South Dakota Politics

Global War On Terrorism

Read this story about continued terrorism in the United Kingdom and then consider the fact that half of the Democratic candidates for president don't think there is a global war on terrorism and that the Democrats on the House Armed Services Committee have banned the use of the term from committee documents. 

What Is An American?

See both William Bennett and Scott Johnson (channeling Peter Schramm) ruminating on what it is to be an American.  Bennett especially laments the decline in the teaching of American History in our schools.  What they teach is not good, and when they teach it they do it poorly.  One of the problems we have is most of the teachers do not know American history.  I don't have the numbers in front of me, but it is something like 70% of all secondary American History teachers neither majored nor minored in History in college (this is to say nothing about the elementary school teachers).  It is therefore not surprising that, as Bennett reports, American History is our students' worst subject.

How could we improve the teaching of American History?  Some suggestions.
1.  American history is a story and should be taught that way.  It has compelling characters, an amazing plot, and plenty of drama.  I am currently working my way through Shelby Foote's Civil War books.  You don't get a more fascinating story than that.  And this is true throughout American history.  There are plenty of heroes and villains (if I may quote Brian Wilson) for kids to root for and against.  It's like a real life Harry Potter story.
2. The teaching of American History is more than names and dates.  But it is not less than that. The desire of the education mavens to move beyond mere "historical facts" would be laudable if they were talking about advanced History eduction.  But any history starts with just plain old knowing who did what and when.  With a firm basis in that, we can move on to why they did it. 
3.  The emphasis on social and multicultural history is misplaced.  Again, social history has its place, probably in more advanced History.  History shows us how other people lived.  We can see different values, lifestyles, political arrangements, etc.  This, in my view, is one of the great virtues of history education.  But students should get the big picture (political history) before they get the smaller picture (social history).  The multiculturalists tend to bring in a load of political baggage. If we want to teach students the greatness of their history, it'd be best if it is not taught by people who hate America.
4.  As with most subjects, our teacher training is poor.  Our teacher education tends to focus on pedagogy rather than on learning content.  Future teachers spend more time learning how to teach than they do learning what it is they are supposed to teach.  I'd like to see us move to a system where education students take a four year degree in a content area and then take a fifth year to do their teacher training.  I do note that most of my colleagues in the School of Education would think me daft for proposing such a thing. 

Ethanol Raises Food And Gas Prices?

This story from the Yankton Press and Dakotan argues that pouring government money into ethanol only increases the price of gas and food.  The article bases these claims on a study done by the free market Competitive Enterprise Institute.

But according to Smith's study, experts are predicting not only environmental ramifications from increased soil erosion and run-off from increased use of fertilizers, but also unintended economic consequences.

"There's going to be so much pressure to find land to grow corn, that all crops will be pushed up in price. This will raise food prices," Ebell said.

Already, there are signals of discontent among other interest groups as demand for ethanol competes with corn used in livestock feeds and food products. Consumers are the largest affected group and may not be feeling the effects at the supermarkets yet as the costs of ethanol policy are dispersed among millions of people. However, as the prices for food staples increase, that is expected to change.

But beyond the anticipated pressures on the nation's food supply and environment, according to the study, the greatest misconception with ethanol is that it will lead to a decrease in gas prices.

"America's vulnerable energy supply, which comes largely from unstable regions like the Middle East and Venezuela, poses not only a dangerous threat to our nation security, but is driving gas prices to record prices across the country," Thune said.

But Ebell said the problem with ethanol is that it will never be produced more cheaply than gasoline.

"ADM has done a very good job of convincing the public that, if we replace gasoline with ethanol, it will lower the price of gas. But the experts who have studied this are pretty unanimous in their findings that it will raise the price of gasoline, not lower it," Ebell said.

"The USDA estimates that it takes three-quarters of the energy in a gallon of ethanol to produce that gallon of ethanol," he said. "The energy inputs are very high and most of them come from petroleum."

Diesel tractors and combines used for corn production, and ethanol plants powered by natural gas or electricity from coal-fired power plants are factors that ardent biofuel proponents don't like to factor into the ethanol equation.

"And you can't pipe ethanol," Ebell said. "It has to be trucked, and there are significant energy inputs just getting ethanol from the plant to the oil refineries."

 

Herseth for Governor: SDWatch Makes the Pitch

Todd Epp at SDWatch nails his proposal to the door.  Representative Herseth-Sandlin should run for the State House in South Dakota.  Todd makes a good case, and I would emphasize the point that it would be very good for the South Dakota Democratic Party if they could elect a Governor.  Herseth-Sandlin would be a strong contender.  Nor is this the first time I have heard this suggestion.  I gather that her family here abouts would like to see it, just as I would like to see my daughter return from far off parts and settle in God's own Aberdeen.  I would also like to see high-speed, vacuum-tube trains linking Aberdeen to Paris. 

I think Herseth-Sandlin is about as likely as Tom Daschle to repatriate.  The House seat was her ticket out.  And besides, right now Tim Johnson's Senate seat is glowing like a chunk of Kryptonite in Clark Kent's luggage. If, as I continue to expect, Tim does not run again, H-S will surely be drafted to run for it.  Suppose, under those circumstances, that H-S did decide to run for governor.  The state house has always been a hard nut for Democrats to crack.  If she loses, Republicans could well end up in control of South Dakota's entire congressional delegation and the cool office in Pierre.  I can't see the Democrats taking that risk. 

Colman, Thune Vow to Fight Fairness Doctrine

Yesterday, Congressman Mike Pence won support for his amendment blocking the FCC from reinstating the Fairness Doctrine.  His amendment was tagged onto the appropriations for the agency, which requires a sister amendment in the Senate.  That amendment has been offered up by Senators Norm Colman of Minnesota and our very own John Thune:

In an effort to prevent Democrats from suppressing the right to free speech for talk radio and other broadcasters, Senators Norm Coleman (R-MN), Jim DeMint (R-SC) and John Thune (R-SD) today introduced the Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2007 (S.1748). The bill would prevent the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from reinstituting the Fairness Doctrine, which would require the government to monitor political views and decide what constitutes fair political discourse. Identical legislation was also introduced by Congressman Mike Pence (R-IN) in the House of the Representatives.

“At its core, this is about the right to free speech. Our founders put the first amendment first for a reason. It protects all Americans’ right to free speech, regardless of political affiliation or views. The Democrats’ attempt to regulate and stifle ideas is a grave threat our liberties,” said Senator Coleman. “Since the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine, talk radio has flourished due to free market ideas. We mustn’t put the government in control over the political views expressed on the public airwaves. I applaud Congressman Pence for being a leader on this issue. Senators DeMint, Thune and I will continue working with our colleagues in the Senate to pass this critical legislation.”

“Here they go again. Democrats showed in the immigration debate they will once again try resurrect the so-called 'Fairness Doctrine', which is nothing more than an attempt to muzzle the free speech of conservative Americans. If liberals had their way, this unfair doctrine would give the heavy hand of government control over talk radio. We must act now to preserve all American's first amendment rights,” said Senator DeMint.

This isn't about Republicans or Democrats, Rush Limbaugh, or conservative talk radio.  This is about the freedom of speech, and approval of this bill should become a priority.

Immigration Politics II

Anna at Dakota Women responds to one of my recent posts on immigration politics. I think we are largely in agreement on the basic questions, but I have a few responses.  Anna says:

Amnesty may be unpopular but it seems to me to be the only option we have. Otherwise, we either 1. kick tens of millions of people out of the country (doing what with whatever children these people have who have been born here and are citizens, by the way?) or 2. keep everything as-is, which means that we continue to live with a situation in the US where millions of people work and pay some amount of taxes but have no rights and no voice in the society. These people are essentially serfs, and in this country in 2007, that's not an acceptable situation.

That looks like three options to me, even if two of them are unpalatable.  If we really wanted to expel all ten million illegals (or however many there really are), we could probably figure out a way to do it.  There is a snowball's chance in Tijuana that this will happen, and I do not advocate it.  The costs, both moral and economic, would be far greater than any gains.  As for the status quo, I agree that it is bad but not for the reasons Anna mentions.  It is not true that "undocumented" persons "have no rights and no voice in society."  They have all the rights afforded to persons under the Constitution, except for the rights of citizenship.  For example, the children of illegals (even if they do not qualify for citizenship) cannot be excluded from public schools.  Many illegals prosper here, which is not something that typically happened to serfs. 

But I would be in favor of amnesty now, and I believe most Americans would follow me, if I believed that in ten or twenty years Anna won't be pointing at ten or twenty million new illegals and saying we can't kick them out either.  If you really want amnesty, you have to real control of the border. Anna has more

I also think we 100% abandon the current family reunification system of immigration (in favor of admitting only high-skilled immigrants) at our peril. . . . Parents and adult siblings generally provide needed additional incomes, and assistance in caring for children. They are a necessary part of the life of any family - immigrant or otherwise. Making it nearly impossible for these family members to come to the US legally seems silly to me.

I agree with Anna that family reunification allowances in immigration are a good idea, and I would favor such allowances for all legal citizens.  But I think that the high vs. low skilled immigration allowance is a different question.  Allowing a lot of low skilled, uneducated workers to immigrate depresses wages at the bottom, for those who can least afford it.  Allowing more economically competitive immigrants challenges those who can afford it, and makes the U.S. more competitive.  I would also increase the allowance for skilled immigrants from "old Europe."  After all, that's diversity.

There And Back Again, IV

Much to the chagrin of the reading public, I have been remiss in keeping up on the tale of my European travels.  The story picks up with a quick trip to Rome.  There are plenty of discount airlines in Great Britain, and if you don't mind being packed in like cattle, having obnoxious limits on carry-on luggage, and the fact that you have to pay for any food (including water), it is a very inexpensive way to get on the continent. 

We stayed in a kind of bed and breakfast near St. Peter's.  In actuality it was an apartment that a couple lets out to tourists.  The nice thing is we had our own kitchen, a great location, and it was actually a bit cheaper than most of the hotels. 

Rome is dirty and wonderful, kind of like its people.  Never have I seen so much graffiti in a city, most of it clearly political and Communist.  Some of the graffiti is in English, clearly trying to influence tourists.  Anti-Israel/Pro-Palestinian posters and graffiti abound.   Indeed, once upon a time I posted here about the sign to the left (I cannot find my post).  Well, I saw this image on an anti-Israel poster in Rome.  How savvy. 

St. Peter's Basilica is beautiful times ten.  It is home to amazing art, including Michaelangelo's Pieta.  One gets the feeling of grandeur of Renaissance times and the dedication to beauty so indicative of that age.  One also gets a lot of statues of dead popes, which is cool if you are into that kind of thing.  The Sunday we were in Rome featured a canonization mass said by Pope Benedict.  In packing for Rome I had insisted that jackets were unnecessary, as it surely would be in the 80s everyday.  Well, it was about 50 and down pouring for the Mass.  Mrs. Right-wing Wacko was not happy with me.  So we left the mass, bought some gaudy clothes from a local vendor, and went back for more.  Despite the rain and cold, it was a beautiful and memorable experience.  The next day we climbed to the top of St. Peter's dome, which is quite a trek.  A trek of 322 steps, to be exact ( I wasn't counting; they tell you this).  A beautiful view of Rome.  The picture here is from the dome, and you can clearly see that St. Peter's Square is not a square.   The walk up to the dome reminded me of my old office in Seymour Hall at NSU.  It is hot, sweaty, narrow, and lots of stairs, but well worth the wait.  This walk, I add, is not for the claustrophobic.  But the conclusion is spectacular, even for those like me with vertigo issues. 

Later that day, after drying off, we went to the ancient Roman sites, namely the Coliseum, the Forum, and Palatine Hill.   These are all right next to each other, therefore and easy walk once you get there. Warning: the Forum has an uneven stone floor.  Wear good shoes or you will be in pain.I suggest educating yourself before going to these sites.  I read The Classical World by Robin Lane Fox, which is a fine overview of ancient Greece and Rome (although a little heavier in social history than I usually like).  I also cannot recommend Rick Steves Rome highly enough. By the end of our stay in Rome we were saying, "Forget Caesar. Hail Rick Steves!"  He gives amazing tips that come in extremely handy.  He also gives you guided tours of most of Romes sites.  This is especially helpful for the Forum and Palatine Hill, since unless you are an expert in ancient Roman architecture, you won't really know what you are looking at without some sort of guide.  Rick Steves is excellent. 

The Vatican Museum is quite the experience.  It is hot, sweaty and magnificent.  The Sistine Chapel is a kind of mediated experience of God.  The museum is horribly crowded and it is hard to take your time to take in all you are seeing.  I would suggest hurrying through the stoneware and getting to the tapestries and Raphael frescoes.  Included here is the fresco of the philosophers, which Prof. Blanchard will appreciate.

We also went to the Mouth of Truth, as seen in Roman Holiday.  I still have both of my hands. 

We ate in a couple times in Rome, as we had the apartment.  We did eat at a fine restaurant, Ristorante la Carbonara, in the Campo de Fiori.  I had a fine cannelloni and a plate full of Mediterranean fish. They still had their heads attached, which was off-putting, but they were tasty.  A bit annoying were the street performers and vendors who felt comfortable entering the outside seating area of the restaurant and asking us for money.  Especially annoying was the saxophonist.  If Frank Sinatra was alive, it would have killed him to hear what this guy did to his music.  And I still have nightmares over the butchered Dave Brubeck.  Like a banshee it was!  I did have a fine hot mushroom, chicken and cheese sandwich served on a kind of kaiser roll at a place near the Vatican. And yes, they make fine gellato (it's just ice cream people) in Rome.

Anyone who thinks America has vulgar pop culture has never turned on Italian television.  I have no idea what they were saying, but it all looked like low budget 1970s television to me.  And when a guy with long black hair, a powder blue leisure suit, and a pained expression sings a heartfelt song with gaudy strings in the background, you know you have hit cultural bottom. It makes Lawrence Welk look hip.

I am sorry we did not make to Trevi Fountain or the Spanish Steps.  Reason to go back, one supposes.  But Rome is a fine city that I can recommend.  And get the Rick Steves book. 

To Save Brown We Had To Undermine It

Prof. Blanchard has already weighed in on the Supreme Court's race-based admissions decision.  I second his opinions, although I am less offended by race-based solutions than some conservatives and certainly am less sure they violate the Constitution.  Those conservatives dedicated to original intent (and I believe neither Prof. Blanchard nor I are of that ilk) should be reminded that the 14th Amendment, which guarantees equal protection of the law, was passed amidst Reconstruction in which race-based solutions were used on a regular basis by the federal government.  No one seemed to think these policies offended the 14th Amendment.

I did find this statement by Justice Breyer a bit odd.  Justice Breyer (as reported here) states in his dissent:

"To invalidate the plans under review is to threaten the promise of Brown," Breyer said.

Does it not seem odd that in order to save the Court case that undermined racial segregation in schools we must continue assigning children to school based on the color of their skin?  I know Prof. Blanchard has taken some grief for his criticisms of Brown's logic (but not its conclusion), but let me simply state that if the Court in Brown has used Justice Harlan's "the Constitution does not tolerate distinctions amongst its citizens" approach from his Plessy dissent, Brown would have been a much sounder decision and have given much clearer guidance for subsequent cases. 

Bipartisan Consensus Reached in Congress

Associated Press:  "Despite low approval ratings and hard feelings from last year's elections, Democrats and Republicans in the House are reaching out for an approximately $4,400 pay raise that would increase their salaries to almost $170,000."  The notion that members of Congress think they deserve a pay raise is remarkable considering only 19% of Americans think Congress is doing a good or excellent job.  Business as usual in Washington.

Thune Votes No On Immigration Bill

From the Senator's Office (hat tip to Radioactive Chief):

June 26th, 2007 - Washington, D.C. - Senator John Thune made the following comments today after voting no on a procedural vote on the proposed immigration reform legislation:

"The immigration reform legislation before the Senate is a flawed bill and I cannot support it. This bill would grant immediate legal status to over 12 million illegal immigrants before a single border security measure is implemented. By not taking the necessary steps to secure America's porous border, this bill seriously undermines the security of our nation and the rule of law.

"In addition to this being a flawed bill, the process to amend the legislation has been equally flawed. This bill was written behind closed doors by a small group of Senators, rather than going through the open committee process. Dozens of amendments to strengthen the bill have been blocked and the time for debate has been cut short. This kind of closed process does not do justice to the American people or the seriousness of this issue."

I think Thune was right on this bill, but those who have argued that Thune was Bush's poodle will have to give it up.  Todd Epp weighs in on this. 

The Robert's Court and Diversity

It's the time of year when decisions ripen and fall from the nine main branches of the tree of justice.  How's that for a metaphor!  Most of the fruit seems to be falling on the right. 

In Parents Involved in Community Schools Inc. v. Seattle School District and Meredith v. Jefferson County (Ky.) Board of Education, the Court ruled (5-4)  that school districts could not use race as the sole or main factor in assigning students to schools.  Anthony Kennedy in his concurrence argued that school boards could use race as one of a number of criteria for student assignment.

That represents progress, but not a lot of it.  I think it obviously wrong to bar any student from attending a chosen school because he or she is the wrong color.  I do not think it matters how heavily the student's race or ethnic classification is weighed.  Moreover, the racial assignment regimes in these school systems are demonstrably incoherent.  The supposed compelling government interest is diversity.  Now imagine two schools: one is half White, and half Asian; the other is one quarter each White, Asian, Hispanic, and African American.  Under the Seattle system, the former would be okay, but the latter would have to be broken up.  Why?  Because the operating racial principle seems to be mixing Whites and "minorities" in equal proportions.  But anyone can see that the second school is more diverse than the former.  This is nuts.   

Immigration Bill Defeated

As yours truly shrewdly predicted (hiding behind Powerline), the immigration bill was defeated in the Senate.  The motion to invoke cloture went this way: 46 yea, 53 nay, with one not voting.  Sixty votes would have been required to end debate and allow a vote on the bill itself.  It is generally agreed that no immigration bill will be acted on again until after the next election. 

What killed the bill was the simple fact that most Americans didn't like it, and a lot of Americans didn't like it with a passion.  We are, after all, a democracy. I think it was very bad of Senator Dick Durbin (D-Il) to blame the bill's defeat on racism.  There was no doubt some of that, but precisely because we are a democracy, the American people can reasonably demand that the laws be enforced.

A lot of attention on the news shows focuses on who will be hurt by this defeat.  In some respects, the Republicans are clearly more vulnerable.  The President hurt his base by pushing it, and the Hispanic vote will probably see the Republicans as the anti-immigration party.  But the Democrats might not want to crow too loudly.  Congress under their control has proved unable to legislate on a topic where good legislation was clearly needed.  What if they had a larger majority?  They would have passed this very unpopular bill, or better yet, a bill even more unpopular. 

The Future Of Northeast South Dakota

The "town hall" meeting at NSU today on the future of our region here in the Northeast part of the state went well.  Lots of ideas were discussed.  It remains to be seen if anything comes of it.  It was noted that precious few elected officials were present.  One thing that was made clear is that this part of the state is in demographic decline (not news) and that all the communities must work together to meet the housing, transportation, and job needs of the area. 

A participant from the South Dakota Department of Labor stated that there is a new federal tax credit available for employers in counties with declining population.  When they hire a new worker between the ages of 18 and 39, they can get a healthy tax break.  Employers in rural counties should contact the Department of Labor to see if their county qualifies and whatever added restrictions there are on the credit.

Putin Ends Up On Santa's Naughty List

Russia claims the North Pole.  Damn, they just won't leave Poland alone. 

Fred Thompson On Abortion

This video is making something of a splash online as it purports to show that Fred Thompson is pro-choice and not a viable candidate for pro-lifers.  One does note, though, that Thompson clearly states that this should be a matter for the states, a position at odds with Roe v. Wade and the pro-choice faith, which says that the American voters should have no choice as to abortion laws.  While Thompson does not support laws criminalizing abortion, putting him at odds with the stalwarts in the pro-life community, his position against Roe would make him persona non grata in the Democratic party and automatically disqualify him for that party's nomination.  So perhaps Thompson is the moderate on abortion some have been looking for.  Thompson is supposedly running for President of the United States, not Governor of Tennessee.   

SDP Zombie Alert

We here at SDP try to keep our readers fully informed about the zombie menace (note: this is not an immigration metaphor).  I am currently reading World War Z, by Max Brooks.  This is an oral history of the zombie war that recently decimated the human population.  I'll write a full review when I am finished, but every page raises a few more hairs on the back of my neck.  I gave the book to my teenage son, and he has now given it back to me.

I am pleased to see that Will Smith is starring in I Am Legend, coming in November.  Richard Matheson's novel, published in 1954, might be the single most influential horror novel (at least where cinema is concerned) after The Strange Case of Doctor Jekyll and Mister Hyde.  It tells the story of Robert Neville, the last human being, who lives in a fortified house surrounded nightly by vampires.  It is the inspiration for nearly every modern zombie movie, as well as the masterful Omega Man, starring Charlton Heston.  The new movie is the first to use the original title.  My son tipped me off to this one as well. 

Immigration Politics

It looks a lot like defeat for the immigration bill, according to Powerline. Good.  There is no reason to believe that this is an honest piece of legislation.  It is disguised amnesty and all make-believe enforcement.  I am not necessarily opposed to amnesty, if it were coupled with real border enforcement.  On the other hand, I don't think it necessary, and it's almost certainly opposed by the American people.  If the border is brought under control, the illegals who remain here may have a more difficult time.  But their children will be legal and will assimilate as fast as any other immigrant group. 

I posted earlier on an article about the economic effects of immigration, arguing that immigration as a whole (legal and illegal) is clearly good for the American economy.  Robert Rector at RealClearPolitics replies to the Karl Zinsmeister and Edward Lazear  I mentioned. I don't think he makes much headway, but he makes one point that is clearly correct. 

Immigration policy should seek to increase the number of high-skill immigrants entering the country and sharply decrease the number of low-skill, fiscally dependent immigrants.

Of course!  It would probably not be a good idea to cut off the flow of low-skilled workers, or at least not at once.  Some industries probably do depend on such immigrants.  But a dramatic reduction would raise the wages of low-skilled workers across the board, and encourage innovation in labor-intensive industries.  On the other hand, we ought to swing the gate wide open to high skilled workers.  That is a win-win situation for the country and for high value immigrants.  It would put pressure only on the wages of folks who can afford it. The only exception I can think of is immigrants with political science degrees.  That would clearly be bad. 

 

Hello Hamas. Hello Fatah. Here I am at, Camp Gaza!

Professor Schaff makes some comments below on my American News essay about Jimmy Carter.  He (Schaff, Carter isn't speaking to me) says this:

Ken writes:

The hope is that Fatah, the more civilized of the two, will maintain control over the West Bank.

When Fatah, a terrorist organization itself, is your "civilized" option, you are truly in a bad way. 

I agree with my colleague that backing Fatah is a very unpromising strategy, but for different reasons.  It make sense sometimes to back a Stalin to defeat a Hitler, though it can be really hard to tell when.  In this case Abbas clearly looks better than anyone in Hamas, in the way that strep throat is better than flesh-eating bacteria.  The problem with backing Fatah is not that they are terrorists, but that they are utterly incapable of doing any of the things that a government is for.  They cannot even generate a monopoly on force.  The idea that we are saving them so they can be a partner in peace is laughable.  They are too powerless to be a partner in anything. 

Town Hall Meeting In Aberdeen

If you are in the Aberdeen area, stop by the Student Center at NSU tomorrow for a "town hall" meeting on regional issues (yes, having a "town hall" meeting about a region is a bit odd).  The morning session consists of some regional communities discussing the success of their community events (e.g., Leola's Rhubarb Festival).  The afternoon has various "round tables" on health care, housing, transportation and labor challenges in our region.  Refreshments start at 8:30am with the real festivities going at 9:00. 

No, You're A Hater!

Dave Kranz picks up on the cat fight developing over Sen. Scott Heidepriem's statements about Republicans being a party of "hate."  Heidepriem, of course, switched parties last year and won a seat in the state Senate as a Democrat.  He recently stated that his father had been a Republican because he "wanted to be a part of a party that was about hope, not hate."    He now claims, Kranz reports, that he never actually said that Republicans were "haters," which of course is true, and also weasel words.  The clear implication of his statement is that he was a Republican like his father, but not wanting to be in a party of hate, he switched.  This is the conclusion he wished his audience to draw, otherwise what is the point about his father? 

Heidepriem better check the luggage his own party carries.  As political scientist Geoffry Layman has shown (see also here), a significant and growing number of Democratic activists are motivated by an evangelical secularism and who actively hate, not just disagree with, hate conservative Christians. And what to make of the party that campaigns on such slogans as "the people versus the powerful" and "there are two Americas," clearly designed to stoke class resentment and hostility.  I could go on, but what would be the point.  There's enough hate on all sides, so spare us the lecture. 

This is a fine case study in self-righteousness.  The self-righteous person feels better because (he believes) other people are worse.  "I am so good because I am not like those people who are so bad."  If one simply redefines the positions of one's political opponents as "hate," it can really help one feel morally superior.  Like "hate," self-righteousness is plentiful on all sides in American politics. 

When You've Hit Rock Bottom

Read Ken Blanchard's latest pitiful prose written in the American News, if only for one line. Ken discusses the fighting between Hamas and Fatah over control of the Gaza Strip.  Ken writes:

The hope is that Fatah, the more civilized of the two, will maintain control over the West Bank.

When Fatah, a terrorist organization itself, is your "civilized" option, you are truly in a bad way. 

Everybody's Talking At Me

This letter appeared in the Aberdeen American News:

We live in America, why not talk American?

If you go to Russia, China or Japan, do they stop talking their language and talk English to you? No.

So why do we need to learn to talk Spanish? If you cannot talk English go back to your own country. If they had to talk English they wouldn't come to the United States.

I agree. I can't remember the last time I hear someone talking American.  When I was in England, I heard a bunch of people speaking English, but over here I find it hard to find someone talking American. 

Do We Love Huckabee?

Chris Cillizza has a piece on former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, long shot hopeful for the Republican Presidential nomination.  I have have blogged on Huckabee before.  As I come from Arkansas, I have a vested interest in his progress.  At this point, he is hoping to pull a Mike Rounds, and emerge after the other nominees have destroyed one another.  It is not a likely scenario, but if it should happen, I am available for Fox News. 

Keloland and the Kelo Decision

No sooner did Todd Epp join a law firm than he subscribed to the Wall Street Journal and find himself barking along with all of us other running dog lackeys of the ruling class.  I say welcome aboard!  Todd blogs about the U.S. Supreme Court's Kelo decision.  Here is how Todd describes it:

Today, the WSJ has two articles looking at the second anniversary of the Kelo case that upheld the use of eminent domain statutes to comdemn land for economic development purposes, not just for public projects like roads, schools, and the like.

While I’m not a big “property rights” uber alles nut—I think people should have superior rights to property—I also don’t think the government—any governnment—should be in the business of using the law to help crony capitalists.  In Kelo, the project that the Supremes upheld was essentially state sanctioned class warfare, with the rich getting their way over the poor.

Now I think I agree with everything Todd says there.  Government can clearly seize private property for public purposes.  The question in Kelo was whether they can, under the Constitution, seize it to promote economic development, which in this case meant giving or selling it to private developers. The Court said yes, and unlike most conservatives, I think the Court was right.  How to use the power of eminent domain is a policy question, and best left to legislatures that can be held accountable at the polling place.  If the Court had held that the Kelo seizures were unconstitutional, that would have meant the courts would have to sort out a lot of ambiguous eminent domain cases, and they would inevitably have approved those they liked and struck down those they disliked.  I prefer the arbitrary rule of legislatures to that of small, unelected courts. 

As a policy matter I agree with Todd, and I think he points out the right remedy.  Seizing the houses of women living of social security and giving it to real estate developers is not usually social progress.  It is up to state legislatures to legislate sufficient protections for property rights.  Perhaps this is one issue on which libertarians and libertarian-leaning conservatives like myself can make common cause with Eppian progressives. 

Johnson

The beltway publication The Hill reports today, via SDWC, that the immigration bill heading into the U.S. Senate this week could come down to a one-vote margin, and Senator Johnson's absence may make the difference:

With the possibility that the Senate might decide the fate of the immigration bill by the slimmest of margins, the continued absence of a low-profile Democratic senator has added to the roadblocks supporters face in pushing through the carefully negotiated compromise.

The brain hemorrhage Sen. Tim Johnson (D-S.D.) suffered in December will keep him on the sidelines during this week’s much-anticipated immigration debate. The episode has forced him to miss all 226 roll call votes the Senate has cast in the 110th Congress, including nine that have been decided by a one-vote margin.

Who Is "Divisive"?

Take a look at Joe Knippenberg and Ann Althhouse commenting on Barak Obama's latest ruminations on faith and politics.  See Joe's post for the details of Obama's speech.  In it Obama claims that "the so-called leaders of the Christian right [have been] all too eager to exploit what divides us" and Christianity has been "hijacked" by conservative Christians.

What does it mean to be divisive?  If Bob says the sky is blue, and Joe objects strongly, arguing instead that the sky is yellow, is Bob being divisive?  It seems division is a negative thing when it is sought purely for political gain. We call this demagoguery.   Let's see some historical examples.  When Republicans of the 1850s cried out about the evil of slavery, the South and those Northerners with a stake in political stability (e.g. Stephan Douglas) called Republicans "divisive."  No doubt the Republicans were.  Their outspokenness on slavery clearly led to more political agitation on the issue, heightened sectional tensions, and was one ingredient that led to a civil war that killed over 500,000 Americans.  Should the Republicans have kept their mouths shut, rather then be "divisive"? 

Winston Churchill spent the latter half of the 1930s in the British political wilderness.  He constantly urged his fellow countrymen to take the threat of German National Socialism seriously and to arm the Empire against a new German aggressiveness.  Churchill was laughed at and ridiculed, even by members of his own party.  He was called a fool and fear mongerer.  Should Churchill have kept his mouth shut, rather than stoke the fears of the British citizenry? 

If conservative Christians make certain claims and liberal Christians or secular liberals disagree, this in and of itself is not proof of political malfeasance on the part of conservative Christians.  If one has strongly held convictions and airs them in the public square, some will disagree.  One supposes this causes political division, but should we only speak on those things on which there is consensus?  Indeed, was not the nation very content considering marriage as between one man and one woman until gay rights activists starting calling for a more expansive view of marriage?  Did this not cause division?  Should they have kept their mouths shut, rather than foster division over a touchy social issue?  I do not think so, and am I quite sure that Barak Obama does not either. 

All sides have their demagogues, those who exploit division and fear for political gain, but the mere fact of division is not proof of demagoguery.  If Obama disagrees with his some of Christian brothers on this or that issue, pray let him discuss like a brother.  Instead he has chosen the route of the politician, playing on the worries and fears of the secularist liberals in his party for his own political gain.  How divisive of him. 

South Dakota And Title IX

The Rapid City Journal published a two part piece on Title IX, the federal law that requires "gender equity" in athletics in scholastic settings.  You can read the two parts here and here.  For background on the law, and its abuses, I suggest Jessica Gavora's Tilting the Playing Field. 

Frank Deford, perhaps the most respected sports writer extant, calls for a reevaluation of Title IX.   Deford briefly, and Gavora in depth, illustrates the promise and the peril of Title IX.  There are three ways to comply with the law.  The first "prong" of compliance says that a school may comply if the number of women participating in athletics is "in proportion" to the number of women in the school.  The second prong says a school is in compliance if it is making progress toward greater representation of women (for example by adding sports).  The last prong allows schools to claim compliance if the number of women participating in athletics mirrors the desires of women in the student population, usually documented through survey information.

The problem is that the focus of the lawyers and of the Department of Education's Office on Civil Rights, particularly under the Clinton administration, have been primarily on "prong one" as the only prong that proves compliance.  As Deford points out, the problem is that we live in a new generation.  Most schools have more women than men now (indeed, across the nation, almost 60% of all college attendees are women).  Thus, especially given large number of men required to field a football team,  proportionality is difficult to achieve without cutting men's sports.  Compliance is now met all too often not by adding women's opportunities, but by reducing the opportunities for men. 

Those who believe "prong one" is the only just way to comply with the sound notion that we should not discriminate in scholastic athletics based on sex work on a fiction, namely the fiction that athletics is equally important to males and females and that, barring discrimination, men/boys and women/girls would have the exact same interest in athletics.  One has to be blinded by ideology to believe that.  Deford has some suggestions for retooling the law, one good (count football differently) and one a little silly (note to Frank Deford, some piano players do get scholarships), but it is clear that some reevaluation of how we approach this issue is in order.

As usual when I touch on something that might involve South Dakota higher education, I note that the views stated here are my own, not those of my employer. 

The Economic Benefits and Political Costs of Immigration

One of the obvious questions about immigration, legal and otherwise, is whether immigrants add to or subtract from the economy: do they make the U.S. richer or poorer?  Now I find it hard to believe that immigration can lead to a net loss for the economy as a whole.  People flow across borders because they can get more on the other side than where they started; that is the supply side.  The demand side is that they offer something (labor) cheaper than it is available without them.  Just as the U.S. cannot but  benefit it finds a supply of cheaper oil, it cannot but benefit if it finds a supply of cheaper labor. 

My knee-jerk conservative reaction is probably correct.  See this article by Karl Zinsmeister and Edward Lazearat Real Clear Politics:

The classic study on the costs and benefits of immigration was produced by a team of prominent economists and demographers for the National Research Council. Those researchers concluded that the long-run cost to all government treasuries of an immigrant with less than a high school degree is around $17,000 (in 2006 dollars). Meanwhile, an immigrant with more than a high school degree produces a surplus of $253,000, and the average for all immigrants was $102,000 more in taxes paid than benefits received.

But that just weighs benefits received against taxes and fees paid.  Immigrants also buy food, cars, and washing machines.  They rent and buy housing. 

A 2006 report from the UNC-Chapel Hill business school found that Hispanics in North Carolina contributed more than $9 billion to their state economy as a whole. Another 2006 study, by the Texas comptroller, concluded that 1.4 million immigrants living in Texas increased the size of that state's economy by $18 billion. The benefits from this growth go to the native-born population as well as to the immigrants themselves.

Immigrants enrich our private economy in a variety of ways. Their contributions make viable certain businesses that would otherwise move overseas. They have a stimulative effect as consumers--in a typical county today, 28% of population growth comes from immigration. They increase productivity by adding labor that is mostly complementary to native workers. This is why a recent study of California by U.C.-Davis economist Giovanni Peri found that immigration between 1990 and 2004 "induced a 4% real wage increase for the average native worker."

Immigrants are surely an economic benefit to the economy as a whole, though there are just as surely some native born Americans who do not benefit. 

But economic benefits are not the only relevant consideration.  There is also the matter of citizenship.  Those who are citizens now have a right to decide to whom citizenship will be extended.  The real reason the current immigration legislation is so unpopular is that this question has not been taken seriously.  Many business lobbies want  the flow of cheap labor to continue.  Many democrats want the flow of Hispanics to continue, on the assumption that they will mean future democratic voters.  Most Americans want to have some say over who is eligible to join the ranks of American voters.  Until that problem is solved, rational immigration reform will probably not be possible. 

SDP Jazz Note: Miles & Trane

Jason weighs in on jazz, mentioning three of the four discs recorded by the Miles Davis Quintet in 1956: Workin', Relaxin' and Cookin'.  For some reason, Steamin', which was the second of the two recorded gets left off of the list a lot.  Maybe it's because he is lighting a cigarette on the cover.  I note that I reviewed this work earlier.  I agree with Jason that the Miles Davis disc Kind of Blue stands out as maybe the most perfect jazz recording ever made.  I am not sure I would put Coltrane's A Love Supreme at that same level, though it is surely one of the most popular jazz albums.  The latter is a long, four movement composition more akin to classical music in its structure.  I listen to it a lot, but it is a very atypical piece of jazz.  The four quintet recordings mentioned above might be the single best slice of modern jazz available.  They present the repertoire of the quintet as it toured in that year.  I happen to think that this represents the perfection of jazz: nothing that has come since has been better.  If you want to know whether you will like jazz or not, listen to "If I were a bell" on Relaxin' or "My Funny Valentine," on Cookin'.  If you don't like these numbers, you won't like jazz. 

SDP Jazz Note: New Jazz

I've read with envy Ken's review of the John Coltrane box set he picked up.  Though, at just over $40 on Amazon for six CDs from one of jazz's great sax players, that's a pretty good value.  I've recently picked up several new CDs, three by Miles Davis (Relaxin', Workin', and Cookin') and one by Greg Osby (Public).  All are excellent. 

As we have probably mentioned before, Miles Davis always ends up on a list of Greatest Jazz Musicians Ever, with is album Kind of Blue produced by Columbia Records normally landing on the list.  However, Relaxin', Workin', and Cookin' were recorded with Prestige by the quintet in the early 1950s have a different sound from Kind of Blue.  Kind of Blue, in the parlance of the genre, is an example of "post-bop" jazz that assimilates the influences of hard bop, modal jazz, avant-garde, and swing, turning out an album that is beautiful and deeply poignant.  For my money, Kind of Blue and John Coltrane's A Love Supreme are the two best albums in jazz.  I've also been eyeing this box set that collects all of the music for Columbia by Miles and John Coltrane together.  Another excellent collaboration between Cannonball Adderley and Davis, Somethin' Else, is also something you should hear.

Osby's quartet is magnificent, featuring Nicholas Payton on trumpet, Megumi Tonezawa on piano, Robert Hurst on bass, Rodney Green on drums, and Joan Osborne doing vocals.  I've heard Osby described as the Art Blakey of this generation, and I think that's a fitting label given Osby's transformational nature.  Osby has an art for finding outstanding jazz musicians, and a generous willingness to incorporate them into his band.  Recorded live at New York's Jazz Standard, Public contains three covers and three intense originals.  The original performances on Public are built primarily on improvisation rather than composition.  In earlier styles of jazz like bebop, although the solos were improvised, they still centered around a template of chords and melody that the "free jazz" performers frequently ignore.  Although I still lean towards the sound of bebop and hard bop, his music, which essentially deconstructs those two genres, is certainly worth listening to, with his hard, angular rhythms meshing with the flowing swing of bebop.

Johnson Cash

Argus Leader:

In a plush Washington, D.C., conference room earlier this month, more than a dozen Democratic senators and their guests gathered for a reception to benefit South Dakota Sen. Tim Johnson.

The June 14 event, in the Veterans of Foreign War conference room - a windowless room lined with paintings of Washington monuments and 300-pound cherry wood tables - was a quiet affair hosted by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada. Lobbyists came and went, and the reception was over in about an hour and a half.

"It was an in-and-out type event: Come in, have an hors d'oeuvre, say hi to Sen. Reid," said Wayne Rankin, an assistant director at the VFW.

Suggested contributions to Johnson's campaign were $2,500 for hosts and $1,000 for attendees.

The fundraiser was the latest hosted by Senate Democrats in their effort to shake the money tree for Johnson's 2008 re-election campaign. Johnson, who has been sidelined since December while recovering from a brain hemorrhage, was not at the event.

Those efforts have proved fruitful: Johnson's campaign raised more than $660,000 in the first quarter of 2007, leaving him with $1.2 million in the bank and putting his campaign on pace to match the amount he raised in the last election. In the 2002 race, Johnson raised $5.6 million.

With vigorous fundraising continuing, his campaign is expected to report a sizeable increase at the close of the current reporting period, which ends June 30.

To some, Johnson's rapidly filling war chest is a sure sign that he's a candidate in 2008. But no official announcement has been made, nor is there a timeline for Johnson's return to the Senate.

And that leads to another question: If Johnson doesn't seek a third term in the Senate, what happens to all that money?

Read the whole thing.