South Dakota Politics

Rearing Trousered Apes

As if the hegemony of laptops in school is not enough, Prof. Blanchard notes the iPod craze in Michigan.  The other day, after my laptop post, I received an email from Dr. Terry Robertson of the Communications Department at USD.  He graciously gave me permission to print his email and use his name.  Here is what Prof. Robertson wrote me:

Jon:
You and I are often times different sides of the political isle; however, I want to commend you on the commentary concerning laptops that I read this AM on your blog. Administrator’s obsessive need to throw money toward technology as panacea for education astounds me and this could be seen exhibit A. Indeed, I would argue that laptops often hinder rather than facilitate the educational process.

It seems to me that the government of the state of South Dakota could find better use for the monies it collects from its citizens than to hand out “technotoys” to students. Jefferson’s thoughts concerning an educated citizenry are becoming superfluous in a world where students understand research, knowledge, experience, and wisdom as simply a Google click. 

Just this week I was in a meeting with some folks from the Board of Regents.  They noted the lack of language skills on the part of our students, largely owning from the dearth of foreign language education in South Dakota schools.  It is foolish to expect to get foreign language competency from people who first encounter a language as 18 year-old college freshman.  The time to start is in the third grade, not the thirteenth.  Foreign language education not only gives knowledge of that language but increases the skill in English as the student learns how language works in general.  One wonders how much more we could help our students by hiring French teachers instead of giving them electronic toys to play with.

I should point out that all these opinion are mine, not those of my employers. 

Prof. Roberstson, I swear that post on Jefferson and education is coming, but I forgot my Jefferson book in my office.  Ack!  Maybe next week. 

Charm Offensive

Ken Blanchard and the Washington Post's take on Nancy Pelosi's foolish foreign policy gambit in Syria and this Krauthammer piece on the humiliation of Britain by Iran bring to mind a timely piece from the March 19, 2007 issue of The New Republic.  In his Washington Diarist essay, Leon Wieseltier discusses Barak Obama, ending with a discussion of Obama's foreign policy, or lack thereof.  He concludes thusly:

But the foreign policy inclinations presented by [Obama] are vague and platitudinous and sanguine about the reasonableness of the world.  The ghost of Cyrus Vance seems to be consulting for the campaign.  So I continue to regard the phenom with some misgivings.  Nobody ever charmed anybody out of a nuclear weapon.

Or terrorism, for that matter.   

An iPod for All

The Detroit News:

We have come to the conclusion that the crisis Michigan faces is not a shortage of revenue, but an excess of idiocy. Facing a budget deficit that has passed the $1 billion mark, House Democrats Thursday offered a spending plan that would buy a MP3 player or iPod for every school child in Michigan.

Economic Growth

The New York Times reports that the economy continues to grow under the Bush administration.  Unemployment has fallen to 4.4%, a five-year low, and the nation added 180,000 jobs last month.  Wages also rose faster than inflation in March, indicating real strength and gains for workers:

It just keeps going.

The job market showed little sign of losing its vigor last month as wages climbed and job growth rose, the Labor Department reported yesterday.

Economists said the numbers were consistent with an economy that was being supported by strong consumer spending, with considerable hiring in businesses like restaurants, bars, department stores and educational services.

In all, the Labor Department said that employment outside the farming sector grew by 180,000 in March. And in another sign of the job market’s resilience, employment growth in January and February was stronger than the government first reported.

The national unemployment rate also edged down last month to 4.4 percent, from 4.5 percent, matching a five-year low that it reached briefly in October.

According to the article, "the tireless American consumer" has kept the economy moving, and with wages rising, consumers can spend more money, thus expanding the economy.  The Bush tax cuts continue to do their job by keeping capital in the market and wages in the pockets of earners.  The average wage rose to $17.22 per hour, and overall compensation last year rose 3.2%, out-pacing the rate of inflation.  This is what Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush have taught us: low taxes help fuel economic expansion.

UPDATE:  And right on cue, the media tries to find something new to worry about.

Thune gets "thumbs up" for energy work

Senator Thune was on the campus of South Dakota State University on Wednesday to talk about the farm bill and the use of ethanol as an alternative energy source.  The Yankton Press and Dakota gives Thune a "thumbs up" for his work on energy: 

THUMBS UP to the continued emphasis on renewable energy. U.S. Sen. John Thune's tour of the state this week focused not only on ethanol (including a tour of the Poet research center in Scotland) but also possibilities for wind energy and other alternative sources of power. This week also included a U.S. Senate field hearing in Brookings, which gave the state more exposure with its great potential as an energy exporter. Thune termed the state, including the southeast region, as the "Saudi Arabia of wind energy." Across the Missouri River, northeast Nebraska has also found success in it work with ethanol. Hopefully, such efforts can continue to thrive and take new directions.

Thune's visit on alternative energy included a stop in my hometown this week, as well.

Women's Equality Amendment II

Anna at Dakota Women and I have been engaged in a discussion of the proposed WEA.  Here is my last post on this topic, and here is Anna's recent reply.  I think that our positions are reasonably clear, and that makes the discussion worth while.  I have only a few things to add.

Anna seems to think that the ERA would have made the VMI case unnecessary.  I think the opposite.  The Virginia Military Institute's male-only would have had to be challenged on the grounds of the ERA as it was on the grounds of the 14th Amendment equal protection clause.  As the outcome would have been the same, the VMI case cannot support the need for an equal rights amendment. 

Whether the Court uses a strict scrutiny standard in cases of sexual discrimination (or racial discrimination), or some less exacting standard, is not determined by what is in the Constitution, but by how the Court wants to apply what is in the Constitution.   Likewise, the question of sexual equality, like the question of racial equality, etc., is settled as a matter of constitutional law.  The only live questions are clearly policy questions, like Title IX issues of athletic funding.  These questions will be settled by courts and Congress regardless of whether WEA is added to the Constitution. 

Anna says this:

I am probably not the right person with whom to have this discussion, because to me the symbolic reasons for adding the WEA to the Constitution are enough for me to support it. I can't see any reason why the Constitution should not specifically state the fact that Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.  This is personal to me and to a lot of other women.

I think Anna is the right person for this discussion.  I have no quarrel with her passion.  I just don't think that "symbolic reasons" are sufficient for amending the founding document.  It has been necessary several times to amend the Constitution to enlarge the franchise.  We did so to abolish slavery, extend the right to vote and equal protection to freed men and women, to give women the right to vote.  These were not symbolic additions, but extensions of clear and real powers.  So far, no one has shown me what powers or privileges the WEA would extend. I haven't seen a single issue where the WEA would make a difference.

Do we need a specific statement regarding women?  If so, then why not another for homosexuals?  And while we are at it, why not the Irish? 

On a second question, I did not urge Anna to be civil with me.  I emphatically stated that she was being civil.  I did complain of the ad hominem elements in her argument, and she defends them. 

I think conservatives tend to believe the WEA will do big scary things that it really won't. Phyllis Schlafly thinks we'll all be peeing in the same bathrooms, Bob Ellis thinks this will open the door to same-sex marriage, and Ken Blanchard wonders if the WEA will remove the presumption of innocence from men in rape or sexual harassment cases. Prof. Blanchard's fear is without a doubt more reasonable, but I think the thought process that prompted the comment is not that different from Schlafly's or Ellis's. (I would like to point out here that I do not believe Blanchard, Schlafly, and Ellis have the same or even similar opinions of women or women's rights - but, again, all three of them seem to think "Good Heavens! Whatever will we do?" while most Americans are surprised the ERA wasn't passed the first time.)

Anna is taking some care to be fair to me here, and I cannot demand more.  I think her posts are models of what political conversation among left and right ought to be like.  I am convinced that Anna and I, and most Americans on both sides of the blue/red divide, agree about a lot more than we disagree about.  I think women have exactly the same constitutional rights as men. The equal protection clause protects persons, not men or women as such. 

Pelosi's Pratfall

As my SDP colleague Mr. Heppler shows below, it wasn't just "regressive bloggers" who criticized the House Speaker's recent foreign policy pratfall.  The Washington Post, a solidly liberal and Democratic newspaper, published a scathing editorial about Ms. Pelosi's misadventure.  The Post points out the key problems: that Ms. Pelosi made a fool of herself in getting the Israeli position wrong, and demonstrated a dangerous naivete about Bashar al-Assad. 

I also caught NPR Talk of the Nation segment on the Pelosi story.  Hisham Melham, bureau chief of Al Arabiya, described the reaction to Ms. Pelosi's shuttle diplomacy this way [my transcript of the audio]:

Well, to begin with, in Syria there was a sense of jubilation and vindication and even a sense of triumphalism if you will, because they felt that Nancy Pelosi is breaking the policy of isolation that the Bush Administration has tried to impose on Syria for some time now. 

So Speaker Pelosi handed the Syrian Thug what he viewed as a triumph against a long term American strategy.  She gave vindication to a man who recently had a popular Lebanese statesman blown out of his sock.  I doubt that is what she thought she was doing.  It is clear that she had no idea what she was doing.  And if this is what the Syrians think, what do the Lebanese think, whose fragile democracy only recently emerged from under the thumbs of the Assads? 

There is trepidation, if you will, on the part of many, many, Lebanese, because they do not want Nancy Pelosi to appear as if she is rewarding the Syrian strong man by giving him that kind of legitimacy, if you will. 

Melham notes that Ms. Pelosi met with Lebanese politicians before they advised her of their concerns.  It doesn't seem to have helped. 

Defenders of the Kissinger of San Francisco have pointed out that Republican congressmen have previously met with the Dictator of Damascus.  This is true, I gather, but somehow they managed to do so without emphatically undermining American policy, or inducing panic in a fragile democracy that we have been trying to support. 

Ms. Pelosi is not a stupid person, and she has no reason to want to friendly to Bashar al-Assad.  But neither did she have any principle of foreign policy other than "Bush = wrong and bad."  Surely someone who is as bright and as caring as she could easily solve the problems that idiot Bush could not.  Maybe something more than loathing of Bush is needed if she and her party are to generate a coherent foreign policy. 

Pelosi

See this Washington Post editorial entitled "Pratfall in Damascus":

HOUSE SPEAKER Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) offered an excellent demonstration yesterday of why members of Congress should not attempt to supplant the secretary of state when traveling abroad. After a meeting with Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad in Damascus, Ms. Pelosi announced that she had delivered a message from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that "Israel was ready to engage in peace talks" with Syria. What's more, she added, Mr. Assad was ready to "resume the peace process" as well. Having announced this seeming diplomatic breakthrough, Ms. Pelosi suggested that her Kissingerian shuttle diplomacy was just getting started. "We expressed our interest in using our good offices in promoting peace between Israel and Syria," she said.

Only one problem: The Israeli prime minister entrusted Ms. Pelosi with no such message. "What was communicated to the U.S. House Speaker does not contain any change in the policies of Israel," said a statement quickly issued by the prime minister's office. In fact, Mr. Olmert told Ms. Pelosi that "a number of Senate and House members who recently visited Damascus received the impression that despite the declarations of Bashar Assad, there is no change in the position of his country regarding a possible peace process with Israel." In other words, Ms. Pelosi not only misrepresented Israel's position but was virtually alone in failing to discern that Mr. Assad's words were mere propaganda.

Ms. Pelosi was criticized by President Bush for visiting Damascus at a time when the administration -- rightly or wrongly -- has frozen high-level contacts with Syria. Mr. Bush said that thanks to the speaker's freelancing Mr. Assad was getting mixed messages from the United States. Ms. Pelosi responded by pointing out that Republican congressmen had visited Syria without drawing presidential censure. That's true enough -- but those other congressmen didn't try to introduce a new U.S. diplomatic initiative in the Middle East. "We came in friendship, hope, and determined that the road to Damascus is a road to peace," Ms. Pelosi grandly declared.

Never mind that that statement is ludicrous: As any diplomat with knowledge of the region could have told Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Assad is a corrupt thug whose overriding priority at the moment is not peace with Israel but heading off U.N. charges that he orchestrated the murder of former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq al-Hariri. The really striking development here is the attempt by a Democratic congressional leader to substitute her own foreign policy for that of a sitting Republican president. Two weeks ago Ms. Pelosi rammed legislation through the House of Representatives that would strip Mr. Bush of his authority as commander in chief to manage troop movements in Iraq. Now she is attempting to introduce a new Middle East policy that directly conflicts with that of the president. We have found much to criticize in Mr. Bush's military strategy and regional diplomacy. But Ms. Pelosi's attempt to establish a shadow presidency is not only counterproductive, it is foolish.

Not surprisingly, Jimmy Carter, the master of bad diplomacy, stands behind Pelosi.

Fighting The Losing Battle

I fully realize that by opposing the extensive use of laptops in schools I am fighting progress (so called), and the progress train is hard to stop.  Here is yet another story about the use of laptops.  I have no doubt that the kids find them fun.  And the teachers are "pumped" about using them.  But is anyone learning?  I say it again, there is no evidence that extensive use of laptops increases student learning, and indeed if anything student achievement declines.  There is a great deal of training in technology occurring.  I just doubt any education is. 

Feeling Gassy

Some predict gas prices will soar to nearly $4.00 per gallon this summer.  Given the current price of gas (national average is $2.70) $4.00 is not out of reach.  We can predict another $.50 or so simply with the added costs of the summer blend gas.  We are one Middle East crisis away from another major jump in price.  See George Will today for more thoughts on gas prices.  One thing he notes: the government makes more per gallon on gas than do the oil companies.  I call on John Dingall to start the investigation into the price gouging by the U.S. government. 

Riley Grace Nathan

It's a good thing that the Twins have a big lead, because closer Joe Nathan is at the hospital tonight.  His wife just gave birth to a girl. 

Separated At Birth

Jay Gibbons, Left Field, Baltimore Orioles. 

John Kerry, Left Field, Washington Senators

GWOT

Military Times:

The House Armed Services Committee is banishing the global war on terror from the 2008 defense budget.

This is not because the war has been won, lost or even called off, but because the committee’s Democratic leadership doesn’t like the phrase.

A memo for the committee staff, circulated March 27, says the 2008 bill and its accompanying explanatory report that will set defense policy should be specific about military operations and “avoid using colloquialisms.”

The “global war on terror,” a phrase first used by President Bush shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the U.S., should not be used, according to the memo. Also banned is the phrase the “long war,” which military officials began using last year as a way of acknowledging that military operations against terrorist states and organizations would not be wrapped up in a few years.

Committee staff members are told in the memo to use specific references to specific operations instead of the Bush administration’s catch phrases. The memo, written by Staff Director Erin Conaton, provides examples of acceptable phrases, such as “the war in Iraq,” the “war in Afghanistan, “operations in the Horn of Africa” or “ongoing military operations throughout the world.”

“There was no political intent in doing this,” said a Democratic aide who asked not to be identified. “We were just trying to avoid catch phrases.”

Twins Take First Place!

Okay, so what if it's only the second game and there's snow melting on the dryer vent?

Why Can't a Woman's Wage Be More Like A Man's?

I made a joke about drawing out the good folks at Dakota Women, but the truth is that they have drawn me out as well.  I am paying more attention to gender equity issues that I have in recent years. I happen to think that that is what the blogosphere is for.  And besides, I have a grown up daughter about to enter the job market. 

Carrie Lukas has a very interesting piece in the Washington Post. 

Last month, Sen. Hillary Clinton expressed consternation that women continue to make "just 77 cents for every dollar that a man makes" and reintroduced legislation, the Paycheck Fairness Act, that would give the government more power to make "an equal paycheck for equal work" a reality.  This statistic -- probably the most frequently cited of the Labor Department's data -- is also its most misused.

But wage differences between variously defined subgroups of the general population turn on a lot of things.  Older workers in all categories tend to make more than me, unless you are talking about major league catchers. 

In truth, I'm the cause of the wage gap -- I and hundreds of thousands of women like me. I have a good education and have worked full time for 10 years. Yet throughout my career, I've made things other than money a priority. I chose to work in the nonprofit world because I find it fulfilling. I sought out a specialty and employer that seemed best suited to balancing my work and family life. When I had my daughter, I took time off and then opted to stay home full time and telecommute. I'm not making as much money as I could, but I'm compensated by having the best working arrangement I could hope for.

Women make similar trade-offs all the time. Surveys have shown for years that women tend to place a higher priority on flexibility and personal fulfillment than do men, who focus more on pay. Women tend to avoid jobs that require travel or relocation, and they take more time off and spend fewer hours in the office than men do. Men disproportionately take on the dirtiest, most dangerous and depressing jobs.  When these kinds of differences are taken into account and the comparison is truly between men and women in equivalent roles, the wage gap shrinks.

What Lukas adds to the discussion is the fact that attempts to remedy the situation may only reduce the choices available to women and to men.

Government attempts to "solve" the problem of the wage gap may in fact exacerbate some of the challenges women face, particularly in balancing work and family. Clinton's legislation would give Washington bureaucrats more power to oversee how wages are determined, which might prompt businesses to make employment options more rigid. Flexible job structures such as the one I enjoy today would probably become scarcer. Why would companies offer employees a variety of work situations and compensation packages if doing so puts them at risk of being sued?

Women's Equality Amendment and Judicial Scrutiny

Anna at Dakota Women posts an interesting rejoinder to my post on WEA.  Here is the core of my post:

The problem with the language is that it is either redundant or meaningless.  It is impossible to know which without knowing what "equality of rights" means.  Does it mean, for example, that no state can discriminate against women and in favor of  men in hiring, or in public school admissions?  If so, that is already covered by such things as the due process clause and equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.  Almost any case of discrimination on the basis of sex would trigger strict scrutiny by the courts, and almost nothing ever survives that exacting degree of review.  Anything that would survive strict scrutiny in light of due process would survive an ERA, pardon me, WEA, challenge as well.

Anna's response mostly consists of citations from "Why We Need the ERA," by Roberta W. Francis of the National Council of Woman's Organizations.  Anna's quotation confirms rather than refutes my argument.  In the first place, the only concrete issue she mentions is the VMI case.  In 1990 the United States sued the State of Virginia in order to compel the admission of female cadets to the state-run Virginia Military Institute, which had been male-only since its establishment in 1839.  The Court did apply an apparently less exacting standard that "strict scrutiny," which it called "heightened scrutiny." 

But in U.S. v. Virginia, the Court ruled in favor of the United States, forcing the admission of female cadets to VMI.  So in this case, which is the only one Anna mentions, the ERA or WEA would have made no difference to the outcome.  I am skeptical, moreover, that there is any real difference between "strict" and "heightened" scrutiny.  If the Court wants to approve discrimination against a White woman in favor of Black males or females, as it did in Grutter v. Bollinger, it will decide that this discrimination satisfied the strictest level of scrutiny, or it will find some excuse for relaxing the level of scrutiny. 

In looking on the website Anna quotes for some other concrete example of the difference that ERA/WEA would make, all I find is this:

Would anyone really want to turn back the clock on women’s advancement? Ask the members of Congress who have tried to cripple Title IX, which requires equal opportunity in education – who have opposed the Violence Against Women Act, the Fair Pensions Act, and the Paycheck Fairness Act – who voted to pay for Viagra for servicemen but oppose funding for family planning and contraception – who for over a decade have blocked U.S. ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW).

These may be worthy causes, but they are all clearly legislative and executive matters, rather than judicial questions.  Is the Supreme Court really going to try to force the US to sign a UN convention because the WEA has been added to the Constitution?  That would be an extraordinary example of judicial usurpation. 

A lot of people have long been fervently attached to the idea of an Equal Rights Amendment.  None of them seem to be able to tell me what difference it would make.

ps.  Anna: you have been civil and reasonable in your responses to me (unlike some of your colleagues), and I have tried to return the favor.  Maybe we won't be "pals," as you put it, but we can respect one another.  Is it too much of me to ask you to do without the ad hominem notes that often adorn DW posts?  You say, for example, this:

  It is amazing how frightened people get when faced with the idea of equality in the law for women. 

I do not believe that I have at any point questioned your honesty or integrity.  When you disagree with me, I assume that you believe what you believe because you thought about it, and not because of any character flaw.  I don't demand the same consideration, but it would be nice. 

Judges II

Don't miss this post by Free Market Frank reacting to the judge conspiracy story.

Campus Bias

Joe Knippenberg links to this Mary Eberstadt piece on bias in the academy.  One appreciates her defense of common sense in the face science/pseudo-science.  In my experience in political science departments at three institutions in my college years, I'd say out of about 40-50 faculty members at those three institutions, four professors were clearly men of the right while the rest were either on the left or (less common) their politics remained unknown to me.  As an undergrad, I recall the the College Republicans had the rule waived that all campus groups must have a faculty adviser.  The group had more members than any club on campus, but not one faculty member was willing to serve as adviser.  I add that I encountered very few incidents of outright bias, although they did exist.  There was, however, the overall feeling that one's opinions were tolerated (usually) but not really welcome at these institutions.  Also, I still remain opposed to intellectual diversity bills, such as the one offered in the South Dakota Legislature last year. 

Judges

National Review Online addresses the South Dakota liberal judge conspiracy:

Men in Black, Local Edition

In South Dakota, three federal district judges look like they're playing politics.

AP reports, in part: "U.S. District Judge Charles Kornmann, 69, put off his retirement after two fellow Democratic judges agreed to share his workload, a move that could allow someone from their party to get Kornmann's job if a Democrat is elected president in 2008."

Here's more.

Now, I am sure Patrick Leahy and Chuck Schumer will want to hold hearings on this. And I am sure that Arlen Spector will be demanding hearings as well.

The New NSIC

Augustana, along with Minnesota schools St. Cloud State, University of Minnesota Duluth, and Minnesota State Mankato will join Northern State University in the Northern Sun Intercollegiate Conference in the 2008-2009 school year. 

Isn't he a character on The Simpsons?

No, sorry.  That's Ned Flanders.  I am talking about Ned Lamont.  Remember him?  No?  Neither did I.  I had to be reminded on about line 14 of the New New Republic article that he's the guy who beat Joe Lieberman in the 2006 Democratic primary.  Apparently no one else can remember him, either. 

Lamont is currently biding
his time as a fellow at
the Institute of Politics at
Harvard’s Kennedy School,
which functions as a sort of halfway
house for recently defeated politicians
trying to reenter decent society.

That's a clever sentence.  Later comes the pathos. 

Most of Lamont’s time these days
is spent on the class he teaches once a
week at the Institute of Politics. Called
“Crashing the Gate,” it’s an in-depth study
of the 2006 Connecticut Senate campaign.
Which means that, once a week,
Lamont basically relives his unsuccessful
effort to unseat Lieberman

I confess to taking some pernicious pleasure in this, as I did over the six hours of election day, 2004, when John Kerry savored the knowledge that he had been elected president.  For the past couple of years, this has been about the only pleasure available to Republicans.  So here's some more:

He also remains puzzled by
the fact that . . . he failed to
appeal to moderate voters in the general
election. “I was looking forward to
going to the Chamber of Commerce, because
I thought I’d do pretty well in that
group,” he recalled. “And I tried to go
talk to them, and they wouldn’t see me.
... Within two weeks of winning the primary,
I was Trotsky’s great-nephew.”

And he hasn’t forgotten about how so
many of the prominent Democrats who
pledged their support after he won the
primary started slinking away from him
as it became increasingly clear he was
going to lose the general election. He
ruefully recalled going to a Democratic
Senatorial Campaign Committee event
in New York: “All the other Democratic
candidates stood up and spoke, and then
they shared the take from the fund-raiser.
I was invited to wave from the audience.”

Politics. 

Tancredo Announces Presidential Bid

Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo has announced his decision to run for the Republican nomination for president:

Arnold Schwarzenegger announced he was running to be California's governor on "The Tonight Show" and back in 2004, John Edwards launched his presidential campaign on cable television's "The Daily Show." Today, a Republican candidate went on an Iowa radio station to announce he's running for president.

Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo said he chose "talk radio" to make his presidential campaign announcement because the medium had given voice to his call for immigration reform. "It's been about eight years that I've been in congress and I have done probably 1800 or more talk radio shows...on the issue of illegal immigration," Tancredo said this morning on WHO Radio. "...It's given me a megaphone that I never would have had. It's allows you to talk directly to the American people. There's no filter in between...and I'm convinced that it is talk radio that has allowed us to get where we are today."

The Pajamas Media poll to the right has already been updated to accommodate his announcement.

Woodrow Keeble

Senator John Thune, following similar moves from Senator Tim Johnson and former Senator Tom Daschle, is calling on the Defense Department to award Master Sergeant Woodrow Keeble with the Medal of Honor.  Argus Leader excerpt:

Sen. John Thune is co-sponsoring legislation that would clear the way for Keeble to receive the long-overdue honor and recognition.

That legislation would authorize President Bush to posthumously award the medal to Keeble, a member of the Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate Tribe. He would be the first Dakota Sioux to receive the Medal of Honor.

"He went beyond the call of duty not for a medal but for the mission he believed in and the country he loved. Master Sgt. Keeble's legacy is a great source of pride for his family, his fellow Dakota Sioux and all Americans," Thune said.

In recent years Sen. Tim Johnson and former Sen. Tom Daschle made the case, too.

Knowledge of the history of Keeble's situation leaves no doubt about the merit.

After serving in the Army in World War II, he re-enlisted for the Korean War. In 1951, Keeble was among those attacked by Chinese troops near Kumsong. He suffered wounds to the chest, arms, left thigh, right calf and knee as he led three platoons in an attack and relieved a platoon pinned down by machine gunfire. He took out three machine gun emplacements and drove Chinese soldiers from two trenches.

He was decorated with the Distinguished Service Cross, the Silver Star, the Bronze Star First Oak Leaf Cluster and the Purple Heart with the Oak Leaf Cluster. Although temporary company leader Joe Sagami, a first sergeant, twice recommended that Keeble receive the Medal of Honor, he never received it.

A New ERA.

The Democrats are talking about the Equal Rights Amendment again.  From George Will:

WASHINGTON - Liberals, dolled up in love beads and bell-bottom trousers, have had another bright idea, one as fresh as other 1970s fads. Sens. Ted Kennedy and Barbara Boxer and Reps. Carolyn Maloney and Jerrold Nadler, high-octane liberals all, have asked Congress to improve the Constitution by adding the Women's Equality Amendment, which, like the Equal Rights Amendment before it, says: ''Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.''

Opponents of the old ERA used to fight with scary stories about unisex bathrooms in public schools.  Most of the stories were nonsense.  The ERA was nonetheless a bad proposition then, and it hasn't improved anymore than have bell bottom jeans. 

The problem with the language is that it is either redundant or meaningless.  It is impossible to know which without knowing what "equality of rights" means.  Does it mean, for example, that no state can discriminate against women and in favor of  men in hiring, or in public school admissions?  If so, that is already covered by such things as the due process clause and equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.  Almost any case of discrimination on the basis of sex would trigger strict scrutiny by the courts, and almost nothing ever survives that exacting degree of review.  Anything that would survive strict scrutiny in light of due process would survive an ERA, pardon me, WEA, challenge as well.

If the language doesn't mean what is already in the Constitution, then it either means nothing or, much worse, means whatever any five Supreme Court Justices decide they are in favor of.  Does it mean that the presumption of innocence for men must be surrendered in cases of rape or sexual harassment?  Does it mean that affirmative action policies in favor of women (and therefore against men) are unconstitutional?  There is no way to tell from the wording.   The only way to get anything new out of the amendment would be to creatively interpret it without any guide from historical usage or the text itself.  That is a bad piece of work.

SDP Film Note

I have blogged from time to time on one of my interests: Asian Horror Movies.  The main reason I do this is because, well, I can.  Having no editor is the great strength and weakness of blogs.   But I can claim a more honest reason.  Human beings like to tell spooky stories.  The horror genre caters to that nearly universal taste.  Asian horror tells me a lot about the moral/religious culture of the far East, and conversely about the same elements of Western Christendom. 

Tonight I watched The Grudge 2.  Three recent Japanese horror films have had a large impact on Asian cinema and all three have produced versions made for American audiences.  They are: Ringu (The Ring in the U.S.), Ju-on (The Grudge), and Kairo (Pulse).  All of them are stories of vengeful ghosts.  Ringu was by far the best, and here I think that the Western version was even better than the original.  Ju-on was by far the scariest.  I actually screeched a couple of times.  Kairo was by far the most disturbing. 

Here is what I have noticed in comparing Western spooky stories with those of Asia.  We tend to see evil as a reflection of human temptation.  The ghost get in because of some sin some person commits.  They (Asian storytellers) see evil as a force of nature that leaks into our world through some more or less natural process.  More importantly, we think that evil forces are balanced by forces of good.  Vampires fear the cross.  They have lost all confidence in priests and their rituals.  In Asian horror, there are no White wizards, or if there are, they are nearly always ineffectual.  I am not sure what that means.  But I am sure it means something.

The Grudge 2 is not half-bad.  It is a bit over-written.  It is much more Asian in spirit than most made for American remakes.  Most interesting was the choice of Amber Tamblyn for the lead.  Tamblyn was the star of Joan of Arcadia, a tv series that I very much enjoyed.  In that show, God appears to Joan in a variety of physical forms: a little girl, a Black janitor.  Joan struggles with God in every episode, but of course God always wins.  In the Grudge 2, God is noticeably absent. 

Chocolate Christ

Dawne at CCK wonders what exactly is so offensive about "My Sweet Lord," a life-size statue of Jesus on the Cross, naked and anatomically correct, made entirely of chocolate.  From the AP:

A planned Holy Week exhibition of a nude, anatomically correct chocolate sculpture of Jesus Christ was canceled Friday amid a choir of complaining Catholics that included Cardinal Edward Egan.

Dawne says this:

Of course, i cannot speak for the artist's motivations in creating a milk-chocolate Jesus entitled "Sweet Jesus", but the play on words, and the reminder that there are many ways to take the Lord's name in vain is actually somewhat refreshing, and reminds me of Proud Knucklehead's recent falacious assertion that reading the tea leaves was a Christian, not pagan, concept. we take so much for granted that we often neglect the intent.

so, resident Catholics, please instruct me. is it the chocolate that offends, or the depiction of Jesus without a loincloth?

A hint Dawne: I think it was the loincloth thing.  Jesus of Nazareth is one of the most commonly depicted figures in human history, the possible exception being the Buddha.  But for some reason or another I have never yet seen a carved or painted representation of the Buddha's penis.  You tell me why that is. The artist was surely trying to be provactive, and he pulled it off. 

I confess that I am not offended by Cosimo Cavallaro's confection.  It passes my first test of any work of art: it creates resonance.  It seems to me a lot like a real, human body.  The Son of God was also the Son of Man.  But the care that Christian and Buddhist artists have taken to gird their guest of honor suggests an almost universal consensus that nakedness is awkward.  How would Dawne feel if she were about to speak in public and the brochure included a picture of her in her birthday suit? 

Oddly enough, no Catholic has yet smashed a single piece of glass or issued a death threat over this.  Many Muslims were not so kind when the Prophet was unfavorably depicted in Danish political cartoons.  Of course, Mohamed is one of the least depicted figures in world religion, due to the intense Islamic fear of idolatry. 

But fair is fair.  I posted the offensive Danish cartoons when that story broke, so here is Cavallaro's Christ, full of sugar and antioxidants. 

As far as I can tell, Christ crucified is still Christ crucified. 
 

Mrs. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin

Associated Press:

South Dakota's only member of the U.S. House is now known as Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin.

The Democrat married former Texas Rep. Max Sandlin on Saturday at First Lutheran Church in Brookings among friends and family.

The two plan to live in Brookings when they are not in Washington. Sandlin, who was defeated in a 2004 re-election bid, is a lobbyist for Fleishman-Hillard, a Washington, D.C., public relations and government relations firm.

Sandlin, 54, was a member of the U.S. House for eight years.

Herseth and Sandlin plan to honeymoon in the Caribbean, where she said they will to do some sea kayaking and mountain biking. The House will not be in session that week.

Herseth announced the engagement at her 36th birthday party in December.

Congratulations to the newly weds!

Judges Help Dem Stay on Bench, and the Argus Hatchet Job

I'm sure everyone has seen this story already, but it's worth repeating.  See this Associated Press story about Democrat-appointed judges trying to keep a near-retirement colleague on the bench so a Republican cannot be appointed:

Supreme Court watchers often speculate about aging justices holding off retirement until the election of a president who will pick an ideologically similar replacement.

But some Washington conservatives are questioning whether a federal district judge here is doing the same thing - and getting help from two colleagues who have added some of his cases to their own already heavy caseloads.

U.S. District Judge Charles Kornmann, 69, put off his retirement after two fellow Democratic judges agreed to share his workload - a move that could allow someone from their party to get Kornmann's job if a Democrat is elected president in 2008.

Kornmann and one of the other judges acknowledged the arrangement in interviews with The Associated Press. Joseph Haas, the federal clerk of court for South Dakota, also confirmed some of the Kornmann's caseload was reallocated last fall.

Kornmann, who handles cases in Aberdeen and Pierre for the northern and central sections of the state, said he could have reduced his caseload and become a senior judge last fall. But he stayed on full-time after U.S. District Judges Karen Schreier in Rapid City and Lawrence Piersol in Sioux Falls took on about two-thirds of the criminal cases in Pierre.

Democratic President Bill Clinton appointed all three in the 1990s.

"The other judges don't want me to retire," Kornmann said. "I don't plan to do anything for a time. I could have taken senior status in September but in view of them helping out that much, I decided not to do it."

When asked why they helped, Kornmann joked: "They think I'm such a wonderful judge. It has nothing to do with who the president is."

He added: "It might have something to do with it."

If Kornmann retired now, U.S. Sen. John Thune would recommend a replacement to President Bush, who would send the nominee to the Senate for confirmation. Since Thune and Bush are both Republicans, the candidate likely would be as well.

Lee Epstein, an author and law professor at Northwestern University in Chicago, said some Supreme Court and other appellate justices time their retirements, but it usually doesn't happen in lower courts.

She said she is unfamiliar with the South Dakota situation but research indicates federal judges do sometimes time "strategic retirements" in which they wait until "you've got a more favorable Senate, or usually president, who will fill your seat with someone you like, in terms of their partisanship or ideology."

Kornmann, Schreier and Piersol drew criticism last year for opposing the Bush administration's pick for interim U.S. attorney in South Dakota.

The judges wanted a former state attorney general to fill in as the interim federal prosecutor but the Justice Department wouldn't allow it because he hadn't gone through a background check.

An assistant U.S. attorney from another state ultimately was appointed until a South Dakota lawyer was nominated and approved.

Schreier declined to comment on whether she wants to keep Kornmann's seat from slipping into Republican hands.

Piersol said, "I would just say we're helping Judge Kornmann out. What he does is up to him."

Tom Fitton, president of the conservative Washington watchdog group Judicial Watch, said it would be unusual for two district court judges to help a colleague in hopes of keeping the seat within the party.

"The question is, 'Are these two other judges being overburdened with too many cases as a result of maintaining the current ideological makeup of the judges?'" he said.

It is odd for a federal judge's caseload to be reduced, Fitton said.

It might also be unethical, said Ed Whelan, president of the conservative Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington.

"Active judges are required to carry full caseloads. If Judge Kornmann is no longer carrying a full caseload and if the other judges agreed to carry part of his caseload in exchange for his agreement not to retire, that would seem a form of bribery," Whelan said.

Kornmann, Piersol and Schreier have deep Democratic roots in a heavily Republican state.

Schreier is a former chairwoman of the South Dakota Democratic Party and Kornmann is a former state party executive director. Piersol served as majority leader of the South Dakota House as a Democrat in 1973-1974.

Piersol took heat from Republicans in 2004 for not recusing himself when then-Sen. Tom Daschle, a close friend, took Republican poll watchers to court the night before the election in which Daschle lost to Thune. [edit: see this]

South Dakota's federal judges are busy largely because of the high number of cases they handle from the state's American Indian reservations. Minor crimes are handled in tribal court but major cases go through the federal system. Kornmann's Pierre caseload is especially high.

To minimize travel costs, judges travel to courts instead of having witnesses and attorneys travel to them, said Haas, the court clerk.

Kornmann said he plans to keep working under the current arrangement and someday take senior status.

"One of the good things about the job is you don't have to retire unless you're senile. I think it's good for anyone to keep working, as long as you're healthy enough. That's a good fact about the job and you have an office to go so you're not driving your spouse nuts," he said.

UPDATE:  Note the Argus Leader hatchet job on the judges story.  Here is a comparison  (PDF alert) between the Argus rendition and the Watertown Public Opinion, who ran the full AP story (the red boxes indicate sections that the Argus left out; the last page of the PDF has the entire Argus story).  It's a good example of the Argus censors at work.  Also see these related thoughts from the Snarking Dawg entitled "An 'Independent Judiciary,' Democrat Style."