South Dakota Politics

As The Driven Snow

Let it be said that I have no opinion on "Purity Balls."  But I tend to agree with Julie Ponzi and Kathleen Parker that the virulent reaction against them says at least as much about those who are against Purity Balls as those who are for them.  These balls are an unsurprising reaction to the raunch culture described by Ariel Levy in her controversial book Female Chauvinist Pigs.  The reaction against these balls shows the limits of liberal tolerance.  Example.  If there was an event in which gay high school aged boys and their fathers made a public vow to support each other and those fathers vowed to embrace their sons' homosexuality, the progressive left would champion such an event as a step in the direction of equal justice and as a beautiful celebration of diversity.  When Bob Ellis and Steve Sibson wrote their predictable blogs post denouncing such an event as the end of civilization, they would be condemned by the left for their narrow mindedness and their insufficient commitment to diversity.   So why the hatred directed towards Purity Balls and those that support them?  Evidently liberal tolerance of different lifestyles and the liberal commitment to diversity ends when it is conservative Christians having an event where they make public commitments to defending their way of life.  If you don't like Purity Balls, don't go to one. 

The Worst People Evuh!

Really, those who intimidate voters are the worst people in the world?  This is clearly false.  The worst people in the world are the American Idol voters who keep voting for this dweeb:

In order to intimidate people from voting for him I am going to roll my eyes and put on a negative face. 

SDP Jazz Note: The Best Jazz You've Never Heard

It is easy to gather a list of "essential jazz recordings" from books and jazz websites.  That is a great way to build a solid jazz library, and I have been using it.  But such a list inevitably includes disks that are famous just because they are famous, and leaves out some splendid recordings that are not famous because they never became famous. 

One such recording is Triple Scoop, a two disk set that includes three previously released Concord lps.  Monty Alexander plays piano.  I first heard him on a wonderful PBS special, with Red Mitchell playing bass.  The words that come to mind when I think of his playing all involve light: bright, luminous, sparkling. 

Herb Ellis plays guitar.  I am not so fond of jazz guitar as I used to be, but I still have a special affection for Ellis.  I heard him play once somewhere in Southern California in 1984.  Another jazz guitar player, Lenny Breau, was murdered, and a small army of jazzmen put on a concert on behalf of his widow.  Ellis never achieved the fame I think he deserved.  He played with more feeling, more molecular awareness of each guitar string, than anyone else I ever had the pleasure of listening to.  My brother, who actually plays guitar, was visiting me, and the two of us will never forget the low light reflecting off of Ellis's guitar. 

Ray Brown plays bass.  I got to see him play with guitarist Joe Pass in a back street Los Angeles jazz club.  Brown radiated good humor, which was a good thing since Joe Pass didn't like the sound system and basically refused to play during the second set.  But the first set was magnificent.  I remember being amazed that Brown's large fingers could translate his genius so effectively to the bass strings.  When we left the LA streets were wet and a fog had set in.  I was in a jazz movie. 

Triple Scoop is a treasure.  You won't find more poetic interpretations of But Not For Me,  Straighten Up and Fly Right, or It Might As Well Be Spring.  But what makes it all the more extraordinary is the quality of the recording.  Brown's bass slithers and bumps along, with Ellis laying soft cords down behind it, and Alexander shining along until he can break into song.  And every little whisper of the three players is audible, along with the audience chatter and applause.  It's a jazz club in a box.

Multiculturalism in Defense of Wife-Beating?

Here is something we at SDP and the good folks at DakotaWomen are likely to agree on.  From FOXNews:

A female judge in Germany cited the Koran in her refusal to allow a Muslim woman permission to file for an immediate divorce over abuse by her husband, saying that the Koran allows a man to beat his wife. The woman in question said her husband not only beat her but also threatened to kill her.

 

Germans are outraged by the judge's decision. Top newspaper's headlines read: "Where are we living? Woman judge allows beating in marriage and invokes the Koran." And a government official said: "When the Koran takes precedence over the German Basic Law, then I can only say: Goodnight Germany."

 

A bias complaint against the judge was upheld, and another judge will now hear the case. That judge's interpretation may soon be outdated.

I suspect that the judge was trying to be "culturally sensitive."  The obvious trouble with that, as is apparently apparent to most Germans, is that the cultural element that the judge was trying to be sensitive to is abhorrent. 

This isn't the first time I have seen this argument.  A former colleague of mine once tried to defend such a "custom" that he claimed was part of African marriage.  When a man slaps his wife, I was told, this is a sign of love.  I didn't buy it then, and I don't buy it now. 

Nature vs. Nurture: SDP&DW

Junecleaversdoppleganger (good name, that one) at DakotaWomen responds to my post of yesterday on Sociobiology and Politics.  DW is a feminist-oriented blog, and I find it an interesting read.  I just wish Ms. JCD were less jaundiced in her approach.  Case in point, her title:

Blanchard tries to explain his misogyny.

Misogyny is a serious charge.  It needs more evidence than the mere fact that she and I disagree, or appear to disagree, about the role of nature vs. nurture in sexual behavior. 

Anna took issue with Blanchard's rather interesting take on nature, gender and aggression. I took Anna's comments as directed toward our readers for discussion, not an effort to engage Blanchard. But Blanchard took this as someone peeing on the tree he previously marked.

Let's recap the conversation.  I posted a critique of one feminist school, the social construction theorists.  Anna of DW responded.  Professor Schaff responded on my behalf.  Anna responded to him.  I responded to Anna's original post, and now June responds to me.  Whatever the folks at DW think they are trying to do, they are in fact engaging us.  Why not admit that we are engaged in conversation?  Isn't that a good thing?  And if my posts are criticized at DW, is not reasonable of me to defend myself? 

It is not so clear that June and I disagree on what has become the issue.

Women are fully capable of aggression. A couple of things come into play on the issue of aggression. One is that women develop intellectually earlier. As girls they learn other ways to deal with aggression that are not direct violence. So maybe some of this is that women have found more efficient methods of aggression.

I think everything in the passage is plausible.  But it reinforces my point: if woman do indeed develop intellectually earlier than men, and that fact has consequences for later behavior, then nature is indeed an important factor in social analysis.  Aggression and violence are clearly harder to correct in men than in women, which helps explain the fact that most of the prison population in every country is male. 

June is clearly correct to insist that culture plays a profound role in how men treat women. 

There are plenty of social constructs that teach some males that their are owners of the world, entitled and owners of women. This not only sets up violence but excuses violence against women since they have been marginalized as objects in some circles.

Of course.  In some cultures women are subjected to such hideous procedures as female circumcision, all in order to present them as marketable virgins.  These cultures are very bad, in this respect.  So far there is nothing here that June and I disagree on. 

I would point out that there is no culture in which men have to be routinely protected against rape by women.  In every culture women need such protection against some men.  If we come down with a hammer on rapists, and we must do so, rape will be less likely.  It will be very difficult to eradicate it, because it is one of the most unfortunate products of human nature.  This fact in no way excuses rape.  It just explains it, and tells us what to expect.

June says this:

If it was only nature all males would be prone to violence equally, not certain classes of people.

This is an elementary confusion.  To say, as June does, that "women develop intellectually earlier" than men, is not to say that every women matures intellectually at an earlier age than every man.  That would be like saying that because sickle cell anemia is more prevalent among Blacks than among Whites (something that is "only nature"), therefore all Blacks have sickle cell anemia.  But as I have shown, I do not argue that the wide sexual divergence in aggression and violence is "only nature."  I just think it's a lot natural.  At most, June and I differ by degrees.

More importantly, I think that our political differences, and there surely are some, are less fundamental than our agreements.  Many cultures do teach men to regard women as property.  I think this is abhorrent, and I'm sure, June, that you would agree.  I think that all human beings are created equal, in the sense meant in the Declaration: equal in inalienable rights.  Am I really so bad a person, June, that you cannot afford to be seen conversing with me?

I humbly suggest that we do engage one another.  If I am right, we have more reason to be friends than enemies.  And there will be plenty of things to argue about. 

I Am Shocked, Shocked, To Find Politics Going On In This Establishment!

When I was a senior in college I did an internship at the Minnesota State Legislature.  I was required to send back weekly reports to the professor in charge.  My first report expressed awe at the wheeling and dealing going on and the fact that some legislators would say one thing to one crowd and then the exact opposite to another crowd.  My professor read this letter to his freshman American Government class.  I had expressed shock that politicians were engaging in politics. 

This is the point of Charles Krauthammer's piece on the U.S. Attorney non-scandal.  Krauthammer is no doubt right.  In what is a theme with the Bush Administration, Alberto Gonzales is not a crook, he's just incompetent. It should not be surprising that U.S. Attorneys, who are political appointees, should be replaced for political reasons.  As I have stated a million times, politics means both disagreements over our nation's priorities and mere partisanship.  Clearly Republicans have different priorities regarding crime than do Democrats.  That's part of what makes Republicans Republicans and Democrats Democrats.  Are the administration's critics shocked that Solicitor Generals act in a political way?  Are they not law enforcement officers?   But of course we expect George Bush's Solicitor General to have different priorities than Bill Clinton's. They are political appointees.  Unless there is evidence that the administration was actually trying to use at USAG's to punish political enemies or reward friends, there is nothing here.  Right now the Democrats are using the lack of evidence of such activities to go on a fishing expedition.  But as former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy points out, a change in USAG's rarely has any effect on prosecutions. 

Powerline has more.  You mean in politics (and in life) people make connections and use them to advance their careers?  Shocking!

Update: Chad, in the usual tolerant and open minded manner befitting his liberal sensibilities, calls me "utterly stupid" and "a dolt." I guess that means Krauthammer is, too. Let me quote my fellow moron:

For example, both voter intimidation and voter fraud are illegal. The Democrats have a particular interest in the former because they see it diminishing their turnout, while Republicans are particularly interested in the latter because they see it as inflating the Democratic tally. The Bush administration apparently was dismayed that some of these fired attorneys were not vigorous enough in pursuing voter fraud.

     There is absolutely nothing wrong with this. Pursuing voter fraud is not, as The New York Times pretends, a euphemism for suppressing the vote of minorities and poor people. It is a mechanism for suppressing the vote of (among other phantoms) dead people. Conservatives have a healthy respect for the opinion of dead people -- conservatives revere tradition, which Chesterton once defined as "the democracy of the dead'' -- but they draw the line at posthumous voting.

If the White House decides that a U.S. attorney is showing insufficient zeal in pursuing voter fraud -- or the death penalty or illegal immigration or drug dealing -- it has the perfect right to fire him.

When a Democrat wins the White House in 2008 and fires US Attorneys who would rather prosecute voter fraud rather than voter intimidation, will Chad scream bloody murder?  I doubt it.  He'll call it fighting for justice.  Does Chad have any evidence that an on going investigation has been sabotaged (Krauthammer's phrase) because of these firings?  If so, pray present it. We'd all be interested. Here is Andrew McCarthy, again:

We are not, after all, dealing with a crime when U.S. attorneys are dismissed — at least as long as it was not done to obstruct investigations, which is highly unlikely. (Day-to-day investigations are conducted by career prosecutors, not the district U.S. attorney; cases routinely continue when there is a change in U.S. attorneys; and, to date, there is no credible suggestion, despite the reams of email, that these dismissals targeted individual cases rather than individual prosecutors.)

I will point out that this pseudo-scandal never would have happened if the Bush White House did not have a pathological distrust of the other branches of government.   

WaPo

The Washington Post:

Retreat and Butter
Are Democrats in the House voting for farm subsidies or withdrawal from Iraq?

Friday, March 23, 2007; A16

TODAY THE House of Representatives is due to vote on a bill that would grant $25 million to spinach farmers in California. The legislation would also appropriate $75 million for peanut storage in Georgia and $15 million to protect Louisiana rice fields from saltwater. More substantially, there is $120 million for shrimp and menhaden fishermen, $250 million for milk subsidies, $500 million for wildfire suppression and $1.3 billion to build levees in New Orleans.

Altogether the House Democratic leadership has come up with more than $20 billion in new spending, much of it wasteful subsidies to agriculture or pork barrel projects aimed at individual members of Congress. At the tail of all of this logrolling and political bribery lies this stinger: Representatives who support the bill -- for whatever reason -- will be voting to require that all U.S. combat troops leave Iraq by August 2008, regardless of what happens during the next 17 months or whether U.S. commanders believe a pullout at that moment protects or endangers U.S. national security, not to mention the thousands of American trainers and Special Forces troops who would remain behind.

The Democrats claim to have a mandate from voters to reverse the Bush administration's policy in Iraq. Yet the leadership is ready to piece together the votes necessary to force a fateful turn in the war by using tactics usually dedicated to highway bills or the Army Corps of Engineers budget. The legislation pays more heed to a handful of peanut farmers than to the 24 million Iraqis who are living through a maelstrom initiated by the United States, the outcome of which could shape the future of the Middle East for decades.

Congress can and should play a major role in determining how and when the war ends. Political benchmarks for the Iraqi government are important, provided they are not unrealistic or inflexible. Even dates for troop withdrawals might be helpful, if they are cast as goals rather than requirements -- and if the timing derives from the needs of Iraq, not the U.S. election cycle. The Senate's version of the supplemental spending bill for Iraq and Afghanistan contains nonbinding benchmarks and a withdrawal date that is a goal; that approach is more likely to win broad support and avoid a White House veto.

As it is, House Democrats are pressing a bill that has the endorsement of MoveOn.org but excludes the judgment of the U.S. commanders who would have to execute the retreat the bill mandates. It would heap money on unneedy dairy farmers while provoking a constitutional fight with the White House that could block the funding to equip troops in the field. Democrats who want to force a withdrawal should vote against war appropriations. They should not seek to use pork to buy a majority for an unconditional retreat that the majority does not support.

Herseth's Future

Dave Kranz:

Herseth's future?

Before the latest update on Sen. Tim Johnson's condition came last week, I had talked of conversation in political circles about who runs in 2008 if he decides not to.

Low-key but consistent discussions among Democrats usually center on U.S. Rep. Stephanie Herseth as the likely and only candidate.

Over the past few weeks, though, the one most consistent counter to that comes from credible politicos who know Herseth best.

They put it simply. She's not about to jump on that bandwagon. She's not interested in being a U.S. senator. And when the day comes that she wants to do something else, she would prefer to run for governor.

Skeptics are amused about that possibility, saying former U.S. Rep. Max Sandlin, her husband-to-be, would not like to live in Pierre.

Shame on Pelosi

San Diego Union-Tribune:  "Shame on Pelosi: Buying war-policy votes with pork is pathetic"

So much for the promise of the "most honest, most open, most ethical Congress in history."

Firing Line II

My friend Chad, at CCK, has finally figured out what he is trying to say.

This is what I've been trying to say ...

       

By Chad | March 19, 2007 - 11:43am

     

... over and over about the U.S. Attorney scandal.  The Ol' Perfesser should take note:

For the trolls, what's not okay is to fire US Attorneys because they are investigating members of your own party, or because they aren't investigating enough people of the other party.  That is, to fire them to obstruct or distort justice, especially with regard to public corruption cases.  It's a rather simple concept.

So it's not the fact that Bush fired people he appointed that is a scandal, as Chad earlier tried to say.  It's the fact that Bush fired people for political reasons, for example, because they were "investigating members of [his] own party."  So that's what is special about Bush's behavior.  But as I have already pointed out, quoting the Wall Street Journal, the same thing is just as evident in the behavior of Chad's hero, Bill Clinton.  When Janet Reno fired all 93 U.S. Attorneys,

Jay Stephens, then U.S. Attorney in the District of Columbia, was investigating then Ways and Means Chairman Dan Rostenkowski, and was "within 30 days" of making a decision on an indictment. Mr. Rostenkowski, who was shepherding the Clinton's economic program through Congress, eventually went to jail on mail fraud charges and was later pardoned by Mr. Clinton.

In fact, Clinton had every right to dismiss all 93 U.S. Attorneys.  They were political appointees.  Bush had just as much right to dismiss 8 of them.  There is reason to suspect that both Clinton and Bush weren't happy with some of the things these attorneys were doing or not doing.  But suspicion does not amount to scandal. So far there is zero evidence that Bush was trying to subvert the course of justice, or that Clinton was doing the same. 

A Reply to DakotaWomen on Sociobiology and Politics

Anna at DakotaWomen begins her challenge to me rather oddly. 

While I have less than zero interest in engaging the guys over at South Dakota Politics for any reason, I would be remiss not to mention Ken Blanchard's recent post about, uh, the evils of women's studies and how left wingers worship Darwin?  I guess?

I see no reason why we should not want to engage one another.  That's what the blogosphere is for.  I for one am interested in what Anna has to say.  But you can't say you have "less than zero interest" in something, and that you think you would be remiss in mentioning it, without reducing yourself to incoherence. 

Anna objects to this passage from one of my earlier posts. 

Human beings are indeed special animals.  Our souls are vast and deep beyond anything we find in the animal world.  But we are at least animals.  Human violence mirrors that of chimpanzees, and human sexual behavior shows many of the same patterns found in virtually all mammals, birds, and fish.  The left doesn't want to hear this because it doesn't want to believe that nature might put limitations on social progress.  But leftist creationism is just as unscientific as religious creationism.  The churches and Women's Studies Departments should buck up, and take an honest look at what science is telling them.  I'm guessing that the former will like it more than the latter.

This passage apparently confused Anna, and she thought that must be because I was being deliberately unclear.  She especially wants to know

precisely what "limitations on social progress" Prof. Blanchard believes nature demands of us and specifically what impact those natural limitations would have on women.

It is not unreasonable to ask for clarification, though she might done so without suggesting that disagreement with her conceals a character flaw.  Anyway, here are the limitations I had in mind.  The left in the U.S. and Europe has long believed that all or almost all social dysfunction arises from unjust social arrangements.  If we are bad, it is because society formed us to be so.  If we reform society, all inequality and greed, all violence and aggression will disappear.  The greatest example of this was the belief of Russian communists that they were creating a "new soviet man" who would live in perfect harmony with her comrades. 

But if human beings are not blank slates, if they are instead modified chimpanzees, then there may be permanent limitations on how much social harmony can be achieved.  Human violence can be controlled; it cannot be eliminated.  Greed, selfishness, a preference for family and friends over strangers, and pronounced tendency toward violence between males, will continue to be a feature of all human societies. 

As for the impact of natural limitations on women, I would point out that something like 90% of the prison population in all nations is male.  Almost all the murders, assaults, and rapes, are committed by males.  I think it is hardly insulting to women to agree with some schools of feminism that hold that woman, as opposed to men, are by nature more inclined to consensus than aggression. 

Human behavior is clearly modified by social influence.  It is not "socially constructed."  I find the biological interpretation of social and political behavior fascinating, and I think it is the wave of the future social sciences.  I hope I am not being obtuse to say so. 

Herseth and Micromanaging the War

Representative Stephanie Herseth has decided she will vote with Speaker Pelosi to micromanage the war:

Rep. Stephanie Herseth, D-S.D., plans to support a House bill that would require combat troops to leave Iraq by next year.

The controversial legislation also contains about $4 billion in agricultural disaster assistance for farmers.

Herseth was previously undecided on the legislation, saying she was concerned that the bill would "cross the line into micromanaging" the war. The $124 billion spending bill would fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and require that combat troops leave Iraq by fall of 2008, possibly sooner if the Iraqi government does not make progress on its political and security commitments.

Remember when Herseth supported the troops and was part of a group of "Democrats that are comitted to victory in Iraq and have not been supportive of immediate withdrawal"?

Iraq first became a subject of public discussion for Herseth in 2002 when she was running against then-Gov. Bill Janklow for the state's lone seat in the U.S. House of Representatives.

During a debate with Janklow, Herseth said she supported congressional action to eliminate threats to national security. She spoke of Saddam Hussein, the Iraqi leader and long-time villain to the United States government.

"I agree wholeheartedly that we need a regime change in Iraq," she said at the time.

...

President Bush was impressed enough with her views that he invited her and a handful of fellow House Democrats to the White House in December 2005 for a briefing on the controversial conflict. That didn't mean she was 100 percent on board, but she was a willing listener. Herseth told reporters that she believed her position on the war is one of the reasons she was invited to the briefing.

"I think the president reached out to Democrats that are committed to victory in Iraq and have not been supportive of immediate withdrawal. We hope this is an indication that there will be more meetings," she said.

UPDATE:  Representative Herseth also gets a mention in the New York Times:

Representative Stephanie Herseth, Democrat of South Dakota, was carefully watching the bill, hoping party leaders would not change it to attract more support from the liberal side of the caucus. As she left a closed-door briefing this week, she said she had decided to support it, largely because it aimed to make the Iraqi government more accountable.

“Immediate withdrawal is irresponsible; staying the course is irresponsible,” Ms. Herseth said. “Some will disagree as to whether or not this is the most responsible, but it’s certainly more responsible than the other two alternatives.”

All of the persuasion, though, has had little effect on Mr. Boren, 33, who is serving his second term representing the Second District of Oklahoma. He comes from one of the state’s most prominent political families and is the son of David L. Boren, a former governor and senator.

“I have been very frustrated with the progress in Iraq, but there are other ways we can hold the administration’s feet to the fire,” Mr. Boren said. “No matter what we do, it’s going to be the president’s decision of how we go forward in Iraq. That decision should rest with the commander in chief.”

When the Democrats took power in November, they mistakenly assumed it was because of anti-war attitudes rather than Republican failures.  They also failed to account, I would argue, for the conservatism of the American electorate.  As I mentioned last November, the new center-right Democrats that replaced Republicans would force the Democrats to walk a fine line.  Boren represents the typical center-right Democrat, who thinks Congress' role in Iraq should be limited.  Unfortunately, Herseth doesn't see things that way.  Perhaps she's a victim of Pelosi's short leash.

Now that Nancy Pelosi and the liberal wing of the Democratic Party has decided to limit our options in Iraq, she's facing opposition from the Blue Dogs who realize that timetables are nothing but efforts at defunding the war.  Boren stated, in the same New York Times article, that "a timeline, in effect, is cutting off the funds. . . . That is not the solution."  This is the attitude of the Democrats in the pickup districts.  Just look at the efforts by the House Democrats to buy antiwar votes.  The new Blue Dogs refuse to vote for anything that looks like retreat.  Coupled with their slim majority of only fifteen seats, the Democrats cannot hope to recover from the loss of Blue Dog Democrats and the Out of Iraq caucus, who may also vote against the measure because it doesn't do enough to immediately halt the war.

UPDATE:  Tomorrow's Washington Post will report that the antiwar liberals have relented on the Iraq War funding.

Well, That Settles That

My progressive friends need no longer ponder who their candidate is for 2008.  Madonna comes down in support of Al Gore over Hillary Clinton.  I think we can all agree that when Madonna speaks, America listens.  One thing we can say about Madonna, she is always hip. 

Knock Me Over With A Feather

Tubby Smith leaves Kentucky to coach the Minnesota Gophers.  Someone check what's in that guy's Gatorade bottle. 

Primaries

Let's get this over with.  Why not have the first presidential primary the day after the previous election, with candidates selected within a week?  That will give them four years to run for president. 

The Buzz on Edwards

He has annouced a major press conference, and everyone on the left and right seems to think he is about to withdraw.  If so, the stated reason will be his wife's health.  Ms. Edwards is being treated for breast cancer.

Update:  The News on Elizabeth Edwards isn't good, but John is running anyway.  She has bone cancer, which he described as "treatable but not curable."  This is very sad news. 

Veto

Governor Rounds has vetoed the bill establishing a special board to govern state technical institutes.  Votes are in place to override the veto.  Creation of such a board may be the first step in creating a community college system in the state. 

Lincoln Rising, Brown Falling

Lincoln County is now the third largest county in the state, surpassing Brown County, according to the US Census Bureau. 

Free the Argus 16!

SDWC:  I'm not kidding. The wedding is impending....

Antiwar Thugs

In Portland, Oregon, anti-war protesters burned an effigy of a U.S. soldier (caution: strong language).  College students at the University of Toledo carry signs reading "Death to America."  Congressman Mike Rogers' office was vandalized by anti-war protesters.  A Wisconsin army recruiting office is hit by anti-war vandals.  This is the face of the radical anti-war movement.

Dem Congress Approval Rating

Power Line:  "How many times have you heard that President Bush's approval ratings are low? Guess what: the Democratic Congress's approval rating is lower."  Check out the whole thing.

The Return of McGovernism

Over at RealClearPolitics, White House assistant Peter Wehner writes about "Iraq, Democrats, and the Return of McGovernism."  Excerpt:

We are now engaged in a pivotal war, which is itself part of an epic struggle. General David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. military commander in Iraq who was confirmed by the Senate without a single vote in opposition, is one of America's great military minds and one of America's great military commanders. Why oh why, then, are so many Democrats spending so much of their time and creative energy in an effort to undermine General Petraeus's new strategy instead of supporting it? Even granting the partisan politics of this city, the effort by Democrats is a remarkably revealing thing to witness. "Come Home, America" and McGovernism are back with a vengeance -- and like Round One, in 1972, it will leave a lasting imprint on the minds of Americans, for years to come.

Case and Point

Responding to Ken Blanchard's post on Darwinism, here is Anna at the "Dakota Women" rebutting Ken by essentially putting her fingers in her ears and going "la la la la!!"  Sounds a lot like these people.  Anna, here are a couple examples.  Women have babies, men don't.  That's science, and I know other science is working hard to liberate women from the problem of having babies, but for now, it's still true.  And maybe public policy should account for that.  So if I go to a bar and order a drink no one cares.  But if an obviously pregnant woman goes to a bar and orders a drink, the bartender will refuse to serve her and the law will back up the bartender.  Maybe its unfair that only women have to deal with this potential issue, but that's just the way it is.  Also, men are more aggressive than women.  Perhaps public policy might want to account for that, and all the wishing in the world is not going to make that fact go away.  Just look at the prison population.  Also, our laws against rape pertain to men and women alike, but plainly they are in place to protect women against sexually aggressive men, not the other way around.  Perhaps the only differences between women and men have to do with their genitalia, but one would have to be seriously deficient in common sense to believe that.

SDSU WNIT Game Sold Out

Argus Leader:

South Dakota State’s third-round WNIT game Thursday night has sold out.
Tickets went on sale at 1 p.m. and sold out with some fans still waiting in line.

A crowd of about 6,000 is expected for the game between SDSU and the winner of Monday night’s game between Iona (N.Y.) and Indiana.

Like last Saturday’s second-round win over Illinois State, some tickets for Thursday’s game could be available game day. Those tickets would be part of the allotment given to SDSU’s opponent and then returned when they don’t sell.

House Dems Bribing Members For Anti-War Vote

According to this Washington Post story, House Democrats are trying to bribe members to vote for the bill ending the war in Iraq:

House Democratic leaders are offering billions in federal funds for lawmakers' pet projects large and small to secure enough votes this week to pass an Iraq funding bill that would end the war next year.

So far, the projects -- which range from the reconstruction of New Orleans levees to the building of peanut storehouses in Georgia -- have had little impact on the tally. For a funding bill that establishes tough new readiness standards for deploying combat forces and sets an Aug. 31, 2008, deadline to bring the troops home, votes do not come cheap.

But at least a few Republicans and conservative Democrats who otherwise would vote "no" remain undecided, as they ponder whether they can leave on the table millions of dollars for constituents by opposing the $124 billion war funding bill due for a vote on Thursday.

What will Stephanie Herseth do?

UPDATE:  "Um… I thought the Democrats had a 'mandate' on Iraq?  Why do they need to buy votes?"

Hockey Play Of The Year (So Far)

See the amazing goal by Minnesota's Blake Wheeler as the Gophers beat North Dakota in the WCHA Conference Championship this past weekend. 

Indoctrination, 101

Prof. Blanchard's post on the left's uneasy relationship with Darwin reminds of a panel I once attended at a political science conference.  The panel was peopled by those who teach women's studies and the subject was something along the lines of "New Ideas In The Teaching Of Women's Studies."  At one point one of the panelists mentioned the revolution in social biology.  The panelist said something like this: "There have been interesting findings in social biology recently about the ways in which brain chemistry and genetics determine our behavior.  These new findings shed light on male and female differences and how individual and social difference may be grounded in biology, not social construction.  These are remarkable findings which may revolutionize how we think about gender...and so we have to make sure our students never hear of this research."  The presenter was just that blunt.  This says much about academia, especially the academic left, and the anti-intellectualism of those disciplines most wedded to certain political assumptions which, due to the ideological nature of the discipline, cannot be challenged.

"Me Fail English? That's Unpossible!"

Or so says Ralph Wiggum in an episode of "The Simpsons."   It turns out that many residents of our nation's capital have failed English.  Thirty-six percent of all District residents are functionally illiterate.  This despite spending more per pupil than almost any other state (if DC was a state).  It may be that educational attainment has more to do with what is taught than how much money one spends. 

Senate

From the Washington Post The Fix blog:

South Dakota This race has been in stasis since Sen. Tim Johnson (D) underwent emergency brain surgery last December. The Democratic senator continues his slow-but-steady recovery, and there appears no evidence yet that he plans to do anything but run for a third term next November. We continue to believe that Johnson will at some point in the future need to make a final judgment on whether he is willing and able to run a full-fledged campaign. An open-seat race would likely pit Gov. Mike Rounds (R) against Rep. Stephanie Herseth (D) -- a match-up in which Republicans like their chances.

Mustangs

Kevin Woster:

It’s a shame that the sports chatter this week at coffee tables and their electronic extensions — Internet Web sites — will focus on the Little Wound Mustangs’ sportsmanship, or lack of it, rather than their basketball.

It was preordained, however, by the coaches and other adult leaders of Little Wound High School when they walked out of Rushmore Plaza Civic Center arena Saturday night rather than staying to accept the Class A boys basketball runner-up trophy during an all-but-obligatory post-game ceremony.

Taking a walk was an adult decision. But it’s the kids — that elegant collection of basketball players — who must live with it.

That’s sad, because we should be talking about Little Wound basketball — a truly remarkable combination of speed and execution that carried the Mustangs through an enviable 24-2 season that included a sparkling three-point win against St. Thomas More High School in December at the Lakota National Invitational.

Naturally, read the whole thing and learn more about Devon LeBeau.  And good work by Mr. Woster for tackling this story.

Life Getting Better in the U.S.?

Kevin Hasset at Bloomberg.Com has some interesting poll results from the U.S. 

A recent, thorough study of public attitudes by my colleague at the American Enterprise Institute, Karlyn Bowman, reveals startling patterns in the attitudes of Americans toward the economy. At this moment, they are about as satisfied as they have ever been.  . . .

In 1975, 83 percent of Americans said they are either not at all likely or not too likely to lose their job. In 1998, at the peak of the ``Clinton boom,'' 87 percent responded in that manner. In 2006, 89 percent of Americans felt secure. The sense of security is increasing.

A poll conducted by CBS News and the New York Times asked people how concerned they are that they or someone in their household might lose their job in the next year.   In 1994, 40 percent weren't concerned at all. That number declined sharply through 1996, when it troughed at 29 percent, but it was back to 39 percent in 2004. Since the middle of the Clinton presidency, feelings of job security have advanced sharply.

In 1989, Gallup asked people how satisfied they were with their work. Forty-five percent said they were completely satisfied. In 2005, that number had climbed to 52 percent.

In 1991, the Los Angeles Times began asking people about their personal financial situation. Back then, 68 percent of Americans thought their finances were either very secure or fairly secure. That number dropped to 57 percent by 1993 but climbed all the way to 71 percent by last January. Again, people feel more secure today.

That is the sort of thing you find out when you ask people who do not work at the New York Times. 

Sanford Donation Receiving Wide Attention

Argus Leader excerpt:

Sanford Health is moving more swiftly than it expected toward developing a national network of pediatric clinics and an expansive research operation aimed at curing a major disease.

Those are the hallmarks of the Sioux Falls-based health system's lofty growth plans, which are tied to the much-heralded $400 million donated last month by T. Denny Sanford.

International media coverage - hundreds of stories have been published in 31 states and nine countries by Sanford Health's count - drew a flood of responses from cities, clinics, hospitals and doctors across the continent.

Cindy Morrison, a Sanford vice president, said the health system probably won't have to formally advertise as a result and instead plans to sort through hundreds of responses it already has received and follow up with direct mailings.

"The coverage and response was much greater than we expected," Morrison said.

As they say, read the whole thing.  The rest of the story details the projects Sanford plans to pursue in the next ten years.

Creationism on the Left

The enfant terrible of the leftists turned conservatives, David Horrowitz, points out that the American left has its own version of creationism. 

The name of this theory is "social constructionism," and its churches are Women's Studies departments in universities across the United States. The feminist theory of social construction maintains that the differences between men and women -- apart from obvious anatomical ones -- are not biologically determined but created by a patriarchal social structure designed by men to oppress women. It is "patriarchal society" that turns naturally bisexual infants into male and female personalities by conditioning them from birth to adopt gender roles -- the one aggressive, masculine and destined to command, the other passive, feminine and slated to obey.

The left has always vigorously embraced Darwinism whenever it collided with Biblical faith.  The response of the various Churches to Darwinism has been either to reject it outright, or to argue, as I gather Rome does, that the human soul is a special case.  God gave one set of laws (natural laws) to all of creation except man; man alone is privy to Divine law and morality.  Horowitz points out (and I believe he is the first to recognize this) that the left in general and feminists scholars in particular, have their own theory of special creation.  Human society alone is exempt from Darwinian mechanics.  Animals behave by instinct.  Human sexual and social behavior is entirely learned. 

The only trouble with this leftist theory of special creation is that it is false.  Human beings eat, poop, and breed pretty much like chimpanzees.  They share a lot of their social and sexual habits with our hairy relatives as well.  Some years ago I organized a panel on Larry Arnhart's book, Darwinian Natural Right.  Frans de Waal served on that panel.  Today, the Washington Post reports some of his latest findings. 

When Emory University primatologist Frans de Waal read a news story that said Microsoft's chief executive, Steve Ballmer, had hurled a chair across the room on hearing an employee was going to work for rival Google, the scientist immediately made a connection with his own research: "When I see such behavior, I think of a chimpanzee."

Another time, a researcher that de Waal knew told him that whenever she chatted with another scientist in the hallway, her boss would get upset. He would later drop by her office and tell her she ought to stay clear of that person.

"He was constantly interfering whenever she had a contact with an important person," de Waal said. "Chimpanzees also divide and rule. You have an alpha male, and he will try to keep his supporters away from his rivals. His supporters are in trouble if they groom one of his rivals."

Human beings are indeed a special animal.  Our souls are vast and deep beyond anything we find in the animal world.  But we are at least animals.  Human violence mirrors that of chimpanzees, and human sexual behavior shows many of the same patterns found in virtually all mammals, birds, and fish.  The left doesn't want to hear this because it doesn't want to believe that nature might put limitations on social progress.  But leftist creationism is just as unscientific as religious creationism.  The churches and Women's Studies Departments should buck up, and take an honest look at what science is telling them.  I'm guessing that the former will like it more than the latter. 

ps.  The happy couple depicted above are bonobos, not chimpanzees.  Bonobos prefer love to war. 

Life Getting BetterIn Iraq?

Yes, at least according to the Iraqis.  This, from the London Times Online: 

Four bloody and difficult years after the invasion of Iraq, it is easy to despair over its future. Much of the reporting on television and radio, and in most newspapers, conveys the picture of a country ravaged by a vicious civil war, suffering ever more appalling terrorist outrages. Many believe that the war was a dreadful mistake from which Iraq will take decades to recover and that its people would happily prostrate themselves in front of Saddam Hussein again if the hangman’s noose had not intervened.

However, a survey of more than 5,000 Iraqis by Opinion Research Business, a reliable pollster, gives an utterly different view. It shows a country which is far more optimistic than anyone would have expected. By two to one, Iraqis say that life is better under the present system. There is, as might be expected, a clear Sunni-Shi’ite split. But even 29% of Sunnis, who had it pretty easy under Saddam, say things are better now.

Reasonable Americans may well wonder whether America has benefited from the war.  Reasonable Iraqis clearly think that Iraq has benefited.  As the Times points out, this is remarkable, considering the enormous inconveniences and appalling violence that the war has cost.  Americans, largely immune to civil violence and with no memory of tyranny may find this hard to grasp.  But hope and freedom are scarce commodities in the Middle East.

The poll does raise challenges both to Bush's policy and to his critics. 

Only a quarter of Iraqis think their country is in civil war. And they also believe, by two to one, that security will improve once American and British troops withdraw. This is a rejoinder to those who believe withdrawal would unleash an all-out struggle between Shi’ites and Sunnis. The current American troop surge appears to have been a considerable success in reducing levels of violence, again contrary to conventional wisdom. True, it may be temporary, but it is working.

Maybe an American withdrawal would be a good thing.  But there is little doubt that President Bush's current "surge" policy has yielded significant rewards. 

Che Lives On

As you read this snippet from the New York Times, ask yourself: who is leading the anti-war marches?:

Saturday’s march was organized by the Answer Coalition — named for Act Now to Stop War and End Racism — an organization that was initially associated with the Workers World Party and now affiliated with a breakaway faction of that party called the Party for Socialism and Liberation.

*** Judging by the speeches and placards, the marchers on Saturday set their sights on sweeping goals, including not only ending the war but also impeaching President Bush and ending the Israeli occupation of Palestine. Many carried Answer Coalition signs bearing the image of the Latin American revolutionary Che Guevara.

Yes, the same Che Guevara who murdered hundreds during the Cuban revolution.  More:

Brian Becker, the national coordinator of the Answer Coalition and a member of the Party of Socialism and Liberation, said the group held out little hope of influencing either the president or Congress. “It is about radicalizing people,” Mr. Becker said in an interview. “You hook into a movement that exists — in this case the antiwar movement — and channel people who care about that movement and bring them into political life, the life of political activism.”

*** Many in the crowd said they were unfamiliar with the Answer Coalition and puzzled by the many signs about socialism.

Hildebrand Tewes

From the March 15 edition of Roll Call:

Hildebrand Tewes News. Changes are afoot once again at Hildebrand Tewes, a Democratic consulting firm.

Communications strategist Anne Filipic is departing the firm to work with founding partner Paul Tewes in Iowa on Sen. Barack Obama’s (D-Ill.) presidential campaign.

But headed in are Leah Johnson, Scott McConnell and Sarah Berns.

Johnson previously served as regional field director and press secretary for South Dakota Campaign for Healthy Families, the group that successfully overturned that state’s abortion ban at the polls in the fall. McConnell was a press assistant for Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.).

Berns worked in the previous cycle as a deputy research director for now-Sen. Amy Klobuchar’s (D-Minn.) Senate campaign, as well as in the research department of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee prior to that.

Meanwhile, Hildebrand Tewes now has a dog in the Kentucky Democratic gubernatorial primary. The firm has signed on to provide field and communications consulting services to gubernatorial candidate Bruce Lunsford (D), a wealthy businessman, and his running mate, Greg Stumbo (D).

Competing Railroads Fought Competition from DME

From the Argus Leader:

The BNSF, however, was another thing, Schieffer said. As he sought to shepherd the loan application through federal bureaucracy last year, "I certainly saw the BN coming in every office I was six times over with twice the people. They were all over the place."

While the Mayo Clinic and other entities in Rochester, Minn., and a confederation of West River and Wyoming landowners and environmental groups were the most vocal opponents, the BNSF did work hard quietly to kill the deal, Schieffer insists.

He said he knows this "from talking to people who were directly involved ... and actually from customers."

"They have been working long and hard on it both in Washington, D.C., and with customers," he said.

BNSF spokesman Patrick Hiatte declined to directly address Schieffer's claim.

The Surge

BBC News:

The US military commander in Iraq says there are grounds for optimism over the latest security drive.

Gen David Petraeus told the BBC that with two out of the five extra brigades now on the ground in Iraq, there had been fewer sectarian attacks.

He said he would have an idea of the chance of success once all extra troops were deployed in the coming months.

...

Gen Petraeus said: "By early June, we should then have everyone roughly in place - and that will allow us to establish the density in partnership with Iraqi security forces that you need to really get a good grip on the security situation."

He said there were "encouraging signs", although he added that he did not want to get "overly optimistic at all on the basis of several weeks of a reduced sectarian murder rate".

He said the new operation had led hundreds of families to return to "neighbourhoods that had really emptied out".

But Gen Petraeus also pledged to speak candidly if he thought the operation was not working.

He said: "I have an obligation to the young men and women in uniform out here, that if I think it's not going to happen, to tell them that it's not going to happen, and there needs to be a change.

"In other words, if you can't accomplish your mission, you owe that to your boss - and you owe that, more importantly, to those who are out there serving in the coalition."

Time

Time Magazine:

These are gloomy and uncertain days for conservatives, who — except for the eight-year Clinton interregnum — have dominated political power and thought in this country since Reagan rode in from the West. Their tradition goes back even further, to Founding Fathers who believed that people should do things for themselves and who shook off a monarchy in their conviction that Big Government is more to be feared than encouraged. The Boston Tea Party, as Reagan used to point out, was an antitax initiative.

But everything that Reagan said in 1985 about "the other side" could easily apply to the conservatives of 2007. They are handcuffed to a political party that looks unsettlingly like the Democrats did in the 1980s, one that is more a collection of interest groups than ideas, recognizable more by its campaign tactics than its philosophy.

Naturally, read the whole thing.

Krauthammer

Charles Krauthammer:  Limousine Liberal Hypocrisy