivism and sought to rally Yale alumni to their supervisory role of university governance.  Unfortunately, nothing has changed in the elite universities, and in fact have grown worse.  The examples of Ward Churchill and Lawrence Summers are two telling examples.  As long-time readers of this blog know, Churchill was the tenured "ethnic studies" professor at the University of Colorado-Boulder who was recently fired by the university for violations of academic ethics (another basis for his firing should have been an enthusiasm for violence, but academics stood idly by under the banner of academic freedom).   The case of Harvard President Lawrence Summers points to the power of taboo in the Ivory Tower, when he offered informed speculation about gender-based differences in scientific professions. Anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism are just fine, it seems, but suggesting a taboo concept doesn't bode well.

Readers may wonder why we devote so much attention to university "politics," like this situation at Dartmouth or other events like Ward Churchill.  Part of the answer is that all of us on this blog are involved in the university in some way, either by teaching or entering the higher levels of graduate education.  The other part of the answer is that what happens in major universities today is important for the future of education in America.  Dartmouth alumni have shaken up the complacent, left-wing administrations, and it's a trend that may continue across the country.  Unlike for-profit corporations in America, universities don't share the same transparency and self-governance, which leaves the job to others to confront.  Academics gripe about the problems of the separation of ownership and control in modern corporations and the power of managers rather than shareholders, yet they actively promote a governance model that puts power in a small elite while disenfranchising the university's stakeholders.  If Dartmouth politics silence the alumni challenge, the entrenched illiberal governance will continue.

Good News (And Bad News) For Hunters

The good news: pheasant numbers are approaching historic highs this year.  The bad news: the Conservation Reserve Program is on shaky legs in the current farm bill being debated in Washington. Read all about it here. 

On the good side, last year's drought coupled with excessive heat killed off many of the chicks.  But we have seen relatively pheasant friendly weather this year:

The survey indicates South Dakota will have a terrific pheasant season, Hansen said.

“It looks like it could be a really good year for pheasants,” Hansen said. “When we last saw numbers like this, it was in the early 60s.”

The annual survey is done by driving 110 routes of 30 miles each in parts of the state where pheasants are found in sufficient numbers to count. The number of broods that were seen increased 15 percent from last year, and the average number of chicks per brood increased 11 percent.

South Dakota's estimated pheasant population was 8.4 million last year and 9.5 million in 2005, which marked the highest population since the 1960s. In 1961, the state had an estimated 11 million pheasants, according to Game, Fish and Parks records.

But the push to put more land into production, especially corn production, is working against conservation programs:

The increase is due to good weather and habitat, and the habitat is provided by the federal Conservation Reserve Program, which idles about 1.4 million acres of South Dakota farm land, Hansen said. The state is due to lose about 296,000 acres of CRP in the next year in the current program, he said.

“That doesn't bode well for pheasants,” Hansen said.

Congress is working on a new Farm Bill, and hunters should encourage inclusion of strong conservation provisions that keep CRP acres at the level needed to support pheasants, Hansen said.

“When you've got a large number of acres left undisturbed in permanent cover, you've got (a lot) of pheasants,” he said.

The wildlife director encourages hunters to take advantage of this fall's expected good season. “We may not see anything like this again in the future, depending on how the farm program goes.”