South Dakota Politics

Off Galavanting

For the next two weeks.  Light posting if any. 

A Minor Correction On the Morgan Lewis Case

My colleague Emeritus, David Newquist, has an interesting post on the history of the role of College Presidents.  It includes a lot of stories of violence and death on the NSU campus.  It is an interesting read.  But I take issue with one thing that Professor Newquist says.

[A] young professor, Morgan Lewis, was found dead at the door of my old office building the day before the 2004 general election with a gunshot wound in the back of his head.

This is wrong.  The wound was in his neck, under the left side of his jaw.  Such details may be important in forming an educated opinion about the tragedy. 

Powered by Qumana

Why Male and Female People Have Sex 2

I am testing out a new blog editor called Qumana, so forgive any formal anomalies here.  Anna served and I returned on a University of Texas study concerning reasons college students choose to have sexual intercourse.  Here is Anna's volley. 

It is extremely difficult to respond to your most recent post because of the fact that you totally misrepresented (purposely or otherwise) the meaning of the quote you cited. When Meston referred to "huge differences" among older people, she did not mean that there would be huge gender differences among older people's reasons for having sex. She meant that there would be huge differences between college students' reasons and older peoples' reasons (i.e., people in their 30's might cite 'reproduction' as a reason to have sex at higher rates than college-aged men and women). If you don't believe me, read the study.

I am not quite sure what we are arguing about here, as my point was directed to the college students in the study, and not to older persons with whom the study is not concerned.  I did suggest that the differences between the sexes would be greater among older persons, but that will have to wait for another study. 

The UTex study shows less difference among the two genders than one would expect from previous scholarship.  This is not to say that it showed no gender differences.  Consider this passage from the UTex report:

The current research provided the most comprehensive examination to date of gender differences in expressed reasons for engaging in sexual intercourse. When examining the most frequently cited reasons for having sex, men and women were remarkably similar in that 20 of the top 25 reasons given were identical for men and women. This broad-based similarity provides an important background context for interpreting gender differences. When examining endorsement frequency of reasons for having sex, however, substantial gender differences emerged such that men reported substantially higher frequencies than did women for the majority of individual items and subfactors. Men, significantly more than women, endorsed reasons centering on the physical appearance and physical desirability of a partner, such as ‘‘The person had a desirable body,’’ ‘‘The person’s physical appearance turned me on,’’ and ‘‘The person had an attractive face.’’ These findings support the evolution-based hypothesis that men tend to be more sexual aroused by visual sexual cues than are women, since physical appearance provides a wealth of cues to a woman’s fertility and reproductive capacity (Buss, 1989b, 2003; Symons, 1979).  [My italics]

I also note this passage:

Men, significantly more than women, also endorsed reasons indicating experience seeking and mere opportunity. Examples include ‘‘The person was ‘‘available,’’ ‘‘The opportunity presented itself,’’ and ‘‘I wanted to increase the number of partners I had experienced.’’ These findings support the theory that a major historical constraint on a man’s reproductive success has been the number of different women he can successfully inseminate, and this selection pressure has led men to have evolved a greater desire for a variety sexual partners (Buss & Schmitt, 1993; Schmitt et al., 2003; Schmitt, Shackelford, Duntley, Tooke, & Buss, 2001; Symons, 1979).  [my italics]

So, far from challenging established views of sex differences, this study largely confirms them.  Maybe the differences in sexual inclination between men and women are less than previous scholarship has suggested.  But differences present, and they are robust.  That was my point.  If you don't believe me, Anna, read the study. 

I am not sure why Anna invests so much passion in this matter.  Feminists have long argued that women think differently than men about a lot of things (war for example), and that feminine inclinations are sometimes more civilized than those of men.  I think that this is plausible, given the evidence, though to be sure we don't know a lot about this yet.  It is possible, of course, that as the discipline of sociobiology develops, we will find that these supposed gender differences disappear.  I rather hope this is not the case, for a number of reasons.  One is that we all benefit from having two basic perspectives rather than one.  I hardly see why that should offend Anna's sensibilities. 

Powered by Qumana

We Have A Contender

It seems we have a contender for the new Chad Schuldt.  The defining characteristic of the old Clean Cut Kid site was to divide the world neatly into two categories. First, there are Democrats, who are always good, pure of motive, and everything their leadership says can be repeated without question as it is always an accurate representation of the facts.  In opposition to Democrats are the Republicans, who are always bad, malicious in their motives, and everything their leadership says can be dismissed out of hand as lies and mean spirited.  In short, CCK displayed the hallmark of the partisan hack, Democrat or Republican: never question your own side's press. 

Which brings us to Badlands Blue.  I've been noticing a certain Schuldt-like trend in their posting.  For example, they print, with apparent approval, a screed from one Teddy Goodson, which comes to this conclusion.

Indeed, in my opinion, most Republicans seem to act like parasites on the existing social and economic structure, sucking up its substance for their private gain and are, in effect, living off the capital saved and produced by previous generations.

One wonders if Stephanie Herseth and Tim Johnson agree with this characterization of a majority of registered voters in South Dakota?  Speaking of Tim Johnson,  those at BB are pretty upset that people dare question Saint Tim Johnson.  My gosh, those evil Republicans are playing politics with...politicians!   Ack! Republicans are targeting Tim Johnson for next year's election!  Tim Johnson is a Democrat who represents a Republican state and who won his last election by just over 500 votes.  Wouldn't the Republicans be stupid not to target him?  Democrats are targeting Norm Coleman of Minnesota.  Why?  He is a Republican who represents a Democratic state and narrowly won election last time.  They'd be fools not to target him. The leadership of neither party is that foolish, so both Coleman and Johnson are targets. 

BB can't decide whether Tim Johnson is a great defender of truth, justice, the American way, or a poor sick man who should be left alone while he heals his broken body.

In the case of Tim Johnson, who almost died last December and hasn't been able to travel while he recovers, it's beyond wrong; it's downright mean.  But what else would we expect from Republicans desperate to win back Johnson's Senate seat but realizing that Johnson is super popular in South Dakota?

Evidently Tim Johnson is just healthy enough to fight for children, but not healthy enough to do any of the work politicians do running for re-election. If Tim Johnson, now about nine months removed from his stroke, is as ill as BB makes him out to be, then perhaps he should have resigned long ago and/or foregone his re-election campaign.  But BB wants to have it both ways.  BB wants Johnson to get credit for all the good that he and his staff do but never receive any criticism.  How convenient.  But if Tim Johnson is strong enough to stay in the US Senate and make all the preparations for a re-election race, and we at SDP are happy that he is that strong, then he is strong enough to take the heat that comes naturally with his public position. 

This post should not be regarded as a criticism of Sen. Johnson.  But if it were a criticism, Sen. Johnson's health would not therefore render it "mean."   

Chaos in the House

Politico:  A "complete breakdown of parliamentary procedure."  David Freddoso writes:  "They just replayed the whole mess from the House last night on C-Span. I spoke to Novak and he doesn't remember anything quite like this happening before. Pretty outrageous, really. It is about as blatant an abuse of power as you can have in a legislative body, to cheat on a vote total."  The 14% approval overall / 3% on Iraq might be the high point of this Congress.

UPDATE:  See also Ed Morrissey's observations.

New Approval Poll

Numbers in a new Zogby poll have reached ridiculous levels, showing that Congress has a 3% approval rating for how it's handling the war, while the President has a 24% approval.  Even worse, 94% of Democrats detest the way the Democratic-led Congress is handling the war.  The numbers show that 42% of those polled believe Congress should fully fund the war in Iraq and maintain current troop levels, while we know that Pelosi and Reid would cut off funding if they could get away with it.  The Pelosi-Murtha-Clyburn-Reid-Byrd anti-Bush policy is getting them no where.

Why People Have Sex

My pal Anna at Dakota Women has elevated me to the status of Jungian Archetype.  Commenting on a recent study of sexual motivation among college students, she says:

The Ken Blanchards of the world, no doubt, will be surprised to hear that women aren't necessarily having sex because they're deeply in love, and men aren't having sex because of an innate biological impulse to exert dominion over women. Men and women both report having sex because they're attracted to their partner, they like the physical pleasure of sex, and "it feels good".

There are more of us?  I feel a bit like the man who has just been tarred and feathered and carried out of town on a rail: "if it weren't for the honor of the thing," he said, "I'd just as soon have walked."

At the risk of forfeiting the honor, nothing in the above paragraph corresponds to anything I have written or happen to believe.  Contrary to all expectations, I am not, apparently, one of the Ken Blanchards of the world.

One of the co-authors of the study, David Buss, has produced a mountain of evidence regarding the difference in sexual behavior and inclination between men and women across the globe.  And I note this bit, from the article Anna cites. 

"None of the gender differences are all that great," Meston said. "Men were more likely to be opportunistic towards having sex, so if sex were there and available they would jump on it, somewhat more so than women. Women were more likely to have sex because they felt they needed to please their partner."  But this is among college students, when Meston conceded "hormones run rampant." She predicted huge differences when older groups of people are studied.

So men and women are rather different after all.  The differences are minimal only among twenty-first century American college students, and even there they are visible.  I am not exactly shocked. 

Christian Nation 2

Bob Ellis at Dakota Voice has responded to my post on the question whether the United States is, or has ever been, a Christian Nation.  I say no.  Bob says yes.  Bob, as always, is gracious.

Though I disagree with Blanchard, I have to give him hearty praise for providing the first reasoned and based-in-reality thesis I've ever seen that contends America is not and never has been a Christian nation.

I think perhaps that the difference between us concerns definitions more than facts. 

However, he makes the same mistaken assumption that all the incoherent God-haters do: in simple terms, that America must look like and operate like a church in order to be "Christian."

When we say that America is a Christian nation or was founded a Christian nation, we mean that it was founded predominately by Christians based on the values and principles these Christians gleaned from the Judeo-Christian faith (i.e. the Bible).

The United States was founded by a people who were very nearly all of them Christians.  But just because a person was a Christian does not mean that everything he does is a Christian act.  The same is true for a people.  Likewise, an act that has religious motives (the abolition of slavery, for example) is not thereby a religious act.  The founding was an explicitly political act based on principles which, even if they were to a large degree religiously motivated, were nonetheless secular in character. 

Our founding document, the Declaration of Independence, recognizes that the truths realized by the founders came from their Creator, and stated a "firm reliance" on God in order to bring about our independence.

I suspect that Bob has in mind the phrase "the laws of nature and of Nature's God" when he mentions truths that came from the Creator.  Again I point out that laws of nature do not rest on any religious belief.  They are either known a priori, if they are indeed self-evident as the Continental Congress claimed, or they are evident from an examination of human nature, or both.  Either way, they should be evident to anyone who would but employ his intelligence, regardless of his religious beliefs. 

There is a long tradition, going back at least to the 13th Century, that holds that some of God's laws depend solely on revelation (remember the Sabbath Day), and others were evident to unassisted human reason (thou shalt not steal).  The founding principles of the American Republic fall entirely into the latter category. 

On the other hand, one cannot help but notice that genuine republics are scarce outside Christian Europe and America.  There is no doubt a connection between Christian culture and the idea of liberal democracy.   

Kranz Watch

Sibby has another Kranz Watch for tomorrow's Argus Leader. 

Finger Pointing

Are conservatives to blame for the bridge collapse in Minneapolis because their penny pinching ways have weakened our infrastructure?  That's what Lowell at Badlands Blue would have us believe.  One does point out, though, that the bridge in question was actually under repair.  It is difficult to argue that the problem was being ignored exactly at the time it was being fixed. And does it not make sense that in anticipation of repairs engineers had studied the bridge and determined it safe for travel?  So what seems more likely here is that we have some combination of an engineering error coupled, undoubtedly, with an unforeseeable accident.

If Republicans, in the wake of a similar event, cursed liberal Democrats for squandering our money on entitlement spending to the neglect of our infrastructure, one suspects Lowell would be the first to cry "foul," denouncing Republicans for the cheap demagoguery of scoring political points off of human tragedy.   And he'd be right.  If Lowell has arguments about our spending priorities and the neglect of physical infrastructure, pray let him make them without resorting to sensationalism. 

Update: John Hinderaker at Powerline has this useful information: 

The Minneapolis Star Tribune reports this morning that the Highway 35 bridge that collapsed last night was rated "structurally deficient" and possibly in need of replacement when it was inspected in 2005. 

This will no doubt attract a lot of interest, and it certainly could prove to be important. But apparently many bridges receive the same evaluation, and inspections in 2006 and 2007 evidently didn't reveal any cause for alarm. A 2001 report, which you can access off the page linked to above, concluded that the bridge did not require replacement because of fatigue cracking. The repair work that was underway at the time of the collapse was not structural in nature; it was limited to resurfacing, installing lighting, etc. So I don't think it's appropriate to jump to any conclusions at this point.

 

Farm Follies

Congress struggles to get a Farm Bill that everyone, or at least enough to pass, can support.  There is disagreement within Congress and between Democrats and the Bush Administration over caps on direct payment, although all agree that there should be some limit as to how much individual farmers get and how much a farmer can make and still receive payments. 

The House bill would ban subsidies to farmers whose income averages more than $1 million a year, down from the current limit of $2.5 million. It also would stop farmers from collecting payments for multiple farm businesses.

Groups advocating for an overhaul of government subsidies said the House millionaires' ban was meaningless, since it will only affect about 7,000 farmers.

Harkin, D-Iowa, has supported a proposal by Sens. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., and Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, that would lower the limit on payments to individual farmers from $360,000 to $250,000. He said Tuesday that he also favors the income approach used in the House, though he didn't detail what a Senate proposal would look like.

The Bush administration has proposed limiting payments to farmers who make an average of more than $200,000 a year, a far tougher proposal than the House bill. Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns said that approach would affect about 38,000 farmers.

Congressional Democrats have chosen to include in the Farm Bill a massive tax increase on foreign owned businesses with subsidiaries in the United States.  Republicans are not amused by this job killer provision.

John Thune, R-S.D., said the provision could drive some Republicans away from the bill, as it did in the House.

''Republicans, particularly those who have committed to not raising taxes, are going to be really hesitant to go down that road,'' Thune said.

It would be harder to pass a farm bill along party lines in the Senate, where Democrats have a razor-thin majority and most bills need 60 votes to clear procedural hurdles.

The Worm Turns

There is some indication that public perception is turning, at least a bit, on the Iraq war.  The Washington Post prints this piece by two Democrat foreign policy experts, Ken Pollack and Michael O'Hanlan, pointing to some indications of success in the Middle East.  Granted, these authors are from the more hawkish (or less dovish) side of the Democratic party.  Nonetheless, their renewed hope regarding Iraq is instructive. 

Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily “victory” but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with.

Read the whole thing for details.  Also worth mentioning is this other Washington Post article wherein Democrat House Whip James Clyburn says his party might split over Iraq should General Petraeus give a positive report to Congress next month.

Clyburn, in an interview with the washingtonpost.com video program PostTalk, said Democrats might be wise to wait for the Petraeus report, scheduled to be delivered in September, before charting next steps in their year-long struggle with President Bush over the direction of U.S. strategy.

Clyburn noted that Petraeus carries significant weight among the 47 members of the Blue Dog caucus in the House, a group of moderate to conservative Democrats. Without their support, he said, Democratic leaders would find it virtually impossible to pass legislation setting a timetable for withdrawal.

"I think there would be enough support in that group to want to stay the course and if the Republicans were to stay united as they have been, then it would be a problem for us," Clyburn said. "We, by and large, would be wise to wait on the report."

Many Democrats have anticipated that, at best, Petraeus and U.S. ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker would present a mixed analysis of the success of the current troop surge strategy, given continued violence in Baghdad. But of late there have been signs that the commander of U.S. forces might be preparing something more generally positive. Clyburn said that would be "a real big problem for us."

Perhaps Clyburn's "real big problem" is that he thinks good news from General Petraeus represents a "real big problem" for his party.  Read most generously, this statement simply represents Clyburn's political analysis, namely that, as the Democrats have become the anti-war party, evidence of significant progress in Iraq hurts his party.  Read it the worst light, Clyburn is saying that his party is invested in failure in Iraq and is willing to act politically to make that failure a reality.  One hopes the former is closer to the truth than the latter. 

Judging from their presidential candidates, the Democrats are the anti-war party.  As long as public opinion is against the war, they prosper.  But what happens if the evidence warrants a change in public opinion?  I make no such prediction, but it is possible.  Some Democrats have walked out very far on the anti-war limb.  Conspicuously, Hillary Clinton is not one of them.  Smart move, Senator. 

 

More Argus / Hildygate Criticism

A new South Dakota blog takes on Hildygate:  "It is funny to see that any and everything that would appear to be harmful to the GOP is front page news for the Argus Liar.  But where is Hidygate, no where to be seen.  So Kranz when are you going to tell the true story about your own brethren?"

How the Global Warming Cult Deals with the Unfaithful

This story from Fox:

The head of the Environmental Protection Agency says he will investigate a threatening letter sent to a global warming skeptic by the head of a group advocating the use of renewable energy.

The Washington Times reports American Council on Renewable Energy President Michael Eckhart wrote to Competitive Enterprise Institute Senior Fellow Marlo Lewis — "It is my intention to destroy your career as a liar. If you produce one more editorial against climate change, I will launch a campaign against your professional integrity."

The EPA is a member of ACORE — and so are several other government agencies. Eckhart told the Times he apologizes to all who were offended by his choice of words, and says the letter was a private communication in the context of what he called "personal combat and jousting."

Disclosure: Marlo Lewis is a good friend of House Blanchard.  We were close when I was in graduate school.  In fact, I watched the second or third Star Wars movie, in advance of its release, at the house of one of his Uncles in Hollywood.  Cool times.

There is more than a bit of fanaticism among some of the global warming activists.  That doesn't mean that they are wrong about global warming.  It does mean that they (the fanatics) are unreasonable and not to be trusted.  Kudos to Marlo for drawing this fanatic out. 

 

Is America Still a Christian Nation? A Reply to Barak Obama and Others

Sibby joins Bob Ellis (Dakota Voice) in reaction to a Barack Obama comment.  Here is Obama:

Whatever we once were, we're no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers. We should acknowledge this and realize that when we're formulating policies from the state house to the Senate floor to the White House, we've got to work to translate our reasoning into values that are accessible to every one of our citizens, not just members of our own faith community.

Obama was half right.  The United States is not now, nor has it ever been a Christian nation.  This is so for two reasons.  First, there can never be any such thing as a Christian nation.  I think I have the authority of St. Augustine to back me up here.  All nations are political communities, and all political communities involve unequal relations with regard to power and status.  This is just is true of democracies as it is of any other form of government.  The majority has privileges and honors denied to any minority; some people are more fit for office, or are more loved by the electorate, than others.  A Christian community, by contrast, is based on agape, the love that recognizes the absolute worth of every human soul, without regard for any distinction.  The wino in the gutter is no less worthy than the tireless and brilliant philanthropist.  Perhaps a church can aspire to be such a community. No political community can have such aspirations without risking the gravest impiety.  Augustine thought that most human beings would have to try to live with one foot in each city: the City of God and the City of Man. It is irresponsible to run off into the desert, but unChristian to attribute holiness to any political institution. 

The second reason the United States was never a Christian nation is that it was founded on self-evident principles, equally accessible to any human being who would but use his or her reason.  I think "all men are created equal" means all human beings, male or female, Black or White, Baptist or Buddhist.  It doesn't matter whether Christians constitute a minority, a plurality, a majority, or everyone but Barack Obama; the Republic is the body made up of all those who accept the self-evident principles.

This is not to deny that Christianity is one of the strongest forces in the development of American political culture.  As we inherited our ideas of constitutionalism from English Liberals and Ancient Greeks, so we got our idea of the dignity of all human beings from the Bible.  The idea that every person was created in God's image provides powerful support for the idea of human rights.  Whether the latter can be sustained as the former erodes (and it has been steadily eroding for a long time), is a very good question.  But for the reasons set forth above, the strength of Christianity in American society is irrelevant to the question of whether we can be or ever were a Christian nation. 

We're #1

Brown County leads the state in West Nile.  We rule!! 

Hildygate Coverage

From the mailbag:

The Watertown Public Opinion and Pierre Capitol Journal also ran the Hildygate story.

That means the Rapid City Journal, Mitchell, Yankton, KELO-Land, Sioux City Journal, Fargo Forum, Roll Call, Minot and Bismarck radio, etc….have all covered the story, but NOT the Argus Leader.

Yes, curious behavior from the Argus Leader, especially considering the story happened in their backyard.

And He'll Win Again In '08

Earl Pomeroy is the Democratic congressman from North Dakota, which gave 62% of its vote to George Bush in 2004.  Drudge is carrying this story:

Congressman Calls Bush 'A Clown'; 'Can't Stand Him'
Wed Aug 01 2007 16:33:17 ET

North Dakota's U.S. Rep. Earl Pomeroy calls President Bush a “clown” and says he “can’t stand” him in a new video posted on the Internet.

According to the GRAND FORKS HERALD, the Democratic congressman was approached by a group called Grassroots America last week as he was walking the streets of Washington, D.C.

An Internet video shows Rep. Earl Pomeroy talking to a member of Grassroots America, in which he calls President Bush a “clown.” A group member had approached him asking about whether Bush should be impeached.

As he talked on a mobile phone, two women approached him and asked him about impeaching Bush, giving statistics of people who approve of the idea.

As a camera rolled, Pomeroy is shown to be clearly agitated by their questions.

“Most of the people I represent think that’s (impeachment) a horrible idea. I’m a Democrat, and I can’t stand this president, but I’m to represent the people that I represent and they are against impeaching the president,” Pomeroy said while pointing and waving his arms.

Unless North Dakota Republicans can scare up a credible candidate, Pomeroy, who himself gained 65% of the vote in 2006, will once again waltz to re-election, even though he thinks the Republican president favored by his constituents is a "clown" he "can't stand."  Still, it is worth asking what is more indicative of North Dakota's politics, the Republicans they tend to favor for president or the Democrats they consistently send to Congress? 

The Christian Right and Video Lottery

Anna at Dakota Women takes me to task for this comment:

Surely video-lottery is one of the most regressive sources of public funding, preying upon the poor and middle class much more than upon the rich.  The Christian Right spends a lot of resources trying, unsuccessfully, to get rid of it.  The left ignores it.  But then they get to spend the money.

Anna says:

But since video lottery proceeds go to the state, and "the right" has run state government for at least the past generation, I sincerely wonder what Ken means in the quote above.

Yeah, alright, I was being a bit snippy with that last line.  State governments love video lottery money because almost no one complains about revenue taken from such sources, as opposed to honest taxation.  Anna goes on:

First, the Christian right is by no means the most vocal opponent of video lottery in this state. I certainly don't remember any religious right-wing organizations actively opposing it in the last election, but of course they had super important issues like controlling women's personal medical decisions and passing judgment on people's intimate relationships to worry about. So video lottery was probably somewhat lower on their list, and I think this most recent effort to repeal video lottery got lost in all the other candidates and ballot issues we dealt with anyway.

To the contrary, repeal of video lottery has been on the ballot several times (unsuccessfully, though it would seem that both Anna and I voted for repeal), and I am certain that almost all the effort and treasure behind those ballot initiatives came from the same people who oppose abortion and gay marriage.  Anna is right that a lot of the opposition came from mainstream churches, like the Methodist Church, and that the latter is, nationally, hardly a right wing organization.  But grassroots Methodists in the Dakotas are a pretty conservative lot, if my experience of several years at the First Methodist Church of Aberdeen is any indication. 

I am happy to see that Anna opposes video lottery for the same reasons I do.  Once again, we argue about peripheral matters, but agree about the basic issue.  I would be interested to learn that Democrats in general or left-minded activists in particular were a conspicuous part of the repeal efforts.  I am guessing that such evidence is not to be found.    I would be interested to see if repeal of state-sponsored gambling appears anywhere on the platform of any left-leaning organization in any state where the institution exists, as it does frequently (if not always in first place) on the agendas of religiously motivated organizations. I do not believe that the left, anywhere in America, is much interested in video lottery.

The Dimpled Chad

Somebody on the local blogosphere made the argument that the Hildeygate story wasn't really that much of a story.  I lost track of who and where I saw that story.  I thought it was Dakota Women, but I couldn't find it.  Anyway, it is in truth a small story.  It only attracts the attention it has among my SDP colleagues and my blogosphere relations because it is more or less in the family.  Likewise, the related story of why the Argus Leader has been very quiet about it doesn't look like this year's Watergate.  But it is curious that a scandal centered in a Sioux Falls business has been covered almost exclusively by news sources from out of town.  And consider the kind of stories that the Argus Leader does cover:

Sioux Falls woman faces drug charges in Iowa

Former DRHS teacher is a big collector of International Harvester Memorabilia.

Seal coating begins today in Brandon

County: Man must remove swine buildings

Now I am no gen-you-wine journalist, but I would have thought that the Argus Leader could have squeezed the story in somewhere between the seal coating and the swine buildings.  But what do I know?

Update: Oh heck (heck is where you go when you have been darned by God), the Chad's story is a non-story was on Todd Epp's site, and is attributed to his better half (a logical inference), Donna. 
 

Farm Subsidies

USA Today:

Crop prices are high, driven in part by a huge demand for corn to make ethanol, which squeezes the land available for other crops and raises their prices as well. Democrats took over Congress last year, vowing to show they're the financially responsible stewards their Republican predecessors were not. And President Bush asked Congress to direct the subsidies to the smaller, family farmers that politicians love to claim they support.

So, given this confluence of events, what did House Democrats do? Not much. Last week, under heavy pressure from farm organizations and fearing for the survival of Democratic freshmen from rural districts, they pushed through a business-as-usual farm bill that largely extends the current subsidy system for five more years.

. . .

Most of the big money goes to just five crops: corn, wheat, cotton, soybeans and rice. The usual justification for the largesse is that farmers would go out of business without it. If that's so, how do you explain that many other crops do quite well with little or none of the government help that goes to the favored five?

In addition to boosting just a few crops, the subsidies also favor a tiny sliver of the largest farms and agribusinesses: The top 10% of recipients get nearly three-fourths of subsidy payments, while the bottom 80% of recipients divide up a scant 12%.

Sibby's Kranz Watch

Sibby:

SDWC points this out:

Courtesy of the Associated Press, the Hildygate story that Kevin Woster filed with the Rapid City Journal is starting to filter through newspapers in the Dakotas. The Yankton Daily Press and Dakotan, as well as the Fargo-Moorehead Forum both picked up the story.

I suspect we’ll hear of more reports of coverage filtering in.

Yes, the Mitchell Daily Republic has the Woster report on their front page today.

And SDWC also notes the KELOTV is also starting to cover the scandal on their web site at least.

So the question is, "will Dave Kranz cover it in his scheduled Wednesday column tomorrow?

SDWC points this out:

Courtesy of the Associated Press, the Hildygate story that Kevin Woster filed with the Rapid City Journal is starting to filter through newspapers in the Dakotas. The Yankton Daily Press and Dakotan, as well as the Fargo-Moorehead Forum both picked up the story.

I suspect we’ll hear of more reports of coverage filtering in.

Yes, the Mitchell Daily Republic has the Woster report on their front page today.

And SDWC also notes the KELOTV is also starting to cover the scandal on their web site at least.

So the question is, "will Dave Kranz cover it in his scheduled Wednesday column tomorrow?

Born to Die

Bob Mercer (free registration required) commenting on Jon Lauck's new book, points out that South Dakota Senators seem destined to lose.

PIERRE - In his new book Jon Lauck supposes a quaint notion.

Lauck suggests that U.S. Sen. Tom Daschle lost his bid for re-election to a fourth term in 2004 because the Senate Democratic leader was finally swept from power by a great tide of history.

In Lauck's view, with Republican John Thune's victory, the Reagan conservatism of the 1980s washed away the McGovern-McCarthy Democratic liberalism of the 1960s and ‘70s.

That is a convenient argument for Lauck, who has been on the Thune payroll since the 2004 campaign and is listed by his book publisher as a senior advisor to the senator.

                                                                                                                                          

Unfortunately Lauck's book overlooks the elemental fact about South Dakota's U.S. senators.

They typically don't last. If their health doesn't get them, the voters do.

Three died in office and a fourth couldn't continue when his term ended.

For those fortunate enough to have remained among the living, voters almost always rejected them as they sought a third or fourth term.

                         

The fact is that in the past quarter century (plus a couple) South Dakota has voted out of office George McGovern, Jim Abnor, Larry Pressler, and Tom Daschle.  Given the relatively high re-election rate of US Senators (about 80%), that's a lot of slain incumbents.  And let's not forget that Tim Johnson narrowly escaped defeat in 2002 (yes, if Thune had won that race Daschle probably wins in 2004).  I have a few ideas about why this is the case, but I think I'll save them for a book on South Dakota political culture that is in its planning stages.

Argus and Hildebrand-Tewes

I am not much for the "Argus is the devil" crowd, but the Argus's coverage, or lack thereof, regarding the Hildebrand-Tewes scandal is puzzling.  They have been scooped by Roll Call, Rapid City Journal and KELO on a story happening in the Argus backyard.  At a minimum, isn't this bad journalism?  Perhaps they could enlighten us as to why everyone else is covering the story, but they aren't.  Look at it this way: if the Argus was your only source of news, what would you know about this story? Answer: not much. 

Update: I originally wrote Hotline had scooped the Argus.  It was, of course, Roll Call. 

West Nile News

It looks like the West Nile virus is on the loose:

The number of West Nile cases in South Dakota continues to climb and officials only expect it to get worse. So far this year, there have been 29 confirmed cases of the virus, and just this week, officials confirmed the death of a Hand county man was the result of West Nile. But now, researchers are working to track the mosquitoes believed to carry the virus.

Jim Wilson has been studying mosquitoes for the past several years. He hopes the research that he and others at South Dakota State University are doing will help people prepare for this peak mosquito season.

"It only takes one, a bite, from one infected mosquito to catch West Nile virus," Wilson said.

Linda Daschle

From the mailbag, a reader sends us this release about Tom Daschle's wife, Linda, being pronounced one of Washington's top lobbyists by several beltway publications:

Baker Donelson is pleased to announce that Linda H. Daschle Senior Public Policy Advisor in the Washington, D.C. office has been named by National Journal, to its listing of Leading Democratic Lobbyists, The Hill, to its listing of Washington's Top Lobbyists, and Washingtonian Magazine, to its listing of 50 Top Lobbyists in Washington, where she was ranked sixth overall and was the highest-rated woman on the list.  As leader of Baker Donelson's Federal Public Policy practice group, Ms. Daschle represents companies before both the executive and legislative branches of U.S. government, primarily on matters concerning aviation, homeland security, communications and surface transportation.

Ms. Daschle can be reached in the Washington, D.C. office of Baker Donelson at 202.508.3400.

Roberts

Wishing for John Robert's death.

Sibby on Hildygate

Sibby writes:  "If this were only an episode on the Sopranos, it would be entertaining. But because it is real, it shows the troubling scene that the Hildebrand gang has created for today’s political environment in South Dakota, which has been allowed to continue by the refusal of the Argus Leader to hold them
accountable."

Argus Blackout on Hildygate

Dakota Voice:

A Thunderous Silence

When the newsworthy doesn't make the news

Last week it was revealed that an employee of Hildebrand Tewes Consulting, Inc. in Sioux Falls had stolen $100,000 from the company. Hildebrand Tewes client list includes former Senator Tom Daschle, Senator Robert Byrd, the South Dakota Campaign for Healthy Families, the South Dakota Democratic
Party, and Senator Barack Obama's Political Action Committee "Hopefund."

Perhaps the most disquieting thing about this story is that the identity of the alleged embezzler wasn't broken by the newspaper in Sioux Falls; bloggers and the Washington D.C. newspaper Roll Call had to do that.

Rapid City Journal on Tim Johnson

South Dakota War College directs our attention to this editorial in the Rapid City Journal:

Ever since South Dakota’s senior senator, Sen. Tim Johnson, was stricken with a brain hemorrhage in December of 2006, he has been recovering in near total seclusion from the press, the public and, most importantly, from his constituency.

The shield of privacy that Johnson’s family, friends and congressional staff erected around him in those early days, weeks and months was certainly understandable.

Speculating on Johnson’s political future as he fought for his life was offensive to many, and rightfully so.

But more than seven months have passed since South Dakota has had a full contingent in Congress, and many now suggest that it may be time for more transparency in the senator’s recovery and in his timetable for a return to Congress.

We agree, and we urge the senator to communicate directly with the media and the people of South Dakota about those matters. Several intermediaries, including Johnson’s wife, Barbara, and former Sen. Tom Daschle, have offered glimpses into his recovery.

But there have been no firm answers about how much longer South Dakota can expect to be without one-third of its voice in Washington, D.C.

The truth is that Sen. Johnson is an elected official, not a private citizen, and his election to that office comes with responsibilities to the public he serves. The people of South Dakota deserve to hear from Sen. Johnson - in person.

It’s time to offer an open and honest view of where he stands, healthwise, to the public that elected him.

At this point, to do any less might appear to be more about protecting a political seat in the Senate than about protecting his health or privacy.

Like people everywhere, the Rapid City Journal Editorial Board wishes Sen. Johnson a full and complete recovery from the devastating effects of a brain hemorrhage.

Barring that, we wish him a speedy return to public life, with whatever physical challenges or limitations his illness produced.

This strikes me as a reasonable and clear-eyed view of the current situation.  Senator Johnson deserves our sympathy and support.  We deserve an open and honest appraisal of his condition.  Vague and constantly changing estimates of when he will return to the Senate are not enough. 

Thune Fixes Disaster Aid Problem

John Thune's work may gain disaster relief for livestock producers who might have been left in the cold. 

Senator John Thune says the Senate has approved legislation he sponsored to fix a problem in a farm disaster bill that was approved in spring.

He says the $3 billion bill as passed would have kept some livestock producers and others from getting payments because they didn't participate in insurance and assistance programs that Thune says aren't very popular.

The legislative fix now goes to the House.

Thune says without it, close to 90 percent of the affected livestock producers would be ineligible for $1.3 billion in aid.

This is especially welcome for those who lost cattle due to last week's heat. 

More Science Blogging

Those interested in the Blanchard-Schaff science argument will find Martin Albl's latest from the Aberdeen American News of some interest.  Commenting on the work of Francis Collins, Prof. Albl writes:

Collins argues for a different approach. He begins with the fact that science itself is limited. If there is a divine reality outside the observable universe, then by definition the scientific method, oriented toward this observable universe, would be unable to detect it.

But is it reasonable to suggest that a supernatural reality might exist if it cannot be observed scientifically? Collins notes several reasonable signs that point in this direction. For example, science can trace the origins of the universe back to the Big Bang, but it cannot explain how that original matter came into being before it exploded. It's therefore reasonable to suggest that an eternal power outside of the universe first created it.

Human experience is full of similar signs. Why, for example, have all recorded human societies, often independently of one another, believed in a supernatural reality beyond the observable world? Is it reasonable to say that this is purely coincidental wishful thinking on a worldwide scale? Why have human societies connected this supernatural reality with ethical standards that insist on a true right and wrong, instead of merely accepting the "survival of the fittest" philosophy that seems to rule the rest of nature? Given these signs, it is unreasonable and even unscientific, to rule out completely the possibility that a supernatural reality does in fact exist.

Headlines Worth Noting

He just couldn't get it to work the other way around

Cops: Man puts vodka in pants, steals car

Sexism in Purchasing

Police want to get man’s camera

007 leaves Her Majesty's Secret Service for Orkin.

Bug Battling Bond

It's one thing if you are wearing a toga.

Man arrested after sex romp in kilt

How do the Grain Bins know?

Grain bins expanding in anticipation of 2007 corn crop

They're still dead.

No change in cattle deaths

Well, duh. 

Prisoner claims lawyer failed him

Chad Plays the Addiction Card

The Dakota blogosphere has recently been identified as an eccentric family, like the Royal Tannenbaums. So we have a family interest in the Chad Schuldt story, and I suppose we no longer have to wonder whether Chad did it.   Todd Epp alerts me to the Rapid City Journal article by Kevin Woster (it finally makes the regional MSM!). 

Sioux Falls political consultant Steve Hildebrand said Saturday that a video-lottery addiction drove his former employee, Chad Schuldt, to steal more than $100,000 from Hildebrand’s consulting company. 

Hildebrand, a past campaign manager for Democratic Sen. Tim Johnson and former Democratic Sen. Tom Daschle, said he and partner Paul Tewes decided recently to fire Schuldt after learning that he had been stealing from the company and failing to pay federal payroll taxes. Hildebrand said he learned of the tax problem about three weeks ago and that further investigation revealed that Schuldt, the firm’s business manager, had been diverting company money to pay for his video-lottery debts.

Schuldt has entered a treatment program for his addiction, Hildebrand said.  “Chad has dealt with a lot of issues of depression … and gambling, you know,” Hildebrand said. “So on one level, he’s an incredibly good, very smart person. On another level, he’s dealing with some illnesses that he needs to take care of.”

Once upon a time a public figure involved in a scandal took refuge in a temple or monastery.  These days he checks himself into rehab.  Now I don't doubt for a moment that gambling can exert the same powerful influence over someone's personality that alcohol or heroin do.   But just as one can be tempted to take another drink or place another bet, it is a dangerous temptation to believe that addiction absolves someone from personal responsibility.   I am skeptical that addiction is really all that different from the temptations that all of us face, and there but for the grace of God go I.   An alcoholic who kills someone on the road is no less responsible than someone who does the same because he just had a few too many.

On a related note, I confess myself a novice in this matter as I have never placed a bet on a video lottery machine.  But can one really get a hundred grand into debt playing these things?  I guess so.  But doesn't that mean that video lottery is a really bad idea?  Surely video-lottery is one of the most regressive sources of public funding, preying upon the poor and middle class much more than upon the rich.  The Christian Right spends a lot of resources trying, unsuccessfully, to get rid of it.  The left ignores it.  But then they get to spend the money. 

Soggy Thinking About Global Warming

Our mother country has just held a flood.  I was not able to attend, but the UK Telegraph gives us the scoop.  And of course, the cause was global warming.  Charles Clover, the Telegraph's Environmental Editor explains, in an article with this image at the beginning.

We are left with little doubt. 

Big Ben, the London Eye and Westminster Abbey awash. The submerged streets of London indistinguishable from the Thames. Admittedly, the above image, arresting as it is, is the stuff of cinematic trickery. But could it happen? One day, if we are not careful, it just might... 

[I]f the floods of this week have taught us anything, it is that few events can be more extraordinary than the weather - and there is plenty of reason to think long and hard about the extraordinary weather we have recently been experiencing.

Ok, so the image above is a computer generated fantasy, and not news footage.  Clover is nonetheless certain that the recent floods are caused by global warming.  And he tells us a lot about the computer models that predicted the recent storm, and the similar models on which the global warming case is based.  You might get the idea that this summer's English rain confirms the latter, but, well, pretty much the opposite is the case, as Mr. Clover responsibly acknowledges.

The overall trend for Britain identified by the computer models as a result of global warming was wetter winters and drier summers. However, Dr Peter Stott, a climate scientist at the University of Reading and another of the paper's authors, said more intense rain storms in wetter years would also fit into the pattern.

"Generally speaking, the models are tending to show a drier trend in summer in the UK," he said. "Nevertheless, when it rains it can rain harder, because the atmosphere can contain more moisture in a warmer world."

So dry summers with little rain would confirm the computer model.  Good.  And the occasional summer flood during a dry year also confirms the theory.  Alright, I get that.   But is England having a dry summer?  Not exactly.

For much of the summer the jet stream has been further south and stronger than in a typical summer.  This has resulted in many depressions crossing southern and central parts of Britain, interacting with very warm and moist air to the south and generating exceptionally heavy rain storms, while other parts of Europe are experiencing drought.

We also know that this is the wettest May to July period for England and Wales since records began in 1766, even though July is not over yet. Some 15.2in (38.7cm) of rain has fallen since the beginning of May, double the average.

Exactly contrary to the theory, England is having one of the wettest summers in at least 241 years.  And Mr. Clover thinks that this too confirms global warming. 

The question here is not whether we are in a warming period (the evidence of that is very strong), or whether human activity is accelerating it (the evidence is largely convincing), but whether a specific weather event like a flood can tell us anything about global trends.  Mr. Clover knows that it cannot.  "Scientists," he dutifully notes, "remind us that no single weather event can be attributed to climate change and that Britain is a byword for variable weather."  But his thinking is so saturated with the global warming faith that he cannot apply what he knows or recognize what he is seeing with his own eyes. This is not science.  It is invincible faith.   

Mark Twain said that faith is believing in things you know ain't true.  And he also said something like this about some poor soul: it's not what he thinks that bothers me, it's all the things he knows that ain't true.  Mr. Clover knows that the English flood is evidence of global warming. And he believes it even though he knows that it ain't true.