South Dakota Politics

Herseth Touring Icecaps

Stephanie Herseth Sandlin has joined Speaker Nancy Pelosi for a tour of the polar ice caps.  HT to SDWC:

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and a group of House members are planning to go to Greenland and Europe next week as part of what her critics have dubbed the “Global Warming Tour.”

Pelosi will be joined by Reps. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Hilda Solis (D-Calif.), Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin (D-S.D.), Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.), John Larsen (D-Conn.), Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.), and David Hobson (R-Ohio) on the trip, according to a draft itinerary of the trip circulating among House insiders and obtained by my Crypt-mate, Patrick O'Connor.

...

Pelosi and her group are scheduled to arrive in Greenland on Saturday and after a tour of a glacier (we’re not saying which one for obvious security reasons), she will leave for London, including a dinner at the U.S. embassy there, followed by a stop in Brussels (and Berlin is possible if there’s time). Pelosi and the other lawmakers will hold talks with English and European Union leaders on the issue of global warming and what needs to be done, or even can be done, to counter it.

House Republicans are privately claiming that Pelosi, with this trip in mind, will sign off on a deal for the long-stalled Iraq-funding bill, but the Speaker’s aides say don’t count on it.

"If national security isn't incentive enough to pass a clean bill for the troops before Memorial Day, maybe this junket will finally provide the motivation to do the right thing,” quipped a GOP leadership aide.

For The Veto

Before I run off, let me quickly explain why Prof. Blanchard is wrong on the hate crimes veto.  One of the purposes of the veto is for the president to protect the Constitution from abuse by Congress.  If Congress's reach is exceeding its grasp regarding the hate crimes bill, it is right and proper for the president to veto it.  I reiterate that I have no problem with the content of the bill, but I do believe Congress is usurping what is properly a state power. 

By the way, perfesser, regarding principles, a Groucho Marx quote with which you may be familiar: "Those are my principles. If you don't like them, I have others." 

Best Blog

Why is No Left Turns my favorite blog?  Only on NLT could Peter Lawler post on contraception and then 50 (and counting) comments later we've had a sweeping discussion of nature, science, human suffering, Flannery O'Connor, Walker Percy,  Christ (who needs no hyper link), and Shakespeare.

For those who care, I am going on vacation starting tomorrow.  Posting will be light to non-existent for a while.  You're welcome. 

Hate Crimes Legislation in Congress

Anna at Dakota Women has an interesting post on HR 1592, which I gather expands the federal definition of hate crimes to include "sexual orientation and gender identity."  Professor Schaff supports a veto not on the merits of the classification, but on the fact that it is a state and not a federal issue. Anna has this:

I have no issue whatsoever with saying that I support including sexual orientation and gender identity in hate crime laws, and I don't care if those laws are on the federal or state level. This Montana judge, sentencing a man who was the ringleader of a group who attacked two men they perceived to be gay, hit the nail on the head regarding why hate crime laws are necessary and harsher punishments are entirely appropriate for bias crimes:

The beatings led police to reach out to Missoula's gay community especially, and Deschamps spoke of the widespread fear precipitated by the assaults.

“You are a direct cause of that feeling,” Deschamps said. “You have hurt a lot more people than just the immediate victim in this case.”

People who commit bias crimes are not just attacking a person. They are attacking a race, a gender, a sexual orientation, or a gender identity. So far as I know, beatings and murders aren't protected by the First Amendment.

I agree with Professor Schaff that this is properly a state issue, but I do not think that that is a sufficient reason for a veto.  I agree with Anna that hate crimes laws are a good idea and that it is proper to explicitly include "sexual orientation" in the legal language.  The reason is that predators such as the young men who murdered Matthew Shepard tend to believe that gay persons do not enjoy the protection of the community.  I think it's a good idea to show them that they are very wrong. 

But conservative critics of such laws do have a point. Anna says that "People who commit bias crimes are not just attacking a person. They are attacking a race, a gender, a sexual orientation, or a gender identity."  I don't think it is in fact possible to attack a race, gender, or sexual orientation," except in speech, which is protected by the First Amendment.  Bigoted psychopaths can only attack persons, individually or collectively.  The murder of Matthew Shepard was a crime against that young man, and a crime against the people of Montana.  We don't need to create a new class of victims based on diverse identities in order to come down on those monsters like a ton of bricks. 

Moral Principle and Political Interest in the Abortion Controversey

In my last post I argued that both sides on abortion, pro-choice and pro-life, hold their positions on principle at the expense of political interests.  I present very strong evidence that the abortion effect (the demographic consequences of the abortion rate since 1973) has hurt Democrats (who are almost monolithically pro-choice) and helped Republicans who tend to be pro-life. 

Intrepid reader Miranda, who keeps me honest on the abortion question, sent me this excellent note:

Your post on abortion is reasonable, but I don't think the fact that human beings can pursue "principle" over interest really is all that important unless their principles mean something. Consider the following scenario:

You are on a search committee for a political science professor. One candidate, Dr. Jones, lists Miss Jenkins as a reference. You call her up.

"What can you tell me about Dr. Jones' character, Miss Jenkins?" You ask her.
"He's very principled," she tells you.
"How so?"
"Well, he believes in the principle that everything on this earth belongs to everyone."
"And how has he demonstrated this?"
"Well, during his time of employment with us, he helped himself to the president's furniture, money and ultimately his wife."

If your response was in line with the reasoning in your abortion post, it would probably be something like this:
"Well, some might find that scandalous Mrs. Jenkins, but I think it's important to know that he's principled!"

The point is that, while it's very nice to say people have principles, it really isn't terribly important that they have them, unless they are good ones.

I think in fact that Miranda and I are largely in agreement. I think it is important that human beings can chose principle over interest, because  it means that our motives cannot be reduced to merely economic or political desires.  I think this makes human history both more promising and more dangerous that it would otherwise be. 

But Miranda is surely correct to point out that just because someone is acting out of principle rather than interest doesn't mean that their principles are the right ones.  It is important to know that Dr. Jones, in Miranda's example, is a man of principle and just important to know what that principle is.  It would tell me not to hire him.  It is important to know that suicide bombers who slaughter scores of innocent men, women, and children in a market are acting out of principle, and just as important to know that their principle happens to be evil. 

The steady erosion of the African American population by abortion has benefited Republicans politically.  That is a simple fact.  I suppose that it is also bad for African Americans and for the American people as a whole.  I don't think that this can decide the abortion question, because I think that that comes down to a question of fundamental personal rights: unborn personhood vs. reproductive choice.  But the fact that abortion has pernicious social consequences is not irrelevant to the issue.  Even if I am wrong, and there is a fundamental right to abortion, that doesn't mean that society should not discourage it.  I think that people have a right to eat as much as they want, but I still think we should discourage obesity.  At present the pro-choice movement is generally opposed to anything that a state might do to discourage abortion.  That too suggests the perversity of their principle.

The South Dakota Gorilla

See this from the Wall Street Journal, dateline Elk Point, South Dakota:

In this lush farming community of 1,800 people, everybody's talking about the Gorilla. Except for the handful of people who are trying to keep it a secret.

The mystery has turned some residents into sleuths. They swap tidbits about the Gorilla after Sunday services at the Lutheran church on tree-lined Main Street, or while waiting in line for chili dogs at Ollie's Drive Inn. Others have taken to the Internet, following leads that trail off at multinational companies, Texas consulting firms and mysterious out-of-town executives.

"There have been so many stories," says Barb Bernard, 77 years old, who agreed with her husband to sell options on their 160 acres. "We have no idea what it is."

Residents are amazed that in this small Midwestern town, details haven't leaked out. At least three locals -- board members of the Elk Point Economic Development Corp., which is funded by local businesses as well as the city -- know about the initiative but have signed nondisclosure agreements. South Dakota Gov. Mike Rounds knows the suitor, as do members of the state's economic development office.

Hints have emerged. Farmers say real-estate agents have told them the Gorilla may encompass 5,000 acres -- roughly 8 square miles -- and bring 2,000 permanent, well-paying jobs. Some 10,000 construction workers would be needed over three years. Total price for the plant, the real-estate agents say: $6 billion to $8 billion, a hefty sum in a state whose 2005 economic output was $31 billion.

Locals speculate the land will be used for an oil refinery, or maybe a new Toyota plant. Landowner Tim Irwin, 40, says he successfully started a rumor that it'll be an adult-toy manufacturer. "I don't care what it is," says Scott Bruning, the 42-year-old football coach at Elk Point-Jefferson High School. "As long as it brings me four kids who are about 6-foot-3 and 220 pounds."

The Gorilla is what South Dakotans are calling a huge, multibillion-dollar manufacturing operation that a highly secretive backer wants to build in this remote southeast corner of the state. What locals know is this: Since August or September, three real-estate agents representing an unidentified company have been negotiating with farmers to acquire options to buy swaths of land now used mostly to raise corn and soybeans.

Antiwar Left Upset with Dems War Stance

Roll Call reported yesterday that the antiwar Left is livid over the Democrat's decision to finally fund the Iraq War rather than keep the pressure on the Bush administration to leave Iraq.  Here's the story:

The decision by Democratic leaders to cave in to President Bush’s demands for an Iraq funding bill without timetables for withdrawal or even meaningful troop readiness standards has angered some of the party’s most fervent supporters, who are warning they could mount primary challenges to Members who vote for the war measure.

With groups such as MoveOn.org and Americans Against Escalation in Iraq launching a full-court press to get Members to vote against the Iraq War supplemental, many Democrats — likely including Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) — will vote against the Iraq funding, although several indicated Wednesday that they would support war funding for now.

Eli Pariser, executive director of MoveOn.org Political Action, slammed the deal as “just a blank check for an endless war. ... MoveOn members are asking us to consider all options for Democratic Members of Congress who ran on ending the war but vote for more chaos and more troops in Iraq, including in-district advertising and recruitment of primary challengers.”

Americans Against Escalation in Iraq also urged a “no” vote, saying the group “will use the Congressional recess and the summer to turn the heat up on Members of Congress irrespective of party who continue to support the war — to make it so hot that they are forced to abandon Bush’s war once and for all.”

The House’s most fervent war opponents made it clear that they would vote against the bill and urged others to do so as well.

“It’s giving the president what he wants without holding him to account,” said Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), who had sponsored an amendment calling for an end to the war that received 171 votes. “Maybe we can pull off a miracle and defeat the goddamn thing.”

McGovern said the decision was clearly made by leadership that the White House would spend all of the Memorial Day recess trying to “spin and demagogue” the issue of war funding and that Bush in the end wouldn’t be willing to negotiate.

But McGovern sought to pin the blame on Republicans rather than his fellow Democrats.

“I think people who vote to fund this war need to be held accountable,” he said, but added of MoveOn, “I wish they would go after the Republicans because that’s where the problem is.”

McGovern said he does not see how someone could vote for his amendment to end the war and for the troop-funding amendment. “I guess if you are schizophrenic you can.”

“For people who have run against the war, they see this as the end of the rope,” said Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.), co-chairwoman of the Progressive Caucus. “I feel let down that we’re still in Iraq. I’m going to continue to feel let down until we’re out of there.”

Rep. Artur Davis (D-Ala.) said he was wrestling with how to vote but said MoveOn’s attacks on Democrats weren’t helpful. “I would urge MoveOn and others to recognize that the person who is extending this war is George Bush. ... The focus has got to be on electing a Democratic president,” he said. “If we elect a Democratic president, this war is over.”

Pariser said that wasn’t good enough: “Voters didn’t elect Democrats in 2006 to elect a Democratic president in 2008. They elected Democrats to end the war as they said they would.”

Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Chris Van Hollen (Md.), while not attacking MoveOn directly, appealed for unity.

“I hope however people vote on this issue, people need to understand Democrats have been united in wanting to change the direction in Iraq,” he said, blaming the “rubber-stamp Republicans” for voting with Bush.

Van Hollen said that it was important for Democrats to stay united because Republicans already are showing signs of cracking in their blanket support for the administration’s war policy. Van Hollen added that Democrats would spend the recess trying to make the point that Republicans are the reason why the war will continue, not Democrats.

Republicans made clear that they would support the bill provided that the language, due out after press time Wednesday, was what they have been expecting.

“You drop Murtha [troop readiness standards], you drop withdrawal, the troops win,” said House Republican Conference Chairman Adam Putnam (Fla.).

The amendment would also include language setting benchmarks for the Iraqi government to meet or risk losing some reconstruction aid, although Bush could waive the benchmarks. A second amendment on nearly $20 billion in spending add-ons — including billions for Hurricane Katrina relief, agriculture disaster aid, children’s health insurance, and veterans’ health care along with an increase in the federal minimum wage to $7.25 an hour — was likely to get broad Democratic support.

The Iraq funding and the domestic package will be combined without a final roll call vote and sent to the Senate, where it is expected to be passed without changes.

MoveOn, meanwhile, came under some criticism itself from anti-war Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), who pronounced their latest moves “too little, too late.” Kucinich criticized MoveOn for supporting earlier efforts to fund the war with restrictions, a position that he said allowed Democrats to cede leverage to Bush.

“We should have told the administration you’re not going to get another dime for the war,” Kucinich said. He said that by allowing themselves to get sucked into the argument that failing to fund the war somehow means failing to support the troops, “You could keep funding the war forever.”

Exiting a classified bipartisan briefing on Iraq, Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) said she will vote against the military funding portion of the supplemental, although she had supported earlier versions of the bill.

She declined to provide specific details, noting the briefing with Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte was classified.

“What I am certain about, this is just the beginning,” Schakowsky added. She said Members already have begun to look to the fiscal 2008 Defense appropriations bill to pursue withdrawal timelines.

“There is a hard date and that date is November 2008,” Schakowsky said.

But Republican Rep. Ray LaHood (Ill.), one of a handful of moderate GOPers who visited the White House earlier this month to warn that progress needs to be made in Iraq, suggested Thursday that the supplemental has shored up the president’s authority on the war.

“He’s still pretty strong on this issue and he’s worked his will,” said LaHood, who will support the war-funding bill although he has yet to determine whether he will back the domestic spending as well.

The Illinois lawmaker acknowledged, however, that Congress could force through new restrictions on the war in September, if expected reports do not show positive progress in Iraq.

“September is the biggest benchmark for the war and all of us,” LaHood said, noting that he hopes for a positive report. “Otherwise people are going to be looking at different options.”

Freshman Rep. Tim Walz (D-Minn.) said he’s willing to vote for the supplemental, as is, because he now sees that, “The president is absolutely willing to play brinkmanship with this.”

Walz said he had come to realize that exerting Congress’ power of the purse would not end the war and predicted that only about 70 of his fellow Democrats would vote for the war funding measure.

Jennifer Yachnin and Nicole Duran contributed to this report.

Ethics

The Boston Globe:  "DEMOCRATIC HOUSE leader Nancy Pelosi promised to change the culture on Capitol Hill within her first 100 hours as speaker . The Democrats were going to 'drain the swamp' in Washington of fetid special-interest lobbying and influence peddling. On day one in the majority, they would start to 'break the link between lobbyists and legislation.' The pledges struck a chord with voters. Dozens of freshmen Democrats were elected in November on the winds of political reform.  Oh, never mind."

Porky

Washington Post excerpt:

When the new Democratic majority in the House of Representatives passed one of its first spending bills, funding the Energy Department for the rest of 2007, it proudly boasted that the legislation contained no money earmarked for lawmakers' pet projects and stressed that any prior congressional requests for such spending "shall have no legal effect."

Within days, however, lawmakers including Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) began directly contacting the Energy Department. They sought to secure money for their favorite causes outside of the congressional appropriations process -- a practice that lobbyists and appropriations insiders call "phonemarking."

"I understand some of your offices have begun to receive requests from some Congressional offices asking that the department continue to fund programs or activities that received earmarked funds in prior years," department chief of staff Jeffrey Kupfer wrote in a stern Feb. 2 memo, warning agency officials to approve money only for "programs or activities that are meritorious."

The number of earmarks, in which lawmakers target funds to specific spending projects, exploded over the past decade from about 3,000 in 1996 to more than 13,000 in 2006, according to the Congressional Research Service. Most earmarks made it into appropriations bills or their accompanying conference reports without identifying their sponsors. Upon taking control of Congress after November's midterm elections, Democrats vowed to try to halve the number of earmarks, and to require lawmakers to disclose their requests and to certify that the money they are requesting will not benefit them.

Thune For Governor?

Here is speculation from a commenter at the Swing State Project, bad writing and all:
 

[I hear] That John Thune and Rounds are going to switch in 2010. John Thune originally wanted to be Governor in 2002, but got convinced to run for Senate. He lost by 286 votes, and then ran against Dachle, beating him by 1500 votes. But, I my take is that he still wants to be Governor. all the giant slaying attention has gotten to his had and increased his ambition. He, I think, wants to get into the Presidency some day, and he would have a stronger resume if was both Governor and Senator, governor when he runs. Rounds is also ambitious, and a crusader for Republican beliefs. He's made it no real secret that he wants to get into the senate. we might be able to challenge him with Stephanie Herseth, a very powerful candidate. But, then we'd have to defend her.

Proving once again that the internet is always right. 

Abortion and the Triumph of Moral Principle over Interest

In my previous post I argued that there is nothing wrong with considering the social consequences of abortion despite the fact that the fundamental issue concerns the rights of individual human beings.  Let me now put on my political scientist helmet and point out something encouraging about the issue in American politics.  The Democratic Party is monolithically pro-choice on abortion.  The Republican Party is largely pro-life, though the current lead of Rudy Giuliani in the presidential race suggests that that position if negotiable.  What is interesting is that both sides are clearly acting against their political interests in taking this position. 

Here are some fascinating facts from the Statistical Abstract of the United States.  In 1972, just before Roe, there were 184 abortions per every thousand live births in the U.S.  In the decade between 78 and 88 the number was more than 400 abortions per thousand births-almost one in three.  The number dropped to 324 by 2000. This has had a significant effect on population growth.

But the abortion rate is not even across demographic groups.  The abortion rate for Black women "and other" in 1972 was modestly larger than that for White women (175 vs. 223/1000 live births).  By 1975 the ratio for Black and other had jumped to twice the rate of White women (276 v.565/1000 live births).  That disproportion continued and in fact increased up to  2000, the last year for which my copy has statistics. In 2000 there were 230 abortions per 1000 live births to White women, and 676 abortions per thousand live births among Black and other women.  Now I think there is something of a scandal here.  But the facts are clear: every year from Roe to 2000, abortion took dramatically larger cuts out of the potential population of Black Americans. No KKK genius could have imagined a more effective device for reducing the number of black faces he had to bump into. 

Black Americans are the most reliably Democratic of all voting blocks.  They vote, when they vote, about nine to one for Democrats. Were it not for Roe v. Wade and universally legal abortion, Black Americans would constitute a much larger percentage of the population. To be sure, not all of those aborted pregnancies would have produced a Democratic voter.  But to be equally sure, they would have produced enough to make a big difference.   There is no way that George W. would have gained office in 2000 or been re-elected  in 2004 without the abortion effect.

If the two parties pursued interest rather than principle, the Democrats would oppose abortion and the Republicans would be pro-choice champions.  In fact, both chose principle.  The pro-choice principle resulted in the facts I have described.  The pro-life principle would have prevented this.  But whatever you think the right principle is, it is important to know that human beings can choose principle over interests. 

Abortion and Social Consequences

Todd Epp has a piece on the Klaudt case and abortion cross posted on CCK.  Todd focuses on a particularly gruesome piece of news.  From KSFY:

The accusations explained in a 26 page affidavit are graphic. Investigators say Klaudt would tell the girls they could make thousands of dollars if they donated their reproductive eggs. Before they could be approved as donors, or paid, they had to pass certain fertility tests Klaudt would preform.

Todd interprets this in this way:

Besides all the alleged perversion and abuse of vulnerable girls in his care, Klaudt was looking at commoditizing the girls’ eggs for profit.

To which I reply: No he wasn't! He was feeding these girls a particularly stupid line. Unless other evidence comes to light, there is no reason to suppose that this crime had anything to do with profit.  It was all about sexual abuse, if the charges are true.   

Women are allowed to sell their eggs for profit.  I gather this is a great benefit to other women who need medical help to have children.  I have no objection to this and I'm guessing that Todd doesn't either.  If I am right, then Todd has no objection to turning eggs into a commodity and it confuses the issue to pretend otherwise. A case of sexual perversion does nothing to discredit this practice, or anything else.   

Todd also takes issue with Representative Roger Hunt's argument that abortion has been bad for South Dakota because it has further reduced our population.  This is obviously right, but I agree with Todd that the fundamental issue is one of human rights, not social consequences.  If some or all abortions are in fact infanticide, then they are wrong regardless of social consequences.  If not, then I suppose that individual liberty again trumps social outcomes. 

But the social consequences of abortion are not irrelevant, and both sides appeal to them.  Pro-choice advocates have long argued that abortion prevents unwanted children (surely that is true!), and that this has beneficial effects on society.  An argument has been made that the recent drop in crime is in significant measure due to the aborting of a lot of boys who would have become criminals.  I find that argument very disturbing for lots of reasons, but that doesn't mean that it is wrong.  If pro-choice advocates can make that argument, Representative Hunt can make his. 

I would be remiss not to recognize Todd's moderation.  He acknowledges that  the arguments he objects to are not shared by most pro-life advocates, and that is as fair as one can demand.   

Who Is Price Gouging?

I just finished watching the excellent Thank You For Smoking, a fine political satire.  This film, based on Chris Buckley's novel, tells the story of Nick Naylor, lobbyist for the tobacco industry, who has the almost impossible job of explaining how smoking isn't really that bad for you (after all, the leading cause of death in America is heart disease, so why aren't we putting warning labels on cheese). 

One sometimes feels a bit like Nick Naylor when one defends the oil companies.  But let's go in with both feet.  Today the House of Representatives voted to outlaw, again, price gouging on gasoline.  Rep. Herseth Sandlin not only voted for the bill, she is a co-sponsor.  This bill forbids selling gas at prices that are "unconscionably excessive" or taking "unfair advantage" of unusual market decisions. As I have previously argued, it is impossible to know what the "right" price of gas is other than the market, and these vague terms (what is the difference between "excessive" and "unconscionably excessive"?) are no help.  Virtually all the news items on gas prices in the past month have blamed refining capacity, not rapaciousness, as the culprit.  So why this futile exercise?  Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) gives us some indication:

But Stupak told his colleagues that they had a simple choice: "Vote to stand up for consumers, your constituents, who are paying record prices, or vote to protect big oil companies' enormous profits."

This is pure demagoguery.  Stupak either does know or should know that "big oil" has little to nothing to do with the recent rise in price.  He is simply playing class warfare to pass a meaningless bill that will do nothing to help consumers.  At the same time he fosters resentment against a major American industry that employees thousands of hard working Americans.  This is small minded politics.  I outlined here policies that might actually make a difference regarding how much Americans spend on gas.  One of those is cutting the gas tax.  How much you wanna bet that Representatives Stupak, Herseth Sandlin, et. al. balk at that idea?  It's easy to attack the profits of big oil, but when your government spends almost $3 trillion a year (that's $24,000 for every household), it's just fine if they gouge you at the pump. 

Education For The Free Person

Please read Peter Schramm's reporting on the latest National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) as it pertains to  American History.  I've said it before, but I'll say it again.  Until our kids know what the Declaration of Independence is about, why the heck are we arguing about what to teach them about sex?  We teach our kids nothing important, but do teach them to feel very good about their ignorance. 

Hey, I Was Just Thinking That!

I am the first person to say that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.  As a professional plagiarist catcher, I'd say this looks bad. 

Book Nerds Unite

Look at this cool library site recommended by Julie.  Finally, a site for us book nerds. 

The Economics Of Eggs

Like Prof. Blanchard, I am glad to have Todd Epp back in the blogging game.  So now let me welcome Todd back by critiquing this post where Todd argues that certain members of the South Dakota pro-life community believe "that wombs, eggs, and babies are commodities."  Todd is careful in his language.  He states that most pro-lifers believe otherwise.  I don't know the people discussed by Todd's post, so I will not comment on their opinions, but if seeing human reproduction as a means of making money is problematic, I suggest Todd look into the attitudes of the reproductive industry, namely those in favor of easy abortion, fetal stem-cell research, and in vitro fertilization.  Please note this post by Lucas Morel over at No Left Turns.  Here a doctor, in the name of reproductive freedom, is wantonly killing a healthy growing human being so that two other laboratory created children can live. Stanley Kurtz comments (here and here) on the phenomena of "assisted reproduction" and how it alters how we think of both family and, in my opinion, humanity.  Both Morel and Kurtz are commenting on this book, which I have not read but certainly will.  It is indeed a brave new world.

Prof. Morel more directly connects the manipulation of human life to abortion.  If people are indeed completely free to use their reproduction as they see fit and if the unborn have no moral status of note, then there is nothing wrong with turning reproduction into a commodity, with our parts and the babies they can make ready for sale.   We can make money off of harvesting babies, just as we make money off of harvesting corn or cows.  C.S. Lewis warned about this 60 years ago:

One of the questions before [the Conditioners] is whether this feeling for posterity (they know well how it is produced) shall be continued or not. However far they go back, or down, they can find no ground to stand on. Every motive they try to act on becomes at once petitio. It is not that they are bad men. They are not men at all. Stepping outside the Tao, they have stepped into the void. Nor are their subjects necessarily unhappy men. They are not men at all: they are artefacts. Man's final conquest has proved to be the abolition of Man. (snip)

We may legitimately hope that among the impulses which arise in minds thus emptied of all `rational' or `spiritual' motives, some will be benevolent. I am very doubtful myself whether the benevolent impulses, stripped of that preference and encouragement which the Tao teaches us to give them and left to their merely natural strength and frequency as psychological events, will have much influence. I am very doubtful whether history shows us one example of a man who, having stepped outside traditional morality and attained power, has used that power benevolently.

Who Needs The Psychatrist

Perhaps you've been following Ken Blanchard's go around with Mr. Schuldt (see this, for example).  Now Mr. Schuldt has come after me because I wrote a blog post on DDT that was insufficiently documented for publication in Science magazine.  Chad pounces on one thing about which I was sloppy.  I never intended to say that DDT was "banned" by everyone for everything, which is certainly not true (anyone who reads the Wikipedia article on DDT, and I did, would know that), but my post is clearly referencing the WHO ban, not a general ban.  Perhaps I should have written more clearly so as to avoid just this critique from the unfriendly reader.  But then look at my post.  Its grandest claim, that restrictions on DDT may have led to more malaria deaths, is put in the form of a question coming from someone else's mouth.  I do not know how many deaths have occurred due to restrictions on DDT.  My guess is that it is above zero and less than the Hitlerian numbers some have claimed.

So does this justify the vitriol coming from Chad.  I am a "hack" and an "idiot" to whom "facts don't matter."  Really?  This is how Chad dismisses opinions that make him uncomfortable; he simply slanders his opponents.  Chad depicts right-winger bloggers as insulated and drawing from a few questionable sources.  On this, I happen to think he is correct about some local right-wing bloggers.  I will note that in my memory I have never cited Rush Limbaugh (whom I never listen to) or Michelle Malkin (whom I virtually never read).  Glenn Reynolds, on the other hand, is a respected professor of law and a major institution (University of Tennessee) who can hardly be dismissed as a "hack" in the mode of Limbaugh and Malkin (if they are indeed hacks).  Now, a blog is not scholarship and shouldn't be judged so, but one can judge the credentials of the blogger, and Reynolds has pretty good creds.  Besides, I just "hat tipped" him, for goodness sakes, as he linked to someone with a thought provoking question.

My post was intended to stimulate the following question: does the environmental movement sometimes make overly alarmist claims that lead to bad policies and greater human suffering? That's a question worth asking, and in the case of DDT the answer, in my opinion, is yes.  Environmentalists certainly succeeded in making DDT harder to use, which has certainly led to some number of malaria cases that could have been prevented.  It is likely, in my opinion, that the banning of DDT has led to more human suffering than DDT would have produced if left less regulated.

Update: Chad responds.  I'll not go into detail, but only note again that Chad is simply unwilling to think unpleasant thoughts.  Chad think to even question the environmental movement is a sign of a "smear."  My post above is careful.  No doubt pesticides are dangerous to humans, which is why we don't sprinkle them on our Wheaties each morning.  But pesticides also help grow stronger plants and kill pests that spread disease.  The question is not whether DDT poses a health threat, but whether it is a serious enough health threat to outweigh the good that it does. 

 

A Touch of Epp in the Night!

Todd Epp went a month without posting, due apparently to his irresponsible concern for such silly things as his job and family.  I was very worried that he wouldn't be back.  The regional blogosphere would be a poorer thing for it.  Recently I conversed with someone who had some kind words to say about SDP, and we were wondering where we could find a similarly reasonable voice on the left of the regional blogosphere.  Epp's blog was my first choice.  His posts are honest: he gives credit where credit is due.  They are informative and provocative, and most important, they are funny.  That is all you could want in a regional blog.  But Todd has posted again, and says he is "semi-back."  I look forward to his occasional visit to our campfires. 

I agree with something that Chad writes!

In my recent exchanges with Chad at CCK, he complained that I am upset with everything he writes these days.  I think that's an exageration.  Most of what Chad writes is sensible enough, though I think he would be more plausible if he tried on occasion to be a little less reflexively partisan.  Anyway, I wish to announce that I did agree with one thing he wrote.  He directs our attention to a Dakota Voice post on evolution. Chad says:

I just can't take a guy seriously who believes that the earth is 6,000 years old.  Actually, that fact that he seriously believes that pretty much discredits everything else he says.

Now I do not know whether DV's Bob Ellis really believes that the Earth is 6,000 years old.  But I emphatically agree with Chad that such an opinion discredits any attempt at a scientifically respectable critique of Darwinian theory.  If the Earth is really only 6,000 years old, then pretty much all science is a mistake, not just biology. 

But I think that such strict constructionist interpretations of the Bible are not in fact faithful to the Bible.   As Christ spoke in parables, so the Bible as a whole tells stories that are literally true if, and only if, they are interpreted as poetry is interpreted.  I don't believe in talking serpents, but I do believe in temptation and redemption.  I am guessing that Chad and I would agree on that latter point as well. 

The NVB Responds to My Challenge

I am indeed sorry that I issued the challenge, as I seem to have disturbed Professor Newquists good mood.  In my first post on the Klaudt case, I criticized the Clean Cut Kid, and added a challenge to the NVB:

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.

Here is Professor Newquist's response:

When I first looked at Chad's post and when I looked again, I saw that it was an exercise in irony. As this story broke, many alert people were struck by the irony that a legislator who worked hard to push the the abortion ban through the legislature under the banner of family values was arrested for acts contrary to those values. The irony is obvious.

Now David was right to go on and point out that Chad did not explicitly say what I attribute to him in the post above.  But I did support my interpretation with reference to the comments to Chad's post, comments that Chad did nothing to correct, at least on that first post.  Moreover I read pretty much everything Chad posts, so I thought I had a pretty good idea what he meant with his "family values" title.  Of course Chad was being ironic; but the irony had a point: that those who preach family values don't really believe in them.  Chad posts very frequently to that effect. 

Anyway, it turned out that I was right and Newquist was wrong.  Almost at the very moment David posted his reply to me, Chad posted another.  I have already replied to this post, but I reproduce some lines again since they refute the NVB interpretation.  Chad says:

Clearly this isn't a Republican issue we're dealing with. We shouldn't attempt to pin this on Klaudt's party. His party affiliation isn't really an important piece of information in this story. Klaudt's legislative agenda, however, is a piece of this story and certainly worthy to be discussed.

I really sometimes wonder if the religious right's obsession with regulating sexual activity doesn't have something to do with a deep-seeded sexual perversion that occasionally rears its ugly head in public. Maybe deep down they are just trying to regulate themselves.

I'm sure the Ol' Perfesser is going to be upset with this, as he seems to be upset with just about anything I write these days.

In the first paragraph Chad acknowledges, I think, that his post and the attached comments gave the impression that he was using this story for purely partisan purposes.  So I was right about that.  Then Chad goes on to accuse the religious right in general of sexual perversion, a rather more malicious charge.  That this wasn't irony, but represents Chad's real opinion, is indicated by the last line above. 

For David Newquist, anything the "regressive blogs" say is by definition malicious.  Anything blogs on his side say, no matter how literally nasty, will always turn out to be excused by irony or some other interpretive device. But the truth is that we here at SDP have always read the NVB and CCK and all other blogs honestly, and when we make a mistake we own up to it.  This is evident in the conversation between Professor Schaff and myself and Anna at Dakota Women. Anna is an honest interlocutor.   

Campaign Update

A new Gallup Poll shows Rudy and Hillary still leading their opponents.

Iran Pulling Insugent Strings in Iraq

The UK Guardian reports that Iran has increased the number and scope of attacks from insurgent groups they control and influence in Iraq.  Their aim is to play into the discontent of the Democrats in Congress to force an American withdrawal by September:

Iran is secretly forging ties with al-Qaida elements and Sunni Arab militias in Iraq in preparation for a summer showdown with coalition forces intended to tip a wavering US Congress into voting for full military withdrawal, US officials say.

"Iran is fighting a proxy war in Iraq and it's a very dangerous course for them to be following. They are already committing daily acts of war against US and British forces," a senior US official in Baghdad warned. "They [Iran] are behind a lot of high-profile attacks meant to undermine US will and British will, such as the rocket attacks on Basra palace and the Green Zone [in Baghdad]. The attacks are directed by the Revolutionary Guard who are connected right to the top [of the Iranian government]."

The official said US commanders were bracing for a nationwide, Iranian-orchestrated summer offensive, linking al-Qaida and Sunni insurgents to Tehran's Shia militia allies, that Iran hoped would trigger a political mutiny in Washington and a US retreat. "We expect that al-Qaida and Iran will both attempt to increase the propaganda and increase the violence prior to Petraeus's report in September [when the US commander General David Petraeus will report to Congress on President George Bush's controversial, six-month security "surge" of 30,000 troop reinforcements]," the official said.

"Certainly it [the violence] is going to pick up from their side. There is significant latent capability in Iraq, especially Iranian-sponsored capability. They can turn it up whenever they want. You can see that from the pre-positioning that's been going on and the huge stockpiles of Iranian weapons that we've turned up in the last couple of months. The relationships between Iran and groups like al-Qaida are very fluid," the official said.

Now For Something Completely Different

Rachel Carson is the author of the environmental classic Silent Spring. In it she argues against the use of DDT as a pesticide.  She was hailed by Al Gore as a founder of the environmental movement.  Recently, after almost three decades, the World Health Organization decided it would once against use DDT to kill mosquitoes in order to fight malaria.    Rich Karlgaard (HT Instapundit) asks a pointed question: how many people have died because of the ban on DDT?    Now the question is whether Al Gore is the next Rachel Carson and whether that's a compliment. 

Hypocrisy and Bigotry: Chad and I on the Klaudt Case

I hesitate to reply to my friend Chad's most recent post, as he seems to feel that I am picking on him.  At least he isn't feeling neglected.  But I think that the blogosphere is all about these debates, so I can't quit now.  Chad has this on the Klaudt case:

This really isn't what I want to be thinking about today, as it just sickens me as it swirls around my head. My wife and I are foster parents and currently have a 6 year old girl in our care, so this story make us especially sick.

I admire Chad and his wife for being foster parents.  This is a very important act of charity.  I also share Chad's revulsion at the Klaudt story.  Having raised two children of my own, I can think of nothing so horrific, at least within the confines of ordinary American life. 

Chad concedes at least part of my point in my first post:

Clearly this isn't a Republican issue we're dealing with. We shouldn't attempt to pin this on Klaudt's party. His party affiliation isn't really an important piece of information in this story. Klaudt's legislative agenda, however, is a piece of this story and certainly worthy to be discussed.

I mark this down as progress.  But then comes this part:

I really sometimes wonder if the religious right's obsession with regulating sexual activity doesn't have something to do with a deep-seeded sexual perversion that occasionally rears its ugly head in public. Maybe deep down they are just trying to regulate themselves.

So it's not all Republicans who are perverts, just all persons on the religious right.  Chad's only piece of evidence for this rather vicious accusation is that the religious right is "obsessed with regulating sexual activity."  Let me point out that it is not just the religious right that has shared this "obsession."  When I was attending Claremont Graduate School, the college bookstore stopped carrying Playboy and Penthouse.  They did so at the urging of feminists, who thought that these magazines were demeaning to women.  At one point many feminists wanted to criminalize any sexual advances made by an employer toward an employee, so obsessed were they with regulating sexual activity.  For some reason that obsession relaxed its grip while Bill Clinton was President.  So I suppose Chad must be wondering if all feminists have a "a deep-seeded sexual perversion that occasionally rears its ugly head in public." 

I do not know what is in Chad's heart, but he writes like a religious bigot. All those anti-abortion Baptists and Catholics, they're just a bunch of perverts.  Contrary to what Chad says, this ole' Perfesser is not upset with him over this.  Left wing religiously bigoted bloggers have done a lot of damage to their own causes. If you don't believe me, ask John Edwards. I am only too happy to see Chad put all this on record. 

Hypocrisy and Politics: More On the Klaudt Story

In the regional blogosphere, the story of Ted Klaudt's arrest for rape, sexual exploitation of minors, etc., has quickly been eclipsed by a discussion of how that story can reasonably be interpreted.  Anna, at Dakota Women, had this on Saturday:

I agree with Ken that it's not helpful to paint every social conservative, or anti-abortionist, or Republican with the same brush in the light of these charges. However, it's still very hard for me to separate the public persona of former-Rep. Klaudt from the crimes he's accused of committing. I don't consider it out-of-line to point out the fact that he appears to have had some pretty hateful attitudes toward women.

And this today:

I actually am sort of interested to find out if Schaff or Blanchard have some sort of commentary about Klaudt's political work vs. Klaudt's personal crimes. People of any political slant are capable of this kind of thing (though he's quite conservative - Dan Sutton, anyone?), but connecting the dots between Klaudt's politics and this situation was one of the first things I did. And so did KELO, for that matter. So anyway.

Anna's response is measured and the question she asks is reasonable, so here goes.  I can hardly blame Anna for wanting to see a connection between a criminal act and political positions (pro-life on abortion) that she is deeply opposed to. But a good way to test that inclination is to see how it works in reverse.  A not quite analogous but nonetheless useful case would be that of Margret Sanger.  Sanger was the founder of the organization that would become Planned Parenthood. She was also an advocate for eugenics.  That's not the same thing as personally committing a criminal act, but the idea of eugenics was used to justify a vast number of atrocities in the name of public health in several modern nations.  Does Sanger's advocacy of eugenics somehow taint her views of reproductive rights?  Some conservatives, and most pro-life advocates who are aware of the facts would say yes.  I say no.  The arguments for legal birth control (I'm for it) and abortion (I'm against it) can stand on their own without providing any support for eugenics. I am guessing that Anna would agree.

If Ted Klaudt is guilty of the charges then, as a pro-life advocate, he is guilty of a gruesome hypocrisy.  To use that alone as evidence that his political positions are wrong would be a classic case of the ad hominem fallacy: X is wrong because Y believes X and Y is a bad person.  I think the argument that Anna has in mind is something more like this: opposition to abortion is largely (if surreptitiously) motivated by misogyny; a pro-life advocate who commits rape provides evidence for this view. There is nothing illogical about this argument, though I certainly reject the link between misogyny and opposition to abortion.  The problem is that the argument is very weak.  One case proves nothing.  Are pro-life advocates more or less likely than pro-choice advocates to commit rape?  If they were, I am sure that fact would be well-publicized.

The root of the opposition to abortion is the belief that it is infanticide, that the unborn are persons with all the rights that Anna and I enjoy.  There is no possible way that that belief can encourage rape.      

Anna's Post

Anna at Dakota Women responds to a post I wrote earlier today. She's right.  It's not as though I didn't read her post; it is that I misread it and too quickly jumped to a conclusion, proving once again "people in glass houses, blah, blah blah."  I have deleted my post and apologize to Anna. 

Fred Thompson

Tomorrow's Washington Post profiles Fred Thompson's presidential chances:

It wouldn't be the first time a B-list actor united the country. In fact, part of what this former ladies' man has going for him is widespread Ronald Reagan nostalgia. That, and he's a refreshing contrast to the calculating likes of Gore and even Frist: He's a guy with a Senate legacy of bipartisanship and even-handedness. (When he led the Senate investigation into 1996 campaign-finance irregularities, he targeted not just the Clinton-Gore White House but Republicans, too.)

And he knows how to play the political game. At the start of his Senate race in 1994, Thompson was a high-dollar Washington lawyer and lobbyist who drove a Lincoln Continental, lived in a condo and wore dark suits and ties to even the most folksy barbecue-and-beans Tennessee campaign appearances. But nobody -- nobody with an echo, anyway -- accused him of being phony when he eventually decided to prop up his flailing bid with, well, props: a getup of jeans and work shirt and some down-home locomotion in the form of a used cherry-red Chevy pickup truck that he drove across the state and featured in television ads to transform his campaign.

All of which makes him some combination of brilliant and lucky as hell.

It's a good story, so read the whole thing.