South Dakota Politics

Thumbs Up on Silver Surfer

Okay, okay, it's not a great movie, or even a great superhero movie (like Spiderman 1 &2, or the XMen).  But Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer is at least a good superhero movie. The Fantastic Four were a big part of my childhood, though not as big as Spiderman.  I love having my childhood heroes repackaged in ways that I can enjoy as an adult (though some readers may wonder whether that description applies).  The first FF movie was very disappointing, though it carved the heroes out very well and had a perfect cast.  All it suffered from was a very weak plot. 

The new film has a simple but strong story and sticks to it.  It is mostly consistent with the original story in the comic books.  I love what they do with the character of the human torch.  He is the very model of a modern young uber male, precocious, and with a flaming body to boot. But the real star of the show is  Ioan Gruffudd (that's Yoan Griffith, translated from the Welsh), as Reed Richards.  Reed was the kind of hero a science nerd such as I once was could aspire to be.  He was a natural born leader, always did his homework, and always new exactly what to do in any situation. That's not to bad a hero in modern movie land. 

Like the first movie, the second is doing very well at the box office.  From USAToday:

Riding on the shoulders of a computer-generated alien, Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer breezed to the top spot at the box office over the weekend.

The comic book sequel took in $57.4 million, according to studio estimates from box office trackers Nielsen EDI.

The haul is about $7 million more than projections and slightly eclipsed the take of the 2005 original, which made its debut with $56.1 million and went on to do $154 million.

"You have to believe this did well for mainly two reasons: it's PG and the surfer," says Chris Aronson of 20th Century Fox, which distributed Surfer. "With (the surfer), it felt more like a new movie than a sequel. He was what the fans wanted to see."

Indeed, the film earned stronger — though still unspectacular — reviews from critics, who were primarily impressed by effects behind the intergalactic surfer, embodied by Doug Jones and voiced by Laurence Fishburne.

There And Back Again, III

When we last discussed my far flung adventures, we were just leaving Washington, DC for London.  That's in Great Britain, which is this whole other nation.  We flew United, and we were quite happy with our flight.  We had a decent breakfast almost right away (it was a 10:00am flight), although I think they waited too long to serve us another meal (a light meal, about an hour before landing).  The worst part of the flight was getting to Dulles Airport.  Let me just say this: Damn Washington traffic!!!!   It took us almost three hours to drive from Fredricksburg, VA to Dulles.  We had to run to get to the check-in counter on time, and then run to get to security.  Luckily a nice security guy at Dulles recognized out plight and let us cut to the front of the line.  We then ran to the plane and just made it. On the plane we watched Bridge to Teribithia (thumbs up) and I saw my first episode ever of House (thumbs up).  I will say that the smart move was to leave America in the morning and get to London at night (about 10:00pm).  Because you are tired from travel you are almost ready for bed, even though in your body clock is only late afternoon/early evening.  We were over jet lag in one day. 

The first day in London saw the highlight, in our view, of London.  Believe it or not, it's the War Cabinet and Churchill Museum.  If you go to London please see this museum.  It is in the heart of the city, between Trafalgar Square and Big Ben, and right next to St. James Park. This museum includes a tour of the actual rooms used by Churchill and his cabinet while fighting WWII.  It also contains a Winston Churchill Museum, which is excellent.  You can learn about the entire life of Churchill and get to see the grandeur of the man (I also recommend Martin Gilbert's one volume biography).  We also went to the British Museum the first day.  It has not lost its charm.  But beware: unless you really dig old rocks, this is not the museum for you.  I also had my first real English meal, bangers and mash, at a local pub.  Excellent, which cannot be said for all English cuisine. 

St. James Park is remarkably beautiful with a vast array of birds, including the first "moor hen" I had ever seen (see picture). Trafalgar Square is also quite grand, as are the government buildings (including Whitehall).  On the second say we stopped by St. Paul's Cathedral (made famous by Mary Poppins as the home of the Bird Lady) and the Tower of London, which is spectacular. It is the home of the Crown Jewels, including the Star of Africa, the world's largest cut diamond. 

Some impressions of London. We stayed in Luton and took the train in.  Public transportation in the London area is excellent.  You can get virtually everywhere, although the trains and Underground are so extensive it is easy to get confused as to how to get from here to there. The cars in London are all tiny, and there is a bevy of bicycles and motorcycles.  London seems to have a keen sense of English/British history.  The monuments are all around.  One does get the feeling of being in an ancient place that has accomplished great things (both noble and terrible).  It is a shame that this great history is losing its meaning for the actual British peoples (more on that later).

I also want to report on the beer I had along the way.  Thumbs up to both John Smith's and Abbot Ale.  Smooth and tasty.   

After two full days in London, it was off to Rome.  Stay tuned. 

 

Attack Religion, Damn The Consequences

I didn't even know there was a Freedom From Religion Foundation, until this post from Joe Knippenberg about how the FFRF is attacking the Dakota Boys and Girls Ranch because of the Ranch's affiliation with the Lutheran church (both LCMS and ELCA) and its receipt of some government funds.  See Joe's post about the success of the Ranch and how the outside accreditation agency found no indication that the Ranch was using government funds to advance their religion. 

This reminds of something I was told when in Scotland.  We stayed with ministers of the Church of Scotland while in the country.  Two of them told me that despite the fact the Church of Scotland social service programs are routinely cited by the government for "best practices" and are recognized as the best in the country, recently the Scottish Parliament has decided that religious groups can no longer use public facilities, seriously damaging the Church's ability to serve the people of Scotland as they are now limited as to where they can "set up shop".  I am sure the Freedom From Religion Foundation would be proud, even if the recovering addicts and and mentally ill of Scotland are now worse off. 

Update: I changed some wording in the first paragraph for clarity's sake. 

Dueling Energy Bills

From Tim Johnson's office:

U.S. Senator Tim Johnson (D-SD) announced his support today for the CLEAN Energy Act of 2007that passed the full Senate late last night.  Johnson cosponsored the bill this legislation was modeled on, the Biofuels Security Act of 2007, earlier this Congress. As a member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Senator Johnson and his staff have been in close consultation with Senator Jeff Bingaman, Chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, on drafting the new energy bill. 

 

“I’ve worked with Chairman Bingaman to ensure that federal policy advances renewable fuels, and this bill will increase the availability of renewable fuels in the coming years,” Johnson said.  “We made great strides in this bipartisan bill.  This legislation will not only help our nation become more energy independent, but it will advance existing and new efforts to produce energy in South Dakota.”

On the other hand, here's National Review's Ian Murray:

In a disastrous move, the Senate passed the bill to make energy and just about everything else less affordable last night, 65-27. It avoided the worst proposed excesses, the $28 billion tax hike and an increased mandate for expensive, inefficient renewable power, but includes a 36 billion gallons mandate for miracle fuels that don't exist yet, new efficiency standards for appliances, etc., much higher CAFÉ standards but no automatic increases after 2020, and criminalizes “unconscionably excessive” gasoline prices. The result will be much higher prices for gasoline, appliances and less-safe autos, but not (for now) for electricity.

   

SDP Jazz Note: John Coltrane Boxed Set

I have mostly avoided boxed sets when looking for jazz or blues.  I think the only box set I ever bought, until now, was the Robert Johnson recordings, because it was the only good edition of his work available.  Listen to Malted Milk, and reflect on the story that he died after drinking poisoned whiskey, and see if that doesn't raise the hair on the back of your neck. 

But I just got John Coltrane: Fearless Leader.  This is a six CD box of Coltrane recordings in 1957 and 58.  Coltrane was amazingly prolific in this period.  The box includes all the recordings for Prestige on which Trane was the leader.  One reason I didn't like boxed sets was that I prefer a CD that bears some resemblance to the original LP, with the same cover art and the same song list.  But this box is an excellent piece of work.  The material is arranged by recording sessions, beginning with a Friday session on May 31st, 1957, just five days after I was born.  A booklet is included that has a "sessionography" listing what was recorded when, and a "discography" describing eleven LPs. It 's a jazz nerd's dream.

This is the period when Trane, fresh off drugs, was coming into his own. It includes some of his most influential albums, like Lush Life and Soultrane.  The bands include all the usual suspects like Red Garland, McCoy Tyner, and Donald Byrd.  On the first session, Sahib Shihab plays baritone on three numbers.  He creates a slithering line over which Coltrane can play.  I haven't heard anything else like it. 

Evolution and Assumptions II

Bob Ellis at Dakota Voice promptly replied to my previous post.  I said this:

If a Christian wants to take issue with Islam from a position that is legitimate within the confines of Islamic thought, then he would have to concede that there is no god but Allah and that Mohamed is his profit.  If he wishes to criticize evolutionary theory from a position that is scientifically legitimate, then he will have to concede [almost all the things that evolutionary biologists believe].

Bob says this:

If a Christian concedes these fundamental elements of Islam, then there is no point in arguing about the truth of Islam, because you've already agreed that Islam is true. It may be "legitimate within the confines of Islamic thought," but that doesn't mean it's true or even legitimate in a broader sense.

Of course.  A Christian may find it impossible to argue within the context of Islamic thought without surrendering the principles of his faith.  He may conclude that the same thing is true about arguing within the contexts of legitimate science.  But the Intelligent Design people are explicitly and intelligent trying to make their case within that latter context.  To do so, they have had to concede most of the truth of what Darwinists argue.  That was my point.  I say:

Evolutionists get to define the legitimate ground in biology for the same reason that chemists get to define the ground in chemistry: in each case they have the only scientifically viable theories and research  programs.

Bob objects:

No, evolutionists do not get to define what is legitimate, only what they consider legitimate. They don't have all the answers; like the rest of us, they are looking for answers.

Evolutionary biology in particular, and science in general, are more or less institutionalized traditions, like the Catholic Church or American League Baseball. To have any substance, each tradition must define for itself what is inside or outside.    Anyone is free to dissent, and reject natural selection, or transubstantiation (is that still current doctrine?), or the designated hitter. But that puts you outside science, or makes you a Protestant, or requires you to bat even if you are a pitcher.  It is possible, of course, that science has gone off the rails, and that a radical break with the tradition is necessary.  But to do that you would have to create a new tradition that is as successful at modeling all the phenomena that science is interested in.  Bob says:

Evolutionists also don't have the only scientifically viable theories. Creation scientists have scientifically viable theories; they only reason they aren't considered scientifically viable by some is because the dominant segment of the scientific community has redefined the study of science from "the pursuit of knowledge" to "the pursuit of knowledge within an exclusively naturalistic framework."

To which I reply: no.  The standard for science is a theory that generates a research program, and a research program that confirms the theory.  No such alternative to evolutionary biology exists.  I'm sorry, but creation science is ridiculous.  It has produced nothing resembling a theory and has no research programs.  It has as much to do with science as The Da Vinci Code has to do with history, or religion, or anything else.  Intelligent Design is a much more respectable enterprise precisely because it has not even attempted to present an alternative to evolutionary biology. 

Finally, there is a very good scientific reason why all modern science ignores supernatural causation: science has only natural means for testing a hypothesis.  One can confirm or rule out natural causes by experiment or data gathering because such causes are finite.  This cause (e.g., radiation, mutation, a viral infection) mostly likely produced that result, or this cause could not have produced that result.  Biblical faith posits an omnipotent God.  Such a God could bring about any situation whatsoever.  His influence can never be ruled out, and for that reason it can never be confirmed.  Scientists often find themselves unable to explain a natural phenomena, but that tells us only that science has failed, not that the phenomena is inexplicable or that it involves some miraculous power.  Otherwise, science would replace faith, something I suggest would not be good for science or for religion.

I do agree with Bob one one thing: evolutionists can be as pig-headed and bigoted as any person of faith.  In my experience, evolutionists are usually more intolerant.  I have found myself defending evolution before Methodists, and Christianity before evolutionists.  The Methodists were more reasonable.  But that has to do with the politics surrounding science, and not with science itself. 

More Science Talk

I read with interest Ken Blanchard's latest foray into the subject of science, evolution, and their limits (if any).  I note that Hillary Clinton has taken President Bush to task for his veto of the embryonic stem cell bill, accusing Bush of putting "ideology before science."  I am note sure what she means by "ideology."  If she means simply ideals, than I am glad that Bush puts his ideals before science.  Science can teach us lots of wonderful things about the world and certainly makes our lives more comfortable, but it can't teach us right from wrong.  For more discussion listen to Dennis Prager (hour 3, Wednesday June 20, entitled "Science Before Idealism"). 

An example.  In this interview, noted scientist and evangelical atheist Richard Dawkins argues against limits on embryonic stem cell research thusly:

For me, moral questions such as stem-cell research turn upon whether suffering is caused. In this case, clearly none is. The embryos have no nervous system. But that's not an issue discussed publicly. The issue is, Are they human? If you are an absolutist moralist, you say, "These cells are human, and therefore they deserve some kind of special moral treatment." Absolutist morality doesn't have to come from religion but usually does.

One wonder why the question of "whether suffering is caused" is significant.  Based purely on science, can Dawkins tell us why causing suffering is wrong?  (By the way, I'd make a distinction between pain and suffering, but that is another matter.  Let's discuss as if they are the same thing.)  Of course some medicine causes suffering to bring about a cure (think of radiation on cancer patients).  So how do we know which suffering is good and which suffering is bad?  Science itself cannot tell us.  We must resort to ideals.  What I see President Bush doing is having science serve his ideals, not the other way around.  You may disagree with his ideals, but truly putting science ahead of our ideals is to become monsters (see Frankenstein). 

Of course a problem arises if one truly is an ideologue, one whose pursues the ideal in spite of the reality of an imperfect world or the necessity of negotiating between multiple valid ideals.  Much is made in some quarters about a Republican or conservative "war on science."  First, as I pointed out toward the end of this post, whatever this phenomenon is, it is not a sole domain of the right.  Second, the concern of most on the right (certainly the most thoughtful), is not science, but scientism, i.e., turning science into an ideology.  Senator Clinton should be wary about falling into this error.   

There And Back Again, II

As threatened, I will tell the tale of some of my journeys over the last month.  The first leg of the trip took us to Washington, DC.  Just once I'd like to go to DC when they haven't forgotten to turn off the heat.  It is said that one of the biggest contributers to the growth of the federal government in the 20th Century is the advent of air conditioning, as this allowed Congress to work year round, even in the miserable heat of Washington in the summer. 

We were there for Memorial Day and the day after. There was the opportunity to see the president at Arlington Cemetery on Memorial Day morning, but we decided that waiting in the security line was not worth it.  We did go to the WWII Memorial, which I had not seen before.  I am happy to note that it is incorporated nicely into the mall area.  We had lunch at a Mexican restaurant just north of the National Gallery (I did not write down the name).  The food was mediocre (I had an unpronounceable dish that was essentially a ham quesadilla), although we did have the best guacamole dip I have ever tasted, made fresh at your table.  You pay through the nose for it, but it is worth it.   That evening we ate at Al Tiramisu restaurant just off Dupont Circle. I can report that in all my travels in the last month, this was the best meal.  I had a lamb dish with a succulent au jus type sauce.  The waiter recommended an excellent wine.  The desserts were heavenly.  If you are in DC, go to Al Tiramisu.  Make sure to bring your credit card.  It is not cheap. 

I have a former student who works for Vice President Cheney, and on Tuesday morning he took us on a tour of the East Wing of the White House.  You can get West Wing tours, but they are harder to get and we did not inquire in time.  What we did see was splendid, especially the State Dining Room. Funny enough, we ran into a guy from Madison, SD outside the White House. Small World.  I will say this about Washington, DC.  In my experience it is one of the best places in the country for food, and it is amazing how much you can do for free (such as touring the White House).  If only I could say the same about certain other cities (I am looking at you, London).  I will say that the traffic in the Washington area is awful, and it is hard to see how those who live there can claim to live civilized lives. 

We did go to Arlington Cemetery on Tuesday afternoon. It never fails to leave an impression on the visitor.  We certainly stand on the shoulders of giants.  One gets at Arlington a sense of honor and nobility that is hard to find in modern society.  We are so busy being cynical (usually posing at wisdom) that it is refreshing to go to a place free of cynicism. 

Let me also speak highly of King Street Blues in Alexandria, VA, the spot for lunch on Tuesday afternoon.  I had a fine po' boy sandwich almost as good as I have had in New Orleans.  It has a quirky decor and good southern style food.  I recommend it. 

On Wednesday May 30 we flew out to London. More on that to come. 

Anna and I on Sufficient Evidence

In our recent exchange, I posed a couple of questions to Anna, in reply to one of her own.

Anna, do you think that a simple accusation, absent any physical evidence or corroborating witnesses, made months or years after the fact, should be enough to send a man to prison? Should we simply discard the presumption of innocence and require the accused to prove that he is innocent? 

To the first she replies:

If the person is guilty of the crime, yes.  Easy!

But that "easy" reply begs one question, and ignores the most basic requirements of constitutional justice.  The Constitution does not demand that a person be guilty before we deprive him or her of life, liberty, or property.  It demands that due process of law be followed.  No matter how guilty O.J. Simpson may have been (and I think he was very guilty), he was found innocent by a jury and that is that. 

And how do we know he (the accused in a rape trial) is guilty?  Perhaps an accusation alone, in the absence of any other evidence, should be enough.  I think Anna would reject that standard were she or someone she cares about accused of murder or theft.  But if that is the standard, then the defense in such a trial has no other recourse but to challenge the reliability of the sole witness.  And I think I know how Anna regards that kind of challenge.  Her persistent use of such phrases as "lying women" and "attention-seeking sluts who file rape charges" indicate a legitimate concern for the position of a woman who is pressing a rape charge.  But followed to their logical conclusion, they mean that a man accused of rape can't present any defense at all.  If no evidence other than the mere accusation is damning, and he can't challenge the accuser without "blaming the victim," what is left? 

Anna is right that I have posted a lot on this topic. The Duke Lacrosse fiasco has brought the subject to the forefront of media attention.  Soon the subject will fade, and so it is a good time to have this out.  Despite our differences, I am grateful to Anna for engaging in this discussion with me. 

 

Evolution and Assumptions: A Reply to Bob Ellis

The prodigal Schaff has returned, and posts below on the molecular biologist/theologian Alister McGrath who has been arguing with the evangelical atheist, Richard Dawkins.  Professor Schaff makes reference to my posts on Intelligent Design.  Just to avoid any confusion, when I criticize ID theory I am not arguing for atheism.  I am not in fact an atheist and I have no interest in trying to convince any persons to drop their belief in Biblical creation. 

Bob Ellis at Dakota Voice has a thoughtful and friendly post in reply to my own on Intelligent Design and Evolution.  Bob's post is a good example of what civilized discourse should look like.  Bob takes issue with my endorsement of Jerry Coyne's piece in the New Republic.  Specifically, Coyne produced a list of the things that ID scientist Michael Behe concedes in order to criticize evolutionary theory from a scientifically respectable position.  For example,

Behe admits that most evolution is caused by natural selection, and that all species share common ancestors. He even accepts the one fact that most other IDers would rather die than admit: that humans shared a common ancestor with chimpanzees and other apes.

Bob replies:

If you allow your definition of "scientifically legitimate ground" to be defined by evolutionists, then that might be true. But evolutionists don't define what is scientifically legitimate and what is not, only what they consider "scientifically legitimate."

By this same kind of logic, the Christian must concede that there is no god but Allah, and that Mohammed is his prophet in order to challenge the truth of Islam. Now stop and think for a moment: does that make sense?

To which I reply: yes.  If a Christian wants to take issue with Islam from a position that is legitimate within the confines of Islamic thought, then he would have to concede that there is no god but Allah and that Mohamed is his profit.  If he wishes to criticize evolutionary theory from a position that is scientifically legitimate, then he will have to concede what ID spokesman Michael Behe concedes.  Evolutionists get to define the legitimate ground in biology for the same reason that chemists get to define the ground in chemistry: in each case they have the only scientifically viable theories and research  programs. 

Bob objects to the "assumptions" that evolutionary biologists make, but this is how science works.  If a chemist finds a new chemical, or an astronomer a new heavenly object, each will assume that the discovery fits within the established theoretical framework.  One may object that the discovery does not in fact fit-creationists and IDers do a lot of that.  Or one may argue that the accepted framework as a whole is unworkable, or better yet propose a new, viable framework.  As Behe demonstrates, intelligent design theory gives up the former and has never attempt the latter.  In order to take a position within the context of scientific biology, the IDers have no choice but to concede most of what Darwinists believe.  That was my point.

Finally, Bob draws on his experience in law enforcement to make a case for the importance of witnesses in an investigation.  I would make two points.  First, criminal investigations move in almost the opposite direction from scientific investigations.  The former apply all sorts of assumptions (everyone has a unique fingerprint) to a very specific case: the body at the table.  The latter move from specific cases to general laws and descriptions. 

Second, eliminating eye witness testimony was the whole point of the scientific method.  Nothing is established because this scientist said he saw something happen.  It is established when other scientists can reproduce the event in their own laboratories.  When this is not possible (no experiments can be done on the common ancestor of chimpanzees and human beings), the question is whether each new piece of data confirms the established theory.  Moreover, in many sciences, eyewitness accounts are unavailable.  No one has seen a molecule, or an atom, or a proton.  But the existence of such objects are not merely "assumptions."  They are hypothetical objects that guide research programs and are persistently confirmed by those programs.  The same is true of the evolutionary history of the species in biology. 

I do not believe that Darwinian evolution contradicts the Biblical creation story.  A Christian may well disagree, and choose to reject the former.  He is deceiving himself if he thinks he can do so without rejecting modern science as a whole. 

Latest Gas News

Gov. Rounds announced today that an area near Elk Point is the leading contender for a new oil refinery.  It is not clear what the plant will refine oil into.  If it is gasoline it will be the first such new plant in about 30 years.  The plant will generate about 1,800 jobs, which is good for our state.

Prof. Deneen has much to say, and little of it hopeful, about the future of the world price of oil.  See here, here, and here.  The picture he paints explains in part why the dollar is so weak versus other currencies.  Having just spent a great deal of time in Great Britain, I can tell you that the dollar gets you about half a pound, or put differently, you can look at the price in pounds and double it to get the dollar amount.  Thus, having rented a car (Vauxhall Astra, car nuts, 1.6 liter version), we paid about $7 a gallon for gas (roughly .969 pounds per liter, which by my calculations is over $7 a gallon at the exchange rate).  Take note of this item from Prof. Deneen:

The easiest way to explain this is EROEI: "energy returned on energy invested." In its heyday in the 1940s, the U.S. was getting the equivalent of 100 barrels of oil for every barrel it invested in retrieving it. Nowadays we're fortunate if we get around 15:1, which is still pretty good. Compare to some other EROEI numbers: wind, 5:1; solar, 4:1; tar sands, 1.5:1; hydrogen, 1:1; and, my favorite, ethanol, approximately -1:1. That's right - the alternative energy future being pushed by our political leaders is a net energy loser, once you calculate the amount of petroleum inputs needed for fertilizer, pesticides, and processing. Can anyone say "government subsidies"?

Welcome back Qatar

Jimmy Carter must be a very frustrated man.  It's one thing when the Bush administration refuses to cover the ammunition bill for Hamas as it wages its civil war against Fatah in Gaza.  You'd expect that kind of stubbornness from Bush.  But for the European Union to go along, well, one would have thought the French would be more enlightened.  Now it seems that the other Middle Eastern countries are joining the West in isolating Hamas.  Egypt has invited leaders of Israel, Jordan, and the Palestinian Authority (Fatah) to meet and look for ways to shore up embattled PA President Mahmoud Abbas.  Only Qatar and Carter are left to defend those poor Hamas gunmen.  And Qatar is looking shaky. 

There And Back Again

I returned to Aberdeen yesterday from an extensive trip that took us to Washington DC, London, Rome, back to London, and then to Scotland.  I shall be posting thoughts on the trip and a few pictures here and there.  For now I will note that Ken Blanchard has been writing extensively on Darwinism and Intelligent Design.  I came across a British author to consider on this subject, one Alister McGrath.  McGrath holds a doctorate in molecular biology, but is a theologian by trade.  Apparently some of his works are available in the United States, particularly those in which he critiques the thought of Richard Dawkins.  So those interested in the relation of faith and science may want to check out Alister McGrath. 

A Reply to Anna on the Duke Case

My pal Anna, at Dakota Women, is mad at me again.  I posted on an article in Slate that was not really about the Duke case or about rape in general.  It was about the prevalence of prosecutorial misconduct.  I found the information provided very alarming.  But the point of contention was over this paragraph in the Slate article.

Mike Nifong did what prosecutors almost always do when a complainant comes to them alleging a sexual assault: He took his complainant at her word and went full speed ahead with a prosecution. The fact is that few if any prosecutors wait for corroborating evidence or insist on more than one person's say so before initiating a sexual assault prosecution. Indeed, they'd be vilified if they did. The cardinal rule of sexual assault complaints is "believe the victim," and since anyone who complains is deemed a victim, even a semi-credible complainant can generate an arrest and prosecution in the absence of physical evidence, additional witnesses, or even a prompt accusation. This isn't just the case in Durham; it's true almost everywhere. The widespread support for this questionable practice is such that if the Duke case had gone to a jury and the defendants had been convicted, Nifong would not only still have his law license—he'd have been lionized for his dogged pursuit of rich white kids.

Anna responds:

Ken, are you seriously quoting this section of the article without thinking about what the author is actually saying? Yeah, let's be sure a rape survivor who actually reports the crime to the police only get justice if there was a third party around to witness the assault, or she reports the crime within a timeframe established...by whom? No justice unless the survivor acts like A True Rape Victim Should Act. I mean, what the HELL. What a callous disregard of the trauma rape survivors deal with after their attacks, and what ignorance of how the justice system actually treats rape cases.

To which I reply again: rape is a very terrible crime.  To be falsely accused of rape is just as terrible.  A "callous disregard of the trauma" in either case is a very bad thing.  Anna, do you think that a simple accusation, absent any physical evidence or corroborating witnesses, made months or years after the fact, should be enough to send a man to prison? Should we simply discard the presumption of innocence and require the accused to prove that he is innocent?  I think that is the implication of your remarks, and I cannot agree.

On a final note, Anna attributes to me the following as her link to my post:

Ken Blanchard takes another swipe at those attention-seeking sluts who file rape charges.

Nothing in that statement represents anything that I have written on this subject. 

Daschle v. McGovern

Denise Ross:

Linda Milazzo at the Huffington Post threw in a few unkind remarks about South Dakota’s Tom Daschle in what was primarily an anti-Bill Frist screed and a lament that, with Frist on board, she can’t support ONE Vote ‘08.

Tom Daschle is also unsuitable, but for less nefarious reasons. He’s merely a lackluster, uninspired leader. A trait he passed on to Harry Reid. …

A nation that invests even a second to destroy life rather than sustain it commits crimes against humanity. Tragically billions, trillions, ‘gazillions’ of those seconds have already passed us by. Umpteen of them during the tenures of Tom Daschle and Bill Frist.

She then holds up South Dakota’s George McGovern as a shining example of a non-lackluster leader.

Couldn’t an effort as valiant and worthwhile as ONE Vote find two more worthwhile leaders? … Former Senators George McGovern, a Democrat, and Bob Dole, a Republican, are two highly respected leaders of their parties who have teamed in a national and global effort to combat world hunger.

Daschle’s critics usually come from the other side of the aisle and, it seemed to me, were most upset when he performed well by organizing the congressional personalities under the congressional rules and blocking Republican initiatives. I guess he’s got critics under his tent, too.

On a side note, McGovern Day was last Saturday here in Mitchell, and coming up there is an event planned for July 10th at the McGovern Library to celebrate the former Senator's birthday.  I encourage anyone who can attend to do so, if only to check out the excellent museum displays.

Duke Hoax

This piece penned by Thomas Sowell entitled "Unfinished Business" points out that not only is Durham District Attorney Michael Nifong guilty of jumping to conclusions about the Duke "rape" hoax, but so are several others, including the New York Times and the Group of 88.  Also see this story, and also note that not everyone was wrong.

TNR

The New Republic:  "Congress's approval rating is even lower than President Bush's--it's at 23 percent according to the latest NBC-Wall Street Journal poll. And, in another poll, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's favorability rating is down there with Scooter Libby--at 19 percent."

UPDATE:  Here's another poll from USA Today:

New Gallup data show confidence in Congress at all time low

Just 14% of Americans have a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in
Congress.

This 14% Congressional confidence rating is the all-time low for this
measure, which Gallup initiated in 1973.  The previous low point for
Congress was 18% at several points in the period of time 1991 to 1994.

Congress is now nestled at the bottom of the list of Gallup's annual
Confidence in Institutions rankings, along with HMOs.  Just 15% of Americans
have a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in HMOs.  (By way of
contrast, 69% of Americans have a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in
the military, which tops the list.  More on this at galluppoll.com on
Thursday).

Jimmy Carter's Noxious Numbskullery On Display Again

From the Investor's Business Daily:

As the Gaza Strip flamed into Hamas gang warfare and the West Bank slid into another civil war, Carter — cozy in distant Ireland accepting another "human rights" award — found cause Tuesday to blame America first for all the violence.

Amid wine, cheese and good feeling, America's worst ex-president drew a bead on the West. The refusal by the U.S., Israel and the EU to support Hamas, an armed terror group that just launched a coup d'etat and civil war in full view of the world, was nothing but a "criminal" act at the root of the trouble there, Carter asserted.

"The United States and Israel decided to punish all the people in Palestine and did everything they could to deter a compromise between Hamas and Fatah," he said.

The statement was so malevolent and illogical as to border on insane. Carter wasn't honest enough to say he was rooting for terrorists who started a terrifying new war in the region and trashed what little democratic rule the Palestinians had. Instead, he tut-tutted the West for being insufficiently sensitive to the fact that Hamas thugs were democratically elected in 2006 in an "orderly and fair" vote.

When one party has started a civil war, democracy isn't exactly the issue anymore. Just being elected does not justify making warfare on your fellow citizens. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice repeatedly points out that those who are elected democratically have an obligation to govern democratically or they aren't democrats. Hamas has blown its right to democracy.

Carter also misstated and distorted technical aspects of democratic rule in the Palestinian Authority itself, further calling into question his intentions. Hamas' 42% plurality in the last parliamentary election gave the terror group a right to participate in government, but not absolute power.

A Response from Dakota Voice On Evolution

Bob Ellis has a substantial reply to my recent post on Intelligent Design theory, along with some kind words about SDP.  It's getting a bit late for me to digest it and respond, though I will try to do so tomorrow.   Our readers who are interested in this subject will want to read Bob's post. 

The Nifong Case as the Canary in the Coal Mine

David Feige has a very alarming piece in Slate on the Duke Lacrosse story.  Feige says that prosecutorial misconduct of the kind that has now destroyed Michael Nifong is in fact routine, and that only a "perfect storm" of special circumstances ("powerful defendants, a rapt public, and demonstrable factual innocence") produced a just outcome. 

There are, of course, a few particularly egregious cases that leave visible traces in appellate records. A 2003 study by the Center for Public Integrity found nearly 11,500 such cases. Of them, four out of five were shrugged off as harmless errors. And as previously noted in Slate, of the 2,012 cases since 1970 in which appeals judges actually threw out an indictment, conviction, or sentence because of prosecutorial malfeasance, in only 44 did prosecutors even appear before state ethics boards to answer for their actions. Another indicator: A Chicago Tribune investigation found 381 Illinois murder convictions that were reversed because prosecutors withheld evidence or prompted witnesses to lie. The number of those prosecutors publicly sanctioned or disbarred as a result? Zero.

In other words, a lot of prosecutors behave just like Nifong, and get away with it.  This calls out for reform if anything does.  But I note the peculiar politics of rape accusations. 

Mike Nifong did what prosecutors almost always do when a complainant comes to them alleging a sexual assault: He took his complainant at her word and went full speed ahead with a prosecution. The fact is that few if any prosecutors wait for corroborating evidence or insist on more than one person's say so before initiating a sexual assault prosecution. Indeed, they'd be vilified if they did. The cardinal rule of sexual assault complaints is "believe the victim," and since anyone who complains is deemed a victim, even a semi-credible complainant can generate an arrest and prosecution in the absence of physical evidence, additional witnesses, or even a prompt accusation. This isn't just the case in Durham; it's true almost everywhere. The widespread support for this questionable practice is such that if the Duke case had gone to a jury and the defendants had been convicted, Nifong would not only still have his law license—he'd have been lionized for his dogged pursuit of rich white kids.

This is not an institutional problem, it is a political problem.  Rich kids like the Lacrosse players have some remedy.  God help those without such resources. 

Bloomberg Leaves the GOP

Associated Press:  "New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg on Tuesday switched his party status from Republican to unaffiliated, a stunning move certain to be seen as a prelude to an independent presidential bid that would upend the 2008 race."

Thune Pushes Wind Energy Incentives

From the Associated Press:

Senator John Thune is pushing provisions that would promote the development of wind energy as the Senate debates a new energy bill.

The Senate today passed a Thune amendment that would promote the development of energy transmission infrastructure. It would promote the creation of "energy corridors" that would make it easier to transfer wind energy to high-demand areas.

Thune says South Dakota already has the wind energy and that the missing link is the way to deliver the energy.

Also today, the Senate Finance Committee passed energy legislation that would extend a production tax credit for wind energy.

That bill will be added to the energy legislation being considered by the full Senate.

SDP Jazz Note: The Low Down in the Low Countries

I just watched Art Blakey and the Jazz Messengers Live in '58, a DVD I got from Netflicks.  It includes a complete concert in Belgium.  Apparently a lot of jazz was filmed in Europe in the late 50's/early 60's.  I posted some time ago on a Dexter Gordon number filmed in Holland.  The JM DVD is 55 minutes of excellent jazz, featuring  (heads up, Jason!) Lee Morgan on trumpet; Benny Golson on tenor; Bobby Timmons on piano, and Jymie Merritt on bass.  The finale is devoted to Dizzy Gillespie's standard, "A Night in Tunisia," but I think the performance of "Moanin," written and arranged by Timmons, is by far the best thing on the disk.  You can hear most of the material on the CD Moanin', along with several numbers by Golson.  It is very good jazz. 

Fiscal Responsibility

A novel idea:  "President Bush has decided to try fiscal responsibility in his last two years in office."

Intelligent Design Theory Fails Again

Michael Behe is one of the few working scientists among the Intelligent Design crowd.  In his first book, Darwin's Black Box, he argued that certain biochemical pathways in organisms displayed "irreducible complexity"; that is, they could not have evolved by a series of simple steps. Almost no biologists were persuaded by this argument.  Now he has a new book, The Edge of Evolution.  There is a devastating review at the New Republic by Jerry Coyne. 

I note only how much ground Behe is willing to concede to evolutionary theory. From Coyne:

For a start, let us be clear about what Behe now accepts about evolutionary theory. He has no problem with a 4.5-billion-year-old Earth, nor with evolutionary change over time, nor apparently with its ample documentation through the fossil record -- the geographical distribution of organisms, the existence of vestigial traits testifying to ancient ancestry, and the finding of fossil "missing links" that show common ancestry among major groups of organisms. Behe admits that most evolution is caused by natural selection, and that all species share common ancestors. He even accepts the one fact that most other IDers would rather die than admit: that humans shared a common ancestor with chimpanzees and other apes.

This is how much ground you have to concede if you wish to maintain some scientifically legitimate ground from which to challenge evolutionary theory. 

One of Todd Epp's Conservative Friends Replies

S.D. Watch directs our attention to this U.S. Supreme Court decision, summarized by the Sacramento Bee. 

Passengers, like drivers, have a constitutional right to challenge the legality of police decisions to stop cars in which they are traveling, the Supreme Court said Monday.

Bruce Brendlin was convicted of drug possession after a sheriff's deputy stopped a car in which he was a passenger in Yuba City, Calif., in 2001.

Brendlin was wanted for a parole violation, although the deputy who ordered the car to pull over didn't know beforehand that Brendlin was in the vehicle.  Brendlin appealed his conviction, arguing that the drug evidence should be suppressed because it was found as the result of an illegal stop. l

Todd adds this comment:

Note, my conservative friends—the vote was unanimous by the Supremes. Probable cause may be on life support but it’s not dead yet.

To which I add: yes.  Scalia and Thomas and Roberts and Alito joined swinger Kennedy and the Court's still weighty left wing.  Contrary to the implicaton of my friend Epp's comment, conservatives are just as eager to limit police powers as liberals.  Apparently Bush's appointments have not destroyed the Constitution.  I now have Epp's evidence on this.

The original point of the fourth amendment search and seizure language is to prevent government from using its police powers to annoy innocent persons whom the government dislikes.  Here the government of California wants to profit from an illegitimate search by arguing that only the driver of the car is protected.  The Court reasonably concluded that fourth amendment protections extend also to someone who is riding shotgun.  It looks like an easy call to me. 

On the other hand, the passenger in question had an outstanding warrant that would have justified his arrest if the police had otherwise known he was in the car.  What if he were part of a terrorist cell about to blow up Reno Airport?  I humbly submit that the Court would have reache another conclusion. 

Monkish Intolerance II: Nifong Disbarred

Powerline has the story.  Former Durham County DA Michael Nifong, whose resignation I commented on earlier, has been disbarred by the North Carolina bar.  It is altogether proper that Nifong lose his law license and his office.  I am inclined to think that he ought to be prosecuted and serve time, if that is possible under the law.  Nifong set out to deliberately railroad several young men.  He did so originally to secure an election victory and later, I think, to cover up his own misconduct.  He clearly attempted to circumvent the most basic rights of the accused in keeping DNA evidence from the defense.  If he had been successful, he would have sent innocent persons to prison.  For that, he deserves a spell in the slammer himself. 

Powerline also reminds us of the role that 88 Duke University professors played in the travesty.  Before the facts had come out and without the benefit of a trial, the 88 issued wanted posters of the lacrosse players.  Erasmus would have recognized these robe and tassel scoundrels. 

The Monkish Intolerance of the Academic Left

I am blogging from the Reno airport this afternoon.  I spent the last three days discussing Erasmus, the Christian humanist who was a contemporary of Machiavelli and Martin Luther.  Erasmus was famous for not taking sides in the schism that was about to blossom into the Protestant Reformation.  He was at first supportive and later critical of Luther, but he refused to endorse the creation of a new church, independent of Rome.  He was committed first and foremost to the liberal arts and the freedom of the mind. The most frequent targets of his wit were the monks and theologians of his time, for whom learning was nothing less and never anything more than a slavish obedience to whatever dogma was current among them at the time.

I thought of this when I noticed this piece by Michael Goldfarb in The New York Times.  It is about the closing of Antioch College, which was established 155 years ago by a free-thinking Christian group.  What killed it?  The main cause was that after the 1960's it was gradually transformed into a vast left-wing propoganda machine, with branches all across the country. The administration no longer gave much thought to the ancient institution it was responsible for.  Worse was what happened at Antioch College itself.   

Antioch College became a rump where the most illiberal trends in education became entrenched. Since it is always easier to impose a conformist ethos on a small group than a large one, as the student body dwindled, free expression and freedom of thought were crushed under the weight of ultraliberal orthodoxy. By the 1990s the breadth of challenging ideas a student might encounter at Antioch had narrowed, and the college became a place not for education, but for indoctrination. Everyone was on the same page, a little to the left of The Nation in worldview.

Much of this conformist thinking focused on gender politics, and it culminated in the notorious sexual offense prevention policy. Enacted in 1993, the policy dictated that a person needed express permission for each stage in seduction. (“May I touch your breast?” “May I remove your bra?” And so on.) In two decades students went from being practitioners of free love to prisoners of gender. Antioch became like one of those Essene communities in the Judean desert in the first century after Christ that, convinced of their own purity, died out while waiting for a golden age that never came.

These are the people with whom Erasmus struggled.  The world will never see the end of them.