South Dakota Politics

SDP Jazz Note: Tommy Flanagan

Tommy Flanagan is one of those unsung Jazz heroes I like to blog about.  He turns up on a lot of my favorite albums, behind such greats as John Coltrane and Kenny Burrell.  At least one of the recordings where he was the leader got repackaged under the name of the former, more famous jazzemen.  But Flanagan was the real thing, right down to the bones.  Here is a clip from DailyMotion of Flangan with Ella Fiztgerald, singing How High the Moon.  It's short and sweet enough to make your day. 

Talkin' bout my generation

If you haven't seen this YouTube clip, watch it now. 

Sarko and Dakota Women II

Anna at Dakota Women and I have been exchanging posts on the topic of conservative enthusiasm for the election of Nicolas Sarkozy as President of Les Francais.  In my most recent post, I defended Sarkozy against the charge of racism, which Anna among many other critics have been quick to put forth.  Here is her response:

Once again, Sarkozy either sympathizes with far-right racists of the National Front, or he cynically woos them for their votes. Either way, Sarkozy's not someone I'm personally super excited about.

I think Anna has the question right: Sarkozy either likes the National Front or he is used the National Front to get elected.  I object only to the adverb "cynically."  Anna and I agree on one thing: Jean-Marie Le Pen is a bad egg.  As it happens, I lectured on Le Pen in one of my first classes at U.C. San Bernardino, and then I called him a fascist.  Looking back, I think that was a bit strong, but only a bit. 

Every nation has its pernicious factions, as James Madison pointed out.  There are really only two ways to deal with them: isolate and exclude, or assimilate and dilute.  In most cases (excluding Nazis and Stalinist) the latter is better.  Le Pen no doubt has a lot of racists behind him, but he also attracted some folks who were reasonably concerned about the effects of illegal immigration on French society.  Without attracting the latter, Le Pen had no chance. 

Sarkozy addressed the concerns of the more reasonable and larger part of Le Pen's coalition.  The result was that Le Pen was crushed.  There is not enough left of him right now to bury in a snail shell. That is no small contribution to progress.   Those blocks that left Le Pen and joined Sarkozy's constituents will have to learn how to be civil, even if they are not so inclined.  To these eyes, that is what good democratic politics looks like.  So yes: I am enthusiastic about Sarkozy's victory. 

On a minor note, Anna mentions that Sarkozy flirted with the idea of proportional representation, which would give extremist like Le Pen at least a few seats in the French government.  I note that it would do the same for far left parties.  I confidently predict that Sarkozy will not carry through on this. 

Waugh On Education

My previous post does reminds me of a story by Evelyn Waugh. In Waugh's short novel Modern Europe, one of those Englishmen with a hyphenated last name, Mr. Scott-King, serves as a classics instructor at a finer public school.  After an adventure in continental Europe, he arrives back at his school only to be informed that, once again, his school will be teaching fewer of the classics.  The headmaster who delivers this news to Scott-King says, "As you know I'm an old Greats man myself.  I deplore it as much as you do.  But what are we to do?  Parents are not interested in producing the 'complete man' anymore.  They want to qualify their boys for jobs in the modern world.  You can hardly blame them, can you?"   To which Scott-King replies, "Oh yes.  I can and do."  The headmaster suggests Scott-King teach some more popular subjects along side the classics, and Scott-King responds, "If you approve, headmaster, I will stay as I am here as long as any boy wants to read the classics.  I think it would be very wicked to do anything to fit a boy for the modern world."   

More Laptops

Madville Times links to this Mitchell Daily Republic (free registration required) story indicating the South Dakota Board of Regents is considering turning all six campuses into "laptop-table environments." 

The South Dakota Board of Regents is considering converting all six of the state’s public college campuses to “laptop-tablet environments,” according to regents Executive Director Tad Perry.

Only Dakota State University in Madison already is at that point, although the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, in Rapid City, is in the process of converting to what Perry calls a more “contemporary” computer environment.

The idea behind the proposal stems in part from the push for more laptops in the hands of K-12 students in South Dakota. Perry said that with more and more elementary and high school students having access to laptops, it dawned on the regents that the state’s colleges may not be preparing its education students in the same fashion.

Without a change in policy, Perry said it’s possible that South Dakota colleges could be setting the stage for a rather awkward classroom scenario: Teachers who were educated at state colleges not having the same experience and background on laptops as the students they are hired to teach.

Jason recently posted on a New York Times article which reported on yet another set of findings that laptop classrooms do nothing to increase student learning.  I have posted on similar results from various jurisdictions, which you can find summed up here.  I think my opinion on expanding the use of laptops at our universities can be inferred from my earlier posts.  We could learn a lot from these guys (hat tip to Joe K). 

This post represents my own opinion, not that of my employer.  I have a personal policy of not commenting on BOR issues so this will be my last post on this particular matter. 

Fides et Ratio

I don't want to join the "dog pile on Schuldt" brigade, since as proof that miracles do occur, some of Chad's critics have actually made Chad look down right reasonable (seriously, whatever bad policies progressives have advocated in the name of "social justice," using the term "social justice" does not necessarily mean you are a communist).  But here's an easy one.  Chad prints, apparently with approval, this quote from Janna Goodrich:

I sometimes wonder what an alien from outer space would think about a religion where a celibate, never-married man is the one to make statements about the importance of family and about abortion. Or perhaps more to the point, what would the alien think about the fact that people take these statements very seriously?

Ms. Goodrich's point is sound if one buys a view of human knowledge that is based solely on experience (as some forms of radical empiricism do).  But her point is less sound if human beings have the capacity for reason and the ability to both learn from the experience of others and also to abstract from those experiences and our own experiences.  Are we really able to form credible opinions only on those things about which we have direct experience?  Are we not able to learn from others and to use our capacity of reason to think about what is human life, what do we duties do we have toward human life, what is marriage, what is it for, why do people have children, what purpose does the family serve, etc?  If one wants to argue based on experience, though, one could just as easily argue that a celibate, unmarried man is just the person to give guidance on matters of sexuality and family as he has the vantage point of objectivity. 

Juggling Primaries

The New York Times reported last week about the influence the California primary elections are having after they moved their primary date from June to the first week of February.  Before the move, candidates went to California to collect money to fund their campaigns in Iowa and New Hampshire.  Now they must address the concerns of Californians, and its a move that other states may follow:

In the months since California moved its presidential primary to Feb. 5 from June, the major presidential campaigns have sought to measure how the early nominating contests being held here and in about 20 other states that day will shape their tactical calculations: where to travel, whom to hire, how to spend money.

The primary calendar — and, potentially, the relative influence of the states — is still very much in flux. Just this week, Florida voted to move its primary up to Jan. 29 in an effort to ensure that it would play a vital role in the nominating process and that the candidates would pay attention to the issues its residents deem important. Other states with important early roles, like Nevada and South Carolina, are also hoping to draw attention to issues rooted in their regions or in the makeup of their populations.

But its sheer size, its concentrations of both liberals and conservatives, its status as a money tree for candidates and its role as fertile ground for policy innovation make California especially likely to wield additional clout this time around. The result is not just a change in tactics; it is altering the dialogue of the presidential contest in substantive ways. It is forcing candidates to turn their attention to issues, debates and controversies that have historically drawn little attention on the early playing fields of Iowa and New Hampshire.

The most striking example is global warming, an issue that was rarely raised in the past two presidential campaigns. Mike Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas, was reminded of this on Thursday night when he was asked on national television at the first Republican presidential candidates’ debate, in Simi Valley, if he thought global warming existed. (Yes, Mr. Huckabee said, though he skirted the issue of whether humans were primarily responsible for it.)

Readers will recall our roundtable discussions between myself and my colleagues about South Dakota moving its primary, which the South Dakota legislature considered last year.  It can be frustrating being from a small, populous-scarce state near the end of the primary schedule and have little impact on presidential nominations.  It wasn't always the case with South Dakota.  In 1952, several presidential candidates visited South Dakota when it was near the front of the primary schedule.  The battle between Senator Robert Taft of Ohio and General Dwight Eisenhower was close.  Before South Dakota, Taft had won Nebraska, Illinois, Wisconsin, and West Virginia, while Eisenhower picked up New Hampshire, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts and Oregon.  Taft won South Dakota 50.3% to Eisenhower's 49.7%.  See the South Dakota History article by Philip K. Grant entitled "The 1952 Republican Presidential Primary" in the Winter 1977 edition for more information.  Similarly tight races occurred in 1980 and 1988.

However, the benefit of moving the primary forward to Californians is lost when all the other states decide to do the same.  The jockeying for power and influence in national politics, contrary to my earlier support of moving the primary forward, is harmful to the nation, as Dr. Schaff has explained on several occasions.  It would be exciting to have South Dakota as a key player in the presidential nomination process.  For a political junkie like myself, I would love to have presidential candidates touring the state, and Fox News and CNN putting us front-and-center.  Plus, the candidates would visit South Dakota and address our concerns, something that isn't done very often since most of their money and influence comes from coastal states.  Yet, the leapfrogging that will result from state after state moving their primary forward as they auction themselves off to political pandering is detrimental overall.  In this scenario, state's aren't moving their primaries forward so citizens can hear the platforms of politicians.  All voters receive is a generic platform in which they have little influence, because there's no time for candidates to express their ideas clearly.  We can see it today: the frontrunners on the Democratic ticket are Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama -- not so much because they have good ideas, but because one has name recognition and the other is a fresh face.  The same can be said for Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson on the GOP side.

So, how do we solve this?  There are several ideas out there.  One is Congress should set up a rotating panel of primaries, where four or five Super Tuesdays settle the question and the order rotates each presidential cycle.  A federalist perspective would argue for allowing states to set their own primary dates, but for Federal office, shouldn't Congress be allowed to control the time frame?  How else can we learn about candidates, and how can candidates develop themselves?  The races today are all about name and money, not issues and concerns.  If we keep at the current rate, primaries my extend a full year or more before the general election, forcing more fundraising for both primary races and the general election.  This makes it impossible for a dark horse candidate to compete.

I recommend giving a read Dr. Blanchard's modest proposal for primary reform, and a reader response to his idea.  Also see his Aberdeen American News article on the issue.  Also see this Wikipedia entry on reform proposals.  It seems that the biggest areas of concern for most when they talk of moving the primary forward is the greater voice it gives the state and the economic benefits the state receives from hosting the primary.  The solution, I think, is Dr. Blanchard's idea:

If you really want reform, the way to do it is divide the states into five groups, each including large and small states from every region of the country. Each group would be assigned the first Tuesday of some month from February to June. In subsequent elections the order would be rotated, so everyone gets to go first sooner or later. The purpose would not be to benefit one party or another, or any state over the others, but to do what is best for the Republic.

This would settle the concerns.  It may not be perfect and may not tease out certain details and complexities, but I don't think that's the issue right now.  We need to find a solution to the front-loading, and Dr. Blanchard's idea is a step in the right direction.  First and foremost, we eliminate the problems of front-loading the primary schedule.  Second, each state in Blanchard's proposed groups would reap economic benefits at some point in the Presidential nomination cycle by hosting the regional primary.  Finally, by having the populations of states determine the group, the presidential nominees will have to address the similar issues they all face.  South Dakota certainly faces similar issues as North Dakota, Iowa, and Wyoming, for instance.  The solution to primary reform isn't to thrust several states to the front, but to revamp the entire process.

Do we want a scenario where we vote in midterm elections, and then prepare for the first primaries within ninety days?  Do we want to see the perpetual campaign, or do we want to see issues addressed and settled with significant time to hear from all who are willing to go after the highest office in the country?  If we don't act soon, we may find we have created a situation where no political party can afford to act outside its own partisan electoral interests.

Darwinian Conservatism II

Professor Schaff directs out attention to some posts on No Left Turns concerning the question of Darwinian conservatism.  I posted on this topic here.  The question is whether Darwinian theory, and especially sociobiology, is consistent with conservative thought.  Peter Lawler thinks not. 

I also can’t figure out how any libertarian could be a Darwinian conservative. THE libertarian or at least classical liberal philosopher is John Locke. And didn’t Locke say something like the human being is the animal with the singular liberty to conquer nature?

I don't know remember reading anything like that in Locke, though my knowledge is hardly exhaustive.  But Locke was a natural right theorist, and natural right means that political and moral institutions should be in harmony with nature, not at war with it.  If human institutions are to be in harmony with human nature, we have to know something about the latter.  Darwinism represents the greatest advance in knowledge of human nature since Aristotle.  I would argue that it largely confirms Aristotle's views.

Can sociobiology really account for the individual’s insistent demand for personal significance? Can sociobiology really account for either the heights of human greatness or the depths of human misery?

Yes.  Human individuals, like this or that Chimpanzee, depend on the groups they belong to. Most people get their sense of significance from the recognition of family and friends.  Likewise, those who strive for greatness mostly or always want recognition from some community.  A heartbeat ago in evolutionary history, group acceptance and status meant everything in terms of survival and reproductive opportunity.  These are easy questions. 

The main reason Darwinian conservatism ain’t conservative is that it gives us in the biotechnological age little incentive to conserve the nature we have been given. The effectual truth of the perception of its truth is to heighten the frenzied activity to replace impersonal natural evolution with conscious and volition evolution, techno-evolution with ME in mind.

Lawler is dead wrong about this.  The great conservative Edmund Burke defended traditional institutions against revolutionary re-engineering on the grounds that they were the product of a long history of trial and error.  According to Darwinian theory, human nature is the product of a much longer process.  To attempt to apply radical technologies to the genetic foundation of human nature itself (as opposed to specific treatments for particular diseases) is almost certain to lead to disaster.  Darwinism views human nature as the work of millions of years.  Such a thing is incalculably precious.  We change it at our peril. 

Al Sharpton: Bigot

Have you heard Al Sharpton dismissing Mormon presidential candidate Mitt Romney as, apparently, someone who "doesn't really believe in God"?  And now he is trying to weasel his way out of it.  No matter how you cut it, if Sharpton were white and/or conservative he'd be denounced, rightly, as a hate filled bigot.  As it is, he gets courted by the Democratic presidential contenders. 

Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee

PlayBill:

Screen actor Aidan Quinn, who played Stanley Kowalski in the 1988 revival of A Streetcar Named Desire, stars in the new HBO Films production "Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee."

Based on Dee Alexander Brown's book of the same name, the film will make its debut on the cable network May 27 at 9 PM ET. Joining Quinn in the cast are Broadway's J. K. Simmons (Laughter on the 23rd Floor, Guys and Dolls, Peter Pan) and Colm Feore (Julius Caesar) as well as Adam Beach, August Schellenberg, Eric Schweig, Wes Studi, Gordon Tootoosis, Fred Thompson and Anna Paquin.

Check out the whole thing.  See also this New York Times story.  Dee Brown's book made a big impact when it was published in 1971, quickly becoming a national bestseller.  It still remains in print today and in fifteen different languages.  Historians have assessed his book as "polemical and thinly researched," but it was "immensely popular" and made a big impact on a society awash in self-criticism over Vietnam, the civil rights movement, and the environment [1].  I'm working on a paper about the intellectual origins of Brown's book and the impact it had, and this film seems to be another part of the book's aftermath and how it still influences our view of the nineteenth century American West.  HBO is good at creating westerns, such as the Deadwood series, as historically flawed as it may be, so I'm looking forward to see how they portray Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee.

[1] Rodman W. Paul and Michael P. Malone, "Tradition and Challenge in Western Historiography," Western Historical Quarterly vol. 16, no. 1 (January 1985), 41.  See also Francis Paul Prucha, review of Dee Brown, Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee: An Indian History of the American West, American Historical Review vol. 77 no. 2 (April 1972): 589-590.

The New Media v. Old Media Debate

LA Times:  "Before we ask Willie Nelson and Sir Bob Geldof to do a telethon fundraiser for Gannett and Dean Singleton, let's take a look at their situation.  It may be true newspapers are no longer as profitable as they once were, but that is like saying Shaquille O'Neal is no longer the best player in the NBA."  Read the whole thing.

Can One Question Darwin Without Being A Wacko

Those interested in Prof. Blanchard's post below should read Andrew Ferguson's account about the recent AEI debate on Darwinism and conservatism.  It includes one of my all time favorite quotes about about one of my least favorite American presidents, Woodrow Wilson:

John Dewey argued for Darwin's relevance to social and political arrangements, and so did most of his fellow Progressives: Woodrow Wilson, for instance, who said that "living constitutions must be Darwinian in structure and in practice." Traces of Social Darwinism can be found too in Hitler and Stalin, both of whom were even worse than Woodrow Wilson.

I wonder how many liberals realize how much their progressive politics flows from the ideas of Social Darwinism?  I also urge readers to jump to this post by Peter Lawler and click on the comments.  Very illuminating.  I'll point out that many modern libertarians tend to dump the idea of natural rights as too constraining on human freedom.  In my graduate student experience at a libertarian nesting ground, i.e. a summer institute sponsored by the Institute for Humane Studies, most participants rejected natural right in favor of consequentialism, i.e., certain rights are good because they lead to good consequences, not because they are founded in the natural order. 

Politicizing Natural Disasters

Paul Mirengoff:

The Democrats and their left-wing pals never miss a chance to blame misfortune on the Bush administration and, if possible, the war in Iraq, even if that means making up facts. Thus, Kathleen Sibelius, the Democratic Governor of Kansas, claimed that Kansas is missing 60 percent of its National Guard equipment because of the war, and has thus been hampered in dealing with the damage caused by the tornedo. Barack Obama made the same claim, while somehow managing to state that the death toll was 10,000, not 12. And of course lefty bloggers tried to hammer the point home. Here, for example, is the post of Think Progress on the subject.

In fact, it's not true that Kansas was missing 60 percent of its National Guard equipment, or that the National Guard was ill-prepared to deal with the aftermath of the tornado. The Democrats' claim is pure invention. According to Randal Noller, public affairs officer for the National Guard Bureau, the Kansas National Guard has 88 percent of its forces available, and 60 percent of its Army Guard dual-use equipment on hand, along with more than 85 percent of its Air Guard equipment. If the Kansas National Guard were short-handed in any way, it could have asked for assistance from other states under a national sharing agreement. It did not do so.

Gov. Sibelius has backed off of her comments. Her spokesperson says, "We are doing absolutely fine right now; what the governor is talking about is down the road." In reality, the governor and chorus were simply making things up in order to convert a natural disaster into a political opportunity.

Star Tribune Shakeup

Minneapolis Star Tribune:

Bowing to the pressures of declining circulation and falling revenue, the Star Tribune on Monday announced a plan to cut 145 employees through buyouts or, if enough people don’t volunteer, layoffs.

The cuts represent 7 percent of the company’s 2,100 positions and include 50 positions out of 383 people in the news and editorial departments.

Power Line has more on the shakeup at the Star Tribune.

UPDATE:  In related news, see this story entitled "Old media turns combative against new media."  Excerpt:

Leading media executives took a combative tone against Internet companies on Tuesday, suggesting that Big Media increasingly considers new content distributors like Google Inc. to be more foe than friend.    

At a panel discussion on the second day of the 56th annual National Cable & Telecommunications Association conference, top executives said talk of the demise of traditional media in the digital age was overblown.

While new distribution technologies like the Internet and mobile phones are siphoning television audiences, media companies argued that the Web also brings new revenue streams.

But the discussion quickly moved to criticism of the perception that traditional media businesses are dead, and to the rampant copyright offenses enabled by new digital technologies.

"The Googles of the world, they are the Custer of the modern world. We are the Sioux nation," Time Warner Inc. Chief Executive Richard Parsons said, referring to the Civil War American general George Custer who was defeated by Native Americans in a battle dubbed "Custer's Last Stand".

"They will lose this war if they go to war," Parsons added, "The notion that the new kids on the block have taken over is a false notion."

Time Warner defended its discussions on copyright protection with Internet search leader Google Inc., which another panel member, Viacom Inc., has sued.

Sarko and Dakota Women

My pal Anna at Dakota Women thinks ill of me and other conservatives in the regional blogosphere because we are enthusiastic about the election of Nicolas Sarkozy as President of France. 

Lots   of conservatives are very excited about center-right candidate Nicolas Sarkozy's election victory in France this past weekend. And I'm thinking, really? That racist?  Or, at the very least, that politician who panders to racists.

I confess that I am pleased that Sarkozy, the most pro-American of European politicians, is now leader of the French nation.  I am pleased also that Sarkozy wants to revive the paralyzed French economy by moving it in a conservative direction, though I am not overly optimistic about his chances. 

As for racism, Anna herself feels the need to qualify the charge, after she has made it.  Maybe he only "panders to racists."  In fact, France has the same problem as most developed nations: assimilating immigrants from less developed places.  But in France the immigrant population has recently been fond of burning thousands of cars and buildings a night, whenever they are displeased. It's not exactly racism to want to bring lawless adolescents under the control of law.  Sarkozy wants to solve the problem not only with the police but with economic reforms that will bring jobs to a population that suffers 40% unemployment.  That looks like reasonable democratic politics to me. 

Darwinists, Conservatives, and Republicans

My friend Chad at CCK directs my attention to this article on Republican candidate Mitt Romney and the theory of evolution.  David Brody, at Christian Broadcasting Network has this:

Kevin Madden, Mitt Romney's spokesman has responded to The Brody File question on whether Mitt Romney believes in Evolution. I wanted to know his thoughts about it because at the debate the other night only three candidates raised their hand expressing doubt about Evolution. Romney was not one of those candidates. Here's the Romney campaign response:

"Governor Romney believes both science and faith can help inform us about the origins of life in this world."

With all due respect, what does that mean exactly?

It means that Romney doesn't want to take a stand, and this is probably the right strategy. This is one controversy in which a President doesn't need to take sides.   

Chad seems to think that anyone who rejects or questions Darwinian evolution is a "wacko."  On this topic I have some expertise, as I have taught a course on sociobiology for several years now.  I am a firm believer in Darwin's theory, but I know that Chad's approach does more damage to science than any creation science nut ever can. 

Darwinian theory is the only scientifically viable approach to the origin of the various species that live on earth, including the human species.  This is so not because the Darwinian account has no significant problems; it does.  It is so because there is simply no viable scientific alternative.  When doing research into the history of any organism, it is Darwin or nothing. 

But this is only true when we are talking about the level of science where theories are turned into research programs.  When we ascend to the philosophy of science, which questions the general theories and their fundamental assumptions, it is perfectly reasonable to question Darwinism, or the theory of relativity, or any other theory. When we ascend further to the level at which religion and science confront one another, each side has to make up its mind.  Darwinian evangelists such as Daniel Dennett or Richard Dawkins are free to reject religion.  The Pope and the Dali Lama have made their peace with Darwin, but only because they were confident enough in their own positions to rationally weigh the alternatives.   

What is interesting is that it is only on the right that reasonable debate on this question is going on.  On the left, anyone who questions evolution is a "wacko," while anyone who applies Darwinism to, say, the distribution of sexes in the sciences has to resign as president of Harvard.  Meanwhile, at the American Enterprise Institute, conservatives have had a lively debate on whether Darwinism supports or undermines conservative principles.  The New York Times has the story:

“I do indeed believe conservatives need Charles Darwin,” said Larry Arnhart, a professor of political science at Northern Illinois University in DeKalb, who has spearheaded the cause. “The intellectual vitality of conservatism in the 21st century will depend on the success of conservatives in appealing to advances in the biology of human nature as confirming conservative thought.”

The arguments have played out in recent books, magazine articles and blogs, as well as at a conference on Thursday at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington. There Mr. Arnhart was grouped with John Derbyshire, a contributing editor at National Review, against John G. West and George Gilder, who both are associated with the Discovery Institute, which advocates intelligent design.

A note of disclosure: Larry Arnhart is a friend of mine, and I organized and chaired a panel on his previous book, Darwinian Natural Right, at a meeting of the Association of Politics and Life Sciences.  I think Arnhart is right: Darwinism supports conservative principles.  But it is only on the right that one can have such debates today.  Somehow we don't regard anyone who disagrees with us as a wacko. 

Fatherless America

Kay Hymowitz, author of the outstanding Marriage and Caste In America writes in City Journal of the "incredible shrinking father."  Her article follows the trajectory of artificial insemination (AI) from an aid to couples who had difficulty conceiving to what it is today, a tool for women to have children without having to bother with fathers.  This mirrors the remarkable transition in our society of viewing the family as an instrument through which society passes on its mores and ideals to a new generation to simply a contractual relationship among atomistic individuals, existing simply to fulfill the desires of individuals rather the needs of society. 

One wonders if this is not related to this piece by Katherine Kersten, who one hopes survived the Star-Tribune's budget cuts.  Funny enough, young people see family breakdown as the biggest problem facing the nation.  Perhaps because they are the one's who bear the brunt of such breakdown. 

What does this generation of baggy pants-wearers and body piercers view as "the most pressing issue facing your generation in the world today"? Racism, environmental problems, the war in Iraq?

An answer closer to home tops the list: family breakdown. Pundits may find it fashionable to sneer at Ozzie and Harriet, but kids are longing for a harmonious home with mom and dad at the dinner table. Almost 90 percent of survey respondents expect to get married or enter into a life partnership and have children themselves. (snip)

Do Minnesota's young people share these yearnings? Absolutely, says the Rev. Efrem Smith of the Sanctuary Covenant Church, a multiethnic congregation in north Minneapolis. Smith has spent his life working with youth, and speaks nationally on the subject.

"This generation is deeply marred by family breakdown," he told me. Many young people are victims of our society's epidemic of out-of-wedlock childbearing and divorce, he says. Even children from intact families often feel neglected by busy or preoccupied parents.

Funny enough, I went to college with Rev. Smith.  This answers the question of, "Whatever happened to that guy?" 

E.J. Dionne on the Decline of the "Moderate" Left

Dionne is disturbed. 

Is Europe moving right? Is the democratic left in trouble? The decisive victory of Nicolas Sarkozy over Socialist Segolene Royal in France's presidential elections on Sunday was the most recent example of the battering that moderate left parties are taking from the forces of globalization and discontent over immigration.

A few days earlier, Britain delivered a rebuke to outgoing Prime Minister Tony Blair's Labor Party in local elections. Last September, Sweden's Social Democrats were voted out of power, a blow to the ,progressive spirit in light of the country's standing as a model egalitarian society.

It's funny how in the vocabulary of most American journalist, the left is always the "moderate left," and the right is always "the extreme right." 

Demographic Redistribution

Michael Barone, writing in the Wall Street Journal about demographic shifts in the nation, concludes this on the political consequences:

What's now in store is a shifting of political weight from a small Rust Belt which leans Democratic and from the much larger Coastal Megalopolises, where both secular top earners and immigrant low earners vote heavily Democratic, toward the Interior Megalopolises, where most voters are private-sector religious Republicans but where significant immigrant populations lean to the Democrats. House seats and electoral votes will shift from New York, New Jersey and Illinois to Texas, Florida, Georgia, Arizona and Nevada; within California, House seats will shift from the Democratic coast to the Republican Inland Empire and Central Valley.

Demography is destiny. When I was in kindergarten in 1950, Detroit was the nation's fifth largest metro area, with 3,170,000 people. Now it ranks 11th and is soon to be overtaken by Phoenix, which had 331,000 people in 1950. In the close 1960 election, in which electoral votes were based on the 1950 Census, Michigan cast 20 votes for John Kennedy and Arizona cast four votes for Richard Nixon; New York cast 45 votes for Kennedy and Florida cast 10 votes for Nixon. In 2012, Michigan will likely have 16 electoral votes and Arizona 12; New York will have 29 votes and Florida 29. That's the kind of political change demographics makes over the years.

Spiderman 3

The reviews of Spiderman 3 have been pretty awful.  The reviewers were nuts.  It's too soon for a sound comparison, but my spot judgment is that it was the best of the three.  They do try to cram a lot of stuff into one movie: three separate villans, new characters, Mary Jane Watson's career on stage.  But it seemed to me that they got it all in with all the pieces fitting nicely up against one another.  The superhero battles are magnificent.  There is one scene that should have been cut from the movie; it was just too over the top.  Note to Schaff: you'll know it when you see it.  But I thought it was a fine superhero movie. 

Senator Johnson

The situation created by Senator Tim Johnson's illness puts obvious strains on political decorum.  We here at SDP have born up reasonable well under those strains.  We have wished Senator Johnson well, and we have sincerely hoped for his full recovery.  In my case, this is in no small part because I have met Tim Johnson and I like him.  He is genuinely decent person, and he has served our state and these United States well, as he saw fit. 

The strain comes of course from the fact that Johnson's exit from the Senate would offer opportunities for Republicans.  Surely the state Republican party is wondering what to do if Johnson does not run again.  That is what a party is for, and it is nothing to be ashamed of.  Democrats are surely just as focused on keeping the seat in the short run and planning for replacing Johnson with one of their own if he bows out of the coming race. 

The question of whether Johnson should remain in office if he is in no condition to serve is more delicate.  Randy E. Amundson has a letter in the Argus Leader that raises this question. 

My problem is the almost total disconnect between the senator and his constituents since the aneurism. In the position of trust that the people of South Dakota have placed him, he doesn't have the privilege to neglect his constitutional duties to his state and his country. He, rather, has the duty to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution.He hasn't been protecting anything but his privacy since his malady.

We have been assured that things are on the mend with Johnson. If that is the case, the senator might consider a news conference or an occasional press release to assure those of us who are represented by him that he is in fact on the road back to productivity.

Pat Powers at SouthDakotaWarCollege thinks the letter was harsh, but made some valid points.

The Senator is very ill, and has a long road ahead of him. That's generally accepted. But there's also the view that continues to gain momentum that we're not getting the full story. The senator's staff ekes out bits and pieces here and there regarding his condition, but otherwise there is this huge void of information that people will seek to fill with rumor and conjecture.

My friend Chad at CCK thinks the worst of those who voice such thoughts.

Johnson deserves all the time he needs to get well and all the privacy he desires in what is a sensitive situation.  Pressure on his family and staff for something else is nothing more than political games. 

Film at eleven.  In fact Chad is playing the same political game.  I am sure his concerns for Senator Johnson and his family are as sincere as mine, but is he altogether uninterested in the future of that Senate seat?  Probably his defense of Senator Johnson's privacy just happens to coincide with his party's interest in holding it.  A mere coincidence.   

Chad makes a lot of the comments on  the SDWC post. 

If you want a sample of some of the crap going on in Republican circles, I encourage you to take a look at the commenting going on at the War College weblog the last couple of days.

But when I looked at those comments I saw people on both sides of the question, all of them trying to jockey for advantage. 

My former colleague, Professor David Newquist is typically delicate in his description of those who insist on knowing more about Senator Johnson's condition. 

If the busy-bodies who whined about not getting immediate and intimate information about his progress had bothered to check with ethical medical personnel, they would have been informed that a climate of disparagement and doom is the last thing anybody recovering from a serious episode needs. For the Senator's health and the political health within the state, family and staff took the responsible route and concentrated on getting the job done, not catering to idle gossipers.

Professor Newquist is all for open government, except when he's not. 

As for my view, the citizens of South Dakota have every right to ask whether their senior senator is capable of discharging his duties, the Johnson family's privacy notwithstanding.  Johnson and his family have every right not to tell them.  So long as Johnson and his organization choose to keep him from the public, I see no reasonable alternative to waiting to the end of his term.  Sooner or later he will announce that he is or is not running for another.  That will be the moment of truth. 

Flood Bloggin, III

If you want some news on the flooding here in Aberdeen, see this general story and this one about disaster response. Here are some more pics.  The first two are from the end of my street.

 
Here is a car by the Walmart:

And my friend, Mr. Sump Hole, who kept our basement from being a total disaster.

The Dance in France at a Glance

As yours truly predicted, the winner of the French Presidential election was Nicolas Sarkozy 53 to 47% for Ségolène Royal.  From the British Guardian:

Nicolas Sarkozy was last night handed a decisive mandate to change France, winning the presidential election by 6% after a big turnout in one of the most divisive campaigns in recent history.

Thousands of his flag-waving supporters prepared to gather at Paris's Place de La Concorde, where heads rolled in the first French revolution . . .   .  Instead of calling for the end of the monarchy, they had rallied round his cry to "liquidate the legacy of May 1968", end the nanny state, loosen the grip of "political correctness", lessen the power of unions and break the 35-hour week in the name of a nation that wanted to "work more to earn more".

Wow.  The French elected Newt Gingrich.  What Sarkozy's  victory will amount to is hard to say.  The defeat of Ms. Royal was nothing short of stunning.  Royal tried running as a socialist.  When it became clear that that wasn't working, she tried running as a woman.  She had Sarko there.  However, as the London Times put it:

It emerged that Royal was being let down at the ballot box not by centrists, Socialists or any other political bloc but by the one sector of the electorate that might have been expected to rally to her cause in droves: women.  . . . In the first round of voting on April 22, more women voted for him (32%) than for her (28%). So much for what the pundits had been calling the “gender effect”.

And then there are Ms. Royal's socialists.  From the Financial Times:

Let the finger-pointing begin. Ségolène Royal’s defeat on Sunday night left the French Socialist party in disarray and searching for someone to blame. There is hardly a shortage of scapegoats.

It is the party’s third consecutive presidential defeat. The Socialists now face the question of whether they can ever regain power without ditching their anti-capitalist rhetoric, as the mainstream left has done across almost all of Europe.

”The left is not credible on so many issues, from the 35-hour working week to immigration and law and order,” says Dominique Reynié, professor at Sciences Po university.

“It is the fault of the left collectively. Ever since their [parliamentary election] defeat in 1983 they have never questioned their fundamental ideology, only thinking they needed to change tactics,” he says.

Flood Bloggin' II

My basement got a little water in from two sides, but nothing soaked and no standing water.  I spent much of the day shopvacing water out of Schaff's basement carpets, and the rest of it getting water out of another colleague's basement.  Here are some shots of elsewhere in Aberdeen:

Soccer is canceled. 

The breach in the Soccer Field levy.

Mean, Damp, Streets

Flood Bloggin, 2007

Last night was more rain than I have ever seen in my life.  It down poured for about five hours.  We went to bed at around midnight.  There was about four inches of water in the street.  This morning it looked like this:

Just to be clear, you can't see the side walk here because it is under water.  The trees you see are in the boulevard.  There was about two feet of water in the street.  A little down the street it was more like three feet.  Most people have some kind of water in their basement.  Moccasin Creek is over its banks.  The north side of Aberdeen appears to be worse.  From what I hear, some folks on the north side of town are being evacuated in boats.  Workers at McDonalds this morning were rescued via boat, or so I hear.

We have the sump pumps going and it appears as though we are keeping pace with the water in the basement.  Some stinking carpets are likely, but if that's the worst that happens we are off easy.  Kudos to Professor Blanchard who did yeoman's work with the Shop-Vac.  Not bad for the Ol' Perfesser.   

See my girl friday for more pics.