South Dakota Politics

The Klaudt Arrest

In case you haven't seen it, here is the story from KELOLAND:

A former South Dakota lawmaker is accused of molesting his own foster children and legislative pages.

Ted Klaudt, 49, a Republican rancher from Walker, faces a long list of charges: eight counts of rape, two counts of sexual exploitation of a minor, two counts of witness tampering, sexual contact with a person under 16, and stalking.

Court documents mention five possible victims. Three were foster children between the ages of 15 and 19 who lived with Klaudt's family. One is a cousin of one of those girls, and the fifth is a friend of Klaudt's daughter.

South Dakota War College, as usual, has the full story, including court documents.   And yes, SDWC told us it was coming some days before the story broke.   

SDWC takes the high road: of course Klaudt is innocent until proved guilty, and there is the privacy of the victims to consider; but if true the charges are very gruesome, "as sick an act as could ever be conceived. And punishment should be swift and harsh."

If you want to see the low, mean, road, check out Clean Cut Kid.  Chad announces the story under the heading: "Family Values."  So apparently all those who disagree with Chad on social issues are discredited by one act of criminality.  I suppose by that same logic if one homosexual is a child molester, all homosexuals are child molesters.  The comments on Chad's post suggest that the only important thing is that the word "Republican" be firmly attached to this story.  For the Clean Cut Klan, this story is just one more weapon to use against their enemies. 

The Northern Valley Beacon has come down hard on bloggers who reasoned this way.  Let us see if he does so now. 

SD Senate Race

Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post blog, The Fix, ranks what he thinks will be the most competitive Senate races in 2008.  South Dakota ended up tied with Virginia at number eight:

8. South Dakota (tie): Things are starting to get back to normal in the South Dakota political world -- six months after Sen. Tim Johnson (D) nearly died from a brain hemorrhage. It remains an open question whether Johnson will seek reelection; a final decision won't be made until the fall. If he runs, it will be tough to find a serious Republican to challenge him. In an open seat, Republicans would have an immediate advantage due to the GOP lean of the state. Gov. Mike Rounds (R) would likely run in an open seat. Democrats are doing everything they can to create the perception that Johnson is ready to run for a third term. What we don't know is whether or not Dems are engaged in wishful thinking.

Dems

The Boston Globe:

Democrats moving to the left on war

Define stance as GOP courts the party base

By Susan Milligan, Globe Staff  | May 17, 2007

WASHINGTON -- All four Democratic senators running for president voted yesterday to advance a measure that would cut off funding for the Iraq war by March 2008, a reversal of the lawmakers' 2006 votes on the same issue and a sign of the growing polarization of GOP and Democratic presidential candidates on the war.

Leading Republican contenders have competed mightily to be the strongest supporter of the war, which they described as integral to fighting terrorism.

Meanwhile, the Democrats -- several of whom hedged their positions on the war last year and earlier this year -- are now burnishing their antiwar images with primary voters. While their effort yesterday failed, they are calling for scheduled troop withdrawals and taking other Democratic candidates to task , contending they are too weak on the issue.

"They're all playing to their party bases," said Representative Tom Davis of Virginia, who was among a group of GOP lawmakers who warned the president about public disfavor over the war. But both hard-line positions may get the candidates into trouble, Davis and others said. Several Republican candidates have crafted conditions for their support that would let them break with the Bush administration during the campaign if things fall apart completely in Iraq, but the GOP contenders have largely stood by the president.

Davis said Democrats, for their part, are likely to have "buyer's remorse" if they continue to push for a cut in funding or a forced troop withdrawal; many Americans will accuse them of not supporting the troops. But "there is no question the war is not going well," Davis added, and Republican presidential candidates must make sure their desire to support Bush does not alienate an increasingly antiwar electorate.

28 Weeks Later, the Zombies are Baaaaack!

Both Professor Schaff and myself are ardent fans of the zombie genre.  Tonight I saw 28 Weeks Later with my kids.  It is a very mixed body bag.  The film is a sequel to 28 Days Later, the second most influential zombie movie (after Night of the Living Dead). 28 Weeks was very loud, with a rock video soundtrack, and very bloody.  It featured a lot of frenetic camera motion that grew tiresome as the film progressed.  But I have to admit that it put the viewer into the action.  I found myself physically trying to kick the zombies off the motor boat. 

28 Days Later was a work of twisted genius.  The zombies were not literal zombies, but living persons infected with a virus, unwittingly released from a lab by animal rights activists.  The virus turns an infected person into a raging monster within seconds of infection.  The infected person has only one instinct: to bite and/or throw up on the uninfected, thus spreading the virus.  If all this sounds like fantasy, it isn't.  Except for the speed with which the virus transforms its victims, it's pretty much like rabies. 

The real innovation of 28 Days was the speed with which the infected moved.  Up until that movie, the top speed of your average celluloid zombie was a lurching three miles an hour. A  guy in a wheel chair could outrun them.  But of course the heroes always get cornered by lots of the undead.  Since 28 Days, zombies ten to be faster and a little more deadly than rugby teams. 

Zombie movies are interesting because they vent three fears that are coeval with human society.  The simplest is the fear of the dead.  Another is the fear of contagion. The  last and most interesting is the fear of being around a lot of other people.   Since human beings first started to form groups larger than nuclear families, other people replaced animal predators as our greatest threat.  Any time we are in a crowd, we are outnumbered.  We depend for our security on the reliable behavior of the people around us.  The zombie film exploits that sense of vulnerability by creating a crowd that has no other motive than to devour us. 

I can't recommend 28 Weeks.  There are too many absurd assumptions.  One of them (spoiler alert!) is that the virus spreads from Britain to France.  That's absurd because in France, who would notice?

Socialized Medicine II

Anna, at Dakota Women, announces that she is leaving our fine state to seek an advanced degree in history.  I have enjoyed our exchanges and I wish her well.  I hope she continues to post at DW. 

She has a thoughtful response to my recent post on the poor outlook for Canadian style health care in America. 

Over at SDP they're terrified of the SOCIALIZED MEDICINE. As probably the only person participating in the Dakota political blogosphere who has actual experience with these big, scary, foreign government-sponsored healthcare programs (in Norway, the most evil of all the welfare states), I have to say that a lot of these fears are unfounded. I don't know if universal health care through the government is the answer - truly, I don't - but I also find the huge numbers of un-or-under-insured people in this country pretty shameful. I know it's crazy to think that a medical emergency shouldn't lead to bankruptcy and financial ruin, but there you have it.

I reply that I might be terrified of socialized medicine except that the point of my article was that a universal failure in the U.S. politically speaking.  My post focused on its failure in Illinois.  I remind Anna that back when Congress was last in Democratic hands, and the President was also a Democrat, the attempt to institute socialized medicine was a political disaster. 

But Anna and I are largely in agreement on the issue.  She isn't sure that big government health care is the solution.  I am pretty sure that it isn't.  We both think that some way should be found to ensure that medical emergencies do not bankrupt families.  But I suspect that the dream of making the U.S. health care system more like that of Canada (or Norway) retards our search for a viable policy. 

Voluptuaries Without Heart

If you are interested in the discussion below, listen to the Dennis Prager radio program with Benjamin Barber that discusses Barber's new book, Consumed: How Markets Corrupt Children, Infantilize Adults, and Swallow Citizens Whole.   You can find the program here.  Scroll down.  The discussion aired Tuesday, May 15 and is entitled "Consumed." 

Speaking Of Assaults On Reason

Time magazine excerpts Al Gore's book The Assault on Reason today.  In this blurb from his book, Al Gore looks at the American people and he doesn't like what he sees.  We are too busy distracting ourselves with games, gadgets and mind numbing television and not spending enough time being active citizens.  I, with some reservations, think Gore is onto something.  Here are some point by point critiques of Gore's article.

While American television watchers were collectively devoting 100 million hours of their lives each week to [tabloid stories], our nation was in the process of more quietly making what future historians will certainly describe as a series of catastrophically mistaken decisions on issues of war and peace, the global climate and human survival, freedom and barbarity, justice and fairness. For example, hardly anyone now disagrees that the choice to invade Iraq was a grievous mistake. Yet, incredibly, all of the evidence and arguments necessary to have made the right decision were available at the time and in hindsight are glaringly obvious.

How convenient, one might say, that reason, cold calculating reason, should inevitably confirm every one of Al Gore's policy views.  Perhaps those who disagree with Mr. Gore, say on the war in Iraq, also had reasons, sound and defensible reasons.  Even if the war in Iraq was a "grievous mistake," was that as easily foreseeable as Mr. Gore believes?  And perhaps, sometimes, reason errs.  Gore continues:

Radio, the Internet, movies, cell phones, iPods, computers, instant messaging, video games and personal digital assistants all now vie for our attention—but it is television that still dominates the flow of information. According to an authoritative global study, Americans now watch television an average of 4 hours and 35 minutes every day—90 minutes more than the world average. When you assume eight hours of work a day, six to eight hours of sleep and a couple of hours to bathe, dress, eat and commute, that is almost three-quarters of all the discretionary time the average American has.

In the world of television, the massive flows of information are largely in only one direction, which makes it virtually impossible for individuals to take part in what passes for a national conversation. Individuals receive, but they cannot send. They hear, but they do not speak. The "well-informed citizenry" is in danger of becoming the "well-amused audience."

Are we in danger of being an "Idiocracy"?  Gore may be on to something, although how he intends to combat this problem is not clear.  Gore sees the American populace as distracted, addled, and easily manipulated.  To combat this, Gore suggests a rule of reason:

In order to reclaim our birthright, we Americans must resolve to repair the systemic decay of the public forum. We must create new ways to engage in a genuine and not manipulative conversation about our future. We must stop tolerating the rejection and distortion of science. We must insist on an end to the cynical use of pseudo-studies known to be false for the purpose of intentionally clouding the public's ability to discern the truth. Americans in both parties should insist on the re-establishment of respect for the rule of reason.

No objection here, as far as it goes, although one can already anticipate how reason will once again endorse Al Gore's policy preferences.  Does Gore realize that reason is clouded by prejudice and self-interest, and also reason does not speak with one clear voice?

What is the solution?  Not education, civic or otherwise; Gore rejects both as inadequate:

So the remedy for what ails our democracy is not simply better education (as important as that is) or civic education (as important as that can be)...

The solution is open discourse, especially that on the Internet.  And that requires...more government regulation:

But the Internet must be developed and protected, in the same way we develop and protect markets—through the establishment of fair rules of engagement and the exercise of the rule of law. The same ferocity that our Founders devoted to protect the freedom and independence of the press is now appropriate for our defense of the freedom of the Internet. The stakes are the same: the survival of our Republic. We must ensure that the Internet remains open and accessible to all citizens without any limitation on the ability of individuals to choose the content they wish regardless of the Internet service provider they use to connect to the Web.

How odd that the future of the Republic depends on government regulation of the Internet.  Am I missing something?  Are websites being shut down by their greedy corporate service providers, thus requiring government intervention and regulation?  The only websites I know of that are being shut down are the ones shut down by the government because the sites' political speech do not conform to the dictates of our federal campaign finance law.

I commend Gore for his defense of human reason.  I hope he recognizes that the assault on reason today exists mostly in the left-wing dominated academy where post-modernism says reason means nothing while perspective and narrative mean everything (thus the multiculturalism fetish).  There is a right-wing assault on reason, to be sure, from some quarters of the religious right, but one should not confuse questioning the moral limits of science with the questioning of the scientific method itself.  If one is interested in left-wing assaults on science and reason, check out these posts from a recent discussion on NRO, here, here, here, and here.

More Gas

Don't miss George Will on the feckless Nancy Pelosi making an assault on reason when it comes to gas prices.  Isn't this typical?  Government helps to create a problem through its own policies and then must create more policy to make up for those problems.  Also see this Star-Tribune piece on how some are pleased with higher gas prices, including environmentalists. 

For Jim Erkel, land use and transportation director for the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, the rising cost of tanking up could ultimately change the direction of community growth. At some point the prices will start to dampen enthusiasm for driving, Erkel said. Fewer car trips mean less air pollution and may discourage people from chewing up green space by moving ever farther from the metro core, he said.

Dobrila Stancevic, 52, recently moved from Eagan to Minneapolis so she wouldn't have to drive as much. For the past two weeks, she has ridden a bicycle to her substitute teaching jobs in Mendota Heights, and has tried to persuade many of her colleagues to do the same, for the sake of fitness, the environment and other reasons.

As far as rising gas prices, Stancevic said, "To be honest with you, I hope they keep going up, because I think people are driving too much."

Many on the environmental left, including Al Gore, used to call for higher taxes on gas to dissuade people from driving and persuade them to use mass transit. It's nice to hear some of them saying so publicly, while their leaders demagogue the issue. 

Bloomberg For Pres?

Dave Kranz wants to believe that maybe liberal Republican Michael Bloomberg, mayor of New York, will make an independent run for president, spoiling the day for Republicans.  How about we hear the opinion of someone who actually lives in New York, John Podhoretz:

[The silly story of the day] is that Michael Bloomberg is supposedly ready to spend $1 billion to get himself some presidential votes. It's silly because there's really no reason to believe it's true. And it's silly because the whole idea of a presidential run for him makes no sense. It's very clear why it would help Bloomberg for people (especially in New York, where he is now in his lame-duck second term as mayor) to think he might run — because it gives him even more standing. But that doesn't mean he's actually taking the whole thing so seriously.

Look, there's a reason Michael Bloomberg is the richest man in New York. It's because he's not the type to blow a billion dollars on a fantasy. When he spent $76 million to win the mayoralty and another comparable amount to get reelected, he did so with a very specific and workable game plan for the money. Here he would just be lighting a match to the cash.

When Ross Perot ran in 1992, he had two very specific aims in mind: He wanted to talk about the budget deficit, and he wanted to screw George Bush the Elder, who he had convinced himself had done something to disrupt his daughter's wedding. He had nothing of moment to say about the budget deficit except that it was bad, and he quit the race when he thought Clinton had it in the bag, only to reenter it when Clinton appeared to stumble a bit in September.

Bloomberg has no such passion driving him. He has very little passion at all, which is why he has been a workmanlike mayor of New York City who has succeeded because he kept in place the policies of his predecessor.

Why can't Bloomberg win? First, because independents can't win. Second, because he's a Jew.Third, because he's too short. Fourth, becasue he's way, way, way too rich. Fifth, because, I mean, come on. Sixth, because, I mean, really.

Note this quote from Joel Rosenthal:

"The No. 1 issue on voters minds, though they do not often express it, is that the government does not work. Consequently, Republicans face a very high bar to win the presidential election," he said.

If the government doesn't work, does that hurt the Democrats, the party of government, rather than the Republicans, the party of small government? 

Hub City Rules

I notice that Sioux Falls had 15% turn out for its school election Tuesday.  If you'll recall, Brown County turned out 45% for its beef plant vote about a month ago.  What I am trying to say is that the people of Brown County are better than the people of Minnehaha County.   

Argus Leader

SD Straight Talk:  "I have learned in life and in especially in politics that there are those people who get ahead by being for something and improvement and there are those who seek to get ahead by being against.  The Argus Leader generally but not exclusively is against something or someone."

GOP Debate

I have now watched last night's Republican presidential debate.  First thing to note, as many of the participants did, the FOX performance was far superior to the atrocious Chris Matthews and MSNBC.  Thus it is disappointing that for stupid political reasons the Democrats will not appear on FOX, although FOX is clearly the superior cable news outlet.  It is hard to imagine a more professional team than Britt Hume, Chris Wallace, and Wendell Goler. 

On substance I'd say that Giuliani had a good night.  McCain still is a little too much like your crazy uncle, and every time I see Mitt Romney I find myself waiting for him to say, "Rod, tell us who the next contestant is on The Price Is Right."  I also continue to be impressed by Mike Huckabee and Duncan Hunter.  On the other hand, Jim Gilmore, Tommy Thompson and Tom Tancredo really have no business being in this race.

Ron Paul is another matter. He is getting beat up over his statement last night that US bombing of Iraq inspired the 9/11 attacks.  Giuliani reacted strongly, as Paul seemed to be blaming the US for the 9/11 attacks.  There is a problem with the protestation against Paul: he happens to be right, in a certain manner of speaking.  If you watch the debate (and FOX has a link off of this news story)  Paul is clearly referencing Osama Bin Laden's own statements about 9/11 which point to US intervention in Iraq in the 1990s  as justification for terrorist attacks against America.  So Paul is factually correct.  But he does draw the wrong lesson from this fact.  He argues that America should withdraw from the world and thus will be on friendlier terms with rival powers.  He indicates that the Islamic terrorists attack us because of what we did in the 1990s, not who we are.  Bernard Lewis disputes this notion in today's Wall Street Journal.  If we follow Ron Paul's foreign policy, we allow other weaker and less benign nations to set our policy and to define justice for the world.  His policy of non-intervention turns a blind eye to injustice and threats to American interests until they are a direct threat to the American mainland.  That suggests a complacency toward evil that does not become a great power and an ignorance of the fact that catching evil before it metastasizes is often key to eradicating it (classic case: the appeasement of Hitler only made him more aggressive).   The problem with Ron Paul is not that he is "blaming America first," but that he does not understand the nature of evil nor, in what would require another long blog post, the US Constitution.   

Iraq War Funding Update

The New York Times:

Congressional Democratic leaders signaled today that they were ready to give ground to end an impasse with President Bush over war spending after the Senate soundly rejected a Democratic plan to block money for major combat operations in Iraq beginning next spring.

The 67-to-29 vote against the proposal demonstrated that a significant majority of senators remained unwilling to demand a withdrawal of forces despite their own misgivings and public unease over the war.

Forty-seven Republicans, one independent and 19 Democrats opposed the plan drafted by Senator Russell D. Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin, which would have limited spending mainly to counterterrorism and the training of Iraqi troops after March 31, 2008.

The margin also illustrated the divide among Democrats over how far to go in challenging Mr. Bush over the war. All four Democratic senators seeking the presidential nomination, including Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, were among the 29 who backed the proposal. Among those opposed were Democratic leaders on military policy like Carl Levin of Michigan, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, and Jack Reed of Rhode Island, a former Army officer.

Idol Chat

I have nothing to say about the GOP debate.  I only caught the last half hour because, well, I was watching American Idol and then took the dog for a walk.  So let's talk about the most important issue facing American:  who is going to win American Idol. 

Jordin had a tough night.  If I were selecting someone to go to a conservatory for voice lessons, it'd be Jordin.  But despite her great pipes, she is not a great performer.  Anyone who can't knock "She Works Hard For Her Money" out of the park should not win American Idol.

Blake is annoying, so it kills me to say that he has what it takes to win.  His voice is good enough.  Unlike Jordin, he knows how to sell a song.  As Simon noted last night, Blake actually looks like he is having fun. Sure he is a poseur.  Sure he mugs to the camera.  Sure he performs the same dance moves over and over.  Sure that move where he looks back and then snaps his head to look at the camera is enough to want to throw a brick through the TV.  Sure, the beat boxing has become a joke.  But at least he is interesting to watch and listen to.

Melinda. If there is justice it won't even be close.  Watch out America, Melinda Doolittle is your next star.  She has guts.  She's got a killer voice.  She can be both sassy and soft.  No other Idol contestant could pull off a Whitney Houston ballad and a Tina Turner funk number in the same show.  She is a professional amongst really good amateurs.  Go Melinda, our next American Idol.

Oh, and I have the debate recorded, so I will watch it later.  For now, let me just say that Ron Paul is the Sanjaya of the GOP field.   

Update: Melinda got voted off tonight, proving once again that I am right: democracy sucks. 

Gas Hell

Yes, it looks like we are at record highs for gas prices and those prices while rise even higher into the summer.  Some are now demanding action:

"It is time for Congress and the administration to do their part to help alleviate the pain consumers are feeling at the pump," said Mark Cooper, director of research for the federation. At Wednesday's hearing, he plans to call on the federal government to provide greater oversight over oil industry market practices, create strategic refinery and product reserves, and enact policies that promote reduced oil consumption.

What, precisely, does "greater oversight over oil industry market practices" mean?  I take it to mean regulation and price controls.  This once again sets up a bogeyman to blame for what is a perfectly natural phenomena best explained by the rules of supply and demand you learned in high school economics.  We also already have strategic reserves and the president already outlined proposals to reduce demand in his State of the Union speech.

This very same article once again points out that refinery capacity is largely to blame for the price spike:

Consumers may suspect that oil refiners are colluding in the recent price spike, but analysts say the real culprit is an unprecedented number of refinery accidents and maintenance outages this spring _ combined with drivers' rising demand for fuel. Most prominent of the outages was a February fire that shut down Valero Energy Corp.'s 170,000 barrel-per-day McKee refinery in Sunray, Texas, for months.

"If you just count incidents, there are more this year than there have been in previous years," said Mike Conner, a specialist on refinery operations at the EIA.

As a result, gasoline inventories fell by more than half, to 93.5 million barrels in the week ended May 4, from 205.1 million barrels in the same week in 2006 and 214.7 million barrels in 2005, according to government figures.

Shocking.  High demand plus low supply equals higher prices.  If the government wants to do something about oil prices, it seems to me there are three policies that would have a significant impact.  First, the Congress could cut gasoline taxes (as opposed to Minnesota, which would be increasing gas taxes were it not for Gov. Pawlenty's veto pen).  But it should be recognized that a cut in gas taxes likely means a reduction in highway money, one of Congress's favorite funds for pork dispersal.  Second, Congress could ease regulations on refineries to allow them to more easily expand.  But these regulations are environmental in nature and in the days of global warming frenzy, Congress is unlikely to want to appear as if they are going easy on polluters.  Lastly, Congress could offer subsidies for hybrid vehicles to encourage consumers to by more fuel efficient vehicles.  Many people I talk to (including myself!) are considering a hybrid for their next automobile purchase.  Perhaps a little monetary incentive from the government would tip them even stronger in that direction.  This is the only option that carries no political cost. 

It is easy to demonize the oil companies, especially when the policies that might actually make an impact are so politically unpalatable.  So create a bogeyman to distract the people from the fact that you are doing nothing. 

Canadian Style Health Care: an idea with a great future behind it

Universal health care is one of the big ideas that swell the sails of liberal democrats in Congress.  It's easy to forget that they failed to institute it when last they had a President and a Congress under their control.  Things have not gone better at the state level, as the Wall Street Journal notes. 

"Universal" government health care has once again returned as a political cause, with many Democrats believing it's the key to White House victory in 2008. They might want to study last week's news from Illinois, where Democratic Governor Rod Blagojevich's tax increase to finance health care became the political rout of the year.

The Democratic House in Springfield killed the proposal, 107-0, after Mr. Blagojevich came out against his own idea when it became clear he was going to be humiliated. Only a month earlier he had said he was prepared to wage "the fight of the century" in defense of his plan to impose a $7.6 billion "gross receipts tax" on Illinois businesses.

Never mind how Canadian style health care plays in Peoria.  If it can't make it in Illinois, where will it succeed?

A funny thing happened on this road to Canadian health care. The state's more rational Democrats revolted, arguing it would drive businesses out of Illinois. Chicago Mayor Richard Daley was an early opponent, and Democratic Lieutenant Governor Patrick Quinn was cool to it. House Speaker Michael Madigan very publicly withheld his support and last week came out against the tax hike.

The Tax Foundation estimated that Mr. Blagojevich's proposal would have been the largest state tax hike in the last decade, as a share of state general fund revenue--at 27% nearly double the next closest, which was Nevada's 14% increase in 2004. In per capita terms, the tax hike would average about $550 per Illinois resident.

This, of course, is exactly what happened with Hillary Care.  Everyone was in favor of it, until they saw the bill. 

One lesson here is that it is far easier to talk about "progressive" political causes than to pay for them without doing larger economic harm. In today's global economy, the margin for policy mistakes is smaller, even for individual states. Mr. Daley may appreciate this better than Mr. Blagojevich because he knows the consequences of bad policy will harm Chicago long after the Governor retires to private equity, or some other "fat cat" job.

As for national Democrats, Presidential candidate John Edwards has already proposed a huge tax increase to pay for national health care. At least he's honest about what such promises require, but we doubt it will help his Presidential prospects. Illinois Senator Barack Obama has been silent on his Governor's tax implosion, but someone should get him on the record. And Hillary Clinton, well, we can't wait to see how "universal" her promises will be.

The current Congress is a do-nothing Congress for several reasons.  One of them is that they have no idea what to do.  Or to put it more precisely, they have an idea, but it never ever works.  They learn nothing, and forget nothing. 

Fairwell to Falwell

Jerry Falwell passed away today, at 73, and if his view of the afterlife was sound, and he was indeed the "giant of faith" that his supporters claim, then he now knows more than you or I know about the mysteries of the universe. 

Falwell was an ambiguous sort of person.  I first saw him, many years ago, in a talk show interview on TV.  He was speaking for the Moral Majority, and he spoke very reasonably.  I remember thinking that if this was the Christian Right, then America was in good shape indeed.  Sometime later I saw him on his religious show, and he was wearing quite a different hat.  He was wild-eyed and apocalyptic, and left me feeling like I should throw some coins into a guitar case or something.  Falwell was a bridge between evangelical Protestant faith, and secular politics, but it was clear that the traffic didn't flow evenly in both directions.

The last time I remember seeing him was in a film on Creation Science vs. Evolution.  Wearing his preacher hat, he said: "If man evolved, then God can't have created him.  If man did not fall, then Christ cannot have redeemed him."  I am going from memory on that quote, but I am sure I am close.  I think Falwell was wrong on both counts.  Evolution is as much a part of creation as gravity, and redemption is about getting from where we are to where we want to be, regardless of how we got here in the first place. 

Falwell had a tremendous impact on American politics.  He brought socially conservative Christians out of political apathy to swell the ranks of the Republican electorate.  The late Republican majorities in Congress, as well as the Presidency of George W. Bush, would not have happened without that voting block.  Those who think that more Americans should participate in politics should give him his due.  They won't. 

Falwell was an old school Baptist to be certain, but he was more reasonable and charitable than his enemies would allow.  Some years ago he made peace with a former follower and preacher who had come out of the closet.  That was an act of Christian charity which ought to count for something. 

E3BioFuels

The E3 BioFuels firm out of Kansas is considering two construction sites for a plant in South Dakota, which has the ability to create as many as two-hundred new jobs.  The company combines livestock and ethanol production, using the biogas to run the ethanol plant and the ethanol byproduct is fed to the livestock:

A Kansas firm that combines livestock and ethanol to produce renewable energy is considering two sites in eastern South Dakota for a future plant, its CEO said Monday.

The company, E3 BioFuels, operates such a plant just west of Omaha, which is the first of its kind in the nation.

E3's Genesis plant uses waste from its 28,000-head cattle feedlot to produce biogas, which powers the ethanol plant.

In turn, a byproduct from the ethanol is fed to the livestock.

The plant produces about 25 million gallons of ethanol per year.

The South Dakota plant would produce about twice the amount of ethanol as Genesis, E3's CEO Dennis Langley said.

Both South Dakota sites under consideration are in the eastern half of the state, but Langley is not able to say exactly where because of confidentiality agreements.

"I'm certain some time in the near future, there will be a facility in South Dakota," Langley said. "We hope it would be one of our next ones."

The operation could mean 180 to 200 jobs, but that number could vary depending on whether the livestock component is a cattle feedlot such as the Genesis plant or a dairy operation, Langley said.

Poll Blogging

A new Gallup poll shows the Congress approval rating is down to 29%, while President Bush's approval rating remains at a steady 33%.

NYT: Johnson "should be back at work before long"

The New York Times:

Senator Tim Johnson of South Dakota is preparing for a return to the Senate after a brain hemorrhage in December, and fellow Democrats say they fully expect Mr. Johnson to be a candidate for a third term next year.

Colleagues said that Mr. Johnson, who left a rehabilitation facility late last month and is now at home, should be back at work before long. Making sure his campaign did not fall behind financially while he was recovering, dozens of Senate Democrats have held fundraising events on his behalf and tapped their own supporters. His campaign reported raising $633,000 the first three months of the year, leaving him $1.2 million in the bank as of March 31.

The political delicacy of Mr. Johnson’s condition has also chilled potential Republican opposition in the state that turned the Democratic leader Tom Daschle out of the Senate in 2004. Gov. Mike Rounds, considered the most formidable Republican challenger, has shown little interest to date and other potential Republican candidates have had to tread lightly as well.

Jerry Falwell, RIP

Jerry Falwell, dead at 73. 

Abortion, Giuliani, and GOP Politics

Multiple articles today discuss Rudy Giuliani and the role of abortion in GOP presidential politics. This New Republic piece (free registration required), suggests that Giuliani hearkens a new age of post social conservative Republicanism:
 

Many observers believe Giuliani's early success is the result of his calculated move rightward--a savvy effort to trick conservative voters into believing he is really one of them. But there is another possibility, one that assumes a bit more intelligence on the part of conservative voters like DePass: What if we are witnessing not Rudy moving toward the rest of the Republican Party, but rather the Republican Party moving toward Rudy? What if the salience of a certain kind of social conservatism is now in decline among GOP voters and a new set of conservative principles are emerging to take its place? What if Giuilianism represents the future of the Republican Party?

iuliani is the beneficiary of an upheaval within the Republican electorate--an upheaval that was catalyzed by September 11 but is becoming apparent only now, as the GOP hosts its first primary battle since the terrorist attacks. In brief, among Republican voters, the litmus test issues of abortion and gay marriage have been losing traction, subordinated to the Iraq war and terrorism. According to the Pew Research Center, 31 percent of GOP voters name Iraq as their top priority, and 17 percent choose terrorism and security. Just 7 percent name abortion and 1 percent name gay marriage.

E.J. Dionne asks whether pro-lifers will be as hard on Giuliani as they were on Kerry.  Joe Knippenberg has a response.  Jack Kelly suggests that the war on terror will drive his voting more than abortion will. 

I suppose much of the attention paid to this issue and this man has to do with whether the GOP really is a "big tent" and can accept a man as "progressive" as is Giuliani on social issues.  One detects, though, a bit too much protestation.  Notice the attention paid to Mitt Romney as to whether he is really pro-life (to which Romney has a great response).  Did anyone ever question whether former pro-life politicians like Al Gore, Dick Durbin, Dick Gephardt and Jesse Jackson were sincere in their support for legalized abortion? 

The attention paid to Giuliani, abortion and GOP voters is yet another attempt by the media to harp on the GOP and social conservatives as intolerant on social issues.  Should Giuliani fail to gain the nomination, the story is already written: it was those darn theocrats and their intolerance on abortion and homosexuality.  But let me ask you a question: if there was a highly competent Democratic candidate who had a solid progressive record except he was staunchly pro-life and supported the Federal Marriage Amendment, where do you think he'd be polling among Democratic primary voters?  How many delegates do you think that candidate would get?  In fact, what are the chances of that candidate even getting the chance to speak at the Democratic National Convention?  If the past is prologue, the answers to those questions are zero, zero, and damn near zero.  Which party is closed minded on social issues? 

 

Life At Pine Ridge

Did you catch this depressing story about Pine Ridge Reservation?  Are there any other kind of stories about the Reservations? 

With a 10-year, $20 million grant from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, officials in empowerment zones were supposed to use those dollars as seed money to leverage other government and private money to create jobs, build safe and affordable housing, improve education standards, address drug and alcohol abuse, and meet the basic needs of families.

There were successes, empowerment zone executive director David "Tally" Plume says. Money from the empowerment zone helped to pay for fire equipment on the reservation. It bought computers for youth programs, and software for schools. It helped to build a shelter for homeless veterans, a new jail, and the SuAnne Big Crow Boys and Girls Club.

Still, unemployment is 75 percent, the same as during Clinton's visit. Seven out of 10 students drop out of high school, as they have for years.

It's almost enough to make you think that throwing money at the problem won't help much. Perhaps there are some problems that are not of monetary nature. 

Disaster Aid

Gov. Rounds has asked the federal government for disaster aid for the northeast part of the state, hard hit by floods a little over a week ago. 

PIERRE, S.D. (AP) -- The governor has asked for a presidential disaster declaration for homes and businesses in a dozen South Dakota counties hit by storms and flooding May 4-5.

If approved, it would free up programs that include Federal Emergency Management Agency grants for basic needs and emergency assistance, Small Business Administration disaster loans, crisis counseling, disaster unemployment assistance and disaster legal services.

It would help get people back on their feet, Gov. Mike Rounds said.

"However, any assistance provided by the federal government is not designed to make people whole again," he said.

The storms included some tornadoes and heavy rain. Brown County and Aberdeen were especially hard hit by flooding after getting nearly 8 inches of rain.

Counties in the governor's request are Aurora, Beadle, Brown, Clark, Davison, Hanson, Hutchinson, Jerauld, Miner, Sanborn, Spink and Yankton.

Rounds said he may follow up with another disaster request for damage to roads, bridges and other public facilities.

Rant III: Free Speech is Okay, Unless You Favor Gun Rights

Whenever I am in the Twin Cities, I look for a copy of City Pages.  You can almost always find a pile of them when you walk into any brew pub or Indian restaurant.  It contains a lot of information about events in the cities, as well as cartoons and some interesting journalism.  The politics is hard urban left, and always a bit nutty.  But now and again you find a surprise.  This piece, by Ward Rubrecht, is a surprise.  It concerns the case of Troy Scheffler, a Hamline University grad student. 

A gun-toting concealed carry permit holder, he rarely leaves home without his sidearm. He feels safer in the rough areas of town when he's armed, though he knows not everyone feels safe around him. A couple of days ago, he got pulled over for speeding. When the cop noticed the concealed carry permit, he ordered Scheffler out of the car, patted him down, and searched his car.

Apparently the exercise of legal rights in the cities is probable cause for Minneapolis's finest.  But it was Mr. Scheffler's views on the Virginia Tech tragedy that got him in trouble with Hamline's administration.

In the aftermath, officials at Hamline University sought to comfort their 4,000 students. David Stern, the vice president for academic and student affairs, sent a campus-wide email offering extra counseling sessions for those who needed help coping.

Scheffler had a different opinion of how the university should react. Using the email handle "Tough Guy Scheffler," Troy fired off his response: Counseling wouldn't make students feel safer, he argued. They needed protection. And the best way to provide it would be for the university to lift its recently implemented prohibition against concealed weapons.

"Ironically, according to a few VA Tech forums, there are plenty of students complaining that this wouldn't have happened if the school wouldn't have banned their permits a few months ago," Scheffler wrote. "I just don't understand why leftists don't understand that criminals don't care about laws; that is why they're criminals. Maybe this school will reconsider its repression of law-abiding citizens' rights."

I don't happen to share Mr. Scheffler's view that right to carry laws are the best way to protect students against random acts of violence.  But I do think he has a right to express such views, and to petition authorities on this matter.  Hamline University does not agree with me.

Hamline officials took swift action. On April 23, Scheffler received a letter informing him he'd been placed on interim suspension. To be considered for readmittance, he'd have to pay for a psychological evaluation and undergo any treatment deemed necessary, then meet with the dean of students, who would ultimately decide whether Scheffler was fit to return to the university.

The consequences were severe. Scheffler wasn't allowed to participate in a final group project in his course on Human Resources Management, which will have a big impact on his final grade. Even if he's reinstated, the suspension will go on his permanent record, which could hurt the aspiring law student.

This is a flagrant violation of freedom of speech and freedom of petition.  But freedom is not what the modern university is about, is it? 

More Limits on Political Speech

While I am in rant mode, let me get this one in.  The Democratic majority in Congress has been devoting so much time and energy to embarrassing President Bush over Iraq (though no time at all, so far as one can see, to forging a policy of their own) that they are in danger of not passing anything at all.  So now they are trying to rush through a bill to restrict lobbying.  In matters of legislation, speed conceals things that ought to be thoroughly discussed.  Here is John Fund, of the Wall Street Journal:

The legislation may be amended on the floor to restrict grassroots groups that encourage citizens to contact members of Congress. The amendment, pushed by Rep. Marty Meehan of Massachusetts, would require groups that organize such grassroots campaigns to register as "lobbyists" and file detailed quarterly reports on their donors and activities. The law would apply to any group that took in at least $100,000 in any given quarter for "paid communications campaigns" aimed at mobilizing the public.

So groups that encourage citizen participation would be required to "register" with the government, and name names.  There is nothing wrong with this except that it is clearly unconstitutional.

The First Amendment specifically prohibits Congress from abridging "the right of the people . . . to petition the Government for redress of grievances." The Supreme Court twice ruled in the 1950s that grassroots communication isn't "lobbying activity," and is fully protected by the First Amendment. Among the groups that believe the Meehan proposal would trample on the First Amendment are the National Right to Life Committee and the American Civil Liberties Union. The idea goes too far even for Sen. John McCain, who voted to strip a similar provision from a Senate lobbying reform bill last January.

There is good news and bad news here.  The good news is that, in the United States, attempts to control political speech by such means always fail.  Trying to keep money out of politics is like trying to keep water out of your basement in Aberdeen: the sump pump is a way to live with failure.  Set the limit at $100,000?  A group that reaches the threshold will simply break into two fifty grand a piece grass roots organizations. 

The bad news is that this creates a Byzantine system where it is ever more difficult to tell who is doing what.

Neo-Puritanism Triumphs in Minnesota

It has been a busy weekend.  I was in the Twin Cities Saturday and Sunday, to see my daughter walk across the stage at the UofM.  Monday morning I arrived at Chamberlain, SD, to attend to a meeting of profs as part of the Yellowstone Institute.  Later this summer I will spend a week in Yellowstone. I promise to post some photos.  We get to see wolves. 

The big story in the St. Paul Pioneer Press is the soon to be enacted "Freedom to Breathe" law in Minnesota. 

Minnesota is on the verge of outlawing smoking in bars, restaurants and other establishments after the Legislature approved a statewide smoking ban.

The "Freedom to Breathe Act" survived its toughest test, a vote in the House where a majority had previously supported limited smoking in bars. It now heads to Gov. Tim Pawlenty, who intends to sign it.

Minnesota will become the 20th state to prohibit smoking in bars and restaurants. Violations will carry fines of up to $300 for smokers and permissive proprietors. The ban would start Oct. 1.

The bill passed the House 81-48 early Saturday, about 12 hours after the Senate approved it 43-21.

The ministers of public morals are going to make all of us more righteous whether we like it or not.  But bear in mind that it isn't smoking they are opposed to.  Most of the legislators who support such bans would be all too happy to legalize marijuana, and in fact have been about the business of creating legal marijuana bars under the color of medical use.  It is only smoking they disapprove of that is to be banned. 

Cigarette smoking is a judgment call.  I think people should be allowed to frequent or work at  places where alcohol is served and cigarettes are smoked.  The neo-Puritans don't care what the less righteous think.  Cigarette smokers are an unprotected class of sinners, and the righteous are free to smite them.  No doubt we shall all be better people for it. 

 

Top Taliban Commander Killed

The New York Times reports that Mullah Dadullah, a top field commander in the Taliban, reached room temperature after fighting NATO forces in Helmand:

Afghan government officials showed the body of Mullah Dadullah, the top operational commander for the Taliban insurgency, to reporters here Sunday morning, saying he had been killed in a joint operation of Afghan and coalition forces.

Mr. Dadullah, an amputee, was recognizable in part from his missing leg and black beard. He had been shot in the head and in the stomach.

He was one of the most wanted Taliban leaders, responsible for numerous assassinations, beheadings and terrorist campaigns, and was thought to be behind many of the suicide bombings that have killed or wounded hundreds of Afghans in the last year and a half.

He was seen as probably the most important operational commander, organizing groups of fighters, weapons supplies and finances across much of the south and southeast of Afghanistan.

Huh?

This is what I call cryptic.  Wait and see. 

What's The Matter With Kansas

A close look at this Powerline post and this one indicates that the supposed call from Howard Dean to Kansas governor Kathleen Sebelius never happened.  Scott Johnson of Powerline suggests that the idea of the DNC suing people over this matter is an abuse of the law and thus constitutes thuggery on behalf of the Democratic National Committee.  On the matter of the law I am not competent to judge, but it does seem a bit of an extreme reaction by a political group. 

Politicizing the Kansas Tornado

Power Line:  "Howard Dean called Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius early one morning after the tornado had destroyed the town of Greensburg, Kansas. According to Quinn, DNC Chairman Howard Dean discussed with Governor Seblius what to say about the tornado and how to blame the war in Iraq and the Bush administration for a slow response to the aftermath."

Political Pressure and Historical Writing

This Washington Post story is a good example of how political pressure affects history writing:

Filmmaker Ken Burns reached an agreement yesterday with two advocacy organizations that have pressured him to amend his World War II documentary to include more material about Latinos' contribution to the American war effort.

The agreement between Burns's production company, Florentine Films, and the two Latino groups appears crafted to enable both sides to declare victory in the long-running war over "The War," which is scheduled to air on PBS in September.

...

Burns had faced mounting pressure from activist groups, elected officials and several corporate underwriters over the lack of Latino representation in the film, which focuses on the wartime experiences of people in four U.S. towns.

Burns yesterday called the new content "an additional layer of storytelling" that does not tamper with "my vision" for telling the story of the war. But he offered no new details about how it would be used.

Several advocates who met with Burns this week said they were pleased that their concerns were finally being addressed. In an interview, Antonio Gil Morales, national commander of the American GI Forum, a Latino veterans group formed just after World War II, called it "a win-win situation for Ken Burns and our members."

Burns repeatedly insisted that "The War" was finished and that he would not reedit his work, characterizing it as an issue of practicality and artistic integrity. But he acknowledged last month that his film had overlooked the estimated half-million people of Latino descent who served in the U.S. military during the war. To address that, he agreed last month to shoot new footage and hired a Latino filmmaker to help him produce interviews and other material from the Latino perspective.

Poll: Congress Approval Rating Same as Bush

UK Guardian:

People think the Democratic-led Congress is doing just as dreary a job as President Bush, following four months of bitter political standoffs that have seen little progress on Iraq and a host of domestic issues.

An AP-Ipsos poll also found that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is a more popular figure than the president and her colleagues on Capitol Hill, though she faces a gender gap in which significantly more women than men support her.

The survey found only 35 percent approve of how Congress is handling its job, down 5 percentage points in a month. That gives lawmakers the same bleak approval rating as Bush, who has been mired at about that level since last fall, including his dip to a record low for the AP-Ipsos poll of 32 percent last January.

"It's mostly Iraq'' plus a lack of progress in other areas, said Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla., who heads the House GOP's campaign committee. "These are not good numbers for an incumbent, and it doesn't matter if you have an R or a D next to your name."