South Dakota Politics

Nifong Resigns

As I predicted he would, back some time ago.  From the New York Post:

June 16, 2007 -- With tears in his eyes, Mike Nifong yesterday announced that he is resigning as the district attorney of Durham County, N.C., over the now-dismissed rape charges he brought against three Duke students.

What took him so long?

Nifong made the dramatic disclosure while testifying at an ethics trial that could - and should - result in the loss of his law license.

According to Nifong, his "community has suffered enough."

Well, that goes without saying.

But why did he never appreciate the suffering of the three players - who became the focus of national attention, thanks to Nifong's prosecutorial zealotry over an unfounded allegation that they'd raped a stripper?

Indeed, Nifong refused to back down, even when it was abundantly clear to everyone else that the entire case had been hopelessly discredited by a complaining witness whose story was a bundle of contradictions and lies.

Why did he refuse to drop the case?

It's clear why: Because he was in the midst of a tight re-election battle - and could gain votes by inciting racial tensions in an already charged case. To the point where he deliberately withheld exculpatory evidence from the defense, and then lied about it to the judge.

More Tahoe Pics

AL Criticism

A War College reader responds to today's Argus Leader editorial:

My point, is how dare the Argus accuse Dan Scott of tarnishing the image of Sioux Falls, when they do it every single day.

In my opinion, there is nothing, NOTHING that creates a more negative attitude and image of Sioux Falls than the Argus Liar.

They, more than any other person, place, or thing create the division between Sioux Falls and the rest of the state.

Sadly, their far too arrogant to admit that....even though they are aware of it.

Sell papers at the expense of your own community. That's the Gannett way.

The GOP Identity Crisis?

Over the next sixteen months leading up to the 2008 elections, Republicans face the daunting challenge of determining their identity.  With the base of the party frustrated over the immigration bill, the nation frustrated with the war in Iraq, among a whole host of issues, the challenge seems daunting.  E.J. Dionne of the Washington Post, who always writes a thought-provoking column, wonders if the Republican party can recapture the optimism of the Reagan years:

The great drama in American politics today revolves around the question: What is the Republican Party?

We think we know. Republicans are the party of business and of evangelical Christians, of better-off voters and people who hate taxes, the party of conservatism and the South, the party that wants to be aggressive in the battle against terrorism.

But the instability in the Republican presidential campaign, the longing for a Fred Thompson candidacy and the sharp split over immigration all point to an identity crisis at the end of the Bush era.

The last great redefinition of Republicanism, kicked off in 1964 with Barry Goldwater’s nomination, was resolved with Ronald Reagan’s election in 1980. Republicans bled liberals and embraced conservatism.

In mapping the contours of the party's identity problem, Dionne says the party has moved away from its federalist impulses by supporting Rudy Giuliani, saying that he would not be the likely frontrunner without a national security "imprint."  In Dionne's reasoning, the GOP has lost its identity outside of national security.   

I wouldn't say that this is necessarily the problem.  Security has been at the root of conservatism since the Goldwater-Reagan impluse, when Goldwater and Reagan wanted to aggressively engage the Soviet Union, and later argued for law and order at home, as Michael Flamm demonstrates in his recent book.  The candidates for the GOP nomination have not swayed from the message of international strength and reduced government, as Dionne suggests.

The problem, in my view, has nothing to do with a Republican identity, but rather we simply don't trust our candidates to follow through on their promises.  Republicans had the opportunity to push through their programs, with the advantage of a Republican Congress and Republican White House, yet we saw tremendous increases in discretionary federal spending, massive pork projects, government intrusion into areas like education, and incompetence in issues like border control.  The problem isn't the Republican ideology or identity, but Republican politicians who failed to enact the Republican agenda.  We want Republicans who mean what they say -- at that point, we'll have optimism.

Reid and American Generals

Michael Goldfarb on Harry Reid, The Politico, and the Netroots:

Another interesting undercurrent to this is the contempt of the left-wing bloggers for the Politico, and the Drudge Report, which often links to the site. The story was "based on unsubstantiated, third-party recollection," says Geiger, under the headline "The Politico Fails Journalism 101." "Politico, the online soul-mate to the Drudge Report, has gotten into the habit of creating news stories through innuendo, omission, outright error, and now today, out of thin air," was the line from Kos blogger BarbinMD (is that a professional opinion, doctor?). And the grand wizard of Politico haters once complained that Drudge and the Politico are "poisonously joined at the hip."

Well, for all that griping, it seems the Politico nailed this story, and Drudge just did what he always does--amplify it. Dr. Barbin still contends this is a non-story--though, apparently factually accurate despite protestations to the contrary--because it was just "a throw away line...that Harry Reid said to the unable-to-be-reconfirmed Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff's face." And Geiger puts off the outrageous statement Reid claims to have made to the senator's "tendency to speak like the straight-talking, former boxer that he is." If it's all true, then Reid's a brave man, but a jerk nonetheless. The other possibility, of course, is that he's full of it and never said any such thing to Pace--in which case, he's still a jerk, but not so stupid as to question the integrity of this nation's highest ranking officer to his face.

The lefty bloggers, for their part, have shown themselves to be totally inept. They failed to report the comments, then they denied Reid ever made them while making their own unsubstantiated allegations, and now they defend the comments as irrelevant--and without even the slightest doubt as to their validity. Which is worse?

Here's some background info on the controversy.

Media Malaise

Thomas Lifson:  "The business model he established for the New York Times Company continues to collapse under the feet of Pinch Sulzberger. The very latest revenue figures of the company released just minutes ago show that advertising revenue and gross revenue are declining at a rate that cannot be matched by growth in revenues from the expensive internet properties purchased by Sulzberger."

Immigration Bill Returns to Senate

After some deal making between Harry Reid, Mitch McConnell, and the White House, the immigration bill will be returning to the Senate floor next week.  Excerpt:

Senate leaders agreed Thursday to a list of amendments to be considered, clearing the way for debate to resume. The decision followed President Bush's announcement that he supports a move to immediately set aside more than $4 billion to beef up enforcement of immigration laws.

The two actions significantly improve the chances that the Senate will pass the comprehensive bill, which would provide a path to citizenship for many of the nation's estimated 12 million illegal immigrants. "We believe that there are enough votes," White House spokesman Tony Snow said Thursday.

A senior Democratic aide said that Senate leaders agreed to specific amendments, with 11 for each side, but did not describe them.

One will certainly be the amendment drafted by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) to guarantee that the federal government spends billions of dollars to improve border security and crack down on businesses that hire illegal workers. The measure is intended as an answer to conservatives who doubt the administration's commitment to enforcement. ...

Snow suggested that the president and other backers of the bill wanted the funding to be a part of the immigration package, not a separate measure. "All the pieces have to work together," he said. "If you disaggregate, things fall apart."

The bill claims to address the visa system and border security, but Congress has already passed mandates on both subjects.  Last year, legislation was passed to authorize the construction of a fence along the southern border, and Congress also demanded the replacement of the visa system by 2005.  Can we expect Congress or the White House to follow through on this legislation when they haven't complied with the previous?

UPDATE:  Paul Mirengoff: 

The administration's latest effort to induce Congress to grant amnesty to more than 12 million illegal immigrants is an offer of "confidence building" measures to overcome the fear that the government will not seriously enforce the law. It's sad that the administration can't rely on its past performance in this regard. Michael Chertoff seems to regard ordinary border enforcement as beneath him (chasing cooks and gardeners, is how he characterizes it), and President Bush craves a grander legacy. Presumably, he considered enforcing the immigration laws "small ball," the term he uses to belittle mere competent performance of his job. If the Bush adminstration wasn't willing to do its job when it comes to securing our border even after 9/11, are we to be confident that, say, Hillary Clinton will take on this task with any seriousness?

Regime Change In Gaza II

From the Telegraph, hat tip to Powerline:

In the past 48 hours 19 Palestinians have been killed, tossed from rooftops, executed at point-blank range, and shot in hospital wards. That number seems certain to rise. More than 80 Palestinians have now been killed since mid May.

Among yesterday's dead was a 14-year-old boy and three women, all killed in a Hamas attack on a Fatah security officer's home.

"They're firing at us, firing RPGs, firing mortars. We're not Jews," the brother of Jamal Abu Jediyan, a Fatah commander, pleaded during a live telephone conversation with a Palestinian radio station.

Minutes later both men were dragged into the streets and riddled with bullets.

It's wrong to kill us because we're not Jews. A very costly act of self-parody. 

Incline Village

Here are some shots from Incline Village, on the north shore of Lake Tahoe.

One Thing I have Figured Out

There are a lot of unusual ingredients that can make for interesting and delicious beer.  Cherries.  Molasses.  Citrus fruit is not one of them.  I had an IPA yesterday in a Reno brewpub (airport extension) that would have been fine without the subtle citrus overtones that I did not notice being warned about in advance.  We report.  You decide.

Warning:Light Blogging Ahead

I am off to Lake Tahoe for a colloquium, which is kinda like a conference only smaller.  Schaff's on vacation and Jason is busy with other things, so posting may be light for the next few days.  Or maybe not.  I will try to post from the road, with some pictures. 

Regime Change in Gaza

I have frequently commented on the wisdom of Ariel Sharon's last foreign policy: give up trying to make peace with the Palestinians, for the latter are incapable of generating the kind of leadership who could or ever would make a deal.  Instead, withdraw from the territories and isolate them in so far as possible.  Here is the latest obstacle on the road map to peace, from Time:

Hamas and Fatah may have passed the point of no return: The unprecedented viciousness of the renewed fighting between the rival Palestinian factions in Gaza makes any new cease-fire difficult to envisage; this time, it may be a fight to the death.

Since the new clashes erupted on Sunday, gangs have tossed their enemies alive off 15-story buildings, shot down one another's children, and burst into hospitals to finish off wounded foes lying helplessly in bed. The revenge motive alone could now be enough to sustain the civil war.

Gaza right now makes the world of the Road Warrior look like a retirement community.  The only thing wrong with Sharon's policy was that building a wall around Gaza wasn't enough.  He should have installed bleachers. 

Hamas is going to win.  In this environment, the prize goes to the most single-minded and ruthless.  For all those who think that politics is boring, this is what it looks like when it's really exciting.

Al Gore, Chicken Hypnotist

Al Gore has more in common with Dan Quayle than is commonly acknowledged.  Both were Vice Presidents who never graduated to the next level, and both had a knack for self-parody that can only be explained as a kind of reverse genius.  Michael Moynihan at the Libertarian Reason has this beautiful  example of Gore's talent, from his recent book. 

Gore argues that the average American is in an advanced state of political torpor, induced by a profit-mad mass media. By way of illustration, he offers this folksy—if bizarre—anecdote: “When I was a boy growing up on our family farm in the summers,” he writes, off-handedly acknowledging that he wasn’t, in fact, a year-round farm boy, “I learned how to hypnotize chickens.” The former Vice President would render the birds “entranced and completely immobile” by forcing his quarry to follow the path of his finger. “It turns out that the immobility response in animals is an area that has received some scholarly attention, and here is one thing that scientists have found: the immobility response is strongly influenced by fear.”  The American news consumer, therefore, is something akin to a frightened chicken.

Now I don't think that Gore is really planning to run for anything ever again.  He is having way too much fun and getting his famous man jones satisfied by all the media attention.  But he will always be Mr. Vice President, and hence a politician, even if out of office.  There is no politician alive or dead who would not risk damnation by telling that story on himself.

If he were in office, think how the pundits would run with it.  "Well, I don't know about the chickens, Mr. President, but you sure put us to sleep."  Or a more cutting: "Here is young Al Gore, already so addicted to being the center of attention that he took to mesmerizing barnyard fowl." If you don't believe me, ask Jimmy Carter about his rabbit. 

But Moynihan is right about the more disturbing aspect of Gore's argument.  He thinks the American people are as stupid as a bunch of poultry.  That, at least, would explain eight years of George W.  Worse, he thinks the people have been immobilized by fear, but is spending all this waking energy trying to scare us about global warming.  This suggests that he has no idea what he himself is doing. 

It was once said of George W. Bush that he was born on third base and thought he hit a triple.  Gore was born on third base, and thought he invented baseball.  There is no coming back from that. 

Crime and Punishment III

Anna responds this morning to last night's post:

I suppose part of the problem here is an issue of semantics. I am confused why Ken equates a report of a crime to the police with someone in jail. ("But exactly the same kind of injuries are inflicted on a man falsely accused of rape, along with the years of prison. It's important for both of us to think about both things.") I mean, it's not like I could call the police this morning before work, accuse Ken of stealing the plastic pink flamingos from my front lawn, and assume he would be serving two years for larceny by the end of the day. One would hope that we have police officers, defense attorneys, and prosecutors in order to investigate crime reports and weed out as many of the false ones as we imperfect humans possibly can.

Anna is quite correct: one false accusation in four doesn't translate into one innocent in four going to prison.  But the article began by describing a study of cases where it did translate. 

The study documents 28 cases which, "with the exception of one young man of limited mental capacity who pleaded guilty," consist of individuals who were convicted by juries and, then, later exonerated by DNA tests.  At the time of release, they had each served an average of 7 years in prison.

The information in the article gives us a reasonable estimate of how many rape reports include false accusations, but not how many result in convictions.  One thing that weighs in the favor of the falsely accused is DNA tests, which have given us a pretty good idea of how unreliable other kinds of evidence can be.  What happens in the roughly 20% of cases where DNA evidence is inconclusive?  I still think this adds up to a lot of innocent guys in jail. 

One final note: there is a bit of jaundice in Anna's post title: "A final point on all these lying women."  False accusations in case of rape or any crime have many causes: trauma, confusion, simple mistakes.  I don't know but I would guess that outright lying is not the most prevalent one. This was something the original article (by that terrible Fox Network) was at pains to point out. 

Johnson Update

From this morning's Argus Leader:

South Dakota Sen. Tim Johnson's doctors are saying he soon will be able to fully resume his senatorial duties.

They could not say, however, when Johnson would return to Capitol Hill.

Johnson, who suffered a brain hemorrhage six months ago, has been working from home for several months while he undergoes physical, speech and occupational therapy several hours a day, five days a week.

"He's on a great track, he's doing well, but he has to keep doing therapy," Johnson's spokeswoman Julianne Fisher said Monday. "It's like looking at an athlete and saying: 'There won't be a problem. You'll be able to come back to work, but you'll miss a few more games.' "

The 60-year-old Democrat is able to speak clearly, and his mental capacity is fine, the doctors said in a statement released Monday. Last week, Johnson visited both his attending physician at the National Rehabilitation Hospital, Dr. Michael Yochelson, and the neurosurgeon who performed emergency surgery Dec. 13 at George Washington University Hospital, Dr. Vivek Deshmukh.

Harry Potter and the Most Important Question: Is Snape Evil?

One of my favorite students is now working for the Clinton campaign, and she and I have fundamental disagreement: she thinks Severus Snape is indeed a loyal servant of the Dark Lord Voldemort (forgive me for mentioning the name in print, but Dumbledore said it was alright). She certainly has  the weight of evidence on her side at the moment.  Snape killed Dumbledore.  He was once a Death Eater, and has the throbbing tattoo thingy on his arm.  He has been an insufferable burden to Harry.  Case closed, right? 

Here I take my stand.  Snape is a son of a bitch.  He is not evil.  Just before he used the killing curse against Dumbledore, the one that gave Harry his famous scar, Dumbledore pleaded with him.  There is no way Dumbledore pleads for his life.  No way.  He was pleading with Snape to do what he was supposed to do. 

The final Harry Potter book comes out next month, and we shall see.  I began reading the Harry Potter novels to my son when he was a wee little thing.  I have kept it up, and I expect that we will finish the business in the usual way, with the boy in my lap.  Only now his legs stretch into another zip code.  Keep the faith, ye supporters of Snape.  Maybe it's not to late to get him into the Republican race.

Rape and False Accusations II

Anna at Dakota Women bites back in response to my earlier post. I quoted an article in Fox News about the more or less high percentage of false accusations behind rape convictions.  I agree with a lot of what she says, and I admire the measured way that she approaches the evidence.  But here are some responses.  Anna says:

1. Linking to Fox News means you automatically lose this debate.  Try an unbiased source please.

I hate to break this to you, Anna, but you and I are biased sources.  Does that mean that nothing we write is worthy of consideration?  I hope not, because in fact there are no unbiased sources.  The American media in general is biased in favor of democracy, human rights, racial equality and the rights of women.  I think this is a good thing.  The New York Times is vehemently biased by hatred of George Bush.  That doesn't mean that anything printed in the Times is "automatically" discredited.  Perhaps you would like a media uniformly biased in favor of your own views, and that would be one without Fox News.  I prefer a media biased in a lot of different directions, because that is what intellectual conversation is all about.

Anna says:

3. I think it's also important for Ken and others to think about the effect this kind of thing has on survivors of rape who are contemplating whether or not to report the crime to the police.

Yes.  False accusations of rape make it harder to prosecute genuine cases.  But surely the answer to this is not to be quiet about the former.  Feminists have been very good at emphasizing what is so terrible about rape: the assault against the dignity of a human person, and the life long emotional damage it can cause.  But exactly the same kind of injuries are inflicted on a man falsely accused of rape, along with the years of prison.  It's important for both of us to think about both things.

Lastly, Anna says:

It is pretty clear that reports of rape are false at a higher rate than other crimes. But making a point of exaggerating those numbers, as McElroy does (and making a point of reporting those exaggerations, as Ken does), is a truly harmful disservice to women.

I think Anna is rather unfair to Ms. McElroy.  The latter is doing exactly what Anna does, quite reasonably, in this remark:

2. This article (which is fairly old) seems to indicate that the number of false reports is higher than 2%, probably higher than the 8% statistic reported by the FBI, and less than the 20-40% statistic Ken is floating.

Both Anna and McElroy are trying to get a fix on where the truth lies, and it probably lies between the more extreme estimates.  Contrary to the above, I "float" no statistics other than those advanced in the article.  And here is Ms. McElroy's best estimate:

If the foregoing results can be extrapolated, then the rate of false reports is roughly between 20 (if DNA excludes an accused) to 40 percent (if inconclusive DNA is added). The relatively low estimate of 25 to 26 percent is probably accurate, especially since it is supported by other sources.

This estimate of false accusation, one in four, is higher than the vaguely greater than 8% that Anna proposes.  But even if it is, say, 10%, that is a lot of innocent guys in the slammer.

We have here a classic conundrum of criminal justice: a system that convicts too many innocent people while providing insufficient protection to the victims.  I hope we can do better, but we surely have to recognize both sides of the problem, even if one side presents itself at that terrible Fox News.

 

Senator Thune's Opinions About Evolution

My friend Chad at CCK has produced evidence that Senator Thune does not believe in evolution.  From Newsweek:

Thune, 43, 6 feet 4 and tan, with the good looks of a television anchor, doesn't drink, smoke or swear. An evangelical Christian, he does not believe in evolution.

As Chad acknowledges, it is a pretty small piece of evidence: one sentence buried in a story about Thune's views of marriage.  But I am inclined to think that the Newsweek reporter had something to back it up, so I will take Chad's claim in an earlier post as provisionally confirmed.  Chad is responding to my post on intelligent design. 

I do not think it surprising that Senator Thune doesn't believe in evolution.  That is the default position for evangelical Christians.  As I have said, I think this rejection is wrong as a matter of science.  I also think it is wrong theologically and a bad strategy politically. 

Herseth Sandlin Flip Flops on Kyoto

From the Pierre Capital Journal:

PIERRE - U.S. Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin is clarifying comments made last week about her recent four-nation trip where she toured with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to see the effects of global warming.

The Democratic congresswoman from South Dakota said last week that she does recognize the need for the U.S. to be involved in international climate negotiations in a post-Kyoto world. However, she still thinks it was the right decision for the U.S. to not join the Kyoto Treaty when it was signed.

"I agreed at the time that we shouldn't sign on to the Kyoto because China and India were not even made part of the framework, but I do think that so long as the United States doesn't participate in the multi-lateral negotiations, that it makes it too easy for China and India to go ahead and say 'Why should we participate when the United States isn't participating,'" Herseth said last Friday.

Rape and False Accusations

Rape is one of the most terrible things that can happen to a person.  A false accusation of rape is another.  Fox News has this story by Wendy McElroy:

Politically correct feminists claim false rape accusations are rare and account for only 2 percent of all reports. Men's rights sites point to research that places the rate as high as 41 percent. These are wildly disparate figures that cannot be reconciled.

This week I stumbled over a passage in a 1996 study published by the U.S. Department of Justice: Convicted by Juries, Exonerated by Science: Case Studies in the Use of DNA Evidence to Establish Innocence After Trial.

The study documents 28 cases which, "with the exception of one young man of limited mental capacity who pleaded guilty," consist of individuals who were convicted by juries and, then, later exonerated by DNA tests.

At the time of release, they had each served an average of 7 years in prison.

The passage that riveted my attention was a quote from Peter Neufeld and Barry C. Scheck, prominent criminal attorneys and co-founders of the Innocence Project that seeks to release those falsely imprisoned.

They stated, "Every year since 1989, in about 25 percent of the sexual assault cases referred to the FBI where results could be obtained, the primary suspect has been excluded by forensic DNA testing. Specifically, FBI officials report that out of roughly 10,000 sexual assault cases since 1989, about 2,000 tests have been inconclusive, about 2,000 tests have excluded the primary suspect, and about 6,000 have "matched" or included the primary suspect."

The authors continued, "these percentages have remained constant for 7 years, and the National Institute of Justice's informal survey of private laboratories reveals a strikingly similar 26 percent exclusion rate."

If the foregoing results can be extrapolated, then the rate of false reports is roughly between 20 (if DNA excludes an accused) to 40 percent (if inconclusive DNA is added). The relatively low estimate of 25 to 26 percent is probably accurate, especially since it is supported by other sources.

Note to Stupid: It is not the Economy Anymore

"It's the economy, stupid," was the mantra of the Clinton campaign in 1992.  George Will (Real Clear Politics) shows us much the political environment had changed.

Last Sunday, eight Democratic presidential candidates debated for two hours, saying about the economy . . . next to nothing. You must slog to Page 43 in the 51-page transcript before Barack Obama laments that "the burdens and benefits of this new global economy are not being spread evenly across the board" and promises to "institute some fairness in the system."

I noticed this deafening silence recently, when I reflected that my friend Chad at CCK hasn't been running his usual "George Bush is despicable because of the economy" posts.  This used to be a regular feature of our conversations.  Chad would point out that income growth was sluggish (due no doubt to Bush's glee at starving orphans), and I would point out that we were recovering from a recession and that Bush would leave office with pretty much everyone better off than when he came in.  George Will notices the same thing.

Early in George W. Bush's presidency, liberal critics said: The economy is not growing. Which was true. He inherited the debris of the 1990s' irrational exuberances. A brief (eight months) and mild (the mildest since World War II) recession began in March 2001, before any of his policies were implemented. It ended in November 2001.

In 2002, when his tax cuts kicked in and the economy began 65 months -- so far -- of uninterrupted growth, critics said: But it is a "jobless recovery." When the unemployment rate steadily declined -- today it is 4.5 percent; time was, 6 percent was considered full employment -- critics said: Well, all right, the economy is growing and creating jobs and wealth, but the wealth is not being distributed in accordance with the laws of God or Nature or liberalism or something.

It is obvious that the economic news is very good.  If it weren't, the Democrats wouldn't be ignoring it.

Is Barak Obama the Anti-Christ?

Well, no.  I say this only because we all know that Karl Rove is the Anti-Christ. Think about it.  Christ was slender, had long hair, and was strikingly handsome.  I know this because his portrait was on my Sainted Grandmother's parlor wall, and his eyes followed you about the room.  Karl Rove is portly, balding, and something other than handsome.  I have never seen his picture on a wall, so I don't know if his eyes follow you, but I am guessing that his eyes are too busy looking for opportunities to bring down the Kingdom of Heaven. 

But Anna at Dakota Woman directs our attention to a Wonkett post on Obama.  Apparently a lot of "evangelicals" believe that Obama is or maybe the "AC."   Now I 'm with Anna.  These folk seem to be a bit tetched, as we say in Arkansas. Obama is a handsome, intelligent and articulate, if relatively unexperienced politician, who refused to give up cigarettes because they make his voice smooth and sexy.  I am not sure that  qualifies him to be president.  Surely Anti-Christ is a somewhat more demanding office.  When do the primaries begin for that?  But considering the forces pushing him to his presidential run, who knows what other ambitions he may have inspired in his admirers. 

It is nutty to cast Obama as the Anti-Christ.  Even more nutty than to compare George W. Bush to Hitler.