South Dakota Politics

$100,000 Missing From Hildebrand-Tewes

The Argus Leader breaks this huge story tonight regarding the Hildebrand-Tewes Consulting firm:

An employee of Hildebrand Tewes Consulting Inc., a prominent South Dakota political consulting firm whose clients include presidential candidate Barack Obama, has been fired after more than $100,000 was discovered missing, according to a partner in the firm.

...

The employee was fired after officials at the firm were notified by the Internal Revenue Service that payroll taxes that should have been deducted from employee paychecks had not been received.

Speculation has run wild at SDWC, with commentators thinking that the culprit is Chad Schult, backing their argument with his recent absence and removal from the Hildebrand-Tewes website.   I wouldn't be so quick to assume since we don't know all the details yet.  We'll wait for the morning to see what new information the Argus reports.

UPDATE:  No new information in the Argus this morning.  I've taken out the word "embezzle" because that may not be entirely accurate.  The Argus only reported the money went missing, and whether that means embezzlement or something else is unclear.

House Energy Bill

Where is the House energy bill? 

But House Democratic leaders, hoping to pass an “energy independence” bill this month, have had to delay taking the measure to the floor for weeks. Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her allies want a hefty increase in fuel-economy requirements for cars, light trucks and S.U.V.’s, but they are finding that it is not easy to maneuver around Mr. Dingell, who wants a smaller increase that would be less painful for Detroit automakers.

The power struggle pits a towering committee chairman, long accustomed to running his own show, against the first female House speaker, who has her own ambitious agenda.

When Ms. Pelosi, of California, created a new committee on energy independence and global warming in January, Mr. Dingell attacked it as a potential encroachment on his turf. Though she assured him the new panel would have no legislative authority, he remarked that it would be an “embarassment” and “as useful as feathers on a fish.”

Behind the scenes, Mr. Dingell fumes that Ms. Pelosi and other comparatively young House leaders are trying to dictate his schedule and his priorities. He grumbles about colleagues who are too “ideological,” too impatient and too unrealistic about the costs of slowing global warming. He implies that Ms. Pelosi cares more about being “green” in California than about blue-collar workers in Michigan.

“I’ve had conflicts with speakers before,” he said in a lunchtime interview, as he wolfed down a peanut-butter sandwich in an antechamber next to his committee’s hearing room. “This is not the first time.”

Were younger House leaders trying to push him aside?

”Let them try; let them try,” he replied. “They won’t be able to do it.”

The first big showdown will be the pending energy bill, which House leaders originally hoped to pass soon after July 4. Mr. Dingell’s committee has approved a measure that omits any change in fuel-economy requirements. Ms. Pelosi and many other Democrats want to add a tough requirement, much like one the Senate passed in June, as an amendment on the House floor.

The Senate passed its energy bill last month.  Perhaps Congresswoman Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin should spend less time flying to the polar ice-caps with Nancy Pelosi and more time getting an energy independence bill passed.

Reid on Withdrawal

Today's Washington Post editorial takes on Harry Reid:

The decision of Democrats led by Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) to deny rather than nourish a bipartisan agreement is, of course, irresponsible. But so was Mr. Reid's answer when he was asked by the Los Angeles Times how the United States should manage the explosion of violence that the U.S. intelligence community agrees would follow a rapid pullout. "That's a hypothetical. I'm not going to get into it," the paper quoted the Democratic leader as saying.

Congressional Poll Numbers

Don Surber on plummeting Congressional approval numbers:

Congress now has no base outside of its staff, the reporters who cover it and Mom, and even she is wavering.

I am not laughing. I am not gloating. I am troubled.

I am not alone. Law professor Glenn Reynolds, who runs the Instapundit Web site, wrote, "This has gone past the point of being funny. It's really worrisome."

In a democracy, people must have faith in their institutions. In a totalitarian government, fear will do.

The problem is that neither party shows leaders in Washington who are in touch with the realities that their constituents face. Congressmen and senators have too much money, too much power and too much tenure.

Last year, the congressional Republicans went hog wild on pork spending. Prosecutors put a couple of them in prison for selling favors. One of them was caught messing with the House pages, who are the equivalent of political altar boys.

Voters threw the bums out. But unlike 1994, when voters voted in new Republican leadership, voters elected the old Democratic leadership. Democrat David Obey of Wisconsin became House appropriations chairman -- again after a 12-year absence.

This is reform?

Read the whole thing.

Where is My Friend Chad?

Chad Shuldt and I wrestled with one another so often in recent years that I sometimes felt like we were conjoined twins.  But Chad last posted on June 18th, and not a single jaundiced word of his has been uploaded since.  It is not unusual for bloggers to take a break, but they usually give their loyal readers some warning.  Sibby mentions this, and has called for an explanation.  He notes that Chad has disappeared from the Hildebrand-Tewes Consulting Firm page.  Putting on my Hardy Boys detective hat, I notice that Todd Epp posted one of two blog entries that have come since Chad's silence.  Maybe Todd knows what's up. 

I certainly have my differences with Chad, not the least regarding his "the other guy is despicable" style of rhetoric.  But the local blogosphere was a more lively place with him in it.  I anxiously await his return. 

Pottermania

A little more than one month ago I had nev er read a Harry Potter novel.  I have now read the first six and just got back from Wal-Mart (the Severus Snape of box stores) with my copy of The Deathly Hallows.  I can report long lines here in Aberdeen.  I will read the book over the next two or three days and then report.  I have already glanced at the opening pages.  I must say, the part where Bruce Willis breaks through a window and starts mowing down Death Eaters with a machine gun...I didn't see that coming. 

Some Tortured Thoughts on Torture

President Bush has an executive order banning torture in CIA questioning.  Good for him.  I am opposed to the use of torture under any circumstances.  I am also opposed to terrorist attacks on American soil under any circumstances.  It occurs to me that one of these two opinions might have to be surrendered in certain circumstances.  Suppose we (and I mean WE, for our army and police force act only with our consent) have good evidence that a nuclear device has been smuggled into the US, and we have in custody a suspect who knows where it is and what his buddies intend to do with it.  Suppose also that we have a technique, like water-boarding, that is almost guaranteed to get the information we want.  Should we use that technique? 

This is a no-brainer.  Even if water-boarding is brutal, and it is, it doesn't hold water against the deaths of tens or hundreds of thousands of our citizens, and a gaping hole in the fabric of America.  But even if you are willing to make that trade in order to avoid a single act of brutality, the trade would be self-defeating.  If a weapon of mass destruction were to go off on American soil, it would put the nation into a state of emergency such as it has never seen.  The army and all police forces, state and federal, would proceed to do whatever they could to make sure that it doesn't happen again, without bothering with such conveniences as due process. 

And if it were made public that we could have stopped the disaster if only we had been willing to use more brutal means, I can assure you that both parties would immediately cleanse themselves of any scruples they might have had about torture.  Nor would anyone who opposed the use of torture for state security have a chance to be elected dog catcher ever again.  I am not telling you what should happen.  I am telling you what will happen.

If you want to preserve a republic that can afford scruples about torture, you have to prevent the unthinkable from happening.  And that may mean making some hard choices now. 

Obama on O-Bombing Genocidal Regimes

Via Glenn Reynolds, here is Barak Obama:

Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Thursday the United States cannot use its military to solve humanitarian problems and that preventing a potential genocide in Iraq isn’t a good enough reason to keep U.S. forces there.

“Well, look, if that’s the criteria by which we are making decisions on the deployment of U.S. forces, then by that argument you would have 300,000 troops in the Congo right now — where millions have been slaughtered as a consequence of ethnic strife — which we haven’t done,” Obama said in an interview with The Associated Press.

“We would be deploying unilaterally and occupying the Sudan, which we haven’t done. Those of us who care about Darfur don’t think it would be a good idea,” he said.

One wonders when Obama thinks the American military should be used.  For example, did he support President Clinton's use of the military in Bosnia and Kosovo?  How about military intervention in Somalia under Bush I and Clinton?  Given these statements, Obama is either a Pat Buchanan style isolationist or a Kissengerian realist.  Or perhaps Obama thinks the "international community" working through organizations such as the United Nations will stop genocide.  We all remember how well the UN did preventing the Rwandan genocide.  I refer Obama to this piece by David Brooks that originally appeared in the New York Times. 

If I said I didn't love you I'd be lion.

The British Daily Mail has a heart warming series of pictures of adult lions, male and female, nuzzling their cubs.  Take a look at them.  What you are seeing is real, and it is uplifting.  Love, as we know it, is a product of biology, and it is a good thing to know that the best in us is supported by nature, along with all the stuff that shocks us on reality TV.  But we are setting ourselves up for a fall if we mistake this for the whole story. 

The lion king looking with approval at the cut cub is looking at one of his own offspring.  In the wild, when a young lion replaces the monarch of a pride, he is not so gentle with his step-children.  He kills them and, in most cases, I gather, eats them.  This is predictably traumatic not only for the cubs but for the lionesses.  They mope about for days crying and looking for their babies.  But then of course they dry up and go back into their estrous cycle. All the sooner to give birth to the new monarch's cubs. 

This view of nature is not so pretty.  A few years ago an article appeared that claimed that this was a myth.  The author hadn't actually studied lions in the wild, and was picking apart published research.  About that time I happened to meet someone who had studied lions in the wild, and she had personally observed the events I describe above time and time again.  Lions are what lions are. 

Human beings are, thankfully, not lions.  But we are biological creatures and our biology supports both a lot of beautiful stuff and a lot of ugly stuff.  Sorry if this upsets some readers.  We report.  You decide.

Dan Scott Slams the Argus Leader

From a reader, here's a sample of what Dan Scott, president of the Sioux Falls Development Foundation, said today about the Argus Leader on the Greg Belfrage radio show:

"So more than anything, I have come to be disappointed in the Argus Leader. We all come to expect things from the Argus Leader. One of them, and I think we have a right to expect this, is truth. And I think we have a right to expect integrity. And unfortunately, apparently now in the newspaper business those things have been put aside. And we are, as a newspaper, we would rather attack, attack, attack. You know for many years the Argus Leaders was a very important part of this community. They provided leadership for this community, they provided support, and they were probably the Sioux Falls Development Foundation’s biggest cheerleader. Lately, under the current leadership at the Argus leader, it seems all that is wanting to be done is attack. Whether it’s our governor, whether it’s our mayor, whether it is business leaders in this community. It seems like that’s their chosen format, simply attack. And somebody had to say something about that, because it’s not a positive thing for this city or this state. ... And here’s one other thing that surprised me, if you remember, in that speech the very first thing I said was, 'welcome to Sioux Falls, home of the Sioux Falls Argus Leader.' And the crowd erupted in laughter. And I am standing up there going, wait a minute I haven’t even told a joke yet. I am thinking that to myself. Why are these people all laughing? Well, I think that’s an indication. The people who were in that audience are Argus Leader readers. I think they realize that if you are trying to do something good for this community, like the mayor, like the governor, like various business leaders that they’ve attacked. All of a sudden you become their target. If you want to do something positive or this community, you become the Argus Leader target. And that is not healthy. That’s simply not healthy."

Surber on Kerry

Don Surber:  "You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in the Senate."

More Argus / Dan Scott

Todd Epp weighs in on the Argus Leader’s attack on Dan Scott:

I don't think Dan said anything wrong, at least if what he said was what was on his written speech. While I often disagree with the Chamber of Commerce, I think it is difficult to read what he said about "getting out of the way" as mean spirited.  Scott's dig at the Argus, if it was that, was mild; actually, he was just saying that was their motto. Unless he ad libbed something else, I don't see how the Argus could be offended.

Meanwhile, here's more on smear journalism.

The Price of Withdrawal

Los Angeles Times:  "The most probable consequence of rapid U.S. withdrawal from Iraq in its present condition is a further bloodbath, with even larger refugee flows and the effective dismemberment of the country.”  Indeed.  Likewise, my colleague Prof. Schaff notes the price that will be paid for withdrawing from Iraq.  It's certainly a legitimate and reasonable position to take that we should leave Iraq, but not without considering the aftermath of such a decision.

McGovern

David Broder writing in the Washington Post today has an article entitled "The McGovern Landslide."  Be sure to check it out.

Argus and Dan Scott

Dakota Voice:  "What the Argus was so upset about was more likely the shots Scott took at the Argus at the beginning of his speech. The Argus knew those comments about their liberal bias wouldn't get much traction with the public (the public knows too well that the Argus is undeniably biased to the Left), so they took something from the speech they felt they could get some mileage out of, if they bent it completely out of context."

Whopper Of The Day

John Kerry, on video, claiming that he's met people who were in re-education camps in Vietnam, and, hey, they're OK.  The claim here is that 165,000 died in those re-education (read: concentration) camps.  I wonder if John Kerry has met any of them?  I wonder how they are doing?  Kerry also ignores the fact that, according to the Black Book of Communism, the communist government of Vietnam is responsible for killing one million of its own citizens, most of them after the Americans left and Saigon fell.  Perhaps he is ignorant of what all those Vietnamese were doing climbing on rickety boats to come to America in the 1970s. 

Kerry utters this dangerous falsehood to explain away the evils that will no doubt occur if the United States were to withdraw from Iraq in the near future.  So he has to convince the American people that genocide did not occur in Vietnam after U.S. withdrawal, even though any educated person knows it did.  Lucky for Kerry, history education is quite poor, so he'll probably get away with this.  Of course David Obey (D-WI) said recently about a withdrawal:

I wouldn't be surprised if it's horrendous. The only hope for the Iraqis is their own damned government, and there's slim hope for that.

The New York Times, arguing for withdrawal (registration required), says:

Americans must be clear that Iraq, and the region around it, could be even bloodier and more chaotic after Americans leave. There could be reprisals against those who worked with American forces, further ethnic cleansing, even genocide. Potentially destabilizing refugee flows could hit Jordan and Syria. Iran and Turkey could be tempted to make power grabs. Perhaps most important, the invasion has created a new stronghold from which terrorist activity could proliferate.

Those in favor of American withdrawal from Iraq must come to grips the potential bloodbath, indeed genocide, that might follow.  This does not mean the withdrawal is a bad idea, for one could reasonably argue that  the continuing loss of American life preventing atrocities in Iraq is not worth it for one reason or another.  But I suspect that should the U.S. withdrawal prematurely, very soon after we'll be setting up the Coalition for Iraq just like we have the Coalition for Darfur.  After Vietnam, much of the anti-war movement (with notable exceptions such as Joan Baez) ignored the viciousness of the Communist government for fear it would discredit their movement.  Apparently, John Kerry is playing that game thirty years later.  Let's hope that should there be atrocities in Iraq after the end of U.S. involvement, all of us can rally in support of the Iraq people, and, as Michael Medved and Lanny Davis argue today, in support of refugees. 

Democratic Congressional Approval Rating

A new Reuters poll shows Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid pulling an upset: they've managed to make George W. Bush twice as popular as Congress:

An even bigger majority, 83 percent, say the Democratic-controlled Congress is doing only a fair or poor job — the worst mark for Congress in a Zogby poll.

...

In the national survey of 1,012 likely voters, taken July 12 through July 14, about 66 percent said Bush had done only a fair or poor job as president, with 34 percent ranking his performance as excellent or good.

...

While 83 percent said Congress was doing a fair or poor job, just 14 percent rated it excellent or good. Last October, in its final days, the Republican-led Congress earned ratings of excellent or good from 23 percent of voters.

The Dan Scott Smear Campaign

Greg Belfrage has the transcript, and has now completely exposed the Argus Leader's "Dan Scott Smear Campaign."  Belfrage and War College have completely exposed the Argus Leader's attempt to attack a businessman for attempting to criticize the Argus. War Collegians want South Dakotans to contact Gannett to complain:

Everyone should remember how this scandal started. At a breakfast, a man make a crack about how bad the Argus Leader is and the whiny publisher, Arnie Garson, stormed out and vowed revenge on the speaker, Dan Scott. Then the Argus newsroom went to work and smeared Scott without reporting his anti-Argus Leader remark. And then Randell Beck, the editor, started slamming Scott. Now the full story has been told about how the Argus practices agenda/vendetta/destroy-our-critics journalism. The Argus Leader’s bias has been proven many times before and now their must be consequences.

Contact Gannett headquarters and demand that the liberal idiots like Garson, Beck, Lalley, Kranz, and Baldwin who run the Argus be fired for smearing another honorable public servant. And tell Gannett how these bozos are destroying a corporate profit center of theirs. The Gannett execs will listen to a bottom line argument about how their newspaper is shedding readers like fur.

[email protected]

Also, start reading the New Media, like this website, which has billboards all over town:

www.mysiouxfalls.com

More Daschle / Senate Speculation

NRO reports that "some activists say [Tom Daschle] wants to reclaim his former position" in the US Senate if Tim Johnson doesn't run.

Post-Pullout Iraq

From the Baltimore Sun:

While pressing President Bush all year to begin bringing troops home from Iraq, lawmakers leading the legislative campaign have not developed any plans to confront the widespread killing that could follow a pullout.

More than two dozen Democrats and Republicans who back a withdrawal said in recent interviews that they believe a troop drawdown will eventually lead to a more stable Iraq and Middle East.

But many acknowledged that Iraq could first plunge into vicious sectarian fighting much like the kind of ethnic cleansing that consumed Bosnia a decade ago and is now afflicting Sudan's Darfur region. Yet they flatly rejected the use of U.S. troops to stop the killing.

"I wouldn't be surprised if it's horrendous," said House Appropriations Committee Chairman David R. Obey, a Wisconsin Democrat who has helped lead the drive against the war. "The only hope for the Iraqis is their own damned government, and there's slim hope for that."

Book Blogging: Daschle v. Thune

Forthcoming from the University of Oklahoma Press is Jon Lauck's new book on the 2004 Daschle/Thune race, entitled Daschle Vs. Thune: Anatomy of a High-plains Senate Race.  Note the discussion on Amazon.com, and how Jeremy "F--k John Thune" Funk is already in high attack mode.  I would wonder if Funk would extend the same criticism to Arthur Schlesinger Jr., another historian who was actively involved in Democratic politics.

UPDATE:  Speaking of Schlesinger, don't miss this W$J Opinion Journal piece about him entitled "Crisis of the Old Liberal Order."

Fascism Watch

UK Telegraph:

America's first Muslim congressman has provoked outrage by apparently comparing President George W Bush to Adolf Hitler and hinting that he might have been responsible for the September 11 attacks.

Addressing a gathering of atheists in his home state of Minnesota, Keith Ellison, a Democrat, compared the 9/11 atrocities to the destruction of the Reichstag, the German parliament, in 1933. This was probably burned down by the Nazis in order to justify Hitler's later seizure of emergency powers.

"It's almost like the Reichstag fire, kind of reminds me of that," Mr Ellison said. "After the Reichstag was burned, they blamed the Communists for it, and it put the leader [Hitler] of that country in a position where he could basically have authority to do whatever he wanted."

Power Line has a copy of a letter sent to Speaker Pelosi.

Mailbag: MoveOn.Org and the Democratic Party

From a reader:

In keeping with Harry Reid in Washington, 8 people from MoveOn.org are protesting tonight in Rapid City.   MoveOn.orgDemocraticParty are now one.

Does MoveOn.org Run the U.S. Senate?

Democrat Senators Take a Break From All-Night Iraq Debate to Hold Rally With MoveOn Activists

Even while refusing to say whether Iraqis would be safer if the United States withdrew from Iraq, Senate Democrat Leader Harry Reid took time today to join MoveOn at a rally calling for an immediate withdrawal.

Senate Democrats' blind allegiance to MoveOn is well-documented. MoveOn.Org's man in Washington . . . [T]om Matzzie noted how senior Democratic senators eagerly rearrange their schedules to meet with MoveOn [Adam C. Smith, "Unshaven, Unbowed And In Our Face," St. Petersburg Times, 2/18/05].

Not only are Democrats rearranging their schedules to meet with MoveOn; they are also getting their foreign policy agenda from the far left organization.  In January Republicans and Democrats in the Senate joined to unanimously confirm General Petraeus.  Today, despite that approval, Democrats are calling for an end to the Petraeus counteroffensive before it has been fully implemented.  The Democrat stance reflects MoveOn's growing opposition to any U.S. presence in Iraq, despite early signs that the counteroffensive is making progress battling al Qaeda in that country.

Even when MoveOn ran web advertisements comparing President Bush to Hitler and opposed anti-terrorism military operations in Afghanistan, Democrats did not cut ties with the group.  Just this week, Democrat Senator Chuck Schumer mimicked MoveOn's passive approach to anti-terrorism efforts when he ignored the seriousness of the al Qaeda presence in Iraq and said that the U.S. would leave a "small number of troops (in Iraq) who deal particularly with counterterrorism, but they would be well out of harm's way, won't be in a day-to-day fight approximating a totally different type of effort" [Fox News, 7/16/07].

The all-night debate demanded by Senator Reid is meant to show MoveOn that Senate Democrats are staying loyal to the far left, even if they ignore questions about the repercussions for Iraqi and U.S. national security.

They might not win a war with this strategy, but they hope to win back the far left.

The Argus Leader Misses Another Story

Greg Belfrage:  "It was clear to me that answers were needed. The Argus was showing its typical leadership by ignoring the story."  Read the whole thing.

Biology and Responsibility

My colleague Professor Schaff does a good job of moderating between me and my pal Anna at Dakota Women, which was a charitable thing to do as I am very occupied with teaching at the moment.  While I have a few moments free, let me add a couple of things. 

Anna and some of the commentors at her page seem unable to distinguish between explaining a behavior and excusing it.  Let me offer an example that sorts this out.  Suppose it is true that some people are genetically predisposed to alcoholism.  I think that there is good evidence for this, but it is not certain.  If it were true, would it excuse drunk drivers?  I would argue that the opposite is the case.  If someone knows that some people are so predisposed, and has good reason to believe that he is one of them, that offers him an opportunity to take responsibility by not drinking.  If he does drink, and kills someone on the road, it is easier to hold him responsible because he knew, when he was still sober, that he shouldn't have gone to the bar.  Likewise, if men "hoot" at Anna out of a natural predisposition to sexual aggression, that would be all the more reason to try to correct that behavior with social and sometimes legal sanction.  Civilization is all about suppressing some natural inclinations (like aggression and selfishness) and encouraging others (like cooperation).  Understanding what our natural inclinations are makes it easier.

Likewise, some women are offended if the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Calendar goes up in the work place.  It is said that it creates a hostile work environment.  Most men would not be offended if the tables were turned.  Anna likes to offer anecdotes.  I have one of my own.  When I worked at a library computer room during grad school, one of my coworkers, R, put up a Beef Cake calendar in his cubicle.  It was his way of coming out.  None of the male workers in the shop felt offended, though some of us did feel, looking at the calendar after hours, a bit small.  So if we guys weren't offended, why should the women be?  Well, maybe most women's sensibilities are different from those of most men.  The cause of this difference may be history and culture, and it may well involve some evolved inclinations.  Either way, the proper response is to teach the boys that women, by and large, don't react to such things the way they do.  That was the point of the Psychology Today article when it stated:

Men sexually harass women because they are not sexist

Sometimes, men harass women precisely because they expect women to react the same way they do.  Knowing this excuses nothing.  To the contrary, it makes all of us more responsible for our behavior. 

SDP Jazz Note:Ken Laster on Kind of Blue

I posted a while back on the NPR podcast Jazz Profiles, and in particular on one podcast devoted to Miles Davis masterpiece Kind of Blue.  My friend on the net, Ken Laster, read my post, listened to the NPR show, and decided to devote one of his weekly radio shows to Kind of Blue.  The show features several numbers from the disc, including my favorite, Blue in Green, as well some of the compositions as performed by other jazz bands, and other numbers by the musicians like Wynton Kelly who were on the original recording.  The show is an excellent companion to Kind of Blue. 

Ken gives SDP and myself a mention, for which I am very grateful; and he has some kind words about our SDP Jazz Notes.  Allow me to return the favor.  Ken Laster's In The Groove: Jazz and Beyond is the best jazz site on the web, so far as I know.  Every week he delivers a marvelous collection of new and classic jazz organized around some theme.  I think his tastes are impeccable, which means of course that they are roughly the same as mine.  If you follow the link just above, you can download the recent show in two parts.  Then you can listen to it on your computer, burn it to a CD, or toss it on your MP3 player.  You can also subscribe to the podcast, and have it downloaded automatically.  I should add that I have a whole shelf of jazz that I hunted down after hearing a cut on In The Groove.  And it was all obtained free and legal, so the labels ought to have nothing but gratitude for the work that Laster is doing.

 

Ken does mention that his politics and ours at SDP are not the same.  That's alright.  I figure if we share a love of classic jazz, neither of us can be half bad.  Moreover, I infer from Ken's hat that he is a Boston fan.  I am not.  But I do have tickets to see the Red Sox play at Fenway next month.   

Harry Potter Warning

Perhaps you have seen that the Harry Potter book has been leaked online.  I will not even link to the news report for fear that it contains Potter spoilers.  If you don't want to know the outcome of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, you might consider a news blackout.  If you want some idle speculation on the book, see Alan Jacobs' fine essay from Christianity Today. 

BTW, like Professor Blanchard, I too have have seen the most recent Potter film, Order of the Phoenix.  I believe it to be the finest of the bunch, with only minor quarrels with the director's decision making. 

I Play Mediator

See Ken Blanchard's post here for his latest bout of blogging jujitsu with Anna from Dakota Women, and Anna's latest retort here.  The basis for the pugilistics is this Psychology Today piece listing ten "politically incorrect" findings from social biology.   In her latest post Anna takes issue with the notion that sexual harassment by men has a biological component.   Here's Anna, fuming over what happens when we drive around with our windows down:

Open windows in everyone's cars = street harassment doesn't just occur while walking down the street anymore.

I know now from my pal Ken Blanchard that men do this because they have an overwhelming biological urge to procreate with me, due to my blonde hair and fabulous rack.

Further, I have learned men don't hoot at me in my car because they are sexist assholes who have been raised to believe that they are entitled to comment in public on a woman's body. In fact, there is no sexist undertone behind such things! They just treat women like they treat men, utilizing threats and intimidation to get what they want.

Gotta love human nature!  No idiot should ever have to take responsibility for the shit he does.

First, the really bad effect of people driving with their windows down is that you have to listen to everyone's bad taste in music (why is it that the people with the worst taste play it the loudest?!).   But to the point.
1. Is it possible that something can be biological, yet also controlled?  It is biology that I want to urinate, but I don't do it whenever I feel like it.   Saying something has a biological basis does not then relieve people of responsibility.
2. Perhaps, to the extent our behavior is motivated by biology, we might want to grapple with the unpleasant notion that biology is sexist.  Nature, perhaps, discriminates, by which I mean "makes distinctions," between men and women.  Perhaps sexual aggressiveness and boorish behavior are part of the male biological make up.  Thus there is a tendency toward this behavior.  Note what I am not saying.  A tendency is not a compulsion, and this tendency may vary in strength from individual to individual.  But nonetheless, we may be able to make some generalizations about male behavior based on biology. 
3.  When we add #1 and #2, we get a need for education.  Indeed Anna's post refers to how men are raised, which indicates an understanding that what we teach young males is important.   I noted above that male behavior can be boorish (Anna, you should see what men are like when there are no women around).  Boorishness is a sign of bad manners.  Men might be crude beasts by nature, but they are not just crude beasts.  One can appeal to their sense of nobility or pride and teach them manners.  Of course the same is true for women.  The virtue we are seeking here is modesty, perhaps with a dose of chivalry thrown in for the men.  For a man this is known as being a gentleman.  While some may dismiss the notion of the gentleman (and its reciprocal, the lady) as a quaint artifact of a patriarchal era, one wonders whether the vulgarity of current society, typified by Anna's driving experience, is a satisfying replacement.  The "code of the gentleman" tells us that to be a man requires discipline and self-control, especially in regards to women.  One only need turn to the old Comedy Central show "The Man Show" to see how far we've come from the notion of manliness as self-control and discipline.  Indeed, if "The Man Show" is any indication, much of what now passes for manly behavior (love of violence, crude sexuality, bathroom humor) is really just adolescent boyishness.  What I see among young males is a lot of boys in mens' bodies. 

Biology is biology; it is not destiny.  Our biology is an important part of who we are and how we behave, but it is not all of who we are. 

 

Daschle On Johnson

Tom Daschle says Tim Johnson will return to the U.S. Senate in September.

South Dakota Sen. Tim Johnson hopes to be back on the floor of the U.S. Senate sometime in September, former Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle said Monday.

  Daschle, who will be the featured speaker at a Johnson campaign fundraiser July 24 in Rapid City, said Johnson is increasingly involved in Senate duties from home but has set September as a target for his official Senate return.

"While he has been working for a few months now from home, he is determined to get back into his Senate office and onto the Senate floor," Daschle said. "He hopes to do that in September."

Division I Decision A Failure?

The Aberdeen American News editorializes that SDSU's jump to NCAA Division I athletics has been a financial failure for the university.  Apparently SDSU is raiding other funds to make up for shortfalls in the athletic budget. 

It is true that the university has had some Division I athletic successes, like the SDSU women's basketball team. But some of its teams have struggled. And it was recently reported that SDSU's move up to Division I intercollegiate athletics is costing more than anticipated because of higher expenses for joining the Summit League, the need to hire a compliance officer and - in an athletically related issue - the fact that SDSU must also provide more scholarships in women's sports. But there isn't currently enough money to do so, according to university officials, because the university's fundraising has been focused on paying for the upgrade to Division I. The total of the extra costs is nearly $750,000 more than was planned.

Now, as a memory refresher, the South Dakota Board of Regents had previously mandated that campus officials raise all the money necessary for the switch to Division I from private sources, student activity fees and athletic program revenues.

Apparently that's not happening.

Now the extra money spent on women's scholarships would have to occur anyway.  I take the AAN's point to be that that money should be coming from the athletic budget, but since there is no money left in that budget, the university is going elsewhere for that money.  Yesterday I noted the resignation of USD's foundation chair, who resigned because of concerns over how much foundation efforts would now be geared toward athletics rather than the general student population. We'll see if the biggest schools in our state regret their jump to Division I athletics. 

The "Fairness Doctrine"

Associated Press:

Senate Democrats on Friday blocked an amendment that would have prevented the return of the Fairness Doctrine, a federal rule requiring broadcasters to air opposing views on issues. . . .

The subtext of the debate over the Fairness Doctrine is talk radio's perceived dominance by conservative voices.

In a telephone interview, Coleman said his motivation was to preserve the First Amendment. But he added: "I do have a strong objection to folks wanting to cut off talk radio because it's conservative. Let the people be able to make the choice."

Thune agreed.

"Having the bureaucrats dictate the content of the airwaves isn't much different from what we are seeing in places like Iran and Russia where they are rolling back freedom of the press," he said.

The link is no longer available, but here is the cached version.  H/T to Insty.

Health Care for Cuba's Independent Librarians

Not something Michael Moore was much concerned about.  Nor the American Library Association.  See this by Nat Hentoff in The Washington Times:

Among other suffering prisoners in Cuban cells who would have added further dimension to "Sicko" are independent librarians, put away for more than 20-year sentences for the crime of giving Cubans access to books and other publications forbidden in state libraries. Jose Luis Garcia Paneque, for example, director of a Las Tunas library, is not being treated meaningfully for intestinal problems, hypertension and other ailments.

The caged independent librarians were, however, at the center of a protest at an American Library Association conference in Washington in June. These protesters are themselves long-term members of the ALA and call themselves Freadomistas, in contrast with Fidelistas (Castro admirers) on the ALA's governing council. That council steadfastly refuses to demand the immediate release of Cuban freedom-to-read librarians, whom Amnesty International designates "prisoners of conscience." Indeed, the council voted down an amendment calling for their release.

Freeloading

Don't miss Peter Berkowitz's WSJ piece on the "new atheism."  Here's his conclusion

Like philosophy, religion, rightly understood, has a beginning in wonder. The most wonderful of creatures are human beings themselves. Of all the Bible's sublime and sustaining teachings, none is more so than the teaching that explains that humanity is set apart because all human beings--woman as well as man the Bible emphasizes--are created in the image of God (Genesis 1:27).

That a teaching is sublime and sustaining does not make it true. But that, along with its service in laying the moral foundations in the Western world for the belief in the dignity of all men and women--a belief that our new new atheists take for granted and for which they provide no compelling alternative foundation--is reason enough to give the variety of religions a fair hearing. And it is reason enough to respect believers as decent human beings struggling to make sense of a mysterious world.

The "new atheism" and the more benign secularism of some circles bring to mind the late philosopher Richard Rorty, who once referred to himself as a "freeloading atheist."  In other words, Rorty, with 2000 years (at least) of religious foundation beneath him, could freely and safely scoff at those religious foundations without fear that he was actually undermining that civilization.    As an atheist, he could "freeload" off of the religious tradition that allowed him to live comfortably and freely.  If memory serves, Frederick Hayek makes a similar argument in his "Why I Am Not A Conservative" essay.  The foundations of our civilization have done their work so well that we no longer have to defend them.  Rorty and Hayek both assume that civilization is on a kind of autopilot and is now self-sustaining.  One would think that the history of Europe in the 19th and 20th Centuries would teach us not to take for granted the order that underlies free society.  To the extent a particular religious tradition undergirds this free society, one would be foolish to casually assume that it has outlived its usefulness. 

South Dakota News Rundown

Here are some stories of interest from our area. 

The head of USD's foundation, Ted Muenster, has stepped down from his lead role, citing the need to raise more money for the Division I athletics USD is attempting to enter. 

USD's eventual move to Division I athletics appeared to play a role in the move Muenster said the foundation has a new athletic fundraising emphasis.

"There should be someone with more experience with  athletic fundraising," he said.

The foundation hired David Herbster as new athletic development director. He started two months ago, but one person cannot do the job, Muenster said. The entire organization must be involved.

Muenster says athletics are overemphasized, and he hopes that athletics will not overshadow academic fundraising.

"Once you're in Division I competition, pressure mounts to win, and financial pressures are greater. We'll have to see how it all plays out," he said.

A new study is being conducted in the northeast part of the state to measure the effect of predators on the duck and pheasant population.

Trappers will remove predators - mostly skunks and raccoons - in two of the blocks of land from mid-March to mid-July, when the nesting season ends. No predator control will be done on the other two blocks.

Duck and pheasant nests are found, marked and checked frequently to see if there's a successful hatch or if a predator has found the nest and destroyed it.

Participants hope to draw some conclusions when comparing the hatch rate in the trapped tracts to the rate in the two parcels without predator control.

''The populations of those two predators are probably the highest ever recorded in history,'' said Chuck Dieter, a professor and wildlife biologist at South Dakota State University who's overseeing the collection of information on nesting success.

And in some good news, it looks like we are ready for an outbreak of West Nile virus. Wait.  That's bad news.  Crap!

Cases of West Nile virus are expected to soar soon, according to Jim Wilson, pesticide education coordinator at South Dakota State University.

"I think we are going to be seeing a rapid increase in incidents over the next few weeks," Wilson said. "We also are suggesting that if the community has a function planned, whether it be a rodeo or something similar, that they use a residual treatment" to help protect the public.

"We don't know how it is going to play out ultimately this year," said Lon Kightlinger, state epidemiologist in South Dakota. "We do know West Nile is here and it's making people sick."

Harry Potter

I saw Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix this afternoon.  Wow, was it good!  I think it is easily as good as the first and third.  A lot of story gets compressed into two and a half hours, but they do it with genius.  I find it hard to identify any flaws, even small ones.  And the dueling scenes are spectacular. 

The Truths about Human Nature and Prejudice

I posted yesterday on a Psychology Today article, "Ten Politically Incorrect Truths About Human Nature". My pal Anna at Dakota Women responds:

I really get annoyed when people defend their prejudices by saying they're biological. Speaking as a blonde bombshell myself, I really have to question "biological fact" number one [Men like blond bombshells (and women want to look like them)]. Obviously! Most societies on this Earth do not have people with naturally blonde hair in them. How does the article address the difference in standards of beauty across different societies and across time?

I am not annoyed at all, but altogether amused, when "people" assume that it's the other side that is defending their prejudices.  Anna's side, no doubt, has no prejudices.  Yes, as Carl Denham says when looking at the natives of Skull Island in the 1933 King Kong, "blonds are scarce around here." The question is whether there is a biologically reinforced male preference for blond women in those populations that do have them, and have had them for a long time. That such a preference exists is manifest.  The article presents a plausible biological explanation: blond hair indicates youth and therefore fertility.  That is the kind of thing that natural selection can work on. 

What about those "different standards of beauty across different societies and across time"?  Anna presents a nice anecdote about this:

A friend of mine told me about his sister's time in Samoa (she was an anthropologist, I believe). The sister was in her twenties, Native American, and weighed about 300 pounds. She was totally taken by surprise upon arrival in Samoa by the fact that she was the local object of lust. She could not keep the men off her. They didn't care a thing for the American-conventionally-attractive women who were there with her. What is the author's explanation for this?

Sorry, but anecdotes do not weigh much against vast collections of data.  David Buss has surveyed thousands of people on every continent and a big bunch of islands.  What he found is that the ideal female body shape is pretty much the same in every culture.  And that shape turns out to be closely related to fecundity.  Women who show signs of fertility are attractive in every culture, at every point in history.  It probably can't be otherwise.  Men and women whose inherited inclinations tend to result in lots of offspring, will have lots of offspring who inherit their inclinations.   Other inclinations will gradually be selected out of the gene pool.  Is this prejudice?  I suggest that it is biology.